Question XXIV: Whether it is necessary to love enemies out of charity

By the name of enemy is understood one who hates iniquitously, as S. Thomas notes; for one who troubles us for a just cause is not to be reckoned an enemy, even if he is so reckoned according to the opinion of the vulgar, as the Apostle said, Galat. 4: Am I become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?

The first opinion with the Master, which D. Bonaventure also reports, is that enemies are indeed necessarily to be loved when begging pardon, penitent, and prompt to make satisfaction; but that enemies formally reduplicatively are not to be loved, and that to love these is only of perfection.

Yet the true opinion is, and the common one, that enemies, as enemies, or the impious, are not to be loved; nevertheless in the state of enmity they are not to be excluded from the neighbor, loved by the elicited acts of Charity, by which we should will them the supernatural good of beatitude; not however that by imperated acts we should will them transient temporal goods, but it suffices not to rejoice in their evils, according to that, Proverb. 24: Rejoice not when thy enemy shall fall, and Eccles. 8: Be not glad over thy dead enemy. So the Holy Doctors with the Holy Fathers and Theologians commonly, as Valencia reports disp. 3. quaest. 3. p. 2. Caspensis disp. 3. sect. 2. Tannerus disp. 2 quaest. 3. dub. 1.

I assert first, that it cannot be denied without prejudice to the Faith that the precept of loving enemies exists in the Evangelical Law.

IT IS PROVED by S. Thomas, first from those places where we are commanded to love the neighbor, Deuter. 6. Matth. 22; for so S. August. notes in Psal. 118. and on Christian discipline, and serm. 59. de Tempore, and 221.

SECONDLY it is proved by S. Thomas, from the reason that Christ adduces for loving enemies: For if you love them that love you, what reward shall you have, where the Gloss: None from heaven. Then thus: Charity cannot be without reward in the heavens; but those loving friends, and not enemies, will not be rewarded in heaven: Therefore they do not have Charity. Where note that that proof has force not only as regards the love of friends and the exclusion of enemies, as if they were to be rewarded for other works, and for the state of grace, in the way that the just are to be rewarded with eternal life for saying an idle word, even if not for that word; but the force is that no reward is simply to be expected from that exclusion of enemies; for if you take only the love of friends without the exclusion of enemies, it is a meritorious act, as I shall show in the following quaest.

THEREFORE it is proved thirdly by S. Thomas, from the precept of Christ, Matth. 5: But I say to you, love your enemies. Where the Interlinear Gloss: It does not suffice not to hate.

It is PROVED fourthly by S. Thom. that what is necessary for the remission of sins is a precept; but to spare enemies, and not exclude them from the object of Charity, is so necessary: Therefore. The major is evident. The minor is proved by S. Thomas from Matth. 6: If you will forgive men their offences: your heavenly Father will also forgive you your offences. But if you will not forgive men: neither will your Father forgive you your offences. And in Matth. 18. he commands us to forgive injuries unto seventy times seven, that is, always, as D. Augustine observes; for the septenary number is the sign of universality, because in seven days the universe was created; the eleventh number is the sign of transgression, because it transgresses the tenth, in which the Decalogue, the law of Charity, is described; but seven times eleven makes seventy-seven, which is the number of universality, removing the imperfection of the former number. He infers here also a most powerful motive; for Lamech is marked out seventy-seven times of malediction in Genesi 4. Lamech signifies the humbled one; but the sin of Lamech is the sin of the whole human race; and after the fall there run out 77 generations unto the Advent of Christ, as is had in Lucae 3. Therefore he means to say that it is commanded us to remit all sins committed against us; just as Christ remitted all our sins committed against his majesty, nay more, expiated them with the blood of the Son. Whence he infers the word of the Apostle, 250: And be ye kind one to another; forgiving one another, as God hath forgiven you in Christ. D. Augustine observes this. Hence in the same cap. 18. Matth. is brought the parable of the servant, who, unwilling to forgive a small debt to his fellow-servant, when nevertheless a debt of ten thousand talents had been forgiven him — which sums to a hundred and twenty millions of gold, in the Persian reckoning — was condemned to perpetual prison.

It is PROVED fifthly by S. Thomas. The flesh is more an enemy to man than any enemy whatsoever; but no man ever hated his own flesh. Ephes. 5. Therefore.

It is PROVED sixthly by S. Thomas. Where there is the reason of the object of Charity, there also the act of Charity is to be terminated; but the object of Charity is the neighbor, insofar as he is communicable of eternal life with us, and in this all our enemies also concur; and for that reason they are neighbors, as Valencia also teaches, loco cit. Therefore.

From these many deduce that this is a precept of nature, which pressed also in the time of the old law. Therefore Exodi 23: If thou meet thy enemy's ox or his ass going astray, bring it back to him; if thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lie under a burden, thou shalt not pass by, but shalt lift him up with him; Levit. 19: Seek not revenge, nor be mindful of the injury of thy citizens.

The RATIO is taken from what is said by D. Bonaventure; for we are bound by the law of nature to love the neighbor, as is had in Deuter. 6. Matth. 22. But the enemy is also a neighbor.

However, this PRECEPT does not bind to having an act of Charity singularly toward enemies; but only generally toward all, and enemies are not to be excluded from it; so the Priest prays: memento, Domine, and of all those present; may he not exclude the enemy assisting. Similarly not from common benefits in necessity, spiritual or temporal. Moreover, to benefit enemies outside necessity is a work of counsel and of signal perfection, as D. Augustine teaches, in Enchir, cap. 73, as Caspensis notes, and I shall say in quaest. 25.

QUOAD the act, indeed, or the affect of love, it is a precept, as the same S. Augustine teaches, Lib. 1. de doctrina Christiana, cap. 22, and Tract. 8. in primam Ioan., and other Fathers with Valencia. Therefore Christ says: love your enemies, etc. that you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven; Therefore this is necessary for the filiation of adoption, without which no one enters into the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven. Whence Christ says, Matth. 5: Unless your justice abound more than that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. And among the doctrines and false traditions of the Pharisees was this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and shalt hate thy enemy. Therefore, that we may be able to enter into the kingdom of heaven, he says: Love your enemies, that you may be the children of your Father. From which it is deduced that this is necessary, and consequently a precept, as S. Thomas argues, on the second and 4th foundation. Therefore the Apostle says, Rom. 12: If thy enemy be hungry, give him to eat: if he thirst, give him to drink: for, doing this, thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head — coals of Charity, surely, according to Ambrose, Augustine, Bede, and D. Thomas, not of eternal punishment, according to Chrysostom with Tannerus, disput. 2. quaest. 3. dub. 1.

You will OBJECT first, Matth. 5: You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and shalt hate thy enemy: Therefore the ancient Law of God is kept whole, even if the enemy were hated. It is confirmed, because the moral Law is contained in the ten precepts, and in it there is no mention of loving the enemy. Therefore the Gloss on 3. Reg. 7: Hiram made a molten sea of ten cubits. The Gloss there: By the ten precepts in the law, the Lord expressed all things that we ought to do.

S. Thomas answers first that the law did not command this, but that the Pharisees deduced it by way of opposition, because in Leuit. 19. it was said: Thou shalt love thy neighbour, or as our version has it: friend; for the Hebrew רֵעַ rea signifies companion or friend; but by friend they understood a companion from the stock of Abraham and Jacob, as if the other nations were to be hated and destroyed, because it is said, Deutet. 25: Thou shalt blot out his name under heaven. Beware thou forget not, as Maldonatus glosses: But they were deceived, because, although it said certain nations were to be destroyed, yet not all; nay rather, to be loved, since they were to be joined in one wall by the corner stone, as is said in Isaie 28. Ephes. 2. Prima Petri 2. Psalm. 117. See Molanus on that place, Cornelius a Lapide, and other expositors. And so the place is interpreted in this way by the Imperfect homil. 13. in Matth., ascribed to Chrysostom, and others, whom Tostatus follows, quaest. 344. S. Thom. 3. dist. 30. art. 1. Valencia disp. 3. quaest. 3. puncto 2, where he calls it the perverse tradition of the Pharisees; and Cornelius a Lapide, observing that in the ancient law it was only permitted to kill for justice, but not to hate. For thus also the Judge kills the guilty. Therefore Caspensis num. 11. calls it the wicked interpretation of the Pharisees. So also Tannerus disp. 2. quaest. 3. dub. 1.

THEN S. Thomas answers, and with him Tannerus, that hatred was conceded, or permitted, of old to the law as regards its effects, as has been said; but not the affect of hatred; and indeed as to effect he conceded it not toward private adversaries, but toward the idolatrous Chanaanites, the warring enemies of the Church. And so those who are said to be enemies above in Exodi 23. Leuit 19. were private enemies, but friends as regards the Republic. From which it follows that it was so conceded by the law; but that Christ corrected that law and issued the new precept of the Gospel, as Legislator, and that indeed a perfect one. So with an incredible consensus nearly the ancient Fathers: Irenaeus Lib. 4. cap. 22. Tertullianus Lib. de Patientia, Clemens Alex. lib. 6. strom. Hilarius can. in Matth. 4. Epiph. in Ptolemaitas, haeresi 31. Basil. homil. in Psalm. 14. Chrysostomus homil. 16. in Matth. Auctor imperf. homil. 11. Ambrosius serm. 5. in Psalm. 118. Hieronymus epist. ad Heroniam, de Monogamia, Theophylac. and Euthym. on this place, whom Maldonatus adduces and follows, in cap. 5. Matth. num. 21. But this exposition fits better for proving that Christ came in the Gospel not only as a good messenger, but also enacted Laws as Legislator, against the heretical Pelagians, of whom Hieronymus Lib. primo, and against the sectaries of our time. Therefore he corrects the law, and wills that the name of neighbor be extended to all, since they communicate in the capacity for God and Beatitude, as Hieronymus, Augustinus, Theophylac. and others expound, with Cornelius a Lapide.

And this is the first fundamental reason of D. Bonav., by which he shows that enemies are to be loved, because according to the Law and interpretation of Christ, enemies also are included in the neighbor.

You will OBJECT secondly from the Gloss on Lucae 6: Love your enemies, which says it belongs to the perfect.

S. Thomas answers that to love with elicited affect is a precept; but with imperated works of affect, outside necessity, it belongs to perfection, and thus the Gloss speaks.

You will OBJECT thirdly. To love enemies is a thing of wonder, as the Gloss says on Psalm. 118: Reuela oculos meos; et considerabo mirabilia de lege tua.

S. Thomas answers that to love enemies belongs among the marvels which the world admires as most arduous to be commanded by Divine law; yet they can be done with the aid of grace and Charity, and with these marvels the Gloss includes loving enemies, but not with miracles, which are of grace freely given.

You will OBJECT fourthly from D. Ambrose with the Master dist. 29: it suffices not to hate the enemy.

S. Thomas answers that that authority is truncated, for he says: it suffices, if we love simply, and do not hate.

S. Thomas hands down remedies for hatred, de profectu religiosi, cap. 29, namely, to fear the vengeance of God, who does not remit the sins of him who hates, Matth. 18. To overcome evil by good, Rom. 12. See S. Thomas.