Matthew § 92

(de Doctr. Christ. i. 22.) Or otherwise; You are commanded to love God with all thy heart, that your whole thoughts—with all thy soul, that your whole life—with all thy mind, that your whole understanding—may be given to Him from whom you have that you give. Thus He has left no part of our life which may justly be unfilled of Him, or give place to the desire after any other final good; but if aught else present itself for the soul's love, it should be absorbed into that channel in which the whole current of love runs. For man is then the most perfect when his whole life tends towards the life unchangeable, and clings to it with the whole purpose of his soul.

(De Doctr. Christ. i. 30. et 26.) But since the Divine substance is more excellent and higher than our nature, the command to love God is distinct from that to love our neighbour. But if by yourself, you understand your whole self, that is both your soul and your body, and in like manner of your neighbour, there is no sort of things to be loved omitted in these commands. The love of God goes first, and the rule thereof is so set out to us as to make all other loves center in that, so that nothing seems said of loving yourself. But then follows, Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself, so that love of yourself is not omitted.

But affectual charity is not so: for it draws its order from the first things. For it is wisdom, through which certainly each thing savors as it is: so that, for example, what is of greater value by nature, the affection itself also feels to be of greater value; lesser things less, the least things least. And that order of charity truth makes; but this order the charity of truth claims for itself. For charity is true in this also, that those who are in greater need receive first: and in turn in this truth appears dear, if we hold in affection the order which truth holds by reason. If therefore you love the Lord your God with your whole heart, your whole soul, and your whole strength (Mt 22:37); and leaping beyond that love of love, with which actual charity is content, by a more fervent affection, you receive at close range the divine love itself, toward which that is a step, having received the Spirit in fullness, and wholly catch fire: God surely savors to you, even if not altogether worthily as he is (which indeed is impossible for every creature), yet certainly as your capacity for savoring is. Then you will also savor to yourself as you are, when you perceive that you have absolutely nothing for which you may love yourself except insofar as you are God's: since you have poured out the whole of that for which you love, into him. You will savor, I say, to yourself as you are, when by the very experience of your love, and the affection which you will have toward yourself, you find that you are worthy of nothing that might be loved by you yourself, except on account of him, without whom you yourself are nothing.

Because love is the weight of the mind and the origin of every mental affection, which easily turns back upon itself but with difficulty tends toward one's neighbor and with still greater difficulty is raised up to God, it follows that although four things are to be loved from charity, nevertheless a twofold commandment is given: one which directs us toward God, and another which directs us toward our neighbor.

And because all precepts are referred either to God or to neighbor, as to the end and to that which is ordered to the end; hence it is that in these two commandments is enclosed the collection of the commandments and the comprehension of all the Scriptures. And charity itself is the root, form, and end of the virtues, joining all things with the ultimate end and binding all things to one another simultaneously and in order; therefore it is the weight of ordered inclination and the bond of perfect binding, order indeed preserving with respect to the diverse objects of love as regards both affection and effect, unity however having in habit as regards one end and one principal beloved, which is the reason for loving with respect to all other things.

The incarnate Word restores no one unless he both conceives it by believing in his heart and brings forth outwardly what is believed by confessing with due confession; of this kind is truthful confession full of truth, which is not only speculative truth but also practical. This moreover is that in which the whole person is conformed to truth according to the understanding of reason, according to the delight of the will, and according to the adherence of virtue, so that it may be with the whole heart, the whole soul, and the whole mind, and may be from a pure heart, a good conscience, and an unfeigned faith: and such is a confession that is whole, pleasing, and intrepid: so that it may be whole by reason of Him of whom it is; pleasing by reason of Him before whom it is made; intrepid by reason of him by whom that confession must be made. Since therefore the fainthearted person is not fit for this unless he is confirmed by the hand of grace from above, therefore for this purpose the Sacrament of confirmation was divinely instituted as immediately following baptism.

But if they shall so love God with the whole heart, the whole mind, the whole soul, that yet the whole heart, the whole mind, the whole soul shall not suffice for the worthiness of that love: assuredly they shall so rejoice with the whole heart, the whole mind, the whole soul, that the whole heart, the whole mind, the whole soul shall not suffice for the fullness of that joy.

Not yet therefore, Lord, have I said or conceived how greatly those Blessed ones of yours shall rejoice. Surely they shall rejoice as much as they shall love; they shall love as much as they shall know. How much shall they know you and how much shall they love you? Certainly neither eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor has it ascended into the heart of man in this life, how much they shall know and love you in that life.

"Which is the first and great commandment in the Law?" The Lord responds: "You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. And the second is like it: you shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two the whole Law and the Prophets depend." Augustine shows that in this word: "But it is good for me to adhere to God," the whole of what is said is contained: "You shall love the Lord your God," etc. For we ought to love God, because this is just, holy, easy, and sweet. Whence Augustine: "Lord, who are you to me? And who am I to you, that you command me to love you, and if I do not love you, you threaten me with immense miseries?"

According to this threefold progress, our mind has three principal aspects. One is toward exterior corporeal things, according to which it is called animality or sensuality; another within itself and in itself, according to which it is called spirit; the third above itself, according to which it is called mind. From all of which it ought to dispose itself for ascending into God, so that it may love Him with all its mind, with all its heart, and with all its soul, in which consists the perfect observance of the Law and, together with this, Christian wisdom.

And to me in particular there came back the memory of a corrugated iron hut used as an R.A.F. chapel — a few kneeling airmen — and a young chaplain uttering the prayer, 'Teach us, O Lord, to love the things Thou standest for.' He was perfectly sincere, and I willingly believe that the things in question included something more and better than 'the Western values', whatever those may be.

And yet... his words seemed to me to imply a point of view incompatible with Christianity or indeed with any serious Theism whatever. God is not, for it, the goal or end. He is (and how fortunate!) enlightened; has, or 'stands for', the right ideals. He is valued for that reason. He ranks, admittedly, as a leader. But of course a leader leads to something beyond himself. That something else is the real goal. This is miles away from 'Thou hast made us for Thyself and our heart has no rest till it comes to Thee.' The Maenads were more religious.

Some writers use the word charity to describe not only Christian love between human beings, but also God's love for man and man's love for God. About the second of these two, people are often worried. They are told they ought to love God. They cannot find any such feeling in themselves. What are they to do? The answer is the same as before. Act as if you did. Do not sit trying to manufacture feelings. Ask yourself, 'If I were sure that I loved God, what would I do?' When you have found the answer, go and do it.

Here is the paradox of Christianity. As practical imperatives for here and now the two great commandments have to be translated "Behave as if you loved God and man." For no man can love because he is told to. Yet obedience on this practical level is not really obedience at all. And if a man really loved God and man, once again this would hardly be obedience; for if he did, he would be unable to help it. Thus the command really says to us, "Ye must be born again." Till then, we have duty, morality, the Law. A schoolmaster, as St. Paul says, to bring us to Christ. We must expect no more of it than of a schoolmaster; we must allow it no less. I must say my prayers today whether I feel devout or not; but that is only as I must learn my grammar if I am ever to read the poets.

And now that I come to think of it, there's no practical problem before me at all. I know the two great commandments, and I'd better get on with them. Indeed, H's death has ended the practical problem. While she was alive I could, in practice, have put her before God; that is, could have done what she wanted instead of what He wanted; if there'd been a conflict. What's left is not a problem about anything I could _do_. It's all about weights of feelings and motives and that sort of thing. It's a problem I'm setting myself. I don't believe God set it me at all.

Therefore the first commandment teaches every kind of godliness. For to love God with the whole heart is the cause of every good. The second commandment includes the righteous acts we do toward other people. The first commandment prepares the way for the second and in turn is established by the second. For the person who is grounded in the love of God clearly also loves his neighbor in all things himself. The kind of person who fulfills these two commandments experiences all the commandments.

Or, with all thy heart, i. e. understanding; with all thy soul, i.e. thy will; with all thy mind, i.e. memory; so you shall think, will, remember nothing contrary to Him.

What then saith Christ? Indicating from what they were led to this; from having no charity, from pining with envy, from being seized by jealousy, He saith, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

But wherefore "like unto this?" Because this makes the way for that, and by it is again established; "For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light;" and again, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." And what in consequence of this? "They are corrupt, and become abominable in their ways." And again, "The love of money is the root of all evils; which while some coveted after they have erred from the faith;" and, "He that loveth me, will keep my commandment."

However, now as he responds, he says, "Love the Lord your God with your whole heart, your whole soul and your whole mind." This is the greatest and the first commandment. His statement contains something necessary for us to know, since it is the greatest. The others—even to the least of them—are inferior to it.

Worthy is he, confirmed in all his gifts, who exults in the wisdom of God, having a heart full of the love of God, and a soul completely enlightened by the lamp of knowledge and a mind filled with the word of God. It follows then that all such gifts truly come from God. He would understand that all the law and the prophets are in some way a part of the wisdom and knowledge of God. He would understand that all the law and the prophets depend upon and adhere to the principle of the love of the Lord God and of neighbor and that the perfection of piety consists in love.

Or otherwise; With all thy heart, that is, in all recollection, act, thought; with all thy soul, to be ready, that is, to lay it down for God's religion; with all thy mind, bringing forth nothing but what is of God. And consider whether you cannot thus take the heart of the understanding, by which we contemplate things intellectual, and the mind of that by which we utter thoughts, walking as it were with the mind through each expression, and uttering it.

But the Lord so answers him, as at once to lay bare the dissimulation of his enquiry, Jesus saith unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. Thou shalt love, not 'fear,' for to love is more than to fear; to fear belongs to slaves, to love to sons; fear is in compulsion, love in freedom. Whoso serves God in fear escapes punishment, but has not the reward of righteousness because he did well unwillingly through fear. God does not desire to be served servilely by men as a master, but to be loved as a father, for that He has given the spirit of adoption to men. But to love God with the whole heart, is to have the heart inclined to the love of no one thing more than of God. To love God again with the whole soul is to have the mind stayed upon the truth, and to be firm in the faith. For the love of the heart and the love of the soul are different. The first is in a sort carnal, that we should love God even with our flesh, which we cannot do unless we first depart from the love of the things of this world. The love of the heart is felt in the heart, but the love of the soul is not felt, but is perceived because it consists in a judgment of the soul. For he who believes that all good is in God, and that without Him is no good, he loves God with his whole soul. But to love God with the whole mind, is to have all the faculties open and unoccupied for Him. He only loves God with his whole mind, whose intellect ministers to God, whose wisdom is employed about God, whose thoughts travail in the things of God, and whose memory holds the things which are good.

Accordingly, the divine law enjoins duties in respect of both these attributes: Thou shalt love God, and, Thou shalt fear God. It proposed one for the obedient man, the other for the transgressor.

To recapitulate, then: Shall that very flesh, which the Divine Creator formed with His own hands in the image of God; which He animated with His own afflatus, after the likeness of His own vital vigour; which He set over all the works of His hand, to dwell amongst, to enjoy, and to rule them; which He clothed with His sacraments and His instructions; whose purity He loves, whose mortifications He approves; whose sufferings for Himself He deems precious;-(shall that flesh, I say), so often brought near to God, not rise again? God forbid, God forbid, (I repeat), that He should abandon to everlasting destruction the labour of His own hands, the care of His own thoughts, the receptacle of His own Spirit, the queen of His creation, the inheritor of His own liberality, the priestess of His religion, the champion of His testimony, the sister of His Christ! We know by experience the goodness of God; from His Christ we learn that He is the only God, and the very good. Now, as He requires from us love to our neighbour after love to Himself, so He will Himself do that which He has commanded.

Thus, "love covers the multitude of sins; " and loving God, to wit, with all its strength (by which in the endurance of martyrdom it maintains the fight), with all its life (which it lays down for God), it makes of man a martyr.

And we know the quality of the hortatory addresses of carnal conveniences, how easy it is to say, "I must believe with my whole heart; I must love God, and my neighbour as myself: for `on these two precepts the whole Law hangeth, and the prophets, 'not on the emptiness of my lungs and intestines.

Hence there follows the response: Jesus said to him: thou shalt love the Lord thy God, etc. And he not only responds to the proposed question, but teaches the truth. And first he teaches what is the first commandment; secondly, what is similar to it; thirdly, he assigns the reason. The second is at and the second is like to this, etc. The third at on these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets. He says, therefore, thou shalt love the Lord thy God, etc. This is written in Deuteronomy 6:5. Likewise, the Lord through Moses says in Deuteronomy 10:14: what doth the Lord require of thee, but that thou fear and love him? Therefore he commands two things, namely, fear and love. And why does the Lord not respond about fear, as about love? It must be said that some fear God who fear to suffer from him, as those who fear the punishment of hell, or who fear to lose something that they have from God; and this is servile fear, because one loves that in which one fears to be punished. But another fears God himself for his own sake, who fears to offend him; and such fear is from love, and one fears from this, that one loves; therefore the principle is love; 1 John 4:16: God is charity, and he that abideth in charity abideth in God, and God in him. And therefore he says, thou shalt love the Lord; not fear, because God is to be loved as the first lovable object, because he himself is the first end, but whatever other things are loved are loved for the sake of the end. He, therefore, who loves God as the end, loves with his whole heart; Joel 2:12: be converted to me with all your heart. And however much you may strive, you will not be able to comprehend him, because God is greater than the whole heart. But what does it mean when he says, with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with all thy mind? Chrysostom explains it thus: because in love there are two things: one which is the principle; the second which is the effect and sequel of love. The principle of love is twofold. For love can arise from passion, and from the judgment of reason: from passion, when a man does not know how to live without that which he loves; from reason, according as he loves as reason dictates. He says, therefore, that one loves with his whole heart who loves in a carnal way; one who loves from the judgment of reason, with his soul. And we ought to love God in both ways: in a carnal way, so that the heart is carnally affected toward God; hence in Psalm 83:3: my heart and my flesh have rejoiced in the living God. The third is the sequel of love, because what I love, I gladly see, gladly think about, gladly do what pleases it; John 14:23: he that loveth me will keep my word; and I refer everything to him; Psalm 83:2: how lovely are thy tabernacles, O Lord of hosts. My soul longeth and fainteth for the courts of the Lord. And we can add what Mark adds, and with all thy strength, because he who loves God transfers his whole self into him, and expends his strength upon him. Augustine distinguishes between heart and soul and mind according to the three things that proceed from them. From the heart come forth thoughts, as is found above at 15:19; from the soul, life proceeds; from the mind, knowledge and understanding. Hence what he says, with thy whole heart, is to be understood as meaning that we should refer all our thoughts to him; with thy whole soul, that our whole life; with all thy mind, that all our knowledge be referred to him, i.e., that you take your knowledge captive in obedience to him; 2 Corinthians 10:5: bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ. A certain magisterial Gloss explains that the soul is the image of God according to its powers, according to memory, understanding, and will, such that what is said with the heart is referred to understanding; what is said with the soul, to the will; what is said with the mind, to memory, so that one may live perfectly for God. Origen explains it thus: thou shalt love God with thy whole soul, so that you may be ready to lay down your soul for him if it is necessary; John 13:37: I will lay down my life for thee. But there is a difference between mind and heart. For mind is so called from measuring; heart is taken for the simplicity of the intellect; but mind refers to expression, because through speech the intellect or thought is measured: hence he means that in our speech and in our meditations we should love God totally.

Before his passion, the doctors of the Law asked Christ which was the greatest and first commandment. He said (Mt 22:37): "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and all your mind; this is the greatest and first commandment." And that is truly the greatest, most noble and most beneficial of all the commandments, as has adequately been shown. For in this commandment all the other commandments are fulfilled.

But to fulfill this commandment of love perfectly, four things are required. The first is the recollection of the divine benefits, because all that we have, whether our soul or body or exterior things, we have them all from God. Therefore we must serve him with all this and love him with a perfect heart. A man would be extremely ungrateful if, after thinking of all the benefits he received from someone, he did not love him. With this in mind, David said (1 Chron 29:14): "All belongs to you. What we received from you we give to you." Therefore in his praise it is said (Sir 47:10): "With all his heart he praised the Lord, and loved the God who made him."

The second is consideration of the divine excellence. For God is greater than our hearts (1 Jn 3); so if we serve him with our whole heart and strength we still fall short (Sir. 43:32-33): "When you praise the Lord, exalt him as much as you can, for he will surpass even that. When you exalt him put forth all your strength and do not grow weary, for you cannot praise him enough."

The third is renunciation of worldly and earthly things. For it is a big offense against God to equate him with anything else (Is 40:18): "To whom can you compare God?" We liken other things to God when we love temporal and corruptible things along with God. But this is altogether impossible. So it is said (Is 28:20): "The bed is too short to stretch out in it, and the covering is too short to wrap oneself in it." There the heart of man is compared to a cramped bed and a short cover. For the human heart is cramped with regard to God, so that when you take into your heart things other than him you push him out. For he cannot endure any bed-fellow in the soul, just like a husband with a wife. And so he himself states (Ex 20:5): "I, Yahweh your God am a jealous God." For he does not want us to love anything as much as him or besides him.

The fourth is complete avoidance of sin. For no one can love God when he is living in sin (Mt 6:24): "You cannot serve God and mammon." So, if you are living in sin, you do not love God. But that man loved God who said (Is 38:3): "Remember how I walked before you faithfully with a perfect heart." Also Elijah said (1 Kg 18:21): "For how long will you go on limping with two opinions?" As a lame person bends this way and that, so a sinner wavers between sinning and seeking God. Therefore the Lord said (Joel 2:12): "Turn to me with all your heart."

But against that command, two kinds of people sin: (1) those who avoid one kind of sin, such as unchastity, while falling into another, such as usury. But they are still condemned, because "whoever offends in one point is guilty of breaking the whole law" (Jm 2:10). (2) Then there are those who confess some sins, and others not, or they split their confession between two or more confessors. But these do not merit, and rather sin by doing so, because they intend to deceive God and they are making a rift in the sacrament.

Against the first group someone said, "It is unholy to hope for half-pardon from God." As for the second group (Ps 61:9): "Pour out your hearts before him," because in confession all is to be revealed.

It has now been shown that man must give himself to God. Now we have to see what is in him that he owes to God. Man owes God four things: his heart, his soul, his mind and his strength. And so it is said (Mt 22:37): "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and all your strength." The "heart" here stands for intention. Intention has the power of drawing all actions under its sway, so that any good works done with a bad intention are turned into bad works (Lk 11:34): "If your eye", that is, your intention, "is evil, your whole body will be dark;" that is, the totality of your good works will be dark. Therefore, in whatever we do our intention should be set on God. The Apostle says (1 Cor 10:31): "Whether you eat or drink or do any other thing, do all for the glory of God."

But a good intention is not enough, but there must also be a good will, which is indicated by the term "soul". For it often happens that someone acts with a good intention, but to no avail, because a good will is missing. For example, someone may steal to feed the poor; his intention is right, but he is lacking the requisite good will. So no evil can be excused because it is done with a good intention (Rm 3:8): "Those who [say we] say 'Let us do evil so that good may come' are justly condemned." A good will accompanies an intention when the will itself harmonizes with the divine will, and that we ask every day: "Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven." And (Ps 39:9): "I delight to do your will, my God." That is why it is said "with all your soul." For the soul is often used in Scripture for the will, as in (Heb 10:38): "If he shrinks back, my soul", that is, my will, "has no pleasure in him."

But sometimes a good intention and good will are present, but there is some sin in the intellect. Therefore the whole intellect must be given to God. The Apostle says (2 Cor 10:5): "taking every intellect [thought] captive to obey Christ." For many do not sin by deed, but they like to think much about sins. Against them it is said (Is 1:16): "Remove the evil of your thoughts [deeds]." There are also many who trust in their own wisdom and refuse to accept the Faith; such are not giving their minds to God. Against them it is said (Prov 3:5): "Do not rely on your own perception."

But that is not enough. One must give God all one's power and strength (Ps 58:10 Vulgate): "I will guard my strength with you." For there are some who use their strength to sin, thereby displaying their power. Against these it is said (Is 5:22): "Woe to you who are heroes at drinking wine, valiant men at mixing strong drink." Others show their power or strength to hurt their neighbors, whereas they should have displayed it by helping them (Prov 24:11): "Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter."

So to love God, the following must be given to God: intention, will, mind and strength.

This he adds since the Pharisees have asked truly "What is the greatest commandment in the law?" The Lord himself responds to them and teaches us. Not only is the greatest commandment to love the Lord, but as well it is the first commandment. It is first, however, not in the order of the Scriptures but in the order of virtue. And as this comes from such a source, it must be adhered to, since as with many established commands, Christ says that it is the first and greatest command that "you love the Lord your God with your whole heart and your whole mind and your whole soul," and the second, however, "is like unto" the first; and accordingly, this similitude is also great, "that you love your neighbor as you love yourself." This is how we understand the second one, while another may be third in magnitude and order, or a fourth, and so in order we number the commands of the law, accepting this as wisdom from God, who orders them even to the least. Such is the task of no one else but Christ alone, since he is "the power of God and the wisdom of God."

If the Lord had given no answer to the Pharisee who thus tempted Him, we should have judged that there was no commandment greater than the rest. But when the Lord adds, This is the first and great commandment, we learn how we ought to think of the commandments, that there is a great one, and that there are less down to the least. And the Lord says not only that it is a great, but that it is the first commandment, not in order of Scripture, but in supremacy of value. They only take upon them the greatness and supremacy of this precept, who not only love the Lord their God, but add these three conditions.

Having stated this, he adds, this is the greatest and the first commandment. Greatest in capacity: for this is the one in which all are contained, because in this the love of neighbor is contained, according to what is said in 1 John 4:21: he who loveth God, loveth also his brother; and therefore it is the greatest. Likewise, it is first in origin, greatest in dignity and capacity. Not first in Scripture, because in Scripture the first commandment was, the Lord thy God is one God, Deuteronomy 6:4. And why? Because every inclination of the appetitive power is in love: therefore we have the commandment that we should worship God in love; Romans 13:10: love is the fulfilling of the law; Ephesians 3:17: rooted and founded in charity.

(de Doctr. Christ. i. 30.) It is clear that every man is to be regarded as a neighbour, because evil is to be done to no man. Further, if every one to whom we are bound to show service of mercy, (vid. Rom. 13:10.) or who is bound to show it to us, be rightly called our neighbour, it is manifest that in this precept are comprehended the holy Angels who perform for us those services of which we may read in Scripture. Whence also our Lord Himself would be called our neighbour; for it was Himself whom He represents as the good Samaritan, who gave succour to the man who was left half-dead by the way.

(de Trin. viii. 6.) He that loves men ought to love them either because they are righteous, or that they may be righteous; and so also ought he to love himself either for that he is, or that he may be righteous. And thus without peril he may love his neighbour as himself.

(de Doctr. Christ, i. 22.) But if even yourself you ought not to love for your own sake, but because of Him in whom is the rightful end of your love, let not another man be displeased that you love even him for God's sake. Whoso then rightly loves his neighbour, ought to endeavour with him that he also with his whole heart love God.

So it is necessary that you also receive in this way the command that you love your neighbor as yourself (Mt 22:39), even if it is not so openly expressed. Or do you not finally judge it sufficient for fulfilling this commandment concerning love of neighbor, if you perfectly observe that which is rightly prescribed to every man by the law of nature: "What you do not wish done to you, do not do to another"? (Tob 4:16.) And likewise: "Whatever you wish that men should do to you, do also to them" (Mt 7:12).

"Which is the first and great commandment in the Law?" The Lord responds: "You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. And the second is like it: you shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two the whole Law and the Prophets depend." Augustine shows that in this word: "But it is good for me to adhere to God," the whole of what is said is contained: "You shall love the Lord your God," etc. For we ought to love God, because this is just, holy, easy, and sweet. Whence Augustine: "Lord, who are you to me? And who am I to you, that you command me to love you, and if I do not love you, you threaten me with immense miseries?"

You are told to love your neighbors as yourself. How do you love yourself? When I look into my own mind, I find that I do not love myself by thinking myself a dear old chap or having affectionate feelings. I do not think that I love myself because I am particularly good, but just because I am myself and quite apart from my character. I might detest something which I have done. Nevertheless, I do not cease to love myself. In other words, that definite distinction that Christians make between hating sin and loving the sinner is one that you have been making in your own case since you were born. You dislike what you have done, but you don't cease to love yourself. You may even think that you ought to be hanged. You may even think that you ought to go to the police and own up and be hanged. Love is not affectionate feeling, but a steady wish for the loved person's ultimate good as far as it can be obtained. It seems to me, therefore, that when the worst comes to the worst, if you cannot restrain a man by any method except by trying to kill him, then a Christian must do that. That is my answer. But I may be wrong. It is very difficult to answer, of course.

I said in a previous chapter that chastity was the most unpopular of the Christian virtues. But I am not sure I was right. I believe there is one even more unpopular. It is laid down in the Christian rule, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as theyself.' Because in Christian morals 'thy neighbor' includes 'thy enemy', and so we come up against this terrible duty of forgiving our enemies...

We might try to understand exactly what loving your neighbor as yourself means. I have to love him as I love myself. Well, how exactly do I love myself?

Now that I come to think of it, I have no exactly got a feeling of fondness or affection for myself, and I do not even always enjoy my own society. So apparently 'Love your neighbour' does not mean 'feel fond of him' or 'find him attractive'. I ought to have seen that before, because, of course, you cannot feel fond of a person by trying. Do I think well of myself, think myself a nice chap? Well, I am afraid I sometimes do (and those are, no doubt, my worst moments) but that is not why I love myself. In fact it is the other way round: my self-love makes me think myself nice, but thinking myself nice is not why I love myself. So loving my enemies does not apparently mean thinking them nice either. That is an enormous relief. For a good many people imagine that forgiving your enemies means making out that they are really not such bad fellows after all, when it is quite plain that they are. Go a step further. In my most clear-sighted moments not only do I not think myself a nice man, but I know that I am a very nasty one. I can look at some of the things I have done with horror and loathing. So apparently I am allowed to loathe and hate some of the things my enemies do...

Does loving your enemy mean not punishing him? No, for loving myself does not mean that I ought not to subject myself to punishment - even to death. If you had committed a murder, the right Christian thing to do would be to give yourself up to the police and be hanged...

I imagine somebody will say, 'Well, if one is allowed to condemn the enemy's acts, and punish him, and kill him, what difference is left between Christian morality and the ordinary view?' All the difference in the world. Remember, we Christians think man lives for ever. Therefore, what really matters is those little marks or twists on the central, inside part of the soul which are going to turn it, in the long run, into a heavenly or hellish creature. We may kill if necessary, but we must not hate and enjoy hating. We may punish if necessary, but we must not enjoy it. In other words, something insude us, the feeling of resentment, the feeling that wants to get one own's back, must be simply killed... Even while we kill and punish we must try to feel about the enemy as we feel about ourselves - to wish that he were not bad, to hope that he may, in this world or another, be cured: in fact, to wish his good. That is what is meant in the Bible by loving him: wishing his good, not feeling fond of him nor saying he is nice when he is not.

I admit that this means loving people who have nothing lovable about them. But then, has oneself anything lovable about it? You love it simply because it is yourself. God intends us to love all selves in the same way and for the same reason: but He has given us the sum ready worked out in our own case to show us how it works. We have then to go on and apply the rule to all the other selves. Perhaps it makes it easier if we remember that that is how He loves us. Not for any nice, attractive qualities we think we have, but just because we are the things called selves.

Even the New Testament bids me love my neighbor "as myself," which would be a horrible command if the self were simply to be hated. Yet our Lord also says that a true disciple must "hate his own life." We must not explain this apparent contradiction by saying that self-love is right up to a certain point and wrong beyond that point. The question is not one of degree. There are two kinds of self-hatred which look rather alike in their earlier stages, but of which one is wrong from the beginning and the other right to the end...

Now, the self can be regarded in two ways. On the one hand, it is God's creature, an occasion of love and rejoicing; now, indeed, hateful in condition, but to be pitied and healed. On the other hand, it is that one self of all others which is called I and me, and which on that ground puts forward an irrational claim to preference. This claim is to be not only hated, but simply killed... The Christian must wage endless war against the clamor of the ego as ego: but he loves and approves selves as such, though not their sins. The very self-love which he has to reject is to him a specimen of how he ought to feel to all selves; and he may hope that when he has truly learned (which will hardly be in this life) to love his neighbor as himself, he may then be able to love himself as his neighbor: that is, with charity instead of partiality.

If we were perfected, prayer would not be a duty, it would be delight. Some day, please God, it will be. The same is true of many other behaviours which now appear as duties. If I loved my neighbour as myself, most of the actions which are now my moral duty would flow out of me as spontaneously as song from a lark or fragrance from a flower. Why is this not so yet? Well, we know, don't we? Aristotle has taught us that delight is the "bloom" on an unimpeded activity. But the very activities for which we were created are, while we live on earth, variously impeded: by evil in ourselves or in others. Not to practise them is to abandon our humanity. To practise them spontaneously and delightfully is not yet possible. This situation creates the category of duty, the whole specifically _moral_ realm.

It exists to be transcended.

It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no _ordinary_ people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations—these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit—immortal horrors or everlasting splendours.

And yet Eros is in a sense right to make this promise. The event of falling in love is of such a nature that we are right to reject as intolerable the idea that it should be transitory. In one high bound it has overleaped the massive wall of our selfhood; it has made appetite itself altruistic, tossed personal happiness aside as a triviality and planted the interests of another in the centre of our being. Spontaneously and without effort we have fulfilled the law (towards one person) by loving our neighbour as ourselves. It is an image, a foretaste, of what we must become to all if Love Himself rules in us without a rival. It is even (well used) a preparation for that.

I pointed out in the chapter on Forgiveness that our love for ourselves does not mean that we like ourselves. It means that we wish our own good. In the same way Christian Love (or Charity) for our neighbours is quite a different thing from liking or affection. We 'like' or are 'fond of' some people, and not of others. It is important to understand that this natural 'liking' is neither a sin nor a virtue, any more than your likes and dislikes in food are a sin or a virtue. It is just a fact. But, of course, what we do about it is either sinful or virtuous.

Natural liking or affection for people makes it easier to be 'charitable' towards them. It is, therefore, normally a duty to encourage our affections—to 'like' people as much as we can (just as it is often our duty to encourage our liking for exercise or wholesome food)—not because this liking is itself the virtue of charity, but because it is a help to it. On the other hand, it is also necessary to keep a very sharp look-out for fear our liking for some one person makes us uncharitable, or even unfair, to someone else. There are even cases where our liking conflicts with our charity towards the person we like. For example, a doting mother may be tempted by natural affection to 'spoil' her child; that is, to gratify her own affectionate impulses at the expense of the child's real happiness later on.

But though natural likings should normally be encouraged, it would be quite wrong to think that the way to become charitable is to sit trying to manufacture affectionate feelings. Some people are 'cold' by temperament; that may be a misfortune for them, but it is no more a sin than having a bad digestion is a sin; and it does not cut them out from the chance, or excuse them from the duty, of learning charity.

We make our friends; we make our enemies; but God makes our next-door neighbour. Hence he comes to us clad in all the careless terrors of nature; he is as strange as the stars, as reckless and indifferent as the rain. He is Man, the most terrible of the beasts. That is why the old religions and the old scriptural language showed so sharp a wisdom when they spoke, not of one's duty towards humanity, but one's duty towards one's neighbour. The duty towards humanity may often take the form of some choice which is personal or even pleasurable. That duty may be a hobby; it may even be a dissipation. We may work in the East End because we are peculiarly fitted to work in the East End, or because we think we are; we may fight for the cause of international peace because we are very fond of fighting. The most monstrous martyrdom, the most repulsive experience, may be the result of choice or a kind of taste. We may be so made as to be particularly fond of lunatics or specially interested in leprosy. We may love negroes because they are black or German Socialists because they are pedantic. But we have to love our neighbour because he is there—a much more alarming reason for a much more serious operation. He is the sample of humanity which is actually given us. Precisely because he may be anybody he is everybody. He is a symbol because he is an accident.

In the feverish summer of this fanaticism there arose the phrase that this or that part of England is being "built over." Now, there is not the slightest objection, in itself, to England being built over by men, any more than there is to its being (as it is already) built over by birds, or by squirrels, or by spiders. But if birds' nests were so thick on a tree that one could see nothing but nests and no leaves at all, I should say that bird civilization was becoming a bit decadent. If whenever I tried to walk down the road I found the whole thoroughfare one crawling carpet of spiders, closely interlocked, I should feel a distress verging on distaste. If one were at every turn crowded, elbowed, overlooked, overcharged, sweated, rack-rented, swindled, and sold up by avaricious and arrogant squirrels, one might at last remonstrate. But the great towns have grown intolerable solely because of such suffocating vulgarities and tyrannies. It is not humanity that disgusts us in the huge cities; it is inhumanity. It is not that there are human beings; but that they are not treated as such. We do not, I hope, dislike men and women; we only dislike their being made into a sort of jam: crushed together so that they are not merely powerless but shapeless. It is not the presence of people that makes London appalling. It is merely the absence of The People.

Therefore, I dance with joy to think that my part of England is being built over, so long as it is being built over in a human way at human intervals and in a human proportion. So long, in short, as I am not myself built over, like a pagan slave buried in the foundations of a temple, or an American clerk in a star-striking pagoda of flats, I am delighted to see the faces and the homes of a race of bipeds, to which I am not only attracted by a strange affection, but to which also (by a touching coincidence) I actually happen to belong. I am not one desiring deserts. I am not Timon of Athens; if my town were Athens I would stay in it. I am not Simeon Stylites; except in the mournful sense that every Saturday I find myself on the top of a newspaper column. I am not in the desert repenting of some monstrous sins; at least, I am repenting of them all right, but not in the desert. I do not want the nearest human house to be too distant to see; that is my objection to the wilderness. But neither do I want the nearest human house to be too close to see; that is my objection to the modern city. I love my fellow-man; I do not want him so far off that I can only observe anything of him through a telescope, nor do I want him so close that I can examine parts of him with a microscope. I want him within a stone's throw of me; so that whenever it is really necessary, I may throw the stone.

Perhaps, after all, it may not be a stone. Perhaps, after all, it may be a bouquet, or a snowball, or a firework, or a Free Trade Loaf; perhaps they will ask for a stone and I shall give them bread. But it is essential that they should be within reach: how can I love my neighbour as myself if he gets out of range for snowballs? There should be no institution out of the reach of an indignant or admiring humanity. I could hit the nearest house quite well with the catapult; but the truth is that the catapult belongs to a little boy I know, and, with characteristic youthful 'selfishness, he has taken it away.

Or otherwise; That the second command is like the first signifies that the obligation and merit of both are alike; for no love of God without Christ, or of Christ without God, can profit to salvation. It follows, On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.

Nor did He only teach the first and great commandment, but added that there was a second like unto the first, Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself. But if Whoso loveth iniquity hath hated his own soul, (Ps. 11:5.) it is manifest that he does not love his neighbour as himself, when he does not love himself.

But who loves man is as who loves God; for man is God's image, wherein God is loved, as a King is honoured in his statue. For this cause this commandment is said to be like the first.

Are we to paint ourselves out that our neighbours may perish? Where, then, is (the command), "Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself? " "Care not merely about your own (things), but (about your) neighbour's? " No enunciation of the Holy Spirit ought to be (confined) to the subject immediately in hand merely, and not applied and carried out with a view to every occasion to which its application is useful.

Secondly, he presents the second commandment: and the second is like to this: thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. He wished to signify that there is an order among the commandments. And what is the reason? It is certain that the commandments concern acts of the virtues; but the virtues have an order, because one depends on another, and as the virtues, so also the commandments. But why does he say it is like the first? Because when a man is loved, since man is made in the likeness of God, God is loved in him; therefore it is like the first commandment, which is about the love of God. But what does he understand by the name of neighbor, when he says, thou shalt love thy neighbor? This is sufficiently indicated in the parable of Luke 10:36, where it is asked, which of these, in thy opinion, was neighbor to him? And the answer is, he that showed mercy to him. Hence whoever ought to show mercy to us, or we ourselves to others, is contained under the name of neighbor. But there is no rational creature to whom we should not show mercy, and conversely: and therefore under the name of neighbor are contained both man and angel. And what he says, as thyself, is not to be understood as meaning as much as yourself, because this would be against the order of charity; but as thyself, i.e., for the same end as yourself, or in the same manner as yourself. For the same end, because you should not love yourself for your own sake, but for the sake of God; so also your neighbor. The Apostle, 1 Corinthians 10:31: do all to the glory of God. Likewise, in loving yourself, you love yourself in that you wish yourself good, and such good as is according to you and the law of God, and this is the good of justice. So also you should wish good justice for your neighbor; hence you should love him either because he is just, or because he may become just. Likewise, you should love him in the same manner as yourself, because when I say I love this person, I say I wish him good. Hence the act of love bears on two things: either on the one who is good, or on the good itself which I wish for him; hence I love this person because I wish him to be good for me. Hence someone loves temporal goods because he knows them to be good for himself; but others love something because it is good in itself: thus you should love yourself, and also your neighbor.

When Christ was asked which is the greatest commandment, he gave two answers to the one question. The first was "You shall love the Lord your God," which we have talked about. The second was "and your neighbor as yourself." At this point we should point out that whoever observes this fulfills the whole law. The Apostle said (Rm 13:10): "The fulfilment of the law is love."

There are four motives for loving our neighbor: The first is divine love, since it is said (1 Jn 4:20): "If anyone says that he loves God, while he hates his brother, he is a liar." For anyone who says he loves someone, while hating his son or his members, he is lying. But all of us faithful are sons and members of Christ. The Apostle says (1 Cor 12:27): "You are the body of Christ, and each of you a member of it." Therefore anyone who hates his neighbor does not love God.

The second motive is the divine precept. For when Christ was going away, he stressed this commandment to his disciples above all other commandments, saying (Jn 15:12): "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you." For no one is observing the divine commandments if he hates his neighbor. So the sign of observing the divine law is love of neighbor. So the Lord said (Jn 13:35): "By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." He does not point to raising the dead or any other glaring sign, but this is the sign: "if you have love for one another." The blessed John weighed this well when he said (1 Jn 3:14), "We know that we have been transferred from death to life." Why? "Because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love remains in death."

The third motive is our sharing in the same nature, as it is said (Sir 13:19): "Every animal loves its like." Since all men are alike in nature, they should love one another. So to hate one's neighbor is not only against the divine law, but also against the law of nature.

The fourth motive is the advantages it brings. For everything that one person has is useful to another through charity. For this is what unites the Church and makes everything common (Ps 118:63): "I am a companion of all who fear you and keep your precepts."

So "Love your neighbor as yourself." That is the second commandment of the Law, and it concerns love of neighbor. We have discussed the fact that we must love our neighbor. Now we must turn to the way we must love him, and that is indicated in the words "as yourself". Regarding this, there are five points we must observe in loving our neighbor:

The first is that we must love him really as ourselves. We do this if we love him for his own sake, not because of our own interest. Here recall that there are three kinds of love. The first is utilitarian (Sir 6:10): "he is a friend at table, but will not be around on the day of need." That is certainly not true love. It vanishes when the advantage vanishes. In that case we do not wish good for our neighbor, but rather our own advantage. There is another love directed at what is pleasurable. This too is not true love, because when the pleasure vanishes it vanishes. In that case we do not wish good primarily for our neighbor, but rather we want his good for ourselves. The third kind of love is for the sake of virtue, and only that is true love. For then we do not love our neighbor in view of our own good, but for his own good.

The second point is that we must love ordinately, that is, we must not love him above God or as much as God, but along with him in the way you must love yourself (Sg 2:4 Vulgate): "He ordered love in me." The Lord taught this order (Mt 10:37): "Whoever loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter above me is not worthy of me."

The third point is that we must love our neighbor in practice. For you do not only love yourself, but you also take care to provide for yourself and avoid evil. You must do the same for your neighbor (1 Jn 3:18): "Let us not love in words or with our tongue, but in deed and in truth." But certainly the worst people are those who love with their mouth but do harm in their hearts. The Apostle says (Rm 12:9): "love without pretense".

The fourth point is that we must persevere in loving our neighbor, just as you persevere in loving yourself (Prov 17:17): "A friend loves at all times, and a brother is born for adversity;" that is, he loves in bad times as much as he does in good times. Moreover, a friend is really proven in a time of adversity.

But note that two things help preserve friendship. The first is patience: "A quarrelsome man enkindles strife," as it is said (Prov 26:21). The second is humility, which causes the former, that is patience (Prov 13:10 Vulgate): "Among the proud there is always strife." For anyone who thinks big about himself and despises another cannot endure the latter's shortcomings.

The fifth point is that we must love with justice and holiness, so that we do not love to bring him to sin, because you should not love yourself that way, since by doing so you lose God. Thus it is said (Jn 15:9): "Remain in my love." This is the love spoken of (Sir 24:24 Vulgate): "I am the mother of beautiful love."

"Love your neighbor as yourself." This precept the Jews and Pharisees badly understood, believing that God commanded them to love their friends and hate their enemies. Therefore, by "neighbors" they understood only friends. Christ meant to repudiate this understanding when he said (Mt 5:44): "Love your enemies; do good to those who hate you." Note that whoever hates his brother is not in the state of salvation (1 Jn 2:9): "He who hates his brother is in the darkness."

We must be aware, however, of texts to the contrary. For the saints hated some people (Ps 138:22): "I hated them with perfect hatred." And in the Gospel (Lk 14:26): "If anyone does not hate his father and mother and wife and sons and brothers and sisters, even his own soul, he cannot be my disciple." We should realize that in all that we do, what Christ did should be our example. For God loves and hates. In any man two things should be considered: his nature and the wrong. What is of nature in man should be loved, what is wrong should be hated. So if anyone wished a person to be in hell, he would be hating his nature, but if he wished him to be good, he would be hating the sin, which should always be hated (Ps 5:7): "You hate all who do evil." And (Wis 11:25), "Lord, you love all that exists, and hate nothing which you have made." See, then, what God loves and hates: He loves what is of nature and hates what is wrong.

We should realize, however, that sometimes a person can do evil without sinning, that is, when he does evil so that he may desire good, because God also does this. For instance, when a man is sick and is converted to good, whereas while he was well he was evil. In the same way someone can be converted to good when he meets adversity, after being evil while living in prosperity, according to the text (Is 28:19): "Terror alone shall convey the message." Another case is to desire the evil of a tyrant destroying the Church, in as much as you desire the good of the Church through the destruction of the tyrant; thus (2 Mac 1:17): "Blessed in every way be God who has punished the wicked." And all must want this not just by willing it, but also by doing it. For it is not a sin justly to hang the evil; for they are ministers of God who do this, according to the Apostle (Rm 13), and these people are acting in love, because punishment is given at times to castigate evil, and at times for the sake of a greater and divine good. For the good of a city is a greater good than the life of one man. But note that it is not enough not to wish evil, but one must also wish good, that is the correction of the sinner and eternal life.

For someone can wish the good of another in two ways. One way is general, in so far as the person is a creature of God and is capable of partaking in eternal life. The other way is special, in so far as the person is a friend or companion. No one is excluded from a general love, for everyone should pray for everyone, and help anyone in extreme need. But you are not held to be familiar with everyone, unless he asks pardon, because then he would be your friend; and if you refused him you would be hating a friend. Thus it is said (Mt 6:14-15): "If you forgive people their sins, your Heavenly Father will also forgive you yours; but if you do not forgive them, neither will your Father forgive you your sins." And in the Lord's Prayer it is said (Mt 6:9): "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us."

It has been said that you sin if you do not forgive someone who asks for pardon. It is of perfection if you recall him to yourself, although you are not held to do this. But there are many reasons why you should bring him back to yourself. The first is to preserve your own status. For different statuses have different signs, and no one should throw off the sign of his own status. The highest status of all is to be a son of God. The sign of this status is to love your enemy (Mt 5:44-45): "Love your enemies, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven." For if you love your friend, this is not a sign of divine sonship, for even the Publicans and Gentiles do this, as it is said (Mt 5).

The second is the winning of victory, something everyone naturally desires. Therefore either you should be good to the one who offended you so as to win him over to love you, and then you have won, or the other person should lead you to hate him, and then you have lost (Rm 12:21): "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."

The third is gaining an advantage. In this way you acquire many friends (Rm 12:20): "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him to drink. By so doing you pile up coals of fire on his head." Augustine says, "There is no greater incentive to love than to love first. For no one is so hard that, even if he does not want to show love, he would refuse to repay it." For it is said (Sir 6:15): "Nothing can compare with a faithful friend." And (Prov 16:7): "When Yahweh is pleased with a man's ways, even his enemies will be at peace with him."

The fourth is that by so doing your prayers will easily be heard. Thus, on the passage (Jer 15:1) "If Moses and Samuel stood before me," Gregory says that he made special mention of them because they prayed for their enemies. Likewise Christ said (Lk 23:34): "Father, forgive them." And blessed Stephen, by praying for his enemies, brought a great advantage to the Church, because this converted Paul.

The fifth is the avoidance of sin, which we should desire very much. For sometimes we sin and don't even look for God. Then God draws us to himself by sickness or something similar (Hos 2:6): "Therefore I will hedge her way with thorns." Paul was also treated this way (Ps 118:176): "I wandered like a lost sheep. Look for your servant, Lord." And (Sg 1:3): "Draw me after you." We gain this if we draw our enemy after ourselves, first by forgiving him, for it is said (Lk 6:36): "By the measure you measure out, it shall be measured back to you." And (Lk 6:37): "Forgive, and you shall be forgiven." And (Mt 5:7): "Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy." And there is no greater mercy than to forgive one who has offended you.

(Quaest. Ev. i. 33.) Hang, that is, refer thither as their end.

(de Trin. viii. 7.) Since there are two commandments, the love of God and the love of our neighbour, on which hang the Law and the Prophets, not without reason does Scripture put one for both; sometimes the love of God; as in that, We know that all tilings work together for good to them that love God; (Rom. 8:28.) and sometimes the love of our neighbour; as in that, All the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself. (Gal. 5:14.) And that because if a man love his neighbour, it follows therefrom that he loves God also; for it is the selfsame affection by which we love God, and by which we love our neighbour, save that we love God for Himself, but ourselves and our neighbour for God's sake.

And because all precepts are referred either to God or to neighbor, as to the end and to that which is ordered to the end; hence it is that in these two commandments is enclosed the collection of the commandments and the comprehension of all the Scriptures. And charity itself is the root, form, and end of the virtues, joining all things with the ultimate end and binding all things to one another simultaneously and in order; therefore it is the weight of ordered inclination and the bond of perfect binding.

"Which is the first and great commandment in the Law?" The Lord responds: "You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. And the second is like it: you shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two the whole Law and the Prophets depend." Augustine shows that in this word: "But it is good for me to adhere to God," the whole of what is said is contained: "You shall love the Lord your God," etc. For we ought to love God, because this is just, holy, easy, and sweet. Whence Augustine: "Lord, who are you to me? And who am I to you, that you command me to love you, and if I do not love you, you threaten me with immense miseries?"

The Church is a union of rational men united in harmonious and uniform adherence to divine peace. And love is born of obedience to the Law. And the Law itself commands love. And this can be proved in the Saviour's own words: "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." And so it is fitting that those who obey the Law be loving also. "By this will all men know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." And the Apostle writes: "For God is a God of peace, not of disorder."

For sacred Scripture is principally concerned with the works of reparation. Whence it treats chiefly of faith, hope, and charity, through which virtues the soul must be reformed, and most especially of charity. Of which the Apostle says that it is the end of the commandment, insofar as it proceeds from a pure heart and a good conscience and faith unfeigned. It is the fullness of the Law, as the same Apostle says. And our Savior asserts that the whole Law and the Prophets depend on the two precepts of the same, namely the love of God and of neighbor; which two are intimated in the one Spouse of the Church, Jesus Christ, who is at once neighbor and God, at once brother and lord, at once also king and friend, at once the uncreated and incarnate Word, our maker and remaker, as the Alpha and the Omega; who is also the supreme hierarch, purging and illuminating and perfecting the spouse, namely the whole Church and every holy soul.

Interlin.: Or, "with all thy heart," i.e. understanding; "with all thy soul,"i.e. thy will; "with all thy mind," i.e. memory; so you shall think, will, remember nothing contrary to Him. If the Lord had given no answer to the Pharisee who thus tempted Him, we should have judged that there was no commandment greater than the rest. But when the Lord adds, "This is the firstand great commandment," we learn how we ought to think of the commandments, that there is a great one, and that there are less down to the least. And the Lord says not only that it is a great, but that it is the first commandment, not in order of Scripture, but in supremacy of value. They only take upon them the greatness and supremacy of this precept, who not only love the Lord their God, but add these three conditions. Nor did He only teach the first and great commandment, but added that there was a second like unto the first, "Thou shalt love thyneighbour as thyself:" But if "Whoso loveth iniquity hath hated his own soul," it is manifest that he does not love his neighbour as himself, when he does not love himself.

But His commandments, and the sum of them, are, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and thy neighbor as thyself." If therefore to love God is to love one's neighbor, "For if thou lovest me," He saith, "O Peter, feed my sheep," but to love one's neighbor worketh a keeping of the commandments, with reason doth He say, "On these hang all the law and the prophets."

So therefore what He did before, this He doth here also. I mean, that both there, when asked about the manner of the resurrection, He also taught a resurrection, instructing "For charity envieth not." By this He shows Himself to be submissive both to the law and to the prophets.

But His commandments, and the sum of them, are, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and thy neighbor as thyself." If therefore to love God is to love one's neighbor, "For if thou lovest me," He saith, "O Peter, feed my sheep," but to love one's neighbor worketh a keeping of the commandments, with reason doth He say, "On these hang all the law and the prophets."

After this you ask how it is that "all the law and the prophets depend upon these two commands." For it seems that the texts show us that whatever was written in Exodus or Leviticus or Numbers or Deuteronomy depend "upon these two commands." But how is the law which regards lepers or the continual flow of blood or the menstruation of women dependent "upon these two commands"? And still further, how does the prophecy about captured Jerusalem, or the vision of Egypt in Isaiah and the other prophets, or the vision of Tyre or whatever may be prophesied about Tyre or the king of Tyre, or Isaiah's vision of the four-footed beasts in the wasteland "depend upon these two commands"?It seems to me that the answer is something like this. He who fulfills all that is written concerning the love of God and neighbor is worthy to receive the greatest thanks from God. Concerning this it has been argued that "the utterance of wisdom [comes] through the Holy Spirit," after which follows "the utterance of knowledge" which is "according to the Spirit."

Or, because he that has fulfilled the things that are written concerning the love of God and our neighbour, is worthy to receive from God the great reward, that he should be enabled to understand the Law and the Prophets.

For to these two commandments belongs the whole decalogue; the commandments of the first table to the love of God, those of the second to the love of our neighbour.

Consequently, he assigns the reason why these two are the greatest commandments: on these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets. The whole teaching of the law and the prophets depends on these. For the end in things to be desired is related as a principle in speculative matters: for science proceeds from principles to conclusions, and thus the whole science is judged from its principles, just as in all practical matters everything depends on the end. Because, therefore, love is the end -- 1 Timothy 1:5: the end of the commandment is charity -- therefore all other things depend on these, and this is the exposition of Augustine. Origen explains it thus: in these, i.e., in the observance of these, depends the understanding of the law and the prophets, because he who observes these merits the understanding of the law and the prophets; Sirach 2:10: ye that fear the Lord, love him, and your hearts shall be enlightened. Psalm 118:104: by thy commandments I have had understanding, therefore have I hated every way of iniquity.

Then since He had answered, He asks also in turn, "What think ye of Christ, whose Son is He? They say unto Him, The Son of David."

See after how many miracles, after how many signs, after how many questions, after how great a display of His unanimity with the Father, as well in words, as in deeds; after having praised this man that said, that there is one God, He asks the question, that they may not be able to say, that He did miracles indeed, yet was an adversary to the law, and a foe to God.

Therefore, after so many things, He asks these questions, secretly leading them on to confess Him also to be God. And the disciples He asked first what the others say, and then themselves; but these not so; for surely they would have said a deceiver, and a wicked one, as speaking all things without fear. So for this cause He inquires for the opinion of these men themselves.

For having asked them first, since they answered not the truth concerning Him (for they said He was a mere man), to overthrow their mistaken opinion, He thus introduces David proclaiming His Godhead. For they indeed supposed that He was a mere man, wherefore also they said, "the Son of David;" but He to correct this brings in the prophet witnessing to His being Lord, and the genuineness of His Sonship, and His equality in honor with His Father.

The Jews tempted Christ, supposing Him to be mere man; had they believed Him to be the Son of God, they would not have tempted Him. Christ therefore, willing to show that He knew the treachery of their hearts, and that He was God, yet would not declare this truth to them plainly, that they might not take occasion thence to charge Him with blasphemy, and yet would not totally conceal this truth; because to that end had He come that He should preach the truth; He therefore puts a question to them, such as should declare to them who He was; What think ye of Christ? whose Son is He?

I suppose that He formed this question, not only against the Pharisees, but also against the heretics; for according to the flesh He was truly David's Son, but his Lord according to His Godhead.

What think you of Christ: whose son is he? This question was most difficult and fitting. Most difficult, because it is found in Isaiah 53:8: who shall declare his generation? It was also fitting, because they held the opinion that he was a mere man and did not believe him to be God, because otherwise they would not tempt him, since it is written in Deuteronomy 6:16: thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Therefore, in order to show that he is God, he says, what think you of Christ? There follows the response: they say to him: David's. For Christ had a twofold generation: one according to the flesh, another according to his divinity, according to which he is the Son of God the Father, of which it is said in Psalm 2:7: the Lord hath said to me: thou art my Son, etc. Therefore they respond about the generation according to the flesh, when they say, David's. Jeremiah 23:5: I will raise up to David a just branch. And Romans 1:3: who was made to him of the seed of David, according to the flesh. And they responded insufficiently, because they knew him insufficiently.

This passage is out of the 109th Psalm. Christ is therefore called David's Lord, not in respect of His descent from him, but in respect of His eternal generation from the Father, wherein He was before His fleshly Father. And he calls Him Lord, not by a mere chance, nor of his own thought, but by the Holy Spirit.

And that they may not say, that it was in flattery he so called Him, and that this was a human judgment, see what He saith, "How then doth David in spirit call Him Lord?" See how submissively He introduces the sentence and judgment concerning Himself. First, He had said, "What think ye? Whose Son is He?" so by a question to bring them to an answer. Then since they said, "the Son of David," He said not, "And yet David saith these things," but again in this order of a question, "How then doth David in spirit call Him Lord?" in order that the sayings might not give offense to them. Wherefore neither did He say, What think ye of me, but of Christ. For this reason the apostles also reasoned submissively, saying, "Let us speak freely of the Patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried."

And He Himself too in like manner for this cause introduces the doctrine in the way of question and inference, saying, "How then doth David in spirit call Him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool;" and again, "If David then call Him Lord, how is He then his Son," not taking away the fact that He is his Son, away with the thought; for He would not then have reproved Peter for this, but to correct their secret thoughts. So that when He saith, "How is He his Son?" He meaneth this, not so as ye say. For they said, that He is Son only, and not also Lord. And this after the testimony, and then submissively, "If David then call Him Lord, how is He his Son?"

It is very worthy for us to consider that our Savior willingly proposed to the Pharisees his question about the Christ, hoping that they might respond in a fitting manner. They were not able to respond adequately. Nonetheless it was the will of the Savior to enter into dialogue with his audacious proponents, the Pharisees, with their many propositions, and similarly with the Sadducees, who placed before him the question of the seven brothers and their one wife. The Pharisees and Sadducees asked their many questions to tempt Jesus, not to learn from him. They appeared to be well-prepared doctors of the law but were not. This is why the Lord chose to put his own questions to those who were professing to have knowledge of the law: that these matters might be argued openly before the people. The Lord did not give clear responses to his questioners even though he himself responded to all their questions. It was entirely appropriate that the Lord himself, in accordance with the custom of dining with the doctors, show and hand over true divine teaching. They nevertheless did not recognize him as the prophet who was the pinnacle of all prophets.

Then he objects in order to give them to understand the other generation: how then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying: the Lord said to my Lord: sit on my right hand? Psalm 109:1. It is found in the law that the father is greater than the son. Therefore the son is not lord of the father. Therefore either Christ is not the son of David, or there is something in him greater than David, since he calls him Lord. But perhaps they would say that David was deceived: which he removes, because he says this in the spirit; hence, holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Spirit, 2 Peter 1:21.

(ap. Anselm.) That it is by the Father that the enemies are put under the Son, denotes not the Son's weakness, but the union of His nature with His Father. For the Son also puts under Him the Father's enemies, when He glorifies His name upon earth.

This question is still available for us against the Jews; for these who believe that Christ is yet to come, assert that He is a mere man, though a holy one, of the race of David. Let us then thus taught by the Lord ask them, If He be mere man, and only the Son of David, how does David call Him his Lord? To evade the truth of this question, the Jews invent many frivolous answers. They allege Abraham's steward, he whose son was Eliezer of Damascus, and say that this Psalm was composed in his person, when after the overthrow of the five kings, the Lord God said to his lord Abraham, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. Let us ask how Abraham could say the things that follow, and compel them to tell us how Abraham was born before Lucifer, and how he was a Priest after the order of Melchisedech, for whom Melchisedech brought bread and wine, and of whom he received tithes of the spoil?

For God puts Christ's enemies as a footstool beneath His feet, for their salvation as well as their destruction.

That He says, Sit thou on my right hand, is not to be taken as though God had a body, and either a right hand or a left hand; but to sit on the right hand of God is to abide in the honour and equality of the Father's majesty.

But till is used for indefinite time, that the meaning be, Sit Thou for ever, and for ever hold thine enemies beneath thy feet.

Therefore, (as they further hold, ) those other words, "Before the morning star did I beget thee from the womb," are applicable to Hezekiah, and to the birth of Hezekiah.

But we can see three things in this authority from the Psalm. First, pre-eminence over the saints; equality with the Father; and dominion over the rebellious. Pre-eminence over the saints, when it says, the Lord said to my Lord. The Lord, namely, the Father, to the Lord, namely, the Son: for the Son himself has dominion over all the saints: for no saint is illuminated except by the true light: and he is the true light; John 1:4: the life was the light of men. If, therefore, he is the one by participation in whom all the saints receive light, he has pre-eminence over all the saints in that it says: with thee is the principality in the day of thy strength, in the brightness of the saints, etc.; hence he is originally the brightness of all the saints. Likewise, equality with the Father is touched upon when it says, sit on my right hand: not that these are local seats, but metaphorically, because the more honorable place is to sit on the right. For to speak is to emit a word. That the Lord said, therefore, sit on my right hand, what else is it than that by begetting me, the Word, he gave me power, equality, and authority? It can also be explained of temporal things, i.e., in the better goods, but this is not to the purpose. For the Lord is always seen on the right, as in Mark 16:5: they saw a young man sitting on the right side. And Stephen, Acts 7:55, saw Jesus sitting on the right hand of the power of God. And what will happen to his enemies? All will be subjected to him; hence he adds, till I make thy enemies thy footstool. These are either the utterly faithless, or those who refused to obey and submit; hence he will make them thy footstool. For a footstool is what is placed under the feet; and that which is under the feet is totally subjected to one, but not that which is in the hand. Some are made a footstool for punishment, others for salvation: for punishment, those who refuse to do his will; for salvation, those who do his will. But the Arians object: therefore he is not equal to the Father. I say that both are read, both that he is subject to the Father and that he is equal to the Father; 1 Corinthians 15:25: for he must reign, until he hath put all his enemies under his feet. Likewise, Christ will subject all things to himself; Philippians 3:21: he will reform the body of our lowness, made like to the body of his glory. Hence he says that to demonstrate the unity of power: hence all things that the Father can do, the Son can also do. But what does it mean when he says, till I make thy enemies thy footstool? Therefore it seems that after he has subjected his enemies, he will no longer sit on the right. It must be said that "until" sometimes implies a determinate time, sometimes an infinite time. Here it implies an infinite time. But someone might say: do not many rebel against Christ? Indeed, it is true that many rebel, and therefore there could be doubt about the time when many would rebel: therefore Christ wished to express this.

Here then there is need for caution, lest Christ himself be thought to have denied that he was the Son of David. He did not deny that he was the Son of David, but he probed his detractors on the particular way this can be. You have said that Christ is the Son of David. I do not deny it. But "if David thus calls him Lord, how is he his Son?" Tell me how he could be his son who is also his Lord? They did not answer him but were dumbfounded.Let us then answer them by the explanation given by Christ himself. Where given? Through his apostle. By what source can we prove that Christ himself has explained it? The apostle says, "Would you receive a proof of Christ who speaks in me?" So it is through the apostle's voice that Christ has allowed this question to be solved. In the first place, do you remember what Christ said, speaking by the apostle to Timothy? "Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel." So it is easy to see that Christ is the Son of David. But how is he also David's Lord? Let the apostle again tell us of the one who, "though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped." Acknowledge David's Lord. If you acknowledge David's Lord, our Lord, the Lord of heaven and earth, the Lord of the angels, equal with God, in the form of God, how is he David's Son? Note what follows. The apostle shows you David's Lord by saying, "Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." And how is he David's Son? "But he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men; and being found in human form, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God has also highly exalted him." Christ "of the seed of David," the Son of David, rose again because "he emptied himself." How did he empty himself? By taking upon himself that which he was not, not by losing that which he was. He emptied himself. He "humbled himself." Though he was God, he appeared as a man. He was despised as he walked on earth, he who made the heaven. He was despised as though a mere man, as though of no power. He was not only despised but also killed! He was that stone that was laid aside on the ground, which the Jews stumbled against and were shaken. And what does he himself say? "He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls, it shall grind him to powder." First he was laid low, and they stumbled against him. He shall come from above, and he will "grind" them that have been shaken "to powder." Thus you have heard that Christ is both David's Son and David's Lord: David's Lord always, David's Son in time. David's Lord, born of the substance of his Father; David's Son, born of the Virgin Mary, conceived by the Holy Spirit. Let us hold fast both. The one of them will be our eternal habitation; the other is our deliverance from our present exile.

(ap. Anselm.) He concludes from this authority, If David then call Him Lord, how is He his son?

"If David then call Him Lord, how is He then his Son," not taking away the fact that He is his Son, away with the thought; for He would not then have reproved Peter for this, but to correct their secret thoughts. So that when He saith, "How is He his Son?" He meaneth this, not so as ye say. For they said, that He is Son only, and not also Lord. And this after the testimony, and then submissively, "If David then call Him Lord, how is He his Son?"

But, nevertheless, even when they had heard these things, they answered nothing, for neither did they wish to learn any of the things that were needful. Wherefore He Himself addeth and saith, that "He is his Lord." Or rather not even this very thing doth He say without support, but having taken the prophet with Him, because of His being exceedingly distrusted by them, and evil reported of amongst them.

If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? Therefore he is both Lord and son, because he is son according to the flesh, since he drew his origin from him, and Lord according to his divinity.