SUMMA THEOLOGIAE IIa CVI-CVIII

Index

Question 106.1 The law of the Gospel or new law
Question 106.2
Question 106.3
Question 106.4

Question 107.1 The comparison of the new law with the old
Question 107.2
Question 107.3
Question 107.4

Question 108.1 What the new law contains
Question 108.2
Question 108.3
Question 108.4

LatinEnglish
q. 106 pr. Consequenter considerandum est de lege Evangelii, quod dicitur lex nova. Et primo, de ipsa secundum se; secundo, de ipsa per comparationem ad legem veterem; tertio, de his quae in lege nova continentur. Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, qualis sit, utrum scilicet scripta vel indita. Secundo, de virtute eius, utrum iustificet. Tertio, de principio eius, utrum debuerit dari a principio mundi. Quarto, de termino eius utrum scilicet sit duratura usque ad finem, an debeat ei alia lex succedere. Question 106. The law of the Gospel, called the New Law, considered in itself What kind of law is it? i.e. is it a written law or is it instilled in the heart? Its efficacy, i.e. does it justify? Its beginning: should it have been given at the beginning of the world? Its end: i.e. will it last until the end, or will another law take its place?
q. 106 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex nova sit lex scripta. Lex enim nova est ipsum Evangelium. Sed Evangelium est descriptum, Ioan. XX, haec autem scripta sunt ut credatis. Ergo lex nova est lex scripta. Objection 1. It would seem that the New Law is a written law. For the New Law is just the same as the Gospel. But the Gospel is set forth in writing, according to John 20:31: "But these are written that you may believe." Therefore the New Law is a written law.
q. 106 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, lex indita est lex naturae; secundum illud Rom. II, naturaliter ea quae legis sunt faciunt, qui habent opus legis scriptum in cordibus suis. Si igitur lex Evangelii esset lex indita, non differret a lege naturae. Objection 2. Further, the law that is instilled in the heart is the natural law, according to Romans 2:14-15: "(The Gentiles) do by nature those things that are of the law . . . who have [Vulgate: 'show'] the work of the law written in their hearts." If therefore the law of the Gospel were instilled in our hearts, it would not be distinct from the law of nature.
q. 106 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, lex Evangelii propria est eorum qui sunt in statu novi testamenti. Sed lex indita communis est et eis qui sunt in novo testamento, et eis qui sunt in veteri testamento, dicitur enim Sap. VII, quod divina sapientia per nationes in animas sanctas se transfert, amicos Dei et prophetas constituit. Ergo lex nova non est lex indita. Objection 3. Further, the law of the Gospel is proper to those who are in the state of the New Testament. But the law that is instilled in the heart is common to those who are in the New Testament and to those who are in the Old Testament: for it is written (Wisdom 7:27) that Divine Wisdom "through nations conveyeth herself into holy souls, she maketh the friends of God and prophets." Therefore the New Law is not instilled in our hearts.
q. 106 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod lex nova est lex novi testamenti. Sed lex novi testamenti est indita in corde. Apostolus enim, ad Heb. VIII, dicit, inducens auctoritatem quae habetur Ierem. XXXI, ecce dies venient, dicit dominus, et consummabo super domum Israel et super domum Iuda testamentum novum, et exponens quid sit hoc testamentum, dicit, quia hoc est testamentum quod disponam domui Israel, dando leges meas in mentem eorum, et in corde eorum superscribam eas. Ergo lex nova est lex indita. On the contrary, The New Law is the law of the New Testament. But the law of the New Testament is instilled in our hearts. For the Apostle, quoting the authority of Jeremiah 31:31-33: "Behold the days shall come, saith the Lord; and I will perfect unto the house of Israel, and unto the house of Judah, a new testament," says, explaining what this statement is (Hebrews 8:8-10): "For this is the testament which I will make to the house of Israel . . . by giving [Vulgate: 'I will give'] My laws into their mind, and in their heart will I write them." Therefore the New Law is instilled in our hearts.
q. 106 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod unaquaeque res illud videtur esse quod in ea est potissimum, ut philosophus dicit, in IX Ethic. Id autem quod est potissimum in lege novi testamenti, et in quo tota virtus eius consistit, est gratia spiritus sancti, quae datur per fidem Christi. Et ideo principaliter lex nova est ipsa gratia spiritus sancti, quae datur Christi fidelibus. Et hoc manifeste apparet per apostolum, qui, ad Rom. III, dicit, ubi est ergo gloriatio tua? Exclusa est. Per quam legem? Factorum? Non, sed per legem fidei, ipsam enim fidei gratiam legem appellat. Et expressius ad Rom. VIII dicitur, lex spiritus vitae in Christo Iesu liberavit me a lege peccati et mortis. Unde et Augustinus dicit, in libro de spiritu et littera, quod sicut lex factorum scripta fuit in tabulis lapideis, ita lex fidei scripta est in cordibus fidelium. Et alibi dicit in eodem libro, quae sunt leges Dei ab ipso Deo scriptae in cordibus, nisi ipsa praesentia spiritus sancti? Habet tamen lex nova quaedam sicut dispositiva ad gratiam spiritus sancti, et ad usum huius gratiae pertinentia, quae sunt quasi secundaria in lege nova, de quibus oportuit instrui fideles Christi et verbis et scriptis, tam circa credenda quam circa agenda. Et ideo dicendum est quod principaliter nova lex est lex indita, secundario autem est lex scripta. I answer that, "Each thing appears to be that which preponderates in it," as the Philosopher states (Ethic. ix, 8). Now that which is preponderant in the law of the New Testament, and whereon all its efficacy is based, is the grace of the Holy Ghost, which is given through faith in Christ. Consequently the New Law is chiefly the grace itself of the Holy Ghost, which is given to those who believe in Christ. This is manifestly stated by the Apostle who says (Romans 3:27): "Where is . . . thy boasting? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith": for he calls the grace itself of faith "a law." And still more clearly it is written (Romans 8:2): "The law of the spirit of life, in Christ Jesus, hath delivered me from the law of sin and of death." Hence Augustine says (De Spir. et Lit. xxiv) that "as the law of deeds was written on tables of stone, so is the law of faith inscribed on the hearts of the faithful": and elsewhere, in the same book (xxi): "What else are the Divine laws written by God Himself on our hearts, but the very presence of His Holy Spirit?" Nevertheless the New Law contains certain things that dispose us to receive the grace of the Holy Ghost, and pertaining to the use of that grace: such things are of secondary importance, so to speak, in the New Law; and the faithful need to be instructed concerning them, both by word and writing, both as to what they should believe and as to what they should do. Consequently we must say that the New Law is in the first place a law that is inscribed on our hearts, but that secondarily it is a written law.
q. 106 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in Scriptura Evangelii non continentur nisi ea quae pertinent ad gratiam spiritus sancti vel sicut dispositiva, vel sicut ordinativa ad usum huius gratiae. Sicut dispositiva quidem quantum ad intellectum per fidem, per quam datur spiritus sancti gratia, continentur in Evangelio ea quae pertinent ad manifestandam divinitatem vel humanitatem Christi. Secundum affectum vero, continentur in Evangelio ea quae pertinent ad contemptum mundi, per quem homo fit capax gratiae spiritus sancti, mundus enim, idest amatores mundi, non potest capere spiritum sanctum, ut habetur Ioan. XIV. Usus vero spiritualis gratiae est in operibus virtutum, ad quae multipliciter Scriptura novi testamenti homines exhortatur. Reply to Objection 1. The Gospel writings contain only such things as pertain to the grace of the Holy Ghost, either by disposing us thereto, or by directing us to the use thereof. Thus with regard to the intellect, the Gospel contains certain matters pertaining to the manifestation of Christ's Godhead or humanity, which dispose us by means of faith through which we receive the grace of the Holy Ghost: and with regard to the affections, it contains matters touching the contempt of the world, whereby man is rendered fit to receive the grace of the Holy Ghost: for "the world," i.e. worldly men, "cannot receive" the Holy Ghost (John 14:17). As to the use of spiritual grace, this consists in works of virtue to which the writings of the New Testament exhort men in divers ways.
q. 106 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod dupliciter est aliquid inditum homini. Uno modo, pertinens ad naturam humanam, et sic lex naturalis est lex indita homini. Alio modo est aliquid inditum homini quasi naturae superadditum per gratiae donum. Et hoc modo lex nova est indita homini, non solum indicans quid sit faciendum, sed etiam adiuvans ad implendum. Reply to Objection 2. There are two ways in which a thing may be instilled into man. First, through being part of his nature, and thus the natural law is instilled into man. Secondly, a thing is instilled into man by being, as it were, added on to his nature by a gift of grace. In this way the New Law is instilled into man, not only by indicating to him what he should do, but also by helping him to accomplish it.
q. 106 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod nullus unquam habuit gratiam spiritus sancti nisi per fidem Christi explicitam vel implicitam. Per fidem autem Christi pertinet homo ad novum testamentum. Unde quibuscumque fuit lex gratiae indita, secundum hoc ad novum testamentum pertinebant. Reply to Objection 3. No man ever had the grace of the Holy Ghost except through faith in Christ either explicit or implicit: and by faith in Christ man belongs to the New Testament. Consequently whoever had the law of grace instilled into them belonged to the New Testament.
q. 106 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex nova non iustificet. Nullus enim iustificatur nisi legi Dei obediat; secundum illud ad Heb. V, factus est, scilicet Christus, omnibus obtemperantibus sibi causa salutis aeternae. Sed Evangelium non semper hoc operatur quod homines ei obediant, dicitur enim Rom. X, non omnes obediunt Evangelio. Ergo lex nova non iustificat. Objection 1. It would seem that the New Law does not justify. For no man is justified unless he obeys God's law, according to Hebrews 5:9: "He," i.e. Christ, "became to all that obey Him the cause of eternal salvation." But the Gospel does not always cause men to believe in it: for it is written (Romans 10:16): "All do not obey the Gospel." Therefore the New Law does not justify.
q. 106 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, apostolus probat, ad Rom., quod lex vetus non iustificabat, quia ea adveniente praevaricatio crevit, habetur enim ad Rom. IV, lex iram operatur, ubi enim non est lex, nec praevaricatio. Sed multo magis lex nova praevaricationem addidit, maiori enim poena est dignus qui post legem novam datam adhuc peccat; secundum illud Heb. X, irritam quis faciens legem Moysi, sine ulla miseratione, duobus vel tribus testibus, moritur. Quanto magis putatis deteriora mereri supplicia, qui filium Dei conculcaverit, et cetera? Ergo lex nova non iustificat, sicut nec vetus. Objection 2. Further, the Apostle proves in his epistle to the Romans that the Old Law did not justify, because transgression increased at its advent: for it is stated (Romans 4:15): "The Law worketh wrath: for where there is no law, neither is there transgression." But much more did the New Law increase transgression: since he who sins after the giving of the New Law deserves greater punishment, according to Hebrews 10:28-29: "A man making void the Law of Moses dieth without any mercy under two or three witnesses. How much more, do you think, he deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden underfoot the Son of God," etc.? Therefore the New Law, like the Old Law, does not justify.
q. 106 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, iustificare est proprius effectus Dei; secundum illud ad Rom. VIII, Deus qui iustificat. Sed lex vetus fuit a Deo, sicut et lex nova. Ergo lex nova non magis iustificat quam lex vetus. Objection 3. Further, justification is an effect proper to God, according to Romans 8:33: "God that justifieth." But the Old Law was from God just as the New Law. Therefore the New Law does not justify any more than the Old Law.
q. 106 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, ad Rom. I, non erubesco Evangelium, virtus enim Dei est in salutem omni credenti. Non autem est salus nisi iustificatis. Ergo lex Evangelii iustificat. On the contrary, The Apostle says (Romans 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.
q. 106 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, ad legem Evangelii duo pertinent. Unum quidem principaliter, scilicet ipsa gratia spiritus sancti interius data. Et quantum ad hoc, nova lex iustificat. Unde Augustinus dicit, in libro de spiritu et littera, ibi, scilicet in veteri testamento, lex extrinsecus posita est, qua iniusti terrerentur, hic, scilicet in novo testamento, intrinsecus data est, qua iustificarentur. Aliud pertinet ad legem Evangelii secundario, scilicet documenta fidei, et praecepta ordinantia affectum humanum et humanos actus. Et quantum ad hoc, lex nova non iustificat. Unde apostolus dicit, II ad Cor. III, littera occidit, spiritus autem vivificat. Et Augustinus exponit, in libro de spiritu et littera, quod per litteram intelligitur quaelibet Scriptura extra homines existens, etiam moralium praeceptorum qualia continentur in Evangelio. Unde etiam littera Evangelii occideret, nisi adesset interius gratia fidei sanans. I answer that, As stated above (Article 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 Corinthians 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.
q. 106 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illa obiectio procedit de lege nova non quantum ad id quod est principale in ipsa, sed quantum ad id quod est secundarium in ipsa, scilicet quantum ad documenta et praecepta exterius homini proposita vel verbo vel scripto. 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.
q. 106 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod gratia novi testamenti, etsi adiuvet hominem ad non peccandum, non tamen ita confirmat in bono ut homo peccare non possit, hoc enim pertinet ad statum gloriae. Et ideo si quis post acceptam gratiam novi testamenti peccaverit, maiori poena est dignus, tanquam maioribus beneficiis ingratus, et auxilio sibi dato non utens. Nec tamen propter hoc dicitur quod lex nova iram operatur, quia quantum est de se, sufficiens auxilium dat ad non peccandum. 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.
q. 106 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod legem novam et veterem unus Deus dedit, sed aliter et aliter. Nam legem veterem dedit scriptam in tabulis lapideis, legem autem novam dedit scriptam in tabulis cordis carnalibus, ut apostolus dicit, II ad Cor. III. Proinde sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro de spiritu et littera, litteram istam extra hominem scriptam, et ministrationem mortis et ministrationem damnationis apostolus appellat. Hanc autem, scilicet novi testamenti legem, ministrationem spiritus et ministrationem iustitiae dicit, quia per donum spiritus operamur iustitiam, et a praevaricationis damnatione liberamur. 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 Corinthians 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."
q. 106 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex nova debuerit dari a principio mundi. Non enim est personarum acceptio apud Deum, ut dicitur ad Rom. II. Sed omnes homines peccaverunt, et egent gloria Dei, ut dicitur ad Rom. III. Ergo a principio mundi lex Evangelii dari debuit, ut omnibus per eam subveniretur. 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" (Romans 2:11). But "all" men "have sinned and do need the glory of God" (Romans 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.
q. 106 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, sicut in diversis locis sunt diversi homines, ita etiam in diversis temporibus. Sed Deus, qui vult omnes homines salvos fieri, ut dicitur I ad Tim. II, mandavit Evangelium praedicari in omnibus locis; ut patet Matth. ult., et Marc. ult. Ergo omnibus temporibus debuit adesse lex Evangelii, ita quod a principio mundi daretur. 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 Timothy 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.
q. 106 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, magis est necessaria homini salus spiritualis, quae est aeterna, quam salus corporalis, quae est temporalis. Sed Deus ab initio mundi providit homini ea quae sunt necessaria ad salutem corporalem, tradens eius potestati omnia quae erant propter hominem creata, ut patet Gen. I. Ergo etiam lex nova, quae maxime est necessaria ad salutem spiritualem, debuit hominibus a principio mundi dari. 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 (Genesis 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.
q. 106 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, I ad Cor. XV, non prius quod spirituale est, sed quod animale. Sed lex nova est maxime spiritualis. Ergo lex nova non debuit dari a principio mundi. On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Corinthians 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.
q. 106 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod triplex ratio potest assignari quare lex nova non debuit dari a principio mundi. Quarum prima est quia lex nova, sicut dictum est, principaliter est gratia spiritus sancti; quae abundanter dari non debuit antequam impedimentum peccati ab humano genere tolleretur, consummata redemptione per Christum; unde dicitur Ioan. VII, nondum erat spiritus datus, quia Iesus nondum erat glorificatus. Et hanc rationem manifeste assignat apostolus ad Rom. VIII, ubi, postquam praemiserat de lege spiritus vitae, subiungit, Deus, filium suum mittens in similitudinem carnis peccati, de peccato damnavit peccatum in carne, ut iustificatio legis impleretur in nobis. Secunda ratio potest assignari ex perfectione legis novae. Non enim aliquid ad perfectum adducitur statim a principio, sed quodam temporali successionis ordine, sicut aliquis prius fit puer, et postmodum vir. Et hanc rationem assignat apostolus ad Gal. III, lex paedagogus noster fuit in Christo, ut ex fide iustificemur. At ubi venit fides, iam non sumus sub paedagogo. Tertia ratio sumitur ex hoc quod lex nova est lex gratiae, et ideo primo oportuit quod homo relinqueretur sibi in statu veteris legis, ut, in peccatum cadendo, suam infirmitatem cognoscens, recognosceret se gratia indigere. Et hanc rationem assignat apostolus ad Rom. V, dicens, lex subintravit ut abundaret delictum, ubi autem abundavit delictum, superabundavit et gratia. 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 (Article 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 (John 7:39): "As yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified." This reason the Apostle states clearly (Romans 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 (Galatians 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 (Romans 5:20): "The Law entered in, that sin might abound: and when sin abounded grace did more abound."
q. 106 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod humanum genus propter peccatum primi parentis meruit privari auxilio gratiae. Et ideo quibuscumque non datur, hoc est ex iustitia, quibuscumque autem datur, hoc est ex gratia, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro de Perfect. Iustit. Unde non est acceptio personarum apud Deum ex hoc quod non omnibus a principio mundi legem gratiae proposuit, quae erat debito ordine proponenda, ut dictum est. 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.
q. 106 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod diversitas locorum non variat diversum statum humani generis, qui variatur per temporis successionem. Et ideo omnibus locis proponitur lex nova, non autem omnibus temporibus, licet omni tempore fuerint aliqui ad novum testamentum pertinentes, ut supra dictum est. 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 (1, ad 3).
q. 106 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod ea quae pertinent ad salutem corporalem, deserviunt homini quantum ad naturam, quae non tollitur per peccatum. Sed ea quae pertinent ad spiritualem salutem, ordinantur ad gratiam, quae amittitur per peccatum. Et ideo non est similis ratio de utrisque. 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.
q. 106 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex nova non sit duratura usque ad finem mundi. Quia ut apostolus dicit, I ad Cor. XIII, cum venerit quod perfectum est, evacuabitur quod ex parte est. Sed lex nova ex parte est, dicit enim apostolus ibidem, ex parte cognoscimus, et ex parte prophetamus. Ergo lex nova evacuanda est, alio perfectiori statu succedente. Objection 1. It would seem that the New Law will not last until the end of the world. Because, as the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 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 Corinthians 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.
q. 106 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, dominus, Ioan. XVI, promisit discipulis suis in adventu spiritus sancti Paracleti cognitionem omnis veritatis. Sed nondum Ecclesia omnem veritatem cognoscit, in statu novi testamenti. Ergo expectandus est alius status, in quo per spiritum sanctum omnis veritas manifestetur. Objection 2. Further, Our Lord (John 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.
q. 106 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, sicut pater est alius a filio et filius a patre, ita spiritus sanctus a patre et filio. Sed fuit quidam status conveniens personae patris, scilicet status veteris legis, in quo homines generationi intendebant. Similiter etiam est alius status conveniens personae filii, scilicet status novae legis, in quo clerici, intendentes sapientiae, quae appropriatur filio, principantur. Ergo erit status tertius spiritus sancti, in quo spirituales viri principabuntur. 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.
q. 106 a. 4 arg. 4 Praeterea, dominus dicit, Matth. XXIV, praedicabitur hoc Evangelium regni in universo orbe, et tunc veniet consummatio. Sed Evangelium Christi iamdiu est praedicatum in universo orbe; nec tamen adhuc venit consummatio. Ergo Evangelium Christi non est Evangelium regni, sed futurum est aliud Evangelium spiritus sancti, quasi alia lex. Objection 4. Further, Our Lord said (Matthew 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.
q. 106 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod dominus dicit, Matth. XXIV, dico vobis quia non praeteribit generatio haec donec omnia fiant, quod Chrysostomus exponit de generatione fidelium Christi. Ergo status fidelium Christi manebit usque ad consummationem saeculi. On the contrary, Our Lord said (Matthew 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.
q. 106 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod status mundi variari potest dupliciter. Uno modo, secundum diversitatem legis. Et sic huic statui novae legis nullus alius status succedet. Successit enim status novae legis statui veteris legis tanquam perfectior imperfectiori. Nullus autem status praesentis vitae potest esse perfectior quam status novae legis. Nihil enim potest esse propinquius fini ultimo quam quod immediate in finem ultimum introducit. Hoc autem facit nova lex, unde apostolus dicit, ad Heb. X, habentes itaque, fratres, fiduciam in introitu sanctorum in sanguine Christi, quam initiavit nobis viam novam, accedamus ad eum. Unde non potest esse aliquis perfectior status praesentis vitae quam status novae legis, quia tanto est unumquodque perfectius, quanto ultimo fini propinquius. Alio modo status hominum variari potest secundum quod homines diversimode se habent ad eandem legem, vel perfectius vel minus perfecte. Et sic status veteris legis frequenter fuit mutatus, cum quandoque leges optime custodirentur, quandoque omnino praetermitterentur. Sic etiam status novae legis diversificatur, secundum diversa loca et tempora et personas, inquantum gratia spiritus sancti perfectius vel minus perfecte ab aliquibus habetur. Non est tamen expectandum quod sit aliquis status futurus in quo perfectius gratia spiritus sancti habeatur quam hactenus habita fuerit, maxime ab apostolis, qui primitias spiritus acceperunt, idest et tempore prius et ceteris abundantius, ut Glossa dicit Rom. VIII. 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 (Hebrews 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 Romans 8:23.
q. 106 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Dionysius dicit, in Eccl. Hier., triplex est hominum status, primus quidem veteris legis; secundus novae legis; tertius status succedit non in hac vita, sed in patria. Sed sicut primus status est figuralis et imperfectus respectu status evangelici, ita hic status est figuralis et imperfectus respectu status patriae; quo veniente, iste status evacuatur, sicut ibi dicitur, videmus nunc per speculum in aenigmate, tunc autem facie ad faciem. 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 Corinthians 13:12): "We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face."
q. 106 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit in libro contra Faustum, Montanus et Priscilla posuerunt quod promissio domini de spiritu sancto dando non fuit completa in apostolis, sed in eis. Et similiter Manichaei posuerunt quod fuit completa in Manichaeo, quem dicebant esse spiritum Paracletum. Et ideo utrique non recipiebant actus apostolorum, in quibus manifeste ostenditur quod illa promissio fuit in apostolis completa, sicut dominus iterato eis promisit, Act. I, baptizamini in spiritu sancto non post multos hos dies; quod impletum legitur Act. II. Sed istae vanitates excluduntur per hoc quod dicitur Ioan. VII, nondum erat spiritus datus, quia Iesus nondum erat glorificatus, ex quo datur intelligi quod statim glorificato Christo in resurrectione et ascensione, fuit spiritus sanctus datus. Et per hoc etiam excluditur quorumcumque vanitas qui dicerent esse expectandum aliud tempus spiritus sancti. Docuit autem spiritus sanctus apostolos omnem veritatem de his quae pertinent ad necessitatem salutis, scilicet de credendis et agendis. Non tamen docuit eos de omnibus futuris eventibus, hoc enim ad eos non pertinebat, secundum illud Act. I, non est vestrum nosse tempora vel momenta, quae pater posuit in sua potestate. 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 (John 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."
q. 106 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod lex vetus non solum fuit patris, sed etiam filii, quia Christus in veteri lege figurabatur. Unde dominus dicit, Ioan. V, si crederetis Moysi, crederetis forsitan et mihi, de me enim ille scripsit. Similiter etiam lex nova non solum est Christi, sed etiam spiritus sancti; secundum illud Rom. VIII, lex spiritus vitae in Christo Iesu, et cetera. Unde non est expectanda alia lex, quae sit spiritus sancti. 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 (John 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 Romans 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.
q. 106 a. 4 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod, cum Christus statim in principio evangelicae praedicationis dixerit, appropinquavit regnum caelorum, stultissimum est dicere quod Evangelium Christi non sit Evangelium regni. Sed praedicatio Evangelii Christi potest intelligi dupliciter. Uno modo, quantum ad divulgationem notitiae Christi, et sic praedicatum fuit Evangelium in universo orbe etiam tempore apostolorum, ut Chrysostomus dicit. Et secundum hoc, quod additur, et tunc erit consummatio, intelligitur de destructione Ierusalem, de qua tunc ad litteram loquebatur. Alio modo potest intelligi praedicatio Evangelii in universo orbe cum pleno effectu, ita scilicet quod in qualibet gente fundetur Ecclesia. Et ita, sicut dicit Augustinus, in epistola ad Hesych., nondum est praedicatum Evangelium in universo orbe, sed, hoc facto, veniet consummatio mundi. Reply to Objection 4. Since Christ said at the very outset of the preaching of the Gospel: "The kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matthew 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.
q. 107 pr. Deinde considerandum est de comparatione legis novae ad legem veterem. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum lex nova sit alia lex a lege veteri. Secundo, utrum lex nova impleat veterem. Tertio, utrum lex nova contineatur in veteri. Quarto, quae sit gravior, utrum lex nova vel vetus. Question 107. The new law as compared with the old Is the New Law distinct from the Old Law? Does the New Law fulfil the Old? Is the New Law contained in the Old? Which is the more burdensome, the New or the Old Law?
q. 107 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex nova non sit alia a lege veteri. Utraque enim lex datur fidem Dei habentibus, quia sine fide impossibile est placere Deo, ut dicitur Heb. XI. Sed eadem fides est antiquorum et modernorum, ut dicitur in Glossa Matth. XXI. Ergo etiam est eadem lex. 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 Hebrews 11:6. But the faith of olden times and of nowadays is the same, as the gloss says on Matthew 21:9. Therefore the law is the same also.
q. 107 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, in libro contra Adamantum Manich. Discip., quod brevis differentia legis et Evangelii est timor et amor. Sed secundum haec duo nova lex et vetus diversificari non possunt, quia etiam in veteri lege proponuntur praecepta caritatis; Lev. XIX, diliges proximum tuum; et Deut. VI, diliges dominum Deum tuum. Similiter etiam diversificari non possunt per aliam differentiam quam Augustinus assignat, contra Faustum, quod vetus testamentum habuit promissa temporalia, novum testamentum habet promissa spiritualia et aeterna. Quia etiam in novo testamento promittuntur aliqua promissa temporalia; secundum illud Marc. X, accipiet centies tantum in tempore hoc, domos et fratres, et cetera. Et in veteri testamento sperabantur promissa spiritualia et aeterna; secundum illud ad Heb. XI, nunc autem meliorem patriam appetunt, idest caelestem, quod dicitur de antiquis patribus. Ergo videtur quod nova lex non sit alia a veteri. 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" (Leviticus 19:18), and: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God" (Deuteronomy 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 Mark 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 Hebrews 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.
q. 107 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, apostolus videtur distinguere utramque legem, ad Rom. III, veterem legem appellans legem factorum, legem vero novam appellans legem fidei. Sed lex vetus fuit etiam fidei; secundum illud Heb. XI, omnes testimonio fidei probati sunt, quod dicit de patribus veteris testamenti. Similiter etiam lex nova est lex factorum, dicitur enim Matth. V, benefacite his qui oderunt vos; et Luc. XXII, hoc facite in meam commemorationem. Ergo lex nova non est alia a lege veteri. 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" (Romans 3:27). But the Old Law was also a law of faith, according to Hebrews 11:39: "All were [Vulgate: '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 (Matthew 5:44): "Do good to them that hate you"; and (Luke 22:19): "Do this for a commemoration of Me." Therefore the New Law is not distinct from the Old.
q. 107 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, ad Heb. VII, translato sacerdotio, necesse est ut legis translatio fiat. Sed aliud est sacerdotium novi et veteris testamenti, ut ibidem apostolus probat. Ergo est etiam alia lex. On the contrary, the Apostle says (Hebrews 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.
q. 107 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, omnis lex ordinat conversationem humanam in ordine ad aliquem finem. Ea autem quae ordinantur ad finem, secundum rationem finis dupliciter diversificari possunt. Uno modo, quia ordinantur ad diversos fines, et haec est diversitas speciei, maxime si sit finis proximus. Alio modo, secundum propinquitatem ad finem vel distantiam ab ipso. Sicut patet quod motus differunt specie secundum quod ordinantur ad diversos terminos, secundum vero quod una pars motus est propinquior termino quam alia, attenditur differentia in motu secundum perfectum et imperfectum. Sic ergo duae leges distingui possunt dupliciter. Uno modo, quasi omnino diversae, utpote ordinatae ad diversos fines, sicut lex civitatis quae esset ordinata ad hoc quod populus dominaretur, esset specie differens ab illa lege quae esset ad hoc ordinata quod optimates civitatis dominarentur. Alio modo duae leges distingui possunt secundum quod una propinquius ordinat ad finem, alia vero remotius. Puta in una et eadem civitate dicitur alia lex quae imponitur viris perfectis, qui statim possunt exequi ea quae pertinent ad bonum commune; et alia lex de disciplina puerorum, qui sunt instruendi qualiter postmodum opera virorum exequantur. Dicendum est ergo quod secundum primum modum, lex nova non est alia a lege veteri, quia utriusque est unus finis, scilicet ut homines subdantur Deo; est autem unus Deus et novi et veteris testamenti, secundum illud Rom. III, unus Deus est qui iustificat circumcisionem ex fide, et praeputium per fidem. Alio modo, lex nova est alia a veteri. Quia lex vetus est quasi paedagogus puerorum, ut apostolus dicit, ad Gal. III, lex autem nova est lex perfectionis, quia est lex caritatis, de qua apostolus dicit, ad Colos. III, quod est vinculum perfectionis. I answer that, As stated above (90, 2; 91, 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 Romans 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 (Galatians 3:24), whereas the New Law is the law of perfection, since it is the law of charity, of which the Apostle says (Colossians 3:14) that it is "the bond of perfection."
q. 107 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod unitas fidei utriusque testamenti attestatur unitati finis, dictum est enim supra quod obiectum theologicarum virtutum, inter quas est fides, est finis ultimus. Sed tamen fides habuit alium statum in veteri et in nova lege, nam quod illi credebant futurum, nos credimus factum. Reply to Objection 1. The unity of faith under both Testaments witnesses to the unity of end: for it has been stated above (Question 62, Article 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.
q. 107 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod omnes differentiae quae assignantur inter novam legem et veterem, accipiuntur secundum perfectum et imperfectum. Praecepta enim legis cuiuslibet dantur de actibus virtutum. Ad operanda autem virtutum opera aliter inclinantur imperfecti, qui nondum habent virtutis habitum; et aliter illi qui sunt per habitum virtutis perfecti. Illi enim qui nondum habent habitum virtutis, inclinantur ad agendum virtutis opera ex aliqua causa extrinseca, puta ex comminatione poenarum, vel ex promissione aliquarum extrinsecarum remunerationum, puta honoris vel divitiarum vel alicuius huiusmodi. Et ideo lex vetus, quae dabatur imperfectis, idest nondum consecutis gratiam spiritualem, dicebatur lex timoris, inquantum inducebat ad observantiam praeceptorum per comminationem quarundam poenarum. Et dicitur habere temporalia quaedam promissa. Illi autem qui habent virtutem, inclinantur ad virtutis opera agenda propter amorem virtutis, non propter aliquam poenam aut remunerationem extrinsecam. Et ideo lex nova, cuius principalitas consistit in ipsa spirituali gratia indita cordibus, dicitur lex amoris. Et dicitur habere promissa spiritualia et aeterna, quae sunt obiecta virtutis, praecipue caritatis. Et ita per se in ea inclinantur, non quasi in extranea, sed quasi in propria. Et propter hoc etiam lex vetus dicitur cohibere manum, non animum, quia qui timore poenae ab aliquo peccato abstinet, non simpliciter eius voluntas a peccato recedit, sicut recedit voluntas eius qui amore iustitiae abstinet a peccato. Et propter hoc lex nova, quae est lex amoris, dicitur animum cohibere. Fuerunt tamen aliqui in statu veteris testamenti habentes caritatem et gratiam spiritus sancti, qui principaliter expectabant promissiones spirituales et aeternas. Et secundum hoc pertinebant ad legem novam. Similiter etiam in novo testamento sunt aliqui carnales nondum pertingentes ad perfectionem novae legis, quos oportuit etiam in novo testamento induci ad virtutis opera per timorem poenarum, et per aliqua temporalia promissa. Lex autem vetus etsi praecepta caritatis daret, non tamen per eam dabatur spiritus sanctus, per quem diffunditur caritas in cordibus nostris, ut dicitur Rom. V. 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" (Romans 5:5).
q. 107 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, lex nova dicitur lex fidei, inquantum eius principalitas consistit in ipsa gratia quae interius datur credentibus, unde dicitur gratia fidei. Habet autem secundario aliqua facta et moralia et sacramentalia, sed in his non consistit principalitas legis novae, sicut principalitas veteris legis in eis consistebat. Illi autem qui in veteri testamento Deo fuerunt accepti per fidem, secundum hoc ad novum testamentum pertinebant, non enim iustificabantur nisi per fidem Christi, qui est auctor novi testamenti. Unde et de Moyse dicit apostolus, ad Heb. XI, quod maiores divitias aestimabat thesauro Aegyptiorum, improperium Christi. Reply to Objection 3. As stated above (106, A1,2), 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 (Hebrews 11:26) that he esteemed "the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasure of the Egyptians."
q. 107 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex nova legem veterem non impleat. Impletio enim contrariatur evacuationi. Sed lex nova evacuat, vel excludit observantias legis veteris, dicit enim apostolus, ad Gal. V, si circumcidimini, Christus nihil vobis proderit. Ergo lex nova non est impletiva veteris legis. 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 (Galatians 5:2): "If you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." Therefore the New Law is not a fulfilment of the Old.
q. 107 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, contrarium non est impletivum sui contrarii. Sed dominus in lege nova proposuit quaedam praecepta contraria praeceptis veteris legis. Dicitur enim Matth. V, audistis quia dictum est antiquis, quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam, det ei libellum repudii. Ego autem dico vobis, quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam, facit eam moechari. Et idem consequenter patet in prohibitione iuramenti, et etiam in prohibitione talionis, et in odio inimicorum. Similiter etiam videtur dominus exclusisse praecepta veteris legis de discretione ciborum, Matth. XV, non quod intrat in os, coinquinat hominem. Ergo lex nova non est impletiva veteris. 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 (Matthew 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 (Matthew 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.
q. 107 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, quicumque contra legem agit, non implet legem. Sed Christus in aliquibus contra legem fecit. Tetigit enim leprosum, ut dicitur Matth. VIII, quod erat contra legem. Similiter etiam videtur sabbatum pluries violasse, unde de eo dicebant Iudaei, Ioan. IX, non est hic homo a Deo, qui sabbatum non custodit. Ergo Christus non implevit legem. Et ita lex nova data a Christo, non est veteris impletiva. 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 (Matthew 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 (John 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.
q. 107 a. 2 arg. 4 Praeterea, in veteri lege continebantur praecepta moralia, caeremonialia et iudicialia, ut supra dictum est. Sed dominus, Matth. V, ubi quantum ad aliqua legem implevit, nullam mentionem videtur facere de iudicialibus et caeremonialibus. Ergo videtur quod lex nova non sit totaliter veteris impletiva. Objection 4. Further, the Old Law contained precepts, moral, ceremonial, and judicial, as stated above (Question 99, Article 4). But Our Lord (Matthew 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.
q. 107 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod dominus dicit, Matth. V, non veni solvere legem, sed adimplere. Et postea, subdit, iota unum, aut unus apex, non praeteribit a lege, donec omnia fiant. On the contrary, Our Lord said (Matthew 5:17): "I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil": and went on to say (Matthew 5:18): "One jot or one tittle shall not pass of the Law till all be fulfilled."
q. 107 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, lex nova comparatur ad veterem sicut perfectum ad imperfectum. Omne autem perfectum adimplet id quod imperfecto deest. Et secundum hoc lex nova adimplet veterem legem, inquantum supplet illud quod veteri legi deerat. In veteri autem lege duo possunt considerari, scilicet finis; et praecepta contenta in lege. Finis vero cuiuslibet legis est ut homines efficiantur iusti et virtuosi, ut supra dictum est. Unde et finis veteris legis erat iustificatio hominum. Quam quidem lex efficere non poterat, sed figurabat quibusdam caeremonialibus factis, et promittebat verbis. Et quantum ad hoc, lex nova implet veterem legem iustificando virtute passionis Christi. Et hoc est quod apostolus dicit, ad Rom. VIII, quod impossibile erat legi, Deus, filium suum mittens in similitudinem carnis peccati, damnavit peccatum in carne, ut iustificatio legis impleretur in nobis. Et quantum ad hoc, lex nova exhibet quod lex vetus promittebat; secundum illud II ad Cor. I, quotquot promissiones Dei sunt, in illo est, idest in Christo. Et iterum quantum ad hoc etiam complet quod vetus lex figurabat. Unde ad Colos. II dicitur de caeremonialibus quod erant umbra futurorum, corpus autem Christi, idest, veritas pertinet ad Christum. Unde lex nova dicitur lex veritatis, lex autem vetus umbrae vel figurae. Praecepta vero veteris legis adimplevit Christus et opere, et doctrina. Opere quidem, quia circumcidi voluit, et alia legalia observare, quae erant illo tempore observanda; secundum illud Gal. IV, factum sub lege. Sua autem doctrina adimplevit praecepta legis tripliciter. Primo quidem, verum intellectum legis exprimendo. Sicut patet in homicidio et adulterio, in quorum prohibitione Scribae et Pharisaei non intelligebant nisi exteriorem actum prohibitum, unde dominus legem adimplevit, ostendendo etiam interiores actus peccatorum cadere sub prohibitione. Secundo, adimplevit dominus praecepta legis, ordinando quomodo tutius observaretur quod lex vetus statuerat. Sicut lex vetus statuerat ut homo non peiuraret, et hoc tutius observatur si omnino a iuramento abstineat, nisi in casu necessitatis. Tertio, adimplevit dominus praecepta legis, superaddendo quaedam perfectionis consilia, ut patet Matth. XIX, ubi dominus dicenti se observasse praecepta veteris legis, dicit, unum tibi deest. Si vis perfectus esse, vade et vende omnia quae habes, et cetera. I answer that, As stated above (Article 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 (Question 92, Article 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 (Romans 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 Corinthians 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 (Colossians 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 Galatians 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 Matthew 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 Matthew 19:21 with Mark 10:21.
q. 107 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod lex nova non evacuat observantiam veteris legis nisi quantum ad caeremonialia, ut supra habitum est. Haec autem erant in figuram futuri. Unde ex hoc ipso quod caeremonialia praecepta sunt impleta, perfectis his quae figurabantur, non sunt ulterius observanda, quia si observarentur, adhuc significaretur aliquid ut futurum et non impletum. Sicut etiam promissio futuri doni locum iam non habet, promissione iam impleta per doni exhibitionem et per hunc modum, caeremoniae legis tolluntur cum implentur. 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 (13, 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.
q. 107 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, contra Faustum, praecepta illa domini non sunt contraria praeceptis veteris legis quod enim dominus praecepit de uxore non dimittenda, non est contrarium ei quod lex praecepit. Neque enim ait lex, qui voluerit, dimittat uxorem; cui esset contrarium non dimittere. Sed utique nolebat dimitti uxorem a viro, qui hanc interposuit moram, ut in dissidium animus praeceps libelli conscriptione refractus absisteret. Unde dominus, ad hoc confirmandum ut non facile uxor dimittatur, solam causam fornicationis excepit. Et idem etiam dicendum est in prohibitione iuramenti, sicut dictum est. Et idem etiam patet in prohibitione talionis. Taxavit enim modum vindictae lex, ut non procederetur ad immoderatam vindictam, a qua dominus perfectius removit eum quem monuit omnino a vindicta abstinere. Circa odium vero inimicorum, removit falsum Pharisaeorum intellectum, nos monens ut persona odio non haberetur, sed culpa. Circa discretionem vero ciborum, quae caeremonialis erat, dominus non mandavit ut tunc non observaretur, sed ostendit quod nulli cibi secundum suam naturam erant immundi, sed solum secundum figuram, ut supra dictum est. 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 (102, 6, ad 1).
q. 107 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod tactus leprosi erat prohibitus in lege, quia ex hoc incurrebat homo quandam irregularitatis immunditiam, sicut et ex tactu mortui, ut supra dictum est. Sed dominus, qui erat mundator leprosi, immunditiam incurrere non poterat. Per ea autem quae fecit in sabbato, sabbatum non solvit secundum rei veritatem, sicut ipse magister in Evangelio ostendit, tum quia operabatur miracula virtute divina, quae semper operatur in rebus; tum quia salutis humanae opera faciebat, cum Pharisaei etiam saluti animalium in die sabbati providerent; tum quia etiam ratione necessitatis discipulos excusavit in sabbato spicas colligentes. Sed videbatur solvere secundum superstitiosum intellectum Pharisaeorum, qui credebant etiam a salubribus operibus esse in die sabbati abstinendum, quod erat contra intentionem legis. 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 (102, 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.
q. 107 a. 2 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod caeremonialia praecepta legis non commemorantur Matth. V, quia eorum observantia totaliter excluditur per impletionem, ut dictum est. De iudicialibus vero praeceptis commemoravit praeceptum talionis, ut quod de hoc diceretur, de omnibus aliis esset intelligendum. In quo quidem praecepto docuit legis intentionem non esse ad hoc quod poena talionis quaereretur propter livorem vindictae, quem ipse excludit, monens quod homo debet esse paratus etiam maiores iniurias sufferre, sed solum propter amorem iustitiae. Quod adhuc in nova lege remanet. Reply to Objection 4. The reason why the ceremonial precepts of the Law are not mentioned in Matthew 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.
q. 107 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex nova in lege veteri non contineatur. Lex enim nova praecipue in fide consistit, unde dicitur lex fidei, ut patet Rom. III. Sed multa credenda traduntur in nova lege quae in veteri non continentur. Ergo lex nova non continetur in veteri. 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" (Romans 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.
q. 107 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, quaedam Glossa dicit, Matth. V, super illud, qui solverit unum de mandatis istis minimis, quod mandata legis sunt minora, in Evangelio vero sunt mandata maiora. Maius autem non potest contineri in minori. Ergo lex nova non continetur in veteri. Objection 2. Further, a gloss says on Matthew 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.
q. 107 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, quod continetur in altero, simul habetur habito illo. Si igitur lex nova contineretur in veteri, sequeretur quod, habita veteri lege, habeatur et nova. Superfluum igitur fuit, habita veteri lege, iterum dari novam. Non ergo nova lex continetur in veteri. 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.
q. 107 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod, sicut dicitur Ezech. I, rota erat in rota, idest novum testamentum in veteri, ut Gregorius exponit. On the contrary, As expressed in Ezekiel 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.
q. 107 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod aliquid continetur in alio dupliciter. Uno modo, in actu, sicut locatum in loco. Alio modo, virtute, sicut effectus in causa, vel complementum in incompleto, sicut genus continet species potestate, et sicut tota arbor continetur in semine. Et per hunc modum nova lex continetur in veteri, dictum est enim quod nova lex comparatur ad veterem sicut perfectum ad imperfectum. Unde Chrysostomus exponens illud quod habetur Marc. IV, ultro terra fructificat primum herbam, deinde spicam, deinde plenum frumentum in spica, sic dicit, primo herbam fructificat in lege naturae; postmodum spicas in lege Moysi; postea plenum frumentum, in Evangelio. Sic igitur est lex nova in veteri sicut fructus in spica. 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 (1) that the New Law is compared to the Old as perfect to imperfect. Hence Chrysostom, expounding Mark 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.
q. 107 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod omnia quae credenda traduntur in novo testamento explicite et aperte, traduntur credenda in veteri testamento, sed implicite sub figura. Et secundum hoc etiam quantum ad credenda lex nova continetur in veteri. 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.
q. 107 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod praecepta novae legis dicuntur esse maiora quam praecepta veteris legis, quantum ad explicitam manifestationem. Sed quantum ad ipsam substantiam praeceptorum novi testamenti, omnia continentur in veteri testamento. Unde Augustinus dicit, contra Faustum, quod pene omnia quae monuit vel praecepit dominus, ubi adiungebat, ego autem dico vobis, inveniuntur etiam in illis veteribus libris. Sed quia non intelligebant homicidium nisi peremptionem corporis humani, aperuit dominus omnem iniquum motum ad nocendum fratri, in homicidii genere deputari. Et quantum ad huiusmodi manifestationes, praecepta novae legis dicuntur maiora praeceptis veteris legis. Nihil tamen prohibet maius in minori virtute contineri, sicut arbor continetur in semine. 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.
q. 107 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod illud quod implicite datum est, oportet explicari. Et ideo post veterem legem latam, oportuit etiam novam legem dari. 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.
q. 107 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex nova sit gravior quam lex vetus. Matth. enim V, super illud, qui solverit unum de mandatis his minimis, dicit Chrysostomus, mandata Moysi in actu facilia sunt, non occides, non adulterabis. Mandata autem Christi, idest, non irascaris, non concupiscas, in actu difficilia sunt. Ergo lex nova est gravior quam vetus. 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.
q. 107 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, facilius est terrena prosperitate uti quam tribulationes perpeti. Sed in veteri testamento observationem veteris legis consequebatur prosperitas temporalis, ut patet Deut. XXVIII. Observatores autem novae legis consequitur multiplex adversitas, prout dicitur II ad Cor. VI, exhibeamus nosmetipsos sicut Dei ministros in multa patientia, in tribulationibus, in necessitatibus, in angustiis, et cetera. Ergo lex nova est gravior quam lex vetus. 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 Deuteronomy 28:1-14; whereas many kinds of trouble ensue to those who observe the New Law, as stated in 2 Corinthians 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.
q. 107 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, quod se habet ex additione ad alterum, videtur esse difficilius. Sed lex nova se habet ex additione ad veterem. Nam lex vetus prohibuit periurium, lex nova etiam iuramentum, lex vetus prohibuit discidium uxoris sine libello repudii, lex autem nova omnino discidium prohibuit, ut patet Matth. V, secundum expositionem Augustini. Ergo lex nova est gravior quam vetus. 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 Matthew 5:31, seqq., according to Augustine's expounding. Therefore the New Law is more burdensome than the Old.
q. 107 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra est quod dicitur Matth. XI, venite ad me omnes qui laboratis et onerati estis. Quod exponens Hilarius dicit, legis difficultatibus laborantes, et peccatis saeculi oneratos, ad se advocat. Et postmodum de iugo Evangelii subdit, iugum enim meum suave est, et onus meum leve. Ergo lex nova est levior quam vetus. On the contrary, It is written (Matthew 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.
q. 107 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod circa opera virtutis, de quibus praecepta legis dantur, duplex difficultas attendi potest. Una quidem ex parte exteriorum operum, quae ex seipsis quandam difficultatem habent et gravitatem. Et quantum ad hoc, lex vetus est multo gravior quam nova, quia ad plures actus exteriores obligabat lex vetus in multiplicibus caeremoniis, quam lex nova, quae praeter praecepta legis naturae, paucissima superaddidit in doctrina Christi et apostolorum; licet aliqua sint postmodum superaddita ex institutione sanctorum patrum. In quibus etiam Augustinus dicit esse moderationem attendendam, ne conversatio fidelium onerosa reddatur. Dicit enim, ad inquisitiones Ianuarii, de quibusdam, quod ipsam religionem nostram, quam in manifestissimis et paucissimis celebrationum sacramentis Dei misericordia voluit esse liberam, servilibus premunt oneribus, adeo ut tolerabilior sit conditio Iudaeorum, qui legalibus sacramentis, non humanis praesumptionibus subiiciuntur. Alia autem difficultas est circa opera virtutum in interioribus actibus, puta quod aliquis opus virtutis exerceat prompte et delectabiliter. Et circa hoc difficile est virtus, hoc enim non habenti virtutem est valde difficile; sed per virtutem redditur facile. Et quantum ad hoc, praecepta novae legis sunt graviora praeceptis veteris legis, quia in nova lege prohibentur interiores motus animi, qui expresse in veteri lege non prohibebantur in omnibus, etsi in aliquibus prohiberentur; in quibus tamen prohibendis poena non apponebatur. Hoc autem est difficillimum non habenti virtutem, sicut etiam philosophus dicit, in V Ethic., quod operari ea quae iustus operatur, facile est; sed operari ea eo modo quo iustus operatur, scilicet delectabiliter et prompte, est difficile non habenti iustitiam. Et sic etiam dicitur I Ioan. V, quod mandata eius gravia non sunt, quod exponens Augustinus dicit quod non sunt gravia amanti, sed non amanti sunt gravia. I answer that, A twofold difficult may attach to works of virtue with which the precepts of the Law are concerned. One is on the part of the outward works, which of themselves are, in a way, difficult and burdensome. And in this respect the Old Law is a much heavier burden than the New: since the Old Law by its numerous ceremonies prescribed many more outward acts than the New Law, which, in the teaching of Christ and the apostles, added very few precepts to those of the natural law; although afterwards some were added, through being instituted by the holy Fathers. Even in these Augustine says that moderation should be observed, lest good conduct should become a burden to the faithful. For he says in reply to the queries of Januarius (Ep. lv) that, "whereas God in His mercy wished religion to be a free service rendered by the public solemnization of a small number of most manifest sacraments, certain persons make it a slave's burden; so much so that the state of the Jews who were subject to the sacraments of the Law, and not to the presumptuous devices of man, was more tolerable." The other difficulty attaches to works of virtue as to interior acts: for instance, that a virtuous deed be done with promptitude and pleasure. It is this difficulty that virtue solves: because to act thus is difficult for a man without virtue: but through virtue it becomes easy for him. In this respect the precepts of the New Law are more burdensome than those of the Old; because the New Law prohibits certain interior movements of the soul, which were not expressly forbidden in the Old Law in all cases, although they were forbidden in some, without, however, any punishment being attached to the prohibition. Now this is very difficult to a man without virtue: thus even the Philosopher states (Ethic. v, 9) that it is easy to do what a righteous man does; but that to do it in the same way, viz. with pleasure and promptitude, is difficult to a man who is not righteous. Accordingly we read also (1 John 5:3) that "His commandments are not heavy": which words Augustine expounds by saying that "they are not heavy to the man that loveth; whereas they are a burden to him that loveth not."
q. 107 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod auctoritas illa expresse loquitur de difficultate novae legis quantum ad expressam cohibitionem interiorum motuum. Reply to Objection 1. The passage quoted speaks expressly of the difficulty of the New Law as to the deliberate curbing of interior movements.
q. 107 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod adversitates quas patiuntur observatores novae legis, non sunt ab ipsa lege impositae. Sed tamen propter amorem, in quo ipsa lex consistit, faciliter tollerantur, quia sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro de verbis domini, omnia saeva et immania facilia et prope nulla efficit amor. Reply to Objection 2. The tribulations suffered by those who observe the New Law are not imposed by the Law itself. Moreover they are easily borne, on account of the love in which the same Law consists: since, as Augustine says (De Verb. Dom., Serm. lxx), "love makes light and nothing of things that seem arduous and beyond our power."
q. 107 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod illae additiones ad praecepta veteris legis, ad hoc ordinantur ut facilius impleatur quod vetus lex mandabat, sicut Augustinus dicit. Et ideo per hoc non ostenditur quod lex nova sit gravior, sed magis quod sit facilior. Reply to Objection 3. The object of these additions to the precepts of the Old Law was to render it easier to do what it prescribed, as Augustine states [De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 17,21; xix, 23,26. Accordingly this does not prove that the New Law is more burdensome, but rather that it is a lighter burden.
q. 108 pr. Deinde considerandum est de his quae continentur in lege nova. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum lex nova debeat aliqua opera exteriora praecipere vel prohibere. Secundo, utrum sufficienter se habeat in exterioribus actibus praecipiendis vel prohibendis. Tertio, utrum convenienter instituat homines quantum ad actus interiores. Quarto, utrum convenienter superaddat consilia praeceptis. Question 108. Things that are contained in the New Law Should the New Law prescribe or forbid any outward works? Does the New Law make sufficient provision in prescribing and forbidding external acts? Does it direct man sufficiently in the matter of internal acts? Does it fittingly add counsels to precepts?
q. 108 a. 1 arg. 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex nova nullos exteriores actus debeat praecipere vel prohibere. Lex enim nova est Evangelium regni; secundum illud Matth. XXIV, praedicabitur hoc Evangelium regni in universo orbe. Sed regnum Dei non consistit in exterioribus actibus, sed solum in interioribus; secundum illud Luc. XVII, regnum Dei intra vos est; et Rom. XIV, non est regnum Dei esca et potus, sed iustitia et pax et gaudium in spiritu sancto. Ergo lex nova non debet praecipere vel prohibere aliquos exteriores actus. Objection 1. It would seem that the New Law should not prescribe or prohibit any external acts. For the New Law is the Gospel of the kingdom, according to Matthew 24:14: "This Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world." But the kingdom of God consists not in exterior, but only in interior acts, according to Luke 17:21: "The kingdom of God is within you"; and Romans 14:17: "The kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but justice and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost." Therefore the New Law should not prescribe or forbid any external acts.
q. 108 a. 1 arg. 2 Praeterea, lex nova est lex spiritus, ut dicitur Rom. VIII. Sed ubi spiritus domini, ibi libertas, ut dicitur II ad Cor. III. Non est autem libertas ubi homo obligatur ad aliqua exteriora opera facienda vel vitanda. Ergo lex nova non continet aliqua praecepta vel prohibitiones exteriorum actuum. Objection 2. Further, the New Law is "the law of the Spirit" (Romans 8:2). But "where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Corinthians 3:17). Now there is no liberty when man is bound to do or avoid certain external acts. Therefore the New Law does not prescribe or forbid any external acts.
q. 108 a. 1 arg. 3 Praeterea, omnes exteriores actus pertinere intelliguntur ad manum, sicut interiores actus pertinent ad animum. Sed haec ponitur differentia inter novam legem et veterem, quod vetus lex cohibet manum, sed lex nova cohibet animum. Ergo in lege nova non debent poni prohibitiones et praecepta exteriorum actuum, sed solum interiorum. Objection 3. Further, all external acts are understood as referable to the hand, just as interior acts belong to the mind. But this is assigned as the difference between the New and Old Laws that the "Old Law restrains the hand, whereas the New Law curbs the will" [Peter Lombard, Sent. iii, D, 40. Therefore the New Law should not contain prohibitions and commands about exterior deeds, but only about interior acts.
q. 108 a. 1 s. c. Sed contra est quod per legem novam efficiuntur homines filii lucis, unde dicitur Ioan. XII, credite in lucem, ut filii lucis sitis. Sed filios lucis decet opera lucis facere, et opera tenebrarum abiicere; secundum illud Ephes. V, eratis aliquando tenebrae, nunc autem lux in domino. Ut filii lucis ambulate. Ergo lex nova quaedam exteriora opera debuit prohibere, et quaedam praecipere. On the contrary, Through the New Law, men are made "children of light": wherefore it is written (John 12:36): "Believe in the light that you may be the children of light." Now it is becoming that children of the light should do deeds of light and cast aside deeds of darkness, according to Ephesians 5:8: "You were heretofore darkness, but now light in the Lord. Walk . . . as children of the light." Therefore the New Law had to forbid certain external acts and prescribe others.
q. 108 a. 1 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, principalitas legis novae est gratia spiritus sancti, quae manifestatur in fide per dilectionem operante. Hanc autem gratiam consequuntur homines per Dei filium hominem factum, cuius humanitatem primo replevit gratia, et exinde est ad nos derivata. Unde dicitur Ioan. I, verbum caro factum est; et postea subditur, plenum gratiae et veritatis; et infra, de plenitudine eius nos omnes accepimus, et gratiam pro gratia. Unde subditur quod gratia et veritas per Iesum Christum facta est. Et ideo convenit ut per aliqua exteriora sensibilia gratia a verbo incarnato profluens in nos deducatur; et ex hac interiori gratia, per quam caro spiritui subditur, exteriora quaedam opera sensibilia producantur. Sic igitur exteriora opera dupliciter ad gratiam pertinere possunt. Uno modo, sicut inducentia aliqualiter ad gratiam. Et talia sunt opera sacramentorum quae in lege nova sunt instituta, sicut Baptismus, Eucharistia, et alia huiusmodi. Alia vero sunt opera exteriora quae ex instinctu gratiae producuntur. Et in his est quaedam differentia attendenda. Quaedam enim habent necessariam convenientiam vel contrarietatem ad interiorem gratiam, quae in fide per dilectionem operante consistit. Et huiusmodi exteriora opera sunt praecepta vel prohibita in lege nova, sicut praecepta est confessio fidei, et prohibita negatio; dicitur enim Matth. X, qui confitebitur me coram hominibus, confitebor et ego eum coram patre meo. Qui autem negaverit me coram hominibus, negabo et ego eum coram patre meo. Alia vero sunt opera quae non habent necessariam contrarietatem vel convenientiam ad fidem per dilectionem operantem. Et talia opera non sunt in nova lege praecepta vel prohibita ex ipsa prima legis institutione; sed relicta sunt a legislatore, scilicet Christo, unicuique, secundum quod aliquis curam gerere debet. Et sic unicuique liberum est circa talia determinare quid sibi expediat facere vel vitare; et cuicumque praesidenti, circa talia ordinare suis subditis quid sit in talibus faciendum vel vitandum. Unde etiam quantum ad hoc dicitur lex Evangelii lex libertatis, nam lex vetus multa determinabat, et pauca relinquebat hominum libertati determinanda. I answer that, As stated above (106, 1,2), the New Law consists chiefly in the grace of the Holy Ghost, which is shown forth by faith that worketh through love. Now men become receivers of this grace through God's Son made man, Whose humanity grace filled first, and thence flowed forth to us. Hence it is written (John 1:14): "The Word was made flesh," and afterwards: "full of grace and truth"; and further on: "Of His fulness we all have received, and grace for grace." Hence it is added that "grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." Consequently it was becoming that the grace flows from the incarnate Word should be given to us by means of certain external sensible objects; and that from this inward grace, whereby the flesh is subjected to the Spirit, certain external works should ensue. Accordingly external acts may have a twofold connection with grace. In the first place, as leading in some way to grace. Such are the sacramental acts which are instituted in the New Law, e.g. Baptism, the Eucharist, and the like. In the second place there are those external acts which ensue from the promptings of grace: and herein we must observe a difference. For there are some which are necessarily in keeping with, or in opposition to inward grace consisting in faith that worketh through love. Such external works are prescribed or forbidden in the New Law; thus confession of faith is prescribed, and denial of faith is forbidden; for it is written (Matthew 10:32-33) "(Every one) that shall confess Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father . . . But he that shall deny Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father." On the other hand, there are works which are not necessarily opposed to, or in keeping with faith that worketh through love. Such works are not prescribed or forbidden in the New Law, by virtue of its primitive institution; but have been left by the Lawgiver, i.e. Christ, to the discretion of each individual. And so to each one it is free to decide what he should do or avoid; and to each superior, to direct his subjects in such matters as regards what they must do or avoid. Wherefore also in this respect the Gospel is called the "law of liberty" [Cf. Reply to Objection 2]: since the Old Law decided many points and left few to man to decide as he chose.
q. 108 a. 1 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod regnum Dei in interioribus actibus principaliter consistit, sed ex consequenti etiam ad regnum Dei pertinent omnia illa sine quibus interiores actus esse non possunt. Sicut si regnum Dei est interior iustitia et pax et gaudium spirituale, necesse est quod omnes exteriores actus qui repugnant iustitiae aut paci aut gaudio spirituali, repugnent regno Dei, et ideo sunt in Evangelio regni prohibendi. Illa vero quae indifferenter se habent respectu horum, puta comedere hos vel illos cibos, in his non est regnum Dei, unde apostolus praemittit, non est regnum Dei esca et potus. Reply to Objection 1. The kingdom of God consists chiefly in internal acts: but as a consequence all things that are essential to internal acts belong also to the kingdom of God. Thus if the kingdom of God is internal righteousness, peace, and spiritual joy, all external acts that are incompatible with righteousness, peace, and spiritual joy, are in opposition to the kingdom of God; and consequently should be forbidden in the Gospel of the kingdom. On the other hand, those things that are indifferent as regards the aforesaid, for instance, to eat of this or that food, are not part of the kingdom of God; wherefore the Apostle says before the words quoted: "The kingdom of God is not meat and drink."
q. 108 a. 1 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod, secundum philosophum, in I Metaphys., liber est qui sui causa est. Ille ergo libere aliquid agit qui ex seipso agit. Quod autem homo agit ex habitu suae naturae convenienti, ex seipso agit, quia habitus inclinat in modum naturae. Si vero habitus esset naturae repugnans, homo non ageret secundum quod est ipse, sed secundum aliquam corruptionem sibi supervenientem. Quia igitur gratia spiritus sancti est sicut interior habitus nobis infusus inclinans nos ad recte operandum, facit nos libere operari ea quae conveniunt gratiae, et vitare ea quae gratiae repugnant. Sic igitur lex nova dicitur lex libertatis dupliciter. Uno modo, quia non arctat nos ad facienda vel vitanda aliqua, nisi quae de se sunt vel necessaria vel repugnantia saluti, quae cadunt sub praecepto vel prohibitione legis. Secundo, quia huiusmodi etiam praecepta vel prohibitiones facit nos libere implere, inquantum ex interiori instinctu gratiae ea implemus. Et propter haec duo lex nova dicitur lex perfectae libertatis, Iac. I. Reply to Objection 2. According to the Philosopher (Metaph. i, 2), what is "free is cause of itself." Therefore he acts freely, who acts of his own accord. Now man does of his own accord that which he does from a habit that is suitable to his nature: since a habit inclines one as a second nature. If, however, a habit be in opposition to nature, man would not act according to his nature, but according to some corruption affecting that nature. Since then the grace of the Holy Ghost is like an interior habit bestowed on us and inclining us to act aright, it makes us do freely those things that are becoming to grace, and shun what is opposed to it. Accordingly the New Law is called the law of liberty in two respects. First, because it does not bind us to do or avoid certain things, except such as are of themselves necessary or opposed to salvation, and come under the prescription or prohibition of the law. Secondly, because it also makes us comply freely with these precepts and prohibitions, inasmuch as we do so through the promptings of grace. It is for these two reasons that the New Law is called "the law of perfect liberty" (James 1:25).
q. 108 a. 1 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod lex nova, cohibendo animum ab inordinatis motibus, oportet quod etiam cohibeat manum ab inordinatis actibus, qui sunt effectus interiorum motuum. Reply to Objection 3. The New Law, by restraining the mind from inordinate movements, must needs also restrain the hand from inordinate acts, which ensue from inward movements.
q. 108 a. 2 arg. 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex nova insufficienter exteriores actus ordinaverit. Ad legem enim novam praecipue pertinere videtur fides per dilectionem operans; secundum illud ad Gal. V, in Christo Iesu neque circumcisio aliquid valet neque praeputium, sed fides quae per dilectionem operatur. Sed lex nova explicavit quaedam credenda quae non erant in veteri lege explicita, sicut de fide Trinitatis. Ergo etiam debuit superaddere aliqua exteriora opera moralia, quae non erant in veteri lege determinata. Objection 1. It would seem that the New Law made insufficient ordinations about external acts. Because faith that worketh through charity seems chiefly to belong to the New Law, according to Galatians 5:6: "In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision: but faith that worketh through charity." But the New Law declared explicitly certain points of faith which were not set forth explicitly in the Old Law; for instance, belief in the Trinity. Therefore it should also have added certain outward moral deeds, which were not fixed in the Old Law.
q. 108 a. 2 arg. 2 Praeterea, in veteri lege non solum instituta sunt sacramenta, sed etiam aliqua sacra, ut supra dictum est. Sed in nova lege, etsi sint instituta aliqua sacramenta, nulla tamen sacra instituta a domino videntur, puta quae pertineant vel ad sanctificationem alicuius templi aut vasorum, vel etiam ad aliquam solemnitatem celebrandam. Ergo lex nova insufficienter exteriora ordinavit. Objection 2. Further, in the Old Law not only were sacraments instituted, but also certain sacred things, as stated above (101, 4; 102, 4). But in the New Law, although certain sacraments are instituted by Our Lord; for instance, pertaining either to the sanctification of a temple or of the vessels, or to the celebration of some particular feast. Therefore the New Law made insufficient ordinations about external matters.
q. 108 a. 2 arg. 3 Praeterea, in veteri lege, sicut erant quaedam observantiae pertinentes ad Dei ministros, ita etiam erant quaedam observantiae pertinentes ad populum; ut supra dictum est, cum de caeremonialibus veteris legis ageretur. Sed in nova lege videntur aliquae observantiae esse datae ministris Dei, ut patet Matth. X, nolite possidere aurum neque argentum, neque pecuniam in zonis vestris, et cetera quae ibi sequuntur, et quae dicuntur Luc. IX et X. Ergo etiam debuerunt aliquae observantiae institui in nova lege ad populum fidelem pertinentes. Objection 3. Further, in the Old Law, just as there were certain observances pertaining to God's ministers, so also were there certain observances pertaining to the people: as was stated above when we were treating of the ceremonial of the Old Law (101, 4; 102, 6). Now in the New Law certain observances seem to have been prescribed to the ministers of God; as may be gathered from Matthew 10:9: "Do not possess gold, nor silver, nor money in your purses," nor other things which are mentioned here and Luke 9 and 10. Therefore certain observances pertaining to the faithful should also have been instituted in the New Law.
q. 108 a. 2 arg. 4 Praeterea, in veteri lege, praeter moralia et caeremonialia, fuerunt quaedam iudicialia praecepta. Sed in lege nova non traduntur aliqua iudicialia praecepta. Ergo lex nova insufficienter exteriora opera ordinavit. Objection 4. Further, in the Old Law, besides moral and ceremonial precepts, there were certain judicial precepts. But in the New Law there are no judicial precepts. Therefore the New Law made insufficient ordinations about external works.
q. 108 a. 2 s. c. Sed contra est quod dominus dicit, Matth. VII, omnis qui audit verba mea haec et facit ea, assimilabitur viro sapienti qui aedificavit domum suam supra petram. Sed sapiens aedificator nihil omittit eorum quae sunt necessaria ad aedificium. Ergo in verbis Christi sufficienter sunt omnia posita quae pertinent ad salutem humanam. On the contrary, Our Lord said (Matthew 7:24): "Every one . . . that heareth these My words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock." But a wise builder leaves out nothing that is necessary to the building. Therefore Christ's words contain all things necessary for man's salvation.
q. 108 a. 2 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, lex nova in exterioribus illa solum praecipere debuit vel prohibere, per quae in gratiam introducimur, vel quae pertinent ad rectum gratiae usum ex necessitate. Et quia gratiam ex nobis consequi non possumus, sed per Christum solum, ideo sacramenta, per quae gratiam consequimur, ipse dominus instituit per seipsum, scilicet Baptismum, Eucharistiam, ordinem ministrorum novae legis, instituendo apostolos et septuaginta duos discipulos, et poenitentiam, et matrimonium indivisibile. Confirmationem etiam promisit per spiritus sancti missionem. Ex eius etiam institutione apostoli leguntur oleo infirmos ungendo sanasse, ut habetur Marc. VI. Quae sunt novae legis sacramenta. Rectus autem gratiae usus est per opera caritatis. Quae quidem secundum quod sunt de necessitate virtutis, pertinent ad praecepta moralia, quae etiam in veteri lege tradebantur. Unde quantum ad hoc, lex nova super veterem addere non debuit circa exteriora agenda. Determinatio autem praedictorum operum in ordine ad cultum Dei, pertinet ad praecepta caeremonialia legis; in ordine vero ad proximum, ad iudicialia; ut supra dictum est. Et ideo, quia istae determinationes non sunt secundum se de necessitate interioris gratiae, in qua lex consistit; idcirco non cadunt sub praecepto novae legis, sed relinquuntur humano arbitrio; quaedam quidem quantum ad subditos, quae scilicet pertinent singillatim ad unumquemque; quaedam vero ad praelatos temporales vel spirituales, quae scilicet pertinent ad utilitatem communem. Sic igitur lex nova nulla alia exteriora opera determinare debuit praecipiendo vel prohibendo, nisi sacramenta, et moralia praecepta quae de se pertinent ad rationem virtutis, puta non esse occidendum, non esse furandum, et alia huiusmodi. I answer that, as stated above (Article 1), the New Law had to make such prescriptions or prohibitions alone as are essential for the reception or right use of grace. And since we cannot of ourselves obtain grace, but through Christ alone, hence Christ of Himself instituted the sacraments whereby we obtain grace: viz. Baptism, Eucharist, Orders of the ministers of the New Law, by the institution of the apostles and seventy-two disciples, Penance, and indissoluble Matrimony. He promised Confirmation through the sending of the Holy Ghost: and we read that by His institution the apostles healed the sick by anointing them with oil (Mark 6:13). These are the sacraments of the New Law. The right use of grace is by means of works of charity. These, in so far as they are essential to virtue, pertain to the moral precepts, which also formed part of the Old Law. Hence, in this respect, the New Law had nothing to add as regards external action. The determination of these works in their relation to the divine worship, belongs to the ceremonial precepts of the Law; and, in relation to our neighbor, to the judicial precepts, as stated above (Question 99, Article 4). And therefore, since these determinations are not in themselves necessarily connected with inward grace wherein the Law consists, they do not come under a precept of the New Law, but are left to the decision of man; some relating to inferiors--as when a precept is given to an individual; others, relating to superiors, temporal or spiritual, referring, namely, to the common good. Accordingly the New Law had no other external works to determine, by prescribing or forbidding, except the sacraments, and those moral precepts which have a necessary connection with virtue, for instance, that one must not kill, or steal, and so forth.
q. 108 a. 2 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ea quae sunt fidei, sunt supra rationem humanam, unde in ea non possumus pervenire nisi per gratiam. Et ideo, abundantiori gratia superveniente, oportuit plura credenda explicari. Sed ad opera virtutum dirigimur per rationem naturalem, quae est regula quaedam operationis humanae, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo in his non oportuit aliqua praecepta dari ultra moralia legis praecepta, quae sunt de dictamine rationis. Reply to Objection 1. Matters of faith are above human reason, and so we cannot attain to them except through grace. Consequently, when grace came to be bestowed more abundantly, the result was an increase in the number of explicit points of faith. On the other hand, it is through human reason that we are directed to works of virtue, for it is the rule of human action, as stated above (19, 3; 63, 2). Wherefore in such matters as these there was no need for any precepts to be given besides the moral precepts of the Law, which proceed from the dictate of reason.
q. 108 a. 2 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod in sacramentis novae legis datur gratia, quae non est nisi a Christo, et ideo oportuit quod ab ipso institutionem haberent. Sed in sacris non datur aliqua gratia, puta in consecratione templi vel altaris vel aliorum huiusmodi, aut etiam in ipsa celebritate solemnitatum. Et ideo talia, quia secundum seipsa non pertinent ad necessitatem interioris gratiae, dominus fidelibus instituenda reliquit pro suo arbitrio. Reply to Objection 2. In the sacraments of the New Law grace is bestowed, which cannot be received except through Christ: consequently they had to be instituted by Him. But in the sacred things no grace is given: for instance, in the consecration of a temple, an altar or the like, or, again, in the celebration of feasts. Wherefore Our Lord left the institution of such things to the discretion of the faithful, since they have not of themselves any necessary connection with inward grace.
q. 108 a. 2 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod illa praecepta dominus dedit apostolis non tanquam caeremoniales observantias, sed tanquam moralia instituta. Et possunt intelligi dupliciter. Uno modo, secundum Augustinum, in libro de consensu Evangelist., ut non sint praecepta, sed concessiones. Concessit enim eis ut possent pergere ad praedicationis officium sine pera et baculo et aliis huiusmodi, tanquam habentes potestatem necessaria vitae accipiendi ab illis quibus praedicabant, unde subdit, dignus enim est operarius cibo suo. Non autem peccat, sed supererogat, qui sua portat, ex quibus vivat in praedicationis officio, non accipiens sumptum ab his quibus Evangelium praedicat, sicut Paulus fecit. Alio modo possunt intelligi, secundum aliorum sanctorum expositionem, ut sint quaedam statuta temporalia apostolis data pro illo tempore quo mittebantur ad praedicandum in Iudaea ante Christi passionem. Indigebant enim discipuli, quasi adhuc parvuli sub Christi cura existentes, accipere aliqua specialia instituta a Christo, sicut et quilibet subditi a suis praelatis, et praecipue quia erant paulatim exercitandi ut temporalium sollicitudinem abdicarent, per quod reddebantur idonei ad hoc quod Evangelium per universum orbem praedicarent. Nec est mirum si, adhuc durante statu veteris legis, et nondum perfectam libertatem spiritus consecutis, quosdam determinatos modos vivendi instituit. Quae quidem statuta, imminente passione, removit, tanquam discipulis iam per ea sufficienter exercitatis. Unde Luc. XXII, dixit, quando misi vos sine sacculo et pera et calceamentis, numquid aliquid defuit vobis? At illi dixerunt, nihil. Dixit ergo eis, sed nunc qui habet sacculum, tollat; similiter et peram. Iam enim imminebat tempus perfectae libertatis, ut totaliter suo dimitterentur arbitrio in his quae secundum se non pertinent ad necessitatem virtutis. Reply to Objection 3. Our Lord gave the apostles those precepts not as ceremonial observances, but as moral statutes: and they can be understood in two ways. First, following Augustine (De Consensu Evang. 30), as being not commands but permissions. For He permitted them to set forth to preach without scrip or stick, and so on, since they were empowered to accept their livelihood from those to whom they preached: wherefore He goes on to say: "For the laborer is worthy of his hire." Nor is it a sin, but a work of supererogation for a preacher to take means of livelihood with him, without accepting supplies from those to whom he preaches; as Paul did (1 Corinthians 9:4, seqq.). Secondly, according to the explanation of other holy men, they may be considered as temporal commands laid upon the apostles for the time during which they were sent to preach in Judea before Christ's Passion. For the disciples, being yet as little children under Christ's care, needed to receive some special commands from Christ, such as all subjects receive from their superiors: and especially so, since they were to be accustomed little by little to renounce the care of temporalities, so as to become fitted for the preaching of the Gospel throughout the whole world. Nor must we wonder if He established certain fixed modes of life, as long as the state of the Old Law endured and the people had not as yet achieved the perfect liberty of the Spirit. These statutes He abolished shortly before His Passion, as though the disciples had by their means become sufficiently practiced. Hence He said (Luke 22:35-36) "When I sent you without purse and scrip and shoes, did you want anything? But they said: Nothing. Then said He unto them: But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip." Because the time of perfect liberty was already at hand, when they would be left entirely to their own judgment in matters not necessarily connected with virtue.
q. 108 a. 2 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod iudicialia etiam, secundum se considerata, non sunt de necessitate virtutis quantum ad talem determinationem sed solum quantum ad communem rationem iustitiae. Et ideo iudicialia praecepta reliquit dominus disponenda his qui curam aliorum erant habituri vel spiritualem vel temporalem. Sed circa iudicialia praecepta veteris legis quaedam explanavit, propter malum intellectum Pharisaeorum, ut infra dicetur. Reply to Objection 4. Judicial precepts also, are not essential to virtue in respect of any particular determination, but only in regard to the common notion of justice. Consequently Our Lord left the judicial precepts to the discretion of those who were to have spiritual or temporal charge of others. But as regards the judicial precepts of the Old Law, some of them He explained, because they were misunderstood by the Pharisees, as we shall state later on (3, ad 2).
q. 108 a. 3 arg. 1 Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod circa interiores actus lex nova insufficienter hominem ordinaverit. Sunt enim decem praecepta Decalogi ordinantia hominem ad Deum et proximum. Sed dominus solum circa tria illorum aliquid adimplevit, scilicet circa prohibitionem homicidii, et circa prohibitionem adulterii, et circa prohibitionem periurii. Ergo videtur quod insufficienter hominem ordinaverit, adimpletionem aliorum praeceptorum praetermittens. Objection 1. It would seem that the New Law directed man insufficiently as regards interior actions. For there are ten commandments of the decalogue directing man to God and his neighbor. But Our Lord partly fulfilled only three of them: as regards, namely, the prohibition of murder, of adultery, and of perjury. Therefore it seems that, by omitting to fulfil the other precepts, He directed man insufficiently.
q. 108 a. 3 arg. 2 Praeterea, dominus nihil ordinavit in Evangelio de iudicialibus praeceptis nisi circa repudium uxoris, et circa poenam talionis, et circa persecutionem inimicorum. Sed multa sunt alia iudicialia praecepta veteris legis, ut supra dictum est. Ergo quantum ad hoc, insufficienter vitam hominum ordinavit. Objection 2. Further, as regards the judicial precepts, Our Lord ordained nothing in the Gospel, except in the matter of divorcing of wife, of punishment by retaliation, and of persecuting one's enemies. But there are many other judicial precepts of the Old Law, as stated above (104, 4; 105). Therefore, in this respect, He directed human life insufficiently.
q. 108 a. 3 arg. 3 Praeterea, in veteri lege, praeter praecepta moralia et iudicialia, erant quaedam caeremonialia. Circa quae dominus nihil ordinavit. Ergo videtur insufficienter ordinasse. Objection 3. Further, in the Old Law, besides moral and judicial, there were ceremonial precepts about which Our Lord made no ordination. Therefore it seems that He ordained insufficiently.
q. 108 a. 3 arg. 4 Praeterea, ad interiorem bonam mentis dispositionem pertinet ut nullum bonum opus homo faciat propter quemcumque temporalem finem. Sed multa sunt alia temporalia bona quam favor humanus, multa etiam alia sunt bona opera quam ieiunium, eleemosyna et oratio. Ergo inconveniens fuit quod dominus docuit solum circa haec tria opera gloriam favoris humani vitari, et nihil aliud terrenorum bonorum. Objection 4. Further, in order that the mind be inwardly well disposed, man should do no good deed for any temporal whatever. But there are many other temporal goods besides the favor of man: and there are many other good works besides fasting, alms-deeds, and prayer. Therefore Our Lord unbecomingly taught that only in respect of these three works, and of no other earthly goods ought we to shun the glory of human favor.
q. 108 a. 3 arg. 5 Praeterea, naturaliter homini inditum est ut sollicitetur circa ea quae sunt sibi necessaria ad vivendum, in qua etiam sollicitudine alia animalia cum homine conveniunt, unde dicitur Prov. VI, vade ad formicam, o piger, et considera vias eius. Parat in aestate cibum sibi, et congregat in messe quod comedat. Sed omne praeceptum quod datur contra inclinationem naturae, est iniquum, utpote contra legem naturalem existens. Ergo inconvenienter videtur dominus prohibuisse sollicitudinem victus et vestitus. Objection 5. Further, solicitude for the necessary means of livelihood is by nature instilled into man, and this solicitude even other animals share with man: wherefore it is written (Proverbs 6:6-8): "Go to the ant, O sluggard, and consider her ways . . . she provideth her meat for herself in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest." But every command issued against the inclination of nature is an unjust command, forasmuch as it is contrary to the law of nature. Therefore it seems that Our Lord unbecomingly forbade solicitude about food and raiment.
q. 108 a. 3 arg. 6 Praeterea, nullus actus virtutis est prohibendus. Sed iudicium est actus iustitiae; secundum illud Psalmi XCIII, quousque iustitia convertatur in iudicium. Ergo inconvenienter videtur dominus iudicium prohibuisse. Et ita videtur lex nova insufficienter hominem ordinasse circa interiores actus. Objection 6. Further, no act of virtue should be the subject of a prohibition. Now judgment is an act of justice, according to Psalm 18:15: "Until justice be turned into judgment." Therefore it seems that Our Lord unbecomingly forbade judgment: and consequently that the New Law directed man insufficiently in the matter of interior acts.
q. 108 a. 3 s. c. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de Serm. Dom. in monte, considerandum est quia, cum dixit, qui audit verba mea haec, satis significat sermonem istum domini omnibus praeceptis quibus Christiana vita formatur, esse perfectum. On the contrary, Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 1): We should take note that, when He said: "'He that heareth these My words,' He indicates clearly that this sermon of the Lord is replete with all the precepts whereby a Christian's life is formed."
q. 108 a. 3 co. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut ex inducta auctoritate Augustini apparet, sermo quem dominus in monte proposuit, totam informationem Christianae vitae continet. In quo perfecte interiores motus hominis ordinantur. Nam post declaratum beatitudinis finem; et commendata apostolica dignitate, per quos erat doctrina evangelica promulganda; ordinat interiores hominis motus, primo quidem quantum ad seipsum; et deinde quantum ad proximum. Quantum autem ad seipsum, dupliciter; secundum duos interiores hominis motus circa agenda, qui sunt voluntas de agendis, et intentio de fine. Unde primo ordinat hominis voluntatem secundum diversa legis praecepta, ut scilicet abstineat aliquis non solum ab exterioribus operibus quae sunt secundum se mala, sed etiam ab interioribus, et ab occasionibus malorum. Deinde ordinat intentionem hominis, docens quod in bonis quae agimus, neque quaeramus humanam gloriam, neque mundanas divitias, quod est thesaurizare in terra. Consequenter autem ordinat interiorem hominis motum quoad proximum, ut scilicet eum non temerarie aut iniuste iudicemus, aut praesumptuose; neque tamen sic simus apud proximum remissi, ut eis sacra committamus, si sint indigni. Ultimo autem docet modum adimplendi evangelicam doctrinam, scilicet implorando divinum auxilium; et conatum apponendo ad ingrediendum per angustam portam perfectae virtutis; et cautelam adhibendo ne a seductoribus corrumpamur. Et quod observatio mandatorum eius est necessaria ad virtutem, non autem sufficit sola confessio fidei, vel miraculorum operatio, vel solus auditus. I answer that, As is evident from Augustine's words just quoted, the sermon, contains the whole process of forming the life of a Christian. Therein man's interior movements are ordered. Because after declaring that his end is Beatitude; and after commending the authority of the apostles, through whom the teaching of the Gospel was to be promulgated, He orders man's interior movements, first in regard to man himself, secondly in regard to his neighbor. This he does in regard to man himself, in two ways, corresponding to man's two interior movements in respect of any prospective action, viz. volition of what has to be done, and intention of the end. Wherefore, in the first place, He directs man's will in respect of the various precepts of the Law: by prescribing that man should refrain not merely from those external works that are evil in themselves, but also from internal acts, and from the occasions of evil deeds. In the second place He directs man's intention, by teaching that in our good works, we should seek neither human praise, nor worldly riches, which is to lay up treasures on earth. Afterwards He directs man's interior movement in respect of his neighbor, by forbidding us, on the one hand, to judge him rashly, unjustly, or presumptuously; and, on the other, to entrust him too readily with sacred things if he be unworthy. Lastly, He teaches us how to fulfil the teaching of the Gospel; viz. by imploring the help of God; by striving to enter by the narrow door of perfect virtue; and by being wary lest we be led astray by evil influences. Moreover, He declares that we must observe His commandments, and that it is not enough to make profession of faith, or to work miracles, or merely to hear His words.
q. 108 a. 3 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod dominus circa illa legis praecepta adimpletionem apposuit, in quibus Scribae et Pharisaei non rectum intellectum habebant. Et hoc contingebat praecipue circa tria praecepta Decalogi. Nam circa prohibitionem adulterii et homicidii, aestimabant solum exteriorem actum prohiberi, non autem interiorem appetitum. Quod magis credebant circa homicidium et adulterium quam circa furtum vel falsum testimonium, quia motus irae in homicidium tendens, et concupiscentiae motus tendens in adulterium, videntur aliqualiter nobis a natura inesse; non autem appetitus furandi, vel falsum testimonium dicendi. Circa periurium vero habebant falsum intellectum, credentes periurium quidem esse peccatum; iuramentum autem per se esse appetendum et frequentandum, quia videtur ad Dei reverentiam pertinere. Et ideo dominus ostendit iuramentum non esse appetendum tanquam bonum; sed melius esse absque iuramento loqui, nisi necessitas cogat. Reply to Objection 1. Our Lord explained the manner of fulfilling those precepts which the Scribes and Pharisees did not rightly understand: and this affected chiefly those precepts of the decalogue. For they thought that the prohibition of adultery and murder covered the external act only, and not the internal desire. And they held this opinion about murder and adultery rather than about theft and false witness, because the movement of anger tending to murder, and the movement of desire tending to adultery, seem to be in us from nature somewhat, but not the desire of stealing or bearing false witness. They held a false opinion about perjury, for they thought that perjury indeed was a sin; but that oaths were of themselves to be desired and to be taken frequently, since they seem to proceed from reverence to God. Hence Our Lord shows that an oath is not desirable as a good thing; and that it is better to speak without oaths, unless necessity forces us to have recourse to them.
q. 108 a. 3 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod circa iudicialia praecepta dupliciter Scribae et Pharisaei errabant. Primo quidem, quia quaedam quae in lege Moysi erant tradita tanquam permissiones, aestimabant esse per se iusta, scilicet repudium uxoris, et usuras accipere ab extraneis. Et ideo dominus prohibuit uxoris repudium, Matth. V; et usurarum acceptionem, Luc. VI, dicens, date mutuum nihil inde sperantes. Alio modo errabant credentes quaedam quae lex vetus instituerat facienda propter iustitiam, esse exequenda ex appetitu vindictae; vel ex cupiditate temporalium rerum; vel ex odio inimicorum. Et hoc in tribus praeceptis. Appetitum enim vindictae credebant esse licitum, propter praeceptum datum de poena talionis. Quod quidem fuit datum ut iustitia servaretur, non ut homo vindictam quaereret. Et ideo dominus, ad hoc removendum, docet animum hominis sic debere esse praeparatum ut, si necesse sit, etiam paratus sit plura sustinere. Motum autem cupiditatis aestimabant esse licitum, propter praecepta iudicialia in quibus mandabatur restitutio rei ablatae fieri etiam cum aliqua additione, ut supra dictum est. Et hoc quidem lex mandavit propter iustitiam observandam, non ut daret cupiditati locum. Et ideo dominus docet ut ex cupiditate nostra non repetamus, sed simus parati, si necesse fuerit, etiam ampliora dare. Motum vero odii credebant esse licitum, propter praecepta legis data de hostium interfectione. Quod quidem lex statuit propter iustitiam implendam, ut supra dictum est, non propter odia exsaturanda. Et ideo dominus docet ut ad inimicos dilectionem habeamus, et parati simus, si opus fuerit, etiam benefacere. Haec enim praecepta secundum praeparationem animi sunt accipienda, ut Augustinus exponit. Reply to Objection 2. The Scribes and Pharisees erred about the judicial precepts in two ways. First, because they considered certain matters contained in the Law of Moses by way of permission, to be right in themselves: namely, divorce of a wife, and the taking of usury from strangers. Wherefore Our Lord forbade a man to divorce his wife (Matthew 5:32); and to receive usury (Luke 6:35), when He said: "Lend, hoping for nothing thereby." In another way they erred by thinking that certain things which the Old Law commanded to be done for justice's sake, should be done out of desire for revenge, or out of lust for temporal goods, or out of hatred of one's enemies; and this in respect of three precepts. For they thought that desire for revenge was lawful, on account of the precept concerning punishment by retaliation: whereas this precept was given that justice might be safeguarded, not that man might seek revenge. Wherefore, in order to do away with this, Our Lord teaches that man should be prepared in his mind to suffer yet more if necessary. They thought that movements of covetousness were lawful on account of those judicial precepts which prescribed restitution of what had been purloined, together with something added thereto, as stated above (105, 2, ad 9); whereas the Law commanded this to be done in order to safeguard justice, not to encourage covetousness. Wherefore Our Lord teaches that we should not demand our goods from motives of cupidity, and that we should be ready to give yet more if necessary. They thought that the movement of hatred was lawful, on account of the commandments of the Law about the slaying of one's enemies: whereas the Law ordered this for the fulfilment of justice, as stated above (105, 3, ad 4), not to satisfy hatred. Wherefore Our Lord teaches us that we ought to love our enemies, and to be ready to do good to them if necessary. For these precepts are to be taken as binding "the mind to be prepared to fulfil them," as Augustine says (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 19).
q. 108 a. 3 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod praecepta moralia omnino in nova lege remanere debebant, quia secundum se pertinent ad rationem virtutis. Praecepta autem iudicialia non remanebant ex necessitate secundum modum quem lex determinavit; sed relinquebatur arbitrio hominum utrum sic vel aliter esset determinandum. Et ideo convenienter dominus circa haec duo genera praeceptorum nos ordinavit. Praeceptorum autem caeremonialium observatio totaliter per rei impletionem tollebatur. Et ideo circa huiusmodi praecepta, in illa communi doctrina, nihil ordinavit. Ostendit tamen alibi quod totus corporalis cultus qui erat determinatus in lege, erat in spiritualem commutandus; ut patet Ioan. IV, ubi dixit, venit hora quando neque in monte hoc neque in Ierosolymis adorabitis patrem; sed veri adoratores adorabunt patrem in spiritu et veritate. Reply to Objection 3. The moral precepts necessarily retained their force under the New Law, because they are of themselves essential to virtue: whereas the judicial precepts did not necessarily continue to bind in exactly the same way as had been fixed by the Law: this was left to man to decide in one way or another. Hence Our Lord directed us becomingly with regard to these two kinds of precepts. On the other hand, the observance of the ceremonial precepts was totally abolished by the advent of the reality; wherefore in regard to these precepts He commanded nothing on this occasion when He was giving the general points of His doctrine. Elsewhere, however, He makes it clear that the entire bodily worship which was fixed by the Law, was to be changed into spiritual worship: as is evident from John 4:21-23, where He says: "The hour cometh when you shall neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem adore the Father . . . but . . . the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth."
q. 108 a. 3 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod omnes res mundanae ad tria reducuntur, scilicet ad honores, divitias et delicias; secundum illud I Ioan. II, omne quod est in mundo, concupiscentia carnis est, quod pertinet ad delicias carnis; et concupiscentia oculorum, quod pertinet ad divitias; et superbia vitae, quod pertinet ad ambitum gloriae et honoris. Superfluas autem carnis delicias lex non repromisit, sed magis prohibuit. Repromisit autem celsitudinem honoris, et abundantiam divitiarum, dicitur enim Deut. XXVIII, si audieris vocem domini Dei tui, faciet te excelsiorem cunctis gentibus, quantum ad primum; et post pauca subdit, abundare te faciet omnibus bonis, quantum ad secundum. Quae quidem promissa sic prave intelligebant Iudaei, ut propter ea esset Deo serviendum, sicut propter finem. Et ideo dominus hoc removit, docens primo, quod opera virtutis non sunt facienda propter humanam gloriam. Et ponit tria opera, ad quae omnia alia reducuntur, nam omnia quae aliquis facit ad refrenandum seipsum in suis concupiscentiis, reducuntur ad ieiunium; quaecumque vero fiunt propter dilectionem proximi, reducuntur ad eleemosynam; quaecumque vero propter cultum Dei fiunt, reducuntur ad orationem. Ponit autem haec tria specialiter quasi praecipua, et per quae homines maxime solent gloriam venari. Secundo, docuit quod non debemus finem constituere in divitiis, cum dixit, nolite thesaurizare vobis thesauros in terra. Reply to Objection 4. All worldly goods may be reduced to three--honors, riches, and pleasures; according to 1 John 2:16: "All that is in the world is the concupiscence of the flesh," which refers to pleasures of the flesh, "and the concupiscence of the eyes," which refers to riches, "and the pride of life," which refers to ambition for renown and honor. Now the Law did not promise an abundance of carnal pleasures; on the contrary, it forbade them. But it did promise exalted honors and abundant riches; for it is written in reference to the former (Deuteronomy 28:1): "If thou wilt hear the voice of the Lord thy God . . . He will make thee higher than all the nations"; and in reference to the latter, we read a little further on (Deuteronomy 28:11): "He will make thee abound with all goods." But the Jews so distorted the true meaning of these promises, as to think that we ought to serve God, with these things as the end in view. Wherefore Our Lord set this aside by teaching, first of all, that works of virtue should not be done for human glory. And He mentions three works, to which all others may be reduced: since whatever a man does in order to curb his desires, comes under the head of fasting; and whatever a man does for the love of his neighbor, comes under the head of alms-deeds; and whatever a man does for the worship of God, comes under the head of prayer. And He mentions these three specifically, as they hold the principal place, and are most often used by men in order to gain glory. In the second place He taught us that we must not place our end in riches, when He said: "Lay not up to yourselves treasures on earth" (Matthew 6:19).
q. 108 a. 3 ad 5 Ad quintum dicendum quod dominus sollicitudinem necessariam non prohibuit, sed sollicitudinem inordinatam. Est autem quadruplex inordinatio sollicitudinis vitanda circa temporalia. Primo quidem, ut in eis finem non constituamus, neque Deo serviamus propter necessaria victus et vestitus. Unde dicit, nolite thesaurizare vobis et cetera. Secundo, ut non sic sollicitemur de temporalibus, cum desperatione divini auxilii. Unde dominus dicit, scit pater vester quia his omnibus indigetis. Tertio, ne sit sollicitudo praesumptuosa, ut scilicet homo confidat se necessaria vitae per suam sollicitudinem posse procurare, absque divino auxilio. Quod dominus removet per hoc quod homo non potest aliquid adiicere ad staturam suam. Quarto, per hoc quod homo sollicitudinis tempus praeoccupat, quia scilicet de hoc sollicitus est nunc, quod non pertinet ad curam praesentis temporis, sed ad curam futuri. Unde dicit, nolite solliciti esse in crastinum. Reply to Objection 5. Our Lord forbade, not necessary, but inordinate solicitude. Now there is a fourfold solicitude to be avoided in temporal matters. First, we must not place our end in them, nor serve God for the sake of the necessities of food and raiment. Wherefore He says: "Lay not up for yourselves," etc. Secondly, we must not be so anxious about temporal things, as to despair of God's help: wherefore Our Lord says (Matthew 6:32): "Your Father knoweth that you have need of all these things." Thirdly, we must not add presumption to our solicitude; in other words, we must not be confident of getting the necessaries of life by our own efforts without God's help: such solicitude Our Lord sets aside by saying that a man cannot add anything to his stature (Matthew 6:27). We must not anticipate the time for anxiety; namely, by being solicitous now, for the needs, not of the present, but of a future time: wherefore He says (Matthew 6:34): "Be not . . . solicitous for tomorrow."
q. 108 a. 3 ad 6 Ad sextum dicendum quod dominus non prohibet iudicium iustitiae, sine quo non possent sancta subtrahi ab indignis. Sed prohibet iudicium inordinatum, ut dictum est. Reply to Objection 6. Our Lord did not forbid the judgment of justice, without which holy things could not be withdrawn from the unworthy. But he forbade inordinate judgment, as stated above.
q. 108 a. 4 arg. 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter in lege nova consilia quaedam determinata sint proposita. Consilia enim dantur de rebus expedientibus ad finem; ut supra dictum est, cum de consilio ageretur. Sed non eadem omnibus expediunt. Ergo non sunt aliqua consilia determinata omnibus proponenda. Objection 1. It would seem that certain definite counsels are not fittingly proposed in the New Law. For counsels are given about that which is expedient for an end, as we stated above, when treating of counsel (14, 2). But the same things are not expedient for all. Therefore certain definite counsels should not be proposed to all.
q. 108 a. 4 arg. 2 Praeterea, consilia dantur de meliori bono. Sed non sunt determinati gradus melioris boni. Ergo non debent aliqua determinata consilia dari. Objection 2. Further, counsels regard a greater good. But there are no definite degrees to the greater good. Therefore definite counsels should not be given.
q. 108 a. 4 arg. 3 Praeterea, consilia pertinent ad perfectionem vitae. Sed obedientia pertinet ad perfectionem vitae. Ergo inconvenienter de ea consilium non datur in Evangelio. Objection 3. Further, counsels pertain to the life of perfection. But obedience pertains to the life of perfection. Therefore it was unfitting that no counsel of obedience should be contained in the Gospel.
q. 108 a. 4 arg. 4 Praeterea, multa ad perfectionem vitae pertinentia inter praecepta ponuntur, sicut hoc quod dicitur, diligite inimicos vestros; et praecepta etiam quae dedit dominus apostolis, Matth. X. Ergo inconvenienter traduntur consilia in nova lege, tum quia non omnia ponuntur; tum etiam quia a praeceptis non distinguuntur. Objection 4. Further, many matters pertaining to the life of perfection are found among the commandments, as, for instance, "Love your enemies" (Matthew 5:44), and those precepts which Our Lord gave His apostles (Matthew 10). Therefore the counsels are unfittingly given in the New Law: both because they are not all mentioned; and because they are not distinguished from the commandments.
q. 108 a. 4 s. c. Sed contra, consilia sapientis amici magnam utilitatem afferunt; secundum illud Prov. XXVII, unguento et variis odoribus delectatur cor, et bonis amici consiliis anima dulcoratur. Sed Christus maxime est sapiens et amicus. Ergo eius consilia maximam utilitatem continent, et convenientia sunt. On the contrary, The counsels of a wise friend are of great use, according to Proverbs 27:9: "Ointment and perfumes rejoice the heart: and the good counsels of a friend rejoice the soul." But Christ is our wisest and greatest friend. Therefore His counsels are supremely useful and becoming.
q. 108 a. 4 co. Respondeo dicendum quod haec est differentia inter consilium et praeceptum, quod praeceptum importat necessitatem, consilium autem in optione ponitur eius cui datur. Et ideo convenienter in lege nova, quae est lex libertatis, supra praecepta sunt addita consilia, non autem in veteri lege, quae erat lex servitutis. Oportet igitur quod praecepta novae legis intelligantur esse data de his quae sunt necessaria ad consequendum finem aeternae beatitudinis, in quem lex nova immediate introducit. Consilia vero oportet esse de illis per quae melius et expeditius potest homo consequi finem praedictum. Est autem homo constitutus inter res mundi huius et spiritualia bona, in quibus beatitudo aeterna consistit, ita quod quanto plus inhaeret uni eorum, tanto plus recedit ab altero, et e converso. Qui ergo totaliter inhaeret rebus huius mundi, ut in eis finem constituat, habens eas quasi rationes et regulas suorum operum, totaliter excidit a spiritualibus bonis. Et ideo huiusmodi inordinatio tollitur per praecepta. Sed quod homo totaliter ea quae sunt mundi abiiciat, non est necessarium ad perveniendum in finem praedictum, quia potest homo utens rebus huius mundi, dummodo in eis finem non constituat, ad beatitudinem aeternam pervenire. Sed expeditius perveniet totaliter bona huius mundi abdicando. Et ideo de hoc dantur consilia Evangelii. Bona autem huius mundi, quae pertinent ad usum humanae vitae, in tribus consistunt, scilicet in divitiis exteriorum bonorum, quae pertinent ad concupiscentiam oculorum; in deliciis carnis, quae pertinent ad concupiscentiam carnis; et in honoribus, quae pertinent ad superbiam vitae; sicut patet I Ioan. II. Haec autem tria totaliter derelinquere, secundum quod possibile est, pertinet ad consilia evangelica. In quibus etiam tribus fundatur omnis religio, quae statum perfectionis profitetur, nam divitiae abdicantur per paupertatem; deliciae carnis per perpetuam castitatem; superbia vitae per obedientiae servitutem. Haec autem simpliciter observata pertinent ad consilia simpliciter proposita. Sed observatio uniuscuiusque eorum in aliquo speciali casu, pertinet ad consilium secundum quid, scilicet in casu illo. Puta cum homo dat aliquam eleemosynam pauperi quam dare non tenetur, consilium sequitur quantum ad factum illud. Similiter etiam quando aliquo tempore determinato a delectationibus carnis abstinet ut orationibus vacet, consilium sequitur pro tempore illo. Similiter etiam quando aliquis non sequitur voluntatem suam in aliquo facto quod licite posset facere, consilium sequitur in casu illo, puta si benefaciat inimicis quando non tenetur, vel si offensam remittat cuius iuste posset exigere vindictam. Et sic etiam omnia consilia particularia ad illa tria generalia et perfecta reducuntur. I answer that, The difference between a counsel and a commandment is that a commandment implies obligation, whereas a counsel is left to the option of the one to whom it is given. Consequently in the New Law, which is the law of liberty, counsels are added to the commandments, and not in the Old Law, which is the law of bondage. We must therefore understand the commandments of the New Law to have been given about matters that are necessary to gain the end of eternal bliss, to which end the New Law brings us forthwith: but that the counsels are about matters that render the gaining of this end more assured and expeditious. Now man is placed between the things of this world, and spiritual goods wherein eternal happiness consists: so that the more he cleaves to the one, the more he withdraws from the other, and conversely. Wherefore he that cleaves wholly to the things of this world, so as to make them his end, and to look upon them as the reason and rule of all he does, falls away altogether from spiritual goods. Hence this disorder is removed by the commandments. Nevertheless, for man to gain the end aforesaid, he does not need to renounce the things of the world altogether: since he can, while using the things of this world, attain to eternal happiness, provided he does not place his end in them: but he will attain more speedily thereto by giving up the goods of this world entirely: wherefore the evangelical counsels are given for this purpose. Now the goods of this world which come into use in human life, consist in three things: viz. in external wealth pertaining to the "concupiscence of the eyes"; carnal pleasures pertaining to the "concupiscence of the flesh"; and honors, which pertain to the "pride of life," according to 1 John 2:16: and it is in renouncing these altogether, as far as possible, that the evangelical counsels consist. Moreover, every form of the religious life that professes the state of perfection is based on these three: since riches are renounced by poverty; carnal pleasures by perpetual chastity; and the pride of life by the bondage of obedience. Now if a man observe these absolutely, this is in accordance with the counsels as they stand. But if a man observe any one of them in a particular case, this is taking that counsel in a restricted sense, namely, as applying to that particular case. For instance, when anyone gives an alms to a poor man, not being bound so to do, he follows the counsels in that particular case. In like manner, when a man for some fixed time refrains from carnal pleasures that he may give himself to prayer, he follows the counsel for that particular time. And again, when a man follows not his will as to some deed which he might do lawfully, he follows the counsel in that particular case: for instance, if he do good to his enemies when he is not bound to, or if he forgive an injury of which he might justly seek to be avenged. In this way, too, all particular counsels may be reduced to these three general and perfect counsels.
q. 108 a. 4 ad 1 Ad primum ergo dicendum quod praedicta consilia, quantum est de se sunt omnibus expedientia, sed ex indispositione aliquorum contingit quod alicui expedientia non sunt, quia eorum affectus ad haec non inclinatur. Et ideo dominus, consilia evangelica proponens, semper facit mentionem de idoneitate hominum ad observantiam consiliorum. Dans enim consilium perpetuae paupertatis, Matth. XIX, praemittit, si vis perfectus esse; et postea subdit, vade et vende omnia quae habes. Similiter, dans consilium perpetuae castitatis, cum dixit, sunt eunuchi qui castraverunt seipsos propter regnum caelorum, statim subdit, qui potest capere, capiat. Et similiter apostolus, I ad Cor. VII, praemisso consilio virginitatis, dicit, porro hoc ad utilitatem vestram dico, non ut laqueum vobis iniiciam. Reply to Objection 1. The aforesaid counsels, considered in themselves, are expedient to all; but owing to some people being ill-disposed, it happens that some of them are inexpedient, because their disposition is not inclined to such things. Hence Our Lord, in proposing the evangelical counsels, always makes mention of man's fitness for observing the counsels. For in giving the counsel of perpetual poverty (Matthew 19:21), He begins with the words: "If thou wilt be perfect," and then He adds: "Go, sell all [Vulgate: 'what'] thou hast." In like manner when He gave the counsel of perpetual chastity, saying (Matthew 19:12): "There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven," He adds straightway: "He that can take, let him take it." And again, the Apostle (1 Corinthians 7:35), after giving the counsel of virginity, says: "And this I speak for your profit; not to cast a snare upon you."
q. 108 a. 4 ad 2 Ad secundum dicendum quod meliora bona particulariter in singulis sunt indeterminata. Sed illa quae sunt simpliciter et absolute meliora bona in universali, sunt determinata. Ad quae etiam omnia illa particularia reducuntur, ut dictum est. Reply to Objection 2. The greater goods are not definitely fixed in the individual; but those which are simply and absolutely the greater good in general are fixed: and to these all the above particular goods may be reduced, as stated above.
q. 108 a. 4 ad 3 Ad tertium dicendum quod etiam consilium obedientiae dominus intelligitur dedisse in hoc quod dixit, et sequatur me; quem sequimur non solum imitando opera, sed etiam obediendo mandatis ipsius; secundum illud Ioan. X. Oves meae vocem meam audiunt, et sequuntur me. Reply to Objection 3. Even the counsel of obedience is understood to have been given by Our Lord in the words: "And [let him] follow Me." For we follow Him not only by imitating His works, but also by obeying His commandments, according to John 10:27: "My sheep hear My voice . . . and they follow Me."
q. 108 a. 4 ad 4 Ad quartum dicendum quod ea quae de vera dilectione inimicorum, et similibus, dominus dicit Matth. V et Luc. VI, si referantur ad praeparationem animi, sunt de necessitate salutis, ut scilicet homo sit paratus benefacere inimicis, et alia huiusmodi facere, cum necessitas hoc requirat. Et ideo inter praecepta ponuntur. Sed ut aliquis hoc inimicis exhibeat prompte in actu, ubi specialis necessitas non occurrit, pertinet ad consilia particularia, ut dictum est. Illa autem quae ponuntur Matth. X, et Luc. IX, et X, fuerunt quaedam praecepta disciplinae pro tempore illo, vel concessiones quaedam, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo non inducuntur tanquam consilia. Reply to Objection 4. Those things which Our Lord prescribed about the true love of our enemies, and other similar sayings (Matthew 5; Luke 6), may be referred to the preparation of the mind, and then they are necessary for salvation; for instance, that man be prepared to do good to his enemies, and other similar actions, when there is need. Hence these things are placed among the precepts. But that anyone should actually and promptly behave thus towards an enemy when there is no special need, is to be referred to the particular counsels, as stated above. As to those matters which are set down in Matthew 10 and Luke 9 and 10, they were either disciplinary commands for that particular time, or concessions, as stated above (2, ad 3). Hence they are not set down among the counsels.




THE LOGIC MUSEUM II