SECOND ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 56, Art. 2]

Whether the Prohibitive Precepts Relating to the Vices Opposed to

Prudence Are Fittingly Propounded in the Old Law?

Objection 1: It would seem that the prohibitive precepts relating to

the vices opposed to prudence are unfittingly propounded in the Old

Law. For such vices as imprudence and its parts which are directly

opposed to prudence are not less opposed thereto, than those which

bear a certain resemblance to prudence, such as craftiness and vices

connected with it. Now the latter vices are forbidden in the Law: for

it is written (Lev. 19:13): "Thou shalt not calumniate thy neighbor,"

and (Deut. 25:13): "Thou shalt not have divers weights in thy bag, a

greater and a less." Therefore there should have also been

prohibitive precepts about the vices directly opposed to prudence.

Obj. 2: Further, there is room for fraud in other things than in

buying and selling. Therefore the Law unfittingly forbade fraud

solely in buying and selling.

Obj. 3: Further, there is the same reason for prescribing an act of

virtue as for prohibiting the act of a contrary vice. But acts of

prudence are not prescribed in the Law. Therefore neither should any

contrary vices have been forbidden in the Law.

The contrary, however, appears from the precepts of the Law which are

quoted in the first objection.

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), justice, above all, regards

the aspect of something due, which is a necessary condition for a

precept, because justice tends to render that which is due to

another, as we shall state further on (Q. 58, A. 2). Now craftiness,

as to its execution, is committed chiefly in matters of justice, as

stated above (Q. 55, A. 8): and so it was fitting that the Law should

contain precepts forbidding the execution of craftiness, in so far as

this pertains to injustice, as when a man uses guile and fraud in

calumniating another or in stealing his goods.

Reply Obj. 1: Those vices that are manifestly opposed to prudence, do

not pertain to injustice in the same way as the execution of

craftiness, and so they are not forbidden in the Law, as fraud and

guile are, which latter pertain to injustice.

Reply Obj. 2: All guile and fraud committed in matters of injustice,

can be understood to be forbidden in the prohibition of calumny (Lev.

19:13). Yet fraud and guile are wont to be practiced chiefly in

buying and selling, according to Ecclus. 26:28, "A huckster shall not

be justified from the sins of the lips": and it is for this reason

that the Law contained a special precept forbidding fraudulent buying

and selling.

Reply Obj. 3: All the precepts of the Law that relate to acts of

justice pertain to the execution of prudence, even as the precepts

prohibitive of stealing, calumny and fraudulent selling pertain to

the execution of craftiness.

_______________________

Summa Theologica, Part II-II (Secunda Secundae) Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province · 第 385 / 1128 题