Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that the precepts of the decalogue are dispensable. For the precepts of the decalogue belong to the natural law. But the natural law fails in some cases and is changeable, like human nature, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 7). Now the failure of law to apply in certain particular cases is a reason for dispensation, as stated above (Question 96, Article 6; Question 97, Article 4). Therefore a dispensation can be granted in the precepts of the decalogue.

Objection 2: Further, man stands in the same relation to human law as God does to Divine law. But man can dispense with the precepts of a law made by man. Therefore, since the precepts of the decalogue are ordained by God, it seems that God can dispense with them. Now our superiors are God's viceregents on earth; for the Apostle says (2 Cor. 2:10): "For what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ." Therefore superiors can dispense with the precepts of the decalogue.

Objection 3: Further, among the precepts of the decalogue is one forbidding murder. But it seems that a dispensation is given by men in this precept: for instance, when according to the prescription of human law, such as evil-doers or enemies are lawfully slain. Therefore the precepts of the decalogue are dispensable.

Objection 4: Further, the observance of the Sabbath is ordained by a precept of the decalogue. But a dispensation was granted in this precept; for it is written (1 Macc. 2:4): "And they determined in that day, saying: Whosoever shall come up to fight against us on the Sabbath-day, we will fight against him." Therefore the precepts of the decalogue are dispensable.

On the contrary, are the words of Is. 24:5, where some are reproved for that "they have changed the ordinance, they have broken the everlasting covenant"; which, seemingly, apply principally to the precepts of the decalogue. Therefore the precepts of the decalogue cannot be changed by dispensation.

I answer that, As stated above (Question 96, Article 6; Question 97, Article 4), precepts admit of dispensation, when there occurs a particular case in which, if the letter of the law be observed, the intention of the lawgiver is frustrated. Now the intention of every lawgiver is directed first and chiefly to the common good; secondly, to the order of justice and virtue, whereby the common good is preserved and attained. If therefore there by any precepts which contain the very preservation of the common good, or the very order of justice and virtue, such precepts contain the intention of the lawgiver, and therefore are indispensable. For instance, if in some community a law were enacted, such as this---that no man should work for the destruction of the commonwealth, or betray the state to its enemies, or that no man should do anything unjust or evil, such precepts would not admit of dispensation. But if other precepts were enacted, subordinate to the above, and determining certain special modes of procedure, these latter precepts would admit of dispensation, in so far as the omission of these precepts in certain cases would not be prejudicial to the former precepts which contain the intention of the lawgiver. For instance if, for the safeguarding of the commonwealth, it were enacted in some city that from each ward some men should keep watch as sentries in case of siege, some might be dispensed from this on account of some greater utility.

Now the precepts of the decalogue contain the very intention of the lawgiver, who is God. For the precepts of the first table, which direct us to God, contain the very order to the common and final good, which is God; while the precepts of the second table contain the order of justice to be observed among men, that nothing undue be done to anyone, and that each one be given his due; for it is in this sense that we are to take the precepts of the decalogue. Consequently the precepts of the decalogue admit of no dispensation whatever.

Reply to Objection 1: The Philosopher is not speaking of the natural law which contains the very order of justice: for it is a never-failing principle that "justice should be preserved." But he is speaking in reference to certain fixed modes of observing justice, which fail to apply in certain cases.

Reply to Objection 2: As the Apostle says (2 Tim. 2:13), "God continueth faithful, He cannot deny Himself." But He would deny Himself if He were to do away with the very order of His own justice, since He is justice itself. Wherefore God cannot dispense a man so that it be lawful for him not to direct himself to God, or not to be subject to His justice, even in those matters in which men are directed to one another.

Reply to Objection 3: The slaying of a man is forbidden in the decalogue, in so far as it bears the character of something undue: for in this sense the precept contains the very essence of justice. Human law cannot make it lawful for a man to be slain unduly. But it is not undue for evil-doers or foes of the common weal to be slain: hence this is not contrary to the precept of the decalogue; and such a killing is no murder as forbidden by that precept, as Augustine observes (De Lib. Arb. i, 4). In like manner when a man's property is taken from him, if it be due that he should lose it, this is not theft or robbery as forbidden by the decalogue.

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.

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.

Reply to Objection 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 (Mt. 12:3, seqq.).

Articulus 8

Argumentum 1

Ad octavum sic proceditur. Videtur quod praecepta Decalogi sint dispensabilia. Praecepta enim Decalogi sunt de iure naturali.

Sed iustum naturale in aliquibus deficit, et mutabile est, sicut et natura humana, ut philosophus dicit, in V ethic..

Defectus autem legis in aliquibus particularibus casibus est ratio dispensandi, ut supra dictum est.

Ergo in praeceptis Decalogi potest fieri dispensatio.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, sicut se habet homo ad legem humanam, ita se habet deus ad legem datam divinitus. Sed homo potest dispensare in praeceptis legis quae homo statuit. Ergo, cum praecepta Decalogi sint instituta a deo, videtur quod deus in eis possit dispensare. Sed praelati vice dei funguntur in terris, dicit enim apostolus, II ad Cor. II, nam et ego, si quid donavi, propter vos donavi in persona christi.

Ergo etiam praelati possunt in praeceptis Decalogi dispensare.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, inter praecepta Decalogi continetur prohibitio homicidii. Sed in isto praecepto videtur dispensari per homines, puta cum, secundum praeceptum legis humanae, homines licite occiduntur, puta malefactores vel hostes.

Ergo praecepta Decalogi sunt dispensabilia.

Argumentum 4

Praeterea, observatio sabbati continetur inter praecepta Decalogi. Sed in hoc praecepto fuit dispensatum, dicitur enim I machab. II, et cogitaverunt in die illa dicentes, omnis homo quicumque venerit ad nos in bello die sabbatorum, pugnemus adversus eum.

Ergo praecepta Decalogi sunt dispensabilia.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod dicitur Isaiae XXIV, quidam reprehenduntur de hoc quod mutaverunt ius, dissipaverunt foedus sempiternum, quod maxime videtur intelligendum de praeceptis Decalogi. Ergo praecepta Decalogi mutari per dispensationem non possunt.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, tunc in praeceptis debet fieri dispensatio, quando occurrit aliquis particularis casus in quo, si verbum legis observetur, contrariatur intentioni legislatoris. Intentio autem legislatoris cuiuslibet ordinatur primo quidem et principaliter ad bonum commune; secundo autem, ad ordinem iustitiae et virtutis, secundum quem bonum commune conservatur, et ad ipsum pervenitur.

Si qua ergo praecepta dentur quae contineant ipsam conservationem boni communis, vel ipsum ordinem iustitiae et virtutis; huiusmodi praecepta continent intentionem legislatoris, et ideo indispensabilia sunt.

Puta si poneretur hoc praeceptum in aliqua communitate, quod nullus destrueret rempublicam, neque proderet civitatem hostibus, sive quod nullus faceret aliquid iniuste vel male; huiusmodi praecepta essent indispensabilia. Sed si aliqua alia praecepta traderentur ordinata ad ista praecepta, quibus determinantur aliqui speciales modi, in talibus praeceptis dispensatio posset fieri; inquantum per omissionem huiusmodi praeceptorum in aliquibus casibus, non fieret praeiudicium primis praeceptis, quae continent intentionem legislatoris. Puta si, ad conservationem reipublicae, statueretur in aliqua civitate quod de singulis vicis aliqui vigilarent ad custodiam civitatis obsessae; posset cum aliquibus dispensari propter aliquam maiorem utilitatem. Praecepta autem Decalogi continent ipsam intentionem legislatoris, scilicet dei. Nam praecepta primae tabulae, quae ordinant ad deum, continent ipsum ordinem ad bonum commune et finale, quod deus est; praecepta autem secundae tabulae continent ipsum ordinem iustitiae inter homines observandae, ut scilicet nulli fiat indebitum, et cuilibet reddatur debitum; secundum hanc enim rationem sunt intelligenda praecepta Decalogi. Et ideo praecepta Decalogi sunt omnino indispensabilia.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod philosophus non loquitur de iusto naturali quod continet ipsum ordinem iustitiae, hoc enim nunquam deficit, iustitiam esse servandam.

Sed loquitur quantum ad determinatos modos observationis iustitiae, qui in aliquibus fallunt.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut apostolus dicit, II ad Tim. II, deus fidelis permanet, negare seipsum non potest.

Negaret autem seipsum, si ipsum ordinem suae iustitiae auferret, cum ipse sit ipsa iustitia. Et ideo in hoc deus dispensare non potest, ut homini liceat non ordinate se habere ad deum, vel non subdi ordini iustitiae eius, etiam in his secundum quae homines ad invicem ordinantur.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod occisio hominis prohibetur in Decalogo secundum quod habet rationem indebiti, sic enim praeceptum continet ipsam rationem iustitiae. Lex autem humana hoc concedere non potest, quod licite homo indebite occidatur. Sed malefactores occidi, vel hostes reipublicae, hoc non est indebitum. Unde hoc non contrariatur praecepto Decalogi, nec talis occisio est homicidium, quod praecepto Decalogi prohibetur, ut Augustinus dicit, in I de Lib. Arb..

Et similiter si alicui auferatur quod suum erat, si debitum est quod ipsum amittat, hoc non est furtum vel rapina, quae praecepto Decalogi prohibentur. 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. 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.

Ad 4

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.