|
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.
Objection 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.
Objection 3: Further, by observing the precepts man deserves to be
rewarded by God. 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 5: Further, all the commandments of God 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 "God made
all things, in measure, number and weight." Much more therefore did
He observe a suitable manner in formulating His Law.
I answer that, The highest wisdom is contained in the precepts of the
Divine law: wherefore it is written (Dt. 4:6): "This is your
wisdom and understanding in the sight of nations." Now it belongs to
wisdom to arrange all things in due manner and order. Therefore it
must be evident that the precepts of the Law are suitably set forth.
Reply to Objection 1: Affirmation of one thing always leads to the
denial of its opposite: but the denial of one opposite does not always
lead to the affirmation of the other. For it follows that if a thing
is white, it is not black: but it does not follow that if it is not
black, it is white: because negation extends further than
affirmation. And hence too, that one ought not to do harm to
another, which pertains to the negative precepts, extends to more
persons, as a primary dictate of reason, than that one ought to do
someone a service or kindness. Nevertheless it is a primary dictate of
reason that man is a debtor in the point of rendering a service or
kindness to those from whom he has received kindness, if he has not yet
repaid the debt. Now there are two whose favors no man can
sufficiently repay, viz. God and man's father, as stated in
Ethic. viii, 14. Therefore it is that there are only two
affirmative precepts; one about the honor due to parents, the other
about the celebration of the Sabbath in memory of the Divine favor.
Reply to Objection 2: The reasons for the purely moral precepts are
manifest; hence there was no need to add the reason. But some of the
precepts include ceremonial matter, or a determination of a general
moral precept; thus the first precept includes the determination,
"Thou shalt not make a graven thing"; and in the third precept the
Sabbath-day is fixed. Consequently there was need to state the
reason in each case.
Reply to Objection 3: Generally speaking, men direct their actions
to some point of utility. Consequently in those precepts in which it
seemed that there would be no useful result, or that some utility might
be hindered, it was necessary to add a promise of reward. And since
parents are already on the way to depart from us, no benefit is
expected from them: wherefore a promise of reward is added to the
precept about honoring one's parents. The same applies to the precept
forbidding idolatry: since thereby it seemed that men were hindered
from receiving the apparent benefit which they think they can get by
entering into a compact with the demons.
Reply to Objection 4: Punishments are necessary against those who
are prone to evil, as stated in Ethic. x, 9. Wherefore a threat
of punishment is only affixed to those precepts of the law which forbade
evils to which men were prone. Now men were prone to idolatry by
reason of the general custom of the nations. Likewise men are prone to
perjury on account of the frequent use of oaths. Hence it is that a
threat is affixed to the first two precepts.
Reply to Objection 5: The commandment about the Sabbath was made
in memory of a past blessing. Wherefore special mention of the memory
is made therein. Or again, the commandment about the Sabbath has a
determination affixed to it that does not belong to the natural law,
wherefore this precept needed a special admonition.
|
|