15:13)
that they should be given provision for the journey.
that they should be given provision for the journey.
Summa Theologica
But the sheep was useful in four ways: "for sacrifice, for
meat, for milk, and for its wool. " The unruly son was slain, not
because he ate and drank: but on account of his stubbornness and
rebellion, which was always punished by death, as stated above. As to
the man who gathered sticks on the sabbath, he was stoned as a breaker
of the Law, which commanded the sabbath to be observed, to testify the
belief in the newness of the world, as stated above ([2137]Q[100],
A[5]): wherefore he was slain as an unbeliever.
Reply to Objection 10: The Old Law inflicted the death penalty for the
more grievous crimes, viz. for those which are committed against God,
and for murder, for stealing a man, irreverence towards one's parents,
adultery and incest. In the case of thief of other things it inflicted
punishment by indemnification: while in the case of blows and
mutilation it authorized punishment by retaliation; and likewise for
the sin of bearing false witness. In other faults of less degree it
prescribed the punishment of stripes or of public disgrace.
The punishment of slavery was prescribed by the Law in two cases.
First, in the case of a slave who was unwilling to avail himself of the
privilege granted by the Law, whereby he was free to depart in the
seventh year of remission: wherefore he was punished by remaining a
slave for ever. Secondly, in the case of a thief, who had not wherewith
to make restitution, as stated in Ex. 22:3.
The punishment of absolute exile was not prescribed by the Law: because
God was worshipped by that people alone, whereas all other nations were
given to idolatry: wherefore if any man were exiled from that people
absolutely, he would be in danger of falling into idolatry. For this
reason it is related (1 Kings 26:19) 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 in the inheritance of the Lord, saying: Go, serve
strange gods. " There was, however, a restricted sort of exile: for it
is written in Dt. 19:4 [*Cf. Num. 35:25] that "he that striketh [Vulg. :
'killeth'] his neighbor ignorantly, and is proved to have had no hatred
against him, shall 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 to return home, because when the whole people thus suffered a
loss they forgot their private quarrels, so that the next of kin of the
slain were not so eager to kill the slayer.
Reply to Objection 11: Dumb animals were ordered to be slain, not on
account of any fault of theirs; but as a punishment to their owners,
who had not safeguarded their beasts from these offenses. Hence the
owner was more severely punished if his ox had butted anyone "yesterday
or the day before" (in which case steps might have been taken to
butting suddenly). Or again, the animal was slain in detestation of the
sin; and lest men should be horrified at the sight thereof.
Reply to Objection 12: The literal reason for this commandment, as
Rabbi Moses declares (Doct. Perplex. iii), was because the slayer was
frequently from the nearest city: wherefore the slaying of the calf was
a means of investigating the hidden murder. This was brought about in
three ways. In the first place the elders of the city swore that they
had taken every measure for safeguarding the roads. Secondly, the owner
of the heifer was indemnified for the slaying of his beast, and if the
murder was previously discovered, the beast was not slain. Thirdly, the
place, where the heifer was slain, remained uncultivated. Wherefore, in
order to avoid this twofold loss, the men of the city would readily
make known the murderer, 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 was done in order to frighten people, in detestation of
murder. Because the slaying of a heifer, which is a useful animal and
full of strength, especially before it has been put under the yoke,
signified that whoever committed murder, however useful and strong he
might be, was to forfeit his life; and that, by a cruel death, which
was implied by the striking off of its head; and that the murderer, as
vile and abject, was to be cut off from the fellowship of men, which
was betokened by the fact that the heifer after being slain was left to
rot in a rough and uncultivated place.
Mystically, the heifer taken from the herd signifies the flesh of
Christ; which had not drawn a yoke, since it had done no 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 valley signified the
despised death of Christ, whereby all sins are washed away, and the
devil is shown to be the arch-murderer.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the judicial precepts regarding foreigners were framed in a suitable
manner?
Objection 1: It would seem that the judicial precepts regarding
foreigners were not suitably framed. For Peter said (Acts 10:34,35):
"In very deed I perceive that God is not a respecter of persons, but in
every nation, he that feareth Him and worketh justice is acceptable to
Him. " But those who are acceptable to God should not be excluded from
the Church of God. Therefore it is unsuitably commanded (Dt. 23:3) that
"the Ammonite and the Moabite, even after the tenth generation, shall
not enter into the church of the Lord for ever": whereas, on the other
hand, it is prescribed (Dt. 23:7) to be observed with regard to certain
other nations: "Thou shalt not abhor the Edomite, because he is thy
brother; nor the Egyptian because thou wast a stranger in his land. "
Objection 2: 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 an
eunuch, or born of a prostitute. Therefore it is unsuitably commanded
(Dt. 23:1,2) that "an eunuch and one born of a prostitute shalt not
enter into the church of the Lord. "
Objection 3: Further, the Old Law mercifully forbade strangers to be
molested: for it is written (Ex. 22:21): "Thou shalt not molest a
stranger, nor afflict him; for yourselves also were strangers in the
land of Egypt": and (Ex. 23:9): "Thou shalt not molest a stranger, for
you know the hearts of strangers, for you also were strangers in the
land of Egypt. " But it is an affliction to be burdened with usury.
Therefore the Law unsuitably permitted them (Dt. 23:19,20) to lend
money to the stranger for usury.
Objection 4: Further, men are much more akin to us than trees. But we
should show greater care and love for these things that are nearest to
us, according to Ecclus. 13:19: "Every beast loveth its like: so also
every man him that is nearest to himself. " Therefore the Lord
unsuitably commanded (Dt. 20:13-19) that all the inhabitants of a
captured hostile city were to be slain, but that the fruit-trees should
not be cut down.
Objection 5: Further, every one should prefer the common good of virtue
to the good of the individual. But the common good is sought in a war
which men fight against their enemies. Therefore it is unsuitably
commanded (Dt. 20:5-7) 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 had married a wife.
Objection 6: 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
to the virtue of fortitude. Therefore the timid and faint-hearted are
unfittingly excused from the toil of battle (Dt. 20:8).
On the contrary, Divine Wisdom declares (Prov. 8:8): "All my words are
just, there is nothing wicked nor perverse in them. "
I answer that, Man's relations with foreigners are twofold: peaceful,
and hostile: and in directing both kinds of relation the Law contained
suitable precepts. For the Jews were offered three opportunities of
peaceful relations with foreigners. First, when foreigners passed
through their land as travelers. Secondly, when they came to dwell in
their land as newcomers. And in both these respects the Law made kind
provision in its precepts: for it is written (Ex. 22:21): "Thou shalt
not molest a stranger [advenam]"; and again (Ex. 22:9): "Thou shalt not
molest a stranger [peregrino]. " Thirdly, when any foreigners wished to
be admitted entirely to their fellowship and mode of worship. With
regard to these a certain order was observed. For they were not at once
admitted to citizenship: just as it was law with some nations that no
one was deemed a citizen except after two or three generations, as the
Philosopher says (Polit. 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 down in its midst, many dangers might occur, since the
foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt
something hurtful to the people. Hence it was that the Law prescribed
in respect of certain nations that had close relations with the Jews
(viz. , the Egyptians among whom they were born and educated, and the
Idumeans, the children of Esau, Jacob's brother), that they should be
admitted to the fellowship of the people after the third generation;
whereas others (with whom their relations had been hostile, such as the
Ammonites and Moabites) were never to be admitted to citizenship; while
the Amalekites, who were yet more hostile to them, and had no
fellowship of kindred with them, were to be held as foes in perpetuity:
for it is written (Ex. 17:16): "The war of the Lord shall be against
Amalec from generation to generation. "
In like manner with regard to hostile relations with foreigners, the
Law contained suitable precepts. For, in the first place, it commanded
that war should be declared for a just cause: thus it is commanded (Dt.
20:10) that when they advanced to besiege a city, they should at first
make an offer of peace. Secondly, it enjoined that when once they had
entered on a war they should undauntedly persevere in it, putting their
trust in God. And in order that they might be the more heedful of this
command, it ordered that on the approach of battle the priest should
hearten them by promising them God's aid. Thirdly, it prescribed the
removal of whatever might prove an obstacle to the fight, and that
certain men, who might be in the way, should be sent home. Fourthly, it
enjoined that they should use moderation in pursuing the advantage of
victory, by sparing women and children, and by not cutting down
fruit-trees of that country.
Reply to Objection 1: The Law excluded the men of no nation from the
worship of God and from things pertaining to the welfare of the soul:
for it is written (Ex. 12:48): "If any stranger be willing to dwell
among you, and to keep the Phase of the Lord; all his males shall first
be circumcised, 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
matters concerning the public life of the people, admission was not
granted to everyone at once, for the reason given above: but to some,
i. e. the Egyptians and Idumeans, in the third generation; while others
were excluded in perpetuity, in detestation of their past offense, i. e.
the peoples of Moab, Ammon, and Amalec. For just as one man is punished
for a sin committed by him, in order that others seeing this may be
deterred and refrain from sinning; so too may one nation or city be
punished for a crime, that others may refrain from similar crimes.
Nevertheless it was possible by dispensation for a man to be admitted
to citizenship on account of some act of virtue: thus it is related
(Judith 14:6) that Achior, the captain of the children of Ammon, "was
joined to the people of Israel, with all the succession of his
kindred. " The same applies to Ruth the Moabite who was "a virtuous
woman" (Ruth 3:11): although it may be said that this prohibition
regarded men and not women, who are not competent to be citizens
absolutely speaking.
Reply to Objection 2: As the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 3), a man is
said to be a citizen in two ways: first, simply; secondly, in a
restricted sense. A man is a citizen simply if he has all the rights of
citizenship, for instance, the right of debating or voting in the
popular assembly. On the other hand, any man may be called citizen,
only in a restricted sense, if he dwells within the state, even common
people or children or old men, who are not fit to enjoy power in
matters pertaining to the common weal. For this reason bastards, by
reason of their base origin, were excluded from the "ecclesia," i. e.
from the popular assembly, down to the tenth generation. The same
applies to eunuchs, who were not competent to receive the honor due to
a father, especially among the Jews, where the divine worship was
continued through carnal generation: for even among the heathens, those
who had many children were marked with special honor, as the
Philosopher remarks (Polit. ii, 6). Nevertheless, in matters pertaining
to the grace of God, eunuchs were not discriminated from others, as
neither were strangers, as already stated: for it is written (Isa.
56:3): "Let not the son of the stranger that adhereth to the Lord
speak, saying: The Lord will divide and separate me from His people.
And let not the eunuch say: Behold I am a dry tree. "
Reply to Objection 3: It was not the intention of the Law to sanction
the acceptance of usury from strangers, but only to tolerate it on
account of the proneness of the Jews to avarice; and in order to
promote an amicable feeling towards those out of whom they made a
profit.
Reply to Objection 4: A distinction was observed with regard to hostile
cities. For some of them were far distant, and were not among those
which had been promised to them. When they had taken these cities, they
killed all the men who had fought against God's people; whereas the
women and children were spared. But in the neighboring cities which had
been promised to them, all were ordered to be slain, on account of
their former crimes, to punish which God sent the Israelites as
executor of Divine justice: for it is written (Dt. 9:5) "because they
have done wickedly, they are destroyed at thy coming in. " The
fruit-trees were commanded to be left untouched, for the use of the
people themselves, to whom the city with its territory was destined to
be subjected.
Reply to Objection 5: The builder of a new house, the planter of a
vineyard, the newly married husband, were excluded from fighting, for
two reasons. 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, and consequently he is apt to dread the loss of these above
other things. Wherefore it was likely enough that on account of this
affection they would fear death all the more, and be so much the less
brave in battle. Secondly, because, as the Philosopher says (Phys. ii,
5), "it is a misfortune for a man if he is prevented from obtaining
something good when it is within his grasp. " And so lest the surviving
relations should be the more grieved at the death of these men who had
not entered into the possession of the good things prepared for them;
and also lest the people should be horror-stricken at the sight of
their misfortune: these men were taken away from the danger of death by
being removed from the battle.
Reply to Objection 6: The timid were sent back home, not that they
might be the gainers thereby; but lest the people might be the losers
by their presence, since their timidity and flight might cause others
to be afraid and run away.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the Old Law set forth suitable precepts about the members of the
household?
Objection 1: It would seem that the Old Law set forth unsuitable
precepts about the members of the household. For a slave "is in every
respect his master's property," as the Philosopher states (Polit. i,
2). But that which is a man's property should be his always. Therefore
it was unfitting for the Law to command (Ex. 21:2) that slaves should
"go out free" in the seventh year.
Objection 2: Further, a slave is his master's property, just as an
animal, e. g. an ass or an ox. But it is commanded (Dt. 22:1-3) with
regard to animals, that they should be brought back to the owner if
they be found going astray. Therefore it was unsuitably commanded (Dt.
23:15): "Thou shalt not deliver to his master the servant that is fled
to thee. "
Objection 3: Further, the Divine Law should encourage mercy more even
than the human law. But according to human laws those who ill-treat
their servants and maidservants are severely punished: and the worse
treatment of all seems to be that which results in death. Therefore it
is unfittingly commanded (Ex. 21:20,21) that "he that striketh his
bondman or bondwoman with a rod, and they die under his hands . . . if
the party remain alive a day . . . he shall not be subject to the
punishment, because it is his money. "
Objection 4: Further, the dominion of a master over his slave differs
from that of the father over his son (Polit. i, 3). But the dominion of
master over slave gives the former the right to sell his servant or
maidservant. Therefore it was unfitting for the Law to allow a man to
sell his daughter to be a servant or handmaid (Ex. 21:7).
Objection 5: 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.
Therefore it is unfittingly commanded (Dt. 21:18, seqq. ) that a father
should bring his son to the ancients of the city for punishment.
Objection 6: Further, the Lord forbade them (Dt. 7:3, seqq. ) to make
marriages with strange nations; and commanded the dissolution of such
as had been contracted (1 Esdras 10). Therefore it was unfitting to
allow them to marry captive women from strange nations (Dt. 21:10,
seqq. ).
Objection 7: Further, the Lord forbade them to marry within certain
degrees of consanguinity and affinity, according to Lev. 18. Therefore
it was unsuitably commanded (Dt. 25:5) that if any man died without
issue, his brother should marry his wife.
Objection 8: Further, as there is the greatest familiarity between man
and wife, so should there be the staunchest fidelity. But this is
impossible if the marriage bond can be sundered. Therefore it was
unfitting for the Lord to allow (Dt. 24:1-4) a man to put his wife
away, by writing a bill of divorce; and besides, that he could not take
her again to wife.
Objection 9: 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 Law
did not command any sacrifice to be offered in order to investigate the
injury done by a servant to his master, or by a son to his father.
Therefore it seems to have been superfluous for the Law to prescribe
the "sacrifice of jealousy" in order to investigate a wife's adultery
(Num. 5:12, seqq. ). Consequently it seems that the Law put forth
unsuitable judicial precepts about the members of the household.
On the contrary, It is written (Ps. 18:10): "The judgments of the Lord
are true, justified in themselves. "
I answer that, The mutual relations of the members of a household
regard everyday actions directed to the necessities of life, as the
Philosopher states (Polit. i, 1). Now the preservation of man's life
may be considered from two points of view. First, from the point of
view of the individual, i. e. in so far as man preserves his
individuality: and for the purpose of the preservation of life,
considered from this standpoint, man has at his service external goods,
by means of which he provides himself with food and clothing and other
such necessaries of life: in the handling of which he has need of
servants. Secondly man's life is preserved from the point of view of
the species, by means of generation, for which purpose man needs a
wife, that she may bear him children. Accordingly the mutual relations
of the members of a household admit of a threefold combination: viz.
those of master and servant, those of husband and wife, and those of
father and son: and in respect of all these relationships the Old Law
contained fitting precepts. Thus, with regard to servants, it commanded
them to be treated with moderation---both as to their work, lest, to
wit, they should be burdened with excessive labor, wherefore the Lord
commanded (Dt. 5:14) that on the Sabbath day "thy manservant and thy
maidservant" should "rest even as thyself"---and also as to the
infliction of punishment, for it ordered those who maimed their
servants, to set them free (Ex. 21:26,27). Similar provision was made
in favor of a maidservant when married to anyone (Ex. 21:7, seqq. ).
Moreover, with regard to those servants in particular who were taken
from among the people, the Law prescribed that they should go out free
in the seventh year taking whatever they brought with them, even their
clothes (Ex. 21:2, seqq. ): and furthermore it was commanded (Dt.
15:13)
that they should be given provision for the journey.
With regard to wives the Law made certain prescriptions as to those who
were to be taken in marriage: for instance, that they should marry a
wife from their own tribe (Num. 36:6): and this lest confusion should
ensue in the property of various tribes. Also that a man should marry
the wife of his deceased brother when the latter died without issue, as
prescribed in Dt. 25:5,6: and this in order that he who could not have
successors according to carnal origin, might at least have them by a
kind of adoption, and that thus the deceased might not be entirely
forgotten. It also forbade them to marry certain women; to wit, women
of strange nations, through fear of their losing their faith; and those
of their near kindred, on account of the natural respect due to them.
Furthermore it prescribed in what way wives were to be treated after
marriage. To wit, that they should not be slandered without grave
reason: wherefore it ordered punishment to be inflicted on the man who
falsely accused his wife of a crime (Dt. 22:13, seqq. ). Also that a
man's hatred of his wife should not be detrimental to his son (Dt.
21:15, 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 and
send her away (Dt. 24:1). Furthermore, in order to foster conjugal love
from the very outset, it was prescribed that no public duties should be
laid on a recently married man, so that he might be free to rejoice
with his wife.
With regard to children, the Law commanded parents to educate them by
instructing them in the faith: hence it is written (Ex. 12:26, seqq. ):
"When your children shall say to you: What is the meaning of this
service? You shall say to them: It is the victim of the passage of the
Lord. " Moreover, they are commanded to teach them the rules of right
conduct: wherefore it is written (Dt. 21:20) that the parents had to
say: "He slighteth hearing our admonitions, he giveth himself to
revelling and to debauchery. "
Reply to Objection 1: As the children of Israel had been delivered by
the Lord from slavery, and for this reason were bound to the service of
God, He did not wish them to be slaves in perpetuity. Hence it is
written (Lev. 25:39, seqq. ): "If thy brother, constrained by poverty,
sell himself to thee, thou shalt not oppress him with the service of
bondservants: but he shall be as a hireling and a sojourner . . . for
they are My servants, and I brought them out of the land of Egypt: let
them not be sold as bondmen": and consequently, since they were slaves,
not absolutely but in a restricted sense, after a lapse of time they
were set free.
Reply to Objection 2: This commandment is to be understood as referring
to a servant whom his master seeks to kill, or to help him in
committing some sin.
Reply to Objection 3: With regard to the ill-treatment of servants, the
Law seems to have taken into consideration whether it was certain or
not: since if it were certain, the Law fixed a penalty: for maiming,
the penalty was forfeiture of the servant, who was ordered to be given
his liberty: while for slaying, the punishment was that of a murderer,
when the slave died under the blow of his master. If, however, the hurt
was not certain, but only probable, the Law did not impose any penalty
as regards a man's own servant: for instance if the servant did not die
at once after being struck, but 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 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, even though afterwards he died. Nevertheless he was bound to
pay the doctor's fees incurred by the victim of his assault. But this
was not the case if a man killed his own servant: because whatever the
servant had, even his very person, was the property 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. "
Reply to Objection 4: 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
fixed time. And in this way the Law permitted that through stress of
poverty a man might sell his son or daughter. This is 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 bondwomen are wont to go out. "
Moreover, in this way a man might sell not only his son, but even
himself, rather as a hireling than as a slave, according to Lev.
25:39,40: "If thy brother, constrained by poverty, sell himself to
thee, thou shalt not oppress him with the service of bondservants: but
he shall be as a hireling and a sojourner. "
Reply to Objection 5: As the Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 9), the
paternal authority has the power only of admonition; but not that of
coercion, whereby rebellious and headstrong persons can be compelled.
Hence in this case the Lord commanded the stubborn son to be punished
by the rulers of the city.
Reply to Objection 6: The Lord forbade them to marry strange women on
account of the danger of seduction, lest they should be led astray into
idolatry. And specially did this prohibition apply with respect to
those nations who dwelt near them, because it was more probable that
they would adopt their religious practices. When, however, the woman
was willing to renounce idolatry, and become an adherent of the Law, it
was lawful to take her in marriage: as was the case with Ruth whom Booz
married. Wherefore she said to her mother-in-law (Ruth 1:16): "Thy
people shall be my people, and thy God my God. " Accordingly it was not
permitted to marry a captive woman unless she first shaved her hair,
and pared her nails, and put off the raiment wherein she was taken, and
mourned for her father and mother, in token that she renounced idolatry
for ever.
Reply to Objection 7: As Chrysostom says (Hom. xlviii super Matth. ),
"because death was an unmitigated evil for the Jews, who did everything
with a view to the present life, it was ordained that children should
be born to the dead man through his brother: thus affording a certain
mitigation to his death. It was not, however, ordained that any other
than his brother or one next of kin should marry the wife of the
deceased, because" the offspring of this union "would not be looked
upon as that of the deceased: and moreover, a stranger would not be
under the obligation to support the household of the deceased, as his
brother would be bound to do from motives of justice on account of his
relationship. " Hence it is evident that in marrying the wife of his
dead brother, he took his dead brother's place.
Reply to Objection 8: The Law permitted a wife to be divorced, not as
though it were just absolutely speaking, but on account of the Jews'
hardness of heart, as Our Lord declared (Mat. 19:8). Of this, however,
we must speak more fully in the treatise on Matrimony (SP, Q[67]).
Reply to Objection 9: Wives break their conjugal faith by adultery,
both easily, for motives of pleasure, and hiddenly, since "the eye of
the adulterer observeth darkness" (Job 24:15). 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 infidelity is not the result of the lust of
pleasure, but rather of malice: nor can it remain hidden like the
infidelity of an adulterous woman.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE LAW OF THE GOSPEL, CALLED THE NEW LAW, CONSIDERED IN ITSELF (FOUR
ARTICLES)
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 consider it in
itself; secondly, in comparison with the Old Law; thirdly, we shall
treat of those things that are contained in the New Law. Under the
first head there are four points of inquiry:
(1) What kind of law is it? i. e. Is it a written law or is it instilled
in the heart?
(2) Of its efficacy, i. e. does it justify?
(3) Of its beginning: should it have been given at the beginning of the
world?
(4) Of its end: i. e. whether it will last until the end, or will
another law take its place?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the New Law is a written law?
Objection 1: 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 in
writing, according to Jn. 20:31: "But these are written that you may
believe. " Therefore the New Law is a written law.
Objection 2: Further, the law that is instilled in the heart is the
natural law, according to Rom. 2:14,15: "(The Gentiles) do by nature
those things that are of the law . . . who have [Vulg. : 'show'] the
work of the law written in their hearts. " If therefore the law of the
Gospel were instilled in our hearts, it would not be distinct from the
law of nature.
Objection 3: 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 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 (Wis. 7:27) that Divine
Wisdom "through nations conveyeth herself into holy souls, she maketh
the friends of God and prophets. " Therefore the New Law is not
instilled in our hearts.
On the contrary, 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,
quoting the authority ofJeremiah 31:31, 33: "Behold the days shall
come, saith the Lord; and I will perfect unto the house of Israel, and
unto the house of Judah, a new testament," says, explaining what this
statement is (Heb. 8:8, 10): "For this is the testament which I will
make to the house of Israel . . . by giving [Vulg. : 'I will give'] My
laws into their mind, and in their heart will I write them. " Therefore
the New Law is instilled in our hearts.
I answer that, "Each thing appears to be that which preponderates in
it," as the Philosopher states (Ethic. ix, 8). Now that which is
preponderant 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 faith in Christ. Consequently the New Law is chiefly the grace
itself of the Holy Ghost, which is given to those who believe in
Christ. This is manifestly stated by the Apostle who says (Rom. 3:27):
"Where is . . . thy boasting? It is excluded. By what law? Of works?
No, but by the law of faith": for he calls the grace itself of faith "a
law. " And still more clearly it is written (Rom. 8:2): "The law of the
spirit of life, in Christ Jesus, hath delivered me from the law of sin
and of death. " Hence Augustine says (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 hearts of the faithful": and elsewhere, in the same
book (xxi): "What else are the Divine laws written by God Himself on
our hearts, but the very presence of His Holy Spirit? "
Nevertheless the New Law contains certain things that dispose us to
receive the grace of the Holy Ghost, and pertaining to 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 concerning them, both by
word and writing, both as to what they should believe and as to what
they should do. Consequently we must say that the New Law is in the
first place a law that is inscribed on our hearts, but that secondarily
it is a written law.
Reply to Objection 1: The Gospel writings contain only such things as
pertain to the grace of the Holy Ghost, either by disposing us thereto,
or by directing us to the use thereof. Thus with regard to the
intellect, the Gospel contains certain matters pertaining to the
manifestation of Christ's Godhead or humanity, which dispose us by
means of faith through which we receive the grace of the Holy Ghost:
and with regard to the affections, it contains matters touching the
contempt of the world, whereby man is rendered fit to receive the grace
of the Holy Ghost: for "the world," i. e. worldly men, "cannot receive"
the Holy Ghost (Jn. 14:17). As to the use of spiritual grace, this
consists in works of virtue to which the writings of the New Testament
exhort men in divers ways.
Reply to Objection 2: There are two ways in which a thing may be
instilled into man. First, through being part of his nature, and thus
the natural 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 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 him to
accomplish it.
Reply to Objection 3: No man ever had the grace of the Holy Ghost
except through faith in Christ either explicit or implicit: and by
faith in Christ man belongs to the New Testament. Consequently whoever
had the law of grace instilled into them belonged to the New Testament.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the New Law justifies?
Objection 1: It would seem that the New Law does not justify. For no
man is justified unless he obeys God's law, according to Heb. 5:9:
"He," i. e. Christ, "became to all that obey Him the cause of eternal
salvation. " But the Gospel does not always cause men to believe in it:
for it is written (Rom. 10:16): "All do not obey the Gospel. " Therefore
the New Law does not justify.
Objection 2: Further, the Apostle proves in his epistle to the Romans
that the Old Law did not justify, because transgression increased at
its advent: for it is stated (Rom. 4:15): "The Law worketh wrath: for
where there is no law, neither is there transgression. " But much more
did the New Law increase transgression: since he who sins after the
giving of the New Law deserves greater punishment, according to Heb.
10:28,29: "A man making void the Law of Moses dieth without any mercy
under two or three witnesses. How much more, do you think, he deserveth
worse punishments, who hath trodden underfoot the Son of God," etc. ?
Therefore the New Law, like the Old Law, does not justify.
Objection 3: Further, justification is an effect proper to God,
according to Rom. 8:33: "God that justifieth. " But the Old Law was from
God just as the New Law. Therefore the New Law does not justify any
more than the Old Law.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Rom. 1:16): "I am not ashamed of the
Gospel: for it is in the power of God unto salvation to everyone that
believeth. " But there is no salvation but to those who are justified.
Therefore the Law of the Gospel justifies.
I answer that, As stated above [2138](A[1]), there is a twofold element
in the Law of the Gospel. There is the chief element, viz. the grace of
the Holy Ghost bestowed inwardly. And as to this, the New Law
justifies. Hence Augustine says (De Spir. et Lit. xvii): "There," i. e.
in the Old Testament, "the Law was set forth in an outward fashion,
that the ungodly might be afraid"; "here," i. e. in the New Testament,
"it is given in an inward manner, that they may be justified. " The
other element of the Evangelical Law is secondary: namely, the
teachings of faith, and those commandments which direct human
affections and human actions. And as to this, the New Law does not
justify. Hence the Apostle says (2 Cor. 3:6) "The letter killeth, but
the spirit quickeneth": and Augustine explains this (De Spir. et Lit.
xiv, xvii) by saying that the letter denotes any writing external to
man, even that of the moral precepts such as are contained in the
Gospel. Wherefore the letter, even of the Gospel would kill, unless
there were the inward presence of the healing grace of faith.
Reply to Objection 1: 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 and precepts outwardly put before man either in words or in
writing.
Reply to Objection 2: 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: for this belongs to the state of glory. Hence if a man sin after
receiving the grace of the New Testament, he deserves greater
punishment, as being ungrateful for greater benefits, and as not using
the help given to him. And this is why the New Law is not said to "work
wrath": because as far as it is concerned it gives man sufficient help
to avoid sin.
Reply to Objection 3: 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: whereas He gave the New Law written "in the fleshly tables of
the heart," as the Apostle expresses it (2 Cor. 3:3). Wherefore, as
Augustine says (De Spir. et Lit. xviii), "the Apostle calls this letter
which is written outside man, a ministration of death and a
ministration of condemnation: whereas he calls the other letter, i. e.
the Law of the New Testament, the ministration of the spirit and the
ministration of justice: because through the gift of the Spirit we work
justice, and are delivered from the condemnation due to transgression. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the New Law should have been given from the beginning of the world?
Objection 1: It would seem that the New Law should have been given from
the beginning of the world. "For there is no respect of persons with
God" (Rom. 2:11). But "all" men "have sinned and do need the glory of
God" (Rom. 3:23). Therefore the Law of the Gospel should have been
given from the beginning of the world, in order that it might bring
succor to all.
Objection 2: Further, as men dwell in various places, so do they live
in various times. But God, "Who will have all men to be saved" (1 Tim.
2:4), commanded the Gospel to be preached in all places, as may be seen
in the last chapters of Matthew and Mark. Therefore the Law of the
Gospel should have been at hand for all times, so as to be given from
the beginning of the world.
Objection 3: Further, man needs to save his soul, which is for all
eternity, more than to save his body, which is a temporal matter. But
God provided man from the beginning of the world with things that are
necessary for the health of his body, by subjecting to his power
whatever was created for the sake of man (Gn. 1:26-29). Therefore the
New Law also, which is very necessary for the health of the soul,
should have been given to man from the beginning of the world.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Cor.
meat, for milk, and for its wool. " The unruly son was slain, not
because he ate and drank: but on account of his stubbornness and
rebellion, which was always punished by death, as stated above. As to
the man who gathered sticks on the sabbath, he was stoned as a breaker
of the Law, which commanded the sabbath to be observed, to testify the
belief in the newness of the world, as stated above ([2137]Q[100],
A[5]): wherefore he was slain as an unbeliever.
Reply to Objection 10: The Old Law inflicted the death penalty for the
more grievous crimes, viz. for those which are committed against God,
and for murder, for stealing a man, irreverence towards one's parents,
adultery and incest. In the case of thief of other things it inflicted
punishment by indemnification: while in the case of blows and
mutilation it authorized punishment by retaliation; and likewise for
the sin of bearing false witness. In other faults of less degree it
prescribed the punishment of stripes or of public disgrace.
The punishment of slavery was prescribed by the Law in two cases.
First, in the case of a slave who was unwilling to avail himself of the
privilege granted by the Law, whereby he was free to depart in the
seventh year of remission: wherefore he was punished by remaining a
slave for ever. Secondly, in the case of a thief, who had not wherewith
to make restitution, as stated in Ex. 22:3.
The punishment of absolute exile was not prescribed by the Law: because
God was worshipped by that people alone, whereas all other nations were
given to idolatry: wherefore if any man were exiled from that people
absolutely, he would be in danger of falling into idolatry. For this
reason it is related (1 Kings 26:19) 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 in the inheritance of the Lord, saying: Go, serve
strange gods. " There was, however, a restricted sort of exile: for it
is written in Dt. 19:4 [*Cf. Num. 35:25] that "he that striketh [Vulg. :
'killeth'] his neighbor ignorantly, and is proved to have had no hatred
against him, shall 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 to return home, because when the whole people thus suffered a
loss they forgot their private quarrels, so that the next of kin of the
slain were not so eager to kill the slayer.
Reply to Objection 11: Dumb animals were ordered to be slain, not on
account of any fault of theirs; but as a punishment to their owners,
who had not safeguarded their beasts from these offenses. Hence the
owner was more severely punished if his ox had butted anyone "yesterday
or the day before" (in which case steps might have been taken to
butting suddenly). Or again, the animal was slain in detestation of the
sin; and lest men should be horrified at the sight thereof.
Reply to Objection 12: The literal reason for this commandment, as
Rabbi Moses declares (Doct. Perplex. iii), was because the slayer was
frequently from the nearest city: wherefore the slaying of the calf was
a means of investigating the hidden murder. This was brought about in
three ways. In the first place the elders of the city swore that they
had taken every measure for safeguarding the roads. Secondly, the owner
of the heifer was indemnified for the slaying of his beast, and if the
murder was previously discovered, the beast was not slain. Thirdly, the
place, where the heifer was slain, remained uncultivated. Wherefore, in
order to avoid this twofold loss, the men of the city would readily
make known the murderer, 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 was done in order to frighten people, in detestation of
murder. Because the slaying of a heifer, which is a useful animal and
full of strength, especially before it has been put under the yoke,
signified that whoever committed murder, however useful and strong he
might be, was to forfeit his life; and that, by a cruel death, which
was implied by the striking off of its head; and that the murderer, as
vile and abject, was to be cut off from the fellowship of men, which
was betokened by the fact that the heifer after being slain was left to
rot in a rough and uncultivated place.
Mystically, the heifer taken from the herd signifies the flesh of
Christ; which had not drawn a yoke, since it had done no 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 valley signified the
despised death of Christ, whereby all sins are washed away, and the
devil is shown to be the arch-murderer.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the judicial precepts regarding foreigners were framed in a suitable
manner?
Objection 1: It would seem that the judicial precepts regarding
foreigners were not suitably framed. For Peter said (Acts 10:34,35):
"In very deed I perceive that God is not a respecter of persons, but in
every nation, he that feareth Him and worketh justice is acceptable to
Him. " But those who are acceptable to God should not be excluded from
the Church of God. Therefore it is unsuitably commanded (Dt. 23:3) that
"the Ammonite and the Moabite, even after the tenth generation, shall
not enter into the church of the Lord for ever": whereas, on the other
hand, it is prescribed (Dt. 23:7) to be observed with regard to certain
other nations: "Thou shalt not abhor the Edomite, because he is thy
brother; nor the Egyptian because thou wast a stranger in his land. "
Objection 2: 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 an
eunuch, or born of a prostitute. Therefore it is unsuitably commanded
(Dt. 23:1,2) that "an eunuch and one born of a prostitute shalt not
enter into the church of the Lord. "
Objection 3: Further, the Old Law mercifully forbade strangers to be
molested: for it is written (Ex. 22:21): "Thou shalt not molest a
stranger, nor afflict him; for yourselves also were strangers in the
land of Egypt": and (Ex. 23:9): "Thou shalt not molest a stranger, for
you know the hearts of strangers, for you also were strangers in the
land of Egypt. " But it is an affliction to be burdened with usury.
Therefore the Law unsuitably permitted them (Dt. 23:19,20) to lend
money to the stranger for usury.
Objection 4: Further, men are much more akin to us than trees. But we
should show greater care and love for these things that are nearest to
us, according to Ecclus. 13:19: "Every beast loveth its like: so also
every man him that is nearest to himself. " Therefore the Lord
unsuitably commanded (Dt. 20:13-19) that all the inhabitants of a
captured hostile city were to be slain, but that the fruit-trees should
not be cut down.
Objection 5: Further, every one should prefer the common good of virtue
to the good of the individual. But the common good is sought in a war
which men fight against their enemies. Therefore it is unsuitably
commanded (Dt. 20:5-7) 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 had married a wife.
Objection 6: 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
to the virtue of fortitude. Therefore the timid and faint-hearted are
unfittingly excused from the toil of battle (Dt. 20:8).
On the contrary, Divine Wisdom declares (Prov. 8:8): "All my words are
just, there is nothing wicked nor perverse in them. "
I answer that, Man's relations with foreigners are twofold: peaceful,
and hostile: and in directing both kinds of relation the Law contained
suitable precepts. For the Jews were offered three opportunities of
peaceful relations with foreigners. First, when foreigners passed
through their land as travelers. Secondly, when they came to dwell in
their land as newcomers. And in both these respects the Law made kind
provision in its precepts: for it is written (Ex. 22:21): "Thou shalt
not molest a stranger [advenam]"; and again (Ex. 22:9): "Thou shalt not
molest a stranger [peregrino]. " Thirdly, when any foreigners wished to
be admitted entirely to their fellowship and mode of worship. With
regard to these a certain order was observed. For they were not at once
admitted to citizenship: just as it was law with some nations that no
one was deemed a citizen except after two or three generations, as the
Philosopher says (Polit. 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 down in its midst, many dangers might occur, since the
foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt
something hurtful to the people. Hence it was that the Law prescribed
in respect of certain nations that had close relations with the Jews
(viz. , the Egyptians among whom they were born and educated, and the
Idumeans, the children of Esau, Jacob's brother), that they should be
admitted to the fellowship of the people after the third generation;
whereas others (with whom their relations had been hostile, such as the
Ammonites and Moabites) were never to be admitted to citizenship; while
the Amalekites, who were yet more hostile to them, and had no
fellowship of kindred with them, were to be held as foes in perpetuity:
for it is written (Ex. 17:16): "The war of the Lord shall be against
Amalec from generation to generation. "
In like manner with regard to hostile relations with foreigners, the
Law contained suitable precepts. For, in the first place, it commanded
that war should be declared for a just cause: thus it is commanded (Dt.
20:10) that when they advanced to besiege a city, they should at first
make an offer of peace. Secondly, it enjoined that when once they had
entered on a war they should undauntedly persevere in it, putting their
trust in God. And in order that they might be the more heedful of this
command, it ordered that on the approach of battle the priest should
hearten them by promising them God's aid. Thirdly, it prescribed the
removal of whatever might prove an obstacle to the fight, and that
certain men, who might be in the way, should be sent home. Fourthly, it
enjoined that they should use moderation in pursuing the advantage of
victory, by sparing women and children, and by not cutting down
fruit-trees of that country.
Reply to Objection 1: The Law excluded the men of no nation from the
worship of God and from things pertaining to the welfare of the soul:
for it is written (Ex. 12:48): "If any stranger be willing to dwell
among you, and to keep the Phase of the Lord; all his males shall first
be circumcised, 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
matters concerning the public life of the people, admission was not
granted to everyone at once, for the reason given above: but to some,
i. e. the Egyptians and Idumeans, in the third generation; while others
were excluded in perpetuity, in detestation of their past offense, i. e.
the peoples of Moab, Ammon, and Amalec. For just as one man is punished
for a sin committed by him, in order that others seeing this may be
deterred and refrain from sinning; so too may one nation or city be
punished for a crime, that others may refrain from similar crimes.
Nevertheless it was possible by dispensation for a man to be admitted
to citizenship on account of some act of virtue: thus it is related
(Judith 14:6) that Achior, the captain of the children of Ammon, "was
joined to the people of Israel, with all the succession of his
kindred. " The same applies to Ruth the Moabite who was "a virtuous
woman" (Ruth 3:11): although it may be said that this prohibition
regarded men and not women, who are not competent to be citizens
absolutely speaking.
Reply to Objection 2: As the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 3), a man is
said to be a citizen in two ways: first, simply; secondly, in a
restricted sense. A man is a citizen simply if he has all the rights of
citizenship, for instance, the right of debating or voting in the
popular assembly. On the other hand, any man may be called citizen,
only in a restricted sense, if he dwells within the state, even common
people or children or old men, who are not fit to enjoy power in
matters pertaining to the common weal. For this reason bastards, by
reason of their base origin, were excluded from the "ecclesia," i. e.
from the popular assembly, down to the tenth generation. The same
applies to eunuchs, who were not competent to receive the honor due to
a father, especially among the Jews, where the divine worship was
continued through carnal generation: for even among the heathens, those
who had many children were marked with special honor, as the
Philosopher remarks (Polit. ii, 6). Nevertheless, in matters pertaining
to the grace of God, eunuchs were not discriminated from others, as
neither were strangers, as already stated: for it is written (Isa.
56:3): "Let not the son of the stranger that adhereth to the Lord
speak, saying: The Lord will divide and separate me from His people.
And let not the eunuch say: Behold I am a dry tree. "
Reply to Objection 3: It was not the intention of the Law to sanction
the acceptance of usury from strangers, but only to tolerate it on
account of the proneness of the Jews to avarice; and in order to
promote an amicable feeling towards those out of whom they made a
profit.
Reply to Objection 4: A distinction was observed with regard to hostile
cities. For some of them were far distant, and were not among those
which had been promised to them. When they had taken these cities, they
killed all the men who had fought against God's people; whereas the
women and children were spared. But in the neighboring cities which had
been promised to them, all were ordered to be slain, on account of
their former crimes, to punish which God sent the Israelites as
executor of Divine justice: for it is written (Dt. 9:5) "because they
have done wickedly, they are destroyed at thy coming in. " The
fruit-trees were commanded to be left untouched, for the use of the
people themselves, to whom the city with its territory was destined to
be subjected.
Reply to Objection 5: The builder of a new house, the planter of a
vineyard, the newly married husband, were excluded from fighting, for
two reasons. 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, and consequently he is apt to dread the loss of these above
other things. Wherefore it was likely enough that on account of this
affection they would fear death all the more, and be so much the less
brave in battle. Secondly, because, as the Philosopher says (Phys. ii,
5), "it is a misfortune for a man if he is prevented from obtaining
something good when it is within his grasp. " And so lest the surviving
relations should be the more grieved at the death of these men who had
not entered into the possession of the good things prepared for them;
and also lest the people should be horror-stricken at the sight of
their misfortune: these men were taken away from the danger of death by
being removed from the battle.
Reply to Objection 6: The timid were sent back home, not that they
might be the gainers thereby; but lest the people might be the losers
by their presence, since their timidity and flight might cause others
to be afraid and run away.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the Old Law set forth suitable precepts about the members of the
household?
Objection 1: It would seem that the Old Law set forth unsuitable
precepts about the members of the household. For a slave "is in every
respect his master's property," as the Philosopher states (Polit. i,
2). But that which is a man's property should be his always. Therefore
it was unfitting for the Law to command (Ex. 21:2) that slaves should
"go out free" in the seventh year.
Objection 2: Further, a slave is his master's property, just as an
animal, e. g. an ass or an ox. But it is commanded (Dt. 22:1-3) with
regard to animals, that they should be brought back to the owner if
they be found going astray. Therefore it was unsuitably commanded (Dt.
23:15): "Thou shalt not deliver to his master the servant that is fled
to thee. "
Objection 3: Further, the Divine Law should encourage mercy more even
than the human law. But according to human laws those who ill-treat
their servants and maidservants are severely punished: and the worse
treatment of all seems to be that which results in death. Therefore it
is unfittingly commanded (Ex. 21:20,21) that "he that striketh his
bondman or bondwoman with a rod, and they die under his hands . . . if
the party remain alive a day . . . he shall not be subject to the
punishment, because it is his money. "
Objection 4: Further, the dominion of a master over his slave differs
from that of the father over his son (Polit. i, 3). But the dominion of
master over slave gives the former the right to sell his servant or
maidservant. Therefore it was unfitting for the Law to allow a man to
sell his daughter to be a servant or handmaid (Ex. 21:7).
Objection 5: 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.
Therefore it is unfittingly commanded (Dt. 21:18, seqq. ) that a father
should bring his son to the ancients of the city for punishment.
Objection 6: Further, the Lord forbade them (Dt. 7:3, seqq. ) to make
marriages with strange nations; and commanded the dissolution of such
as had been contracted (1 Esdras 10). Therefore it was unfitting to
allow them to marry captive women from strange nations (Dt. 21:10,
seqq. ).
Objection 7: Further, the Lord forbade them to marry within certain
degrees of consanguinity and affinity, according to Lev. 18. Therefore
it was unsuitably commanded (Dt. 25:5) that if any man died without
issue, his brother should marry his wife.
Objection 8: Further, as there is the greatest familiarity between man
and wife, so should there be the staunchest fidelity. But this is
impossible if the marriage bond can be sundered. Therefore it was
unfitting for the Lord to allow (Dt. 24:1-4) a man to put his wife
away, by writing a bill of divorce; and besides, that he could not take
her again to wife.
Objection 9: 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 Law
did not command any sacrifice to be offered in order to investigate the
injury done by a servant to his master, or by a son to his father.
Therefore it seems to have been superfluous for the Law to prescribe
the "sacrifice of jealousy" in order to investigate a wife's adultery
(Num. 5:12, seqq. ). Consequently it seems that the Law put forth
unsuitable judicial precepts about the members of the household.
On the contrary, It is written (Ps. 18:10): "The judgments of the Lord
are true, justified in themselves. "
I answer that, The mutual relations of the members of a household
regard everyday actions directed to the necessities of life, as the
Philosopher states (Polit. i, 1). Now the preservation of man's life
may be considered from two points of view. First, from the point of
view of the individual, i. e. in so far as man preserves his
individuality: and for the purpose of the preservation of life,
considered from this standpoint, man has at his service external goods,
by means of which he provides himself with food and clothing and other
such necessaries of life: in the handling of which he has need of
servants. Secondly man's life is preserved from the point of view of
the species, by means of generation, for which purpose man needs a
wife, that she may bear him children. Accordingly the mutual relations
of the members of a household admit of a threefold combination: viz.
those of master and servant, those of husband and wife, and those of
father and son: and in respect of all these relationships the Old Law
contained fitting precepts. Thus, with regard to servants, it commanded
them to be treated with moderation---both as to their work, lest, to
wit, they should be burdened with excessive labor, wherefore the Lord
commanded (Dt. 5:14) that on the Sabbath day "thy manservant and thy
maidservant" should "rest even as thyself"---and also as to the
infliction of punishment, for it ordered those who maimed their
servants, to set them free (Ex. 21:26,27). Similar provision was made
in favor of a maidservant when married to anyone (Ex. 21:7, seqq. ).
Moreover, with regard to those servants in particular who were taken
from among the people, the Law prescribed that they should go out free
in the seventh year taking whatever they brought with them, even their
clothes (Ex. 21:2, seqq. ): and furthermore it was commanded (Dt.
15:13)
that they should be given provision for the journey.
With regard to wives the Law made certain prescriptions as to those who
were to be taken in marriage: for instance, that they should marry a
wife from their own tribe (Num. 36:6): and this lest confusion should
ensue in the property of various tribes. Also that a man should marry
the wife of his deceased brother when the latter died without issue, as
prescribed in Dt. 25:5,6: and this in order that he who could not have
successors according to carnal origin, might at least have them by a
kind of adoption, and that thus the deceased might not be entirely
forgotten. It also forbade them to marry certain women; to wit, women
of strange nations, through fear of their losing their faith; and those
of their near kindred, on account of the natural respect due to them.
Furthermore it prescribed in what way wives were to be treated after
marriage. To wit, that they should not be slandered without grave
reason: wherefore it ordered punishment to be inflicted on the man who
falsely accused his wife of a crime (Dt. 22:13, seqq. ). Also that a
man's hatred of his wife should not be detrimental to his son (Dt.
21:15, 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 and
send her away (Dt. 24:1). Furthermore, in order to foster conjugal love
from the very outset, it was prescribed that no public duties should be
laid on a recently married man, so that he might be free to rejoice
with his wife.
With regard to children, the Law commanded parents to educate them by
instructing them in the faith: hence it is written (Ex. 12:26, seqq. ):
"When your children shall say to you: What is the meaning of this
service? You shall say to them: It is the victim of the passage of the
Lord. " Moreover, they are commanded to teach them the rules of right
conduct: wherefore it is written (Dt. 21:20) that the parents had to
say: "He slighteth hearing our admonitions, he giveth himself to
revelling and to debauchery. "
Reply to Objection 1: As the children of Israel had been delivered by
the Lord from slavery, and for this reason were bound to the service of
God, He did not wish them to be slaves in perpetuity. Hence it is
written (Lev. 25:39, seqq. ): "If thy brother, constrained by poverty,
sell himself to thee, thou shalt not oppress him with the service of
bondservants: but he shall be as a hireling and a sojourner . . . for
they are My servants, and I brought them out of the land of Egypt: let
them not be sold as bondmen": and consequently, since they were slaves,
not absolutely but in a restricted sense, after a lapse of time they
were set free.
Reply to Objection 2: This commandment is to be understood as referring
to a servant whom his master seeks to kill, or to help him in
committing some sin.
Reply to Objection 3: With regard to the ill-treatment of servants, the
Law seems to have taken into consideration whether it was certain or
not: since if it were certain, the Law fixed a penalty: for maiming,
the penalty was forfeiture of the servant, who was ordered to be given
his liberty: while for slaying, the punishment was that of a murderer,
when the slave died under the blow of his master. If, however, the hurt
was not certain, but only probable, the Law did not impose any penalty
as regards a man's own servant: for instance if the servant did not die
at once after being struck, but 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 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, even though afterwards he died. Nevertheless he was bound to
pay the doctor's fees incurred by the victim of his assault. But this
was not the case if a man killed his own servant: because whatever the
servant had, even his very person, was the property 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. "
Reply to Objection 4: 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
fixed time. And in this way the Law permitted that through stress of
poverty a man might sell his son or daughter. This is 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 bondwomen are wont to go out. "
Moreover, in this way a man might sell not only his son, but even
himself, rather as a hireling than as a slave, according to Lev.
25:39,40: "If thy brother, constrained by poverty, sell himself to
thee, thou shalt not oppress him with the service of bondservants: but
he shall be as a hireling and a sojourner. "
Reply to Objection 5: As the Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 9), the
paternal authority has the power only of admonition; but not that of
coercion, whereby rebellious and headstrong persons can be compelled.
Hence in this case the Lord commanded the stubborn son to be punished
by the rulers of the city.
Reply to Objection 6: The Lord forbade them to marry strange women on
account of the danger of seduction, lest they should be led astray into
idolatry. And specially did this prohibition apply with respect to
those nations who dwelt near them, because it was more probable that
they would adopt their religious practices. When, however, the woman
was willing to renounce idolatry, and become an adherent of the Law, it
was lawful to take her in marriage: as was the case with Ruth whom Booz
married. Wherefore she said to her mother-in-law (Ruth 1:16): "Thy
people shall be my people, and thy God my God. " Accordingly it was not
permitted to marry a captive woman unless she first shaved her hair,
and pared her nails, and put off the raiment wherein she was taken, and
mourned for her father and mother, in token that she renounced idolatry
for ever.
Reply to Objection 7: As Chrysostom says (Hom. xlviii super Matth. ),
"because death was an unmitigated evil for the Jews, who did everything
with a view to the present life, it was ordained that children should
be born to the dead man through his brother: thus affording a certain
mitigation to his death. It was not, however, ordained that any other
than his brother or one next of kin should marry the wife of the
deceased, because" the offspring of this union "would not be looked
upon as that of the deceased: and moreover, a stranger would not be
under the obligation to support the household of the deceased, as his
brother would be bound to do from motives of justice on account of his
relationship. " Hence it is evident that in marrying the wife of his
dead brother, he took his dead brother's place.
Reply to Objection 8: The Law permitted a wife to be divorced, not as
though it were just absolutely speaking, but on account of the Jews'
hardness of heart, as Our Lord declared (Mat. 19:8). Of this, however,
we must speak more fully in the treatise on Matrimony (SP, Q[67]).
Reply to Objection 9: Wives break their conjugal faith by adultery,
both easily, for motives of pleasure, and hiddenly, since "the eye of
the adulterer observeth darkness" (Job 24:15). 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 infidelity is not the result of the lust of
pleasure, but rather of malice: nor can it remain hidden like the
infidelity of an adulterous woman.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE LAW OF THE GOSPEL, CALLED THE NEW LAW, CONSIDERED IN ITSELF (FOUR
ARTICLES)
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 consider it in
itself; secondly, in comparison with the Old Law; thirdly, we shall
treat of those things that are contained in the New Law. Under the
first head there are four points of inquiry:
(1) What kind of law is it? i. e. Is it a written law or is it instilled
in the heart?
(2) Of its efficacy, i. e. does it justify?
(3) Of its beginning: should it have been given at the beginning of the
world?
(4) Of its end: i. e. whether it will last until the end, or will
another law take its place?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the New Law is a written law?
Objection 1: 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 in
writing, according to Jn. 20:31: "But these are written that you may
believe. " Therefore the New Law is a written law.
Objection 2: Further, the law that is instilled in the heart is the
natural law, according to Rom. 2:14,15: "(The Gentiles) do by nature
those things that are of the law . . . who have [Vulg. : 'show'] the
work of the law written in their hearts. " If therefore the law of the
Gospel were instilled in our hearts, it would not be distinct from the
law of nature.
Objection 3: 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 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 (Wis. 7:27) that Divine
Wisdom "through nations conveyeth herself into holy souls, she maketh
the friends of God and prophets. " Therefore the New Law is not
instilled in our hearts.
On the contrary, 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,
quoting the authority ofJeremiah 31:31, 33: "Behold the days shall
come, saith the Lord; and I will perfect unto the house of Israel, and
unto the house of Judah, a new testament," says, explaining what this
statement is (Heb. 8:8, 10): "For this is the testament which I will
make to the house of Israel . . . by giving [Vulg. : 'I will give'] My
laws into their mind, and in their heart will I write them. " Therefore
the New Law is instilled in our hearts.
I answer that, "Each thing appears to be that which preponderates in
it," as the Philosopher states (Ethic. ix, 8). Now that which is
preponderant 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 faith in Christ. Consequently the New Law is chiefly the grace
itself of the Holy Ghost, which is given to those who believe in
Christ. This is manifestly stated by the Apostle who says (Rom. 3:27):
"Where is . . . thy boasting? It is excluded. By what law? Of works?
No, but by the law of faith": for he calls the grace itself of faith "a
law. " And still more clearly it is written (Rom. 8:2): "The law of the
spirit of life, in Christ Jesus, hath delivered me from the law of sin
and of death. " Hence Augustine says (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 hearts of the faithful": and elsewhere, in the same
book (xxi): "What else are the Divine laws written by God Himself on
our hearts, but the very presence of His Holy Spirit? "
Nevertheless the New Law contains certain things that dispose us to
receive the grace of the Holy Ghost, and pertaining to 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 concerning them, both by
word and writing, both as to what they should believe and as to what
they should do. Consequently we must say that the New Law is in the
first place a law that is inscribed on our hearts, but that secondarily
it is a written law.
Reply to Objection 1: The Gospel writings contain only such things as
pertain to the grace of the Holy Ghost, either by disposing us thereto,
or by directing us to the use thereof. Thus with regard to the
intellect, the Gospel contains certain matters pertaining to the
manifestation of Christ's Godhead or humanity, which dispose us by
means of faith through which we receive the grace of the Holy Ghost:
and with regard to the affections, it contains matters touching the
contempt of the world, whereby man is rendered fit to receive the grace
of the Holy Ghost: for "the world," i. e. worldly men, "cannot receive"
the Holy Ghost (Jn. 14:17). As to the use of spiritual grace, this
consists in works of virtue to which the writings of the New Testament
exhort men in divers ways.
Reply to Objection 2: There are two ways in which a thing may be
instilled into man. First, through being part of his nature, and thus
the natural 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 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 him to
accomplish it.
Reply to Objection 3: No man ever had the grace of the Holy Ghost
except through faith in Christ either explicit or implicit: and by
faith in Christ man belongs to the New Testament. Consequently whoever
had the law of grace instilled into them belonged to the New Testament.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the New Law justifies?
Objection 1: It would seem that the New Law does not justify. For no
man is justified unless he obeys God's law, according to Heb. 5:9:
"He," i. e. Christ, "became to all that obey Him the cause of eternal
salvation. " But the Gospel does not always cause men to believe in it:
for it is written (Rom. 10:16): "All do not obey the Gospel. " Therefore
the New Law does not justify.
Objection 2: Further, the Apostle proves in his epistle to the Romans
that the Old Law did not justify, because transgression increased at
its advent: for it is stated (Rom. 4:15): "The Law worketh wrath: for
where there is no law, neither is there transgression. " But much more
did the New Law increase transgression: since he who sins after the
giving of the New Law deserves greater punishment, according to Heb.
10:28,29: "A man making void the Law of Moses dieth without any mercy
under two or three witnesses. How much more, do you think, he deserveth
worse punishments, who hath trodden underfoot the Son of God," etc. ?
Therefore the New Law, like the Old Law, does not justify.
Objection 3: Further, justification is an effect proper to God,
according to Rom. 8:33: "God that justifieth. " But the Old Law was from
God just as the New Law. Therefore the New Law does not justify any
more than the Old Law.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Rom. 1:16): "I am not ashamed of the
Gospel: for it is in the power of God unto salvation to everyone that
believeth. " But there is no salvation but to those who are justified.
Therefore the Law of the Gospel justifies.
I answer that, As stated above [2138](A[1]), there is a twofold element
in the Law of the Gospel. There is the chief element, viz. the grace of
the Holy Ghost bestowed inwardly. And as to this, the New Law
justifies. Hence Augustine says (De Spir. et Lit. xvii): "There," i. e.
in the Old Testament, "the Law was set forth in an outward fashion,
that the ungodly might be afraid"; "here," i. e. in the New Testament,
"it is given in an inward manner, that they may be justified. " The
other element of the Evangelical Law is secondary: namely, the
teachings of faith, and those commandments which direct human
affections and human actions. And as to this, the New Law does not
justify. Hence the Apostle says (2 Cor. 3:6) "The letter killeth, but
the spirit quickeneth": and Augustine explains this (De Spir. et Lit.
xiv, xvii) by saying that the letter denotes any writing external to
man, even that of the moral precepts such as are contained in the
Gospel. Wherefore the letter, even of the Gospel would kill, unless
there were the inward presence of the healing grace of faith.
Reply to Objection 1: 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 and precepts outwardly put before man either in words or in
writing.
Reply to Objection 2: 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: for this belongs to the state of glory. Hence if a man sin after
receiving the grace of the New Testament, he deserves greater
punishment, as being ungrateful for greater benefits, and as not using
the help given to him. And this is why the New Law is not said to "work
wrath": because as far as it is concerned it gives man sufficient help
to avoid sin.
Reply to Objection 3: 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: whereas He gave the New Law written "in the fleshly tables of
the heart," as the Apostle expresses it (2 Cor. 3:3). Wherefore, as
Augustine says (De Spir. et Lit. xviii), "the Apostle calls this letter
which is written outside man, a ministration of death and a
ministration of condemnation: whereas he calls the other letter, i. e.
the Law of the New Testament, the ministration of the spirit and the
ministration of justice: because through the gift of the Spirit we work
justice, and are delivered from the condemnation due to transgression. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the New Law should have been given from the beginning of the world?
Objection 1: It would seem that the New Law should have been given from
the beginning of the world. "For there is no respect of persons with
God" (Rom. 2:11). But "all" men "have sinned and do need the glory of
God" (Rom. 3:23). Therefore the Law of the Gospel should have been
given from the beginning of the world, in order that it might bring
succor to all.
Objection 2: Further, as men dwell in various places, so do they live
in various times. But God, "Who will have all men to be saved" (1 Tim.
2:4), commanded the Gospel to be preached in all places, as may be seen
in the last chapters of Matthew and Mark. Therefore the Law of the
Gospel should have been at hand for all times, so as to be given from
the beginning of the world.
Objection 3: Further, man needs to save his soul, which is for all
eternity, more than to save his body, which is a temporal matter. But
God provided man from the beginning of the world with things that are
necessary for the health of his body, by subjecting to his power
whatever was created for the sake of man (Gn. 1:26-29). Therefore the
New Law also, which is very necessary for the health of the soul,
should have been given to man from the beginning of the world.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Cor.
