Utrum Deus possit totaliter amari Whether God can be loved wholly? Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Deus non possit totaliter amari. Amor enim sequitur cognitionem. Sed Deus non potest totaliter a nobis cognosci, quia hoc esset eum comprehendere. Ergo non potest a nobis totaliter amari. Objection 1: It would seem that God cannot be loved wholly. For love follows knowledge. Now God cannot be wholly known by us, since this would imply comprehension of Him. Therefore He cannot be wholly loved by us. Praeterea, amor est unio quaedam, ut patet per Dionysium, IV cap. de Div. Nom. Sed cor hominis non potest ad Deum uniri totaliter, quia Deus est maior corde nostro, ut dicitur I Ioan. III. Ergo Deus non potest totaliter amari. Obj. 2: Further, love is a kind of union, as Dionysius shows (Div. Nom. iv). But the heart of man cannot be wholly united to God, because God is greater than our heart (1 John 3:20). Therefore God cannot be loved wholly. Praeterea, Deus seipsum totaliter amat. Si igitur ab aliquo alio totaliter amatur, aliquis alius diligit Deum tantum quantum ipse se diligit. Hoc autem est inconveniens. Ergo Deus non potest totaliter diligi ab aliqua creatura. Obj. 3: Further, God loves Himself wholly. If therefore He be loved wholly by another, this one will love Him as much as God loves Himself. But this is unreasonable. Therefore God cannot be wholly loved by a creature. Sed contra est quod dicitur Deut. VI, diliges dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo. On the contrary, It is written (Deut 6:5): Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart. Respondeo dicendum quod, cum dilectio intelligatur quasi medium inter amantem et amatum, cum quaeritur an Deus possit totaliter diligi, tripliciter potest intelligi. Uno modo, ut modus totalitatis referatur ad rem dilectam. Et sic Deus est totaliter diligendus, quia totum quod ad Deum pertinet homo diligere debet. I answer that, Since love may be considered as something between lover and beloved, when we ask whether God can be wholly loved, the question may be understood in three ways, first so that the qualification wholly be referred to the thing loved, and thus God is to be loved wholly, since man should love all that pertains to God. Alio modo potest intelligi ita quod totalitas referatur ad diligentem. Et sic etiam Deus totaliter diligi debet, quia ex toto posse suo debet homo diligere Deum, et quidquid habet ad Dei amorem ordinare, secundum illud Deut. VI, diliges dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo. Second, it may be understood as though wholly qualified the lover: and thus again God ought to be loved wholly, since man ought to love God with all his might, and to refer all he has to the love of God, according to Deut. 6:5: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart. Tertio modo potest intelligi secundum comparationem diligentis ad rem dilectam, ut scilicet modus diligentis adaequet modum rei dilectae. Et hoc non potest esse. Cum enim unumquodque intantum diligibile sit inquantum est bonum, Deus, cuius bonitas est infinita, est infinite diligibilis, nulla autem creatura potest Deum infinite diligere, quia omnis virtus creaturae, sive naturalis sive infusa, est finita. Third, it may be understood by way of comparison of the lover to the thing loved, so that the mode of the lover equal the mode of the thing loved. This is impossible: for, since a thing is lovable in proportion to its goodness, God is infinitely lovable, since His goodness is infinite. Now no creature can love God infinitely, because all power of creatures, whether it be natural or infused, is finite. Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta. Nam primae tres obiectiones procedunt secundum hunc tertium sensum, ultima autem ratio procedit in sensu secundo. This suffices for the Replies to the Objections, because the first three objections consider the question in this third sense, while the last takes it in the second sense. Articulus 6 Article 6 Utrum divinae dilectionis sit aliquis modus habendus Whether in loving God we ought to observe any mode? Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod divinae dilectionis sit aliquis modus habendus. Ratio enim boni consistit in modo, specie et ordine, ut patet per Augustinum, in libro de Nat. boni. Sed dilectio Dei est optimum in homine, secundum illud ad Coloss. III, super omnia caritatem habete. Ergo dilectio Dei debet modum habere. Objection 1: It would seem that we ought to observe some mode in loving God. For the notion of good consists in mode, species and order, as Augustine states (De Nat. Boni iii, iv). Now the love of God is the best thing in man, according to Col. 3:14: Above all . . . things, have charity. Therefore there ought to be a mode of the love of God. Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in libro de Morib. Eccles., dic mihi, quaeso te, quis sit diligendi modus. Vereor enim ne plus minusve quam oportet inflammer desiderio et amore domini mei frustra autem quaereret modum nisi esset aliquis divinae dilectionis modus. Ergo est aliquis modus divinae dilectionis. Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says (De Morib. Eccl. viii): Prithee, tell me which is the mode of love. For I fear lest I burn with the desire and love of my Lord, more or less than I ought. But it would be useless to seek the mode of the Divine love, unless there were one. Therefore there is a mode of the love of God. Praeterea, sicut Augustinus dicit, IV super Gen. ad Litt., modus est quem unicuique propria mensura praefigit. Sed mensura voluntatis humanae, sicut et actionis exterioris, est ratio. Ergo sicut in exteriori effectu caritatis oportet habere modum a ratione praestitum, secundum illud Rom. XII, rationabile obsequium vestrum; ita etiam ipsa interior dilectio Dei debet modum habere. Obj. 3: Further, as Augustine says (Gen ad lit. iv, 3), the measure which nature appoints to a thing, is its mode. Now the measure of the human will, as also of external action, is the reason. Therefore just as it is necessary for the reason to appoint a mode to the exterior effect of charity, according to Rom. 12:1: Your reasonable service, so also the interior love of God requires a mode. Sed contra est quod Bernardus dicit, in libro de diligendo Deum, quod causa diligendi Deum Deus est; modus, sine modo diligere. On the contrary, Bernard says (De Dilig. Deum 1) that God is the cause of our loving God; the measure is to love Him without measure. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut patet ex inducta auctoritate Augustini, modus importat quandam mensurae determinationem. Haec autem determinatio invenitur et in mensura et in mensurato, aliter tamen et aliter. In mensura enim invenitur essentialiter, quia mensura secundum seipsam est determinativa et modificativa aliorum, in mensuratis autem invenitur mensura secundum aliud, idest inquantum attingunt mensuram. Et ideo in mensura nihil potest accipi immodificatum, sed res mensurata est immodificata nisi mensuram attingat, sive deficiat sive excedat. I answer that, As appears from the words of Augustine quoted above (Obj. 3) mode signifies a determination of measure; which determination is to be found both in the measure and in the thing measured, but not in the same way. For it is found in the measure essentially, because a measure is of itself the determining and modifying rule of other things; whereas in the things measured, it is found relatively, that is insofar as they attain to the measure. Hence there can be nothing unmodified in the measure whereas the thing measured is unmodified if it fails to attain to the measure, whether by deficiency or by excess. In omnibus autem appetibilibus et agibilibus mensura est finis, quia eorum quae appetimus et agimus oportet propriam rationem ex fine accipere, ut patet per Philosophum, in II Physic. Et ideo finis secundum seipsum habet modum, ea vero quae sunt ad finem habent modum ex eo quod sunt fini proportionata. Et ideo, sicut Philosophus dicit, in I Polit., appetitus finis in omnibus artibus est absque fine et termino, eorum autem quae sunt ad finem est aliquis terminus. Non enim medicus imponit aliquem terminum sanitati, sed facit eam perfectam quantumcumque potest, sed medicinae imponit terminum; non enim dat tantum de medicina quantum potest, sed secundum proportionem ad sanitatem; quam quidem proportionem si medicina excederet, vel ab ea deficeret, esset immoderata. Now in all matters of appetite and action the measure is the end, because the proper reason for all that we desire or do should be taken from the end, as the Philosopher proves (Phys. ii, 9). Therefore the end has a mode by itself, while the means take their mode from being proportionate to the end. Hence, according to the Philosopher (Polit. i, 3), in every art, the desire for the end is endless and unlimited, whereas there is a limit to the means: thus the physician does not put limits to health, but makes it as perfect as he possibly can; but he puts a limit to medicine, for he does not give as much medicine as he can, but according as health demands so that if he give too much or too little, the medicine would be immoderate. Finis autem omnium actionum humanarum et affectionum est Dei dilectio, per quam maxime attingimus ultimum finem, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo in dilectione Dei non potest accipi modus sicut in re mensurata, ut sit in ea accipere plus et minus, sed sicut invenitur modus in mensura, in qua non potest esse excessus, sed quanto plus attingitur regula, tanto melius est. Et ita quanto plus Deus diligitur, tanto est dilectio melior. Again, the end of all human actions and affections is the love of God, whereby principally we attain to our last end, as stated above (Q. 23, A. 6), wherefore the mode in the love of God, must not be taken as in a thing measured where we find too much or too little, but as in the measure itself, where there cannot be excess, and where the more the rule is attained the better it is, so that the more we love God the better our love is. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illud quod est per se potius est eo quod est per aliud. Et ideo bonitas mensurae, quae per se habet modum, potior est quam bonitas mensurati, quod habet modum per aliud. Et sic etiam caritas, quae habet modum sicut mensura, praeeminet aliis virtutibus, quae habent modum sicut mensuratae. Reply Obj. 1: That which is so by its essence takes precedence of that which is so through another, wherefore the goodness of the measure which has the mode essentially, takes precedence of the goodness of the thing measured, which has its mode through something else; and so too, charity, which has a mode as a measure has, stands before the other virtues, which have a mode through being measured. Ad secundum dicendum quod Augustinus ibidem subiungit quod modus diligendi Deum est ut ex toto corde diligatur, idest ut diligatur quantumcumque potest diligi. Et hoc pertinet ad modum qui convenit mensurae. Reply Obj. 2: As Augustine adds in the same passage, the measure of our love for God is to love Him with our whole heart, that is to love Him as much as He can be loved, and this belongs to the mode which is proper to the measure. Ad tertium dicendum quod affectio illa cuius obiectum subiacet iudicio rationis, est ratione mensuranda. Sed obiectum divinae dilectionis, quod est Deus, excedit iudicium rationis. Et ideo non mensuratur ratione, sed rationem excedit. Nec est simile de interiori actu caritatis et exterioribus actibus. Nam interior actus caritatis habet rationem finis, quia ultimum bonum hominis consistit in hoc quod anima Deo inhaereat, secundum illud Psalm., mihi adhaerere Deo bonum est. Exteriores autem actus sunt sicut ad finem. Et ideo sunt commensurandi et secundum caritatem et secundum rationem. Reply Obj. 3: An affection, whose object is subject to reason’s judgment, should be measured by reason. But the object of the Divine love which is God surpasses the judgment of reason, wherefore it is not measured by reason but transcends it. Nor is there parity between the interior act and external acts of charity. For the interior act of charity has the character of an end, since man’s ultimate good consists in his soul cleaving to God, according to Ps. 72:28: It is good for me to adhere to my God; whereas the exterior acts are as means to the end, and so have to be measured both according to charity and according to reason. Articulus 7 Article 7 Utrum sit magis meritorium diligere inimicum quam amicum Whether it is more meritorious to love an enemy than to love a friend? Ad septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod magis meritorium sit diligere inimicum quam amicum. Dicitur enim Matth. V, si diligitis eos qui vos diligunt, quam mercedem habebitis? Diligere ergo amicum non meretur mercedem. Sed diligere inimicum meretur mercedem, ut ibidem ostenditur. Ergo magis est meritorium diligere inimicos quam diligere amicos. Objection 1: It would seem more meritorious to love an enemy than to love a friend. For it is written (Matt 5:46): If you love them that love you, what reward shall you have? Therefore it is not deserving of reward to love one’s friend: whereas, as the same passage proves, to love one’s enemy is deserving of a reward. Therefore it is more meritorious to love one’s enemy than to love one’s friend. Praeterea, tanto aliquid est magis meritorium quanto ex maiori caritate procedit. Sed diligere inimicum est perfectorum filiorum Dei, ut Augustinus dicit, in Enchirid., diligere autem amicum est etiam caritatis imperfectae. Ergo maioris meriti est diligere inimicum quam diligere amicum. Obj. 2: Further, an act is the more meritorious through proceeding from a greater charity. But it belongs to the perfect children of God to love their enemies, as Augustine states, whereas those also who have imperfect charity love their friends. Therefore it is more meritorious to love one’s enemy than to love one’s friend. Praeterea, ubi est maior conatus ad bonum, ibi videtur esse maius meritum, quia unusquisque propriam mercedem accipiet secundum suum laborem, ut dicitur I Cor. III. Sed maiori conatu indiget homo ad hoc quod diligat inimicum quam ad hoc quod diligat amicum, quia difficilius est. Ergo videtur quod diligere inimicum sit magis meritorium quam diligere amicum. Obj. 3: Further, where there is more effort for good, there seems to be more merit, since every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor (1 Cor 3:8). Now a man has to make a greater effort to love his enemy than to love his friend, because it is more difficult. Therefore it seems more meritorious to love one’s enemy than to love one’s friend. Sed contra est quia illud quod est melius est magis meritorium. Sed melius est diligere amicum, quia melius est diligere meliorem; amicus autem, qui amat, est melior quam inimicus, qui odit. Ergo diligere amicum est magis meritorium quam diligere inimicum. On the contrary, The better an action is, the more meritorious it is. Now it is better to love one’s friend, since it is better to love a better man, and the friend who loves you is better than the enemy who hates you. Therefore it is more meritorious to love one’s friend than to love one’s enemy. Respondeo dicendum quod ratio diligendi proximum ex caritate Deus est, sicut supra dictum est. Cum ergo quaeritur quid sit melius, vel magis meritorium, utrum diligere amicum vel inimicum, dupliciter istae dilectiones comparari possunt, uno modo, ex parte proximi qui diligitur; alio modo, ex parte rationis propter quam diligitur. I answer that, God is the reason for our loving our neighbor out of charity, as stated above (Q. 25, A. 1). When therefore it is asked which is better or more meritorious, to love one’s friend or one’s enemy, these two loves may be compared in two ways, first, on the part of our neighbor whom we love, second, on the part of the reason for which we love him. Primo quidem modo dilectio amici praeeminet dilectioni inimici. Quia amicus et melior est et magis coniunctus; unde est materia magis conveniens dilectioni; et propter hoc actus dilectionis super hanc materiam transiens melior est. Unde et eius oppositum est deterius, peius enim est odire amicum quam inimicum. In the first way, love of one’s friend surpasses love of one’s enemy, because a friend is both better and more closely united to us, so that he is a more suitable matter of love and consequently the act of love that passes over this matter, is better, and therefore its opposite is worse, for it is worse to hate a friend than an enemy. Secundo autem modo dilectio inimici praeeminet, propter duo. Primo quidem, quia dilectionis amici potest esse alia ratio quam Deus, sed dilectionis inimici solus Deus est ratio. Secundo quia, supposito quod uterque propter Deum diligatur, fortior ostenditur esse Dei dilectio quae animum hominis ad remotiora extendit, scilicet usque ad dilectionem inimicorum, sicut virtus ignis tanto ostenditur esse fortior quanto ad remotiora diffundit suum calorem. Tanto etiam ostenditur divina dilectio esse fortior quanto propter ipsam difficiliora implemus, sicut et virtus ignis tanto est fortior quanto comburere potest materiam minus combustibilem. In the second way, however, it is better to love one’s enemy than one’s friend, and this for two reasons. First, because it is possible to love one’s friend for another reason than God, whereas God is the only reason for loving one’s enemy. Second, because if we suppose that both are loved for God, our love for God is proved to be all the stronger through carrying a man’s affections to things which are furthest from him, namely, to the love of his enemies, even as the power of a furnace is proved to be the stronger, according as it throws its heat to more distant objects. Hence our love for God is proved to be so much the stronger, as the more difficult are the things we accomplish for its sake, just as the power of fire is so much the stronger, as it is able to set fire to a less inflammable matter. Sed sicut idem ignis in propinquiora fortius agit quam in remotiora, ita etiam caritas ferventius diligit coniunctos quam remotos. Et quantum ad hoc dilectio amicorum, secundum se considerata, est ferventior et melior quam dilectio inimicorum. Yet just as the same fire acts with greater force on what is near than on what is distant, so too, charity loves with greater fervor those who are united to us than those who are far removed; and in this respect the love of friends, considered in itself, is more ardent and better than the love of one’s enemy. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod verbum domini est per se intelligendum. Tunc enim dilectio amicorum apud Deum mercedem non habet, quando propter hoc solum amantur quia amici sunt, et hoc videtur accidere quando sic amantur amici quod inimici non diliguntur. Est tamen meritoria amicorum dilectio si propter Deum diligantur, et non solum quia amici sunt. Reply Obj. 1: The words of Our Lord must be taken in their strict sense: because the love of one’s friends is not meritorious in God’s sight when we love them merely because they are our friends: and this would seem to be the case when we love our friends in such a way that we love not our enemies. On the other hand the love of our friends is meritorious, if we love them for God’s sake, and not merely because they are our friends. Ad alia patet responsio per ea quae dicta sunt. Nam duae rationes sequentes procedunt ex parte rationis diligendi; ultima vero ex parte eorum qui diliguntur. The Reply to the other Objections is evident from what has been said in the article, because the two arguments that follow consider the reason for loving, while the last considers the question on the part of those who are loved. Articulus 8 Article 8 Utrum sit magis meritorium diligere proximum quam diligere Deum Whether it is more meritorious to love one’s neighbor than to love God? Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod magis sit meritorium diligere proximum quam diligere Deum. Illud enim videtur esse magis meritorium quod apostolus magis elegit. Sed apostolus praeelegit dilectionem proximi dilectioni Dei, secundum illud ad Rom. IX, optabam anathema esse a Christo pro fratribus meis. Ergo magis est meritorium diligere proximum quam diligere Deum. Objection 1: It would seem that it is more meritorious to love one’s neighbor than to love God. For the more meritorious thing would seem to be what the Apostle preferred. Now the Apostle preferred the love of our neighbor to the love of God, according to Rom. 9:3: I wished myself to be an anathema from Christ for my brethren. Therefore it is more meritorious to love one’s neighbor than to love God.