Cap. 3 Obj. 14: If Christ died for all, did he love all with supreme and equal love?

Obj. 14. If we posit that Christ died for all, it will follow: 1. That Christ pursued all human beings with supreme and greatest love (John 15:13): Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. And (1 John 3:16): By this we have known the love of God, that he laid down his life for us. Which does not seem so, because he does not lead all to life by this death of his. 2. What is a corollary of this, that Christ equally loved Peter and Judas, the elect and the non-elect: For he would have exhibited to all the token of supreme love; but in the supreme there are no degrees. 3. Finally, if Christ so died for all that by this death of his he procured for the non-elect only the possibility of salvation under the condition of faith, or a remedy merely applicable, which he knows will not be applied, but for the elect the very application and salvation — he would seem to have loved the non-elect more than the elect, because it is of greater love to suffer death for someone in order that he may obtain some minute good than a great one; just as that man would show a more ardent love toward someone who exposed himself to death lest the other be ever so slightly hurt, than if he did it lest he be punished with death.

Sol. The aim of both places is the same, namely to kindle Christians to mutual and most tender love by the example of our Savior Jesus Christ, who so loved us that he endured to die for us. But the sense of the words here is that to undergo death, or to pour out one’s life for another, is the greatest external effect and the most evident proof of love — which, when Christ has exhibited toward us by laying down his life for us, we too ought, where need is, to lay down our lives for the brethren, as is had in the aforesaid place (1 John 3:16). It is therefore not enough that we be ready to spend gold and silver for the brethren, to undergo hard labors or dangers, because there is still a greater love — that is, a greater, surer, and clearer proof of our love — namely that we lay down our soul, that is, our life, for them. And because nothing is dearer to each than himself, therefore by this attestation of love, by which someone spends himself for a friend, there is no greater. I now come closer to the solution, and I say: Although we confess that no one has greater love — that is, can from his own side put forth a greater external effect of his love — than by laying down life, because each has nothing more precious than his life; yet we deny that it is rightly deduced from this that the love of one dying for some is absolutely, simply, and in every way, as regards all those, the supreme and greatest that anyone can conceive in his heart. For first, where one lays down life for many, nothing hinders that as to the internal act of loving he may love one more vehemently than another: as if we should think that Jacob underwent death for freeing all his sons from captivity, we would nevertheless rightly assert that he did not love all supremely, but Joseph and Benjamin above the others, and more than the others. Supreme love as to intention, therefore, cannot be inferred with respect to all to whom this greatest judgment of love is exhibited. Second, someone can pour out life promiscuously for many, and yet as to the magnitude of the good willed love some more intensely than others, and accordingly not embrace all with supreme or equal love. For the magnitude of love is not to be estimated only from the side of the precious thing which is spent on the beloved by the lover, but from the side of the benefits which are intended to be conferred on the beloved from that spent thing. For example: If a King’s son should undergo death for all guilty of treason, this law being set, that all and each be absolved who are willing to cast themselves as suppliants before the King’s throne and to pledge faithful obedience for the future; and if for certain ones he should further intend to obtain from the Father that, for the merit of his death, he deign to persuade them of this submission and obedience, and so persuaded not only to absolve them but even to raise them to the highest honors — who does not see that death was endured for all, and yet that all were not loved supremely and maximally? For since to love is to wish and confer goods on someone, once a common benefit granted to many is posited, those are more loved to whom greater goods from the aforesaid benefit are intended and conferred. Finally, although human beings cannot exhibit to human beings a greater external testimony of love than if someone die for another, yet God the Father, Christ the Mediator God-man, and the Holy Spirit can exhibit a greater secret act and effect of their love toward some of those for whom Christ died than toward others; namely if they establish not only to give to certain ones remission of sins and eternal life from the merit of Christ’s death, provided they believe in this their Redeemer, but also from eternity elect certain ones to life to be participated efficaciously in Christ the Redeemer, and prepare for them and infallibly give all those things which effect this infallible participation and application. From these you see that that inference does not hold: Christ died for all; Therefore he loved all with supreme and equal love: because, this common benefit of his death being granted to all, he can nevertheless love some more intently than others, and decree, prepare, and give to some more and greater goods from the merit of his death than to others. Which is clear even in the elect themselves, for all of whom all confess that Christ suffered, and yet no one will have affirmed that Christ embraces with equal love anyone (so to speak) from the common run of the elect and the Patriarchs, Apostles, or his most blessed mother, or enriches them with equal gifts of grace and glory overflowing from the merit of his death. But that other subtlety by which it is inferred, If Christ had undergone death for all, he would have shown greater love toward the non-elect than toward the elect, because it argues greater love to sustain death for someone to obtain for him some minute good than a great one, seems to me little agreeable to right reason. If diverse deaths were to be undergone for diverse persons, this objection would have some appearance of truth: but where a single death is sustained for diverse persons, there it is plain that he is more loved for whom the one who dies intends more and greater goods from this single death. For if to love is to will goods to another, then to will greater goods is to love more. But in this way the love of Christ dying stood toward the elect and the non-elect: for from one and the same death he willed more and greater goods to come to the former than to the latter.