|
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 God, 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 God and himself, it seems that the precepts of the
decalogue are insufficiently enumerated.
Objection 2: Further, just as the Sabbath-day observance
pertained to the worship of God, 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.
Objection 3: Further, as sins against God include the sin of
perjury, so also do they include blasphemy, or other ways of lying
against the teaching of God. But there is a precept forbidding
perjury, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in
vain." Therefore there should be also a precept of the decalogue
forbidding blasphemy and false doctrine.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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 (Dt. 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 (Article 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 God. 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 God; and in the second
place, other precepts ordering man in his relations to other men who
are his neighbors and live with him under God.
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 gods." 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 God 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 God 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 God 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 God. 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 to Objection 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 God 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
God and of one's neighbor: since true self-love consists in
directing oneself to God. And for this reason the decalogue includes
those precepts only which refer to our neighbor and to God.
Secondly, it may be answered that the precepts of the decalogue are
those which the people received from God immediately; wherefore it is
written (Dt. 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 God 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 through the instruction of
men who are versed in such matters; and, consequently, they are not
contained in the decalogue.
Reply to Objection 2: All the solemnities of the Old Law were
instituted 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
God, 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 (Is.
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
Passover in memory of the past favor of the delivery from Egypt, and
as a sign of the future Passion 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 to Objection 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 God in vain," are a prohibition of false doctrine,
for one gloss expounds them thus: "Thou shalt not say that Christ is
a creature."
Reply to Objection 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 to Objection 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 appetite: 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 to Objection 6: As stated above (Question 25, Article
1), all the passions of the irascible faculty arise from the passions
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 passions, but only of the concupiscible
passions.
|
|