Reply to Objection 8: Affection in man is twofold: it may be an
affection of reason, or it may be an affection of passion.
affection of reason, or it may be an affection of passion.
Summa Theologica
14].
Objection 2: Further, just as animals are given to man for food, so
also are herbs: wherefore it is written (Gn. 9:3): "As the green herbs
have I delivered all" flesh "to you. " But the Law did not distinguish
any herbs from the rest as being unclean, although some are most
harmful, for instance, those that are poisonous. Therefore it seems
that neither should any animals have been prohibited as being unclean.
Objection 3: Further, if the matter from which a thing is generated be
unclean, it seems that likewise the thing generated therefrom is
unclean. But flesh is generated from blood. Since therefore all flesh
was not prohibited as unclean, it seems that in like manner neither
should blood have been forbidden as unclean; nor the fat which is
engendered from blood.
Objection 4: Further, Our Lord said (Mat. 10:28; cf. Lk. 12:4), that
those should not be feared "that kill the body," since after death they
"have no more that they can do": which would not be true if after death
harm might come to man through anything done with his body. Much less
therefore does it matter to an animal already dead how its flesh be
cooked. Consequently there seems to be no reason in what is said, Ex.
23:19: "Thou shalt not boil a kid in the milk of its dam. "
Objection 5: Further, all that is first brought forth of man and beast,
as being most perfect, is commanded to be offered to the Lord (Ex. 13).
Therefore it is an unfitting command that is set forth in Lev. 19:23:
"when you shall be come into the land, and shall have planted in it
fruit trees, you shall take away the uncircumcision [*'Praeputia,'
which Douay version renders 'first fruits'] of them," i. e. the first
crops, and they "shall be unclean to you, neither shall you eat of
them. "
Objection 6: Further, clothing is something extraneous to man's body.
Therefore certain kinds of garments should not have been forbidden to
the Jews: for instance (Lev. 19:19): "Thou shalt not wear a garment
that is woven of two sorts": and (Dt. 22:5): "A woman shall not be
clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man use woman's apparel":
and further on (Dt. 22:11): "Thou shalt not wear a garment that is
woven of woolen and linen together. "
Objection 7: Further, to be mindful of God's commandments concerns not
the body but the heart. Therefore it is unsuitably prescribed (Dt. 6:8,
seqq. ) that they should "bind" the commandments of God "as a sign" on
their hands; and that they should "write them in the entry"; and (Num.
15:38, seqq. ) that they should "make to themselves fringes in the
corners of their garments, putting in them ribands of blue . . . they
may remember . . . the commandments of the Lord. "
Objection 8: Further, the Apostle says (1 Cor. 9:9) that God does not
"take care for oxen," and, therefore, neither of other irrational
animals. Therefore without reason is it commanded (Dt. 22:6): "If thou
find, as thou walkest by the way, a bird's nest in a tree . . . thou
shalt not take the dam with her young"; and (Dt. 25:4): "Thou shalt not
muzzle the ox that treadeth out thy corn"; and (Lev. 19:19): "Thou
shalt not make thy cattle to gender with beasts of any other kind. "
Objection 9: Further, no distinction was made between clean and unclean
plants. Much less therefore should any distinction have been made about
the cultivation of plants. Therefore it was unfittingly prescribed
(Lev. 19:19): "Thou shalt not sow thy field with different seeds"; and
(Dt. 22:9, seqq. ): "Thou shalt sow thy vineyard with divers seeds";
and: "Thou shalt not plough with an ox and an ass together. "
Objection 10: Further, it is apparent that inanimate things are most of
all subject to the power of man. Therefore it was unfitting to debar
man from taking silver and gold of which idols were made, or anything
they found in the houses of idols, as expressed in the commandment of
the Law (Dt. 7:25, seqq. ). It also seems an absurd commandment set
forth in Dt. 23:13, that they should "dig round about and . . . cover
with earth that which they were eased of. "
Objection 11: Further, piety is required especially in priests. But it
seems to be an act of piety to assist at the burial of one's friends:
wherefore Tobias is commended for so doing (Tob. 1:20, seqq. ). In like
manner it is sometimes an act of piety to marry a loose woman, because
she is thereby delivered from sin and infamy. Therefore it seems
inconsistent for these things to be forbidden to priests (Lev. 21).
On the contrary, It is written (Dt. 18:14): "But thou art otherwise
instructed by the Lord thy God": from which words we may gather that
these observances were instituted by God to be a special prerogative of
that people. Therefore they are not without reason or cause.
I answer that, The Jewish people, as stated above [2119](A[5]), were
specially chosen for the worship of God, and among them the priests
themselves were specially set apart for that purpose. And just as other
things that are applied to the divine worship, need to be marked in
some particular way so that they be worthy of the worship of God; so
too in that people's, and especially the priests', mode of life, there
needed to be certain special things befitting the divine worship,
whether spiritual or corporal. Now the worship prescribed by the Law
foreshadowed the mystery of Christ: so that whatever they did was a
figure of things pertaining to Christ, according to 1 Cor. 10:11: "All
these things happened to them in figures. " Consequently the reasons for
these observances may be taken in two ways, first according to their
fittingness to the worship of God; secondly, according as they
foreshadow something touching the Christian mode of life.
Reply to Objection 1: As stated above (A[5], ad 4,5), the Law
distinguished a twofold pollution or uncleanness; one, that of sin,
whereby the soul was defiled; and another consisting in some kind of
corruption, whereby the body was in some way infected. Speaking then of
the first-mentioned uncleanness, no kind of food is unclean, or can
defile a man, by reason of its nature; wherefore we read (Mat. 15:11):
"Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but what cometh
out of the mouth, this defileth a man": which words are explained (Mat.
15:17) as referring to sins. Yet certain foods can defile the soul
accidentally; in so far as man partakes of them against obedience or a
vow, or from excessive concupiscence; or through their being an
incentive to lust, for which reason some refrain from wine and
flesh-meat.
If, however, we speak of bodily uncleanness, consisting in some kind of
corruption, the flesh of certain animals is unclean, either because
like the pig they feed on unclean things; or because their life is
among unclean surroundings: thus certain animals, like moles and mice
and such like, live underground, whence they contract a certain
unpleasant smell; or because their flesh, through being too moist or
too dry, engenders corrupt humors in the human body. Hence they were
forbidden to eat the flesh of flat-footed animals, i. e. animals having
an uncloven hoof, on account of their earthiness; and in like manner
they were forbidden to eat the flesh of animals that have many clefts
in their feet, because such are very fierce and their flesh is very
dry, such as the flesh of lions and the like. For the same reason they
were forbidden to eat certain birds of prey the flesh of which is very
dry, and certain water-fowl on account of their exceeding humidity. In
like manner certain fish lacking fins and scales were prohibited on
account of their excessive moisture; such as eels and the like. They
were, however, allowed to eat ruminants and animals with a divided
hoof, because in such animals the humors are well absorbed, and their
nature well balanced: for neither are they too moist, as is indicated
by the hoof; nor are they too earthly, which is shown by their having
not a flat but a cloven hoof. Of fishes they were allowed to partake of
the drier kinds, of which the fins and scales are an indication,
because thereby the moist nature of the fish is tempered. Of birds they
were allowed to eat the tamer kinds, such as hens, partridges, and the
like. Another reason was detestation of idolatry: because the Gentiles,
and especially the Egyptians, among whom they had grown up, offered up
these forbidden animals to their idols, or employed them for the
purpose of sorcery: whereas they did not eat those animals which the
Jews were allowed to eat, but worshipped them as gods, or abstained,
for some other motive, from eating them, as stated above (A[3], ad 2).
The third reason was to prevent excessive care about food: wherefore
they were allowed to eat those animals which could be procured easily
and promptly.
With regard to blood and fat, they were forbidden to partake of those
of any animals whatever without exception. Blood was forbidden, both in
order to avoid cruelty, that they might abhor the shedding of human
blood, as stated above (A[3], ad 8); and in order to shun idolatrous
rite whereby it was customary for men to collect the blood and to
gather together around it for a banquet in honor of the idols, to whom
they held the blood to be most acceptable. Hence the Lord commanded the
blood to be poured out and to be covered with earth (Lev. 17:13). For
the same reason they were forbidden to eat animals that had been
suffocated or strangled: because the blood of these animals would not
be separated from the body: or because this form of death is very
painful to the victim; and the Lord wished to withdraw them from
cruelty even in regard to irrational animals, so as to be less inclined
to be cruel to other men, through being used to be kind to beasts. They
were forbidden to eat the fat: both because idolaters ate it in honor
of their gods; and because it used to be burnt in honor of God; and,
again, because blood and fat are not nutritious, which is the cause
assigned by Rabbi Moses (Doct. Perplex. iii). The reason why they were
forbidden to eat the sinews is given in Gn. 32:32, where it is stated
that "the children of Israel . . . eat not the sinew . . . because he
touched the sinew of" Jacob's "thing and it shrank. "
The figurative reason for these things is that all these animals
signified certain sins, in token of which those animals were
prohibited. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faustum iv, 7): "If the swine
and lamb be called in question, both are clean by nature, because all
God's creatures are good: yet the lamb is clean, and the pig is unclean
in a certain signification. Thus if you speak of a foolish, and of a
wise man, each of these expressions is clean considered in the nature
of the sound, letters and syllables of which it is composed: but in
signification, the one is clean, the other unclean. " The animal that
chews the cud and has a divided hoof, is clean in signification.
Because division of the hoof is a figure of the two Testaments: or of
the Father and Son: or of the two natures in Christ: of the distinction
of good and evil. While chewing the cud signifies meditation on the
Scriptures and a sound understanding thereof; and whoever lacks either
of these is spiritually unclean. In like manner those fish that have
scales and fins are clean in signification. Because fins signify the
heavenly or contemplative life; while scales signify a life of trials,
each of which is required for spiritual cleanness. Of birds certain
kinds were forbidden. In the eagle which flies at a great height, pride
is forbidden: in the griffon which is hostile to horses and men,
cruelty of powerful men is prohibited. The osprey, which feeds on very
small birds, signifies those who oppress the poor. The kite, which is
full of cunning, denotes those who are fraudulent in their dealings.
The vulture, which follows an army, expecting to feed on the carcases
of the slain, signifies those who like others to die or to fight among
themselves that they may gain thereby. Birds of the raven kind signify
those who are blackened by their lusts; or those who lack kindly
feelings, for the raven did not return when once it had been let loose
from the ark. The ostrich which, though a bird, cannot fly, and is
always on the ground, signifies those who fight God's cause, and at the
same time are taken up with worldly business. The owl, which sees
clearly at night, but cannot see in the daytime, denotes those who are
clever in temporal affairs, but dull in spiritual matters. The gull,
which flies both in the air and swims in the water, signifies those who
are partial both to Circumcision and to Baptism: or else it denotes
those who would fly by contemplation, yet dwell in the waters of
sensual delights. The hawk, which helps men to seize the prey, is a
figure of those who assist the strong to prey on the poor. The
screech-owl, which seeks its food by night but hides by day, signifies
the lustful man who seeks to lie hidden in his deeds of darkness. The
cormorant, so constituted that it can stay a long time under water,
denotes the glutton who plunges into the waters of pleasure. The ibis
is an African bird with a long beak, and feeds on snakes; and perhaps
it is the same as the stork: it signifies the envious man, who
refreshes himself with the ills of others, as with snakes. The swan is
bright in color, and by the aid of its long neck extracts its food from
deep places on land or water: it may denote those who seek earthly
profit though an external brightness of virtue. The bittern is a bird
of the East: it has a long beak, and its jaws are furnished with
follicules, wherein it stores its food at first, after a time
proceeding to digest it: it is a figure of the miser, who is
excessively careful in hoarding up the necessaries of life. The coot
[*Douay: 'porphyrion. ' St. Thomas' description tallies with the coot or
moorhen: though of course he is mistaken about the feet differing from
one another. ] has this peculiarity apart from other birds, that it has
a webbed foot for swimming, and a cloven foot for walking: for it swims
like a duck in the water, and walks like a partridge on land: it drinks
only when it bites, since it dips all its food in water: it is a figure
of a man who will not take advice, and does nothing but what is soaked
in the water of his own will. The heron [*Vulg. : 'herodionem'],
commonly called a falcon, signifies those whose "feet are swift to shed
blood" (Ps. 13:3). The plover [*Here, again, the Douay translators
transcribed from the Vulgate: 'charadrion'; 'charadrius' is the generic
name for all plovers. ], which is a garrulous bird, signifies the
gossip. The hoopoe, which builds its nest on dung, feeds on foetid
ordure, and whose song is like a groan, denotes worldly grief which
works death in those who are unclean. The bat, which flies near the
ground, signifies those who being gifted with worldly knowledge, seek
none but earthly things. Of fowls and quadrupeds those alone were
permitted which have the hind-legs longer than the forelegs, so that
they can leap: whereas those were forbidden which cling rather to the
earth: because those who abuse the doctrine of the four Evangelists, so
that they are not lifted up thereby, are reputed unclean. By the
prohibition of blood, fat and nerves, we are to understand the
forbidding of cruelty, lust, and bravery in committing sin.
Reply to Objection 2: Men were wont to eat plants and other products of
the soil even before the deluge: but the eating of flesh seems to have
been introduced after the deluge; for it is written (Gn. 9:3): "Even as
the green herbs have I delivered . . . all" flesh "to you. " The reason
for this was that the eating of the products of the soil savors rather
of a simple life; whereas the eating of flesh savors of delicate and
over-careful living. For the soil gives birth to the herb of its own
accord; and such like products of the earth may be had in great
quantities with very little effort: whereas no small trouble is
necessary either to rear or to catch an animal. Consequently God being
wishful to bring His people back to a more simple way of living,
forbade them to eat many kinds of animals, but not those things that
are produced by the soil. Another reason may be that animals were
offered to idols, while the products of the soil were not.
The Reply to the Third Objection is clear from what has been said (ad
1).
Reply to Objection 4: Although the kid that is slain has no perception
of the manner in which its flesh is cooked, yet it would seem to savor
of heartlessness if the dam's milk, which was intended for the
nourishment of her offspring, were served up on the same dish. It might
also be said that the Gentiles in celebrating the feasts of their idols
prepared the flesh of kids in this manner, for the purpose of sacrifice
or banquet: hence (Ex. 23) after the solemnities to be celebrated under
the Law had been foretold, it is added: "Thou shalt not boil a kid in
the milk of its dam. " The figurative reason for this prohibition is
this: the kid, signifying Christ, on account of "the likeness of sinful
flesh" (Rom. 8:3), was not to be seethed, i. e. slain, by the Jews, "in
the milk of its dam," i. e. during His infancy. Or else it signifies
that the kid, i. e. the sinner, should not be boiled in the milk of its
dam, i. e. should not be cajoled by flattery.
Reply to Objection 5: The Gentiles offered their gods the first-fruits,
which they held to bring them good luck: or they burnt them for the
purpose of secrecy. Consequently (the Israelites) were commanded to
look upon the fruits of the first three years as unclean: for in that
country nearly all the trees bear fruit in three years' time; those
trees, to wit, that are cultivated either from seed, or from a graft,
or from a cutting: but it seldom happens that the fruit-stones or seeds
encased in a pod are sown: since it would take a longer time for these
to bear fruit: and the Law considered what happened most frequently.
The fruits, however, of the fourth year, as being the firstlings of
clean fruits, were offered to God: and from the fifth year onward they
were eaten.
The figurative reason was that this foreshadowed the fact that after
the three states of the Law (the first lasting from Abraham to David,
the second, until they were carried away to Babylon, the third until
the time of Christ), the Fruit of the Law, i. e. Christ, was to be
offered to God. Or again, that we must mistrust our first efforts, on
account of their imperfection.
Reply to Objection 6: It is said of a man in Ecclus. 19:27, that "the
attire of the body . . . " shows "what he is. " Hence the Lord wished
His people to be distinguished from other nations, not only by the sign
of the circumcision, which was in the flesh, but also by a certain
difference of attire. Wherefore they were forbidden to wear garments
woven of woolen and linen together, and for a woman to be clothed with
man's apparel, or vice versa, for two reasons. First, to avoid
idolatrous worship. Because the Gentiles, in their religious rites,
used garments of this sort, made of various materials. Moreover in the
worship of Mars, women put on men's armor; while, conversely, in the
worship of Venus men donned women's attire. The second reason was to
preserve them from lust: because the employment of various materials in
the making of garments signified inordinate union of sexes, while the
use of male attire by a woman, or vice versa, has an incentive to evil
desires, and offers an occasion of lust. The figurative reason is that
the prohibition of wearing a garment woven of woolen and linen
signified that it was forbidden to unite the simplicity of innocence,
denoted by wool, with the duplicity of malice, betokened by linen. It
also signifies that woman is forbidden to presume to teach, or perform
other duties of men: or that man should not adopt the effeminate
manners of a woman.
Reply to Objection 7: As Jerome says on Mat. 23:6, "the Lord commanded
them to make violet-colored fringes in the four corners of their
garments, so that the Israelites might be distinguished from other
nations. " Hence, in this way, they professed to be Jews: and
consequently the very sight of this sign reminded them of their law.
When we read: "Thou shalt bind them on thy hand, and they shall be ever
before thy eyes [Vulg. : 'they shall be and shall move between thy
eyes'], the Pharisees gave a false interpretation to these words, and
wrote the decalogue of Moses on a parchment, and tied it on their
foreheads like a wreath, so that it moved in front of their eyes":
whereas the intention of the Lord in giving this commandment was that
they should be bound in their hands, i. e. in their works; and that they
should be before their eyes, i. e. in their thoughts. The violet-colored
fillets which were inserted in their cloaks signify the godly intention
which should accompany our every deed. It may, however, be said that,
because they were a carnal-minded and stiff-necked people, it was
necessary for them to be stirred by these sensible things to the
observance of the Law.
Reply to Objection 8: Affection in man is twofold: it may be an
affection of reason, or it may be an affection of passion. If a man's
affection be one of reason, it matters not how man behaves to animals,
because God has subjected all things to man's power, according to Ps.
8:8: "Thou hast subjected all things under his feet": and it is in this
sense that the Apostle says that "God has no care for oxen"; because
God does not ask of man what he does with oxen or other animals.
But if man's affection be one of passion, then it is moved also in
regard to other animals: for since the passion of pity is caused by the
afflictions of others; and since it happens that even irrational
animals are sensible to pain, it is possible for the affection of pity
to arise in a man with regard to the sufferings of animals. Now it is
evident that if a man practice a pitiful affection for animals, he is
all the more disposed to take pity on his fellow-men: wherefore it is
written (Prov. 11:10): "The just regardeth the lives of his beasts: but
the bowels of the wicked are cruel. " Consequently the Lord, in order to
inculcate pity to the Jewish people, who were prone to cruelty, wished
them to practice pity even with regard to dumb animals, and forbade
them to do certain things savoring of cruelty to animals. Hence He
prohibited them to "boil a kid in the milk of its dam"; and to "muzzle
the ox that treadeth out the corn"; and to slay "the dam with her
young. " It may, nevertheless, be also said that these prohibitions were
made in hatred of idolatry. For the Egyptians held it to be wicked to
allow the ox to eat of the grain while threshing the corn. Moreover
certain sorcerers were wont to ensnare the mother bird with her young
during incubation, and to employ them for the purpose of securing
fruitfulness and good luck in bringing up children: also because it was
held to be a good omen to find the mother sitting on her young.
As to the mingling of animals of divers species, the literal reason may
have been threefold. The first was to show detestation for the idolatry
of the Egyptians, who employed various mixtures in worshipping the
planets, which produce various effects, and on various kinds of things
according to their various conjunctions. The second reason was in
condemnation of unnatural sins. The third reason was the entire removal
of all occasions of concupiscence. Because animals of different species
do not easily breed, unless this be brought about by man; and movements
of lust are aroused by seeing such things. Wherefore in the Jewish
traditions we find it prescribed as stated by Rabbi Moses that men
shall turn away their eyes from such sights.
The figurative reason for these things is that the necessities of life
should not be withdrawn from the ox that treadeth the corn, i. e. from
the preacher bearing the sheaves of doctrine, as the Apostle states (1
Cor. 9:4, seqq. ). Again, we should not take the dam with her young:
because in certain things we have to keep the spiritual senses, i. e.
the offspring, and set aside the observance of the letter, i. e. the
mother, for instance, in all the ceremonies of the Law. It is also
forbidden that beast of burden, i. e. any of the common people, should
be allowed to engender, i. e. to have any connection, with animals of
another kind, i. e. with Gentiles or Jews.
Reply to Objection 9: All these minglings were forbidden in
agriculture; literally, in detestation of idolatry. For the Egyptians
in worshipping the stars employed various combinations of seeds,
animals and garments, in order to represent the various connections of
the stars. Or else all these minglings were forbidden in detestation of
the unnatural vice.
They have, however, a figurative reason. For the prohibition: "Thou
shalt not sow thy field with different seeds," is to be understood, in
the spiritual sense, of the prohibition to sow strange doctrine in the
Church, which is a spiritual vineyard. Likewise "the field," i. e. the
Church, must not be sown "with different seeds," i. e. with Catholic and
heretical doctrines. Neither is it allowed to plough "with an ox and an
ass together"; thus a fool should not accompany a wise man in
preaching, for one would hinder the other.
Reply to Objection 10: [*The Reply to the Tenth Objection is lacking in
the codices. The solution given here is found in some editions, and was
supplied by Nicolai. ] Silver and gold were reasonably forbidden (Dt. 7)
not as though they were not subject to the power of man, but because,
like the idols themselves, all materials out of which idols were made,
were anathematized as hateful in God's sight. This is clear from the
same chapter, where we read further on (Dt. 7:26): "Neither shalt thou
bring anything of the idol into thy house, lest thou become an anathema
like it. " Another reason was lest, by taking silver and gold, they
should be led by avarice into idolatry to which the Jews were inclined.
The other precept (Dt. 23) about covering up excretions, was just and
becoming, both for the sake of bodily cleanliness; and in order to keep
the air wholesome; and by reason of the respect due to the tabernacle
of the covenant which stood in the midst of the camp, wherein the Lord
was said to dwell; as is clearly set forth in the same passage, where
after expressing the command, the reason thereof is at once added, to
wit: "For the Lord thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver
thee, and to give up thy enemies to thee, and let thy camp be holy
[i. e. clean], and let no uncleanness appear therein. " The figurative
reason for this precept, according to Gregory (Moral. xxxi), is that
sins which are the fetid excretions of the mind should be covered over
by repentance, that we may become acceptable to God, according to Ps.
31:1: "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins
are covered. " Or else according to a gloss, that we should recognize
the unhappy condition of human nature, and humbly cover and purify the
stains of a puffed-up and proud spirit in the deep furrow of
self-examination.
Reply to Objection 11: Sorcerers and idolatrous priests made use, in
their rites, of the bones and flesh of dead men. Wherefore, in order to
extirpate the customs of idolatrous worship, the Lord commanded that
the priests of inferior degree, who at fixed times served in the
temple, should not "incur an uncleanness at the death" of anyone except
of those who were closely related to them, viz. their father or mother,
and others thus near of kin to them. But the high-priest had always to
be ready for the service of the sanctuary; wherefore he was absolutely
forbidden to approach the dead, however nearly related to him. They
were also forbidden to marry a "harlot" or "one that has been put
away," or any other than a virgin: both on account of the reverence due
to the priesthood, the honor of which would seem to be tarnished by
such a marriage: and for the sake of the children who would be
disgraced by the mother's shame: which was most of all to be avoided
when the priestly dignity was passed on from father to son. Again, they
were commanded to shave neither head nor beard, and not to make
incisions in their flesh, in order to exclude the rites of idolatry.
For the priests of the Gentiles shaved both head and beard, wherefore
it is written (Bar 6:30): "Priests sit in their temples having their
garments rent, and their heads and beards shaven. " Moreover, in
worshipping their idols "they cut themselves with knives and lancets"
(3 Kings 18:28). For this reason the priests of the Old Law were
commanded to do the contrary.
The spiritual reason for these things is that priests should be
entirely free from dead works, i. e. sins. And they should not shave
their heads, i. e. set wisdom aside; nor should they shave their beards,
i. e. set aside the perfection of wisdom; nor rend their garments or cut
their flesh, i. e. they should not incur the sin of schism.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE DURATION OF THE CEREMONIAL PRECEPTS (FOUR ARTICLES)
We must now consider the duration of the ceremonial precepts: under
which head there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether the ceremonial precepts were in existence before the Law?
(2) Whether at the time of the Law the ceremonies of the Old Law had
any power of justification?
(3) Whether they ceased at the coming of Christ?
(4) Whether it is a mortal sin to observe them after the coming of
Christ?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the ceremonies of the Law were in existence before the Law?
Objection 1: It would seem that the ceremonies of the Law were in
existence before the Law. For sacrifices and holocausts were ceremonies
of the Old Law, as stated above ([2120]Q[101], A[4]). But sacrifices
and holocausts preceded the Law: for it is written (Gn. 4:3,4) that
"Cain offered, of the fruits of the earth, gifts to the Lord," and that
"Abel offered of the firstlings of his flock, and of their fat. " Noe
also "offered holocausts" to the Lord (Gn. 18:20), and Abraham did in
like manner (Gn. 22:13). Therefore the ceremonies of the Old Law
preceded the Law.
Objection 2: Further, the erecting and consecrating of the altar were
part of the ceremonies relating to holy things. But these preceded the
Law. For we read (Gn. 13:18) that "Abraham . . . built . . . an altar
to the Lord"; and (Gn. 28:18) that "Jacob . . . took the stone . . .
and set it up for a title, pouring oil upon the top of it. " Therefore
the legal ceremonies preceded the Law.
Objection 3: Further, the first of the legal sacraments seems to have
been circumcision. But circumcision preceded the Law, as appears from
Gn. 17. In like manner the priesthood preceded the Law; for it is
written (Gn. 14:18) that "Melchisedech . . . was the priest of the most
high God. " Therefore the sacramental ceremonies preceded the Law.
Objection 4: Further, the distinction of clean from unclean animals
belongs to the ceremonies of observances, as stated above (Q[100], 2,
A[6], ad 1). But this distinction preceded the Law; for it is written
(Gn. 7:2,3): "Of all clean beasts take seven and seven . . . but of the
beasts that are unclean, two and two. " Therefore the legal ceremonies
preceded the Law.
On the contrary, It is written (Dt. 6:1): "These are the precepts and
ceremonies . . . which the Lord your God commanded that I should teach
you. " But they would not have needed to be taught about these things,
if the aforesaid ceremonies had been already in existence. Therefore
the legal ceremonies did not precede the Law.
I answer that, As is clear from what has been said ([2121]Q[101],
A[2];[2122] Q[102] , A[2]), the legal ceremonies were ordained for a
double purpose; the worship of God, and the foreshadowing of Christ.
Now whoever worships God must needs worship Him by means of certain
fixed things pertaining to external worship. But the fixing of the
divine worship belongs to the ceremonies; just as the determining of
our relations with our neighbor is a matter determined by the judicial
precepts, as stated above ([2123]Q[99], A[4]). Consequently, as among
men in general there were certain judicial precepts, not indeed
established by Divine authority, but ordained by human reason; so also
there were some ceremonies fixed, not by the authority of any law, but
according to the will and devotion of those that worship God. Since,
however, even before the Law some of the leading men were gifted with
the spirit of prophecy, it is to be believed that a heavenly instinct,
like a private law, prompted them to worship God in a certain definite
way, which would be both in keeping with the interior worship, and a
suitable token of Christ's mysteries, which were foreshadowed also by
other things that they did, according to 1 Cor. 10:11: "All . . .
things happened to them in figure. " Therefore there were some
ceremonies before the Law, but they were not legal ceremonies, because
they were not as yet established by legislation.
Reply to Objection 1: The patriarchs offered up these oblations,
sacrifices and holocausts previously to the Law, out of a certain
devotion of their own will, according as it seemed proper to them to
offer up in honor of God those things which they had received from Him,
and thus to testify that they worshipped God Who is the beginning and
end of all.
Reply to Objection 2: They also established certain sacred things,
because they thought that the honor due to God demanded that certain
places should be set apart from others for the purpose of divine
worship.
Reply to Objection 3: The sacrament of circumcision was established by
command of God before the Law. Hence it cannot be called a sacrament of
the Law as though it were an institution of the Law, but only as an
observance included in the Law. Hence Our Lord said (Jn. 7:20) that
circumcision was "not of Moses, but of his fathers. " Again, among those
who worshipped God, the priesthood was in existence before the Law by
human appointment, for the Law allotted the priestly dignity to the
firstborn.
Reply to Objection 4: The distinction of clean from unclean animals was
in vogue before the Law, not with regard to eating them, since it is
written (Gn. 9:3): "Everything that moveth and liveth shall be meat for
you": but only as to the offering of sacrifices because they used only
certain animals for that purpose. If, however, they did make any
distinction in regard to eating; it was not that it was considered
illegal to eat such animals, since this was not forbidden by any law,
but from dislike or custom: thus even now we see that certain foods are
looked upon with disgust in some countries, while people partake of
them in others.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether, at the time of the Law, the ceremonies of the Old Law had any power
of justification?
Objection 1: It would seem that the ceremonies of the Old Law had the
power of justification at the time of the Law. Because expiation from
sin and consecration pertains to justification. But it is written (Ex.
39:21) that the priests and their apparel were consecrated by the
sprinkling of blood and the anointing of oil; and (Lev. 16:16) that, by
sprinkling the blood of the calf, the priest expiated "the sanctuary
from the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and from their
transgressions and . . . their sins. " Therefore the ceremonies of the
Old Law had the power of justification.
Objection 2: Further, that by which man pleases God pertains to
justification, according to Ps. 10:8: "The Lord is just and hath loved
justice. " But some pleased God by means of ceremonies, according to
Lev. 10:19: "How could I . . . please the Lord in the ceremonies,
having a sorrowful heart? " Therefore the ceremonies of the Old Law had
the power of justification.
Objection 3: Further, things relating to the divine worship regard the
soul rather than the body, according to Ps. 18:8: "The Law of the Lord
is unspotted, converting souls. " But the leper was cleansed by means of
the ceremonies of the Old Law, as stated in Lev. 14. Much more
therefore could the ceremonies of the Old Law cleanse the soul by
justifying it.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Gal. 2) [*The first words of the
quotation are from 3:21: St. Thomas probably quoting from memory,
substituted them for 2:21, which runs thus: 'If justice be by the Law,
then Christ died in vain. ']: "If there had been a law given which could
justify [Vulg. : 'give life'], Christ died in vain," i. e. without cause.
But this is inadmissible. Therefore the ceremonies of the Old Law did
not confer justice.
I answer that, As stated above ([2124]Q[102], A[5], ad 4), a twofold
uncleanness was distinguished in the Old Law. One was spiritual and is
the uncleanness of sin. The other was corporal, which rendered a man
unfit for divine worship; thus a leper, or anyone that touched carrion,
was said to be unclean: and thus uncleanness was nothing but a kind of
irregularity. From this uncleanness, then, the ceremonies of the Old
Law had the power to cleanse: because they were ordered by the Law to
be employed as remedies for the removal of the aforesaid uncleannesses
which were contracted in consequence of the prescription of the Law.
Hence the Apostle says (Heb. 9:13) that "the blood of goats and of
oxen, and the ashes of a heifer, being sprinkled, sanctify such as are
defiled, to the cleansing of the flesh. " And just as this uncleanness
which was washed away by such like ceremonies, affected the flesh
rather than the soul, so also the ceremonies themselves are called by
the Apostle shortly before (Heb. 9:10) justices of the flesh: "justices
of the flesh," says he, "being laid on them until the time of
correction. "
On the other hand, they had no power of cleansing from uncleanness of
the soul, i. e. from the uncleanness of sin. The reason of this was that
at no time could there be expiation from sin, except through Christ,
"Who taketh away the sins [Vulg. : 'sin'] of the world" (Jn. 1:29). And
since the mystery of Christ's Incarnation and Passion had not yet
really taken place, those ceremonies of the Old Law could not really
contain in themselves a power flowing from Christ already incarnate and
crucified, such as the sacraments of the New Law contain. Consequently
they could not cleanse from sin: thus the Apostle says (Heb.
Objection 2: Further, just as animals are given to man for food, so
also are herbs: wherefore it is written (Gn. 9:3): "As the green herbs
have I delivered all" flesh "to you. " But the Law did not distinguish
any herbs from the rest as being unclean, although some are most
harmful, for instance, those that are poisonous. Therefore it seems
that neither should any animals have been prohibited as being unclean.
Objection 3: Further, if the matter from which a thing is generated be
unclean, it seems that likewise the thing generated therefrom is
unclean. But flesh is generated from blood. Since therefore all flesh
was not prohibited as unclean, it seems that in like manner neither
should blood have been forbidden as unclean; nor the fat which is
engendered from blood.
Objection 4: Further, Our Lord said (Mat. 10:28; cf. Lk. 12:4), that
those should not be feared "that kill the body," since after death they
"have no more that they can do": which would not be true if after death
harm might come to man through anything done with his body. Much less
therefore does it matter to an animal already dead how its flesh be
cooked. Consequently there seems to be no reason in what is said, Ex.
23:19: "Thou shalt not boil a kid in the milk of its dam. "
Objection 5: Further, all that is first brought forth of man and beast,
as being most perfect, is commanded to be offered to the Lord (Ex. 13).
Therefore it is an unfitting command that is set forth in Lev. 19:23:
"when you shall be come into the land, and shall have planted in it
fruit trees, you shall take away the uncircumcision [*'Praeputia,'
which Douay version renders 'first fruits'] of them," i. e. the first
crops, and they "shall be unclean to you, neither shall you eat of
them. "
Objection 6: Further, clothing is something extraneous to man's body.
Therefore certain kinds of garments should not have been forbidden to
the Jews: for instance (Lev. 19:19): "Thou shalt not wear a garment
that is woven of two sorts": and (Dt. 22:5): "A woman shall not be
clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man use woman's apparel":
and further on (Dt. 22:11): "Thou shalt not wear a garment that is
woven of woolen and linen together. "
Objection 7: Further, to be mindful of God's commandments concerns not
the body but the heart. Therefore it is unsuitably prescribed (Dt. 6:8,
seqq. ) that they should "bind" the commandments of God "as a sign" on
their hands; and that they should "write them in the entry"; and (Num.
15:38, seqq. ) that they should "make to themselves fringes in the
corners of their garments, putting in them ribands of blue . . . they
may remember . . . the commandments of the Lord. "
Objection 8: Further, the Apostle says (1 Cor. 9:9) that God does not
"take care for oxen," and, therefore, neither of other irrational
animals. Therefore without reason is it commanded (Dt. 22:6): "If thou
find, as thou walkest by the way, a bird's nest in a tree . . . thou
shalt not take the dam with her young"; and (Dt. 25:4): "Thou shalt not
muzzle the ox that treadeth out thy corn"; and (Lev. 19:19): "Thou
shalt not make thy cattle to gender with beasts of any other kind. "
Objection 9: Further, no distinction was made between clean and unclean
plants. Much less therefore should any distinction have been made about
the cultivation of plants. Therefore it was unfittingly prescribed
(Lev. 19:19): "Thou shalt not sow thy field with different seeds"; and
(Dt. 22:9, seqq. ): "Thou shalt sow thy vineyard with divers seeds";
and: "Thou shalt not plough with an ox and an ass together. "
Objection 10: Further, it is apparent that inanimate things are most of
all subject to the power of man. Therefore it was unfitting to debar
man from taking silver and gold of which idols were made, or anything
they found in the houses of idols, as expressed in the commandment of
the Law (Dt. 7:25, seqq. ). It also seems an absurd commandment set
forth in Dt. 23:13, that they should "dig round about and . . . cover
with earth that which they were eased of. "
Objection 11: Further, piety is required especially in priests. But it
seems to be an act of piety to assist at the burial of one's friends:
wherefore Tobias is commended for so doing (Tob. 1:20, seqq. ). In like
manner it is sometimes an act of piety to marry a loose woman, because
she is thereby delivered from sin and infamy. Therefore it seems
inconsistent for these things to be forbidden to priests (Lev. 21).
On the contrary, It is written (Dt. 18:14): "But thou art otherwise
instructed by the Lord thy God": from which words we may gather that
these observances were instituted by God to be a special prerogative of
that people. Therefore they are not without reason or cause.
I answer that, The Jewish people, as stated above [2119](A[5]), were
specially chosen for the worship of God, and among them the priests
themselves were specially set apart for that purpose. And just as other
things that are applied to the divine worship, need to be marked in
some particular way so that they be worthy of the worship of God; so
too in that people's, and especially the priests', mode of life, there
needed to be certain special things befitting the divine worship,
whether spiritual or corporal. Now the worship prescribed by the Law
foreshadowed the mystery of Christ: so that whatever they did was a
figure of things pertaining to Christ, according to 1 Cor. 10:11: "All
these things happened to them in figures. " Consequently the reasons for
these observances may be taken in two ways, first according to their
fittingness to the worship of God; secondly, according as they
foreshadow something touching the Christian mode of life.
Reply to Objection 1: As stated above (A[5], ad 4,5), the Law
distinguished a twofold pollution or uncleanness; one, that of sin,
whereby the soul was defiled; and another consisting in some kind of
corruption, whereby the body was in some way infected. Speaking then of
the first-mentioned uncleanness, no kind of food is unclean, or can
defile a man, by reason of its nature; wherefore we read (Mat. 15:11):
"Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but what cometh
out of the mouth, this defileth a man": which words are explained (Mat.
15:17) as referring to sins. Yet certain foods can defile the soul
accidentally; in so far as man partakes of them against obedience or a
vow, or from excessive concupiscence; or through their being an
incentive to lust, for which reason some refrain from wine and
flesh-meat.
If, however, we speak of bodily uncleanness, consisting in some kind of
corruption, the flesh of certain animals is unclean, either because
like the pig they feed on unclean things; or because their life is
among unclean surroundings: thus certain animals, like moles and mice
and such like, live underground, whence they contract a certain
unpleasant smell; or because their flesh, through being too moist or
too dry, engenders corrupt humors in the human body. Hence they were
forbidden to eat the flesh of flat-footed animals, i. e. animals having
an uncloven hoof, on account of their earthiness; and in like manner
they were forbidden to eat the flesh of animals that have many clefts
in their feet, because such are very fierce and their flesh is very
dry, such as the flesh of lions and the like. For the same reason they
were forbidden to eat certain birds of prey the flesh of which is very
dry, and certain water-fowl on account of their exceeding humidity. In
like manner certain fish lacking fins and scales were prohibited on
account of their excessive moisture; such as eels and the like. They
were, however, allowed to eat ruminants and animals with a divided
hoof, because in such animals the humors are well absorbed, and their
nature well balanced: for neither are they too moist, as is indicated
by the hoof; nor are they too earthly, which is shown by their having
not a flat but a cloven hoof. Of fishes they were allowed to partake of
the drier kinds, of which the fins and scales are an indication,
because thereby the moist nature of the fish is tempered. Of birds they
were allowed to eat the tamer kinds, such as hens, partridges, and the
like. Another reason was detestation of idolatry: because the Gentiles,
and especially the Egyptians, among whom they had grown up, offered up
these forbidden animals to their idols, or employed them for the
purpose of sorcery: whereas they did not eat those animals which the
Jews were allowed to eat, but worshipped them as gods, or abstained,
for some other motive, from eating them, as stated above (A[3], ad 2).
The third reason was to prevent excessive care about food: wherefore
they were allowed to eat those animals which could be procured easily
and promptly.
With regard to blood and fat, they were forbidden to partake of those
of any animals whatever without exception. Blood was forbidden, both in
order to avoid cruelty, that they might abhor the shedding of human
blood, as stated above (A[3], ad 8); and in order to shun idolatrous
rite whereby it was customary for men to collect the blood and to
gather together around it for a banquet in honor of the idols, to whom
they held the blood to be most acceptable. Hence the Lord commanded the
blood to be poured out and to be covered with earth (Lev. 17:13). For
the same reason they were forbidden to eat animals that had been
suffocated or strangled: because the blood of these animals would not
be separated from the body: or because this form of death is very
painful to the victim; and the Lord wished to withdraw them from
cruelty even in regard to irrational animals, so as to be less inclined
to be cruel to other men, through being used to be kind to beasts. They
were forbidden to eat the fat: both because idolaters ate it in honor
of their gods; and because it used to be burnt in honor of God; and,
again, because blood and fat are not nutritious, which is the cause
assigned by Rabbi Moses (Doct. Perplex. iii). The reason why they were
forbidden to eat the sinews is given in Gn. 32:32, where it is stated
that "the children of Israel . . . eat not the sinew . . . because he
touched the sinew of" Jacob's "thing and it shrank. "
The figurative reason for these things is that all these animals
signified certain sins, in token of which those animals were
prohibited. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faustum iv, 7): "If the swine
and lamb be called in question, both are clean by nature, because all
God's creatures are good: yet the lamb is clean, and the pig is unclean
in a certain signification. Thus if you speak of a foolish, and of a
wise man, each of these expressions is clean considered in the nature
of the sound, letters and syllables of which it is composed: but in
signification, the one is clean, the other unclean. " The animal that
chews the cud and has a divided hoof, is clean in signification.
Because division of the hoof is a figure of the two Testaments: or of
the Father and Son: or of the two natures in Christ: of the distinction
of good and evil. While chewing the cud signifies meditation on the
Scriptures and a sound understanding thereof; and whoever lacks either
of these is spiritually unclean. In like manner those fish that have
scales and fins are clean in signification. Because fins signify the
heavenly or contemplative life; while scales signify a life of trials,
each of which is required for spiritual cleanness. Of birds certain
kinds were forbidden. In the eagle which flies at a great height, pride
is forbidden: in the griffon which is hostile to horses and men,
cruelty of powerful men is prohibited. The osprey, which feeds on very
small birds, signifies those who oppress the poor. The kite, which is
full of cunning, denotes those who are fraudulent in their dealings.
The vulture, which follows an army, expecting to feed on the carcases
of the slain, signifies those who like others to die or to fight among
themselves that they may gain thereby. Birds of the raven kind signify
those who are blackened by their lusts; or those who lack kindly
feelings, for the raven did not return when once it had been let loose
from the ark. The ostrich which, though a bird, cannot fly, and is
always on the ground, signifies those who fight God's cause, and at the
same time are taken up with worldly business. The owl, which sees
clearly at night, but cannot see in the daytime, denotes those who are
clever in temporal affairs, but dull in spiritual matters. The gull,
which flies both in the air and swims in the water, signifies those who
are partial both to Circumcision and to Baptism: or else it denotes
those who would fly by contemplation, yet dwell in the waters of
sensual delights. The hawk, which helps men to seize the prey, is a
figure of those who assist the strong to prey on the poor. The
screech-owl, which seeks its food by night but hides by day, signifies
the lustful man who seeks to lie hidden in his deeds of darkness. The
cormorant, so constituted that it can stay a long time under water,
denotes the glutton who plunges into the waters of pleasure. The ibis
is an African bird with a long beak, and feeds on snakes; and perhaps
it is the same as the stork: it signifies the envious man, who
refreshes himself with the ills of others, as with snakes. The swan is
bright in color, and by the aid of its long neck extracts its food from
deep places on land or water: it may denote those who seek earthly
profit though an external brightness of virtue. The bittern is a bird
of the East: it has a long beak, and its jaws are furnished with
follicules, wherein it stores its food at first, after a time
proceeding to digest it: it is a figure of the miser, who is
excessively careful in hoarding up the necessaries of life. The coot
[*Douay: 'porphyrion. ' St. Thomas' description tallies with the coot or
moorhen: though of course he is mistaken about the feet differing from
one another. ] has this peculiarity apart from other birds, that it has
a webbed foot for swimming, and a cloven foot for walking: for it swims
like a duck in the water, and walks like a partridge on land: it drinks
only when it bites, since it dips all its food in water: it is a figure
of a man who will not take advice, and does nothing but what is soaked
in the water of his own will. The heron [*Vulg. : 'herodionem'],
commonly called a falcon, signifies those whose "feet are swift to shed
blood" (Ps. 13:3). The plover [*Here, again, the Douay translators
transcribed from the Vulgate: 'charadrion'; 'charadrius' is the generic
name for all plovers. ], which is a garrulous bird, signifies the
gossip. The hoopoe, which builds its nest on dung, feeds on foetid
ordure, and whose song is like a groan, denotes worldly grief which
works death in those who are unclean. The bat, which flies near the
ground, signifies those who being gifted with worldly knowledge, seek
none but earthly things. Of fowls and quadrupeds those alone were
permitted which have the hind-legs longer than the forelegs, so that
they can leap: whereas those were forbidden which cling rather to the
earth: because those who abuse the doctrine of the four Evangelists, so
that they are not lifted up thereby, are reputed unclean. By the
prohibition of blood, fat and nerves, we are to understand the
forbidding of cruelty, lust, and bravery in committing sin.
Reply to Objection 2: Men were wont to eat plants and other products of
the soil even before the deluge: but the eating of flesh seems to have
been introduced after the deluge; for it is written (Gn. 9:3): "Even as
the green herbs have I delivered . . . all" flesh "to you. " The reason
for this was that the eating of the products of the soil savors rather
of a simple life; whereas the eating of flesh savors of delicate and
over-careful living. For the soil gives birth to the herb of its own
accord; and such like products of the earth may be had in great
quantities with very little effort: whereas no small trouble is
necessary either to rear or to catch an animal. Consequently God being
wishful to bring His people back to a more simple way of living,
forbade them to eat many kinds of animals, but not those things that
are produced by the soil. Another reason may be that animals were
offered to idols, while the products of the soil were not.
The Reply to the Third Objection is clear from what has been said (ad
1).
Reply to Objection 4: Although the kid that is slain has no perception
of the manner in which its flesh is cooked, yet it would seem to savor
of heartlessness if the dam's milk, which was intended for the
nourishment of her offspring, were served up on the same dish. It might
also be said that the Gentiles in celebrating the feasts of their idols
prepared the flesh of kids in this manner, for the purpose of sacrifice
or banquet: hence (Ex. 23) after the solemnities to be celebrated under
the Law had been foretold, it is added: "Thou shalt not boil a kid in
the milk of its dam. " The figurative reason for this prohibition is
this: the kid, signifying Christ, on account of "the likeness of sinful
flesh" (Rom. 8:3), was not to be seethed, i. e. slain, by the Jews, "in
the milk of its dam," i. e. during His infancy. Or else it signifies
that the kid, i. e. the sinner, should not be boiled in the milk of its
dam, i. e. should not be cajoled by flattery.
Reply to Objection 5: The Gentiles offered their gods the first-fruits,
which they held to bring them good luck: or they burnt them for the
purpose of secrecy. Consequently (the Israelites) were commanded to
look upon the fruits of the first three years as unclean: for in that
country nearly all the trees bear fruit in three years' time; those
trees, to wit, that are cultivated either from seed, or from a graft,
or from a cutting: but it seldom happens that the fruit-stones or seeds
encased in a pod are sown: since it would take a longer time for these
to bear fruit: and the Law considered what happened most frequently.
The fruits, however, of the fourth year, as being the firstlings of
clean fruits, were offered to God: and from the fifth year onward they
were eaten.
The figurative reason was that this foreshadowed the fact that after
the three states of the Law (the first lasting from Abraham to David,
the second, until they were carried away to Babylon, the third until
the time of Christ), the Fruit of the Law, i. e. Christ, was to be
offered to God. Or again, that we must mistrust our first efforts, on
account of their imperfection.
Reply to Objection 6: It is said of a man in Ecclus. 19:27, that "the
attire of the body . . . " shows "what he is. " Hence the Lord wished
His people to be distinguished from other nations, not only by the sign
of the circumcision, which was in the flesh, but also by a certain
difference of attire. Wherefore they were forbidden to wear garments
woven of woolen and linen together, and for a woman to be clothed with
man's apparel, or vice versa, for two reasons. First, to avoid
idolatrous worship. Because the Gentiles, in their religious rites,
used garments of this sort, made of various materials. Moreover in the
worship of Mars, women put on men's armor; while, conversely, in the
worship of Venus men donned women's attire. The second reason was to
preserve them from lust: because the employment of various materials in
the making of garments signified inordinate union of sexes, while the
use of male attire by a woman, or vice versa, has an incentive to evil
desires, and offers an occasion of lust. The figurative reason is that
the prohibition of wearing a garment woven of woolen and linen
signified that it was forbidden to unite the simplicity of innocence,
denoted by wool, with the duplicity of malice, betokened by linen. It
also signifies that woman is forbidden to presume to teach, or perform
other duties of men: or that man should not adopt the effeminate
manners of a woman.
Reply to Objection 7: As Jerome says on Mat. 23:6, "the Lord commanded
them to make violet-colored fringes in the four corners of their
garments, so that the Israelites might be distinguished from other
nations. " Hence, in this way, they professed to be Jews: and
consequently the very sight of this sign reminded them of their law.
When we read: "Thou shalt bind them on thy hand, and they shall be ever
before thy eyes [Vulg. : 'they shall be and shall move between thy
eyes'], the Pharisees gave a false interpretation to these words, and
wrote the decalogue of Moses on a parchment, and tied it on their
foreheads like a wreath, so that it moved in front of their eyes":
whereas the intention of the Lord in giving this commandment was that
they should be bound in their hands, i. e. in their works; and that they
should be before their eyes, i. e. in their thoughts. The violet-colored
fillets which were inserted in their cloaks signify the godly intention
which should accompany our every deed. It may, however, be said that,
because they were a carnal-minded and stiff-necked people, it was
necessary for them to be stirred by these sensible things to the
observance of the Law.
Reply to Objection 8: Affection in man is twofold: it may be an
affection of reason, or it may be an affection of passion. If a man's
affection be one of reason, it matters not how man behaves to animals,
because God has subjected all things to man's power, according to Ps.
8:8: "Thou hast subjected all things under his feet": and it is in this
sense that the Apostle says that "God has no care for oxen"; because
God does not ask of man what he does with oxen or other animals.
But if man's affection be one of passion, then it is moved also in
regard to other animals: for since the passion of pity is caused by the
afflictions of others; and since it happens that even irrational
animals are sensible to pain, it is possible for the affection of pity
to arise in a man with regard to the sufferings of animals. Now it is
evident that if a man practice a pitiful affection for animals, he is
all the more disposed to take pity on his fellow-men: wherefore it is
written (Prov. 11:10): "The just regardeth the lives of his beasts: but
the bowels of the wicked are cruel. " Consequently the Lord, in order to
inculcate pity to the Jewish people, who were prone to cruelty, wished
them to practice pity even with regard to dumb animals, and forbade
them to do certain things savoring of cruelty to animals. Hence He
prohibited them to "boil a kid in the milk of its dam"; and to "muzzle
the ox that treadeth out the corn"; and to slay "the dam with her
young. " It may, nevertheless, be also said that these prohibitions were
made in hatred of idolatry. For the Egyptians held it to be wicked to
allow the ox to eat of the grain while threshing the corn. Moreover
certain sorcerers were wont to ensnare the mother bird with her young
during incubation, and to employ them for the purpose of securing
fruitfulness and good luck in bringing up children: also because it was
held to be a good omen to find the mother sitting on her young.
As to the mingling of animals of divers species, the literal reason may
have been threefold. The first was to show detestation for the idolatry
of the Egyptians, who employed various mixtures in worshipping the
planets, which produce various effects, and on various kinds of things
according to their various conjunctions. The second reason was in
condemnation of unnatural sins. The third reason was the entire removal
of all occasions of concupiscence. Because animals of different species
do not easily breed, unless this be brought about by man; and movements
of lust are aroused by seeing such things. Wherefore in the Jewish
traditions we find it prescribed as stated by Rabbi Moses that men
shall turn away their eyes from such sights.
The figurative reason for these things is that the necessities of life
should not be withdrawn from the ox that treadeth the corn, i. e. from
the preacher bearing the sheaves of doctrine, as the Apostle states (1
Cor. 9:4, seqq. ). Again, we should not take the dam with her young:
because in certain things we have to keep the spiritual senses, i. e.
the offspring, and set aside the observance of the letter, i. e. the
mother, for instance, in all the ceremonies of the Law. It is also
forbidden that beast of burden, i. e. any of the common people, should
be allowed to engender, i. e. to have any connection, with animals of
another kind, i. e. with Gentiles or Jews.
Reply to Objection 9: All these minglings were forbidden in
agriculture; literally, in detestation of idolatry. For the Egyptians
in worshipping the stars employed various combinations of seeds,
animals and garments, in order to represent the various connections of
the stars. Or else all these minglings were forbidden in detestation of
the unnatural vice.
They have, however, a figurative reason. For the prohibition: "Thou
shalt not sow thy field with different seeds," is to be understood, in
the spiritual sense, of the prohibition to sow strange doctrine in the
Church, which is a spiritual vineyard. Likewise "the field," i. e. the
Church, must not be sown "with different seeds," i. e. with Catholic and
heretical doctrines. Neither is it allowed to plough "with an ox and an
ass together"; thus a fool should not accompany a wise man in
preaching, for one would hinder the other.
Reply to Objection 10: [*The Reply to the Tenth Objection is lacking in
the codices. The solution given here is found in some editions, and was
supplied by Nicolai. ] Silver and gold were reasonably forbidden (Dt. 7)
not as though they were not subject to the power of man, but because,
like the idols themselves, all materials out of which idols were made,
were anathematized as hateful in God's sight. This is clear from the
same chapter, where we read further on (Dt. 7:26): "Neither shalt thou
bring anything of the idol into thy house, lest thou become an anathema
like it. " Another reason was lest, by taking silver and gold, they
should be led by avarice into idolatry to which the Jews were inclined.
The other precept (Dt. 23) about covering up excretions, was just and
becoming, both for the sake of bodily cleanliness; and in order to keep
the air wholesome; and by reason of the respect due to the tabernacle
of the covenant which stood in the midst of the camp, wherein the Lord
was said to dwell; as is clearly set forth in the same passage, where
after expressing the command, the reason thereof is at once added, to
wit: "For the Lord thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver
thee, and to give up thy enemies to thee, and let thy camp be holy
[i. e. clean], and let no uncleanness appear therein. " The figurative
reason for this precept, according to Gregory (Moral. xxxi), is that
sins which are the fetid excretions of the mind should be covered over
by repentance, that we may become acceptable to God, according to Ps.
31:1: "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins
are covered. " Or else according to a gloss, that we should recognize
the unhappy condition of human nature, and humbly cover and purify the
stains of a puffed-up and proud spirit in the deep furrow of
self-examination.
Reply to Objection 11: Sorcerers and idolatrous priests made use, in
their rites, of the bones and flesh of dead men. Wherefore, in order to
extirpate the customs of idolatrous worship, the Lord commanded that
the priests of inferior degree, who at fixed times served in the
temple, should not "incur an uncleanness at the death" of anyone except
of those who were closely related to them, viz. their father or mother,
and others thus near of kin to them. But the high-priest had always to
be ready for the service of the sanctuary; wherefore he was absolutely
forbidden to approach the dead, however nearly related to him. They
were also forbidden to marry a "harlot" or "one that has been put
away," or any other than a virgin: both on account of the reverence due
to the priesthood, the honor of which would seem to be tarnished by
such a marriage: and for the sake of the children who would be
disgraced by the mother's shame: which was most of all to be avoided
when the priestly dignity was passed on from father to son. Again, they
were commanded to shave neither head nor beard, and not to make
incisions in their flesh, in order to exclude the rites of idolatry.
For the priests of the Gentiles shaved both head and beard, wherefore
it is written (Bar 6:30): "Priests sit in their temples having their
garments rent, and their heads and beards shaven. " Moreover, in
worshipping their idols "they cut themselves with knives and lancets"
(3 Kings 18:28). For this reason the priests of the Old Law were
commanded to do the contrary.
The spiritual reason for these things is that priests should be
entirely free from dead works, i. e. sins. And they should not shave
their heads, i. e. set wisdom aside; nor should they shave their beards,
i. e. set aside the perfection of wisdom; nor rend their garments or cut
their flesh, i. e. they should not incur the sin of schism.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE DURATION OF THE CEREMONIAL PRECEPTS (FOUR ARTICLES)
We must now consider the duration of the ceremonial precepts: under
which head there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether the ceremonial precepts were in existence before the Law?
(2) Whether at the time of the Law the ceremonies of the Old Law had
any power of justification?
(3) Whether they ceased at the coming of Christ?
(4) Whether it is a mortal sin to observe them after the coming of
Christ?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the ceremonies of the Law were in existence before the Law?
Objection 1: It would seem that the ceremonies of the Law were in
existence before the Law. For sacrifices and holocausts were ceremonies
of the Old Law, as stated above ([2120]Q[101], A[4]). But sacrifices
and holocausts preceded the Law: for it is written (Gn. 4:3,4) that
"Cain offered, of the fruits of the earth, gifts to the Lord," and that
"Abel offered of the firstlings of his flock, and of their fat. " Noe
also "offered holocausts" to the Lord (Gn. 18:20), and Abraham did in
like manner (Gn. 22:13). Therefore the ceremonies of the Old Law
preceded the Law.
Objection 2: Further, the erecting and consecrating of the altar were
part of the ceremonies relating to holy things. But these preceded the
Law. For we read (Gn. 13:18) that "Abraham . . . built . . . an altar
to the Lord"; and (Gn. 28:18) that "Jacob . . . took the stone . . .
and set it up for a title, pouring oil upon the top of it. " Therefore
the legal ceremonies preceded the Law.
Objection 3: Further, the first of the legal sacraments seems to have
been circumcision. But circumcision preceded the Law, as appears from
Gn. 17. In like manner the priesthood preceded the Law; for it is
written (Gn. 14:18) that "Melchisedech . . . was the priest of the most
high God. " Therefore the sacramental ceremonies preceded the Law.
Objection 4: Further, the distinction of clean from unclean animals
belongs to the ceremonies of observances, as stated above (Q[100], 2,
A[6], ad 1). But this distinction preceded the Law; for it is written
(Gn. 7:2,3): "Of all clean beasts take seven and seven . . . but of the
beasts that are unclean, two and two. " Therefore the legal ceremonies
preceded the Law.
On the contrary, It is written (Dt. 6:1): "These are the precepts and
ceremonies . . . which the Lord your God commanded that I should teach
you. " But they would not have needed to be taught about these things,
if the aforesaid ceremonies had been already in existence. Therefore
the legal ceremonies did not precede the Law.
I answer that, As is clear from what has been said ([2121]Q[101],
A[2];[2122] Q[102] , A[2]), the legal ceremonies were ordained for a
double purpose; the worship of God, and the foreshadowing of Christ.
Now whoever worships God must needs worship Him by means of certain
fixed things pertaining to external worship. But the fixing of the
divine worship belongs to the ceremonies; just as the determining of
our relations with our neighbor is a matter determined by the judicial
precepts, as stated above ([2123]Q[99], A[4]). Consequently, as among
men in general there were certain judicial precepts, not indeed
established by Divine authority, but ordained by human reason; so also
there were some ceremonies fixed, not by the authority of any law, but
according to the will and devotion of those that worship God. Since,
however, even before the Law some of the leading men were gifted with
the spirit of prophecy, it is to be believed that a heavenly instinct,
like a private law, prompted them to worship God in a certain definite
way, which would be both in keeping with the interior worship, and a
suitable token of Christ's mysteries, which were foreshadowed also by
other things that they did, according to 1 Cor. 10:11: "All . . .
things happened to them in figure. " Therefore there were some
ceremonies before the Law, but they were not legal ceremonies, because
they were not as yet established by legislation.
Reply to Objection 1: The patriarchs offered up these oblations,
sacrifices and holocausts previously to the Law, out of a certain
devotion of their own will, according as it seemed proper to them to
offer up in honor of God those things which they had received from Him,
and thus to testify that they worshipped God Who is the beginning and
end of all.
Reply to Objection 2: They also established certain sacred things,
because they thought that the honor due to God demanded that certain
places should be set apart from others for the purpose of divine
worship.
Reply to Objection 3: The sacrament of circumcision was established by
command of God before the Law. Hence it cannot be called a sacrament of
the Law as though it were an institution of the Law, but only as an
observance included in the Law. Hence Our Lord said (Jn. 7:20) that
circumcision was "not of Moses, but of his fathers. " Again, among those
who worshipped God, the priesthood was in existence before the Law by
human appointment, for the Law allotted the priestly dignity to the
firstborn.
Reply to Objection 4: The distinction of clean from unclean animals was
in vogue before the Law, not with regard to eating them, since it is
written (Gn. 9:3): "Everything that moveth and liveth shall be meat for
you": but only as to the offering of sacrifices because they used only
certain animals for that purpose. If, however, they did make any
distinction in regard to eating; it was not that it was considered
illegal to eat such animals, since this was not forbidden by any law,
but from dislike or custom: thus even now we see that certain foods are
looked upon with disgust in some countries, while people partake of
them in others.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether, at the time of the Law, the ceremonies of the Old Law had any power
of justification?
Objection 1: It would seem that the ceremonies of the Old Law had the
power of justification at the time of the Law. Because expiation from
sin and consecration pertains to justification. But it is written (Ex.
39:21) that the priests and their apparel were consecrated by the
sprinkling of blood and the anointing of oil; and (Lev. 16:16) that, by
sprinkling the blood of the calf, the priest expiated "the sanctuary
from the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and from their
transgressions and . . . their sins. " Therefore the ceremonies of the
Old Law had the power of justification.
Objection 2: Further, that by which man pleases God pertains to
justification, according to Ps. 10:8: "The Lord is just and hath loved
justice. " But some pleased God by means of ceremonies, according to
Lev. 10:19: "How could I . . . please the Lord in the ceremonies,
having a sorrowful heart? " Therefore the ceremonies of the Old Law had
the power of justification.
Objection 3: Further, things relating to the divine worship regard the
soul rather than the body, according to Ps. 18:8: "The Law of the Lord
is unspotted, converting souls. " But the leper was cleansed by means of
the ceremonies of the Old Law, as stated in Lev. 14. Much more
therefore could the ceremonies of the Old Law cleanse the soul by
justifying it.
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Gal. 2) [*The first words of the
quotation are from 3:21: St. Thomas probably quoting from memory,
substituted them for 2:21, which runs thus: 'If justice be by the Law,
then Christ died in vain. ']: "If there had been a law given which could
justify [Vulg. : 'give life'], Christ died in vain," i. e. without cause.
But this is inadmissible. Therefore the ceremonies of the Old Law did
not confer justice.
I answer that, As stated above ([2124]Q[102], A[5], ad 4), a twofold
uncleanness was distinguished in the Old Law. One was spiritual and is
the uncleanness of sin. The other was corporal, which rendered a man
unfit for divine worship; thus a leper, or anyone that touched carrion,
was said to be unclean: and thus uncleanness was nothing but a kind of
irregularity. From this uncleanness, then, the ceremonies of the Old
Law had the power to cleanse: because they were ordered by the Law to
be employed as remedies for the removal of the aforesaid uncleannesses
which were contracted in consequence of the prescription of the Law.
Hence the Apostle says (Heb. 9:13) that "the blood of goats and of
oxen, and the ashes of a heifer, being sprinkled, sanctify such as are
defiled, to the cleansing of the flesh. " And just as this uncleanness
which was washed away by such like ceremonies, affected the flesh
rather than the soul, so also the ceremonies themselves are called by
the Apostle shortly before (Heb. 9:10) justices of the flesh: "justices
of the flesh," says he, "being laid on them until the time of
correction. "
On the other hand, they had no power of cleansing from uncleanness of
the soul, i. e. from the uncleanness of sin. The reason of this was that
at no time could there be expiation from sin, except through Christ,
"Who taketh away the sins [Vulg. : 'sin'] of the world" (Jn. 1:29). And
since the mystery of Christ's Incarnation and Passion had not yet
really taken place, those ceremonies of the Old Law could not really
contain in themselves a power flowing from Christ already incarnate and
crucified, such as the sacraments of the New Law contain. Consequently
they could not cleanse from sin: thus the Apostle says (Heb.
