"
Therefore
the New Law is not distinct from the
Old.
Old.
Summa Theologica
" 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. 15:46): "That was not first
which is spiritual, but that which is natural. " But the New Law is
highly spiritual. Therefore it was not fitting for it to be given from
the beginning of the world.
I answer that, 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 is
because the New Law, as stated above [2139](A[1]), consists chiefly in
the grace of the Holy Ghost: which it behoved not to be given
abundantly until sin, which is an obstacle to grace, had been cast out
of man through the accomplishment of his redemption by Christ:
wherefore it is written (Jn. 7:39): "As yet the Spirit was not given,
because Jesus was not yet glorified. " This reason the Apostle states
clearly (Rom. 8:2, seqq. ) where, after speaking of "the Law of the
Spirit of life," he adds: "God sending His own Son, in the likeness of
sinful flesh, of sin* hath condemned sin in the flesh, that the
justification of the Law might be fulfilled in us. " [*St. Thomas,
quoting perhaps from memory, omits the "et" (and), after "sinful
flesh. " The text quoted should read thus: "in the likeness of sinful
flesh, and a sin offering ({peri hamartias}), hath," etc. ]
A second reason may be taken from the perfection of the New Law.
Because a thing is not brought to perfection at once from 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 by the Apostle (Gal.
3:24,25): "The Law was our pedagogue in Christ that we might be
justified by faith. But after the faith is come, we are no longer under
a pedagogue. "
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 to himself
under the state of the Old Law, so that through falling into sin, he
might realize his weakness, and acknowledge his need of grace. This
reason is set down by the Apostle (Rom. 5:20): "The Law entered in,
that sin might abound: and when sin abounded grace did more abound. "
Reply to Objection 1: 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 it is justly withheld, and to whom it is given, it is
mercifully given," as Augustine states (De Perfect. Justit. iv) [*Cf.
Ep. ccvii; De Pecc. Mer. et Rem. ii, 19]. Consequently it does not
follow that there is respect of persons with God, from the fact that He
did not offer the Law of grace to all from the beginning of the world,
which Law was to be published in due course of time, as stated above.
Reply to Objection 2: The state of mankind does not vary according to
diversity of place, but according to succession of time. Hence the New
Law avails for all places, but not for all times: although at all times
there have been some persons belonging to the New Testament, as stated
above (A[1], ad 3).
Reply to Objection 3: Things pertaining to the health of the body are
of service to man as regards his nature, which sin does not destroy:
whereas things pertaining to the health of the soul are ordained to
grace, which is forfeit through sin. Consequently the comparison will
not hold.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the New Law will last till the end of the world?
Objection 1: It would seem that the New Law will not last until the end
of the world. Because, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. 13:10), "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 Apostle says (1 Cor. 13:9): "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 state.
Objection 2: Further, Our Lord (Jn. 16:13) promised His disciples the
knowledge of all truth when the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, should come.
But the Church knows not yet all truth in the state of the New
Testament. Therefore we must look forward to another state, wherein all
truth will be revealed by the Holy Ghost.
Objection 3: Further, just as the Father is distinct from the Son and
the Son from the Father, so is the Holy Ghost distinct from the Father
and the Son. But there was a state corresponding with the Person of the
Father, viz. the state of the Old Law, wherein men were intent on
begetting children: and likewise there is a state corresponding to the
Person of the Son: viz. the state of the New Law, wherein the clergy
who are intent on wisdom (which is appropriated to the Son) hold a
prominent place. Therefore there will be a third state corresponding to
the Holy Ghost, wherein spiritual men will hold the first place.
Objection 4: Further, Our Lord said (Mat. 24:14): "This Gospel of the
kingdom shall be preached in the whole world . . . and then shall the
consummation come. " But the Gospel of Christ is already preached
throughout the whole world: and yet the consummation has not yet come.
Therefore the Gospel of Christ is not the Gospel of the kingdom, but
another Gospel, that of the Holy Ghost, is to come yet, like unto
another Law.
On the contrary, Our Lord said (Mat. 24:34): "I say to you that this
generation shall not pass till all (these) things be done": which
passage Chrysostom (Hom. lxxvii) explains as referring to "the
generation of those that believe in Christ. " Therefore the state of
those who believe in Christ will last until the consummation of the
world.
I answer that, 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
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 perfect one. Now
no state of the present life can be more perfect that the state of the
New Law: since nothing can approach nearer to the last end than that
which is the immediate cause of our being brought to the last end. But
the New Law does this: wherefore the Apostle says (Heb. 10:19-22):
"Having therefore, brethren, a confidence in the entering into the
Holies by the blood of Christ, a new . . . way which He hath dedicated
for us . . . let us draw near. " Therefore no state of the present life
can be more perfect than that of the New Law, since the nearer a thing
is to the last end the more perfect it is.
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. And thus
the state of the Old Law underwent frequent changes, since at times the
laws were very well kept, and at other times were altogether unheeded.
Thus, too, the state of the New Law is subject to change with regard to
various places, times, and persons, according as the grace of the Holy
Ghost dwells in man more or less perfectly. Nevertheless 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 it hitherto, especially the
apostles who "received the firstfruits of the Spirit, i. e. sooner and
more abundantly than others," as a gloss expounds on Rom. 8:23.
Reply to Objection 1: As Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v), there is a
threefold state of mankind; the first was under the Old Law; the second
is 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 in
comparison with the state of the Gospel; so is the present state
figurative and imperfect in comparison with the heavenly state, with
the advent of which the present state will be done away as expressed in
that very passage (1 Cor. 13:12): "We see now through a glass in a dark
manner; but then face to face. "
Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix, 31),
Montanus and Priscilla pretended that Our Lord's promise to give the
Holy Ghost was fulfilled, not in the apostles, but in themselves. In
like manner the Manicheans maintained that it was fulfilled in Manes
whom they held to be the Paraclete. Hence none of the above received
the Acts of the Apostles, where it is clearly shown that the aforesaid
promise was fulfilled in the apostles: just as Our Lord promised them a
second time (Acts 1:5): "You shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not
many days hence": which we read as having been fulfilled in Acts 2.
However, these foolish notions are refuted by the statement (Jn. 7:39)
that "as yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet
glorified"; from which we gather that the Holy Ghost was given as soon
as Christ was glorified in His Resurrection and Ascension. Moreover,
this puts out of court the senseless idea that the Holy Ghost is to be
expected to come at some other time.
Now the Holy Ghost taught the apostles all truth in respect of matters
necessary for salvation; those things, to wit, that 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 to Acts 1:7: "It is not for you
to know the times or moments which the Father hath put in His own
power. "
Reply to Objection 3: The Old Law corresponded not only to the Father,
but also to the Son: because Christ was foreshadowed in the Old Law.
Hence Our Lord said (Jn. 5:46): "If you did believe Moses, you would
perhaps believe me also; for he wrote of Me. " In like manner the New
Law corresponds not only to Christ, but also to the Holy Ghost;
according to Rom. 8:2: "The Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus,"
etc. Hence we are not to look forward to another law corresponding to
the Holy Ghost.
Reply to Objection 4: Since Christ said at the very outset of the
preaching of the Gospel: "The kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Mat.
4:17), 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 Christ may be
understood in two ways. First, as denoting the spreading abroad of the
knowledge of Christ: and thus the Gospel was preached throughout the
world even at the time of the apostles, as Chrysostom states (Hom. lxxv
in Matth. ). And in this sense the words that follow---"and then shall
the consummation come," refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, of which
He was speaking literally. Secondly, the preaching of the Gospel may be
understood as extending throughout the world and producing its full
effect, so that, to wit, the Church would be founded in every nation.
And in these sense, as Augustine writes to Hesychius (Epist. cxcix),
the Gospel is not preached to the whole world yet, but, when it is, the
consummation of the world will come.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE NEW LAW AS COMPARED WITH THE OLD (FOUR ARTICLES)
We must now consider the New Law as compared with the Old: under which
head there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether the New Law is distinct from the Old Law?
(2) Whether the New Law fulfils the Old?
(3) Whether the New Law is contained in the Old?
(4) Which is the more burdensome, the New or the Old Law?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the New Law is distinct from the Old Law?
Objection 1: 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:
since "without faith it is impossible to please God," according to Heb.
11:6. But the faith of olden times and of nowadays is the same, as the
gloss says on Mat. 21:9. Therefore the law is the same also.
Objection 2: Further, Augustine says (Contra Adamant. Manich. discip.
xvii) that "there is little difference between the Law and Gospel"
[*The 'little difference' refers to the Latin words 'timor' and
'amor']---"fear and love. " But the New and Old Laws cannot be
differentiated in respect of these two things: since even the Old Law
comprised precepts of charity: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor" (Lev.
19:18), and: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God" (Dt. 6:5). In like
manner neither can they differ according to the other difference which
Augustine assigns (Contra Faust. iv, 2), viz. that "the Old Testament
contained temporal promises, whereas the New Testament contains
spiritual and eternal promises": since even the New Testament contains
temporal promises, according to Mk. 10:30: He shall receive "a hundred
times as much . . . in this time, houses and brethren," etc. : while in
the Old Testament they hoped in promises spiritual and eternal,
according to Heb. 11:16: "But now they desire a better, that is to say,
a heavenly country," which is said of the patriarchs. Therefore it
seems that the New Law is not distinct from the Old.
Objection 3: 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"
(Rom. 3:27). But the Old Law was also a law of faith, according to Heb.
11:39: "All were [Vulg. : 'All these being'] approved by the testimony
of faith," which he says of the fathers of the Old Testament. In like
manner the New Law is a law of works: since it is written (Mat. 5:44):
"Do good to them that hate you"; and (Lk. 22:19): "Do this for a
commemoration of Me.
" Therefore the New Law is not distinct from the
Old.
On the contrary, the Apostle says (Heb. 7:12): "The priesthood being
translated it is necessary that a translation also be made of the Law. "
But the priesthood of the New Testament is distinct from that of the
Old, as the Apostle shows in the same place. Therefore the Law is also
distinct.
I answer that, As stated above ([2140]Q[90], A[2];[2141] Q[91], A[4]),
every law ordains human conduct to some end. Now things ordained to an
end may be divided in two ways, considered from the point of view of
the end. First, through being ordained to different ends: and this
difference will be specific, especially if such ends are proximate.
Secondly, by reason of being closely or remotely connected with the
end. Thus it is clear that movements differ in species through being
directed to different terms: while according as one part of a movement
is nearer to the term than another part, the difference of perfect and
imperfect movement is assessed.
Accordingly then two laws may be distinguished from one another in two
ways. First, through being altogether diverse, from the fact that they
are ordained to diverse ends: thus a state-law ordained to democratic
government, would differ specifically from a law ordained to government
by the aristocracy. Secondly, two laws may be distinguished from one
another, through one of them being more closely connected with the end,
and the other more remotely: thus in one and the same state there is
one law enjoined on men of mature age, who can forthwith accomplish
that which pertains to the common good; and another law regulating the
education of children who need to be taught how they are to achieve
manly deeds later on.
We must therefore say that, according to the first way, the New Law is
not distinct from the Old Law: because they both have 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 Rom. 3:30: "It is one God that
justifieth circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. "
According to the second way, the New Law is distinct from the Old Law:
because the Old Law is like a pedagogue of children, as the Apostle
says (Gal. 3:24), whereas the New Law is the law of perfection, since
it is the law of charity, of which the Apostle says (Col. 3:14) that it
is "the bond of perfection. "
Reply to Objection 1: The unity of faith under both Testaments
witnesses to the unity of end: for it has been stated above
([2142]Q[62], A[2]) that the object of the theological virtues, among
which is faith, is the last end. Yet faith had a different state in the
Old and in the New Law: since what they believed as future, we believe
as fact.
Reply to Objection 2: All the differences assigned between the Old and
New Laws are gathered from their relative perfection and imperfection.
For the precepts of every law prescribe acts of virtue. Now the
imperfect, who as yet are not possessed of a virtuous habit, are
directed in one way to perform virtuous acts, while those who are
perfected by the possession of virtuous habits are directed in another
way. For those who as yet are not endowed with virtuous habits, are
directed to the performance of virtuous acts by reason of some outward
cause: for instance, by the threat of punishment, or the promise of
some extrinsic rewards, such as honor, riches, or the like. Hence the
Old Law, which was given to men who were imperfect, that is, who had
not yet received spiritual grace, was called the "law of fear,"
inasmuch as it induced men to observe its commandments by threatening
them with penalties; and is spoken of as containing temporal promises.
On the other hand, those who are possessed of virtue, are inclined to
do virtuous deeds through love of virtue, not on account of some
extrinsic punishment or reward. Hence the New Law which derives its
pre-eminence from the spiritual grace instilled into our hearts, is
called the "Law of love": and it is described as containing spiritual
and eternal promises, which are objects of the virtues, chiefly of
charity. Accordingly such persons are inclined of themselves to those
objects, not as to something foreign but as to something of their own.
For this reason, too, the Old Law is described as "restraining the
hand, not the will" [*Peter Lombard, Sent. iii, D, 40]; since when a
man refrains from some sins through fear of being punished, his will
does not shrink simply from sin, as does the will of a man who refrains
from sin through love of righteousness: and hence the New Law, which is
the Law of love, is said to restrain the will.
Nevertheless there were some in the state of the Old Testament who,
having charity and the grace of the Holy Ghost, looked chiefly to
spiritual and eternal promises: and in this respect they belonged to
the New Law. In like manner in the New Testament there are some carnal
men who have not yet attained to the perfection of the New Law; and
these it was necessary, even under the New Testament, to lead to
virtuous action by the fear of punishment and by temporal promises.
But although the Old Law contained precepts of charity, nevertheless it
did not confer the Holy Ghost by Whom "charity . . . is spread abroad
in our hearts" (Rom. 5:5).
Reply to Objection 3: As stated above ([2143]Q[106], AA[1],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 inwardly to believers, and
for this reason is called the grace of faith. Nevertheless it consists
secondarily in certain deeds, moral and sacramental: but the New Law
does not consist chiefly in these latter things, as did the Old Law. As
to those under the Old Testament who through faith were acceptable to
God, in this respect they belonged to the New Testament: for they were
not justified except through faith in Christ, Who is the Author of the
New Testament. Hence of Moses the Apostle says (Heb. 11:26) that he
esteemed "the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasure of
the Egyptians. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the New Law fulfils the Old?
Objection 1: 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 or
excludes the observances of the Old Law: for the Apostle says (Gal.
5:2): "If you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. "
Therefore the New Law is not a fulfilment of the Old.
Objection 2: Further, one contrary is not the fulfilment of another.
But Our Lord propounded in the New Law precepts that were contrary to
precepts of the Old Law. For we read (Mat. 5:27-32): 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. But I say to you that
whosoever shall put away his wife . . . maketh her to commit adultery. "
Furthermore, the same evidently applies to the prohibition against
swearing, against retaliation, and against hating one's enemies. In
like manner Our Lord seems to have done away with the precepts of the
Old Law relating to the different kinds of foods (Mat. 15:11): "Not
that which goeth into the mouth defileth the man: but what cometh out
of the mouth, this defileth a man. " Therefore the New Law is not a
fulfilment of the Old.
Objection 3: Further, whoever acts against a law does not fulfil the
law. But Christ in certain cases acted against the Law. For He touched
the leper (Mat. 8:3), which was contrary to the Law. Likewise He seems
to have frequently broken the sabbath; since the Jews used to say of
Him (Jn. 9:16): "This man is not of God, who keepeth not the sabbath. "
Therefore Christ did not fulfil the Law: and so the New Law given by
Christ is not a fulfilment of the Old.
Objection 4: Further, the Old Law contained precepts, moral,
ceremonial, and judicial, as stated above ([2144]Q[99], A[4]). But Our
Lord (Mat. 5) fulfilled the Law in some respects, but without
mentioning the judicial and ceremonial precepts. Therefore it seems
that the New Law is not a complete fulfilment of the Old.
On the contrary, Our Lord said (Mat. 5:17): "I am not come to destroy,
but to fulfil": and went on to say (Mat. 5:18): "One jot or one tittle
shall not pass of the Law till all be fulfilled. "
I answer that, As stated above [2145](A[1]), the New Law is compared to
the Old as the perfect to the imperfect. Now everything perfect fulfils
that which is lacking in the imperfect. And accordingly the New Law
fulfils the Old by supplying that which was lacking in the Old Law.
Now two things of every law is to make men righteous and virtuous, as
was stated above ([2146]Q[92], A[1]): and consequently the end of the
Old Law was the justification of men. The Law, however, could not
accomplish this: but foreshadowed it by certain ceremonial actions, and
promised it in words. And in this respect, the New Law fulfils the Old
by justifying men through the power of Christ's Passion. This is what
the Apostle says (Rom. 8:3,4): "What the Law could not do . . . God
sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh . . . hath
condemned sin in the flesh, that the justification of the Law might be
fulfilled in us. " And in this respect, the New Law gives what the Old
Law promised, according to 2 Cor. 1:20: "Whatever are the promises of
God, in Him," i. e. in Christ, "they are 'Yea'. " [*The Douay version
reads thus: "All the promises of God are in Him, 'It is'. "] Again, in
this respect, it also fulfils what the Old Law foreshadowed. Hence it
is written (Col. 2:17) concerning the ceremonial precepts that they
were "a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ"; in other
words, the reality is found in Christ. Wherefore the New Law is called
the law of reality; whereas the Old Law is called the law of shadow or
of figure.
Now Christ fulfilled the precepts of the Old Law both in His works and
in His doctrine. In His works, because He was willing to be circumcised
and to fulfil the other legal observances, which were binding for the
time being; according to Gal. 4:4: "Made under the Law. " In His
doctrine He fulfilled the precepts of the Law in three ways. First, by
explaining the true sense of the Law. This is clear in the case of
murder and adultery, the prohibition of which the Scribes and Pharisees
thought to refer only to the exterior act: wherefore Our Lord fulfilled
the Law by showing that the prohibition extended also to the interior
acts of sins. Secondly, Our Lord fulfilled the precepts of the Law by
prescribing the safest way of complying with the statutes of the Old
Law. Thus the Old Law forbade perjury: and this is more safely avoided,
by abstaining altogether from swearing, save in cases of urgency.
Thirdly, Our Lord fulfilled the precepts of the Law, by adding some
counsels of perfection: this is clearly seen in Mat. 19:21, 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: If thou wilt be perfect,
go, sell whatsoever thou hast," etc. [*St. Thomas combines Mat. 19:21
with Mk. 10:21].
Reply to Objection 1: The New Law does not void observance of the Old
Law except in the point of ceremonial precepts, as stated above
([2147]Q[103], AA[3],4). Now the latter were figurative of something to
come. Wherefore from the very fact that the ceremonial precepts were
fulfilled when those things were accomplished which they foreshadowed,
it follows that they are no longer to be observed: for it they were to
be observed, this would mean that something is still to be accomplished
and is not yet fulfilled. Thus the promise of a future gift holds no
longer when it has been fulfilled by the presentation of the gift. In
this way the legal ceremonies are abolished by being fulfilled.
Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix, 26), those
precepts of Our Lord are not contrary to the precepts of the Old Law.
For what Our Lord commanded about a man not putting away his wife, is
not contrary to what the Law prescribed. "For the Law did 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 Law was unwilling that a man
should put away his wife, since it prescribed a delay, so that
excessive eagerness for divorce might cease through being weakened
during the writing of the bill. Hence Our Lord, 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. " The same applies to the prohibition
about swearing, as stated above. The same is also clear with respect to
the prohibition of retaliation. For the Law fixed a limit to revenge,
by forbidding men to seek vengeance unreasonably: whereas Our Lord
deprived them of vengeance more completely by commanding them to
abstain from it altogether. With regard to the hatred of one's enemies,
He dispelled the false interpretation of the Pharisees, by admonishing
us to hate, not the person, but his sin. As to discriminating between
various foods, which was a ceremonial matter, Our Lord did not forbid
this to be observed: but He showed that no foods are naturally unclean,
but only in token of something else, as stated above ([2148]Q[102],
A[6], ad 1).
Reply to Objection 3: It was forbidden by the Law to touch a leper;
because by doing so, man incurred a certain uncleanness of
irregularity, as also by touching the dead, as stated above
([2149]Q[102], A[5], ad 4). But Our Lord, Who healed the leper, could
not contract an uncleanness. By those things which He did on the
sabbath, He did not break the sabbath in reality, as the Master Himself
shows in the Gospel: both because He worked miracles by His Divine
power, which is ever active among things; and because He worked
miracles by His Divine power, which is ever active among things; and
because His works were concerned with the salvation of man, while the
Pharisees were concerned for the well-being of animals even on the
sabbath; and again because on account of urgency He excused His
disciples for gathering the ears of corn on the sabbath. But He did
seem to break the sabbath according to the superstitious interpretation
of the Pharisees, who thought that man ought to abstain from doing even
works of kindness on the sabbath; which was contrary to the intention
of the Law.
Reply to Objection 4: The reason why the ceremonial precepts of the Law
are not mentioned in Mat. 5 is because, as stated above (ad 1), their
observance was abolished by their fulfilment. But of the judicial
precepts He mentioned that of retaliation: so that what He said about
it should refer to all the others. With regard to this precept, He
taught that the intention of the Law was that retaliation should be
sought out of love of justice, and not as a punishment out of
revengeful spite, which He forbade, admonishing man to be ready to
suffer yet greater insults; and this remains still in the New Law.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the New Law is contained in the Old?
Objection 1: It would seem that the New Law is not contained in the
Old. Because the New Law consists chiefly in faith: wherefore it is
called the "law of faith" (Rom. 3:27). 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 contained in the Old.
Objection 2: Further, a gloss says on Mat. 5:19, "He that shall break
one of these least commandments," that the lesser commandments are
those of the Law, and the greater commandments, those contained in the
Gospel. Now the greater cannot be contained in the lesser. Therefore
the New Law is not contained in the Old.
Objection 3: Further, who holds the container holds the contents. If,
therefore, the New Law is contained in the Old, it follows that 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 the New Law is not
contained in the Old.
On the contrary, As expressed in Ezech. 1:16, there was "a wheel in the
midst of a wheel," i. e. "the New Testament within the Old," according
to Gregory's exposition.
I answer that, One thing may be contained in another in two ways.
First, actually; as a located thing is in a place. Secondly, virtually;
as an effect in its cause, or as the complement in that which is
incomplete; thus a genus contains its species, and a seed contains the
whole tree, virtually. It is in this way that the New Law is contained
in the Old: for it has been stated [2150](A[1]) that the New Law is
compared to the Old as perfect to imperfect. Hence Chrysostom,
expounding Mk. 4:28, "The earth of itself bringeth forth fruit, first
the blade, then the ear, afterwards the full corn in the ear,"
expresses 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, 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.
Reply to Objection 1: Whatsoever is set down in the New Testament
explicitly and openly as a point of faith, is contained in the Old
Testament as a matter of belief, but implicitly, under a figure. And
accordingly, even as to those things which we are bound to believe, the
New Law is contained in the Old.
Reply to Objection 2: 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. But as to the substance itself of the precepts of the
New Testament, they are all contained in the Old. Hence Augustine says
(Contra Faust. xix, 23,28) that "nearly all Our Lord's admonitions or
precepts, where He expressed Himself by saying: 'But I say unto you,'
are to be found also in those ancient books. Yet, since they thought
that murder was only the slaying of the human body, Our Lord declared
to them that every wicked impulse to hurt our 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 the New Law are said to be greater than those
of the Old. Nothing, however, prevents the greater from being contained
in the lesser virtually; just as a tree is contained in the seed.
Reply to Objection 3: What is set forth implicitly needs to be declared
explicitly. Hence after the publishing of the Old Law, a New Law also
had to be given.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the New Law is more burdensome than the Old?
Objection 1: It would seem that the New Law is more burdensome than the
Old. For Chrysostom (Opus Imp. in Matth. , Hom. x [*The work of an
unknown author]) say: "The commandments given to Moses are easy to
obey: Thou shalt not kill; Thou shalt not commit adultery: but the
commandments of Christ are difficult to accomplish, for instance: Thou
shalt not give way to anger, or to lust. " Therefore the New Law is more
burdensome than the Old.
Objection 2: Further, it is easier to make use of earthly prosperity
than to suffer tribulations. But in the Old Testament observance of the
Law was followed by temporal prosperity, as may be gathered from Dt.
28:1-14; whereas many kinds of trouble ensue to those who observe the
New Law, as stated in 2 Cor. 6:4-10: "Let us exhibit ourselves as the
ministers of God, in much patience, in tribulation, in necessities, in
distresses," etc. Therefore the New Law is more burdensome than the
Old.
Objection 3: 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 perjury,
while the New Law proscribed even swearing: the Old Law forbade a man
to cast off his wife without a bill of divorce, while the New Law
forbade divorce altogether; as is clearly stated in Mat. 5:31, seqq. ,
according to Augustine's expounding. Therefore the New Law is more
burdensome than the Old.
On the contrary, It is written (Mat. 11:28): "Come to Me, all you that
labor and are burdened": which words are expounded by Hilary thus: "He
calls to Himself all those that labor under the difficulty of observing
the Law, and are burdened with the sins of this world. " And further on
He says 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 Old.
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. 15:46): "That was not first
which is spiritual, but that which is natural. " But the New Law is
highly spiritual. Therefore it was not fitting for it to be given from
the beginning of the world.
I answer that, 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 is
because the New Law, as stated above [2139](A[1]), consists chiefly in
the grace of the Holy Ghost: which it behoved not to be given
abundantly until sin, which is an obstacle to grace, had been cast out
of man through the accomplishment of his redemption by Christ:
wherefore it is written (Jn. 7:39): "As yet the Spirit was not given,
because Jesus was not yet glorified. " This reason the Apostle states
clearly (Rom. 8:2, seqq. ) where, after speaking of "the Law of the
Spirit of life," he adds: "God sending His own Son, in the likeness of
sinful flesh, of sin* hath condemned sin in the flesh, that the
justification of the Law might be fulfilled in us. " [*St. Thomas,
quoting perhaps from memory, omits the "et" (and), after "sinful
flesh. " The text quoted should read thus: "in the likeness of sinful
flesh, and a sin offering ({peri hamartias}), hath," etc. ]
A second reason may be taken from the perfection of the New Law.
Because a thing is not brought to perfection at once from 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 by the Apostle (Gal.
3:24,25): "The Law was our pedagogue in Christ that we might be
justified by faith. But after the faith is come, we are no longer under
a pedagogue. "
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 to himself
under the state of the Old Law, so that through falling into sin, he
might realize his weakness, and acknowledge his need of grace. This
reason is set down by the Apostle (Rom. 5:20): "The Law entered in,
that sin might abound: and when sin abounded grace did more abound. "
Reply to Objection 1: 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 it is justly withheld, and to whom it is given, it is
mercifully given," as Augustine states (De Perfect. Justit. iv) [*Cf.
Ep. ccvii; De Pecc. Mer. et Rem. ii, 19]. Consequently it does not
follow that there is respect of persons with God, from the fact that He
did not offer the Law of grace to all from the beginning of the world,
which Law was to be published in due course of time, as stated above.
Reply to Objection 2: The state of mankind does not vary according to
diversity of place, but according to succession of time. Hence the New
Law avails for all places, but not for all times: although at all times
there have been some persons belonging to the New Testament, as stated
above (A[1], ad 3).
Reply to Objection 3: Things pertaining to the health of the body are
of service to man as regards his nature, which sin does not destroy:
whereas things pertaining to the health of the soul are ordained to
grace, which is forfeit through sin. Consequently the comparison will
not hold.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the New Law will last till the end of the world?
Objection 1: It would seem that the New Law will not last until the end
of the world. Because, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. 13:10), "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 Apostle says (1 Cor. 13:9): "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 state.
Objection 2: Further, Our Lord (Jn. 16:13) promised His disciples the
knowledge of all truth when the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, should come.
But the Church knows not yet all truth in the state of the New
Testament. Therefore we must look forward to another state, wherein all
truth will be revealed by the Holy Ghost.
Objection 3: Further, just as the Father is distinct from the Son and
the Son from the Father, so is the Holy Ghost distinct from the Father
and the Son. But there was a state corresponding with the Person of the
Father, viz. the state of the Old Law, wherein men were intent on
begetting children: and likewise there is a state corresponding to the
Person of the Son: viz. the state of the New Law, wherein the clergy
who are intent on wisdom (which is appropriated to the Son) hold a
prominent place. Therefore there will be a third state corresponding to
the Holy Ghost, wherein spiritual men will hold the first place.
Objection 4: Further, Our Lord said (Mat. 24:14): "This Gospel of the
kingdom shall be preached in the whole world . . . and then shall the
consummation come. " But the Gospel of Christ is already preached
throughout the whole world: and yet the consummation has not yet come.
Therefore the Gospel of Christ is not the Gospel of the kingdom, but
another Gospel, that of the Holy Ghost, is to come yet, like unto
another Law.
On the contrary, Our Lord said (Mat. 24:34): "I say to you that this
generation shall not pass till all (these) things be done": which
passage Chrysostom (Hom. lxxvii) explains as referring to "the
generation of those that believe in Christ. " Therefore the state of
those who believe in Christ will last until the consummation of the
world.
I answer that, 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
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 perfect one. Now
no state of the present life can be more perfect that the state of the
New Law: since nothing can approach nearer to the last end than that
which is the immediate cause of our being brought to the last end. But
the New Law does this: wherefore the Apostle says (Heb. 10:19-22):
"Having therefore, brethren, a confidence in the entering into the
Holies by the blood of Christ, a new . . . way which He hath dedicated
for us . . . let us draw near. " Therefore no state of the present life
can be more perfect than that of the New Law, since the nearer a thing
is to the last end the more perfect it is.
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. And thus
the state of the Old Law underwent frequent changes, since at times the
laws were very well kept, and at other times were altogether unheeded.
Thus, too, the state of the New Law is subject to change with regard to
various places, times, and persons, according as the grace of the Holy
Ghost dwells in man more or less perfectly. Nevertheless 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 it hitherto, especially the
apostles who "received the firstfruits of the Spirit, i. e. sooner and
more abundantly than others," as a gloss expounds on Rom. 8:23.
Reply to Objection 1: As Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v), there is a
threefold state of mankind; the first was under the Old Law; the second
is 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 in
comparison with the state of the Gospel; so is the present state
figurative and imperfect in comparison with the heavenly state, with
the advent of which the present state will be done away as expressed in
that very passage (1 Cor. 13:12): "We see now through a glass in a dark
manner; but then face to face. "
Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix, 31),
Montanus and Priscilla pretended that Our Lord's promise to give the
Holy Ghost was fulfilled, not in the apostles, but in themselves. In
like manner the Manicheans maintained that it was fulfilled in Manes
whom they held to be the Paraclete. Hence none of the above received
the Acts of the Apostles, where it is clearly shown that the aforesaid
promise was fulfilled in the apostles: just as Our Lord promised them a
second time (Acts 1:5): "You shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not
many days hence": which we read as having been fulfilled in Acts 2.
However, these foolish notions are refuted by the statement (Jn. 7:39)
that "as yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet
glorified"; from which we gather that the Holy Ghost was given as soon
as Christ was glorified in His Resurrection and Ascension. Moreover,
this puts out of court the senseless idea that the Holy Ghost is to be
expected to come at some other time.
Now the Holy Ghost taught the apostles all truth in respect of matters
necessary for salvation; those things, to wit, that 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 to Acts 1:7: "It is not for you
to know the times or moments which the Father hath put in His own
power. "
Reply to Objection 3: The Old Law corresponded not only to the Father,
but also to the Son: because Christ was foreshadowed in the Old Law.
Hence Our Lord said (Jn. 5:46): "If you did believe Moses, you would
perhaps believe me also; for he wrote of Me. " In like manner the New
Law corresponds not only to Christ, but also to the Holy Ghost;
according to Rom. 8:2: "The Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus,"
etc. Hence we are not to look forward to another law corresponding to
the Holy Ghost.
Reply to Objection 4: Since Christ said at the very outset of the
preaching of the Gospel: "The kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Mat.
4:17), 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 Christ may be
understood in two ways. First, as denoting the spreading abroad of the
knowledge of Christ: and thus the Gospel was preached throughout the
world even at the time of the apostles, as Chrysostom states (Hom. lxxv
in Matth. ). And in this sense the words that follow---"and then shall
the consummation come," refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, of which
He was speaking literally. Secondly, the preaching of the Gospel may be
understood as extending throughout the world and producing its full
effect, so that, to wit, the Church would be founded in every nation.
And in these sense, as Augustine writes to Hesychius (Epist. cxcix),
the Gospel is not preached to the whole world yet, but, when it is, the
consummation of the world will come.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE NEW LAW AS COMPARED WITH THE OLD (FOUR ARTICLES)
We must now consider the New Law as compared with the Old: under which
head there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether the New Law is distinct from the Old Law?
(2) Whether the New Law fulfils the Old?
(3) Whether the New Law is contained in the Old?
(4) Which is the more burdensome, the New or the Old Law?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the New Law is distinct from the Old Law?
Objection 1: 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:
since "without faith it is impossible to please God," according to Heb.
11:6. But the faith of olden times and of nowadays is the same, as the
gloss says on Mat. 21:9. Therefore the law is the same also.
Objection 2: Further, Augustine says (Contra Adamant. Manich. discip.
xvii) that "there is little difference between the Law and Gospel"
[*The 'little difference' refers to the Latin words 'timor' and
'amor']---"fear and love. " But the New and Old Laws cannot be
differentiated in respect of these two things: since even the Old Law
comprised precepts of charity: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor" (Lev.
19:18), and: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God" (Dt. 6:5). In like
manner neither can they differ according to the other difference which
Augustine assigns (Contra Faust. iv, 2), viz. that "the Old Testament
contained temporal promises, whereas the New Testament contains
spiritual and eternal promises": since even the New Testament contains
temporal promises, according to Mk. 10:30: He shall receive "a hundred
times as much . . . in this time, houses and brethren," etc. : while in
the Old Testament they hoped in promises spiritual and eternal,
according to Heb. 11:16: "But now they desire a better, that is to say,
a heavenly country," which is said of the patriarchs. Therefore it
seems that the New Law is not distinct from the Old.
Objection 3: 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"
(Rom. 3:27). But the Old Law was also a law of faith, according to Heb.
11:39: "All were [Vulg. : 'All these being'] approved by the testimony
of faith," which he says of the fathers of the Old Testament. In like
manner the New Law is a law of works: since it is written (Mat. 5:44):
"Do good to them that hate you"; and (Lk. 22:19): "Do this for a
commemoration of Me.
" Therefore the New Law is not distinct from the
Old.
On the contrary, the Apostle says (Heb. 7:12): "The priesthood being
translated it is necessary that a translation also be made of the Law. "
But the priesthood of the New Testament is distinct from that of the
Old, as the Apostle shows in the same place. Therefore the Law is also
distinct.
I answer that, As stated above ([2140]Q[90], A[2];[2141] Q[91], A[4]),
every law ordains human conduct to some end. Now things ordained to an
end may be divided in two ways, considered from the point of view of
the end. First, through being ordained to different ends: and this
difference will be specific, especially if such ends are proximate.
Secondly, by reason of being closely or remotely connected with the
end. Thus it is clear that movements differ in species through being
directed to different terms: while according as one part of a movement
is nearer to the term than another part, the difference of perfect and
imperfect movement is assessed.
Accordingly then two laws may be distinguished from one another in two
ways. First, through being altogether diverse, from the fact that they
are ordained to diverse ends: thus a state-law ordained to democratic
government, would differ specifically from a law ordained to government
by the aristocracy. Secondly, two laws may be distinguished from one
another, through one of them being more closely connected with the end,
and the other more remotely: thus in one and the same state there is
one law enjoined on men of mature age, who can forthwith accomplish
that which pertains to the common good; and another law regulating the
education of children who need to be taught how they are to achieve
manly deeds later on.
We must therefore say that, according to the first way, the New Law is
not distinct from the Old Law: because they both have 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 Rom. 3:30: "It is one God that
justifieth circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. "
According to the second way, the New Law is distinct from the Old Law:
because the Old Law is like a pedagogue of children, as the Apostle
says (Gal. 3:24), whereas the New Law is the law of perfection, since
it is the law of charity, of which the Apostle says (Col. 3:14) that it
is "the bond of perfection. "
Reply to Objection 1: The unity of faith under both Testaments
witnesses to the unity of end: for it has been stated above
([2142]Q[62], A[2]) that the object of the theological virtues, among
which is faith, is the last end. Yet faith had a different state in the
Old and in the New Law: since what they believed as future, we believe
as fact.
Reply to Objection 2: All the differences assigned between the Old and
New Laws are gathered from their relative perfection and imperfection.
For the precepts of every law prescribe acts of virtue. Now the
imperfect, who as yet are not possessed of a virtuous habit, are
directed in one way to perform virtuous acts, while those who are
perfected by the possession of virtuous habits are directed in another
way. For those who as yet are not endowed with virtuous habits, are
directed to the performance of virtuous acts by reason of some outward
cause: for instance, by the threat of punishment, or the promise of
some extrinsic rewards, such as honor, riches, or the like. Hence the
Old Law, which was given to men who were imperfect, that is, who had
not yet received spiritual grace, was called the "law of fear,"
inasmuch as it induced men to observe its commandments by threatening
them with penalties; and is spoken of as containing temporal promises.
On the other hand, those who are possessed of virtue, are inclined to
do virtuous deeds through love of virtue, not on account of some
extrinsic punishment or reward. Hence the New Law which derives its
pre-eminence from the spiritual grace instilled into our hearts, is
called the "Law of love": and it is described as containing spiritual
and eternal promises, which are objects of the virtues, chiefly of
charity. Accordingly such persons are inclined of themselves to those
objects, not as to something foreign but as to something of their own.
For this reason, too, the Old Law is described as "restraining the
hand, not the will" [*Peter Lombard, Sent. iii, D, 40]; since when a
man refrains from some sins through fear of being punished, his will
does not shrink simply from sin, as does the will of a man who refrains
from sin through love of righteousness: and hence the New Law, which is
the Law of love, is said to restrain the will.
Nevertheless there were some in the state of the Old Testament who,
having charity and the grace of the Holy Ghost, looked chiefly to
spiritual and eternal promises: and in this respect they belonged to
the New Law. In like manner in the New Testament there are some carnal
men who have not yet attained to the perfection of the New Law; and
these it was necessary, even under the New Testament, to lead to
virtuous action by the fear of punishment and by temporal promises.
But although the Old Law contained precepts of charity, nevertheless it
did not confer the Holy Ghost by Whom "charity . . . is spread abroad
in our hearts" (Rom. 5:5).
Reply to Objection 3: As stated above ([2143]Q[106], AA[1],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 inwardly to believers, and
for this reason is called the grace of faith. Nevertheless it consists
secondarily in certain deeds, moral and sacramental: but the New Law
does not consist chiefly in these latter things, as did the Old Law. As
to those under the Old Testament who through faith were acceptable to
God, in this respect they belonged to the New Testament: for they were
not justified except through faith in Christ, Who is the Author of the
New Testament. Hence of Moses the Apostle says (Heb. 11:26) that he
esteemed "the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasure of
the Egyptians. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the New Law fulfils the Old?
Objection 1: 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 or
excludes the observances of the Old Law: for the Apostle says (Gal.
5:2): "If you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. "
Therefore the New Law is not a fulfilment of the Old.
Objection 2: Further, one contrary is not the fulfilment of another.
But Our Lord propounded in the New Law precepts that were contrary to
precepts of the Old Law. For we read (Mat. 5:27-32): 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. But I say to you that
whosoever shall put away his wife . . . maketh her to commit adultery. "
Furthermore, the same evidently applies to the prohibition against
swearing, against retaliation, and against hating one's enemies. In
like manner Our Lord seems to have done away with the precepts of the
Old Law relating to the different kinds of foods (Mat. 15:11): "Not
that which goeth into the mouth defileth the man: but what cometh out
of the mouth, this defileth a man. " Therefore the New Law is not a
fulfilment of the Old.
Objection 3: Further, whoever acts against a law does not fulfil the
law. But Christ in certain cases acted against the Law. For He touched
the leper (Mat. 8:3), which was contrary to the Law. Likewise He seems
to have frequently broken the sabbath; since the Jews used to say of
Him (Jn. 9:16): "This man is not of God, who keepeth not the sabbath. "
Therefore Christ did not fulfil the Law: and so the New Law given by
Christ is not a fulfilment of the Old.
Objection 4: Further, the Old Law contained precepts, moral,
ceremonial, and judicial, as stated above ([2144]Q[99], A[4]). But Our
Lord (Mat. 5) fulfilled the Law in some respects, but without
mentioning the judicial and ceremonial precepts. Therefore it seems
that the New Law is not a complete fulfilment of the Old.
On the contrary, Our Lord said (Mat. 5:17): "I am not come to destroy,
but to fulfil": and went on to say (Mat. 5:18): "One jot or one tittle
shall not pass of the Law till all be fulfilled. "
I answer that, As stated above [2145](A[1]), the New Law is compared to
the Old as the perfect to the imperfect. Now everything perfect fulfils
that which is lacking in the imperfect. And accordingly the New Law
fulfils the Old by supplying that which was lacking in the Old Law.
Now two things of every law is to make men righteous and virtuous, as
was stated above ([2146]Q[92], A[1]): and consequently the end of the
Old Law was the justification of men. The Law, however, could not
accomplish this: but foreshadowed it by certain ceremonial actions, and
promised it in words. And in this respect, the New Law fulfils the Old
by justifying men through the power of Christ's Passion. This is what
the Apostle says (Rom. 8:3,4): "What the Law could not do . . . God
sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh . . . hath
condemned sin in the flesh, that the justification of the Law might be
fulfilled in us. " And in this respect, the New Law gives what the Old
Law promised, according to 2 Cor. 1:20: "Whatever are the promises of
God, in Him," i. e. in Christ, "they are 'Yea'. " [*The Douay version
reads thus: "All the promises of God are in Him, 'It is'. "] Again, in
this respect, it also fulfils what the Old Law foreshadowed. Hence it
is written (Col. 2:17) concerning the ceremonial precepts that they
were "a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ"; in other
words, the reality is found in Christ. Wherefore the New Law is called
the law of reality; whereas the Old Law is called the law of shadow or
of figure.
Now Christ fulfilled the precepts of the Old Law both in His works and
in His doctrine. In His works, because He was willing to be circumcised
and to fulfil the other legal observances, which were binding for the
time being; according to Gal. 4:4: "Made under the Law. " In His
doctrine He fulfilled the precepts of the Law in three ways. First, by
explaining the true sense of the Law. This is clear in the case of
murder and adultery, the prohibition of which the Scribes and Pharisees
thought to refer only to the exterior act: wherefore Our Lord fulfilled
the Law by showing that the prohibition extended also to the interior
acts of sins. Secondly, Our Lord fulfilled the precepts of the Law by
prescribing the safest way of complying with the statutes of the Old
Law. Thus the Old Law forbade perjury: and this is more safely avoided,
by abstaining altogether from swearing, save in cases of urgency.
Thirdly, Our Lord fulfilled the precepts of the Law, by adding some
counsels of perfection: this is clearly seen in Mat. 19:21, 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: If thou wilt be perfect,
go, sell whatsoever thou hast," etc. [*St. Thomas combines Mat. 19:21
with Mk. 10:21].
Reply to Objection 1: The New Law does not void observance of the Old
Law except in the point of ceremonial precepts, as stated above
([2147]Q[103], AA[3],4). Now the latter were figurative of something to
come. Wherefore from the very fact that the ceremonial precepts were
fulfilled when those things were accomplished which they foreshadowed,
it follows that they are no longer to be observed: for it they were to
be observed, this would mean that something is still to be accomplished
and is not yet fulfilled. Thus the promise of a future gift holds no
longer when it has been fulfilled by the presentation of the gift. In
this way the legal ceremonies are abolished by being fulfilled.
Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix, 26), those
precepts of Our Lord are not contrary to the precepts of the Old Law.
For what Our Lord commanded about a man not putting away his wife, is
not contrary to what the Law prescribed. "For the Law did 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 Law was unwilling that a man
should put away his wife, since it prescribed a delay, so that
excessive eagerness for divorce might cease through being weakened
during the writing of the bill. Hence Our Lord, 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. " The same applies to the prohibition
about swearing, as stated above. The same is also clear with respect to
the prohibition of retaliation. For the Law fixed a limit to revenge,
by forbidding men to seek vengeance unreasonably: whereas Our Lord
deprived them of vengeance more completely by commanding them to
abstain from it altogether. With regard to the hatred of one's enemies,
He dispelled the false interpretation of the Pharisees, by admonishing
us to hate, not the person, but his sin. As to discriminating between
various foods, which was a ceremonial matter, Our Lord did not forbid
this to be observed: but He showed that no foods are naturally unclean,
but only in token of something else, as stated above ([2148]Q[102],
A[6], ad 1).
Reply to Objection 3: It was forbidden by the Law to touch a leper;
because by doing so, man incurred a certain uncleanness of
irregularity, as also by touching the dead, as stated above
([2149]Q[102], A[5], ad 4). But Our Lord, Who healed the leper, could
not contract an uncleanness. By those things which He did on the
sabbath, He did not break the sabbath in reality, as the Master Himself
shows in the Gospel: both because He worked miracles by His Divine
power, which is ever active among things; and because He worked
miracles by His Divine power, which is ever active among things; and
because His works were concerned with the salvation of man, while the
Pharisees were concerned for the well-being of animals even on the
sabbath; and again because on account of urgency He excused His
disciples for gathering the ears of corn on the sabbath. But He did
seem to break the sabbath according to the superstitious interpretation
of the Pharisees, who thought that man ought to abstain from doing even
works of kindness on the sabbath; which was contrary to the intention
of the Law.
Reply to Objection 4: The reason why the ceremonial precepts of the Law
are not mentioned in Mat. 5 is because, as stated above (ad 1), their
observance was abolished by their fulfilment. But of the judicial
precepts He mentioned that of retaliation: so that what He said about
it should refer to all the others. With regard to this precept, He
taught that the intention of the Law was that retaliation should be
sought out of love of justice, and not as a punishment out of
revengeful spite, which He forbade, admonishing man to be ready to
suffer yet greater insults; and this remains still in the New Law.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the New Law is contained in the Old?
Objection 1: It would seem that the New Law is not contained in the
Old. Because the New Law consists chiefly in faith: wherefore it is
called the "law of faith" (Rom. 3:27). 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 contained in the Old.
Objection 2: Further, a gloss says on Mat. 5:19, "He that shall break
one of these least commandments," that the lesser commandments are
those of the Law, and the greater commandments, those contained in the
Gospel. Now the greater cannot be contained in the lesser. Therefore
the New Law is not contained in the Old.
Objection 3: Further, who holds the container holds the contents. If,
therefore, the New Law is contained in the Old, it follows that 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 the New Law is not
contained in the Old.
On the contrary, As expressed in Ezech. 1:16, there was "a wheel in the
midst of a wheel," i. e. "the New Testament within the Old," according
to Gregory's exposition.
I answer that, One thing may be contained in another in two ways.
First, actually; as a located thing is in a place. Secondly, virtually;
as an effect in its cause, or as the complement in that which is
incomplete; thus a genus contains its species, and a seed contains the
whole tree, virtually. It is in this way that the New Law is contained
in the Old: for it has been stated [2150](A[1]) that the New Law is
compared to the Old as perfect to imperfect. Hence Chrysostom,
expounding Mk. 4:28, "The earth of itself bringeth forth fruit, first
the blade, then the ear, afterwards the full corn in the ear,"
expresses 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, 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.
Reply to Objection 1: Whatsoever is set down in the New Testament
explicitly and openly as a point of faith, is contained in the Old
Testament as a matter of belief, but implicitly, under a figure. And
accordingly, even as to those things which we are bound to believe, the
New Law is contained in the Old.
Reply to Objection 2: 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. But as to the substance itself of the precepts of the
New Testament, they are all contained in the Old. Hence Augustine says
(Contra Faust. xix, 23,28) that "nearly all Our Lord's admonitions or
precepts, where He expressed Himself by saying: 'But I say unto you,'
are to be found also in those ancient books. Yet, since they thought
that murder was only the slaying of the human body, Our Lord declared
to them that every wicked impulse to hurt our 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 the New Law are said to be greater than those
of the Old. Nothing, however, prevents the greater from being contained
in the lesser virtually; just as a tree is contained in the seed.
Reply to Objection 3: What is set forth implicitly needs to be declared
explicitly. Hence after the publishing of the Old Law, a New Law also
had to be given.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the New Law is more burdensome than the Old?
Objection 1: It would seem that the New Law is more burdensome than the
Old. For Chrysostom (Opus Imp. in Matth. , Hom. x [*The work of an
unknown author]) say: "The commandments given to Moses are easy to
obey: Thou shalt not kill; Thou shalt not commit adultery: but the
commandments of Christ are difficult to accomplish, for instance: Thou
shalt not give way to anger, or to lust. " Therefore the New Law is more
burdensome than the Old.
Objection 2: Further, it is easier to make use of earthly prosperity
than to suffer tribulations. But in the Old Testament observance of the
Law was followed by temporal prosperity, as may be gathered from Dt.
28:1-14; whereas many kinds of trouble ensue to those who observe the
New Law, as stated in 2 Cor. 6:4-10: "Let us exhibit ourselves as the
ministers of God, in much patience, in tribulation, in necessities, in
distresses," etc. Therefore the New Law is more burdensome than the
Old.
Objection 3: 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 perjury,
while the New Law proscribed even swearing: the Old Law forbade a man
to cast off his wife without a bill of divorce, while the New Law
forbade divorce altogether; as is clearly stated in Mat. 5:31, seqq. ,
according to Augustine's expounding. Therefore the New Law is more
burdensome than the Old.
On the contrary, It is written (Mat. 11:28): "Come to Me, all you that
labor and are burdened": which words are expounded by Hilary thus: "He
calls to Himself all those that labor under the difficulty of observing
the Law, and are burdened with the sins of this world. " And further on
He says 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 Old.
