Mercurial > hg > Aquinas

comparison summa/english/FS_vi.html @ 64:11682db9b870

Find changesets by keywords (author, files, the commit message), revision number or hash, or revset expression.
from auto-split
author ht
date Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:43:02 +0000
parents
children c4381ecdd053
comparison
equal deleted inserted replaced
63:4665e252e26e 64:11682db9b870
1 <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" id="FS.vi" class="div2">
2 <a href="summa.FS_Q89_A6.html"></a>
3 <a href="summa.FS_Q90.html"></a>
4 <h2 id="FS.vi-p0.1">TREATISE ON LAW (QQ 90-108)</h2>
5 <div id="FS_Q90" class="div3">
6 <a href="summa.FS.vi.html"></a>
7 <a href="summa.FS_Q90_A1.html"></a>
8 <h3 id="FS_Q90-p0.1">OF THE ESSENCE OF LAW (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3>
9 <p id="FS_Q90-p1"></p>
10 <p id="FS_Q90-p2"> We have now to consider the extrinsic principles of acts. Now the extrinsic principle inclining to evil is the devil, of
11 whose temptations we have spoken in the
12 <a id="FS_Q90-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q114.html">FP, Q[114].</a> But the extrinsic principle moving to good is God, Who both instructs us by means of His Law, and assists us by His Grace:
13 wherefore in the first place we must speak of law; in the second place, of grace.
14 </p>
15 <p id="FS_Q90-p3"> Concerning law, we must consider: (1) Law itself in general; (2) its parts. Concerning law in general three points offer
16 themselves for our consideration: (1) Its essence; (2) The different kinds of law; (3) The effects of law.
17 </p>
18 <p id="FS_Q90-p4"> Under the first head there are four points of inquiry:</p>
19 <p id="FS_Q90-p5"> (1) Whether law is something pertaining to reason?</p>
20 <p id="FS_Q90-p6"> (2) Concerning the end of law;</p>
21 <p id="FS_Q90-p7"> (3) Its cause;</p>
22 <p id="FS_Q90-p8"> (4) The promulgation of law.</p>
23 <div id="FS_Q90_A1" class="div4">
24 <a href="summa.FS_Q90.html"></a>
25 <a href="summa.FS_Q90_A2.html"></a>
26 <h4 id="FS_Q90_A1-p0.1">Whether law is something pertaining to reason?</h4>
27 <p id="FS_Q90_A1-p1"></p>
28 <p id="FS_Q90_A1-p2">
29 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that law is not something pertaining to reason. For the Apostle says (
30 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q90_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.7.23" target="asv">Rom. 7:23</a>): "I see another law in my members," etc. But nothing pertaining to reason is in the members; since the reason does not make
31 use of a bodily organ. Therefore law is not something pertaining to reason.
32 </p>
33 <p id="FS_Q90_A1-p3">
34 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in the reason there is nothing else but power, habit, and act. But law is not the power itself of reason. In like
35 manner, neither is it a habit of reason: because the habits of reason are the intellectual virtues of which we have spoken
36 above (
37 <a id="FS_Q90_A1-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q57.html">Q[57])</a>. Nor again is it an act of reason: because then law would cease, when the act of reason ceases, for instance, while we are
38 asleep. Therefore law is nothing pertaining to reason.
39 </p>
40 <p id="FS_Q90_A1-p4">
41 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the law moves those who are subject to it to act aright. But it belongs properly to the will to move to act, as
42 is evident from what has been said above (
43 <a id="FS_Q90_A1-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q9_A1.html">Q[9], A[1]</a>). Therefore law pertains, not to the reason, but to the will; according to the words of the Jurist (Lib. i, ff., De Const.
44 Prin. leg. i): "Whatsoever pleaseth the sovereign, has force of law."
45 </p>
46 <p id="FS_Q90_A1-p5">
47 <b>On the contrary,</b> It belongs to the law to command and to forbid. But it belongs to reason to command, as stated above (
48 <a id="FS_Q90_A1-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q17_A1.html">Q[17], A[1]</a>). Therefore law is something pertaining to reason.
49 </p>
50 <p id="FS_Q90_A1-p6">
51 <b>I answer that,</b> Law is a rule and measure of acts, whereby man is induced to act or is restrained from acting: for "lex" [law] is derived
52 from "ligare" [to bind], because it binds one to act. Now the rule and measure of human acts is the reason, which is the first
53 principle of human acts, as is evident from what has been stated above (
54 <a id="FS_Q90_A1-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q1_A1.html">Q[1], A[1]</a>, ad 3); since it belongs to the reason to direct to the end, which is the first principle in all matters
55 of action, according to the Philosopher (Phys. ii). Now that which is the principle in any genus, is the rule and measure
56 of that genus: for instance, unity in the genus of numbers, and the first movement in the genus of movements. Consequently
57 it follows that law is something pertaining to reason.
58 </p>
59 <p id="FS_Q90_A1-p7">
60 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Since law is a kind of rule and measure, it may be in something in two ways. First, as in that which measures and rules:
61 and since this is proper to reason, it follows that, in this way, law is in the reason alone. Secondly, as in that which is
62 measured and ruled. In this way, law is in all those things that are inclined to something by reason of some law: so that
63 any inclination arising from a law, may be called a law, not essentially but by
64 participation as it were. And thus the inclination of the members to concupiscence is called "the law of the members."
65 </p>
66 <p id="FS_Q90_A1-p8">
67 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Just as, in external action, we may consider the work and the work done, for instance the work of building and the house
68 built; so in the acts of reason, we may consider the act itself of reason, i.e. to understand and to reason, and something
69 produced by this act. With regard to the speculative reason, this is first of all the definition; secondly, the proposition;
70 thirdly, the syllogism or argument. And since also the practical reason makes use of a
71 syllogism in respect of the work to be done, as stated above (
72 <a id="FS_Q90_A1-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q13_A3.html">Q[13], A[3]</a>;
73 <a id="FS_Q90_A1-p8.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q76_A1.html"> Q[76], A[1]</a>) and since as the Philosopher teaches (Ethic. vii, 3); hence we find in the practical reason something that holds the same
74 position in regard to operations, as, in the speculative intellect, the proposition holds in regard to conclusions. Such like
75 universal propositions of the practical intellect that are directed to actions have the nature of law. And these
76 propositions are sometimes under our actual consideration, while sometimes they are retained in the reason by means of a habit.
77 </p>
78 <p id="FS_Q90_A1-p9">
79 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Reason has its power of moving from the will, as stated above (
80 <a id="FS_Q90_A1-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q17_A1.html">Q[17], A[1]</a>): for it is due to the fact that one wills the end, that the reason issues its commands as regards things ordained to the
81 end. But in order that the volition of what is commanded may have the nature of law, it needs to be in accord with some rule
82 of reason. And in this sense is to be understood the saying that the will of the sovereign has the force of
83 law; otherwise the sovereign's will would savor of lawlessness rather than of law.
84 </p>
85 <p id="FS_Q90_A1-p10"></p>
86 <p id="FS_Q90_A1-p11"></p>
87 <a href="summa.FS_Q90.html"></a>
88 <a href="summa.FS_Q90_A2.html"></a>
89 </div>
90 <div id="FS_Q90_A2" class="div4">
91 <a href="summa.FS_Q90_A1.html"></a>
92 <a href="summa.FS_Q90_A3.html"></a>
93 <h4 id="FS_Q90_A2-p0.1">Whether the law is always something directed to the common good? </h4>
94 <p id="FS_Q90_A2-p1"></p>
95 <p id="FS_Q90_A2-p2">
96 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the law is not always directed to the common good as to its end. For it belongs to law to command and
97 to forbid. But commands are directed to certain individual goods. Therefore the end of the law is not always the common good.
98 </p>
99 <p id="FS_Q90_A2-p3">
100 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the law directs man in his actions. But human actions are concerned with particular matters. Therefore the law is
101 directed to some particular good.
102 </p>
103 <p id="FS_Q90_A2-p4">
104 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Isidore says (Etym. v, 3): "If the law is based on reason, whatever is based on reason will be a law." But reason
105 is the foundation not only of what is ordained to the common good, but also of that which is directed private good. Therefore
106 the law is not only directed to the good of all, but also to the private good of an individual.
107 </p>
108 <p id="FS_Q90_A2-p5">
109 <b>On the contrary,</b> Isidore says (Etym. v, 21) that "laws are enacted for no private profit, but for the common benefit of the citizens."
110 </p>
111 <p id="FS_Q90_A2-p6">
112 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
113 <a id="FS_Q90_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q90_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, the law belongs to that which is a principle of human acts, because it is their rule and measure. Now as reason is a principle
114 of human acts, so in reason itself there is something which is the principle in respect of all the rest: wherefore to this
115 principle chiefly and mainly law must needs be referred. Now the first principle in practical matters, which are the object
116 of the practical reason, is the last
117 end: and the last end of human life is bliss or happiness, as stated above (Q[2], A[7]; Q[3], A[1]). Consequently the law
118 must needs regard principally the relationship to happiness. Moreover, since every part is ordained to the whole, as imperfect
119 to perfect; and since one man is a part of the perfect community, the law must needs regard properly the relationship to universal
120 happiness. Wherefore the Philosopher, in the above definition of legal matters mentions both happiness and the body
121 politic: for he says (Ethic. v, 1) that we call those legal matters "just, which are adapted to produce and preserve happiness
122 and its parts for the body politic": since the state is a perfect community, as he says in Polit. i, 1.
123 </p>
124 <p id="FS_Q90_A2-p7"> Now in every genus, that which belongs to it chiefly is the principle of the others, and the others belong to that genus
125 in subordination to that thing: thus fire, which is chief among hot things, is the cause of heat in mixed bodies, and these
126 are said to be hot in so far as they have a share of fire. Consequently, since the law is chiefly ordained to the common good,
127 any other precept in regard to some individual work, must needs be devoid of the nature of a law, save in so
128 far as it regards the common good. Therefore every law is ordained to the common good.
129 </p>
130 <p id="FS_Q90_A2-p8">
131 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> A command denotes an application of a law to matters regulated by the law. Now the order to the common good, at which the
132 law aims, is applicable to particular ends. And in this way commands are given even concerning particular matters.
133 </p>
134 <p id="FS_Q90_A2-p9">
135 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Actions are indeed concerned with particular matters: but those particular matters are referable to the common good, not
136 as to a common genus or species, but as to a common final cause, according as the common good is said to be the common end.
137 </p>
138 <p id="FS_Q90_A2-p10">
139 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Just as nothing stands firm with regard to the speculative reason except that which is traced back to the first indemonstrable
140 principles, so nothing stands firm with regard to the practical reason, unless it be directed to the last end which is the
141 common good: and whatever stands to reason in this sense, has the nature of a law.
142 </p>
143 <p id="FS_Q90_A2-p11"></p>
144 <p id="FS_Q90_A2-p12"></p>
145 <a href="summa.FS_Q90_A1.html"></a>
146 <a href="summa.FS_Q90_A3.html"></a>
147 </div>
148 <div id="FS_Q90_A3" class="div4">
149 <a href="summa.FS_Q90_A2.html"></a>
150 <a href="summa.FS_Q90_A4.html"></a>
151 <h4 id="FS_Q90_A3-p0.1">Whether the reason of any man is competent to make laws?</h4>
152 <p id="FS_Q90_A3-p1"></p>
153 <p id="FS_Q90_A3-p2">
154 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the reason of any man is competent to make laws. For the Apostle says (
155 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q90_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.2.14" target="asv">Rom. 2:14</a>) that "when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law . . . they are a law to themselves."
156 Now he says this of all in general. Therefore anyone can make a law for himself.
157 </p>
158 <p id="FS_Q90_A3-p3">
159 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 1), "the intention of the lawgiver is to lead men to virtue." But every man
160 can lead another to virtue. Therefore the reason of any man is competent to make laws.
161 </p>
162 <p id="FS_Q90_A3-p4">
163 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, just as the sovereign of a state governs the state, so every father of a family governs his household. But the sovereign
164 of a state can make laws for the state. Therefore every father of a family can make laws for his household.
165 </p>
166 <p id="FS_Q90_A3-p5">
167 <b>On the contrary,</b> Isidore says (Etym. v, 10): "A law is an ordinance of the people, whereby something is sanctioned by the Elders together
168 with the Commonalty."
169 </p>
170 <p id="FS_Q90_A3-p6">
171 <b>I answer that,</b> A law, properly speaking, regards first and foremost the order to the common good. Now to order anything to the common good,
172 belongs either to the whole people, or to someone who is the viceregent of the whole people. And therefore the making of a
173 law belongs either to the whole people or to a public personage who has care of the whole people: since in all other matters
174 the directing of anything to the end concerns him to whom the end belongs.
175 </p>
176 <p id="FS_Q90_A3-p7">
177 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As stated above (A[1], ad 1), a law is in a person not only as in one that rules, but also by participation as in one that
178 is ruled. In the latter way each one is a law to himself, in so far as he shares the direction that he receives from one who
179 rules him. Hence the same text goes on: "Who show the work of the law written in their hearts."
180 </p>
181 <p id="FS_Q90_A3-p8">
182 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> A private person cannot lead another to virtue efficaciously: for he can only advise, and if his advice be not taken, it
183 has no coercive power, such as the law should have, in order to prove an efficacious inducement to virtue, as the Philosopher
184 says (Ethic. x, 9). But this coercive power is vested in the whole people or in some public personage, to whom it belongs
185 to inflict penalties, as we shall state further on (Q[92], A[2], ad 3;
186
187 <a id="FS_Q90_A3-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q64_A3.html">SS, Q[64], A[3]</a>). Wherefore the framing of laws belongs to him alone.
188 </p>
189 <p id="FS_Q90_A3-p9">
190 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As one man is a part of the household, so a household is a part of the state: and the state is a perfect community, according
191 to Polit. i, 1. And therefore, as the good of one man is not the last end, but is ordained to the common good; so too the
192 good of one household is ordained to the good of a single state, which is a perfect community. Consequently he that governs
193 a family, can indeed make certain commands or ordinances, but not such as to have
194 properly the force of law.
195 </p>
196 <p id="FS_Q90_A3-p10"></p>
197 <p id="FS_Q90_A3-p11"></p>
198 <a href="summa.FS_Q90_A2.html"></a>
199 <a href="summa.FS_Q90_A4.html"></a>
200 </div>
201 <div id="FS_Q90_A4" class="div4">
202 <a href="summa.FS_Q90_A3.html"></a>
203 <a href="summa.FS_Q91.html"></a>
204 <h4 id="FS_Q90_A4-p0.1">Whether promulgation is essential to a law?</h4>
205 <p id="FS_Q90_A4-p1"></p>
206 <p id="FS_Q90_A4-p2">
207 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that promulgation is not essential to a law. For the natural law above all has the character of law. But the
208 natural law needs no promulgation. Therefore it is not essential to a law that it be promulgated.
209 </p>
210 <p id="FS_Q90_A4-p3">
211 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it belongs properly to a law to bind one to do or not to do something. But the obligation of fulfilling a law touches
212 not only those in whose presence it is promulgated, but also others. Therefore promulgation is not essential to a law.
213 </p>
214 <p id="FS_Q90_A4-p4">
215 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the binding force of a law extends even to the future, since "laws are binding in matters of the future," as the
216 jurists say (Cod. 1, tit. De lege et constit. leg. vii). But promulgation concerns those who are present. Therefore it is
217 not essential to a law.
218 </p>
219 <p id="FS_Q90_A4-p5">
220 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is laid down in the Decretals, dist. 4, that "laws are established when they are promulgated."
221 </p>
222 <p id="FS_Q90_A4-p6">
223 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
224 <a id="FS_Q90_A4-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q90_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, a law is imposed on others by way of a rule and measure. Now a rule or measure is imposed by being applied to those who
225 are to be ruled and measured by it. Wherefore, in order that a law obtain the binding force which is proper to a law, it must
226 needs be applied to the men who have to be ruled by it. Such application is made by its being notified to them by promulgation.
227 Wherefore promulgation is necessary for
228 the law to obtain its force.
229 </p>
230 <p id="FS_Q90_A4-p7"> Thus from the four preceding articles, the definition of law may be gathered; and it is nothing else than an ordinance of
231 reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community, and promulgated.
232 </p>
233 <p id="FS_Q90_A4-p8">
234 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The natural law is promulgated by the very fact that God instilled it into man's mind so as to be known by him naturally.
235 </p>
236 <p id="FS_Q90_A4-p9">
237 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Those who are not present when a law is promulgated, are bound to observe the law, in so far as it is notified or can be
238 notified to them by others, after it has been promulgated.
239 </p>
240 <p id="FS_Q90_A4-p10">
241 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The promulgation that takes place now, extends to future time by reason of the durability of written characters, by which
242 means it is continually promulgated. Hence Isidore says (Etym. v, 3; ii, 10) that "lex [law] is derived from legere [to read]
243 because it is written."
244 </p>
245 <p id="FS_Q90_A4-p11"></p>
246 <p id="FS_Q90_A4-p12"></p>
247 <a href="summa.FS_Q90_A3.html"></a>
248 <a href="summa.FS_Q91.html"></a>
249 </div>
250 <a href="summa.FS.vi.html"></a>
251 <a href="summa.FS_Q90_A1.html"></a>
252 </div>
253 <div id="FS_Q91" class="div3">
254 <a href="summa.FS_Q90_A4.html"></a>
255 <a href="summa.FS_Q91_A1.html"></a>
256 <h3 id="FS_Q91-p0.1">OF THE VARIOUS KINDS OF LAW (SIX ARTICLES)</h3>
257 <p id="FS_Q91-p1"></p>
258 <p id="FS_Q91-p2"> We must now consider the various kinds of law: under which head there are six points of inquiry:</p>
259 <p id="FS_Q91-p3"> (1) Whether there is an eternal law?</p>
260 <p id="FS_Q91-p4"> (2) Whether there is a natural law?</p>
261 <p id="FS_Q91-p5"> (3) Whether there is a human law?</p>
262 <p id="FS_Q91-p6"> (4) Whether there is a Divine law?</p>
263 <p id="FS_Q91-p7"> (5) Whether there is one Divine law, or several?</p>
264 <p id="FS_Q91-p8"> (6) Whether there is a law of sin?</p>
265 <div id="FS_Q91_A1" class="div4">
266 <a href="summa.FS_Q91.html"></a>
267 <a href="summa.FS_Q91_A2.html"></a>
268 <h4 id="FS_Q91_A1-p0.1">Whether there is an eternal law?</h4>
269 <p id="FS_Q91_A1-p1"></p>
270 <p id="FS_Q91_A1-p2">
271 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there is no eternal law. Because every law is imposed on someone. But there was not someone from eternity
272 on whom a law could be imposed: since God alone was from eternity. Therefore no law is eternal.
273 </p>
274 <p id="FS_Q91_A1-p3">
275 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, promulgation is essential to law. But promulgation could not be from eternity: because there was no one to whom
276 it could be promulgated from eternity. Therefore no law can be eternal.
277 </p>
278 <p id="FS_Q91_A1-p4">
279 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a law implies order to an end. But nothing ordained to an end is eternal: for the last end alone is eternal. Therefore
280 no law is eternal.
281 </p>
282 <p id="FS_Q91_A1-p5">
283 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 6): "That Law which is the Supreme Reason cannot be understood to be otherwise than unchangeable
284 and eternal."
285 </p>
286 <p id="FS_Q91_A1-p6">
287 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (Q[90], A[1], ad 2;
288 <a id="FS_Q91_A1-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q91_A3.html">AA[3]</a>,4), a law is nothing else but a dictate of practical reason emanating from the ruler who governs a perfect community. Now
289 it is evident, granted that the world is ruled by Divine Providence, as was stated in the
290 <a id="FS_Q91_A1-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q22_A1.html">FP, Q[22], AA[1]</a>,2, that the whole community of the universe is governed by Divine Reason. Wherefore the very Idea of the government of things
291 in God the
292 Ruler of the universe, has the nature of a law. And since the Divine Reason's conception of things is not subject to time
293 but is eternal, according to
294 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q91_A1-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Prov.8.23" target="asv"> Prov. 8:23, </a> therefore it is that this kind of law must be called eternal.
295 </p>
296 <p id="FS_Q91_A1-p7">
297 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Those things that are not in themselves, exist with God, inasmuch as they are foreknown and preordained by Him, according
298 to
299 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q91_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.4.17" target="asv">Rom. 4:17</a>: "Who calls those things that are not, as those that are." Accordingly the eternal concept of the Divine law bears the character
300 of an eternal law, in so far as it is ordained by God to the government of things foreknown by Him.
301 </p>
302 <p id="FS_Q91_A1-p8">
303 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Promulgation is made by word of mouth or in writing; and in both ways the eternal law is promulgated: because both the Divine
304 Word and the writing of the Book of Life are eternal. But the promulgation cannot be from eternity on the part of the creature
305 that hears or reads.
306 </p>
307 <p id="FS_Q91_A1-p9">
308 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The law implies order to the end actively, in so far as it directs certain things to the end; but not passively---that is
309 to say, the law itself is not ordained to the end---except accidentally, in a governor whose end is extrinsic to him, and
310 to which end his law must needs be ordained. But the end of the Divine government is God Himself, and His law is not distinct
311 from Himself. Wherefore the eternal law is not ordained to another end.
312 </p>
313 <p id="FS_Q91_A1-p10"></p>
314 <p id="FS_Q91_A1-p11"></p>
315 <a href="summa.FS_Q91.html"></a>
316 <a href="summa.FS_Q91_A2.html"></a>
317 </div>
318 <div id="FS_Q91_A2" class="div4">
319 <a href="summa.FS_Q91_A1.html"></a>
320 <a href="summa.FS_Q91_A3.html"></a>
321 <h4 id="FS_Q91_A2-p0.1">Whether there is in us a natural law?</h4>
322 <p id="FS_Q91_A2-p1"></p>
323 <p id="FS_Q91_A2-p2">
324 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there is no natural law in us. Because man is governed sufficiently by the eternal law: for Augustine
325 says (De Lib. Arb. i) that "the eternal law is that by which it is right that all things should be most orderly." But nature
326 does not abound in superfluities as neither does she fail in necessaries. Therefore no law is natural to man.
327 </p>
328 <p id="FS_Q91_A2-p3">
329 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, by the law man is directed, in his acts, to the end, as stated above (
330 <a id="FS_Q91_A2-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q90_A2.html">Q[90], A[2]</a>). But the directing of human acts to their end is not a function of nature, as is the case in irrational creatures, which
331 act for an end solely by their natural appetite; whereas man acts for an end by his reason and will. Therefore no law is natural
332 to man.
333 </p>
334 <p id="FS_Q91_A2-p4">
335 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the more a man is free, the less is he under the law. But man is freer than all the animals, on account of his free-will,
336 with which he is endowed above all other animals. Since therefore other animals are not subject to a natural law, neither
337 is man subject to a natural law.
338 </p>
339 <p id="FS_Q91_A2-p5">
340 <b>On the contrary,</b> A gloss on
341 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q91_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.2.14" target="asv"> Rom. 2:14</a>: "When the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law," comments as follows: "Although
342 they have no written law, yet they have the natural law, whereby each one knows, and is conscious of, what is good and what
343 is evil."
344 </p>
345 <p id="FS_Q91_A2-p6">
346 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (Q[90], A[1], ad 1), law, being a rule and measure, can be in a person in two ways: in one way, as in him
347 that rules and measures; in another way, as in that which is ruled and measured, since a thing is ruled and measured, in so
348 far as it partakes of the rule or measure. Wherefore, since all things subject to Divine providence are ruled and measured
349 by the eternal law, as was stated above
350 <a id="FS_Q91_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q91_A1.html">(A[1])</a>; it is evident that
351 all things partake somewhat of the eternal law, in so far as, namely, from its being imprinted on them, they derive their
352 respective inclinations to their proper acts and ends. Now among all others, the rational creature is subject to Divine providence
353 in the most excellent way, in so far as it partakes of a share of providence, by being provident both for itself and for others.
354 Wherefore it has a share of the Eternal Reason, whereby it has a natural inclination to its proper act and end: and
355 this participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is called the natural law. Hence the Psalmist after saying
356 (
357 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q91_A2-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.4.6" target="asv">Ps. 4:6</a>): "Offer up the sacrifice of justice," as though someone asked what the works of justice are, adds: "Many say, Who showeth
358 us good things?" in answer to which question he says: "The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us": thus implying
359 that the light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil, which is the function of the
360 natural law, is nothing else than an imprint on us of the Divine light. It is therefore evident that the natural law is nothing
361 else than the rational creature's participation of the eternal law.
362 </p>
363 <p id="FS_Q91_A2-p7">
364 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This argument would hold, if the natural law were something different from the eternal law: whereas it is nothing but a participation
365 thereof, as stated above.
366 </p>
367 <p id="FS_Q91_A2-p8">
368 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Every act of reason and will in us is based on that which is according to nature, as stated above (
369 <a id="FS_Q91_A2-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q10_A1.html">Q[10], A[1]</a>): for every act of reasoning is based on principles that are known naturally, and every act of appetite in respect of the
370 means is derived from the natural appetite in respect of the last end. Accordingly the first direction of our acts to their
371 end must needs be in virtue of the natural law.
372 </p>
373 <p id="FS_Q91_A2-p9">
374 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Even irrational animals partake in their own way of the Eternal Reason, just as the rational creature does. But because the
375 rational creature partakes thereof in an intellectual and rational manner, therefore the participation of the eternal law
376 in the rational creature is properly called a law, since a law is something pertaining to reason, as stated above (
377 <a id="FS_Q91_A2-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q90_A1.html">Q[90], A[1]</a>). Irrational creatures, however, do not partake thereof
378 in a rational manner, wherefore there is no participation of the eternal law in them, except by way of similitude.
379 </p>
380 <p id="FS_Q91_A2-p10"></p>
381 <p id="FS_Q91_A2-p11"></p>
382 <a href="summa.FS_Q91_A1.html"></a>
383 <a href="summa.FS_Q91_A3.html"></a>
384 </div>
385 <div id="FS_Q91_A3" class="div4">
386 <a href="summa.FS_Q91_A2.html"></a>
387 <a href="summa.FS_Q91_A4.html"></a>
388 <h4 id="FS_Q91_A3-p0.1">Whether there is a human law?</h4>
389 <p id="FS_Q91_A3-p1"></p>
390 <p id="FS_Q91_A3-p2">
391 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there is not a human law. For the natural law is a participation of the eternal law, as stated above
392 <a id="FS_Q91_A3-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q91_A2.html">(A[2])</a>. Now through the eternal law "all things are most orderly," as Augustine states (De Lib. Arb. i, 6). Therefore the natural
393 law suffices for the ordering of all human affairs. Consequently there is no need for a human law.
394 </p>
395 <p id="FS_Q91_A3-p3">
396 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a law bears the character of a measure, as stated above (
397 <a id="FS_Q91_A3-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q90_A1.html">Q[90], A[1]</a>). But human reason is not a measure of things, but vice versa, as stated in Metaph. x, text. 5. Therefore no law can emanate
398 from human reason.
399 </p>
400 <p id="FS_Q91_A3-p4">
401 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a measure should be most certain, as stated in Metaph. x, text. 3. But the dictates of human reason in matters of
402 conduct are uncertain, according to
403 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q91_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.9.14" target="asv"> Wis. 9:14</a>: "The thoughts of mortal men are fearful, and our counsels uncertain." Therefore no law can emanate from human reason.
404 </p>
405 <p id="FS_Q91_A3-p5">
406 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine (De Lib. Arb. i, 6) distinguishes two kinds of law, the one eternal, the other temporal, which he calls human.
407 </p>
408 <p id="FS_Q91_A3-p6">
409 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
410 <a id="FS_Q91_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q90_A1.html">Q[90], A[1]</a>, ad 2), a law is a dictate of the practical reason. Now it is to be observed that the same procedure takes place in the practical
411 and in the speculative reason: for each proceeds from principles to conclusions, as stated above (De Lib. Arb. i, 6). Accordingly
412 we conclude that just as, in the speculative reason, from naturally known indemonstrable principles, we draw the conclusions
413 of the various
414 sciences, the knowledge of which is not imparted to us by nature, but acquired by the efforts of reason, so too it is from
415 the precepts of the natural law, as from general and indemonstrable principles, that the human reason needs to proceed to
416 the more particular determination of certain matters. These particular determinations, devised by human reason, are called
417 human laws, provided the other essential conditions of law be observed, as stated above (
418 <a id="FS_Q91_A3-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q90_A2.html">Q[90],
419 AA[2]
420 </a>,3,4). Wherefore Tully says in his Rhetoric (De Invent. Rhet. ii) that "justice has its source in nature; thence certain things
421 came into custom by reason of their utility; afterwards these things which emanated from nature and were approved by custom,
422 were sanctioned by fear and reverence for the law."
423 </p>
424 <p id="FS_Q91_A3-p7">
425 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The human reason cannot have a full participation of the dictate of the Divine Reason, but according to its own mode, and
426 imperfectly. Consequently, as on the part of the speculative reason, by a natural participation of Divine Wisdom, there is
427 in us the knowledge of certain general principles, but not proper knowledge of each single truth, such as that contained in
428 the Divine Wisdom; so too, on the part of the practical reason, man has a natural
429 participation of the eternal law, according to certain general principles, but not as regards the particular determinations
430 of individual cases, which are, however, contained in the eternal law. Hence the need for human reason to proceed further
431 to sanction them by law.
432 </p>
433 <p id="FS_Q91_A3-p8">
434 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Human reason is not, of itself, the rule of things: but the principles impressed on it by nature, are general rules and measures
435 of all things relating to human conduct, whereof the natural reason is the rule and measure, although it is not the measure
436 of things that are from nature.
437 </p>
438 <p id="FS_Q91_A3-p9">
439 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The practical reason is concerned with practical matters, which are singular and contingent: but not with necessary things,
440 with which the speculative reason is concerned. Wherefore human laws cannot have that inerrancy that belongs to the demonstrated
441 conclusions of sciences. Nor is it necessary for every measure to be altogether unerring and certain, but according as it
442 is possible in its own particular genus.
443 </p>
444 <p id="FS_Q91_A3-p10"></p>
445 <p id="FS_Q91_A3-p11"></p>
446 <a href="summa.FS_Q91_A2.html"></a>
447 <a href="summa.FS_Q91_A4.html"></a>
448 </div>
449 <div id="FS_Q91_A4" class="div4">
450 <a href="summa.FS_Q91_A3.html"></a>
451 <a href="summa.FS_Q91_A5.html"></a>
452 <h4 id="FS_Q91_A4-p0.1">Whether there was any need for a Divine law?</h4>
453 <p id="FS_Q91_A4-p1"></p>
454 <p id="FS_Q91_A4-p2">
455 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there was no need for a Divine law. Because, as stated above
456 <a id="FS_Q91_A4-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q91_A2.html">(A[2])</a>, the natural law is a participation in us of the eternal law. But the eternal law is a Divine law, as stated above
457 <a id="FS_Q91_A4-p2.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q91_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. Therefore there was no need for a Divine law in addition to the natural law, and human laws derived therefrom.
458 </p>
459 <p id="FS_Q91_A4-p3">
460 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is written (
461 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q91_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.15.14" target="asv">Ecclus. 15:14</a>) that "God left man in the hand of his own counsel." Now counsel is an act of reason, as stated above (Q[14], A[1]). Therefore
462 man was left to the direction of his reason. But a dictate of human reason is a human law as stated above
463 <a id="FS_Q91_A4-p3.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q91_A3.html">(A[3])</a>. Therefore there is no need for man to be governed also by a Divine law.
464 </p>
465 <p id="FS_Q91_A4-p4">
466 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, human nature is more self-sufficing than irrational creatures. But irrational creatures have no Divine law besides
467 the natural inclination impressed on them. Much less, therefore, should the rational creature have a Divine law in addition
468 to the natural law.
469 </p>
470 <p id="FS_Q91_A4-p5">
471 <b>On the contrary,</b> David prayed God to set His law before him, saying (
472 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q91_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.118.33" target="asv">Ps. 118:33</a>): "Set before me for a law the way of Thy justifications, O Lord."
473 </p>
474 <p id="FS_Q91_A4-p6">
475 <b>I answer that,</b> Besides the natural and the human law it was necessary for the directing of human conduct to have a Divine law. And this
476 for four reasons. First, because it is by law that man is directed how to perform his proper acts in view of his last end.
477 And indeed if man were ordained to no other end than that which is proportionate to his natural faculty, there would be no
478 need for man to have any further direction of the part of his reason, besides the natural law
479 and human law which is derived from it. But since man is ordained to an end of eternal happiness which is inproportionate
480 to man's natural faculty, as stated above (
481 <a id="FS_Q91_A4-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q5_A5.html">Q[5], A[5]</a>), therefore it was necessary that, besides the natural and the human law, man should be directed to his end by a law given
482 by God.
483 </p>
484 <p id="FS_Q91_A4-p7"> Secondly, because, on account of the uncertainty of human judgment, especially on contingent and particular matters, different
485 people form different judgments on human acts; whence also different and contrary laws result. In order, therefore, that man
486 may know without any doubt what he ought to do and what he ought to avoid, it was necessary for man to be directed in his
487 proper acts by a law given by God, for it is certain that such a law cannot err.
488 </p>
489 <p id="FS_Q91_A4-p8"> Thirdly, because man can make laws in those matters of which he is competent to judge. But man is not competent to judge
490 of interior movements, that are hidden, but only of exterior acts which appear: and yet for the perfection of virtue it is
491 necessary for man to conduct himself aright in both kinds of acts. Consequently human law could not sufficiently curb and
492 direct interior acts; and it was necessary for this purpose that a Divine law should supervene.
493 </p>
494 <p id="FS_Q91_A4-p9"> Fourthly, because, as Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5,6), human law cannot punish or forbid all evil deeds: since while
495 aiming at doing away with all evils, it would do away with many good things, and would hinder the advance of the common good,
496 which is necessary for human intercourse. In order, therefore, that no evil might remain unforbidden and unpunished, it was
497 necessary for the Divine law to supervene, whereby all sins are forbidden.
498 </p>
499 <p id="FS_Q91_A4-p10"> And these four causes are touched upon in
500 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q91_A4-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.118.8" target="asv"> Ps. 118:8, </a> where it is said: "The law of the Lord is unspotted," i.e. allowing no foulness of sin; "converting souls," because it directs
501 not only exterior, but also interior acts; "the testimony of the Lord is faithful," because of the certainty of what is true
502 and right; "giving wisdom to little ones," by directing man to an end supernatural and Divine.
503 </p>
504 <p id="FS_Q91_A4-p11">
505 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> By the natural law the eternal law is participated proportionately to the capacity of human nature. But to his supernatural
506 end man needs to be directed in a yet higher way. Hence the additional law given by God, whereby man shares more perfectly
507 in the eternal law.
508 </p>
509 <p id="FS_Q91_A4-p12">
510 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Counsel is a kind of inquiry: hence it must proceed from some principles. Nor is it enough for it to proceed from principles
511 imparted by nature, which are the precepts of the natural law, for the reasons given above: but there is need for certain
512 additional principles, namely, the precepts of the Divine law.
513 </p>
514 <p id="FS_Q91_A4-p13">
515 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Irrational creatures are not ordained to an end higher than that which is proportionate to their natural powers: consequently
516 the comparison fails.
517 </p>
518 <p id="FS_Q91_A4-p14"></p>
519 <p id="FS_Q91_A4-p15"></p>
520 <a href="summa.FS_Q91_A3.html"></a>
521 <a href="summa.FS_Q91_A5.html"></a>
522 </div>
523 <div id="FS_Q91_A5" class="div4">
524 <a href="summa.FS_Q91_A4.html"></a>
525 <a href="summa.FS_Q91_A6.html"></a>
526 <h4 id="FS_Q91_A5-p0.1">Whether there is but one Divine law?</h4>
527 <p id="FS_Q91_A5-p1"></p>
528 <p id="FS_Q91_A5-p2">
529 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there is but one Divine law. Because, where there is one king in one kingdom there is but one law. Now
530 the whole of mankind is compared to God as to one king, according to
531 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q91_A5-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.46.8" target="asv"> Ps. 46:8</a>: "God is the King of all the earth." Therefore there is but one Divine law.
532 </p>
533 <p id="FS_Q91_A5-p3">
534 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, every law is directed to the end which the lawgiver intends for those for whom he makes the law. But God intends
535 one and the same thing for all men; since according to
536 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q91_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.2.4" target="asv">1 Tim. 2:4</a>: "He will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth." Therefore there is but one Divine law.
537 </p>
538 <p id="FS_Q91_A5-p4">
539 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Divine law seems to be more akin to the eternal law, which is one, than the natural law, according as the revelation
540 of grace is of a higher order than natural knowledge. Therefore much more is the Divine law but one.
541 </p>
542 <p id="FS_Q91_A5-p5">
543 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
544 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q91_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.7.12" target="asv">Heb. 7:12</a>): "The priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation also be made of the law." But the priesthood is twofold,
545 as stated in the same passage, viz. the levitical priesthood, and the priesthood of Christ. Therefore the Divine law is twofold,
546 namely the Old Law and the New Law.
547 </p>
548 <p id="FS_Q91_A5-p6">
549 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated in the
550 <a id="FS_Q91_A5-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q30_A3.html">FP, Q[30], A[3]</a>, distinction is the cause of number. Now things may be distinguished in two ways. First, as those things that are altogether
551 specifically different, e.g. a horse and an ox. Secondly, as perfect and imperfect in the same species, e.g. a boy and a man:
552 and in this way the Divine law is divided into Old and New. Hence the Apostle (
553 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q91_A5-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Gal.3.24" target="asv">Gal. 3:24,25</a>) compares the state of man under the Old
554 Law to that of a child "under a pedagogue"; but the state under the New Law, to that of a full grown man, who is "no longer
555 under a pedagogue."
556 </p>
557 <p id="FS_Q91_A5-p7"> Now the perfection and imperfection of these two laws is to be taken in connection with the three conditions pertaining to
558 law, as stated above. For, in the first place, it belongs to law to be directed to the common good as to its end, as stated
559 above (
560 <a id="FS_Q91_A5-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q90_A2.html">Q[90], A[2]</a>). This good may be twofold. It may be a sensible and earthly good; and to this, man was directly ordained by the Old Law:
561 wherefore, at the very outset of the law, the people were invited to
562 the earthly kingdom of the Chananaeans (
563 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q91_A5-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Exod.3.8" target="asv">Ex. 3:8</a>,
564 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q91_A5-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Exod.3.17" target="asv">17</a>). Again it may be an intelligible and heavenly good: and to this, man is ordained by the New Law. Wherefore, at the very
565 beginning of His preaching, Christ invited men to the kingdom of heaven, saying (
566 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q91_A5-p7.4" href="./asv.html#Matt.4.17" target="asv">Mat. 4:17</a>): "Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. iv) that "promises of temporal
567 goods are contained in the Old Testament, for which reason it is called old; but the promise of
568 eternal life belongs to the New Testament."
569 </p>
570 <p id="FS_Q91_A5-p8"> Secondly, it belongs to the law to direct human acts according to the order of righteousness
571 <a id="FS_Q91_A5-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q91_A4.html">(A[4])</a>: wherein also the New Law surpasses the Old Law, since it directs our internal acts, according to
572 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q91_A5-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.5.20" target="asv"> Mat. 5:20</a>: "Unless your justice abound more than that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."
573 Hence the saying that "the Old Law restrains the hand, but the New Law controls the mind" ( Sentent. iii,
574 D, xl).
575 </p>
576 <p id="FS_Q91_A5-p9"> Thirdly, it belongs to the law to induce men to observe its commandments. This the Old Law did by the fear of punishment:
577 but the New Law, by love, which is poured into our hearts by the grace of Christ, bestowed in the New Law, but foreshadowed
578 in the Old. Hence Augustine says (Contra Adimant. Manich. discip. xvii) that "there is little difference [*The 'little difference'
579 refers to the Latin words 'timor' and 'amor'---'fear' and 'love.'] between the Law and the Gospel---fear
580 and love."
581 </p>
582 <p id="FS_Q91_A5-p10">
583 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As the father of a family issues different commands to the children and to the adults, so also the one King, God, in His
584 one kingdom, gave one law to men, while they were yet imperfect, and another more perfect law, when, by the preceding law,
585 they had been led to a greater capacity for Divine things.
586 </p>
587 <p id="FS_Q91_A5-p11">
588 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The salvation of man could not be achieved otherwise than through Christ, according to
589 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q91_A5-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.4.12" target="asv"> Acts 4:12</a>: "There is no other name . . . given to men, whereby we must be saved." Consequently the law that brings all to salvation
590 could not be given until after the coming of Christ. But before His coming it was necessary to give to the people, of whom
591 Christ was to be born, a law containing certain rudiments of righteousness unto salvation,
592 in order to prepare them to receive Him.
593 </p>
594 <p id="FS_Q91_A5-p12">
595 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The natural law directs man by way of certain general precepts, common to both the perfect and the imperfect: wherefore it
596 is one and the same for all. But the Divine law directs man also in certain particular matters, to which the perfect and imperfect
597 do not stand in the same relation. Hence the necessity for the Divine law to be twofold, as already explained.
598 </p>
599 <p id="FS_Q91_A5-p13"></p>
600 <p id="FS_Q91_A5-p14"></p>
601 <a href="summa.FS_Q91_A4.html"></a>
602 <a href="summa.FS_Q91_A6.html"></a>
603 </div>
604 <div id="FS_Q91_A6" class="div4">
605 <a href="summa.FS_Q91_A5.html"></a>
606 <a href="summa.FS_Q92.html"></a>
607 <h4 id="FS_Q91_A6-p0.1">Whether there is a law in the fomes of sin?</h4>
608 <p id="FS_Q91_A6-p1"></p>
609 <p id="FS_Q91_A6-p2">
610 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there is no law of the "fomes" of sin. For Isidore says (Etym. v) that the "law is based on reason." But
611 the "fomes" of sin is not based on reason, but deviates from it. Therefore the "fomes" has not the nature of a law.
612 </p>
613 <p id="FS_Q91_A6-p3">
614 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, every law is binding, so that those who do not obey it are called transgressors. But man is not called a transgressor,
615 from not following the instigations of the "fomes"; but rather from his following them. Therefore the "fomes" has not the
616 nature of a law.
617 </p>
618 <p id="FS_Q91_A6-p4">
619 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the law is ordained to the common good, as stated above (
620 <a id="FS_Q91_A6-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q90_A2.html">Q[90], A[2]</a>). But the "fomes" inclines us, not to the common, but to our own private good. Therefore the "fomes" has not the nature of
621 sin.
622 </p>
623 <p id="FS_Q91_A6-p5">
624 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
625 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q91_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.7.23" target="asv">Rom. 7:23</a>): "I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind."
626 </p>
627 <p id="FS_Q91_A6-p6">
628 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
629 <a id="FS_Q91_A6-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q91_A2.html">(A[2];</a> Q[90], A[1], ad 1), the law, as to its essence, resides in him that rules and measures; but, by way of participation, in
630 that which is ruled and measured; so that every inclination or ordination which may be found in things subject to the law,
631 is called a law by participation, as stated above
632 <a id="FS_Q91_A6-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q91_A2.html">(A[2];</a> Q[90], A[1] , ad 1). Now those who are subject to a law may receive a twofold
633 inclination from the lawgiver. First, in so far as he directly inclines his subjects to something; sometimes indeed different
634 subjects to different acts; in this way we may say that there is a military law and a mercantile law. Secondly, indirectly;
635 thus by the very fact that a lawgiver deprives a subject of some dignity, the latter passes into another order, so as to be
636 under another law, as it were: thus if a soldier be turned out of the army, he becomes a subject of rural or of mercantile
637 legislation.
638 </p>
639 <p id="FS_Q91_A6-p7"> Accordingly under the Divine Lawgiver various creatures have various natural inclinations, so that what is, as it were, a
640 law for one, is against the law for another: thus I might say that fierceness is, in a way, the law of a dog, but against
641 the law of a sheep or another meek animal. And so the law of man, which, by the Divine ordinance, is allotted to him, according
642 to his proper natural condition, is that he should act in accordance with reason: and this law was so effective
643 in the primitive state, that nothing either beside or against reason could take man unawares. But when man turned his back
644 on God, he fell under the influence of his sensual impulses: in fact this happens to each one individually, the more he deviates
645 from the path of reason, so that, after a fashion, he is likened to the beasts that are led by the impulse of sensuality,
646 according to
647 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q91_A6-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.48.21" target="asv"> Ps. 48:21</a>: "Man, when he was in honor, did not understand: he hath been compared to
648 senseless beasts, and made like to them."
649 </p>
650 <p id="FS_Q91_A6-p8"> So, then, this very inclination of sensuality which is called the "fomes," in other animals has simply the nature of a law
651 (yet only in so far as a law may be said to be in such things), by reason of a direct inclination. But in man, it has not
652 the nature of law in this way, rather is it a deviation from the law of reason. But since, by the just sentence of God, man
653 is destitute of original justice, and his reason bereft of its vigor, this impulse of sensuality, whereby he is
654 led, in so far as it is a penalty following from the Divine law depriving man of his proper dignity, has the nature of a law.
655 </p>
656 <p id="FS_Q91_A6-p9">
657 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This argument considers the "fomes" in itself, as an incentive to evil. It is not thus that it has the nature of a law, as
658 stated above, but according as it results from the justice of the Divine law: it is as though we were to say that the law
659 allows a nobleman to be condemned to hard labor for some misdeed.
660 </p>
661 <p id="FS_Q91_A6-p10">
662 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This argument considers law in the light of a rule or measure: for it is in this sense that those who deviate from the law
663 become transgressors. But the "fomes" is not a law in this respect, but by a kind of participation, as stated above.
664 </p>
665 <p id="FS_Q91_A6-p11">
666 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This argument considers the "fomes" as to its proper inclination, and not as to its origin. And yet if the inclination of
667 sensuality be considered as it is in other animals, thus it is ordained to the common good, namely, to the preservation of
668 nature in the species or in the individual. And this is in man also, in so far as sensuality is subject to reason. But it
669 is called "fomes" in so far as it strays from the order of reason.
670 </p>
671 <p id="FS_Q91_A6-p12"></p>
672 <p id="FS_Q91_A6-p13"></p>
673 <a href="summa.FS_Q91_A5.html"></a>
674 <a href="summa.FS_Q92.html"></a>
675 </div>
676 <a href="summa.FS_Q90_A4.html"></a>
677 <a href="summa.FS_Q91_A1.html"></a>
678 </div>
679 <div id="FS_Q92" class="div3">
680 <a href="summa.FS_Q91_A6.html"></a>
681 <a href="summa.FS_Q92_A1.html"></a>
682 <h3 id="FS_Q92-p0.1">OF THE EFFECTS OF LAW (TWO ARTICLES)</h3>
683 <p id="FS_Q92-p1"></p>
684 <p id="FS_Q92-p2"> We must now consider the effects of law; under which head there are two points of inquiry:</p>
685 <p id="FS_Q92-p3"> (1) Whether an effect of law is to make men good?</p>
686 <p id="FS_Q92-p4"> (2) Whether the effects of law are to command, to forbid, to permit, and to punish, as the Jurist states?</p>
687 <div id="FS_Q92_A1" class="div4">
688 <a href="summa.FS_Q92.html"></a>
689 <a href="summa.FS_Q92_A2.html"></a>
690 <h4 id="FS_Q92_A1-p0.1">Whether an effect of law is to make men good?</h4>
691 <p id="FS_Q92_A1-p1"></p>
692 <p id="FS_Q92_A1-p2">
693 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that it is not an effect of law to make men good. For men are good through virtue, since virtue, as stated in Ethic.
694 ii, 6 is "that which makes its subject good." But virtue is in man from God alone, because He it is Who "works it in us without
695 us," as we stated above (
696 <a id="FS_Q92_A1-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q55_A4.html">Q[55], A[4]</a>) in giving the definition of virtue. Therefore the law does not make men good.
697 </p>
698 <p id="FS_Q92_A1-p3">
699 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Law does not profit a man unless he obeys it. But the very fact that a man obeys a law is due to his being good.
700 Therefore in man goodness is presupposed to the law. Therefore the law does not make men good.
701 </p>
702 <p id="FS_Q92_A1-p4">
703 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Law is ordained to the common good, as stated above (
704 <a id="FS_Q92_A1-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q90_A2.html">Q[90], A[2]</a>). But some behave well in things regarding the community, who behave ill in things regarding themselves. Therefore it is
705 not the business of the law to make men good.
706 </p>
707 <p id="FS_Q92_A1-p5">
708 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, some laws are tyrannical, as the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 6). But a tyrant does not intend the good of his
709 subjects, but considers only his own profit. Therefore law does not make men good.
710 </p>
711 <p id="FS_Q92_A1-p6">
712 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 1) that the "intention of every lawgiver is to make good citizens."
713 </p>
714 <p id="FS_Q92_A1-p7">
715 <b>I answer that,</b> as stated above (Q[90], A[1], ad 2;
716 <a id="FS_Q92_A1-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q92_A3.html">AA[3]</a>,4), a law is nothing else than a dictate of reason in the ruler by whom his subjects are governed. Now the virtue of any
717 subordinate thing consists in its being well subordinated to that by which it is regulated: thus we see that the virtue of
718 the irascible and concupiscible faculties consists in their being obedient to reason; and accordingly "the virtue of every
719 subject consists in his
720 being well subjected to his ruler," as the Philosopher says (Polit. i). But every law aims at being obeyed by those who are
721 subject to it. Consequently it is evident that the proper effect of law is to lead its subjects to their proper virtue: and
722 since virtue is "that which makes its subject good," it follows that the proper effect of law is to make those to whom it
723 is given, good, either simply or in some particular respect. For if the intention of the lawgiver is fixed on true good, which
724 is
725 the common good regulated according to Divine justice, it follows that the effect of the law is to make men good simply. If,
726 however, the intention of the lawgiver is fixed on that which is not simply good, but useful or pleasurable to himself, or
727 in opposition to Divine justice; then the law does not make men good simply, but in respect to that particular government.
728 In this way good is found even in things that are bad of themselves: thus a man is called a good robber, because he works
729 in a
730 way that is adapted to his end.
731 </p>
732 <p id="FS_Q92_A1-p8">
733 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Virtue is twofold, as explained above (
734 <a id="FS_Q92_A1-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q63_A2.html">Q[63], A[2]</a>), viz. acquired and infused. Now the fact of being accustomed to an action contributes to both, but in different ways; for
735 it causes the acquired virtue; while it disposes to infused virtue, and preserves and fosters it when it already exists. And
736 since law is given for the purpose of directing human acts; as far as human acts conduce to virtue, so far does law make men
737 good.
738 Wherefore the Philosopher says in the second book of the Politics (Ethic. ii) that "lawgivers make men good by habituating
739 them to good works."
740 </p>
741 <p id="FS_Q92_A1-p9">
742 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> It is not always through perfect goodness of virtue that one obeys the law, but sometimes it is through fear of punishment,
743 and sometimes from the mere dictates of reason, which is a beginning of virtue, as stated above (
744 <a id="FS_Q92_A1-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q63_A1.html">Q[63], A[1]</a>).
745 </p>
746 <p id="FS_Q92_A1-p10">
747 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The goodness of any part is considered in comparison with the whole; hence Augustine says (Confess. iii) that "unseemly is
748 the part that harmonizes not with the whole." Since then every man is a part of the state, it is impossible that a man be
749 good, unless he be well proportionate to the common good: nor can the whole be well consistent unless its parts be proportionate
750 to it. Consequently the common good of the state cannot flourish, unless the
751 citizens be virtuous, at least those whose business it is to govern. But it is enough for the good of the community, that
752 the other citizens be so far virtuous that they obey the commands of their rulers. Hence the Philosopher says (Polit. ii,
753 2) that "the virtue of a sovereign is the same as that of a good man, but the virtue of any common citizen is not the same
754 as that of a good man."
755 </p>
756 <p id="FS_Q92_A1-p11">
757 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> A tyrannical law, through not being according to reason, is not a law, absolutely speaking, but rather a perversion of law;
758 and yet in so far as it is something in the nature of a law, it aims at the citizens' being good. For all it has in the nature
759 of a law consists in its being an ordinance made by a superior to his subjects, and aims at being obeyed by them, which is
760 to make them good, not simply, but with respect to that particular
761 government.
762 </p>
763 <p id="FS_Q92_A1-p12"></p>
764 <p id="FS_Q92_A1-p13"></p>
765 <a href="summa.FS_Q92.html"></a>
766 <a href="summa.FS_Q92_A2.html"></a>
767 </div>
768 <div id="FS_Q92_A2" class="div4">
769 <a href="summa.FS_Q92_A1.html"></a>
770 <a href="summa.FS_Q93.html"></a>
771 <h4 id="FS_Q92_A2-p0.1">Whether the acts of law are suitably assigned?</h4>
772 <p id="FS_Q92_A2-p1"></p>
773 <p id="FS_Q92_A2-p2">
774 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the acts of law are not suitably assigned as consisting in "command," "prohibition," "permission" and
775 "punishment." For "every law is a general precept," as the jurist states. But command and precept are the same. Therefore
776 the other three are superfluous.
777 </p>
778 <p id="FS_Q92_A2-p3">
779 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the effect of a law is to induce its subjects to be good, as stated above
780 <a id="FS_Q92_A2-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q92_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. But counsel aims at a higher good than a command does. Therefore it belongs to law to counsel rather than to command.
781 </p>
782 <p id="FS_Q92_A2-p4">
783 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, just as punishment stirs a man to good deeds, so does reward. Therefore if to punish is reckoned an effect of law,
784 so also is to reward.
785 </p>
786 <p id="FS_Q92_A2-p5">
787 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the intention of a lawgiver is to make men good, as stated above
788 <a id="FS_Q92_A2-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q92_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. But he that obeys the law, merely through fear of being punished, is not good: because "although a good deed may be done
789 through servile fear, i.e. fear of punishment, it is not done well," as Augustine says (Contra duas Epist. Pelag. ii). Therefore
790 punishment is not a proper effect of law.
791 </p>
792 <p id="FS_Q92_A2-p6">
793 <b>On the contrary,</b> Isidore says (Etym. v, 19): "Every law either permits something, as: 'A brave man may demand his reward'": or forbids something,
794 as: "No man may ask a consecrated virgin in marriage": or punishes, as: "Let him that commits a murder be put to death."
795 </p>
796 <p id="FS_Q92_A2-p7">
797 <b>I answer that,</b> Just as an assertion is a dictate of reason asserting something, so is a law a dictate of reason, commanding something. Now
798 it is proper to reason to lead from one thing to another. Wherefore just as, in demonstrative sciences, the reason leads us
799 from certain principles to assent to the conclusion, so it induces us by some means to assent to the precept of the law.
800 </p>
801 <p id="FS_Q92_A2-p8"> Now the precepts of law are concerned with human acts, in which the law directs, as stated above (
802 <a id="FS_Q92_A2-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q90_A1.html">Q[90], AA[1]</a>,2;
803 <a id="FS_Q92_A2-p8.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q91_A4.html"> Q[91], A[4]</a>). Again there are three kinds of human acts: for, as stated above (
804 <a id="FS_Q92_A2-p8.3" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q18_A8.html">Q[18], A[8]</a>), some acts are good generically, viz. acts of virtue; and in respect of these the act of the law is a precept or command,
805 for "the law commands all acts of virtue" (Ethic. v, 1). Some acts are evil
806 generically, viz. acts of vice, and in respect of these the law forbids. Some acts are generically indifferent, and in respect
807 of these the law permits; and all acts that are either not distinctly good or not distinctly bad may be called indifferent.
808 And it is the fear of punishment that law makes use of in order to ensure obedience: in which respect punishment is an effect
809 of law.
810 </p>
811 <p id="FS_Q92_A2-p9">
812 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Just as to cease from evil is a kind of good, so a prohibition is a kind of precept: and accordingly, taking precept in a
813 wide sense, every law is a kind of precept.
814 </p>
815 <p id="FS_Q92_A2-p10">
816 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> To advise is not a proper act of law, but may be within the competency even of a private person, who cannot make a law. Wherefore
817 too the Apostle, after giving a certain counsel (
818 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q92_A2-p10.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.12" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:12</a>) says: "I speak, not the Lord." Consequently it is not reckoned as an effect of law.
819 </p>
820 <p id="FS_Q92_A2-p11">
821 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> To reward may also pertain to anyone: but to punish pertains to none but the framer of the law, by whose authority the pain
822 is inflicted. Wherefore to reward is not reckoned an effect of law, but only to punish.
823 </p>
824 <p id="FS_Q92_A2-p12">
825 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> From becoming accustomed to avoid evil and fulfill what is good, through fear of punishment, one is sometimes led on to do
826 so likewise, with delight and of one's own accord. Accordingly, law, even by punishing, leads men on to being good.
827 </p>
828 <p id="FS_Q92_A2-p13"></p>
829 <p id="FS_Q92_A2-p14"></p>
830 <a href="summa.FS_Q92_A1.html"></a>
831 <a href="summa.FS_Q93.html"></a>
832 </div>
833 <a href="summa.FS_Q91_A6.html"></a>
834 <a href="summa.FS_Q92_A1.html"></a>
835 </div>
836 <div id="FS_Q93" class="div3">
837 <a href="summa.FS_Q92_A2.html"></a>
838 <a href="summa.FS_Q93_A1.html"></a>
839 <h3 id="FS_Q93-p0.1">OF THE ETERNAL LAW (SIX ARTICLES)</h3>
840 <p id="FS_Q93-p1"></p>
841 <p id="FS_Q93-p2"> We must now consider each law by itself; and (1) The eternal law; (2) The natural law; (3) The human law; (4) The old law;
842 (5) The new law, which is the law of the Gospel. Of the sixth law which is the law of the "fomes," suffice what we have said
843 when treating of original sin.
844 </p>
845 <p id="FS_Q93-p3"> Concerning the first there are six points of inquiry:</p>
846 <p id="FS_Q93-p4"> (1) What is the eternal law?</p>
847 <p id="FS_Q93-p5"> (2) Whether it is known to all?</p>
848 <p id="FS_Q93-p6"> (3) Whether every law is derived from it?</p>
849 <p id="FS_Q93-p7"> (4) Whether necessary things are subject to the eternal law?</p>
850 <p id="FS_Q93-p8"> (5) Whether natural contingencies are subject to the eternal law?</p>
851 <p id="FS_Q93-p9"> (6) Whether all human things are subject to it?</p>
852 <div id="FS_Q93_A1" class="div4">
853 <a href="summa.FS_Q93.html"></a>
854 <a href="summa.FS_Q93_A2.html"></a>
855 <h4 id="FS_Q93_A1-p0.1">Whether the eternal law is a sovereign type [*Ratio] existing in God?</h4>
856 <p id="FS_Q93_A1-p1"></p>
857 <p id="FS_Q93_A1-p2">
858 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the eternal law is not a sovereign type existing in God. For there is only one eternal law. But there
859 are many types of things in the Divine mind; for Augustine says (Qq. lxxxiii, qu. 46) that God "made each thing according
860 to its type." Therefore the eternal law does not seem to be a type existing in the Divine mind.
861 </p>
862 <p id="FS_Q93_A1-p3">
863 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is essential to a law that it be promulgated by word, as stated above (Q[90], A[4]). But Word is a Personal name
864 in God, as stated in the
865 <a id="FS_Q93_A1-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q34_A1.html">FP, Q[34], A[1]</a>: whereas type refers to the Essence. Therefore the eternal law is not the same as a Divine type.
866 </p>
867 <p id="FS_Q93_A1-p4">
868 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Augustine says (De Vera Relig. xxx): "We see a law above our minds, which is called truth." But the law which is
869 above our minds is the eternal law. Therefore truth is the eternal law. But the idea of truth is not the same as the idea
870 of a type. Therefore the eternal law is not the same as the sovereign type.
871 </p>
872 <p id="FS_Q93_A1-p5">
873 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 6) that "the eternal law is the sovereign type, to which we must always conform."
874 </p>
875 <p id="FS_Q93_A1-p6">
876 <b>I answer that,</b> Just as in every artificer there pre-exists a type of the things that are made by his art, so too in every governor there
877 must pre-exist the type of the order of those things that are to be done by those who are subject to his government. And just
878 as the type of the things yet to be made by an art is called the art or exemplar of the products of that art, so too the type
879 in him who governs the acts of his subjects, bears the character of a law, provided the
880 other conditions be present which we have mentioned above (Q[90]). Now God, by His wisdom, is the Creator of all things in
881 relation to which He stands as the artificer to the products of his art, as stated in the
882 <a id="FS_Q93_A1-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q14_A8.html">FP, Q[14], A[8]</a>. Moreover He governs all the acts and movements that are to be found in each single creature, as was also stated in the
883 <a id="FS_Q93_A1-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q103_A5.html">FP, Q[103], A[5]</a>. Wherefore as the type of the Divine Wisdom, inasmuch as by It all things are
884 created, has the character of art, exemplar or idea; so the type of Divine Wisdom, as moving all things to their due end,
885 bears the character of law. Accordingly the eternal law is nothing else than the type of Divine Wisdom, as directing all actions
886 and movements.
887 </p>
888 <p id="FS_Q93_A1-p7">
889 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Augustine is speaking in that passage of the ideal types which regard the proper nature of each single thing; and consequently
890 in them there is a certain distinction and plurality, according to their different relations to things, as stated in the
891 <a id="FS_Q93_A1-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q15_A2.html">FP, Q[15], A[2]</a>. But law is said to direct human acts by ordaining them to the common good, as stated above (Q[90], A[2]). And things, which
892 are in themselves different, may be
893 considered as one, according as they are ordained to one common thing. Wherefore the eternal law is one since it is the type
894 of this order.
895 </p>
896 <p id="FS_Q93_A1-p8">
897 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> With regard to any sort of word, two points may be considered: viz. the word itself, and that which is expressed by the word.
898 For the spoken word is something uttered by the mouth of man, and expresses that which is signified by the human word. The
899 same applies to the human mental word, which is nothing else that something conceived by the mind, by which man expresses
900 his thoughts mentally. So then in God the Word conceived by the intellect of the
901 Father is the name of a Person: but all things that are in the Father's knowledge, whether they refer to the Essence or to
902 the Persons, or to the works of God, are expressed by this Word, as Augustine declares (De Trin. xv, 14). And among other
903 things expressed by this Word, the eternal law itself is expressed thereby. Nor does it follow that the eternal law is a Personal
904 name in God: yet it is appropriated to the Son, on account of the kinship between type and word.
905 </p>
906 <p id="FS_Q93_A1-p9">
907 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The types of the Divine intellect do not stand in the same relation to things, as the types of the human intellect. For the
908 human intellect is measured by things, so that a human concept is not true by reason of itself, but by reason of its being
909 consonant with things, since "an opinion is true or false according as it answers to the reality." But the Divine intellect
910 is the measure of things: since each thing has so far truth in it, as it represents
911 the Divine intellect, as was stated in the
912 <a id="FS_Q93_A1-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q16_A1.html">FP, Q[16], A[1]</a>. Consequently the Divine intellect is true in itself; and its type is truth itself.
913 </p>
914 <p id="FS_Q93_A1-p10"></p>
915 <p id="FS_Q93_A1-p11"></p>
916 <a href="summa.FS_Q93.html"></a>
917 <a href="summa.FS_Q93_A2.html"></a>
918 </div>
919 <div id="FS_Q93_A2" class="div4">
920 <a href="summa.FS_Q93_A1.html"></a>
921 <a href="summa.FS_Q93_A3.html"></a>
922 <h4 id="FS_Q93_A2-p0.1">Whether the eternal law is known to all?</h4>
923 <p id="FS_Q93_A2-p1"></p>
924 <p id="FS_Q93_A2-p2">
925 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the eternal law is not known to all. Because, as the Apostle says (
926 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q93_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.2.11" target="asv">1 Cor. 2:11</a>), "the things that are of God no man knoweth, but the Spirit of God." But the eternal law is a type existing in the Divine
927 mind. Therefore it is unknown to all save God alone.
928 </p>
929 <p id="FS_Q93_A2-p3">
930 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, as Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 6) "the eternal law is that by which it is right that all things should be most
931 orderly." But all do not know how all things are most orderly. Therefore all do not know the eternal law.
932 </p>
933 <p id="FS_Q93_A2-p4">
934 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Augustine says (De Vera Relig. xxxi) that "the eternal law is not subject to the judgment of man." But according
935 to Ethic. i, "any man can judge well of what he knows." Therefore the eternal law is not known to us.
936 </p>
937 <p id="FS_Q93_A2-p5">
938 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 6) that "knowledge of the eternal law is imprinted on us."
939 </p>
940 <p id="FS_Q93_A2-p6">
941 <b>I answer that,</b> A thing may be known in two ways: first, in itself; secondly, in its effect, wherein some likeness of that thing is found:
942 thus someone not seeing the sun in its substance, may know it by its rays. So then no one can know the eternal law, as it
943 is in itself, except the blessed who see God in His Essence. But every rational creature knows it in its reflection, greater
944 or less. For every knowledge of truth is a kind of reflection and participation of the
945 eternal law, which is the unchangeable truth, as Augustine says (De Vera Relig. xxxi). Now all men know the truth to a certain
946 extent, at least as to the common principles of the natural law: and as to the others, they partake of the knowledge of truth,
947 some more, some less; and in this respect are more or less cognizant of the eternal law.
948 </p>
949 <p id="FS_Q93_A2-p7">
950 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> We cannot know the things that are of God, as they are in themselves; but they are made known to us in their effects, according
951 to
952 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q93_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.1.20" target="asv"> Rom. 1:20</a>: "The invisible things of God . . . are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made."
953 </p>
954 <p id="FS_Q93_A2-p8">
955 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although each one knows the eternal law according to his own capacity, in the way explained above, yet none can comprehend
956 it: for it cannot be made perfectly known by its effects. Therefore it does not follow that anyone who knows the eternal law
957 in the way aforesaid, knows also the whole order of things, whereby they are most orderly.
958 </p>
959 <p id="FS_Q93_A2-p9">
960 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> To judge a thing may be understood in two ways. First, as when a cognitive power judges of its proper object, according to
961
962 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q93_A2-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Job.12.11" target="asv">Job 12:11</a>: "Doth not the ear discern words, and the palate of him that eateth, the taste?" It is to this kind of judgment that the
963 Philosopher alludes when he says that "anyone can judge well of what he knows," by judging, namely, whether what is put forward
964 is true. In another way we speak of a superior judging of a subordinate
965 by a kind of practical judgment, as to whether he should be such and such or not. And thus none can judge of the eternal law.
966 </p>
967 <p id="FS_Q93_A2-p10"></p>
968 <p id="FS_Q93_A2-p11"></p>
969 <a href="summa.FS_Q93_A1.html"></a>
970 <a href="summa.FS_Q93_A3.html"></a>
971 </div>
972 <div id="FS_Q93_A3" class="div4">
973 <a href="summa.FS_Q93_A2.html"></a>
974 <a href="summa.FS_Q93_A4.html"></a>
975 <h4 id="FS_Q93_A3-p0.1">Whether every law is derived from the eternal law?</h4>
976 <p id="FS_Q93_A3-p1"></p>
977 <p id="FS_Q93_A3-p2">
978 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that not every law is derived from the eternal law. For there is a law of the "fomes," as stated above (
979 <a id="FS_Q93_A3-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q91_A6.html">Q[91], A[6]</a>), which is not derived from that Divine law which is the eternal law, since thereunto pertains the "prudence of the flesh,"
980 of which the Apostle says (
981 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q93_A3-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.7" target="asv">Rom. 8:7</a>), that "it cannot be subject to the law of God." Therefore not every law is derived from the eternal law.
982 </p>
983 <p id="FS_Q93_A3-p3">
984 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, nothing unjust can be derived from the eternal law, because, as stated above (A[2], OBJ[2]), "the eternal law is
985 that, according to which it is right that all things should be most orderly." But some laws are unjust, according to
986 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q93_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.10.1" target="asv"> Is. 10:1</a>: "Woe to them that make wicked laws." Therefore not every law is derived from the eternal law.
987 </p>
988 <p id="FS_Q93_A3-p4">
989 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5) that "the law which is framed for ruling the people, rightly permits many things
990 which are punished by Divine providence." But the type of Divine providence is the eternal law, as stated above
991 <a id="FS_Q93_A3-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q93_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. Therefore not even every good law is derived from the eternal law.
992 </p>
993 <p id="FS_Q93_A3-p5">
994 <b>On the contrary,</b> Divine Wisdom says (
995 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q93_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.8.15" target="asv">Prov. 8:15</a>): "By Me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things." But the type of Divine Wisdom is the eternal law, as stated above
996
997 <a id="FS_Q93_A3-p5.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q93_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. Therefore all laws proceed from the eternal law.
998 </p>
999 <p id="FS_Q93_A3-p6">
1000 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
1001 <a id="FS_Q93_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q90_A1.html">Q[90], AA[1]</a>,2), the law denotes a kind of plan directing acts towards an end. Now wherever there are movers ordained to one another,
1002 the power of the second mover must needs be derived from the power of the first mover; since the second mover does not move
1003 except in so far as it is moved by the first. Wherefore we observe the same in all those who govern, so that the plan of government
1004 is derived by secondary
1005 governors from the governor in chief; thus the plan of what is to be done in a state flows from the king's command to his
1006 inferior administrators: and again in things of art the plan of whatever is to be done by art flows from the chief craftsman
1007 to the under-crafts-men, who work with their hands. Since then the eternal law is the plan of government in the Chief Governor,
1008 all the plans of government in the inferior governors must be derived from the eternal law. But these plans of inferior
1009 governors are all other laws besides the eternal law. Therefore all laws, in so far as they partake of right reason, are derived
1010 from the eternal law. Hence Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 6) that "in temporal law there is nothing just and lawful, but
1011 what man has drawn from the eternal law."
1012 </p>
1013 <p id="FS_Q93_A3-p7">
1014 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The "fomes" has the nature of law in man, in so far as it is a punishment resulting from Divine justice; and in this respect
1015 it is evident that it is derived from the eternal law. But in so far as it denotes a proneness to sin, it is contrary to the
1016 Divine law, and has not the nature of law, as stated above (
1017 <a id="FS_Q93_A3-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q91_A6.html">Q[91], A[6]</a>).
1018 </p>
1019 <p id="FS_Q93_A3-p8">
1020 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Human law has the nature of law in so far as it partakes of right reason; and it is clear that, in this respect, it is derived
1021 from the eternal law. But in so far as it deviates from reason, it is called an unjust law, and has the nature, not of law
1022 but of violence. Nevertheless even an unjust law, in so far as it retains some appearance of law, though being framed by one
1023 who is in power, is derived from the eternal law; since all power is from the
1024 Lord God, according to
1025 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q93_A3-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.13.1" target="asv"> Rom. 13:1.</a>
1026 </p>
1027 <p id="FS_Q93_A3-p9">
1028 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Human law is said to permit certain things, not as approving them, but as being unable to direct them. And many things are
1029 directed by the Divine law, which human law is unable to direct, because more things are subject to a higher than to a lower
1030 cause. Hence the very fact that human law does not meddle with matters it cannot direct, comes under the ordination of the
1031 eternal law. It would be different, were human law to sanction what the eternal law
1032 condemns. Consequently it does not follow that human law is not derived from the eternal law, but that it is not on a perfect
1033 equality with it.
1034 </p>
1035 <p id="FS_Q93_A3-p10"></p>
1036 <p id="FS_Q93_A3-p11"></p>
1037 <a href="summa.FS_Q93_A2.html"></a>
1038 <a href="summa.FS_Q93_A4.html"></a>
1039 </div>
1040 <div id="FS_Q93_A4" class="div4">
1041 <a href="summa.FS_Q93_A3.html"></a>
1042 <a href="summa.FS_Q93_A5.html"></a>
1043 <h4 id="FS_Q93_A4-p0.1">Whether necessary and eternal things are subject to the eternal law?</h4>
1044 <p id="FS_Q93_A4-p1"></p>
1045 <p id="FS_Q93_A4-p2">
1046 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that necessary and eternal things are subject to the eternal law. For whatever is reasonable is subject to
1047 reason. But the Divine will is reasonable, for it is just. Therefore it is subject to (the Divine) reason. But the eternal
1048 law is the Divine reason. Therefore God's will is subject to the eternal law. But God's will is eternal. Therefore eternal
1049 and necessary things are subject to the eternal law.
1050 </p>
1051 <p id="FS_Q93_A4-p3">
1052 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, whatever is subject to the King, is subject to the King's law. Now the Son, according to
1053 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q93_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.28" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:28,24, </a> "shall be subject . . . to God and the Father . . . when He shall have delivered up the Kingdom to Him." Therefore the Son,
1054 Who is eternal, is subject to the eternal law.
1055 </p>
1056 <p id="FS_Q93_A4-p4">
1057 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the eternal law is Divine providence as a type. But many necessary things are subject to Divine providence: for
1058 instance, the stability of incorporeal substances and of the heavenly bodies. Therefore even necessary things are subject
1059 to the eternal law.
1060 </p>
1061 <p id="FS_Q93_A4-p5">
1062 <b>On the contrary,</b> Things that are necessary cannot be otherwise, and consequently need no restraining. But laws are imposed on men, in order
1063 to restrain them from evil, as explained above (
1064 <a id="FS_Q93_A4-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q92_A2.html">Q[92], A[2]</a>). Therefore necessary things are not subject to the eternal law.
1065 </p>
1066 <p id="FS_Q93_A4-p6">
1067 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
1068 <a id="FS_Q93_A4-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q93_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, the eternal law is the type of the Divine government. Consequently whatever is subject to the Divine government, is subject
1069 to the eternal law: while if anything is not subject to the Divine government, neither is it subject to the eternal law. The
1070 application of this distinction may be gathered by looking around us. For those things are subject to human government, which
1071 can be done by man; but what pertains
1072 to the nature of man is not subject to human government; for instance, that he should have a soul, hands, or feet. Accordingly
1073 all that is in things created by God, whether it be contingent or necessary, is subject to the eternal law: while things pertaining
1074 to the Divine Nature or Essence are not subject to the eternal law, but are the eternal law itself.
1075 </p>
1076 <p id="FS_Q93_A4-p7">
1077 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> We may speak of God's will in two ways. First, as to the will itself: and thus, since God's will is His very Essence, it
1078 is subject neither to the Divine government, nor to the eternal law, but is the same thing as the eternal law. Secondly, we
1079 may speak of God's will, as to the things themselves that God wills about creatures; which things are subject to the eternal
1080 law, in so far as they are planned by Divine Wisdom. In reference to these things
1081 God's will is said to be reasonable [rationalis]: though regarded in itself it should rather be called their type [ratio].
1082 </p>
1083 <p id="FS_Q93_A4-p8">
1084 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> God the Son was not made by God, but was naturally born of God. Consequently He is not subject to Divine providence or to
1085 the eternal law: but rather is Himself the eternal law by a kind of appropriation, as Augustine explains (De Vera Relig. xxxi).
1086 But He is said to be subject to the Father by reason of His human nature, in respect of which also the Father is said to be
1087 greater than He.
1088 </p>
1089 <p id="FS_Q93_A4-p9"> The third objection we grant, because it deals with those necessary things that are created.</p>
1090 <p id="FS_Q93_A4-p10">
1091 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> As the Philosopher says (Metaph. v, text. 6), some necessary things have a cause of their necessity: and thus they derive
1092 from something else the fact that they cannot be otherwise. And this is in itself a most effective restraint; for whatever
1093 is restrained, is said to be restrained in so far as it cannot do otherwise than it is allowed to.
1094 </p>
1095 <p id="FS_Q93_A4-p11"></p>
1096 <p id="FS_Q93_A4-p12"></p>
1097 <a href="summa.FS_Q93_A3.html"></a>
1098 <a href="summa.FS_Q93_A5.html"></a>
1099 </div>
1100 <div id="FS_Q93_A5" class="div4">
1101 <a href="summa.FS_Q93_A4.html"></a>
1102 <a href="summa.FS_Q93_A6.html"></a>
1103 <h4 id="FS_Q93_A5-p0.1">Whether natural contingents are subject to the eternal law? </h4>
1104 <p id="FS_Q93_A5-p1"></p>
1105 <p id="FS_Q93_A5-p2">
1106 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that natural contingents are not subject to the eternal law. Because promulgation is essential to law, as stated
1107 above (
1108 <a id="FS_Q93_A5-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q90_A4.html">Q[90], A[4]</a>). But a law cannot be promulgated except to rational creatures, to whom it is possible to make an announcement. Therefore
1109 none but rational creatures are subject to the eternal law; and consequently natural contingents are not.
1110 </p>
1111 <p id="FS_Q93_A5-p3">
1112 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, "Whatever obeys reason partakes somewhat of reason," as stated in Ethic. i. But the eternal law, is the supreme
1113 type, as stated above
1114 <a id="FS_Q93_A5-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q93_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. Since then natural contingents do not partake of reason in any way, but are altogether void of reason, it seems that they
1115 are not subject to the eternal law.
1116 </p>
1117 <p id="FS_Q93_A5-p4">
1118 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the eternal law is most efficient. But in natural contingents defects occur. Therefore they are not subject to the
1119 eternal law.
1120 </p>
1121 <p id="FS_Q93_A5-p5">
1122 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
1123 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q93_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.8.29" target="asv">Prov. 8:29</a>): "When He compassed the sea with its bounds, and set a law to the waters, that they should not pass their limits."
1124 </p>
1125 <p id="FS_Q93_A5-p6">
1126 <b>I answer that,</b> We must speak otherwise of the law of man, than of the eternal law which is the law of God. For the law of man extends only
1127 to rational creatures subject to man. The reason of this is because law directs the actions of those that are subject to the
1128 government of someone: wherefore, properly speaking, none imposes a law on his own actions. Now whatever is done regarding
1129 the use of irrational things subject to man, is done by the act of man himself moving
1130 those things, for these irrational creatures do not move themselves, but are moved by others, as stated above (
1131 <a id="FS_Q93_A5-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q1_A2.html">Q[1], A[2]</a>). Consequently man cannot impose laws on irrational beings, however much they may be subject to him. But he can impose laws
1132 on rational beings subject to him, in so far as by his command or pronouncement of any kind, he imprints on their minds a
1133 rule which is a principle of action.
1134 </p>
1135 <p id="FS_Q93_A5-p7"> Now just as man, by such pronouncement, impresses a kind of inward principle of action on the man that is subject to him,
1136 so God imprints on the whole of nature the principles of its proper actions. And so, in this way, God is said to command the
1137 whole of nature, according to
1138 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q93_A5-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.148.6" target="asv"> Ps. 148:6</a>: "He hath made a decree, and it shall not pass away." And thus all actions and movements of the whole of nature are subject
1139 to the eternal law. Consequently irrational
1140 creatures are subject to the eternal law, through being moved by Divine providence; but not, as rational creatures are, through
1141 understanding the Divine commandment.
1142 </p>
1143 <p id="FS_Q93_A5-p8">
1144 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The impression of an inward active principle is to natural things, what the promulgation of law is to men: because law, by
1145 being promulgated, imprints on man a directive principle of human actions, as stated above.
1146 </p>
1147 <p id="FS_Q93_A5-p9">
1148 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Irrational creatures neither partake of nor are obedient to human reason: whereas they do partake of the Divine Reason by
1149 obeying it; because the power of Divine Reason extends over more things than human reason does. And as the members of the
1150 human body are moved at the command of reason, and yet do not partake of reason, since they have no apprehension subordinate
1151 to reason; so too irrational creatures are moved by God, without, on that account,
1152 being rational.
1153 </p>
1154 <p id="FS_Q93_A5-p10">
1155 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although the defects which occur in natural things are outside the order of particular causes, they are not outside the order
1156 of universal causes, especially of the First Cause, i.e. God, from Whose providence nothing can escape, as stated in the
1157 <a id="FS_Q93_A5-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q22_A2.html">FP, Q[22], A[2]</a>. And since the eternal law is the type of Divine providence, as stated above
1158 <a id="FS_Q93_A5-p10.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q93_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, hence the defects of natural things are subject to the
1159 eternal law.
1160 </p>
1161 <p id="FS_Q93_A5-p11"></p>
1162 <p id="FS_Q93_A5-p12"></p>
1163 <a href="summa.FS_Q93_A4.html"></a>
1164 <a href="summa.FS_Q93_A6.html"></a>
1165 </div>
1166 <div id="FS_Q93_A6" class="div4">
1167 <a href="summa.FS_Q93_A5.html"></a>
1168 <a href="summa.FS_Q94.html"></a>
1169 <h4 id="FS_Q93_A6-p0.1">Whether all human affairs are subject to the eternal law?</h4>
1170 <p id="FS_Q93_A6-p1"></p>
1171 <p id="FS_Q93_A6-p2">
1172 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that not all human affairs are subject to the eternal law. For the Apostle says (
1173 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q93_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.5.18" target="asv">Gal. 5:18</a>): "If you are led by the spirit you are not under the law." But the righteous who are the sons of God by adoption, are led
1174 by the spirit of God, according to
1175 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q93_A6-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.14" target="asv"> Rom. 8:14</a>: "Whosoever are led by the spirit of God, they are the sons of God." Therefore not all men are under the eternal law.
1176 </p>
1177 <p id="FS_Q93_A6-p3">
1178 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Apostle says (
1179 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q93_A6-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.7" target="asv">Rom. 8:7</a>): "The prudence [Vulg.: 'wisdom'] of the flesh is an enemy to God: for it is not subject to the law of God." But many are
1180 those in whom the prudence of the flesh dominates. Therefore all men are not subject to the eternal law which is the law of
1181 God.
1182 </p>
1183 <p id="FS_Q93_A6-p4">
1184 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 6) that "the eternal law is that by which the wicked deserve misery, the good, a
1185 life of blessedness." But those who are already blessed, and those who are already lost, are not in the state of merit. Therefore
1186 they are not under the eternal law.
1187 </p>
1188 <p id="FS_Q93_A6-p5">
1189 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 12): "Nothing evades the laws of the most high Creator and Governor, for by Him the peace
1190 of the universe is administered."
1191 </p>
1192 <p id="FS_Q93_A6-p6">
1193 <b>I answer that,</b> There are two ways in which a thing is subject to the eternal law, as explained above
1194 <a id="FS_Q93_A6-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q93_A5.html">(A[5])</a>: first, by partaking of the eternal law by way of knowledge; secondly, by way of action and passion, i.e. by partaking of
1195 the eternal law by way of an inward motive principle: and in this second way, irrational creatures are subject to the eternal
1196 law, as stated above
1197 <a id="FS_Q93_A6-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q93_A5.html">(A[5])</a>. But since the rational nature, together
1198 with that which it has in common with all creatures, has something proper to itself inasmuch as it is rational, consequently
1199 it is subject to the eternal law in both ways; because while each rational creature has some knowledge of the eternal law,
1200 as stated above
1201 <a id="FS_Q93_A6-p6.3" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q93_A2.html">(A[2])</a>, it also has a natural inclination to that which is in harmony with the eternal law; for "we are naturally adapted to the
1202 recipients of virtue" (Ethic. ii, 1).
1203 </p>
1204 <p id="FS_Q93_A6-p7"> Both ways, however, are imperfect, and to a certain extent destroyed, in the wicked; because in them the natural inclination
1205 to virtue is corrupted by vicious habits, and, moreover, the natural knowledge of good is darkened by passions and habits
1206 of sin. But in the good both ways are found more perfect: because in them, besides the natural knowledge of good, there is
1207 the added knowledge of faith and wisdom; and again, besides the natural inclination to good, there is the added
1208 motive of grace and virtue.
1209 </p>
1210 <p id="FS_Q93_A6-p8"> Accordingly, the good are perfectly subject to the eternal law, as always acting according to it: whereas the wicked are
1211 subject to the eternal law, imperfectly as to their actions, indeed, since both their knowledge of good, and their inclination
1212 thereto, are imperfect; but this imperfection on the part of action is supplied on the part of passion, in so far as they
1213 suffer what the eternal law decrees concerning them, according as they fail to act in harmony with that law.
1214 Hence Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 15): "I esteem that the righteous act according to the eternal law; and (De Catech.
1215 Rud. xviii): Out of the just misery of the souls which deserted Him, God knew how to furnish the inferior parts of His creation
1216 with most suitable laws."
1217 </p>
1218 <p id="FS_Q93_A6-p9">
1219 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This saying of the Apostle may be understood in two ways. First, so that a man is said to be under the law, through being
1220 pinned down thereby, against his will, as by a load. Hence, on the same passage a gloss says that "he is under the law, who
1221 refrains from evil deeds, through fear of punishment threatened by the law, and not from love of virtue." In this way the
1222 spiritual man is not under the law, because he fulfils the law willingly, through
1223 charity which is poured into his heart by the Holy Ghost. Secondly, it can be understood as meaning that the works of a man,
1224 who is led by the Holy Ghost, are the works of the Holy Ghost rather than his own. Therefore, since the Holy Ghost is not
1225 under the law, as neither is the Son, as stated above (A[4], ad 2); it follows that such works, in so far as they are of the
1226 Holy Ghost, are not under the law. The Apostle witnesses to this when he says (
1227 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q93_A6-p9.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.3.17" target="asv">2 Cor. 3:17</a>): "Where the
1228 Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty."
1229 </p>
1230 <p id="FS_Q93_A6-p10">
1231 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The prudence of the flesh cannot be subject to the law of God as regards action; since it inclines to actions contrary to
1232 the Divine law: yet it is subject to the law of God, as regards passion; since it deserves to suffer punishment according
1233 to the law of Divine justice. Nevertheless in no man does the prudence of the flesh dominate so far as to destroy the whole
1234 good of his nature: and consequently there remains in man the inclination to act in
1235 accordance with the eternal law. For we have seen above (
1236 <a id="FS_Q93_A6-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q85_A2.html">Q[85], A[2]</a>) that sin does not destroy entirely the good of nature.
1237 </p>
1238 <p id="FS_Q93_A6-p11">
1239 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> A thing is maintained in the end and moved towards the end by one and the same cause: thus gravity which makes a heavy body
1240 rest in the lower place is also the cause of its being moved thither. We therefore reply that as it is according to the eternal
1241 law that some deserve happiness, others unhappiness, so is it by the eternal law that some are maintained in a happy state,
1242 others in an unhappy state. Accordingly both the blessed and the damned are
1243 under the eternal law.
1244 </p>
1245 <p id="FS_Q93_A6-p12"></p>
1246 <p id="FS_Q93_A6-p13"></p>
1247 <a href="summa.FS_Q93_A5.html"></a>
1248 <a href="summa.FS_Q94.html"></a>
1249 </div>
1250 <a href="summa.FS_Q92_A2.html"></a>
1251 <a href="summa.FS_Q93_A1.html"></a>
1252 </div>
1253 <div id="FS_Q94" class="div3">
1254 <a href="summa.FS_Q93_A6.html"></a>
1255 <a href="summa.FS_Q94_A1.html"></a>
1256 <h3 id="FS_Q94-p0.1">OF THE NATURAL LAW (SIX ARTICLES)</h3>
1257 <p id="FS_Q94-p1"></p>
1258 <p id="FS_Q94-p2"> We must now consider the natural law; concerning which there are six points of inquiry:</p>
1259 <p id="FS_Q94-p3"> (1) What is the natural law?</p>
1260 <p id="FS_Q94-p4"> (2) What are the precepts of the natural law?</p>
1261 <p id="FS_Q94-p5"> (3) Whether all acts of virtue are prescribed by the natural law?</p>
1262 <p id="FS_Q94-p6"> (4) Whether the natural law is the same in all?</p>
1263 <p id="FS_Q94-p7"> (5) Whether it is changeable?</p>
1264 <p id="FS_Q94-p8"> (6) Whether it can be abolished from the heart of man?</p>
1265 <div id="FS_Q94_A1" class="div4">
1266 <a href="summa.FS_Q94.html"></a>
1267 <a href="summa.FS_Q94_A2.html"></a>
1268 <h4 id="FS_Q94_A1-p0.1">Whether the natural law is a habit?</h4>
1269 <p id="FS_Q94_A1-p1"></p>
1270 <p id="FS_Q94_A1-p2">
1271 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the natural law is a habit. Because, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 5), "there are three things in
1272 the soul: power, habit, and passion." But the natural law is not one of the soul's powers: nor is it one of the passions;
1273 as we may see by going through them one by one. Therefore the natural law is a habit.
1274 </p>
1275 <p id="FS_Q94_A1-p3">
1276 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Basil [*Damascene, De Fide Orth. iv, 22] says that the conscience or "synderesis is the law of our mind"; which
1277 can only apply to the natural law. But the "synderesis" is a habit, as was shown in the
1278 <a id="FS_Q94_A1-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q79_A12.html">FP, Q[79], A[12]</a>. Therefore the natural law is a habit.
1279 </p>
1280 <p id="FS_Q94_A1-p4">
1281 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the natural law abides in man always, as will be shown further on
1282 <a id="FS_Q94_A1-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q94_A6.html">(A[6])</a>. But man's reason, which the law regards, does not always think about the natural law. Therefore the natural law is not an
1283 act, but a habit.
1284 </p>
1285 <p id="FS_Q94_A1-p5">
1286 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Bono Conjug. xxi) that "a habit is that whereby something is done when necessary." But such is not the
1287 natural law: since it is in infants and in the damned who cannot act by it. Therefore the natural law is not a habit.
1288 </p>
1289 <p id="FS_Q94_A1-p6">
1290 <b>I answer that,</b> A thing may be called a habit in two ways. First, properly and essentially: and thus the natural law is not a habit. For
1291 it has been stated above (
1292 <a id="FS_Q94_A1-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q90_A1.html">Q[90], A[1]</a>, ad 2) that the natural law is something appointed by reason, just as a proposition is a work of reason. Now that which a
1293 man does is not the same as that whereby he does it: for he makes a becoming speech by the habit of grammar. Since then a
1294 habit is that by which we act, a
1295 law cannot be a habit properly and essentially.
1296 </p>
1297 <p id="FS_Q94_A1-p7"> Secondly, the term habit may be applied to that which we hold by a habit: thus faith may mean that which we hold by faith.
1298 And accordingly, since the precepts of the natural law are sometimes considered by reason actually, while sometimes they are
1299 in the reason only habitually, in this way the natural law may be called a habit. Thus, in speculative matters, the indemonstrable
1300 principles are not the habit itself whereby we hold those principles, but are the principles the habit
1301 of which we possess.
1302 </p>
1303 <p id="FS_Q94_A1-p8">
1304 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Philosopher proposes there to discover the genus of virtue; and since it is evident that virtue is a principle of action,
1305 he mentions only those things which are principles of human acts, viz. powers, habits and passions. But there are other things
1306 in the soul besides these three: there are acts; thus "to will" is in the one that wills; again, things known are in the knower;
1307 moreover its own natural properties are in the soul, such as immortality
1308 and the like.
1309 </p>
1310 <p id="FS_Q94_A1-p9">
1311 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> "Synderesis" is said to be the law of our mind, because it is a habit containing the precepts of the natural law, which are
1312 the first principles of human actions.
1313 </p>
1314 <p id="FS_Q94_A1-p10">
1315 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This argument proves that the natural law is held habitually; and this is granted.
1316 </p>
1317 <p id="FS_Q94_A1-p11"> To the argument advanced in the contrary sense we reply that sometimes a man is unable to make use of that which is in him
1318 habitually, on account of some impediment: thus, on account of sleep, a man is unable to use the habit of science. In like
1319 manner, through the deficiency of his age, a child cannot use the habit of understanding of principles, or the natural law,
1320 which is in him habitually.
1321 </p>
1322 <p id="FS_Q94_A1-p12"></p>
1323 <p id="FS_Q94_A1-p13"></p>
1324 <a href="summa.FS_Q94.html"></a>
1325 <a href="summa.FS_Q94_A2.html"></a>
1326 </div>
1327 <div id="FS_Q94_A2" class="div4">
1328 <a href="summa.FS_Q94_A1.html"></a>
1329 <a href="summa.FS_Q94_A3.html"></a>
1330 <h4 id="FS_Q94_A2-p0.1">Whether the natural law contains several precepts, or only one?</h4>
1331 <p id="FS_Q94_A2-p1"></p>
1332 <p id="FS_Q94_A2-p2">
1333 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the natural law contains, not several precepts, but one only. For law is a kind of precept, as stated
1334 above (
1335 <a id="FS_Q94_A2-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q92_A2.html">Q[92], A[2]</a>). If therefore there were many precepts of the natural law, it would follow that there are also many natural laws.
1336 </p>
1337 <p id="FS_Q94_A2-p3">
1338 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the natural law is consequent to human nature. But human nature, as a whole, is one; though, as to its parts, it
1339 is manifold. Therefore, either there is but one precept of the law of nature, on account of the unity of nature as a whole;
1340 or there are many, by reason of the number of parts of human nature. The result would be that even things relating to the
1341 inclination of the concupiscible faculty belong to the natural law.
1342 </p>
1343 <p id="FS_Q94_A2-p4">
1344 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, law is something pertaining to reason, as stated above (
1345 <a id="FS_Q94_A2-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q90_A1.html">Q[90], A[1]</a>). Now reason is but one in man. Therefore there is only one precept of the natural law.
1346 </p>
1347 <p id="FS_Q94_A2-p5">
1348 <b>On the contrary,</b> The precepts of the natural law in man stand in relation to practical matters, as the first principles to matters of demonstration.
1349 But there are several first indemonstrable principles. Therefore there are also several precepts of the natural law.
1350 </p>
1351 <p id="FS_Q94_A2-p6">
1352 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
1353 <a id="FS_Q94_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q91_A3.html">Q[91], A[3]</a>), the precepts of the natural law are to the practical reason, what the first principles of demonstrations are to the speculative
1354 reason; because both are self-evident principles. Now a thing is said to be self-evident in two ways: first, in itself; secondly,
1355 in relation to us. Any proposition is said to be self-evident in itself, if its predicate is contained in the notion of the
1356 subject: although, to
1357 one who knows not the definition of the subject, it happens that such a proposition is not self-evident. For instance, this
1358 proposition, "Man is a rational being," is, in its very nature, self-evident, since who says "man," says "a rational being":
1359 and yet to one who knows not what a man is, this proposition is not self-evident. Hence it is that, as Boethius says (De Hebdom.),
1360 certain axioms or propositions are universally self-evident to all; and such are those propositions whose terms are
1361 known to all, as, "Every whole is greater than its part," and, "Things equal to one and the same are equal to one another."
1362 But some propositions are self-evident only to the wise, who understand the meaning of the terms of such propositions: thus
1363 to one who understands that an angel is not a body, it is self-evident that an angel is not circumscriptively in a place:
1364 but this is not evident to the unlearned, for they cannot grasp it.
1365 </p>
1366 <p id="FS_Q94_A2-p7"> Now a certain order is to be found in those things that are apprehended universally. For that which, before aught else, falls
1367 under apprehension, is "being," the notion of which is included in all things whatsoever a man apprehends. Wherefore the first
1368 indemonstrable principle is that "the same thing cannot be affirmed and denied at the same time," which is based on the notion
1369 of "being" and "not-being": and on this principle all others are based, as is stated in Metaph. iv,
1370 text. 9. Now as "being" is the first thing that falls under the apprehension simply, so "good" is the first thing that falls
1371 under the apprehension of the practical reason, which is directed to action: since every agent acts for an end under the aspect
1372 of good. Consequently the first principle of practical reason is one founded on the notion of good, viz. that "good is that
1373 which all things seek after." Hence this is the first precept of law, that "good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to
1374 be avoided." All other precepts of the natural law are based upon this: so that whatever the practical reason naturally apprehends
1375 as man's good (or evil) belongs to the precepts of the natural law as something to be done or avoided.
1376 </p>
1377 <p id="FS_Q94_A2-p8"> Since, however, good has the nature of an end, and evil, the nature of a contrary, hence it is that all those things to which
1378 man has a natural inclination, are naturally apprehended by reason as being good, and consequently as objects of pursuit,
1379 and their contraries as evil, and objects of avoidance. Wherefore according to the order of natural inclinations, is the order
1380 of the precepts of the natural law. Because in man there is first of all an inclination to good in
1381 accordance with the nature which he has in common with all substances: inasmuch as every substance seeks the preservation
1382 of its own being, according to its nature: and by reason of this inclination, whatever is a means of preserving human life,
1383 and of warding off its obstacles, belongs to the natural law. Secondly, there is in man an inclination to things that pertain
1384 to him more specially, according to that nature which he has in common with other animals: and in virtue of this inclination,
1385 those things are said to belong to the natural law, "which nature has taught to all animals" [*Pandect. Just. I, tit. i],
1386 such as sexual intercourse, education of offspring and so forth. Thirdly, there is in man an inclination to good, according
1387 to the nature of his reason, which nature is proper to him: thus man has a natural inclination to know the truth about God,
1388 and to live in society: and in this respect, whatever pertains to this inclination belongs to the natural law; for instance,
1389 to
1390 shun ignorance, to avoid offending those among whom one has to live, and other such things regarding the above inclination.
1391 </p>
1392 <p id="FS_Q94_A2-p9">
1393 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> All these precepts of the law of nature have the character of one natural law, inasmuch as they flow from one first precept.
1394 </p>
1395 <p id="FS_Q94_A2-p10">
1396 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> All the inclinations of any parts whatsoever of human nature, e.g. of the concupiscible and irascible parts, in so far as
1397 they are ruled by reason, belong to the natural law, and are reduced to one first precept, as stated above: so that the precepts
1398 of the natural law are many in themselves, but are based on one common foundation.
1399 </p>
1400 <p id="FS_Q94_A2-p11">
1401 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although reason is one in itself, yet it directs all things regarding man; so that whatever can be ruled by reason, is contained
1402 under the law of reason.
1403 </p>
1404 <p id="FS_Q94_A2-p12"></p>
1405 <p id="FS_Q94_A2-p13"></p>
1406 <a href="summa.FS_Q94_A1.html"></a>
1407 <a href="summa.FS_Q94_A3.html"></a>
1408 </div>
1409 <div id="FS_Q94_A3" class="div4">
1410 <a href="summa.FS_Q94_A2.html"></a>
1411 <a href="summa.FS_Q94_A4.html"></a>
1412 <h4 id="FS_Q94_A3-p0.1">Whether all acts of virtue are prescribed by the natural law?</h4>
1413 <p id="FS_Q94_A3-p1"></p>
1414 <p id="FS_Q94_A3-p2">
1415 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that not all acts of virtue are prescribed by the natural law. Because, as stated above (
1416 <a id="FS_Q94_A3-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q90_A2.html">Q[90], A[2]</a>) it is essential to a law that it be ordained to the common good. But some acts of virtue are ordained to the private good
1417 of the individual, as is evident especially in regards to acts of temperance. Therefore not all acts of virtue are the subject
1418 of natural law.
1419 </p>
1420 <p id="FS_Q94_A3-p3">
1421 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, every sin is opposed to some virtuous act. If therefore all acts of virtue are prescribed by the natural law, it
1422 seems to follow that all sins are against nature: whereas this applies to certain special sins.
1423 </p>
1424 <p id="FS_Q94_A3-p4">
1425 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, those things which are according to nature are common to all. But acts of virtue are not common to all: since a
1426 thing is virtuous in one, and vicious in another. Therefore not all acts of virtue are prescribed by the natural law.
1427 </p>
1428 <p id="FS_Q94_A3-p5">
1429 <b>On the contrary,</b> Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 4) that "virtues are natural." Therefore virtuous acts also are a subject of the natural
1430 law.
1431 </p>
1432 <p id="FS_Q94_A3-p6">
1433 <b>I answer that,</b> We may speak of virtuous acts in two ways: first, under the aspect of virtuous; secondly, as such and such acts considered
1434 in their proper species. If then we speak of acts of virtue, considered as virtuous, thus all virtuous acts belong to the
1435 natural law. For it has been stated
1436 <a id="FS_Q94_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q94_A2.html">(A[2])</a> that to the natural law belongs everything to which a man is inclined according to his nature. Now each thing is inclined
1437 naturally to an operation
1438 that is suitable to it according to its form: thus fire is inclined to give heat. Wherefore, since the rational soul is the
1439 proper form of man, there is in every man a natural inclination to act according to reason: and this is to act according to
1440 virtue. Consequently, considered thus, all acts of virtue are prescribed by the natural law: since each one's reason naturally
1441 dictates to him to act virtuously. But if we speak of virtuous acts, considered in themselves, i.e. in their proper species,
1442 thus not all virtuous acts are prescribed by the natural law: for many things are done virtuously, to which nature does not
1443 incline at first; but which, through the inquiry of reason, have been found by men to be conducive to well-living.
1444 </p>
1445 <p id="FS_Q94_A3-p7">
1446 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Temperance is about the natural concupiscences of food, drink and sexual matters, which are indeed ordained to the natural
1447 common good, just as other matters of law are ordained to the moral common good.
1448 </p>
1449 <p id="FS_Q94_A3-p8">
1450 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> By human nature we may mean either that which is proper to man---and in this sense all sins, as being against reason, are
1451 also against nature, as Damascene states (De Fide Orth. ii, 30): or we may mean that nature which is common to man and other
1452 animals; and in this sense, certain special sins are said to be against nature; thus contrary to sexual intercourse, which
1453 is natural to all animals, is unisexual lust, which has received the special name of
1454 the unnatural crime.
1455 </p>
1456 <p id="FS_Q94_A3-p9">
1457 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This argument considers acts in themselves. For it is owing to the various conditions of men, that certain acts are virtuous
1458 for some, as being proportionate and becoming to them, while they are vicious for others, as being out of proportion to them.
1459 </p>
1460 <p id="FS_Q94_A3-p10"></p>
1461 <p id="FS_Q94_A3-p11"></p>
1462 <a href="summa.FS_Q94_A2.html"></a>
1463 <a href="summa.FS_Q94_A4.html"></a>
1464 </div>
1465 <div id="FS_Q94_A4" class="div4">
1466 <a href="summa.FS_Q94_A3.html"></a>
1467 <a href="summa.FS_Q94_A5.html"></a>
1468 <h4 id="FS_Q94_A4-p0.1">Whether the natural law is the same in all men?</h4>
1469 <p id="FS_Q94_A4-p1"></p>
1470 <p id="FS_Q94_A4-p2">
1471 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the natural law is not the same in all. For it is stated in the Decretals (Dist. i) that "the natural
1472 law is that which is contained in the Law and the Gospel." But this is not common to all men; because, as it is written (
1473 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q94_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.10.16" target="asv">Rom. 10:16</a>), "all do not obey the gospel." Therefore the natural law is not the same in all men.
1474 </p>
1475 <p id="FS_Q94_A4-p3">
1476 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, "Things which are according to the law are said to be just," as stated in Ethic. v. But it is stated in the same
1477 book that nothing is so universally just as not to be subject to change in regard to some men. Therefore even the natural
1478 law is not the same in all men.
1479 </p>
1480 <p id="FS_Q94_A4-p4">
1481 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as stated above (
1482 <a id="FS_Q94_A4-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q94_A2.html">AA[2]</a>,3), to the natural law belongs everything to which a man is inclined according to his nature. Now different men are naturally
1483 inclined to different things; some to the desire of pleasures, others to the desire of honors, and other men to other things.
1484 Therefore there is not one natural law for all.
1485 </p>
1486 <p id="FS_Q94_A4-p5">
1487 <b>On the contrary,</b> Isidore says (Etym. v, 4): "The natural law is common to all nations."
1488 </p>
1489 <p id="FS_Q94_A4-p6">
1490 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
1491 <a id="FS_Q94_A4-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q94_A2.html">AA[2]</a>,3), to the natural law belongs those things to which a man is inclined naturally: and among these it is proper to man to
1492 be inclined to act according to reason. Now the process of reason is from the common to the proper, as stated in Phys. i.
1493 The speculative reason, however, is differently situated in this matter, from the practical reason. For, since the speculative
1494 reason is busied chiefly with the necessary
1495 things, which cannot be otherwise than they are, its proper conclusions, like the universal principles, contain the truth
1496 without fail. The practical reason, on the other hand, is busied with contingent matters, about which human actions are concerned:
1497 and consequently, although there is necessity in the general principles, the more we descend to matters of detail, the more
1498 frequently we encounter defects. Accordingly then in speculative matters truth is the same in all men, both as to
1499 principles and as to conclusions: although the truth is not known to all as regards the conclusions, but only as regards the
1500 principles which are called common notions. But in matters of action, truth or practical rectitude is not the same for all,
1501 as to matters of detail, but only as to the general principles: and where there is the same rectitude in matters of detail,
1502 it is not equally known to all.
1503 </p>
1504 <p id="FS_Q94_A4-p7"> It is therefore evident that, as regards the general principles whether of speculative or of practical reason, truth or rectitude
1505 is the same for all, and is equally known by all. As to the proper conclusions of the speculative reason, the truth is the
1506 same for all, but is not equally known to all: thus it is true for all that the three angles of a triangle are together equal
1507 to two right angles, although it is not known to all. But as to the proper conclusions of the practical
1508 reason, neither is the truth or rectitude the same for all, nor, where it is the same, is it equally known by all. Thus it
1509 is right and true for all to act according to reason: and from this principle it follows as a proper conclusion, that goods
1510 entrusted to another should be restored to their owner. Now this is true for the majority of cases: but it may happen in a
1511 particular case that it would be injurious, and therefore unreasonable, to restore goods held in trust; for instance, if they
1512 are
1513 claimed for the purpose of fighting against one's country. And this principle will be found to fail the more, according as
1514 we descend further into detail, e.g. if one were to say that goods held in trust should be restored with such and such a guarantee,
1515 or in such and such a way; because the greater the number of conditions added, the greater the number of ways in which the
1516 principle may fail, so that it be not right to restore or not to restore.
1517 </p>
1518 <p id="FS_Q94_A4-p8"> Consequently we must say that the natural law, as to general principles, is the same for all, both as to rectitude and as
1519 to knowledge. But as to certain matters of detail, which are conclusions, as it were, of those general principles, it is the
1520 same for all in the majority of cases, both as to rectitude and as to knowledge; and yet in some few cases it may fail, both
1521 as to rectitude, by reason of certain obstacles (just as natures subject to generation and corruption fail in
1522 some few cases on account of some obstacle), and as to knowledge, since in some the reason is perverted by passion, or evil
1523 habit, or an evil disposition of nature; thus formerly, theft, although it is expressly contrary to the natural law, was not
1524 considered wrong among the Germans, as Julius Caesar relates (De Bello Gall. vi).
1525 </p>
1526 <p id="FS_Q94_A4-p9">
1527 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The meaning of the sentence quoted is not that whatever is contained in the Law and the Gospel belongs to the natural law,
1528 since they contain many things that are above nature; but that whatever belongs to the natural law is fully contained in them.
1529 Wherefore Gratian, after saying that "the natural law is what is contained in the Law and the Gospel," adds at once, by way
1530 of example, "by which everyone is commanded to do to others as he would be done
1531 by."
1532 </p>
1533 <p id="FS_Q94_A4-p10">
1534 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The saying of the Philosopher is to be understood of things that are naturally just, not as general principles, but as conclusions
1535 drawn from them, having rectitude in the majority of cases, but failing in a few.
1536 </p>
1537 <p id="FS_Q94_A4-p11">
1538 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As, in man, reason rules and commands the other powers, so all the natural inclinations belonging to the other powers must
1539 needs be directed according to reason. Wherefore it is universally right for all men, that all their inclinations should be
1540 directed according to reason.
1541 </p>
1542 <p id="FS_Q94_A4-p12"></p>
1543 <p id="FS_Q94_A4-p13"></p>
1544 <a href="summa.FS_Q94_A3.html"></a>
1545 <a href="summa.FS_Q94_A5.html"></a>
1546 </div>
1547 <div id="FS_Q94_A5" class="div4">
1548 <a href="summa.FS_Q94_A4.html"></a>
1549 <a href="summa.FS_Q94_A6.html"></a>
1550 <h4 id="FS_Q94_A5-p0.1">Whether the natural law can be changed?</h4>
1551 <p id="FS_Q94_A5-p1"></p>
1552 <p id="FS_Q94_A5-p2">
1553 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the natural law can be changed. Because on
1554 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q94_A5-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.17.9" target="asv"> Ecclus. 17:9, </a> "He gave them instructions, and the law of life," the gloss says: "He wished the law of the letter to be written, in order
1555 to correct the law of nature." But that which is corrected is changed. Therefore the natural law can be changed.
1556 </p>
1557 <p id="FS_Q94_A5-p3">
1558 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the slaying of the innocent, adultery, and theft are against the natural law. But we find these things changed by
1559 God: as when God commanded Abraham to slay his innocent son (
1560 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q94_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.22.2" target="asv">Gn. 22:2</a>); and when he ordered the Jews to borrow and purloin the vessels of the Egyptians (
1561 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q94_A5-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Exod.12.35" target="asv">Ex. 12:35</a>); and when He commanded Osee to take to himself "a wife of fornications" (
1562 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q94_A5-p3.3" href="./asv.html#Hos.1.2" target="asv">Osee 1:2</a>). Therefore the natural law can be changed.
1563 </p>
1564 <p id="FS_Q94_A5-p4">
1565 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Isidore says (Etym. 5:4) that "the
1566 possession of all things in common, and universal freedom, are matters of natural law." But these things are seen to be changed
1567 by human laws. Therefore it seems that the natural law is subject to change.
1568 </p>
1569 <p id="FS_Q94_A5-p5">
1570 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is said in the Decretals (Dist. v): "The natural law dates from the creation of the rational creature. It does not vary
1571 according to time, but remains unchangeable."
1572 </p>
1573 <p id="FS_Q94_A5-p6">
1574 <b>I answer that,</b> A change in the natural law may be understood in two ways. First, by way of addition. In this sense nothing hinders the natural
1575 law from being changed: since many things for the benefit of human life have been added over and above the natural law, both
1576 by the Divine law and by human laws.
1577 </p>
1578 <p id="FS_Q94_A5-p7"> Secondly, a change in the natural law may be understood by way of subtraction, so that what previously was according to the
1579 natural law, ceases to be so. In this sense, the natural law is altogether unchangeable in its first principles: but in its
1580 secondary principles, which, as we have said
1581 <a id="FS_Q94_A5-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q94_A4.html">(A[4])</a>, are certain detailed proximate conclusions drawn from the first principles, the natural law is not changed so that what
1582 it prescribes be not right in most
1583 cases. But it may be changed in some particular cases of rare occurrence, through some special causes hindering the observance
1584 of such precepts, as stated above
1585 <a id="FS_Q94_A5-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q94_A4.html">(A[4])</a>.
1586 </p>
1587 <p id="FS_Q94_A5-p8">
1588 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The written law is said to be given for the correction of the natural law, either because it supplies what was wanting to
1589 the natural law; or because the natural law was perverted in the hearts of some men, as to certain matters, so that they esteemed
1590 those things good which are naturally evil; which perversion stood in need of correction.
1591 </p>
1592 <p id="FS_Q94_A5-p9">
1593 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> All men alike, both guilty and innocent, die the death of nature: which death of nature is inflicted by the power of God
1594 on account of original sin, according to
1595 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q94_A5-p9.1" href="./asv.html#iKgs.2.6" target="asv">1 Kings 2:6</a>: "The Lord killeth and maketh alive." Consequently, by the command of God, death can be inflicted on any man, guilty or innocent,
1596 without any injustice whatever. In like manner adultery is intercourse with another's wife; who is allotted to him by the
1597 law
1598 emanating from God. Consequently intercourse with any woman, by the command of God, is neither adultery nor fornication. The
1599 same applies to theft, which is the taking of another's property. For whatever is taken by the command of God, to Whom all
1600 things belong, is not taken against the will of its owner, whereas it is in this that theft consists. Nor is it only in human
1601 things, that whatever is commanded by God is right; but also in natural things, whatever is done by God, is, in some way,
1602 natural, as stated in the
1603 <a id="FS_Q94_A5-p9.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FP_Q105_A6.html">FP, Q[105], A[6]</a>, ad 1.
1604 </p>
1605 <p id="FS_Q94_A5-p10">
1606 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> A thing is said to belong to the natural law in two ways. First, because nature inclines thereto: e.g. that one should not
1607 do harm to another. Secondly, because nature did not bring in the contrary: thus we might say that for man to be naked is
1608 of the natural law, because nature did not give him clothes, but art invented them. In this sense, "the possession of all
1609 things in common and universal freedom" are said to be of the natural law, because, to
1610 wit, the distinction of possessions and slavery were not brought in by nature, but devised by human reason for the benefit
1611 of human life. Accordingly the law of nature was not changed in this respect, except by addition.
1612 </p>
1613 <p id="FS_Q94_A5-p11"></p>
1614 <p id="FS_Q94_A5-p12"></p>
1615 <a href="summa.FS_Q94_A4.html"></a>
1616 <a href="summa.FS_Q94_A6.html"></a>
1617 </div>
1618 <div id="FS_Q94_A6" class="div4">
1619 <a href="summa.FS_Q94_A5.html"></a>
1620 <a href="summa.FS_Q95.html"></a>
1621 <h4 id="FS_Q94_A6-p0.1">Whether the law of nature can be abolished from the heart of man?</h4>
1622 <p id="FS_Q94_A6-p1"></p>
1623 <p id="FS_Q94_A6-p2">
1624 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the natural law can be abolished from the heart of man. Because on
1625 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q94_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.2.14" target="asv"> Rom. 2:14, </a> "When the Gentiles who have not the law," etc. a gloss says that "the law of righteousness, which sin had blotted out, is
1626 graven on the heart of man when he is restored by grace." But the law of righteousness is the law of nature. Therefore the
1627 law of nature can be blotted out.
1628 </p>
1629 <p id="FS_Q94_A6-p3">
1630 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the law of grace is more efficacious than the law of nature. But the law of grace is blotted out by sin. Much more
1631 therefore can the law of nature be blotted out.
1632 </p>
1633 <p id="FS_Q94_A6-p4">
1634 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, that which is established by law is made just. But many things are enacted by men, which are contrary to the law
1635 of nature. Therefore the law of nature can be abolished from the heart of man.
1636 </p>
1637 <p id="FS_Q94_A6-p5">
1638 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (Confess. ii): "Thy law is written in the hearts of men, which iniquity itself effaces not." But the law which
1639 is written in men's hearts is the natural law. Therefore the natural law cannot be blotted out.
1640 </p>
1641 <p id="FS_Q94_A6-p6">
1642 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
1643 <a id="FS_Q94_A6-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q94_A4.html">AA[4]</a>,5), there belong to the natural law, first, certain most general precepts, that are known to all; and secondly, certain secondary
1644 and more detailed precepts, which are, as it were, conclusions following closely from first principles. As to those general
1645 principles, the natural law, in the abstract, can nowise be blotted out from men's hearts. But it is blotted out in the case
1646 of a particular action, in so far
1647 as reason is hindered from applying the general principle to a particular point of practice, on account of concupiscence or
1648 some other passion, as stated above (Q[77], A[2]). But as to the other, i.e. the secondary precepts, the natural law can be
1649 blotted out from the human heart, either by evil persuasions, just as in speculative matters errors occur in respect of necessary
1650 conclusions; or by vicious customs and corrupt habits, as among some men, theft, and even unnatural vices, as the Apostle
1651 states (Rom. i), were not esteemed sinful.
1652 </p>
1653 <p id="FS_Q94_A6-p7">
1654 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Sin blots out the law of nature in particular cases, not universally, except perchance in regard to the secondary precepts
1655 of the natural law, in the way stated above.
1656 </p>
1657 <p id="FS_Q94_A6-p8">
1658 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although grace is more efficacious than nature, yet nature is more essential to man, and therefore more enduring.
1659 </p>
1660 <p id="FS_Q94_A6-p9">
1661 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This argument is true of the secondary precepts of the natural law, against which some legislators have framed certain enactments
1662 which are unjust.
1663 </p>
1664 <p id="FS_Q94_A6-p10"></p>
1665 <p id="FS_Q94_A6-p11"></p>
1666 <a href="summa.FS_Q94_A5.html"></a>
1667 <a href="summa.FS_Q95.html"></a>
1668 </div>
1669 <a href="summa.FS_Q93_A6.html"></a>
1670 <a href="summa.FS_Q94_A1.html"></a>
1671 </div>
1672 <div id="FS_Q95" class="div3">
1673 <a href="summa.FS_Q94_A6.html"></a>
1674 <a href="summa.FS_Q95_A1.html"></a>
1675 <h3 id="FS_Q95-p0.1">OF HUMAN LAW (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3>
1676 <p id="FS_Q95-p1"></p>
1677 <p id="FS_Q95-p2"> We must now consider human law; and (1) this law considered in itself; (2) its power; (3) its mutability. Under the first
1678 head there are four points of inquiry:
1679 </p>
1680 <p id="FS_Q95-p3"> (1) Its utility.</p>
1681 <p id="FS_Q95-p4"> (2) Its origin.</p>
1682 <p id="FS_Q95-p5"> (3) Its quality.</p>
1683 <p id="FS_Q95-p6"> (4) Its division.</p>
1684 <div id="FS_Q95_A1" class="div4">
1685 <a href="summa.FS_Q95.html"></a>
1686 <a href="summa.FS_Q95_A2.html"></a>
1687 <h4 id="FS_Q95_A1-p0.1">Whether it was useful for laws to be framed by men?</h4>
1688 <p id="FS_Q95_A1-p1"></p>
1689 <p id="FS_Q95_A1-p2">
1690 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it was not useful for laws to be framed by men. Because the purpose of every law is that man be made good
1691 thereby, as stated above (
1692 <a id="FS_Q95_A1-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q92_A1.html">Q[92], A[1]</a>). But men are more to be induced to be good willingly by means of admonitions, than against their will, by means of laws.
1693 Therefore there was no need to frame laws.
1694 </p>
1695 <p id="FS_Q95_A1-p3">
1696 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, As the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 4), "men have recourse to a judge as to animate justice." But animate justice
1697 is better than inanimate justice, which contained in laws. Therefore it would have been better for the execution of justice
1698 to be entrusted to the decision of judges, than to frame laws in addition.
1699 </p>
1700 <p id="FS_Q95_A1-p4">
1701 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, every law is framed for the direction of human actions, as is evident from what has been stated above (
1702 <a id="FS_Q95_A1-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q90_A1.html">Q[90], AA[1]</a>,2). But since human actions are about singulars, which are infinite in number, matter pertaining to the direction of human
1703 actions cannot be taken into sufficient consideration except by a wise man, who looks into each one of them. Therefore it
1704 would have been better for human acts to be directed by the judgment
1705 of wise men, than by the framing of laws. Therefore there was no need of human laws.
1706 </p>
1707 <p id="FS_Q95_A1-p5">
1708 <b>On the contrary,</b> Isidore says (Etym. v, 20): "Laws were made that in fear thereof human audacity might be held in check, that innocence might
1709 be safeguarded in the midst of wickedness, and that the dread of punishment might prevent the wicked from doing harm." But
1710 these things are most necessary to mankind. Therefore it was necessary that human laws should be made.
1711 </p>
1712 <p id="FS_Q95_A1-p6">
1713 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
1714 <a id="FS_Q95_A1-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q63_A1.html">Q[63], A[1]</a>;
1715 <a id="FS_Q95_A1-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q94_A3.html"> Q[94], A[3]</a>), man has a natural aptitude for virtue; but the perfection of virtue must be acquired by man by means of some kind of training.
1716 Thus we observe that man is helped by industry in his necessities, for instance, in food and clothing. Certain beginnings
1717 of these he has from nature, viz. his reason and his hands; but he has not the full complement, as other animals have,
1718 to whom nature has given sufficiency of clothing and food. Now it is difficult to see how man could suffice for himself in
1719 the matter of this training: since the perfection of virtue consists chiefly in withdrawing man from undue pleasures, to which
1720 above all man is inclined, and especially the young, who are more capable of being trained. Consequently a man needs to receive
1721 this training from another, whereby to arrive at the perfection of virtue. And as to those young people who are inclined
1722 to acts of virtue, by their good natural disposition, or by custom, or rather by the gift of God, paternal training suffices,
1723 which is by admonitions. But since some are found to be depraved, and prone to vice, and not easily amenable to words, it
1724 was necessary for such to be restrained from evil by force and fear, in order that, at least, they might desist from evil-doing,
1725 and leave others in peace, and that they themselves, by being habituated in this way, might be brought to do willingly
1726 what hitherto they did from fear, and thus become virtuous. Now this kind of training, which compels through fear of punishment,
1727 is the discipline of laws. Therefore in order that man might have peace and virtue, it was necessary for laws to be framed:
1728 for, as the Philosopher says (Polit. i, 2), "as man is the most noble of animals if he be perfect in virtue, so is he the
1729 lowest of all, if he be severed from law and righteousness"; because man can use his reason to devise means of satisfying
1730 his lusts and evil passions, which other animals are unable to do.
1731 </p>
1732 <p id="FS_Q95_A1-p7">
1733 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Men who are well disposed are led willingly to virtue by being admonished better than by coercion: but men who are evilly
1734 disposed are not led to virtue unless they are compelled.
1735 </p>
1736 <p id="FS_Q95_A1-p8">
1737 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As the Philosopher says (Rhet. i, 1), "it is better that all things be regulated by law, than left to be decided by judges":
1738 and this for three reasons. First, because it is easier to find a few wise men competent to frame right laws, than to find
1739 the many who would be necessary to judge aright of each single case. Secondly, because those who make laws consider long beforehand
1740 what laws to make; whereas judgment on each single case has to be
1741 pronounced as soon as it arises: and it is easier for man to see what is right, by taking many instances into consideration,
1742 than by considering one solitary fact. Thirdly, because lawgivers judge in the abstract and of future events; whereas those
1743 who sit in judgment of things present, towards which they are affected by love, hatred, or some kind of cupidity; wherefore
1744 their judgment is perverted.
1745 </p>
1746 <p id="FS_Q95_A1-p9"> Since then the animated justice of the judge is not found in every man, and since it can be deflected, therefore it was necessary,
1747 whenever possible, for the law to determine how to judge, and for very few matters to be left to the decision of men.
1748 </p>
1749 <p id="FS_Q95_A1-p10">
1750 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Certain individual facts which cannot be covered by the law "have necessarily to be committed to judges," as the Philosopher
1751 says in the same passage: for instance, "concerning something that has happened or not happened," and the like.
1752 </p>
1753 <p id="FS_Q95_A1-p11"></p>
1754 <p id="FS_Q95_A1-p12"></p>
1755 <a href="summa.FS_Q95.html"></a>
1756 <a href="summa.FS_Q95_A2.html"></a>
1757 </div>
1758 <div id="FS_Q95_A2" class="div4">
1759 <a href="summa.FS_Q95_A1.html"></a>
1760 <a href="summa.FS_Q95_A3.html"></a>
1761 <h4 id="FS_Q95_A2-p0.1">Whether every human law is derived from the natural law?</h4>
1762 <p id="FS_Q95_A2-p1"></p>
1763 <p id="FS_Q95_A2-p2">
1764 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that not every human law is derived from the natural law. For the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 7) that "the
1765 legal just is that which originally was a matter of indifference." But those things which arise from the natural law are not
1766 matters of indifference. Therefore the enactments of human laws are not derived from the natural law.
1767 </p>
1768 <p id="FS_Q95_A2-p3">
1769 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, positive law is contrasted with natural law, as stated by Isidore (Etym. v, 4) and the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 7).
1770 But those things which flow as conclusions from the general principles of the natural law belong to the natural law, as stated
1771 above (
1772 <a id="FS_Q95_A2-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q94_A4.html">Q[94], A[4]</a>). Therefore that which is established by human law does not belong to the natural law.
1773 </p>
1774 <p id="FS_Q95_A2-p4">
1775 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the law of nature is the same for all; since the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 7) that "the natural just is that which
1776 is equally valid everywhere." If therefore human laws were derived from the natural law, it would follow that they too are
1777 the same for all: which is clearly false.
1778 </p>
1779 <p id="FS_Q95_A2-p5">
1780 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, it is possible to give a reason for things which are derived from the natural law. But "it is not possible to give
1781 the reason for all the legal enactments of the lawgivers," as the jurist says [*Pandect. Justin. lib. i, ff, tit. iii, v;
1782 De Leg. et Senat.]. Therefore not all human laws are derived from the natural law.
1783 </p>
1784 <p id="FS_Q95_A2-p6">
1785 <b>On the contrary,</b> Tully says (Rhet. ii): "Things which emanated from nature and were approved by custom, were sanctioned by fear and reverence
1786 for the laws."
1787 </p>
1788 <p id="FS_Q95_A2-p7">
1789 <b>I answer that,</b> As Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5) "that which is not just seems to be no law at all": wherefore the force of a law depends
1790 on the extent of its justice. Now in human affairs a thing is said to be just, from being right, according to the rule of
1791 reason. But the first rule of reason is the law of nature, as is clear from what has been stated above (
1792 <a id="FS_Q95_A2-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q91_A2.html">Q[91], A[2]</a>, ad 2). Consequently every human law has just so much of the nature of
1793 law, as it is derived from the law of nature. But if in any point it deflects from the law of nature, it is no longer a law
1794 but a perversion of law.
1795 </p>
1796 <p id="FS_Q95_A2-p8"> But it must be noted that something may be derived from the natural law in two ways: first, as a conclusion from premises,
1797 secondly, by way of determination of certain generalities. The first way is like to that by which, in sciences, demonstrated
1798 conclusions are drawn from the principles: while the second mode is likened to that whereby, in the arts, general forms are
1799 particularized as to details: thus the craftsman needs to determine the general form of a house to some
1800 particular shape. Some things are therefore derived from the general principles of the natural law, by way of conclusions;
1801 e.g. that "one must not kill" may be derived as a conclusion from the principle that "one should do harm to no man": while
1802 some are derived therefrom by way of determination; e.g. the law of nature has it that the evil-doer should be punished; but
1803 that he be punished in this or that way, is a determination of the law of nature.
1804 </p>
1805 <p id="FS_Q95_A2-p9"> Accordingly both modes of derivation are found in the human law. But those things which are derived in the first way, are
1806 contained in human law not as emanating therefrom exclusively, but have some force from the natural law also. But those things
1807 which are derived in the second way, have no other force than that of human law.
1808 </p>
1809 <p id="FS_Q95_A2-p10">
1810 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Philosopher is speaking of those enactments which are by way of determination or specification of the precepts of the
1811 natural law.
1812 </p>
1813 <p id="FS_Q95_A2-p11">
1814 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This argument avails for those things that are derived from the natural law, by way of conclusions.
1815 </p>
1816 <p id="FS_Q95_A2-p12">
1817 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The general principles of the natural law cannot be applied to all men in the same way on account of the great variety of
1818 human affairs: and hence arises the diversity of positive laws among various people.
1819 </p>
1820 <p id="FS_Q95_A2-p13">
1821 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> These words of the Jurist are to be understood as referring to decisions of rulers in determining particular points of the
1822 natural law: on which determinations the judgment of expert and prudent men is based as on its principles; in so far, to wit,
1823 as they see at once what is the best thing to decide.
1824 </p>
1825 <p id="FS_Q95_A2-p14"> Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. vi, 11) that in such matters, "we ought to pay as much attention to the undemonstrated
1826 sayings and opinions of persons who surpass us in experience, age and prudence, as to their demonstrations."
1827 </p>
1828 <p id="FS_Q95_A2-p15"></p>
1829 <p id="FS_Q95_A2-p16"></p>
1830 <a href="summa.FS_Q95_A1.html"></a>
1831 <a href="summa.FS_Q95_A3.html"></a>
1832 </div>
1833 <div id="FS_Q95_A3" class="div4">
1834 <a href="summa.FS_Q95_A2.html"></a>
1835 <a href="summa.FS_Q95_A4.html"></a>
1836 <h4 id="FS_Q95_A3-p0.1">Whether Isidore's description of the quality of positive law is appropriate?</h4>
1837 <p id="FS_Q95_A3-p1"></p>
1838 <p id="FS_Q95_A3-p2">
1839 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Isidore's description of the quality of positive law is not appropriate, when he says (Etym. v, 21): "Law
1840 shall be virtuous, just, possible to nature, according to the custom of the country, suitable to place and time, necessary,
1841 useful; clearly expressed, lest by its obscurity it lead to misunderstanding; framed for no private benefit, but for the common
1842 good." Because he had previously expressed the quality of law in three conditions,
1843 saying that "law is anything founded on reason, provided that it foster religion, be helpful to discipline, and further the
1844 common weal." Therefore it was needless to add any further conditions to these.
1845 </p>
1846 <p id="FS_Q95_A3-p3">
1847 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Justice is included in honesty, as Tully says (De Offic. vii). Therefore after saying "honest" it was superfluous
1848 to add "just."
1849 </p>
1850 <p id="FS_Q95_A3-p4">
1851 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, written law is condivided with custom, according to Isidore (Etym. ii, 10). Therefore it should not be stated in
1852 the definition of law that it is "according to the custom of the country."
1853 </p>
1854 <p id="FS_Q95_A3-p5">
1855 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, a thing may be necessary in two ways. It may be necessary simply, because it cannot be otherwise: and that which
1856 is necessary in this way, is not subject to human judgment, wherefore human law is not concerned with necessity of this kind.
1857 Again a thing may be necessary for an end: and this necessity is the same as usefulness. Therefore it is superfluous to say
1858 both "necessary" and "useful."
1859 </p>
1860 <p id="FS_Q95_A3-p6">
1861 <b>On the contrary,</b> stands the authority of Isidore.
1862 </p>
1863 <p id="FS_Q95_A3-p7">
1864 <b>I answer that,</b> Whenever a thing is for an end, its form must be determined proportionately to that end; as the form of a saw is such as
1865 to be suitable for cutting (Phys. ii, text. 88). Again, everything that is ruled and measured must have a form proportionate
1866 to its rule and measure. Now both these conditions are verified of human law: since it is both something ordained to an end;
1867 and is a rule or measure ruled or measured by a higher measure. And this higher measure is
1868 twofold, viz. the Divine law and the natural law, as explained above
1869 <a id="FS_Q95_A3-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q95_A2.html">(A[2];</a> Q[93], A[3] ). Now the end of human law is to be useful to man, as the jurist states [*Pandect. Justin. lib. xxv, ff., tit.
1870 iii; De Leg. et Senat.]. Wherefore Isidore in determining the nature of law, lays down, at first, three conditions; viz. that
1871 it "foster religion," inasmuch as it is proportionate to the Divine law; that it be "helpful to discipline," inasmuch as it
1872 is proportionate to the
1873 nature law; and that it "further the common weal," inasmuch as it is proportionate to the utility of mankind.
1874 </p>
1875 <p id="FS_Q95_A3-p8"> All the other conditions mentioned by him are reduced to these three. For it is called virtuous because it fosters religion.
1876 And when he goes on to say that it should be "just, possible to nature, according to the customs of the country, adapted to
1877 place and time," he implies that it should be helpful to discipline. For human discipline depends on first on the order of
1878 reason, to which he refers by saying "just": secondly, it depends on the ability of the agent; because
1879 discipline should be adapted to each one according to his ability, taking also into account the ability of nature (for the
1880 same burdens should be not laid on children as adults); and should be according to human customs; since man cannot live alone
1881 in society, paying no heed to others: thirdly, it depends on certain circumstances, in respect of which he says, "adapted
1882 to place and time." The remaining words, "necessary, useful," etc. mean that law should further the common weal: so that
1883 "necessity" refers to the removal of evils; "usefulness" to the attainment of good; "clearness of expression," to the need
1884 of preventing any harm ensuing from the law itself. And since, as stated above (
1885 <a id="FS_Q95_A3-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q90_A2.html">Q[90], A[2]</a>), law is ordained to the common good, this is expressed in the last part of the description.
1886 </p>
1887 <p id="FS_Q95_A3-p9"> This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.</p>
1888 <p id="FS_Q95_A3-p10"></p>
1889 <p id="FS_Q95_A3-p11"></p>
1890 <a href="summa.FS_Q95_A2.html"></a>
1891 <a href="summa.FS_Q95_A4.html"></a>
1892 </div>
1893 <div id="FS_Q95_A4" class="div4">
1894 <a href="summa.FS_Q95_A3.html"></a>
1895 <a href="summa.FS_Q96.html"></a>
1896 <h4 id="FS_Q95_A4-p0.1">Whether Isidore's division of human laws is appropriate?</h4>
1897 <p id="FS_Q95_A4-p1"></p>
1898 <p id="FS_Q95_A4-p2">
1899 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that Isidore wrongly divided human statutes or human law (Etym. v, 4, seqq.). For under this law he includes
1900 the "law of nations," so called, because, as he says, "nearly all nations use it." But as he says, "natural law is that which
1901 is common to all nations." Therefore the law of nations is not contained under positive human law, but rather under natural
1902 law.
1903 </p>
1904 <p id="FS_Q95_A4-p3">
1905 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, those laws which have the same force, seem to differ not formally but only materially. But "statutes, decrees of
1906 the commonalty, senatorial decrees," and the like which he mentions (Etym. v, 9), all have the same force. Therefore they
1907 do not differ, except materially. But art takes no notice of such a distinction: since it may go on to infinity. Therefore
1908 this division of human laws is not appropriate.
1909 </p>
1910 <p id="FS_Q95_A4-p4">
1911 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, just as, in the state, there are princes, priests and soldiers, so are there other human offices. Therefore it seems
1912 that, as this division includes "military law," and "public law," referring to priests and magistrates; so also it should
1913 include other laws pertaining to other offices of the state.
1914 </p>
1915 <p id="FS_Q95_A4-p5">
1916 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, those things that are accidental should be passed over. But it is accidental to law that it be framed by this or
1917 that man. Therefore it is unreasonable to divide laws according to the names of lawgivers, so that one be called the "Cornelian"
1918 law, another the "Falcidian" law, etc.
1919 </p>
1920 <p id="FS_Q95_A4-p6">
1921 <b>On the contrary,</b> The authority of Isidore (OBJ[1]) suffices.
1922 </p>
1923 <p id="FS_Q95_A4-p7">
1924 <b>I answer that,</b> A thing can of itself be divided in respect of something contained in the notion of that thing. Thus a soul either rational
1925 or irrational is contained in the notion of animal: and therefore animal is divided properly and of itself in respect of its
1926 being rational or irrational; but not in the point of its being white or black, which are entirely beside the notion of animal.
1927 Now, in the notion of human law, many things are contained, in respect of any of
1928 which human law can be divided properly and of itself. For in the first place it belongs to the notion of human law, to be
1929 derived from the law of nature, as explained above
1930 <a id="FS_Q95_A4-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q95_A2.html">(A[2])</a>. In this respect positive law is divided into the "law of nations" and "civil law," according to the two ways in which something
1931 may be derived from the law of nature, as stated above
1932 <a id="FS_Q95_A4-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q95_A2.html">(A[2])</a>. Because, to the law of nations belong those things which are derived from
1933 the law of nature, as conclusions from premises, e.g. just buyings and sellings, and the like, without which men cannot live
1934 together, which is a point of the law of nature, since man is by nature a social animal, as is proved in Polit. i, 2. But
1935 those things which are derived from the law of nature by way of particular determination, belong to the civil law, according
1936 as each state decides on what is best for itself.
1937 </p>
1938 <p id="FS_Q95_A4-p8"> Secondly, it belongs to the notion of human law, to be ordained to the common good of the state. In this respect human law
1939 may be divided according to the different kinds of men who work in a special way for the common good: e.g. priests, by praying
1940 to God for the people; princes, by governing the people; soldiers, by fighting for the safety of the people. Wherefore certain
1941 special kinds of law are adapted to these men.
1942 </p>
1943 <p id="FS_Q95_A4-p9"> Thirdly, it belongs to the notion of human law, to be framed by that one who governs the community of the state, as shown
1944 above (
1945 <a id="FS_Q95_A4-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q90_A3.html">Q[90], A[3]</a>). In this respect, there are various human laws according to the various forms of government. Of these, according to the
1946 Philosopher (Polit. iii, 10) one is "monarchy," i.e. when the state is governed by one; and then we have "Royal Ordinances."
1947 Another form is "aristocracy," i.e. government by the best men or men
1948 of highest rank; and then we have the "Authoritative legal opinions" [Responsa Prudentum] and "Decrees of the Senate" [Senatus
1949 consulta]. Another form is "oligarchy," i.e. government by a few rich and powerful men; and then we have "Praetorian," also
1950 called "Honorary," law. Another form of government is that of the people, which is called "democracy," and there we have "Decrees
1951 of the commonalty" [Plebiscita]. There is also tyrannical government, which is altogether corrupt, which, therefore,
1952 has no corresponding law. Finally, there is a form of government made up of all these, and which is the best: and in this
1953 respect we have law sanctioned by the "Lords and Commons," as stated by Isidore (Etym. v, 4, seqq.).
1954 </p>
1955 <p id="FS_Q95_A4-p10"> Fourthly, it belongs to the notion of human law to direct human actions. In this respect, according to the various matters
1956 of which the law treats, there are various kinds of laws, which are sometimes named after their authors: thus we have the
1957 "Lex Julia" about adultery, the "Lex Cornelia" concerning assassins, and so on, differentiated in this way, not on account
1958 of the authors, but on account of the matters to which they refer.
1959 </p>
1960 <p id="FS_Q95_A4-p11">
1961 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The law of nations is indeed, in some way, natural to man, in so far as he is a reasonable being, because it is derived from
1962 the natural law by way of a conclusion that is not very remote from its premises. Wherefore men easily agreed thereto. Nevertheless
1963 it is distinct from the natural law, especially it is distinct from the natural law which is common to all animals.
1964 </p>
1965 <p id="FS_Q95_A4-p12"> The Replies to the other Objections are evident from what has been said.</p>
1966 <p id="FS_Q95_A4-p13"></p>
1967 <p id="FS_Q95_A4-p14"></p>
1968 <a href="summa.FS_Q95_A3.html"></a>
1969 <a href="summa.FS_Q96.html"></a>
1970 </div>
1971 <a href="summa.FS_Q94_A6.html"></a>
1972 <a href="summa.FS_Q95_A1.html"></a>
1973 </div>
1974 <div id="FS_Q96" class="div3">
1975 <a href="summa.FS_Q95_A4.html"></a>
1976 <a href="summa.FS_Q96_A1.html"></a>
1977 <h3 id="FS_Q96-p0.1">OF THE POWER OF HUMAN LAW (SIX ARTICLES)</h3>
1978 <p id="FS_Q96-p1"></p>
1979 <p id="FS_Q96-p2"> We must now consider the power of human law. Under this head there are six points of inquiry:</p>
1980 <p id="FS_Q96-p3"> (1) Whether human law should be framed for the community?</p>
1981 <p id="FS_Q96-p4"> (2) Whether human law should repress all vices?</p>
1982 <p id="FS_Q96-p5"> (3) Whether human law is competent to direct all acts of virtue?</p>
1983 <p id="FS_Q96-p6"> (4) Whether it binds man in conscience?</p>
1984 <p id="FS_Q96-p7"> (5) Whether all men are subject to human law?</p>
1985 <p id="FS_Q96-p8"> (6) Whether those who are under the law may act beside the letter of the law?</p>
1986 <div id="FS_Q96_A1" class="div4">
1987 <a href="summa.FS_Q96.html"></a>
1988 <a href="summa.FS_Q96_A2.html"></a>
1989 <h4 id="FS_Q96_A1-p0.1">Whether human law should be framed for the community rather than for the individual?</h4>
1990 <p id="FS_Q96_A1-p1"></p>
1991 <p id="FS_Q96_A1-p2">
1992 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that human law should be framed not for the community, but rather for the individual. For the Philosopher says
1993 (Ethic. v, 7) that "the legal just . . . includes all particular acts of legislation . . . and all those matters which are
1994 the subject of decrees," which are also individual matters, since decrees are framed about individual actions. Therefore law
1995 is framed not only for the community, but also for the individual.
1996 </p>
1997 <p id="FS_Q96_A1-p3">
1998 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, law is the director of human acts, as stated above (
1999 <a id="FS_Q96_A1-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q90_A1.html">Q[90], AA[1]</a>,2). But human acts are about individual matters. Therefore human laws should be framed, not for the community, but rather
2000 for the individual.
2001 </p>
2002 <p id="FS_Q96_A1-p4">
2003 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, law is a rule and measure of human acts, as stated above (
2004 <a id="FS_Q96_A1-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q90_A1.html">Q[90], AA[1]</a>,2). But a measure should be most certain, as stated in Metaph. x. Since therefore in human acts no general proposition can
2005 be so certain as not to fail in some individual cases, it seems that laws should be framed not in general but for individual
2006 cases.
2007 </p>
2008 <p id="FS_Q96_A1-p5">
2009 <b>On the contrary,</b> The jurist says (Pandect. Justin. lib. i, tit. iii, art. ii; De legibus, etc.) that "laws should be made to suit the majority
2010 of instances; and they are not framed according to what may possibly happen in an individual case."
2011 </p>
2012 <p id="FS_Q96_A1-p6">
2013 <b>I answer that,</b> Whatever is for an end should be proportionate to that end. Now the end of law is the common good; because, as Isidore says
2014 (Etym. v, 21) that "law should be framed, not for any private benefit, but for the common good of all the citizens." Hence
2015 human laws should be proportionate to the common good. Now the common good comprises many things. Wherefore law should take
2016 account of many things, as to persons, as to matters, and as to times. Because the
2017 community of the state is composed of many persons; and its good is procured by many actions; nor is it established to endure
2018 for only a short time, but to last for all time by the citizens succeeding one another, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ii,
2019 21; xxii, 6).
2020 </p>
2021 <p id="FS_Q96_A1-p7">
2022 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Philosopher (Ethic. v, 7) divides the legal just, i.e. positive law, into three parts. For some things are laid down
2023 simply in a general way: and these are the general laws. Of these he says that "the legal is that which originally was a matter
2024 of indifference, but which, when enacted, is so no longer": as the fixing of the ransom of a captive. Some things affect the
2025 community in one respect, and individuals in another. These are called
2026 "privileges," i.e. "private laws," as it were, because they regard private persons, although their power extends to many matters;
2027 and in regard to these, he adds, "and further, all particular acts of legislation." Other matters are legal, not through being
2028 laws, but through being applications of general laws to particular cases: such are decrees which have the force of law; and
2029 in regard to these, he adds "all matters subject to decrees."
2030 </p>
2031 <p id="FS_Q96_A1-p8">
2032 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> A principle of direction should be applicable to many; wherefore (Metaph. x, text. 4) the Philosopher says that all things
2033 belonging to one genus, are measured by one, which is the principle in that genus. For if there were as many rules or measures
2034 as there are things measured or ruled, they would cease to be of use, since their use consists in being applicable to many
2035 things. Hence law would be of no use, if it did not extend further than to one
2036 single act. Because the decrees than to one single act. Because the decrees of prudent men are made for the purpose of directing
2037 individual actions; whereas law is a general precept, as stated above (
2038 <a id="FS_Q96_A1-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q92_A2.html">Q[92], A[2]</a>, OBJ[2]).
2039 </p>
2040 <p id="FS_Q96_A1-p9">
2041 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> "We must not seek the same degree of certainty in all things" (Ethic. i, 3). Consequently in contingent matters, such as
2042 natural and human things, it is enough for a thing to be certain, as being true in the greater number of instances, though
2043 at times and less frequently it fail.
2044 </p>
2045 <p id="FS_Q96_A1-p10"></p>
2046 <p id="FS_Q96_A1-p11"></p>
2047 <a href="summa.FS_Q96.html"></a>
2048 <a href="summa.FS_Q96_A2.html"></a>
2049 </div>
2050 <div id="FS_Q96_A2" class="div4">
2051 <a href="summa.FS_Q96_A1.html"></a>
2052 <a href="summa.FS_Q96_A3.html"></a>
2053 <h4 id="FS_Q96_A2-p0.1">Whether it belongs to the human law to repress all vices?</h4>
2054 <p id="FS_Q96_A2-p1"></p>
2055 <p id="FS_Q96_A2-p2">
2056 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it belongs to human law to repress all vices. For Isidore says (Etym. v, 20) that "laws were made in order
2057 that, in fear thereof, man's audacity might be held in check." But it would not be held in check sufficiently, unless all
2058 evils were repressed by law. Therefore human laws should repress all evils.
2059 </p>
2060 <p id="FS_Q96_A2-p3">
2061 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the intention of the lawgiver is to make the citizens virtuous. But a man cannot be virtuous unless he forbear from
2062 all kinds of vice. Therefore it belongs to human law to repress all vices.
2063 </p>
2064 <p id="FS_Q96_A2-p4">
2065 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, human law is derived from the natural law, as stated above (
2066 <a id="FS_Q96_A2-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q95_A2.html">Q[95], A[2]</a>). But all vices are contrary to the law of nature. Therefore human law should repress all vices.
2067 </p>
2068 <p id="FS_Q96_A2-p5">
2069 <b>On the contrary,</b> We read in De Lib. Arb. i, 5: "It seems to me that the law which is written for the governing of the people rightly permits
2070 these things, and that Divine providence punishes them." But Divine providence punishes nothing but vices. Therefore human
2071 law rightly allows some vices, by not repressing them.
2072 </p>
2073 <p id="FS_Q96_A2-p6">
2074 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
2075 <a id="FS_Q96_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q90_A1.html">Q[90], AA[1]</a>,2), law is framed as a rule or measure of human acts. Now a measure should be homogeneous with that which it measures, as
2076 stated in Metaph. x, text. 3,4, since different things are measured by different measures. Wherefore laws imposed on men should
2077 also be in keeping with their condition, for, as Isidore says (Etym. v, 21), law should be "possible both according to nature,
2078 and according to the customs
2079 of the country." Now possibility or faculty of action is due to an interior habit or disposition: since the same thing is
2080 not possible to one who has not a virtuous habit, as is possible to one who has. Thus the same is not possible to a child
2081 as to a full-grown man: for which reason the law for children is not the same as for adults, since many things are permitted
2082 to children, which in an adult are punished by law or at any rate are open to blame. In like manner many things are permissible
2083 to
2084 men not perfect in virtue, which would be intolerable in a virtuous man.
2085 </p>
2086 <p id="FS_Q96_A2-p7"> Now human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws
2087 do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for
2088 the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society
2089 could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like.
2090 </p>
2091 <p id="FS_Q96_A2-p8">
2092 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Audacity seems to refer to the assailing of others. Consequently it belongs to those sins chiefly whereby one's neighbor
2093 is injured: and these sins are forbidden by human law, as stated.
2094 </p>
2095 <p id="FS_Q96_A2-p9">
2096 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The purpose of human law is to lead men to virtue, not suddenly, but gradually. Wherefore it does not lay upon the multitude
2097 of imperfect men the burdens of those who are already virtuous, viz. that they should abstain from all evil. Otherwise these
2098 imperfect ones, being unable to bear such precepts, would break out into yet greater evils: thus it is written (
2099 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q96_A2-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.30.33" target="asv">Ps. 30:33</a>): "He that violently bloweth his nose, bringeth out blood";
2100 and (
2101 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q96_A2-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.9.17" target="asv">Mat. 9:17</a>) that if "new wine," i.e. precepts of a perfect life, "is put into old bottles," i.e. into imperfect men, "the bottles break,
2102 and the wine runneth out," i.e. the precepts are despised, and those men, from contempt, break into evils worse still.
2103 </p>
2104 <p id="FS_Q96_A2-p10">
2105 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The natural law is a participation in us of the eternal law: while human law falls short of the eternal law. Now Augustine
2106 says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5): "The law which is framed for the government of states, allows and leaves unpunished many things
2107 that are punished by Divine providence. Nor, if this law does not attempt to do everything, is this a reason why it should
2108 be blamed for what it does." Wherefore, too, human law does not prohibit everything
2109 that is forbidden by the natural law.
2110 </p>
2111 <p id="FS_Q96_A2-p11"></p>
2112 <p id="FS_Q96_A2-p12"></p>
2113 <a href="summa.FS_Q96_A1.html"></a>
2114 <a href="summa.FS_Q96_A3.html"></a>
2115 </div>
2116 <div id="FS_Q96_A3" class="div4">
2117 <a href="summa.FS_Q96_A2.html"></a>
2118 <a href="summa.FS_Q96_A4.html"></a>
2119 <h4 id="FS_Q96_A3-p0.1">Whether human law prescribes acts of all the virtues?</h4>
2120 <p id="FS_Q96_A3-p1"></p>
2121 <p id="FS_Q96_A3-p2">
2122 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that human law does not prescribe acts of all the virtues. For vicious acts are contrary to acts of virtue.
2123 But human law does not prohibit all vices, as stated above
2124 <a id="FS_Q96_A3-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q96_A2.html">(A[2])</a>. Therefore neither does it prescribe all acts of virtue.
2125 </p>
2126 <p id="FS_Q96_A3-p3">
2127 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a virtuous act proceeds from a virtue. But virtue is the end of law; so that whatever is from a virtue, cannot come
2128 under a precept of law. Therefore human law does not prescribe all acts of virtue.
2129 </p>
2130 <p id="FS_Q96_A3-p4">
2131 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, law is ordained to the common good, as stated above (
2132 <a id="FS_Q96_A3-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q90_A2.html">Q[90], A[2]</a>). But some acts of virtue are ordained, not to the common good, but to private good. Therefore the law does not prescribe
2133 all acts of virtue.
2134 </p>
2135 <p id="FS_Q96_A3-p5">
2136 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 1) that the law "prescribes the performance of the acts of a brave man . . . and the acts
2137 of the temperate man . . . and the acts of the meek man: and in like manner as regards the other virtues and vices, prescribing
2138 the former, forbidding the latter."
2139 </p>
2140 <p id="FS_Q96_A3-p6">
2141 <b>I answer that,</b> The species of virtues are distinguished by their objects, as explained above (
2142 <a id="FS_Q96_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q54_A2.html">Q[54], A[2]</a>;
2143 <a id="FS_Q96_A3-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q60_A1.html"> Q[60], A[1]</a>;
2144 <a id="FS_Q96_A3-p6.3" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q62_A2.html"> Q[62], A[2]</a>). Now all the objects of virtues can be referred either to the private good of an individual, or to the common good of the
2145 multitude: thus matters of fortitude may be achieved either for the safety of the state, or for upholding the rights of a
2146 friend, and in like
2147 manner with the other virtues. But law, as stated above (
2148 <a id="FS_Q96_A3-p6.4" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q90_A2.html">Q[90], A[2]</a>) is ordained to the common good. Wherefore there is no virtue whose acts cannot be prescribed by the law. Nevertheless human
2149 law does not prescribe concerning all the acts of every virtue: but only in regard to those that are ordainable to the common
2150 good---either immediately, as when certain things are done directly for the common good---or mediately, as when a lawgiver
2151 prescribes certain things
2152 pertaining to good order, whereby the citizens are directed in the upholding of the common good of justice and peace.
2153 </p>
2154 <p id="FS_Q96_A3-p7">
2155 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Human law does not forbid all vicious acts, by the obligation of a precept, as neither does it prescribe all acts of virtue.
2156 But it forbids certain acts of each vice, just as it prescribes some acts of each virtue.
2157 </p>
2158 <p id="FS_Q96_A3-p8">
2159 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> An act is said to be an act of virtue in two ways. First, from the fact that a man does something virtuous; thus the act
2160 of justice is to do what is right, and an act of fortitude is to do brave things: and in this way law prescribes certain acts
2161 of virtue. Secondly an act of virtue is when a man does a virtuous thing in a way in which a virtuous man does it. Such an
2162 act always proceeds from virtue: and it does not come under a precept of law, but is
2163 the end at which every lawgiver aims.
2164 </p>
2165 <p id="FS_Q96_A3-p9">
2166 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> There is no virtue whose act is not ordainable to the common good, as stated above, either mediately or immediately.
2167 </p>
2168 <p id="FS_Q96_A3-p10"></p>
2169 <p id="FS_Q96_A3-p11"></p>
2170 <a href="summa.FS_Q96_A2.html"></a>
2171 <a href="summa.FS_Q96_A4.html"></a>
2172 </div>
2173 <div id="FS_Q96_A4" class="div4">
2174 <a href="summa.FS_Q96_A3.html"></a>
2175 <a href="summa.FS_Q96_A5.html"></a>
2176 <h4 id="FS_Q96_A4-p0.1">Whether human law binds a man in conscience?</h4>
2177 <p id="FS_Q96_A4-p1"></p>
2178 <p id="FS_Q96_A4-p2">
2179 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that human law does not bind man in conscience. For an inferior power has no jurisdiction in a court of higher
2180 power. But the power of man, which frames human law, is beneath the Divine power. Therefore human law cannot impose its precept
2181 in a Divine court, such as is the court of conscience.
2182 </p>
2183 <p id="FS_Q96_A4-p3">
2184 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the judgment of conscience depends chiefly on the commandments of God. But sometimes God's commandments are made
2185 void by human laws, according to
2186 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q96_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.15.6" target="asv"> Mat. 15:6</a>: "You have made void the commandment of God for your tradition." Therefore human law does not bind a man in conscience.
2187 </p>
2188 <p id="FS_Q96_A4-p4">
2189 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, human laws often bring loss of character and injury on man, according to
2190 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q96_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.10.1" target="asv"> Is. 10:1 </a>et seqq.: "Woe to them that make wicked laws, and when they write, write injustice; to oppress the poor in judgment, and do
2191 violence to the cause of the humble of My people." But it is lawful for anyone to avoid oppression and violence. Therefore
2192 human laws do not bind man in conscience.
2193 </p>
2194 <p id="FS_Q96_A4-p5">
2195 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
2196 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q96_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iPet.2.19" target="asv">1 Pet.
2197 2:19
2198 </a>): "This is thankworthy, if for conscience . . . a man endure sorrows, suffering wrongfully."
2199 </p>
2200 <p id="FS_Q96_A4-p6">
2201 <b>I answer that,</b> Laws framed by man are either just or unjust. If they be just, they have the power of binding in conscience, from the eternal
2202 law whence they are derived, according to
2203 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q96_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.8.15" target="asv"> Prov. 8:15</a>: "By Me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things." Now laws are said to be just, both from the end, when, to wit, they
2204 are ordained to the common good---and from their author, that is to say, when the law that is made does not exceed the power
2205 of the
2206 lawgiver---and from their form, when, to wit, burdens are laid on the subjects, according to an equality of proportion and
2207 with a view to the common good. For, since one man is a part of the community, each man in all that he is and has, belongs
2208 to the community; just as a part, in all that it is, belongs to the whole; wherefore nature inflicts a loss on the part, in
2209 order to save the whole: so that on this account, such laws as these, which impose proportionate burdens, are just and binding
2210 in
2211 conscience, and are legal laws.
2212 </p>
2213 <p id="FS_Q96_A4-p7"> On the other hand laws may be unjust in two ways: first, by being contrary to human good, through being opposed to the things
2214 mentioned above---either in respect of the end, as when an authority imposes on his subjects burdensome laws, conducive, not
2215 to the common good, but rather to his own cupidity or vainglory---or in respect of the author, as when a man makes a law that
2216 goes beyond the power committed to him---or in respect of the form, as when burdens are imposed unequally
2217 on the community, although with a view to the common good. The like are acts of violence rather than laws; because, as Augustine
2218 says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5), "a law that is not just, seems to be no law at all." Wherefore such laws do not bind in conscience,
2219 except perhaps in order to avoid scandal or disturbance, for which cause a man should even yield his right, according to
2220 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q96_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.5.40" target="asv"> Mat. 5:40,41</a>: "If a man . . . take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him; and whosoever will
2221 force thee one mile, go with him other two."
2222 </p>
2223 <p id="FS_Q96_A4-p8"> Secondly, laws may be unjust through being opposed to the Divine good: such are the laws of tyrants inducing to idolatry,
2224 or to anything else contrary to the Divine law: and laws of this kind must nowise be observed, because, as stated in
2225 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q96_A4-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.5.29" target="asv"> Acts 5:29, </a> "we ought to obey God rather than man."
2226 </p>
2227 <p id="FS_Q96_A4-p9">
2228 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As the Apostle says (
2229 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q96_A4-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.13.1" target="asv">Rom. 13:1,2</a>), all human power is from God . . . "therefore he that resisteth the power," in matters that are within its scope, "resisteth
2230 the ordinance of God"; so that he becomes guilty according to his conscience.
2231 </p>
2232 <p id="FS_Q96_A4-p10">
2233 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This argument is true of laws that are contrary to the commandments of God, which is beyond the scope of (human) power. Wherefore
2234 in such matters human law should not be obeyed.
2235 </p>
2236 <p id="FS_Q96_A4-p11">
2237 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This argument is true of a law that inflicts unjust hurt on its subjects. The power that man holds from God does not extend
2238 to this: wherefore neither in such matters is man bound to obey the law, provided he avoid giving scandal or inflicting a
2239 more grievous hurt.
2240 </p>
2241 <p id="FS_Q96_A4-p12"></p>
2242 <p id="FS_Q96_A4-p13"></p>
2243 <a href="summa.FS_Q96_A3.html"></a>
2244 <a href="summa.FS_Q96_A5.html"></a>
2245 </div>
2246 <div id="FS_Q96_A5" class="div4">
2247 <a href="summa.FS_Q96_A4.html"></a>
2248 <a href="summa.FS_Q96_A6.html"></a>
2249 <h4 id="FS_Q96_A5-p0.1">Whether all are subject to the law?</h4>
2250 <p id="FS_Q96_A5-p1"></p>
2251 <p id="FS_Q96_A5-p2">
2252 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that not all are subject to the law. For those alone are subject to a law for whom a law is made. But the Apostle
2253 says (
2254 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q96_A5-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.1.9" target="asv">1 Tim. 1:9</a>): "The law is not made for the just man." Therefore the just are not subject to the law.
2255 </p>
2256 <p id="FS_Q96_A5-p3">
2257 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Pope Urban says [*Decretals. caus. xix, qu. 2]: "He that is guided by a private law need not for any reason be bound
2258 by the public law." Now all spiritual men are led by the private law of the Holy Ghost, for they are the sons of God, of whom
2259 it is said (
2260 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q96_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.14" target="asv">Rom. 8:14</a>): "Whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." Therefore not all men are subject to human law.
2261 </p>
2262 <p id="FS_Q96_A5-p4">
2263 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the jurist says [*Pandect. Justin. i, ff., tit. 3, De Leg. et Senat.] that "the sovereign is exempt from the laws."
2264 But he that is exempt from the law is not bound thereby. Therefore not all are subject to the law.
2265 </p>
2266 <p id="FS_Q96_A5-p5">
2267 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
2268 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q96_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.13.1" target="asv">Rom. 13:1</a>): "Let every soul be subject to the higher powers." But subjection to a power seems to imply subjection to the laws framed
2269 by that power. Therefore all men should be subject to human law.
2270 </p>
2271 <p id="FS_Q96_A5-p6">
2272 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
2273 <a id="FS_Q96_A5-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q90_A1.html">Q[90], AA[1]</a>,2; A[3], ad 2), the notion of law contains two things: first, that it is a rule of human acts; secondly, that it has coercive
2274 power. Wherefore a man may be subject to law in two ways. First, as the regulated is subject to the regulator: and, in this
2275 way, whoever is subject to a power, is subject to the law framed by that power. But it may happen in two ways that one is
2276 not subject to a power. In one way,
2277 by being altogether free from its authority: hence the subjects of one city or kingdom are not bound by the laws of the sovereign
2278 of another city or kingdom, since they are not subject to his authority. In another way, by being under a yet higher law;
2279 thus the subject of a proconsul should be ruled by his command, but not in those matters in which the subject receives his
2280 orders from the emperor: for in these matters, he is not bound by the mandate of the lower authority, since he is directed
2281 by that of a higher. In this way, one who is simply subject to a law, may not be a subject thereto in certain matters, in
2282 respect of which he is ruled by a higher law.
2283 </p>
2284 <p id="FS_Q96_A5-p7"> Secondly, a man is said to be subject to a law as the coerced is subject to the coercer. In this way the virtuous and righteous
2285 are not subject to the law, but only the wicked. Because coercion and violence are contrary to the will: but the will of the
2286 good is in harmony with the law, whereas the will of the wicked is discordant from it. Wherefore in this sense the good are
2287 not subject to the law, but only the wicked.
2288 </p>
2289 <p id="FS_Q96_A5-p8">
2290 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This argument is true of subjection by way of coercion: for, in this way, "the law is not made for the just men": because
2291 "they are a law to themselves," since they "show the work of the law written in their hearts," as the Apostle says (
2292 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q96_A5-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.2.14" target="asv">Rom. 2:14,15</a>). Consequently the law does not enforce itself upon them as it does on the wicked.
2293 </p>
2294 <p id="FS_Q96_A5-p9">
2295 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The law of the Holy Ghost is above all law framed by man: and therefore spiritual men, in so far as they are led by the law
2296 of the Holy Ghost, are not subject to the law in those matters that are inconsistent with the guidance of the Holy Ghost.
2297 Nevertheless the very fact that spiritual men are subject to law, is due to the leading of the Holy Ghost, according to
2298 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q96_A5-p9.1" href="./asv.html#iPet.2.13" target="asv">1 Pet. 2:13</a>: "Be ye subject . . . to every human creature for God's
2299 sake."
2300 </p>
2301 <p id="FS_Q96_A5-p10">
2302 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The sovereign is said to be "exempt from the law," as to its coercive power; since, properly speaking, no man is coerced
2303 by himself, and law has no coercive power save from the authority of the sovereign. Thus then is the sovereign said to be
2304 exempt from the law, because none is competent to pass sentence on him, if he acts against the law. Wherefore on
2305 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q96_A5-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.50.6" target="asv"> Ps. 50:6</a>: "To Thee only have I sinned," a gloss says that "there is no man who
2306 can judge the deeds of a king." But as to the directive force of law, the sovereign is subject to the law by his own will,
2307 according to the statement (Extra, De Constit. cap. Cum omnes) that "whatever law a man makes for another, he should keep
2308 himself. And a wise authority [*Dionysius Cato, Dist. de Moribus] says: 'Obey the law that thou makest thyself.'" Moreover
2309 the Lord reproaches those who "say and do not"; and who "bind heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders, but with a finger
2310 of
2311 their own they will not move them" (
2312 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q96_A5-p10.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.23.3" target="asv">Mat. 23:3,4</a>). Hence, in the judgment of God, the sovereign is not exempt from the law, as to its directive force; but he should fulfil
2313 it to his own free-will and not of constraint. Again the sovereign is above the law, in so far as, when it is expedient, he
2314 can change the law, and dispense in it according to time and place.
2315 </p>
2316 <p id="FS_Q96_A5-p11"></p>
2317 <p id="FS_Q96_A5-p12"></p>
2318 <a href="summa.FS_Q96_A4.html"></a>
2319 <a href="summa.FS_Q96_A6.html"></a>
2320 </div>
2321 <div id="FS_Q96_A6" class="div4">
2322 <a href="summa.FS_Q96_A5.html"></a>
2323 <a href="summa.FS_Q97.html"></a>
2324 <h4 id="FS_Q96_A6-p0.1">Whether he who is under a law may act beside the letter of the law?</h4>
2325 <p id="FS_Q96_A6-p1"></p>
2326 <p id="FS_Q96_A6-p2">
2327 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that he who is subject to a law may not act beside the letter of the law. For Augustine says (De Vera Relig. 31):
2328 "Although men judge about temporal laws when they make them, yet when once they are made they must pass judgment not on them,
2329 but according to them." But if anyone disregard the letter of the law, saying that he observes the intention of the lawgiver,
2330 he seems to pass judgment on the law. Therefore it is not right for one who is under the
2331 law to disregard the letter of the law, in order to observe the intention of the lawgiver.
2332 </p>
2333 <p id="FS_Q96_A6-p3">
2334 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, he alone is competent to interpret the law who can make the law. But those who are subject to the law cannot make
2335 the law. Therefore they have no right to interpret the intention of the lawgiver, but should always act according to the letter
2336 of the law.
2337 </p>
2338 <p id="FS_Q96_A6-p4">
2339 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, every wise man knows how to explain his intention by words. But those who framed the laws should be reckoned wise:
2340 for Wisdom says (
2341 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q96_A6-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.8.15" target="asv">Prov. 8:15</a>): "By Me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things." Therefore we should not judge of the intention of the lawgiver otherwise
2342 than by the words of the law.
2343 </p>
2344 <p id="FS_Q96_A6-p5">
2345 <b>On the contrary,</b> Hilary says (De Trin. iv): "The meaning of what is said is according to the motive for saying it: because things are not
2346 subject to speech, but speech to things." Therefore we should take account of the motive of the lawgiver, rather than of his
2347 very words.
2348 </p>
2349 <p id="FS_Q96_A6-p6">
2350 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
2351 <a id="FS_Q96_A6-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q96_A4.html">(A[4])</a>, every law is directed to the common weal of men, and derives the force and nature of law accordingly. Hence the jurist says
2352 [*Pandect. Justin. lib. i, ff., tit. 3, De Leg. et Senat.]: "By no reason of law, or favor of equity, is it allowable for
2353 us to interpret harshly, and render burdensome, those useful measures which have been enacted for the welfare of man." Now
2354 it happens often that the observance of some
2355 point of law conduces to the common weal in the majority of instances, and yet, in some cases, is very hurtful. Since then
2356 the lawgiver cannot have in view every single case, he shapes the law according to what happens most frequently, by directing
2357 his attention to the common good. Wherefore if a case arise wherein the observance of that law would be hurtful to the general
2358 welfare, it should not be observed. For instance, suppose that in a besieged city it be an established law that the gates
2359 of the city are to be kept closed, this is good for public welfare as a general rule: but, it were to happen that the enemy
2360 are in pursuit of certain citizens, who are defenders of the city, it would be a great loss to the city, if the gates were
2361 not opened to them: and so in that case the gates ought to be opened, contrary to the letter of the law, in order to maintain
2362 the common weal, which the lawgiver had in view.
2363 </p>
2364 <p id="FS_Q96_A6-p7"> Nevertheless it must be noted, that if the observance of the law according to the letter does not involve any sudden risk
2365 needing instant remedy, it is not competent for everyone to expound what is useful and what is not useful to the state: those
2366 alone can do this who are in authority, and who, on account of such like cases, have the power to dispense from the laws.
2367 If, however, the peril be so sudden as not to allow of the delay involved by referring the matter to authority,
2368 the mere necessity brings with it a dispensation, since necessity knows no law.
2369 </p>
2370 <p id="FS_Q96_A6-p8">
2371 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> He who in a case of necessity acts beside the letter of the law, does not judge the law; but of a particular case in which
2372 he sees that the letter of the law is not to be observed.
2373 </p>
2374 <p id="FS_Q96_A6-p9">
2375 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> He who follows the intention of the lawgiver, does not interpret the law simply; but in a case in which it is evident, by
2376 reason of the manifest harm, that the lawgiver intended otherwise. For if it be a matter of doubt, he must either act according
2377 to the letter of the law, or consult those in power.
2378 </p>
2379 <p id="FS_Q96_A6-p10">
2380 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> No man is so wise as to be able to take account of every single case; wherefore he is not able sufficiently to express in
2381 words all those things that are suitable for the end he has in view. And even if a lawgiver were able to take all the cases
2382 into consideration, he ought not to mention them all, in order to avoid confusion: but should frame the law according to that
2383 which is of most common occurrence.
2384 </p>
2385 <p id="FS_Q96_A6-p11"></p>
2386 <p id="FS_Q96_A6-p12"></p>
2387 <a href="summa.FS_Q96_A5.html"></a>
2388 <a href="summa.FS_Q97.html"></a>
2389 </div>
2390 <a href="summa.FS_Q95_A4.html"></a>
2391 <a href="summa.FS_Q96_A1.html"></a>
2392 </div>
2393 <div id="FS_Q97" class="div3">
2394 <a href="summa.FS_Q96_A6.html"></a>
2395 <a href="summa.FS_Q97_A1.html"></a>
2396 <h3 id="FS_Q97-p0.1">OF CHANGE IN LAWS (FOUR ARTICLES) </h3>
2397 <p id="FS_Q97-p1"></p>
2398 <p id="FS_Q97-p2"> We must now consider change in laws: under which head there are four points of inquiry:</p>
2399 <p id="FS_Q97-p3"> (1) Whether human law is changeable?</p>
2400 <p id="FS_Q97-p4"> (2) Whether it should be always changed, whenever anything better occurs?</p>
2401 <p id="FS_Q97-p5"> (3) Whether it is abolished by custom, and whether custom obtains the force of law?</p>
2402 <p id="FS_Q97-p6"> (4) Whether the application of human law should be changed by dispensation of those in authority?</p>
2403 <div id="FS_Q97_A1" class="div4">
2404 <a href="summa.FS_Q97.html"></a>
2405 <a href="summa.FS_Q97_A2.html"></a>
2406 <h4 id="FS_Q97_A1-p0.1">Whether human law should be changed in any way?</h4>
2407 <p id="FS_Q97_A1-p1"></p>
2408 <p id="FS_Q97_A1-p2">
2409 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that human law should not be changed in any way at all. Because human law is derived from the natural law,
2410 as stated above (
2411 <a id="FS_Q97_A1-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q95_A2.html">Q[95], A[2]</a>). But the natural law endures unchangeably. Therefore human law should also remain without any change.
2412 </p>
2413 <p id="FS_Q97_A1-p3">
2414 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 5), a measure should be absolutely stable. But human law is the measure of human
2415 acts, as stated above (
2416 <a id="FS_Q97_A1-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q90_A1.html">Q[90], AA[1]</a>,2). Therefore it should remain without change.
2417 </p>
2418 <p id="FS_Q97_A1-p4">
2419 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is of the essence of law to be just and right, as stated above (
2420 <a id="FS_Q97_A1-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q95_A2.html">Q[95], A[2]</a>). But that which is right once is right always. Therefore that which is law once, should be always law.
2421 </p>
2422 <p id="FS_Q97_A1-p5">
2423 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 6): "A temporal law, however just, may be justly changed in course of time."
2424 </p>
2425 <p id="FS_Q97_A1-p6">
2426 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
2427 <a id="FS_Q97_A1-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q91_A3.html">Q[91], A[3]</a>), human law is a dictate of reason, whereby human acts are directed. Thus there may be two causes for the just change of
2428 human law: one on the part of reason; the other on the part of man whose acts are regulated by law. The cause on the part
2429 of reason is that it seems natural to human reason to advance gradually from the imperfect to the perfect. Hence, in speculative
2430 sciences, we see that the teaching
2431 of the early philosophers was imperfect, and that it was afterwards perfected by those who succeeded them. So also in practical
2432 matters: for those who first endeavored to discover something useful for the human community, not being able by themselves
2433 to take everything into consideration, set up certain institutions which were deficient in many ways; and these were changed
2434 by subsequent lawgivers who made institutions that might prove less frequently deficient in respect of the common weal.
2435 </p>
2436 <p id="FS_Q97_A1-p7"> On the part of man, whose acts are regulated by law, the law can be rightly changed on account of the changed condition of
2437 man, to whom different things are expedient according to the difference of his condition. An example is proposed by Augustine
2438 (De Lib. Arb. i, 6): "If the people have a sense of moderation and responsibility, and are most careful guardians of the common
2439 weal, it is right to enact a law allowing such a people to choose their own magistrates for the government
2440 of the commonwealth. But if, as time goes on, the same people become so corrupt as to sell their votes, and entrust the government
2441 to scoundrels and criminals; then the right of appointing their public officials is rightly forfeit to such a people, and
2442 the choice devolves to a few good men."
2443 </p>
2444 <p id="FS_Q97_A1-p8">
2445 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The natural law is a participation of the eternal law, as stated above (
2446 <a id="FS_Q97_A1-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q91_A2.html">Q[91], A[2]</a>), and therefore endures without change, owing to the unchangeableness and perfection of the Divine Reason, the Author of
2447 nature. But the reason of man is changeable and imperfect: wherefore his law is subject to change. Moreover the natural law
2448 contains certain universal precepts, which are everlasting: whereas human law contains certain
2449 particular precepts, according to various emergencies.
2450 </p>
2451 <p id="FS_Q97_A1-p9">
2452 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> A measure should be as enduring as possible. But nothing can be absolutely unchangeable in things that are subject to change.
2453 And therefore human law cannot be altogether unchangeable.
2454 </p>
2455 <p id="FS_Q97_A1-p10">
2456 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In corporal things, right is predicated absolutely: and therefore, as far as itself is concerned, always remains right. But
2457 right is predicated of law with reference to the common weal, to which one and the same thing is not always adapted, as stated
2458 above: wherefore rectitude of this kind is subject to change.
2459 </p>
2460 <p id="FS_Q97_A1-p11"></p>
2461 <p id="FS_Q97_A1-p12"></p>
2462 <a href="summa.FS_Q97.html"></a>
2463 <a href="summa.FS_Q97_A2.html"></a>
2464 </div>
2465 <div id="FS_Q97_A2" class="div4">
2466 <a href="summa.FS_Q97_A1.html"></a>
2467 <a href="summa.FS_Q97_A3.html"></a>
2468 <h4 id="FS_Q97_A2-p0.1">Whether human law should always be changed, whenever something better occurs?</h4>
2469 <p id="FS_Q97_A2-p1"></p>
2470 <p id="FS_Q97_A2-p2">
2471 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that human law should be changed, whenever something better occurs. Because human laws are devised by human
2472 reason, like other arts. But in the other arts, the tenets of former times give place to others, if something better occurs.
2473 Therefore the same should apply to human laws.
2474 </p>
2475 <p id="FS_Q97_A2-p3">
2476 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, by taking note of the past we can provide for the future. Now unless human laws had been changed when it was found
2477 possible to improve them, considerable inconvenience would have ensued; because the laws of old were crude in many points.
2478 Therefore it seems that laws should be changed, whenever anything better occurs to be enacted.
2479 </p>
2480 <p id="FS_Q97_A2-p4">
2481 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, human laws are enacted about single acts of man. But we cannot acquire perfect knowledge in singular matters, except
2482 by experience, which "requires time," as stated in Ethic. ii. Therefore it seems that as time goes on it is possible for something
2483 better to occur for legislation.
2484 </p>
2485 <p id="FS_Q97_A2-p5">
2486 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is stated in the Decretals (Dist. xii, 5): "It is absurd, and a detestable shame, that we should suffer those traditions
2487 to be changed which we have received from the fathers of old."
2488 </p>
2489 <p id="FS_Q97_A2-p6">
2490 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
2491 <a id="FS_Q97_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q97_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, human law is rightly changed, in so far as such change is conducive to the common weal. But, to a certain extent, the mere
2492 change of law is of itself prejudicial to the common good: because custom avails much for the observance of laws, seeing that
2493 what is done contrary to general custom, even in slight matters, is looked upon as grave. Consequently, when a law is changed,
2494 the binding power of the law is
2495 diminished, in so far as custom is abolished. Wherefore human law should never be changed, unless, in some way or other, the
2496 common weal be compensated according to the extent of the harm done in this respect. Such compensation may arise either from
2497 some very great and every evident benefit conferred by the new enactment; or from the extreme urgency of the case, due to
2498 the fact that either the existing law is clearly unjust, or its observance extremely harmful. Wherefore the jurist says
2499 [*Pandect. Justin. lib. i, ff., tit. 4, De Constit. Princip.] that "in establishing new laws, there should be evidence of
2500 the benefit to be derived, before departing from a law which has long been considered just."
2501 </p>
2502 <p id="FS_Q97_A2-p7">
2503 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Rules of art derive their force from reason alone: and therefore whenever something better occurs, the rule followed hitherto
2504 should be changed. But "laws derive very great force from custom," as the Philosopher states (Polit. ii, 5): consequently
2505 they should not be quickly changed.
2506 </p>
2507 <p id="FS_Q97_A2-p8">
2508 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This argument proves that laws ought to be changed: not in view of any improvement, but for the sake of a great benefit or
2509 in a case of great urgency, as stated above. This answer applies also to the Third Objection.
2510 </p>
2511 <p id="FS_Q97_A2-p9"></p>
2512 <p id="FS_Q97_A2-p10"></p>
2513 <a href="summa.FS_Q97_A1.html"></a>
2514 <a href="summa.FS_Q97_A3.html"></a>
2515 </div>
2516 <div id="FS_Q97_A3" class="div4">
2517 <a href="summa.FS_Q97_A2.html"></a>
2518 <a href="summa.FS_Q97_A4.html"></a>
2519 <h4 id="FS_Q97_A3-p0.1">Whether custom can obtain force of law?</h4>
2520 <p id="FS_Q97_A3-p1"></p>
2521 <p id="FS_Q97_A3-p2">
2522 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that custom cannot obtain force of law, nor abolish a law. Because human law is derived from the natural law
2523 and from the Divine law, as stated above (
2524 <a id="FS_Q97_A3-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q93_A3.html">Q[93], A[3]</a>;
2525 <a id="FS_Q97_A3-p2.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q95_A2.html"> Q[95], A[2]</a>). But human custom cannot change either the law of nature or the Divine law. Therefore neither can it change human law.
2526 </p>
2527 <p id="FS_Q97_A3-p3">
2528 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, many evils cannot make one good. But he who first acted against the law, did evil. Therefore by multiplying such
2529 acts, nothing good is the result. Now a law is something good; since it is a rule of human acts. Therefore law is not abolished
2530 by custom, so that the mere custom should obtain force of law.
2531 </p>
2532 <p id="FS_Q97_A3-p4">
2533 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the framing of laws belongs to those public men whose business it is to govern the community; wherefore private
2534 individuals cannot make laws. But custom grows by the acts of private individuals. Therefore custom cannot obtain force of
2535 law, so as to abolish the law.
2536 </p>
2537 <p id="FS_Q97_A3-p5">
2538 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (Ep. ad Casulan. xxxvi): "The customs of God's people and the institutions of our ancestors are to be considered
2539 as laws. And those who throw contempt on the customs of the Church ought to be punished as those who disobey the law of God."
2540 </p>
2541 <p id="FS_Q97_A3-p6">
2542 <b>I answer that,</b> All law proceeds from the reason and will of the lawgiver; the Divine and natural laws from the reasonable will of God; the
2543 human law from the will of man, regulated by reason. Now just as human reason and will, in practical matters, may be made
2544 manifest by speech, so may they be made known by deeds: since seemingly a man chooses as good that which he carries into execution.
2545 But it is evident that by human speech, law can be both changed and expounded, in so
2546 far as it manifests the interior movement and thought of human reason. Wherefore by actions also, especially if they be repeated,
2547 so as to make a custom, law can be changed and expounded; and also something can be established which obtains force of law,
2548 in so far as by repeated external actions, the inward movement of the will, and concepts of reason are most effectually declared;
2549 for when a thing is done again and again, it seems to proceed from a deliberate judgment of reason. Accordingly,
2550 custom has the force of a law, abolishes law, and is the interpreter of law.
2551 </p>
2552 <p id="FS_Q97_A3-p7">
2553 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The natural and Divine laws proceed from the Divine will, as stated above. Wherefore they cannot be changed by a custom proceeding
2554 from the will of man, but only by Divine authority. Hence it is that no custom can prevail over the Divine or natural laws:
2555 for Isidore says (Synon. ii, 16): "Let custom yield to authority: evil customs should be eradicated by law and reason."
2556 </p>
2557 <p id="FS_Q97_A3-p8">
2558 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As stated above (
2559 <a id="FS_Q97_A3-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q96_A6.html">Q[96], A[6]</a>), human laws fail in some cases: wherefore it is possible sometimes to act beside the law; namely, in a case where the law
2560 fails; yet the act will not be evil. And when such cases are multiplied, by reason of some change in man, then custom shows
2561 that the law is no longer useful: just as it might be declared by the verbal promulgation of a law to the contrary. If, however,
2562 the same reason remains,
2563 for which the law was useful hitherto, then it is not the custom that prevails against the law, but the law that overcomes
2564 the custom: unless perhaps the sole reason for the law seeming useless, be that it is not "possible according to the custom
2565 of the country" [*
2566 <a id="FS_Q97_A3-p8.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q95_A3.html">Q[95], A[3]</a>], which has been stated to be one of the conditions of law. For it is not easy to set aside the custom of a whole people.
2567 </p>
2568 <p id="FS_Q97_A3-p9">
2569 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The people among whom a custom is introduced may be of two conditions. For if they are free, and able to make their own laws,
2570 the consent of the whole people expressed by a custom counts far more in favor of a particular observance, that does the authority
2571 of the sovereign, who has not the power to frame laws, except as representing the people. Wherefore although each individual
2572 cannot make laws, yet the whole people can. If however the people have
2573 not the free power to make their own laws, or to abolish a law made by a higher authority; nevertheless with such a people
2574 a prevailing custom obtains force of law, in so far as it is tolerated by those to whom it belongs to make laws for that people:
2575 because by the very fact that they tolerate it they seem to approve of that which is introduced by custom.
2576 </p>
2577 <p id="FS_Q97_A3-p10"></p>
2578 <p id="FS_Q97_A3-p11"></p>
2579 <a href="summa.FS_Q97_A2.html"></a>
2580 <a href="summa.FS_Q97_A4.html"></a>
2581 </div>
2582 <div id="FS_Q97_A4" class="div4">
2583 <a href="summa.FS_Q97_A3.html"></a>
2584 <a href="summa.FS_Q98.html"></a>
2585 <h4 id="FS_Q97_A4-p0.1">Whether the rulers of the people can dispense from human laws?</h4>
2586 <p id="FS_Q97_A4-p1"></p>
2587 <p id="FS_Q97_A4-p2">
2588 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the rulers of the people cannot dispense from human laws. For the law is established for the "common weal,"
2589 as Isidore says (Etym. v, 21). But the common good should not be set aside for the private convenience of an individual: because,
2590 as the Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 2), "the good of the nation is more godlike than the good of one man." Therefore it seems
2591 that a man should not be dispensed from acting in compliance with the general
2592 law.
2593 </p>
2594 <p id="FS_Q97_A4-p3">
2595 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, those who are placed over others are commanded as follows (
2596 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q97_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.1.17" target="asv">Dt. 1:17</a>): "You shall hear the little as well as the great; neither shall you respect any man's person, because it is the judgment
2597 of God." But to allow one man to do that which is equally forbidden to all, seems to be respect of persons. Therefore the
2598 rulers of a community cannot grant such dispensations, since this is against a precept of the Divine law.
2599 </p>
2600 <p id="FS_Q97_A4-p4">
2601 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, human law, in order to be just, should accord with the natural and Divine laws: else it would not "foster religion,"
2602 nor be "helpful to discipline," which is requisite to the nature of law, as laid down by Isidore (Etym. v, 3). But no man
2603 can dispense from the Divine and natural laws. Neither, therefore, can he dispense from the human law.
2604 </p>
2605 <p id="FS_Q97_A4-p5">
2606 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
2607 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q97_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.9.17" target="asv">1 Cor. 9:17</a>): "A dispensation is committed to me."
2608 </p>
2609 <p id="FS_Q97_A4-p6">
2610 <b>I answer that,</b> Dispensation, properly speaking, denotes a measuring out to individuals of some common goods: thus the head of a household
2611 is called a dispenser, because to each member of the household he distributes work and necessaries of life in due weight and
2612 measure. Accordingly in every community a man is said to dispense, from the very fact that he directs how some general precept
2613 is to be fulfilled by each individual. Now it happens at times that a precept, which is
2614 conducive to the common weal as a general rule, is not good for a particular individual, or in some particular case, either
2615 because it would hinder some greater good, or because it would be the occasion of some evil, as explained above (
2616 <a id="FS_Q97_A4-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q96_A6.html">Q[96], A[6]</a>). But it would be dangerous to leave this to the discretion of each individual, except perhaps by reason of an evident and
2617 sudden emergency, as stated above (
2618 <a id="FS_Q97_A4-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q96_A6.html">Q[96], A[6]</a>). Consequently he who is
2619 placed over a community is empowered to dispense in a human law that rests upon his authority, so that, when the law fails
2620 in its application to persons or circumstances, he may allow the precept of the law not to be observed. If however he grant
2621 this permission without any such reason, and of his mere will, he will be an unfaithful or an imprudent dispenser: unfaithful,
2622 if he has not the common good in view; imprudent, if he ignores the reasons for granting dispensations. Hence Our Lord says
2623 (
2624 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q97_A4-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Luke.12.42" target="asv">Lk. 12:42</a>): "Who, thinkest thou, is the faithful and wise dispenser [Douay: steward], whom his lord setteth over his family?"
2625 </p>
2626 <p id="FS_Q97_A4-p7">
2627 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> When a person is dispensed from observing the general law, this should not be done to the prejudice of, but with the intention
2628 of benefiting, the common good.
2629 </p>
2630 <p id="FS_Q97_A4-p8">
2631 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> It is not respect of persons if unequal measures are served out to those who are themselves unequal. Wherefore when the condition
2632 of any person requires that he should reasonably receive special treatment, it is not respect of persons if he be the object
2633 of special favor.
2634 </p>
2635 <p id="FS_Q97_A4-p9">
2636 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Natural law, so far as it contains general precepts, which never fail, does not allow of dispensations. In other precepts,
2637 however, which are as conclusions of the general precepts, man sometimes grants a dispensation: for instance, that a loan
2638 should not be paid back to the betrayer of his country, or something similar. But to the Divine law each man stands as a private
2639 person to the public law to which he is subject. Wherefore just as none can
2640 dispense from public human law, except the man from whom the law derives its authority, or his delegate; so, in the precepts
2641 of the Divine law, which are from God, none can dispense but God, or the man to whom He may give special power for that purpose.
2642 </p>
2643 <p id="FS_Q97_A4-p10"></p>
2644 <p id="FS_Q97_A4-p11"></p>
2645 <a href="summa.FS_Q97_A3.html"></a>
2646 <a href="summa.FS_Q98.html"></a>
2647 </div>
2648 <a href="summa.FS_Q96_A6.html"></a>
2649 <a href="summa.FS_Q97_A1.html"></a>
2650 </div>
2651 <div id="FS_Q98" class="div3">
2652 <a href="summa.FS_Q97_A4.html"></a>
2653 <a href="summa.FS_Q98_A1.html"></a>
2654 <h3 id="FS_Q98-p0.1">OF THE OLD LAW (SIX ARTICLES)</h3>
2655 <p id="FS_Q98-p1"></p>
2656 <p id="FS_Q98-p2"> In due sequence we must now consider the Old Law; and (1) The Law itself; (2) Its precepts. Under the first head there are
2657 six points of inquiry:
2658 </p>
2659 <p id="FS_Q98-p3"> (1) Whether the Old Law was good?</p>
2660 <p id="FS_Q98-p4"> (2) Whether it was from God?</p>
2661 <p id="FS_Q98-p5"> (3) Whether it came from Him through the angels?</p>
2662 <p id="FS_Q98-p6"> (4) Whether it was given to all?</p>
2663 <p id="FS_Q98-p7"> (5) Whether it was binding on all?</p>
2664 <p id="FS_Q98-p8"> (6) Whether it was given at a suitable time?</p>
2665 <div id="FS_Q98_A1" class="div4">
2666 <a href="summa.FS_Q98.html"></a>
2667 <a href="summa.FS_Q98_A2.html"></a>
2668 <h4 id="FS_Q98_A1-p0.1">Whether the Old Law was good?</h4>
2669 <p id="FS_Q98_A1-p1"></p>
2670 <p id="FS_Q98_A1-p2">
2671 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Old Law was not good. For it is written (
2672 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Ezek.20.25" target="asv">Ezech. 20:25</a>): "I gave them statutes that were not good, and judgments in which they shall not live." But a law is not said to be good
2673 except on account of the goodness of the precepts that it contains. Therefore the Old Law was not good.
2674 </p>
2675 <p id="FS_Q98_A1-p3">
2676 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it belongs to the goodness of a law that it conduce to the common welfare, as Isidore says (Etym. v, 3). But the
2677 Old Law was not salutary; rather was it deadly and hurtful. For the Apostle says (
2678 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.7.8" target="asv">Rom. 7:8</a>, seqq.): "Without the law sin was dead. And I lived some time without the law. But when the commandment came sin revived;
2679 and I died." Again he says (
2680 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A1-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.20" target="asv">Rom. 5:20</a>): "Law entered in that sin might abound." Therefore the Old Law was not
2681 good.
2682 </p>
2683 <p id="FS_Q98_A1-p4">
2684 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it belongs to the goodness of the law that it should be possible to obey it, both according to nature, and according
2685 to human custom. But such the Old Law was not: since Peter said (
2686 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.15.10" target="asv">Acts 15:10</a>): "Why tempt you (God) to put a yoke on the necks of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?"
2687 Therefore it seems that the Old Law was not good.
2688 </p>
2689 <p id="FS_Q98_A1-p5">
2690 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
2691 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.7.12" target="asv">Rom. 7:12</a>): "Wherefore the law indeed is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good."
2692 </p>
2693 <p id="FS_Q98_A1-p6">
2694 <b>I answer that,</b> Without any doubt, the Old Law was good. For just as a doctrine is shown to be good by the fact that it accords with right
2695 reason, so is a law proved to be good if it accords with reason. Now the Old Law was in accordance with reason. Because it
2696 repressed concupiscence which is in conflict with reason, as evidenced by the commandment, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's
2697 goods" (
2698 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.20.17" target="asv">Ex. 20:17</a>). Moreover the same law forbade all kinds of sin;
2699 and these too are contrary to reason. Consequently it is evident that it was a good law. The Apostle argues in the same way
2700 (
2701 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A1-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.7" target="asv">Rom. 7</a>): "I am delighted," says he (verse 22), "with the law of God, according to the inward man": and again (verse 16): "I consent
2702 to the law, that is good."
2703 </p>
2704 <p id="FS_Q98_A1-p7"> But it must be noted that the good has various degrees, as Dionysius states (Div. Nom. iv): for there is a perfect good,
2705 and an imperfect good. In things ordained to an end, there is perfect goodness when a thing is such that it is sufficient
2706 in itself to conduce to the end: while there is imperfect goodness when a thing is of some assistance in attaining the end,
2707 but is not sufficient for the realization thereof. Thus a medicine is perfectly good, if it gives health to a man;
2708 but it is imperfect, if it helps to cure him, without being able to bring him back to health. Again it must be observed that
2709 the end of human law is different from the end of Divine law. For the end of human law is the temporal tranquillity of the
2710 state, which end law effects by directing external actions, as regards those evils which might disturb the peaceful condition
2711 of the state. On the other hand, the end of the Divine law is to bring man to that end which is everlasting happiness; which
2712 end is hindered by any sin, not only of external, but also of internal action. Consequently that which suffices for the perfection
2713 of human law, viz. the prohibition and punishment of sin, does not suffice for the perfection of the Divine law: but it is
2714 requisite that it should make man altogether fit to partake of everlasting happiness. Now this cannot be done save by the
2715 grace of the Holy Ghost, whereby "charity" which fulfilleth the law . . . "is spread abroad in our hearts" (
2716 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.5" target="asv">Rom.
2717 5:5
2718 </a>): since "the grace of God is life everlasting" (
2719 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A1-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.6.23" target="asv">Rom. 6:23</a>). But the Old Law could not confer this grace, for this was reserved to Christ; because, as it is written (
2720 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A1-p7.3" href="./asv.html#John.1.17" target="asv">Jn. 1:17</a>), the law was given "by Moses, grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." Consequently the Old Law was good indeed, but imperfect,
2721 according to
2722 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A1-p7.4" href="./asv.html#Heb.7.19" target="asv"> Heb. 7:19</a>: "The law brought nothing to perfection."
2723 </p>
2724 <p id="FS_Q98_A1-p8">
2725 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Lord refers there to the ceremonial precepts; which are said not to be good, because they did not confer grace unto the
2726 remission of sins, although by fulfilling these precepts man confessed himself a sinner. Hence it is said pointedly, "and
2727 judgments in which they shall not live"; i.e. whereby they are unable to obtain life; and so the text goes on: "And I polluted
2728 them," i.e. showed them to be polluted, "in their own gifts, when they offered all
2729 that opened the womb, for their offenses."
2730 </p>
2731 <p id="FS_Q98_A1-p9">
2732 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The law is said to have been deadly, as being not the cause, but the occasion of death, on account of its imperfection: in
2733 so far as it did not confer grace enabling man to fulfil what is prescribed, and to avoid what it forbade. Hence this occasion
2734 was not given to men, but taken by them. Wherefore the Apostle says (
2735 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A1-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.11" target="asv">Rom. 5:11</a>): "Sin, taking occasion by the commandment, seduced me, and by it killed me." In the same sense when it is
2736 said that "the law entered in that sin might abound," the conjunction "that" must be taken as consecutive and not final: in
2737 so far as men, taking occasion from the law, sinned all the more, both because a sin became more grievous after law had forbidden
2738 it, and because concupiscence increased, since we desire a thing the more from its being forbidden.
2739 </p>
2740 <p id="FS_Q98_A1-p10">
2741 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The yoke of the law could not be borne without the help of grace, which the law did not confer: for it is written (
2742 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A1-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.9.16" target="asv">Rom. 9:16</a>): "It is not him that willeth, nor of him that runneth," viz. that he wills and runs in the commandments of God, "but of
2743 God that showeth mercy." Wherefore it is written (
2744 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A1-p10.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.118.32" target="asv">Ps. 118:32</a>): "I have run the way of Thy commandments, when Thou didst enlarge my heart," i.e. by giving me grace and
2745 charity.
2746 </p>
2747 <p id="FS_Q98_A1-p11"></p>
2748 <p id="FS_Q98_A1-p12"></p>
2749 <a href="summa.FS_Q98.html"></a>
2750 <a href="summa.FS_Q98_A2.html"></a>
2751 </div>
2752 <div id="FS_Q98_A2" class="div4">
2753 <a href="summa.FS_Q98_A1.html"></a>
2754 <a href="summa.FS_Q98_A3.html"></a>
2755 <h4 id="FS_Q98_A2-p0.1">Whether the Old Law was from God?</h4>
2756 <p id="FS_Q98_A2-p1"></p>
2757 <p id="FS_Q98_A2-p2">
2758 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Old Law was not from God. For it is written (
2759 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.32.4" target="asv">Dt. 32:4</a>): "The works of God are perfect." But the Law was imperfect, as stated above
2760 <a id="FS_Q98_A2-p2.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q98_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. Therefore the Old Law was not from God.
2761 </p>
2762 <p id="FS_Q98_A2-p3">
2763 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is written (
2764 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Eccl.3.14" target="asv">Eccles. 3:14</a>): "I have learned that all the works which God hath made continue for ever." But the Old Law does not continue for ever:
2765 since the Apostle says (
2766 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A2-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.7.18" target="asv">Heb. 7:18</a>): "There is indeed a setting aside of the former commandment, because of the weakness and unprofitableness thereof." Therefore
2767 the Old Law was not from God.
2768 </p>
2769 <p id="FS_Q98_A2-p4">
2770 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a wise lawgiver should remove, not only evil, but also the occasions of evil. But the Old Law was an occasion of
2771 sin, as stated above (A[1], ad 2). Therefore the giving of such a law does not pertain to God, to Whom "none is like among
2772 the lawgivers" (
2773 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Job.36.22" target="asv">Job 36:22</a>).
2774 </p>
2775 <p id="FS_Q98_A2-p5">
2776 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, it is written (
2777 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.2.4" target="asv">1 Tim. 2:4</a>) that God "will have all men to be saved." But the Old Law did not suffice to save man, as stated above
2778 <a id="FS_Q98_A2-p5.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q98_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. Therefore the giving of such a law did not appertain to God. Therefore the Old Law was not from God.
2779 </p>
2780 <p id="FS_Q98_A2-p6">
2781 <b>On the contrary,</b> Our Lord said (
2782 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.15.6" target="asv">Mat. 15:6</a>) while speaking to the Jews, to whom the Law was given: "You have made void the commandment of God for your tradition." And
2783 shortly before (verse 4) He had said: "Honor thy father and mother," which is contained expressly in the Old Law (
2784 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A2-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Exod.20.12" target="asv">Ex. 20:12</a>;
2785 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A2-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Deut.5.16" target="asv"> Dt. 5:16</a>). Therefore the Old Law was from God.
2786 </p>
2787 <p id="FS_Q98_A2-p7">
2788 <b>I answer that,</b> The Old Law was given by the good God, Who is the Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. For the Old Law ordained men to Christ
2789 in two ways. First by bearing witness to Christ; wherefore He Himself says (
2790 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.24.44" target="asv">Lk. 24:44</a>): "All things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law . . . and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning
2791 Me": and (
2792 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A2-p7.2" href="./asv.html#John.5.46" target="asv">Jn. 5:46</a>): "If you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe Me also; for he wrote of Me." Secondly, as a kind of
2793 disposition, since by withdrawing men from idolatrous worship, it enclosed [concludebat] them in the worship of one God, by
2794 Whom the human race was to be saved through Christ. Wherefore the Apostle says (
2795 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A2-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Gal.3.23" target="asv">Gal. 3:23</a>): "Before the faith came, we were kept under the law shut up [conclusi], unto that faith which was to be revealed." Now it
2796 is evident that the same thing it is, which gives a disposition to the end, and which brings to the end; and when I say "the
2797 same," I mean
2798 that it does so either by itself or through its subjects. For the devil would not make a law whereby men would be led to Christ,
2799 Who was to cast him out, according to
2800 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A2-p7.4" href="./asv.html#Matt.12.26" target="asv"> Mat. 12:26</a>: "If Satan cast out Satan, his kingdom is divided" [Vulg.: 'he is divided against himself']. Therefore the Old Law was given
2801 by the same God, from Whom came salvation to man, through the grace of Christ.
2802 </p>
2803 <p id="FS_Q98_A2-p8">
2804 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Nothing prevents a thing being not perfect simply, and yet perfect in respect of time: thus a boy is said to be perfect,
2805 not simply, but with regard to the condition of time. So, too, precepts that are given to children are perfect in comparison
2806 with the condition of those to whom they are given, although they are not perfect simply. Hence the Apostle says (
2807 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A2-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.3.24" target="asv">Gal. 3:24</a>): "The law was our pedagogue in Christ."
2808 </p>
2809 <p id="FS_Q98_A2-p9">
2810 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Those works of God endure for ever which God so made that they would endure for ever; and these are His perfect works. But
2811 the Old Law was set aside when there came the perfection of grace; not as though it were evil, but as being weak and useless
2812 for this time; because, as the Apostle goes on to say, "the law brought nothing to perfection": hence he says (
2813 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A2-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.3.25" target="asv">Gal. 3:25</a>): "After the faith is come, we are no longer under a
2814 pedagogue."
2815 </p>
2816 <p id="FS_Q98_A2-p10">
2817 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated above (
2818 <a id="FS_Q98_A2-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q79_A4.html">Q[79], A[4]</a>), God sometimes permits certain ones to fall into sin, that they may thereby be humbled. So also did He wish to give such
2819 a law as men by their own forces could not fulfill, so that, while presuming on their own powers, they might find themselves
2820 to be sinners, and being humbled might have recourse to the help of grace.
2821 </p>
2822 <p id="FS_Q98_A2-p11">
2823 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Although the Old Law did not suffice to save man, yet another help from God besides the Law was available for man, viz. faith
2824 in the Mediator, by which the fathers of old were justified even as we were. Accordingly God did not fail man by giving him
2825 insufficient aids to salvation.
2826 </p>
2827 <p id="FS_Q98_A2-p12"></p>
2828 <p id="FS_Q98_A2-p13"></p>
2829 <a href="summa.FS_Q98_A1.html"></a>
2830 <a href="summa.FS_Q98_A3.html"></a>
2831 </div>
2832 <div id="FS_Q98_A3" class="div4">
2833 <a href="summa.FS_Q98_A2.html"></a>
2834 <a href="summa.FS_Q98_A4.html"></a>
2835 <h4 id="FS_Q98_A3-p0.1">Whether the Old Law was given through the angels?</h4>
2836 <p id="FS_Q98_A3-p1"></p>
2837 <p id="FS_Q98_A3-p2">
2838 <b>Objection 1:</b> It seems that the Old Law was not given through the angels, but immediately by God. For an angel means a "messenger"; so
2839 that the word "angel" denotes ministry, not lordship, according to
2840 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.102.20" target="asv"> Ps. 102:20,21</a>: "Bless the Lord, all ye His Angels . . . you ministers of His." But the Old Law is related to have been given by the Lord:
2841 for it is written (
2842 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A3-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Exod.20.1" target="asv">Ex. 20:1</a>): "And the Lord spoke . . . these words," and further on: "I am the Lord Thy God."
2843 Moreover the same expression is often repeated in Exodus, and the later books of the Law. Therefore the Law was given by God
2844 immediately.
2845 </p>
2846 <p id="FS_Q98_A3-p3">
2847 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, according to
2848 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.17" target="asv"> Jn. 1:17, </a> "the Law was given by Moses." But Moses received it from God immediately: for it is written (
2849 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A3-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Exod.33.11" target="asv">Ex. 33:11</a>): "The Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man is wont to speak to his friend." Therefore the Old Law was given by God
2850 immediately.
2851 </p>
2852 <p id="FS_Q98_A3-p4">
2853 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it belongs to the sovereign alone to make a law, as stated above (
2854 <a id="FS_Q98_A3-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q90_A3.html">Q[90], A[3]</a>). But God alone is Sovereign as regards the salvation of souls: while the angels are the "ministering spirits," as stated
2855 in
2856 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A3-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.1.14" target="asv"> Heb. 1:14.</a> Therefore it was not meet for the Law to be given through the angels, since it is ordained to the salvation of souls.
2857 </p>
2858 <p id="FS_Q98_A3-p5">
2859 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle said (
2860 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.3.19" target="asv">Gal. 3:19</a>) that the Law was "given [Vulg.: 'ordained'] by angels in the hand of a Mediator." And Stephen said (
2861 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A3-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Acts.7.53" target="asv">Acts 7:53</a>): "(Who) have received the Law by the disposition of angels."
2862 </p>
2863 <p id="FS_Q98_A3-p6">
2864 <b>I answer that,</b> The Law was given by God through the angels. And besides the general reason given by Dionysius (Coel. Hier. iv), viz. that
2865 "the gifts of God should be brought to men by means of the angels," there is a special reason why the Old Law should have
2866 been given through them. For it has been stated (
2867 <a id="FS_Q98_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q98_A1.html">AA[1]</a>,2) that the Old Law was imperfect, and yet disposed man to that perfect salvation of the human race, which was to come through
2868 Christ.
2869 Now it is to be observed that wherever there is an order of powers or arts, he that holds the highest place, himself exercises
2870 the principal and perfect acts; while those things which dispose to the ultimate perfection are effected by him through his
2871 subordinates: thus the ship-builder himself rivets the planks together, but prepares the material by means of the workmen
2872 who assist him under his direction. Consequently it was fitting that the perfect law of the New Testament should be given
2873 by
2874 the incarnate God immediately; but that the Old Law should be given to men by the ministers of God, i.e. by the angels. It
2875 is thus that the Apostle at the beginning of his epistle to the Hebrews (1:2) proves the excellence of the New Law over the
2876 Old; because in the New Testament "God . . . hath spoken to us by His Son," whereas in the Old Testament "the word was spoken
2877 by angels" (
2878 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A3-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.2.2" target="asv">Heb. 2:2</a>).
2879 </p>
2880 <p id="FS_Q98_A3-p7">
2881 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As Gregory says at the beginning of his Morals (Praef. chap. i), "the angel who is described to have appeared to Moses, is
2882 sometimes mentioned as an angel, sometimes as the Lord: an angel, in truth, in respect of that which was subservient to the
2883 external delivery; and the Lord, because He was the Director within, Who supported the effectual power of speaking." Hence
2884 also it is that the angel spoke as personating the Lord.
2885 </p>
2886 <p id="FS_Q98_A3-p8">
2887 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 27), it is stated in Exodus that "the Lord spoke to Moses face to face"; and shortly
2888 afterwards we read, "Show me Thy glory. Therefore He perceived what he saw and he desired what he saw not." Hence he did not
2889 see the very Essence of God; and consequently he was not taught by Him immediately. Accordingly when Scripture states that
2890 "He spoke to him face to face," this is to be understood as expressing the opinion of
2891 the people, who thought that Moses was speaking with God mouth to mouth, when God spoke and appeared to him, by means of a
2892 subordinate creature, i.e. an angel and a cloud. Again we may say that this vision "face to face" means some kind of sublime
2893 and familiar contemplation, inferior to the vision of the Divine Essence.
2894 </p>
2895 <p id="FS_Q98_A3-p9">
2896 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> It is for the sovereign alone to make a law by his own authority; but sometimes after making a law, he promulgates it through
2897 others. Thus God made the Law by His own authority, but He promulgated it through the angels.
2898 </p>
2899 <p id="FS_Q98_A3-p10"></p>
2900 <p id="FS_Q98_A3-p11"></p>
2901 <a href="summa.FS_Q98_A2.html"></a>
2902 <a href="summa.FS_Q98_A4.html"></a>
2903 </div>
2904 <div id="FS_Q98_A4" class="div4">
2905 <a href="summa.FS_Q98_A3.html"></a>
2906 <a href="summa.FS_Q98_A5.html"></a>
2907 <h4 id="FS_Q98_A4-p0.1">Whether the Old Law should have been given to the Jews alone?</h4>
2908 <p id="FS_Q98_A4-p1"></p>
2909 <p id="FS_Q98_A4-p2">
2910 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Old Law should not have been given to the Jews alone. For the Old Law disposed men for the salvation
2911 which was to come through Christ, as stated above (
2912 <a id="FS_Q98_A4-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q98_A2.html">AA[2]</a>,3). But that salvation was to come not to the Jews alone but to all nations, according to
2913 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A4-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Isa.49.6" target="asv"> Is. 49:6</a>: "It is a small thing that thou shouldst be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to convert the dregs of Israel.
2914 Behold I have
2915 given thee to be the light of the Gentiles, that thou mayest be My salvation, even to the farthest part of the earth." Therefore
2916 the Old Law should have been given to all nations, and not to one people only.
2917 </p>
2918 <p id="FS_Q98_A4-p3">
2919 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, according to
2920 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.10.34" target="asv"> Acts 10:34,35, </a> "God is not a respecter of persons: but in every nation, he that feareth Him, and worketh justice, is acceptable to Him."
2921 Therefore the way of salvation should not have been opened to one people more than to another.
2922 </p>
2923 <p id="FS_Q98_A4-p4">
2924 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the law was given through the angels, as stated above
2925 <a id="FS_Q98_A4-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q98_A3.html">(A[3])</a>. But God always vouchsafed the ministrations of the angels not to the Jews alone, but to all nations: for it is written (
2926 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A4-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Sir.17.14" target="asv">Ecclus. 17:14</a>): "Over every nation He set a ruler." Also on all nations He bestows temporal goods, which are of less account with God than
2927 spiritual goods. Therefore He should have given the Law also to all peoples.
2928 </p>
2929 <p id="FS_Q98_A4-p5">
2930 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
2931 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.3.1" target="asv">Rom. 3:1,2</a>): "What advantage then hath the Jew? . . . Much every way. First indeed, because the words of God were committed to them":
2932 and (
2933 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A4-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.147.9" target="asv">Ps. 147:9</a>): "He hath not done in like manner to every nation: and His judgments He hath not made manifest unto them."
2934 </p>
2935 <p id="FS_Q98_A4-p6">
2936 <b>I answer that,</b> It might be assigned as a reason for the Law being given to the Jews rather than to other peoples, that the Jewish people
2937 alone remained faithful to the worship of one God, while the others turned away to idolatry; wherefore the latter were unworthy
2938 to receive the Law, lest a holy thing should be given to dogs.
2939 </p>
2940 <p id="FS_Q98_A4-p7"> But this reason does not seem fitting: because that people turned to idolatry, even after the Law had been made, which was
2941 more grievous, as is clear from
2942 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.32" target="asv">Ex. 32</a> and from
2943 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A4-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Amos.5.25" target="asv"> Amos 5:25,26</a>: "Did you offer victims and sacrifices to Me in the desert for forty years, O house of Israel? But you carried a tabernacle
2944 for your Moloch, and the image of your idols, the star of your god, which you made to yourselves." Moreover it is stated expressly
2945 (
2946 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A4-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Deut.9.6" target="asv">Dt.
2947 9:6
2948 </a>): "Know therefore that the Lord thy God giveth thee not this excellent land in possession for thy justices, for thou art
2949 a very stiff-necked people": but the real reason is given in the preceding verse: "That the Lord might accomplish His word,
2950 which He promised by oath to thy fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."
2951 </p>
2952 <p id="FS_Q98_A4-p8"> What this promise was is shown by the Apostle, who says (
2953 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A4-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.3.16" target="asv">Gal. 3:16</a>) that "to Abraham were the promises made and to his seed. He saith not, 'And to his seeds,' as of many: but as of one, 'And
2954 to thy seed,' which is Christ." And so God vouchsafed both the Law and other special boons to that people, on account of the
2955 promised made to their fathers that Christ should be born of them. For it was fitting that the people, of whom Christ was
2956 to be born, should be
2957 signalized by a special sanctification, according to the words of
2958 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A4-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Lev.19.2" target="asv"> Lev. 19:2</a>: "Be ye holy, because I . . . am holy." Nor again was it on account of the merit of Abraham himself that this promise was
2959 made to him, viz. that Christ should be born of his seed: but of gratuitous election and vocation. Hence it is written (
2960 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A4-p8.3" href="./asv.html#Isa.41.2" target="asv">Is. 41:2</a>): "Who hath raised up the just one form the east, hath called him to follow him?"
2961 </p>
2962 <p id="FS_Q98_A4-p9"> It is therefore evident that it was merely from gratuitous election that the patriarchs received the promise, and that the
2963 people sprung from them received the law; according to
2964 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A4-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.4.36" target="asv"> Dt. 4:36, 37</a>: "Ye did [Vulg.: 'Thou didst'] hear His words out of the midst of the fire, because He loved thy fathers, and chose their
2965 seed after them." And if again it asked why He chose this people, and not another, that Christ might be born thereof; a fitting
2966 answer is given by
2967 Augustine (Tract. super Joan. xxvi): "Why He draweth one and draweth not another, seek not thou to judge, if thou wish not
2968 to err."
2969 </p>
2970 <p id="FS_Q98_A4-p10">
2971 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although the salvation, which was to come through Christ, was prepared for all nations, yet it was necessary that Christ
2972 should be born of one people, which, for this reason, was privileged above other peoples; according to
2973 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A4-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.9.4" target="asv"> Rom. 9:4</a>: "To whom," namely the Jews, "belongeth the adoption as of children (of God) . . . and the testament, and the giving of the
2974 Law . . . whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ according to the
2975 flesh."
2976 </p>
2977 <p id="FS_Q98_A4-p11">
2978 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Respect of persons takes place in those things which are given according to due; but it has no place in those things which
2979 are bestowed gratuitously. Because he who, out of generosity, gives of his own to one and not to another, is not a respecter
2980 of persons: but if he were a dispenser of goods held in common, and were not to distribute them according to personal merits,
2981 he would be a respecter of persons. Now God bestows the benefits of salvation on
2982 the human race gratuitously: wherefore He is not a respecter of persons, if He gives them to some rather than to others. Hence
2983 Augustine says (De Praedest. Sanct. viii): "All whom God teaches, he teaches out of pity; but whom He teaches not, out of
2984 justice He teaches not": for this is due to the condemnation of the human race for the sin of the first parent.
2985 </p>
2986 <p id="FS_Q98_A4-p12">
2987 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The benefits of grace are forfeited by man on account of sin: but not the benefits of nature. Among the latter are the ministries
2988 of the angels, which the very order of various natures demands, viz. that the lowest beings be governed through the intermediate
2989 beings: and also bodily aids, which God vouchsafes not only to men, but also to beasts, according to
2990 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A4-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.35.7" target="asv"> Ps. 35:7</a>: "Men and beasts Thou wilt preserve, O Lord."
2991 </p>
2992 <p id="FS_Q98_A4-p13"></p>
2993 <p id="FS_Q98_A4-p14"></p>
2994 <a href="summa.FS_Q98_A3.html"></a>
2995 <a href="summa.FS_Q98_A5.html"></a>
2996 </div>
2997 <div id="FS_Q98_A5" class="div4">
2998 <a href="summa.FS_Q98_A4.html"></a>
2999 <a href="summa.FS_Q98_A6.html"></a>
3000 <h4 id="FS_Q98_A5-p0.1">Whether all men were bound to observe the Old Law?</h4>
3001 <p id="FS_Q98_A5-p1"></p>
3002 <p id="FS_Q98_A5-p2">
3003 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that all men were bound to observe the Old Law. Because whoever is subject to the king, must needs be subject
3004 to his law. But the Old Law was given by God, Who is "King of all the earth" (
3005 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A5-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.46.8" target="asv">Ps. 46:8</a>). Therefore all the inhabitants of the earth were bound to observe the Law.
3006 </p>
3007 <p id="FS_Q98_A5-p3">
3008 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Jews could not be saved without observing the Old Law: for it is written (
3009 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.27.26" target="asv">Dt. 27:26</a>): "Cursed be he that abideth not in the words of this law, and fulfilleth them not in work." If therefore other men could
3010 be saved without the observance of the Old Law, the Jews would be in a worse plight than other men.
3011 </p>
3012 <p id="FS_Q98_A5-p4">
3013 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Gentiles were admitted to the Jewish ritual and to the observances of the Law: for it is written (
3014 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A5-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.12.48" target="asv">Ex. 12:48</a>): "If any stranger be willing to dwell among you, and to keep the Phase of the Lord, all his males shall first be circumcised,
3015 and then shall he celebrate it according to the manner; and he shall be as he that is born in the land." But it would have
3016 been useless to admit strangers to the legal observances according to
3017 Divine ordinance, if they could have been saved without the observance of the Law. Therefore none could be saved without observing
3018 the Law.
3019 </p>
3020 <p id="FS_Q98_A5-p5">
3021 <b>On the contrary,</b> Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. ix) that many of the Gentiles were brought back to God by the angels. But it is clear that the
3022 Gentiles did not observe the Law. Therefore some could be saved without observing the Law.
3023 </p>
3024 <p id="FS_Q98_A5-p6">
3025 <b>I answer that,</b> The Old Law showed forth the precepts of the natural law, and added certain precepts of its own. Accordingly, as to those
3026 precepts of the natural law contained in the Old Law, all were bound to observe the Old Law; not because they belonged to
3027 the Old Law, but because they belonged to the natural law. But as to those precepts which were added by the Old Law, they
3028 were not binding on save the Jewish people alone.
3029 </p>
3030 <p id="FS_Q98_A5-p7"> The reason of this is because the Old Law, as stated above
3031 <a id="FS_Q98_A5-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q98_A4.html">(A[4])</a>, was given to the Jewish people, that it might receive a prerogative of holiness, in reverence for Christ Who was to be born
3032 of that people. Now whatever laws are enacted for the special sanctification of certain ones, are binding on them alone: thus
3033 clerics who are set aside for the service of God are bound to certain obligations to which the laity are not bound; likewise
3034 religious are
3035 bound by their profession to certain works of perfection, to which people living in the world are not bound. In like manner
3036 this people was bound to certain special observances, to which other peoples were not bound. Wherefore it is written (
3037 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A5-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.18.13" target="asv">Dt. 18:13</a>): "Thou shalt be perfect and without spot before the Lord thy God": and for this reason they used a kind of form of profession,
3038 as appears from
3039 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A5-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Deut.26.3" target="asv"> Dt. 26:3</a>: "I profess this day before the Lord thy God,"
3040 etc.
3041 </p>
3042 <p id="FS_Q98_A5-p8">
3043 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Whoever are subject to a king, are bound to observe his law which he makes for all in general. But if he orders certain things
3044 to be observed by the servants of his household, others are not bound thereto.
3045 </p>
3046 <p id="FS_Q98_A5-p9">
3047 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The more a man is united to God, the better his state becomes: wherefore the more the Jewish people were bound to the worship
3048 of God, the greater their excellence over other peoples. Hence it is written (
3049 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A5-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.4.8" target="asv">Dt. 4:8</a>): "What other nation is there so renowned that hath ceremonies and just judgments, and all the law?" In like manner, from
3050 this point of view, the state of clerics is better than that of the laity, and the state of
3051 religious than that of folk living in the world.
3052 </p>
3053 <p id="FS_Q98_A5-p10">
3054 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The Gentiles obtained salvation more perfectly and more securely under the observances of the Law than under the mere natural
3055 law: and for this reason they were admitted to them. So too the laity are now admitted to the ranks of the clergy, and secular
3056 persons to those of the religious, although they can be saved without this.
3057 </p>
3058 <p id="FS_Q98_A5-p11"></p>
3059 <p id="FS_Q98_A5-p12"></p>
3060 <a href="summa.FS_Q98_A4.html"></a>
3061 <a href="summa.FS_Q98_A6.html"></a>
3062 </div>
3063 <div id="FS_Q98_A6" class="div4">
3064 <a href="summa.FS_Q98_A5.html"></a>
3065 <a href="summa.FS_Q99.html"></a>
3066 <h4 id="FS_Q98_A6-p0.1">Whether the Old Law was suitably given at the time of Moses?</h4>
3067 <p id="FS_Q98_A6-p1"></p>
3068 <p id="FS_Q98_A6-p2">
3069 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Old Law was not suitably given at the time of Moses. Because the Old Law disposed man for the salvation
3070 which was to come through Christ, as stated above (
3071 <a id="FS_Q98_A6-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q98_A2.html">AA[2]</a>,3). But man needed this salutary remedy immediately after he had sinned. Therefore the Law should have been given immediately
3072 after sin.
3073 </p>
3074 <p id="FS_Q98_A6-p3">
3075 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Old Law was given for the sanctification of those from whom Christ was to be born. Now the promise concerning
3076 the "seed, which is Christ" (
3077 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A6-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.3.16" target="asv">Gal. 3:16</a>) was first made to Abraham, as related in
3078 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A6-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Gen.12.7" target="asv">Gn. 12:7</a>. Therefore the Law should have been given at once at the time of Abraham.
3079 </p>
3080 <p id="FS_Q98_A6-p4">
3081 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as Christ was born of those alone who descended from Noe through Abraham, to whom the promise was made; so was He
3082 born of no other of the descendants of Abraham but David, to whom the promise was renewed, according to
3083 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A6-p4.1" href="./asv.html#iiKgdms.23.1" target="asv">2 Kings 23:1</a>: "The man to whom it was appointed concerning the Christ of the God of Jacob . . . said." Therefore the Old Law should have
3084 been given after David, just as it was given after Abraham.
3085 </p>
3086 <p id="FS_Q98_A6-p5">
3087 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
3088 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.3.19" target="asv">Gal. 3:19</a>) that the Law "was set because of transgressions, until the seed should come, to whom He made the promise, being ordained
3089 by angels in the hand of a Mediator": ordained, i.e. "given in orderly fashion," as the gloss explains. Therefore it was fitting
3090 that the Old Law should be given in this order of time.
3091 </p>
3092 <p id="FS_Q98_A6-p6">
3093 <b>I answer that,</b> It was most fitting for the Law to be given at the time of Moses. The reason for this may be taken from two things in respect
3094 of which every law is imposed on two kinds of men. Because it is imposed on some men who are hard-hearted and proud, whom
3095 the law restrains and tames: and it is imposed on good men, who, through being instructed by the law, are helped to fulfil
3096 what they desire to do. Hence it was fitting that the Law should be given at such a time as
3097 would be appropriate for the overcoming of man's pride. For man was proud of two things, viz. of knowledge and of power. He
3098 was proud of his knowledge, as though his natural reason could suffice him for salvation: and accordingly, in order that his
3099 pride might be overcome in this matter, man was left to the guidance of his reason without the help of a written law: and
3100 man was able to learn from experience that his reason was deficient, since about the time of Abraham man had fallen headlong
3101 into idolatry and the most shameful vices. Wherefore, after those times, it was necessary for a written law to be given as
3102 a remedy for human ignorance: because "by the Law is the knowledge of sin" (
3103 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A6-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.3.20" target="asv">Rom. 3:20</a>). But, after man had been instructed by the Law, his pride was convinced of his weakness, through his being unable to fulfil
3104 what he knew. Hence, as the Apostle concludes (
3105 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A6-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.3" target="asv">Rom. 8:3,4</a>), "what the Law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh,
3106 God sent [Vulg.: 'sending'] His own Son . . . that the justification of the Law might be fulfilled in us."
3107 </p>
3108 <p id="FS_Q98_A6-p7"> With regard to good men, the Law was given to them as a help; which was most needed by the people, at the time when the natural
3109 law began to be obscured on account of the exuberance of sin: for it was fitting that this help should be bestowed on men
3110 in an orderly manner, so that they might be led from imperfection to perfection; wherefore it was becoming that the Old Law
3111 should be given between the law of nature and the law of grace.
3112 </p>
3113 <p id="FS_Q98_A6-p8">
3114 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> It was not fitting for the Old Law to be given at once after the sin of the first man: both because man was so confident
3115 in his own reason, that he did not acknowledge his need of the Old Law; because as yet the dictate of the natural law was
3116 not darkened by habitual sinning.
3117 </p>
3118 <p id="FS_Q98_A6-p9">
3119 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> A law should not be given save to the people, since it is a general precept, as stated above (
3120 <a id="FS_Q98_A6-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q90_A2.html">Q[90], AA[2]</a>,3); wherefore at the time of Abraham God gave men certain familiar, and, as it were, household precepts: but when Abraham's
3121 descendants had multiplied, so as to form a people, and when they had been freed from slavery, it was fitting that they should
3122 be given a law; for "slaves are not that part of the people or state to
3123 which it is fitting for the law to be directed," as the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 2,4,5).
3124 </p>
3125 <p id="FS_Q98_A6-p10">
3126 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Since the Law had to be given to the people, not only those, of whom Christ was born, received the Law, but the whole people,
3127 who were marked with the seal of circumcision, which was the sign of the promise made to Abraham, and in which he believed,
3128 according to
3129 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A6-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.4.11" target="asv"> Rom. 4:11</a>: hence even before David, the Law had to be given to that people as soon as they were collected together.
3130 </p>
3131 <p id="FS_Q98_A6-p11"></p>
3132 <p id="FS_Q98_A6-p12"></p>
3133 <a href="summa.FS_Q98_A5.html"></a>
3134 <a href="summa.FS_Q99.html"></a>
3135 </div>
3136 <a href="summa.FS_Q97_A4.html"></a>
3137 <a href="summa.FS_Q98_A1.html"></a>
3138 </div>
3139 <div id="FS_Q99" class="div3">
3140 <a href="summa.FS_Q98_A6.html"></a>
3141 <a href="summa.FS_Q99_A1.html"></a>
3142 <h3 id="FS_Q99-p0.1">OF THE PRECEPTS OF THE OLD LAW (SIX ARTICLES)</h3>
3143 <p id="FS_Q99-p1"></p>
3144 <p id="FS_Q99-p2"> We must now consider the precepts of the Old Law; and (1) how they are distinguished from one another; (2) each kind of precept.
3145 Under the first head there are six points of inquiry:
3146 </p>
3147 <p id="FS_Q99-p3"> (1) Whether the Old Law contains several precepts or only one?</p>
3148 <p id="FS_Q99-p4"> (2) Whether the Old Law contains any moral precepts?</p>
3149 <p id="FS_Q99-p5"> (3) Whether it contains ceremonial precepts in addition to the moral precepts?</p>
3150 <p id="FS_Q99-p6"> (4) Whether besides these it contains judicial precepts?</p>
3151 <p id="FS_Q99-p7"> (5) Whether it contains any others besides these?</p>
3152 <p id="FS_Q99-p8"> (6) How the Old Law induced men to keep its precepts.</p>
3153 <div id="FS_Q99_A1" class="div4">
3154 <a href="summa.FS_Q99.html"></a>
3155 <a href="summa.FS_Q99_A2.html"></a>
3156 <h4 id="FS_Q99_A1-p0.1">Whether the Old Law contains only one precept?</h4>
3157 <p id="FS_Q99_A1-p1"></p>
3158 <p id="FS_Q99_A1-p2">
3159 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Old Law contains but one precept. Because a law is nothing else than a precept, as stated above (
3160 <a id="FS_Q99_A1-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q90_A2.html">Q[90], AA[2]</a>,3). Now there is but one Old Law. Therefore it contains but one precept.
3161 </p>
3162 <p id="FS_Q99_A1-p3">
3163 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Apostle says (
3164 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.13.9" target="asv">Rom. 13:9</a>): "If there be any other commandment, it is comprised in this word: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." But this is
3165 only one commandment. Therefore the Old Law contained but one commandment.
3166 </p>
3167 <p id="FS_Q99_A1-p4">
3168 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is written (
3169 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.7.12" target="asv">Mat. 7:12</a>): "All things . . . whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do you also to them. For this is the Law and the prophets."
3170 But the whole of the Old Law is comprised in the Law and the prophets. Therefore the whole of the Old Law contains but one
3171 commandment.
3172 </p>
3173 <p id="FS_Q99_A1-p5">
3174 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
3175 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.2.15" target="asv">Eph. 2:15</a>): "Making void the Law of commandments contained in decrees": where he is referring to the Old Law, as the gloss comments,
3176 on the passage. Therefore the Old Law comprises many commandments.
3177 </p>
3178 <p id="FS_Q99_A1-p6">
3179 <b>I answer that,</b> Since a precept of law is binding, it is about something which must be done: and, that a thing must be done, arises from
3180 the necessity of some end. Hence it is evident that a precept implies, in its very idea, relation to an end, in so far as
3181 a thing is commanded as being necessary or expedient to an end. Now many things may happen to be necessary or expedient to
3182 an end; and, accordingly, precepts may be given about various things as being ordained to one
3183 end. Consequently we must say that all the precepts of the Old Law are one in respect of their relation to one end: and yet
3184 they are many in respect of the diversity of those things that are ordained to that end.
3185 </p>
3186 <p id="FS_Q99_A1-p7">
3187 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Old Law is said to be one as being ordained to one end: yet it comprises various precepts, according to the diversity
3188 of the things which it directs to the end. Thus also the art of building is one according to the unity of its end, because
3189 it aims at the building of a house: and yet it contains various rules, according to the variety of acts ordained thereto.
3190 </p>
3191 <p id="FS_Q99_A1-p8">
3192 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As the Apostle says (
3193 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.1.5" target="asv">1 Tim. 1:5</a>), "the end of the commandment is charity"; since every law aims at establishing friendship, either between man and man, or
3194 between man and God. Wherefore the whole Law is comprised in this one commandment, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,"
3195 as expressing the end of all commandments: because love of one's neighbor includes love of God, when we love our neighbor
3196 for God's sake. Hence the
3197 Apostle put this commandment in place of the two which are about the love of God and of one's neighbor, and of which Our Lord
3198 said (
3199 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A1-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.22.40" target="asv">Mat. 22:40</a>): "On these two commandments dependeth the whole Law and the prophets."
3200 </p>
3201 <p id="FS_Q99_A1-p9">
3202 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated in Ethic. ix, 8, "friendship towards another arises from friendship towards oneself," in so far as man looks on
3203 another as on himself. Hence when it is said, "All things whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do you also to them,"
3204 this is an explanation of the rule of neighborly love contained implicitly in the words, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as
3205 thyself": so that it is an explanation of this commandment.
3206 </p>
3207 <p id="FS_Q99_A1-p10"></p>
3208 <p id="FS_Q99_A1-p11"></p>
3209 <a href="summa.FS_Q99.html"></a>
3210 <a href="summa.FS_Q99_A2.html"></a>
3211 </div>
3212 <div id="FS_Q99_A2" class="div4">
3213 <a href="summa.FS_Q99_A1.html"></a>
3214 <a href="summa.FS_Q99_A3.html"></a>
3215 <h4 id="FS_Q99_A2-p0.1">Whether the Old Law contains moral precepts?</h4>
3216 <p id="FS_Q99_A2-p1"></p>
3217 <p id="FS_Q99_A2-p2">
3218 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Old Law contains no moral precepts. For the Old Law is distinct from the law of nature, as stated
3219 above (
3220 <a id="FS_Q99_A2-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q91_A4.html">Q[91], AA[4]</a>,5;
3221 <a id="FS_Q99_A2-p2.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q98_A5.html"> Q[98], A[5]</a>). But the moral precepts belong to the law of nature. Therefore they do not belong to the Old Law.
3222 </p>
3223 <p id="FS_Q99_A2-p3">
3224 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Divine Law should have come to man's assistance where human reason fails him: as is evident in regard to things
3225 that are of faith, which are above reason. But man's reason seems to suffice for the moral precepts. Therefore the moral precepts
3226 do not belong to the Old Law, which is a Divine law.
3227 </p>
3228 <p id="FS_Q99_A2-p4">
3229 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Old Law is said to be "the letter that killeth" (
3230 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.3.6" target="asv">2 Cor. 3:6</a>). But the moral precepts do not kill, but quicken, according to
3231 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A2-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.118.93" target="asv"> Ps. 118:93</a>: "Thy justifications I will never forget, for by them Thou hast given me life." Therefore the moral precepts do not belong
3232 to the Old Law.
3233 </p>
3234 <p id="FS_Q99_A2-p5">
3235 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
3236 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.17.9" target="asv">Ecclus. 17:9</a>): "Moreover, He gave them discipline [Douay: 'instructions'] and the law of life for an inheritance." Now discipline belongs
3237 to morals; for this gloss on
3238 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A2-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.12.11" target="asv">Heb. 12:11</a>: "Now all chastisement [disciplina]," etc., says: "Discipline is an exercise in morals by means of difficulties." Therefore
3239 the Law which was given by God comprised moral precepts.
3240 </p>
3241 <p id="FS_Q99_A2-p6">
3242 <b>I answer that,</b> The Old Law contained some moral precepts; as is evident from
3243 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.20.13" target="asv">Ex. 20:13</a>,
3244 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A2-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Exod.20.15" target="asv">15</a>: "Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal." This was reasonable: because, just as the principal intention of human law
3245 is to created friendship between man and man; so the chief intention of the Divine law is to establish man in friendship with
3246 God. Now since likeness is the reason of love, according to
3247 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A2-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Sir.13.19" target="asv"> Ecclus. 13:19</a>: "Every beast loveth its
3248 like"; there cannot possibly be any friendship of man to God, Who is supremely good, unless man become good: wherefore it
3249 is written (
3250 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A2-p6.4" href="./asv.html#Lev.19.2" target="asv">Lev. 19:2</a>; 11:45): "You shall be holy, for I am holy." But the goodness of man is virtue, which "makes its possessor good" (Ethic.
3251 ii, 6). Therefore it was necessary for the Old Law to include precepts about acts of virtue: and these are the moral precepts
3252 of the Law.
3253 </p>
3254 <p id="FS_Q99_A2-p7">
3255 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Old Law is distinct from the natural law, not as being altogether different from it, but as something added thereto.
3256 For just as grace presupposes nature, so must the Divine law presuppose the natural law.
3257 </p>
3258 <p id="FS_Q99_A2-p8">
3259 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> It was fitting that the Divine law should come to man's assistance not only in those things for which reason is insufficient,
3260 but also in those things in which human reason may happen to be impeded. Now human reason could not go astray in the abstract,
3261 as to the universal principles of the natural law; but through being habituated to sin, it became obscured in the point of
3262 things to be done in detail. But with regard to the other moral precepts, which
3263 are like conclusions drawn from the universal principles of the natural law, the reason of many men went astray, to the extend
3264 of judging to be lawful, things that are evil in themselves. Hence there was need for the authority of the Divine law to rescue
3265 man from both these defects. Thus among the articles of faith not only are those things set forth to which reason cannot reach,
3266 such as the Trinity of the Godhead; but also those to which right reason can attain, such as the Unity of the
3267 Godhead; in order to remove the manifold errors to which reason is liable.
3268 </p>
3269 <p id="FS_Q99_A2-p9">
3270 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Augustine proves (De Spiritu et Litera xiv), even the letter of the law is said to be the occasion of death, as to the
3271 moral precepts; in so far as, to wit, it prescribes what is good, without furnishing the aid of grace for its fulfilment.
3272 </p>
3273 <p id="FS_Q99_A2-p10"></p>
3274 <p id="FS_Q99_A2-p11"></p>
3275 <a href="summa.FS_Q99_A1.html"></a>
3276 <a href="summa.FS_Q99_A3.html"></a>
3277 </div>
3278 <div id="FS_Q99_A3" class="div4">
3279 <a href="summa.FS_Q99_A2.html"></a>
3280 <a href="summa.FS_Q99_A4.html"></a>
3281 <h4 id="FS_Q99_A3-p0.1">Whether the Old Law comprises ceremonial, besides moral, precepts?</h4>
3282 <p id="FS_Q99_A3-p1"></p>
3283 <p id="FS_Q99_A3-p2">
3284 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Old Law does not comprise ceremonial, besides moral, precepts. For every law that is given to man
3285 is for the purpose of directing human actions. Now human actions are called moral, as stated above (
3286 <a id="FS_Q99_A3-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q1_A3.html">Q[1], A[3]</a>). Therefore it seems that the Old Law given to men should not comprise other than moral precepts.
3287 </p>
3288 <p id="FS_Q99_A3-p3">
3289 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, those precepts that are styled ceremonial seem to refer to the Divine worship. But Divine worship is the act of
3290 a virtue, viz. religion, which, as Tully says (De Invent. ii) "offers worship and ceremony to the Godhead." Since, then, the
3291 moral precepts are about acts of virtue, as stated above
3292 <a id="FS_Q99_A3-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q99_A2.html">(A[2])</a>, it seems that the ceremonial precepts should not be distinct from the moral.
3293 </p>
3294 <p id="FS_Q99_A3-p4">
3295 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the ceremonial precepts seem to be those which signify something figuratively. But, as Augustine observes (De Doctr.
3296 Christ. ii, 3,4), "of all signs employed by men words hold the first place." Therefore there is no need for the Law to contain
3297 ceremonial precepts about certain figurative actions.
3298 </p>
3299 <p id="FS_Q99_A3-p5">
3300 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
3301 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.4.13" target="asv">Dt. 4:13,14</a>): "Ten words . . . He wrote in two tables of stone; and He commanded me at that time that I should teach you the ceremonies
3302 and judgments which you shall do." But the ten commandments of the Law are moral precepts. Therefore besides the moral precepts
3303 there are others which are ceremonial.
3304 </p>
3305 <p id="FS_Q99_A3-p6">
3306 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
3307 <a id="FS_Q99_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q99_A2.html">(A[2])</a>, the Divine law is instituted chiefly in order to direct men to God; while human law is instituted chiefly in order to direct
3308 men in relation to one another. Hence human laws have not concerned themselves with the institution of anything relating to
3309 Divine worship except as affecting the common good of mankind: and for this reason they have devised many institutions relating
3310 to Divine matters, according as it
3311 seemed expedient for the formation of human morals; as may be seen in the rites of the Gentiles. On the other hand the Divine
3312 law directed men to one another according to the demands of that order whereby man is directed to God, which order was the
3313 chief aim of that law. Now man is directed to God not only by the interior acts of the mind, which are faith, hope, and love,
3314 but also by certain external works, whereby man makes profession of his subjection to God: and it is these works that are
3315 said to belong to the Divine worship. This worship is called "ceremony" [the munia, i.e. gifts] of Ceres (who was the goddess
3316 of fruits), as some say: because, at first, offerings were made to God from the fruits: or because, as Valerius Maximus states
3317 [*Fact. et Dict. Memor. i, 1], the word "ceremony" was introduced among the Latins, to signify the Divine worship, being derived
3318 from a town near Rome called "Caere": since, when Rome was taken by the Gauls, the sacred chattels of the Romans were
3319 taken thither and most carefully preserved. Accordingly those precepts of the Law which refer to the Divine worship are specially
3320 called ceremonial.
3321 </p>
3322 <p id="FS_Q99_A3-p7">
3323 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Human acts extend also to the Divine worship: and therefore the Old Law given to man contains precepts about these matters
3324 also.
3325 </p>
3326 <p id="FS_Q99_A3-p8">
3327 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As stated above (
3328 <a id="FS_Q99_A3-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q91_A3.html">Q[91], A[3]</a>), the precepts of the natural law are general, and require to be determined: and they are determined both by human law and
3329 by Divine law. And just as these very determinations which are made by human law are said to be, not of natural, but of positive
3330 law; so the determinations of the precepts of the natural law, effected by the Divine law, are distinct from the moral precepts
3331 which belong to the
3332 natural law. Wherefore to worship God, since it is an act of virtue, belongs to a moral precept; but the determination of
3333 this precept, namely that He is to be worshipped by such and such sacrifices, and such and such offerings, belongs to the
3334 ceremonial precepts. Consequently the ceremonial precepts are distinct from the moral precepts.
3335 </p>
3336 <p id="FS_Q99_A3-p9">
3337 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. i), the things of God cannot be manifested to men except by means of sensible similitudes.
3338 Now these similitudes move the soul more when they are not only expressed in words, but also offered to the senses. Wherefore
3339 the things of God are set forth in the Scriptures not only by similitudes expressed in words, as in the case of metaphorical
3340 expressions; but also by similitudes of things set before the eyes, which pertains
3341 to the ceremonial precepts.
3342 </p>
3343 <p id="FS_Q99_A3-p10"></p>
3344 <p id="FS_Q99_A3-p11"></p>
3345 <a href="summa.FS_Q99_A2.html"></a>
3346 <a href="summa.FS_Q99_A4.html"></a>
3347 </div>
3348 <div id="FS_Q99_A4" class="div4">
3349 <a href="summa.FS_Q99_A3.html"></a>
3350 <a href="summa.FS_Q99_A5.html"></a>
3351 <h4 id="FS_Q99_A4-p0.1">Whether, besides the moral and ceremonial precepts, there are also judicial precepts?</h4>
3352 <p id="FS_Q99_A4-p1"></p>
3353 <p id="FS_Q99_A4-p2">
3354 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there are no judicial precepts in addition to the moral and ceremonial precepts in the Old Law. For Augustine
3355 says (Contra Faust. vi, 2) that in the Old Law there are "precepts concerning the life we have to lead, and precepts regarding
3356 the life that is foreshadowed." Now the precepts of the life we have to lead are moral precepts; and the precepts of the life
3357 that is foreshadowed are ceremonial. Therefore besides these two kinds of precepts
3358 we should not put any judicial precepts in the Law.
3359 </p>
3360 <p id="FS_Q99_A4-p3">
3361 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a gloss on
3362 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.118.102" target="asv"> Ps. 118:102, </a> "I have not declined from Thy judgments," says, i.e. "from the rule of life Thou hast set for me." But a rule of life belongs
3363 to the moral precepts. Therefore the judicial precepts should not be considered as distinct from the moral precepts.
3364 </p>
3365 <p id="FS_Q99_A4-p4">
3366 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, judgment seems to be an act of justice, according to
3367 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.93.15" target="asv">Ps. 93:15</a>: "Until justice be turned into judgment." But acts of justice, like the acts of other virtues, belong to the moral precepts.
3368 Therefore the moral precepts include the judicial precepts, and consequently should not be held as distinct from them.
3369 </p>
3370 <p id="FS_Q99_A4-p5">
3371 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
3372 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.6.1" target="asv">Dt. 6:1</a>): "These are the precepts and ceremonies, and judgments": where "precepts" stands for "moral precepts" antonomastically.
3373 Therefore there are judicial precepts besides moral and ceremonial precepts.
3374 </p>
3375 <p id="FS_Q99_A4-p6">
3376 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
3377 <a id="FS_Q99_A4-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q99_A2.html">AA[2]</a>,3), it belongs to the Divine law to direct men to one another and to God. Now each of these belongs in the abstract to the
3378 dictates of the natural law, to which dictates the moral precepts are to be referred: yet each of them has to be determined
3379 by Divine or human law, because naturally known principles are universal, both in speculative and in practical matters. Accordingly
3380 just as the determination of the
3381 universal principle about Divine worship is effected by the ceremonial precepts, so the determination of the general precepts
3382 of that justice which is to be observed among men is effected by the judicial precepts.
3383 </p>
3384 <p id="FS_Q99_A4-p7"> We must therefore distinguish three kinds of precept in the Old Law; viz. "moral" precepts, which are dictated by the natural
3385 law; "ceremonial" precepts, which are determinations of the Divine worship; and "judicial" precepts, which are determinations
3386 of the justice to be maintained among men. Wherefore the Apostle (
3387 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.7.12" target="asv">Rom. 7:12</a>) after saying that the "Law is holy," adds that "the commandment is just, and holy, and good": "just," in respect of the
3388 judicial
3389 precepts; "holy," with regard to the ceremonial precepts (since the word "sanctus"---"holy"---is applied to that which is
3390 consecrated to God); and "good," i.e. conducive to virtue, as to the moral precepts.
3391 </p>
3392 <p id="FS_Q99_A4-p8">
3393 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Both the moral and the judicial precepts aim at the ordering of human life: and consequently they are both comprised under
3394 one of the heads mentioned by Augustine, viz. under the precepts of the life we have to lead.
3395 </p>
3396 <p id="FS_Q99_A4-p9">
3397 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Judgment denotes execution of justice, by an application of the reason to individual cases in a determinate way. Hence the
3398 judicial precepts have something in common with the moral precepts, in that they are derived from reason; and something in
3399 common with the ceremonial precepts, in that they are determinations of general precepts. This explains why sometimes "judgments"
3400 comprise both judicial and moral precepts, as in
3401 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A4-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.5.1" target="asv"> Dt. 5:1</a>:
3402 "Hear, O Israel, the ceremonies and judgments"; and sometimes judicial and ceremonial precepts, as in
3403 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A4-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Lev.18.4" target="asv"> Lev. 18:4</a>: "You shall do My judgments, and shall observe My precepts," where "precepts" denotes moral precepts, while "judgments" refers
3404 to judicial and ceremonial precepts.
3405 </p>
3406 <p id="FS_Q99_A4-p10">
3407 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The act of justice, in general, belongs to the moral precepts; but its determination to some special kind of act belongs
3408 to the judicial precepts.
3409 </p>
3410 <p id="FS_Q99_A4-p11"></p>
3411 <p id="FS_Q99_A4-p12"></p>
3412 <a href="summa.FS_Q99_A3.html"></a>
3413 <a href="summa.FS_Q99_A5.html"></a>
3414 </div>
3415 <div id="FS_Q99_A5" class="div4">
3416 <a href="summa.FS_Q99_A4.html"></a>
3417 <a href="summa.FS_Q99_A6.html"></a>
3418 <h4 id="FS_Q99_A5-p0.1">Whether the Old Law contains any others besides the moral, judicial, and ceremonial precepts?</h4>
3419 <p id="FS_Q99_A5-p1"></p>
3420 <p id="FS_Q99_A5-p2">
3421 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Old Law contains others besides the moral, judicial, and ceremonial precepts. Because the judicial
3422 precepts belong to the act of justice, which is between man and man; while the ceremonial precepts belong to the act of religion,
3423 whereby God is worshipped. Now besides these there are many other virtues, viz. temperance, fortitude, liberality, and several
3424 others, as stated above (
3425 <a id="FS_Q99_A5-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q60_A5.html">Q[60], A[5]</a>). Therefore besides the
3426 aforesaid precepts, the Old Law should comprise others.
3427 </p>
3428 <p id="FS_Q99_A5-p3">
3429 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is written (
3430 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.11.1" target="asv">Dt. 11:1</a>): "Love the Lord thy God, and observe His precepts and ceremonies, His judgments and commandments." Now precepts concern
3431 moral matters, as stated above
3432 <a id="FS_Q99_A5-p3.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q99_A4.html">(A[4])</a>. Therefore besides the moral, judicial and ceremonial precepts, the Law contains others which are called "commandments."
3433 [*The "commandments" (mandata) spoken of here and in the body of this article are not to be confused with
3434 the Commandments (praecepta) in the ordinary acceptance of the word.]
3435 </p>
3436 <p id="FS_Q99_A5-p4">
3437 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is written (
3438 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A5-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.6.17" target="asv">Dt. 6:17</a>): "Keep the precepts of the Lord thy God, and the testimonies and ceremonies which I have [Vulg.: 'He hath'] commanded thee."
3439 Therefore in addition to the above, the Law comprises "testimonies."
3440 </p>
3441 <p id="FS_Q99_A5-p5">
3442 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, it is written (
3443 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.118.93" target="asv">Ps. 118:93</a>): "Thy justifications (i.e. "Thy Law," according to a gloss) I will never forget." Therefore in the Old Law there are not
3444 only moral, ceremonial and judicial precepts, but also others, called "justifications."
3445 </p>
3446 <p id="FS_Q99_A5-p6">
3447 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
3448 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A5-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.6.1" target="asv">Dt. 6:1</a>): "These are the precepts and ceremonies and judgments which the Lord your God commanded . . . you." And these words are
3449 placed at the beginning of the Law. Therefore all the precepts of the Law are included under them.
3450 </p>
3451 <p id="FS_Q99_A5-p7">
3452 <b>I answer that,</b> Some things are included in the Law by way of precept; other things, as being ordained to the fulfilment of the precepts.
3453 Now the precepts refer to things which have to be done: and to their fulfilment man is induced by two considerations, viz.
3454 the authority of the lawgiver, and the benefit derived from the fulfilment, which benefit consists in the attainment of some
3455 good, useful, pleasurable or virtuous, or in the avoidance of some contrary evil. Hence it
3456 was necessary that in the Old Law certain things should be set forth to indicate the authority of God the lawgiver: e.g.
3457 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A5-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.6.4" target="asv"> Dt. 6:4</a>: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord"; and
3458 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A5-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Gen.1.1" target="asv"> Gn. 1:1</a>: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth": and these are called "testimonies." Again it was necessary that in the
3459 Law certain rewards should be appointed for those who observe the Law, and punishments for those who transgress; as it may
3460 be seen in
3461 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A5-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Deut.28" target="asv">Dt. 28</a>: "If
3462 thou wilt hear the voice of the Lord thy God . . . He will make thee higher than all the nations," etc.: and these are called
3463 "justifications," according as God punishes or rewards certain ones justly.
3464 </p>
3465 <p id="FS_Q99_A5-p8"> The things that have to be done do not come under the precept except in so far as they have the character of a duty. Now
3466 a duty is twofold: one according to the rule of reason; the other according to the rule of a law which prescribes that duty:
3467 thus the Philosopher distinguishes a twofold just---moral and legal (Ethic. v, 7).
3468 </p>
3469 <p id="FS_Q99_A5-p9"> Moral duty is twofold: because reason dictates that something must be done, either as being so necessary that without it
3470 the order of virtue would be destroyed; or as being useful for the better maintaining of the order of virtue. And in this
3471 sense some of the moral precepts are expressed by way of absolute command or prohibition, as "Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt
3472 not steal": and these are properly called "precepts." Other things are prescribed or forbidden, not as an absolute
3473 duty, but as something better to be done. These may be called "commandments"; because they are expressed by way of inducement
3474 and persuasion: an example whereof is seen in
3475 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A5-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.22.26" target="asv"> Ex. 22:26</a>: "If thou take of thy neighbor a garment in pledge, thou shalt give it him again before sunset"; and in other like cases.
3476 Wherefore Jerome (Praefat. in Comment. super Marc.) says that "justice is in the precepts, charity in the commandments." Duty
3477 as fixed by the Law, belongs to the judicial
3478 precepts, as regards human affairs; to the "ceremonial" precepts, as regards Divine matters.
3479 </p>
3480 <p id="FS_Q99_A5-p10"> Nevertheless those ordinances also which refer to punishments and rewards may be called "testimonies," in so far as they
3481 testify to the Divine justice. Again all the precepts of the Law may be styled "justifications," as being executions of legal
3482 justice. Furthermore the commandments may be distinguished from the precepts, so that those things be called "precepts" which
3483 God Himself prescribed; and those things "commandments" which He enjoined [mandavit] through others, as the
3484 very word seems to denote.
3485 </p>
3486 <p id="FS_Q99_A5-p11"> From this it is clear that all the precepts of the Law are either moral, ceremonial, or judicial; and that other ordinances
3487 have not the character of a precept, but are directed to the observance of the precepts, as stated above.
3488 </p>
3489 <p id="FS_Q99_A5-p12">
3490 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Justice alone, of all the virtues, implies the notion of duty. Consequently moral matters are determinable by law in so far
3491 as they belong to justice: of which virtue religion is a part, as Tully says (De Invent. ii). Wherefore the legal just cannot
3492 be anything foreign to the ceremonial and judicial precepts.
3493 </p>
3494 <p id="FS_Q99_A5-p13"> The Replies to the other Objections are clear from what has been said.</p>
3495 <p id="FS_Q99_A5-p14"></p>
3496 <p id="FS_Q99_A5-p15"></p>
3497 <a href="summa.FS_Q99_A4.html"></a>
3498 <a href="summa.FS_Q99_A6.html"></a>
3499 </div>
3500 <div id="FS_Q99_A6" class="div4">
3501 <a href="summa.FS_Q99_A5.html"></a>
3502 <a href="summa.FS_Q100.html"></a>
3503 <h4 id="FS_Q99_A6-p0.1">Whether the Old Law should have induced men to the observance of its precepts, by means of temporal promises and threats?</h4>
3504 <p id="FS_Q99_A6-p1"></p>
3505 <p id="FS_Q99_A6-p2">
3506 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Old Law should not have induced men to the observance of its precepts, by means of temporal promises
3507 and threats. For the purpose of the Divine law is to subject man to God by fear and love: hence it is written (
3508 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.10.12" target="asv">Dt. 10:12</a>): "And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but that thou fear the Lord thy God, and walk in His ways,
3509 and love Him?" But the desire for temporal goods leads man away from God:
3510 for Augustine says (Qq. lxxxiii, qu. 36), that "covetousness is the bane of charity." Therefore temporal promises and threats
3511 seem to be contrary to the intention of a lawgiver: and this makes a law worthy of rejection, as the Philosopher declares
3512 (Polit. ii, 6).
3513 </p>
3514 <p id="FS_Q99_A6-p3">
3515 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Divine law is more excellent than human law. Now, in sciences, we notice that the loftier the science, the higher
3516 the means of persuasion that it employs. Therefore, since human law employs temporal threats and promises, as means of persuading
3517 man, the Divine law should have used, not these, but more lofty means.
3518 </p>
3519 <p id="FS_Q99_A6-p4">
3520 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the reward of righteousness and the punishment of guilt cannot be that which befalls equally the good and the wicked.
3521 But as stated in
3522 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A6-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Eccl.9.2" target="asv"> Eccles. 9:2, </a> "all" temporal "things equally happen to the just and to the wicked, to the good and the evil, to the clean and to the unclean,
3523 to him that offereth victims, and to him that despiseth sacrifices." Therefore temporal goods or evils are not suitably set
3524 forth as punishments or rewards of
3525 the commandments of the Divine law.
3526 </p>
3527 <p id="FS_Q99_A6-p5">
3528 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
3529 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.1.19" target="asv">Is. 1:19,20</a>): "If you be willing, and will hearken to Me, you shall eat the good things of the land. But if you will not, and will provoke
3530 Me to wrath: the sword shall devour you."
3531 </p>
3532 <p id="FS_Q99_A6-p6">
3533 <b>I answer that,</b> As in speculative sciences men are persuaded to assent to the conclusions by means of syllogistic arguments, so too in every
3534 law, men are persuaded to observe its precepts by means of punishments and rewards. Now it is to be observed that, in speculative
3535 sciences, the means of persuasion are adapted to the conditions of the pupil: wherefore the process of argument in sciences
3536 should be ordered becomingly, so that the instruction is based on principles more
3537 generally known. And thus also he who would persuade a man to the observance of any precepts, needs to move him at first by
3538 things for which he has an affection; just as children are induced to do something, by means of little childish gifts. Now
3539 it has been said above (
3540 <a id="FS_Q99_A6-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q98_A1.html">Q[98], AA[1]</a>,2,3) that the Old Law disposed men to (the coming of) Christ, as the imperfect in comparison disposes to the perfect, wherefore
3541 it was given to a people as yet imperfect in comparison to the
3542 perfection which was to result from Christ's coming: and for this reason, that people is compared to a child that is still
3543 under a pedagogue (
3544 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A6-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Gal.3.24" target="asv">Gal. 3:24</a>). But the perfection of man consists in his despising temporal things and cleaving to things spiritual, as is clear from
3545 the words of the Apostle (
3546 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A6-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Phil.3.13" target="asv">Phil. 3:13</a>,
3547 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A6-p6.4" href="./asv.html#Phil.3.15" target="asv">15</a>): "Forgetting the things that are behind, I stretch [Vulg.: 'and stretching'] forth myself to those that are before . . .
3548 Let us therefore, as
3549 many as are perfect, be thus minded." Those who are yet imperfect desire temporal goods, albeit in subordination to God: whereas
3550 the perverse place their end in temporalities. It was therefore fitting that the Old Law should conduct men to God by means
3551 of temporal goods for which the imperfect have an affection.
3552 </p>
3553 <p id="FS_Q99_A6-p7">
3554 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Covetousness whereby man places his end in temporalities, is the bane of charity. But the attainment of temporal goods which
3555 man desires in subordination to God is a road leading the imperfect to the love of God, according to
3556 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A6-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.48.19" target="asv"> Ps. 48:19</a>: "He will praise Thee, when Thou shalt do well to him."
3557 </p>
3558 <p id="FS_Q99_A6-p8">
3559 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Human law persuades men by means of temporal rewards or punishments to be inflicted by men: whereas the Divine law persuades
3560 men by meas of rewards or punishments to be received from God. In this respect it employs higher means.
3561 </p>
3562 <p id="FS_Q99_A6-p9">
3563 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As any one can see, who reads carefully the story of the Old Testament, the common weal of the people prospered under the
3564 Law as long as they obeyed it; and as soon as they departed from the precepts of the Law they were overtaken by many calamities.
3565 But certain individuals, although they observed the justice of the Law, met with misfortunes---either because they had already
3566 become spiritual (so that misfortune might withdraw them all the more from
3567 attachment to temporal things, and that their virtue might be tried)---or because, while outwardly fulfilling the works of
3568 the Law, their heart was altogether fixed on temporal goods, and far removed from God, according to
3569 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A6-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.29.13" target="asv">Is. 29:13</a> (
3570 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A6-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.15.8" target="asv">Mat. 15:8</a>): "This people honoreth Me with their lips; but their hearts is far from Me."
3571 </p>
3572 <p id="FS_Q99_A6-p10"></p>
3573 <p id="FS_Q99_A6-p11"></p>
3574 <a href="summa.FS_Q99_A5.html"></a>
3575 <a href="summa.FS_Q100.html"></a>
3576 </div>
3577 <a href="summa.FS_Q98_A6.html"></a>
3578 <a href="summa.FS_Q99_A1.html"></a>
3579 </div>
3580 <div id="FS_Q100" class="div3">
3581 <a href="summa.FS_Q99_A6.html"></a>
3582 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A1.html"></a>
3583 <h3 id="FS_Q100-p0.1">OF THE MORAL PRECEPTS OF THE OLD LAW (TWELVE ARTICLES)</h3>
3584 <p id="FS_Q100-p1"></p>
3585 <p id="FS_Q100-p2"> We must now consider each kind of precept of the Old Law: and (1) the moral precepts, (2) the ceremonial precepts, (3) the
3586 judicial precepts. Under the first head there are twelve points of inquiry:
3587 </p>
3588 <p id="FS_Q100-p3"> (1) Whether all the moral precepts of the Old Law belong to the law of nature?</p>
3589 <p id="FS_Q100-p4"> (2) Whether the moral precepts of the Old Law are about the acts of all the virtues?</p>
3590 <p id="FS_Q100-p5"> (3) Whether all the moral precepts of the Old Law are reducible to the ten precepts of the decalogue?</p>
3591 <p id="FS_Q100-p6"> (4) How the precepts of the decalogue are distinguished from one another?</p>
3592 <p id="FS_Q100-p7"> (5) Their number;</p>
3593 <p id="FS_Q100-p8"> (6) Their order;</p>
3594 <p id="FS_Q100-p9"> (7) The manner in which they were given;</p>
3595 <p id="FS_Q100-p10"> (8) Whether they are dispensable?</p>
3596 <p id="FS_Q100-p11"> (9) Whether the mode of observing a virtue comes under the precept of the Law?</p>
3597 <p id="FS_Q100-p12"> (10) Whether the mode of charity comes under the precept?</p>
3598 <p id="FS_Q100-p13"> (11) The distinction of other moral precepts;</p>
3599 <p id="FS_Q100-p14"> (12) Whether the moral precepts of the Old Law justified man?</p>
3600 <div id="FS_Q100_A1" class="div4">
3601 <a href="summa.FS_Q100.html"></a>
3602 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A2.html"></a>
3603 <h4 id="FS_Q100_A1-p0.1">Whether all the moral precepts of the Old Law belong to the law of nature?</h4>
3604 <p id="FS_Q100_A1-p1"></p>
3605 <p id="FS_Q100_A1-p2">
3606 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that not all the moral precepts belong to the law of nature. For it is written (
3607 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.17.9" target="asv">Ecclus. 17:9</a>): "Moreover He gave them instructions, and the law of life for an inheritance." But instruction is in contradistinction to
3608 the law of nature; since the law of nature is not learnt, but instilled by natural instinct. Therefore not all the moral precepts
3609 belong to the natural law.
3610 </p>
3611 <p id="FS_Q100_A1-p3">
3612 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Divine law is more perfect than human law. But human law adds certain things concerning good morals, to those
3613 that belong to the law of nature: as is evidenced by the fact that the natural law is the same in all men, while these moral
3614 institutions are various for various people. Much more reason therefore was there why the Divine law should add to the law
3615 of nature, ordinances pertaining to good morals.
3616 </p>
3617 <p id="FS_Q100_A1-p4">
3618 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, just as natural reason leads to good morals in certain matters, so does faith: hence it is written (
3619 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.5.6" target="asv">Gal. 5:6</a>) that faith "worketh by charity." But faith is not included in the law of nature; since that which is of faith is above nature.
3620 Therefore not all the moral precepts of the Divine law belong to the law of nature.
3621 </p>
3622 <p id="FS_Q100_A1-p5">
3623 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
3624 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.2.14" target="asv">Rom. 2:14</a>) that "the Gentiles, who have not the Law, do by nature those things that are of the Law": which must be understood of things
3625 pertaining to good morals. Therefore all the moral precepts of the Law belong to the law of nature.
3626 </p>
3627 <p id="FS_Q100_A1-p6">
3628 <b>I answer that,</b> The moral precepts, distinct from the ceremonial and judicial precepts, are about things pertaining of their very nature
3629 to good morals. Now since human morals depend on their relation to reason, which is the proper principle of human acts, those
3630 morals are called good which accord with reason, and those are called bad which are discordant from reason. And as every judgment
3631 of speculative reason proceeds from the natural knowledge of first principles, so
3632 every judgment of practical reason proceeds from principles known naturally, as stated above (
3633 <a id="FS_Q100_A1-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q94_A2.html">Q[94], AA[2]</a>,4): from which principles one may proceed in various ways to judge of various matters. For some matters connected with human
3634 actions are so evident, that after very little consideration one is able at once to approve or disapprove of them by means
3635 of these general first principles: while some matters cannot be the subject of judgment without much consideration of
3636 the various circumstances, which all are not competent to do carefully, but only those who are wise: just as it is not possible
3637 for all to consider the particular conclusions of sciences, but only for those who are versed in philosophy: and lastly there
3638 are some matters of which man cannot judge unless he be helped by Divine instruction; such as the articles of faith.
3639 </p>
3640 <p id="FS_Q100_A1-p7"> It is therefore evident that since the moral precepts are about matters which concern good morals; and since good morals
3641 are those which are in accord with reason; and since also every judgment of human reason must needs by derived in some way
3642 from natural reason; it follows, of necessity, that all the moral precepts belong to the law of nature; but not all in the
3643 same way. For there are certain things which the natural reason of every man, of its own accord and at once, judges
3644 to be done or not to be done: e.g. "Honor thy father and thy mother," and "Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal": and
3645 these belong to the law of nature absolutely. And there are certain things which, after a more careful consideration, wise
3646 men deem obligatory. Such belong to the law of nature, yet so that they need to be inculcated, the wiser teaching the less
3647 wise: e.g. "Rise up before the hoary head, and honor the person of the aged man," and the like. And there are some things,
3648 to
3649 judge of which, human reason needs Divine instruction, whereby we are taught about the things of God: e.g. "Thou shalt not
3650 make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of anything; Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain."
3651 </p>
3652 <p id="FS_Q100_A1-p8"> This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.</p>
3653 <p id="FS_Q100_A1-p9"></p>
3654 <p id="FS_Q100_A1-p10"></p>
3655 <a href="summa.FS_Q100.html"></a>
3656 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A2.html"></a>
3657 </div>
3658 <div id="FS_Q100_A2" class="div4">
3659 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A1.html"></a>
3660 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A3.html"></a>
3661 <h4 id="FS_Q100_A2-p0.1">Whether the moral precepts of the Law are about all the acts of virtue?</h4>
3662 <p id="FS_Q100_A2-p1"></p>
3663 <p id="FS_Q100_A2-p2">
3664 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the moral precepts of the Law are not about all the acts of virtue. For observance of the precepts of
3665 the Old Law is called justification, according to
3666 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.118.8" target="asv"> Ps. 118:8</a>: "I will keep Thy justifications." But justification is the execution of justice. Therefore the moral precepts are only about
3667 acts of justice.
3668 </p>
3669 <p id="FS_Q100_A2-p3">
3670 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, that which comes under a precept has the character of a duty. But the character of duty belongs to justice alone
3671 and to none of the other virtues, for the proper act of justice consists in rendering to each one his due. Therefore the precepts
3672 of the moral law are not about the acts of the other virtues, but only about the acts of justice.
3673 </p>
3674 <p id="FS_Q100_A2-p4">
3675 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, every law is made for the common good, as Isidore says (Etym. v, 21). But of all the virtues justice alone regards
3676 the common good, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 1). Therefore the moral precepts are only about the acts of justice.
3677 </p>
3678 <p id="FS_Q100_A2-p5">
3679 <b>On the contrary,</b> Ambrose says (De Paradiso viii) that "a sin is a transgression of the Divine law, and a disobedience to the commandments
3680 of heaven." But there are sins contrary to all the acts of virtue. Therefore it belongs to Divine law to direct all the acts
3681 of virtue.
3682 </p>
3683 <p id="FS_Q100_A2-p6">
3684 <b>I answer that,</b> Since the precepts of the Law are ordained to the common good, as stated above (
3685 <a id="FS_Q100_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q90_A2.html">Q[90], A[2]</a>), the precepts of the Law must needs be diversified according to the various kinds of community: hence the Philosopher (Polit.
3686 iv, 1) teaches that the laws which are made in a state which is ruled by a king must be different from the laws of a state
3687 which is ruled by the people, or by a few powerful men in the state. Now human law is ordained
3688 for one kind of community, and the Divine law for another kind. Because human law is ordained for the civil community, implying
3689 mutual duties of man and his fellows: and men are ordained to one another by outward acts, whereby men live in communion with
3690 one another. This life in common of man with man pertains to justice, whose proper function consists in directing the human
3691 community. Wherefore human law makes precepts only about acts of justice; and if it commands acts of other virtues, this
3692 is only in so far as they assume the nature of justice, as the Philosopher explains (Ethic. v, 1).
3693 </p>
3694 <p id="FS_Q100_A2-p7"> But the community for which the Divine law is ordained, is that of men in relation to God, either in this life or in the
3695 life to come. And therefore the Divine law proposes precepts about all those matters whereby men are well ordered in their
3696 relations to God. Now man is united to God by his reason or mind, in which is God's image. Wherefore the Divine law proposes
3697 precepts about all those matters whereby human reason is well ordered. But this is effected by the acts of all the
3698 virtues: since the intellectual virtues set in good order the acts of the reason in themselves: while the moral virtues set
3699 in good order the acts of the reason in reference to the interior passions and exterior actions. It is therefore evident that
3700 the Divine law fittingly proposes precepts about the acts of all the virtues: yet so that certain matters, without which the
3701 order of virtue, which is the order of reason, cannot even exist, come under an obligation of precept; while other matters,
3702 which pertain to the well-being of perfect virtue, come under an admonition of counsel.
3703 </p>
3704 <p id="FS_Q100_A2-p8">
3705 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The fulfilment of the commandments of the Law, even of those which are about the acts of the other virtues, has the character
3706 of justification, inasmuch as it is just that man should obey God: or again, inasmuch as it is just that all that belongs
3707 to man should be subject to reason.
3708 </p>
3709 <p id="FS_Q100_A2-p9">
3710 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Justice properly so called regards the duty of one man to another: but all the other virtues regard the duty of the lower
3711 powers to reason. It is in relation to this latter duty that the Philosopher speaks (Ethic. v, 11) of a kind of metaphorical
3712 justice.
3713 </p>
3714 <p id="FS_Q100_A2-p10"> The Reply to the Third Objection is clear from what has been said about the different kinds of community.</p>
3715 <p id="FS_Q100_A2-p11"></p>
3716 <p id="FS_Q100_A2-p12"></p>
3717 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A1.html"></a>
3718 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A3.html"></a>
3719 </div>
3720 <div id="FS_Q100_A3" class="div4">
3721 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A2.html"></a>
3722 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A4.html"></a>
3723 <h4 id="FS_Q100_A3-p0.1">Whether all the moral precepts of the Old Law are reducible to the ten precepts of the decalogue?</h4>
3724 <p id="FS_Q100_A3-p1"></p>
3725 <p id="FS_Q100_A3-p2">
3726 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that not all the moral precepts of the Old Law are reducible to the ten precepts of the decalogue. For the
3727 first and principal precepts of the Law are, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God," and "Thou shalt love thy neighbor," as stated
3728 in
3729 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.22.37" target="asv"> Mat. 22:37,39.</a> But these two are not contained in the precepts of the decalogue. Therefore not all the moral precepts are contained in the
3730 precepts of the decalogue.
3731 </p>
3732 <p id="FS_Q100_A3-p3">
3733 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the moral precepts are not reducible to the ceremonial precepts, but rather vice versa. But among the precepts of
3734 the decalogue, one is ceremonial, viz. "Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath-day." Therefore the moral precepts are not
3735 reducible to all the precepts of the decalogue.
3736 </p>
3737 <p id="FS_Q100_A3-p4">
3738 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the moral precepts are about all the acts of virtue. But among the precepts of the decalogue are only such as regard
3739 acts of justice; as may be seen by going through them all. Therefore the precepts of the decalogue do not include all the
3740 moral precepts.
3741 </p>
3742 <p id="FS_Q100_A3-p5">
3743 <b>On the contrary,</b> The gloss on
3744 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.5.11" target="asv"> Mat. 5:11</a>: "Blessed are ye when they shall revile you," etc. says that "Moses, after propounding the ten precepts, set them out in
3745 detail." Therefore all the precepts of the Law are so many parts of the precepts of the decalogue.
3746 </p>
3747 <p id="FS_Q100_A3-p6">
3748 <b>I answer that,</b> The precepts of the decalogue differ from the other precepts of the Law, in the fact that God Himself is said to have given
3749 the precepts of the decalogue; whereas He gave the other precepts to the people through Moses. Wherefore the decalogue includes
3750 those precepts the knowledge of which man has immediately from God. Such are those which with but slight reflection can be
3751 gathered at once from the first general principles: and those also which become known
3752 to man immediately through divinely infused faith. Consequently two kinds of precepts are not reckoned among the precepts
3753 of the decalogue: viz. first general principles, for they need no further promulgation after being once imprinted on the natural
3754 reason to which they are self-evident; as, for instance, that one should do evil to no man, and other similar principles:
3755 and again those which the careful reflection of wise men shows to be in accord with reason; since the people receive these
3756 principles from God, through being taught by wise men. Nevertheless both kinds of precepts are contained in the precepts of
3757 the decalogue; yet in different ways. For the first general principles are contained in them, as principles in their proximate
3758 conclusions; while those which are known through wise men are contained, conversely, as conclusions in their principles.
3759 </p>
3760 <p id="FS_Q100_A3-p7">
3761 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Those two principles are the first general principles of the natural law, and are self-evident to human reason, either through
3762 nature or through faith. Wherefore all the precepts of the decalogue are referred to these, as conclusions to general principles.
3763 </p>
3764 <p id="FS_Q100_A3-p8">
3765 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The precept of the Sabbath observance is moral in one respect, in so far as it commands man to give some time to the things
3766 of God, according to
3767 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A3-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.45.11" target="asv"> Ps. 45:11</a>: "Be still and see that I am God." In this respect it is placed among the precepts of the decalogue: but not as to the fixing
3768 of the time, in which respect it is a ceremonial precept.
3769 </p>
3770 <p id="FS_Q100_A3-p9">
3771 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The notion of duty is not so patent in the other virtues as it is in justice. Hence the precepts about the acts of the other
3772 virtues are not so well known to the people as are the precepts about acts of justice. Wherefore the acts of justice especially
3773 come under the precepts of the decalogue, which are the primary elements of the Law.
3774 </p>
3775 <p id="FS_Q100_A3-p10"></p>
3776 <p id="FS_Q100_A3-p11"></p>
3777 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A2.html"></a>
3778 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A4.html"></a>
3779 </div>
3780 <div id="FS_Q100_A4" class="div4">
3781 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A3.html"></a>
3782 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A5.html"></a>
3783 <h4 id="FS_Q100_A4-p0.1">Whether the precepts of the decalogue are suitably distinguished from one another?</h4>
3784 <p id="FS_Q100_A4-p1"></p>
3785 <p id="FS_Q100_A4-p2">
3786 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the precepts of the decalogue are unsuitably distinguished from one another. For worship is a virtue distinct
3787 from faith. Now the precepts are about acts of virtue. But that which is said at the beginning of the decalogue, "Thou shalt
3788 not have strange gods before Me," belongs to faith: and that which is added, "Thou shalt not make . . . any graven thing,"
3789 etc. belongs to worship. Therefore these are not one precept, as Augustine asserts (Qq.
3790 in Exod. qu. lxxi), but two.
3791 </p>
3792 <p id="FS_Q100_A4-p3">
3793 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the affirmative precepts in the Law are distinct from the negative precepts; e.g. "Honor thy father and thy mother,"
3794 and, "Thou shalt not kill." But this, "I am the Lord thy God," is affirmative: and that which follows, "Thou shalt not have
3795 strange gods before Me," is negative. Therefore these are two precepts, and do not, as Augustine says (Qq. in Exod. qu. lxxi),
3796 make one.
3797 </p>
3798 <p id="FS_Q100_A4-p4">
3799 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Apostle says (
3800 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.7.7" target="asv">Rom. 7:7</a>): "I had not known concupiscence, if the Law did not say: 'Thou shalt not covet.'" Hence it seems that this precept, "Thou
3801 shalt not covet," is one precept; and, therefore, should not be divided into two.
3802 </p>
3803 <p id="FS_Q100_A4-p5">
3804 <b>On the contrary,</b> stands the authority of Augustine who, in commenting on Exodus (Qq. in Exod. qu. lxxi) distinguishes three precepts as referring
3805 to God, and seven as referring to our neighbor.
3806 </p>
3807 <p id="FS_Q100_A4-p6">
3808 <b>I answer that,</b> The precepts of the decalogue are differently divided by different authorities. For Hesychius commenting on
3809 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.26.26" target="asv"> Lev. 26:26, </a> "Ten women shall bake your bread in one oven," says that the precept of the Sabbath-day observance is not one of the ten
3810 precepts, because its observance, in the letter, is not binding for all time. But he distinguishes four precepts pertaining
3811 to God, the first being, "I am the Lord thy God"; the second, "Thou shalt
3812 not have strange gods before Me," (thus also Jerome distinguishes these two precepts, in his commentary on
3813 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A4-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Hos.10.10" target="asv"> Osee 10:10, </a> "On thy" [Vulg.: "their"] "two iniquities"); the third precept according to him is, "Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven
3814 thing"; and the fourth, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." He states that there are six precepts
3815 pertaining to our neighbor; the first, "Honor thy father and thy mother"; the second, "Thou shalt not kill";
3816 the third, "Thou shalt not commit adultery"; the fourth, "Thou shalt not steal"; the fifth, "Thou shalt not bear false witness";
3817 the sixth, "Thou shalt not covet."
3818 </p>
3819 <p id="FS_Q100_A4-p7"> But, in the first place, it seems unbecoming for the precept of the Sabbath-day observance to be put among the precepts of
3820 the decalogue, if it nowise belonged to the decalogue. Secondly, because, since it is written (
3821 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.6.24" target="asv">Mat. 6:24</a>), "No man can serve two masters," the two statements, "I am the Lord thy God," and, "Thou shalt not have strange gods before
3822 Me" seem to be of the same nature and to form one precept. Hence Origen (Hom. viii in Exod.) who also
3823 distinguishes four precepts as referring to God, unites these two under one precept; and reckons in the second place, "Thou
3824 shalt not make . . . any graven thing"; as third, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain"; and as fourth,
3825 "Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath-day." The other six he reckons in the same way as Hesychius.
3826 </p>
3827 <p id="FS_Q100_A4-p8"> Since, however, the making of graven things or the likeness of anything is not forbidden except as to the point of their
3828 being worshipped as gods---for God commanded an image of the Seraphim [Vulg.: Cherubim] to be made and placed in the tabernacle,
3829 as related in
3830 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A4-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.25.18" target="asv"> Ex. 25:18</a>---Augustine more fittingly unites these two, "Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me," and, "Thou shalt not make . .
3831 . any graven thing," into one precept. Likewise to covet another's
3832 wife, for the purpose of carnal knowledge, belongs to the concupiscence of the flesh; whereas, to covet other things, which
3833 are desired for the purpose of possession, belongs to the concupiscence of the eyes; wherefore Augustine reckons as distinct
3834 precepts, that which forbids the coveting of another's goods, and that which prohibits the coveting of another's wife. Thus
3835 he distinguishes three precepts as referring to God, and seven as referring to our neighbor. And this is better.
3836 </p>
3837 <p id="FS_Q100_A4-p9">
3838 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Worship is merely a declaration of faith: wherefore the precepts about worship should not be reckoned as distinct from those
3839 about faith. Nevertheless precepts should be given about worship rather than about faith, because the precept about faith
3840 is presupposed to the precepts of the decalogue, as is also the precept of charity. For just as the first general principles
3841 of the natural law are self-evident to a subject having natural reason, and need no
3842 promulgation; so also to believe in God is a first and self-evident principle to a subject possessed of faith: "for he that
3843 cometh to God, must believe that He is" (
3844 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A4-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.11.6" target="asv">Heb. 11:6</a>). Hence it needs no other promulgation that the infusion of faith.
3845 </p>
3846 <p id="FS_Q100_A4-p10">
3847 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The affirmative precepts are distinct from the negative, when one is not comprised in the other: thus that man should honor
3848 his parents does not include that he should not kill another man; nor does the latter include the former. But when an affirmative
3849 precept is included in a negative, or vice versa, we do not find that two distinct precepts are given: thus there is not one
3850 precept saying that "Thou shalt not steal," and another binding one to keep
3851 another's property intact, or to give it back to its owner. In the same way there are not different precepts about believing
3852 in God, and about not believing in strange gods.
3853 </p>
3854 <p id="FS_Q100_A4-p11">
3855 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> All covetousness has one common ratio: and therefore the Apostle speaks of the commandment about covetousness as though it
3856 were one. But because there are various special kinds of covetousness, therefore Augustine distinguishes different prohibitions
3857 against coveting: for covetousness differs specifically in respect of the diversity of actions or things coveted, as the Philosopher
3858 says (Ethic. x, 5).
3859 </p>
3860 <p id="FS_Q100_A4-p12"></p>
3861 <p id="FS_Q100_A4-p13"></p>
3862 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A3.html"></a>
3863 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A5.html"></a>
3864 </div>
3865 <div id="FS_Q100_A5" class="div4">
3866 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A4.html"></a>
3867 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A6.html"></a>
3868 <h4 id="FS_Q100_A5-p0.1">Whether the precepts of the decalogue are suitably set forth?</h4>
3869 <p id="FS_Q100_A5-p1"></p>
3870 <p id="FS_Q100_A5-p2">
3871 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the precepts of the decalogue are unsuitably set forth. Because sin, as stated by Ambrose (De Paradiso
3872 viii), is "a transgression of the Divine law and a disobedience to the commandments of heaven." But sins are distinguished
3873 according as man sins against God, or his neighbor, or himself. Since, then, the decalogue does not include any precepts directing
3874 man in his relations to himself, but only such as direct him in his relations to God and
3875 himself, it seems that the precepts of the decalogue are insufficiently enumerated.
3876 </p>
3877 <p id="FS_Q100_A5-p3">
3878 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, just as the Sabbath-day observance pertained to the worship of God, so also did the observance of other solemnities,
3879 and the offering of sacrifices. But the decalogue contains a precept about the Sabbath-day observance. Therefore it should
3880 contain others also, pertaining to the other solemnities, and to the sacrificial rite.
3881 </p>
3882 <p id="FS_Q100_A5-p4">
3883 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as sins against God include the sin of perjury, so also do they include blasphemy, or other ways of lying against
3884 the teaching of God. But there is a precept forbidding perjury, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain."
3885 Therefore there should be also a precept of the decalogue forbidding blasphemy and false doctrine.
3886 </p>
3887 <p id="FS_Q100_A5-p5">
3888 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, just as man has a natural affection for his parents, so has he also for his children. Moreover the commandment of
3889 charity extends to all our neighbors. Now the precepts of the decalogue are ordained unto charity, according to
3890 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.1.5" target="asv">1 Tim. 1:5</a>: "The end of the commandment is charity." Therefore as there is a precept referring to parents, so should there have been
3891 some precepts referring to children and other neighbors.
3892 </p>
3893 <p id="FS_Q100_A5-p6">
3894 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, in every kind of sin, it is possible to sin in thought or in deed. But in some kinds of sin, namely in theft and
3895 adultery, the prohibition of sins of deed, when it is said, "Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal," is distinct
3896 from the prohibition of the sin of thought, when it is said, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods," and, "Thou shalt
3897 not covet thy neighbor's wife." Therefore the same should have been done in regard to the
3898 sins of homicide and false witness.
3899 </p>
3900 <p id="FS_Q100_A5-p7">
3901 <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, just as sin happens through disorder of the concupiscible faculty, so does it arise through disorder of the irascible
3902 part. But some precepts forbid inordinate concupiscence, when it is said, "Thou shalt not covet." Therefore the decalogue
3903 should have included some precepts forbidding the disorders of the irascible faculty. Therefore it seems that the ten precepts
3904 of the decalogue are unfittingly enumerated.
3905 </p>
3906 <p id="FS_Q100_A5-p8">
3907 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
3908 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A5-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.4.13" target="asv">Dt. 4:13</a>): "He shewed you His covenant, which He commanded you to do, and the ten words that He wrote in two tablets of stone."
3909 </p>
3910 <p id="FS_Q100_A5-p9">
3911 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
3912 <a id="FS_Q100_A5-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q100_A2.html">(A[2])</a>, just as the precepts of human law direct man in his relations to the human community, so the precepts of the Divine law
3913 direct man in his relations to a community or commonwealth of men under God. Now in order that any man may dwell aright in
3914 a community, two things are required: the first is that he behave well to the head of the community; the other is that he
3915 behave well to those who are his fellows and
3916 partners in the community. It is therefore necessary that the Divine law should contain in the first place precepts ordering
3917 man in his relations to God; and in the second place, other precepts ordering man in his relations to other men who are his
3918 neighbors and live with him under God.
3919 </p>
3920 <p id="FS_Q100_A5-p10"> Now man owes three things to the head of the community: first, fidelity; secondly, reverence; thirdly, service. Fidelity
3921 to his master consists in his not giving sovereign honor to another: and this is the sense of the first commandment, in the
3922 words "Thou shalt not have strange gods." Reverence to his master requires that he should do nothing injurious to him: and
3923 this is conveyed by the second commandment, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." Service is
3924 due to the master in return for the benefits which his subjects receive from him: and to this belongs the third commandment
3925 of the sanctification of the Sabbath in memory of the creation of all things.
3926 </p>
3927 <p id="FS_Q100_A5-p11"> To his neighbors a man behaves himself well both in particular and in general. In particular, as to those to whom he is indebted,
3928 by paying his debts: and in this sense is to be taken the commandment about honoring one's parents. In general, as to all
3929 men, by doing harm to none, either by deed, or by word, or by thought. By deed, harm is done to one's neighbor---sometimes
3930 in his person, i.e. as to his personal existence; and this is forbidden by the words, "Thou shalt not kill":
3931 sometimes in a person united to him, as to the propagation of offspring; and this is prohibited by the words, "Thou shalt
3932 not commit adultery": sometimes in his possessions, which are directed to both the aforesaid; and with this regard to this
3933 it is said, "Thou shalt not steal." Harm done by word is forbidden when it is said, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against
3934 thy neighbor": harm done by thought is forbidden in the words, "Thou shalt not covet."
3935 </p>
3936 <p id="FS_Q100_A5-p12"> The three precepts that direct man in his behavior towards God may also be differentiated in this same way. For the first
3937 refers to deeds; wherefore it is said, "Thou shalt not make . . . a graven thing": the second, to words; wherefore it is said,
3938 "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain": the third, to thoughts; because the sanctification of the Sabbath,
3939 as the subject of a moral precept, requires repose of the heart in God. Or, according to Augustine (In
3940 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A5-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.32" target="asv">Ps.
3941 32
3942 </a>: Conc. 1), by the first commandment we reverence the unity of the First Principle; by the second, the Divine truth; by the
3943 third, His goodness whereby we are sanctified, and wherein we rest as in our last end.
3944 </p>
3945 <p id="FS_Q100_A5-p13">
3946 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This objection may be answered in two ways. First, because the precepts of the decalogue can be reduced to the precepts of
3947 charity. Now there was need for man to receive a precept about loving God and his neighbor, because in this respect the natural
3948 law had become obscured on account of sin: but not about the duty of loving oneself, because in this respect the natural law
3949 retained its vigor: or again, because love of oneself is contained in the love
3950 of God and of one's neighbor: since true self-love consists in directing oneself to God. And for this reason the decalogue
3951 includes those precepts only which refer to our neighbor and to God.
3952 </p>
3953 <p id="FS_Q100_A5-p14"> Secondly, it may be answered that the precepts of the decalogue are those which the people received from God immediately;
3954 wherefore it is written (
3955 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A5-p14.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.10.4" target="asv">Dt. 10:4</a>): "He wrote in the tables, according as He had written before, the ten words, which the Lord spoke to you." Hence the precepts
3956 of the decalogue need to be such as the people can understand at once. Now a precept implies the notion of duty. But it is
3957 easy for a man, especially for a believer, to understand
3958 that, of necessity, he owes certain duties to God and to his neighbor. But that, in matters which regard himself and not another,
3959 man has, of necessity, certain duties to himself, is not so evident: for, at the first glance, it seems that everyone is free
3960 in matters that concern himself. And therefore the precepts which prohibit disorders of a man with regard to himself, reach
3961 the people through the instruction of men who are versed through the instruction of men who are versed in such matters;
3962 and, consequently, they are not contained in the decalogue.
3963 </p>
3964 <p id="FS_Q100_A5-p15">
3965 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> All the solemnities of the Old Law were instituted in celebration of some Divine favor, either in memory of past favors,
3966 or in sign of some favor to come: in like manner all the sacrifices were offered up with the same purpose. Now of all the
3967 Divine favors to be commemorated the chief was that of the Creation, which was called to mind by the sanctification of the
3968 Sabbath; wherefore the reason for this precept is given in
3969 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A5-p15.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.20.11" target="asv"> Ex.
3970 20:11
3971 </a>: "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth," etc. And of all future blessings, the chief and final was the repose of the
3972 mind in God, either, in the present life, by grace, or, in the future life, by glory; which repose was also foreshadowed in
3973 the Sabbath-day observance: wherefore it is written (
3974 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A5-p15.2" href="./asv.html#Isa.58.13" target="asv">Is. 58:13</a>): "If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy own will in My holy day, and call the Sabbath delightful,
3975 and the holy of the Lord
3976 glorious." Because these favors first and chiefly are borne in mind by men, especially by the faithful. But other solemnities
3977 were celebrated on account of certain particular favors temporal and transitory, such as the celebration of the Passover in
3978 memory of the past favor of the delivery from Egypt, and as a sign of the future Passion of Christ, which though temporal
3979 and transitory, brought us to the repose of the spiritual Sabbath. Consequently, the Sabbath alone, and none of the other
3980 solemnities and sacrifices, is mentioned in the precepts of the decalogue.
3981 </p>
3982 <p id="FS_Q100_A5-p16">
3983 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As the Apostle says (
3984 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A5-p16.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.6.16" target="asv">Heb. 6:16</a>), "men swear by one greater than themselves; and an oath for confirmation is the end of all their controversy." Hence, since
3985 oaths are common to all, inordinate swearing is the matter of a special prohibition by a precept of the decalogue. According
3986 to one interpretation, however, the words, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain," are a prohibition of
3987 false doctrine, for one gloss
3988 expounds them thus: "Thou shalt not say that Christ is a creature."
3989 </p>
3990 <p id="FS_Q100_A5-p17">
3991 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> That a man should not do harm to anyone is an immediate dictate of his natural reason: and therefore the precepts that forbid
3992 the doing of harm are binding on all men. But it is not an immediate dictate of natural reason that a man should do one thing
3993 in return for another, unless he happen to be indebted to someone. Now a son's debt to his father is so evident that one cannot
3994 get away from it by denying it: since the father is the principle of
3995 generation and being, and also of upbringing and teaching. Wherefore the decalogue does not prescribe deeds of kindness or
3996 service to be done to anyone except to one's parents. On the other hand parents do not seem to be indebted to their children
3997 for any favors received, but rather the reverse is the case. Again, a child is a part of his father; and "parents love their
3998 children as being a part of themselves," as the Philosopher states (Ethic. viii, 12). Hence, just as the decalogue contains
3999 no
4000 ordinance as to man's behavior towards himself, so, for the same reason, it includes no precept about loving one's children.
4001 </p>
4002 <p id="FS_Q100_A5-p18">
4003 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> The pleasure of adultery and the usefulness of wealth, in so far as they have the character of pleasurable or useful good,
4004 are of themselves, objects of appetite: and for this reason they needed to be forbidden not only in the deed but also in the
4005 desire. But murder and falsehood are, of themselves, objects of repulsion (since it is natural for man to love his neighbor
4006 and the truth): and are desired only for the sake of something else. Consequently
4007 with regard to sins of murder and false witness, it was necessary to proscribe, not sins of thought, but only sins of deed.
4008 </p>
4009 <p id="FS_Q100_A5-p19">
4010 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> As stated above (
4011 <a id="FS_Q100_A5-p19.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q25_A1.html">Q[25], A[1]</a>), all the passions of the irascible faculty arise from the passions of the concupiscible part. Hence, as the precepts of
4012 the decalogue are, as it were, the first elements of the Law, there was no need for mention of the irascible passions, but
4013 only of the concupiscible passions.
4014 </p>
4015 <p id="FS_Q100_A5-p20"></p>
4016 <p id="FS_Q100_A5-p21"></p>
4017 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A4.html"></a>
4018 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A6.html"></a>
4019 </div>
4020 <div id="FS_Q100_A6" class="div4">
4021 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A5.html"></a>
4022 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A7.html"></a>
4023 <h4 id="FS_Q100_A6-p0.1">Whether the ten precepts of the decalogue are set in proper order?</h4>
4024 <p id="FS_Q100_A6-p1"></p>
4025 <p id="FS_Q100_A6-p2">
4026 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the ten precepts of the decalogue are not set in proper order. Because love of one's neighbor is seemingly
4027 previous to love of God, since our neighbor is better known to us than God is; according to
4028 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iJohn.4.20" target="asv">1 Jn. 4:20</a>: "He that loveth not his brother, whom he seeth, how can he love God, Whom he seeth not?" But the first three precepts belong
4029 to the love of God, while the other seven pertain to the love of our neighbor. Therefore
4030 the precepts of the decalogue are not set in proper order.
4031 </p>
4032 <p id="FS_Q100_A6-p3">
4033 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the acts of virtue are prescribed by the affirmative precepts, and acts of vice are forbidden by the negative precepts.
4034 But according to Boethius in his commentary on the Categories [*Lib. iv, cap. De Oppos.], vices should be uprooted before
4035 virtues are sown. Therefore among the precepts concerning our neighbor, the negative precepts should have preceded the affirmative.
4036 </p>
4037 <p id="FS_Q100_A6-p4">
4038 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the precepts of the Law are about men's actions. But actions of thought precede actions of word or outward deed.
4039 Therefore the precepts about not coveting, which regard our thoughts, are unsuitably placed last in order.
4040 </p>
4041 <p id="FS_Q100_A6-p5">
4042 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
4043 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.13.1" target="asv">Rom. 13:1</a>): "The things that are of God, are well ordered" [Vulg.: 'Those that are, are ordained of God']. But the precepts of the
4044 decalogue were given immediately by God, as stated above
4045 <a id="FS_Q100_A6-p5.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q100_A3.html">(A[3])</a>. Therefore they are arranged in becoming order.
4046 </p>
4047 <p id="FS_Q100_A6-p6">
4048 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
4049 <a id="FS_Q100_A6-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q100_A3.html">AA[3]</a>,5, ad 1), the precepts of the decalogue are such as the mind of man is ready to grasp at once. Now it is evident that a thing
4050 is so much the more easily grasped by the reason, as its contrary is more grievous and repugnant to reason. Moreover, it is
4051 clear, since the order of reason begins with the end, that, for a man to be inordinately disposed towards his end, is supremely
4052 contrary to reason. Now the end of
4053 human life and society is God. Consequently it was necessary for the precepts of the decalogue, first of all, to direct man
4054 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,
4055 it is requisite first that the soldier should be subject to the commander, and the opposite of this is most grievous; and
4056 secondly it is requisite that he should be in coordination with the other soldiers.
4057 </p>
4058 <p id="FS_Q100_A6-p7"> Now among those things whereby we are ordained to God, the first is that man should be subjected to Him faithfully, by having
4059 nothing in common with His enemies. The second is that he should show Him reverence: the third that he should offer Him service.
4060 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
4061 to his commander: and this last is more grievous than if he be found wanting in some point of service
4062 to him.
4063 </p>
4064 <p id="FS_Q100_A6-p8"> As to the precepts that direct man in his behavior towards his neighbor, it is evident that it is more repugnant to reason,
4065 and a more grievous sin, if man does not observe the due order as to those persons to whom he is most indebted. Consequently,
4066 among those precepts that direct man in his relations to his neighbor, the first place is given to that one which regards
4067 his parents. Among the other precepts we again find the order to be according to the gravity of sin. For it is
4068 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,
4069 murder which destroys life in one already living is more grievous than adultery, which imperils the life of the unborn child;
4070 and adultery is more grave than theft, which regards external goods.
4071 </p>
4072 <p id="FS_Q100_A6-p9">
4073 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Although our neighbor is better known than God by the way of the senses, nevertheless the love of God is the reason for the
4074 love of our neighbor, as shall be declared later on (
4075 <a id="FS_Q100_A6-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q25_A1.html">SS, Q[25], A[1]</a>;
4076 <a id="FS_Q100_A6-p9.2" shape="rect" href="summa.SS_Q26_A2.html">SS, Q[26], A[2]</a>). Hence the precepts ordaining man to God demanded precedence of the others.
4077 </p>
4078 <p id="FS_Q100_A6-p10">
4079 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Just as God is the universal principle of being in respect of all things, so is a father a principle of being in respect
4080 of his son. Therefore the precept regarding parents was fittingly placed after the precepts regarding God. This argument holds
4081 in respect of affirmative and negative precepts about the same kind of deed: although even then it is not altogether cogent.
4082 For although in the order of execution, vices should be uprooted before virtues
4083 are sown, according to
4084 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A6-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.33.15" target="asv"> Ps. 33:15</a>: "Turn away from evil, and do good," and
4085 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A6-p10.2" href="./asv.html#Isa.1.16" target="asv"> Is. 1:16,17</a>: "Cease to do perversely; learn to do well"; yet, in the order of knowledge, virtue precedes vice, because "the crooked line
4086 is known by the straight" (De Anima i): and "by the law is the knowledge of sin" (
4087 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A6-p10.3" href="./asv.html#Rom.3.20" target="asv">Rom. 3:20</a>). Wherefore the affirmation precept demanded the first place. However, this is not the reason for the order, but that which
4088 is given
4089 above. Because in the precepts regarding God, which belongs to the first table, an affirmative precept is placed last, since
4090 its transgression implies a less grievous sin.
4091 </p>
4092 <p id="FS_Q100_A6-p11">
4093 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Although sin of thought stands first in the order of execution, yet its prohibition holds a later position in the order of
4094 reason.
4095 </p>
4096 <p id="FS_Q100_A6-p12"></p>
4097 <p id="FS_Q100_A6-p13"></p>
4098 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A5.html"></a>
4099 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A7.html"></a>
4100 </div>
4101 <div id="FS_Q100_A7" class="div4">
4102 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A6.html"></a>
4103 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A8.html"></a>
4104 <h4 id="FS_Q100_A7-p0.1">Whether the precepts of the decalogue are suitably formulated?</h4>
4105 <p id="FS_Q100_A7-p1"></p>
4106 <p id="FS_Q100_A7-p2">
4107 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the precepts of the decalogue are unsuitably formulated. Because the affirmative precepts direct man to
4108 acts of virtue, while the negative precepts withdraw him from acts of vice. But in every matter there are virtues and vices
4109 opposed to one another. Therefore in whatever matter there is an ordinance of a precept of the decalogue, there should have
4110 been an affirmative and a negative precept. Therefore it was unfitting that affirmative
4111 precepts should be framed in some matters, and negative precepts in others.
4112 </p>
4113 <p id="FS_Q100_A7-p3">
4114 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Isidore says (Etym. ii, 10) that every law is based on reason. But all the precepts of the decalogue belong to the
4115 Divine law. Therefore the reason should have been pointed out in each precept, and not only in the first and third.
4116 </p>
4117 <p id="FS_Q100_A7-p4">
4118 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, by observing the precepts man deserves to be rewarded by God. But the Divine promises concern the rewards of the
4119 precepts. Therefore the promise should have been included in each precept, and not only in the second and fourth.
4120 </p>
4121 <p id="FS_Q100_A7-p5">
4122 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the Old Law is called "the law of fear," in so far as it induced men to observe the precepts, by means of the threat
4123 of punishments. But all the precepts of the decalogue belong to the Old Law. Therefore a threat of punishment should have
4124 been included in each, and not only in the first and second.
4125 </p>
4126 <p id="FS_Q100_A7-p6">
4127 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, all the commandments of God should be retained in the memory: for it is written (
4128 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A7-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.3.3" target="asv">Prov. 3:3</a>): "Write them in the tables of thy heart." Therefore it was not fitting that mention of the memory should be made in the
4129 third commandment only. Consequently it seems that the precepts of the decalogue are unsuitably formulated.
4130 </p>
4131 <p id="FS_Q100_A7-p7">
4132 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
4133 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A7-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.11.21" target="asv">Wis. 11:21</a>) that "God made all things, in measure, number and weight." Much more therefore did He observe a suitable manner in formulating
4134 His Law.
4135 </p>
4136 <p id="FS_Q100_A7-p8">
4137 <b>I answer that,</b> The highest wisdom is contained in the precepts of the Divine law: wherefore it is written (
4138 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A7-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.4.6" target="asv">Dt. 4:6</a>): "This is your wisdom and understanding in the sight of nations." Now it belongs to wisdom to arrange all things in due
4139 manner and order. Therefore it must be evident that the precepts of the Law are suitably set forth.
4140 </p>
4141 <p id="FS_Q100_A7-p9">
4142 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Affirmation of one thing always leads to the denial of its opposite: but the denial of one opposite does not always lead
4143 to the affirmation of the other. For it follows that if a thing is white, it is not black: but it does not follow that if
4144 it is not black, it is white: because negation extends further than affirmation. And hence too, that one ought not to do harm
4145 to another, which pertains to the negative precepts, extends to more persons, as a
4146 primary dictate of reason, than that one ought to do someone a service or kindness. Nevertheless it is a primary dictate of
4147 reason that man is a debtor in the point of rendering a service or kindness to those from whom he has received kindness, if
4148 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
4149 stated in Ethic. viii, 14. Therefore it is that there are only two affirmative precepts; one about the honor due to parents,
4150 the other about the celebration of the Sabbath in memory of the Divine favor.
4151 </p>
4152 <p id="FS_Q100_A7-p10">
4153 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The reasons for the purely moral precepts are manifest; hence there was no need to add the reason. But some of the precepts
4154 include ceremonial matter, or a determination of a general moral precept; thus the first precept includes the determination,
4155 "Thou shalt not make a graven thing"; and in the third precept the Sabbath-day is fixed. Consequently there was need to state
4156 the reason in each case.
4157 </p>
4158 <p id="FS_Q100_A7-p11">
4159 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Generally speaking, men direct their actions to some point of utility. Consequently in those precepts in which it seemed
4160 that there would be no useful result, or that some utility might be hindered, it was necessary to add a promise of reward.
4161 And since parents are already on the way to depart from us, no benefit is expected from them: wherefore a promise of reward
4162 is added to the precept about honoring one's parents. The same applies to the precept
4163 forbidding idolatry: since thereby it seemed that men were hindered from receiving the apparent benefit which they think they
4164 can get by entering into a compact with the demons.
4165 </p>
4166 <p id="FS_Q100_A7-p12">
4167 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Punishments are necessary against those who are prone to evil, as stated in Ethic. x, 9. Wherefore a threat of punishment
4168 is only affixed to those precepts of the law which forbade evils to which men were prone. Now men were prone to idolatry by
4169 reason of the general custom of the nations. Likewise men are prone to perjury on account of the frequent use of oaths. Hence
4170 it is that a threat is affixed to the first two precepts.
4171 </p>
4172 <p id="FS_Q100_A7-p13">
4173 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> The commandment about the Sabbath was made in memory of a past blessing. Wherefore special mention of the memory is made
4174 therein. Or again, the commandment about the Sabbath has a determination affixed to it that does not belong to the natural
4175 law, wherefore this precept needed a special admonition.
4176 </p>
4177 <p id="FS_Q100_A7-p14"></p>
4178 <p id="FS_Q100_A7-p15"></p>
4179 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A6.html"></a>
4180 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A8.html"></a>
4181 </div>
4182 <div id="FS_Q100_A8" class="div4">
4183 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A7.html"></a>
4184 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A9.html"></a>
4185 <h4 id="FS_Q100_A8-p0.1">Whether the precepts of the decalogue are dispensable?</h4>
4186 <p id="FS_Q100_A8-p1"></p>
4187 <p id="FS_Q100_A8-p2">
4188 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the precepts of the decalogue are dispensable. For the precepts of the decalogue belong to the natural
4189 law. But the natural law fails in some cases and is changeable, like human nature, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 7).
4190 Now the failure of law to apply in certain particular cases is a reason for dispensation, as stated above (
4191 <a id="FS_Q100_A8-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q96_A6.html">Q[96], A[6]</a>;
4192 <a id="FS_Q100_A8-p2.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q97_A4.html"> Q[97], A[4]</a>). Therefore a dispensation can be
4193 granted in the precepts of the decalogue.
4194 </p>
4195 <p id="FS_Q100_A8-p3">
4196 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, man stands in the same relation to human law as God does to Divine law. But man can dispense with the precepts of
4197 a law made by man. Therefore, since the precepts of the decalogue are ordained by God, it seems that God can dispense with
4198 them. Now our superiors are God's viceregents on earth; for the Apostle says (
4199 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A8-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.2.10" target="asv">2 Cor. 2:10</a>): "For what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned anything, for your sakes have I done it in the person of
4200 Christ." Therefore superiors can dispense with the precepts of the decalogue.
4201 </p>
4202 <p id="FS_Q100_A8-p4">
4203 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, among the precepts of the decalogue is one forbidding murder. But it seems that a dispensation is given by men in
4204 this precept: for instance, when according to the prescription of human law, such as evil-doers or enemies are lawfully slain.
4205 Therefore the precepts of the decalogue are dispensable.
4206 </p>
4207 <p id="FS_Q100_A8-p5">
4208 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the observance of the Sabbath is ordained by a precept of the decalogue. But a dispensation was granted in this
4209 precept; for it is written (
4210 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A8-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iMacc.2.4" target="asv">1 Macc. 2:4</a>): "And they determined in that day, saying: Whosoever shall come up to fight against us on the Sabbath-day, we will fight
4211 against him." Therefore the precepts of the decalogue are dispensable.
4212 </p>
4213 <p id="FS_Q100_A8-p6">
4214 <b>On the contrary,</b> are the words of
4215 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A8-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.24.5" target="asv"> Is. 24:5, </a> where some are reproved for that "they have changed the ordinance, they have broken the everlasting covenant"; which, seemingly,
4216 apply principally to the precepts of the decalogue. Therefore the precepts of the decalogue cannot be changed by dispensation.
4217 </p>
4218 <p id="FS_Q100_A8-p7">
4219 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
4220 <a id="FS_Q100_A8-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q96_A6.html">Q[96], A[6]</a>;
4221 <a id="FS_Q100_A8-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q97_A4.html"> Q[97], A[4]</a>), precepts admit of dispensation, when there occurs a particular case in which, if the letter of the law be observed, the
4222 intention of the lawgiver is frustrated. Now the intention of every lawgiver is directed first and chiefly to the common good;
4223 secondly, to the order of justice and virtue, whereby the common good is preserved and attained. If therefore there by
4224 any precepts which contain the very preservation of the common good, or the very order of justice and virtue, such precepts
4225 contain the intention of the lawgiver, and therefore are indispensable. For instance, if in some community a law were enacted,
4226 such as this---that no man should work for the destruction of the commonwealth, or betray the state to its enemies, or that
4227 no man should do anything unjust or evil, such precepts would not admit of dispensation. But if other precepts were enacted,
4228 subordinate to the above, and determining certain special modes of procedure, these latter precepts would admit of dispensation,
4229 in so far as the omission of these precepts in certain cases would not be prejudicial to the former precepts which contain
4230 the intention of the lawgiver. For instance if, for the safeguarding of the commonwealth, it were enacted in some city that
4231 from each ward some men should keep watch as sentries in case of siege, some might be dispensed from this on account of
4232 some greater utility.
4233 </p>
4234 <p id="FS_Q100_A8-p8"> Now the precepts of the decalogue contain the very intention of the lawgiver, who is God. For the precepts of the first table,
4235 which direct us to God, contain the very order to the common and final good, which is God; while the precepts of the second
4236 table contain the order of justice to be observed among men, that nothing undue be done to anyone, and that each one be given
4237 his due; for it is in this sense that we are to take the precepts of the decalogue. Consequently the
4238 precepts of the decalogue admit of no dispensation whatever.
4239 </p>
4240 <p id="FS_Q100_A8-p9">
4241 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Philosopher is not speaking of the natural law which contains the very order of justice: for it is a never-failing principle
4242 that "justice should be preserved." But he is speaking in reference to certain fixed modes of observing justice, which fail
4243 to apply in certain cases.
4244 </p>
4245 <p id="FS_Q100_A8-p10">
4246 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As the Apostle says (
4247 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A8-p10.1" href="./asv.html#iiTim.2.13" target="asv">2 Tim. 2:13</a>), "God continueth faithful, He cannot deny Himself." But He would deny Himself if He were to do away with the very order
4248 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
4249 himself to God, or not to be subject to His justice, even in those matters in which men are directed to one another.
4250 </p>
4251 <p id="FS_Q100_A8-p11">
4252 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> 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
4253 the precept contains the very essence of justice. Human law cannot make it lawful for a man to be slain unduly. But it is
4254 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;
4255 and such a killing is no murder as forbidden by that precept, as Augustine
4256 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,
4257 this is not theft or robbery as forbidden by the decalogue.
4258 </p>
4259 <p id="FS_Q100_A8-p12"> Consequently when the children of Israel, by God's command, took away the spoils of the Egyptians, this was not theft; since
4260 it was due to them by the sentence of God. Likewise when Abraham consented to slay his son, he did not consent to murder,
4261 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
4262 of death on all men, both godly and ungodly, on account of the sin of our first parent, and if a man be
4263 the executor of that sentence by Divine authority, he will be no murderer any more than God would be. Again Osee, by taking
4264 unto himself a wife of fornications, or an adulterous woman, was not guilty either of adultery or of fornication: because
4265 he took unto himself one who was his by command of God, Who is the Author of the institution of marriage.
4266 </p>
4267 <p id="FS_Q100_A8-p13"> Accordingly, therefore, the precepts of the decalogue, as to the essence of justice which they contain, are unchangeable:
4268 but as to any determination by application to individual actions---for instance, that this or that be murder, theft or adultery,
4269 or not---in this point they admit of change; sometimes by Divine authority alone, namely, in such matters as are exclusively
4270 of Divine institution, as marriage and the like; sometimes also by human authority, namely in such matters
4271 as are subject to human jurisdiction: for in this respect men stand in the place of God: and yet not in all respects.
4272 </p>
4273 <p id="FS_Q100_A8-p14">
4274 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> This determination was an interpretation rather than a dispensation. For a man is not taken to break the Sabbath, if he does
4275 something necessary for human welfare; as Our Lord proves (
4276 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A8-p14.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.12.3" target="asv">Mat. 12:3, </a> seqq.).
4277 </p>
4278 <p id="FS_Q100_A8-p15"></p>
4279 <p id="FS_Q100_A8-p16"></p>
4280 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A7.html"></a>
4281 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A9.html"></a>
4282 </div>
4283 <div id="FS_Q100_A9" class="div4">
4284 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A8.html"></a>
4285 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A10.html"></a>
4286 <h4 id="FS_Q100_A9-p0.1">Whether the mode of virtue falls under the precept of the law?</h4>
4287 <p id="FS_Q100_A9-p1"></p>
4288 <p id="FS_Q100_A9-p2">
4289 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the mode of virtue falls under the precept of the law. For the mode of virtue is that deeds of justice
4290 should be done justly, that deeds of fortitude should be done bravely, and in like manner as to the other virtues. But it
4291 is commanded (
4292 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A9-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.26.20" target="asv">Dt. 26:20</a>) that "thou shalt follow justly after that which is just." Therefore the mode of virtue falls under the precept.
4293 </p>
4294 <p id="FS_Q100_A9-p3">
4295 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, that which belongs to the intention of the lawgiver comes chiefly under the precept. But the intention of the lawgiver
4296 is directed chiefly to make men virtuous, as stated in Ethic. ii: and it belongs to a virtuous man to act virtuously. Therefore
4297 the mode of virtue falls under the precept.
4298 </p>
4299 <p id="FS_Q100_A9-p4">
4300 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the mode of virtue seems to consist properly in working willingly and with pleasure. But this falls under a precept
4301 of the Divine law, for it is written (
4302 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A9-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.99.2" target="asv">Ps. 99:2</a>): "Serve ye the Lord with gladness"; and (
4303 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A9-p4.2" href="./asv.html#iiCor.9.7" target="asv">2 Cor. 9:7</a>): "Not with sadness or necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver"; whereupon the gloss says: "Whatever ye do, do gladly;
4304 and then you will do it well; whereas if you do it sorrowfully, it is done
4305 in thee, not by thee." Therefore the mode of virtue falls under the precept of the law.
4306 </p>
4307 <p id="FS_Q100_A9-p5">
4308 <b>On the contrary,</b> No man can act as a virtuous man acts unless he has the habit of virtue, as the Philosopher explains (Ethic. ii, 4; v, 8).
4309 Now whoever transgresses a precept of the law, deserves to be punished. Hence it would follow that a man who has not the habit
4310 of virtue, would deserve to be punished, whatever he does. But this is contrary to the intention of the law, which aims at
4311 leading man to virtue, by habituating him to good works. Therefore the mode of virtue
4312 does not fall under the precept.
4313 </p>
4314 <p id="FS_Q100_A9-p6">
4315 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
4316 <a id="FS_Q100_A9-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q90_A3.html">Q[90], A[3]</a>, ad 2), a precept of law has compulsory power. Hence that on which the compulsion of the law is brought to bear, falls directly
4317 under the precept of the law. Now the law compels through fear of punishment, as stated in Ethic. x, 9, because that properly
4318 falls under the precept of the law, for which the penalty of the law is inflicted. But Divine law and human law are differently
4319 situated as to the
4320 appointment of penalties; since the penalty of the law is inflicted only for those things which come under the judgment of
4321 the lawgiver; for the law punishes in accordance with the verdict given. Now man, the framer of human law, is competent to
4322 judge only of outward acts; because "man seeth those things that appear," according to
4323 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A9-p6.2" href="./asv.html#iKgs.16.7" target="asv">1 Kings 16:7</a>: while God alone, the framer of the Divine law, is competent to judge of the inward movements of wills, according to
4324 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A9-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Ps.7.10" target="asv"> Ps.
4325 7:10
4326 </a>: "The searcher of hearts and reins is God."
4327 </p>
4328 <p id="FS_Q100_A9-p7"> Accordingly, therefore, we must say that the mode of virtue is in some sort regarded both by human and by Divine law; in
4329 some respect it is regarded by the Divine, but not by the human law; and in another way, it is regarded neither by the human
4330 nor by the Divine law. Now the mode of virtue consists in three things, as the Philosopher states in Ethic. ii. The first
4331 is that man should act "knowingly": and this is subject to the judgment of both Divine and human law; because what
4332 a man does in ignorance, he does accidentally. Hence according to both human and Divine law, certain things are judged in
4333 respect of ignorance to be punishable or pardonable.
4334 </p>
4335 <p id="FS_Q100_A9-p8"> The second point is that a man should act "deliberately," i.e. "from choice, choosing that particular action for its own
4336 sake"; wherein a twofold internal movement is implied, of volition and of intention, about which we have spoken above (QQ[8],
4337 12): and concerning these two, Divine law alone, and not human law, is competent to judge. For human law does not punish the
4338 man who wishes to slay, and slays not: whereas the Divine law does, according to
4339 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A9-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.5.22" target="asv"> Mat. 5:22</a>:
4340 "Whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment."
4341 </p>
4342 <p id="FS_Q100_A9-p9"> The third point is that he should "act from a firm and immovable principle": which firmness belongs properly to a habit,
4343 and implies that the action proceeds from a rooted habit. In this respect, the mode of virtue does not fall under the precept
4344 either of Divine or of human law, since neither by man nor by God is he punished as breaking the law, who gives due honor
4345 to his parents and yet has not the habit of filial piety.
4346 </p>
4347 <p id="FS_Q100_A9-p10">
4348 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The mode of doing acts of justice, which falls under the precept, is that they be done in accordance with right; but not
4349 that they be done from the habit of justice.
4350 </p>
4351 <p id="FS_Q100_A9-p11">
4352 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The intention of the lawgiver is twofold. His aim, in the first place, is to lead men to something by the precepts of the
4353 law: and this is virtue. Secondly, his intention is brought to bear on the matter itself of the precept: and this is something
4354 leading or disposing to virtue, viz. an act of virtue. For the end of the precept and the matter of the precept are not the
4355 same: just as neither in other things is the end the same as that which conduces
4356 to the end.
4357 </p>
4358 <p id="FS_Q100_A9-p12">
4359 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> That works of virtue should be done without sadness, falls under the precept of the Divine law; for whoever works with sadness
4360 works unwillingly. But to work with pleasure, i.e. joyfully or cheerfully, in one respect falls under the precept, viz. in
4361 so far as pleasure ensues from the love of God and one's neighbor (which love falls under the precept), and love causes pleasure:
4362 and in another respect does not fall under the precept, in so far as
4363 pleasure ensues from a habit; for "pleasure taken in a work proves the existence of a habit," as stated in Ethic. ii, 3. For
4364 an act may give pleasure either on account of its end, or through its proceeding from a becoming habit.
4365 </p>
4366 <p id="FS_Q100_A9-p13"></p>
4367 <p id="FS_Q100_A9-p14"></p>
4368 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A8.html"></a>
4369 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A10.html"></a>
4370 </div>
4371 <div id="FS_Q100_A10" class="div4">
4372 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A9.html"></a>
4373 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A11.html"></a>
4374 <h4 id="FS_Q100_A10-p0.1">Whether the mode of charity falls under the precept of the Divine law?</h4>
4375 <p id="FS_Q100_A10-p1"></p>
4376 <p id="FS_Q100_A10-p2">
4377 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the mode of charity falls under the precept of the Divine law. For it is written (
4378 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A10-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.17" target="asv">Mat. 19:17</a>): "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments": whence it seems to follow that the observance of the commandments
4379 suffices for entrance into life. But good works do not suffice for entrance into life, except they be done from charity: for
4380 it is written (
4381 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A10-p2.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.13.3" target="asv">1 Cor. 13:3</a>): "If I should distribute all my
4382 goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." Therefore
4383 the mode of charity is included in the commandment.
4384 </p>
4385 <p id="FS_Q100_A10-p3">
4386 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the mode of charity consists properly speaking in doing all things for God. But this falls under the precept; for
4387 the Apostle says (
4388 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A10-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.10.31" target="asv">1 Cor. 10:31</a>): "Do all to the glory of God." Therefore the mode of charity falls under the precept.
4389 </p>
4390 <p id="FS_Q100_A10-p4">
4391 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if the mode of charity does not fall under the precept, it follows that one can fulfil the precepts of the law without
4392 having charity. Now what can be done without charity can be done without grace, which is always united to charity. Therefore
4393 one can fulfil the precepts of the law without grace. But this is the error of Pelagius, as Augustine declares (De Haeres.
4394 lxxxviii). Therefore the mode of charity is included in the commandment.
4395 </p>
4396 <p id="FS_Q100_A10-p5">
4397 <b>On the contrary,</b> Whoever breaks a commandment sins mortally. If therefore the mode of charity falls under the precept, it follows that whoever
4398 acts otherwise than from charity sins mortally. But whoever has not charity, acts otherwise than from charity. Therefore it
4399 follows that whoever has not charity, sins mortally in whatever he does, however good this may be in itself: which is absurd.
4400 </p>
4401 <p id="FS_Q100_A10-p6">
4402 <b>I answer that,</b> Opinions have been contrary on this question. For some have said absolutely that the mode of charity comes under the precept;
4403 and yet that it is possible for one not having charity to fulfil this precept: because he can dispose himself to receive charity
4404 from God. Nor (say they) does it follow that a man not having charity sins mortally whenever he does something good of its
4405 kind: because it is an affirmative precept that binds one to act from charity, and
4406 is binding not for all time, but only for such time as one is in a state of charity. On the other hand, some have said that
4407 the mode of charity is altogether outside the precept.
4408 </p>
4409 <p id="FS_Q100_A10-p7"> Both these opinions are true up to a certain point. Because the act of charity can be considered in two ways. First, as an
4410 act by itself: and thus it falls under the precept of the law which specially prescribes it, viz. "Thou shalt love the Lord
4411 thy God," and "Thou shalt love thy neighbor." In this sense, the first opinion is true. Because it is not impossible to observe
4412 this precept which regards the act of charity; since man can dispose himself to possess charity, and when he
4413 possesses it, he can use it. Secondly, the act of charity can be considered as being the mode of the acts of the other virtues,
4414 i.e. inasmuch as the acts of the other virtues are ordained to charity, which is "the end of the commandment," as stated in
4415 1 Tim. i, 5: for it has been said above (
4416 <a id="FS_Q100_A10-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q12_A4.html">Q[12], A[4]</a>) that the intention of the end is a formal mode of the act ordained to that end. In this sense the second opinion is true
4417 in saying that the mode of charity does not
4418 fall under the precept, that is to say that this commandment, "Honor thy father," does not mean that a man must honor his
4419 father from charity, but merely that he must honor him. Wherefore he that honors his father, yet has not charity, does not
4420 break this precept: although he does break the precept concerning the act of charity, for which reason he deserves to be punished.
4421 </p>
4422 <p id="FS_Q100_A10-p8">
4423 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Our Lord did not say, "If thou wilt enter into life, keep one commandment"; but "keep" all "the commandments": among which
4424 is included the commandment concerning the love of God and our neighbor.
4425 </p>
4426 <p id="FS_Q100_A10-p9">
4427 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The precept of charity contains the injunction that God should be loved from our whole heart, which means that all things
4428 would be referred to God. Consequently man cannot fulfil the precept of charity, unless he also refer all things to God. Wherefore
4429 he that honors his father and mother, is bound to honor them from charity, not in virtue of the precept, "Honor thy father
4430 and mother," but in virtue of the precept, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God
4431 with thy whole heart." And since these are two affirmative precepts, not binding for all times, they can be binding, each
4432 one at a different time: so that it may happen that a man fulfils the precept of honoring his father and mother, without at
4433 the same time breaking the precept concerning the omission of the mode of charity.
4434 </p>
4435 <p id="FS_Q100_A10-p10">
4436 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Man cannot fulfil all the precepts of the law, unless he fulfil the precept of charity, which is impossible without charity.
4437 Consequently it is not possible, as Pelagius maintained, for man to fulfil the law without grace.
4438 </p>
4439 <p id="FS_Q100_A10-p11"></p>
4440 <p id="FS_Q100_A10-p12"></p>
4441 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A9.html"></a>
4442 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A11.html"></a>
4443 </div>
4444 <div id="FS_Q100_A11" class="div4">
4445 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A10.html"></a>
4446 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A12.html"></a>
4447 <h4 id="FS_Q100_A11-p0.1">Whether it is right to distinguish other moral precepts of the law besides the decalogue?</h4>
4448 <p id="FS_Q100_A11-p1"></p>
4449 <p id="FS_Q100_A11-p2">
4450 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it is wrong to distinguish other moral precepts of the law besides the decalogue. Because, as Our Lord
4451 declared (
4452 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A11-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.22.40" target="asv">Mat. 22:40</a>), "on these two commandments" of charity "dependeth the whole law and the prophets." But these two commandments are explained
4453 by the ten commandments of the decalogue. Therefore there is no need for other moral precepts.
4454 </p>
4455 <p id="FS_Q100_A11-p3">
4456 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the moral precepts are distinct from the judicial and ceremonial precepts, as stated above (Q[99], AA[3],4). But
4457 the determinations of the general moral precepts belong to the judicial and ceremonial precepts: and the general moral precepts
4458 are contained in the decalogue, or are even presupposed to the decalogue, as stated above
4459 <a id="FS_Q100_A11-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q100_A3.html">(A[3])</a>. Therefore it was unsuitable to lay down other moral precepts besides the decalogue.
4460 </p>
4461 <p id="FS_Q100_A11-p4">
4462 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the moral precepts are about the acts of all the virtues, as stated above
4463 <a id="FS_Q100_A11-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q100_A2.html">(A[2])</a>. Therefore, as the Law contains, besides the decalogue, moral precepts pertaining to religion, liberality, mercy, and chastity;
4464 so there should have been added some precepts pertaining to the other virtues, for instance, fortitude, sobriety, and so forth.
4465 And yet such is not the case. It is therefore unbecoming to distinguish other moral precepts
4466 in the Law besides those of the decalogue.
4467 </p>
4468 <p id="FS_Q100_A11-p5">
4469 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
4470 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A11-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.18.8" target="asv">Ps. 18:8</a>): "The law of the Lord is unspotted, converting souls." But man is preserved from the stain of sin, and his soul is converted
4471 to God by other moral precepts besides those of the decalogue. Therefore it was right for the Law to include other moral precepts.
4472 </p>
4473 <p id="FS_Q100_A11-p6">
4474 <b>I answer that,</b> As is evident from what has been stated (Q[99], AA[3],4), the judicial and ceremonial precepts derive their force from their
4475 institution alone: since before they were instituted, it seemed of no consequence whether things were done in this or that
4476 way. But the moral precepts derive their efficacy from the very dictate of natural reason, even if they were never included
4477 in the Law. Now of these there are three grades: for some are most certain, and so evident
4478 as to need no promulgation; such as the commandments of the love of God and our neighbor, and others like these, as stated
4479 above
4480 <a id="FS_Q100_A11-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q100_A3.html">(A[3])</a>, which are, as it were, the ends of the commandments; wherefore no man can have an erroneous judgment about them. Some precepts
4481 are more detailed, the reason of which even an uneducated man can easily grasp; and yet they need to be promulgated, because
4482 human judgment, in a few instances, happens to be led astray concerning them: these
4483 are the precepts of the decalogue. Again, there are some precepts the reason of which is not so evident to everyone, but only
4484 the wise; these are moral precepts added to the decalogue, and given to the people by God through Moses and Aaron.
4485 </p>
4486 <p id="FS_Q100_A11-p7"> But since the things that are evident are the principles whereby we know those that are not evident, these other moral precepts
4487 added to the decalogue are reducible to the precepts of the decalogue, as so many corollaries. Thus the first commandment
4488 of the decalogue forbids the worship of strange gods: and to this are added other precepts forbidding things relating to worship
4489 of idols: thus it is written (
4490 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A11-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.18.10" target="asv">Dt. 18:10,11</a>): "Neither let there be found among you
4491 anyone that shall expiate his son or daughter, making them to pass through the fire: . . . neither let there by any wizard
4492 nor charmer, nor anyone that consulteth pythonic spirits, or fortune-tellers, or that seeketh the truth from the dead." The
4493 second commandment forbids perjury. To this is added the prohibition of blasphemy (
4494 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A11-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Lev.24.15" target="asv">Lev. 24:15, </a> seqq) and the prohibition of false doctrine (
4495 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A11-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Deut.13" target="asv">Dt. 13</a>). To the third commandment are added all the ceremonial precepts. To the fourth
4496 commandment prescribing the honor due to parents, is added the precept about honoring the aged, according to
4497 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A11-p7.4" href="./asv.html#Lev.19.32" target="asv"> Lev. 19:32</a>: "Rise up before the hoary head, and honor the person of the aged man"; and likewise all the precepts prescribing the reverence
4498 to be observed towards our betters, or kindliness towards our equals or inferiors. To the fifth commandment, which forbids
4499 murder, is added the prohibition of hatred and of any kind of violence inflicted on our neighbor, according
4500 to
4501 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A11-p7.5" href="./asv.html#Lev.19.16" target="asv"> Lev. 19:16</a>: "Thou shalt not stand against the blood of thy neighbor": likewise the prohibition against hating one's brother (
4502 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A11-p7.6" href="./asv.html#Lev.19.17" target="asv">Lev. 19:17</a>): "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart." To the sixth commandment which forbids adultery, is added the prohibition
4503 about whoredom, according to
4504 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A11-p7.7" href="./asv.html#Deut.23.17" target="asv"> Dt. 23:17</a>: "There shall be no whore among the daughters of Israel, nor whoremonger among the sons of Israel"; and the prohibition against
4505 unnatural sins, according to
4506 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A11-p7.8" href="./asv.html#Lev.28.22" target="asv"> Lev. 28:22,23</a>: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind . . . thou shalt not copulate with any beast." To the seventh commandment which prohibits
4507 theft, is added the precept forbidding usury, according to
4508 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A11-p7.9" href="./asv.html#Deut.23.19" target="asv"> Dt. 23:19</a>: "Thou shalt not lend to thy brother money to usury"; and the prohibition against fraud, according to
4509 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A11-p7.10" href="./asv.html#Deut.25.13" target="asv"> Dt. 25:13</a>: "Thou shalt not have divers weights in thy bag"; and universally all prohibitions
4510 relating to peculations and larceny. To the eighth commandment, forbidding false testimony, is added the prohibition against
4511 false judgment, according to
4512 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A11-p7.11" href="./asv.html#Exod.23.2" target="asv"> Ex. 23:2</a>: "Neither shalt thou yield in judgment, to the opinion of the most part, to stray from the truth"; and the prohibition against
4513 lying (
4514 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A11-p7.12" href="./asv.html#Exod.23.7" target="asv">Ex. 23:7</a>): "Thou shalt fly lying," and the prohibition against detraction, according to
4515 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A11-p7.13" href="./asv.html#Lev.19.16" target="asv"> Lev. 19:16</a>: "Thou shalt not be a detractor, nor a
4516 whisperer among the people." To the other two commandments no further precepts are added, because thereby are forbidden all
4517 kinds of evil desires.
4518 </p>
4519 <p id="FS_Q100_A11-p8">
4520 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The precepts of the decalogue are ordained to the love of God and our neighbor as pertaining evidently to our duty towards
4521 them; but the other precepts are so ordained as pertaining thereto less evidently.
4522 </p>
4523 <p id="FS_Q100_A11-p9">
4524 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> It is in virtue of their institution that the ceremonial and judicial precepts "are determinations of the precepts of the
4525 decalogue," not by reason of a natural instinct, as in the case of the superadded moral precepts.
4526 </p>
4527 <p id="FS_Q100_A11-p10">
4528 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The precepts of a law are ordained for the common good, as stated above (
4529 <a id="FS_Q100_A11-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q90_A2.html">Q[90], A[2]</a>). And since those virtues which direct our conduct towards others pertain directly to the common good, as also does the virtue
4530 of chastity, in so far as the generative act conduces to the common good of the species; hence precepts bearing directly on
4531 these virtues are given, both in the decalogue and in addition thereto. As to the act of
4532 fortitude there are the order to be given by the commanders in the war, which is undertaken for the common good: as is clear
4533 from
4534 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A11-p10.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.20.3" target="asv">Dt. 20:3</a>, where the priest is commanded (to speak thus): "Be not afraid, do not give back." In like manner the prohibition of acts
4535 of gluttony is left to paternal admonition, since it is contrary to the good of the household; hence it is said (
4536 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A11-p10.3" href="./asv.html#Deut.21.20" target="asv">Dt. 21:20</a>) in the person of parents: "He slighteth hearing our admonitions, he giveth himself to
4537 revelling, and to debauchery and banquetings."
4538 </p>
4539 <p id="FS_Q100_A11-p11"></p>
4540 <p id="FS_Q100_A11-p12"></p>
4541 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A10.html"></a>
4542 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A12.html"></a>
4543 </div>
4544 <div id="FS_Q100_A12" class="div4">
4545 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A11.html"></a>
4546 <a href="summa.FS_Q101.html"></a>
4547 <h4 id="FS_Q100_A12-p0.1">Whether the moral precepts of the Old Law justified man?</h4>
4548 <p id="FS_Q100_A12-p1"></p>
4549 <p id="FS_Q100_A12-p2">
4550 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the moral precepts of the Old Law justified man. Because the Apostle says (
4551 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A12-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.2.13" target="asv">Rom. 2:13</a>): "For not the hearers of the Law are justified before God, but the doers of the Law shall be justified." But the doers of
4552 the Law are those who fulfil the precepts of the Law. Therefore the fulfilling of the precepts of the Law was a cause of justification.
4553 </p>
4554 <p id="FS_Q100_A12-p3">
4555 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is written (
4556 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A12-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.18.5" target="asv">Lev. 18:5</a>): "Keep My laws and My judgments, which if a man do, he shall live in them." But the spiritual life of man is through justice.
4557 Therefore the fulfilling of the precepts of the Law was a cause of justification.
4558 </p>
4559 <p id="FS_Q100_A12-p4">
4560 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Divine law is more efficacious than human law. But human law justifies man; since there is a kind of justice
4561 consisting in fulfilling the precepts of law. Therefore the precepts of the Law justified man.
4562 </p>
4563 <p id="FS_Q100_A12-p5">
4564 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
4565 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A12-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.3.6" target="asv">2 Cor. 3:6</a>): "The letter killeth": which, according to Augustine (De Spir. et Lit. xiv), refers even to the moral precepts. Therefore
4566 the moral precepts did not cause justice.
4567 </p>
4568 <p id="FS_Q100_A12-p6">
4569 <b>I answer that,</b> Just as "healthy" is said properly and first of that which is possessed of health, and secondarily of that which is a sign
4570 or a safeguard of health; so justification means first and properly the causing of justice; while secondarily and improperly,
4571 as it were, it may denote a sign of justice or a disposition thereto. If justice be taken in the last two ways, it is evident
4572 that it was conferred by the precepts of the Law; in so far, to wit, as they disposed
4573 men to the justifying grace of Christ, which they also signified, because as Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 24), "even
4574 the life of that people foretold and foreshadowed Christ."
4575 </p>
4576 <p id="FS_Q100_A12-p7"> But if we speak of justification properly so called, then we must notice that it can be considered as in the habit or as
4577 in the act: so that accordingly justification may be taken in two ways. First, according as man is made just, by becoming
4578 possessed of the habit of justice: secondly, according as he does works of justice, so that in this sense justification is
4579 nothing else than the execution of justice. Now justice, like the other virtues, may denote either the acquired or
4580 the infused virtue, as is clear from what has been stated (
4581 <a id="FS_Q100_A12-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q63_A4.html">Q[63], A[4]</a>). The acquired virtue is caused by works; but the infused virtue is caused by God Himself through His grace. The latter is
4582 true justice, of which we are speaking now, and in this respect of which a man is said to be just before God, according to
4583 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A12-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.4.2" target="asv"> Rom. 4:2</a>: "If Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God." Hence this justice could not be caused
4584 by
4585 moral precepts, which are about human actions: wherefore the moral precepts could not justify man by causing justice.
4586 </p>
4587 <p id="FS_Q100_A12-p8"> If, on the other hand, by justification we understand the execution of justice, thus all the precepts of the Law justified
4588 man, but in various ways. Because the ceremonial precepts taken as a whole contained something just in itself, in so far as
4589 they aimed at offering worship to God; whereas taken individually they contained that which is just, not in itself, but by
4590 being a determination of the Divine law. Hence it is said of these precepts that they did not justify man save
4591 through the devotion and obedience of those who complied with them. On the other hand the moral and judicial precepts, either
4592 in general or also in particular, contained that which is just in itself: but the moral precepts contained that which is just
4593 in itself according to that "general justice" which is "every virtue" according to Ethic. v, 1: whereas the judicial precepts
4594 belonged to "special justice," which is about contracts connected with the human mode of life, between one man and
4595 another.
4596 </p>
4597 <p id="FS_Q100_A12-p9">
4598 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Apostle takes justification for the execution of justice.
4599 </p>
4600 <p id="FS_Q100_A12-p10">
4601 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The man who fulfilled the precepts of the Law is said to live in them, because he did not incur the penalty of death, which
4602 the Law inflicted on its transgressors: in this sense the Apostle quotes this passage (
4603 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A12-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.3.12" target="asv">Gal. 3:12</a>).
4604 </p>
4605 <p id="FS_Q100_A12-p11">
4606 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The precepts of human law justify man by acquired justice: it is not about this that we are inquiring now, but only about
4607 that justice which is before God.
4608 </p>
4609 <p id="FS_Q100_A12-p12"></p>
4610 <p id="FS_Q100_A12-p13"></p>
4611 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A11.html"></a>
4612 <a href="summa.FS_Q101.html"></a>
4613 </div>
4614 <a href="summa.FS_Q99_A6.html"></a>
4615 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A1.html"></a>
4616 </div>
4617 <div id="FS_Q101" class="div3">
4618 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A12.html"></a>
4619 <a href="summa.FS_Q101_A1.html"></a>
4620 <h3 id="FS_Q101-p0.1">OF THE CEREMONIAL PRECEPTS IN THEMSELVES (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3>
4621 <p id="FS_Q101-p1"></p>
4622 <p id="FS_Q101-p2"> We must now consider the ceremonial precepts: and first we must consider them in themselves; secondly, their cause; thirdly,
4623 their duration. Under the first head there are four points of inquiry:
4624 </p>
4625 <p id="FS_Q101-p3"> (1) The nature of the ceremonial precepts;</p>
4626 <p id="FS_Q101-p4"> (2) Whether they are figurative?</p>
4627 <p id="FS_Q101-p5"> (3) Whether there should have been many of them?</p>
4628 <p id="FS_Q101-p6"> (4) Of their various kinds.</p>
4629 <div id="FS_Q101_A1" class="div4">
4630 <a href="summa.FS_Q101.html"></a>
4631 <a href="summa.FS_Q101_A2.html"></a>
4632 <h4 id="FS_Q101_A1-p0.1">Whether the nature of the ceremonial precepts consists in their pertaining to the worship of God?</h4>
4633 <p id="FS_Q101_A1-p1"></p>
4634 <p id="FS_Q101_A1-p2">
4635 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the nature of the ceremonial precepts does not consist in their pertaining to the worship of God. Because,
4636 in the Old Law, the Jews were given certain precepts about abstinence from food (
4637 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q101_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.11" target="asv">Lev. 11</a>); and about refraining from certain kinds of clothes, e.g. (
4638 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q101_A1-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Lev.19.19" target="asv">Lev. 19:19</a>): "Thou shalt not wear a garment that is woven of two sorts"; and again (
4639 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q101_A1-p2.3" href="./asv.html#Num.15.38" target="asv">Num. 15:38</a>): "To make to themselves fringes in the corners of their garments." But
4640 these are not moral precepts; since they do not remain in the New Law. Nor are they judicial precepts; since they do not pertain
4641 to the pronouncing of judgment between man and man. Therefore they are ceremonial precepts. Yet they seem in no way to pertain
4642 to the worship of God. Therefore the nature of the ceremonial precepts does not consist in their pertaining to Divine worship.
4643 </p>
4644 <p id="FS_Q101_A1-p3">
4645 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, some state that the ceremonial precepts are those which pertain to solemnities; as though they were so called from
4646 the "cerei" [candles] which are lit up on those occasions. But many other things besides solemnities pertain to the worship
4647 of God. Therefore it does not seem that the ceremonial precepts are so called from their pertaining to the Divine worship.
4648 </p>
4649 <p id="FS_Q101_A1-p4">
4650 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, some say that the ceremonial precepts are patterns, i.e. rules, of salvation: because the Greek {chaire} is the
4651 same as the Latin "salve." But all the precepts of the Law are rules of salvation, and not only those that pertain to the
4652 worship of God. Therefore not only those precepts which pertain to Divine worship are called ceremonial.
4653 </p>
4654 <p id="FS_Q101_A1-p5">
4655 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, Rabbi Moses says (Doct. Perplex. iii) that the ceremonial precepts are those for which there is no evident reason.
4656 But there is evident reason for many things pertaining to the worship of God; such as the observance of the Sabbath, the feasts
4657 of the Passover and of the Tabernacles, and many other things, the reason for which is set down in the Law. Therefore the
4658 ceremonial precepts are not those which pertain to the worship of God.
4659 </p>
4660 <p id="FS_Q101_A1-p6">
4661 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
4662 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q101_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.18.19" target="asv">Ex. 18:19,20</a>): "Be thou to the people in those things that pertain to God . . . and . . . shew the people the ceremonies and the manner
4663 of worshipping."
4664 </p>
4665 <p id="FS_Q101_A1-p7">
4666 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
4667 <a id="FS_Q101_A1-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q99_A4.html">Q[99], A[4]</a>), the ceremonial precepts are determinations of the moral precepts whereby man is directed to God, just as the judicial precepts
4668 are determinations of the moral precepts whereby he is directed to his neighbor. Now man is directed to God by the worship
4669 due to Him. Wherefore those precepts are properly called ceremonial, which pertain to the Divine worship. The reason for their
4670 being so called was given
4671 above (
4672 <a id="FS_Q101_A1-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q99_A3.html">Q[99], A[3]</a>), when we established the distinction between the ceremonial and the other precepts.
4673 </p>
4674 <p id="FS_Q101_A1-p8">
4675 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Divine worship includes not only sacrifices and the like, which seem to be directed to God immediately, but also those
4676 things whereby His worshippers are duly prepared to worship Him: thus too in other matters, whatever is preparatory to the
4677 end comes under the science whose object is the end. Accordingly those precepts of the Law which regard the clothing and food
4678 of God's worshippers, and other such matters, pertain to a certain preparation of
4679 the ministers, with the view of fitting them for the Divine worship: just as those who administer to a king make use of certain
4680 special observances. Consequently such are contained under the ceremonial precepts.
4681 </p>
4682 <p id="FS_Q101_A1-p9">
4683 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The alleged explanation of the name does not seem very probable: especially as the Law does not contain many instances of
4684 the lighting of candles in solemnities; since, even the lamps of the Candlestick were furnished with "oil of olives," as stated
4685 in
4686 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q101_A1-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.24.2" target="asv"> Lev. 24:2.</a> Nevertheless we may say that all things pertaining to the Divine worship were more carefully observed on solemn festivals:
4687 so that all ceremonial precepts may be included
4688 under the observance of solemnities.
4689 </p>
4690 <p id="FS_Q101_A1-p10">
4691 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Neither does this explanation of the name appear to be very much to the point, since the word "ceremony" is not Greek but
4692 Latin. We may say, however, that, since man's salvation is from God, those precepts above all seem to be rules of salvation,
4693 which direct man to God: and accordingly those which refer to Divine worship are called ceremonial precepts.
4694 </p>
4695 <p id="FS_Q101_A1-p11">
4696 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> This explanation of the ceremonial precepts has a certain amount of probability: not that they are called ceremonial precisely
4697 because there is no evident reason for them; this is a kind of consequence. For, since the precepts referring to the Divine
4698 worship must needs be figurative, as we shall state further on
4699 <a id="FS_Q101_A1-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q101_A2.html">(A[2])</a>, the consequence is that the reason for them is not so very evident.
4700 </p>
4701 <p id="FS_Q101_A1-p12"></p>
4702 <p id="FS_Q101_A1-p13"></p>
4703 <a href="summa.FS_Q101.html"></a>
4704 <a href="summa.FS_Q101_A2.html"></a>
4705 </div>
4706 <div id="FS_Q101_A2" class="div4">
4707 <a href="summa.FS_Q101_A1.html"></a>
4708 <a href="summa.FS_Q101_A3.html"></a>
4709 <h4 id="FS_Q101_A2-p0.1">Whether the ceremonial precepts are figurative?</h4>
4710 <p id="FS_Q101_A2-p1"></p>
4711 <p id="FS_Q101_A2-p2">
4712 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the ceremonial precepts are not figurative. For it is the duty of every teacher to express himself in
4713 such a way as to be easily understood, as Augustine states (De Doctr. Christ. iv, 4,10) and this seems very necessary in the
4714 framing of a law: because precepts of law are proposed to the populace; for which reason a law should be manifest, as Isidore
4715 declares (Etym. v, 21). If therefore the precepts of the Law were given as figures of
4716 something, it seems unbecoming that Moses should have delivered these precepts without explaining what they signified.
4717 </p>
4718 <p id="FS_Q101_A2-p3">
4719 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, whatever is done for the worship of God, should be entirely free from unfittingness. But the performance of actions
4720 in representation of others, seems to savor of the theatre or of the drama: because formerly the actions performed in theatres
4721 were done to represent the actions of others. Therefore it seems that such things should not be done for the worship of God.
4722 But the ceremonial precepts are ordained to the Divine worship, as stated above
4723
4724 <a id="FS_Q101_A2-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q101_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. Therefore they should not be figurative.
4725 </p>
4726 <p id="FS_Q101_A2-p4">
4727 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Augustine says (Enchiridion iii, iv) that "God is worshipped chiefly by faith, hope, and charity." But the precepts
4728 of faith, hope, and charity are not figurative. Therefore the ceremonial precepts should not be figurative.
4729 </p>
4730 <p id="FS_Q101_A2-p5">
4731 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, Our Lord said (
4732 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q101_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.4.24" target="asv">Jn. 4:24</a>): "God is a spirit, and they that adore Him, must adore Him in spirit and in truth." But a figure is not the very truth:
4733 in fact one is condivided with the other. Therefore the ceremonial precepts, which refer to the Divine worship, should not
4734 be figurative.
4735 </p>
4736 <p id="FS_Q101_A2-p6">
4737 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
4738 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q101_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Col.2.16" target="asv">Col. 2:16,17</a>): "Let no man . . . judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a festival day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths,
4739 which are a shadow of things to come."
4740 </p>
4741 <p id="FS_Q101_A2-p7">
4742 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
4743 <a id="FS_Q101_A2-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q101_A1.html">(A[1];</a> Q[99], AA[3],4), the ceremonial precepts are those which refer to the worship of God. Now the Divine worship is twofold:
4744 internal, and external. For since man is composed of soul and body, each of these should be applied to the worship of God;
4745 the soul by an interior worship; the body by an outward worship: hence it is written (
4746 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q101_A2-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.83.3" target="asv">Ps. 83:3</a>): "My heart and my flesh have rejoiced in the living
4747 God." And as the body is ordained to God through the soul, so the outward worship is ordained to the internal worship. Now
4748 interior worship consists in the soul being united to God by the intellect and affections. Wherefore according to the various
4749 ways in which the intellect and affections of the man who worships God are rightly united to God, his external actions are
4750 applied in various ways to the Divine worship.
4751 </p>
4752 <p id="FS_Q101_A2-p8"> For in the state of future bliss, the human intellect will gaze on the Divine Truth in Itself. Wherefore the external worship
4753 will not consist in anything figurative, but solely in the praise of God, proceeding from the inward knowledge and affection,
4754 according to
4755 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q101_A2-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.51.3" target="asv"> Is. 51:3</a>: "Joy and gladness shall be found therein, thanksgiving and the voice of praise."
4756 </p>
4757 <p id="FS_Q101_A2-p9"> But in the present state of life, we are unable to gaze on the Divine Truth in Itself, and we need the ray of Divine light
4758 to shine upon us under the form of certain sensible figures, as Dionysius states (Coel. Hier. i); in various ways, however,
4759 according to the various states of human knowledge. For under the Old Law, neither was the Divine Truth manifest in Itself,
4760 nor was the way leading to that manifestation as yet opened out, as the Apostle declares (
4761 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q101_A2-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.9.8" target="asv">Heb.
4762 9:8
4763 </a>). Hence the external worship of the Old Law needed to be figurative not only of the future truth to be manifested in our
4764 heavenly country, but also of Christ, Who is the way leading to that heavenly manifestation. But under the New Law this way
4765 is already revealed: and therefore it needs no longer to be foreshadowed as something future, but to be brought to our minds
4766 as something past or present: and the truth of the glory to come, which is not yet revealed, alone needs to be
4767 foreshadowed. This is what the Apostle says (
4768 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q101_A2-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.11.1" target="asv">Heb. 11:1</a>): "The Law has [Vulg.: 'having'] a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things": for a shadow is
4769 less than an image; so that the image belongs to the New Law, but the shadow to the Old.
4770 </p>
4771 <p id="FS_Q101_A2-p10">
4772 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The things of God are not to be revealed to man except in proportion to his capacity: else he would be in danger of downfall,
4773 were he to despise what he cannot grasp. Hence it was more beneficial that the Divine mysteries should be revealed to uncultured
4774 people under a veil of figures, that thus they might know them at least implicitly by using those figures to the honor of
4775 God.
4776 </p>
4777 <p id="FS_Q101_A2-p11">
4778 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Just as human reason fails to grasp poetical expressions on account of their being lacking in truth, so does it fail to grasp
4779 Divine things perfectly, on account of the sublimity of the truth they contain: and therefore in both cases there is need
4780 of signs by means of sensible figures.
4781 </p>
4782 <p id="FS_Q101_A2-p12">
4783 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Augustine is speaking there of internal worship; to which, however, external worship should be ordained, as stated above.
4784 </p>
4785 <p id="FS_Q101_A2-p13"> The same answer applies to the Fourth Objection: because men were taught by Him to practice more perfectly the spiritual
4786 worship of God.
4787 </p>
4788 <p id="FS_Q101_A2-p14"></p>
4789 <p id="FS_Q101_A2-p15"></p>
4790 <a href="summa.FS_Q101_A1.html"></a>
4791 <a href="summa.FS_Q101_A3.html"></a>
4792 </div>
4793 <div id="FS_Q101_A3" class="div4">
4794 <a href="summa.FS_Q101_A2.html"></a>
4795 <a href="summa.FS_Q101_A4.html"></a>
4796 <h4 id="FS_Q101_A3-p0.1">Whether there should have been man ceremonial precepts?</h4>
4797 <p id="FS_Q101_A3-p1"></p>
4798 <p id="FS_Q101_A3-p2">
4799 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there should not have been many ceremonial precepts. For those things which conduce to an end should be
4800 proportionate to that end. But the ceremonial precepts, as stated above (
4801 <a id="FS_Q101_A3-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q101_A1.html">AA[1]</a>,2), are ordained to the worship of God, and to the foreshadowing of Christ. Now "there is but one God, of Whom are all things
4802 . . . and one Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom are all things" (
4803 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q101_A3-p2.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.8.6" target="asv">1 Cor. 8:6</a>). Therefore there
4804 should not have been many ceremonial precepts.
4805 </p>
4806 <p id="FS_Q101_A3-p3">
4807 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the great number of the ceremonial precepts was an occasion of transgression, according to the words of Peter (
4808 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q101_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.15.10" target="asv">Acts 15:10</a>): "Why tempt you God, to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?"
4809 Now the transgression of the Divine precepts is an obstacle to man's salvation. Since, therefore, every law should conduce
4810 to man's salvation, as Isidore says (Etym. v, 3), it seems
4811 that the ceremonial precepts should not have been given in great number.
4812 </p>
4813 <p id="FS_Q101_A3-p4">
4814 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the ceremonial precepts referred to the outward and bodily worship of God, as stated above
4815 <a id="FS_Q101_A3-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q101_A2.html">(A[2])</a>. But the Law should have lessened this bodily worship: since it directed men to Christ, Who taught them to worship God "in
4816 spirit and in truth," as stated in
4817 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q101_A3-p4.2" href="./asv.html#John.4.23" target="asv"> Jn. 4:23.</a> Therefore there should not have been many ceremonial precepts.
4818 </p>
4819 <p id="FS_Q101_A3-p5">
4820 <b>On the contrary,</b> (
4821 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q101_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Hos.8.12" target="asv">Osee 8:12</a>): "I shall write to them [Vulg.: 'him'] My manifold laws"; and (
4822 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q101_A3-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Job.11.6" target="asv">Job 11:6</a>): "That He might show thee the secrets of His wisdom, and that His Law is manifold."
4823 </p>
4824 <p id="FS_Q101_A3-p6">
4825 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
4826 <a id="FS_Q101_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q96_A1.html">Q[96], A[1]</a>), every law is given to a people. Now a people contains two kinds of men: some, prone to evil, who have to be coerced by
4827 the precepts of the law, as stated above (
4828 <a id="FS_Q101_A3-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q95_A1.html">Q[95], A[1]</a>); some, inclined to good, either from nature or from custom, or rather from grace; and the like have to be taught and improved
4829 by means of the precepts of the law. Accordingly, with regard to both kinds of
4830 the law. Accordingly, with regard to both kinds of men it was expedient that the Old Law should contain many ceremonial precepts.
4831 For in that people there were many prone to idolatry; wherefore it was necessary to recall them by means of ceremonial precepts
4832 from the worship of idols to the worship of God. And since men served idols in many ways, it was necessary on the other hand
4833 to devise many means of repressing every single one: and again, to lay many obligations on such like men, in order
4834 that being burdened, as it were, by their duties to the Divine worship, they might have no time for the service of idols.
4835 As to those who were inclined to good, it was again necessary that there should be many ceremonial precepts; both because
4836 thus their mind turned to God in many ways, and more continually; and because the mystery of Christ, which was foreshadowed
4837 by these ceremonial precepts, brought many boons to the world, and afforded men many considerations, which needed to be signified
4838 by various ceremonies.
4839 </p>
4840 <p id="FS_Q101_A3-p7">
4841 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> When that which conduces to an end is sufficient to conduce thereto, then one such thing suffices for one end: thus one remedy,
4842 if it be efficacious, suffices sometimes to restore men to health, and then the remedy needs not to be repeated. But when
4843 that which conduces to an end is weak and imperfect, it needs to be multiplied: thus many remedies are given to a sick man,
4844 when one is not enough to heal him. Now the ceremonies of the Old Law were weak
4845 and imperfect, both for representing the mystery of Christ, on account of its surpassing excellence; and for subjugating men's
4846 minds to God. Hence the Apostle says (
4847 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q101_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.7.18" target="asv">Heb. 7:18,19</a>): "There is a setting aside of the former commandment because of the weakness and unprofitableness thereof, for the law brought
4848 nothing to perfection." Consequently these ceremonies needed to be in great number.
4849 </p>
4850 <p id="FS_Q101_A3-p8">
4851 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> A wise lawgiver should suffer lesser transgressions, that the greater may be avoided. And therefore, in order to avoid the
4852 sin of idolatry, and the pride which would arise in the hearts of the Jews, were they to fulfil all the precepts of the Law,
4853 the fact that they would in consequence find many occasions of disobedience did not prevent God from giving them many ceremonial
4854 precepts.
4855 </p>
4856 <p id="FS_Q101_A3-p9">
4857 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The Old Law lessened bodily worship in many ways. Thus it forbade sacrifices to be offered in every place and by any person.
4858 Many such like things did it enact for the lessening of bodily worship; as Rabbi Moses, the Egyptian testifies (Doct. Perplex.
4859 iii). Nevertheless it behooved not to attenuate the bodily worship of God so much as to allow men to fall away into the worship
4860 of idols.
4861 </p>
4862 <p id="FS_Q101_A3-p10"></p>
4863 <p id="FS_Q101_A3-p11"></p>
4864 <a href="summa.FS_Q101_A2.html"></a>
4865 <a href="summa.FS_Q101_A4.html"></a>
4866 </div>
4867 <div id="FS_Q101_A4" class="div4">
4868 <a href="summa.FS_Q101_A3.html"></a>
4869 <a href="summa.FS_Q102.html"></a>
4870 <h4 id="FS_Q101_A4-p0.1">Whether the ceremonies of the Old Law are suitably divided into sacrifices, sacred things, sacraments, and observances?</h4>
4871 <p id="FS_Q101_A4-p1"></p>
4872 <p id="FS_Q101_A4-p2">
4873 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the ceremonies of the Old Law are unsuitably divided into "sacrifices, sacred things, sacraments, and
4874 observances." For the ceremonies of the Old Law foreshadowed Christ. But this was done only by the sacrifices, which foreshadowed
4875 the sacrifice in which Christ "delivered Himself an oblation and a sacrifice to God" (
4876 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q101_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.5.2" target="asv">Eph. 5:2</a>). Therefore none but the sacrifices were ceremonies.
4877 </p>
4878 <p id="FS_Q101_A4-p3">
4879 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Old Law was ordained to the New. But in the New Law the sacrifice is the Sacrament of the Altar. Therefore in
4880 the Old Law there should be no distinction between "sacrifices" and "sacraments."
4881 </p>
4882 <p id="FS_Q101_A4-p4">
4883 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, a "sacred thing" is something dedicated to God: in which sense the tabernacle and its vessels were said to be consecrated.
4884 But all the ceremonial precepts were ordained to the worship of God, as stated above
4885 <a id="FS_Q101_A4-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q101_A1.html">(A[1])</a>. Therefore all ceremonies were sacred things. Therefore "sacred things" should not be taken as a part of the ceremonies.
4886 </p>
4887 <p id="FS_Q101_A4-p5">
4888 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, "observances" are so called from having to be observed. But all the precepts of the Law had to be observed: for
4889 it is written (
4890 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q101_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.8.11" target="asv">Dt. 8:11</a>): "Observe [Douay: 'Take heed'] and beware lest at any time thou forget the Lord thy God, and neglect His commandments and
4891 judgments and ceremonies." Therefore the "observances" should not be considered as a part of the ceremonies.
4892 </p>
4893 <p id="FS_Q101_A4-p6">
4894 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, the solemn festivals are reckoned as part of the ceremonial: since they were a shadow of things to come (
4895 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q101_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Col.2.16" target="asv">Col. 2:16,17</a>): and the same may be said of the oblations and gifts, as appears from the words of the Apostle (
4896 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q101_A4-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.9.9" target="asv">Heb. 9:9</a>): and yet these do not seem to be inclined in any of those mentioned above. Therefore the above division of ceremonies is
4897 unsuitable.
4898 </p>
4899 <p id="FS_Q101_A4-p7">
4900 <b>On the contrary,</b> In the Old Law each of the above is called a ceremony. For the sacrifices are called ceremonies (
4901 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q101_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Num.15.24" target="asv">Num. 15:24</a>): "They shall offer a calf . . . and the sacrifices and libations thereof, as the ceremonies require." Of the sacrament of
4902 Order it is written (
4903 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q101_A4-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Lev.7.35" target="asv">Lev. 7:35</a>): "This is the anointing of Aaron and his sons in the ceremonies." Of sacred things also it is written (
4904 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q101_A4-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Exod.38.21" target="asv">Ex. 38:21</a>): "These are the
4905 instruments of the tabernacle of the testimony . . . in the ceremonies of the Levites." And again of the observances it is
4906 written (
4907 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q101_A4-p7.4" href="./asv.html#." target="asv">3 Kings 9:6</a>): "If you . . . shall turn away from following Me, and will not observe [Douay: 'keep'] My . . . ceremonies which I have
4908 set before you."
4909 </p>
4910 <p id="FS_Q101_A4-p8">
4911 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
4912 <a id="FS_Q101_A4-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q101_A1.html">AA[1]</a>,2), the ceremonial precepts are ordained to the Divine worship. Now in this worship we may consider the worship itself, the
4913 worshippers, and the instruments of worship. The worship consists specially in "sacrifices," which are offered up in honor
4914 of God. The instruments of worship refer to the "sacred things," such as the tabernacle, the vessels and so forth. With regard
4915 to the worshippers two points may be
4916 considered. The first point is their preparation for Divine worship, which is effected by a sort of consecration either of
4917 the people or of the ministers; and to this the "sacraments" refer. The second point is their particular mode of life, whereby
4918 they are distinguished from those who do not worship God: and to this pertain the "observances," for instance, in matters
4919 of food, clothing, and so forth.
4920 </p>
4921 <p id="FS_Q101_A4-p9">
4922 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> It was necessary for the sacrifices to be offered both in some certain place and by some certain men: and all this pertained
4923 to the worship of God. Wherefore just as their sacrifices signified Christ the victim, so too their sacraments and sacred
4924 things of the New Law; while their observances foreshadowed the mode of life of the people under the New Law: all of which
4925 things pertain to Christ.
4926 </p>
4927 <p id="FS_Q101_A4-p10">
4928 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The sacrifice of the New Law, viz. the Eucharist, contains Christ Himself, the Author of our Sanctification: for He sanctified
4929 "the people by His own blood" (
4930 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q101_A4-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.13.12" target="asv">Heb. 13:12</a>). Hence this Sacrifice is also a sacrament. But the sacrifices of the Old Law did not contain Christ, but foreshadowed Him;
4931 hence they are not called sacraments. In order to signify this there were certain sacraments apart from the sacrifices of
4932 the Old Law, which
4933 sacraments were figures of the sanctification to come. Nevertheless to certain consecrations certain sacrifices were united.
4934 </p>
4935 <p id="FS_Q101_A4-p11">
4936 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The sacrifices and sacraments were of course sacred things. But certain things were sacred, through being dedicated to the
4937 Divine worship, and yet were not sacrifices or sacraments: wherefore they retained the common designation of sacred things.
4938 </p>
4939 <p id="FS_Q101_A4-p12">
4940 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Those things which pertained to the mode of life of the people who worshipped God, retained the common designation of observances,
4941 in so far as they fell short of the above. For they were not called sacred things, because they had no immediate connection
4942 with the worship of God, such as the tabernacle and its vessels had. But by a sort of consequence they were matters of ceremony,
4943 in so far as they affected the fitness of the people who worshipped
4944 God.
4945 </p>
4946 <p id="FS_Q101_A4-p13">
4947 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Just as the sacrifices were offered in a fixed place, so were they offered at fixed times: for which reason the solemn festivals
4948 seem to be reckoned among the sacred things. The oblations and gifts are counted together with the sacrifices; hence the Apostle
4949 says (
4950 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q101_A4-p13.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.5.1" target="asv">Heb. 5:1</a>): "Every high-priest taken from among men, is ordained for men in things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts
4951 and sacrifices."
4952 </p>
4953 <p id="FS_Q101_A4-p14"></p>
4954 <p id="FS_Q101_A4-p15"></p>
4955 <a href="summa.FS_Q101_A3.html"></a>
4956 <a href="summa.FS_Q102.html"></a>
4957 </div>
4958 <a href="summa.FS_Q100_A12.html"></a>
4959 <a href="summa.FS_Q101_A1.html"></a>
4960 </div>
4961 <div id="FS_Q102" class="div3">
4962 <a href="summa.FS_Q101_A4.html"></a>
4963 <a href="summa.FS_Q102_A1.html"></a>
4964 <h3 id="FS_Q102-p0.1">OF THE CAUSES OF THE CEREMONIAL PRECEPTS (SIX ARTICLES)</h3>
4965 <p id="FS_Q102-p1"></p>
4966 <p id="FS_Q102-p2"> We must now consider the causes of the ceremonial precepts: under which head there are six points of inquiry:</p>
4967 <p id="FS_Q102-p3"> (1) Whether there was any cause for the ceremonial precepts?</p>
4968 <p id="FS_Q102-p4"> (2) Whether the cause of the ceremonial precepts was literal or figurative?</p>
4969 <p id="FS_Q102-p5"> (3) The causes of the sacrifices;</p>
4970 <p id="FS_Q102-p6"> (4) The causes of the sacrifices;</p>
4971 <p id="FS_Q102-p7"> (5) The causes of the sacred things;</p>
4972 <p id="FS_Q102-p8"> (6) The causes of the observances.</p>
4973 <div id="FS_Q102_A1" class="div4">
4974 <a href="summa.FS_Q102.html"></a>
4975 <a href="summa.FS_Q102_A2.html"></a>
4976 <h4 id="FS_Q102_A1-p0.1">Whether there was any cause for the ceremonial precepts?</h4>
4977 <p id="FS_Q102_A1-p1"></p>
4978 <p id="FS_Q102_A1-p2">
4979 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there was no cause for the ceremonial precepts. Because on
4980 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Eph.2.15" target="asv"> Eph. 2:15, </a> "Making void the law of the commandments," the gloss says, (i.e.) "making void the Old Law as to the carnal observances,
4981 by substituting decrees, i.e. evangelical precepts, which are based on reason." But if the observances of the Old Law were
4982 based on reason, it would have been useless to void them by the reasonable decrees of the New Law. Therefore
4983 there was no reason for the ceremonial observances of the Old Law.
4984 </p>
4985 <p id="FS_Q102_A1-p3">
4986 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Old Law succeeded the law of nature. But in the law of nature there was a precept for which there was no reason
4987 save that man's obedience might be tested; as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. viii, 6,13), concerning the prohibition about the
4988 tree of life. Therefore in the Old Law there should have been some precepts for the purpose of testing man's obedience, having
4989 no reason in themselves.
4990 </p>
4991 <p id="FS_Q102_A1-p4">
4992 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, man's works are called moral according as they proceed from reason. If therefore there is any reason for the ceremonial
4993 precepts, they would not differ from the moral precepts. It seems therefore that there was no cause for the ceremonial precepts:
4994 for the reason of a precept is taken from some cause.
4995 </p>
4996 <p id="FS_Q102_A1-p5">
4997 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
4998 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.18.9" target="asv">Ps. 18:9</a>): "The commandment of the Lord is lightsome, enlightening the eyes." But the ceremonial precepts are commandments of God.
4999 Therefore they are lightsome: and yet they would not be so, if they had no reasonable cause. Therefore the ceremonial precepts
5000 have a reasonable cause.
5001 </p>
5002 <p id="FS_Q102_A1-p6">
5003 <b>I answer that,</b> Since, according to the Philosopher (Metaph. i, 2), it is the function of a "wise man to do everything in order," those things
5004 which proceed from the Divine wisdom must needs be well ordered, as the Apostle states (
5005 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.13.1" target="asv">Rom. 13:1</a>). Now there are two conditions required for things to be well ordered. First, that they be ordained to their due end, which
5006 is the principle of the whole order in matters of action: since those things that happen by
5007 chance outside the intention of the end, or which are not done seriously but for fun, are said to be inordinate. Secondly,
5008 that which is done in view of the end should be proportionate to the end. From this it follows that the reason for whatever
5009 conduces to the end is taken from the end: thus the reason for the disposition of a saw is taken from cutting, which is its
5010 end, as stated in Phys. ii, 9. Now it is evident that the ceremonial precepts, like all the other precepts of the Law, were
5011 institutions of Divine wisdom: hence it is written (
5012 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A1-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.4.6" target="asv">Dt. 4:6</a>): "This is your wisdom and understanding in the sight of nations." Consequently we must needs say that the ceremonial precepts
5013 were ordained to a certain end, wherefrom their reasonable causes can be gathered.
5014 </p>
5015 <p id="FS_Q102_A1-p7">
5016 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> It may be said there was no reason for the observances of the Old Law, in the sense that there was no reason in the very
5017 nature of the thing done: for instance that a garment should not be made of wool and linen. But there could be a reason for
5018 them in relation to something else: namely, in so far as something was signified or excluded thereby. On the other hand, the
5019 decrees of the New Law, which refer chiefly to faith and the love of God, are
5020 reasonable from the very nature of the act.
5021 </p>
5022 <p id="FS_Q102_A1-p8">
5023 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The reason for the prohibition concerning the tree of knowledge of good and evil was not that this tree was naturally evil:
5024 and yet this prohibition was reasonable in its relation to something else, in as much as it signified something. And so also
5025 the ceremonial precepts of the Old Law were reasonable on account of their relation to something else.
5026 </p>
5027 <p id="FS_Q102_A1-p9">
5028 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The moral precepts in their very nature have reasonable causes: as for instance, "Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal."
5029 But the ceremonial precepts have a reasonable cause in their relation to something else, as stated above.
5030 </p>
5031 <p id="FS_Q102_A1-p10"></p>
5032 <p id="FS_Q102_A1-p11"></p>
5033 <a href="summa.FS_Q102.html"></a>
5034 <a href="summa.FS_Q102_A2.html"></a>
5035 </div>
5036 <div id="FS_Q102_A2" class="div4">
5037 <a href="summa.FS_Q102_A1.html"></a>
5038 <a href="summa.FS_Q102_A3.html"></a>
5039 <h4 id="FS_Q102_A2-p0.1">Whether the ceremonial precepts have a literal cause or merely a figurative cause?</h4>
5040 <p id="FS_Q102_A2-p1"></p>
5041 <p id="FS_Q102_A2-p2">
5042 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the ceremonial precepts have not a literal, but merely a figurative cause. For among the ceremonial precepts,
5043 the chief was circumcision and the sacrifice of the paschal lamb. But neither of these had any but a figurative cause: because
5044 each was given as a sign. For it is written (
5045 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.17.11" target="asv">Gn. 17:11</a>): "You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, that it may be a sign of the covenant between Me and you": and of the
5046 celebration of the Passover it is written (
5047 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A2-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Exod.13.9" target="asv">Ex. 13:9</a>): "It shall be as a sign in thy hand, and as a memorial before thy eyes." Therefore much more did the other ceremonial precepts
5048 have none but a figurative reason.
5049 </p>
5050 <p id="FS_Q102_A2-p3">
5051 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, an effect is proportionate to its cause. But all the ceremonial precepts are figurative, as stated above (
5052 <a id="FS_Q102_A2-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q101_A2.html">Q[101], A[2]</a>). Therefore they have no other than a figurative cause.
5053 </p>
5054 <p id="FS_Q102_A2-p4">
5055 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if it be a matter of indifference whether a certain thing, considered in itself, be done in a particular way or
5056 not, it seems that it has not a literal cause. Now there are certain points in the ceremonial precepts, which appear to be
5057 a matter of indifference, as to whether they be done in one way or in another: for instance, the number of animals to be offered,
5058 and other such particular circumstances. Therefore there is no literal cause for the
5059 precepts of the Old Law.
5060 </p>
5061 <p id="FS_Q102_A2-p5">
5062 <b>On the contrary,</b> Just as the ceremonial precepts foreshadowed Christ, so did the stories of the Old Testament: for it is written (
5063 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.10.11" target="asv">1 Cor. 10:11</a>) that "all (these things) happened to them in figure." Now in the stories of the Old Testament, besides the mystical or figurative,
5064 there is the literal sense. Therefore the ceremonial precepts had also literal, besides their figurative causes.
5065 </p>
5066 <p id="FS_Q102_A2-p6">
5067 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
5068 <a id="FS_Q102_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q102_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, the reason for whatever conduces to an end must be taken from that end. Now the end of the ceremonial precepts was twofold:
5069 for they were ordained to the Divine worship, for that particular time, and to the foreshadowing of Christ; just as the words
5070 of the prophets regarded the time being in such a way as to be utterances figurative of the time to come, as Jerome says on
5071 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A2-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Hos.1.3" target="asv"> Osee 1:3.</a>
5072 Accordingly the reasons for the ceremonial precepts of the Old Law can be taken in two ways. First, in respect of the Divine
5073 worship which was to be observed for that particular time: and these reasons are literal: whether they refer to the shunning
5074 of idolatry; or recall certain Divine benefits; or remind men of the Divine excellence; or point out the disposition of mind
5075 which was then required in those who worshipped God. Secondly, their reasons can be gathered from the point of view of their
5076 being ordained to foreshadow Christ: and thus their reasons are figurative and mystical: whether they be taken from Christ
5077 Himself and the Church, which pertains to the allegorical sense; or to the morals of the Christian people, which pertains
5078 to the moral sense; or to the state of future glory, in as much as we are brought thereto by Christ, which refers to the anagogical
5079 sense.
5080 </p>
5081 <p id="FS_Q102_A2-p7">
5082 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Just as the use of metaphorical expressions in Scripture belongs to the literal sense, because the words are employed in
5083 order to convey that particular meaning; so also the meaning of those legal ceremonies which commemorated certain Divine benefits,
5084 on account of which they were instituted, and of others similar which belonged to that time, does not go beyond the order
5085 of literal causes. Consequently when we assert that the cause of the celebration
5086 of the Passover was its signification of the delivery from Egypt, or that circumcision was a sign of God's covenant with Abraham,
5087 we assign the literal cause.
5088 </p>
5089 <p id="FS_Q102_A2-p8">
5090 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This argument would avail if the ceremonial precepts had been given merely as figures of things to come, and not for the
5091 purpose of worshipping God then and there.
5092 </p>
5093 <p id="FS_Q102_A2-p9">
5094 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As we have stated when speaking of human laws (
5095 <a id="FS_Q102_A2-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q96_A1.html">Q[96], AA[1]</a> ,6), there is a reason for them in the abstract, but not in regard to particular conditions, which depend on the judgment
5096 of those who frame them; so also many particular determinations in the ceremonies of the Old Law have no literal cause, but
5097 only a figurative cause; whereas in the abstract they have a literal cause.
5098 </p>
5099 <p id="FS_Q102_A2-p10"></p>
5100 <p id="FS_Q102_A2-p11"></p>
5101 <a href="summa.FS_Q102_A1.html"></a>
5102 <a href="summa.FS_Q102_A3.html"></a>
5103 </div>
5104 <div id="FS_Q102_A3" class="div4">
5105 <a href="summa.FS_Q102_A2.html"></a>
5106 <a href="summa.FS_Q102_A4.html"></a>
5107 <h4 id="FS_Q102_A3-p0.1">Whether a suitable cause can be assigned for the ceremonies which pertained to sacrifices?</h4>
5108 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p1"></p>
5109 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p2">
5110 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that no suitable cause can be assigned for the ceremonies pertaining to sacrifices. For those things which
5111 were offered in sacrifice, are those which are necessary for sustaining human life: such as certain animals and certain loaves.
5112 But God needs no such sustenance; according to
5113 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.49.13" target="asv"> Ps. 49:13</a>: "Shall I eat the flesh of bullocks? Or shall I drink the blood of goats?" Therefore such sacrifices were unfittingly offered
5114 to God.
5115 </p>
5116 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p3">
5117 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, only three kinds of quadrupeds were offered in sacrifice to God, viz. oxen, sheep and goats; of birds, generally
5118 the turtledove and the dove; but specially, in the cleansing of a leper, an offering was made of sparrows. Now many other
5119 animals are more noble than these. Since therefore whatever is best should be offered to God, it seems that not only of these
5120 three should sacrifices have been offered to Him.
5121 </p>
5122 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p4">
5123 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, just as man has received from God the dominion over birds and beasts, so also has he received dominion over fishes.
5124 Consequently it was unfitting for fishes to be excluded from the divine sacrifices.
5125 </p>
5126 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p5">
5127 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, turtledoves and doves indifferently are commanded to be offered up. Since then the young of the dove are commanded
5128 to be offered, so also should the young of the turtledove.
5129 </p>
5130 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p6">
5131 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, God is the Author of life, not only of men, but also of animals, as is clear from
5132 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.1.20" target="asv"> Gn. 1:20, </a> seqq. Now death is opposed to life. Therefore it was fitting that living animals rather than slain animals should be offered
5133 to God, especially as the Apostle admonishes us (
5134 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A3-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.12.1" target="asv">Rom. 12:1</a>), to present our bodies "a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God."
5135 </p>
5136 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p7">
5137 <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, if none but slain animals were offered in sacrifice to God, it seems that it mattered not how they were slain. Therefore
5138 it was unfitting that the manner of immolation should be determined, especially as regards birds (
5139 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.1.15" target="asv">Lev. 1:15, </a> seqq.).
5140 </p>
5141 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p8">
5142 <b>Objection 7:</b> Further, every defect in an animal is a step towards corruption and death. If therefore slain animals were offered to God,
5143 it was unreasonable to forbid the offering of an imperfect animal, e.g. a lame, or a blind, or otherwise defective animal.
5144 </p>
5145 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p9">
5146 <b>Objection 8:</b> Further, those who offer victims to God should partake thereof, according to the words of the Apostle (
5147 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A3-p9.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.10.18" target="asv">1 Cor. 10:18</a>): "Are not they that eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?" It was therefore unbecoming for the offerers to be denied
5148 certain parts of the victims, namely, the blood, the fat, the breastbone and the right shoulder.
5149 </p>
5150 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p10">
5151 <b>Objection 9:</b> Further, just as holocausts were offered up in honor of God, so also were the peace-offerings and sin-offerings. But no female
5152 animals was offered up to God as a holocaust, although holocausts were offered of both quadrupeds and birds. Therefore it
5153 was inconsistent that female animals should be offered up in peace-offerings and sin-offerings, and that nevertheless birds
5154 should not be offered up in peace-offerings.
5155 </p>
5156 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p11">
5157 <b>Objection 10:</b> Further, all the peace-offerings seem to be of one kind. Therefore it was unfitting to make a distinction among them, so
5158 that it was forbidden to eat the flesh of certain peace-offerings on the following day, while it was allowed to eat the flesh
5159 of other peace-offerings, as laid down in
5160 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A3-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.7.15" target="asv"> Lev. 7:15, </a> seqq.
5161 </p>
5162 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p12">
5163 <b>Objection 11:</b> Further, all sins agree in turning us from God. Therefore, in order to reconcile us to God, one kind of sacrifice should
5164 have been offered up for all sins.
5165 </p>
5166 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p13">
5167 <b>Objection 12:</b> Further, all animals that were offered up in sacrifice, were offered up in one way, viz. slain. Therefore it does not seem
5168 to be suitable that products of the soil should be offered up in various ways; for sometimes an offering was made of ears
5169 of corn, sometimes of flour, sometimes of bread, this being baked sometimes in an oven, sometimes in a pan, sometimes on a
5170 gridiron.
5171 </p>
5172 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p14">
5173 <b>Objection 13:</b> Further, whatever things are serviceable to us should be recognized as coming from God. It was therefore unbecoming that
5174 besides animals, nothing but bread, wine, oil, incense, and salt should be offered to God.
5175 </p>
5176 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p15">
5177 <b>Objection 14:</b> Further, bodily sacrifices denote the inward sacrifice of the heart, whereby man offers his soul to God. But in the inward
5178 sacrifice, the sweetness, which is denoted by honey, surpasses the pungency which salt represents; for it is written (
5179 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A3-p15.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.24.27" target="asv">Ecclus. 24:27</a>): "My spirit is sweet above honey." Therefore it was unbecoming that the use of honey, and of leaven which makes bread savory,
5180 should be forbidden in a sacrifice; while the use was
5181 prescribed, of salt which is pungent, and of incense which has a bitter taste. Consequently it seems that things pertaining
5182 to the ceremonies of the sacrifices have no reasonable cause.
5183 </p>
5184 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p16">
5185 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
5186 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A3-p16.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.1.13" target="asv">Lev. 1:13</a>): "The priest shall offer it all and burn it all upon the altar, for a holocaust, and most sweet savor to the Lord." Now
5187 according to
5188 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A3-p16.2" href="./asv.html#Wis.7.28" target="asv"> Wis. 7:28, </a> "God loveth none but him that dwelleth with wisdom": whence it seems to follow that whatever is acceptable to God is wisely
5189 done. Therefore these ceremonies of the sacrifices were wisely done, as having reasonable causes.
5190 </p>
5191 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p17">
5192 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
5193 <a id="FS_Q102_A3-p17.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q102_A2.html">(A[2])</a>, the ceremonies of the Old Law had a twofold cause, viz. a literal cause, according as they were intended for Divine worship;
5194 and a figurative or mystical cause, according as they were intended to foreshadow Christ: and on either hand the ceremonies
5195 pertaining to the sacrifices can be assigned to a fitting cause.
5196 </p>
5197 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p18"> For, according as the ceremonies of the sacrifices were intended for the divine worship, the causes of the sacrifices can
5198 be taken in two ways. First, in so far as the sacrifice represented the directing of the mind to God, to which the offerer
5199 of the sacrifice was stimulated. Now in order to direct his mind to God aright, man must recognize that whatever he has is
5200 from God as from its first principle, and direct it to God as its last end. This was denoted in the offerings and
5201 sacrifices, by the fact that man offered some of his own belongings in honor of God, as though in recognition of his having
5202 received them from God, according to the saying of David (1 Paral. xxix, 14): "All things are Thine: and we have given Thee
5203 what we received of Thy hand." Wherefore in offering up sacrifices man made protestation that God is the first principle of
5204 the creation of all things, and their last end, to which all things must be directed. And since, for the human mind to be
5205 directed to God aright, it must recognize no first author of things other than God, nor place its end in any other; for this
5206 reason it was forbidden in the Law to offer sacrifice to any other but God, according to
5207 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A3-p18.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.22.20" target="asv"> Ex. 22:20</a>: "He that sacrificeth to gods, shall be put to death, save only to the Lord." Wherefore another reasonable cause may be assigned
5208 to the ceremonies of the sacrifices, from the fact that thereby men were withdrawn from offering sacrifices to idols. Hence
5209 too it is that the precepts about the sacrifices were not given to the Jewish people until after they had fallen into idolatry,
5210 by worshipping the molten calf: as though those sacrifices were instituted, that the people, being ready to offer sacrifices,
5211 might offer those sacrifices to God rather than to idols. Thus it is written (
5212 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A3-p18.2" href="./asv.html#Jer.7.22" target="asv">Jer. 7:22</a>): "I spake not to your fathers and I commanded them not, in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning
5213 the matter
5214 of burnt-offerings and sacrifices."
5215 </p>
5216 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p19"> Now of all the gifts which God vouchsafed to mankind after they had fallen away by sin, the chief is that He gave His Son;
5217 wherefore it is written (
5218 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A3-p19.1" href="./asv.html#John.3.16" target="asv">Jn. 3:16</a>): "God so loved the world, as to give His only-begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in Him, may not perish, but may have
5219 life everlasting." Consequently the chief sacrifice is that whereby Christ Himself "delivered Himself . . . to God for an
5220 odor of sweetness" (
5221 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A3-p19.2" href="./asv.html#Eph.5.2" target="asv">Eph. 5:2</a>). And for this reason all the
5222 other sacrifices of the Old Law were offered up in order to foreshadow this one individual and paramount sacrifice---the imperfect
5223 forecasting the perfect. Hence the Apostle says (
5224 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A3-p19.3" href="./asv.html#Heb.10.11" target="asv">Heb. 10:11</a>) that the priest of the Old Law "often" offered "the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: but" Christ offered
5225 "one sacrifice for sins, for ever." And since the reason of the figure is taken from that which the figure represents, therefore
5226 the reasons of the figurative
5227 sacrifices of the Old Law should be taken from the true sacrifice of Christ.
5228 </p>
5229 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p20">
5230 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> God did not wish these sacrifices to be offered to Him on account of the things themselves that were offered, as though He
5231 stood in need of them: wherefore it is written (
5232 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A3-p20.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.1.11" target="asv">Is. 1:11</a>): "I desire not holocausts of rams, and fat of fatlings, and blood of calves and lambs and buckgoats." But, as stated above,
5233 He wished them to be offered to Him, in order to prevent idolatry; in order to signify the right ordering of man's mind to
5234 God;
5235 and in order to represent the mystery of the Redemption of man by Christ.
5236 </p>
5237 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p21">
5238 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In all the respects mentioned above (ad 1), there was a suitable reason for these animals, rather than others, being offered
5239 in sacrifice to God. First, in order to prevent idolatry. Because idolaters offered all other animals to their gods, or made
5240 use of them in their sorceries: while the Egyptians (among whom the people had been dwelling) considered it abominable to
5241 slay these animals, wherefore they used not to offer them in sacrifice to their
5242 gods. Hence it is written (
5243 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A3-p21.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.8.26" target="asv">Ex. 8:26</a>): "We shall sacrifice the abominations of the Egyptians to the Lord our God." For they worshipped the sheep; they reverenced
5244 the ram (because demons appeared under the form thereof); while they employed oxen for agriculture, which was reckoned by
5245 them as something sacred.
5246 </p>
5247 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p22"> Secondly, this was suitable for the aforesaid right ordering of man's mind to God: and in two ways. First, because it is
5248 chiefly by means of these animals that human life is sustained: and moreover they are most clean, and partake of a most clean
5249 food: whereas other animals are either wild, and not deputed to ordinary use among men: or, if they be tame, they have unclean
5250 food, as pigs and geese: and nothing but what is clean should be offered to God. These birds especially were
5251 offered in sacrifice because there were plenty of them in the land of promise. Secondly, because the sacrificing of these
5252 animals represented purity of heart. Because as the gloss says on
5253 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A3-p22.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.1" target="asv">Lev. 1</a>, "We offer a calf, when we overcome the pride of the flesh; a lamb, when we restrain our unreasonable motions; a goat, when
5254 we conquer wantonness; a turtledove, when we keep chaste; unleavened bread, when we feast on the unleavened bread of sincerity."
5255 And it is evident that the dove denotes charity and
5256 simplicity of heart.
5257 </p>
5258 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p23"> Thirdly, it was fitting that these animals should be offered, that they might foreshadow Christ. Because, as the gloss observes,
5259 "Christ is offered in the calf, to denote the strength of the cross; in the lamb, to signify His innocence; in the ram, to
5260 foreshadow His headship; and in the goat, to signify the likeness of 'sinful flesh' [*An allusion to
5261 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A3-p23.1" href="./asv.html#Col.2.11" target="asv">Col. 2:11</a> (Textus Receptus)]. The turtledove and dove denoted the union of the two natures"; or else the turtledove signified
5262 chastity; while the dove was a figure of charity. "The wheat-flour foreshadowed the sprinkling of believers with the water
5263 of Baptism."
5264 </p>
5265 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p24">
5266 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Fish through living in water are further removed from man than other animals, which, like man, live in the air. Again, fish
5267 die as soon as they are taken out of water; hence they could not be offered in the temple like other animals.
5268 </p>
5269 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p25">
5270 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Among turtledoves the older ones are better than the young; while with doves the case is the reverse. Wherefore, as Rabbi
5271 Moses observes (Doct. Perplex. iii), turtledoves and young doves are commanded to be offered, because nothing should be offered
5272 to God but what is best.
5273 </p>
5274 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p26">
5275 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> The animals which were offered in sacrifice were slain, because it is by being killed that they become useful to man, forasmuch
5276 as God gave them to man for food. Wherefore also they were burnt with fire: because it is by being cooked that they are made
5277 fit for human consumption. Moreover the slaying of the animals signified the destruction of sins: and also that man deserved
5278 death on account of his sins; as though those animals were slain in man's
5279 stead, in order to betoken the expiation of sins. Again the slaying of these animals signified the slaying of Christ.
5280 </p>
5281 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p27">
5282 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> The Law fixed the special manner of slaying the sacrificial animals in order to exclude other ways of killing, whereby idolaters
5283 sacrificed animals to idols. Or again, as Rabbi Moses says (Doct. Perplex. iii), "the Law chose that manner of slaying which
5284 was least painful to the slain animal." This excluded cruelty on the part of the offerers, and any mangling of the animals
5285 slain.
5286 </p>
5287 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p28">
5288 <b>Reply to Objection 7:</b> It is because unclean animals are wont to be held in contempt among men, that it was forbidden to offer them in sacrifice
5289 to God: and for this reason too they were forbidden (
5290 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A3-p28.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.23.18" target="asv">Dt. 23:18</a>) to offer "the hire of a strumpet or the price of a dog in the house of . . . God." For the same reason they did not offer
5291 animals before the seventh day, because such were abortive as it were, the flesh being not yet firm on account of its
5292 exceeding softness.
5293 </p>
5294 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p29">
5295 <b>Reply to Objection 8:</b> There were three kinds of sacrifices. There was one in which the victim was entirely consumed by fire: this was called "a
5296 holocaust, i.e. all burnt." For this kind of sacrifice was offered to God specially to show reverence to His majesty, and
5297 love of His goodness: and typified the state of perfection as regards the fulfilment of the counsels. Wherefore the whole
5298 was burnt up: so that as the whole animal by being dissolved into vapor soared aloft, so
5299 it might denote that the whole man, and whatever belongs to him, are subject to the authority of God, and should be offered
5300 to Him.
5301 </p>
5302 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p30"> Another sacrifice was the "sin-offering," which was offered to God on account of man's need for the forgiveness of sin: and
5303 this typifies the state of penitents in satisfying for sins. It was divided into two parts: for one part was burnt; while
5304 the other was granted to the use of the priests to signify that remission of sins is granted by God through the ministry of
5305 His priests. When, however, this sacrifice was offered for the sins of the whole people, or specially for the sin
5306 of the priest, the whole victim was burnt up. For it was not fitting that the priests should have the use of that which was
5307 offered for their own sins, to signify that nothing sinful should remain in them. Moreover, this would not be satisfaction
5308 for sin: for if the offering were granted to the use of those for whose sins it was offered, it would seem to be the same
5309 as if it had not been offered.
5310 </p>
5311 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p31"> The third kind of sacrifice was called the "peace-offering," which was offered to God, either in thanksgiving, or for the
5312 welfare and prosperity of the offerers, in acknowledgment of benefits already received or yet to be received: and this typifies
5313 the state of those who are proficient in the observance of the commandments. These sacrifices were divided into three parts:
5314 for one part was burnt in honor of God; another part was allotted to the use of the priests; and the third
5315 part to the use of the offerers; in order to signify that man's salvation is from God, by the direction of God's ministers,
5316 and through the cooperation of those who are saved.
5317 </p>
5318 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p32"> But it was the universal rule that the blood and fat were not allotted to the use either of the priests or of the offerers:
5319 the blood being poured out at the foot of the altar, in honor of God, while the fat was burnt upon the altar (
5320 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A3-p32.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.9.9" target="asv">Lev. 9:9,10</a>). The reason for this was, first, in order to prevent idolatry: because idolaters used to drink the blood and eat the fat
5321 of the victims, according to
5322 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A3-p32.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.32.38" target="asv"> Dt. 32:38</a>: "Of whose victims they eat the
5323 fat, and drank the wine of their drink-offerings." Secondly, in order to form them to a right way of living. For they were
5324 forbidden the use of the blood that they might abhor the shedding of human blood; wherefore it is written (
5325 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A3-p32.3" href="./asv.html#Gen.9.4" target="asv">Gn. 9:4,5</a>): "Flesh with blood you shall not eat: for I will require the blood of your lives": and they were forbidden to eat the fat,
5326 in order to withdraw them from lasciviousness; hence it is written (
5327 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A3-p32.4" href="./asv.html#Ezek.34.3" target="asv">Ezech. 34:3</a>): "You have
5328 killed that which was fat." Thirdly, on account of the reverence due to God: because blood is most necessary for life, for
5329 which reason "life" is said to be "in the blood" (
5330 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A3-p32.5" href="./asv.html#Lev.17.11" target="asv">Lev. 17:11</a>,
5331 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A3-p32.6" href="./asv.html#Lev.17.14" target="asv">14</a>): while fat is a sign of abundant nourishment. Wherefore, in order to show that to God we owe both life and a sufficiency
5332 of all good things, the blood was poured out, and the fat burnt up in His honor. Fourthly, in order to foreshadow the shedding
5333 of Christ's blood, and the abundance of His charity, whereby He
5334 offered Himself to God for us.
5335 </p>
5336 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p33"> In the peace-offerings, the breast-bone and the right shoulder were allotted to the use of the priest, in order to prevent
5337 a certain kind of divination which is known as "spatulamantia," so called because it was customary in divining to use the
5338 shoulder-blade [spatula], and the breast-bone of the animals offered in sacrifice; wherefore these things were taken away
5339 from the offerers. This is also denoted the priest's need of wisdom in the heart, to instruct the people---this was
5340 signified by the breast-bone, which covers the heart; and his need of fortitude, in order to bear with human frailty---and
5341 this was signified by the right shoulder.
5342 </p>
5343 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p34">
5344 <b>Reply to Objection 9:</b> Because the holocaust was the most perfect kind of sacrifice, therefore none but a male was offered for a holocaust: because
5345 the female is an imperfect animal. The offering of turtledoves and doves was on account of the poverty of the offerers, who
5346 were unable to offer bigger animals. And since peace-victims were offered freely, and no one was bound to offer them against
5347 his will, hence these birds were offered not among the peace-victims, but among
5348 the holocausts and victims for sin, which man was obliged to offer at times. Moreover these birds, on account of their lofty
5349 flight, while befitting the perfection of the holocausts: and were suitable for sin-offerings because their song is doleful.
5350 </p>
5351 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p35">
5352 <b>Reply to Objection 10:</b> The holocaust was the chief of all the sacrifices: because all were burnt in honor of God, and nothing of it was eaten. The
5353 second place in holiness, belongs to the sacrifice for sins, which was eaten in the court only, and on the very day of the
5354 sacrifice (
5355 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A3-p35.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.7.6" target="asv">Lev. 7:6</a>,
5356 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A3-p35.2" href="./asv.html#Lev.7.15" target="asv">15</a>). The third place must be given to the peace-offerings of thanksgiving, which were eaten on the same day, but anywhere in
5357 Jerusalem. Fourth in order were the
5358 "ex-voto" peace-offerings, the flesh of which could be eaten even on the morrow. The reason for this order is that man is
5359 bound to God, chiefly on account of His majesty; secondly, on account of the sins he has committed; thirdly, because of the
5360 benefits he has already received from Him; fourthly, by reason of the benefits he hopes to receive from Him.
5361 </p>
5362 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p36">
5363 <b>Reply to Objection 11:</b> Sins are more grievous by reason of the state of the sinner, as stated above (
5364 <a id="FS_Q102_A3-p36.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q73_A10.html">Q[73], A[10]</a>): wherefore different victims are commanded to be offered for the sin of a priest, or of a prince, or of some other private
5365 individual. "But," as Rabbi Moses says (Doct. Perplex. iii), "we must take note that the more grievous the sin, the lower
5366 the species of animals offered for it. Wherefore the goat, which is a very base animal, was
5367 offered for idolatry; while a calf was offered for a priest's ignorance, and a ram for the negligence of a prince."
5368 </p>
5369 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p37">
5370 <b>Reply to Objection 12:</b> In the matter of sacrifices the Law had in view the poverty of the offerers; so that those who could not have a four-footed
5371 animal at their disposal, might at least offer a bird; and that he who could not have a bird might at least offer bread; and
5372 that if a man had not even bread he might offer flour or ears of corn.
5373 </p>
5374 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p38"> The figurative cause is that the bread signifies Christ Who is the "living bread" (
5375 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A3-p38.1" href="./asv.html#John.6.41" target="asv">Jn. 6:41</a>,
5376 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A3-p38.2" href="./asv.html#John.6.51" target="asv">51</a>). He was indeed an ear of corn, as it were, during the state of the law of nature, in the faith of the patriarchs; He was
5377 like flour in the doctrine of the Law of the prophets; and He was like perfect bread after He had taken human nature; baked
5378 in the fire, i.e. formed by the Holy Ghost in the oven of the virginal womb; baked again in a pan by the toils which He
5379 suffered in the world; and consumed by fire on the cross as on a gridiron.
5380 </p>
5381 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p39">
5382 <b>Reply to Objection 13:</b> The products of the soil are useful to man, either as food, and of these bread was offered; or as drink, and of these wine
5383 was offered; or as seasoning, and of these oil and salt were offered; or as healing, and of these they offered incense, which
5384 both smells sweetly and binds easily together.
5385 </p>
5386 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p40"> Now the bread foreshadowed the flesh of Christ; and the wine, His blood, whereby we were redeemed; oil betokens the grace
5387 of Christ; salt, His knowledge; incense, His prayer.
5388 </p>
5389 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p41">
5390 <b>Reply to Objection 14:</b> Honey was not offered in the sacrifices to God, both because it was wont to be offered in the sacrifices to idols; and in
5391 order to denote the absence of all carnal sweetness and pleasure from those who intend to sacrifice to God. Leaven was not
5392 offered, to denote the exclusion of corruption. Perhaps too, it was wont to be offered in the sacrifices to idols.
5393 </p>
5394 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p42"> Salt, however, was offered, because it wards off the corruption of putrefaction: for sacrifices offered to God should be
5395 incorrupt. Moreover, salt signifies the discretion of wisdom, or again, mortification of the flesh.
5396 </p>
5397 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p43"> Incense was offered to denote devotion of the heart, which is necessary in the offerer; and again, to signify the odor of
5398 a good name: for incense is composed of matter, both rich and fragrant. And since the sacrifice "of jealousy" did not proceed
5399 from devotion, but rather from suspicion, therefore incense was not offered therein (
5400 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A3-p43.1" href="./asv.html#Num.5.15" target="asv">Num. 5:15</a>).
5401 </p>
5402 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p44"></p>
5403 <p id="FS_Q102_A3-p45"></p>
5404 <a href="summa.FS_Q102_A2.html"></a>
5405 <a href="summa.FS_Q102_A4.html"></a>
5406 </div>
5407 <div id="FS_Q102_A4" class="div4">
5408 <a href="summa.FS_Q102_A3.html"></a>
5409 <a href="summa.FS_Q102_A5.html"></a>
5410 <h4 id="FS_Q102_A4-p0.1">Whether sufficient reason can be assigned for the ceremonies pertaining to holy things?</h4>
5411 <p id="FS_Q102_A4-p1"></p>
5412 <p id="FS_Q102_A4-p2">
5413 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that no sufficient reason can be assigned for the ceremonies of the Old Law that pertain to holy things. For
5414 Paul said (
5415 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.17.24" target="asv">Acts 17:24</a>): "God Who made the world and all things therein; He being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made by hands."
5416 It was therefore unfitting that in the Old Law a tabernacle or temple should be set up for the worship of God.
5417 </p>
5418 <p id="FS_Q102_A4-p3">
5419 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the state of the Old Law was not changed except by Christ. But the tabernacle denoted the state of the Old Law.
5420 Therefore it should not have been changed by the building of a temple.
5421 </p>
5422 <p id="FS_Q102_A4-p4">
5423 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Divine Law, more than any other indeed, should lead man to the worship of God. But an increase of divine worship
5424 requires multiplication of altars and temples; as is evident in regard to the New Law. Therefore it seems that also under
5425 the Old Law there should have been not only one tabernacle or temple, but many.
5426 </p>
5427 <p id="FS_Q102_A4-p5">
5428 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the tabernacle or temple was ordained to the worship of God. But in God we should worship above all His unity and
5429 simplicity. Therefore it seems unbecoming for the tabernacle or temple to be divided by means of veils.
5430 </p>
5431 <p id="FS_Q102_A4-p6">
5432 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, the power of the First Mover, i.e. God, appears first of all in the east, for it is in that quarter that the first
5433 movement begins. But the tabernacle was set up for the worship of God. Therefore it should have been built so as to point
5434 to the east rather than the west.
5435 </p>
5436 <p id="FS_Q102_A4-p7">
5437 <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, the Lord commanded (
5438 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.20.4" target="asv">Ex. 20:4</a>) that they should "not make . . . a graven thing, nor the likeness of anything." It was therefore unfitting for graven images
5439 of the cherubim to be set up in the tabernacle or temple. In like manner, the ark, the propitiatory, the candlestick, the
5440 table, the two altars, seem to have been placed there without reasonable cause.
5441 </p>
5442 <p id="FS_Q102_A4-p8">
5443 <b>Objection 7:</b> Further, the Lord commanded (
5444 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.20.24" target="asv">Ex. 20:24</a>): "You shall make an altar of earth unto Me": and again (
5445 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Exod.20.26" target="asv">Ex. 20:26</a>): "Thou shalt not go up by steps unto My altar." It was therefore unfitting that subsequently they should be commanded to
5446 make an altar of wood laid over with gold or brass; and of such a height that it was impossible to go up to it except by steps.
5447 For it is written (
5448 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p8.3" href="./asv.html#Exod.27.1" target="asv">Ex. 27:1,2</a>): "Thou shalt
5449 make also an altar of setim wood, which shall be five cubits long, and as many broad . . . and three cubits high . . . and
5450 thou shalt cover it with brass": and (
5451 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p8.4" href="./asv.html#Exod.30.1" target="asv">Ex. 30:1</a>,
5452 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p8.5" href="./asv.html#Exod.30.3" target="asv">3</a>): "Thou shalt make . . . an altar to burn incense, of setim wood . . . and thou shalt overlay it with the purest gold."
5453 </p>
5454 <p id="FS_Q102_A4-p9">
5455 <b>Objection 8:</b> Further, in God's works nothing should be superfluous; for not even in the works of nature is anything superfluous to be
5456 found. But one cover suffices for one tabernacle or house. Therefore it was unbecoming to furnish the tabernacle with many
5457 coverings, viz. curtains, curtains of goats' hair, rams' skins dyed red, and violet-colored skins (
5458 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.26" target="asv">Ex. 26</a>).
5459 </p>
5460 <p id="FS_Q102_A4-p10">
5461 <b>Objection 9:</b> Further, exterior consecration signifies interior holiness, the subject of which is the soul. It was therefore unsuitable
5462 for the tabernacle and its vessels to be consecrated, since they were inanimate things.
5463 </p>
5464 <p id="FS_Q102_A4-p11">
5465 <b>Objection 10:</b> Further, it is written (
5466 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.33.2" target="asv">Ps. 33:2</a>): "I will bless the Lord at all times, His praise shall always be in my mouth." But the solemn festivals were instituted
5467 for the praise of God. Therefore it was not fitting that certain days should be fixed for keeping solemn festivals; so that
5468 it seems that there was no suitable cause for the ceremonies relating to holy things.
5469 </p>
5470 <p id="FS_Q102_A4-p12">
5471 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
5472 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.8.4" target="asv">Heb. 8:4</a>) that those who "offer gifts according to the law . . . serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things. As it was answered
5473 to Moses, when he was to finish the tabernacle: See, says He, that thou make all things according to the pattern which was
5474 shown thee on the mount." But that is most reasonable, which presents a likeness to heavenly things. Therefore the ceremonies
5475 relating to holy things had a
5476 reasonable cause.
5477 </p>
5478 <p id="FS_Q102_A4-p13">
5479 <b>I answer that,</b> The chief purpose of the whole external worship is that man may give worship to God. Now man's tendency is to reverence less
5480 those things which are common, and indistinct from other things; whereas he admires and reveres those things which are distinct
5481 from others in some point of excellence. Hence too it is customary among men for kings and princes, who ought to be reverenced
5482 by their subjects, to be clothed in more precious garments, and to possess vaster
5483 and more beautiful abodes. And for this reason it behooved special times, a special abode, special vessels, and special ministers
5484 to be appointed for the divine worship, so that thereby the soul of man might be brought to greater reverence for God.
5485 </p>
5486 <p id="FS_Q102_A4-p14"> In like manner the state of the Old Law, as observed above
5487 <a id="FS_Q102_A4-p14.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q102_A2.html">(A[2];</a> Q[100] , A[12]; Q[101], A[2]), was instituted that it might foreshadow the mystery of Christ. Now that which foreshadows
5488 something should be determinate, so that it may present some likeness thereto. Consequently, certain special points had to
5489 be observed in matters pertaining to the worship of God.
5490 </p>
5491 <p id="FS_Q102_A4-p15">
5492 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The divine worship regards two things: namely, God Who is worshipped; and men, who worship Him. Accordingly God, Who is worshipped,
5493 is confined to no bodily place: wherefore there was no need, on His part, for a tabernacle or temple to be set up. But men,
5494 who worship Him, are corporeal beings: and for their sake there was need for a special tabernacle or temple to be set up for
5495 the worship of God, for two reasons. First, that through coming together
5496 with the thought that the place was set aside for the worship of God, they might approach thither with greater reverence.
5497 Secondly, that certain things relating to the excellence of Christ's Divine or human nature might be signified by the arrangement
5498 of various details in such temple or tabernacle.
5499 </p>
5500 <p id="FS_Q102_A4-p16"> To this Solomon refers (
5501 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p16.1" href="./asv.html#." target="asv">3 Kings 8:27</a>) when he says: "If heaven and the heavens of heavens cannot contain Thee, how much less this house which I have built" for
5502 Thee? And further on (
5503 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p16.2" href="./asv.html#." target="asv">3 Kings 8:29</a>,
5504 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p16.3" href="./asv.html#." target="asv">20</a>) he adds: "That Thy eyes may be open upon this house . . . of which Thou hast said: My name shall be there; . . . that Thou
5505 mayest hearken to the supplication of Thy servant and of Thy people Israel." From this it is evident that the house of
5506 the sanctuary was set up, not in order to contain God, as abiding therein locally, but that God might be made known there
5507 by means of things done and said there; and that those who prayed there might, through reverence for the place, pray more
5508 devoutly, so as to be heard more readily.
5509 </p>
5510 <p id="FS_Q102_A4-p17">
5511 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Before the coming of Christ, the state of the Old Law was not changed as regards the fulfilment of the Law, which was effected
5512 in Christ alone: but it was changed as regards the condition of the people that were under the Law. Because, at first, the
5513 people were in the desert, having no fixed abode: afterwards they were engaged in various wars with the neighboring nations;
5514 and lastly, at the time of David and Solomon, the state of that people was one
5515 of great peace. And then for the first time the temple was built in the place which Abraham, instructed by God, had chosen
5516 for the purpose of sacrifice. For it is written (
5517 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p17.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.22.2" target="asv">Gn. 22:2</a>) that the Lord commanded Abraham to "offer" his son "for a holocaust upon one of the mountains which I will show thee": and
5518 it is related further on (
5519 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p17.2" href="./asv.html#Gen.22.14" target="asv">Gn. 22:14</a>) that "he calleth the name of that place, The Lord seeth," as though, according to the Divine prevision, that place
5520 were chosen for the worship of God. Hence it is written (
5521 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p17.3" href="./asv.html#Deut.12.5" target="asv">Dt. 12:5,6</a>): "You shall come to the place which the Lord your God shall choose . . . and you shall offer . . . your holocausts and victims."
5522 </p>
5523 <p id="FS_Q102_A4-p18"> Now it was not meet for that place to be pointed out by the building of the temple before the aforesaid time; for three reasons
5524 assigned by Rabbi Moses. First, lest the Gentiles might seize hold of that place. Secondly, lest the Gentiles might destroy
5525 it. The third reason is lest each tribe might wish that place to fall to their lot, and strifes and quarrels be the result.
5526 Hence the temple was not built until they had a king who would be able to quell such quarrels. Until that
5527 time a portable tabernacle was employed for divine worship, no place being as yet fixed for the worship of God. This is the
5528 literal reason for the distinction between the tabernacle and the temple.
5529 </p>
5530 <p id="FS_Q102_A4-p19"> The figurative reason may be assigned to the fact that they signify a twofold state. For the tabernacle, which was changeable,
5531 signifies the state of the present changeable life: whereas the temple, which was fixed and stable, signifies the state of
5532 future life which is altogether unchangeable. For this reason it is said that in the building of the temple no sound was heard
5533 of hammer or saw, to signify that all movements of disturbance will be far removed from the future state.
5534 Or else the tabernacle signifies the state of the Old Law; while the temple built by Solomon betokens the state of the New
5535 Law. Hence the Jews alone worked at the building of the tabernacle; whereas the temple was built with the cooperation of the
5536 Gentiles, viz. the Tyrians and Sidonians.
5537 </p>
5538 <p id="FS_Q102_A4-p20">
5539 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The reason for the unity of the temple or tabernacle may be either literal or figurative. The literal reason was the exclusion
5540 of idolatry. For the Gentiles put up various times to various gods: and so, to strengthen in the minds of men their belief
5541 in the unity of the Godhead, God wished sacrifices to be offered to Him in one place only. Another reason was in order to
5542 show that bodily worship is not acceptable of itself: and so they restrained from
5543 offering sacrifices anywhere and everywhere. But the worship of the New Law, in the sacrifice whereof spiritual grace is contained,
5544 is of itself acceptable to God; and consequently the multiplication of altars and temples is permitted in the New Law.
5545 </p>
5546 <p id="FS_Q102_A4-p21"> As to those matters that regarded the spiritual worship of God, consisting in the teaching of the Law and the Prophets, there
5547 were, even under the Old Law, various places, called synagogues, appointed for the people to gather together for the praise
5548 of God; just as now there are places called churches in which the Christian people gather together for the divine worship.
5549 Thus our church takes the place of both temple and synagogue: since the very sacrifice of the Church is
5550 spiritual; wherefore with us the place of sacrifice is not distinct from the place of teaching. The figurative reason may
5551 be that hereby is signified the unity of the Church, whether militant or triumphant.
5552 </p>
5553 <p id="FS_Q102_A4-p22">
5554 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Just as the unity of the temple or tabernacle betokened the unity of God, or the unity of the Church, so also the division
5555 of the tabernacle or temple signified the distinction of those things that are subject to God, and from which we arise to
5556 the worship of God. Now the tabernacle was divided into two parts: one was called the "Holy of Holies," and was placed to
5557 the west; the other was called the "Holy Place" [*Or 'Sanctuary'. The Douay version uses
5558 both expressions], which was situated to the east. Moreover there was a court facing the tabernacle. Accordingly there are
5559 two reasons for this distinction. One is in respect of the tabernacle being ordained to the worship of God. Because the different
5560 parts of the world are thus betokened by the division of the tabernacle. For that part which was called the Holy of Holies
5561 signified the higher world, which is that of spiritual substances: while that part which is called the Holy Place signified
5562 the corporeal world. Hence the Holy Place was separated from the Holy of Holies by a veil, which was of four different colors
5563 (denoting the four elements), viz. of linen, signifying earth, because linen, i.e. flax, grows out of the earth; purple, signifying
5564 water, because the purple tint was made from certain shells found in the sea; violet, signifying air, because it has the color
5565 of the air; and scarlet twice dyed, signifying fire: and this because matter composed of the four elements is a
5566 veil between us and incorporeal substances. Hence the high-priest alone, and that once a year, entered into the inner tabernacle,
5567 i.e. the Holy of Holies: whereby we are taught that man's final perfection consists in his entering into that (higher) world:
5568 whereas into the outward tabernacle, i.e. the Holy Place, the priests entered every day: whereas the people were only admitted
5569 to the court; because the people were able to perceived material things, the inner nature of which only wise men by
5570 dint of study are able to discover.
5571 </p>
5572 <p id="FS_Q102_A4-p23"> But regard to the figurative reason, the outward tabernacle, which was called the Holy Place, betokened the state of the
5573 Old Law, as the Apostle says (
5574 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p23.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.9.6" target="asv">Heb. 9:6, </a> seqq.): because into that tabernacle "the priests always entered accomplishing the offices of sacrifices." But the inner
5575 tabernacle, which was called the Holy of Holies, signified either the glory of heaven or the spiritual state of the New Law
5576 to come. To the latter state Christ brought us; and this
5577 was signified by the high-priest entering alone, once a year, into the Holy of Holies. The veil betokened the concealing of
5578 the spiritual sacrifices under the sacrifices of old. This veil was adorned with four colors: viz. that of linen, to designate
5579 purity of the flesh; purple, to denote the sufferings which the saints underwent for God; scarlet twice dyed, signifying the
5580 twofold love of God and our neighbor; and violet, in token of heavenly contemplation. With regard to the state of the Old
5581 Law the people and the priests were situated differently from one another. For the people saw the mere corporeal sacrifices
5582 which were offered in the court: whereas the priests were intent on the inner meaning of the sacrifices, because their faith
5583 in the mysteries of Christ was more explicit. Hence they entered into the outer tabernacle. This outer tabernacle was divided
5584 from the court by a veil; because some matters relating to the mystery of Christ were hidden from the people, while they
5585 were known to the priests: though they were not fully revealed to them, as they were subsequently in the New Testament (cf.
5586 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p23.2" href="./asv.html#Eph.3.5" target="asv"> Eph. 3:5</a>).
5587 </p>
5588 <p id="FS_Q102_A4-p24">
5589 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Worship towards the west was introduced in the Law to the exclusion of idolatry: because all the Gentiles, in reverence to
5590 the sun, worshipped towards the east; hence it is written (
5591 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p24.1" href="./asv.html#Ezek.8.16" target="asv">Ezech. 8:16</a>) that certain men "had their backs towards the temple of the Lord, and their faces to the east, and they adored towards the
5592 rising of the sun." Accordingly, in order to prevent this, the tabernacle had the Holy of Holies to westward, that
5593 they might adore toward the west. A figurative reason may also be found in the fact that the whole state of the first tabernacle
5594 was ordained to foreshadow the death of Christ, which is signified by the west, according to
5595 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p24.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.67.5" target="asv"> Ps. 67:5</a>: "Who ascendeth unto the west; the Lord is His name."
5596 </p>
5597 <p id="FS_Q102_A4-p25">
5598 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> Both literal and figurative reasons may be assigned for the things contained in the tabernacle. The literal reason is in
5599 connection with the divine worship. And because, as already observed (ad 4), the inner tabernacle, called the Holy of Holies,
5600 signified the higher world of spiritual substances, hence that tabernacle contained three things, viz. "the ark of the testament
5601 in which was a golden pot that had manna, and the rod of Aaron that had
5602 blossomed, and the tables" (
5603 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p25.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.9.4" target="asv">Heb. 9:4</a>) on which were written the ten commandments of the Law. Now the ark stood between two "cherubim" that looked one towards
5604 the other: and over the ark was a table, called the "propitiatory," raised above the wings of the cherubim, as though it were
5605 held up by them; and appearing, to the imagination, to be the very seat of God. For this reason it was called the "propitiatory,"
5606 as though the people received propitiation thence at the prayers
5607 of the high-priest. And so it was held up, so to speak, by the cherubim, in obedience, as it were, to God: while the ark of
5608 the testament was like the foot-stool to Him that sat on the propitiatory. These three things denote three things in that
5609 higher world: namely, God Who is above all, and incomprehensible to any creature. Hence no likeness of Him was set up; to
5610 denote His invisibility. But there was something to represent his seat; since, to wit, the creature, which is beneath God,
5611 as the
5612 seat under the sitter, is comprehensible. Again in that higher world there are spiritual substances called angels. These are
5613 signified by the two cherubim, looking one towards the other, to show that they are at peace with one another, according to
5614 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p25.2" href="./asv.html#Job.25.2" target="asv"> Job 25:2</a>: "Who maketh peace in . . . high places." For this reason, too, there was more than one cherub, to betoken the multitude
5615 of heavenly spirits, and to prevent their receiving worship from those who had been commanded to
5616 worship but one God. Moreover there are, enclosed as it were in that spiritual world, the intelligible types of whatsoever
5617 takes place in this world, just as in every cause are enclosed the types of its effects, and in the craftsman the types of
5618 the works of his craft. This was betokened by the ark, which represented, by means of the three things it contained, the three
5619 things of greatest import in human affairs. These are wisdom, signified by the tables of the testament; the power of
5620 governing, betokened by the rod of Aaron; and life, betokened by the manna which was the means of sustenance. Or else these
5621 three things signified the three Divine attributes, viz. wisdom, in the tables; power, in the rod; goodness, in the manna---both
5622 by reason of its sweetness, and because it was through the goodness of God that it was granted to man, wherefore it was preserved
5623 as a memorial of the Divine mercy. Again, these three things were represented in Isaias' vision. For he "saw the
5624 Lord sitting upon a throne high and elevated"; and the seraphim standing by; and that the house was filled with the glory
5625 of the Lord; wherefrom the seraphim cried out: "All the earth is full of His glory" (
5626 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p25.3" href="./asv.html#Isa.6.1" target="asv">Is. 6:1</a>,
5627 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p25.4" href="./asv.html#Isa.6.3" target="asv">3</a>). And so the images of the seraphim were set up, not to be worshipped, for this was forbidden by the first commandment; but
5628 as a sign of their function, as stated above.
5629 </p>
5630 <p id="FS_Q102_A4-p26"> The outer tabernacle, which denotes this present world, also contained three things, viz. the "altar of incense," which was
5631 directly opposite the ark; the "table of proposition," with the twelve loaves of proposition on it, which stood on the northern
5632 side; and the "candlestick," which was placed towards the south. These three things seem to correspond to the three which
5633 were enclosed in the ark; and they represented the same things as the latter, but more clearly: because, in
5634 order that wise men, denoted by the priests entering the temple, might grasp the meaning of these types, it was necessary
5635 to express them more manifestly than they are in the Divine or angelic mind. Accordingly the candlestick betokened, as a sensible
5636 sign thereof, the wisdom which was expressed on the tables (of the Law) in intelligible words. The altar of incense signified
5637 the office of the priest, whose duty it was to bring the people to God: and this was signified also by the rod: because
5638 on that altar the sweet-smelling incense was burnt, signifying the holiness of the people acceptable to God: for it is written
5639 (
5640 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p26.1" href="./asv.html#Rev.8.3" target="asv">Apoc. 8:3</a>) that the smoke of the sweet-smelling spices signifies the "justifications of the saints" (cf.
5641 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p26.2" href="./asv.html#Rev.19.8" target="asv"> Apoc. 19:8</a>). Moreover it was fitting that the dignity of the priesthood should be denoted, in the ark, by the rod, and, in the outer
5642 tabernacle, by the altar of incense: because the priest is the mediator between God and the
5643 people, governing the people by Divine power, denoted by the rod; and offering to God the fruit of His government, i.e. the
5644 holiness of the people, on the altar of incense, so to speak. The table signified the sustenance of life, just as the manna
5645 did: but the former, a more general and a coarser kind of nourishment; the latter, a sweeter and more delicate. Again, the
5646 candlestick was fittingly placed on the southern side, while the table was placed to the north: because the south is the
5647 right-hand side of the world, while the north is the left-hand side, as stated in De Coelo et Mundo ii; and wisdom, like other
5648 spiritual goods, belongs to the right hand, while temporal nourishment belongs on the left, according to
5649 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p26.3" href="./asv.html#Prov.3.16" target="asv"> Prov. 3:16</a>: "In her left hand (are) riches and glory." And the priestly power is midway between temporal goods and spiritual wisdom;
5650 because thereby both spiritual wisdom and temporal goods are dispensed.
5651 </p>
5652 <p id="FS_Q102_A4-p27"> Another literal signification may be assigned. For the ark contained the tables of the Law, in order to prevent forgetfulness
5653 of the Law, wherefore it is written (
5654 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p27.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.24.12" target="asv">Ex. 24:12</a>): "I will give thee two tables of stone, and the Law, and the commandments which I have written: that thou mayest teach them"
5655 to the children of Israel. The rod of Aaron was placed there to restrain the people from insubordination to the priesthood
5656 of Aaron; wherefore it is written
5657 (
5658 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p27.2" href="./asv.html#Num.17.10" target="asv">Num. 17:10</a>): "Carry back the rod of Aaron into the tabernacle of the testimony, that it may be kept there for a token of the rebellious
5659 children of Israel." The manna was kept in the ark to remind them of the benefit conferred by God on the children of Israel
5660 in the desert; wherefore it is written (
5661 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p27.3" href="./asv.html#Exod.16.32" target="asv">Ex. 16:32</a>): "Fill a gomor of it, and let it be kept unto generations to come hereafter, that they may know the bread wherewith I fed
5662 you in the wilderness."
5663 The candlestick was set up to enhance the beauty of the temple, for the magnificence of a house depends on its being well
5664 lighted. Now the candlestick had seven branches, as Josephus observes (Antiquit. iii, 7,8), to signify the seven planets,
5665 wherewith the whole world is illuminated. Hence the candlestick was placed towards the south; because for us the course of
5666 the planets is from that quarter. The altar of incense was instituted that there might always be in the tabernacle a sweet-smelling
5667 smoke; both through respect for the tabernacle, and as a remedy for the stenches arising from the shedding of blood and the
5668 slaying of animals. For men despise evil-smelling things as being vile, whereas sweet-smelling things are much appreciated.
5669 The table was place there to signify that the priests who served the temple should take their food in the temple: wherefore,
5670 as stated in
5671 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p27.4" href="./asv.html#Matt.12.4" target="asv"> Mat. 12:4, </a> it was lawful for none but the priests to eat the twelve loaves which were put on
5672 the table in memory of the twelve tribes. And the table was not placed in the middle directly in front of the propitiatory,
5673 in order to exclude an idolatrous rite: for the Gentiles, on the feasts of the moon, set up a table in front of the idol of
5674 the moon, wherefore it is written (
5675 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p27.5" href="./asv.html#Jer.7.18" target="asv">Jer. 7:18</a>): "The women knead the dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven."
5676 </p>
5677 <p id="FS_Q102_A4-p28"> In the court outside the tabernacle was the altar of holocausts, on which sacrifices of those things which the people possessed
5678 were offered to God: and consequently the people who offered these sacrifices to God by the hands of the priest could be present
5679 in the court. But the priests alone, whose function it was to offer the people to God, could approach the inner altar, whereon
5680 the very devotion and holiness of the people was offered to God. And this altar was put up outside
5681 the tabernacle and in the court, to the exclusion of idolatrous worship: for the Gentiles placed altars inside the temples
5682 to offer up sacrifices thereon to idols.
5683 </p>
5684 <p id="FS_Q102_A4-p29"> The figurative reason for all these things may be taken from the relation of the tabernacle to Christ, who was foreshadowed
5685 therein. Now it must be observed that to show the imperfection of the figures of the Law, various figures were instituted
5686 in the temple to betoken Christ. For He was foreshadowed by the "propitiatory," since He is "a propitiation for our sins"
5687 (
5688 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p29.1" href="./asv.html#iJohn.2.2" target="asv">1 Jn. 2:2</a>). This propitiatory was fittingly carried by cherubim, since of Him it is written
5689 (
5690 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p29.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.1.6" target="asv">Heb. 1:6</a>): "Let all the angels of God adore Him." He is also signified by the ark: because just as the ark was made of setim-wood,
5691 so was Christ's body composed of most pure members. More over it was gilded: for Christ was full of wisdom and charity, which
5692 are betokened by gold. And in the ark was a golden pot, i.e. His holy soul, having manna, i.e. "all the fulness of the Godhead"
5693 (
5694 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p29.3" href="./asv.html#Col.2.9" target="asv">Col. 2:9</a>). Also there was a rod in the ark, i.e. His priestly power:
5695 for "He was made a . . . priest for ever" (
5696 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p29.4" href="./asv.html#Heb.6.20" target="asv">Heb. 6:20</a>). And therein were the tables of the Testament, to denote that Christ Himself is a lawgiver. Again, Christ was signified
5697 by the candlestick, for He said Himself (
5698 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p29.5" href="./asv.html#John.8.12" target="asv">Jn. 8:12</a>): "I am the Light of the world"; while the seven lamps denoted the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost. He is also betokened in
5699 the table, because He is our spiritual food, according to
5700 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p29.6" href="./asv.html#John.6.41" target="asv">Jn. 6:41</a>,
5701 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p29.7" href="./asv.html#John.6.51" target="asv">51</a>: "I am the living bread": and the twelve
5702 loaves signified the twelve apostles, or their teaching. Or again, the candlestick and table may signify the Church's teaching,
5703 and faith, which also enlightens and refreshes. Again, Christ is signified by the two altars of holocausts and incense. Because
5704 all works of virtue must be offered to us to God through Him; both those whereby we afflict the body, which are offered, as
5705 it were, on the altar of holocausts; and those which, with greater perfection of mind, are offered to God in Christ, by
5706 the spiritual desires of the perfect, on the altar of incense, as it were, according to
5707 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p29.8" href="./asv.html#Heb.13.15" target="asv"> Heb. 13:15</a>: "By Him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise always to God."
5708 </p>
5709 <p id="FS_Q102_A4-p30">
5710 <b>Reply to Objection 7:</b> The Lord commanded an altar to be made for the offering of sacrifices and gifts, in honor of God, and for the upkeep of the
5711 ministers who served the tabernacle. Now concerning the construction of the altar the Lord issued a twofold precept. One was
5712 at the beginning of the Law (
5713 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p30.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.20.24" target="asv">Ex. 20:24, </a> seqq.) when the Lord commanded them to make "an altar of earth," or at least "not of hewn stones"; and again, not to make
5714 the altar high, so as
5715 to make it necessary to "go up" to it "by steps." This was in detestation of idolatrous worship: for the Gentiles made their
5716 altars ornate and high, thinking that there was something holy and divine in such things. For this reason, too, the Lord commanded
5717 (
5718 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p30.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.16.21" target="asv">Dt. 16:21</a>): "Thou shalt plant no grove, nor any tree near the altar of the Lord thy God": since idolaters were wont to offer sacrifices
5719 beneath trees, on account of the pleasantness and shade afforded by them. There was
5720 also a figurative reason for these precepts. Because we must confess that in Christ, Who is our altar, there is the true nature
5721 of flesh, as regards His humanity---and this is to make an altar of earth; and again, in regard to His Godhead, we must confess
5722 His equality with the Father---and this is "not to go up" to the altar by steps. Moreover we should not couple the doctrine
5723 of Christ to that of the Gentiles, which provokes men to lewdness.
5724 </p>
5725 <p id="FS_Q102_A4-p31"> But when once the tabernacle had been constructed to the honor of God, there was no longer reason to fear these occasions
5726 of idolatry. Wherefore the Lord commanded the altar of holocausts to be made of brass, and to be conspicuous to all the people;
5727 and the altar of incense, which was visible to none but the priests. Nor was brass so precious as to give the people an occasion
5728 for idolatry.
5729 </p>
5730 <p id="FS_Q102_A4-p32"> Since, however, the reason for the precept, "Thou shalt not go up by steps unto My altar" (
5731 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p32.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.20.26" target="asv">Ex. 20:26</a>) is stated to have been "lest thy nakedness be discovered," it should be observed that this too was instituted with the purpose
5732 of preventing idolatry, for in the feasts of Priapus the Gentiles uncovered their nakedness before the people. But later on
5733 the priests were prescribed the use of loin-cloths for the sake of decency: so that without any danger the
5734 altar could be placed so high that the priests when offering sacrifices would go up by steps of wood, not fixed but movable.
5735 </p>
5736 <p id="FS_Q102_A4-p33">
5737 <b>Reply to Objection 8:</b> The body of the tabernacle consisted of boards placed on end, and covered on the inside with curtains of four different colors,
5738 viz. twisted linen, violet, purple, and scarlet twice dyed. These curtains, however, covered the sides only of the tabernacle;
5739 and the roof of the tabernacle was covered with violet-colored skins; and over this there was another covering of rams' skins
5740 dyed red; and over this there was a third curtain made of goats' hair,
5741 which covered not only the roof of the tabernacle, but also reached to the ground and covered the boards of the tabernacle
5742 on the outside. The literal reason of these coverings taken altogether was the adornment and protection of the tabernacle,
5743 that it might be an object of respect. Taken singly, according to some, the curtains denoted the starry heaven, which is adorned
5744 with various stars; the curtain (of goats' skin) signified the waters which are above the firmament; the skins dyed red
5745 denoted the empyrean heaven, where the angels are; the violet skins, the heaven of the Blessed Trinity.
5746 </p>
5747 <p id="FS_Q102_A4-p34"> The figurative meaning of these things is that the boards of which the tabernacle was constructed signify the faithful of
5748 Christ, who compose the Church. The boards were covered on the inner side by curtains of four colors: because the faithful
5749 are inwardly adorned with the four virtues: for "the twisted linen," as the gloss observes, "signifies the flesh refulgent
5750 with purity; violet signifies the mind desirous of heavenly things; purple denotes the flesh subject to passions;
5751 the twice dyed scarlet betokens the mind in the midst of the passions enlightened by the love of God and our neighbor." The
5752 coverings of the building designate prelates and doctors, who ought to be conspicuous for their heavenly manner of life, signified
5753 by the violet colored skins: and who should also be ready to suffer martyrdom, denoted by the skins dyed red; and austere
5754 of life and patient in adversity, betokened by the curtains of goats' hair, which were exposed to wind and rain, as the
5755 gloss observes.
5756 </p>
5757 <p id="FS_Q102_A4-p35">
5758 <b>Reply to Objection 9:</b> The literal reason for the sanctification of the tabernacle and vessels was that they might be treated with greater reverence,
5759 being deputed, as it were, to the divine worship by this consecration. The figurative reason is that this sanctification signified
5760 the sanctification of the living tabernacle, i.e. the faithful of whom the Church of Christ is composed.
5761 </p>
5762 <p id="FS_Q102_A4-p36">
5763 <b>Reply to Objection 10:</b> Under the Old Law there were seven temporal solemnities, and one continual solemnity, as may be gathered from
5764 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p36.1" href="./asv.html#Num.28" target="asv">Num. 28</a>,
5765 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p36.2" href="./asv.html#Num.29" target="asv">29</a>. There was a continual feast, since the lamb was sacrificed every day, morning and evening: and this continual feast of an
5766 abiding sacrifice signified the perpetuity of Divine bliss. Of the temporal feasts the first was that which was repeated every
5767 week. This was the solemnity of the "Sabbath," celebrated in memory of the work of
5768 the creation of the universe. Another solemnity, viz. the "New Moon," was repeated every month, and was observed in memory
5769 of the work of the Divine government. For the things of this lower world owe their variety chiefly to the movement of the
5770 moon; wherefore this feast was kept at the new moon: and not at the full moon, to avoid the worship of idolaters who used
5771 to offer sacrifices to the moon at that particular time. And these two blessings are bestowed in common on the whole human
5772 race; and
5773 hence they were repeated more frequently.
5774 </p>
5775 <p id="FS_Q102_A4-p37"> The other five feasts were celebrated once a year: and they commemorated the benefits which had been conferred especially
5776 on that people. For there was the feast of the "Passover" in the first month to commemorate the blessing of being delivered
5777 out of Egypt. The feast of "Pentecost" was celebrated fifty days later, to recall the blessing of the giving of the Law. The
5778 other three feasts were kept in the seventh month, nearly the whole of which was solemnized by them, just as the
5779 seventh day. For on the first of the seventh month was the feast of "Trumpets," in memory of the delivery of Isaac, when Abraham
5780 found the ram caught by its horns, which they represented by the horns which they blew. The feast of Trumpets was a kind of
5781 invitation whereby they prepared themselves to keep the following feast which was kept on the tenth day. This was the feast
5782 of "Expiation," in memory of the blessing whereby, at the prayer of Moses, God forgave the people's sin of worshipping the
5783 calf. After this was the feast of "Scenopegia" or of "Tents," which was kept for seven days, to commemorate the blessing of
5784 being protected and led by God through the desert, where they lived in tents. Hence during this feast they had to take "the
5785 fruits of the fairest tree," i.e. the citron, "and the trees of dense foliage" [*Douay and A. V. and R. V. read: 'Boughs of
5786 thick trees'], i.e. the myrtle, which is fragrant, "and the branches of palm-trees, and willows of the brook," which retain
5787 their greenness a long time; and these are to be found in the Land of promise; to signify that God had brought them through
5788 the arid land of the wilderness to a land of delights. On the eighth day another feast was observed, of "Assembly and Congregation,"
5789 on which the people collected the expenses necessary for the divine worship: and it signified the uniting of the people and
5790 the peace granted to them in the Land of promise.
5791 </p>
5792 <p id="FS_Q102_A4-p38"> The figurative reason for these feasts was that the continual sacrifice of the lamb foreshadowed the perpetuity of Christ,
5793 Who is the "Lamb of God," according to
5794 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p38.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.13.8" target="asv"> Heb. 13:8</a>: "Jesus Christ yesterday and today, and the same for ever." The Sabbath signified the spiritual rest bestowed by Christ,
5795 as stated in
5796 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p38.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.4" target="asv">Heb. 4</a>. The Neomenia, which is the beginning of the new moon, signified the enlightening of the primitive Church by Christ's preaching
5797 and miracles. The
5798 feast of Pentecost signified the Descent of the Holy Ghost on the apostles. The feast of Trumpets signified the preaching
5799 of the apostles. The feast of Expiation signified the cleansing of the Christian people from sins: and the feast of Tabernacles
5800 signified their pilgrimage in this world, wherein they walk by advancing in virtue. The feast of Assembly or Congregation
5801 foreshadowed the assembly of the faithful in the kingdom of heaven: wherefore this feast is described as "most holy"
5802 (
5803 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p38.3" href="./asv.html#Lev.23.36" target="asv">Lev. 23:36</a>). These three feasts followed immediately on one another, because those who expiate their vices should advance in virtue,
5804 until they come to see God, as stated in
5805 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p38.4" href="./asv.html#Ps.83.8" target="asv"> Ps. 83:8.</a>
5806 </p>
5807 <p id="FS_Q102_A4-p39"></p>
5808 <p id="FS_Q102_A4-p40"></p>
5809 <a href="summa.FS_Q102_A3.html"></a>
5810 <a href="summa.FS_Q102_A5.html"></a>
5811 </div>
5812 <div id="FS_Q102_A5" class="div4">
5813 <a href="summa.FS_Q102_A4.html"></a>
5814 <a href="summa.FS_Q102_A6.html"></a>
5815 <h4 id="FS_Q102_A5-p0.1">Whether there can be any suitable cause for the sacraments of the Old Law?</h4>
5816 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p1"></p>
5817 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p2">
5818 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there can be no suitable cause for the sacraments of the Old Law. Because those things that are done for
5819 the purpose of divine worship should not be like the observances of idolaters: since it is written (
5820 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.12.31" target="asv">Dt. 12:31</a>): "Thou shalt not do in like manner to the Lord thy God: for they have done to their gods all the abominations which the
5821 Lord abhorreth." Now worshippers of idols used to knive themselves to the shedding of
5822 blood: for it is related (
5823 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p2.2" href="./asv.html#." target="asv">3 Kings 18:28</a>) that they "cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till they were all covered with blood." For this reason
5824 the Lord commanded (
5825 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p2.3" href="./asv.html#Deut.14.1" target="asv">Dt. 14:1</a>): "You shall not cut yourselves nor make any baldness for the dead." Therefore it was unfitting for circumcision to be prescribed
5826 by the Law (
5827 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p2.4" href="./asv.html#Lev.12.3" target="asv">Lev. 12:3</a>).
5828 </p>
5829 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p3">
5830 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, those things which are done for the worship of God should be marked with decorum and gravity; according to
5831 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.34.18" target="asv"> Ps. 34:18</a>: "I will praise Thee in a grave [Douay: 'strong'] people." But it seems to savor of levity for a man to eat with haste. Therefore
5832 it was unfittingly commanded (
5833 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Exod.12.11" target="asv">Ex. 12:11</a>) that they should eat the Paschal lamb "in haste." Other things too relative to the eating of the lamb were prescribed, which
5834 seem altogether unreasonable.
5835 </p>
5836 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p4">
5837 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the sacraments of the Old Law were figures of the sacraments of the New Law. Now the Paschal lamb signified the
5838 sacrament of the Eucharist, according to
5839 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p4.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.5.7" target="asv">1 Cor. 5:7</a>: "Christ our Pasch is sacrificed." Therefore there should also have been some sacraments of the Old Law to foreshadow the
5840 other sacraments of the New Law, such as Confirmation, Extreme Unction, and Matrimony, and so forth.
5841 </p>
5842 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p5">
5843 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, purification can scarcely be done except by removing something impure. But as far as God is concerned, no bodily
5844 thing is reputed impure, because all bodies are God's creatures; and "every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected
5845 that is received with thanksgiving" (
5846 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.4.4" target="asv">1 Tim. 4:4</a>). It was therefore unfitting for them to be purified after contact with a corpse, or any similar corporeal infection.
5847 </p>
5848 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p6">
5849 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, it is written (
5850 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.34.4" target="asv">Ecclus. 34:4</a>): "What can be made clean by the unclean?" But the ashes of the red heifer [*Cf.
5851 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.9.13" target="asv"> Heb. 9:13</a>] which was burnt, were unclean, since they made a man unclean: for it is stated (
5852 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Num.19.7" target="asv">Num. 19:7, </a> seqq.) that the priest who immolated her was rendered unclean "until the evening"; likewise he that burnt her; and he that
5853 gathered up her ashes. Therefore it was unfittingly
5854 prescribed there that the unclean should be purified by being sprinkled with those cinders.
5855 </p>
5856 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p7">
5857 <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, sins are not something corporeal that can be carried from one place to another: nor can man be cleansed from sin
5858 by means of something unclean. It was therefore unfitting for the purpose of expiating the sins of the people that the priest
5859 should confess the sins of the children of Israel on one of the buck-goats, that it might carry them away into the wilderness:
5860 while they were rendered unclean by the other, which they used for the purpose of
5861 purification, by burning it together with the calf outside the camp; so that they had to wash their clothes and their bodies
5862 with water (
5863 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.16" target="asv">Lev. 16</a>).
5864 </p>
5865 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p8">
5866 <b>Objection 7:</b> Further, what is already cleansed should not be cleansed again. It was therefore unfitting to apply a second purification
5867 to a man cleansed from leprosy, or to a house; as laid down in
5868 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.14" target="asv">Lev. 14</a>.
5869 </p>
5870 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p9">
5871 <b>Objection 8:</b> Further, spiritual uncleanness cannot be cleansed by material water or by shaving the hair. Therefore it seems unreasonable
5872 that the Lord ordered (
5873 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.30.18" target="asv">Ex. 30:18, </a> seqq.) the making of a brazen laver with its foot, that the priests might wash their hands and feet before entering the temple;
5874 and that He commanded (
5875 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Num.8.7" target="asv">Num. 8:7</a>) the Levites to be sprinkled with the water of purification, and to shave all the hairs of their
5876 flesh.
5877 </p>
5878 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p10">
5879 <b>Objection 9:</b> Further, that which is greater cannot be cleansed by that which is less. Therefore it was unfitting that, in the Law, the
5880 higher and lower priests, as stated in
5881 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.8" target="asv">Lev. 8</a> [*Cf.
5882 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p10.2" href="./asv.html#Exod.29" target="asv">Ex. 29</a>], and the Levites, according to
5883 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p10.3" href="./asv.html#Num.8" target="asv">Num. 8</a>, should be consecrated with any bodily anointing, bodily sacrifices, and bodily oblations.
5884 </p>
5885 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p11">
5886 <b>Objection 10:</b> Further, as stated in
5887 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p11.1" href="./asv.html#iKgs.16.7" target="asv">1 Kings 16:7, </a> "Man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." But those things that appear outwardly in man are
5888 the dispositions of his body and his clothes. Therefore it was unfitting for certain special garments to be appointed to the
5889 higher and lower priests, as related in
5890 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p11.2" href="./asv.html#Exod.28" target="asv">Ex. 28</a> [*Cf.
5891 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p11.3" href="./asv.html#Lev.8.7" target="asv"> Lev. 8:7, </a> seqq.]. It seems, moreover, unreasonable that anyone should be debarred from
5892 the priesthood on account of defects in the body, as stated in
5893 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p11.4" href="./asv.html#Lev.21.17" target="asv">Lev. 21:17</a>, seqq.: "Whosoever of thy seed throughout their families, hath a blemish, he shall not offer bread to his God . . . if he
5894 be blind, if he be lame," etc. It seems, therefore, that the sacraments of the Old Law were unreasonable.
5895 </p>
5896 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p12">
5897 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
5898 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.20.8" target="asv">Lev. 20:8</a>): "I am the Lord that sanctify you." But nothing unreasonable is done by God, for it is written (
5899 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p12.2" href="./asv.html#Ps.103.24" target="asv">Ps. 103:24</a>): "Thou hast made all things in wisdom." Therefore there was nothing without a reasonable cause in the sacraments of the
5900 Old Law, which were ordained to the sanctification of man.
5901 </p>
5902 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p13">
5903 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
5904 <a id="FS_Q102_A5-p13.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q101_A4.html">Q[101], A[4]</a>), the sacraments are, properly speaking, things applied to the worshippers of God for their consecration so as, in some way,
5905 to depute them to the worship of God. Now the worship of God belonged in a general way to the whole people; but in a special
5906 way, it belonged to the priests and Levites, who were the ministers of divine worship. Consequently, in these sacraments of
5907 the Old Law, certain things
5908 concerned the whole people in general; while others belonged to the ministers.
5909 </p>
5910 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p14"> In regard to both, three things were necessary. The first was to be established in the state of worshipping God: and this
5911 institution was brought about---for all in general, by circumcision, without which no one was admitted to any of the legal
5912 observances---and for the priests, by their consecration. The second thing required was the use of those things that pertain
5913 to divine worship. And thus, as to the people, there was the partaking of the paschal banquet, to which no
5914 uncircumcised man was admitted, as is clear from
5915 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p14.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.12.43" target="asv"> Ex. 12:43, </a> seqq.: and, as to the priests, the offering of the victims, and the eating of the loaves of proposition and of other things
5916 that were allotted to the use of the priests. The third thing required was the removal of all impediments to divine worship,
5917 viz. of uncleannesses. And then, as to the people, certain purifications were instituted for the removal of certain external
5918 uncleannesses; and also expiations from
5919 sins; while, as to the priests and Levites, the washing of hands and feet and the shaving of the hair were instituted.
5920 </p>
5921 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p15"> And all these things had reasonable causes, both literal, in so far as they were ordained to the worship of God for the time
5922 being, and figurative, in so far as they were ordained to foreshadow Christ: as we shall see by taking them one by one.
5923 </p>
5924 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p16">
5925 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The chief literal reason for circumcision was in order that man might profess his belief in one God. And because Abraham
5926 was the first to sever himself from the infidels, by going out from his house and kindred, for this reason he was the first
5927 to receive circumcision. This reason is set forth by the Apostle (
5928 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p16.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.4.9" target="asv">Rom. 4:9, </a> seqq.) thus: "He received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the justice of the faith which he had, being
5929 uncircumcised"; because, to wit, we are told that "unto Abraham faith was reputed to justice," for the reason that "against
5930 hope he believed in hope," i.e. against the hope that is of nature he believed in the hope that is of grace, "that he might
5931 be made the father of many nations," when he was an old man, and his wife an old and barren woman. And in order that this
5932 declaration, and imitation of Abraham's faith, might be fixed firmly in the hearts of the Jews, they received in their flesh
5933 such
5934 a sign as they could not forget, wherefore it is written (
5935 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p16.2" href="./asv.html#Gen.17.13" target="asv">Gn. 17:13</a>): "My covenant shall be in your flesh for a perpetual covenant." This was done on the eighth day, because until then a child
5936 is very tender, and so might be seriously injured; and is considered as something not yet consolidated: wherefore neither
5937 are animals offered before the eighth day. And it was not delayed after that time, lest some might refuse the sign of circumcision
5938 on account of the pain: and also lest the parents,
5939 whose love for their children increases as they become used to their presence and as they grow older, should withdraw their
5940 children from circumcision. A second reason may have been the weakening of concupiscence in that member. A third motive may
5941 have been to revile the worship of Venus and Priapus, which gave honor to that part of the body. The Lord's prohibition extended
5942 only to the cutting of oneself in honor of idols: and such was not the circumcision of which we have been speaking.
5943 </p>
5944 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p17"> The figurative reason for circumcision was that it foreshadowed the removal of corruption, which was to be brought about
5945 by Christ, and will be perfectly fulfilled in the eighth age, which is the age of those who rise from the dead. And since
5946 all corruption of guilt and punishment comes to us through our carnal origin, from the sin of our first parent, therefore
5947 circumcision was applied to the generative member. Hence the Apostle says (
5948 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p17.1" href="./asv.html#Col.2.11" target="asv">Col. 2:11</a>): "You are
5949 circumcised" in Christ "with circumcision not made by hand in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision
5950 of" Our Lord Jesus "Christ."
5951 </p>
5952 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p18">
5953 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The literal reason of the paschal banquet was to commemorate the blessing of being led by God out of Egypt. Hence by celebrating
5954 this banquet they declared that they belonged to that people which God had taken to Himself out of Egypt. For when they were
5955 delivered from Egypt, they were commanded to sprinkle the lamb's blood on the transoms of their house doors, as though declaring
5956 that they were averse to the rites of the Egyptians who worshipped the
5957 ram. Wherefore they were delivered by the sprinkling or rubbing of the blood of the lamb on the door-posts, from the danger
5958 of extermination which threatened the Egyptians.
5959 </p>
5960 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p19"> Now two things are to be observed in their departure from Egypt: namely, their haste in going, for the Egyptians pressed
5961 them to go forth speedily, as related in
5962 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p19.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.12.33" target="asv"> Ex. 12:33</a>; and there was danger that anyone who did not hasten to go with the crowd might be slain by the Egyptians. Their haste was
5963 shown in two ways. First by what they ate. For they were commanded to eat unleavened bread, as a sign "that it could not be
5964 leavened, the Egyptians pressing them to
5965 depart"; and to eat roast meat, for this took less time to prepare; and that they should not break a bone thereof, because
5966 in their haste there was no time to break bones. Secondly, as to the manner of eating. For it is written: "You shall gird
5967 your reins, and you shall have shoes on your feet, holding staves in your hands, and you shall eat in haste": which clearly
5968 designates men at the point of starting on a journey. To this also is to be referred the command: "In one house shall it be
5969 eaten,
5970 neither shall you carry forth of the flesh thereof out of the house": because, to wit, on account of their haste, they could
5971 not send any gifts of it.
5972 </p>
5973 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p20"> The stress they suffered while in Egypt was denoted by the wild lettuces. The figurative reason is evident, because the sacrifice
5974 of the paschal lamb signified the sacrifice of Christ according to
5975 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p20.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.5.7" target="asv">1 Cor. 5:7</a>: "Christ our pasch is sacrificed." The blood of the lamb, which ensured deliverance from the destroyer, by being sprinkled
5976 on the transoms, signified faith in Christ's Passion, in the hearts and on the lips of the faithful, by which same Passion
5977 we are
5978 delivered from sin and death, according to
5979 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p20.2" href="./asv.html#iPet.1.18" target="asv">1 Pet. 1:18</a>: "You were . . . redeemed . . . with the precious blood . . . of a lamb unspotted." The partaking of its flesh signified
5980 the eating of Christ's body in the Sacrament; and the flesh was roasted at the fire to signify Christ's Passion or charity.
5981 And it was eaten with unleavened bread to signify the blameless life of the faithful who partake of Christ's body, according
5982 to
5983 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p20.3" href="./asv.html#iCor.5.8" target="asv">1 Cor. 5:8</a>: "Let us feast . .
5984 . with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." The wild lettuces were added to denote repentance for sins, which is
5985 required of those who receive the body of Christ. Their loins were girt in sign of chastity: and the shoes of their feet are
5986 the examples of our dead ancestors. The staves they were to hold in their hands denoted pastoral authority: and it was commanded
5987 that the paschal lamb should be eaten in one house, i.e. in a catholic church, and not in the conventicles of heretics.
5988 </p>
5989 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p21">
5990 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Some of the sacraments of the New Law had corresponding figurative sacraments in the Old Law. For Baptism, which is the sacrament
5991 of Faith, corresponds to circumcision. Hence it is written (
5992 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p21.1" href="./asv.html#Col.2.11" target="asv">Col. 2:11,12</a>): "You are circumcised . . . in the circumcision of" Our Lord Jesus "Christ: buried with Him in Baptism." In the New Law
5993 the sacrament of the Eucharist corresponds to the banquet of the paschal lamb. The sacrament of Penance in the New Law corresponds
5994 to all the purifications of the Old Law. The sacrament of Orders corresponds to the consecration of the pontiff and of the
5995 priests. To the sacrament of Confirmation, which is the sacrament of the fulness of grace, there would be no corresponding
5996 sacrament of the Old Law, because the time of fulness had not yet come, since "the Law brought no man [Vulg.: 'nothing'] to
5997 perfection" (
5998 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p21.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.7.19" target="asv">Heb. 7:19</a>). The same applies to the sacrament of Extreme Unction, which is an immediate
5999 preparation for entrance into glory, to which the way was not yet opened out in the Old Law, since the price had not yet been
6000 paid. Matrimony did indeed exist under the Old Law, as a function of nature, but not as the sacrament of the union of Christ
6001 with the Church, for that union was not as yet brought about. Hence under the Old Law it was allowable to give a bill of divorce,
6002 which is contrary to the nature of the sacrament.
6003 </p>
6004 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p22">
6005 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> As already stated, the purifications of the Old Law were ordained for the removal of impediments to the divine worship: which
6006 worship is twofold; viz. spiritual, consisting in devotion of the mind to God; and corporal, consisting in sacrifices, oblations,
6007 and so forth. Now men are hindered in the spiritual worship by sins, whereby men were said to be polluted, for instance, by
6008 idolatry, murder, adultery, or incest. From such pollutions men were
6009 purified by certain sacrifices, offered either for the whole community in general, or also for the sins of individuals; not
6010 that those carnal sacrifices had of themselves the power of expiating sin; but that they signified that expiation of sins
6011 which was to be effected by Christ, and of which those of old became partakers by protesting their faith in the Redeemer,
6012 while taking part in the figurative sacrifices.
6013 </p>
6014 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p23"> The impediments to external worship consisted in certain bodily uncleannesses; which were considered in the first place as
6015 existing in man, and consequently in other animals also, and in man's clothes, dwelling-place, and vessels. In man himself
6016 uncleanness was considered as arising partly from himself and partly from contact with unclean things. Anything proceeding
6017 from man was reputed unclean that was already subject to corruption, or exposed thereto: and consequently since
6018 death is a kind of corruption, the human corpse was considered unclean. In like manner, since leprosy arises from corruption
6019 of the humors, which break out externally and infect other persons, therefore were lepers also considered unclean; and, again,
6020 women suffering from a flow of blood, whether from weakness, or from nature (either at the monthly course or at the time of
6021 conception); and, for the same reason, men were reputed unclean if they suffered from a flow of seed, whether due to
6022 weakness, to nocturnal pollution, or to sexual intercourse. Because every humor issuing from man in the aforesaid ways involves
6023 some unclean infection. Again, man contracted uncleanness by touching any unclean thing whatever.
6024 </p>
6025 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p24"> Now there was both a literal and a figurative reason for these uncleannesses. The literal reason was taken from the reverence
6026 due to those things that belong to the divine worship: both because men are not wont, when unclean, to touch precious things:
6027 and in order that by rarely approaching sacred things they might have greater respect for them. For since man could seldom
6028 avoid all the aforesaid uncleannesses, the result was that men could seldom approach to touch things
6029 belonging to the worship of God, so that when they did approach, they did so with greater reverence and humility. Moreover,
6030 in some of these the literal reason was that men should not be kept away from worshipping God through fear of coming in contact
6031 with lepers and others similarly afflicted with loathsome and contagious diseases. In others, again, the reason was to avoid
6032 idolatrous worship: because in their sacrificial rites the Gentiles sometimes employed human blood and seed. All these
6033 bodily uncleannesses were purified either by the mere sprinkling of water, or, in the case of those which were more grievous,
6034 by some sacrifice of expiation for the sin which was the occasion of the uncleanness in question.
6035 </p>
6036 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p25"> The figurative reason for these uncleannesses was that they were figures of various sins. For the uncleanness of any corpse
6037 signifies the uncleanness of sin, which is the death of the soul. The uncleanness of leprosy betokened the uncleanness of
6038 heretical doctrine: both because heretical doctrine is contagious just as leprosy is, and because no doctrine is so false
6039 as not to have some truth mingled with error, just as on the surface of a leprous body one may distinguish the
6040 healthy parts from those that are infected. The uncleanness of a woman suffering from a flow of blood denotes the uncleanness
6041 of idolatry, on account of the blood which is offered up. The uncleanness of the man who has suffered seminal loss signifies
6042 the uncleanness of empty words, for "the seed is the word of God." The uncleanness of sexual intercourse and of the woman
6043 in child-birth signifies the uncleanness of original sin. The uncleanness of the woman in her periods signifies the
6044 uncleanness of a mind that is sensualized by pleasure. Speaking generally, the uncleanness contracted by touching an unclean
6045 thing denotes the uncleanness arising from consent in another's sin, according to
6046 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p25.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.6.17" target="asv">2 Cor. 6:17</a>: "Go out from among them, and be ye separate . . . and touch not the unclean thing."
6047 </p>
6048 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p26"> Moreover, this uncleanness arising from the touch was contracted even by inanimate objects; for whatever was touched in any
6049 way by an unclean man, became itself unclean. Wherein the Law attenuated the superstition of the Gentiles, who held that uncleanness
6050 was contracted not only by touch, but also by speech or looks, as Rabbi Moses states (Doct. Perplex. iii) of a woman in her
6051 periods. The mystical sense of this was that "to God the wicked and his wickedness are hateful alike"
6052 (
6053 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p26.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.14.9" target="asv">Wis. 14:9</a>).
6054 </p>
6055 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p27"> There was also an uncleanness of inanimate things considered in themselves, such as the uncleanness of leprosy in a house
6056 or in clothes. For just as leprosy occurs in men through a corrupt humor causing putrefaction and corruption in the flesh;
6057 so, too, through some corruption and excess of humidity or dryness, there arises sometimes a kind of corruption in the stones
6058 with which a house is built, or in clothes. Hence the Law called this corruption by the name of leprosy, whereby
6059 a house or a garment was deemed to be unclean: both because all corruption savored of uncleanness, as stated above, and because
6060 the Gentiles worshipped their household gods as a preservative against this corruption. Hence the Law prescribed such houses,
6061 where this kind of corruption was of a lasting nature, to be destroyed; and such garments to be burnt, in order to avoid all
6062 occasion of idolatry. There was also an uncleanness of vessels, of which it is written (
6063 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p27.1" href="./asv.html#Num.19.15" target="asv">Num.
6064 19:15
6065 </a>): "The vessel that hath no cover, and binding over it, shall be unclean." The cause of this uncleanness was that anything
6066 unclean might easily drop into such vessels, so as to render them unclean. Moreover, this command aimed at the prevention
6067 of idolatry. For idolaters believed that if mice, lizards, or the like, which they used to sacrifice to the idols, fell into
6068 the vessels or into the water, these became more pleasing to the gods. Even now some women let down uncovered
6069 vessels in honor of the nocturnal deities which they call "Janae."
6070 </p>
6071 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p28"> The figurative reason of these uncleannesses is that the leprosy of a house signified the uncleanness of the assembly of
6072 heretics; the leprosy of a linen garment signified an evil life arising from bitterness of mind; the leprosy of a woolen garment
6073 denoted the wickedness of flatterers; leprosy in the warp signified the vices of the soul; leprosy on the woof denoted sins
6074 of the flesh, for as the warp is in the woof, so is the soul in the body. The vessel that has neither cover
6075 nor binding, betokens a man who lacks the veil of taciturnity, and who is unrestrained by any severity of discipline.
6076 </p>
6077 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p29">
6078 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> As stated above (ad 4), there was a twofold uncleanness in the Law; one by way of corruption in the mind or in the body;
6079 and this was the graver uncleanness; the other was by mere contact with an unclean thing, and this was less grave, and was
6080 more easily expiated. Because the former uncleanness was expiated by sacrifices for sins, since all corruption is due to sin,
6081 and signifies sin: whereas the latter uncleanness was expiated by the mere sprinkling
6082 of a certain water, of which water we read in
6083 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p29.1" href="./asv.html#Num.19" target="asv">Num. 19</a>. For there God commanded them to take a red cow in memory of the sin they had committed in worshipping a calf. And a cow
6084 is mentioned rather than a calf, because it was thus that the Lord was wont to designate the synagogue, according to
6085 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p29.2" href="./asv.html#Hos.4.16" target="asv"> Osee 4:16</a>: "Israel hath gone astray like a wanton heifer": and this was, perhaps, because they worshipped heifers after the custom
6086 of Egypt, according to
6087 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p29.3" href="./asv.html#Hos.10.5" target="asv">Osee 10:5</a>: "(They) have
6088 worshipped the kine of Bethaven." And in detestation of the sin of idolatry it was sacrificed outside the camp; in fact, whenever
6089 sacrifice was offered up in expiation of the multitude of sins, it was all burnt outside the camp. Moreover, in order to show
6090 that this sacrifice cleansed the people from all their sins, "the priest" dipped "his finger in her blood," and sprinkled
6091 "it over against the door of the tabernacle seven times"; for the number seven signified universality. Further, the very
6092 sprinkling of blood pertained to the detestation of idolatry, in which the blood that was offered up was not poured out, but
6093 was collected together, and men gathered round it to eat in honor of the idols. Likewise it was burnt by fire, either because
6094 God appeared to Moses in a fire, and the Law was given from the midst of fire; or to denote that idolatry, together with all
6095 that was connected therewith, was to be extirpated altogether; just as the cow was burnt "with her skin and her flesh, her
6096 blood and dung being delivered to the flames." To this burning were added "cedar-wood, and hyssop, and scarlet twice dyed,"
6097 to signify that just as cedar-wood is not liable to putrefaction, and scarlet twice dyed does not easily lose its color, and
6098 hyssop retains its odor after it has been dried; so also was this sacrifice for the preservation of the whole people, and
6099 for their good behavior and devotion. Hence it is said of the ashes of the cow: "That they may be reserved for the multitude
6100 of
6101 the children of Israel." Or, according to Josephus (Antiq. iii, 8,9,10), the four elements are indicated here: for "cedar-wood"
6102 was added to the fire, to signify the earth, on account of its earthiness; "hyssop," to signify the air, on account of its
6103 smell; "scarlet twice dyed," to signify water, for the same reason as purple, on account of the dyes which are taken out of
6104 the water: thus denoting the fact that this sacrifice was offered to the Creator of the four elements. And since this
6105 sacrifice was offered for the sin of idolatry, both "he that burned her," and "he that gathered up the ashes," and "he that
6106 sprinkled the water" in which the ashes were placed, were deemed unclean in detestation of that sin, in order to show that
6107 whatever was in any way connected with idolatry should be cast aside as being unclean. From this uncleanness they were purified
6108 by the mere washing of their clothes; nor did they need to be sprinkled with the water on account of this kind of
6109 uncleanness, because otherwise the process would have been unending, since he that sprinkled the water became unclean, so
6110 that if he were to sprinkle himself he would remain unclean; and if another were to sprinkle him, that one would have become
6111 unclean, and in like manner, whoever might sprinkle him, and so on indefinitely.
6112 </p>
6113 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p30"> The figurative reason of this sacrifice was that the red cow signified Christ in respect his assumed weakness, denoted by
6114 the female sex; while the color of the cow designated the blood of His Passion. And the "red cow was of full age," because
6115 all Christ's works are perfect, "in which there" was "no blemish"; "and which" had "not carried the yoke," because Christ
6116 was innocent, nor did He carry the yoke of sin. It was commanded to be taken to Moses, because they blamed Him for
6117 transgressing the law of Moses by breaking the Sabbath. And it was commanded to be delivered "to Eleazar the priest," because
6118 Christ was delivered into the hands of the priests to be slain. It was immolated "without the camp," because Christ "suffered
6119 outside the gate" (
6120 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p30.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.13.12" target="asv">Heb. 13:12</a>). And the priest dipped "his finger in her blood," because the mystery of Christ's Passion should be considered and imitated.
6121 </p>
6122 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p31"> It was sprinkled "over against . . . the tabernacle," which denotes the synagogue, to signify either the condemnation of
6123 the unbelieving Jews, or the purification of believers; and this "seven times," in token either of the seven gifts of the
6124 Holy Ghost, or of the seven days wherein all time is comprised. Again, all things that pertain to the Incarnation of Christ
6125 should be burnt with fire, i.e. they should be understood spiritually; for the "skin" and "flesh" signified Christ's
6126 outward works; the "blood" denoted the subtle inward force which quickened His external deeds; the "dung" betokened His weariness,
6127 His thirst, and all such like things pertaining to His weakness. Three things were added, viz. "cedar-wood," which denotes
6128 the height of hope or contemplation; "hyssop," in token of humility or faith; "scarlet twice dyed," which denotes twofold
6129 charity; for it is by these three that we should cling to Christ suffering. The ashes of this burning were gathered by "a
6130 man that is clean," because the relics of the Passion came into the possession of the Gentiles, who were not guilty of Christ's
6131 death. The ashes were put into water for the purpose of expiation, because Baptism receives from Christ's Passion the power
6132 of washing away sins. The priest who immolated and burned the cow, and he who burned, and he who gathered together the ashes,
6133 were unclean, as also he that sprinkled the water: either because the Jews became unclean through putting Christ to
6134 death, whereby our sins are expiated; and this, until the evening, i.e. until the end of the world, when the remnants of Israel
6135 will be converted; or else because they who handle sacred things with a view to the cleansing of others contract certain uncleannesses,
6136 as Gregory says (Pastor. ii, 5); and this until the evening, i.e. until the end of this life.
6137 </p>
6138 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p32">
6139 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> As stated above (ad 5), an uncleanness which was caused by corruption either of mind or of body was expiated by sin-offerings.
6140 Now special sacrifices were wont to be offered for the sins of individuals: but since some were neglectful about expiating
6141 such sins and uncleannesses; or, through ignorance, failed to offer this expiation; it was laid down that once a year, on
6142 the tenth day of the seventh month, a sacrifice of expiation should be offered for
6143 the whole people. And because, as the Apostle says (
6144 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p32.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.7.28" target="asv">Heb. 7:28</a>), "the Law maketh men priests, who have infirmity," it behooved the priest first of all to offer a calf for his own sins,
6145 in memory of Aaron's sin in fashioning the molten calf; and besides, to offer a ram for a holocaust, which signified that
6146 the priestly sovereignty denoted by the ram, who is the head of the flock, was to be ordained to the glory of God. Then he
6147 offered two he-goats for the people: one of which
6148 was offered in expiation of the sins of the multitude. For the he-goat is an evil-smelling animal; and from its skin clothes
6149 are made having a pungent odor; to signify the stench, uncleanness and the sting of sin. After this he-goat had been immolated,
6150 its blood was taken, together with the blood of the calf, into the Holy of Holies, and the entire sanctuary was sprinkled
6151 with it; to signify that the tabernacle was cleansed from the uncleanness of the children of Israel. But the corpses of the
6152 he-goat and calf which had been offered up for sin had to be burnt, to denote the destruction of sins. They were not, however,
6153 burnt on the altar: since none but holocausts were burnt thereon; but it was prescribed that they should be burnt without
6154 the camp, in detestation of sin: for this was done whenever sacrifice was offered for a grievous sin, or for the multitude
6155 of sins. The other goat was let loose into the wilderness: not indeed to offer it to the demons, whom the Gentiles worshipped
6156 in desert places, because it was unlawful to offer aught to them; but in order to point out the effect of the sacrifice which
6157 had been offered up. Hence the priest put his hand on its head, while confessing the sins of the children of Israel: as though
6158 that goat were to carry them away into the wilderness, where it would be devoured by wild beasts, because it bore the punishment
6159 of the people's sins. And it was said to bear the sins of the people, either because the forgiveness of the people's
6160 sins was signified by its being let loose, or because on its head written lists of sins were fastened.
6161 </p>
6162 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p33"> The figurative reason of these things was that Christ was foreshadowed both by the calf, on account of His power; and by
6163 the ram, because He is the Head of the faithful; and by the he-goat, on account of "the likeness of sinful flesh" (
6164 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p33.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.3" target="asv">Rom. 8:3</a>). Moreover, Christ was sacrificed for the sins of both priests and people: since both those of high and those of low degree
6165 are cleansed from sin by His Passion. The blood of the calf and of the goat was brought into
6166 the Holies by the priest, because the entrance to the kingdom of heaven was opened to us by the blood of Christ's Passion.
6167 Their bodies were burnt without the camp, because "Christ suffered without the gate," as the Apostle declares (
6168 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p33.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.13.12" target="asv">Heb. 13:12</a>). The scape-goat may denote either Christ's Godhead Which went away into solitude when the Man Christ suffered, not by going
6169 to another place, but by restraining His power: or it may signify the base concupiscence which we ought to
6170 cast away from ourselves, while we offer up to Our Lord acts of virtue.
6171 </p>
6172 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p34"> With regard to the uncleanness contracted by those who burnt these sacrifices, the reason is the same as that which we assigned
6173 (ad 5) to the sacrifice of the red heifer.
6174 </p>
6175 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p35">
6176 <b>Reply to Objection 7:</b> The legal rite did not cleanse the leper of his deformity, but declared him to be cleansed. This is shown by the words of
6177 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p35.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.14.3" target="asv"> Lev. 14:3, </a> seqq., where it was said that the priest, "when he shall find that the leprosy is cleansed," shall command "him that is to
6178 be purified": consequently, the leper was already healed: but he was said to be purified in so far as the verdict of the priest
6179 restored him to the society of men and to the
6180 worship of God. It happened sometimes, however, that bodily leprosy was miraculously cured by the legal rite, when the priest
6181 erred in his judgment.
6182 </p>
6183 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p36"> Now this purification of a leper was twofold: for, in the first place, he was declared to be clean; and, secondly, he was
6184 restored, as clean, to the society of men and to the worship of God, to wit, after seven days. At the first purification the
6185 leper who sought to be cleansed offered for himself "two living sparrows . . . cedar-wood, and scarlet, and hyssop," in such
6186 wise that a sparrow and the hyssop should be tied to the cedar-wood with a scarlet thread, so that the
6187 cedar-wood was like the handle of an aspersory: while the hyssop and sparrow were that part of the aspersory which was dipped
6188 into the blood of the other sparrow which was "immolated . . . over living waters." These things he offered as an antidote
6189 to the four defects of leprosy: for cedar-wood, which is not subject to putrefaction, was offered against the putrefaction;
6190 hyssop, which is a sweet-smelling herb, was offered up against the stench; a living sparrow was offered up against numbness;
6191 and scarlet, which has a vivid color, was offered up against the repulsive color of leprosy. The living sparrow was let loose
6192 to fly away into the plain, because the leper was restored to his former liberty.
6193 </p>
6194 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p37"> On the eighth day he was admitted to divine worship, and was restored to the society of men; but only after having shaved
6195 all the hair of his body, and washed his clothes, because leprosy rots the hair, infects the clothes, and gives them an evil
6196 smell. Afterwards a sacrifice was offered for his sin, since leprosy was frequently a result of sin: and some of the blood
6197 of the sacrifice was put on the tip of the ear of the man that was to be cleansed, "and on the thumb of his right
6198 hand, and the great toe of his right foot"; because it is in these parts that leprosy is first diagnosed and felt. In this
6199 rite, moreover, three liquids were employed: viz. blood, against the corruption of the blood; oil, to denote the healing of
6200 the disease; and living waters, to wash away the filth.
6201 </p>
6202 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p38"> The figurative reason was that the Divine and human natures in Christ were denoted by the two sparrows, one of which, in
6203 likeness of His human nature, was offered up in an earthen vessel over living waters, because the waters of Baptism are sanctified
6204 by Christ's Passion. The other sparrow, in token of His impassible Godhead, remained living, because the Godhead cannot die:
6205 hence it flew away, for the Godhead could not be encompassed by the Passion. Now this living sparrow,
6206 together with the cedar-wood and scarlet or cochineal, and hyssop, i.e. faith, hope and charity, as stated above (ad 5), was
6207 put into the water for the purpose of sprinkling, because we are baptized in the faith of the God-Man. By the waters of Baptism
6208 or of his tears man washes his clothes, i.e. his works, and all his hair, i.e. his thoughts. The tip of the right ear of the
6209 man to be cleansed is moistened with some the blood and oil, in order to strengthen his hearing against harmful words;
6210 and the thumb and toe of his right hand and foot are moistened that his deeds may be holy. Other matters pertaining to this
6211 purification, or to that also of any other uncleannesses, call for no special remark, beyond what applies to other sacrifices,
6212 whether for sins or for trespasses.
6213 </p>
6214 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p39"> Reply OBJ 8 and 9: Just as the people were initiated by circumcision to the divine worship, so were the ministers by some
6215 special purification or consecration: wherefore they are commanded to be separated from other men, as being specially deputed,
6216 rather than others, to the ministry of the divine worship. And all that was done touching them in their consecration or institution,
6217 was with a view to show that they were in possession of a prerogative of purity, power and dignity.
6218 Hence three things were done in the institution of ministers: for first, they were purified; secondly, they were adorned [*'Ornabantur.'
6219 Some editions have 'ordinabantur'---'were ordained': the former reading is a reference to
6220 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p39.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.8.7" target="asv"> Lev. 8:7-9</a>] and consecrated; thirdly, they were employed in the ministry. All in general used to be purified by washing in water, and
6221 by certain sacrifices; but the Levites in particular shaved all the hair of their bodies, as stated in
6222 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p39.2" href="./asv.html#Lev.8" target="asv">Lev. 8</a> (cf.
6223
6224 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p39.3" href="./asv.html#Num.8" target="asv">Num. 8</a>).
6225 </p>
6226 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p40"> With regard to the high-priests and priests the consecration was performed as follows. First, when they had been washed,
6227 they were clothed with certain special garments in designation of their dignity. In particular, the high-priest was anointed
6228 on the head with the oil of unction: to denote that the power of consecration was poured forth by him on to others, just as
6229 oil flows from the head on to the lower parts of the body; according to
6230 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p40.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.132.2" target="asv"> Ps. 132:2</a>: "Like the
6231 precious ointment on the head that ran down upon the beard, the beard of Aaron." But the Levites received no other consecration
6232 besides being offered to the Lord by the children of Israel through the hands of the high-priest, who prayed for them. The
6233 lesser priests were consecrated on the hands only, which were to be employed in the sacrifices. The tip of their right ear
6234 and the thumb of their right hand, and the great toe of their right foot were tinged with the blood of the sacrificial
6235 animal, to denote that they should be obedient to God's law in offering the sacrifices (this is denoted by touching their
6236 right ear); and that they should be careful and ready in performing the sacrifices (this is signified by the moistening of
6237 the right foot and hand). They themselves and their garments were sprinkled with the blood of the animal that had been sacrificed,
6238 in memory of the blood of the lamb by which they had been delivered in Egypt. At their consecration the following
6239 sacrifices were offered: a calf, for sin, in memory of Aaron's sin in fashioning the molten calf; a ram, for a holocaust,
6240 in memory of the sacrifice of Abraham, whose obedience it behooved the high-priest to imitate; again, a ram of consecration,
6241 which was a peace-offering, in memory of the delivery form Egypt through the blood of the lamb; and a basket of bread, in
6242 memory of the manna vouchsafed to the people.
6243 </p>
6244 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p41"> In reference to their being destined to the ministry, the fat of the ram, one roll of bread, and the right shoulder were
6245 placed on their hands, to show that they received the power of offering these things to the Lord: while the Levites were initiated
6246 to the ministry by being brought into the tabernacle of the covenant, as being destined to the ministry touching the vessels
6247 of the sanctuary.
6248 </p>
6249 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p42"> The figurative reason of these things was that those who are to be consecrated to the spiritual ministry of Christ, should
6250 be first of all purified by the waters of Baptism, and by the waters of tears, in their faith in Christ's Passion, which is
6251 a sacrifice both of expiation and of purification. They have also to shave all the hair of their body, i.e. all evil thoughts.
6252 They should, moreover, be decked with virtues, and be consecrated with the oil of the Holy Ghost, and with
6253 the sprinkling of Christ's blood. And thus they should be intent on the fulfilment of their spiritual ministry.
6254 </p>
6255 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p43">
6256 <b>Reply to Objection 10:</b> As already stated
6257 <a id="FS_Q102_A5-p43.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q102_A4.html">(A[4])</a>, the purpose of the Law was to induce men to have reverence for the divine worship: and this in two ways; first, by excluding
6258 from the worship of God whatever might be an object of contempt; secondly, by introducing into the divine worship all that
6259 seemed to savor of reverence. And, indeed, if this was observed in regard to the tabernacle and its vessels, and in the animals
6260 to be sacrificed, much
6261 more was it to be observed in the very ministers. Wherefore, in order to obviate contempt for the ministers, it was prescribed
6262 that they should have no bodily stain or defect: since men so deformed are wont to be despised by others. For the same reason
6263 it was also commanded that the choice of those who were to be destined to the service of God was not to be made in a broadcast
6264 manner from any family, but according to their descent from one particular stock, thus giving them distinction and
6265 nobility.
6266 </p>
6267 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p44"> In order that they might be revered, special ornate vestments were appointed for their use, and a special form of consecration.
6268 This indeed is the general reason of ornate garments. But the high-priest in particular had eight vestments. First, he had
6269 a linen tunic. Secondly, he had a purple tunic; round the bottom of which were placed "little bells" and "pomegranates of
6270 violet, and purple, and scarlet twice dyed." Thirdly, he had the ephod, which covered his shoulders and his
6271 breast down to the girdle; and it was made of gold, and violet and purple, and scarlet twice dyed and twisted linen: and on
6272 his shoulders he bore two onyx stones, on which were graven the names of the children of Israel. Fourthly, he had the rational,
6273 made of the same material; it was square in shape, and was worn on the breast, and was fastened to the ephod. On this rational
6274 there were twelve precious stones set in four rows, on which also were graven the names of the children of Israel, in
6275 token that the priest bore the burden of the whole people, since he bore their names on his shoulders; and that it was his
6276 duty ever to think of their welfare, since he wore them on his breast, bearing them in his heart, so to speak. And the Lord
6277 commanded the "Doctrine and Truth" to be put in the rational: for certain matters regarding moral and dogmatic truth were
6278 written on it. The Jews indeed pretend that on the rational was placed a stone which changed color according to the various
6279 things
6280 which were about to happen to the children of Israel: and this they call the "Truth and Doctrine." Fifthly, he wore a belt
6281 or girdle made of the four colors mentioned above. Sixthly, there was the tiara or mitre which was made of linen. Seventhly,
6282 there was the golden plate which hung over his forehead; on it was inscribed the Lord's name. Eighthly, there were "the linen
6283 breeches to cover the flesh of their nakedness," when they went up to the sanctuary or altar. Of these eight vestments the
6284 lesser priests had four, viz. the linen tunic and breeches, the belt and the tiara.
6285 </p>
6286 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p45"> According to some, the literal reason for these vestments was that they denoted the disposition of the terrestrial globe;
6287 as though the high-priest confessed himself to be the minister of the Creator of the world, wherefore it is written (
6288 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p45.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.18.24" target="asv">Wis. 18:24</a>): "In the robe" of Aaron "was the whole world" described. For the linen breeches signified the earth out of which the flax
6289 grows. The surrounding belt signified the ocean which surrounds the earth. The violet
6290 tunic denoted the air by its color: its little bells betoken the thunder; the pomegranates, the lightning. The ephod, by its
6291 many colors, signified the starry heaven; the two onyx stones denoted the two hemispheres, or the sun and moon. The twelve
6292 precious stones on the breast are the twelve signs of the zodiac: and they are said to have been placed on the rational because
6293 in heaven, are the types [rationes] of earthly things, according to
6294 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p45.2" href="./asv.html#Job.38.33" target="asv"> Job 38:33</a>: "Dost thou know the
6295 order of heaven, and canst thou set down the reason [rationem] thereof on the earth?" The turban or tiara signified the empyrean:
6296 the golden plate was a token of God, the governor of the universe.
6297 </p>
6298 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p46"> The figurative reason is evident. Because bodily stains or defects wherefrom the priests had to be immune, signify the various
6299 vices and sins from which they should be free. Thus it is forbidden that he should be blind, i.e. he ought not to be ignorant:
6300 he must not be lame, i.e. vacillating and uncertain of purpose: that he must have "a little, or a great, or a crooked nose,"
6301 i.e. that he should not, from lack of discretion, exceed in one direction or in another, or even
6302 exercise some base occupation: for the nose signifies discretion, because it discerns odors. It is forbidden that he should
6303 have "a broken foot" or "hand," i.e. he should not lose the power of doing good works or of advancing in virtue. He is rejected,
6304 too, if he have a swelling either in front or behind [Vulg.: 'if he be crook-backed']: by which is signified too much love
6305 of earthly things: if he be blear-eyed, i.e. if his mind is darkened by carnal affections: for running of the eyes is
6306 caused by a flow of matter. He is also rejected if he had "a pearl in his eye," i.e. if he presumes in his own estimation
6307 that he is clothed in the white robe of righteousness. Again, he is rejected "if he have a continued scab," i.e. lustfulness
6308 of the flesh: also, if he have "a dry scurf," which covers the body without giving pain, and is a blemish on the comeliness
6309 of the members; which denotes avarice. Lastly, he is rejected "if he have a rupture" or hernia; through baseness rending his
6310 heart, though it appear not in his deeds.
6311 </p>
6312 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p47"> The vestments denote the virtues of God's ministers. Now there are four things that are necessary to all His ministers, viz.
6313 chastity denoted by the breeches; a pure life, signified by the linen tunic; the moderation of discretion, betokened by the
6314 girdle; and rectitude of purpose, denoted by the mitre covering the head. But the high-priests needed four other things in
6315 addition to these. First, a continual recollection of God in their thoughts; and this was signified by the
6316 golden plate worn over the forehead, with the name of God engraved thereon. Secondly, they had to bear with the shortcomings
6317 of the people: this was denoted by the ephod which they bore on their shoulders. Thirdly, they had to carry the people in
6318 their mind and heart by the solicitude of charity, in token of which they wore the rational. Fourthly, they had to lead a
6319 godly life by performing works of perfection; and this was signified by the violet tunic. Hence little golden bells were fixed
6320 to
6321 the bottom of the violet tunic, which bells signified the teaching of divine things united in the high-priest to his godly
6322 mode of life. In addition to these were the pomegranates, signifying unity of faith and concord in good morals: because his
6323 doctrine should hold together in such a way that it should not rend asunder the unity of faith and peace.
6324 </p>
6325 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p48"></p>
6326 <p id="FS_Q102_A5-p49"></p>
6327 <a href="summa.FS_Q102_A4.html"></a>
6328 <a href="summa.FS_Q102_A6.html"></a>
6329 </div>
6330 <div id="FS_Q102_A6" class="div4">
6331 <a href="summa.FS_Q102_A5.html"></a>
6332 <a href="summa.FS_Q103.html"></a>
6333 <h4 id="FS_Q102_A6-p0.1">Whether there was any reasonable cause for the ceremonial observances?</h4>
6334 <p id="FS_Q102_A6-p1"></p>
6335 <p id="FS_Q102_A6-p2">
6336 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there was no reasonable cause for the ceremonial observances. Because, as the Apostle says (
6337 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.4.4" target="asv">1 Tim. 4:4</a>), "every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving." It was therefore unfitting
6338 that they should be forbidden to eat certain foods, as being unclean according to
6339 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Lev.11" target="asv">Lev. 11</a> [*Cf.
6340 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p2.3" href="./asv.html#Deut.14" target="asv">Dt. 14</a>].
6341 </p>
6342 <p id="FS_Q102_A6-p3">
6343 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, just as animals are given to man for food, so also are herbs: wherefore it is written (
6344 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.9.3" target="asv">Gn. 9:3</a>): "As the green herbs have I delivered all" flesh "to you." But the Law did not distinguish any herbs from the rest as being
6345 unclean, although some are most harmful, for instance, those that are poisonous. Therefore it seems that neither should any
6346 animals have been prohibited as being unclean.
6347 </p>
6348 <p id="FS_Q102_A6-p4">
6349 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, if the matter from which a thing is generated be unclean, it seems that likewise the thing generated therefrom is
6350 unclean. But flesh is generated from blood. Since therefore all flesh was not prohibited as unclean, it seems that in like
6351 manner neither should blood have been forbidden as unclean; nor the fat which is engendered from blood.
6352 </p>
6353 <p id="FS_Q102_A6-p5">
6354 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, Our Lord said (
6355 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.10.28" target="asv">Mat. 10:28</a>; cf.
6356 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.12.4" target="asv"> Lk. 12:4</a>), that those should not be feared "that kill the body," since after death they "have no more that they can do": which would
6357 not be true if after death harm might come to man through anything done with his body. Much less therefore does it matter
6358 to an animal already dead how its flesh be cooked. Consequently there seems to be no reason in what is said,
6359 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p5.3" href="./asv.html#Exod.23.19" target="asv">Ex. 23:19</a>: "Thou
6360 shalt not boil a kid in the milk of its dam."
6361 </p>
6362 <p id="FS_Q102_A6-p6">
6363 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, all that is first brought forth of man and beast, as being most perfect, is commanded to be offered to the Lord
6364 (
6365 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.13" target="asv">Ex. 13</a>). Therefore it is an unfitting command that is set forth in
6366 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Lev.19.23" target="asv"> Lev. 19:23</a>: "when you shall be come into the land, and shall have planted in it fruit trees, you shall take away the uncircumcision
6367 [*'Praeputia,' which Douay version renders 'first fruits'] of them," i.e. the first crops, and they "shall be unclean to
6368 you, neither shall you eat of them."
6369 </p>
6370 <p id="FS_Q102_A6-p7">
6371 <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, clothing is something extraneous to man's body. Therefore certain kinds of garments should not have been forbidden
6372 to the Jews: for instance (
6373 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.19.19" target="asv">Lev. 19:19</a>): "Thou shalt not wear a garment that is woven of two sorts": and (
6374 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.22.5" target="asv">Dt. 22:5</a>): "A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man use woman's apparel": and further on (
6375 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Deut.22.11" target="asv">Dt. 22:11</a>): "Thou shalt not wear a garment that is
6376 woven of woolen and linen together."
6377 </p>
6378 <p id="FS_Q102_A6-p8">
6379 <b>Objection 7:</b> Further, to be mindful of God's commandments concerns not the body but the heart. Therefore it is unsuitably prescribed (
6380 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.6.8" target="asv">Dt. 6:8, </a> seqq.) that they should "bind" the commandments of God "as a sign" on their hands; and that they should "write them in the
6381 entry"; and (
6382 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Num.15.38" target="asv">Num. 15:38</a>, seqq.) that they should "make to themselves fringes in the corners of their garments, putting in them ribands of blue .
6383 . . they may remember . . . the commandments
6384 of the Lord."
6385 </p>
6386 <p id="FS_Q102_A6-p9">
6387 <b>Objection 8:</b> Further, the Apostle says (
6388 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p9.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.9.9" target="asv">1 Cor. 9:9</a>) that God does not "take care for oxen," and, therefore, neither of other irrational animals. Therefore without reason is
6389 it commanded (
6390 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.22.6" target="asv">Dt. 22:6</a>): "If thou find, as thou walkest by the way, a bird's nest in a tree . . . thou shalt not take the dam with her young"; and
6391 (
6392 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p9.3" href="./asv.html#Deut.25.4" target="asv">Dt. 25:4</a>): "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out thy corn"; and (
6393 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p9.4" href="./asv.html#Lev.19.19" target="asv">Lev.
6394 19:19
6395 </a>): "Thou shalt not make thy cattle to gender with beasts of any other kind."
6396 </p>
6397 <p id="FS_Q102_A6-p10">
6398 <b>Objection 9:</b> Further, no distinction was made between clean and unclean plants. Much less therefore should any distinction have been made
6399 about the cultivation of plants. Therefore it was unfittingly prescribed (
6400 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.19.19" target="asv">Lev. 19:19</a>): "Thou shalt not sow thy field with different seeds"; and (
6401 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p10.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.22.9" target="asv">Dt. 22:9</a>, seqq.): "Thou shalt sow thy vineyard with divers seeds"; and: "Thou shalt not plough with an ox and an ass together."
6402 </p>
6403 <p id="FS_Q102_A6-p11">
6404 <b>Objection 10:</b> Further, it is apparent that inanimate things are most of all subject to the power of man. Therefore it was unfitting to
6405 debar man from taking silver and gold of which idols were made, or anything they found in the houses of idols, as expressed
6406 in the commandment of the Law (
6407 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.7.25" target="asv">Dt. 7:25, </a> seqq.). It also seems an absurd commandment set forth in
6408 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p11.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.23.13" target="asv">Dt. 23:13</a>, that they should "dig round about and . . . cover with earth that which they were eased
6409 of."
6410 </p>
6411 <p id="FS_Q102_A6-p12">
6412 <b>Objection 11:</b> Further, piety is required especially in priests. But it seems to be an act of piety to assist at the burial of one's friends:
6413 wherefore Tobias is commended for so doing (
6414 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Tob.1.20" target="asv">Tob. 1:20, </a> seqq.). In like manner it is sometimes an act of piety to marry a loose woman, because she is thereby delivered from sin
6415 and infamy. Therefore it seems inconsistent for these things to be forbidden to priests (
6416 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p12.2" href="./asv.html#Lev.21" target="asv">Lev. 21</a>).
6417 </p>
6418 <p id="FS_Q102_A6-p13">
6419 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
6420 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p13.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.18.14" target="asv">Dt. 18:14</a>): "But thou art otherwise instructed by the Lord thy God": from which words we may gather that these observances were instituted
6421 by God to be a special prerogative of that people. Therefore they are not without reason or cause.
6422 </p>
6423 <p id="FS_Q102_A6-p14">
6424 <b>I answer that,</b> The Jewish people, as stated above
6425 <a id="FS_Q102_A6-p14.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q102_A5.html">(A[5])</a>, were specially chosen for the worship of God, and among them the priests themselves were specially set apart for that purpose.
6426 And just as other things that are applied to the divine worship, need to be marked in some particular way so that they be
6427 worthy of the worship of God; so too in that people's, and especially the priests', mode of life, there needed to be certain
6428 special things
6429 befitting the divine worship, whether spiritual or corporal. Now the worship prescribed by the Law foreshadowed the mystery
6430 of Christ: so that whatever they did was a figure of things pertaining to Christ, according to
6431 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p14.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.10.11" target="asv">1 Cor. 10:11</a>: "All these things happened to them in figures." Consequently the reasons for these observances may be taken in two ways,
6432 first according to their fittingness to the worship of God; secondly, according as they foreshadow something touching the
6433 Christian mode of life.
6434 </p>
6435 <p id="FS_Q102_A6-p15">
6436 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As stated above (A[5], ad 4,5), the Law distinguished a twofold pollution or uncleanness; one, that of sin, whereby the soul
6437 was defiled; and another consisting in some kind of corruption, whereby the body was in some way infected. Speaking then of
6438 the first-mentioned uncleanness, no kind of food is unclean, or can defile a man, by reason of its nature; wherefore we read
6439 (
6440 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p15.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.15.11" target="asv">Mat. 15:11</a>): "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a
6441 man; but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man": which words are explained (
6442 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p15.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.15.17" target="asv">Mat. 15:17</a>) as referring to sins. Yet certain foods can defile the soul accidentally; in so far as man partakes of them against obedience
6443 or a vow, or from excessive concupiscence; or through their being an incentive to lust, for which reason some refrain from
6444 wine and flesh-meat.
6445 </p>
6446 <p id="FS_Q102_A6-p16"> If, however, we speak of bodily uncleanness, consisting in some kind of corruption, the flesh of certain animals is unclean,
6447 either because like the pig they feed on unclean things; or because their life is among unclean surroundings: thus certain
6448 animals, like moles and mice and such like, live underground, whence they contract a certain unpleasant smell; or because
6449 their flesh, through being too moist or too dry, engenders corrupt humors in the human body. Hence they were
6450 forbidden to eat the flesh of flat-footed animals, i.e. animals having an uncloven hoof, on account of their earthiness; and
6451 in like manner they were forbidden to eat the flesh of animals that have many clefts in their feet, because such are very
6452 fierce and their flesh is very dry, such as the flesh of lions and the like. For the same reason they were forbidden to eat
6453 certain birds of prey the flesh of which is very dry, and certain water-fowl on account of their exceeding humidity. In like
6454 manner certain fish lacking fins and scales were prohibited on account of their excessive moisture; such as eels and the like.
6455 They were, however, allowed to eat ruminants and animals with a divided hoof, because in such animals the humors are well
6456 absorbed, and their nature well balanced: for neither are they too moist, as is indicated by the hoof; nor are they too earthly,
6457 which is shown by their having not a flat but a cloven hoof. Of fishes they were allowed to partake of the drier kinds,
6458 of which the fins and scales are an indication, because thereby the moist nature of the fish is tempered. Of birds they were
6459 allowed to eat the tamer kinds, such as hens, partridges, and the like. Another reason was detestation of idolatry: because
6460 the Gentiles, and especially the Egyptians, among whom they had grown up, offered up these forbidden animals to their idols,
6461 or employed them for the purpose of sorcery: whereas they did not eat those animals which the Jews were allowed to eat, but
6462 worshipped them as gods, or abstained, for some other motive, from eating them, as stated above (A[3], ad 2). The third reason
6463 was to prevent excessive care about food: wherefore they were allowed to eat those animals which could be procured easily
6464 and promptly.
6465 </p>
6466 <p id="FS_Q102_A6-p17"> With regard to blood and fat, they were forbidden to partake of those of any animals whatever without exception. Blood was
6467 forbidden, both in order to avoid cruelty, that they might abhor the shedding of human blood, as stated above (A[3], ad 8);
6468 and in order to shun idolatrous rite whereby it was customary for men to collect the blood and to gather together around it
6469 for a banquet in honor of the idols, to whom they held the blood to be most acceptable. Hence the Lord commanded
6470 the blood to be poured out and to be covered with earth (
6471 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p17.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.17.13" target="asv">Lev. 17:13</a>). For the same reason they were forbidden to eat animals that had been suffocated or strangled: because the blood of these
6472 animals would not be separated from the body: or because this form of death is very painful to the victim; and the Lord wished
6473 to withdraw them from cruelty even in regard to irrational animals, so as to be less inclined to be cruel to other men, through
6474 being used to be kind to beasts.
6475 They were forbidden to eat the fat: both because idolaters ate it in honor of their gods; and because it used to be burnt
6476 in honor of God; and, again, because blood and fat are not nutritious, which is the cause assigned by Rabbi Moses (Doct. Perplex.
6477 iii). The reason why they were forbidden to eat the sinews is given in
6478 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p17.2" href="./asv.html#Gen.32.32" target="asv"> Gn. 32:32, </a> where it is stated that "the children of Israel . . . eat not the sinew . . . because he touched the sinew of" Jacob's "thing
6479 and it shrank."
6480 </p>
6481 <p id="FS_Q102_A6-p18"> The figurative reason for these things is that all these animals signified certain sins, in token of which those animals
6482 were prohibited. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faustum iv, 7): "If the swine and lamb be called in question, both are clean
6483 by nature, because all God's creatures are good: yet the lamb is clean, and the pig is unclean in a certain signification.
6484 Thus if you speak of a foolish, and of a wise man, each of these expressions is clean considered in the nature of
6485 the sound, letters and syllables of which it is composed: but in signification, the one is clean, the other unclean." The
6486 animal that chews the cud and has a divided hoof, is clean in signification. Because division of the hoof is a figure of the
6487 two Testaments: or of the Father and Son: or of the two natures in Christ: of the distinction of good and evil. While chewing
6488 the cud signifies meditation on the Scriptures and a sound understanding thereof; and whoever lacks either of these is
6489 spiritually unclean. In like manner those fish that have scales and fins are clean in signification. Because fins signify
6490 the heavenly or contemplative life; while scales signify a life of trials, each of which is required for spiritual cleanness.
6491 Of birds certain kinds were forbidden. In the eagle which flies at a great height, pride is forbidden: in the griffon which
6492 is hostile to horses and men, cruelty of powerful men is prohibited. The osprey, which feeds on very small birds, signifies
6493 those who oppress the poor. The kite, which is full of cunning, denotes those who are fraudulent in their dealings. The vulture,
6494 which follows an army, expecting to feed on the carcases of the slain, signifies those who like others to die or to fight
6495 among themselves that they may gain thereby. Birds of the raven kind signify those who are blackened by their lusts; or those
6496 who lack kindly feelings, for the raven did not return when once it had been let loose from the ark. The ostrich which,
6497 though a bird, cannot fly, and is always on the ground, signifies those who fight God's cause, and at the same time are taken
6498 up with worldly business. The owl, which sees clearly at night, but cannot see in the daytime, denotes those who are clever
6499 in temporal affairs, but dull in spiritual matters. The gull, which flies both in the air and swims in the water, signifies
6500 those who are partial both to Circumcision and to Baptism: or else it denotes those who would fly by contemplation, yet dwell
6501 in the waters of sensual delights. The hawk, which helps men to seize the prey, is a figure of those who assist the strong
6502 to prey on the poor. The screech-owl, which seeks its food by night but hides by day, signifies the lustful man who seeks
6503 to lie hidden in his deeds of darkness. The cormorant, so constituted that it can stay a long time under water, denotes the
6504 glutton who plunges into the waters of pleasure. The ibis is an African bird with a long beak, and feeds on snakes; and perhaps
6505 it
6506 is the same as the stork: it signifies the envious man, who refreshes himself with the ills of others, as with snakes. The
6507 swan is bright in color, and by the aid of its long neck extracts its food from deep places on land or water: it may denote
6508 those who seek earthly profit though an external brightness of virtue. The bittern is a bird of the East: it has a long beak,
6509 and its jaws are furnished with follicules, wherein it stores its food at first, after a time proceeding to digest it: it
6510 is a
6511 figure of the miser, who is excessively careful in hoarding up the necessaries of life. The coot [*Douay: 'porphyrion.' St.
6512 Thomas' description tallies with the coot or moorhen: though of course he is mistaken about the feet differing from one another.]
6513 has this peculiarity apart from other birds, that it has a webbed foot for swimming, and a cloven foot for walking: for it
6514 swims like a duck in the water, and walks like a partridge on land: it drinks only when it bites, since it dips all its
6515 food in water: it is a figure of a man who will not take advice, and does nothing but what is soaked in the water of his own
6516 will. The heron [*Vulg.: 'herodionem'], commonly called a falcon, signifies those whose "feet are swift to shed blood" (
6517 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p18.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.13.3" target="asv">Ps. 13:3</a>). The plover [*Here, again, the Douay translators transcribed from the Vulgate: 'charadrion'; 'charadrius' is the generic
6518 name for all plovers.], which is a garrulous bird, signifies the gossip. The hoopoe, which builds its
6519 nest on dung, feeds on foetid ordure, and whose song is like a groan, denotes worldly grief which works death in those who
6520 are unclean. The bat, which flies near the ground, signifies those who being gifted with worldly knowledge, seek none but
6521 earthly things. Of fowls and quadrupeds those alone were permitted which have the hind-legs longer than the forelegs, so that
6522 they can leap: whereas those were forbidden which cling rather to the earth: because those who abuse the doctrine of the four
6523 Evangelists, so that they are not lifted up thereby, are reputed unclean. By the prohibition of blood, fat and nerves, we
6524 are to understand the forbidding of cruelty, lust, and bravery in committing sin.
6525 </p>
6526 <p id="FS_Q102_A6-p19">
6527 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Men were wont to eat plants and other products of the soil even before the deluge: but the eating of flesh seems to have
6528 been introduced after the deluge; for it is written (
6529 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p19.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.9.3" target="asv">Gn. 9:3</a>): "Even as the green herbs have I delivered . . . all" flesh "to you." The reason for this was that the eating of the products
6530 of the soil savors rather of a simple life; whereas the eating of flesh savors of delicate and over-careful living. For the
6531 soil gives birth to the herb of its own accord; and such like products of the earth may be had in great quantities with very
6532 little effort: whereas no small trouble is necessary either to rear or to catch an animal. Consequently God being wishful
6533 to bring His people back to a more simple way of living, forbade them to eat many kinds of animals, but not those things that
6534 are produced by the soil. Another reason may be that animals were offered to idols, while the products of the soil were
6535 not.
6536 </p>
6537 <p id="FS_Q102_A6-p20"> The Reply to the Third Objection is clear from what has been said (ad 1).</p>
6538 <p id="FS_Q102_A6-p21">
6539 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Although the kid that is slain has no perception of the manner in which its flesh is cooked, yet it would seem to savor of
6540 heartlessness if the dam's milk, which was intended for the nourishment of her offspring, were served up on the same dish.
6541 It might also be said that the Gentiles in celebrating the feasts of their idols prepared the flesh of kids in this manner,
6542 for the purpose of sacrifice or banquet: hence (
6543 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p21.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.23" target="asv">Ex. 23</a>) after the solemnities to be
6544 celebrated under the Law had been foretold, it is added: "Thou shalt not boil a kid in the milk of its dam." The figurative
6545 reason for this prohibition is this: the kid, signifying Christ, on account of "the likeness of sinful flesh" (
6546 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p21.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.3" target="asv">Rom. 8:3</a>), was not to be seethed, i.e. slain, by the Jews, "in the milk of its dam," i.e. during His infancy. Or else it signifies
6547 that the kid, i.e. the sinner, should not be boiled in the milk of its dam, i.e. should not be cajoled by flattery.
6548 </p>
6549 <p id="FS_Q102_A6-p22">
6550 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> The Gentiles offered their gods the first-fruits, which they held to bring them good luck: or they burnt them for the purpose
6551 of secrecy. Consequently (the Israelites) were commanded to look upon the fruits of the first three years as unclean: for
6552 in that country nearly all the trees bear fruit in three years' time; those trees, to wit, that are cultivated either from
6553 seed, or from a graft, or from a cutting: but it seldom happens that the
6554 fruit-stones or seeds encased in a pod are sown: since it would take a longer time for these to bear fruit: and the Law considered
6555 what happened most frequently. The fruits, however, of the fourth year, as being the firstlings of clean fruits, were offered
6556 to God: and from the fifth year onward they were eaten.
6557 </p>
6558 <p id="FS_Q102_A6-p23"> The figurative reason was that this foreshadowed the fact that after the three states of the Law (the first lasting from
6559 Abraham to David, the second, until they were carried away to Babylon, the third until the time of Christ), the Fruit of the
6560 Law, i.e. Christ, was to be offered to God. Or again, that we must mistrust our first efforts, on account of their imperfection.
6561 </p>
6562 <p id="FS_Q102_A6-p24">
6563 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> It is said of a man in
6564 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p24.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.19.27" target="asv"> Ecclus. 19:27, </a> that "the attire of the body . . . " shows "what he is." Hence the Lord wished His people to be distinguished from other
6565 nations, not only by the sign of the circumcision, which was in the flesh, but also by a certain difference of attire. Wherefore
6566 they were forbidden to wear garments woven of woolen and linen together, and for a woman to be clothed with man's apparel,
6567 or vice versa, for two
6568 reasons. First, to avoid idolatrous worship. Because the Gentiles, in their religious rites, used garments of this sort, made
6569 of various materials. Moreover in the worship of Mars, women put on men's armor; while, conversely, in the worship of Venus
6570 men donned women's attire. The second reason was to preserve them from lust: because the employment of various materials in
6571 the making of garments signified inordinate union of sexes, while the use of male attire by a woman, or vice versa, has an
6572 incentive to evil desires, and offers an occasion of lust. The figurative reason is that the prohibition of wearing a garment
6573 woven of woolen and linen signified that it was forbidden to unite the simplicity of innocence, denoted by wool, with the
6574 duplicity of malice, betokened by linen. It also signifies that woman is forbidden to presume to teach, or perform other duties
6575 of men: or that man should not adopt the effeminate manners of a woman.
6576 </p>
6577 <p id="FS_Q102_A6-p25">
6578 <b>Reply to Objection 7:</b> As Jerome says on
6579 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p25.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.23.6" target="asv"> Mat. 23:6, </a> "the Lord commanded them to make violet-colored fringes in the four corners of their garments, so that the Israelites might
6580 be distinguished from other nations." Hence, in this way, they professed to be Jews: and consequently the very sight of this
6581 sign reminded them of their law.
6582 </p>
6583 <p id="FS_Q102_A6-p26"> When we read: "Thou shalt bind them on thy hand, and they shall be ever before thy eyes [Vulg.: 'they shall be and shall
6584 move between thy eyes'], the Pharisees gave a false interpretation to these words, and wrote the decalogue of Moses on a parchment,
6585 and tied it on their foreheads like a wreath, so that it moved in front of their eyes": whereas the intention of the Lord
6586 in giving this commandment was that they should be bound in their hands, i.e. in their works; and that they
6587 should be before their eyes, i.e. in their thoughts. The violet-colored fillets which were inserted in their cloaks signify
6588 the godly intention which should accompany our every deed. It may, however, be said that, because they were a carnal-minded
6589 and stiff-necked people, it was necessary for them to be stirred by these sensible things to the observance of the Law.
6590 </p>
6591 <p id="FS_Q102_A6-p27">
6592 <b>Reply to Objection 8:</b> Affection in man is twofold: it may be an affection of reason, or it may be an affection of passion. If a man's affection
6593 be one of reason, it matters not how man behaves to animals, because God has subjected all things to man's power, according
6594 to
6595 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p27.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.8.8" target="asv"> Ps. 8:8</a>: "Thou hast subjected all things under his feet": and it is in this sense that the Apostle says that "God has no care for
6596 oxen"; because God does not ask of man what he does
6597 with oxen or other animals.
6598 </p>
6599 <p id="FS_Q102_A6-p28"> But if man's affection be one of passion, then it is moved also in regard to other animals: for since the passion of pity
6600 is caused by the afflictions of others; and since it happens that even irrational animals are sensible to pain, it is possible
6601 for the affection of pity to arise in a man with regard to the sufferings of animals. Now it is evident that if a man practice
6602 a pitiful affection for animals, he is all the more disposed to take pity on his fellow-men: wherefore it
6603 is written (
6604 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p28.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.11.10" target="asv">Prov. 11:10</a>): "The just regardeth the lives of his beasts: but the bowels of the wicked are cruel." Consequently the Lord, in order to
6605 inculcate pity to the Jewish people, who were prone to cruelty, wished them to practice pity even with regard to dumb animals,
6606 and forbade them to do certain things savoring of cruelty to animals. Hence He prohibited them to "boil a kid in the milk
6607 of its dam"; and to "muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn"; and to slay "the dam with her young."
6608 It may, nevertheless, be also said that these prohibitions were made in hatred of idolatry. For the Egyptians held it to be
6609 wicked to allow the ox to eat of the grain while threshing the corn. Moreover certain sorcerers were wont to ensnare the mother
6610 bird with her young during incubation, and to employ them for the purpose of securing fruitfulness and good luck in bringing
6611 up children: also because it was held to be a good omen to find the mother sitting on her young.
6612 </p>
6613 <p id="FS_Q102_A6-p29"> As to the mingling of animals of divers species, the literal reason may have been threefold. The first was to show detestation
6614 for the idolatry of the Egyptians, who employed various mixtures in worshipping the planets, which produce various effects,
6615 and on various kinds of things according to their various conjunctions. The second reason was in condemnation of unnatural
6616 sins. The third reason was the entire removal of all occasions of concupiscence. Because animals of different
6617 species do not easily breed, unless this be brought about by man; and movements of lust are aroused by seeing such things.
6618 Wherefore in the Jewish traditions we find it prescribed as stated by Rabbi Moses that men shall turn away their eyes from
6619 such sights.
6620 </p>
6621 <p id="FS_Q102_A6-p30"> The figurative reason for these things is that the necessities of life should not be withdrawn from the ox that treadeth
6622 the corn, i.e. from the preacher bearing the sheaves of doctrine, as the Apostle states (
6623 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p30.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.9.4" target="asv">1 Cor. 9:4</a>, seqq.). Again, we should not take the dam with her young: because in certain things we have to keep the spiritual senses,
6624 i.e. the offspring, and set aside the observance of the letter, i.e. the mother, for instance, in all the ceremonies of the
6625 Law. It is also
6626 forbidden that beast of burden, i.e. any of the common people, should be allowed to engender, i.e. to have any connection,
6627 with animals of another kind, i.e. with Gentiles or Jews.
6628 </p>
6629 <p id="FS_Q102_A6-p31">
6630 <b>Reply to Objection 9:</b> All these minglings were forbidden in agriculture; literally, in detestation of idolatry. For the Egyptians in worshipping
6631 the stars employed various combinations of seeds, animals and garments, in order to represent the various connections of the
6632 stars. Or else all these minglings were forbidden in detestation of the unnatural vice.
6633 </p>
6634 <p id="FS_Q102_A6-p32"> They have, however, a figurative reason. For the prohibition: "Thou shalt not sow thy field with different seeds," is to
6635 be understood, in the spiritual sense, of the prohibition to sow strange doctrine in the Church, which is a spiritual vineyard.
6636 Likewise "the field," i.e. the Church, must not be sown "with different seeds," i.e. with Catholic and heretical doctrines.
6637 Neither is it allowed to plough "with an ox and an ass together"; thus a fool should not accompany a wise man
6638 in preaching, for one would hinder the other.
6639 </p>
6640 <p id="FS_Q102_A6-p33">
6641 <b>Reply to Objection 10:</b> [*The Reply to the Tenth Objection is lacking in the codices. The solution given here is found in some editions, and was
6642 supplied by Nicolai.] Silver and gold were reasonably forbidden (
6643 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p33.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.7" target="asv">Dt. 7</a>) not as though they were not subject to the power of man, but because, like the idols themselves, all materials out of which
6644 idols were made, were anathematized as hateful in God's sight. This is clear from the same chapter, where we read further
6645 on
6646 (
6647 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p33.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.7.26" target="asv">Dt. 7:26</a>): "Neither shalt thou bring anything of the idol into thy house, lest thou become an anathema like it." Another reason was
6648 lest, by taking silver and gold, they should be led by avarice into idolatry to which the Jews were inclined. The other precept
6649 (
6650 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p33.3" href="./asv.html#Deut.23" target="asv">Dt. 23</a>) about covering up excretions, was just and becoming, both for the sake of bodily cleanliness; and in order to keep the air
6651 wholesome; and by reason of the respect due to the tabernacle of the covenant which
6652 stood in the midst of the camp, wherein the Lord was said to dwell; as is clearly set forth in the same passage, where after
6653 expressing the command, the reason thereof is at once added, to wit: "For the Lord thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp,
6654 to deliver thee, and to give up thy enemies to thee, and let thy camp be holy [i.e. clean], and let no uncleanness appear
6655 therein." The figurative reason for this precept, according to Gregory (Moral. xxxi), is that sins which are the fetid
6656 excretions of the mind should be covered over by repentance, that we may become acceptable to God, according to
6657 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p33.4" href="./asv.html#Ps.31.1" target="asv"> Ps. 31:1</a>: "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered." Or else according to a gloss, that we should
6658 recognize the unhappy condition of human nature, and humbly cover and purify the stains of a puffed-up and proud spirit in
6659 the deep furrow of self-examination.
6660 </p>
6661 <p id="FS_Q102_A6-p34">
6662 <b>Reply to Objection 11:</b> Sorcerers and idolatrous priests made use, in their rites, of the bones and flesh of dead men. Wherefore, in order to extirpate
6663 the customs of idolatrous worship, the Lord commanded that the priests of inferior degree, who at fixed times served in the
6664 temple, should not "incur an uncleanness at the death" of anyone except of those who were closely related to them, viz. their
6665 father or mother, and others thus near of kin to them. But the high-priest
6666 had always to be ready for the service of the sanctuary; wherefore he was absolutely forbidden to approach the dead, however
6667 nearly related to him. They were also forbidden to marry a "harlot" or "one that has been put away," or any other than a virgin:
6668 both on account of the reverence due to the priesthood, the honor of which would seem to be tarnished by such a marriage:
6669 and for the sake of the children who would be disgraced by the mother's shame: which was most of all to be avoided when the
6670 priestly dignity was passed on from father to son. Again, they were commanded to shave neither head nor beard, and not to
6671 make incisions in their flesh, in order to exclude the rites of idolatry. For the priests of the Gentiles shaved both head
6672 and beard, wherefore it is written (
6673 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p34.1" href="./asv.html#Bar.6.30" target="asv">Bar 6:30</a>): "Priests sit in their temples having their garments rent, and their heads and beards shaven." Moreover, in worshipping
6674 their idols "they cut themselves with knives and lancets"
6675 (
6676 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p34.2" href="./asv.html#." target="asv">3 Kings 18:28</a>). For this reason the priests of the Old Law were commanded to do the contrary.
6677 </p>
6678 <p id="FS_Q102_A6-p35"> The spiritual reason for these things is that priests should be entirely free from dead works, i.e. sins. And they should
6679 not shave their heads, i.e. set wisdom aside; nor should they shave their beards, i.e. set aside the perfection of wisdom;
6680 nor rend their garments or cut their flesh, i.e. they should not incur the sin of schism.
6681 </p>
6682 <p id="FS_Q102_A6-p36"></p>
6683 <p id="FS_Q102_A6-p37"></p>
6684 <a href="summa.FS_Q102_A5.html"></a>
6685 <a href="summa.FS_Q103.html"></a>
6686 </div>
6687 <a href="summa.FS_Q101_A4.html"></a>
6688 <a href="summa.FS_Q102_A1.html"></a>
6689 </div>
6690 <div id="FS_Q103" class="div3">
6691 <a href="summa.FS_Q102_A6.html"></a>
6692 <a href="summa.FS_Q103_A1.html"></a>
6693 <h3 id="FS_Q103-p0.1">OF THE DURATION OF THE CEREMONIAL PRECEPTS (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3>
6694 <p id="FS_Q103-p1"></p>
6695 <p id="FS_Q103-p2"> We must now consider the duration of the ceremonial precepts: under which head there are four points of inquiry:</p>
6696 <p id="FS_Q103-p3"> (1) Whether the ceremonial precepts were in existence before the Law?</p>
6697 <p id="FS_Q103-p4"> (2) Whether at the time of the Law the ceremonies of the Old Law had any power of justification?</p>
6698 <p id="FS_Q103-p5"> (3) Whether they ceased at the coming of Christ?</p>
6699 <p id="FS_Q103-p6"> (4) Whether it is a mortal sin to observe them after the coming of Christ?</p>
6700 <div id="FS_Q103_A1" class="div4">
6701 <a href="summa.FS_Q103.html"></a>
6702 <a href="summa.FS_Q103_A2.html"></a>
6703 <h4 id="FS_Q103_A1-p0.1">Whether the ceremonies of the Law were in existence before the Law?</h4>
6704 <p id="FS_Q103_A1-p1"></p>
6705 <p id="FS_Q103_A1-p2">
6706 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the ceremonies of the Law were in existence before the Law. For sacrifices and holocausts were ceremonies
6707 of the Old Law, as stated above (
6708 <a id="FS_Q103_A1-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q101_A4.html">Q[101], A[4]</a>). But sacrifices and holocausts preceded the Law: for it is written (
6709 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A1-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Gen.4.3" target="asv">Gn. 4:3,4</a>) that "Cain offered, of the fruits of the earth, gifts to the Lord," and that "Abel offered of the firstlings of his flock,
6710 and of their fat." Noe also "offered
6711 holocausts" to the Lord (
6712 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A1-p2.3" href="./asv.html#Gen.18.20" target="asv">Gn. 18:20</a>), and Abraham did in like manner (
6713 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A1-p2.4" href="./asv.html#Gen.22.13" target="asv">Gn. 22:13</a>). Therefore the ceremonies of the Old Law preceded the Law.
6714 </p>
6715 <p id="FS_Q103_A1-p3">
6716 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the erecting and consecrating of the altar were part of the ceremonies relating to holy things. But these preceded
6717 the Law. For we read (
6718 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.13.18" target="asv">Gn. 13:18</a>) that "Abraham . . . built . . . an altar to the Lord"; and (
6719 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A1-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Gen.28.18" target="asv">Gn. 28:18</a>) that "Jacob . . . took the stone . . . and set it up for a title, pouring oil upon the top of it." Therefore the legal ceremonies
6720 preceded the Law.
6721 </p>
6722 <p id="FS_Q103_A1-p4">
6723 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the first of the legal sacraments seems to have been circumcision. But circumcision preceded the Law, as appears
6724 from
6725 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.17" target="asv">Gn. 17</a>. In like manner the priesthood preceded the Law; for it is written (
6726 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A1-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Gen.14.18" target="asv">Gn. 14:18</a>) that "Melchisedech . . . was the priest of the most high God." Therefore the sacramental ceremonies preceded the Law.
6727 </p>
6728 <p id="FS_Q103_A1-p5">
6729 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the distinction of clean from unclean animals belongs to the ceremonies of observances, as stated above (Q[100],
6730 2, A[6], ad 1). But this distinction preceded the Law; for it is written (
6731 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.7.2" target="asv">Gn. 7:2,3</a>): "Of all clean beasts take seven and seven . . . but of the beasts that are unclean, two and two." Therefore the legal ceremonies
6732 preceded the Law.
6733 </p>
6734 <p id="FS_Q103_A1-p6">
6735 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
6736 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.6.1" target="asv">Dt. 6:1</a>): "These are the precepts and ceremonies . . . which the Lord your God commanded that I should teach you." But they would
6737 not have needed to be taught about these things, if the aforesaid ceremonies had been already in existence. Therefore the
6738 legal ceremonies did not precede the Law.
6739 </p>
6740 <p id="FS_Q103_A1-p7">
6741 <b>I answer that,</b> As is clear from what has been said (
6742 <a id="FS_Q103_A1-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q101_A2.html">Q[101], A[2]</a>;
6743 <a id="FS_Q103_A1-p7.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q102_A2.html"> Q[102] , A[2]</a>), the legal ceremonies were ordained for a double purpose; the worship of God, and the foreshadowing of Christ. Now whoever
6744 worships God must needs worship Him by means of certain fixed things pertaining to external worship. But the fixing of the
6745 divine worship belongs to the ceremonies; just as the determining of our relations with our
6746 neighbor is a matter determined by the judicial precepts, as stated above (
6747 <a id="FS_Q103_A1-p7.3" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q99_A4.html">Q[99], A[4]</a>). Consequently, as among men in general there were certain judicial precepts, not indeed established by Divine authority,
6748 but ordained by human reason; so also there were some ceremonies fixed, not by the authority of any law, but according to
6749 the will and devotion of those that worship God. Since, however, even before the Law some of the leading men were gifted with
6750 the spirit of
6751 prophecy, it is to be believed that a heavenly instinct, like a private law, prompted them to worship God in a certain definite
6752 way, which would be both in keeping with the interior worship, and a suitable token of Christ's mysteries, which were foreshadowed
6753 also by other things that they did, according to
6754 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A1-p7.4" href="./asv.html#iCor.10.11" target="asv">1 Cor. 10:11</a>: "All . . . things happened to them in figure." Therefore there were some ceremonies before the Law, but they were not legal
6755 ceremonies, because they were not as yet established
6756 by legislation.
6757 </p>
6758 <p id="FS_Q103_A1-p8">
6759 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The patriarchs offered up these oblations, sacrifices and holocausts previously to the Law, out of a certain devotion of
6760 their own will, according as it seemed proper to them to offer up in honor of God those things which they had received from
6761 Him, and thus to testify that they worshipped God Who is the beginning and end of all.
6762 </p>
6763 <p id="FS_Q103_A1-p9">
6764 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> They also established certain sacred things, because they thought that the honor due to God demanded that certain places
6765 should be set apart from others for the purpose of divine worship.
6766 </p>
6767 <p id="FS_Q103_A1-p10">
6768 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The sacrament of circumcision was established by command of God before the Law. Hence it cannot be called a sacrament of
6769 the Law as though it were an institution of the Law, but only as an observance included in the Law. Hence Our Lord said (
6770 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A1-p10.1" href="./asv.html#John.7.20" target="asv">Jn. 7:20</a>) that circumcision was "not of Moses, but of his fathers." Again, among those who worshipped God, the priesthood was in existence
6771 before the Law by human appointment, for the Law
6772 allotted the priestly dignity to the firstborn.
6773 </p>
6774 <p id="FS_Q103_A1-p11">
6775 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The distinction of clean from unclean animals was in vogue before the Law, not with regard to eating them, since it is written
6776 (
6777 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A1-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.9.3" target="asv">Gn. 9:3</a>): "Everything that moveth and liveth shall be meat for you": but only as to the offering of sacrifices because they used
6778 only certain animals for that purpose. If, however, they did make any distinction in regard to eating; it was not that it
6779 was considered illegal to eat such animals, since this was not forbidden by
6780 any law, but from dislike or custom: thus even now we see that certain foods are looked upon with disgust in some countries,
6781 while people partake of them in others.
6782 </p>
6783 <p id="FS_Q103_A1-p12"></p>
6784 <p id="FS_Q103_A1-p13"></p>
6785 <a href="summa.FS_Q103.html"></a>
6786 <a href="summa.FS_Q103_A2.html"></a>
6787 </div>
6788 <div id="FS_Q103_A2" class="div4">
6789 <a href="summa.FS_Q103_A1.html"></a>
6790 <a href="summa.FS_Q103_A3.html"></a>
6791 <h4 id="FS_Q103_A2-p0.1">Whether, at the time of the Law, the ceremonies of the Old Law had any power of justification?</h4>
6792 <p id="FS_Q103_A2-p1"></p>
6793 <p id="FS_Q103_A2-p2">
6794 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the ceremonies of the Old Law had the power of justification at the time of the Law. Because expiation
6795 from sin and consecration pertains to justification. But it is written (
6796 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.39.21" target="asv">Ex. 39:21</a>) that the priests and their apparel were consecrated by the sprinkling of blood and the anointing of oil; and (
6797 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A2-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Lev.16.16" target="asv">Lev. 16:16</a>) that, by sprinkling the blood of the calf, the priest expiated "the sanctuary from the
6798 uncleanness of the children of Israel, and from their transgressions and . . . their sins." Therefore the ceremonies of the
6799 Old Law had the power of justification.
6800 </p>
6801 <p id="FS_Q103_A2-p3">
6802 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, that by which man pleases God pertains to justification, according to
6803 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.10.8" target="asv"> Ps. 10:8</a>: "The Lord is just and hath loved justice." But some pleased God by means of ceremonies, according to
6804 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A2-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Lev.10.19" target="asv"> Lev. 10:19</a>: "How could I . . . please the Lord in the ceremonies, having a sorrowful heart?" Therefore the ceremonies of the Old Law
6805 had the power of justification.
6806 </p>
6807 <p id="FS_Q103_A2-p4">
6808 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, things relating to the divine worship regard the soul rather than the body, according to
6809 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.18.8" target="asv"> Ps. 18:8</a>: "The Law of the Lord is unspotted, converting souls." But the leper was cleansed by means of the ceremonies of the Old Law,
6810 as stated in
6811 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A2-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Lev.14" target="asv">Lev. 14</a>. Much more therefore could the ceremonies of the Old Law cleanse the soul by justifying it.
6812 </p>
6813 <p id="FS_Q103_A2-p5">
6814 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
6815 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.2" target="asv">Gal. 2</a>) [*The first words of the quotation are from 3:21: St. Thomas probably quoting from memory, substituted them for 2:21, which
6816 runs thus: 'If justice be by the Law, then Christ died in vain.']: "If there had been a law given which could justify [Vulg.:
6817 'give life'], Christ died in vain," i.e. without cause. But this is inadmissible. Therefore the ceremonies of the Old Law
6818 did not confer justice.
6819 </p>
6820 <p id="FS_Q103_A2-p6">
6821 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
6822 <a id="FS_Q103_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q102_A5.html">Q[102], A[5]</a>, ad 4), a twofold uncleanness was distinguished in the Old Law. One was spiritual and is the uncleanness of sin. The other
6823 was corporal, which rendered a man unfit for divine worship; thus a leper, or anyone that touched carrion, was said to be
6824 unclean: and thus uncleanness was nothing but a kind of irregularity. From this uncleanness, then, the ceremonies of the Old
6825 Law had the power to cleanse:
6826 because they were ordered by the Law to be employed as remedies for the removal of the aforesaid uncleannesses which were
6827 contracted in consequence of the prescription of the Law. Hence the Apostle says (
6828 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A2-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.9.13" target="asv">Heb. 9:13</a>) that "the blood of goats and of oxen, and the ashes of a heifer, being sprinkled, sanctify such as are defiled, to the cleansing
6829 of the flesh." And just as this uncleanness which was washed away by such like ceremonies, affected the flesh rather than
6830 the soul, so
6831 also the ceremonies themselves are called by the Apostle shortly before (
6832 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A2-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Heb.9.10" target="asv">Heb. 9:10</a>) justices of the flesh: "justices of the flesh," says he, "being laid on them until the time of correction."
6833 </p>
6834 <p id="FS_Q103_A2-p7"> On the other hand, they had no power of cleansing from uncleanness of the soul, i.e. from the uncleanness of sin. The reason
6835 of this was that at no time could there be expiation from sin, except through Christ, "Who taketh away the sins [Vulg.: 'sin']
6836 of the world" (
6837 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#John.1.29" target="asv">Jn. 1:29</a>). And since the mystery of Christ's Incarnation and Passion had not yet really taken place, those ceremonies of the Old Law
6838 could not really contain in themselves a power flowing from
6839 Christ already incarnate and crucified, such as the sacraments of the New Law contain. Consequently they could not cleanse
6840 from sin: thus the Apostle says (
6841 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A2-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.10.4" target="asv">Heb. 10:4</a>) that "it is impossible that with the blood of oxen and goats sin should be taken away"; and for this reason he calls them
6842 (
6843 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A2-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Gal.4.9" target="asv">Gal. 4:9</a>) "weak and needy elements": weak indeed, because they cannot take away sin; but this weakness results from their being needy,
6844 i.e. from the fact that they do
6845 not contain grace within themselves.
6846 </p>
6847 <p id="FS_Q103_A2-p8"> However, it was possible at the time of the Law, for the minds of the faithful, to be united by faith to Christ incarnate
6848 and crucified; so that they were justified by faith in Christ: of which faith the observance of these ceremonies was a sort
6849 of profession, inasmuch as they foreshadowed Christ. Hence in the Old Law certain sacrifices were offered up for sins, not
6850 as though the sacrifices themselves washed sins away, but because they were professions of faith which cleansed
6851 from sin. In fact, the Law itself implies this in the terms employed: for it is written (
6852 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A2-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.4.26" target="asv">Lev. 4:26</a>; 5:16) that in offering the sacrifice for sin "the priest shall pray for him . . . and it shall be forgiven him," as though
6853 the sin were forgiven, not in virtue of the sacrifices, but through the faith and devotion of those who offered them. It must
6854 be observed, however, that the very fact that the ceremonies of the Old Law washed away uncleanness of the body, was a figure
6855 of
6856 that expiation from sins which was effected by Christ.
6857 </p>
6858 <p id="FS_Q103_A2-p9"> It is therefore evident that under the state of the Old Law the ceremonies had no power of justification.</p>
6859 <p id="FS_Q103_A2-p10">
6860 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> That sanctification of priests and their sons, and of their apparel or of anything else belonging to them, by sprinkling
6861 them with blood, had no other effect but to appoint them to the divine worship, and to remove impediments from them, "to the
6862 cleansing of the flesh," as the Apostle states (
6863 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A2-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.9.13" target="asv">Heb. 9:13</a>) in token of that sanctification whereby "Jesus" sanctified "the people by His own blood" (
6864 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A2-p10.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.13.12" target="asv">Heb. 13:12</a>).
6865 Moreover, the expiation must be understood as referring to the removal of these bodily uncleannesses, not to the forgiveness
6866 of sin. Hence even the sanctuary which could not be the subject of sin is stated to be expiated.
6867 </p>
6868 <p id="FS_Q103_A2-p11">
6869 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The priests pleased God in the ceremonies by their obedience and devotion, and by their faith in the reality foreshadowed;
6870 not by reason of the things considered in themselves.
6871 </p>
6872 <p id="FS_Q103_A2-p12">
6873 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Those ceremonies which were prescribed in the cleansing of a leper, were not ordained for the purpose of taking away the
6874 defilement of leprosy. This is clear from the fact that these ceremonies were not applied to a man until he was already healed:
6875 hence it is written (
6876 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A2-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.14.3" target="asv">Lev. 14:3,4</a>) that the priest, "going out of the camp, when he shall find that the leprosy is cleansed, shall command him that is to be
6877 purified to offer," etc.; whence it is evident
6878 that the priest was appointed the judge of leprosy, not before, but after cleansing. But these ceremonies were employed for
6879 the purpose of taking away the uncleanness of irregularity. They do say, however, that if a priest were to err in his judgment,
6880 the leper would be cleansed miraculously by the power of God, but not in virtue of the sacrifice. Thus also it was by miracle
6881 that the thigh of the adulterous woman rotted, when she had drunk the water "on which" the priest had "heaped curses," as
6882 stated in
6883 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A2-p12.2" href="./asv.html#Num.5.19" target="asv"> Num. 5:19-27.</a>
6884 </p>
6885 <p id="FS_Q103_A2-p13"></p>
6886 <p id="FS_Q103_A2-p14"></p>
6887 <a href="summa.FS_Q103_A1.html"></a>
6888 <a href="summa.FS_Q103_A3.html"></a>
6889 </div>
6890 <div id="FS_Q103_A3" class="div4">
6891 <a href="summa.FS_Q103_A2.html"></a>
6892 <a href="summa.FS_Q103_A4.html"></a>
6893 <h4 id="FS_Q103_A3-p0.1">Whether the ceremonies of the Old Law ceased at the coming of Christ?</h4>
6894 <p id="FS_Q103_A3-p1"></p>
6895 <p id="FS_Q103_A3-p2">
6896 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the ceremonies of the Old Law did not cease at the coming of Christ. For it is written (
6897 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Bar.4.1" target="asv">Bar 4:1</a>): "This is the book of the commandments of God, and the law that is for ever." But the legal ceremonies were part of the
6898 Law. Therefore the legal ceremonies were to last for ever.
6899 </p>
6900 <p id="FS_Q103_A3-p3">
6901 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the offering made by a leper after being cleansed was a ceremony of the Law. But the Gospel commands the leper,
6902 who has been cleansed, to make this offering (
6903 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.8.4" target="asv">Mat. 8:4</a>). Therefore the ceremonies of the Old Law did not cease at Christ's coming.
6904 </p>
6905 <p id="FS_Q103_A3-p4">
6906 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as long as the cause remains, the effect remains. But the ceremonies of the Old Law had certain reasonable causes,
6907 inasmuch as they were ordained to the worship of God, besides the fact that they were intended to be figures of Christ. Therefore
6908 the ceremonies of the Old Law should not have ceased.
6909 </p>
6910 <p id="FS_Q103_A3-p5">
6911 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, circumcision was instituted as a sign of Abraham's faith: the observance of the sabbath, to recall the blessing
6912 of creation: and other solemnities, in memory of other Divine favors, as state above (
6913 <a id="FS_Q103_A3-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q102_A4.html">Q[102], A[4]</a>, ad 10; A[5], ad 1). But Abraham's faith is ever to be imitated even by us: and the blessing of creation and other Divine
6914 favors should never be forgotten. Therefore at least circumcision and the other legal
6915 solemnities should not have ceased.
6916 </p>
6917 <p id="FS_Q103_A3-p6">
6918 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
6919 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Col.2.16" target="asv">Col. 2:16,17</a>): "Let no man . . . judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a festival day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths,
6920 which are a shadow of things to come": and (
6921 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A3-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.8.13" target="asv">Heb. 8:13</a>): "In saying a new (testament), he hath made the former old: and that which decayeth and groweth old, is near its end."
6922 </p>
6923 <p id="FS_Q103_A3-p7">
6924 <b>I answer that,</b> All the ceremonial precepts of the Old Law were ordained to the worship of God as stated above (
6925 <a id="FS_Q103_A3-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q101_A1.html">Q[101], AA[1]</a>,2). Now external worship should be in proportion to the internal worship, which consists in faith, hope and charity. Consequently
6926 exterior worship had to be subject to variations according to the variations in the internal worship, in which a threefold
6927 state may be distinguished. One state was in respect of faith and hope,
6928 both in heavenly goods, and in the means of obtaining them---in both of these considered as things to come. Such was the state
6929 of faith and hope in the Old Law. Another state of interior worship is that in which we have faith and hope in heavenly goods
6930 as things to come; but in the means of obtaining heavenly goods, as in things present or past. Such is the state of the New
6931 Law. The third state is that in which both are possessed as present; wherein nothing is believed in as lacking, nothing
6932 hoped for as being yet to come. Such is the state of the Blessed.
6933 </p>
6934 <p id="FS_Q103_A3-p8"> In this state of the Blessed, then, nothing in regard to worship of God will be figurative; there will be naught but "thanksgiving
6935 and voice of praise" (
6936 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A3-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.51.3" target="asv">Is. 51:3</a>). Hence it is written concerning the city of the Blessed (
6937 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A3-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Rev.21.22" target="asv">Apoc. 21:22</a>): "I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty is the temple thereof, and the Lamb." Proportionately, therefore, the
6938 ceremonies of the first-mentioned state which foreshadowed the second and third
6939 states, had need to cease at the advent of the second state; and other ceremonies had to be introduced which would be in keeping
6940 with the state of divine worship for that particular time, wherein heavenly goods are a thing of the future, but the Divine
6941 favors whereby we obtain the heavenly boons are a thing of the present.
6942 </p>
6943 <p id="FS_Q103_A3-p9">
6944 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Old Law is said to be "for ever" simply and absolutely, as regards its moral precepts; but as regards the ceremonial
6945 precepts it lasts for even in respect of the reality which those ceremonies foreshadowed.
6946 </p>
6947 <p id="FS_Q103_A3-p10">
6948 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The mystery of the redemption of the human race was fulfilled in Christ's Passion: hence Our Lord said then: "It is consummated"
6949 (
6950 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A3-p10.1" href="./asv.html#John.19.30" target="asv">Jn. 19:30</a>). Consequently the prescriptions of the Law must have ceased then altogether through their reality being fulfilled. As a
6951 sign of this, we read that at the Passion of Christ "the veil of the temple was rent" (
6952 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A3-p10.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.27.51" target="asv">Mat. 27:51</a>). Hence, before Christ's Passion, while Christ was
6953 preaching and working miracles, the Law and the Gospel were concurrent, since the mystery of Christ had already begun, but
6954 was not as yet consummated. And for this reason Our Lord, before His Passion, commanded the leper to observe the legal ceremonies.
6955 </p>
6956 <p id="FS_Q103_A3-p11">
6957 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The literal reasons already given (
6958 <a id="FS_Q103_A3-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q102.html">Q[102])</a> for the ceremonies refer to the divine worship, which was founded on faith in that which was to come. Hence, at the advent
6959 of Him Who was to come, both that worship ceased, and all the reasons referring thereto.
6960 </p>
6961 <p id="FS_Q103_A3-p12">
6962 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The faith of Abraham was commended in that he believed in God's promise concerning his seed to come, in which all nations
6963 were to blessed. Wherefore, as long as this seed was yet to come, it was necessary to make profession of Abraham's faith by
6964 means of circumcision. But now that it is consummated, the same thing needs to be declared by means of another sign, viz.
6965 Baptism, which, in this respect, took the place of circumcision, according to the
6966 saying of the Apostle (
6967 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A3-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Col.2.11" target="asv">Col. 2:11, 12</a>): "You are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand, in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision
6968 of Christ, buried with Him in Baptism."
6969 </p>
6970 <p id="FS_Q103_A3-p13"> As to the sabbath, which was a sign recalling the first creation, its place is taken by the "Lord's Day," which recalls the
6971 beginning of the new creature in the Resurrection of Christ. In like manner other solemnities of the Old Law are supplanted
6972 by new solemnities: because the blessings vouchsafed to that people, foreshadowed the favors granted us by Christ. Hence the
6973 feast of the Passover gave place to the feast of Christ's Passion and Resurrection: the feast of Pentecost
6974 when the Old Law was given, to the feast of Pentecost on which was given the Law of the living spirit: the feast of the New
6975 Moon, to Lady Day, when appeared the first rays of the sun, i.e. Christ, by the fulness of grace: the feast of Trumpets, to
6976 the feasts of the Apostles: the feast of Expiation, to the feasts of Martyrs and Confessors: the feast of Tabernacles, to
6977 the feast of the Church Dedication: the feast of the Assembly and Collection, to feast of the Angels, or else to the feast
6978 of All
6979 Hallows.
6980 </p>
6981 <p id="FS_Q103_A3-p14"></p>
6982 <p id="FS_Q103_A3-p15"></p>
6983 <a href="summa.FS_Q103_A2.html"></a>
6984 <a href="summa.FS_Q103_A4.html"></a>
6985 </div>
6986 <div id="FS_Q103_A4" class="div4">
6987 <a href="summa.FS_Q103_A3.html"></a>
6988 <a href="summa.FS_Q104.html"></a>
6989 <h4 id="FS_Q103_A4-p0.1">Whether since Christ's Passion the legal ceremonies can be observed without committing mortal sin?</h4>
6990 <p id="FS_Q103_A4-p1"></p>
6991 <p id="FS_Q103_A4-p2">
6992 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that since Christ's Passion the legal ceremonies can be observed without committing mortal sin. For we must
6993 not believe that the apostles committed mortal sin after receiving the Holy Ghost: since by His fulness they were "endued
6994 with power from on high" (
6995 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.24.49" target="asv">Lk. 24:49</a>). But the apostles observed the legal ceremonies after the coming of the Holy Ghost: for it is stated (
6996 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A4-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Acts.16.3" target="asv">Acts 16:3</a>) that Paul circumcised Timothy: and
6997 (
6998 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A4-p2.3" href="./asv.html#Acts.21.26" target="asv">Acts 21:26</a>) that Paul, at the advice of James, "took the men, and . . . being purified with them, entered into the temple, giving notice
6999 of the accomplishment of the days of purification, until an oblation should be offered for every one of them." Therefore the
7000 legal ceremonies can be observed since the Passion of Christ without mortal sin.
7001 </p>
7002 <p id="FS_Q103_A4-p3">
7003 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, one of the legal ceremonies consisted in shunning the fellowship of Gentiles. But the first Pastor of the Church
7004 complied with this observance; for it is stated (
7005 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.2.12" target="asv">Gal. 2:12</a>) that, "when" certain men "had come" to Antioch, Peter "withdrew and separated himself" from the Gentiles. Therefore the
7006 legal ceremonies can be observed since Christ's Passion without committing mortal sin.
7007 </p>
7008 <p id="FS_Q103_A4-p4">
7009 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the commands of the apostles did not lead men into sin. But it was commanded by apostolic decree that the Gentiles
7010 should observe certain ceremonies of the Law: for it is written (
7011 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.15.28" target="asv">Acts 15:28,29</a>): "It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things: that you
7012 abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication." Therefore
7013 the legal ceremonies can be observed since Christ's Passion without committing mortal sin.
7014 </p>
7015 <p id="FS_Q103_A4-p5">
7016 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
7017 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.5.2" target="asv">Gal. 5:2</a>): "If you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." But nothing save mortal sin hinders us from receiving Christ's
7018 fruit. Therefore since Christ's Passion it is a mortal sin to be circumcised, or to observe the other legal ceremonies.
7019 </p>
7020 <p id="FS_Q103_A4-p6">
7021 <b>I answer that,</b> All ceremonies are professions of faith, in which the interior worship of God consists. Now man can make profession of his
7022 inward faith, by deeds as well as by words: and in either profession, if he make a false declaration, he sins mortally. Now,
7023 though our faith in Christ is the same as that of the fathers of old; yet, since they came before Christ, whereas we come
7024 after Him, the same faith is expressed in different words, by us and by them. For by them
7025 was it said: "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son," where the verbs are in the future tense: whereas we express
7026 the same by means of verbs in the past tense, and say that she "conceived and bore." In like manner the ceremonies of the
7027 Old Law betokened Christ as having yet to be born and to suffer: whereas our sacraments signify Him as already born and having
7028 suffered. Consequently, just as it would be a mortal sin now for anyone, in making a profession of faith, to say that Christ
7029 is
7030 yet to be born, which the fathers of old said devoutly and truthfully; so too it would be a mortal sin now to observe those
7031 ceremonies which the fathers of old fulfilled with devotion and fidelity. Such is the teaching Augustine (Contra Faust. xix,
7032 16), who says: "It is no longer promised that He shall be born, shall suffer and rise again, truths of which their sacraments
7033 were a kind of image: but it is declared that He is already born, has suffered and risen again; of which our sacraments, in
7034 which Christians share, are the actual representation."
7035 </p>
7036 <p id="FS_Q103_A4-p7">
7037 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> On this point there seems to have been a difference of opinion between Jerome and Augustine. For Jerome (Super Galat. ii,
7038 11, seqq.) distinguished two periods of time. One was the time previous to Christ's Passion, during which the legal ceremonies
7039 were neither dead, since they were obligatory, and did expiate in their own fashion; nor deadly, because it was not sinful
7040 to observe them. But immediately after Christ's Passion they began to be not only
7041 dead, so as no longer to be either effectual or binding; but also deadly, so that whoever observed them was guilty of mortal
7042 sin. Hence he maintained that after the Passion the apostles never observed the legal ceremonies in real earnest; but only
7043 by a kind of pious pretense, lest, to wit, they should scandalize the Jews and hinder their conversion. This pretense, however,
7044 is to be understood, not as though they did not in reality perform those actions, but in the sense that they performed them
7045 without the mind to observe the ceremonies of the Law: thus a man might cut away his foreskin for health's sake, not with
7046 the intention of observing legal circumcision.
7047 </p>
7048 <p id="FS_Q103_A4-p8"> But since it seems unbecoming that the apostles, in order to avoid scandal, should have hidden things pertaining to the truth
7049 of life and doctrine, and that they should have made use of pretense, in things pertaining to the salvation of the faithful;
7050 therefore Augustine (Epist. lxxxii) more fittingly distinguished three periods of time. One was the time that preceded the
7051 Passion of Christ, during which the legal ceremonies were neither deadly nor dead: another period was after
7052 the publication of the Gospel, during which the legal ceremonies are both dead and deadly. The third is a middle period, viz.
7053 from the Passion of Christ until the publication of the Gospel, during which the legal ceremonies were dead indeed, because
7054 they had neither effect nor binding force; but were not deadly, because it was lawful for the Jewish converts to Christianity
7055 to observe them, provided they did not put their trust in them so as to hold them to be necessary unto salvation, as though
7056 faith in Christ could not justify without the legal observances. On the other hand, there was no reason why those who were
7057 converted from heathendom to Christianity should observe them. Hence Paul circumcised Timothy, who was born of a Jewish mother;
7058 but was unwilling to circumcise Titus, who was of heathen nationality.
7059 </p>
7060 <p id="FS_Q103_A4-p9"> The reason why the Holy Ghost did not wish the converted Jews to be debarred at once from observing the legal ceremonies,
7061 while converted heathens were forbidden to observe the rites of heathendom, was in order to show that there is a difference
7062 between these rites. For heathenish ceremonial was rejected as absolutely unlawful, and as prohibited by God for all time;
7063 whereas the legal ceremonial ceased as being fulfilled through Christ's Passion, being instituted by God as a
7064 figure of Christ.
7065 </p>
7066 <p id="FS_Q103_A4-p10">
7067 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> According to Jerome, Peter withdrew himself from the Gentiles by pretense, in order to avoid giving scandal to the Jews,
7068 of whom he was the Apostle. Hence he did not sin at all in acting thus. On the other hand, Paul in like manner made a pretense
7069 of blaming him, in order to avoid scandalizing the Gentiles, whose Apostle he was. But Augustine disapproves of this solution:
7070 because in the canonical Scripture (viz.
7071 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A4-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.2.11" target="asv"> Gal. 2:11</a>),
7072 wherein we must not hold anything to be false, Paul says that Peter "was to be blamed." Consequently it is true that Peter
7073 was at fault: and Paul blamed him in very truth and not with pretense. Peter, however, did not sin, by observing the legal
7074 ceremonial for the time being; because this was lawful for him who was a converted Jew. But he did sin by excessive minuteness
7075 in the observance of the legal rites lest he should scandalize the Jews, the result being that he gave scandal to the
7076 Gentiles.
7077 </p>
7078 <p id="FS_Q103_A4-p11">
7079 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Some have held that this prohibition of the apostles is not to be taken literally, but spiritually: namely, that the prohibition
7080 of blood signifies the prohibition of murder; the prohibition of things strangled, that of violence and rapine; the prohibition
7081 of things offered to idols, that of idolatry; while fornication is forbidden as being evil in itself: which opinion they gathered
7082 from certain glosses, which expound these prohibitions in a mystical
7083 sense. Since, however, murder and rapine were held to be unlawful even by the Gentiles, there would have been no need to give
7084 this special commandment to those who were converted to Christ from heathendom. Hence others maintain that those foods were
7085 forbidden literally, not to prevent the observance of legal ceremonies, but in order to prevent gluttony. Thus Jerome says
7086 on Ezech. 44:31 ("The priest shall not eat of anything that is dead"): "He condemns those priests who from gluttony did not
7087 keep these precepts."
7088 </p>
7089 <p id="FS_Q103_A4-p12"> But since certain foods are more delicate than these and more conducive to gluttony, there seems no reason why these should
7090 have been forbidden more than the others.
7091 </p>
7092 <p id="FS_Q103_A4-p13"> We must therefore follow the third opinion, and hold that these foods were forbidden literally, not with the purpose of enforcing
7093 compliance with the legal ceremonies, but in order to further the union of Gentiles and Jews living side by side. Because
7094 blood and things strangled were loathsome to the Jews by ancient custom; while the Jews might have suspected the Gentiles
7095 of relapse into idolatry if the latter had partaken of things offered to idols. Hence these things were
7096 prohibited for the time being, during which the Gentiles and Jews were to become united together. But as time went on, with
7097 the lapse of the cause, the effect lapsed also, when the truth of the Gospel teaching was divulged, wherein Our Lord taught
7098 that "not that which entereth into the mouth defileth a man" (
7099 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A4-p13.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.15.11" target="asv">Mat. 15:11</a>); and that "nothing is to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving" (
7100 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A4-p13.2" href="./asv.html#iTim.4.4" target="asv">1 Tim. 4:4</a>). With regard to fornication a special prohibition
7101 was made, because the Gentiles did not hold it to be sinful.
7102 </p>
7103 <p id="FS_Q103_A4-p14"></p>
7104 <p id="FS_Q103_A4-p15"></p>
7105 <a href="summa.FS_Q103_A3.html"></a>
7106 <a href="summa.FS_Q104.html"></a>
7107 </div>
7108 <a href="summa.FS_Q102_A6.html"></a>
7109 <a href="summa.FS_Q103_A1.html"></a>
7110 </div>
7111 <div id="FS_Q104" class="div3">
7112 <a href="summa.FS_Q103_A4.html"></a>
7113 <a href="summa.FS_Q104_A1.html"></a>
7114 <h3 id="FS_Q104-p0.1">OF THE JUDICIAL PRECEPTS (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3>
7115 <p id="FS_Q104-p1"></p>
7116 <p id="FS_Q104-p2"> We must now consider the judicial precepts: and first of all we shall consider them in general; in the second place we shall
7117 consider their reasons. Under the first head there are four points of inquiry:
7118 </p>
7119 <p id="FS_Q104-p3"> (1) What is meant by the judicial precepts?</p>
7120 <p id="FS_Q104-p4"> (2) Whether they are figurative?</p>
7121 <p id="FS_Q104-p5"> (3) Their duration;</p>
7122 <p id="FS_Q104-p6"> (4) Their division.</p>
7123 <div id="FS_Q104_A1" class="div4">
7124 <a href="summa.FS_Q104.html"></a>
7125 <a href="summa.FS_Q104_A2.html"></a>
7126 <h4 id="FS_Q104_A1-p0.1">Whether the judicial precepts were those which directed man in relation to his neighbor?</h4>
7127 <p id="FS_Q104_A1-p1"></p>
7128 <p id="FS_Q104_A1-p2">
7129 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the judicial precepts were not those which directed man in his relations to his neighbor. For judicial
7130 precepts take their name from "judgment." But there are many things that direct man as to his neighbor, which are not subordinate
7131 to judgment. Therefore the judicial precepts were not those which directed man in his relations to his neighbor.
7132 </p>
7133 <p id="FS_Q104_A1-p3">
7134 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the judicial precepts are distinct from the moral precepts, as stated above (
7135 <a id="FS_Q104_A1-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q99_A4.html">Q[99], A[4]</a>). But there are many moral precepts which direct man as to his neighbor: as is evidently the case with the seven precepts
7136 of the second table. Therefore the judicial precepts are not so called from directing man as to his neighbor.
7137 </p>
7138 <p id="FS_Q104_A1-p4">
7139 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as the ceremonial precepts relate to God, so do the judicial precepts relate to one's neighbor, as stated above
7140 (
7141 <a id="FS_Q104_A1-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q99_A4.html">Q[99], A[4]</a>;
7142 <a id="FS_Q104_A1-p4.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q101_A1.html"> Q[101], A[1]</a>). But among the ceremonial precepts there are some which concern man himself, such as observances in matter of food and apparel,
7143 of which we have already spoken (
7144 <a id="FS_Q104_A1-p4.3" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q102_A6.html">Q[102], A[6]</a>, ad 1,6). Therefore the judicial precepts are not so called from
7145 directing man as to his neighbor.
7146 </p>
7147 <p id="FS_Q104_A1-p5">
7148 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is reckoned (
7149 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q104_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Ezek.18.8" target="asv">Ezech. 18:8</a>) among other works of a good and just man, that "he hath executed true judgment between man and man." But judicial precepts
7150 are so called from "judgment." Therefore it seems that the judicial precepts were those which directed the relations between
7151 man and man.
7152 </p>
7153 <p id="FS_Q104_A1-p6">
7154 <b>I answer that,</b> As is evident from what we have stated above (
7155 <a id="FS_Q104_A1-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q95_A2.html">Q[95], A[2]</a> ;
7156 <a id="FS_Q104_A1-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q99_A4.html"> Q[99], A[4]</a>), in every law, some precepts derive their binding force from the dictate of reason itself, because natural reason dictates
7157 that something ought to be done or to be avoided. These are called "moral" precepts: since human morals are based on reason.
7158 At the same time there are other precepts which derive their binding force, not from the
7159 very dictate of reason (because, considered in themselves, they do not imply an obligation of something due or undue); but
7160 from some institution, Divine or human: and such are certain determinations of the moral precepts. When therefore the moral
7161 precepts are fixed by Divine institution in matters relating to man's subordination to God, they are called "ceremonial" precepts:
7162 but when they refer to man's relations to other men, they are called "judicial" precepts. Hence there are two conditions
7163 attached to the judicial precepts: viz. first, that they refer to man's relations to other men; secondly, that they derive
7164 their binding force not from reason alone, but in virtue of their institution.
7165 </p>
7166 <p id="FS_Q104_A1-p7">
7167 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Judgments emanate through the official pronouncement of certain men who are at the head of affairs, and in whom the judicial
7168 power is vested. Now it belongs to those who are at the head of affairs to regulate not only litigious matters, but also voluntary
7169 contracts which are concluded between man and man, and whatever matters concern the community at large and the government
7170 thereof. Consequently the judicial precepts are not only those which concern
7171 actions at law; but also all those that are directed to the ordering of one man in relation to another, which ordering is
7172 subject to the direction of the sovereign as supreme judge.
7173 </p>
7174 <p id="FS_Q104_A1-p8">
7175 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This argument holds in respect of those precepts which direct man in his relations to his neighbor, and derive their binding
7176 force from the mere dictate of reason.
7177 </p>
7178 <p id="FS_Q104_A1-p9">
7179 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Even in those precepts which direct us to God, some are moral precepts, which the reason itself dictates when it is quickened
7180 by faith; such as that God is to be loved and worshipped. There are also ceremonial precepts, which have no binding force
7181 except in virtue of their Divine institution. Now God is concerned not only with the sacrifices that are offered to Him, but
7182 also with whatever relates to the fitness of those who offer sacrifices to Him and
7183 worship Him. Because men are ordained to God as to their end; wherefore it concerns God and, consequently, is a matter of
7184 ceremonial precept, that man should show some fitness for the divine worship. On the other hand, man is not ordained to his
7185 neighbor as to his end, so as to need to be disposed in himself with regard to his neighbor, for such is the relationship
7186 of a slave to his master, since a slave "is his master's in all that he is," as the Philosopher says (Polit. i, 2). Hence
7187 there are
7188 no judicial precepts ordaining man in himself; all such precepts are moral: because the reason, which is the principal in
7189 moral matters, holds the same position, in man, with regard to things that concern him, as a prince or judge holds in the
7190 state. Nevertheless we must take note that, since the relations of man to his neighbor are more subject to reason than the
7191 relations of man to God, there are more precepts whereby man is directed in his relations to his neighbor, than whereby he
7192 is
7193 directed to God. For the same reason there had to be more ceremonial than judicial precepts in the Law.
7194 </p>
7195 <p id="FS_Q104_A1-p10"></p>
7196 <p id="FS_Q104_A1-p11"></p>
7197 <a href="summa.FS_Q104.html"></a>
7198 <a href="summa.FS_Q104_A2.html"></a>
7199 </div>
7200 <div id="FS_Q104_A2" class="div4">
7201 <a href="summa.FS_Q104_A1.html"></a>
7202 <a href="summa.FS_Q104_A3.html"></a>
7203 <h4 id="FS_Q104_A2-p0.1">Whether the judicial precepts were figurative?</h4>
7204 <p id="FS_Q104_A2-p1"></p>
7205 <p id="FS_Q104_A2-p2">
7206 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the judicial precepts were not figurative. Because it seems proper to the ceremonial precepts to be instituted
7207 as figures of something else. Therefore, if the judicial precepts are figurative, there will be no difference between the
7208 judicial and ceremonial precepts.
7209 </p>
7210 <p id="FS_Q104_A2-p3">
7211 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, just as certain judicial precepts were given to the Jewish people, so also were some given to other heathen peoples.
7212 But the judicial precepts given to other peoples were not figurative, but stated what had to be done. Therefore it seems that
7213 neither were the judicial precepts of the Old Law figures of anything.
7214 </p>
7215 <p id="FS_Q104_A2-p4">
7216 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, those things which relate to the divine worship had to be taught under certain figures, because the things of God
7217 are above our reason, as stated above (
7218 <a id="FS_Q104_A2-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q101_A2.html">Q[101], A[2]</a>, ad 2). But things concerning our neighbor are not above our reason. Therefore the judicial precepts which direct us in relation
7219 to our neighbor should not have been figurative.
7220 </p>
7221 <p id="FS_Q104_A2-p5">
7222 <b>On the contrary,</b> The judicial precepts are expounded both in the allegorical and in the moral sense (
7223 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q104_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.21" target="asv">Ex. 21</a>).
7224 </p>
7225 <p id="FS_Q104_A2-p6">
7226 <b>I answer that,</b> A precept may be figurative in two ways. First, primarily and in itself: because, to wit, it is instituted principally that
7227 it may be the figure of something. In this way the ceremonial precepts are figurative; since they were instituted for the
7228 very purpose that they might foreshadow something relating to the worship of God and the mystery of Christ. But some precepts
7229 are figurative, not primarily and in themselves, but consequently. In this way the
7230 judicial precepts of the Old Law are figurative. For they were not instituted for the purpose of being figurative, but in
7231 order that they might regulate the state of that people according to justice and equity. Nevertheless they did foreshadow
7232 something consequently: since, to wit, the entire state of that people, who were directed by these precepts, was figurative,
7233 according to
7234 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q104_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.10.11" target="asv">1 Cor. 10:11</a>: "All . . . things happened to them in figure."
7235 </p>
7236 <p id="FS_Q104_A2-p7">
7237 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The ceremonial precepts are not figurative in the same way as the judicial precepts, as explained above.
7238 </p>
7239 <p id="FS_Q104_A2-p8">
7240 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The Jewish people were chosen by God that Christ might be born of them. Consequently the entire state of that people had
7241 to be prophetic and figurative, as Augustine states (Contra Faust. xxii, 24). For this reason even the judicial precepts that
7242 were given to this people were more figurative that those which were given to other nations. Thus, too, the wars and deeds
7243 of this people are expounded in the mystical sense: but not the wars and deeds of the
7244 Assyrians or Romans, although the latter are more famous in the eyes of men.
7245 </p>
7246 <p id="FS_Q104_A2-p9">
7247 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> In this people the direction of man in regard to his neighbor, considered in itself, was subject to reason. But in so far
7248 as it was referred to the worship of God, it was above reason: and in this respect it was figurative.
7249 </p>
7250 <p id="FS_Q104_A2-p10"></p>
7251 <p id="FS_Q104_A2-p11"></p>
7252 <a href="summa.FS_Q104_A1.html"></a>
7253 <a href="summa.FS_Q104_A3.html"></a>
7254 </div>
7255 <div id="FS_Q104_A3" class="div4">
7256 <a href="summa.FS_Q104_A2.html"></a>
7257 <a href="summa.FS_Q104_A4.html"></a>
7258 <h4 id="FS_Q104_A3-p0.1">Whether the judicial precepts of the Old Law bind for ever?</h4>
7259 <p id="FS_Q104_A3-p1"></p>
7260 <p id="FS_Q104_A3-p2">
7261 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the judicial precepts of the Old Law bind for ever. Because the judicial precepts relate to the virtue
7262 of justice: since a judgment is an execution of the virtue of justice. Now "justice is perpetual and immortal" (
7263 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q104_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.1.15" target="asv">Wis. 1:15</a>). Therefore the judicial precepts bind for ever.
7264 </p>
7265 <p id="FS_Q104_A3-p3">
7266 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Divine institutions are more enduring than human institutions. But the judicial precepts of human laws bind for
7267 ever. Therefore much more do the judicial precepts of the Divine Law.
7268 </p>
7269 <p id="FS_Q104_A3-p4">
7270 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Apostle says (
7271 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q104_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.7.18" target="asv">Heb. 7:18</a>) that "there is a setting aside of the former commandment, because of the weakness and unprofitableness thereof." Now this
7272 is true of the ceremonial precept, which "could [Vulg.: 'can'] not, as to the conscience, make him perfect that serveth only
7273 in meats and in drinks, and divers washings and justices of the flesh," as the Apostle declares (
7274 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q104_A3-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.9.9" target="asv">Heb. 9:9,10</a>). On the other hand, the
7275 judicial precepts were useful and efficacious in respect of the purpose for which they were instituted, viz. to establish
7276 justice and equity among men. Therefore the judicial precepts of the Old Law are not set aside, but still retain their efficacy.
7277 </p>
7278 <p id="FS_Q104_A3-p5">
7279 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
7280 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q104_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.7.12" target="asv">Heb. 7:12</a>) that "the priesthood being translated it is necessary that a translation also be made of the Law." But the priesthood was
7281 transferred from Aaron to Christ. Therefore the entire Law was also transferred. Therefore the judicial precepts are no longer
7282 in force.
7283 </p>
7284 <p id="FS_Q104_A3-p6">
7285 <b>I answer that,</b> The judicial precepts did not bind for ever, but were annulled by the coming of Christ: yet not in the same way as the ceremonial
7286 precepts. For the ceremonial precepts were annulled so far as to be not only "dead," but also deadly to those who observe
7287 them since the coming of Christ, especially since the promulgation of the Gospel. On the other hand, the judicial precepts
7288 are dead indeed, because they have no binding force: but they are not deadly. For if a
7289 sovereign were to order these judicial precepts to be observed in his kingdom, he would not sin: unless perchance they were
7290 observed, or ordered to be observed, as though they derived their binding force through being institutions of the Old Law:
7291 for it would be a deadly sin to intend to observe them thus.
7292 </p>
7293 <p id="FS_Q104_A3-p7"> The reason for this difference may be gathered from what has been said above
7294 <a id="FS_Q104_A3-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q104_A2.html">(A[2])</a>. For it has been stated that the ceremonial precepts are figurative primarily and in themselves, as being instituted chiefly
7295 for the purpose of foreshadowing the mysteries of Christ to come. On the other hand, the judicial precepts were not instituted
7296 that they might be figures, but that they might shape the state of that people who were directed to Christ. Consequently,
7297 when the state of that people changed with the coming of Christ, the judicial precepts lost their binding force: for the Law
7298 was a pedagogue, leading men to Christ, as stated in
7299 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q104_A3-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Gal.3.24" target="asv"> Gal. 3:24.</a> Since, however, these judicial precepts are instituted, not for the purpose of being figures, but for the performance of
7300 certain deeds, the observance thereof is not prejudicial to the truth of faith. But the intention of observing them, as though
7301 one were bound by the Law, is
7302 prejudicial to the truth of faith: because it would follow that the former state of the people still lasts, and that Christ
7303 has not yet come.
7304 </p>
7305 <p id="FS_Q104_A3-p8">
7306 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The obligation of observing justice is indeed perpetual. But the determination of those things that are just, according to
7307 human or Divine institution, must needs be different, according to the different states of mankind.
7308 </p>
7309 <p id="FS_Q104_A3-p9">
7310 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The judicial precepts established by men retain their binding force for ever, so long as the state of government remains
7311 the same. But if the state or nation pass to another form of government, the laws must needs be changed. For democracy, which
7312 is government by the people, demands different laws from those of oligarchy, which is government by the rich, as the Philosopher
7313 shows (Polit. iv, 1). Consequently when the state of that people changed, the
7314 judicial precepts had to be changed also.
7315 </p>
7316 <p id="FS_Q104_A3-p10">
7317 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Those judicial precepts directed the people to justice and equity, in keeping with the demands of that state. But after the
7318 coming of Christ, there had to be a change in the state of that people, so that in Christ there was no distinction between
7319 Gentile and Jew, as there had been before. For this reason the judicial precepts needed to be changed also.
7320 </p>
7321 <p id="FS_Q104_A3-p11"></p>
7322 <p id="FS_Q104_A3-p12"></p>
7323 <a href="summa.FS_Q104_A2.html"></a>
7324 <a href="summa.FS_Q104_A4.html"></a>
7325 </div>
7326 <div id="FS_Q104_A4" class="div4">
7327 <a href="summa.FS_Q104_A3.html"></a>
7328 <a href="summa.FS_Q105.html"></a>
7329 <h4 id="FS_Q104_A4-p0.1">Whether it is possible to assign a distinct division of the judicial precepts?</h4>
7330 <p id="FS_Q104_A4-p1"></p>
7331 <p id="FS_Q104_A4-p2">
7332 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it is impossible to assign a distinct division of the judicial precepts. Because the judicial precepts
7333 direct men in their relations to one another. But those things which need to be directed, as pertaining to the relationship
7334 between man and man, and which are made use of by men, are not subject to division, since they are infinite in number. Therefore
7335 it is not possible to assign a distinct division of the judicial precepts.
7336 </p>
7337 <p id="FS_Q104_A4-p3">
7338 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the judicial precepts are decisions on moral matters. But moral precepts do not seem to be capable of division,
7339 except in so far as they are reducible to the precepts of the decalogue. Therefore there is no distinct division of the judicial
7340 precepts.
7341 </p>
7342 <p id="FS_Q104_A4-p4">
7343 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, because there is a distinct division of the ceremonial precepts, the Law alludes to this division, by describing
7344 some as "sacrifices," others as "observances." But the Law contains no allusion to a division of the judicial precepts. Therefore
7345 it seems that they have no distinct division.
7346 </p>
7347 <p id="FS_Q104_A4-p5">
7348 <b>On the contrary,</b> Wherever there is order there must needs be division. But the notion of order is chiefly applicable to the judicial precepts,
7349 since thereby that people was ordained. Therefore it is most necessary that they should have a distinct division.
7350 </p>
7351 <p id="FS_Q104_A4-p6">
7352 <b>I answer that,</b> Since law is the art, as it were, of directing or ordering the life of man, as in every art there is a distinct division
7353 in the rules of art, so, in every law, there must be a distinct division of precepts: else the law would be rendered useless
7354 by confusion. We must therefore say that the judicial precepts of the Old Law, whereby men were directed in their relations
7355 to one another, are subject to division according to the divers ways in which man is
7356 directed.
7357 </p>
7358 <p id="FS_Q104_A4-p7"> Now in every people a fourfold order is to be found: one, of the people's sovereign to his subjects; a second of the subjects
7359 among themselves; a third, of the citizens to foreigners; a fourth, of members of the same household, such as the order of
7360 the father to his son; of the wife to her husband; of the master to his servant: and according to these four orders we may
7361 distinguish different kinds of judicial precepts in the Old Law. For certain precepts are laid down concerning
7362 the institution of the sovereign and relating to his office, and about the respect due to him: this is one part of the judicial
7363 precepts. Again, certain precepts are given in respect of a man to his fellow citizens: for instance, about buying and selling,
7364 judgments and penalties: this is the second part of the judicial precepts. Again, certain precepts are enjoined with regard
7365 to foreigners: for instance, about wars waged against their foes, and about the way to receive travelers and strangers:
7366 this is the third part of the judicial precepts. Lastly, certain precepts are given relating to home life: for instance, about
7367 servants, wives and children: this is the fourth part of the judicial precepts.
7368 </p>
7369 <p id="FS_Q104_A4-p8">
7370 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Things pertaining to the ordering of relations between one man and another are indeed infinite in number: yet they are reducible
7371 to certain distinct heads, according to the different relations in which one man stands to another, as stated above.
7372 </p>
7373 <p id="FS_Q104_A4-p9">
7374 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The precepts of the decalogue held the first place in the moral order, as stated above (
7375 <a id="FS_Q104_A4-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q100_A3.html">Q[100], A[3]</a>): and consequently it is fitting that other moral precepts should be distinguished in relation to them. But the judicial
7376 and ceremonial precepts have a different binding force, derived, not from natural reason, but from their institution alone.
7377 Hence there is a distinct reason for distinguishing them.
7378 </p>
7379 <p id="FS_Q104_A4-p10">
7380 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The Law alludes to the division of the judicial precepts in the very things themselves which are prescribed by the judicial
7381 precepts of the Law.
7382 </p>
7383 <p id="FS_Q104_A4-p11"></p>
7384 <p id="FS_Q104_A4-p12"></p>
7385 <a href="summa.FS_Q104_A3.html"></a>
7386 <a href="summa.FS_Q105.html"></a>
7387 </div>
7388 <a href="summa.FS_Q103_A4.html"></a>
7389 <a href="summa.FS_Q104_A1.html"></a>
7390 </div>
7391 <div id="FS_Q105" class="div3">
7392 <a href="summa.FS_Q104_A4.html"></a>
7393 <a href="summa.FS_Q105_A1.html"></a>
7394 <h3 id="FS_Q105-p0.1">OF THE REASON FOR THE JUDICIAL PRECEPTS (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3>
7395 <p id="FS_Q105-p1"></p>
7396 <p id="FS_Q105-p2"> We must now consider the reason for the judicial precepts: under which head there are four points of inquiry:</p>
7397 <p id="FS_Q105-p3"> (1) Concerning the reason for the judicial precepts relating to the rulers;</p>
7398 <p id="FS_Q105-p4"> (2) Concerning the fellowship of one man with another;</p>
7399 <p id="FS_Q105-p5"> (3) Concerning matters relating to foreigners;</p>
7400 <p id="FS_Q105-p6"> (4) Concerning things relating to domestic matters.</p>
7401 <div id="FS_Q105_A1" class="div4">
7402 <a href="summa.FS_Q105.html"></a>
7403 <a href="summa.FS_Q105_A2.html"></a>
7404 <h4 id="FS_Q105_A1-p0.1">Whether the Old Law enjoined fitting precepts concerning rulers?</h4>
7405 <p id="FS_Q105_A1-p1"></p>
7406 <p id="FS_Q105_A1-p2">
7407 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Old Law made unfitting precepts concerning rulers. Because, as the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 4),
7408 "the ordering of the people depends mostly on the chief ruler." But the Law contains no precept relating to the institution
7409 of the chief ruler; and yet we find therein prescriptions concerning the inferior rulers: firstly (
7410 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.18.21" target="asv">Ex. 18:21</a>): "Provide out of all the people wise [Vulg.: 'able'] men," etc.; again (
7411 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A1-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Num.11.16" target="asv">Num. 11:16</a>):
7412 "Gather unto Me seventy men of the ancients of Israel"; and again (
7413 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A1-p2.3" href="./asv.html#Deut.1.13" target="asv">Dt. 1:13</a>): "Let Me have from among you wise and understanding men," etc. Therefore the Law provided insufficiently in regard to the
7414 rulers of the people.
7415 </p>
7416 <p id="FS_Q105_A1-p3">
7417 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, "The best gives of the best," as Plato states (Tim. ii). Now the best ordering of a state or of any nation is to
7418 be ruled by a king: because this kind of government approaches nearest in resemblance to the Divine government, whereby God
7419 rules the world from the beginning. Therefore the Law should have set a king over the people, and they should not have been
7420 allowed a choice in the matter, as indeed they were allowed (
7421 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.17.14" target="asv">Dt.
7422 17:14,15
7423 </a>): "When thou . . . shalt say: I will set a king over me . . . thou shalt set him," etc.
7424 </p>
7425 <p id="FS_Q105_A1-p4">
7426 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, according to
7427 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.12.25" target="asv"> Mat. 12:25</a>: "Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate": a saying which was verified in the Jewish people, whose destruction
7428 was brought about by the division of the kingdom. But the Law should aim chiefly at things pertaining to the general well-being
7429 of the people. Therefore it should have forbidden the kingdom to be divided under two kings: nor should this have been introduced
7430 even by Divine
7431 authority; as we read of its being introduced by the authority of the prophet Ahias the Silonite (
7432 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A1-p4.2" href="./asv.html#." target="asv">3 Kings 11:29, </a> seqq.).
7433 </p>
7434 <p id="FS_Q105_A1-p5">
7435 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, just as priests are instituted for the benefit of the people in things concerning God, as stated in
7436 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.5.1" target="asv"> Heb. 5:1</a>; so are rulers set up for the benefit of the people in human affairs. But certain things were allotted as a means of livelihood
7437 for the priests and Levites of the Law: such as the tithes and first-fruits, and many like things. Therefore in like manner
7438 certain things should have been determined for the livelihood of the
7439 rulers of the people: the more that they were forbidden to accept presents, as is clearly stated in
7440 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A1-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Exod.23.8" target="asv"> Ex. 23:8</a>: "You shall not [Vulg.: 'Neither shalt thou'] take bribes, which even blind the wise, and pervert the words of the just."
7441 </p>
7442 <p id="FS_Q105_A1-p6">
7443 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, as a kingdom is the best form of government, so is tyranny the most corrupt. But when the Lord appointed the king,
7444 He established a tyrannical law; for it is written (
7445 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iKgs.8.11" target="asv">1 Kings 8:11</a>): "This will be the right of the king, that shall reign over you: He will take your sons," etc. Therefore the Law made unfitting
7446 provision with regard to the institution of rulers.
7447 </p>
7448 <p id="FS_Q105_A1-p7">
7449 <b>On the contrary,</b> The people of Israel is commended for the beauty of its order (
7450 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Num.24.5" target="asv">Num. 24:5</a>): "How beautiful are thy tabernacles, O Jacob, and thy tents." But the beautiful ordering of a people depends on the right
7451 establishment of its rulers. Therefore the Law made right provision for the people with regard to its rulers.
7452 </p>
7453 <p id="FS_Q105_A1-p8">
7454 <b>I answer that,</b> Two points are to be observed concerning the right ordering of rulers in a state or nation. One is that all should take some
7455 share in the government: for this form of constitution ensures peace among the people, commends itself to all, and is most
7456 enduring, as stated in Polit. ii, 6. The other point is to be observed in respect of the kinds of government, or the different
7457 ways in which the constitutions are established. For whereas these differ in kind, as
7458 the Philosopher states (Polit. iii, 5), nevertheless the first place is held by the "kingdom," where the power of government
7459 is vested in one; and "aristocracy," which signifies government by the best, where the power of government is vested in a
7460 few. Accordingly, the best form of government is in a state or kingdom, where one is given the power to preside over all;
7461 while under him are others having governing powers: and yet a government of this kind is shared by all, both because all are
7462 eligible to govern, and because the rules are chosen by all. For this is the best form of polity, being partly kingdom, since
7463 there is one at the head of all; partly aristocracy, in so far as a number of persons are set in authority; partly democracy,
7464 i.e. government by the people, in so far as the rulers can be chosen from the people, and the people have the right to choose
7465 their rulers.
7466 </p>
7467 <p id="FS_Q105_A1-p9"> Such was the form of government established by the Divine Law. For Moses and his successors governed the people in such a
7468 way that each of them was ruler over all; so that there was a kind of kingdom. Moreover, seventy-two men were chosen, who
7469 were elders in virtue: for it is written (
7470 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A1-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.1.15" target="asv">Dt. 1:15</a>): "I took out of your tribes wise and honorable, and appointed them rulers": so that there was an element of aristocracy.
7471 But it was a democratical government in so
7472 far as the rulers were chosen from all the people; for it is written (
7473 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A1-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Exod.18.21" target="asv">Ex. 18:21</a>): "Provide out of all the people wise [Vulg.: 'able'] men," etc.; and, again, in so far as they were chosen by the people;
7474 wherefore it is written (
7475 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A1-p9.3" href="./asv.html#Deut.1.13" target="asv">Dt. 1:13</a>): "Let me have from among you wise [Vulg.: 'able'] men," etc. Consequently it is evident that the ordering of the rulers
7476 was well provided for by the Law.
7477 </p>
7478 <p id="FS_Q105_A1-p10">
7479 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This people was governed under the special care of God: wherefore it is written (
7480 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A1-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.7.6" target="asv">Dt. 7:6</a>): "The Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be His peculiar people": and this is why the Lord reserved to Himself the institution
7481 of the chief ruler. For this too did Moses pray (
7482 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A1-p10.2" href="./asv.html#Num.27.16" target="asv">Num. 27:16</a>): "May the Lord the God of the spirits of all the flesh provide a man, that may be over this multitude." Thus by God's orders
7483 Josue was
7484 set at the head in place of Moses; and we read about each of the judges who succeeded Josue that God "raised . . . up a saviour"
7485 for the people, and that "the spirit of the Lord was" in them (
7486 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A1-p10.3" href="./asv.html#Judg.3.9" target="asv">Judges 3:9</a>,
7487 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A1-p10.4" href="./asv.html#Judg.3.10" target="asv">10</a>,
7488 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A1-p10.5" href="./asv.html#Judg.3.15" target="asv">15</a>). Hence the Lord did not leave the choice of a king to the people; but reserved this to Himself, as appears from
7489 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A1-p10.6" href="./asv.html#Deut.17.15" target="asv"> Dt. 17:15</a>: "Thou shalt set him whom the Lord thy God shall choose."
7490 </p>
7491 <p id="FS_Q105_A1-p11">
7492 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> A kingdom is the best form of government of the people, so long as it is not corrupt. But since the power granted to a king
7493 is so great, it easily degenerates into tyranny, unless he to whom this power is given be a very virtuous man: for it is only
7494 the virtuous man that conducts himself well in the midst of prosperity, as the Philosopher observes (Ethic. iv, 3). Now perfect
7495 virtue is to be found in few: and especially were the Jews inclined to
7496 cruelty and avarice, which vices above all turn men into tyrants. Hence from the very first the Lord did not set up the kingly
7497 authority with full power, but gave them judges and governors to rule them. But afterwards when the people asked Him to do
7498 so, being indignant with them, so to speak, He granted them a king, as is clear from His words to Samuel (
7499 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A1-p11.1" href="./asv.html#iKgs.8.7" target="asv">1 Kings 8:7</a>): "They have not rejected thee, but Me, that I should not reign over them."
7500 </p>
7501 <p id="FS_Q105_A1-p12"> Nevertheless, as regards the appointment of a king, He did establish the manner of election from the very beginning (
7502 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A1-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.17.14" target="asv">Dt. 17:14, </a> seqq.): and then He determined two points: first, that in choosing a king they should wait for the Lord's decision; and that
7503 they should not make a man of another nation king, because such kings are wont to take little interest in the people they
7504 are set over, and consequently to have no care for their welfare: secondly, He
7505 prescribed how the king after his appointment should behave, in regard to himself; namely, that he should not accumulate chariots
7506 and horses, nor wives, nor immense wealth: because through craving for such things princes become tyrants and forsake justice.
7507 He also appointed the manner in which they were to conduct themselves towards God: namely, that they should continually read
7508 and ponder on God's Law, and should ever fear and obey God. Moreover, He decided how they should behave towards their
7509 subjects: namely, that they should not proudly despise them, or ill-treat them, and that they should not depart from the paths
7510 of justice.
7511 </p>
7512 <p id="FS_Q105_A1-p13">
7513 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The division of the kingdom, and a number of kings, was rather a punishment inflicted on that people for their many dissensions,
7514 specially against the just rule of David, than a benefit conferred on them for their profit. Hence it is written (
7515 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A1-p13.1" href="./asv.html#Hos.13.11" target="asv">Osee 13:11</a>): "I will give thee a king in My wrath"; and (
7516 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A1-p13.2" href="./asv.html#Hos.8.4" target="asv">Osee 8:4</a>): "They have reigned, but not by Me: they have been princes, and I knew not."
7517 </p>
7518 <p id="FS_Q105_A1-p14">
7519 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The priestly office was bequeathed by succession from father to son: and this, in order that it might be held in greater
7520 respect, if not any man from the people could become a priest: since honor was given to them out of reverence for the divine
7521 worship. Hence it was necessary to put aside certain things for them both as to tithes and as to first-fruits, and, again,
7522 as to oblations and sacrifices, that they might be afforded a means of livelihood. On
7523 the other hand, the rulers, as stated above, were chosen from the whole people; wherefore they had their own possessions,
7524 from which to derive a living: and so much the more, since the Lord forbade even a king to have superabundant wealth to make
7525 too much show of magnificence: both because he could scarcely avoid the excesses of pride and tyranny, arising from such things,
7526 and because, if the rulers were not very rich, and if their office involved much work and anxiety, it would not tempt the
7527 ambition of the common people; and would not become an occasion of sedition.
7528 </p>
7529 <p id="FS_Q105_A1-p15">
7530 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> That right was not given to the king by Divine institution: rather was it foretold that kings would usurp that right, by
7531 framing unjust laws, and by degenerating into tyrants who preyed on their subjects. This is clear from the context that follows:
7532 "And you shall be his slaves [Douay: 'servants']": which is significative of tyranny, since a tyrant rules is subjects as
7533 though they were his slaves. Hence Samuel spoke these words to deter them from
7534 asking for a king; since the narrative continues: "But the people would not hear the voice of Samuel." It may happen, however,
7535 that even a good king, without being a tyrant, may take away the sons, and make them tribunes and centurions; and may take
7536 many things from his subjects in order to secure the common weal.
7537 </p>
7538 <p id="FS_Q105_A1-p16"></p>
7539 <p id="FS_Q105_A1-p17"></p>
7540 <a href="summa.FS_Q105.html"></a>
7541 <a href="summa.FS_Q105_A2.html"></a>
7542 </div>
7543 <div id="FS_Q105_A2" class="div4">
7544 <a href="summa.FS_Q105_A1.html"></a>
7545 <a href="summa.FS_Q105_A3.html"></a>
7546 <h4 id="FS_Q105_A2-p0.1">Whether the judicial precepts were suitably framed as to the relations of one man with another?</h4>
7547 <p id="FS_Q105_A2-p1"></p>
7548 <p id="FS_Q105_A2-p2">
7549 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the judicial precepts were not suitably framed as regards the relations of one man with another. Because
7550 men cannot live together in peace, if one man takes what belongs to another. But this seems to have been approved by the Law:
7551 since it is written (
7552 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.23.24" target="asv">Dt. 23:24</a>): "Going into thy neighbor's vineyard, thou mayest eat as many grapes as thou pleasest." Therefore the Old Law did not make
7553 suitable provisions for man's
7554 peace.
7555 </p>
7556 <p id="FS_Q105_A2-p3">
7557 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, one of the chief causes of the downfall of states has been the holding of property by women, as the Philosopher
7558 says (Polit. ii, 6). But this was introduced by the Old Law; for it is written (
7559 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Num.27.8" target="asv">Num. 27:8</a>): "When a man dieth without a son, his inheritance shall pass to his daughter." Therefore the Law made unsuitable provision
7560 for the welfare of the people.
7561 </p>
7562 <p id="FS_Q105_A2-p4">
7563 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is most conducive to the preservation of human society that men may provide themselves with necessaries by buying
7564 and selling, as stated in Polit. i. But the Old Law took away the force of sales; since it prescribes that in the 50th year
7565 of the jubilee all that is sold shall return to the vendor (
7566 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.25.28" target="asv">Lev. 25:28</a>). Therefore in this matter the Law gave the people an unfitting command.
7567 </p>
7568 <p id="FS_Q105_A2-p5">
7569 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, man's needs require that men should be ready to lend: which readiness ceases if the creditors do not return the
7570 pledges: hence it is written (
7571 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.29.10" target="asv">Ecclus. 29:10</a>): "Many have refused to lend, not out of wickedness, but they were afraid to be defrauded without cause." And yet this was
7572 encouraged by the Law. First, because it prescribed (
7573 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.15.2" target="asv">Dt. 15:2</a>): "He to whom any thing is owing from his friend or neighbor or brother,
7574 cannot demand it again, because it is the year of remission of the Lord"; and (
7575 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p5.3" href="./asv.html#Exod.22.15" target="asv">Ex. 22:15</a>) it is stated that if a borrowed animal should die while the owner is present, the borrower is not bound to make restitution.
7576 Secondly, because the security acquired through the pledge is lost: for it is written (
7577 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p5.4" href="./asv.html#Deut.24.10" target="asv">Dt. 24:10</a>): "When thou shalt demand of thy neighbor any thing that he oweth thee, thou shalt not go into his house to take away a pledge";
7578 and again
7579 (
7580 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p5.5" href="./asv.html#Deut.24.12" target="asv">Dt. 24:12,13</a>): "The pledge shall not lodge with thee that night, but thou shalt restore it to him presently." Therefore the Law made insufficient
7581 provision in the matter of loans.
7582 </p>
7583 <p id="FS_Q105_A2-p6">
7584 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, considerable risk attaches to goods deposited with a fraudulent depositary: wherefore great caution should be observed
7585 in such matters: hence it is stated in
7586 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#iiMacc.3.15" target="asv">2 Mac. 3:15 </a>that "the priests . . . called upon Him from heaven, Who made the law concerning things given to be kept, that He would preserve
7587 them safe, for them that had deposited them." But the precepts of the Old Law observed little caution in regard to deposits:
7588 since it
7589 is prescribed (
7590 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Exod.22.10" target="asv">Ex. 22:10,11</a>) that when goods deposited are lost, the owner is to stand by the oath of the depositary. Therefore the Law made unsuitable
7591 provision in this matter.
7592 </p>
7593 <p id="FS_Q105_A2-p7">
7594 <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, just as a workman offers his work for hire, so do men let houses and so forth. But there is no need for the tenant
7595 to pay his rent as soon as he takes a house. Therefore it seems an unnecessarily hard prescription (
7596 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.19.13" target="asv">Lev. 19:13</a>) that "the wages of him that hath been hired by thee shall not abide with thee until morning."
7597 </p>
7598 <p id="FS_Q105_A2-p8">
7599 <b>Objection 7:</b> Further, since there is often pressing need for a judge, it should be easy to gain access to one. It was therefore unfitting
7600 that the Law (
7601 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.17.8" target="asv">Dt. 17:8,9</a>) should command them to go to a fixed place to ask for judgment on doubtful matters.
7602 </p>
7603 <p id="FS_Q105_A2-p9">
7604 <b>Objection 8:</b> Further, it is possible that not only two, but three or more, should agree to tell a lie. Therefore it is unreasonably stated
7605 (
7606 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.19.15" target="asv">Dt. 19:15</a>) that "in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall stand."
7607 </p>
7608 <p id="FS_Q105_A2-p10">
7609 <b>Objection 9:</b> Further, punishment should be fixed according to the gravity of the fault: for which reason also it is written (
7610 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.25.2" target="asv">Dt. 25:2</a>): "According to the measure of the sin, shall the measure also of the stripes be." Yet the Law fixed unequal punishments
7611 for certain faults: for it is written (
7612 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p10.2" href="./asv.html#Exod.22.1" target="asv">Ex. 22:1</a>) that the thief "shall restore five oxen for one ox, and four sheep for one sheep." Moreover, certain slight offenses are
7613 severely
7614 punished: thus (
7615 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p10.3" href="./asv.html#Num.15.32" target="asv">Num. 15:32, </a> seqq.) a man is stoned for gathering sticks on the sabbath day: and (
7616 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p10.4" href="./asv.html#Deut.21.18" target="asv">Dt. 21:18, </a> seqq.) the unruly son is commanded to be stoned on account of certain small transgressions, viz. because "he gave himself
7617 to revelling . . . and banquetings." Therefore the Law prescribed punishments in an unreasonable manner.
7618 </p>
7619 <p id="FS_Q105_A2-p11">
7620 <b>Objection 10:</b> Further, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxi, 11), "Tully writes that the laws recognize eight forms of punishment, indemnity,
7621 prison, stripes, retaliation, public disgrace, exile, death, slavery." Now some of these were prescribed by the Law. "Indemnity,"
7622 as when a thief was condemned to make restitution fivefold or fourfold. "Prison," as when (
7623 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Num.15.34" target="asv">Num. 15:34</a>) a certain man is ordered to be imprisoned. "Stripes"; thus (
7624 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p11.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.25.2" target="asv">Dt.
7625 25:2
7626 </a>), "if they see that the offender be worthy of stripes; they shall lay him down, and shall cause him to be beaten before them."
7627 "Public disgrace" was brought on to him who refused to take to himself the wife of his deceased brother, for she took "off
7628 his shoe from his foot, and" did "spit in his face" (
7629 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p11.3" href="./asv.html#Deut.25.9" target="asv">Dt. 25:9</a>). It prescribed the "death" penalty, as is clear from (
7630 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p11.4" href="./asv.html#Lev.20.9" target="asv">Lev. 20:9</a>): "He that curseth his father, or mother, dying let him die."
7631 The Law also recognized the "lex talionis," by prescribing (
7632 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p11.5" href="./asv.html#Exod.21.24" target="asv">Ex. 21:24</a>): "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth." Therefore it seems unreasonable that the Law should not have inflicted the two other punishments,
7633 viz. "exile" and "slavery."
7634 </p>
7635 <p id="FS_Q105_A2-p12">
7636 <b>Objection 11:</b> Further, no punishment is due except for a fault. But dumb animals cannot commit a fault. Therefore the Law is unreasonable
7637 in punishing them (
7638 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.21.29" target="asv">Ex. 21:29</a>): "If the ox . . . shall kill a man or a woman," it "shall be stoned": and (
7639 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p12.2" href="./asv.html#Lev.20.16" target="asv">Lev. 20:16</a>): "The woman that shall lie under any beast, shall be killed together with the same." Therefore it seems that matters pertaining
7640 to the relations of one man with another were
7641 unsuitably regulated by the Law.
7642 </p>
7643 <p id="FS_Q105_A2-p13">
7644 <b>Objection 12:</b> Further, the Lord commanded (
7645 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p13.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.21.12" target="asv">Ex. 21:12</a>) a murderer to be punished with death. But the death of a dumb animal is reckoned of much less account than the slaying of
7646 a man. Hence murder cannot be sufficiently punished by the slaying of a dumb animal. Therefore it is unfittingly prescribed
7647 (
7648 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p13.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.21.1" target="asv">Dt. 21:1</a>,
7649 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p13.3" href="./asv.html#Deut.21.4" target="asv">4</a>) that "when there shall be found . . . the corpse of a man slain, and it is not known who is guilty of the murder . . . the
7650 ancients" of the nearest city "shall take a heifer of the herd, that hath not drawn in the yoke, nor ploughed the ground,
7651 and they shall bring her into a rough and stony valley, that never was ploughed, nor sown; and there they shall strike off
7652 the head of the heifer."
7653 </p>
7654 <p id="FS_Q105_A2-p14">
7655 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is recalled as a special blessing (
7656 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p14.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.147.20" target="asv">Ps. 147:20</a>) that "He hath not done in like manner to every nation; and His judgments He hath not made manifest to them."
7657 </p>
7658 <p id="FS_Q105_A2-p15">
7659 <b>I answer that,</b> As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ii, 21), quoting Tully, "a nation is a body of men united together by consent to the law and
7660 by community of welfare." Consequently it is of the essence of a nation that the mutual relations of the citizens be ordered
7661 by just laws. Now the relations of one man with another are twofold: some are effected under the guidance of those in authority:
7662 others are effected by the will of private individuals. And since whatever is
7663 subject to the power of an individual can be disposed of according to his will, hence it is that the decision of matters between
7664 one man and another, and the punishment of evildoers, depend on the direction of those in authority, to whom men are subject.
7665 On the other hand, the power of private persons is exercised over the things they possess: and consequently their dealings
7666 with one another, as regards such things, depend on their own will, for instance in buying, selling, giving, and so
7667 forth. Now the Law provided sufficiently in respect of each of these relations between one man and another. For it established
7668 judges, as is clearly indicated in
7669 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p15.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.16.18" target="asv"> Dt. 16:18</a>: "Thou shalt appoint judges and magistrates in all its [Vulg.: 'thy'] gates . . . that they may judge the people with just
7670 judgment." It is also directed the manner of pronouncing just judgments, according to
7671 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p15.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.1.16" target="asv">Dt. 1:16,17</a>: "Judge that which is just, whether he be one of your own country or a stranger:
7672 there shall be no difference of persons." It also removed an occasion of pronouncing unjust judgment, by forbidding judges
7673 to accept bribes (
7674 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p15.3" href="./asv.html#Exod.23.8" target="asv">Ex. 23:8</a>;
7675 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p15.4" href="./asv.html#Deut.16.19" target="asv"> Dt. 16:19</a>). It prescribed the number of witnesses, viz. two or three: and it appointed certain punishments to certain crimes, as we
7676 shall state farther on (ad 10).
7677 </p>
7678 <p id="FS_Q105_A2-p16"> But with regard to possessions, it is a very good thing, says the Philosopher (Polit. ii, 2) that the things possessed should
7679 be distinct, and the use thereof should be partly common, and partly granted to others by the will of the possessors. These
7680 three points were provided for by the Law. Because, in the first place, the possessions themselves were divided among individuals:
7681 for it is written (
7682 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p16.1" href="./asv.html#Num.33.53" target="asv">Num. 33:53,54</a>): "I have given you" the land "for a possession:
7683 and you shall divide it among you by lot." And since many states have been ruined through want of regulations in the matter
7684 of possessions, as the Philosopher observes (Polit. ii, 6); therefore the Law provided a threefold remedy against the regularity
7685 of possessions. The first was that they should be divided equally, wherefore it is written (
7686 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p16.2" href="./asv.html#Num.33.54" target="asv">Num. 33:54</a>): "To the more you shall give a larger part, and to the fewer, a lesser." A second remedy was that possessions could not
7687 be alienated for ever, but after a certain lapse of time should return to their former owner, so as to avoid confusion of
7688 possessions (cf. ad 3). The third remedy aimed at the removal of this confusion, and provided that the dead should be succeeded
7689 by their next of kin: in the first place, the son; secondly, the daughter; thirdly, the brother; fourthly, the father's brother;
7690 fifthly, any other next of kin. Furthermore, in order to preserve the distinction of property, the Law enacted that
7691 heiresses should marry within their own tribe, as recorded in
7692 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p16.3" href="./asv.html#Num.36.6" target="asv"> Num. 36:6.</a>
7693 </p>
7694 <p id="FS_Q105_A2-p17"> Secondly, the Law commanded that, in some respects, the use of things should belong to all in common. Firstly, as regards
7695 the care of them; for it was prescribed (
7696 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p17.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.22.1" target="asv">Dt. 22:1-4</a>): "Thou shalt not pass by, if thou seest thy brother's ox or his sheep go astray; but thou shalt bring them back to thy brother,"
7697 and in like manner as to other things. Secondly, as regards fruits. For all alike were allowed on entering a friend's vineyard
7698 to eat of the fruit, but not to
7699 take any away. And, specially, with respect to the poor, it was prescribed that the forgotten sheaves, and the bunches of
7700 grapes and fruit, should be left behind for them (
7701 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p17.2" href="./asv.html#Lev.19.9" target="asv">Lev. 19:9</a>;
7702 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p17.3" href="./asv.html#Deut.24.19" target="asv"> Dt. 24:19</a>). Moreover, whatever grew in the seventh year was common property, as stated in
7703 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p17.4" href="./asv.html#Exod.23.11" target="asv"> Ex. 23:11 </a>and
7704 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p17.5" href="./asv.html#Lev.25.4" target="asv"> Lev. 25:4.</a>
7705 </p>
7706 <p id="FS_Q105_A2-p18"> Thirdly, the law recognized the transference of goods by the owner. There was a purely gratuitous transfer: thus it is written
7707 (
7708 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p18.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.14.28" target="asv">Dt. 14:28,29</a>): "The third day thou shalt separate another tithe . . . and the Levite . . . and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the
7709 widow . . . shall come and shall eat and be filled." And there was a transfer for a consideration, for instance, by selling
7710 and buying, by letting out and hiring, by loan and also by deposit, concerning all of which we
7711 find that the Law made ample provision. Consequently it is clear that the Old Law provided sufficiently concerning the mutual
7712 relations of one man with another.
7713 </p>
7714 <p id="FS_Q105_A2-p19">
7715 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As the Apostle says (
7716 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p19.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.13.8" target="asv">Rom. 13:8</a>), "he that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the Law": because, to wit, all the precepts of the Law, chiefly those concerning
7717 our neighbor, seem to aim at the end that men should love one another. Now it is an effect of love that men give their own
7718 goods to others: because, as stated in
7719 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p19.2" href="./asv.html#iJohn.3.17" target="asv">1 Jn. 3:17</a>: "He that . . . shall see his brother in need, and shall shut up his bowels from
7720 him: how doth the charity of God abide in him?" Hence the purpose of the Law was to accustom men to give of their own to others
7721 readily: thus the Apostle (
7722 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p19.3" href="./asv.html#iTim.6.18" target="asv">1 Tim. 6:18</a>) commands the rich "to give easily and to communicate to others." Now a man does not give easily to others if he will not
7723 suffer another man to take some little thing from him without any great injury to him. And so the Law laid down that it should
7724 be lawful for a man, on entering his neighbor's vineyard, to
7725 eat of the fruit there: but not to carry any away, lest this should lead to the infliction of a grievous harm, and cause a
7726 disturbance of the peace: for among well-behaved people, the taking of a little does not disturb the peace; in fact, it rather
7727 strengthens friendship and accustoms men to give things to one another.
7728 </p>
7729 <p id="FS_Q105_A2-p20">
7730 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The Law did not prescribe that women should succeed to their father's estate except in default of male issue: failing which
7731 it was necessary that succession should be granted to the female line in order to comfort the father, who would have been
7732 sad to think that his estate would pass to strangers. Nevertheless the Law observed due caution in the matter, by providing
7733 that those women who succeeded to their father's estate, should marry within their
7734 own tribe, in order to avoid confusion of tribal possessions, as stated in
7735 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p20.1" href="./asv.html#Num.36.7" target="asv"> Num. 36:7,8.</a>
7736 </p>
7737 <p id="FS_Q105_A2-p21">
7738 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As the Philosopher says (Polit. ii, 4), the regulation of possessions conduces much to the preservation of a state or nation.
7739 Consequently, as he himself observes, it was forbidden by the law in some of the heathen states, "that anyone should sell
7740 his possessions, except to avoid a manifest loss." For if possessions were to be sold indiscriminately, they might happen
7741 to come into the hands of a few: so that it might become necessary for a state or
7742 country to become void of inhabitants. Hence the Old Law, in order to remove this danger, ordered things in such a way that
7743 while provision was made for men's needs, by allowing the sale of possessions to avail for a certain period, at the same time
7744 the said danger was removed, by prescribing the return of those possessions after that period had elapsed. The reason for
7745 this law was to prevent confusion of possessions, and to ensure the continuance of a definite distinction among the tribes.
7746 </p>
7747 <p id="FS_Q105_A2-p22"> But as the town houses were not allotted to distinct estates, therefore the Law allowed them to be sold in perpetuity, like
7748 movable goods. Because the number of houses in a town was not fixed, whereas there was a fixed limit to the amount of estates,
7749 which could not be exceeded, while the number of houses in a town could be increased. On the other hand, houses situated not
7750 in a town, but "in a village that hath no walls," could not be sold in perpetuity: because such houses are
7751 built merely with a view to the cultivation and care of possessions; wherefore the Law rightly made the same prescription
7752 in regard to both (
7753 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p22.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.25" target="asv">Lev. 25</a>).
7754 </p>
7755 <p id="FS_Q105_A2-p23">
7756 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> As stated above (ad 1), the purpose of the Law was to accustom men to its precepts, so as to be ready to come to one another's
7757 assistance: because this is a very great incentive to friendship. The Law granted these facilities for helping others in the
7758 matter not only of gratuitous and absolute donations, but also of mutual transfers: because the latter kind of succor is more
7759 frequent and benefits the greater number: and it granted facilities for this
7760 purpose in many ways. First of all by prescribing that men should be ready to lend, and that they should not be less inclined
7761 to do so as the year of remission drew nigh, as stated in
7762 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p23.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.15.7" target="asv"> Dt. 15:7, </a> seqq. Secondly, by forbidding them to burden a man to whom they might grant a loan, either by exacting usury, or by accepting
7763 necessities of life in security; and by prescribing that when this had been done they should be restored at once. For it is
7764 written (
7765 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p23.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.23.19" target="asv">Dt.
7766 23:19
7767 </a>): "Thou shalt not lend to thy brother money to usury": and (
7768 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p23.3" href="./asv.html#Deut.24.6" target="asv">Dt. 24:6</a>): "Thou shalt not take the nether nor the upper millstone to pledge; for he hath pledged his life to thee": and (
7769 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p23.4" href="./asv.html#Exod.22.26" target="asv">Ex. 22:26</a>): "If thou take of thy neighbor a garment in pledge, thou shalt give it him again before sunset." Thirdly, by forbidding
7770 them to be importunate in exacting payment. Hence it is written (
7771 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p23.5" href="./asv.html#Exod.22.25" target="asv">Ex. 22:25</a>): "If thou lend money to any of
7772 my people that is poor that dwelleth with thee, thou shalt not be hard upon them as an extortioner." For this reason, too,
7773 it is enacted (
7774 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p23.6" href="./asv.html#Deut.24.10" target="asv">Dt. 24:10,11</a>): "When thou shalt demand of thy neighbor anything that he oweth thee, thou shalt not go into his house to take away a pledge,
7775 but thou shalt stand without, and he shall bring out to thee what he hath": both because a man's house is his surest refuge,
7776 wherefore it is offensive to a man to be set upon in his own house; and because the Law does not
7777 allow the creditor to take away whatever he likes in security, but rather permits the debtor to give what he needs least.
7778 Fourthly, the Law prescribed that debts should cease together after the lapse of seven years. For it was probable that those
7779 who could conveniently pay their debts, would do so before the seventh year, and would not defraud the lender without cause.
7780 But if they were altogether insolvent, there was the same reason for remitting the debt from love for them, as there was for
7781 renewing the loan on account of their need.
7782 </p>
7783 <p id="FS_Q105_A2-p24"> As regards animals granted in loan, the Law enacted that if, through the neglect of the person to whom they were lent, they
7784 perished or deteriorated in his absence, he was bound to make restitution. But if they perished or deteriorated while he was
7785 present and taking proper care of them, he was not bound to make restitution, especially if they were hired for a consideration:
7786 because they might have died or deteriorated in the same way if they had remained in possession of the
7787 lender, so that if the animal had been saved through being lent, the lender would have gained something by the loan which
7788 would no longer have been gratuitous. And especially was this to be observed when animals were hired for a consideration:
7789 because then the owner received a certain price for the use of the animals; wherefore he had no right to any profit, by receiving
7790 indemnity for the animal, unless the person who had charge of it were negligent. In the case, however, of animals not hired
7791 for a consideration, equity demanded that he should receive something by way of restitution at least to the value of the hire
7792 of the animal that had perished or deteriorated.
7793 </p>
7794 <p id="FS_Q105_A2-p25">
7795 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> The difference between a loan and a deposit is that a loan is in respect of goods transferred for the use of the person to
7796 whom they are transferred, whereas a deposit is for the benefit of the depositor. Hence in certain cases there was a stricter
7797 obligation of returning a loan than of restoring goods held in deposit. Because the latter might be lost in two ways. First,
7798 unavoidably: i.e. either through a natural cause, for instance if an animal held
7799 in deposit were to die or depreciate in value; or through an extrinsic cause, for instance, if it were taken by an enemy,
7800 or devoured by a beast (in which case, however, a man was bound to restore to the owner what was left of the animal thus slain):
7801 whereas in the other cases mentioned above, he was not bound to make restitution; but only to take an oath in order to clear
7802 himself of suspicion. Secondly, the goods deposited might be lost through an avoidable cause, for instance by theft: and
7803 then the depositary was bound to restitution on account of his neglect. But, as stated above (ad 4), he who held an animal
7804 on loan, was bound to restitution, even if he were absent when it depreciated or died: because he was held responsible for
7805 less negligence than a depositary, who was only held responsible in case of theft.
7806 </p>
7807 <p id="FS_Q105_A2-p26">
7808 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> Workmen who offer their labor for hire, are poor men who toil for their daily bread: and therefore the Law commanded wisely
7809 that they should be paid at once, lest they should lack food. But they who offer other commodities for hire, are wont to be
7810 rich: nor are they in such need of their price in order to gain a livelihood: and consequently the comparison does not hold.
7811 </p>
7812 <p id="FS_Q105_A2-p27">
7813 <b>Reply to Objection 7:</b> The purpose for which judges are appointed among men, is that they may decide doubtful points in matters of justice. Now
7814 a matter may be doubtful in two ways. First, among simple-minded people: and in order to remove doubts of this kind, it was
7815 prescribed (
7816 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p27.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.16.18" target="asv">Dt. 16:18</a>) that "judges and magistrates" should be appointed in each tribe, "to judge the people with just judgment." Secondly, a matter
7817 may be doubtful even among experts: and
7818 therefore, in order to remove doubts of this kind, the Law prescribed that all should foregather in some chief place chosen
7819 by God, where there would be both the high-priest, who would decide doubtful matters relating to the ceremonies of divine
7820 worship; and the chief judge of the people, who would decide matters relating to the judgments of men: just as even now cases
7821 are taken from a lower to a higher court either by appeal or by consultation. Hence it is written (
7822 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p27.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.17.8" target="asv">Dt.
7823 17:8,9
7824 </a>): "If thou perceive that there be among you a hard and doubtful matter in judgment . . . and thou see that the words of the
7825 judges within thy gates do vary; arise and go up to the place, which the Lord thy God shall choose; and thou shalt come to
7826 the priests of the Levitical race, and to the judge that shall be at that time." But such like doubtful matters did not often
7827 occur for judgment: wherefore the people were not burdened on this account.
7828 </p>
7829 <p id="FS_Q105_A2-p28">
7830 <b>Reply to Objection 8:</b> In the business affairs of men, there is no such thing as demonstrative and infallible proof, and we must be content with
7831 a certain conjectural probability, such as that which an orator employs to persuade. Consequently, although it is quite possible
7832 for two or three witnesses to agree to a falsehood, yet it is neither easy nor probable that they succeed in so doing: wherefore
7833 their testimony is taken as being true, especially if they do not waver in
7834 giving it, or are not otherwise suspect. Moreover, in order that witnesses might not easily depart from the truth, the Law
7835 commanded that they should be most carefully examined, and that those who were found untruthful should be severely punished,
7836 as stated in
7837 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p28.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.19.16" target="asv"> Dt. 19:16, </a> seqq.
7838 </p>
7839 <p id="FS_Q105_A2-p29"> There was, however, a reason for fixing on this particular number, in token of the unerring truth of the Divine Persons,
7840 Who are sometimes mentioned as two, because the Holy Ghost is the bond of the other two Persons; and sometimes as three: as
7841 Augustine observes on
7842 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p29.1" href="./asv.html#John.8.17" target="asv"> Jn. 8:17</a>: "In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true."
7843 </p>
7844 <p id="FS_Q105_A2-p30">
7845 <b>Reply to Objection 9:</b> A severe punishment is inflicted not only on account of the gravity of a fault, but also for other reasons. First, on account
7846 of the greatness of the sin, because a greater sin, other things being equal, deserves a greater punishment. Secondly, on
7847 account of a habitual sin, since men are not easily cured of habitual sin except by severe punishments. Thirdly, on account
7848 of a great desire for or a great pleasure in the sin: for men are not easily
7849 deterred from such sins unless they be severely punished. Fourthly, on account of the facility of committing a sin and of
7850 concealing it: for such like sins, when discovered, should be more severely punished in order to deter others from committing
7851 them.
7852 </p>
7853 <p id="FS_Q105_A2-p31"> Again, with regard to the greatness of a sin, four degrees may be observed, even in respect of one single deed. The first
7854 is when a sin is committed unwillingly; because then, if the sin be altogether involuntary, man is altogether excused from
7855 punishment; for it is written (
7856 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p31.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.22.25" target="asv">Dt. 22:25, </a> seqq.) that a damsel who suffers violence in a field is not guilty of death, because "she cried, and there was no man to
7857 help her." But if a man sinned in any way voluntarily,
7858 and yet through weakness, as for instance when a man sins from passion, the sin is diminished: and the punishment, according
7859 to true judgment, should be diminished also; unless perchance the common weal requires that the sin be severely punished in
7860 order to deter others from committing such sins, as stated above. The second degree is when a man sins through ignorance:
7861 and then he was held to be guilty to a certain extent, on account of his negligence in acquiring knowledge: yet he was not
7862 punished by the judges but expiated his sin by sacrifices. Hence it is written (
7863 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p31.2" href="./asv.html#Lev.4.2" target="asv">Lev. 4:2</a>): "The soul that sinneth through ignorance," etc. This is, however, to be taken as applying to ignorance of fact; and not
7864 to ignorance of the Divine precept, which all were bound to know. The third degree was when a man sinned from pride, i.e.
7865 through deliberate choice or malice: and then he was punished according to the greatness of the sin [*Cf.
7866 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p31.3" href="./asv.html#Deut.25.2" target="asv"> Dt. 25:2</a>]. The
7867 fourth degree was when a man sinned from stubbornness or obstinacy: and then he was to be utterly cut off as a rebel and a
7868 destroyer of the commandment of the Law [*Cf.
7869 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p31.4" href="./asv.html#Num.15.30" target="asv"> Num. 15:30,31</a>].
7870 </p>
7871 <p id="FS_Q105_A2-p32"> Accordingly we must say that, in appointing the punishment for theft, the Law considered what would be likely to happen most
7872 frequently (
7873 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p32.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.22.1" target="asv">Ex. 22:1-9</a>): wherefore, as regards theft of other things which can easily be safeguarded from a thief, the thief restored only twice
7874 their value. But sheep cannot be easily safeguarded from a thief, because they graze in the fields: wherefore it happened
7875 more frequently that sheep were stolen in the fields. Consequently the Law inflicted a
7876 heavier penalty, by ordering four sheep to be restored for the theft of one. As to cattle, they were yet more difficult to
7877 safeguard, because they are kept in the fields, and do not graze in flocks as sheep do; wherefore a yet more heavy penalty
7878 was inflicted in their regard, so that five oxen were to be restored for one ox. And this I say, unless perchance the animal
7879 itself were discovered in the thief's possession: because in that case he had to restore only twice the number, as in the
7880 case
7881 of other thefts: for there was reason to presume that he intended to restore the animal, since he kept it alive. Again, we
7882 might say, according to a gloss, that "a cow is useful in five ways: it may be used for sacrifice, for ploughing, for food,
7883 for milk, and its hide is employed for various purposes": and therefore for one cow five had to be restored. But the sheep
7884 was useful in four ways: "for sacrifice, for meat, for milk, and for its wool." The unruly son was slain, not because he ate
7885 and
7886 drank: but on account of his stubbornness and rebellion, which was always punished by death, as stated above. As to the man
7887 who gathered sticks on the sabbath, he was stoned as a breaker of the Law, which commanded the sabbath to be observed, to
7888 testify the belief in the newness of the world, as stated above (
7889 <a id="FS_Q105_A2-p32.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q100_A5.html">Q[100], A[5]</a>): wherefore he was slain as an unbeliever.
7890 </p>
7891 <p id="FS_Q105_A2-p33">
7892 <b>Reply to Objection 10:</b> The Old Law inflicted the death penalty for the more grievous crimes, viz. for those which are committed against God, and
7893 for murder, for stealing a man, irreverence towards one's parents, adultery and incest. In the case of thief of other things
7894 it inflicted punishment by indemnification: while in the case of blows and mutilation it authorized punishment by retaliation;
7895 and likewise for the sin of bearing false witness. In other faults of less
7896 degree it prescribed the punishment of stripes or of public disgrace.
7897 </p>
7898 <p id="FS_Q105_A2-p34"> The punishment of slavery was prescribed by the Law in two cases. First, in the case of a slave who was unwilling to avail
7899 himself of the privilege granted by the Law, whereby he was free to depart in the seventh year of remission: wherefore he
7900 was punished by remaining a slave for ever. Secondly, in the case of a thief, who had not wherewith to make restitution, as
7901 stated in
7902 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p34.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.22.3" target="asv"> Ex. 22:3.</a>
7903 </p>
7904 <p id="FS_Q105_A2-p35"> The punishment of absolute exile was not prescribed by the Law: because God was worshipped by that people alone, whereas
7905 all other nations were given to idolatry: wherefore if any man were exiled from that people absolutely, he would be in danger
7906 of falling into idolatry. For this reason it is related (
7907 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p35.1" href="./asv.html#iKgs.26.19" target="asv">1 Kings 26:19</a>) that David said to Saul: "They are cursed in the sight of the Lord, who have case me out this day, that I should not dwell
7908 in the inheritance of
7909 the Lord, saying: Go, serve strange gods." There was, however, a restricted sort of exile: for it is written in
7910 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p35.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.19.4" target="asv"> Dt. 19:4</a> [*Cf.
7911 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p35.3" href="./asv.html#Num.35.25" target="asv"> Num. 35:25</a>] that "he that striketh [Vulg.: 'killeth'] his neighbor ignorantly, and is proved to have had no hatred against him, shall
7912 flee to one of the cities" of refuge and "abide there until the death of the high-priest." For then it became lawful for him
7913 to return home, because when the whole people thus suffered a loss they
7914 forgot their private quarrels, so that the next of kin of the slain were not so eager to kill the slayer.
7915 </p>
7916 <p id="FS_Q105_A2-p36">
7917 <b>Reply to Objection 11:</b> Dumb animals were ordered to be slain, not on account of any fault of theirs; but as a punishment to their owners, who had
7918 not safeguarded their beasts from these offenses. Hence the owner was more severely punished if his ox had butted anyone "yesterday
7919 or the day before" (in which case steps might have been taken to butting suddenly). Or again, the animal was slain in detestation
7920 of the sin; and lest men should be horrified at the sight
7921 thereof.
7922 </p>
7923 <p id="FS_Q105_A2-p37">
7924 <b>Reply to Objection 12:</b> The literal reason for this commandment, as Rabbi Moses declares (Doct. Perplex. iii), was because the slayer was frequently
7925 from the nearest city: wherefore the slaying of the calf was a means of investigating the hidden murder. This was brought
7926 about in three ways. In the first place the elders of the city swore that they had taken every measure for safeguarding the
7927 roads. Secondly, the owner of the heifer was indemnified for the slaying of his
7928 beast, and if the murder was previously discovered, the beast was not slain. Thirdly, the place, where the heifer was slain,
7929 remained uncultivated. Wherefore, in order to avoid this twofold loss, the men of the city would readily make known the murderer,
7930 if they knew who he was: and it would seldom happen but that some word or sign would escape about the matter. Or again, this
7931 was done in order to frighten people, in detestation of murder. Because the slaying of a heifer, which is a useful
7932 animal and full of strength, especially before it has been put under the yoke, signified that whoever committed murder, however
7933 useful and strong he might be, was to forfeit his life; and that, by a cruel death, which was implied by the striking off
7934 of its head; and that the murderer, as vile and abject, was to be cut off from the fellowship of men, which was betokened
7935 by the fact that the heifer after being slain was left to rot in a rough and uncultivated place.
7936 </p>
7937 <p id="FS_Q105_A2-p38"> Mystically, the heifer taken from the herd signifies the flesh of Christ; which had not drawn a yoke, since it had done no
7938 sin; nor did it plough the ground, i.e. it never knew the stain of revolt. The fact of the heifer being killed in an uncultivated
7939 valley signified the despised death of Christ, whereby all sins are washed away, and the devil is shown to be the arch-murderer.
7940 </p>
7941 <p id="FS_Q105_A2-p39"></p>
7942 <p id="FS_Q105_A2-p40"></p>
7943 <a href="summa.FS_Q105_A1.html"></a>
7944 <a href="summa.FS_Q105_A3.html"></a>
7945 </div>
7946 <div id="FS_Q105_A3" class="div4">
7947 <a href="summa.FS_Q105_A2.html"></a>
7948 <a href="summa.FS_Q105_A4.html"></a>
7949 <h4 id="FS_Q105_A3-p0.1">Whether the judicial precepts regarding foreigners were framed in a suitable manner?</h4>
7950 <p id="FS_Q105_A3-p1"></p>
7951 <p id="FS_Q105_A3-p2">
7952 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the judicial precepts regarding foreigners were not suitably framed. For Peter said (
7953 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.10.34" target="asv">Acts 10:34,35</a>): "In very deed I perceive that God is not a respecter of persons, but in every nation, he that feareth Him and worketh justice
7954 is acceptable to Him." But those who are acceptable to God should not be excluded from the Church of God. Therefore it is
7955 unsuitably commanded (
7956 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A3-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.23.3" target="asv">Dt. 23:3</a>) that "the Ammonite and
7957 the Moabite, even after the tenth generation, shall not enter into the church of the Lord for ever": whereas, on the other
7958 hand, it is prescribed (
7959 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A3-p2.3" href="./asv.html#Deut.23.7" target="asv">Dt. 23:7</a>) to be observed with regard to certain other nations: "Thou shalt not abhor the Edomite, because he is thy brother; nor the
7960 Egyptian because thou wast a stranger in his land."
7961 </p>
7962 <p id="FS_Q105_A3-p3">
7963 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, we do not deserve to be punished for those things which are not in our power. But it is not in man's power to be
7964 an eunuch, or born of a prostitute. Therefore it is unsuitably commanded (
7965 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.23.1" target="asv">Dt. 23:1,2</a>) that "an eunuch and one born of a prostitute shalt not enter into the church of the Lord."
7966 </p>
7967 <p id="FS_Q105_A3-p4">
7968 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Old Law mercifully forbade strangers to be molested: for it is written (
7969 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.22.21" target="asv">Ex. 22:21</a>): "Thou shalt not molest a stranger, nor afflict him; for yourselves also were strangers in the land of Egypt": and (
7970 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A3-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Exod.23.9" target="asv">Ex. 23:9</a>): "Thou shalt not molest a stranger, for you know the hearts of strangers, for you also were strangers in the land of Egypt."
7971 But it is an affliction to be burdened with usury. Therefore the Law
7972 unsuitably permitted them (
7973 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A3-p4.3" href="./asv.html#Deut.23.19" target="asv">Dt. 23:19,20</a>) to lend money to the stranger for usury.
7974 </p>
7975 <p id="FS_Q105_A3-p5">
7976 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, men are much more akin to us than trees. But we should show greater care and love for these things that are nearest
7977 to us, according to
7978 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Sir.13.19" target="asv"> Ecclus. 13:19</a>: "Every beast loveth its like: so also every man him that is nearest to himself." Therefore the Lord unsuitably commanded
7979 (
7980 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A3-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.20.13" target="asv">Dt. 20:13-19</a>) that all the inhabitants of a captured hostile city were to be slain, but that the fruit-trees should not be cut down.
7981 </p>
7982 <p id="FS_Q105_A3-p6">
7983 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, every one should prefer the common good of virtue to the good of the individual. But the common good is sought in
7984 a war which men fight against their enemies. Therefore it is unsuitably commanded (
7985 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.20.5" target="asv">Dt. 20:5-7</a>) that certain men should be sent home, for instance a man that had built a new house, or who had planted a vineyard, or who
7986 had married a wife.
7987 </p>
7988 <p id="FS_Q105_A3-p7">
7989 <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, no man should profit by his own fault. But it is a man's fault if he be timid or faint-hearted: since this is contrary
7990 to the virtue of fortitude. Therefore the timid and faint-hearted are unfittingly excused from the toil of battle (
7991 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.20.8" target="asv">Dt. 20:8</a>).
7992 </p>
7993 <p id="FS_Q105_A3-p8">
7994 <b>On the contrary,</b> Divine Wisdom declares (
7995 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A3-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.8.8" target="asv">Prov. 8:8</a>): "All my words are just, there is nothing wicked nor perverse in them."
7996 </p>
7997 <p id="FS_Q105_A3-p9">
7998 <b>I answer that,</b> Man's relations with foreigners are twofold: peaceful, and hostile: and in directing both kinds of relation the Law contained
7999 suitable precepts. For the Jews were offered three opportunities of peaceful relations with foreigners. First, when foreigners
8000 passed through their land as travelers. Secondly, when they came to dwell in their land as newcomers. And in both these respects
8001 the Law made kind provision in its precepts: for it is written (
8002 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A3-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.22.21" target="asv">Ex.
8003 22:21
8004 </a>): "Thou shalt not molest a stranger [advenam]"; and again (
8005 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A3-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Exod.22.9" target="asv">Ex. 22:9</a>): "Thou shalt not molest a stranger [peregrino]." Thirdly, when any foreigners wished to be admitted entirely to their fellowship
8006 and mode of worship. With regard to these a certain order was observed. For they were not at once admitted to citizenship:
8007 just as it was law with some nations that no one was deemed a citizen except after two or three generations, as the Philosopher
8008 says (Polit.
8009 iii, 1). The reason for this was that if foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled
8010 down in its midst, many dangers might occur, since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt
8011 something hurtful to the people. Hence it was that the Law prescribed in respect of certain nations that had close relations
8012 with the Jews (viz., the Egyptians among whom they were born and educated, and the Idumeans, the children of Esau,
8013 Jacob's brother), that they should be admitted to the fellowship of the people after the third generation; whereas others
8014 (with whom their relations had been hostile, such as the Ammonites and Moabites) were never to be admitted to citizenship;
8015 while the Amalekites, who were yet more hostile to them, and had no fellowship of kindred with them, were to be held as foes
8016 in perpetuity: for it is written (
8017 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A3-p9.3" href="./asv.html#Exod.17.16" target="asv">Ex. 17:16</a>): "The war of the Lord shall be against Amalec from generation
8018 to generation."
8019 </p>
8020 <p id="FS_Q105_A3-p10"> In like manner with regard to hostile relations with foreigners, the Law contained suitable precepts. For, in the first place,
8021 it commanded that war should be declared for a just cause: thus it is commanded (
8022 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A3-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.20.10" target="asv">Dt. 20:10</a>) that when they advanced to besiege a city, they should at first make an offer of peace. Secondly, it enjoined that when
8023 once they had entered on a war they should undauntedly persevere in it, putting their trust in God. And in order that they
8024 might be the more heedful of this command, it ordered that on the approach of battle the priest should hearten them by promising
8025 them God's aid. Thirdly, it prescribed the removal of whatever might prove an obstacle to the fight, and that certain men,
8026 who might be in the way, should be sent home. Fourthly, it enjoined that they should use moderation in pursuing the advantage
8027 of victory, by sparing women and children, and by not cutting down fruit-trees of that country.
8028 </p>
8029 <p id="FS_Q105_A3-p11">
8030 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Law excluded the men of no nation from the worship of God and from things pertaining to the welfare of the soul: for
8031 it is written (
8032 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A3-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.12.48" target="asv">Ex. 12:48</a>): "If any stranger be willing to dwell among you, and to keep the Phase of the Lord; all his males shall first be circumcised,
8033 and then shall he celebrate it according to the manner, and he shall be as that which is born in the land." But in temporal
8034 matters concerning the public life of
8035 the people, admission was not granted to everyone at once, for the reason given above: but to some, i.e. the Egyptians and
8036 Idumeans, in the third generation; while others were excluded in perpetuity, in detestation of their past offense, i.e. the
8037 peoples of Moab, Ammon, and Amalec. For just as one man is punished for a sin committed by him, in order that others seeing
8038 this may be deterred and refrain from sinning; so too may one nation or city be punished for a crime, that others may refrain
8039 from similar crimes.
8040 </p>
8041 <p id="FS_Q105_A3-p12"> Nevertheless it was possible by dispensation for a man to be admitted to citizenship on account of some act of virtue: thus
8042 it is related (
8043 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A3-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Jdt.14.6" target="asv">Judith 14:6</a>) that Achior, the captain of the children of Ammon, "was joined to the people of Israel, with all the succession of his kindred."
8044 The same applies to Ruth the Moabite who was "a virtuous woman" (
8045 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A3-p12.2" href="./asv.html#Ruth.3.11" target="asv">Ruth 3:11</a>): although it may be said that this prohibition regarded men and not women, who are not competent to be
8046 citizens absolutely speaking.
8047 </p>
8048 <p id="FS_Q105_A3-p13">
8049 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 3), a man is said to be a citizen in two ways: first, simply; secondly, in a restricted
8050 sense. A man is a citizen simply if he has all the rights of citizenship, for instance, the right of debating or voting in
8051 the popular assembly. On the other hand, any man may be called citizen, only in a restricted sense, if he dwells within the
8052 state, even common people or children or old men, who are not fit to enjoy power in
8053 matters pertaining to the common weal. For this reason bastards, by reason of their base origin, were excluded from the "ecclesia,"
8054 i.e. from the popular assembly, down to the tenth generation. The same applies to eunuchs, who were not competent to receive
8055 the honor due to a father, especially among the Jews, where the divine worship was continued through carnal generation: for
8056 even among the heathens, those who had many children were marked with special honor, as the Philosopher remarks
8057 (Polit. ii, 6). Nevertheless, in matters pertaining to the grace of God, eunuchs were not discriminated from others, as neither
8058 were strangers, as already stated: for it is written (
8059 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A3-p13.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.56.3" target="asv">Isa. 56:3</a>): "Let not the son of the stranger that adhereth to the Lord speak, saying: The Lord will divide and separate me from His
8060 people. And let not the eunuch say: Behold I am a dry tree."
8061 </p>
8062 <p id="FS_Q105_A3-p14">
8063 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> It was not the intention of the Law to sanction the acceptance of usury from strangers, but only to tolerate it on account
8064 of the proneness of the Jews to avarice; and in order to promote an amicable feeling towards those out of whom they made a
8065 profit.
8066 </p>
8067 <p id="FS_Q105_A3-p15">
8068 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> A distinction was observed with regard to hostile cities. For some of them were far distant, and were not among those which
8069 had been promised to them. When they had taken these cities, they killed all the men who had fought against God's people;
8070 whereas the women and children were spared. But in the neighboring cities which had been promised to them, all were ordered
8071 to be slain, on account of their former crimes, to punish which God sent the
8072 Israelites as executor of Divine justice: for it is written (
8073 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A3-p15.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.9.5" target="asv">Dt. 9:5</a>) "because they have done wickedly, they are destroyed at thy coming in." The fruit-trees were commanded to be left untouched,
8074 for the use of the people themselves, to whom the city with its territory was destined to be subjected.
8075 </p>
8076 <p id="FS_Q105_A3-p16">
8077 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> The builder of a new house, the planter of a vineyard, the newly married husband, were excluded from fighting, for two reasons.
8078 First, because man is wont to give all his affection to those things which he has lately acquired, or is on the point of having,
8079 and consequently he is apt to dread the loss of these above other things. Wherefore it was likely enough that on account of
8080 this affection they would fear death all the more, and be so much the less
8081 brave in battle. Secondly, because, as the Philosopher says (Phys. ii, 5), "it is a misfortune for a man if he is prevented
8082 from obtaining something good when it is within his grasp." And so lest the surviving relations should be the more grieved
8083 at the death of these men who had not entered into the possession of the good things prepared for them; and also lest the
8084 people should be horror-stricken at the sight of their misfortune: these men were taken away from the danger of death by being
8085 removed from the battle.
8086 </p>
8087 <p id="FS_Q105_A3-p17">
8088 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> The timid were sent back home, not that they might be the gainers thereby; but lest the people might be the losers by their
8089 presence, since their timidity and flight might cause others to be afraid and run away.
8090 </p>
8091 <p id="FS_Q105_A3-p18"></p>
8092 <p id="FS_Q105_A3-p19"></p>
8093 <a href="summa.FS_Q105_A2.html"></a>
8094 <a href="summa.FS_Q105_A4.html"></a>
8095 </div>
8096 <div id="FS_Q105_A4" class="div4">
8097 <a href="summa.FS_Q105_A3.html"></a>
8098 <a href="summa.FS_Q106.html"></a>
8099 <h4 id="FS_Q105_A4-p0.1">Whether the Old Law set forth suitable precepts about the members of the household?</h4>
8100 <p id="FS_Q105_A4-p1"></p>
8101 <p id="FS_Q105_A4-p2">
8102 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Old Law set forth unsuitable precepts about the members of the household. For a slave "is in every
8103 respect his master's property," as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 2). But that which is a man's property should be his
8104 always. Therefore it was unfitting for the Law to command (
8105 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.21.2" target="asv">Ex. 21:2</a>) that slaves should "go out free" in the seventh year.
8106 </p>
8107 <p id="FS_Q105_A4-p3">
8108 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a slave is his master's property, just as an animal, e.g. an ass or an ox. But it is commanded (
8109 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.22.1" target="asv">Dt. 22:1-3</a>) with regard to animals, that they should be brought back to the owner if they be found going astray. Therefore it was unsuitably
8110 commanded (
8111 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A4-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.23.15" target="asv">Dt. 23:15</a>): "Thou shalt not deliver to his master the servant that is fled to thee."
8112 </p>
8113 <p id="FS_Q105_A4-p4">
8114 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Divine Law should encourage mercy more even than the human law. But according to human laws those who ill-treat
8115 their servants and maidservants are severely punished: and the worse treatment of all seems to be that which results in death.
8116 Therefore it is unfittingly commanded (
8117 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.21.20" target="asv">Ex. 21:20,21</a>) that "he that striketh his bondman or bondwoman with a rod, and they die under his hands . . . if the party remain alive
8118 a day . . . he
8119 shall not be subject to the punishment, because it is his money."
8120 </p>
8121 <p id="FS_Q105_A4-p5">
8122 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the dominion of a master over his slave differs from that of the father over his son (Polit. i, 3). But the dominion
8123 of master over slave gives the former the right to sell his servant or maidservant. Therefore it was unfitting for the Law
8124 to allow a man to sell his daughter to be a servant or handmaid (
8125 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.21.7" target="asv">Ex. 21:7</a>).
8126 </p>
8127 <p id="FS_Q105_A4-p6">
8128 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, a father has power over his son. But he who has power over the sinner has the right to punish him for his offenses.
8129 Therefore it is unfittingly commanded (
8130 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.21.18" target="asv">Dt. 21:18, </a> seqq.) that a father should bring his son to the ancients of the city for punishment.
8131 </p>
8132 <p id="FS_Q105_A4-p7">
8133 <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, the Lord forbade them (
8134 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.7.3" target="asv">Dt. 7:3, </a> seqq.) to make marriages with strange nations; and commanded the dissolution of such as had been contracted (
8135 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A4-p7.2" href="./asv.html#iEsd.10" target="asv">1 Esdras 10</a>). Therefore it was unfitting to allow them to marry captive women from strange nations (
8136 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A4-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Deut.21.10" target="asv">Dt. 21:10, </a> seqq.).
8137 </p>
8138 <p id="FS_Q105_A4-p8">
8139 <b>Objection 7:</b> Further, the Lord forbade them to marry within certain degrees of consanguinity and affinity, according to
8140 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A4-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.18" target="asv">Lev. 18</a>. Therefore it was unsuitably commanded (
8141 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A4-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.25.5" target="asv">Dt. 25:5</a>) that if any man died without issue, his brother should marry his wife.
8142 </p>
8143 <p id="FS_Q105_A4-p9">
8144 <b>Objection 8:</b> Further, as there is the greatest familiarity between man and wife, so should there be the staunchest fidelity. But this
8145 is impossible if the marriage bond can be sundered. Therefore it was unfitting for the Lord to allow (
8146 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A4-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.24.1" target="asv">Dt. 24:1-4</a>) a man to put his wife away, by writing a bill of divorce; and besides, that he could not take her again to wife.
8147 </p>
8148 <p id="FS_Q105_A4-p10">
8149 <b>Objection 9:</b> Further, just as a wife can be faithless to her husband, so can a slave be to his master, and a son to his father. But the
8150 Law did not command any sacrifice to be offered in order to investigate the injury done by a servant to his master, or by
8151 a son to his father. Therefore it seems to have been superfluous for the Law to prescribe the "sacrifice of jealousy" in order
8152 to investigate a wife's adultery (
8153 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A4-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Num.5.12" target="asv">Num. 5:12, </a> seqq.). Consequently it
8154 seems that the Law put forth unsuitable judicial precepts about the members of the household.
8155 </p>
8156 <p id="FS_Q105_A4-p11">
8157 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
8158 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A4-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.18.10" target="asv">Ps. 18:10</a>): "The judgments of the Lord are true, justified in themselves."
8159 </p>
8160 <p id="FS_Q105_A4-p12">
8161 <b>I answer that,</b> The mutual relations of the members of a household regard everyday actions directed to the necessities of life, as the Philosopher
8162 states (Polit. i, 1). Now the preservation of man's life may be considered from two points of view. First, from the point
8163 of view of the individual, i.e. in so far as man preserves his individuality: and for the purpose of the preservation of life,
8164 considered from this standpoint, man has at his service external goods, by means
8165 of which he provides himself with food and clothing and other such necessaries of life: in the handling of which he has need
8166 of servants. Secondly man's life is preserved from the point of view of the species, by means of generation, for which purpose
8167 man needs a wife, that she may bear him children. Accordingly the mutual relations of the members of a household admit of
8168 a threefold combination: viz. those of master and servant, those of husband and wife, and those of father and son: and in
8169 respect of all these relationships the Old Law contained fitting precepts. Thus, with regard to servants, it commanded them
8170 to be treated with moderation---both as to their work, lest, to wit, they should be burdened with excessive labor, wherefore
8171 the Lord commanded (
8172 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A4-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.5.14" target="asv">Dt. 5:14</a>) that on the Sabbath day "thy manservant and thy maidservant" should "rest even as thyself"---and also as to the infliction
8173 of punishment, for it ordered those who maimed their servants, to set them
8174 free (
8175 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A4-p12.2" href="./asv.html#Exod.21.26" target="asv">Ex. 21:26,27</a>). Similar provision was made in favor of a maidservant when married to anyone (
8176 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A4-p12.3" href="./asv.html#Exod.21.7" target="asv">Ex. 21:7, </a> seqq.). Moreover, with regard to those servants in particular who were taken from among the people, the Law prescribed that
8177 they should go out free in the seventh year taking whatever they brought with them, even their clothes (
8178 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A4-p12.4" href="./asv.html#Exod.21.2" target="asv">Ex. 21:2, </a> seqq.): and furthermore it was commanded (
8179 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A4-p12.5" href="./asv.html#Deut.15.13" target="asv">Dt. 15:13</a>) that they should
8180 be given provision for the journey.
8181 </p>
8182 <p id="FS_Q105_A4-p13"> With regard to wives the Law made certain prescriptions as to those who were to be taken in marriage: for instance, that
8183 they should marry a wife from their own tribe (
8184 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A4-p13.1" href="./asv.html#Num.36.6" target="asv">Num. 36:6</a>): and this lest confusion should ensue in the property of various tribes. Also that a man should marry the wife of his deceased
8185 brother when the latter died without issue, as prescribed in
8186 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A4-p13.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.25.5" target="asv"> Dt. 25:5,6</a>: and this in order that he who could not have successors
8187 according to carnal origin, might at least have them by a kind of adoption, and that thus the deceased might not be entirely
8188 forgotten. It also forbade them to marry certain women; to wit, women of strange nations, through fear of their losing their
8189 faith; and those of their near kindred, on account of the natural respect due to them. Furthermore it prescribed in what way
8190 wives were to be treated after marriage. To wit, that they should not be slandered without grave reason: wherefore it
8191 ordered punishment to be inflicted on the man who falsely accused his wife of a crime (
8192 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A4-p13.3" href="./asv.html#Deut.22.13" target="asv">Dt. 22:13, </a> seqq.). Also that a man's hatred of his wife should not be detrimental to his son (
8193 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A4-p13.4" href="./asv.html#Deut.21.15" target="asv">Dt. 21:15, </a> seqq.). Again, that a man should not ill-use his wife through hatred of her, but rather that he should write a bill of divorce
8194 and send her away (
8195 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A4-p13.5" href="./asv.html#Deut.24.1" target="asv">Dt. 24:1</a>). Furthermore, in order to foster conjugal love from the very outset, it was prescribed
8196 that no public duties should be laid on a recently married man, so that he might be free to rejoice with his wife.
8197 </p>
8198 <p id="FS_Q105_A4-p14"> With regard to children, the Law commanded parents to educate them by instructing them in the faith: hence it is written
8199 (
8200 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A4-p14.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.12.26" target="asv">Ex. 12:26, </a> seqq.): "When your children shall say to you: What is the meaning of this service? You shall say to them: It is the victim
8201 of the passage of the Lord." Moreover, they are commanded to teach them the rules of right conduct: wherefore it is written
8202 (
8203 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A4-p14.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.21.20" target="asv">Dt. 21:20</a>) that the parents had to say: "He slighteth
8204 hearing our admonitions, he giveth himself to revelling and to debauchery."
8205 </p>
8206 <p id="FS_Q105_A4-p15">
8207 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As the children of Israel had been delivered by the Lord from slavery, and for this reason were bound to the service of God,
8208 He did not wish them to be slaves in perpetuity. Hence it is written (
8209 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A4-p15.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.25.39" target="asv">Lev. 25:39</a>, seqq.): "If thy brother, constrained by poverty, sell himself to thee, thou shalt not oppress him with the service of bondservants:
8210 but he shall be as a hireling and a sojourner . . . for they are My servants, and I brought them out of the land of
8211 Egypt: let them not be sold as bondmen": and consequently, since they were slaves, not absolutely but in a restricted sense,
8212 after a lapse of time they were set free.
8213 </p>
8214 <p id="FS_Q105_A4-p16">
8215 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This commandment is to be understood as referring to a servant whom his master seeks to kill, or to help him in committing
8216 some sin.
8217 </p>
8218 <p id="FS_Q105_A4-p17">
8219 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> With regard to the ill-treatment of servants, the Law seems to have taken into consideration whether it was certain or not:
8220 since if it were certain, the Law fixed a penalty: for maiming, the penalty was forfeiture of the servant, who was ordered
8221 to be given his liberty: while for slaying, the punishment was that of a murderer, when the slave died under the blow of his
8222 master. If, however, the hurt was not certain, but only probable, the Law did not
8223 impose any penalty as regards a man's own servant: for instance if the servant did not die at once after being struck, but
8224 after some days: for it would be uncertain whether he died as a result of the blows he received. For when a man struck a free
8225 man, yet so that he did not die at once, but "walked abroad again upon his staff," he that struck him was quit of murder,
8226 even though afterwards he died. Nevertheless he was bound to pay the doctor's fees incurred by the victim of his assault.
8227 But
8228 this was not the case if a man killed his own servant: because whatever the servant had, even his very person, was the property
8229 of his master. Hence the reason for his not being subject to a pecuniary penalty is set down as being "because it is his money."
8230 </p>
8231 <p id="FS_Q105_A4-p18">
8232 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> As stated above (ad 1), no Jew could own a Jew as a slave absolutely: but only in a restricted sense, as a hireling for a
8233 fixed time. And in this way the Law permitted that through stress of poverty a man might sell his son or daughter. This is
8234 shown by the very words of the Law, where we read: "If any man sell his daughter to be a servant, she shall not go out as
8235 bondwomen are wont to go out." Moreover, in this way a man might sell not only his son,
8236 but even himself, rather as a hireling than as a slave, according to
8237 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A4-p18.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.25.39" target="asv"> Lev. 25:39,40</a>: "If thy brother, constrained by poverty, sell himself to thee, thou shalt not oppress him with the service of bondservants:
8238 but he shall be as a hireling and a sojourner."
8239 </p>
8240 <p id="FS_Q105_A4-p19">
8241 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> As the Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 9), the paternal authority has the power only of admonition; but not that of coercion,
8242 whereby rebellious and headstrong persons can be compelled. Hence in this case the Lord commanded the stubborn son to be punished
8243 by the rulers of the city.
8244 </p>
8245 <p id="FS_Q105_A4-p20">
8246 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> The Lord forbade them to marry strange women on account of the danger of seduction, lest they should be led astray into idolatry.
8247 And specially did this prohibition apply with respect to those nations who dwelt near them, because it was more probable that
8248 they would adopt their religious practices. When, however, the woman was willing to renounce idolatry, and become an adherent
8249 of the Law, it was lawful to take her in marriage: as was the case with
8250 Ruth whom Booz married. Wherefore she said to her mother-in-law (
8251 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A4-p20.1" href="./asv.html#Ruth.1.16" target="asv">Ruth 1:16</a>): "Thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God." Accordingly it was not permitted to marry a captive woman unless she
8252 first shaved her hair, and pared her nails, and put off the raiment wherein she was taken, and mourned for her father and
8253 mother, in token that she renounced idolatry for ever.
8254 </p>
8255 <p id="FS_Q105_A4-p21">
8256 <b>Reply to Objection 7:</b> As Chrysostom says (Hom. xlviii super Matth.), "because death was an unmitigated evil for the Jews, who did everything with
8257 a view to the present life, it was ordained that children should be born to the dead man through his brother: thus affording
8258 a certain mitigation to his death. It was not, however, ordained that any other than his brother or one next of kin should
8259 marry the wife of the deceased, because" the offspring of this union "would not be
8260 looked upon as that of the deceased: and moreover, a stranger would not be under the obligation to support the household of
8261 the deceased, as his brother would be bound to do from motives of justice on account of his relationship." Hence it is evident
8262 that in marrying the wife of his dead brother, he took his dead brother's place.
8263 </p>
8264 <p id="FS_Q105_A4-p22">
8265 <b>Reply to Objection 8:</b> The Law permitted a wife to be divorced, not as though it were just absolutely speaking, but on account of the Jews' hardness
8266 of heart, as Our Lord declared (
8267 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A4-p22.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.8" target="asv">Mat. 19:8</a>). Of this, however, we must speak more fully in the treatise on Matrimony (
8268 <a id="FS_Q105_A4-p22.2" shape="rect" href="summa.SP_Q67.html">SP, Q[67])</a>.
8269 </p>
8270 <p id="FS_Q105_A4-p23">
8271 <b>Reply to Objection 9:</b> Wives break their conjugal faith by adultery, both easily, for motives of pleasure, and hiddenly, since "the eye of the adulterer
8272 observeth darkness" (
8273 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A4-p23.1" href="./asv.html#Job.24.15" target="asv">Job 24:15</a>). But this does not apply to a son in respect of his father, or to a servant in respect of his master: because the latter
8274 infidelity is not the result of the lust of pleasure, but rather of malice: nor can it remain hidden like the infidelity of
8275 an adulterous woman.
8276 </p>
8277 <p id="FS_Q105_A4-p24"></p>
8278 <p id="FS_Q105_A4-p25"></p>
8279 <a href="summa.FS_Q105_A3.html"></a>
8280 <a href="summa.FS_Q106.html"></a>
8281 </div>
8282 <a href="summa.FS_Q104_A4.html"></a>
8283 <a href="summa.FS_Q105_A1.html"></a>
8284 </div>
8285 <div id="FS_Q106" class="div3">
8286 <a href="summa.FS_Q105_A4.html"></a>
8287 <a href="summa.FS_Q106_A1.html"></a>
8288 <h3 id="FS_Q106-p0.1">OF THE LAW OF THE GOSPEL, CALLED THE NEW LAW, CONSIDERED IN ITSELF (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3>
8289 <p id="FS_Q106-p1"></p>
8290 <p id="FS_Q106-p2"> In proper sequence we have to consider now the Law of the Gospel which is called the New Law: and in the first place we must
8291 consider it in itself; secondly, in comparison with the Old Law; thirdly, we shall treat of those things that are contained
8292 in the New Law. Under the first head there are four points of inquiry:
8293 </p>
8294 <p id="FS_Q106-p3"> (1) What kind of law is it? i.e. Is it a written law or is it instilled in the heart?</p>
8295 <p id="FS_Q106-p4"> (2) Of its efficacy, i.e. does it justify?</p>
8296 <p id="FS_Q106-p5"> (3) Of its beginning: should it have been given at the beginning of the world?</p>
8297 <p id="FS_Q106-p6"> (4) Of its end: i.e. whether it will last until the end, or will another law take its place?</p>
8298 <div id="FS_Q106_A1" class="div4">
8299 <a href="summa.FS_Q106.html"></a>
8300 <a href="summa.FS_Q106_A2.html"></a>
8301 <h4 id="FS_Q106_A1-p0.1">Whether the New Law is a written law?</h4>
8302 <p id="FS_Q106_A1-p1"></p>
8303 <p id="FS_Q106_A1-p2">
8304 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the New Law is a written law. For the New Law is just the same as the Gospel. But the Gospel is set forth
8305 in writing, according to
8306 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#John.20.31" target="asv"> Jn. 20:31</a>: "But these are written that you may believe." Therefore the New Law is a written law.
8307 </p>
8308 <p id="FS_Q106_A1-p3">
8309 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the law that is instilled in the heart is the natural law, according to
8310 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.2.14" target="asv"> Rom. 2:14,15</a>: "(The Gentiles) do by nature those things that are of the law . . . who have [Vulg.: 'show'] the work of the law written
8311 in their hearts." If therefore the law of the Gospel were instilled in our hearts, it would not be distinct from the law of
8312 nature.
8313 </p>
8314 <p id="FS_Q106_A1-p4">
8315 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the law of the Gospel is proper to those who are in the state of the New Testament. But the law that is instilled
8316 in the heart is common to those who are in the New Testament and to those who are in the Old Testament: for it is written
8317 (
8318 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.7.27" target="asv">Wis. 7:27</a>) that Divine Wisdom "through nations conveyeth herself into holy souls, she maketh the friends of God and prophets." Therefore
8319 the New Law is not instilled in our hearts.
8320 </p>
8321 <p id="FS_Q106_A1-p5">
8322 <b>On the contrary,</b> The New Law is the law of the New Testament. But the law of the New Testament is instilled in our hearts. For the Apostle,
8323 quoting the authority of
8324 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Jer.31.31" target="asv">Jeremiah 31:31</a>,
8325 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A1-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Jer.31.33" target="asv">33</a>: "Behold the days shall come, saith the Lord; and I will perfect unto the house of Israel, and unto the house of Judah, a
8326 new testament," says, explaining what this statement is (
8327 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A1-p5.3" href="./asv.html#Heb.8.8" target="asv">Heb. 8:8</a>,
8328 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A1-p5.4" href="./asv.html#Heb.8.10" target="asv">10</a>): "For this is the testament which I will make to the house
8329 of Israel . . . by giving [Vulg.: 'I will give'] My laws into their mind, and in their heart will I write them." Therefore
8330 the New Law is instilled in our hearts.
8331 </p>
8332 <p id="FS_Q106_A1-p6">
8333 <b>I answer that,</b> "Each thing appears to be that which preponderates in it," as the Philosopher states (Ethic. ix, 8). Now that which is preponderant
8334 in the law of the New Testament, and whereon all its efficacy is based, is the grace of the Holy Ghost, which is given through
8335 faith in Christ. Consequently the New Law is chiefly the grace itself of the Holy Ghost, which is given to those who believe
8336 in Christ. This is manifestly stated by the Apostle who says (
8337 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.3.27" target="asv">Rom.
8338 3:27
8339 </a>): "Where is . . . thy boasting? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith": for he calls the grace
8340 itself of faith "a law." And still more clearly it is written (
8341 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A1-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.2" target="asv">Rom. 8:2</a>): "The law of the spirit of life, in Christ Jesus, hath delivered me from the law of sin and of death." Hence Augustine says
8342 (De Spir. et Lit. xxiv) that "as the law of deeds was written on tables of stone, so is the law of faith inscribed on the
8343 hearts of the
8344 faithful": and elsewhere, in the same book (xxi): "What else are the Divine laws written by God Himself on our hearts, but
8345 the very presence of His Holy Spirit?"
8346 </p>
8347 <p id="FS_Q106_A1-p7"> Nevertheless the New Law contains certain things that dispose us to receive the grace of the Holy Ghost, and pertaining to
8348 the use of that grace: such things are of secondary importance, so to speak, in the New Law; and the faithful need to be instructed
8349 concerning them, both by word and writing, both as to what they should believe and as to what they should do. Consequently
8350 we must say that the New Law is in the first place a law that is inscribed on our hearts, but that
8351 secondarily it is a written law.
8352 </p>
8353 <p id="FS_Q106_A1-p8">
8354 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Gospel writings contain only such things as pertain to the grace of the Holy Ghost, either by disposing us thereto, or
8355 by directing us to the use thereof. Thus with regard to the intellect, the Gospel contains certain matters pertaining to the
8356 manifestation of Christ's Godhead or humanity, which dispose us by means of faith through which we receive the grace of the
8357 Holy Ghost: and with regard to the affections, it contains matters touching the
8358 contempt of the world, whereby man is rendered fit to receive the grace of the Holy Ghost: for "the world," i.e. worldly men,
8359 "cannot receive" the Holy Ghost (
8360 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#John.14.17" target="asv">Jn. 14:17</a>). As to the use of spiritual grace, this consists in works of virtue to which the writings of the New Testament exhort men
8361 in divers ways.
8362 </p>
8363 <p id="FS_Q106_A1-p9">
8364 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> There are two ways in which a thing may be instilled into man. First, through being part of his nature, and thus the natural
8365 law is instilled into man. Secondly, a thing is instilled into man by being, as it were, added on to his nature by a gift
8366 of grace. In this way the New Law is instilled into man, not only by indicating to him what he should do, but also by helping
8367 him to accomplish it.
8368 </p>
8369 <p id="FS_Q106_A1-p10">
8370 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> No man ever had the grace of the Holy Ghost except through faith in Christ either explicit or implicit: and by faith in Christ
8371 man belongs to the New Testament. Consequently whoever had the law of grace instilled into them belonged to the New Testament.
8372 </p>
8373 <p id="FS_Q106_A1-p11"></p>
8374 <p id="FS_Q106_A1-p12"></p>
8375 <a href="summa.FS_Q106.html"></a>
8376 <a href="summa.FS_Q106_A2.html"></a>
8377 </div>
8378 <div id="FS_Q106_A2" class="div4">
8379 <a href="summa.FS_Q106_A1.html"></a>
8380 <a href="summa.FS_Q106_A3.html"></a>
8381 <h4 id="FS_Q106_A2-p0.1">Whether the New Law justifies?</h4>
8382 <p id="FS_Q106_A2-p1"></p>
8383 <p id="FS_Q106_A2-p2">
8384 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the New Law does not justify. For no man is justified unless he obeys God's law, according to
8385 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.5.9" target="asv"> Heb. 5:9</a>: "He," i.e. Christ, "became to all that obey Him the cause of eternal salvation." But the Gospel does not always cause men
8386 to believe in it: for it is written (
8387 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A2-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.10.16" target="asv">Rom. 10:16</a>): "All do not obey the Gospel." Therefore the New Law does not justify.
8388 </p>
8389 <p id="FS_Q106_A2-p3">
8390 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Apostle proves in his epistle to the Romans that the Old Law did not justify, because transgression increased
8391 at its advent: for it is stated (
8392 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.4.15" target="asv">Rom. 4:15</a>): "The Law worketh wrath: for where there is no law, neither is there transgression." But much more did the New Law increase
8393 transgression: since he who sins after the giving of the New Law deserves greater punishment, according to
8394 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A2-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.10.28" target="asv"> Heb. 10:28,29</a>: "A man
8395 making void the Law of Moses dieth without any mercy under two or three witnesses. How much more, do you think, he deserveth
8396 worse punishments, who hath trodden underfoot the Son of God," etc.? Therefore the New Law, like the Old Law, does not justify.
8397 </p>
8398 <p id="FS_Q106_A2-p4">
8399 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, justification is an effect proper to God, according to
8400 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.33" target="asv"> Rom. 8:33</a>: "God that justifieth." But the Old Law was from God just as the New Law. Therefore the New Law does not justify any more
8401 than the Old Law.
8402 </p>
8403 <p id="FS_Q106_A2-p5">
8404 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
8405 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.1.16" target="asv">Rom. 1:16</a>): "I am not ashamed of the Gospel: for it is in the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth." But there is
8406 no salvation but to those who are justified. Therefore the Law of the Gospel justifies.
8407 </p>
8408 <p id="FS_Q106_A2-p6">
8409 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
8410 <a id="FS_Q106_A2-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q106_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, there is a twofold element in the Law of the Gospel. There is the chief element, viz. the grace of the Holy Ghost bestowed
8411 inwardly. And as to this, the New Law justifies. Hence Augustine says (De Spir. et Lit. xvii): "There," i.e. in the Old Testament,
8412 "the Law was set forth in an outward fashion, that the ungodly might be afraid"; "here," i.e. in the New Testament, "it is
8413 given in an inward manner, that
8414 they may be justified." The other element of the Evangelical Law is secondary: namely, the teachings of faith, and those commandments
8415 which direct human affections and human actions. And as to this, the New Law does not justify. Hence the Apostle says (
8416 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A2-p6.2" href="./asv.html#iiCor.3.6" target="asv">2 Cor. 3:6</a>) "The letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth": and Augustine explains this (De Spir. et Lit. xiv, xvii) by saying that
8417 the letter denotes any writing external to man, even that of the moral precepts such as are
8418 contained in the Gospel. Wherefore the letter, even of the Gospel would kill, unless there were the inward presence of the
8419 healing grace of faith.
8420 </p>
8421 <p id="FS_Q106_A2-p7">
8422 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This argument holds true of the New Law, not as to its principal, but as to its secondary element: i.e. as to the dogmas
8423 and precepts outwardly put before man either in words or in writing.
8424 </p>
8425 <p id="FS_Q106_A2-p8">
8426 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although the grace of the New Testament helps man to avoid sin, yet it does not so confirm man in good that he cannot sin:
8427 for this belongs to the state of glory. Hence if a man sin after receiving the grace of the New Testament, he deserves greater
8428 punishment, as being ungrateful for greater benefits, and as not using the help given to him. And this is why the New Law
8429 is not said to "work wrath": because as far as it is concerned it gives man
8430 sufficient help to avoid sin.
8431 </p>
8432 <p id="FS_Q106_A2-p9">
8433 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The same God gave both the New and the Old Law, but in different ways. For He gave the Old Law written on tables of stone:
8434 whereas He gave the New Law written "in the fleshly tables of the heart," as the Apostle expresses it (
8435 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A2-p9.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.3.3" target="asv">2 Cor. 3:3</a>). Wherefore, as Augustine says (De Spir. et Lit. xviii), "the Apostle calls this letter which is written outside man, a ministration
8436 of death and a ministration of condemnation: whereas he calls
8437 the other letter, i.e. the Law of the New Testament, the ministration of the spirit and the ministration of justice: because
8438 through the gift of the Spirit we work justice, and are delivered from the condemnation due to transgression."
8439 </p>
8440 <p id="FS_Q106_A2-p10"></p>
8441 <p id="FS_Q106_A2-p11"></p>
8442 <a href="summa.FS_Q106_A1.html"></a>
8443 <a href="summa.FS_Q106_A3.html"></a>
8444 </div>
8445 <div id="FS_Q106_A3" class="div4">
8446 <a href="summa.FS_Q106_A2.html"></a>
8447 <a href="summa.FS_Q106_A4.html"></a>
8448 <h4 id="FS_Q106_A3-p0.1">Whether the New Law should have been given from the beginning of the world?</h4>
8449 <p id="FS_Q106_A3-p1"></p>
8450 <p id="FS_Q106_A3-p2">
8451 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the New Law should have been given from the beginning of the world. "For there is no respect of persons
8452 with God" (
8453 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.2.11" target="asv">Rom. 2:11</a>). But "all" men "have sinned and do need the glory of God" (
8454 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A3-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.3.23" target="asv">Rom. 3:23</a>). Therefore the Law of the Gospel should have been given from the beginning of the world, in order that it might bring succor
8455 to all.
8456 </p>
8457 <p id="FS_Q106_A3-p3">
8458 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, as men dwell in various places, so do they live in various times. But God, "Who will have all men to be saved" (
8459 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#iTim.2.4" target="asv">1 Tim. 2:4</a>), commanded the Gospel to be preached in all places, as may be seen in the last chapters of Matthew and Mark. Therefore the
8460 Law of the Gospel should have been at hand for all times, so as to be given from the beginning of the world.
8461 </p>
8462 <p id="FS_Q106_A3-p4">
8463 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, man needs to save his soul, which is for all eternity, more than to save his body, which is a temporal matter. But
8464 God provided man from the beginning of the world with things that are necessary for the health of his body, by subjecting
8465 to his power whatever was created for the sake of man (
8466 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A3-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Gen.1.26" target="asv">Gn. 1:26-29</a>). Therefore the New Law also, which is very necessary for the health of the soul, should have been given to man from the
8467 beginning
8468 of the world.
8469 </p>
8470 <p id="FS_Q106_A3-p5">
8471 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
8472 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.15.46" target="asv">1 Cor. 15:46</a>): "That was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural." But the New Law is highly spiritual. Therefore it was
8473 not fitting for it to be given from the beginning of the world.
8474 </p>
8475 <p id="FS_Q106_A3-p6">
8476 <b>I answer that,</b> Three reasons may be assigned why it was not fitting for the New Law to be given from the beginning of the world. The first
8477 is because the New Law, as stated above
8478 <a id="FS_Q106_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q106_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, consists chiefly in the grace of the Holy Ghost: which it behoved not to be given abundantly until sin, which is an obstacle
8479 to grace, had been cast out of man through the accomplishment of his redemption by Christ: wherefore it is written (
8480 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A3-p6.2" href="./asv.html#John.7.39" target="asv">Jn.
8481 7:39
8482 </a>): "As yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified." This reason the Apostle states clearly (
8483 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A3-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.2" target="asv">Rom. 8:2, </a> seqq.) where, after speaking of "the Law of the Spirit of life," he adds: "God sending His own Son, in the likeness of sinful
8484 flesh, of sin* hath condemned sin in the flesh, that the justification of the Law might be fulfilled in us." [*St. Thomas,
8485 quoting perhaps from memory, omits the "et" (and), after "sinful flesh." The text quoted
8486 should read thus: "in the likeness of sinful flesh, and a sin offering ({peri hamartias}), hath," etc.]
8487 </p>
8488 <p id="FS_Q106_A3-p7"> A second reason may be taken from the perfection of the New Law. Because a thing is not brought to perfection at once from
8489 the outset, but through an orderly succession of time; thus one is at first a boy, and then a man. And this reason is stated
8490 by the Apostle (
8491 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.3.24" target="asv">Gal. 3:24,25</a>): "The Law was our pedagogue in Christ that we might be justified by faith. But after the faith is come, we are no longer
8492 under a pedagogue."
8493 </p>
8494 <p id="FS_Q106_A3-p8"> The third reason is found in the fact that the New Law is the law of grace: wherefore it behoved man first of all to be left
8495 to himself under the state of the Old Law, so that through falling into sin, he might realize his weakness, and acknowledge
8496 his need of grace. This reason is set down by the Apostle (
8497 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A3-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.20" target="asv">Rom. 5:20</a>): "The Law entered in, that sin might abound: and when sin abounded grace did more abound."
8498 </p>
8499 <p id="FS_Q106_A3-p9">
8500 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Mankind on account of the sin of our first parents deserved to be deprived of the aid of grace: and so "from whom it is withheld
8501 it is justly withheld, and to whom it is given, it is mercifully given," as Augustine states (De Perfect. Justit. iv) [*Cf.
8502 Ep. ccvii; De Pecc. Mer. et Rem. ii, 19]. Consequently it does not follow that there is respect of persons with God, from
8503 the fact that He did not offer the Law of grace to all from the beginning of the
8504 world, which Law was to be published in due course of time, as stated above.
8505 </p>
8506 <p id="FS_Q106_A3-p10">
8507 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The state of mankind does not vary according to diversity of place, but according to succession of time. Hence the New Law
8508 avails for all places, but not for all times: although at all times there have been some persons belonging to the New Testament,
8509 as stated above (A[1], ad 3).
8510 </p>
8511 <p id="FS_Q106_A3-p11">
8512 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Things pertaining to the health of the body are of service to man as regards his nature, which sin does not destroy: whereas
8513 things pertaining to the health of the soul are ordained to grace, which is forfeit through sin. Consequently the comparison
8514 will not hold.
8515 </p>
8516 <p id="FS_Q106_A3-p12"></p>
8517 <p id="FS_Q106_A3-p13"></p>
8518 <a href="summa.FS_Q106_A2.html"></a>
8519 <a href="summa.FS_Q106_A4.html"></a>
8520 </div>
8521 <div id="FS_Q106_A4" class="div4">
8522 <a href="summa.FS_Q106_A3.html"></a>
8523 <a href="summa.FS_Q107.html"></a>
8524 <h4 id="FS_Q106_A4-p0.1">Whether the New Law will last till the end of the world?</h4>
8525 <p id="FS_Q106_A4-p1"></p>
8526 <p id="FS_Q106_A4-p2">
8527 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the New Law will not last until the end of the world. Because, as the Apostle says (
8528 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A4-p2.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.13.10" target="asv">1 Cor. 13:10</a>), "when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away." But the New Law is "in part," since the
8529 Apostle says (
8530 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A4-p2.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.13.9" target="asv">1 Cor. 13:9</a>): "We know in part and we prophesy in part." Therefore the New Law is to be done away, and will be succeeded by a more perfect
8531 state.
8532 </p>
8533 <p id="FS_Q106_A4-p3">
8534 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Our Lord (
8535 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#John.16.13" target="asv">Jn. 16:13</a>) promised His disciples the knowledge of all truth when the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, should come. But the Church knows
8536 not yet all truth in the state of the New Testament. Therefore we must look forward to another state, wherein all truth will
8537 be revealed by the Holy Ghost.
8538 </p>
8539 <p id="FS_Q106_A4-p4">
8540 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, just as the Father is distinct from the Son and the Son from the Father, so is the Holy Ghost distinct from the
8541 Father and the Son. But there was a state corresponding with the Person of the Father, viz. the state of the Old Law, wherein
8542 men were intent on begetting children: and likewise there is a state corresponding to the Person of the Son: viz. the state
8543 of the New Law, wherein the clergy who are intent on wisdom (which is appropriated to the
8544 Son) hold a prominent place. Therefore there will be a third state corresponding to the Holy Ghost, wherein spiritual men
8545 will hold the first place.
8546 </p>
8547 <p id="FS_Q106_A4-p5">
8548 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, Our Lord said (
8549 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.24.14" target="asv">Mat. 24:14</a>): "This Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world . . . and then shall the consummation come." But the Gospel
8550 of Christ is already preached throughout the whole world: and yet the consummation has not yet come. Therefore the Gospel
8551 of Christ is not the Gospel of the kingdom, but another Gospel, that of the Holy Ghost, is to come yet, like unto another
8552 Law.
8553 </p>
8554 <p id="FS_Q106_A4-p6">
8555 <b>On the contrary,</b> Our Lord said (
8556 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A4-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.24.34" target="asv">Mat. 24:34</a>): "I say to you that this generation shall not pass till all (these) things be done": which passage Chrysostom (Hom. lxxvii)
8557 explains as referring to "the generation of those that believe in Christ." Therefore the state of those who believe in Christ
8558 will last until the consummation of the world.
8559 </p>
8560 <p id="FS_Q106_A4-p7">
8561 <b>I answer that,</b> The state of the world may change in two ways. In one way, according to a change of law: and thus no other state will succeed
8562 this state of the New Law. Because the state of the New Law succeeded the state of the Old Law, as a more perfect law a less
8563 perfect one. Now no state of the present life can be more perfect that the state of the New Law: since nothing can approach
8564 nearer to the last end than that which is the immediate cause of our being brought to
8565 the last end. But the New Law does this: wherefore the Apostle says (
8566 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.10.19" target="asv">Heb. 10:19-22</a>): "Having therefore, brethren, a confidence in the entering into the Holies by the blood of Christ, a new . . . way which
8567 He hath dedicated for us . . . let us draw near." Therefore no state of the present life can be more perfect than that of
8568 the New Law, since the nearer a thing is to the last end the more perfect it is.
8569 </p>
8570 <p id="FS_Q106_A4-p8"> In another way the state of mankind may change according as man stands in relation to one and the same law more or less perfectly.
8571 And thus the state of the Old Law underwent frequent changes, since at times the laws were very well kept, and at other times
8572 were altogether unheeded. Thus, too, the state of the New Law is subject to change with regard to various places, times, and
8573 persons, according as the grace of the Holy Ghost dwells in man more or less perfectly. Nevertheless
8574 we are not to look forward to a state wherein man is to possess the grace of the Holy Ghost more perfectly than he has possessed
8575 it hitherto, especially the apostles who "received the firstfruits of the Spirit, i.e. sooner and more abundantly than others,"
8576 as a gloss expounds on
8577 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A4-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.23" target="asv"> Rom. 8:23.</a>
8578 </p>
8579 <p id="FS_Q106_A4-p9">
8580 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v), there is a threefold state of mankind; the first was under the Old Law; the second is
8581 that of the New Law; the third will take place not in this life, but in heaven. But as the first state is figurative and imperfect
8582 in comparison with the state of the Gospel; so is the present state figurative and imperfect in comparison with the heavenly
8583 state, with the advent of which the present state will be done away as
8584 expressed in that very passage (
8585 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A4-p9.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.13.12" target="asv">1 Cor. 13:12</a>): "We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face."
8586 </p>
8587 <p id="FS_Q106_A4-p10">
8588 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix, 31), Montanus and Priscilla pretended that Our Lord's promise to give the Holy Ghost
8589 was fulfilled, not in the apostles, but in themselves. In like manner the Manicheans maintained that it was fulfilled in Manes
8590 whom they held to be the Paraclete. Hence none of the above received the Acts of the Apostles, where it is clearly shown that
8591 the aforesaid promise was fulfilled in the apostles: just as Our Lord promised
8592 them a second time (
8593 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A4-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.1.5" target="asv">Acts 1:5</a>): "You shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence": which we read as having been fulfilled in
8594 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A4-p10.2" href="./asv.html#Acts.2" target="asv">Acts 2</a>. However, these foolish notions are refuted by the statement (
8595 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A4-p10.3" href="./asv.html#John.7.39" target="asv">Jn. 7:39</a>) that "as yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified"; from which we gather that the Holy Ghost was
8596 given as soon as Christ was glorified in His Resurrection and Ascension. Moreover, this puts out of court the
8597 senseless idea that the Holy Ghost is to be expected to come at some other time.
8598 </p>
8599 <p id="FS_Q106_A4-p11"> Now the Holy Ghost taught the apostles all truth in respect of matters necessary for salvation; those things, to wit, that
8600 we are bound to believe and to do. But He did not teach them about all future events: for this did not regard them according
8601 to
8602 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A4-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Acts.1.7" target="asv"> Acts 1:7</a>: "It is not for you to know the times or moments which the Father hath put in His own power."
8603 </p>
8604 <p id="FS_Q106_A4-p12">
8605 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The Old Law corresponded not only to the Father, but also to the Son: because Christ was foreshadowed in the Old Law. Hence
8606 Our Lord said (
8607 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A4-p12.1" href="./asv.html#John.5.46" target="asv">Jn. 5:46</a>): "If you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also; for he wrote of Me." In like manner the New Law corresponds
8608 not only to Christ, but also to the Holy Ghost; according to
8609 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A4-p12.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.2" target="asv"> Rom. 8:2</a>: "The Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus," etc. Hence we are not
8610 to look forward to another law corresponding to the Holy Ghost.
8611 </p>
8612 <p id="FS_Q106_A4-p13">
8613 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Since Christ said at the very outset of the preaching of the Gospel: "The kingdom of heaven is at hand" (
8614 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A4-p13.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.4.17" target="asv">Mat. 4:17</a>), it is most absurd to say that the Gospel of Christ is not the Gospel of the kingdom. But the preaching of the Gospel of
8615 Christ may be understood in two ways. First, as denoting the spreading abroad of the knowledge of Christ: and thus the Gospel
8616 was preached throughout the world even at the time of the apostles, as
8617 Chrysostom states (Hom. lxxv in Matth.). And in this sense the words that follow---"and then shall the consummation come,"
8618 refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, of which He was speaking literally. Secondly, the preaching of the Gospel may be understood
8619 as extending throughout the world and producing its full effect, so that, to wit, the Church would be founded in every nation.
8620 And in these sense, as Augustine writes to Hesychius (Epist. cxcix), the Gospel is not preached to the whole world
8621 yet, but, when it is, the consummation of the world will come.
8622 </p>
8623 <p id="FS_Q106_A4-p14"></p>
8624 <p id="FS_Q106_A4-p15"></p>
8625 <a href="summa.FS_Q106_A3.html"></a>
8626 <a href="summa.FS_Q107.html"></a>
8627 </div>
8628 <a href="summa.FS_Q105_A4.html"></a>
8629 <a href="summa.FS_Q106_A1.html"></a>
8630 </div>
8631 <div id="FS_Q107" class="div3">
8632 <a href="summa.FS_Q106_A4.html"></a>
8633 <a href="summa.FS_Q107_A1.html"></a>
8634 <h3 id="FS_Q107-p0.1">OF THE NEW LAW AS COMPARED WITH THE OLD (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3>
8635 <p id="FS_Q107-p1"></p>
8636 <p id="FS_Q107-p2"> We must now consider the New Law as compared with the Old: under which head there are four points of inquiry:</p>
8637 <p id="FS_Q107-p3"> (1) Whether the New Law is distinct from the Old Law?</p>
8638 <p id="FS_Q107-p4"> (2) Whether the New Law fulfils the Old?</p>
8639 <p id="FS_Q107-p5"> (3) Whether the New Law is contained in the Old?</p>
8640 <p id="FS_Q107-p6"> (4) Which is the more burdensome, the New or the Old Law?</p>
8641 <div id="FS_Q107_A1" class="div4">
8642 <a href="summa.FS_Q107.html"></a>
8643 <a href="summa.FS_Q107_A2.html"></a>
8644 <h4 id="FS_Q107_A1-p0.1">Whether the New Law is distinct from the Old Law?</h4>
8645 <p id="FS_Q107_A1-p1"></p>
8646 <p id="FS_Q107_A1-p2">
8647 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the New Law is not distinct from the Old. Because both these laws were given to those who believe in God:
8648 since "without faith it is impossible to please God," according to
8649 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.11.6" target="asv"> Heb. 11:6.</a> But the faith of olden times and of nowadays is the same, as the gloss says on
8650 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A1-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.21.9" target="asv"> Mat. 21:9.</a> Therefore the law is the same also.
8651 </p>
8652 <p id="FS_Q107_A1-p3">
8653 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Augustine says (Contra Adamant. Manich. discip. xvii) that "there is little difference between the Law and Gospel"
8654 [*The 'little difference' refers to the Latin words 'timor' and 'amor']---"fear and love." But the New and Old Laws cannot
8655 be differentiated in respect of these two things: since even the Old Law comprised precepts of charity: "Thou shalt love thy
8656 neighbor" (
8657 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.19.18" target="asv">Lev. 19:18</a>), and: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God"
8658 (
8659 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A1-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.6.5" target="asv">Dt. 6:5</a>). In like manner neither can they differ according to the other difference which Augustine assigns (Contra Faust. iv, 2),
8660 viz. that "the Old Testament contained temporal promises, whereas the New Testament contains spiritual and eternal promises":
8661 since even the New Testament contains temporal promises, according to
8662 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A1-p3.3" href="./asv.html#Mark.10.30" target="asv"> Mk. 10:30</a>: He shall receive "a hundred times as much . . . in this time, houses and brethren," etc.: while in the Old Testament
8663 they hoped in promises spiritual and eternal, according to
8664 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A1-p3.4" href="./asv.html#Heb.11.16" target="asv"> Heb. 11:16</a>: "But now they desire a better, that is to say, a heavenly country," which is said of the patriarchs. Therefore it seems
8665 that the New Law is not distinct from the Old.
8666 </p>
8667 <p id="FS_Q107_A1-p4">
8668 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Apostle seems to distinguish both laws by calling the Old Law "a law of works," and the New Law "a law of faith"
8669 (
8670 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A1-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.3.27" target="asv">Rom. 3:27</a>). But the Old Law was also a law of faith, according to
8671 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A1-p4.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.11.39" target="asv"> Heb. 11:39</a>: "All were [Vulg.: 'All these being'] approved by the testimony of faith," which he says of the fathers of the Old Testament.
8672 In like manner the New Law is a law of works: since it is written (
8673 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A1-p4.3" href="./asv.html#Matt.5.44" target="asv">Mat. 5:44</a>): "Do good to
8674 them that hate you"; and (
8675 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A1-p4.4" href="./asv.html#Luke.22.19" target="asv">Lk. 22:19</a>): "Do this for a commemoration of Me." Therefore the New Law is not distinct from the Old.
8676 </p>
8677 <p id="FS_Q107_A1-p5">
8678 <b>On the contrary,</b> the Apostle says (
8679 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.7.12" target="asv">Heb. 7:12</a>): "The priesthood being translated it is necessary that a translation also be made of the Law." But the priesthood of the
8680 New Testament is distinct from that of the Old, as the Apostle shows in the same place. Therefore the Law is also distinct.
8681 </p>
8682 <p id="FS_Q107_A1-p6">
8683 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
8684 <a id="FS_Q107_A1-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q90_A2.html">Q[90], A[2]</a>;
8685 <a id="FS_Q107_A1-p6.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q91_A4.html"> Q[91], A[4]</a>), every law ordains human conduct to some end. Now things ordained to an end may be divided in two ways, considered from
8686 the point of view of the end. First, through being ordained to different ends: and this difference will be specific, especially
8687 if such ends are proximate. Secondly, by reason of being closely or remotely connected with the end. Thus it is clear
8688 that movements differ in species through being directed to different terms: while according as one part of a movement is nearer
8689 to the term than another part, the difference of perfect and imperfect movement is assessed.
8690 </p>
8691 <p id="FS_Q107_A1-p7"> Accordingly then two laws may be distinguished from one another in two ways. First, through being altogether diverse, from
8692 the fact that they are ordained to diverse ends: thus a state-law ordained to democratic government, would differ specifically
8693 from a law ordained to government by the aristocracy. Secondly, two laws may be distinguished from one another, through one
8694 of them being more closely connected with the end, and the other more remotely: thus in one and the same
8695 state there is one law enjoined on men of mature age, who can forthwith accomplish that which pertains to the common good;
8696 and another law regulating the education of children who need to be taught how they are to achieve manly deeds later on.
8697 </p>
8698 <p id="FS_Q107_A1-p8"> We must therefore say that, according to the first way, the New Law is not distinct from the Old Law: because they both have
8699 the same end, namely, man's subjection to God; and there is but one God of the New and of the Old Testament, according to
8700 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.3.30" target="asv"> Rom. 3:30</a>: "It is one God that justifieth circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith." According to the second way, the
8701 New Law is distinct from the Old Law: because the Old Law is like a pedagogue of
8702 children, as the Apostle says (
8703 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A1-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Gal.3.24" target="asv">Gal. 3:24</a>), whereas the New Law is the law of perfection, since it is the law of charity, of which the Apostle says (
8704 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A1-p8.3" href="./asv.html#Col.3.14" target="asv">Col. 3:14</a>) that it is "the bond of perfection."
8705 </p>
8706 <p id="FS_Q107_A1-p9">
8707 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The unity of faith under both Testaments witnesses to the unity of end: for it has been stated above (
8708 <a id="FS_Q107_A1-p9.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q62_A2.html">Q[62], A[2]</a>) that the object of the theological virtues, among which is faith, is the last end. Yet faith had a different state in the
8709 Old and in the New Law: since what they believed as future, we believe as fact.
8710 </p>
8711 <p id="FS_Q107_A1-p10">
8712 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> All the differences assigned between the Old and New Laws are gathered from their relative perfection and imperfection. For
8713 the precepts of every law prescribe acts of virtue. Now the imperfect, who as yet are not possessed of a virtuous habit, are
8714 directed in one way to perform virtuous acts, while those who are perfected by the possession of virtuous habits are directed
8715 in another way. For those who as yet are not endowed with virtuous habits, are
8716 directed to the performance of virtuous acts by reason of some outward cause: for instance, by the threat of punishment, or
8717 the promise of some extrinsic rewards, such as honor, riches, or the like. Hence the Old Law, which was given to men who were
8718 imperfect, that is, who had not yet received spiritual grace, was called the "law of fear," inasmuch as it induced men to
8719 observe its commandments by threatening them with penalties; and is spoken of as containing temporal promises. On the other
8720 hand, those who are possessed of virtue, are inclined to do virtuous deeds through love of virtue, not on account of some
8721 extrinsic punishment or reward. Hence the New Law which derives its pre-eminence from the spiritual grace instilled into our
8722 hearts, is called the "Law of love": and it is described as containing spiritual and eternal promises, which are objects of
8723 the virtues, chiefly of charity. Accordingly such persons are inclined of themselves to those objects, not as to something
8724 foreign but as to something of their own. For this reason, too, the Old Law is described as "restraining the hand, not the
8725 will" [*Peter Lombard, Sent. iii, D, 40]; since when a man refrains from some sins through fear of being punished, his will
8726 does not shrink simply from sin, as does the will of a man who refrains from sin through love of righteousness: and hence
8727 the New Law, which is the Law of love, is said to restrain the will.
8728 </p>
8729 <p id="FS_Q107_A1-p11"> Nevertheless there were some in the state of the Old Testament who, having charity and the grace of the Holy Ghost, looked
8730 chiefly to spiritual and eternal promises: and in this respect they belonged to the New Law. In like manner in the New Testament
8731 there are some carnal men who have not yet attained to the perfection of the New Law; and these it was necessary, even under
8732 the New Testament, to lead to virtuous action by the fear of punishment and by temporal promises.
8733 </p>
8734 <p id="FS_Q107_A1-p12"> But although the Old Law contained precepts of charity, nevertheless it did not confer the Holy Ghost by Whom "charity .
8735 . . is spread abroad in our hearts" (
8736 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A1-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.5" target="asv">Rom. 5:5</a>).
8737 </p>
8738 <p id="FS_Q107_A1-p13">
8739 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated above (
8740 <a id="FS_Q107_A1-p13.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q106_A1.html">Q[106], AA[1]</a>,2), the New Law is called the law of faith, in so far as its pre-eminence is derived from that very grace which is given
8741 inwardly to believers, and for this reason is called the grace of faith. Nevertheless it consists secondarily in certain deeds,
8742 moral and sacramental: but the New Law does not consist chiefly in these latter things, as did the Old Law. As to those under
8743 the Old Testament who
8744 through faith were acceptable to God, in this respect they belonged to the New Testament: for they were not justified except
8745 through faith in Christ, Who is the Author of the New Testament. Hence of Moses the Apostle says (
8746 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A1-p13.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.11.26" target="asv">Heb. 11:26</a>) that he esteemed "the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasure of the Egyptians."
8747 </p>
8748 <p id="FS_Q107_A1-p14"></p>
8749 <p id="FS_Q107_A1-p15"></p>
8750 <a href="summa.FS_Q107.html"></a>
8751 <a href="summa.FS_Q107_A2.html"></a>
8752 </div>
8753 <div id="FS_Q107_A2" class="div4">
8754 <a href="summa.FS_Q107_A1.html"></a>
8755 <a href="summa.FS_Q107_A3.html"></a>
8756 <h4 id="FS_Q107_A2-p0.1">Whether the New Law fulfils the Old?</h4>
8757 <p id="FS_Q107_A2-p1"></p>
8758 <p id="FS_Q107_A2-p2">
8759 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the New Law does not fulfil the Old. Because to fulfil and to void are contrary. But the New Law voids
8760 or excludes the observances of the Old Law: for the Apostle says (
8761 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.5.2" target="asv">Gal. 5:2</a>): "If you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." Therefore the New Law is not a fulfilment of the Old.
8762 </p>
8763 <p id="FS_Q107_A2-p3">
8764 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, one contrary is not the fulfilment of another. But Our Lord propounded in the New Law precepts that were contrary
8765 to precepts of the Old Law. For we read (
8766 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A2-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.5.27" target="asv">Mat. 5:27-32</a>): You have heard that it was said to them of old: . . . "Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce.
8767 But I say to you that whosoever shall put away his wife . . . maketh her to commit adultery." Furthermore, the same evidently
8768 applies to
8769 the prohibition against swearing, against retaliation, and against hating one's enemies. In like manner Our Lord seems to
8770 have done away with the precepts of the Old Law relating to the different kinds of foods (
8771 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A2-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.15.11" target="asv">Mat. 15:11</a>): "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth the man: but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." Therefore
8772 the New Law is not a fulfilment of the Old.
8773 </p>
8774 <p id="FS_Q107_A2-p4">
8775 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, whoever acts against a law does not fulfil the law. But Christ in certain cases acted against the Law. For He touched
8776 the leper (
8777 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.8.3" target="asv">Mat. 8:3</a>), which was contrary to the Law. Likewise He seems to have frequently broken the sabbath; since the Jews used to say of Him
8778 (
8779 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A2-p4.2" href="./asv.html#John.9.16" target="asv">Jn. 9:16</a>): "This man is not of God, who keepeth not the sabbath." Therefore Christ did not fulfil the Law: and so the New Law given
8780 by Christ is not a fulfilment of the
8781 Old.
8782 </p>
8783 <p id="FS_Q107_A2-p5">
8784 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the Old Law contained precepts, moral, ceremonial, and judicial, as stated above (
8785 <a id="FS_Q107_A2-p5.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q99_A4.html">Q[99], A[4]</a>). But Our Lord (
8786 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A2-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.5" target="asv">Mat. 5</a>) fulfilled the Law in some respects, but without mentioning the judicial and ceremonial precepts. Therefore it seems that
8787 the New Law is not a complete fulfilment of the Old.
8788 </p>
8789 <p id="FS_Q107_A2-p6">
8790 <b>On the contrary,</b> Our Lord said (
8791 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.5.17" target="asv">Mat. 5:17</a>): "I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil": and went on to say (
8792 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A2-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.5.18" target="asv">Mat. 5:18</a>): "One jot or one tittle shall not pass of the Law till all be fulfilled."
8793 </p>
8794 <p id="FS_Q107_A2-p7">
8795 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
8796 <a id="FS_Q107_A2-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q107_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, the New Law is compared to the Old as the perfect to the imperfect. Now everything perfect fulfils that which is lacking
8797 in the imperfect. And accordingly the New Law fulfils the Old by supplying that which was lacking in the Old Law.
8798 </p>
8799 <p id="FS_Q107_A2-p8"> Now two things of every law is to make men righteous and virtuous, as was stated above (
8800 <a id="FS_Q107_A2-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q92_A1.html">Q[92], A[1]</a>): and consequently the end of the Old Law was the justification of men. The Law, however, could not accomplish this: but
8801 foreshadowed it by certain ceremonial actions, and promised it in words. And in this respect, the New Law fulfils the Old
8802 by justifying men through the power of Christ's Passion. This is what the Apostle says (
8803 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A2-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.3" target="asv">Rom.
8804 8:3,4
8805 </a>): "What the Law could not do . . . God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh . . . hath condemned sin in the
8806 flesh, that the justification of the Law might be fulfilled in us." And in this respect, the New Law gives what the Old Law
8807 promised, according to
8808 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A2-p8.3" href="./asv.html#iiCor.1.20" target="asv">2 Cor. 1:20</a>: "Whatever are the promises of God, in Him," i.e. in Christ, "they are 'Yea'." [*The Douay version reads thus: "All the promises
8809 of God are in Him, 'It is'."] Again, in this respect, it also fulfils
8810 what the Old Law foreshadowed. Hence it is written (
8811 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A2-p8.4" href="./asv.html#Col.2.17" target="asv">Col. 2:17</a>) concerning the ceremonial precepts that they were "a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ"; in other words,
8812 the reality is found in Christ. Wherefore the New Law is called the law of reality; whereas the Old Law is called the law
8813 of shadow or of figure.
8814 </p>
8815 <p id="FS_Q107_A2-p9"> Now Christ fulfilled the precepts of the Old Law both in His works and in His doctrine. In His works, because He was willing
8816 to be circumcised and to fulfil the other legal observances, which were binding for the time being; according to
8817 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A2-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.4.4" target="asv"> Gal. 4:4</a>: "Made under the Law." In His doctrine He fulfilled the precepts of the Law in three ways. First, by explaining the true
8818 sense of the Law. This is clear in the case of murder and adultery, the prohibition of which
8819 the Scribes and Pharisees thought to refer only to the exterior act: wherefore Our Lord fulfilled the Law by showing that
8820 the prohibition extended also to the interior acts of sins. Secondly, Our Lord fulfilled the precepts of the Law by prescribing
8821 the safest way of complying with the statutes of the Old Law. Thus the Old Law forbade perjury: and this is more safely avoided,
8822 by abstaining altogether from swearing, save in cases of urgency. Thirdly, Our Lord fulfilled the precepts of the Law,
8823 by adding some counsels of perfection: this is clearly seen in
8824 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A2-p9.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.21" target="asv"> Mat. 19:21, </a> where Our Lord said to the man who affirmed that he had kept all the precepts of the Old Law: "One thing is wanting to thee:
8825 If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell whatsoever thou hast," etc. [*St. Thomas combines
8826 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A2-p9.3" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.21" target="asv"> Mat. 19:21 </a>with
8827 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A2-p9.4" href="./asv.html#Mark.10.21" target="asv"> Mk. 10:21</a>].
8828 </p>
8829 <p id="FS_Q107_A2-p10">
8830 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The New Law does not void observance of the Old Law except in the point of ceremonial precepts, as stated above (
8831 <a id="FS_Q107_A2-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q103_A3.html">Q[103], AA[3]</a>,4). Now the latter were figurative of something to come. Wherefore from the very fact that the ceremonial precepts were fulfilled
8832 when those things were accomplished which they foreshadowed, it follows that they are no longer to be observed: for it they
8833 were to be observed, this would mean that
8834 something is still to be accomplished and is not yet fulfilled. Thus the promise of a future gift holds no longer when it
8835 has been fulfilled by the presentation of the gift. In this way the legal ceremonies are abolished by being fulfilled.
8836 </p>
8837 <p id="FS_Q107_A2-p11">
8838 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix, 26), those precepts of Our Lord are not contrary to the precepts of the Old Law. For
8839 what Our Lord commanded about a man not putting away his wife, is not contrary to what the Law prescribed. "For the Law did
8840 not say: 'Let him that wills, put his wife away': the contrary of which would be not to put her away. On the contrary, the
8841 Law was unwilling that a man should put away his wife, since it prescribed a delay,
8842 so that excessive eagerness for divorce might cease through being weakened during the writing of the bill. Hence Our Lord,
8843 in order to impress the fact that a wife ought not easily to be put away, allowed no exception save in the case of fornication."
8844 The same applies to the prohibition about swearing, as stated above. The same is also clear with respect to the prohibition
8845 of retaliation. For the Law fixed a limit to revenge, by forbidding men to seek vengeance unreasonably: whereas Our Lord
8846 deprived them of vengeance more completely by commanding them to abstain from it altogether. With regard to the hatred of
8847 one's enemies, He dispelled the false interpretation of the Pharisees, by admonishing us to hate, not the person, but his
8848 sin. As to discriminating between various foods, which was a ceremonial matter, Our Lord did not forbid this to be observed:
8849 but He showed that no foods are naturally unclean, but only in token of something else, as stated above (
8850 <a id="FS_Q107_A2-p11.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q102_A6.html">Q[102], A[6]</a>, ad 1).
8851 </p>
8852 <p id="FS_Q107_A2-p12">
8853 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> It was forbidden by the Law to touch a leper; because by doing so, man incurred a certain uncleanness of irregularity, as
8854 also by touching the dead, as stated above (
8855 <a id="FS_Q107_A2-p12.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q102_A5.html">Q[102], A[5]</a>, ad 4). But Our Lord, Who healed the leper, could not contract an uncleanness. By those things which He did on the sabbath,
8856 He did not break the sabbath in reality, as the Master Himself shows in the Gospel: both because He worked miracles by His
8857 Divine power, which is ever active among things; and because He worked miracles by His Divine power, which is ever active
8858 among things; and because His works were concerned with the salvation of man, while the Pharisees were concerned for the well-being
8859 of animals even on the sabbath; and again because on account of urgency He excused His disciples for gathering the ears of
8860 corn on the sabbath. But He did seem to break the sabbath according to the superstitious interpretation of the Pharisees,
8861 who thought that man ought to abstain from doing even works of kindness on the sabbath; which was contrary to the intention
8862 of the Law.
8863 </p>
8864 <p id="FS_Q107_A2-p13">
8865 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The reason why the ceremonial precepts of the Law are not mentioned in
8866 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A2-p13.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.5" target="asv">Mat. 5</a> is because, as stated above (ad 1), their observance was abolished by their fulfilment. But of the judicial precepts He mentioned
8867 that of retaliation: so that what He said about it should refer to all the others. With regard to this precept, He taught
8868 that the intention of the Law was that retaliation should be sought out of love of justice, and not as a punishment out of
8869 revengeful spite, which He forbade, admonishing man to be ready to suffer yet greater insults; and this remains still in the
8870 New Law.
8871 </p>
8872 <p id="FS_Q107_A2-p14"></p>
8873 <p id="FS_Q107_A2-p15"></p>
8874 <p id="FS_Q107_A2-p16"></p>
8875 <a href="summa.FS_Q107_A1.html"></a>
8876 <a href="summa.FS_Q107_A3.html"></a>
8877 </div>
8878 <div id="FS_Q107_A3" class="div4">
8879 <a href="summa.FS_Q107_A2.html"></a>
8880 <a href="summa.FS_Q107_A4.html"></a>
8881 <h4 id="FS_Q107_A3-p0.1">Whether the New Law is contained in the Old?</h4>
8882 <p id="FS_Q107_A3-p1"></p>
8883 <p id="FS_Q107_A3-p2">
8884 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the New Law is not contained in the Old. Because the New Law consists chiefly in faith: wherefore it is
8885 called the "law of faith" (
8886 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A3-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.3.27" target="asv">Rom. 3:27</a>). But many points of faith are set forth in the New Law, which are not contained in the Old. Therefore the New Law is not
8887 contained in the Old.
8888 </p>
8889 <p id="FS_Q107_A3-p3">
8890 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a gloss says on
8891 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A3-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.5.19" target="asv"> Mat. 5:19, </a> "He that shall break one of these least commandments," that the lesser commandments are those of the Law, and the greater
8892 commandments, those contained in the Gospel. Now the greater cannot be contained in the lesser. Therefore the New Law is not
8893 contained in the Old.
8894 </p>
8895 <p id="FS_Q107_A3-p4">
8896 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, who holds the container holds the contents. If, therefore, the New Law is contained in the Old, it follows that
8897 whoever had the Old Law had the New: so that it was superfluous to give men a New Law when once they had the Old. Therefore
8898 the New Law is not contained in the Old.
8899 </p>
8900 <p id="FS_Q107_A3-p5">
8901 <b>On the contrary,</b> As expressed in
8902 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A3-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Ezek.1.16" target="asv"> Ezech. 1:16, </a> there was "a wheel in the midst of a wheel," i.e. "the New Testament within the Old," according to Gregory's exposition.
8903 </p>
8904 <p id="FS_Q107_A3-p6">
8905 <b>I answer that,</b> One thing may be contained in another in two ways. First, actually; as a located thing is in a place. Secondly, virtually;
8906 as an effect in its cause, or as the complement in that which is incomplete; thus a genus contains its species, and a seed
8907 contains the whole tree, virtually. It is in this way that the New Law is contained in the Old: for it has been stated
8908 <a id="FS_Q107_A3-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q107_A1.html">(A[1])</a> that the New Law is compared to the Old as perfect to imperfect.
8909 Hence Chrysostom, expounding
8910 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A3-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Mark.4.28" target="asv"> Mk. 4:28, </a> "The earth of itself bringeth forth fruit, first the blade, then the ear, afterwards the full corn in the ear," expresses
8911 himself as follows: "He brought forth first the blade, i.e. the Law of Nature; then the ear, i.e. the Law of Moses; lastly,
8912 the full corn, i.e. the Law of the Gospel." Hence then the New Law is in the Old as the corn in the ear.
8913 </p>
8914 <p id="FS_Q107_A3-p7">
8915 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Whatsoever is set down in the New Testament explicitly and openly as a point of faith, is contained in the Old Testament
8916 as a matter of belief, but implicitly, under a figure. And accordingly, even as to those things which we are bound to believe,
8917 the New Law is contained in the Old.
8918 </p>
8919 <p id="FS_Q107_A3-p8">
8920 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The precepts of the New Law are said to be greater than those of the Old Law, in the point of their being set forth explicitly.
8921 But as to the substance itself of the precepts of the New Testament, they are all contained in the Old. Hence Augustine says
8922 (Contra Faust. xix, 23,28) that "nearly all Our Lord's admonitions or precepts, where He expressed Himself by saying: 'But
8923 I say unto you,' are to be found also in those ancient books. Yet, since they
8924 thought that murder was only the slaying of the human body, Our Lord declared to them that every wicked impulse to hurt our
8925 brother is to be looked on as a kind of murder." And it is in the point of declarations of this kind that the precepts of
8926 the New Law are said to be greater than those of the Old. Nothing, however, prevents the greater from being contained in the
8927 lesser virtually; just as a tree is contained in the seed.
8928 </p>
8929 <p id="FS_Q107_A3-p9">
8930 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> What is set forth implicitly needs to be declared explicitly. Hence after the publishing of the Old Law, a New Law also had
8931 to be given.
8932 </p>
8933 <p id="FS_Q107_A3-p10"></p>
8934 <p id="FS_Q107_A3-p11"></p>
8935 <a href="summa.FS_Q107_A2.html"></a>
8936 <a href="summa.FS_Q107_A4.html"></a>
8937 </div>
8938 <div id="FS_Q107_A4" class="div4">
8939 <a href="summa.FS_Q107_A3.html"></a>
8940 <a href="summa.FS_Q108.html"></a>
8941 <h4 id="FS_Q107_A4-p0.1">Whether the New Law is more burdensome than the Old?</h4>
8942 <p id="FS_Q107_A4-p1"></p>
8943 <p id="FS_Q107_A4-p2">
8944 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the New Law is more burdensome than the Old. For Chrysostom (Opus Imp. in Matth., Hom. x [*The work of
8945 an unknown author]) say: "The commandments given to Moses are easy to obey: Thou shalt not kill; Thou shalt not commit adultery:
8946 but the commandments of Christ are difficult to accomplish, for instance: Thou shalt not give way to anger, or to lust." Therefore
8947 the New Law is more burdensome than the Old.
8948 </p>
8949 <p id="FS_Q107_A4-p3">
8950 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is easier to make use of earthly prosperity than to suffer tribulations. But in the Old Testament observance
8951 of the Law was followed by temporal prosperity, as may be gathered from
8952 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A4-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.28.1" target="asv"> Dt. 28:1-14</a>; whereas many kinds of trouble ensue to those who observe the New Law, as stated in
8953 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A4-p3.2" href="./asv.html#iiCor.6.4" target="asv">2 Cor. 6:4-10</a>: "Let us exhibit ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in tribulation, in necessities, in distresses,"
8954 etc. Therefore the New Law is more burdensome than the Old.
8955 </p>
8956 <p id="FS_Q107_A4-p4">
8957 <b>Objection 3:</b> The more one has to do, the more difficult it is. But the New Law is something added to the Old. For the Old Law forbade
8958 perjury, while the New Law proscribed even swearing: the Old Law forbade a man to cast off his wife without a bill of divorce,
8959 while the New Law forbade divorce altogether; as is clearly stated in
8960 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A4-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.5.31" target="asv"> Mat. 5:31, </a> seqq., according to Augustine's expounding. Therefore the New Law is more burdensome than the Old.
8961 </p>
8962 <p id="FS_Q107_A4-p5">
8963 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
8964 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.11.28" target="asv">Mat. 11:28</a>): "Come to Me, all you that labor and are burdened": which words are expounded by Hilary thus: "He calls to Himself all those
8965 that labor under the difficulty of observing the Law, and are burdened with the sins of this world." And further on He says
8966 of the yoke of the Gospel: "For My yoke is sweet and My burden light." Therefore the New Law is a lighter burden than the
8967 Old.
8968 </p>
8969 <p id="FS_Q107_A4-p6">
8970 <b>I answer that,</b> A twofold difficult may attach to works of virtue with which the precepts of the Law are concerned. One is on the part of
8971 the outward works, which of themselves are, in a way, difficult and burdensome. And in this respect the Old Law is a much
8972 heavier burden than the New: since the Old Law by its numerous ceremonies prescribed many more outward acts than the New Law,
8973 which, in the teaching of Christ and the apostles, added very few precepts to those of the
8974 natural law; although afterwards some were added, through being instituted by the holy Fathers. Even in these Augustine says
8975 that moderation should be observed, lest good conduct should become a burden to the faithful. For he says in reply to the
8976 queries of Januarius (Ep. lv) that, "whereas God in His mercy wished religion to be a free service rendered by the public
8977 solemnization of a small number of most manifest sacraments, certain persons make it a slave's burden; so much so that the
8978 state
8979 of the Jews who were subject to the sacraments of the Law, and not to the presumptuous devices of man, was more tolerable."
8980 </p>
8981 <p id="FS_Q107_A4-p7"> The other difficulty attaches to works of virtue as to interior acts: for instance, that a virtuous deed be done with promptitude
8982 and pleasure. It is this difficulty that virtue solves: because to act thus is difficult for a man without virtue: but through
8983 virtue it becomes easy for him. In this respect the precepts of the New Law are more burdensome than those of the Old; because
8984 the New Law prohibits certain interior movements of the soul, which were not expressly forbidden in
8985 the Old Law in all cases, although they were forbidden in some, without, however, any punishment being attached to the prohibition.
8986 Now this is very difficult to a man without virtue: thus even the Philosopher states (Ethic. v, 9) that it is easy to do what
8987 a righteous man does; but that to do it in the same way, viz. with pleasure and promptitude, is difficult to a man who is
8988 not righteous. Accordingly we read also (
8989 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#iJohn.5.3" target="asv">1 Jn. 5:3</a>) that "His commandments are not heavy": which
8990 words Augustine expounds by saying that "they are not heavy to the man that loveth; whereas they are a burden to him that
8991 loveth not."
8992 </p>
8993 <p id="FS_Q107_A4-p8">
8994 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The passage quoted speaks expressly of the difficulty of the New Law as to the deliberate curbing of interior movements.
8995 </p>
8996 <p id="FS_Q107_A4-p9">
8997 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The tribulations suffered by those who observe the New Law are not imposed by the Law itself. Moreover they are easily borne,
8998 on account of the love in which the same Law consists: since, as Augustine says (De Verb. Dom., Serm. lxx), "love makes light
8999 and nothing of things that seem arduous and beyond our power."
9000 </p>
9001 <p id="FS_Q107_A4-p10">
9002 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The object of these additions to the precepts of the Old Law was to render it easier to do what it prescribed, as Augustine
9003 states [*De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 17,21; xix, 23,26]. Accordingly this does not prove that the New Law is more burdensome,
9004 but rather that it is a lighter burden.
9005 </p>
9006 <p id="FS_Q107_A4-p11"></p>
9007 <p id="FS_Q107_A4-p12"></p>
9008 <a href="summa.FS_Q107_A3.html"></a>
9009 <a href="summa.FS_Q108.html"></a>
9010 </div>
9011 <a href="summa.FS_Q106_A4.html"></a>
9012 <a href="summa.FS_Q107_A1.html"></a>
9013 </div>
9014 <div id="FS_Q108" class="div3">
9015 <a href="summa.FS_Q107_A4.html"></a>
9016 <a href="summa.FS_Q108_A1.html"></a>
9017 <h3 id="FS_Q108-p0.1">OF THOSE THINGS THAT ARE CONTAINED IN THE NEW LAW (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3>
9018 <p id="FS_Q108-p1"></p>
9019 <p id="FS_Q108-p2"> We must now consider those things that are contained in the New Law: under which head there are four points of inquiry:</p>
9020 <p id="FS_Q108-p3"> (1) Whether the New Law ought to prescribe or to forbid any outward works?</p>
9021 <p id="FS_Q108-p4"> (2) Whether the New Law makes sufficient provision in prescribing and forbidding external acts?</p>
9022 <p id="FS_Q108-p5"> (3) Whether in the matter of internal acts it directs man sufficiently?</p>
9023 <p id="FS_Q108-p6"> (4) Whether it fittingly adds counsels to precepts?</p>
9024 <div id="FS_Q108_A1" class="div4">
9025 <a href="summa.FS_Q108.html"></a>
9026 <a href="summa.FS_Q108_A2.html"></a>
9027 <h4 id="FS_Q108_A1-p0.1">Whether the New Law ought to prescribe or prohibit any external acts?</h4>
9028 <p id="FS_Q108_A1-p1"></p>
9029 <p id="FS_Q108_A1-p2">
9030 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the New Law should not prescribe or prohibit any external acts. For the New Law is the Gospel of the kingdom,
9031 according to
9032 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A1-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.24.14" target="asv"> Mat. 24:14</a>: "This Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world." But the kingdom of God consists not in exterior, but
9033 only in interior acts, according to
9034 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A1-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.17.21" target="asv"> Lk. 17:21</a>: "The kingdom of God is within you"; and
9035 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A1-p2.3" href="./asv.html#Rom.14.17" target="asv"> Rom. 14:17</a>: "The kingdom of God is not
9036 meat and drink; but justice and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost." Therefore the New Law should not prescribe or forbid any
9037 external acts.
9038 </p>
9039 <p id="FS_Q108_A1-p3">
9040 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the New Law is "the law of the Spirit" (
9041 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.2" target="asv">Rom. 8:2</a>). But "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (
9042 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A1-p3.2" href="./asv.html#iiCor.3.17" target="asv">2 Cor. 3:17</a>). Now there is no liberty when man is bound to do or avoid certain external acts. Therefore the New Law does not prescribe
9043 or forbid any external acts.
9044 </p>
9045 <p id="FS_Q108_A1-p4">
9046 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, all external acts are understood as referable to the hand, just as interior acts belong to the mind. But this is
9047 assigned as the difference between the New and Old Laws that the "Old Law restrains the hand, whereas the New Law curbs the
9048 will" [*Peter Lombard, Sent. iii, D, 40]. Therefore the New Law should not contain prohibitions and commands about exterior
9049 deeds, but only about interior acts.
9050 </p>
9051 <p id="FS_Q108_A1-p5">
9052 <b>On the contrary,</b> Through the New Law, men are made "children of light": wherefore it is written (
9053 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#John.12.36" target="asv">Jn. 12:36</a>): "Believe in the light that you may be the children of light." Now it is becoming that children of the light should do deeds
9054 of light and cast aside deeds of darkness, according to
9055 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A1-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Eph.5.8" target="asv"> Eph. 5:8</a>: "You were heretofore darkness, but now light in the Lord. Walk . . . as children of the light." Therefore the New Law had
9056 to forbid
9057 certain external acts and prescribe others.
9058 </p>
9059 <p id="FS_Q108_A1-p6">
9060 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
9061 <a id="FS_Q108_A1-p6.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q106_A1.html">Q[106], AA[1]</a>,2), the New Law consists chiefly in the grace of the Holy Ghost, which is shown forth by faith that worketh through love.
9062 Now men become receivers of this grace through God's Son made man, Whose humanity grace filled first, and thence flowed forth
9063 to us. Hence it is written (
9064 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A1-p6.2" href="./asv.html#John.1.14" target="asv">Jn. 1:14</a>): "The Word was made flesh," and afterwards: "full of grace and truth"; and further on: "Of His
9065 fulness we all have received, and grace for grace." Hence it is added that "grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." Consequently
9066 it was becoming that the grace flows from the incarnate Word should be given to us by means of certain external sensible objects;
9067 and that from this inward grace, whereby the flesh is subjected to the Spirit, certain external works should ensue.
9068 </p>
9069 <p id="FS_Q108_A1-p7"> Accordingly external acts may have a twofold connection with grace. In the first place, as leading in some way to grace.
9070 Such are the sacramental acts which are instituted in the New Law, e.g. Baptism, the Eucharist, and the like.
9071 </p>
9072 <p id="FS_Q108_A1-p8"> In the second place there are those external acts which ensue from the promptings of grace: and herein we must observe a
9073 difference. For there are some which are necessarily in keeping with, or in opposition to inward grace consisting in faith
9074 that worketh through love. Such external works are prescribed or forbidden in the New Law; thus confession of faith is prescribed,
9075 and denial of faith is forbidden; for it is written (
9076 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A1-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.10.32" target="asv">Mat. 10:32,33</a>) "(Every one) that
9077 shall confess Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father . . . But he that shall deny Me before men, I will also
9078 deny him before My Father." On the other hand, there are works which are not necessarily opposed to, or in keeping with faith
9079 that worketh through love. Such works are not prescribed or forbidden in the New Law, by virtue of its primitive institution;
9080 but have been left by the Lawgiver, i.e. Christ, to the discretion of each individual. And so to each one it is free to
9081 decide what he should do or avoid; and to each superior, to direct his subjects in such matters as regards what they must
9082 do or avoid. Wherefore also in this respect the Gospel is called the "law of liberty" [*Cf. Reply OBJ[2]]: since the Old Law
9083 decided many points and left few to man to decide as he chose.
9084 </p>
9085 <p id="FS_Q108_A1-p9">
9086 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The kingdom of God consists chiefly in internal acts: but as a consequence all things that are essential to internal acts
9087 belong also to the kingdom of God. Thus if the kingdom of God is internal righteousness, peace, and spiritual joy, all external
9088 acts that are incompatible with righteousness, peace, and spiritual joy, are in opposition to the kingdom of God; and consequently
9089 should be forbidden in the Gospel of the kingdom. On the other hand, those
9090 things that are indifferent as regards the aforesaid, for instance, to eat of this or that food, are not part of the kingdom
9091 of God; wherefore the Apostle says before the words quoted: "The kingdom of God is not meat and drink."
9092 </p>
9093 <p id="FS_Q108_A1-p10">
9094 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> According to the Philosopher (Metaph. i, 2), what is "free is cause of itself." Therefore he acts freely, who acts of his
9095 own accord. Now man does of his own accord that which he does from a habit that is suitable to his nature: since a habit inclines
9096 one as a second nature. If, however, a habit be in opposition to nature, man would not act according to his nature, but according
9097 to some corruption affecting that nature. Since then the grace of the
9098 Holy Ghost is like an interior habit bestowed on us and inclining us to act aright, it makes us do freely those things that
9099 are becoming to grace, and shun what is opposed to it.
9100 </p>
9101 <p id="FS_Q108_A1-p11"> Accordingly the New Law is called the law of liberty in two respects. First, because it does not bind us to do or avoid certain
9102 things, except such as are of themselves necessary or opposed to salvation, and come under the prescription or prohibition
9103 of the law. Secondly, because it also makes us comply freely with these precepts and prohibitions, inasmuch as we do so through
9104 the promptings of grace. It is for these two reasons that the New Law is called "the law of perfect
9105 liberty" (
9106 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A1-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Jas.1.25" target="asv">James 1:25</a>).
9107 </p>
9108 <p id="FS_Q108_A1-p12">
9109 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The New Law, by restraining the mind from inordinate movements, must needs also restrain the hand from inordinate acts, which
9110 ensue from inward movements.
9111 </p>
9112 <p id="FS_Q108_A1-p13"></p>
9113 <p id="FS_Q108_A1-p14"></p>
9114 <a href="summa.FS_Q108.html"></a>
9115 <a href="summa.FS_Q108_A2.html"></a>
9116 </div>
9117 <div id="FS_Q108_A2" class="div4">
9118 <a href="summa.FS_Q108_A1.html"></a>
9119 <a href="summa.FS_Q108_A3.html"></a>
9120 <h4 id="FS_Q108_A2-p0.1">Whether the New Law made sufficient ordinations about external acts?</h4>
9121 <p id="FS_Q108_A2-p1"></p>
9122 <p id="FS_Q108_A2-p2">
9123 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the New Law made insufficient ordinations about external acts. Because faith that worketh through charity
9124 seems chiefly to belong to the New Law, according to
9125 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A2-p2.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.5.6" target="asv"> Gal. 5:6</a>: "In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision: but faith that worketh through charity." But
9126 the New Law declared explicitly certain points of faith which were not set forth explicitly in the Old Law; for instance,
9127 belief in
9128 the Trinity. Therefore it should also have added certain outward moral deeds, which were not fixed in the Old Law.
9129 </p>
9130 <p id="FS_Q108_A2-p3">
9131 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in the Old Law not only were sacraments instituted, but also certain sacred things, as stated above (
9132 <a id="FS_Q108_A2-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q101_A4.html">Q[101], A[4]</a>;
9133 <a id="FS_Q108_A2-p3.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q102_A4.html"> Q[102], A[4]</a>). But in the New Law, although certain sacraments are instituted by Our Lord; for instance, pertaining either to the sanctification
9134 of a temple or of the vessels, or to the celebration of some particular feast. Therefore the New Law made insufficient ordinations
9135 about
9136 external matters.
9137 </p>
9138 <p id="FS_Q108_A2-p4">
9139 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, in the Old Law, just as there were certain observances pertaining to God's ministers, so also were there certain
9140 observances pertaining to the people: as was stated above when we were treating of the ceremonial of the Old Law (
9141 <a id="FS_Q108_A2-p4.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q101_A4.html">Q[101], A[4]</a>;
9142 <a id="FS_Q108_A2-p4.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q102_A6.html"> Q[102], A[6]</a>). Now in the New Law certain observances seem to have been prescribed to the ministers of God; as may be gathered from
9143 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A2-p4.3" href="./asv.html#Matt.10.9" target="asv"> Mat. 10:9</a>:
9144 "Do not possess gold, nor silver, nor money in your purses," nor other things which are mentioned here and
9145 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A2-p4.4" href="./asv.html#Luke.9" target="asv">Lk. 9</a>,
9146 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A2-p4.5" href="./asv.html#Luke.10" target="asv">10</a>. Therefore certain observances pertaining to the faithful should also have been instituted in the New Law.
9147 </p>
9148 <p id="FS_Q108_A2-p5">
9149 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, in the Old Law, besides moral and ceremonial precepts, there were certain judicial precepts. But in the New Law
9150 there are no judicial precepts. Therefore the New Law made insufficient ordinations about external works.
9151 </p>
9152 <p id="FS_Q108_A2-p6">
9153 <b>On the contrary,</b> Our Lord said (
9154 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.7.24" target="asv">Mat. 7:24</a>): "Every one . . . that heareth these My words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a
9155 rock." But a wise builder leaves out nothing that is necessary to the building. Therefore Christ's words contain all things
9156 necessary for man's salvation.
9157 </p>
9158 <p id="FS_Q108_A2-p7">
9159 <b>I answer that,</b> as stated above
9160 <a id="FS_Q108_A2-p7.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q108_A1.html">(A[1])</a>, the New Law had to make such prescriptions or prohibitions alone as are essential for the reception or right use of grace.
9161 And since we cannot of ourselves obtain grace, but through Christ alone, hence Christ of Himself instituted the sacraments
9162 whereby we obtain grace: viz. Baptism, Eucharist, Orders of the ministers of the New Law, by the institution of the apostles
9163 and seventy-two disciples, Penance, and
9164 indissoluble Matrimony. He promised Confirmation through the sending of the Holy Ghost: and we read that by His institution
9165 the apostles healed the sick by anointing them with oil (
9166 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A2-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Mark.6.13" target="asv">Mk. 6:13</a>). These are the sacraments of the New Law.
9167 </p>
9168 <p id="FS_Q108_A2-p8"> The right use of grace is by means of works of charity. These, in so far as they are essential to virtue, pertain to the
9169 moral precepts, which also formed part of the Old Law. Hence, in this respect, the New Law had nothing to add as regards external
9170 action. The determination of these works in their relation to the divine worship, belongs to the ceremonial precepts of the
9171 Law; and, in relation to our neighbor, to the judicial precepts, as stated above (
9172 <a id="FS_Q108_A2-p8.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q99_A4.html">Q[99], A[4]</a>). And therefore, since these determinations are not in themselves necessarily connected with inward grace wherein the Law
9173 consists, they do not come under a precept of the New Law, but are left to the decision of man; some relating to inferiors---as
9174 when a precept is given to an individual; others, relating to superiors, temporal or spiritual, referring, namely, to the
9175 common good.
9176 </p>
9177 <p id="FS_Q108_A2-p9"> Accordingly the New Law had no other external works to determine, by prescribing or forbidding, except the sacraments, and
9178 those moral precepts which have a necessary connection with virtue, for instance, that one must not kill, or steal, and so
9179 forth.
9180 </p>
9181 <p id="FS_Q108_A2-p10">
9182 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Matters of faith are above human reason, and so we cannot attain to them except through grace. Consequently, when grace came
9183 to be bestowed more abundantly, the result was an increase in the number of explicit points of faith. On the other hand, it
9184 is through human reason that we are directed to works of virtue, for it is the rule of human action, as stated above (
9185 <a id="FS_Q108_A2-p10.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q19_A3.html">Q[19], A[3]</a>;
9186 <a id="FS_Q108_A2-p10.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q63_A2.html"> Q[63], A[2]</a>). Wherefore
9187 in such matters as these there was no need for any precepts to be given besides the moral precepts of the Law, which proceed
9188 from the dictate of reason.
9189 </p>
9190 <p id="FS_Q108_A2-p11">
9191 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> In the sacraments of the New Law grace is bestowed, which cannot be received except through Christ: consequently they had
9192 to be instituted by Him. But in the sacred things no grace is given: for instance, in the consecration of a temple, an altar
9193 or the like, or, again, in the celebration of feasts. Wherefore Our Lord left the institution of such things to the discretion
9194 of the faithful, since they have not of themselves any necessary connection with
9195 inward grace.
9196 </p>
9197 <p id="FS_Q108_A2-p12">
9198 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Our Lord gave the apostles those precepts not as ceremonial observances, but as moral statutes: and they can be understood
9199 in two ways. First, following Augustine (De Consensu Evang. 30), as being not commands but permissions. For He permitted them
9200 to set forth to preach without scrip or stick, and so on, since they were empowered to accept their livelihood from those
9201 to whom they preached: wherefore He goes on to say: "For the laborer is worthy of
9202 his hire." Nor is it a sin, but a work of supererogation for a preacher to take means of livelihood with him, without accepting
9203 supplies from those to whom he preaches; as Paul did (
9204 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A2-p12.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.9.4" target="asv">1 Cor. 9:4, </a> seqq.).
9205 </p>
9206 <p id="FS_Q108_A2-p13"> Secondly, according to the explanation of other holy men, they may be considered as temporal commands laid upon the apostles
9207 for the time during which they were sent to preach in Judea before Christ's Passion. For the disciples, being yet as little
9208 children under Christ's care, needed to receive some special commands from Christ, such as all subjects receive from their
9209 superiors: and especially so, since they were to be accustomed little by little to renounce the care of
9210 temporalities, so as to become fitted for the preaching of the Gospel throughout the whole world. Nor must we wonder if He
9211 established certain fixed modes of life, as long as the state of the Old Law endured and the people had not as yet achieved
9212 the perfect liberty of the Spirit. These statutes He abolished shortly before His Passion, as though the disciples had by
9213 their means become sufficiently practiced. Hence He said (
9214 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A2-p13.1" href="./asv.html#Luke.22.35" target="asv">Lk. 22:35,36</a>) "When I sent you without purse and
9215 scrip and shoes, did you want anything? But they said: Nothing. Then said He unto them: But now, he that hath a purse, let
9216 him take it, and likewise a scrip." Because the time of perfect liberty was already at hand, when they would be left entirely
9217 to their own judgment in matters not necessarily connected with virtue.
9218 </p>
9219 <p id="FS_Q108_A2-p14">
9220 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Judicial precepts also, are not essential to virtue in respect of any particular determination, but only in regard to the
9221 common notion of justice. Consequently Our Lord left the judicial precepts to the discretion of those who were to have spiritual
9222 or temporal charge of others. But as regards the judicial precepts of the Old Law, some of them He explained, because they
9223 were misunderstood by the Pharisees, as we shall state later on (A[3], ad 2).
9224 </p>
9225 <p id="FS_Q108_A2-p15"></p>
9226 <p id="FS_Q108_A2-p16"></p>
9227 <a href="summa.FS_Q108_A1.html"></a>
9228 <a href="summa.FS_Q108_A3.html"></a>
9229 </div>
9230 <div id="FS_Q108_A3" class="div4">
9231 <a href="summa.FS_Q108_A2.html"></a>
9232 <a href="summa.FS_Q108_A4.html"></a>
9233 <h4 id="FS_Q108_A3-p0.1">Whether the New Law directed man sufficiently as regards interior actions?</h4>
9234 <p id="FS_Q108_A3-p1"></p>
9235 <p id="FS_Q108_A3-p2">
9236 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the New Law directed man insufficiently as regards interior actions. For there are ten commandments of
9237 the decalogue directing man to God and his neighbor. But Our Lord partly fulfilled only three of them: as regards, namely,
9238 the prohibition of murder, of adultery, and of perjury. Therefore it seems that, by omitting to fulfil the other precepts,
9239 He directed man insufficiently.
9240 </p>
9241 <p id="FS_Q108_A3-p3">
9242 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, as regards the judicial precepts, Our Lord ordained nothing in the Gospel, except in the matter of divorcing of
9243 wife, of punishment by retaliation, and of persecuting one's enemies. But there are many other judicial precepts of the Old
9244 Law, as stated above (
9245 <a id="FS_Q108_A3-p3.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q104_A4.html">Q[104], A[4]</a>;
9246 <a id="FS_Q108_A3-p3.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q105.html"> Q[105])</a>. Therefore, in this respect, He directed human life insufficiently.
9247 </p>
9248 <p id="FS_Q108_A3-p4">
9249 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, in the Old Law, besides moral and judicial, there were ceremonial precepts about which Our Lord made no ordination.
9250 Therefore it seems that He ordained insufficiently.
9251 </p>
9252 <p id="FS_Q108_A3-p5">
9253 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, in order that the mind be inwardly well disposed, man should do no good deed for any temporal whatever. But there
9254 are many other temporal goods besides the favor of man: and there are many other good works besides fasting, alms-deeds, and
9255 prayer. Therefore Our Lord unbecomingly taught that only in respect of these three works, and of no other earthly goods ought
9256 we to shun the glory of human favor.
9257 </p>
9258 <p id="FS_Q108_A3-p6">
9259 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, solicitude for the necessary means of livelihood is by nature instilled into man, and this solicitude even other
9260 animals share with man: wherefore it is written (
9261 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.6.6" target="asv">Prov. 6:6</a>,
9262 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A3-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Prov.6.8" target="asv">8</a>): "Go to the ant, O sluggard, and consider her ways . . . she provideth her meat for herself in the summer, and gathereth
9263 her food in the harvest." But every command issued against the inclination of nature is an unjust command, forasmuch as it
9264 is contrary to
9265 the law of nature. Therefore it seems that Our Lord unbecomingly forbade solicitude about food and raiment.
9266 </p>
9267 <p id="FS_Q108_A3-p7">
9268 <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, no act of virtue should be the subject of a prohibition. Now judgment is an act of justice, according to
9269 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.18.15" target="asv"> Ps. 18:15</a>: "Until justice be turned into judgment." Therefore it seems that Our Lord unbecomingly forbade judgment: and consequently
9270 that the New Law directed man insufficiently in the matter of interior acts.
9271 </p>
9272 <p id="FS_Q108_A3-p8">
9273 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 1): We should take note that, when He said: "'He that heareth these My words,'
9274 He indicates clearly that this sermon of the Lord is replete with all the precepts whereby a Christian's life is formed."
9275 </p>
9276 <p id="FS_Q108_A3-p9">
9277 <b>I answer that,</b> As is evident from Augustine's words just quoted, the sermon, contains the whole process of forming the life of a Christian.
9278 Therein man's interior movements are ordered. Because after declaring that his end is Beatitude; and after commending the
9279 authority of the apostles, through whom the teaching of the Gospel was to be promulgated, He orders man's interior movements,
9280 first in regard to man himself, secondly in regard to his neighbor.
9281 </p>
9282 <p id="FS_Q108_A3-p10"> This he does in regard to man himself, in two ways, corresponding to man's two interior movements in respect of any prospective
9283 action, viz. volition of what has to be done, and intention of the end. Wherefore, in the first place, He directs man's will
9284 in respect of the various precepts of the Law: by prescribing that man should refrain not merely from those external works
9285 that are evil in themselves, but also from internal acts, and from the occasions of evil deeds. In the
9286 second place He directs man's intention, by teaching that in our good works, we should seek neither human praise, nor worldly
9287 riches, which is to lay up treasures on earth.
9288 </p>
9289 <p id="FS_Q108_A3-p11"> Afterwards He directs man's interior movement in respect of his neighbor, by forbidding us, on the one hand, to judge him
9290 rashly, unjustly, or presumptuously; and, on the other, to entrust him too readily with sacred things if he be unworthy.
9291 </p>
9292 <p id="FS_Q108_A3-p12"> Lastly, He teaches us how to fulfil the teaching of the Gospel; viz. by imploring the help of God; by striving to enter by
9293 the narrow door of perfect virtue; and by being wary lest we be led astray by evil influences. Moreover, He declares that
9294 we must observe His commandments, and that it is not enough to make profession of faith, or to work miracles, or merely to
9295 hear His words.
9296 </p>
9297 <p id="FS_Q108_A3-p13">
9298 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Our Lord explained the manner of fulfilling those precepts which the Scribes and Pharisees did not rightly understand: and
9299 this affected chiefly those precepts of the decalogue. For they thought that the prohibition of adultery and murder covered
9300 the external act only, and not the internal desire. And they held this opinion about murder and adultery rather than about
9301 theft and false witness, because the movement of anger tending to murder, and the
9302 movement of desire tending to adultery, seem to be in us from nature somewhat, but not the desire of stealing or bearing false
9303 witness. They held a false opinion about perjury, for they thought that perjury indeed was a sin; but that oaths were of themselves
9304 to be desired and to be taken frequently, since they seem to proceed from reverence to God. Hence Our Lord shows that an oath
9305 is not desirable as a good thing; and that it is better to speak without oaths, unless necessity forces us to have
9306 recourse to them.
9307 </p>
9308 <p id="FS_Q108_A3-p14">
9309 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The Scribes and Pharisees erred about the judicial precepts in two ways. First, because they considered certain matters contained
9310 in the Law of Moses by way of permission, to be right in themselves: namely, divorce of a wife, and the taking of usury from
9311 strangers. Wherefore Our Lord forbade a man to divorce his wife (
9312 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A3-p14.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.5.32" target="asv">Mat. 5:32</a>); and to receive usury (
9313 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A3-p14.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.6.35" target="asv">Lk. 6:35</a>), when He said: "Lend, hoping for nothing
9314 thereby."
9315 </p>
9316 <p id="FS_Q108_A3-p15"> In another way they erred by thinking that certain things which the Old Law commanded to be done for justice's sake, should
9317 be done out of desire for revenge, or out of lust for temporal goods, or out of hatred of one's enemies; and this in respect
9318 of three precepts. For they thought that desire for revenge was lawful, on account of the precept concerning punishment by
9319 retaliation: whereas this precept was given that justice might be safeguarded, not that man might seek revenge.
9320 Wherefore, in order to do away with this, Our Lord teaches that man should be prepared in his mind to suffer yet more if necessary.
9321 They thought that movements of covetousness were lawful on account of those judicial precepts which prescribed restitution
9322 of what had been purloined, together with something added thereto, as stated above (
9323 <a id="FS_Q108_A3-p15.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q105_A2.html">Q[105], A[2]</a>, ad 9); whereas the Law commanded this to be done in order to safeguard justice, not to encourage covetousness. Wherefore
9324 Our Lord teaches that we should not demand our goods from motives of cupidity, and that we should be ready to give yet more
9325 if necessary. They thought that the movement of hatred was lawful, on account of the commandments of the Law about the slaying
9326 of one's enemies: whereas the Law ordered this for the fulfilment of justice, as stated above (
9327 <a id="FS_Q108_A3-p15.2" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q105_A3.html">Q[105], A[3]</a>, ad 4), not to satisfy hatred. Wherefore Our Lord teaches us that we ought to love our enemies, and to be ready to
9328 do good to them if necessary. For these precepts are to be taken as binding "the mind to be prepared to fulfil them," as Augustine
9329 says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 19).
9330 </p>
9331 <p id="FS_Q108_A3-p16">
9332 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The moral precepts necessarily retained their force under the New Law, because they are of themselves essential to virtue:
9333 whereas the judicial precepts did not necessarily continue to bind in exactly the same way as had been fixed by the Law: this
9334 was left to man to decide in one way or another. Hence Our Lord directed us becomingly with regard to these two kinds of precepts.
9335 On the other hand, the observance of the ceremonial precepts was totally
9336 abolished by the advent of the reality; wherefore in regard to these precepts He commanded nothing on this occasion when He
9337 was giving the general points of His doctrine. Elsewhere, however, He makes it clear that the entire bodily worship which
9338 was fixed by the Law, was to be changed into spiritual worship: as is evident from
9339 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A3-p16.1" href="./asv.html#John.4.21" target="asv"> Jn. 4:21,23, </a> where He says: "The hour cometh when you shall neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem adore the Father . . . but . .
9340 . the true
9341 adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth."
9342 </p>
9343 <p id="FS_Q108_A3-p17">
9344 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> All worldly goods may be reduced to three---honors, riches, and pleasures; according to
9345 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A3-p17.1" href="./asv.html#iJohn.2.16" target="asv">1 Jn. 2:16</a>: "All that is in the world is the concupiscence of the flesh," which refers to pleasures of the flesh, "and the concupiscence
9346 of the eyes," which refers to riches, "and the pride of life," which refers to ambition for renown and honor. Now the Law
9347 did not promise an abundance of carnal pleasures; on the contrary, it forbade them. But
9348 it did promise exalted honors and abundant riches; for it is written in reference to the former (
9349 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A3-p17.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.28.1" target="asv">Dt. 28:1</a>): "If thou wilt hear the voice of the Lord thy God . . . He will make thee higher than all the nations"; and in reference
9350 to the latter, we read a little further on (
9351 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A3-p17.3" href="./asv.html#Deut.28.11" target="asv">Dt. 28:11</a>): "He will make thee abound with all goods." But the Jews so distorted the true meaning of these promises, as to think that
9352 we ought to serve God, with these things as the end
9353 in view. Wherefore Our Lord set this aside by teaching, first of all, that works of virtue should not be done for human glory.
9354 And He mentions three works, to which all others may be reduced: since whatever a man does in order to curb his desires, comes
9355 under the head of fasting; and whatever a man does for the love of his neighbor, comes under the head of alms-deeds; and whatever
9356 a man does for the worship of God, comes under the head of prayer. And He mentions these three specifically, as
9357 they hold the principal place, and are most often used by men in order to gain glory. In the second place He taught us that
9358 we must not place our end in riches, when He said: "Lay not up to yourselves treasures on earth" (
9359 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A3-p17.4" href="./asv.html#Matt.6.19" target="asv">Mat. 6:19</a>).
9360 </p>
9361 <p id="FS_Q108_A3-p18">
9362 <b>Reply to Objection 5:</b> Our Lord forbade, not necessary, but inordinate solicitude. Now there is a fourfold solicitude to be avoided in temporal
9363 matters. First, we must not place our end in them, nor serve God for the sake of the necessities of food and raiment. Wherefore
9364 He says: "Lay not up for yourselves," etc. Secondly, we must not be so anxious about temporal things, as to despair of God's
9365 help: wherefore Our Lord says (
9366 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A3-p18.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.6.32" target="asv">Mat. 6:32</a>): "Your Father
9367 knoweth that you have need of all these things." Thirdly, we must not add presumption to our solicitude; in other words, we
9368 must not be confident of getting the necessaries of life by our own efforts without God's help: such solicitude Our Lord sets
9369 aside by saying that a man cannot add anything to his stature (
9370 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A3-p18.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.6.27" target="asv">Mat. 6:27</a>). We must not anticipate the time for anxiety; namely, by being solicitous now, for the needs, not of the present, but of
9371 a future time: wherefore He says
9372 (
9373 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A3-p18.3" href="./asv.html#Matt.6.34" target="asv">Mat. 6:34</a>): "Be not . . . solicitous for tomorrow."
9374 </p>
9375 <p id="FS_Q108_A3-p19">
9376 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> Our Lord did not forbid the judgment of justice, without which holy things could not be withdrawn from the unworthy. But
9377 he forbade inordinate judgment, as stated above.
9378 </p>
9379 <p id="FS_Q108_A3-p20"></p>
9380 <p id="FS_Q108_A3-p21"></p>
9381 <a href="summa.FS_Q108_A2.html"></a>
9382 <a href="summa.FS_Q108_A4.html"></a>
9383 </div>
9384 <div id="FS_Q108_A4" class="div4">
9385 <a href="summa.FS_Q108_A3.html"></a>
9386 <a href="summa.FS.vii.html"></a>
9387 <h4 id="FS_Q108_A4-p0.1">Whether certain definite counsels are fittingly proposed in the New Law?</h4>
9388 <p id="FS_Q108_A4-p1"></p>
9389 <p id="FS_Q108_A4-p2">
9390 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that certain definite counsels are not fittingly proposed in the New Law. For counsels are given about that
9391 which is expedient for an end, as we stated above, when treating of counsel (
9392 <a id="FS_Q108_A4-p2.1" shape="rect" href="summa.FS_Q14_A2.html">Q[14] , A[2]</a>). But the same things are not expedient for all. Therefore certain definite counsels should not be proposed to all.
9393 </p>
9394 <p id="FS_Q108_A4-p3">
9395 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, counsels regard a greater good. But there are no definite degrees to the greater good. Therefore definite counsels
9396 should not be given.
9397 </p>
9398 <p id="FS_Q108_A4-p4">
9399 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, counsels pertain to the life of perfection. But obedience pertains to the life of perfection. Therefore it was unfitting
9400 that no counsel of obedience should be contained in the Gospel.
9401 </p>
9402 <p id="FS_Q108_A4-p5">
9403 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, many matters pertaining to the life of perfection are found among the commandments, as, for instance, "Love your
9404 enemies" (
9405 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.5.44" target="asv">Mat. 5:44</a>), and those precepts which Our Lord gave His apostles (
9406 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A4-p5.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.10" target="asv">Mat. 10</a>). Therefore the counsels are unfittingly given in the New Law: both because they are not all mentioned; and because they
9407 are not distinguished from the commandments.
9408 </p>
9409 <p id="FS_Q108_A4-p6">
9410 <b>On the contrary,</b> The counsels of a wise friend are of great use, according to Prov. (27:9): "Ointment and perfumes rejoice the heart: and
9411 the good counsels of a friend rejoice the soul." But Christ is our wisest and greatest friend. Therefore His counsels are
9412 supremely useful and becoming.
9413 </p>
9414 <p id="FS_Q108_A4-p7">
9415 <b>I answer that,</b> The difference between a counsel and a commandment is that a commandment implies obligation, whereas a counsel is left to
9416 the option of the one to whom it is given. Consequently in the New Law, which is the law of liberty, counsels are added to
9417 the commandments, and not in the Old Law, which is the law of bondage. We must therefore understand the commandments of the
9418 New Law to have been given about matters that are necessary to gain the end of eternal bliss,
9419 to which end the New Law brings us forthwith: but that the counsels are about matters that render the gaining of this end
9420 more assured and expeditious.
9421 </p>
9422 <p id="FS_Q108_A4-p8"> Now man is placed between the things of this world, and spiritual goods wherein eternal happiness consists: so that the more
9423 he cleaves to the one, the more he withdraws from the other, and conversely. Wherefore he that cleaves wholly to the things
9424 of this world, so as to make them his end, and to look upon them as the reason and rule of all he does, falls away altogether
9425 from spiritual goods. Hence this disorder is removed by the commandments. Nevertheless, for man to gain the
9426 end aforesaid, he does not need to renounce the things of the world altogether: since he can, while using the things of this
9427 world, attain to eternal happiness, provided he does not place his end in them: but he will attain more speedily thereto by
9428 giving up the goods of this world entirely: wherefore the evangelical counsels are given for this purpose.
9429 </p>
9430 <p id="FS_Q108_A4-p9"> Now the goods of this world which come into use in human life, consist in three things: viz. in external wealth pertaining
9431 to the "concupiscence of the eyes"; carnal pleasures pertaining to the "concupiscence of the flesh"; and honors, which pertain
9432 to the "pride of life," according to
9433 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A4-p9.1" href="./asv.html#iJohn.2.16" target="asv">1 Jn. 2:16</a>: and it is in renouncing these altogether, as far as possible, that the evangelical counsels consist. Moreover, every form
9434 of the religious life that professes the
9435 state of perfection is based on these three: since riches are renounced by poverty; carnal pleasures by perpetual chastity;
9436 and the pride of life by the bondage of obedience.
9437 </p>
9438 <p id="FS_Q108_A4-p10"> Now if a man observe these absolutely, this is in accordance with the counsels as they stand. But if a man observe any one
9439 of them in a particular case, this is taking that counsel in a restricted sense, namely, as applying to that particular case.
9440 For instance, when anyone gives an alms to a poor man, not being bound so to do, he follows the counsels in that particular
9441 case. In like manner, when a man for some fixed time refrains from carnal pleasures that he may give himself
9442 to prayer, he follows the counsel for that particular time. And again, when a man follows not his will as to some deed which
9443 he might do lawfully, he follows the counsel in that particular case: for instance, if he do good to his enemies when he is
9444 not bound to, or if he forgive an injury of which he might justly seek to be avenged. In this way, too, all particular counsels
9445 may be reduced to these three general and perfect counsels.
9446 </p>
9447 <p id="FS_Q108_A4-p11">
9448 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The aforesaid counsels, considered in themselves, are expedient to all; but owing to some people being ill-disposed, it happens
9449 that some of them are inexpedient, because their disposition is not inclined to such things. Hence Our Lord, in proposing
9450 the evangelical counsels, always makes mention of man's fitness for observing the counsels. For in giving the counsel of perpetual
9451 poverty (
9452 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A4-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.21" target="asv">Mat. 19:21</a>), He begins with the words: "If
9453 thou wilt be perfect," and then He adds: "Go, sell all [Vulg.: 'what'] thou hast." In like manner when He gave the counsel
9454 of perpetual chastity, saying (
9455 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A4-p11.2" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.12" target="asv">Mat. 19:12</a>): "There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven," He adds straightway: "He that can take,
9456 let him take it." And again, the Apostle (
9457 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A4-p11.3" href="./asv.html#iCor.7.35" target="asv">1 Cor. 7:35</a>), after giving the counsel of virginity, says: "And this I speak for your profit; not to cast a snare upon you."
9458 </p>
9459 <p id="FS_Q108_A4-p12">
9460 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The greater goods are not definitely fixed in the individual; but those which are simply and absolutely the greater good
9461 in general are fixed: and to these all the above particular goods may be reduced, as stated above.
9462 </p>
9463 <p id="FS_Q108_A4-p13">
9464 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Even the counsel of obedience is understood to have been given by Our Lord in the words: "And [let him] follow Me." For we
9465 follow Him not only by imitating His works, but also by obeying His commandments, according to
9466 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A4-p13.1" href="./asv.html#John.10.27" target="asv"> Jn. 10:27</a>: "My sheep hear My voice . . . and they follow Me."
9467 </p>
9468 <p id="FS_Q108_A4-p14">
9469 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Those things which Our Lord prescribed about the true love of our enemies, and other similar sayings (
9470 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A4-p14.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.5" target="asv">Mat. 5</a>;
9471 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A4-p14.2" href="./asv.html#Luke.6" target="asv">Lk. 6</a>), may be referred to the preparation of the mind, and then they are necessary for salvation; for instance, that man be prepared
9472 to do good to his enemies, and other similar actions, when there is need. Hence these things are placed among the precepts.
9473 But that anyone should actually and promptly behave thus towards an enemy when there is
9474 no special need, is to be referred to the particular counsels, as stated above. As to those matters which are set down in
9475
9476 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A4-p14.3" href="./asv.html#Matt.10" target="asv">Mat. 10</a> and
9477 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A4-p14.4" href="./asv.html#Luke.9" target="asv">Lk. 9</a> and 10, they were either disciplinary commands for that particular time, or concessions, as stated above (A[2], ad 3). Hence
9478 they are not set down among the counsels.
9479 </p>
9480 <p id="FS_Q108_A4-p15"></p>
9481 <p id="FS_Q108_A4-p16"></p>
9482 <a href="summa.FS_Q108_A3.html"></a>
9483 <a href="summa.FS.vii.html"></a>
9484 </div>
9485 <a href="summa.FS_Q107_A4.html"></a>
9486 <a href="summa.FS_Q108_A1.html"></a>
9487 </div>
9488 <a href="summa.FS_Q89_A6.html"></a>
9489 <a href="summa.FS_Q90.html"></a>
9490 `
9491 </div>