any graven thing"; as third, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy G.o.d in vain"; and as fourth, "Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath-day." The other six he reckons in the same way as Hesychius.
Since, however, the making of graven things or the likeness of anything is not forbidden except as to the point of their being worshipped as G.o.ds--for G.o.d commanded an image of the Seraphim [Vulg.: Cherubim] to be made and placed in the tabernacle, as related in Ex. 25:18--Augustine more fittingly unites these two, "Thou shalt not have strange G.o.ds before Me," and, "Thou shalt not make ... any graven thing," into one precept. Likewise to covet another"s wife, for the purpose of carnal knowledge, belongs to the concupiscence of the flesh; whereas, to covet other things, which are desired for the purpose of possession, belongs to the concupiscence of the eyes; wherefore Augustine reckons as distinct precepts, that which forbids the coveting of another"s goods, and that which prohibits the coveting of another"s wife. Thus he distinguishes three precepts as referring to G.o.d, and seven as referring to our neighbor. And this is better.
Reply Obj. 1: Worship is merely a declaration of faith: wherefore the precepts about worship should not be reckoned as distinct from those about faith. Nevertheless precepts should be given about worship rather than about faith, because the precept about faith is presupposed to the precepts of the decalogue, as is also the precept of charity. For just as the first general principles of the natural law are self-evident to a subject having natural reason, and need no promulgation; so also to believe in G.o.d is a first and self-evident principle to a subject possessed of faith: "for he that cometh to G.o.d, must believe that He is" (Heb. 11:6). Hence it needs no other promulgation that the infusion of faith.
Reply Obj. 2: The affirmative precepts are distinct from the negative, when one is not comprised in the other: thus that man should honor his parents does not include that he should not kill another man; nor does the latter include the former. But when an affirmative precept is included in a negative, or vice versa, we do not find that two distinct precepts are given: thus there is not one precept saying that "Thou shalt not steal," and another binding one to keep another"s property intact, or to give it back to its owner.
In the same way there are not different precepts about believing in G.o.d, and about not believing in strange G.o.ds.
Reply Obj. 3: All covetousness has one common ratio: and therefore the Apostle speaks of the commandment about covetousness as though it were one. But because there are various special kinds of covetousness, therefore Augustine distinguishes different prohibitions against coveting: for covetousness differs specifically in respect of the diversity of actions or things coveted, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 5).
________________________
FIFTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 100, Art. 5]
Whether the Precepts of the Decalogue Are Suitably Set Forth?
Objection 1: It would seem that the precepts of the decalogue are unsuitably set forth. Because sin, as stated by Ambrose (De Paradiso viii), is "a transgression of the Divine law and a disobedience to the commandments of heaven." But sins are distinguished according as man sins against G.o.d, or his neighbor, or himself. Since, then, the decalogue does not include any precepts directing man in his relations to himself, but only such as direct him in his relations to G.o.d and himself, it seems that the precepts of the decalogue are insufficiently enumerated.
Obj. 2: Further, just as the Sabbath-day observance pertained to the worship of G.o.d, so also did the observance of other solemnities, and the offering of sacrifices. But the decalogue contains a precept about the Sabbath-day observance. Therefore it should contain others also, pertaining to the other solemnities, and to the sacrificial rite.
Obj. 3: Further, as sins against G.o.d include the sin of perjury, so also do they include blasphemy, or other ways of lying against the teaching of G.o.d. But there is a precept forbidding perjury, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy G.o.d in vain." Therefore there should be also a precept of the decalogue forbidding blasphemy and false doctrine.
Obj. 4: Further, just as man has a natural affection for his parents, so has he also for his children. Moreover the commandment of charity extends to all our neighbors. Now the precepts of the decalogue are ordained unto charity, according to 1 Tim. 1:5: "The end of the commandment is charity." Therefore as there is a precept referring to parents, so should there have been some precepts referring to children and other neighbors.
Obj. 5: Further, in every kind of sin, it is possible to sin in thought or in deed. But in some kinds of sin, namely in theft and adultery, the prohibition of sins of deed, when it is said, "Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal," is distinct from the prohibition of the sin of thought, when it is said, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor"s goods," and, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor"s wife." Therefore the same should have been done in regard to the sins of homicide and false witness.
Obj. 6: Further, just as sin happens through disorder of the concupiscible faculty, so does it arise through disorder of the irascible part. But some precepts forbid inordinate concupiscence, when it is said, "Thou shalt not covet." Therefore the decalogue should have included some precepts forbidding the disorders of the irascible faculty. Therefore it seems that the ten precepts of the decalogue are unfittingly enumerated.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Deut. 4:13): "He shewed you His covenant, which He commanded you to do, and the ten words that He wrote in two tablets of stone."
_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 2), just as the precepts of human law direct man in his relations to the human community, so the precepts of the Divine law direct man in his relations to a community or commonwealth of men under G.o.d. Now in order that any man may dwell aright in a community, two things are required: the first is that he behave well to the head of the community; the other is that he behave well to those who are his fellows and partners in the community. It is therefore necessary that the Divine law should contain in the first place precepts ordering man in his relations to G.o.d; and in the second place, other precepts ordering man in his relations to other men who are his neighbors and live with him under G.o.d.
Now man owes three things to the head of the community: first, fidelity; secondly, reverence; thirdly, service. Fidelity to his master consists in his not giving sovereign honor to another: and this is the sense of the first commandment, in the words "Thou shalt not have strange G.o.ds." Reverence to his master requires that he should do nothing injurious to him: and this is conveyed by the second commandment, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy G.o.d in vain." Service is due to the master in return for the benefits which his subjects receive from him: and to this belongs the third commandment of the sanctification of the Sabbath in memory of the creation of all things.
To his neighbors a man behaves himself well both in particular and in general. In particular, as to those to whom he is indebted, by paying his debts: and in this sense is to be taken the commandment about honoring one"s parents. In general, as to all men, by doing harm to none, either by deed, or by word, or by thought. By deed, harm is done to one"s neighbor--sometimes in his person, i.e. as to his personal existence; and this is forbidden by the words, "Thou shalt not kill": sometimes in a person united to him, as to the propagation of offspring; and this is prohibited by the words, "Thou shalt not commit adultery": sometimes in his possessions, which are directed to both the aforesaid; and with this regard to this it is said, "Thou shalt not steal." Harm done by word is forbidden when it is said, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor": harm done by thought is forbidden in the words, "Thou shalt not covet."
The three precepts that direct man in his behavior towards G.o.d may also be differentiated in this same way. For the first refers to deeds; wherefore it is said, "Thou shalt not make ... a graven thing": the second, to words; wherefore it is said, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy G.o.d in vain": the third, to thoughts; because the sanctification of the Sabbath, as the subject of a moral precept, requires repose of the heart in G.o.d. Or, according to Augustine (In Ps. 32: Conc. 1), by the first commandment we reverence the unity of the First Principle; by the second, the Divine truth; by the third, His goodness whereby we are sanctified, and wherein we rest as in our last end.
Reply Obj. 1: This objection may be answered in two ways. First, because the precepts of the decalogue can be reduced to the precepts of charity. Now there was need for man to receive a precept about loving G.o.d and his neighbor, because in this respect the natural law had become obscured on account of sin: but not about the duty of loving oneself, because in this respect the natural law retained its vigor: or again, because love of oneself is contained in the love of G.o.d and of one"s neighbor: since true self-love consists in directing oneself to G.o.d. And for this reason the decalogue includes those precepts only which refer to our neighbor and to G.o.d.
Secondly, it may be answered that the precepts of the decalogue are those which the people received from G.o.d immediately; wherefore it is written (Deut. 10:4): "He wrote in the tables, according as He had written before, the ten words, which the Lord spoke to you." Hence the precepts of the decalogue need to be such as the people can understand at once. Now a precept implies the notion of duty. But it is easy for a man, especially for a believer, to understand that, of necessity, he owes certain duties to G.o.d and to his neighbor. But that, in matters which regard himself and not another, man has, of necessity, certain duties to himself, is not so evident: for, at the first glance, it seems that everyone is free in matters that concern himself. And therefore the precepts which prohibit disorders of a man with regard to himself, reach the people through the instruction of men who are versed in such matters; and, consequently, they are not contained in the decalogue.
Reply Obj. 2: All the solemnities of the Old Law were inst.i.tuted in celebration of some Divine favor, either in memory of past favors, or in sign of some favor to come: in like manner all the sacrifices were offered up with the same purpose. Now of all the Divine favors to be commemorated the chief was that of the Creation, which was called to mind by the sanctification of the Sabbath; wherefore the reason for this precept is given in Ex. 20:11: "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth," etc. And of all future blessings, the chief and final was the repose of the mind in G.o.d, either, in the present life, by grace, or, in the future life, by glory; which repose was also foreshadowed in the Sabbath-day observance: wherefore it is written (Isa. 58:13): "If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy own will in My holy day, and call the Sabbath delightful, and the holy of the Lord glorious." Because these favors first and chiefly are borne in mind by men, especially by the faithful. But other solemnities were celebrated on account of certain particular favors temporal and transitory, such as the celebration of the Pa.s.sover in memory of the past favor of the delivery from Egypt, and as a sign of the future Pa.s.sion of Christ, which though temporal and transitory, brought us to the repose of the spiritual Sabbath. Consequently, the Sabbath alone, and none of the other solemnities and sacrifices, is mentioned in the precepts of the decalogue.
Reply Obj. 3: As the Apostle says (Heb. 6:16), "men swear by one greater than themselves; and an oath for confirmation is the end of all their controversy." Hence, since oaths are common to all, inordinate swearing is the matter of a special prohibition by a precept of the decalogue. According to one interpretation, however, the words, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy G.o.d in vain," are a prohibition of false doctrine, for one gloss expounds them thus: "Thou shalt not say that Christ is a creature."
Reply Obj. 4: That a man should not do harm to anyone is an immediate dictate of his natural reason: and therefore the precepts that forbid the doing of harm are binding on all men. But it is not an immediate dictate of natural reason that a man should do one thing in return for another, unless he happen to be indebted to someone. Now a son"s debt to his father is so evident that one cannot get away from it by denying it: since the father is the principle of generation and being, and also of upbringing and teaching. Wherefore the decalogue does not prescribe deeds of kindness or service to be done to anyone except to one"s parents. On the other hand parents do not seem to be indebted to their children for any favors received, but rather the reverse is the case. Again, a child is a part of his father; and "parents love their children as being a part of themselves," as the Philosopher states (Ethic. viii, 12). Hence, just as the decalogue contains no ordinance as to man"s behavior towards himself, so, for the same reason, it includes no precept about loving one"s children.
Reply Obj. 5: The pleasure of adultery and the usefulness of wealth, in so far as they have the character of pleasurable or useful good, are of themselves, objects of appet.i.te: and for this reason they needed to be forbidden not only in the deed but also in the desire.
But murder and falsehood are, of themselves, objects of repulsion (since it is natural for man to love his neighbor and the truth): and are desired only for the sake of something else. Consequently with regard to sins of murder and false witness, it was necessary to proscribe, not sins of thought, but only sins of deed.
Reply Obj. 6: As stated above (Q. 25, A. 1), all the pa.s.sions of the irascible faculty arise from the pa.s.sions of the concupiscible part.
Hence, as the precepts of the decalogue are, as it were, the first elements of the Law, there was no need for mention of the irascible pa.s.sions, but only of the concupiscible pa.s.sions.
________________________
SIXTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 100, Art. 6]
Whether the Ten Precepts of the Decalogue Are Set in Proper Order?
Objection 1: It would seem that the ten precepts of the decalogue are not set in proper order. Because love of one"s neighbor is seemingly previous to love of G.o.d, since our neighbor is better known to us than G.o.d is; according to 1 John 4:20: "He that loveth not his brother, whom he seeth, how can he love G.o.d, Whom he seeth not?" But the first three precepts belong to the love of G.o.d, while the other seven pertain to the love of our neighbor. Therefore the precepts of the decalogue are not set in proper order.
Obj. 2: Further, the acts of virtue are prescribed by the affirmative precepts, and acts of vice are forbidden by the negative precepts.
But according to Boethius in his commentary on the _Categories_ [*Lib. iv, cap. De Oppos.], vices should be uprooted before virtues are sown. Therefore among the precepts concerning our neighbor, the negative precepts should have preceded the affirmative.
Obj. 3: Further, the precepts of the Law are about men"s actions. But actions of thought precede actions of word or outward deed. Therefore the precepts about not coveting, which regard our thoughts, are unsuitably placed last in order.
_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says (Rom. 13:1): "The things that are of G.o.d, are well ordered" [Vulg.: "Those that are, are ordained of G.o.d"]. But the precepts of the decalogue were given immediately by G.o.d, as stated above (A. 3). Therefore they are arranged in becoming order.
_I answer that,_ As stated above (AA. 3, 5, ad 1), the precepts of the decalogue are such as the mind of man is ready to grasp at once.
Now it is evident that a thing is so much the more easily grasped by the reason, as its contrary is more grievous and repugnant to reason.
Moreover, it is clear, since the order of reason begins with the end, that, for a man to be inordinately disposed towards his end, is supremely contrary to reason. Now the end of human life and society is G.o.d. Consequently it was necessary for the precepts of the decalogue, first of all, to direct man to G.o.d; since the contrary to this is most grievous. Thus also, in an army, which is ordained to the commander as to its end, it is requisite first that the soldier should be subject to the commander, and the opposite of this is most grievous; and secondly it is requisite that he should be in coordination with the other soldiers.
Now among those things whereby we are ordained to G.o.d, the first is that man should be subjected to Him faithfully, by having nothing in common with His enemies. The second is that he should show Him reverence: the third that he should offer Him service. Thus, in an army, it is a greater sin for a soldier to act treacherously and make a compact with the foe, than to be insolent to his commander: and this last is more grievous than if he be found wanting in some point of service to him.
As to the precepts that direct man in his behavior towards his neighbor, it is evident that it is more repugnant to reason, and a more grievous sin, if man does not observe the due order as to those persons to whom he is most indebted. Consequently, among those precepts that direct man in his relations to his neighbor, the first place is given to that one which regards his parents. Among the other precepts we again find the order to be according to the gravity of sin. For it is more grave and more repugnant to reason, to sin by deed than by word; and by word than by thought. And among sins of deed, murder which destroys life in one already living is more grievous than adultery, which imperils the life of the unborn child; and adultery is more grave than theft, which regards external goods.
Reply Obj. 1: Although our neighbor is better known than G.o.d by the way of the senses, nevertheless the love of G.o.d is the reason for the love of our neighbor, as shall be declared later on (II-II, Q. 25, A.
1; Q. 26, A. 2). Hence the precepts ordaining man to G.o.d demanded precedence of the others.
Reply Obj. 2: Just as G.o.d is the universal principle of being in respect of all things, so is a father a principle of being in respect of his son. Therefore the precept regarding parents was fittingly placed after the precepts regarding G.o.d. This argument holds in respect of affirmative and negative precepts about the same kind of deed: although even then it is not altogether cogent. For although in the order of execution, vices should be uprooted before virtues are sown, according to Ps. 33:15: "Turn away from evil, and do good," and Isa. 1:16, 17: "Cease to do perversely; learn to do well"; yet, in the order of knowledge, virtue precedes vice, because "the crooked line is known by the straight" (De Anima i): and "by the law is the knowledge of sin" (Rom. 3:20). Wherefore the affirmative precept demanded the first place. However, this is not the reason for the order, but that which is given above. Because in the precepts regarding G.o.d, which belongs to the first table, an affirmative precept is placed last, since its transgression implies a less grievous sin.
Reply Obj. 3: Although sin of thought stands first in the order of execution, yet its prohibition holds a later position in the order of reason.
________________________
SEVENTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 100, Art. 7]
Whether the Precepts of the Decalogue Are Suitably Formulated?
Objection 1: It would seem that the precepts of the decalogue are unsuitably formulated. Because the affirmative precepts direct man to acts of virtue, while the negative precepts withdraw him from acts of vice. But in every matter there are virtues and vices opposed to one another. Therefore in whatever matter there is an ordinance of a precept of the decalogue, there should have been an affirmative and a negative precept. Therefore it was unfitting that affirmative precepts should be framed in some matters, and negative precepts in others.
Obj. 2: Further, Isidore says (Etym. ii, 10) that every law is based on reason. But all the precepts of the decalogue belong to the Divine law. Therefore the reason should have been pointed out in each precept, and not only in the first and third.
Obj. 3: Further, by observing the precepts man deserves to be rewarded by G.o.d. But the Divine promises concern the rewards of the precepts. Therefore the promise should have been included in each precept, and not only in the second and fourth.
Obj. 4: Further, the Old Law is called "the law of fear," in so far as it induced men to observe the precepts, by means of the threat of punishments. But all the precepts of the decalogue belong to the Old Law. Therefore a threat of punishment should have been included in each, and not only in the first and second.
Obj. 5: Further, all the commandments of G.o.d should be retained in the memory: for it is written (Prov. 3:3): "Write them in the tables of thy heart." Therefore it was not fitting that mention of the memory should be made in the third commandment only. Consequently it seems that the precepts of the decalogue are unsuitably formulated.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Wis. 11:21) that "G.o.d made all things, in measure, number and weight." Much more therefore did He observe a suitable manner in formulating His Law.