Obj. 2: Further, "A thing is whole and perfect when it lacks nothing"
(Phys. iii, 6). If therefore it is a matter of precept that G.o.d be loved with the whole heart, whoever does something not pertaining to the love of G.o.d, acts counter to the precept, and consequently sins mortally. Now a venial sin does not pertain to the love of G.o.d.
Therefore a venial sin is a mortal sin, which is absurd.
Obj. 3: Further, to love G.o.d 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 G.o.d with our whole heart.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Deut. 6:5): "Thou shalt love the Lord thy G.o.d 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 circ.u.mstances, whereby it is adapted to that matter. But G.o.d 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 G.o.d.
Reply Obj. 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 Obj. 2: To love G.o.d with one"s whole heart has a twofold signification. First, actually, so that a man"s whole heart be always actually directed to G.o.d: this is the perfection of heaven. Secondly, in the sense that a man"s whole heart be habitually directed to G.o.d, so that it consent to nothing contrary to the love of G.o.d, 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 Obj. 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 G.o.d.
_______________________
FIFTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 44, Art. 5]
Whether to the Words, "Thou Shalt Love the Lord Thy G.o.d with Thy Whole Heart," It Was Fitting to Add "and with Thy Whole Soul, and with Thy Whole Strength"?
Objection 1: It would seem that it was unfitting to the words, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy G.o.d, with thy whole heart," to add, "and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole strength" (Deut. 6:5). For heart does not mean here a part of the body, since to love G.o.d 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.
Obj. 2: Further, a man"s strength whether spiritual or corporal depends on the heart. Therefore after the words, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy G.o.d with thy whole heart," it was unnecessary to add, "with all thy strength."
Obj. 3: Further, in Matt. 22:37 we read: "With all thy mind," which words do not occur here. Therefore it seems that this precept is unfittingly worded in Deut. 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 Deut. 6 three points are mentioned: "with thy whole heart," and "with thy whole soul," and "with thy whole strength." In Matt. 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 fort.i.tudine tua" (Deut.), "ex tota virtue tua" (Mk.), and "ex omnibus viribus tuis" (Luke), 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 appet.i.tive 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 G.o.d, and this is signified by the words "with thy whole heart"; to submit our intellect to G.o.d, and this is expressed in the words "with thy whole mind"; to regulate our appet.i.te according to G.o.d, in the words "with thy whole soul"; and to obey G.o.d in our external actions, and this is to love G.o.d 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 G.o.d.
This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.
_______________________
SIXTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 44, Art. 6]
Whether It Is Possible in This Life to Fulfil This Precept of the Love of G.o.d?
Objection 1: It would seem that in this life it is possible to fulfil this precept of the love of G.o.d. For according to Jerome [*Pelagius, Exposit. Cath. Fid.] "accursed is he who says that Cod has commanded anything impossible." But G.o.d gave this commandment, as is clear from Deut. 6:5. Therefore it is possible to fulfil this precept in this life.
Obj. 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."
Obj. 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. Just.i.t. viii): "In the fulness of heavenly charity this precept will be fulfilled: Thou shalt love the Lord thy G.o.d," etc. For as long as any carnal concupiscence remains, that can be restrained by continence, man cannot love G.o.d 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 G.o.d intends by this precept that man should be entirely united to Him, and this will be realized in heaven, when G.o.d 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 Obj. 1: This argument proves that the precept can be fulfilled after a fashion on the way, but not perfectly.
Reply Obj. 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 G.o.d, does not sin mortally.
Reply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (De Perfect. Just.i.t. 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."
_______________________
SEVENTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 44, Art. 7]
Whether the Precept of Love of Our Neighbor Is Fittingly Expressed?
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 Matt. 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.
Obj. 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.
Obj. 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 (Matt. 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 G.o.d, and as to the capacity for glory. Nor does it matter whether we say "neighbor," or "brother"
according to 1 John 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 G.o.d"s sake, even as he loves himself for G.o.d"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.
_______________________
EIGHTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 44, Art. 8]
Whether the Order of Charity Is Included in the Precept?
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.
Obj. 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 (Q. 26) is nowhere indicated in Holy Writ. Therefore it is not included in the precept.
Obj. 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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.