|
Objection 1: It would seem that the New Law is not distinct from
the Old. Because both these laws were given to those who believe in
God: since "without faith it is impossible to please God,"
according to Heb. 11:6. But the faith of olden times and of
nowadays is the same, as the gloss says on Mt. 21:9. Therefore
the law is the same also.
Objection 2: Further, Augustine says (Contra Adamant.
Manich. discip. xvii) that "there is little difference between the
Law and Gospel" ---"fear and love." But the New and Old
Laws cannot be differentiated in respect of these two things: since
even the Old Law comprised precepts of charity: "Thou shalt love
thy neighbor" (Lev. 19:18), and: "Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God" (Dt. 6:5). In like manner neither can they
differ according to the other difference which Augustine assigns
(Contra Faust. iv, 2), viz. that "the Old Testament
contained temporal promises, whereas the New Testament contains
spiritual and eternal promises": since even the New Testament
contains temporal promises, according to Mk. 10:30: He shall
receive "a hundred times as much . . . in this time, houses and
brethren," etc.: while in the Old Testament they hoped in promises
spiritual and eternal, according to Heb. 11:16: "But now they
desire a better, that is to say, a heavenly country," which is said
of the patriarchs. Therefore it seems that the New Law is not
distinct from the Old.
Objection 3: Further, the Apostle seems to distinguish both laws
by calling the Old Law "a law of works," and the New Law "a law
of faith" (Rm. 3:27). But the Old Law was also a law of
faith, according to Heb. 11:39: "All were 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 (Mt. 5:44): "Do good to them that hate you"; and
(Lk. 22:19): "Do this for a commemoration of Me."
Therefore the New Law is not distinct from the Old.
On the contrary, the Apostle says (Heb. 7:12): "The
priesthood being translated it is necessary that a translation also be
made of the Law." But the priesthood of the New Testament is
distinct from that of the Old, as the Apostle shows in the same
place. Therefore the Law is also distinct.
I answer that, As stated above (Question 90, Article 2;
Question 91, Article 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 Rm. 3:30:
"It is one God that justifieth circumcision by faith, and
uncircumcision through faith." According to the second way, the New
Law is distinct from the Old Law: because the Old Law is like a
pedagogue of children, as the Apostle says (Gal. 3:24),
whereas the New Law is the law of perfection, since it is the law of
charity, of which the Apostle says (Col. 3:14) that it is
"the bond of perfection."
Reply to Objection 1: The unity of faith under both Testaments
witnesses to the unity of end: for it has been stated above (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.
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" (Rm. 5:5).
Reply to Objection 3: As stated above (Question 106,
Articles 1,2), the New Law is called the law of faith, in so
far as its pre-eminence is derived from that very grace which is given
inwardly to believers, and for this reason is called the grace of
faith. Nevertheless it consists secondarily in certain deeds, moral
and sacramental: but the New Law does not consist chiefly in these
latter things, as did the Old Law. As to those under the Old
Testament who through faith were acceptable to God, in this respect
they belonged to the New Testament: for they were not justified
except through faith in Christ, Who is the Author of the New
Testament. Hence of Moses the Apostle says (Heb. 11:26)
that he esteemed "the reproach of Christ greater riches than the
treasure of the Egyptians."
|
|