|
Objection 1: It would seem that an angel does not love another with
natural love as he loves himself. For love follows knowledge. But an
angel does not know another as he knows himself: because he knows
himself by his essence, while he knows another by his similitude, as
was said above (Question 56, Articles 1,2). Therefore it
seems that one angel does not love another with natural love as he loves
himself.
Objection 2: Further, the cause is more powerful than the effect;
and the principle than what is derived from it. But love for another
comes of love for self, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. ix, 8).
Therefore one angel does not love another as himself, but loves
himself more.
Objection 3: Further, natural love is of something as an end, and
is unremovable. But no angel is the end of another; and again, such
love can be severed from him, as is the case with the demons, who have
no love for the good angels. Therefore an angel does not love another
with natural love as he loves himself.
On the contrary, That seems to be a natural property which is found
in all, even in such as devoid of reason. But, "every beast loves
its like," as is said, Ecclus. 13:19. Therefore an angel
naturally loves another as he loves himself.
I answer that, As was observed (Article 3), both angel and man
naturally love self. Now what is one with a thing, is that thing
itself: consequently every thing loves what is one with itself. So,
if this be one with it by natural union, it loves it with natural
love; but if it be one with it by non-natural union, then it loves it
with non-natural love. Thus a man loves his fellow townsman with a
social love, while he loves a blood relation with natural affection,
in so far as he is one with him in the principle of natural generation.
Now it is evident that what is generically or specifically one with
another, is the one according to nature. And so everything loves
another which is one with it in species, with a natural affection, in
so far as it loves its own species. This is manifest even in things
devoid of knowledge: for fire has a natural inclination to communicate
its form to another thing, wherein consists this other thing's good;
as it is naturally inclined to seek its own good, namely, to be borne
upwards.
So then, it must be said that one angel loves another with natural
affection, in so far as he is one with him in nature. But so far as
an angel has something else in common with another angel, or differs
from him in other respects, he does not love him with natural love.
Reply to Objection 1: The expression 'as himself' can in one way
qualify the knowledge and the love on the part of the one known and
loved: and thus one angel knows another as himself, because he knows
the other to be even as he knows himself to be. In another way the
expression can qualify the knowledge and the love on the part of the
knower and lover. And thus one angel does not know another as
himself, because he knows himself by his essence, and the other not by
the other's essence. In like manner he does not love another as he
loves himself, because he loves himself by his own will; but he does
not love another by the other's will.
Reply to Objection 2: The expression "as" does not denote
equality, but likeness. For since natural affection rests upon
natural unity, the angel naturally loves less what is less one with
him. Consequently he loves more what is numerically one with himself,
than what is one only generically or specifically. But it is natural
for him to have a like love for another as for himself, in this
respect, that as he loves self in wishing well to self, so he loves
another in wishing well to him.
Reply to Objection 3: Natural love is said to be of the end, not
as of that end to which good is willed, but rather as of that good
which one wills for oneself, and in consequence for another, as united
to oneself. Nor can such natural love be stripped from the wicked
angels, without their still retaining a natural affection towards the
good angels, in so far as they share the same nature with them. But
they hate them, in so far as they are unlike them according to
righteousness and unrighteousness.
|
|