Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 44 [<< | >>]
We must now consider the Precepts of Charity, under which there are
eight points of inquiry:
(1) Whether precepts should be given about charity?
(2) Whether there should be one or two?
(3) Whether two suffice?
(4) Whether it is fittingly prescribed that we should love God, "with
thy whole heart"?
(5) Whether it is fittingly added: "With thy whole mind," etc.?
(6) Whether it is possible to fulfil this precept in this life?
(7) Of the precept: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself";
(8) Whether the order of charity is included in the precept?
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 44 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that no precept should be given about charity. For
charity imposes the mode on all acts of virtue, since it is the form of
the virtues as stated above (Question [23], Article [8]), while the precepts are about
the virtues themselves. Now, according to the common saying, the mode is
not included in the precept. Therefore no precepts should be given about
charity.
Objection 2: Further, charity, which "is poured forth in our hearts by the
Holy Ghost" (@Rm. 5:5), makes us free, since "where the Spirit of the Lord
is, there is liberty" (@2 Cor. 3:17). Now the obligation that arises from
a precept is opposed to liberty, since it imposes a necessity. Therefore
no precept should be given about charity.
Objection 3: Further, charity is the foremost among all the virtues, to which
the precepts are directed, as shown above (FS, Question [90], Article [2]; FS, Question [100], Article [9]). If, therefore, any precepts were given about charity, they should
have a place among the chief precepts which are those of the decalogue.
But they have no place there. Therefore no precepts should be given about
charity.
On the contrary, Whatever God requires of us is included in a precept.
Now God requires that man should love Him, according to Dt. 10:12.
Therefore it behooved precepts to be given about the love of charity,
which is the love of God.
I answer that, As stated above (Question [16], Article [1]; FS, Question [99], Article [1]), a precept
implies the notion of something due. Hence a thing is a matter of
precept, in so far as it is something due. Now a thing is due in two
ways, for its own sake, and for the sake of something else. In every
affair, it is the end that is due for its own sake, because it has the
character of a good for its own sake: while that which is directed to the
end is due for the sake of something else: thus for a physician, it is
due for its own sake, that he should heal, while it is due for the sake
of something else that he should give a medicine in order to heal. Now
the end of the spiritual life is that man be united to God, and this
union is effected by charity, while all things pertaining to the
spiritual life are ordained to this union, as to their end. Hence the
Apostle says (@1 Tim. 1:5): "The end of the commandment is charity from a
pure heart, and a good conscience, and an unfeigned faith." For all the
virtues, about whose acts the precepts are given, are directed either to
the freeing of the heart from the whirl of the passions---such are the
virtues that regulate the passions---or at least to the possession of a
good conscience---such are the virtues that regulate operations---or to
the having of a right faith---such are those which pertain to the worship
of God: and these three things are required of man that he may love God.
For an impure heart is withdrawn from loving God, on account of the
passion that inclines it to earthly things; an evil conscience gives man
a horror for God's justice, through fear of His punishments; and an
untrue faith draws man's affections to an untrue representation of God,
and separates him from the truth of God. Now in every genus that which is
for its own sake takes precedence of that which is for the sake of
another, wherefore the greatest precept is that of charity, as stated in
Mt. 22:39.
Reply to Objection 1: As stated above (FS, Question [100], Article [10]) when we were treating
of the commandments, the mode of love does not come under those precepts
which are about the other acts of virtue: for instance, this precept,
"Honor thy father and thy mother," does not prescribe that this should be
done out of charity. The act of love does, however, fall under special
precepts.
Reply to Objection 2: The obligation of a precept is not opposed to liberty,
except in one whose mind is averted from that which is prescribed, as may
be seen in those who keep the precepts through fear alone. But the
precept of love cannot be fulfilled save of one's own will, wherefore it
is not opposed to charity.
Reply to Objection 3: All the precepts of the decalogue are directed to the love
of God and of our neighbor: and therefore the precepts of charity had not
to be enumerated among the precepts of the decalogue, since they are
included in all of them.
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 44 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that there should not have been given two precepts of charity. For the precepts of the Law are directed to virtue, as stated above (Article [1], Objection [3]). Now charity is one virtue, as shown above (Question [33], Article [5]). Therefore only one precept of charity should have been given.
Objection 2: Further, as Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 22,27), charity loves none but God in our neighbor. Now we are sufficiently directed to love God by the precept, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God." Therefore there was no need to add the precept about loving our neighbor.
Objection 3: Further, different sins are opposed to different precepts. But it
is not a sin to put aside the love of our neighbor, provided we put not
aside the love of God; indeed, it is written (@Lk. 15:26): "If any man
come to Me, and hate not his father, and mother . . . he cannot be My
disciple." Therefore the precept of the love of God is not distinct from
the precept of the love of our neighbor.
Objection 4: Further, the Apostle says (@Rm. 13:8): "He that loveth his
neighbor hath fulfilled the Law." But a law is not fulfilled unless all
its precepts be observed. Therefore all the precepts are included in the
love of our neighbor: and consequently the one precept of the love of our
neighbor suffices. Therefore there should not be two precepts of charity.
On the contrary, It is written (@1 Jn. 4:21): "This commandment we have
from God, that he who loveth God, love also his brother."
I answer that, As stated above (FS, Question [91], Article [3]; FS, Question [94], Article [2]) when
we were treating of the commandments, the precepts are to the Law what
propositions are to speculative sciences, for in these latter, the
conclusions are virtually contained in the first principles. Hence
whoever knows the principles as to their entire virtual extent has no
need to have the conclusions put separately before him. Since, however,
some who know the principles are unable to consider all that is virtually
contained therein, it is necessary, for their sake, that scientific
conclusions should be traced to their principles. Now in practical
matters wherein the precepts of the Law direct us, the end has the
character of principle, as stated above (Question [23], Article [7], ad 2; Question [26], Article [1], ad 1): and the love of God is the end to which the love of our neighbor
is directed. Therefore it behooved us to receive precepts not only of the
love of God but also of the love of our neighbor, on account of those who
are less intelligent, who do not easily understand that one of these
precepts is included in the other.
Reply to Objection 1: Although charity is one virtue, yet it has two acts, one of
which is directed to the other as to its end. Now precepts are given
about acts of virtue, and so there had to be several precepts of charity.
Reply to Objection 2: God is loved in our neighbor, as the end is loved in that
which is directed to the end; and yet there was need for an explicit
precept about both, for the reason given above.
Reply to Objection 3: The means derive their goodness from their relation to the
end, and accordingly aversion from the means derives its malice from the
same source and from no other
Reply to Objection 4: Love of our neighbor includes love of God, as the end is
included in the means, and vice versa: and yet it behooved each precept
to be given explicitly, for the reason given above.
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 44 [<< | >>]
Article: 3 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that two precepts of charity do not suffice. For
precepts are given about acts of virtue. Now acts are distinguished by
their objects. Since, then, man is bound to love four things out of
charity, namely, God, himself, his neighbor and his own body, as shown
above (Question [25], Article [12]; Question [26]), it seems that there ought to be four
precepts of charity, so that two are not sufficient.
Objection 2: Further, love is not the only act of charity, but also joy, peace
and beneficence. But precepts should be given about the acts of the
virtues. Therefore two precepts of charity do not suffice.
Objection 3: Further, virtue consists not only in doing good but also in
avoiding evil. Now we are led by the positive precepts to do good, and by
the negative precepts to avoid evil. Therefore there ought to have been
not only positive, but also negative precepts about charity; and so two
precepts of charity are not sufficient.
On the contrary, Our Lord said (@Mt. 22:40): "On these two commandments
dependeth the whole Law and the prophets."
I answer that, Charity, as stated above (Question [23], Article [1]), is a kind of
friendship. Now friendship is between one person and another, wherefore
Gregory says (Hom. in Ev. xvii): "Charity is not possible between less
than two": and it has been explained how one may love oneself out of
charity (Question [25], Article [4]). Now since good is the object of dilection and
love, and since good is either an end or a means, it is fitting that
there should be two precepts of charity, one whereby we are induced to
love God as our end, and another whereby we are led to love our neighbor
for God's sake, as for the sake of our end
Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 23), "though four
things are to be loved out of charity, there was no need of a precept as
regards the second and fourth," i.e. love of oneself and of one's own
body. "For however much a man may stray from the truth, the love of
himself and of his own body always remains in him." And yet the mode of
this love had to be prescribed to man, namely, that he should love
himself and his own body in an ordinate manner, and this is done by his
loving God and his neighbor.
Reply to Objection 2: As stated above (Question [28], Article [4]; Question [29], Article [3]), the other acts
of charity result from the act of love as effects from their cause. Hence
the precepts of love virtually include the precepts about the other acts.
And yet we find that, for the sake of the laggards, special precepts were
given about each act---about joy (@Phil. 4:4): "Rejoice in the Lord
always"---about peace (@Heb. 12:14): "Follow peace with all men"---about
beneficence (@Gal. 6:10): "Whilst we have time, let us work good to all
men"---and Holy Writ contains precepts about each of the parts of
beneficence, as may be seen by anyone who considers the matter carefully.
Reply to Objection 3: To do good is more than to avoid evil, and therefore the
positive precepts virtually include the negative precepts. Nevertheless
we find explicit precepts against the vices contrary to charity: for,
against hatred it is written (Lev. 12:17): "Thou shalt not hate thy
brother in thy heart"; against sloth (Ecclus. 6:26): "Be not grieved with
her bands"; against envy (@Gal. 5:26): "Let us not be made desirous of
vainglory, provoking one another, envying one another"; against discord
(@1 Cor. 1:10): "That you all speak the same thing, and that there be no
schisms among you"; and against scandal (@Rm. 14:13): "That you put not a
stumbling-block or a scandal in your brother's way."
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 44 [<< | >>]
Article: 4 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that it is unfittingly commanded that man should
love God with his whole heart. For the mode of a virtuous act is not a
matter of precept, as shown above (Article [1], ad 1; FS, Question [100], Article [9]). Now the
words "with thy whole heart" signify the mode of the love of God.
Therefore it is unfittingly commanded that man should love God with his
whole heart.
Objection 2: Further, "A thing is whole and perfect when it lacks nothing"
(Phys. iii, 6). If therefore it is a matter of precept that God be loved
with the whole heart, whoever does something not pertaining to the love
of God, acts counter to the precept, and consequently sins mortally. Now
a venial sin does not pertain to the love of God. Therefore a venial sin
is a mortal sin, which is absurd.
Objection 3: Further, to love God with one's whole heart belongs to
perfection, since according to the Philosopher (Phys. iii, text. 64), "to
be whole is to be perfect." But that which belongs to perfection is not a
matter of precept, but a matter of counsel. Therefore we ought not to be
commanded to love God with our whole heart.
On the contrary, It is written (@Dt. 6:5): "Thou shalt love the Lord thy
God with thy whole heart."
I answer that, Since precepts are given about acts of virtue, an act is
a matter of precept according as it is an act of virtue. Now it is
requisite for an act of virtue that not only should it fall on its own
matter, but also that it should be endued with its due circumstances,
whereby it is adapted to that matter. But God is to be loved as the last
end, to which all things are to be referred. Therefore some kind of
totality was to be indicated in connection with the precept of the love
of God.
Reply to Objection 1: The commandment that prescribes an act of virtue does not
prescribe the mode which that virtue derives from another and higher
virtue, but it does prescribe the mode which belongs to its own proper
virtue, and this mode is signified in the words "with thy whole heart."
Reply to Objection 2: To love God with one's whole heart has a twofold
signification. First, actually, so that a man's whole heart be always
actually directed to God: this is the perfection of heaven. Secondly, in
the sense that a man's whole heart be habitually directed to God, so that
it consent to nothing contrary to the love of God, and this is the
perfection of the way. Venial sin is not contrary to this latter
perfection, because it does not destroy the habit of charity, since it
does not tend to a contrary object, but merely hinders the use of charity.
Reply to Objection 3: That perfection of charity to which the counsels are
directed, is between the two perfections mentioned in the preceding
reply: and it consists in man renouncing, as much as possible, temporal
things, even such as are lawful, because they occupy the mind and hinder
the actual movement of the heart towards God.
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 44 [<< | >>]
Article: 5 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that it was unfitting to the words, "Thou shalt
love the Lord thy God, with thy whole heart," to add, "and with thy whole
soul, and with thy whole strength" (@Dt. 6:5). For heart does not mean
here a part of the body, since to love God is not a bodily action: and
therefore heart is to be taken here in a spiritual sense. Now the heart
understood spiritually is either the soul itself or part of the soul.
Therefore it is superfluous to mention both heart and soul.
Objection 2: Further, a man's strength whether spiritual or corporal depends
on the heart. Therefore after the words, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy
God with thy whole heart," it was unnecessary to add, "with all thy
strength."
Objection 3: Further, in Mt. 22:37 we read: "With all thy mind," which words
do not occur here. Therefore it seems that this precept is unfittingly
worded in Dt. 6.
On the contrary stands the authority of Scripture.
I answer that, This precept is differently worded in various places:
for, as we said in the first objection, in Dt. 6 three points are
mentioned: "with thy whole heart," and "with thy whole soul," and "with
thy whole strength." In Mt. 22 we find two of these mentioned, viz. "with
thy whole heart" and "with thy whole soul," while "with thy whole
strength" is omitted, but "with thy whole mind" is added. Yet in Mark 12
we find all four, viz. "with thy whole heart," and "with thy whole soul,"
and "with thy whole mind," and "with thy whole force" which is the same
as "strength." Moreover, these four are indicated in Luke 10, where in
place of "strength" or "force" we read "with all thy might." [*St. Thomas
is explaining the Latin text which reads "ex tota fortitudine tua" (@Dt.),
"ex tota virtue tua" (Mk.), and "ex omnibus tuis" (@Lk.), although the
Greek in all three cases has {ex holes tes ischyos}, which the Douay
renders "with thy whole strength."]
Accordingly these four have to be explained, since the fact that one of
them is omitted here or there is due to one implying another. We must
therefore observe that love is an act of the will which is here denoted
by the "heart," because just as the bodily heart is the principle of all
the movements of the body, so too the will, especially as regards the
intention of the last end which is the object of charity, is the
principle of all the movements of the soul. Now there are three
principles of action that are moved by the will, namely, the intellect
which is signified by "the mind," the lower appetitive power, signified
by "the soul"; and the exterior executive power signified by "strength,"
"force" or "might." Accordingly we are commanded to direct our whole
intention to God, and this is signified by the words "with thy whole
heart"; to submit our intellect to God, and this is expressed in the
words "with thy whole mind"; to regulate our appetite according to God,
in the words "with thy whole soul"; and to obey God in our external
actions, and this is to love God with our whole "strength," "force" or
"might."
Chrysostom [*The quotation is from an anonymous author's unfinished work
(Opus imperf. Hom. xlii, in Matth.) which is included in Chrysostom's
works], on the other hand, takes "heart" and "soul" in the contrary
sense; and Augustine (De Doctr. Christ. i, 22) refers "heart" to the
thought, "soul" to the manner of life, and "mind" to the intellect. Again
some explain "with thy whole heart" as denoting the intellect, "with thy
whole soul" as signifying the will, "with thy mind" as pointing to the
memory. And again, according to Gregory of Nyssa (De Hom. Opif. viii),
"heart" signifies the vegetative soul, "soul" the sensitive, and "mind"
the intellective soul, because our nourishment, sensation, and
understanding ought all to be referred by us to God.
This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 44 [<< | >>]
Article: 6 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that in this life it is possible to fulfil this precept of the love of God. For according to Jerome [*Pelagius, Exposit. Cath. Fid.] "accursed is he who says that Cod has commanded anything impossible." But God gave this commandment, as is clear from Dt. 6:5. Therefore it is possible to fulfil this precept in this life.
Objection 2: Further, whoever does not fulfil a precept sins mortally, since
according to Ambrose (De Parad. viii) sin is nothing else than "a
transgression of the Divine Law, and disobedience of the heavenly
commandments." If therefore this precept cannot be fulfilled by
wayfarers, it follows that in this life no man can be without mortal sin,
and this is against the saying of the Apostle (@1 Cor. 1:8): "(Who also)
will confirm you unto the end without crime," and (@1 Tim. 3:10): "Let
them minister, having no crime."
Objection 3: Further, precepts are given in order to direct man in the way of
salvation, according to Ps. 18:9: "The commandment of the Lord is
lightsome, enlightening the eyes." Now it is useless to direct anyone to
what is impossible. Therefore it is not impossible to fulfill this
precept in this life.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Perfect. Justit. viii): "In the
fulness of heavenly charity this precept will be fulfilled: Thou shalt
love the Lord thy God," etc. For as long as any carnal concupiscence
remains, that can be restrained by continence, man cannot love God with
all his heart.
I answer that, A precept can be fulfilled in two ways; perfectly, and
imperfectly. A precept is fulfilled perfectly, when the end intended by
the author of the precept is reached; yet it is fulfilled, imperfectly
however, when although the end intended by its author is not reached,
nevertheless the order to that end is not departed from. Thus if the
commander of an army order his soldiers to fight, his command will be
perfectly obeyed by those who fight and conquer the foe, which is the
commander's intention; yet it is fulfilled, albeit imperfectly, by those
who fight without gaining the victory, provided they do nothing contrary
to military discipline. Now God intends by this precept that man should
be entirely united to Him, and this will be realized in heaven, when God
will be "all in all," according to 1 Cor. 15:28. Hence this precept will
be observed fully and perfectly in heaven; yet it is fulfilled, though
imperfectly, on the way. Nevertheless on the way one man will fulfil it
more perfectly than another, and so much the more, as he approaches by
some kind of likeness to the perfection of heaven.
Reply to Objection 1: This argument proves that the precept can be fulfilled
after a fashion on the way, but not perfectly.
Reply to Objection 2: Even as the soldier who fights legitimately without
conquering is not blamed nor deserves to be punished for this, so too he
that does not fulfil this precept on the way, but does nothing against
the love of God, does not sin mortally.
Reply to Objection 3: As Augustine says (De Perfect. Justit. viii), "why should
not this perfection be prescribed to man, although no man attains it in
this life? For one cannot run straight unless one knows whither to run.
And how would one know this if no precept pointed it out."
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 44 [<< | >>]
Article: 7 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that the precept of the love of our neighbor is
unfittingly expressed. For the love of charity extends to all men, even
to our enemies, as may be seen in Mt. 5:44. But the word "neighbor"
denotes a kind of "nighness" which does not seem to exist towards all
men. Therefore it seems that this precept is unfittingly expressed.
Objection 2: Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. ix, 8) "the origin
of our friendly relations with others lies in our relation to ourselves,"
whence it seems to follow that love of self is the origin of one's love
for one's neighbor. Now the principle is greater than that which results
from it. Therefore man ought not to love his neighbor as himself.
Objection 3: Further, man loves himself, but not his neighbor, naturally.
Therefore it is unfitting that he should be commanded to love his
neighbor as himself.
On the contrary, It is written (@Mt. 22:39): "The second" commandment "is
like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."
I answer that, This precept is fittingly expressed, for it indicates
both the reason for loving and the mode of love. The reason for loving is
indicated in the word "neighbor," because the reason why we ought to love
others out of charity is because they are nigh to us, both as to the
natural image of God, and as to the capacity for glory. Nor does it
matter whether we say "neighbor," or "brother" according to 1 Jn. 4:21,
or "friend," according to Lev. 19:18, because all these words express the
same affinity.
The mode of love is indicated in the words "as thyself." This does not
mean that a man must love his neighbor equally as himself, but in like
manner as himself, and this in three ways. First, as regards the end,
namely, that he should love his neighbor for God's sake, even as he loves
himself for God's sake, so that his love for his neighbor is a "holy"
love. Secondly, as regards the rule of love, namely, that a man should
not give way to his neighbor in evil, but only in good things, even as he
ought to gratify his will in good things alone, so that his love for his
neighbor may be a "righteous" love. Thirdly, as regards the reason for
loving, namely, that a man should love his neighbor, not for his own
profit, or pleasure, but in the sense of wishing his neighbor well, even
as he wishes himself well, so that his love for his neighbor may be a
"true" love: since when a man loves his neighbor for his own profit or
pleasure, he does not love his neighbor truly, but loves himself.
This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.
Index [<< | >>]
Second Part of the Second Part [<< | >>]
Question: 44 [<< | >>]
Article: 8 [<< | >>]
Objection 1: It would seem that the order of charity is not included in the
precept. For whoever transgresses a precept does a wrong. But if man
loves some one as much as he ought, and loves any other man more, he
wrongs no man. Therefore he does not transgress the precept. Therefore
the order of charity is not included in the precept.
Objection 2: Further, whatever is a matter of precept is sufficiently
delivered to us in Holy Writ. Now the order of charity which was given
above (Question [26]) is nowhere indicated in Holy Writ. Therefore it is not
included in the precept.
Objection 3: Further, order implies some kind of distinction. But the love of
our neighbor is prescribed without any distinction, in the words, "Thou
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Therefore the order of charity is
not included in the precept.
On the contrary, Whatever God works in us by His grace, He teaches us
first of all by His Law, according to Jer. 31:33: "I will give My Law in
their heart [*Vulg.: 'in their bowels, and I will write it in their
heart']." Now God causes in us the order of charity, according to Cant
2:4: "He set in order charity in me." Therefore the order of charity
comes under the precept of the Law.
I answer that, As stated above (Article [4], ad 1), the mode which is essential
to an act of virtue comes under the precept which prescribes that
virtuous act. Now the order of charity is essential to the virtue, since
it is based on the proportion of love to the thing beloved, as shown
above (Question [25], Article [12]; Question [26], Articles [1],2). It is therefore evident that the
order of charity must come under the precept.
Reply to Objection 1: A man gratifies more the person he loves more, so that if
he loved less one whom he ought to love more, he would wish to gratify
more one whom he ought to gratify less, and so he would do an injustice
to the one he ought to love more.
Reply to Objection 2: The order of those four things we have to love out of charity is expressed in Holy Writ. For when we are commanded to love God with our "whole heart," we are given to understand that we must love Him above all things. When we are commanded to love our neighbor "as ourselves," the love of self is set before love of our neighbor. In like manner where we are commanded (@1 Jn. 3:16) "to lay down our souls," i.e. the life of our bodies, "for the brethren," we are given to understand that a man ought to love his neighbor more than his own body; and again when we are commanded (@Gal. 6:10) to "work good . . . especially to those who are of the household of the faith," and when a man is blamed (@1 Tim. 5:8) if he "have not care of his own, and especially of those of his house," it means that we ought to love most those of our neighbors who are more virtuous or more closely united to us.
Reply to Objection 3: It follows from the very words, "Thou shalt love thy
neighbor" that those who are nearer to us are to be loved more.