← Back to Distinction 27

Dist. 27, Art. 2, Q. 6

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 27

Textus Latinus
p. 613

Quaestio VI. Utrum teneamur diligere Deum ex toto corde, ex tota anima et ex tota mente.

Sexto et ultimo quaeritur, utrum teneamur ad illum modum implendum, quem Dominus in praecepto implicat Matthaei vigesimo secundo1: Diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo et ex tota anima tua et ex tota mente tua. Et quod non, videtur:

1. Primo auctoritate Augustini, quae habetur in littera2: « Cum inest aliquid carnalis concupiscentiae, non omni modo ex tota anima diligitur Deus »; sed necesse est, in hac vita esse aliquid carnalis concupiscentiae: ergo impossibile est implere illud praeceptum in hac vita. Sed nullus tenetur ad impossibile: ergo non tenemur ad eius impletionem.

2. Item, « impossibile est, aliquid moveri simul et semel oppositis motibus »; sed anima, dum est in carne, habet motum reflexum ad corpus, quia corpus, quod corrumpitur, aggravat animam3: ergo non potest totaliter ferri in Deum; et si homo, quamdiu est in vita, non potest Deum diligere ex toto corde: ergo non tenemur modo illo Deum diligere.

3. Item, in hac vita diu esse non possumus sine veniali peccato4; sed cum peccat quis venialiter, movetur motu, qui nec est in Deum nec ad illum ordinatus: ergo impossibile est, quod homo in hac vita omnes motus suos ad Deum referat. Si ergo nemo tenetur ad impossibile, nemo tenetur ad illius modi impletionem.

Sed contra:

1. Matthaei vigesimo secundo5: Diliges Dominum Deum tuum etc.; et eiusdem decimo nono: Si vis ad vitam ingredi, serva mandata: ergo si hoc est praecipuum omnium mandatorum, homo tenetur praecipue ad illud servandum: ergo tenetur ad illius modi impletionem. Si tu dicas, quod hoc non cadit sub praecepto; contra hoc est, quia, si sub praecepto non cadit, ergo potius modus ille debuit poni inter consilia quam inter praecepta.

2. Item, cum Deus praecipit aliquid alicui, ut faciat tali tempore, non solum tenetur ad illud opus, sed etiam ad tempus, similiter etiam, et cum vovet: ergo pari ratione, cum Deus praecipit aliquid fieri, determinans modum, non solum tenetur quis ad actus exsecutionem, sed etiam ad modi impletionem. Si tu dicas, quod homo excusatur a tentione propter impossibilitatem praecepti implendi; contra hoc est quod dicit Hieronymus6: « Anathema sit qui dicit, Deum praecepisse impossibile »; et Augustinus: « Servum pigrum non damnaret, si ea quae nullo modo fieri poterant, imperaret ».

p. 614

3. Item, diligere Deum ex toto corde et ex tota anima et ex tota mente secundum Bernardum7 est diligere « dulciter et sapienter et fortiter »; secundum Augustinum est diligere « sine errore, sine contradictione et sine oblivione »; sed hoc totum potest homo et tenetur facere in statu viae: ergo tenemur ad huiusmodi mandati impletionem. Si tu dicas, quod Augustinus intelligit non tantum privative, sed etiam positive, ut omnis motus intellectus et affectus feratur in Deum8; adhuc videtur posse impleri, quia praeceptum affirmativum non obligat ad semper, et illud simpliciter dicitur posse impleri, quod potest impleri pro loco et tempore; sed aliquando potest homo cogitare solum de Deo et circa ipsum affici: ergo videtur, quod modus ille dilectionis in via simpliciter debeat et potest impleri.

Iuxta hoc quaeritur: si modus ille non potest impleri in via, nec quis tenetur illud implere, ad quid apponitur inter praecepta divina? Si tu dicas, sicut dicit Augustinus9, quod hoc est, ut sciamus, quo tendere debeamus; pari ratione ergo videtur, quod Deus debuerit praecepisse, ut videamus eum facie ad faciem; quod si non debuit facere, non videtur illa ratio sufficiens, quam Augustinus assignat.

Conclusio. Praeceptum de diligendo Deo datum ita tenemur implere, ut excludatur a corde nostro omnis affectus contrarius; non tamen ita, ut excludatur penitus omnis affectus extraneus.

Respondeo: Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod cum aliquando dicant sacri Doctores, modum praedictum posse impleri, aliquando dicant, non posse impleri10; ex hoc admonemur, si utrumque videre possumus, quod uno modo ad praedictum modum obligamur adimplendum, alio modo excitamur ad ipsum desiderandum; unde modus praedictus uno modo est dispositio meriti, alio modo est dispositio praemii.

Hoc autem est secundum duplicem modum totalitatis11 cordis, animae et mentis. Dupliciter enim potest intelligi, quod amor Dei possideat totum cor: aut ita, quod excludat omnem affectum extraneum; et tunc dominatur plene et perfecte cordi. Hoc autem est, quando omnes motus cordis per amorem referuntur in Deum; et haec totalitas ponit dominium plenum. Alio modo dicitur amor Dei totum cor possidere, quando excludit omnem affectum contrarium, hoc est, quod nihil diligatur supra Deum, vel aequaliter ipsi Deo; et sic diligit Deum ex toto corde, qui diligit eum propter se et super omnia12. — Prima totalitas, quae excludit omnem extraneum motum, est perfecti dominii nec potest haberi ante adeptionem gloriae, ubi ad ipsum Deum aspiciemus et in ipsum feremur continue. Secunda vero totalitas potest haberi per infusionem gratiae, quae est expulsiva omnis mortalis culpae.

Si ergo in illo praecepto intelligatur Deus diligi ex tota anima et ex toto corde et ex tota mente quantum ad primam acceptionem totalitatis; sic modus ille non obligat ad sui impletionem; sed exprimitur in praecepto, ut sciamus, quo per amorem debeamus tendere, et ut nemo se perfectum arbitretur, quousque illam perfectionem fuerit assecutus. Si vero dicatur diligere ex toto corde secundum secundam acceptionem; sic tenemur ad illum modum implendum. — Et quia secundum utramque acceptionem voluit Spiritus sanctus intelligi praedictum mandatum; hinc est, quod quidam dicunt, ipsum posse impleri in via, quidam vero dicunt, quod non potest impleri, quousque perveniatur in patriam. — Et secundum hoc procedunt rationes ad partes oppositas.

Si autem quaeratur, quare in isto praecepto magis exprimitur, quo tendere debeamus, quam in aliis praeceptis; responderi potest, quia plenitudo Legis est dilectio13, et finis praecepti est caritas, et mandatum dilectionis est primum et summum secundum divinum testimonium; ideo disposuit Spiritus sanctus circa ipsum exprimere perfectionem

p. 615

et complementum, ad quod singula bona et mandata ordinantur, magis quam in aliquo praeceptorum. Et per haec patent omnia quae circa hoc quaeruntur.

Si quis autem contendat14, modum illum simpliciter posse impleri in via quantum ad aliquod tempus, in quo potest homo totaliter ferri in Deum, ita ut nec sint in eo motus caritati oppositi nec etiam extranei; responderi potest, quod licet hoc possit esse et aliquando sit in aliquibus personis excellentibus, non tamen communiter reperitur in iustis omnibus15. — Praeterea, licet sit ibi totalitas motuum ut nunc, non tamen est simpliciter. Et ideo defectus est a perfecta totalitate, quae est totalitas motuum et temporum; et haec est, quae simpliciter excludit motum extraneum. Et ita, quamvis aliquo modo impleri possit modus ille, non tamen omnino, sicut insinuatur in illo praecepto. Et hoc innuit Augustinus, cum dicit: « Cum aliquid adhuc est carnalis concupiscentiae, non omni modo ex tota anima diligitur Deus ». Et hoc ipsum vult dicere Magister16, cum dicit, « quod impleri potest hic modus praedictus secundum perfectionem viae, quae est perfectio currentis, non secundum perfectionem patriae, quae est perfectio pervenientis »; et ita vult, quod impleri possit « ex parte », non tamen omnino perfecte et integre17.

Scholion

II. Quoad ultimam (6.) huius articuli quaestionem cfr. hic dub. 3, ubi explicantur ipsa verba s. Scripturae de hoc praecepto. Duplicem de rebus hic tractatis quaestionem S. Thomas (hic q. 3. a. 2. et 4.) cum aliis magistris ponit, nempe, utrum Deus possit totaliter diligi — et utrum modus diligendi, qui est in praecepto, possit in via servari (cfr. S. II. II. q. 27. a. 5, q. 4. a. 6.). Licet non omnes doctores eisdem distinctionibus utantur, tamen in substantia doctrinae conveniunt. — Distinctio duplicis totalitatis, quarum altera est in via, altera in patria, a Guliel. Antissiodorensi (Sum. p. III. tr. 6. c. 1. q. 7.) tanquam inepta ad solvendam hanc quaestionem reiicitur: « quoniam ille qui est in statu contemplationis, refert omnes motus suos in Deum: ergo impletur illud mandatum etiam totalitate patriae; quod quidem verum est, sed hoc non potest facere diu ». Ad hanc obiectionem solvendam referuntur verba auctoris nostri in fine huius quaestionis posita. — Praeter S. Thomam: Petr. a Tar., hic q. 4. a. 1. quaestiunc. 2-4. — Richard. a Med., hic n. 8. q. 2. — Durand., hic q. 3.

---

English Translation
p. 613

Question VI. Whether we are bound to love God with our whole heart, with our whole soul, and with our whole mind.

Sixth and last, it is asked whether we are bound to fulfill that mode which the Lord implies in the precept of Matthew twenty-two1: You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind. And that we are not, it seems:

1. First, by the authority of Augustine, which is found in the text [of the Master]2: « When there is present anything of carnal concupiscence, God is not loved in every way with the whole soul »; but it is necessary that in this life there be something of carnal concupiscence: therefore it is impossible to fulfill that precept in this life. But no one is bound to the impossible: therefore we are not bound to its fulfillment.

2. Likewise, « it is impossible for anything to be moved at one and the same time by opposite motions »; but the soul, while it is in the flesh, has a motion bent back toward the body, because the body, which is corrupted, weighs down the soul3: therefore it cannot be borne wholly into God; and if a man, as long as he is in life, cannot love God with his whole heart: therefore we are not bound to love God in that mode.

3. Likewise, in this life we cannot be long without venial sin4; but when one sins venially, he is moved by a motion which is neither into God nor ordered toward him: therefore it is impossible that a man in this life should refer all his motions to God. If therefore no one is bound to the impossible, no one is bound to the fulfillment of that mode.

On the contrary:

1. Matthew twenty-two5: You shall love the Lord your God etc.; and the same [Gospel], nineteen: If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments: therefore if this is the chief of all the commandments, a man is bound chiefly to keep it: therefore he is bound to the fulfillment of that mode. If you say that this does not fall under a precept; against this is the fact that, if it does not fall under a precept, then that mode ought rather to have been placed among the counsels than among the precepts.

2. Likewise, when God commands anyone to do something at a given time, he is bound not only to that work but also to the time, and likewise too when he makes a vow: therefore by parity of reasoning, when God commands something to be done, determining the mode, one is bound not only to the carrying out of the act but also to the fulfillment of the mode. If you say that a man is excused from the obligation on account of the impossibility of fulfilling the precept; against this is what Jerome says6: « Let him be anathema who says that God commanded the impossible »; and Augustine: « He would not condemn the lazy servant if he commanded things that could in no way be done ».

p. 614

3. Likewise, to love God with the whole heart and with the whole soul and with the whole mind, according to Bernard7, is to love « sweetly and wisely and bravely »; according to Augustine it is to love « without error, without contradiction, and without forgetfulness »; but all this a man can and is bound to do in the state of the wayfarer: therefore we are bound to the fulfillment of this commandment. If you say that Augustine understands [this] not only privatively but also positively, so that every motion of the intellect and of the affection is borne into God8; still it seems able to be fulfilled, because an affirmative precept does not oblige for always, and that is said simply to be able to be fulfilled which can be fulfilled for a [given] place and time; but sometimes a man can think only of God and be affected concerning him: therefore it seems that that mode of love ought and can simply be fulfilled in the way.

Alongside this it is asked: if that mode cannot be fulfilled in the way, nor is anyone bound to fulfill it, to what end is it set among the divine precepts? If you say, as Augustine says9, that it is so that we may know whither we ought to tend; then by parity of reasoning it seems that God ought to have commanded that we should see him face to face; and if he ought not to have done so, that reason which Augustine assigns does not seem sufficient.

Conclusion. We are bound to fulfill the precept given concerning the love of God in such a way that every contrary affection is excluded from our heart; not, however, in such a way that every extraneous affection is utterly excluded.

I respond: For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that, since the holy Doctors sometimes say that the aforesaid mode can be fulfilled, and sometimes say that it cannot be fulfilled10, from this we are admonished, if we can see both, that in one way we are obliged to fulfill the aforesaid mode, and in another way we are roused to desire it; whence the aforesaid mode in one way is a disposition for merit, in another way a disposition for reward.

Now this is according to a twofold mode of totality11 of the heart, the soul, and the mind. For it can be understood in two ways that the love of God possesses the whole heart: either so that it excludes every extraneous affection, and then it rules the heart fully and perfectly. This is the case when all the motions of the heart are referred through love into God; and this totality establishes full dominion. In another way the love of God is said to possess the whole heart when it excludes every contrary affection, that is, that nothing be loved above God, or equally with God himself; and thus he loves God with his whole heart who loves him for his own sake and above all things12. — The first totality, which excludes every extraneous motion, is that of perfect dominion and cannot be had before the attainment of glory, where we shall gaze upon God himself and be borne into him continually. But the second totality can be had through the infusion of grace, which is expulsive of every mortal fault.

If therefore in that precept God is understood to be loved with the whole soul and with the whole heart and with the whole mind according to the first acceptation of totality; then that mode does not oblige to its fulfillment, but is expressed in the precept so that we may know whither we ought to tend through love, and so that no one may think himself perfect until he has attained that perfection. But if loving with the whole heart is taken according to the second acceptation; then we are bound to fulfill that mode. — And because according to both acceptations the Holy Spirit willed the aforesaid commandment to be understood; hence it is that some say it can be fulfilled in the way, while others say that it cannot be fulfilled until one arrives in the fatherland. — And according to this the arguments proceed to the opposite sides.

But if it be asked why in this precept it is rather expressed whither we ought to tend than in the other precepts; it can be answered that the fullness of the Law is love13, and the end of the precept is charity, and the commandment of love is the first and greatest according to the divine testimony; therefore the Holy Spirit disposed to express concerning it the perfection

p. 615

and completion to which all individual goods and commandments are ordered, more than in any of the precepts. And through these things all that is asked concerning this becomes clear.

But if anyone should contend14 that that mode can simply be fulfilled in the way for some time, in which a man can be borne wholly into God, so that there be in him neither motions opposed to charity nor even extraneous ones; it can be answered that, although this can be and sometimes is in certain excellent persons, nevertheless it is not commonly found in all the just15. — Moreover, although there be there a totality of motions as for now, yet it is not simply so. And therefore there is a defect from perfect totality, which is the totality of motions and of times; and this is what simply excludes extraneous motion. And so, although that mode can in some way be fulfilled, yet not altogether, as is intimated in that precept. And this Augustine intimates when he says: « When there is yet something of carnal concupiscence, God is not loved with the whole soul in every way ». And this same thing the Master means to say16 when he says « that this aforesaid mode can be fulfilled according to the perfection of the way, which is the perfection of one running, not according to the perfection of the fatherland, which is the perfection of one who has arrived »; and so he means that it can be fulfilled « in part », yet not altogether perfectly and entirely17.

Scholion

II. As to the last (6th) question of this article, see here dubium 3, where the very words of sacred Scripture concerning this precept are explained. A twofold question concerning the matters here treated is posed by St. Thomas (here q. 3, a. 2 and 4) along with other masters, namely, whether God can be loved totally — and whether the mode of loving which is in the precept can be observed in the way (cf. S. II–II, q. 27, a. 5; q. 4, a. 6). Although not all the doctors use the same distinctions, nevertheless they agree in the substance of the doctrine. — The distinction of the twofold totality, of which one is in the way, the other in the fatherland, is rejected by William of Auxerre (Summa, p. III, tr. 6, c. 1, q. 7) as inept for solving this question: « because he who is in the state of contemplation refers all his motions into God: therefore that commandment is fulfilled even with the totality of the fatherland; which indeed is true, but he cannot do this for long ». For solving this objection the words of our author placed at the end of this question are referred to. — Besides St. Thomas: Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 4, a. 1, quaestiunc. 2–4. — Richard of Mediavilla, here n. 8, q. 2. — Durandus, here q. 3.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Vers. 17.
    Verse 17. (P. 613, n. 1.)
  2. Hic c. 6. — Circa finem huius nec non 3. arg. respicitur regula 11. iuris (libr. v. Sexti Decretal. in fine): Nemo potest ad impossibile obligari.
    Here [in the text of the Master], c. 6. — Toward the end of this and likewise of the 3rd argument, reference is made to rule 11 of the law (Book V of the Sext of the Decretals, at the end): No one can be bound to the impossible. (P. 613, n. 2.)
  3. Sap. 9, 15. — Maior sumta est ex Aristot., VIII. Phys. text. 71. (c. 8.). — In conclus. pro est in via codd. l. bb est in hac vita; deinde cod. Z voci corde adiicit suo.
    Wisdom 9:15. — The major [premise] is taken from Aristotle, Physics VIII, text 71 (c. 8). — In the conclusion, for est in via codices l, bb read est in hac vita; then cod. Z adds suo to the word corde. (P. 613, n. 3.)
  4. Ita et August., de Spiritu et littera, c. 27. n. 48: Sine peccatis venialibus haec vita non ducitur. Cfr. II. Sent. d. 41. a. 2. q. 1. — Mox pro movetur edd. peccat. In fine arg. pro modi cod. X mandati.
    So too Augustine, On the Spirit and the Letter, c. 27, n. 48: This life is not led without venial sins. Cf. II Sent., d. 41, a. 2, q. 1. — Presently, for movetur the editions [read] peccat. At the end of the argument, for modi cod. X [reads] mandati. (P. 613, n. 4.)
  5. Vers. 37. — Seq. Scripturae locus ibid. 19, 17. — Pro et eiusdem non pauci codd. sed eiusdem. In fine arg. pro debuit edd. debet.
    Verse 37. — The following Scripture passage is the same [Gospel] 19:17. — For et eiusdem not a few codices [read] sed eiusdem. At the end of the argument, for debuit the editions [read] debet. (P. 613, n. 5.)
  6. In Explanatione symboli ad Damasum [inter opera Hieronymi]. Cfr. tom. II, pag. 691, nota 9. — Augustini verba inveniuntur in eius Serm. 54. (alias 2. de Verbis Domini) c. 2. — Pro praecepti (cod. D praecepta) implendi codd. A K bb mandati implendi.
    In the Explanation of the Creed to Damasus [among the works of Jerome]. Cf. tom. II, p. 691, note 9. — Augustine's words are found in his Sermon 54 (otherwise 2, On the Words of the Lord), c. 2. — For praecepti (cod. D praecepta) implendi codices A K bb [read] mandati implendi. (P. 613, n. 6.)
  7. Serm. 20. in Cantic. n. 4. et Serm. 29. de Diversis, n. 1. et 4. — De explicatione, quae hic et alibi Augustino tribuitur, vide quae observavimus tom. I. pag. 81, nota 8, nec non hic lit. Magistri, c. 5. in fine. Innocentius III., Serm. 4. in Communi de uno martyre, dicit: Ex hac comprehensiva cognitione procedit summa dilectio, per quam Sancti diligunt Deum ex toto corde, ex tota mente, ex tota anima (Matth. 22, 37.), Ex mente, id est memoria, diligunt Patrem; tota, id est sine oblivione. Ex corde, id est intellectu, diligunt Filium; toto, id est sine errore. Ex anima, id est voluntate, diligunt Spiritum sanctum; tota, id est sine contrarietate; adeo namque divinae voluntati per caritatem inhaerent, ut nihil omnino velint, nisi quod Deum velle cognoscunt. Cfr. ibid. Serm. 2. in festo B. Petri et Petr. Pictav., III. Sent. c. 23. Vide infra dub. 4.
    Sermon 20 on the Canticle, n. 4, and Sermon 29 On Diverse Subjects, n. 1 and 4. — Concerning the explanation which here and elsewhere is attributed to Augustine, see what we observed in tom. I, p. 81, note 8, and also here in the text of the Master, c. 5 at the end. Innocent III, Sermon 4 In the Common of One Martyr, says: From this comprehensive knowledge proceeds the highest love, by which the Saints love God with the whole heart, with the whole mind, with the whole soul (Matt. 22:37). From the mind, that is the memory, they love the Father; wholly, that is without forgetfulness. From the heart, that is the intellect, they love the Son; wholly, that is without error. From the soul, that is the will, they love the Holy Spirit; wholly, that is without contrariety; for they cleave to the divine will through charity so far that they will nothing at all except what they know God to will. Cf. ibid. Sermon 2 on the feast of St. Peter, and Peter of Poitiers, III Sent. c. 23. See below, dubium 4. (P. 613, n. 7.)
  8. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 3. in fine. — Mox pro ad semper Vat. pro semper. Post pauca codd. et Supplement. Sum. Alex. Hal. collat. 61. a. 2. omittunt pro ante loco et tempore.
    See here the text of the Master, c. 3 at the end. — Presently, for ad semper the Vatican [edition reads] pro semper. A little after, the codices and the Supplement to the Summa of Alexander of Hales, collatio 61, a. 2, omit pro before loco et tempore. (P. 614, n. 1.)
  9. De Perfectione iustit. hominis, c. 8. n. 19, unde et verba Magistri hic in lit. c. 6. circa finem sumta sunt. Cfr. de Spiritu et lit. c. 36. n. 64. — Paulo inferius respicitur I. Cor. 13, 12. — Paulo superius plures codd. et Supplement. Sum. Alex. Hal. omittunt in via; deinde Vat. pro illud implere substituit illum implere.
    On the Perfection of Man's Righteousness, c. 8, n. 19, whence too the Master's words here in the text, c. 6, near the end, are taken. Cf. On the Spirit and the Letter, c. 36, n. 64. — A little below, reference is made to 1 Cor. 13:12. — A little above, several codices and the Supplement to the Summa of Alexander of Hales omit in via; then the Vatican [edition] substitutes illum implere for illud implere. (P. 614, n. 2.)
  10. Praeter August. iam laudat. cfr. Bernard., de Diligendo Deo, c. 10. n. 29.
    Besides Augustine already cited, cf. Bernard, On Loving God, c. 10, n. 29. (P. 614, n. 3.)
  11. Cod. Z secundum duplicem totalitatem.
    Cod. Z [reads] according to a twofold totality. (P. 614, n. 4.)
  12. August., de Spiritu et littera, c. 36. n. 63: Aliud est enim totam nondum assequi caritatem, aliud, nullam sequi cupiditatem. Quam ob rem debet homo, quamvis longe minus amet Deum, quam eum potest amare conspectum, nihil tamen appetere illicitum, sicut etiam in his quae adiacent sensibus corporis, potest oculus nullis tenebris delectari, quamvis non possit in fulgentissima luce defigi. Verum ecce iam talem constituamus animam humanam in hoc corruptibili corpore, quae, etsi nondum illa supereminentissima perfectione caritatis Dei omnes motus terrenae libidinis absorbuerit atque consumserit, attamen in ista minore iustitia ad illicitum aliquid operandum eidem libidini nulla inclinatione consentiat etc. — Paulo inferius pro ubi non pauci codd. et edd. 1, 2 nisi, et deinde pro aspiciemus codd. A I K L atque edd. 1, 2 aspiciamus. Mox pro feremur edd. 1, 2 cum cod. A feramur.
    Augustine, On the Spirit and the Letter, c. 36, n. 63: For it is one thing not yet to attain the whole of charity, another to follow no cupidity. Wherefore a man, although he love God far less than he can love him when beheld, ought nevertheless to desire nothing unlawful, just as also in those things which lie before the senses of the body the eye can take delight in no darkness, although it cannot be fixed on the most brilliant light. But behold, let us now set up such a human soul in this corruptible body, which, even if it has not yet by that most pre-eminent perfection of the charity of God absorbed and consumed all the motions of earthly lust, nevertheless in this lesser righteousness consents by no inclination to that lust to work anything unlawful etc. — A little below, for ubi not a few codices and editions 1, 2 [read] nisi, and then for aspiciemus codices A I K L and editions 1, 2 [read] aspiciamus. Presently, for feremur editions 1, 2 with cod. A [read] feramur. (P. 614, n. 5.)
  13. Rom. 13, 10. — Seq. testimonium est I. Tim. 1, 5; deinde respicitur Matth. 22, 38: Hoc est maximum et primum mandatum. — De Augustini verbis [« Sed ideo nobis hoc etiam nunc praeceptum est, ut admoneremur, quid fide exposcere, quo spem praemittere, et obliviscendo quae retro sunt, in quae anteriora nos extendere debeamus » etc.] vide August., de Spiritu et littera, c. 36. n. 64.
    Rom. 13:10. — The following testimony is 1 Tim. 1:5; then reference is made to Matt. 22:38: This is the greatest and first commandment. — On Augustine's words [« But for this reason this too is commanded us even now, that we might be admonished what to ask for by faith, whither to send hope ahead, and, forgetting the things that are behind, into what things that are ahead we ought to extend ourselves » etc.] see Augustine, On the Spirit and the Letter, c. 36, n. 64. (P. 614, nn. 6–7.)
  14. Edd. 1, 2 opponant, Vat. opponat sive attentet. Post pauca pro in quo potest cod. Z quia potest. Inferius etiam pro iustis omnibus codd. A K Z et edd. iustis hominibus.
    Editions 1, 2 [read] opponant, the Vatican [edition] opponat sive attentet [let him object or attend]. A little after, for in quo potest cod. Z [reads] quia potest. Lower down too, for iustis omnibus codices A K Z and the editions [read] iustis hominibus [just men]. (P. 615, n. 1.)
  15. Cfr. August., de Spiritu et littera, c. 36. n. 66.
    Cf. Augustine, On the Spirit and the Letter, c. 36, n. 66. (P. 615, n. 2.)
  16. Hic c. 6.
    Here [in the text of the Master], c. 6. (P. 615, n. 3.)
  17. Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.
    See the scholion to the preceding question. (P. 615, n. 4.)
← Dist. 27, Art. 2, Q. 5Dist. 27, Dubia→