Annotation CI

”Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” — Matthew 22:39

Whether the precepts of the second table can be fulfilled without the grace of God.

Ambrose [Catharinus], in the second book, disapproves Thomas Cajetan’s exposition as Pelagian, in these words: “The commandment concerning [the] neighbor — of which the Lord [speaks], ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself’ — he [Cajetan] says is not to be understood of love from charity. And he proves [it thus]: because this precept presupposes proper [self-]love, which can be fulfilled without charity, as is plain in those keeping all the precepts of the second table without charity; and so it does not presuppose love from charity. Therefore love of neighbor from charity is not commanded [here].” Thus he [Cajetan], firstly. But it is false, what he assumes as [if] granted — namely, that the precepts of the second table can be fulfilled without charity and the grace of God; nay, according to Augustine’s opinion, it is Pelagian. For nothing would prevent [that] even without charity the precepts of the first table too could be fulfilled — which Cajetan himself also admits. And so, without grace and charity, the whole Law and the Prophets could be fulfilled, and Christ would abound to us superfluously. But this is the very dogma of Pelagius. He adds a second argument, and says: “Here love of neighbor is commanded from the example of proper [self-]love, [which is] certain and indubitable — that is, ‘as thou dost in fact love thyself’; but love of neighbor from charity is not certain and indubitable.” Thus he. And this too, which he assumes, is most false: because love of neighbor is not commanded us [to be] as we in fact love ourselves, but as we are reasonably bound to love

— ourselves: for so ought the words of the law to be interpreted; lest otherwise, if anyone perversely loves himself in fact — as are those who willingly work iniquity — they should even receive the commandment of loving [their] neighbor thus; which it is insane to admit. For that [saying] too, “Whatever you wish that men do to you,” is not understood [as] “whatever you wish in fact,” but “whatever you ought reasonably to wish, by [right] estimation” — as Cajetan himself there expounds, and rightly. And as for what he adds in the third [place] — that love of neighbor from charity is not commanded [here] because it would be superfluously commanded, since it is implicitly contained in the first commandment concerning the love of God — this, in truth, elegantly overturns his own exposition. For if in the first commandment is contained the commandment of love of neighbor from charity, then it is superfluous to command that [the neighbor] be loved not from charity, since it is enough — nay, more [than enough] — to love [him] from charity. For grace does not destroy nature, but perfects [it]. Add [too] that if the first commandment concerning the love of God is understood [to be] from charity, and this second is said [to be] “like to it,” as the Lord says: certainly it too ought to be understood [as] from charity in like manner; otherwise it would be very unlike, and would differ [as far] as darkness differs from light.

See, then, how he is deceived everywhere, and errs, as is said, at the very doors [threshold]. For these are the principles of our faith. For he too, writing on Deuteronomy chapter 6, holds that both these precepts, handed down there — “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God,” etc. — are not [to be] understood [as] from charity. But if this is true, then it would be false [that] the Lord [says] that this was the greatest commandment. For it would not be the greatest, since a far greater [one] would be given — namely, to love from charity. Likewise, [Christ] would falsely have promised eternal life to the one doing it — for thus he said, “Do this, and thou shalt live.” And it would be false that on this [depend] the whole Law and the Prophets. And [it would be] false that it was greater than all holocausts, etc.