|
Objection 1: It would seem that there should not have been given two
precepts of charity. For the precepts of the Law are directed to
virtue, as stated above (Article 1, Objection 3). Now charity
is one virtue, as shown above (Question 33, Article 5).
Therefore only one precept of charity should have been given.
Objection 2: Further, as Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ.
i, 22,27), charity loves none but God in our neighbor. Now we
are sufficiently directed to love God by the precept, "Thou shalt
love the Lord thy God." Therefore there was no need to add the
precept about loving our neighbor.
Objection 3: Further, different sins are opposed to different
precepts. But it is not a sin to put aside the love of our neighbor,
provided we put not aside the love of God; indeed, it is written
(Lk. 15:26): "If any man come to Me, and hate not his
father, and mother . . . he cannot be My disciple." Therefore
the precept of the love of God is not distinct from the precept of the
love of our neighbor.
Objection 4: Further, the Apostle says (Rm. 13:8): "He
that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the Law." But a law is not
fulfilled unless all its precepts be observed. Therefore all the
precepts are included in the love of our neighbor: and consequently the
one precept of the love of our neighbor suffices. Therefore there
should not be two precepts of charity.
On the contrary, It is written (1 Jn. 4:21): "This
commandment we have from God, that he who loveth God, love also his
brother."
I answer that, As stated above (FS, Question 91, Article
3; FS, Question 94, Article 2) when we were treating of the
commandments, the precepts are to the Law what propositions are to
speculative sciences, for in these latter, the conclusions are
virtually contained in the first principles. Hence whoever knows the
principles as to their entire virtual extent has no need to have the
conclusions put separately before him. Since, however, some who know
the principles are unable to consider all that is virtually contained
therein, it is necessary, for their sake, that scientific conclusions
should be traced to their principles. Now in practical matters wherein
the precepts of the Law direct us, the end has the character of
principle, as stated above (Question 23, Article 7, ad 2;
Question 26, Article 1, ad 1): and the love of God is the end
to which the love of our neighbor is directed. Therefore it behooved
us to receive precepts not only of the love of God but also of the love
of our neighbor, on account of those who are less intelligent, who do
not easily understand that one of these precepts is included in the
other.
Reply to Objection 1: Although charity is one virtue, yet it has
two acts, one of which is directed to the other as to its end. Now
precepts are given about acts of virtue, and so there had to be several
precepts of charity.
Reply to Objection 2: God is loved in our neighbor, as the end is
loved in that which is directed to the end; and yet there was need for
an explicit precept about both, for the reason given above.
Reply to Objection 3: The means derive their goodness from their
relation to the end, and accordingly aversion from the means derives
its malice from the same source and from no other
Reply to Objection 4: Love of our neighbor includes love of God,
as the end is included in the means, and vice versa: and yet it
behooved each precept to be given explicitly, for the reason given
above.
|
|