|
Objection 1: It would seem that the Old Law made unfitting
precepts concerning rulers. Because, as the Philosopher says
(Polit. iii, 4), "the ordering of the people depends mostly on
the chief ruler." But the Law contains no precept relating to the
institution of the chief ruler; and yet we find therein prescriptions
concerning the inferior rulers: firstly (Ex. 18:21):
"Provide out of all the people wise men," etc.; again (Num.
11:16): "Gather unto Me seventy men of the ancients of
Israel"; and again (Dt. 1:13): "Let Me have from among
you wise and understanding men," etc. Therefore the Law provided
insufficiently in regard to the rulers of the people.
Objection 2: Further, "The best gives of the best," as Plato
states (Tim. ii). Now the best ordering of a state or of any
nation is to be ruled by a king: because this kind of government
approaches nearest in resemblance to the Divine government, whereby
God rules the world from the beginning. Therefore the Law should
have set a king over the people, and they should not have been allowed
a choice in the matter, as indeed they were allowed (Dt.
17:14,15): "When thou . . . shalt say: I will set a
king over me . . . thou shalt set him," etc.
Objection 3: Further, according to Mt. 12:25: "Every
kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate": a saying which
was verified in the Jewish people, whose destruction was brought about
by the division of the kingdom. But the Law should aim chiefly at
things pertaining to the general well-being of the people. Therefore
it should have forbidden the kingdom to be divided under two kings: nor
should this have been introduced even by Divine authority; as we read
of its being introduced by the authority of the prophet Ahias the
Silonite (3 Kgs. 11:29, seqq.).
Objection 4: Further, just as priests are instituted for the
benefit of the people in things concerning God, as stated in Heb.
5:1; so are rulers set up for the benefit of the people in human
affairs. But certain things were allotted as a means of livelihood for
the priests and Levites of the Law: such as the tithes and
first-fruits, and many like things. Therefore in like manner certain
things should have been determined for the livelihood of the rulers of
the people: the more that they were forbidden to accept presents, as
is clearly stated in Ex. 23:8: "You shall not take bribes,
which even blind the wise, and pervert the words of the just."
Objection 5: Further, as a kingdom is the best form of government,
so is tyranny the most corrupt. But when the Lord appointed the
king, He established a tyrannical law; for it is written (1 Kgs.
8:11): "This will be the right of the king, that shall reign
over you: He will take your sons," etc. Therefore the Law made
unfitting provision with regard to the institution of rulers.
On the contrary, The people of Israel is commended for the beauty of
its order (Num. 24:5): "How beautiful are thy tabernacles,
O Jacob, and thy tents." But the beautiful ordering of a people
depends on the right establishment of its rulers. Therefore the Law
made right provision for the people with regard to its rulers.
I answer that, Two points are to be observed concerning the right
ordering of rulers in a state or nation. One is that all should take
some share in the government: for this form of constitution ensures
peace among the people, commends itself to all, and is most enduring,
as stated in Polit. ii, 6. The other point is to be observed in
respect of the kinds of government, or the different ways in which the
constitutions are established. For whereas these differ in kind, as
the Philosopher states (Polit. iii, 5), nevertheless the first
place is held by the "kingdom," where the power of government is
vested in one; and "aristocracy," which signifies government by the
best, where the power of government is vested in a few. Accordingly,
the best form of government is in a state or kingdom, where one is
given the power to preside over all; while under him are others having
governing powers: and yet a government of this kind is shared by all,
both because all are eligible to govern, and because the rules are
chosen by all. For this is the best form of polity, being partly
kingdom, since there is one at the head of all; partly aristocracy,
in so far as a number of persons are set in authority; partly
democracy, i.e. government by the people, in so far as the rulers
can be chosen from the people, and the people have the right to choose
their rulers.
Such was the form of government established by the Divine Law. For
Moses and his successors governed the people in such a way that each of
them was ruler over all; so that there was a kind of kingdom.
Moreover, seventy-two men were chosen, who were elders in virtue:
for it is written (Dt. 1:15): "I took out of your tribes wise
and honorable, and appointed them rulers": so that there was an
element of aristocracy. But it was a democratical government in so far
as the rulers were chosen from all the people; for it is written
(Ex. 18:21): "Provide out of all the people wise men,"
etc.; and, again, in so far as they were chosen by the people;
wherefore it is written (Dt. 1:13): "Let me have from among
you wise men," etc. Consequently it is evident that the ordering of
the rulers was well provided for by the Law.
Reply to Objection 1: This people was governed under the special
care of God: wherefore it is written (Dt. 7:6): "The Lord
thy God hath chosen thee to be His peculiar people": and this is why
the Lord reserved to Himself the institution of the chief ruler. For
this too did Moses pray (Num. 27:16): "May the Lord the
God of the spirits of all the flesh provide a man, that may be over
this multitude." Thus by God's orders Josue was set at the head in
place of Moses; and we read about each of the judges who succeeded
Josue that God "raised . . . up a saviour" for the people, and
that "the spirit of the Lord was" in them (Jgs
3:9,10,15). Hence the Lord did not leave the choice of a
king to the people; but reserved this to Himself, as appears from
Dt. 17:15: "Thou shalt set him whom the Lord thy God shall
choose."
Reply to Objection 2: A kingdom is the best form of government of
the people, so long as it is not corrupt. But since the power granted
to a king is so great, it easily degenerates into tyranny, unless he
to whom this power is given be a very virtuous man: for it is only the
virtuous man that conducts himself well in the midst of prosperity, as
the Philosopher observes (Ethic. iv, 3). Now perfect virtue is
to be found in few: and especially were the Jews inclined to cruelty
and avarice, which vices above all turn men into tyrants. Hence from
the very first the Lord did not set up the kingly authority with full
power, but gave them judges and governors to rule them. But
afterwards when the people asked Him to do so, being indignant with
them, so to speak, He granted them a king, as is clear from His
words to Samuel (1 Kgs. 8:7): "They have not rejected thee,
but Me, that I should not reign over them."
Nevertheless, as regards the appointment of a king, He did establish
the manner of election from the very beginning (Dt. 17:14,
seqq.): and then He determined two points: first, that in choosing
a king they should wait for the Lord's decision; and that they should
not make a man of another nation king, because such kings are wont to
take little interest in the people they are set over, and consequently
to have no care for their welfare: secondly, He prescribed how the
king after his appointment should behave, in regard to himself;
namely, that he should not accumulate chariots and horses, nor wives,
nor immense wealth: because through craving for such things princes
become tyrants and forsake justice. He also appointed the manner in
which they were to conduct themselves towards God: namely, that they
should continually read and ponder on God's Law, and should ever
fear and obey God. Moreover, He decided how they should behave
towards their subjects: namely, that they should not proudly despise
them, or ill-treat them, and that they should not depart from the
paths of justice.
Reply to Objection 3: The division of the kingdom, and a number of
kings, was rather a punishment inflicted on that people for their many
dissensions, specially against the just rule of David, than a benefit
conferred on them for their profit. Hence it is written (Osee
13:11): "I will give thee a king in My wrath"; and (Osee
8:4): "They have reigned, but not by Me: they have been
princes, and I knew not."
Reply to Objection 4: The priestly office was bequeathed by
succession from father to son: and this, in order that it might be
held in greater respect, if not any man from the people could become a
priest: since honor was given to them out of reverence for the divine
worship. Hence it was necessary to put aside certain things for them
both as to tithes and as to first-fruits, and, again, as to
oblations and sacrifices, that they might be afforded a means of
livelihood. On the other hand, the rulers, as stated above, were
chosen from the whole people; wherefore they had their own
possessions, from which to derive a living: and so much the more,
since the Lord forbade even a king to have superabundant wealth to make
too much show of magnificence: both because he could scarcely avoid the
excesses of pride and tyranny, arising from such things, and because,
if the rulers were not very rich, and if their office involved much
work and anxiety, it would not tempt the ambition of the common
people; and would not become an occasion of sedition.
Reply to Objection 5: That right was not given to the king by
Divine institution: rather was it foretold that kings would usurp that
right, by framing unjust laws, and by degenerating into tyrants who
preyed on their subjects. This is clear from the context that
follows: "And you shall be his slaves": which is significative of
tyranny, since a tyrant rules is subjects as though they were his
slaves. Hence Samuel spoke these words to deter them from asking for
a king; since the narrative continues: "But the people would not
hear the voice of Samuel." It may happen, however, that even a
good king, without being a tyrant, may take away the sons, and make
them tribunes and centurions; and may take many things from his
subjects in order to secure the common weal.
|
|