← Back to Distinction 32

Dist. 32, Art. 1, Q. 4

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 32

Textus Latinus
p. 703

Quaestio IV. Utrum Deus magis diligat hominem quam Angelum, an e converso.

Quarto quaeritur, utrum Deus magis diligat hominem quam Angelum, an e converso. Et quod magis Angelum, videtur:

1. Quia tanto aliquis est Deo amabilior, quanto est ipsi similior: si ergo natura angelica est Deo similior quam humana1, videtur, quod ab eo sit magis dilecta.

2. Item, maior dilectio et minor attenditur secundum maiorem et minorem communicationem divinae liberalitatis; sed Deus pro uno solo motu Angelum glorificavit2, quod non facit hominibus: ergo exstitit eis liberalior quam nobis: igitur magis diligit genus angelicum quam humanum.

3. Item, Angeli magis diligunt Deum quam nos, pro eo quod nullam habent retardationem, qua praepediantur, ne totaliter possint tendere in Deum: ergo si Deus magis diligit magis se diligentes3, videtur, quod magis diligat Angelos quam homines.

4. Item, Angeli sunt mediatores inter nos et Deum, secundum quod vult Augustinus octavo de Civitate Dei4; sed medium magis unitur extremo et ei est familiarius, quam unum extremum respectu alterius: ergo videtur, quod Deus magis diligat Angelos quam homines.

Sed contra: 1. Ad Hebraeos secundo5: Nusquam Angelos apprehendit, sed semen Abrahae; sed illud fuit potissimum signum dilectionis et familiaritatis divinae, quod assumeret naturam creatam in unitatem personae suae: ergo videtur, quod magis dilexerit humanam naturam quam angelicam.

2. Item, Ioannis decimo quinto6: Maiorem caritatem nemo habet etc.; sed Deus posuit animam suam pro hominibus, non posuit eam pro Angelis: ergo magis homines quam Angelos dilexit.

3. Item, illam naturam magis Deus diligit, quam in altiori gradu honoris constituit: sed Deus humanam naturam in utroque sexu angelicis spiritibus superposuit, videlicet Christum et eius nobilissimam Matrem: ergo videtur, quod humanam naturam magis diligat et magis dilexerit.

4. Item, magis diligit quis aliquem, cum diligit eum in statu amicitiae et inimicitiae, quam solum cum diligit in statu amicitiae; sed Deus humanum genus diligit in statu amicitiae et in statu inimicitiae, quia, cum essemus peccatores et inimici Dei, dilexit nos7, Angelos vero malos nec dilexit nec diligit: ergo videtur, quod prae Angelis genus humanum dilexerit.

Conclusio.

Loquendo de dilectione Dei quoad effectum conditionis, Deus magis dilexit Angelos quam genus humanum; sed aliter rationabiliter dici potest quoad effectum reparationis et secundum statum finalem.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod cum Deus dicatur diligere creaturas effectu, secundum quod duplex est effectus principalis Dei respectu creaturae rationalis, secundum hoc potest dilectio Dei maior et minor dupliciter considerari. Est enim effectus conditionis et effectus reparationis. Et in effectu conditionis praecipue manifestatur Dei potentia, in effectu reparationis praecipue manifestatur Dei misericordia, in utroque autem manifestatur Dei sapientia.

Si ergo loquamur de dilectione Dei quantum ad effectum conditionis, sic magis dilexit Angelos8, quia meliora contulit eis naturalia et magis poten- p. 704 tes eos fecit, et in eis magis manifestatur divina potentia. — Si autem loquamur quantum ad effectum reparationis, sic magis dilexit homines quam Angelos, quoniam Angelos deseruit, sed homines relevavit. Et sic patet, quod secundum diversos effectus homo et Angelus in dilectione Dei mutuo se excedant.

Si autem quaeras, quae istarum dilectionum magis excedat reliquam; tunc respondendum est, quod est loqui de excessu dilectionis ut nunc, vel, simpliciter, sive secundum statum praesentem, vel secundum statum finalem. Si loquamur de excessu dilectionis secundum statum praesentem; sic concedendum est, quod magis diligit Angelos quam homines. Si vero loquamur secundum statum finalis gratiae9, in quo erit reparatio consummata; sic videtur satis rationabiliter posse dici, quod magis diligat homines. De pluribus enim habebit homo in paradiso, unde gratus et devotus existat Deo, quam angelicus ordo: tum propter beneficium incarnationis, tum propter beneficium redemptionis, tum propter beneficium eminentis glorificationis; quae non tantum manifestant erga nos divinae caritatis magnitudinem, sed etiam eius nimietatem, secundum illud quod dicitur ad Ephesios secundo10: Deus, qui est dives in misericordia, propter nimiam caritatem suam, qua dilexit nos, cum essemus mortui peccato, convivificavit nos Christo.

Et sic patet responsio ad quaestionem propositam. Patet etiam responsio ad obiecta: quia utraeque rationes verum concludunt secundum diversas vias. Illae enim rationes, quae probant, quod magis diligat genus humanum, procedunt secundum effectum reparationis, habito respectu ad finalem statum; et ideo verum concludunt et concedendae sunt. Rationes vero, quae in oppositum adducuntur, alia via procedunt, sicut patet aspicienti.

1. Nam quod primo obiicitur, quod Angelus est Deo similior; hoc verum est quantum ad ea quae sunt naturae, sed non oportet quantum ad dona gratiae. Dilectio autem Dei magis pensat dona naturae superaddita, quam ea quae sunt naturaliter insita. Et si tu obiicias, quod gratia correspondet naturae; ad hoc satis in secundo libro11 responsum est.

2. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur, quod Deus liberalior est in Angelis, quia uno motu eos12 beatificavit; dicendum, quod illud non concludit de dilectione simpliciter, sed de dilectione ut nunc, quae statum praesentem respicit. Praeterea, maius fuit Unigenitum suum pro impiis dare, quam Angelis merentibus aeternam mercedem retribuere; hoc enim fuit iustitiae, illud vero misericordiae et pietatis abundantissimae.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Angeli magis diligunt, quia nullum habent retardativum; dicendum, quod illa ratio concludit solum secundum statum praesentem, in quo corpus, cum corrumpitur, aggravat spiritum: secundum statum vero futurum, cum corpus erit spirituale effectum13, homo non habebit aliquod impedimentum et habebit praecipuum gratiae adiutorium.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod sunt mediatores; similiter patet responsio. Mediatores enim nostri sunt secundum statum praesentis miseriae, in quo propter multiplicem defectum necessarium est nobis multiplex adiutorium, et propter magnam elongationem nostri a Deo indigemus mediatorum auxilio14.

Scholion

I. In solutione huius et duarum sequentium quaestionum auctores satis conveniunt. Quoad primam quaestionem, et respectu habito ad bonum gloriae, S. Thom. (hic a. 5. quaestiunc. 3.) paulo aliter distinguit. Nam comparationem instituit de singulis hominibus ad singulos Angelos, non de toto genere, et solvit his verbis: «Quantum ad bonum gloriae se habent ut excedentia et excessa, quia quosdam homines plus, et quosdam Angelos plus, et quosdam aequaliter» (diligit). Eandem doctrinam repetit in Sum. (I. q. 20. a. 4, ubi de his 3 quaestionibus unitis disputat) et quoad totum genus addit: «Nec ideo naturam humanam assumsit Deus, quia hominem plus diligeret, sed quia plus indigebat»; quod non contradicit doctrinae S. Bonaventurae, qui disertis verbis loquitur de divina dilectione secundum effectus. — De hac (4.) quaestione praeter S. Thom. aliosque in praeced. scholio citatos: Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 32. m. I. — Scot., III. Sent. d. 9. n. 10. seqq. — B. Albert., de hac et seq. q. S. p. I. tr. 16. q. 65. q. incid. 4. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 2.

II. In solutione sequentis (5.) quaestionis omnes concedunt, quod Deus Christum etiam secundum humanam naturam plus diligat quam totam creaturam. Ita S. Thom., hic a. 5. quaestiunc. 4; S. loc. cit. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. q. 4. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 4.

III. Ultima (6.) quaestio praecipue orta est ex quadam Glossa hic arg. 3. pro parte affirm. relata. In solutione S. Thom. in Sum. (loc. cit.), postquam retulit diversas illas opiniones, de his (vel saltem de ultima, quod Petrus simpliciter fuerit melior, sed Ioannes secundum quid), omnino concordans Seraphico, sapienter concludit: «Praesumtuosum tamen videtur hoc diiudicare, quia, ut dicitur Proverb. 16, 2, spirituum ponderator est Dominus, et non alius». Cfr. idem III. Sent. d. 31. q. 2. a. 3. quaestiunc. 3. — Praeter laudatum: B. Albert., loc. cit. q. incid. 7. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 4. quaestiunc. 4. — Dionys. Carth., III. Sent. d. 31. q. 3.

---

English Translation

Question IV. Whether God loves man more than the Angel, or the reverse.

Fourthly it is asked, whether God loves man more than the Angel, or the reverse. And that [He loves] the Angel more, seems to be the case:

1. Because someone is more lovable to God in proportion as he is more like Him: if therefore the angelic nature is more like God than the human1, it seems that it is more loved by Him.

2. Likewise, a greater and a lesser love is attended to according to the greater and lesser communication of divine liberality; but for one single motion God glorified the Angel2, which He does not do for men: therefore He was more liberal to them than to us: therefore He loves the angelic kind more than the human.

3. Likewise, the Angels love God more than we do, in that they have no retardation by which they are hindered from being able to tend wholly into God: therefore if God loves more those who love Him more3, it seems that He loves the Angels more than men.

4. Likewise, the Angels are mediators between us and God, according to what Augustine holds in the eighth book of the City of God4; but the middle is more united to the extreme and is more familiar to it than one extreme is with respect to the other: therefore it seems that God loves the Angels more than men.

On the contrary: 1. To the Hebrews, chapter two5: Nowhere did He take hold of the Angels, but of the seed of Abraham; but it was the most powerful sign of divine love and familiarity, that He should assume a created nature into the unity of His own person: therefore it seems that He loved the human nature more than the angelic.

2. Likewise, John, chapter fifteen6: Greater love has no one etc.; but God laid down His soul for men, He did not lay it down for the Angels: therefore He loved men more than the Angels.

3. Likewise, God loves more that nature which He has set in a higher grade of honor: but God set the human nature, in both sexes, above the angelic spirits — namely Christ and His most noble Mother: therefore it seems that He loves and has loved the human nature more.

4. Likewise, one loves another more when he loves him in the state of friendship and of enmity, than only when he loves him in the state of friendship; but God loves the human kind in the state of friendship and in the state of enmity, for, when we were sinners and enemies of God, He loved us7, whereas the evil Angels He neither loved nor loves: therefore it seems that He has loved the human kind above the Angels.

Conclusion.

Speaking of God's love as to the effect of creation, God loved the Angels more than the human kind; but otherwise it can reasonably be said as to the effect of reparation and according to the final state.

I respond: It must be said that, since God is said to love creatures by an effect, according as there is a twofold principal effect of God with respect to the rational creature, accordingly God's love can be considered greater and lesser in two ways. For there is the effect of creation and the effect of reparation. And in the effect of creation God's power is chiefly manifested, in the effect of reparation God's mercy is chiefly manifested, and in both God's wisdom is manifested.

If therefore we speak of God's love as to the effect of creation, thus He loved the Angels more8, because He conferred upon them better natural endowments and made them more power- ful, and in them divine power is more manifested. — But if we speak as to the effect of reparation, thus He loved men more than the Angels, since He deserted the Angels but raised up men. And thus it is clear that, according to diverse effects, man and the Angel mutually exceed each other in God's love.

But if you ask which of these loves exceeds the other more; then it must be answered that one may speak of the excess of love as now, or absolutely, that is, either according to the present state, or according to the final state. If we speak of the excess of love according to the present state, thus it must be conceded that He loves the Angels more than men. But if we speak according to the state of final grace9, in which the reparation will be consummated, thus it seems it can reasonably enough be said that He loves men more. For man will have in paradise more reasons whereby he may stand grateful and devout to God than the angelic order does: both because of the benefit of the incarnation, and because of the benefit of redemption, and because of the benefit of his eminent glorification; which manifest toward us not only the greatness of divine charity but also its excess, according to that which is said to the Ephesians, chapter two10: God, who is rich in mercy, for His exceeding charity wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sin, has quickened us together in Christ.

And thus the response to the question proposed is clear. The response to the objections is also clear: for both sets of reasons conclude truly along diverse paths. For those reasons which prove that He loves the human kind more proceed according to the effect of reparation, with regard had to the final state; and therefore they conclude truly and are to be conceded. But the reasons which are adduced on the opposite side proceed by another path, as is clear to one who looks.

1. For as to what is first objected, that the Angel is more like God; this is true as to those things which are of nature, but it need not [be true] as to the gifts of grace. Now God's love weighs the superadded gifts of nature more than those which are naturally implanted. And if you object that grace corresponds to nature; to this enough has been answered in the second book11.

2. To that which is objected, that God is more liberal toward the Angels, because by one motion He beatified them12; it must be said that this does not conclude concerning love absolutely, but concerning love as now, which regards the present state. Moreover, it was greater to give His Only-begotten for the impious than to recompense eternal reward to the Angels who merited it; for this was of justice, but that of most abundant mercy and piety.

3. To that which is objected, that the Angels love more, because they have nothing to retard them; it must be said that that reason concludes only according to the present state, in which the body, when it is corrupted, weighs down the spirit: but according to the future state, when the body will have been made spiritual13, man will have no impediment and will have the chief help of grace.

4. To that which is objected, that they are mediators; the response is likewise clear. For our mediators belong to the state of present misery, in which, because of manifold defect, a manifold help is necessary for us, and because of the great distance of ourselves from God we need the help of mediators14.

Scholion

I. In the solution of this and of the two following questions the authors are sufficiently in agreement. As to the first question, and with regard had to the good of glory, St. Thomas (here a. 5, quaestiunc. 3) distinguishes a little differently. For he sets up the comparison of individual men with individual Angels, not of the whole kind, and resolves it in these words: «As to the good of glory they stand as exceeding and exceeded, because [He loves] some men more, and some Angels more, and some equally.» He repeats the same doctrine in the Summa (I, q. 20, a. 4, where he disputes about these 3 questions taken together) and as to the whole kind adds: «Nor did God assume the human nature because He loved man more, but because he needed it more»; which does not contradict the doctrine of St. Bonaventure, who in plain words speaks of divine love according to its effects. — On this (4th) question, besides St. Thomas and the others cited in the preceding scholion: Alex. of Hales, S. p. I, q. 32, m. I. — Scotus, III Sent. d. 9, n. 10 ff. — B. Albert, on this and the following question, S. p. I, tr. 16, q. 65, q. incid. 4. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 3. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 2.

II. In the solution of the following (5th) question all concede that God loves Christ, even according to His human nature, more than the whole creature. So St. Thomas, here a. 5, quaestiunc. 4; S., loc. cit. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. q. 4, quaestiunc. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, loc. cit. q. 4.

III. The last (6th) question arose chiefly from a certain Gloss reported here in arg. 3 for the affirmative side. In the solution St. Thomas in the Summa (loc. cit.), after reporting those diverse opinions, concerning these (or at least concerning the last, that Peter was simply better, but John in a certain respect), in full agreement with the Seraphic Doctor, wisely concludes: «Yet it seems presumptuous to adjudicate this, because, as is said in Proverbs 16:2, the Lord is the weigher of spirits, and no other.» Cf. the same, III Sent. d. 31, q. 2, a. 3, quaestiunc. 3. — Besides the one praised: B. Albert, loc. cit. q. incid. 7. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 4, quaestiunc. 4. — Dionysius the Carthusian, III Sent. d. 31, q. 3.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Codd. A U Utrumquemque. Mox minus; Deus enim plures codd. omittunt; minus quanto inferius iam delectatur; hanc tamen Vat. delectat, aut minus. Deinde pro maiora bona cod. bb magna bona, multi alii codd. et edd. 1, 2 magis amati.
    Codices A U read Utrumquemque. Soon, minus; "Deus enim" several codices omit; minus quanto inferius iam delectatur; this, however, the Vatican edition [reads] delectat, aut minus. Then for maiora bona codex bb [reads] magna bona, many other codices and editions 1, 2 magis amati.
  2. Cfr. supra q. 1 ad 5. — In fine solut. pro contingit dici cod. tt contingit dicere, sicut post aliud minus diligi cod. k udlecti et patent obiecta.
    Cf. above, q. 1, reply to 5. — At the end of the solution, for contingit dici codex tt [reads] contingit dicere, as after aliud minus diligi codex k [reads] udlecti et patent obiecta.
  3. Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.
    See the scholion to question I of this article.
  4. Vide verba Gregorii, supra pag. 39, nota i, collata.
    See the words of Gregory, above, p. 39, note 1, compared.
  5. Cfr. II Sent. lit. Magistri, d. III c. 1; ibid. Comment. p. II a. 1 q. 2 et d. 1 a. 1 q. 1 seq.
    Cf. II Sent., the text of the Master, d. III, c. 1; ibid. the Commentary, p. II, a. 1, q. 2, and d. 1, a. 1, q. 1 ff.
  6. Prov. 8, 17: Ego diligentes me diligo.
    Prov. 8:17: I love those who love me.
  7. Cap. 25, ubi s. Doctor non obscure innuit, Angelos bonos esse infra Deum et supra hominem, nosque per fidem prius ad eos accedere, «si ab illo nos fieri beatos, a quo ipsi facti sunt, etiam ipsis parentibus, credimus».
    Chapter 25, where the holy Doctor not obscurely intimates that the good Angels are below God and above man, and that we first approach them through faith, «if we believe that we are made blessed by Him by whom they themselves were made, they too sharing in it.»
  8. Vers. 16. Cfr. supra d. 2, a. 1, q. 2. — Paulo inferius pro naturam creatam cod. Q naturam humanam. — Vers. 13.
    Verse 16. Cf. above, d. 2, a. 1, q. 2. — A little below, for naturam creatam codex Q [reads] naturam humanam. — Verse 13.
  9. Cod. A gloriae.
    Codex A [reads] gloriae [for gratiae].
  10. Vers. 4 seq., ubi Vulgata: et cum essemus mortui peccatis... nos in Christo.
    Verse 4 f., where the Vulgate [reads]: and when we were dead in our sins... us in Christ.
  11. Dist. 9, q. 3. — Paulo ante pro Dilectio autem cod. A Dilectio enim, et dein pro insita cod. Z inserta.
    Dist. 9, q. 3. — A little before, for Dilectio autem codex A [reads] Dilectio enim, and then for insita codex Z inserta.
  12. Pro eos, quod edd. omittunt, cod. V omnes. Mox pro concludit permulti codd. perperam excludit, et paulo post pro maius fuit edd. 1, 2 cum non paucis codd. magis fuit.
    For eos, which the editions omit, codex V [reads] omnes. Soon, for concludit very many codices wrongly [read] excludit, and a little after, for maius fuit editions 1, 2 with not a few codices [read] magis fuit.
  13. Respicitur illud Sap. 9, 13: Corpus enim, quod corrumpitur, aggravat animam; et illud I. Cor. 15, 44: Seminatur corpus animale, surget corpus spiritale etc. — Pro cum corrumpitur codd. U Z aa quod corrumpitur, codd. A T aa corrumpitur tantum. Subinde pro spiritum cod. Z animam. In principio solut. pro nullum habent retardativum codd. F K nullam habent retardationem. In fine solut. pro et habebit edd. cum paucis codd. sed habebit, et pro praecipuum cod. Z praecipue.
    Reference is made to that of Wisd. 9:13: For the body, which is corrupted, weighs down the soul; and that of 1 Cor. 15:44: A natural body is sown, a spiritual body shall rise etc. — For cum corrumpitur codices U Z aa [read] quod corrumpitur, codices A T aa corrumpitur tantum. Thereupon for spiritum codex Z [reads] animam. At the beginning of the solution, for nullum habent retardativum codices F K [read] nullam habent retardationem. At the end of the solution, for et habebit the editions with a few codices [read] sed habebit, and for praecipuum codex Z praecipue.
  14. Vide verba August., supra d. 19, a. 2, q. 2, ad 5, allata. — Superius pro statum praesentis miseriae codd. B C D E I L G M O T V et edd. 1, 2 statum praesentem miseriae.
    See the words of Augustine, above, d. 19, a. 2, q. 2, reply to 5, adduced. — Above, for statum praesentis miseriae codices B C D E I L G M O T V and editions 1, 2 [read] statum praesentem miseriae.
← Dist. 32, Art. 1, Q. 3Dist. 32, Art. 1, Q. 5→