Dist. 31, Art. 3, Q. 3
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/3/d/31/q/bon-sent-III-d31-a3-q3
----------------------------------------
### Question III. *Whether the order of charity is to be changed in the fatherland.*

Thirdly it is asked whether the order of charity is to be changed in the fatherland, or whether the order of the fatherland is that order which is the order of the way, namely that we love first ourselves and then our neighbors. And that it remains can be shown thus.

**Arguments for the affirmative part:**

1. As grace is the perfection of nature, so also is glory: therefore, as the order suited to nature as instituted is preserved when the habit of grace arrives, so it seems that it is preserved when the habit of glory supervenes. If therefore there is here an order suited to nature, namely that we love ourselves more than our neighbors, it seems that, as it remains here so long as we are in grace, it will likewise remain in glory.

2. Likewise, as it belongs to the virtue of faith to see through a mirror and in an enigma, so also it belongs to the virtue of charity to love in an ordered way: therefore, as, when the medium of knowing or seeing is removed from faith itself, the virtue of faith is voided, so, if from charity be taken away the order which it has in loving, it is necessary that it itself be voided. If therefore charity is not voided in the fatherland, it seems that there is not taken away from it the order of loving which it had on the way.

3. Likewise, if anyone loves himself in the fatherland as much as he loves his neighbor, and conversely, such that there is no order there; then he rejoices over his neighbor's good as much as over his own good: therefore he who is not a martyr rejoices over the glory of the martyr as much as if he himself had that glory. If therefore the non-martyr does not rejoice as much as the martyr, then man labors in vain to undertake works of perfection, since he who has not done [them] rejoices as much as he who has done them.

4. Likewise, if anyone loves another as much as himself in glory, then he loves those near to him as much as those remote; he also loves equally those whom he has converted to the faith as much as those whom he has not converted; but over those whom he has converted one has an accidental joy, which is the aureole: therefore likewise over those whom he has not converted. But if this is unfitting to say, it is unfitting to posit that the order of charity is changed in glory.

**On the contrary:**

**For the negative part:**

1. Augustine, *On True Religion*: "Perfect justice is this, that we love the more weighty goods more and the lesser goods less": if therefore in the fatherland our will shall be brought to perfect justice, it seems that there it will love the greater good more. If therefore our neighbor in the fatherland is better than we, it seems that we shall love our neighbors more than ourselves.

2. Likewise, our will in the fatherland will be in all things conformed to the divine will; but God loves the better one more: therefore it seems that charity in the Blessed makes those be loved more who are more good: therefore in the fatherland the order is not regarded according to the account of *one's own* and *another's*, *near* and *remote*.

3. Likewise, in the fatherland *God* will be *all in all*, and the affection of the Blessed will be so inebriated with love, according to what Bernard says in the book *On Loving God*, that one forgets himself: if therefore the Blessed in the fatherland in loving do not regard *what is their own*, but what is God's; it seems that the order of charity does not remain in the fatherland according to the account of *one's own* and *another's*, nor will love of self outweigh love of neighbor.

4. Likewise, if a man were to love himself more than his neighbor, then he would wish good for himself more than for his neighbor, and would be delighted more in his own good than in another's; but where this is, in some manner property remains, nor is there in every way a perfect community of joy: if therefore in glory there will be the highest communication of joys, it seems that there does not remain there the order which now exists with respect to the things to be loved.

### Conclusion.

> It seems very probable that in the fatherland the order of charity will not remain which is regarded by reason of the underlying nature, such that of itself we love ourselves more than our neighbors.

**I respond:** For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that concerning this question there is a twofold manner of speaking.

One is that in the fatherland the order of charity which is on the way is preserved, not only by comparison of ourselves to God, but also by comparison of ourselves to neighbor. Hence in every state, whether of glory or of the way, a man will love himself more than his neighbor, and will be more affected toward himself, then more toward those who are joined to him, than toward those who are less joined. — And the reason which moves [one] to posit this is that an order of this kind seems to be consonant with *the dictate of nature*, *the perfection of glory*, *the rectitude of divine justice*. For *nature* dictates that a man love himself more than another. *Glory* too more essentially regards him in whom it is than another like and near to him. *Divine justice* too ordains that a man rejoice more over his own merits, which he has done, than over another's. And so in every way it seems fitting that the order of charity which is on the way be preserved in the fatherland.

But the other manner of speaking is this: that since the order of charity is twofold — one which regards charity in itself, which indeed is regarded according to the degree and differences of the good; the other which is regarded by reason of the underlying nature, namely that which is according to the differences of *one's own* and *another's*, *near* and *remote* — one of these orders, namely that which is of charity in itself, remains in the fatherland. For it is essential to charity; hence a man will love God more in the fatherland than a created spirit, and a spirit more than a body. But the other order, which is regarded by reason of the underlying nature, will not remain, because it does not befit that state. For in the state of beatitude there will be a perfect *obedience of nature* with respect to glory, a perfect *conformity of will* of ours with respect to the divine, and a perfect *overflow of common joy*. Because there will be a perfect *obedience of nature* with respect to glory, nature will then be wholly conformed to glory, so that, as the body will be made spiritual and will obey the spirit in all things, although according to the state of the way the spirit must condescend to the body; so nature will be in all things conformed to the order of glory and grace, which is regarded according to the *differences of the good*, although now grace condescends to the natural affection itself. — *Again*, because there will be a perfect *conformity of will* of ours with respect to the divine, we shall not love more that which will be more near to us, but that which will be more pleasing and acceptable to God. — *Lastly*, because there will be there a perfect *abundance of common joy*, the joy of man will be multiplied with a perfect multiplication, so that one rejoices over the good of each neighbor as much as over his own; which could not be unless he loved his neighbor as much as himself. And this is what Anselm says in the *Proslogion*, in the last chapter: "In that perfect charity of innumerable Angels and of blessed men, where no one loves another less than himself, each one will rejoice no otherwise for each of the others than for himself."

But which of these two manners is the more reasonable, it is difficult to define so long as we are in the state of the present misery. For if we wish to judge according to those things which we feel in ourselves, it will scarcely seem to anyone credible or reasonable that anyone should at all love another as much as himself. Hence he will judge the first manner of speaking to be more true. — But if anyone wishes to raise his mind higher to that *incomprehensible Good*, which *eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor has it ascended into the heart of man*, and to that greatest unity of the citizens; he will judge the following manner of speaking to be more reasonable, according to what the authority of Anselm and of Augustine in the book *On True Religion* manifestly says. Bernard too in the book *On Loving God* seems to hold the same. Hence if we wish to speak as the many [do], we shall maintain the first manner; but if we wish to speak and to feel as the wiser [do], we shall maintain the following. Maintaining therefore this second manner of speaking, we can answer the objections in order.

**To the arguments for the affirmative part:**

1. To that therefore which is objected first, that glory preserves the order of nature as instituted; it must be said that it is true that it preserves nature; but it removes and eliminates imperfection; now the order which is regarded with respect to self and neighbor falls short of a perfect communication and unity and concord of affection; and therefore in the removal of such an order no prejudice is done to nature, but rather it is led from imperfection to completion.

2. To that which is objected, that that order befits charity as the enigma befits faith; it must be said that it is false. For the enigma befits the habit of faith itself in itself and inasmuch as it is a habit of virtue directing toward voluntarily believing those things which are not seen; but that order which is with respect to neighbor is attributed to charity itself by reason of the underlying nature.

3. To that which is objected, that then one rejoices over another as much as over himself; it must be said that that is true *other things being equal*. But as to the quantity of joy, it must be noted that two things concur, namely the *virtue of love*, which makes [one] rejoice, and the *matter* over which one rejoices. As far as concerns the *matter*, one will rejoice equally in the fatherland over the good of his neighbor and over his own good, if it is equal, and more, if it is greater, and less, if it is less; but as far as concerns the *virtue* by which one rejoices, he will rejoice more who will have the greater charity. Hence Peter will rejoice more over the good of Linus than Linus over his own good. Hence it does not follow that the non-martyr rejoices over the good of the martyr as much as the martyr himself, because by the merit of martyrdom the power of rejoicing has been increased for him. And thus it is clear that, although from this a community of joy is posited, yet it is not removed that one rejoices more over another than the other.

4. And through this the last [argument] is clear, which objects concerning the reward of the aureole: because that anyone has a *special* joy over another, this will not be by reason of an *order* in loving, namely that he loves him more than another, but this will be by reason of a certain *comeliness and glory* which he has attained by the merit of an excellent work.

**To the arguments for the negative part:**

But if we wish to maintain the other position, all the objections can be answered briefly, since they are all understood *other things being equal*.

1. Hence as to what is said, that we ought to love greater goods more; this is true so far as concerns the *account of the good*, but the account of greater nearness requires something else.

2. Likewise, as to what it says, that our will is to be perfectly conformed to the divine will; it must be said that it is true; but God does not love with a *greater affection*, but loves *toward a greater* [good]. Hence from this it does not follow that we ought to love our neighbors better than us more than ourselves, but that we ought to love them toward a greater [good].

3. Likewise, as to what is said, that the affection of the Blessed will be inebriated; this is not because they do not love themselves, but because their affection will not be retarded in the love of God.

4. Lastly, as to what is said about the communication of perfect joy, it does not compel, because perfect joy does not exclude that a man principally loves his own good; but it brings it about that, in loving his own good, he is so affected toward himself that he does not grow sluggish toward others.

---