is supremely contrary to reason.  Now the end of human life and society is God.  Consequently it was necessary for the precepts of the decalogue, first of all, to direct man to God; since the contrary to this is most grievous.  Thus also, in an army, which is ordained to the commander as to its end, it is requisite first that the soldier should be subject to the commander, and the opposite of this is most grievous; and secondly it is requisite that he should be in coordination with the other soldiers.

Now among those things whereby we are ordained to God, the first is that man should be subjected to Him faithfully, by having nothing in common with His enemies.  The second is that he should show Him reverence:  the third that he should offer Him service.  Thus, in an army, it is a greater sin for a soldier to act treacherously and make a compact with the foe, than to be insolent to his commander:  and this last is more grievous than if he be found wanting in some point of service to him.

As to the precepts that direct man in his behavior towards his neighbor, it is evident that it is more repugnant to reason, and a more grievous sin, if man does not observe the due order as to those persons to whom he is most indebted.  Consequently, among those precepts that direct man in his relations to his neighbor, the first place is given to that one which regards his parents.  Among the other precepts we again find the order to be according to the gravity of sin.  For it is more grave and more repugnant to reason, to sin by deed than by word; and by word than by thought.  And among sins of deed, murder which destroys life in one already living is more grievous than adultery, which imperils the life of the unborn child; and adultery is more grave than theft, which regards external goods.

Reply Obj. 1:  Although our neighbor is better known than God by the way of the senses, nevertheless the love of God is the reason for the love of our neighbor, as shall be declared later on (II-II, Q. 25, A. 1; Q. 26, A. 2).  Hence the precepts ordaining man to God demanded precedence of the others.

Reply Obj. 2:  Just as God is the universal principle of being in respect of all things, so is a father a principle of being in respect of his son.  Therefore the precept regarding parents was fittingly placed after the precepts regarding God.  This argument holds in respect of affirmative and negative precepts about the same kind of deed:  although even then it is not altogether cogent.  For although in the order of execution, vices should be uprooted before virtues are sown, according to Ps. 33:15:  “Turn away from evil, and do good,” and Isa. 1:16, 17:  “Cease to do perversely; learn to do well”; yet, in the order of knowledge, virtue precedes vice, because “the crooked line is known by the straight” (De Anima i):  and “by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20).  Wherefore the affirmative precept demanded the first place.  However, this is not the reason for the order, but that which is given above.  Because in the precepts regarding God, which belongs to the first table, an affirmative precept is placed last, since its transgression implies a less grievous sin.