Et ideo quando filii Israel praecepto Dei tulerunt Aegyptiorum spolia, non fuit furtum, quia hoc eis debebatur ex sententia Dei. Similiter etiam Abraham, cum consensit occidere filium, non consensit in homicidium, quia debitum erat eum occidi per mandatum Dei, qui est dominus vitae et mortis. Ipse enim est qui poenam mortis infligit omnibus hominibus, iustis et iniustis, pro peccato primi parentis, cuius sententiae si homo sit executor auctoritate divina, non erit homicida, sicut nec Deus. Et similiter etiam Osee, accedens ad uxorem fornicariam, vel ad mulierem adulteram, non est moechatus nec fornicatus, quia accessit ad eam quae sua erat secundum mandatum divinum, qui est auctor institutionis matrimonii.
Consequently when the children of Israel, by God’s command, took away the spoils of the Egyptians, this was not theft; since it was due to them by the sentence of God. Likewise when Abraham consented to slay his son, he did not consent to murder, because his son was due to be slain by the command of God, Who is Lord of life and death: for He it is Who inflicts the punishment of death on all men, both godly and ungodly, on account of the sin of our first parent, and if a man be the executor of that sentence by Divine authority, he will be no murderer any more than God would be. Again Osee, by taking unto himself a wife of fornications, or an adulterous woman, was not guilty either of adultery or of fornication: because he took unto himself one who was his by command of God, Who is the Author of the institution of marriage.
Sic igitur praecepta ipsa Decalogi, quantum ad rationem iustitiae quam continent, immutabilia sunt. Sed quantum ad aliquam determinationem per applicationem ad singulares actus, ut scilicet hoc vel illud sit homicidium, furtum vel adulterium, aut non, hoc quidem est mutabile, quandoque sola auctoritate divina, in his scilicet quae a solo Deo sunt instituta, sicut in matrimonio, et in aliis huiusmodi; quandoque etiam auctoritate humana, sicut in his quae sunt commissa hominum iurisdictioni. Quantum enim ad hoc, homines gerunt vicem Dei, non autem quantum ad omnia.
Accordingly, therefore, the precepts of the decalogue, as to the essence of justice which they contain, are unchangeable: but as to any determination by application to individual actions—for instance, that this or that be murder, theft or adultery, or not—in this point they admit of change; sometimes by Divine authority alone, namely, in such matters as are exclusively of Divine institution, as marriage and the like; sometimes also by human authority, namely in such matters as are subject to human jurisdiction: for in this respect men stand in the place of God: and yet not in all respects.
Ad quartum dicendum quod illa excogitatio magis fuit interpretatio praecepti quam dispensatio. Non enim intelligitur violare sabbatum qui facit opus quod est necessarium ad salutem humanam; sicut dominus probat, Matth. XII.
Reply Obj. 4: This determination was an interpretation rather than a dispensation. For a man is not taken to break the Sabbath, if he does something necessary for human welfare; as Our Lord proves (Matt 12:3, seqq.).
Utrum modus virtutis cadat sub praecepto legis
Whether the mode of virtue falls under the precept of the law?
Ad nonum sic proceditur. Videtur quod modus virtutis cadat sub praecepto legis. Est enim modus virtutis ut aliquis iuste operetur iusta, et fortiter fortia, et similiter de aliis virtutibus. Sed Deut. XVI praecipitur, iuste quod iustum est exequeris. Ergo modus virtutis cadit sub praecepto.
Objection 1: It would seem that the mode of virtue falls under the precept of the law. For the mode of virtue is that deeds of justice should be done justly, that deeds of fortitude should be done bravely, and in like manner as to the other virtues. But it is commanded (Deut 26:20) that thou shalt follow justly after that which is just. Therefore the mode of virtue falls under the precept.
Praeterea, illud maxime cadit sub praecepto quod est de intentione legislatoris. Sed intentio legislatoris ad hoc principaliter fertur ut homines faciat virtuosos, sicut dicitur in II Ethic. Virtuosi autem est virtuose agere. Ergo modus virtutis cadit sub praecepto.
Obj. 2: Further, that which belongs to the intention of the lawgiver comes chiefly under the precept. But the intention of the lawgiver is directed chiefly to make men virtuous, as stated in Ethic. ii: and it belongs to a virtuous man to act virtuously. Therefore the mode of virtue falls under the precept.
Praeterea, modus virtutis proprie esse videtur ut aliquis voluntarie et delectabiliter operetur. Sed hoc cadit sub praecepto legis divinae, dicitur enim in Psalmo XCIX, servite domino in laetitia; et II ad Cor. IX, non ex tristitia aut ex necessitate, hilarem enim datorem diligit Deus; ubi Glossa dicit, quidquid boni facis, cum hilaritate fac, et tunc bene facis, si autem cum tristitia facis, fit de te, non tu facis. Ergo modus virtutis cadit sub praecepto legis.
Obj. 3: Further, the mode of virtue seems to consist properly in working willingly and with pleasure. But this falls under a precept of the Divine law, for it is written (Ps 99:2): Serve ye the Lord with gladness; and (2 Cor 9:7): Not with sadness or necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver; whereupon the gloss says: Whatever ye do, do gladly; and then you will do it well; whereas if you do it sorrowfully, it is done in thee, not by thee. Therefore the mode of virtue falls under the precept of the law.
Sed contra, nullus potest operari eo modo quo operatur virtuosus, nisi habeat habitum virtutis; ut patet per philosophum, in II et V Ethic. Quicumque autem transgreditur praeceptum legis, meretur poenam. Sequeretur ergo quod ille qui non habet habitum virtutis, quidquid faceret, mereretur poenam. Hoc autem est contra intentionem legis, quae intendit hominem, assuefaciendo ad bona opera, inducere ad virtutem. Non ergo modus virtutis cadit sub praecepto.
On the contrary, No man can act as a virtuous man acts unless he has the habit of virtue, as the Philosopher explains (Ethic. ii, 4; v, 8). Now whoever transgresses a precept of the law, deserves to be punished. Hence it would follow that a man who has not the habit of virtue, would deserve to be punished, whatever he does. But this is contrary to the intention of the law, which aims at leading man to virtue, by habituating him to good works. Therefore the mode of virtue does not fall under the precept.
Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, praeceptum legis habet vim coactivam. Illud ergo directe cadit sub praecepto legis, ad quod lex cogit. Coactio autem legis est per metum poenae, ut dicitur X Ethic., nam illud proprie cadit sub praecepto legis, pro quo poena legis infligitur. Ad instituendam autem poenam aliter se habet lex divina, et lex humana. Non enim poena legis infligitur nisi pro illis de quibus legislator habet iudicare, quia ex iudicio lex punit. Homo autem, qui est legis lator humanae, non habet iudicare nisi de exterioribus actibus, quia homines vident ea quae parent, ut dicitur I Reg. XVI. Sed solius Dei, qui est lator legis divinae est iudicare de interioribus motibus voluntatum; secundum illud Psalmi VII, scrutans corda et renes Deus.
I answer that, As stated above (Q90, A3, ad 2), a precept of law has compulsory power. Hence that on which the compulsion of the law is brought to bear, falls directly under the precept of the law. Now the law compels through fear of punishment, as stated in Ethic. x, 9, because that properly falls under the precept of the law, for which the penalty of the law is inflicted. But Divine law and human law are differently situated as to the appointment of penalties; since the penalty of the law is inflicted only for those things which come under the judgment of the lawgiver; for the law punishes in accordance with the verdict given. Now man, the framer of human law, is competent to judge only of outward acts; because man seeth those things that appear, according to 1 Kgs. 16:7: while God alone, the framer of the Divine law, is competent to judge of the inward movements of wills, according to Ps. 7:10: The searcher of hearts and reins is God.
Secundum hoc igitur dicendum est quod modus virtutis quantum ad aliquid respicitur a lege humana et divina; quantum ad aliquid autem, a lege divina sed non a lege humana; quantum ad aliquid vero, nec a lege humana nec a lege divina. Modus autem virtutis in tribus consistit, secundum philosophum, in II Ethic. Quorum primum est, si aliquis operetur sciens. Hoc autem diiudicatur et a lege divina et a lege humana. Quod enim aliquis facit ignorans, per accidens facit. Unde secundum ignorantiam aliqua diiudicantur ad poenam vel ad veniam, tam secundum legem humanam quam secundum legem divinam.
Accordingly, therefore, we must say that the mode of virtue is in some sort regarded both by human and by Divine law; in some respect it is regarded by the Divine, but not by the human law; and in another way, it is regarded neither by the human nor by the Divine law. Now the mode of virtue consists in three things, as the Philosopher states in Ethic. ii. The first is that man should act knowingly: and this is subject to the judgment of both Divine and human law; because what a man does in ignorance, he does accidentally. Hence according to both human and Divine law, certain things are judged in respect of ignorance to be punishable or pardonable.
Secundum autem est ut aliquis operetur volens, vel eligens et propter hoc eligens; in quo importatur duplex motus interior, scilicet voluntatis et intentionis, de quibus supra dictum est. Et ista duo non diiudicat lex humana, sed solum lex divina. Lex enim humana non punit eum qui vult occidere et non occidit, punit autem eum lex divina, secundum illud Matth. V, qui irascitur fratri suo, reus erit iudicio.
The second point is that a man should act deliberately, i.e., from choice, choosing that particular action for its own sake; wherein a twofold internal movement is implied, of volition and of intention, about which we have spoken above (QQ8, 12): and concerning these two, Divine law alone, and not human law, is competent to judge. For human law does not punish the man who wishes to slay, and slays not: whereas the Divine law does, according to Mt. 5:22: Whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment.
Tertium autem est ut firme et immobiliter habeat et operetur. Et ista firmitas proprie pertinet ad habitum, ut scilicet aliquis ex habitu radicato operetur. Et quantum ad hoc, modus virtutis non cadit sub praecepto neque legis divinae neque legis humanae, neque enim ab homine neque a Deo punitur tanquam praecepti transgressor, qui debitum honorem impendit parentibus, quamvis non habeat habitum pietatis.
The third point is that he should act from a firm and immovable principle: which firmness belongs properly to a habit, and implies that the action proceeds from a rooted habit. In this respect, the mode of virtue does not fall under the precept either of Divine or of human law, since neither by man nor by God is he punished as breaking the law, who gives due honor to his parents and yet has not the habit of filial piety.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod modus faciendi actum iustitiae qui cadit sub praecepto, est ut fiat aliquid secundum ordinem iuris, non autem quod fiat ex habitu iustitiae.
Reply Obj. 1: The mode of doing acts of justice, which falls under the precept, is that they be done in accordance with right; but not that they be done from the habit of justice.
Ad secundum dicendum quod intentio legislatoris est de duobus. De uno quidem, ad quod intendit per praecepta legis inducere, et hoc est virtus. Aliud autem est de quo intendit praeceptum ferre, et hoc est id quod ducit vel disponit ad virtutem, scilicet actus virtutis. Non enim idem est finis praecepti et id de quo praeceptum datur, sicut neque in aliis rebus idem est finis et quod est ad finem.
Reply Obj. 2: The intention of the lawgiver is twofold. His aim, in the first place, is to lead men to something by the precepts of the law: and this is virtue. Second, his intention is brought to bear on the matter itself of the precept: and this is something leading or disposing to virtue, viz., an act of virtue. For the end of the precept and the matter of the precept are not the same: just as neither in other things is the end the same as that which conduces to the end.
Ad tertium dicendum quod operari sine tristitia opus virtutis, cadit sub praecepto legis divinae, quia quicumque cum tristitia operatur, non volens operatur. Sed delectabiliter operari, sive cum laetitia vel hilaritate, quodammodo cadit sub praecepto, scilicet secundum quod sequitur delectatio ex dilectione Dei et proximi, quae cadit sub praecepto, cum amor sit causa delectationis, et quodammodo non, secundum quod delectatio consequitur habitum; delectatio enim operis est signum habitus generati, ut dicitur in II Ethic. Potest enim aliquis actus esse delectabilis vel propter finem, vel propter convenientiam habitus.
Reply Obj. 3: That works of virtue should be done without sadness, falls under the precept of the Divine law; for whoever works with sadness works unwillingly. But to work with pleasure, i.e., joyfully or cheerfully, in one respect falls under the precept, viz., insofar as pleasure ensues from the love of God and one’s neighbor (which love falls under the precept), and love causes pleasure: and in another respect does not fall under the precept, insofar as pleasure ensues from a habit; for pleasure taken in a work proves the existence of a habit, as stated in Ethic. ii, 3. For an act may give pleasure either on account of its end, or through its proceeding from a becoming habit.
Utrum modus caritatis cadat sub praecepto divinae legis
Whether the mode of charity falls under the precept of the divine law?
Ad decimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod modus caritatis cadat sub praecepto divinae legis. Dicitur enim Matth. XIX, si vis ad vitam ingredi, serva mandata, ex quo videtur quod observatio mandatorum sufficiat ad introducendum in vitam. Sed opera bona non sufficiunt ad introducendum in vitam, nisi ex caritate fiant, dicitur enim I ad Cor. XIII, si distribuero in cibos pauperum omnes facultates meas, et si tradidero corpus meum ita ut ardeam, caritatem autem non habuero, nihil mihi prodest. Ergo modus caritatis est in praecepto.
Objection 1: It would seem that the mode of charity falls under the precept of the Divine law. For it is written (Matt 19:17): If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments: whence it seems to follow that the observance of the commandments suffices for entrance into life. But good works do not suffice for entrance into life, except they be done from charity: for it is written (1 Cor 13:3): If I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. Therefore the mode of charity is included in the commandment.
Praeterea, ad modum caritatis proprie pertinet ut omnia fiant propter Deum. Sed istud cadit sub praecepto, dicit enim apostolus, I ad Cor. X, omnia in gloriam Dei facite. Ergo modus caritatis cadit sub praecepto.
Obj. 2: Further, the mode of charity consists properly speaking in doing all things for God. But this falls under the precept; for the Apostle says (1 Cor 10:31): Do all to the glory of God. Therefore the mode of charity falls under the precept.
Praeterea, si modus caritatis non cadit sub praecepto, ergo aliquis potest implere praecepta legis non habens caritatem. Sed quod potest fieri sine caritate, potest fieri sine gratia, quae semper adiuncta est caritati. Ergo aliquis potest implere praecepta legis sine gratia. Hoc autem est Pelagiani erroris; ut patet per Augustinum, in libro de haeresibus. Ergo modus caritatis est in praecepto.
Obj. 3: Further, if the mode of charity does not fall under the precept, it follows that one can fulfill the precepts of the law without having charity. Now what can be done without charity can be done without grace, which is always united to charity. Therefore one can fulfill the precepts of the law without grace. But this is the error of Pelagius, as Augustine declares (De Haeres. lxxxviii). Therefore the mode of charity is included in the commandment.
Sed contra est quia quicumque non servat praeceptum, peccat mortaliter. Si igitur modus caritatis cadat sub praecepto, sequitur quod quicumque operatur aliquid et non ex caritate, peccet mortaliter. Sed quicumque non habet caritatem, operatur non ex caritate. Ergo sequitur quod quicumque non habet caritatem, peccet mortaliter in omni opere quod facit, quantumcumque sit de genere bonorum. Quod est inconveniens.
On the contrary, Whoever breaks a commandment sins mortally. If therefore the mode of charity falls under the precept, it follows that whoever acts otherwise than from charity sins mortally. But whoever has not charity, acts otherwise than from charity. Therefore it follows that whoever has not charity, sins mortally in whatever he does, however good this may be in itself: which is absurd.
Respondeo dicendum quod circa hoc fuerunt contrariae opiniones. Quidam enim dixerunt absolute modum caritatis esse sub praecepto. Nec est impossibile observare hoc praeceptum caritatem non habenti, quia potest se disponere ad hoc quod caritas ei infundatur a Deo. Nec quandocumque aliquis non habens caritatem facit aliquid de genere bonorum, peccat mortaliter, quia hoc est praeceptum affirmativum, ut ex caritate operetur, et non obligat ad semper, sed pro tempore illo quo aliquis habet caritatem. Alii vero dixerunt quod omnino modus caritatis non cadit sub praecepto.
I answer that, Opinions have been contrary on this question. For some have said absolutely that the mode of charity comes under the precept; and yet that it is possible for one not having charity to fulfill this precept: because he can dispose himself to receive charity from God. Nor (say they) does it follow that a man not having charity sins mortally whenever he does something good of its kind: because it is an affirmative precept that binds one to act from charity, and is binding not for all time, but only for such time as one is in a state of charity. On the other hand, some have said that the mode of charity is altogether outside the precept.
Utrique autem quantum ad aliquid, verum dixerunt. Actus enim caritatis dupliciter considerari potest. Uno modo, secundum quod est quidam actus per se. Et hoc modo cadit sub praecepto legis quod de hoc specialiter datur, scilicet, diliges dominum Deum tuum, et, diliges proximum tuum. Et quantum ad hoc, primi verum dixerunt. Non enim est impossibile hoc praeceptum observare, quod est de actu caritatis, quia homo potest se disponere ad caritatem habendam, et quando habuerit eam, potest ea uti. Alio modo potest considerari actus caritatis secundum quod est modus actuum aliarum virtutum, hoc est secundum quod actus aliarum virtutum ordinantur ad caritatem, quae est finis praecepti, ut dicitur I ad Tim. I, dictum est enim supra quod intentio finis est quidam modus formalis actus ordinati in finem. Et hoc modo verum est quod secundi dixerunt, quod modus caritatis non cadit sub praecepto, hoc est dictu, quod in hoc praecepto, honora patrem, non includitur quod honoretur pater ex caritate, sed solum quod honoretur pater. Unde qui honorat patrem, licet non habens caritatem, non efficitur transgressor huius praecepti, etsi sit transgressor praecepti quod est de actu caritatis, propter quam transgressionem meretur poenam.
Both these opinions are true up to a certain point. Because the act of charity can be considered in two ways. First, as an act by itself: and thus it falls under the precept of the law which specially prescribes it, viz., Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and Thou shalt love thy neighbor. In this sense, the first opinion is true. Because it is not impossible to observe this precept which regards the act of charity; since man can dispose himself to possess charity, and when he possesses it, he can use it. Second, the act of charity can be considered as being the mode of the acts of the other virtues, i.e., inasmuch as the acts of the other virtues are ordained to charity, which is the end of the commandment, as stated in 1 Tim. i, 5: for it has been said above (Q12, A4) that the intention of the end is a formal mode of the act ordained to that end. In this sense the second opinion is true in saying that the mode of charity does not fall under the precept, that is to say that this commandment, Honor thy father, does not mean that a man must honor his father from charity, but merely that he must honor him. Wherefore he that honors his father, yet has not charity, does not break this precept: although he does break the precept concerning the act of charity, for which reason he deserves to be punished.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod dominus non dixit, si vis ad vitam ingredi, serva unum mandatum, sed, serva omnia mandata. Inter quae etiam continetur mandatum de dilectione Dei et proximi.
Reply Obj. 1: Our Lord did not say, If thou wilt enter into life, keep one commandment; but keep all the commandments: among which is included the commandment concerning the love of God and our neighbor.
Ad secundum dicendum quod sub mandato caritatis continetur ut diligatur Deus ex toto corde, ad quod pertinet ut omnia referantur in Deum. Et ideo praeceptum caritatis implere homo non potest, nisi etiam omnia referantur in Deum. Sic ergo qui honorat parentes, tenetur ex caritate honorare, non ex vi huius praecepti quod est, honora parentes, sed ex vi huius praecepti, diliges dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo. Et cum ista sint duo praecepta affirmativa non obligantia ad semper, possunt pro diversis temporibus obligare. Et ita potest contingere quod aliquis implens praeceptum de honoratione parentum, non tunc transgrediatur praeceptum de omissione modi caritatis.
Reply Obj. 2: The precept of charity contains the injunction that God should be loved from our whole heart, which means that all things would be referred to God. Consequently man cannot fulfill the precept of charity, unless he also refer all things to God. Wherefore he that honors his father and mother, is bound to honor them from charity, not in virtue of the precept, Honor thy father and mother, but in virtue of the precept, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart. And since these are two affirmative precepts, not binding for all times, they can be binding, each one at a different time: so that it may happen that a man fulfils the precept of honoring his father and mother, without at the same time breaking the precept concerning the omission of the mode of charity.
Ad tertium dicendum quod observare omnia praecepta legis homo non potest, nisi impleat praeceptum caritatis, quod non fit sine gratia. Et ideo impossibile est quod Pelagius dixit, hominem implere legem sine gratia.
Reply Obj. 3: Man cannot fulfill all the precepts of the law, unless he fulfill the precept of charity, which is impossible without charity. Consequently it is not possible, as Pelagius maintained, for man to fulfill the law without grace.
Utrum inconvenienter distinguantur alia moralia praecepta legis praeter decalogum
Whether it is right to distinguish other moral precepts of the law besides the decalogue?
Ad undecimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter distinguantur alia moralia praecepta legis praeter Decalogum. Quia ut dominus dicit, Matth. XXII, in duobus praeceptis caritatis pendet omnis lex et prophetae. Sed haec duo praecepta explicantur per decem praecepta Decalogi. Ergo non oportet alia praecepta moralia esse.
Objection 1: It would seem that it is wrong to distinguish other moral precepts of the law besides the decalogue. Because, as Our Lord declared (Matt 22:40), on these two commandments of charity dependeth the whole law and the prophets. But these two commandments are explained by the ten commandments of the decalogue. Therefore there is no need for other moral precepts.
Praeterea, praecepta moralia a iudicialibus et caeremonialibus distinguuntur, ut dictum est. Sed determinationes communium praeceptorum moralium pertinent ad iudicialia et caeremonialia praecepta, communia autem praecepta moralia sub Decalogo continentur, vel etiam Decalogo praesupponuntur, ut dictum est. Ergo inconvenienter traduntur alia praecepta moralia praeter Decalogum.
Obj. 2: Further, the moral precepts are distinct from the judicial and ceremonial precepts, as stated above (Q99, AA3,4). But the determinations of the general moral precepts belong to the judicial and ceremonial precepts: and the general moral precepts are contained in the decalogue, or are even presupposed to the decalogue, as stated above (A3). Therefore it was unsuitable to lay down other moral precepts besides the decalogue.
Praeterea, praecepta moralia sunt de actibus omnium virtutum, ut supra dictum est. Sicut igitur in lege ponuntur praecepta moralia praeter Decalogum pertinentia ad latriam, liberalitatem et misericordiam, et castitatem; ita etiam deberent poni aliqua praecepta pertinentia ad alias virtutes, puta ad fortitudinem, sobrietatem, et alia huiusmodi. Quod tamen non invenitur. Non ergo convenienter distinguuntur in lege alia praecepta moralia quae sunt praeter Decalogum.
Obj. 3: Further, the moral precepts are about the acts of all the virtues, as stated above (A2). Therefore, as the Law contains, besides the decalogue, moral precepts pertaining to religion, liberality, mercy, and chastity; so there should have been added some precepts pertaining to the other virtues, for instance, fortitude, sobriety, and so forth. And yet such is not the case. It is therefore unbecoming to distinguish other moral precepts in the Law besides those of the decalogue.
Sed contra est quod in Psalmo XVIII dicitur, lex domini immaculata, convertens animas. Sed per alia etiam moralia quae Decalogo superadduntur, homo conservatur absque macula peccati, et anima eius ad Deum convertitur. Ergo ad legem pertinebat etiam alia praecepta moralia tradere.
On the contrary, It is written (Ps 18:8): The law of the Lord is unspotted, converting souls. But man is preserved from the stain of sin, and his soul is converted to God by other moral precepts besides those of the decalogue. Therefore it was right for the Law to include other moral precepts.
Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut ex dictis patet, praecepta iudicialia et caeremonialia ex sola institutione vim habent, quia antequam instituerentur, non videbatur differre utrum sic vel aliter fieret. Sed praecepta moralia ex ipso dictamine naturalis rationis efficaciam habent, etiam si nunquam in lege statuantur. Horum autem triplex est gradus. Nam quaedam sunt certissima, et adeo manifesta quod editione non indigent; sicut mandata de dilectione Dei et proximi, et alia huiusmodi, ut supra dictum est, quae sunt quasi fines praeceptorum, unde in eis nullus potest errare secundum iudicium rationis. Quaedam vero sunt magis determinata, quorum rationem statim quilibet, etiam popularis, potest de facili videre; et tamen quia in paucioribus circa huiusmodi contingit iudicium humanum perverti, huiusmodi editione indigent, et haec sunt praecepta Decalogi. Quaedam vero sunt quorum ratio non est adeo cuilibet manifesta, sed solum sapientibus, et ista sunt praecepta moralia superaddita Decalogo, tradita a Deo populo per Moysen et Aaron.
I answer that, As is evident from what has been stated (Q99, AA3,4), the judicial and ceremonial precepts derive their force from their institution alone: since before they were instituted, it seemed of no consequence whether things were done in this or that way. But the moral precepts derive their efficacy from the very dictate of natural reason, even if they were never included in the Law. Now of these there are three grades: for some are most certain, and so evident as to need no promulgation; such as the commandments of the love of God and our neighbor, and others like these, as stated above (A3), which are, as it were, the ends of the commandments; wherefore no man can have an erroneous judgment about them. Some precepts are more detailed, the reason of which even an uneducated man can easily grasp; and yet they need to be promulgated, because human judgment, in a few instances, happens to be led astray concerning them: these are the precepts of the decalogue. Again, there are some precepts the reason of which is not so evident to everyone, but only the wise; these are moral precepts added to the decalogue, and given to the people by God through Moses and Aaron.
Sed quia ea quae sunt manifesta, sunt principia cognoscendi eorum quae non sunt manifesta; alia praecepta moralia superaddita Decalogo reducuntur ad praecepta Decalogi, per modum cuiusdam additionis ad ipsa. Nam in primo praecepto Decalogi prohibetur cultus alienorum deorum, cui superadduntur alia praecepta prohibitiva eorum quae ordinantur in cultum idolorum; sicut habetur Deut. XVIII, non inveniatur in te qui lustret filium suum aut filiam, ducens per ignem, nec sit maleficus atque incantator, nec Pythones consulat neque divinos, et quaerat a mortuis veritatem. Secundum autem praeceptum prohibet periurium. Superadditur autem ei prohibitio blasphemiae, Levit. XXIV; et prohibitio falsae doctrinae, Deut. XIII. Tertio vero praecepto superadduntur omnia caeremonialia. Quarto autem praecepto, de honore parentum, superadditur praeceptum de honoratione senum, secundum illud Levit. XIX, coram cano capite consurge, et honora personam senis; et universaliter omnia praecepta inducentia ad reverentiam exhibendam maioribus, vel ad beneficia exhibenda vel aequalibus vel minoribus. Quinto autem praecepto, quod est de prohibitione homicidii, additur prohibitio odii et cuiuslibet violationis contra proximum, sicut illud Levit. XIX, non stabis contra sanguinem proximi tui; et etiam prohibitio odii fratris, secundum illud, ne oderis fratrem tuum in corde tuo. Praecepto autem sexto, quod est de prohibitione adulterii, superadditur praeceptum de prohibitione meretricii, secundum illud Deut. XXIII, non erit meretrix de filiabus Israel, neque fornicator de filiis Israel; et iterum prohibitio vitii contra naturam, secundum illud Levit. XVIII, cum masculo non commisceberis, cum omni pecore non coibis. Septimo autem praecepto, de prohibitione furti adiungitur praeceptum de prohibitione usurae, secundum illud Deut. XXIII, non foenerabis fratri tuo ad usuram; et prohibitio fraudis, secundum illud Deut. XXV, non habebis in sacculo diversa pondera; et universaliter omnia quae ad prohibitionem calumniae et rapinae pertinent. Octavo vero praecepto, quod est de prohibitione falsi testimonii, additur prohibitio falsi iudicii, secundum illud Exod. XXIII, nec in iudicio plurimorum acquiesces sententiae, ut a veritate devies; et prohibitio mendacii, sicut ibi subditur, mendacium fugies; et prohibitio detractionis, secundum illud Levit. XIX, non eris criminator et susurro in populis. Aliis autem duobus praeceptis nulla alia adiunguntur, quia per ea universaliter omnis mala concupiscentia prohibetur.
But since the things that are evident are the principles whereby we know those that are not evident, these other moral precepts added to the decalogue are reducible to the precepts of the decalogue, as so many corollaries. Thus the first commandment of the decalogue forbids the worship of strange gods: and to this are added other precepts forbidding things relating to worship of idols: thus it is written (Deut 18:10,11): Neither let there be found among you anyone that shall expiate his son or daughter, making them to pass through the fire: . . . neither let there by any wizard nor charmer, nor anyone that consulteth pythonic spirits, or fortune-tellers, or that seeketh the truth from the dead. The second commandment forbids perjury. To this is added the prohibition of blasphemy (Lev 24:15, seqq) and the prohibition of false doctrine (Deut 13). To the third commandment are added all the ceremonial precepts. To the fourth commandment prescribing the honor due to parents, is added the precept about honoring the aged, according to Lev. 19:32: Rise up before the hoary head, and honor the person of the aged man; and likewise all the precepts prescribing the reverence to be observed towards our betters, or kindliness towards our equals or inferiors. To the fifth commandment, which forbids murder, is added the prohibition of hatred and of any kind of violence inflicted on our neighbor, according to Lev. 19:16: Thou shalt not stand against the blood of thy neighbor: likewise the prohibition against hating one’s brother (Lev 19:17): Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart. To the sixth commandment which forbids adultery, is added the prohibition about whoredom, according to Dt. 23:17: There shall be no whore among the daughters of Israel, nor whoremonger among the sons of Israel; and the prohibition against unnatural sins, according to Lev. 28:22,23: Thou shalt not lie with mankind . . . thou shalt not copulate with any beast. To the seventh commandment which prohibits theft, is added the precept forbidding usury, according to Dt. 23:19: Thou shalt not lend to thy brother money to usury; and the prohibition against fraud, according to Dt. 25:13: Thou shalt not have diverse weights in thy bag; and universally all prohibitions relating to peculations and larceny. To the eighth commandment, forbidding false testimony, is added the prohibition against false judgment, according to Ex. 23:2: Neither shalt thou yield in judgment, to the opinion of the most part, to stray from the truth; and the prohibition against lying (Exod 23:7): Thou shalt fly lying, and the prohibition against detraction, according to Lev. 19:16: Thou shalt not be a detractor, nor a whisperer among the people. To the other two commandments no further precepts are added, because thereby are forbidden all kinds of evil desires.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ad dilectionem Dei et proximi ordinantur quidem praecepta Decalogi secundum manifestam rationem debiti, alia vero secundum rationem magis occultam.
Reply Obj. 1: The precepts of the decalogue are ordained to the love of God and our neighbor as pertaining evidently to our duty towards them; but the other precepts are so ordained as pertaining thereto less evidently.