comparison summa/bilingual/FS_vi.html @ 125:183bfdf5ca5c

catch up through FS_vi A108
author ht
date Sat, 10 Sep 2022 10:03:58 +0000
parents
children
comparison
equal deleted inserted replaced
124:c4381ecdd053 125:183bfdf5ca5c
1
2 <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:x="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
3 <head>
4 <title>Bilingual Aquinas</title>
5 <style>
6 h2, h3, h4 {margin-bottom: 0px; clear: both}
7 .bilingual {clear: both; margin-top: .5em}
8 div.eng {width: 45%; float: left}
9 div.lat {width: 45%; float: right}
10 @page { size: A4 portrait; margin: 1cm;
11 orphans: 2; widows: 2;
12 }
13 @media print {div.div3 {page-break-before: always}}
14 </style>
15 </head>
16 <body style="font-family: Bitstream Vera Serif"><div id="FS.vi" class="div2">
17
18
19 <h2 id="FS.vi-p0.1">TREATISE ON LAW (QQ 90-108)</h2><div class="toc"><a href="#FS_Q90">Q. 90. OF THE ESSENCE OF LAW (FOUR ARTICLES)</a><br/><a href="#FS_Q91">Q. 91. OF THE VARIOUS KINDS OF LAW (SIX ARTICLES)</a><br/><a href="#FS_Q92">Q. 92. OF THE EFFECTS OF LAW (TWO ARTICLES)</a><br/><a href="#FS_Q93">Q. 93. OF THE ETERNAL LAW (SIX ARTICLES)</a><br/><a href="#FS_Q94">Q. 94. OF THE NATURAL LAW (SIX ARTICLES)</a><br/><a href="#FS_Q95">Q. 95. OF HUMAN LAW (FOUR ARTICLES)</a><br/><a href="#FS_Q96">Q. 96. OF THE POWER OF HUMAN LAW (SIX ARTICLES)</a><br/><a href="#FS_Q97">Q. 97. OF CHANGE IN LAWS (FOUR ARTICLES) </a><br/><a href="#FS_Q98">Q. 98. OF THE OLD LAW (SIX ARTICLES)</a><br/><a href="#FS_Q99">Q. 99. OF THE PRECEPTS OF THE OLD LAW (SIX ARTICLES)</a><br/><a href="#FS_Q100">Q. 100. OF THE MORAL PRECEPTS OF THE OLD LAW (TWELVE ARTICLES)</a><br/><a href="#FS_Q101">Q. 101. OF THE CEREMONIAL PRECEPTS IN THEMSELVES (FOUR ARTICLES)</a><br/><a href="#FS_Q102">Q. 102. OF THE CAUSES OF THE CEREMONIAL PRECEPTS (SIX ARTICLES)</a><br/><a href="#FS_Q103">Q. 103. OF THE DURATION OF THE CEREMONIAL PRECEPTS (FOUR ARTICLES)</a><br/><a href="#FS_Q104">Q. 104. OF THE JUDICIAL PRECEPTS (FOUR ARTICLES)</a><br/><a href="#FS_Q105">Q. 105. OF THE REASON FOR THE JUDICIAL PRECEPTS (FOUR ARTICLES)</a><br/><a href="#FS_Q106">Q. 106. OF THE LAW OF THE GOSPEL, CALLED THE NEW LAW, CONSIDERED IN ITSELF (FOUR ARTICLES)</a><br/><a href="#FS_Q107">Q. 107. OF THE NEW LAW AS COMPARED WITH THE OLD (FOUR ARTICLES)</a><br/><a href="#FS_Q108">Q. 108. OF THOSE THINGS THAT ARE CONTAINED IN THE NEW LAW (FOUR ARTICLES)</a><br/></div>
20 <div id="FS_Q90" class="div3">
21 <h3 id="FS_Q90-p0.1">Q. 90. OF THE ESSENCE OF LAW (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3>
22 <div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="div4">
23 <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
24 whose temptations we have spoken in the
25 <a href="FP_x.html#FP_Q114" id="FS_Q90-p2.1" shape="rect">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:
26 wherefore in the first place we must speak of law; in the second place, of grace.
27 </p><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
28 themselves for our consideration: (1) Its essence; (2) The different kinds of law; (3) The effects of law.
29 </p><p id="FS_Q90-p4"> Under the first head there are four points of inquiry:</p><p id="FS_Q90-p5"><a href="#FS_Q90_A1"> (1) Whether law is something pertaining to reason?</a></p><p id="FS_Q90-p6"><a href="#FS_Q90_A2"> (2) Concerning the end of law;</a></p><p id="FS_Q90-p7"><a href="#FS_Q90_A3"> (3) Its cause;</a></p><p id="FS_Q90-p8"><a href="#FS_Q90_A4"> (4) The promulgation of law.</a></p>
30 </div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 90 pr."><a name="37425" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37425]
31 Iª-IIae q. 90 pr.</span></a> Consequenter considerandum est de
32 principiis exterioribus actuum. Principium autem exterius ad malum
33 inclinans est Diabolus, de cuius tentatione in primo dictum est.
34 Principium autem exterius movens ad bonum est Deus, qui et nos
35 instruit per legem, et iuvat per gratiam. Unde primo, de lege;
36 secundo, de gratia dicendum est. Circa legem autem, primo oportet
37 considerare de ipsa lege in communi; secundo, de partibus eius.
38 Circa legem autem in communi tria occurrunt consideranda, primo
39 quidem, de essentia ipsius; secundo, de differentia legum; tertio,
40 de effectibus legis. Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum
41 lex sit aliquid rationis. Secundo, de fine legis. Tertio, de causa
42 eius. Quarto, de promulgatione ipsius.</p></div></div></div>
43 <div id="FS_Q90_A1" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q90_A1-p0.1">Q. 90. A. 1. Whether law is something pertaining to reason?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q90_A1-p2">
44 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that law is not something pertaining to reason. For the Apostle says (
45 <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
46 use of a bodily organ. Therefore law is not something pertaining to reason.
47 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 90 a. 1 arg. 1"><a name="37426" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37426] Iª-IIae q. 90 a. 1 arg. 1</span></a> Ad primum
48 sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex non sit aliquid rationis. Dicit
49 enim apostolus, ad Rom. VII, <i>video aliam legem in membris
50 meis,</i> et cetera. Sed nihil quod est rationis, est in membris,
51 quia ratio non utitur organo corporali. Ergo lex non est aliquid
52 rationis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q90_A1-p3">
53 <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
54 manner, neither is it a habit of reason: because the habits of reason are the intellectual virtues of which we have spoken
55 above (
56 <a href="FS_v.html#FS_Q57" id="FS_Q90_A1-p3.1" shape="rect">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
57 asleep. Therefore law is nothing pertaining to reason.
58 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 90 a. 1 arg. 2"><a name="37427" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37427] Iª-IIae q. 90 a. 1 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
59 in ratione non est nisi potentia, habitus et actus. Sed lex non est
60 ipsa potentia rationis. Similiter etiam non est aliquis habitus
61 rationis, quia habitus rationis sunt virtutes intellectuales, de
62 quibus supra dictum est. Nec etiam est actus rationis, quia
63 cessante rationis actu, lex cessaret, puta in dormientibus. Ergo
64 lex non est aliquid rationis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q90_A1-p4">
65 <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
66 is evident from what has been said above (
67 <a href="FS_ii.html#FS_Q9_A1" id="FS_Q90_A1-p4.1" shape="rect">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.
68 Prin. leg. i): "Whatsoever pleaseth the sovereign, has force of law."
69 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 90 a. 1 arg. 3"><a name="37428" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37428] Iª-IIae q. 90 a. 1 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
70 lex movet eos qui subiiciuntur legi, ad recte agendum. Sed movere
71 ad agendum proprie pertinet ad voluntatem, ut patet ex praemissis.
72 Ergo lex non pertinet ad rationem, sed magis ad voluntatem,
73 secundum quod etiam iurisperitus dicit, <i>quod placuit principi,
74 legis habet vigorem</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q90_A1-p5">
75 <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 (
76 <a href="FS_ii.html#FS_Q17_A1" id="FS_Q90_A1-p5.1" shape="rect">Q[17], A[1]</a>). Therefore law is something pertaining to reason.
77 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 90 a. 1 s. c."><a name="37429" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37429] Iª-IIae q. 90 a. 1 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
78 est quod ad legem pertinet praecipere et prohibere. Sed imperare
79 est rationis, ut supra habitum est. Ergo lex est aliquid
80 rationis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q90_A1-p6">
81 <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
82 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
83 principle of human acts, as is evident from what has been stated above (
84 <a href="FS_i.html#FS_Q1_A1" id="FS_Q90_A1-p6.1" shape="rect">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
85 of action, according to the Philosopher (Phys. ii). Now that which is the principle in any genus, is the rule and measure
86 of that genus: for instance, unity in the genus of numbers, and the first movement in the genus of movements. Consequently
87 it follows that law is something pertaining to reason.
88 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 90 a. 1 co."><a name="37430" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37430] Iª-IIae q. 90 a. 1 co.</span></a> Respondeo
89 dicendum quod lex quaedam regula est et mensura actuum, secundum
90 quam inducitur aliquis ad agendum, vel ab agendo retrahitur,
91 dicitur enim lex a ligando, quia obligat ad agendum. Regula autem
92 et mensura humanorum actuum est ratio, quae est primum principium
93 actuum humanorum, ut ex praedictis patet, rationis enim est
94 ordinare ad finem, qui est primum principium in agendis, secundum
95 philosophum. In unoquoque autem genere id quod est principium, est
96 mensura et regula illius generis, sicut unitas in genere numeri, et
97 motus primus in genere motuum. Unde relinquitur quod lex sit
98 aliquid pertinens ad rationem.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q90_A1-p7">
99 <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:
100 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
101 measured and ruled. In this way, law is in all those things that are inclined to something by reason of some law: so that
102 any inclination arising from a law, may be called a law, not essentially but by
103 participation as it were. And thus the inclination of the members to concupiscence is called "the law of the members."
104 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 90 a. 1 ad 1"><a name="37431" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37431] Iª-IIae q. 90 a. 1 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
105 ergo dicendum quod, cum lex sit regula quaedam et mensura, dicitur
106 dupliciter esse in aliquo. Uno modo, sicut in mensurante et
107 regulante. Et quia hoc est proprium rationis, ideo per hunc modum
108 lex est in ratione sola. Alio modo, sicut in regulato et mensurato.
109 Et sic lex est in omnibus quae inclinantur in aliquid ex aliqua
110 lege, ita quod quaelibet inclinatio proveniens ex aliqua lege,
111 potest dici lex, non essentialiter, sed quasi participative. Et hoc
112 modo inclinatio ipsa membrorum ad concupiscendum lex membrorum
113 vocatur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q90_A1-p8">
114 <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
115 built; so in the acts of reason, we may consider the act itself of reason, i.e. to understand and to reason, and something
116 produced by this act. With regard to the speculative reason, this is first of all the definition; secondly, the proposition;
117 thirdly, the syllogism or argument. And since also the practical reason makes use of a
118 syllogism in respect of the work to be done, as stated above (
119 <a href="FS_ii.html#FS_Q13_A3" id="FS_Q90_A1-p8.1" shape="rect">Q[13], A[3]</a>;
120 <a href="FS_v.html#FS_Q76_A1" id="FS_Q90_A1-p8.2" shape="rect"> 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
121 position in regard to operations, as, in the speculative intellect, the proposition holds in regard to conclusions. Such like
122 universal propositions of the practical intellect that are directed to actions have the nature of law. And these
123 propositions are sometimes under our actual consideration, while sometimes they are retained in the reason by means of a habit.
124 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 90 a. 1 ad 2"><a name="37432" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37432] Iª-IIae q. 90 a. 1 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
125 dicendum quod, sicut in actibus exterioribus est considerare
126 operationem et operatum, puta aedificationem et aedificatum; ita in
127 operibus rationis est considerare ipsum actum rationis, qui est
128 intelligere et ratiocinari, et aliquid per huiusmodi actum
129 constitutum. Quod quidem in speculativa ratione primo quidem est
130 definitio; secundo, enunciatio; tertio vero, syllogismus vel
131 argumentatio. Et quia ratio etiam practica utitur quodam syllogismo
132 in operabilibus, ut supra habitum est, secundum quod philosophus
133 docet in VII Ethic.; ideo est invenire aliquid in ratione practica
134 quod ita se habeat ad operationes, sicut se habet propositio in
135 ratione speculativa ad conclusiones. Et huiusmodi propositiones
136 universales rationis practicae ordinatae ad actiones, habent
137 rationem legis. Quae quidem propositiones aliquando actualiter
138 considerantur, aliquando vero habitualiter a ratione tenentur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q90_A1-p9">
139 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Reason has its power of moving from the will, as stated above (
140 <a href="FS_ii.html#FS_Q17_A1" id="FS_Q90_A1-p9.1" shape="rect">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
141 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
142 of reason. And in this sense is to be understood the saying that the will of the sovereign has the force of
143 law; otherwise the sovereign's will would savor of lawlessness rather than of law.
144 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 90 a. 1 ad 3"><a name="37433" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37433] Iª-IIae q. 90 a. 1 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
145 dicendum quod ratio habet vim movendi a voluntate, ut supra dictum
146 est, ex hoc enim quod aliquis vult finem, ratio imperat de his quae
147 sunt ad finem. Sed voluntas de his quae imperantur, ad hoc quod
148 legis rationem habeat, oportet quod sit aliqua ratione regulata. Et
149 hoc modo intelligitur quod voluntas principis habet vigorem legis,
150 alioquin voluntas principis magis esset iniquitas quam lex.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q90_A2" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q90_A2-p0.1">Q. 90. A. 2. Whether the law is always something directed to the common good? </h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q90_A2-p2">
151 <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
152 to forbid. But commands are directed to certain individual goods. Therefore the end of the law is not always the common good.
153 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 90 a. 2 arg. 1"><a name="37434" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37434] Iª-IIae q. 90 a. 2 arg. 1</span></a> Ad secundum
154 sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex non ordinetur semper ad bonum
155 commune sicut ad finem. Ad legem enim pertinet praecipere et
156 prohibere. Sed praecepta ordinantur ad quaedam singularia bona. Non
157 ergo semper finis legis est bonum commune.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q90_A2-p3">
158 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the law directs man in his actions. But human actions are concerned with particular matters. Therefore the law is
159 directed to some particular good.
160 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 90 a. 2 arg. 2"><a name="37435" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37435] Iª-IIae q. 90 a. 2 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
161 lex dirigit hominem ad agendum. Sed actus humani sunt in
162 particularibus. Ergo et lex ad aliquod particulare bonum
163 ordinatur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q90_A2-p4">
164 <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
165 is the foundation not only of what is ordained to the common good, but also of that which is directed private good. Therefore
166 the law is not only directed to the good of all, but also to the private good of an individual.
167 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 90 a. 2 arg. 3"><a name="37436" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37436] Iª-IIae q. 90 a. 2 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
168 Isidorus dicit, in libro Etymol., <i>si ratione lex constat, lex
169 erit omne quod ratione constiterit</i>. Sed ratione consistit non
170 solum quod ordinatur ad bonum commune, sed etiam quod ordinatur ad
171 bonum privatum. Ergo lex non ordinatur solum ad bonum commune, sed
172 etiam ad bonum privatum unius.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q90_A2-p5">
173 <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."
174 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 90 a. 2 s. c."><a name="37437" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37437] Iª-IIae q. 90 a. 2 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
175 est quod Isidorus dicit, in V Etymol., quod <i>lex est nullo
176 privato commodo, sed pro communi utilitate civium
177 conscripta</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q90_A2-p6">
178 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
179 <a href="#FS_Q90_A1" id="FS_Q90_A2-p6.1" shape="rect">(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
180 of human acts, so in reason itself there is something which is the principle in respect of all the rest: wherefore to this
181 principle chiefly and mainly law must needs be referred. Now the first principle in practical matters, which are the object
182 of the practical reason, is the last
183 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
184 must needs regard principally the relationship to happiness. Moreover, since every part is ordained to the whole, as imperfect
185 to perfect; and since one man is a part of the perfect community, the law must needs regard properly the relationship to universal
186 happiness. Wherefore the Philosopher, in the above definition of legal matters mentions both happiness and the body
187 politic: for he says (Ethic. v, 1) that we call those legal matters "just, which are adapted to produce and preserve happiness
188 and its parts for the body politic": since the state is a perfect community, as he says in Polit. i, 1.
189 </p><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
190 in subordination to that thing: thus fire, which is chief among hot things, is the cause of heat in mixed bodies, and these
191 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,
192 any other precept in regard to some individual work, must needs be devoid of the nature of a law, save in so
193 far as it regards the common good. Therefore every law is ordained to the common good.
194 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 90 a. 2 co."><a name="37438" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37438] Iª-IIae q. 90 a. 2 co.</span></a> Respondeo
195 dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, lex pertinet ad id quod est
196 principium humanorum actuum, ex eo quod est regula et mensura.
197 Sicut autem ratio est principium humanorum actuum, ita etiam in
198 ipsa ratione est aliquid quod est principium respectu omnium
199 aliorum. Unde ad hoc oportet quod principaliter et maxime pertineat
200 lex. Primum autem principium in operativis, quorum est ratio
201 practica, est finis ultimus. Est autem ultimus finis humanae vitae
202 felicitas vel beatitudo, ut supra habitum est. Unde oportet quod
203 lex maxime respiciat ordinem qui est in beatitudinem. Rursus, cum
204 omnis pars ordinetur ad totum sicut imperfectum ad perfectum; unus
205 autem homo est pars communitatis perfectae, necesse est quod lex
206 proprie respiciat ordinem ad felicitatem communem. Unde et
207 philosophus, in praemissa definitione legalium, mentionem facit et
208 de felicitate et communione politica. Dicit enim, in V Ethic., quod
209 <i>legalia iusta dicimus factiva et conservativa felicitatis et
210 particularum ipsius, politica communicatione</i>, perfecta enim
211 communitas civitas est, ut dicitur in I Polit. In quolibet autem
212 genere id quod maxime dicitur, est principium aliorum, et alia
213 dicuntur secundum ordinem ad ipsum, sicut ignis, qui est maxime
214 calidus, est causa caliditatis in corporibus mixtis, quae intantum
215 dicuntur calida, inquantum participant de igne. Unde oportet quod,
216 cum lex maxime dicatur secundum ordinem ad bonum commune,
217 quodcumque aliud praeceptum de particulari opere non habeat
218 rationem legis nisi secundum ordinem ad bonum commune. Et ideo
219 omnis lex ad bonum commune ordinatur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q90_A2-p8">
220 <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
221 law aims, is applicable to particular ends. And in this way commands are given even concerning particular matters.
222 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 90 a. 2 ad 1"><a name="37439" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37439] Iª-IIae q. 90 a. 2 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
223 ergo dicendum quod praeceptum importat applicationem legis ad ea
224 quae ex lege regulantur. Ordo autem ad bonum commune, qui pertinet
225 ad legem, est applicabilis ad singulares fines. Et secundum hoc,
226 etiam de particularibus quibusdam praecepta dantur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q90_A2-p9">
227 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Actions are indeed concerned with particular matters: but those particular matters are referable to the common good, not
228 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.
229 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 90 a. 2 ad 2"><a name="37440" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37440] Iª-IIae q. 90 a. 2 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
230 dicendum quod operationes quidem sunt in particularibus, sed illa
231 particularia referri possunt ad bonum commune, non quidem
232 communitate generis vel speciei, sed communitate causae finalis,
233 secundum quod bonum commune dicitur finis communis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q90_A2-p10">
234 <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
235 principles, so nothing stands firm with regard to the practical reason, unless it be directed to the last end which is the
236 common good: and whatever stands to reason in this sense, has the nature of a law.
237 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 90 a. 2 ad 3"><a name="37441" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37441] Iª-IIae q. 90 a. 2 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
238 dicendum quod, sicut nihil constat firmiter secundum rationem
239 speculativam nisi per resolutionem ad prima principia
240 indemonstrabilia, ita firmiter nihil constat per rationem practicam
241 nisi per ordinationem ad ultimum finem, qui est bonum commune. Quod
242 autem hoc modo ratione constat, legis rationem habet.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q90_A3" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q90_A3-p0.1">Q. 90. A. 3. Whether the reason of any man is competent to make laws?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q90_A3-p2">
243 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the reason of any man is competent to make laws. For the Apostle says (
244 <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."
245 Now he says this of all in general. Therefore anyone can make a law for himself.
246 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 90 a. 3 arg. 1"><a name="37442" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37442] Iª-IIae q. 90 a. 3 arg. 1</span></a> Ad tertium
247 sic proceditur. Videtur quod cuiuslibet ratio sit factiva legis.
248 Dicit enim apostolus, ad Rom. II, quod <i>cum gentes, quae legem
249 non habent, naturaliter ea quae legis sunt faciunt, ipsi sibi sunt
250 lex</i>. Hoc autem communiter de omnibus dicit. Ergo quilibet
251 potest facere sibi legem.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q90_A3-p3">
252 <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
253 can lead another to virtue. Therefore the reason of any man is competent to make laws.
254 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 90 a. 3 arg. 2"><a name="37443" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37443] Iª-IIae q. 90 a. 3 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
255 sicut philosophus dicit, in libro II Ethic., <i>intentio
256 legislatoris est ut inducat hominem ad virtutem</i>. Sed quilibet
257 homo potest alium inducere ad virtutem. Ergo cuiuslibet hominis
258 ratio est factiva legis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q90_A3-p4">
259 <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
260 of a state can make laws for the state. Therefore every father of a family can make laws for his household.
261 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 90 a. 3 arg. 3"><a name="37444" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37444] Iª-IIae q. 90 a. 3 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
262 sicut princeps civitatis est civitatis gubernator, ita quilibet
263 paterfamilias est gubernator domus. Sed princeps civitatis potest
264 legem in civitate facere. Ergo quilibet paterfamilias potest in sua
265 domo facere legem.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q90_A3-p5">
266 <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
267 with the Commonalty."
268 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 90 a. 3 s. c."><a name="37445" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37445] Iª-IIae q. 90 a. 3 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
269 est quod Isidorus dicit, in libro Etymol., et habetur in decretis,
270 dist. II, <i>lex est constitutio populi, secundum quam maiores natu
271 simul cum plebibus aliquid sanxerunt</i>. Non est ergo cuiuslibet
272 facere legem.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q90_A3-p6">
273 <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,
274 belongs either to the whole people, or to someone who is the viceregent of the whole people. And therefore the making of a
275 law belongs either to the whole people or to a public personage who has care of the whole people: since in all other matters
276 the directing of anything to the end concerns him to whom the end belongs.
277 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 90 a. 3 co."><a name="37446" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37446] Iª-IIae q. 90 a. 3 co.</span></a> Respondeo
278 dicendum quod lex proprie, primo et principaliter respicit ordinem
279 ad bonum commune. Ordinare autem aliquid in bonum commune est vel
280 totius multitudinis, vel alicuius gerentis vicem totius
281 multitudinis. Et ideo condere legem vel pertinet ad totam
282 multitudinem, vel pertinet ad personam publicam quae totius
283 multitudinis curam habet. Quia et in omnibus aliis ordinare in
284 finem est eius cuius est proprius ille finis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q90_A3-p7">
285 <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
286 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
287 rules him. Hence the same text goes on: "Who show the work of the law written in their hearts."
288 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 90 a. 3 ad 1"><a name="37447" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37447] Iª-IIae q. 90 a. 3 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
289 ergo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, lex est in aliquo non
290 solum sicut in regulante, sed etiam participative sicut in
291 regulato. Et hoc modo unusquisque sibi est lex, inquantum
292 participat ordinem alicuius regulantis. Unde et ibidem subditur,
293 <i>qui ostendunt opus legis scriptum in cordibus suis</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q90_A3-p8">
294 <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
295 has no coercive power, such as the law should have, in order to prove an efficacious inducement to virtue, as the Philosopher
296 says (Ethic. x, 9). But this coercive power is vested in the whole people or in some public personage, to whom it belongs
297 to inflict penalties, as we shall state further on (Q[92], A[2], ad 3;
298
299 <a href="SS_ii.html#SS_Q64_A3" id="FS_Q90_A3-p8.1" shape="rect">SS, Q[64], A[3]</a>). Wherefore the framing of laws belongs to him alone.
300 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 90 a. 3 ad 2"><a name="37448" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37448] Iª-IIae q. 90 a. 3 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
301 dicendum quod persona privata non potest inducere efficaciter ad
302 virtutem. Potest enim solum monere, sed si sua monitio non
303 recipiatur, non habet vim coactivam; quam debet habere lex, ad hoc
304 quod efficaciter inducat ad virtutem, ut philosophus dicit, in X
305 Ethic. Hanc autem virtutem coactivam habet multitudo vel persona
306 publica, ad quam pertinet poenas infligere, ut infra dicetur. Et
307 ideo solius eius est leges facere.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q90_A3-p9">
308 <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
309 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
310 good of one household is ordained to the good of a single state, which is a perfect community. Consequently he that governs
311 a family, can indeed make certain commands or ordinances, but not such as to have
312 properly the force of law.
313 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 90 a. 3 ad 3"><a name="37449" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37449] Iª-IIae q. 90 a. 3 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
314 dicendum quod, sicut homo est pars domus, ita domus est pars
315 civitatis, civitas autem est communitas perfecta, ut dicitur in I
316 Politic. Et ideo sicut bonum unius hominis non est ultimus finis,
317 sed ordinatur ad commune bonum; ita etiam et bonum unius domus
318 ordinatur ad bonum unius civitatis, quae est communitas perfecta.
319 Unde ille qui gubernat aliquam familiam, potest quidem facere
320 aliqua praecepta vel statuta; non tamen quae proprie habeant
321 rationem legis.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q90_A4" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q90_A4-p0.1">Q. 90. A. 4. Whether promulgation is essential to a law?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q90_A4-p2">
322 <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
323 natural law needs no promulgation. Therefore it is not essential to a law that it be promulgated.
324 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 90 a. 4 arg. 1"><a name="37450" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37450] Iª-IIae q. 90 a. 4 arg. 1</span></a> Ad quartum
325 sic proceditur. Videtur quod promulgatio non sit de ratione legis.
326 Lex enim naturalis maxime habet rationem legis. Sed lex naturalis
327 non indiget promulgatione. Ergo non est de ratione legis quod
328 promulgetur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q90_A4-p3">
329 <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
330 not only those in whose presence it is promulgated, but also others. Therefore promulgation is not essential to a law.
331 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 90 a. 4 arg. 2"><a name="37451" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37451] Iª-IIae q. 90 a. 4 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
332 ad legem pertinet proprie obligare ad aliquid faciendum vel non
333 faciendum. Sed non solum obligantur ad implendam legem illi coram
334 quibus promulgatur lex, sed etiam alii. Ergo promulgatio non est de
335 ratione legis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q90_A4-p4">
336 <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
337 jurists say (Cod. 1, tit. De lege et constit. leg. vii). But promulgation concerns those who are present. Therefore it is
338 not essential to a law.
339 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 90 a. 4 arg. 3"><a name="37452" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37452] Iª-IIae q. 90 a. 4 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
340 obligatio legis extenditur etiam in futurum, quia leges futuris
341 negotiis necessitatem imponunt, ut iura dicunt. Sed promulgatio fit
342 ad praesentes. Ergo promulgatio non est de necessitate legis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q90_A4-p5">
343 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is laid down in the Decretals, dist. 4, that "laws are established when they are promulgated."
344 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 90 a. 4 s. c."><a name="37453" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37453] Iª-IIae q. 90 a. 4 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
345 est quod dicitur in decretis, IV dist., quod <i>leges instituuntur
346 cum promulgantur</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q90_A4-p6">
347 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
348 <a href="#FS_Q90_A1" id="FS_Q90_A4-p6.1" shape="rect">(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
349 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
350 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.
351 Wherefore promulgation is necessary for
352 the law to obtain its force.
353 </p><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
354 reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community, and promulgated.
355 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 90 a. 4 co."><a name="37454" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37454] Iª-IIae q. 90 a. 4 co.</span></a> Respondeo
356 dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, lex imponitur aliis per modum
357 regulae et mensurae. Regula autem et mensura imponitur per hoc quod
358 applicatur his quae regulantur et mensurantur. Unde ad hoc quod lex
359 virtutem obligandi obtineat, quod est proprium legis, oportet quod
360 applicetur hominibus qui secundum eam regulari debent. Talis autem
361 applicatio fit per hoc quod in notitiam eorum deducitur ex ipsa
362 promulgatione. Unde promulgatio necessaria est ad hoc quod lex
363 habeat suam virtutem. Et sic ex quatuor praedictis potest colligi
364 definitio legis, quae nihil est aliud quam quaedam rationis
365 ordinatio ad bonum commune, ab eo qui curam communitatis habet,
366 promulgata.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q90_A4-p8">
367 <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.
368 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 90 a. 4 ad 1"><a name="37455" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37455] Iª-IIae q. 90 a. 4 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
369 ergo dicendum quod promulgatio legis naturae est ex hoc ipso quod
370 Deus eam mentibus hominum inseruit naturaliter cognoscendam.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q90_A4-p9">
371 <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
372 notified to them by others, after it has been promulgated.
373 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 90 a. 4 ad 2"><a name="37456" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37456] Iª-IIae q. 90 a. 4 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
374 dicendum quod illi coram quibus lex non promulgatur, obligantur ad
375 legem servandam, inquantum in eorum notitiam devenit per alios, vel
376 devenire potest, promulgatione facta.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q90_A4-p10">
377 <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
378 means it is continually promulgated. Hence Isidore says (Etym. v, 3; ii, 10) that "lex [law] is derived from legere [to read]
379 because it is written."
380 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 90 a. 4 ad 3"><a name="37457" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37457] Iª-IIae q. 90 a. 4 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
381 dicendum quod promulgatio praesens in futurum extenditur per
382 firmitatem Scripturae, quae quodammodo semper eam promulgat. Unde
383 Isidorus dicit, in II Etymol., quod <i>lex a legendo vocata est,
384 quia scripta est</i>.</p></div></div></div></div>
385 <div id="FS_Q91" class="div3">
386 <h3 id="FS_Q91-p0.1">Q. 91. OF THE VARIOUS KINDS OF LAW (SIX ARTICLES)</h3>
387 <div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="div4">
388 <p id="FS_Q91-p2"> We must now consider the various kinds of law: under which head there are six points of inquiry:</p><p id="FS_Q91-p3"><a href="#FS_Q91_A1"> (1) Whether there is an eternal law?</a></p><p id="FS_Q91-p4"><a href="#FS_Q91_A2"> (2) Whether there is a natural law?</a></p><p id="FS_Q91-p5"><a href="#FS_Q91_A3"> (3) Whether there is a human law?</a></p><p id="FS_Q91-p6"><a href="#FS_Q91_A4"> (4) Whether there is a Divine law?</a></p><p id="FS_Q91-p7"><a href="#FS_Q91_A5"> (5) Whether there is one Divine law, or several?</a></p><p id="FS_Q91-p8"><a href="#FS_Q91_A6"> (6) Whether there is a law of sin?</a></p>
389 </div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 pr."><a name="37458" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37458]
390 Iª-IIae q. 91 pr.</span></a> Deinde considerandum est de
391 diversitate legum. Et circa hoc quaeruntur sex. Primo, utrum sit
392 aliqua lex aeterna. Secundo, utrum sit aliqua lex naturalis.
393 Tertio, utrum sit aliqua lex humana. Quarto, utrum sit aliqua lex
394 divina. Quinto, utrum sit una tantum, vel plures. Sexto, utrum sit
395 aliqua lex peccati.</p></div></div></div>
396 <div id="FS_Q91_A1" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q91_A1-p0.1">Q. 91. A. 1. Whether there is an eternal law?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A1-p2">
397 <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
398 on whom a law could be imposed: since God alone was from eternity. Therefore no law is eternal.
399 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 1 arg. 1"><a name="37459" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37459] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 1 arg. 1</span></a> Ad primum
400 sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sit aliqua lex aeterna. Omnis enim
401 lex aliquibus imponitur. Sed non fuit ab aeterno aliquis cui lex
402 posset imponi, solus enim Deus fuit ab aeterno. Ergo nulla lex est
403 aeterna.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A1-p3">
404 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, promulgation is essential to law. But promulgation could not be from eternity: because there was no one to whom
405 it could be promulgated from eternity. Therefore no law can be eternal.
406 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 1 arg. 2"><a name="37460" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37460] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 1 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
407 promulgatio est de ratione legis. Sed promulgatio non potuit esse
408 ab aeterno, quia non erat ab aeterno cui promulgaretur. Ergo nulla
409 lex potest esse aeterna.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A1-p4">
410 <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
411 no law is eternal.
412 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 1 arg. 3"><a name="37461" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37461] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 1 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
413 lex importat ordinem ad finem. Sed nihil est aeternum quod
414 ordinetur ad finem, solus enim ultimus finis est aeternus. Ergo
415 nulla lex est aeterna.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A1-p5">
416 <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
417 and eternal."
418 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 1 s. c."><a name="37462" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37462] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 1 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
419 est quod Augustinus dicit, in I de Lib. Arb., <i>lex quae summa
420 ratio nominatur, non potest cuipiam intelligenti non incommutabilis
421 aeternaque videri</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A1-p6">
422 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (Q[90], A[1], ad 2;
423 <a href="#FS_Q91_A3" id="FS_Q91_A1-p6.1" shape="rect">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
424 it is evident, granted that the world is ruled by Divine Providence, as was stated in the
425 <a href="FP_ii.html#FP_Q22_A1" id="FS_Q91_A1-p6.2" shape="rect">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
426 in God the
427 Ruler of the universe, has the nature of a law. And since the Divine Reason's conception of things is not subject to time
428 but is eternal, according to
429 <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.
430 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 1 co."><a name="37463" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37463] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 1 co.</span></a> Respondeo
431 dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, nihil est aliud lex quam
432 quoddam dictamen practicae rationis in principe qui gubernat
433 aliquam communitatem perfectam. Manifestum est autem, supposito
434 quod mundus divina providentia regatur, ut in primo habitum est,
435 quod tota communitas universi gubernatur ratione divina. Et ideo
436 ipsa ratio gubernationis rerum in Deo sicut in principe
437 universitatis existens, legis habet rationem. Et quia divina ratio
438 nihil concipit ex tempore, sed habet aeternum conceptum, ut dicitur
439 Prov. VIII; inde est quod huiusmodi legem oportet dicere
440 aeternam.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A1-p7">
441 <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
442 to
443 <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
444 of an eternal law, in so far as it is ordained by God to the government of things foreknown by Him.
445 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 1 ad 1"><a name="37464" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37464] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 1 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
446 ergo dicendum quod ea quae in seipsis non sunt, apud Deum existunt,
447 inquantum sunt ab ipso praecognita et praeordinata; secundum illud
448 Rom. IV, <i>qui vocat ea quae non sunt, tanquam ea quae sunt</i>.
449 Sic igitur aeternus divinae legis conceptus habet rationem legis
450 aeternae, secundum quod a Deo ordinatur ad gubernationem rerum ab
451 ipso praecognitarum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A1-p8">
452 <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
453 Word and the writing of the Book of Life are eternal. But the promulgation cannot be from eternity on the part of the creature
454 that hears or reads.
455 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 1 ad 2"><a name="37465" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37465] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 1 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
456 dicendum quod promulgatio fit et verbo et scripto; et utroque modo
457 lex aeterna habet promulgationem ex parte Dei promulgantis, quia et
458 verbum divinum est aeternum, et Scriptura libri vitae est aeterna.
459 Sed ex parte creaturae audientis aut inspicientis, non potest esse
460 promulgatio aeterna.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A1-p9">
461 <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
462 to say, the law itself is not ordained to the end---except accidentally, in a governor whose end is extrinsic to him, and
463 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
464 from Himself. Wherefore the eternal law is not ordained to another end.
465 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 1 ad 3"><a name="37466" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37466] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 1 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
466 dicendum quod lex importat ordinem ad finem active, inquantum
467 scilicet per eam ordinantur aliqua in finem, non autem passive,
468 idest quod ipsa lex ordinetur ad finem, nisi per accidens in
469 gubernante cuius finis est extra ipsum, ad quem etiam necesse est
470 ut lex eius ordinetur. Sed finis divinae gubernationis est ipse
471 Deus, nec eius lex est aliud ab ipso. Unde lex aeterna non
472 ordinatur in alium finem.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q91_A2" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q91_A2-p0.1">Q. 91. A. 2. Whether there is in us a natural law?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A2-p2">
473 <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
474 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
475 does not abound in superfluities as neither does she fail in necessaries. Therefore no law is natural to man.
476 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 2 arg. 1"><a name="37467" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37467] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 2 arg. 1</span></a> Ad secundum
477 sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sit in nobis aliqua lex naturalis.
478 Sufficienter enim homo gubernatur per legem aeternam, dicit enim
479 Augustinus, in I de Lib. Arb., quod <i>lex aeterna est qua iustum
480 est ut omnia sint ordinatissima</i>. Sed natura non abundat in
481 superfluis, sicut nec deficit in necessariis. Ergo non est aliqua
482 lex homini naturalis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A2-p3">
483 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, by the law man is directed, in his acts, to the end, as stated above (
484 <a href="#FS_Q90_A2" id="FS_Q91_A2-p3.1" shape="rect">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
485 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
486 to man.
487 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 2 arg. 2"><a name="37468" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37468] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 2 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
488 per legem ordinatur homo in suis actibus ad finem, ut supra habitum
489 est. Sed ordinatio humanorum actuum ad finem non est per naturam,
490 sicut accidit in creaturis irrationabilibus, quae solo appetitu
491 naturali agunt propter finem, sed agit homo propter finem per
492 rationem et voluntatem. Ergo non est aliqua lex homini
493 naturalis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A2-p4">
494 <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,
495 with which he is endowed above all other animals. Since therefore other animals are not subject to a natural law, neither
496 is man subject to a natural law.
497 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 2 arg. 3"><a name="37469" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37469] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 2 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
498 quanto aliquis est liberior, tanto minus est sub lege. Sed homo est
499 liberior omnibus animalibus, propter liberum arbitrium, quod prae
500 aliis animalibus habet. Cum igitur alia animalia non subdantur legi
501 naturali, nec homo alicui legi naturali subditur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A2-p5">
502 <b>On the contrary,</b> A gloss on
503 <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
504 they have no written law, yet they have the natural law, whereby each one knows, and is conscious of, what is good and what
505 is evil."
506 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 2 s. c."><a name="37470" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37470] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 2 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
507 est quod, Rom. II, super illud, <i>cum gentes, quae legem non
508 habent, naturaliter ea quae legis sunt faciunt</i>, dicit Glossa,
509 <i>etsi non habent legem scriptam, habent tamen legem naturalem,
510 qua quilibet intelligit et sibi conscius est quid sit bonum et quid
511 malum</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A2-p6">
512 <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
513 that rules and measures; in another way, as in that which is ruled and measured, since a thing is ruled and measured, in so
514 far as it partakes of the rule or measure. Wherefore, since all things subject to Divine providence are ruled and measured
515 by the eternal law, as was stated above
516 <a href="#FS_Q91_A1" id="FS_Q91_A2-p6.1" shape="rect">(A[1])</a>; it is evident that
517 all things partake somewhat of the eternal law, in so far as, namely, from its being imprinted on them, they derive their
518 respective inclinations to their proper acts and ends. Now among all others, the rational creature is subject to Divine providence
519 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.
520 Wherefore it has a share of the Eternal Reason, whereby it has a natural inclination to its proper act and end: and
521 this participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is called the natural law. Hence the Psalmist after saying
522 (
523 <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
524 us good things?" in answer to which question he says: "The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us": thus implying
525 that the light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil, which is the function of the
526 natural law, is nothing else than an imprint on us of the Divine light. It is therefore evident that the natural law is nothing
527 else than the rational creature's participation of the eternal law.
528 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 2 co."><a name="37471" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37471] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 2 co.</span></a> Respondeo
529 dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, lex, cum sit regula et
530 mensura, dupliciter potest esse in aliquo, uno modo, sicut in
531 regulante et mensurante; alio modo, sicut in regulato et mensurato,
532 quia inquantum participat aliquid de regula vel mensura, sic
533 regulatur vel mensuratur. Unde cum omnia quae divinae providentiae
534 subduntur, a lege aeterna regulentur et mensurentur, ut ex dictis
535 patet; manifestum est quod omnia participant aliqualiter legem
536 aeternam, inquantum scilicet ex impressione eius habent
537 inclinationes in proprios actus et fines. Inter cetera autem
538 rationalis creatura excellentiori quodam modo divinae providentiae
539 subiacet, inquantum et ipsa fit providentiae particeps, sibi ipsi
540 et aliis providens. Unde et in ipsa participatur ratio aeterna, per
541 quam habet naturalem inclinationem ad debitum actum et finem. Et
542 talis participatio legis aeternae in rationali creatura lex
543 naturalis dicitur. Unde cum Psalmista dixisset, sacrificate
544 sacrificium iustitiae, quasi quibusdam quaerentibus quae sunt
545 iustitiae opera, subiungit, multi dicunt, quis ostendit nobis bona?
546 Cui quaestioni respondens, dicit, signatum est super nos lumen
547 vultus tui, domine, quasi lumen rationis naturalis, quo discernimus
548 quid sit bonum et malum, quod pertinet ad naturalem legem, nihil
549 aliud sit quam impressio divini luminis in nobis. Unde patet quod
550 lex naturalis nihil aliud est quam participatio legis aeternae in
551 rationali creatura.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A2-p7">
552 <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
553 thereof, as stated above.
554 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 2 ad 1"><a name="37472" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37472] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 2 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
555 ergo dicendum quod ratio illa procederet, si lex naturalis esset
556 aliquid diversum a lege aeterna. Non autem est nisi quaedam
557 participatio eius, ut dictum est.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A2-p8">
558 <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 (
559 <a href="FS_ii.html#FS_Q10_A1" id="FS_Q91_A2-p8.1" shape="rect">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
560 means is derived from the natural appetite in respect of the last end. Accordingly the first direction of our acts to their
561 end must needs be in virtue of the natural law.
562 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 2 ad 2"><a name="37473" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37473] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 2 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
563 dicendum quod omnis operatio, rationis et voluntatis derivatur in
564 nobis ab eo quod est secundum naturam, ut supra habitum est, nam
565 omnis ratiocinatio derivatur a principiis naturaliter notis, et
566 omnis appetitus eorum quae sunt ad finem, derivatur a naturali
567 appetitu ultimi finis. Et sic etiam oportet quod prima directio
568 actuum nostrorum ad finem, fiat per legem naturalem.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A2-p9">
569 <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
570 rational creature partakes thereof in an intellectual and rational manner, therefore the participation of the eternal law
571 in the rational creature is properly called a law, since a law is something pertaining to reason, as stated above (
572 <a href="#FS_Q90_A1" id="FS_Q91_A2-p9.1" shape="rect">Q[90], A[1]</a>). Irrational creatures, however, do not partake thereof
573 in a rational manner, wherefore there is no participation of the eternal law in them, except by way of similitude.
574 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 2 ad 3"><a name="37474" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37474] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 2 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
575 dicendum quod etiam animalia irrationalia participant rationem
576 aeternam suo modo, sicut et rationalis creatura. Sed quia
577 rationalis creatura participat eam intellectualiter et
578 rationaliter, ideo participatio legis aeternae in creatura
579 rationali proprie lex vocatur, nam lex est aliquid rationis, ut
580 supra dictum est. In creatura autem irrationali non participatur
581 rationaliter, unde non potest dici lex nisi per similitudinem.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q91_A3" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q91_A3-p0.1">Q. 91. A. 3. Whether there is a human law?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A3-p2">
582 <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
583 <a href="#FS_Q91_A2" id="FS_Q91_A3-p2.1" shape="rect">(A[2])</a>. Now through the eternal law "all things are most orderly," as Augustine states (De Lib. Arb. i, 6). Therefore the natural
584 law suffices for the ordering of all human affairs. Consequently there is no need for a human law.
585 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 3 arg. 1"><a name="37475" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37475] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 3 arg. 1</span></a> Ad tertium
586 sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sit aliqua lex humana. Lex enim
587 naturalis est participatio legis aeternae, ut dictum est. Sed per
588 legem aeternam omnia sunt ordinatissima, ut Augustinus dicit, in I
589 de Lib. Arb. Ergo lex naturalis sufficit ad omnia humana ordinanda.
590 Non est ergo necessarium quod sit aliqua lex humana.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A3-p3">
591 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a law bears the character of a measure, as stated above (
592 <a href="#FS_Q90_A1" id="FS_Q91_A3-p3.1" shape="rect">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
593 from human reason.
594 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 3 arg. 2"><a name="37476" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37476] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 3 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
595 lex habet rationem mensurae, ut dictum est. Sed ratio humana non
596 est mensura rerum, sed potius e converso, ut in X Metaphys.
597 dicitur. Ergo ex ratione humana nulla lex procedere potest.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A3-p4">
598 <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
599 conduct are uncertain, according to
600 <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.
601 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 3 arg. 3"><a name="37477" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37477] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 3 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
602 mensura debet esse certissima, ut dicitur in X Metaphys. Sed
603 dictamen humanae rationis de rebus gerendis est incertum; secundum
604 illud Sap. IX, <i>cogitationes mortalium timidae, et incertae
605 providentiae nostrae</i>. Ergo ex ratione humana nulla lex
606 procedere potest.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A3-p5">
607 <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.
608 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 3 s. c."><a name="37478" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37478] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 3 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
609 est quod Augustinus, in I de Lib. Arb., ponit duas leges, unam
610 aeternam et aliam temporalem, quam dicit esse humanam.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A3-p6">
611 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
612 <a href="#FS_Q90_A1" id="FS_Q91_A3-p6.1" shape="rect">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
613 and in the speculative reason: for each proceeds from principles to conclusions, as stated above (De Lib. Arb. i, 6). Accordingly
614 we conclude that just as, in the speculative reason, from naturally known indemonstrable principles, we draw the conclusions
615 of the various
616 sciences, the knowledge of which is not imparted to us by nature, but acquired by the efforts of reason, so too it is from
617 the precepts of the natural law, as from general and indemonstrable principles, that the human reason needs to proceed to
618 the more particular determination of certain matters. These particular determinations, devised by human reason, are called
619 human laws, provided the other essential conditions of law be observed, as stated above (
620 <a href="#FS_Q90_A2" id="FS_Q91_A3-p6.2" shape="rect">Q[90],
621 AA[2]
622 </a>,3,4). Wherefore Tully says in his Rhetoric (De Invent. Rhet. ii) that "justice has its source in nature; thence certain things
623 came into custom by reason of their utility; afterwards these things which emanated from nature and were approved by custom,
624 were sanctioned by fear and reverence for the law."
625 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 3 co."><a name="37479" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37479] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 3 co.</span></a> Respondeo
626 dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, lex est quoddam dictamen
627 practicae rationis. Similis autem processus esse invenitur rationis
628 practicae et speculativae, utraque enim ex quibusdam principiis ad
629 quasdam conclusiones procedit, ut superius habitum est. Secundum
630 hoc ergo dicendum est quod, sicut in ratione speculativa ex
631 principiis indemonstrabilibus naturaliter cognitis producuntur
632 conclusiones diversarum scientiarum, quarum cognitio non est nobis
633 naturaliter indita, sed per industriam rationis inventa; ita etiam
634 ex praeceptis legis naturalis, quasi ex quibusdam principiis
635 communibus et indemonstrabilibus, necesse est quod ratio humana
636 procedat ad aliqua magis particulariter disponenda. Et istae
637 particulares dispositiones adinventae secundum rationem humanam,
638 dicuntur leges humanae, servatis aliis conditionibus quae pertinent
639 ad rationem legis, ut supra dictum est. Unde et Tullius dicit, in
640 sua Rhetor., quod <i>initium iuris est a natura profectum; deinde
641 quaedam in consuetudinem ex utilitate rationis venerunt; postea res
642 et a natura profectas et a consuetudine probatas legum metus et
643 religio sanxit</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A3-p7">
644 <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
645 imperfectly. Consequently, as on the part of the speculative reason, by a natural participation of Divine Wisdom, there is
646 in us the knowledge of certain general principles, but not proper knowledge of each single truth, such as that contained in
647 the Divine Wisdom; so too, on the part of the practical reason, man has a natural
648 participation of the eternal law, according to certain general principles, but not as regards the particular determinations
649 of individual cases, which are, however, contained in the eternal law. Hence the need for human reason to proceed further
650 to sanction them by law.
651 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 3 ad 1"><a name="37480" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37480] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 3 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
652 ergo dicendum quod ratio humana non potest participare ad plenum
653 dictamen rationis divinae, sed suo modo et imperfecte. Et ideo
654 sicut ex parte rationis speculativae, per naturalem participationem
655 divinae sapientiae, inest nobis cognitio quorundam communium
656 principiorum, non autem cuiuslibet veritatis propria cognitio,
657 sicut in divina sapientia continetur; ita etiam ex parte rationis
658 practicae naturaliter homo participat legem aeternam secundum
659 quaedam communia principia, non autem secundum particulares
660 directiones singulorum, quae tamen in aeterna lege continentur. Et
661 ideo necesse est ulterius quod ratio humana procedat ad
662 particulares quasdam legum sanctiones.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A3-p8">
663 <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
664 of all things relating to human conduct, whereof the natural reason is the rule and measure, although it is not the measure
665 of things that are from nature.
666 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 3 ad 2"><a name="37481" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37481] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 3 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
667 dicendum quod ratio humana secundum se non est regula rerum, sed
668 principia ei naturaliter indita, sunt quaedam regulae generales et
669 mensurae omnium eorum quae sunt per hominem agenda, quorum ratio
670 naturalis est regula et mensura, licet non sit mensura eorum quae
671 sunt a natura.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A3-p9">
672 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The practical reason is concerned with practical matters, which are singular and contingent: but not with necessary things,
673 with which the speculative reason is concerned. Wherefore human laws cannot have that inerrancy that belongs to the demonstrated
674 conclusions of sciences. Nor is it necessary for every measure to be altogether unerring and certain, but according as it
675 is possible in its own particular genus.
676 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 3 ad 3"><a name="37482" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37482] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 3 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
677 dicendum quod ratio practica est circa operabilia, quae sunt
678 singularia et contingentia, non autem circa necessaria, sicut ratio
679 speculativa. Et ideo leges humanae non possunt illam
680 infallibilitatem habere quam habent conclusiones demonstrativae
681 scientiarum. Nec oportet quod omnis mensura sit omni modo
682 infallibilis et certa, sed secundum quod est possibile in genere
683 suo.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q91_A4" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q91_A4-p0.1">Q. 91. A. 4. Whether there was any need for a Divine law?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A4-p2">
684 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there was no need for a Divine law. Because, as stated above
685 <a href="#FS_Q91_A2" id="FS_Q91_A4-p2.1" shape="rect">(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
686 <a href="#FS_Q91_A1" id="FS_Q91_A4-p2.2" shape="rect">(A[1])</a>. Therefore there was no need for a Divine law in addition to the natural law, and human laws derived therefrom.
687 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 4 arg. 1"><a name="37483" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37483] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 4 arg. 1</span></a> Ad quartum
688 sic proceditur. Videtur quod non fuerit necessarium esse aliquam
689 legem divinam. Quia, ut dictum est, lex naturalis est quaedam
690 participatio legis aeternae in nobis. Sed lex aeterna est lex
691 divina, ut dictum est. Ergo non oportet quod praeter legem
692 naturalem, et leges humanas ab ea derivatas, sit aliqua alia lex
693 divina.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A4-p3">
694 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is written (
695 <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
696 man was left to the direction of his reason. But a dictate of human reason is a human law as stated above
697 <a href="#FS_Q91_A3" id="FS_Q91_A4-p3.2" shape="rect">(A[3])</a>. Therefore there is no need for man to be governed also by a Divine law.
698 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 4 arg. 2"><a name="37484" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37484] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 4 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
699 Eccli. XV dicitur quod <i>Deus dimisit hominem in manu consilii
700 sui</i>. Consilium autem est actus rationis, ut supra habitum est.
701 Ergo homo dimissus est gubernationi suae rationis. Sed dictamen
702 rationis humanae est lex humana, ut dictum est. Ergo non oportet
703 quod homo alia lege divina gubernetur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A4-p4">
704 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, human nature is more self-sufficing than irrational creatures. But irrational creatures have no Divine law besides
705 the natural inclination impressed on them. Much less, therefore, should the rational creature have a Divine law in addition
706 to the natural law.
707 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 4 arg. 3"><a name="37485" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37485] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 4 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
708 natura humana est sufficientior irrationalibus creaturis. Sed
709 irrationales creaturae non habent aliquam legem divinam praeter
710 inclinationem naturalem eis inditam. Ergo multo minus creatura
711 rationalis debet habere aliquam legem divinam praeter naturalem
712 legem.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A4-p5">
713 <b>On the contrary,</b> David prayed God to set His law before him, saying (
714 <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."
715 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 4 s. c."><a name="37486" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37486] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 4 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
716 est quod David expetit legem a Deo sibi poni, dicens, <i>legem pone
717 mihi, domine, in via iustificationum tuarum</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q91_A4-p6">
718 <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
719 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.
720 And indeed if man were ordained to no other end than that which is proportionate to his natural faculty, there would be no
721 need for man to have any further direction of the part of his reason, besides the natural law
722 and human law which is derived from it. But since man is ordained to an end of eternal happiness which is inproportionate
723 to man's natural faculty, as stated above (
724 <a href="FS_i.html#FS_Q5_A5" id="FS_Q91_A4-p6.1" shape="rect">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
725 by God.
726 </p><p id="FS_Q91_A4-p7"> Secondly, because, on account of the uncertainty of human judgment, especially on contingent and particular matters, different
727 people form different judgments on human acts; whence also different and contrary laws result. In order, therefore, that man
728 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
729 proper acts by a law given by God, for it is certain that such a law cannot err.
730 </p><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
731 of interior movements, that are hidden, but only of exterior acts which appear: and yet for the perfection of virtue it is
732 necessary for man to conduct himself aright in both kinds of acts. Consequently human law could not sufficiently curb and
733 direct interior acts; and it was necessary for this purpose that a Divine law should supervene.
734 </p><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
735 aiming at doing away with all evils, it would do away with many good things, and would hinder the advance of the common good,
736 which is necessary for human intercourse. In order, therefore, that no evil might remain unforbidden and unpunished, it was
737 necessary for the Divine law to supervene, whereby all sins are forbidden.
738 </p><p id="FS_Q91_A4-p10"> And these four causes are touched upon in
739 <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
740 not only exterior, but also interior acts; "the testimony of the Lord is faithful," because of the certainty of what is true
741 and right; "giving wisdom to little ones," by directing man to an end supernatural and Divine.
742 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 4 co."><a name="37487" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37487] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 4 co.</span></a> Respondeo
743 dicendum quod praeter legem naturalem et legem humanam, necessarium
744 fuit ad directionem humanae vitae habere legem divinam. Et hoc
745 propter quatuor rationes. Primo quidem, quia per legem dirigitur
746 homo ad actus proprios in ordine ad ultimum finem. Et si quidem
747 homo ordinaretur tantum ad finem qui non excederet proportionem
748 naturalis facultatis hominis, non oporteret quod homo haberet
749 aliquid directivum ex parte rationis, supra legem naturalem et
750 legem humanitus positam, quae ab ea derivatur. Sed quia homo
751 ordinatur ad finem beatitudinis aeternae, quae excedit proportionem
752 naturalis facultatis humanae, ut supra habitum est; ideo
753 necessarium fuit ut supra legem naturalem et humanam, dirigeretur
754 etiam ad suum finem lege divinitus data. Secundo, quia propter
755 incertitudinem humani iudicii, praecipue de rebus contingentibus et
756 particularibus, contingit de actibus humanis diversorum esse
757 diversa iudicia, ex quibus etiam diversae et contrariae leges
758 procedunt. Ut ergo homo absque omni dubitatione scire possit quid
759 ei sit agendum et quid vitandum, necessarium fuit ut in actibus
760 propriis dirigeretur per legem divinitus datam, de qua constat quod
761 non potest errare. Tertio, quia de his potest homo legem ferre, de
762 quibus potest iudicare. Iudicium autem hominis esse non potest de
763 interioribus motibus, qui latent, sed solum de exterioribus
764 actibus, qui apparent. Et tamen ad perfectionem virtutis requiritur
765 quod in utrisque actibus homo rectus existat. Et ideo lex humana
766 non potuit cohibere et ordinare sufficienter interiores actus, sed
767 necessarium fuit quod ad hoc superveniret lex divina. Quarto quia,
768 sicut Augustinus dicit, in I de Lib. Arb., lex humana non potest
769 omnia quae male fiunt, punire vel prohibere, quia dum auferre
770 vellet omnia mala, sequeretur quod etiam multa bona tollerentur, et
771 impediretur utilitas boni communis, quod est necessarium ad
772 conversationem humanam. Ut ergo nullum malum improhibitum et
773 impunitum remaneat, necessarium fuit supervenire legem divinam, per
774 quam omnia peccata prohibentur. Et istae quatuor causae tanguntur
775 in Psalmo XVIII, ubi dicitur, lex domini immaculata, idest nullam
776 peccati turpitudinem permittens; convertens animas, quia non solum
777 exteriores actus, sed etiam interiores dirigit; testimonium domini
778 fidele, propter certitudinem veritatis et rectitudinis; sapientiam
779 praestans parvulis, inquantum ordinat hominem ad supernaturalem
780 finem et divinum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A4-p11">
781 <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
782 end man needs to be directed in a yet higher way. Hence the additional law given by God, whereby man shares more perfectly
783 in the eternal law.
784 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 4 ad 1"><a name="37488" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37488] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 4 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
785 ergo dicendum quod per naturalem legem participatur lex aeterna
786 secundum proportionem capacitatis humanae naturae. Sed oportet ut
787 altiori modo dirigatur homo in ultimum finem supernaturalem. Et
788 ideo superadditur lex divinitus data, per quam lex aeterna
789 participatur altiori modo.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A4-p12">
790 <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
791 imparted by nature, which are the precepts of the natural law, for the reasons given above: but there is need for certain
792 additional principles, namely, the precepts of the Divine law.
793 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 4 ad 2"><a name="37489" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37489] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 4 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
794 dicendum quod consilium est inquisitio quaedam, unde oportet quod
795 procedat ex aliquibus principiis. Nec sufficit quod procedat ex
796 principiis naturaliter inditis, quae sunt praecepta legis naturae,
797 propter praedicta, sed oportet quod superaddantur quaedam alia
798 principia, scilicet praecepta legis divinae.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A4-p13">
799 <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
800 the comparison fails.
801 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 4 ad 3"><a name="37490" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37490] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 4 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
802 dicendum quod creaturae irrationales non ordinantur ad altiorem
803 finem quam sit finis qui est proportionatus naturali virtuti
804 ipsarum. Et ideo non est similis ratio.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q91_A5" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q91_A5-p0.1">Q. 91. A. 5. Whether there is but one Divine law?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A5-p2">
805 <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
806 the whole of mankind is compared to God as to one king, according to
807 <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.
808 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 5 arg. 1"><a name="37491" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37491] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 5 arg. 1</span></a> Ad quintum
809 sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex divina sit una tantum. Unius enim
810 regis in uno regno est una lex. Sed totum humanum genus comparatur
811 ad Deum sicut ad unum regem; secundum illud Psalmi XLVI, <i>rex
812 omnis terrae Deus</i>. Ergo est una tantum lex divina.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A5-p3">
813 <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
814 one and the same thing for all men; since according to
815 <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.
816 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 5 arg. 2"><a name="37492" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37492] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 5 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
817 omnis lex ordinatur ad finem quem legislator intendit in eis quibus
818 legem fert. Sed unum et idem est quod Deus intendit in omnibus
819 hominibus; secundum illud I ad Tim. II, <i>vult omnes homines
820 salvos fieri, et ad agnitionem veritatis venire</i>. Ergo una
821 tantum est lex divina.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A5-p4">
822 <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
823 of grace is of a higher order than natural knowledge. Therefore much more is the Divine law but one.
824 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 5 arg. 3"><a name="37493" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37493] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 5 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
825 lex divina propinquior esse videtur legi aeternae, quae est una,
826 quam lex naturalis, quanto altior est revelatio gratiae quam
827 cognitio naturae. Sed lex naturalis est una omnium hominum. Ergo
828 multo magis lex divina.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A5-p5">
829 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
830 <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,
831 as stated in the same passage, viz. the levitical priesthood, and the priesthood of Christ. Therefore the Divine law is twofold,
832 namely the Old Law and the New Law.
833 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 5 s. c."><a name="37494" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37494] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 5 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
834 est quod apostolus dicit, ad Heb. VII, <i>translato sacerdotio,
835 necesse est ut legis translatio fiat</i>. Sed sacerdotium est
836 duplex, ut ibidem dicitur, scilicet sacerdotium leviticum, et
837 sacerdotium Christi. Ergo etiam duplex est lex divina, scilicet lex
838 vetus, et lex nova.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q91_A5-p6">
839 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated in the
840 <a href="FP_iii.html#FP_Q30_A3" id="FS_Q91_A5-p6.1" shape="rect">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
841 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:
842 and in this way the Divine law is divided into Old and New. Hence the Apostle (
843 <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
844 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
845 under a pedagogue."
846 </p><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
847 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
848 above (
849 <a href="#FS_Q90_A2" id="FS_Q91_A5-p7.1" shape="rect">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:
850 wherefore, at the very outset of the law, the people were invited to
851 the earthly kingdom of the Chananaeans (
852 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q91_A5-p7.2" href="./asv.html#Exod.3.8" target="asv">Ex. 3:8</a>,
853 <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
854 beginning of His preaching, Christ invited men to the kingdom of heaven, saying (
855 <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
856 goods are contained in the Old Testament, for which reason it is called old; but the promise of
857 eternal life belongs to the New Testament."
858 </p><p id="FS_Q91_A5-p8"> Secondly, it belongs to the law to direct human acts according to the order of righteousness
859 <a href="#FS_Q91_A4" id="FS_Q91_A5-p8.1" shape="rect">(A[4])</a>: wherein also the New Law surpasses the Old Law, since it directs our internal acts, according to
860 <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."
861 Hence the saying that "the Old Law restrains the hand, but the New Law controls the mind" ( Sentent. iii,
862 D, xl).
863 </p><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:
864 but the New Law, by love, which is poured into our hearts by the grace of Christ, bestowed in the New Law, but foreshadowed
865 in the Old. Hence Augustine says (Contra Adimant. Manich. discip. xvii) that "there is little difference [*The 'little difference'
866 refers to the Latin words 'timor' and 'amor'---'fear' and 'love.'] between the Law and the Gospel---fear
867 and love."
868 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 5 co."><a name="37495" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37495] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 5 co.</span></a> Respondeo
869 dicendum quod, sicut in primo dictum est, distinctio est causa
870 numeri. Dupliciter autem inveniuntur aliqua distingui. Uno modo,
871 sicut ea quae sunt omnino specie diversa, ut equus et bos. Alio
872 modo, sicut perfectum et imperfectum in eadem specie, sicut puer et
873 vir. Et hoc modo lex divina distinguitur in legem veterem et legem
874 novam. Unde apostolus, ad Gal. III, comparat statum veteris legis
875 statui puerili existenti sub paedagogo, statum autem novae legis
876 comparat statui viri perfecti, qui iam non est sub paedagogo.
877 Attenditur autem perfectio et imperfectio utriusque legis secundum
878 tria quae ad legem pertinent, ut supra dictum est. Primo enim ad
879 legem pertinet ut ordinetur ad bonum commune sicut ad finem, ut
880 supra dictum est. Quod quidem potest esse duplex. Scilicet bonum
881 sensibile et terrenum, et ad tale bonum ordinabat directe lex
882 vetus; unde statim, Exodi III, in principio legis, invitatur
883 populus ad regnum terrenum Chananaeorum. Et iterum bonum
884 intelligibile et caeleste, et ad hoc ordinat lex nova. Unde statim
885 Christus ad regnum caelorum in suae praedicationis principio
886 invitavit, dicens, <i>poenitentiam agite, appropinquavit enim
887 regnum caelorum</i>, Matth. IV. Et ideo Augustinus dicit, in IV
888 contra Faustum, quod <i>temporalium rerum promissiones testamento
889 veteri continentur, et ideo vetus appellatur, sed aeternae vitae
890 promissio ad novum pertinet testamentum</i>. Secundo ad legem
891 pertinet dirigere humanos actus secundum ordinem iustitiae. In quo
892 etiam superabundat lex nova legi veteri, interiores actus animi
893 ordinando; secundum illud Matth. V, <i>nisi abundaverit iustitia
894 vestra plus quam Scribarum et Pharisaeorum, non intrabitis in
895 regnum caelorum</i>. Et ideo dicitur quod <i>lex vetus cohibet
896 manum, lex nova animum</i>. Tertio ad legem pertinet inducere
897 homines ad observantias mandatorum. Et hoc quidem lex vetus
898 faciebat timore poenarum, lex autem nova facit hoc per amorem, qui
899 in cordibus nostris infunditur per gratiam Christi, quae in lege
900 nova confertur, sed in lege veteri figurabatur. Et ideo dicit
901 Augustinus, contra Adimantum Manichaei discipulum, <i>quod brevis
902 differentia est legis et Evangelii, timor et amor</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A5-p10">
903 <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
904 one kingdom, gave one law to men, while they were yet imperfect, and another more perfect law, when, by the preceding law,
905 they had been led to a greater capacity for Divine things.
906 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 5 ad 1"><a name="37496" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37496] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 5 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
907 ergo dicendum quod, sicut paterfamilias in domo alia mandata
908 proponit pueris et adultis, ita etiam unus rex Deus, in uno suo
909 regno, aliam legem dedit hominibus adhuc imperfectis existentibus;
910 et aliam perfectiorem iam manuductis per priorem legem ad maiorem
911 capacitatem divinorum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A5-p11">
912 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The salvation of man could not be achieved otherwise than through Christ, according to
913 <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
914 could not be given until after the coming of Christ. But before His coming it was necessary to give to the people, of whom
915 Christ was to be born, a law containing certain rudiments of righteousness unto salvation,
916 in order to prepare them to receive Him.
917 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 5 ad 2"><a name="37497" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37497] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 5 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
918 dicendum quod salus hominum non poterat esse nisi per Christum;
919 secundum illud Act. IV, <i>non est aliud nomen datum hominibus, in
920 quo oporteat nos salvos fieri</i>. Et ideo lex perfecte ad salutem
921 omnes inducens, dari non potuit nisi post Christi adventum. Antea
922 vero dari oportuit populo ex quo Christus erat nasciturus, legem
923 praeparatoriam ad Christi susceptionem, in qua quaedam rudimenta
924 salutaris iustitiae continerentur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A5-p12">
925 <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
926 is one and the same for all. But the Divine law directs man also in certain particular matters, to which the perfect and imperfect
927 do not stand in the same relation. Hence the necessity for the Divine law to be twofold, as already explained.
928 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 5 ad 3"><a name="37498" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37498] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 5 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
929 dicendum quod lex naturalis dirigit hominem secundum quaedam
930 praecepta communia, in quibus conveniunt tam perfecti quam
931 imperfecti, et ideo est una omnium. Sed lex divina dirigit hominem
932 etiam in quibusdam particularibus, ad quae non similiter se habent
933 perfecti et imperfecti. Et ideo oportuit legem divinam esse
934 duplicem, sicut iam dictum est.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q91_A6" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q91_A6-p0.1">Q. 91. A. 6. Whether there is a law in the fomes of sin?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A6-p2">
935 <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
936 the "fomes" of sin is not based on reason, but deviates from it. Therefore the "fomes" has not the nature of a law.
937 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 6 arg. 1"><a name="37499" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37499] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 6 arg. 1</span></a> Ad sextum
938 sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sit aliqua lex fomitis. Dicit enim
939 Isidorus, in V Etymol., quod <i>lex ratione consistit</i>. Fomes
940 autem non consistit ratione, sed magis a ratione deviat. Ergo fomes
941 non habet rationem legis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A6-p3">
942 <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,
943 from not following the instigations of the "fomes"; but rather from his following them. Therefore the "fomes" has not the
944 nature of a law.
945 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 6 arg. 2"><a name="37500" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37500] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 6 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
946 omnis lex obligatoria est, ita quod qui ipsam non servant,
947 transgressores dicuntur. Sed fomes non constituit aliquem
948 transgressorem ex hoc quod ipsum non sequitur, sed magis
949 transgressor redditur si quis ipsum sequatur. Ergo fomes non habet
950 rationem legis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A6-p4">
951 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the law is ordained to the common good, as stated above (
952 <a href="#FS_Q90_A2" id="FS_Q91_A6-p4.1" shape="rect">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
953 sin.
954 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 6 arg. 3"><a name="37501" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37501] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 6 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
955 lex ordinatur ad bonum commune, ut supra habitum est. Sed fomes non
956 inclinat ad bonum commune, sed magis ad bonum privatum. Ergo fomes
957 non habet rationem legis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A6-p5">
958 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
959 <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."
960 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 6 s. c."><a name="37502" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37502] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 6 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
961 est quod apostolus dicit, Rom. VII, <i>video aliam legem in membris
962 meis, repugnantem legi mentis meae</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q91_A6-p6">
963 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
964 <a href="#FS_Q91_A2" id="FS_Q91_A6-p6.1" shape="rect">(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
965 that which is ruled and measured; so that every inclination or ordination which may be found in things subject to the law,
966 is called a law by participation, as stated above
967 <a href="#FS_Q91_A2" id="FS_Q91_A6-p6.2" shape="rect">(A[2];</a> Q[90], A[1] , ad 1). Now those who are subject to a law may receive a twofold
968 inclination from the lawgiver. First, in so far as he directly inclines his subjects to something; sometimes indeed different
969 subjects to different acts; in this way we may say that there is a military law and a mercantile law. Secondly, indirectly;
970 thus by the very fact that a lawgiver deprives a subject of some dignity, the latter passes into another order, so as to be
971 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
972 legislation.
973 </p><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
974 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
975 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
976 to his proper natural condition, is that he should act in accordance with reason: and this law was so effective
977 in the primitive state, that nothing either beside or against reason could take man unawares. But when man turned his back
978 on God, he fell under the influence of his sensual impulses: in fact this happens to each one individually, the more he deviates
979 from the path of reason, so that, after a fashion, he is likened to the beasts that are led by the impulse of sensuality,
980 according to
981 <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
982 senseless beasts, and made like to them."
983 </p><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
984 (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
985 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
986 is destitute of original justice, and his reason bereft of its vigor, this impulse of sensuality, whereby he is
987 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.
988 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 6 co."><a name="37503" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37503] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 6 co.</span></a> Respondeo
989 dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, lex essentialiter invenitur
990 in regulante et mensurante, participative autem in eo quod
991 mensuratur et regulatur; ita quod omnis inclinatio vel ordinatio
992 quae invenitur in his quae subiecta sunt legi, participative
993 dicitur lex, ut ex supradictis patet. Potest autem in his quae
994 subduntur legi, aliqua inclinatio inveniri dupliciter a
995 legislatore. Uno modo, inquantum directe inclinat suos subditos ad
996 aliquid; et diversos interdum ad diversos actus; secundum quem
997 modum potest dici quod alia est lex militum, et alia est lex
998 mercatorum. Alio modo, indirecte, inquantum scilicet per hoc quod
999 legislator destituit aliquem sibi subditum aliqua dignitate,
1000 sequitur quod transeat in alium ordinem et quasi in aliam legem,
1001 puta si miles ex militia destituatur, transibit in legem rusticorum
1002 vel mercatorum. Sic igitur sub Deo legislatore diversae creaturae
1003 diversas habent naturales inclinationes, ita ut quod uni est
1004 quodammodo lex, alteri sit contra legem, ut si dicam quod
1005 furibundum esse est quodammodo lex canis, est autem contra legem
1006 ovis vel alterius mansueti animalis. Est ergo hominis lex, quam
1007 sortitur ex ordinatione divina secundum propriam conditionem, ut
1008 secundum rationem operetur. Quae quidem lex fuit tam valida in
1009 primo statu, ut nihil vel praeter rationem vel contra rationem
1010 posset subrepere homini. Sed dum homo a Deo recessit, incurrit in
1011 hoc quod feratur secundum impetum sensualitatis, et unicuique etiam
1012 particulariter hoc contingit, quanto magis a ratione recesserit, ut
1013 sic quodammodo bestiis assimiletur, quae sensualitatis impetu
1014 feruntur; secundum illud Psalmi XLVIII, <i>homo, cum in honore
1015 esset, non intellexit, comparatus est iumentis insipientibus, et
1016 similis factus est illis</i>. Sic igitur ipsa sensualitatis
1017 inclinatio, quae fomes dicitur, in aliis quidem animalibus
1018 simpliciter habet rationem legis, illo tamen modo quo in talibus
1019 lex dici potest, secundum directam inclinationem. In hominibus
1020 autem secundum hoc non habet rationem legis, sed magis est deviatio
1021 a lege rationis. Sed inquantum per divinam iustitiam homo
1022 destituitur originali iustitia et vigore rationis, ipse impetus
1023 sensualitatis qui eum ducit, habet rationem legis, inquantum est
1024 poenalis et ex lege divina consequens, hominem destituente propria
1025 dignitate.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A6-p9">
1026 <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
1027 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
1028 allows a nobleman to be condemned to hard labor for some misdeed.
1029 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 6 ad 1"><a name="37504" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37504] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 6 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
1030 ergo dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de fomite secundum se
1031 considerato, prout inclinat ad malum. Sic enim non habet rationem
1032 legis, ut dictum est, sed secundum quod sequitur ex divinae legis
1033 iustitia, tanquam si diceretur lex esse quod aliquis nobilis,
1034 propter suam culpam, ad servilia opera induci permitteretur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A6-p10">
1035 <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
1036 become transgressors. But the "fomes" is not a law in this respect, but by a kind of participation, as stated above.
1037 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 6 ad 2"><a name="37505" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37505] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 6 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
1038 dicendum quod obiectio illa procedit de eo quod est lex quasi
1039 regula et mensura, sic enim deviantes a lege transgressores
1040 constituuntur. Sic autem fomes non est lex, sed per quandam
1041 participationem, ut supra dictum est.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q91_A6-p11">
1042 <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
1043 sensuality be considered as it is in other animals, thus it is ordained to the common good, namely, to the preservation of
1044 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
1045 is called "fomes" in so far as it strays from the order of reason.
1046 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 91 a. 6 ad 3"><a name="37506" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37506] Iª-IIae q. 91 a. 6 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
1047 dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de fomite quantum ad
1048 inclinationem propriam, non autem quantum ad suam originem. Et
1049 tamen si consideretur inclinatio sensualitatis prout est in aliis
1050 animalibus, sic ordinatur ad bonum commune, idest ad conservationem
1051 naturae in specie vel in individuo. Et hoc est etiam in homine,
1052 prout sensualitas subditur rationi. Sed fomes dicitur secundum quod
1053 exit rationis ordinem.</p></div></div></div></div>
1054 <div id="FS_Q92" class="div3">
1055 <h3 id="FS_Q92-p0.1">Q. 92. OF THE EFFECTS OF LAW (TWO ARTICLES)</h3>
1056 <div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="div4">
1057 <p id="FS_Q92-p2"> We must now consider the effects of law; under which head there are two points of inquiry:</p><p id="FS_Q92-p3"><a href="#FS_Q92_A1"> (1) Whether an effect of law is to make men good?</a></p><p id="FS_Q92-p4"><a href="#FS_Q92_A2"> (2) Whether the effects of law are to command, to forbid, to permit, and to punish, as the Jurist states?</a></p>
1058 </div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 92 pr."><a name="37507" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37507]
1059 Iª-IIae q. 92 pr.</span></a> Deinde considerandum est de
1060 effectibus legis. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. Primo, utrum
1061 effectus legis sit homines facere bonos. Secundo, utrum effectus
1062 legis sint imperare, vetare, permittere et punire, sicut
1063 legisperitus dicit.</p></div></div></div>
1064 <div id="FS_Q92_A1" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q92_A1-p0.1">Q. 92. A. 1. Whether an effect of law is to make men good?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q92_A1-p2">
1065 <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.
1066 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
1067 us," as we stated above (
1068 <a href="FS_v.html#FS_Q55_A4" id="FS_Q92_A1-p2.1" shape="rect">Q[55], A[4]</a>) in giving the definition of virtue. Therefore the law does not make men good.
1069 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 92 a. 1 arg. 1"><a name="37508" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37508] Iª-IIae q. 92 a. 1 arg. 1</span></a> Ad primum
1070 sic proceditur. Videtur quod legis non sit facere homines bonos.
1071 Homines enim sunt boni per virtutem, virtus enim est quae bonum
1072 facit habentem, ut dicitur in II Ethic. Sed virtus est homini a
1073 solo Deo, ipse enim eam facit in nobis sine nobis, ut supra dictum
1074 est in definitione virtutis. Ergo legis non est facere homines
1075 bonos.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q92_A1-p3">
1076 <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.
1077 Therefore in man goodness is presupposed to the law. Therefore the law does not make men good.
1078 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 92 a. 1 arg. 2"><a name="37509" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37509] Iª-IIae q. 92 a. 1 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
1079 lex non prodest homini nisi legi obediat. Sed hoc ipsum quod homo
1080 obedit legi, est ex bonitate. Ergo bonitas praeexigitur in homine
1081 ad legem. Non igitur lex facit homines bonos.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q92_A1-p4">
1082 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Law is ordained to the common good, as stated above (
1083 <a href="#FS_Q90_A2" id="FS_Q92_A1-p4.1" shape="rect">Q[90], A[2]</a>). But some behave well in things regarding the community, who behave ill in things regarding themselves. Therefore it is
1084 not the business of the law to make men good.
1085 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 92 a. 1 arg. 3"><a name="37510" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37510] Iª-IIae q. 92 a. 1 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
1086 lex ordinatur ad bonum commune, ut supra dictum est. Sed quidam
1087 bene se habent in his quae ad commune pertinent, qui tamen in
1088 propriis non bene se habent. Non ergo ad legem pertinet quod faciat
1089 homines bonos.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q92_A1-p5">
1090 <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
1091 subjects, but considers only his own profit. Therefore law does not make men good.
1092 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 92 a. 1 arg. 4"><a name="37511" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37511] Iª-IIae q. 92 a. 1 arg. 4</span></a> Praeterea,
1093 quaedam leges sunt tyrannicae, ut philosophus dicit, in sua
1094 politica. Sed tyrannus non intendit ad bonitatem subditorum, sed
1095 solum ad propriam utilitatem. Non ergo legis est facere homines
1096 bonos.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q92_A1-p6">
1097 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 1) that the "intention of every lawgiver is to make good citizens."
1098 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 92 a. 1 s. c."><a name="37512" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37512] Iª-IIae q. 92 a. 1 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
1099 est quod philosophus dicit, in II Ethic., quod <i>voluntas
1100 cuiuslibet legislatoris haec est, ut faciat cives bonos</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q92_A1-p7">
1101 <b>I answer that,</b> as stated above (Q[90], A[1], ad 2;
1102 <a href="#FS_Q92_A3" id="FS_Q92_A1-p7.1" shape="rect">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
1103 subordinate thing consists in its being well subordinated to that by which it is regulated: thus we see that the virtue of
1104 the irascible and concupiscible faculties consists in their being obedient to reason; and accordingly "the virtue of every
1105 subject consists in his
1106 being well subjected to his ruler," as the Philosopher says (Polit. i). But every law aims at being obeyed by those who are
1107 subject to it. Consequently it is evident that the proper effect of law is to lead its subjects to their proper virtue: and
1108 since virtue is "that which makes its subject good," it follows that the proper effect of law is to make those to whom it
1109 is given, good, either simply or in some particular respect. For if the intention of the lawgiver is fixed on true good, which
1110 is
1111 the common good regulated according to Divine justice, it follows that the effect of the law is to make men good simply. If,
1112 however, the intention of the lawgiver is fixed on that which is not simply good, but useful or pleasurable to himself, or
1113 in opposition to Divine justice; then the law does not make men good simply, but in respect to that particular government.
1114 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
1115 in a
1116 way that is adapted to his end.
1117 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 92 a. 1 co."><a name="37513" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37513] Iª-IIae q. 92 a. 1 co.</span></a> Respondeo
1118 dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, lex nihil aliud est quam
1119 dictamen rationis in praesidente, quo subditi gubernantur.
1120 Cuiuslibet autem subditi virtus est ut bene subdatur ei a quo
1121 gubernatur, sicut videmus quod virtus irascibilis et
1122 concupiscibilis in hoc consistit quod sint bene obedientes rationi.
1123 Et per hunc modum <i>virtus cuiuslibet subiecti est ut bene
1124 subiiciatur principanti</i>, ut philosophus dicit, in I Polit. Ad
1125 hoc autem ordinatur unaquaeque lex, ut obediatur ei a subditis.
1126 Unde manifestum est quod hoc sit proprium legis, inducere subiectos
1127 ad propriam ipsorum virtutem. Cum igitur virtus sit quae bonum
1128 facit habentem, sequitur quod proprius effectus legis sit bonos
1129 facere eos quibus datur, vel simpliciter vel secundum quid. Si enim
1130 intentio ferentis legem tendat in verum bonum, quod est bonum
1131 commune secundum iustitiam divinam regulatum, sequitur quod per
1132 legem homines fiant boni simpliciter. Si vero intentio legislatoris
1133 feratur ad id quod non est bonum simpliciter, sed utile vel
1134 delectabile sibi, vel repugnans iustitiae divinae; tunc lex non
1135 facit homines bonos simpliciter, sed secundum quid, scilicet in
1136 ordine ad tale regimen. Sic autem bonum invenitur etiam in per se
1137 malis, sicut aliquis dicitur bonus latro, quia operatur accommode
1138 ad finem.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q92_A1-p8">
1139 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> Virtue is twofold, as explained above (
1140 <a href="FS_v.html#FS_Q63_A2" id="FS_Q92_A1-p8.1" shape="rect">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
1141 it causes the acquired virtue; while it disposes to infused virtue, and preserves and fosters it when it already exists. And
1142 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
1143 good.
1144 Wherefore the Philosopher says in the second book of the Politics (Ethic. ii) that "lawgivers make men good by habituating
1145 them to good works."
1146 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 92 a. 1 ad 1"><a name="37514" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37514] Iª-IIae q. 92 a. 1 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
1147 ergo dicendum quod duplex est virtus, ut ex supradictis patet,
1148 scilicet acquisita, et infusa. Ad utramque autem aliquid operatur
1149 operum assuetudo, sed diversimode, nam virtutem quidem acquisitam
1150 causat; ad virtutem autem infusam disponit, et eam iam habitam
1151 conservat et promovet. Et quia lex ad hoc datur ut dirigat actus
1152 humanos, inquantum actus humani operantur ad virtutem, intantum lex
1153 facit homines bonos. Unde et philosophus dicit, II Polit., quod
1154 <i>legislatores assuefacientes faciunt bonos</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q92_A1-p9">
1155 <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,
1156 and sometimes from the mere dictates of reason, which is a beginning of virtue, as stated above (
1157 <a href="FS_v.html#FS_Q63_A1" id="FS_Q92_A1-p9.1" shape="rect">Q[63], A[1]</a>).
1158 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 92 a. 1 ad 2"><a name="37515" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37515] Iª-IIae q. 92 a. 1 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
1159 dicendum quod non semper aliquis obedit legi ex bonitate perfecta
1160 virtutis, sed quandoque quidem ex timore poenae; quandoque autem ex
1161 solo dictamine rationis, quod est quoddam principium virtutis, ut
1162 supra habitum est.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q92_A1-p10">
1163 <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
1164 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
1165 good, unless he be well proportionate to the common good: nor can the whole be well consistent unless its parts be proportionate
1166 to it. Consequently the common good of the state cannot flourish, unless the
1167 citizens be virtuous, at least those whose business it is to govern. But it is enough for the good of the community, that
1168 the other citizens be so far virtuous that they obey the commands of their rulers. Hence the Philosopher says (Polit. ii,
1169 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
1170 as that of a good man."
1171 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 92 a. 1 ad 3"><a name="37516" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37516] Iª-IIae q. 92 a. 1 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
1172 dicendum quod bonitas cuiuslibet partis consideratur in proportione
1173 ad suum totum, unde et Augustinus dicit, in III Confess., quod
1174 <i>turpis omnis pars est quae suo toti non congruit</i>. Cum igitur
1175 quilibet homo sit pars civitatis, impossibile est quod aliquis homo
1176 sit bonus, nisi sit bene proportionatus bono communi, nec totum
1177 potest bene consistere nisi ex partibus sibi proportionatis. Unde
1178 impossibile est quod bonum commune civitatis bene se habeat, nisi
1179 cives sint virtuosi, ad minus illi quibus convenit principari.
1180 Sufficit autem, quantum ad bonum communitatis, quod alii intantum
1181 sint virtuosi quod principum mandatis obediant. Et ideo philosophus
1182 dicit, in III Polit., quod <i>eadem est virtus principis et boni
1183 viri; non autem eadem est virtus cuiuscumque civis et boni
1184 viri</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q92_A1-p11">
1185 <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;
1186 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
1187 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
1188 to make them good, not simply, but with respect to that particular
1189 government.
1190 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 92 a. 1 ad 4"><a name="37517" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37517] Iª-IIae q. 92 a. 1 ad 4</span></a> Ad quartum
1191 dicendum quod lex tyrannica, cum non sit secundum rationem, non est
1192 simpliciter lex, sed magis est quaedam perversitas legis. Et tamen
1193 inquantum habet aliquid de ratione legis, intendit ad hoc quod
1194 cives sint boni. Non enim habet de ratione legis nisi secundum hoc
1195 quod est dictamen alicuius praesidentis in subditis, et ad hoc
1196 tendit ut subditi legi sint bene obedientes; quod est eos esse
1197 bonos, non simpliciter, sed in ordine ad tale regimen.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q92_A2" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q92_A2-p0.1">Q. 92. A. 2. Whether the acts of law are suitably assigned?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q92_A2-p2">
1198 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the acts of law are not suitably assigned as consisting in "command," "prohibition," "permission" and
1199 "punishment." For "every law is a general precept," as the jurist states. But command and precept are the same. Therefore
1200 the other three are superfluous.
1201 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 92 a. 2 arg. 1"><a name="37518" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37518] Iª-IIae q. 92 a. 2 arg. 1</span></a> Ad secundum
1202 sic proceditur. Videtur quod legis actus non sint convenienter
1203 assignati in hoc quod dicitur quod legis actus est imperare,
1204 vetare, permittere et punire. Lex enim omnis praeceptum commune
1205 est, ut legisconsultus dicit. Sed idem est imperare quod
1206 praecipere. Ergo alia tria superfluunt.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q92_A2-p3">
1207 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the effect of a law is to induce its subjects to be good, as stated above
1208 <a href="#FS_Q92_A1" id="FS_Q92_A2-p3.1" shape="rect">(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.
1209 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 92 a. 2 arg. 2"><a name="37519" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37519] Iª-IIae q. 92 a. 2 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
1210 effectus legis est ut inducat subditos ad bonum, sicut supra dictum
1211 est. Sed consilium est de meliori bono quam praeceptum. Ergo magis
1212 pertinet ad legem consulere quam praecipere.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q92_A2-p4">
1213 <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,
1214 so also is to reward.
1215 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 92 a. 2 arg. 3"><a name="37520" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37520] Iª-IIae q. 92 a. 2 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
1216 sicut homo aliquis incitatur ad bonum per poenas, ita etiam et per
1217 praemia. Ergo sicut punire ponitur effectus legis, ita etiam et
1218 praemiare.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q92_A2-p5">
1219 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the intention of a lawgiver is to make men good, as stated above
1220 <a href="#FS_Q92_A1" id="FS_Q92_A2-p5.1" shape="rect">(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
1221 through servile fear, i.e. fear of punishment, it is not done well," as Augustine says (Contra duas Epist. Pelag. ii). Therefore
1222 punishment is not a proper effect of law.
1223 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 92 a. 2 arg. 4"><a name="37521" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37521] Iª-IIae q. 92 a. 2 arg. 4</span></a> Praeterea,
1224 intentio legislatoris est ut homines faciat bonos, sicut supra
1225 dictum est. Sed ille qui solo metu poenarum obedit legi, non est
1226 bonus, nam <i>timore servili, qui est timor poenarum, etsi bonum
1227 aliquis faciat, non tamen bene aliquid fit</i>, ut Augustinus
1228 dicit. Non ergo videtur esse proprium legis quod puniat.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q92_A2-p6">
1229 <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,
1230 as: "No man may ask a consecrated virgin in marriage": or punishes, as: "Let him that commits a murder be put to death."
1231 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 92 a. 2 s. c."><a name="37522" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37522] Iª-IIae q. 92 a. 2 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
1232 est quod Isidorus dicit, in V Etymol., <i>omnis lex aut permittit
1233 aliquid, ut, vir fortis praemium petat. Aut vetat, ut, sacrarum
1234 virginum nuptias nulli liceat petere. Aut punit, ut, qui caedem
1235 fecerit, capite plectatur</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q92_A2-p7">
1236 <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
1237 it is proper to reason to lead from one thing to another. Wherefore just as, in demonstrative sciences, the reason leads us
1238 from certain principles to assent to the conclusion, so it induces us by some means to assent to the precept of the law.
1239 </p><p id="FS_Q92_A2-p8"> Now the precepts of law are concerned with human acts, in which the law directs, as stated above (
1240 <a href="#FS_Q90_A1" id="FS_Q92_A2-p8.1" shape="rect">Q[90], AA[1]</a>,2;
1241 <a href="#FS_Q91_A4" id="FS_Q92_A2-p8.2" shape="rect"> Q[91], A[4]</a>). Again there are three kinds of human acts: for, as stated above (
1242 <a href="FS_ii.html#FS_Q18_A8" id="FS_Q92_A2-p8.3" shape="rect">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,
1243 for "the law commands all acts of virtue" (Ethic. v, 1). Some acts are evil
1244 generically, viz. acts of vice, and in respect of these the law forbids. Some acts are generically indifferent, and in respect
1245 of these the law permits; and all acts that are either not distinctly good or not distinctly bad may be called indifferent.
1246 And it is the fear of punishment that law makes use of in order to ensure obedience: in which respect punishment is an effect
1247 of law.
1248 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 92 a. 2 co."><a name="37523" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37523] Iª-IIae q. 92 a. 2 co.</span></a> Respondeo
1249 dicendum quod, sicut enuntiatio est rationis dictamen per modum
1250 enuntiandi, ita etiam lex per modum praecipiendi. Rationis autem
1251 proprium est ut ex aliquo ad aliquid inducat. Unde sicut in
1252 demonstrativis scientiis ratio inducit ut assentiatur conclusioni
1253 per quaedam principia, ita etiam inducit ut assentiatur legis
1254 praecepto per aliquid. Praecepta autem legis sunt de actibus
1255 humanis, in quibus lex dirigit, ut supra dictum est. Sunt autem
1256 tres differentiae humanorum actuum. Nam sicut supra dictum est,
1257 quidam actus sunt boni ex genere, qui sunt actus virtutum, et
1258 respectu horum, ponitur legis actus praecipere vel imperare;
1259 praecipit enim lex omnes actus virtutum, ut dicitur in V Ethic.
1260 Quidam vero sunt actus mali ex genere, sicut actus vitiosi, et
1261 respectu horum, lex habet prohibere. Quidam vero ex genere suo sunt
1262 actus indifferentes, et respectu horum, lex habet permittere. Et
1263 possunt etiam indifferentes dici omnes illi actus qui sunt vel
1264 parum boni vel parum mali. Id autem per quod inducit lex ad hoc
1265 quod sibi obediatur, est timor poenae, et quantum ad hoc, ponitur
1266 legis effectus punire.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q92_A2-p9">
1267 <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
1268 wide sense, every law is a kind of precept.
1269 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 92 a. 2 ad 1"><a name="37524" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37524] Iª-IIae q. 92 a. 2 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
1270 ergo dicendum quod, sicut cessare a malo habet quandam rationem
1271 boni, ita etiam prohibitio habet quandam rationem praecepti. Et
1272 secundum hoc, large accipiendo praeceptum, universaliter lex
1273 praeceptum dicitur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q92_A2-p10">
1274 <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
1275 too the Apostle, after giving a certain counsel (
1276 <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.
1277 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 92 a. 2 ad 2"><a name="37525" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37525] Iª-IIae q. 92 a. 2 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
1278 dicendum quod consulere non est proprius actus legis, sed potest
1279 pertinere etiam ad personam privatam, cuius non est condere legem.
1280 Unde etiam apostolus, I ad Cor. VII, cum consilium quoddam daret,
1281 dixit, ego dico, non dominus. Et ideo non ponitur inter effectus
1282 legis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q92_A2-p11">
1283 <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
1284 is inflicted. Wherefore to reward is not reckoned an effect of law, but only to punish.
1285 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 92 a. 2 ad 3"><a name="37526" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37526] Iª-IIae q. 92 a. 2 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
1286 dicendum quod etiam praemiare potest ad quemlibet pertinere, sed
1287 punire non pertinet nisi ad ministrum legis, cuius auctoritate
1288 poena infertur. Et ideo praemiare non ponitur actus legis, sed
1289 solum punire.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q92_A2-p12">
1290 <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
1291 so likewise, with delight and of one's own accord. Accordingly, law, even by punishing, leads men on to being good.
1292 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 92 a. 2 ad 4"><a name="37527" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37527] Iª-IIae q. 92 a. 2 ad 4</span></a> Ad quartum
1293 dicendum quod per hoc quod aliquis incipit assuefieri ad vitandum
1294 mala et ad implendum bona propter metum poenae, perducitur
1295 quandoque ad hoc quod delectabiliter et ex propria voluntate hoc
1296 faciat. Et secundum hoc, lex etiam puniendo perducit ad hoc quod
1297 homines sint boni.</p></div></div></div></div>
1298 <div id="FS_Q93" class="div3">
1299 <h3 id="FS_Q93-p0.1">Q. 93. OF THE ETERNAL LAW (SIX ARTICLES)</h3>
1300 <div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="div4">
1301 <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;
1302 (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
1303 when treating of original sin.
1304 </p><p id="FS_Q93-p3"> Concerning the first there are six points of inquiry:</p><p id="FS_Q93-p4"><a href="#FS_Q93_A1"> (1) What is the eternal law?</a></p><p id="FS_Q93-p5"><a href="#FS_Q93_A2"> (2) Whether it is known to all?</a></p><p id="FS_Q93-p6"><a href="#FS_Q93_A3"> (3) Whether every law is derived from it?</a></p><p id="FS_Q93-p7"><a href="#FS_Q93_A4"> (4) Whether necessary things are subject to the eternal law?</a></p><p id="FS_Q93-p8"><a href="#FS_Q93_A5"> (5) Whether natural contingencies are subject to the eternal law?</a></p><p id="FS_Q93-p9"><a href="#FS_Q93_A6"> (6) Whether all human things are subject to it?</a></p>
1305 </div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 pr."><a name="37528" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37528]
1306 Iª-IIae q. 93 pr.</span></a> Deinde considerandum est de
1307 singulis legibus. Et primo, de lege aeterna; secundo, de lege
1308 naturali; tertio, de lege humana; quarto, de lege veteri; quinto,
1309 de lege nova, quae est lex Evangelii. De sexta autem lege, quae est
1310 lex fomitis, sufficiat quod dictum est cum de peccato originali
1311 ageretur. Circa primum quaeruntur sex. Primo, quid sit lex aeterna.
1312 Secundo, utrum sit omnibus nota. Tertio, utrum omnis lex ab ea
1313 derivetur. Quarto, utrum necessaria subiiciantur legi aeternae.
1314 Quinto, utrum contingentia naturalia subiiciantur legi aeternae.
1315 Sexto, utrum omnes res humanae ei subiiciantur.</p></div></div></div>
1316 <div id="FS_Q93_A1" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q93_A1-p0.1">Q. 93. A. 1. Whether the eternal law is a sovereign type [*Ratio] existing in God?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A1-p2">
1317 <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
1318 are many types of things in the Divine mind; for Augustine says (Qq. lxxxiii, qu. 46) that God "made each thing according
1319 to its type." Therefore the eternal law does not seem to be a type existing in the Divine mind.
1320 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 1 arg. 1"><a name="37529" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37529] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 1 arg. 1</span></a> Ad primum
1321 sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex aeterna non sit ratio summa in Deo
1322 existens. Lex enim aeterna est una tantum. Sed rationes rerum in
1323 mente divina sunt plures, dicit enim Augustinus, in libro octoginta
1324 trium quaest., quod <i>Deus singula fecit propriis rationibus</i>.
1325 Ergo lex aeterna non videtur esse idem quod ratio in mente divina
1326 existens.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A1-p3">
1327 <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
1328 in God, as stated in the
1329 <a href="FP_iii.html#FP_Q34_A1" id="FS_Q93_A1-p3.1" shape="rect">FP, Q[34], A[1]</a>: whereas type refers to the Essence. Therefore the eternal law is not the same as a Divine type.
1330 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 1 arg. 2"><a name="37530" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37530] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 1 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
1331 de ratione legis est quod verbo promulgetur, ut supra dictum est.
1332 Sed verbum in divinis dicitur personaliter, ut in primo habitum
1333 est, ratio autem dicitur essentialiter. Non igitur idem est lex
1334 aeterna quod ratio divina.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A1-p4">
1335 <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
1336 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
1337 of a type. Therefore the eternal law is not the same as the sovereign type.
1338 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 1 arg. 3"><a name="37531" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37531] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 1 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
1339 Augustinus dicit, in libro de vera Relig., <i>apparet supra mentem
1340 nostram legem esse, quae veritas dicitur</i>. Lex autem supra
1341 mentem nostram existens est lex aeterna. Ergo veritas est lex
1342 aeterna. Sed non est eadem ratio veritatis et rationis. Ergo lex
1343 aeterna non est idem quod ratio summa.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A1-p5">
1344 <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."
1345 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 1 s. c."><a name="37532" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37532] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 1 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
1346 est quod Augustinus dicit, in I de Lib. Arb., quod <i>lex aeterna
1347 est summa ratio, cui semper obtemperandum est</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A1-p6">
1348 <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
1349 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
1350 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
1351 in him who governs the acts of his subjects, bears the character of a law, provided the
1352 other conditions be present which we have mentioned above (Q[90]). Now God, by His wisdom, is the Creator of all things in
1353 relation to which He stands as the artificer to the products of his art, as stated in the
1354 <a href="FP_ii.html#FP_Q14_A8" id="FS_Q93_A1-p6.1" shape="rect">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
1355 <a href="FP_x.html#FP_Q103_A5" id="FS_Q93_A1-p6.2" shape="rect">FP, Q[103], A[5]</a>. Wherefore as the type of the Divine Wisdom, inasmuch as by It all things are
1356 created, has the character of art, exemplar or idea; so the type of Divine Wisdom, as moving all things to their due end,
1357 bears the character of law. Accordingly the eternal law is nothing else than the type of Divine Wisdom, as directing all actions
1358 and movements.
1359 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 1 co."><a name="37533" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37533] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 1 co.</span></a> Respondeo
1360 dicendum quod, sicut in quolibet artifice praeexistit ratio eorum
1361 quae constituuntur per artem, ita etiam in quolibet gubernante
1362 oportet quod praeexistat ratio ordinis eorum quae agenda sunt per
1363 eos qui gubernationi subduntur. Et sicut ratio rerum fiendarum per
1364 artem vocatur ars vel exemplar rerum artificiatarum, ita etiam
1365 ratio gubernantis actus subditorum, rationem legis obtinet,
1366 servatis aliis quae supra esse diximus de legis ratione. Deus autem
1367 per suam sapientiam conditor est universarum rerum, ad quas
1368 comparatur sicut artifex ad artificiata, ut in primo habitum est.
1369 Est etiam gubernator omnium actuum et motionum quae inveniuntur in
1370 singulis creaturis, ut etiam in primo habitum est. Unde sicut ratio
1371 divinae sapientiae inquantum per eam cuncta sunt creata, rationem
1372 habet artis vel exemplaris vel ideae; ita ratio divinae sapientiae
1373 moventis omnia ad debitum finem, obtinet rationem legis. Et
1374 secundum hoc, lex aeterna nihil aliud est quam ratio divinae
1375 sapientiae, secundum quod est directiva omnium actuum et
1376 motionum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A1-p7">
1377 <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
1378 in them there is a certain distinction and plurality, according to their different relations to things, as stated in the
1379 <a href="FP_ii.html#FP_Q15_A2" id="FS_Q93_A1-p7.1" shape="rect">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
1380 are in themselves different, may be
1381 considered as one, according as they are ordained to one common thing. Wherefore the eternal law is one since it is the type
1382 of this order.
1383 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 1 ad 1"><a name="37534" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37534] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 1 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
1384 ergo dicendum quod Augustinus loquitur ibi de rationibus idealibus,
1385 quae respiciunt proprias naturas singularum rerum, et ideo in eis
1386 invenitur quaedam distinctio et pluralitas, secundum diversos
1387 respectus ad res, ut in primo habitum est. Sed lex dicitur
1388 directiva actuum in ordine ad bonum commune, ut supra dictum est.
1389 Ea autem quae sunt in seipsis diversa, considerantur ut unum,
1390 secundum quod ordinantur ad aliquod commune. Et ideo lex aeterna
1391 est una, quae est ratio huius ordinis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A1-p8">
1392 <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.
1393 For the spoken word is something uttered by the mouth of man, and expresses that which is signified by the human word. The
1394 same applies to the human mental word, which is nothing else that something conceived by the mind, by which man expresses
1395 his thoughts mentally. So then in God the Word conceived by the intellect of the
1396 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
1397 the Persons, or to the works of God, are expressed by this Word, as Augustine declares (De Trin. xv, 14). And among other
1398 things expressed by this Word, the eternal law itself is expressed thereby. Nor does it follow that the eternal law is a Personal
1399 name in God: yet it is appropriated to the Son, on account of the kinship between type and word.
1400 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 1 ad 2"><a name="37535" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37535] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 1 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
1401 dicendum quod circa verbum quodcumque duo possunt considerari,
1402 scilicet ipsum verbum, et ea quae verbo exprimuntur. Verbum enim
1403 vocale est quiddam ab ore hominis prolatum; sed hoc verbo
1404 exprimuntur quae verbis humanis significantur. Et eadem ratio est
1405 de verbo hominis mentali, quod nihil est aliud quam quiddam mente
1406 conceptum, quo homo exprimit mentaliter ea de quibus cogitat. Sic
1407 igitur in divinis ipsum verbum, quod est conceptio paterni
1408 intellectus, personaliter dicitur, sed omnia quaecumque sunt in
1409 scientia patris, sive essentialia sive personalia, sive etiam Dei
1410 opera exprimuntur hoc verbo, ut patet per Augustinum, in XV de
1411 Trin. Et inter cetera quae hoc verbo exprimuntur, etiam ipsa lex
1412 aeterna verbo ipso exprimitur. Nec tamen propter hoc sequitur quod
1413 lex aeterna personaliter in divinis dicatur. Appropriatur tamen
1414 filio, propter convenientiam quam habet ratio ad verbum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A1-p9">
1415 <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
1416 human intellect is measured by things, so that a human concept is not true by reason of itself, but by reason of its being
1417 consonant with things, since "an opinion is true or false according as it answers to the reality." But the Divine intellect
1418 is the measure of things: since each thing has so far truth in it, as it represents
1419 the Divine intellect, as was stated in the
1420 <a href="FP_ii.html#FP_Q16_A1" id="FS_Q93_A1-p9.1" shape="rect">FP, Q[16], A[1]</a>. Consequently the Divine intellect is true in itself; and its type is truth itself.
1421 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 1 ad 3"><a name="37536" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37536] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 1 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
1422 dicendum quod ratio intellectus divini aliter se habet ad res quam
1423 ratio intellectus humani. Intellectus enim humanus est mensuratus a
1424 rebus, ut scilicet conceptus hominis non sit verus propter seipsum,
1425 sed dicitur verus ex hoc quod consonat rebus, ex hoc enim quod res
1426 est vel non est, opinio vera vel falsa est. Intellectus vero
1427 divinus est mensura rerum, quia unaquaeque res intantum habet de
1428 veritate, inquantum imitatur intellectum divinum, ut in primo
1429 dictum est. Et ideo intellectus divinus est verus secundum se. Unde
1430 ratio eius est ipsa veritas.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q93_A2" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q93_A2-p0.1">Q. 93. A. 2. Whether the eternal law is known to all?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A2-p2">
1431 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the eternal law is not known to all. Because, as the Apostle says (
1432 <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
1433 mind. Therefore it is unknown to all save God alone.
1434 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 2 arg. 1"><a name="37537" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37537] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 2 arg. 1</span></a> Ad secundum
1435 sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex aeterna non sit omnibus nota. Quia
1436 ut dicit apostolus, I ad Cor., <i>quae sunt Dei, nemo novit nisi
1437 spiritus Dei</i>. Sed lex aeterna est quaedam ratio in mente divina
1438 existens. Ergo omnibus est ignota nisi soli Deo.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A2-p3">
1439 <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
1440 orderly." But all do not know how all things are most orderly. Therefore all do not know the eternal law.
1441 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 2 arg. 2"><a name="37538" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37538] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 2 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
1442 sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro de Lib. Arb., <i>lex aeterna est
1443 qua iustum est ut omnia sint ordinatissima</i>. Sed non omnes
1444 cognoscunt qualiter omnia sint ordinatissima. Non ergo omnes
1445 cognoscunt legem aeternam.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A2-p4">
1446 <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
1447 to Ethic. i, "any man can judge well of what he knows." Therefore the eternal law is not known to us.
1448 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 2 arg. 3"><a name="37539" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37539] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 2 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
1449 Augustinus dicit, in libro de vera Relig., quod <i>lex aeterna est
1450 de qua homines iudicare non possunt</i>. Sed sicut in I Ethic.
1451 dicitur, <i>unusquisque bene iudicat quae cognoscit</i>. Ergo lex
1452 aeterna non est nobis nota.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A2-p5">
1453 <b>On the contrary,</b> Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 6) that "knowledge of the eternal law is imprinted on us."
1454 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 2 s. c."><a name="37540" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37540] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 2 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
1455 est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de Lib. Arb., quod <i>aeternae
1456 legis notio nobis impressa est</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A2-p6">
1457 <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:
1458 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
1459 is in itself, except the blessed who see God in His Essence. But every rational creature knows it in its reflection, greater
1460 or less. For every knowledge of truth is a kind of reflection and participation of the
1461 eternal law, which is the unchangeable truth, as Augustine says (De Vera Relig. xxxi). Now all men know the truth to a certain
1462 extent, at least as to the common principles of the natural law: and as to the others, they partake of the knowledge of truth,
1463 some more, some less; and in this respect are more or less cognizant of the eternal law.
1464 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 2 co."><a name="37541" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37541] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 2 co.</span></a> Respondeo
1465 dicendum quod dupliciter aliquid cognosci potest, uno modo, in
1466 seipso; alio modo, in suo effectu, in quo aliqua similitudo eius
1467 invenitur; sicut aliquis non videns solem in sua substantia,
1468 cognoscit ipsum in sua irradiatione. Sic igitur dicendum est quod
1469 legem aeternam nullus potest cognoscere secundum quod in seipsa
1470 est, nisi solum beati, qui Deum per essentiam vident. Sed omnis
1471 creatura rationalis ipsam cognoscit secundum aliquam eius
1472 irradiationem, vel maiorem vel minorem. Omnis enim cognitio
1473 veritatis est quaedam irradiatio et participatio legis aeternae,
1474 quae est veritas incommutabilis, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro de
1475 vera Relig. Veritatem autem omnes aliqualiter cognoscunt, ad minus
1476 quantum ad principia communia legis naturalis. In aliis vero quidam
1477 plus et quidam minus participant de cognitione veritatis; et
1478 secundum hoc etiam plus vel minus cognoscunt legem aeternam.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A2-p7">
1479 <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
1480 to
1481 <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."
1482 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 2 ad 1"><a name="37542" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37542] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 2 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
1483 ergo dicendum quod ea quae sunt Dei, in seipsis quidem cognosci a
1484 nobis non possunt, sed tamen in effectibus suis nobis
1485 manifestantur, secundum illud Rom. I, <i>invisibilia Dei per ea
1486 quae facta sunt, intellecta, conspiciuntur</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A2-p8">
1487 <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
1488 it: for it cannot be made perfectly known by its effects. Therefore it does not follow that anyone who knows the eternal law
1489 in the way aforesaid, knows also the whole order of things, whereby they are most orderly.
1490 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 2 ad 2"><a name="37543" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37543] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 2 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
1491 dicendum quod legem aeternam etsi unusquisque cognoscat pro sua
1492 capacitate, secundum modum praedictum, nullus tamen eam
1493 comprehendere potest, non enim totaliter manifestari potest per
1494 suos effectus. Et ideo non oportet quod quicumque cognoscit legem
1495 aeternam secundum modum praedictum, cognoscat totum ordinem rerum,
1496 quo omnia sunt ordinatissima.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A2-p9">
1497 <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
1498
1499 <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
1500 Philosopher alludes when he says that "anyone can judge well of what he knows," by judging, namely, whether what is put forward
1501 is true. In another way we speak of a superior judging of a subordinate
1502 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.
1503 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 2 ad 3"><a name="37544" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37544] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 2 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
1504 dicendum quod iudicare de aliquo potest intelligi dupliciter. Uno
1505 modo, sicut vis cognitiva diiudicat de proprio obiecto; secundum
1506 illud Iob XII, <i>nonne auris verba diiudicat, et fauces comedentis
1507 saporem?</i> Et secundum istum modum iudicii, philosophus dicit
1508 quod unusquisque bene iudicat quae cognoscit, iudicando scilicet an
1509 sit verum quod proponitur. Alio modo, secundum quod superior
1510 iudicat de inferiori quodam practico iudicio, an scilicet ita
1511 debeat esse vel non ita. Et sic nullus potest iudicare de lege
1512 aeterna.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q93_A3" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q93_A3-p0.1">Q. 93. A. 3. Whether every law is derived from the eternal law?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A3-p2">
1513 <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 (
1514 <a href="#FS_Q91_A6" id="FS_Q93_A3-p2.1" shape="rect">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,"
1515 of which the Apostle says (
1516 <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.
1517 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 3 arg. 1"><a name="37545" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37545] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 3 arg. 1</span></a> Ad tertium
1518 sic proceditur. Videtur quod non omnis lex a lege aeterna
1519 derivetur. Est enim quaedam lex fomitis, ut supra dictum est. Ipsa
1520 autem non derivatur a lege divina, quae est lex aeterna, ad ipsam
1521 enim pertinet prudentia carnis, de qua apostolus dicit, ad Rom.
1522 VIII, quod <i>legi Dei non potest esse subiecta</i>. Ergo non omnis
1523 lex procedit a lege aeterna.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A3-p3">
1524 <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
1525 that, according to which it is right that all things should be most orderly." But some laws are unjust, according to
1526 <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.
1527 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 3 arg. 2"><a name="37546" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37546] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 3 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
1528 a lege aeterna nihil iniquum procedere potest, quia sicut dictum
1529 est, lex aeterna est secundum quam iustum est ut omnia sint
1530 ordinatissima. Sed quaedam leges sunt iniquae; secundum illud
1531 Isaiae X, <i>vae qui condunt leges iniquas</i>. Ergo non omnis lex
1532 procedit a lege aeterna.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A3-p4">
1533 <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
1534 which are punished by Divine providence." But the type of Divine providence is the eternal law, as stated above
1535 <a href="#FS_Q93_A1" id="FS_Q93_A3-p4.1" shape="rect">(A[1])</a>. Therefore not even every good law is derived from the eternal law.
1536 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 3 arg. 3"><a name="37547" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37547] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 3 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
1537 Augustinus dicit, in I de Lib. Arbit., quod <i>lex quae populo
1538 regendo scribitur, recte multa permittit quae per divinam
1539 providentiam vindicantur</i>. Sed ratio divinae providentiae est
1540 lex aeterna, ut dictum est. Ergo nec etiam omnis lex recta procedit
1541 a lege aeterna.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A3-p5">
1542 <b>On the contrary,</b> Divine Wisdom says (
1543 <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
1544
1545 <a href="#FS_Q93_A1" id="FS_Q93_A3-p5.2" shape="rect">(A[1])</a>. Therefore all laws proceed from the eternal law.
1546 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 3 s. c."><a name="37548" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37548] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 3 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
1547 est quod, Prov. VIII, divina sapientia dicit, <i>per me reges
1548 regnant, et legum conditores iusta decernunt</i>. Ratio autem
1549 divinae sapientiae est lex aeterna, ut supra dictum est. Ergo omnes
1550 leges a lege aeterna procedunt.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A3-p6">
1551 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
1552 <a href="#FS_Q90_A1" id="FS_Q93_A3-p6.1" shape="rect">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,
1553 the power of the second mover must needs be derived from the power of the first mover; since the second mover does not move
1554 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
1555 is derived by secondary
1556 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
1557 inferior administrators: and again in things of art the plan of whatever is to be done by art flows from the chief craftsman
1558 to the under-crafts-men, who work with their hands. Since then the eternal law is the plan of government in the Chief Governor,
1559 all the plans of government in the inferior governors must be derived from the eternal law. But these plans of inferior
1560 governors are all other laws besides the eternal law. Therefore all laws, in so far as they partake of right reason, are derived
1561 from the eternal law. Hence Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 6) that "in temporal law there is nothing just and lawful, but
1562 what man has drawn from the eternal law."
1563 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 3 co."><a name="37549" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37549] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 3 co.</span></a> Respondeo
1564 dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, lex importat rationem
1565 quandam directivam actuum ad finem. In omnibus autem moventibus
1566 ordinatis oportet quod virtus secundi moventis derivetur a virtute
1567 moventis primi, quia movens secundum non movet nisi inquantum
1568 movetur a primo. Unde et in omnibus gubernantibus idem videmus,
1569 quod ratio gubernationis a primo gubernante ad secundos derivatur,
1570 sicut ratio eorum quae sunt agenda in civitate, derivatur a rege
1571 per praeceptum in inferiores administratores. Et in artificialibus
1572 etiam ratio artificialium actuum derivatur ab architectore ad
1573 inferiores artifices, qui manu operantur. Cum ergo lex aeterna sit
1574 ratio gubernationis in supremo gubernante, necesse est quod omnes
1575 rationes gubernationis quae sunt in inferioribus gubernantibus, a
1576 lege aeterna deriventur. Huiusmodi autem rationes inferiorum
1577 gubernantium sunt quaecumque aliae leges praeter legem aeternam.
1578 Unde omnes leges, inquantum participant de ratione recta, intantum
1579 derivantur a lege aeterna. Et propter hoc Augustinus dicit, in I de
1580 Lib. Arb., quod <i>in temporali lege nihil est iustum ac legitimum,
1581 quod non ex lege aeterna homines sibi derivaverunt</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A3-p7">
1582 <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
1583 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
1584 Divine law, and has not the nature of law, as stated above (
1585 <a href="#FS_Q91_A6" id="FS_Q93_A3-p7.1" shape="rect">Q[91], A[6]</a>).
1586 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 3 ad 1"><a name="37550" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37550] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 3 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
1587 ergo dicendum quod fomes habet rationem legis in homine, inquantum
1588 est poena consequens divinam iustitiam, et secundum hoc manifestum
1589 est quod derivatur a lege aeterna. Inquantum vero inclinat ad
1590 peccatum, sic contrariatur legi Dei, et non habet rationem legis,
1591 ut ex supradictis patet.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A3-p8">
1592 <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
1593 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
1594 but of violence. Nevertheless even an unjust law, in so far as it retains some appearance of law, though being framed by one
1595 who is in power, is derived from the eternal law; since all power is from the
1596 Lord God, according to
1597 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q93_A3-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.13.1" target="asv"> Rom. 13:1.</a>
1598 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 3 ad 2"><a name="37551" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37551] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 3 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
1599 dicendum quod lex humana intantum habet rationem legis, inquantum
1600 est secundum rationem rectam, et secundum hoc manifestum est quod a
1601 lege aeterna derivatur. Inquantum vero a ratione recedit, sic
1602 dicitur lex iniqua, et sic non habet rationem legis, sed magis
1603 violentiae cuiusdam. Et tamen in ipsa lege iniqua inquantum
1604 servatur aliquid de similitudine legis propter ordinem potestatis
1605 eius qui legem fert, secundum hoc etiam derivatur a lege aeterna,
1606 omnis enim potestas a domino Deo est, ut dicitur Rom. XIII.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A3-p9">
1607 <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
1608 directed by the Divine law, which human law is unable to direct, because more things are subject to a higher than to a lower
1609 cause. Hence the very fact that human law does not meddle with matters it cannot direct, comes under the ordination of the
1610 eternal law. It would be different, were human law to sanction what the eternal law
1611 condemns. Consequently it does not follow that human law is not derived from the eternal law, but that it is not on a perfect
1612 equality with it.
1613 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 3 ad 3"><a name="37552" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37552] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 3 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
1614 dicendum quod lex humana dicitur aliqua permittere, non quasi ea
1615 approbans, sed quasi ea dirigere non potens. Multa autem diriguntur
1616 lege divina quae dirigi non possunt lege humana, plura enim
1617 subduntur causae superiori quam inferiori. Unde hoc ipsum quod lex
1618 humana non se intromittat de his quae dirigere non potest, ex
1619 ordine legis aeternae provenit. Secus autem esset si approbaret ea
1620 quae lex aeterna reprobat. Unde ex hoc non habetur quod lex humana
1621 non derivetur a lege aeterna, sed quod non perfecte eam assequi
1622 possit.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q93_A4" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q93_A4-p0.1">Q. 93. A. 4. Whether necessary and eternal things are subject to the eternal law?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A4-p2">
1623 <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
1624 reason. But the Divine will is reasonable, for it is just. Therefore it is subject to (the Divine) reason. But the eternal
1625 law is the Divine reason. Therefore God's will is subject to the eternal law. But God's will is eternal. Therefore eternal
1626 and necessary things are subject to the eternal law.
1627 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 4 arg. 1"><a name="37553" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37553] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 4 arg. 1</span></a> Ad quartum
1628 sic proceditur. Videtur quod necessaria et aeterna subiiciantur
1629 legi aeternae. Omne enim quod rationabile est, rationi subditur.
1630 Sed voluntas divina est rationabilis, cum sit iusta. Ergo rationi
1631 subditur. Sed lex aeterna est ratio divina. Ergo voluntas Dei
1632 subditur legi aeternae. Voluntas autem Dei est aliquod aeternum.
1633 Ergo etiam aeterna et necessaria legi aeternae subduntur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A4-p3">
1634 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, whatever is subject to the King, is subject to the King's law. Now the Son, according to
1635 <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,
1636 Who is eternal, is subject to the eternal law.
1637 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 4 arg. 2"><a name="37554" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37554] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 4 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
1638 quidquid subiicitur regi, subiicitur legi regis. <i>Filius
1639 autem</i>, ut dicitur I ad Cor. XV, <i>subiectus erit Deo et patri,
1640 cum tradiderit ei regnum</i>. Ergo filius, qui est aeternus,
1641 subiicitur legi aeternae.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A4-p4">
1642 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the eternal law is Divine providence as a type. But many necessary things are subject to Divine providence: for
1643 instance, the stability of incorporeal substances and of the heavenly bodies. Therefore even necessary things are subject
1644 to the eternal law.
1645 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 4 arg. 3"><a name="37555" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37555] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 4 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
1646 lex aeterna est ratio divinae providentiae. Sed multa necessaria
1647 subduntur divinae providentiae, sicut permanentia substantiarum
1648 incorporalium et corporum caelestium. Ergo legi aeternae subduntur
1649 etiam necessaria.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A4-p5">
1650 <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
1651 to restrain them from evil, as explained above (
1652 <a href="#FS_Q92_A2" id="FS_Q93_A4-p5.1" shape="rect">Q[92], A[2]</a>). Therefore necessary things are not subject to the eternal law.
1653 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 4 s. c."><a name="37556" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37556] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 4 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra,
1654 ea quae sunt necessaria, impossibile est aliter se habere, unde
1655 cohibitione non indigent. Sed imponitur hominibus lex ut
1656 cohibeantur a malis, ut ex supradictis patet. Ergo ea quae sunt
1657 necessaria, legi non subduntur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A4-p6">
1658 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
1659 <a href="#FS_Q93_A1" id="FS_Q93_A4-p6.1" shape="rect">(A[1])</a>, the eternal law is the type of the Divine government. Consequently whatever is subject to the Divine government, is subject
1660 to the eternal law: while if anything is not subject to the Divine government, neither is it subject to the eternal law. The
1661 application of this distinction may be gathered by looking around us. For those things are subject to human government, which
1662 can be done by man; but what pertains
1663 to the nature of man is not subject to human government; for instance, that he should have a soul, hands, or feet. Accordingly
1664 all that is in things created by God, whether it be contingent or necessary, is subject to the eternal law: while things pertaining
1665 to the Divine Nature or Essence are not subject to the eternal law, but are the eternal law itself.
1666 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 4 co."><a name="37557" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37557] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 4 co.</span></a> Respondeo
1667 dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, lex aeterna est ratio
1668 divinae gubernationis. Quaecumque ergo divinae gubernationi
1669 subduntur, subiiciuntur etiam legi aeternae, quae vero gubernationi
1670 aeternae non subduntur, neque legi aeternae subduntur. Horum autem
1671 distinctio attendi potest ex his quae circa nos sunt. Humanae enim
1672 gubernationi subduntur ea quae per homines fieri possunt, quae vero
1673 ad naturam hominis pertinent, non subduntur gubernationi humanae,
1674 scilicet quod homo habeat animam, vel manus aut pedes. Sic igitur
1675 legi aeternae subduntur omnia quae sunt in rebus a Deo creatis,
1676 sive sint contingentia sive sint necessaria, ea vero quae pertinent
1677 ad naturam vel essentiam divinam, legi aeternae non subduntur, sed
1678 sunt realiter ipsa lex aeterna.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A4-p7">
1679 <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
1680 is subject neither to the Divine government, nor to the eternal law, but is the same thing as the eternal law. Secondly, we
1681 may speak of God's will, as to the things themselves that God wills about creatures; which things are subject to the eternal
1682 law, in so far as they are planned by Divine Wisdom. In reference to these things
1683 God's will is said to be reasonable [rationalis]: though regarded in itself it should rather be called their type [ratio].
1684 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 4 ad 1"><a name="37558" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37558] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 4 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
1685 ergo dicendum quod de voluntate Dei dupliciter possumus loqui. Uno
1686 modo, quantum ad ipsam voluntatem, et sic, cum voluntas Dei sit
1687 ipsa eius essentia, non subditur gubernationi divinae neque legi
1688 aeternae, sed est idem quod lex aeterna. Alio modo possumus loqui
1689 de voluntate divina quantum ad ipsa quae Deus vult circa creaturas,
1690 quae quidem subiecta sunt legi aeternae, inquantum horum ratio est
1691 in divina sapientia. Et ratione horum, voluntas Dei dicitur
1692 rationabilis. Alioquin, ratione sui ipsius, magis est dicenda ipsa
1693 ratio.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A4-p8">
1694 <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
1695 the eternal law: but rather is Himself the eternal law by a kind of appropriation, as Augustine explains (De Vera Relig. xxxi).
1696 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
1697 greater than He.
1698 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 4 ad 2"><a name="37559" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37559] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 4 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
1699 dicendum quod filius Dei non est a Deo factus, sed naturaliter ab
1700 ipso genitus. Et ideo non subditur divinae providentiae aut legi
1701 aeternae, sed magis ipse est lex aeterna per quandam
1702 appropriationem, ut patet per Augustinum, in libro de vera Relig.
1703 Dicitur autem esse subiectus patri ratione humanae naturae,
1704 secundum quam etiam pater dicitur esse maior eo.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A4-p9"> The third objection we grant, because it deals with those necessary things that are created.</p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 4 ad 3"><a name="37560" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37560] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 4 ad 3</span></a> Tertium
1705 concedimus, quia procedit de necessariis creatis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A4-p10">
1706 <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
1707 from something else the fact that they cannot be otherwise. And this is in itself a most effective restraint; for whatever
1708 is restrained, is said to be restrained in so far as it cannot do otherwise than it is allowed to.
1709 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 4 ad 4"><a name="37561" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37561] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 4 ad 4</span></a> Ad quartum
1710 dicendum quod, sicut philosophus dicit, in V Metaphys., quaedam
1711 necessaria habent causam suae necessitatis, et sic hoc ipsum quod
1712 impossibile est ea aliter esse, habent ab alio. Et hoc ipsum est
1713 cohibitio quaedam efficacissima, nam quaecumque cohibentur,
1714 intantum cohiberi dicuntur, inquantum non possunt aliter facere
1715 quam de eis disponatur.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q93_A5" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q93_A5-p0.1">Q. 93. A. 5. Whether natural contingents are subject to the eternal law? </h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A5-p2">
1716 <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
1717 above (
1718 <a href="#FS_Q90_A4" id="FS_Q93_A5-p2.1" shape="rect">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
1719 none but rational creatures are subject to the eternal law; and consequently natural contingents are not.
1720 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 5 arg. 1"><a name="37562" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37562] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 5 arg. 1</span></a> Ad quintum
1721 sic proceditur. Videtur quod naturalia contingentia non subsint
1722 legi aeternae. Promulgatio enim est de ratione legis, ut supra
1723 dictum est. Sed promulgatio non potest fieri nisi ad creaturas
1724 rationales, quibus potest aliquid denuntiari. Ergo solae creaturae
1725 rationales subsunt legi aeternae. Non ergo naturalia
1726 contingentia.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A5-p3">
1727 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, "Whatever obeys reason partakes somewhat of reason," as stated in Ethic. i. But the eternal law, is the supreme
1728 type, as stated above
1729 <a href="#FS_Q93_A1" id="FS_Q93_A5-p3.1" shape="rect">(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
1730 are not subject to the eternal law.
1731 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 5 arg. 2"><a name="37563" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37563] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 5 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
1732 ea quae obediunt rationi, participant aliqualiter ratione, ut
1733 dicitur in I Ethic. Lex autem aeterna est ratio summa, ut supra
1734 dictum est. Cum igitur naturalia contingentia non participent
1735 aliqualiter ratione, sed penitus sint irrationabilia, videtur quod
1736 non subsint legi aeternae.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A5-p4">
1737 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the eternal law is most efficient. But in natural contingents defects occur. Therefore they are not subject to the
1738 eternal law.
1739 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 5 arg. 3"><a name="37564" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37564] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 5 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
1740 lex aeterna est efficacissima. Sed in naturalibus contingentibus
1741 accidit defectus. Non ergo subsunt legi aeternae.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A5-p5">
1742 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
1743 <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."
1744 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 5 s. c."><a name="37565" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37565] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 5 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
1745 est quod dicitur Prov. VIII, <i>quando circumdabat mari terminum
1746 suum, et legem ponebat aquis ne transirent fines suos</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q93_A5-p6">
1747 <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
1748 to rational creatures subject to man. The reason of this is because law directs the actions of those that are subject to the
1749 government of someone: wherefore, properly speaking, none imposes a law on his own actions. Now whatever is done regarding
1750 the use of irrational things subject to man, is done by the act of man himself moving
1751 those things, for these irrational creatures do not move themselves, but are moved by others, as stated above (
1752 <a href="FS_i.html#FS_Q1_A2" id="FS_Q93_A5-p6.1" shape="rect">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
1753 on rational beings subject to him, in so far as by his command or pronouncement of any kind, he imprints on their minds a
1754 rule which is a principle of action.
1755 </p><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,
1756 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
1757 whole of nature, according to
1758 <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
1759 to the eternal law. Consequently irrational
1760 creatures are subject to the eternal law, through being moved by Divine providence; but not, as rational creatures are, through
1761 understanding the Divine commandment.
1762 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 5 co."><a name="37566" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37566] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 5 co.</span></a> Respondeo
1763 dicendum quod aliter dicendum est de lege hominis, et aliter de
1764 lege aeterna, quae est lex Dei. Lex enim hominis non se extendit
1765 nisi ad creaturas rationales quae homini subiiciuntur. Cuius ratio
1766 est quia lex est directiva actuum qui conveniunt subiectis
1767 gubernationi alicuius, unde nullus, proprie loquendo, suis actibus
1768 legem imponit. Quaecumque autem aguntur circa usum rerum
1769 irrationalium homini subditarum, aguntur per actum ipsius hominis
1770 moventis huiusmodi res, nam huiusmodi irrationales creaturae non
1771 agunt seipsas, sed ab aliis aguntur, ut supra habitum est. Et ideo
1772 rebus irrationalibus homo legem imponere non potest, quantumcumque
1773 ei subiiciantur. Rebus autem rationalibus sibi subiectis potest
1774 imponere legem, inquantum suo praecepto, vel denuntiatione
1775 quacumque, imprimit menti earum quandam regulam quae est principium
1776 agendi. Sicut autem homo imprimit, denuntiando, quoddam interius
1777 principium actuum homini sibi subiecto, ita etiam Deus imprimit
1778 toti naturae principia propriorum actuum. Et ideo per hunc modum
1779 dicitur Deus praecipere toti naturae; secundum illud Psalmi
1780 CXLVIII, <i>praeceptum posuit, et non praeteribit</i>. Et per hanc
1781 etiam rationem omnes motus et actiones totius naturae legi aeternae
1782 subduntur. Unde alio modo creaturae irrationales subduntur legi
1783 aeternae, inquantum moventur a divina providentia, non autem per
1784 intellectum divini praecepti, sicut creaturae rationales.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A5-p8">
1785 <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
1786 being promulgated, imprints on man a directive principle of human actions, as stated above.
1787 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 5 ad 1"><a name="37567" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37567] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 5 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
1788 ergo dicendum quod hoc modo se habet impressio activi principii
1789 intrinseci, quantum ad res naturales, sicut se habet promulgatio
1790 legis quantum ad homines, quia per legis promulgationem imprimitur
1791 hominibus quoddam directivum principium humanorum actuum, ut dictum
1792 est.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A5-p9">
1793 <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
1794 obeying it; because the power of Divine Reason extends over more things than human reason does. And as the members of the
1795 human body are moved at the command of reason, and yet do not partake of reason, since they have no apprehension subordinate
1796 to reason; so too irrational creatures are moved by God, without, on that account,
1797 being rational.
1798 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 5 ad 2"><a name="37568" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37568] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 5 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
1799 dicendum quod creaturae irrationales non participant ratione
1800 humana, nec ei obediunt, participant tamen, per modum obedientiae,
1801 ratione divina. Ad plura enim se extendit virtus rationis divinae
1802 quam virtus rationis humanae. Et sicut membra corporis humani
1803 moventur ad imperium rationis, non tamen participant ratione, quia
1804 non habent aliquam apprehensionem ordinatam ad rationem; ita etiam
1805 creaturae irrationales moventur a Deo, nec tamen propter hoc sunt
1806 rationales.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A5-p10">
1807 <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
1808 of universal causes, especially of the First Cause, i.e. God, from Whose providence nothing can escape, as stated in the
1809 <a href="FP_ii.html#FP_Q22_A2" id="FS_Q93_A5-p10.1" shape="rect">FP, Q[22], A[2]</a>. And since the eternal law is the type of Divine providence, as stated above
1810 <a href="#FS_Q93_A1" id="FS_Q93_A5-p10.2" shape="rect">(A[1])</a>, hence the defects of natural things are subject to the
1811 eternal law.
1812 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 5 ad 3"><a name="37569" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37569] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 5 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
1813 dicendum quod defectus qui accidunt in rebus naturalibus, quamvis
1814 sint praeter ordinem causarum particularium, non tamen sunt praeter
1815 ordinem causarum universalium; et praecipue causae primae, quae
1816 Deus est, cuius providentiam nihil subterfugere potest, ut in primo
1817 dictum est. Et quia lex aeterna est ratio divinae providentiae, ut
1818 dictum est, ideo defectus rerum naturalium legi aeternae
1819 subduntur.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q93_A6" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q93_A6-p0.1">Q. 93. A. 6. Whether all human affairs are subject to the eternal law?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A6-p2">
1820 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that not all human affairs are subject to the eternal law. For the Apostle says (
1821 <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
1822 by the spirit of God, according to
1823 <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.
1824 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 6 arg. 1"><a name="37570" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37570] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 6 arg. 1</span></a> Ad sextum
1825 sic proceditur. Videtur quod non omnes res humanae subiiciantur
1826 legi aeternae. Dicit enim apostolus, ad Gal. V, <i>si spiritu
1827 ducimini, non estis sub lege</i>. Sed viri iusti, qui sunt filii
1828 Dei per adoptionem, spiritu Dei aguntur; secundum illud Rom. VIII,
1829 <i>qui spiritu Dei aguntur, hi filii Dei sunt</i>. Ergo non omnes
1830 homines sunt sub lege aeterna.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A6-p3">
1831 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Apostle says (
1832 <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
1833 those in whom the prudence of the flesh dominates. Therefore all men are not subject to the eternal law which is the law of
1834 God.
1835 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 6 arg. 2"><a name="37571" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37571] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 6 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
1836 apostolus dicit, ad Rom. VIII, <i>prudentia carnis inimica est Deo,
1837 legi enim Dei subiecta non est</i>. Sed multi homines sunt in
1838 quibus prudentia carnis dominatur. Ergo legi aeternae, quae est lex
1839 Dei, non subiiciuntur omnes homines.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A6-p4">
1840 <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
1841 life of blessedness." But those who are already blessed, and those who are already lost, are not in the state of merit. Therefore
1842 they are not under the eternal law.
1843 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 6 arg. 3"><a name="37572" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37572] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 6 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
1844 Augustinus dicit, in I de Lib. Arb., quod <i>lex aeterna est qua
1845 mali miseriam, boni vitam beatam merentur</i>. Sed homines iam
1846 beati, vel iam damnati, non sunt in statu merendi. Ergo non subsunt
1847 legi aeternae.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A6-p5">
1848 <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
1849 of the universe is administered."
1850 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 6 s. c."><a name="37573" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37573] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 6 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
1851 est quod Augustinus dicit, XIX de Civ. Dei, <i>nullo modo aliquid
1852 legibus summi creatoris ordinatorisque subtrahitur, a quo pax
1853 universitatis administratur</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q93_A6-p6">
1854 <b>I answer that,</b> There are two ways in which a thing is subject to the eternal law, as explained above
1855 <a href="#FS_Q93_A5" id="FS_Q93_A6-p6.1" shape="rect">(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
1856 the eternal law by way of an inward motive principle: and in this second way, irrational creatures are subject to the eternal
1857 law, as stated above
1858 <a href="#FS_Q93_A5" id="FS_Q93_A6-p6.2" shape="rect">(A[5])</a>. But since the rational nature, together
1859 with that which it has in common with all creatures, has something proper to itself inasmuch as it is rational, consequently
1860 it is subject to the eternal law in both ways; because while each rational creature has some knowledge of the eternal law,
1861 as stated above
1862 <a href="#FS_Q93_A2" id="FS_Q93_A6-p6.3" shape="rect">(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
1863 recipients of virtue" (Ethic. ii, 1).
1864 </p><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
1865 to virtue is corrupted by vicious habits, and, moreover, the natural knowledge of good is darkened by passions and habits
1866 of sin. But in the good both ways are found more perfect: because in them, besides the natural knowledge of good, there is
1867 the added knowledge of faith and wisdom; and again, besides the natural inclination to good, there is the added
1868 motive of grace and virtue.
1869 </p><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
1870 subject to the eternal law, imperfectly as to their actions, indeed, since both their knowledge of good, and their inclination
1871 thereto, are imperfect; but this imperfection on the part of action is supplied on the part of passion, in so far as they
1872 suffer what the eternal law decrees concerning them, according as they fail to act in harmony with that law.
1873 Hence Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 15): "I esteem that the righteous act according to the eternal law; and (De Catech.
1874 Rud. xviii): Out of the just misery of the souls which deserted Him, God knew how to furnish the inferior parts of His creation
1875 with most suitable laws."
1876 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 6 co."><a name="37574" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37574] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 6 co.</span></a> Respondeo
1877 dicendum quod duplex est modus quo aliquid subditur legi aeternae,
1878 ut ex supradictis patet, uno modo, inquantum participatur lex
1879 aeterna per modum cognitionis; alio modo, per modum actionis et
1880 passionis, inquantum participatur per modum principii motivi. Et
1881 hoc secundo modo subduntur legi aeternae irrationales creaturae, ut
1882 dictum est. Sed quia rationalis natura, cum eo quod est commune
1883 omnibus creaturis, habet aliquid sibi proprium inquantum est
1884 rationalis, ideo secundum utrumque modum legi aeternae subditur,
1885 quia et notionem legis aeternae aliquo modo habet, ut supra dictum
1886 est; et iterum unicuique rationali creaturae inest naturalis
1887 inclinatio ad id quod est consonum legi aeternae; sumus enim innati
1888 ad habendum virtutes, ut dicitur in II Ethic. Uterque tamen modus
1889 imperfectus quidem est, et quodammodo corruptus, in malis; in
1890 quibus et inclinatio naturalis ad virtutem depravatur per habitum
1891 vitiosum; et iterum ipsa naturalis cognitio boni in eis
1892 obtenebratur per passiones et habitus peccatorum. In bonis autem
1893 uterque modus invenitur perfectior, quia et supra cognitionem
1894 naturalem boni, superadditur eis cognitio fidei et sapientiae; et
1895 supra naturalem inclinationem ad bonum, superadditur eis interius
1896 motivum gratiae et virtutis. Sic igitur boni perfecte subsunt legi
1897 aeternae, tanquam semper secundum eam agentes. Mali autem subsunt
1898 quidem legi aeternae, imperfecte quidem quantum ad actiones
1899 ipsorum, prout imperfecte cognoscunt et imperfecte inclinantur ad
1900 bonum, sed quantum deficit ex parte actionis, suppletur ex parte
1901 passionis, prout scilicet intantum patiuntur quod lex aeterna
1902 dictat de eis, inquantum deficiunt facere quod legi aeternae
1903 convenit. Unde Augustinus dicit, in I de Lib. Arb., <i>iustos sub
1904 aeterna lege agere existimo</i>. Et in libro de catechizandis
1905 rudibus, dicit quod <i>Deus ex iusta miseria animarum se
1906 deserentium, convenientissimis legibus inferiores partes creaturae
1907 suae novit ornare</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A6-p9">
1908 <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
1909 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
1910 refrains from evil deeds, through fear of punishment threatened by the law, and not from love of virtue." In this way the
1911 spiritual man is not under the law, because he fulfils the law willingly, through
1912 charity which is poured into his heart by the Holy Ghost. Secondly, it can be understood as meaning that the works of a man,
1913 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
1914 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
1915 Holy Ghost, are not under the law. The Apostle witnesses to this when he says (
1916 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q93_A6-p9.1" href="./asv.html#iiCor.3.17" target="asv">2 Cor. 3:17</a>): "Where the
1917 Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty."
1918 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 6 ad 1"><a name="37575" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37575] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 6 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
1919 ergo dicendum quod illud verbum apostoli potest intelligi
1920 dupliciter. Uno modo, ut esse sub lege intelligatur ille qui nolens
1921 obligationi legis subditur, quasi cuidam ponderi. Unde Glossa
1922 ibidem dicit quod <i>sub lege est qui timore supplicii quod lex
1923 minatur, non amore iustitiae, a malo opere abstinet</i>. Et hoc
1924 modo spirituales viri non sunt sub lege, quia per caritatem, quam
1925 spiritus sanctus cordibus eorum infundit, voluntarie id quod legis
1926 est, implent. Alio modo potest etiam intelligi inquantum hominis
1927 opera qui spiritu sancto agitur, magis dicuntur esse opera spiritus
1928 sancti quam ipsius hominis. Unde cum spiritus sanctus non sit sub
1929 lege, sicut nec filius, ut supra dictum est; sequitur quod
1930 huiusmodi opera, inquantum sunt spiritus sancti, non sint sub lege.
1931 Et huic attestatur quod apostolus dicit, II ad Cor. III, <i>ubi
1932 spiritus domini, ibi libertas</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A6-p10">
1933 <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
1934 the Divine law: yet it is subject to the law of God, as regards passion; since it deserves to suffer punishment according
1935 to the law of Divine justice. Nevertheless in no man does the prudence of the flesh dominate so far as to destroy the whole
1936 good of his nature: and consequently there remains in man the inclination to act in
1937 accordance with the eternal law. For we have seen above (
1938 <a href="FS_v.html#FS_Q85_A2" id="FS_Q93_A6-p10.1" shape="rect">Q[85], A[2]</a>) that sin does not destroy entirely the good of nature.
1939 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 6 ad 2"><a name="37576" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37576] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 6 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
1940 dicendum quod prudentia carnis non potest subiici legi Dei ex parte
1941 actionis, quia inclinat ad actiones contrarias legi Dei. Subiicitur
1942 tamen legi Dei ex parte passionis, quia meretur pati poenam
1943 secundum legem divinae iustitiae. Nihilominus tamen in nullo homine
1944 ita prudentia carnis dominatur, quod totum bonum naturae
1945 corrumpatur. Et ideo remanet in homine inclinatio ad agendum ea
1946 quae sunt legis aeternae. Habitum est enim supra quod peccatum non
1947 tollit totum bonum naturae.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q93_A6-p11">
1948 <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
1949 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
1950 law that some deserve happiness, others unhappiness, so is it by the eternal law that some are maintained in a happy state,
1951 others in an unhappy state. Accordingly both the blessed and the damned are
1952 under the eternal law.
1953 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 93 a. 6 ad 3"><a name="37577" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37577] Iª-IIae q. 93 a. 6 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
1954 dicendum quod idem est per quod aliquid conservatur in fine, et per
1955 quod movetur ad finem, sicut corpus grave gravitate quiescit in
1956 loco inferiori, per quam etiam ad locum ipsum movetur. Et sic
1957 dicendum est quod, sicut secundum legem aeternam aliqui merentur
1958 beatitudinem vel miseriam, ita per eandem legem in beatitudine vel
1959 miseria conservantur. Et secundum hoc, et beati et damnati subsunt
1960 legi aeternae.</p></div></div></div></div>
1961 <div id="FS_Q94" class="div3">
1962 <h3 id="FS_Q94-p0.1">Q. 94. OF THE NATURAL LAW (SIX ARTICLES)</h3>
1963 <div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="div4">
1964 <p id="FS_Q94-p2"> We must now consider the natural law; concerning which there are six points of inquiry:</p><p id="FS_Q94-p3"><a href="#FS_Q94_A1"> (1) What is the natural law?</a></p><p id="FS_Q94-p4"><a href="#FS_Q94_A2"> (2) What are the precepts of the natural law?</a></p><p id="FS_Q94-p5"><a href="#FS_Q94_A3"> (3) Whether all acts of virtue are prescribed by the natural law?</a></p><p id="FS_Q94-p6"><a href="#FS_Q94_A4"> (4) Whether the natural law is the same in all?</a></p><p id="FS_Q94-p7"><a href="#FS_Q94_A5"> (5) Whether it is changeable?</a></p><p id="FS_Q94-p8"><a href="#FS_Q94_A6"> (6) Whether it can be abolished from the heart of man?</a></p>
1965 </div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 pr."><a name="37578" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37578]
1966 Iª-IIae q. 94 pr.</span></a> Deinde considerandum est de lege
1967 naturali. Et circa hoc quaeruntur sex. Primo, quid sit lex
1968 naturalis. Secundo, quae sint praecepta legis naturalis. Tertio,
1969 utrum omnes actus virtutum sint de lege naturali. Quarto, utrum lex
1970 naturalis sit una apud omnes. Quinto, utrum sit mutabilis. Sexto,
1971 utrum possit a mente hominis deleri.</p></div></div></div>
1972 <div id="FS_Q94_A1" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q94_A1-p0.1">Q. 94. A. 1. Whether the natural law is a habit?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A1-p2">
1973 <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
1974 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;
1975 as we may see by going through them one by one. Therefore the natural law is a habit.
1976 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 1 arg. 1"><a name="37579" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37579] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 1 arg. 1</span></a> Ad primum
1977 sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex naturalis sit habitus. Quia ut
1978 philosophus dicit, in II Ethic., <i>tria sunt in anima, potentia,
1979 habitus et passio</i>. Sed naturalis lex non est aliqua potentiarum
1980 animae, nec aliqua passionum, ut patet enumerando per singula. Ergo
1981 lex naturalis est habitus.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A1-p3">
1982 <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
1983 can only apply to the natural law. But the "synderesis" is a habit, as was shown in the
1984 <a href="FP_ix.html#FP_Q79_A12" id="FS_Q94_A1-p3.1" shape="rect">FP, Q[79], A[12]</a>. Therefore the natural law is a habit.
1985 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 1 arg. 2"><a name="37580" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37580] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 1 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
1986 Basilius dicit quod conscientia, sive synderesis, est lex
1987 intellectus nostri, quod non potest intelligi nisi de lege
1988 naturali. Sed synderesis est habitus quidam, ut in primo habitum
1989 est. Ergo lex naturalis est habitus.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A1-p4">
1990 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the natural law abides in man always, as will be shown further on
1991 <a href="#FS_Q94_A6" id="FS_Q94_A1-p4.1" shape="rect">(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
1992 act, but a habit.
1993 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 1 arg. 3"><a name="37581" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37581] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 1 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
1994 lex naturalis semper in homine manet, ut infra patebit. Sed non
1995 semper ratio hominis, ad quam lex pertinet, cogitat de lege
1996 naturali. Ergo lex naturalis non est actus, sed habitus.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A1-p5">
1997 <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
1998 natural law: since it is in infants and in the damned who cannot act by it. Therefore the natural law is not a habit.
1999 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 1 s. c."><a name="37582" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37582] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 1 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
2000 est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de bono coniugali, quod
2001 <i>habitus est quo aliquid agitur cum opus est</i>. Sed naturalis
2002 lex non est huiusmodi, est enim in parvulis et damnatis, qui per
2003 eam agere non possunt. Ergo lex naturalis non est habitus.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q94_A1-p6">
2004 <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
2005 it has been stated above (
2006 <a href="#FS_Q90_A1" id="FS_Q94_A1-p6.1" shape="rect">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
2007 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
2008 habit is that by which we act, a
2009 law cannot be a habit properly and essentially.
2010 </p><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.
2011 And accordingly, since the precepts of the natural law are sometimes considered by reason actually, while sometimes they are
2012 in the reason only habitually, in this way the natural law may be called a habit. Thus, in speculative matters, the indemonstrable
2013 principles are not the habit itself whereby we hold those principles, but are the principles the habit
2014 of which we possess.
2015 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 1 co."><a name="37583" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37583] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 1 co.</span></a> Respondeo
2016 dicendum quod aliquid potest dici esse habitus dupliciter. Uno
2017 modo, proprie et essentialiter, et sic lex naturalis non est
2018 habitus. Dictum est enim supra quod lex naturalis est aliquid per
2019 rationem constitutum, sicut etiam propositio est quoddam opus
2020 rationis. Non est autem idem quod quis agit, et quo quis agit,
2021 aliquis enim per habitum grammaticae agit orationem congruam. Cum
2022 igitur habitus sit quo quis agit, non potest esse quod lex aliqua
2023 sit habitus proprie et essentialiter. Alio modo potest dici habitus
2024 id quod habitu tenetur, sicut dicitur fides id quod fide tenetur.
2025 Et hoc modo, quia praecepta legis naturalis quandoque considerantur
2026 in actu a ratione, quandoque autem sunt in ea habitualiter tantum,
2027 secundum hunc modum potest dici quod lex naturalis sit habitus.
2028 Sicut etiam principia indemonstrabilia in speculativis non sunt
2029 ipse habitus principiorum, sed sunt principia quorum est
2030 habitus.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A1-p8">
2031 <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,
2032 he mentions only those things which are principles of human acts, viz. powers, habits and passions. But there are other things
2033 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;
2034 moreover its own natural properties are in the soul, such as immortality
2035 and the like.
2036 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 1 ad 1"><a name="37584" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37584] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 1 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
2037 ergo dicendum quod philosophus intendit ibi investigare genus
2038 virtutis, et cum manifestum sit quod virtus sit quoddam principium
2039 actus, illa tantum ponit quae sunt principia humanorum actuum,
2040 scilicet potentias, habitus et passiones. Praeter haec autem tria
2041 sunt quaedam alia in anima, sicut quidam actus, ut velle est in
2042 volente; et etiam cognita sunt in cognoscente; et proprietates
2043 naturales animae insunt ei, ut immortalitas et alia huiusmodi.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A1-p9">
2044 <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
2045 the first principles of human actions.
2046 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 1 ad 2"><a name="37585" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37585] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 1 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
2047 dicendum quod synderesis dicitur lex intellectus nostri, inquantum
2048 est habitus continens praecepta legis naturalis, quae sunt prima
2049 principia operum humanorum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A1-p10">
2050 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This argument proves that the natural law is held habitually; and this is granted.
2051 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 1 ad 3"><a name="37586" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37586] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 1 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
2052 dicendum quod ratio illa concludit quod lex naturalis habitualiter
2053 tenetur. Et hoc concedimus.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A1-p11">
2054 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> 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
2055 habitually, on account of some impediment: thus, on account of sleep, a man is unable to use the habit of science. In like
2056 manner, through the deficiency of his age, a child cannot use the habit of understanding of principles, or the natural law,
2057 which is in him habitually.
2058 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 1 ad 4"><a name="37587" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37587] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 1 ad 4</span></a> Ad id vero
2059 quod in contrarium obiicitur, dicendum quod eo quod habitualiter
2060 inest, quandoque aliquis uti non potest propter aliquod
2061 impedimentum, sicut homo non potest uti habitu scientiae propter
2062 somnum. Et similiter puer non potest uti habitu intellectus
2063 principiorum, vel etiam lege naturali, quae ei habitualiter inest,
2064 propter defectum aetatis.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q94_A2" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q94_A2-p0.1">Q. 94. A. 2. Whether the natural law contains several precepts, or only one?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A2-p2">
2065 <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
2066 above (
2067 <a href="#FS_Q92_A2" id="FS_Q94_A2-p2.1" shape="rect">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.
2068 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 2 arg. 1"><a name="37588" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37588] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 2 arg. 1</span></a> Ad secundum
2069 sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex naturalis non contineat plura
2070 praecepta, sed unum tantum. Lex enim continetur in genere
2071 praecepti, ut supra habitum est. Si igitur essent multa praecepta
2072 legis naturalis, sequeretur quod etiam essent multae leges
2073 naturales.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A2-p3">
2074 <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
2075 is manifold. Therefore, either there is but one precept of the law of nature, on account of the unity of nature as a whole;
2076 or there are many, by reason of the number of parts of human nature. The result would be that even things relating to the
2077 inclination of the concupiscible faculty belong to the natural law.
2078 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 2 arg. 2"><a name="37589" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37589] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 2 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
2079 lex naturalis consequitur hominis naturam. Sed humana natura est
2080 una secundum totum, licet sit multiplex secundum partes. Aut ergo
2081 est unum praeceptum tantum legis naturae, propter unitatem totius,
2082 aut sunt multa, secundum multitudinem partium humanae naturae. Et
2083 sic oportebit quod etiam ea quae sunt de inclinatione
2084 concupiscibilis, pertineant ad legem naturalem.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A2-p4">
2085 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, law is something pertaining to reason, as stated above (
2086 <a href="#FS_Q90_A1" id="FS_Q94_A2-p4.1" shape="rect">Q[90], A[1]</a>). Now reason is but one in man. Therefore there is only one precept of the natural law.
2087 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 2 arg. 3"><a name="37590" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37590] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 2 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
2088 lex est aliquid ad rationem pertinens, ut supra dictum est. Sed
2089 ratio in homine est una tantum. Ergo solum unum praeceptum est
2090 legis naturalis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A2-p5">
2091 <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.
2092 But there are several first indemonstrable principles. Therefore there are also several precepts of the natural law.
2093 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 2 s. c."><a name="37591" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37591] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 2 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
2094 est quia sic se habent praecepta legis naturalis in homine quantum
2095 ad operabilia, sicut se habent prima principia in demonstrativis.
2096 Sed prima principia indemonstrabilia sunt plura. Ergo etiam
2097 praecepta legis naturae sunt plura.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q94_A2-p6">
2098 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
2099 <a href="#FS_Q91_A3" id="FS_Q94_A2-p6.1" shape="rect">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
2100 reason; because both are self-evident principles. Now a thing is said to be self-evident in two ways: first, in itself; secondly,
2101 in relation to us. Any proposition is said to be self-evident in itself, if its predicate is contained in the notion of the
2102 subject: although, to
2103 one who knows not the definition of the subject, it happens that such a proposition is not self-evident. For instance, this
2104 proposition, "Man is a rational being," is, in its very nature, self-evident, since who says "man," says "a rational being":
2105 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.),
2106 certain axioms or propositions are universally self-evident to all; and such are those propositions whose terms are
2107 known to all, as, "Every whole is greater than its part," and, "Things equal to one and the same are equal to one another."
2108 But some propositions are self-evident only to the wise, who understand the meaning of the terms of such propositions: thus
2109 to one who understands that an angel is not a body, it is self-evident that an angel is not circumscriptively in a place:
2110 but this is not evident to the unlearned, for they cannot grasp it.
2111 </p><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
2112 under apprehension, is "being," the notion of which is included in all things whatsoever a man apprehends. Wherefore the first
2113 indemonstrable principle is that "the same thing cannot be affirmed and denied at the same time," which is based on the notion
2114 of "being" and "not-being": and on this principle all others are based, as is stated in Metaph. iv,
2115 text. 9. Now as "being" is the first thing that falls under the apprehension simply, so "good" is the first thing that falls
2116 under the apprehension of the practical reason, which is directed to action: since every agent acts for an end under the aspect
2117 of good. Consequently the first principle of practical reason is one founded on the notion of good, viz. that "good is that
2118 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
2119 be avoided." All other precepts of the natural law are based upon this: so that whatever the practical reason naturally apprehends
2120 as man's good (or evil) belongs to the precepts of the natural law as something to be done or avoided.
2121 </p><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
2122 man has a natural inclination, are naturally apprehended by reason as being good, and consequently as objects of pursuit,
2123 and their contraries as evil, and objects of avoidance. Wherefore according to the order of natural inclinations, is the order
2124 of the precepts of the natural law. Because in man there is first of all an inclination to good in
2125 accordance with the nature which he has in common with all substances: inasmuch as every substance seeks the preservation
2126 of its own being, according to its nature: and by reason of this inclination, whatever is a means of preserving human life,
2127 and of warding off its obstacles, belongs to the natural law. Secondly, there is in man an inclination to things that pertain
2128 to him more specially, according to that nature which he has in common with other animals: and in virtue of this inclination,
2129 those things are said to belong to the natural law, "which nature has taught to all animals" [*Pandect. Just. I, tit. i],
2130 such as sexual intercourse, education of offspring and so forth. Thirdly, there is in man an inclination to good, according
2131 to the nature of his reason, which nature is proper to him: thus man has a natural inclination to know the truth about God,
2132 and to live in society: and in this respect, whatever pertains to this inclination belongs to the natural law; for instance,
2133 to
2134 shun ignorance, to avoid offending those among whom one has to live, and other such things regarding the above inclination.
2135 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 2 co."><a name="37592" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37592] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 2 co.</span></a> Respondeo
2136 dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, praecepta legis naturae hoc
2137 modo se habent ad rationem practicam, sicut principia prima
2138 demonstrationum se habent ad rationem speculativam, utraque enim
2139 sunt quaedam principia per se nota. Dicitur autem aliquid per se
2140 notum dupliciter, uno modo, secundum se; alio modo, quoad nos.
2141 Secundum se quidem quaelibet propositio dicitur per se nota, cuius
2142 praedicatum est de ratione subiecti, contingit tamen quod ignoranti
2143 definitionem subiecti, talis propositio non erit per se nota. Sicut
2144 ista propositio, homo est rationale, est per se nota secundum sui
2145 naturam, quia qui dicit hominem, dicit rationale, et tamen
2146 ignoranti quid sit homo, haec propositio non est per se nota. Et
2147 inde est quod, sicut dicit Boetius, in libro de Hebdomad., quaedam
2148 sunt dignitates vel propositiones per se notae communiter omnibus,
2149 et huiusmodi sunt illae propositiones quarum termini sunt omnibus
2150 noti, ut, omne totum est maius sua parte, et, quae uni et eidem
2151 sunt aequalia, sibi invicem sunt aequalia. Quaedam vero
2152 propositiones sunt per se notae solis sapientibus, qui terminos
2153 propositionum intelligunt quid significent, sicut intelligenti quod
2154 Angelus non est corpus, per se notum est quod non est
2155 circumscriptive in loco, quod non est manifestum rudibus, qui hoc
2156 non capiunt. In his autem quae in apprehensione omnium cadunt,
2157 quidam ordo invenitur. Nam illud quod primo cadit in apprehensione,
2158 est ens, cuius intellectus includitur in omnibus quaecumque quis
2159 apprehendit. Et ideo primum principium indemonstrabile est quod non
2160 est simul affirmare et negare, quod fundatur supra rationem entis
2161 et non entis, et super hoc principio omnia alia fundantur, ut
2162 dicitur in IV Metaphys. Sicut autem ens est primum quod cadit in
2163 apprehensione simpliciter, ita bonum est primum quod cadit in
2164 apprehensione practicae rationis, quae ordinatur ad opus, omne enim
2165 agens agit propter finem, qui habet rationem boni. Et ideo primum
2166 principium in ratione practica est quod fundatur supra rationem
2167 boni, quae est, bonum est quod omnia appetunt. Hoc est ergo primum
2168 praeceptum legis, quod bonum est faciendum et prosequendum, et
2169 malum vitandum. Et super hoc fundantur omnia alia praecepta legis
2170 naturae, ut scilicet omnia illa facienda vel vitanda pertineant ad
2171 praecepta legis naturae, quae ratio practica naturaliter
2172 apprehendit esse bona humana. Quia vero bonum habet rationem finis,
2173 malum autem rationem contrarii, inde est quod omnia illa ad quae
2174 homo habet naturalem inclinationem, ratio naturaliter apprehendit
2175 ut bona, et per consequens ut opere prosequenda, et contraria eorum
2176 ut mala et vitanda. Secundum igitur ordinem inclinationum
2177 naturalium, est ordo praeceptorum legis naturae. Inest enim primo
2178 inclinatio homini ad bonum secundum naturam in qua communicat cum
2179 omnibus substantiis, prout scilicet quaelibet substantia appetit
2180 conservationem sui esse secundum suam naturam. Et secundum hanc
2181 inclinationem, pertinent ad legem naturalem ea per quae vita
2182 hominis conservatur, et contrarium impeditur. Secundo inest homini
2183 inclinatio ad aliqua magis specialia, secundum naturam in qua
2184 communicat cum ceteris animalibus. Et secundum hoc, dicuntur ea
2185 esse de lege naturali quae natura omnia animalia docuit, ut est
2186 coniunctio maris et feminae, et educatio liberorum, et similia.
2187 Tertio modo inest homini inclinatio ad bonum secundum naturam
2188 rationis, quae est sibi propria, sicut homo habet naturalem
2189 inclinationem ad hoc quod veritatem cognoscat de Deo, et ad hoc
2190 quod in societate vivat. Et secundum hoc, ad legem naturalem
2191 pertinent ea quae ad huiusmodi inclinationem spectant, utpote quod
2192 homo ignorantiam vitet, quod alios non offendat cum quibus debet
2193 conversari, et cetera huiusmodi quae ad hoc spectant.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A2-p9">
2194 <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.
2195 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 2 ad 1"><a name="37593" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37593] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 2 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
2196 ergo dicendum quod omnia ista praecepta legis naturae, inquantum
2197 referuntur ad unum primum praeceptum, habent rationem unius legis
2198 naturalis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A2-p10">
2199 <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
2200 they are ruled by reason, belong to the natural law, and are reduced to one first precept, as stated above: so that the precepts
2201 of the natural law are many in themselves, but are based on one common foundation.
2202 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 2 ad 2"><a name="37594" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37594] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 2 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
2203 dicendum quod omnes inclinationes quarumcumque partium humanae
2204 naturae, puta concupiscibilis et irascibilis, secundum quod
2205 regulantur ratione, pertinent ad legem naturalem, et reducuntur ad
2206 unum primum praeceptum, ut dictum est. Et secundum hoc, sunt multa
2207 praecepta legis naturae in seipsis, quae tamen communicant in una
2208 radice.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A2-p11">
2209 <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
2210 under the law of reason.
2211 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 2 ad 3"><a name="37595" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37595] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 2 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
2212 dicendum quod ratio, etsi in se una sit, tamen est ordinativa
2213 omnium quae ad homines spectant. Et secundum hoc, sub lege rationis
2214 continentur omnia ea quae ratione regulari possunt.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q94_A3" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q94_A3-p0.1">Q. 94. A. 3. Whether all acts of virtue are prescribed by the natural law?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A3-p2">
2215 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that not all acts of virtue are prescribed by the natural law. Because, as stated above (
2216 <a href="#FS_Q90_A2" id="FS_Q94_A3-p2.1" shape="rect">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
2217 of the individual, as is evident especially in regards to acts of temperance. Therefore not all acts of virtue are the subject
2218 of natural law.
2219 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 3 arg. 1"><a name="37596" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37596] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 3 arg. 1</span></a> Ad tertium
2220 sic proceditur. Videtur quod non omnes actus virtutum sint de lege
2221 naturae. Quia, ut supra dictum est, de ratione legis est ut
2222 ordinetur ad bonum commune. Sed quidam virtutum actus ordinantur ad
2223 bonum privatum alicuius, ut patet praecipue in actibus
2224 temperantiae. Non ergo omnes actus virtutum legi subduntur
2225 naturali.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A3-p3">
2226 <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
2227 seems to follow that all sins are against nature: whereas this applies to certain special sins.
2228 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 3 arg. 2"><a name="37597" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37597] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 3 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
2229 omnia peccata aliquibus virtuosis actibus opponuntur. Si igitur
2230 omnes actus virtutum sint de lege naturae, videtur ex consequenti
2231 quod omnia peccata sint contra naturam. Quod tamen specialiter de
2232 quibusdam peccatis dicitur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A3-p4">
2233 <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
2234 thing is virtuous in one, and vicious in another. Therefore not all acts of virtue are prescribed by the natural law.
2235 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 3 arg. 3"><a name="37598" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37598] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 3 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
2236 in his quae sunt secundum naturam, omnes conveniunt. Sed in actibus
2237 virtutum non omnes conveniunt, aliquid enim est virtuosum uni, quod
2238 est alteri vitiosum. Ergo non omnes actus virtutum sunt de lege
2239 naturae.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A3-p5">
2240 <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
2241 law.
2242 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 3 s. c."><a name="37599" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37599] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 3 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
2243 est quod Damascenus dicit, in III libro, quod virtutes sunt
2244 naturales. Ergo et actus virtuosi subiacent legi naturae.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A3-p6">
2245 <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
2246 in their proper species. If then we speak of acts of virtue, considered as virtuous, thus all virtuous acts belong to the
2247 natural law. For it has been stated
2248 <a href="#FS_Q94_A2" id="FS_Q94_A3-p6.1" shape="rect">(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
2249 naturally to an operation
2250 that is suitable to it according to its form: thus fire is inclined to give heat. Wherefore, since the rational soul is the
2251 proper form of man, there is in every man a natural inclination to act according to reason: and this is to act according to
2252 virtue. Consequently, considered thus, all acts of virtue are prescribed by the natural law: since each one's reason naturally
2253 dictates to him to act virtuously. But if we speak of virtuous acts, considered in themselves, i.e. in their proper species,
2254 thus not all virtuous acts are prescribed by the natural law: for many things are done virtuously, to which nature does not
2255 incline at first; but which, through the inquiry of reason, have been found by men to be conducive to well-living.
2256 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 3 co."><a name="37600" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37600] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 3 co.</span></a> Respondeo
2257 dicendum quod de actibus virtuosis dupliciter loqui possumus, uno
2258 modo, inquantum sunt virtuosi; alio modo, inquantum sunt tales
2259 actus in propriis speciebus considerati. Si igitur loquamur de
2260 actibus virtutum inquantum sunt virtuosi, sic omnes actus virtuosi
2261 pertinent ad legem naturae. Dictum est enim quod ad legem naturae
2262 pertinet omne illud ad quod homo inclinatur secundum suam naturam.
2263 Inclinatur autem unumquodque naturaliter ad operationem sibi
2264 convenientem secundum suam formam, sicut ignis ad calefaciendum.
2265 Unde cum anima rationalis sit propria forma hominis, naturalis
2266 inclinatio inest cuilibet homini ad hoc quod agat secundum
2267 rationem. Et hoc est agere secundum virtutem. Unde secundum hoc,
2268 omnes actus virtutum sunt de lege naturali, dictat enim hoc
2269 naturaliter unicuique propria ratio, ut virtuose agat. Sed si
2270 loquamur de actibus virtuosis secundum seipsos, prout scilicet in
2271 propriis speciebus considerantur, sic non omnes actus virtuosi sunt
2272 de lege naturae. Multa enim secundum virtutem fiunt, ad quae natura
2273 non primo inclinat; sed per rationis inquisitionem ea homines
2274 adinvenerunt, quasi utilia ad bene vivendum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A3-p7">
2275 <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
2276 common good, just as other matters of law are ordained to the moral common good.
2277 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 3 ad 1"><a name="37601" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37601] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 3 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
2278 ergo dicendum quod temperantia est circa concupiscentias naturales
2279 cibi et potus et venereorum, quae quidem ordinantur ad bonum
2280 commune naturae, sicut et alia legalia ordinantur ad bonum commune
2281 morale.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A3-p8">
2282 <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
2283 also against nature, as Damascene states (De Fide Orth. ii, 30): or we may mean that nature which is common to man and other
2284 animals; and in this sense, certain special sins are said to be against nature; thus contrary to sexual intercourse, which
2285 is natural to all animals, is unisexual lust, which has received the special name of
2286 the unnatural crime.
2287 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 3 ad 2"><a name="37602" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37602] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 3 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
2288 dicendum quod natura hominis potest dici vel illa quae est propria
2289 homini, et secundum hoc, omnia peccata, inquantum sunt contra
2290 rationem, sunt etiam contra naturam, ut patet per Damascenum, in II
2291 libro. Vel illa quae est communis homini et aliis animalibus, et
2292 secundum hoc, quaedam specialia peccata dicuntur esse contra
2293 naturam; sicut contra commixtionem maris et feminae, quae est
2294 naturalis omnibus animalibus, est concubitus masculorum, quod
2295 specialiter dicitur vitium contra naturam.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A3-p9">
2296 <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
2297 for some, as being proportionate and becoming to them, while they are vicious for others, as being out of proportion to them.
2298 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 3 ad 3"><a name="37603" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37603] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 3 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
2299 dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de actibus secundum seipsos
2300 consideratis. Sic enim, propter diversas hominum conditiones,
2301 contingit quod aliqui actus sunt aliquibus virtuosi, tanquam eis
2302 proportionati et convenientes, qui tamen sunt aliis vitiosi,
2303 tanquam eis non proportionati.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q94_A4" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q94_A4-p0.1">Q. 94. A. 4. Whether the natural law is the same in all men?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A4-p2">
2304 <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
2305 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 (
2306 <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.
2307 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 4 arg. 1"><a name="37604" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37604] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 4 arg. 1</span></a> Ad quartum
2308 sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex naturae non sit una apud omnes.
2309 Dicitur enim in decretis, dist. I, quod <i>ius naturale est quod in
2310 lege et in Evangelio continetur</i>. Sed hoc non est commune
2311 omnibus, quia, ut dicitur Rom. X, <i>non omnes obediunt
2312 Evangelio</i>. Ergo lex naturalis non est una apud omnes.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A4-p3">
2313 <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
2314 book that nothing is so universally just as not to be subject to change in regard to some men. Therefore even the natural
2315 law is not the same in all men.
2316 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 4 arg. 2"><a name="37605" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37605] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 4 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
2317 ea quae sunt secundum legem, iusta esse dicuntur, ut dicitur in V
2318 Ethic. Sed in eodem libro dicitur quod nihil est ita iustum apud
2319 omnes, quin apud aliquos diversificetur. Ergo lex etiam naturalis
2320 non est apud omnes eadem.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A4-p4">
2321 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, as stated above (
2322 <a href="#FS_Q94_A2" id="FS_Q94_A4-p4.1" shape="rect">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
2323 inclined to different things; some to the desire of pleasures, others to the desire of honors, and other men to other things.
2324 Therefore there is not one natural law for all.
2325 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 4 arg. 3"><a name="37606" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37606] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 4 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
2326 ad legem naturae pertinet id ad quod homo secundum naturam suam
2327 inclinatur, ut supra dictum est. Sed diversi homines naturaliter ad
2328 diversa inclinantur, alii quidem ad concupiscentiam voluptatum,
2329 alii ad desideria honorum, alii ad alia. Ergo non est una lex
2330 naturalis apud omnes.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A4-p5">
2331 <b>On the contrary,</b> Isidore says (Etym. v, 4): "The natural law is common to all nations."
2332 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 4 s. c."><a name="37607" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37607] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 4 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
2333 est quod Isidorus dicit, in libro Etymol., <i>ius naturale est
2334 commune omnium nationum</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q94_A4-p6">
2335 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
2336 <a href="#FS_Q94_A2" id="FS_Q94_A4-p6.1" shape="rect">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
2337 be inclined to act according to reason. Now the process of reason is from the common to the proper, as stated in Phys. i.
2338 The speculative reason, however, is differently situated in this matter, from the practical reason. For, since the speculative
2339 reason is busied chiefly with the necessary
2340 things, which cannot be otherwise than they are, its proper conclusions, like the universal principles, contain the truth
2341 without fail. The practical reason, on the other hand, is busied with contingent matters, about which human actions are concerned:
2342 and consequently, although there is necessity in the general principles, the more we descend to matters of detail, the more
2343 frequently we encounter defects. Accordingly then in speculative matters truth is the same in all men, both as to
2344 principles and as to conclusions: although the truth is not known to all as regards the conclusions, but only as regards the
2345 principles which are called common notions. But in matters of action, truth or practical rectitude is not the same for all,
2346 as to matters of detail, but only as to the general principles: and where there is the same rectitude in matters of detail,
2347 it is not equally known to all.
2348 </p><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
2349 is the same for all, and is equally known by all. As to the proper conclusions of the speculative reason, the truth is the
2350 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
2351 to two right angles, although it is not known to all. But as to the proper conclusions of the practical
2352 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
2353 is right and true for all to act according to reason: and from this principle it follows as a proper conclusion, that goods
2354 entrusted to another should be restored to their owner. Now this is true for the majority of cases: but it may happen in a
2355 particular case that it would be injurious, and therefore unreasonable, to restore goods held in trust; for instance, if they
2356 are
2357 claimed for the purpose of fighting against one's country. And this principle will be found to fail the more, according as
2358 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,
2359 or in such and such a way; because the greater the number of conditions added, the greater the number of ways in which the
2360 principle may fail, so that it be not right to restore or not to restore.
2361 </p><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
2362 to knowledge. But as to certain matters of detail, which are conclusions, as it were, of those general principles, it is the
2363 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
2364 as to rectitude, by reason of certain obstacles (just as natures subject to generation and corruption fail in
2365 some few cases on account of some obstacle), and as to knowledge, since in some the reason is perverted by passion, or evil
2366 habit, or an evil disposition of nature; thus formerly, theft, although it is expressly contrary to the natural law, was not
2367 considered wrong among the Germans, as Julius Caesar relates (De Bello Gall. vi).
2368 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 4 co."><a name="37608" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37608] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 4 co.</span></a> Respondeo
2369 dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, ad legem naturae pertinent
2370 ea ad quae homo naturaliter inclinatur; inter quae homini proprium
2371 est ut inclinetur ad agendum secundum rationem. Ad rationem autem
2372 pertinet ex communibus ad propria procedere, ut patet ex I Physic.
2373 Aliter tamen circa hoc se habet ratio speculativa, et aliter ratio
2374 practica. Quia enim ratio speculativa praecipue negotiatur circa
2375 necessaria, quae impossibile est aliter se habere, absque aliquo
2376 defectu invenitur veritas in conclusionibus propriis, sicut et in
2377 principiis communibus. Sed ratio practica negotiatur circa
2378 contingentia, in quibus sunt operationes humanae, et ideo, etsi in
2379 communibus sit aliqua necessitas, quanto magis ad propria
2380 descenditur, tanto magis invenitur defectus. Sic igitur in
2381 speculativis est eadem veritas apud omnes tam in principiis quam in
2382 conclusionibus, licet veritas non apud omnes cognoscatur in
2383 conclusionibus, sed solum in principiis, quae dicuntur communes
2384 conceptiones. In operativis autem non est eadem veritas vel
2385 rectitudo practica apud omnes quantum ad propria, sed solum quantum
2386 ad communia, et apud illos apud quos est eadem rectitudo in
2387 propriis, non est aequaliter omnibus nota. Sic igitur patet quod,
2388 quantum ad communia principia rationis sive speculativae sive
2389 practicae, est eadem veritas seu rectitudo apud omnes, et
2390 aequaliter nota. Quantum vero ad proprias conclusiones rationis
2391 speculativae, est eadem veritas apud omnes, non tamen aequaliter
2392 omnibus nota, apud omnes enim verum est quod triangulus habet tres
2393 angulos aequales duobus rectis, quamvis hoc non sit omnibus notum.
2394 Sed quantum ad proprias conclusiones rationis practicae, nec est
2395 eadem veritas seu rectitudo apud omnes; nec etiam apud quos est
2396 eadem, est aequaliter nota. Apud omnes enim hoc rectum est et
2397 verum, ut secundum rationem agatur. Ex hoc autem principio sequitur
2398 quasi conclusio propria, quod deposita sint reddenda. Et hoc quidem
2399 ut in pluribus verum est, sed potest in aliquo casu contingere quod
2400 sit damnosum, et per consequens irrationabile, si deposita
2401 reddantur; puta si aliquis petat ad impugnandam patriam. Et hoc
2402 tanto magis invenitur deficere, quanto magis ad particularia
2403 descenditur, puta si dicatur quod deposita sunt reddenda cum tali
2404 cautione, vel tali modo, quanto enim plures conditiones
2405 particulares apponuntur, tanto pluribus modis poterit deficere, ut
2406 non sit rectum vel in reddendo vel in non reddendo. Sic igitur
2407 dicendum est quod lex naturae, quantum ad prima principia communia,
2408 est eadem apud omnes et secundum rectitudinem, et secundum
2409 notitiam. Sed quantum ad quaedam propria, quae sunt quasi
2410 conclusiones principiorum communium, est eadem apud omnes ut in
2411 pluribus et secundum rectitudinem et secundum notitiam, sed ut in
2412 paucioribus potest deficere et quantum ad rectitudinem, propter
2413 aliqua particularia impedimenta (sicut etiam naturae generabiles et
2414 corruptibiles deficiunt ut in paucioribus, propter impedimenta), et
2415 etiam quantum ad notitiam; et hoc propter hoc quod aliqui habent
2416 depravatam rationem ex passione, seu ex mala consuetudine, seu ex
2417 mala habitudine naturae; sicut apud germanos olim latrocinium non
2418 reputabatur iniquum, cum tamen sit expresse contra legem naturae,
2419 ut refert Iulius Caesar, in libro de bello Gallico.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A4-p9">
2420 <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,
2421 since they contain many things that are above nature; but that whatever belongs to the natural law is fully contained in them.
2422 Wherefore Gratian, after saying that "the natural law is what is contained in the Law and the Gospel," adds at once, by way
2423 of example, "by which everyone is commanded to do to others as he would be done
2424 by."
2425 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 4 ad 1"><a name="37609" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37609] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 4 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
2426 ergo dicendum quod verbum illud non est sic intelligendum quasi
2427 omnia quae in lege et in Evangelio continentur, sint de lege
2428 naturae, cum multa tradantur ibi supra naturam, sed quia ea quae
2429 sunt de lege naturae, plenarie ibi traduntur. Unde cum dixisset
2430 Gratianus quod <i>ius naturale est quod in lege et in Evangelio
2431 continetur</i>, statim, exemplificando, subiunxit, <i>quo quisque
2432 iubetur alii facere quod sibi vult fieri</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A4-p10">
2433 <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
2434 drawn from them, having rectitude in the majority of cases, but failing in a few.
2435 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 4 ad 2"><a name="37610" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37610] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 4 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
2436 dicendum quod verbum philosophi est intelligendum de his quae sunt
2437 naturaliter iusta non sicut principia communia, sed sicut quaedam
2438 conclusiones ex his derivatae; quae ut in pluribus rectitudinem
2439 habent, et ut in paucioribus deficiunt.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A4-p11">
2440 <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
2441 needs be directed according to reason. Wherefore it is universally right for all men, that all their inclinations should be
2442 directed according to reason.
2443 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 4 ad 3"><a name="37611" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37611] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 4 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
2444 dicendum quod, sicut ratio in homine dominatur et imperat aliis
2445 potentiis, ita oportet quod omnes inclinationes naturales ad alias
2446 potentias pertinentes ordinentur secundum rationem. Unde hoc est
2447 apud omnes communiter rectum, ut secundum rationem dirigantur omnes
2448 hominum inclinationes.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q94_A5" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q94_A5-p0.1">Q. 94. A. 5. Whether the natural law can be changed?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A5-p2">
2449 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the natural law can be changed. Because on
2450 <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
2451 to correct the law of nature." But that which is corrected is changed. Therefore the natural law can be changed.
2452 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 5 arg. 1"><a name="37612" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37612] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 5 arg. 1</span></a> Ad quintum
2453 sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex naturae mutari possit. Quia super
2454 illud Eccli. XVII, <i>addidit eis disciplinam et legem vitae</i>,
2455 dicit Glossa, <i>legem litterae, quantum ad correctionem legis
2456 naturalis, scribi voluit</i>. Sed illud quod corrigitur, mutatur.
2457 Ergo lex naturalis potest mutari.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A5-p3">
2458 <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
2459 God: as when God commanded Abraham to slay his innocent son (
2460 <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 (
2461 <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" (
2462 <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.
2463 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 5 arg. 2"><a name="37613" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37613] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 5 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
2464 contra legem naturalem est occisio innocentis, et etiam adulterium
2465 et furtum. Sed ista inveniuntur esse mutata a Deo, puta cum Deus
2466 praecepit Abrahae quod occideret filium innocentem, ut habetur Gen.
2467 XXII; et cum praecepit Iudaeis ut mutuata Aegyptiorum vasa
2468 subriperent, ut habetur Exod. XII; et cum praecepit Osee ut uxorem
2469 fornicariam acciperet, ut habetur Osee I. Ergo lex naturalis potest
2470 mutari.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A5-p4">
2471 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Isidore says (Etym. 5:4) that "the
2472 possession of all things in common, and universal freedom, are matters of natural law." But these things are seen to be changed
2473 by human laws. Therefore it seems that the natural law is subject to change.
2474 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 5 arg. 3"><a name="37614" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37614] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 5 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
2475 Isidorus dicit, in libro Etymol., quod <i>communis omnium
2476 possessio, et una libertas, est de iure naturali</i>. Sed haec
2477 videmus esse commutata per leges humanas. Ergo videtur quod lex
2478 naturalis sit mutabilis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A5-p5">
2479 <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
2480 according to time, but remains unchangeable."
2481 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 5 s. c."><a name="37615" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37615] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 5 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
2482 est quod dicitur in decretis, dist. V, <i>naturale ius ab exordio
2483 rationalis creaturae. Nec variatur tempore, sed immutabile
2484 permanet</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q94_A5-p6">
2485 <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
2486 law from being changed: since many things for the benefit of human life have been added over and above the natural law, both
2487 by the Divine law and by human laws.
2488 </p><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
2489 natural law, ceases to be so. In this sense, the natural law is altogether unchangeable in its first principles: but in its
2490 secondary principles, which, as we have said
2491 <a href="#FS_Q94_A4" id="FS_Q94_A5-p7.1" shape="rect">(A[4])</a>, are certain detailed proximate conclusions drawn from the first principles, the natural law is not changed so that what
2492 it prescribes be not right in most
2493 cases. But it may be changed in some particular cases of rare occurrence, through some special causes hindering the observance
2494 of such precepts, as stated above
2495 <a href="#FS_Q94_A4" id="FS_Q94_A5-p7.2" shape="rect">(A[4])</a>.
2496 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 5 co."><a name="37616" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37616] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 5 co.</span></a> Respondeo
2497 dicendum quod lex naturalis potest intelligi mutari dupliciter. Uno
2498 modo, per hoc quod aliquid ei addatur. Et sic nihil prohibet legem
2499 naturalem mutari, multa enim supra legem naturalem superaddita
2500 sunt, ad humanam vitam utilia, tam per legem divinam, quam etiam
2501 per leges humanas. Alio modo intelligitur mutatio legis naturalis
2502 per modum subtractionis, ut scilicet aliquid desinat esse de lege
2503 naturali, quod prius fuit secundum legem naturalem. Et sic quantum
2504 ad prima principia legis naturae, lex naturae est omnino
2505 immutabilis. Quantum autem ad secunda praecepta, quae diximus esse
2506 quasi quasdam proprias conclusiones propinquas primis principiis,
2507 sic lex naturalis non immutatur quin ut in pluribus rectum sit
2508 semper quod lex naturalis habet. Potest tamen immutari in aliquo
2509 particulari, et in paucioribus, propter aliquas speciales causas
2510 impedientes observantiam talium praeceptorum, ut supra dictum
2511 est.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A5-p8">
2512 <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
2513 the natural law; or because the natural law was perverted in the hearts of some men, as to certain matters, so that they esteemed
2514 those things good which are naturally evil; which perversion stood in need of correction.
2515 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 5 ad 1"><a name="37617" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37617] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 5 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
2516 ergo dicendum quod lex scripta dicitur esse data ad correctionem
2517 legis naturae, vel quia per legem scriptam suppletum est quod legi
2518 naturae deerat, vel quia lex naturae in aliquorum cordibus, quantum
2519 ad aliqua, corrupta erat intantum ut existimarent esse bona quae
2520 naturaliter sunt mala; et talis corruptio correctione
2521 indigebat.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A5-p9">
2522 <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
2523 on account of original sin, according to
2524 <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,
2525 without any injustice whatever. In like manner adultery is intercourse with another's wife; who is allotted to him by the
2526 law
2527 emanating from God. Consequently intercourse with any woman, by the command of God, is neither adultery nor fornication. The
2528 same applies to theft, which is the taking of another's property. For whatever is taken by the command of God, to Whom all
2529 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
2530 things, that whatever is commanded by God is right; but also in natural things, whatever is done by God, is, in some way,
2531 natural, as stated in the
2532 <a href="FP_x.html#FP_Q105_A6" id="FS_Q94_A5-p9.2" shape="rect">FP, Q[105], A[6]</a>, ad 1.
2533 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 5 ad 2"><a name="37618" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37618] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 5 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
2534 dicendum quod naturali morte moriuntur omnes communiter, tam
2535 nocentes quam innocentes. Quae quidem naturalis mors divina
2536 potestate inducitur propter peccatum originale; secundum illud I
2537 Reg. II, <i>dominus mortificat et vivificat</i>. Et ideo absque
2538 aliqua iniustitia, secundum mandatum Dei, potest infligi mors
2539 cuicumque homini, vel nocenti vel innocenti. Similiter etiam
2540 adulterium est concubitus cum uxore aliena, quae quidem est ei
2541 deputata secundum legem divinitus traditam. Unde ad quamcumque
2542 mulierem aliquis accedat ex mandato divino, non est adulterium nec
2543 fornicatio. Et eadem ratio est de furto, quod est acceptio rei
2544 alienae. Quidquid enim accipit aliquis ex mandato Dei, qui est
2545 dominus universorum, non accipit absque voluntate domini, quod est
2546 furari. Nec solum in rebus humanis quidquid a Deo mandatur, hoc
2547 ipso est debitum, sed etiam in rebus naturalibus quidquid a Deo
2548 fit, est quodammodo naturale, ut in primo dictum est.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A5-p10">
2549 <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
2550 do harm to another. Secondly, because nature did not bring in the contrary: thus we might say that for man to be naked is
2551 of the natural law, because nature did not give him clothes, but art invented them. In this sense, "the possession of all
2552 things in common and universal freedom" are said to be of the natural law, because, to
2553 wit, the distinction of possessions and slavery were not brought in by nature, but devised by human reason for the benefit
2554 of human life. Accordingly the law of nature was not changed in this respect, except by addition.
2555 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 5 ad 3"><a name="37619" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37619] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 5 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
2556 dicendum quod aliquid dicitur esse de iure naturali dupliciter. Uno
2557 modo, quia ad hoc natura inclinat, sicut non esse iniuriam alteri
2558 faciendam. Alio modo, quia natura non induxit contrarium, sicut
2559 possemus dicere quod hominem esse nudum est de iure naturali, quia
2560 natura non dedit ei vestitum, sed ars adinvenit. Et hoc modo
2561 communis omnium possessio, et omnium una libertas, dicitur esse de
2562 iure naturali, quia scilicet distinctio possessionum et servitus
2563 non sunt inductae a natura, sed per hominum rationem, ad utilitatem
2564 humanae vitae. Et sic in hoc lex naturae non est mutata nisi per
2565 additionem.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q94_A6" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q94_A6-p0.1">Q. 94. A. 6. Whether the law of nature can be abolished from the heart of man?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A6-p2">
2566 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the natural law can be abolished from the heart of man. Because on
2567 <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
2568 graven on the heart of man when he is restored by grace." But the law of righteousness is the law of nature. Therefore the
2569 law of nature can be blotted out.
2570 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 6 arg. 1"><a name="37620" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37620] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 6 arg. 1</span></a> Ad sextum
2571 sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex naturae possit a corde hominis
2572 aboleri. Quia Rom. II, super illud, <i>cum gentes, quae legem non
2573 habent,</i> etc., dicit Glossa quod <i>in interiori homine per
2574 gratiam innovato, lex iustitiae inscribitur, quam deleverat
2575 culpa</i>. Sed lex iustitiae est lex naturae. Ergo lex naturae
2576 potest deleri.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A6-p3">
2577 <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
2578 therefore can the law of nature be blotted out.
2579 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 6 arg. 2"><a name="37621" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37621] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 6 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
2580 lex gratiae est efficacior quam lex naturae. Sed lex gratiae
2581 deletur per culpam. Ergo multo magis lex naturae potest deleri.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A6-p4">
2582 <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
2583 of nature. Therefore the law of nature can be abolished from the heart of man.
2584 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 6 arg. 3"><a name="37622" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37622] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 6 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
2585 illud quod lege statuitur, inducitur quasi iustum. Sed multa sunt
2586 ab hominibus statuta contra legem naturae. Ergo lex naturae potest
2587 a cordibus hominum aboleri.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A6-p5">
2588 <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
2589 is written in men's hearts is the natural law. Therefore the natural law cannot be blotted out.
2590 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 6 s. c."><a name="37623" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37623] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 6 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
2591 est quod Augustinus dicit, in II Confess., <i>lex tua scripta est
2592 in cordibus hominum, quam nec ulla quidem delet iniquitas</i>. Sed
2593 lex scripta in cordibus hominum est lex naturalis. Ergo lex
2594 naturalis deleri non potest.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A6-p6">
2595 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
2596 <a href="#FS_Q94_A4" id="FS_Q94_A6-p6.1" shape="rect">AA[4]</a>,5), there belong to the natural law, first, certain most general precepts, that are known to all; and secondly, certain secondary
2597 and more detailed precepts, which are, as it were, conclusions following closely from first principles. As to those general
2598 principles, the natural law, in the abstract, can nowise be blotted out from men's hearts. But it is blotted out in the case
2599 of a particular action, in so far
2600 as reason is hindered from applying the general principle to a particular point of practice, on account of concupiscence or
2601 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
2602 blotted out from the human heart, either by evil persuasions, just as in speculative matters errors occur in respect of necessary
2603 conclusions; or by vicious customs and corrupt habits, as among some men, theft, and even unnatural vices, as the Apostle
2604 states (Rom. i), were not esteemed sinful.
2605 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 6 co."><a name="37624" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37624] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 6 co.</span></a> Respondeo
2606 dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, ad legem naturalem pertinent
2607 primo quidem quaedam praecepta communissima, quae sunt omnibus
2608 nota, quaedam autem secundaria praecepta magis propria, quae sunt
2609 quasi conclusiones propinquae principiis. Quantum ergo ad illa
2610 principia communia, lex naturalis nullo modo potest a cordibus
2611 hominum deleri in universali. Deletur tamen in particulari
2612 operabili, secundum quod ratio impeditur applicare commune
2613 principium ad particulare operabile, propter concupiscentiam vel
2614 aliquam aliam passionem, ut supra dictum est. Quantum vero ad alia
2615 praecepta secundaria, potest lex naturalis deleri de cordibus
2616 hominum, vel propter malas persuasiones, eo modo quo etiam in
2617 speculativis errores contingunt circa conclusiones necessarias; vel
2618 etiam propter pravas consuetudines et habitus corruptos; sicut apud
2619 quosdam non reputabantur latrocinia peccata, vel etiam vitia contra
2620 naturam, ut etiam apostolus dicit, ad Rom. I.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A6-p7">
2621 <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
2622 of the natural law, in the way stated above.
2623 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 6 ad 1"><a name="37625" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37625] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 6 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
2624 ergo dicendum quod culpa delet legem naturae in particulari, non
2625 autem in universali, nisi forte quantum ad secunda praecepta legis
2626 naturae, eo modo quo dictum est.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A6-p8">
2627 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> Although grace is more efficacious than nature, yet nature is more essential to man, and therefore more enduring.
2628 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 6 ad 2"><a name="37626" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37626] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 6 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
2629 dicendum quod gratia etsi sit efficacior quam natura, tamen natura
2630 essentialior est homini, et ideo magis permanens.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q94_A6-p9">
2631 <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
2632 which are unjust.
2633 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 94 a. 6 ad 3"><a name="37627" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37627] Iª-IIae q. 94 a. 6 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
2634 dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de secundis praeceptis legis
2635 naturae, contra quae aliqui legislatores statuta aliqua fecerunt,
2636 quae sunt iniqua.</p></div></div></div></div>
2637 <div id="FS_Q95" class="div3">
2638 <h3 id="FS_Q95-p0.1">Q. 95. OF HUMAN LAW (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3>
2639 <div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="div4">
2640 <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
2641 head there are four points of inquiry:
2642 </p><p id="FS_Q95-p3"><a href="#FS_Q95_A1"> (1) Its utility.</a></p><p id="FS_Q95-p4"><a href="#FS_Q95_A2"> (2) Its origin.</a></p><p id="FS_Q95-p5"><a href="#FS_Q95_A3"> (3) Its quality.</a></p><p id="FS_Q95-p6"><a href="#FS_Q95_A4"> (4) Its division.</a></p>
2643 </div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 95 pr."><a name="37628" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37628]
2644 Iª-IIae q. 95 pr.</span></a> Deinde considerandum est de lege
2645 humana. Et primo quidem, de ipsa lege secundum se; secundo, de
2646 potestate eius; tertio, de eius mutabilitate. Circa primum
2647 quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, de utilitate ipsius. Secundo, de origine
2648 eius. Tertio, de qualitate ipsius. Quarto, de divisione
2649 eiusdem.</p></div></div></div>
2650 <div id="FS_Q95_A1" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q95_A1-p0.1">Q. 95. A. 1. Whether it was useful for laws to be framed by men?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q95_A1-p2">
2651 <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
2652 thereby, as stated above (
2653 <a href="#FS_Q92_A1" id="FS_Q95_A1-p2.1" shape="rect">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.
2654 Therefore there was no need to frame laws.
2655 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 95 a. 1 arg. 1"><a name="37629" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37629] Iª-IIae q. 95 a. 1 arg. 1</span></a> Ad primum
2656 sic proceditur. Videtur quod non fuerit utile aliquas leges poni ab
2657 hominibus. Intentio enim cuiuslibet legis est ut per eam homines
2658 fiant boni, sicut supra dictum est. Sed homines magis inducuntur ad
2659 bonum voluntarii per monitiones, quam coacti per leges. Ergo non
2660 fuit necessarium leges ponere.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q95_A1-p3">
2661 <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
2662 is better than inanimate justice, which contained in laws. Therefore it would have been better for the execution of justice
2663 to be entrusted to the decision of judges, than to frame laws in addition.
2664 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 95 a. 1 arg. 2"><a name="37630" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37630] Iª-IIae q. 95 a. 1 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
2665 sicut dicit philosophus, in V Ethic., <i>ad iudicem confugiunt
2666 homines sicut ad iustum animatum</i>. Sed iustitia animata est
2667 melior quam inanimata, quae legibus continetur. Ergo melius fuisset
2668 ut executio iustitiae committeretur arbitrio iudicum, quam quod
2669 super hoc lex aliqua ederetur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q95_A1-p4">
2670 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, every law is framed for the direction of human actions, as is evident from what has been stated above (
2671 <a href="#FS_Q90_A1" id="FS_Q95_A1-p4.1" shape="rect">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
2672 actions cannot be taken into sufficient consideration except by a wise man, who looks into each one of them. Therefore it
2673 would have been better for human acts to be directed by the judgment
2674 of wise men, than by the framing of laws. Therefore there was no need of human laws.
2675 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 95 a. 1 arg. 3"><a name="37631" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37631] Iª-IIae q. 95 a. 1 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
2676 lex omnis directiva est actuum humanorum, ut ex supradictis patet.
2677 Sed cum humani actus consistant in singularibus, quae sunt
2678 infinita, non possunt ea quae ad directionem humanorum actuum
2679 pertinent, sufficienter considerari, nisi ab aliquo sapiente, qui
2680 inspiciat singula. Ergo melius fuisset arbitrio sapientum dirigi
2681 actus humanos, quam aliqua lege posita. Ergo non fuit necessarium
2682 leges humanas ponere.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q95_A1-p5">
2683 <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
2684 be safeguarded in the midst of wickedness, and that the dread of punishment might prevent the wicked from doing harm." But
2685 these things are most necessary to mankind. Therefore it was necessary that human laws should be made.
2686 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 95 a. 1 s. c."><a name="37632" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37632] Iª-IIae q. 95 a. 1 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
2687 est quod Isidorus dicit, in libro Etymol., <i>factae sunt leges ut
2688 earum metu humana coerceretur audacia, tutaque sit inter improbos
2689 innocentia, et in ipsis improbis formidato supplicio refrenetur
2690 nocendi facultas</i>. Sed haec sunt maxime necessaria humano
2691 generi. Ergo necessarium fuit ponere leges humanas.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q95_A1-p6">
2692 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
2693 <a href="FS_v.html#FS_Q63_A1" id="FS_Q95_A1-p6.1" shape="rect">Q[63], A[1]</a>;
2694 <a href="#FS_Q94_A3" id="FS_Q95_A1-p6.2" shape="rect"> 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.
2695 Thus we observe that man is helped by industry in his necessities, for instance, in food and clothing. Certain beginnings
2696 of these he has from nature, viz. his reason and his hands; but he has not the full complement, as other animals have,
2697 to whom nature has given sufficiency of clothing and food. Now it is difficult to see how man could suffice for himself in
2698 the matter of this training: since the perfection of virtue consists chiefly in withdrawing man from undue pleasures, to which
2699 above all man is inclined, and especially the young, who are more capable of being trained. Consequently a man needs to receive
2700 this training from another, whereby to arrive at the perfection of virtue. And as to those young people who are inclined
2701 to acts of virtue, by their good natural disposition, or by custom, or rather by the gift of God, paternal training suffices,
2702 which is by admonitions. But since some are found to be depraved, and prone to vice, and not easily amenable to words, it
2703 was necessary for such to be restrained from evil by force and fear, in order that, at least, they might desist from evil-doing,
2704 and leave others in peace, and that they themselves, by being habituated in this way, might be brought to do willingly
2705 what hitherto they did from fear, and thus become virtuous. Now this kind of training, which compels through fear of punishment,
2706 is the discipline of laws. Therefore in order that man might have peace and virtue, it was necessary for laws to be framed:
2707 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
2708 lowest of all, if he be severed from law and righteousness"; because man can use his reason to devise means of satisfying
2709 his lusts and evil passions, which other animals are unable to do.
2710 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 95 a. 1 co."><a name="37633" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37633] Iª-IIae q. 95 a. 1 co.</span></a> Respondeo
2711 dicendum quod, sicut ex supradictis patet, homini naturaliter inest
2712 quaedam aptitudo ad virtutem; sed ipsa virtutis perfectio necesse
2713 est quod homini adveniat per aliquam disciplinam. Sicut etiam
2714 videmus quod per aliquam industriam subvenitur homini in suis
2715 necessitatibus, puta in cibo et vestitu, quorum initia quaedam
2716 habet a natura, scilicet rationem et manus, non autem ipsum
2717 complementum, sicut cetera animalia, quibus natura dedit
2718 sufficienter tegumentum et cibum. Ad hanc autem disciplinam non de
2719 facili invenitur homo sibi sufficiens. Quia perfectio virtutis
2720 praecipue consistit in retrahendo hominem ab indebitis
2721 delectationibus, ad quas praecipue homines sunt proni, et maxime
2722 iuvenes, circa quos efficacior est disciplina. Et ideo oportet quod
2723 huiusmodi disciplinam, per quam ad virtutem perveniatur, homines ab
2724 alio sortiantur. Et quidem quantum ad illos iuvenes qui sunt proni
2725 ad actus virtutum, ex bona dispositione naturae, vel consuetudine,
2726 vel magis divino munere, sufficit disciplina paterna, quae est per
2727 monitiones. Sed quia inveniuntur quidam protervi et ad vitia proni,
2728 qui verbis de facili moveri non possunt; necessarium fuit ut per
2729 vim et metum cohiberentur a malo, ut saltem sic male facere
2730 desistentes, et aliis quietam vitam redderent, et ipsi tandem per
2731 huiusmodi assuetudinem ad hoc perducerentur quod voluntarie
2732 facerent quae prius metu implebant, et sic fierent virtuosi.
2733 Huiusmodi autem disciplina cogens metu poenae, est disciplina
2734 legum. Unde necessarium fuit ad pacem hominum et virtutem, ut leges
2735 ponerentur, quia sicut philosophus dicit, in I Polit., <i>sicut
2736 homo, si sit perfectus virtute, est optimum animalium; sic, si sit
2737 separatus a lege et iustitia, est pessimum omnium</i>; quia homo
2738 habet arma rationis ad explendas concupiscentias et saevitias, quae
2739 non habent alia animalia.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q95_A1-p7">
2740 <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
2741 disposed are not led to virtue unless they are compelled.
2742 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 95 a. 1 ad 1"><a name="37634" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37634] Iª-IIae q. 95 a. 1 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
2743 ergo dicendum quod homines bene dispositi melius inducuntur ad
2744 virtutem monitionibus voluntariis quam coactione, sed quidam male
2745 dispositi non ducuntur ad virtutem nisi cogantur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q95_A1-p8">
2746 <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":
2747 and this for three reasons. First, because it is easier to find a few wise men competent to frame right laws, than to find
2748 the many who would be necessary to judge aright of each single case. Secondly, because those who make laws consider long beforehand
2749 what laws to make; whereas judgment on each single case has to be
2750 pronounced as soon as it arises: and it is easier for man to see what is right, by taking many instances into consideration,
2751 than by considering one solitary fact. Thirdly, because lawgivers judge in the abstract and of future events; whereas those
2752 who sit in judgment of things present, towards which they are affected by love, hatred, or some kind of cupidity; wherefore
2753 their judgment is perverted.
2754 </p><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,
2755 whenever possible, for the law to determine how to judge, and for very few matters to be left to the decision of men.
2756 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 95 a. 1 ad 2"><a name="37635" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37635] Iª-IIae q. 95 a. 1 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
2757 dicendum quod, sicut philosophus dicit, I Rhetor., <i>melius est
2758 omnia ordinari lege, quam dimittere iudicum arbitrio</i>. Et hoc
2759 propter tria. Primo quidem, quia facilius est invenire paucos
2760 sapientes, qui sufficiant ad rectas leges ponendas, quam multos,
2761 qui requirerentur ad recte iudicandum de singulis. Secundo, quia
2762 illi qui leges ponunt, ex multo tempore considerant quid lege
2763 ferendum sit, sed iudicia de singularibus factis fiunt ex casibus
2764 subito exortis. Facilius autem ex multis consideratis potest homo
2765 videre quid rectum sit, quam solum ex aliquo uno facto. Tertio,
2766 quia legislatores iudicant in universali, et de futuris, sed
2767 homines iudiciis praesidentes iudicant de praesentibus, ad quae
2768 afficiuntur amore vel odio, aut aliqua cupiditate; et sic eorum
2769 depravatur iudicium. Quia ergo iustitia animata iudicis non
2770 invenitur in multis; et quia flexibilis est; ideo necessarium fuit,
2771 in quibuscumque est possibile, legem determinare quid iudicandum
2772 sit, et paucissima arbitrio hominum committere.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q95_A1-p10">
2773 <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
2774 says in the same passage: for instance, "concerning something that has happened or not happened," and the like.
2775 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 95 a. 1 ad 3"><a name="37636" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37636] Iª-IIae q. 95 a. 1 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
2776 dicendum quod quaedam singularia, quae non possunt lege
2777 comprehendi, necesse est committere iudicibus, ut ibidem
2778 philosophus dicit, puta de eo quod est factum esse vel non esse, et
2779 de aliis huiusmodi.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q95_A2" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q95_A2-p0.1">Q. 95. A. 2. Whether every human law is derived from the natural law?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q95_A2-p2">
2780 <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
2781 legal just is that which originally was a matter of indifference." But those things which arise from the natural law are not
2782 matters of indifference. Therefore the enactments of human laws are not derived from the natural law.
2783 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 95 a. 2 arg. 1"><a name="37637" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37637] Iª-IIae q. 95 a. 2 arg. 1</span></a> Ad secundum
2784 sic proceditur. Videtur quod non omnis lex humanitus posita a lege
2785 naturali derivetur. Dicit enim philosophus, in V Ethic., quod
2786 <i>iustum legale est quod ex principio quidem nihil differt utrum
2787 sic vel aliter fiat</i>. Sed in his quae oriuntur ex lege naturali,
2788 differt utrum sic vel aliter fiat. Ergo ea quae sunt legibus
2789 humanis statuta, non omnia derivantur a lege naturae.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q95_A2-p3">
2790 <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).
2791 But those things which flow as conclusions from the general principles of the natural law belong to the natural law, as stated
2792 above (
2793 <a href="#FS_Q94_A4" id="FS_Q95_A2-p3.1" shape="rect">Q[94], A[4]</a>). Therefore that which is established by human law does not belong to the natural law.
2794 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 95 a. 2 arg. 2"><a name="37638" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37638] Iª-IIae q. 95 a. 2 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
2795 ius positivum dividitur contra ius naturale, ut patet per Isidorum,
2796 in libro Etymol., et per philosophum, in V Ethic. Sed ea quae
2797 derivantur a principiis communibus legis naturae sicut
2798 conclusiones, pertinent ad legem naturae, ut supra dictum est. Ergo
2799 ea quae sunt de lege humana, non derivantur a lege naturae.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q95_A2-p4">
2800 <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
2801 is equally valid everywhere." If therefore human laws were derived from the natural law, it would follow that they too are
2802 the same for all: which is clearly false.
2803 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 95 a. 2 arg. 3"><a name="37639" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37639] Iª-IIae q. 95 a. 2 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
2804 lex naturae est eadem apud omnes, dicit enim philosophus, in V
2805 Ethic., quod <i>naturale iustum est quod ubique habet eandem
2806 potentiam</i>. Si igitur leges humanae a naturali lege
2807 derivarentur, sequeretur quod etiam ipsae essent eaedem apud omnes.
2808 Quod patet esse falsum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q95_A2-p5">
2809 <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
2810 the reason for all the legal enactments of the lawgivers," as the jurist says [*Pandect. Justin. lib. i, ff, tit. iii, v;
2811 De Leg. et Senat.]. Therefore not all human laws are derived from the natural law.
2812 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 95 a. 2 arg. 4"><a name="37640" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37640] Iª-IIae q. 95 a. 2 arg. 4</span></a> Praeterea,
2813 eorum quae a lege naturali derivantur, potest aliqua ratio
2814 assignari. Sed non omnium quae a maioribus lege statuta sunt, ratio
2815 reddi potest, ut iurisperitus dicit. Ergo non omnes leges humanae
2816 derivantur a lege naturali.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q95_A2-p6">
2817 <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
2818 for the laws."
2819 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 95 a. 2 s. c."><a name="37641" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37641] Iª-IIae q. 95 a. 2 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
2820 est quod Tullius dicit, in sua Rhetor., <i>res a natura profectas,
2821 et a consuetudine probatas, legum metus et religio sanxit</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q95_A2-p7">
2822 <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
2823 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
2824 reason. But the first rule of reason is the law of nature, as is clear from what has been stated above (
2825 <a href="#FS_Q91_A2" id="FS_Q95_A2-p7.1" shape="rect">Q[91], A[2]</a>, ad 2). Consequently every human law has just so much of the nature of
2826 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
2827 but a perversion of law.
2828 </p><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,
2829 secondly, by way of determination of certain generalities. The first way is like to that by which, in sciences, demonstrated
2830 conclusions are drawn from the principles: while the second mode is likened to that whereby, in the arts, general forms are
2831 particularized as to details: thus the craftsman needs to determine the general form of a house to some
2832 particular shape. Some things are therefore derived from the general principles of the natural law, by way of conclusions;
2833 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
2834 some are derived therefrom by way of determination; e.g. the law of nature has it that the evil-doer should be punished; but
2835 that he be punished in this or that way, is a determination of the law of nature.
2836 </p><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
2837 contained in human law not as emanating therefrom exclusively, but have some force from the natural law also. But those things
2838 which are derived in the second way, have no other force than that of human law.
2839 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 95 a. 2 co."><a name="37642" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37642] Iª-IIae q. 95 a. 2 co.</span></a> Respondeo
2840 dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in I de Lib. Arb., <i>non
2841 videtur esse lex, quae iusta non fuerit</i>. Unde inquantum habet
2842 de iustitia, intantum habet de virtute legis. In rebus autem
2843 humanis dicitur esse aliquid iustum ex eo quod est rectum secundum
2844 regulam rationis. Rationis autem prima regula est lex naturae, ut
2845 ex supradictis patet. Unde omnis lex humanitus posita intantum
2846 habet de ratione legis, inquantum a lege naturae derivatur. Si vero
2847 in aliquo, a lege naturali discordet, iam non erit lex sed legis
2848 corruptio. Sed sciendum est quod a lege naturali dupliciter potest
2849 aliquid derivari, uno modo, sicut conclusiones ex principiis; alio
2850 modo, sicut determinationes quaedam aliquorum communium. Primus
2851 quidem modus est similis ei quo in scientiis ex principiis
2852 conclusiones demonstrativae producuntur. Secundo vero modo simile
2853 est quod in artibus formae communes determinantur ad aliquid
2854 speciale, sicut artifex formam communem domus necesse est quod
2855 determinet ad hanc vel illam domus figuram. Derivantur ergo quaedam
2856 a principiis communibus legis naturae per modum conclusionum, sicut
2857 hoc quod est non esse occidendum, ut conclusio quaedam derivari
2858 potest ab eo quod est nulli esse malum faciendum. Quaedam vero per
2859 modum determinationis, sicut lex naturae habet quod ille qui
2860 peccat, puniatur; sed quod tali poena puniatur, hoc est quaedam
2861 determinatio legis naturae. Utraque igitur inveniuntur in lege
2862 humana posita. Sed ea quae sunt primi modi, continentur lege humana
2863 non tanquam sint solum lege posita, sed habent etiam aliquid
2864 vigoris ex lege naturali. Sed ea quae sunt secundi modi, ex sola
2865 lege humana vigorem habent.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q95_A2-p10">
2866 <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
2867 natural law.
2868 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 95 a. 2 ad 1"><a name="37643" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37643] Iª-IIae q. 95 a. 2 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
2869 ergo dicendum quod philosophus loquitur de illis quae sunt lege
2870 posita per determinationem vel specificationem quandam praeceptorum
2871 legis naturae.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q95_A2-p11">
2872 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> This argument avails for those things that are derived from the natural law, by way of conclusions.
2873 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 95 a. 2 ad 2"><a name="37644" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37644] Iª-IIae q. 95 a. 2 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
2874 dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de his quae derivantur a lege
2875 naturae tanquam conclusiones.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q95_A2-p12">
2876 <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
2877 human affairs: and hence arises the diversity of positive laws among various people.
2878 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 95 a. 2 ad 3"><a name="37645" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37645] Iª-IIae q. 95 a. 2 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
2879 dicendum quod principia communia legis naturae non possunt eodem
2880 modo applicari omnibus, propter multam varietatem rerum humanarum.
2881 Et exinde provenit diversitas legis positivae apud diversos.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q95_A2-p13">
2882 <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
2883 natural law: on which determinations the judgment of expert and prudent men is based as on its principles; in so far, to wit,
2884 as they see at once what is the best thing to decide.
2885 </p><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
2886 sayings and opinions of persons who surpass us in experience, age and prudence, as to their demonstrations."
2887 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 95 a. 2 ad 4"><a name="37646" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37646] Iª-IIae q. 95 a. 2 ad 4</span></a> Ad quartum
2888 dicendum quod verbum illud iurisperiti intelligendum est in his
2889 quae sunt introducta a maioribus circa particulares determinationes
2890 legis naturalis; ad quas quidem determinationes se habet expertorum
2891 et prudentum iudicium sicut ad quaedam principia; inquantum
2892 scilicet statim vident quid congruentius sit particulariter
2893 determinari. Unde philosophus dicit, in VI Ethic., quod <i>in
2894 talibus oportet attendere expertorum et seniorum vel prudentum
2895 indemonstrabilibus enuntiationibus et opinionibus, non minus quam
2896 demonstrationibus</i>.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q95_A3" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q95_A3-p0.1">Q. 95. A. 3. Whether Isidore's description of the quality of positive law is appropriate?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q95_A3-p2">
2897 <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
2898 shall be virtuous, just, possible to nature, according to the custom of the country, suitable to place and time, necessary,
2899 useful; clearly expressed, lest by its obscurity it lead to misunderstanding; framed for no private benefit, but for the common
2900 good." Because he had previously expressed the quality of law in three conditions,
2901 saying that "law is anything founded on reason, provided that it foster religion, be helpful to discipline, and further the
2902 common weal." Therefore it was needless to add any further conditions to these.
2903 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 95 a. 3 arg. 1"><a name="37647" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37647] Iª-IIae q. 95 a. 3 arg. 1</span></a> Ad tertium
2904 sic proceditur. Videtur quod Isidorus inconvenienter qualitatem
2905 legis positivae describat, dicens, <i>erit lex honesta, iusta,
2906 possibilis secundum naturam, secundum consuetudinem patriae, loco
2907 temporique conveniens, necessaria, utilis; manifesta quoque, ne
2908 aliquid per obscuritatem in captionem contineat; nullo privato
2909 commodo, sed pro communi utilitate civium scripta</i>. Supra enim
2910 in tribus conditionibus qualitatem legis explicaverat, dicens,
2911 <i>lex erit omne quod ratione constiterit, dumtaxat quod religioni
2912 congruat, quod disciplinae conveniat, quod saluti proficiat</i>.
2913 Ergo superflue postmodum conditiones legis multiplicat.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q95_A3-p3">
2914 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Justice is included in honesty, as Tully says (De Offic. vii). Therefore after saying "honest" it was superfluous
2915 to add "just."
2916 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 95 a. 3 arg. 2"><a name="37648" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37648] Iª-IIae q. 95 a. 3 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
2917 iustitia pars est honestatis; ut Tullius dicit, in I de Offic. Ergo
2918 postquam dixerat honesta, superflue additur iusta.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q95_A3-p4">
2919 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, written law is condivided with custom, according to Isidore (Etym. ii, 10). Therefore it should not be stated in
2920 the definition of law that it is "according to the custom of the country."
2921 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 95 a. 3 arg. 3"><a name="37649" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37649] Iª-IIae q. 95 a. 3 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
2922 lex scripta, secundum Isidorum, contra consuetudinem dividitur. Non
2923 ergo debuit in definitione legis poni quod esset secundum
2924 consuetudinem patriae.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q95_A3-p5">
2925 <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
2926 is necessary in this way, is not subject to human judgment, wherefore human law is not concerned with necessity of this kind.
2927 Again a thing may be necessary for an end: and this necessity is the same as usefulness. Therefore it is superfluous to say
2928 both "necessary" and "useful."
2929 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 95 a. 3 arg. 4"><a name="37650" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37650] Iª-IIae q. 95 a. 3 arg. 4</span></a> Praeterea,
2930 necessarium dupliciter dicitur. Scilicet id quod est necessarium
2931 simpliciter, quod impossibile est aliter se habere, et huiusmodi
2932 necessarium non subiacet humano iudicio, unde talis necessitas ad
2933 legem humanam non pertinet. Est etiam aliquid necessarium propter
2934 finem, et talis necessitas idem est quod utilitas. Ergo superflue
2935 utrumque ponitur, necessaria et utilis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q95_A3-p6">
2936 <b>On the contrary,</b> stands the authority of Isidore.
2937 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 95 a. 3 s. c."><a name="37651" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37651] Iª-IIae q. 95 a. 3 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
2938 est auctoritas ipsius Isidori.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q95_A3-p7">
2939 <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
2940 to be suitable for cutting (Phys. ii, text. 88). Again, everything that is ruled and measured must have a form proportionate
2941 to its rule and measure. Now both these conditions are verified of human law: since it is both something ordained to an end;
2942 and is a rule or measure ruled or measured by a higher measure. And this higher measure is
2943 twofold, viz. the Divine law and the natural law, as explained above
2944 <a href="#FS_Q95_A2" id="FS_Q95_A3-p7.1" shape="rect">(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.
2945 iii; De Leg. et Senat.]. Wherefore Isidore in determining the nature of law, lays down, at first, three conditions; viz. that
2946 it "foster religion," inasmuch as it is proportionate to the Divine law; that it be "helpful to discipline," inasmuch as it
2947 is proportionate to the
2948 nature law; and that it "further the common weal," inasmuch as it is proportionate to the utility of mankind.
2949 </p><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.
2950 And when he goes on to say that it should be "just, possible to nature, according to the customs of the country, adapted to
2951 place and time," he implies that it should be helpful to discipline. For human discipline depends on first on the order of
2952 reason, to which he refers by saying "just": secondly, it depends on the ability of the agent; because
2953 discipline should be adapted to each one according to his ability, taking also into account the ability of nature (for the
2954 same burdens should be not laid on children as adults); and should be according to human customs; since man cannot live alone
2955 in society, paying no heed to others: thirdly, it depends on certain circumstances, in respect of which he says, "adapted
2956 to place and time." The remaining words, "necessary, useful," etc. mean that law should further the common weal: so that
2957 "necessity" refers to the removal of evils; "usefulness" to the attainment of good; "clearness of expression," to the need
2958 of preventing any harm ensuing from the law itself. And since, as stated above (
2959 <a href="#FS_Q90_A2" id="FS_Q95_A3-p8.1" shape="rect">Q[90], A[2]</a>), law is ordained to the common good, this is expressed in the last part of the description.
2960 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 95 a. 3 co."><a name="37652" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37652] Iª-IIae q. 95 a. 3 co.</span></a> Respondeo
2961 dicendum quod uniuscuiusque rei quae est propter finem, necesse est
2962 quod forma determinetur secundum proportionem ad finem; sicut forma
2963 serrae talis est qualis convenit sectioni; ut patet in II Physic.
2964 Quaelibet etiam res recta et mensurata oportet quod habeat formam
2965 proportionalem suae regulae et mensurae. Lex autem humana utrumque
2966 habet, quia et est aliquid ordinatum ad finem; et est quaedam
2967 regula vel mensura regulata vel mensurata quadam superiori mensura;
2968 quae quidem est duplex, scilicet lex divina et lex naturae, ut ex
2969 supradictis patet. Finis autem humanae legis est utilitas hominum;
2970 sicut etiam iurisperitus dicit. Et ideo Isidorus in conditione
2971 legis, primo quidem tria posuit, scilicet quod religioni congruat,
2972 inquantum scilicet est proportionata legi divinae; quod disciplinae
2973 conveniat, inquantum est proportionata legi naturae; quod saluti
2974 proficiat, inquantum est proportionata utilitati humanae. Et ad
2975 haec tria omnes aliae conditiones quas postea ponit, reducuntur.
2976 Nam quod dicitur honesta, refertur ad hoc quod religioni congruat.
2977 Quod autem subditur, <i>iusta, possibilis secundum naturam,
2978 secundum consuetudinem patriae, loco temporique conveniens</i>,
2979 additur ad hoc quod conveniat disciplinae. Attenditur enim humana
2980 disciplina primum quidem quantum ad ordinem rationis, qui
2981 importatur in hoc quod dicitur iusta. Secundo, quantum ad
2982 facultatem agentium. Debet enim esse disciplina conveniens
2983 unicuique secundum suam possibilitatem, observata etiam
2984 possibilitate naturae (non enim eadem sunt imponenda pueris, quae
2985 imponuntur viris perfectis); et secundum humanam consuetudinem; non
2986 enim potest homo solus in societate vivere, aliis morem non gerens.
2987 Tertio, quantum ad debitas circumstantias, dicit, loco temporique
2988 conveniens. Quod vero subditur, necessaria, utilis, etc., refertur
2989 ad hoc quod expediat saluti, ut necessitas referatur ad remotionem
2990 malorum; utilitas, ad consecutionem bonorum; manifestatio vero, ad
2991 cavendum nocumentum quod ex ipsa lege posset provenire. Et quia,
2992 sicut supra dictum est, lex ordinatur ad bonum commune, hoc ipsum
2993 in ultima parte determinationis ostenditur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q95_A3-p9">
2994 <b>Reply to Objections:</b> This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.</p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 95 a. 3 ad arg."><a name="37653" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37653] Iª-IIae q. 95 a. 3 ad arg.</span></a> Et per hoc
2995 patet responsio ad obiecta.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q95_A4" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q95_A4-p0.1">Q. 95. A. 4. Whether Isidore's division of human laws is appropriate?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q95_A4-p2">
2996 <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
2997 the "law of nations," so called, because, as he says, "nearly all nations use it." But as he says, "natural law is that which
2998 is common to all nations." Therefore the law of nations is not contained under positive human law, but rather under natural
2999 law.
3000 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 95 a. 4 arg. 1"><a name="37654" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37654] Iª-IIae q. 95 a. 4 arg. 1</span></a> Ad quartum
3001 sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter Isidorus divisionem
3002 legum humanarum ponat, sive iuris humani. Sub hoc enim iure
3003 comprehendit ius gentium, quod ideo sic nominatur, ut ipse dicit,
3004 quia eo omnes fere gentes utuntur. Sed sicut ipse dicit, <i>ius
3005 naturale est quod est commune omnium nationum</i>. Ergo ius gentium
3006 non continetur sub iure positivo humano, sed magis sub iure
3007 naturali.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q95_A4-p3">
3008 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, those laws which have the same force, seem to differ not formally but only materially. But "statutes, decrees of
3009 the commonalty, senatorial decrees," and the like which he mentions (Etym. v, 9), all have the same force. Therefore they
3010 do not differ, except materially. But art takes no notice of such a distinction: since it may go on to infinity. Therefore
3011 this division of human laws is not appropriate.
3012 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 95 a. 4 arg. 2"><a name="37655" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37655] Iª-IIae q. 95 a. 4 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
3013 ea quae habent eandem vim, non videntur formaliter differre, sed
3014 solum materialiter. Sed leges, plebiscita, senatusconsulta, et alia
3015 huiusmodi quae ponit, omnia habent eandem vim. Ergo videtur quod
3016 non differant nisi materialiter. Sed talis distinctio in arte non
3017 est curanda, cum possit esse in infinitum. Ergo inconvenienter
3018 huiusmodi divisio humanarum legum introducitur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q95_A4-p4">
3019 <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
3020 that, as this division includes "military law," and "public law," referring to priests and magistrates; so also it should
3021 include other laws pertaining to other offices of the state.
3022 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 95 a. 4 arg. 3"><a name="37656" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37656] Iª-IIae q. 95 a. 4 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
3023 sicut in civitate sunt principes et sacerdotes et milites, ita
3024 etiam sunt et alia hominum officia. Ergo videtur quod, sicut
3025 ponitur quoddam ius militare, et ius publicum, quod consistit in
3026 sacerdotibus et magistratibus; ita etiam debeant poni alia iura, ad
3027 alia officia civitatis pertinentia.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q95_A4-p5">
3028 <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
3029 that man. Therefore it is unreasonable to divide laws according to the names of lawgivers, so that one be called the "Cornelian"
3030 law, another the "Falcidian" law, etc.
3031 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 95 a. 4 arg. 4"><a name="37657" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37657] Iª-IIae q. 95 a. 4 arg. 4</span></a> Praeterea,
3032 ea quae sunt per accidens, sunt praetermittenda. Sed accidit legi
3033 ut ab hoc vel illo homine feratur. Ergo inconvenienter ponitur
3034 divisio legum humanarum ex nominibus legislatorum, ut scilicet
3035 quaedam dicatur Cornelia, quaedam Falcidia, et cetera.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q95_A4-p6">
3036 <b>On the contrary,</b> The authority of Isidore (OBJ[1]) suffices.
3037 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 95 a. 4 s. c."><a name="37658" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37658] Iª-IIae q. 95 a. 4 s. c.</span></a> In
3038 contrarium auctoritas Isidori sufficiat.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q95_A4-p7">
3039 <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
3040 or irrational is contained in the notion of animal: and therefore animal is divided properly and of itself in respect of its
3041 being rational or irrational; but not in the point of its being white or black, which are entirely beside the notion of animal.
3042 Now, in the notion of human law, many things are contained, in respect of any of
3043 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
3044 derived from the law of nature, as explained above
3045 <a href="#FS_Q95_A2" id="FS_Q95_A4-p7.1" shape="rect">(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
3046 may be derived from the law of nature, as stated above
3047 <a href="#FS_Q95_A2" id="FS_Q95_A4-p7.2" shape="rect">(A[2])</a>. Because, to the law of nations belong those things which are derived from
3048 the law of nature, as conclusions from premises, e.g. just buyings and sellings, and the like, without which men cannot live
3049 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
3050 those things which are derived from the law of nature by way of particular determination, belong to the civil law, according
3051 as each state decides on what is best for itself.
3052 </p><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
3053 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
3054 to God for the people; princes, by governing the people; soldiers, by fighting for the safety of the people. Wherefore certain
3055 special kinds of law are adapted to these men.
3056 </p><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
3057 above (
3058 <a href="#FS_Q90_A3" id="FS_Q95_A4-p9.1" shape="rect">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
3059 Philosopher (Polit. iii, 10) one is "monarchy," i.e. when the state is governed by one; and then we have "Royal Ordinances."
3060 Another form is "aristocracy," i.e. government by the best men or men
3061 of highest rank; and then we have the "Authoritative legal opinions" [Responsa Prudentum] and "Decrees of the Senate" [Senatus
3062 consulta]. Another form is "oligarchy," i.e. government by a few rich and powerful men; and then we have "Praetorian," also
3063 called "Honorary," law. Another form of government is that of the people, which is called "democracy," and there we have "Decrees
3064 of the commonalty" [Plebiscita]. There is also tyrannical government, which is altogether corrupt, which, therefore,
3065 has no corresponding law. Finally, there is a form of government made up of all these, and which is the best: and in this
3066 respect we have law sanctioned by the "Lords and Commons," as stated by Isidore (Etym. v, 4, seqq.).
3067 </p><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
3068 of which the law treats, there are various kinds of laws, which are sometimes named after their authors: thus we have the
3069 "Lex Julia" about adultery, the "Lex Cornelia" concerning assassins, and so on, differentiated in this way, not on account
3070 of the authors, but on account of the matters to which they refer.
3071 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 95 a. 4 co."><a name="37659" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37659] Iª-IIae q. 95 a. 4 co.</span></a> Respondeo
3072 dicendum quod unumquodque potest per se dividi secundum id quod in
3073 eius ratione continetur. Sicut in ratione animalis continetur
3074 anima, quae est rationalis vel irrationalis, et ideo animal proprie
3075 et per se dividitur secundum rationale et irrationale; non autem
3076 secundum album et nigrum, quae sunt omnino praeter rationem eius.
3077 Sunt autem multa de ratione legis humanae, secundum quorum
3078 quodlibet lex humana proprie et per se dividi potest. Est enim
3079 primo de ratione legis humanae quod sit derivata a lege naturae, ut
3080 ex dictis patet. Et secundum hoc dividitur ius positivum in ius
3081 gentium et ius civile, secundum duos modos quibus aliquid derivatur
3082 a lege naturae, ut supra dictum est. Nam ad ius gentium pertinent
3083 ea quae derivantur ex lege naturae sicut conclusiones ex
3084 principiis, ut iustae emptiones, venditiones, et alia huiusmodi,
3085 sine quibus homines ad invicem convivere non possent; quod est de
3086 lege naturae, quia homo est naturaliter animal sociale, ut probatur
3087 in I Polit. Quae vero derivantur a lege naturae per modum
3088 particularis determinationis, pertinent ad ius civile, secundum
3089 quod quaelibet civitas aliquid sibi accommodum determinat. Secundo
3090 est de ratione legis humanae quod ordinetur ad bonum commune
3091 civitatis. Et secundum hoc lex humana dividi potest secundum
3092 diversitatem eorum qui specialiter dant operam ad bonum commune,
3093 sicut sacerdotes, pro populo Deum orantes; principes, populum
3094 gubernantes; et milites, pro salute populi pugnantes. Et ideo istis
3095 hominibus specialia quaedam iura aptantur. Tertio est de ratione
3096 legis humanae ut instituatur a gubernante communitatem civitatis,
3097 sicut supra dictum est. Et secundum hoc distinguuntur leges humanae
3098 secundum diversa regimina civitatum. Quorum unum, secundum
3099 philosophum, in III Polit., est regnum, quando scilicet civitas
3100 gubernatur ab uno, et secundum hoc accipiuntur constitutiones
3101 principum. Aliud vero regimen est aristocratia, idest principatus
3102 optimorum, vel optimatum, et secundum hoc sumuntur responsa
3103 prudentum, et etiam senatusconsulta. Aliud regimen est oligarchia,
3104 idest principatus paucorum divitum et potentum, et secundum hoc
3105 sumitur ius praetorium, quod etiam honorarium dicitur. Aliud autem
3106 regimen est populi, quod nominatur democratia, et secundum hoc
3107 sumuntur plebiscita. Aliud autem est tyrannicum, quod est omnino
3108 corruptum, unde ex hoc non sumitur aliqua lex. Est etiam aliquod
3109 regimen ex istis commixtum, quod est optimum, et secundum hoc
3110 sumitur lex, <i>quam maiores natu simul cum plebibus sanxerunt</i>,
3111 ut Isidorus dicit. Quarto vero de ratione legis humanae est quod
3112 sit directiva humanorum actuum. Et secundum hoc, secundum diversa
3113 de quibus leges feruntur, distinguuntur leges, quae interdum ab
3114 auctoribus nominantur, sicut distinguitur lex Iulia de adulteriis,
3115 lex Cornelia de sicariis, et sic de aliis, non propter auctores,
3116 sed propter res de quibus sunt.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q95_A4-p11">
3117 <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
3118 the natural law by way of a conclusion that is not very remote from its premises. Wherefore men easily agreed thereto. Nevertheless
3119 it is distinct from the natural law, especially it is distinct from the natural law which is common to all animals.
3120 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 95 a. 4 ad 1"><a name="37660" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37660] Iª-IIae q. 95 a. 4 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
3121 ergo dicendum quod ius gentium est quidem aliquo modo naturale
3122 homini, secundum quod est rationalis, inquantum derivatur a lege
3123 naturali per modum conclusionis quae non est multum remota a
3124 principiis. Unde de facili in huiusmodi homines consenserunt.
3125 Distinguitur tamen a lege naturali, maxime ab eo quod est omnibus
3126 animalibus communis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q95_A4-p12">
3127 <b>Reply to Objections 2--4:</b> The Replies to the other Objections are evident from what has been said.</p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 95 a. 4 ad 2"><a name="37661" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37661] Iª-IIae q. 95 a. 4 ad 2</span></a> Ad alia patet
3128 responsio ex his quae dicta sunt.</p></div></div></div></div>
3129 <div id="FS_Q96" class="div3">
3130 <h3 id="FS_Q96-p0.1">Q. 96. OF THE POWER OF HUMAN LAW (SIX ARTICLES)</h3>
3131 <div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="div4">
3132 <p id="FS_Q96-p2"> We must now consider the power of human law. Under this head there are six points of inquiry:</p><p id="FS_Q96-p3"><a href="#FS_Q96_A1"> (1) Whether human law should be framed for the community?</a></p><p id="FS_Q96-p4"><a href="#FS_Q96_A2"> (2) Whether human law should repress all vices?</a></p><p id="FS_Q96-p5"><a href="#FS_Q96_A3"> (3) Whether human law is competent to direct all acts of virtue?</a></p><p id="FS_Q96-p6"><a href="#FS_Q96_A4"> (4) Whether it binds man in conscience?</a></p><p id="FS_Q96-p7"><a href="#FS_Q96_A5"> (5) Whether all men are subject to human law?</a></p><p id="FS_Q96-p8"><a href="#FS_Q96_A6"> (6) Whether those who are under the law may act beside the letter of the law?</a></p>
3133 </div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 pr."><a name="37662" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37662]
3134 Iª-IIae q. 96 pr.</span></a> Deinde considerandum est de
3135 potestate legis humanae. Et circa hoc quaeruntur sex. Primo, utrum
3136 lex humana debeat poni in communi. Secundo, utrum lex humana debeat
3137 omnia vitia cohibere. Tertio, utrum omnium virtutum actus habeat
3138 ordinare. Quarto, utrum imponat homini necessitatem quantum ad
3139 forum conscientiae. Quinto, utrum omnes homines legi humanae
3140 subdantur. Sexto, utrum his qui sunt sub lege, liceat agere praeter
3141 verba legis.</p></div></div></div>
3142 <div id="FS_Q96_A1" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q96_A1-p0.1">Q. 96. A. 1. Whether human law should be framed for the community rather than for the individual?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A1-p2">
3143 <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
3144 (Ethic. v, 7) that "the legal just . . . includes all particular acts of legislation . . . and all those matters which are
3145 the subject of decrees," which are also individual matters, since decrees are framed about individual actions. Therefore law
3146 is framed not only for the community, but also for the individual.
3147 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 1 arg. 1"><a name="37663" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37663] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 1 arg. 1</span></a> Ad primum
3148 sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex humana non debeat poni in communi,
3149 sed magis in particulari. Dicit enim philosophus, in V Ethic., quod
3150 <i>legalia sunt quaecumque in singularibus lege ponunt; et etiam
3151 sententialia</i>, quae sunt etiam singularia, quia de singularibus
3152 actibus sententiae feruntur. Ergo lex non solum ponitur in communi,
3153 sed etiam in singulari.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A1-p3">
3154 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, law is the director of human acts, as stated above (
3155 <a href="#FS_Q90_A1" id="FS_Q96_A1-p3.1" shape="rect">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
3156 for the individual.
3157 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 1 arg. 2"><a name="37664" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37664] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 1 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
3158 lex est directiva humanorum actuum, ut supra dictum est. Sed humani
3159 actus in singularibus consistunt. Ergo leges humanae non debent in
3160 universali ferri, sed magis in singulari.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A1-p4">
3161 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, law is a rule and measure of human acts, as stated above (
3162 <a href="#FS_Q90_A1" id="FS_Q96_A1-p4.1" shape="rect">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
3163 be so certain as not to fail in some individual cases, it seems that laws should be framed not in general but for individual
3164 cases.
3165 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 1 arg. 3"><a name="37665" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37665] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 1 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
3166 lex est regula et mensura humanorum actuum, ut supra dictum est.
3167 Sed mensura debet esse certissima, ut dicitur in X Metaphys. Cum
3168 ergo in actibus humanis non possit esse aliquod universale certum,
3169 quin in particularibus deficiat; videtur quod necesse sit leges non
3170 in universali, sed in singulari poni.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A1-p5">
3171 <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
3172 of instances; and they are not framed according to what may possibly happen in an individual case."
3173 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 1 s. c."><a name="37666" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37666] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 1 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
3174 est quod iurisperitus dicit, quod <i>iura constitui oportet in his
3175 quae saepius accidunt, ex his autem quae forte uno casu accidere
3176 possunt, iura non constituuntur</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A1-p6">
3177 <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
3178 (Etym. v, 21) that "law should be framed, not for any private benefit, but for the common good of all the citizens." Hence
3179 human laws should be proportionate to the common good. Now the common good comprises many things. Wherefore law should take
3180 account of many things, as to persons, as to matters, and as to times. Because the
3181 community of the state is composed of many persons; and its good is procured by many actions; nor is it established to endure
3182 for only a short time, but to last for all time by the citizens succeeding one another, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ii,
3183 21; xxii, 6).
3184 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 1 co."><a name="37667" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37667] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 1 co.</span></a> Respondeo
3185 dicendum quod unumquodque quod est propter finem, necesse est quod
3186 sit fini proportionatum. Finis autem legis est bonum commune, quia,
3187 ut Isidorus dicit, in libro Etymol., <i>nullo privato commodo, sed
3188 pro communi utilitate civium lex debet esse conscripta</i>. Unde
3189 oportet leges humanas esse proportionatas ad bonum commune. Bonum
3190 autem commune constat ex multis. Et ideo oportet quod lex ad multa
3191 respiciat, et secundum personas, et secundum negotia, et secundum
3192 tempora. Constituitur enim communitas civitatis ex multis personis;
3193 et eius bonum per multiplices actiones procuratur; nec ad hoc solum
3194 instituitur quod aliquo modico tempore duret, sed quod omni tempore
3195 perseveret per civium successionem, ut Augustinus dicit, in XXII de
3196 Civ. Dei.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A1-p7">
3197 <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
3198 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
3199 of indifference, but which, when enacted, is so no longer": as the fixing of the ransom of a captive. Some things affect the
3200 community in one respect, and individuals in another. These are called
3201 "privileges," i.e. "private laws," as it were, because they regard private persons, although their power extends to many matters;
3202 and in regard to these, he adds, "and further, all particular acts of legislation." Other matters are legal, not through being
3203 laws, but through being applications of general laws to particular cases: such are decrees which have the force of law; and
3204 in regard to these, he adds "all matters subject to decrees."
3205 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 1 ad 1"><a name="37668" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37668] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 1 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
3206 ergo dicendum quod philosophus in V Ethic. ponit tres partes iusti
3207 legalis, quod est ius positivum. Sunt enim quaedam quae simpliciter
3208 in communi ponuntur. Et haec sunt leges communes. Et quantum ad
3209 huiusmodi, dicit quod <i>legale est quod ex principio quidem nihil
3210 differt sic vel aliter, quando autem ponitur, differt</i>, puta
3211 quod captivi statuto pretio redimantur. Quaedam vero sunt quae sunt
3212 communia quantum ad aliquid, et singularia quantum ad aliquid. Et
3213 huiusmodi dicuntur privilegia, quasi leges privatae, quia
3214 respiciunt singulares personas, et tamen potestas eorum extenditur
3215 ad multa negotia. Et quantum ad hoc, subdit, <i>adhuc quaecumque in
3216 singularibus lege ponunt</i>. Dicuntur etiam quaedam legalia, non
3217 quia sint leges, sed propter applicationem legum communium ad
3218 aliqua particularia facta; sicut sunt sententiae, quae pro iure
3219 habentur. Et quantum ad hoc, subdit, et sententialia.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A1-p8">
3220 <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
3221 belonging to one genus, are measured by one, which is the principle in that genus. For if there were as many rules or measures
3222 as there are things measured or ruled, they would cease to be of use, since their use consists in being applicable to many
3223 things. Hence law would be of no use, if it did not extend further than to one
3224 single act. Because the decrees than to one single act. Because the decrees of prudent men are made for the purpose of directing
3225 individual actions; whereas law is a general precept, as stated above (
3226 <a href="#FS_Q92_A2" id="FS_Q96_A1-p8.1" shape="rect">Q[92], A[2]</a>, OBJ[2]).
3227 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 1 ad 2"><a name="37669" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37669] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 1 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
3228 dicendum quod illud quod est directivum, oportet esse plurium
3229 directivum, unde in X Metaphys., philosophus dicit quod omnia quae
3230 sunt unius generis, mensurantur aliquo uno, quod est primum in
3231 genere illo. Si enim essent tot regulae vel mensurae quot sunt
3232 mensurata vel regulata, cessaret utilitas regulae vel mensurae,
3233 quae est ut ex uno multa possint cognosci. Et ita nulla esset
3234 utilitas legis, si non se extenderet nisi ad unum singularem actum.
3235 Ad singulares enim actus dirigendos dantur singularia praecepta
3236 prudentium, sed lex est praeceptum commune, ut supra dictum
3237 est.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A1-p9">
3238 <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
3239 natural and human things, it is enough for a thing to be certain, as being true in the greater number of instances, though
3240 at times and less frequently it fail.
3241 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 1 ad 3"><a name="37670" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37670] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 1 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
3242 dicendum quod non est eadem certitudo quaerenda in omnibus, ut in I
3243 Ethic. dicitur. Unde in rebus contingentibus, sicut sunt naturalia
3244 et res humanae, sufficit talis certitudo ut aliquid sit verum ut in
3245 pluribus, licet interdum deficiat in paucioribus.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q96_A2" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q96_A2-p0.1">Q. 96. A. 2. Whether it belongs to the human law to repress all vices?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A2-p2">
3246 <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
3247 that, in fear thereof, man's audacity might be held in check." But it would not be held in check sufficiently, unless all
3248 evils were repressed by law. Therefore human laws should repress all evils.
3249 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 2 arg. 1"><a name="37671" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37671] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 2 arg. 1</span></a> Ad secundum
3250 sic proceditur. Videtur quod ad legem humanam pertineat omnia vitia
3251 cohibere. Dicit enim Isidorus, in libro Etymol., quod <i>leges sunt
3252 factae ut earum metu coerceatur audacia</i>. Non autem sufficienter
3253 coerceretur, nisi quaelibet mala cohiberentur per legem. Ergo lex
3254 humana debet quaelibet mala cohibere.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A2-p3">
3255 <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
3256 all kinds of vice. Therefore it belongs to human law to repress all vices.
3257 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 2 arg. 2"><a name="37672" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37672] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 2 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
3258 intentio legislatoris est cives facere virtuosos. Sed non potest
3259 esse aliquis virtuosus, nisi ab omnibus vitiis compescatur. Ergo ad
3260 legem humanam pertinet omnia vitia compescere.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A2-p4">
3261 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, human law is derived from the natural law, as stated above (
3262 <a href="#FS_Q95_A2" id="FS_Q96_A2-p4.1" shape="rect">Q[95], A[2]</a>). But all vices are contrary to the law of nature. Therefore human law should repress all vices.
3263 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 2 arg. 3"><a name="37673" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37673] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 2 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
3264 lex humana a lege naturali derivatur, ut supra dictum est. Sed
3265 omnia vitia repugnant legi naturae. Ergo lex humana omnia vitia
3266 debet cohibere.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A2-p5">
3267 <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
3268 these things, and that Divine providence punishes them." But Divine providence punishes nothing but vices. Therefore human
3269 law rightly allows some vices, by not repressing them.
3270 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 2 s. c."><a name="37674" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37674] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 2 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
3271 est quod dicitur in I de Lib. Arb., <i>videtur mihi legem istam
3272 quae populo regendo scribitur, recte ista permittere, et divinam
3273 providentiam vindicare</i>. Sed divina providentia non vindicat
3274 nisi vitia. Ergo recte lex humana permittit aliqua vitia, non
3275 cohibendo ipsa.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q96_A2-p6">
3276 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
3277 <a href="#FS_Q90_A1" id="FS_Q96_A2-p6.1" shape="rect">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
3278 stated in Metaph. x, text. 3,4, since different things are measured by different measures. Wherefore laws imposed on men should
3279 also be in keeping with their condition, for, as Isidore says (Etym. v, 21), law should be "possible both according to nature,
3280 and according to the customs
3281 of the country." Now possibility or faculty of action is due to an interior habit or disposition: since the same thing is
3282 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
3283 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
3284 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
3285 to
3286 men not perfect in virtue, which would be intolerable in a virtuous man.
3287 </p><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
3288 do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for
3289 the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society
3290 could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like.
3291 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 2 co."><a name="37675" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37675] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 2 co.</span></a> Respondeo
3292 dicendum quod, sicut iam dictum est, lex ponitur ut quaedam regula
3293 vel mensura humanorum actuum. Mensura autem debet esse homogenea
3294 mensurato, ut dicitur in X Metaphys., diversa enim diversis
3295 mensuris mensurantur. Unde oportet quod etiam leges imponantur
3296 hominibus secundum eorum conditionem, quia, ut Isidorus dicit.
3297 <i>Lex debet esse possibilis et secundum naturam, et secundum
3298 consuetudinem patriae</i>. Potestas autem sive facultas operandi ex
3299 interiori habitu seu dispositione procedit, non enim idem est
3300 possibile ei qui non habet habitum virtutis, et virtuoso; sicut
3301 etiam non est idem possibile puero et viro perfecto. Et propter hoc
3302 non ponitur eadem lex pueris quae ponitur adultis, multa enim
3303 pueris permittuntur quae in adultis lege puniuntur, vel etiam
3304 vituperantur. Et similiter multa sunt permittenda hominibus non
3305 perfectis virtute, quae non essent toleranda in hominibus
3306 virtuosis. Lex autem humana ponitur multitudini hominum, in qua
3307 maior pars est hominum non perfectorum virtute. Et ideo lege humana
3308 non prohibentur omnia vitia, a quibus virtuosi abstinent; sed solum
3309 graviora, a quibus possibile est maiorem partem multitudinis
3310 abstinere; et praecipue quae sunt in nocumentum aliorum, sine
3311 quorum prohibitione societas humana conservari non posset, sicut
3312 prohibentur lege humana homicidia et furta et huiusmodi.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A2-p8">
3313 <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
3314 is injured: and these sins are forbidden by human law, as stated.
3315 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 2 ad 1"><a name="37676" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37676] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 2 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
3316 ergo dicendum quod audacia pertinere videtur ad invasionem aliorum.
3317 Unde praecipue pertinet ad illa peccata quibus iniuria proximis
3318 irrogatur; quae lege humana prohibentur, ut dictum est.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A2-p9">
3319 <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
3320 of imperfect men the burdens of those who are already virtuous, viz. that they should abstain from all evil. Otherwise these
3321 imperfect ones, being unable to bear such precepts, would break out into yet greater evils: thus it is written (
3322 <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";
3323 and (
3324 <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,
3325 and the wine runneth out," i.e. the precepts are despised, and those men, from contempt, break into evils worse still.
3326 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 2 ad 2"><a name="37677" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37677] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 2 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
3327 dicendum quod lex humana intendit homines inducere ad virtutem, non
3328 subito, sed gradatim. Et ideo non statim multitudini imperfectorum
3329 imponit ea quae sunt iam virtuosorum, ut scilicet ab omnibus malis
3330 abstineant. Alioquin imperfecti, huiusmodi praecepta ferre non
3331 valentes, in deteriora mala prorumperent, sicut dicitur Prov. XXX,
3332 <i>qui nimis emungit, elicit sanguinem</i>; et Matth. IX dicitur
3333 quod, si vinum novum, idest praecepta perfectae vitae, mittatur in
3334 utres veteres, idest in homines imperfectos, utres rumpuntur, et
3335 vinum effunditur, idest, praecepta contemnuntur, et homines ex
3336 contemptu ad peiora mala prorumpunt.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A2-p10">
3337 <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
3338 says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5): "The law which is framed for the government of states, allows and leaves unpunished many things
3339 that are punished by Divine providence. Nor, if this law does not attempt to do everything, is this a reason why it should
3340 be blamed for what it does." Wherefore, too, human law does not prohibit everything
3341 that is forbidden by the natural law.
3342 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 2 ad 3"><a name="37678" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37678] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 2 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
3343 dicendum quod lex naturalis est quaedam participatio legis aeternae
3344 in nobis, lex autem humana deficit a lege aeterna. Dicit enim
3345 Augustinus, in I de Lib. Arb., <i>lex ista quae regendis
3346 civitatibus fertur, multa concedit atque impunita relinquit, quae
3347 per divinam providentiam vindicantur. Neque enim quia non omnia
3348 facit, ideo quae facit, improbanda sunt</i>. Unde etiam lex humana
3349 non omnia potest prohibere quae prohibet lex naturae.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q96_A3" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q96_A3-p0.1">Q. 96. A. 3. Whether human law prescribes acts of all the virtues?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A3-p2">
3350 <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.
3351 But human law does not prohibit all vices, as stated above
3352 <a href="#FS_Q96_A2" id="FS_Q96_A3-p2.1" shape="rect">(A[2])</a>. Therefore neither does it prescribe all acts of virtue.
3353 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 3 arg. 1"><a name="37679" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37679] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 3 arg. 1</span></a> Ad tertium
3354 sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex humana non praecipiat actus omnium
3355 virtutum. Actibus enim virtutum opponuntur actus vitiosi. Sed lex
3356 humana non prohibet omnia vitia, ut dictum est. Ergo etiam non
3357 praecipit actus omnium virtutum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A3-p3">
3358 <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
3359 under a precept of law. Therefore human law does not prescribe all acts of virtue.
3360 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 3 arg. 2"><a name="37680" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37680] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 3 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
3361 actus virtutis a virtute procedit. Sed virtus est finis legis, et
3362 ita quod est ex virtute, sub praecepto legis cadere non potest.
3363 Ergo lex humana non praecipit actus omnium virtutum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A3-p4">
3364 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, law is ordained to the common good, as stated above (
3365 <a href="#FS_Q90_A2" id="FS_Q96_A3-p4.1" shape="rect">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
3366 all acts of virtue.
3367 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 3 arg. 3"><a name="37681" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37681] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 3 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
3368 lex ordinatur ad bonum commune, ut dictum est. Sed quidam actus
3369 virtutum non ordinantur ad bonum commune, sed ad bonum privatum.
3370 Ergo lex non praecipit actus omnium virtutum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A3-p5">
3371 <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
3372 of the temperate man . . . and the acts of the meek man: and in like manner as regards the other virtues and vices, prescribing
3373 the former, forbidding the latter."
3374 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 3 s. c."><a name="37682" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37682] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 3 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
3375 est quod philosophus dicit, in V Ethic., quod <i>praecipit lex
3376 fortis opera facere, et quae temperati, et quae mansueti; similiter
3377 autem secundum alias virtutes et malitias, haec quidem iubens, haec
3378 autem prohibens</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A3-p6">
3379 <b>I answer that,</b> The species of virtues are distinguished by their objects, as explained above (
3380 <a href="FS_iv.html#FS_Q54_A2" id="FS_Q96_A3-p6.1" shape="rect">Q[54], A[2]</a>;
3381 <a href="FS_v.html#FS_Q60_A1" id="FS_Q96_A3-p6.2" shape="rect"> Q[60], A[1]</a>;
3382 <a href="FS_v.html#FS_Q62_A2" id="FS_Q96_A3-p6.3" shape="rect"> 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
3383 multitude: thus matters of fortitude may be achieved either for the safety of the state, or for upholding the rights of a
3384 friend, and in like
3385 manner with the other virtues. But law, as stated above (
3386 <a href="#FS_Q90_A2" id="FS_Q96_A3-p6.4" shape="rect">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
3387 law does not prescribe concerning all the acts of every virtue: but only in regard to those that are ordainable to the common
3388 good---either immediately, as when certain things are done directly for the common good---or mediately, as when a lawgiver
3389 prescribes certain things
3390 pertaining to good order, whereby the citizens are directed in the upholding of the common good of justice and peace.
3391 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 3 co."><a name="37683" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37683] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 3 co.</span></a> Respondeo
3392 dicendum quod species virtutum distinguuntur secundum obiecta, ut
3393 ex supradictis patet. Omnia autem obiecta virtutum referri possunt
3394 vel ad bonum privatum alicuius personae, vel ad bonum commune
3395 multitudinis, sicut ea quae sunt fortitudinis potest aliquis exequi
3396 vel propter conservationem civitatis, vel ad conservandum ius amici
3397 sui; et simile est in aliis. Lex autem, ut dictum est, ordinatur ad
3398 bonum commune. Et ideo nulla virtus est de cuius actibus lex
3399 praecipere non possit. Non tamen de omnibus actibus omnium virtutum
3400 lex humana praecipit, sed solum de illis qui sunt ordinabiles ad
3401 bonum commune, vel immediate, sicut cum aliqua directe propter
3402 bonum commune fiunt; vel mediate, sicut cum aliqua ordinantur a
3403 legislatore pertinentia ad bonam disciplinam, per quam cives
3404 informantur ut commune bonum iustitiae et pacis conservent.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A3-p7">
3405 <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.
3406 But it forbids certain acts of each vice, just as it prescribes some acts of each virtue.
3407 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 3 ad 1"><a name="37684" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37684] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 3 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
3408 ergo dicendum quod lex humana non prohibet omnes actus vitiosos,
3409 secundum obligationem praecepti, sicut nec praecipit omnes actus
3410 virtuosos. Prohibet tamen aliquos actus singulorum vitiorum, sicut
3411 etiam praecipit quosdam actus singularum virtutum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A3-p8">
3412 <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
3413 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
3414 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
3415 act always proceeds from virtue: and it does not come under a precept of law, but is
3416 the end at which every lawgiver aims.
3417 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 3 ad 2"><a name="37685" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37685] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 3 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
3418 dicendum quod aliquis actus dicitur esse virtutis dupliciter. Uno
3419 modo, ex eo quod homo operatur virtuosa, sicut actus iustitiae est
3420 facere recta, et actus fortitudinis facere fortia. Et sic lex
3421 praecipit aliquos actus virtutum. Alio modo dicitur actus virtutis,
3422 quia aliquis operatur virtuosa eo modo quo virtuosus operatur. Et
3423 talis actus semper procedit a virtute, nec cadit sub praecepto
3424 legis, sed est finis ad quem legislator ducere intendit.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A3-p9">
3425 <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.
3426 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 3 ad 3"><a name="37686" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37686] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 3 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
3427 dicendum quod non est aliqua virtus cuius actus non sint
3428 ordinabiles ad bonum commune, ut dictum est, vel mediate vel
3429 immediate.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q96_A4" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q96_A4-p0.1">Q. 96. A. 4. Whether human law binds a man in conscience?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A4-p2">
3430 <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
3431 power. But the power of man, which frames human law, is beneath the Divine power. Therefore human law cannot impose its precept
3432 in a Divine court, such as is the court of conscience.
3433 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 4 arg. 1"><a name="37687" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37687] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 4 arg. 1</span></a> Ad quartum
3434 sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex humana non imponat homini
3435 necessitatem in foro conscientiae. Inferior enim potestas non
3436 potest imponere legem in iudicio superioris potestatis. Sed
3437 potestas hominis, quae fert legem humanam, est infra potestatem
3438 divinam. Ergo lex humana non potest imponere legem quantum ad
3439 iudicium divinum, quod est iudicium conscientiae.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A4-p3">
3440 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the judgment of conscience depends chiefly on the commandments of God. But sometimes God's commandments are made
3441 void by human laws, according to
3442 <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.
3443 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 4 arg. 2"><a name="37688" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37688] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 4 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
3444 iudicium conscientiae maxime dependet ex divinis mandatis. Sed
3445 quandoque divina mandata evacuantur per leges humanas; secundum
3446 illud Matth. XV, <i>irritum fecistis mandatum Dei propter
3447 traditiones vestras</i>. Ergo lex humana non imponit necessitatem
3448 homini quantum ad conscientiam.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A4-p4">
3449 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, human laws often bring loss of character and injury on man, according to
3450 <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
3451 violence to the cause of the humble of My people." But it is lawful for anyone to avoid oppression and violence. Therefore
3452 human laws do not bind man in conscience.
3453 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 4 arg. 3"><a name="37689" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37689] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 4 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
3454 leges humanae frequenter ingerunt calumniam et iniuriam hominibus;
3455 secundum illud Isaiae X, <i>vae qui condunt leges iniquas, et
3456 scribentes iniustitias scripserunt, ut opprimerent in iudicio
3457 pauperes, et vim facerent causae humilium populi mei</i>. Sed
3458 licitum est unicuique oppressionem et violentiam evitare. Ergo
3459 leges humanae non imponunt necessitatem homini quantum ad
3460 conscientiam.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A4-p5">
3461 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
3462 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q96_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#iPet.2.19" target="asv">1 Pet.
3463 2:19
3464 </a>): "This is thankworthy, if for conscience . . . a man endure sorrows, suffering wrongfully."
3465 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 4 s. c."><a name="37690" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37690] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 4 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
3466 est quod dicitur I Petr. II, <i>haec est gratia, si propter
3467 conscientiam sustineat quis tristitias, patiens iniuste</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q96_A4-p6">
3468 <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
3469 law whence they are derived, according to
3470 <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
3471 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
3472 of the
3473 lawgiver---and from their form, when, to wit, burdens are laid on the subjects, according to an equality of proportion and
3474 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
3475 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
3476 order to save the whole: so that on this account, such laws as these, which impose proportionate burdens, are just and binding
3477 in
3478 conscience, and are legal laws.
3479 </p><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
3480 mentioned above---either in respect of the end, as when an authority imposes on his subjects burdensome laws, conducive, not
3481 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
3482 goes beyond the power committed to him---or in respect of the form, as when burdens are imposed unequally
3483 on the community, although with a view to the common good. The like are acts of violence rather than laws; because, as Augustine
3484 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,
3485 except perhaps in order to avoid scandal or disturbance, for which cause a man should even yield his right, according to
3486 <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
3487 force thee one mile, go with him other two."
3488 </p><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,
3489 or to anything else contrary to the Divine law: and laws of this kind must nowise be observed, because, as stated in
3490 <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."
3491 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 4 co."><a name="37691" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37691] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 4 co.</span></a> Respondeo
3492 dicendum quod leges positae humanitus vel sunt iustae, vel
3493 iniustae. Si quidem iustae sint, habent vim obligandi in foro
3494 conscientiae a lege aeterna, a qua derivantur; secundum illud Prov.
3495 VIII, <i>per me reges regnant, et legum conditores iusta
3496 decernunt</i>. Dicuntur autem leges iustae et ex fine, quando
3497 scilicet ordinantur ad bonum commune; et ex auctore, quando
3498 scilicet lex lata non excedit potestatem ferentis; et ex forma,
3499 quando scilicet secundum aequalitatem proportionis imponuntur
3500 subditis onera in ordine ad bonum commune. Cum enim unus homo sit
3501 pars multitudinis, quilibet homo hoc ipsum quod est et quod habet,
3502 est multitudinis, sicut et quaelibet pars id quod est, est totius.
3503 Unde et natura aliquod detrimentum infert parti, ut salvet totum.
3504 Et secundum hoc, leges huiusmodi, onera proportionabiliter
3505 inferentes, iustae sunt, et obligant in foro conscientiae, et sunt
3506 leges legales. Iniustae autem sunt leges dupliciter. Uno modo, per
3507 contrarietatem ad bonum humanum, e contrario praedictis, vel ex
3508 fine, sicut cum aliquis praesidens leges imponit onerosas subditis
3509 non pertinentes ad utilitatem communem, sed magis ad propriam
3510 cupiditatem vel gloriam; vel etiam ex auctore, sicut cum aliquis
3511 legem fert ultra sibi commissam potestatem; vel etiam ex forma,
3512 puta cum inaequaliter onera multitudini dispensantur, etiam si
3513 ordinentur ad bonum commune. Et huiusmodi magis sunt violentiae
3514 quam leges, quia, sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro de Lib. Arb.,
3515 <i>lex esse non videtur, quae iusta non fuerit</i>. Unde tales
3516 leges non obligant in foro conscientiae, nisi forte propter
3517 vitandum scandalum vel turbationem, propter quod etiam homo iuri
3518 suo debet cedere, secundum illud Matth. V, <i>qui angariaverit te
3519 mille passus, vade cum eo alia duo; et qui abstulerit tibi tunicam,
3520 da ei et pallium</i>. Alio modo leges possunt esse iniustae per
3521 contrarietatem ad bonum divinum, sicut leges tyrannorum inducentes
3522 ad idololatriam, vel ad quodcumque aliud quod sit contra legem
3523 divinam. Et tales leges nullo modo licet observare, quia sicut
3524 dicitur Act. V, <i>obedire oportet Deo magis quam
3525 hominibus</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A4-p9">
3526 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As the Apostle says (
3527 <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
3528 the ordinance of God"; so that he becomes guilty according to his conscience.
3529 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 4 ad 1"><a name="37692" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37692] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 4 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
3530 ergo dicendum quod, sicut apostolus dicit, ad Rom. XIII, <i>omnis
3531 potestas humana a Deo est, et ideo qui potestati resistit</i>, in
3532 his quae ad ordinem potestatis pertinent, Dei ordinationi resistit.
3533 Et secundum hoc efficitur reus quantum ad conscientiam.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A4-p10">
3534 <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
3535 in such matters human law should not be obeyed.
3536 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 4 ad 2"><a name="37693" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37693] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 4 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
3537 dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de legibus humanis quae
3538 ordinantur contra Dei mandatum. Et ad hoc ordo potestatis non se
3539 extendit. Unde in talibus legi humanae non est parendum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A4-p11">
3540 <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
3541 to this: wherefore neither in such matters is man bound to obey the law, provided he avoid giving scandal or inflicting a
3542 more grievous hurt.
3543 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 4 ad 3"><a name="37694" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37694] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 4 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
3544 dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de lege quae infert gravamen
3545 iniustum subditis, ad quod etiam ordo potestatis divinitus
3546 concessus non se extendit. Unde nec in talibus homo obligatur ut
3547 obediat legi, si sine scandalo vel maiori detrimento resistere
3548 possit.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q96_A5" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q96_A5-p0.1">Q. 96. A. 5. Whether all are subject to the law?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A5-p2">
3549 <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
3550 says (
3551 <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.
3552 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 5 arg. 1"><a name="37695" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37695] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 5 arg. 1</span></a> Ad quintum
3553 sic proceditur. Videtur quod non omnes legi subiiciantur. Illi enim
3554 soli subiiciuntur legi, quibus lex ponitur. Sed apostolus dicit, I
3555 ad Tim. I, quod <i>iusto non est lex posita</i>. Ergo iusti non
3556 subiiciuntur legi humanae.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A5-p3">
3557 <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
3558 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
3559 it is said (
3560 <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.
3561 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 5 arg. 2"><a name="37696" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37696] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 5 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
3562 Urbanus Papa dicit, et habetur in decretis, XIX qu. II, <i>qui lege
3563 privata ducitur, nulla ratio exigit ut publica constringatur</i>.
3564 Lege autem privata spiritus sancti ducuntur omnes viri spirituales,
3565 qui sunt filii Dei; secundum illud Rom. VIII, <i>qui spiritu Dei
3566 aguntur, hi filii Dei sunt</i>. Ergo non omnes homines legi humanae
3567 subiiciuntur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A5-p4">
3568 <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."
3569 But he that is exempt from the law is not bound thereby. Therefore not all are subject to the law.
3570 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 5 arg. 3"><a name="37697" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37697] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 5 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
3571 iurisperitus dicit quod princeps legibus solutus est. Qui autem est
3572 solutus a lege, non subditur legi. Ergo non omnes subiecti sunt
3573 legi.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A5-p5">
3574 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
3575 <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
3576 by that power. Therefore all men should be subject to human law.
3577 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 5 s. c."><a name="37698" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37698] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 5 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
3578 est quod apostolus dicit, Rom. XIII, <i>omnis anima potestatibus
3579 sublimioribus subdita sit</i>. Sed non videtur esse subditus
3580 potestati, qui non subiicitur legi quam fert potestas. Ergo omnes
3581 homines debent esse legi humanae subiecti.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q96_A5-p6">
3582 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
3583 <a href="#FS_Q90_A1" id="FS_Q96_A5-p6.1" shape="rect">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
3584 power. Wherefore a man may be subject to law in two ways. First, as the regulated is subject to the regulator: and, in this
3585 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
3586 not subject to a power. In one way,
3587 by being altogether free from its authority: hence the subjects of one city or kingdom are not bound by the laws of the sovereign
3588 of another city or kingdom, since they are not subject to his authority. In another way, by being under a yet higher law;
3589 thus the subject of a proconsul should be ruled by his command, but not in those matters in which the subject receives his
3590 orders from the emperor: for in these matters, he is not bound by the mandate of the lower authority, since he is directed
3591 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
3592 respect of which he is ruled by a higher law.
3593 </p><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
3594 are not subject to the law, but only the wicked. Because coercion and violence are contrary to the will: but the will of the
3595 good is in harmony with the law, whereas the will of the wicked is discordant from it. Wherefore in this sense the good are
3596 not subject to the law, but only the wicked.
3597 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 5 co."><a name="37699" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37699] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 5 co.</span></a> Respondeo
3598 dicendum quod, sicut ex supradictis patet, lex de sui ratione duo
3599 habet, primo quidem, quod est regula humanorum actuum; secundo,
3600 quod habet vim coactivam. Dupliciter ergo aliquis homo potest esse
3601 legi subiectus. Uno modo, sicut regulatum regulae. Et hoc modo
3602 omnes illi qui subduntur potestati, subduntur legi quam fert
3603 potestas. Quod autem aliquis potestati non subdatur, potest
3604 contingere dupliciter. Uno modo, quia est simpliciter absolutus ab
3605 eius subiectione. Unde illi qui sunt de una civitate vel regno, non
3606 subduntur legibus principis alterius civitatis vel regni, sicut nec
3607 eius dominio. Alio modo, secundum quod regitur superiori lege. Puta
3608 si aliquis subiectus sit proconsuli, regulari debet eius mandato,
3609 non tamen in his quae dispensantur ei ab imperatore, quantum enim
3610 ad illa, non adstringitur mandato inferioris, cum superiori mandato
3611 dirigatur. Et secundum hoc contingit quod aliquis simpliciter
3612 subiectus legi, secundum aliqua legi non adstringitur, secundum
3613 quae regitur superiori lege. Alio vero modo dicitur aliquis subdi
3614 legi sicut coactum cogenti. Et hoc modo homines virtuosi et iusti
3615 non subduntur legi, sed soli mali. Quod enim est coactum et
3616 violentum, est contrarium voluntati. Voluntas autem bonorum
3617 consonat legi, a qua malorum voluntas discordat. Et ideo secundum
3618 hoc boni non sunt sub lege, sed solum mali.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A5-p8">
3619 <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
3620 "they are a law to themselves," since they "show the work of the law written in their hearts," as the Apostle says (
3621 <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.
3622 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 5 ad 1"><a name="37700" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37700] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 5 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
3623 ergo dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de subiectione quae est per
3624 modum coactionis. Sic enim iusto non est lex posita, quia ipsi sibi
3625 sunt lex, dum ostendunt opus legis scriptum in cordibus suis, sicut
3626 apostolus, ad Rom. II, dicit. Unde in eos non habet lex vim
3627 coactivam, sicut habet in iniustos.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A5-p9">
3628 <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
3629 of the Holy Ghost, are not subject to the law in those matters that are inconsistent with the guidance of the Holy Ghost.
3630 Nevertheless the very fact that spiritual men are subject to law, is due to the leading of the Holy Ghost, according to
3631 <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
3632 sake."
3633 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 5 ad 2"><a name="37701" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37701] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 5 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
3634 dicendum quod lex spiritus sancti est superior omni lege humanitus
3635 posita. Et ideo viri spirituales, secundum hoc quod lege spiritus
3636 sancti ducuntur, non subduntur legi, quantum ad ea quae repugnant
3637 ductioni spiritus sancti. Sed tamen hoc ipsum est de ductu spiritus
3638 sancti, quod homines spirituales legibus humanis subdantur;
3639 secundum illud I Petr. II, <i>subiecti estote omni humanae
3640 creaturae, propter Deum</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A5-p10">
3641 <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
3642 by himself, and law has no coercive power save from the authority of the sovereign. Thus then is the sovereign said to be
3643 exempt from the law, because none is competent to pass sentence on him, if he acts against the law. Wherefore on
3644 <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
3645 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,
3646 according to the statement (Extra, De Constit. cap. Cum omnes) that "whatever law a man makes for another, he should keep
3647 himself. And a wise authority [*Dionysius Cato, Dist. de Moribus] says: 'Obey the law that thou makest thyself.'" Moreover
3648 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
3649 of
3650 their own they will not move them" (
3651 <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
3652 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
3653 can change the law, and dispense in it according to time and place.
3654 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 5 ad 3"><a name="37702" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37702] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 5 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
3655 dicendum quod princeps dicitur esse solutus a lege, quantum ad vim
3656 coactivam legis, nullus enim proprie cogitur a seipso; lex autem
3657 non habet vim coactivam nisi ex principis potestate. Sic igitur
3658 princeps dicitur esse solutus a lege, quia nullus in ipsum potest
3659 iudicium condemnationis ferre, si contra legem agat. Unde super
3660 illud Psalmi l, <i>tibi soli peccavi</i> etc., dicit Glossa quod
3661 <i>lex non habet hominem qui sua facta diiudicet</i>. Sed quantum
3662 ad vim directivam legis, princeps subditur legi propria voluntate;
3663 secundum quod dicitur extra, de constitutionibus, cap. cum omnes,
3664 <i>quod quisque iuris in alterum statuit, ipse eodem iure uti
3665 debet. Et sapientis dicit auctoritas, patere legem quam ipse
3666 tuleris</i>. Improperatur etiam his a domino qui dicunt et non
3667 faciunt; et qui aliis onera gravia imponunt, et ipsi nec digito
3668 volunt ea movere; ut habetur Matth. XXIII. Unde quantum ad Dei
3669 iudicium, princeps non est solutus a lege, quantum ad vim
3670 directivam eius; sed debet voluntarius, non coactus, legem implere.
3671 Est etiam princeps supra legem, inquantum, si expediens fuerit,
3672 potest legem mutare, et in ea dispensare, pro loco et tempore.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q96_A6" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q96_A6-p0.1">Q. 96. A. 6. Whether he who is under a law may act beside the letter of the law?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A6-p2">
3673 <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):
3674 "Although men judge about temporal laws when they make them, yet when once they are made they must pass judgment not on them,
3675 but according to them." But if anyone disregard the letter of the law, saying that he observes the intention of the lawgiver,
3676 he seems to pass judgment on the law. Therefore it is not right for one who is under the
3677 law to disregard the letter of the law, in order to observe the intention of the lawgiver.
3678 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 6 arg. 1"><a name="37703" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37703] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 6 arg. 1</span></a> Ad sextum
3679 sic proceditur. Videtur quod non liceat ei qui subditur legi,
3680 praeter verba legis agere. Dicit enim Augustinus, in libro de vera
3681 Relig., <i>in temporalibus legibus, quamvis homines iudicent de his
3682 cum eas instituunt, tamen quando fuerint institutae et firmatae,
3683 non licebit de ipsis iudicare, sed secundum ipsas</i>. Sed si
3684 aliquis praetermittat verba legis, dicens se intentionem
3685 legislatoris servare, videtur iudicare de lege. Ergo non licet ei
3686 qui subditur legi, ut praetermittat verba legis, ut intentionem
3687 legislatoris servet.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A6-p3">
3688 <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
3689 the law. Therefore they have no right to interpret the intention of the lawgiver, but should always act according to the letter
3690 of the law.
3691 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 6 arg. 2"><a name="37704" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37704] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 6 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
3692 ad eum solum pertinet leges interpretari, cuius est condere leges.
3693 Sed hominum subditorum legi non est leges condere. Ergo eorum non
3694 est interpretari legislatoris intentionem, sed semper secundum
3695 verba legis agere debent.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A6-p4">
3696 <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:
3697 for Wisdom says (
3698 <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
3699 than by the words of the law.
3700 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 6 arg. 3"><a name="37705" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37705] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 6 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
3701 omnis sapiens intentionem suam verbis novit explicare. Sed illi qui
3702 leges condiderunt, reputari debent sapientes, dicit enim sapientia,
3703 Prov. VIII, <i>per me reges regnant, et legum conditores iusta
3704 decernunt</i>. Ergo de intentione legislatoris non est iudicandum
3705 nisi per verba legis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A6-p5">
3706 <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
3707 subject to speech, but speech to things." Therefore we should take account of the motive of the lawgiver, rather than of his
3708 very words.
3709 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 6 s. c."><a name="37706" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37706] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 6 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
3710 est quod Hilarius dicit, in IV de Trin., <i>intelligentia dictorum
3711 ex causis est assumenda dicendi, quia non sermoni res, sed rei
3712 debet esse sermo subiectus</i>. Ergo magis est attendendum ad
3713 causam quae movit legislatorem, quam ad ipsa verba legis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q96_A6-p6">
3714 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
3715 <a href="#FS_Q96_A4" id="FS_Q96_A6-p6.1" shape="rect">(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
3716 [*Pandect. Justin. lib. i, ff., tit. 3, De Leg. et Senat.]: "By no reason of law, or favor of equity, is it allowable for
3717 us to interpret harshly, and render burdensome, those useful measures which have been enacted for the welfare of man." Now
3718 it happens often that the observance of some
3719 point of law conduces to the common weal in the majority of instances, and yet, in some cases, is very hurtful. Since then
3720 the lawgiver cannot have in view every single case, he shapes the law according to what happens most frequently, by directing
3721 his attention to the common good. Wherefore if a case arise wherein the observance of that law would be hurtful to the general
3722 welfare, it should not be observed. For instance, suppose that in a besieged city it be an established law that the gates
3723 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
3724 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
3725 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
3726 the common weal, which the lawgiver had in view.
3727 </p><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
3728 needing instant remedy, it is not competent for everyone to expound what is useful and what is not useful to the state: those
3729 alone can do this who are in authority, and who, on account of such like cases, have the power to dispense from the laws.
3730 If, however, the peril be so sudden as not to allow of the delay involved by referring the matter to authority,
3731 the mere necessity brings with it a dispensation, since necessity knows no law.
3732 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 6 co."><a name="37707" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37707] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 6 co.</span></a> Respondeo
3733 dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, omnis lex ordinatur ad
3734 communem hominum salutem, et intantum obtinet vim et rationem
3735 legis; secundum vero quod ab hoc deficit, virtutem obligandi non
3736 habet. Unde iurisperitus dicit quod <i>nulla iuris ratio aut
3737 aequitatis benignitas patitur ut quae salubriter pro utilitate
3738 hominum introducuntur, ea nos duriori interpretatione, contra
3739 ipsorum commodum, perducamus ad severitatem</i>. Contingit autem
3740 multoties quod aliquid observari communi saluti est utile ut in
3741 pluribus, quod tamen in aliquibus casibus est maxime nocivum. Quia
3742 igitur legislator non potest omnes singulares casus intueri,
3743 proponit legem secundum ea quae in pluribus accidunt, ferens
3744 intentionem suam ad communem utilitatem. Unde si emergat casus in
3745 quo observatio talis legis sit damnosa communi saluti, non est
3746 observanda. Sicut si in civitate obsessa statuatur lex quod portae
3747 civitatis maneant clausae, hoc est utile communi saluti ut in
3748 pluribus, si tamen contingat casus quod hostes insequantur aliquos
3749 cives, per quos civitas conservatur, damnosissimum esset civitati
3750 nisi eis portae aperirentur, et ideo in tali casu essent portae
3751 aperiendae, contra verba legis, ut servaretur utilitas communis,
3752 quam legislator intendit. Sed tamen hoc est considerandum, quod si
3753 observatio legis secundum verba non habeat subitum periculum, cui
3754 oportet statim occurri, non pertinet ad quemlibet ut interpretetur
3755 quid sit utile civitati et quid inutile, sed hoc solum pertinet ad
3756 principes, qui propter huiusmodi casus habent auctoritatem in
3757 legibus dispensandi. Si vero sit subitum periculum, non patiens
3758 tantam moram ut ad superiorem recurri possit, ipsa necessitas
3759 dispensationem habet annexam, quia necessitas non subditur
3760 legi.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A6-p8">
3761 <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
3762 he sees that the letter of the law is not to be observed.
3763 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 6 ad 1"><a name="37708" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37708] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 6 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
3764 ergo dicendum quod ille qui in casu necessitatis agit praeter verba
3765 legis, non iudicat de ipsa lege, sed iudicat de casu singulari, in
3766 quo videt verba legis observanda non esse.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A6-p9">
3767 <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
3768 reason of the manifest harm, that the lawgiver intended otherwise. For if it be a matter of doubt, he must either act according
3769 to the letter of the law, or consult those in power.
3770 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 6 ad 2"><a name="37709" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37709] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 6 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
3771 dicendum quod ille qui sequitur intentionem legislatoris, non
3772 interpretatur legem simpliciter; sed in casu in quo manifestum est
3773 per evidentiam nocumenti, legislatorem aliud intendisse. Si enim
3774 dubium sit, debet vel secundum verba legis agere, vel superiores
3775 consulere.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q96_A6-p10">
3776 <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
3777 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
3778 into consideration, he ought not to mention them all, in order to avoid confusion: but should frame the law according to that
3779 which is of most common occurrence.
3780 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 96 a. 6 ad 3"><a name="37710" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37710] Iª-IIae q. 96 a. 6 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
3781 dicendum quod nullius hominis sapientia tanta est ut possit omnes
3782 singulares casus excogitare, et ideo non potest sufficienter per
3783 verba sua exprimere ea quae conveniunt ad finem intentum. Et si
3784 posset legislator omnes casus considerare, non oporteret ut omnes
3785 exprimeret, propter confusionem vitandam, sed legem ferre deberet
3786 secundum ea quae in pluribus accidunt.</p></div></div></div></div>
3787 <div id="FS_Q97" class="div3">
3788 <h3 id="FS_Q97-p0.1">Q. 97. OF CHANGE IN LAWS (FOUR ARTICLES) </h3>
3789 <div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="div4">
3790 <p id="FS_Q97-p2"> We must now consider change in laws: under which head there are four points of inquiry:</p><p id="FS_Q97-p3"><a href="#FS_Q97_A1"> (1) Whether human law is changeable?</a></p><p id="FS_Q97-p4"><a href="#FS_Q97_A2"> (2) Whether it should be always changed, whenever anything better occurs?</a></p><p id="FS_Q97-p5"><a href="#FS_Q97_A3"> (3) Whether it is abolished by custom, and whether custom obtains the force of law?</a></p><p id="FS_Q97-p6"><a href="#FS_Q97_A4"> (4) Whether the application of human law should be changed by dispensation of those in authority?</a></p>
3791 </div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 97 pr."><a name="37711" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37711]
3792 Iª-IIae q. 97 pr.</span></a> Deinde considerandum est de
3793 mutatione legum. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum lex
3794 humana sit mutabilis. Secundo, utrum semper debeat mutari, quando
3795 aliquid melius occurrerit. Tertio, utrum per consuetudinem
3796 aboleatur; et utrum consuetudo obtineat vim legis. Quarto, utrum
3797 usus legis humanae per dispensationem rectorum immutari debeat.</p></div></div></div>
3798 <div id="FS_Q97_A1" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q97_A1-p0.1">Q. 97. A. 1. Whether human law should be changed in any way?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q97_A1-p2">
3799 <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,
3800 as stated above (
3801 <a href="#FS_Q95_A2" id="FS_Q97_A1-p2.1" shape="rect">Q[95], A[2]</a>). But the natural law endures unchangeably. Therefore human law should also remain without any change.
3802 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 97 a. 1 arg. 1"><a name="37712" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37712] Iª-IIae q. 97 a. 1 arg. 1</span></a> Ad primum
3803 sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex humana nullo modo debeat mutari.
3804 Lex enim humana derivatur a lege naturali, ut supra dictum est. Sed
3805 lex naturalis immobilis perseverat. Ergo et lex humana debet
3806 immobilis permanere.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q97_A1-p3">
3807 <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
3808 acts, as stated above (
3809 <a href="#FS_Q90_A1" id="FS_Q97_A1-p3.1" shape="rect">Q[90], AA[1]</a>,2). Therefore it should remain without change.
3810 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 97 a. 1 arg. 2"><a name="37713" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37713] Iª-IIae q. 97 a. 1 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
3811 sicut philosophus dicit, in V Ethic., mensura maxime debet esse
3812 permanens. Sed lex humana est mensura humanorum actuum, ut supra
3813 dictum est. Ergo debet immobiliter permanere.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q97_A1-p4">
3814 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is of the essence of law to be just and right, as stated above (
3815 <a href="#FS_Q95_A2" id="FS_Q97_A1-p4.1" shape="rect">Q[95], A[2]</a>). But that which is right once is right always. Therefore that which is law once, should be always law.
3816 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 97 a. 1 arg. 3"><a name="37714" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37714] Iª-IIae q. 97 a. 1 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
3817 de ratione legis est quod sit iusta et recta, ut supra dictum est.
3818 Sed illud quod semel est rectum, semper est rectum. Ergo illud quod
3819 semel est lex, semper debet esse lex.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q97_A1-p5">
3820 <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."
3821 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 97 a. 1 s. c."><a name="37715" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37715] Iª-IIae q. 97 a. 1 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
3822 est quod Augustinus dicit, in I de Lib. Arb., <i>lex temporalis
3823 quamvis iusta sit, commutari tamen per tempora iuste
3824 potest</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q97_A1-p6">
3825 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
3826 <a href="#FS_Q91_A3" id="FS_Q97_A1-p6.1" shape="rect">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
3827 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
3828 of reason is that it seems natural to human reason to advance gradually from the imperfect to the perfect. Hence, in speculative
3829 sciences, we see that the teaching
3830 of the early philosophers was imperfect, and that it was afterwards perfected by those who succeeded them. So also in practical
3831 matters: for those who first endeavored to discover something useful for the human community, not being able by themselves
3832 to take everything into consideration, set up certain institutions which were deficient in many ways; and these were changed
3833 by subsequent lawgivers who made institutions that might prove less frequently deficient in respect of the common weal.
3834 </p><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
3835 man, to whom different things are expedient according to the difference of his condition. An example is proposed by Augustine
3836 (De Lib. Arb. i, 6): "If the people have a sense of moderation and responsibility, and are most careful guardians of the common
3837 weal, it is right to enact a law allowing such a people to choose their own magistrates for the government
3838 of the commonwealth. But if, as time goes on, the same people become so corrupt as to sell their votes, and entrust the government
3839 to scoundrels and criminals; then the right of appointing their public officials is rightly forfeit to such a people, and
3840 the choice devolves to a few good men."
3841 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 97 a. 1 co."><a name="37716" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37716] Iª-IIae q. 97 a. 1 co.</span></a> Respondeo
3842 dicendum quod sicut supra dictum est, lex humana est quoddam
3843 dictamen rationis, quo diriguntur humani actus. Et secundum hoc
3844 duplex causa potest esse quod lex humana iuste mutetur, una quidem
3845 ex parte rationis; alia vero ex parte hominum, quorum actus lege
3846 regulantur. Ex parte quidem rationis, quia humanae rationi naturale
3847 esse videtur ut gradatim ab imperfecto ad perfectum perveniat. Unde
3848 videmus in scientiis speculativis quod qui primo philosophati sunt,
3849 quaedam imperfecta tradiderunt, quae postmodum per posteriores sunt
3850 magis perfecta. Ita etiam est in operabilibus. Nam primi qui
3851 intenderunt invenire aliquid utile communitati hominum, non
3852 valentes omnia ex seipsis considerare, instituerunt quaedam
3853 imperfecta in multis deficientia quae posteriores mutaverunt,
3854 instituentes aliqua quae in paucioribus deficere possent a communi
3855 utilitate. Ex parte vero hominum, quorum actus lege regulantur, lex
3856 recte mutari potest propter mutationem conditionum hominum, quibus
3857 secundum diversas eorum conditiones diversa expediunt. Sicut
3858 Augustinus ponit exemplum, in I de Lib. Arb., quod <i>si populus
3859 sit bene moderatus et gravis, communisque utilitatis
3860 diligentissimus custos, recte lex fertur qua tali populo liceat
3861 creare sibi magistratus, per quos respublica administretur. Porro
3862 si paulatim idem populus depravatus habeat venale suffragium, et
3863 regimen flagitiosis sceleratisque committat; recte adimitur tali
3864 populo potestas dandi honores, et ad paucorum bonorum redit
3865 arbitrium</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q97_A1-p8">
3866 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The natural law is a participation of the eternal law, as stated above (
3867 <a href="#FS_Q91_A2" id="FS_Q97_A1-p8.1" shape="rect">Q[91], A[2]</a>), and therefore endures without change, owing to the unchangeableness and perfection of the Divine Reason, the Author of
3868 nature. But the reason of man is changeable and imperfect: wherefore his law is subject to change. Moreover the natural law
3869 contains certain universal precepts, which are everlasting: whereas human law contains certain
3870 particular precepts, according to various emergencies.
3871 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 97 a. 1 ad 1"><a name="37717" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37717] Iª-IIae q. 97 a. 1 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
3872 ergo dicendum quod naturalis lex est participatio quaedam legis
3873 aeternae, ut supra dictum est, et ideo immobilis perseverat, quod
3874 habet ex immobilitate et perfectione divinae rationis instituentis
3875 naturam. Sed ratio humana mutabilis est et imperfecta. Et ideo eius
3876 lex mutabilis est. Et praeterea lex naturalis continet quaedam
3877 universalia praecepta, quae semper manent, lex vero posita ab
3878 homine continet praecepta quaedam particularia, secundum diversos
3879 casus qui emergunt.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q97_A1-p9">
3880 <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.
3881 And therefore human law cannot be altogether unchangeable.
3882 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 97 a. 1 ad 2"><a name="37718" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37718] Iª-IIae q. 97 a. 1 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
3883 dicendum quod mensura debet esse permanens quantum est possibile.
3884 Sed in rebus mutabilibus non potest esse aliquid omnino
3885 immutabiliter permanens. Et ideo lex humana non potest esse omnino
3886 immutabilis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q97_A1-p10">
3887 <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
3888 right is predicated of law with reference to the common weal, to which one and the same thing is not always adapted, as stated
3889 above: wherefore rectitude of this kind is subject to change.
3890 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 97 a. 1 ad 3"><a name="37719" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37719] Iª-IIae q. 97 a. 1 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
3891 dicendum quod rectum in rebus corporalibus dicitur absolute, et
3892 ideo semper, quantum est de se, manet rectum. Sed rectitudo legis
3893 dicitur in ordine ad utilitatem communem, cui non semper
3894 proportionatur una eademque res, sicut supra dictum est. Et ideo
3895 talis rectitudo mutatur.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q97_A2" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q97_A2-p0.1">Q. 97. A. 2. Whether human law should always be changed, whenever something better occurs?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q97_A2-p2">
3896 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that human law should be changed, whenever something better occurs. Because human laws are devised by human
3897 reason, like other arts. But in the other arts, the tenets of former times give place to others, if something better occurs.
3898 Therefore the same should apply to human laws.
3899 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 97 a. 2 arg. 1"><a name="37720" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37720] Iª-IIae q. 97 a. 2 arg. 1</span></a> Ad secundum
3900 sic proceditur. Videtur quod semper lex humana, quando aliquid
3901 melius occurrit, sit mutanda. Leges enim humanae sunt adinventae
3902 per rationem humanam, sicut etiam aliae artes. Sed in aliis artibus
3903 mutatur id quod prius tenebatur, si aliquid melius occurrat. Ergo
3904 idem est etiam faciendum in legibus humanis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q97_A2-p3">
3905 <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
3906 possible to improve them, considerable inconvenience would have ensued; because the laws of old were crude in many points.
3907 Therefore it seems that laws should be changed, whenever anything better occurs to be enacted.
3908 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 97 a. 2 arg. 2"><a name="37721" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37721] Iª-IIae q. 97 a. 2 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
3909 ex his quae praeterita sunt, providere possumus de futuris. Sed
3910 nisi leges humanae mutatae fuissent supervenientibus melioribus
3911 adinventionibus, multa inconvenientia sequerentur, eo quod leges
3912 antiquae inveniuntur multas ruditates continere. Ergo videtur quod
3913 leges sint mutandae, quotiescumque aliquid melius occurrit
3914 statuendum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q97_A2-p4">
3915 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, human laws are enacted about single acts of man. But we cannot acquire perfect knowledge in singular matters, except
3916 by experience, which "requires time," as stated in Ethic. ii. Therefore it seems that as time goes on it is possible for something
3917 better to occur for legislation.
3918 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 97 a. 2 arg. 3"><a name="37722" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37722] Iª-IIae q. 97 a. 2 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
3919 leges humanae circa singulares actus hominum statuuntur. In
3920 singularibus autem perfectam cognitionem adipisci non possumus nisi
3921 per experientiam, quae tempore indiget, ut dicitur in II Ethic.
3922 Ergo videtur quod per successionem temporis possit aliquid melius
3923 occurrere statuendum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q97_A2-p5">
3924 <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
3925 to be changed which we have received from the fathers of old."
3926 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 97 a. 2 s. c."><a name="37723" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37723] Iª-IIae q. 97 a. 2 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
3927 est quod dicitur in decretis, dist. XII, <i>ridiculum est et satis
3928 abominabile dedecus, ut traditiones quas antiquitus a patribus
3929 suscepimus, infringi patiamur</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q97_A2-p6">
3930 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
3931 <a href="#FS_Q97_A1" id="FS_Q97_A2-p6.1" shape="rect">(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
3932 change of law is of itself prejudicial to the common good: because custom avails much for the observance of laws, seeing that
3933 what is done contrary to general custom, even in slight matters, is looked upon as grave. Consequently, when a law is changed,
3934 the binding power of the law is
3935 diminished, in so far as custom is abolished. Wherefore human law should never be changed, unless, in some way or other, the
3936 common weal be compensated according to the extent of the harm done in this respect. Such compensation may arise either from
3937 some very great and every evident benefit conferred by the new enactment; or from the extreme urgency of the case, due to
3938 the fact that either the existing law is clearly unjust, or its observance extremely harmful. Wherefore the jurist says
3939 [*Pandect. Justin. lib. i, ff., tit. 4, De Constit. Princip.] that "in establishing new laws, there should be evidence of
3940 the benefit to be derived, before departing from a law which has long been considered just."
3941 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 97 a. 2 co."><a name="37724" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37724] Iª-IIae q. 97 a. 2 co.</span></a> Respondeo
3942 dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, lex humana intantum recte mutatur,
3943 inquantum per eius mutationem communi utilitati providetur. Habet
3944 autem ipsa legis mutatio, quantum in se est, detrimentum quoddam
3945 communis salutis. Quia ad observantiam legum plurimum valet
3946 consuetudo, intantum quod ea quae contra communem consuetudinem
3947 fiunt, etiam si sint leviora de se, graviora videantur. Unde quando
3948 mutatur lex, diminuitur vis constrictiva legis, inquantum tollitur
3949 consuetudo. Et ideo nunquam debet mutari lex humana, nisi ex aliqua
3950 parte tantum recompensetur communi saluti, quantum ex ista parte
3951 derogatur. Quod quidem contingit vel ex hoc quod aliqua maxima et
3952 evidentissima utilitas ex novo statuto provenit, vel ex eo quod est
3953 maxima necessitas, ex eo quod lex consueta aut manifestam
3954 iniquitatem continet, aut eius observatio est plurimum nociva. Unde
3955 dicitur a iurisperito quod <i>in rebus novis constituendis, evidens
3956 debet esse utilitas, ut recedatur ab eo iure quod diu aequum visum
3957 est</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q97_A2-p7">
3958 <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
3959 should be changed. But "laws derive very great force from custom," as the Philosopher states (Polit. ii, 5): consequently
3960 they should not be quickly changed.
3961 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 97 a. 2 ad 1"><a name="37725" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37725] Iª-IIae q. 97 a. 2 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
3962 ergo dicendum quod ea quae sunt artis, habent efficaciam ex sola
3963 ratione, et ideo ubicumque melior ratio occurrat, est mutandum quod
3964 prius tenebatur. <i>Sed leges habent maximam virtutem ex
3965 consuetudine</i>, ut philosophus dicit, in II Polit. Et inde non
3966 sunt de facili mutandae.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q97_A2-p8">
3967 <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
3968 in a case of great urgency, as stated above.
3969 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 97 a. 2 ad 2"><a name="37726" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37726] Iª-IIae q. 97 a. 2 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
3970 dicendum quod ratio illa concludit quod leges sunt mutandae, non
3971 tamen pro quacumque melioratione, sed pro magna utilitate vel
3972 necessitate, ut dictum est.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q97_A2-p9"><b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> This answer applies also to the Third Objection.</p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 97 a. 2 ad 3"><a name="37727" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37727] Iª-IIae q. 97 a. 2 ad 3</span></a> Et similiter
3973 dicendum est ad tertium.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q97_A3" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q97_A3-p0.1">Q. 97. A. 3. Whether custom can obtain force of law?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q97_A3-p2">
3974 <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
3975 and from the Divine law, as stated above (
3976 <a href="#FS_Q93_A3" id="FS_Q97_A3-p2.1" shape="rect">Q[93], A[3]</a>;
3977 <a href="#FS_Q95_A2" id="FS_Q97_A3-p2.2" shape="rect"> 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.
3978 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 97 a. 3 arg. 1"><a name="37728" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37728] Iª-IIae q. 97 a. 3 arg. 1</span></a> Ad tertium
3979 sic proceditur. Videtur quod consuetudo non possit obtinere vim
3980 legis, nec legem amovere. Lex enim humana derivatur a lege naturae
3981 et a lege divina, ut ex supradictis patet. Sed consuetudo hominum
3982 non potest immutare legem naturae, nec legem divinam. Ergo etiam
3983 nec legem humanam immutare potest.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q97_A3-p3">
3984 <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
3985 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
3986 by custom, so that the mere custom should obtain force of law.
3987 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 97 a. 3 arg. 2"><a name="37729" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37729] Iª-IIae q. 97 a. 3 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
3988 ex multis malis non potest fieri unum bonum. Sed ille qui incipit
3989 primo contra legem agere, male facit. Ergo, multiplicatis similibus
3990 actibus, non efficietur aliquod bonum. Lex autem est quoddam bonum,
3991 cum sit regula humanorum actuum. Ergo per consuetudinem non potest
3992 removeri lex, ut ipsa consuetudo vim legis obtineat.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q97_A3-p4">
3993 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the framing of laws belongs to those public men whose business it is to govern the community; wherefore private
3994 individuals cannot make laws. But custom grows by the acts of private individuals. Therefore custom cannot obtain force of
3995 law, so as to abolish the law.
3996 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 97 a. 3 arg. 3"><a name="37730" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37730] Iª-IIae q. 97 a. 3 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
3997 ferre legem pertinet ad publicas personas, ad quas pertinet regere
3998 communitatem, unde privatae personae legem facere non possunt. Sed
3999 consuetudo invalescit per actus privatarum personarum. Ergo
4000 consuetudo non potest obtinere vim legis, per quam lex
4001 removeatur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q97_A3-p5">
4002 <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
4003 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."
4004 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 97 a. 3 s. c."><a name="37731" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37731] Iª-IIae q. 97 a. 3 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
4005 est quod Augustinus dicit, in Epist. ad Casulan., <i>mos populi Dei
4006 et instituta maiorum pro lege sunt tenenda. Et sicut
4007 praevaricatores legum divinarum, ita et contemptores consuetudinum
4008 ecclesiasticarum coercendi sunt</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q97_A3-p6">
4009 <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
4010 human law from the will of man, regulated by reason. Now just as human reason and will, in practical matters, may be made
4011 manifest by speech, so may they be made known by deeds: since seemingly a man chooses as good that which he carries into execution.
4012 But it is evident that by human speech, law can be both changed and expounded, in so
4013 far as it manifests the interior movement and thought of human reason. Wherefore by actions also, especially if they be repeated,
4014 so as to make a custom, law can be changed and expounded; and also something can be established which obtains force of law,
4015 in so far as by repeated external actions, the inward movement of the will, and concepts of reason are most effectually declared;
4016 for when a thing is done again and again, it seems to proceed from a deliberate judgment of reason. Accordingly,
4017 custom has the force of a law, abolishes law, and is the interpreter of law.
4018 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 97 a. 3 co."><a name="37732" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37732] Iª-IIae q. 97 a. 3 co.</span></a> Respondeo
4019 dicendum quod omnis lex proficiscitur a ratione et voluntate
4020 legislatoris, lex quidem divina et naturalis a rationabili Dei
4021 voluntate; lex autem humana a voluntate hominis ratione regulata.
4022 Sicut autem ratio et voluntas hominis manifestantur verbo in rebus
4023 agendis, ita etiam manifestantur facto, hoc enim unusquisque
4024 eligere videtur ut bonum, quod opere implet. Manifestum est autem
4025 quod verbo humano potest et mutari lex, et etiam exponi, inquantum
4026 manifestat interiorem motum et conceptum rationis humanae. Unde
4027 etiam et per actus, maxime multiplicatos, qui consuetudinem
4028 efficiunt, mutari potest lex, et exponi, et etiam aliquid causari
4029 quod legis virtutem obtineat, inquantum scilicet per exteriores
4030 actus multiplicatos interior voluntatis motus, et rationis
4031 conceptus, efficacissime declaratur; cum enim aliquid multoties
4032 fit, videtur ex deliberato rationis iudicio provenire. Et secundum
4033 hoc, consuetudo et habet vim legis, et legem abolet, et est legum
4034 interpretatrix.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q97_A3-p7">
4035 <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
4036 from the will of man, but only by Divine authority. Hence it is that no custom can prevail over the Divine or natural laws:
4037 for Isidore says (Synon. ii, 16): "Let custom yield to authority: evil customs should be eradicated by law and reason."
4038 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 97 a. 3 ad 1"><a name="37733" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37733] Iª-IIae q. 97 a. 3 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
4039 ergo dicendum quod lex naturalis et divina procedit a voluntate
4040 divina, ut dictum est. Unde non potest mutari per consuetudinem
4041 procedentem a voluntate hominis, sed solum per auctoritatem divinam
4042 mutari posset. Et inde est quod nulla consuetudo vim obtinere
4043 potest contra legem divinam vel legem naturalem, dicit enim
4044 Isidorus, in Synonym., <i>usus auctoritati cedat, pravum usum lex
4045 et ratio vincat</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q97_A3-p8">
4046 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As stated above (
4047 <a href="#FS_Q96_A6" id="FS_Q97_A3-p8.1" shape="rect">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
4048 fails; yet the act will not be evil. And when such cases are multiplied, by reason of some change in man, then custom shows
4049 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,
4050 the same reason remains,
4051 for which the law was useful hitherto, then it is not the custom that prevails against the law, but the law that overcomes
4052 the custom: unless perhaps the sole reason for the law seeming useless, be that it is not "possible according to the custom
4053 of the country" [*
4054 <a href="#FS_Q95_A3" id="FS_Q97_A3-p8.2" shape="rect">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.
4055 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 97 a. 3 ad 2"><a name="37734" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37734] Iª-IIae q. 97 a. 3 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
4056 dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, leges humanae in aliquibus
4057 casibus deficiunt, unde possibile est quandoque praeter legem
4058 agere, in casu scilicet in quo deficit lex, et tamen actus non erit
4059 malus. Et cum tales casus multiplicantur, propter aliquam
4060 mutationem hominum, tunc manifestatur per consuetudinem quod lex
4061 ulterius utilis non est, sicut etiam manifestaretur si lex
4062 contraria verbo promulgaretur. Si autem adhuc maneat ratio eadem
4063 propter quam prima lex utilis erat, non consuetudo legem, sed lex
4064 consuetudinem vincit, nisi forte propter hoc solum inutilis lex
4065 videatur, quia non est possibilis secundum consuetudinem patriae,
4066 quae erat una de conditionibus legis. Difficile enim est
4067 consuetudinem multitudinis removere.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q97_A3-p9">
4068 <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,
4069 the consent of the whole people expressed by a custom counts far more in favor of a particular observance, that does the authority
4070 of the sovereign, who has not the power to frame laws, except as representing the people. Wherefore although each individual
4071 cannot make laws, yet the whole people can. If however the people have
4072 not the free power to make their own laws, or to abolish a law made by a higher authority; nevertheless with such a people
4073 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:
4074 because by the very fact that they tolerate it they seem to approve of that which is introduced by custom.
4075 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 97 a. 3 ad 3"><a name="37735" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37735] Iª-IIae q. 97 a. 3 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
4076 dicendum quod multitudo in qua consuetudo introducitur duplicis
4077 conditionis esse potest. Si enim sit libera multitudo, quae possit
4078 sibi legem facere, plus est consensus totius multitudinis ad
4079 aliquid observandum, quem consuetudo manifestat, quam auctoritas
4080 principis, qui non habet potestatem condendi legem, nisi inquantum
4081 gerit personam multitudinis. Unde licet singulae personae non
4082 possint condere legem, tamen totus populus legem condere potest. Si
4083 vero multitudo non habeat liberam potestatem condendi sibi legem,
4084 vel legem a superiori potestate positam removendi; tamen ipsa
4085 consuetudo in tali multitudine praevalens obtinet vim legis,
4086 inquantum per eos toleratur ad quos pertinet multitudini legem
4087 imponere, ex hoc enim ipso videntur approbare quod consuetudo
4088 induxit.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q97_A4" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q97_A4-p0.1">Q. 97. A. 4. Whether the rulers of the people can dispense from human laws?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q97_A4-p2">
4089 <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,"
4090 as Isidore says (Etym. v, 21). But the common good should not be set aside for the private convenience of an individual: because,
4091 as the Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 2), "the good of the nation is more godlike than the good of one man." Therefore it seems
4092 that a man should not be dispensed from acting in compliance with the general
4093 law.
4094 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 97 a. 4 arg. 1"><a name="37736" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37736] Iª-IIae q. 97 a. 4 arg. 1</span></a> Ad quartum
4095 sic proceditur. Videtur quod rectores multitudinis non possint in
4096 legibus humanis dispensare. Lex enim statuta est pro communi
4097 utilitate, ut Isidorus dicit. Sed bonum commune non debet
4098 intermitti pro privato commodo alicuius personae, quia, ut dicit
4099 philosophus, in I Ethic., <i>bonum gentis divinius est quam bonum
4100 unius hominis</i>. Ergo videtur quod non debeat dispensari cum
4101 aliquo ut contra legem communem agat.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q97_A4-p3">
4102 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, those who are placed over others are commanded as follows (
4103 <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
4104 of God." But to allow one man to do that which is equally forbidden to all, seems to be respect of persons. Therefore the
4105 rulers of a community cannot grant such dispensations, since this is against a precept of the Divine law.
4106 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 97 a. 4 arg. 2"><a name="37737" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37737] Iª-IIae q. 97 a. 4 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
4107 illis qui super alios constituuntur, praecipitur Deut. I, <i>ita
4108 parvum audietis ut magnum, nec accipietis cuiusquam personam, quia
4109 Dei iudicium est</i>. Sed concedere alicui quod communiter
4110 denegatur omnibus, videtur esse acceptio personarum. Ergo huiusmodi
4111 dispensationes facere rectores multitudinis non possunt, cum hoc
4112 sit contra praeceptum legis divinae.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q97_A4-p4">
4113 <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,"
4114 nor be "helpful to discipline," which is requisite to the nature of law, as laid down by Isidore (Etym. v, 3). But no man
4115 can dispense from the Divine and natural laws. Neither, therefore, can he dispense from the human law.
4116 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 97 a. 4 arg. 3"><a name="37738" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37738] Iª-IIae q. 97 a. 4 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
4117 lex humana, si sit recta, oportet quod consonet legi naturali et
4118 legi divinae, aliter enim non congrueret religioni, nec conveniret
4119 disciplinae, quod requiritur ad legem, ut Isidorus dicit. Sed in
4120 lege divina et naturali nullus homo potest dispensare. Ergo nec
4121 etiam in lege humana.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q97_A4-p5">
4122 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
4123 <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."
4124 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 97 a. 4 s. c."><a name="37739" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37739] Iª-IIae q. 97 a. 4 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
4125 est quod dicit apostolus, I ad Cor. IX, <i>dispensatio mihi credita
4126 est</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q97_A4-p6">
4127 <b>I answer that,</b> Dispensation, properly speaking, denotes a measuring out to individuals of some common goods: thus the head of a household
4128 is called a dispenser, because to each member of the household he distributes work and necessaries of life in due weight and
4129 measure. Accordingly in every community a man is said to dispense, from the very fact that he directs how some general precept
4130 is to be fulfilled by each individual. Now it happens at times that a precept, which is
4131 conducive to the common weal as a general rule, is not good for a particular individual, or in some particular case, either
4132 because it would hinder some greater good, or because it would be the occasion of some evil, as explained above (
4133 <a href="#FS_Q96_A6" id="FS_Q97_A4-p6.1" shape="rect">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
4134 sudden emergency, as stated above (
4135 <a href="#FS_Q96_A6" id="FS_Q97_A4-p6.2" shape="rect">Q[96], A[6]</a>). Consequently he who is
4136 placed over a community is empowered to dispense in a human law that rests upon his authority, so that, when the law fails
4137 in its application to persons or circumstances, he may allow the precept of the law not to be observed. If however he grant
4138 this permission without any such reason, and of his mere will, he will be an unfaithful or an imprudent dispenser: unfaithful,
4139 if he has not the common good in view; imprudent, if he ignores the reasons for granting dispensations. Hence Our Lord says
4140 (
4141 <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?"
4142 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 97 a. 4 co."><a name="37740" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37740] Iª-IIae q. 97 a. 4 co.</span></a> Respondeo
4143 dicendum quod dispensatio proprie importat commensurationem
4144 alicuius communis ad singula, unde etiam gubernator familiae
4145 dicitur dispensator, inquantum unicuique de familia cum pondere et
4146 mensura distribuit et operationes et necessaria vitae. Sic igitur
4147 et in quacumque multitudine ex eo dicitur aliquis dispensare, quod
4148 ordinat qualiter aliquod commune praeceptum sit a singulis
4149 adimplendum. Contingit autem quandoque quod aliquod praeceptum quod
4150 est ad commodum multitudinis ut in pluribus, non est conveniens
4151 huic personae, vel in hoc casu, quia vel per hoc impediretur
4152 aliquid melius, vel etiam induceretur aliquod malum, sicut ex
4153 supradictis patet. Periculosum autem esset ut hoc iudicio
4154 cuiuslibet committeretur, nisi forte propter evidens et subitum
4155 periculum, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo ille qui habet regere
4156 multitudinem, habet potestatem dispensandi in lege humana quae suae
4157 auctoritati innititur, ut scilicet in personis vel casibus in
4158 quibus lex deficit, licentiam tribuat ut praeceptum legis non
4159 servetur. Si autem absque hac ratione, pro sola voluntate,
4160 licentiam tribuat, non erit fidelis in dispensatione, aut erit
4161 imprudens, infidelis quidem, si non habeat intentionem ad bonum
4162 commune; imprudens autem, si rationem dispensandi ignoret. Propter
4163 quod dominus dicit, Lucae XII, <i>quis, putas, est fidelis
4164 dispensator et prudens, quem constituit dominus super familiam
4165 suam?</i></p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q97_A4-p7">
4166 <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
4167 of benefiting, the common good.
4168 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 97 a. 4 ad 1"><a name="37741" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37741] Iª-IIae q. 97 a. 4 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
4169 ergo dicendum quod, quando cum aliquo dispensatur ut legem communem
4170 non servet, non debet fieri in praeiudicium boni communis; sed ea
4171 intentione ut ad bonum commune proficiat.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q97_A4-p8">
4172 <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
4173 of any person requires that he should reasonably receive special treatment, it is not respect of persons if he be the object
4174 of special favor.
4175 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 97 a. 4 ad 2"><a name="37742" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37742] Iª-IIae q. 97 a. 4 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
4176 dicendum quod non est acceptio personarum si non serventur aequalia
4177 in personis inaequalibus. Unde quando conditio alicuius personae
4178 requirit ut rationabiliter in ea aliquid specialiter observetur,
4179 non est personarum acceptio si sibi aliqua specialis gratia
4180 fiat.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q97_A4-p9">
4181 <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,
4182 however, which are as conclusions of the general precepts, man sometimes grants a dispensation: for instance, that a loan
4183 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
4184 person to the public law to which he is subject. Wherefore just as none can
4185 dispense from public human law, except the man from whom the law derives its authority, or his delegate; so, in the precepts
4186 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.
4187 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 97 a. 4 ad 3"><a name="37743" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37743] Iª-IIae q. 97 a. 4 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
4188 dicendum quod lex naturalis inquantum continet praecepta communia,
4189 quae nunquam fallunt, dispensationem recipere non potest. In aliis
4190 vero praeceptis, quae sunt quasi conclusiones praeceptorum
4191 communium, quandoque per hominem dispensatur, puta quod mutuum non
4192 reddatur proditori patriae, vel aliquid huiusmodi. Ad legem autem
4193 divinam ita se habet quilibet homo, sicut persona privata ad legem
4194 publicam cui subiicitur. Unde sicut in lege humana publica non
4195 potest dispensare nisi ille a quo lex auctoritatem habet, vel is
4196 cui ipse commiserit; ita in praeceptis iuris divini, quae sunt a
4197 Deo, nullus potest dispensare nisi Deus, vel si cui ipse
4198 specialiter committeret.</p></div></div></div></div>
4199 <div id="FS_Q98" class="div3">
4200 <h3 id="FS_Q98-p0.1">Q. 98. OF THE OLD LAW (SIX ARTICLES)</h3>
4201 <div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="div4">
4202 <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
4203 six points of inquiry:
4204 </p><p id="FS_Q98-p3"><a href="#FS_Q98_A1"> (1) Whether the Old Law was good?</a></p><p id="FS_Q98-p4"><a href="#FS_Q98_A2"> (2) Whether it was from God?</a></p><p id="FS_Q98-p5"><a href="#FS_Q98_A3"> (3) Whether it came from Him through the angels?</a></p><p id="FS_Q98-p6"><a href="#FS_Q98_A4"> (4) Whether it was given to all?</a></p><p id="FS_Q98-p7"><a href="#FS_Q98_A5"> (5) Whether it was binding on all?</a></p><p id="FS_Q98-p8"><a href="#FS_Q98_A6"> (6) Whether it was given at a suitable time?</a></p>
4205 </div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 pr."><a name="37744" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37744]
4206 Iª-IIae q. 98 pr.</span></a> Consequenter considerandum est de
4207 lege veteri. Et primo, de ipsa lege; secundo, de praeceptis eius.
4208 Circa primum quaeruntur sex. Primo, utrum lex vetus sit bona.
4209 Secundo, utrum sit a Deo. Tertio, utrum sit ab eo mediantibus
4210 Angelis. Quarto, utrum data sit omnibus. Quinto, utrum omnes
4211 obliget. Sexto, utrum congruo tempore fuerit data.</p></div></div></div>
4212 <div id="FS_Q98_A1" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q98_A1-p0.1">Q. 98. A. 1. Whether the Old Law was good?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A1-p2">
4213 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Old Law was not good. For it is written (
4214 <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
4215 except on account of the goodness of the precepts that it contains. Therefore the Old Law was not good.
4216 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 1 arg. 1"><a name="37745" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37745] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 1 arg. 1</span></a> Ad primum
4217 sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex vetus non fuerit bona. Dicitur
4218 enim Ezech. XX <i>dedi eis praecepta non bona, et iudicia in quibus
4219 non vivent</i>. Sed lex non dicitur bona nisi propter bonitatem
4220 praeceptorum quae continet. Ergo lex vetus non fuit bona.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A1-p3">
4221 <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
4222 Old Law was not salutary; rather was it deadly and hurtful. For the Apostle says (
4223 <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;
4224 and I died." Again he says (
4225 <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
4226 good.
4227 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 1 arg. 2"><a name="37746" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37746] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 1 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
4228 ad bonitatem legis pertinet ut communi saluti proficiat sicut
4229 Isidorus dicit. Sed lex vetus non fuit salutifera, sed magis
4230 mortifera et nociva. Dicit enim apostolus, Rom. VII, <i>sine lege
4231 peccatum mortuum erat. Ego autem vivebam sine lege aliquando, sed
4232 cum venisset mandatum, peccatum revixit, ego autem mortuus sum</i>;
4233 et Rom. V, <i>lex subintravit ut abundaret delictum</i>. Ergo lex
4234 vetus non fuit bona.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A1-p4">
4235 <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
4236 to human custom. But such the Old Law was not: since Peter said (
4237 <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?"
4238 Therefore it seems that the Old Law was not good.
4239 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 1 arg. 3"><a name="37747" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37747] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 1 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
4240 ad bonitatem legis pertinet quod sit possibilis ad observandum et
4241 secundum naturam, et secundum humanam consuetudinem. Sed hoc non
4242 habuit lex vetus, dicit enim Petrus, Act. XV, <i>quid tentatis
4243 imponere iugum super cervicem discipulorum, quod neque nos, neque
4244 patres nostri, portare potuimus?</i> Ergo videtur quod lex vetus
4245 non fuerit bona.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A1-p5">
4246 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
4247 <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."
4248 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 1 s. c."><a name="37748" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37748] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 1 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
4249 est quod apostolus dicit, Rom. VII, itaque <i>lex quidem sancta
4250 est, et mandatum sanctum et iustum et bonum</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q98_A1-p6">
4251 <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
4252 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
4253 repressed concupiscence which is in conflict with reason, as evidenced by the commandment, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's
4254 goods" (
4255 <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;
4256 and these too are contrary to reason. Consequently it is evident that it was a good law. The Apostle argues in the same way
4257 (
4258 <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
4259 to the law, that is good."
4260 </p><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,
4261 and an imperfect good. In things ordained to an end, there is perfect goodness when a thing is such that it is sufficient
4262 in itself to conduce to the end: while there is imperfect goodness when a thing is of some assistance in attaining the end,
4263 but is not sufficient for the realization thereof. Thus a medicine is perfectly good, if it gives health to a man;
4264 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
4265 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
4266 state, which end law effects by directing external actions, as regards those evils which might disturb the peaceful condition
4267 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
4268 end is hindered by any sin, not only of external, but also of internal action. Consequently that which suffices for the perfection
4269 of human law, viz. the prohibition and punishment of sin, does not suffice for the perfection of the Divine law: but it is
4270 requisite that it should make man altogether fit to partake of everlasting happiness. Now this cannot be done save by the
4271 grace of the Holy Ghost, whereby "charity" which fulfilleth the law . . . "is spread abroad in our hearts" (
4272 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A1-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.5" target="asv">Rom.
4273 5:5
4274 </a>): since "the grace of God is life everlasting" (
4275 <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 (
4276 <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,
4277 according to
4278 <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."
4279 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 1 co."><a name="37749" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37749] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 1 co.</span></a> Respondeo
4280 dicendum quod absque omni dubio lex vetus bona fuit. Sicut enim
4281 doctrina ostenditur esse vera ex hoc quod consonat rationi rectae,
4282 ita etiam lex aliqua ostenditur esse bona ex eo quod consonat
4283 rationi. Lex autem vetus rationi consonabat. Quia concupiscentiam
4284 reprimebat, quae rationi adversatur; ut patet in illo mandato, non
4285 concupisces rem proximi tui, quod ponitur Exod. XX. Ipsa etiam
4286 omnia peccata prohibebat, quae sunt contra rationem. Unde
4287 manifestum est quod bona erat. Et haec est ratio apostoli, Rom.
4288 VII, condelector, inquit, legi Dei secundum interiorem hominem; et
4289 iterum, consentio legi, quoniam bona est. Sed notandum est quod
4290 bonum diversos gradus habet, ut Dionysius dicit, IV cap. de Div.
4291 Nom., est enim aliquod bonum perfectum, et aliquod bonum
4292 imperfectum. Perfecta quidem bonitas est, in his quae ad finem
4293 ordinantur, quando aliquid est tale quod per se sufficiens est
4294 inducere ad finem, imperfectum autem bonum est quod operatur
4295 aliquid ad hoc quod perveniatur ad finem, non tamen sufficit ad hoc
4296 quod ad finem perducat. Sicut medicina perfecte bona est quae
4297 hominem sanat, imperfecta autem est quae hominem adiuvat, sed tamen
4298 sanare non potest. Est autem sciendum quod est alius finis legis
4299 humanae, et alius legis divinae. Legis enim humanae finis est
4300 temporalis tranquillitas civitatis, ad quem finem pervenit lex
4301 cohibendo exteriores actus, quantum ad illa mala quae possunt
4302 perturbare pacificum statum civitatis. Finis autem legis divinae
4303 est perducere hominem ad finem felicitatis aeternae; qui quidem
4304 finis impeditur per quodcumque peccatum, et non solum per actus
4305 exteriores, sed etiam per interiores. Et ideo illud quod sufficit
4306 ad perfectionem legis humanae, ut scilicet peccata prohibeat et
4307 poenam apponat, non sufficit ad perfectionem legis divinae, sed
4308 oportet quod hominem totaliter faciat idoneum ad participationem
4309 felicitatis aeternae. Quod quidem fieri non potest nisi per gratiam
4310 spiritus sancti, per quam diffunditur caritas in cordibus nostris,
4311 quae legem adimplet, gratia enim Dei vita aeterna, ut dicitur Rom.
4312 VI. Hanc autem gratiam lex vetus conferre non potuit, reservabatur
4313 enim hoc Christo, quia, ut dicitur Ioan. I, <i>lex per Moysen data
4314 est; gratia et veritas per Iesum Christum facta est</i>. Et inde
4315 est quod lex vetus bona quidem est, sed imperfecta; secundum illud
4316 Heb. VII, <i>nihil ad perfectum adduxit lex</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A1-p8">
4317 <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
4318 remission of sins, although by fulfilling these precepts man confessed himself a sinner. Hence it is said pointedly, "and
4319 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
4320 them," i.e. showed them to be polluted, "in their own gifts, when they offered all
4321 that opened the womb, for their offenses."
4322 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 1 ad 1"><a name="37750" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37750] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 1 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
4323 ergo dicendum quod dominus loquitur ibi de praeceptis
4324 caeremonialibus; quae quidem dicuntur non bona, quia gratiam non
4325 conferebant, per quam homines a peccato mundarentur, cum tamen per
4326 huiusmodi se peccatores ostenderent. Unde signanter dicitur, et
4327 iudicia in quibus non vivent, idest per quae vitam gratiae obtinere
4328 non possunt; et postea subditur, et pollui eos in muneribus suis,
4329 idest pollutos ostendi, <i>cum offerrent omne quod aperit vulvam,
4330 propter delicta sua</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A1-p9">
4331 <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
4332 so far as it did not confer grace enabling man to fulfil what is prescribed, and to avoid what it forbade. Hence this occasion
4333 was not given to men, but taken by them. Wherefore the Apostle says (
4334 <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
4335 said that "the law entered in that sin might abound," the conjunction "that" must be taken as consecutive and not final: in
4336 so far as men, taking occasion from the law, sinned all the more, both because a sin became more grievous after law had forbidden
4337 it, and because concupiscence increased, since we desire a thing the more from its being forbidden.
4338 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 1 ad 2"><a name="37751" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37751] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 1 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
4339 dicendum quod lex dicitur occidisse, non quidem effective, sed
4340 occasionaliter, ex sua imperfectione, inquantum scilicet gratiam
4341 non conferebat, per quam homines implere possent quod mandabat, vel
4342 vitare quod vetabat. Et sic occasio ista non erat data, sed sumpta
4343 ab hominibus. Unde et apostolus ibidem dicit, <i>occasione accepta
4344 peccatum per mandatum seduxit me, et per illud occidit</i>. Et ex
4345 hac etiam ratione dicitur quod lex subintravit ut abundaret
4346 delictum, ut ly ut teneatur consecutive, non causaliter, inquantum
4347 scilicet homines, accipientes occasionem a lege, abundantius
4348 peccaverunt; tum quia gravius fuit peccatum post legis
4349 prohibitionem; tum etiam quia concupiscentia crevit, magis enim
4350 concupiscimus quod nobis prohibetur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A1-p10">
4351 <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 (
4352 <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
4353 God that showeth mercy." Wherefore it is written (
4354 <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
4355 charity.
4356 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 1 ad 3"><a name="37752" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37752] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 1 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
4357 dicendum quod iugum legis servari non poterat sine gratia
4358 adiuvante, quam lex non dabat, dicitur enim Rom. IX, <i>non est
4359 volentis neque currentis</i>, scilicet velle et currere in
4360 praeceptis Dei, sed miserentis Dei. Unde et in Psalmo CXVIII
4361 dicitur, <i>viam mandatorum tuorum cucurri, cum dilatasti cor
4362 meum</i>, scilicet per donum gratiae et caritatis.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q98_A2" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q98_A2-p0.1">Q. 98. A. 2. Whether the Old Law was from God?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A2-p2">
4363 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Old Law was not from God. For it is written (
4364 <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
4365 <a href="#FS_Q98_A1" id="FS_Q98_A2-p2.2" shape="rect">(A[1])</a>. Therefore the Old Law was not from God.
4366 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 2 arg. 1"><a name="37753" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37753] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 2 arg. 1</span></a> Ad secundum
4367 sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex vetus non fuerit a Deo. Dicitur
4368 enim Deut. XXXII, <i>Dei perfecta sunt opera</i>. Sed lex fuit
4369 imperfecta, ut supra dictum est. Ergo lex vetus non fuit a Deo.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A2-p3">
4370 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is written (
4371 <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:
4372 since the Apostle says (
4373 <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
4374 the Old Law was not from God.
4375 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 2 arg. 2"><a name="37754" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37754] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 2 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
4376 Eccle. III dicitur, <i>didici quod omnia opera quae fecit Deus,
4377 perseverent in aeternum</i>. Sed lex vetus non perseverat in
4378 aeternum, dicit enim apostolus, ad Heb. VII, <i>reprobatio fit
4379 quidem praecedentis mandati, propter infirmitatem eius et
4380 inutilitatem</i>. Ergo lex vetus non fuit a Deo.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A2-p4">
4381 <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
4382 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
4383 the lawgivers" (
4384 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A2-p4.1" href="./asv.html#Job.36.22" target="asv">Job 36:22</a>).
4385 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 2 arg. 3"><a name="37755" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37755] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 2 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
4386 ad sapientem legislatorem pertinet non solum mala auferre, sed
4387 etiam occasiones malorum. Sed vetus lex fuit occasio peccati, ut
4388 supra dictum est. Ergo ad Deum, cui nullus est similis in
4389 legislatoribus, ut dicitur Iob XXXVI, non pertinebat legem talem
4390 dare.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A2-p5">
4391 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, it is written (
4392 <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
4393 <a href="#FS_Q98_A1" id="FS_Q98_A2-p5.2" shape="rect">(A[1])</a>. Therefore the giving of such a law did not appertain to God. Therefore the Old Law was not from God.
4394 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 2 arg. 4"><a name="37756" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37756] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 2 arg. 4</span></a> Praeterea,
4395 I ad Tim. II, dicitur quod <i>Deus vult omnes homines salvos
4396 fieri</i>. Sed lex vetus non sufficiebat ad salutem hominum, ut
4397 supra dictum est. Ergo ad Deum non pertinebat talem legem dare. Lex
4398 ergo vetus non est a Deo.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A2-p6">
4399 <b>On the contrary,</b> Our Lord said (
4400 <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
4401 shortly before (verse 4) He had said: "Honor thy father and mother," which is contained expressly in the Old Law (
4402 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A2-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Exod.20.12" target="asv">Ex. 20:12</a>;
4403 <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.
4404 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 2 s. c."><a name="37757" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37757] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 2 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
4405 est quod dominus dicit, Matth. XV, loquens Iudaeis, quibus erat lex
4406 vetus data, <i>irritum fecistis mandatum Dei propter traditiones
4407 vestras</i>. Et paulo ante praemittitur, <i>honora patrem tuum et
4408 matrem tuam</i>, quod manifeste in lege veteri continetur. Ergo lex
4409 vetus est a Deo.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A2-p7">
4410 <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
4411 in two ways. First by bearing witness to Christ; wherefore He Himself says (
4412 <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
4413 Me": and (
4414 <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
4415 disposition, since by withdrawing men from idolatrous worship, it enclosed [concludebat] them in the worship of one God, by
4416 Whom the human race was to be saved through Christ. Wherefore the Apostle says (
4417 <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
4418 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
4419 same," I mean
4420 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,
4421 Who was to cast him out, according to
4422 <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
4423 by the same God, from Whom came salvation to man, through the grace of Christ.
4424 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 2 co."><a name="37758" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37758] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 2 co.</span></a> Respondeo
4425 dicendum quod lex vetus a bono Deo data est, qui est pater domini
4426 nostri Iesu Christi. Lex enim vetus homines ordinabat ad Christum
4427 dupliciter. Uno quidem modo, testimonium Christo perhibendo, unde
4428 ipse dicit, Lucae ult., <i>oportet impleri omnia quae scripta sunt
4429 in lege et Psalmis et prophetis de me</i>; et Ioan. V, <i>si
4430 crederetis Moysi, crederetis forsitan et mihi, de me enim ille
4431 scripsit</i>. Alio modo, per modum cuiusdam dispositionis, dum,
4432 retrahens homines a cultu idololatriae, concludebat eos sub cultu
4433 unius Dei, a quo salvandum erat humanum genus per Christum, unde
4434 apostolus dicit, ad Gal. III, <i>priusquam veniret fides, sub lege
4435 custodiebamur conclusi in eam fidem quae revelanda erat</i>.
4436 Manifestum est autem quod eiusdem est disponere ad finem et ad
4437 finem perducere, et dico eiusdem per se vel per suos subiectos. Non
4438 enim Diabolus legem tulisset per quam homines adducerentur ad
4439 Christum, per quem erat eiiciendus; secundum illud Matth. XII,
4440 <i>si Satanas Satanam eiicit, divisum est regnum eius</i>. Et ideo
4441 ab eodem Deo a quo facta est salus hominum per gratiam Christi, lex
4442 vetus data est.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A2-p8">
4443 <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,
4444 not simply, but with regard to the condition of time. So, too, precepts that are given to children are perfect in comparison
4445 with the condition of those to whom they are given, although they are not perfect simply. Hence the Apostle says (
4446 <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."
4447 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 2 ad 1"><a name="37759" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37759] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 2 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
4448 ergo dicendum quod nihil prohibet aliquid non esse perfectum
4449 simpliciter, quod tamen est perfectum secundum tempus, sicut
4450 dicitur aliquis puer perfectus non simpliciter, sed secundum
4451 temporis conditionem. Ita etiam praecepta quae pueris dantur, sunt
4452 quidem perfecta secundum conditionem eorum quibus dantur, etsi non
4453 sint perfecta simpliciter. Et talia fuerunt praecepta legis. Unde
4454 apostolus dicit, ad Gal. III, <i>lex paedagogus noster fuit in
4455 Christo</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A2-p9">
4456 <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
4457 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
4458 for this time; because, as the Apostle goes on to say, "the law brought nothing to perfection": hence he says (
4459 <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
4460 pedagogue."
4461 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 2 ad 2"><a name="37760" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37760] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 2 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
4462 dicendum quod opera Dei perseverant in aeternum, quae sic Deus
4463 fecit ut in aeternum perseverent, et haec sunt ea quae sunt
4464 perfecta. Lex autem vetus reprobatur tempore perfectionis gratiae,
4465 non tanquam mala, sed tanquam infirma et inutilis pro isto tempore,
4466 quia, ut subditur, nihil ad perfectum adduxit lex. Unde ad Gal.
4467 III, dicit apostolus, <i>ubi venit fides, iam non sumus sub
4468 paedagogo</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A2-p10">
4469 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated above (
4470 <a href="FS_v.html#FS_Q79_A4" id="FS_Q98_A2-p10.1" shape="rect">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
4471 a law as men by their own forces could not fulfill, so that, while presuming on their own powers, they might find themselves
4472 to be sinners, and being humbled might have recourse to the help of grace.
4473 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 2 ad 3"><a name="37761" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37761] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 2 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
4474 dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, Deus aliquando permittit
4475 aliquos cadere in peccatum, ut exinde humilientur. Ita etiam voluit
4476 talem legem dare quam suis viribus homines implere non possent, ut
4477 sic dum homines de se praesumentes peccatores se invenirent,
4478 humiliati recurrerent ad auxilium gratiae.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A2-p11">
4479 <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
4480 in the Mediator, by which the fathers of old were justified even as we were. Accordingly God did not fail man by giving him
4481 insufficient aids to salvation.
4482 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 2 ad 4"><a name="37762" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37762] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 2 ad 4</span></a> Ad quartum
4483 dicendum quod, quamvis lex vetus non sufficeret ad salvandum
4484 hominem, tamen aderat aliud auxilium a Deo hominibus simul cum
4485 lege, per quod salvari poterant, scilicet fides mediatoris, per
4486 quam iustificati sunt antiqui patres, sicut etiam nos iustificamur.
4487 Et sic Deus non deficiebat hominibus quin daret eis salutis
4488 auxilia.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q98_A3" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q98_A3-p0.1">Q. 98. A. 3. Whether the Old Law was given through the angels?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A3-p2">
4489 <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
4490 that the word "angel" denotes ministry, not lordship, according to
4491 <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:
4492 for it is written (
4493 <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."
4494 Moreover the same expression is often repeated in Exodus, and the later books of the Law. Therefore the Law was given by God
4495 immediately.
4496 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 3 arg. 1"><a name="37763" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37763] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 3 arg. 1</span></a> Ad tertium
4497 sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex vetus non fuerit data per Angelos,
4498 sed immediate a Deo. Angelus enim nuntius dicitur, et sic nomen
4499 Angeli ministerium importat, non dominium; secundum illud Psalmi
4500 CII, <i>benedicite domino, omnes Angeli eius, ministri eius</i>.
4501 Sed vetus lex a domino tradita esse perhibetur, dicitur enim Exod.
4502 XX, <i>locutusque est dominus sermones hos</i>, et postea subditur,
4503 <i>ego enim sum dominus Deus tuus</i>. Et idem modus loquendi
4504 frequenter repetitur in Exodo, et in libris consequentibus legis.
4505 Ergo lex est immediate data a Deo.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A3-p3">
4506 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, according to
4507 <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 (
4508 <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
4509 immediately.
4510 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 3 arg. 2"><a name="37764" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37764] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 3 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
4511 sicut dicitur Ioan. I, lex per Moysen data est. Sed Moyses
4512 immediate accepit a Deo, dicitur enim Exod. XXXIII, <i>loquebatur
4513 dominus ad Moysen facie ad faciem, sicut loqui solet homo ad amicum
4514 suum</i>. Ergo lex vetus immediate data est a Deo.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A3-p4">
4515 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it belongs to the sovereign alone to make a law, as stated above (
4516 <a href="#FS_Q90_A3" id="FS_Q98_A3-p4.1" shape="rect">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
4517 in
4518 <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.
4519 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 3 arg. 3"><a name="37765" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37765] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 3 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
4520 ad solum principem pertinet legem ferre, ut supra dictum est. Sed
4521 solus Deus est princeps salutis animarum, <i>Angeli vero sunt
4522 administratorii spiritus</i>, ut dicitur ad Heb. I. Ergo lex vetus
4523 per Angelos dari non debuit, cum ordinaretur ad animarum
4524 salutem.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A3-p5">
4525 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle said (
4526 <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 (
4527 <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."
4528 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 3 s. c."><a name="37766" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37766] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 3 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
4529 est quod dicit apostolus, ad Gal. III, <i>lex data est per Angelos
4530 in manu mediatoris</i>. Et Act. VII, dicit Stephanus, <i>accepistis
4531 legem in dispositione Angelorum</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A3-p6">
4532 <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
4533 "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
4534 been given through them. For it has been stated (
4535 <a href="#FS_Q98_A1" id="FS_Q98_A3-p6.1" shape="rect">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
4536 Christ.
4537 Now it is to be observed that wherever there is an order of powers or arts, he that holds the highest place, himself exercises
4538 the principal and perfect acts; while those things which dispose to the ultimate perfection are effected by him through his
4539 subordinates: thus the ship-builder himself rivets the planks together, but prepares the material by means of the workmen
4540 who assist him under his direction. Consequently it was fitting that the perfect law of the New Testament should be given
4541 by
4542 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
4543 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
4544 Old; because in the New Testament "God . . . hath spoken to us by His Son," whereas in the Old Testament "the word was spoken
4545 by angels" (
4546 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A3-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.2.2" target="asv">Heb. 2:2</a>).
4547 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 3 co."><a name="37767" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37767] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 3 co.</span></a> Respondeo
4548 dicendum quod lex data est a Deo per Angelos. Et praeter generalem
4549 rationem, quam Dionysius assignat, in IV cap. Cael. Hier., quod
4550 <i>divina debent deferri ad homines mediantibus Angelis</i>,
4551 specialis ratio est quare legem veterem per Angelos dari oportuit.
4552 Dictum est enim quod lex vetus imperfecta erat, sed disponebat ad
4553 salutem perfectam generis humani, quae futura erat per Christum.
4554 Sic autem videtur in omnibus potestatibus et artibus ordinatis,
4555 quod ille qui est superior, principalem et perfectum actum operatur
4556 per seipsum; ea vero quae disponunt ad perfectionem ultimam,
4557 operatur per suos ministros; sicut navifactor compaginat navem per
4558 seipsum, sed praeparat materiam per artifices subministrantes. Et
4559 ideo conveniens fuit ut lex perfecta novi testamenti daretur
4560 immediate per ipsum Deum hominem factum; lex autem vetus per
4561 ministros Dei, scilicet per Angelos, daretur hominibus. Et per hunc
4562 modum apostolus, in principio ad Heb., probat eminentiam novae
4563 legis ad veterem, quia in novo testamento locutus est nobis Deus in
4564 filio suo, in veteri autem testamento est sermo factus per
4565 Angelos.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A3-p7">
4566 <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
4567 sometimes mentioned as an angel, sometimes as the Lord: an angel, in truth, in respect of that which was subservient to the
4568 external delivery; and the Lord, because He was the Director within, Who supported the effectual power of speaking." Hence
4569 also it is that the angel spoke as personating the Lord.
4570 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 3 ad 1"><a name="37768" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37768] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 3 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
4571 ergo dicendum quod, sicut Gregorius dicit, in principio Moral.,
4572 <i>Angelus qui Moysi apparuisse describitur, modo Angelus, modo
4573 dominus memoratur. Angelus videlicet, propter hoc quod exterius
4574 loquendo serviebat; dominus autem dicitur, quia interius praesidens
4575 loquendi efficaciam ministrabat</i>. Et inde est etiam quod quasi
4576 ex persona domini Angelus loquebatur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A3-p8">
4577 <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
4578 afterwards we read, "Show me Thy glory. Therefore He perceived what he saw and he desired what he saw not." Hence he did not
4579 see the very Essence of God; and consequently he was not taught by Him immediately. Accordingly when Scripture states that
4580 "He spoke to him face to face," this is to be understood as expressing the opinion of
4581 the people, who thought that Moses was speaking with God mouth to mouth, when God spoke and appeared to him, by means of a
4582 subordinate creature, i.e. an angel and a cloud. Again we may say that this vision "face to face" means some kind of sublime
4583 and familiar contemplation, inferior to the vision of the Divine Essence.
4584 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 3 ad 2"><a name="37769" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37769] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 3 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
4585 dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, XII super Gen. ad Litt., in
4586 Exodo dicitur, <i>locutus est dominus Moysi facie ad faciem</i>; et
4587 paulo post subditur, <i>ostende mihi gloriam tuam. Sentiebat ergo
4588 quid videbat; et quod non videbat, desiderabat</i>. Non ergo
4589 videbat ipsam Dei essentiam, et ita non immediate ab eo
4590 instruebatur. Quod ergo dicitur quod loquebatur ei facie ad faciem,
4591 secundum opinionem populi loquitur Scriptura, qui putabat Moysen
4592 ore ad os loqui cum Deo, cum per subiectam creaturam, idest per
4593 Angelum et nubem, ei loqueretur et appareret. Vel per visionem
4594 faciei intelligitur quaedam eminens contemplatio et familiaris,
4595 infra essentiae divinae visionem.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A3-p9">
4596 <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
4597 others. Thus God made the Law by His own authority, but He promulgated it through the angels.
4598 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 3 ad 3"><a name="37770" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37770] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 3 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
4599 dicendum quod solius principis est sua auctoritate legem
4600 instituere, sed quandoque legem institutam per alios promulgat. Et
4601 ita Deus sua auctoritate instituit legem, sed per Angelos
4602 promulgavit.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q98_A4" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q98_A4-p0.1">Q. 98. A. 4. Whether the Old Law should have been given to the Jews alone?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A4-p2">
4603 <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
4604 which was to come through Christ, as stated above (
4605 <a href="#FS_Q98_A2" id="FS_Q98_A4-p2.1" shape="rect">AA[2]</a>,3). But that salvation was to come not to the Jews alone but to all nations, according to
4606 <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.
4607 Behold I have
4608 given thee to be the light of the Gentiles, that thou mayest be My salvation, even to the farthest part of the earth." Therefore
4609 the Old Law should have been given to all nations, and not to one people only.
4610 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 4 arg. 1"><a name="37771" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37771] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 4 arg. 1</span></a> Ad quartum
4611 sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex vetus non debuerit dari soli
4612 populo Iudaeorum. Lex enim vetus disponebat ad salutem quae futura
4613 erat per Christum, ut dictum est. Sed salus illa non erat futura
4614 solum in Iudaeis, sed in omnibus gentibus; secundum illud Isaiae
4615 XLIX, <i>parum est ut sis mihi servus ad suscitandas tribus Iacob
4616 et faeces Israel convertendas, dedi te in lucem gentium, ut sis
4617 salus mea usque ad extremum terrae</i>. Ergo lex vetus dari debuit
4618 omnibus gentibus, et non uni populo tantum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A4-p3">
4619 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, according to
4620 <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."
4621 Therefore the way of salvation should not have been opened to one people more than to another.
4622 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 4 arg. 2"><a name="37772" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37772] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 4 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
4623 sicut dicitur Act. X, <i>non est personarum acceptor Deus, sed in
4624 omni gente qui timet Deum et facit iustitiam, acceptus est
4625 illi</i>. Non ergo magis uni populo quam aliis viam salutis debuit
4626 aperire.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A4-p4">
4627 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the law was given through the angels, as stated above
4628 <a href="#FS_Q98_A3" id="FS_Q98_A4-p4.1" shape="rect">(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 (
4629 <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
4630 spiritual goods. Therefore He should have given the Law also to all peoples.
4631 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 4 arg. 3"><a name="37773" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37773] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 4 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
4632 lex data est per Angelos, sicut iam dictum est. Sed ministeria
4633 Angelorum Deus non solum Iudaeis, sed omnibus gentibus semper
4634 exhibuit, dicitur enim Eccli. XVII, <i>in unamquamque gentem
4635 praeposuit rectorem</i>. Omnibus etiam gentibus temporalia bona
4636 largitur, quae minus sunt curae Deo quam spiritualia bona. Ergo
4637 etiam legem omnibus populis dare debuit.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A4-p5">
4638 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
4639 <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":
4640 and (
4641 <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."
4642 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 4 s. c."><a name="37774" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37774] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 4 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
4643 est quod dicitur Rom. III, <i>quid ergo amplius est Iudaeo? Multum
4644 quidem per omnem modum. Primum quidem, quia credita sunt illis
4645 eloquia Dei</i>. Et in Psalmo CXLVII dicitur, <i>non fecit taliter
4646 omni nationi, et iudicia sua non manifestavit eis</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q98_A4-p6">
4647 <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
4648 alone remained faithful to the worship of one God, while the others turned away to idolatry; wherefore the latter were unworthy
4649 to receive the Law, lest a holy thing should be given to dogs.
4650 </p><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
4651 more grievous, as is clear from
4652 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A4-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.32" target="asv">Ex. 32</a> and from
4653 <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
4654 for your Moloch, and the image of your idols, the star of your god, which you made to yourselves." Moreover it is stated expressly
4655 (
4656 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q98_A4-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Deut.9.6" target="asv">Dt.
4657 9:6
4658 </a>): "Know therefore that the Lord thy God giveth thee not this excellent land in possession for thy justices, for thou art
4659 a very stiff-necked people": but the real reason is given in the preceding verse: "That the Lord might accomplish His word,
4660 which He promised by oath to thy fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."
4661 </p><p id="FS_Q98_A4-p8"> What this promise was is shown by the Apostle, who says (
4662 <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
4663 to thy seed,' which is Christ." And so God vouchsafed both the Law and other special boons to that people, on account of the
4664 promised made to their fathers that Christ should be born of them. For it was fitting that the people, of whom Christ was
4665 to be born, should be
4666 signalized by a special sanctification, according to the words of
4667 <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
4668 made to him, viz. that Christ should be born of his seed: but of gratuitous election and vocation. Hence it is written (
4669 <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?"
4670 </p><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
4671 people sprung from them received the law; according to
4672 <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
4673 seed after them." And if again it asked why He chose this people, and not another, that Christ might be born thereof; a fitting
4674 answer is given by
4675 Augustine (Tract. super Joan. xxvi): "Why He draweth one and draweth not another, seek not thou to judge, if thou wish not
4676 to err."
4677 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 4 co."><a name="37775" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37775] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 4 co.</span></a> Respondeo
4678 dicendum quod posset una ratio assignari quare potius populo
4679 Iudaeorum data sit lex quam aliis populis, quia, aliis ad
4680 idololatriam declinantibus, solus populus Iudaeorum in cultu unius
4681 Dei remansit; et ideo alii populi indigni erant legem recipere, ne
4682 sanctum canibus daretur. Sed ista ratio conveniens non videtur,
4683 quia populus ille etiam post legem latam, ad idololatriam
4684 declinavit, quod gravius fuit, ut patet Exod. XXXII; et Amos V,
4685 <i>numquid hostias et sacrificium obtulistis mihi in deserto
4686 quadraginta annis, domus Israel? Et portastis tabernaculum Moloch
4687 vestro, et imaginem idolorum vestrorum, sidus Dei vestri, quae
4688 fecistis vobis</i>. Expresse etiam dicitur Deut. IX, <i>scito quod
4689 non propter iustitias tuas dominus Deus tuus dedit tibi terram hanc
4690 in possessionem, cum durissimae cervici sis populus</i>. Sed ratio
4691 ibi praemittitur, <i>ut compleret verbum suum dominus, quod sub
4692 iuramento pollicitus est patribus tuis, Abraham, Isaac et
4693 Iacob</i>. Quae autem promissio eis sit facta, ostendit apostolus,
4694 ad Galat. III, dicens, <i>Abrahae dictae sunt promissiones, et
4695 semini eius. Non dicit, seminibus, quasi in multis, sed quasi in
4696 uno, et semini tuo, qui est Christus</i>. Deus igitur et legem et
4697 alia beneficia specialia illi populo exhibuit propter promissionem
4698 eorum patribus factam ut ex eis Christus nasceretur. Decebat enim
4699 ut ille populus ex quo Christus nasciturus erat, quadam speciali
4700 sanctificatione polleret; secundum illud quod dicitur Levit. XIX,
4701 <i>sancti eritis, quia ego sanctus sum</i>. Nec etiam fuit propter
4702 meritum ipsius Abrahae ut talis promissio ei fieret, ut scilicet
4703 Christus ex eius semine nasceretur, sed ex gratuita electione et
4704 vocatione. Unde dicitur Isaiae XLI, <i>quis suscitavit ab oriente
4705 iustum, vocavit eum ut sequeretur se?</i> Sic ergo patet quod ex
4706 sola gratuita electione patres promissionem acceperunt, et populus
4707 ex eis progenitus legem accepit; secundum illud Deut. IV,
4708 <i>audistis verba illius de medio ignis, quia dilexit patres, et
4709 elegit semen eorum post illos</i>. Si autem rursus quaeratur quare
4710 hunc populum elegit ut ex eo Christus nasceretur, et non alium,
4711 conveniet responsio Augustini, quam dicit super Ioan., <i>quare
4712 hunc trahat et illum non trahat, noli velle diiudicare, si non vis
4713 errare</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A4-p10">
4714 <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
4715 should be born of one people, which, for this reason, was privileged above other peoples; according to
4716 <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
4717 Law . . . whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ according to the
4718 flesh."
4719 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 4 ad 1"><a name="37776" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37776] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 4 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
4720 ergo dicendum quod, quamvis salus futura per Christum, esset
4721 omnibus gentibus praeparata; tamen oportebat ex uno populo Christum
4722 nasci, qui propter hoc prae aliis praerogativas habuit; secundum
4723 illud Rom. IX, quorum, scilicet Iudaeorum, <i>est adoptio filiorum
4724 Dei, et testamentum et legislatio; quorum patres; ex quibus
4725 Christus est secundum carnem</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A4-p11">
4726 <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
4727 are bestowed gratuitously. Because he who, out of generosity, gives of his own to one and not to another, is not a respecter
4728 of persons: but if he were a dispenser of goods held in common, and were not to distribute them according to personal merits,
4729 he would be a respecter of persons. Now God bestows the benefits of salvation on
4730 the human race gratuitously: wherefore He is not a respecter of persons, if He gives them to some rather than to others. Hence
4731 Augustine says (De Praedest. Sanct. viii): "All whom God teaches, he teaches out of pity; but whom He teaches not, out of
4732 justice He teaches not": for this is due to the condemnation of the human race for the sin of the first parent.
4733 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 4 ad 2"><a name="37777" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37777] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 4 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
4734 dicendum quod acceptio personarum locum habet in his quae ex debito
4735 dantur, in his vero quae ex gratuita voluntate conferuntur,
4736 acceptio personarum locum non habet. Non enim est personarum
4737 acceptor qui ex liberalitate de suo dat uni et non alteri, sed si
4738 esset dispensator bonorum communium, et non distribueret aequaliter
4739 secundum merita personarum, esset personarum acceptor. Salutaria
4740 autem beneficia Deus humano generi confert ex sua gratia. Unde non
4741 est personarum acceptor si quibusdam prae aliis conferat. Unde
4742 Augustinus dicit, in libro de Praedest. Sanct., <i>omnes quos Deus
4743 docet, misericordia docet, quos autem non docet, iudicio non
4744 docet</i>. Hoc enim venit ex damnatione humani generis pro peccato
4745 primi parentis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A4-p12">
4746 <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
4747 of the angels, which the very order of various natures demands, viz. that the lowest beings be governed through the intermediate
4748 beings: and also bodily aids, which God vouchsafes not only to men, but also to beasts, according to
4749 <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."
4750 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 4 ad 3"><a name="37778" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37778] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 4 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
4751 dicendum quod beneficia gratiae subtrahuntur homini propter culpam,
4752 sed beneficia naturalia non subtrahuntur. Inter quae sunt
4753 ministeria Angelorum, quae ipse naturarum ordo requirit, ut
4754 scilicet per media gubernentur infima; et etiam corporalia
4755 subsidia, quae non solum hominibus, sed etiam iumentis Deus
4756 administrat, secundum illud Psalmi XXXV, <i>homines et iumenta
4757 salvabis, domine</i>.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q98_A5" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q98_A5-p0.1">Q. 98. A. 5. Whether all men were bound to observe the Old Law?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A5-p2">
4758 <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
4759 to his law. But the Old Law was given by God, Who is "King of all the earth" (
4760 <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.
4761 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 5 arg. 1"><a name="37779" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37779] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 5 arg. 1</span></a> Ad quintum
4762 sic proceditur. Videtur quod omnes homines obligarentur ad
4763 observandam veterem legem. Quicumque enim subditur regi, oportet
4764 quod subdatur legi ipsius. Sed vetus lex est data a Deo, qui est
4765 rex omnis terrae, ut in Psalmo XLVI dicitur. Ergo omnes habitantes
4766 terram tenebantur ad observantiam legis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A5-p3">
4767 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Jews could not be saved without observing the Old Law: for it is written (
4768 <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
4769 be saved without the observance of the Old Law, the Jews would be in a worse plight than other men.
4770 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 5 arg. 2"><a name="37780" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37780] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 5 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
4771 Iudaei salvari non poterant nisi legem veterem observarent, dicitur
4772 enim Deut. XXVII, <i>maledictus qui non permanet in sermonibus
4773 legis huius, nec eos opere perficit</i>. Si igitur alii homines
4774 sine observantia legis veteris potuissent salvari, peior fuisset
4775 conditio Iudaeorum quam aliorum hominum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A5-p4">
4776 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Gentiles were admitted to the Jewish ritual and to the observances of the Law: for it is written (
4777 <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,
4778 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
4779 been useless to admit strangers to the legal observances according to
4780 Divine ordinance, if they could have been saved without the observance of the Law. Therefore none could be saved without observing
4781 the Law.
4782 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 5 arg. 3"><a name="37781" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37781] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 5 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
4783 gentiles ad ritum Iudaicum et ad observantias legis admittebantur,
4784 dicitur enim Exod. XII, <i>si quis peregrinorum in vestram voluerit
4785 transire coloniam, et facere phase domini, circumcidetur prius omne
4786 masculinum eius, et tunc rite celebrabit, eritque simul sicut
4787 indigena terrae</i>. Frustra autem ad observantias legales fuissent
4788 extranei admissi ex ordinatione divina, si absque legalibus
4789 observantiis salvari potuissent. Ergo nullus salvari poterat nisi
4790 legem observaret.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A5-p5">
4791 <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
4792 Gentiles did not observe the Law. Therefore some could be saved without observing the Law.
4793 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 5 s. c."><a name="37782" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37782] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 5 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
4794 est quod Dionysius dicit, IX cap. Cael. Hier., quod multi gentilium
4795 per Angelos sunt reducti in Deum. Sed constat quod gentiles legem
4796 non observabant. Ergo absque observantia legis poterant aliqui
4797 salvari.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q98_A5-p6">
4798 <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
4799 precepts of the natural law contained in the Old Law, all were bound to observe the Old Law; not because they belonged to
4800 the Old Law, but because they belonged to the natural law. But as to those precepts which were added by the Old Law, they
4801 were not binding on save the Jewish people alone.
4802 </p><p id="FS_Q98_A5-p7"> The reason of this is because the Old Law, as stated above
4803 <a href="#FS_Q98_A4" id="FS_Q98_A5-p7.1" shape="rect">(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
4804 of that people. Now whatever laws are enacted for the special sanctification of certain ones, are binding on them alone: thus
4805 clerics who are set aside for the service of God are bound to certain obligations to which the laity are not bound; likewise
4806 religious are
4807 bound by their profession to certain works of perfection, to which people living in the world are not bound. In like manner
4808 this people was bound to certain special observances, to which other peoples were not bound. Wherefore it is written (
4809 <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,
4810 as appears from
4811 <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,"
4812 etc.
4813 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 5 co."><a name="37783" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37783] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 5 co.</span></a> Respondeo
4814 dicendum quod lex vetus manifestabat praecepta legis naturae, et
4815 superaddebat quaedam propria praecepta. Quantum igitur ad illa quae
4816 lex vetus continebat de lege naturae, omnes tenebantur ad
4817 observantiam veteris legis, non quia erant de veteri lege, sed quia
4818 erant de lege naturae. Sed quantum ad illa quae lex vetus
4819 superaddebat, non tenebantur aliqui ad observantiam veteris legis
4820 nisi solus populus Iudaeorum. Cuius ratio est quia lex vetus, sicut
4821 dictum est, data est populo Iudaeorum ut quandam praerogativam
4822 sanctitatis obtineret, propter reverentiam Christi, qui ex illo
4823 populo nasciturus erat. Quaecumque autem statuuntur ad specialem
4824 aliquorum sanctificationem, non obligant nisi illos, sicut ad
4825 quaedam obligantur clerici, qui mancipantur divino ministerio, ad
4826 quae laici non obligantur; similiter et religiosi ad quaedam
4827 perfectionis opera obligantur ex sua professione, ad quae
4828 saeculares non obligantur. Et similiter ad quaedam specialia
4829 obligabatur populus ille, ad quae alii populi non obligabantur.
4830 Unde dicitur Deut. XVIII, <i>perfectus eris, et absque macula, cum
4831 domino Deo tuo</i>. Et propter hoc etiam quadam professione
4832 utebantur; ut patet Deut. XXVI, <i>profiteor hodie coram domino Deo
4833 tuo</i> et cetera.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A5-p8">
4834 <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
4835 to be observed by the servants of his household, others are not bound thereto.
4836 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 5 ad 1"><a name="37784" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37784] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 5 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
4837 ergo dicendum quod quicumque subduntur regi, obligantur ad legem
4838 eius observandam quam omnibus communiter proponit. Sed si instituat
4839 aliqua observanda a suis familiaribus ministris, ad haec ceteri non
4840 obligantur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A5-p9">
4841 <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
4842 of God, the greater their excellence over other peoples. Hence it is written (
4843 <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
4844 this point of view, the state of clerics is better than that of the laity, and the state of
4845 religious than that of folk living in the world.
4846 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 5 ad 2"><a name="37785" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37785] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 5 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
4847 dicendum quod homo quanto Deo magis coniungitur, tanto efficitur
4848 melioris conditionis. Et ideo quanto populus Iudaeorum erat
4849 adstrictus magis ad divinum cultum, dignior aliis populis erat.
4850 Unde dicitur Deut. IV, <i>quae est alia gens sic inclyta, ut habeat
4851 caeremonias, iustaque iudicia, et universam legem?</i> Et similiter
4852 etiam quantum ad hoc sunt melioris conditionis clerici quam laici,
4853 et religiosi quam saeculares.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A5-p10">
4854 <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
4855 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
4856 persons to those of the religious, although they can be saved without this.
4857 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 5 ad 3"><a name="37786" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37786] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 5 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
4858 dicendum quod gentiles perfectius et securius salutem
4859 consequebantur sub observantiis legis quam sub sola lege naturali,
4860 et ideo ad eas admittebantur. Sicut etiam nunc laici transeunt ad
4861 clericatum, et saeculares ad religionem, quamvis absque hoc possint
4862 salvari.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q98_A6" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q98_A6-p0.1">Q. 98. A. 6. Whether the Old Law was suitably given at the time of Moses?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A6-p2">
4863 <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
4864 which was to come through Christ, as stated above (
4865 <a href="#FS_Q98_A2" id="FS_Q98_A6-p2.1" shape="rect">AA[2]</a>,3). But man needed this salutary remedy immediately after he had sinned. Therefore the Law should have been given immediately
4866 after sin.
4867 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 6 arg. 1"><a name="37787" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37787] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 6 arg. 1</span></a> Ad sextum
4868 sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex vetus non convenienter fuerit data
4869 tempore Moysi. Lex enim vetus disponebat ad salutem quae erat
4870 futura per Christum, sicut dictum est. Sed statim homo post
4871 peccatum indiguit huiusmodi salutis remedio. Ergo statim post
4872 peccatum lex vetus debuit dari.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A6-p3">
4873 <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
4874 the "seed, which is Christ" (
4875 <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
4876 <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.
4877 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 6 arg. 2"><a name="37788" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37788] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 6 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
4878 lex vetus data est propter sanctificationem eorum ex quibus
4879 Christus nasciturus erat. Sed Abrahae incoepit fieri promissio de
4880 semine, quod est Christus, ut habetur Gen. XII. Ergo statim tempore
4881 Abrahae debuit lex dari.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A6-p4">
4882 <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
4883 born of no other of the descendants of Abraham but David, to whom the promise was renewed, according to
4884 <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
4885 been given after David, just as it was given after Abraham.
4886 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 6 arg. 3"><a name="37789" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37789] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 6 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
4887 sicut Christus non est natus ex aliis descendentibus ex Noe nisi ex
4888 Abraham, cui facta est promissio; ita etiam non est natus ex aliis
4889 filiis Abrahae nisi ex David, cui est promissio renovata, secundum
4890 illud II Reg. XXIII, <i>dixit vir cui constitutum est de Christo
4891 Dei Iacob</i>. Ergo lex vetus debuit dari post David, sicut data
4892 est post Abraham.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A6-p5">
4893 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
4894 <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
4895 by angels in the hand of a Mediator": ordained, i.e. "given in orderly fashion," as the gloss explains. Therefore it was fitting
4896 that the Old Law should be given in this order of time.
4897 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 6 s. c."><a name="37790" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37790] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 6 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
4898 est quod apostolus dicit, ad Gal. III, quod <i>lex propter
4899 transgressionem posita est, donec veniret semen cui promiserat,
4900 ordinata per Angelos in manu mediatoris</i>, idest ordinabiliter
4901 data, ut Glossa dicit. Ergo congruum fuit ut lex vetus illo
4902 temporis ordine traderetur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q98_A6-p6">
4903 <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
4904 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
4905 the law restrains and tames: and it is imposed on good men, who, through being instructed by the law, are helped to fulfil
4906 what they desire to do. Hence it was fitting that the Law should be given at such a time as
4907 would be appropriate for the overcoming of man's pride. For man was proud of two things, viz. of knowledge and of power. He
4908 was proud of his knowledge, as though his natural reason could suffice him for salvation: and accordingly, in order that his
4909 pride might be overcome in this matter, man was left to the guidance of his reason without the help of a written law: and
4910 man was able to learn from experience that his reason was deficient, since about the time of Abraham man had fallen headlong
4911 into idolatry and the most shameful vices. Wherefore, after those times, it was necessary for a written law to be given as
4912 a remedy for human ignorance: because "by the Law is the knowledge of sin" (
4913 <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
4914 what he knew. Hence, as the Apostle concludes (
4915 <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,
4916 God sent [Vulg.: 'sending'] His own Son . . . that the justification of the Law might be fulfilled in us."
4917 </p><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
4918 law began to be obscured on account of the exuberance of sin: for it was fitting that this help should be bestowed on men
4919 in an orderly manner, so that they might be led from imperfection to perfection; wherefore it was becoming that the Old Law
4920 should be given between the law of nature and the law of grace.
4921 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 6 co."><a name="37791" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37791] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 6 co.</span></a> Respondeo
4922 dicendum quod convenientissime lex vetus data fuit tempore Moysi.
4923 Cuius ratio potest accipi ex duobus, secundum quod quaelibet lex
4924 duobus generibus hominum imponitur. Imponitur enim quibusdam duris
4925 et superbis, qui per legem compescuntur et domantur, imponitur
4926 etiam bonis, qui, per legem instructi, adiuvantur ad implendum quod
4927 intendunt. Conveniens igitur fuit tali tempore legem veterem dari,
4928 ad superbiam hominum convincendam. De duobus enim homo superbiebat,
4929 scilicet de scientia, et de potentia. De scientia quidem, quasi
4930 ratio naturalis ei posset sufficere ad salutem. Et ideo ut de hoc
4931 eius superbia convinceretur permissus est homo regimini suae
4932 rationis absque adminiculo legis scriptae, et experimento homo
4933 discere potuit quod patiebatur rationis defectum, per hoc quod
4934 homines usque ad idololatriam et turpissima vitia circa tempora
4935 Abrahae sunt prolapsi. Et ideo post haec tempora fuit necessarium
4936 legem scriptam dari in remedium humanae ignorantiae, quia per legem
4937 est cognitio peccati, ut dicitur Rom. III. Sed postquam homo est
4938 instructus per legem, convicta est eius superbia de infirmitate,
4939 dum implere non poterat quod cognoscebat. Et ideo, sicut apostolus
4940 concludit, ad Rom. VIII, <i>quod impossibile erat legi, in qua
4941 infirmabatur per carnem, misit Deus filium suum, ut iustificatio
4942 legis impleretur in nobis</i>. Ex parte vero bonorum, lex data est
4943 in auxilium. Quod quidem tunc maxime populo necessarium fuit,
4944 quando lex naturalis obscurari incipiebat propter exuberantiam
4945 peccatorum. Oportebat autem huiusmodi auxilium quodam ordine dari,
4946 ut per imperfecta ad perfectionem manuducerentur. Et ideo inter
4947 legem naturae et legem gratiae, oportuit legem veterem dari.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A6-p8">
4948 <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
4949 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
4950 not darkened by habitual sinning.
4951 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 6 ad 1"><a name="37792" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37792] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 6 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
4952 ergo dicendum quod statim post peccatum primi hominis non
4953 competebat legem veterem dari, tum quia nondum homo recognoscebat
4954 se ea indigere, de sua ratione confisus. Tum quia adhuc dictamen
4955 legis naturae nondum erat obtenebratum per consuetudinem
4956 peccandi.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A6-p9">
4957 <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 (
4958 <a href="#FS_Q90_A2" id="FS_Q98_A6-p9.1" shape="rect">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
4959 descendants had multiplied, so as to form a people, and when they had been freed from slavery, it was fitting that they should
4960 be given a law; for "slaves are not that part of the people or state to
4961 which it is fitting for the law to be directed," as the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 2,4,5).
4962 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 6 ad 2"><a name="37793" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37793] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 6 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
4963 dicendum quod lex non debet dari nisi populo, est enim praeceptum
4964 commune, ut dictum est. Et ideo tempore Abrahae data sunt quaedam
4965 familiaria praecepta, et quasi domestica, Dei ad homines. Sed
4966 postmodum, multiplicatis eius posteris intantum quod populus esset,
4967 et liberatis eis a servitute, lex convenienter potuit dari, nam
4968 servi non sunt pars populi vel civitatis, cui legem dari competit,
4969 ut philosophus dicit, in III Polit.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q98_A6-p10">
4970 <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,
4971 who were marked with the seal of circumcision, which was the sign of the promise made to Abraham, and in which he believed,
4972 according to
4973 <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.
4974 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 98 a. 6 ad 3"><a name="37794" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37794] Iª-IIae q. 98 a. 6 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
4975 dicendum quod, quia legem oportebat alicui populo dari, non solum
4976 illi ex quibus Christus natus est, legem acceperunt; sed totus
4977 populus consignatus signaculo circumcisionis, quae fuit signum
4978 promissionis Abrahae factae et ab eo creditae, ut dicit apostolus,
4979 Rom. IV. Et ideo etiam ante David oportuit legem dari tali populo
4980 iam collecto.</p></div></div></div></div>
4981 <div id="FS_Q99" class="div3">
4982 <h3 id="FS_Q99-p0.1">Q. 99. OF THE PRECEPTS OF THE OLD LAW (SIX ARTICLES)</h3>
4983 <div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="div4">
4984 <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.
4985 Under the first head there are six points of inquiry:
4986 </p><p id="FS_Q99-p3"><a href="#FS_Q99_A1"> (1) Whether the Old Law contains several precepts or only one?</a></p><p id="FS_Q99-p4"><a href="#FS_Q99_A2"> (2) Whether the Old Law contains any moral precepts?</a></p><p id="FS_Q99-p5"><a href="#FS_Q99_A3"> (3) Whether it contains ceremonial precepts in addition to the moral precepts?</a></p><p id="FS_Q99-p6"><a href="#FS_Q99_A4"> (4) Whether besides these it contains judicial precepts?</a></p><p id="FS_Q99-p7"><a href="#FS_Q99_A5"> (5) Whether it contains any others besides these?</a></p><p id="FS_Q99-p8"><a href="#FS_Q99_A6"> (6) How the Old Law induced men to keep its precepts.</a></p>
4987 </div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 pr."><a name="37795" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37795]
4988 Iª-IIae q. 99 pr.</span></a> Deinde considerandum est de
4989 praeceptis veteris legis. Et primo, de distinctione ipsorum;
4990 secundo, de singulis generibus distinctis. Circa primum quaeruntur
4991 sex. Primo, utrum legis veteris sint plura praecepta, vel unum
4992 tantum. Secundo, utrum lex vetus contineat aliqua praecepta
4993 moralia. Tertio, utrum praeter moralia contineat caeremonialia.
4994 Quarto, utrum contineat, praeter haec, iudicialia. Quinto, utrum
4995 praeter ista tria contineat aliqua alia. Sexto, de modo quo lex
4996 inducebat ad observantiam praedictorum.</p></div></div></div>
4997 <div id="FS_Q99_A1" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q99_A1-p0.1">Q. 99. A. 1. Whether the Old Law contains only one precept?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A1-p2">
4998 <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 (
4999 <a href="#FS_Q90_A2" id="FS_Q99_A1-p2.1" shape="rect">Q[90], AA[2]</a>,3). Now there is but one Old Law. Therefore it contains but one precept.
5000 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 1 arg. 1"><a name="37796" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37796] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 1 arg. 1</span></a> Ad primum
5001 sic proceditur. Videtur quod in lege veteri non contineatur nisi
5002 unum praeceptum. Lex enim est nihil aliud quam praeceptum, ut supra
5003 habitum est. Sed lex vetus est una. Ergo non continet nisi unum
5004 praeceptum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A1-p3">
5005 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Apostle says (
5006 <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
5007 only one commandment. Therefore the Old Law contained but one commandment.
5008 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 1 arg. 2"><a name="37797" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37797] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 1 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
5009 apostolus dicit, Rom. XIII, <i>si quod est aliud mandatum, in hoc
5010 verbo instauratur, diliges proximum tuum sicut teipsum</i>. Sed
5011 istud mandatum est unum. Ergo lex vetus non continet nisi unum
5012 mandatum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A1-p4">
5013 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is written (
5014 <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."
5015 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
5016 commandment.
5017 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 1 arg. 3"><a name="37798" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37798] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 1 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
5018 Matth. VII, dicitur, <i>omnia quaecumque vultis ut faciant vobis
5019 homines, et vos facite illis, haec est enim lex et prophetae</i>.
5020 Sed tota lex vetus continetur in lege et prophetis. Ergo tota lex
5021 vetus non habet nisi unum praeceptum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A1-p5">
5022 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
5023 <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,
5024 on the passage. Therefore the Old Law comprises many commandments.
5025 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 1 s. c."><a name="37799" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37799] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 1 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
5026 est quod apostolus dicit, ad Ephes. II, <i>legem mandatorum
5027 decretis evacuans</i>. Et loquitur de lege veteri, ut patet per
5028 Glossam ibidem. Ergo lex vetus continet in se multa mandata.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A1-p6">
5029 <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
5030 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
5031 a thing is commanded as being necessary or expedient to an end. Now many things may happen to be necessary or expedient to
5032 an end; and, accordingly, precepts may be given about various things as being ordained to one
5033 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
5034 they are many in respect of the diversity of those things that are ordained to that end.
5035 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 1 co."><a name="37800" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37800] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 1 co.</span></a> Respondeo
5036 dicendum quod praeceptum legis, cum sit obligatorium, est de aliquo
5037 quod fieri debet. Quod autem aliquid debeat fieri, hoc provenit ex
5038 necessitate alicuius finis. Unde manifestum est quod de ratione
5039 praecepti est quod importet ordinem ad finem, inquantum scilicet
5040 illud praecipitur quod est necessarium vel expediens ad finem.
5041 Contingit autem ad unum finem multa esse necessaria vel
5042 expedientia. Et secundum hoc possunt de diversis rebus dari
5043 praecepta inquantum ordinantur ad unum finem. Unde dicendum est
5044 quod omnia praecepta legis veteris sunt unum secundum ordinem ad
5045 unum finem, sunt tamen multa secundum diversitatem eorum quae
5046 ordinantur ad finem illum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A1-p7">
5047 <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
5048 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
5049 it aims at the building of a house: and yet it contains various rules, according to the variety of acts ordained thereto.
5050 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 1 ad 1"><a name="37801" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37801] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 1 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
5051 ergo dicendum quod lex vetus dicitur esse una secundum ordinem ad
5052 finem unum, et tamen continet diversa praecepta, secundum
5053 distinctionem eorum quae ordinat ad finem. Sicut etiam ars
5054 aedificativa est una secundum unitatem finis, quia tendit ad
5055 aedificationem domus, tamen continet diversa praecepta, secundum
5056 diversos actus ad hoc ordinatos.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A1-p8">
5057 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As the Apostle says (
5058 <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
5059 between man and God. Wherefore the whole Law is comprised in this one commandment, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,"
5060 as expressing the end of all commandments: because love of one's neighbor includes love of God, when we love our neighbor
5061 for God's sake. Hence the
5062 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
5063 said (
5064 <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."
5065 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 1 ad 2"><a name="37802" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37802] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 1 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
5066 dicendum quod, sicut apostolus dicit, I ad Tim. I, <i>finis
5067 praecepti caritas est</i>, ad hoc enim omnis lex tendit, ut
5068 amicitiam constituat vel hominum ad invicem, vel hominis ad Deum.
5069 Et ideo tota lex impletur in hoc uno mandato, <i>diliges proximum
5070 tuum sicut teipsum</i>, sicut in quodam fine mandatorum omnium, in
5071 dilectione enim proximi includitur etiam Dei dilectio, quando
5072 proximus diligitur propter Deum. Unde apostolus hoc unum praeceptum
5073 posuit pro duobus quae sunt de dilectione Dei et proximi, de quibus
5074 dicit dominus, Matth. XXII, <i>in his duobus mandatis pendet omnis
5075 lex et prophetae</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A1-p9">
5076 <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
5077 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,"
5078 this is an explanation of the rule of neighborly love contained implicitly in the words, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as
5079 thyself": so that it is an explanation of this commandment.
5080 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 1 ad 3"><a name="37803" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37803] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 1 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
5081 dicendum quod, sicut dicitur in IX Ethic., <i>amicabilia quae sunt
5082 ad alterum, venerunt ex amicabilibus quae sunt homini ad
5083 seipsum</i>, dum scilicet homo ita se habet ad alterum sicut ad se.
5084 Et ideo in hoc quod dicitur, <i>omnia quaecumque vultis ut faciant
5085 vobis homines, et vos facite illis</i>, explicatur quaedam regula
5086 dilectionis proximi, quae etiam implicite continetur in hoc quod
5087 dicitur, <i>diliges proximum tuum sicut teipsum</i>. Unde est
5088 quaedam explicatio istius mandati.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q99_A2" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q99_A2-p0.1">Q. 99. A. 2. Whether the Old Law contains moral precepts?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A2-p2">
5089 <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
5090 above (
5091 <a href="#FS_Q91_A4" id="FS_Q99_A2-p2.1" shape="rect">Q[91], AA[4]</a>,5;
5092 <a href="#FS_Q98_A5" id="FS_Q99_A2-p2.2" shape="rect"> Q[98], A[5]</a>). But the moral precepts belong to the law of nature. Therefore they do not belong to the Old Law.
5093 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 2 arg. 1"><a name="37804" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37804] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 2 arg. 1</span></a> Ad secundum
5094 sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex vetus non contineat praecepta
5095 moralia. Lex enim vetus distinguitur a lege naturae, ut supra
5096 habitum est. Sed praecepta moralia pertinent ad legem naturae. Ergo
5097 non pertinent ad legem veterem.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A2-p3">
5098 <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
5099 that are of faith, which are above reason. But man's reason seems to suffice for the moral precepts. Therefore the moral precepts
5100 do not belong to the Old Law, which is a Divine law.
5101 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 2 arg. 2"><a name="37805" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37805] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 2 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
5102 ibi subvenire debuit homini lex divina, ubi deficit ratio humana,
5103 sicut patet in his quae ad fidem pertinent, quae sunt supra
5104 rationem. Sed ad praecepta moralia ratio hominis sufficere videtur.
5105 Ergo praecepta moralia non sunt de lege veteri, quae est lex
5106 divina.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A2-p4">
5107 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Old Law is said to be "the letter that killeth" (
5108 <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
5109 <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
5110 to the Old Law.
5111 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 2 arg. 3"><a name="37806" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37806] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 2 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
5112 lex vetus dicitur littera occidens, ut patet II ad Cor. III. Sed
5113 praecepta moralia non occidunt, sed vivificant; secundum illud
5114 Psalmi CXVIII, <i>in aeternum non obliviscar iustificationes tuas,
5115 quia in ipsis vivificasti me</i>. Ergo praecepta moralia non
5116 pertinent ad veterem legem.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A2-p5">
5117 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
5118 <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
5119 to morals; for this gloss on
5120 <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
5121 the Law which was given by God comprised moral precepts.
5122 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 2 s. c."><a name="37807" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37807] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 2 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
5123 est quod dicitur Eccli. XVII, <i>addidit illis disciplinam, et
5124 legem vitae haereditavit eos</i>. Disciplina autem pertinet ad
5125 mores, dicit enim Glossa ad Heb. XII, super illud, omnis disciplina
5126 etc., <i>disciplina est eruditio morum per difficilia</i>. Ergo lex
5127 a Deo data, praecepta moralia continebat.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A2-p6">
5128 <b>I answer that,</b> The Old Law contained some moral precepts; as is evident from
5129 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A2-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.20.13" target="asv">Ex. 20:13</a>,
5130 <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
5131 is to created friendship between man and man; so the chief intention of the Divine law is to establish man in friendship with
5132 God. Now since likeness is the reason of love, according to
5133 <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
5134 like"; there cannot possibly be any friendship of man to God, Who is supremely good, unless man become good: wherefore it
5135 is written (
5136 <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.
5137 ii, 6). Therefore it was necessary for the Old Law to include precepts about acts of virtue: and these are the moral precepts
5138 of the Law.
5139 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 2 co."><a name="37808" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37808] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 2 co.</span></a> Respondeo
5140 dicendum quod lex vetus continebat praecepta quaedam moralia, ut
5141 patet Exod. XX, <i>non occides, non furtum facies</i>. Et hoc
5142 rationabiliter. Nam sicut intentio principalis legis humanae est ut
5143 faciat amicitiam hominum ad invicem; ita intentio legis divinae est
5144 ut constituat principaliter amicitiam hominis ad Deum. Cum autem
5145 similitudo sit ratio amoris, secundum illud Eccli. XIII, <i>omne
5146 animal diligit simile sibi</i>; impossibile est esse amicitiam
5147 hominis ad Deum, qui est optimus, nisi homines boni efficiantur,
5148 unde dicitur Levit. XIX, <i>sancti eritis, quoniam ego sanctus
5149 sum</i>. Bonitas autem hominis est virtus, quae facit bonum
5150 habentem. Et ideo oportuit praecepta legis veteris etiam de actibus
5151 virtutum dari. Et haec sunt moralia legis praecepta.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A2-p7">
5152 <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.
5153 For just as grace presupposes nature, so must the Divine law presuppose the natural law.
5154 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 2 ad 1"><a name="37809" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37809] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 2 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
5155 ergo dicendum quod lex vetus distinguitur a lege naturae non
5156 tanquam ab ea omnino aliena, sed tanquam aliquid ei superaddens.
5157 Sicut enim gratia praesupponit naturam, ita oportet quod lex divina
5158 praesupponat legem naturalem.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A2-p8">
5159 <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,
5160 but also in those things in which human reason may happen to be impeded. Now human reason could not go astray in the abstract,
5161 as to the universal principles of the natural law; but through being habituated to sin, it became obscured in the point of
5162 things to be done in detail. But with regard to the other moral precepts, which
5163 are like conclusions drawn from the universal principles of the natural law, the reason of many men went astray, to the extend
5164 of judging to be lawful, things that are evil in themselves. Hence there was need for the authority of the Divine law to rescue
5165 man from both these defects. Thus among the articles of faith not only are those things set forth to which reason cannot reach,
5166 such as the Trinity of the Godhead; but also those to which right reason can attain, such as the Unity of the
5167 Godhead; in order to remove the manifold errors to which reason is liable.
5168 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 2 ad 2"><a name="37810" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37810] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 2 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
5169 dicendum quod legi divinae conveniens erat ut non solum provideret
5170 homini in his ad quae ratio non potest, sed etiam in his circa quae
5171 contingit rationem hominis impediri. Ratio autem hominis circa
5172 praecepta moralia, quantum ad ipsa communissima praecepta legis
5173 naturae, non poterat errare in universali, sed tamen, propter
5174 consuetudinem peccandi, obscurabatur in particularibus agendis.
5175 Circa alia vero praecepta moralia, quae sunt quasi conclusiones
5176 deductae ex communibus principiis legis naturae, multorum ratio
5177 oberrabat, ita ut quaedam quae secundum se sunt mala, ratio
5178 multorum licita iudicaret. Unde oportuit contra utrumque defectum
5179 homini subveniri per auctoritatem legis divinae. Sicut etiam inter
5180 credenda nobis proponuntur non solum ea ad quae ratio attingere non
5181 potest, ut Deum esse trinum; sed etiam ea ad quae ratio recta
5182 pertingere potest, ut Deum esse unum; ad excludendum rationis
5183 humanae errorem, qui accidebat in multis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A2-p9">
5184 <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
5185 moral precepts; in so far as, to wit, it prescribes what is good, without furnishing the aid of grace for its fulfilment.
5186 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 2 ad 3"><a name="37811" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37811] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 2 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
5187 dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus probat in libro de spiritu et
5188 littera, etiam littera legis quantum ad praecepta moralia, occidere
5189 dicitur occasionaliter, inquantum scilicet praecipit quod bonum
5190 est, non praebens auxilium gratiae ad implendum.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q99_A3" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q99_A3-p0.1">Q. 99. A. 3. Whether the Old Law comprises ceremonial, besides moral, precepts?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A3-p2">
5191 <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
5192 is for the purpose of directing human actions. Now human actions are called moral, as stated above (
5193 <a href="FS_i.html#FS_Q1_A3" id="FS_Q99_A3-p2.1" shape="rect">Q[1], A[3]</a>). Therefore it seems that the Old Law given to men should not comprise other than moral precepts.
5194 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 3 arg. 1"><a name="37812" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37812] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 3 arg. 1</span></a> Ad tertium
5195 sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex vetus non contineat praecepta
5196 caeremonialia, praeter moralia. Omnis enim lex quae hominibus
5197 datur, est directiva humanorum actuum. Actus autem humani morales
5198 dicuntur, ut supra dictum est. Ergo videtur quod in lege veteri
5199 hominibus data, non debeant contineri nisi praecepta moralia.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A3-p3">
5200 <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
5201 a virtue, viz. religion, which, as Tully says (De Invent. ii) "offers worship and ceremony to the Godhead." Since, then, the
5202 moral precepts are about acts of virtue, as stated above
5203 <a href="#FS_Q99_A2" id="FS_Q99_A3-p3.1" shape="rect">(A[2])</a>, it seems that the ceremonial precepts should not be distinct from the moral.
5204 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 3 arg. 2"><a name="37813" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37813] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 3 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
5205 praecepta quae dicuntur caeremonialia, videntur ad divinum cultum
5206 pertinere. Sed divinus cultus est actus virtutis, scilicet
5207 religionis, quae, ut Tullius dicit in sua Rhetoric., <i>divinae
5208 naturae cultum caeremoniamque affert</i>. Cum igitur praecepta
5209 moralia sint de actibus virtutum, ut dictum est, videtur quod
5210 praecepta caeremonialia non sint distinguenda a moralibus.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A3-p4">
5211 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the ceremonial precepts seem to be those which signify something figuratively. But, as Augustine observes (De Doctr.
5212 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
5213 ceremonial precepts about certain figurative actions.
5214 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 3 arg. 3"><a name="37814" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37814] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 3 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
5215 praecepta caeremonialia esse videntur quae figurative aliquid
5216 significant. Sed sicut Augustinus dicit, in II de Doctr. Christ.,
5217 <i>verba inter homines obtinuerunt principatum significandi</i>.
5218 Ergo nulla necessitas fuit ut in lege continerentur praecepta
5219 caeremonialia de aliquibus actibus figurativis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A3-p5">
5220 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
5221 <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
5222 and judgments which you shall do." But the ten commandments of the Law are moral precepts. Therefore besides the moral precepts
5223 there are others which are ceremonial.
5224 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 3 s. c."><a name="37815" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37815] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 3 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
5225 est quod dicitur Deut. IV, <i>decem verba scripsit in duabus
5226 tabulis lapideis, mihique mandavit in illo tempore ut docerem vos
5227 caeremonias et iudicia quae facere deberetis</i>. Sed decem
5228 praecepta legis sunt moralia. Ergo praeter praecepta moralia sunt
5229 etiam alia praecepta caeremonialia.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A3-p6">
5230 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
5231 <a href="#FS_Q99_A2" id="FS_Q99_A3-p6.1" shape="rect">(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
5232 men in relation to one another. Hence human laws have not concerned themselves with the institution of anything relating to
5233 Divine worship except as affecting the common good of mankind: and for this reason they have devised many institutions relating
5234 to Divine matters, according as it
5235 seemed expedient for the formation of human morals; as may be seen in the rites of the Gentiles. On the other hand the Divine
5236 law directed men to one another according to the demands of that order whereby man is directed to God, which order was the
5237 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,
5238 but also by certain external works, whereby man makes profession of his subjection to God: and it is these works that are
5239 said to belong to the Divine worship. This worship is called "ceremony" [the munia, i.e. gifts] of Ceres (who was the goddess
5240 of fruits), as some say: because, at first, offerings were made to God from the fruits: or because, as Valerius Maximus states
5241 [*Fact. et Dict. Memor. i, 1], the word "ceremony" was introduced among the Latins, to signify the Divine worship, being derived
5242 from a town near Rome called "Caere": since, when Rome was taken by the Gauls, the sacred chattels of the Romans were
5243 taken thither and most carefully preserved. Accordingly those precepts of the Law which refer to the Divine worship are specially
5244 called ceremonial.
5245 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 3 co."><a name="37816" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37816] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 3 co.</span></a> Respondeo
5246 dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, lex divina principaliter
5247 instituitur ad ordinandum homines ad Deum; lex autem humana
5248 principaliter ad ordinandum homines ad invicem. Et ideo leges
5249 humanae non curaverunt aliquid instituere de cultu divino nisi in
5250 ordine ad bonum commune hominum, et propter hoc etiam multa
5251 confinxerunt circa res divinas, secundum quod videbatur eis
5252 expediens ad informandos mores hominum; sicut patet in ritu
5253 gentilium. Sed lex divina e converso homines ad invicem ordinavit
5254 secundum quod conveniebat ordini qui est in Deum, quem
5255 principaliter intendebat. Ordinatur autem homo in Deum non solum
5256 per interiores actus mentis, qui sunt credere, sperare et amare;
5257 sed etiam per quaedam exteriora opera, quibus homo divinam
5258 servitutem profitetur. Et ista opera dicuntur ad cultum Dei
5259 pertinere. Qui quidem cultus caeremonia vocatur, quasi munia, idest
5260 dona, Caereris, quae dicebatur dea frugum, ut quidam dicunt, eo
5261 quod primo ex frugibus oblationes Deo offerebantur. Sive, ut
5262 maximus Valerius refert, nomen caeremoniae introductum est ad
5263 significandum cultum divinum apud Latinos, a quodam oppido iuxta
5264 Romam, quod Caere vocabatur, eo quod, Roma capta a gallis, illuc
5265 sacra Romanorum ablata sunt, et reverentissime habita. Sic igitur
5266 illa praecepta quae in lege pertinent ad cultum Dei, specialiter
5267 caeremonialia dicuntur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A3-p7">
5268 <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
5269 also.
5270 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 3 ad 1"><a name="37817" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37817] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 3 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
5271 ergo dicendum quod humani actus se extendunt etiam ad cultum
5272 divinum. Et ideo etiam de his continet praecepta lex vetus
5273 hominibus data.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A3-p8">
5274 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As stated above (
5275 <a href="#FS_Q91_A3" id="FS_Q99_A3-p8.1" shape="rect">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
5276 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
5277 law; so the determinations of the precepts of the natural law, effected by the Divine law, are distinct from the moral precepts
5278 which belong to the
5279 natural law. Wherefore to worship God, since it is an act of virtue, belongs to a moral precept; but the determination of
5280 this precept, namely that He is to be worshipped by such and such sacrifices, and such and such offerings, belongs to the
5281 ceremonial precepts. Consequently the ceremonial precepts are distinct from the moral precepts.
5282 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 3 ad 2"><a name="37818" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37818] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 3 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
5283 dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, praecepta legis naturae
5284 communia sunt, et indigent determinatione. Determinantur autem et
5285 per legem humanam, et per legem divinam. Et sicut ipsae
5286 determinationes quae fiunt per legem humanam, non dicuntur esse de
5287 lege naturae, sed de iure positivo; ita ipsae determinationes
5288 praeceptorum legis naturae quae fiunt per legem divinam,
5289 distinguuntur a praeceptis moralibus, quae pertinent ad legem
5290 naturae. Colere ergo Deum, cum sit actus virtutis, pertinet ad
5291 praeceptum morale, sed determinatio huius praecepti, ut scilicet
5292 colatur talibus hostiis et talibus muneribus, hoc pertinet ad
5293 praecepta caeremonialia. Et ideo praecepta caeremonialia
5294 distinguuntur a praeceptis moralibus.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A3-p9">
5295 <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.
5296 Now these similitudes move the soul more when they are not only expressed in words, but also offered to the senses. Wherefore
5297 the things of God are set forth in the Scriptures not only by similitudes expressed in words, as in the case of metaphorical
5298 expressions; but also by similitudes of things set before the eyes, which pertains
5299 to the ceremonial precepts.
5300 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 3 ad 3"><a name="37819" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37819] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 3 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
5301 dicendum quod, sicut Dionysius dicit, I cap. Cael. Hier., divina
5302 hominibus manifestari non possunt nisi sub aliquibus
5303 similitudinibus sensibilibus. Ipsae autem similitudines magis
5304 movent animum quando non solum verbo exprimuntur, sed etiam sensui
5305 offeruntur. Et ideo divina traduntur in Scripturis non solum per
5306 similitudines verbo expressas, sicut patet in metaphoricis
5307 locutionibus; sed etiam per similitudines rerum quae visui
5308 proponuntur, quod pertinet ad praecepta caeremonialia.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q99_A4" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q99_A4-p0.1">Q. 99. A. 4. Whether, besides the moral and ceremonial precepts, there are also judicial precepts?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A4-p2">
5309 <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
5310 says (Contra Faust. vi, 2) that in the Old Law there are "precepts concerning the life we have to lead, and precepts regarding
5311 the life that is foreshadowed." Now the precepts of the life we have to lead are moral precepts; and the precepts of the life
5312 that is foreshadowed are ceremonial. Therefore besides these two kinds of precepts
5313 we should not put any judicial precepts in the Law.
5314 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 4 arg. 1"><a name="37820" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37820] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 4 arg. 1</span></a> Ad quartum
5315 sic proceditur. Videtur quod praeter praecepta moralia et
5316 caeremonialia, non sint aliqua praecepta iudicialia in veteri lege.
5317 Dicit enim Augustinus, contra Faustum, quod in lege veteri sunt
5318 praecepta vitae agendae, et praecepta vitae significandae. Sed
5319 praecepta vitae agendae sunt moralia; praecepta autem vitae
5320 significandae sunt caeremonialia. Ergo praeter haec duo genera
5321 praeceptorum, non sunt ponenda in lege alia praecepta
5322 iudicialia.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A4-p3">
5323 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a gloss on
5324 <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
5325 to the moral precepts. Therefore the judicial precepts should not be considered as distinct from the moral precepts.
5326 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 4 arg. 2"><a name="37821" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37821] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 4 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
5327 super illud Psalmi CXVIII, <i>a iudiciis tuis non declinavi</i>,
5328 dicit Glossa, <i>idest ab his quae constituisti regulam
5329 vivendi</i>. Sed regula vivendi pertinet ad praecepta moralia. Ergo
5330 praecepta iudicialia non sunt distinguenda a moralibus.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A4-p4">
5331 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, judgment seems to be an act of justice, according to
5332 <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.
5333 Therefore the moral precepts include the judicial precepts, and consequently should not be held as distinct from them.
5334 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 4 arg. 3"><a name="37822" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37822] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 4 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
5335 iudicium videtur esse actus iustitiae; secundum illud Psalmi XCIII,
5336 <i>quoadusque iustitia convertatur in iudicium</i>. Sed actus
5337 iustitiae, sicut et actus ceterarum virtutum, pertinet ad praecepta
5338 moralia. Ergo praecepta moralia includunt in se iudicialia, et sic
5339 non debent ab eis distingui.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A4-p5">
5340 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
5341 <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.
5342 Therefore there are judicial precepts besides moral and ceremonial precepts.
5343 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 4 s. c."><a name="37823" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37823] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 4 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
5344 est quod dicitur Deut. VI, <i>haec sunt praecepta et caeremoniae
5345 atque iudicia</i>. Praecepta autem antonomastice dicuntur moralia.
5346 Ergo praeter praecepta moralia et caeremonialia, sunt etiam
5347 iudicialia.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q99_A4-p6">
5348 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
5349 <a href="#FS_Q99_A2" id="FS_Q99_A4-p6.1" shape="rect">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
5350 dictates of the natural law, to which dictates the moral precepts are to be referred: yet each of them has to be determined
5351 by Divine or human law, because naturally known principles are universal, both in speculative and in practical matters. Accordingly
5352 just as the determination of the
5353 universal principle about Divine worship is effected by the ceremonial precepts, so the determination of the general precepts
5354 of that justice which is to be observed among men is effected by the judicial precepts.
5355 </p><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
5356 law; "ceremonial" precepts, which are determinations of the Divine worship; and "judicial" precepts, which are determinations
5357 of the justice to be maintained among men. Wherefore the Apostle (
5358 <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
5359 judicial
5360 precepts; "holy," with regard to the ceremonial precepts (since the word "sanctus"---"holy"---is applied to that which is
5361 consecrated to God); and "good," i.e. conducive to virtue, as to the moral precepts.
5362 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 4 co."><a name="37824" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37824] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 4 co.</span></a> Respondeo
5363 dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, ad legem divinam pertinet ut
5364 ordinet homines ad invicem et ad Deum. Utrumque autem horum in
5365 communi quidem pertinet ad dictamen legis naturae, ad quod
5366 referuntur moralia praecepta, sed oportet quod determinetur
5367 utrumque per legem divinam vel humanam, quia principia naturaliter
5368 nota sunt communia tam in speculativis quam in activis. Sicut
5369 igitur determinatio communis praecepti de cultu divino fit per
5370 praecepta caeremonialia, sic et determinatio communis praecepti de
5371 iustitia observanda inter homines, determinatur per praecepta
5372 iudicialia. Et secundum hoc, oportet tria praecepta legis veteris
5373 ponere; scilicet moralia, quae sunt de dictamine legis naturae;
5374 caeremonialia, quae sunt determinationes cultus divini; et
5375 iudicialia, quae sunt determinationes iustitiae inter homines
5376 observandae. Unde cum apostolus, Rom. VII, dixisset quod lex est
5377 sancta, subiungit quod mandatum est iustum et sanctum et bonum,
5378 iustum quidem, quantum ad iudicialia; sanctum, quantum ad
5379 caeremonialia (nam sanctum dicitur quod est Deo dicatum); bonum,
5380 idest honestum, quantum ad moralia.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A4-p8">
5381 <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
5382 one of the heads mentioned by Augustine, viz. under the precepts of the life we have to lead.
5383 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 4 ad 1"><a name="37825" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37825] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 4 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
5384 ergo dicendum quod tam praecepta moralia, quam etiam iudicialia,
5385 pertinent ad directionem vitae humanae. Et ideo utraque continentur
5386 sub uno membro illorum quae ponit Augustinus, scilicet sub
5387 praeceptis vitae agendae.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A4-p9">
5388 <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
5389 judicial precepts have something in common with the moral precepts, in that they are derived from reason; and something in
5390 common with the ceremonial precepts, in that they are determinations of general precepts. This explains why sometimes "judgments"
5391 comprise both judicial and moral precepts, as in
5392 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A4-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.5.1" target="asv"> Dt. 5:1</a>:
5393 "Hear, O Israel, the ceremonies and judgments"; and sometimes judicial and ceremonial precepts, as in
5394 <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
5395 to judicial and ceremonial precepts.
5396 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 4 ad 2"><a name="37826" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37826] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 4 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
5397 dicendum quod iudicium significat executionem iustitiae, quae
5398 quidem est secundum applicationem rationis ad aliqua particularia
5399 determinate. Unde praecepta iudicialia communicant in aliquo cum
5400 moralibus, inquantum scilicet a ratione derivantur; et in aliquo
5401 cum caeremonialibus, inquantum scilicet sunt quaedam
5402 determinationes communium praeceptorum. Et ideo quandoque sub
5403 iudiciis comprehenduntur praecepta iudicialia et moralia, sicut
5404 Deut. V, audi, Israel, caeremonias atque iudicia; quandoque vero
5405 iudicialia et caeremonialia, sicut Levit. XVIII, facietis iudicia
5406 mea, et praecepta mea servabitis, ubi praecepta ad moralia
5407 referuntur, iudicia vero ad iudicialia et caeremonialia.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A4-p10">
5408 <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
5409 to the judicial precepts.
5410 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 4 ad 3"><a name="37827" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37827] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 4 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
5411 dicendum quod actus iustitiae in generali pertinet ad praecepta
5412 moralia, sed determinatio eius in speciali pertinet ad praecepta
5413 iudicialia.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q99_A5" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q99_A5-p0.1">Q. 99. A. 5. Whether the Old Law contains any others besides the moral, judicial, and ceremonial precepts?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A5-p2">
5414 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Old Law contains others besides the moral, judicial, and ceremonial precepts. Because the judicial
5415 precepts belong to the act of justice, which is between man and man; while the ceremonial precepts belong to the act of religion,
5416 whereby God is worshipped. Now besides these there are many other virtues, viz. temperance, fortitude, liberality, and several
5417 others, as stated above (
5418 <a href="FS_v.html#FS_Q60_A5" id="FS_Q99_A5-p2.1" shape="rect">Q[60], A[5]</a>). Therefore besides the
5419 aforesaid precepts, the Old Law should comprise others.
5420 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 5 arg. 1"><a name="37828" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37828] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 5 arg. 1</span></a> Ad quintum
5421 sic proceditur. Videtur quod aliqua alia praecepta contineantur in
5422 lege veteri praeter moralia, iudicialia et caeremonialia.
5423 Iudicialia enim praecepta pertinent ad actum iustitiae, quae est
5424 hominis ad hominem; caeremonialia vero pertinent ad actum
5425 religionis, qua Deus colitur. Sed praeter has sunt multae aliae
5426 virtutes, scilicet temperantia, fortitudo, liberalitas, et aliae
5427 plures, ut supra dictum est. Ergo praeter praedicta oportet plura
5428 alia in lege veteri contineri.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A5-p3">
5429 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is written (
5430 <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
5431 moral matters, as stated above
5432 <a href="#FS_Q99_A4" id="FS_Q99_A5-p3.2" shape="rect">(A[4])</a>. Therefore besides the moral, judicial and ceremonial precepts, the Law contains others which are called "commandments."
5433 [*The "commandments" (mandata) spoken of here and in the body of this article are not to be confused with
5434 the Commandments (praecepta) in the ordinary acceptance of the word.]
5435 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 5 arg. 2"><a name="37829" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37829] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 5 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
5436 Deut. XI dicitur, <i>ama dominum Deum tuum, et observa eius
5437 praecepta et caeremonias et iudicia atque mandata</i>. Sed
5438 praecepta pertinent ad moralia, ut dictum est. Ergo praeter
5439 moralia, iudicialia et caeremonialia, adhuc alia continentur in
5440 lege, quae dicuntur mandata.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A5-p4">
5441 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is written (
5442 <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."
5443 Therefore in addition to the above, the Law comprises "testimonies."
5444 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 5 arg. 3"><a name="37830" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37830] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 5 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
5445 Deut. VI dicitur, <i>custodi praecepta domini Dei tui, ac
5446 testimonia et caeremonias quas tibi praecepi</i>. Ergo praeter
5447 omnia praedicta adhuc in lege testimonia continentur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A5-p5">
5448 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, it is written (
5449 <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
5450 only moral, ceremonial and judicial precepts, but also others, called "justifications."
5451 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 5 arg. 4"><a name="37831" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37831] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 5 arg. 4</span></a> Praeterea,
5452 in Psalmo CXVIII dicitur, <i>in aeternum non obliviscar
5453 iustificationes tuas</i>, Glossa, <i>idest legem</i>. Ergo
5454 praecepta legis veteris non solum sunt moralia, caeremonialia et
5455 iudicialia, sed etiam iustificationes.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A5-p6">
5456 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
5457 <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
5458 placed at the beginning of the Law. Therefore all the precepts of the Law are included under them.
5459 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 5 s. c."><a name="37832" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37832] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 5 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
5460 est quod dicitur Deut. VI, <i>haec sunt praecepta et caeremoniae
5461 atque iudicia quae mandavit dominus Deus vobis</i>. Et haec
5462 ponuntur in principio legis. Ergo omnia praecepta legis sub his
5463 comprehenduntur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q99_A5-p7">
5464 <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.
5465 Now the precepts refer to things which have to be done: and to their fulfilment man is induced by two considerations, viz.
5466 the authority of the lawgiver, and the benefit derived from the fulfilment, which benefit consists in the attainment of some
5467 good, useful, pleasurable or virtuous, or in the avoidance of some contrary evil. Hence it
5468 was necessary that in the Old Law certain things should be set forth to indicate the authority of God the lawgiver: e.g.
5469 <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
5470 <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
5471 Law certain rewards should be appointed for those who observe the Law, and punishments for those who transgress; as it may
5472 be seen in
5473 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A5-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Deut.28" target="asv">Dt. 28</a>: "If
5474 thou wilt hear the voice of the Lord thy God . . . He will make thee higher than all the nations," etc.: and these are called
5475 "justifications," according as God punishes or rewards certain ones justly.
5476 </p><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
5477 a duty is twofold: one according to the rule of reason; the other according to the rule of a law which prescribes that duty:
5478 thus the Philosopher distinguishes a twofold just---moral and legal (Ethic. v, 7).
5479 </p><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
5480 the order of virtue would be destroyed; or as being useful for the better maintaining of the order of virtue. And in this
5481 sense some of the moral precepts are expressed by way of absolute command or prohibition, as "Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt
5482 not steal": and these are properly called "precepts." Other things are prescribed or forbidden, not as an absolute
5483 duty, but as something better to be done. These may be called "commandments"; because they are expressed by way of inducement
5484 and persuasion: an example whereof is seen in
5485 <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.
5486 Wherefore Jerome (Praefat. in Comment. super Marc.) says that "justice is in the precepts, charity in the commandments." Duty
5487 as fixed by the Law, belongs to the judicial
5488 precepts, as regards human affairs; to the "ceremonial" precepts, as regards Divine matters.
5489 </p><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
5490 testify to the Divine justice. Again all the precepts of the Law may be styled "justifications," as being executions of legal
5491 justice. Furthermore the commandments may be distinguished from the precepts, so that those things be called "precepts" which
5492 God Himself prescribed; and those things "commandments" which He enjoined [mandavit] through others, as the
5493 very word seems to denote.
5494 </p><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
5495 have not the character of a precept, but are directed to the observance of the precepts, as stated above.
5496 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 5 co."><a name="37833" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37833] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 5 co.</span></a> Respondeo
5497 dicendum quod in lege ponuntur aliqua tanquam praecepta; aliqua
5498 vero tanquam ad praeceptorum adimpletionem ordinata. Praecepta
5499 quidem sunt de his quae sunt agenda. Ad quorum impletionem ex
5500 duobus homo inducitur, scilicet ex auctoritate praecipientis; et ex
5501 utilitate impletionis, quae quidem est consecutio alicuius boni
5502 utilis, delectabilis vel honesti, aut fuga alicuius mali contrarii.
5503 Oportuit igitur in veteri lege proponi quaedam quae auctoritatem
5504 Dei praecipientis indicarent, sicut illud Deut. VI, <i>audi,
5505 Israel, dominus Deus tuus Deus unus est</i>; et illud Gen. I, <i>in
5506 principio creavit Deus caelum et terram</i>. Et huiusmodi dicuntur
5507 testimonia. Oportuit etiam quod in lege proponerentur quaedam
5508 praemia observantium legem, et poenae transgredientium, ut patet
5509 Deut. XXVIII, <i>si audieris vocem domini Dei tui, faciet te
5510 excelsiorem cunctis gentibus,</i> et cetera. Et huiusmodi dicuntur
5511 iustificationes, secundum quod Deus aliquos iuste punit vel
5512 praemiat. Ipsa autem agenda sub praecepto non cadunt nisi inquantum
5513 habent aliquam debiti rationem. Est autem duplex debitum, unum
5514 quidem secundum regulam rationis, aliud autem secundum regulam
5515 legis determinantis; sicut philosophus, in V Ethic., distinguit
5516 duplex iustum, scilicet morale et legale. Debitum autem morale est
5517 duplex, dictat enim ratio aliquid faciendum vel tanquam
5518 necessarium, sine quo non potest esse ordo virtutis; vel tanquam
5519 utile ad hoc quod ordo virtutis melius conservetur. Et secundum
5520 hoc, quaedam moralium praecise praecipiuntur vel prohibentur in
5521 lege, sicut, non occides, non furtum facies. Et haec proprie
5522 dicuntur praecepta. Quaedam vero praecipiuntur vel prohibentur, non
5523 quasi praecise debita, sed propter melius. Et ista possunt dici
5524 mandata, quia quandam inductionem habent et persuasionem. Sicut
5525 illud Exod. XXII, <i>si pignus acceperis vestimentum a proximo tuo,
5526 ante solis occasum reddas ei</i>; et aliqua similia. Unde
5527 Hieronymus dicit quod <i>in praeceptis est iustitia, in mandatis
5528 vero caritas</i>. Debitum autem ex determinatione legis, in rebus
5529 quidem humanis pertinet ad iudicialia; in rebus autem divinis, ad
5530 caeremonialia. Quamvis etiam ea quae pertinent ad poenam vel
5531 praemia, dici possint testimonia, inquantum sunt protestationes
5532 quaedam divinae iustitiae. Omnia vero praecepta legis possunt dici
5533 iustificationes, inquantum sunt quaedam executiones legalis
5534 iustitiae. Possunt etiam aliter mandata a praeceptis distingui, ut
5535 praecepta dicantur quae Deus per seipsum iussit; mandata autem,
5536 quae per alios mandavit, ut ipsum nomen sonare videtur. Ex quibus
5537 omnibus apparet quod omnia legis praecepta continentur sub
5538 moralibus, caeremonialibus et iudicialibus, alia vero non habent
5539 rationem praeceptorum, sed ordinantur ad praeceptorum
5540 observationem, ut dictum est.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A5-p12">
5541 <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
5542 as they belong to justice: of which virtue religion is a part, as Tully says (De Invent. ii). Wherefore the legal just cannot
5543 be anything foreign to the ceremonial and judicial precepts.
5544 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 5 ad 1"><a name="37834" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37834] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 5 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
5545 ergo dicendum quod sola iustitia, inter alias virtutes, importat
5546 rationem debiti. Et ideo moralia intantum sunt lege determinabilia,
5547 inquantum pertinent ad iustitiam, cuius etiam quaedam pars est
5548 religio, ut Tullius dicit. Unde iustum legale non potest esse
5549 aliquod praeter caeremonialia et iudicialia praecepta.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A5-p13"> <b>Reply to Objections 2--4:</b> The Replies to the other Objections are clear from what has been said.</p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 5 ad 2"><a name="37835" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37835] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 5 ad 2</span></a> Ad alia patet
5550 responsio per ea quae dicta sunt.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q99_A6" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q99_A6-p0.1">Q. 99. A. 6. Whether the Old Law should have induced men to the observance of its precepts, by means of temporal promises and threats?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A6-p2">
5551 <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
5552 and threats. For the purpose of the Divine law is to subject man to God by fear and love: hence it is written (
5553 <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,
5554 and love Him?" But the desire for temporal goods leads man away from God:
5555 for Augustine says (Qq. lxxxiii, qu. 36), that "covetousness is the bane of charity." Therefore temporal promises and threats
5556 seem to be contrary to the intention of a lawgiver: and this makes a law worthy of rejection, as the Philosopher declares
5557 (Polit. ii, 6).
5558 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 6 arg. 1"><a name="37836" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37836] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 6 arg. 1</span></a> Ad sextum
5559 sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex vetus non debuerit inducere ad
5560 observantiam praeceptorum per temporales promissiones et
5561 comminationes. Intentio enim legis divinae est ut homines Deo
5562 subdat per timorem et amorem, unde dicitur Deut. X, <i>et nunc,
5563 Israel, quid dominus Deus tuus petit a te, nisi ut timeas dominum
5564 Deum tuum, et ambules in viis eius, et diligas eum?</i> Sed
5565 cupiditas rerum temporalium abducit a Deo, dicit enim Augustinus,
5566 in libro octoginta trium quaest., quod <i>venenum caritatis est
5567 cupiditas</i>. Ergo promissiones et comminationes temporales
5568 videntur contrariari intentioni legislatoris, quod facit legem
5569 reprobabilem, ut patet per philosophum, in II Polit.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A6-p3">
5570 <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
5571 the means of persuasion that it employs. Therefore, since human law employs temporal threats and promises, as means of persuading
5572 man, the Divine law should have used, not these, but more lofty means.
5573 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 6 arg. 2"><a name="37837" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37837] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 6 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
5574 lex divina est excellentior quam lex humana. Videmus autem in
5575 scientiis quod quanto aliqua est altior, tanto per altiora media
5576 procedit. Ergo cum lex humana procedat ad inducendum homines per
5577 temporales comminationes et promissiones, lex divina non debuit ex
5578 his procedere, sed per aliqua maiora.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A6-p4">
5579 <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.
5580 But as stated in
5581 <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,
5582 to him that offereth victims, and to him that despiseth sacrifices." Therefore temporal goods or evils are not suitably set
5583 forth as punishments or rewards of
5584 the commandments of the Divine law.
5585 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 6 arg. 3"><a name="37838" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37838] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 6 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
5586 illud non potest esse praemium iustitiae vel poena culpae, quod
5587 aequaliter evenit et bonis et malis. Sed sicut dicitur Eccle. IX,
5588 <i>universa, temporalia, aeque eveniunt iusto et impio, bono et
5589 malo, mundo et immundo, immolanti victimas et sacrificia
5590 contemnenti</i>. Ergo temporalia bona vel mala non convenienter
5591 ponuntur ut poenae vel praemia mandatorum legis divinae.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A6-p5">
5592 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
5593 <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
5594 Me to wrath: the sword shall devour you."
5595 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 6 s. c."><a name="37839" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37839] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 6 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
5596 est quod dicitur Isaiae I, <i>si volueritis, et audieritis me, bona
5597 terrae comedetis. Quod si nolueritis, et me ad iracundiam
5598 provocaveritis, gladius devorabit vos</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A6-p6">
5599 <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
5600 law, men are persuaded to observe its precepts by means of punishments and rewards. Now it is to be observed that, in speculative
5601 sciences, the means of persuasion are adapted to the conditions of the pupil: wherefore the process of argument in sciences
5602 should be ordered becomingly, so that the instruction is based on principles more
5603 generally known. And thus also he who would persuade a man to the observance of any precepts, needs to move him at first by
5604 things for which he has an affection; just as children are induced to do something, by means of little childish gifts. Now
5605 it has been said above (
5606 <a href="#FS_Q98_A1" id="FS_Q99_A6-p6.1" shape="rect">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
5607 it was given to a people as yet imperfect in comparison to the
5608 perfection which was to result from Christ's coming: and for this reason, that people is compared to a child that is still
5609 under a pedagogue (
5610 <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
5611 the words of the Apostle (
5612 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A6-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Phil.3.13" target="asv">Phil. 3:13</a>,
5613 <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 . . .
5614 Let us therefore, as
5615 many as are perfect, be thus minded." Those who are yet imperfect desire temporal goods, albeit in subordination to God: whereas
5616 the perverse place their end in temporalities. It was therefore fitting that the Old Law should conduct men to God by means
5617 of temporal goods for which the imperfect have an affection.
5618 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 6 co."><a name="37840" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37840] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 6 co.</span></a> Respondeo
5619 dicendum quod, sicut in scientiis speculativis inducuntur homines
5620 ad assentiendum conclusionibus per media syllogistica, ita etiam in
5621 quibuslibet legibus homines inducuntur ad observantias praeceptorum
5622 per poenas et praemia. Videmus autem in scientiis speculativis quod
5623 media proponuntur auditori secundum eius conditionem, unde oportet
5624 ordinate in scientiis procedere, ut ex notioribus disciplina
5625 incipiat. Ita etiam oportet eum qui vult inducere hominem ad
5626 observantiam praeceptorum, ut ex illis eum movere incipiat quae
5627 sunt in eius affectu, sicut pueri provocantur ad aliquid faciendum
5628 aliquibus puerilibus munusculis. Dictum est autem supra quod lex
5629 vetus disponebat ad Christum sicut imperfectum ad perfectum, unde
5630 dabatur populo adhuc imperfecto in comparatione ad perfectionem
5631 quae erat futura per Christum, et ideo populus ille comparatur
5632 puero sub paedagogo existenti, ut patet Galat. III. Perfectio autem
5633 hominis est ut, contemptis temporalibus, spiritualibus inhaereat,
5634 ut patet per illud quod apostolus dicit, Philipp. III, <i>quae
5635 quidem retro sunt obliviscens, ad ea quae priora sunt me extendo.
5636 Quicumque ergo perfecti sumus, hoc sentiamus</i>. Imperfectorum
5637 autem est quod temporalia bona desiderent, in ordine tamen ad Deum.
5638 Perversorum autem est quod in temporalibus bonis finem constituant.
5639 Unde legi veteri conveniebat ut per temporalia, quae erant in
5640 affectu hominum imperfectorum, manuduceret homines ad Deum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A6-p7">
5641 <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
5642 man desires in subordination to God is a road leading the imperfect to the love of God, according to
5643 <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."
5644 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 6 ad 1"><a name="37841" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37841] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 6 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
5645 ergo dicendum quod cupiditas, qua homo constituit finem in
5646 temporalibus bonis, est caritatis venenum. Sed consecutio
5647 temporalium bonorum quae homo desiderat in ordine ad Deum, est
5648 quaedam via inducens imperfectos ad Dei amorem; secundum illud
5649 Psalmi XLVIII, <i>confitebitur tibi cum benefeceris illi</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A6-p8">
5650 <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
5651 men by meas of rewards or punishments to be received from God. In this respect it employs higher means.
5652 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 6 ad 2"><a name="37842" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37842] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 6 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
5653 dicendum quod lex humana inducit homines ex temporalibus praemiis
5654 vel poenis per homines inducendis, lex vero divina ex praemiis vel
5655 poenis exhibendis per Deum. Et in hoc procedit per media
5656 altiora.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q99_A6-p9">
5657 <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
5658 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.
5659 But certain individuals, although they observed the justice of the Law, met with misfortunes---either because they had already
5660 become spiritual (so that misfortune might withdraw them all the more from
5661 attachment to temporal things, and that their virtue might be tried)---or because, while outwardly fulfilling the works of
5662 the Law, their heart was altogether fixed on temporal goods, and far removed from God, according to
5663 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q99_A6-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Isa.29.13" target="asv">Is. 29:13</a> (
5664 <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."
5665 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 99 a. 6 ad 3"><a name="37843" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37843] Iª-IIae q. 99 a. 6 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
5666 dicendum quod, sicut patet historias veteris testamenti revolventi,
5667 communis status populi semper sub lege in prosperitate fuit,
5668 quandiu legem observabant; et statim declinantes a praeceptis
5669 legis, in multas adversitates incidebant. Sed aliquae personae
5670 particulares etiam iustitiam legis observantes, in aliquas
5671 adversitates incidebant, vel quia iam erant spirituales effecti, ut
5672 per hoc magis ab affectu temporalium abstraherentur, et eorum
5673 virtus probata redderetur; aut quia, opera legis exterius
5674 implentes, cor totum habebant in temporalibus defixum et a Deo
5675 elongatum, secundum quod dicitur Isaiae XXIX, <i>populus hic labiis
5676 me honorat, cor autem eorum longe est a me</i>.</p></div></div></div></div>
5677 <div id="FS_Q100" class="div3">
5678 <h3 id="FS_Q100-p0.1">Q. 100. OF THE MORAL PRECEPTS OF THE OLD LAW (TWELVE ARTICLES)</h3>
5679 <div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="div4">
5680 <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
5681 judicial precepts. Under the first head there are twelve points of inquiry:
5682 </p><p id="FS_Q100-p3"><a href="#FS_Q100_A1"> (1) Whether all the moral precepts of the Old Law belong to the law of nature?</a></p><p id="FS_Q100-p4"><a href="#FS_Q100_A2"> (2) Whether the moral precepts of the Old Law are about the acts of all the virtues?</a></p><p id="FS_Q100-p5"><a href="#FS_Q100_A3"> (3) Whether all the moral precepts of the Old Law are reducible to the ten precepts of the decalogue?</a></p><p id="FS_Q100-p6"><a href="#FS_Q100_A4"> (4) How the precepts of the decalogue are distinguished from one another?</a></p><p id="FS_Q100-p7"><a href="#FS_Q100_A5"> (5) Their number;</a></p><p id="FS_Q100-p8"><a href="#FS_Q100_A6"> (6) Their order;</a></p><p id="FS_Q100-p9"><a href="#FS_Q100_A7"> (7) The manner in which they were given;</a></p><p id="FS_Q100-p10"><a href="#FS_Q100_A8"> (8) Whether they are dispensable?</a></p><p id="FS_Q100-p11"><a href="#FS_Q100_A9"> (9) Whether the mode of observing a virtue comes under the precept of the Law?</a></p><p id="FS_Q100-p12"><a href="#FS_Q100_A10"> (10) Whether the mode of charity comes under the precept?</a></p><p id="FS_Q100-p13"><a href="#FS_Q100_A11"> (11) The distinction of other moral precepts;</a></p><p id="FS_Q100-p14"><a href="#FS_Q100_A12"> (12) Whether the moral precepts of the Old Law justified man?</a></p>
5683 </div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 pr."><a name="37844" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37844] Iª-IIae q. 100 pr.</span></a> Deinde
5684 considerandum est de singulis generibus praeceptorum veteris legis.
5685 Et primo, de praeceptis moralibus; secundo, de caeremonialibus;
5686 tertio, de iudicialibus. Circa primum quaeruntur duodecim. Primo,
5687 utrum omnia praecepta moralia veteris legis sint de lege naturae.
5688 Secundo, utrum praecepta moralia veteris legis sint de actibus
5689 omnium virtutum. Tertio, utrum omnia praecepta moralia veteris
5690 legis reducantur ad decem praecepta Decalogi. Quarto, de
5691 distinctione praeceptorum Decalogi. Quinto, de numero eorum. Sexto,
5692 de ordine. Septimo, de modo tradendi ipsa. Octavo, utrum sint
5693 dispensabilia. Nono, utrum modus observandi virtutem cadat sub
5694 praecepto. Decimo, utrum modus caritatis cadat sub praecepto.
5695 Undecimo, de distinctione aliorum praeceptorum moralium. Duodecimo,
5696 utrum praecepta moralia veteris legis iustificent.</p></div></div></div>
5697 <div id="FS_Q100_A1" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q100_A1-p0.1">Q. 100. A. 1. Whether all the moral precepts of the Old Law belong to the law of nature?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A1-p2">
5698 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that not all the moral precepts belong to the law of nature. For it is written (
5699 <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
5700 the law of nature; since the law of nature is not learnt, but instilled by natural instinct. Therefore not all the moral precepts
5701 belong to the natural law.
5702 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 1 arg. 1"><a name="37845" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37845] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 1 arg. 1</span></a> Ad primum
5703 sic proceditur. Videtur quod non omnia praecepta moralia pertineant
5704 ad legem naturae. Dicitur enim Eccli. XVII, <i>addidit illis
5705 disciplinam, et legem vitae haereditavit illos</i>. Sed disciplina
5706 dividitur contra legem naturae, eo quod lex naturalis non
5707 addiscitur, sed ex naturali instinctu habetur. Ergo non omnia
5708 praecepta moralia sunt de lege naturae.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A1-p3">
5709 <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
5710 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
5711 institutions are various for various people. Much more reason therefore was there why the Divine law should add to the law
5712 of nature, ordinances pertaining to good morals.
5713 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 1 arg. 2"><a name="37846" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37846] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 1 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
5714 lex divina perfectior est quam lex humana. Sed lex humana
5715 superaddit aliqua ad bonos mores pertinentia his quae sunt de lege
5716 naturae, quod patet ex hoc quod lex naturae est eadem apud omnes,
5717 huiusmodi autem morum instituta sunt diversa apud diversos. Ergo
5718 multo fortius divina lex aliqua ad bonos mores pertinentia debuit
5719 addere supra legem naturae.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A1-p4">
5720 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, just as natural reason leads to good morals in certain matters, so does faith: hence it is written (
5721 <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.
5722 Therefore not all the moral precepts of the Divine law belong to the law of nature.
5723 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 1 arg. 3"><a name="37847" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37847] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 1 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
5724 sicut ratio naturalis inducit ad aliquos bonos mores, ita et fides,
5725 unde etiam dicitur ad Galat. V, quod fides per dilectionem
5726 operatur. Sed fides non continetur sub lege naturae, quia ea quae
5727 sunt fidei, sunt supra rationem naturalem. Ergo non omnia praecepta
5728 moralia legis divinae pertinent ad legem naturae.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A1-p5">
5729 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
5730 <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
5731 pertaining to good morals. Therefore all the moral precepts of the Law belong to the law of nature.
5732 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 1 s. c."><a name="37848" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37848] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 1 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
5733 est quod dicit apostolus, Rom. II, quod <i>gentes, quae legem non
5734 habent, naturaliter ea quae legis sunt, faciunt</i>, quod oportet
5735 intelligi de his quae pertinent ad bonos mores. Ergo omnia moralia
5736 praecepta legis sunt de lege naturae.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q100_A1-p6">
5737 <b>I answer that,</b> The moral precepts, distinct from the ceremonial and judicial precepts, are about things pertaining of their very nature
5738 to good morals. Now since human morals depend on their relation to reason, which is the proper principle of human acts, those
5739 morals are called good which accord with reason, and those are called bad which are discordant from reason. And as every judgment
5740 of speculative reason proceeds from the natural knowledge of first principles, so
5741 every judgment of practical reason proceeds from principles known naturally, as stated above (
5742 <a href="#FS_Q94_A2" id="FS_Q100_A1-p6.1" shape="rect">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
5743 actions are so evident, that after very little consideration one is able at once to approve or disapprove of them by means
5744 of these general first principles: while some matters cannot be the subject of judgment without much consideration of
5745 the various circumstances, which all are not competent to do carefully, but only those who are wise: just as it is not possible
5746 for all to consider the particular conclusions of sciences, but only for those who are versed in philosophy: and lastly there
5747 are some matters of which man cannot judge unless he be helped by Divine instruction; such as the articles of faith.
5748 </p><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
5749 are those which are in accord with reason; and since also every judgment of human reason must needs by derived in some way
5750 from natural reason; it follows, of necessity, that all the moral precepts belong to the law of nature; but not all in the
5751 same way. For there are certain things which the natural reason of every man, of its own accord and at once, judges
5752 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
5753 these belong to the law of nature absolutely. And there are certain things which, after a more careful consideration, wise
5754 men deem obligatory. Such belong to the law of nature, yet so that they need to be inculcated, the wiser teaching the less
5755 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,
5756 to
5757 judge of which, human reason needs Divine instruction, whereby we are taught about the things of God: e.g. "Thou shalt not
5758 make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of anything; Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain."
5759 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 1 co."><a name="37849" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37849] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 1 co.</span></a> Respondeo
5760 dicendum quod praecepta moralia, a caeremonialibus et iudicialibus
5761 distincta, sunt de illis quae secundum se ad bonos mores pertinent.
5762 Cum autem humani mores dicantur in ordine ad rationem, quae est
5763 proprium principium humanorum actuum, illi mores dicuntur boni qui
5764 rationi congruunt, mali autem qui a ratione discordant. Sicut autem
5765 omne iudicium rationis speculativae procedit a naturali cognitione
5766 primorum principiorum, ita etiam omne iudicium rationis practicae
5767 procedit ex quibusdam principiis naturaliter cognitis, ut supra
5768 dictum est. Ex quibus diversimode procedi potest ad iudicandum de
5769 diversis. Quaedam enim sunt in humanis actibus adeo explicita quod
5770 statim, cum modica consideratione, possunt approbari vel reprobari
5771 per illa communia et prima principia. Quaedam vero sunt ad quorum
5772 iudicium requiritur multa consideratio diversarum circumstantiarum,
5773 quas considerare diligenter non est cuiuslibet, sed sapientum,
5774 sicut considerare particulares conclusiones scientiarum non
5775 pertinet ad omnes, sed ad solos philosophos. Quaedam vero sunt ad
5776 quae diiudicanda indiget homo adiuvari per instructionem divinam,
5777 sicut est circa credenda. Sic igitur patet quod, cum moralia
5778 praecepta sint de his quae pertinent ad bonos mores; haec autem
5779 sunt quae rationi congruunt; omne autem rationis humanae iudicium
5780 aliqualiter a naturali ratione derivatur, necesse est quod omnia
5781 praecepta moralia pertineant ad legem naturae, sed diversimode.
5782 Quaedam enim sunt quae statim per se ratio naturalis cuiuslibet
5783 hominis diiudicat esse facienda vel non facienda, sicut <i>honora
5784 patrem tuum et matrem tuam, et, non occides, non furtum facies</i>.
5785 Et huiusmodi sunt absolute de lege naturae. Quaedam vero sunt quae
5786 subtiliori consideratione rationis a sapientibus iudicantur esse
5787 observanda. Et ista sic sunt de lege naturae, ut tamen indigeant
5788 disciplina, qua minores a sapientioribus instruantur, sicut illud,
5789 <i>coram cano capite consurge, et honora personam senis</i>, et
5790 alia huiusmodi. Quaedam vero sunt ad quae iudicanda ratio humana
5791 indiget instructione divina, per quam erudimur de divinis, sicut
5792 est illud, <i>non facies tibi sculptile neque omnem similitudinem;
5793 non assumes nomen Dei tui in vanum</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A1-p8"><b>Reply to Objections</b> This suffices for the Replies to the Objections.</p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 1 ad arg."><a name="37850" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37850] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 1 ad arg.</span></a> Et per
5794 hoc patet responsio ad obiecta.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q100_A2" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q100_A2-p0.1">Q. 100. A. 2. Whether the moral precepts of the Law are about all the acts of virtue?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A2-p2">
5795 <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
5796 the Old Law is called justification, according to
5797 <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
5798 acts of justice.
5799 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 2 arg. 1"><a name="37851" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37851] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 2 arg. 1</span></a> Ad
5800 secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod praecepta moralia legis non
5801 sint de omnibus actibus virtutum. Observatio enim praeceptorum
5802 veteris legis iustificatio nominatur, secundum illud Psalmi CXVIII,
5803 <i>iustificationes tuas custodiam</i>. Sed iustificatio est
5804 executio iustitiae. Ergo praecepta moralia non sunt nisi de actibus
5805 iustitiae.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A2-p3">
5806 <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
5807 and to none of the other virtues, for the proper act of justice consists in rendering to each one his due. Therefore the precepts
5808 of the moral law are not about the acts of the other virtues, but only about the acts of justice.
5809 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 2 arg. 2"><a name="37852" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37852] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 2 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
5810 id quod cadit sub praecepto, habet rationem debiti. Sed ratio
5811 debiti non pertinet ad alias virtutes nisi ad solam iustitiam,
5812 cuius proprius actus est reddere unicuique debitum. Ergo praecepta
5813 legis moralia non sunt de actibus aliarum virtutum, sed solum de
5814 actibus iustitiae.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A2-p4">
5815 <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
5816 the common good, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 1). Therefore the moral precepts are only about the acts of justice.
5817 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 2 arg. 3"><a name="37853" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37853] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 2 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
5818 omnis lex ponitur propter bonum commune, ut dicit Isidorus. Sed
5819 inter virtutes sola iustitia respicit bonum commune, ut philosophus
5820 dicit, in V Ethic. Ergo praecepta moralia sunt solum de actibus
5821 iustitiae.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A2-p5">
5822 <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
5823 of heaven." But there are sins contrary to all the acts of virtue. Therefore it belongs to Divine law to direct all the acts
5824 of virtue.
5825 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 2 s. c."><a name="37854" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37854] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 2 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
5826 est quod Ambrosius dicit, quod <i>peccatum est transgressio legis
5827 divinae, et caelestium inobedientia mandatorum</i>. Sed peccata
5828 contrariantur omnibus actibus virtutum. Ergo lex divina habet
5829 ordinare de actibus omnium virtutum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q100_A2-p6">
5830 <b>I answer that,</b> Since the precepts of the Law are ordained to the common good, as stated above (
5831 <a href="#FS_Q90_A2" id="FS_Q100_A2-p6.1" shape="rect">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.
5832 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
5833 which is ruled by the people, or by a few powerful men in the state. Now human law is ordained
5834 for one kind of community, and the Divine law for another kind. Because human law is ordained for the civil community, implying
5835 mutual duties of man and his fellows: and men are ordained to one another by outward acts, whereby men live in communion with
5836 one another. This life in common of man with man pertains to justice, whose proper function consists in directing the human
5837 community. Wherefore human law makes precepts only about acts of justice; and if it commands acts of other virtues, this
5838 is only in so far as they assume the nature of justice, as the Philosopher explains (Ethic. v, 1).
5839 </p><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
5840 life to come. And therefore the Divine law proposes precepts about all those matters whereby men are well ordered in their
5841 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
5842 precepts about all those matters whereby human reason is well ordered. But this is effected by the acts of all the
5843 virtues: since the intellectual virtues set in good order the acts of the reason in themselves: while the moral virtues set
5844 in good order the acts of the reason in reference to the interior passions and exterior actions. It is therefore evident that
5845 the Divine law fittingly proposes precepts about the acts of all the virtues: yet so that certain matters, without which the
5846 order of virtue, which is the order of reason, cannot even exist, come under an obligation of precept; while other matters,
5847 which pertain to the well-being of perfect virtue, come under an admonition of counsel.
5848 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 2 co."><a name="37855" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37855] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 2 co.</span></a> Respondeo
5849 dicendum quod, cum praecepta legis ordinentur ad bonum commune,
5850 sicut supra habitum est, necesse est quod praecepta legis
5851 diversificentur secundum diversos modos communitatum, unde et
5852 philosophus, in sua politica, docet quod alias leges oportet
5853 statuere in civitate quae regitur rege, et alias in ea quae regitur
5854 per populum, vel per aliquos potentes de civitate. Est autem alius
5855 modus communitatis ad quam ordinatur lex humana, et ad quam
5856 ordinatur lex divina. Lex enim humana ordinatur ad communitatem
5857 civilem, quae est hominum ad invicem. Homines autem ordinantur ad
5858 invicem per exteriores actus, quibus homines sibi invicem
5859 communicant. Huiusmodi autem communicatio pertinet ad rationem
5860 iustitiae, quae est proprie directiva communitatis humanae. Et ideo
5861 lex humana non proponit praecepta nisi de actibus iustitiae; et si
5862 praecipiat actus aliarum virtutum, hoc non est nisi inquantum
5863 assumunt rationem iustitiae; ut patet per philosophum, in V Ethic.
5864 Sed communitas ad quam ordinat lex divina, est hominum ad Deum, vel
5865 in praesenti vel in futura vita. Et ideo lex divina praecepta
5866 proponit de omnibus illis per quae homines bene ordinentur ad
5867 communicationem cum Deo. Homo autem Deo coniungitur ratione, sive
5868 mente, in qua est Dei imago. Et ideo lex divina praecepta proponit
5869 de omnibus illis per quae ratio hominis est bene ordinata. Hoc
5870 autem contingit per actus omnium virtutum, nam virtutes
5871 intellectuales ordinant bene actus rationis in seipsis; virtutes
5872 autem morales ordinant bene actus rationis circa interiores
5873 passiones et exteriores operationes. Et ideo manifestum est quod
5874 lex divina convenienter proponit praecepta de actibus omnium
5875 virtutum, ita tamen quod quaedam, sine quibus ordo virtutis, qui
5876 est ordo rationis, observari non potest, cadunt sub obligatione
5877 praecepti; quaedam vero, quae pertinent ad bene esse virtutis
5878 perfectae, cadunt sub admonitione consilii.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A2-p8">
5879 <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
5880 of justification, inasmuch as it is just that man should obey God: or again, inasmuch as it is just that all that belongs
5881 to man should be subject to reason.
5882 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 2 ad 1"><a name="37856" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37856] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 2 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
5883 ergo dicendum quod adimpletio mandatorum legis etiam quae sunt de
5884 actibus aliarum virtutum, habet rationem iustificationis, inquantum
5885 iustum est ut homo obediat Deo. Vel etiam inquantum iustum est quod
5886 omnia quae sunt hominis, rationi subdantur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A2-p9">
5887 <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
5888 powers to reason. It is in relation to this latter duty that the Philosopher speaks (Ethic. v, 11) of a kind of metaphorical
5889 justice.
5890 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 2 ad 2"><a name="37857" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37857] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 2 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
5891 dicendum quod iustitia proprie dicta attendit debitum unius hominis
5892 ad alium, sed in omnibus aliis virtutibus attenditur debitum
5893 inferiorum virium ad rationem. Et secundum rationem huius debiti,
5894 philosophus assignat, in V Ethic., quandam iustitiam
5895 metaphoricam.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A2-p10"> <b>Reply to Objection 3</b>The Reply to the Third Objection is clear from what has been said about the different kinds of community.</p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 2 ad 3"><a name="37858" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37858] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 2 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
5896 patet responsio per ea quae dicta sunt de diversitate
5897 communitatis.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q100_A3" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q100_A3-p0.1">Q. 100. A. 3. Whether all the moral precepts of the Old Law are reducible to the ten precepts of the decalogue?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A3-p2">
5898 <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
5899 first and principal precepts of the Law are, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God," and "Thou shalt love thy neighbor," as stated
5900 in
5901 <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
5902 precepts of the decalogue.
5903 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 3 arg. 1"><a name="37859" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37859] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 3 arg. 1</span></a> Ad tertium
5904 sic proceditur. Videtur quod non omnia praecepta moralia veteris
5905 legis reducantur ad decem praecepta Decalogi. Prima enim et
5906 principalia legis praecepta sunt, diliges dominum Deum tuum, et,
5907 diliges proximum tuum, ut habetur Matth. XXII. Sed ista duo non
5908 continentur in praeceptis Decalogi. Ergo non omnia praecepta
5909 moralia continentur in praeceptis Decalogi.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A3-p3">
5910 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the moral precepts are not reducible to the ceremonial precepts, but rather vice versa. But among the precepts of
5911 the decalogue, one is ceremonial, viz. "Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath-day." Therefore the moral precepts are not
5912 reducible to all the precepts of the decalogue.
5913 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 3 arg. 2"><a name="37860" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37860] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 3 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
5914 praecepta moralia non reducuntur ad praecepta caeremonialia, sed
5915 potius e converso. Sed inter praecepta Decalogi est unum
5916 caeremoniale, scilicet, <i>memento ut diem sabbati sanctifices</i>.
5917 Ergo praecepta moralia non reducuntur ad omnia praecepta
5918 Decalogi.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A3-p4">
5919 <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
5920 acts of justice; as may be seen by going through them all. Therefore the precepts of the decalogue do not include all the
5921 moral precepts.
5922 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 3 arg. 3"><a name="37861" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37861] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 3 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
5923 praecepta moralia sunt de omnibus actibus virtutum. Sed inter
5924 praecepta Decalogi ponuntur sola praecepta pertinentia ad actus
5925 iustitiae; ut patet discurrenti per singula. Ergo praecepta
5926 Decalogi non continent omnia praecepta moralia.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A3-p5">
5927 <b>On the contrary,</b> The gloss on
5928 <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
5929 detail." Therefore all the precepts of the Law are so many parts of the precepts of the decalogue.
5930 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 3 s. c."><a name="37862" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37862] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 3 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
5931 est quod, Matth. V, super illud, <i>beati estis cum
5932 maledixerint</i> etc., dicit Glossa quod <i>Moyses, decem praecepta
5933 proponens, postea per partes explicat</i>. Ergo omnia praecepta
5934 legis sunt quaedam partes praeceptorum Decalogi.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A3-p6">
5935 <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
5936 the precepts of the decalogue; whereas He gave the other precepts to the people through Moses. Wherefore the decalogue includes
5937 those precepts the knowledge of which man has immediately from God. Such are those which with but slight reflection can be
5938 gathered at once from the first general principles: and those also which become known
5939 to man immediately through divinely infused faith. Consequently two kinds of precepts are not reckoned among the precepts
5940 of the decalogue: viz. first general principles, for they need no further promulgation after being once imprinted on the natural
5941 reason to which they are self-evident; as, for instance, that one should do evil to no man, and other similar principles:
5942 and again those which the careful reflection of wise men shows to be in accord with reason; since the people receive these
5943 principles from God, through being taught by wise men. Nevertheless both kinds of precepts are contained in the precepts of
5944 the decalogue; yet in different ways. For the first general principles are contained in them, as principles in their proximate
5945 conclusions; while those which are known through wise men are contained, conversely, as conclusions in their principles.
5946 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 3 co."><a name="37863" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37863] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 3 co.</span></a> Respondeo
5947 dicendum quod praecepta Decalogi ab aliis praeceptis legis
5948 differunt in hoc, quod praecepta Decalogi per seipsum Deus dicitur
5949 populo proposuisse; alia vero praecepta proposuit populo per
5950 Moysen. Illa ergo praecepta ad Decalogum pertinent, quorum notitiam
5951 homo habet per seipsum a Deo. Huiusmodi vero sunt illa quae statim
5952 ex principiis communibus primis cognosci possunt modica
5953 consideratione, et iterum illa quae statim ex fide divinitus infusa
5954 innotescunt. Inter praecepta ergo Decalogi non computantur duo
5955 genera praeceptorum, illa scilicet quae sunt prima et communia,
5956 quorum non oportet aliam editionem esse nisi quod sunt scripta in
5957 ratione naturali quasi per se nota, sicut quod nulli debet homo
5958 malefacere, et alia huiusmodi; et iterum illa quae per diligentem
5959 inquisitionem sapientum inveniuntur rationi convenire, haec enim
5960 proveniunt a Deo ad populum mediante disciplina sapientum. Utraque
5961 tamen horum praeceptorum continentur in praeceptis Decalogi, sed
5962 diversimode. Nam illa quae sunt prima et communia, continentur in
5963 eis sicut principia in conclusionibus proximis, illa vero quae per
5964 sapientes cognoscuntur, continentur in eis, e converso, sicut
5965 conclusiones in principiis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A3-p7">
5966 <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
5967 nature or through faith. Wherefore all the precepts of the decalogue are referred to these, as conclusions to general principles.
5968 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 3 ad 1"><a name="37864" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37864] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 3 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
5969 ergo dicendum quod illa duo praecepta sunt prima et communia
5970 praecepta legis naturae, quae sunt per se nota rationi humanae, vel
5971 per naturam vel per fidem. Et ideo omnia praecepta Decalogi ad illa
5972 duo referuntur sicut conclusiones ad principia communia.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A3-p8">
5973 <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
5974 of God, according to
5975 <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
5976 of the time, in which respect it is a ceremonial precept.
5977 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 3 ad 2"><a name="37865" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37865] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 3 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
5978 dicendum quod praeceptum de observatione sabbati est secundum
5979 aliquid morale, inquantum scilicet per hoc praecipitur quod homo
5980 aliquo tempore vacet rebus divinis; secundum illud Psalmi XLV,
5981 <i>vacate, et videte quoniam ego sum Deus</i>. Et secundum hoc,
5982 inter praecepta Decalogi computatur. Non autem quantum ad
5983 taxationem temporis, quia secundum hoc est caeremoniale.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A3-p9">
5984 <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
5985 virtues are not so well known to the people as are the precepts about acts of justice. Wherefore the acts of justice especially
5986 come under the precepts of the decalogue, which are the primary elements of the Law.
5987 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 3 ad 3"><a name="37866" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37866] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 3 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
5988 dicendum quod ratio debiti in aliis virtutibus est magis latens
5989 quam in iustitia. Et ideo praecepta de actibus aliarum virtutum non
5990 sunt ita nota populo sicut praecepta de actibus iustitiae. Et
5991 propter hoc actus iustitiae specialiter cadunt sub praeceptis
5992 Decalogi, quae sunt prima legis elementa.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q100_A4" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q100_A4-p0.1">Q. 100. A. 4. Whether the precepts of the decalogue are suitably distinguished from one another?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A4-p2">
5993 <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
5994 from faith. Now the precepts are about acts of virtue. But that which is said at the beginning of the decalogue, "Thou shalt
5995 not have strange gods before Me," belongs to faith: and that which is added, "Thou shalt not make . . . any graven thing,"
5996 etc. belongs to worship. Therefore these are not one precept, as Augustine asserts (Qq.
5997 in Exod. qu. lxxi), but two.
5998 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 4 arg. 1"><a name="37867" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37867] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 4 arg. 1</span></a> Ad quartum
5999 sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter praecepta Decalogi
6000 distinguantur. Latria enim est alia virtus a fide. Sed praecepta
6001 dantur de actibus virtutum. Sed hoc quod dicitur in principio
6002 Decalogi, non habebis deos alienos coram me, pertinet ad fidem,
6003 quod autem subditur, non facies sculptile etc., pertinet ad
6004 latriam. Ergo sunt duo praecepta, et non unum, sicut Augustinus
6005 dicit.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A4-p3">
6006 <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,"
6007 and, "Thou shalt not kill." But this, "I am the Lord thy God," is affirmative: and that which follows, "Thou shalt not have
6008 strange gods before Me," is negative. Therefore these are two precepts, and do not, as Augustine says (Qq. in Exod. qu. lxxi),
6009 make one.
6010 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 4 arg. 2"><a name="37868" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37868] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 4 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
6011 praecepta affirmativa in lege distinguuntur a negativis, sicut,
6012 honora patrem et matrem, et, non occides. Sed hoc quod dicitur, ego
6013 sum dominus Deus tuus, est affirmativum, quod autem subditur, non
6014 habebis deos alienos coram me, est negativum. Ergo sunt duo
6015 praecepta, et non continentur sub uno, ut Augustinus ponit.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A4-p4">
6016 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Apostle says (
6017 <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
6018 shalt not covet," is one precept; and, therefore, should not be divided into two.
6019 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 4 arg. 3"><a name="37869" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37869] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 4 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
6020 apostolus, ad Rom. VII, dicit, <i>concupiscentiam nesciebam, nisi
6021 lex diceret, non concupisces</i>. Et sic videtur quod hoc
6022 praeceptum, non concupisces, sit unum praeceptum. Non ergo debet
6023 distingui in duo.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A4-p5">
6024 <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
6025 to God, and seven as referring to our neighbor.
6026 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 4 s. c."><a name="37870" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37870] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 4 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
6027 est auctoritas Augustini, in Glossa super Exod., ubi ponit tria
6028 praecepta pertinentia ad Deum, et septem ad proximum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q100_A4-p6">
6029 <b>I answer that,</b> The precepts of the decalogue are differently divided by different authorities. For Hesychius commenting on
6030 <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
6031 precepts, because its observance, in the letter, is not binding for all time. But he distinguishes four precepts pertaining
6032 to God, the first being, "I am the Lord thy God"; the second, "Thou shalt
6033 not have strange gods before Me," (thus also Jerome distinguishes these two precepts, in his commentary on
6034 <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
6035 thing"; and the fourth, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." He states that there are six precepts
6036 pertaining to our neighbor; the first, "Honor thy father and thy mother"; the second, "Thou shalt not kill";
6037 the third, "Thou shalt not commit adultery"; the fourth, "Thou shalt not steal"; the fifth, "Thou shalt not bear false witness";
6038 the sixth, "Thou shalt not covet."
6039 </p><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
6040 the decalogue, if it nowise belonged to the decalogue. Secondly, because, since it is written (
6041 <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
6042 Me" seem to be of the same nature and to form one precept. Hence Origen (Hom. viii in Exod.) who also
6043 distinguishes four precepts as referring to God, unites these two under one precept; and reckons in the second place, "Thou
6044 shalt not make . . . any graven thing"; as third, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain"; and as fourth,
6045 "Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath-day." The other six he reckons in the same way as Hesychius.
6046 </p><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
6047 being worshipped as gods---for God commanded an image of the Seraphim [Vulg.: Cherubim] to be made and placed in the tabernacle,
6048 as related in
6049 <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 . .
6050 . any graven thing," into one precept. Likewise to covet another's
6051 wife, for the purpose of carnal knowledge, belongs to the concupiscence of the flesh; whereas, to covet other things, which
6052 are desired for the purpose of possession, belongs to the concupiscence of the eyes; wherefore Augustine reckons as distinct
6053 precepts, that which forbids the coveting of another's goods, and that which prohibits the coveting of another's wife. Thus
6054 he distinguishes three precepts as referring to God, and seven as referring to our neighbor. And this is better.
6055 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 4 co."><a name="37871" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37871] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 4 co.</span></a> Respondeo
6056 dicendum quod praecepta Decalogi diversimode a diversis
6057 distinguuntur. Hesychius enim, Levit. XXVI, super illud, <i>decem
6058 mulieres in uno clibano coquunt panes</i>, dicit praeceptum de
6059 observatione sabbati non esse de decem praeceptis, quia non est
6060 observandum, secundum litteram, secundum omne tempus. Distinguit
6061 tamen quatuor praecepta pertinentia ad Deum, ut primum sit, ego sum
6062 dominus Deus tuus; secundum sit, non habebis deos alienos coram me
6063 (et sic etiam distinguit haec duo Hieronymus, Osee X, super illud,
6064 propter duas iniquitates tuas); tertium vero praeceptum esse dicit,
6065 non facies tibi sculptile; quartum vero, non assumes nomen Dei tui
6066 in vanum. Pertinentia vero ad proximum dicit esse sex, ut primum
6067 sit, honora patrem tuum et matrem tuam; secundum, non occides;
6068 tertium, non moechaberis; quartum, non furtum facies; quintum, non
6069 falsum testimonium dices; sextum, non concupisces. Sed primo hoc
6070 videtur inconveniens, quod praeceptum de observatione sabbati
6071 praeceptis Decalogi interponatur, si nullo modo ad Decalogum
6072 pertineat. Secundo quia, cum scriptum sit Matth. VI, nemo potest
6073 duobus dominis servire, eiusdem rationis esse videtur, et sub eodem
6074 praecepto cadere, ego sum dominus Deus tuus, et, non habebis deos
6075 alienos. Unde Origenes, distinguens etiam quatuor praecepta
6076 ordinantia ad Deum, ponit ista duo pro uno praecepto; secundum vero
6077 ponit, non facies sculptile; tertium, non assumes nomen Dei tui in
6078 vanum; quartum, memento ut diem sabbati sanctifices. Alia vero sex
6079 ponit sicut Hesychius. Sed quia facere sculptile vel similitudinem
6080 non est prohibitum nisi secundum hoc, ut non colantur pro diis (nam
6081 et in tabernaculo Deus praecepit fieri imaginem Seraphim, ut
6082 habetur Exod. XXV); convenientius Augustinus ponit sub uno
6083 praecepto, non habebis deos alienos, et, non facies sculptile.
6084 Similiter etiam concupiscentia uxoris alienae ad commixtionem,
6085 pertinet ad concupiscentiam carnis; concupiscentiae autem aliarum
6086 rerum, quae desiderantur ad possidendum, pertinent ad
6087 concupiscentiam oculorum; unde etiam Augustinus ponit duo praecepta
6088 de non concupiscendo rem alienam, et uxorem alienam. Et sic ponit
6089 tria praecepta in ordine ad Deum, et septem in ordine ad proximum.
6090 Et hoc melius est.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A4-p9">
6091 <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
6092 about faith. Nevertheless precepts should be given about worship rather than about faith, because the precept about faith
6093 is presupposed to the precepts of the decalogue, as is also the precept of charity. For just as the first general principles
6094 of the natural law are self-evident to a subject having natural reason, and need no
6095 promulgation; so also to believe in God is a first and self-evident principle to a subject possessed of faith: "for he that
6096 cometh to God, must believe that He is" (
6097 <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.
6098 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 4 ad 1"><a name="37872" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37872] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 4 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
6099 ergo dicendum quod latria non est nisi quaedam protestatio fidei,
6100 unde non sunt alia praecepta danda de latria, et alia de fide.
6101 Potius tamen sunt danda de latria quam de fide, quia praeceptum
6102 fidei praesupponitur ad praecepta Decalogi, sicut praeceptum
6103 dilectionis. Sicut enim prima praecepta communia legis naturae sunt
6104 per se nota habenti rationem naturalem, et promulgatione non
6105 indigent; ita etiam et hoc quod est credere in Deum, est primum et
6106 per se notum ei qui habet fidem, accedentem enim ad Deum oportet
6107 credere quia est, ut dicitur ad Heb. XI. Et ideo non indiget alia
6108 promulgatione nisi infusione fidei.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A4-p10">
6109 <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
6110 his parents does not include that he should not kill another man; nor does the latter include the former. But when an affirmative
6111 precept is included in a negative, or vice versa, we do not find that two distinct precepts are given: thus there is not one
6112 precept saying that "Thou shalt not steal," and another binding one to keep
6113 another's property intact, or to give it back to its owner. In the same way there are not different precepts about believing
6114 in God, and about not believing in strange gods.
6115 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 4 ad 2"><a name="37873" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37873] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 4 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
6116 dicendum quod praecepta affirmativa distinguuntur a negativis,
6117 quando unum non comprehenditur in alio, sicut in honoratione
6118 parentum non includitur quod nullus homo occidatur, nec e converso.
6119 Sed quando affirmativum comprehenditur in negativo vel e converso,
6120 non dantur super hoc diversa praecepta, sicut non datur aliud
6121 praeceptum de hoc quod est, non furtum facies, et de hoc quod est
6122 conservare rem alienam, vel restituere eam. Et eadem ratione non
6123 sunt diversa praecepta de credendo in Deum, et de hoc quod non
6124 credatur in alienos deos.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A4-p11">
6125 <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
6126 were one. But because there are various special kinds of covetousness, therefore Augustine distinguishes different prohibitions
6127 against coveting: for covetousness differs specifically in respect of the diversity of actions or things coveted, as the Philosopher
6128 says (Ethic. x, 5).
6129 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 4 ad 3"><a name="37874" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37874] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 4 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
6130 dicendum quod omnis concupiscentia convenit in una communi ratione,
6131 et ideo apostolus singulariter de mandato concupiscendi loquitur.
6132 Quia tamen in speciali diversae sunt rationes concupiscendi, ideo
6133 Augustinus distinguit diversa praecepta de non concupiscendo,
6134 differunt enim specie concupiscentiae secundum diversitatem
6135 actionum vel concupiscibilium, ut philosophus dicit, in X
6136 Ethic.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q100_A5" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q100_A5-p0.1">Q. 100. A. 5. Whether the precepts of the decalogue are suitably set forth?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A5-p2">
6137 <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
6138 viii), is "a transgression of the Divine law and a disobedience to the commandments of heaven." But sins are distinguished
6139 according as man sins against God, or his neighbor, or himself. Since, then, the decalogue does not include any precepts directing
6140 man in his relations to himself, but only such as direct him in his relations to God and
6141 himself, it seems that the precepts of the decalogue are insufficiently enumerated.
6142 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 5 arg. 1"><a name="37875" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37875] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 5 arg. 1</span></a> Ad quintum
6143 sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter praecepta Decalogi
6144 enumerentur. Peccatum enim, ut Ambrosius dicit, est <i>transgressio
6145 legis divinae, et caelestium inobedientia mandatorum</i>. Sed
6146 peccata distinguuntur per hoc quod homo peccat vel in Deum, vel in
6147 proximum, vel in seipsum. Cum igitur in praeceptis Decalogi non
6148 ponantur aliqua praecepta ordinantia hominem ad seipsum, sed solum
6149 ordinantia ipsum ad Deum et proximum; videtur quod insufficiens sit
6150 enumeratio praeceptorum Decalogi.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A5-p3">
6151 <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,
6152 and the offering of sacrifices. But the decalogue contains a precept about the Sabbath-day observance. Therefore it should
6153 contain others also, pertaining to the other solemnities, and to the sacrificial rite.
6154 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 5 arg. 2"><a name="37876" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37876] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 5 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
6155 sicut ad cultum Dei pertinebat observatio sabbati, ita etiam
6156 observatio aliarum solemnitatum, et immolatio sacrificiorum. Sed
6157 inter praecepta Decalogi est unum pertinens ad observantiam
6158 sabbati. Ergo etiam debent esse aliqua pertinentia ad alias
6159 solemnitates, et ad ritum sacrificiorum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A5-p4">
6160 <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
6161 the teaching of God. But there is a precept forbidding perjury, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain."
6162 Therefore there should be also a precept of the decalogue forbidding blasphemy and false doctrine.
6163 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 5 arg. 3"><a name="37877" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37877] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 5 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
6164 sicut contra Deum peccare contingit periurando, ita etiam
6165 blasphemando, vel alias contra doctrinam divinam mentiendo. Sed
6166 ponitur unum praeceptum prohibens periurium, cum dicitur, <i>non
6167 assumes nomen Dei tui in vanum</i>. Ergo peccatum blasphemiae, et
6168 falsae doctrinae, debent aliquo praecepto Decalogi prohiberi.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A5-p5">
6169 <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
6170 charity extends to all our neighbors. Now the precepts of the decalogue are ordained unto charity, according to
6171 <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
6172 some precepts referring to children and other neighbors.
6173 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 5 arg. 4"><a name="37878" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37878] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 5 arg. 4</span></a> Praeterea,
6174 sicut homo naturalem dilectionem habet ad parentes, ita etiam ad
6175 filios. Mandatum etiam caritatis ad omnes proximos extenditur. Sed
6176 praecepta Decalogi ordinantur ad caritatem; secundum illud I Tim.
6177 I, <i>finis praecepti caritas est</i>. Ergo sicut ponitur quoddam
6178 praeceptum pertinens ad parentes, ita etiam debuerunt poni aliqua
6179 praecepta pertinentia ad filios et ad alios proximos.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A5-p6">
6180 <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
6181 adultery, the prohibition of sins of deed, when it is said, "Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal," is distinct
6182 from the prohibition of the sin of thought, when it is said, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods," and, "Thou shalt
6183 not covet thy neighbor's wife." Therefore the same should have been done in regard to the
6184 sins of homicide and false witness.
6185 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 5 arg. 5"><a name="37879" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37879] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 5 arg. 5</span></a> Praeterea,
6186 in quolibet genere peccati contingit peccare corde et opere. Sed in
6187 quibusdam generibus peccatorum, scilicet in furto et adulterio,
6188 seorsum prohibetur peccatum operis, cum dicitur, non moechaberis,
6189 non furtum facies; et seorsum peccatum cordis, cum dicitur, non
6190 concupisces rem proximi tui, et, non concupisces uxorem proximi
6191 tui. Ergo etiam idem debuit poni in peccato homicidii et falsi
6192 testimonii.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A5-p7">
6193 <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, just as sin happens through disorder of the concupiscible faculty, so does it arise through disorder of the irascible
6194 part. But some precepts forbid inordinate concupiscence, when it is said, "Thou shalt not covet." Therefore the decalogue
6195 should have included some precepts forbidding the disorders of the irascible faculty. Therefore it seems that the ten precepts
6196 of the decalogue are unfittingly enumerated.
6197 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 5 arg. 6"><a name="37880" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37880] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 5 arg. 6</span></a> Praeterea,
6198 sicut contingit peccatum provenire ex inordinatione
6199 concupiscibilis, ita etiam ex inordinatione irascibilis. Sed
6200 quibusdam praeceptis prohibetur inordinata concupiscentia, cum
6201 dicitur, non concupisces. Ergo etiam aliqua praecepta in Decalogo
6202 debuerunt poni per quae prohiberetur inordinatio irascibilis. Non
6203 ergo videtur quod convenienter decem praecepta Decalogi
6204 enumerentur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A5-p8">
6205 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
6206 <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."
6207 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 5 s. c."><a name="37881" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37881] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 5 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
6208 est quod dicitur Deut. IV, <i>ostendit vobis pactum suum, quod
6209 praecepit ut faceretis; et decem verba quae scripsit in duabus
6210 tabulis lapideis</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q100_A5-p9">
6211 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
6212 <a href="#FS_Q100_A2" id="FS_Q100_A5-p9.1" shape="rect">(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
6213 direct man in his relations to a community or commonwealth of men under God. Now in order that any man may dwell aright in
6214 a community, two things are required: the first is that he behave well to the head of the community; the other is that he
6215 behave well to those who are his fellows and
6216 partners in the community. It is therefore necessary that the Divine law should contain in the first place precepts ordering
6217 man in his relations to God; and in the second place, other precepts ordering man in his relations to other men who are his
6218 neighbors and live with him under God.
6219 </p><p id="FS_Q100_A5-p10"> Now man owes three things to the head of the community: first, fidelity; secondly, reverence; thirdly, service. Fidelity
6220 to his master consists in his not giving sovereign honor to another: and this is the sense of the first commandment, in the
6221 words "Thou shalt not have strange gods." Reverence to his master requires that he should do nothing injurious to him: and
6222 this is conveyed by the second commandment, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." Service is
6223 due to the master in return for the benefits which his subjects receive from him: and to this belongs the third commandment
6224 of the sanctification of the Sabbath in memory of the creation of all things.
6225 </p><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,
6226 by paying his debts: and in this sense is to be taken the commandment about honoring one's parents. In general, as to all
6227 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
6228 in his person, i.e. as to his personal existence; and this is forbidden by the words, "Thou shalt not kill":
6229 sometimes in a person united to him, as to the propagation of offspring; and this is prohibited by the words, "Thou shalt
6230 not commit adultery": sometimes in his possessions, which are directed to both the aforesaid; and with this regard to this
6231 it is said, "Thou shalt not steal." Harm done by word is forbidden when it is said, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against
6232 thy neighbor": harm done by thought is forbidden in the words, "Thou shalt not covet."
6233 </p><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
6234 refers to deeds; wherefore it is said, "Thou shalt not make . . . a graven thing": the second, to words; wherefore it is said,
6235 "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain": the third, to thoughts; because the sanctification of the Sabbath,
6236 as the subject of a moral precept, requires repose of the heart in God. Or, according to Augustine (In
6237 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A5-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.32" target="asv">Ps.
6238 32
6239 </a>: Conc. 1), by the first commandment we reverence the unity of the First Principle; by the second, the Divine truth; by the
6240 third, His goodness whereby we are sanctified, and wherein we rest as in our last end.
6241 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 5 co."><a name="37882" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37882] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 5 co.</span></a> Respondeo
6242 dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, sicut praecepta legis
6243 humanae ordinant hominem ad communitatem humanam, ita praecepta
6244 legis divinae ordinant hominem ad quandam communitatem seu
6245 rempublicam hominum sub Deo. Ad hoc autem quod aliquis in aliqua
6246 communitate bene commoretur, duo requiruntur, quorum primum est ut
6247 bene se habeat ad eum qui praeest communitati; aliud autem est ut
6248 homo bene se habeat ad alios communitatis consocios et
6249 comparticipes. Oportet igitur quod in lege divina primo ferantur
6250 quaedam praecepta ordinantia hominem ad Deum; et deinde alia
6251 praecepta ordinantia hominem ad alios proximos simul conviventes
6252 sub Deo. Principi autem communitatis tria debet homo, primo quidem,
6253 fidelitatem; secundo, reverentiam; tertio, famulatum. Fidelitas
6254 quidem ad dominum in hoc consistit, ut honorem principatus ad alium
6255 non deferat. Et quantum ad hoc accipitur primum praeceptum, cum
6256 dicitur, non habebis deos alienos. Reverentia autem ad dominum
6257 requiritur ut nihil iniuriosum in eum committatur. Et quantum ad
6258 hoc accipitur secundum praeceptum, quod est, non assumes nomen
6259 domini Dei tui in vanum. Famulatus autem debetur domino in
6260 recompensationem beneficiorum quae ab ipso percipiunt subditi. Et
6261 ad hoc pertinet tertium praeceptum, de sanctificatione sabbati in
6262 memoriam creationis rerum. Ad proximos autem aliquis bene se habet
6263 et specialiter, et generaliter. Specialiter quidem, quantum ad
6264 illos quorum est debitor, ut eis debitum reddat. Et quantum ad hoc
6265 accipitur praeceptum de honoratione parentum. Generaliter autem,
6266 quantum ad omnes, ut nulli nocumentum inferatur, neque opere neque
6267 ore neque corde. Opere quidem infertur nocumentum proximo,
6268 quandoque quidem in personam propriam, quantum ad consistentiam
6269 scilicet personae. Et hoc prohibetur per hoc quod dicitur, non
6270 occides. Quandoque autem in personam coniunctam quantum ad
6271 propagationem prolis. Et hoc prohibetur cum dicitur, non
6272 moechaberis. Quandoque autem in rem possessam, quae ordinatur ad
6273 utrumque. Et quantum ad hoc dicitur, non furtum facies. Nocumentum
6274 autem oris prohibetur cum dicitur, <i>non loqueris contra proximum
6275 tuum falsum testimonium</i>. Nocumentum autem cordis prohibetur cum
6276 dicitur, non concupisces. Et secundum hanc etiam differentiam
6277 possent distingui tria praecepta ordinantia in Deum. Quorum primum
6278 pertinet ad opus, unde ibi dicitur, non facies sculptile. Secundum
6279 ad os, unde dicitur, non assumes nomen Dei tui in vanum. Tertium
6280 pertinet ad cor, quia in sanctificatione sabbati, secundum quod est
6281 morale praeceptum, praecipitur quies cordis in Deum. Vel, secundum
6282 Augustinum, per primum praeceptum reveremur unitatem primi
6283 principii; per secundum, veritatem divinam; per tertium, eius
6284 bonitatem, qua sanctificamur, et in qua quiescimus sicut in
6285 fine.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q100_A5-p13">
6286 <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
6287 charity. Now there was need for man to receive a precept about loving God and his neighbor, because in this respect the natural
6288 law had become obscured on account of sin: but not about the duty of loving oneself, because in this respect the natural law
6289 retained its vigor: or again, because love of oneself is contained in the love
6290 of God and of one's neighbor: since true self-love consists in directing oneself to God. And for this reason the decalogue
6291 includes those precepts only which refer to our neighbor and to God.
6292 </p><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;
6293 wherefore it is written (
6294 <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
6295 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
6296 easy for a man, especially for a believer, to understand
6297 that, of necessity, he owes certain duties to God and to his neighbor. But that, in matters which regard himself and not another,
6298 man has, of necessity, certain duties to himself, is not so evident: for, at the first glance, it seems that everyone is free
6299 in matters that concern himself. And therefore the precepts which prohibit disorders of a man with regard to himself, reach
6300 the people through the instruction of men who are versed through the instruction of men who are versed in such matters;
6301 and, consequently, they are not contained in the decalogue.
6302 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 5 ad 1"><a name="37883" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37883] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 5 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
6303 ergo potest responderi dupliciter. Primo quidem, quia praecepta
6304 Decalogi referuntur ad praecepta dilectionis. Fuit autem dandum
6305 praeceptum homini de dilectione Dei et proximi, quia quantum ad hoc
6306 lex naturalis obscurata erat propter peccatum, non autem quantum ad
6307 dilectionem sui ipsius, quia quantum ad hoc lex naturalis vigebat.
6308 Vel quia etiam dilectio sui ipsius includitur in dilectione Dei et
6309 proximi, in hoc enim homo vere se diligit, quod se ordinat in Deum.
6310 Et ideo etiam in praeceptis Decalogi ponuntur solum praecepta
6311 pertinentia ad proximum et ad Deum. Aliter potest dici quod
6312 praecepta Decalogi sunt illa quae immediate populus recepit a Deo,
6313 unde dicitur Deut. X, <i>scripsit in tabulis, iuxta id quod prius
6314 scripserat, verba decem, quae locutus est ad vos dominus</i>. Unde
6315 oportet praecepta Decalogi talia esse quae statim in mente populi
6316 cadere possunt. Praeceptum autem habet rationem debiti. Quod autem
6317 homo ex necessitate debeat aliquid Deo vel proximo, hoc de facili
6318 cadit in conceptione hominis, et praecipue fidelis. Sed quod
6319 aliquid ex necessitate sit debitum homini de his quae pertinent ad
6320 seipsum et non ad alium, hoc non ita in promptu apparet, videtur
6321 enim primo aspectu quod quilibet sit liber in his quae ad ipsum
6322 pertinent. Et ideo praecepta quibus prohibentur inordinationes
6323 hominis ad seipsum, perveniunt ad populum mediante instructione
6324 sapientum. Unde non pertinent ad Decalogum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A5-p15">
6325 <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,
6326 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
6327 Divine favors to be commemorated the chief was that of the Creation, which was called to mind by the sanctification of the
6328 Sabbath; wherefore the reason for this precept is given in
6329 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A5-p15.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.20.11" target="asv"> Ex.
6330 20:11
6331 </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
6332 mind in God, either, in the present life, by grace, or, in the future life, by glory; which repose was also foreshadowed in
6333 the Sabbath-day observance: wherefore it is written (
6334 <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,
6335 and the holy of the Lord
6336 glorious." Because these favors first and chiefly are borne in mind by men, especially by the faithful. But other solemnities
6337 were celebrated on account of certain particular favors temporal and transitory, such as the celebration of the Passover in
6338 memory of the past favor of the delivery from Egypt, and as a sign of the future Passion of Christ, which though temporal
6339 and transitory, brought us to the repose of the spiritual Sabbath. Consequently, the Sabbath alone, and none of the other
6340 solemnities and sacrifices, is mentioned in the precepts of the decalogue.
6341 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 5 ad 2"><a name="37884" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37884] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 5 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
6342 dicendum quod omnes solemnitates legis veteris sunt institutae in
6343 commemorationem alicuius divini beneficii vel praeteriti
6344 commemorati, vel futuri praefigurati. Et similiter propter hoc
6345 omnia sacrificia offerebantur. Inter omnia autem beneficia Dei
6346 commemoranda, primum et praecipuum erat beneficium creationis, quod
6347 commemoratur in sanctificatione sabbati, unde Exod. XX pro ratione
6348 huius praecepti ponitur, <i>sex enim diebus fecit Deus caelum et
6349 terram</i> et cetera. Inter omnia autem futura beneficia, quae
6350 erant praefiguranda, praecipuum et finale erat quies mentis in Deo,
6351 vel in praesenti per gratiam, vel in futuro per gloriam, quae etiam
6352 figurabatur per observantiam sabbati; unde dicitur Isaiae LVIII,
6353 <i>si averteris a sabbato pedem tuum, facere voluntatem tuam in die
6354 sancto meo, et vocaveris sabbatum delicatum, et sanctum domini
6355 gloriosum</i>. Haec enim beneficia primo et principaliter sunt in
6356 mente hominum, maxime fidelium. Aliae vero solemnitates celebrantur
6357 propter aliqua particularia beneficia temporaliter transeuntia,
6358 sicut celebratio phase propter beneficium praeteritae liberationis
6359 ex Aegypto, et propter futuram passionem Christi, quae temporaliter
6360 transivit, inducens nos in quietem sabbati spiritualis. Et ideo,
6361 praetermissis omnibus aliis solemnitatibus et sacrificiis, de solo
6362 sabbato fiebat mentio inter praecepta Decalogi.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A5-p16">
6363 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As the Apostle says (
6364 <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
6365 oaths are common to all, inordinate swearing is the matter of a special prohibition by a precept of the decalogue. According
6366 to one interpretation, however, the words, "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain," are a prohibition of
6367 false doctrine, for one gloss
6368 expounds them thus: "Thou shalt not say that Christ is a creature."
6369 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 5 ad 3"><a name="37885" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37885] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 5 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
6370 dicendum quod, sicut apostolus dicit, ad Heb. VI, <i>homines per
6371 maiorem sui iurant, et omnis controversiae eorum finis ad
6372 confirmationem est iuramentum</i>. Et ideo, quia iuramentum est
6373 omnibus commune, propter hoc prohibitio inordinationis circa
6374 iuramentum, specialiter praecepto Decalogi prohibetur. Peccatum
6375 vero falsae doctrinae non pertinet nisi ad paucos, unde non
6376 oportebat ut de hoc fieret mentio inter praecepta Decalogi. Quamvis
6377 etiam, quantum ad aliquem intellectum, in hoc quod dicitur, non
6378 assumes nomen Dei tui in vanum, prohibeatur falsitas doctrinae, una
6379 enim Glossa exponit, non dices Christum esse creaturam.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A5-p17">
6380 <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
6381 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
6382 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
6383 get away from it by denying it: since the father is the principle of
6384 generation and being, and also of upbringing and teaching. Wherefore the decalogue does not prescribe deeds of kindness or
6385 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
6386 for any favors received, but rather the reverse is the case. Again, a child is a part of his father; and "parents love their
6387 children as being a part of themselves," as the Philosopher states (Ethic. viii, 12). Hence, just as the decalogue contains
6388 no
6389 ordinance as to man's behavior towards himself, so, for the same reason, it includes no precept about loving one's children.
6390 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 5 ad 4"><a name="37886" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37886] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 5 ad 4</span></a> Ad quartum
6391 dicendum quod statim ratio naturalis homini dictat quod nulli
6392 iniuriam faciat, et ideo praecepta prohibentia nocumentum,
6393 extendunt se ad omnes. Sed ratio naturalis non statim dictat quod
6394 aliquid sit pro alio faciendum, nisi cui homo aliquid debet.
6395 Debitum autem filii ad patrem adeo est manifestum quod nulla
6396 tergiversatione potest negari, eo quod pater est principium
6397 generationis et esse, et insuper educationis et doctrinae. Et ideo
6398 non ponitur sub praecepto Decalogi ut aliquod beneficium vel
6399 obsequium alicui impendatur nisi parentibus. Parentes autem non
6400 videntur esse debitores filiis propter aliqua beneficia suscepta,
6401 sed potius e converso. Filius etiam est aliquid patris; et patres
6402 amant filios ut aliquid ipsorum, sicut dicit philosophus, in VIII
6403 Ethic. Unde eisdem rationibus non ponuntur aliqua praecepta
6404 Decalogi pertinentia ad amorem filiorum, sicut neque etiam aliqua
6405 ordinantia hominem ad seipsum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A5-p18">
6406 <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,
6407 are of themselves, objects of appetite: and for this reason they needed to be forbidden not only in the deed but also in the
6408 desire. But murder and falsehood are, of themselves, objects of repulsion (since it is natural for man to love his neighbor
6409 and the truth): and are desired only for the sake of something else. Consequently
6410 with regard to sins of murder and false witness, it was necessary to proscribe, not sins of thought, but only sins of deed.
6411 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 5 ad 5"><a name="37887" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37887] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 5 ad 5</span></a> Ad quintum
6412 dicendum quod delectatio adulterii, et utilitas divitiarum, sunt
6413 propter seipsa appetibilia, inquantum habent rationem boni
6414 delectabilis vel utilis. Et propter hoc oportuit in eis prohiberi
6415 non solum opus, sed etiam concupiscentiam. Sed homicidium et
6416 falsitas sunt secundum seipsa horribilia, quia proximus et veritas
6417 naturaliter amantur, et non desiderantur nisi propter aliud. Et
6418 ideo non oportuit circa peccatum homicidii et falsi testimonii
6419 prohibere peccatum cordis, sed solum operis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A5-p19">
6420 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> As stated above (
6421 <a href="FS_iii.html#FS_Q25_A1" id="FS_Q100_A5-p19.1" shape="rect">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
6422 the decalogue are, as it were, the first elements of the Law, there was no need for mention of the irascible passions, but
6423 only of the concupiscible passions.
6424 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 5 ad 6"><a name="37888" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37888] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 5 ad 6</span></a> Ad sextum
6425 dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, omnes passiones irascibilis
6426 derivantur a passionibus concupiscibilis. Et ideo in praeceptis
6427 Decalogi, quae sunt quasi prima elementa legis, non erat mentio
6428 facienda de passionibus irascibilis, sed solum de passionibus
6429 concupiscibilis.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q100_A6" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q100_A6-p0.1">Q. 100. A. 6. Whether the ten precepts of the decalogue are set in proper order?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A6-p2">
6430 <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
6431 previous to love of God, since our neighbor is better known to us than God is; according to
6432 <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
6433 to the love of God, while the other seven pertain to the love of our neighbor. Therefore
6434 the precepts of the decalogue are not set in proper order.
6435 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 6 arg. 1"><a name="37889" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37889] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 6 arg. 1</span></a> Ad sextum
6436 sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter ordinentur decem
6437 praecepta Decalogi. Dilectio enim proximi videtur esse praevia ad
6438 dilectionem Dei, quia proximus est nobis magis notus quam Deus;
6439 secundum illud I Ioan. IV, <i>qui fratrem suum, quem videt, non
6440 diligit, Deum, quem non videt, quomodo potest diligere?</i> Sed
6441 tria prima praecepta pertinent ad dilectionem Dei, septem vero alia
6442 ad dilectionem proximi. Ergo inconvenienter praecepta Decalogi
6443 ordinantur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A6-p3">
6444 <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.
6445 But according to Boethius in his commentary on the Categories [*Lib. iv, cap. De Oppos.], vices should be uprooted before
6446 virtues are sown. Therefore among the precepts concerning our neighbor, the negative precepts should have preceded the affirmative.
6447 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 6 arg. 2"><a name="37890" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37890] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 6 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
6448 per praecepta affirmativa imperantur actus virtutum, per praecepta
6449 vero negativa prohibentur actus vitiorum. Sed secundum Boetium, in
6450 commento praedicamentorum, prius sunt extirpanda vitia quam
6451 inserantur virtutes. Ergo inter praecepta pertinentia ad proximum,
6452 primo ponenda fuerunt praecepta negativa quam affirmativa.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A6-p4">
6453 <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.
6454 Therefore the precepts about not coveting, which regard our thoughts, are unsuitably placed last in order.
6455 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 6 arg. 3"><a name="37891" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37891] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 6 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
6456 praecepta legis dantur de actibus hominum. Sed prior est actus
6457 cordis quam oris vel exterioris operis. Ergo inconvenienti ordine
6458 praecepta de non concupiscendo, quae pertinent ad cor, ultimo
6459 ponuntur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A6-p5">
6460 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
6461 <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
6462 decalogue were given immediately by God, as stated above
6463 <a href="#FS_Q100_A3" id="FS_Q100_A6-p5.2" shape="rect">(A[3])</a>. Therefore they are arranged in becoming order.
6464 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 6 s. c."><a name="37892" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37892] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 6 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
6465 est quod apostolus dicit, Rom. XIII, <i>quae a Deo sunt, ordinata
6466 sunt</i>. Sed praecepta Decalogi sunt immediate data a Deo, ut
6467 dictum est. Ergo convenientem ordinem habent.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q100_A6-p6">
6468 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
6469 <a href="#FS_Q100_A3" id="FS_Q100_A6-p6.1" shape="rect">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
6470 is so much the more easily grasped by the reason, as its contrary is more grievous and repugnant to reason. Moreover, it is
6471 clear, since the order of reason begins with the end, that, for a man to be inordinately disposed towards his end, is supremely
6472 contrary to reason. Now the end of
6473 human life and society is God. Consequently it was necessary for the precepts of the decalogue, first of all, to direct man
6474 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,
6475 it is requisite first that the soldier should be subject to the commander, and the opposite of this is most grievous; and
6476 secondly it is requisite that he should be in coordination with the other soldiers.
6477 </p><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
6478 nothing in common with His enemies. The second is that he should show Him reverence: the third that he should offer Him service.
6479 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
6480 to his commander: and this last is more grievous than if he be found wanting in some point of service
6481 to him.
6482 </p><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,
6483 and a more grievous sin, if man does not observe the due order as to those persons to whom he is most indebted. Consequently,
6484 among those precepts that direct man in his relations to his neighbor, the first place is given to that one which regards
6485 his parents. Among the other precepts we again find the order to be according to the gravity of sin. For it is
6486 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,
6487 murder which destroys life in one already living is more grievous than adultery, which imperils the life of the unborn child;
6488 and adultery is more grave than theft, which regards external goods.
6489 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 6 co."><a name="37893" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37893] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 6 co.</span></a> Respondeo
6490 dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, praecepta Decalogi dantur de his
6491 quae statim in promptu mens hominis suscipit. Manifestum est autem
6492 quod tanto aliquid magis a ratione suscipitur, quanto contrarium
6493 est gravius et magis rationi repugnans. Manifestum est autem quod,
6494 cum rationis ordo a fine incipiat, maxime est contra rationem ut
6495 homo inordinate se habeat circa finem. Finis autem humanae vitae et
6496 societatis est Deus. Et ideo primo oportuit per praecepta Decalogi
6497 hominem ordinare ad Deum, cum eius contrarium sit gravissimum.
6498 Sicut etiam in exercitu, qui ordinatur ad ducem sicut ad finem,
6499 primum est quod miles subdatur duci, et huius contrarium est
6500 gravissimum; secundum vero est ut aliis coordinetur. Inter ipsa
6501 autem per quae ordinamur in Deum, primum occurrit quod homo
6502 fideliter ei subdatur, nullam participationem cum inimicis habens.
6503 Secundum autem est quod ei reverentiam exhibeat. Tertium autem est
6504 quod etiam famulatum impendat. Maiusque peccatum est in exercitu si
6505 miles, infideliter agens, cum hoste pactum habeat, quam si aliquam
6506 irreverentiam faciat duci, et hoc est etiam gravius quam si in
6507 aliquo obsequio ducis deficiens inveniatur. In praeceptis autem
6508 ordinantibus ad proximum, manifestum est quod magis repugnat
6509 rationi, et gravius peccatum est, si homo non servet ordinem
6510 debitum ad personas quibus magis est debitor. Et ideo inter
6511 praecepta ordinantia ad proximum, primo ponitur praeceptum
6512 pertinens ad parentes. Inter alia vero praecepta etiam apparet ordo
6513 secundum ordinem gravitatis peccatorum. Gravius est enim, et magis
6514 rationi repugnans, peccare opere quam ore, et ore quam corde. Et
6515 inter peccata operis, gravius est homicidium, per quod tollitur
6516 vita hominis iam existentis, quam adulterium, per quod impeditur
6517 certitudo prolis nasciturae; et adulterium gravius quam furtum,
6518 quod pertinet ad bona exteriora.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A6-p9">
6519 <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
6520 love of our neighbor, as shall be declared later on (
6521 <a href="SS_i.html#SS_Q25_A1" id="FS_Q100_A6-p9.1" shape="rect">SS, Q[25], A[1]</a>;
6522 <a href="SS_i.html#SS_Q26_A2" id="FS_Q100_A6-p9.2" shape="rect">SS, Q[26], A[2]</a>). Hence the precepts ordaining man to God demanded precedence of the others.
6523 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 6 ad 1"><a name="37894" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37894] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 6 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
6524 ergo dicendum quod, quamvis secundum viam sensus proximus sit magis
6525 notus quam Deus, tamen dilectio Dei est ratio dilectionis proximi,
6526 ut infra patebit. Et ideo praecepta ordinantia ad Deum, fuerunt
6527 praeordinanda.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A6-p10">
6528 <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
6529 of his son. Therefore the precept regarding parents was fittingly placed after the precepts regarding God. This argument holds
6530 in respect of affirmative and negative precepts about the same kind of deed: although even then it is not altogether cogent.
6531 For although in the order of execution, vices should be uprooted before virtues
6532 are sown, according to
6533 <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
6534 <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
6535 is known by the straight" (De Anima i): and "by the law is the knowledge of sin" (
6536 <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
6537 is given
6538 above. Because in the precepts regarding God, which belongs to the first table, an affirmative precept is placed last, since
6539 its transgression implies a less grievous sin.
6540 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 6 ad 2"><a name="37895" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37895] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 6 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
6541 dicendum quod, sicut Deus est universale principium essendi
6542 omnibus, ita etiam pater est principium quoddam essendi filio. Et
6543 ideo convenienter post praecepta pertinentia ad Deum, ponitur
6544 praeceptum pertinens ad parentes. Ratio autem procedit quando
6545 affirmativa et negativa pertinent ad idem genus operis. Quamvis
6546 etiam et in hoc non habeat omnimodam efficaciam. Etsi enim in
6547 executione operis, prius extirpanda sint vitia quam inserendae
6548 virtutes, secundum illud Psalmi XXXIII, <i>declina a malo, et fac
6549 bonum</i>, et Isaiae I, <i>quiescite agere perverse, discite
6550 benefacere</i>; tamen in cognitione prior est virtus quam peccatum,
6551 quia per rectum cognoscitur obliquum, ut dicitur in I de anima. Per
6552 legem autem cognitio peccati, ut Rom. III dicitur. Et secundum hoc,
6553 praeceptum affirmativum debuisset primo poni. Sed non est ista
6554 ratio ordinis, sed quae supra posita est. Quia in praeceptis
6555 pertinentibus ad Deum, quae sunt primae tabulae, ultimo ponitur
6556 praeceptum affirmativum, quia eius transgressio minorem reatum
6557 inducit.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A6-p11">
6558 <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
6559 reason.
6560 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 6 ad 3"><a name="37896" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37896] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 6 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
6561 dicendum quod peccatum cordis etsi sit prius in executione, tamen
6562 eius prohibitio posterius cadit in ratione.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q100_A7" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q100_A7-p0.1">Q. 100. A. 7. Whether the precepts of the decalogue are suitably formulated?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A7-p2">
6563 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the precepts of the decalogue are unsuitably formulated. Because the affirmative precepts direct man to
6564 acts of virtue, while the negative precepts withdraw him from acts of vice. But in every matter there are virtues and vices
6565 opposed to one another. Therefore in whatever matter there is an ordinance of a precept of the decalogue, there should have
6566 been an affirmative and a negative precept. Therefore it was unfitting that affirmative
6567 precepts should be framed in some matters, and negative precepts in others.
6568 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 7 arg. 1"><a name="37897" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37897] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 7 arg. 1</span></a> Ad
6569 septimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod praecepta Decalogi
6570 inconvenienter tradantur. Praecepta enim affirmativa ordinant ad
6571 actus virtutum, praecepta autem negativa abstrahunt ab actibus
6572 vitiorum. Sed circa quamlibet materiam opponuntur sibi virtutes et
6573 vitia. Ergo in qualibet materia de qua ordinat praeceptum Decalogi,
6574 debuit poni praeceptum affirmativum et negativum. Inconvenienter
6575 igitur ponuntur quaedam affirmativa et quaedam negativa.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A7-p3">
6576 <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
6577 Divine law. Therefore the reason should have been pointed out in each precept, and not only in the first and third.
6578 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 7 arg. 2"><a name="37898" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37898] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 7 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
6579 Isidorus dicit quod omnis lex ratione constat. Sed omnia praecepta
6580 Decalogi pertinent ad legem divinam. Ergo in omnibus debuit ratio
6581 assignari, et non solum in primo et tertio praecepto.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A7-p4">
6582 <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
6583 precepts. Therefore the promise should have been included in each precept, and not only in the second and fourth.
6584 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 7 arg. 3"><a name="37899" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37899] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 7 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
6585 per observantiam praeceptorum meretur aliquis praemia a Deo. Sed
6586 divinae promissiones sunt de praemiis praeceptorum. Ergo promissio
6587 debuit poni in omnibus praeceptis, et non solum in primo et
6588 quarto.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A7-p5">
6589 <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
6590 of punishments. But all the precepts of the decalogue belong to the Old Law. Therefore a threat of punishment should have
6591 been included in each, and not only in the first and second.
6592 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 7 arg. 4"><a name="37900" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37900] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 7 arg. 4</span></a> Praeterea,
6593 lex vetus dicitur lex timoris, inquantum per comminationes poenarum
6594 inducebat ad observationes praeceptorum. Sed omnia praecepta
6595 Decalogi pertinent ad legem veterem. Ergo in omnibus debuit poni
6596 comminatio poenae, et non solum in primo et secundo.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A7-p6">
6597 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, all the commandments of God should be retained in the memory: for it is written (
6598 <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
6599 third commandment only. Consequently it seems that the precepts of the decalogue are unsuitably formulated.
6600 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 7 arg. 5"><a name="37901" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37901] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 7 arg. 5</span></a> Praeterea,
6601 omnia praecepta Dei sunt in memoria retinenda, dicitur enim Prov.
6602 III, <i>describe ea in tabulis cordis tui</i>. Inconvenienter ergo
6603 in solo tertio praecepto fit mentio de memoria. Et ita videntur
6604 praecepta Decalogi inconvenienter tradita esse.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A7-p7">
6605 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
6606 <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
6607 His Law.
6608 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 7 s. c."><a name="37902" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37902] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 7 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
6609 est quod dicitur Sap. XI, quod <i>Deus omnia fecit in numero,
6610 pondere et mensura</i>. Multo magis ergo in praeceptis suae legis
6611 congruum modum tradendi servavit.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A7-p8">
6612 <b>I answer that,</b> The highest wisdom is contained in the precepts of the Divine law: wherefore it is written (
6613 <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
6614 manner and order. Therefore it must be evident that the precepts of the Law are suitably set forth.
6615 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 7 co."><a name="37903" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37903] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 7 co.</span></a> Respondeo
6616 dicendum quod in praeceptis divinae legis maxima sapientia
6617 continetur, unde dicitur Deut. IV, <i>haec est vestra sapientia et
6618 intellectus coram populis</i>. Sapientis autem est omnia debito
6619 modo et ordine disponere. Et ideo manifestum esse debet quod
6620 praecepta legis convenienti modo sunt tradita.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A7-p9">
6621 <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
6622 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
6623 it is not black, it is white: because negation extends further than affirmation. And hence too, that one ought not to do harm
6624 to another, which pertains to the negative precepts, extends to more persons, as a
6625 primary dictate of reason, than that one ought to do someone a service or kindness. Nevertheless it is a primary dictate of
6626 reason that man is a debtor in the point of rendering a service or kindness to those from whom he has received kindness, if
6627 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
6628 stated in Ethic. viii, 14. Therefore it is that there are only two affirmative precepts; one about the honor due to parents,
6629 the other about the celebration of the Sabbath in memory of the Divine favor.
6630 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 7 ad 1"><a name="37904" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37904] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 7 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
6631 ergo dicendum quod semper ad affirmationem sequitur negatio
6632 oppositi, non autem semper ad negationem unius oppositi sequitur
6633 affirmatio alterius. Sequitur enim, si est album, non est nigrum,
6634 non tamen sequitur, si non est nigrum, ergo est album, quia ad
6635 plura sese extendit negatio quam affirmatio. Et inde est etiam quod
6636 non esse faciendum iniuriam, quod pertinet ad praecepta negativa,
6637 ad plures personas se extendit, secundum primum dictamen rationis,
6638 quam esse debitum ut alicui obsequium vel beneficium impendatur.
6639 Inest autem primo dictamen rationis quod homo debitor est beneficii
6640 vel obsequii exhibendi illis a quibus beneficia accepit, si nondum
6641 recompensavit. Duo autem sunt quorum beneficiis sufficienter nullus
6642 recompensare potest, scilicet Deus et pater, ut dicitur in VIII
6643 Ethic. Et ideo sola duo praecepta affirmativa ponuntur, unum de
6644 honoratione parentum; aliud de celebratione sabbati in
6645 commemorationem divini beneficii.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A7-p10">
6646 <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
6647 include ceremonial matter, or a determination of a general moral precept; thus the first precept includes the determination,
6648 "Thou shalt not make a graven thing"; and in the third precept the Sabbath-day is fixed. Consequently there was need to state
6649 the reason in each case.
6650 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 7 ad 2"><a name="37905" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37905] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 7 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
6651 dicendum quod illa praecepta quae sunt pure moralia, habent
6652 manifestam rationem, unde non oportuit quod in eis aliqua ratio
6653 adderetur. Sed quibusdam praeceptis additur caeremoniale, vel
6654 determinativum praecepti moralis communis, sicut in primo
6655 praecepto, non facies sculptile; et in tertio praecepto
6656 determinatur dies sabbati. Et ideo utrobique oportuit rationem
6657 assignari.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A7-p11">
6658 <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
6659 that there would be no useful result, or that some utility might be hindered, it was necessary to add a promise of reward.
6660 And since parents are already on the way to depart from us, no benefit is expected from them: wherefore a promise of reward
6661 is added to the precept about honoring one's parents. The same applies to the precept
6662 forbidding idolatry: since thereby it seemed that men were hindered from receiving the apparent benefit which they think they
6663 can get by entering into a compact with the demons.
6664 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 7 ad 3"><a name="37906" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37906] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 7 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
6665 dicendum quod homines ut plurimum actus suos ad aliquam utilitatem
6666 ordinant. Et ideo in illis praeceptis necesse fuit promissionem
6667 praemii apponere, ex quibus videbatur nulla utilitas sequi, vel
6668 aliqua utilitas impediri. Quia vero parentes sunt iam in recedendo,
6669 ab eis non expectatur utilitas. Et ideo praecepto de honore
6670 parentum additur promissio. Similiter etiam praecepto de
6671 prohibitione idololatriae, quia per hoc videbatur impediri apparens
6672 utilitas quam homines credunt se posse consequi per pactum cum
6673 Daemonibus initum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A7-p12">
6674 <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
6675 is only affixed to those precepts of the law which forbade evils to which men were prone. Now men were prone to idolatry by
6676 reason of the general custom of the nations. Likewise men are prone to perjury on account of the frequent use of oaths. Hence
6677 it is that a threat is affixed to the first two precepts.
6678 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 7 ad 4"><a name="37907" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37907] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 7 ad 4</span></a> Ad quartum
6679 dicendum quod poenae praecipue necessariae sunt contra illos qui
6680 sunt proni ad malum, ut dicitur in X Ethic. Et ideo illis solis
6681 praeceptis legis additur comminatio poenarum, in quibus erat
6682 pronitas ad malum. Erant autem homines proni ad idololatriam,
6683 propter generalem consuetudinem gentium. Et similiter sunt etiam
6684 homines proni ad periurium, propter frequentiam iuramenti. Et ideo
6685 primis duobus praeceptis adiungitur comminatio.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A7-p13">
6686 <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
6687 therein. Or again, the commandment about the Sabbath has a determination affixed to it that does not belong to the natural
6688 law, wherefore this precept needed a special admonition.
6689 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 7 ad 5"><a name="37908" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37908] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 7 ad 5</span></a> Ad quintum
6690 dicendum quod praeceptum de sabbato ponitur ut commemorativum
6691 beneficii praeteriti. Et ideo specialiter in eo fit mentio de
6692 memoria. Vel quia praeceptum de sabbato habet determinationem
6693 adiunctam quae non est de lege naturae; et ideo hoc praeceptum
6694 speciali admonitione indiguit.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q100_A8" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q100_A8-p0.1">Q. 100. A. 8. Whether the precepts of the decalogue are dispensable?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A8-p2">
6695 <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
6696 law. But the natural law fails in some cases and is changeable, like human nature, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 7).
6697 Now the failure of law to apply in certain particular cases is a reason for dispensation, as stated above (
6698 <a href="#FS_Q96_A6" id="FS_Q100_A8-p2.1" shape="rect">Q[96], A[6]</a>;
6699 <a href="#FS_Q97_A4" id="FS_Q100_A8-p2.2" shape="rect"> Q[97], A[4]</a>). Therefore a dispensation can be
6700 granted in the precepts of the decalogue.
6701 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 8 arg. 1"><a name="37909" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37909] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 8 arg. 1</span></a> Ad octavum
6702 sic proceditur. Videtur quod praecepta Decalogi sint dispensabilia.
6703 Praecepta enim Decalogi sunt de iure naturali. Sed iustum naturale
6704 in aliquibus deficit, et mutabile est, sicut et natura humana, ut
6705 philosophus dicit, in V Ethic. Defectus autem legis in aliquibus
6706 particularibus casibus est ratio dispensandi, ut supra dictum est.
6707 Ergo in praeceptis Decalogi potest fieri dispensatio.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A8-p3">
6708 <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
6709 a law made by man. Therefore, since the precepts of the decalogue are ordained by God, it seems that God can dispense with
6710 them. Now our superiors are God's viceregents on earth; for the Apostle says (
6711 <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
6712 Christ." Therefore superiors can dispense with the precepts of the decalogue.
6713 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 8 arg. 2"><a name="37910" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37910] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 8 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
6714 sicut se habet homo ad legem humanam, ita se habet Deus ad legem
6715 datam divinitus. Sed homo potest dispensare in praeceptis legis
6716 quae homo statuit. Ergo, cum praecepta Decalogi sint instituta a
6717 Deo, videtur quod Deus in eis possit dispensare. Sed praelati vice
6718 Dei funguntur in terris, dicit enim apostolus, II ad Cor. II,
6719 <i>nam et ego, si quid donavi, propter vos donavi in persona
6720 Christi</i>. Ergo etiam praelati possunt in praeceptis Decalogi
6721 dispensare.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A8-p4">
6722 <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
6723 this precept: for instance, when according to the prescription of human law, such as evil-doers or enemies are lawfully slain.
6724 Therefore the precepts of the decalogue are dispensable.
6725 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 8 arg. 3"><a name="37911" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37911] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 8 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
6726 inter praecepta Decalogi continetur prohibitio homicidii. Sed in
6727 isto praecepto videtur dispensari per homines, puta cum, secundum
6728 praeceptum legis humanae, homines licite occiduntur, puta
6729 malefactores vel hostes. Ergo praecepta Decalogi sunt
6730 dispensabilia.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A8-p5">
6731 <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
6732 precept; for it is written (
6733 <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
6734 against him." Therefore the precepts of the decalogue are dispensable.
6735 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 8 arg. 4"><a name="37912" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37912] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 8 arg. 4</span></a> Praeterea,
6736 observatio sabbati continetur inter praecepta Decalogi. Sed in hoc
6737 praecepto fuit dispensatum, dicitur enim I Machab. II, <i>et
6738 cogitaverunt in die illa dicentes, omnis homo quicumque venerit ad
6739 nos in bello die sabbatorum, pugnemus adversus eum</i>. Ergo
6740 praecepta Decalogi sunt dispensabilia.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A8-p6">
6741 <b>On the contrary,</b> are the words of
6742 <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,
6743 apply principally to the precepts of the decalogue. Therefore the precepts of the decalogue cannot be changed by dispensation.
6744 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 8 s. c."><a name="37913" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37913] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 8 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
6745 est quod dicitur Isaiae XXIV, quidam reprehenduntur de hoc quod
6746 mutaverunt ius, dissipaverunt foedus sempiternum, quod maxime
6747 videtur intelligendum de praeceptis Decalogi. Ergo praecepta
6748 Decalogi mutari per dispensationem non possunt.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q100_A8-p7">
6749 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
6750 <a href="#FS_Q96_A6" id="FS_Q100_A8-p7.1" shape="rect">Q[96], A[6]</a>;
6751 <a href="#FS_Q97_A4" id="FS_Q100_A8-p7.2" shape="rect"> 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
6752 intention of the lawgiver is frustrated. Now the intention of every lawgiver is directed first and chiefly to the common good;
6753 secondly, to the order of justice and virtue, whereby the common good is preserved and attained. If therefore there by
6754 any precepts which contain the very preservation of the common good, or the very order of justice and virtue, such precepts
6755 contain the intention of the lawgiver, and therefore are indispensable. For instance, if in some community a law were enacted,
6756 such as this---that no man should work for the destruction of the commonwealth, or betray the state to its enemies, or that
6757 no man should do anything unjust or evil, such precepts would not admit of dispensation. But if other precepts were enacted,
6758 subordinate to the above, and determining certain special modes of procedure, these latter precepts would admit of dispensation,
6759 in so far as the omission of these precepts in certain cases would not be prejudicial to the former precepts which contain
6760 the intention of the lawgiver. For instance if, for the safeguarding of the commonwealth, it were enacted in some city that
6761 from each ward some men should keep watch as sentries in case of siege, some might be dispensed from this on account of
6762 some greater utility.
6763 </p><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,
6764 which direct us to God, contain the very order to the common and final good, which is God; while the precepts of the second
6765 table contain the order of justice to be observed among men, that nothing undue be done to anyone, and that each one be given
6766 his due; for it is in this sense that we are to take the precepts of the decalogue. Consequently the
6767 precepts of the decalogue admit of no dispensation whatever.
6768 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 8 co."><a name="37914" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37914] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 8 co.</span></a> Respondeo
6769 dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, tunc in praeceptis debet
6770 fieri dispensatio, quando occurrit aliquis particularis casus in
6771 quo, si verbum legis observetur, contrariatur intentioni
6772 legislatoris. Intentio autem legislatoris cuiuslibet ordinatur
6773 primo quidem et principaliter ad bonum commune; secundo autem, ad
6774 ordinem iustitiae et virtutis, secundum quem bonum commune
6775 conservatur, et ad ipsum pervenitur. Si qua ergo praecepta dentur
6776 quae contineant ipsam conservationem boni communis, vel ipsum
6777 ordinem iustitiae et virtutis; huiusmodi praecepta continent
6778 intentionem legislatoris, et ideo indispensabilia sunt. Puta si
6779 poneretur hoc praeceptum in aliqua communitate, quod nullus
6780 destrueret rempublicam, neque proderet civitatem hostibus, sive
6781 quod nullus faceret aliquid iniuste vel male; huiusmodi praecepta
6782 essent indispensabilia. Sed si aliqua alia praecepta traderentur
6783 ordinata ad ista praecepta, quibus determinantur aliqui speciales
6784 modi, in talibus praeceptis dispensatio posset fieri; inquantum per
6785 omissionem huiusmodi praeceptorum in aliquibus casibus, non fieret
6786 praeiudicium primis praeceptis, quae continent intentionem
6787 legislatoris. Puta si, ad conservationem reipublicae, statueretur
6788 in aliqua civitate quod de singulis vicis aliqui vigilarent ad
6789 custodiam civitatis obsessae; posset cum aliquibus dispensari
6790 propter aliquam maiorem utilitatem. Praecepta autem Decalogi
6791 continent ipsam intentionem legislatoris, scilicet Dei. Nam
6792 praecepta primae tabulae, quae ordinant ad Deum, continent ipsum
6793 ordinem ad bonum commune et finale, quod Deus est; praecepta autem
6794 secundae tabulae continent ipsum ordinem iustitiae inter homines
6795 observandae, ut scilicet nulli fiat indebitum, et cuilibet reddatur
6796 debitum; secundum hanc enim rationem sunt intelligenda praecepta
6797 Decalogi. Et ideo praecepta Decalogi sunt omnino
6798 indispensabilia.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A8-p9">
6799 <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
6800 that "justice should be preserved." But he is speaking in reference to certain fixed modes of observing justice, which fail
6801 to apply in certain cases.
6802 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 8 ad 1"><a name="37915" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37915] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 8 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
6803 ergo dicendum quod philosophus non loquitur de iusto naturali quod
6804 continet ipsum ordinem iustitiae, hoc enim nunquam deficit,
6805 iustitiam esse servandam. Sed loquitur quantum ad determinatos
6806 modos observationis iustitiae, qui in aliquibus fallunt.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A8-p10">
6807 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> As the Apostle says (
6808 <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
6809 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
6810 himself to God, or not to be subject to His justice, even in those matters in which men are directed to one another.
6811 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 8 ad 2"><a name="37916" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37916] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 8 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
6812 dicendum quod, sicut apostolus dicit, II ad Tim. II, <i>Deus
6813 fidelis permanet, negare seipsum non potest</i>. Negaret autem
6814 seipsum, si ipsum ordinem suae iustitiae auferret, cum ipse sit
6815 ipsa iustitia. Et ideo in hoc Deus dispensare non potest, ut homini
6816 liceat non ordinate se habere ad Deum, vel non subdi ordini
6817 iustitiae eius, etiam in his secundum quae homines ad invicem
6818 ordinantur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q100_A8-p11">
6819 <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
6820 the precept contains the very essence of justice. Human law cannot make it lawful for a man to be slain unduly. But it is
6821 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;
6822 and such a killing is no murder as forbidden by that precept, as Augustine
6823 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,
6824 this is not theft or robbery as forbidden by the decalogue.
6825 </p><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
6826 it was due to them by the sentence of God. Likewise when Abraham consented to slay his son, he did not consent to murder,
6827 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
6828 of death on all men, both godly and ungodly, on account of the sin of our first parent, and if a man be
6829 the executor of that sentence by Divine authority, he will be no murderer any more than God would be. Again Osee, by taking
6830 unto himself a wife of fornications, or an adulterous woman, was not guilty either of adultery or of fornication: because
6831 he took unto himself one who was his by command of God, Who is the Author of the institution of marriage.
6832 </p><p id="FS_Q100_A8-p13"> Accordingly, therefore, the precepts of the decalogue, as to the essence of justice which they contain, are unchangeable:
6833 but as to any determination by application to individual actions---for instance, that this or that be murder, theft or adultery,
6834 or not---in this point they admit of change; sometimes by Divine authority alone, namely, in such matters as are exclusively
6835 of Divine institution, as marriage and the like; sometimes also by human authority, namely in such matters
6836 as are subject to human jurisdiction: for in this respect men stand in the place of God: and yet not in all respects.
6837 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 8 ad 3"><a name="37917" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37917] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 8 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
6838 dicendum quod occisio hominis prohibetur in Decalogo secundum quod
6839 habet rationem indebiti, sic enim praeceptum continet ipsam
6840 rationem iustitiae. Lex autem humana hoc concedere non potest, quod
6841 licite homo indebite occidatur. Sed malefactores occidi, vel hostes
6842 reipublicae, hoc non est indebitum. Unde hoc non contrariatur
6843 praecepto Decalogi, nec talis occisio est homicidium, quod
6844 praecepto Decalogi prohibetur, ut Augustinus dicit, in I de Lib.
6845 Arb. Et similiter si alicui auferatur quod suum erat, si debitum
6846 est quod ipsum amittat, hoc non est furtum vel rapina, quae
6847 praecepto Decalogi prohibentur. Et ideo quando filii Israel
6848 praecepto Dei tulerunt Aegyptiorum spolia, non fuit furtum, quia
6849 hoc eis debebatur ex sententia Dei. Similiter etiam Abraham, cum
6850 consensit occidere filium, non consensit in homicidium, quia
6851 debitum erat eum occidi per mandatum Dei, qui est dominus vitae et
6852 mortis. Ipse enim est qui poenam mortis infligit omnibus hominibus,
6853 iustis et iniustis, pro peccato primi parentis, cuius sententiae si
6854 homo sit executor auctoritate divina, non erit homicida, sicut nec
6855 Deus. Et similiter etiam Osee, accedens ad uxorem fornicariam, vel
6856 ad mulierem adulteram, non est moechatus nec fornicatus, quia
6857 accessit ad eam quae sua erat secundum mandatum divinum, qui est
6858 auctor institutionis matrimonii. Sic igitur praecepta ipsa
6859 Decalogi, quantum ad rationem iustitiae quam continent, immutabilia
6860 sunt. Sed quantum ad aliquam determinationem per applicationem ad
6861 singulares actus, ut scilicet hoc vel illud sit homicidium, furtum
6862 vel adulterium, aut non, hoc quidem est mutabile, quandoque sola
6863 auctoritate divina, in his scilicet quae a solo Deo sunt instituta,
6864 sicut in matrimonio, et in aliis huiusmodi; quandoque etiam
6865 auctoritate humana, sicut in his quae sunt commissa hominum
6866 iurisdictioni. Quantum enim ad hoc, homines gerunt vicem Dei, non
6867 autem quantum ad omnia.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A8-p14">
6868 <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
6869 something necessary for human welfare; as Our Lord proves (
6870 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A8-p14.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.12.3" target="asv">Mat. 12:3, </a> seqq.).
6871 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 8 ad 4"><a name="37918" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37918] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 8 ad 4</span></a> Ad quartum
6872 dicendum quod illa excogitatio magis fuit interpretatio praecepti
6873 quam dispensatio. Non enim intelligitur violare sabbatum qui facit
6874 opus quod est necessarium ad salutem humanam; sicut dominus probat,
6875 Matth. XII.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q100_A9" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q100_A9-p0.1">Q. 100. A. 9. Whether the mode of virtue falls under the precept of the law?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A9-p2">
6876 <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
6877 should be done justly, that deeds of fortitude should be done bravely, and in like manner as to the other virtues. But it
6878 is commanded (
6879 <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.
6880 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 9 arg. 1"><a name="37919" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37919] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 9 arg. 1</span></a> Ad nonum
6881 sic proceditur. Videtur quod modus virtutis cadat sub praecepto
6882 legis. Est enim modus virtutis ut aliquis iuste operetur iusta, et
6883 fortiter fortia, et similiter de aliis virtutibus. Sed Deut. XVI
6884 praecipitur, <i>iuste quod iustum est exequeris</i>. Ergo modus
6885 virtutis cadit sub praecepto.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A9-p3">
6886 <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
6887 is directed chiefly to make men virtuous, as stated in Ethic. ii: and it belongs to a virtuous man to act virtuously. Therefore
6888 the mode of virtue falls under the precept.
6889 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 9 arg. 2"><a name="37920" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37920] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 9 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
6890 illud maxime cadit sub praecepto quod est de intentione
6891 legislatoris. Sed intentio legislatoris ad hoc principaliter fertur
6892 ut homines faciat virtuosos, sicut dicitur in II Ethic. Virtuosi
6893 autem est virtuose agere. Ergo modus virtutis cadit sub
6894 praecepto.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A9-p4">
6895 <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
6896 of the Divine law, for it is written (
6897 <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 (
6898 <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;
6899 and then you will do it well; whereas if you do it sorrowfully, it is done
6900 in thee, not by thee." Therefore the mode of virtue falls under the precept of the law.
6901 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 9 arg. 3"><a name="37921" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37921] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 9 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
6902 modus virtutis proprie esse videtur ut aliquis voluntarie et
6903 delectabiliter operetur. Sed hoc cadit sub praecepto legis divinae,
6904 dicitur enim in Psalmo XCIX, <i>servite domino in laetitia</i>; et
6905 II ad Cor. IX, <i>non ex tristitia aut ex necessitate, hilarem enim
6906 datorem diligit Deus</i>; ubi Glossa dicit, <i>quidquid boni facis,
6907 cum hilaritate fac, et tunc bene facis, si autem cum tristitia
6908 facis, fit de te, non tu facis</i>. Ergo modus virtutis cadit sub
6909 praecepto legis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A9-p5">
6910 <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).
6911 Now whoever transgresses a precept of the law, deserves to be punished. Hence it would follow that a man who has not the habit
6912 of virtue, would deserve to be punished, whatever he does. But this is contrary to the intention of the law, which aims at
6913 leading man to virtue, by habituating him to good works. Therefore the mode of virtue
6914 does not fall under the precept.
6915 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 9 s. c."><a name="37922" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37922] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 9 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra,
6916 nullus potest operari eo modo quo operatur virtuosus, nisi habeat
6917 habitum virtutis; ut patet per philosophum, in II et V Ethic.
6918 Quicumque autem transgreditur praeceptum legis, meretur poenam.
6919 Sequeretur ergo quod ille qui non habet habitum virtutis, quidquid
6920 faceret, mereretur poenam. Hoc autem est contra intentionem legis,
6921 quae intendit hominem, assuefaciendo ad bona opera, inducere ad
6922 virtutem. Non ergo modus virtutis cadit sub praecepto.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q100_A9-p6">
6923 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
6924 <a href="#FS_Q90_A3" id="FS_Q100_A9-p6.1" shape="rect">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
6925 under the precept of the law. Now the law compels through fear of punishment, as stated in Ethic. x, 9, because that properly
6926 falls under the precept of the law, for which the penalty of the law is inflicted. But Divine law and human law are differently
6927 situated as to the
6928 appointment of penalties; since the penalty of the law is inflicted only for those things which come under the judgment of
6929 the lawgiver; for the law punishes in accordance with the verdict given. Now man, the framer of human law, is competent to
6930 judge only of outward acts; because "man seeth those things that appear," according to
6931 <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
6932 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A9-p6.3" href="./asv.html#Ps.7.10" target="asv"> Ps.
6933 7:10
6934 </a>: "The searcher of hearts and reins is God."
6935 </p><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
6936 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
6937 nor by the Divine law. Now the mode of virtue consists in three things, as the Philosopher states in Ethic. ii. The first
6938 is that man should act "knowingly": and this is subject to the judgment of both Divine and human law; because what
6939 a man does in ignorance, he does accidentally. Hence according to both human and Divine law, certain things are judged in
6940 respect of ignorance to be punishable or pardonable.
6941 </p><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
6942 sake"; wherein a twofold internal movement is implied, of volition and of intention, about which we have spoken above (QQ[8],
6943 12): and concerning these two, Divine law alone, and not human law, is competent to judge. For human law does not punish the
6944 man who wishes to slay, and slays not: whereas the Divine law does, according to
6945 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A9-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.5.22" target="asv"> Mat. 5:22</a>:
6946 "Whosoever is angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the judgment."
6947 </p><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,
6948 and implies that the action proceeds from a rooted habit. In this respect, the mode of virtue does not fall under the precept
6949 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
6950 to his parents and yet has not the habit of filial piety.
6951 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 9 co."><a name="37923" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37923] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 9 co.</span></a> Respondeo
6952 dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, praeceptum legis habet vim
6953 coactivam. Illud ergo directe cadit sub praecepto legis, ad quod
6954 lex cogit. Coactio autem legis est per metum poenae, ut dicitur X
6955 Ethic., nam illud proprie cadit sub praecepto legis, pro quo poena
6956 legis infligitur. Ad instituendam autem poenam aliter se habet lex
6957 divina, et lex humana. Non enim poena legis infligitur nisi pro
6958 illis de quibus legislator habet iudicare, quia ex iudicio lex
6959 punit. Homo autem, qui est legis lator humanae, non habet iudicare
6960 nisi de exterioribus actibus, quia <i>homines vident ea quae
6961 parent</i>, ut dicitur I Reg. XVI. Sed solius Dei, qui est lator
6962 legis divinae est iudicare de interioribus motibus voluntatum;
6963 secundum illud Psalmi VII, <i>scrutans corda et renes Deus</i>.
6964 Secundum hoc igitur dicendum est quod modus virtutis quantum ad
6965 aliquid respicitur a lege humana et divina; quantum ad aliquid
6966 autem, a lege divina sed non a lege humana; quantum ad aliquid
6967 vero, nec a lege humana nec a lege divina. Modus autem virtutis in
6968 tribus consistit, secundum philosophum, in II Ethic. Quorum primum
6969 est, si aliquis operetur sciens. Hoc autem diiudicatur et a lege
6970 divina et a lege humana. Quod enim aliquis facit ignorans, per
6971 accidens facit. Unde secundum ignorantiam aliqua diiudicantur ad
6972 poenam vel ad veniam, tam secundum legem humanam quam secundum
6973 legem divinam. Secundum autem est ut aliquis operetur volens, vel
6974 eligens et propter hoc eligens; in quo importatur duplex motus
6975 interior, scilicet voluntatis et intentionis, de quibus supra
6976 dictum est. Et ista duo non diiudicat lex humana, sed solum lex
6977 divina. Lex enim humana non punit eum qui vult occidere et non
6978 occidit, punit autem eum lex divina, secundum illud Matth. V,
6979 <i>qui irascitur fratri suo, reus erit iudicio</i>. Tertium autem
6980 est ut firme et immobiliter habeat et operetur. Et ista firmitas
6981 proprie pertinet ad habitum, ut scilicet aliquis ex habitu radicato
6982 operetur. Et quantum ad hoc, modus virtutis non cadit sub praecepto
6983 neque legis divinae neque legis humanae, neque enim ab homine neque
6984 a Deo punitur tanquam praecepti transgressor, qui debitum honorem
6985 impendit parentibus, quamvis non habeat habitum pietatis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A9-p10">
6986 <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
6987 that they be done from the habit of justice.
6988 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 9 ad 1"><a name="37924" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37924] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 9 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
6989 ergo dicendum quod modus faciendi actum iustitiae qui cadit sub
6990 praecepto, est ut fiat aliquid secundum ordinem iuris, non autem
6991 quod fiat ex habitu iustitiae.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A9-p11">
6992 <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
6993 law: and this is virtue. Secondly, his intention is brought to bear on the matter itself of the precept: and this is something
6994 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
6995 same: just as neither in other things is the end the same as that which conduces
6996 to the end.
6997 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 9 ad 2"><a name="37925" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37925] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 9 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
6998 dicendum quod intentio legislatoris est de duobus. De uno quidem,
6999 ad quod intendit per praecepta legis inducere, et hoc est virtus.
7000 Aliud autem est de quo intendit praeceptum ferre, et hoc est id
7001 quod ducit vel disponit ad virtutem, scilicet actus virtutis. Non
7002 enim idem est finis praecepti et id de quo praeceptum datur, sicut
7003 neque in aliis rebus idem est finis et quod est ad finem.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A9-p12">
7004 <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
7005 works unwillingly. But to work with pleasure, i.e. joyfully or cheerfully, in one respect falls under the precept, viz. in
7006 so far as pleasure ensues from the love of God and one's neighbor (which love falls under the precept), and love causes pleasure:
7007 and in another respect does not fall under the precept, in so far as
7008 pleasure ensues from a habit; for "pleasure taken in a work proves the existence of a habit," as stated in Ethic. ii, 3. For
7009 an act may give pleasure either on account of its end, or through its proceeding from a becoming habit.
7010 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 9 ad 3"><a name="37926" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37926] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 9 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
7011 dicendum quod operari sine tristitia opus virtutis, cadit sub
7012 praecepto legis divinae, quia quicumque cum tristitia operatur, non
7013 volens operatur. Sed delectabiliter operari, sive cum laetitia vel
7014 hilaritate, quodammodo cadit sub praecepto, scilicet secundum quod
7015 sequitur delectatio ex dilectione Dei et proximi, quae cadit sub
7016 praecepto, cum amor sit causa delectationis, et quodammodo non,
7017 secundum quod delectatio consequitur habitum; delectatio enim
7018 operis est signum habitus generati, ut dicitur in II Ethic. Potest
7019 enim aliquis actus esse delectabilis vel propter finem, vel propter
7020 convenientiam habitus.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q100_A10" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q100_A10-p0.1">Q. 100. A. 10. Whether the mode of charity falls under the precept of the Divine law?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A10-p2">
7021 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the mode of charity falls under the precept of the Divine law. For it is written (
7022 <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
7023 suffices for entrance into life. But good works do not suffice for entrance into life, except they be done from charity: for
7024 it is written (
7025 <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
7026 goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing." Therefore
7027 the mode of charity is included in the commandment.
7028 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 10 arg. 1"><a name="37927" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37927] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 10 arg. 1</span></a> Ad
7029 decimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod modus caritatis cadat sub
7030 praecepto divinae legis. Dicitur enim Matth. XIX, <i>si vis ad
7031 vitam ingredi, serva mandata</i>, ex quo videtur quod observatio
7032 mandatorum sufficiat ad introducendum in vitam. Sed opera bona non
7033 sufficiunt ad introducendum in vitam, nisi ex caritate fiant,
7034 dicitur enim I ad Cor. XIII, <i>si distribuero in cibos pauperum
7035 omnes facultates meas, et si tradidero corpus meum ita ut ardeam,
7036 caritatem autem non habuero, nihil mihi prodest</i>. Ergo modus
7037 caritatis est in praecepto.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A10-p3">
7038 <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
7039 the Apostle says (
7040 <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.
7041 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 10 arg. 2"><a name="37928" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37928] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 10 arg. 2</span></a>
7042 Praeterea, ad modum caritatis proprie pertinet ut omnia fiant
7043 propter Deum. Sed istud cadit sub praecepto, dicit enim apostolus,
7044 I ad Cor. X, <i>omnia in gloriam Dei facite</i>. Ergo modus
7045 caritatis cadit sub praecepto.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A10-p4">
7046 <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
7047 having charity. Now what can be done without charity can be done without grace, which is always united to charity. Therefore
7048 one can fulfil the precepts of the law without grace. But this is the error of Pelagius, as Augustine declares (De Haeres.
7049 lxxxviii). Therefore the mode of charity is included in the commandment.
7050 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 10 arg. 3"><a name="37929" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37929] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 10 arg. 3</span></a>
7051 Praeterea, si modus caritatis non cadit sub praecepto, ergo aliquis
7052 potest implere praecepta legis non habens caritatem. Sed quod
7053 potest fieri sine caritate, potest fieri sine gratia, quae semper
7054 adiuncta est caritati. Ergo aliquis potest implere praecepta legis
7055 sine gratia. Hoc autem est Pelagiani erroris; ut patet per
7056 Augustinum, in libro de haeresibus. Ergo modus caritatis est in
7057 praecepto.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A10-p5">
7058 <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
7059 acts otherwise than from charity sins mortally. But whoever has not charity, acts otherwise than from charity. Therefore it
7060 follows that whoever has not charity, sins mortally in whatever he does, however good this may be in itself: which is absurd.
7061 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 10 s. c."><a name="37930" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37930] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 10 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
7062 est quia quicumque non servat praeceptum, peccat mortaliter. Si
7063 igitur modus caritatis cadat sub praecepto, sequitur quod quicumque
7064 operatur aliquid et non ex caritate, peccet mortaliter. Sed
7065 quicumque non habet caritatem, operatur non ex caritate. Ergo
7066 sequitur quod quicumque non habet caritatem, peccet mortaliter in
7067 omni opere quod facit, quantumcumque sit de genere bonorum. Quod
7068 est inconveniens.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q100_A10-p6">
7069 <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;
7070 and yet that it is possible for one not having charity to fulfil this precept: because he can dispose himself to receive charity
7071 from God. Nor (say they) does it follow that a man not having charity sins mortally whenever he does something good of its
7072 kind: because it is an affirmative precept that binds one to act from charity, and
7073 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
7074 the mode of charity is altogether outside the precept.
7075 </p><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
7076 act by itself: and thus it falls under the precept of the law which specially prescribes it, viz. "Thou shalt love the Lord
7077 thy God," and "Thou shalt love thy neighbor." In this sense, the first opinion is true. Because it is not impossible to observe
7078 this precept which regards the act of charity; since man can dispose himself to possess charity, and when he
7079 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,
7080 i.e. inasmuch as the acts of the other virtues are ordained to charity, which is "the end of the commandment," as stated in
7081 1 Tim. i, 5: for it has been said above (
7082 <a href="FS_ii.html#FS_Q12_A4" id="FS_Q100_A10-p7.1" shape="rect">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
7083 in saying that the mode of charity does not
7084 fall under the precept, that is to say that this commandment, "Honor thy father," does not mean that a man must honor his
7085 father from charity, but merely that he must honor him. Wherefore he that honors his father, yet has not charity, does not
7086 break this precept: although he does break the precept concerning the act of charity, for which reason he deserves to be punished.
7087 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 10 co."><a name="37931" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37931] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 10 co.</span></a> Respondeo
7088 dicendum quod circa hoc fuerunt contrariae opiniones. Quidam enim
7089 dixerunt absolute modum caritatis esse sub praecepto. Nec est
7090 impossibile observare hoc praeceptum caritatem non habenti, quia
7091 potest se disponere ad hoc quod caritas ei infundatur a Deo. Nec
7092 quandocumque aliquis non habens caritatem facit aliquid de genere
7093 bonorum, peccat mortaliter, quia hoc est praeceptum affirmativum,
7094 ut ex caritate operetur, et non obligat ad semper, sed pro tempore
7095 illo quo aliquis habet caritatem. Alii vero dixerunt quod omnino
7096 modus caritatis non cadit sub praecepto. Utrique autem quantum ad
7097 aliquid, verum dixerunt. Actus enim caritatis dupliciter
7098 considerari potest. Uno modo, secundum quod est quidam actus per
7099 se. Et hoc modo cadit sub praecepto legis quod de hoc specialiter
7100 datur, scilicet, <i>diliges dominum Deum tuum, et, diliges proximum
7101 tuum</i>. Et quantum ad hoc, primi verum dixerunt. Non enim est
7102 impossibile hoc praeceptum observare, quod est de actu caritatis,
7103 quia homo potest se disponere ad caritatem habendam, et quando
7104 habuerit eam, potest ea uti. Alio modo potest considerari actus
7105 caritatis secundum quod est modus actuum aliarum virtutum, hoc est
7106 secundum quod actus aliarum virtutum ordinantur ad caritatem, quae
7107 est finis praecepti, ut dicitur I ad Tim. I, dictum est enim supra
7108 quod intentio finis est quidam modus formalis actus ordinati in
7109 finem. Et hoc modo verum est quod secundi dixerunt, quod modus
7110 caritatis non cadit sub praecepto, hoc est dictu, quod in hoc
7111 praecepto, honora patrem, non includitur quod honoretur pater ex
7112 caritate, sed solum quod honoretur pater. Unde qui honorat patrem,
7113 licet non habens caritatem, non efficitur transgressor huius
7114 praecepti, etsi sit transgressor praecepti quod est de actu
7115 caritatis, propter quam transgressionem meretur poenam.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A10-p8">
7116 <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
7117 is included the commandment concerning the love of God and our neighbor.
7118 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 10 ad 1"><a name="37932" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37932] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 10 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
7119 ergo dicendum quod dominus non dixit, si vis ad vitam ingredi,
7120 serva unum mandatum, sed, serva omnia mandata. Inter quae etiam
7121 continetur mandatum de dilectione Dei et proximi.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A10-p9">
7122 <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
7123 would be referred to God. Consequently man cannot fulfil the precept of charity, unless he also refer all things to God. Wherefore
7124 he that honors his father and mother, is bound to honor them from charity, not in virtue of the precept, "Honor thy father
7125 and mother," but in virtue of the precept, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God
7126 with thy whole heart." And since these are two affirmative precepts, not binding for all times, they can be binding, each
7127 one at a different time: so that it may happen that a man fulfils the precept of honoring his father and mother, without at
7128 the same time breaking the precept concerning the omission of the mode of charity.
7129 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 10 ad 2"><a name="37933" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37933] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 10 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
7130 dicendum quod sub mandato caritatis continetur ut diligatur Deus ex
7131 toto corde, ad quod pertinet ut omnia referantur in Deum. Et ideo
7132 praeceptum caritatis implere homo non potest, nisi etiam omnia
7133 referantur in Deum. Sic ergo qui honorat parentes, tenetur ex
7134 caritate honorare, non ex vi huius praecepti quod est, honora
7135 parentes, sed ex vi huius praecepti, diliges dominum Deum tuum ex
7136 toto corde tuo. Et cum ista sint duo praecepta affirmativa non
7137 obligantia ad semper, possunt pro diversis temporibus obligare. Et
7138 ita potest contingere quod aliquis implens praeceptum de
7139 honoratione parentum, non tunc transgrediatur praeceptum de
7140 omissione modi caritatis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A10-p10">
7141 <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.
7142 Consequently it is not possible, as Pelagius maintained, for man to fulfil the law without grace.
7143 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 10 ad 3"><a name="37934" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37934] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 10 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
7144 dicendum quod observare omnia praecepta legis homo non potest, nisi
7145 impleat praeceptum caritatis, quod non fit sine gratia. Et ideo
7146 impossibile est quod Pelagius dixit, hominem implere legem sine
7147 gratia.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q100_A11" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q100_A11-p0.1">Q. 100. A. 11. Whether it is right to distinguish other moral precepts of the law besides the decalogue?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A11-p2">
7148 <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
7149 declared (
7150 <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
7151 by the ten commandments of the decalogue. Therefore there is no need for other moral precepts.
7152 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 11 arg. 1"><a name="37935" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37935] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 11 arg. 1</span></a> Ad
7153 undecimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter distinguantur
7154 alia moralia praecepta legis praeter Decalogum. Quia ut dominus
7155 dicit, Matth. XXII, <i>in duobus praeceptis caritatis pendet omnis
7156 lex et prophetae</i>. Sed haec duo praecepta explicantur per decem
7157 praecepta Decalogi. Ergo non oportet alia praecepta moralia
7158 esse.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A11-p3">
7159 <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
7160 the determinations of the general moral precepts belong to the judicial and ceremonial precepts: and the general moral precepts
7161 are contained in the decalogue, or are even presupposed to the decalogue, as stated above
7162 <a href="#FS_Q100_A3" id="FS_Q100_A11-p3.1" shape="rect">(A[3])</a>. Therefore it was unsuitable to lay down other moral precepts besides the decalogue.
7163 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 11 arg. 2"><a name="37936" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37936] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 11 arg. 2</span></a>
7164 Praeterea, praecepta moralia a iudicialibus et caeremonialibus
7165 distinguuntur, ut dictum est. Sed determinationes communium
7166 praeceptorum moralium pertinent ad iudicialia et caeremonialia
7167 praecepta, communia autem praecepta moralia sub Decalogo
7168 continentur, vel etiam Decalogo praesupponuntur, ut dictum est.
7169 Ergo inconvenienter traduntur alia praecepta moralia praeter
7170 Decalogum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A11-p4">
7171 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the moral precepts are about the acts of all the virtues, as stated above
7172 <a href="#FS_Q100_A2" id="FS_Q100_A11-p4.1" shape="rect">(A[2])</a>. Therefore, as the Law contains, besides the decalogue, moral precepts pertaining to religion, liberality, mercy, and chastity;
7173 so there should have been added some precepts pertaining to the other virtues, for instance, fortitude, sobriety, and so forth.
7174 And yet such is not the case. It is therefore unbecoming to distinguish other moral precepts
7175 in the Law besides those of the decalogue.
7176 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 11 arg. 3"><a name="37937" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37937] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 11 arg. 3</span></a>
7177 Praeterea, praecepta moralia sunt de actibus omnium virtutum, ut
7178 supra dictum est. Sicut igitur in lege ponuntur praecepta moralia
7179 praeter Decalogum pertinentia ad latriam, liberalitatem et
7180 misericordiam, et castitatem; ita etiam deberent poni aliqua
7181 praecepta pertinentia ad alias virtutes, puta ad fortitudinem,
7182 sobrietatem, et alia huiusmodi. Quod tamen non invenitur. Non ergo
7183 convenienter distinguuntur in lege alia praecepta moralia quae sunt
7184 praeter Decalogum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A11-p5">
7185 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
7186 <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
7187 to God by other moral precepts besides those of the decalogue. Therefore it was right for the Law to include other moral precepts.
7188 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 11 s. c."><a name="37938" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37938] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 11 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
7189 est quod in Psalmo XVIII dicitur, <i>lex domini immaculata,
7190 convertens animas</i>. Sed per alia etiam moralia quae Decalogo
7191 superadduntur, homo conservatur absque macula peccati, et anima
7192 eius ad Deum convertitur. Ergo ad legem pertinebat etiam alia
7193 praecepta moralia tradere.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q100_A11-p6">
7194 <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
7195 institution alone: since before they were instituted, it seemed of no consequence whether things were done in this or that
7196 way. But the moral precepts derive their efficacy from the very dictate of natural reason, even if they were never included
7197 in the Law. Now of these there are three grades: for some are most certain, and so evident
7198 as to need no promulgation; such as the commandments of the love of God and our neighbor, and others like these, as stated
7199 above
7200 <a href="#FS_Q100_A3" id="FS_Q100_A11-p6.1" shape="rect">(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
7201 are more detailed, the reason of which even an uneducated man can easily grasp; and yet they need to be promulgated, because
7202 human judgment, in a few instances, happens to be led astray concerning them: these
7203 are the precepts of the decalogue. Again, there are some precepts the reason of which is not so evident to everyone, but only
7204 the wise; these are moral precepts added to the decalogue, and given to the people by God through Moses and Aaron.
7205 </p><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
7206 added to the decalogue are reducible to the precepts of the decalogue, as so many corollaries. Thus the first commandment
7207 of the decalogue forbids the worship of strange gods: and to this are added other precepts forbidding things relating to worship
7208 of idols: thus it is written (
7209 <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
7210 anyone that shall expiate his son or daughter, making them to pass through the fire: . . . neither let there by any wizard
7211 nor charmer, nor anyone that consulteth pythonic spirits, or fortune-tellers, or that seeketh the truth from the dead." The
7212 second commandment forbids perjury. To this is added the prohibition of blasphemy (
7213 <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 (
7214 <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
7215 commandment prescribing the honor due to parents, is added the precept about honoring the aged, according to
7216 <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
7217 to be observed towards our betters, or kindliness towards our equals or inferiors. To the fifth commandment, which forbids
7218 murder, is added the prohibition of hatred and of any kind of violence inflicted on our neighbor, according
7219 to
7220 <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 (
7221 <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
7222 about whoredom, according to
7223 <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
7224 unnatural sins, according to
7225 <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
7226 theft, is added the precept forbidding usury, according to
7227 <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
7228 <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
7229 relating to peculations and larceny. To the eighth commandment, forbidding false testimony, is added the prohibition against
7230 false judgment, according to
7231 <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
7232 lying (
7233 <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
7234 <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
7235 whisperer among the people." To the other two commandments no further precepts are added, because thereby are forbidden all
7236 kinds of evil desires.
7237 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 11 co."><a name="37939" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37939] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 11 co.</span></a> Respondeo
7238 dicendum quod, sicut ex dictis patet, praecepta iudicialia et
7239 caeremonialia ex sola institutione vim habent, quia antequam
7240 instituerentur, non videbatur differre utrum sic vel aliter fieret.
7241 Sed praecepta moralia ex ipso dictamine naturalis rationis
7242 efficaciam habent, etiam si nunquam in lege statuantur. Horum autem
7243 triplex est gradus. Nam quaedam sunt certissima, et adeo manifesta
7244 quod editione non indigent; sicut mandata de dilectione Dei et
7245 proximi, et alia huiusmodi, ut supra dictum est, quae sunt quasi
7246 fines praeceptorum, unde in eis nullus potest errare secundum
7247 iudicium rationis. Quaedam vero sunt magis determinata, quorum
7248 rationem statim quilibet, etiam popularis, potest de facili videre;
7249 et tamen quia in paucioribus circa huiusmodi contingit iudicium
7250 humanum perverti, huiusmodi editione indigent, et haec sunt
7251 praecepta Decalogi. Quaedam vero sunt quorum ratio non est adeo
7252 cuilibet manifesta, sed solum sapientibus, et ista sunt praecepta
7253 moralia superaddita Decalogo, tradita a Deo populo per Moysen et
7254 Aaron. Sed quia ea quae sunt manifesta, sunt principia cognoscendi
7255 eorum quae non sunt manifesta; alia praecepta moralia superaddita
7256 Decalogo reducuntur ad praecepta Decalogi, per modum cuiusdam
7257 additionis ad ipsa. Nam in primo praecepto Decalogi prohibetur
7258 cultus alienorum deorum, cui superadduntur alia praecepta
7259 prohibitiva eorum quae ordinantur in cultum idolorum; sicut habetur
7260 Deut. XVIII, <i>non inveniatur in te qui lustret filium suum aut
7261 filiam, ducens per ignem, nec sit maleficus atque incantator, nec
7262 Pythones consulat neque divinos, et quaerat a mortuis
7263 veritatem</i>. Secundum autem praeceptum prohibet periurium.
7264 Superadditur autem ei prohibitio blasphemiae, Levit. XXIV; et
7265 prohibitio falsae doctrinae, Deut. XIII. Tertio vero praecepto
7266 superadduntur omnia caeremonialia. Quarto autem praecepto, de
7267 honore parentum, superadditur praeceptum de honoratione senum,
7268 secundum illud Levit. XIX, <i>coram cano capite consurge, et honora
7269 personam senis</i>; et universaliter omnia praecepta inducentia ad
7270 reverentiam exhibendam maioribus, vel ad beneficia exhibenda vel
7271 aequalibus vel minoribus. Quinto autem praecepto, quod est de
7272 prohibitione homicidii, additur prohibitio odii et cuiuslibet
7273 violationis contra proximum, sicut illud Levit. XIX, <i>non stabis
7274 contra sanguinem proximi tui</i>; et etiam prohibitio odii fratris,
7275 secundum illud, <i>ne oderis fratrem tuum in corde tuo</i>.
7276 Praecepto autem sexto, quod est de prohibitione adulterii,
7277 superadditur praeceptum de prohibitione meretricii, secundum illud
7278 Deut. XXIII, <i>non erit meretrix de filiabus Israel, neque
7279 fornicator de filiis Israel</i>; et iterum prohibitio vitii contra
7280 naturam, secundum illud Levit. XVIII, <i>cum masculo non
7281 commisceberis, cum omni pecore non coibis</i>. Septimo autem
7282 praecepto, de prohibitione furti adiungitur praeceptum de
7283 prohibitione usurae, secundum illud Deut. XXIII, <i>non foenerabis
7284 fratri tuo ad usuram</i>; et prohibitio fraudis, secundum illud
7285 Deut. XXV, <i>non habebis in sacculo diversa pondera</i>; et
7286 universaliter omnia quae ad prohibitionem calumniae et rapinae
7287 pertinent. Octavo vero praecepto, quod est de prohibitione falsi
7288 testimonii, additur prohibitio falsi iudicii, secundum illud Exod.
7289 XXIII, <i>nec in iudicio plurimorum acquiesces sententiae, ut a
7290 veritate devies</i>; et prohibitio mendacii, sicut ibi subditur,
7291 <i>mendacium fugies</i>; et prohibitio detractionis, secundum illud
7292 Levit. XIX, <i>non eris criminator et susurro in populis</i>. Aliis
7293 autem duobus praeceptis nulla alia adiunguntur, quia per ea
7294 universaliter omnis mala concupiscentia prohibetur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A11-p8">
7295 <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
7296 them; but the other precepts are so ordained as pertaining thereto less evidently.
7297 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 11 ad 1"><a name="37940" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37940] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 11 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
7298 ergo dicendum quod ad dilectionem Dei et proximi ordinantur quidem
7299 praecepta Decalogi secundum manifestam rationem debiti, alia vero
7300 secundum rationem magis occultam.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A11-p9">
7301 <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
7302 decalogue," not by reason of a natural instinct, as in the case of the superadded moral precepts.
7303 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 11 ad 2"><a name="37941" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37941] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 11 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
7304 dicendum quod praecepta caeremonialia et iudicialia sunt
7305 determinativa praeceptorum Decalogi ex vi institutionis, non autem
7306 ex vi naturalis instinctus, sicut praecepta moralia
7307 superaddita.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A11-p10">
7308 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The precepts of a law are ordained for the common good, as stated above (
7309 <a href="#FS_Q90_A2" id="FS_Q100_A11-p10.1" shape="rect">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
7310 of chastity, in so far as the generative act conduces to the common good of the species; hence precepts bearing directly on
7311 these virtues are given, both in the decalogue and in addition thereto. As to the act of
7312 fortitude there are the order to be given by the commanders in the war, which is undertaken for the common good: as is clear
7313 from
7314 <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
7315 of gluttony is left to paternal admonition, since it is contrary to the good of the household; hence it is said (
7316 <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
7317 revelling, and to debauchery and banquetings."
7318 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 11 ad 3"><a name="37942" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37942] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 11 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
7319 dicendum quod praecepta legis ordinantur ad bonum commune, ut supra
7320 dictum est. Et quia virtutes ordinantes ad alium directe pertinent
7321 ad bonum commune; et similiter virtus castitatis, inquantum actus
7322 generationis deservit bono communi speciei; ideo de istis
7323 virtutibus directe dantur praecepta et Decalogi et superaddita. De
7324 actu autem fortitudinis datur praeceptum proponendum per duces
7325 exhortantes in bello, quod pro bono communi suscipitur, ut patet
7326 Deut. XX, ubi mandatur sacerdoti, <i>nolite metuere, nolite
7327 cedere</i>. Similiter etiam actus gulae prohibendus committitur
7328 monitioni paternae, quia contrariatur bono domestico, unde dicitur
7329 Deut. XXI, ex persona parentum, <i>monita nostra audire contemnit,
7330 comessationibus vacat et luxuriae atque conviviis</i>.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q100_A12" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q100_A12-p0.1">Q. 100. A. 12. Whether the moral precepts of the Old Law justified man?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A12-p2">
7331 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the moral precepts of the Old Law justified man. Because the Apostle says (
7332 <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
7333 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.
7334 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 12 arg. 1"><a name="37943" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37943] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 12 arg. 1</span></a> Ad
7335 duodecimum sic proceditur. Videtur quod praecepta moralia veteris
7336 legis iustificarent. Dicit enim apostolus, Rom. II, <i>non enim
7337 auditores legis iusti sunt apud Deum, sed factores legis
7338 iustificabuntur</i>. Sed factores legis dicuntur qui implent
7339 praecepta legis. Ergo praecepta legis adimpleta iustificabant.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A12-p3">
7340 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is written (
7341 <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.
7342 Therefore the fulfilling of the precepts of the Law was a cause of justification.
7343 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 12 arg. 2"><a name="37944" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37944] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 12 arg. 2</span></a>
7344 Praeterea, Levit. XVIII dicitur, <i>custodite leges meas atque
7345 iudicia, quae faciens homo vivet in eis</i>. Sed vita spiritualis
7346 hominis est per iustitiam. Ergo praecepta legis adimpleta
7347 iustificabant.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A12-p4">
7348 <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
7349 consisting in fulfilling the precepts of law. Therefore the precepts of the Law justified man.
7350 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 12 arg. 3"><a name="37945" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37945] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 12 arg. 3</span></a>
7351 Praeterea, lex divina efficacior est quam lex humana. Sed lex
7352 humana iustificat, est enim quaedam iustitia in hoc quod praecepta
7353 legis adimplentur. Ergo praecepta legis iustificabant.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A12-p5">
7354 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
7355 <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
7356 the moral precepts did not cause justice.
7357 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 12 s. c."><a name="37946" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37946] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 12 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
7358 est quod apostolus dicit, II ad Cor. III, littera occidit. Quod
7359 secundum Augustinum, in libro de spiritu et littera, intelligitur
7360 etiam de praeceptis moralibus. Ergo praecepta moralia non
7361 iustificabant.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q100_A12-p6">
7362 <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
7363 or a safeguard of health; so justification means first and properly the causing of justice; while secondarily and improperly,
7364 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
7365 that it was conferred by the precepts of the Law; in so far, to wit, as they disposed
7366 men to the justifying grace of Christ, which they also signified, because as Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 24), "even
7367 the life of that people foretold and foreshadowed Christ."
7368 </p><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
7369 in the act: so that accordingly justification may be taken in two ways. First, according as man is made just, by becoming
7370 possessed of the habit of justice: secondly, according as he does works of justice, so that in this sense justification is
7371 nothing else than the execution of justice. Now justice, like the other virtues, may denote either the acquired or
7372 the infused virtue, as is clear from what has been stated (
7373 <a href="FS_v.html#FS_Q63_A4" id="FS_Q100_A12-p7.1" shape="rect">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
7374 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
7375 <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
7376 by
7377 moral precepts, which are about human actions: wherefore the moral precepts could not justify man by causing justice.
7378 </p><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
7379 man, but in various ways. Because the ceremonial precepts taken as a whole contained something just in itself, in so far as
7380 they aimed at offering worship to God; whereas taken individually they contained that which is just, not in itself, but by
7381 being a determination of the Divine law. Hence it is said of these precepts that they did not justify man save
7382 through the devotion and obedience of those who complied with them. On the other hand the moral and judicial precepts, either
7383 in general or also in particular, contained that which is just in itself: but the moral precepts contained that which is just
7384 in itself according to that "general justice" which is "every virtue" according to Ethic. v, 1: whereas the judicial precepts
7385 belonged to "special justice," which is about contracts connected with the human mode of life, between one man and
7386 another.
7387 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 12 co."><a name="37947" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37947] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 12 co.</span></a> Respondeo
7388 dicendum quod, sicut sanum proprie et primo dicitur quod habet
7389 sanitatem, per posterius autem quod significat sanitatem, vel quod
7390 conservat sanitatem; ita iustificatio primo et proprie dicitur ipsa
7391 factio iustitiae; secundario vero, et quasi improprie, potest dici
7392 iustificatio significatio iustitiae, vel dispositio ad iustitiam.
7393 Quibus duobus modis manifestum est quod praecepta legis
7394 iustificabant, inquantum scilicet disponebant homines ad gratiam
7395 Christi iustificantem, quam etiam significabant; quia sicut dicit
7396 Augustinus, contra Faustum, <i>etiam vita illius populi prophetica
7397 erat, et Christi figurativa</i>. Sed si loquamur de iustificatione
7398 proprie dicta, sic considerandum est quod iustitia potest accipi
7399 prout est in habitu, vel prout est in actu, et secundum hoc,
7400 iustificatio dupliciter dicitur. Uno quidem modo, secundum quod
7401 homo fit iustus adipiscens habitum iustitiae. Alio vero modo,
7402 secundum quod opera iustitiae operatur, ut secundum hoc
7403 iustificatio nihil aliud sit quam iustitiae executio. Iustitia
7404 autem, sicut et aliae virtutes potest accipi et acquisita et
7405 infusa, ut ex supradictis patet. Acquisita quidem causatur ex
7406 operibus, sed infusa causatur ab ipso Deo per eius gratiam. Et haec
7407 est vera iustitia, de qua nunc loquimur, secundum quam aliquis
7408 dicitur iustus apud Deum; secundum illud Rom. IV, <i>si Abraham ex
7409 operibus legis iustificatus est, habet gloriam, sed non apud
7410 Deum</i>. Haec igitur iustitia causari non poterat per praecepta
7411 moralia, quae sunt de actibus humanis. Et secundum hoc, praecepta
7412 moralia iustificare non poterant iustitiam causando. Si vero
7413 accipiatur iustificatio pro executione iustitiae, sic omnia
7414 praecepta legis iustificabant, aliter tamen et aliter. Nam
7415 praecepta caeremonialia continebant quidem iustitiam secundum se in
7416 generali, prout scilicet exhibebantur in cultum Dei, in speciali
7417 vero non continebant secundum se iustitiam, nisi ex sola
7418 determinatione legis divinae. Et ideo de huiusmodi praeceptis
7419 dicitur quod non iustificabant nisi ex devotione et obedientia
7420 facientium. Praecepta vero moralia et iudicialia continebant id
7421 quod erat secundum se iustum vel in generali, vel etiam in
7422 speciali. Sed moralia praecepta continebant id quod est secundum se
7423 iustum secundum iustitiam generalem quae est omnis virtus, ut
7424 dicitur in V Ethic. Praecepta vero iudicialia pertinebant ad
7425 iustitiam specialem, quae consistit circa contractus humanae vitae,
7426 qui sunt inter homines ad invicem.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A12-p9">
7427 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The Apostle takes justification for the execution of justice.
7428 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 12 ad 1"><a name="37948" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37948] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 12 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
7429 ergo dicendum quod apostolus accipit ibi iustificationem pro
7430 executione iustitiae.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A12-p10">
7431 <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
7432 the Law inflicted on its transgressors: in this sense the Apostle quotes this passage (
7433 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q100_A12-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.3.12" target="asv">Gal. 3:12</a>).
7434 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 12 ad 2"><a name="37949" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37949] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 12 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
7435 dicendum quod homo faciens praecepta legis dicitur vivere in eis,
7436 quia non incurrebat poenam mortis, quam lex transgressoribus
7437 infligebat. In quo sensu inducit hoc apostolus, Gal. III.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q100_A12-p11">
7438 <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
7439 that justice which is before God.
7440 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 100 a. 12 ad 3"><a name="37950" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37950] Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 12 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
7441 dicendum quod praecepta legis humanae iustificant iustitia
7442 acquisita, de qua non quaeritur ad praesens, sed solum de iustitia
7443 quae est apud Deum.</p></div></div></div></div>
7444 <div id="FS_Q101" class="div3">
7445 <h3 id="FS_Q101-p0.1">Q. 101. OF THE CEREMONIAL PRECEPTS IN THEMSELVES (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3>
7446 <div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="div4">
7447 <p id="FS_Q101-p2"> We must now consider the ceremonial precepts: and first we must consider them in themselves; secondly, their cause; thirdly,
7448 their duration. Under the first head there are four points of inquiry:
7449 </p><p id="FS_Q101-p3"><a href="#FS_Q101_A1"> (1) The nature of the ceremonial precepts;</a></p><p id="FS_Q101-p4"><a href="#FS_Q101_A2"> (2) Whether they are figurative?</a></p><p id="FS_Q101-p5"><a href="#FS_Q101_A3"> (3) Whether there should have been many of them?</a></p><p id="FS_Q101-p6"><a href="#FS_Q101_A4"> (4) Of their various kinds.</a></p>
7450 </div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 pr."><a name="37951" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37951] Iª-IIae q. 101 pr.</span></a> Consequenter
7451 considerandum est de praeceptis caeremonialibus. Et primo, de ipsis
7452 secundum se; secundo, de causa eorum; tertio, de duratione ipsorum.
7453 Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, quae sit ratio praeceptorum
7454 caeremonialium. Secundo, utrum sint figuralia. Tertio, utrum
7455 debuerint esse multa. Quarto, de distinctione ipsorum.</p></div></div></div>
7456 <div id="FS_Q101_A1" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q101_A1-p0.1">Q. 101. A. 1. Whether the nature of the ceremonial precepts consists in their pertaining to the worship of God?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q101_A1-p2">
7457 <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,
7458 in the Old Law, the Jews were given certain precepts about abstinence from food (
7459 <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. (
7460 <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 (
7461 <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
7462 these are not moral precepts; since they do not remain in the New Law. Nor are they judicial precepts; since they do not pertain
7463 to the pronouncing of judgment between man and man. Therefore they are ceremonial precepts. Yet they seem in no way to pertain
7464 to the worship of God. Therefore the nature of the ceremonial precepts does not consist in their pertaining to Divine worship.
7465 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 a. 1 arg. 1"><a name="37952" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37952] Iª-IIae q. 101 a. 1 arg. 1</span></a> Ad primum
7466 sic proceditur. Videtur quod ratio praeceptorum caeremonialium non
7467 in hoc consistat quod pertinent ad cultum Dei. In lege enim veteri
7468 dantur Iudaeis quaedam praecepta de abstinentia ciborum, ut patet
7469 Levit. XI; et etiam de abstinendo ab aliquibus vestimentis, sicut
7470 illud Levit. XIX, <i>vestem quae ex duobus texta est, non
7471 indueris</i>; et iterum quod praecipitur Num. XV, <i>ut faciant
7472 sibi fimbrias per angulos palliorum</i>. Sed huiusmodi non sunt
7473 praecepta moralia, quia non manent in nova lege. Nec etiam
7474 iudicialia, quia non pertinent ad iudicium faciendum inter homines.
7475 Ergo sunt caeremonialia. Sed in nullo pertinere videntur ad cultum
7476 Dei. Ergo non est ratio caeremonialium praeceptorum quod pertineant
7477 ad cultum Dei.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q101_A1-p3">
7478 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, some state that the ceremonial precepts are those which pertain to solemnities; as though they were so called from
7479 the "cerei" [candles] which are lit up on those occasions. But many other things besides solemnities pertain to the worship
7480 of God. Therefore it does not seem that the ceremonial precepts are so called from their pertaining to the Divine worship.
7481 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 a. 1 arg. 2"><a name="37953" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37953] Iª-IIae q. 101 a. 1 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
7482 dicunt quidam quod praecepta caeremonialia dicuntur illa quae
7483 pertinent ad solemnitates, quasi dicerentur a cereis, qui in
7484 solemnitatibus accenduntur. Sed multa alia sunt pertinentia ad
7485 cultum Dei praeter solemnitates. Ergo non videtur quod praecepta
7486 caeremonialia ea ratione dicantur, quia pertinent ad cultum
7487 Dei.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q101_A1-p4">
7488 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, some say that the ceremonial precepts are patterns, i.e. rules, of salvation: because the Greek {chaire} is the
7489 same as the Latin "salve." But all the precepts of the Law are rules of salvation, and not only those that pertain to the
7490 worship of God. Therefore not only those precepts which pertain to Divine worship are called ceremonial.
7491 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 a. 1 arg. 3"><a name="37954" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37954] Iª-IIae q. 101 a. 1 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
7492 secundum quosdam praecepta caeremonialia dicuntur quasi normae,
7493 idest regulae, salutis, nam chaire in Graeco idem est quod salve.
7494 Sed omnia praecepta legis sunt regulae salutis, et non solum illa
7495 quae pertinent ad Dei cultum. Ergo non solum illa praecepta
7496 dicuntur caeremonialia quae pertinent ad cultum Dei.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q101_A1-p5">
7497 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, Rabbi Moses says (Doct. Perplex. iii) that the ceremonial precepts are those for which there is no evident reason.
7498 But there is evident reason for many things pertaining to the worship of God; such as the observance of the Sabbath, the feasts
7499 of the Passover and of the Tabernacles, and many other things, the reason for which is set down in the Law. Therefore the
7500 ceremonial precepts are not those which pertain to the worship of God.
7501 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 a. 1 arg. 4"><a name="37955" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37955] Iª-IIae q. 101 a. 1 arg. 4</span></a> Praeterea,
7502 Rabbi Moyses dicit quod praecepta caeremonialia dicuntur quorum
7503 ratio non est manifesta. Sed multa pertinentia ad cultum Dei habent
7504 rationem manifestam, sicut observatio sabbati, et celebratio phase
7505 et Scenopegiae, et multorum aliorum, quorum ratio assignatur in
7506 lege. Ergo caeremonialia non sunt quae pertinent ad cultum Dei.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q101_A1-p6">
7507 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
7508 <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
7509 of worshipping."
7510 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 a. 1 s. c."><a name="37956" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37956] Iª-IIae q. 101 a. 1 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
7511 est quod dicitur Exod. XVIII, <i>esto populo in his quae ad Deum
7512 pertinent, ostendasque populo caeremonias et ritum colendi</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q101_A1-p7">
7513 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
7514 <a href="#FS_Q99_A4" id="FS_Q101_A1-p7.1" shape="rect">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
7515 are determinations of the moral precepts whereby he is directed to his neighbor. Now man is directed to God by the worship
7516 due to Him. Wherefore those precepts are properly called ceremonial, which pertain to the Divine worship. The reason for their
7517 being so called was given
7518 above (
7519 <a href="#FS_Q99_A3" id="FS_Q101_A1-p7.2" shape="rect">Q[99], A[3]</a>), when we established the distinction between the ceremonial and the other precepts.
7520 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 a. 1 co."><a name="37957" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37957] Iª-IIae q. 101 a. 1 co.</span></a> Respondeo
7521 dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, caeremonialia praecepta
7522 determinant praecepta moralia in ordine ad Deum, sicut iudicialia
7523 determinant praecepta moralia in ordine ad proximum. Homo autem
7524 ordinatur ad Deum per debitum cultum. Et ideo caeremonialia proprie
7525 dicuntur quae ad cultum Dei pertinent. Ratio autem huius nominis
7526 posita est supra, ubi praecepta caeremonialia ab aliis sunt
7527 distincta.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q101_A1-p8">
7528 <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
7529 things whereby His worshippers are duly prepared to worship Him: thus too in other matters, whatever is preparatory to the
7530 end comes under the science whose object is the end. Accordingly those precepts of the Law which regard the clothing and food
7531 of God's worshippers, and other such matters, pertain to a certain preparation of
7532 the ministers, with the view of fitting them for the Divine worship: just as those who administer to a king make use of certain
7533 special observances. Consequently such are contained under the ceremonial precepts.
7534 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 a. 1 ad 1"><a name="37958" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37958] Iª-IIae q. 101 a. 1 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
7535 ergo dicendum quod ad cultum Dei pertinent non solum sacrificia et
7536 alia huiusmodi, quae immediate ad Deum ordinari videntur, sed etiam
7537 debita praeparatio colentium Deum ad cultum ipsius, sicut etiam in
7538 aliis quaecumque sunt praeparatoria ad finem, cadunt sub scientia
7539 quae est de fine. Huiusmodi autem praecepta quae dantur in lege de
7540 vestibus et cibis colentium Deum, et aliis huiusmodi, pertinent ad
7541 quandam praeparationem ipsorum ministrantium, ut sint idonei ad
7542 cultum Dei, sicut etiam specialibus observantiis aliqui utuntur qui
7543 sunt in ministerio regis. Unde etiam sub praeceptis caeremonialibus
7544 continentur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q101_A1-p9">
7545 <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
7546 the lighting of candles in solemnities; since, even the lamps of the Candlestick were furnished with "oil of olives," as stated
7547 in
7548 <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:
7549 so that all ceremonial precepts may be included
7550 under the observance of solemnities.
7551 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 a. 1 ad 2"><a name="37959" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37959] Iª-IIae q. 101 a. 1 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
7552 dicendum quod illa expositio nominis non videtur esse multum
7553 conveniens, praesertim cum non multum inveniatur in lege quod in
7554 solemnitatibus cerei accenderentur, sed in ipso etiam candelabro
7555 lucernae cum oleo olivarum praeparabantur, ut patet Lev. XXIV.
7556 Nihilominus tamen potest dici quod in solemnitatibus omnia illa
7557 quae pertinebant ad cultum Dei, diligentius observabantur, et
7558 secundum hoc, in observatione solemnitatum omnia caeremonialia
7559 includuntur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q101_A1-p10">
7560 <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
7561 Latin. We may say, however, that, since man's salvation is from God, those precepts above all seem to be rules of salvation,
7562 which direct man to God: and accordingly those which refer to Divine worship are called ceremonial precepts.
7563 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 a. 1 ad 3"><a name="37960" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37960] Iª-IIae q. 101 a. 1 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
7564 dicendum quod nec illa expositio nominis videtur esse multum
7565 conveniens, nomen enim caeremoniae non est Graecum, sed Latinum.
7566 Potest tamen dici quod, cum salus hominis sit a Deo, praecipue illa
7567 praecepta videntur esse salutis regulae, quae hominem ordinant ad
7568 Deum. Et sic caeremonialia dicuntur quae ad cultum Dei
7569 pertinent.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q101_A1-p11">
7570 <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
7571 because there is no evident reason for them; this is a kind of consequence. For, since the precepts referring to the Divine
7572 worship must needs be figurative, as we shall state further on
7573 <a href="#FS_Q101_A2" id="FS_Q101_A1-p11.1" shape="rect">(A[2])</a>, the consequence is that the reason for them is not so very evident.
7574 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 a. 1 ad 4"><a name="37961" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37961] Iª-IIae q. 101 a. 1 ad 4</span></a> Ad quartum
7575 dicendum quod illa ratio caeremonialium est quodammodo probabilis,
7576 non quod ex eo dicuntur caeremonialia quia eorum ratio non est
7577 manifesta; sed hoc est quoddam consequens. Quia enim praecepta ad
7578 cultum Dei pertinentia oportet esse figuralia, ut infra dicetur,
7579 inde est quod eorum ratio non est adeo manifesta.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q101_A2" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q101_A2-p0.1">Q. 101. A. 2. Whether the ceremonial precepts are figurative?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q101_A2-p2">
7580 <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
7581 such a way as to be easily understood, as Augustine states (De Doctr. Christ. iv, 4,10) and this seems very necessary in the
7582 framing of a law: because precepts of law are proposed to the populace; for which reason a law should be manifest, as Isidore
7583 declares (Etym. v, 21). If therefore the precepts of the Law were given as figures of
7584 something, it seems unbecoming that Moses should have delivered these precepts without explaining what they signified.
7585 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 a. 2 arg. 1"><a name="37962" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37962] Iª-IIae q. 101 a. 2 arg. 1</span></a> Ad
7586 secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod praecepta caeremonialia non
7587 sint figuralia. Pertinet enim ad officium cuiuslibet doctoris ut
7588 sic pronunciet ut de facili intelligi possit, sicut Augustinus
7589 dicit, in IV de Doctr. Christ. Et hoc maxime videtur esse
7590 necessarium in legis latione, quia praecepta legis populo
7591 proponuntur. Unde lex debet esse manifesta, ut Isidorus dicit. Si
7592 igitur praecepta caeremonialia data sunt in alicuius rei figuram,
7593 videtur inconvenienter tradidisse huiusmodi praecepta Moyses, non
7594 exponens quid figurarent.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q101_A2-p3">
7595 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, whatever is done for the worship of God, should be entirely free from unfittingness. But the performance of actions
7596 in representation of others, seems to savor of the theatre or of the drama: because formerly the actions performed in theatres
7597 were done to represent the actions of others. Therefore it seems that such things should not be done for the worship of God.
7598 But the ceremonial precepts are ordained to the Divine worship, as stated above
7599
7600 <a href="#FS_Q101_A1" id="FS_Q101_A2-p3.1" shape="rect">(A[1])</a>. Therefore they should not be figurative.
7601 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 a. 2 arg. 2"><a name="37963" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37963] Iª-IIae q. 101 a. 2 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
7602 ea quae in cultum Dei aguntur, maxime debent honestatem habere. Sed
7603 facere aliqua facta ad alia repraesentanda, videtur esse
7604 theatricum, sive poeticum, in theatris enim repraesentabantur olim
7605 per aliqua quae ibi gerebantur, quaedam aliorum facta. Ergo videtur
7606 quod huiusmodi non debeant fieri ad cultum Dei. Sed caeremonialia
7607 ordinantur ad cultum Dei, ut dictum est. Ergo caeremonialia non
7608 debent esse figuralia.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q101_A2-p4">
7609 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, Augustine says (Enchiridion iii, iv) that "God is worshipped chiefly by faith, hope, and charity." But the precepts
7610 of faith, hope, and charity are not figurative. Therefore the ceremonial precepts should not be figurative.
7611 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 a. 2 arg. 3"><a name="37964" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37964] Iª-IIae q. 101 a. 2 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
7612 Augustinus dicit, in Enchirid., quod <i>Deus maxime colitur fide,
7613 spe et caritate</i>. Sed praecepta quae dantur de fide, spe et
7614 caritate, non sunt figuralia. Ergo praecepta caeremonialia non
7615 debent esse figuralia.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q101_A2-p5">
7616 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, Our Lord said (
7617 <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:
7618 in fact one is condivided with the other. Therefore the ceremonial precepts, which refer to the Divine worship, should not
7619 be figurative.
7620 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 a. 2 arg. 4"><a name="37965" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37965] Iª-IIae q. 101 a. 2 arg. 4</span></a> Praeterea,
7621 dominus dicit, Ioan. IV, <i>spiritus est Deus, et eos qui adorant
7622 eum, in spiritu et veritate adorare oportet</i>. Sed figura non est
7623 ipsa veritas, immo contra se invicem dividuntur. Ergo
7624 caeremonialia, quae pertinent ad cultum Dei, non debent esse
7625 figuralia.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q101_A2-p6">
7626 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
7627 <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,
7628 which are a shadow of things to come."
7629 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 a. 2 s. c."><a name="37966" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37966] Iª-IIae q. 101 a. 2 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
7630 est quod apostolus dicit, ad Colos. II, <i>nemo vos iudicet in cibo
7631 aut in potu, aut in parte diei festi aut Neomeniae aut sabbatorum,
7632 quae sunt umbra futurorum</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q101_A2-p7">
7633 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
7634 <a href="#FS_Q101_A1" id="FS_Q101_A2-p7.1" shape="rect">(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:
7635 internal, and external. For since man is composed of soul and body, each of these should be applied to the worship of God;
7636 the soul by an interior worship; the body by an outward worship: hence it is written (
7637 <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
7638 God." And as the body is ordained to God through the soul, so the outward worship is ordained to the internal worship. Now
7639 interior worship consists in the soul being united to God by the intellect and affections. Wherefore according to the various
7640 ways in which the intellect and affections of the man who worships God are rightly united to God, his external actions are
7641 applied in various ways to the Divine worship.
7642 </p><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
7643 will not consist in anything figurative, but solely in the praise of God, proceeding from the inward knowledge and affection,
7644 according to
7645 <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."
7646 </p><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
7647 to shine upon us under the form of certain sensible figures, as Dionysius states (Coel. Hier. i); in various ways, however,
7648 according to the various states of human knowledge. For under the Old Law, neither was the Divine Truth manifest in Itself,
7649 nor was the way leading to that manifestation as yet opened out, as the Apostle declares (
7650 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q101_A2-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Heb.9.8" target="asv">Heb.
7651 9:8
7652 </a>). Hence the external worship of the Old Law needed to be figurative not only of the future truth to be manifested in our
7653 heavenly country, but also of Christ, Who is the way leading to that heavenly manifestation. But under the New Law this way
7654 is already revealed: and therefore it needs no longer to be foreshadowed as something future, but to be brought to our minds
7655 as something past or present: and the truth of the glory to come, which is not yet revealed, alone needs to be
7656 foreshadowed. This is what the Apostle says (
7657 <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
7658 less than an image; so that the image belongs to the New Law, but the shadow to the Old.
7659 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 a. 2 co."><a name="37967" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37967] Iª-IIae q. 101 a. 2 co.</span></a> Respondeo
7660 dicendum quod, sicut iam dictum est, praecepta caeremonialia
7661 dicuntur quae ordinantur ad cultum Dei. Est autem duplex cultus
7662 Dei, interior, et exterior. Cum enim homo sit compositus ex anima
7663 et corpore, utrumque debet applicari ad colendum Deum, ut scilicet
7664 anima colat interiori cultu, et corpus exteriori, unde dicitur in
7665 Psalmo LXXXIII, <i>cor meum et caro mea exultaverunt in Deum
7666 vivum</i>. Et sicut corpus ordinatur in Deum per animam, ita cultus
7667 exterior ordinatur ad interiorem cultum. Consistit autem interior
7668 cultus in hoc quod anima coniungatur Deo per intellectum et
7669 affectum. Et ideo secundum quod diversimode intellectus et affectus
7670 colentis Deum Deo recte coniungitur, secundum hoc diversimode
7671 exteriores actus hominis ad cultum Dei applicantur. In statu enim
7672 futurae beatitudinis, intellectus humanus ipsam divinam veritatem
7673 in seipsa intuebitur. Et ideo exterior cultus non consistet in
7674 aliqua figura, sed solum in laude Dei, quae procedit ex interiori
7675 cognitione et affectione; secundum illud Isaiae li, <i>gaudium et
7676 laetitia invenietur in ea, gratiarum actio et vox laudis</i>. In
7677 statu autem praesentis vitae, non possumus divinam veritatem in
7678 seipsa intueri, sed oportet quod radius divinae veritatis nobis
7679 illucescat sub aliquibus sensibilibus figuris, sicut Dionysius
7680 dicit, I cap. Cael. Hier., diversimode tamen, secundum diversum
7681 statum cognitionis humanae. In veteri enim lege neque ipsa divina
7682 veritas in seipsa manifesta erat, neque etiam adhuc propalata erat
7683 via ad hoc perveniendi, sicut apostolus dicit, ad Heb. IX. Et ideo
7684 oportebat exteriorem cultum veteris legis non solum esse
7685 figurativum futurae veritatis manifestandae in patria; sed etiam
7686 esse figurativum Christi, qui est via ducens ad illam patriae
7687 veritatem. Sed in statu novae legis, haec via iam est revelata.
7688 Unde hanc praefigurari non oportet sicut futuram, sed commemorari
7689 oportet per modum praeteriti vel praesentis, sed solum oportet
7690 praefigurari futuram veritatem gloriae nondum revelatam. Et hoc est
7691 quod apostolus dicit, ad Heb. X, <i>umbram habet lex futurorum
7692 bonorum, non ipsam imaginem rerum</i>, umbra enim minus est quam
7693 imago; tanquam imago pertineat ad novam legem, umbra vero ad
7694 veterem.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q101_A2-p10">
7695 <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,
7696 were he to despise what he cannot grasp. Hence it was more beneficial that the Divine mysteries should be revealed to uncultured
7697 people under a veil of figures, that thus they might know them at least implicitly by using those figures to the honor of
7698 God.
7699 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 a. 2 ad 1"><a name="37968" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37968] Iª-IIae q. 101 a. 2 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
7700 ergo dicendum quod divina non sunt revelanda hominibus nisi
7701 secundum eorum capacitatem, alioquin daretur eis praecipitii
7702 materia, dum contemnerent quae capere non possent. Et ideo utilius
7703 fuit ut sub quodam figurarum velamine divina mysteria rudi populo
7704 traderentur, ut sic saltem ea implicite cognoscerent, dum illis
7705 figuris deservirent ad honorem Dei.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q101_A2-p11">
7706 <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
7707 Divine things perfectly, on account of the sublimity of the truth they contain: and therefore in both cases there is need
7708 of signs by means of sensible figures.
7709 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 a. 2 ad 2"><a name="37969" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37969] Iª-IIae q. 101 a. 2 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
7710 dicendum quod, sicut poetica non capiuntur a ratione humana propter
7711 defectum veritatis qui est in eis, ita etiam ratio humana perfecte
7712 capere non potest divina propter excedentem ipsorum veritatem. Et
7713 ideo utrobique opus est repraesentatione per sensibiles
7714 figuras.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q101_A2-p12">
7715 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> Augustine is speaking there of internal worship; to which, however, external worship should be ordained, as stated above.
7716 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 a. 2 ad 3"><a name="37970" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37970] Iª-IIae q. 101 a. 2 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
7717 dicendum quod Augustinus ibi loquitur de cultu interiore; ad quem
7718 tamen ordinari oportet exteriorem cultum, ut dictum est.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q101_A2-p13"> <b>Reply to Objection 4</b> The same answer applies to the Fourth Objection: because men were taught by Him to practice more perfectly the spiritual
7719 worship of God.
7720 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 a. 2 ad 4"><a name="37971" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37971] Iª-IIae q. 101 a. 2 ad 4</span></a> Et similiter
7721 dicendum est ad quartum, quia per Christum homines plenius ad
7722 spiritualem Dei cultum sunt introducti.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q101_A3" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q101_A3-p0.1">Q. 101. A. 3. Whether there should have been man ceremonial precepts?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q101_A3-p2">
7723 <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
7724 proportionate to that end. But the ceremonial precepts, as stated above (
7725 <a href="#FS_Q101_A1" id="FS_Q101_A3-p2.1" shape="rect">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
7726 . . . and one Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom are all things" (
7727 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q101_A3-p2.2" href="./asv.html#iCor.8.6" target="asv">1 Cor. 8:6</a>). Therefore there
7728 should not have been many ceremonial precepts.
7729 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 a. 3 arg. 1"><a name="37972" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37972] Iª-IIae q. 101 a. 3 arg. 1</span></a> Ad tertium
7730 sic proceditur. Videtur quod non debuerint esse multa caeremonialia
7731 praecepta. Ea enim quae sunt ad finem, debent esse fini
7732 proportionata. Sed caeremonialia praecepta, sicut dictum est,
7733 ordinantur ad cultum Dei et in figuram Christi. Est autem <i>unus
7734 Deus, a quo omnia; et unus dominus Iesus Christus, per quem
7735 omnia</i>, ut dicitur I ad Cor. VIII. Ergo caeremonialia non
7736 debuerunt multiplicari.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q101_A3-p3">
7737 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the great number of the ceremonial precepts was an occasion of transgression, according to the words of Peter (
7738 <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?"
7739 Now the transgression of the Divine precepts is an obstacle to man's salvation. Since, therefore, every law should conduce
7740 to man's salvation, as Isidore says (Etym. v, 3), it seems
7741 that the ceremonial precepts should not have been given in great number.
7742 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 a. 3 arg. 2"><a name="37973" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37973] Iª-IIae q. 101 a. 3 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
7743 multitudo caeremonialium praeceptorum transgressionis erat occasio;
7744 secundum illud quod dicit Petrus, Act. XV, <i>quid tentatis Deum,
7745 imponere iugum super cervicem discipulorum, quod neque nos, neque
7746 patres nostri, portare potuimus?</i> Sed transgressio divinorum
7747 praeceptorum contrariatur humanae saluti. Cum igitur lex omnis
7748 debeat saluti congruere hominum, ut Isidorus dicit, videtur quod
7749 non debuerint multa praecepta caeremonialia dari.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q101_A3-p4">
7750 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the ceremonial precepts referred to the outward and bodily worship of God, as stated above
7751 <a href="#FS_Q101_A2" id="FS_Q101_A3-p4.1" shape="rect">(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
7752 spirit and in truth," as stated in
7753 <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.
7754 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 a. 3 arg. 3"><a name="37974" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37974] Iª-IIae q. 101 a. 3 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
7755 praecepta caeremonialia pertinebant ad cultum Dei exteriorem et
7756 corporalem, ut dictum est. Sed huiusmodi cultum corporalem lex
7757 debebat diminuere, quia ordinabat ad Christum, qui docuit homines
7758 Deum colere in spiritu et veritate, ut habetur Ioan. IV. Non ergo
7759 debuerunt multa praecepta caeremonialia dari.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q101_A3-p5">
7760 <b>On the contrary,</b> (
7761 <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 (
7762 <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."
7763 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 a. 3 s. c."><a name="37975" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37975] Iª-IIae q. 101 a. 3 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
7764 est quod dicitur Osee VIII, <i>scribam eis multiplices leges
7765 intus</i>; et Iob XI, ut <i>ostenderet tibi secreta sapientiae,
7766 quod multiplex sit lex eius</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q101_A3-p6">
7767 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
7768 <a href="#FS_Q96_A1" id="FS_Q101_A3-p6.1" shape="rect">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
7769 the precepts of the law, as stated above (
7770 <a href="#FS_Q95_A1" id="FS_Q101_A3-p6.2" shape="rect">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
7771 by means of the precepts of the law. Accordingly, with regard to both kinds of
7772 the law. Accordingly, with regard to both kinds of men it was expedient that the Old Law should contain many ceremonial precepts.
7773 For in that people there were many prone to idolatry; wherefore it was necessary to recall them by means of ceremonial precepts
7774 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
7775 to devise many means of repressing every single one: and again, to lay many obligations on such like men, in order
7776 that being burdened, as it were, by their duties to the Divine worship, they might have no time for the service of idols.
7777 As to those who were inclined to good, it was again necessary that there should be many ceremonial precepts; both because
7778 thus their mind turned to God in many ways, and more continually; and because the mystery of Christ, which was foreshadowed
7779 by these ceremonial precepts, brought many boons to the world, and afforded men many considerations, which needed to be signified
7780 by various ceremonies.
7781 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 a. 3 co."><a name="37976" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37976] Iª-IIae q. 101 a. 3 co.</span></a> Respondeo
7782 dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, omnis lex alicui populo
7783 datur. In populo autem duo genera hominum continentur, quidam proni
7784 ad malum, qui sunt per praecepta legis coercendi, ut supra dictum
7785 est; quidam habentes inclinationem ad bonum, vel ex natura vel ex
7786 consuetudine, vel magis ex gratia; et tales sunt per legis
7787 praeceptum instruendi et in melius promovendi. Quantum igitur ad
7788 utrumque genus hominum, expediebat praecepta caeremonialia in
7789 veteri lege multiplicari. Erant enim in illo populo aliqui ad
7790 idololatriam proni, et ideo necesse erat ut ab idololatriae cultu
7791 per praecepta caeremonialia revocarentur ad cultum Dei. Et quia
7792 multipliciter homines idololatriae deserviebant, oportebat e
7793 contrario multa institui ad singula reprimenda, et iterum multa
7794 talibus imponi, ut, quasi oneratis ex his quae ad cultum Dei
7795 impenderent, non vacaret idololatriae deservire. Ex parte vero
7796 eorum qui erant prompti ad bonum, etiam necessaria fuit
7797 multiplicatio caeremonialium praeceptorum. Tum quia per hoc
7798 diversimode mens eorum referebatur in Deum, et magis assidue. Tum
7799 etiam quia mysterium Christi, quod per huiusmodi caeremonialia
7800 figurabatur, multiplices utilitates attulit mundo, et multa circa
7801 ipsum consideranda erant, quae oportuit per diversa caeremonialia
7802 figurari.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q101_A3-p7">
7803 <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,
7804 if it be efficacious, suffices sometimes to restore men to health, and then the remedy needs not to be repeated. But when
7805 that which conduces to an end is weak and imperfect, it needs to be multiplied: thus many remedies are given to a sick man,
7806 when one is not enough to heal him. Now the ceremonies of the Old Law were weak
7807 and imperfect, both for representing the mystery of Christ, on account of its surpassing excellence; and for subjugating men's
7808 minds to God. Hence the Apostle says (
7809 <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
7810 nothing to perfection." Consequently these ceremonies needed to be in great number.
7811 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 a. 3 ad 1"><a name="37977" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37977] Iª-IIae q. 101 a. 3 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
7812 ergo dicendum quod, quando id quod ordinatur ad finem, est
7813 sufficiens ad ducendum in finem, tunc sufficit unum ad unum finem,
7814 sicut una medicina, si sit efficax, sufficit quandoque ad sanitatem
7815 inducendam, et tunc non oportet multiplicari medicinam. Sed propter
7816 debilitatem et imperfectionem eius quod est ad finem, oportet eam
7817 multiplicari, sicut multa remedia adhibentur infirmo, quando unum
7818 non sufficit ad sanandum. Caeremoniae autem veteris legis invalidae
7819 et imperfectae erant et ad repraesentandum Christi mysterium, quod
7820 est superexcellens; et ad subiugandum mentes hominum Deo. Unde
7821 apostolus dicit, ad Heb. VII, <i>reprobatio fit praecedentis
7822 mandati, propter infirmitatem et inutilitatem, nihil enim ad
7823 perfectum adduxit lex</i>. Et ideo oportuit huiusmodi caeremonias
7824 multiplicari.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q101_A3-p8">
7825 <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
7826 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,
7827 the fact that they would in consequence find many occasions of disobedience did not prevent God from giving them many ceremonial
7828 precepts.
7829 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 a. 3 ad 2"><a name="37978" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37978] Iª-IIae q. 101 a. 3 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
7830 dicendum quod sapientis legislatoris est minores transgressiones
7831 permittere, ut maiores caveantur. Et ideo, ut caveretur
7832 transgressio idololatriae, et superbiae quae in Iudaeorum cordibus
7833 nasceretur si omnia praecepta legis implerent, non propter hoc
7834 praetermisit Deus multa caeremonialia praecepta tradere, quia de
7835 facili sumebant ex hoc transgrediendi occasionem.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q101_A3-p9">
7836 <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.
7837 Many such like things did it enact for the lessening of bodily worship; as Rabbi Moses, the Egyptian testifies (Doct. Perplex.
7838 iii). Nevertheless it behooved not to attenuate the bodily worship of God so much as to allow men to fall away into the worship
7839 of idols.
7840 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 a. 3 ad 3"><a name="37979" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37979] Iª-IIae q. 101 a. 3 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
7841 dicendum quod vetus lex in multis diminuit corporalem cultum.
7842 Propter quod statuit quod non in omni loco sacrificia offerrentur,
7843 neque a quibuslibet. Et multa huiusmodi statuit ad diminutionem
7844 exterioris cultus; sicut etiam Rabbi Moyses Aegyptius dicit.
7845 Oportebat tamen non ita attenuare corporalem cultum Dei, ut homines
7846 ad cultum Daemonum declinarent.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q101_A4" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q101_A4-p0.1">Q. 101. A. 4. Whether the ceremonies of the Old Law are suitably divided into sacrifices, sacred things, sacraments, and observances?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q101_A4-p2">
7847 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the ceremonies of the Old Law are unsuitably divided into "sacrifices, sacred things, sacraments, and
7848 observances." For the ceremonies of the Old Law foreshadowed Christ. But this was done only by the sacrifices, which foreshadowed
7849 the sacrifice in which Christ "delivered Himself an oblation and a sacrifice to God" (
7850 <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.
7851 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 a. 4 arg. 1"><a name="37980" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37980] Iª-IIae q. 101 a. 4 arg. 1</span></a> Ad quartum
7852 sic proceditur. Videtur quod caeremoniae veteris legis
7853 inconvenienter dividantur in sacrificia, sacra, sacramenta et
7854 observantias. Caeremoniae enim veteris legis figurabant Christum.
7855 Sed hoc solum fiebat per sacrificia, per quae figurabatur
7856 sacrificium quo Christus se obtulit oblationem et hostiam Deo, ut
7857 dicitur ad Ephes. V. Ergo sola sacrificia erant caeremonialia.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q101_A4-p3">
7858 <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
7859 the Old Law there should be no distinction between "sacrifices" and "sacraments."
7860 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 a. 4 arg. 2"><a name="37981" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37981] Iª-IIae q. 101 a. 4 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
7861 vetus lex ordinabatur ad novam. Sed in nova lege ipsum sacrificium
7862 est sacramentum altaris. Ergo in veteri lege non debuerunt
7863 distingui sacramenta contra sacrificia.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q101_A4-p4">
7864 <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.
7865 But all the ceremonial precepts were ordained to the worship of God, as stated above
7866 <a href="#FS_Q101_A1" id="FS_Q101_A4-p4.1" shape="rect">(A[1])</a>. Therefore all ceremonies were sacred things. Therefore "sacred things" should not be taken as a part of the ceremonies.
7867 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 a. 4 arg. 3"><a name="37982" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37982] Iª-IIae q. 101 a. 4 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
7868 sacrum dicitur quod est Deo dicatum, secundum quem modum
7869 tabernaculum et vasa eius sacrificari dicebantur. Sed omnia
7870 caeremonialia erant ordinata ad cultum Dei, ut dictum est. Ergo
7871 caeremonialia omnia sacra erant. Non ergo una pars caeremonialium
7872 debet sacra nominari.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q101_A4-p5">
7873 <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
7874 it is written (
7875 <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
7876 judgments and ceremonies." Therefore the "observances" should not be considered as a part of the ceremonies.
7877 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 a. 4 arg. 4"><a name="37983" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37983] Iª-IIae q. 101 a. 4 arg. 4</span></a> Praeterea,
7878 observantiae ab observando dicuntur. Sed omnia praecepta legis
7879 observari debebant, dicitur enim Deut. VIII, <i>observa et cave ne
7880 quando obliviscaris domini Dei tui, et negligas mandata eius atque
7881 iudicia et caeremonias</i>. Non ergo observantiae debent poni una
7882 pars caeremonialium.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q101_A4-p6">
7883 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, the solemn festivals are reckoned as part of the ceremonial: since they were a shadow of things to come (
7884 <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 (
7885 <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
7886 unsuitable.
7887 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 a. 4 arg. 5"><a name="37984" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37984] Iª-IIae q. 101 a. 4 arg. 5</span></a> Praeterea,
7888 solemnitates inter caeremonialia computantur, cum sint in umbram
7889 futuri, ut patet ad Colos. II. Similiter etiam oblationes et
7890 munera; ut patet per apostolum, ad Heb. IX. Quae tamen sub nullo
7891 horum contineri videntur. Ergo inconveniens est praedicta
7892 distinctio caeremonialium.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q101_A4-p7">
7893 <b>On the contrary,</b> In the Old Law each of the above is called a ceremony. For the sacrifices are called ceremonies (
7894 <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
7895 Order it is written (
7896 <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 (
7897 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q101_A4-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Exod.38.21" target="asv">Ex. 38:21</a>): "These are the
7898 instruments of the tabernacle of the testimony . . . in the ceremonies of the Levites." And again of the observances it is
7899 written (
7900 <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
7901 set before you."
7902 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 a. 4 s. c."><a name="37985" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37985] Iª-IIae q. 101 a. 4 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
7903 est quod in veteri lege singula praedicta caeremoniae vocantur.
7904 Sacrificia enim dicuntur caeremoniae Num. XV, <i>offerat vitulum et
7905 sacrificia eius ac libamenta, ut caeremoniae eius postulant</i>. De
7906 sacramento etiam ordinis dicitur Levit. VII, <i>haec est unctio
7907 Aaron et filiorum eius in caeremoniis</i>. De sacris etiam dicitur
7908 Exod. XXXVIII, haec sunt <i>instrumenta tabernaculi testimonii in
7909 caeremoniis Levitarum</i>. De observantiis etiam dicitur III Reg.
7910 IX, <i>si aversi fueritis, non sequentes me, nec observantes
7911 caeremonias quas proposui vobis</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q101_A4-p8">
7912 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
7913 <a href="#FS_Q101_A1" id="FS_Q101_A4-p8.1" shape="rect">AA[1]</a>,2), the ceremonial precepts are ordained to the Divine worship. Now in this worship we may consider the worship itself, the
7914 worshippers, and the instruments of worship. The worship consists specially in "sacrifices," which are offered up in honor
7915 of God. The instruments of worship refer to the "sacred things," such as the tabernacle, the vessels and so forth. With regard
7916 to the worshippers two points may be
7917 considered. The first point is their preparation for Divine worship, which is effected by a sort of consecration either of
7918 the people or of the ministers; and to this the "sacraments" refer. The second point is their particular mode of life, whereby
7919 they are distinguished from those who do not worship God: and to this pertain the "observances," for instance, in matters
7920 of food, clothing, and so forth.
7921 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 a. 4 co."><a name="37986" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37986] Iª-IIae q. 101 a. 4 co.</span></a> Respondeo
7922 dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, caeremonialia praecepta
7923 ordinantur ad cultum Dei. In quo quidem cultu considerari possunt
7924 et ipse cultus, et colentes, et instrumenta colendi. Ipse autem
7925 cultus specialiter consistit in sacrificiis, quae in Dei
7926 reverentiam offeruntur. Instrumenta autem colendi pertinent ad
7927 sacra, sicut est tabernaculum, et vasa, et alia huiusmodi. Ex parte
7928 autem colentium duo possunt considerari. Scilicet et eorum
7929 institutio ad cultum divinum, quod fit per quandam consecrationem
7930 vel populi, vel ministrorum, et ad hoc pertinent sacramenta. Et
7931 iterum eorum singularis conversatio, per quam distinguuntur ab his
7932 qui Deum non colunt, et ad hoc pertinent observantiae, puta in
7933 cibis et vestimentis et aliis huiusmodi.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q101_A4-p9">
7934 <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
7935 to the worship of God. Wherefore just as their sacrifices signified Christ the victim, so too their sacraments and sacred
7936 things of the New Law; while their observances foreshadowed the mode of life of the people under the New Law: all of which
7937 things pertain to Christ.
7938 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 a. 4 ad 1"><a name="37987" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37987] Iª-IIae q. 101 a. 4 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
7939 ergo dicendum quod sacrificia oportebat offerri et in aliquibus
7940 locis, et per aliquos homines, et totum hoc ad cultum Dei pertinet.
7941 Unde sicut per sacrificia significatur Christus immolatus, ita
7942 etiam per sacramenta et sacra illorum figurabantur sacramenta et
7943 sacra novae legis; et per eorum observantias figurabatur
7944 conversatio populi novae legis. Quae omnia ad Christum
7945 pertinent.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q101_A4-p10">
7946 <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
7947 "the people by His own blood" (
7948 <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;
7949 hence they are not called sacraments. In order to signify this there were certain sacraments apart from the sacrifices of
7950 the Old Law, which
7951 sacraments were figures of the sanctification to come. Nevertheless to certain consecrations certain sacrifices were united.
7952 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 a. 4 ad 2"><a name="37988" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37988] Iª-IIae q. 101 a. 4 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
7953 dicendum quod sacrificium novae legis, idest Eucharistia, continet
7954 ipsum Christum, qui est sanctificationis auctor, sanctificavit enim
7955 per suum sanguinem populum, ut dicitur ad Heb. ult. Et ideo hoc
7956 sacrificium etiam est sacramentum. Sed sacrificia veteris legis non
7957 continebant Christum, sed ipsum figurabant, et ideo non dicuntur
7958 sacramenta. Sed ad hoc designandum seorsum erant quaedam sacramenta
7959 in veteri lege, quae erant figurae futurae consecrationis. Quamvis
7960 etiam quibusdam consecrationibus quaedam sacrificia
7961 adiungerentur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q101_A4-p11">
7962 <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
7963 Divine worship, and yet were not sacrifices or sacraments: wherefore they retained the common designation of sacred things.
7964 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 a. 4 ad 3"><a name="37989" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37989] Iª-IIae q. 101 a. 4 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
7965 dicendum quod etiam sacrificia et sacramenta erant sacra. Sed
7966 quaedam erant quae erant sacra, utpote ad cultum Dei dicata, nec
7967 tamen erant sacrificia nec sacramenta, et ideo retinebant sibi
7968 commune nomen sacrorum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q101_A4-p12">
7969 <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,
7970 in so far as they fell short of the above. For they were not called sacred things, because they had no immediate connection
7971 with the worship of God, such as the tabernacle and its vessels had. But by a sort of consequence they were matters of ceremony,
7972 in so far as they affected the fitness of the people who worshipped
7973 God.
7974 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 a. 4 ad 4"><a name="37990" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37990] Iª-IIae q. 101 a. 4 ad 4</span></a> Ad quartum
7975 dicendum quod ea quae pertinebant ad conversationem populi colentis
7976 Deum, retinebant sibi commune nomen observantiarum, inquantum a
7977 praemissis deficiebant. Non enim dicebantur sacra, quia non
7978 habebant immediatum respectum ad cultum Dei, sicut tabernaculum et
7979 vasa eius. Sed per quandam consequentiam erant caeremonialia,
7980 inquantum pertinebant ad quandam idoneitatem populi colentis
7981 Deum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q101_A4-p13">
7982 <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
7983 seem to be reckoned among the sacred things. The oblations and gifts are counted together with the sacrifices; hence the Apostle
7984 says (
7985 <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
7986 and sacrifices."
7987 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 101 a. 4 ad 5"><a name="37991" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37991] Iª-IIae q. 101 a. 4 ad 5</span></a> Ad quintum
7988 dicendum quod, sicut sacrificia offerebantur in determinato loco
7989 ita etiam offerebantur in determinatis temporibus, unde etiam
7990 solemnitates inter sacra computari videntur. Oblationes autem et
7991 munera computantur cum sacrificiis, quia Deo offerebantur, unde
7992 apostolus dicit, ad Heb. V, <i>omnis pontifex ex hominibus
7993 assumptus, pro hominibus constituitur in his quae sunt ad Deum, ut
7994 offerat dona et sacrificia</i>.</p></div></div></div></div>
7995 <div id="FS_Q102" class="div3">
7996 <h3 id="FS_Q102-p0.1">Q. 102. OF THE CAUSES OF THE CEREMONIAL PRECEPTS (SIX ARTICLES)</h3>
7997 <div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="div4">
7998 <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><p id="FS_Q102-p3"><a href="#FS_Q102_A1"> (1) Whether there was any cause for the ceremonial precepts?</a></p><p id="FS_Q102-p4"><a href="#FS_Q102_A2"> (2) Whether the cause of the ceremonial precepts was literal or figurative?</a></p><p id="FS_Q102-p5"><a href="#FS_Q102_A3"> (3) The causes of the sacrifices;</a></p><p id="FS_Q102-p6"><a href="#FS_Q102_A4"> (4) The causes of the sacrifices;</a></p><p id="FS_Q102-p7"><a href="#FS_Q102_A5"> (5) The causes of the sacred things;</a></p><p id="FS_Q102-p8"><a href="#FS_Q102_A6"> (6) The causes of the observances.</a></p>
7999 </div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 pr."><a name="37992" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37992] Iª-IIae q. 102 pr.</span></a> Deinde
8000 considerandum est de causis caeremonialium praeceptorum. Et circa
8001 hoc quaeruntur sex. Primo, utrum praecepta caeremonialia habeant
8002 causam. Secundo, utrum habeant causam litteralem, vel solum
8003 figuralem. Tertio, de causis sacrificiorum. Quarto, de causis
8004 sacramentorum. Quinto, de causis sacrorum. Sexto, de causis
8005 observantiarum.</p></div></div></div>
8006 <div id="FS_Q102_A1" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q102_A1-p0.1">Q. 102. A. 1. Whether there was any cause for the ceremonial precepts?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A1-p2">
8007 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there was no cause for the ceremonial precepts. Because on
8008 <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,
8009 by substituting decrees, i.e. evangelical precepts, which are based on reason." But if the observances of the Old Law were
8010 based on reason, it would have been useless to void them by the reasonable decrees of the New Law. Therefore
8011 there was no reason for the ceremonial observances of the Old Law.
8012 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 1 arg. 1"><a name="37993" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37993] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 1 arg. 1</span></a> Ad primum
8013 sic proceditur. Videtur quod caeremonialia praecepta non habeant
8014 causam. Quia super illud Ephes. II, legem mandatorum decretis
8015 evacuans, dicit Glossa, <i>idest, evacuans legem veterem quantum ad
8016 carnales observantias, decretis, idest praeceptis evangelicis, quae
8017 ex ratione sunt</i>. Sed si observantiae veteris legis ex ratione
8018 erant, frustra evacuarentur per rationabilia decreta novae legis.
8019 Non ergo caeremoniales observantiae veteris legis habebant aliquam
8020 rationem.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A1-p3">
8021 <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
8022 save that man's obedience might be tested; as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. viii, 6,13), concerning the prohibition about the
8023 tree of life. Therefore in the Old Law there should have been some precepts for the purpose of testing man's obedience, having
8024 no reason in themselves.
8025 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 1 arg. 2"><a name="37994" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37994] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 1 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
8026 vetus lex successit legi naturae. Sed in lege naturae fuit aliquod
8027 praeceptum quod nullam rationem habebat nisi ut hominis obedientia
8028 probaretur; sicut Augustinus dicit, VIII super Gen. ad Litt., de
8029 prohibitione ligni vitae. Ergo etiam in veteri lege aliqua
8030 praecepta danda erant in quibus hominis obedientia probaretur, quae
8031 de se nullam rationem haberent.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A1-p4">
8032 <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
8033 precepts, they would not differ from the moral precepts. It seems therefore that there was no cause for the ceremonial precepts:
8034 for the reason of a precept is taken from some cause.
8035 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 1 arg. 3"><a name="37995" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37995] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 1 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
8036 opera hominis dicuntur moralia secundum quod sunt a ratione. Si
8037 igitur caeremonialium praeceptorum sit aliqua ratio, non different
8038 a moralibus praeceptis. Videtur ergo quod caeremonialia praecepta
8039 non habeant aliquam causam, ratio enim praecepti ex aliqua causa
8040 sumitur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A1-p5">
8041 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
8042 <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.
8043 Therefore they are lightsome: and yet they would not be so, if they had no reasonable cause. Therefore the ceremonial precepts
8044 have a reasonable cause.
8045 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 1 s. c."><a name="37996" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37996] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 1 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
8046 est quod dicitur in Psalmo XVIII, <i>praeceptum domini lucidum,
8047 illuminans oculos</i>. Sed caeremonialia sunt praecepta Dei. Ergo
8048 sunt lucida. Quod non esset nisi haberent rationabilem causam. Ergo
8049 praecepta caeremonialia habent rationabilem causam.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A1-p6">
8050 <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
8051 which proceed from the Divine wisdom must needs be well ordered, as the Apostle states (
8052 <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
8053 is the principle of the whole order in matters of action: since those things that happen by
8054 chance outside the intention of the end, or which are not done seriously but for fun, are said to be inordinate. Secondly,
8055 that which is done in view of the end should be proportionate to the end. From this it follows that the reason for whatever
8056 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
8057 end, as stated in Phys. ii, 9. Now it is evident that the ceremonial precepts, like all the other precepts of the Law, were
8058 institutions of Divine wisdom: hence it is written (
8059 <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
8060 were ordained to a certain end, wherefrom their reasonable causes can be gathered.
8061 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 1 co."><a name="37997" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37997] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 1 co.</span></a> Respondeo
8062 dicendum quod, cum sapientis sit ordinare, secundum philosophum, in
8063 I Metaphys., ea quae ex divina sapientia procedunt, oportet esse
8064 ordinata, ut apostolus dicit, ad Rom. XIII. Ad hoc autem quod
8065 aliqua sint ordinata, duo requiruntur. Primo quidem, quod aliqua
8066 ordinentur ad debitum finem, qui est principium totius ordinis in
8067 rebus agendis, ea enim quae casu eveniunt praeter intentionem
8068 finis, vel quae non serio fiunt sed ludo, dicimus esse inordinata.
8069 Secundo oportet quod id quod est ad finem, sit proportionatum fini.
8070 Et ex hoc sequitur quod ratio eorum quae sunt ad finem, sumitur ex
8071 fine, sicut ratio dispositionis serrae sumitur ex sectione, quae
8072 est finis eius, ut dicitur in II Physic. Manifestum est autem quod
8073 praecepta caeremonialia, sicut et omnia alia praecepta legis, sunt
8074 ex divina sapientia instituta, unde dicitur Deut. IV, <i>haec est
8075 sapientia vestra et intellectus coram populis</i>. Unde necesse est
8076 dicere quod praecepta caeremonialia sint ordinata ad aliquem finem,
8077 ex quo eorum rationabiles causae assignari possunt.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A1-p7">
8078 <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
8079 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
8080 them in relation to something else: namely, in so far as something was signified or excluded thereby. On the other hand, the
8081 decrees of the New Law, which refer chiefly to faith and the love of God, are
8082 reasonable from the very nature of the act.
8083 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 1 ad 1"><a name="37998" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37998] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 1 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
8084 ergo dicendum quod observantiae veteris legis possunt dici sine
8085 ratione quantum ad hoc, quod ipsa facta in sui natura rationem non
8086 habebant, puta quod vestis non conficeretur ex lana et lino.
8087 Poterant tamen habere rationem ex ordine ad aliud, inquantum
8088 scilicet vel aliquid per hoc figurabatur, vel aliquid excludebatur.
8089 Sed decreta novae legis, quae praecipue consistunt in fide et
8090 dilectione Dei, ex ipsa natura actus rationabilia sunt.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A1-p8">
8091 <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:
8092 and yet this prohibition was reasonable in its relation to something else, in as much as it signified something. And so also
8093 the ceremonial precepts of the Old Law were reasonable on account of their relation to something else.
8094 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 1 ad 2"><a name="37999" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[37999] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 1 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
8095 dicendum quod prohibitio ligni scientiae boni et mali non fuit
8096 propter hoc quod illud lignum esset naturaliter malum, sed tamen
8097 ipsa prohibitio habuit aliquam rationem ex ordine ad aliud,
8098 inquantum scilicet per hoc aliquid figurabatur. Et sic etiam
8099 caeremonialia praecepta veteris legis habent rationem in ordine ad
8100 aliud.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A1-p9">
8101 <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."
8102 But the ceremonial precepts have a reasonable cause in their relation to something else, as stated above.
8103 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 1 ad 3"><a name="38000" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38000] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 1 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
8104 dicendum quod praecepta moralia secundum suam naturam habent
8105 rationabiles causas, sicut, non occides, non furtum facies. Sed
8106 praecepta caeremonialia habent rationabiles causas ex ordine ad
8107 aliud, ut dictum est.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q102_A2" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q102_A2-p0.1">Q. 102. A. 2. Whether the ceremonial precepts have a literal cause or merely a figurative cause?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A2-p2">
8108 <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,
8109 the chief was circumcision and the sacrifice of the paschal lamb. But neither of these had any but a figurative cause: because
8110 each was given as a sign. For it is written (
8111 <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
8112 celebration of the Passover it is written (
8113 <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
8114 have none but a figurative reason.
8115 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 2 arg. 1"><a name="38001" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38001] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 2 arg. 1</span></a> Ad
8116 secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod praecepta caeremonialia non
8117 habeant causam litteralem, sed figuralem tantum. Inter praecepta
8118 enim caeremonialia praecipua erant circumcisio, et immolatio agni
8119 paschalis. Sed utrumque istorum non habebat nisi causam figuralem,
8120 quia utrumque istorum datum est in signum. Dicitur enim Gen. XVII,
8121 <i>circumcidetis carnem praeputii vestri, ut sit in signum foederis
8122 inter me et vos</i>. Et de celebratione phase dicitur Exod. XIII,
8123 <i>erit quasi signum in manu tua, et quasi monumentum ante oculos
8124 tuos</i>. Ergo multo magis alia caeremonialia non habent nisi
8125 causam figuralem.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A2-p3">
8126 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, an effect is proportionate to its cause. But all the ceremonial precepts are figurative, as stated above (
8127 <a href="#FS_Q101_A2" id="FS_Q102_A2-p3.1" shape="rect">Q[101], A[2]</a>). Therefore they have no other than a figurative cause.
8128 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 2 arg. 2"><a name="38002" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38002] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 2 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
8129 effectus proportionatur suae causae. Sed omnia caeremonialia sunt
8130 figuralia, ut supra dictum est. Ergo non habent nisi causam
8131 figuralem.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A2-p4">
8132 <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
8133 not, it seems that it has not a literal cause. Now there are certain points in the ceremonial precepts, which appear to be
8134 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,
8135 and other such particular circumstances. Therefore there is no literal cause for the
8136 precepts of the Old Law.
8137 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 2 arg. 3"><a name="38003" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38003] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 2 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
8138 illud quod de se est indifferens utrum sic vel non sic fiat, non
8139 videtur habere aliquam litteralem causam. Sed quaedam sunt in
8140 praeceptis caeremonialibus quae non videntur differre utrum sic vel
8141 sic fiant, sicut est de numero animalium offerendorum, et aliis
8142 huiusmodi particularibus circumstantiis. Ergo praecepta veteris
8143 legis non habent rationem litteralem.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A2-p5">
8144 <b>On the contrary,</b> Just as the ceremonial precepts foreshadowed Christ, so did the stories of the Old Testament: for it is written (
8145 <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,
8146 there is the literal sense. Therefore the ceremonial precepts had also literal, besides their figurative causes.
8147 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 2 s. c."><a name="38004" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38004] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 2 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra,
8148 sicut praecepta caeremonialia figurabant Christum, ita etiam
8149 historiae veteris testamenti, dicitur enim I ad Cor. X, quod omnia
8150 in figuram contingebant illis. Sed in historiis veteris testamenti,
8151 praeter intellectum mysticum seu figuralem, est etiam intellectus
8152 litteralis. Ergo etiam praecepta caeremonialia, praeter causas
8153 figurales, habebant etiam causas litterales.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A2-p6">
8154 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
8155 <a href="#FS_Q102_A1" id="FS_Q102_A2-p6.1" shape="rect">(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:
8156 for they were ordained to the Divine worship, for that particular time, and to the foreshadowing of Christ; just as the words
8157 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
8158 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A2-p6.2" href="./asv.html#Hos.1.3" target="asv"> Osee 1:3.</a>
8159 Accordingly the reasons for the ceremonial precepts of the Old Law can be taken in two ways. First, in respect of the Divine
8160 worship which was to be observed for that particular time: and these reasons are literal: whether they refer to the shunning
8161 of idolatry; or recall certain Divine benefits; or remind men of the Divine excellence; or point out the disposition of mind
8162 which was then required in those who worshipped God. Secondly, their reasons can be gathered from the point of view of their
8163 being ordained to foreshadow Christ: and thus their reasons are figurative and mystical: whether they be taken from Christ
8164 Himself and the Church, which pertains to the allegorical sense; or to the morals of the Christian people, which pertains
8165 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
8166 sense.
8167 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 2 co."><a name="38005" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38005] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 2 co.</span></a> Respondeo
8168 dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, ratio eorum quae sunt ad
8169 finem, oportet quod a fine sumatur. Finis autem praeceptorum
8170 caeremonialium est duplex, ordinabatur enim ad cultum Dei pro
8171 tempore illo, et ad figurandum Christum; sicut etiam verba
8172 prophetarum sic respiciebant praesens tempus, quod etiam in figuram
8173 futuri dicebantur, ut Hieronymus dicit, super Osee. Sic igitur
8174 rationes praeceptorum caeremonialium veteris legis dupliciter
8175 accipi possunt. Uno modo, ex ratione cultus divini qui erat pro
8176 tempore illo observandus. Et rationes istae sunt litterales, sive
8177 pertineant ad vitandum idololatriae cultum; sive ad rememoranda
8178 aliqua Dei beneficia; sive ad insinuandam excellentiam divinam; vel
8179 etiam ad designandam dispositionem mentis quae tunc requirebatur in
8180 colentibus Deum. Alio modo possunt eorum rationes assignari
8181 secundum quod ordinantur ad figurandum Christum. Et sic habent
8182 rationes figurales et mysticas, sive accipiantur ex ipso Christo et
8183 Ecclesia, quod pertinet ad allegoriam; sive ad mores populi
8184 Christiani, quod pertinet ad moralitatem; sive ad statum futurae
8185 gloriae, prout in eam introducimur per Christum, quod pertinet ad
8186 anagogiam.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A2-p7">
8187 <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
8188 order to convey that particular meaning; so also the meaning of those legal ceremonies which commemorated certain Divine benefits,
8189 on account of which they were instituted, and of others similar which belonged to that time, does not go beyond the order
8190 of literal causes. Consequently when we assert that the cause of the celebration
8191 of the Passover was its signification of the delivery from Egypt, or that circumcision was a sign of God's covenant with Abraham,
8192 we assign the literal cause.
8193 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 2 ad 1"><a name="38006" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38006] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 2 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
8194 ergo dicendum quod, sicut intellectus metaphoricae locutionis in
8195 Scripturis est litteralis, quia verba ad hoc proferuntur ut hoc
8196 significent; ita etiam significationes caeremoniarum legis quae
8197 sunt commemorativae beneficiorum Dei propter quae instituta sunt,
8198 vel aliorum huiusmodi quae ad illum statum pertinebant, non
8199 transcendunt ordinem litteralium causarum. Unde quod assignetur
8200 causa celebrationis phase quia est signum liberationis ex Aegypto,
8201 et quod circumcisio est signum pacti quod Deus habuit cum Abraham,
8202 pertinet ad causam litteralem.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A2-p8">
8203 <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
8204 purpose of worshipping God then and there.
8205 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 2 ad 2"><a name="38007" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38007] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 2 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
8206 dicendum quod ratio illa procederet, si caeremonialia praecepta
8207 essent data solum ad figurandum futurum, non autem ad
8208 praesentialiter Deum colendum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A2-p9">
8209 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As we have stated when speaking of human laws (
8210 <a href="#FS_Q96_A1" id="FS_Q102_A2-p9.1" shape="rect">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
8211 of those who frame them; so also many particular determinations in the ceremonies of the Old Law have no literal cause, but
8212 only a figurative cause; whereas in the abstract they have a literal cause.
8213 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 2 ad 3"><a name="38008" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38008] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 2 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
8214 dicendum quod, sicut in legibus humanis dictum est quod in
8215 universali habent rationem, non autem quantum ad particulares
8216 conditiones, sed haec sunt ex arbitrio instituentium; ita etiam
8217 multae particulares determinationes in caeremoniis veteris legis
8218 non habent aliquam causam litteralem, sed solam figuralem; in
8219 communi vero habent etiam causam litteralem.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q102_A3" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q102_A3-p0.1">Q. 102. A. 3. Whether a suitable cause can be assigned for the ceremonies which pertained to sacrifices?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A3-p2">
8220 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that no suitable cause can be assigned for the ceremonies pertaining to sacrifices. For those things which
8221 were offered in sacrifice, are those which are necessary for sustaining human life: such as certain animals and certain loaves.
8222 But God needs no such sustenance; according to
8223 <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
8224 to God.
8225 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 3 arg. 1"><a name="38009" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38009] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 3 arg. 1</span></a> Ad tertium
8226 sic proceditur. Videtur quod non possit conveniens ratio assignari
8227 caeremoniarum quae ad sacrificia pertinent. Ea enim quae in
8228 sacrificium offerebantur, sunt illa quae sunt necessaria ad
8229 sustentandam humanam vitam, sicut animalia quaedam, et panes
8230 quidam. Sed tali sustentamento Deus non indiget; secundum illud
8231 Psalmi XLIX, <i>numquid manducabo carnes taurorum, aut sanguinem
8232 hircorum potabo?</i> Ergo inconvenienter huiusmodi sacrificia Deo
8233 offerebantur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A3-p3">
8234 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, only three kinds of quadrupeds were offered in sacrifice to God, viz. oxen, sheep and goats; of birds, generally
8235 the turtledove and the dove; but specially, in the cleansing of a leper, an offering was made of sparrows. Now many other
8236 animals are more noble than these. Since therefore whatever is best should be offered to God, it seems that not only of these
8237 three should sacrifices have been offered to Him.
8238 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 3 arg. 2"><a name="38010" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38010] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 3 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
8239 in sacrificium divinum non offerebantur nisi de tribus generibus
8240 animalium quadrupedum, scilicet de genere bovum, ovium et caprarum;
8241 et de avibus, communiter quidem turtur et columba; specialiter
8242 autem in emundatione leprosi fiebat sacrificium de passeribus.
8243 Multa autem alia animalia sunt eis nobiliora. Cum igitur omne quod
8244 est optimum Deo sit exhibendum, videtur quod non solum de istis
8245 rebus fuerint Deo sacrificia offerenda.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A3-p4">
8246 <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.
8247 Consequently it was unfitting for fishes to be excluded from the divine sacrifices.
8248 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 3 arg. 3"><a name="38011" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38011] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 3 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
8249 sicut homo a Deo habet dominium volatilium et bestiarum, ita etiam
8250 piscium. Inconvenienter igitur pisces a divino sacrificio
8251 excludebantur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A3-p5">
8252 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, turtledoves and doves indifferently are commanded to be offered up. Since then the young of the dove are commanded
8253 to be offered, so also should the young of the turtledove.
8254 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 3 arg. 4"><a name="38012" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38012] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 3 arg. 4</span></a> Praeterea,
8255 indifferenter offerri mandantur turtures et columbae. Sicut igitur
8256 mandantur offerri pulli columbarum, ita etiam pulli turturum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A3-p6">
8257 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, God is the Author of life, not only of men, but also of animals, as is clear from
8258 <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
8259 to God, especially as the Apostle admonishes us (
8260 <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."
8261 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 3 arg. 5"><a name="38013" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38013] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 3 arg. 5</span></a> Praeterea,
8262 Deus est auctor vitae non solum hominum, sed etiam animalium; ut
8263 patet per id quod dicitur Gen. I. Mors autem opponitur vitae. Non
8264 ergo debuerunt Deo offerri animalia occisa, sed magis animalia
8265 viventia. Praecipue quia etiam apostolus monet, Rom. XII, <i>ut
8266 exhibeamus nostra corpora hostiam viventem, sanctam, Deo
8267 placentem</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A3-p7">
8268 <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
8269 it was unfitting that the manner of immolation should be determined, especially as regards birds (
8270 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.1.15" target="asv">Lev. 1:15, </a> seqq.).
8271 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 3 arg. 6"><a name="38014" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38014] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 3 arg. 6</span></a> Praeterea,
8272 si animalia Deo in sacrificium non offerebantur nisi occisa, nulla
8273 videtur esse differentia qualiter occidantur. Inconvenienter igitur
8274 determinatur modus immolationis, praecipue in avibus, ut patet
8275 Levit. I.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A3-p8">
8276 <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,
8277 it was unreasonable to forbid the offering of an imperfect animal, e.g. a lame, or a blind, or otherwise defective animal.
8278 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 3 arg. 7"><a name="38015" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38015] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 3 arg. 7</span></a> Praeterea,
8279 omnis defectus animalis via est ad corruptionem et mortem. Si
8280 igitur animalia occisa Deo offerebantur, inconveniens fuit
8281 prohibere oblationem animalis imperfecti, puta claudi aut caeci,
8282 aut aliter maculosi.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A3-p9">
8283 <b>Objection 8:</b> Further, those who offer victims to God should partake thereof, according to the words of the Apostle (
8284 <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
8285 certain parts of the victims, namely, the blood, the fat, the breastbone and the right shoulder.
8286 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 3 arg. 8"><a name="38016" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38016] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 3 arg. 8</span></a> Praeterea,
8287 illi qui offerunt hostias Deo, debent de his participare; secundum
8288 illud apostoli, I Cor. X, <i>nonne qui edunt hostias, participes
8289 sunt altaris?</i> Inconvenienter igitur quaedam partes hostiarum
8290 offerentibus subtrahebantur, scilicet sanguis et adeps, et
8291 pectusculum et armus dexter.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A3-p10">
8292 <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
8293 animals was offered up to God as a holocaust, although holocausts were offered of both quadrupeds and birds. Therefore it
8294 was inconsistent that female animals should be offered up in peace-offerings and sin-offerings, and that nevertheless birds
8295 should not be offered up in peace-offerings.
8296 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 3 arg. 9"><a name="38017" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38017] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 3 arg. 9</span></a> Praeterea,
8297 sicut holocausta offerebantur in honorem Dei, ita etiam hostiae
8298 pacificae et hostiae pro peccato. Sed nullum animal feminini sexus
8299 offerebatur Deo in holocaustum, fiebant tamen holocausta tam de
8300 quadrupedibus quam de avibus. Ergo inconvenienter in hostiis
8301 pacificis et pro peccato offerebantur animalia feminini sexus; et
8302 tamen in hostiis pacificis non offerebantur aves.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A3-p11">
8303 <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
8304 that it was forbidden to eat the flesh of certain peace-offerings on the following day, while it was allowed to eat the flesh
8305 of other peace-offerings, as laid down in
8306 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A3-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.7.15" target="asv"> Lev. 7:15, </a> seqq.
8307 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 3 arg. 10"><a name="38018" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38018] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 3 arg. 10</span></a>
8308 Praeterea, omnes hostiae pacificae unius generis esse videntur. Non
8309 ergo debuit poni ista differentia, quod quorundam pacificorum
8310 carnes non possent vesci in crastino, quorundam autem possent, ut
8311 mandatur Levit. VII.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A3-p12">
8312 <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
8313 have been offered up for all sins.
8314 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 3 arg. 11"><a name="38019" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38019] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 3 arg. 11</span></a>
8315 Praeterea, omnia peccata in hoc conveniunt quod a Deo avertunt.
8316 Ergo pro omnibus peccatis, in Dei reconciliationem, unum genus
8317 sacrificii debuit offerri.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A3-p13">
8318 <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
8319 to be suitable that products of the soil should be offered up in various ways; for sometimes an offering was made of ears
8320 of corn, sometimes of flour, sometimes of bread, this being baked sometimes in an oven, sometimes in a pan, sometimes on a
8321 gridiron.
8322 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 3 arg. 12"><a name="38020" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38020] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 3 arg. 12</span></a>
8323 Praeterea, omnia animalia quae offerebantur in sacrificium, uno
8324 modo offerebantur, scilicet occisa. Non videtur ergo conveniens
8325 quod de terrae nascentibus diversimode fiebat oblatio, nunc enim
8326 offerebantur spicae, nunc simila, nunc panis, quandoque quidem
8327 coctus in clibano, quandoque in sartagine, quandoque in
8328 craticula.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A3-p14">
8329 <b>Objection 13:</b> Further, whatever things are serviceable to us should be recognized as coming from God. It was therefore unbecoming that
8330 besides animals, nothing but bread, wine, oil, incense, and salt should be offered to God.
8331 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 3 arg. 13"><a name="38021" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38021] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 3 arg. 13</span></a>
8332 Praeterea, omnia quae in usum nostrum veniunt, a Deo recognoscere
8333 debemus. Inconvenienter ergo praeter animalia, solum haec Deo
8334 offerebantur, panis, vinum, oleum, thus et sal.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A3-p15">
8335 <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
8336 sacrifice, the sweetness, which is denoted by honey, surpasses the pungency which salt represents; for it is written (
8337 <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,
8338 should be forbidden in a sacrifice; while the use was
8339 prescribed, of salt which is pungent, and of incense which has a bitter taste. Consequently it seems that things pertaining
8340 to the ceremonies of the sacrifices have no reasonable cause.
8341 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 3 arg. 14"><a name="38022" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38022] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 3 arg. 14</span></a>
8342 Praeterea, sacrificia corporalia exprimunt interius sacrificium
8343 cordis, quo homo spiritum suum offert Deo. Sed in interiori
8344 sacrificio plus est de dulcedine, quam repraesentat mel, quam de
8345 mordacitate, quam repraesentat sal, dicitur enim Eccli. XXIV,
8346 <i>spiritus meus super mel dulcis</i>. Ergo inconvenienter
8347 prohibebatur in sacrificio apponi mel et fermentum, quod etiam
8348 facit panem sapidum; et praecipiebatur ibi apponi sal, quod est
8349 mordicativum, et thus, quod habet saporem amarum. Videtur ergo quod
8350 ea quae pertinent ad caeremonias sacrificiorum, non habeant
8351 rationabilem causam.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A3-p16">
8352 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
8353 <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
8354 according to
8355 <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
8356 done. Therefore these ceremonies of the sacrifices were wisely done, as having reasonable causes.
8357 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 3 s. c."><a name="38023" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38023] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 3 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
8358 est quod dicitur Levit. I, <i>oblata omnia adolebit sacerdos super
8359 altare in holocaustum et odorem suavissimum domino</i>. Sed sicut
8360 dicitur Sap. VII, <i>neminem diligit Deus nisi qui cum sapientia
8361 inhabitat</i>, ex quo potest accipi quod quidquid est Deo acceptum,
8362 est cum sapientia. Ergo illae caeremoniae sacrificiorum cum
8363 sapientia erant, velut habentes rationabiles causas.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q102_A3-p17">
8364 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
8365 <a href="#FS_Q102_A2" id="FS_Q102_A3-p17.1" shape="rect">(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;
8366 and a figurative or mystical cause, according as they were intended to foreshadow Christ: and on either hand the ceremonies
8367 pertaining to the sacrifices can be assigned to a fitting cause.
8368 </p><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
8369 be taken in two ways. First, in so far as the sacrifice represented the directing of the mind to God, to which the offerer
8370 of the sacrifice was stimulated. Now in order to direct his mind to God aright, man must recognize that whatever he has is
8371 from God as from its first principle, and direct it to God as its last end. This was denoted in the offerings and
8372 sacrifices, by the fact that man offered some of his own belongings in honor of God, as though in recognition of his having
8373 received them from God, according to the saying of David (1 Paral. xxix, 14): "All things are Thine: and we have given Thee
8374 what we received of Thy hand." Wherefore in offering up sacrifices man made protestation that God is the first principle of
8375 the creation of all things, and their last end, to which all things must be directed. And since, for the human mind to be
8376 directed to God aright, it must recognize no first author of things other than God, nor place its end in any other; for this
8377 reason it was forbidden in the Law to offer sacrifice to any other but God, according to
8378 <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
8379 to the ceremonies of the sacrifices, from the fact that thereby men were withdrawn from offering sacrifices to idols. Hence
8380 too it is that the precepts about the sacrifices were not given to the Jewish people until after they had fallen into idolatry,
8381 by worshipping the molten calf: as though those sacrifices were instituted, that the people, being ready to offer sacrifices,
8382 might offer those sacrifices to God rather than to idols. Thus it is written (
8383 <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
8384 the matter
8385 of burnt-offerings and sacrifices."
8386 </p><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;
8387 wherefore it is written (
8388 <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
8389 life everlasting." Consequently the chief sacrifice is that whereby Christ Himself "delivered Himself . . . to God for an
8390 odor of sweetness" (
8391 <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
8392 other sacrifices of the Old Law were offered up in order to foreshadow this one individual and paramount sacrifice---the imperfect
8393 forecasting the perfect. Hence the Apostle says (
8394 <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
8395 "one sacrifice for sins, for ever." And since the reason of the figure is taken from that which the figure represents, therefore
8396 the reasons of the figurative
8397 sacrifices of the Old Law should be taken from the true sacrifice of Christ.
8398 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 3 co."><a name="38024" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38024] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 3 co.</span></a> Respondeo
8399 dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, caeremoniae veteris legis
8400 duplicem causam habebant, unam scilicet litteralem, secundum quod
8401 ordinabantur ad cultum Dei; aliam vero figuralem, sive mysticam,
8402 secundum quod ordinabantur ad figurandum Christum. Et ex utraque
8403 parte potest convenienter assignari causa caeremoniarum quae ad
8404 sacrificia pertinebant. Secundum enim quod sacrificia ordinabantur
8405 ad cultum Dei, causa sacrificiorum dupliciter accipi potest. Uno
8406 modo, secundum quod per sacrificia repraesentabatur ordinatio
8407 mentis in Deum, ad quam excitabatur sacrificium offerens. Ad rectam
8408 autem ordinationem mentis in Deum pertinet quod omnia quae homo
8409 habet, recognoscat a Deo tanquam a primo principio, et ordinet in
8410 Deum tanquam in ultimum finem. Et hoc repraesentabatur in
8411 oblationibus et sacrificiis, secundum quod homo ex rebus suis,
8412 quasi in recognitionem quod haberet ea a Deo, in honorem Dei ea
8413 offerebat; secundum quod dixit David, I Paral. XXIX, <i>tua sunt
8414 omnia; et quae de manu tua accepimus, dedimus tibi</i>. Et ideo in
8415 oblatione sacrificiorum protestabatur homo quod Deus esset primum
8416 principium creationis rerum et ultimus finis, ad quem essent omnia
8417 referenda. Et quia pertinet ad rectam ordinationem mentis in Deum
8418 ut mens humana non recognoscat alium primum auctorem rerum nisi
8419 solum Deum, neque in aliquo alio finem suum constituat; propter hoc
8420 prohibebatur in lege offerre sacrificium alicui alteri nisi Deo,
8421 secundum illud Exod. XXII, <i>qui immolat diis, occidetur, praeter
8422 domino soli</i>. Et ideo de causa caeremoniarum circa sacrificia
8423 potest assignari ratio alio modo, ex hoc quod per huiusmodi homines
8424 retrahebantur a sacrificiis idolorum. Unde etiam praecepta de
8425 sacrificiis non fuerunt data populo Iudaeorum nisi postquam
8426 declinavit ad idololatriam, adorando vitulum conflatilem, quasi
8427 huiusmodi sacrificia sint instituta ut populus ad sacrificandum
8428 promptus, huiusmodi sacrificia magis Deo quam idolis offerret. Unde
8429 dicitur Ierem. VII, <i>non sum locutus cum patribus vestris, et non
8430 praecepi eis, in die qua eduxi eos de terra Aegypti, de verbo
8431 holocautomatum et victimarum</i>. Inter omnia autem dona quae Deus
8432 humano generi iam per peccatum lapso dedit, praecipuum est quod
8433 dedit filium suum, unde dicitur Ioan. III, <i>sic Deus dilexit
8434 mundum ut filium suum unigenitum daret, ut omnis qui credit in
8435 ipsum non pereat, sed habeat vitam aeternam</i>. Et ideo potissimum
8436 sacrificium est quo ipse Christus seipsum obtulit Deo in odorem
8437 suavitatis, ut dicitur ad Ephes. V. Et propter hoc omnia alia
8438 sacrificia offerebantur in veteri lege ut hoc unum singulare et
8439 praecipuum sacrificium figuraretur, tanquam perfectum per
8440 imperfecta. Unde apostolus dicit, ad Heb. X, quod <i>sacerdos
8441 veteris legis easdem saepe offerebat hostias, quae nunquam possunt
8442 auferre peccata, Christus autem pro peccatis obtulit unam in
8443 sempiternum</i>. Et quia ex figurato sumitur ratio figurae, ideo
8444 rationes sacrificiorum figuralium veteris legis sunt sumendae ex
8445 vero sacrificio Christi.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A3-p20">
8446 <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
8447 stood in need of them: wherefore it is written (
8448 <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,
8449 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
8450 God;
8451 and in order to represent the mystery of the Redemption of man by Christ.
8452 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 3 ad 1"><a name="38025" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38025] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 3 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
8453 ergo dicendum quod Deus non volebat huiusmodi sacrificia sibi
8454 offerri propter ipsas res quae offerebantur, quasi eis indigeret,
8455 unde dicitur Isaiae I, <i>holocausta arietum, et adipem pinguium,
8456 et sanguinem vitulorum et hircorum et agnorum, nolui</i>. Sed
8457 volebat ea sibi offerri, ut supra dictum est, tum ad excludendam
8458 idololatriam; tum ad significandum debitum ordinem mentis humanae
8459 in Deum; tum etiam ad figurandum mysterium redemptionis humanae
8460 factae per Christum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q102_A3-p21">
8461 <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
8462 in sacrifice to God. First, in order to prevent idolatry. Because idolaters offered all other animals to their gods, or made
8463 use of them in their sorceries: while the Egyptians (among whom the people had been dwelling) considered it abominable to
8464 slay these animals, wherefore they used not to offer them in sacrifice to their
8465 gods. Hence it is written (
8466 <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
8467 the ram (because demons appeared under the form thereof); while they employed oxen for agriculture, which was reckoned by
8468 them as something sacred.
8469 </p><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
8470 chiefly by means of these animals that human life is sustained: and moreover they are most clean, and partake of a most clean
8471 food: whereas other animals are either wild, and not deputed to ordinary use among men: or, if they be tame, they have unclean
8472 food, as pigs and geese: and nothing but what is clean should be offered to God. These birds especially were
8473 offered in sacrifice because there were plenty of them in the land of promise. Secondly, because the sacrificing of these
8474 animals represented purity of heart. Because as the gloss says on
8475 <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
8476 we conquer wantonness; a turtledove, when we keep chaste; unleavened bread, when we feast on the unleavened bread of sincerity."
8477 And it is evident that the dove denotes charity and
8478 simplicity of heart.
8479 </p><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,
8480 "Christ is offered in the calf, to denote the strength of the cross; in the lamb, to signify His innocence; in the ram, to
8481 foreshadow His headship; and in the goat, to signify the likeness of 'sinful flesh' [*An allusion to
8482 <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
8483 chastity; while the dove was a figure of charity. "The wheat-flour foreshadowed the sprinkling of believers with the water
8484 of Baptism."
8485 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 3 ad 2"><a name="38026" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38026] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 3 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
8486 dicendum quod quantum ad omnia praedicta, conveniens ratio fuit
8487 quare ista animalia offerebantur Deo in sacrificium, et non alia.
8488 Primo quidem, ad excludendum idololatriam. Quia omnia alia animalia
8489 offerebant idololatrae diis suis, vel eis ad maleficia utebantur,
8490 ista autem animalia apud Aegyptios, cum quibus conversati erant,
8491 abominabilia erant ad occidendum, unde ea non offerebant in
8492 sacrificium diis suis; unde dicitur Exod. VIII, <i>abominationes
8493 Aegyptiorum immolabimus domino Deo nostro</i>. Oves enim colebant;
8494 hircos venerabantur, quia in eorum figura Daemones apparebant;
8495 bobus autem utebantur ad agriculturam, quam inter res sacras
8496 habebant. Secundo, hoc conveniens erat ad praedictam ordinationem
8497 mentis in Deum. Et hoc dupliciter. Primo quidem, quia huiusmodi
8498 animalia maxime sunt per quae sustentatur humana vita, et cum hoc
8499 mundissima sunt, et mundissimum habent nutrimentum. Alia vero
8500 animalia vel sunt silvestria, et non sunt communiter hominum usui
8501 deputata, vel, si sunt domestica, immundum habent nutrimentum, ut
8502 porcus et gallina; solum autem id quod est purum, Deo est
8503 attribuendum. Huiusmodi autem aves specialiter offerebantur, quia
8504 habentur in copia in terra promissionis. Secundo, quia per
8505 immolationem huiusmodi animalium puritas mentis designatur. Quia,
8506 ut dicitur in Glossa Levit. I, <i>vitulum offerimus, cum carnis
8507 superbiam vincimus; agnum, cum irrationales motus corrigimus;
8508 haedum, cum lasciviam superamus; turturem, dum castitatem servamus;
8509 panes azymos, cum in azymis sinceritatis epulamur</i>. In columba
8510 vero manifestum est quod significatur caritas et simplicitas
8511 mentis. Tertio vero, conveniens fuit haec animalia offerri in
8512 figuram Christi. Quia, ut in eadem Glossa dicitur, <i>Christus in
8513 vitulo offertur, propter virtutem crucis; in agno, propter
8514 innocentiam; in ariete, propter principatum; in hirco, propter
8515 similitudinem carnis peccati. In turture et columba duarum
8516 naturarum coniunctio monstrabatur</i>, vel in turture castitas, in
8517 columba caritas significatur. <i>In similagine aspersio credentium
8518 per aquam Baptismi figurabatur</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A3-p24">
8519 <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
8520 die as soon as they are taken out of water; hence they could not be offered in the temple like other animals.
8521 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 3 ad 3"><a name="38027" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38027] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 3 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
8522 dicendum quod pisces, quia in aquis vivunt, magis sunt alieni ab
8523 homine quam alia animalia, quae vivunt in aere, sicut et homo. Et
8524 iterum pisces, ex aqua extracti, statim moriuntur, unde non
8525 poterant in templo offerri, sicut alia animalia.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A3-p25">
8526 <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
8527 Moses observes (Doct. Perplex. iii), turtledoves and young doves are commanded to be offered, because nothing should be offered
8528 to God but what is best.
8529 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 3 ad 4"><a name="38028" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38028] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 3 ad 4</span></a> Ad quartum
8530 dicendum quod in turturibus meliores sunt maiores quam pulli; in
8531 columbis autem e converso. Et ideo, ut Rabbi Moyses dicit,
8532 mandantur offerri turtures et pulli columbarum, quia omne quod est
8533 optimum, Deo est attribuendum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A3-p26">
8534 <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
8535 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
8536 fit for human consumption. Moreover the slaying of the animals signified the destruction of sins: and also that man deserved
8537 death on account of his sins; as though those animals were slain in man's
8538 stead, in order to betoken the expiation of sins. Again the slaying of these animals signified the slaying of Christ.
8539 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 3 ad 5"><a name="38029" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38029] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 3 ad 5</span></a> Ad quintum
8540 dicendum quod animalia in sacrificium oblata occidebantur, quia
8541 veniunt in usum hominis occisa, secundum quod a Deo dantur homini
8542 ad esum. Et ideo etiam igni cremabantur, quia per ignem decocta
8543 fiunt apta humano usui. Similiter etiam per occisionem animalium
8544 significatur destructio peccatorum. Et quod homines erant digni
8545 occisione pro peccatis suis, ac si illa animalia loco eorum
8546 occiderentur, ad significandum expiationem peccatorum. Per
8547 occisionem etiam huiusmodi animalium significabatur occisio
8548 Christi.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A3-p27">
8549 <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
8550 sacrificed animals to idols. Or again, as Rabbi Moses says (Doct. Perplex. iii), "the Law chose that manner of slaying which
8551 was least painful to the slain animal." This excluded cruelty on the part of the offerers, and any mangling of the animals
8552 slain.
8553 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 3 ad 6"><a name="38030" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38030] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 3 ad 6</span></a> Ad sextum
8554 dicendum quod specialis modus occidendi animalia immolata
8555 determinabatur in lege ad excludendum alios modos, quibus
8556 idololatrae animalia idolis immolabant. Vel etiam, ut Rabbi Moyses
8557 dicit, <i>lex elegit genus occisionis quo animalia minus
8558 affligebantur occisa</i>. Per quod excludebatur etiam
8559 immisericordia offerentium, et deterioratio animalium
8560 occisorum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A3-p28">
8561 <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
8562 to God: and for this reason too they were forbidden (
8563 <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
8564 animals before the seventh day, because such were abortive as it were, the flesh being not yet firm on account of its
8565 exceeding softness.
8566 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 3 ad 7"><a name="38031" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38031] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 3 ad 7</span></a> Ad septimum
8567 dicendum quod, quia animalia maculosa solent haberi contemptui
8568 etiam apud homines, ideo prohibitum est ne Deo in sacrificium
8569 offerrentur, propter quod etiam prohibitum erat <i>ne mercedem
8570 prostibuli, aut pretium canis, in domum Dei offerrent</i>. Et eadem
8571 etiam ratione non offerebant animalia ante septimum diem, quia
8572 talia animalia erant quasi abortiva, nondum plene consistentia,
8573 propter teneritudinem.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q102_A3-p29">
8574 <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
8575 holocaust, i.e. all burnt." For this kind of sacrifice was offered to God specially to show reverence to His majesty, and
8576 love of His goodness: and typified the state of perfection as regards the fulfilment of the counsels. Wherefore the whole
8577 was burnt up: so that as the whole animal by being dissolved into vapor soared aloft, so
8578 it might denote that the whole man, and whatever belongs to him, are subject to the authority of God, and should be offered
8579 to Him.
8580 </p><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
8581 this typifies the state of penitents in satisfying for sins. It was divided into two parts: for one part was burnt; while
8582 the other was granted to the use of the priests to signify that remission of sins is granted by God through the ministry of
8583 His priests. When, however, this sacrifice was offered for the sins of the whole people, or specially for the sin
8584 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
8585 offered for their own sins, to signify that nothing sinful should remain in them. Moreover, this would not be satisfaction
8586 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
8587 as if it had not been offered.
8588 </p><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
8589 welfare and prosperity of the offerers, in acknowledgment of benefits already received or yet to be received: and this typifies
8590 the state of those who are proficient in the observance of the commandments. These sacrifices were divided into three parts:
8591 for one part was burnt in honor of God; another part was allotted to the use of the priests; and the third
8592 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,
8593 and through the cooperation of those who are saved.
8594 </p><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:
8595 the blood being poured out at the foot of the altar, in honor of God, while the fat was burnt upon the altar (
8596 <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
8597 of the victims, according to
8598 <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
8599 fat, and drank the wine of their drink-offerings." Secondly, in order to form them to a right way of living. For they were
8600 forbidden the use of the blood that they might abhor the shedding of human blood; wherefore it is written (
8601 <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,
8602 in order to withdraw them from lasciviousness; hence it is written (
8603 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A3-p32.4" href="./asv.html#Ezek.34.3" target="asv">Ezech. 34:3</a>): "You have
8604 killed that which was fat." Thirdly, on account of the reverence due to God: because blood is most necessary for life, for
8605 which reason "life" is said to be "in the blood" (
8606 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A3-p32.5" href="./asv.html#Lev.17.11" target="asv">Lev. 17:11</a>,
8607 <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
8608 of all good things, the blood was poured out, and the fat burnt up in His honor. Fourthly, in order to foreshadow the shedding
8609 of Christ's blood, and the abundance of His charity, whereby He
8610 offered Himself to God for us.
8611 </p><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
8612 a certain kind of divination which is known as "spatulamantia," so called because it was customary in divining to use the
8613 shoulder-blade [spatula], and the breast-bone of the animals offered in sacrifice; wherefore these things were taken away
8614 from the offerers. This is also denoted the priest's need of wisdom in the heart, to instruct the people---this was
8615 signified by the breast-bone, which covers the heart; and his need of fortitude, in order to bear with human frailty---and
8616 this was signified by the right shoulder.
8617 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 3 ad 8"><a name="38032" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38032] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 3 ad 8</span></a> Ad octavum
8618 dicendum quod triplex erat sacrificiorum genus. Quoddam erat quod
8619 totum comburebatur, et hoc dicebatur holocaustum, quasi totum
8620 incensum. Huiusmodi enim sacrificium offerebatur Deo specialiter ad
8621 reverentiam maiestatis ipsius, et amorem bonitatis eius, et
8622 conveniebat perfectionis statui in impletione consiliorum. Et ideo
8623 totum comburebatur, ut sicut totum animal, resolutum in vaporem,
8624 sursum ascendebat, ita etiam significaretur totum hominem, et omnia
8625 quae ipsius sunt, Dei dominio esse subiecta, et ei esse offerenda.
8626 Aliud autem erat sacrificium pro peccato, quod offerebatur Deo ex
8627 necessitate remissionis peccati, et conveniebat statui poenitentium
8628 in satisfactione peccatorum. Quod dividebatur in duas partes, nam
8629 una pars eius comburebatur, alia vero cedebat in usum sacerdotum;
8630 ad significandum quod expiatio peccatorum fit a Deo per ministerium
8631 sacerdotum. Nisi quando offerebatur sacrificium pro peccato totius
8632 populi, vel specialiter pro peccato sacerdotis, tunc enim totum
8633 comburebatur. Non enim debebant in usum sacerdotum venire ea quae
8634 pro peccato eorum offerebantur, ut nihil peccati in eis remaneret.
8635 Et quia hoc non esset satisfactio pro peccato, si enim cederet in
8636 usum eorum pro quorum peccatis offerebatur, idem esse videretur ac
8637 si non offerrent. Tertium vero sacrificium vocabatur hostia
8638 pacifica, quae offerebatur Deo vel pro gratiarum actione, vel pro
8639 salute et prosperitate offerentium, ex debito beneficii vel accepti
8640 vel accipiendi, et convenit statui proficientium in impletione
8641 mandatorum. Et ista dividebantur in tres partes, nam una pars
8642 incendebatur ad honorem Dei, alia pars cedebat in usum sacerdotum,
8643 tertia vero pars in usum offerentium; ad significandum quod salus
8644 hominis procedit a Deo, dirigentibus ministris Dei, et
8645 cooperantibus ipsis hominibus qui salvantur. Hoc autem generaliter
8646 observabatur, quod sanguis et adeps non veniebant neque in usum
8647 sacerdotum, neque in usum offerentium, sed sanguis effundebatur ad
8648 crepidinem altaris, in honorem Dei; adeps vero adurebatur in igne.
8649 Cuius ratio una quidem fuit ad excludendam idololatriam.
8650 Idololatrae enim bibebant de sanguine victimarum, et comedebant
8651 adipes; secundum illud Deut. XXXII, <i>de quorum victimis
8652 comedebant adipes, et bibebant vinum libaminum</i>. Secunda ratio
8653 est ad informationem humanae vitae. Prohibebatur enim eis usus
8654 sanguinis, ad hoc quod horrerent humani sanguinis effusionem, unde
8655 dicitur Gen. IX, <i>carnem cum sanguine non comedetis, sanguinem
8656 enim animarum vestrarum requiram</i>. Esus vero adipum prohibebatur
8657 eis ad vitandam lasciviam, unde dicitur Ezech. XXXIV, <i>quod
8658 crassum erat, occidebatis</i>. Tertia ratio est propter reverentiam
8659 divinam. Quia sanguis est maxime necessarius ad vitam, ratione
8660 cuius dicitur anima esse in sanguine, adeps autem abundantiam
8661 nutrimenti demonstrat. Et ideo ut ostenderetur quod a Deo nobis est
8662 et vita et omnis bonorum sufficientia, ad honorem Dei effundebatur
8663 sanguis, et adurebatur adeps. Quarta ratio est quia per hoc
8664 figurabatur effusio sanguinis Christi, et pinguedo caritatis eius,
8665 per quam se obtulit Deo pro nobis. De hostiis autem pacificis in
8666 usum sacerdotis cedebat pectusculum et armus dexter, ad excludendum
8667 quandam divinationis speciem quae vocatur spatulamantia, quia
8668 scilicet in spatulis animalium immolatorum divinabant, et similiter
8669 in osse pectoris. Et ideo ista offerentibus subtrahebantur. Per hoc
8670 etiam significabatur quod sacerdoti erat necessaria sapientia
8671 cordis ad instruendum populum, quod significabatur per pectus, quod
8672 est tegumentum cordis; et etiam fortitudo ad sustentandum defectus,
8673 quae significatur per armum dextrum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A3-p34">
8674 <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
8675 the female is an imperfect animal. The offering of turtledoves and doves was on account of the poverty of the offerers, who
8676 were unable to offer bigger animals. And since peace-victims were offered freely, and no one was bound to offer them against
8677 his will, hence these birds were offered not among the peace-victims, but among
8678 the holocausts and victims for sin, which man was obliged to offer at times. Moreover these birds, on account of their lofty
8679 flight, while befitting the perfection of the holocausts: and were suitable for sin-offerings because their song is doleful.
8680 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 3 ad 9"><a name="38033" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38033] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 3 ad 9</span></a> Ad nonum
8681 dicendum quod, quia holocaustum erat perfectissimum inter
8682 sacrificia, ideo non offerebatur in holocaustum nisi masculus, nam
8683 femina est animal imperfectum. Oblatio autem turturum et columbarum
8684 erat propter paupertatem offerentium, qui maiora animalia offerre
8685 non poterant. Et quia hostiae pacificae gratis offerebantur, et
8686 nullus eas offerre cogebatur nisi spontaneus; ideo huiusmodi aves
8687 non offerebantur inter hostias pacificas, sed inter holocausta et
8688 hostias pro peccato, quas quandoque oportebat offerre. Aves etiam
8689 huiusmodi, propter altitudinem volatus, congruunt perfectioni
8690 holocaustorum, et etiam hostiis pro peccato, quia habent gemitum
8691 pro cantu.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A3-p35">
8692 <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
8693 second place in holiness, belongs to the sacrifice for sins, which was eaten in the court only, and on the very day of the
8694 sacrifice (
8695 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A3-p35.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.7.6" target="asv">Lev. 7:6</a>,
8696 <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
8697 Jerusalem. Fourth in order were the
8698 "ex-voto" peace-offerings, the flesh of which could be eaten even on the morrow. The reason for this order is that man is
8699 bound to God, chiefly on account of His majesty; secondly, on account of the sins he has committed; thirdly, because of the
8700 benefits he has already received from Him; fourthly, by reason of the benefits he hopes to receive from Him.
8701 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 3 ad 10"><a name="38034" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38034] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 3 ad 10</span></a> Ad decimum
8702 dicendum quod inter omnia sacrificia holocaustum erat praecipuum,
8703 quia totum comburebatur in honorem Dei, et nihil ex eo comedebatur.
8704 Secundum vero locum in sanctitate tenebat hostia pro peccato, quae
8705 comedebatur solum in atrio a sacerdotibus, et in ipsa die
8706 sacrificii. Tertium vero gradum tenebant hostiae pacificae pro
8707 gratiarum actione, quae comedebantur ipso die, sed ubique in
8708 Ierusalem. Quartum vero locum tenebant hostiae pacificae ex voto,
8709 quarum carnes poterant etiam in crastino comedi. Et est ratio huius
8710 ordinis quia maxime obligatur homo Deo propter eius maiestatem,
8711 secundo, propter offensam commissam; tertio, propter beneficia iam
8712 suscepta; quarto, propter beneficia sperata.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A3-p36">
8713 <b>Reply to Objection 11:</b> Sins are more grievous by reason of the state of the sinner, as stated above (
8714 <a href="FS_v.html#FS_Q73_A10" id="FS_Q102_A3-p36.1" shape="rect">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
8715 individual. "But," as Rabbi Moses says (Doct. Perplex. iii), "we must take note that the more grievous the sin, the lower
8716 the species of animals offered for it. Wherefore the goat, which is a very base animal, was
8717 offered for idolatry; while a calf was offered for a priest's ignorance, and a ram for the negligence of a prince."
8718 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 3 ad 11"><a name="38035" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38035] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 3 ad 11</span></a> Ad
8719 undecimum dicendum quod peccata aggravantur ex statu peccantis, ut
8720 supra dictum est. Et ideo alia hostia mandatur offerri pro peccato
8721 sacerdotis et principis, vel alterius privatae personae. Est autem
8722 attendendum, ut Rabbi Moyses dicit, quod <i>quanto gravius erat
8723 peccatum, tanto vilior species animalis offerebatur pro eo. Unde
8724 capra, quod est vilissimum animal, offerebatur pro idololatria,
8725 quod est gravissimum peccatum; pro ignorantia vero sacerdotis
8726 offerebatur vitulus; pro negligentia autem principis,
8727 hircus</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q102_A3-p37">
8728 <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
8729 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
8730 that if a man had not even bread he might offer flour or ears of corn.
8731 </p><p id="FS_Q102_A3-p38"> The figurative cause is that the bread signifies Christ Who is the "living bread" (
8732 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A3-p38.1" href="./asv.html#John.6.41" target="asv">Jn. 6:41</a>,
8733 <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
8734 like flour in the doctrine of the Law of the prophets; and He was like perfect bread after He had taken human nature; baked
8735 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
8736 suffered in the world; and consumed by fire on the cross as on a gridiron.
8737 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 3 ad 12"><a name="38036" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38036] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 3 ad 12</span></a> Ad
8738 duodecimum dicendum quod lex in sacrificiis providere voluit
8739 paupertati offerentium, ut qui non posset habere animal quadrupes,
8740 saltem offerret avem; quam qui habere non posset, saltem offerret
8741 panem; et si hunc habere non posset, saltem offerret farinam vel
8742 spicas. Causa vero figuralis est quia panis significat Christum,
8743 qui est panis vivus, ut dicitur Ioan. VI. Qui quidem erat sicut in
8744 spica, pro statu legis naturae, in fide patrum; erat autem sicut
8745 simila in doctrina legis prophetarum; erat autem sicut panis
8746 formatus post humanitatem assumptam; coctus igne, idest formatus
8747 spiritu sancto in clibano uteri virginalis; qui etiam fuit coctus
8748 in sartagine, per labores quos in mundo sustinebat; in cruce vero
8749 quasi in craticula adustus.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q102_A3-p39">
8750 <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
8751 was offered; or as seasoning, and of these oil and salt were offered; or as healing, and of these they offered incense, which
8752 both smells sweetly and binds easily together.
8753 </p><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
8754 of Christ; salt, His knowledge; incense, His prayer.
8755 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 3 ad 13"><a name="38037" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38037] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 3 ad 13</span></a> Ad
8756 decimumtertium dicendum quod ea quae in usum hominis veniunt de
8757 terrae nascentibus, vel sunt in cibum, et de eis offerebatur panis.
8758 Vel sunt in potum, et de his offerebatur vinum. Vel sunt in
8759 condimentum, et de his offerebatur oleum et sal. Vel sunt in
8760 medicamentum, et de his offerebatur thus, quod est aromaticum et
8761 consolidativum. Per panem autem figuratur caro Christi; per vinum
8762 autem sanguis eius, per quem redempti sumus; oleum figurat gratiam
8763 Christi; sal scientiam; thus orationem.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q102_A3-p41">
8764 <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
8765 order to denote the absence of all carnal sweetness and pleasure from those who intend to sacrifice to God. Leaven was not
8766 offered, to denote the exclusion of corruption. Perhaps too, it was wont to be offered in the sacrifices to idols.
8767 </p><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
8768 incorrupt. Moreover, salt signifies the discretion of wisdom, or again, mortification of the flesh.
8769 </p><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
8770 a good name: for incense is composed of matter, both rich and fragrant. And since the sacrifice "of jealousy" did not proceed
8771 from devotion, but rather from suspicion, therefore incense was not offered therein (
8772 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A3-p43.1" href="./asv.html#Num.5.15" target="asv">Num. 5:15</a>).
8773 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 3 ad 14"><a name="38038" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38038] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 3 ad 14</span></a> Ad
8774 decimumquartum dicendum quod mel non offerebatur in sacrificiis
8775 Dei, tum quia consueverat offerri in sacrificiis idolorum. Tum
8776 etiam ad excludendam omnem carnalem dulcedinem et voluptatem ab his
8777 qui Deo sacrificare intendunt. Fermentum vero non offerebatur, ad
8778 excludendam corruptionem. Et forte etiam in sacrificiis idolorum
8779 solitum erat offerri. Sal autem offerebatur, quia impedit
8780 corruptionem putredinis, sacrificia autem Dei debent esse
8781 incorrupta. Et etiam quia in sale significatur discretio
8782 sapientiae; vel etiam mortificatio carnis. Thus autem offerebatur
8783 ad designandam devotionem mentis, quae est necessaria offerentibus;
8784 et etiam ad designandum odorem bonae famae, nam thus et pingue est,
8785 et odoriferum. Et quia sacrificium zelotypiae non procedebat ex
8786 devotione, sed magis ex suspicione, ideo in eo non offerebatur
8787 thus.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q102_A4" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q102_A4-p0.1">Q. 102. A. 4. Whether sufficient reason can be assigned for the ceremonies pertaining to holy things?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A4-p2">
8788 <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
8789 Paul said (
8790 <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."
8791 It was therefore unfitting that in the Old Law a tabernacle or temple should be set up for the worship of God.
8792 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 4 arg. 1"><a name="38039" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38039] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 4 arg. 1</span></a> Ad quartum
8793 sic proceditur. Videtur quod caeremoniarum veteris legis quae ad
8794 sacra pertinent sufficiens ratio assignari non possit. Dicit enim
8795 Paulus, Act. XVII, <i>Deus, qui fecit mundum et omnia quae in eo
8796 sunt, hic, caeli et terrae cum sit dominus, non in manufactis
8797 templis habitat</i>. Inconvenienter igitur ad cultum Dei
8798 tabernaculum, vel templum, in lege veteri est institutum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A4-p3">
8799 <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.
8800 Therefore it should not have been changed by the building of a temple.
8801 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 4 arg. 2"><a name="38040" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38040] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 4 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
8802 status veteris legis non fuit immutatus nisi per Christum. Sed
8803 tabernaculum designabat statum veteris legis. Non ergo debuit
8804 mutari per aedificationem alicuius templi.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A4-p4">
8805 <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
8806 requires multiplication of altars and temples; as is evident in regard to the New Law. Therefore it seems that also under
8807 the Old Law there should have been not only one tabernacle or temple, but many.
8808 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 4 arg. 3"><a name="38041" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38041] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 4 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
8809 divina lex praecipue etiam debet homines inducere ad divinum
8810 cultum. Sed ad augmentum divini cultus pertinet quod fiant multa
8811 altaria et multa templa, sicut patet in nova lege. Ergo videtur
8812 quod etiam in veteri lege non debuit esse solum unum templum aut
8813 unum tabernaculum sed multa.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A4-p5">
8814 <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
8815 simplicity. Therefore it seems unbecoming for the tabernacle or temple to be divided by means of veils.
8816 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 4 arg. 4"><a name="38042" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38042] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 4 arg. 4</span></a> Praeterea,
8817 tabernaculum, seu templum, ad cultum Dei ordinabatur. Sed in Deo
8818 praecipue oportet venerari unitatem et simplicitatem. Non videtur
8819 igitur fuisse conveniens ut tabernaculum, seu templum, per quaedam
8820 vela distingueretur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A4-p6">
8821 <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
8822 movement begins. But the tabernacle was set up for the worship of God. Therefore it should have been built so as to point
8823 to the east rather than the west.
8824 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 4 arg. 5"><a name="38043" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38043] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 4 arg. 5</span></a> Praeterea,
8825 virtus primi moventis, qui est Deus, primo apparet in parte
8826 orientis, a qua parte incipit primus motus. Sed tabernaculum fuit
8827 institutum ad Dei adorationem. Ergo debebat esse dispositum magis
8828 versus orientem quam versus occidentem.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A4-p7">
8829 <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, the Lord commanded (
8830 <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
8831 of the cherubim to be set up in the tabernacle or temple. In like manner, the ark, the propitiatory, the candlestick, the
8832 table, the two altars, seem to have been placed there without reasonable cause.
8833 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 4 arg. 6"><a name="38044" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38044] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 4 arg. 6</span></a> Praeterea,
8834 Exod. XX, dominus praecepit ut <i>non facerent sculptile, neque
8835 aliquam similitudinem</i>. Inconvenienter igitur in tabernaculo,
8836 vel in templo, fuerunt sculptae imagines Cherubim. Similiter etiam
8837 et arca, et propitiatorium, et candelabrum, et mensa, et duplex
8838 altare, sine rationabili causa ibi fuisse videntur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A4-p8">
8839 <b>Objection 7:</b> Further, the Lord commanded (
8840 <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 (
8841 <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
8842 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.
8843 For it is written (
8844 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p8.3" href="./asv.html#Exod.27.1" target="asv">Ex. 27:1,2</a>): "Thou shalt
8845 make also an altar of setim wood, which shall be five cubits long, and as many broad . . . and three cubits high . . . and
8846 thou shalt cover it with brass": and (
8847 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p8.4" href="./asv.html#Exod.30.1" target="asv">Ex. 30:1</a>,
8848 <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."
8849 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 4 arg. 7"><a name="38045" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38045] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 4 arg. 7</span></a> Praeterea,
8850 dominus praecepit, Exod. XX, altare de terra facietis mihi. Et
8851 iterum, non ascendes ad altare meum per gradus. Inconvenienter
8852 igitur mandatur postmodum altare fieri de lignis auro vel aere
8853 contextis; et tantae altitudinis ut ad illud nisi per gradus
8854 ascendi non posset. Dicitur enim Exod. XXVII, <i>facies et altare
8855 de lignis setim, quod habebit quinque cubitos in longitudine, et
8856 totidem in latitudine, et tres cubitos in altitudine; et operies
8857 illud aere</i>. Et Exod. XXX dicitur, <i>facies altare ad adolendum
8858 thymiamata, de lignis setim, vestiesque illud auro
8859 purissimo</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A4-p9">
8860 <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
8861 found. But one cover suffices for one tabernacle or house. Therefore it was unbecoming to furnish the tabernacle with many
8862 coverings, viz. curtains, curtains of goats' hair, rams' skins dyed red, and violet-colored skins (
8863 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.26" target="asv">Ex. 26</a>).
8864 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 4 arg. 8"><a name="38046" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38046] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 4 arg. 8</span></a> Praeterea,
8865 in operibus Dei nihil debet esse superfluum, quia nec in operibus
8866 naturae aliquid superfluum invenitur. Sed uni tabernaculo, vel
8867 domui, sufficit unum operimentum. Inconvenienter igitur tabernaculo
8868 fuerunt apposita multa tegumenta, scilicet cortinae, saga cilicina,
8869 pelles arietum rubricatae, et pelles hyacintinae.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A4-p10">
8870 <b>Objection 9:</b> Further, exterior consecration signifies interior holiness, the subject of which is the soul. It was therefore unsuitable
8871 for the tabernacle and its vessels to be consecrated, since they were inanimate things.
8872 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 4 arg. 9"><a name="38047" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38047] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 4 arg. 9</span></a> Praeterea,
8873 consecratio exterior interiorem sanctitatem significat, cuius
8874 subiectum est anima. Inconvenienter igitur tabernaculum et eius
8875 vasa consecrabantur, cum essent quaedam corpora inanimata.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A4-p11">
8876 <b>Objection 10:</b> Further, it is written (
8877 <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
8878 for the praise of God. Therefore it was not fitting that certain days should be fixed for keeping solemn festivals; so that
8879 it seems that there was no suitable cause for the ceremonies relating to holy things.
8880 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 4 arg. 10"><a name="38048" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38048] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 4 arg. 10</span></a>
8881 Praeterea, in Psalmo XXXIII dicitur, <i>benedicam dominum in omni
8882 tempore, semper laus eius in ore meo</i>. Sed solemnitates
8883 instituuntur ad laudandum Deum. Non ergo fuit conveniens ut aliqui
8884 certi dies statuerentur ad solemnitates peragendas. Sic igitur
8885 videtur quod caeremoniae sacrorum convenientes causas non
8886 haberent.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A4-p12">
8887 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
8888 <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
8889 to Moses, when he was to finish the tabernacle: See, says He, that thou make all things according to the pattern which was
8890 shown thee on the mount." But that is most reasonable, which presents a likeness to heavenly things. Therefore the ceremonies
8891 relating to holy things had a
8892 reasonable cause.
8893 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 4 s. c."><a name="38049" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38049] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 4 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
8894 est quod apostolus dicit, ad Heb. VIII, quod <i>illi qui offerunt
8895 secundum legem munera, exemplari et umbrae deserviunt caelestium,
8896 sicut responsum est Moysi, cum consummaret tabernaculum, vide,
8897 inquit, omnia facito secundum exemplar quod tibi in monte
8898 monstratum est</i>. Sed valde rationabile est quod imaginem
8899 caelestium repraesentat. Ergo caeremoniae sacrorum rationabilem
8900 causam habebant.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q102_A4-p13">
8901 <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
8902 those things which are common, and indistinct from other things; whereas he admires and reveres those things which are distinct
8903 from others in some point of excellence. Hence too it is customary among men for kings and princes, who ought to be reverenced
8904 by their subjects, to be clothed in more precious garments, and to possess vaster
8905 and more beautiful abodes. And for this reason it behooved special times, a special abode, special vessels, and special ministers
8906 to be appointed for the divine worship, so that thereby the soul of man might be brought to greater reverence for God.
8907 </p><p id="FS_Q102_A4-p14"> In like manner the state of the Old Law, as observed above
8908 <a href="#FS_Q102_A2" id="FS_Q102_A4-p14.1" shape="rect">(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
8909 something should be determinate, so that it may present some likeness thereto. Consequently, certain special points had to
8910 be observed in matters pertaining to the worship of God.
8911 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 4 co."><a name="38050" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38050] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 4 co.</span></a> Respondeo
8912 dicendum quod totus exterior cultus Dei ad hoc praecipue ordinatur
8913 ut homines Deum in reverentia habeant. Habet autem hoc humanus
8914 affectus, ut ea quae communia sunt, et non distincta ab aliis,
8915 minus revereatur; ea vero quae habent aliquam excellentiae
8916 discretionem ab aliis, magis admiretur et revereatur. Et inde etiam
8917 hominum consuetudo inolevit ut reges et principes, quos oportet in
8918 reverentia haberi a subditis, et pretiosioribus vestibus ornentur,
8919 et etiam ampliores et pulchriores habitationes possideant. Et
8920 propter hoc oportuit ut aliqua specialia tempora, et speciale
8921 habitaculum, et specialia vasa, et speciales ministri ad cultum Dei
8922 ordinarentur, ut per hoc animi hominum ad maiorem Dei reverentiam
8923 adducerentur. Similiter etiam status veteris legis, sicut dictum
8924 est, institutus erat ad figurandum mysterium Christi. Oportet autem
8925 esse aliquid determinatum id per quod aliud figurari debet, ut
8926 scilicet eius aliquam similitudinem repraesentet. Et ideo etiam
8927 oportuit aliqua specialia observari in his quae pertinent ad cultum
8928 Dei.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q102_A4-p15">
8929 <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,
8930 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,
8931 who worship Him, are corporeal beings: and for their sake there was need for a special tabernacle or temple to be set up for
8932 the worship of God, for two reasons. First, that through coming together
8933 with the thought that the place was set aside for the worship of God, they might approach thither with greater reverence.
8934 Secondly, that certain things relating to the excellence of Christ's Divine or human nature might be signified by the arrangement
8935 of various details in such temple or tabernacle.
8936 </p><p id="FS_Q102_A4-p16"> To this Solomon refers (
8937 <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
8938 Thee? And further on (
8939 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p16.2" href="./asv.html#." target="asv">3 Kings 8:29</a>,
8940 <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
8941 mayest hearken to the supplication of Thy servant and of Thy people Israel." From this it is evident that the house of
8942 the sanctuary was set up, not in order to contain God, as abiding therein locally, but that God might be made known there
8943 by means of things done and said there; and that those who prayed there might, through reverence for the place, pray more
8944 devoutly, so as to be heard more readily.
8945 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 4 ad 1"><a name="38051" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38051] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 4 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
8946 ergo dicendum quod cultus Dei duo respicit, scilicet Deum, qui
8947 colitur; et homines colentes. Ipse igitur Deus, qui colitur, nullo
8948 corporali loco clauditur, unde propter ipsum non oportuit
8949 tabernaculum fieri, aut templum. Sed homines ipsum colentes
8950 corporales sunt, et propter eos oportuit speciale tabernaculum, vel
8951 templum, institui ad cultum Dei, propter duo. Primo quidem, ut ad
8952 huiusmodi locum convenientes cum hac cogitatione quod deputaretur
8953 ad colendum Deum, cum maiori reverentia accederent. Secundo, ut per
8954 dispositionem talis templi, vel tabernaculi, significarentur aliqua
8955 pertinentia ad excellentiam divinitatis vel humanitatis Christi. Et
8956 hoc est quod Salomon dicit, III Reg. VIII, <i>si caelum et caeli
8957 caelorum te capere non possunt, quanto magis domus haec, quam
8958 aedificavi tibi? Et</i> postea subdit, <i>sint oculi tui aperti
8959 super domum hanc, de qua dixisti, erit nomen meum ibi; ut exaudias
8960 deprecationem servi tui et populi tui Israel</i>. Ex quo patet quod
8961 domus sanctuarii non est instituta ad hoc quod Deum capiat, quasi
8962 localiter inhabitantem; sed ad hoc quod nomen Dei habitet ibi,
8963 idest ut notitia Dei ibi manifestetur per aliqua quae ibi fiebant
8964 vel dicebantur; et quod, propter reverentiam loci, orationes
8965 fierent ibi magis exaudibiles ex devotione orantium.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q102_A4-p17">
8966 <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
8967 in Christ alone: but it was changed as regards the condition of the people that were under the Law. Because, at first, the
8968 people were in the desert, having no fixed abode: afterwards they were engaged in various wars with the neighboring nations;
8969 and lastly, at the time of David and Solomon, the state of that people was one
8970 of great peace. And then for the first time the temple was built in the place which Abraham, instructed by God, had chosen
8971 for the purpose of sacrifice. For it is written (
8972 <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
8973 it is related further on (
8974 <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
8975 were chosen for the worship of God. Hence it is written (
8976 <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."
8977 </p><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
8978 assigned by Rabbi Moses. First, lest the Gentiles might seize hold of that place. Secondly, lest the Gentiles might destroy
8979 it. The third reason is lest each tribe might wish that place to fall to their lot, and strifes and quarrels be the result.
8980 Hence the temple was not built until they had a king who would be able to quell such quarrels. Until that
8981 time a portable tabernacle was employed for divine worship, no place being as yet fixed for the worship of God. This is the
8982 literal reason for the distinction between the tabernacle and the temple.
8983 </p><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,
8984 signifies the state of the present changeable life: whereas the temple, which was fixed and stable, signifies the state of
8985 future life which is altogether unchangeable. For this reason it is said that in the building of the temple no sound was heard
8986 of hammer or saw, to signify that all movements of disturbance will be far removed from the future state.
8987 Or else the tabernacle signifies the state of the Old Law; while the temple built by Solomon betokens the state of the New
8988 Law. Hence the Jews alone worked at the building of the tabernacle; whereas the temple was built with the cooperation of the
8989 Gentiles, viz. the Tyrians and Sidonians.
8990 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 4 ad 2"><a name="38052" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38052] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 4 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
8991 dicendum quod status veteris legis non fuit immutatus ante Christum
8992 quantum ad impletionem legis, quae facta est solum per Christum,
8993 est tamen immutatus quantum ad conditionem populi qui erat sub
8994 lege. Nam primo populus fuit in deserto, non habens certam
8995 mansionem; postmodum autem habuerunt varia bella cum finitimis
8996 gentibus; ultimo autem, tempore David et Salomonis, populus ille
8997 habuit quietissimum statum. Et tunc primo aedificatum fuit templum,
8998 in loco quem designaverat Abraham, ex divina demonstratione, ad
8999 immolandum. Dicitur enim Gen. XXII, quod dominus mandavit Abrahae
9000 ut offerret filium suum <i>in holocaustum super unum montium quem
9001 monstravero tibi</i>. Et postea dicit quod appellavit nomen illius
9002 loci, <i>dominus videt</i>, quasi secundum Dei praevisionem esset
9003 locus ille electus ad cultum divinum. Propter quod dicitur Deut.
9004 XII, <i>ad locum quem elegerit dominus Deus vester, venietis, et
9005 offeretis holocausta et victimas vestras</i>. Locus autem ille
9006 designari non debuit per aedificationem templi ante tempus
9007 praedictum, propter tres rationes, quas Rabbi Moyses assignat.
9008 Prima est ne gentes appropriarent sibi locum illum. Secunda est ne
9009 gentes ipsum destruerent. Tertia vero ratio est ne quaelibet tribus
9010 vellet habere locum illum in sorte sua, et propter hoc orirentur
9011 lites et iurgia. Et ideo non fuit aedificatum templum donec
9012 haberent regem, per quem posset huiusmodi iurgium compesci. Antea
9013 vero ad cultum Dei erat ordinatum tabernaculum portatile per
9014 diversa loca, quasi nondum existente determinato loco divini
9015 cultus. Et haec est ratio litteralis diversitatis tabernaculi et
9016 templi. Ratio autem figuralis esse potest quia per haec duo
9017 significatur duplex status. Per tabernaculum enim, quod est
9018 mutabile, significatur status praesentis vitae mutabilis. Per
9019 templum vero, quod erat fixum et stans, significatur status futurae
9020 vitae, quae omnino invariabilis est. Et propter hoc in
9021 aedificatione templi dicitur quod non est auditus sonitus mallei
9022 vel securis, ad significandum quod omnis perturbationis tumultus
9023 longe erit a statu futuro. Vel per tabernaculum significatur status
9024 veteris legis, per templum autem a Salomone constructum, status
9025 novae legis. Unde ad constructionem tabernaculi soli Iudaei sunt
9026 operati, ad aedificationem vero templi cooperati sunt etiam
9027 gentiles, scilicet Tyrii et Sidonii.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q102_A4-p20">
9028 <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
9029 of idolatry. For the Gentiles put up various times to various gods: and so, to strengthen in the minds of men their belief
9030 in the unity of the Godhead, God wished sacrifices to be offered to Him in one place only. Another reason was in order to
9031 show that bodily worship is not acceptable of itself: and so they restrained from
9032 offering sacrifices anywhere and everywhere. But the worship of the New Law, in the sacrifice whereof spiritual grace is contained,
9033 is of itself acceptable to God; and consequently the multiplication of altars and temples is permitted in the New Law.
9034 </p><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
9035 were, even under the Old Law, various places, called synagogues, appointed for the people to gather together for the praise
9036 of God; just as now there are places called churches in which the Christian people gather together for the divine worship.
9037 Thus our church takes the place of both temple and synagogue: since the very sacrifice of the Church is
9038 spiritual; wherefore with us the place of sacrifice is not distinct from the place of teaching. The figurative reason may
9039 be that hereby is signified the unity of the Church, whether militant or triumphant.
9040 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 4 ad 3"><a name="38053" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38053] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 4 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
9041 dicendum quod ratio unitatis templi, vel tabernaculi, potest esse
9042 et litteralis, et figuralis. Litteralis quidem est ratio ad
9043 exclusionem idololatriae. Quia gentiles diversis diis diversa
9044 templa constituebant, et ideo, ut firmaretur in animis hominum
9045 fides unitatis divinae, voluit Deus ut in uno loco tantum sibi
9046 sacrificium offerretur. Et iterum ut per hoc ostenderet quod
9047 corporalis cultus non propter se erat ei acceptus. Et ideo
9048 compescebantur ne passim et ubique sacrificia offerrent. Sed cultus
9049 novae legis, in cuius sacrificio spiritualis gratia continetur, est
9050 secundum se Deo acceptus. Et ideo multiplicatio altarium et
9051 templorum acceptatur in nova lege. Quantum vero ad ea quae
9052 pertinebant ad spiritualem cultum Dei, qui consistit in doctrina
9053 legis et prophetarum, erant etiam in veteri lege diversa loca
9054 deputata in quibus conveniebant ad laudem Dei, quae dicebantur
9055 synagogae, sicut et nunc dicuntur Ecclesiae, in quibus populus
9056 Christianus ad laudem Dei congregatur. Et sic Ecclesia nostra
9057 succedit in locum et templi et synagogae, quia ipsum sacrificium
9058 Ecclesiae spirituale est; unde non distinguitur apud nos locus
9059 sacrificii a loco doctrinae. Ratio autem figuralis esse potest quia
9060 per hoc significatur unitas Ecclesiae, vel militantis vel
9061 triumphantis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q102_A4-p22">
9062 <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
9063 of the tabernacle or temple signified the distinction of those things that are subject to God, and from which we arise to
9064 the worship of God. Now the tabernacle was divided into two parts: one was called the "Holy of Holies," and was placed to
9065 the west; the other was called the "Holy Place" [*Or 'Sanctuary'. The Douay version uses
9066 both expressions], which was situated to the east. Moreover there was a court facing the tabernacle. Accordingly there are
9067 two reasons for this distinction. One is in respect of the tabernacle being ordained to the worship of God. Because the different
9068 parts of the world are thus betokened by the division of the tabernacle. For that part which was called the Holy of Holies
9069 signified the higher world, which is that of spiritual substances: while that part which is called the Holy Place signified
9070 the corporeal world. Hence the Holy Place was separated from the Holy of Holies by a veil, which was of four different colors
9071 (denoting the four elements), viz. of linen, signifying earth, because linen, i.e. flax, grows out of the earth; purple, signifying
9072 water, because the purple tint was made from certain shells found in the sea; violet, signifying air, because it has the color
9073 of the air; and scarlet twice dyed, signifying fire: and this because matter composed of the four elements is a
9074 veil between us and incorporeal substances. Hence the high-priest alone, and that once a year, entered into the inner tabernacle,
9075 i.e. the Holy of Holies: whereby we are taught that man's final perfection consists in his entering into that (higher) world:
9076 whereas into the outward tabernacle, i.e. the Holy Place, the priests entered every day: whereas the people were only admitted
9077 to the court; because the people were able to perceived material things, the inner nature of which only wise men by
9078 dint of study are able to discover.
9079 </p><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
9080 Old Law, as the Apostle says (
9081 <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
9082 tabernacle, which was called the Holy of Holies, signified either the glory of heaven or the spiritual state of the New Law
9083 to come. To the latter state Christ brought us; and this
9084 was signified by the high-priest entering alone, once a year, into the Holy of Holies. The veil betokened the concealing of
9085 the spiritual sacrifices under the sacrifices of old. This veil was adorned with four colors: viz. that of linen, to designate
9086 purity of the flesh; purple, to denote the sufferings which the saints underwent for God; scarlet twice dyed, signifying the
9087 twofold love of God and our neighbor; and violet, in token of heavenly contemplation. With regard to the state of the Old
9088 Law the people and the priests were situated differently from one another. For the people saw the mere corporeal sacrifices
9089 which were offered in the court: whereas the priests were intent on the inner meaning of the sacrifices, because their faith
9090 in the mysteries of Christ was more explicit. Hence they entered into the outer tabernacle. This outer tabernacle was divided
9091 from the court by a veil; because some matters relating to the mystery of Christ were hidden from the people, while they
9092 were known to the priests: though they were not fully revealed to them, as they were subsequently in the New Testament (cf.
9093 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p23.2" href="./asv.html#Eph.3.5" target="asv"> Eph. 3:5</a>).
9094 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 4 ad 4"><a name="38054" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38054] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 4 ad 4</span></a> Ad quartum
9095 dicendum quod, sicut in unitate templi, vel tabernaculi,
9096 repraesentabatur unitas Dei, vel unitas Ecclesiae; ita etiam in
9097 distinctione tabernaculi, vel templi, repraesentabatur distinctio
9098 eorum quae Deo sunt subiecta, ex quibus in Dei venerationem
9099 consurgimus. Distinguebatur autem tabernaculum in duas partes, in
9100 unam quae vocabatur sancta sanctorum, quae erat Occidentalis; et
9101 aliam quae vocabatur sancta, quae erat ad orientem. Et iterum ante
9102 tabernaculum erat atrium. Haec igitur distinctio duplicem habet
9103 rationem. Unam quidem, secundum quod tabernaculum ordinatur ad
9104 cultum Dei. Sic enim diversae partes mundi in distinctione
9105 tabernaculi figurantur. Nam pars illa quae sancta sanctorum
9106 dicitur, figurabat saeculum altius, quod est spiritualium
9107 substantiarum, pars vero illa quae dicitur sancta, exprimebat
9108 mundum corporalem. Et ideo sancta a sanctis sanctorum
9109 distinguebantur quodam velo, quod quatuor coloribus erat
9110 distinctum, per quos quatuor elementa designantur, scilicet bysso,
9111 per quod designatur terra, quia byssus, idest linum, de terra
9112 nascitur; purpura, per quam significatur aqua, fiebat enim
9113 purpureus color ex quibusdam conchis quae inveniuntur in mari;
9114 hyacintho, per quem significatur aer, quia habet aereum colorem; et
9115 cocco bis tincto, per quem designatur ignis. Et hoc ideo quia
9116 materia quatuor elementorum est impedimentum per quod velantur
9117 nobis incorporales substantiae. Et ideo in interius tabernaculum,
9118 idest in sancta sanctorum, solus summus sacerdos, et semel in anno,
9119 introibat, ut designaretur quod haec est finalis perfectio hominis,
9120 ut ad illud saeculum introducatur. In tabernaculum vero exterius,
9121 idest in sancta, introibant sacerdotes quotidie, non autem populus,
9122 qui solum ad atrium accedebat, quia ipsa corpora populus percipere
9123 potest; ad interiores autem eorum rationes soli sapientes per
9124 considerationem attingere possunt. Secundum vero rationem
9125 figuralem, per exterius tabernaculum, quod dicitur sancta,
9126 significatur status veteris legis, ut apostolus dicit, ad Heb. IX,
9127 quia ad illud tabernaculum <i>semper introibant sacerdotes
9128 sacrificiorum officia consummantes</i>. Per interius vero
9129 tabernaculum, quod dicitur sancta sanctorum, significatur vel
9130 caelestis gloria, vel etiam status spiritualis novae legis, qui est
9131 quaedam inchoatio futurae gloriae. In quem statum nos Christus
9132 introduxit, quod figurabatur per hoc quod summus sacerdos, semel in
9133 anno, solus in sancta sanctorum intrabat. Velum autem figurabat
9134 spiritualium occultationem sacrificiorum in veteribus sacrificiis.
9135 Quod velum quatuor coloribus erat ornatum, bysso quidem, ad
9136 designandam carnis puritatem; purpura autem, ad figurandum
9137 passiones quas sancti sustinuerunt pro Deo; cocco bis tincto, ad
9138 significandum caritatem geminam Dei et proximi; hyacintho autem
9139 significabatur caelestis meditatio. Ad statum autem veteris legis
9140 aliter se habebat populus, et aliter sacerdotes. Nam populus ipsa
9141 corporalia sacrificia considerabat, quae in atrio offerebantur.
9142 Sacerdotes vero rationem sacrificiorum considerabant, habentes
9143 fidem magis explicitam de mysteriis Christi. Et ideo intrabant in
9144 exterius tabernaculum. Quod etiam quodam velo distinguebatur ab
9145 atrio, quia quaedam erant velata populo circa mysterium Christi,
9146 quae sacerdotibus erant nota. Non tamen erant eis plene revelata,
9147 sicut postea in novo testamento, ut habetur Ephes. III.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A4-p24">
9148 <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
9149 the sun, worshipped towards the east; hence it is written (
9150 <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
9151 rising of the sun." Accordingly, in order to prevent this, the tabernacle had the Holy of Holies to westward, that
9152 they might adore toward the west. A figurative reason may also be found in the fact that the whole state of the first tabernacle
9153 was ordained to foreshadow the death of Christ, which is signified by the west, according to
9154 <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."
9155 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 4 ad 5"><a name="38055" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38055] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 4 ad 5</span></a> Ad quintum
9156 dicendum quod adoratio ad occidentem fuit introducta in lege ad
9157 excludendam idololatriam, nam omnes gentiles, in reverentiam solis,
9158 adorabant ad orientem; unde dicitur Ezech. VIII, quod <i>quidam
9159 habebant dorsa contra templum domini et facies ad orientem, et
9160 adorabant ad ortum solis</i>. Unde ad hoc excludendum, tabernaculum
9161 habebat sancta sanctorum ad occidentem, ut versus occidentem
9162 adorarent. Ratio etiam figuralis esse potest quia totus status
9163 prioris tabernaculi ordinabatur ad figurandum mortem Christi, quae
9164 significatur per occasum; secundum illud Psalmi LXVII, <i>qui
9165 ascendit super occasum, dominus nomen illi</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q102_A4-p25">
9166 <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
9167 connection with the divine worship. And because, as already observed (ad 4), the inner tabernacle, called the Holy of Holies,
9168 signified the higher world of spiritual substances, hence that tabernacle contained three things, viz. "the ark of the testament
9169 in which was a golden pot that had manna, and the rod of Aaron that had
9170 blossomed, and the tables" (
9171 <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
9172 the other: and over the ark was a table, called the "propitiatory," raised above the wings of the cherubim, as though it were
9173 held up by them; and appearing, to the imagination, to be the very seat of God. For this reason it was called the "propitiatory,"
9174 as though the people received propitiation thence at the prayers
9175 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
9176 the testament was like the foot-stool to Him that sat on the propitiatory. These three things denote three things in that
9177 higher world: namely, God Who is above all, and incomprehensible to any creature. Hence no likeness of Him was set up; to
9178 denote His invisibility. But there was something to represent his seat; since, to wit, the creature, which is beneath God,
9179 as the
9180 seat under the sitter, is comprehensible. Again in that higher world there are spiritual substances called angels. These are
9181 signified by the two cherubim, looking one towards the other, to show that they are at peace with one another, according to
9182 <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
9183 of heavenly spirits, and to prevent their receiving worship from those who had been commanded to
9184 worship but one God. Moreover there are, enclosed as it were in that spiritual world, the intelligible types of whatsoever
9185 takes place in this world, just as in every cause are enclosed the types of its effects, and in the craftsman the types of
9186 the works of his craft. This was betokened by the ark, which represented, by means of the three things it contained, the three
9187 things of greatest import in human affairs. These are wisdom, signified by the tables of the testament; the power of
9188 governing, betokened by the rod of Aaron; and life, betokened by the manna which was the means of sustenance. Or else these
9189 three things signified the three Divine attributes, viz. wisdom, in the tables; power, in the rod; goodness, in the manna---both
9190 by reason of its sweetness, and because it was through the goodness of God that it was granted to man, wherefore it was preserved
9191 as a memorial of the Divine mercy. Again, these three things were represented in Isaias' vision. For he "saw the
9192 Lord sitting upon a throne high and elevated"; and the seraphim standing by; and that the house was filled with the glory
9193 of the Lord; wherefrom the seraphim cried out: "All the earth is full of His glory" (
9194 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p25.3" href="./asv.html#Isa.6.1" target="asv">Is. 6:1</a>,
9195 <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
9196 as a sign of their function, as stated above.
9197 </p><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
9198 directly opposite the ark; the "table of proposition," with the twelve loaves of proposition on it, which stood on the northern
9199 side; and the "candlestick," which was placed towards the south. These three things seem to correspond to the three which
9200 were enclosed in the ark; and they represented the same things as the latter, but more clearly: because, in
9201 order that wise men, denoted by the priests entering the temple, might grasp the meaning of these types, it was necessary
9202 to express them more manifestly than they are in the Divine or angelic mind. Accordingly the candlestick betokened, as a sensible
9203 sign thereof, the wisdom which was expressed on the tables (of the Law) in intelligible words. The altar of incense signified
9204 the office of the priest, whose duty it was to bring the people to God: and this was signified also by the rod: because
9205 on that altar the sweet-smelling incense was burnt, signifying the holiness of the people acceptable to God: for it is written
9206 (
9207 <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.
9208 <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
9209 tabernacle, by the altar of incense: because the priest is the mediator between God and the
9210 people, governing the people by Divine power, denoted by the rod; and offering to God the fruit of His government, i.e. the
9211 holiness of the people, on the altar of incense, so to speak. The table signified the sustenance of life, just as the manna
9212 did: but the former, a more general and a coarser kind of nourishment; the latter, a sweeter and more delicate. Again, the
9213 candlestick was fittingly placed on the southern side, while the table was placed to the north: because the south is the
9214 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
9215 spiritual goods, belongs to the right hand, while temporal nourishment belongs on the left, according to
9216 <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;
9217 because thereby both spiritual wisdom and temporal goods are dispensed.
9218 </p><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
9219 of the Law, wherefore it is written (
9220 <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"
9221 to the children of Israel. The rod of Aaron was placed there to restrain the people from insubordination to the priesthood
9222 of Aaron; wherefore it is written
9223 (
9224 <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
9225 children of Israel." The manna was kept in the ark to remind them of the benefit conferred by God on the children of Israel
9226 in the desert; wherefore it is written (
9227 <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
9228 you in the wilderness."
9229 The candlestick was set up to enhance the beauty of the temple, for the magnificence of a house depends on its being well
9230 lighted. Now the candlestick had seven branches, as Josephus observes (Antiquit. iii, 7,8), to signify the seven planets,
9231 wherewith the whole world is illuminated. Hence the candlestick was placed towards the south; because for us the course of
9232 the planets is from that quarter. The altar of incense was instituted that there might always be in the tabernacle a sweet-smelling
9233 smoke; both through respect for the tabernacle, and as a remedy for the stenches arising from the shedding of blood and the
9234 slaying of animals. For men despise evil-smelling things as being vile, whereas sweet-smelling things are much appreciated.
9235 The table was place there to signify that the priests who served the temple should take their food in the temple: wherefore,
9236 as stated in
9237 <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
9238 the table in memory of the twelve tribes. And the table was not placed in the middle directly in front of the propitiatory,
9239 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
9240 the moon, wherefore it is written (
9241 <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."
9242 </p><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
9243 were offered to God: and consequently the people who offered these sacrifices to God by the hands of the priest could be present
9244 in the court. But the priests alone, whose function it was to offer the people to God, could approach the inner altar, whereon
9245 the very devotion and holiness of the people was offered to God. And this altar was put up outside
9246 the tabernacle and in the court, to the exclusion of idolatrous worship: for the Gentiles placed altars inside the temples
9247 to offer up sacrifices thereon to idols.
9248 </p><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
9249 therein. Now it must be observed that to show the imperfection of the figures of the Law, various figures were instituted
9250 in the temple to betoken Christ. For He was foreshadowed by the "propitiatory," since He is "a propitiation for our sins"
9251 (
9252 <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
9253 (
9254 <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,
9255 so was Christ's body composed of most pure members. More over it was gilded: for Christ was full of wisdom and charity, which
9256 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"
9257 (
9258 <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:
9259 for "He was made a . . . priest for ever" (
9260 <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
9261 by the candlestick, for He said Himself (
9262 <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
9263 the table, because He is our spiritual food, according to
9264 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p29.6" href="./asv.html#John.6.41" target="asv">Jn. 6:41</a>,
9265 <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
9266 loaves signified the twelve apostles, or their teaching. Or again, the candlestick and table may signify the Church's teaching,
9267 and faith, which also enlightens and refreshes. Again, Christ is signified by the two altars of holocausts and incense. Because
9268 all works of virtue must be offered to us to God through Him; both those whereby we afflict the body, which are offered, as
9269 it were, on the altar of holocausts; and those which, with greater perfection of mind, are offered to God in Christ, by
9270 the spiritual desires of the perfect, on the altar of incense, as it were, according to
9271 <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."
9272 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 4 ad 6"><a name="38056" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38056] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 4 ad 6</span></a> Ad sextum
9273 dicendum quod eorum quae in tabernaculo continebantur, ratio reddi
9274 potest et litteralis et figuralis. Litteralis quidem, per
9275 relationem ad cultum divinum. Et quia dictum est quod per
9276 tabernaculum interius, quod dicebatur sancta sanctorum,
9277 significabatur saeculum altius spiritualium substantiarum, ideo in
9278 illo tabernaculo tria continebantur. Scilicet arca testamenti, in
9279 qua erat urna aurea habens manna, et virga Aaron quae fronduerat,
9280 et tabulae in quibus erant scripta decem praecepta legis. Haec
9281 autem arca sita erat inter duos Cherubim, qui se mutuis vultibus
9282 respiciebant. Et super arcam erat quaedam tabula, quae dicebatur
9283 propitiatorium, super alas Cherubim, quasi ab ipsis Cherubim
9284 portaretur, ac si imaginaretur quod illa tabula esset sedes Dei.
9285 Unde et propitiatorium dicebatur, quasi exinde populo
9286 propitiaretur, ad preces summi sacerdotis. Et ideo quasi portabatur
9287 a Cherubim, quasi Deo obsequentibus, arca vero testamenti erat
9288 quasi scabellum sedentis supra propitiatorium. Per haec autem tria
9289 designantur tria quae sunt in illo altiori saeculo. Scilicet Deus,
9290 qui super omnia est, et incomprehensibilis omni creaturae. Et
9291 propter hoc nulla similitudo eius ponebatur, ad repraesentandam
9292 eius invisibilitatem. Sed ponebatur quaedam figura sedis eius, quia
9293 scilicet creatura comprehensibilis est, quae est subiecta Deo,
9294 sicut sedes sedenti. Sunt etiam in illo altiori saeculo spirituales
9295 substantiae, quae Angeli dicuntur. Et hi significantur per duos
9296 Cherubim; mutuo se respicientes, ad designandam concordiam eorum ad
9297 invicem, secundum illud Iob XXV, qui facit concordiam in
9298 sublimibus. Et propter hoc etiam non fuit unus tantum Cherubim, ut
9299 designaretur multitudo caelestium spirituum, et excluderetur cultus
9300 eorum ab his quibus praeceptum erat ut solum unum Deum colerent.
9301 Sunt etiam in illo intelligibili saeculo rationes omnium eorum quae
9302 in hoc saeculo perficiuntur quodammodo clausae, sicut rationes
9303 effectuum clauduntur in suis causis, et rationes artificiatorum in
9304 artifice. Et hoc significabatur per arcam, in qua
9305 repraesentabantur, per tria ibi contenta, tria quae sunt potissima
9306 in rebus humanis, scilicet sapientia, quae repraesentabatur per
9307 tabulas testamenti; potestas regiminis, quae repraesentabatur per
9308 virgam Aaron; vita, quae repraesentabatur per manna, quod fuit
9309 sustentamentum vitae. Vel per haec tria significabantur tria Dei
9310 attributa, scilicet sapientia, in tabulis; potentia, in virga;
9311 bonitas, in manna, tum propter dulcedinem, tum quia ex Dei
9312 misericordia est populo datum, et ideo in memoriam divinae
9313 misericordiae conservabatur. Et haec tria etiam figurata sunt in
9314 visione Isaiae. Vidit enim dominum sedentem super solium excelsum
9315 et elevatum; et Seraphim assistentes; et domum impleri a gloria
9316 Dei. Unde et Seraphim dicebant, plena est omnis terra gloria eius.
9317 Et sic similitudines Seraphim non ponebantur ad cultum, quod
9318 prohibebatur primo legis praecepto, sed in signum ministerii, ut
9319 dictum est. In exteriori vero tabernaculo, quod significat praesens
9320 saeculum, continebantur etiam tria, scilicet altare thymiamatis,
9321 quod erat directe contra arcam; mensa propositionis, super quam
9322 duodecim panes apponebantur, erat posita ex parte aquilonari;
9323 candelabrum vero ex parte Australi. Quae tria videntur respondere
9324 tribus quae erant in arca clausa, sed magis manifeste eadem
9325 repraesentabant, oportet enim rationes rerum ad manifestiorem
9326 demonstrationem perduci quam sint in mente divina et Angelorum, ad
9327 hoc quod homines sapientes eas cognoscere possint qui significantur
9328 per sacerdotes ingredientes tabernaculum. In candelabro igitur
9329 designabatur, sicut in signo sensibili, sapientia quae
9330 intelligibilibus verbis exprimebatur in tabulis. Per altare vero
9331 thymiamatis significabatur officium sacerdotum, quorum erat populum
9332 ad Deum reducere, et hoc etiam significabatur per virgam. Nam in
9333 illo altari incedebatur thymiama boni odoris, per quod
9334 significabatur sanctitas populi acceptabilis Deo, dicitur enim
9335 Apoc. VIII, quod per fumum aromatum significantur iustificationes
9336 sanctorum. Convenienter autem sacerdotalis dignitas in arca
9337 significabatur per virgam, in exteriori vero tabernaculo per altare
9338 thymiamatis, quia sacerdos mediator est inter Deum et populum,
9339 regens populum per potestatem divinam, quam virga significat; et
9340 fructum sui regiminis, scilicet sanctitatem populi, Deo offert,
9341 quasi in altari thymiamatis. Per mensam autem significatur
9342 nutrimentum vitae, sicut et per manna. Sed hoc est communius et
9343 grossius nutrimentum, illud autem suavius et subtilius.
9344 Convenienter autem candelabrum ponebatur ex parte Australi, mensa
9345 autem ex parte aquilonari, quia Australis pars est dextera pars
9346 mundi, aquilonaris autem sinistra, ut dicitur in II de caelo et
9347 mundo; sapientia autem pertinet ad dextram, sicut et cetera
9348 spiritualia bona; temporale autem nutrimentum ad sinistram,
9349 secundum illud Prov. III, in sinistra illius divitiae et gloria.
9350 Potestas autem sacerdotalis media est inter temporalia et
9351 spiritualem sapientiam, quia per eam et spiritualis sapientia et
9352 temporalia dispensantur. Potest autem et horum alia ratio assignari
9353 magis litteralis. In arca enim continebantur tabulae legis, ad
9354 tollendam legis oblivionem, unde dicitur Exod. XXIV, <i>dabo tibi
9355 duas tabulas lapideas et legem ac mandata quae scripsi, ut doceas
9356 filios Israel</i>. Virga vero Aaron ponebatur ibi ad comprimendam
9357 dissensionem populi de sacerdotio Aaron, unde dicitur Num. XVII,
9358 <i>refer virgam Aaron in tabernaculum testimonii, ut servetur in
9359 signum rebellium filiorum Israel</i>. Manna autem conservabatur in
9360 arca, ad commemorandum beneficium quod dominus praestitit filiis
9361 Israel in deserto, unde dicitur Exod. XVI, <i>imple gomor ex eo, et
9362 custodiatur in futuras retro generationes, ut noverint panes de
9363 quibus alui vos in solitudine</i>. Candelabrum vero erat institutum
9364 ad honorificentiam tabernaculi, pertinet enim ad magnificentiam
9365 domus quod sit bene luminosa. Habebat autem candelabrum septem
9366 calamos, ut Iosephus dicit, ad significandum septem planetas,
9367 quibus totus mundus illuminatur. Et ideo ponebatur candelabrum ex
9368 parte Australi, quia ex illa parte est nobis planetarum cursus.
9369 Altare vero thymiamatis erat institutum ut iugiter in tabernaculo
9370 esset fumus boni odoris, tum propter venerationem tabernaculi; tum
9371 etiam in remedium fetoris quem oportebat accidere ex effusione
9372 sanguinis et occisione animalium. Ea enim quae sunt fetida,
9373 despiciuntur quasi vilia, quae vero sunt boni odoris, homines magis
9374 appretiant. Mensa autem apponebatur ad significandum quod
9375 sacerdotes templo servientes, in templo victum habere debebant,
9376 unde duodecim panes superpositos mensae, in memoriam duodecim
9377 tribuum, solis sacerdotibus edere licitum erat, ut habetur Matth.
9378 XII. Mensa autem non ponebatur directe in medio ante
9379 propitiatorium, ad excludendum ritum idololatriae, nam gentiles in
9380 sacris lunae proponebant mensam coram idolo lunae; unde dicitur
9381 Ierem. VII, <i>mulieres conspergunt adipem ut faciant placentas
9382 reginae caeli</i>. In atrio vero extra tabernaculum continebatur
9383 altare holocaustorum, in quo offerebantur Deo sacrificia de his
9384 quae erant a populo possessa. Et ideo in atrio poterat esse
9385 populus, qui huiusmodi Deo offerebat per manus sacerdotum. Sed ad
9386 altare interius, in quo ipsa devotio et sanctitas populi Deo
9387 offerebatur, non poterant accedere nisi sacerdotes, quorum erat Deo
9388 offerre populum. Est autem hoc altare extra tabernaculum in atrio
9389 constitutum, ad removendum cultum idololatriae, nam gentiles infra
9390 templa altaria constituebant ad immolandum idolis. Figuralis vero
9391 ratio omnium horum assignari potest ex relatione tabernaculi ad
9392 Christum, qui figurabatur. Est autem considerandum quod ad
9393 designandum imperfectionem legalium figurarum, diversae figurae
9394 fuerunt institutae in templo ad significandum Christum. Ipse enim
9395 significatur per propitiatorium, quia ipse est propitiatio pro
9396 peccatis nostris, ut dicitur I Ioan. II. Et convenienter hoc
9397 propitiatorium a Cherubim portatur, quia de eo scriptum est,
9398 adorent eum omnes Angeli Dei, ut habetur Heb. I. Ipse etiam
9399 significatur per arcam, quia sicut arca erat constructa de lignis
9400 setim, ita corpus Christi de membris purissimis constabat. Erat
9401 autem deaurata, quia Christus fuit plenus sapientia et caritate,
9402 quae per aurum significantur. Intra arcam autem erat urna aurea,
9403 idest sancta anima; habens manna, idest omnem plenitudinem
9404 divinitatis. Erat etiam in arca virga, idest potestas sacerdotalis,
9405 quia ipse est factus sacerdos in aeternum. Erant etiam ibi tabulae
9406 testamenti, ad designandum quod ipse Christus est legis dator. Ipse
9407 etiam Christus significatur per candelabrum, quia ipse dicit, ego
9408 sum lux mundi, per septem lucernas, septem dona spiritus sancti.
9409 Ipse est spiritualis cibus, secundum illud Ioan. VI, ego sum panis
9410 vivus, duodecim autem panes significant duodecim apostolos, vel
9411 doctrinam eorum. Sive per candelabrum et mensam potest significari
9412 doctrina et fides Ecclesiae, quae etiam illuminat et spiritualiter
9413 reficit. Ipse etiam Christus significatur per duplex altare
9414 holocaustorum et thymiamatis. Quia per ipsum oportet nos Deo
9415 offerre omnia virtutum opera, sive illa quibus carnem affligimus,
9416 quae offeruntur quasi in altari holocaustorum; sive illa quae,
9417 maiore mentis perfectione, per spiritualia perfectorum desideria,
9418 Deo offeruntur in Christo, quasi in altari thymiamatis, secundum
9419 illud ad Heb. ult., <i>per ipsum ergo offeramus hostiam laudis
9420 semper Deo</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q102_A4-p30">
9421 <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
9422 ministers who served the tabernacle. Now concerning the construction of the altar the Lord issued a twofold precept. One was
9423 at the beginning of the Law (
9424 <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
9425 the altar high, so as
9426 to make it necessary to "go up" to it "by steps." This was in detestation of idolatrous worship: for the Gentiles made their
9427 altars ornate and high, thinking that there was something holy and divine in such things. For this reason, too, the Lord commanded
9428 (
9429 <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
9430 beneath trees, on account of the pleasantness and shade afforded by them. There was
9431 also a figurative reason for these precepts. Because we must confess that in Christ, Who is our altar, there is the true nature
9432 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
9433 His equality with the Father---and this is "not to go up" to the altar by steps. Moreover we should not couple the doctrine
9434 of Christ to that of the Gentiles, which provokes men to lewdness.
9435 </p><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
9436 of idolatry. Wherefore the Lord commanded the altar of holocausts to be made of brass, and to be conspicuous to all the people;
9437 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
9438 for idolatry.
9439 </p><p id="FS_Q102_A4-p32"> Since, however, the reason for the precept, "Thou shalt not go up by steps unto My altar" (
9440 <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
9441 of preventing idolatry, for in the feasts of Priapus the Gentiles uncovered their nakedness before the people. But later on
9442 the priests were prescribed the use of loin-cloths for the sake of decency: so that without any danger the
9443 altar could be placed so high that the priests when offering sacrifices would go up by steps of wood, not fixed but movable.
9444 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 4 ad 7"><a name="38057" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38057] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 4 ad 7</span></a> Ad septimum
9445 dicendum quod dominus praecepit altare construi ad sacrificia et
9446 munera offerenda, in honorem Dei et sustentationem ministrorum qui
9447 tabernaculo deserviebant. De constructione autem altaris datur a
9448 domino duplex praeceptum. Unum quidem in principio legis, Exod. XX,
9449 ubi dominus mandavit quod facerent altare de terra, vel saltem de
9450 lapidibus non sectis; et iterum quod non facerent altare excelsum,
9451 ad quod oporteret per gradus ascendere. Et hoc, ad detestandum
9452 idololatriae cultum, gentiles enim idolis construebant altaria
9453 ornata et sublimia, in quibus credebant aliquid sanctitatis et
9454 numinis esse. Propter quod etiam dominus mandavit, Deut. XVI,
9455 <i>non plantabis lucum, et omnem arborem, iuxta altare domini Dei
9456 tui</i>, idololatrae enim consueverunt sub arboribus sacrificare,
9457 propter amoenitatem et umbrositatem. Quorum etiam praeceptorum
9458 ratio figuralis fuit. Quia in Christo, qui est nostrum altare,
9459 debemus confiteri veram carnis naturam, quantum ad humanitatem,
9460 quod est altare de terra facere, et quantum ad divinitatem, debemus
9461 in eo confiteri patris aequalitatem, quod est non ascendere per
9462 gradus ad altare. Nec etiam iuxta Christum debemus admittere
9463 doctrinam gentilium, ad lasciviam provocantem. Sed facto
9464 tabernaculo ad honorem Dei, non erant timendae huiusmodi occasiones
9465 idololatriae. Et ideo dominus mandavit quod fieret altare
9466 holocaustorum de aere, quod esset omni populo conspicuum; et altare
9467 thymiamatis de auro, quod soli sacerdotes videbant. Nec erat tanta
9468 pretiositas aeris ut per hoc populus ad aliquam idololatriam
9469 provocaretur. Sed quia Exod. XX ponitur pro ratione huius
9470 praecepti, <i>non ascendes per gradus ad altare meum</i>, id quod
9471 subditur, ne reveletur turpitudo tua; considerandum est quod hoc
9472 etiam fuit institutum ad excludendam idololatriam, nam in sacris
9473 Priapi sua pudenda gentiles populo denudabant. Postmodum autem
9474 indictus est sacerdotibus feminalium usus ad tegimen pudendorum. Et
9475 ideo sine periculo institui potuit tanta altaris altitudo ut per
9476 aliquos gradus ligneos, non stantes sed portatiles, in hora
9477 sacrificii, sacerdotes ad altare ascenderent sacrificia
9478 offerentes.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q102_A4-p33">
9479 <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,
9480 viz. twisted linen, violet, purple, and scarlet twice dyed. These curtains, however, covered the sides only of the tabernacle;
9481 and the roof of the tabernacle was covered with violet-colored skins; and over this there was another covering of rams' skins
9482 dyed red; and over this there was a third curtain made of goats' hair,
9483 which covered not only the roof of the tabernacle, but also reached to the ground and covered the boards of the tabernacle
9484 on the outside. The literal reason of these coverings taken altogether was the adornment and protection of the tabernacle,
9485 that it might be an object of respect. Taken singly, according to some, the curtains denoted the starry heaven, which is adorned
9486 with various stars; the curtain (of goats' skin) signified the waters which are above the firmament; the skins dyed red
9487 denoted the empyrean heaven, where the angels are; the violet skins, the heaven of the Blessed Trinity.
9488 </p><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
9489 Christ, who compose the Church. The boards were covered on the inner side by curtains of four colors: because the faithful
9490 are inwardly adorned with the four virtues: for "the twisted linen," as the gloss observes, "signifies the flesh refulgent
9491 with purity; violet signifies the mind desirous of heavenly things; purple denotes the flesh subject to passions;
9492 the twice dyed scarlet betokens the mind in the midst of the passions enlightened by the love of God and our neighbor." The
9493 coverings of the building designate prelates and doctors, who ought to be conspicuous for their heavenly manner of life, signified
9494 by the violet colored skins: and who should also be ready to suffer martyrdom, denoted by the skins dyed red; and austere
9495 of life and patient in adversity, betokened by the curtains of goats' hair, which were exposed to wind and rain, as the
9496 gloss observes.
9497 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 4 ad 8"><a name="38058" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38058] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 4 ad 8</span></a> Ad octavum
9498 dicendum quod corpus tabernaculi constabat ex quibusdam tabulis in
9499 longitudinem erectis, quae quidem interius tegebantur quibusdam
9500 cortinis ex quatuor coloribus variatis, scilicet de bysso retorta,
9501 et hyacintho, ac purpura, coccoque bis tincto. Sed huiusmodi
9502 cortinae tegebant solum latera tabernaculi, in tecto autem
9503 tabernaculi erat operimentum unum de pellibus hyacinthinis; et
9504 super hoc aliud de pellibus arietum rubricatis; et desuper tertium
9505 de quibusdam sagis cilicinis, quae non tantum operiebant tectum
9506 tabernaculi, sed etiam descendebant usque terram, et tegebant
9507 tabulas tabernaculi exterius. Horum autem operimentorum ratio
9508 litteralis in communi erat ornatus et protectio tabernaculi, ut in
9509 reverentia haberetur. In speciali vero, secundum quosdam, per
9510 cortinas designabatur caelum sydereum, quod est diversis stellis
9511 variatum; per saga, aquae quae sunt supra firmamentum; per pelles
9512 rubricatas, caelum Empyreum, in quo sunt Angeli; per pelles
9513 hyacinthinas, caelum sanctae Trinitatis. Figuralis autem ratio
9514 horum est quia per tabulas ex quibus construebatur tabernaculum,
9515 significantur Christi fideles, ex quibus construitur Ecclesia.
9516 Tegebantur autem interius tabulae cortinis quadricoloribus, quia
9517 fideles interius ornantur quatuor virtutibus; <i>nam in bysso
9518 retorta</i>, ut Glossa dicit, <i>significatur caro castitate
9519 renitens; in hyacintho, mens superna cupiens; in purpura, caro
9520 passionibus subiacens; in cocco bis tincto, mens inter passiones
9521 Dei et proximi dilectione praefulgens</i>. Per operimenta vero
9522 tecti designantur praelati et doctores, in quibus debet renitere
9523 caelestis conversatio, quod significatur per pelles hyacinthinas;
9524 promptitudo ad martyrium, quod significant pelles rubricatae;
9525 austeritas vitae et tolerantia adversorum, quae significantur per
9526 saga cilicina, quae erant exposita ventis et pluviis, ut Glossa
9527 dicit.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A4-p35">
9528 <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,
9529 being deputed, as it were, to the divine worship by this consecration. The figurative reason is that this sanctification signified
9530 the sanctification of the living tabernacle, i.e. the faithful of whom the Church of Christ is composed.
9531 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 4 ad 9"><a name="38059" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38059] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 4 ad 9</span></a> Ad nonum
9532 dicendum quod sanctificatio tabernaculi et vasorum eius habebat
9533 causam litteralem ut in maiori reverentia haberetur, quasi per
9534 huiusmodi consecrationem divino cultui deputatum. Figuralis autem
9535 ratio est quia per huiusmodi sanctificationem significatur
9536 spiritualis sanctificatio viventis tabernaculi, scilicet fidelium,
9537 ex quibus constituitur Ecclesia Christi.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q102_A4-p36">
9538 <b>Reply to Objection 10:</b> Under the Old Law there were seven temporal solemnities, and one continual solemnity, as may be gathered from
9539 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p36.1" href="./asv.html#Num.28" target="asv">Num. 28</a>,
9540 <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
9541 abiding sacrifice signified the perpetuity of Divine bliss. Of the temporal feasts the first was that which was repeated every
9542 week. This was the solemnity of the "Sabbath," celebrated in memory of the work of
9543 the creation of the universe. Another solemnity, viz. the "New Moon," was repeated every month, and was observed in memory
9544 of the work of the Divine government. For the things of this lower world owe their variety chiefly to the movement of the
9545 moon; wherefore this feast was kept at the new moon: and not at the full moon, to avoid the worship of idolaters who used
9546 to offer sacrifices to the moon at that particular time. And these two blessings are bestowed in common on the whole human
9547 race; and
9548 hence they were repeated more frequently.
9549 </p><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
9550 on that people. For there was the feast of the "Passover" in the first month to commemorate the blessing of being delivered
9551 out of Egypt. The feast of "Pentecost" was celebrated fifty days later, to recall the blessing of the giving of the Law. The
9552 other three feasts were kept in the seventh month, nearly the whole of which was solemnized by them, just as the
9553 seventh day. For on the first of the seventh month was the feast of "Trumpets," in memory of the delivery of Isaac, when Abraham
9554 found the ram caught by its horns, which they represented by the horns which they blew. The feast of Trumpets was a kind of
9555 invitation whereby they prepared themselves to keep the following feast which was kept on the tenth day. This was the feast
9556 of "Expiation," in memory of the blessing whereby, at the prayer of Moses, God forgave the people's sin of worshipping the
9557 calf. After this was the feast of "Scenopegia" or of "Tents," which was kept for seven days, to commemorate the blessing of
9558 being protected and led by God through the desert, where they lived in tents. Hence during this feast they had to take "the
9559 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
9560 thick trees'], i.e. the myrtle, which is fragrant, "and the branches of palm-trees, and willows of the brook," which retain
9561 their greenness a long time; and these are to be found in the Land of promise; to signify that God had brought them through
9562 the arid land of the wilderness to a land of delights. On the eighth day another feast was observed, of "Assembly and Congregation,"
9563 on which the people collected the expenses necessary for the divine worship: and it signified the uniting of the people and
9564 the peace granted to them in the Land of promise.
9565 </p><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,
9566 Who is the "Lamb of God," according to
9567 <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,
9568 as stated in
9569 <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
9570 and miracles. The
9571 feast of Pentecost signified the Descent of the Holy Ghost on the apostles. The feast of Trumpets signified the preaching
9572 of the apostles. The feast of Expiation signified the cleansing of the Christian people from sins: and the feast of Tabernacles
9573 signified their pilgrimage in this world, wherein they walk by advancing in virtue. The feast of Assembly or Congregation
9574 foreshadowed the assembly of the faithful in the kingdom of heaven: wherefore this feast is described as "most holy"
9575 (
9576 <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,
9577 until they come to see God, as stated in
9578 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A4-p38.4" href="./asv.html#Ps.83.8" target="asv"> Ps. 83:8.</a>
9579 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 4 ad 10"><a name="38060" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38060] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 4 ad 10</span></a> Ad decimum
9580 dicendum quod in veteri lege erant septem solemnitates temporales,
9581 et una continua, ut potest colligi Num. XXVIII et XXIX. Erat enim
9582 quasi continuum festum, quia quotidie mane et vespere immolabatur
9583 agnus. Et per illud continuum festum iugis sacrificii
9584 repraesentabatur perpetuitas divinae beatitudinis. Festorum autem
9585 temporalium primum erat quod iterabatur qualibet septimana. Et haec
9586 erat solemnitas sabbati, quod celebrabatur in memoriam creationis
9587 rerum, ut supra dictum est. Alia autem solemnitas iterabatur
9588 quolibet mense, scilicet festum Neomeniae, quod celebrabatur ad
9589 commemorandum opus divinae gubernationis. Nam haec inferiora
9590 praecipue variantur secundum motum lunae, et ideo celebrabatur hoc
9591 festum in novitate lunae. Non autem in eius plenitudine, ad
9592 evitandum idololatrarum cultum, qui in tali tempore lunae
9593 sacrificabant. Haec autem duo beneficia sunt communia toti humano
9594 generi, et ideo frequentius iterabantur. Alia vero quinque festa
9595 celebrabantur semel in anno, et recolebantur in eis beneficia
9596 specialiter illi populo exhibita. Celebrabatur enim festum phase
9597 primo mense, ad commemorandum beneficium liberationis ex Aegypto.
9598 Celebrabatur autem festum Pentecostes post quinquaginta dies, ad
9599 recolendum beneficium legis datae. Alia vero tria festa
9600 celebrabantur in mense septimo, qui quasi totus apud eos erat
9601 solemnis, sicut et septimus dies. In prima enim die mensis septimi
9602 erat festum tubarum, in memoriam liberationis Isaac, quando Abraham
9603 invenit arietem haerentem cornibus, quem repraesentabant per cornua
9604 quibus buccinabant. Erat autem festum tubarum quasi quaedam
9605 invitatio ut praepararent se ad sequens festum, quod celebrabatur
9606 decimo die. Et hoc erat festum expiationis, in memoriam illius
9607 beneficii quo Deus propitiatus est peccato populi de adoratione
9608 vituli, ad preces Moysi. Post hoc autem celebrabatur festum
9609 Scenopegiae, idest tabernaculorum, septem diebus, ad commemorandum
9610 beneficium divinae protectionis et deductionis per desertum, ubi in
9611 tabernaculis habitaverunt. Unde in hoc festo debebant habere
9612 fructum arboris pulcherrimae, idest citrum, et lignum densarum
9613 frondium, idest myrtum, quae sunt odorifera; et spatulas palmarum,
9614 et salices de torrente, quae diu retinent suum virorem; et haec
9615 inveniuntur in terra promissionis; ad significandum quod per aridam
9616 terram deserti eos duxerat Deus ad terram deliciosam. Octavo autem
9617 die celebrabatur aliud festum, scilicet coetus atque collectae, in
9618 quo colligebantur a populo ea quae erant necessaria ad expensas
9619 cultus divini. Et significabatur adunatio populi et pax praestita
9620 in terra promissionis. Figuralis autem ratio horum festorum est
9621 quia per iuge sacrificium agni figuratur perpetuitas Christi, qui
9622 est agnus Dei; secundum illud Heb. ult., <i>Iesus Christus heri et
9623 hodie, ipse et in saecula</i>. Per sabbatum autem significatur
9624 spiritualis requies nobis data per Christum, ut habetur ad Heb. IV.
9625 Per Neomeniam autem, quae est incoeptio novae lunae, significatur
9626 illuminatio primitivae Ecclesiae per Christum, eo praedicante et
9627 miracula faciente. Per festum autem Pentecostes significatur
9628 descensus spiritus sancti in apostolos. Per festum autem tubarum
9629 significatur praedicatio apostolorum. Per festum autem expiationis
9630 significatur emundatio a peccatis populi Christiani. Per festum
9631 autem tabernaculorum, peregrinatio eorum in hoc mundo, in quo
9632 ambulant in virtutibus proficiendo. Per festum autem coetus atque
9633 collectae significatur congregatio fidelium in regno caelorum, et
9634 ideo istud festum dicebatur sanctissimum esse. Et haec tria festa
9635 erant continua ad invicem, quia oportet expiatos a vitiis proficere
9636 in virtute, quousque perveniant ad Dei visionem, ut dicitur in
9637 Psalmo LXXXIII.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q102_A5" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q102_A5-p0.1">Q. 102. A. 5. Whether there can be any suitable cause for the sacraments of the Old Law?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A5-p2">
9638 <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
9639 the purpose of divine worship should not be like the observances of idolaters: since it is written (
9640 <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
9641 Lord abhorreth." Now worshippers of idols used to knive themselves to the shedding of
9642 blood: for it is related (
9643 <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
9644 the Lord commanded (
9645 <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
9646 by the Law (
9647 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p2.4" href="./asv.html#Lev.12.3" target="asv">Lev. 12:3</a>).
9648 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 5 arg. 1"><a name="38061" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38061] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 5 arg. 1</span></a> Ad quintum
9649 sic proceditur. Videtur quod sacramentorum veteris legis conveniens
9650 causa esse non possit. Ea enim quae ad cultum divinum fiunt, non
9651 debent esse similia his quae idololatrae observabant, dicitur enim
9652 Deut. XII, <i>non facies similiter domino Deo tuo, omnes enim
9653 abominationes quas aversatur dominus, fecerunt diis suis</i>. Sed
9654 cultores idolorum in eorum cultu se incidebant usque ad effusionem
9655 sanguinis, dicitur enim III Reg. XVIII, quod <i>incidebant se,
9656 iuxta ritum suum, cultris et lanceolis, donec perfunderentur
9657 sanguine</i>. Propter quod dominus mandavit, Deut. XIV, <i>non vos
9658 incidetis, nec facietis calvitium super mortuo</i>. Inconvenienter
9659 igitur circumcisio erat instituta in lege.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A5-p3">
9660 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, those things which are done for the worship of God should be marked with decorum and gravity; according to
9661 <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
9662 it was unfittingly commanded (
9663 <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
9664 seem altogether unreasonable.
9665 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 5 arg. 2"><a name="38062" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38062] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 5 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
9666 ea quae in cultum divinum fiunt, debent honestatem et gravitatem
9667 habere; secundum illud Psalmi XXXIV, <i>in populo gravi laudabo
9668 te</i>. Sed ad levitatem quandam pertinere videtur ut homines
9669 festinanter comedant. Inconvenienter igitur praeceptum est, Exod.
9670 XII, ut comederent festinanter agnum paschalem. Et alia etiam circa
9671 eius comestionem sunt instituta, quae videntur omnino
9672 irrationabilia esse.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A5-p4">
9673 <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
9674 sacrament of the Eucharist, according to
9675 <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
9676 other sacraments of the New Law, such as Confirmation, Extreme Unction, and Matrimony, and so forth.
9677 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 5 arg. 3"><a name="38063" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38063] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 5 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
9678 sacramenta veteris legis figurae fuerunt sacramentorum novae legis.
9679 Sed per agnum paschalem significatur sacramentum Eucharistiae;
9680 secundum illud I ad Cor. V, <i>Pascha nostrum immolatus est
9681 Christus</i>. Ergo etiam debuerunt esse aliqua sacramenta in lege
9682 quae praefigurarent alia sacramenta novae legis, sicut
9683 confirmationem et extremam unctionem et matrimonium, et alia
9684 sacramenta.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A5-p5">
9685 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, purification can scarcely be done except by removing something impure. But as far as God is concerned, no bodily
9686 thing is reputed impure, because all bodies are God's creatures; and "every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected
9687 that is received with thanksgiving" (
9688 <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.
9689 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 5 arg. 4"><a name="38064" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38064] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 5 arg. 4</span></a> Praeterea,
9690 purificatio non potest convenienter fieri nisi ab aliquibus
9691 immunditiis. Sed quantum ad Deum, nullum corporale reputatur
9692 immundum, quia omne corpus creatura Dei est; <i>et omnis creatura
9693 Dei bona, et nihil reiiciendum quod cum gratiarum actione
9694 percipitur</i>, ut dicitur I ad Tim. IV. Inconvenienter igitur
9695 purificabantur propter contactum hominis mortui, vel alicuius
9696 huiusmodi corporalis infectionis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A5-p6">
9697 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, it is written (
9698 <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.
9699 <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 (
9700 <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
9701 gathered up her ashes. Therefore it was unfittingly
9702 prescribed there that the unclean should be purified by being sprinkled with those cinders.
9703 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 5 arg. 5"><a name="38065" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38065] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 5 arg. 5</span></a> Praeterea,
9704 Eccli. XXXIV dicitur, <i>ab immundo quid mundabitur?</i> Sed cinis
9705 vitulae rufae quae comburebatur, immundus erat, quia immundum
9706 reddebat, dicitur enim Num. XIX, quod sacerdos qui immolabat eam,
9707 commaculatus erat usque ad vesperum; similiter et ille qui eam
9708 comburebat; et etiam ille qui eius cineres colligebat. Ergo
9709 inconvenienter praeceptum ibi fuit ut per huiusmodi cinerem
9710 aspersum immundi purificarentur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A5-p7">
9711 <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
9712 by means of something unclean. It was therefore unfitting for the purpose of expiating the sins of the people that the priest
9713 should confess the sins of the children of Israel on one of the buck-goats, that it might carry them away into the wilderness:
9714 while they were rendered unclean by the other, which they used for the purpose of
9715 purification, by burning it together with the calf outside the camp; so that they had to wash their clothes and their bodies
9716 with water (
9717 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.16" target="asv">Lev. 16</a>).
9718 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 5 arg. 6"><a name="38066" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38066] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 5 arg. 6</span></a> Praeterea,
9719 peccata non sunt aliquid corporale, quod possit deferri de loco ad
9720 locum, neque etiam per aliquid immundum potest homo a peccato
9721 mundari. Inconvenienter igitur ad expiationem peccatorum populi,
9722 sacerdos super unum hircorum confitebatur peccata filiorum Israel,
9723 ut portaret ea in desertum, per alium autem, quo utebantur ad
9724 purificationes, simul cum vitulo comburentes extra castra, immundi
9725 reddebantur, ita quod oportebat eos lavare vestimenta et carnem
9726 aqua.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A5-p8">
9727 <b>Objection 7:</b> Further, what is already cleansed should not be cleansed again. It was therefore unfitting to apply a second purification
9728 to a man cleansed from leprosy, or to a house; as laid down in
9729 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.14" target="asv">Lev. 14</a>.
9730 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 5 arg. 7"><a name="38067" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38067] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 5 arg. 7</span></a> Praeterea,
9731 illud quod iam est mundatum, non oportet iterum mundari.
9732 Inconvenienter igitur, mundata lepra hominis, vel etiam domus, alia
9733 purificatio adhibebatur; ut habetur Levit. XIV.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A5-p9">
9734 <b>Objection 8:</b> Further, spiritual uncleanness cannot be cleansed by material water or by shaving the hair. Therefore it seems unreasonable
9735 that the Lord ordered (
9736 <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;
9737 and that He commanded (
9738 <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
9739 flesh.
9740 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 5 arg. 8"><a name="38068" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38068] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 5 arg. 8</span></a> Praeterea,
9741 spiritualis immunditia non potest per corporalem aquam, vel pilorum
9742 rasuram, emundari. Irrationabile igitur videtur quod dominus
9743 praecepit Exod. XXX, ut fieret labium aeneum cum basi sua ad
9744 lavandum manus et pedes sacerdotum qui ingressuri erant
9745 tabernaculum; et quod praecipitur Num. VIII, quod Levitae
9746 abstergerentur aqua lustrationis, et raderent omnes pilos carnis
9747 suae.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A5-p10">
9748 <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
9749 higher and lower priests, as stated in
9750 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.8" target="asv">Lev. 8</a> [*Cf.
9751 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p10.2" href="./asv.html#Exod.29" target="asv">Ex. 29</a>], and the Levites, according to
9752 <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.
9753 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 5 arg. 9"><a name="38069" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38069] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 5 arg. 9</span></a> Praeterea,
9754 quod maius est, non potest sanctificari per illud quod minus est.
9755 Inconvenienter igitur per quandam unctionem corporalem, et
9756 corporalia sacrificia, et oblationes corporales, fiebat in lege
9757 consecratio maiorum et minorum sacerdotum, ut habetur Levit. VIII;
9758 et Levitarum, ut habetur Num. VIII.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A5-p11">
9759 <b>Objection 10:</b> Further, as stated in
9760 <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
9761 the dispositions of his body and his clothes. Therefore it was unfitting for certain special garments to be appointed to the
9762 higher and lower priests, as related in
9763 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p11.2" href="./asv.html#Exod.28" target="asv">Ex. 28</a> [*Cf.
9764 <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
9765 the priesthood on account of defects in the body, as stated in
9766 <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
9767 be blind, if he be lame," etc. It seems, therefore, that the sacraments of the Old Law were unreasonable.
9768 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 5 arg. 10"><a name="38070" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38070] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 5 arg. 10</span></a>
9769 Praeterea, sicut dicitur I Reg. XVI, <i>homines vident ea quae
9770 parent, Deus autem intuetur cor</i>. Sed ea quae exterius parent in
9771 homine, est corporalis dispositio, et etiam indumenta.
9772 Inconvenienter igitur sacerdotibus maioribus et minoribus quaedam
9773 specialia vestimenta deputabantur, de quibus habetur Exod. XXVIII.
9774 Et sine ratione videtur quod prohiberetur aliquis a sacerdotio
9775 propter corporales defectus, secundum quod dicitur Levit. XXI,
9776 <i>homo de semine tuo per familias qui habuerit maculam, non
9777 offeret panes Deo suo, si caecus fuerit, vel claudus</i>, et
9778 cetera. Sic igitur videtur quod sacramenta veteris legis
9779 irrationabilia fuerint.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A5-p12">
9780 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
9781 <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 (
9782 <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
9783 Old Law, which were ordained to the sanctification of man.
9784 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 5 s. c."><a name="38071" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38071] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 5 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
9785 est quod dicitur Levit. XX, <i>ego sum dominus, qui sanctifico
9786 vos</i>. Sed a Deo nihil sine ratione fit, dicitur enim in Psalmo
9787 CIII, <i>omnia in sapientia fecisti</i>. Ergo in sacramentis
9788 veteris legis, quae ordinabantur ad hominum sanctificationem, nihil
9789 erat sine rationabili causa.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q102_A5-p13">
9790 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
9791 <a href="#FS_Q101_A4" id="FS_Q102_A5-p13.1" shape="rect">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,
9792 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
9793 way, it belonged to the priests and Levites, who were the ministers of divine worship. Consequently, in these sacraments of
9794 the Old Law, certain things
9795 concerned the whole people in general; while others belonged to the ministers.
9796 </p><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
9797 institution was brought about---for all in general, by circumcision, without which no one was admitted to any of the legal
9798 observances---and for the priests, by their consecration. The second thing required was the use of those things that pertain
9799 to divine worship. And thus, as to the people, there was the partaking of the paschal banquet, to which no
9800 uncircumcised man was admitted, as is clear from
9801 <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
9802 that were allotted to the use of the priests. The third thing required was the removal of all impediments to divine worship,
9803 viz. of uncleannesses. And then, as to the people, certain purifications were instituted for the removal of certain external
9804 uncleannesses; and also expiations from
9805 sins; while, as to the priests and Levites, the washing of hands and feet and the shaving of the hair were instituted.
9806 </p><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
9807 being, and figurative, in so far as they were ordained to foreshadow Christ: as we shall see by taking them one by one.
9808 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 5 co."><a name="38072" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38072] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 5 co.</span></a> Respondeo
9809 dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, sacramenta proprie dicuntur
9810 illa quae adhibebantur Dei cultoribus ad quandam consecrationem,
9811 per quam scilicet deputabantur quodammodo ad cultum Dei. Cultus
9812 autem Dei generali quidem modo pertinebat ad totum populum; sed
9813 speciali modo pertinebat ad sacerdotes et Levitas, qui erant
9814 ministri cultus divini. Et ideo in istis sacramentis veteris legis
9815 quaedam pertinebant communiter ad totum populum; quaedam autem
9816 specialiter ad ministros. Et circa utrosque tria erant necessaria.
9817 Quorum primum est institutio in statu colendi Deum. Et haec quidem
9818 institutio communiter quantum ad omnes, fiebat per circumcisionem,
9819 sine qua nullus admittebatur ad aliquid legalium, quantum vero ad
9820 sacerdotes, per sacerdotum consecrationem. Secundo requirebatur
9821 usus eorum quae pertinent ad divinum cultum. Et sic quantum ad
9822 populum, erat esus paschalis convivii, ad quem nullus incircumcisus
9823 admittebatur, ut patet Exod. XII, et quantum ad sacerdotes, oblatio
9824 victimarum, et esus panum propositionis et aliorum quae erant
9825 sacerdotum usibus deputata. Tertio requirebatur remotio eorum per
9826 quae aliqui impediebantur a cultu divino, scilicet immunditiarum.
9827 Et sic quantum ad populum, erant institutae quaedam purificationes
9828 a quibusdam exterioribus immunditiis, et etiam expiationes a
9829 peccatis, quantum vero ad sacerdotes et Levitas, erat instituta
9830 ablutio manuum et pedum, et rasio pilorum. Et haec omnia habebant
9831 rationabiles causas et litterales, secundum quod ordinabantur ad
9832 cultum Dei pro tempore illo; et figurales, secundum quod
9833 ordinabantur ad figurandum Christum; ut patebit per singula.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q102_A5-p16">
9834 <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
9835 was the first to sever himself from the infidels, by going out from his house and kindred, for this reason he was the first
9836 to receive circumcision. This reason is set forth by the Apostle (
9837 <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
9838 uncircumcised"; because, to wit, we are told that "unto Abraham faith was reputed to justice," for the reason that "against
9839 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
9840 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
9841 declaration, and imitation of Abraham's faith, might be fixed firmly in the hearts of the Jews, they received in their flesh
9842 such
9843 a sign as they could not forget, wherefore it is written (
9844 <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
9845 is very tender, and so might be seriously injured; and is considered as something not yet consolidated: wherefore neither
9846 are animals offered before the eighth day. And it was not delayed after that time, lest some might refuse the sign of circumcision
9847 on account of the pain: and also lest the parents,
9848 whose love for their children increases as they become used to their presence and as they grow older, should withdraw their
9849 children from circumcision. A second reason may have been the weakening of concupiscence in that member. A third motive may
9850 have been to revile the worship of Venus and Priapus, which gave honor to that part of the body. The Lord's prohibition extended
9851 only to the cutting of oneself in honor of idols: and such was not the circumcision of which we have been speaking.
9852 </p><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
9853 by Christ, and will be perfectly fulfilled in the eighth age, which is the age of those who rise from the dead. And since
9854 all corruption of guilt and punishment comes to us through our carnal origin, from the sin of our first parent, therefore
9855 circumcision was applied to the generative member. Hence the Apostle says (
9856 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p17.1" href="./asv.html#Col.2.11" target="asv">Col. 2:11</a>): "You are
9857 circumcised" in Christ "with circumcision not made by hand in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision
9858 of" Our Lord Jesus "Christ."
9859 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 5 ad 1"><a name="38073" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38073] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 5 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
9860 ergo dicendum quod litteralis ratio circumcisionis principalis
9861 quidem fuit ad protestationem fidei unius Dei. Et quia Abraham fuit
9862 primus qui se ab infidelibus separavit, exiens de domo sua et de
9863 cognatione sua, ideo ipse primus circumcisionem accepit. Et hanc
9864 causam assignat apostolus, ad Rom. IV, <i>signum accepit
9865 circumcisionis, signaculum iustitiae fidei quae est in
9866 praeputio</i>, quia scilicet in hoc legitur Abrahae fides reputata
9867 ad iustitiam, quod contra spem in spem credidit, scilicet contra
9868 spem naturae in spem gratiae, ut fieret pater multarum gentium, cum
9869 ipse esset senex, et uxor sua esset anus et sterilis. Et ut haec
9870 protestatio, et imitatio fidei Abrahae, firmaretur in cordibus
9871 Iudaeorum, acceperunt signum in carne sua, cuius oblivisci non
9872 possent, unde dicitur Gen. XVII, <i>erit pactum meum in carne
9873 vestra in foedus aeternum</i>. Ideo autem fiebat octava die, quia
9874 antea puer est valde tenellus, et posset ex hoc graviter laedi, et
9875 reputatur adhuc quasi quiddam non solidatum, unde etiam nec
9876 animalia offerebantur ante octavum diem. Ideo vero non magis
9877 tardabatur, ne propter dolorem aliqui signum circumcisionis
9878 refugerent, et ne parentes etiam, quorum amor increscit ad filios
9879 post frequentem conversationem et eorum augmentum, eos
9880 circumcisioni subtraherent. Secunda ratio esse potuit ad
9881 debilitationem concupiscentiae in membro illo. Tertia ratio, in
9882 sugillationem sacrorum Veneris et Priapi, in quibus illa pars
9883 corporis honorabatur. Dominus autem non prohibuit nisi incisionem
9884 quae in cultum idolorum fiebat, cui non erat similis praedicta
9885 circumcisio. Figuralis vero ratio circumcisionis erat quia
9886 figurabatur ablatio corruptionis fienda per Christum, quae perfecte
9887 complebitur in octava aetate, quae est aetas resurgentium. Et quia
9888 omnis corruptio culpae et poenae provenit in nos per carnalem
9889 originem ex peccato primi parentis, ideo talis circumcisio fiebat
9890 in membro generationis. Unde apostolus dicit, ad Colos. II,
9891 <i>circumcisi estis in Christo circumcisione non manu facta in
9892 expoliatione corporis carnis, sed in circumcisione domini nostri
9893 Iesu Christi</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q102_A5-p18">
9894 <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
9895 this banquet they declared that they belonged to that people which God had taken to Himself out of Egypt. For when they were
9896 delivered from Egypt, they were commanded to sprinkle the lamb's blood on the transoms of their house doors, as though declaring
9897 that they were averse to the rites of the Egyptians who worshipped the
9898 ram. Wherefore they were delivered by the sprinkling or rubbing of the blood of the lamb on the door-posts, from the danger
9899 of extermination which threatened the Egyptians.
9900 </p><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
9901 them to go forth speedily, as related in
9902 <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
9903 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
9904 leavened, the Egyptians pressing them to
9905 depart"; and to eat roast meat, for this took less time to prepare; and that they should not break a bone thereof, because
9906 in their haste there was no time to break bones. Secondly, as to the manner of eating. For it is written: "You shall gird
9907 your reins, and you shall have shoes on your feet, holding staves in your hands, and you shall eat in haste": which clearly
9908 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
9909 eaten,
9910 neither shall you carry forth of the flesh thereof out of the house": because, to wit, on account of their haste, they could
9911 not send any gifts of it.
9912 </p><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
9913 of the paschal lamb signified the sacrifice of Christ according to
9914 <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
9915 on the transoms, signified faith in Christ's Passion, in the hearts and on the lips of the faithful, by which same Passion
9916 we are
9917 delivered from sin and death, according to
9918 <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
9919 the eating of Christ's body in the Sacrament; and the flesh was roasted at the fire to signify Christ's Passion or charity.
9920 And it was eaten with unleavened bread to signify the blameless life of the faithful who partake of Christ's body, according
9921 to
9922 <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 . .
9923 . with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." The wild lettuces were added to denote repentance for sins, which is
9924 required of those who receive the body of Christ. Their loins were girt in sign of chastity: and the shoes of their feet are
9925 the examples of our dead ancestors. The staves they were to hold in their hands denoted pastoral authority: and it was commanded
9926 that the paschal lamb should be eaten in one house, i.e. in a catholic church, and not in the conventicles of heretics.
9927 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 5 ad 2"><a name="38074" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38074] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 5 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
9928 dicendum quod litteralis ratio paschalis convivii fuit in
9929 commemorationem beneficii quo Deus eduxit eos de Aegypto. Unde per
9930 huiusmodi convivii celebrationem profitebantur se ad illum populum
9931 pertinere quem Deus sibi assumpserat ex Aegypto. Quando enim sunt
9932 ex Aegypto liberati, praeceptum est eis ut sanguine agni linirent
9933 superliminaria domorum, quasi protestantes se recedere a ritibus
9934 Aegyptiorum, qui arietem colebant. Unde et liberati sunt per
9935 sanguinis agni aspersionem vel linitionem in postibus domorum, a
9936 periculo exterminii quod imminebat Aegyptiis. In illo autem exitu
9937 eorum de Aegypto duo fuerunt, scilicet festinantia ad egrediendum,
9938 impellebant enim eos Aegyptii ut exirent velociter, ut habetur
9939 Exod. XII; imminebatque periculum ei qui non festinaret exire cum
9940 multitudine, ne remanens occideretur ab Aegyptiis. Festinantia
9941 autem designabatur dupliciter. Uno quidem modo per ea quae
9942 comedebant. Praeceptum enim erat eis quod comederent panes azymos,
9943 in huius signum, quod non poterant fermentari, cogentibus exire
9944 Aegyptiis; et quod comederent assum igni, sic enim velocius
9945 praeparabatur; et quod os non comminuerent ex eo, quia in
9946 festinantia non vacat ossa frangere. Alio modo, quantum ad modum
9947 comedendi. Dicitur enim, <i>renes vestros accingetis, calceamenta
9948 habebitis in pedibus, tenentes baculos in manibus, et comedetis
9949 festinanter</i>, quod manifeste designat homines existentes in
9950 promptu itineris. Ad idem etiam pertinet quod eis praecipitur,
9951 <i>in una domo comedetis, neque feretis de carnibus eius foras</i>,
9952 quia scilicet, propter festinantiam, non vacabat invicem mittere
9953 exennia. Amaritudo autem quam passi fuerant in Aegypto,
9954 significabatur per lactucas agrestes. Figuralis autem ratio patet.
9955 Quia per immolationem agni paschalis significabatur immolatio
9956 Christi; secundum illud I ad Cor. V, <i>Pascha nostrum immolatus
9957 est Christus</i>. Sanguis vero agni liberans ab exterminatore,
9958 linitis superliminaribus domorum, significat fidem passionis
9959 Christi in corde et ore fidelium, per quam liberamur a peccato et a
9960 morte; secundum illud I Petr. I, <i>redempti estis pretioso
9961 sanguine agni immaculati</i>. Comedebantur autem carnes illae, ad
9962 significandum esum corporis Christi in sacramento. Erant autem
9963 assae igni, ad significandum passionem, vel caritatem Christi.
9964 Comedebantur autem cum azymis panibus, ad significandam puram
9965 conversationem fidelium sumentium corpus Christi, secundum illud I
9966 ad Cor. V, <i>epulemur in azymis sinceritatis et veritatis</i>.
9967 Lactucae autem agrestes addebantur, in signum poenitentiae
9968 peccatorum, quae necessaria est sumentibus corpus Christi. Renes
9969 autem accingendi sunt cingulo castitatis. Calceamenta autem pedum
9970 sunt exempla mortuorum patrum. Baculi autem habendi in manibus,
9971 significant pastoralem custodiam. Praecipitur autem quod in una
9972 domo agnus paschalis comedatur, idest in Ecclesia Catholicorum, non
9973 in conventiculis haereticorum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A5-p21">
9974 <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
9975 of Faith, corresponds to circumcision. Hence it is written (
9976 <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
9977 the sacrament of the Eucharist corresponds to the banquet of the paschal lamb. The sacrament of Penance in the New Law corresponds
9978 to all the purifications of the Old Law. The sacrament of Orders corresponds to the consecration of the pontiff and of the
9979 priests. To the sacrament of Confirmation, which is the sacrament of the fulness of grace, there would be no corresponding
9980 sacrament of the Old Law, because the time of fulness had not yet come, since "the Law brought no man [Vulg.: 'nothing'] to
9981 perfection" (
9982 <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
9983 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
9984 paid. Matrimony did indeed exist under the Old Law, as a function of nature, but not as the sacrament of the union of Christ
9985 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,
9986 which is contrary to the nature of the sacrament.
9987 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 5 ad 3"><a name="38075" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38075] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 5 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
9988 dicendum quod quaedam sacramenta novae legis habuerunt in veteri
9989 lege sacramenta figuralia sibi correspondentia. Nam circumcisioni
9990 respondet Baptismus, qui est fidei sacramentum, unde dicitur ad
9991 Col. II, <i>circumcisi estis in circumcisione domini nostri Iesu
9992 Christi, consepulti ei in Baptismo</i>. Convivio vero agni
9993 paschalis respondet in nova lege sacramentum Eucharistiae. Omnibus
9994 autem purificationibus veteris legis respondet in nova lege
9995 sacramentum poenitentiae. Consecrationi autem pontificum et
9996 sacerdotum respondet sacramentum ordinis. Sacramento autem
9997 confirmationis, quod est sacramentum plenitudinis gratiae, non
9998 potest respondere in veteri lege aliquod sacramentum, quia nondum
9999 advenerat tempus plenitudinis, eo quod neminem ad perfectum adduxit
10000 lex. Similiter autem et sacramento extremae unctionis, quod est
10001 quaedam immediata praeparatio ad introitum gloriae, cuius aditus
10002 nondum patebat in veteri lege, pretio nondum soluto. Matrimonium
10003 autem fuit quidem in veteri lege prout erat in officium naturae;
10004 non autem prout est sacramentum coniunctionis Christi et Ecclesiae,
10005 quae nondum erat facta. Unde et in veteri lege dabatur libellus
10006 repudii, quod est contra sacramenti rationem.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q102_A5-p22">
10007 <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
10008 worship is twofold; viz. spiritual, consisting in devotion of the mind to God; and corporal, consisting in sacrifices, oblations,
10009 and so forth. Now men are hindered in the spiritual worship by sins, whereby men were said to be polluted, for instance, by
10010 idolatry, murder, adultery, or incest. From such pollutions men were
10011 purified by certain sacrifices, offered either for the whole community in general, or also for the sins of individuals; not
10012 that those carnal sacrifices had of themselves the power of expiating sin; but that they signified that expiation of sins
10013 which was to be effected by Christ, and of which those of old became partakers by protesting their faith in the Redeemer,
10014 while taking part in the figurative sacrifices.
10015 </p><p id="FS_Q102_A5-p23"> The impediments to external worship consisted in certain bodily uncleannesses; which were considered in the first place as
10016 existing in man, and consequently in other animals also, and in man's clothes, dwelling-place, and vessels. In man himself
10017 uncleanness was considered as arising partly from himself and partly from contact with unclean things. Anything proceeding
10018 from man was reputed unclean that was already subject to corruption, or exposed thereto: and consequently since
10019 death is a kind of corruption, the human corpse was considered unclean. In like manner, since leprosy arises from corruption
10020 of the humors, which break out externally and infect other persons, therefore were lepers also considered unclean; and, again,
10021 women suffering from a flow of blood, whether from weakness, or from nature (either at the monthly course or at the time of
10022 conception); and, for the same reason, men were reputed unclean if they suffered from a flow of seed, whether due to
10023 weakness, to nocturnal pollution, or to sexual intercourse. Because every humor issuing from man in the aforesaid ways involves
10024 some unclean infection. Again, man contracted uncleanness by touching any unclean thing whatever.
10025 </p><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
10026 due to those things that belong to the divine worship: both because men are not wont, when unclean, to touch precious things:
10027 and in order that by rarely approaching sacred things they might have greater respect for them. For since man could seldom
10028 avoid all the aforesaid uncleannesses, the result was that men could seldom approach to touch things
10029 belonging to the worship of God, so that when they did approach, they did so with greater reverence and humility. Moreover,
10030 in some of these the literal reason was that men should not be kept away from worshipping God through fear of coming in contact
10031 with lepers and others similarly afflicted with loathsome and contagious diseases. In others, again, the reason was to avoid
10032 idolatrous worship: because in their sacrificial rites the Gentiles sometimes employed human blood and seed. All these
10033 bodily uncleannesses were purified either by the mere sprinkling of water, or, in the case of those which were more grievous,
10034 by some sacrifice of expiation for the sin which was the occasion of the uncleanness in question.
10035 </p><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
10036 signifies the uncleanness of sin, which is the death of the soul. The uncleanness of leprosy betokened the uncleanness of
10037 heretical doctrine: both because heretical doctrine is contagious just as leprosy is, and because no doctrine is so false
10038 as not to have some truth mingled with error, just as on the surface of a leprous body one may distinguish the
10039 healthy parts from those that are infected. The uncleanness of a woman suffering from a flow of blood denotes the uncleanness
10040 of idolatry, on account of the blood which is offered up. The uncleanness of the man who has suffered seminal loss signifies
10041 the uncleanness of empty words, for "the seed is the word of God." The uncleanness of sexual intercourse and of the woman
10042 in child-birth signifies the uncleanness of original sin. The uncleanness of the woman in her periods signifies the
10043 uncleanness of a mind that is sensualized by pleasure. Speaking generally, the uncleanness contracted by touching an unclean
10044 thing denotes the uncleanness arising from consent in another's sin, according to
10045 <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."
10046 </p><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
10047 way by an unclean man, became itself unclean. Wherein the Law attenuated the superstition of the Gentiles, who held that uncleanness
10048 was contracted not only by touch, but also by speech or looks, as Rabbi Moses states (Doct. Perplex. iii) of a woman in her
10049 periods. The mystical sense of this was that "to God the wicked and his wickedness are hateful alike"
10050 (
10051 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p26.1" href="./asv.html#Wis.14.9" target="asv">Wis. 14:9</a>).
10052 </p><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
10053 or in clothes. For just as leprosy occurs in men through a corrupt humor causing putrefaction and corruption in the flesh;
10054 so, too, through some corruption and excess of humidity or dryness, there arises sometimes a kind of corruption in the stones
10055 with which a house is built, or in clothes. Hence the Law called this corruption by the name of leprosy, whereby
10056 a house or a garment was deemed to be unclean: both because all corruption savored of uncleanness, as stated above, and because
10057 the Gentiles worshipped their household gods as a preservative against this corruption. Hence the Law prescribed such houses,
10058 where this kind of corruption was of a lasting nature, to be destroyed; and such garments to be burnt, in order to avoid all
10059 occasion of idolatry. There was also an uncleanness of vessels, of which it is written (
10060 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p27.1" href="./asv.html#Num.19.15" target="asv">Num.
10061 19:15
10062 </a>): "The vessel that hath no cover, and binding over it, shall be unclean." The cause of this uncleanness was that anything
10063 unclean might easily drop into such vessels, so as to render them unclean. Moreover, this command aimed at the prevention
10064 of idolatry. For idolaters believed that if mice, lizards, or the like, which they used to sacrifice to the idols, fell into
10065 the vessels or into the water, these became more pleasing to the gods. Even now some women let down uncovered
10066 vessels in honor of the nocturnal deities which they call "Janae."
10067 </p><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
10068 heretics; the leprosy of a linen garment signified an evil life arising from bitterness of mind; the leprosy of a woolen garment
10069 denoted the wickedness of flatterers; leprosy in the warp signified the vices of the soul; leprosy on the woof denoted sins
10070 of the flesh, for as the warp is in the woof, so is the soul in the body. The vessel that has neither cover
10071 nor binding, betokens a man who lacks the veil of taciturnity, and who is unrestrained by any severity of discipline.
10072 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 5 ad 4"><a name="38076" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38076] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 5 ad 4</span></a> Ad quartum
10073 dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, purificationes veteris legis
10074 ordinabantur ad removendum impedimenta cultus divini. Qui quidem
10075 est duplex, scilicet spiritualis, qui consistit in devotione mentis
10076 ad Deum; et corporalis, qui consistit in sacrificiis et
10077 oblationibus et aliis huiusmodi. A cultu autem spirituali
10078 impediuntur homines per peccata, quibus homines pollui dicebantur,
10079 sicut per idololatriam et homicidium, per adulteria et incestus. Et
10080 ab istis pollutionibus purificabantur homines per aliqua sacrificia
10081 vel communiter oblata pro tota multitudine, vel etiam pro peccatis
10082 singulorum. Non quod sacrificia illa carnalia haberent ex seipsis
10083 virtutem expiandi peccatum, sed quia significabant expiationem
10084 peccatorum futuram per Christum, cuius participes erant etiam
10085 antiqui, protestantes fidem redemptoris in figuris sacrificiorum. A
10086 cultu vero exteriori impediebantur homines per quasdam immunditias
10087 corporales, quae quidem primo considerabantur in hominibus;
10088 consequenter etiam in aliis animalibus, et in vestimentis et
10089 domibus et vasis. In hominibus quidem immunditia reputabatur partim
10090 quidem ex ipsis hominibus; partim autem ex contactu rerum
10091 immundarum. Ex ipsis autem hominibus immundum reputabatur omne
10092 illud quod corruptionem aliquam iam habebat, vel erat corruptioni
10093 expositum. Et ideo, quia mors est corruptio quaedam, cadaver
10094 hominis reputabatur immundum. Similiter etiam, quia lepra ex
10095 corruptione humorum contingit, qui etiam exterius erumpunt et alios
10096 inficiunt, leprosi etiam reputabantur immundi. Similiter etiam
10097 mulieres patientes sanguinis fluxum, sive per infirmitatem, sive
10098 etiam per naturam vel temporibus menstruis vel etiam tempore
10099 conceptionis. Et eadem ratione viri reputabantur immundi fluxum
10100 seminis patientes, vel per infirmitatem, vel per pollutionem
10101 nocturnam, vel etiam per coitum. Nam omnis humiditas praedictis
10102 modis ab homine egrediens, quandam immundam infectionem habet.
10103 Inerat etiam hominibus immunditia quaedam ex contactu quarumcumque
10104 rerum immundarum. Istarum autem immunditiarum ratio erat et
10105 litteralis, et figuralis. Litteralis quidem, propter reverentiam
10106 eorum quae ad divinum cultum pertinent. Tum quia homines pretiosas
10107 res contingere non solent cum fuerint immundi. Tum etiam ut ex raro
10108 accessu ad sacra, ea magis venerarentur. Cum enim omnes huiusmodi
10109 immunditias raro aliquis cavere possit, contingebat quod raro
10110 poterant homines accedere ad attingendum ea quae pertinebant ad
10111 divinum cultum, et sic quando accedebant, cum maiori reverentia et
10112 humilitate mentis accedebant. Erat autem in quibusdam horum ratio
10113 litteralis ut homines non reformidarent accedere ad divinum cultum,
10114 quasi refugientes consortium leprosorum et similium infirmorum,
10115 quorum morbus abominabilis erat et contagiosus. In quibusdam etiam
10116 ratio erat ad vitandum idololatriae cultum, quia gentiles in ritu
10117 suorum sacrificiorum utebantur quandoque humano sanguine et semine.
10118 Omnes autem huiusmodi immunditiae corporales purificabantur vel per
10119 solam aspersionem aquae, vel quae maiores erant, per aliquod
10120 sacrificium ad expiandum peccatum, ex quo tales infirmitates
10121 contingebant. Ratio autem figuralis harum immunditiarum fuit quia
10122 per huiusmodi exteriores immunditias figurabantur diversa peccata.
10123 Nam immunditia cadaveris cuiuscumque significat immunditiam
10124 peccati, quod est mors animae. Immunditia autem leprae significat
10125 immunditiam haereticae doctrinae, tum quia haeretica doctrina
10126 contagiosa est, sicut et lepra; tum etiam quia nulla falsa doctrina
10127 est quae vera falsis non admisceat, sicut etiam in superficie
10128 corporis leprosi apparet quaedam distinctio quarundam macularum ab
10129 alia carne integra. Per immunditiam vero mulieris sanguinifluae,
10130 designatur immunditia idololatriae, propter immolatitium cruorem.
10131 Per immunditiam vero viri seminiflui, designatur immunditia vanae
10132 locutionis, eo quod semen est verbum Dei. Per immunditiam vero
10133 coitus, et mulieris parientis, designatur immunditia peccati
10134 originalis. Per immunditiam vero mulieris menstruatae, designatur
10135 immunditia mentis per voluptates emollitae. Universaliter vero per
10136 immunditiam contactus rei immundae designatur immunditia consensus
10137 in peccatum alterius; secundum illud II ad Cor. VI, <i>exite de
10138 medio eorum et separamini, et immundum ne tetigeritis</i>.
10139 Huiusmodi autem immunditia contactus derivabatur etiam ad res
10140 inanimatas, quidquid enim quocumque modo tangebat immundus,
10141 immundum erat. In quo lex attenuavit superstitionem gentilium, qui
10142 non solum per contactum immundi dicebant immunditiam contrahi, sed
10143 etiam per collocutionem aut per aspectum, ut Rabbi Moyses dicit de
10144 muliere menstruata. Per hoc autem mystice significabatur id quod
10145 dicitur Sap. XIV, <i>similiter odio sunt Deo impius et impietas
10146 eius</i>. Erat autem et immunditia quaedam ipsarum rerum
10147 inanimatarum secundum se, sicut erat immunditia leprae in domo et
10148 in vestimentis. Sicut enim morbus leprae accidit in hominibus ex
10149 humore corrupto putrefaciente carnem et corrumpente, ita etiam
10150 propter aliquam corruptionem et excessum humiditatis vel
10151 siccitatis, fit quandoque aliqua corrosio in lapidibus domus, vel
10152 etiam in vestimento. Et ideo hanc corruptionem vocabat lex lepram,
10153 ex qua domus vel vestis immunda iudicaretur. Tum quia omnis
10154 corruptio ad immunditiam pertinebat, ut dictum est. Tum etiam quia
10155 contra huiusmodi corruptionem gentiles deos Penates colebant, et
10156 ideo lex praecepit huiusmodi domus, in quibus fuerit talis
10157 corruptio perseverans, destrui, et vestes comburi, ad tollendam
10158 idololatriae occasionem. Erat etiam et quaedam immunditia vasorum,
10159 de qua dicitur Num. XIX, vas quod <i>non habuerit cooperculum et
10160 ligaturam desuper, immundum erit</i>. Cuius immunditiae causa est
10161 quia in talia vasa de facili poterat aliquid immundum cadere, unde
10162 poterant immundari. Erat etiam hoc praeceptum ad declinandam
10163 idololatriam, credebant enim idololatrae quod, si mures aut
10164 lacertae, vel aliquid huiusmodi, quae immolabant idolis, cito
10165 caderent in vasa vel in aquas, quod essent diis gratiosa. Adhuc
10166 etiam aliquae mulierculae vasa dimittunt discooperta in obsequium
10167 nocturnorum numinum, quae ianas vocant. Harum autem immunditiarum
10168 ratio est figuralis quia per lepram domus significatur immunditia
10169 congregationis haereticorum. Per lepram vero in veste linea
10170 significatur perversitas morum ex amaritudine mentis. Per lepram
10171 vero vestis laneae significatur perversitas adulatorum. Per lepram
10172 in stamine significantur vitia animae, per lepram vero in
10173 subtegmine significantur peccata carnalia, sicut enim stamen est in
10174 subtegmine, ita anima in corpore. Per vas autem quod non habet
10175 operculum nec ligaturam, significatur homo qui non habet aliquod
10176 velamen taciturnitatis, et qui non constringitur aliqua censura
10177 disciplinae.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q102_A5-p29">
10178 <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;
10179 and this was the graver uncleanness; the other was by mere contact with an unclean thing, and this was less grave, and was
10180 more easily expiated. Because the former uncleanness was expiated by sacrifices for sins, since all corruption is due to sin,
10181 and signifies sin: whereas the latter uncleanness was expiated by the mere sprinkling
10182 of a certain water, of which water we read in
10183 <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
10184 is mentioned rather than a calf, because it was thus that the Lord was wont to designate the synagogue, according to
10185 <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
10186 of Egypt, according to
10187 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p29.3" href="./asv.html#Hos.10.5" target="asv">Osee 10:5</a>: "(They) have
10188 worshipped the kine of Bethaven." And in detestation of the sin of idolatry it was sacrificed outside the camp; in fact, whenever
10189 sacrifice was offered up in expiation of the multitude of sins, it was all burnt outside the camp. Moreover, in order to show
10190 that this sacrifice cleansed the people from all their sins, "the priest" dipped "his finger in her blood," and sprinkled
10191 "it over against the door of the tabernacle seven times"; for the number seven signified universality. Further, the very
10192 sprinkling of blood pertained to the detestation of idolatry, in which the blood that was offered up was not poured out, but
10193 was collected together, and men gathered round it to eat in honor of the idols. Likewise it was burnt by fire, either because
10194 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
10195 that was connected therewith, was to be extirpated altogether; just as the cow was burnt "with her skin and her flesh, her
10196 blood and dung being delivered to the flames." To this burning were added "cedar-wood, and hyssop, and scarlet twice dyed,"
10197 to signify that just as cedar-wood is not liable to putrefaction, and scarlet twice dyed does not easily lose its color, and
10198 hyssop retains its odor after it has been dried; so also was this sacrifice for the preservation of the whole people, and
10199 for their good behavior and devotion. Hence it is said of the ashes of the cow: "That they may be reserved for the multitude
10200 of
10201 the children of Israel." Or, according to Josephus (Antiq. iii, 8,9,10), the four elements are indicated here: for "cedar-wood"
10202 was added to the fire, to signify the earth, on account of its earthiness; "hyssop," to signify the air, on account of its
10203 smell; "scarlet twice dyed," to signify water, for the same reason as purple, on account of the dyes which are taken out of
10204 the water: thus denoting the fact that this sacrifice was offered to the Creator of the four elements. And since this
10205 sacrifice was offered for the sin of idolatry, both "he that burned her," and "he that gathered up the ashes," and "he that
10206 sprinkled the water" in which the ashes were placed, were deemed unclean in detestation of that sin, in order to show that
10207 whatever was in any way connected with idolatry should be cast aside as being unclean. From this uncleanness they were purified
10208 by the mere washing of their clothes; nor did they need to be sprinkled with the water on account of this kind of
10209 uncleanness, because otherwise the process would have been unending, since he that sprinkled the water became unclean, so
10210 that if he were to sprinkle himself he would remain unclean; and if another were to sprinkle him, that one would have become
10211 unclean, and in like manner, whoever might sprinkle him, and so on indefinitely.
10212 </p><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
10213 the female sex; while the color of the cow designated the blood of His Passion. And the "red cow was of full age," because
10214 all Christ's works are perfect, "in which there" was "no blemish"; "and which" had "not carried the yoke," because Christ
10215 was innocent, nor did He carry the yoke of sin. It was commanded to be taken to Moses, because they blamed Him for
10216 transgressing the law of Moses by breaking the Sabbath. And it was commanded to be delivered "to Eleazar the priest," because
10217 Christ was delivered into the hands of the priests to be slain. It was immolated "without the camp," because Christ "suffered
10218 outside the gate" (
10219 <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.
10220 </p><p id="FS_Q102_A5-p31"> It was sprinkled "over against . . . the tabernacle," which denotes the synagogue, to signify either the condemnation of
10221 the unbelieving Jews, or the purification of believers; and this "seven times," in token either of the seven gifts of the
10222 Holy Ghost, or of the seven days wherein all time is comprised. Again, all things that pertain to the Incarnation of Christ
10223 should be burnt with fire, i.e. they should be understood spiritually; for the "skin" and "flesh" signified Christ's
10224 outward works; the "blood" denoted the subtle inward force which quickened His external deeds; the "dung" betokened His weariness,
10225 His thirst, and all such like things pertaining to His weakness. Three things were added, viz. "cedar-wood," which denotes
10226 the height of hope or contemplation; "hyssop," in token of humility or faith; "scarlet twice dyed," which denotes twofold
10227 charity; for it is by these three that we should cling to Christ suffering. The ashes of this burning were gathered by "a
10228 man that is clean," because the relics of the Passion came into the possession of the Gentiles, who were not guilty of Christ's
10229 death. The ashes were put into water for the purpose of expiation, because Baptism receives from Christ's Passion the power
10230 of washing away sins. The priest who immolated and burned the cow, and he who burned, and he who gathered together the ashes,
10231 were unclean, as also he that sprinkled the water: either because the Jews became unclean through putting Christ to
10232 death, whereby our sins are expiated; and this, until the evening, i.e. until the end of the world, when the remnants of Israel
10233 will be converted; or else because they who handle sacred things with a view to the cleansing of others contract certain uncleannesses,
10234 as Gregory says (Pastor. ii, 5); and this until the evening, i.e. until the end of this life.
10235 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 5 ad 5"><a name="38077" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38077] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 5 ad 5</span></a> Ad quintum
10236 dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, duplex erat immunditia in lege.
10237 Una quidem per aliquam corruptionem mentis vel corporis, et haec
10238 immunditia maior erat. Alia vero erat immunditia ex solo contactu
10239 rei immundae, et haec minor erat, et faciliori ritu expiabatur. Nam
10240 immunditia prima expiabatur sacrificio pro peccato, quia omnis
10241 corruptio ex peccato procedit et peccatum significat, sed secunda
10242 immunditia expiabatur per solam aspersionem aquae cuiusdam, de qua
10243 quidem aqua expiationis habetur Num. XIX. Mandatur enim ibi a
10244 domino quod accipiant vaccam rufam, in memoriam peccati quod
10245 commiserunt in adoratione vituli. Et dicitur vacca magis quam
10246 vitulus, quia sic dominus synagogam vocare consuevit; secundum
10247 illud Osee IV, sicut vacca lasciviens declinavit Israel. Et hoc
10248 forte ideo quia vaccas in morem Aegyptii, coluerunt; secundum illud
10249 Osee X, vaccas Bethaven coluerunt. Et in detestationem peccati
10250 idololatriae, immolabatur extra castra. Et ubicumque sacrificium
10251 fiebat pro expiatione multitudinis peccatorum, cremabatur extra
10252 castra totum. Et ut significaretur per hoc sacrificium emundari
10253 populus ab universitate peccatorum, intingebat sacerdos digitum in
10254 sanguine eius, et aspergebat contra fores sanctuarii septem
10255 vicibus, quia septenarius universitatem significat. Et ipsa etiam
10256 aspersio sanguinis pertinebat ad detestationem idololatriae, in qua
10257 sanguis immolatitius non effundebatur, sed congregabatur, et circa
10258 ipsum homines comedebant in honorem idolorum. Comburebatur autem in
10259 igne. Vel quia Deus Moysi in igne apparuit, et in igne data est
10260 lex. Vel quia per hoc significabatur quod idololatria totaliter
10261 erat extirpanda, et omne quod ad idololatriam pertinebat, sicut
10262 vacca cremabatur, tam pelle et carnibus, quam sanguine et fimo,
10263 flammae traditis. Adiungebatur etiam in combustione lignum
10264 cedrinum, hyssopus, coccusque bis tinctus, ad significandum quod,
10265 sicut ligna cedrina non de facili putrescunt, et coccus bis tinctus
10266 non amittit colorem, et hyssopus retinet odorem etiam postquam
10267 fuerit desiccatus; ita etiam hoc sacrificium erat in conservationem
10268 ipsius populi, et honestatis et devotionis ipsius. Unde dicitur de
10269 cineribus vaccae, <i>ut sint multitudini filiorum Israel in
10270 custodiam</i>. Vel, secundum Iosephum, quatuor elementa significata
10271 sunt, igni enim apponebatur cedrus, significans terram, propter sui
10272 terrestreitatem; hyssopus, significans aerem, propter odorem;
10273 coccus, significans aquam, eadem ratione qua et purpura, propter
10274 tincturas, quae ex aquis sumuntur, ut per hoc exprimeretur quod
10275 illud sacrificium offerebatur creatori quatuor elementorum. Et quia
10276 huiusmodi sacrificium offerebatur pro peccato idololatriae, in eius
10277 detestationem et comburens, et cineres colligens, et ille qui
10278 aspergit aquas in quibus cinis ponebatur, immundi reputabantur, ut
10279 per hoc ostenderetur quod quidquid quocumque modo ad idololatriam
10280 pertinet, quasi immundum est abiiciendum. Ab hac autem immunditia
10281 purificabantur per solam ablutionem vestimentorum, nec indigebant
10282 aqua aspergi propter huiusmodi immunditiam, quia sic esset
10283 processus in infinitum. Ille enim qui aspergebat aquam, immundus
10284 fiebat, et sic si ipse seipsum aspergeret, immundus remaneret; si
10285 autem alius eum aspergeret, ille immundus esset; et similiter ille
10286 qui illum aspergeret, et sic in infinitum. Figuralis autem ratio
10287 huius sacrificii est quia per vaccam rufam significatur Christus
10288 secundum infirmitatem assumptam, quam femininus sexus designat.
10289 Sanguinem passionis eius designat vaccae color. Erat autem vacca
10290 rufa aetatis integrae, quia omnis operatio Christi est perfecta. In
10291 qua nulla erat macula, nec portavit iugum, quia non portavit iugum
10292 peccati. Praecipitur autem adduci ad Moysen, quia imputabant ei
10293 transgressionem Mosaicae legis in violatione sabbati. Praecipitur
10294 etiam tradi Eleazaro sacerdoti, quia Christus occidendus in manus
10295 sacerdotum traditus est. Immolatur autem extra castra, quia extra
10296 portam Christus passus est. Intingit autem sacerdos digitum in
10297 sanguine eius, quia per discretionem, quam digitus significat,
10298 mysterium passionis Christi est considerandum et imitandum.
10299 Aspergitur autem contra tabernaculum, per quod synagoga designatur,
10300 vel ad condemnationem Iudaeorum non credentium; vel ad
10301 purificationem credentium. Et hoc septem vicibus, vel propter
10302 septem dona spiritus sancti; vel propter septem dies, in quibus
10303 omne tempus intelligitur. Sunt autem omnia quae ad Christi
10304 incarnationem pertinent, igne cremanda, idest spiritualiter
10305 intelligenda, nam per pellem et carnem exterior Christi operatio
10306 significatur; per sanguinem, subtilis et interna virtus exteriora
10307 vivificans; per fimum, lassitudo, sitis, et omnia huiusmodi ad
10308 infirmitatem pertinentia. Adduntur autem tria, cedrus, quod
10309 significat altitudinem spei, vel contemplationis; hyssopus, quod
10310 significat humilitatem, vel fidem; coccus bis tinctus, quod
10311 significat geminam caritatem; per haec enim debemus Christo passo
10312 adhaerere. Iste autem cinis combustionis colligitur a viro mundo,
10313 quia reliquiae passionis pervenerunt ad gentiles, qui non fuerunt
10314 culpabiles in Christi morte. Apponuntur autem cineres in aqua ad
10315 expiandum, quia ex passione Christi Baptismus sortitur virtutem
10316 emundandi peccata. Sacerdos autem qui immolabat et comburebat
10317 vaccam, et ille qui comburebat, et qui colligebat cineres, immundus
10318 erat, et etiam qui aspergebat aquam, vel quia Iudaei facti sunt
10319 immundi ex occisione Christi, per quam nostra peccata expiantur; et
10320 hoc usque ad vesperum, idest usque ad finem mundi, quando reliquiae
10321 Israel convertentur. Vel quia illi qui tractant sancta intendentes
10322 ad emundationem aliorum, ipsi etiam aliquas immunditias contrahunt,
10323 ut Gregorius dicit, in pastorali; et hoc usque ad vesperum, idest
10324 usque ad finem praesentis vitae.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q102_A5-p32">
10325 <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.
10326 Now special sacrifices were wont to be offered for the sins of individuals: but since some were neglectful about expiating
10327 such sins and uncleannesses; or, through ignorance, failed to offer this expiation; it was laid down that once a year, on
10328 the tenth day of the seventh month, a sacrifice of expiation should be offered for
10329 the whole people. And because, as the Apostle says (
10330 <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,
10331 in memory of Aaron's sin in fashioning the molten calf; and besides, to offer a ram for a holocaust, which signified that
10332 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
10333 offered two he-goats for the people: one of which
10334 was offered in expiation of the sins of the multitude. For the he-goat is an evil-smelling animal; and from its skin clothes
10335 are made having a pungent odor; to signify the stench, uncleanness and the sting of sin. After this he-goat had been immolated,
10336 its blood was taken, together with the blood of the calf, into the Holy of Holies, and the entire sanctuary was sprinkled
10337 with it; to signify that the tabernacle was cleansed from the uncleanness of the children of Israel. But the corpses of the
10338 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,
10339 burnt on the altar: since none but holocausts were burnt thereon; but it was prescribed that they should be burnt without
10340 the camp, in detestation of sin: for this was done whenever sacrifice was offered for a grievous sin, or for the multitude
10341 of sins. The other goat was let loose into the wilderness: not indeed to offer it to the demons, whom the Gentiles worshipped
10342 in desert places, because it was unlawful to offer aught to them; but in order to point out the effect of the sacrifice which
10343 had been offered up. Hence the priest put his hand on its head, while confessing the sins of the children of Israel: as though
10344 that goat were to carry them away into the wilderness, where it would be devoured by wild beasts, because it bore the punishment
10345 of the people's sins. And it was said to bear the sins of the people, either because the forgiveness of the people's
10346 sins was signified by its being let loose, or because on its head written lists of sins were fastened.
10347 </p><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
10348 the ram, because He is the Head of the faithful; and by the he-goat, on account of "the likeness of sinful flesh" (
10349 <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
10350 are cleansed from sin by His Passion. The blood of the calf and of the goat was brought into
10351 the Holies by the priest, because the entrance to the kingdom of heaven was opened to us by the blood of Christ's Passion.
10352 Their bodies were burnt without the camp, because "Christ suffered without the gate," as the Apostle declares (
10353 <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
10354 to another place, but by restraining His power: or it may signify the base concupiscence which we ought to
10355 cast away from ourselves, while we offer up to Our Lord acts of virtue.
10356 </p><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
10357 (ad 5) to the sacrifice of the red heifer.
10358 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 5 ad 6"><a name="38078" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38078] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 5 ad 6</span></a> Ad sextum
10359 dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, immunditia quae ex corruptione
10360 proveniebat vel mentis vel corporis, expiabatur per sacrificia pro
10361 peccato. Offerebantur autem specialia sacrificia pro peccatis
10362 singulorum, sed quia aliqui negligentes erant circa expiationem
10363 huiusmodi peccatorum et immunditiarum; vel etiam propter
10364 ignorantiam ab expiatione huiusmodi desistebant; institutum fuit ut
10365 semel in anno, decima die septimi mensis, fieret sacrificium
10366 expiationis pro toto populo. Et quia, sicut apostolus dicit, ad
10367 Heb. VII, <i>lex constituit homines sacerdotes infirmitatem
10368 habentes</i>, oportebat quod sacerdos prius offerret pro seipso
10369 vitulum pro peccato, in commemorationem peccati quod Aaron fecerat
10370 in conflatione vituli aurei; et arietem in holocaustum, per quod
10371 significabatur quod sacerdotis praelatio, quam aries designat, qui
10372 est dux gregis, erat ordinanda ad honorem Dei. Deinde autem
10373 offerebat pro populo duos hircos. Quorum unus immolabatur, ad
10374 expiandum peccatum multitudinis. Hircus enim animal fetidum est, et
10375 de pilis eius fiunt vestimenta pungentia, ut per hoc significaretur
10376 fetor et immunditia et aculei peccatorum. Huius autem hirci
10377 immolati sanguis inferebatur, simul etiam cum sanguine vituli, in
10378 sancta sanctorum, et aspergebatur ex eo totum sanctuarium, ad
10379 significandum quod tabernaculum emundabatur ab immunditiis filiorum
10380 Israel. Corpus vero hirci et vituli quae immolata sunt pro peccato,
10381 oportebat comburi, ad ostendendum consumptionem peccatorum. Non
10382 autem in altari, quia ibi non comburebantur totaliter nisi
10383 holocausta. Unde mandatum erat ut comburerentur extra castra, in
10384 detestationem peccati, hoc enim fiebat quandocumque immolabatur
10385 sacrificium pro aliquo gravi peccato, vel pro multitudine
10386 peccatorum. Alter vero hircus emittebatur in desertum, non quidem
10387 ut offerretur Daemonibus, quos colebant gentiles in desertis, quia
10388 eis nihil licebat immolari; sed ad designandum effectum illius
10389 sacrificii immolati. Et ideo sacerdos imponebat manum super caput
10390 eius, confitens peccata filiorum Israel, ac si ille hircus
10391 deportaret ea in desertum, ubi a bestiis comederetur, quasi portans
10392 poenam pro peccatis populi. Dicebatur autem portare peccata populi,
10393 vel quia in eius emissione significabatur remissio peccatorum
10394 populi, vel quia colligabatur super caput eius aliqua schedula ubi
10395 erant scripta peccata. Ratio autem figuralis horum erat quia
10396 Christus significatur et per vitulum, propter virtutem; et per
10397 arietem, quia ipse est dux fidelium; et per hircum, propter
10398 similitudinem carnis peccati. Et ipse Christus est immolatus pro
10399 peccatis et sacerdotum et populi, quia per eius passionem et
10400 maiores et minores a peccato mundantur. Sanguis autem vituli et
10401 hirci infertur in sancta per pontificem, quia per sanguinem
10402 passionis Christi patet nobis introitus in regnum caelorum.
10403 Comburuntur autem eorum corpora extra castra, quia extra portam
10404 Christus passus est, ut apostolus dicit, ad Heb. ult. Per hircum
10405 autem qui emittebatur, potest significari vel ipsa divinitas
10406 Christi, quae in solitudinem abiit, homine Christo patiente, non
10407 quidem locum mutans, sed virtutem cohibens, vel significatur
10408 concupiscentia mala, quam debemus a nobis abiicere, virtuosos autem
10409 motus domino immolare. De immunditia vero eorum qui huiusmodi
10410 sacrificia comburebant, eadem ratio est quae in sacrificio vitulae
10411 rufae dicta est.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q102_A5-p35">
10412 <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
10413 <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
10414 be purified": consequently, the leper was already healed: but he was said to be purified in so far as the verdict of the priest
10415 restored him to the society of men and to the
10416 worship of God. It happened sometimes, however, that bodily leprosy was miraculously cured by the legal rite, when the priest
10417 erred in his judgment.
10418 </p><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
10419 restored, as clean, to the society of men and to the worship of God, to wit, after seven days. At the first purification the
10420 leper who sought to be cleansed offered for himself "two living sparrows . . . cedar-wood, and scarlet, and hyssop," in such
10421 wise that a sparrow and the hyssop should be tied to the cedar-wood with a scarlet thread, so that the
10422 cedar-wood was like the handle of an aspersory: while the hyssop and sparrow were that part of the aspersory which was dipped
10423 into the blood of the other sparrow which was "immolated . . . over living waters." These things he offered as an antidote
10424 to the four defects of leprosy: for cedar-wood, which is not subject to putrefaction, was offered against the putrefaction;
10425 hyssop, which is a sweet-smelling herb, was offered up against the stench; a living sparrow was offered up against numbness;
10426 and scarlet, which has a vivid color, was offered up against the repulsive color of leprosy. The living sparrow was let loose
10427 to fly away into the plain, because the leper was restored to his former liberty.
10428 </p><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
10429 all the hair of his body, and washed his clothes, because leprosy rots the hair, infects the clothes, and gives them an evil
10430 smell. Afterwards a sacrifice was offered for his sin, since leprosy was frequently a result of sin: and some of the blood
10431 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
10432 hand, and the great toe of his right foot"; because it is in these parts that leprosy is first diagnosed and felt. In this
10433 rite, moreover, three liquids were employed: viz. blood, against the corruption of the blood; oil, to denote the healing of
10434 the disease; and living waters, to wash away the filth.
10435 </p><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
10436 likeness of His human nature, was offered up in an earthen vessel over living waters, because the waters of Baptism are sanctified
10437 by Christ's Passion. The other sparrow, in token of His impassible Godhead, remained living, because the Godhead cannot die:
10438 hence it flew away, for the Godhead could not be encompassed by the Passion. Now this living sparrow,
10439 together with the cedar-wood and scarlet or cochineal, and hyssop, i.e. faith, hope and charity, as stated above (ad 5), was
10440 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
10441 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
10442 man to be cleansed is moistened with some the blood and oil, in order to strengthen his hearing against harmful words;
10443 and the thumb and toe of his right hand and foot are moistened that his deeds may be holy. Other matters pertaining to this
10444 purification, or to that also of any other uncleannesses, call for no special remark, beyond what applies to other sacrifices,
10445 whether for sins or for trespasses.
10446 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 5 ad 7"><a name="38079" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38079] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 5 ad 7</span></a> Ad septimum
10447 dicendum quod per ritum legis leprosus non emundabatur a macula
10448 leprae, sed emundatus ostendebatur. Et hoc significatur Lev. XIV,
10449 cum dicitur de sacerdote, <i>cum invenerit lepram esse emundatam,
10450 praecipiet ei qui purificatur</i>. Iam ergo lepra mundata erat, sed
10451 purificari dicebatur, inquantum iudicio sacerdotis restituebatur
10452 consortio hominum et cultui divino. Contingebat tamen quandoque ut
10453 divino miraculo per ritum legis corporalis mundaretur lepra, quando
10454 sacerdos decipiebatur in iudicio. Huiusmodi autem purificatio
10455 leprosi dupliciter fiebat, nam primo, iudicabatur esse mundus;
10456 secundo autem, restituebatur tanquam mundus consortio hominum et
10457 cultui divino, scilicet post septem dies. In prima autem
10458 purificatione offerebat pro se leprosus mundandus duos passeres
10459 vivos, et lignum cedrinum, et vermiculum, et hyssopum; hoc modo ut
10460 filo coccineo ligarentur passer et hyssopus simul cum ligno
10461 cedrino, ita scilicet quod lignum cedrinum esset quasi manubrium
10462 aspersorii. Hyssopus vero et passer erant id quod de aspersorio
10463 tingebatur in sanguine alterius passeris immolati in aquis vivis.
10464 Haec autem quatuor offerebat contra quatuor defectus leprae, nam
10465 contra putredinem, offerebatur cedrus, quae est arbor imputribilis;
10466 contra fetorem, hyssopus, quae est herba odorifera; contra
10467 insensibilitatem, passer vivus; contra turpitudinem coloris,
10468 vermiculus, qui habet vivum colorem. Passer vero vivus avolare
10469 dimittebatur in agrum, quia leprosus restituebatur pristinae
10470 libertati. In octavo vero die admittebatur ad cultum divinum, et
10471 restituebatur consortio hominum. Primo tamen rasis pilis totius
10472 corporis et vestimentis, eo quod lepra pilos corrodit, et
10473 vestimenta inquinat et fetida reddit. Et postmodum sacrificium
10474 offerebatur pro delicto eius, quia lepra plerumque inducitur pro
10475 peccato. De sanguine autem sacrificii tingebatur extremum auriculae
10476 eius qui erat mundandus, et pollices manus dextrae et pedis, quia
10477 in istis partibus primum lepra dignoscitur et sentitur.
10478 Adhibebantur etiam huic ritui tres liquores, scilicet sanguis,
10479 contra sanguinis corruptionem; oleum, ad designandam sanationem
10480 morbi; aqua viva, ad emundandum spurcitiem. Figuralis autem ratio
10481 erat quia per duos passeres significantur divinitas et humanitas
10482 Christi. Quorum unus, scilicet humanitas, immolatur in vase fictili
10483 super aquas viventes, quia per passionem Christi aquae Baptismi
10484 consecrantur. Alius autem, scilicet impassibilis divinitas, vivus
10485 remanebat, quia divinitas mori non potest. Unde et avolabat, quia
10486 passione astringi non poterat. Hic autem passer vivus, simul cum
10487 ligno cedrino et cocco, vel vermiculo, et hyssopo, idest fide, spe
10488 et caritate, ut supra dictum est, mittitur in aquam ad aspergendum,
10489 quia in fide Dei et hominis baptizamur. Lavat autem homo, per aquam
10490 Baptismi vel lacrymarum, vestimenta sua, idest opera, et omnes
10491 pilos, idest cogitationes. Tingitur autem extremum auriculae
10492 dextrae eius qui mundatur, de sanguine et de oleo, ut eius auditum
10493 muniat contra corrumpentia verba, pollices autem manus dextrae et
10494 pedis tinguntur, ut sit eius actio sancta. Alia vero quae ad hanc
10495 purificationem pertinent, vel etiam aliarum immunditiarum, non
10496 habent aliquid speciale praeter alia sacrificia pro peccatis vel
10497 pro delictis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q102_A5-p39"><b>Reply to Objections 8&amp;9</b> Just as the people were initiated by circumcision to the divine worship, so were the ministers by some
10498 special purification or consecration: wherefore they are commanded to be separated from other men, as being specially deputed,
10499 rather than others, to the ministry of the divine worship. And all that was done touching them in their consecration or institution,
10500 was with a view to show that they were in possession of a prerogative of purity, power and dignity.
10501 Hence three things were done in the institution of ministers: for first, they were purified; secondly, they were adorned [*'Ornabantur.'
10502 Some editions have 'ordinabantur'---'were ordained': the former reading is a reference to
10503 <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
10504 by certain sacrifices; but the Levites in particular shaved all the hair of their bodies, as stated in
10505 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p39.2" href="./asv.html#Lev.8" target="asv">Lev. 8</a> (cf.
10506
10507 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p39.3" href="./asv.html#Num.8" target="asv">Num. 8</a>).
10508 </p><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,
10509 they were clothed with certain special garments in designation of their dignity. In particular, the high-priest was anointed
10510 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
10511 oil flows from the head on to the lower parts of the body; according to
10512 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A5-p40.1" href="./asv.html#Ps.132.2" target="asv"> Ps. 132:2</a>: "Like the
10513 precious ointment on the head that ran down upon the beard, the beard of Aaron." But the Levites received no other consecration
10514 besides being offered to the Lord by the children of Israel through the hands of the high-priest, who prayed for them. The
10515 lesser priests were consecrated on the hands only, which were to be employed in the sacrifices. The tip of their right ear
10516 and the thumb of their right hand, and the great toe of their right foot were tinged with the blood of the sacrificial
10517 animal, to denote that they should be obedient to God's law in offering the sacrifices (this is denoted by touching their
10518 right ear); and that they should be careful and ready in performing the sacrifices (this is signified by the moistening of
10519 the right foot and hand). They themselves and their garments were sprinkled with the blood of the animal that had been sacrificed,
10520 in memory of the blood of the lamb by which they had been delivered in Egypt. At their consecration the following
10521 sacrifices were offered: a calf, for sin, in memory of Aaron's sin in fashioning the molten calf; a ram, for a holocaust,
10522 in memory of the sacrifice of Abraham, whose obedience it behooved the high-priest to imitate; again, a ram of consecration,
10523 which was a peace-offering, in memory of the delivery form Egypt through the blood of the lamb; and a basket of bread, in
10524 memory of the manna vouchsafed to the people.
10525 </p><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
10526 placed on their hands, to show that they received the power of offering these things to the Lord: while the Levites were initiated
10527 to the ministry by being brought into the tabernacle of the covenant, as being destined to the ministry touching the vessels
10528 of the sanctuary.
10529 </p><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
10530 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
10531 a sacrifice both of expiation and of purification. They have also to shave all the hair of their body, i.e. all evil thoughts.
10532 They should, moreover, be decked with virtues, and be consecrated with the oil of the Holy Ghost, and with
10533 the sprinkling of Christ's blood. And thus they should be intent on the fulfilment of their spiritual ministry.
10534 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 5 ad 8"><a name="38080" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38080] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 5 ad 8</span></a> Ad octavum
10535 et nonum dicendum quod, sicut populus instituebatur ad cultum Dei
10536 per circumcisionem, ita ministri per aliquam specialem
10537 purificationem vel consecrationem, unde et separari ab aliis
10538 praecipiuntur, quasi specialiter ad ministerium cultus divini prae
10539 aliis deputati. Et totum quod circa eos fiebat in eorum
10540 consecratione vel institutione ad hoc pertinebat ut ostenderetur
10541 eos habere quandam praerogativam puritatis et virtutis et
10542 dignitatis. Et ideo in institutione ministrorum tria fiebant, primo
10543 enim, purificabantur; secundo, ornabantur et consecrabantur;
10544 tertio, applicabantur ad usum ministerii. Purificabantur quidem
10545 communiter omnes per ablutionem aquae, et per quaedam sacrificia;
10546 specialiter autem Levitae radebant omnes pilos carnis suae; ut
10547 habetur Lev. VIII. Consecratio vero circa pontifices et sacerdotes
10548 hoc ordine fiebat. Primo enim, postquam abluti erant, induebantur
10549 quibusdam vestimentis specialibus pertinentibus ad designandum
10550 dignitatem ipsorum. Specialiter autem pontifex oleo unctionis in
10551 capite ungebatur, ut designaretur quod ab ipso diffundebatur
10552 potestas consecrandi ad alios, sicut oleum a capite derivatur ad
10553 inferiora; ut habetur in Psalmo CXXXII, <i>sicut unguentum in
10554 capite, quod descendit in barbam, barbam Aaron</i>. Levitae vero
10555 non habebant aliam consecrationem, nisi quod offerebantur domino a
10556 filiis Israel per manus pontificis, qui orabat pro eis. Minorum
10557 vero sacerdotum solae manus consecrabantur, quae erant applicandae
10558 ad sacrificia. Et de sanguine animalis immolatitii tingebatur
10559 extremum auriculae dextrae ipsorum, et pollices pedis ac manus
10560 dextrae, ut scilicet essent obedientes legi Dei in oblatione
10561 sacrificiorum, quod significatur in intinctione auris dextrae; et
10562 quod essent solliciti et prompti in executione sacrificiorum, quod
10563 significatur in intinctione pedis et manus dextrae. Aspergebantur
10564 etiam ipsi, et vestimenta eorum, sanguine animalis immolati, in
10565 memoriam sanguinis agni per quem fuerunt liberati in Aegypto.
10566 Offerebantur autem in eorum consecratione huiusmodi sacrificia,
10567 vitulus pro peccato, in memoriam remissionis peccati Aaron circa
10568 conflationem vituli; aries in holocaustum, in memoriam oblationis
10569 Abrahae, cuius obedientiam pontifex imitari debebat; aries etiam
10570 consecrationis, qui erat quasi hostia pacifica, in memoriam
10571 liberationis de Aegypto per sanguinem agni; canistrum panum, in
10572 memoriam mannae praestiti populo. Pertinebat autem ad applicationem
10573 ministerii quod imponebantur super manus eorum adeps arietis, et
10574 torta panis unius, et armus dexter, ut ostenderetur quod
10575 accipiebant potestatem huiusmodi offerendi domino. Levitae vero
10576 applicabantur ad ministerium per hoc quod intromittebantur in
10577 tabernaculum foederis, quasi ad ministrandum circa vasa sanctuarii.
10578 Figuralis vero horum ratio erat quia illi qui sunt consecrandi ad
10579 spirituale ministerium Christi, debent primo purificari per aquam
10580 Baptismi et lacrymarum in fide passionis Christi, quod est
10581 expiativum et purgativum sacrificium. Et debent radere omnes pilos
10582 carnis, idest omnes pravas cogitationes. Debent etiam ornari
10583 virtutibus; et consecrari oleo spiritus sancti; et aspersione
10584 sanguinis Christi. Et sic debent esse intenti ad exequenda
10585 spiritualia ministeria.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q102_A5-p43">
10586 <b>Reply to Objection 10:</b> As already stated
10587 <a href="#FS_Q102_A4" id="FS_Q102_A5-p43.1" shape="rect">(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
10588 from the worship of God whatever might be an object of contempt; secondly, by introducing into the divine worship all that
10589 seemed to savor of reverence. And, indeed, if this was observed in regard to the tabernacle and its vessels, and in the animals
10590 to be sacrificed, much
10591 more was it to be observed in the very ministers. Wherefore, in order to obviate contempt for the ministers, it was prescribed
10592 that they should have no bodily stain or defect: since men so deformed are wont to be despised by others. For the same reason
10593 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
10594 manner from any family, but according to their descent from one particular stock, thus giving them distinction and
10595 nobility.
10596 </p><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.
10597 This indeed is the general reason of ornate garments. But the high-priest in particular had eight vestments. First, he had
10598 a linen tunic. Secondly, he had a purple tunic; round the bottom of which were placed "little bells" and "pomegranates of
10599 violet, and purple, and scarlet twice dyed." Thirdly, he had the ephod, which covered his shoulders and his
10600 breast down to the girdle; and it was made of gold, and violet and purple, and scarlet twice dyed and twisted linen: and on
10601 his shoulders he bore two onyx stones, on which were graven the names of the children of Israel. Fourthly, he had the rational,
10602 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
10603 there were twelve precious stones set in four rows, on which also were graven the names of the children of Israel, in
10604 token that the priest bore the burden of the whole people, since he bore their names on his shoulders; and that it was his
10605 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
10606 commanded the "Doctrine and Truth" to be put in the rational: for certain matters regarding moral and dogmatic truth were
10607 written on it. The Jews indeed pretend that on the rational was placed a stone which changed color according to the various
10608 things
10609 which were about to happen to the children of Israel: and this they call the "Truth and Doctrine." Fifthly, he wore a belt
10610 or girdle made of the four colors mentioned above. Sixthly, there was the tiara or mitre which was made of linen. Seventhly,
10611 there was the golden plate which hung over his forehead; on it was inscribed the Lord's name. Eighthly, there were "the linen
10612 breeches to cover the flesh of their nakedness," when they went up to the sanctuary or altar. Of these eight vestments the
10613 lesser priests had four, viz. the linen tunic and breeches, the belt and the tiara.
10614 </p><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;
10615 as though the high-priest confessed himself to be the minister of the Creator of the world, wherefore it is written (
10616 <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
10617 grows. The surrounding belt signified the ocean which surrounds the earth. The violet
10618 tunic denoted the air by its color: its little bells betoken the thunder; the pomegranates, the lightning. The ephod, by its
10619 many colors, signified the starry heaven; the two onyx stones denoted the two hemispheres, or the sun and moon. The twelve
10620 precious stones on the breast are the twelve signs of the zodiac: and they are said to have been placed on the rational because
10621 in heaven, are the types [rationes] of earthly things, according to
10622 <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
10623 order of heaven, and canst thou set down the reason [rationem] thereof on the earth?" The turban or tiara signified the empyrean:
10624 the golden plate was a token of God, the governor of the universe.
10625 </p><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
10626 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:
10627 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,"
10628 i.e. that he should not, from lack of discretion, exceed in one direction or in another, or even
10629 exercise some base occupation: for the nose signifies discretion, because it discerns odors. It is forbidden that he should
10630 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,
10631 too, if he have a swelling either in front or behind [Vulg.: 'if he be crook-backed']: by which is signified too much love
10632 of earthly things: if he be blear-eyed, i.e. if his mind is darkened by carnal affections: for running of the eyes is
10633 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
10634 that he is clothed in the white robe of righteousness. Again, he is rejected "if he have a continued scab," i.e. lustfulness
10635 of the flesh: also, if he have "a dry scurf," which covers the body without giving pain, and is a blemish on the comeliness
10636 of the members; which denotes avarice. Lastly, he is rejected "if he have a rupture" or hernia; through baseness rending his
10637 heart, though it appear not in his deeds.
10638 </p><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.
10639 chastity denoted by the breeches; a pure life, signified by the linen tunic; the moderation of discretion, betokened by the
10640 girdle; and rectitude of purpose, denoted by the mitre covering the head. But the high-priests needed four other things in
10641 addition to these. First, a continual recollection of God in their thoughts; and this was signified by the
10642 golden plate worn over the forehead, with the name of God engraved thereon. Secondly, they had to bear with the shortcomings
10643 of the people: this was denoted by the ephod which they bore on their shoulders. Thirdly, they had to carry the people in
10644 their mind and heart by the solicitude of charity, in token of which they wore the rational. Fourthly, they had to lead a
10645 godly life by performing works of perfection; and this was signified by the violet tunic. Hence little golden bells were fixed
10646 to
10647 the bottom of the violet tunic, which bells signified the teaching of divine things united in the high-priest to his godly
10648 mode of life. In addition to these were the pomegranates, signifying unity of faith and concord in good morals: because his
10649 doctrine should hold together in such a way that it should not rend asunder the unity of faith and peace.
10650 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 5 ad 10"><a name="38081" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38081] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 5 ad 10</span></a> Ad decimum
10651 dicendum quod, sicut iam dictum est, intentio legis erat inducere
10652 ad reverentiam divini cultus. Et hoc dupliciter, uno modo,
10653 excludendo a cultu divino omne id quod poterat esse contemptibile;
10654 alio modo, apponendo ad cultum divinum omne illud quod videbatur ad
10655 honorificentiam pertinere. Et si hoc quidem observabatur in
10656 tabernaculo et vasis eius, et animalibus immolandis, multo magis
10657 hoc observandum erat in ipsis ministris. Et ideo ad removendum
10658 contemptum ministrorum, praeceptum fuit ut non haberent maculam vel
10659 defectum corporalem, quia huiusmodi homines solent apud alios in
10660 contemptu haberi. Propter quod etiam institutum fuit ut non sparsim
10661 ex quolibet genere ad Dei ministerium applicarentur, sed ex certa
10662 prosapia secundum generis successionem, ut ex hoc clariores et
10663 nobiliores haberentur. Ad hoc autem quod in reverentia haberentur,
10664 adhibebatur eis specialis ornatus vestium, et specialis
10665 consecratio. Et haec est in communi causa ornatus vestium. In
10666 speciali autem sciendum est quod pontifex habebat octo ornamenta.
10667 Primo enim, habebat vestem lineam. Secundo, habebat tunicam
10668 hyacinthinam; in cuius extremitate versus pedes, ponebantur per
10669 circuitum tintinabula quaedam, et mala Punica facta ex hyacintho et
10670 purpura coccoque bis tincto. Tertio, habebat superhumerale, quod
10671 tegebat humeros et anteriorem partem usque ad cingulum; quod erat
10672 ex auro et hyacintho et purpura, coccoque bis tincto, et bysso
10673 retorta. Et super humeros habebat duos onychinos, in quibus erant
10674 sculpta nomina filiorum Israel. Quartum erat rationale, ex eadem
10675 materia factum; quod erat quadratum, et ponebatur in pectore, et
10676 coniungebatur superhumerali. Et in hoc rationali erant duodecim
10677 lapides pretiosi distincti per quatuor ordines, in quibus etiam
10678 sculpta erant nomina filiorum Israel, quasi ad designandum quod
10679 ferret onus totius populi, per hoc quod habebat nomina eorum in
10680 humeris; et quod iugiter debebat de eorum salute cogitare, per hoc
10681 quod portabat eos in pectore, quasi in corde habens. In quo etiam
10682 rationali mandavit dominus poni doctrinam et veritatem, quia
10683 quaedam pertinentia ad veritatem iustitiae et doctrinae,
10684 scribebantur in illo rationali. Iudaei tamen fabulantur quod in
10685 rationali erat lapis qui secundum diversos colores mutabatur,
10686 secundum diversa quae debebant accidere filiis Israel, et hoc
10687 vocant veritatem et doctrinam. Quintum erat balteus, idest cingulus
10688 quidam, factus ex praedictis quatuor coloribus. Sextum erat tiara,
10689 idest mitra quaedam, de bysso. Septimum autem erat lamina aurea,
10690 pendens in fronte eius, in qua erat nomen domini. Octavum autem
10691 erant femoralia linea, ut operirent carnem turpitudinis suae,
10692 quando accederent ad sanctuarium vel ad altare. Ex istis autem octo
10693 ornamentis minores sacerdotes habebant quatuor, scilicet tunicam
10694 lineam, femoralia, balteum et tiaram. Horum autem ornamentorum
10695 quidam rationem litteralem assignant, dicentes quod in istis
10696 ornamentis designatur dispositio orbis terrarum, quasi pontifex
10697 protestaretur se esse ministrum creatoris mundi, unde etiam Sap.
10698 XVIII dicitur quod in veste Aaron erat descriptus orbis terrarum.
10699 Nam femoralia linea figurabant terram, ex qua linum nascitur.
10700 Baltei circumvolutio significabat Oceanum, qui circumcingit terram.
10701 Tunica hyacinthina suo colore significabat aerem, per cuius
10702 tintinabula significabantur tonitrua; per mala granata,
10703 coruscationes. Superhumerale vero significabat sua varietate caelum
10704 sidereum, duo onychini, duo hemisphaeria, vel solem et lunam.
10705 Duodecim gemmae in pectore, duodecim signa in zodiaco, quae
10706 dicebantur posita in rationali, quia in caelestibus sunt rationes
10707 terrenorum, secundum illud Iob XXXVIII, <i>numquid nosti ordinem
10708 caeli, et ponis rationem eius in terra?</i> Cidaris autem, vel
10709 tiara, significabat caelum Empyreum. Lamina aurea, Deum omnibus
10710 praesidentem. Figuralis vero ratio manifesta est. Nam maculae vel
10711 defectus corporales a quibus debebant sacerdotes esse immunes,
10712 significant diversa vitia et peccata quibus debent carere.
10713 Prohibetur enim esse caecus, idest, ne sit ignorans. Ne sit
10714 claudus, idest instabilis, et ad diversa se inclinans. Ne sit
10715 parvo, vel grandi, vel torto naso, idest ne per defectum
10716 discretionis, vel in plus vel in minus excedat, aut etiam aliqua
10717 prava exerceat; per nasum enim discretio designatur, quia est
10718 discretivus odoris. Ne sit fracto pede vel manus, idest ne amittat
10719 virtutem bene operandi, vel procedendi in virtutem. Repudiatur
10720 etiam si habeat gibbum vel ante vel retro, per quem significatur
10721 superfluus amor terrenorum. Si est lippus, idest per carnalem
10722 affectum eius ingenium obscuratur, contingit enim lippitudo ex
10723 fluxu humoris. Repudiatur etiam si habeat albuginem in oculo, idest
10724 praesumptionem candoris iustitiae in sua cogitatione. Repudiatur
10725 etiam si habuerit iugem scabiem, idest petulantiam carnis. Et si
10726 habuerit impetiginem, quae sine dolore corpus occupat, et membrorum
10727 decorem foedat, per quam avaritia designatur. Et etiam si sit
10728 herniosus vel ponderosus, qui scilicet gestat pondus turpitudinis
10729 in corde, licet non exerceat in opere. Per ornamenta vero
10730 designantur virtutes ministrorum Dei. Sunt autem quatuor quae sunt
10731 necessariae omnibus ministris, scilicet castitas, quae significatur
10732 per femoralia; puritas vero vitae, quae significatur per lineam
10733 tunicam; moderatio discretionis quae significatur per cingulum;
10734 rectitudo intentionis, quae significatur per tiaram protegentem
10735 caput. Sed prae his pontifices debent quatuor habere. Primo quidem,
10736 iugem Dei memoriam in contemplatione, et hoc significat lamina
10737 aurea habens nomen Dei, in fronte. Secundo, quod supportent
10738 infirmitates populi, quod significat superhumerale. Tertio, quod
10739 habeant populum in corde et in visceribus per sollicitudinem
10740 caritatis, quod significatur per rationale. Quarto, quod habeant
10741 conversationem caelestem per opera perfectionis, quod significatur
10742 per tunicam hyacinthinam. Unde et tunicae hyacinthinae adiunguntur
10743 in extremitate tintinabula aurea, per quae significatur doctrina
10744 divinorum, quae debet coniungi caelesti conversationi pontificis.
10745 Adiunguntur autem mala Punica, per quae significatur unitas fidei
10746 et concordia in bonis moribus, quia sic coniuncta debet esse eius
10747 doctrina, ut per eam fidei et pacis unitas non rumpatur.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q102_A6" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q102_A6-p0.1">Q. 102. A. 6. Whether there was any reasonable cause for the ceremonial observances?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A6-p2">
10748 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that there was no reasonable cause for the ceremonial observances. Because, as the Apostle says (
10749 <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
10750 that they should be forbidden to eat certain foods, as being unclean according to
10751 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Lev.11" target="asv">Lev. 11</a> [*Cf.
10752 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p2.3" href="./asv.html#Deut.14" target="asv">Dt. 14</a>].
10753 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 6 arg. 1"><a name="38082" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38082] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 6 arg. 1</span></a> Ad sextum
10754 sic proceditur. Videtur quod observantiarum caeremonialium nulla
10755 fuerit rationabilis causa. Quia ut apostolus dicit, I ad Tim. IV,
10756 <i>omnis creatura Dei est bona, et nihil reiiciendum quod cum
10757 gratiarum actione percipitur</i>. Inconvenienter igitur prohibiti
10758 sunt ab esu quorundam ciborum tanquam immundorum, ut patet Lev.
10759 XI.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A6-p3">
10760 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, just as animals are given to man for food, so also are herbs: wherefore it is written (
10761 <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
10762 unclean, although some are most harmful, for instance, those that are poisonous. Therefore it seems that neither should any
10763 animals have been prohibited as being unclean.
10764 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 6 arg. 2"><a name="38083" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38083] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 6 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
10765 sicut animalia dantur in cibum hominis, ita etiam et herbae, unde
10766 dicitur Gen. IX, <i>quasi olera virentia dedi vobis omnem
10767 carnem</i>. Sed in herbis lex non distinxit aliquas immundas, cum
10768 tamen aliquae illarum sint maxime nocivae, ut puta venenosae. Ergo
10769 videtur quod nec de animalibus aliqua debuerint prohiberi tanquam
10770 immunda.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A6-p4">
10771 <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
10772 unclean. But flesh is generated from blood. Since therefore all flesh was not prohibited as unclean, it seems that in like
10773 manner neither should blood have been forbidden as unclean; nor the fat which is engendered from blood.
10774 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 6 arg. 3"><a name="38084" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38084] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 6 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
10775 si materia est immunda ex qua aliquid generatur, pari ratione
10776 videtur quod id quod generatur ex ea, sit immundum. Sed ex sanguine
10777 generatur caro. Cum igitur non omnes carnes prohiberentur tanquam
10778 immundae, pari ratione nec sanguis debuit prohiberi quasi immundus;
10779 aut adeps, qui ex sanguine generatur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A6-p5">
10780 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, Our Lord said (
10781 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.10.28" target="asv">Mat. 10:28</a>; cf.
10782 <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
10783 not be true if after death harm might come to man through anything done with his body. Much less therefore does it matter
10784 to an animal already dead how its flesh be cooked. Consequently there seems to be no reason in what is said,
10785 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p5.3" href="./asv.html#Exod.23.19" target="asv">Ex. 23:19</a>: "Thou
10786 shalt not boil a kid in the milk of its dam."
10787 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 6 arg. 4"><a name="38085" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38085] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 6 arg. 4</span></a> Praeterea,
10788 dominus dicit, Matth. X, eos non esse timendos qui occidunt corpus,
10789 quia post mortem non habent quid faciant, quod non esset verum, si
10790 in nocumentum homini cederet quid ex eo fieret. Multo igitur minus
10791 pertinet ad animal iam occisum qualiter eius carnes decoquantur.
10792 Irrationabile igitur videtur esse quod dicitur Exod. XXIII, <i>non
10793 coques haedum in lacte matris suae</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A6-p6">
10794 <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
10795 (
10796 <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
10797 <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
10798 [*'Praeputia,' which Douay version renders 'first fruits'] of them," i.e. the first crops, and they "shall be unclean to
10799 you, neither shall you eat of them."
10800 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 6 arg. 5"><a name="38086" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38086] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 6 arg. 5</span></a> Praeterea,
10801 ea quae sunt primitiva in hominibus et animalibus, tanquam
10802 perfectiora, praecipiuntur domino offerri. Inconvenienter igitur
10803 praecipitur Lev. XIX, <i>quando ingressi fueritis terram, et
10804 plantaveritis in ea ligna pomifera, auferetis praeputia eorum</i>,
10805 idest prima germina, et immunda erunt vobis, nec edetis ex eis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A6-p7">
10806 <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, clothing is something extraneous to man's body. Therefore certain kinds of garments should not have been forbidden
10807 to the Jews: for instance (
10808 <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 (
10809 <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 (
10810 <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
10811 woven of woolen and linen together."
10812 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 6 arg. 6"><a name="38087" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38087] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 6 arg. 6</span></a> Praeterea,
10813 vestimentum extra corpus hominis est. Non igitur debuerunt quaedam
10814 specialia vestimenta Iudaeis interdici, puta quod dicitur Lev. XIX,
10815 <i>vestem quae ex duobus texta est, non indueris</i>; et Deut.
10816 XXII, <i>non induetur mulier veste virili, et vir non induetur
10817 veste feminea</i>; et infra, <i>non indueris vestimento quod ex
10818 lana linoque contextum est</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A6-p8">
10819 <b>Objection 7:</b> Further, to be mindful of God's commandments concerns not the body but the heart. Therefore it is unsuitably prescribed (
10820 <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
10821 entry"; and (
10822 <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 .
10823 . . they may remember . . . the commandments
10824 of the Lord."
10825 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 6 arg. 7"><a name="38088" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38088] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 6 arg. 7</span></a> Praeterea,
10826 memoria mandatorum Dei non pertinet ad corpus, sed ad cor.
10827 Inconvenienter igitur praecipitur Deut. VI, quod <i>ligarent
10828 praecepta Dei quasi signum in manu sua, et quod scriberentur in
10829 limine ostiorum; et quod per angulos palliorum facerent fimbrias,
10830 in quibus ponerent vittas hyacinthinas, in memoriam mandatorum
10831 Dei</i>, ut habetur Num. XV.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A6-p9">
10832 <b>Objection 8:</b> Further, the Apostle says (
10833 <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
10834 it commanded (
10835 <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
10836 (
10837 <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 (
10838 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p9.4" href="./asv.html#Lev.19.19" target="asv">Lev.
10839 19:19
10840 </a>): "Thou shalt not make thy cattle to gender with beasts of any other kind."
10841 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 6 arg. 8"><a name="38089" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38089] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 6 arg. 8</span></a> Praeterea,
10842 apostolus dicit, I ad Cor. IX, quod non est cura Deo de bobus, et
10843 per consequens neque de aliis animalibus irrationalibus.
10844 Inconvenienter igitur praecipitur Deut. XXII, <i>si ambulaveris per
10845 viam, et inveneris nidum avis, non tenebis matrem cum filiis</i>;
10846 et Deut. XXV, <i>non alligabis os bovis triturantis</i>; et Lev.
10847 XIX, <i>iumenta tua non facies coire cum alterius generis
10848 animantibus</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A6-p10">
10849 <b>Objection 9:</b> Further, no distinction was made between clean and unclean plants. Much less therefore should any distinction have been made
10850 about the cultivation of plants. Therefore it was unfittingly prescribed (
10851 <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 (
10852 <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."
10853 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 6 arg. 9"><a name="38090" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38090] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 6 arg. 9</span></a> Praeterea,
10854 inter plantas non fiebat discretio mundorum ab immundis. Ergo multo
10855 minus circa culturam plantarum debuit aliqua discretio adhiberi.
10856 Ergo inconvenienter praecipitur Lev. XIX, <i>agrum non seres
10857 diverso semine</i>; et Deut. XXII, <i>non seres vineam tuam altero
10858 semine; et, non arabis in bove simul et asino</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A6-p11">
10859 <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
10860 debar man from taking silver and gold of which idols were made, or anything they found in the houses of idols, as expressed
10861 in the commandment of the Law (
10862 <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
10863 <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
10864 of."
10865 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 6 arg. 10"><a name="38091" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38091] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 6 arg. 10</span></a>
10866 Praeterea, ea quae sunt inanimata, maxime videmus hominum potestati
10867 esse subiecta. Inconvenienter igitur arcetur homo ab argento et
10868 auro ex quibus fabricata sunt idola, et ab aliis quae in idolorum
10869 domibus inveniuntur, praecepto legis quod habetur Deut. VII.
10870 Ridiculum etiam videtur esse praeceptum quod habetur Deut. XXIII,
10871 ut <i>egestiones humo operirent, fodientes in terra</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A6-p12">
10872 <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:
10873 wherefore Tobias is commended for so doing (
10874 <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
10875 and infamy. Therefore it seems inconsistent for these things to be forbidden to priests (
10876 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p12.2" href="./asv.html#Lev.21" target="asv">Lev. 21</a>).
10877 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 6 arg. 11"><a name="38092" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38092] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 6 arg. 11</span></a>
10878 Praeterea, pietas maxime in sacerdotibus requiritur. Sed ad
10879 pietatem pertinere videtur quod aliquis funeribus amicorum
10880 intersit, unde etiam de hac Tobias laudatur, ut habetur Tob. I.
10881 Similiter etiam quandoque ad pietatem pertinet quod aliquis in
10882 uxorem accipiat meretricem, quia per hoc eam a peccato et infamia
10883 liberat. Ergo videtur quod haec inconvenienter prohibeantur
10884 sacerdotibus, Lev. XXI.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A6-p13">
10885 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
10886 <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
10887 by God to be a special prerogative of that people. Therefore they are not without reason or cause.
10888 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 6 s. c."><a name="38093" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38093] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 6 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
10889 est quod dicitur Deut. XVIII, <i>tu autem a domino Deo tuo aliter
10890 institutus es</i>, ex quo potest accipi quod huiusmodi observantiae
10891 sunt institutae a Deo ad quandam specialem illius populi
10892 praerogativam. Non ergo sunt irrationabiles, aut sine causa.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A6-p14">
10893 <b>I answer that,</b> The Jewish people, as stated above
10894 <a href="#FS_Q102_A5" id="FS_Q102_A6-p14.1" shape="rect">(A[5])</a>, were specially chosen for the worship of God, and among them the priests themselves were specially set apart for that purpose.
10895 And just as other things that are applied to the divine worship, need to be marked in some particular way so that they be
10896 worthy of the worship of God; so too in that people's, and especially the priests', mode of life, there needed to be certain
10897 special things
10898 befitting the divine worship, whether spiritual or corporal. Now the worship prescribed by the Law foreshadowed the mystery
10899 of Christ: so that whatever they did was a figure of things pertaining to Christ, according to
10900 <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,
10901 first according to their fittingness to the worship of God; secondly, according as they foreshadow something touching the
10902 Christian mode of life.
10903 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 6 co."><a name="38094" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38094] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 6 co.</span></a> Respondeo
10904 dicendum quod populus Iudaeorum, ut supra dictum est, specialiter
10905 erat deputatus ad cultum divinum; et inter eos, specialiter
10906 sacerdotes. Et sicut aliae res quae applicantur ad cultum divinum,
10907 aliquam specialitatem debent habere, quod pertinet ad
10908 honorificentiam divini cultus; ita etiam et in conversatione illius
10909 populi, et praecipue sacerdotum, debuerunt esse aliqua specialia
10910 congruentia ad cultum divinum, vel spiritualem vel corporalem.
10911 Cultus autem legis figurabat mysterium Christi, unde omnia eorum
10912 gesta figurabant ea quae ad Christum pertinent; secundum illud I
10913 Cor. X, <i>omnia in figuram contingebant illis</i>. Et ideo
10914 rationes harum observantiarum dupliciter assignari possunt, uno
10915 modo, secundum congruentiam ad divinum cultum; alio modo, secundum
10916 quod figurant aliquid circa Christianorum vitam.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q102_A6-p15">
10917 <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
10918 was defiled; and another consisting in some kind of corruption, whereby the body was in some way infected. Speaking then of
10919 the first-mentioned uncleanness, no kind of food is unclean, or can defile a man, by reason of its nature; wherefore we read
10920 (
10921 <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
10922 man; but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man": which words are explained (
10923 <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
10924 or a vow, or from excessive concupiscence; or through their being an incentive to lust, for which reason some refrain from
10925 wine and flesh-meat.
10926 </p><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,
10927 either because like the pig they feed on unclean things; or because their life is among unclean surroundings: thus certain
10928 animals, like moles and mice and such like, live underground, whence they contract a certain unpleasant smell; or because
10929 their flesh, through being too moist or too dry, engenders corrupt humors in the human body. Hence they were
10930 forbidden to eat the flesh of flat-footed animals, i.e. animals having an uncloven hoof, on account of their earthiness; and
10931 in like manner they were forbidden to eat the flesh of animals that have many clefts in their feet, because such are very
10932 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
10933 certain birds of prey the flesh of which is very dry, and certain water-fowl on account of their exceeding humidity. In like
10934 manner certain fish lacking fins and scales were prohibited on account of their excessive moisture; such as eels and the like.
10935 They were, however, allowed to eat ruminants and animals with a divided hoof, because in such animals the humors are well
10936 absorbed, and their nature well balanced: for neither are they too moist, as is indicated by the hoof; nor are they too earthly,
10937 which is shown by their having not a flat but a cloven hoof. Of fishes they were allowed to partake of the drier kinds,
10938 of which the fins and scales are an indication, because thereby the moist nature of the fish is tempered. Of birds they were
10939 allowed to eat the tamer kinds, such as hens, partridges, and the like. Another reason was detestation of idolatry: because
10940 the Gentiles, and especially the Egyptians, among whom they had grown up, offered up these forbidden animals to their idols,
10941 or employed them for the purpose of sorcery: whereas they did not eat those animals which the Jews were allowed to eat, but
10942 worshipped them as gods, or abstained, for some other motive, from eating them, as stated above (A[3], ad 2). The third reason
10943 was to prevent excessive care about food: wherefore they were allowed to eat those animals which could be procured easily
10944 and promptly.
10945 </p><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
10946 forbidden, both in order to avoid cruelty, that they might abhor the shedding of human blood, as stated above (A[3], ad 8);
10947 and in order to shun idolatrous rite whereby it was customary for men to collect the blood and to gather together around it
10948 for a banquet in honor of the idols, to whom they held the blood to be most acceptable. Hence the Lord commanded
10949 the blood to be poured out and to be covered with earth (
10950 <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
10951 animals would not be separated from the body: or because this form of death is very painful to the victim; and the Lord wished
10952 to withdraw them from cruelty even in regard to irrational animals, so as to be less inclined to be cruel to other men, through
10953 being used to be kind to beasts.
10954 They were forbidden to eat the fat: both because idolaters ate it in honor of their gods; and because it used to be burnt
10955 in honor of God; and, again, because blood and fat are not nutritious, which is the cause assigned by Rabbi Moses (Doct. Perplex.
10956 iii). The reason why they were forbidden to eat the sinews is given in
10957 <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
10958 and it shrank."
10959 </p><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
10960 were prohibited. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faustum iv, 7): "If the swine and lamb be called in question, both are clean
10961 by nature, because all God's creatures are good: yet the lamb is clean, and the pig is unclean in a certain signification.
10962 Thus if you speak of a foolish, and of a wise man, each of these expressions is clean considered in the nature of
10963 the sound, letters and syllables of which it is composed: but in signification, the one is clean, the other unclean." The
10964 animal that chews the cud and has a divided hoof, is clean in signification. Because division of the hoof is a figure of the
10965 two Testaments: or of the Father and Son: or of the two natures in Christ: of the distinction of good and evil. While chewing
10966 the cud signifies meditation on the Scriptures and a sound understanding thereof; and whoever lacks either of these is
10967 spiritually unclean. In like manner those fish that have scales and fins are clean in signification. Because fins signify
10968 the heavenly or contemplative life; while scales signify a life of trials, each of which is required for spiritual cleanness.
10969 Of birds certain kinds were forbidden. In the eagle which flies at a great height, pride is forbidden: in the griffon which
10970 is hostile to horses and men, cruelty of powerful men is prohibited. The osprey, which feeds on very small birds, signifies
10971 those who oppress the poor. The kite, which is full of cunning, denotes those who are fraudulent in their dealings. The vulture,
10972 which follows an army, expecting to feed on the carcases of the slain, signifies those who like others to die or to fight
10973 among themselves that they may gain thereby. Birds of the raven kind signify those who are blackened by their lusts; or those
10974 who lack kindly feelings, for the raven did not return when once it had been let loose from the ark. The ostrich which,
10975 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
10976 up with worldly business. The owl, which sees clearly at night, but cannot see in the daytime, denotes those who are clever
10977 in temporal affairs, but dull in spiritual matters. The gull, which flies both in the air and swims in the water, signifies
10978 those who are partial both to Circumcision and to Baptism: or else it denotes those who would fly by contemplation, yet dwell
10979 in the waters of sensual delights. The hawk, which helps men to seize the prey, is a figure of those who assist the strong
10980 to prey on the poor. The screech-owl, which seeks its food by night but hides by day, signifies the lustful man who seeks
10981 to lie hidden in his deeds of darkness. The cormorant, so constituted that it can stay a long time under water, denotes the
10982 glutton who plunges into the waters of pleasure. The ibis is an African bird with a long beak, and feeds on snakes; and perhaps
10983 it
10984 is the same as the stork: it signifies the envious man, who refreshes himself with the ills of others, as with snakes. The
10985 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
10986 those who seek earthly profit though an external brightness of virtue. The bittern is a bird of the East: it has a long beak,
10987 and its jaws are furnished with follicules, wherein it stores its food at first, after a time proceeding to digest it: it
10988 is a
10989 figure of the miser, who is excessively careful in hoarding up the necessaries of life. The coot [*Douay: 'porphyrion.' St.
10990 Thomas' description tallies with the coot or moorhen: though of course he is mistaken about the feet differing from one another.]
10991 has this peculiarity apart from other birds, that it has a webbed foot for swimming, and a cloven foot for walking: for it
10992 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
10993 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
10994 will. The heron [*Vulg.: 'herodionem'], commonly called a falcon, signifies those whose "feet are swift to shed blood" (
10995 <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
10996 name for all plovers.], which is a garrulous bird, signifies the gossip. The hoopoe, which builds its
10997 nest on dung, feeds on foetid ordure, and whose song is like a groan, denotes worldly grief which works death in those who
10998 are unclean. The bat, which flies near the ground, signifies those who being gifted with worldly knowledge, seek none but
10999 earthly things. Of fowls and quadrupeds those alone were permitted which have the hind-legs longer than the forelegs, so that
11000 they can leap: whereas those were forbidden which cling rather to the earth: because those who abuse the doctrine of the four
11001 Evangelists, so that they are not lifted up thereby, are reputed unclean. By the prohibition of blood, fat and nerves, we
11002 are to understand the forbidding of cruelty, lust, and bravery in committing sin.
11003 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 6 ad 1"><a name="38095" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38095] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 6 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
11004 ergo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, duplex pollutio, vel
11005 immunditia, observabatur in lege, una quidem culpae, per quam
11006 polluebatur anima; alia autem corruptionis cuiusdam, per quam
11007 quodammodo inquinatur corpus. Loquendo igitur de prima immunditia,
11008 nulla genera ciborum immunda sunt, vel hominem inquinare possunt,
11009 secundum suam naturam, unde dicitur Matth. XV, <i>non quod intrat
11010 in os, coinquinat hominem; sed quae procedunt de ore, haec
11011 coinquinant hominem</i>; et exponitur hoc de peccatis. Possunt
11012 tamen aliqui cibi per accidens inquinare animam, inquantum scilicet
11013 contra obedientiam vel votum, vel nimia concupiscentia comeduntur;
11014 vel inquantum praebent fomentum luxuriae, propter quod aliqui a
11015 vino et carnibus abstinent. Secundum autem corporalem immunditiam,
11016 quae est corruptionis cuiusdam, aliquae animalium carnes
11017 immunditiam habent, vel quia ex rebus immundis nutriuntur, sicut
11018 porcus; aut immunde conversantur, sicut quaedam animalia sub terra
11019 habitantia, sicut talpae et mures et alia huiusmodi, unde etiam
11020 quendam fetorem contrahunt; vel quia eorum carnes, propter
11021 superfluam umiditatem vel siccitatem, corruptos humores in
11022 corporibus humanis generant. Et ideo prohibitae sunt eis carnes
11023 animalium habentium soleas, idest ungulam unam non fissam, propter
11024 eorum terrestreitatem. Et similiter sunt eis prohibitae carnes
11025 animalium habentium multas fissuras in pedibus, quia sunt nimis
11026 cholerica et adusta, sicut carnes leonis et huiusmodi. Et eadem
11027 ratione prohibitae sunt eis aves quaedam rapaces, quae sunt nimiae
11028 siccitatis; et quaedam aves aquaticae, propter excessum
11029 humiditatis. Similiter etiam quidam pisces non habentes pinnulas et
11030 squamas, ut anguillae et huiusmodi, propter excessum humiditatis.
11031 Sunt autem eis concessa ad esum animalia ruminantia et findentia
11032 ungulam, quia habent humores bene digestos, et sunt medie
11033 complexionata, quia nec sunt nimis humida, quod significant
11034 ungulae; neque sunt nimis terrestria, cum non habeant ungulam
11035 continuam, sed fissam. In piscibus etiam concessi sunt eis pisces
11036 sicciores, quod significatur per hoc quod habent squamas et
11037 pinnulas, per hoc enim efficitur temperata complexio humida
11038 piscium. In avibus etiam sunt eis concessae magis temperatae, sicut
11039 gallinae, perdices, et aliae huiusmodi. Alia ratio fuit in
11040 detestationem idololatriae. Nam gentiles, et praecipue Aegyptii,
11041 inter quos erant nutriti, huiusmodi animalia prohibita idolis
11042 immolabant, vel eis ad maleficia utebantur. Animalia vero quae
11043 Iudaeis sunt concessa ad esum non comedebant, sed ea tanquam deos
11044 colebant; vel propter aliam causam ab eis abstinebant, ut supra
11045 dictum est. Tertia ratio est ad tollendam nimiam diligentiam circa
11046 cibaria. Et ideo conceduntur illa animalia quae de facili et in
11047 promptu haberi possunt. Generaliter tamen prohibitus est eis esus
11048 sanguinis et adipis cuiuslibet animalis. Sanguinis quidem tum ad
11049 vitandam crudelitatem, ut detestarentur humanum sanguinem
11050 effundere, sicut supra dictum est. Tum etiam ad vitandum
11051 idololatriae ritum, quia eorum consuetudo erat ut circa sanguinem
11052 congregatum adunarentur ad comedendum in honorem idolorum, quibus
11053 reputabant sanguinem acceptissimum esse. Et ideo dominus mandavit
11054 quod sanguis effunderetur, et quod pulvere operiretur. Et propter
11055 hoc etiam prohibitum est eis comedere animalia suffocata vel
11056 strangulata, quia sanguis eorum non separaretur a carne. Vel quia
11057 in tali morte animalia multum affliguntur; et dominus voluit eos a
11058 crudelitate prohibere etiam circa animalia bruta, ut per hoc magis
11059 recederent a crudelitate hominis, habentes exercitium pietatis
11060 etiam circa bestias. Adipis etiam esus prohibitus est eis, tum quia
11061 idololatrae comedebant illum in honorem deorum suorum. Tum etiam
11062 quia cremabatur in honorem Dei. Tum etiam quia sanguis et adeps non
11063 generant bonum nutrimentum, quod pro causa inducit Rabbi Moyses.
11064 Causa autem prohibitionis esus nervorum exprimitur Gen. XXXII, ubi
11065 dicitur quod <i>non comedunt filii Israel nervum, eo quod tetigerit
11066 nervum femoris Iacob, et obstupuerit</i>. Figuralis autem ratio
11067 horum est quia per omnia huiusmodi animalia prohibita designantur
11068 aliqua peccata, in quorum figuram illa animalia prohibentur. Unde
11069 dicit Augustinus, in libro contra Faustum, <i>si de porco et agno
11070 requiratur, utrumque natura mundum est, quia omnis creatura Dei
11071 bona est, quadam vero significatione, agnus mundus, porcus immundus
11072 est. Tanquam, si stultum et sapientem diceres, utrumque hoc verbum
11073 natura vocis et litterarum et syllabarum ex quibus constat, mundum
11074 est, significatione autem unum est mundum, et aliud immundum</i>.
11075 Animal enim quod ruminat et ungulam findit, mundum est
11076 significatione. Quia fissio ungulae significat distinctionem duorum
11077 testamentorum; vel patris et filii; vel duarum naturarum in
11078 Christo; vel discretionem boni et mali. Ruminatio autem significat
11079 meditationem Scripturarum, et sanum intellectum earum. Cuicumque
11080 autem horum alterum deest, spiritualiter immundus est. Similiter
11081 etiam in piscibus illi qui habent squamas et pinnulas,
11082 significatione mundi sunt. Quia per pinnulas significatur vita
11083 sublimis, vel contemplatio; per squamas autem significatur aspera
11084 vita; quorum utrumque necessarium est ad munditiam spiritualem. In
11085 avibus autem specialia quaedam genera prohibentur. In aquila enim,
11086 quae alte volat, prohibetur superbia. In gryphe autem, qui equis et
11087 hominibus infestus est, crudelitas potentum prohibetur. In
11088 haliaeeto autem, qui pascitur minutis avibus, significantur illi
11089 qui sunt pauperibus molesti. In milvo autem, qui maxime insidiis
11090 utitur, designantur fraudulenti. In vulture autem, qui sequitur
11091 exercitum expectans comedere cadavera mortuorum, significantur illi
11092 qui mortes et seditiones hominum affectant ut inde lucrentur. Per
11093 animalia corvini generis significantur illi qui sunt voluptatibus
11094 denigrati, vel qui sunt expertes bonae affectionis, quia corvus,
11095 semel emissus ab arca, non est reversus. Per struthionem, qui, cum
11096 sit avis, volare non potest, sed semper est circa terram,
11097 significantur Deo militantes et se negotiis saecularibus
11098 implicantes. Nycticorax, quae in nocte acuti est visus, in die
11099 autem non videt, significat eos qui in temporalibus sunt astuti, in
11100 spiritualibus hebetes. Larus autem, qui et volat in aere et natat
11101 in aqua, significat eos qui et circumcisionem et Baptismum
11102 venerantur, vel significat eos qui per contemplationem volare
11103 volunt, et tamen vivunt in aquis voluptatum. Accipiter vero, qui
11104 deservit hominibus ad praedam, significat eos qui ministrant
11105 potentibus ad depraedandum pauperes. Per bubonem, qui in nocte
11106 pastum quaerit, de die autem latet, significantur luxuriosi, qui
11107 occultari quaerunt in nocturnis operibus quae agunt. Mergulus
11108 autem, cuius natura est ut sub undis diutius immoretur, significat
11109 gulosos, qui aquis deliciarum se immergunt. Ibis vero avis est in
11110 Africa habens longum rostrum, quae serpentibus pascitur, et forte
11111 est idem quod ciconia, et significat invidos, qui de malis aliorum,
11112 quasi de serpentibus, reficiuntur. Cygnus autem est coloris
11113 candidi, et longo collo quod habet, ex profunditate terrae vel
11114 aquae cibum trahit, et potest significare homines qui per
11115 exteriorem iustitiae candorem lucra terrena quaerunt. Onocrotalus
11116 autem avis est in partibus orientis, longo rostro, quae in faucibus
11117 habet quosdam folliculos, in quibus primo cibum reponit, et post
11118 horam in ventrem mittit, et significat avaros, qui immoderata
11119 sollicitudine vitae necessaria congregant. Porphyrio autem, praeter
11120 modum aliarum avium, habet unum pedem latum ad natandum, alium
11121 fissum ad ambulandum, quia et in aqua natat ut anates, et in terra
11122 ambulat ut perdices, solo morsu bibit, omnem cibum aqua tingens, et
11123 significat eos qui nihil ad alterius arbitrium facere volunt, sed
11124 solum quod fuerit tinctum aqua propriae voluntatis. Per Herodionem
11125 qui vulgariter falco dicitur, significantur illi quorum pedes sunt
11126 veloces ad effundendum sanguinem. Charadrius autem, quae est avis
11127 garrula, significat loquaces. Upupa autem, quae nidificat in
11128 stercoribus et fetenti pascitur fimo, et gemitum in cantu simulat,
11129 significat tristitiam saeculi, quae in hominibus immundis mortem
11130 operatur. Per vespertilionem autem, quae circa terram volitat,
11131 significantur illi qui, saeculari scientia praediti, sola terrena
11132 sapiunt. Circa volatilia autem et quadrupedia, illa sola
11133 conceduntur eis quae posteriora crura habent longiora, ut salire
11134 possint. Alia vero, quae terrae magis adhaerent, prohibentur, quia
11135 illi qui abutuntur doctrina quatuor Evangelistarum, ut per eam in
11136 altum non subleventur, immundi reputantur. In sanguine vero et
11137 adipe et nervo, intelligitur prohiberi crudelitas, et voluptas, et
11138 fortitudo ad peccandum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q102_A6-p19">
11139 <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
11140 been introduced after the deluge; for it is written (
11141 <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
11142 of the soil savors rather of a simple life; whereas the eating of flesh savors of delicate and over-careful living. For the
11143 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
11144 little effort: whereas no small trouble is necessary either to rear or to catch an animal. Consequently God being wishful
11145 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
11146 are produced by the soil. Another reason may be that animals were offered to idols, while the products of the soil were
11147 not.
11148 </p><p id="FS_Q102_A6-p20"> The Reply to the Third Objection is clear from what has been said (ad 1).</p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 6 ad 2"><a name="38096" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38096] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 6 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
11149 dicendum quod esus plantarum et aliorum terrae nascentium adfuit
11150 apud homines etiam ante diluvium, sed esus carnium videtur esse
11151 post diluvium introductus; dicitur enim Gen. IX, <i>quasi olera
11152 virentia dedi vobis omnem carnem</i>. Et hoc ideo, quia esus terrae
11153 nascentium magis pertinet ad quandam simplicitatem vitae; esus
11154 autem carnium ad quasdam delicias et curiositatem vivendi. Sponte
11155 enim terra herbam germinat, vel cum modico studio huiusmodi terrae
11156 nascentia in magna copia procurantur, oportet autem cum magno
11157 studio animalia vel nutrire, vel etiam capere. Et ideo volens
11158 dominus populum suum reducere ad simpliciorem victum, multa in
11159 genere animalium eis prohibuit, non autem in genere terrae
11160 nascentium. Vel etiam quia animalia immolabantur idolis, non autem
11161 terrae nascentia.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A6-p21">
11162 <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
11163 heartlessness if the dam's milk, which was intended for the nourishment of her offspring, were served up on the same dish.
11164 It might also be said that the Gentiles in celebrating the feasts of their idols prepared the flesh of kids in this manner,
11165 for the purpose of sacrifice or banquet: hence (
11166 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q102_A6-p21.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.23" target="asv">Ex. 23</a>) after the solemnities to be
11167 celebrated under the Law had been foretold, it is added: "Thou shalt not boil a kid in the milk of its dam." The figurative
11168 reason for this prohibition is this: the kid, signifying Christ, on account of "the likeness of sinful flesh" (
11169 <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
11170 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.
11171 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 6 ad 3"><a name="38097" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38097] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 6 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
11172 patet responsio ex dictis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q102_A6-p22">
11173 <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
11174 of secrecy. Consequently (the Israelites) were commanded to look upon the fruits of the first three years as unclean: for
11175 in that country nearly all the trees bear fruit in three years' time; those trees, to wit, that are cultivated either from
11176 seed, or from a graft, or from a cutting: but it seldom happens that the
11177 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
11178 what happened most frequently. The fruits, however, of the fourth year, as being the firstlings of clean fruits, were offered
11179 to God: and from the fifth year onward they were eaten.
11180 </p><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
11181 Abraham to David, the second, until they were carried away to Babylon, the third until the time of Christ), the Fruit of the
11182 Law, i.e. Christ, was to be offered to God. Or again, that we must mistrust our first efforts, on account of their imperfection.
11183 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 6 ad 4"><a name="38098" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38098] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 6 ad 4</span></a> Ad quartum
11184 dicendum quod, etsi haedus occisus non sentiat qualiter carnes eius
11185 coquantur, tamen in animo decoquentis ad quandam crudelitatem
11186 pertinere videtur si lac matris, quod datum est ei pro nutrimento,
11187 adhibeatur ad consumptionem carnium ipsius. Vel potest dici quod
11188 gentiles in solemnitatibus idolorum taliter carnes haedi coquebant,
11189 ad immolandum vel ad comedendum. Et ideo Exod. XXIII, postquam
11190 praedictum fuerat de solemnitatibus celebrandis in lege, subditur,
11191 <i>non coques haedum in lacte matris suae</i>. Figuralis autem
11192 ratio huius prohibitionis est quia praefigurabatur quod Christus,
11193 qui est haedus propter similitudinem carnis peccati, non erat a
11194 Iudaeis coquendus, idest occidendus, in lacte matris, idest tempore
11195 infantiae. Vel significatur quod haedus idest peccator, non est
11196 coquendus in lacte matris, idest non est blanditiis
11197 deliniendus.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A6-p24">
11198 <b>Reply to Objection 6:</b> It is said of a man in
11199 <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
11200 nations, not only by the sign of the circumcision, which was in the flesh, but also by a certain difference of attire. Wherefore
11201 they were forbidden to wear garments woven of woolen and linen together, and for a woman to be clothed with man's apparel,
11202 or vice versa, for two
11203 reasons. First, to avoid idolatrous worship. Because the Gentiles, in their religious rites, used garments of this sort, made
11204 of various materials. Moreover in the worship of Mars, women put on men's armor; while, conversely, in the worship of Venus
11205 men donned women's attire. The second reason was to preserve them from lust: because the employment of various materials in
11206 the making of garments signified inordinate union of sexes, while the use of male attire by a woman, or vice versa, has an
11207 incentive to evil desires, and offers an occasion of lust. The figurative reason is that the prohibition of wearing a garment
11208 woven of woolen and linen signified that it was forbidden to unite the simplicity of innocence, denoted by wool, with the
11209 duplicity of malice, betokened by linen. It also signifies that woman is forbidden to presume to teach, or perform other duties
11210 of men: or that man should not adopt the effeminate manners of a woman.
11211 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 6 ad 5"><a name="38099" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38099] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 6 ad 5</span></a> Ad quintum
11212 dicendum quod gentiles fructus primitivos, quos fortunatos
11213 aestimabant, diis suis offerebant, vel etiam comburebant eos ad
11214 quaedam magica facienda. Et ideo praeceptum est eis ut fructus
11215 trium primorum annorum immundos reputarent. In tribus enim annis
11216 fere omnes arbores terrae illius fructum producunt, quae scilicet
11217 vel seminando, vel inserendo, vel plantando coluntur. Raro autem
11218 contingit quod ossa fructuum arboris, vel semina latentia,
11219 seminentur, haec enim tardius facerent fructum, sed lex respexit ad
11220 id quod frequentius fit. Poma autem quarti anni, tanquam primitiae
11221 mundorum fructuum, Deo offerebantur, a quinto autem anno, et
11222 deinceps, comedebantur. Figuralis autem ratio est quia per hoc
11223 praefiguratur quod post tres status legis, quorum unus est ab
11224 Abraham usque ad David, secundus usque ad transmigrationem
11225 Babylonis, tertius usque ad Christum, erat Christus Deo offerendus,
11226 qui est fructus legis. Vel quia primordia nostrorum operum debent
11227 esse nobis suspecta, propter imperfectionem.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q102_A6-p25">
11228 <b>Reply to Objection 7:</b> As Jerome says on
11229 <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
11230 be distinguished from other nations." Hence, in this way, they professed to be Jews: and consequently the very sight of this
11231 sign reminded them of their law.
11232 </p><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
11233 move between thy eyes'], the Pharisees gave a false interpretation to these words, and wrote the decalogue of Moses on a parchment,
11234 and tied it on their foreheads like a wreath, so that it moved in front of their eyes": whereas the intention of the Lord
11235 in giving this commandment was that they should be bound in their hands, i.e. in their works; and that they
11236 should be before their eyes, i.e. in their thoughts. The violet-colored fillets which were inserted in their cloaks signify
11237 the godly intention which should accompany our every deed. It may, however, be said that, because they were a carnal-minded
11238 and stiff-necked people, it was necessary for them to be stirred by these sensible things to the observance of the Law.
11239 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 6 ad 6"><a name="38100" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38100] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 6 ad 6</span></a> Ad sextum
11240 dicendum quod sicut dicitur Eccli. XIX, <i>amictus corporis
11241 enuntiat de homine</i>. Et ideo voluit dominus ut populus eius
11242 distingueretur ab aliis populis non solum signo circumcisionis,
11243 quod erat in carne, sed etiam certa habitus distinctione. Et ideo
11244 prohibitum fuit eis ne induerentur vestimento ex lana et lino
11245 contexto, et ne mulier indueretur veste virili, aut e converso,
11246 propter duo. Primo quidem, ad vitandum idololatriae cultum.
11247 Huiusmodi enim variis vestibus ex diversis confectis gentiles in
11248 cultu suorum deorum utebantur. Et etiam in cultu Martis mulieres
11249 utebantur armis virorum; in cultu autem Veneris e converso viri
11250 utebantur vestibus mulierum. Alia ratio est ad declinandam
11251 luxuriam. Nam per commixtiones varias in vestimentis omnis
11252 inordinata commixtio coitus excluditur. Quod autem mulier induatur
11253 veste virili, aut e converso, incentivum est concupiscentiae, et
11254 occasionem libidini praestat. Figuralis autem ratio est quia in
11255 vestimento contexto ex lana et lino interdicitur coniunctio
11256 simplicitatis innocentiae, quae figuratur per lanam, et
11257 subtilitatis malitiae, quae figuratur per linum. Prohibetur etiam
11258 quod mulier non usurpet sibi doctrinam, vel alia virorum officia;
11259 vel vir declinet ad mollities mulierum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q102_A6-p27">
11260 <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
11261 be one of reason, it matters not how man behaves to animals, because God has subjected all things to man's power, according
11262 to
11263 <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
11264 oxen"; because God does not ask of man what he does
11265 with oxen or other animals.
11266 </p><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
11267 is caused by the afflictions of others; and since it happens that even irrational animals are sensible to pain, it is possible
11268 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
11269 a pitiful affection for animals, he is all the more disposed to take pity on his fellow-men: wherefore it
11270 is written (
11271 <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
11272 inculcate pity to the Jewish people, who were prone to cruelty, wished them to practice pity even with regard to dumb animals,
11273 and forbade them to do certain things savoring of cruelty to animals. Hence He prohibited them to "boil a kid in the milk
11274 of its dam"; and to "muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn"; and to slay "the dam with her young."
11275 It may, nevertheless, be also said that these prohibitions were made in hatred of idolatry. For the Egyptians held it to be
11276 wicked to allow the ox to eat of the grain while threshing the corn. Moreover certain sorcerers were wont to ensnare the mother
11277 bird with her young during incubation, and to employ them for the purpose of securing fruitfulness and good luck in bringing
11278 up children: also because it was held to be a good omen to find the mother sitting on her young.
11279 </p><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
11280 for the idolatry of the Egyptians, who employed various mixtures in worshipping the planets, which produce various effects,
11281 and on various kinds of things according to their various conjunctions. The second reason was in condemnation of unnatural
11282 sins. The third reason was the entire removal of all occasions of concupiscence. Because animals of different
11283 species do not easily breed, unless this be brought about by man; and movements of lust are aroused by seeing such things.
11284 Wherefore in the Jewish traditions we find it prescribed as stated by Rabbi Moses that men shall turn away their eyes from
11285 such sights.
11286 </p><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
11287 the corn, i.e. from the preacher bearing the sheaves of doctrine, as the Apostle states (
11288 <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,
11289 i.e. the offspring, and set aside the observance of the letter, i.e. the mother, for instance, in all the ceremonies of the
11290 Law. It is also
11291 forbidden that beast of burden, i.e. any of the common people, should be allowed to engender, i.e. to have any connection,
11292 with animals of another kind, i.e. with Gentiles or Jews.
11293 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 6 ad 7"><a name="38101" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38101] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 6 ad 7</span></a> Ad septimum
11294 dicendum quod, sicut Hieronymus dicit, super Matth., <i>dominus
11295 iussit ut in quatuor angulis palliorum hyacinthinas fimbrias
11296 facerent, ad populum Israel dignoscendum ab aliis populis</i>. Unde
11297 per hoc se esse Iudaeos profitebantur, et ideo per aspectum huius
11298 signi inducebantur in memoriam suae legis. Quod autem dicitur,
11299 <i>ligabis ea in manu tua, et erunt semper ante oculos tuos,
11300 Pharisaei male interpretabantur, scribentes in membranis Decalogum
11301 Moysi, et ligabant in fronte, quasi coronam, ut ante oculos
11302 moverentur</i>, cum tamen intentio domini mandantis fuerit ut
11303 ligarentur in manu, idest in operatione; et essent ante oculos,
11304 idest in meditatione. In hyacinthinis etiam vittis, quae palliis
11305 inserebantur, significatur caelestis intentio, quae omnibus
11306 operibus nostris debet adiungi. Potest tamen dici quod, quia
11307 populus ille carnalis erat et durae cervicis, oportuit etiam per
11308 huiusmodi sensibilia eos ad legis observantiam excitari.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q102_A6-p31">
11309 <b>Reply to Objection 9:</b> All these minglings were forbidden in agriculture; literally, in detestation of idolatry. For the Egyptians in worshipping
11310 the stars employed various combinations of seeds, animals and garments, in order to represent the various connections of the
11311 stars. Or else all these minglings were forbidden in detestation of the unnatural vice.
11312 </p><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
11313 be understood, in the spiritual sense, of the prohibition to sow strange doctrine in the Church, which is a spiritual vineyard.
11314 Likewise "the field," i.e. the Church, must not be sown "with different seeds," i.e. with Catholic and heretical doctrines.
11315 Neither is it allowed to plough "with an ox and an ass together"; thus a fool should not accompany a wise man
11316 in preaching, for one would hinder the other.
11317 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 6 ad 8"><a name="38102" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38102] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 6 ad 8</span></a> Ad octavum
11318 dicendum quod affectus hominis est duplex, unus quidem secundum
11319 rationem; alius vero secundum passionem. Secundum igitur affectum
11320 rationis, non refert quid homo circa bruta animalia agat, quia
11321 omnia sunt subiecta eius potestati a Deo, secundum illud Psalmi
11322 VIII, <i>omnia subiecisti sub pedibus eius</i>. Et secundum hoc
11323 apostolus dicit quod non est cura Deo de bobus, quia Deus non
11324 requirit ab homine quid circa boves agat, vel circa alia animalia.
11325 Quantum vero ad affectum passionis, movetur affectus hominis etiam
11326 circa alia animalia, quia enim passio misericordiae consurgit ex
11327 afflictionibus aliorum, contingit autem etiam bruta animalia poenas
11328 sentire, potest in homine consurgere misericordiae affectus etiam
11329 circa afflictiones animalium. Proximum autem est ut qui exercetur
11330 in affectu misericordiae circa animalia, magis ex hoc disponatur ad
11331 affectum misericordiae circa homines, unde dicitur Prov. XII,
11332 <i>novit iustus animas iumentorum suorum; viscera autem impiorum
11333 crudelia</i>. Et ideo ut dominus populum Iudaicum, ad crudelitatem
11334 pronum, ad misericordiam revocaret, voluit eos exerceri ad
11335 misericordiam etiam circa bruta animalia, prohibens quaedam circa
11336 animalia fieri quae ad crudelitatem quandam pertinere videntur. Et
11337 ideo prohibuit ne coqueretur haedus in lacte matris; et quod non
11338 alligaretur os bovi trituranti; et quod non occideretur mater cum
11339 filiis. Quamvis etiam dici possit quod haec prohibita sunt eis in
11340 detestationem idololatriae. Nam Aegyptii nefarium reputabant ut
11341 boves triturantes de frugibus comederent. Aliqui etiam malefici
11342 utebantur matre avis incubante et pullis eius simul captis, ad
11343 fecunditatem et fortunam circa nutritionem filiorum. Et etiam quia
11344 in auguriis reputabatur hoc esse fortunatum, quod inveniretur mater
11345 incubans filiis. Circa commixtionem vero animalium diversae
11346 speciei, ratio litteralis potuit esse triplex. Una quidem, ad
11347 detestationem idololatriae Aegyptiorum, qui diversis commixtionibus
11348 utebantur in servitium planetarum, qui secundum diversas
11349 coniunctiones habent diversos effectus, et super diversas species
11350 rerum. Alia ratio est ad excludendum concubitus contra naturam.
11351 Tertia ratio est ad tollendam universaliter occasionem
11352 concupiscentiae. Animalia enim diversarum specierum non
11353 commiscentur de facili ad invicem, nisi hoc per homines procuretur;
11354 et in aspectu coitus animalium excitatur homini concupiscentiae
11355 motus. Unde etiam in traditionibus Iudaeorum praeceptum invenitur,
11356 ut Rabbi Moyses dicit, ut homines avertant oculos ab animalibus
11357 coeuntibus. Figuralis autem horum ratio est quia bovi trituranti,
11358 idest praedicatori deferenti segetes doctrinae, non sunt necessaria
11359 victus subtrahenda; ut apostolus dicit, I ad Cor. IX. Matrem etiam
11360 non simul debemus tenere cum filiis, quia in quibusdam retinendi
11361 sunt spirituales sensus, quasi filii, et dimittenda est litteralis
11362 observantia, quasi mater; sicut in omnibus caeremoniis legis.
11363 Prohibetur etiam quod iumenta, idest populares homines, non
11364 faciamus coire, idest coniunctionem habere, cum alterius generis
11365 animantibus, idest cum gentilibus vel Iudaeis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q102_A6-p33">
11366 <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
11367 supplied by Nicolai.] Silver and gold were reasonably forbidden (
11368 <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
11369 idols were made, were anathematized as hateful in God's sight. This is clear from the same chapter, where we read further
11370 on
11371 (
11372 <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
11373 lest, by taking silver and gold, they should be led by avarice into idolatry to which the Jews were inclined. The other precept
11374 (
11375 <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
11376 wholesome; and by reason of the respect due to the tabernacle of the covenant which
11377 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
11378 expressing the command, the reason thereof is at once added, to wit: "For the Lord thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp,
11379 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
11380 therein." The figurative reason for this precept, according to Gregory (Moral. xxxi), is that sins which are the fetid
11381 excretions of the mind should be covered over by repentance, that we may become acceptable to God, according to
11382 <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
11383 recognize the unhappy condition of human nature, and humbly cover and purify the stains of a puffed-up and proud spirit in
11384 the deep furrow of self-examination.
11385 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 6 ad 9"><a name="38103" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38103] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 6 ad 9</span></a> Ad nonum
11386 dicendum quod omnes illae commixtiones in agricultura sunt
11387 prohibitae, ad litteram, in detestationem idololatriae. Quia
11388 Aegyptii, in venerationem stellarum, diversas commixtiones
11389 faciebant et in seminibus et in animalibus et in vestibus,
11390 repraesentantes diversas coniunctiones stellarum. Vel omnes
11391 huiusmodi commixtiones variae prohibentur ad detestationem coitus
11392 contra naturam. Habent tamen figuralem rationem. Quia quod dicitur,
11393 non seres vineam tuam altero semine, est spiritualiter
11394 intelligendum, quod in Ecclesia, quae est spiritualis vinea, non
11395 est seminanda aliena doctrina. Et similiter ager, idest Ecclesia,
11396 non est seminandus diverso semine, idest Catholica doctrina et
11397 haeretica. Non est etiam simul arandum in bove et asino, quia
11398 fatuus sapienti in praedicatione non est sociandus, quia unus
11399 impedit alium.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q102_A6-p34">
11400 <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
11401 the customs of idolatrous worship, the Lord commanded that the priests of inferior degree, who at fixed times served in the
11402 temple, should not "incur an uncleanness at the death" of anyone except of those who were closely related to them, viz. their
11403 father or mother, and others thus near of kin to them. But the high-priest
11404 had always to be ready for the service of the sanctuary; wherefore he was absolutely forbidden to approach the dead, however
11405 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:
11406 both on account of the reverence due to the priesthood, the honor of which would seem to be tarnished by such a marriage:
11407 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
11408 priestly dignity was passed on from father to son. Again, they were commanded to shave neither head nor beard, and not to
11409 make incisions in their flesh, in order to exclude the rites of idolatry. For the priests of the Gentiles shaved both head
11410 and beard, wherefore it is written (
11411 <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
11412 their idols "they cut themselves with knives and lancets"
11413 (
11414 <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.
11415 </p><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
11416 not shave their heads, i.e. set wisdom aside; nor should they shave their beards, i.e. set aside the perfection of wisdom;
11417 nor rend their garments or cut their flesh, i.e. they should not incur the sin of schism.
11418 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 102 a. 6 ad 11"><a name="38104" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38104] Iª-IIae q. 102 a. 6 ad 11</span></a> Ad
11419 undecimum dicendum quod malefici et sacerdotes idolorum utebantur
11420 in suis ritibus ossibus vel carnibus hominum mortuorum. Et ideo, ad
11421 extirpandum idololatriae cultum, praecepit dominus ut sacerdotes
11422 minores, qui per tempora certa ministrabant in sanctuario, non
11423 inquinarentur in mortibus nisi valde propinquorum, scilicet patris
11424 et matris et huiusmodi coniunctarum personarum. Pontifex autem
11425 semper debebat esse paratus ad ministerium sanctuarii, et ideo
11426 totaliter prohibitus erat ei accessus ad mortuos, quantumcumque
11427 propinquos. Praeceptum etiam est eis ne ducerent uxorem meretricem
11428 ac repudiatam, sed virginem. Tum propter reverentiam sacerdotum,
11429 quorum dignitas quodammodo ex tali coniugio diminui videretur. Tum
11430 etiam propter filios, quibus esset ad ignominiam turpitudo matris,
11431 quod maxime tunc erat vitandum, quando sacerdotii dignitas secundum
11432 successionem generis conferebatur. Praeceptum etiam erat eis ut non
11433 raderent caput nec barbam, nec in carnibus suis facerent incisuram,
11434 ad removendum idololatriae ritum. Nam sacerdotes gentilium radebant
11435 caput et barbam, unde dicitur Baruch VI, <i>sacerdotes sedent
11436 habentes tunicas scissas, et capita et barbam rasam</i>. Et etiam
11437 in cultu idolorum incidebant se cultris et lanceolis, ut dicitur
11438 III regum XVIII. Unde contraria praecepta sunt sacerdotibus veteris
11439 legis. Spiritualis autem ratio horum est quia sacerdotes omnino
11440 debent esse immunes ab operibus mortuis, quae sunt opera peccati.
11441 Et etiam non debent radere caput, idest deponere sapientiam; neque
11442 deponere barbam, idest sapientiae perfectionem; neque etiam
11443 scindere vestimenta aut incidere carnes, ut scilicet vitium
11444 schismatis non incurrant.</p></div></div></div></div>
11445 <div id="FS_Q103" class="div3">
11446 <h3 id="FS_Q103-p0.1">Q. 103. OF THE DURATION OF THE CEREMONIAL PRECEPTS (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3>
11447 <div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="div4">
11448 <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><p id="FS_Q103-p3"><a href="#FS_Q103_A1"> (1) Whether the ceremonial precepts were in existence before the Law?</a></p><p id="FS_Q103-p4"><a href="#FS_Q103_A2"> (2) Whether at the time of the Law the ceremonies of the Old Law had any power of justification?</a></p><p id="FS_Q103-p5"><a href="#FS_Q103_A3"> (3) Whether they ceased at the coming of Christ?</a></p><p id="FS_Q103-p6"><a href="#FS_Q103_A4"> (4) Whether it is a mortal sin to observe them after the coming of Christ?</a></p>
11449 </div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 103 pr."><a name="38105" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38105] Iª-IIae q. 103 pr.</span></a> Deinde
11450 considerandum est de duratione caeremonialium praeceptorum. Et
11451 circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum praecepta caeremonialia
11452 fuerint ante legem. Secundo, utrum in lege aliquam virtutem
11453 habuerint iustificandi. Tertio, utrum cessaverint Christo veniente.
11454 Quarto, utrum sit peccatum mortale observare ea post Christum.</p></div></div></div>
11455 <div id="FS_Q103_A1" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q103_A1-p0.1">Q. 103. A. 1. Whether the ceremonies of the Law were in existence before the Law?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q103_A1-p2">
11456 <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
11457 of the Old Law, as stated above (
11458 <a href="#FS_Q101_A4" id="FS_Q103_A1-p2.1" shape="rect">Q[101], A[4]</a>). But sacrifices and holocausts preceded the Law: for it is written (
11459 <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,
11460 and of their fat." Noe also "offered
11461 holocausts" to the Lord (
11462 <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 (
11463 <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.
11464 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 103 a. 1 arg. 1"><a name="38106" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38106] Iª-IIae q. 103 a. 1 arg. 1</span></a> Ad primum
11465 sic proceditur. Videtur quod caeremoniae legis fuerint ante legem.
11466 Sacrificia enim et holocausta pertinent ad caeremonias veteris
11467 legis, ut supra dictum est. Sed sacrificia et holocausta fuerunt
11468 ante legem. Dicitur enim Gen. IV, quod <i>Cain obtulit de fructibus
11469 terrae munera domino; Abel autem obtulit de primogenitis gregis
11470 sui, et de adipibus eorum</i>. Noe etiam obtulit holocausta domino,
11471 ut dicitur Gen. VIII; et Abraham similiter, ut dicitur Gen. XXII.
11472 Ergo caeremoniae veteris legis fuerunt ante legem.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q103_A1-p3">
11473 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the erecting and consecrating of the altar were part of the ceremonies relating to holy things. But these preceded
11474 the Law. For we read (
11475 <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 (
11476 <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
11477 preceded the Law.
11478 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 103 a. 1 arg. 2"><a name="38107" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38107] Iª-IIae q. 103 a. 1 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
11479 ad caeremonias sacrorum pertinet constructio altaris, et eius
11480 inunctio. Sed ista fuerunt ante legem. Legitur enim Gen. XIII, quod
11481 Abraham aedificavit altare domino; et de Iacob dicitur Gen. XXVIII,
11482 quod <i>tulit lapidem et erexit in titulum fundens oleum
11483 desuper</i>. Ergo caeremoniae legales fuerunt ante legem.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q103_A1-p4">
11484 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the first of the legal sacraments seems to have been circumcision. But circumcision preceded the Law, as appears
11485 from
11486 <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 (
11487 <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.
11488 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 103 a. 1 arg. 3"><a name="38108" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38108] Iª-IIae q. 103 a. 1 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
11489 inter sacramenta legalia primum videtur fuisse circumcisio. Sed
11490 circumcisio fuit ante legem, ut patet Gen. XVII. Similiter etiam
11491 sacerdotium fuit ante legem, dicitur enim Gen. XIV, quod
11492 Melchisedech erat sacerdos Dei summi. Ergo caeremoniae
11493 sacramentorum fuerunt ante legem.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q103_A1-p5">
11494 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the distinction of clean from unclean animals belongs to the ceremonies of observances, as stated above (Q[100],
11495 2, A[6], ad 1). But this distinction preceded the Law; for it is written (
11496 <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
11497 preceded the Law.
11498 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 103 a. 1 arg. 4"><a name="38109" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38109] Iª-IIae q. 103 a. 1 arg. 4</span></a> Praeterea,
11499 discretio mundorum animalium ab immundis pertinet ad caeremonias
11500 observantiarum, ut supra dictum est. Sed talis discretio fuit ante
11501 legem, dicitur enim Gen. VII, <i>ex omnibus mundis animalibus tolle
11502 septena et septena; de animantibus vero immundis, duo et duo</i>.
11503 Ergo caeremoniae legales fuerunt ante legem.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q103_A1-p6">
11504 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
11505 <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
11506 not have needed to be taught about these things, if the aforesaid ceremonies had been already in existence. Therefore the
11507 legal ceremonies did not precede the Law.
11508 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 103 a. 1 s. c."><a name="38110" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38110] Iª-IIae q. 103 a. 1 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
11509 est quod dicitur Deut. VI, <i>haec sunt praecepta et caeremoniae
11510 quae mandavit dominus Deus vester ut docerem vos</i>. Non autem
11511 indiguissent super his doceri, si prius praedictae caeremoniae
11512 fuissent. Ergo caeremoniae legis non fuerunt ante legem.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q103_A1-p7">
11513 <b>I answer that,</b> As is clear from what has been said (
11514 <a href="#FS_Q101_A2" id="FS_Q103_A1-p7.1" shape="rect">Q[101], A[2]</a>;
11515 <a href="#FS_Q102_A2" id="FS_Q103_A1-p7.2" shape="rect"> 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
11516 worships God must needs worship Him by means of certain fixed things pertaining to external worship. But the fixing of the
11517 divine worship belongs to the ceremonies; just as the determining of our relations with our
11518 neighbor is a matter determined by the judicial precepts, as stated above (
11519 <a href="#FS_Q99_A4" id="FS_Q103_A1-p7.3" shape="rect">Q[99], A[4]</a>). Consequently, as among men in general there were certain judicial precepts, not indeed established by Divine authority,
11520 but ordained by human reason; so also there were some ceremonies fixed, not by the authority of any law, but according to
11521 the will and devotion of those that worship God. Since, however, even before the Law some of the leading men were gifted with
11522 the spirit of
11523 prophecy, it is to be believed that a heavenly instinct, like a private law, prompted them to worship God in a certain definite
11524 way, which would be both in keeping with the interior worship, and a suitable token of Christ's mysteries, which were foreshadowed
11525 also by other things that they did, according to
11526 <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
11527 ceremonies, because they were not as yet established
11528 by legislation.
11529 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 103 a. 1 co."><a name="38111" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38111] Iª-IIae q. 103 a. 1 co.</span></a> Respondeo
11530 dicendum quod, sicut ex dictis patet, caeremoniae legis ad duo
11531 ordinabantur, scilicet ad cultum Dei, et ad figurandum Christum.
11532 Quicumque autem colit Deum, oportet quod per aliqua determinata eum
11533 colat, quae ad exteriorem cultum pertinent. Determinatio autem
11534 divini cultus ad caeremonias pertinet; sicut etiam determinatio
11535 eorum per quae ordinamur ad proximum, pertinet ad praecepta
11536 iudicialia; ut supra dictum est. Et ideo sicut inter homines
11537 communiter erant aliqua iudicialia, non tamen ex auctoritate legis
11538 divinae instituta, sed ratione hominum ordinata; ita etiam erant
11539 quaedam caeremoniae, non quidem ex auctoritate alicuius legis
11540 determinatae, sed solum secundum voluntatem et devotionem hominum
11541 Deum colentium. Sed quia etiam ante legem fuerunt quidam viri
11542 praecipui prophetico spiritu pollentes, credendum est quod ex
11543 instinctu divino, quasi ex quadam privata lege, inducerentur ad
11544 aliquem certum modum colendi Deum, qui et conveniens esset
11545 interiori cultui, et etiam congrueret ad significandum Christi
11546 mysteria, quae figurabantur etiam per alia eorum gesta, secundum
11547 illud I ad Cor. X, <i>omnia in figuram contingebant illis</i>.
11548 Fuerunt igitur ante legem quaedam caeremoniae, non tamen
11549 caeremoniae legis, quia non erant per aliquam legislationem
11550 institutae.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q103_A1-p8">
11551 <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
11552 their own will, according as it seemed proper to them to offer up in honor of God those things which they had received from
11553 Him, and thus to testify that they worshipped God Who is the beginning and end of all.
11554 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 103 a. 1 ad 1"><a name="38112" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38112] Iª-IIae q. 103 a. 1 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
11555 ergo dicendum quod huiusmodi oblationes et sacrificia et holocausta
11556 offerebant antiqui ante legem ex quadam devotione propriae
11557 voluntatis, secundum quod eis videbatur conveniens ut in rebus quas
11558 a Deo acceperant, quas in reverentiam divinam offerrent,
11559 protestarentur se colere Deum, qui est omnium principium et
11560 finis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q103_A1-p9">
11561 <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
11562 should be set apart from others for the purpose of divine worship.
11563 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 103 a. 1 ad 2"><a name="38113" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38113] Iª-IIae q. 103 a. 1 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
11564 dicendum quod etiam sacra quaedam instituerunt, quia videbatur eis
11565 conveniens ut in reverentiam divinam essent aliqua loca ab aliis
11566 discreta, divino cultui mancipata.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q103_A1-p10">
11567 <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
11568 the Law as though it were an institution of the Law, but only as an observance included in the Law. Hence Our Lord said (
11569 <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
11570 before the Law by human appointment, for the Law
11571 allotted the priestly dignity to the firstborn.
11572 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 103 a. 1 ad 3"><a name="38114" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38114] Iª-IIae q. 103 a. 1 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
11573 dicendum quod sacramentum circumcisionis praecepto divino fuit
11574 statutum ante legem. Unde non potest dici sacramentum legis quasi
11575 in lege institutum, sed solum quasi in lege observatum. Et hoc est
11576 quod dominus dicit, Ioan. VII, <i>circumcisio non ex Moyse est, sed
11577 ex patribus eius</i>. Sacerdotium etiam erat ante legem apud
11578 colentes Deum, secundum humanam determinationem, quia hanc
11579 dignitatem primogenitis attribuebant.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q103_A1-p11">
11580 <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
11581 (
11582 <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
11583 only certain animals for that purpose. If, however, they did make any distinction in regard to eating; it was not that it
11584 was considered illegal to eat such animals, since this was not forbidden by
11585 any law, but from dislike or custom: thus even now we see that certain foods are looked upon with disgust in some countries,
11586 while people partake of them in others.
11587 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 103 a. 1 ad 4"><a name="38115" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38115] Iª-IIae q. 103 a. 1 ad 4</span></a> Ad quartum
11588 dicendum quod distinctio mundorum animalium et immundorum non fuit
11589 ante legem quantum ad esum, cum dictum sit Gen. IX, <i>omne quod
11590 movetur et vivit, erit vobis in cibum</i>, sed solum quantum ad
11591 sacrificiorum oblationem, quia de quibusdam determinatis animalibus
11592 sacrificia offerebant. Si tamen quantum ad esum erat aliqua
11593 discretio animalium, hoc non erat quia esus illorum reputaretur
11594 illicitus, cum nulla lege esset prohibitus, sed propter
11595 abominationem vel consuetudinem, sicut et nunc videmus quod aliqua
11596 cibaria sunt in aliquibus terris abominabilia, quae in aliis
11597 comeduntur.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q103_A2" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q103_A2-p0.1">Q. 103. A. 2. Whether, at the time of the Law, the ceremonies of the Old Law had any power of justification?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q103_A2-p2">
11598 <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
11599 from sin and consecration pertains to justification. But it is written (
11600 <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 (
11601 <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
11602 uncleanness of the children of Israel, and from their transgressions and . . . their sins." Therefore the ceremonies of the
11603 Old Law had the power of justification.
11604 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 103 a. 2 arg. 1"><a name="38116" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38116] Iª-IIae q. 103 a. 2 arg. 1</span></a> Ad
11605 secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod caeremoniae veteris legis
11606 habuerint virtutem iustificandi tempore legis. Expiatio enim a
11607 peccato, et consecratio hominis, ad iustificationem pertinent, sed
11608 Exod. XXIX, dicitur quod per aspersionem sanguinis et inunctionem
11609 olei consecrabantur sacerdotes et vestes eorum; et Levit. XVI,
11610 dicitur quod sacerdos per aspersionem sanguinis vituli <i>expiabat
11611 sanctuarium ab immunditiis filiorum Israel, et a praevaricationibus
11612 eorum atque peccatis</i>. Ergo caeremoniae veteris legis habebant
11613 virtutem iustificandi.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q103_A2-p3">
11614 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, that by which man pleases God pertains to justification, according to
11615 <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
11616 <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
11617 had the power of justification.
11618 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 103 a. 2 arg. 2"><a name="38117" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38117] Iª-IIae q. 103 a. 2 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
11619 id per quod homo placet Deo, ad iustitiam pertinet; secundum illud
11620 Psalmi X, <i>iustus dominus, et iustitias dilexit</i>, sed per
11621 caeremonias aliqui Deo placebant, secundum illud Levit. X,
11622 <i>quomodo potui placere domino in caeremoniis mente lugubri?</i>
11623 Ergo caeremoniae veteris legis habebant virtutem iustificandi.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q103_A2-p4">
11624 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, things relating to the divine worship regard the soul rather than the body, according to
11625 <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,
11626 as stated in
11627 <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.
11628 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 103 a. 2 arg. 3"><a name="38118" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38118] Iª-IIae q. 103 a. 2 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
11629 ea quae sunt divini cultus magis pertinent ad animam quam ad
11630 corpus; secundum illud Psalmi XVIII, <i>lex domini immaculata,
11631 convertens animas</i>. Sed per caeremonias veteris legis mundabatur
11632 leprosus, ut dicitur Levit. XIV. Ergo multo magis caeremoniae
11633 veteris legis poterant mundare animam, iustificando.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q103_A2-p5">
11634 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
11635 <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
11636 runs thus: 'If justice be by the Law, then Christ died in vain.']: "If there had been a law given which could justify [Vulg.:
11637 'give life'], Christ died in vain," i.e. without cause. But this is inadmissible. Therefore the ceremonies of the Old Law
11638 did not confer justice.
11639 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 103 a. 2 s. c."><a name="38119" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38119] Iª-IIae q. 103 a. 2 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
11640 est quod apostolus dicit, Galat. II, <i>si data esset lex quae
11641 posset iustificare, Christus gratis mortuus esset</i>, idest sine
11642 causa. Sed hoc est inconveniens. Ergo caeremoniae veteris legis non
11643 iustificabant.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q103_A2-p6">
11644 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
11645 <a href="#FS_Q102_A5" id="FS_Q103_A2-p6.1" shape="rect">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
11646 was corporal, which rendered a man unfit for divine worship; thus a leper, or anyone that touched carrion, was said to be
11647 unclean: and thus uncleanness was nothing but a kind of irregularity. From this uncleanness, then, the ceremonies of the Old
11648 Law had the power to cleanse:
11649 because they were ordered by the Law to be employed as remedies for the removal of the aforesaid uncleannesses which were
11650 contracted in consequence of the prescription of the Law. Hence the Apostle says (
11651 <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
11652 of the flesh." And just as this uncleanness which was washed away by such like ceremonies, affected the flesh rather than
11653 the soul, so
11654 also the ceremonies themselves are called by the Apostle shortly before (
11655 <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."
11656 </p><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
11657 of this was that at no time could there be expiation from sin, except through Christ, "Who taketh away the sins [Vulg.: 'sin']
11658 of the world" (
11659 <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
11660 could not really contain in themselves a power flowing from
11661 Christ already incarnate and crucified, such as the sacraments of the New Law contain. Consequently they could not cleanse
11662 from sin: thus the Apostle says (
11663 <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
11664 (
11665 <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,
11666 i.e. from the fact that they do
11667 not contain grace within themselves.
11668 </p><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
11669 and crucified; so that they were justified by faith in Christ: of which faith the observance of these ceremonies was a sort
11670 of profession, inasmuch as they foreshadowed Christ. Hence in the Old Law certain sacrifices were offered up for sins, not
11671 as though the sacrifices themselves washed sins away, but because they were professions of faith which cleansed
11672 from sin. In fact, the Law itself implies this in the terms employed: for it is written (
11673 <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
11674 the sin were forgiven, not in virtue of the sacrifices, but through the faith and devotion of those who offered them. It must
11675 be observed, however, that the very fact that the ceremonies of the Old Law washed away uncleanness of the body, was a figure
11676 of
11677 that expiation from sins which was effected by Christ.
11678 </p><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></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 103 a. 2 co."><a name="38120" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38120] Iª-IIae q. 103 a. 2 co.</span></a> Respondeo
11679 dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, in veteri lege duplex
11680 immunditia observabatur. Una quidem spiritualis, quae est
11681 immunditia culpae. Alia vero corporalis, quae tollebat idoneitatem
11682 ad cultum divinum, sicut leprosus dicebatur immundus, vel ille qui
11683 tangebat aliquod morticinum, et sic immunditia nihil aliud erat
11684 quam irregularitas quaedam. Ab hac igitur immunditia caeremoniae
11685 veteris legis habebant virtutem emundandi, quia huiusmodi
11686 caeremoniae erant quaedam remedia adhibita ex ordinatione legis ad
11687 tollendas praedictas immunditias ex statuto legis inductas. Et ideo
11688 apostolus dicit, ad Heb. IX, quod <i>sanguis hircorum et taurorum,
11689 et cinis vitulae aspersus, inquinatos sanctificat ad emundationem
11690 carnis</i>. Et sicut ista immunditia quae per huiusmodi caeremonias
11691 emundabatur, erat magis carnis quam mentis; ita etiam ipsae
11692 caeremoniae iustitiae carnis dicuntur ab ipso apostolo, parum
11693 supra, <i>iustitiis, inquit, carnis usque ad tempus correctionis
11694 impositis</i>. Ab immunditia vero mentis, quae est immunditia
11695 culpae, non habebant virtutem expiandi. Et hoc ideo quia expiatio a
11696 peccatis nunquam fieri potuit nisi per Christum, qui tollit peccata
11697 mundi, ut dicitur Ioan. I, et quia mysterium incarnationis et
11698 passionis Christi nondum erat realiter peractum, illae veteris
11699 legis caeremoniae non poterant in se continere realiter virtutem
11700 profluentem a Christo incarnato et passo, sicut continent
11701 sacramenta novae legis. Et ideo non poterant a peccato mundare,
11702 sicut apostolus dicit, ad Heb. X, quod <i>impossibile est sanguine
11703 taurorum aut hircorum auferri peccata</i>. Et hoc est quod, Gal.
11704 IV, apostolus vocat ea egena et infirma elementa, infirma quidem,
11705 quia non possunt a peccato mundare; sed haec infirmitas provenit ex
11706 eo quod sunt egena, idest eo quod non continent in se gratiam.
11707 Poterat autem mens fidelium, tempore legis, per fidem coniungi
11708 Christo incarnato et passo, et ita ex fide Christi iustificabantur.
11709 Cuius fidei quaedam protestatio erat huiusmodi caeremoniarum
11710 observatio, inquantum erant figura Christi. Et ideo pro peccatis
11711 offerebantur sacrificia quaedam in veteri lege, non quia ipsa
11712 sacrificia a peccato emundarent, sed quia erant quaedam
11713 protestationes fidei, quae a peccato mundabat. Et hoc etiam ipsa
11714 lex innuit ex modo loquendi, dicitur enim Levit. IV et V, quod in
11715 oblatione hostiarum pro peccato orabit pro eo sacerdos, et
11716 dimittetur ei; quasi peccatum dimittatur non ex vi sacrificiorum,
11717 sed ex fide et devotione offerentium. Sciendum est tamen quod hoc
11718 ipsum quod veteris legis caeremoniae a corporalibus immunditiis
11719 expiabant, erat in figura expiationis a peccatis quae fit per
11720 Christum. Sic igitur patet quod caeremoniae in statu veteris legis
11721 non habebant virtutem iustificandi.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q103_A2-p10">
11722 <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
11723 them with blood, had no other effect but to appoint them to the divine worship, and to remove impediments from them, "to the
11724 cleansing of the flesh," as the Apostle states (
11725 <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" (
11726 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A2-p10.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.13.12" target="asv">Heb. 13:12</a>).
11727 Moreover, the expiation must be understood as referring to the removal of these bodily uncleannesses, not to the forgiveness
11728 of sin. Hence even the sanctuary which could not be the subject of sin is stated to be expiated.
11729 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 103 a. 2 ad 1"><a name="38121" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38121] Iª-IIae q. 103 a. 2 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
11730 ergo dicendum quod illa sanctificatio sacerdotum et filiorum eius,
11731 et vestium ipsorum, vel quorumcumque aliorum, per aspersionem
11732 sanguinis, nihil aliud erat quam deputatio ad divinum cultum, et
11733 remotio impedimentorum ad emundationem carnis, ut apostolus dicit;
11734 in praefigurationem illius sanctificationis qua Iesus per suum
11735 sanguinem sanctificavit populum. Expiatio etiam ad remotionem
11736 huiusmodi corporalium immunditiarum referenda est, non ad
11737 remotionem culpae. Unde etiam sanctuarium expiari dicitur, quod
11738 culpae subiectum esse non poterat.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q103_A2-p11">
11739 <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;
11740 not by reason of the things considered in themselves.
11741 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 103 a. 2 ad 2"><a name="38122" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38122] Iª-IIae q. 103 a. 2 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
11742 dicendum quod sacerdotes placebant Deo in caeremoniis propter
11743 obedientiam et devotionem et fidem rei praefiguratae, non autem
11744 propter ipsas res secundum se consideratas.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q103_A2-p12">
11745 <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
11746 defilement of leprosy. This is clear from the fact that these ceremonies were not applied to a man until he was already healed:
11747 hence it is written (
11748 <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
11749 purified to offer," etc.; whence it is evident
11750 that the priest was appointed the judge of leprosy, not before, but after cleansing. But these ceremonies were employed for
11751 the purpose of taking away the uncleanness of irregularity. They do say, however, that if a priest were to err in his judgment,
11752 the leper would be cleansed miraculously by the power of God, but not in virtue of the sacrifice. Thus also it was by miracle
11753 that the thigh of the adulterous woman rotted, when she had drunk the water "on which" the priest had "heaped curses," as
11754 stated in
11755 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A2-p12.2" href="./asv.html#Num.5.19" target="asv"> Num. 5:19-27.</a>
11756 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 103 a. 2 ad 3"><a name="38123" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38123] Iª-IIae q. 103 a. 2 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
11757 dicendum quod caeremoniae illae quae erant institutae in
11758 emundatione leprosi, non ordinabantur ad tollendam immunditiam
11759 infirmitatis leprae. Quod patet ex hoc quod non adhibebantur
11760 huiusmodi caeremoniae nisi iam emundato, unde dicitur Levit. XIV,
11761 quod <i>sacerdos, egressus de castris, cum invenerit lepram esse
11762 mundatam, praecipiet ei qui purificatur ut offerat</i>, etc.; ex
11763 quo patet quod sacerdos constituebatur iudex leprae emundatae, non
11764 autem emundandae. Adhibebantur autem huiusmodi caeremoniae ad
11765 tollendam immunditiam irregularitatis. Dicunt tamen quod quandoque,
11766 si contingeret sacerdotem errare in iudicando, miraculose leprosus
11767 mundabatur a Deo virtute divina, non autem virtute sacrificiorum.
11768 Sicut etiam miraculose mulieris adulterae computrescebat femur,
11769 bibitis aquis in quibus sacerdos maledicta congesserat, ut habetur
11770 Num. V.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q103_A3" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q103_A3-p0.1">Q. 103. A. 3. Whether the ceremonies of the Old Law ceased at the coming of Christ?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q103_A3-p2">
11771 <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 (
11772 <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
11773 Law. Therefore the legal ceremonies were to last for ever.
11774 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 103 a. 3 arg. 1"><a name="38124" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38124] Iª-IIae q. 103 a. 3 arg. 1</span></a> Ad tertium
11775 sic proceditur. Videtur quod caeremoniae veteris legis non
11776 cessaverint in Christi adventu. Dicitur enim Baruch IV, <i>hic est
11777 liber mandatorum Dei, et lex quae est in aeternum</i>. Sed ad legem
11778 pertinebant legis caeremoniae. Ergo legis caeremoniae in aeternum
11779 duraturae erant.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q103_A3-p3">
11780 <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,
11781 who has been cleansed, to make this offering (
11782 <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.
11783 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 103 a. 3 arg. 2"><a name="38125" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38125] Iª-IIae q. 103 a. 3 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
11784 oblatio leprosi mundati ad legis caeremonias pertinebat. Sed etiam
11785 in Evangelio praecipitur leproso emundato ut huiusmodi oblationes
11786 offerat. Ergo caeremoniae veteris legis non cessaverunt Christo
11787 veniente.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q103_A3-p4">
11788 <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,
11789 inasmuch as they were ordained to the worship of God, besides the fact that they were intended to be figures of Christ. Therefore
11790 the ceremonies of the Old Law should not have ceased.
11791 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 103 a. 3 arg. 3"><a name="38126" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38126] Iª-IIae q. 103 a. 3 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
11792 manente causa, manet effectus. Sed caeremoniae veteris legis
11793 habebant quasdam rationabiles causas, inquantum ordinabantur ad
11794 divinum cultum; etiam praeter hoc quod ordinabantur in figuram
11795 Christi. Ergo caeremoniae veteris legis cessare non debuerunt.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q103_A3-p5">
11796 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, circumcision was instituted as a sign of Abraham's faith: the observance of the sabbath, to recall the blessing
11797 of creation: and other solemnities, in memory of other Divine favors, as state above (
11798 <a href="#FS_Q102_A4" id="FS_Q103_A3-p5.1" shape="rect">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
11799 favors should never be forgotten. Therefore at least circumcision and the other legal
11800 solemnities should not have ceased.
11801 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 103 a. 3 arg. 4"><a name="38127" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38127] Iª-IIae q. 103 a. 3 arg. 4</span></a> Praeterea,
11802 circumcisio erat instituta in signum fidei Abrahae; observatio
11803 autem sabbati ad recolendum beneficium creationis; et aliae
11804 solemnitates legis ad recolendum alia beneficia Dei; ut supra
11805 dictum est. Sed fides Abrahae est semper imitanda etiam a nobis; et
11806 beneficium creationis, et alia Dei beneficia, semper sunt
11807 recolenda. Ergo ad minus circumcisio et solemnitates legis cessare
11808 non debuerunt.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q103_A3-p6">
11809 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
11810 <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,
11811 which are a shadow of things to come": and (
11812 <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."
11813 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 103 a. 3 s. c."><a name="38128" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38128] Iª-IIae q. 103 a. 3 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
11814 est quod apostolus dicit, ad Coloss. II, <i>nemo vos iudicet in
11815 cibo aut in potu, aut in parte diei festi aut Neomeniae aut
11816 sabbatorum, quae sunt umbra futurorum</i>. Et ad Heb. VIII dicitur
11817 quod, <i>dicendo novum testamentum, veteravit prius, quod autem
11818 antiquatur et senescit, prope interitum est</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q103_A3-p7">
11819 <b>I answer that,</b> All the ceremonial precepts of the Old Law were ordained to the worship of God as stated above (
11820 <a href="#FS_Q101_A1" id="FS_Q103_A3-p7.1" shape="rect">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
11821 exterior worship had to be subject to variations according to the variations in the internal worship, in which a threefold
11822 state may be distinguished. One state was in respect of faith and hope,
11823 both in heavenly goods, and in the means of obtaining them---in both of these considered as things to come. Such was the state
11824 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
11825 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
11826 Law. The third state is that in which both are possessed as present; wherein nothing is believed in as lacking, nothing
11827 hoped for as being yet to come. Such is the state of the Blessed.
11828 </p><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
11829 and voice of praise" (
11830 <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 (
11831 <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
11832 ceremonies of the first-mentioned state which foreshadowed the second and third
11833 states, had need to cease at the advent of the second state; and other ceremonies had to be introduced which would be in keeping
11834 with the state of divine worship for that particular time, wherein heavenly goods are a thing of the future, but the Divine
11835 favors whereby we obtain the heavenly boons are a thing of the present.
11836 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 103 a. 3 co."><a name="38129" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38129] Iª-IIae q. 103 a. 3 co.</span></a> Respondeo
11837 dicendum quod omnia praecepta caeremonialia veteris legis ad cultum
11838 Dei sunt ordinata, ut supra dictum est. Exterior autem cultus
11839 proportionari debet interiori cultui, qui consistit in fide, spe et
11840 caritate. Unde secundum diversitatem interioris cultus, debuit
11841 diversificari cultus exterior. Potest autem triplex status
11842 distingui interioris cultus. Unus quidem secundum quem habetur
11843 fides et spes et de bonis caelestibus, et de his per quae in
11844 caelestia introducimur, de utrisque quidem sicut de quibusdam
11845 futuris. Et talis fuit status fidei et spei in veteri lege. Alius
11846 autem est status interioris cultus in quo habetur fides et spes de
11847 caelestibus bonis sicut de quibusdam futuris, sed de his per quae
11848 introducimur in caelestia, sicut de praesentibus vel praeteritis.
11849 Et iste est status novae legis. Tertius autem status est in quo
11850 utraque habentur ut praesentia, et nihil creditur ut absens, neque
11851 speratur ut futurum. Et iste est status beatorum. In illo ergo
11852 statu beatorum nihil erit figurale ad divinum cultum pertinens, sed
11853 solum gratiarum actio et vox laudis. Et ideo dicitur Apoc. XXI, de
11854 civitate beatorum, <i>templum non vidi in ea, dominus enim Deus
11855 omnipotens templum illius est, et agnus</i>. Pari igitur ratione,
11856 caeremoniae primi status, per quas figurabatur et secundus et
11857 tertius, veniente secundo statu, cessare debuerunt; et aliae
11858 caeremoniae induci, quae convenirent statui cultus divini pro
11859 tempore illo, in quo bona caelestia sunt futura, beneficia autem
11860 Dei per quae ad caelestia introducimur, sunt praesentia.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q103_A3-p9">
11861 <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
11862 precepts it lasts for even in respect of the reality which those ceremonies foreshadowed.
11863 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 103 a. 3 ad 1"><a name="38130" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38130] Iª-IIae q. 103 a. 3 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
11864 ergo dicendum quod lex vetus dicitur esse in aeternum, secundum
11865 moralia quidem, simpliciter et absolute, secundum caeremonialia
11866 vero, quantum ad veritatem per ea figuratam.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q103_A3-p10">
11867 <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"
11868 (
11869 <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
11870 sign of this, we read that at the Passion of Christ "the veil of the temple was rent" (
11871 <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
11872 preaching and working miracles, the Law and the Gospel were concurrent, since the mystery of Christ had already begun, but
11873 was not as yet consummated. And for this reason Our Lord, before His Passion, commanded the leper to observe the legal ceremonies.
11874 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 103 a. 3 ad 2"><a name="38131" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38131] Iª-IIae q. 103 a. 3 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
11875 dicendum quod mysterium redemptionis humani generis completum fuit
11876 in passione Christi, unde tunc dominus <i>dixit, consummatum
11877 est</i>, ut habetur Ioan. XIX. Et ideo tunc totaliter debuerunt
11878 cessare legalia, quasi iam veritate eorum consummata. In cuius
11879 signum, in passione Christi velum templi legitur esse scissum,
11880 Matth. XXVII. Et ideo ante passionem Christi, Christo praedicante
11881 et miracula faciente, currebant simul lex et Evangelium, quia iam
11882 mysterium Christi erat inchoatum, sed nondum consummatum. Et
11883 propter hoc mandavit dominus, ante passionem suam, leproso, ut
11884 legales caeremonias observaret.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q103_A3-p11">
11885 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> The literal reasons already given (
11886 <a href="#FS_Q102" id="FS_Q103_A3-p11.1" shape="rect">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
11887 of Him Who was to come, both that worship ceased, and all the reasons referring thereto.
11888 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 103 a. 3 ad 3"><a name="38132" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38132] Iª-IIae q. 103 a. 3 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
11889 dicendum quod rationes litterales caeremoniarum supra assignatae
11890 referuntur ad divinum cultum, qui quidem cultus erat in fide
11891 venturi. Et ideo, iam veniente eo qui venturus erat, et cultus ille
11892 cessat, et omnes rationes ad hunc cultum ordinatae.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q103_A3-p12">
11893 <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
11894 were to blessed. Wherefore, as long as this seed was yet to come, it was necessary to make profession of Abraham's faith by
11895 means of circumcision. But now that it is consummated, the same thing needs to be declared by means of another sign, viz.
11896 Baptism, which, in this respect, took the place of circumcision, according to the
11897 saying of the Apostle (
11898 <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
11899 of Christ, buried with Him in Baptism."
11900 </p><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
11901 beginning of the new creature in the Resurrection of Christ. In like manner other solemnities of the Old Law are supplanted
11902 by new solemnities: because the blessings vouchsafed to that people, foreshadowed the favors granted us by Christ. Hence the
11903 feast of the Passover gave place to the feast of Christ's Passion and Resurrection: the feast of Pentecost
11904 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
11905 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
11906 the feasts of the Apostles: the feast of Expiation, to the feasts of Martyrs and Confessors: the feast of Tabernacles, to
11907 the feast of the Church Dedication: the feast of the Assembly and Collection, to feast of the Angels, or else to the feast
11908 of All
11909 Hallows.
11910 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 103 a. 3 ad 4"><a name="38133" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38133] Iª-IIae q. 103 a. 3 ad 4</span></a> Ad quartum
11911 dicendum quod fides Abrahae fuit commendata in hoc quod credidit
11912 divinae promissioni de futuro semine, in quo benedicerentur omnes
11913 gentes. Et ideo quandiu hoc erat futurum, oportebat protestari
11914 fidem Abrahae in circumcisione. Sed postquam iam hoc est perfectum,
11915 oportet idem alio signo declarari, scilicet Baptismo, qui in hoc
11916 circumcisioni succedit; secundum illud apostoli, ad Coloss. II,
11917 <i>circumcisi estis circumcisione non manu facta in expoliatione
11918 corporis carnis, sed in circumcisione domini nostri Iesu Christi,
11919 consepulti ei in Baptismo</i>. Sabbatum autem, quod significabat
11920 primam creationem, mutatur in diem dominicum, in quo commemoratur
11921 nova creatura inchoata in resurrectione Christi. Et similiter aliis
11922 solemnitatibus veteris legis novae solemnitates succedunt, quia
11923 beneficia illi populo exhibita, significant beneficia nobis
11924 concessa per Christum. Unde festo phase succedit festum passionis
11925 Christi et resurrectionis. Festo Pentecostes, in quo fuit data lex
11926 vetus, succedit festum Pentecostes in quo fuit data lex spiritus
11927 vitae. Festo Neomeniae succedit festum beatae virginis, in qua
11928 primo apparuit illuminatio solis, idest Christi, per copiam
11929 gratiae. Festo tubarum succedunt festa apostolorum. Festo
11930 expiationis succedunt festa martyrum et confessorum. Festo
11931 tabernaculorum succedit festum consecrationis Ecclesiae. Festo
11932 coetus atque collectae succedit festum Angelorum; vel etiam festum
11933 omnium sanctorum.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q103_A4" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q103_A4-p0.1">Q. 103. A. 4. Whether since Christ's Passion the legal ceremonies can be observed without committing mortal sin?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q103_A4-p2">
11934 <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
11935 not believe that the apostles committed mortal sin after receiving the Holy Ghost: since by His fulness they were "endued
11936 with power from on high" (
11937 <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 (
11938 <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
11939 (
11940 <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
11941 of the accomplishment of the days of purification, until an oblation should be offered for every one of them." Therefore the
11942 legal ceremonies can be observed since the Passion of Christ without mortal sin.
11943 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 103 a. 4 arg. 1"><a name="38134" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38134] Iª-IIae q. 103 a. 4 arg. 1</span></a> Ad quartum
11944 sic proceditur. Videtur quod post passionem Christi legalia possint
11945 sine peccato mortali observari. Non est enim credendum quod
11946 apostoli, post acceptum spiritum sanctum, mortaliter peccaverint,
11947 eius enim plenitudine sunt induti virtute ex alto, ut dicitur Lucae
11948 ult. Sed apostoli post adventum spiritus sancti legalia
11949 observaverunt, dicitur enim Act. XVI, quod Paulus circumcidit
11950 Timotheum; et Act. XXI, dicitur quod Paulus, secundum consilium
11951 Iacobi, <i>assumptis viris, purificatus cum eis intravit in
11952 templum, annuntians expletionem dierum purificationis, donec
11953 offerretur pro unoquoque eorum oblatio</i>. Ergo sine peccato
11954 mortali possunt post Christi passionem legalia observari.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q103_A4-p3">
11955 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, one of the legal ceremonies consisted in shunning the fellowship of Gentiles. But the first Pastor of the Church
11956 complied with this observance; for it is stated (
11957 <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
11958 legal ceremonies can be observed since Christ's Passion without committing mortal sin.
11959 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 103 a. 4 arg. 2"><a name="38135" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38135] Iª-IIae q. 103 a. 4 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
11960 vitare consortia gentilium ad caeremonias legis pertinebat. Sed hoc
11961 observavit primus pastor Ecclesiae, dicitur enim ad Gal. II, quod,
11962 cum venissent quidam Antiochiam, <i>subtrahebat et segregabat se
11963 Petrus a gentilibus</i>. Ergo absque peccato post passionem Christi
11964 legis caeremoniae observari possunt.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q103_A4-p4">
11965 <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
11966 should observe certain ceremonies of the Law: for it is written (
11967 <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
11968 abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication." Therefore
11969 the legal ceremonies can be observed since Christ's Passion without committing mortal sin.
11970 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 103 a. 4 arg. 3"><a name="38136" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38136] Iª-IIae q. 103 a. 4 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
11971 praecepta apostolorum non induxerunt homines ad peccatum. Sed ex
11972 decreto apostolorum statutum fuit quod gentiles quaedam de
11973 caeremoniis legis observarent, dicitur enim Act. XV, <i>visum est
11974 spiritui sancto et nobis nihil ultra imponere oneris vobis quam
11975 haec necessaria, ut abstineatis vos ab immolatis simulacrorum, et
11976 sanguine, et suffocato, et fornicatione</i>. Ergo absque peccato
11977 caeremoniae legales possunt post Christi passionem observari.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q103_A4-p5">
11978 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
11979 <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
11980 fruit. Therefore since Christ's Passion it is a mortal sin to be circumcised, or to observe the other legal ceremonies.
11981 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 103 a. 4 s. c."><a name="38137" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38137] Iª-IIae q. 103 a. 4 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
11982 est quod apostolus dicit, ad Gal. V, <i>si circumcidimini, Christus
11983 nihil vobis proderit</i>. Sed nihil excludit fructum Christi nisi
11984 peccatum mortale. Ergo circumcidi, et alias caeremonias observare,
11985 post passionem Christi est peccatum mortale.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q103_A4-p6">
11986 <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
11987 inward faith, by deeds as well as by words: and in either profession, if he make a false declaration, he sins mortally. Now,
11988 though our faith in Christ is the same as that of the fathers of old; yet, since they came before Christ, whereas we come
11989 after Him, the same faith is expressed in different words, by us and by them. For by them
11990 was it said: "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son," where the verbs are in the future tense: whereas we express
11991 the same by means of verbs in the past tense, and say that she "conceived and bore." In like manner the ceremonies of the
11992 Old Law betokened Christ as having yet to be born and to suffer: whereas our sacraments signify Him as already born and having
11993 suffered. Consequently, just as it would be a mortal sin now for anyone, in making a profession of faith, to say that Christ
11994 is
11995 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
11996 ceremonies which the fathers of old fulfilled with devotion and fidelity. Such is the teaching Augustine (Contra Faust. xix,
11997 16), who says: "It is no longer promised that He shall be born, shall suffer and rise again, truths of which their sacraments
11998 were a kind of image: but it is declared that He is already born, has suffered and risen again; of which our sacraments, in
11999 which Christians share, are the actual representation."
12000 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 103 a. 4 co."><a name="38138" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38138] Iª-IIae q. 103 a. 4 co.</span></a> Respondeo
12001 dicendum quod omnes caeremoniae sunt quaedam protestationes fidei,
12002 in qua consistit interior Dei cultus. Sic autem fidem interiorem
12003 potest homo protestari factis, sicut et verbis, et in utraque
12004 protestatione, si aliquid homo falsum protestatur, peccat
12005 mortaliter. Quamvis autem sit eadem fides quam habemus de Christo,
12006 et quam antiqui patres habuerunt; tamen quia ipsi praecesserunt
12007 Christum, nos autem sequimur, eadem fides diversis verbis
12008 significatur a nobis et ab eis. Nam ab eis dicebatur, ecce virgo
12009 concipiet et pariet filium, quae sunt verba futuri temporis, nos
12010 autem idem repraesentamus per verba praeteriti temporis, dicentes
12011 quod concepit et peperit. Et similiter caeremoniae veteris legis
12012 significabant Christum ut nasciturum et passurum, nostra autem
12013 sacramenta significant ipsum ut natum et passum. Sicut igitur
12014 peccaret mortaliter qui nunc, suam fidem protestando, diceret
12015 Christum nasciturum, quod antiqui pie et veraciter dicebant; ita
12016 etiam peccaret mortaliter, si quis nunc caeremonias observaret,
12017 quas antiqui pie et fideliter observabant. Et hoc est quod
12018 Augustinus dicit, contra Faustum, <i>iam non promittitur
12019 nasciturus, passurus, resurrecturus, quod illa sacramenta
12020 quodammodo personabant, sed annuntiatur quod natus sit, passus sit,
12021 resurrexerit; quod haec sacramenta quae a Christianis aguntur, iam
12022 personant</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q103_A4-p7">
12023 <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,
12024 11, seqq.) distinguished two periods of time. One was the time previous to Christ's Passion, during which the legal ceremonies
12025 were neither dead, since they were obligatory, and did expiate in their own fashion; nor deadly, because it was not sinful
12026 to observe them. But immediately after Christ's Passion they began to be not only
12027 dead, so as no longer to be either effectual or binding; but also deadly, so that whoever observed them was guilty of mortal
12028 sin. Hence he maintained that after the Passion the apostles never observed the legal ceremonies in real earnest; but only
12029 by a kind of pious pretense, lest, to wit, they should scandalize the Jews and hinder their conversion. This pretense, however,
12030 is to be understood, not as though they did not in reality perform those actions, but in the sense that they performed them
12031 without the mind to observe the ceremonies of the Law: thus a man might cut away his foreskin for health's sake, not with
12032 the intention of observing legal circumcision.
12033 </p><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
12034 of life and doctrine, and that they should have made use of pretense, in things pertaining to the salvation of the faithful;
12035 therefore Augustine (Epist. lxxxii) more fittingly distinguished three periods of time. One was the time that preceded the
12036 Passion of Christ, during which the legal ceremonies were neither deadly nor dead: another period was after
12037 the publication of the Gospel, during which the legal ceremonies are both dead and deadly. The third is a middle period, viz.
12038 from the Passion of Christ until the publication of the Gospel, during which the legal ceremonies were dead indeed, because
12039 they had neither effect nor binding force; but were not deadly, because it was lawful for the Jewish converts to Christianity
12040 to observe them, provided they did not put their trust in them so as to hold them to be necessary unto salvation, as though
12041 faith in Christ could not justify without the legal observances. On the other hand, there was no reason why those who were
12042 converted from heathendom to Christianity should observe them. Hence Paul circumcised Timothy, who was born of a Jewish mother;
12043 but was unwilling to circumcise Titus, who was of heathen nationality.
12044 </p><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,
12045 while converted heathens were forbidden to observe the rites of heathendom, was in order to show that there is a difference
12046 between these rites. For heathenish ceremonial was rejected as absolutely unlawful, and as prohibited by God for all time;
12047 whereas the legal ceremonial ceased as being fulfilled through Christ's Passion, being instituted by God as a
12048 figure of Christ.
12049 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 103 a. 4 ad 1"><a name="38139" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38139] Iª-IIae q. 103 a. 4 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
12050 ergo dicendum quod circa hoc diversimode sensisse videntur
12051 Hieronymus et Augustinus. Hieronymus enim distinxit duo tempora.
12052 Unum tempus ante passionem Christi, in quo legalia nec erant
12053 mortua, quasi non habentia vim obligatoriam, aut expiativam pro suo
12054 modo; nec etiam mortifera, quia non peccabant ea observantes.
12055 Statim autem post passionem Christi incoeperunt esse non solum
12056 mortua, idest non habentia virtutem et obligationem; sed etiam
12057 mortifera, ita scilicet quod peccabant mortaliter quicumque ea
12058 observabant. Unde dicebat quod apostoli nunquam legalia
12059 observaverunt post passionem secundum veritatem; sed solum quadam
12060 pia simulatione, ne scilicet scandalizarent Iudaeos et eorum
12061 conversionem impedirent. Quae quidem simulatio sic intelligenda
12062 est, non quidem ita quod illos actus secundum rei veritatem non
12063 facerent, sed quia non faciebant tanquam legis caeremonias
12064 observantes; sicut si quis pelliculam virilis membri abscinderet
12065 propter sanitatem, non causa legalis circumcisionis observandae.
12066 Sed quia indecens videtur quod apostoli ea occultarent propter
12067 scandalum quae pertinent ad veritatem vitae et doctrinae, et quod
12068 simulatione uterentur in his quae pertinent ad salutem fidelium;
12069 ideo convenientius Augustinus distinxit tria tempora. Unum quidem
12070 ante Christi passionem, in quo legalia non erant neque mortifera
12071 neque mortua. Aliud autem post tempus Evangelii divulgati, in quo
12072 legalia sunt et mortua et mortifera. Tertium autem est tempus
12073 medium, scilicet a passione Christi usque ad divulgationem
12074 Evangelii, in quo legalia fuerunt quidem mortua, quia neque vim
12075 aliquam habebant, neque aliquis ea observare tenebatur; non tamen
12076 fuerunt mortifera, quia illi qui conversi erant ad Christum ex
12077 Iudaeis, poterant illa legalia licite observare, dummodo non sic
12078 ponerent spem in eis quod ea reputarent sibi necessaria ad salutem,
12079 quasi sine legalibus fides Christi iustificare non posset. His
12080 autem qui convertebantur ex gentilitate ad Christum, non inerat
12081 causa ut ea observarent. Et ideo Paulus circumcidit Timotheum, qui
12082 ex matre Iudaea genitus erat; Titum autem, qui ex gentilibus natus
12083 erat, circumcidere noluit. Ideo autem noluit spiritus sanctus ut
12084 statim inhiberetur his qui ex Iudaeis convertebantur observatio
12085 legalium, sicut inhibebatur his qui ex gentilibus convertebantur
12086 gentilitatis ritus, ut quaedam differentia inter hos ritus
12087 ostenderetur. Nam gentilitatis ritus repudiabatur tanquam omnino
12088 illicitus, et a Deo semper prohibitus, ritus autem legis cessabat
12089 tanquam impletus per Christi passionem, utpote a Deo in figuram
12090 Christi institutus.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q103_A4-p10">
12091 <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,
12092 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
12093 of blaming him, in order to avoid scandalizing the Gentiles, whose Apostle he was. But Augustine disapproves of this solution:
12094 because in the canonical Scripture (viz.
12095 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q103_A4-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Gal.2.11" target="asv"> Gal. 2:11</a>),
12096 wherein we must not hold anything to be false, Paul says that Peter "was to be blamed." Consequently it is true that Peter
12097 was at fault: and Paul blamed him in very truth and not with pretense. Peter, however, did not sin, by observing the legal
12098 ceremonial for the time being; because this was lawful for him who was a converted Jew. But he did sin by excessive minuteness
12099 in the observance of the legal rites lest he should scandalize the Jews, the result being that he gave scandal to the
12100 Gentiles.
12101 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 103 a. 4 ad 2"><a name="38140" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38140] Iª-IIae q. 103 a. 4 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
12102 dicendum quod, secundum Hieronymum, Petrus simulatorie se a
12103 gentilibus subtrahebat, ut vitaret Iudaeorum scandalum, quorum erat
12104 apostolus. Unde in hoc nullo modo peccavit, sed Paulus eum
12105 similiter simulatorie reprehendit, ut vitaret scandalum gentilium,
12106 quorum erat apostolus. Sed Augustinus hoc improbat, quia Paulus in
12107 canonica Scriptura, scilicet Gal. II, in qua nefas est credere
12108 aliquid esse falsum, dicit quod Petrus reprehensibilis erat. Unde
12109 verum est quod Petrus peccavit, et Paulus vere eum, non
12110 simulatorie, reprehendit. Non autem peccavit Petrus in hoc quod ad
12111 tempus legalia observabat, quia hoc sibi licebat, tanquam ex
12112 Iudaeis converso. Sed peccabat in hoc quod circa legalium
12113 observantiam nimiam diligentiam adhibebat ne scandalizaret Iudaeos,
12114 ita quod ex hoc sequebatur gentilium scandalum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q103_A4-p11">
12115 <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
12116 of blood signifies the prohibition of murder; the prohibition of things strangled, that of violence and rapine; the prohibition
12117 of things offered to idols, that of idolatry; while fornication is forbidden as being evil in itself: which opinion they gathered
12118 from certain glosses, which expound these prohibitions in a mystical
12119 sense. Since, however, murder and rapine were held to be unlawful even by the Gentiles, there would have been no need to give
12120 this special commandment to those who were converted to Christ from heathendom. Hence others maintain that those foods were
12121 forbidden literally, not to prevent the observance of legal ceremonies, but in order to prevent gluttony. Thus Jerome says
12122 on Ezech. 44:31 ("The priest shall not eat of anything that is dead"): "He condemns those priests who from gluttony did not
12123 keep these precepts."
12124 </p><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
12125 have been forbidden more than the others.
12126 </p><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
12127 compliance with the legal ceremonies, but in order to further the union of Gentiles and Jews living side by side. Because
12128 blood and things strangled were loathsome to the Jews by ancient custom; while the Jews might have suspected the Gentiles
12129 of relapse into idolatry if the latter had partaken of things offered to idols. Hence these things were
12130 prohibited for the time being, during which the Gentiles and Jews were to become united together. But as time went on, with
12131 the lapse of the cause, the effect lapsed also, when the truth of the Gospel teaching was divulged, wherein Our Lord taught
12132 that "not that which entereth into the mouth defileth a man" (
12133 <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" (
12134 <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
12135 was made, because the Gentiles did not hold it to be sinful.
12136 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 103 a. 4 ad 3"><a name="38141" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38141] Iª-IIae q. 103 a. 4 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
12137 dicendum quod quidam dixerunt quod illa prohibitio apostolorum non
12138 est intelligenda ad litteram, sed secundum spiritualem intellectum,
12139 ut scilicet in prohibitione sanguinis, intelligatur prohibitio
12140 homicidii; in prohibitione suffocati, intelligatur prohibitio
12141 violentiae et rapinae; in prohibitione immolatorum, intelligatur
12142 prohibitio idololatriae; fornicatio autem prohibetur tanquam per se
12143 malum. Et hanc opinionem accipiunt ex quibusdam Glossis, quae
12144 huiusmodi praecepta mystice exponunt. Sed quia homicidium et rapina
12145 etiam apud gentiles reputabantur illicita, non oportuisset super
12146 hoc speciale mandatum dari his qui erant ex gentilitate conversi ad
12147 Christum. Unde alii dicunt quod ad litteram illa comestibilia
12148 fuerunt prohibita, non propter observantiam legalium, sed propter
12149 gulam comprimendam. Unde dicit Hieronymus, super illud Ezech. XLIV,
12150 <i>omne morticinum etc., condemnat sacerdotes qui in turdis et
12151 ceteris huiusmodi, haec, cupiditate gulae, non custodiunt</i>. Sed
12152 quia sunt quaedam cibaria magis delicata et gulam provocantia, non
12153 videtur ratio quare fuerunt haec magis quam alia prohibita. Et ideo
12154 dicendum, secundum tertiam opinionem, quod ad litteram ista sunt
12155 prohibita, non ad observandum caeremonias legis, sed ad hoc quod
12156 posset coalescere unio gentilium et Iudaeorum insimul habitantium.
12157 Iudaeis enim, propter antiquam consuetudinem, sanguis et suffocatum
12158 erant abominabilia, comestio autem immolatorum simulacris, poterat
12159 in Iudaeis aggenerare circa gentiles suspicionem reditus ad
12160 idololatriam. Et ideo ista fuerunt prohibita pro tempore illo, in
12161 quo de novo oportebat convenire in unum gentiles et Iudaeos.
12162 Procedente autem tempore, cessante causa, cessat effectus;
12163 manifestata evangelicae doctrinae veritate, in qua dominus docet
12164 quod nihil quod per os intrat, coinquinat hominem, ut dicitur
12165 Matth. XV; <i>et quod nihil est reiiciendum quod cum gratiarum
12166 actione percipitur</i>, ut I ad Tim. IV dicitur. Fornicatio autem
12167 prohibetur specialiter, quia gentiles eam non reputabant esse
12168 peccatum.</p></div></div></div></div>
12169 <div id="FS_Q104" class="div3">
12170 <h3 id="FS_Q104-p0.1">Q. 104. OF THE JUDICIAL PRECEPTS (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3>
12171 <div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="div4">
12172 <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
12173 consider their reasons. Under the first head there are four points of inquiry:
12174 </p><p id="FS_Q104-p3"><a href="#FS_Q104_A1"> (1) What is meant by the judicial precepts?</a></p><p id="FS_Q104-p4"><a href="#FS_Q104_A2"> (2) Whether they are figurative?</a></p><p id="FS_Q104-p5"><a href="#FS_Q104_A3"> (3) Their duration;</a></p><p id="FS_Q104-p6"><a href="#FS_Q104_A4"> (4) Their division.</a></p>
12175 </div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 104 pr."><a name="38142" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38142] Iª-IIae q. 104 pr.</span></a> Consequenter
12176 considerandum est de praeceptis iudicialibus. Et primo,
12177 considerandum est de ipsis in communi; secundo, de rationibus
12178 eorum. Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, quae sint iudicialia
12179 praecepta. Secundo, utrum sint figuralia. Tertio, de duratione
12180 eorum. Quarto, de distinctione eorum.</p></div></div></div>
12181 <div id="FS_Q104_A1" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q104_A1-p0.1">Q. 104. A. 1. Whether the judicial precepts were those which directed man in relation to his neighbor?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q104_A1-p2">
12182 <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
12183 precepts take their name from "judgment." But there are many things that direct man as to his neighbor, which are not subordinate
12184 to judgment. Therefore the judicial precepts were not those which directed man in his relations to his neighbor.
12185 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 104 a. 1 arg. 1"><a name="38143" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38143] Iª-IIae q. 104 a. 1 arg. 1</span></a> Ad primum
12186 sic proceditur. Videtur quod ratio praeceptorum iudicialium non
12187 consistat in hoc quod sunt ordinantia ad proximum. Iudicialia enim
12188 praecepta a iudicio dicuntur. Sed multa sunt alia quibus homo ad
12189 proximum ordinatur, quae non pertinent ad ordinem iudiciorum. Non
12190 ergo praecepta iudicialia dicuntur quibus homo ordinatur ad
12191 proximum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q104_A1-p3">
12192 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the judicial precepts are distinct from the moral precepts, as stated above (
12193 <a href="#FS_Q99_A4" id="FS_Q104_A1-p3.1" shape="rect">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
12194 of the second table. Therefore the judicial precepts are not so called from directing man as to his neighbor.
12195 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 104 a. 1 arg. 2"><a name="38144" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38144] Iª-IIae q. 104 a. 1 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
12196 praecepta iudicialia a moralibus distinguuntur, ut supra dictum
12197 est. Sed multa praecepta moralia sunt quibus homo ordinatur ad
12198 proximum, sicut patet in septem praeceptis secundae tabulae. Non
12199 ergo praecepta iudicialia dicuntur ex hoc quod ad proximum
12200 ordinant.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q104_A1-p4">
12201 <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
12202 (
12203 <a href="#FS_Q99_A4" id="FS_Q104_A1-p4.1" shape="rect">Q[99], A[4]</a>;
12204 <a href="#FS_Q101_A1" id="FS_Q104_A1-p4.2" shape="rect"> 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,
12205 of which we have already spoken (
12206 <a href="#FS_Q102_A6" id="FS_Q104_A1-p4.3" shape="rect">Q[102], A[6]</a>, ad 1,6). Therefore the judicial precepts are not so called from
12207 directing man as to his neighbor.
12208 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 104 a. 1 arg. 3"><a name="38145" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38145] Iª-IIae q. 104 a. 1 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
12209 sicut se habent praecepta caeremonialia ad Deum, ita se habent
12210 iudicialia praecepta ad proximum, ut supra dictum est. Sed inter
12211 praecepta caeremonialia sunt quaedam quae pertinent ad seipsum,
12212 sicut observantiae ciborum et vestimentorum, de quibus supra dictum
12213 est. Ergo praecepta iudicialia non ex hoc dicuntur quod ordinent
12214 hominem ad proximum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q104_A1-p5">
12215 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is reckoned (
12216 <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
12217 are so called from "judgment." Therefore it seems that the judicial precepts were those which directed the relations between
12218 man and man.
12219 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 104 a. 1 s. c."><a name="38146" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38146] Iª-IIae q. 104 a. 1 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
12220 est quod dicitur Ezech. XVIII, inter cetera bona opera viri iusti,
12221 <i>si iudicium verum fecerit inter virum et virum</i>. Sed
12222 iudicialia praecepta a iudicio dicuntur. Ergo praecepta iudicialia
12223 videntur dici illa quae pertinent ad ordinationem hominum ad
12224 invicem.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q104_A1-p6">
12225 <b>I answer that,</b> As is evident from what we have stated above (
12226 <a href="#FS_Q95_A2" id="FS_Q104_A1-p6.1" shape="rect">Q[95], A[2]</a> ;
12227 <a href="#FS_Q99_A4" id="FS_Q104_A1-p6.2" shape="rect"> Q[99], A[4]</a>), in every law, some precepts derive their binding force from the dictate of reason itself, because natural reason dictates
12228 that something ought to be done or to be avoided. These are called "moral" precepts: since human morals are based on reason.
12229 At the same time there are other precepts which derive their binding force, not from the
12230 very dictate of reason (because, considered in themselves, they do not imply an obligation of something due or undue); but
12231 from some institution, Divine or human: and such are certain determinations of the moral precepts. When therefore the moral
12232 precepts are fixed by Divine institution in matters relating to man's subordination to God, they are called "ceremonial" precepts:
12233 but when they refer to man's relations to other men, they are called "judicial" precepts. Hence there are two conditions
12234 attached to the judicial precepts: viz. first, that they refer to man's relations to other men; secondly, that they derive
12235 their binding force not from reason alone, but in virtue of their institution.
12236 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 104 a. 1 co."><a name="38147" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38147] Iª-IIae q. 104 a. 1 co.</span></a> Respondeo
12237 dicendum quod, sicut ex supradictis patet, praeceptorum cuiuscumque
12238 legis quaedam habent vim obligandi ex ipso dictamine rationis, quia
12239 naturalis ratio dictat hoc esse debitum fieri vel vitari. Et
12240 huiusmodi praecepta dicuntur moralia, eo quod a ratione dicuntur
12241 mores humani. Alia vero praecepta sunt quae non habent vim
12242 obligandi ex ipso dictamine rationis, quia scilicet in se
12243 considerata non habent absolute rationem debiti vel indebiti; sed
12244 habent vim obligandi ex aliqua institutione divina vel humana. Et
12245 huiusmodi sunt determinationes quaedam moralium praeceptorum. Si
12246 igitur determinentur moralia praecepta per institutionem divinam in
12247 his per quae ordinatur homo ad Deum, talia dicentur praecepta
12248 caeremonialia. Si autem in his quae pertinent ad ordinationem
12249 hominum ad invicem, talia dicentur praecepta iudicialia. In duobus
12250 ergo consistit ratio iudicialium praeceptorum, scilicet ut
12251 pertineant ad ordinationem hominum ad invicem; et ut non habeant
12252 vim obligandi ex sola ratione, sed ex institutione.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q104_A1-p7">
12253 <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
12254 power is vested. Now it belongs to those who are at the head of affairs to regulate not only litigious matters, but also voluntary
12255 contracts which are concluded between man and man, and whatever matters concern the community at large and the government
12256 thereof. Consequently the judicial precepts are not only those which concern
12257 actions at law; but also all those that are directed to the ordering of one man in relation to another, which ordering is
12258 subject to the direction of the sovereign as supreme judge.
12259 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 104 a. 1 ad 1"><a name="38148" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38148] Iª-IIae q. 104 a. 1 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
12260 ergo dicendum quod iudicia exercentur officio aliquorum principum,
12261 qui habent potestatem iudicandi. Ad principem autem pertinet non
12262 solum ordinare de his quae veniunt in litigium, sed etiam de
12263 voluntariis contractibus qui inter homines fiunt, et de omnibus
12264 pertinentibus ad populi communitatem et regimen. Unde praecepta
12265 iudicialia non solum sunt illa quae pertinent ad lites iudiciorum;
12266 sed etiam quaecumque pertinent ad ordinationem hominum ad invicem,
12267 quae subest ordinationi principis tanquam supremi iudicis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q104_A1-p8">
12268 <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
12269 force from the mere dictate of reason.
12270 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 104 a. 1 ad 2"><a name="38149" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38149] Iª-IIae q. 104 a. 1 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
12271 dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de illis praeceptis ordinantibus
12272 ad proximum, quae habent vim obligandi ex solo dictamine
12273 rationis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q104_A1-p9">
12274 <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
12275 by faith; such as that God is to be loved and worshipped. There are also ceremonial precepts, which have no binding force
12276 except in virtue of their Divine institution. Now God is concerned not only with the sacrifices that are offered to Him, but
12277 also with whatever relates to the fitness of those who offer sacrifices to Him and
12278 worship Him. Because men are ordained to God as to their end; wherefore it concerns God and, consequently, is a matter of
12279 ceremonial precept, that man should show some fitness for the divine worship. On the other hand, man is not ordained to his
12280 neighbor as to his end, so as to need to be disposed in himself with regard to his neighbor, for such is the relationship
12281 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
12282 there are
12283 no judicial precepts ordaining man in himself; all such precepts are moral: because the reason, which is the principal in
12284 moral matters, holds the same position, in man, with regard to things that concern him, as a prince or judge holds in the
12285 state. Nevertheless we must take note that, since the relations of man to his neighbor are more subject to reason than the
12286 relations of man to God, there are more precepts whereby man is directed in his relations to his neighbor, than whereby he
12287 is
12288 directed to God. For the same reason there had to be more ceremonial than judicial precepts in the Law.
12289 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 104 a. 1 ad 3"><a name="38150" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38150] Iª-IIae q. 104 a. 1 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
12290 dicendum quod etiam in his quae ordinant ad Deum, quaedam sunt
12291 moralia, quae ipsa ratio fide informata dictat, sicut Deum esse
12292 amandum et colendum. Quaedam vero sunt caeremonialia, quae non
12293 habent vim obligationis nisi ex institutione divina. Ad Deum autem
12294 pertinent non solum sacrificia oblata Deo, sed etiam quaecumque
12295 pertinent ad idoneitatem offerentium et Deum colentium. Homines
12296 enim ordinantur in Deum sicut in finem, et ideo ad cultum Dei
12297 pertinet, et per consequens ad caeremonialia praecepta, quod homo
12298 habeat quandam idoneitatem respectu cultus divini. Sed homo non
12299 ordinatur ad proximum sicut in finem, ut oporteat eum disponi in
12300 seipso in ordine ad proximum, haec enim est comparatio servorum ad
12301 dominos, <i>qui id quod sunt, dominorum sunt</i>, secundum
12302 philosophum, in I Polit. Et ideo non sunt aliqua praecepta
12303 iudicialia ordinantia hominem in seipso, sed omnia talia sunt
12304 moralia, quia ratio, quae est principium moralium, se habet in
12305 homine respectu eorum quae ad ipsum pertinent, sicut princeps vel
12306 iudex in civitate. Sciendum tamen quod, quia ordo hominis ad
12307 proximum magis subiacet rationi quam ordo hominis ad Deum, plura
12308 praecepta moralia inveniuntur per quae ordinatur homo ad proximum,
12309 quam per quae ordinatur ad Deum. Et propter hoc etiam oportuit
12310 plura esse caeremonialia in lege quam iudicialia.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q104_A2" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q104_A2-p0.1">Q. 104. A. 2. Whether the judicial precepts were figurative?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q104_A2-p2">
12311 <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
12312 as figures of something else. Therefore, if the judicial precepts are figurative, there will be no difference between the
12313 judicial and ceremonial precepts.
12314 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 104 a. 2 arg. 1"><a name="38151" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38151] Iª-IIae q. 104 a. 2 arg. 1</span></a> Ad
12315 secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod praecepta iudicialia non
12316 figurent aliquid. Hoc enim videtur esse proprium caeremonialium
12317 praeceptorum, quod sint in figuram alicuius rei instituta. Si
12318 igitur etiam praecepta iudicialia aliquid figurent, non erit
12319 differentia inter iudicialia et caeremonialia praecepta.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q104_A2-p3">
12320 <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.
12321 But the judicial precepts given to other peoples were not figurative, but stated what had to be done. Therefore it seems that
12322 neither were the judicial precepts of the Old Law figures of anything.
12323 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 104 a. 2 arg. 2"><a name="38152" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38152] Iª-IIae q. 104 a. 2 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
12324 sicuti illi populo Iudaeorum data sunt quaedam iudicialia
12325 praecepta, ita etiam aliis populis gentilium. Sed iudicialia
12326 praecepta aliorum populorum non figurant aliquid, sed ordinant quid
12327 fieri debeat. Ergo videtur quod neque praecepta iudicialia veteris
12328 legis aliquid figurarent.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q104_A2-p4">
12329 <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
12330 are above our reason, as stated above (
12331 <a href="#FS_Q101_A2" id="FS_Q104_A2-p4.1" shape="rect">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
12332 to our neighbor should not have been figurative.
12333 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 104 a. 2 arg. 3"><a name="38153" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38153] Iª-IIae q. 104 a. 2 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
12334 ea quae ad cultum divinum pertinent, figuris quibusdam tradi
12335 oportuit, quia ea quae Dei sunt, supra nostram rationem sunt, ut
12336 supra dictum est. Sed ea quae sunt proximorum, non excedunt nostram
12337 rationem. Ergo per iudicialia, quae ad proximum nos ordinant, non
12338 oportuit aliquid figurari.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q104_A2-p5">
12339 <b>On the contrary,</b> The judicial precepts are expounded both in the allegorical and in the moral sense (
12340 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q104_A2-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.21" target="asv">Ex. 21</a>).
12341 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 104 a. 2 s. c."><a name="38154" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38154] Iª-IIae q. 104 a. 2 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
12342 est quod Exod. XXI iudicialia praecepta allegorice et moraliter
12343 exponuntur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q104_A2-p6">
12344 <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
12345 it may be the figure of something. In this way the ceremonial precepts are figurative; since they were instituted for the
12346 very purpose that they might foreshadow something relating to the worship of God and the mystery of Christ. But some precepts
12347 are figurative, not primarily and in themselves, but consequently. In this way the
12348 judicial precepts of the Old Law are figurative. For they were not instituted for the purpose of being figurative, but in
12349 order that they might regulate the state of that people according to justice and equity. Nevertheless they did foreshadow
12350 something consequently: since, to wit, the entire state of that people, who were directed by these precepts, was figurative,
12351 according to
12352 <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."
12353 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 104 a. 2 co."><a name="38155" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38155] Iª-IIae q. 104 a. 2 co.</span></a> Respondeo
12354 dicendum quod dupliciter contingit aliquod praeceptum esse
12355 figurale. Uno modo, primo et per se, quia scilicet principaliter
12356 est institutum ad aliquid figurandum. Et hoc modo praecepta
12357 caeremonialia sunt figuralia, ad hoc enim sunt instituta, ut
12358 aliquid figurent pertinens ad cultum Dei et ad mysterium Christi.
12359 Quaedam vero praecepta sunt figuralia non primo et per se, sed ex
12360 consequenti. Et hoc modo praecepta iudicialia veteris legis sunt
12361 figuralia. Non enim sunt instituta ad aliquid figurandum; sed ad
12362 ordinandum statum illius populi secundum iustitiam et aequitatem.
12363 Sed ex consequenti aliquid figurabant, inquantum scilicet totus
12364 status illius populi, qui per huiusmodi praecepta disponebatur,
12365 figuralis erat; secundum illud I ad Cor. X, <i>omnia in figuram
12366 contingebant illis</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q104_A2-p7">
12367 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> The ceremonial precepts are not figurative in the same way as the judicial precepts, as explained above.
12368 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 104 a. 2 ad 1"><a name="38156" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38156] Iª-IIae q. 104 a. 2 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
12369 ergo dicendum quod praecepta caeremonialia alio modo sunt figuralia
12370 quam iudicialia, ut dictum est.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q104_A2-p8">
12371 <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
12372 to be prophetic and figurative, as Augustine states (Contra Faust. xxii, 24). For this reason even the judicial precepts that
12373 were given to this people were more figurative that those which were given to other nations. Thus, too, the wars and deeds
12374 of this people are expounded in the mystical sense: but not the wars and deeds of the
12375 Assyrians or Romans, although the latter are more famous in the eyes of men.
12376 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 104 a. 2 ad 2"><a name="38157" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38157] Iª-IIae q. 104 a. 2 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
12377 dicendum quod populus Iudaeorum ad hoc electus erat a Deo, quod ex
12378 eo Christus nasceretur. Et ideo oportuit totum illius populi statum
12379 esse propheticum et figuralem, ut Augustinus dicit, contra Faustum.
12380 Et propter hoc etiam iudicialia illi populo tradita, magis sunt
12381 figuralia quam iudicialia aliis populis tradita. Sicut etiam bella
12382 et gesta illius populi exponuntur mystice; non autem bella vel
12383 gesta Assyriorum vel Romanorum, quamvis longe clariora secundum
12384 homines.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q104_A2-p9">
12385 <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
12386 as it was referred to the worship of God, it was above reason: and in this respect it was figurative.
12387 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 104 a. 2 ad 3"><a name="38158" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38158] Iª-IIae q. 104 a. 2 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
12388 dicendum quod ordo ad proximum in populo illo, secundum se
12389 consideratus, pervius erat rationi. Sed secundum quod referebatur
12390 ad cultum Dei, superabat rationem. Et ex hac parte erat
12391 figuralis.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q104_A3" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q104_A3-p0.1">Q. 104. A. 3. Whether the judicial precepts of the Old Law bind for ever?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q104_A3-p2">
12392 <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
12393 of justice: since a judgment is an execution of the virtue of justice. Now "justice is perpetual and immortal" (
12394 <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.
12395 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 104 a. 3 arg. 1"><a name="38159" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38159] Iª-IIae q. 104 a. 3 arg. 1</span></a> Ad tertium
12396 sic proceditur. Videtur quod praecepta iudicialia veteris legis
12397 perpetuam obligationem habeant. Praecepta enim iudicialia pertinent
12398 ad virtutem iustitiae, nam iudicium dicitur iustitiae executio.
12399 Iustitia autem est perpetua et immortalis, ut dicitur Sap. I. Ergo
12400 obligatio praeceptorum iudicialium est perpetua.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q104_A3-p3">
12401 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Divine institutions are more enduring than human institutions. But the judicial precepts of human laws bind for
12402 ever. Therefore much more do the judicial precepts of the Divine Law.
12403 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 104 a. 3 arg. 2"><a name="38160" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38160] Iª-IIae q. 104 a. 3 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
12404 institutio divina est stabilior quam institutio humana. Sed
12405 praecepta iudicialia humanarum legum habent perpetuam obligationem.
12406 Ergo multo magis praecepta iudicialia legis divinae.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q104_A3-p4">
12407 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Apostle says (
12408 <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
12409 is true of the ceremonial precept, which "could [Vulg.: 'can'] not, as to the conscience, make him perfect that serveth only
12410 in meats and in drinks, and divers washings and justices of the flesh," as the Apostle declares (
12411 <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
12412 judicial precepts were useful and efficacious in respect of the purpose for which they were instituted, viz. to establish
12413 justice and equity among men. Therefore the judicial precepts of the Old Law are not set aside, but still retain their efficacy.
12414 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 104 a. 3 arg. 3"><a name="38161" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38161] Iª-IIae q. 104 a. 3 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
12415 apostolus dicit, ad Heb. VII, quod <i>reprobatio fit praecedentis
12416 mandati propter infirmitatem ipsius et inutilitatem</i>. Quod
12417 quidem verum est de mandato caeremoniali quod <i>non poterat facere
12418 perfectum iuxta conscientiam servientem solummodo in cibis et in
12419 potibus et variis Baptismatibus et iustitiis carnis</i>, ut
12420 apostolus dicit, ad Heb. IX. Sed praecepta iudicialia utilia erant
12421 et efficacia ad id ad quod ordinabantur, scilicet ad iustitiam et
12422 aequitatem inter homines constituendam. Ergo praecepta iudicialia
12423 veteris legis non reprobantur, sed adhuc efficaciam habent.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q104_A3-p5">
12424 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
12425 <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
12426 transferred from Aaron to Christ. Therefore the entire Law was also transferred. Therefore the judicial precepts are no longer
12427 in force.
12428 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 104 a. 3 s. c."><a name="38162" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38162] Iª-IIae q. 104 a. 3 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
12429 est quod apostolus dicit, ad Heb. VII, quod <i>translato
12430 sacerdotio, necesse est ut legis translatio fiat</i>. Sed
12431 sacerdotium est translatum ab Aaron ad Christum. Ergo etiam et tota
12432 lex est translata. Non ergo iudicialia praecepta adhuc obligationem
12433 habent.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q104_A3-p6">
12434 <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
12435 precepts. For the ceremonial precepts were annulled so far as to be not only "dead," but also deadly to those who observe
12436 them since the coming of Christ, especially since the promulgation of the Gospel. On the other hand, the judicial precepts
12437 are dead indeed, because they have no binding force: but they are not deadly. For if a
12438 sovereign were to order these judicial precepts to be observed in his kingdom, he would not sin: unless perchance they were
12439 observed, or ordered to be observed, as though they derived their binding force through being institutions of the Old Law:
12440 for it would be a deadly sin to intend to observe them thus.
12441 </p><p id="FS_Q104_A3-p7"> The reason for this difference may be gathered from what has been said above
12442 <a href="#FS_Q104_A2" id="FS_Q104_A3-p7.1" shape="rect">(A[2])</a>. For it has been stated that the ceremonial precepts are figurative primarily and in themselves, as being instituted chiefly
12443 for the purpose of foreshadowing the mysteries of Christ to come. On the other hand, the judicial precepts were not instituted
12444 that they might be figures, but that they might shape the state of that people who were directed to Christ. Consequently,
12445 when the state of that people changed with the coming of Christ, the judicial precepts lost their binding force: for the Law
12446 was a pedagogue, leading men to Christ, as stated in
12447 <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
12448 certain deeds, the observance thereof is not prejudicial to the truth of faith. But the intention of observing them, as though
12449 one were bound by the Law, is
12450 prejudicial to the truth of faith: because it would follow that the former state of the people still lasts, and that Christ
12451 has not yet come.
12452 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 104 a. 3 co."><a name="38163" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38163] Iª-IIae q. 104 a. 3 co.</span></a> Respondeo
12453 dicendum quod iudicialia praecepta non habuerunt perpetuam
12454 obligationem, sed sunt evacuata per adventum Christi, aliter tamen
12455 quam caeremonialia. Nam caeremonialia adeo sunt evacuata ut non
12456 solum sint mortua, sed etiam mortifera observantibus post Christum,
12457 maxime post Evangelium divulgatum. Praecepta autem iudicialia sunt
12458 quidem mortua, quia non habent vim obligandi, non tamen sunt
12459 mortifera. Quia si quis princeps ordinaret in regno suo illa
12460 iudicialia observari, non peccaret, nisi forte hoc modo
12461 observarentur, vel observari mandarentur, tanquam habentia vim
12462 obligandi ex veteris legis institutione. Talis enim intentio
12463 observandi esset mortifera. Et huius differentiae ratio potest
12464 accipi ex praemissis. Dictum est enim quod praecepta caeremonialia
12465 sunt figuralia primo et per se, tanquam instituta principaliter ad
12466 figurandum Christi mysteria ut futura. Et ideo ipsa observatio
12467 eorum praeiudicat fidei veritati, secundum quam confitemur illa
12468 mysteria iam esse completa. Praecepta autem iudicialia non sunt
12469 instituta ad figurandum, sed ad disponendum statum illius populi,
12470 qui ordinabatur ad Christum. Et ideo, mutato statu illius populi,
12471 Christo iam veniente, iudicialia praecepta obligationem amiserunt,
12472 lex enim fuit paedagogus ducens ad Christum, ut dicitur ad Gal.
12473 III. Quia tamen huiusmodi iudicialia praecepta non ordinantur ad
12474 figurandum, sed ad aliquid fiendum, ipsa eorum observatio absolute
12475 non praeiudicat fidei veritati. Sed intentio observandi tanquam ex
12476 obligatione legis, praeiudicat veritati fidei, quia per hoc
12477 haberetur quod status prioris populi adhuc duraret, et quod
12478 Christus nondum venisset.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q104_A3-p8">
12479 <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
12480 human or Divine institution, must needs be different, according to the different states of mankind.
12481 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 104 a. 3 ad 1"><a name="38164" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38164] Iª-IIae q. 104 a. 3 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
12482 ergo dicendum quod iustitia quidem perpetuo est observanda. Sed
12483 determinatio eorum quae sunt iusta secundum institutionem humanam
12484 vel divinam, oportet quod varietur secundum diversum hominum
12485 statum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q104_A3-p9">
12486 <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
12487 the same. But if the state or nation pass to another form of government, the laws must needs be changed. For democracy, which
12488 is government by the people, demands different laws from those of oligarchy, which is government by the rich, as the Philosopher
12489 shows (Polit. iv, 1). Consequently when the state of that people changed, the
12490 judicial precepts had to be changed also.
12491 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 104 a. 3 ad 2"><a name="38165" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38165] Iª-IIae q. 104 a. 3 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
12492 dicendum quod praecepta iudicialia ab hominibus instituta habent
12493 perpetuam obligationem, manente illo statu regiminis. Sed si
12494 civitas vel gens ad aliud regimen deveniat, oportet leges mutari.
12495 Non enim eaedem leges conveniunt in democratia, quae est potestas
12496 populi, et in oligarchia, quae est potestas divitum; ut patet per
12497 philosophum, in sua politica. Et ideo etiam, mutato statu illius
12498 populi, oportuit praecepta iudicialia mutari.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q104_A3-p10">
12499 <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
12500 coming of Christ, there had to be a change in the state of that people, so that in Christ there was no distinction between
12501 Gentile and Jew, as there had been before. For this reason the judicial precepts needed to be changed also.
12502 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 104 a. 3 ad 3"><a name="38166" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38166] Iª-IIae q. 104 a. 3 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
12503 dicendum quod illa praecepta iudicialia disponebant populum ad
12504 iustitiam et aequitatem secundum quod conveniebat illi statui. Sed
12505 post Christum, statum illius populi oportuit mutari, ut iam in
12506 Christo non esset discretio gentilis et Iudaei, sicut antea erat.
12507 Et propter hoc oportuit etiam praecepta iudicialia mutari.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q104_A4" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q104_A4-p0.1">Q. 104. A. 4. Whether it is possible to assign a distinct division of the judicial precepts?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q104_A4-p2">
12508 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that it is impossible to assign a distinct division of the judicial precepts. Because the judicial precepts
12509 direct men in their relations to one another. But those things which need to be directed, as pertaining to the relationship
12510 between man and man, and which are made use of by men, are not subject to division, since they are infinite in number. Therefore
12511 it is not possible to assign a distinct division of the judicial precepts.
12512 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 104 a. 4 arg. 1"><a name="38167" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38167] Iª-IIae q. 104 a. 4 arg. 1</span></a> Ad quartum
12513 sic proceditur. Videtur quod praecepta iudicialia non possint
12514 habere aliquam certam divisionem. Praecepta enim iudicialia
12515 ordinant homines ad invicem. Sed ea quae inter homines ordinari
12516 oportet, in usum eorum venientia, non cadunt sub certa
12517 distinctione, cum sint infinita. Ergo praecepta iudicialia non
12518 possunt habere certam distinctionem.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q104_A4-p3">
12519 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the judicial precepts are decisions on moral matters. But moral precepts do not seem to be capable of division,
12520 except in so far as they are reducible to the precepts of the decalogue. Therefore there is no distinct division of the judicial
12521 precepts.
12522 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 104 a. 4 arg. 2"><a name="38168" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38168] Iª-IIae q. 104 a. 4 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
12523 praecepta iudicialia sunt determinationes moralium. Sed moralia
12524 praecepta non videntur habere aliquam distinctionem, nisi secundum
12525 quod reducuntur ad praecepta Decalogi. Ergo praecepta iudicialia
12526 non habent aliquam certam distinctionem.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q104_A4-p4">
12527 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, because there is a distinct division of the ceremonial precepts, the Law alludes to this division, by describing
12528 some as "sacrifices," others as "observances." But the Law contains no allusion to a division of the judicial precepts. Therefore
12529 it seems that they have no distinct division.
12530 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 104 a. 4 arg. 3"><a name="38169" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38169] Iª-IIae q. 104 a. 4 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
12531 praecepta caeremonialia quia certam distinctionem habent, eorum
12532 distinctio in lege innuitur, dum quaedam vocantur sacrificia,
12533 quaedam observantiae. Sed nulla distinctio innuitur in lege
12534 praeceptorum iudicialium. Ergo videtur quod non habeant certam
12535 distinctionem.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q104_A4-p5">
12536 <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,
12537 since thereby that people was ordained. Therefore it is most necessary that they should have a distinct division.
12538 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 104 a. 4 s. c."><a name="38170" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38170] Iª-IIae q. 104 a. 4 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra,
12539 ubi est ordo, oportet quod sit distinctio. Sed ratio ordinis maxime
12540 pertinet ad praecepta iudicialia, per quae populus ille
12541 ordinabatur. Ergo maxime debent habere distinctionem certam.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q104_A4-p6">
12542 <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
12543 in the rules of art, so, in every law, there must be a distinct division of precepts: else the law would be rendered useless
12544 by confusion. We must therefore say that the judicial precepts of the Old Law, whereby men were directed in their relations
12545 to one another, are subject to division according to the divers ways in which man is
12546 directed.
12547 </p><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
12548 among themselves; a third, of the citizens to foreigners; a fourth, of members of the same household, such as the order of
12549 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
12550 distinguish different kinds of judicial precepts in the Old Law. For certain precepts are laid down concerning
12551 the institution of the sovereign and relating to his office, and about the respect due to him: this is one part of the judicial
12552 precepts. Again, certain precepts are given in respect of a man to his fellow citizens: for instance, about buying and selling,
12553 judgments and penalties: this is the second part of the judicial precepts. Again, certain precepts are enjoined with regard
12554 to foreigners: for instance, about wars waged against their foes, and about the way to receive travelers and strangers:
12555 this is the third part of the judicial precepts. Lastly, certain precepts are given relating to home life: for instance, about
12556 servants, wives and children: this is the fourth part of the judicial precepts.
12557 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 104 a. 4 co."><a name="38171" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38171] Iª-IIae q. 104 a. 4 co.</span></a> Respondeo
12558 dicendum quod, cum lex sit quasi quaedam ars humanae vitae
12559 instituendae vel ordinandae, sicut in unaquaque arte est certa
12560 distinctio regularum artis, ita oportet in qualibet lege esse
12561 certam distinctionem praeceptorum, aliter enim ipsa confusio
12562 utilitatem legis auferret. Et ideo dicendum est quod praecepta
12563 iudicialia veteris legis, per quae homines ad invicem ordinabantur,
12564 distinctionem habent secundum distinctionem ordinationis humanae.
12565 Quadruplex autem ordo in aliquo populo inveniri potest, unus
12566 quidem, principum populi ad subditos; alius autem, subditorum ad
12567 invicem; tertius autem, eorum qui sunt de populo ad extraneos;
12568 quartus autem, ad domesticos, sicut patris ad filium, uxoris ad
12569 virum, et domini ad servum. Et secundum istos quatuor ordines
12570 distingui possunt praecepta iudicialia veteris legis. Dantur enim
12571 quaedam praecepta de institutione principum et officio eorum, et de
12572 reverentia eis exhibenda, et haec est una pars iudicialium
12573 praeceptorum. Dantur etiam quaedam praecepta pertinentia ad
12574 concives ad invicem, puta circa emptiones et venditiones, et
12575 iudicia et poenas. Et haec est secunda pars iudicialium
12576 praeceptorum. Dantur etiam quaedam praecepta pertinentia ad
12577 extraneos, puta de bellis contra hostes, et de susceptione
12578 peregrinorum et advenarum. Et haec est tertia pars iudicialium
12579 praeceptorum. Dantur etiam in lege quaedam praecepta pertinentia ad
12580 domesticam conversationem, sicut de servis, et uxoribus, et filiis.
12581 Et haec est quarta pars iudicialium praeceptorum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q104_A4-p8">
12582 <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
12583 to certain distinct heads, according to the different relations in which one man stands to another, as stated above.
12584 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 104 a. 4 ad 1"><a name="38172" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38172] Iª-IIae q. 104 a. 4 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
12585 ergo dicendum quod ea quae pertinent ad ordinationem hominum ad
12586 invicem, sunt quidem numero infinita; sed tamen reduci possunt ad
12587 aliqua certa, secundum differentiam ordinationis humanae, ut dictum
12588 est.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q104_A4-p9">
12589 <b>Reply to Objection 2:</b> The precepts of the decalogue held the first place in the moral order, as stated above (
12590 <a href="#FS_Q100_A3" id="FS_Q104_A4-p9.1" shape="rect">Q[100], A[3]</a>): and consequently it is fitting that other moral precepts should be distinguished in relation to them. But the judicial
12591 and ceremonial precepts have a different binding force, derived, not from natural reason, but from their institution alone.
12592 Hence there is a distinct reason for distinguishing them.
12593 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 104 a. 4 ad 2"><a name="38173" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38173] Iª-IIae q. 104 a. 4 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
12594 dicendum quod praecepta Decalogi sunt prima in genere moralium, ut
12595 supra dictum est, et ideo convenienter alia praecepta moralia
12596 secundum ea distinguuntur. Sed praecepta iudicialia et
12597 caeremonialia habent aliam rationem obligationis non quidem ex
12598 ratione naturali sed ex sola institutione. Et ideo distinctionis
12599 eorum est alia ratio.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q104_A4-p10">
12600 <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
12601 precepts of the Law.
12602 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 104 a. 4 ad 3"><a name="38174" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38174] Iª-IIae q. 104 a. 4 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
12603 dicendum quod ex ipsis rebus quae per praecepta iudicialia
12604 ordinantur in lege, innuit lex distinctionem iudicialium
12605 praeceptorum.</p></div></div></div></div>
12606 <div id="FS_Q105" class="div3">
12607 <h3 id="FS_Q105-p0.1">Q. 105. OF THE REASON FOR THE JUDICIAL PRECEPTS (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3>
12608 <div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="div4">
12609 <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><p id="FS_Q105-p3"><a href="#FS_Q105_A1"> (1) Concerning the reason for the judicial precepts relating to the rulers;</a></p><p id="FS_Q105-p4"><a href="#FS_Q105_A2"> (2) Concerning the fellowship of one man with another;</a></p><p id="FS_Q105-p5"><a href="#FS_Q105_A3"> (3) Concerning matters relating to foreigners;</a></p><p id="FS_Q105-p6"><a href="#FS_Q105_A4"> (4) Concerning things relating to domestic matters.</a></p>
12610 </div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 pr."><a name="38175" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38175] Iª-IIae q. 105 pr.</span></a> Deinde
12611 considerandum est de ratione iudicialium praeceptorum. Et circa hoc
12612 quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, de ratione praeceptorum iudicialium quae
12613 pertinent ad principes. Secundo, de his quae pertinent ad convictum
12614 hominum ad invicem. Tertio, de his quae pertinent ad extraneos.
12615 Quarto, de his quae pertinent ad domesticam conversationem.</p></div></div></div>
12616 <div id="FS_Q105_A1" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q105_A1-p0.1">Q. 105. A. 1. Whether the Old Law enjoined fitting precepts concerning rulers?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A1-p2">
12617 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the Old Law made unfitting precepts concerning rulers. Because, as the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 4),
12618 "the ordering of the people depends mostly on the chief ruler." But the Law contains no precept relating to the institution
12619 of the chief ruler; and yet we find therein prescriptions concerning the inferior rulers: firstly (
12620 <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 (
12621 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A1-p2.2" href="./asv.html#Num.11.16" target="asv">Num. 11:16</a>):
12622 "Gather unto Me seventy men of the ancients of Israel"; and again (
12623 <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
12624 rulers of the people.
12625 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 1 arg. 1"><a name="38176" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38176] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 1 arg. 1</span></a> Ad primum
12626 sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter lex vetus de
12627 principibus ordinaverit. Quia, ut philosophus dicit, in III Polit.,
12628 <i>ordinatio populi praecipue dependet ex maximo principatu</i>.
12629 Sed in lege non invenitur qualiter debeat institui supremus
12630 princeps. Invenitur autem de inferioribus principibus, primo
12631 quidem, Exod. XVIII, provide de omni plebe viros sapientes, etc.;
12632 et Num. XI, congrega mihi septuaginta viros de senioribus Israel;
12633 et Deut. I, date ex vobis viros sapientes et gnaros, et cetera.
12634 Ergo insufficienter lex vetus principes populi ordinavit.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A1-p3">
12635 <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
12636 be ruled by a king: because this kind of government approaches nearest in resemblance to the Divine government, whereby God
12637 rules the world from the beginning. Therefore the Law should have set a king over the people, and they should not have been
12638 allowed a choice in the matter, as indeed they were allowed (
12639 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A1-p3.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.17.14" target="asv">Dt.
12640 17:14,15
12641 </a>): "When thou . . . shalt say: I will set a king over me . . . thou shalt set him," etc.
12642 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 1 arg. 2"><a name="38177" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38177] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 1 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
12643 optimi est optima adducere, ut Plato dicit. Sed optima ordinatio
12644 civitatis vel populi cuiuscumque est ut gubernetur per regem, quia
12645 huiusmodi regimen maxime repraesentat divinum regimen, quo unus
12646 Deus mundum gubernat. A principio igitur lex debuit regem populo
12647 instituere; et non permittere hoc eorum arbitrio, sicut permittitur
12648 Deut. XVII, <i>cum dixeris, constituam super me regem, eum
12649 constitues,</i> et cetera.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A1-p4">
12650 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, according to
12651 <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
12652 was brought about by the division of the kingdom. But the Law should aim chiefly at things pertaining to the general well-being
12653 of the people. Therefore it should have forbidden the kingdom to be divided under two kings: nor should this have been introduced
12654 even by Divine
12655 authority; as we read of its being introduced by the authority of the prophet Ahias the Silonite (
12656 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A1-p4.2" href="./asv.html#." target="asv">3 Kings 11:29, </a> seqq.).
12657 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 1 arg. 3"><a name="38178" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38178] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 1 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
12658 sicut dicitur Matth. XII, omne regnum in se divisum desolabitur,
12659 quod etiam experimento patuit in populo Iudaeorum, in quo divisio
12660 regni fuit destructionis causa. Sed lex praecipue debet intendere
12661 ea quae pertinent ad communem salutem populi. Ergo debuit in lege
12662 prohiberi divisio regni in duos reges. Nec etiam debuit hoc
12663 auctoritate divina introduci; sicut legitur introductum auctoritate
12664 domini per Ahiam Silonitem prophetam, III Reg. XI.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A1-p5">
12665 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, just as priests are instituted for the benefit of the people in things concerning God, as stated in
12666 <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
12667 for the priests and Levites of the Law: such as the tithes and first-fruits, and many like things. Therefore in like manner
12668 certain things should have been determined for the livelihood of the
12669 rulers of the people: the more that they were forbidden to accept presents, as is clearly stated in
12670 <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."
12671 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 1 arg. 4"><a name="38179" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38179] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 1 arg. 4</span></a> Praeterea,
12672 sicut sacerdotes instituuntur ad utilitatem populi in his quae ad
12673 Deum pertinent, ut patet Heb. V; ita etiam principes instituuntur
12674 ad utilitatem populi in rebus humanis. Sed sacerdotibus et Levitis
12675 qui sunt in lege, deputantur aliqua ex quibus vivere debeant, sicut
12676 decimae et primitiae, et multa alia huiusmodi. Ergo similiter
12677 principibus populi debuerunt aliqua ordinari unde sustentarentur,
12678 et praecipue cum inhibita sit eis munerum acceptio, ut patet Exod.
12679 XXIII, <i>non accipietis munera, quae excaecant etiam prudentes, et
12680 subvertunt verba iustorum</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A1-p6">
12681 <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,
12682 He established a tyrannical law; for it is written (
12683 <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
12684 provision with regard to the institution of rulers.
12685 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 1 arg. 5"><a name="38180" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38180] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 1 arg. 5</span></a> Praeterea,
12686 sicut regnum est optimum regimen, ita tyrannis est pessima
12687 corruptio regiminis. Sed dominus regi instituendo instituit ius
12688 tyrannicum, dicitur enim I Reg. VIII, <i>hoc erit ius regis qui
12689 imperaturus est vobis, filios vestros tollet</i>, et cetera. Ergo
12690 inconvenienter fuit provisum per legem circa principum
12691 ordinationem.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A1-p7">
12692 <b>On the contrary,</b> The people of Israel is commended for the beauty of its order (
12693 <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
12694 establishment of its rulers. Therefore the Law made right provision for the people with regard to its rulers.
12695 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 1 s. c."><a name="38181" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38181] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 1 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
12696 est quod populus Israel de pulchritudine ordinationis commendatur,
12697 Num. XXIV, <i>quam pulchra tabernacula tua, Iacob; et tentoria tua,
12698 Israel</i>. Sed pulchritudo ordinationis populi dependet ex
12699 principibus bene institutis. Ergo per legem populus fuit circa
12700 principes bene institutus.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q105_A1-p8">
12701 <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
12702 share in the government: for this form of constitution ensures peace among the people, commends itself to all, and is most
12703 enduring, as stated in Polit. ii, 6. The other point is to be observed in respect of the kinds of government, or the different
12704 ways in which the constitutions are established. For whereas these differ in kind, as
12705 the Philosopher states (Polit. iii, 5), nevertheless the first place is held by the "kingdom," where the power of government
12706 is vested in one; and "aristocracy," which signifies government by the best, where the power of government is vested in a
12707 few. Accordingly, the best form of government is in a state or kingdom, where one is given the power to preside over all;
12708 while under him are others having governing powers: and yet a government of this kind is shared by all, both because all are
12709 eligible to govern, and because the rules are chosen by all. For this is the best form of polity, being partly kingdom, since
12710 there is one at the head of all; partly aristocracy, in so far as a number of persons are set in authority; partly democracy,
12711 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
12712 their rulers.
12713 </p><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
12714 way that each of them was ruler over all; so that there was a kind of kingdom. Moreover, seventy-two men were chosen, who
12715 were elders in virtue: for it is written (
12716 <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.
12717 But it was a democratical government in so
12718 far as the rulers were chosen from all the people; for it is written (
12719 <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;
12720 wherefore it is written (
12721 <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
12722 was well provided for by the Law.
12723 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 1 co."><a name="38182" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38182] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 1 co.</span></a> Respondeo
12724 dicendum quod circa bonam ordinationem principum in aliqua civitate
12725 vel gente, duo sunt attendenda. Quorum unum est ut omnes aliquam
12726 partem habeant in principatu, per hoc enim conservatur pax populi,
12727 et omnes talem ordinationem amant et custodiunt, ut dicitur in II
12728 Polit. Aliud est quod attenditur secundum speciem regiminis, vel
12729 ordinationis principatuum. Cuius cum sint diversae species, ut
12730 philosophus tradit, in III Polit., praecipuae tamen sunt regnum, in
12731 quo unus principatur secundum virtutem; et aristocratia, idest
12732 potestas optimorum, in qua aliqui pauci principantur secundum
12733 virtutem. Unde optima ordinatio principum est in aliqua civitate
12734 vel regno, in qua unus praeficitur secundum virtutem qui omnibus
12735 praesit; et sub ipso sunt aliqui principantes secundum virtutem; et
12736 tamen talis principatus ad omnes pertinet, tum quia ex omnibus
12737 eligi possunt, tum quia etiam ab omnibus eliguntur. Talis enim est
12738 optima politia, bene commixta ex regno, inquantum unus praeest; et
12739 aristocratia, inquantum multi principantur secundum virtutem; et ex
12740 democratia, idest potestate populi, inquantum ex popularibus
12741 possunt eligi principes, et ad populum pertinet electio principum.
12742 Et hoc fuit institutum secundum legem divinam. Nam Moyses et eius
12743 successores gubernabant populum quasi singulariter omnibus
12744 principantes, quod est quaedam species regni. Eligebantur autem
12745 septuaginta duo seniores secundum virtutem, dicitur enim Deut. I,
12746 <i>tuli de vestris tribubus viros sapientes et nobiles, et
12747 constitui eos principes</i>, et hoc erat aristocraticum. Sed
12748 democraticum erat quod isti de omni populo eligebantur; dicitur
12749 enim Exod. XVIII, <i>provide de omni plebe viros sapientes,</i>
12750 etc., et etiam quod populus eos eligebat; unde dicitur Deut. I,
12751 date ex vobis viros sapientes, et cetera. Unde patet quod optima
12752 fuit ordinatio principum quam lex instituit.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A1-p10">
12753 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> This people was governed under the special care of God: wherefore it is written (
12754 <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
12755 of the chief ruler. For this too did Moses pray (
12756 <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
12757 Josue was
12758 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"
12759 for the people, and that "the spirit of the Lord was" in them (
12760 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A1-p10.3" href="./asv.html#Judg.3.9" target="asv">Judges 3:9</a>,
12761 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A1-p10.4" href="./asv.html#Judg.3.10" target="asv">10</a>,
12762 <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
12763 <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."
12764 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 1 ad 1"><a name="38183" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38183] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 1 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
12765 ergo dicendum quod populus ille sub speciali cura Dei regebatur,
12766 unde dicitur Deut. VII, <i>te elegit dominus Deus tuus ut sis ei
12767 populus peculiaris</i>. Et ideo institutionem summi principis
12768 dominus sibi reservavit. Et hoc est quod Moyses petivit, Num.
12769 XXVII, <i>provideat dominus Deus spirituum omnis carnis, hominem
12770 qui sit super multitudinem hanc</i>. Et sic ex Dei ordinatione
12771 institutus est Iosue in principatu post Moysen, et de singulis
12772 iudicibus qui post Iosue fuerunt, legitur quod Deus suscitavit
12773 populo salvatorem, et quod spiritus domini fuit in eis, ut patet
12774 Iudic. III. Et ideo etiam electionem regis non commisit dominus
12775 populo, sed sibi reservavit; ut patet Deut. XVII, <i>eum constitues
12776 regem, quem dominus Deus tuus elegerit</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q105_A1-p11">
12777 <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
12778 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
12779 the virtuous man that conducts himself well in the midst of prosperity, as the Philosopher observes (Ethic. iv, 3). Now perfect
12780 virtue is to be found in few: and especially were the Jews inclined to
12781 cruelty and avarice, which vices above all turn men into tyrants. Hence from the very first the Lord did not set up the kingly
12782 authority with full power, but gave them judges and governors to rule them. But afterwards when the people asked Him to do
12783 so, being indignant with them, so to speak, He granted them a king, as is clear from His words to Samuel (
12784 <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."
12785 </p><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 (
12786 <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
12787 they should not make a man of another nation king, because such kings are wont to take little interest in the people they
12788 are set over, and consequently to have no care for their welfare: secondly, He
12789 prescribed how the king after his appointment should behave, in regard to himself; namely, that he should not accumulate chariots
12790 and horses, nor wives, nor immense wealth: because through craving for such things princes become tyrants and forsake justice.
12791 He also appointed the manner in which they were to conduct themselves towards God: namely, that they should continually read
12792 and ponder on God's Law, and should ever fear and obey God. Moreover, He decided how they should behave towards their
12793 subjects: namely, that they should not proudly despise them, or ill-treat them, and that they should not depart from the paths
12794 of justice.
12795 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 1 ad 2"><a name="38184" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38184] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 1 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
12796 dicendum quod regnum est optimum regimen populi, si non
12797 corrumpatur. Sed propter magnam potestatem quae regi conceditur, de
12798 facili regnum degenerat in tyrannidem, nisi sit perfecta virtus
12799 eius cui talis potestas conceditur, quia non est nisi virtuosi bene
12800 ferre bonas fortunas, ut philosophus dicit, in IV Ethic. Perfecta
12801 autem virtus in paucis invenitur, et praecipue Iudaei crudeles
12802 erant et ad avaritiam proni, per quae vitia maxime homines in
12803 tyrannidem decidunt. Et ideo dominus a principio eis regem non
12804 instituit cum plena potestate, sed iudicem et gubernatorem in eorum
12805 custodiam. Sed postea regem ad petitionem populi, quasi indignatus,
12806 concessit, ut patet per hoc quod dixit ad Samuelem, I Reg. VIII,
12807 <i>non te abiecerunt, sed me, ne regnem super eos</i>. Instituit
12808 tamen a principio circa regem instituendum, primo quidem, modum
12809 eligendi. In quo duo determinavit, ut scilicet in eius electione
12810 expectarent iudicium domini; et ut non facerent regem alterius
12811 gentis, quia tales reges solent parum affici ad gentem cui
12812 praeficiuntur, et per consequens non curare de eis. Secundo,
12813 ordinavit circa reges institutos qualiter deberent se habere
12814 quantum ad seipsos, ut scilicet non multiplicarent currus et equos,
12815 neque uxores, neque etiam immensas divitias; quia ex cupiditate
12816 horum principes ad tyrannidem declinant, et iustitiam derelinquunt.
12817 Instituit etiam qualiter se deberent habere ad Deum, ut scilicet
12818 semper legerent et cogitarent de lege Dei, et semper essent in Dei
12819 timore et obedientia. Instituit etiam qualiter se haberent ad
12820 subditos suos, ut scilicet non superbe eos contemnerent, aut
12821 opprimerent, neque etiam a iustitia declinarent.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A1-p13">
12822 <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,
12823 specially against the just rule of David, than a benefit conferred on them for their profit. Hence it is written (
12824 <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 (
12825 <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."
12826 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 1 ad 3"><a name="38185" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38185] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 1 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
12827 dicendum quod divisio regni, et multitudo regum, magis est populo
12828 illi data in poenam pro multis dissensionibus eorum, quas maxime
12829 contra regnum David iustum moverant, quam ad eorum profectum. Unde
12830 dicitur Osee XIII, <i>dabo tibi regem in furore meo</i>; et Osee
12831 VIII, <i>ipsi regnaverunt, et non ex me, principes extiterunt, et
12832 non cognovi</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A1-p14">
12833 <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
12834 respect, if not any man from the people could become a priest: since honor was given to them out of reverence for the divine
12835 worship. Hence it was necessary to put aside certain things for them both as to tithes and as to first-fruits, and, again,
12836 as to oblations and sacrifices, that they might be afforded a means of livelihood. On
12837 the other hand, the rulers, as stated above, were chosen from the whole people; wherefore they had their own possessions,
12838 from which to derive a living: and so much the more, since the Lord forbade even a king to have superabundant wealth to make
12839 too much show of magnificence: both because he could scarcely avoid the excesses of pride and tyranny, arising from such things,
12840 and because, if the rulers were not very rich, and if their office involved much work and anxiety, it would not tempt the
12841 ambition of the common people; and would not become an occasion of sedition.
12842 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 1 ad 4"><a name="38186" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38186] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 1 ad 4</span></a> Ad quartum
12843 dicendum quod sacerdotes per successionem originis sacris
12844 deputabantur. Et hoc ideo ut in maiori reverentia haberentur, si
12845 non quilibet ex populo posset sacerdos fieri, quorum honor cedebat
12846 in reverentiam divini cultus. Et ideo oportuit ut eis specialia
12847 quaedam deputarentur, tam in decimis quam in primitiis, quam etiam
12848 in oblationibus et sacrificiis, ex quibus viverent. Sed principes,
12849 sicut dictum est, assumebantur ex toto populo, et ideo habebant
12850 certas possessiones proprias, ex quibus vivere poterant. Et
12851 praecipue cum dominus prohiberet etiam in rege ne superabundaret
12852 divitiis aut magnifico apparatu, tum quia non erat facile quin ex
12853 his in superbiam et tyrannidem erigeretur; tum etiam quia, si
12854 principes non erant multum divites, et erat laboriosus principatus
12855 et sollicitudine plenus, non multum affectabatur a popularibus, et
12856 sic tollebatur seditionis materia.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A1-p15">
12857 <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
12858 framing unjust laws, and by degenerating into tyrants who preyed on their subjects. This is clear from the context that follows:
12859 "And you shall be his slaves [Douay: 'servants']": which is significative of tyranny, since a tyrant rules is subjects as
12860 though they were his slaves. Hence Samuel spoke these words to deter them from
12861 asking for a king; since the narrative continues: "But the people would not hear the voice of Samuel." It may happen, however,
12862 that even a good king, without being a tyrant, may take away the sons, and make them tribunes and centurions; and may take
12863 many things from his subjects in order to secure the common weal.
12864 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 1 ad 5"><a name="38187" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38187] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 1 ad 5</span></a> Ad quintum
12865 dicendum quod illud ius non dabatur regi ex institutione divina;
12866 sed magis praenuntiatur usurpatio regum, qui sibi ius iniquum
12867 constituunt in tyrannidem degenerantes, et subditos depraedantes.
12868 Et hoc patet per hoc quod in fine subdit, <i>vosque eritis ei
12869 servi</i>, quod proprie pertinet ad tyrannidem, quia tyranni suis
12870 subditis principantur ut servis. Unde hoc dicebat Samuel ad
12871 deterrendum eos ne regem peterent, sequitur enim, <i>noluit autem
12872 audire populus vocem Samuelis</i>. Potest tamen contingere quod
12873 etiam bonus rex, absque tyrannide, filios tollat, et constituat
12874 tribunos et centuriones, et multa accipiat a subditis, propter
12875 commune bonum procurandum.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q105_A2" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q105_A2-p0.1">Q. 105. A. 2. Whether the judicial precepts were suitably framed as to the relations of one man with another?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A2-p2">
12876 <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
12877 men cannot live together in peace, if one man takes what belongs to another. But this seems to have been approved by the Law:
12878 since it is written (
12879 <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
12880 suitable provisions for man's
12881 peace.
12882 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 2 arg. 1"><a name="38188" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38188] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 2 arg. 1</span></a> Ad
12883 secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter fuerint
12884 tradita praecepta iudicialia quantum ad popularium convictum. Non
12885 enim possunt homines pacifice vivere ad invicem, si unus accipiat
12886 ea quae sunt alterius. Sed hoc videtur esse inductum in lege,
12887 dicitur enim Deut. XXIII, <i>ingressus vineam proximi tui, comede
12888 uvas quantum tibi placuerit</i>. Ergo lex vetus non convenienter
12889 providebat hominum paci.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A2-p3">
12890 <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
12891 says (Polit. ii, 6). But this was introduced by the Old Law; for it is written (
12892 <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
12893 for the welfare of the people.
12894 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 2 arg. 2"><a name="38189" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38189] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 2 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
12895 ex hoc maxime multae civitates et regna destruuntur, quod
12896 possessiones ad mulieres perveniunt, ut philosophus dicit, in II
12897 Polit. Sed hoc fuit introductum in veteri lege, dicitur enim Num.
12898 XXVII, <i>homo cum mortuus fuerit absque filio, ad filiam eius
12899 transibit hereditas</i>. Ergo non convenienter providit lex saluti
12900 populi.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A2-p4">
12901 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, it is most conducive to the preservation of human society that men may provide themselves with necessaries by buying
12902 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
12903 of the jubilee all that is sold shall return to the vendor (
12904 <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.
12905 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 2 arg. 3"><a name="38190" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38190] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 2 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
12906 societas hominum maxime per hoc conservatur, quod homines emendo et
12907 vendendo sibi invicem res suas commutant quibus indigent, ut
12908 dicitur in I Polit. Sed lex vetus abstulit virtutem venditionis,
12909 mandavit enim quod possessio vendita reverteretur ad venditorem in
12910 quinquagesimo anno iubilaei, ut patet Levit. XXV. Inconvenienter
12911 igitur lex populum illum circa hoc instituit.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A2-p5">
12912 <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
12913 pledges: hence it is written (
12914 <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
12915 encouraged by the Law. First, because it prescribed (
12916 <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,
12917 cannot demand it again, because it is the year of remission of the Lord"; and (
12918 <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.
12919 Secondly, because the security acquired through the pledge is lost: for it is written (
12920 <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";
12921 and again
12922 (
12923 <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
12924 provision in the matter of loans.
12925 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 2 arg. 4"><a name="38191" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38191] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 2 arg. 4</span></a> Praeterea,
12926 necessitatibus hominum maxime expedit ut homines sint prompti ad
12927 mutuum concedendum. Quae quidem promptitudo tollitur per hoc quod
12928 creditores accepta non reddunt, unde dicitur Eccli. XXIX, <i>multi
12929 non causa nequitiae non faenerati sunt, sed fraudari gratis
12930 timuerunt</i>. Hoc autem induxit lex. Primo quidem, quia mandavit
12931 Deut. XV, <i>cui debetur aliquid ab amico vel proximo ac fratre
12932 suo, repetere non poterit, quia annus remissionis est domini</i>;
12933 et Exod. XXII dicitur quod si praesente domino animal mutuatum
12934 mortuum fuerit, reddere non tenetur. Secundo, quia aufertur ei
12935 securitas quae habetur per pignus, dicitur enim Deut. XXIV, <i>cum
12936 repetes a proximo tuo rem aliquam quam debet tibi, non ingredieris
12937 domum eius ut pignus auferas</i>; et iterum, <i>non pernoctabit
12938 apud te pignus, sed statim reddes ei</i>. Ergo insufficienter fuit
12939 ordinatum in lege de mutuis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A2-p6">
12940 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, considerable risk attaches to goods deposited with a fraudulent depositary: wherefore great caution should be observed
12941 in such matters: hence it is stated in
12942 <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
12943 them safe, for them that had deposited them." But the precepts of the Old Law observed little caution in regard to deposits:
12944 since it
12945 is prescribed (
12946 <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
12947 provision in this matter.
12948 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 2 arg. 5"><a name="38192" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38192] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 2 arg. 5</span></a> Praeterea,
12949 ex defraudatione depositi maximum periculum imminet, et ideo est
12950 maxima cautela adhibenda, unde etiam dicitur II Mach. III, quod
12951 <i>sacerdotes invocabant de caelo eum qui de depositis legem
12952 posuit, ut his qui deposuerant ea, salva custodiret</i>. Sed in
12953 praeceptis veteris legis parva cautela circa deposita adhibetur,
12954 dicitur enim Exod. XXII quod in amissione depositi statur iuramento
12955 eius apud quem fuit depositum. Ergo non fuit circa hoc legis
12956 ordinatio conveniens.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A2-p7">
12957 <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
12958 to pay his rent as soon as he takes a house. Therefore it seems an unnecessarily hard prescription (
12959 <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."
12960 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 2 arg. 6"><a name="38193" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38193] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 2 arg. 6</span></a> Praeterea,
12961 sicut aliquis mercenarius locat operas suas, ita etiam aliqui
12962 locant domum, vel quaecumque alia huiusmodi. Sed non est
12963 necessarium ut statim pretium locatae domus conductor exhibeat.
12964 Ergo etiam nimis durum fuit quod praecipitur Levit. XIX, <i>non
12965 morabitur opus mercenarii tui apud te usque mane</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A2-p8">
12966 <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
12967 that the Law (
12968 <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.
12969 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 2 arg. 7"><a name="38194" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38194] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 2 arg. 7</span></a> Praeterea,
12970 cum frequenter immineat iudiciorum necessitas, facilis debet esse
12971 accessus ad iudicem. Inconvenienter igitur statuit lex, Deut. XVII,
12972 ut irent ad unum locum expetituri iudicium de suis dubiis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A2-p9">
12973 <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
12974 (
12975 <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."
12976 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 2 arg. 8"><a name="38195" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38195] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 2 arg. 8</span></a> Praeterea,
12977 possibile est non solum duos, sed etiam tres vel plures concordare
12978 ad mentiendum. Inconvenienter igitur dicitur Deut. XIX, <i>in ore
12979 duorum vel trium testium stabit omne verbum</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A2-p10">
12980 <b>Objection 9:</b> Further, punishment should be fixed according to the gravity of the fault: for which reason also it is written (
12981 <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
12982 for certain faults: for it is written (
12983 <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
12984 severely
12985 punished: thus (
12986 <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 (
12987 <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
12988 to revelling . . . and banquetings." Therefore the Law prescribed punishments in an unreasonable manner.
12989 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 2 arg. 9"><a name="38196" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38196] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 2 arg. 9</span></a> Praeterea,
12990 poena debet taxari secundum quantitatem culpae, unde dicitur etiam
12991 Deut. XXV, <i>pro mensura peccati erit et plagarum modus</i>. Sed
12992 quibusdam aequalibus culpis lex statuit inaequales poenas, dicitur
12993 enim Exod. XXII, quod restituet fur quinque boves pro uno bove, et
12994 quatuor oves pro una ove. Quaedam etiam non multum gravia peccata
12995 gravi poena puniuntur, sicut Num. XV, lapidatus est qui collegerat
12996 ligna in sabbato. Filius etiam protervus propter parva delicta,
12997 quia scilicet comessationibus vacabat et conviviis, mandatur
12998 lapidari, Deut. XXI. Igitur inconvenienter in lege sunt institutae
12999 poenae.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A2-p11">
13000 <b>Objection 10:</b> Further, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxi, 11), "Tully writes that the laws recognize eight forms of punishment, indemnity,
13001 prison, stripes, retaliation, public disgrace, exile, death, slavery." Now some of these were prescribed by the Law. "Indemnity,"
13002 as when a thief was condemned to make restitution fivefold or fourfold. "Prison," as when (
13003 <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 (
13004 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p11.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.25.2" target="asv">Dt.
13005 25:2
13006 </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."
13007 "Public disgrace" was brought on to him who refused to take to himself the wife of his deceased brother, for she took "off
13008 his shoe from his foot, and" did "spit in his face" (
13009 <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 (
13010 <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."
13011 The Law also recognized the "lex talionis," by prescribing (
13012 <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,
13013 viz. "exile" and "slavery."
13014 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 2 arg. 10"><a name="38197" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38197] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 2 arg. 10</span></a>
13015 Praeterea, sicut Augustinus dicit, XXI de Civ. Dei, <i>octo genera
13016 poenarum in legibus esse scribit Tullius, damnum, vincula, verbera,
13017 talionem, ignominiam, exilium, mortem, servitutem</i>. Ex quibus
13018 aliqua sunt in lege statuta. Damnum quidem, sicut cum fur
13019 condemnabatur ad quintuplum vel quadruplum. Vincula vero, sicut
13020 Num. XV, mandatur de quodam quod in carcerem includatur. Verbera
13021 vero, sicut Deut. XXV, <i>si eum qui peccavit dignum viderint
13022 plagis, prosternent, et coram se facient verberari</i>. Ignominiam
13023 etiam inferebat illi qui nolebat accipere uxorem fratris sui
13024 defuncti, quae tollebat calceamentum illius, et spuebat in faciem
13025 illius. Mortem etiam inferebat, ut patet Levit. XX, <i>qui
13026 maledixerit patri suo aut matri, morte moriatur</i>. Poenam etiam
13027 talionis lex induxit, dicens Exod. XXI, <i>oculum pro oculo, dentem
13028 pro dente</i>. Inconveniens igitur videtur quod alias duas poenas,
13029 scilicet exilium et servitutem, lex vetus non inflixit.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A2-p12">
13030 <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
13031 in punishing them (
13032 <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 (
13033 <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
13034 to the relations of one man with another were
13035 unsuitably regulated by the Law.
13036 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 2 arg. 11"><a name="38198" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38198] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 2 arg. 11</span></a>
13037 Praeterea, poena non debetur nisi culpae. Sed bruta animalia non
13038 possunt habere culpam. Ergo inconvenienter eis infligitur poena,
13039 Exod. XXI, <i>bos lapidibus obruetur qui occiderit virum aut
13040 mulierem</i>. Et Levit. XX dicitur, <i>mulier quae succubuerit
13041 cuilibet iumento, simul interficiatur cum eo</i>. Sic igitur
13042 videtur quod inconvenienter ea quae pertinent ad convictum hominum
13043 ad invicem, fuerint in lege veteri ordinata.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A2-p13">
13044 <b>Objection 12:</b> Further, the Lord commanded (
13045 <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
13046 a man. Hence murder cannot be sufficiently punished by the slaying of a dumb animal. Therefore it is unfittingly prescribed
13047 (
13048 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p13.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.21.1" target="asv">Dt. 21:1</a>,
13049 <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
13050 ancients" of the nearest city "shall take a heifer of the herd, that hath not drawn in the yoke, nor ploughed the ground,
13051 and they shall bring her into a rough and stony valley, that never was ploughed, nor sown; and there they shall strike off
13052 the head of the heifer."
13053 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 2 arg. 12"><a name="38199" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38199] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 2 arg. 12</span></a>
13054 Praeterea, dominus mandavit Exod. XXI, quod homicidium morte
13055 hominis puniretur. Sed mors bruti animalis multo minus reputatur
13056 quam occisio hominis. Ergo non potest sufficienter recompensari
13057 poena homicidii per occisionem bruti animalis. Inconvenienter
13058 igitur mandatur Deut. XXI quod <i>quando inventum fuerit cadaver
13059 occisi hominis, et ignorabitur caedis reus, seniores propinquioris
13060 civitatis tollant vitulam de armento quae non traxit iugum nec
13061 terram scidit vomere, et ducent eam ad vallem asperam atque saxosam
13062 quae numquam arata est nec sementa recepit, et caedent in ea
13063 cervices vitulae</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A2-p14">
13064 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is recalled as a special blessing (
13065 <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."
13066 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 2 s. c."><a name="38200" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38200] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 2 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
13067 est quod pro speciali beneficio commemoratur in Psalmo CXLVII,
13068 <i>non fecit taliter omni nationi, et iudicia sua non manifestavit
13069 eis</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q105_A2-p15">
13070 <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
13071 by community of welfare." Consequently it is of the essence of a nation that the mutual relations of the citizens be ordered
13072 by just laws. Now the relations of one man with another are twofold: some are effected under the guidance of those in authority:
13073 others are effected by the will of private individuals. And since whatever is
13074 subject to the power of an individual can be disposed of according to his will, hence it is that the decision of matters between
13075 one man and another, and the punishment of evildoers, depend on the direction of those in authority, to whom men are subject.
13076 On the other hand, the power of private persons is exercised over the things they possess: and consequently their dealings
13077 with one another, as regards such things, depend on their own will, for instance in buying, selling, giving, and so
13078 forth. Now the Law provided sufficiently in respect of each of these relations between one man and another. For it established
13079 judges, as is clearly indicated in
13080 <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
13081 judgment." It is also directed the manner of pronouncing just judgments, according to
13082 <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:
13083 there shall be no difference of persons." It also removed an occasion of pronouncing unjust judgment, by forbidding judges
13084 to accept bribes (
13085 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p15.3" href="./asv.html#Exod.23.8" target="asv">Ex. 23:8</a>;
13086 <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
13087 shall state farther on (ad 10).
13088 </p><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
13089 be distinct, and the use thereof should be partly common, and partly granted to others by the will of the possessors. These
13090 three points were provided for by the Law. Because, in the first place, the possessions themselves were divided among individuals:
13091 for it is written (
13092 <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:
13093 and you shall divide it among you by lot." And since many states have been ruined through want of regulations in the matter
13094 of possessions, as the Philosopher observes (Polit. ii, 6); therefore the Law provided a threefold remedy against the regularity
13095 of possessions. The first was that they should be divided equally, wherefore it is written (
13096 <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
13097 be alienated for ever, but after a certain lapse of time should return to their former owner, so as to avoid confusion of
13098 possessions (cf. ad 3). The third remedy aimed at the removal of this confusion, and provided that the dead should be succeeded
13099 by their next of kin: in the first place, the son; secondly, the daughter; thirdly, the brother; fourthly, the father's brother;
13100 fifthly, any other next of kin. Furthermore, in order to preserve the distinction of property, the Law enacted that
13101 heiresses should marry within their own tribe, as recorded in
13102 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p16.3" href="./asv.html#Num.36.6" target="asv"> Num. 36:6.</a>
13103 </p><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
13104 the care of them; for it was prescribed (
13105 <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,"
13106 and in like manner as to other things. Secondly, as regards fruits. For all alike were allowed on entering a friend's vineyard
13107 to eat of the fruit, but not to
13108 take any away. And, specially, with respect to the poor, it was prescribed that the forgotten sheaves, and the bunches of
13109 grapes and fruit, should be left behind for them (
13110 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p17.2" href="./asv.html#Lev.19.9" target="asv">Lev. 19:9</a>;
13111 <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
13112 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p17.4" href="./asv.html#Exod.23.11" target="asv"> Ex. 23:11 </a>and
13113 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p17.5" href="./asv.html#Lev.25.4" target="asv"> Lev. 25:4.</a>
13114 </p><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
13115 (
13116 <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
13117 widow . . . shall come and shall eat and be filled." And there was a transfer for a consideration, for instance, by selling
13118 and buying, by letting out and hiring, by loan and also by deposit, concerning all of which we
13119 find that the Law made ample provision. Consequently it is clear that the Old Law provided sufficiently concerning the mutual
13120 relations of one man with another.
13121 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 2 co."><a name="38201" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38201] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 2 co.</span></a> Respondeo
13122 dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus in II de Civ. Dei introducit a
13123 Tullio dictum, <i>populus est coetus multitudinis iuris consensu et
13124 utilitatis communione sociatus</i>. Unde ad rationem populi
13125 pertinet ut communicatio hominum ad invicem iustis praeceptis legis
13126 ordinetur. Est autem duplex communicatio hominum ad invicem, una
13127 quidem quae fit auctoritate principum; alia autem fit propria
13128 voluntate privatarum personarum. Et quia voluntate uniuscuiusque
13129 disponi potest quod eius subditur potestati, ideo auctoritate
13130 principum, quibus subiecti sunt homines, oportet quod iudicia inter
13131 homines exerceantur, et poenae malefactoribus inferantur. Potestati
13132 vero privatarum personarum subduntur res possessae, et ideo propria
13133 voluntate in his possunt sibi invicem communicare, puta emendo,
13134 vendendo, donando, et aliis huiusmodi modis. Circa utramque autem
13135 communicationem lex sufficienter ordinavit. Statuit enim iudices,
13136 ut patet Deut. XVI, <i>iudices et magistros constitues in omnibus
13137 portis eius, ut iudicent populum iusto iudicio</i>. Instituit etiam
13138 iustum iudicii ordinem, ut dicitur Deut. I, <i>quod iustum est
13139 iudicate, sive civis ille sit sive peregrinus, nulla erit
13140 personarum distantia</i>. Sustulit etiam occasionem iniusti
13141 iudicii, acceptionem munerum iudicibus prohibendo; ut patet Exod.
13142 XXIII, et Deut. XVI. Instituit etiam numerum testium duorum vel
13143 trium; ut patet Deut. XVII, et XIX. Instituit etiam certas poenas
13144 pro diversis delictis, ut post dicetur. Sed circa res possessas
13145 optimum est, sicut dicit philosophus, in II Polit., quod
13146 possessiones sint distinctae, et usus sit partim communis, partim
13147 autem per voluntatem possessorum communicetur. Et haec tria fuerunt
13148 in lege statuta. Primo enim, ipsae possessiones divisae erant in
13149 singulos, dicitur enim Num. XXXIII, <i>ego dedi vobis terram in
13150 possessionem, quam sorte dividetis vobis</i>. Et quia per
13151 possessionum irregularitatem plures civitates destruuntur, ut
13152 philosophus dicit, in II Polit.; ideo circa possessiones regulandas
13153 triplex remedium lex adhibuit. Unum quidem, ut secundum numerum
13154 hominum aequaliter dividerentur, unde dicitur Num. XXXIII,
13155 <i>pluribus dabitis latiorem, et paucioribus angustiorem</i>. Aliud
13156 remedium est ut possessiones non in perpetuum alienentur, sed certo
13157 tempore ad suos possessores revertantur, ut non confundantur sortes
13158 possessionum. Tertium remedium est ad huiusmodi confusionem
13159 tollendam, ut proximi succedant morientibus, primo quidem gradu,
13160 filius; secundo autem, filia; tertio, fratres; quarto, patrui;
13161 quinto, quicumque propinqui. Et ad distinctionem sortium
13162 conservandam, ulterius lex statuit ut mulieres quae sunt haeredes,
13163 nuberent suae tribus hominibus, ut habetur Num. XXXVI. Secundo
13164 vero, instituit lex ut quantum ad aliqua usus rerum esset communis.
13165 Et primo, quantum ad curam, praeceptum est enim Deut. XXII, <i>non
13166 videbis bovem et ovem fratris tui errantem, et praeteribis, sed
13167 reduces fratri tuo</i>; et similiter de aliis. Secundo, quantum ad
13168 fructum. Concedebatur enim communiter quantum ad omnes, ut
13169 ingressus in vineam amici posset licite comedere, dum tamen extra
13170 non auferret. Quantum ad pauperes vero specialiter, ut eis
13171 relinquerentur manipuli obliti, et fructus et racemi remanentes, ut
13172 habetur Lev. XIX, et Deut. XXIV. Et etiam communicabantur ea quae
13173 nascebantur in septimo anno; ut habetur Exod. XXIII, et Lev. XXV.
13174 Tertio vero, statuit lex communicationem factam per eos qui sunt
13175 domini rerum. Unam pure gratuitam, unde dicitur Deut. XIV, <i>anno
13176 tertio separabis aliam decimam, venientque Levites et peregrinus et
13177 pupillus et vidua, et comedent et saturabuntur</i>. Aliam vero cum
13178 recompensatione utilitatis, sicut per venditionem et emptionem, et
13179 locationem et conductionem, et per mutuum, et iterum per depositum,
13180 de quibus omnibus inveniuntur ordinationes certae in lege. Unde
13181 patet quod lex vetus sufficienter ordinavit convictum illius
13182 populi.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A2-p19">
13183 <b>Reply to Objection 1:</b> As the Apostle says (
13184 <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
13185 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
13186 goods to others: because, as stated in
13187 <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
13188 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
13189 readily: thus the Apostle (
13190 <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
13191 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
13192 be lawful for a man, on entering his neighbor's vineyard, to
13193 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
13194 disturbance of the peace: for among well-behaved people, the taking of a little does not disturb the peace; in fact, it rather
13195 strengthens friendship and accustoms men to give things to one another.
13196 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 2 ad 1"><a name="38202" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38202] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 2 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
13197 ergo dicendum quod, sicut apostolus dicit, Rom. XIII, <i>qui
13198 diligit proximum, legem implevit</i>, quia scilicet omnia praecepta
13199 legis, praecipue ordinata ad proximum, ad hunc finem ordinari
13200 videntur, ut homines se invicem diligant. Ex dilectione autem
13201 procedit quod homines sibi invicem bona sua communicent, quia ut
13202 dicitur I Ioan. III, <i>qui viderit fratrem suum necessitatem
13203 patientem, et clauserit viscera sua ab eo, quomodo caritas Dei
13204 manet in illo?</i> Et ideo intendebat lex homines assuefacere ut
13205 facile sibi invicem sua communicarent, sicut et apostolus, I ad
13206 Tim. VI, divitibus mandat facile tribuere et communicare. Non autem
13207 facile communicativus est qui non sustinet quod proximus aliquid
13208 modicum de suo accipiat, absque magno sui detrimento. Et ideo lex
13209 ordinavit ut liceret intrantem in vineam proximi, racemos ibi
13210 comedere, non autem extra deferre, ne ex hoc daretur occasio gravis
13211 damni inferendi, ex quo pax perturbaretur. Quae inter disciplinatos
13212 non perturbatur ex modicorum acceptione, sed magis amicitia
13213 confirmatur, et assuefiunt homines ad facile communicandum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A2-p20">
13214 <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
13215 it was necessary that succession should be granted to the female line in order to comfort the father, who would have been
13216 sad to think that his estate would pass to strangers. Nevertheless the Law observed due caution in the matter, by providing
13217 that those women who succeeded to their father's estate, should marry within their
13218 own tribe, in order to avoid confusion of tribal possessions, as stated in
13219 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p20.1" href="./asv.html#Num.36.7" target="asv"> Num. 36:7,8.</a>
13220 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 2 ad 2"><a name="38203" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38203] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 2 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
13221 dicendum quod lex non statuit quod mulieres succederent in bonis
13222 paternis, nisi in defectu filiorum masculorum. Tunc autem
13223 necessarium erat ut successio mulieribus concederetur in
13224 consolationem patris, cui grave fuisset si eius hereditas omnino ad
13225 extraneos transiret. Adhibuit tamen circa hoc lex cautelam debitam,
13226 praecipiens ut mulieres succedentes in haereditate paterna,
13227 nuberent suae tribus hominibus, ad hoc quod sortes tribuum non
13228 confunderentur, ut habetur Num. ult.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q105_A2-p21">
13229 <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.
13230 Consequently, as he himself observes, it was forbidden by the law in some of the heathen states, "that anyone should sell
13231 his possessions, except to avoid a manifest loss." For if possessions were to be sold indiscriminately, they might happen
13232 to come into the hands of a few: so that it might become necessary for a state or
13233 country to become void of inhabitants. Hence the Old Law, in order to remove this danger, ordered things in such a way that
13234 while provision was made for men's needs, by allowing the sale of possessions to avail for a certain period, at the same time
13235 the said danger was removed, by prescribing the return of those possessions after that period had elapsed. The reason for
13236 this law was to prevent confusion of possessions, and to ensure the continuance of a definite distinction among the tribes.
13237 </p><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
13238 movable goods. Because the number of houses in a town was not fixed, whereas there was a fixed limit to the amount of estates,
13239 which could not be exceeded, while the number of houses in a town could be increased. On the other hand, houses situated not
13240 in a town, but "in a village that hath no walls," could not be sold in perpetuity: because such houses are
13241 built merely with a view to the cultivation and care of possessions; wherefore the Law rightly made the same prescription
13242 in regard to both (
13243 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p22.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.25" target="asv">Lev. 25</a>).
13244 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 2 ad 3"><a name="38204" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38204] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 2 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
13245 dicendum quod, sicut philosophus dicit, in II Polit., regulatio
13246 possessionum multum confert ad conservationem civitatis vel gentis.
13247 Unde, sicut ipse dicit, apud quasdam gentilium civitates statutum
13248 fuit <i>ut nullus possessionem vendere posset, nisi pro manifesto
13249 detrimento</i>. Si enim passim possessiones vendantur, potest
13250 contingere quod omnes possessiones ad paucos deveniant, et ita
13251 necesse erit civitatem vel regionem habitatoribus evacuari. Et ideo
13252 lex vetus, ad huiusmodi periculum amovendum, sic ordinavit quod et
13253 necessitatibus hominum subveniretur, concedens possessionum
13254 venditionem usque ad certum tempus; et tamen periculum removit,
13255 praecipiens ut certo tempore possessio vendita ad vendentem
13256 rediret. Et hoc instituit ut sortes non confunderentur, sed semper
13257 remaneret eadem distinctio determinata in tribubus. Quia vero domus
13258 urbanae non erant sorte distinctae, ideo concessit quod in
13259 perpetuum vendi possent, sicut et mobilia bona. Non enim erat
13260 statutus numerus domorum civitatis, sicut erat certa mensura
13261 possessionis, ad quam non addebatur, poterat autem aliquid addi ad
13262 numerum domorum civitatis. Domus vero quae non erant in urbe, sed
13263 in villa muros non habente, in perpetuum vendi non poterant, quia
13264 huiusmodi domus non construuntur nisi ad cultum et ad custodiam
13265 possessionum; et ideo lex congrue statuit idem ius circa
13266 utrumque.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q105_A2-p23">
13267 <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
13268 assistance: because this is a very great incentive to friendship. The Law granted these facilities for helping others in the
13269 matter not only of gratuitous and absolute donations, but also of mutual transfers: because the latter kind of succor is more
13270 frequent and benefits the greater number: and it granted facilities for this
13271 purpose in many ways. First of all by prescribing that men should be ready to lend, and that they should not be less inclined
13272 to do so as the year of remission drew nigh, as stated in
13273 <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
13274 necessities of life in security; and by prescribing that when this had been done they should be restored at once. For it is
13275 written (
13276 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p23.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.23.19" target="asv">Dt.
13277 23:19
13278 </a>): "Thou shalt not lend to thy brother money to usury": and (
13279 <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 (
13280 <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
13281 them to be importunate in exacting payment. Hence it is written (
13282 <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
13283 my people that is poor that dwelleth with thee, thou shalt not be hard upon them as an extortioner." For this reason, too,
13284 it is enacted (
13285 <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,
13286 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,
13287 wherefore it is offensive to a man to be set upon in his own house; and because the Law does not
13288 allow the creditor to take away whatever he likes in security, but rather permits the debtor to give what he needs least.
13289 Fourthly, the Law prescribed that debts should cease together after the lapse of seven years. For it was probable that those
13290 who could conveniently pay their debts, would do so before the seventh year, and would not defraud the lender without cause.
13291 But if they were altogether insolvent, there was the same reason for remitting the debt from love for them, as there was for
13292 renewing the loan on account of their need.
13293 </p><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
13294 perished or deteriorated in his absence, he was bound to make restitution. But if they perished or deteriorated while he was
13295 present and taking proper care of them, he was not bound to make restitution, especially if they were hired for a consideration:
13296 because they might have died or deteriorated in the same way if they had remained in possession of the
13297 lender, so that if the animal had been saved through being lent, the lender would have gained something by the loan which
13298 would no longer have been gratuitous. And especially was this to be observed when animals were hired for a consideration:
13299 because then the owner received a certain price for the use of the animals; wherefore he had no right to any profit, by receiving
13300 indemnity for the animal, unless the person who had charge of it were negligent. In the case, however, of animals not hired
13301 for a consideration, equity demanded that he should receive something by way of restitution at least to the value of the hire
13302 of the animal that had perished or deteriorated.
13303 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 2 ad 4"><a name="38205" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38205] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 2 ad 4</span></a> Ad quartum
13304 dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, intentio legis erat assuefacere
13305 homines suis praeceptis ad hoc quod sibi invicem de facili in
13306 necessitatibus subvenirent, quia hoc maxime est amicitiae fomentum.
13307 Et hanc quidem facilitatem subveniendi non solum statuit in his
13308 quae gratis et absolute donantur, sed etiam in his quae mutuo
13309 conceduntur, quia huiusmodi subventio frequentior est, et pluribus
13310 necessaria. Huiusmodi autem subventionis facilitatem multipliciter
13311 instituit. Primo quidem, ut faciles se praeberent ad mutuum
13312 exhibendum, nec ab hoc retraherentur anno remissionis
13313 appropinquante, ut habetur Deut. XV. Secundo, ne eum cui mutuum
13314 concederent, gravarent vel usuris, vel etiam aliqua pignora omnino
13315 vitae necessaria accipiendo, et si accepta fuerint, quod statim
13316 restituerentur. Dicitur enim Deut. XXIII, <i>non faeneraberis
13317 fratri tuo ad usuram</i>; et XXIV, <i>non accipies loco pignoris
13318 inferiorem et superiorem molam, quia animam suam apposuit tibi</i>;
13319 et Exod. XXII dicitur, <i>si pignus a proximo tuo acceperis
13320 vestimentum, ante solis occasum reddes ei</i>. Tertio, ut non
13321 importune exigerent. Unde dicitur Exod. XXII, <i>si pecuniam mutuam
13322 dederis populo meo pauperi qui habitat tecum, non urgebis eum quasi
13323 exactor</i>. Et propter hoc etiam mandatur Deut. XXIV, <i>cum
13324 repetes a proximo tuo rem aliquam quam debet tibi, non ingredieris
13325 in domum eius ut pignus auferas; sed stabis foris, et ille tibi
13326 proferet quod habuerit</i>, tum quia domus est tutissimum
13327 uniuscuiusque receptaculum, unde molestum homini est ut in domo sua
13328 invadatur; tum etiam quia non concedit creditori ut accipiat pignus
13329 quod voluerit, sed magis debitori ut det quo minus indiguerit.
13330 Quarto, instituit quod in septimo anno debita penitus
13331 remitterentur. Probabile enim erat ut illi qui commode reddere
13332 possent, ante septimum annum redderent, et gratis mutuantem non
13333 defraudarent. Si autem omnino impotentes essent, eadem ratione eis
13334 erat debitum remittendum ex dilectione, qua etiam erat eis de novo
13335 dandum propter indigentiam. Circa animalia vero mutuata haec lex
13336 statuit, ut propter negligentiam eius cui mutuata sunt, si in
13337 ipsius absentia moriantur vel debilitentur, reddere ea compellatur.
13338 Si vero eo praesente et diligenter custodiente, mortua fuerint vel
13339 debilitata, non cogebatur restituere, et maxime si erant mercede
13340 conducta, quia ita etiam potuissent mori et debilitari apud
13341 mutuantem; et ita, si conservationem animalis consequeretur, iam
13342 aliquod lucrum reportaret ex mutuo, et non esset gratuitum mutuum.
13343 Et maxime hoc observandum erat quando animalia erant mercede
13344 conducta, quia tunc habebat certum pretium pro usu animalium; unde
13345 nihil accrescere debebat per restitutionem animalium, nisi propter
13346 negligentiam custodientis. Si autem non essent mercede conducta,
13347 potuisset habere aliquam aequitatem ut saltem tantum restitueret
13348 quantum usus animalis mortui vel debilitati conduci potuisset.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A2-p25">
13349 <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
13350 whom they are transferred, whereas a deposit is for the benefit of the depositor. Hence in certain cases there was a stricter
13351 obligation of returning a loan than of restoring goods held in deposit. Because the latter might be lost in two ways. First,
13352 unavoidably: i.e. either through a natural cause, for instance if an animal held
13353 in deposit were to die or depreciate in value; or through an extrinsic cause, for instance, if it were taken by an enemy,
13354 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):
13355 whereas in the other cases mentioned above, he was not bound to make restitution; but only to take an oath in order to clear
13356 himself of suspicion. Secondly, the goods deposited might be lost through an avoidable cause, for instance by theft: and
13357 then the depositary was bound to restitution on account of his neglect. But, as stated above (ad 4), he who held an animal
13358 on loan, was bound to restitution, even if he were absent when it depreciated or died: because he was held responsible for
13359 less negligence than a depositary, who was only held responsible in case of theft.
13360 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 2 ad 5"><a name="38206" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38206] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 2 ad 5</span></a> Ad quintum
13361 dicendum quod haec differentia est inter mutuum et depositum, quia
13362 mutuum traditur in utilitatem eius cui traditur; sed depositum
13363 traditur in utilitatem deponentis. Et ideo magis arctabatur aliquis
13364 in aliquibus casibus ad restituendum mutuum, quam ad restituendum
13365 depositum. Depositum enim perdi poterat dupliciter. Uno modo, ex
13366 causa inevitabili, vel naturali, puta si esset mortuum vel
13367 debilitatum animal depositum; vel extrinseca, puta si esset captum
13368 ab hostibus, vel si esset comestum a bestia; in quo tamen casu
13369 tenebatur deferre ad dominum animalis id quod de animali occiso
13370 supererat. In aliis autem praedictis casibus nihil reddere
13371 tenebatur, sed solum, ad expurgandam suspicionem fraudis, tenebatur
13372 iuramentum praestare. Alio modo poterat perdi ex causa evitabili,
13373 puta per furtum. Et tunc, propter negligentiam custodis, reddere
13374 tenebatur. Sed, sicut dictum est, ille qui mutuo accipiebat animal,
13375 tenebatur reddere, etiam si debilitatum aut mortuum fuisset in eius
13376 absentia. De minori enim negligentia tenebatur quam depositarius,
13377 qui non tenebatur nisi de furto.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A2-p26">
13378 <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
13379 that they should be paid at once, lest they should lack food. But they who offer other commodities for hire, are wont to be
13380 rich: nor are they in such need of their price in order to gain a livelihood: and consequently the comparison does not hold.
13381 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 2 ad 6"><a name="38207" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38207] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 2 ad 6</span></a> Ad sextum
13382 dicendum quod mercenarii qui locant operas suas, pauperes sunt, de
13383 laboribus suis victum quaerentes quotidianum, et ideo lex provide
13384 ordinavit ut statim eis merces solveretur, ne victus eis deficeret.
13385 Sed illi qui locant alias res, divites esse consueverunt, nec ita
13386 indigent locationis pretio ad suum victum quotidianum. Et ideo non
13387 est eadem ratio in utroque.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A2-p27">
13388 <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
13389 a matter may be doubtful in two ways. First, among simple-minded people: and in order to remove doubts of this kind, it was
13390 prescribed (
13391 <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
13392 may be doubtful even among experts: and
13393 therefore, in order to remove doubts of this kind, the Law prescribed that all should foregather in some chief place chosen
13394 by God, where there would be both the high-priest, who would decide doubtful matters relating to the ceremonies of divine
13395 worship; and the chief judge of the people, who would decide matters relating to the judgments of men: just as even now cases
13396 are taken from a lower to a higher court either by appeal or by consultation. Hence it is written (
13397 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p27.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.17.8" target="asv">Dt.
13398 17:8,9
13399 </a>): "If thou perceive that there be among you a hard and doubtful matter in judgment . . . and thou see that the words of the
13400 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
13401 the priests of the Levitical race, and to the judge that shall be at that time." But such like doubtful matters did not often
13402 occur for judgment: wherefore the people were not burdened on this account.
13403 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 2 ad 7"><a name="38208" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38208] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 2 ad 7</span></a> Ad septimum
13404 dicendum quod iudices ad hoc inter homines constituuntur, quod
13405 determinent quod ambiguum inter homines circa iustitiam esse
13406 potest. Dupliciter autem aliquid potest esse ambiguum. Uno modo,
13407 apud simplices. Et ad hoc dubium tollendum, mandatur Deut. XVI, ut
13408 <i>iudices et magistri constituerentur per singulas tribus, ut
13409 iudicarent populum iusto iudicio</i>. Alio modo contingit aliquid
13410 esse dubium etiam apud peritos. Et ideo ad hoc dubium tollendum,
13411 constituit lex ut omnes recurrerent ad locum principalem a Deo
13412 electum, in quo et summus sacerdos esset, qui determinaret dubia
13413 circa caeremonias divini cultus; et summus iudex populi, qui
13414 determinaret quae pertinent ad iudicia hominum, sicut etiam nunc
13415 per appellationem, vel per consultationem, causae ab inferioribus
13416 iudicibus ad superiores deferuntur. Unde dicitur Deut. XVII, <i>si
13417 difficile et ambiguum apud te iudicium perspexeris, et iudicum
13418 intra portas tuas videris verba variari; ascende ad locum quem
13419 elegerit dominus, veniesque ad sacerdotes levitici generis, et ad
13420 iudicem qui fuerit illo tempore</i>. Huiusmodi autem ambigua
13421 iudicia non frequenter emergebant. Unde ex hoc populus non
13422 gravabatur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q105_A2-p28">
13423 <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
13424 a certain conjectural probability, such as that which an orator employs to persuade. Consequently, although it is quite possible
13425 for two or three witnesses to agree to a falsehood, yet it is neither easy nor probable that they succeed in so doing: wherefore
13426 their testimony is taken as being true, especially if they do not waver in
13427 giving it, or are not otherwise suspect. Moreover, in order that witnesses might not easily depart from the truth, the Law
13428 commanded that they should be most carefully examined, and that those who were found untruthful should be severely punished,
13429 as stated in
13430 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p28.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.19.16" target="asv"> Dt. 19:16, </a> seqq.
13431 </p><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,
13432 Who are sometimes mentioned as two, because the Holy Ghost is the bond of the other two Persons; and sometimes as three: as
13433 Augustine observes on
13434 <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."
13435 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 2 ad 8"><a name="38209" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38209] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 2 ad 8</span></a> Ad octavum
13436 dicendum quod in negotiis humanis non potest haberi probatio
13437 demonstrativa et infallibilis, sed sufficit aliqua coniecturalis
13438 probabilitas, secundum quam rhetor persuadet. Et ideo, licet sit
13439 possibile duos aut tres testes in mendacium convenire, non tamen
13440 est facile nec probabile quod conveniant; et ideo accipitur eorum
13441 testimonium tanquam verum; et praecipue si in suo testimonio non
13442 vacillent, vel alias suspecti non fuerint. Et ad hoc etiam quod non
13443 de facili a veritate testes declinarent, instituit lex ut testes
13444 diligentissime examinarentur, et graviter punirentur qui
13445 invenirentur mendaces, ut habetur Deut. XIX. Fuit tamen aliqua
13446 ratio huiusmodi numeri determinandi, ad significandam infallibilem
13447 veritatem personarum divinarum, quae quandoque numerantur duae,
13448 quia spiritus sanctus est nexus duorum, quandoque exprimuntur tres;
13449 ut Augustinus dicit, super illud Ioan. VIII, <i>in lege vestra
13450 scriptum est quia duorum hominum testimonium verum est</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q105_A2-p30">
13451 <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
13452 of the greatness of the sin, because a greater sin, other things being equal, deserves a greater punishment. Secondly, on
13453 account of a habitual sin, since men are not easily cured of habitual sin except by severe punishments. Thirdly, on account
13454 of a great desire for or a great pleasure in the sin: for men are not easily
13455 deterred from such sins unless they be severely punished. Fourthly, on account of the facility of committing a sin and of
13456 concealing it: for such like sins, when discovered, should be more severely punished in order to deter others from committing
13457 them.
13458 </p><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
13459 is when a sin is committed unwillingly; because then, if the sin be altogether involuntary, man is altogether excused from
13460 punishment; for it is written (
13461 <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
13462 help her." But if a man sinned in any way voluntarily,
13463 and yet through weakness, as for instance when a man sins from passion, the sin is diminished: and the punishment, according
13464 to true judgment, should be diminished also; unless perchance the common weal requires that the sin be severely punished in
13465 order to deter others from committing such sins, as stated above. The second degree is when a man sins through ignorance:
13466 and then he was held to be guilty to a certain extent, on account of his negligence in acquiring knowledge: yet he was not
13467 punished by the judges but expiated his sin by sacrifices. Hence it is written (
13468 <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
13469 to ignorance of the Divine precept, which all were bound to know. The third degree was when a man sinned from pride, i.e.
13470 through deliberate choice or malice: and then he was punished according to the greatness of the sin [*Cf.
13471 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p31.3" href="./asv.html#Deut.25.2" target="asv"> Dt. 25:2</a>]. The
13472 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
13473 destroyer of the commandment of the Law [*Cf.
13474 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p31.4" href="./asv.html#Num.15.30" target="asv"> Num. 15:30,31</a>].
13475 </p><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
13476 frequently (
13477 <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
13478 their value. But sheep cannot be easily safeguarded from a thief, because they graze in the fields: wherefore it happened
13479 more frequently that sheep were stolen in the fields. Consequently the Law inflicted a
13480 heavier penalty, by ordering four sheep to be restored for the theft of one. As to cattle, they were yet more difficult to
13481 safeguard, because they are kept in the fields, and do not graze in flocks as sheep do; wherefore a yet more heavy penalty
13482 was inflicted in their regard, so that five oxen were to be restored for one ox. And this I say, unless perchance the animal
13483 itself were discovered in the thief's possession: because in that case he had to restore only twice the number, as in the
13484 case
13485 of other thefts: for there was reason to presume that he intended to restore the animal, since he kept it alive. Again, we
13486 might say, according to a gloss, that "a cow is useful in five ways: it may be used for sacrifice, for ploughing, for food,
13487 for milk, and its hide is employed for various purposes": and therefore for one cow five had to be restored. But the sheep
13488 was useful in four ways: "for sacrifice, for meat, for milk, and for its wool." The unruly son was slain, not because he ate
13489 and
13490 drank: but on account of his stubbornness and rebellion, which was always punished by death, as stated above. As to the man
13491 who gathered sticks on the sabbath, he was stoned as a breaker of the Law, which commanded the sabbath to be observed, to
13492 testify the belief in the newness of the world, as stated above (
13493 <a href="#FS_Q100_A5" id="FS_Q105_A2-p32.2" shape="rect">Q[100], A[5]</a>): wherefore he was slain as an unbeliever.
13494 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 2 ad 9"><a name="38210" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38210] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 2 ad 9</span></a> Ad nonum
13495 dicendum quod non solum propter gravitatem culpae, sed etiam
13496 propter alias causas gravis poena infligitur. Primo quidem, propter
13497 quantitatem peccati, quia maiori peccato, ceteris paribus, gravior
13498 poena debetur. Secundo, propter peccati consuetudinem, quia a
13499 peccatis consuetis non faciliter homines abstrahuntur nisi per
13500 graves poenas. Tertio, propter multam concupiscentiam vel
13501 delectationem in peccato, ab his enim non de facili homines
13502 abstrahuntur nisi per graves poenas. Quarto, propter facilitatem
13503 committendi peccatum, et latendi in ipso, huiusmodi enim peccata,
13504 quando manifestantur, sunt magis punienda, ad terrorem aliorum.
13505 Circa ipsam etiam quantitatem peccati quadruplex gradus est
13506 attendendus, etiam circa unum et idem factum. Quorum primus est
13507 quando involuntarius peccatum committit. Tunc enim, si omnino est
13508 involuntarius, totaliter excusatur a poena, dicitur enim Deut.
13509 XXII, quod puella quae opprimitur in agro, <i>non est rea mortis,
13510 quia clamavit, et nullus affuit qui liberaret eam</i>. Si vero
13511 aliquo modo fuerit voluntarius, sed tamen ex infirmitate peccat,
13512 puta cum quis peccat ex passione, minuitur peccatum, et poena,
13513 secundum veritatem iudicii, diminui debet; nisi forte, propter
13514 communem utilitatem, poena aggravetur, ad abstrahendum homines ab
13515 huiusmodi peccatis, sicut dictum est. Secundus gradus est quando
13516 quis per ignorantiam peccavit. Et tunc aliquo modo reus
13517 reputabatur, propter negligentiam addiscendi; sed tamen non
13518 puniebatur per iudices, sed expiabat peccatum suum per sacrificia.
13519 Unde dicitur Levit. IV, <i>anima quae peccaverit per
13520 ignorantiam,</i> et cetera. Sed hoc intelligendum est de ignorantia
13521 facti, non autem de ignorantia praecepti divini, quod omnes scire
13522 tenebantur. Tertius gradus est quando aliquis ex superbia peccabat,
13523 idest ex certa electione vel ex certa malitia. Et tunc puniebatur
13524 secundum quantitatem delicti. Quartus autem gradus est quando
13525 peccabat per proterviam et pertinaciam. Et tunc, quasi rebellis et
13526 destructor ordinationis legis, omnino occidendus erat. Secundum
13527 hoc, dicendum est quod in poena furti considerabatur secundum legem
13528 id quod frequenter accidere poterat. Et ideo pro furto aliarum
13529 rerum, quae de facili custodiri possunt a furibus, non reddebat fur
13530 nisi duplum. Oves autem non de facili possunt custodiri a furto,
13531 quia pascuntur in agris, et ideo frequentius contingebat quod oves
13532 furto subtraherentur. Unde lex maiorem poenam apposuit, ut scilicet
13533 quatuor oves pro una ove redderentur. Adhuc autem boves difficilius
13534 custodiuntur, quia habentur in agris, et non ita pascuntur gregatim
13535 sicut oves. Et ideo adhuc hic maiorem poenam apposuit, ut scilicet
13536 quinque boves pro uno bove redderentur. Et hoc dico, nisi forte
13537 idem animal inventum fuerit vivens apud eum, quia tunc solum duplum
13538 restituebat, sicut et in ceteris furtis; poterat enim haberi
13539 praesumptio quod cogitaret restituere, ex quo vivum servasset. Vel
13540 potest dici, secundum Glossam, quod <i>bos habet quinque
13541 utilitates, quia immolatur, arat, pascit carnibus, lactat, et
13542 corium etiam diversis usibus ministrat</i>, et ideo pro uno bove
13543 quinque boves reddebantur. Ovis autem habet quatuor utilitates,
13544 quia immolatur, pascit, lac dat, et lanam ministrat. Filius autem
13545 contumax, non quia comedebat et bibebat, occidebatur, sed propter
13546 contumaciam et rebellionem, quae semper morte puniebatur, ut dictum
13547 est. Ille vero qui colligebat ligna in sabbato, lapidatus fuit
13548 tanquam legis violator, quae sabbatum observari praecipiebat in
13549 commemorationem fidei novitatis mundi, sicut supra dictum est. Unde
13550 occisus fuit tanquam infidelis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q105_A2-p33">
13551 <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
13552 for murder, for stealing a man, irreverence towards one's parents, adultery and incest. In the case of thief of other things
13553 it inflicted punishment by indemnification: while in the case of blows and mutilation it authorized punishment by retaliation;
13554 and likewise for the sin of bearing false witness. In other faults of less
13555 degree it prescribed the punishment of stripes or of public disgrace.
13556 </p><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
13557 himself of the privilege granted by the Law, whereby he was free to depart in the seventh year of remission: wherefore he
13558 was punished by remaining a slave for ever. Secondly, in the case of a thief, who had not wherewith to make restitution, as
13559 stated in
13560 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p34.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.22.3" target="asv"> Ex. 22:3.</a>
13561 </p><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
13562 all other nations were given to idolatry: wherefore if any man were exiled from that people absolutely, he would be in danger
13563 of falling into idolatry. For this reason it is related (
13564 <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
13565 in the inheritance of
13566 the Lord, saying: Go, serve strange gods." There was, however, a restricted sort of exile: for it is written in
13567 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A2-p35.2" href="./asv.html#Deut.19.4" target="asv"> Dt. 19:4</a> [*Cf.
13568 <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
13569 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
13570 to return home, because when the whole people thus suffered a loss they
13571 forgot their private quarrels, so that the next of kin of the slain were not so eager to kill the slayer.
13572 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 2 ad 10"><a name="38211" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38211] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 2 ad 10</span></a> Ad decimum
13573 dicendum quod lex vetus poenam mortis inflixit in gravioribus
13574 criminibus, scilicet in his quae contra Deum peccantur, et in
13575 homicidio, et in furto hominum, et in irreverentia ad parentes, et
13576 in adulterio, et in incestibus. In furto autem aliarum rerum
13577 adhibuit poenam damni. In percussuris autem et mutilationibus
13578 induxit poenam talionis; et similiter in peccato falsi testimonii.
13579 In aliis autem minoribus culpis induxit poenam flagellationis vel
13580 ignominiae. Poenam autem servitutis induxit in duobus casibus. In
13581 uno quidem, quando, septimo anno remissionis, ille qui erat servus,
13582 nolebat beneficio legis uti ut liber exiret. Unde pro poena ei
13583 infligebatur ut in perpetuum servus remaneret. Secundo,
13584 infligebatur furi, quando non habebat quod posset restituere, sicut
13585 habetur Exod. XXII. Poenam autem exilii universaliter lex non
13586 statuit. Quia in solo populo illo Deus colebatur, omnibus aliis
13587 populis per idololatriam corruptis, unde si quis a populo illo
13588 universaliter exclusus esset, daretur ei occasio idololatriae. Et
13589 ideo I Reg. XXVI dicitur quod David dixit ad Saul, <i>maledicti
13590 sunt qui eiecerunt me hodie, ut non habitem in hereditate domini,
13591 dicentes, vade, servi diis alienis</i>. Erat tamen aliquod
13592 particulare exilium. Dicitur enim Deut. XIX quod <i>qui percusserit
13593 proximum suum nesciens, et qui nullum contra ipsum habuisse odium
13594 comprobatur</i>, ad unam urbium refugii confugiebat, et ibi manebat
13595 usque ad mortem summi sacerdotis. Tunc enim licebat ei redire ad
13596 domum suam, quia in universali damno populi consueverunt
13597 particulares irae sedari, et ita proximi defuncti non sic proni
13598 erant ad eius occisionem.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A2-p36">
13599 <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
13600 not safeguarded their beasts from these offenses. Hence the owner was more severely punished if his ox had butted anyone "yesterday
13601 or the day before" (in which case steps might have been taken to butting suddenly). Or again, the animal was slain in detestation
13602 of the sin; and lest men should be horrified at the sight
13603 thereof.
13604 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 2 ad 11"><a name="38212" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38212] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 2 ad 11</span></a> Ad
13605 undecimum dicendum quod animalia bruta mandabantur occidi, non
13606 propter aliquam ipsorum culpam; sed in poenam dominorum, qui talia
13607 animalia non custodierant ab huiusmodi peccatis. Et ideo magis
13608 puniebatur dominus si bos cornupeta fuerat ab heri et
13609 nudiustertius, in quo casu poterat occurri periculo; quam si subito
13610 cornupeta efficeretur. Vel occidebantur animalia in detestationem
13611 peccati; et ne ex eorum aspectu aliquis horror hominibus
13612 incuteretur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q105_A2-p37">
13613 <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
13614 from the nearest city: wherefore the slaying of the calf was a means of investigating the hidden murder. This was brought
13615 about in three ways. In the first place the elders of the city swore that they had taken every measure for safeguarding the
13616 roads. Secondly, the owner of the heifer was indemnified for the slaying of his
13617 beast, and if the murder was previously discovered, the beast was not slain. Thirdly, the place, where the heifer was slain,
13618 remained uncultivated. Wherefore, in order to avoid this twofold loss, the men of the city would readily make known the murderer,
13619 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
13620 was done in order to frighten people, in detestation of murder. Because the slaying of a heifer, which is a useful
13621 animal and full of strength, especially before it has been put under the yoke, signified that whoever committed murder, however
13622 useful and strong he might be, was to forfeit his life; and that, by a cruel death, which was implied by the striking off
13623 of its head; and that the murderer, as vile and abject, was to be cut off from the fellowship of men, which was betokened
13624 by the fact that the heifer after being slain was left to rot in a rough and uncultivated place.
13625 </p><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
13626 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
13627 valley signified the despised death of Christ, whereby all sins are washed away, and the devil is shown to be the arch-murderer.
13628 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 2 ad 12"><a name="38213" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38213] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 2 ad 12</span></a> Ad
13629 duodecimum dicendum quod ratio litteralis illius mandati fuit, ut
13630 Rabbi Moyses dicit, quia frequenter interfector est de civitate
13631 propinquiori. Unde occisio vitulae fiebat ad explorandum homicidium
13632 occultum. Quod quidem fiebat per tria. Quorum unum est quod
13633 seniores civitatis iurabant nihil se praetermisisse in custodia
13634 viarum. Aliud est quia ille cuius erat vitula damnificabatur in
13635 occisione animalis, et si prius manifestaretur homicidium, animal
13636 non occideretur. Tertium est quia locus in quo occidebatur vitula,
13637 remanebat incultus. Et ideo, ad evitandum utrumque damnum, homines
13638 civitatis de facili manifestarent homicidam, si scirent, et raro
13639 poterat esse quin aliqua verba vel iudicia super hoc facta essent.
13640 Vel hoc fiebat ad terrorem, in detestationem homicidii. Per
13641 occisionem enim vitulae, quae est animal utile et fortitudine
13642 plenum, praecipue antequam laboret sub iugo, significabatur quod
13643 quicumque homicidium fecisset, quamvis esset utilis et fortis,
13644 occidendus erat; et morte crudeli, quod cervicis concisio
13645 significabat; et quod tanquam vilis et abiectus a consortio hominum
13646 excludendus erat, quod significabatur per hoc quod vitula occisa in
13647 loco aspero et inculto relinquebatur, in putredinem convertenda.
13648 Mystice autem per vitulam de armento significatur caro Christi;
13649 quae non traxit iugum, quia non fecit peccatum; nec terram scidit
13650 vomere, idest seditionis maculam non admisit. Per hoc autem quod in
13651 valle inculta occidebatur, significabatur despecta mors Christi;
13652 per quam purgantur omnia peccata, et Diabolus esse homicidii auctor
13653 ostenditur.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q105_A3" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q105_A3-p0.1">Q. 105. A. 3. Whether the judicial precepts regarding foreigners were framed in a suitable manner?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A3-p2">
13654 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the judicial precepts regarding foreigners were not suitably framed. For Peter said (
13655 <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
13656 is acceptable to Him." But those who are acceptable to God should not be excluded from the Church of God. Therefore it is
13657 unsuitably commanded (
13658 <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
13659 the Moabite, even after the tenth generation, shall not enter into the church of the Lord for ever": whereas, on the other
13660 hand, it is prescribed (
13661 <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
13662 Egyptian because thou wast a stranger in his land."
13663 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 3 arg. 1"><a name="38214" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38214] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 3 arg. 1</span></a> Ad tertium
13664 sic proceditur. Videtur quod iudicialia praecepta non sint
13665 convenienter tradita quantum ad extraneos. Dicit enim Petrus, Act.
13666 X, <i>in veritate comperi quoniam non est acceptor personarum Deus;
13667 sed in omni gente qui timet Deum et operatur iustitiam, acceptus
13668 est illi</i>. Sed illi qui sunt Deo accepti, non sunt ab Ecclesia
13669 Dei excludendi. Inconvenienter igitur mandatur Deut. XXIII, quod
13670 <i>Ammonites et Moabites, etiam post decimam generationem, non
13671 intrabunt Ecclesiam domini in aeternum</i>; e contrario autem
13672 ibidem praecipitur de quibusdam gentibus, <i>non abominaberis
13673 Idumaeum, quia frater tuus est; nec Aegyptium, quia advena fuisti
13674 in terra eius</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A3-p3">
13675 <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
13676 an eunuch, or born of a prostitute. Therefore it is unsuitably commanded (
13677 <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."
13678 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 3 arg. 2"><a name="38215" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38215] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 3 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
13679 ea quae non sunt in potestate nostra, non merentur aliquam poenam.
13680 Sed quod homo sit eunuchus, vel ex scorto natus, non est in
13681 potestate eius. Ergo inconvenienter mandatur Deut. XXIII, quod
13682 <i>eunuchus, et ex scorto natus, non ingrediatur Ecclesiam
13683 domini</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A3-p4">
13684 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, the Old Law mercifully forbade strangers to be molested: for it is written (
13685 <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 (
13686 <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."
13687 But it is an affliction to be burdened with usury. Therefore the Law
13688 unsuitably permitted them (
13689 <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.
13690 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 3 arg. 3"><a name="38216" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38216] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 3 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
13691 lex vetus misericorditer mandavit ut advenae non affligantur,
13692 dicitur enim Exod. XXII, <i>advenam non contristabis, neque
13693 affliges eum, advenae enim et ipsi fuistis in terra Aegypti</i>; et
13694 XXIII, <i>peregrino molestus non eris, scitis enim advenarum
13695 animas, quia et ipsi peregrini fuistis in terra Aegypti</i>. Sed ad
13696 afflictionem alicuius pertinet quod usuris opprimatur.
13697 Inconvenienter igitur lex permisit, Deut. XXIII, ut alienis ad
13698 usuram pecuniam mutuarent.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A3-p5">
13699 <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
13700 to us, according to
13701 <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
13702 (
13703 <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.
13704 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 3 arg. 4"><a name="38217" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38217] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 3 arg. 4</span></a> Praeterea,
13705 multo magis appropinquant nobis homines quam arbores. Sed his quae
13706 sunt nobis magis propinqua, magis debemus affectum et effectum
13707 dilectionis impendere; secundum illud Eccli. XIII, <i>omne animal
13708 diligit simile sibi, sic et omnis homo proximum sibi</i>.
13709 Inconvenienter igitur dominus, Deut. XX, mandavit quod de
13710 civitatibus hostium captis omnes interficerent, et tamen arbores
13711 fructiferas non succiderent.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A3-p6">
13712 <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
13713 a war which men fight against their enemies. Therefore it is unsuitably commanded (
13714 <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
13715 had married a wife.
13716 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 3 arg. 5"><a name="38218" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38218] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 3 arg. 5</span></a> Praeterea,
13717 bonum commune secundum virtutem est bono privato praeferendum ab
13718 unoquoque. Sed in bello quod committitur contra hostes, quaeritur
13719 bonum commune. Inconvenienter igitur mandatur Deut. XX, quod,
13720 imminente proelio, aliqui domum remittantur, puta qui aedificavit
13721 domum novam, qui plantavit vineam, vel qui despondit uxorem.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A3-p7">
13722 <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
13723 to the virtue of fortitude. Therefore the timid and faint-hearted are unfittingly excused from the toil of battle (
13724 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A3-p7.1" href="./asv.html#Deut.20.8" target="asv">Dt. 20:8</a>).
13725 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 3 arg. 6"><a name="38219" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38219] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 3 arg. 6</span></a> Praeterea,
13726 ex culpa non debet quis commodum reportare. Sed quod homo sit
13727 formidolosus et corde pavido, culpabile est, contrariatur enim
13728 virtuti fortitudinis. Inconvenienter igitur a labore proelii
13729 excusabantur formidolosi et pavidum cor habentes.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A3-p8">
13730 <b>On the contrary,</b> Divine Wisdom declares (
13731 <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."
13732 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 3 s. c."><a name="38220" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38220] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 3 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
13733 est quod sapientia divina dicit, Prov. VIII, <i>recti sunt omnes
13734 sermones mei, non est in eis pravum quid neque perversum</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q105_A3-p9">
13735 <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
13736 suitable precepts. For the Jews were offered three opportunities of peaceful relations with foreigners. First, when foreigners
13737 passed through their land as travelers. Secondly, when they came to dwell in their land as newcomers. And in both these respects
13738 the Law made kind provision in its precepts: for it is written (
13739 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A3-p9.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.22.21" target="asv">Ex.
13740 22:21
13741 </a>): "Thou shalt not molest a stranger [advenam]"; and again (
13742 <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
13743 and mode of worship. With regard to these a certain order was observed. For they were not at once admitted to citizenship:
13744 just as it was law with some nations that no one was deemed a citizen except after two or three generations, as the Philosopher
13745 says (Polit.
13746 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
13747 down in its midst, many dangers might occur, since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt
13748 something hurtful to the people. Hence it was that the Law prescribed in respect of certain nations that had close relations
13749 with the Jews (viz., the Egyptians among whom they were born and educated, and the Idumeans, the children of Esau,
13750 Jacob's brother), that they should be admitted to the fellowship of the people after the third generation; whereas others
13751 (with whom their relations had been hostile, such as the Ammonites and Moabites) were never to be admitted to citizenship;
13752 while the Amalekites, who were yet more hostile to them, and had no fellowship of kindred with them, were to be held as foes
13753 in perpetuity: for it is written (
13754 <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
13755 to generation."
13756 </p><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,
13757 it commanded that war should be declared for a just cause: thus it is commanded (
13758 <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
13759 once they had entered on a war they should undauntedly persevere in it, putting their trust in God. And in order that they
13760 might be the more heedful of this command, it ordered that on the approach of battle the priest should hearten them by promising
13761 them God's aid. Thirdly, it prescribed the removal of whatever might prove an obstacle to the fight, and that certain men,
13762 who might be in the way, should be sent home. Fourthly, it enjoined that they should use moderation in pursuing the advantage
13763 of victory, by sparing women and children, and by not cutting down fruit-trees of that country.
13764 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 3 co."><a name="38221" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38221] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 3 co.</span></a> Respondeo
13765 dicendum quod cum extraneis potest esse hominum conversatio
13766 dupliciter, uno modo, pacifice; alio modo, hostiliter. Et quantum
13767 ad utrumque modum ordinandum, lex convenientia praecepta
13768 continebat. Tripliciter enim offerebatur Iudaeis occasio ut cum
13769 extraneis pacifice communicarent. Primo quidem, quando extranei per
13770 terram eorum transitum faciebant quasi peregrini. Alio modo, quando
13771 in terram eorum adveniebant ad inhabitandum sicut advenae. Et
13772 quantum ad utrumque, lex misericordiae praecepta proposuit, nam
13773 Exod. XXII dicitur, <i>advenam non contristabis</i>; et XXIII
13774 dicitur, <i>peregrino molestus non eris</i>. Tertio vero, quando
13775 aliqui extranei totaliter in eorum consortium et ritum admitti
13776 volebant. Et in his quidam ordo attendebatur. Non enim statim
13777 recipiebantur quasi cives, sicut etiam apud quosdam gentilium
13778 statutum erat ut non reputarentur cives nisi qui ex avo, vel abavo,
13779 cives existerent, ut philosophus dicit, in III Polit. Et hoc ideo
13780 quia, si statim extranei advenientes reciperentur ad tractandum ea
13781 quae sunt populi, possent multa pericula contingere; dum extranei,
13782 non habentes adhuc amorem firmatum ad bonum publicum, aliqua contra
13783 populum attentarent. Et ideo lex statuit ut de quibusdam gentibus
13784 habentibus aliquam affinitatem ad Iudaeos, scilicet de Aegyptiis,
13785 apud quos nati fuerant et nutriti, et de Idumaeis, filiis Esau
13786 fratris Iacob, in tertia generatione reciperentur in consortium
13787 populi; quidam vero, quia hostiliter se ad eos habuerant, sicut
13788 Ammonitae et Moabitae, nunquam in consortium populi admitterentur;
13789 Amalecitae autem, qui magis eis fuerant adversati, et cum eis
13790 nullum cognationis habebant consortium, quasi hostes perpetui
13791 haberentur; dicitur enim Exod. XVII, <i>bellum Dei erit contra
13792 Amalec a generatione in generationem</i>. Similiter etiam quantum
13793 ad hostilem communicationem cum extraneis, lex convenientia
13794 praecepta tradidit. Nam primo quidem, instituit ut bellum iuste
13795 iniretur, mandatur enim Deut. XX, quod quando accederent ad
13796 expugnandum civitatem, offerrent ei primum pacem. Secundo,
13797 instituit ut fortiter bellum susceptum exequerentur, habentes de
13798 Deo fiduciam. Et ad hoc melius observandum, instituit quod,
13799 imminente proelio, sacerdos eos confortaret, promittendo auxilium
13800 Dei. Tertio, mandavit ut impedimenta proelii removerentur,
13801 remittendo quosdam ad domum, qui possent impedimenta praestare.
13802 Quarto, instituit ut victoria moderate uterentur, parcendo
13803 mulieribus et parvulis, et etiam ligna fructifera regionis non
13804 incidendo.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q105_A3-p11">
13805 <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
13806 it is written (
13807 <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,
13808 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
13809 matters concerning the public life of
13810 the people, admission was not granted to everyone at once, for the reason given above: but to some, i.e. the Egyptians and
13811 Idumeans, in the third generation; while others were excluded in perpetuity, in detestation of their past offense, i.e. the
13812 peoples of Moab, Ammon, and Amalec. For just as one man is punished for a sin committed by him, in order that others seeing
13813 this may be deterred and refrain from sinning; so too may one nation or city be punished for a crime, that others may refrain
13814 from similar crimes.
13815 </p><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
13816 it is related (
13817 <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."
13818 The same applies to Ruth the Moabite who was "a virtuous woman" (
13819 <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
13820 citizens absolutely speaking.
13821 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 3 ad 1"><a name="38222" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38222] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 3 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
13822 ergo dicendum quod homines nullius gentis exclusit lex a cultu Dei
13823 et ab his quae pertinent ad animae salutem, dicitur enim Exod. XII,
13824 <i>si quis peregrinorum in vestram voluerit transire coloniam, et
13825 facere phase domini; circumcidetur prius omne masculinum eius, et
13826 tunc rite celebrabit, eritque simul sicut indigena terrae</i>. Sed
13827 in temporalibus, quantum ad ea quae pertinebant ad communitatem
13828 populi, non statim quilibet admittebatur, ratione supra dicta, sed
13829 quidam in tertia generatione, scilicet Aegyptii et Idumaei; alii
13830 vero perpetuo excludebantur, in detestationem culpae praeteritae,
13831 sicut Moabitae et Ammonitae et Amalecitae. Sicut enim punitur unus
13832 homo propter peccatum quod commisit, ut alii videntes timeant et
13833 peccare desistant; ita etiam propter aliquod peccatum gens vel
13834 civitas potest puniri, ut alii a simili peccato abstineant. Poterat
13835 tamen dispensative aliquis in collegium populi admitti propter
13836 aliquem virtutis actum, sicut Iudith XIV dicitur quod Achior, dux
13837 filiorum Ammon, <i>appositus est ad populum Israel, et omnis
13838 successio generis eius</i>. Et similiter Ruth Moabitis, quae mulier
13839 virtutis erat. Licet possit dici quod illa prohibitio extendebatur
13840 ad viros, non ad mulieres, quibus non competit simpliciter esse
13841 cives.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A3-p13">
13842 <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
13843 sense. A man is a citizen simply if he has all the rights of citizenship, for instance, the right of debating or voting in
13844 the popular assembly. On the other hand, any man may be called citizen, only in a restricted sense, if he dwells within the
13845 state, even common people or children or old men, who are not fit to enjoy power in
13846 matters pertaining to the common weal. For this reason bastards, by reason of their base origin, were excluded from the "ecclesia,"
13847 i.e. from the popular assembly, down to the tenth generation. The same applies to eunuchs, who were not competent to receive
13848 the honor due to a father, especially among the Jews, where the divine worship was continued through carnal generation: for
13849 even among the heathens, those who had many children were marked with special honor, as the Philosopher remarks
13850 (Polit. ii, 6). Nevertheless, in matters pertaining to the grace of God, eunuchs were not discriminated from others, as neither
13851 were strangers, as already stated: for it is written (
13852 <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
13853 people. And let not the eunuch say: Behold I am a dry tree."
13854 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 3 ad 2"><a name="38223" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38223] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 3 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
13855 dicendum quod, sicut philosophus dicit, in III Polit., dupliciter
13856 aliquis dicitur esse civis, uno modo, simpliciter; et alio modo,
13857 secundum quid. Simpliciter quidem civis est qui potest agere ea
13858 quae sunt civium, puta dare consilium vel iudicium in populo.
13859 Secundum quid autem civis dici potest quicumque civitatem
13860 inhabitat, etiam viles personae et pueri et senes, qui non sunt
13861 idonei ad hoc quod habeant potestatem in his quae pertinent ad
13862 commune. Ideo ergo spurii, propter vilitatem originis,
13863 excludebantur ab Ecclesia, idest a collegio populi, usque ad
13864 decimam generationem. Et similiter eunuchi, quibus non poterat
13865 competere honor qui patribus debebatur, et praecipue in populo
13866 Iudaeorum, in quo Dei cultus conservabatur per carnis generationem,
13867 nam etiam apud gentiles, qui multos filios genuerant, aliquo
13868 insigni honore donabantur, sicut philosophus dicit, in II Polit.
13869 Tamen quantum ad ea quae ad gratiam Dei pertinent, eunuchi ab aliis
13870 non separabantur, sicut nec advenae, ut dictum est, dicitur enim
13871 Isaiae LVI, <i>non dicat filius advenae qui adhaeret domino,
13872 dicens, separatione dividet me dominus a populo suo. Et non dicat
13873 eunuchus, ecce ego lignum aridum</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A3-p14">
13874 <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
13875 of the proneness of the Jews to avarice; and in order to promote an amicable feeling towards those out of whom they made a
13876 profit.
13877 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 3 ad 3"><a name="38224" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38224] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 3 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
13878 dicendum quod accipere usuras ab alienis non erat secundum
13879 intentionem legis, sed ex quadam permissione, propter pronitatem
13880 Iudaeorum ad avaritiam; et ut magis pacifice se haberent ad
13881 extraneos, a quibus lucrabantur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A3-p15">
13882 <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
13883 had been promised to them. When they had taken these cities, they killed all the men who had fought against God's people;
13884 whereas the women and children were spared. But in the neighboring cities which had been promised to them, all were ordered
13885 to be slain, on account of their former crimes, to punish which God sent the
13886 Israelites as executor of Divine justice: for it is written (
13887 <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,
13888 for the use of the people themselves, to whom the city with its territory was destined to be subjected.
13889 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 3 ad 4"><a name="38225" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38225] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 3 ad 4</span></a> Ad quartum
13890 dicendum quod circa civitates hostium quaedam distinctio
13891 adhibebatur. Quaedam enim erant remotae, non de numero illarum
13892 urbium quae eis erant repromissae, et in talibus urbibus expugnatis
13893 occidebantur masculi, qui pugnaverant contra populum Dei;
13894 mulieribus autem et infantibus parcebatur. Sed in civitatibus
13895 vicinis, quae erant eis repromissae omnes mandabantur interfici,
13896 propter iniquitates eorum priores, ad quas puniendas dominus
13897 populum Israel quasi divinae iustitiae executorem mittebat, dicitur
13898 enim Deut. IX, <i>quia illae egerunt impie, introeunte te deletae
13899 sunt</i>. Ligna autem fructifera mandabantur reservari propter
13900 utilitatem ipsius populi, cuius ditioni civitas et eius territorium
13901 erat subiiciendum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A3-p16">
13902 <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.
13903 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,
13904 and consequently he is apt to dread the loss of these above other things. Wherefore it was likely enough that on account of
13905 this affection they would fear death all the more, and be so much the less
13906 brave in battle. Secondly, because, as the Philosopher says (Phys. ii, 5), "it is a misfortune for a man if he is prevented
13907 from obtaining something good when it is within his grasp." And so lest the surviving relations should be the more grieved
13908 at the death of these men who had not entered into the possession of the good things prepared for them; and also lest the
13909 people should be horror-stricken at the sight of their misfortune: these men were taken away from the danger of death by being
13910 removed from the battle.
13911 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 3 ad 5"><a name="38226" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38226] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 3 ad 5</span></a> Ad quintum
13912 dicendum quod novus aedificator domus, aut plantator vineae, vel
13913 desponsator uxoris, excludebatur a proelio propter duo. Primo
13914 quidem, quia ea quae homo de novo habet, vel statim paratus est ad
13915 habendum, magis solet amare, et per consequens eorum amissionem
13916 timere. Unde probabile erat quod ex tali amore magis mortem
13917 timerent, et sic minus fortes essent ad pugnandum. Secundo quia,
13918 sicut philosophus dicit, in II Physic., <i>infortunium videtur
13919 quando aliquis appropinquat ad aliquod bonum habendum, si postea
13920 impediatur ab illo</i>. Et ideo ne propinqui remanentes magis
13921 contristarentur de morte talium, qui bonis sibi paratis potiti non
13922 fuerunt; et etiam populus, considerans hoc, horreret; huiusmodi
13923 homines a mortis periculo sunt sequestrati per subtractionem a
13924 proelio.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A3-p17">
13925 <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
13926 presence, since their timidity and flight might cause others to be afraid and run away.
13927 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 3 ad 6"><a name="38227" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38227] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 3 ad 6</span></a> Ad sextum
13928 dicendum quod timidi remittebantur ad domum, non ut ipsi ex hoc
13929 commodum consequerentur; sed ne populus ex eorum praesentia
13930 incommodum consequeretur, dum per eorum timorem et fugam etiam alii
13931 ad timendum et fugiendum provocarentur.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q105_A4" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q105_A4-p0.1">Q. 105. A. 4. Whether the Old Law set forth suitable precepts about the members of the household?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A4-p2">
13932 <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
13933 respect his master's property," as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 2). But that which is a man's property should be his
13934 always. Therefore it was unfitting for the Law to command (
13935 <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.
13936 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 4 arg. 1"><a name="38228" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38228] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 4 arg. 1</span></a> Ad quartum
13937 sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter lex vetus praecepta
13938 ediderit circa personas domesticas. Servus enim id quod est, domini
13939 est, ut philosophus dicit, in I Polit. Sed id quod est alicuius,
13940 perpetuo eius esse debet. Ergo inconvenienter lex mandavit Exod.
13941 XXI, quod servi septimo anno liberi abscederent.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A4-p3">
13942 <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 (
13943 <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
13944 commanded (
13945 <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."
13946 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 4 arg. 2"><a name="38229" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38229] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 4 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
13947 sicut animal aliquod, ut asinus aut bos, est possessio domini, ita
13948 etiam servus. Sed de animalibus praecipitur Deut. XXII, quod
13949 restituantur dominis suis, si errare inveniantur. Inconvenienter
13950 ergo mandatur Deut. XXIII, <i>non tradas servum domino suo, qui ad
13951 te confugerit</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A4-p4">
13952 <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
13953 their servants and maidservants are severely punished: and the worse treatment of all seems to be that which results in death.
13954 Therefore it is unfittingly commanded (
13955 <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
13956 a day . . . he
13957 shall not be subject to the punishment, because it is his money."
13958 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 4 arg. 3"><a name="38230" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38230] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 4 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
13959 lex divina debet magis ad misericordiam provocare quam etiam lex
13960 humana. Sed secundum leges humanas graviter puniuntur qui nimis
13961 aspere affligunt servos aut ancillas. Asperrima autem videtur esse
13962 afflictio ex qua sequitur mors. Inconvenienter igitur statuitur
13963 Exod. XXI, quod <i>qui percusserit servum suum vel ancillam virga,
13964 si uno die supervixerit, non subiacebit poenae, quia pecunia illius
13965 est</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A4-p5">
13966 <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
13967 of master over slave gives the former the right to sell his servant or maidservant. Therefore it was unfitting for the Law
13968 to allow a man to sell his daughter to be a servant or handmaid (
13969 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A4-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Exod.21.7" target="asv">Ex. 21:7</a>).
13970 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 4 arg. 4"><a name="38231" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38231] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 4 arg. 4</span></a> Praeterea,
13971 alius est principatus domini ad servum, et patris ad filium, ut
13972 dicitur in I et III Polit. Sed hoc ad principatum domini ad servum
13973 pertinet, ut aliquis servum vel ancillam vendere possit.
13974 Inconvenienter igitur lex permisit quod aliquis venderet filiam
13975 suam in famulam vel ancillam.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A4-p6">
13976 <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.
13977 Therefore it is unfittingly commanded (
13978 <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.
13979 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 4 arg. 5"><a name="38232" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38232] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 4 arg. 5</span></a> Praeterea,
13980 pater habet sui filii potestatem. Sed eius est punire excessus, qui
13981 habet potestatem super peccantem. Inconvenienter igitur mandatur
13982 Deut. XXI, quod pater ducat filium ad seniores civitatis
13983 puniendum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A4-p7">
13984 <b>Objection 6:</b> Further, the Lord forbade them (
13985 <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 (
13986 <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 (
13987 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A4-p7.3" href="./asv.html#Deut.21.10" target="asv">Dt. 21:10, </a> seqq.).
13988 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 4 arg. 6"><a name="38233" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38233] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 4 arg. 6</span></a> Praeterea,
13989 dominus prohibuit, Deut. VII, ut cum alienigenis non sociarent
13990 coniugia; et coniuncta etiam separarentur, ut patet I Esdrae X.
13991 Inconvenienter igitur Deut. XXI conceditur eis ut captivas
13992 alienigenarum ducere possint uxores.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A4-p8">
13993 <b>Objection 7:</b> Further, the Lord forbade them to marry within certain degrees of consanguinity and affinity, according to
13994 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A4-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Lev.18" target="asv">Lev. 18</a>. Therefore it was unsuitably commanded (
13995 <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.
13996 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 4 arg. 7"><a name="38234" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38234] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 4 arg. 7</span></a> Praeterea,
13997 dominus in uxoribus ducendis quosdam consanguinitatis et
13998 affinitatis gradus praecepit esse vitandos, ut patet Lev. XVIII.
13999 Inconvenienter igitur mandatur Deut. XXV, quod si aliquis esset
14000 mortuus absque liberis, uxorem ipsius frater eius acciperet.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A4-p9">
14001 <b>Objection 8:</b> Further, as there is the greatest familiarity between man and wife, so should there be the staunchest fidelity. But this
14002 is impossible if the marriage bond can be sundered. Therefore it was unfitting for the Lord to allow (
14003 <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.
14004 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 4 arg. 8"><a name="38235" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38235] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 4 arg. 8</span></a> Praeterea,
14005 inter virum et uxorem, sicut est maxima familiaritas, ita debet
14006 esse firmissima fides. Sed hoc non potest esse, si matrimonium
14007 dissolubile fuerit. Inconvenienter igitur dominus permisit, Deut.
14008 XXIV, quod aliquis posset uxorem dimittere, scripto libello
14009 repudii; et quod etiam ulterius eam recuperare non posset.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A4-p10">
14010 <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
14011 Law did not command any sacrifice to be offered in order to investigate the injury done by a servant to his master, or by
14012 a son to his father. Therefore it seems to have been superfluous for the Law to prescribe the "sacrifice of jealousy" in order
14013 to investigate a wife's adultery (
14014 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A4-p10.1" href="./asv.html#Num.5.12" target="asv">Num. 5:12, </a> seqq.). Consequently it
14015 seems that the Law put forth unsuitable judicial precepts about the members of the household.
14016 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 4 arg. 9"><a name="38236" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38236] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 4 arg. 9</span></a> Praeterea,
14017 sicut uxor potest frangere fidem marito, ita etiam servus domino,
14018 et filius patri. Sed ad investigandam iniuriam servi in dominum,
14019 vel filii in patrem, non est institutum in lege aliquod
14020 sacrificium. Superflue igitur videtur institui sacrificium
14021 zelotypiae ad investigandum uxoris adulterium, Num. V. Sic igitur
14022 inconvenienter videntur esse tradita in lege praecepta iudicialia
14023 circa personas domesticas.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A4-p11">
14024 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
14025 <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."
14026 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 4 s. c."><a name="38237" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38237] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 4 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
14027 est quod dicitur in Psalmo XVIII, <i>iudicia domini vera,
14028 iustificata in semetipsa</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q105_A4-p12">
14029 <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
14030 states (Polit. i, 1). Now the preservation of man's life may be considered from two points of view. First, from the point
14031 of view of the individual, i.e. in so far as man preserves his individuality: and for the purpose of the preservation of life,
14032 considered from this standpoint, man has at his service external goods, by means
14033 of which he provides himself with food and clothing and other such necessaries of life: in the handling of which he has need
14034 of servants. Secondly man's life is preserved from the point of view of the species, by means of generation, for which purpose
14035 man needs a wife, that she may bear him children. Accordingly the mutual relations of the members of a household admit of
14036 a threefold combination: viz. those of master and servant, those of husband and wife, and those of father and son: and in
14037 respect of all these relationships the Old Law contained fitting precepts. Thus, with regard to servants, it commanded them
14038 to be treated with moderation---both as to their work, lest, to wit, they should be burdened with excessive labor, wherefore
14039 the Lord commanded (
14040 <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
14041 of punishment, for it ordered those who maimed their servants, to set them
14042 free (
14043 <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 (
14044 <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
14045 they should go out free in the seventh year taking whatever they brought with them, even their clothes (
14046 <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 (
14047 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q105_A4-p12.5" href="./asv.html#Deut.15.13" target="asv">Dt. 15:13</a>) that they should
14048 be given provision for the journey.
14049 </p><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
14050 they should marry a wife from their own tribe (
14051 <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
14052 brother when the latter died without issue, as prescribed in
14053 <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
14054 according to carnal origin, might at least have them by a kind of adoption, and that thus the deceased might not be entirely
14055 forgotten. It also forbade them to marry certain women; to wit, women of strange nations, through fear of their losing their
14056 faith; and those of their near kindred, on account of the natural respect due to them. Furthermore it prescribed in what way
14057 wives were to be treated after marriage. To wit, that they should not be slandered without grave reason: wherefore it
14058 ordered punishment to be inflicted on the man who falsely accused his wife of a crime (
14059 <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 (
14060 <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
14061 and send her away (
14062 <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
14063 that no public duties should be laid on a recently married man, so that he might be free to rejoice with his wife.
14064 </p><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
14065 (
14066 <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
14067 of the passage of the Lord." Moreover, they are commanded to teach them the rules of right conduct: wherefore it is written
14068 (
14069 <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
14070 hearing our admonitions, he giveth himself to revelling and to debauchery."
14071 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 4 co."><a name="38238" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38238] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 4 co.</span></a> Respondeo
14072 dicendum quod communio domesticarum personarum ad invicem, ut
14073 philosophus dicit, in I Polit., est secundum quotidianos actus qui
14074 ordinantur ad necessitatem vitae. Vita autem hominis conservatur
14075 dupliciter. Uno modo, quantum ad individuum, prout scilicet homo
14076 idem numero vivit, et ad talem vitae conservationem opitulantur
14077 homini exteriora bona, ex quibus homo habet victum et vestitum et
14078 alia huiusmodi necessaria vitae; in quibus administrandis indiget
14079 homo servis. Alio modo conservatur vita hominis secundum speciem
14080 per generationem, ad quam indiget homo uxore, ut ex ea generet
14081 filium. Sic igitur in domestica communione sunt tres combinationes,
14082 scilicet domini ad servum, viri ad uxorem, patris ad filium. Et
14083 quantum ad omnia ista lex vetus convenientia praecepta tradidit.
14084 Nam quantum ad servos, instituit ut modeste tractarentur et quantum
14085 ad labores, ne scilicet immoderatis laboribus affligerentur, unde
14086 Deut. V, dominus mandavit ut in die sabbati requiesceret servus et
14087 ancilla tua sicut et tu, et iterum quantum ad poenas infligendas,
14088 imposuit enim poenam mutilatoribus servorum ut dimitterent eos
14089 liberos, sicut habetur Exod. XXI. Et simile etiam statuit in
14090 ancilla quam in uxorem aliquis duxerit. Statuit etiam specialiter
14091 circa servos qui erant ex populo, ut septimo anno liberi
14092 egrederentur cum omnibus quae apportaverant, etiam vestimentis, ut
14093 habetur Exod. XXI. Mandatur etiam insuper Deut. XV, ut ei detur
14094 viaticum. Circa uxores vero, statuitur in lege quantum ad uxores
14095 ducendas. Ut scilicet ducant uxores suae tribus, sicut habetur Num.
14096 ult., et hoc ideo, ne sortes tribuum confundantur. Et quod aliquis
14097 in uxorem ducat uxorem fratris defuncti sine liberis, ut habetur
14098 Deut. XXV, et hoc ideo, ut ille qui non potuit habere successores
14099 secundum carnis originem, saltem habeat per quandam adoptionem, et
14100 sic non totaliter memoria defuncti deleretur. Prohibuit etiam
14101 quasdam personas ne in coniugium ducerentur, scilicet alienigenas,
14102 propter periculum seductionis; et propinquas, propter reverentiam
14103 naturalem quae eis debetur. Statuit etiam qualiter uxores iam
14104 ductae tractari deberent. Ut scilicet non leviter infamarentur,
14105 unde mandatur puniri ille qui falso crimen imponit uxori, ut
14106 habetur Deut. XXII. Et quod etiam propter uxoris odium filius
14107 detrimentum non pateretur, ut habetur Deut. XXI. Et etiam quod,
14108 propter odium uxorem non affligeret, sed potius, scripto libello,
14109 eam dimitteret, ut patet Deut. XXIV. Et ut etiam maior dilectio
14110 inter coniuges a principio contrahatur, praecipitur quod, cum
14111 aliquis nuper uxorem acceperit, nihil ei publicae necessitatis
14112 iniungatur, ut libere possit laetari cum uxore sua. Circa filios
14113 autem, instituit ut patres eis disciplinam adhiberent, instruendo
14114 eos in fide, unde habetur Exod. XII, <i>cum dixerint vobis filii
14115 vestri, quae est ista religio? Dicetis eis, victima transitus
14116 domini est</i>. Et quod etiam instruerent eos in moribus, unde
14117 dicitur Deut. XXI, quod patres dicere debent, <i>monita nostra
14118 audire contemnit, commessationibus vacat et luxuriae atque
14119 conviviis</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A4-p15">
14120 <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,
14121 He did not wish them to be slaves in perpetuity. Hence it is written (
14122 <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:
14123 but he shall be as a hireling and a sojourner . . . for they are My servants, and I brought them out of the land of
14124 Egypt: let them not be sold as bondmen": and consequently, since they were slaves, not absolutely but in a restricted sense,
14125 after a lapse of time they were set free.
14126 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 4 ad 1"><a name="38239" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38239] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 4 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
14127 ergo dicendum quod, quia filii Israel erant a domino de servitute
14128 liberati, et per hoc divinae servituti addicti, noluit dominus ut
14129 in perpetuum servi essent. Unde dicitur Lev. XXV, <i>si paupertate
14130 compulsus vendiderit se tibi frater tuus, non eum opprimes
14131 servitute famulorum, sed quasi mercenarius et colonus erit. Mei
14132 enim sunt servi, et ego eduxi eos de terra Aegypti, non veneant
14133 conditione servorum</i>. Et ideo, quia simpliciter servi non erant,
14134 sed secundum quid, finito tempore, dimittebantur liberi.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A4-p16">
14135 <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
14136 some sin.
14137 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 4 ad 2"><a name="38240" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38240] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 4 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
14138 dicendum quod mandatum illud intelligitur de servo qui a domino
14139 quaeritur ad occidendum, vel ad aliquod peccati ministerium.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A4-p17">
14140 <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:
14141 since if it were certain, the Law fixed a penalty: for maiming, the penalty was forfeiture of the servant, who was ordered
14142 to be given his liberty: while for slaying, the punishment was that of a murderer, when the slave died under the blow of his
14143 master. If, however, the hurt was not certain, but only probable, the Law did not
14144 impose any penalty as regards a man's own servant: for instance if the servant did not die at once after being struck, but
14145 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
14146 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,
14147 even though afterwards he died. Nevertheless he was bound to pay the doctor's fees incurred by the victim of his assault.
14148 But
14149 this was not the case if a man killed his own servant: because whatever the servant had, even his very person, was the property
14150 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."
14151 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 4 ad 3"><a name="38241" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38241] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 4 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
14152 dicendum quod circa laesiones servis illatas, lex considerasse
14153 videtur utrum sit certa vel incerta. Si enim laesio certa esset,
14154 lex poenam adhibuit, pro mutilatione quidem, amissionem servi qui
14155 mandabatur libertati donandus; pro morte autem, homicidii poenam,
14156 cum servus in manu domini verberantis moreretur. Si vero laesio non
14157 esset certa, sed aliquam apparentiam haberet, lex nullam poenam
14158 infligebat in proprio servo, puta cum percussus servus non statim
14159 moriebatur, sed post aliquos dies. Incertum enim erat utrum ex
14160 percussione mortuus esset. Quia si percussisset liberum hominem,
14161 ita tamen quod statim non moreretur, sed super baculum suum
14162 ambularet, non erat homicidii reus qui percusserat, etiam si postea
14163 moreretur. Tenebatur tamen ad impensas solvendas quas percussus in
14164 medicos fecerat. Sed hoc in servo proprio locum non habebat, quia
14165 quidquid servus habebat, et etiam ipsa persona servi, erat quaedam
14166 possessio domini. Et ideo pro causa assignatur quare non subiaceat
14167 poenae pecuniariae, quia pecunia illius est.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A4-p18">
14168 <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
14169 fixed time. And in this way the Law permitted that through stress of poverty a man might sell his son or daughter. This is
14170 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
14171 bondwomen are wont to go out." Moreover, in this way a man might sell not only his son,
14172 but even himself, rather as a hireling than as a slave, according to
14173 <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:
14174 but he shall be as a hireling and a sojourner."
14175 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 4 ad 4"><a name="38242" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38242] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 4 ad 4</span></a> Ad quartum
14176 dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, nullus Iudaeus poterat possidere
14177 Iudaeum quasi simpliciter servum; sed erat servus secundum quid,
14178 quasi mercenarius, usque ad tempus. Et per hunc modum permittebat
14179 lex quod, paupertate cogente, aliquis filium aut filiam venderet.
14180 Et hoc etiam verba ipsius legis ostendunt, dicit enim, <i>si quis
14181 vendiderit filiam suam in famulam, non egredietur sicut ancillae
14182 exire consueverunt</i>. Per hunc etiam modum non solum filium, sed
14183 etiam seipsum aliquis vendere poterat, magis quasi mercenarium quam
14184 quasi servum; secundum illud Levit. XXV, <i>si paupertate compulsus
14185 vendiderit se tibi frater tuus, non eum opprimes servitute
14186 famulorum, sed quasi mercenarius et colonus erit</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A4-p19">
14187 <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,
14188 whereby rebellious and headstrong persons can be compelled. Hence in this case the Lord commanded the stubborn son to be punished
14189 by the rulers of the city.
14190 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 4 ad 5"><a name="38243" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38243] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 4 ad 5</span></a> Ad quintum
14191 dicendum quod, sicut philosophus dicit, in X Ethic., principatus
14192 paternus habet solam admonendi potestatem; non autem habet vim
14193 coactivam, per quam rebelles et contumaces comprimi possunt. Et
14194 ideo in hoc casu lex mandabat ut filius contumax a principibus
14195 civitatis puniretur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A4-p20">
14196 <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.
14197 And specially did this prohibition apply with respect to those nations who dwelt near them, because it was more probable that
14198 they would adopt their religious practices. When, however, the woman was willing to renounce idolatry, and become an adherent
14199 of the Law, it was lawful to take her in marriage: as was the case with
14200 Ruth whom Booz married. Wherefore she said to her mother-in-law (
14201 <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
14202 first shaved her hair, and pared her nails, and put off the raiment wherein she was taken, and mourned for her father and
14203 mother, in token that she renounced idolatry for ever.
14204 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 4 ad 6"><a name="38244" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38244] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 4 ad 6</span></a> Ad sextum
14205 dicendum quod dominus alienigenas prohibuit in matrimonium duci
14206 propter periculum seductionis, ne inducerentur in idololatriam. Et
14207 specialiter hoc prohibuit de illis gentibus quae in vicino
14208 habitabant, de quibus erat magis probabile quod suos ritus
14209 retinerent. Si qua vero idololatriae cultum dimittere vellet, et ad
14210 legis cultum se transferre, poterat in matrimonium duci, sicut
14211 patet de Ruth, quam duxit Booz in uxorem. Unde ipsa dixerat socrui
14212 suae, <i>populus tuus populus meus, Deus tuus Deus meus</i>, ut
14213 habetur Ruth I. Et ideo captiva non aliter permittebatur in uxorem
14214 duci nisi prius rasa caesarie, et circumcisis unguibus, et deposita
14215 veste in qua capta est, et fleret patrem et matrem, per quae
14216 significatur idololatriae perpetua abiectio.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A4-p21">
14217 <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
14218 a view to the present life, it was ordained that children should be born to the dead man through his brother: thus affording
14219 a certain mitigation to his death. It was not, however, ordained that any other than his brother or one next of kin should
14220 marry the wife of the deceased, because" the offspring of this union "would not be
14221 looked upon as that of the deceased: and moreover, a stranger would not be under the obligation to support the household of
14222 the deceased, as his brother would be bound to do from motives of justice on account of his relationship." Hence it is evident
14223 that in marrying the wife of his dead brother, he took his dead brother's place.
14224 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 4 ad 7"><a name="38245" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38245] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 4 ad 7</span></a> Ad septimum
14225 dicendum quod, sicut Chrysostomus dicit, super Matth., <i>quia
14226 immitigabile malum mors erat apud Iudaeos, qui omnia pro praesenti
14227 vita faciebant, statutum fuit ut defuncto filius nasceretur ex
14228 fratre, quod erat quaedam mortis mitigatio. Non autem alius quam
14229 frater vel propinquus iubebatur accipere uxorem defuncti, quia non
14230 ita crederetur</i> (qui ex tali coniunctione erat nasciturus)
14231 <i>esse filius eius qui obiit; et iterum extraneus non ita haberet
14232 necessitatem statuere domum eius qui obierat, sicut frater, cui
14233 etiam ex cognatione hoc facere iustum erat</i>. Ex quo patet quod
14234 frater in accipiendo uxorem fratris sui, persona fratris defuncti
14235 fungebatur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A4-p22">
14236 <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
14237 of heart, as Our Lord declared (
14238 <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 (
14239 <a href="unknown.html#SP_Q67" id="FS_Q105_A4-p22.2" shape="rect">SP, Q[67])</a>.
14240 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 4 ad 8"><a name="38246" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38246] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 4 ad 8</span></a> Ad octavum
14241 dicendum quod lex permisit repudium uxoris, non quia simpliciter
14242 iustum esset, sed propter duritiam Iudaeorum; ut dominus dicit,
14243 Matth. XIX. Sed de hoc oportet plenius tractari cum de matrimonio
14244 agetur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q105_A4-p23">
14245 <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
14246 observeth darkness" (
14247 <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
14248 infidelity is not the result of the lust of pleasure, but rather of malice: nor can it remain hidden like the infidelity of
14249 an adulterous woman.
14250 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 105 a. 4 ad 9"><a name="38247" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38247] Iª-IIae q. 105 a. 4 ad 9</span></a> Ad nonum
14251 dicendum quod uxores fidem matrimonii frangunt per adulterium et de
14252 facili, propter delectationem; et latenter, <i>quia oculus adulteri
14253 observat caliginem</i>, ut dicitur Iob XXIV. Non autem est similis
14254 ratio de filio ad patrem, vel de servo ad dominum, quia talis
14255 infidelitas non procedit ex concupiscentia delectationis, sed magis
14256 ex malitia; nec potest ita latere sicut infidelitas mulieris
14257 adulterae.</p></div></div></div></div>
14258 <div id="FS_Q106" class="div3">
14259 <h3 id="FS_Q106-p0.1">Q. 106. OF THE LAW OF THE GOSPEL, CALLED THE NEW LAW, CONSIDERED IN ITSELF (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3>
14260 <div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="div4">
14261 <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
14262 consider it in itself; secondly, in comparison with the Old Law; thirdly, we shall treat of those things that are contained
14263 in the New Law. Under the first head there are four points of inquiry:
14264 </p><p id="FS_Q106-p3"><a href="#FS_Q106_A1"> (1) What kind of law is it? i.e. Is it a written law or is it instilled in the heart?</a></p><p id="FS_Q106-p4"><a href="#FS_Q106_A2"> (2) Of its efficacy, i.e. does it justify?</a></p><p id="FS_Q106-p5"><a href="#FS_Q106_A3"> (3) Of its beginning: should it have been given at the beginning of the world?</a></p><p id="FS_Q106-p6"><a href="#FS_Q106_A4"> (4) Of its end: i.e. whether it will last until the end, or will another law take its place?</a></p>
14265 </div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 106 pr."><a name="38248" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38248] Iª-IIae q. 106 pr.</span></a> Consequenter
14266 considerandum est de lege Evangelii, quod dicitur lex nova. Et
14267 primo, de ipsa secundum se; secundo, de ipsa per comparationem ad
14268 legem veterem; tertio, de his quae in lege nova continentur. Circa
14269 primum quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, qualis sit, utrum scilicet
14270 scripta vel indita. Secundo, de virtute eius, utrum iustificet.
14271 Tertio, de principio eius, utrum debuerit dari a principio mundi.
14272 Quarto, de termino eius utrum scilicet sit duratura usque ad finem,
14273 an debeat ei alia lex succedere.</p></div></div></div>
14274 <div id="FS_Q106_A1" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q106_A1-p0.1">Q. 106. A. 1. Whether the New Law is a written law?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q106_A1-p2">
14275 <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
14276 in writing, according to
14277 <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.
14278 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 106 a. 1 arg. 1"><a name="38249" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38249] Iª-IIae q. 106 a. 1 arg. 1</span></a> Ad primum
14279 sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex nova sit lex scripta. Lex enim
14280 nova est ipsum Evangelium. Sed Evangelium est descriptum, Ioan. XX,
14281 <i>haec autem scripta sunt ut credatis</i>. Ergo lex nova est lex
14282 scripta.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q106_A1-p3">
14283 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the law that is instilled in the heart is the natural law, according to
14284 <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
14285 in their hearts." If therefore the law of the Gospel were instilled in our hearts, it would not be distinct from the law of
14286 nature.
14287 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 106 a. 1 arg. 2"><a name="38250" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38250] Iª-IIae q. 106 a. 1 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
14288 lex indita est lex naturae; secundum illud Rom. II, <i>naturaliter
14289 ea quae legis sunt faciunt, qui habent opus legis scriptum in
14290 cordibus suis</i>. Si igitur lex Evangelii esset lex indita, non
14291 differret a lege naturae.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q106_A1-p4">
14292 <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
14293 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
14294 (
14295 <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
14296 the New Law is not instilled in our hearts.
14297 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 106 a. 1 arg. 3"><a name="38251" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38251] Iª-IIae q. 106 a. 1 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
14298 lex Evangelii propria est eorum qui sunt in statu novi testamenti.
14299 Sed lex indita communis est et eis qui sunt in novo testamento, et
14300 eis qui sunt in veteri testamento, dicitur enim Sap. VII, quod
14301 <i>divina sapientia per nationes in animas sanctas se transfert,
14302 amicos Dei et prophetas constituit</i>. Ergo lex nova non est lex
14303 indita.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q106_A1-p5">
14304 <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,
14305 quoting the authority of
14306 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A1-p5.1" href="./asv.html#Jer.31.31" target="asv">Jeremiah 31:31</a>,
14307 <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
14308 new testament," says, explaining what this statement is (
14309 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A1-p5.3" href="./asv.html#Heb.8.8" target="asv">Heb. 8:8</a>,
14310 <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
14311 of Israel . . . by giving [Vulg.: 'I will give'] My laws into their mind, and in their heart will I write them." Therefore
14312 the New Law is instilled in our hearts.
14313 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 106 a. 1 s. c."><a name="38252" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38252] Iª-IIae q. 106 a. 1 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
14314 est quod lex nova est lex novi testamenti. Sed lex novi testamenti
14315 est indita in corde. Apostolus enim, ad Heb. VIII, dicit, inducens
14316 auctoritatem quae habetur Ierem. XXXI, <i>ecce dies venient, dicit
14317 dominus, et consummabo super domum Israel et super domum Iuda
14318 testamentum novum</i>, et exponens quid sit hoc testamentum, dicit,
14319 <i>quia hoc est testamentum quod disponam domui Israel, dando leges
14320 meas in mentem eorum, et in corde eorum superscribam eas</i>. Ergo
14321 lex nova est lex indita.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q106_A1-p6">
14322 <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
14323 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
14324 faith in Christ. Consequently the New Law is chiefly the grace itself of the Holy Ghost, which is given to those who believe
14325 in Christ. This is manifestly stated by the Apostle who says (
14326 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A1-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.3.27" target="asv">Rom.
14327 3:27
14328 </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
14329 itself of faith "a law." And still more clearly it is written (
14330 <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
14331 (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
14332 hearts of the
14333 faithful": and elsewhere, in the same book (xxi): "What else are the Divine laws written by God Himself on our hearts, but
14334 the very presence of His Holy Spirit?"
14335 </p><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
14336 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
14337 concerning them, both by word and writing, both as to what they should believe and as to what they should do. Consequently
14338 we must say that the New Law is in the first place a law that is inscribed on our hearts, but that
14339 secondarily it is a written law.
14340 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 106 a. 1 co."><a name="38253" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38253] Iª-IIae q. 106 a. 1 co.</span></a> Respondeo
14341 dicendum quod <i>unaquaeque res illud videtur esse quod in ea est
14342 potissimum</i>, ut philosophus dicit, in IX Ethic. Id autem quod
14343 est potissimum in lege novi testamenti, et in quo tota virtus eius
14344 consistit, est gratia spiritus sancti, quae datur per fidem
14345 Christi. Et ideo principaliter lex nova est ipsa gratia spiritus
14346 sancti, quae datur Christi fidelibus. Et hoc manifeste apparet per
14347 apostolum, qui, ad Rom. III, dicit, <i>ubi est ergo gloriatio tua?
14348 Exclusa est. Per quam legem? Factorum? Non, sed per legem
14349 fidei</i>, ipsam enim fidei gratiam legem appellat. Et expressius
14350 ad Rom. VIII dicitur, <i>lex spiritus vitae in Christo Iesu
14351 liberavit me a lege peccati et mortis</i>. Unde et Augustinus
14352 dicit, in libro de spiritu et littera, quod <i>sicut lex factorum
14353 scripta fuit in tabulis lapideis, ita lex fidei scripta est in
14354 cordibus fidelium</i>. Et alibi dicit in eodem libro, <i>quae sunt
14355 leges Dei ab ipso Deo scriptae in cordibus, nisi ipsa praesentia
14356 spiritus sancti?</i> Habet tamen lex nova quaedam sicut dispositiva
14357 ad gratiam spiritus sancti, et ad usum huius gratiae pertinentia,
14358 quae sunt quasi secundaria in lege nova, de quibus oportuit instrui
14359 fideles Christi et verbis et scriptis, tam circa credenda quam
14360 circa agenda. Et ideo dicendum est quod principaliter nova lex est
14361 lex indita, secundario autem est lex scripta.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q106_A1-p8">
14362 <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
14363 by directing us to the use thereof. Thus with regard to the intellect, the Gospel contains certain matters pertaining to the
14364 manifestation of Christ's Godhead or humanity, which dispose us by means of faith through which we receive the grace of the
14365 Holy Ghost: and with regard to the affections, it contains matters touching the
14366 contempt of the world, whereby man is rendered fit to receive the grace of the Holy Ghost: for "the world," i.e. worldly men,
14367 "cannot receive" the Holy Ghost (
14368 <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
14369 in divers ways.
14370 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 106 a. 1 ad 1"><a name="38254" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38254] Iª-IIae q. 106 a. 1 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
14371 ergo dicendum quod in Scriptura Evangelii non continentur nisi ea
14372 quae pertinent ad gratiam spiritus sancti vel sicut dispositiva,
14373 vel sicut ordinativa ad usum huius gratiae. Sicut dispositiva
14374 quidem quantum ad intellectum per fidem, per quam datur spiritus
14375 sancti gratia, continentur in Evangelio ea quae pertinent ad
14376 manifestandam divinitatem vel humanitatem Christi. Secundum
14377 affectum vero, continentur in Evangelio ea quae pertinent ad
14378 contemptum mundi, per quem homo fit capax gratiae spiritus sancti,
14379 mundus enim, idest amatores mundi, non potest capere spiritum
14380 sanctum, ut habetur Ioan. XIV. Usus vero spiritualis gratiae est in
14381 operibus virtutum, ad quae multipliciter Scriptura novi testamenti
14382 homines exhortatur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q106_A1-p9">
14383 <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
14384 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
14385 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
14386 him to accomplish it.
14387 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 106 a. 1 ad 2"><a name="38255" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38255] Iª-IIae q. 106 a. 1 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
14388 dicendum quod dupliciter est aliquid inditum homini. Uno modo,
14389 pertinens ad naturam humanam, et sic lex naturalis est lex indita
14390 homini. Alio modo est aliquid inditum homini quasi naturae
14391 superadditum per gratiae donum. Et hoc modo lex nova est indita
14392 homini, non solum indicans quid sit faciendum, sed etiam adiuvans
14393 ad implendum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q106_A1-p10">
14394 <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
14395 man belongs to the New Testament. Consequently whoever had the law of grace instilled into them belonged to the New Testament.
14396 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 106 a. 1 ad 3"><a name="38256" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38256] Iª-IIae q. 106 a. 1 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
14397 dicendum quod nullus unquam habuit gratiam spiritus sancti nisi per
14398 fidem Christi explicitam vel implicitam. Per fidem autem Christi
14399 pertinet homo ad novum testamentum. Unde quibuscumque fuit lex
14400 gratiae indita, secundum hoc ad novum testamentum pertinebant.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q106_A2" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q106_A2-p0.1">Q. 106. A. 2. Whether the New Law justifies?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q106_A2-p2">
14401 <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
14402 <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
14403 to believe in it: for it is written (
14404 <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.
14405 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 106 a. 2 arg. 1"><a name="38257" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38257] Iª-IIae q. 106 a. 2 arg. 1</span></a> Ad
14406 secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex nova non iustificet.
14407 Nullus enim iustificatur nisi legi Dei obediat; secundum illud ad
14408 Heb. V, <i>factus est</i>, scilicet Christus, <i>omnibus
14409 obtemperantibus sibi causa salutis aeternae</i>. Sed Evangelium non
14410 semper hoc operatur quod homines ei obediant, dicitur enim Rom. X,
14411 non omnes obediunt Evangelio. Ergo lex nova non iustificat.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q106_A2-p3">
14412 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the Apostle proves in his epistle to the Romans that the Old Law did not justify, because transgression increased
14413 at its advent: for it is stated (
14414 <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
14415 transgression: since he who sins after the giving of the New Law deserves greater punishment, according to
14416 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A2-p3.2" href="./asv.html#Heb.10.28" target="asv"> Heb. 10:28,29</a>: "A man
14417 making void the Law of Moses dieth without any mercy under two or three witnesses. How much more, do you think, he deserveth
14418 worse punishments, who hath trodden underfoot the Son of God," etc.? Therefore the New Law, like the Old Law, does not justify.
14419 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 106 a. 2 arg. 2"><a name="38258" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38258] Iª-IIae q. 106 a. 2 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
14420 apostolus probat, ad Rom., quod lex vetus non iustificabat, quia ea
14421 adveniente praevaricatio crevit, habetur enim ad Rom. IV, <i>lex
14422 iram operatur, ubi enim non est lex, nec praevaricatio</i>. Sed
14423 multo magis lex nova praevaricationem addidit, maiori enim poena
14424 est dignus qui post legem novam datam adhuc peccat; secundum illud
14425 Heb. X, <i>irritam quis faciens legem Moysi, sine ulla miseratione,
14426 duobus vel tribus testibus, moritur. Quanto magis putatis deteriora
14427 mereri supplicia, qui filium Dei conculcaverit, et cetera?</i> Ergo
14428 lex nova non iustificat, sicut nec vetus.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q106_A2-p4">
14429 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, justification is an effect proper to God, according to
14430 <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
14431 than the Old Law.
14432 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 106 a. 2 arg. 3"><a name="38259" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38259] Iª-IIae q. 106 a. 2 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
14433 iustificare est proprius effectus Dei; secundum illud ad Rom. VIII,
14434 Deus qui iustificat. Sed lex vetus fuit a Deo, sicut et lex nova.
14435 Ergo lex nova non magis iustificat quam lex vetus.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q106_A2-p5">
14436 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
14437 <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
14438 no salvation but to those who are justified. Therefore the Law of the Gospel justifies.
14439 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 106 a. 2 s. c."><a name="38260" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38260] Iª-IIae q. 106 a. 2 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
14440 est quod apostolus dicit, ad Rom. I, <i>non erubesco Evangelium,
14441 virtus enim Dei est in salutem omni credenti</i>. Non autem est
14442 salus nisi iustificatis. Ergo lex Evangelii iustificat.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q106_A2-p6">
14443 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
14444 <a href="#FS_Q106_A1" id="FS_Q106_A2-p6.1" shape="rect">(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
14445 inwardly. And as to this, the New Law justifies. Hence Augustine says (De Spir. et Lit. xvii): "There," i.e. in the Old Testament,
14446 "the Law was set forth in an outward fashion, that the ungodly might be afraid"; "here," i.e. in the New Testament, "it is
14447 given in an inward manner, that
14448 they may be justified." The other element of the Evangelical Law is secondary: namely, the teachings of faith, and those commandments
14449 which direct human affections and human actions. And as to this, the New Law does not justify. Hence the Apostle says (
14450 <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
14451 the letter denotes any writing external to man, even that of the moral precepts such as are
14452 contained in the Gospel. Wherefore the letter, even of the Gospel would kill, unless there were the inward presence of the
14453 healing grace of faith.
14454 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 106 a. 2 co."><a name="38261" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38261] Iª-IIae q. 106 a. 2 co.</span></a> Respondeo
14455 dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, ad legem Evangelii duo pertinent.
14456 Unum quidem principaliter, scilicet ipsa gratia spiritus sancti
14457 interius data. Et quantum ad hoc, nova lex iustificat. Unde
14458 Augustinus dicit, in libro de spiritu et littera, ibi, scilicet in
14459 veteri testamento, lex extrinsecus posita est, qua iniusti
14460 terrerentur, hic, scilicet in novo testamento, intrinsecus data
14461 est, qua iustificarentur. Aliud pertinet ad legem Evangelii
14462 secundario, scilicet documenta fidei, et praecepta ordinantia
14463 affectum humanum et humanos actus. Et quantum ad hoc, lex nova non
14464 iustificat. Unde apostolus dicit, II ad Cor. III, <i>littera
14465 occidit, spiritus autem vivificat</i>. Et Augustinus exponit, in
14466 libro de spiritu et littera, quod per litteram intelligitur
14467 quaelibet Scriptura extra homines existens, etiam moralium
14468 praeceptorum qualia continentur in Evangelio. Unde etiam littera
14469 Evangelii occideret, nisi adesset interius gratia fidei sanans.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q106_A2-p7">
14470 <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
14471 and precepts outwardly put before man either in words or in writing.
14472 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 106 a. 2 ad 1"><a name="38262" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38262] Iª-IIae q. 106 a. 2 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
14473 ergo dicendum quod illa obiectio procedit de lege nova non quantum
14474 ad id quod est principale in ipsa, sed quantum ad id quod est
14475 secundarium in ipsa, scilicet quantum ad documenta et praecepta
14476 exterius homini proposita vel verbo vel scripto.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q106_A2-p8">
14477 <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:
14478 for this belongs to the state of glory. Hence if a man sin after receiving the grace of the New Testament, he deserves greater
14479 punishment, as being ungrateful for greater benefits, and as not using the help given to him. And this is why the New Law
14480 is not said to "work wrath": because as far as it is concerned it gives man
14481 sufficient help to avoid sin.
14482 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 106 a. 2 ad 2"><a name="38263" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38263] Iª-IIae q. 106 a. 2 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
14483 dicendum quod gratia novi testamenti, etsi adiuvet hominem ad non
14484 peccandum, non tamen ita confirmat in bono ut homo peccare non
14485 possit, hoc enim pertinet ad statum gloriae. Et ideo si quis post
14486 acceptam gratiam novi testamenti peccaverit, maiori poena est
14487 dignus, tanquam maioribus beneficiis ingratus, et auxilio sibi dato
14488 non utens. Nec tamen propter hoc dicitur quod lex nova iram
14489 operatur, quia quantum est de se, sufficiens auxilium dat ad non
14490 peccandum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q106_A2-p9">
14491 <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:
14492 whereas He gave the New Law written "in the fleshly tables of the heart," as the Apostle expresses it (
14493 <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
14494 of death and a ministration of condemnation: whereas he calls
14495 the other letter, i.e. the Law of the New Testament, the ministration of the spirit and the ministration of justice: because
14496 through the gift of the Spirit we work justice, and are delivered from the condemnation due to transgression."
14497 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 106 a. 2 ad 3"><a name="38264" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38264] Iª-IIae q. 106 a. 2 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
14498 dicendum quod legem novam et veterem unus Deus dedit, sed aliter et
14499 aliter. Nam legem veterem dedit scriptam in tabulis lapideis, legem
14500 autem novam dedit scriptam in tabulis cordis carnalibus, ut
14501 apostolus dicit, II ad Cor. III. Proinde sicut Augustinus dicit, in
14502 libro de spiritu et littera, <i>litteram istam extra hominem
14503 scriptam, et ministrationem mortis et ministrationem damnationis
14504 apostolus appellat. Hanc autem, scilicet novi testamenti legem,
14505 ministrationem spiritus et ministrationem iustitiae dicit, quia per
14506 donum spiritus operamur iustitiam, et a praevaricationis damnatione
14507 liberamur</i>.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q106_A3" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q106_A3-p0.1">Q. 106. A. 3. Whether the New Law should have been given from the beginning of the world?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q106_A3-p2">
14508 <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
14509 with God" (
14510 <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" (
14511 <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
14512 to all.
14513 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 106 a. 3 arg. 1"><a name="38265" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38265] Iª-IIae q. 106 a. 3 arg. 1</span></a> Ad tertium
14514 sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex nova debuerit dari a principio
14515 mundi. Non enim est personarum acceptio apud Deum, ut dicitur ad
14516 Rom. II. Sed omnes homines peccaverunt, et egent gloria Dei, ut
14517 dicitur ad Rom. III. Ergo a principio mundi lex Evangelii dari
14518 debuit, ut omnibus per eam subveniretur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q106_A3-p3">
14519 <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" (
14520 <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
14521 Law of the Gospel should have been at hand for all times, so as to be given from the beginning of the world.
14522 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 106 a. 3 arg. 2"><a name="38266" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38266] Iª-IIae q. 106 a. 3 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
14523 sicut in diversis locis sunt diversi homines, ita etiam in diversis
14524 temporibus. Sed Deus, <i>qui vult omnes homines salvos fieri</i>,
14525 ut dicitur I ad Tim. II, mandavit Evangelium praedicari in omnibus
14526 locis; ut patet Matth. ult., et Marc. ult. Ergo omnibus temporibus
14527 debuit adesse lex Evangelii, ita quod a principio mundi
14528 daretur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q106_A3-p4">
14529 <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
14530 God provided man from the beginning of the world with things that are necessary for the health of his body, by subjecting
14531 to his power whatever was created for the sake of man (
14532 <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
14533 beginning
14534 of the world.
14535 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 106 a. 3 arg. 3"><a name="38267" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38267] Iª-IIae q. 106 a. 3 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
14536 magis est necessaria homini salus spiritualis, quae est aeterna,
14537 quam salus corporalis, quae est temporalis. Sed Deus ab initio
14538 mundi providit homini ea quae sunt necessaria ad salutem
14539 corporalem, tradens eius potestati omnia quae erant propter hominem
14540 creata, ut patet Gen. I. Ergo etiam lex nova, quae maxime est
14541 necessaria ad salutem spiritualem, debuit hominibus a principio
14542 mundi dari.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q106_A3-p5">
14543 <b>On the contrary,</b> The Apostle says (
14544 <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
14545 not fitting for it to be given from the beginning of the world.
14546 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 106 a. 3 s. c."><a name="38268" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38268] Iª-IIae q. 106 a. 3 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
14547 est quod apostolus dicit, I ad Cor. XV, <i>non prius quod
14548 spirituale est, sed quod animale</i>. Sed lex nova est maxime
14549 spiritualis. Ergo lex nova non debuit dari a principio mundi.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q106_A3-p6">
14550 <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
14551 is because the New Law, as stated above
14552 <a href="#FS_Q106_A1" id="FS_Q106_A3-p6.1" shape="rect">(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
14553 to grace, had been cast out of man through the accomplishment of his redemption by Christ: wherefore it is written (
14554 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A3-p6.2" href="./asv.html#John.7.39" target="asv">Jn.
14555 7:39
14556 </a>): "As yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified." This reason the Apostle states clearly (
14557 <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
14558 flesh, of sin* hath condemned sin in the flesh, that the justification of the Law might be fulfilled in us." [*St. Thomas,
14559 quoting perhaps from memory, omits the "et" (and), after "sinful flesh." The text quoted
14560 should read thus: "in the likeness of sinful flesh, and a sin offering ({peri hamartias}), hath," etc.]
14561 </p><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
14562 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
14563 by the Apostle (
14564 <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
14565 under a pedagogue."
14566 </p><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
14567 to himself under the state of the Old Law, so that through falling into sin, he might realize his weakness, and acknowledge
14568 his need of grace. This reason is set down by the Apostle (
14569 <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."
14570 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 106 a. 3 co."><a name="38269" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38269] Iª-IIae q. 106 a. 3 co.</span></a> Respondeo
14571 dicendum quod triplex ratio potest assignari quare lex nova non
14572 debuit dari a principio mundi. Quarum prima est quia lex nova,
14573 sicut dictum est, principaliter est gratia spiritus sancti; quae
14574 abundanter dari non debuit antequam impedimentum peccati ab humano
14575 genere tolleretur, consummata redemptione per Christum; unde
14576 dicitur Ioan. VII, <i>nondum erat spiritus datus, quia Iesus nondum
14577 erat glorificatus</i>. Et hanc rationem manifeste assignat
14578 apostolus ad Rom. VIII, ubi, postquam praemiserat de lege spiritus
14579 vitae, subiungit, <i>Deus, filium suum mittens in similitudinem
14580 carnis peccati, de peccato damnavit peccatum in carne, ut
14581 iustificatio legis impleretur in nobis</i>. Secunda ratio potest
14582 assignari ex perfectione legis novae. Non enim aliquid ad perfectum
14583 adducitur statim a principio, sed quodam temporali successionis
14584 ordine, sicut aliquis prius fit puer, et postmodum vir. Et hanc
14585 rationem assignat apostolus ad Gal. III, <i>lex paedagogus noster
14586 fuit in Christo, ut ex fide iustificemur. At ubi venit fides, iam
14587 non sumus sub paedagogo</i>. Tertia ratio sumitur ex hoc quod lex
14588 nova est lex gratiae, et ideo primo oportuit quod homo
14589 relinqueretur sibi in statu veteris legis, ut, in peccatum cadendo,
14590 suam infirmitatem cognoscens, recognosceret se gratia indigere. Et
14591 hanc rationem assignat apostolus ad Rom. V, dicens, <i>lex
14592 subintravit ut abundaret delictum, ubi autem abundavit delictum,
14593 superabundavit et gratia</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q106_A3-p9">
14594 <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
14595 it is justly withheld, and to whom it is given, it is mercifully given," as Augustine states (De Perfect. Justit. iv) [*Cf.
14596 Ep. ccvii; De Pecc. Mer. et Rem. ii, 19]. Consequently it does not follow that there is respect of persons with God, from
14597 the fact that He did not offer the Law of grace to all from the beginning of the
14598 world, which Law was to be published in due course of time, as stated above.
14599 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 106 a. 3 ad 1"><a name="38270" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38270] Iª-IIae q. 106 a. 3 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
14600 ergo dicendum quod humanum genus propter peccatum primi parentis
14601 meruit privari auxilio gratiae. <i>Et ideo quibuscumque non datur,
14602 hoc est ex iustitia, quibuscumque autem datur, hoc est ex
14603 gratia</i>, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro de Perfect. Iustit. Unde
14604 non est acceptio personarum apud Deum ex hoc quod non omnibus a
14605 principio mundi legem gratiae proposuit, quae erat debito ordine
14606 proponenda, ut dictum est.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q106_A3-p10">
14607 <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
14608 avails for all places, but not for all times: although at all times there have been some persons belonging to the New Testament,
14609 as stated above (A[1], ad 3).
14610 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 106 a. 3 ad 2"><a name="38271" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38271] Iª-IIae q. 106 a. 3 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
14611 dicendum quod diversitas locorum non variat diversum statum humani
14612 generis, qui variatur per temporis successionem. Et ideo omnibus
14613 locis proponitur lex nova, non autem omnibus temporibus, licet omni
14614 tempore fuerint aliqui ad novum testamentum pertinentes, ut supra
14615 dictum est.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q106_A3-p11">
14616 <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
14617 things pertaining to the health of the soul are ordained to grace, which is forfeit through sin. Consequently the comparison
14618 will not hold.
14619 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 106 a. 3 ad 3"><a name="38272" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38272] Iª-IIae q. 106 a. 3 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
14620 dicendum quod ea quae pertinent ad salutem corporalem, deserviunt
14621 homini quantum ad naturam, quae non tollitur per peccatum. Sed ea
14622 quae pertinent ad spiritualem salutem, ordinantur ad gratiam, quae
14623 amittitur per peccatum. Et ideo non est similis ratio de
14624 utrisque.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q106_A4" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q106_A4-p0.1">Q. 106. A. 4. Whether the New Law will last till the end of the world?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q106_A4-p2">
14625 <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 (
14626 <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
14627 Apostle says (
14628 <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
14629 state.
14630 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 106 a. 4 arg. 1"><a name="38273" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38273] Iª-IIae q. 106 a. 4 arg. 1</span></a> Ad quartum
14631 sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex nova non sit duratura usque ad
14632 finem mundi. Quia ut apostolus dicit, I ad Cor. XIII, <i>cum
14633 venerit quod perfectum est, evacuabitur quod ex parte est</i>. Sed
14634 lex nova ex parte est, dicit enim apostolus ibidem, <i>ex parte
14635 cognoscimus, et ex parte prophetamus</i>. Ergo lex nova evacuanda
14636 est, alio perfectiori statu succedente.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q106_A4-p3">
14637 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Our Lord (
14638 <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
14639 not yet all truth in the state of the New Testament. Therefore we must look forward to another state, wherein all truth will
14640 be revealed by the Holy Ghost.
14641 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 106 a. 4 arg. 2"><a name="38274" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38274] Iª-IIae q. 106 a. 4 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
14642 dominus, Ioan. XVI, promisit discipulis suis in adventu spiritus
14643 sancti Paracleti cognitionem omnis veritatis. Sed nondum Ecclesia
14644 omnem veritatem cognoscit, in statu novi testamenti. Ergo
14645 expectandus est alius status, in quo per spiritum sanctum omnis
14646 veritas manifestetur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q106_A4-p4">
14647 <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
14648 Father and the Son. But there was a state corresponding with the Person of the Father, viz. the state of the Old Law, wherein
14649 men were intent on begetting children: and likewise there is a state corresponding to the Person of the Son: viz. the state
14650 of the New Law, wherein the clergy who are intent on wisdom (which is appropriated to the
14651 Son) hold a prominent place. Therefore there will be a third state corresponding to the Holy Ghost, wherein spiritual men
14652 will hold the first place.
14653 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 106 a. 4 arg. 3"><a name="38275" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38275] Iª-IIae q. 106 a. 4 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
14654 sicut pater est alius a filio et filius a patre, ita spiritus
14655 sanctus a patre et filio. Sed fuit quidam status conveniens
14656 personae patris, scilicet status veteris legis, in quo homines
14657 generationi intendebant. Similiter etiam est alius status
14658 conveniens personae filii, scilicet status novae legis, in quo
14659 clerici, intendentes sapientiae, quae appropriatur filio,
14660 principantur. Ergo erit status tertius spiritus sancti, in quo
14661 spirituales viri principabuntur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q106_A4-p5">
14662 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, Our Lord said (
14663 <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
14664 of Christ is already preached throughout the whole world: and yet the consummation has not yet come. Therefore the Gospel
14665 of Christ is not the Gospel of the kingdom, but another Gospel, that of the Holy Ghost, is to come yet, like unto another
14666 Law.
14667 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 106 a. 4 arg. 4"><a name="38276" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38276] Iª-IIae q. 106 a. 4 arg. 4</span></a> Praeterea,
14668 dominus dicit, Matth. XXIV, praedicabitur hoc <i>Evangelium regni
14669 in universo orbe, et tunc veniet consummatio</i>. Sed Evangelium
14670 Christi iamdiu est praedicatum in universo orbe; nec tamen adhuc
14671 venit consummatio. Ergo Evangelium Christi non est Evangelium
14672 regni, sed futurum est aliud Evangelium spiritus sancti, quasi alia
14673 lex.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q106_A4-p6">
14674 <b>On the contrary,</b> Our Lord said (
14675 <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)
14676 explains as referring to "the generation of those that believe in Christ." Therefore the state of those who believe in Christ
14677 will last until the consummation of the world.
14678 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 106 a. 4 s. c."><a name="38277" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38277] Iª-IIae q. 106 a. 4 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
14679 est quod dominus dicit, Matth. XXIV, <i>dico vobis quia non
14680 praeteribit generatio haec donec omnia fiant</i>, quod Chrysostomus
14681 exponit de generatione fidelium Christi. Ergo status fidelium
14682 Christi manebit usque ad consummationem saeculi.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q106_A4-p7">
14683 <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
14684 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
14685 perfect one. Now no state of the present life can be more perfect that the state of the New Law: since nothing can approach
14686 nearer to the last end than that which is the immediate cause of our being brought to
14687 the last end. But the New Law does this: wherefore the Apostle says (
14688 <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
14689 He hath dedicated for us . . . let us draw near." Therefore no state of the present life can be more perfect than that of
14690 the New Law, since the nearer a thing is to the last end the more perfect it is.
14691 </p><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.
14692 And thus the state of the Old Law underwent frequent changes, since at times the laws were very well kept, and at other times
14693 were altogether unheeded. Thus, too, the state of the New Law is subject to change with regard to various places, times, and
14694 persons, according as the grace of the Holy Ghost dwells in man more or less perfectly. Nevertheless
14695 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
14696 it hitherto, especially the apostles who "received the firstfruits of the Spirit, i.e. sooner and more abundantly than others,"
14697 as a gloss expounds on
14698 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q106_A4-p8.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.23" target="asv"> Rom. 8:23.</a>
14699 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 106 a. 4 co."><a name="38278" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38278] Iª-IIae q. 106 a. 4 co.</span></a> Respondeo
14700 dicendum quod status mundi variari potest dupliciter. Uno modo,
14701 secundum diversitatem legis. Et sic huic statui novae legis nullus
14702 alius status succedet. Successit enim status novae legis statui
14703 veteris legis tanquam perfectior imperfectiori. Nullus autem status
14704 praesentis vitae potest esse perfectior quam status novae legis.
14705 Nihil enim potest esse propinquius fini ultimo quam quod immediate
14706 in finem ultimum introducit. Hoc autem facit nova lex, unde
14707 apostolus dicit, ad Heb. X, <i>habentes itaque, fratres, fiduciam
14708 in introitu sanctorum in sanguine Christi, quam initiavit nobis
14709 viam novam, accedamus ad eum</i>. Unde non potest esse aliquis
14710 perfectior status praesentis vitae quam status novae legis, quia
14711 tanto est unumquodque perfectius, quanto ultimo fini propinquius.
14712 Alio modo status hominum variari potest secundum quod homines
14713 diversimode se habent ad eandem legem, vel perfectius vel minus
14714 perfecte. Et sic status veteris legis frequenter fuit mutatus, cum
14715 quandoque leges optime custodirentur, quandoque omnino
14716 praetermitterentur. Sic etiam status novae legis diversificatur,
14717 secundum diversa loca et tempora et personas, inquantum gratia
14718 spiritus sancti perfectius vel minus perfecte ab aliquibus habetur.
14719 Non est tamen expectandum quod sit aliquis status futurus in quo
14720 perfectius gratia spiritus sancti habeatur quam hactenus habita
14721 fuerit, maxime ab apostolis, qui primitias spiritus acceperunt,
14722 <i>idest et tempore prius et ceteris abundantius</i>, ut Glossa
14723 dicit Rom. VIII.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q106_A4-p9">
14724 <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
14725 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
14726 in comparison with the state of the Gospel; so is the present state figurative and imperfect in comparison with the heavenly
14727 state, with the advent of which the present state will be done away as
14728 expressed in that very passage (
14729 <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."
14730 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 106 a. 4 ad 1"><a name="38279" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38279] Iª-IIae q. 106 a. 4 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
14731 ergo dicendum quod, sicut Dionysius dicit, in Eccl. Hier., triplex
14732 est hominum status, primus quidem veteris legis; secundus novae
14733 legis; tertius status succedit non in hac vita, sed in patria. Sed
14734 sicut primus status est figuralis et imperfectus respectu status
14735 evangelici, ita hic status est figuralis et imperfectus respectu
14736 status patriae; quo veniente, iste status evacuatur, sicut ibi
14737 dicitur, <i>videmus nunc per speculum in aenigmate, tunc autem
14738 facie ad faciem</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q106_A4-p10">
14739 <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
14740 was fulfilled, not in the apostles, but in themselves. In like manner the Manicheans maintained that it was fulfilled in Manes
14741 whom they held to be the Paraclete. Hence none of the above received the Acts of the Apostles, where it is clearly shown that
14742 the aforesaid promise was fulfilled in the apostles: just as Our Lord promised
14743 them a second time (
14744 <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
14745 <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 (
14746 <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
14747 given as soon as Christ was glorified in His Resurrection and Ascension. Moreover, this puts out of court the
14748 senseless idea that the Holy Ghost is to be expected to come at some other time.
14749 </p><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
14750 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
14751 to
14752 <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."
14753 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 106 a. 4 ad 2"><a name="38280" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38280] Iª-IIae q. 106 a. 4 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
14754 dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit in libro contra Faustum,
14755 Montanus et Priscilla posuerunt quod promissio domini de spiritu
14756 sancto dando non fuit completa in apostolis, sed in eis. Et
14757 similiter Manichaei posuerunt quod fuit completa in Manichaeo, quem
14758 dicebant esse spiritum Paracletum. Et ideo utrique non recipiebant
14759 actus apostolorum, in quibus manifeste ostenditur quod illa
14760 promissio fuit in apostolis completa, sicut dominus iterato eis
14761 promisit, Act. I, <i>baptizamini in spiritu sancto non post multos
14762 hos dies</i>; quod impletum legitur Act. II. Sed istae vanitates
14763 excluduntur per hoc quod dicitur Ioan. VII, <i>nondum erat spiritus
14764 datus, quia Iesus nondum erat glorificatus</i>, ex quo datur
14765 intelligi quod statim glorificato Christo in resurrectione et
14766 ascensione, fuit spiritus sanctus datus. Et per hoc etiam
14767 excluditur quorumcumque vanitas qui dicerent esse expectandum aliud
14768 tempus spiritus sancti. Docuit autem spiritus sanctus apostolos
14769 omnem veritatem de his quae pertinent ad necessitatem salutis,
14770 scilicet de credendis et agendis. Non tamen docuit eos de omnibus
14771 futuris eventibus, hoc enim ad eos non pertinebat, secundum illud
14772 Act. I, <i>non est vestrum nosse tempora vel momenta, quae pater
14773 posuit in sua potestate</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q106_A4-p12">
14774 <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
14775 Our Lord said (
14776 <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
14777 not only to Christ, but also to the Holy Ghost; according to
14778 <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
14779 to look forward to another law corresponding to the Holy Ghost.
14780 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 106 a. 4 ad 3"><a name="38281" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38281] Iª-IIae q. 106 a. 4 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
14781 dicendum quod lex vetus non solum fuit patris, sed etiam filii,
14782 quia Christus in veteri lege figurabatur. Unde dominus dicit, Ioan.
14783 V, <i>si crederetis Moysi, crederetis forsitan et mihi, de me enim
14784 ille scripsit</i>. Similiter etiam lex nova non solum est Christi,
14785 sed etiam spiritus sancti; secundum illud Rom. VIII, <i>lex
14786 spiritus vitae in Christo Iesu,</i> et cetera. Unde non est
14787 expectanda alia lex, quae sit spiritus sancti.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q106_A4-p13">
14788 <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" (
14789 <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
14790 Christ may be understood in two ways. First, as denoting the spreading abroad of the knowledge of Christ: and thus the Gospel
14791 was preached throughout the world even at the time of the apostles, as
14792 Chrysostom states (Hom. lxxv in Matth.). And in this sense the words that follow---"and then shall the consummation come,"
14793 refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, of which He was speaking literally. Secondly, the preaching of the Gospel may be understood
14794 as extending throughout the world and producing its full effect, so that, to wit, the Church would be founded in every nation.
14795 And in these sense, as Augustine writes to Hesychius (Epist. cxcix), the Gospel is not preached to the whole world
14796 yet, but, when it is, the consummation of the world will come.
14797 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 106 a. 4 ad 4"><a name="38282" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38282] Iª-IIae q. 106 a. 4 ad 4</span></a> Ad quartum
14798 dicendum quod, cum Christus statim in principio evangelicae
14799 praedicationis dixerit, appropinquavit regnum caelorum,
14800 stultissimum est dicere quod Evangelium Christi non sit Evangelium
14801 regni. Sed praedicatio Evangelii Christi potest intelligi
14802 dupliciter. Uno modo, quantum ad divulgationem notitiae Christi, et
14803 sic praedicatum fuit Evangelium in universo orbe etiam tempore
14804 apostolorum, ut Chrysostomus dicit. Et secundum hoc, quod additur,
14805 et tunc erit consummatio, intelligitur de destructione Ierusalem,
14806 de qua tunc ad litteram loquebatur. Alio modo potest intelligi
14807 praedicatio Evangelii in universo orbe cum pleno effectu, ita
14808 scilicet quod in qualibet gente fundetur Ecclesia. Et ita, sicut
14809 dicit Augustinus, in epistola ad Hesych., nondum est praedicatum
14810 Evangelium in universo orbe, sed, hoc facto, veniet consummatio
14811 mundi.</p></div></div></div></div>
14812 <div id="FS_Q107" class="div3">
14813 <h3 id="FS_Q107-p0.1">Q. 107. OF THE NEW LAW AS COMPARED WITH THE OLD (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3>
14814 <div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="div4">
14815 <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><p id="FS_Q107-p3"><a href="#FS_Q107_A1"> (1) Whether the New Law is distinct from the Old Law?</a></p><p id="FS_Q107-p4"><a href="#FS_Q107_A2"> (2) Whether the New Law fulfils the Old?</a></p><p id="FS_Q107-p5"><a href="#FS_Q107_A3"> (3) Whether the New Law is contained in the Old?</a></p><p id="FS_Q107-p6"><a href="#FS_Q107_A4"> (4) Which is the more burdensome, the New or the Old Law?</a></p>
14816 </div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 107 pr."><a name="38283" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38283] Iª-IIae q. 107 pr.</span></a> Deinde
14817 considerandum est de comparatione legis novae ad legem veterem. Et
14818 circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum lex nova sit alia lex a
14819 lege veteri. Secundo, utrum lex nova impleat veterem. Tertio, utrum
14820 lex nova contineatur in veteri. Quarto, quae sit gravior, utrum lex
14821 nova vel vetus.</p></div></div></div>
14822 <div id="FS_Q107_A1" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q107_A1-p0.1">Q. 107. A. 1. Whether the New Law is distinct from the Old Law?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q107_A1-p2">
14823 <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:
14824 since "without faith it is impossible to please God," according to
14825 <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
14826 <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.
14827 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 107 a. 1 arg. 1"><a name="38284" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38284] Iª-IIae q. 107 a. 1 arg. 1</span></a> Ad primum
14828 sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex nova non sit alia a lege veteri.
14829 Utraque enim lex datur fidem Dei habentibus, quia <i>sine fide
14830 impossibile est placere Deo</i>, ut dicitur Heb. XI. Sed eadem
14831 fides est antiquorum et modernorum, ut dicitur in Glossa Matth.
14832 XXI. Ergo etiam est eadem lex.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q107_A1-p3">
14833 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, Augustine says (Contra Adamant. Manich. discip. xvii) that "there is little difference between the Law and Gospel"
14834 [*The 'little difference' refers to the Latin words 'timor' and 'amor']---"fear and love." But the New and Old Laws cannot
14835 be differentiated in respect of these two things: since even the Old Law comprised precepts of charity: "Thou shalt love thy
14836 neighbor" (
14837 <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"
14838 (
14839 <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),
14840 viz. that "the Old Testament contained temporal promises, whereas the New Testament contains spiritual and eternal promises":
14841 since even the New Testament contains temporal promises, according to
14842 <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
14843 they hoped in promises spiritual and eternal, according to
14844 <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
14845 that the New Law is not distinct from the Old.
14846 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 107 a. 1 arg. 2"><a name="38285" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38285] Iª-IIae q. 107 a. 1 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
14847 Augustinus dicit, in libro contra Adamantum Manich. Discip., quod
14848 <i>brevis differentia legis et Evangelii est timor et amor</i>. Sed
14849 secundum haec duo nova lex et vetus diversificari non possunt, quia
14850 etiam in veteri lege proponuntur praecepta caritatis; Lev. XIX,
14851 <i>diliges proximum tuum</i>; et Deut. VI, <i>diliges dominum Deum
14852 tuum</i>. Similiter etiam diversificari non possunt per aliam
14853 differentiam quam Augustinus assignat, contra Faustum, quod
14854 <i>vetus testamentum habuit promissa temporalia, novum testamentum
14855 habet promissa spiritualia et aeterna</i>. Quia etiam in novo
14856 testamento promittuntur aliqua promissa temporalia; secundum illud
14857 Marc. X, <i>accipiet centies tantum in tempore hoc, domos et
14858 fratres,</i> et cetera. Et in veteri testamento sperabantur
14859 promissa spiritualia et aeterna; secundum illud ad Heb. XI, <i>nunc
14860 autem meliorem patriam appetunt, idest caelestem</i>, quod dicitur
14861 de antiquis patribus. Ergo videtur quod nova lex non sit alia a
14862 veteri.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q107_A1-p4">
14863 <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"
14864 (
14865 <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
14866 <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.
14867 In like manner the New Law is a law of works: since it is written (
14868 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A1-p4.3" href="./asv.html#Matt.5.44" target="asv">Mat. 5:44</a>): "Do good to
14869 them that hate you"; and (
14870 <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.
14871 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 107 a. 1 arg. 3"><a name="38286" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38286] Iª-IIae q. 107 a. 1 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
14872 apostolus videtur distinguere utramque legem, ad Rom. III, veterem
14873 legem appellans legem factorum, legem vero novam appellans legem
14874 fidei. Sed lex vetus fuit etiam fidei; secundum illud Heb. XI,
14875 <i>omnes testimonio fidei probati sunt</i>, quod dicit de patribus
14876 veteris testamenti. Similiter etiam lex nova est lex factorum,
14877 dicitur enim Matth. V, <i>benefacite his qui oderunt vos</i>; et
14878 Luc. XXII, <i>hoc facite in meam commemorationem</i>. Ergo lex nova
14879 non est alia a lege veteri.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q107_A1-p5">
14880 <b>On the contrary,</b> the Apostle says (
14881 <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
14882 New Testament is distinct from that of the Old, as the Apostle shows in the same place. Therefore the Law is also distinct.
14883 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 107 a. 1 s. c."><a name="38287" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38287] Iª-IIae q. 107 a. 1 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
14884 est quod apostolus dicit, ad Heb. VII, <i>translato sacerdotio,
14885 necesse est ut legis translatio fiat</i>. Sed aliud est sacerdotium
14886 novi et veteris testamenti, ut ibidem apostolus probat. Ergo est
14887 etiam alia lex.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q107_A1-p6">
14888 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
14889 <a href="#FS_Q90_A2" id="FS_Q107_A1-p6.1" shape="rect">Q[90], A[2]</a>;
14890 <a href="#FS_Q91_A4" id="FS_Q107_A1-p6.2" shape="rect"> 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
14891 the point of view of the end. First, through being ordained to different ends: and this difference will be specific, especially
14892 if such ends are proximate. Secondly, by reason of being closely or remotely connected with the end. Thus it is clear
14893 that movements differ in species through being directed to different terms: while according as one part of a movement is nearer
14894 to the term than another part, the difference of perfect and imperfect movement is assessed.
14895 </p><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
14896 the fact that they are ordained to diverse ends: thus a state-law ordained to democratic government, would differ specifically
14897 from a law ordained to government by the aristocracy. Secondly, two laws may be distinguished from one another, through one
14898 of them being more closely connected with the end, and the other more remotely: thus in one and the same
14899 state there is one law enjoined on men of mature age, who can forthwith accomplish that which pertains to the common good;
14900 and another law regulating the education of children who need to be taught how they are to achieve manly deeds later on.
14901 </p><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
14902 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
14903 <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
14904 New Law is distinct from the Old Law: because the Old Law is like a pedagogue of
14905 children, as the Apostle says (
14906 <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 (
14907 <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."
14908 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 107 a. 1 co."><a name="38288" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38288] Iª-IIae q. 107 a. 1 co.</span></a> Respondeo
14909 dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, omnis lex ordinat
14910 conversationem humanam in ordine ad aliquem finem. Ea autem quae
14911 ordinantur ad finem, secundum rationem finis dupliciter
14912 diversificari possunt. Uno modo, quia ordinantur ad diversos fines,
14913 et haec est diversitas speciei, maxime si sit finis proximus. Alio
14914 modo, secundum propinquitatem ad finem vel distantiam ab ipso.
14915 Sicut patet quod motus differunt specie secundum quod ordinantur ad
14916 diversos terminos, secundum vero quod una pars motus est
14917 propinquior termino quam alia, attenditur differentia in motu
14918 secundum perfectum et imperfectum. Sic ergo duae leges distingui
14919 possunt dupliciter. Uno modo, quasi omnino diversae, utpote
14920 ordinatae ad diversos fines, sicut lex civitatis quae esset
14921 ordinata ad hoc quod populus dominaretur, esset specie differens ab
14922 illa lege quae esset ad hoc ordinata quod optimates civitatis
14923 dominarentur. Alio modo duae leges distingui possunt secundum quod
14924 una propinquius ordinat ad finem, alia vero remotius. Puta in una
14925 et eadem civitate dicitur alia lex quae imponitur viris perfectis,
14926 qui statim possunt exequi ea quae pertinent ad bonum commune; et
14927 alia lex de disciplina puerorum, qui sunt instruendi qualiter
14928 postmodum opera virorum exequantur. Dicendum est ergo quod secundum
14929 primum modum, lex nova non est alia a lege veteri, quia utriusque
14930 est unus finis, scilicet ut homines subdantur Deo; est autem unus
14931 Deus et novi et veteris testamenti, secundum illud Rom. III,
14932 <i>unus Deus est qui iustificat circumcisionem ex fide, et
14933 praeputium per fidem</i>. Alio modo, lex nova est alia a veteri.
14934 Quia lex vetus est quasi paedagogus puerorum, ut apostolus dicit,
14935 ad Gal. III, lex autem nova est lex perfectionis, quia est lex
14936 caritatis, de qua apostolus dicit, ad Colos. III, quod est vinculum
14937 perfectionis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q107_A1-p9">
14938 <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 (
14939 <a href="FS_v.html#FS_Q62_A2" id="FS_Q107_A1-p9.1" shape="rect">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
14940 Old and in the New Law: since what they believed as future, we believe as fact.
14941 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 107 a. 1 ad 1"><a name="38289" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38289] Iª-IIae q. 107 a. 1 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
14942 ergo dicendum quod unitas fidei utriusque testamenti attestatur
14943 unitati finis, dictum est enim supra quod obiectum theologicarum
14944 virtutum, inter quas est fides, est finis ultimus. Sed tamen fides
14945 habuit alium statum in veteri et in nova lege, nam quod illi
14946 credebant futurum, nos credimus factum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q107_A1-p10">
14947 <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
14948 the precepts of every law prescribe acts of virtue. Now the imperfect, who as yet are not possessed of a virtuous habit, are
14949 directed in one way to perform virtuous acts, while those who are perfected by the possession of virtuous habits are directed
14950 in another way. For those who as yet are not endowed with virtuous habits, are
14951 directed to the performance of virtuous acts by reason of some outward cause: for instance, by the threat of punishment, or
14952 the promise of some extrinsic rewards, such as honor, riches, or the like. Hence the Old Law, which was given to men who were
14953 imperfect, that is, who had not yet received spiritual grace, was called the "law of fear," inasmuch as it induced men to
14954 observe its commandments by threatening them with penalties; and is spoken of as containing temporal promises. On the other
14955 hand, those who are possessed of virtue, are inclined to do virtuous deeds through love of virtue, not on account of some
14956 extrinsic punishment or reward. Hence the New Law which derives its pre-eminence from the spiritual grace instilled into our
14957 hearts, is called the "Law of love": and it is described as containing spiritual and eternal promises, which are objects of
14958 the virtues, chiefly of charity. Accordingly such persons are inclined of themselves to those objects, not as to something
14959 foreign but as to something of their own. For this reason, too, the Old Law is described as "restraining the hand, not the
14960 will" [*Peter Lombard, Sent. iii, D, 40]; since when a man refrains from some sins through fear of being punished, his will
14961 does not shrink simply from sin, as does the will of a man who refrains from sin through love of righteousness: and hence
14962 the New Law, which is the Law of love, is said to restrain the will.
14963 </p><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
14964 chiefly to spiritual and eternal promises: and in this respect they belonged to the New Law. In like manner in the New Testament
14965 there are some carnal men who have not yet attained to the perfection of the New Law; and these it was necessary, even under
14966 the New Testament, to lead to virtuous action by the fear of punishment and by temporal promises.
14967 </p><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 .
14968 . . is spread abroad in our hearts" (
14969 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A1-p12.1" href="./asv.html#Rom.5.5" target="asv">Rom. 5:5</a>).
14970 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 107 a. 1 ad 2"><a name="38290" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38290] Iª-IIae q. 107 a. 1 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
14971 dicendum quod omnes differentiae quae assignantur inter novam legem
14972 et veterem, accipiuntur secundum perfectum et imperfectum.
14973 Praecepta enim legis cuiuslibet dantur de actibus virtutum. Ad
14974 operanda autem virtutum opera aliter inclinantur imperfecti, qui
14975 nondum habent virtutis habitum; et aliter illi qui sunt per habitum
14976 virtutis perfecti. Illi enim qui nondum habent habitum virtutis,
14977 inclinantur ad agendum virtutis opera ex aliqua causa extrinseca,
14978 puta ex comminatione poenarum, vel ex promissione aliquarum
14979 extrinsecarum remunerationum, puta honoris vel divitiarum vel
14980 alicuius huiusmodi. Et ideo lex vetus, quae dabatur imperfectis,
14981 idest nondum consecutis gratiam spiritualem, dicebatur lex timoris,
14982 inquantum inducebat ad observantiam praeceptorum per comminationem
14983 quarundam poenarum. Et dicitur habere temporalia quaedam promissa.
14984 Illi autem qui habent virtutem, inclinantur ad virtutis opera
14985 agenda propter amorem virtutis, non propter aliquam poenam aut
14986 remunerationem extrinsecam. Et ideo lex nova, cuius principalitas
14987 consistit in ipsa spirituali gratia indita cordibus, dicitur lex
14988 amoris. Et dicitur habere promissa spiritualia et aeterna, quae
14989 sunt obiecta virtutis, praecipue caritatis. Et ita per se in ea
14990 inclinantur, non quasi in extranea, sed quasi in propria. Et
14991 propter hoc etiam lex vetus dicitur cohibere manum, non animum,
14992 quia qui timore poenae ab aliquo peccato abstinet, non simpliciter
14993 eius voluntas a peccato recedit, sicut recedit voluntas eius qui
14994 amore iustitiae abstinet a peccato. Et propter hoc lex nova, quae
14995 est lex amoris, dicitur animum cohibere. Fuerunt tamen aliqui in
14996 statu veteris testamenti habentes caritatem et gratiam spiritus
14997 sancti, qui principaliter expectabant promissiones spirituales et
14998 aeternas. Et secundum hoc pertinebant ad legem novam. Similiter
14999 etiam in novo testamento sunt aliqui carnales nondum pertingentes
15000 ad perfectionem novae legis, quos oportuit etiam in novo testamento
15001 induci ad virtutis opera per timorem poenarum, et per aliqua
15002 temporalia promissa. Lex autem vetus etsi praecepta caritatis
15003 daret, non tamen per eam dabatur spiritus sanctus, per quem
15004 diffunditur caritas in cordibus nostris, ut dicitur Rom. V.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q107_A1-p13">
15005 <b>Reply to Objection 3:</b> As stated above (
15006 <a href="#FS_Q106_A1" id="FS_Q107_A1-p13.1" shape="rect">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
15007 inwardly to believers, and for this reason is called the grace of faith. Nevertheless it consists secondarily in certain deeds,
15008 moral and sacramental: but the New Law does not consist chiefly in these latter things, as did the Old Law. As to those under
15009 the Old Testament who
15010 through faith were acceptable to God, in this respect they belonged to the New Testament: for they were not justified except
15011 through faith in Christ, Who is the Author of the New Testament. Hence of Moses the Apostle says (
15012 <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."
15013 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 107 a. 1 ad 3"><a name="38291" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38291] Iª-IIae q. 107 a. 1 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
15014 dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, lex nova dicitur lex fidei,
15015 inquantum eius principalitas consistit in ipsa gratia quae interius
15016 datur credentibus, unde dicitur gratia fidei. Habet autem
15017 secundario aliqua facta et moralia et sacramentalia, sed in his non
15018 consistit principalitas legis novae, sicut principalitas veteris
15019 legis in eis consistebat. Illi autem qui in veteri testamento Deo
15020 fuerunt accepti per fidem, secundum hoc ad novum testamentum
15021 pertinebant, non enim iustificabantur nisi per fidem Christi, qui
15022 est auctor novi testamenti. Unde et de Moyse dicit apostolus, ad
15023 Heb. XI, quod <i>maiores divitias aestimabat thesauro Aegyptiorum,
15024 improperium Christi</i>.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q107_A2" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q107_A2-p0.1">Q. 107. A. 2. Whether the New Law fulfils the Old?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q107_A2-p2">
15025 <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
15026 or excludes the observances of the Old Law: for the Apostle says (
15027 <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.
15028 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 107 a. 2 arg. 1"><a name="38292" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38292] Iª-IIae q. 107 a. 2 arg. 1</span></a> Ad
15029 secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex nova legem veterem non
15030 impleat. Impletio enim contrariatur evacuationi. Sed lex nova
15031 evacuat, vel excludit observantias legis veteris, dicit enim
15032 apostolus, ad Gal. V, <i>si circumcidimini, Christus nihil vobis
15033 proderit</i>. Ergo lex nova non est impletiva veteris legis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q107_A2-p3">
15034 <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
15035 to precepts of the Old Law. For we read (
15036 <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.
15037 But I say to you that whosoever shall put away his wife . . . maketh her to commit adultery." Furthermore, the same evidently
15038 applies to
15039 the prohibition against swearing, against retaliation, and against hating one's enemies. In like manner Our Lord seems to
15040 have done away with the precepts of the Old Law relating to the different kinds of foods (
15041 <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
15042 the New Law is not a fulfilment of the Old.
15043 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 107 a. 2 arg. 2"><a name="38293" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38293] Iª-IIae q. 107 a. 2 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
15044 contrarium non est impletivum sui contrarii. Sed dominus in lege
15045 nova proposuit quaedam praecepta contraria praeceptis veteris
15046 legis. Dicitur enim Matth. V, <i>audistis quia dictum est antiquis,
15047 quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam, det ei libellum repudii. Ego autem
15048 dico vobis, quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam, facit eam
15049 moechari</i>. Et idem consequenter patet in prohibitione iuramenti,
15050 et etiam in prohibitione talionis, et in odio inimicorum. Similiter
15051 etiam videtur dominus exclusisse praecepta veteris legis de
15052 discretione ciborum, Matth. XV, <i>non quod intrat in os,
15053 coinquinat hominem</i>. Ergo lex nova non est impletiva
15054 veteris.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q107_A2-p4">
15055 <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
15056 the leper (
15057 <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
15058 (
15059 <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
15060 by Christ is not a fulfilment of the
15061 Old.
15062 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 107 a. 2 arg. 3"><a name="38294" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38294] Iª-IIae q. 107 a. 2 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
15063 quicumque contra legem agit, non implet legem. Sed Christus in
15064 aliquibus contra legem fecit. Tetigit enim leprosum, ut dicitur
15065 Matth. VIII, quod erat contra legem. Similiter etiam videtur
15066 sabbatum pluries violasse, unde de eo dicebant Iudaei, Ioan. IX,
15067 <i>non est hic homo a Deo, qui sabbatum non custodit</i>. Ergo
15068 Christus non implevit legem. Et ita lex nova data a Christo, non
15069 est veteris impletiva.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q107_A2-p5">
15070 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, the Old Law contained precepts, moral, ceremonial, and judicial, as stated above (
15071 <a href="#FS_Q99_A4" id="FS_Q107_A2-p5.1" shape="rect">Q[99], A[4]</a>). But Our Lord (
15072 <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
15073 the New Law is not a complete fulfilment of the Old.
15074 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 107 a. 2 arg. 4"><a name="38295" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38295] Iª-IIae q. 107 a. 2 arg. 4</span></a> Praeterea,
15075 in veteri lege continebantur praecepta moralia, caeremonialia et
15076 iudicialia, ut supra dictum est. Sed dominus, Matth. V, ubi quantum
15077 ad aliqua legem implevit, nullam mentionem videtur facere de
15078 iudicialibus et caeremonialibus. Ergo videtur quod lex nova non sit
15079 totaliter veteris impletiva.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q107_A2-p6">
15080 <b>On the contrary,</b> Our Lord said (
15081 <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 (
15082 <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."
15083 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 107 a. 2 s. c."><a name="38296" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38296] Iª-IIae q. 107 a. 2 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
15084 est quod dominus dicit, Matth. V, <i>non veni solvere legem, sed
15085 adimplere</i>. Et postea, subdit, <i>iota unum, aut unus apex, non
15086 praeteribit a lege, donec omnia fiant</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q107_A2-p7">
15087 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above
15088 <a href="#FS_Q107_A1" id="FS_Q107_A2-p7.1" shape="rect">(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
15089 in the imperfect. And accordingly the New Law fulfils the Old by supplying that which was lacking in the Old Law.
15090 </p><p id="FS_Q107_A2-p8"> Now two things of every law is to make men righteous and virtuous, as was stated above (
15091 <a href="#FS_Q92_A1" id="FS_Q107_A2-p8.1" shape="rect">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
15092 foreshadowed it by certain ceremonial actions, and promised it in words. And in this respect, the New Law fulfils the Old
15093 by justifying men through the power of Christ's Passion. This is what the Apostle says (
15094 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A2-p8.2" href="./asv.html#Rom.8.3" target="asv">Rom.
15095 8:3,4
15096 </a>): "What the Law could not do . . . God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh . . . hath condemned sin in the
15097 flesh, that the justification of the Law might be fulfilled in us." And in this respect, the New Law gives what the Old Law
15098 promised, according to
15099 <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
15100 of God are in Him, 'It is'."] Again, in this respect, it also fulfils
15101 what the Old Law foreshadowed. Hence it is written (
15102 <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,
15103 the reality is found in Christ. Wherefore the New Law is called the law of reality; whereas the Old Law is called the law
15104 of shadow or of figure.
15105 </p><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
15106 to be circumcised and to fulfil the other legal observances, which were binding for the time being; according to
15107 <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
15108 sense of the Law. This is clear in the case of murder and adultery, the prohibition of which
15109 the Scribes and Pharisees thought to refer only to the exterior act: wherefore Our Lord fulfilled the Law by showing that
15110 the prohibition extended also to the interior acts of sins. Secondly, Our Lord fulfilled the precepts of the Law by prescribing
15111 the safest way of complying with the statutes of the Old Law. Thus the Old Law forbade perjury: and this is more safely avoided,
15112 by abstaining altogether from swearing, save in cases of urgency. Thirdly, Our Lord fulfilled the precepts of the Law,
15113 by adding some counsels of perfection: this is clearly seen in
15114 <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:
15115 If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell whatsoever thou hast," etc. [*St. Thomas combines
15116 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A2-p9.3" href="./asv.html#Matt.19.21" target="asv"> Mat. 19:21 </a>with
15117 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q107_A2-p9.4" href="./asv.html#Mark.10.21" target="asv"> Mk. 10:21</a>].
15118 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 107 a. 2 co."><a name="38297" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38297] Iª-IIae q. 107 a. 2 co.</span></a> Respondeo
15119 dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, lex nova comparatur ad veterem
15120 sicut perfectum ad imperfectum. Omne autem perfectum adimplet id
15121 quod imperfecto deest. Et secundum hoc lex nova adimplet veterem
15122 legem, inquantum supplet illud quod veteri legi deerat. In veteri
15123 autem lege duo possunt considerari, scilicet finis; et praecepta
15124 contenta in lege. Finis vero cuiuslibet legis est ut homines
15125 efficiantur iusti et virtuosi, ut supra dictum est. Unde et finis
15126 veteris legis erat iustificatio hominum. Quam quidem lex efficere
15127 non poterat, sed figurabat quibusdam caeremonialibus factis, et
15128 promittebat verbis. Et quantum ad hoc, lex nova implet veterem
15129 legem iustificando virtute passionis Christi. Et hoc est quod
15130 apostolus dicit, ad Rom. VIII, <i>quod impossibile erat legi, Deus,
15131 filium suum mittens in similitudinem carnis peccati, damnavit
15132 peccatum in carne, ut iustificatio legis impleretur in nobis</i>.
15133 Et quantum ad hoc, lex nova exhibet quod lex vetus promittebat;
15134 secundum illud II ad Cor. I, quotquot promissiones Dei sunt, in
15135 illo est, idest in Christo. Et iterum quantum ad hoc etiam complet
15136 quod vetus lex figurabat. Unde ad Colos. II dicitur de
15137 caeremonialibus quod erant umbra futurorum, corpus autem Christi,
15138 idest, veritas pertinet ad Christum. Unde lex nova dicitur lex
15139 veritatis, lex autem vetus umbrae vel figurae. Praecepta vero
15140 veteris legis adimplevit Christus et opere, et doctrina. Opere
15141 quidem, quia circumcidi voluit, et alia legalia observare, quae
15142 erant illo tempore observanda; secundum illud Gal. IV, <i>factum
15143 sub lege</i>. Sua autem doctrina adimplevit praecepta legis
15144 tripliciter. Primo quidem, verum intellectum legis exprimendo.
15145 Sicut patet in homicidio et adulterio, in quorum prohibitione
15146 Scribae et Pharisaei non intelligebant nisi exteriorem actum
15147 prohibitum, unde dominus legem adimplevit, ostendendo etiam
15148 interiores actus peccatorum cadere sub prohibitione. Secundo,
15149 adimplevit dominus praecepta legis, ordinando quomodo tutius
15150 observaretur quod lex vetus statuerat. Sicut lex vetus statuerat ut
15151 homo non peiuraret, et hoc tutius observatur si omnino a iuramento
15152 abstineat, nisi in casu necessitatis. Tertio, adimplevit dominus
15153 praecepta legis, superaddendo quaedam perfectionis consilia, ut
15154 patet Matth. XIX, ubi dominus dicenti se observasse praecepta
15155 veteris legis, dicit, unum tibi deest. <i>Si vis perfectus esse,
15156 vade et vende omnia quae habes,</i> et cetera.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q107_A2-p10">
15157 <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 (
15158 <a href="#FS_Q103_A3" id="FS_Q107_A2-p10.1" shape="rect">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
15159 when those things were accomplished which they foreshadowed, it follows that they are no longer to be observed: for it they
15160 were to be observed, this would mean that
15161 something is still to be accomplished and is not yet fulfilled. Thus the promise of a future gift holds no longer when it
15162 has been fulfilled by the presentation of the gift. In this way the legal ceremonies are abolished by being fulfilled.
15163 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 107 a. 2 ad 1"><a name="38298" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38298] Iª-IIae q. 107 a. 2 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
15164 ergo dicendum quod lex nova non evacuat observantiam veteris legis
15165 nisi quantum ad caeremonialia, ut supra habitum est. Haec autem
15166 erant in figuram futuri. Unde ex hoc ipso quod caeremonialia
15167 praecepta sunt impleta, perfectis his quae figurabantur, non sunt
15168 ulterius observanda, quia si observarentur, adhuc significaretur
15169 aliquid ut futurum et non impletum. Sicut etiam promissio futuri
15170 doni locum iam non habet, promissione iam impleta per doni
15171 exhibitionem et per hunc modum, caeremoniae legis tolluntur cum
15172 implentur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q107_A2-p11">
15173 <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
15174 what Our Lord commanded about a man not putting away his wife, is not contrary to what the Law prescribed. "For the Law did
15175 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
15176 Law was unwilling that a man should put away his wife, since it prescribed a delay,
15177 so that excessive eagerness for divorce might cease through being weakened during the writing of the bill. Hence Our Lord,
15178 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."
15179 The same applies to the prohibition about swearing, as stated above. The same is also clear with respect to the prohibition
15180 of retaliation. For the Law fixed a limit to revenge, by forbidding men to seek vengeance unreasonably: whereas Our Lord
15181 deprived them of vengeance more completely by commanding them to abstain from it altogether. With regard to the hatred of
15182 one's enemies, He dispelled the false interpretation of the Pharisees, by admonishing us to hate, not the person, but his
15183 sin. As to discriminating between various foods, which was a ceremonial matter, Our Lord did not forbid this to be observed:
15184 but He showed that no foods are naturally unclean, but only in token of something else, as stated above (
15185 <a href="#FS_Q102_A6" id="FS_Q107_A2-p11.1" shape="rect">Q[102], A[6]</a>, ad 1).
15186 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 107 a. 2 ad 2"><a name="38299" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38299] Iª-IIae q. 107 a. 2 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
15187 dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, contra Faustum, praecepta
15188 illa domini non sunt contraria praeceptis veteris legis <i>quod
15189 enim dominus praecepit de uxore non dimittenda, non est contrarium
15190 ei quod lex praecepit. Neque enim ait lex, qui voluerit, dimittat
15191 uxorem; cui esset contrarium non dimittere. Sed utique nolebat
15192 dimitti uxorem a viro, qui hanc interposuit moram, ut in dissidium
15193 animus praeceps libelli conscriptione refractus absisteret. Unde
15194 dominus, ad hoc confirmandum ut non facile uxor dimittatur, solam
15195 causam fornicationis excepit</i>. Et idem etiam dicendum est in
15196 prohibitione iuramenti, sicut dictum est. Et idem etiam patet in
15197 prohibitione talionis. Taxavit enim modum vindictae lex, ut non
15198 procederetur ad immoderatam vindictam, a qua dominus perfectius
15199 removit eum quem monuit omnino a vindicta abstinere. Circa odium
15200 vero inimicorum, removit falsum Pharisaeorum intellectum, nos
15201 monens ut persona odio non haberetur, sed culpa. Circa discretionem
15202 vero ciborum, quae caeremonialis erat, dominus non mandavit ut tunc
15203 non observaretur, sed ostendit quod nulli cibi secundum suam
15204 naturam erant immundi, sed solum secundum figuram, ut supra dictum
15205 est.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q107_A2-p12">
15206 <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
15207 also by touching the dead, as stated above (
15208 <a href="#FS_Q102_A5" id="FS_Q107_A2-p12.1" shape="rect">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,
15209 He did not break the sabbath in reality, as the Master Himself shows in the Gospel: both because He worked miracles by His
15210 Divine power, which is ever active among things; and because He worked miracles by His Divine power, which is ever active
15211 among things; and because His works were concerned with the salvation of man, while the Pharisees were concerned for the well-being
15212 of animals even on the sabbath; and again because on account of urgency He excused His disciples for gathering the ears of
15213 corn on the sabbath. But He did seem to break the sabbath according to the superstitious interpretation of the Pharisees,
15214 who thought that man ought to abstain from doing even works of kindness on the sabbath; which was contrary to the intention
15215 of the Law.
15216 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 107 a. 2 ad 3"><a name="38300" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38300] Iª-IIae q. 107 a. 2 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
15217 dicendum quod tactus leprosi erat prohibitus in lege, quia ex hoc
15218 incurrebat homo quandam irregularitatis immunditiam, sicut et ex
15219 tactu mortui, ut supra dictum est. Sed dominus, qui erat mundator
15220 leprosi, immunditiam incurrere non poterat. Per ea autem quae fecit
15221 in sabbato, sabbatum non solvit secundum rei veritatem, sicut ipse
15222 magister in Evangelio ostendit, tum quia operabatur miracula
15223 virtute divina, quae semper operatur in rebus; tum quia salutis
15224 humanae opera faciebat, cum Pharisaei etiam saluti animalium in die
15225 sabbati providerent; tum quia etiam ratione necessitatis discipulos
15226 excusavit in sabbato spicas colligentes. Sed videbatur solvere
15227 secundum superstitiosum intellectum Pharisaeorum, qui credebant
15228 etiam a salubribus operibus esse in die sabbati abstinendum, quod
15229 erat contra intentionem legis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q107_A2-p13">
15230 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> The reason why the ceremonial precepts of the Law are not mentioned in
15231 <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
15232 that of retaliation: so that what He said about it should refer to all the others. With regard to this precept, He taught
15233 that the intention of the Law was that retaliation should be sought out of love of justice, and not as a punishment out of
15234 revengeful spite, which He forbade, admonishing man to be ready to suffer yet greater insults; and this remains still in the
15235 New Law.
15236 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 107 a. 2 ad 4"><a name="38301" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38301] Iª-IIae q. 107 a. 2 ad 4</span></a> Ad quartum
15237 dicendum quod caeremonialia praecepta legis non commemorantur
15238 Matth. V, quia eorum observantia totaliter excluditur per
15239 impletionem, ut dictum est. De iudicialibus vero praeceptis
15240 commemoravit praeceptum talionis, ut quod de hoc diceretur, de
15241 omnibus aliis esset intelligendum. In quo quidem praecepto docuit
15242 legis intentionem non esse ad hoc quod poena talionis quaereretur
15243 propter livorem vindictae, quem ipse excludit, monens quod homo
15244 debet esse paratus etiam maiores iniurias sufferre, sed solum
15245 propter amorem iustitiae. Quod adhuc in nova lege remanet.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q107_A3" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q107_A3-p0.1">Q. 107. A. 3. Whether the New Law is contained in the Old?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q107_A3-p2">
15246 <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
15247 called the "law of faith" (
15248 <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
15249 contained in the Old.
15250 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 107 a. 3 arg. 1"><a name="38302" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38302] Iª-IIae q. 107 a. 3 arg. 1</span></a> Ad tertium
15251 sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex nova in lege veteri non
15252 contineatur. Lex enim nova praecipue in fide consistit, unde
15253 dicitur lex fidei, ut patet Rom. III. Sed multa credenda traduntur
15254 in nova lege quae in veteri non continentur. Ergo lex nova non
15255 continetur in veteri.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q107_A3-p3">
15256 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, a gloss says on
15257 <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
15258 commandments, those contained in the Gospel. Now the greater cannot be contained in the lesser. Therefore the New Law is not
15259 contained in the Old.
15260 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 107 a. 3 arg. 2"><a name="38303" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38303] Iª-IIae q. 107 a. 3 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
15261 quaedam Glossa dicit, Matth. V, super illud, qui solverit unum de
15262 mandatis istis minimis, quod mandata legis sunt minora, in
15263 Evangelio vero sunt mandata maiora. Maius autem non potest
15264 contineri in minori. Ergo lex nova non continetur in veteri.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q107_A3-p4">
15265 <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
15266 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
15267 the New Law is not contained in the Old.
15268 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 107 a. 3 arg. 3"><a name="38304" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38304] Iª-IIae q. 107 a. 3 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
15269 quod continetur in altero, simul habetur habito illo. Si igitur lex
15270 nova contineretur in veteri, sequeretur quod, habita veteri lege,
15271 habeatur et nova. Superfluum igitur fuit, habita veteri lege,
15272 iterum dari novam. Non ergo nova lex continetur in veteri.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q107_A3-p5">
15273 <b>On the contrary,</b> As expressed in
15274 <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.
15275 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 107 a. 3 s. c."><a name="38305" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38305] Iª-IIae q. 107 a. 3 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
15276 est quod, sicut dicitur Ezech. I, <i>rota erat in rota</i>, idest
15277 novum testamentum in veteri, ut Gregorius exponit.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q107_A3-p6">
15278 <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;
15279 as an effect in its cause, or as the complement in that which is incomplete; thus a genus contains its species, and a seed
15280 contains the whole tree, virtually. It is in this way that the New Law is contained in the Old: for it has been stated
15281 <a href="#FS_Q107_A1" id="FS_Q107_A3-p6.1" shape="rect">(A[1])</a> that the New Law is compared to the Old as perfect to imperfect.
15282 Hence Chrysostom, expounding
15283 <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
15284 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,
15285 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.
15286 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 107 a. 3 co."><a name="38306" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38306] Iª-IIae q. 107 a. 3 co.</span></a> Respondeo
15287 dicendum quod aliquid continetur in alio dupliciter. Uno modo, in
15288 actu, sicut locatum in loco. Alio modo, virtute, sicut effectus in
15289 causa, vel complementum in incompleto, sicut genus continet species
15290 potestate, et sicut tota arbor continetur in semine. Et per hunc
15291 modum nova lex continetur in veteri, dictum est enim quod nova lex
15292 comparatur ad veterem sicut perfectum ad imperfectum. Unde
15293 Chrysostomus exponens illud quod habetur Marc. IV, <i>ultro terra
15294 fructificat primum herbam, deinde spicam, deinde plenum frumentum
15295 in spica</i>, sic dicit, <i>primo herbam fructificat in lege
15296 naturae; postmodum spicas in lege Moysi; postea plenum frumentum,
15297 in Evangelio</i>. Sic igitur est lex nova in veteri sicut fructus
15298 in spica.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q107_A3-p7">
15299 <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
15300 as a matter of belief, but implicitly, under a figure. And accordingly, even as to those things which we are bound to believe,
15301 the New Law is contained in the Old.
15302 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 107 a. 3 ad 1"><a name="38307" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38307] Iª-IIae q. 107 a. 3 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
15303 ergo dicendum quod omnia quae credenda traduntur in novo testamento
15304 explicite et aperte, traduntur credenda in veteri testamento, sed
15305 implicite sub figura. Et secundum hoc etiam quantum ad credenda lex
15306 nova continetur in veteri.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q107_A3-p8">
15307 <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.
15308 But as to the substance itself of the precepts of the New Testament, they are all contained in the Old. Hence Augustine says
15309 (Contra Faust. xix, 23,28) that "nearly all Our Lord's admonitions or precepts, where He expressed Himself by saying: 'But
15310 I say unto you,' are to be found also in those ancient books. Yet, since they
15311 thought that murder was only the slaying of the human body, Our Lord declared to them that every wicked impulse to hurt our
15312 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
15313 the New Law are said to be greater than those of the Old. Nothing, however, prevents the greater from being contained in the
15314 lesser virtually; just as a tree is contained in the seed.
15315 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 107 a. 3 ad 2"><a name="38308" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38308] Iª-IIae q. 107 a. 3 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
15316 dicendum quod praecepta novae legis dicuntur esse maiora quam
15317 praecepta veteris legis, quantum ad explicitam manifestationem. Sed
15318 quantum ad ipsam substantiam praeceptorum novi testamenti, omnia
15319 continentur in veteri testamento. Unde Augustinus dicit, contra
15320 Faustum, quod <i>pene omnia quae monuit vel praecepit dominus, ubi
15321 adiungebat, ego autem dico vobis, inveniuntur etiam in illis
15322 veteribus libris. Sed quia non intelligebant homicidium nisi
15323 peremptionem corporis humani, aperuit dominus omnem iniquum motum
15324 ad nocendum fratri, in homicidii genere deputari</i>. Et quantum ad
15325 huiusmodi manifestationes, praecepta novae legis dicuntur maiora
15326 praeceptis veteris legis. Nihil tamen prohibet maius in minori
15327 virtute contineri, sicut arbor continetur in semine.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q107_A3-p9">
15328 <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
15329 to be given.
15330 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 107 a. 3 ad 3"><a name="38309" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38309] Iª-IIae q. 107 a. 3 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
15331 dicendum quod illud quod implicite datum est, oportet explicari. Et
15332 ideo post veterem legem latam, oportuit etiam novam legem dari.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q107_A4" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q107_A4-p0.1">Q. 107. A. 4. Whether the New Law is more burdensome than the Old?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q107_A4-p2">
15333 <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
15334 an unknown author]) say: "The commandments given to Moses are easy to obey: Thou shalt not kill; Thou shalt not commit adultery:
15335 but the commandments of Christ are difficult to accomplish, for instance: Thou shalt not give way to anger, or to lust." Therefore
15336 the New Law is more burdensome than the Old.
15337 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 107 a. 4 arg. 1"><a name="38310" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38310] Iª-IIae q. 107 a. 4 arg. 1</span></a> Ad quartum
15338 sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex nova sit gravior quam lex vetus.
15339 Matth. enim V, super illud, qui solverit unum de mandatis his
15340 minimis, dicit Chrysostomus, <i>mandata Moysi in actu facilia sunt,
15341 non occides, non adulterabis. Mandata autem Christi, idest, non
15342 irascaris, non concupiscas, in actu difficilia sunt</i>. Ergo lex
15343 nova est gravior quam vetus.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q107_A4-p3">
15344 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, it is easier to make use of earthly prosperity than to suffer tribulations. But in the Old Testament observance
15345 of the Law was followed by temporal prosperity, as may be gathered from
15346 <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
15347 <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,"
15348 etc. Therefore the New Law is more burdensome than the Old.
15349 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 107 a. 4 arg. 2"><a name="38311" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38311] Iª-IIae q. 107 a. 4 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
15350 facilius est terrena prosperitate uti quam tribulationes perpeti.
15351 Sed in veteri testamento observationem veteris legis consequebatur
15352 prosperitas temporalis, ut patet Deut. XXVIII. Observatores autem
15353 novae legis consequitur multiplex adversitas, prout dicitur II ad
15354 Cor. VI, <i>exhibeamus nosmetipsos sicut Dei ministros in multa
15355 patientia, in tribulationibus, in necessitatibus, in angustiis,</i>
15356 et cetera. Ergo lex nova est gravior quam lex vetus.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q107_A4-p4">
15357 <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
15358 perjury, while the New Law proscribed even swearing: the Old Law forbade a man to cast off his wife without a bill of divorce,
15359 while the New Law forbade divorce altogether; as is clearly stated in
15360 <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.
15361 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 107 a. 4 arg. 3"><a name="38312" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38312] Iª-IIae q. 107 a. 4 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
15362 quod se habet ex additione ad alterum, videtur esse difficilius.
15363 Sed lex nova se habet ex additione ad veterem. Nam lex vetus
15364 prohibuit periurium, lex nova etiam iuramentum, lex vetus prohibuit
15365 discidium uxoris sine libello repudii, lex autem nova omnino
15366 discidium prohibuit, ut patet Matth. V, secundum expositionem
15367 Augustini. Ergo lex nova est gravior quam vetus.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q107_A4-p5">
15368 <b>On the contrary,</b> It is written (
15369 <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
15370 that labor under the difficulty of observing the Law, and are burdened with the sins of this world." And further on He says
15371 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
15372 Old.
15373 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 107 a. 4 s. c."><a name="38313" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38313] Iª-IIae q. 107 a. 4 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
15374 est quod dicitur Matth. XI, <i>venite ad me omnes qui laboratis et
15375 onerati estis</i>. Quod exponens Hilarius dicit, <i>legis
15376 difficultatibus laborantes, et peccatis saeculi oneratos, ad se
15377 advocat</i>. Et postmodum de iugo Evangelii subdit, <i>iugum enim
15378 meum suave est, et onus meum leve</i>. Ergo lex nova est levior
15379 quam vetus.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q107_A4-p6">
15380 <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
15381 the outward works, which of themselves are, in a way, difficult and burdensome. And in this respect the Old Law is a much
15382 heavier burden than the New: since the Old Law by its numerous ceremonies prescribed many more outward acts than the New Law,
15383 which, in the teaching of Christ and the apostles, added very few precepts to those of the
15384 natural law; although afterwards some were added, through being instituted by the holy Fathers. Even in these Augustine says
15385 that moderation should be observed, lest good conduct should become a burden to the faithful. For he says in reply to the
15386 queries of Januarius (Ep. lv) that, "whereas God in His mercy wished religion to be a free service rendered by the public
15387 solemnization of a small number of most manifest sacraments, certain persons make it a slave's burden; so much so that the
15388 state
15389 of the Jews who were subject to the sacraments of the Law, and not to the presumptuous devices of man, was more tolerable."
15390 </p><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
15391 and pleasure. It is this difficulty that virtue solves: because to act thus is difficult for a man without virtue: but through
15392 virtue it becomes easy for him. In this respect the precepts of the New Law are more burdensome than those of the Old; because
15393 the New Law prohibits certain interior movements of the soul, which were not expressly forbidden in
15394 the Old Law in all cases, although they were forbidden in some, without, however, any punishment being attached to the prohibition.
15395 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
15396 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
15397 not righteous. Accordingly we read also (
15398 <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
15399 words Augustine expounds by saying that "they are not heavy to the man that loveth; whereas they are a burden to him that
15400 loveth not."
15401 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 107 a. 4 co."><a name="38314" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38314] Iª-IIae q. 107 a. 4 co.</span></a> Respondeo
15402 dicendum quod circa opera virtutis, de quibus praecepta legis
15403 dantur, duplex difficultas attendi potest. Una quidem ex parte
15404 exteriorum operum, quae ex seipsis quandam difficultatem habent et
15405 gravitatem. Et quantum ad hoc, lex vetus est multo gravior quam
15406 nova, quia ad plures actus exteriores obligabat lex vetus in
15407 multiplicibus caeremoniis, quam lex nova, quae praeter praecepta
15408 legis naturae, paucissima superaddidit in doctrina Christi et
15409 apostolorum; licet aliqua sint postmodum superaddita ex
15410 institutione sanctorum patrum. In quibus etiam Augustinus dicit
15411 esse moderationem attendendam, ne conversatio fidelium onerosa
15412 reddatur. Dicit enim, ad inquisitiones Ianuarii, de quibusdam, quod
15413 <i>ipsam religionem nostram, quam in manifestissimis et paucissimis
15414 celebrationum sacramentis Dei misericordia voluit esse liberam,
15415 servilibus premunt oneribus, adeo ut tolerabilior sit conditio
15416 Iudaeorum, qui legalibus sacramentis, non humanis praesumptionibus
15417 subiiciuntur</i>. Alia autem difficultas est circa opera virtutum
15418 in interioribus actibus, puta quod aliquis opus virtutis exerceat
15419 prompte et delectabiliter. Et circa hoc difficile est virtus, hoc
15420 enim non habenti virtutem est valde difficile; sed per virtutem
15421 redditur facile. Et quantum ad hoc, praecepta novae legis sunt
15422 graviora praeceptis veteris legis, quia in nova lege prohibentur
15423 interiores motus animi, qui expresse in veteri lege non
15424 prohibebantur in omnibus, etsi in aliquibus prohiberentur; in
15425 quibus tamen prohibendis poena non apponebatur. Hoc autem est
15426 difficillimum non habenti virtutem, sicut etiam philosophus dicit,
15427 in V Ethic., quod operari ea quae iustus operatur, facile est; sed
15428 operari ea eo modo quo iustus operatur, scilicet delectabiliter et
15429 prompte, est difficile non habenti iustitiam. Et sic etiam dicitur
15430 I Ioan. V, quod mandata eius gravia non sunt, quod exponens
15431 Augustinus dicit quod <i>non sunt gravia amanti, sed non amanti
15432 sunt gravia</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q107_A4-p8">
15433 <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.
15434 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 107 a. 4 ad 1"><a name="38315" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38315] Iª-IIae q. 107 a. 4 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
15435 ergo dicendum quod auctoritas illa expresse loquitur de
15436 difficultate novae legis quantum ad expressam cohibitionem
15437 interiorum motuum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q107_A4-p9">
15438 <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,
15439 on account of the love in which the same Law consists: since, as Augustine says (De Verb. Dom., Serm. lxx), "love makes light
15440 and nothing of things that seem arduous and beyond our power."
15441 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 107 a. 4 ad 2"><a name="38316" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38316] Iª-IIae q. 107 a. 4 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
15442 dicendum quod adversitates quas patiuntur observatores novae legis,
15443 non sunt ab ipsa lege impositae. Sed tamen propter amorem, in quo
15444 ipsa lex consistit, faciliter tollerantur, quia sicut Augustinus
15445 dicit, in libro de verbis domini, <i>omnia saeva et immania facilia
15446 et prope nulla efficit amor</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q107_A4-p10">
15447 <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
15448 states [*De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 17,21; xix, 23,26]. Accordingly this does not prove that the New Law is more burdensome,
15449 but rather that it is a lighter burden.
15450 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 107 a. 4 ad 3"><a name="38317" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38317] Iª-IIae q. 107 a. 4 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
15451 dicendum quod illae additiones ad praecepta veteris legis, ad hoc
15452 ordinantur ut facilius impleatur quod vetus lex mandabat, sicut
15453 Augustinus dicit. Et ideo per hoc non ostenditur quod lex nova sit
15454 gravior, sed magis quod sit facilior.</p></div></div></div></div>
15455 <div id="FS_Q108" class="div3">
15456 <h3 id="FS_Q108-p0.1">Q. 108. OF THOSE THINGS THAT ARE CONTAINED IN THE NEW LAW (FOUR ARTICLES)</h3>
15457 <div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="div4">
15458 <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><p id="FS_Q108-p3"><a href="#FS_Q108_A1"> (1) Whether the New Law ought to prescribe or to forbid any outward works?</a></p><p id="FS_Q108-p4"><a href="#FS_Q108_A2"> (2) Whether the New Law makes sufficient provision in prescribing and forbidding external acts?</a></p><p id="FS_Q108-p5"><a href="#FS_Q108_A3"> (3) Whether in the matter of internal acts it directs man sufficiently?</a></p><p id="FS_Q108-p6"><a href="#FS_Q108_A4"> (4) Whether it fittingly adds counsels to precepts?</a></p>
15459 </div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 pr."><a name="38318" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38318] Iª-IIae q. 108 pr.</span></a> Deinde
15460 considerandum est de his quae continentur in lege nova. Et circa
15461 hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum lex nova debeat aliqua opera
15462 exteriora praecipere vel prohibere. Secundo, utrum sufficienter se
15463 habeat in exterioribus actibus praecipiendis vel prohibendis.
15464 Tertio, utrum convenienter instituat homines quantum ad actus
15465 interiores. Quarto, utrum convenienter superaddat consilia
15466 praeceptis.</p></div></div></div>
15467 <div id="FS_Q108_A1" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q108_A1-p0.1">Q. 108. A. 1. Whether the New Law ought to prescribe or prohibit any external acts?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q108_A1-p2">
15468 <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,
15469 according to
15470 <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
15471 only in interior acts, according to
15472 <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
15473 <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
15474 meat and drink; but justice and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost." Therefore the New Law should not prescribe or forbid any
15475 external acts.
15476 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 1 arg. 1"><a name="38319" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38319] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 1 arg. 1</span></a> Ad primum
15477 sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex nova nullos exteriores actus
15478 debeat praecipere vel prohibere. Lex enim nova est Evangelium
15479 regni; secundum illud Matth. XXIV, <i>praedicabitur hoc Evangelium
15480 regni in universo orbe</i>. Sed regnum Dei non consistit in
15481 exterioribus actibus, sed solum in interioribus; secundum illud
15482 Luc. XVII, <i>regnum Dei intra vos est</i>; et Rom. XIV, <i>non est
15483 regnum Dei esca et potus, sed iustitia et pax et gaudium in spiritu
15484 sancto</i>. Ergo lex nova non debet praecipere vel prohibere
15485 aliquos exteriores actus.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q108_A1-p3">
15486 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, the New Law is "the law of the Spirit" (
15487 <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" (
15488 <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
15489 or forbid any external acts.
15490 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 1 arg. 2"><a name="38320" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38320] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 1 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
15491 lex nova est lex spiritus, ut dicitur Rom. VIII. Sed ubi spiritus
15492 domini, ibi libertas, ut dicitur II ad Cor. III. Non est autem
15493 libertas ubi homo obligatur ad aliqua exteriora opera facienda vel
15494 vitanda. Ergo lex nova non continet aliqua praecepta vel
15495 prohibitiones exteriorum actuum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q108_A1-p4">
15496 <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
15497 assigned as the difference between the New and Old Laws that the "Old Law restrains the hand, whereas the New Law curbs the
15498 will" [*Peter Lombard, Sent. iii, D, 40]. Therefore the New Law should not contain prohibitions and commands about exterior
15499 deeds, but only about interior acts.
15500 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 1 arg. 3"><a name="38321" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38321] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 1 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
15501 omnes exteriores actus pertinere intelliguntur ad manum, sicut
15502 interiores actus pertinent ad animum. Sed haec ponitur differentia
15503 inter novam legem et veterem, quod <i>vetus lex cohibet manum, sed
15504 lex nova cohibet animum</i>. Ergo in lege nova non debent poni
15505 prohibitiones et praecepta exteriorum actuum, sed solum
15506 interiorum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q108_A1-p5">
15507 <b>On the contrary,</b> Through the New Law, men are made "children of light": wherefore it is written (
15508 <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
15509 of light and cast aside deeds of darkness, according to
15510 <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
15511 to forbid
15512 certain external acts and prescribe others.
15513 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 1 s. c."><a name="38322" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38322] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 1 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
15514 est quod per legem novam efficiuntur homines filii lucis, unde
15515 dicitur Ioan. XII, <i>credite in lucem, ut filii lucis sitis</i>.
15516 Sed filios lucis decet opera lucis facere, et opera tenebrarum
15517 abiicere; secundum illud Ephes. V, <i>eratis aliquando tenebrae,
15518 nunc autem lux in domino. Ut filii lucis ambulate</i>. Ergo lex
15519 nova quaedam exteriora opera debuit prohibere, et quaedam
15520 praecipere.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q108_A1-p6">
15521 <b>I answer that,</b> As stated above (
15522 <a href="#FS_Q106_A1" id="FS_Q108_A1-p6.1" shape="rect">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.
15523 Now men become receivers of this grace through God's Son made man, Whose humanity grace filled first, and thence flowed forth
15524 to us. Hence it is written (
15525 <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
15526 fulness we all have received, and grace for grace." Hence it is added that "grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." Consequently
15527 it was becoming that the grace flows from the incarnate Word should be given to us by means of certain external sensible objects;
15528 and that from this inward grace, whereby the flesh is subjected to the Spirit, certain external works should ensue.
15529 </p><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.
15530 Such are the sacramental acts which are instituted in the New Law, e.g. Baptism, the Eucharist, and the like.
15531 </p><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
15532 difference. For there are some which are necessarily in keeping with, or in opposition to inward grace consisting in faith
15533 that worketh through love. Such external works are prescribed or forbidden in the New Law; thus confession of faith is prescribed,
15534 and denial of faith is forbidden; for it is written (
15535 <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
15536 shall confess Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father . . . But he that shall deny Me before men, I will also
15537 deny him before My Father." On the other hand, there are works which are not necessarily opposed to, or in keeping with faith
15538 that worketh through love. Such works are not prescribed or forbidden in the New Law, by virtue of its primitive institution;
15539 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
15540 decide what he should do or avoid; and to each superior, to direct his subjects in such matters as regards what they must
15541 do or avoid. Wherefore also in this respect the Gospel is called the "law of liberty" [*Cf. Reply OBJ[2]]: since the Old Law
15542 decided many points and left few to man to decide as he chose.
15543 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 1 co."><a name="38323" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38323] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 1 co.</span></a> Respondeo
15544 dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, principalitas legis novae est
15545 gratia spiritus sancti, quae manifestatur in fide per dilectionem
15546 operante. Hanc autem gratiam consequuntur homines per Dei filium
15547 hominem factum, cuius humanitatem primo replevit gratia, et exinde
15548 est ad nos derivata. Unde dicitur Ioan. I, <i>verbum caro factum
15549 est</i>; et postea subditur, <i>plenum gratiae et veritatis</i>; et
15550 infra, <i>de plenitudine eius nos omnes accepimus, et gratiam pro
15551 gratia</i>. Unde subditur quod gratia et veritas per Iesum Christum
15552 facta est. Et ideo convenit ut per aliqua exteriora sensibilia
15553 gratia a verbo incarnato profluens in nos deducatur; et ex hac
15554 interiori gratia, per quam caro spiritui subditur, exteriora
15555 quaedam opera sensibilia producantur. Sic igitur exteriora opera
15556 dupliciter ad gratiam pertinere possunt. Uno modo, sicut inducentia
15557 aliqualiter ad gratiam. Et talia sunt opera sacramentorum quae in
15558 lege nova sunt instituta, sicut Baptismus, Eucharistia, et alia
15559 huiusmodi. Alia vero sunt opera exteriora quae ex instinctu gratiae
15560 producuntur. Et in his est quaedam differentia attendenda. Quaedam
15561 enim habent necessariam convenientiam vel contrarietatem ad
15562 interiorem gratiam, quae in fide per dilectionem operante
15563 consistit. Et huiusmodi exteriora opera sunt praecepta vel
15564 prohibita in lege nova, sicut praecepta est confessio fidei, et
15565 prohibita negatio; dicitur enim Matth. X, <i>qui confitebitur me
15566 coram hominibus, confitebor et ego eum coram patre meo. Qui autem
15567 negaverit me coram hominibus, negabo et ego eum coram patre
15568 meo</i>. Alia vero sunt opera quae non habent necessariam
15569 contrarietatem vel convenientiam ad fidem per dilectionem
15570 operantem. Et talia opera non sunt in nova lege praecepta vel
15571 prohibita ex ipsa prima legis institutione; sed relicta sunt a
15572 legislatore, scilicet Christo, unicuique, secundum quod aliquis
15573 curam gerere debet. Et sic unicuique liberum est circa talia
15574 determinare quid sibi expediat facere vel vitare; et cuicumque
15575 praesidenti, circa talia ordinare suis subditis quid sit in talibus
15576 faciendum vel vitandum. Unde etiam quantum ad hoc dicitur lex
15577 Evangelii lex libertatis, nam lex vetus multa determinabat, et
15578 pauca relinquebat hominum libertati determinanda.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q108_A1-p9">
15579 <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
15580 belong also to the kingdom of God. Thus if the kingdom of God is internal righteousness, peace, and spiritual joy, all external
15581 acts that are incompatible with righteousness, peace, and spiritual joy, are in opposition to the kingdom of God; and consequently
15582 should be forbidden in the Gospel of the kingdom. On the other hand, those
15583 things that are indifferent as regards the aforesaid, for instance, to eat of this or that food, are not part of the kingdom
15584 of God; wherefore the Apostle says before the words quoted: "The kingdom of God is not meat and drink."
15585 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 1 ad 1"><a name="38324" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38324] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 1 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
15586 ergo dicendum quod regnum Dei in interioribus actibus principaliter
15587 consistit, sed ex consequenti etiam ad regnum Dei pertinent omnia
15588 illa sine quibus interiores actus esse non possunt. Sicut si regnum
15589 Dei est interior iustitia et pax et gaudium spirituale, necesse est
15590 quod omnes exteriores actus qui repugnant iustitiae aut paci aut
15591 gaudio spirituali, repugnent regno Dei, et ideo sunt in Evangelio
15592 regni prohibendi. Illa vero quae indifferenter se habent respectu
15593 horum, puta comedere hos vel illos cibos, in his non est regnum
15594 Dei, unde apostolus praemittit, <i>non est regnum Dei esca et
15595 potus</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q108_A1-p10">
15596 <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
15597 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
15598 one as a second nature. If, however, a habit be in opposition to nature, man would not act according to his nature, but according
15599 to some corruption affecting that nature. Since then the grace of the
15600 Holy Ghost is like an interior habit bestowed on us and inclining us to act aright, it makes us do freely those things that
15601 are becoming to grace, and shun what is opposed to it.
15602 </p><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
15603 things, except such as are of themselves necessary or opposed to salvation, and come under the prescription or prohibition
15604 of the law. Secondly, because it also makes us comply freely with these precepts and prohibitions, inasmuch as we do so through
15605 the promptings of grace. It is for these two reasons that the New Law is called "the law of perfect
15606 liberty" (
15607 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A1-p11.1" href="./asv.html#Jas.1.25" target="asv">James 1:25</a>).
15608 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 1 ad 2"><a name="38325" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38325] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 1 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
15609 dicendum quod, secundum philosophum, in I Metaphys., <i>liber est
15610 qui sui causa est</i>. Ille ergo libere aliquid agit qui ex seipso
15611 agit. Quod autem homo agit ex habitu suae naturae convenienti, ex
15612 seipso agit, quia habitus inclinat in modum naturae. Si vero
15613 habitus esset naturae repugnans, homo non ageret secundum quod est
15614 ipse, sed secundum aliquam corruptionem sibi supervenientem. Quia
15615 igitur gratia spiritus sancti est sicut interior habitus nobis
15616 infusus inclinans nos ad recte operandum, facit nos libere operari
15617 ea quae conveniunt gratiae, et vitare ea quae gratiae repugnant.
15618 Sic igitur lex nova dicitur lex libertatis dupliciter. Uno modo,
15619 quia non arctat nos ad facienda vel vitanda aliqua, nisi quae de se
15620 sunt vel necessaria vel repugnantia saluti, quae cadunt sub
15621 praecepto vel prohibitione legis. Secundo, quia huiusmodi etiam
15622 praecepta vel prohibitiones facit nos libere implere, inquantum ex
15623 interiori instinctu gratiae ea implemus. Et propter haec duo lex
15624 nova dicitur lex perfectae libertatis, Iac. I.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q108_A1-p12">
15625 <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
15626 ensue from inward movements.
15627 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 1 ad 3"><a name="38326" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38326] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 1 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
15628 dicendum quod lex nova, cohibendo animum ab inordinatis motibus,
15629 oportet quod etiam cohibeat manum ab inordinatis actibus, qui sunt
15630 effectus interiorum motuum.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q108_A2" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q108_A2-p0.1">Q. 108. A. 2. Whether the New Law made sufficient ordinations about external acts?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q108_A2-p2">
15631 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the New Law made insufficient ordinations about external acts. Because faith that worketh through charity
15632 seems chiefly to belong to the New Law, according to
15633 <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
15634 the New Law declared explicitly certain points of faith which were not set forth explicitly in the Old Law; for instance,
15635 belief in
15636 the Trinity. Therefore it should also have added certain outward moral deeds, which were not fixed in the Old Law.
15637 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 2 arg. 1"><a name="38327" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38327] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 2 arg. 1</span></a> Ad
15638 secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex nova insufficienter
15639 exteriores actus ordinaverit. Ad legem enim novam praecipue
15640 pertinere videtur fides per dilectionem operans; secundum illud ad
15641 Gal. V, <i>in Christo Iesu neque circumcisio aliquid valet neque
15642 praeputium, sed fides quae per dilectionem operatur</i>. Sed lex
15643 nova explicavit quaedam credenda quae non erant in veteri lege
15644 explicita, sicut de fide Trinitatis. Ergo etiam debuit superaddere
15645 aliqua exteriora opera moralia, quae non erant in veteri lege
15646 determinata.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q108_A2-p3">
15647 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, in the Old Law not only were sacraments instituted, but also certain sacred things, as stated above (
15648 <a href="#FS_Q101_A4" id="FS_Q108_A2-p3.1" shape="rect">Q[101], A[4]</a>;
15649 <a href="#FS_Q102_A4" id="FS_Q108_A2-p3.2" shape="rect"> 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
15650 of a temple or of the vessels, or to the celebration of some particular feast. Therefore the New Law made insufficient ordinations
15651 about
15652 external matters.
15653 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 2 arg. 2"><a name="38328" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38328] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 2 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
15654 in veteri lege non solum instituta sunt sacramenta, sed etiam
15655 aliqua sacra, ut supra dictum est. Sed in nova lege, etsi sint
15656 instituta aliqua sacramenta, nulla tamen sacra instituta a domino
15657 videntur, puta quae pertineant vel ad sanctificationem alicuius
15658 templi aut vasorum, vel etiam ad aliquam solemnitatem celebrandam.
15659 Ergo lex nova insufficienter exteriora ordinavit.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q108_A2-p4">
15660 <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
15661 observances pertaining to the people: as was stated above when we were treating of the ceremonial of the Old Law (
15662 <a href="#FS_Q101_A4" id="FS_Q108_A2-p4.1" shape="rect">Q[101], A[4]</a>;
15663 <a href="#FS_Q102_A6" id="FS_Q108_A2-p4.2" shape="rect"> 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
15664 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A2-p4.3" href="./asv.html#Matt.10.9" target="asv"> Mat. 10:9</a>:
15665 "Do not possess gold, nor silver, nor money in your purses," nor other things which are mentioned here and
15666 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A2-p4.4" href="./asv.html#Luke.9" target="asv">Lk. 9</a>,
15667 <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.
15668 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 2 arg. 3"><a name="38329" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38329] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 2 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
15669 in veteri lege, sicut erant quaedam observantiae pertinentes ad Dei
15670 ministros, ita etiam erant quaedam observantiae pertinentes ad
15671 populum; ut supra dictum est, cum de caeremonialibus veteris legis
15672 ageretur. Sed in nova lege videntur aliquae observantiae esse datae
15673 ministris Dei, ut patet Matth. X, <i>nolite possidere aurum neque
15674 argentum, neque pecuniam in zonis vestris</i>, et cetera quae ibi
15675 sequuntur, et quae dicuntur Luc. IX et X. Ergo etiam debuerunt
15676 aliquae observantiae institui in nova lege ad populum fidelem
15677 pertinentes.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q108_A2-p5">
15678 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, in the Old Law, besides moral and ceremonial precepts, there were certain judicial precepts. But in the New Law
15679 there are no judicial precepts. Therefore the New Law made insufficient ordinations about external works.
15680 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 2 arg. 4"><a name="38330" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38330] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 2 arg. 4</span></a> Praeterea,
15681 in veteri lege, praeter moralia et caeremonialia, fuerunt quaedam
15682 iudicialia praecepta. Sed in lege nova non traduntur aliqua
15683 iudicialia praecepta. Ergo lex nova insufficienter exteriora opera
15684 ordinavit.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q108_A2-p6">
15685 <b>On the contrary,</b> Our Lord said (
15686 <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
15687 rock." But a wise builder leaves out nothing that is necessary to the building. Therefore Christ's words contain all things
15688 necessary for man's salvation.
15689 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 2 s. c."><a name="38331" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38331] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 2 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
15690 est quod dominus dicit, Matth. VII, <i>omnis qui audit verba mea
15691 haec et facit ea, assimilabitur viro sapienti qui aedificavit domum
15692 suam supra petram</i>. Sed sapiens aedificator nihil omittit eorum
15693 quae sunt necessaria ad aedificium. Ergo in verbis Christi
15694 sufficienter sunt omnia posita quae pertinent ad salutem
15695 humanam.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q108_A2-p7">
15696 <b>I answer that,</b> as stated above
15697 <a href="#FS_Q108_A1" id="FS_Q108_A2-p7.1" shape="rect">(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.
15698 And since we cannot of ourselves obtain grace, but through Christ alone, hence Christ of Himself instituted the sacraments
15699 whereby we obtain grace: viz. Baptism, Eucharist, Orders of the ministers of the New Law, by the institution of the apostles
15700 and seventy-two disciples, Penance, and
15701 indissoluble Matrimony. He promised Confirmation through the sending of the Holy Ghost: and we read that by His institution
15702 the apostles healed the sick by anointing them with oil (
15703 <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.
15704 </p><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
15705 moral precepts, which also formed part of the Old Law. Hence, in this respect, the New Law had nothing to add as regards external
15706 action. The determination of these works in their relation to the divine worship, belongs to the ceremonial precepts of the
15707 Law; and, in relation to our neighbor, to the judicial precepts, as stated above (
15708 <a href="#FS_Q99_A4" id="FS_Q108_A2-p8.1" shape="rect">Q[99], A[4]</a>). And therefore, since these determinations are not in themselves necessarily connected with inward grace wherein the Law
15709 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
15710 when a precept is given to an individual; others, relating to superiors, temporal or spiritual, referring, namely, to the
15711 common good.
15712 </p><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
15713 those moral precepts which have a necessary connection with virtue, for instance, that one must not kill, or steal, and so
15714 forth.
15715 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 2 co."><a name="38332" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38332] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 2 co.</span></a> Respondeo
15716 dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, lex nova in exterioribus illa
15717 solum praecipere debuit vel prohibere, per quae in gratiam
15718 introducimur, vel quae pertinent ad rectum gratiae usum ex
15719 necessitate. Et quia gratiam ex nobis consequi non possumus, sed
15720 per Christum solum, ideo sacramenta, per quae gratiam consequimur,
15721 ipse dominus instituit per seipsum, scilicet Baptismum,
15722 Eucharistiam, ordinem ministrorum novae legis, instituendo
15723 apostolos et septuaginta duos discipulos, et poenitentiam, et
15724 matrimonium indivisibile. Confirmationem etiam promisit per
15725 spiritus sancti missionem. Ex eius etiam institutione apostoli
15726 leguntur oleo infirmos ungendo sanasse, ut habetur Marc. VI. Quae
15727 sunt novae legis sacramenta. Rectus autem gratiae usus est per
15728 opera caritatis. Quae quidem secundum quod sunt de necessitate
15729 virtutis, pertinent ad praecepta moralia, quae etiam in veteri lege
15730 tradebantur. Unde quantum ad hoc, lex nova super veterem addere non
15731 debuit circa exteriora agenda. Determinatio autem praedictorum
15732 operum in ordine ad cultum Dei, pertinet ad praecepta caeremonialia
15733 legis; in ordine vero ad proximum, ad iudicialia; ut supra dictum
15734 est. Et ideo, quia istae determinationes non sunt secundum se de
15735 necessitate interioris gratiae, in qua lex consistit; idcirco non
15736 cadunt sub praecepto novae legis, sed relinquuntur humano arbitrio;
15737 quaedam quidem quantum ad subditos, quae scilicet pertinent
15738 singillatim ad unumquemque; quaedam vero ad praelatos temporales
15739 vel spirituales, quae scilicet pertinent ad utilitatem communem.
15740 Sic igitur lex nova nulla alia exteriora opera determinare debuit
15741 praecipiendo vel prohibendo, nisi sacramenta, et moralia praecepta
15742 quae de se pertinent ad rationem virtutis, puta non esse
15743 occidendum, non esse furandum, et alia huiusmodi.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q108_A2-p10">
15744 <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
15745 to be bestowed more abundantly, the result was an increase in the number of explicit points of faith. On the other hand, it
15746 is through human reason that we are directed to works of virtue, for it is the rule of human action, as stated above (
15747 <a href="FS_ii.html#FS_Q19_A3" id="FS_Q108_A2-p10.1" shape="rect">Q[19], A[3]</a>;
15748 <a href="FS_v.html#FS_Q63_A2" id="FS_Q108_A2-p10.2" shape="rect"> Q[63], A[2]</a>). Wherefore
15749 in such matters as these there was no need for any precepts to be given besides the moral precepts of the Law, which proceed
15750 from the dictate of reason.
15751 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 2 ad 1"><a name="38333" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38333] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 2 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
15752 ergo dicendum quod ea quae sunt fidei, sunt supra rationem humanam,
15753 unde in ea non possumus pervenire nisi per gratiam. Et ideo,
15754 abundantiori gratia superveniente, oportuit plura credenda
15755 explicari. Sed ad opera virtutum dirigimur per rationem naturalem,
15756 quae est regula quaedam operationis humanae, ut supra dictum est.
15757 Et ideo in his non oportuit aliqua praecepta dari ultra moralia
15758 legis praecepta, quae sunt de dictamine rationis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q108_A2-p11">
15759 <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
15760 to be instituted by Him. But in the sacred things no grace is given: for instance, in the consecration of a temple, an altar
15761 or the like, or, again, in the celebration of feasts. Wherefore Our Lord left the institution of such things to the discretion
15762 of the faithful, since they have not of themselves any necessary connection with
15763 inward grace.
15764 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 2 ad 2"><a name="38334" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38334] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 2 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
15765 dicendum quod in sacramentis novae legis datur gratia, quae non est
15766 nisi a Christo, et ideo oportuit quod ab ipso institutionem
15767 haberent. Sed in sacris non datur aliqua gratia, puta in
15768 consecratione templi vel altaris vel aliorum huiusmodi, aut etiam
15769 in ipsa celebritate solemnitatum. Et ideo talia, quia secundum
15770 seipsa non pertinent ad necessitatem interioris gratiae, dominus
15771 fidelibus instituenda reliquit pro suo arbitrio.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q108_A2-p12">
15772 <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
15773 in two ways. First, following Augustine (De Consensu Evang. 30), as being not commands but permissions. For He permitted them
15774 to set forth to preach without scrip or stick, and so on, since they were empowered to accept their livelihood from those
15775 to whom they preached: wherefore He goes on to say: "For the laborer is worthy of
15776 his hire." Nor is it a sin, but a work of supererogation for a preacher to take means of livelihood with him, without accepting
15777 supplies from those to whom he preaches; as Paul did (
15778 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A2-p12.1" href="./asv.html#iCor.9.4" target="asv">1 Cor. 9:4, </a> seqq.).
15779 </p><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
15780 for the time during which they were sent to preach in Judea before Christ's Passion. For the disciples, being yet as little
15781 children under Christ's care, needed to receive some special commands from Christ, such as all subjects receive from their
15782 superiors: and especially so, since they were to be accustomed little by little to renounce the care of
15783 temporalities, so as to become fitted for the preaching of the Gospel throughout the whole world. Nor must we wonder if He
15784 established certain fixed modes of life, as long as the state of the Old Law endured and the people had not as yet achieved
15785 the perfect liberty of the Spirit. These statutes He abolished shortly before His Passion, as though the disciples had by
15786 their means become sufficiently practiced. Hence He said (
15787 <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
15788 scrip and shoes, did you want anything? But they said: Nothing. Then said He unto them: But now, he that hath a purse, let
15789 him take it, and likewise a scrip." Because the time of perfect liberty was already at hand, when they would be left entirely
15790 to their own judgment in matters not necessarily connected with virtue.
15791 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 2 ad 3"><a name="38335" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38335] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 2 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
15792 dicendum quod illa praecepta dominus dedit apostolis non tanquam
15793 caeremoniales observantias, sed tanquam moralia instituta. Et
15794 possunt intelligi dupliciter. Uno modo, secundum Augustinum, in
15795 libro de consensu Evangelist., ut non sint praecepta, sed
15796 concessiones. Concessit enim eis ut possent pergere ad
15797 praedicationis officium sine pera et baculo et aliis huiusmodi,
15798 tanquam habentes potestatem necessaria vitae accipiendi ab illis
15799 quibus praedicabant, unde subdit, dignus enim est operarius cibo
15800 suo. Non autem peccat, sed supererogat, qui sua portat, ex quibus
15801 vivat in praedicationis officio, non accipiens sumptum ab his
15802 quibus Evangelium praedicat, sicut Paulus fecit. Alio modo possunt
15803 intelligi, secundum aliorum sanctorum expositionem, ut sint quaedam
15804 statuta temporalia apostolis data pro illo tempore quo mittebantur
15805 ad praedicandum in Iudaea ante Christi passionem. Indigebant enim
15806 discipuli, quasi adhuc parvuli sub Christi cura existentes,
15807 accipere aliqua specialia instituta a Christo, sicut et quilibet
15808 subditi a suis praelatis, et praecipue quia erant paulatim
15809 exercitandi ut temporalium sollicitudinem abdicarent, per quod
15810 reddebantur idonei ad hoc quod Evangelium per universum orbem
15811 praedicarent. Nec est mirum si, adhuc durante statu veteris legis,
15812 et nondum perfectam libertatem spiritus consecutis, quosdam
15813 determinatos modos vivendi instituit. Quae quidem statuta,
15814 imminente passione, removit, tanquam discipulis iam per ea
15815 sufficienter exercitatis. Unde Luc. XXII, dixit, <i>quando misi vos
15816 sine sacculo et pera et calceamentis, numquid aliquid defuit vobis?
15817 At illi dixerunt, nihil. Dixit ergo eis, sed nunc qui habet
15818 sacculum, tollat; similiter et peram</i>. Iam enim imminebat tempus
15819 perfectae libertatis, ut totaliter suo dimitterentur arbitrio in
15820 his quae secundum se non pertinent ad necessitatem virtutis.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q108_A2-p14">
15821 <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
15822 common notion of justice. Consequently Our Lord left the judicial precepts to the discretion of those who were to have spiritual
15823 or temporal charge of others. But as regards the judicial precepts of the Old Law, some of them He explained, because they
15824 were misunderstood by the Pharisees, as we shall state later on (A[3], ad 2).
15825 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 2 ad 4"><a name="38336" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38336] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 2 ad 4</span></a> Ad quartum
15826 dicendum quod iudicialia etiam, secundum se considerata, non sunt
15827 de necessitate virtutis quantum ad talem determinationem sed solum
15828 quantum ad communem rationem iustitiae. Et ideo iudicialia
15829 praecepta reliquit dominus disponenda his qui curam aliorum erant
15830 habituri vel spiritualem vel temporalem. Sed circa iudicialia
15831 praecepta veteris legis quaedam explanavit, propter malum
15832 intellectum Pharisaeorum, ut infra dicetur.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q108_A3" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q108_A3-p0.1">Q. 108. A. 3. Whether the New Law directed man sufficiently as regards interior actions?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q108_A3-p2">
15833 <b>Objection 1:</b> It would seem that the New Law directed man insufficiently as regards interior actions. For there are ten commandments of
15834 the decalogue directing man to God and his neighbor. But Our Lord partly fulfilled only three of them: as regards, namely,
15835 the prohibition of murder, of adultery, and of perjury. Therefore it seems that, by omitting to fulfil the other precepts,
15836 He directed man insufficiently.
15837 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 3 arg. 1"><a name="38337" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38337] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 3 arg. 1</span></a> Ad tertium
15838 sic proceditur. Videtur quod circa interiores actus lex nova
15839 insufficienter hominem ordinaverit. Sunt enim decem praecepta
15840 Decalogi ordinantia hominem ad Deum et proximum. Sed dominus solum
15841 circa tria illorum aliquid adimplevit, scilicet circa prohibitionem
15842 homicidii, et circa prohibitionem adulterii, et circa prohibitionem
15843 periurii. Ergo videtur quod insufficienter hominem ordinaverit,
15844 adimpletionem aliorum praeceptorum praetermittens.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q108_A3-p3">
15845 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, as regards the judicial precepts, Our Lord ordained nothing in the Gospel, except in the matter of divorcing of
15846 wife, of punishment by retaliation, and of persecuting one's enemies. But there are many other judicial precepts of the Old
15847 Law, as stated above (
15848 <a href="#FS_Q104_A4" id="FS_Q108_A3-p3.1" shape="rect">Q[104], A[4]</a>;
15849 <a href="#FS_Q105" id="FS_Q108_A3-p3.2" shape="rect"> Q[105])</a>. Therefore, in this respect, He directed human life insufficiently.
15850 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 3 arg. 2"><a name="38338" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38338] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 3 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
15851 dominus nihil ordinavit in Evangelio de iudicialibus praeceptis
15852 nisi circa repudium uxoris, et circa poenam talionis, et circa
15853 persecutionem inimicorum. Sed multa sunt alia iudicialia praecepta
15854 veteris legis, ut supra dictum est. Ergo quantum ad hoc,
15855 insufficienter vitam hominum ordinavit.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q108_A3-p4">
15856 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, in the Old Law, besides moral and judicial, there were ceremonial precepts about which Our Lord made no ordination.
15857 Therefore it seems that He ordained insufficiently.
15858 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 3 arg. 3"><a name="38339" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38339] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 3 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
15859 in veteri lege, praeter praecepta moralia et iudicialia, erant
15860 quaedam caeremonialia. Circa quae dominus nihil ordinavit. Ergo
15861 videtur insufficienter ordinasse.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q108_A3-p5">
15862 <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
15863 are many other temporal goods besides the favor of man: and there are many other good works besides fasting, alms-deeds, and
15864 prayer. Therefore Our Lord unbecomingly taught that only in respect of these three works, and of no other earthly goods ought
15865 we to shun the glory of human favor.
15866 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 3 arg. 4"><a name="38340" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38340] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 3 arg. 4</span></a> Praeterea,
15867 ad interiorem bonam mentis dispositionem pertinet ut nullum bonum
15868 opus homo faciat propter quemcumque temporalem finem. Sed multa
15869 sunt alia temporalia bona quam favor humanus, multa etiam alia sunt
15870 bona opera quam ieiunium, eleemosyna et oratio. Ergo inconveniens
15871 fuit quod dominus docuit solum circa haec tria opera gloriam
15872 favoris humani vitari, et nihil aliud terrenorum bonorum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q108_A3-p6">
15873 <b>Objection 5:</b> Further, solicitude for the necessary means of livelihood is by nature instilled into man, and this solicitude even other
15874 animals share with man: wherefore it is written (
15875 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A3-p6.1" href="./asv.html#Prov.6.6" target="asv">Prov. 6:6</a>,
15876 <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
15877 her food in the harvest." But every command issued against the inclination of nature is an unjust command, forasmuch as it
15878 is contrary to
15879 the law of nature. Therefore it seems that Our Lord unbecomingly forbade solicitude about food and raiment.
15880 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 3 arg. 5"><a name="38341" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38341] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 3 arg. 5</span></a> Praeterea,
15881 naturaliter homini inditum est ut sollicitetur circa ea quae sunt
15882 sibi necessaria ad vivendum, in qua etiam sollicitudine alia
15883 animalia cum homine conveniunt, unde dicitur Prov. VI, <i>vade ad
15884 formicam, o piger, et considera vias eius. Parat in aestate cibum
15885 sibi, et congregat in messe quod comedat</i>. Sed omne praeceptum
15886 quod datur contra inclinationem naturae, est iniquum, utpote contra
15887 legem naturalem existens. Ergo inconvenienter videtur dominus
15888 prohibuisse sollicitudinem victus et vestitus.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q108_A3-p7">
15889 <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
15890 <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
15891 that the New Law directed man insufficiently in the matter of interior acts.
15892 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 3 arg. 6"><a name="38342" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38342] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 3 arg. 6</span></a> Praeterea,
15893 nullus actus virtutis est prohibendus. Sed iudicium est actus
15894 iustitiae; secundum illud Psalmi XCIII, <i>quousque iustitia
15895 convertatur in iudicium</i>. Ergo inconvenienter videtur dominus
15896 iudicium prohibuisse. Et ita videtur lex nova insufficienter
15897 hominem ordinasse circa interiores actus.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q108_A3-p8">
15898 <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,'
15899 He indicates clearly that this sermon of the Lord is replete with all the precepts whereby a Christian's life is formed."
15900 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 3 s. c."><a name="38343" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38343] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 3 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra
15901 est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de Serm. Dom. in monte,
15902 <i>considerandum est quia, cum dixit, qui audit verba mea haec,
15903 satis significat sermonem istum domini omnibus praeceptis quibus
15904 Christiana vita formatur, esse perfectum</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q108_A3-p9">
15905 <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.
15906 Therein man's interior movements are ordered. Because after declaring that his end is Beatitude; and after commending the
15907 authority of the apostles, through whom the teaching of the Gospel was to be promulgated, He orders man's interior movements,
15908 first in regard to man himself, secondly in regard to his neighbor.
15909 </p><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
15910 action, viz. volition of what has to be done, and intention of the end. Wherefore, in the first place, He directs man's will
15911 in respect of the various precepts of the Law: by prescribing that man should refrain not merely from those external works
15912 that are evil in themselves, but also from internal acts, and from the occasions of evil deeds. In the
15913 second place He directs man's intention, by teaching that in our good works, we should seek neither human praise, nor worldly
15914 riches, which is to lay up treasures on earth.
15915 </p><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
15916 rashly, unjustly, or presumptuously; and, on the other, to entrust him too readily with sacred things if he be unworthy.
15917 </p><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
15918 the narrow door of perfect virtue; and by being wary lest we be led astray by evil influences. Moreover, He declares that
15919 we must observe His commandments, and that it is not enough to make profession of faith, or to work miracles, or merely to
15920 hear His words.
15921 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 3 co."><a name="38344" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38344] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 3 co.</span></a> Respondeo
15922 dicendum quod, sicut ex inducta auctoritate Augustini apparet,
15923 sermo quem dominus in monte proposuit, totam informationem
15924 Christianae vitae continet. In quo perfecte interiores motus
15925 hominis ordinantur. Nam post declaratum beatitudinis finem; et
15926 commendata apostolica dignitate, per quos erat doctrina evangelica
15927 promulganda; ordinat interiores hominis motus, primo quidem quantum
15928 ad seipsum; et deinde quantum ad proximum. Quantum autem ad
15929 seipsum, dupliciter; secundum duos interiores hominis motus circa
15930 agenda, qui sunt voluntas de agendis, et intentio de fine. Unde
15931 primo ordinat hominis voluntatem secundum diversa legis praecepta,
15932 ut scilicet abstineat aliquis non solum ab exterioribus operibus
15933 quae sunt secundum se mala, sed etiam ab interioribus, et ab
15934 occasionibus malorum. Deinde ordinat intentionem hominis, docens
15935 quod in bonis quae agimus, neque quaeramus humanam gloriam, neque
15936 mundanas divitias, quod est thesaurizare in terra. Consequenter
15937 autem ordinat interiorem hominis motum quoad proximum, ut scilicet
15938 eum non temerarie aut iniuste iudicemus, aut praesumptuose; neque
15939 tamen sic simus apud proximum remissi, ut eis sacra committamus, si
15940 sint indigni. Ultimo autem docet modum adimplendi evangelicam
15941 doctrinam, scilicet implorando divinum auxilium; et conatum
15942 apponendo ad ingrediendum per angustam portam perfectae virtutis;
15943 et cautelam adhibendo ne a seductoribus corrumpamur. Et quod
15944 observatio mandatorum eius est necessaria ad virtutem, non autem
15945 sufficit sola confessio fidei, vel miraculorum operatio, vel solus
15946 auditus.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q108_A3-p13">
15947 <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
15948 this affected chiefly those precepts of the decalogue. For they thought that the prohibition of adultery and murder covered
15949 the external act only, and not the internal desire. And they held this opinion about murder and adultery rather than about
15950 theft and false witness, because the movement of anger tending to murder, and the
15951 movement of desire tending to adultery, seem to be in us from nature somewhat, but not the desire of stealing or bearing false
15952 witness. They held a false opinion about perjury, for they thought that perjury indeed was a sin; but that oaths were of themselves
15953 to be desired and to be taken frequently, since they seem to proceed from reverence to God. Hence Our Lord shows that an oath
15954 is not desirable as a good thing; and that it is better to speak without oaths, unless necessity forces us to have
15955 recourse to them.
15956 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 3 ad 1"><a name="38345" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38345] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 3 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
15957 ergo dicendum quod dominus circa illa legis praecepta adimpletionem
15958 apposuit, in quibus Scribae et Pharisaei non rectum intellectum
15959 habebant. Et hoc contingebat praecipue circa tria praecepta
15960 Decalogi. Nam circa prohibitionem adulterii et homicidii,
15961 aestimabant solum exteriorem actum prohiberi, non autem interiorem
15962 appetitum. Quod magis credebant circa homicidium et adulterium quam
15963 circa furtum vel falsum testimonium, quia motus irae in homicidium
15964 tendens, et concupiscentiae motus tendens in adulterium, videntur
15965 aliqualiter nobis a natura inesse; non autem appetitus furandi, vel
15966 falsum testimonium dicendi. Circa periurium vero habebant falsum
15967 intellectum, credentes periurium quidem esse peccatum; iuramentum
15968 autem per se esse appetendum et frequentandum, quia videtur ad Dei
15969 reverentiam pertinere. Et ideo dominus ostendit iuramentum non esse
15970 appetendum tanquam bonum; sed melius esse absque iuramento loqui,
15971 nisi necessitas cogat.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q108_A3-p14">
15972 <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
15973 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
15974 strangers. Wherefore Our Lord forbade a man to divorce his wife (
15975 <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 (
15976 <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
15977 thereby."
15978 </p><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
15979 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
15980 of three precepts. For they thought that desire for revenge was lawful, on account of the precept concerning punishment by
15981 retaliation: whereas this precept was given that justice might be safeguarded, not that man might seek revenge.
15982 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.
15983 They thought that movements of covetousness were lawful on account of those judicial precepts which prescribed restitution
15984 of what had been purloined, together with something added thereto, as stated above (
15985 <a href="#FS_Q105_A2" id="FS_Q108_A3-p15.1" shape="rect">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
15986 Our Lord teaches that we should not demand our goods from motives of cupidity, and that we should be ready to give yet more
15987 if necessary. They thought that the movement of hatred was lawful, on account of the commandments of the Law about the slaying
15988 of one's enemies: whereas the Law ordered this for the fulfilment of justice, as stated above (
15989 <a href="#FS_Q105_A3" id="FS_Q108_A3-p15.2" shape="rect">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
15990 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
15991 says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 19).
15992 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 3 ad 2"><a name="38346" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38346] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 3 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
15993 dicendum quod circa iudicialia praecepta dupliciter Scribae et
15994 Pharisaei errabant. Primo quidem, quia quaedam quae in lege Moysi
15995 erant tradita tanquam permissiones, aestimabant esse per se iusta,
15996 scilicet repudium uxoris, et usuras accipere ab extraneis. Et ideo
15997 dominus prohibuit uxoris repudium, Matth. V; et usurarum
15998 acceptionem, Luc. VI, dicens, <i>date mutuum nihil inde
15999 sperantes</i>. Alio modo errabant credentes quaedam quae lex vetus
16000 instituerat facienda propter iustitiam, esse exequenda ex appetitu
16001 vindictae; vel ex cupiditate temporalium rerum; vel ex odio
16002 inimicorum. Et hoc in tribus praeceptis. Appetitum enim vindictae
16003 credebant esse licitum, propter praeceptum datum de poena talionis.
16004 Quod quidem fuit datum ut iustitia servaretur, non ut homo
16005 vindictam quaereret. Et ideo dominus, ad hoc removendum, docet
16006 animum hominis sic debere esse praeparatum ut, si necesse sit,
16007 etiam paratus sit plura sustinere. Motum autem cupiditatis
16008 aestimabant esse licitum, propter praecepta iudicialia in quibus
16009 mandabatur restitutio rei ablatae fieri etiam cum aliqua additione,
16010 ut supra dictum est. Et hoc quidem lex mandavit propter iustitiam
16011 observandam, non ut daret cupiditati locum. Et ideo dominus docet
16012 ut ex cupiditate nostra non repetamus, sed simus parati, si necesse
16013 fuerit, etiam ampliora dare. Motum vero odii credebant esse
16014 licitum, propter praecepta legis data de hostium interfectione.
16015 Quod quidem lex statuit propter iustitiam implendam, ut supra
16016 dictum est, non propter odia exsaturanda. Et ideo dominus docet ut
16017 ad inimicos dilectionem habeamus, et parati simus, si opus fuerit,
16018 etiam benefacere. Haec enim praecepta secundum praeparationem animi
16019 sunt accipienda, ut Augustinus exponit.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q108_A3-p16">
16020 <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:
16021 whereas the judicial precepts did not necessarily continue to bind in exactly the same way as had been fixed by the Law: this
16022 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.
16023 On the other hand, the observance of the ceremonial precepts was totally
16024 abolished by the advent of the reality; wherefore in regard to these precepts He commanded nothing on this occasion when He
16025 was giving the general points of His doctrine. Elsewhere, however, He makes it clear that the entire bodily worship which
16026 was fixed by the Law, was to be changed into spiritual worship: as is evident from
16027 <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 . .
16028 . the true
16029 adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth."
16030 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 3 ad 3"><a name="38347" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38347] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 3 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
16031 dicendum quod praecepta moralia omnino in nova lege remanere
16032 debebant, quia secundum se pertinent ad rationem virtutis.
16033 Praecepta autem iudicialia non remanebant ex necessitate secundum
16034 modum quem lex determinavit; sed relinquebatur arbitrio hominum
16035 utrum sic vel aliter esset determinandum. Et ideo convenienter
16036 dominus circa haec duo genera praeceptorum nos ordinavit.
16037 Praeceptorum autem caeremonialium observatio totaliter per rei
16038 impletionem tollebatur. Et ideo circa huiusmodi praecepta, in illa
16039 communi doctrina, nihil ordinavit. Ostendit tamen alibi quod totus
16040 corporalis cultus qui erat determinatus in lege, erat in
16041 spiritualem commutandus; ut patet Ioan. IV, ubi dixit, <i>venit
16042 hora quando neque in monte hoc neque in Ierosolymis adorabitis
16043 patrem; sed veri adoratores adorabunt patrem in spiritu et
16044 veritate</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q108_A3-p17">
16045 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> All worldly goods may be reduced to three---honors, riches, and pleasures; according to
16046 <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
16047 of the eyes," which refers to riches, "and the pride of life," which refers to ambition for renown and honor. Now the Law
16048 did not promise an abundance of carnal pleasures; on the contrary, it forbade them. But
16049 it did promise exalted honors and abundant riches; for it is written in reference to the former (
16050 <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
16051 to the latter, we read a little further on (
16052 <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
16053 we ought to serve God, with these things as the end
16054 in view. Wherefore Our Lord set this aside by teaching, first of all, that works of virtue should not be done for human glory.
16055 And He mentions three works, to which all others may be reduced: since whatever a man does in order to curb his desires, comes
16056 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
16057 a man does for the worship of God, comes under the head of prayer. And He mentions these three specifically, as
16058 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
16059 we must not place our end in riches, when He said: "Lay not up to yourselves treasures on earth" (
16060 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A3-p17.4" href="./asv.html#Matt.6.19" target="asv">Mat. 6:19</a>).
16061 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 3 ad 4"><a name="38348" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38348] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 3 ad 4</span></a> Ad quartum
16062 dicendum quod omnes res mundanae ad tria reducuntur, scilicet ad
16063 honores, divitias et delicias; secundum illud I Ioan. II, omne quod
16064 est in mundo, concupiscentia carnis est, quod pertinet ad delicias
16065 carnis; et concupiscentia oculorum, quod pertinet ad divitias; et
16066 superbia vitae, quod pertinet ad ambitum gloriae et honoris.
16067 Superfluas autem carnis delicias lex non repromisit, sed magis
16068 prohibuit. Repromisit autem celsitudinem honoris, et abundantiam
16069 divitiarum, dicitur enim Deut. XXVIII, <i>si audieris vocem domini
16070 Dei tui, faciet te excelsiorem cunctis gentibus</i>, quantum ad
16071 primum; et post pauca subdit, <i>abundare te faciet omnibus
16072 bonis</i>, quantum ad secundum. Quae quidem promissa sic prave
16073 intelligebant Iudaei, ut propter ea esset Deo serviendum, sicut
16074 propter finem. Et ideo dominus hoc removit, docens primo, quod
16075 opera virtutis non sunt facienda propter humanam gloriam. Et ponit
16076 tria opera, ad quae omnia alia reducuntur, nam omnia quae aliquis
16077 facit ad refrenandum seipsum in suis concupiscentiis, reducuntur ad
16078 ieiunium; quaecumque vero fiunt propter dilectionem proximi,
16079 reducuntur ad eleemosynam; quaecumque vero propter cultum Dei
16080 fiunt, reducuntur ad orationem. Ponit autem haec tria specialiter
16081 quasi praecipua, et per quae homines maxime solent gloriam venari.
16082 Secundo, docuit quod non debemus finem constituere in divitiis, cum
16083 dixit, <i>nolite thesaurizare vobis thesauros in terra</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q108_A3-p18">
16084 <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
16085 matters. First, we must not place our end in them, nor serve God for the sake of the necessities of food and raiment. Wherefore
16086 He says: "Lay not up for yourselves," etc. Secondly, we must not be so anxious about temporal things, as to despair of God's
16087 help: wherefore Our Lord says (
16088 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A3-p18.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.6.32" target="asv">Mat. 6:32</a>): "Your Father
16089 knoweth that you have need of all these things." Thirdly, we must not add presumption to our solicitude; in other words, we
16090 must not be confident of getting the necessaries of life by our own efforts without God's help: such solicitude Our Lord sets
16091 aside by saying that a man cannot add anything to his stature (
16092 <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
16093 a future time: wherefore He says
16094 (
16095 <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."
16096 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 3 ad 5"><a name="38349" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38349] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 3 ad 5</span></a> Ad quintum
16097 dicendum quod dominus sollicitudinem necessariam non prohibuit, sed
16098 sollicitudinem inordinatam. Est autem quadruplex inordinatio
16099 sollicitudinis vitanda circa temporalia. Primo quidem, ut in eis
16100 finem non constituamus, neque Deo serviamus propter necessaria
16101 victus et vestitus. Unde dicit, <i>nolite thesaurizare vobis</i> et
16102 cetera. Secundo, ut non sic sollicitemur de temporalibus, cum
16103 desperatione divini auxilii. Unde dominus dicit, <i>scit pater
16104 vester quia his omnibus indigetis</i>. Tertio, ne sit sollicitudo
16105 praesumptuosa, ut scilicet homo confidat se necessaria vitae per
16106 suam sollicitudinem posse procurare, absque divino auxilio. Quod
16107 dominus removet per hoc quod <i>homo non potest aliquid adiicere ad
16108 staturam suam</i>. Quarto, per hoc quod homo sollicitudinis tempus
16109 praeoccupat, quia scilicet de hoc sollicitus est nunc, quod non
16110 pertinet ad curam praesentis temporis, sed ad curam futuri. Unde
16111 dicit, nolite solliciti esse in crastinum.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q108_A3-p19">
16112 <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
16113 he forbade inordinate judgment, as stated above.
16114 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 3 ad 6"><a name="38350" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38350] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 3 ad 6</span></a> Ad sextum
16115 dicendum quod dominus non prohibet iudicium iustitiae, sine quo non
16116 possent sancta subtrahi ab indignis. Sed prohibet iudicium
16117 inordinatum, ut dictum est.</p></div></div></div><div id="FS_Q108_A4" class="div4"><h4 id="FS_Q108_A4-p0.1">Q. 108. A. 4. Whether certain definite counsels are fittingly proposed in the New Law?</h4><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q108_A4-p2">
16118 <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
16119 which is expedient for an end, as we stated above, when treating of counsel (
16120 <a href="FS_ii.html#FS_Q14_A2" id="FS_Q108_A4-p2.1" shape="rect">Q[14] , A[2]</a>). But the same things are not expedient for all. Therefore certain definite counsels should not be proposed to all.
16121 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 4 arg. 1"><a name="38351" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38351] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 4 arg. 1</span></a> Ad quartum
16122 sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter in lege nova consilia
16123 quaedam determinata sint proposita. Consilia enim dantur de rebus
16124 expedientibus ad finem; ut supra dictum est, cum de consilio
16125 ageretur. Sed non eadem omnibus expediunt. Ergo non sunt aliqua
16126 consilia determinata omnibus proponenda.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q108_A4-p3">
16127 <b>Objection 2:</b> Further, counsels regard a greater good. But there are no definite degrees to the greater good. Therefore definite counsels
16128 should not be given.
16129 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 4 arg. 2"><a name="38352" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38352] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 4 arg. 2</span></a> Praeterea,
16130 consilia dantur de meliori bono. Sed non sunt determinati gradus
16131 melioris boni. Ergo non debent aliqua determinata consilia
16132 dari.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q108_A4-p4">
16133 <b>Objection 3:</b> Further, counsels pertain to the life of perfection. But obedience pertains to the life of perfection. Therefore it was unfitting
16134 that no counsel of obedience should be contained in the Gospel.
16135 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 4 arg. 3"><a name="38353" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38353] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 4 arg. 3</span></a> Praeterea,
16136 consilia pertinent ad perfectionem vitae. Sed obedientia pertinet
16137 ad perfectionem vitae. Ergo inconvenienter de ea consilium non
16138 datur in Evangelio.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q108_A4-p5">
16139 <b>Objection 4:</b> Further, many matters pertaining to the life of perfection are found among the commandments, as, for instance, "Love your
16140 enemies" (
16141 <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 (
16142 <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
16143 are not distinguished from the commandments.
16144 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 4 arg. 4"><a name="38354" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38354] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 4 arg. 4</span></a> Praeterea,
16145 multa ad perfectionem vitae pertinentia inter praecepta ponuntur,
16146 sicut hoc quod dicitur, diligite inimicos vestros; et praecepta
16147 etiam quae dedit dominus apostolis, Matth. X. Ergo inconvenienter
16148 traduntur consilia in nova lege, tum quia non omnia ponuntur; tum
16149 etiam quia a praeceptis non distinguuntur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q108_A4-p6">
16150 <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
16151 the good counsels of a friend rejoice the soul." But Christ is our wisest and greatest friend. Therefore His counsels are
16152 supremely useful and becoming.
16153 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 4 s. c."><a name="38355" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38355] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 4 s. c.</span></a> Sed contra,
16154 consilia sapientis amici magnam utilitatem afferunt; secundum illud
16155 Prov. XXVII, <i>unguento et variis odoribus delectatur cor, et
16156 bonis amici consiliis anima dulcoratur</i>. Sed Christus maxime est
16157 sapiens et amicus. Ergo eius consilia maximam utilitatem continent,
16158 et convenientia sunt.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><div class="english"><p id="FS_Q108_A4-p7">
16159 <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
16160 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
16161 the commandments, and not in the Old Law, which is the law of bondage. We must therefore understand the commandments of the
16162 New Law to have been given about matters that are necessary to gain the end of eternal bliss,
16163 to which end the New Law brings us forthwith: but that the counsels are about matters that render the gaining of this end
16164 more assured and expeditious.
16165 </p><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
16166 he cleaves to the one, the more he withdraws from the other, and conversely. Wherefore he that cleaves wholly to the things
16167 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
16168 from spiritual goods. Hence this disorder is removed by the commandments. Nevertheless, for man to gain the
16169 end aforesaid, he does not need to renounce the things of the world altogether: since he can, while using the things of this
16170 world, attain to eternal happiness, provided he does not place his end in them: but he will attain more speedily thereto by
16171 giving up the goods of this world entirely: wherefore the evangelical counsels are given for this purpose.
16172 </p><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
16173 to the "concupiscence of the eyes"; carnal pleasures pertaining to the "concupiscence of the flesh"; and honors, which pertain
16174 to the "pride of life," according to
16175 <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
16176 of the religious life that professes the
16177 state of perfection is based on these three: since riches are renounced by poverty; carnal pleasures by perpetual chastity;
16178 and the pride of life by the bondage of obedience.
16179 </p><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
16180 of them in a particular case, this is taking that counsel in a restricted sense, namely, as applying to that particular case.
16181 For instance, when anyone gives an alms to a poor man, not being bound so to do, he follows the counsels in that particular
16182 case. In like manner, when a man for some fixed time refrains from carnal pleasures that he may give himself
16183 to prayer, he follows the counsel for that particular time. And again, when a man follows not his will as to some deed which
16184 he might do lawfully, he follows the counsel in that particular case: for instance, if he do good to his enemies when he is
16185 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
16186 may be reduced to these three general and perfect counsels.
16187 </p></div></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 4 co."><a name="38356" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38356] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 4 co.</span></a> Respondeo
16188 dicendum quod haec est differentia inter consilium et praeceptum,
16189 quod praeceptum importat necessitatem, consilium autem in optione
16190 ponitur eius cui datur. Et ideo convenienter in lege nova, quae est
16191 lex libertatis, supra praecepta sunt addita consilia, non autem in
16192 veteri lege, quae erat lex servitutis. Oportet igitur quod
16193 praecepta novae legis intelligantur esse data de his quae sunt
16194 necessaria ad consequendum finem aeternae beatitudinis, in quem lex
16195 nova immediate introducit. Consilia vero oportet esse de illis per
16196 quae melius et expeditius potest homo consequi finem praedictum.
16197 Est autem homo constitutus inter res mundi huius et spiritualia
16198 bona, in quibus beatitudo aeterna consistit, ita quod quanto plus
16199 inhaeret uni eorum, tanto plus recedit ab altero, et e converso.
16200 Qui ergo totaliter inhaeret rebus huius mundi, ut in eis finem
16201 constituat, habens eas quasi rationes et regulas suorum operum,
16202 totaliter excidit a spiritualibus bonis. Et ideo huiusmodi
16203 inordinatio tollitur per praecepta. Sed quod homo totaliter ea quae
16204 sunt mundi abiiciat, non est necessarium ad perveniendum in finem
16205 praedictum, quia potest homo utens rebus huius mundi, dummodo in
16206 eis finem non constituat, ad beatitudinem aeternam pervenire. Sed
16207 expeditius perveniet totaliter bona huius mundi abdicando. Et ideo
16208 de hoc dantur consilia Evangelii. Bona autem huius mundi, quae
16209 pertinent ad usum humanae vitae, in tribus consistunt, scilicet in
16210 divitiis exteriorum bonorum, quae pertinent ad concupiscentiam
16211 oculorum; in deliciis carnis, quae pertinent ad concupiscentiam
16212 carnis; et in honoribus, quae pertinent ad superbiam vitae; sicut
16213 patet I Ioan. II. Haec autem tria totaliter derelinquere, secundum
16214 quod possibile est, pertinet ad consilia evangelica. In quibus
16215 etiam tribus fundatur omnis religio, quae statum perfectionis
16216 profitetur, nam divitiae abdicantur per paupertatem; deliciae
16217 carnis per perpetuam castitatem; superbia vitae per obedientiae
16218 servitutem. Haec autem simpliciter observata pertinent ad consilia
16219 simpliciter proposita. Sed observatio uniuscuiusque eorum in aliquo
16220 speciali casu, pertinet ad consilium secundum quid, scilicet in
16221 casu illo. Puta cum homo dat aliquam eleemosynam pauperi quam dare
16222 non tenetur, consilium sequitur quantum ad factum illud. Similiter
16223 etiam quando aliquo tempore determinato a delectationibus carnis
16224 abstinet ut orationibus vacet, consilium sequitur pro tempore illo.
16225 Similiter etiam quando aliquis non sequitur voluntatem suam in
16226 aliquo facto quod licite posset facere, consilium sequitur in casu
16227 illo, puta si benefaciat inimicis quando non tenetur, vel si
16228 offensam remittat cuius iuste posset exigere vindictam. Et sic
16229 etiam omnia consilia particularia ad illa tria generalia et
16230 perfecta reducuntur.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q108_A4-p11">
16231 <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
16232 that some of them are inexpedient, because their disposition is not inclined to such things. Hence Our Lord, in proposing
16233 the evangelical counsels, always makes mention of man's fitness for observing the counsels. For in giving the counsel of perpetual
16234 poverty (
16235 <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
16236 thou wilt be perfect," and then He adds: "Go, sell all [Vulg.: 'what'] thou hast." In like manner when He gave the counsel
16237 of perpetual chastity, saying (
16238 <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,
16239 let him take it." And again, the Apostle (
16240 <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."
16241 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 4 ad 1"><a name="38357" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38357] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 4 ad 1</span></a> Ad primum
16242 ergo dicendum quod praedicta consilia, quantum est de se sunt
16243 omnibus expedientia, sed ex indispositione aliquorum contingit quod
16244 alicui expedientia non sunt, quia eorum affectus ad haec non
16245 inclinatur. Et ideo dominus, consilia evangelica proponens, semper
16246 facit mentionem de idoneitate hominum ad observantiam consiliorum.
16247 Dans enim consilium perpetuae paupertatis, Matth. XIX, praemittit,
16248 <i>si vis perfectus esse</i>; et postea subdit, <i>vade et vende
16249 omnia quae habes</i>. Similiter, dans consilium perpetuae
16250 castitatis, cum dixit, <i>sunt eunuchi qui castraverunt seipsos
16251 propter regnum caelorum</i>, statim subdit, <i>qui potest capere,
16252 capiat</i>. Et similiter apostolus, I ad Cor. VII, praemisso
16253 consilio virginitatis, dicit, <i>porro hoc ad utilitatem vestram
16254 dico, non ut laqueum vobis iniiciam</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q108_A4-p12">
16255 <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
16256 in general are fixed: and to these all the above particular goods may be reduced, as stated above.
16257 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 4 ad 2"><a name="38358" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38358] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 4 ad 2</span></a> Ad secundum
16258 dicendum quod meliora bona particulariter in singulis sunt
16259 indeterminata. Sed illa quae sunt simpliciter et absolute meliora
16260 bona in universali, sunt determinata. Ad quae etiam omnia illa
16261 particularia reducuntur, ut dictum est.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q108_A4-p13">
16262 <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
16263 follow Him not only by imitating His works, but also by obeying His commandments, according to
16264 <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."
16265 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 4 ad 3"><a name="38359" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38359] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 4 ad 3</span></a> Ad tertium
16266 dicendum quod etiam consilium obedientiae dominus intelligitur
16267 dedisse in hoc quod dixit, et sequatur me; quem sequimur non solum
16268 imitando opera, sed etiam obediendo mandatis ipsius; secundum illud
16269 Ioan. X. <i>Oves meae vocem meam audiunt, et sequuntur me</i>.</p></div></div><div class="bilingual"><div class="eng"><p class="english" id="FS_Q108_A4-p14">
16270 <b>Reply to Objection 4:</b> Those things which Our Lord prescribed about the true love of our enemies, and other similar sayings (
16271 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A4-p14.1" href="./asv.html#Matt.5" target="asv">Mat. 5</a>;
16272 <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
16273 to do good to his enemies, and other similar actions, when there is need. Hence these things are placed among the precepts.
16274 But that anyone should actually and promptly behave thus towards an enemy when there is
16275 no special need, is to be referred to the particular counsels, as stated above. As to those matters which are set down in
16276
16277 <a class="scripRef" id="FS_Q108_A4-p14.3" href="./asv.html#Matt.10" target="asv">Mat. 10</a> and
16278 <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
16279 they are not set down among the counsels.
16280 </p></div><div class="lat"><p class="latin" title="I-II q. 108 a. 4 ad 4"><a name="38360" shape="rect"><span class="ref">[38360] Iª-IIae q. 108 a. 4 ad 4</span></a> Ad quartum
16281 dicendum quod ea quae de vera dilectione inimicorum, et similibus,
16282 dominus dicit Matth. V et Luc. VI, si referantur ad praeparationem
16283 animi, sunt de necessitate salutis, ut scilicet homo sit paratus
16284 benefacere inimicis, et alia huiusmodi facere, cum necessitas hoc
16285 requirat. Et ideo inter praecepta ponuntur. Sed ut aliquis hoc
16286 inimicis exhibeat prompte in actu, ubi specialis necessitas non
16287 occurrit, pertinet ad consilia particularia, ut dictum est. Illa
16288 autem quae ponuntur Matth. X, et Luc. IX, et X, fuerunt quaedam
16289 praecepta disciplinae pro tempore illo, vel concessiones quaedam,
16290 ut supra dictum est. Et ideo non inducuntur tanquam consilia.</p></div></div></div></div>
16291
16292
16293 `
16294 </div>
16295 </body>
16296 </html>