256. The Distinction and Enumeration of the Decalogue

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Problem of Enumeration #

Thomas addresses whether the Decalogue is properly enumerated as ten precepts. Key issues include:

• Whether precepts ordering man to himself should be included
• The distinction between affirmative and negative precepts
• Whether coveting should be one precept or two
• The proper counting and division of precepts

The Structure of the Decalogue #

Thomas defends the traditional Augustinian division:

• Three precepts to God: ordering man’s relationship to the divine (fidelity, reverence, service)
• Seven precepts to neighbor: ordering man’s relationship to other persons
• The Sabbath precept is included among those to God because it commemorates creation and prefigures spiritual rest

The Rational Principle Behind the Enumeration #

Just as in a human community, precepts must order men first to the ruler (God) and then to one another (neighbors):

• The end (God) must be ordered before the means
• What is manifest to natural reason requires less explicit promulgation
• Precepts address what needs external promulgation, not what natural reason suffices for

Key Arguments #

Against the First Objection: Why No Precepts to Oneself? #

Objection: Sins are distinguished as sins against God, against neighbor, or against oneself. Yet the Decalogue contains precepts only to God and neighbor.

Thomas’s Response (Three Parts):

1. The precepts of the Decalogue refer specifically to love of God and love of neighbor. Natural law regarding self-love is not obscured by sin—what is obscured is love of God and neighbor. Therefore, precepts are given only for these.
2. Self-love is implicitly included in the precepts ordering man to God and neighbor. When one truly orders himself to God, he truly loves himself properly.
3. Precepts must fall at once into the mind of the people. That something is owed to God or neighbor easily falls into conception, but that something is owed to oneself does not appear immediately. Justice is towards another, not towards oneself. Precepts ordering man to himself come through instruction of the wise, not through the Decalogue.

Against the Second Objection: Affirmative vs. Negative Precepts #

Objection: The Decalogue mixes affirmative precepts (“I am the Lord your God,” “Honor your father and mother”) with negative ones (“You shall not have alien gods,” “You shall not kill”). This seems unsuitable.

Thomas’s Response:

• Affirmative and negative precepts are distinguished as separate precepts only when one is not comprehended in the other
• When the affirmative is comprehended in the negative and vice versa, they are not given as diverse precepts
• Believing in God and not believing in false gods are the same knowledge of opposites (same as Aristotle and Plato say)
• Therefore, they are not two precepts but one

Against the Third Objection: Why Perjury and Not Blasphemy? #

Objection: If the precept prohibits taking God’s name in vain (perjury), why not explicitly prohibit blasphemy and false teaching, which are even worse?

Thomas’s Response:

• Men swear through something greater than themselves; oaths are common to all people
• The prohibition of disorder about oaths is especially prohibited by precept to the Decalogue because of its commonality
• False teaching pertains only to the few (people like Thomas himself)
• Taking God’s name in vain implicitly prohibits false doctrines. One glass expounds: “You should not say Christ to be a creature”
• The precepts must be immediately intelligible to the whole people

Against the Fourth Objection: Why Honor Parents but Not Children? #

Objection: Just as man has natural love towards parents, he also has natural love towards children. Why then is there a precept to honor parents but none commanding care for children?

Thomas’s Response:

• The debt of the son to the father is manifest and cannot be denied by any twisting around
• Parents are the beginning of the generation and being of the son, as well as his education, doctrine, and feeding
• Children are naturally loved as extensions of the father (“the son is something of the father”)
• Therefore, fathers love their sons as something of themselves (natural love suffices)
• But the son’s debt to the father is not grounded in benefits received from him alone; rather, the father is the beginning of his being itself

Against the Fifth Objection: The Distinction of Coveting #

Objection: Some precepts prohibit both deed and desire (“You shall not commit adultery” + “You shall not desire your neighbor’s wife”; “You shall not steal” + “You shall not desire your neighbor’s goods”). But for murder and false witness, there are no such desire prohibitions. This seems inconsistent.

Thomas’s Response:

• Adultery and theft are intrinsically desirable (pleasure, utility) and therefore require both deed and desire prohibitions
• Murder and false witness are intrinsically evil and therefore need only deed prohibitions
• The species of concupiscence differ according to the diversity of things desired (Aristotle, Ethics, Book 10)
• Coveting is of two kinds: concupiscence of the flesh (wife) and concupiscence of the eyes (other things)

Against the Sixth Objection: The Irascible Appetite #

Objection: Just as sins come from disorder of the concupiscible appetite (covered by precepts), so also sins come from disorder of the irascible appetite (anger, hatred). Why are there no precepts prohibiting disordered anger?

Thomas’s Response:

• All passions of the irascible appetite derive from the concupiscible
• The precepts address root passions from which others arise
• Illustration: animals fight over food (concupiscible) and sex; anger is secondary to these basic desires
• The precepts adequately address the fundamental disordered desires from which anger arises

Important Definitions #

Core Concepts #

Latria (λατρεία): The act of worship or religious service toward God. It is distinguished from faith, which is presupposed to the precepts of the Decalogue as a common principle not requiring promulgation, just as the precept of love itself does not require promulgation.

Precept (praeceptum): A command given about acts of virtues. In the context of the Decalogue, precepts order human acts toward proper ends—toward God and toward neighbor.

Debt (debitum): What is owed. Thomas distinguishes three kinds of debt owed to God (fidelity, reverence, service) and various debts owed to neighbors (especially to parents as the beginning of one’s being).

Affirmative vs. Negative Precepts:

• Affirmative: “Do this” (e.g., “Honor your father and mother”)
• Negative: “Do not do this” (e.g., “You shall not kill”)
• They are distinguished as separate precepts only when one is not comprehended in the other

Knowledge of Opposites: The Aristotelian-Platonic principle that knowing one opposite implies knowing the other. Applied here: believing in God and not believing in false gods are opposite sides of the same precept.

Concupiscible vs. Irascible Appetites:

• Concupiscible: Desires for pleasant or useful things (food, sex, possessions)
• Irascible: Defensive passions (anger, hatred) that arise from frustrated concupiscible desires

Manifest to Natural Reason: What is immediately apparent to human understanding without requiring external promulgation. The natural law regarding self-love is manifest; the natural law regarding love of God and neighbor is obscured by sin and requires promulgation.

Examples & Illustrations #

Road Rage and Disordered Anger #

Berquist recounts an incident where a driver, frustrated because another driver was going too slowly, pulled over and beat him up. This illustrates how the irascible appetite (anger) is secondary to the concupiscible (the desire to pass, to move faster). The precepts need not explicitly address anger because they address the root concupiscible desires.

Winter Driving and the Irascible #

Another example of drivers attempting to pass a slower vehicle on slippery winter roads, losing control and going off the road. This shows how failure to govern basic desires (speed) leads to disordered responses (anger at slower drivers, reckless driving).

The Gourmet Society #

A man joined a gourmet society but quit after observing members deeply disturbed and worried about obtaining rare delicacies flown in for a banquet. This exemplifies how one’s ultimate end might become something other than God (fine food, pleasure), which constitutes a bad will.

The CAT/ACT Analogy #

Berquist writes “CAT” and “ACT” on a board to illustrate the four causes:

• Both depend on the same letters: C, A, T (material cause)
• They differ in order (formal cause)
• The order depends on the writer’s purpose (efficient cause)
• The purpose differs: “CAT” to discuss his favorite animal, “ACT” to teach about act and potency (final cause)
• This shows why moderns are stuck with materialism—they begin with the most obvious cause (matter) and fail to see the others

Questions Addressed #

Question: Are the precepts properly enumerated as ten? #

Resolution: Yes. The first three pertain to God (fidelity, reverence, service). The remaining seven pertain to neighbor, ordered by the gravity of sin. The Sabbath is included because it commemorates the greatest benefit (creation) and prefigures the ultimate end (spiritual rest in God).

Question: Why are there no precepts ordering man to himself? #

Resolution: Because natural reason is not obscured regarding self-love, only regarding love of God and neighbor. Self-love is implicitly included when one orders himself to God and neighbor. Precepts are for what needs promulgation; self-love does not.

Question: Why distinguish coveting into two precepts (wife and goods)? #

Resolution: Because the species of concupiscence differ. Coveting a neighbor’s wife pertains to concupiscence of the flesh; coveting other things pertains to concupiscence of the eyes. Augustine distinguishes these as two precepts because they have diverse reasons for desiring, even though all coveting comes together under one common notion.

Question: How is Thomas using the principle of the end preceding the means? #

Resolution: Just as God is the ultimate end of human society and must be ordered first, so the precepts ordering man to God (the ruler) come before precepts ordering man to neighbor (fellow members of the community). This mirrors military order: fidelity to the commander, reverence to the commander, service to the commander, then proper conduct among soldiers.

Key Theological Principle #

Thomas employs an analogy from political philosophy: just as human law orders men to the human community, divine law orders men to the community of men under God. In any community, two things are required for proper dwelling together: (1) proper ordering to the ruler/principle of the community, and (2) proper ordering among members. Therefore, precepts must first order man to God, then to neighbor. This provides the rational structure for the entire enumeration of the Decalogue.