Dist. 30, Art. 1, Q. 4
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/3/d/30/q/bon-sent-III-d30-a1-q4
----------------------------------------
### Question IV. *Whether all are bound to love their enemies as to affection.*

Fourthly it is asked whether all are bound to love their enemies as to affection. And that they are, it seems.

1. Leviticus 19: *You shall love your friend as yourself*; on which Augustine says that « by the name of neighbor and friend every man is understood », according also to what the Lord himself indicates in Luke 10: therefore if that precept was given to all; since all are bound to love themselves as to affection, it seems that all are bound to love their enemies as to affection.

2. Likewise, Matthew 5: *If you love those who love you, what reward shall you have?* The Gloss: « None in heaven »: therefore he who has love only with respect to those who love him does not have charity, since charity cannot be without reward: therefore, in order that someone may have charity, it is necessary that his charity extend to those who hate him.

3. Likewise, on that of Luke 6: *Love your enemies*; the interlinear Gloss: « It does not suffice not to hate »; but all are bound to that which suffices for salvation: therefore all are bound not only to not hating their enemies, but also to loving them.

4. Likewise, God forgives sin to no one unless he himself forgives his neighbor, according to what is said in Matthew 6 and 18; but no one forgives his neighbor from the heart unless he loves him as to affection: therefore no one can merit pardon before God unless he loves from the heart those who offend him.

5. Likewise, the neighbor is to be loved more than one's own body, nor does anything oppose and act as an enemy to the spirit more than the flesh itself: since therefore anyone is bound to love the nature of his own flesh, it seems that he is bound to love his enemy as to affection.

6. Likewise, just as the fault is detestable, so the image of God is lovable; but however much a man is loved, a man is always bound to detest his fault: therefore however much he is opposed through his fault, one is always bound to love the nature.

**On the contrary:**
1. Matthew 5: *You have heard that it was said to the ancients: You shall love your friend and hate your enemy*; but we are now obligated to nothing moral to which the ancients in the Law would not have been obligated: therefore if then they were not bound to loving the enemy, but rather to hating; it seems that not all are now bound to love their enemies. The minor is proved: because on that of Matthew 14 concerning the five loaves etc. the Gloss: « He preached nothing other than what was written; but he shows the Law and the Prophets to be pregnant with mysteries ». And again, 3 Kings 7: *Hiram made a molten sea of ten cubits*; there the Gloss: « By the ten precepts in the Law the Lord expressed all the things which we ought to do ». If therefore the love of the enemy is contained in none of the ten precepts, neither are the moderns obligated to anything else to which the ancients would not have been obligated; it seems etc.

2. Likewise, Luke 6: *Love your enemies*; there the Gloss: « This belongs to the perfect »; and again another Gloss, there: « The Church here is not nourished with milk, which belongs to the simple and imperfect, but is strengthened with the stronger food of charity »; but not all are bound to those things which are of perfection: therefore not all are bound to love their enemies.

3. Likewise, on that of the Psalm: *Reveal my eyes, and I shall consider the wonders of your Law*; the Gloss: « Nothing is more wonderful among the commandments than to love one's enemies »; but not all are bound to do wonders, « because, as Augustine says, to do virtues and wonders is not given to all »: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, Ambrose says, and it is found in the preceding distinction, where the order of charity was treated: « It suffices that we do not hold our enemies in hatred »: therefore it seems that not all are bound to love their enemies from the heart.

### Conclusion.

> By an affection elicited from charity we are bound to love even our enemies, by wishing them eternal goods; but by a commanded affection, by which one wishes another temporal prosperity, to love them belongs to perfection, whence it suffices not to hate.

**I respond:** For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that concerning this there is a twofold manner of responding. For some wished to say that there is a twofold way of speaking of enemies: either according to the state in which they exercise their enmities; or according to the state in which they repent and seek pardon. If according to the state in which they seek pardon; thus all are bound to loving their enemies on account of that condition which the Lord places in the Lord's Prayer: *Forgive us our debts, as we also etc.* For if a man keeps anger toward a man, in vain does he seek healing from God, according to what is said in Ecclesiasticus 28. — But if we speak of enemies as they are in the state and act of harming and exercising enmities; thus they wished to say that to love enemies as to affection is not of necessity, but rather of perfection; nor does the Lord command this, but rather counsels it. And the Master sets down this opinion of certain men in the text.

But if this position be considered inwardly, it speaks less sufficiently, for the reason that, according to what the authorities of the Saints expressly say, and reason itself openly convinces, there is no true charity unless it love every lovable thing; but lovable by charity is everything which is able to attain to beatitude: therefore no one has charity unless he love all those who are in the state of the way, whether they be friends or enemies. Whence in the Psalm it is said: *Your commandment is exceedingly broad*, because the commandment of charity extends itself to all. And just as the length of the commandment extends to every difference of time, so its breadth to every person of a man who is a wayfarer. Whence just as someone would not have charity if he proposed to sin even on one single day and to do well on the others, because the length of the commandment is lacking to him; so, granted that someone love all men except one only, whom he excludes from love, he does not have charity, because the breadth of that commandment is lacking to him.

And therefore there is another manner of speaking, that to love as to affection is in a twofold way, according as the affection of love is twofold: one elicited from charity, and one commanded by charity. That affection of love is elicited from charity, by which one wishes for another the highest Good or eternal beatitude. But that is the commanded affection, by which one wishes for another a temporal good and transitory prosperity. For the love of charity brings it about that a man wills for another every good, not only the highest Good, but also the temporal, unless it be an impediment to salvation.

If therefore we speak of the first affection, elicited from charity, I say that all are bound to love their enemies, even those actually showing enmity, and to wish them eternal life. — But if we speak of the commanded affection, by which one wishes another temporal prosperity; thus not all are bound to love, but it suffices not to hate. And this is what Ambrose says: « It suffices that we love our enemies and do not hold them in hatred », in which he indicates that, since the affection of charity is twofold, by one we are bound to love, but for the other it suffices not to hate. Whence all are bound to not hating their enemies and to not rejoicing over their evils, as is said in Proverbs 24: *When your enemy has fallen, do not rejoice*; and Ecclesiasticus 8: *Do not rejoice over your dead enemy.* But to love wholly as to elicited and commanded affection, by wishing him eternal and temporal goods, this belongs to perfection and supererogation. But to love unto eternal goods, this is of necessity and of precept; and to this all are generally obligated, both the perfect and the imperfect, as the reasons which are brought forward for the first part show, and therefore they are to be conceded.

**To the arguments:**

*To 1.* To that, then, which is first objected to the contrary from Matthew 5: *You shall love your friend and hate your enemy*; it can be answered in two ways.

First, that this Law never commands that the enemy be held in hatred, but the Jews themselves argued this from the contrary sense: because it was only commanded them to love friends, they argued from this that they ought to hate enemies. — Otherwise it can be answered that there is a hatred of affection and a hatred of effect; and again, there is the enemy of the Church or of the faith and the personal enemy. When therefore the Law indicated that the enemy was to be held in hatred; this is understood of the hatred of effect and of the enemy of the Church and of divine worship. But by hatred of affection it commanded no one to hate, neither the personal enemy nor the enemy of the Church. The personal enemy, however, it did not command to be hated either by hatred of affection or by hatred of effect, but rather it obligated to loving him, although it was not then so expressed: whence the Lord also made it explicit in Matthew 5. And therefore it cannot be argued from this that not all are bound to love their enemies.

*To 2.* To that which is objected, that this belongs to the perfect; some respond that it is understood of the love of affection and of effect, not of the love of affection alone. But whether this is true will be declared in the following problem. But now let us say that if it be understood of the elicited and commanded affection, it belongs to perfection; but if of the elicited affection alone, it is of general necessity. But the Gloss speaks there of love as to both ways.

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that to love enemies is wonderful; it must be said that that is called wonderful which is above the faculty of nature; but this can be in a twofold way, according as it is an operation of nature simply, and of rational nature. But to do wonders above the power of nature simply, this is through grace freely given, which the Apostle calls the operation of powers; and this is not given to all. But to do wonders above the power of rational nature, this is through sanctifying grace, namely through faith and charity. For through faith we believe many things which we could not believe without it, and which seem to unbelievers too incredible; and through charity we love those things which seem hateful to those not having charity. And these wonders are contained in the divine Law, and it is given to all to do them, who wish to receive in themselves sanctifying grace. And for that reason it cannot be argued that we are not bound to the love of the enemy; for this is another kind of wonder than that of which Augustine speaks.

*To 4.* To that which is objected from the authority of Ambrose, that it suffices if we do not hold them in hatred; it must be said that that authority is brought forward in truncated form; for it says these two things together: « It suffices if we simply love and do not hold in hatred ». Which two things it says very reasonably, and indicates a twofold affection of love; and it makes for the confirmation of the response already given, by which that authority can be understood clearly enough.