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 Obj. 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 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. ________________________

EIGHTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 100, Art. 8]

Whether the Precepts of the Decalogue Are Dispensable?

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 (Q. 96, A. 6; Q. 97, A. 4).  Therefore a dispensation can be granted in the precepts of the decalogue.