Part III (Secunda Secundae) Part 50 (1/2)

Obj. 2: Further, in a certain sense it seems to be less meritorious to love one's friend, as stated above (A. 7). Now G.o.d is our chief friend, since ”He hath first loved us” (1 John 4:10). Therefore it seems less meritorious to love G.o.d.

Obj. 3: Further, whatever is more difficult seems to be more virtuous and meritorious since ”virtue is about that which is difficult and good” (Ethic. ii, 3). Now it is easier to love G.o.d than to love one's neighbor, both because all things love G.o.d naturally, and because there is nothing unlovable in G.o.d, and this cannot be said of one's neighbor. Therefore it is more meritorious to love one's neighbor than to love G.o.d.

_On the contrary,_ That on account of which a thing is such, is yet more so. Now the love of one's neighbor is not meritorious, except by reason of his being loved for G.o.d's sake. Therefore the love of G.o.d is more meritorious than the love of our neighbor.

_I answer that,_ This comparison may be taken in two ways. First, by considering both loves separately: and then, without doubt, the love of G.o.d is the more meritorious, because a reward is due to it for its own sake, since the ultimate reward is the enjoyment of G.o.d, to Whom the movement of the Divine love tends: hence a reward is promised to him that loves G.o.d (John 14:21): ”He that loveth Me, shall be loved of My Father, and I will ... manifest Myself to him.” Secondly, the comparison may be understood to be between the love of G.o.d alone on the one side, and the love of one's neighbor for G.o.d's sake, on the other. In this way love of our neighbor includes love of G.o.d, while love of G.o.d does not include love of our neighbor. Hence the comparison will be between perfect love of G.o.d, extending also to our neighbor, and inadequate and imperfect love of G.o.d, for ”this commandment we have from G.o.d, that he, who loveth G.o.d, love also his brother” (1 John 4:21).

Reply Obj. 1: According to one gloss, the Apostle did not desire this, viz. to be severed from Christ for his brethren, when he was in a state of grace, but had formerly desired it when he was in a state of unbelief, so that we should not imitate him in this respect.

We may also reply, with Chrysostom (De Compunct. i, 8) [*Hom. xvi in Ep. ad Rom.] that this does not prove the Apostle to have loved his neighbor more than G.o.d, but that he loved G.o.d more than himself. For he wished to be deprived for a time of the Divine fruition which pertains to love of one self, in order that G.o.d might be honored in his neighbor, which pertains to the love of G.o.d.

Reply Obj. 2: A man's love for his friends is sometimes less meritorious in so far as he loves them for their sake, so as to fall short of the true reason for the friends.h.i.+p of charity, which is G.o.d.

Hence that G.o.d be loved for His own sake does not diminish the merit, but is the entire reason for merit.

Reply Obj. 3: The _good_ has, more than the _difficult,_ to do with the reason of merit and virtue. Therefore it does not follow that whatever is more difficult is more meritorious, but only what is more difficult, and at the same time better.

_______________________

QUESTION 28

OF JOY (In Four Articles)

We must now consider the effects which result from the princ.i.p.al act of charity which is love, and (1) the interior effects, (2) the exterior effects. As to the first, three things have to be considered: (1) Joy, (2) Peace, (3) Mercy.

Under the first head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether joy is an effect of charity?

(2) Whether this kind of joy is compatible with sorrow?

(3) Whether this joy can be full?

(4) Whether it is a virtue?

_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 28, Art. 1]

Whether Joy Is Effected in Us by Charity?

Objection 1: It would seem that joy is not effected in us by charity.

For the absence of what we love causes sorrow rather than joy. But G.o.d, Whom we love by charity, is absent from us, so long as we are in this state of life, since ”while we are in the body, we are absent from the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:6). Therefore charity causes sorrow in us rather than joy.

Obj. 2: Further, it is chiefly through charity that we merit happiness. Now mourning, which pertains to sorrow, is reckoned among those things whereby we merit happiness, according to Matt. 5:5: ”Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted.” Therefore sorrow, rather than joy, is an effect of charity.

Obj. 3: Further, charity is a virtue distinct from hope, as shown above (Q. 17, A. 6). Now joy is the effect of hope, according to Rom.

12:12: ”Rejoicing in hope.” Therefore it is not the effect of charity.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Rom. 5:5): ”The charity of G.o.d is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, Who is given to us.”

But joy is caused in us by the Holy Ghost according to Rom. 14:17: ”The kingdom of G.o.d is not meat and drink, but justice and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” Therefore charity is a cause of joy.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (I-II, Q. 25, AA. 1, 2, 3), when we were treating of the pa.s.sions, joy and sorrow proceed from love, but in contrary ways. For joy is caused by love, either through the presence of the thing loved, or because the proper good of the thing loved exists and endures in it; and the latter is the case chiefly in the love of benevolence, whereby a man rejoices in the well-being of his friend, though he be absent. On the other hand sorrow arises from love, either through the absence of the thing loved, or because the loved object to which we wish well, is deprived of its good or afflicted with some evil. Now charity is love of G.o.d, Whose good is unchangeable, since He is His goodness, and from the very fact that He is loved, He is in those who love Him by His most excellent effect, according to 1 John 4:16: ”He that abideth in charity, abideth in G.o.d, and G.o.d in him.” Therefore spiritual joy, which is about G.o.d, is caused by charity.