St. Thomas Aquinas

The Summa Theologica

(Benziger Bros. edition, 1947)
Translated by
Fathers of the English Dominican Province

 

Index  [<< | >>]
First Part of the Second Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 105  [<< | >>]

OF THE REASON FOR THE JUDICIAL PRECEPTS (FOUR ARTICLES)

Deinde considerandum est de ratione iudicialium praeceptorum. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor.    We must now consider the reason for the judicial precepts: under which head there are four points of inquiry:
Primo, de ratione praeceptorum iudicialium quae pertinent ad principes.     (1) Concerning the reason for the judicial precepts relating to the rulers;
Secundo, de his quae pertinent ad convictum hominum ad invicem.     (2) Concerning the fellowship of one man with another;
Tertio, de his quae pertinent ad extraneos.     (3) Concerning matters relating to foreigners;
Quarto, de his quae pertinent ad domesticam conversationem     (4) Concerning things relating to domestic matters.

 

Index  [<< | >>]
First Part of the Second Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 105  [<< | >>]
Article: 1  [<< | >>]

Whether the Old Law enjoined fitting precepts concerning rulers?

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter lex vetus de principibus ordinaverit. Quia, ut philosophus dicit, in III Polit., ordinatio populi praecipue dependet ex maximo principatu. Sed in lege non invenitur qualiter debeat institui supremus princeps. Invenitur autem de inferioribus principibus, primo quidem, Exod. XVIII, provide de omni plebe viros sapientes, etc.; et Num. XI, congrega mihi septuaginta viros de senioribus Israel; et Deut. I, date ex vobis viros sapientes et gnaros, et cetera. Ergo insufficienter lex vetus principes populi ordinavit.   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 [Vulg.: 'able'] 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.
Praeterea, optimi est optima adducere, ut Plato dicit. Sed optima ordinatio civitatis vel populi cuiuscumque est ut gubernetur per regem, quia huiusmodi regimen maxime repraesentat divinum regimen, quo unus Deus mundum gubernat. A principio igitur lex debuit regem populo instituere; et non permittere hoc eorum arbitrio, sicut permittitur Deut. XVII, cum dixeris, constituam super me regem, eum constitues, et cetera.   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.
Praeterea, sicut dicitur Matth. XII, omne regnum in se divisum desolabitur, quod etiam experimento patuit in populo Iudaeorum, in quo divisio regni fuit destructionis causa. Sed lex praecipue debet intendere ea quae pertinent ad communem salutem populi. Ergo debuit in lege prohiberi divisio regni in duos reges. Nec etiam debuit hoc auctoritate divina introduci; sicut legitur introductum auctoritate domini per Ahiam Silonitem prophetam, III Reg. XI.   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.).
Praeterea, sicut sacerdotes instituuntur ad utilitatem populi in his quae ad Deum pertinent, ut patet Heb. V; ita etiam principes instituuntur ad utilitatem populi in rebus humanis. Sed sacerdotibus et Levitis qui sunt in lege, deputantur aliqua ex quibus vivere debeant, sicut decimae et primitiae, et multa alia huiusmodi. Ergo similiter principibus populi debuerunt aliqua ordinari unde sustentarentur, et praecipue cum inhibita sit eis munerum acceptio, ut patet Exod. XXIII, non accipietis munera, quae excaecant etiam prudentes, et subvertunt verba iustorum.   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 [Vulg.: 'Neither shalt thou'] take bribes, which even blind the wise, and pervert the words of the just."
Praeterea, sicut regnum est optimum regimen, ita tyrannis est pessima corruptio regiminis. Sed dominus regi instituendo instituit ius tyrannicum, dicitur enim I Reg. VIII, hoc erit ius regis qui imperaturus est vobis, filios vestros tollet, et cetera. Ergo inconvenienter fuit provisum per legem circa principum ordinationem.   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.
Sed contra est quod populus Israel de pulchritudine ordinationis commendatur, Num. XXIV, quam pulchra tabernacula tua, Iacob; et tentoria tua, Israel. Sed pulchritudo ordinationis populi dependet ex principibus bene institutis. Ergo per legem populus fuit circa principes bene institutus.   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.
Respondeo dicendum quod circa bonam ordinationem principum in aliqua civitate vel gente, duo sunt attendenda. Quorum unum est ut omnes aliquam partem habeant in principatu, per hoc enim conservatur pax populi, et omnes talem ordinationem amant et custodiunt, ut dicitur in II Polit. Aliud est quod attenditur secundum speciem regiminis, vel ordinationis principatuum. Cuius cum sint diversae species, ut philosophus tradit, in III Polit., praecipuae tamen sunt regnum, in quo unus principatur secundum virtutem; et aristocratia, idest potestas optimorum, in qua aliqui pauci principantur secundum virtutem. Unde optima ordinatio principum est in aliqua civitate vel regno, in qua unus praeficitur secundum virtutem qui omnibus praesit; et sub ipso sunt aliqui principantes secundum virtutem; et tamen talis principatus ad omnes pertinet, tum quia ex omnibus eligi possunt, tum quia etiam ab omnibus eliguntur. Talis enim est optima politia, bene commixta ex regno, inquantum unus praeest; et aristocratia, inquantum multi principantur secundum virtutem; et ex democratia, idest potestate populi, inquantum ex popularibus possunt eligi principes, et ad populum pertinet electio principum.   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.
Et hoc fuit institutum secundum legem divinam. Nam Moyses et eius successores gubernabant populum quasi singulariter omnibus principantes, quod est quaedam species regni. Eligebantur autem septuaginta duo seniores secundum virtutem, dicitur enim Deut. I, tuli de vestris tribubus viros sapientes et nobiles, et constitui eos principes, et hoc erat aristocraticum. Sed democraticum erat quod isti de omni populo eligebantur; dicitur enim Exod. XVIII, provide de omni plebe viros sapientes, etc., et etiam quod populus eos eligebat; unde dicitur Deut. I, date ex vobis viros sapientes, et cetera. Unde patet quod optima fuit ordinatio principum quam lex instituit.    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 [Vulg.: 'able'] 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 [Vulg.: 'able'] men," etc. Consequently it is evident that the ordering of the rulers was well provided for by the Law.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod populus ille sub speciali cura Dei regebatur, unde dicitur Deut. VII, te elegit dominus Deus tuus ut sis ei populus peculiaris. Et ideo institutionem summi principis dominus sibi reservavit. Et hoc est quod Moyses petivit, Num. XXVII, provideat dominus Deus spirituum omnis carnis, hominem qui sit super multitudinem hanc. Et sic ex Dei ordinatione institutus est Iosue in principatu post Moysen, et de singulis iudicibus qui post Iosue fuerunt, legitur quod Deus suscitavit populo salvatorem, et quod spiritus domini fuit in eis, ut patet Iudic. III. Et ideo etiam electionem regis non commisit dominus populo, sed sibi reservavit; ut patet Deut. XVII, eum constitues regem, quem dominus Deus tuus elegerit.   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."
Ad secundum dicendum quod regnum est optimum regimen populi, si non corrumpatur. Sed propter magnam potestatem quae regi conceditur, de facili regnum degenerat in tyrannidem, nisi sit perfecta virtus eius cui talis potestas conceditur, quia non est nisi virtuosi bene ferre bonas fortunas, ut philosophus dicit, in IV Ethic. Perfecta autem virtus in paucis invenitur, et praecipue Iudaei crudeles erant et ad avaritiam proni, per quae vitia maxime homines in tyrannidem decidunt. Et ideo dominus a principio eis regem non instituit cum plena potestate, sed iudicem et gubernatorem in eorum custodiam. Sed postea regem ad petitionem populi, quasi indignatus, concessit, ut patet per hoc quod dixit ad Samuelem, I Reg. VIII, non te abiecerunt, sed me, ne regnem super eos.   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."
Instituit tamen a principio circa regem instituendum, primo quidem, modum eligendi. In quo duo determinavit, ut scilicet in eius electione expectarent iudicium domini; et ut non facerent regem alterius gentis, quia tales reges solent parum affici ad gentem cui praeficiuntur, et per consequens non curare de eis. Secundo, ordinavit circa reges institutos qualiter deberent se habere quantum ad seipsos, ut scilicet non multiplicarent currus et equos, neque uxores, neque etiam immensas divitias; quia ex cupiditate horum principes ad tyrannidem declinant, et iustitiam derelinquunt. Instituit etiam qualiter se deberent habere ad Deum, ut scilicet semper legerent et cogitarent de lege Dei, et semper essent in Dei timore et obedientia. Instituit etiam qualiter se haberent ad subditos suos, ut scilicet non superbe eos contemnerent, aut opprimerent, neque etiam a iustitia declinarent.    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.
Ad tertium dicendum quod divisio regni, et multitudo regum, magis est populo illi data in poenam pro multis dissensionibus eorum, quas maxime contra regnum David iustum moverant, quam ad eorum profectum. Unde dicitur Osee XIII, dabo tibi regem in furore meo; et Osee VIII, ipsi regnaverunt, et non ex me, principes extiterunt, et non cognovi.   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."
Ad quartum dicendum quod sacerdotes per successionem originis sacris deputabantur. Et hoc ideo ut in maiori reverentia haberentur, si non quilibet ex populo posset sacerdos fieri, quorum honor cedebat in reverentiam divini cultus. Et ideo oportuit ut eis specialia quaedam deputarentur, tam in decimis quam in primitiis, quam etiam in oblationibus et sacrificiis, ex quibus viverent. Sed principes, sicut dictum est, assumebantur ex toto populo, et ideo habebant certas possessiones proprias, ex quibus vivere poterant. Et praecipue cum dominus prohiberet etiam in rege ne superabundaret divitiis aut magnifico apparatu, tum quia non erat facile quin ex his in superbiam et tyrannidem erigeretur; tum etiam quia, si principes non erant multum divites, et erat laboriosus principatus et sollicitudine plenus, non multum affectabatur a popularibus, et sic tollebatur seditionis materia.   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.
Ad quintum dicendum quod illud ius non dabatur regi ex institutione divina; sed magis praenuntiatur usurpatio regum, qui sibi ius iniquum constituunt in tyrannidem degenerantes, et subditos depraedantes. Et hoc patet per hoc quod in fine subdit, vosque eritis ei servi, quod proprie pertinet ad tyrannidem, quia tyranni suis subditis principantur ut servis. Unde hoc dicebat Samuel ad deterrendum eos ne regem peterent, sequitur enim, noluit autem audire populus vocem Samuelis. Potest tamen contingere quod etiam bonus rex, absque tyrannide, filios tollat, et constituat tribunos et centuriones, et multa accipiat a subditis, propter commune bonum procurandum.   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 [Douay: 'servants']": 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.

 

Index  [<< | >>]
First Part of the Second Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 105  [<< | >>]
Article: 2  [<< | >>]

Whether the judicial precepts were suitably framed as to the relations of one man with another?

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter fuerint tradita praecepta iudicialia quantum ad popularium convictum. Non enim possunt homines pacifice vivere ad invicem, si unus accipiat ea quae sunt alterius. Sed hoc videtur esse inductum in lege, dicitur enim Deut. XXIII, ingressus vineam proximi tui, comede uvas quantum tibi placuerit. Ergo lex vetus non convenienter providebat hominum paci.   Objection 1: It would seem that the judicial precepts were not suitably framed as regards the relations of one man with another. Because men cannot live together in peace, if one man takes what belongs to another. But this seems to have been approved by the Law: since it is written (Dt. 23:24): "Going into thy neighbor's vineyard, thou mayest eat as many grapes as thou pleasest." Therefore the Old Law did not make suitable provisions for man's peace.
Praeterea, ex hoc maxime multae civitates et regna destruuntur, quod possessiones ad mulieres perveniunt, ut philosophus dicit, in II Polit. Sed hoc fuit introductum in veteri lege, dicitur enim Num. XXVII, homo cum mortuus fuerit absque filio, ad filiam eius transibit hereditas. Ergo non convenienter providit lex saluti populi.   Objection 2: Further, one of the chief causes of the downfall of states has been the holding of property by women, as the Philosopher says (Polit. ii, 6). But this was introduced by the Old Law; for it is written (Num. 27:8): "When a man dieth without a son, his inheritance shall pass to his daughter." Therefore the Law made unsuitable provision for the welfare of the people.
Praeterea, societas hominum maxime per hoc conservatur, quod homines emendo et vendendo sibi invicem res suas commutant quibus indigent, ut dicitur in I Polit. Sed lex vetus abstulit virtutem venditionis, mandavit enim quod possessio vendita reverteretur ad venditorem in quinquagesimo anno iubilaei, ut patet Levit. XXV. Inconvenienter igitur lex populum illum circa hoc instituit.   Objection 3: Further, it is most conducive to the preservation of human society that men may provide themselves with necessaries by buying and selling, as stated in Polit. i. But the Old Law took away the force of sales; since it prescribes that in the 50th year of the jubilee all that is sold shall return to the vendor (Lev. 25:28). Therefore in this matter the Law gave the people an unfitting command.
Praeterea, necessitatibus hominum maxime expedit ut homines sint prompti ad mutuum concedendum. Quae quidem promptitudo tollitur per hoc quod creditores accepta non reddunt, unde dicitur Eccli. XXIX, multi non causa nequitiae non faenerati sunt, sed fraudari gratis timuerunt. Hoc autem induxit lex. Primo quidem, quia mandavit Deut. XV, cui debetur aliquid ab amico vel proximo ac fratre suo, repetere non poterit, quia annus remissionis est domini; et Exod. XXII dicitur quod si praesente domino animal mutuatum mortuum fuerit, reddere non tenetur. Secundo, quia aufertur ei securitas quae habetur per pignus, dicitur enim Deut. XXIV, cum repetes a proximo tuo rem aliquam quam debet tibi, non ingredieris domum eius ut pignus auferas; et iterum, non pernoctabit apud te pignus, sed statim reddes ei. Ergo insufficienter fuit ordinatum in lege de mutuis.   Objection 4: Further, man's needs require that men should be ready to lend: which readiness ceases if the creditors do not return the pledges: hence it is written (Ecclus. 29:10): "Many have refused to lend, not out of wickedness, but they were afraid to be defrauded without cause." And yet this was encouraged by the Law. First, because it prescribed (Dt. 15:2): "He to whom any thing is owing from his friend or neighbor or brother, cannot demand it again, because it is the year of remission of the Lord"; and (Ex. 22:15) it is stated that if a borrowed animal should die while the owner is present, the borrower is not bound to make restitution. Secondly, because the security acquired through the pledge is lost: for it is written (Dt. 24:10): "When thou shalt demand of thy neighbor any thing that he oweth thee, thou shalt not go into his house to take away a pledge"; and again (Dt. 24:12,13): "The pledge shall not lodge with thee that night, but thou shalt restore it to him presently." Therefore the Law made insufficient provision in the matter of loans.
Praeterea, ex defraudatione depositi maximum periculum imminet, et ideo est maxima cautela adhibenda, unde etiam dicitur II Mach. III, quod sacerdotes invocabant de caelo eum qui de depositis legem posuit, ut his qui deposuerant ea, salva custodiret. Sed in praeceptis veteris legis parva cautela circa deposita adhibetur, dicitur enim Exod. XXII quod in amissione depositi statur iuramento eius apud quem fuit depositum. Ergo non fuit circa hoc legis ordinatio conveniens.   Objection 5: Further, considerable risk attaches to goods deposited with a fraudulent depositary: wherefore great caution should be observed in such matters: hence it is stated in 2 Mach 3:15 that "the priests . . . called upon Him from heaven, Who made the law concerning things given to be kept, that He would preserve them safe, for them that had deposited them." But the precepts of the Old Law observed little caution in regard to deposits: since it is prescribed (Ex. 22:10,11) that when goods deposited are lost, the owner is to stand by the oath of the depositary. Therefore the Law made unsuitable provision in this matter.
Praeterea, sicut aliquis mercenarius locat operas suas, ita etiam aliqui locant domum, vel quaecumque alia huiusmodi. Sed non est necessarium ut statim pretium locatae domus conductor exhibeat. Ergo etiam nimis durum fuit quod praecipitur Levit. XIX, non morabitur opus mercenarii tui apud te usque mane.   Objection 6: Further, just as a workman offers his work for hire, so do men let houses and so forth. But there is no need for the tenant to pay his rent as soon as he takes a house. Therefore it seems an unnecessarily hard prescription (Lev. 19:13) that "the wages of him that hath been hired by thee shall not abide with thee until morning."
Praeterea, cum frequenter immineat iudiciorum necessitas, facilis debet esse accessus ad iudicem. Inconvenienter igitur statuit lex, Deut. XVII, ut irent ad unum locum expetituri iudicium de suis dubiis.   Objection 7: Further, since there is often pressing need for a judge, it should be easy to gain access to one. It was therefore unfitting that the Law (Dt. 17:8,9) should command them to go to a fixed place to ask for judgment on doubtful matters.
Praeterea, possibile est non solum duos, sed etiam tres vel plures concordare ad mentiendum. Inconvenienter igitur dicitur Deut. XIX, in ore duorum vel trium testium stabit omne verbum.   Objection 8: Further, it is possible that not only two, but three or more, should agree to tell a lie. Therefore it is unreasonably stated (Dt. 19:15) that "in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall stand."
Praeterea, poena debet taxari secundum quantitatem culpae, unde dicitur etiam Deut. XXV, pro mensura peccati erit et plagarum modus. Sed quibusdam aequalibus culpis lex statuit inaequales poenas, dicitur enim Exod. XXII, quod restituet fur quinque boves pro uno bove, et quatuor oves pro una ove. Quaedam etiam non multum gravia peccata gravi poena puniuntur, sicut Num. XV, lapidatus est qui collegerat ligna in sabbato. Filius etiam protervus propter parva delicta, quia scilicet comessationibus vacabat et conviviis, mandatur lapidari, Deut. XXI. Igitur inconvenienter in lege sunt institutae poenae.   Objection 9: Further, punishment should be fixed according to the gravity of the fault: for which reason also it is written (Dt. 25:2): "According to the measure of the sin, shall the measure also of the stripes be." Yet the Law fixed unequal punishments for certain faults: for it is written (Ex. 22:1) that the thief "shall restore five oxen for one ox, and four sheep for one sheep." Moreover, certain slight offenses are severely punished: thus (Num. 15:32, seqq.) a man is stoned for gathering sticks on the sabbath day: and (Dt. 21:18, seqq.) the unruly son is commanded to be stoned on account of certain small transgressions, viz. because "he gave himself to revelling . . . and banquetings." Therefore the Law prescribed punishments in an unreasonable manner.
Praeterea, sicut Augustinus dicit, XXI de Civ. Dei, octo genera poenarum in legibus esse scribit Tullius, damnum, vincula, verbera, talionem, ignominiam, exilium, mortem, servitutem. Ex quibus aliqua sunt in lege statuta. Damnum quidem, sicut cum fur condemnabatur ad quintuplum vel quadruplum. Vincula vero, sicut Num. XV, mandatur de quodam quod in carcerem includatur. Verbera vero, sicut Deut. XXV, si eum qui peccavit dignum viderint plagis, prosternent, et coram se facient verberari. Ignominiam etiam inferebat illi qui nolebat accipere uxorem fratris sui defuncti, quae tollebat calceamentum illius, et spuebat in faciem illius. Mortem etiam inferebat, ut patet Levit. XX, qui maledixerit patri suo aut matri, morte moriatur. Poenam etiam talionis lex induxit, dicens Exod. XXI, oculum pro oculo, dentem pro dente. Inconveniens igitur videtur quod alias duas poenas, scilicet exilium et servitutem, lex vetus non inflixit.   Objection 10:: Further, as Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xxi, 11), "Tully writes that the laws recognize eight forms of punishment, indemnity, prison, stripes, retaliation, public disgrace, exile, death, slavery." Now some of these were prescribed by the Law. "Indemnity," as when a thief was condemned to make restitution fivefold or fourfold. "Prison," as when (Num. 15:34) a certain man is ordered to be imprisoned. "Stripes"; thus (Dt. 25:2), "if they see that the offender be worthy of stripes; they shall lay him down, and shall cause him to be beaten before them." "Public disgrace" was brought on to him who refused to take to himself the wife of his deceased brother, for she took "off his shoe from his foot, and" did "spit in his face" (Dt. 25:9). It prescribed the "death" penalty, as is clear from (Lev. 20:9): "He that curseth his father, or mother, dying let him die." The Law also recognized the "lex talionis," by prescribing (Ex. 21:24): "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth." Therefore it seems unreasonable that the Law should not have inflicted the two other punishments, viz. "exile" and "slavery."
Praeterea, poena non debetur nisi culpae. Sed bruta animalia non possunt habere culpam. Ergo inconvenienter eis infligitur poena, Exod. XXI, bos lapidibus obruetur qui occiderit virum aut mulierem. Et Levit. XX dicitur, mulier quae succubuerit cuilibet iumento, simul interficiatur cum eo. Sic igitur videtur quod inconvenienter ea quae pertinent ad convictum hominum ad invicem, fuerint in lege veteri ordinata.   Objection 11:: Further, no punishment is due except for a fault. But dumb animals cannot commit a fault. Therefore the Law is unreasonable in punishing them (Ex. 21:29): "If the ox . . . shall kill a man or a woman," it "shall be stoned": and (Lev. 20:16): "The woman that shall lie under any beast, shall be killed together with the same." Therefore it seems that matters pertaining to the relations of one man with another were unsuitably regulated by the Law.
Praeterea, dominus mandavit Exod. XXI, quod homicidium morte hominis puniretur. Sed mors bruti animalis multo minus reputatur quam occisio hominis. Ergo non potest sufficienter recompensari poena homicidii per occisionem bruti animalis. Inconvenienter igitur mandatur Deut. XXI quod quando inventum fuerit cadaver occisi hominis, et ignorabitur caedis reus, seniores propinquioris civitatis tollant vitulam de armento quae non traxit iugum nec terram scidit vomere, et ducent eam ad vallem asperam atque saxosam quae numquam arata est nec sementa recepit, et caedent in ea cervices vitulae.   Objection 12:: Further, the Lord commanded (Ex. 21:12) a murderer to be punished with death. But the death of a dumb animal is reckoned of much less account than the slaying of a man. Hence murder cannot be sufficiently punished by the slaying of a dumb animal. Therefore it is unfittingly prescribed (Dt. 21:1,4) that "when there shall be found . . . the corpse of a man slain, and it is not known who is guilty of the murder . . . the ancients" of the nearest city "shall take a heifer of the herd, that hath not drawn in the yoke, nor ploughed the ground, and they shall bring her into a rough and stony valley, that never was ploughed, nor sown; and there they shall strike off the head of the heifer."
Sed contra est quod pro speciali beneficio commemoratur in Psalmo CXLVII, non fecit taliter omni nationi, et iudicia sua non manifestavit eis.   On the contrary, It is recalled as a special blessing (Ps. 147:20) that "He hath not done in like manner to every nation; and His judgments He hath not made manifest to them."
Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus in II de Civ. Dei introducit a Tullio dictum, populus est coetus multitudinis iuris consensu et utilitatis communione sociatus. Unde ad rationem populi pertinet ut communicatio hominum ad invicem iustis praeceptis legis ordinetur. Est autem duplex communicatio hominum ad invicem, una quidem quae fit auctoritate principum; alia autem fit propria voluntate privatarum personarum. Et quia voluntate uniuscuiusque disponi potest quod eius subditur potestati, ideo auctoritate principum, quibus subiecti sunt homines, oportet quod iudicia inter homines exerceantur, et poenae malefactoribus inferantur. Potestati vero privatarum personarum subduntur res possessae, et ideo propria voluntate in his possunt sibi invicem communicare, puta emendo, vendendo, donando, et aliis huiusmodi modis. Circa utramque autem communicationem lex sufficienter ordinavit. Statuit enim iudices, ut patet Deut. XVI, iudices et magistros constitues in omnibus portis eius, ut iudicent populum iusto iudicio. Instituit etiam iustum iudicii ordinem, ut dicitur Deut. I, quod iustum est iudicate, sive civis ille sit sive peregrinus, nulla erit personarum distantia. Sustulit etiam occasionem iniusti iudicii, acceptionem munerum iudicibus prohibendo; ut patet Exod. XXIII, et Deut. XVI. Instituit etiam numerum testium duorum vel trium; ut patet Deut. XVII, et XIX. Instituit etiam certas poenas pro diversis delictis, ut post dicetur.   I answer that, As Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ii, 21), quoting Tully, "a nation is a body of men united together by consent to the law and by community of welfare." Consequently it is of the essence of a nation that the mutual relations of the citizens be ordered by just laws. Now the relations of one man with another are twofold: some are effected under the guidance of those in authority: others are effected by the will of private individuals. And since whatever is subject to the power of an individual can be disposed of according to his will, hence it is that the decision of matters between one man and another, and the punishment of evildoers, depend on the direction of those in authority, to whom men are subject. On the other hand, the power of private persons is exercised over the things they possess: and consequently their dealings with one another, as regards such things, depend on their own will, for instance in buying, selling, giving, and so forth. Now the Law provided sufficiently in respect of each of these relations between one man and another. For it established judges, as is clearly indicated in Dt. 16:18: "Thou shalt appoint judges and magistrates in all its [Vulg.: 'thy'] gates . . . that they may judge the people with just judgment." It is also directed the manner of pronouncing just judgments, according to Dt. 1:16,17: "Judge that which is just, whether he be one of your own country or a stranger: there shall be no difference of persons." It also removed an occasion of pronouncing unjust judgment, by forbidding judges to accept bribes (Ex. 23:8; Dt. 16:19). It prescribed the number of witnesses, viz. two or three: and it appointed certain punishments to certain crimes, as we shall state farther on (ad 10).
Sed circa res possessas optimum est, sicut dicit philosophus, in II Polit., quod possessiones sint distinctae, et usus sit partim communis, partim autem per voluntatem possessorum communicetur. Et haec tria fuerunt in lege statuta. Primo enim, ipsae possessiones divisae erant in singulos, dicitur enim Num. XXXIII, ego dedi vobis terram in possessionem, quam sorte dividetis vobis. Et quia per possessionum irregularitatem plures civitates destruuntur, ut philosophus dicit, in II Polit.; ideo circa possessiones regulandas triplex remedium lex adhibuit. Unum quidem, ut secundum numerum hominum aequaliter dividerentur, unde dicitur Num. XXXIII, pluribus dabitis latiorem, et paucioribus angustiorem. Aliud remedium est ut possessiones non in perpetuum alienentur, sed certo tempore ad suos possessores revertantur, ut non confundantur sortes possessionum. Tertium remedium est ad huiusmodi confusionem tollendam, ut proximi succedant morientibus, primo quidem gradu, filius; secundo autem, filia; tertio, fratres; quarto, patrui; quinto, quicumque propinqui. Et ad distinctionem sortium conservandam, ulterius lex statuit ut mulieres quae sunt haeredes, nuberent suae tribus hominibus, ut habetur Num. XXXVI.    But with regard to possessions, it is a very good thing, says the Philosopher (Polit. ii, 2) that the things possessed should be distinct, and the use thereof should be partly common, and partly granted to others by the will of the possessors. These three points were provided for by the Law. Because, in the first place, the possessions themselves were divided among individuals: for it is written (Num. 33:53,54): "I have given you" the land "for a possession: and you shall divide it among you by lot." And since many states have been ruined through want of regulations in the matter of possessions, as the Philosopher observes (Polit. ii, 6); therefore the Law provided a threefold remedy against the regularity of possessions. The first was that they should be divided equally, wherefore it is written (Num. 33:54): "To the more you shall give a larger part, and to the fewer, a lesser." A second remedy was that possessions could not be alienated for ever, but after a certain lapse of time should return to their former owner, so as to avoid confusion of possessions (cf. ad 3). The third remedy aimed at the removal of this confusion, and provided that the dead should be succeeded by their next of kin: in the first place, the son; secondly, the daughter; thirdly, the brother; fourthly, the father's brother; fifthly, any other next of kin. Furthermore, in order to preserve the distinction of property, the Law enacted that heiresses should marry within their own tribe, as recorded in Num. 36:6.
Secundo vero, instituit lex ut quantum ad aliqua usus rerum esset communis. Et primo, quantum ad curam, praeceptum est enim Deut. XXII, non videbis bovem et ovem fratris tui errantem, et praeteribis, sed reduces fratri tuo; et similiter de aliis. Secundo, quantum ad fructum. Concedebatur enim communiter quantum ad omnes, ut ingressus in vineam amici posset licite comedere, dum tamen extra non auferret. Quantum ad pauperes vero specialiter, ut eis relinquerentur manipuli obliti, et fructus et racemi remanentes, ut habetur Lev. XIX, et Deut. XXIV. Et etiam communicabantur ea quae nascebantur in septimo anno; ut habetur Exod. XXIII, et Lev. XXV.    Secondly, the Law commanded that, in some respects, the use of things should belong to all in common. Firstly, as regards the care of them; for it was prescribed (Dt. 22:1-4): "Thou shalt not pass by, if thou seest thy brother's ox or his sheep go astray; but thou shalt bring them back to thy brother," and in like manner as to other things. Secondly, as regards fruits. For all alike were allowed on entering a friend's vineyard to eat of the fruit, but not to take any away. And, specially, with respect to the poor, it was prescribed that the forgotten sheaves, and the bunches of grapes and fruit, should be left behind for them (Lev. 19:9; Dt. 24:19). Moreover, whatever grew in the seventh year was common property, as stated in Ex. 23:11 and Lev. 25:4.
Tertio vero, statuit lex communicationem factam per eos qui sunt domini rerum. Unam pure gratuitam, unde dicitur Deut. XIV, anno tertio separabis aliam decimam, venientque Levites et peregrinus et pupillus et vidua, et comedent et saturabuntur. Aliam vero cum recompensatione utilitatis, sicut per venditionem et emptionem, et locationem et conductionem, et per mutuum, et iterum per depositum, de quibus omnibus inveniuntur ordinationes certae in lege. Unde patet quod lex vetus sufficienter ordinavit convictum illius populi.    Thirdly, the law recognized the transference of goods by the owner. There was a purely gratuitous transfer: thus it is written (Dt. 14:28,29): "The third day thou shalt separate another tithe . . . and the Levite . . . and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow . . . shall come and shall eat and be filled." And there was a transfer for a consideration, for instance, by selling and buying, by letting out and hiring, by loan and also by deposit, concerning all of which we find that the Law made ample provision. Consequently it is clear that the Old Law provided sufficiently concerning the mutual relations of one man with another.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut apostolus dicit, Rom. XIII, qui diligit proximum, legem implevit, quia scilicet omnia praecepta legis, praecipue ordinata ad proximum, ad hunc finem ordinari videntur, ut homines se invicem diligant. Ex dilectione autem procedit quod homines sibi invicem bona sua communicent, quia ut dicitur I Ioan. III, qui viderit fratrem suum necessitatem patientem, et clauserit viscera sua ab eo, quomodo caritas Dei manet in illo? Et ideo intendebat lex homines assuefacere ut facile sibi invicem sua communicarent, sicut et apostolus, I ad Tim. VI, divitibus mandat facile tribuere et communicare. Non autem facile communicativus est qui non sustinet quod proximus aliquid modicum de suo accipiat, absque magno sui detrimento. Et ideo lex ordinavit ut liceret intrantem in vineam proximi, racemos ibi comedere, non autem extra deferre, ne ex hoc daretur occasio gravis damni inferendi, ex quo pax perturbaretur. Quae inter disciplinatos non perturbatur ex modicorum acceptione, sed magis amicitia confirmatur, et assuefiunt homines ad facile communicandum.   Reply to Objection 1: As the Apostle says (Rm. 13:8), "he that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the Law": because, to wit, all the precepts of the Law, chiefly those concerning our neighbor, seem to aim at the end that men should love one another. Now it is an effect of love that men give their own goods to others: because, as stated in 1 Jn. 3:17: "He that . . . shall see his brother in need, and shall shut up his bowels from him: how doth the charity of God abide in him?" Hence the purpose of the Law was to accustom men to give of their own to others readily: thus the Apostle (1 Tim. 6:18) commands the rich "to give easily and to communicate to others." Now a man does not give easily to others if he will not suffer another man to take some little thing from him without any great injury to him. And so the Law laid down that it should be lawful for a man, on entering his neighbor's vineyard, to eat of the fruit there: but not to carry any away, lest this should lead to the infliction of a grievous harm, and cause a disturbance of the peace: for among well-behaved people, the taking of a little does not disturb the peace; in fact, it rather strengthens friendship and accustoms men to give things to one another.
Ad secundum dicendum quod lex non statuit quod mulieres succederent in bonis paternis, nisi in defectu filiorum masculorum. Tunc autem necessarium erat ut successio mulieribus concederetur in consolationem patris, cui grave fuisset si eius hereditas omnino ad extraneos transiret. Adhibuit tamen circa hoc lex cautelam debitam, praecipiens ut mulieres succedentes in haereditate paterna, nuberent suae tribus hominibus, ad hoc quod sortes tribuum non confunderentur, ut habetur Num. ult.   Reply to Objection 2: The Law did not prescribe that women should succeed to their father's estate except in default of male issue: failing which it was necessary that succession should be granted to the female line in order to comfort the father, who would have been sad to think that his estate would pass to strangers. Nevertheless the Law observed due caution in the matter, by providing that those women who succeeded to their father's estate, should marry within their own tribe, in order to avoid confusion of tribal possessions, as stated in Num. 36:7,8.
Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut philosophus dicit, in II Polit., regulatio possessionum multum confert ad conservationem civitatis vel gentis. Unde, sicut ipse dicit, apud quasdam gentilium civitates statutum fuit ut nullus possessionem vendere posset, nisi pro manifesto detrimento. Si enim passim possessiones vendantur, potest contingere quod omnes possessiones ad paucos deveniant, et ita necesse erit civitatem vel regionem habitatoribus evacuari. Et ideo lex vetus, ad huiusmodi periculum amovendum, sic ordinavit quod et necessitatibus hominum subveniretur, concedens possessionum venditionem usque ad certum tempus; et tamen periculum removit, praecipiens ut certo tempore possessio vendita ad vendentem rediret. Et hoc instituit ut sortes non confunderentur, sed semper remaneret eadem distinctio determinata in tribubus.   Reply to Objection 3: As the Philosopher says (Polit. ii, 4), the regulation of possessions conduces much to the preservation of a state or nation. Consequently, as he himself observes, it was forbidden by the law in some of the heathen states, "that anyone should sell his possessions, except to avoid a manifest loss." For if possessions were to be sold indiscriminately, they might happen to come into the hands of a few: so that it might become necessary for a state or country to become void of inhabitants. Hence the Old Law, in order to remove this danger, ordered things in such a way that while provision was made for men's needs, by allowing the sale of possessions to avail for a certain period, at the same time the said danger was removed, by prescribing the return of those possessions after that period had elapsed. The reason for this law was to prevent confusion of possessions, and to ensure the continuance of a definite distinction among the tribes.
Quia vero domus urbanae non erant sorte distinctae, ideo concessit quod in perpetuum vendi possent, sicut et mobilia bona. Non enim erat statutus numerus domorum civitatis, sicut erat certa mensura possessionis, ad quam non addebatur, poterat autem aliquid addi ad numerum domorum civitatis. Domus vero quae non erant in urbe, sed in villa muros non habente, in perpetuum vendi non poterant, quia huiusmodi domus non construuntur nisi ad cultum et ad custodiam possessionum; et ideo lex congrue statuit idem ius circa utrumque.    But as the town houses were not allotted to distinct estates, therefore the Law allowed them to be sold in perpetuity, like movable goods. Because the number of houses in a town was not fixed, whereas there was a fixed limit to the amount of estates, which could not be exceeded, while the number of houses in a town could be increased. On the other hand, houses situated not in a town, but "in a village that hath no walls," could not be sold in perpetuity: because such houses are built merely with a view to the cultivation and care of possessions; wherefore the Law rightly made the same prescription in regard to both (Lev. 25).
Ad quartum dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, intentio legis erat assuefacere homines suis praeceptis ad hoc quod sibi invicem de facili in necessitatibus subvenirent, quia hoc maxime est amicitiae fomentum. Et hanc quidem facilitatem subveniendi non solum statuit in his quae gratis et absolute donantur, sed etiam in his quae mutuo conceduntur, quia huiusmodi subventio frequentior est, et pluribus necessaria. Huiusmodi autem subventionis facilitatem multipliciter instituit. Primo quidem, ut faciles se praeberent ad mutuum exhibendum, nec ab hoc retraherentur anno remissionis appropinquante, ut habetur Deut. XV. Secundo, ne eum cui mutuum concederent, gravarent vel usuris, vel etiam aliqua pignora omnino vitae necessaria accipiendo, et si accepta fuerint, quod statim restituerentur. Dicitur enim Deut. XXIII, non faeneraberis fratri tuo ad usuram; et XXIV, non accipies loco pignoris inferiorem et superiorem molam, quia animam suam apposuit tibi; et Exod. XXII dicitur, si pignus a proximo tuo acceperis vestimentum, ante solis occasum reddes ei. Tertio, ut non importune exigerent. Unde dicitur Exod. XXII, si pecuniam mutuam dederis populo meo pauperi qui habitat tecum, non urgebis eum quasi exactor. Et propter hoc etiam mandatur Deut. XXIV, cum repetes a proximo tuo rem aliquam quam debet tibi, non ingredieris in domum eius ut pignus auferas; sed stabis foris, et ille tibi proferet quod habuerit, tum quia domus est tutissimum uniuscuiusque receptaculum, unde molestum homini est ut in domo sua invadatur; tum etiam quia non concedit creditori ut accipiat pignus quod voluerit, sed magis debitori ut det quo minus indiguerit. Quarto, instituit quod in septimo anno debita penitus remitterentur. Probabile enim erat ut illi qui commode reddere possent, ante septimum annum redderent, et gratis mutuantem non defraudarent. Si autem omnino impotentes essent, eadem ratione eis erat debitum remittendum ex dilectione, qua etiam erat eis de novo dandum propter indigentiam.   Reply to Objection 4: As stated above (ad 1), the purpose of the Law was to accustom men to its precepts, so as to be ready to come to one another's assistance: because this is a very great incentive to friendship. The Law granted these facilities for helping others in the matter not only of gratuitous and absolute donations, but also of mutual transfers: because the latter kind of succor is more frequent and benefits the greater number: and it granted facilities for this purpose in many ways. First of all by prescribing that men should be ready to lend, and that they should not be less inclined to do so as the year of remission drew nigh, as stated in Dt. 15:7, seqq. Secondly, by forbidding them to burden a man to whom they might grant a loan, either by exacting usury, or by accepting necessities of life in security; and by prescribing that when this had been done they should be restored at once. For it is written (Dt. 23:19): "Thou shalt not lend to thy brother money to usury": and (Dt. 24:6): "Thou shalt not take the nether nor the upper millstone to pledge; for he hath pledged his life to thee": and (Ex. 22:26): "If thou take of thy neighbor a garment in pledge, thou shalt give it him again before sunset." Thirdly, by forbidding them to be importunate in exacting payment. Hence it is written (Ex. 22:25): "If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor that dwelleth with thee, thou shalt not be hard upon them as an extortioner." For this reason, too, it is enacted (Dt. 24:10,11): "When thou shalt demand of thy neighbor anything that he oweth thee, thou shalt not go into his house to take away a pledge, but thou shalt stand without, and he shall bring out to thee what he hath": both because a man's house is his surest refuge, wherefore it is offensive to a man to be set upon in his own house; and because the Law does not allow the creditor to take away whatever he likes in security, but rather permits the debtor to give what he needs least. Fourthly, the Law prescribed that debts should cease together after the lapse of seven years. For it was probable that those who could conveniently pay their debts, would do so before the seventh year, and would not defraud the lender without cause. But if they were altogether insolvent, there was the same reason for remitting the debt from love for them, as there was for renewing the loan on account of their need.
Circa animalia vero mutuata haec lex statuit, ut propter negligentiam eius cui mutuata sunt, si in ipsius absentia moriantur vel debilitentur, reddere ea compellatur. Si vero eo praesente et diligenter custodiente, mortua fuerint vel debilitata, non cogebatur restituere, et maxime si erant mercede conducta, quia ita etiam potuissent mori et debilitari apud mutuantem; et ita, si conservationem animalis consequeretur, iam aliquod lucrum reportaret ex mutuo, et non esset gratuitum mutuum. Et maxime hoc observandum erat quando animalia erant mercede conducta, quia tunc habebat certum pretium pro usu animalium; unde nihil accrescere debebat per restitutionem animalium, nisi propter negligentiam custodientis. Si autem non essent mercede conducta, potuisset habere aliquam aequitatem ut saltem tantum restitueret quantum usus animalis mortui vel debilitati conduci potuisset.    As regards animals granted in loan, the Law enacted that if, through the neglect of the person to whom they were lent, they perished or deteriorated in his absence, he was bound to make restitution. But if they perished or deteriorated while he was present and taking proper care of them, he was not bound to make restitution, especially if they were hired for a consideration: because they might have died or deteriorated in the same way if they had remained in possession of the lender, so that if the animal had been saved through being lent, the lender would have gained something by the loan which would no longer have been gratuitous. And especially was this to be observed when animals were hired for a consideration: because then the owner received a certain price for the use of the animals; wherefore he had no right to any profit, by receiving indemnity for the animal, unless the person who had charge of it were negligent. In the case, however, of animals not hired for a consideration, equity demanded that he should receive something by way of restitution at least to the value of the hire of the animal that had perished or deteriorated.
Ad quintum dicendum quod haec differentia est inter mutuum et depositum, quia mutuum traditur in utilitatem eius cui traditur; sed depositum traditur in utilitatem deponentis. Et ideo magis arctabatur aliquis in aliquibus casibus ad restituendum mutuum, quam ad restituendum depositum. Depositum enim perdi poterat dupliciter. Uno modo, ex causa inevitabili, vel naturali, puta si esset mortuum vel debilitatum animal depositum; vel extrinseca, puta si esset captum ab hostibus, vel si esset comestum a bestia; in quo tamen casu tenebatur deferre ad dominum animalis id quod de animali occiso supererat. In aliis autem praedictis casibus nihil reddere tenebatur, sed solum, ad expurgandam suspicionem fraudis, tenebatur iuramentum praestare. Alio modo poterat perdi ex causa evitabili, puta per furtum. Et tunc, propter negligentiam custodis, reddere tenebatur. Sed, sicut dictum est, ille qui mutuo accipiebat animal, tenebatur reddere, etiam si debilitatum aut mortuum fuisset in eius absentia. De minori enim negligentia tenebatur quam depositarius, qui non tenebatur nisi de furto.   Reply to Objection 5: The difference between a loan and a deposit is that a loan is in respect of goods transferred for the use of the person to whom they are transferred, whereas a deposit is for the benefit of the depositor. Hence in certain cases there was a stricter obligation of returning a loan than of restoring goods held in deposit. Because the latter might be lost in two ways. First, unavoidably: i.e. either through a natural cause, for instance if an animal held in deposit were to die or depreciate in value; or through an extrinsic cause, for instance, if it were taken by an enemy, or devoured by a beast (in which case, however, a man was bound to restore to the owner what was left of the animal thus slain): whereas in the other cases mentioned above, he was not bound to make restitution; but only to take an oath in order to clear himself of suspicion. Secondly, the goods deposited might be lost through an avoidable cause, for instance by theft: and then the depositary was bound to restitution on account of his neglect. But, as stated above (ad 4), he who held an animal on loan, was bound to restitution, even if he were absent when it depreciated or died: because he was held responsible for less negligence than a depositary, who was only held responsible in case of theft.
Ad sextum dicendum quod mercenarii qui locant operas suas, pauperes sunt, de laboribus suis victum quaerentes quotidianum, et ideo lex provide ordinavit ut statim eis merces solveretur, ne victus eis deficeret. Sed illi qui locant alias res, divites esse consueverunt, nec ita indigent locationis pretio ad suum victum quotidianum. Et ideo non est eadem ratio in utroque.   Reply to Objection 6: Workmen who offer their labor for hire, are poor men who toil for their daily bread: and therefore the Law commanded wisely that they should be paid at once, lest they should lack food. But they who offer other commodities for hire, are wont to be rich: nor are they in such need of their price in order to gain a livelihood: and consequently the comparison does not hold.
Ad septimum dicendum quod iudices ad hoc inter homines constituuntur, quod determinent quod ambiguum inter homines circa iustitiam esse potest. Dupliciter autem aliquid potest esse ambiguum. Uno modo, apud simplices. Et ad hoc dubium tollendum, mandatur Deut. XVI, ut iudices et magistri constituerentur per singulas tribus, ut iudicarent populum iusto iudicio. Alio modo contingit aliquid esse dubium etiam apud peritos. Et ideo ad hoc dubium tollendum, constituit lex ut omnes recurrerent ad locum principalem a Deo electum, in quo et summus sacerdos esset, qui determinaret dubia circa caeremonias divini cultus; et summus iudex populi, qui determinaret quae pertinent ad iudicia hominum, sicut etiam nunc per appellationem, vel per consultationem, causae ab inferioribus iudicibus ad superiores deferuntur. Unde dicitur Deut. XVII, si difficile et ambiguum apud te iudicium perspexeris, et iudicum intra portas tuas videris verba variari; ascende ad locum quem elegerit dominus, veniesque ad sacerdotes levitici generis, et ad iudicem qui fuerit illo tempore. Huiusmodi autem ambigua iudicia non frequenter emergebant. Unde ex hoc populus non gravabatur.   Reply to Objection 7: The purpose for which judges are appointed among men, is that they may decide doubtful points in matters of justice. Now a matter may be doubtful in two ways. First, among simple-minded people: and in order to remove doubts of this kind, it was prescribed (Dt. 16:18) that "judges and magistrates" should be appointed in each tribe, "to judge the people with just judgment." Secondly, a matter may be doubtful even among experts: and therefore, in order to remove doubts of this kind, the Law prescribed that all should foregather in some chief place chosen by God, where there would be both the high-priest, who would decide doubtful matters relating to the ceremonies of divine worship; and the chief judge of the people, who would decide matters relating to the judgments of men: just as even now cases are taken from a lower to a higher court either by appeal or by consultation. Hence it is written (Dt. 17:8,9): "If thou perceive that there be among you a hard and doubtful matter in judgment . . . and thou see that the words of the judges within thy gates do vary; arise and go up to the place, which the Lord thy God shall choose; and thou shalt come to the priests of the Levitical race, and to the judge that shall be at that time." But such like doubtful matters did not often occur for judgment: wherefore the people were not burdened on this account.
Ad octavum dicendum quod in negotiis humanis non potest haberi probatio demonstrativa et infallibilis, sed sufficit aliqua coniecturalis probabilitas, secundum quam rhetor persuadet. Et ideo, licet sit possibile duos aut tres testes in mendacium convenire, non tamen est facile nec probabile quod conveniant; et ideo accipitur eorum testimonium tanquam verum; et praecipue si in suo testimonio non vacillent, vel alias suspecti non fuerint. Et ad hoc etiam quod non de facili a veritate testes declinarent, instituit lex ut testes diligentissime examinarentur, et graviter punirentur qui invenirentur mendaces, ut habetur Deut. XIX.   Reply to Objection 8: In the business affairs of men, there is no such thing as demonstrative and infallible proof, and we must be content with a certain conjectural probability, such as that which an orator employs to persuade. Consequently, although it is quite possible for two or three witnesses to agree to a falsehood, yet it is neither easy nor probable that they succeed in so doing: wherefore their testimony is taken as being true, especially if they do not waver in giving it, or are not otherwise suspect. Moreover, in order that witnesses might not easily depart from the truth, the Law commanded that they should be most carefully examined, and that those who were found untruthful should be severely punished, as stated in Dt. 19:16, seqq.
Fuit tamen aliqua ratio huiusmodi numeri determinandi, ad significandam infallibilem veritatem personarum divinarum, quae quandoque numerantur duae, quia spiritus sanctus est nexus duorum, quandoque exprimuntur tres; ut Augustinus dicit, super illud Ioan. VIII, in lege vestra scriptum est quia duorum hominum testimonium verum est.    There was, however, a reason for fixing on this particular number, in token of the unerring truth of the Divine Persons, Who are sometimes mentioned as two, because the Holy Ghost is the bond of the other two Persons; and sometimes as three: as Augustine observes on Jn. 8:17: "In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true."
Ad nonum dicendum quod non solum propter gravitatem culpae, sed etiam propter alias causas gravis poena infligitur. Primo quidem, propter quantitatem peccati, quia maiori peccato, ceteris paribus, gravior poena debetur. Secundo, propter peccati consuetudinem, quia a peccatis consuetis non faciliter homines abstrahuntur nisi per graves poenas. Tertio, propter multam concupiscentiam vel delectationem in peccato, ab his enim non de facili homines abstrahuntur nisi per graves poenas. Quarto, propter facilitatem committendi peccatum, et latendi in ipso, huiusmodi enim peccata, quando manifestantur, sunt magis punienda, ad terrorem aliorum.   Reply to Objection 9: A severe punishment is inflicted not only on account of the gravity of a fault, but also for other reasons. First, on account of the greatness of the sin, because a greater sin, other things being equal, deserves a greater punishment. Secondly, on account of a habitual sin, since men are not easily cured of habitual sin except by severe punishments. Thirdly, on account of a great desire for or a great pleasure in the sin: for men are not easily deterred from such sins unless they be severely punished. Fourthly, on account of the facility of committing a sin and of concealing it: for such like sins, when discovered, should be more severely punished in order to deter others from committing them.
Circa ipsam etiam quantitatem peccati quadruplex gradus est attendendus, etiam circa unum et idem factum. Quorum primus est quando involuntarius peccatum committit. Tunc enim, si omnino est involuntarius, totaliter excusatur a poena, dicitur enim Deut. XXII, quod puella quae opprimitur in agro, non est rea mortis, quia clamavit, et nullus affuit qui liberaret eam. Si vero aliquo modo fuerit voluntarius, sed tamen ex infirmitate peccat, puta cum quis peccat ex passione, minuitur peccatum, et poena, secundum veritatem iudicii, diminui debet; nisi forte, propter communem utilitatem, poena aggravetur, ad abstrahendum homines ab huiusmodi peccatis, sicut dictum est. Secundus gradus est quando quis per ignorantiam peccavit. Et tunc aliquo modo reus reputabatur, propter negligentiam addiscendi; sed tamen non puniebatur per iudices, sed expiabat peccatum suum per sacrificia. Unde dicitur Levit. IV, anima quae peccaverit per ignorantiam, et cetera. Sed hoc intelligendum est de ignorantia facti, non autem de ignorantia praecepti divini, quod omnes scire tenebantur. Tertius gradus est quando aliquis ex superbia peccabat, idest ex certa electione vel ex certa malitia. Et tunc puniebatur secundum quantitatem delicti. Quartus autem gradus est quando peccabat per proterviam et pertinaciam. Et tunc, quasi rebellis et destructor ordinationis legis, omnino occidendus erat.    Again, with regard to the greatness of a sin, four degrees may be observed, even in respect of one single deed. The first is when a sin is committed unwillingly; because then, if the sin be altogether involuntary, man is altogether excused from punishment; for it is written (Dt. 22:25, seqq.) that a damsel who suffers violence in a field is not guilty of death, because "she cried, and there was no man to help her." But if a man sinned in any way voluntarily, and yet through weakness, as for instance when a man sins from passion, the sin is diminished: and the punishment, according to true judgment, should be diminished also; unless perchance the common weal requires that the sin be severely punished in order to deter others from committing such sins, as stated above. The second degree is when a man sins through ignorance: and then he was held to be guilty to a certain extent, on account of his negligence in acquiring knowledge: yet he was not punished by the judges but expiated his sin by sacrifices. Hence it is written (Lev. 4:2): "The soul that sinneth through ignorance," etc. This is, however, to be taken as applying to ignorance of fact; and not to ignorance of the Divine precept, which all were bound to know. The third degree was when a man sinned from pride, i.e. through deliberate choice or malice: and then he was punished according to the greatness of the sin [*Cf. Dt. 25:2]. The fourth degree was when a man sinned from stubbornness or obstinacy: and then he was to be utterly cut off as a rebel and a destroyer of the commandment of the Law [*Cf. Num. 15:30,31].
Secundum hoc, dicendum est quod in poena furti considerabatur secundum legem id quod frequenter accidere poterat. Et ideo pro furto aliarum rerum, quae de facili custodiri possunt a furibus, non reddebat fur nisi duplum. Oves autem non de facili possunt custodiri a furto, quia pascuntur in agris, et ideo frequentius contingebat quod oves furto subtraherentur. Unde lex maiorem poenam apposuit, ut scilicet quatuor oves pro una ove redderentur. Adhuc autem boves difficilius custodiuntur, quia habentur in agris, et non ita pascuntur gregatim sicut oves. Et ideo adhuc hic maiorem poenam apposuit, ut scilicet quinque boves pro uno bove redderentur. Et hoc dico, nisi forte idem animal inventum fuerit vivens apud eum, quia tunc solum duplum restituebat, sicut et in ceteris furtis; poterat enim haberi praesumptio quod cogitaret restituere, ex quo vivum servasset. Vel potest dici, secundum Glossam, quod bos habet quinque utilitates, quia immolatur, arat, pascit carnibus, lactat, et corium etiam diversis usibus ministrat, et ideo pro uno bove quinque boves reddebantur. Ovis autem habet quatuor utilitates, quia immolatur, pascit, lac dat, et lanam ministrat. Filius autem contumax, non quia comedebat et bibebat, occidebatur, sed propter contumaciam et rebellionem, quae semper morte puniebatur, ut dictum est. Ille vero qui colligebat ligna in sabbato, lapidatus fuit tanquam legis violator, quae sabbatum observari praecipiebat in commemorationem fidei novitatis mundi, sicut supra dictum est. Unde occisus fuit tanquam infidelis.    Accordingly we must say that, in appointing the punishment for theft, the Law considered what would be likely to happen most frequently (Ex. 22:1-9): wherefore, as regards theft of other things which can easily be safeguarded from a thief, the thief restored only twice their value. But sheep cannot be easily safeguarded from a thief, because they graze in the fields: wherefore it happened more frequently that sheep were stolen in the fields. Consequently the Law inflicted a heavier penalty, by ordering four sheep to be restored for the theft of one. As to cattle, they were yet more difficult to safeguard, because they are kept in the fields, and do not graze in flocks as sheep do; wherefore a yet more heavy penalty was inflicted in their regard, so that five oxen were to be restored for one ox. And this I say, unless perchance the animal itself were discovered in the thief's possession: because in that case he had to restore only twice the number, as in the case of other thefts: for there was reason to presume that he intended to restore the animal, since he kept it alive. Again, we might say, according to a gloss, that "a cow is useful in five ways: it may be used for sacrifice, for ploughing, for food, for milk, and its hide is employed for various purposes": and therefore for one cow five had to be restored. But the sheep was useful in four ways: "for sacrifice, for meat, for milk, and for its wool." The unruly son was slain, not because he ate and drank: but on account of his stubbornness and rebellion, which was always punished by death, as stated above. As to the man who gathered sticks on the sabbath, he was stoned as a breaker of the Law, which commanded the sabbath to be observed, to testify the belief in the newness of the world, as stated above (Question [100], Article [5]): wherefore he was slain as an unbeliever.
Ad decimum dicendum quod lex vetus poenam mortis inflixit in gravioribus criminibus, scilicet in his quae contra Deum peccantur, et in homicidio, et in furto hominum, et in irreverentia ad parentes, et in adulterio, et in incestibus. In furto autem aliarum rerum adhibuit poenam damni. In percussuris autem et mutilationibus induxit poenam talionis; et similiter in peccato falsi testimonii. In aliis autem minoribus culpis induxit poenam flagellationis vel ignominiae.   Reply to Objection 10:: The Old Law inflicted the death penalty for the more grievous crimes, viz. for those which are committed against God, and for murder, for stealing a man, irreverence towards one's parents, adultery and incest. In the case of thief of other things it inflicted punishment by indemnification: while in the case of blows and mutilation it authorized punishment by retaliation; and likewise for the sin of bearing false witness. In other faults of less degree it prescribed the punishment of stripes or of public disgrace.
Poenam autem servitutis induxit in duobus casibus. In uno quidem, quando, septimo anno remissionis, ille qui erat servus, nolebat beneficio legis uti ut liber exiret. Unde pro poena ei infligebatur ut in perpetuum servus remaneret. Secundo, infligebatur furi, quando non habebat quod posset restituere, sicut habetur Exod. XXII.    The punishment of slavery was prescribed by the Law in two cases. First, in the case of a slave who was unwilling to avail himself of the privilege granted by the Law, whereby he was free to depart in the seventh year of remission: wherefore he was punished by remaining a slave for ever. Secondly, in the case of a thief, who had not wherewith to make restitution, as stated in Ex. 22:3.
Poenam autem exilii universaliter lex non statuit. Quia in solo populo illo Deus colebatur, omnibus aliis populis per idololatriam corruptis, unde si quis a populo illo universaliter exclusus esset, daretur ei occasio idololatriae. Et ideo I Reg. XXVI dicitur quod David dixit ad Saul, maledicti sunt qui eiecerunt me hodie, ut non habitem in hereditate domini, dicentes, vade, servi diis alienis. Erat tamen aliquod particulare exilium. Dicitur enim Deut. XIX quod qui percusserit proximum suum nesciens, et qui nullum contra ipsum habuisse odium comprobatur, ad unam urbium refugii confugiebat, et ibi manebat usque ad mortem summi sacerdotis. Tunc enim licebat ei redire ad domum suam, quia in universali damno populi consueverunt particulares irae sedari, et ita proximi defuncti non sic proni erant ad eius occisionem.    The punishment of absolute exile was not prescribed by the Law: because God was worshipped by that people alone, whereas all other nations were given to idolatry: wherefore if any man were exiled from that people absolutely, he would be in danger of falling into idolatry. For this reason it is related (1 Kgs. 26:19) that David said to Saul: "They are cursed in the sight of the Lord, who have case me out this day, that I should not dwell in the inheritance of the Lord, saying: Go, serve strange gods." There was, however, a restricted sort of exile: for it is written in Dt. 19:4 [*Cf. Num. 35:25] that "he that striketh [Vulg.: 'killeth'] his neighbor ignorantly, and is proved to have had no hatred against him, shall flee to one of the cities" of refuge and "abide there until the death of the high-priest." For then it became lawful for him to return home, because when the whole people thus suffered a loss they forgot their private quarrels, so that the next of kin of the slain were not so eager to kill the slayer.
Ad undecimum dicendum quod animalia bruta mandabantur occidi, non propter aliquam ipsorum culpam; sed in poenam dominorum, qui talia animalia non custodierant ab huiusmodi peccatis. Et ideo magis puniebatur dominus si bos cornupeta fuerat ab heri et nudiustertius, in quo casu poterat occurri periculo; quam si subito cornupeta efficeretur. Vel occidebantur animalia in detestationem peccati; et ne ex eorum aspectu aliquis horror hominibus incuteretur.   Reply to Objection 11:: Dumb animals were ordered to be slain, not on account of any fault of theirs; but as a punishment to their owners, who had not safeguarded their beasts from these offenses. Hence the owner was more severely punished if his ox had butted anyone "yesterday or the day before" (in which case steps might have been taken to butting suddenly). Or again, the animal was slain in detestation of the sin; and lest men should be horrified at the sight thereof.
Ad duodecimum dicendum quod ratio litteralis illius mandati fuit, ut Rabbi Moyses dicit, quia frequenter interfector est de civitate propinquiori. Unde occisio vitulae fiebat ad explorandum homicidium occultum. Quod quidem fiebat per tria. Quorum unum est quod seniores civitatis iurabant nihil se praetermisisse in custodia viarum. Aliud est quia ille cuius erat vitula damnificabatur in occisione animalis, et si prius manifestaretur homicidium, animal non occideretur. Tertium est quia locus in quo occidebatur vitula, remanebat incultus. Et ideo, ad evitandum utrumque damnum, homines civitatis de facili manifestarent homicidam, si scirent, et raro poterat esse quin aliqua verba vel iudicia super hoc facta essent. Vel hoc fiebat ad terrorem, in detestationem homicidii. Per occisionem enim vitulae, quae est animal utile et fortitudine plenum, praecipue antequam laboret sub iugo, significabatur quod quicumque homicidium fecisset, quamvis esset utilis et fortis, occidendus erat; et morte crudeli, quod cervicis concisio significabat; et quod tanquam vilis et abiectus a consortio hominum excludendus erat, quod significabatur per hoc quod vitula occisa in loco aspero et inculto relinquebatur, in putredinem convertenda.   Reply to Objection 12:: The literal reason for this commandment, as Rabbi Moses declares (Doct. Perplex. iii), was because the slayer was frequently from the nearest city: wherefore the slaying of the calf was a means of investigating the hidden murder. This was brought about in three ways. In the first place the elders of the city swore that they had taken every measure for safeguarding the roads. Secondly, the owner of the heifer was indemnified for the slaying of his beast, and if the murder was previously discovered, the beast was not slain. Thirdly, the place, where the heifer was slain, remained uncultivated. Wherefore, in order to avoid this twofold loss, the men of the city would readily make known the murderer, if they knew who he was: and it would seldom happen but that some word or sign would escape about the matter. Or again, this was done in order to frighten people, in detestation of murder. Because the slaying of a heifer, which is a useful animal and full of strength, especially before it has been put under the yoke, signified that whoever committed murder, however useful and strong he might be, was to forfeit his life; and that, by a cruel death, which was implied by the striking off of its head; and that the murderer, as vile and abject, was to be cut off from the fellowship of men, which was betokened by the fact that the heifer after being slain was left to rot in a rough and uncultivated place.
Mystice autem per vitulam de armento significatur caro Christi; quae non traxit iugum, quia non fecit peccatum; nec terram scidit vomere, idest seditionis maculam non admisit. Per hoc autem quod in valle inculta occidebatur, significabatur despecta mors Christi; per quam purgantur omnia peccata, et Diabolus esse homicidii auctor ostenditur.    Mystically, the heifer taken from the herd signifies the flesh of Christ; which had not drawn a yoke, since it had done no sin; nor did it plough the ground, i.e. it never knew the stain of revolt. The fact of the heifer being killed in an uncultivated valley signified the despised death of Christ, whereby all sins are washed away, and the devil is shown to be the arch-murderer.

 

Index  [<< | >>]
First Part of the Second Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 105  [<< | >>]
Article: 3  [<< | >>]

Whether the judicial precepts regarding foreigners were framed in a suitable manner?

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod iudicialia praecepta non sint convenienter tradita quantum ad extraneos. Dicit enim Petrus, Act. X, in veritate comperi quoniam non est acceptor personarum Deus; sed in omni gente qui timet Deum et operatur iustitiam, acceptus est illi. Sed illi qui sunt Deo accepti, non sunt ab Ecclesia Dei excludendi. Inconvenienter igitur mandatur Deut. XXIII, quod Ammonites et Moabites, etiam post decimam generationem, non intrabunt Ecclesiam domini in aeternum; e contrario autem ibidem praecipitur de quibusdam gentibus, non abominaberis Idumaeum, quia frater tuus est; nec Aegyptium, quia advena fuisti in terra eius   Objection 1: It would seem that the judicial precepts regarding foreigners were not suitably framed. For Peter said (Acts 10:34,35): "In very deed I perceive that God is not a respecter of persons, but in every nation, he that feareth Him and worketh justice is acceptable to Him." But those who are acceptable to God should not be excluded from the Church of God. Therefore it is unsuitably commanded (Dt. 23:3) that "the Ammonite and the Moabite, even after the tenth generation, shall not enter into the church of the Lord for ever": whereas, on the other hand, it is prescribed (Dt. 23:7) to be observed with regard to certain other nations: "Thou shalt not abhor the Edomite, because he is thy brother; nor the Egyptian because thou wast a stranger in his land."
Praeterea, ea quae non sunt in potestate nostra, non merentur aliquam poenam. Sed quod homo sit eunuchus, vel ex scorto natus, non est in potestate eius. Ergo inconvenienter mandatur Deut. XXIII, quod eunuchus, et ex scorto natus, non ingrediatur Ecclesiam domini.   Objection 2: Further, we do not deserve to be punished for those things which are not in our power. But it is not in man's power to be an eunuch, or born of a prostitute. Therefore it is unsuitably commanded (Dt. 23:1,2) that "an eunuch and one born of a prostitute shalt not enter into the church of the Lord."
Praeterea, lex vetus misericorditer mandavit ut advenae non affligantur, dicitur enim Exod. XXII, advenam non contristabis, neque affliges eum, advenae enim et ipsi fuistis in terra Aegypti; et XXIII, peregrino molestus non eris, scitis enim advenarum animas, quia et ipsi peregrini fuistis in terra Aegypti. Sed ad afflictionem alicuius pertinet quod usuris opprimatur. Inconvenienter igitur lex permisit, Deut. XXIII, ut alienis ad usuram pecuniam mutuarent.   Objection 3: Further, the Old Law mercifully forbade strangers to be molested: for it is written (Ex. 22:21): "Thou shalt not molest a stranger, nor afflict him; for yourselves also were strangers in the land of Egypt": and (Ex. 23:9): "Thou shalt not molest a stranger, for you know the hearts of strangers, for you also were strangers in the land of Egypt." But it is an affliction to be burdened with usury. Therefore the Law unsuitably permitted them (Dt. 23:19,20) to lend money to the stranger for usury.
Praeterea, multo magis appropinquant nobis homines quam arbores. Sed his quae sunt nobis magis propinqua, magis debemus affectum et effectum dilectionis impendere; secundum illud Eccli. XIII, omne animal diligit simile sibi, sic et omnis homo proximum sibi. Inconvenienter igitur dominus, Deut. XX, mandavit quod de civitatibus hostium captis omnes interficerent, et tamen arbores fructiferas non succiderent.   Objection 4: Further, men are much more akin to us than trees. But we should show greater care and love for these things that are nearest to us, according to Ecclus. 13:19: "Every beast loveth its like: so also every man him that is nearest to himself." Therefore the Lord unsuitably commanded (Dt. 20:13-19) that all the inhabitants of a captured hostile city were to be slain, but that the fruit-trees should not be cut down.
Praeterea, bonum commune secundum virtutem est bono privato praeferendum ab unoquoque. Sed in bello quod committitur contra hostes, quaeritur bonum commune. Inconvenienter igitur mandatur Deut. XX, quod, imminente proelio, aliqui domum remittantur, puta qui aedificavit domum novam, qui plantavit vineam, vel qui despondit uxorem.   Objection 5: Further, every one should prefer the common good of virtue to the good of the individual. But the common good is sought in a war which men fight against their enemies. Therefore it is unsuitably commanded (Dt. 20:5-7) that certain men should be sent home, for instance a man that had built a new house, or who had planted a vineyard, or who had married a wife.
Praeterea, ex culpa non debet quis commodum reportare. Sed quod homo sit formidolosus et corde pavido, culpabile est, contrariatur enim virtuti fortitudinis. Inconvenienter igitur a labore proelii excusabantur formidolosi et pavidum cor habentes.   Objection 6: Further, no man should profit by his own fault. But it is a man's fault if he be timid or faint-hearted: since this is contrary to the virtue of fortitude. Therefore the timid and faint-hearted are unfittingly excused from the toil of battle (Dt. 20:8).
Sed contra est quod sapientia divina dicit, Prov. VIII, recti sunt omnes sermones mei, non est in eis pravum quid neque perversum.   On the contrary, Divine Wisdom declares (Prov. 8:8): "All my words are just, there is nothing wicked nor perverse in them."
Respondeo dicendum quod cum extraneis potest esse hominum conversatio dupliciter, uno modo, pacifice; alio modo, hostiliter. Et quantum ad utrumque modum ordinandum, lex convenientia praecepta continebat. Tripliciter enim offerebatur Iudaeis occasio ut cum extraneis pacifice communicarent. Primo quidem, quando extranei per terram eorum transitum faciebant quasi peregrini. Alio modo, quando in terram eorum adveniebant ad inhabitandum sicut advenae. Et quantum ad utrumque, lex misericordiae praecepta proposuit, nam Exod. XXII dicitur, advenam non contristabis; et XXIII dicitur, peregrino molestus non eris. Tertio vero, quando aliqui extranei totaliter in eorum consortium et ritum admitti volebant. Et in his quidam ordo attendebatur. Non enim statim recipiebantur quasi cives, sicut etiam apud quosdam gentilium statutum erat ut non reputarentur cives nisi qui ex avo, vel abavo, cives existerent, ut philosophus dicit, in III Polit. Et hoc ideo quia, si statim extranei advenientes reciperentur ad tractandum ea quae sunt populi, possent multa pericula contingere; dum extranei, non habentes adhuc amorem firmatum ad bonum publicum, aliqua contra populum attentarent. Et ideo lex statuit ut de quibusdam gentibus habentibus aliquam affinitatem ad Iudaeos, scilicet de Aegyptiis, apud quos nati fuerant et nutriti, et de Idumaeis, filiis Esau fratris Iacob, in tertia generatione reciperentur in consortium populi; quidam vero, quia hostiliter se ad eos habuerant, sicut Ammonitae et Moabitae, nunquam in consortium populi admitterentur; Amalecitae autem, qui magis eis fuerant adversati, et cum eis nullum cognationis habebant consortium, quasi hostes perpetui haberentur; dicitur enim Exod. XVII, bellum Dei erit contra Amalec a generatione in generationem.   I answer that, Man's relations with foreigners are twofold: peaceful, and hostile: and in directing both kinds of relation the Law contained suitable precepts. For the Jews were offered three opportunities of peaceful relations with foreigners. First, when foreigners passed through their land as travelers. Secondly, when they came to dwell in their land as newcomers. And in both these respects the Law made kind provision in its precepts: for it is written (Ex. 22:21): "Thou shalt not molest a stranger [advenam]"; and again (Ex. 22:9): "Thou shalt not molest a stranger [peregrino]." Thirdly, when any foreigners wished to be admitted entirely to their fellowship and mode of worship. With regard to these a certain order was observed. For they were not at once admitted to citizenship: just as it was law with some nations that no one was deemed a citizen except after two or three generations, as the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 1). The reason for this was that if foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst, many dangers might occur, since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people. Hence it was that the Law prescribed in respect of certain nations that had close relations with the Jews (viz., the Egyptians among whom they were born and educated, and the Idumeans, the children of Esau, Jacob's brother), that they should be admitted to the fellowship of the people after the third generation; whereas others (with whom their relations had been hostile, such as the Ammonites and Moabites) were never to be admitted to citizenship; while the Amalekites, who were yet more hostile to them, and had no fellowship of kindred with them, were to be held as foes in perpetuity: for it is written (Ex. 17:16): "The war of the Lord shall be against Amalec from generation to generation."
Similiter etiam quantum ad hostilem communicationem cum extraneis, lex convenientia praecepta tradidit. Nam primo quidem, instituit ut bellum iuste iniretur, mandatur enim Deut. XX, quod quando accederent ad expugnandum civitatem, offerrent ei primum pacem. Secundo, instituit ut fortiter bellum susceptum exequerentur, habentes de Deo fiduciam. Et ad hoc melius observandum, instituit quod, imminente proelio, sacerdos eos confortaret, promittendo auxilium Dei. Tertio, mandavit ut impedimenta proelii removerentur, remittendo quosdam ad domum, qui possent impedimenta praestare. Quarto, instituit ut victoria moderate uterentur, parcendo mulieribus et parvulis, et etiam ligna fructifera regionis non incidendo.    In like manner with regard to hostile relations with foreigners, the Law contained suitable precepts. For, in the first place, it commanded that war should be declared for a just cause: thus it is commanded (Dt. 20:10) that when they advanced to besiege a city, they should at first make an offer of peace. Secondly, it enjoined that when once they had entered on a war they should undauntedly persevere in it, putting their trust in God. And in order that they might be the more heedful of this command, it ordered that on the approach of battle the priest should hearten them by promising them God's aid. Thirdly, it prescribed the removal of whatever might prove an obstacle to the fight, and that certain men, who might be in the way, should be sent home. Fourthly, it enjoined that they should use moderation in pursuing the advantage of victory, by sparing women and children, and by not cutting down fruit-trees of that country.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod homines nullius gentis exclusit lex a cultu Dei et ab his quae pertinent ad animae salutem, dicitur enim Exod. XII, si quis peregrinorum in vestram voluerit transire coloniam, et facere phase domini; circumcidetur prius omne masculinum eius, et tunc rite celebrabit, eritque simul sicut indigena terrae. Sed in temporalibus, quantum ad ea quae pertinebant ad communitatem populi, non statim quilibet admittebatur, ratione supra dicta, sed quidam in tertia generatione, scilicet Aegyptii et Idumaei; alii vero perpetuo excludebantur, in detestationem culpae praeteritae, sicut Moabitae et Ammonitae et Amalecitae. Sicut enim punitur unus homo propter peccatum quod commisit, ut alii videntes timeant et peccare desistant; ita etiam propter aliquod peccatum gens vel civitas potest puniri, ut alii a simili peccato abstineant.   Reply to Objection 1: The Law excluded the men of no nation from the worship of God and from things pertaining to the welfare of the soul: for it is written (Ex. 12:48): "If any stranger be willing to dwell among you, and to keep the Phase of the Lord; all his males shall first be circumcised, and then shall he celebrate it according to the manner, and he shall be as that which is born in the land." But in temporal matters concerning the public life of the people, admission was not granted to everyone at once, for the reason given above: but to some, i.e. the Egyptians and Idumeans, in the third generation; while others were excluded in perpetuity, in detestation of their past offense, i.e. the peoples of Moab, Ammon, and Amalec. For just as one man is punished for a sin committed by him, in order that others seeing this may be deterred and refrain from sinning; so too may one nation or city be punished for a crime, that others may refrain from similar crimes.
Poterat tamen dispensative aliquis in collegium populi admitti propter aliquem virtutis actum, sicut Iudith XIV dicitur quod Achior, dux filiorum Ammon, appositus est ad populum Israel, et omnis successio generis eius. Et similiter Ruth Moabitis, quae mulier virtutis erat. Licet possit dici quod illa prohibitio extendebatur ad viros, non ad mulieres, quibus non competit simpliciter esse cives.    Nevertheless it was possible by dispensation for a man to be admitted to citizenship on account of some act of virtue: thus it is related (Judith 14:6) that Achior, the captain of the children of Ammon, "was joined to the people of Israel, with all the succession of his kindred." The same applies to Ruth the Moabite who was "a virtuous woman" (Ruth 3:11): although it may be said that this prohibition regarded men and not women, who are not competent to be citizens absolutely speaking.
Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut philosophus dicit, in III Polit., dupliciter aliquis dicitur esse civis, uno modo, simpliciter; et alio modo, secundum quid. Simpliciter quidem civis est qui potest agere ea quae sunt civium, puta dare consilium vel iudicium in populo. Secundum quid autem civis dici potest quicumque civitatem inhabitat, etiam viles personae et pueri et senes, qui non sunt idonei ad hoc quod habeant potestatem in his quae pertinent ad commune. Ideo ergo spurii, propter vilitatem originis, excludebantur ab Ecclesia, idest a collegio populi, usque ad decimam generationem. Et similiter eunuchi, quibus non poterat competere honor qui patribus debebatur, et praecipue in populo Iudaeorum, in quo Dei cultus conservabatur per carnis generationem, nam etiam apud gentiles, qui multos filios genuerant, aliquo insigni honore donabantur, sicut philosophus dicit, in II Polit. Tamen quantum ad ea quae ad gratiam Dei pertinent, eunuchi ab aliis non separabantur, sicut nec advenae, ut dictum est, dicitur enim Isaiae LVI, non dicat filius advenae qui adhaeret domino, dicens, separatione dividet me dominus a populo suo. Et non dicat eunuchus, ecce ego lignum aridum.   Reply to Objection 2: As the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 3), a man is said to be a citizen in two ways: first, simply; secondly, in a restricted sense. A man is a citizen simply if he has all the rights of citizenship, for instance, the right of debating or voting in the popular assembly. On the other hand, any man may be called citizen, only in a restricted sense, if he dwells within the state, even common people or children or old men, who are not fit to enjoy power in matters pertaining to the common weal. For this reason bastards, by reason of their base origin, were excluded from the "ecclesia," i.e. from the popular assembly, down to the tenth generation. The same applies to eunuchs, who were not competent to receive the honor due to a father, especially among the Jews, where the divine worship was continued through carnal generation: for even among the heathens, those who had many children were marked with special honor, as the Philosopher remarks (Polit. ii, 6). Nevertheless, in matters pertaining to the grace of God, eunuchs were not discriminated from others, as neither were strangers, as already stated: for it is written (Iss 56:3): "Let not the son of the stranger that adhereth to the Lord speak, saying: The Lord will divide and separate me from His people. And let not the eunuch say: Behold I am a dry tree."
Ad tertium dicendum quod accipere usuras ab alienis non erat secundum intentionem legis, sed ex quadam permissione, propter pronitatem Iudaeorum ad avaritiam; et ut magis pacifice se haberent ad extraneos, a quibus lucrabantur.   Reply to Objection 3: It was not the intention of the Law to sanction the acceptance of usury from strangers, but only to tolerate it on account of the proneness of the Jews to avarice; and in order to promote an amicable feeling towards those out of whom they made a profit.
Ad quartum dicendum quod circa civitates hostium quaedam distinctio adhibebatur. Quaedam enim erant remotae, non de numero illarum urbium quae eis erant repromissae, et in talibus urbibus expugnatis occidebantur masculi, qui pugnaverant contra populum Dei; mulieribus autem et infantibus parcebatur. Sed in civitatibus vicinis, quae erant eis repromissae omnes mandabantur interfici, propter iniquitates eorum priores, ad quas puniendas dominus populum Israel quasi divinae iustitiae executorem mittebat, dicitur enim Deut. IX, quia illae egerunt impie, introeunte te deletae sunt. Ligna autem fructifera mandabantur reservari propter utilitatem ipsius populi, cuius ditioni civitas et eius territorium erat subiiciendum.   Reply to Objection 4: A distinction was observed with regard to hostile cities. For some of them were far distant, and were not among those which had been promised to them. When they had taken these cities, they killed all the men who had fought against God's people; whereas the women and children were spared. But in the neighboring cities which had been promised to them, all were ordered to be slain, on account of their former crimes, to punish which God sent the Israelites as executor of Divine justice: for it is written (Dt. 9:5) "because they have done wickedly, they are destroyed at thy coming in." The fruit-trees were commanded to be left untouched, for the use of the people themselves, to whom the city with its territory was destined to be subjected.
Ad quintum dicendum quod novus aedificator domus, aut plantator vineae, vel desponsator uxoris, excludebatur a proelio propter duo. Primo quidem, quia ea quae homo de novo habet, vel statim paratus est ad habendum, magis solet amare, et per consequens eorum amissionem timere. Unde probabile erat quod ex tali amore magis mortem timerent, et sic minus fortes essent ad pugnandum. Secundo quia, sicut philosophus dicit, in II Physic., infortunium videtur quando aliquis appropinquat ad aliquod bonum habendum, si postea impediatur ab illo. Et ideo ne propinqui remanentes magis contristarentur de morte talium, qui bonis sibi paratis potiti non fuerunt; et etiam populus, considerans hoc, horreret; huiusmodi homines a mortis periculo sunt sequestrati per subtractionem a proelio.   Reply to Objection 5: The builder of a new house, the planter of a vineyard, the newly married husband, were excluded from fighting, for two reasons. First, because man is wont to give all his affection to those things which he has lately acquired, or is on the point of having, and consequently he is apt to dread the loss of these above other things. Wherefore it was likely enough that on account of this affection they would fear death all the more, and be so much the less brave in battle. Secondly, because, as the Philosopher says (Phys. ii, 5), "it is a misfortune for a man if he is prevented from obtaining something good when it is within his grasp." And so lest the surviving relations should be the more grieved at the death of these men who had not entered into the possession of the good things prepared for them; and also lest the people should be horror-stricken at the sight of their misfortune: these men were taken away from the danger of death by being removed from the battle.
Ad sextum dicendum quod timidi remittebantur ad domum, non ut ipsi ex hoc commodum consequerentur; sed ne populus ex eorum praesentia incommodum consequeretur, dum per eorum timorem et fugam etiam alii ad timendum et fugiendum provocarentur.   Reply to Objection 6: The timid were sent back home, not that they might be the gainers thereby; but lest the people might be the losers by their presence, since their timidity and flight might cause others to be afraid and run away.

 

Index  [<< | >>]
First Part of the Second Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 105  [<< | >>]
Article: 4  [<< | >>]

Whether the Old Law set forth suitable precepts about the members of the household?

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter lex vetus praecepta ediderit circa personas domesticas. Servus enim id quod est, domini est, ut philosophus dicit, in I Polit. Sed id quod est alicuius, perpetuo eius esse debet. Ergo inconvenienter lex mandavit Exod. XXI, quod servi septimo anno liberi abscederent.   Objection 1: It would seem that the Old Law set forth unsuitable precepts about the members of the household. For a slave "is in every respect his master's property," as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 2). But that which is a man's property should be his always. Therefore it was unfitting for the Law to command (Ex. 21:2) that slaves should "go out free" in the seventh year.
Praeterea, sicut animal aliquod, ut asinus aut bos, est possessio domini, ita etiam servus. Sed de animalibus praecipitur Deut. XXII, quod restituantur dominis suis, si errare inveniantur. Inconvenienter ergo mandatur Deut. XXIII, non tradas servum domino suo, qui ad te confugerit.   Objection 2: Further, a slave is his master's property, just as an animal, e.g. an ass or an ox. But it is commanded (Dt. 22:1-3) with regard to animals, that they should be brought back to the owner if they be found going astray. Therefore it was unsuitably commanded (Dt. 23:15): "Thou shalt not deliver to his master the servant that is fled to thee."
Praeterea, lex divina debet magis ad misericordiam provocare quam etiam lex humana. Sed secundum leges humanas graviter puniuntur qui nimis aspere affligunt servos aut ancillas. Asperrima autem videtur esse afflictio ex qua sequitur mors. Inconvenienter igitur statuitur Exod. XXI, quod qui percusserit servum suum vel ancillam virga, si uno die supervixerit, non subiacebit poenae, quia pecunia illius est.   Objection 3: Further, the Divine Law should encourage mercy more even than the human law. But according to human laws those who ill-treat their servants and maidservants are severely punished: and the worse treatment of all seems to be that which results in death. Therefore it is unfittingly commanded (Ex. 21:20,21) that "he that striketh his bondman or bondwoman with a rod, and they die under his hands . . . if the party remain alive a day . . . he shall not be subject to the punishment, because it is his money."
Praeterea, alius est principatus domini ad servum, et patris ad filium, ut dicitur in I et III Polit. Sed hoc ad principatum domini ad servum pertinet, ut aliquis servum vel ancillam vendere possit. Inconvenienter igitur lex permisit quod aliquis venderet filiam suam in famulam vel ancillam.   Objection 4: Further, the dominion of a master over his slave differs from that of the father over his son (Polit. i, 3). But the dominion of master over slave gives the former the right to sell his servant or maidservant. Therefore it was unfitting for the Law to allow a man to sell his daughter to be a servant or handmaid (Ex. 21:7).
Praeterea, pater habet sui filii potestatem. Sed eius est punire excessus, qui habet potestatem super peccantem. Inconvenienter igitur mandatur Deut. XXI, quod pater ducat filium ad seniores civitatis puniendum.   Objection 5: Further, a father has power over his son. But he who has power over the sinner has the right to punish him for his offenses. Therefore it is unfittingly commanded (Dt. 21:18, seqq.) that a father should bring his son to the ancients of the city for punishment.
Praeterea, dominus prohibuit, Deut. VII, ut cum alienigenis non sociarent coniugia; et coniuncta etiam separarentur, ut patet I Esdrae X. Inconvenienter igitur Deut. XXI conceditur eis ut captivas alienigenarum ducere possint uxores.   Objection 6: Further, the Lord forbade them (Dt. 7:3, seqq.) to make marriages with strange nations; and commanded the dissolution of such as had been contracted (1 Esdras 10). Therefore it was unfitting to allow them to marry captive women from strange nations (Dt. 21:10, seqq.).
Praeterea, dominus in uxoribus ducendis quosdam consanguinitatis et affinitatis gradus praecepit esse vitandos, ut patet Lev. XVIII. Inconvenienter igitur mandatur Deut. XXV, quod si aliquis esset mortuus absque liberis, uxorem ipsius frater eius acciperet.   Objection 7: Further, the Lord forbade them to marry within certain degrees of consanguinity and affinity, according to Lev. 18. Therefore it was unsuitably commanded (Dt. 25:5) that if any man died without issue, his brother should marry his wife.
Praeterea, inter virum et uxorem, sicut est maxima familiaritas, ita debet esse firmissima fides. Sed hoc non potest esse, si matrimonium dissolubile fuerit. Inconvenienter igitur dominus permisit, Deut. XXIV, quod aliquis posset uxorem dimittere, scripto libello repudii; et quod etiam ulterius eam recuperare non posset.   Objection 8: Further, as there is the greatest familiarity between man and wife, so should there be the staunchest fidelity. But this is impossible if the marriage bond can be sundered. Therefore it was unfitting for the Lord to allow (Dt. 24:1-4) a man to put his wife away, by writing a bill of divorce; and besides, that he could not take her again to wife.
Praeterea, sicut uxor potest frangere fidem marito, ita etiam servus domino, et filius patri. Sed ad investigandam iniuriam servi in dominum, vel filii in patrem, non est institutum in lege aliquod sacrificium. Superflue igitur videtur institui sacrificium zelotypiae ad investigandum uxoris adulterium, Num. V. Sic igitur inconvenienter videntur esse tradita in lege praecepta iudicialia circa personas domesticas.   Objection 9: Further, just as a wife can be faithless to her husband, so can a slave be to his master, and a son to his father. But the Law did not command any sacrifice to be offered in order to investigate the injury done by a servant to his master, or by a son to his father. Therefore it seems to have been superfluous for the Law to prescribe the "sacrifice of jealousy" in order to investigate a wife's adultery (Num. 5:12, seqq.). Consequently it seems that the Law put forth unsuitable judicial precepts about the members of the household.
Sed contra est quod dicitur in Psalmo XVIII, iudicia domini vera, iustificata in semetipsa.   On the contrary, It is written (Ps. 18:10): "The judgments of the Lord are true, justified in themselves."
Respondeo dicendum quod communio domesticarum personarum ad invicem, ut philosophus dicit, in I Polit., est secundum quotidianos actus qui ordinantur ad necessitatem vitae. Vita autem hominis conservatur dupliciter. Uno modo, quantum ad individuum, prout scilicet homo idem numero vivit, et ad talem vitae conservationem opitulantur homini exteriora bona, ex quibus homo habet victum et vestitum et alia huiusmodi necessaria vitae; in quibus administrandis indiget homo servis. Alio modo conservatur vita hominis secundum speciem per generationem, ad quam indiget homo uxore, ut ex ea generet filium. Sic igitur in domestica communione sunt tres combinationes, scilicet domini ad servum, viri ad uxorem, patris ad filium. Et quantum ad omnia ista lex vetus convenientia praecepta tradidit. Nam quantum ad servos, instituit ut modeste tractarentur et quantum ad labores, ne scilicet immoderatis laboribus affligerentur, unde Deut. V, dominus mandavit ut in die sabbati requiesceret servus et ancilla tua sicut et tu, et iterum quantum ad poenas infligendas, imposuit enim poenam mutilatoribus servorum ut dimitterent eos liberos, sicut habetur Exod. XXI. Et simile etiam statuit in ancilla quam in uxorem aliquis duxerit. Statuit etiam specialiter circa servos qui erant ex populo, ut septimo anno liberi egrederentur cum omnibus quae apportaverant, etiam vestimentis, ut habetur Exod. XXI. Mandatur etiam insuper Deut. XV, ut ei detur viaticum.   I answer that, The mutual relations of the members of a household regard everyday actions directed to the necessities of life, as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 1). Now the preservation of man's life may be considered from two points of view. First, from the point of view of the individual, i.e. in so far as man preserves his individuality: and for the purpose of the preservation of life, considered from this standpoint, man has at his service external goods, by means of which he provides himself with food and clothing and other such necessaries of life: in the handling of which he has need of servants. Secondly man's life is preserved from the point of view of the species, by means of generation, for which purpose man needs a wife, that she may bear him children. Accordingly the mutual relations of the members of a household admit of a threefold combination: viz. those of master and servant, those of husband and wife, and those of father and son: and in respect of all these relationships the Old Law contained fitting precepts. Thus, with regard to servants, it commanded them to be treated with moderation—both as to their work, lest, to wit, they should be burdened with excessive labor, wherefore the Lord commanded (Dt. 5:14) that on the Sabbath day "thy manservant and thy maidservant" should "rest even as thyself"—and also as to the infliction of punishment, for it ordered those who maimed their servants, to set them free (Ex. 21:26,27). Similar provision was made in favor of a maidservant when married to anyone (Ex. 21:7, seqq.). Moreover, with regard to those servants in particular who were taken from among the people, the Law prescribed that they should go out free in the seventh year taking whatever they brought with them, even their clothes (Ex. 21:2, seqq.): and furthermore it was commanded (Dt. 15:13) that they should be given provision for the journey.
Circa uxores vero, statuitur in lege quantum ad uxores ducendas. Ut scilicet ducant uxores suae tribus, sicut habetur Num. ult., et hoc ideo, ne sortes tribuum confundantur. Et quod aliquis in uxorem ducat uxorem fratris defuncti sine liberis, ut habetur Deut. XXV, et hoc ideo, ut ille qui non potuit habere successores secundum carnis originem, saltem habeat per quandam adoptionem, et sic non totaliter memoria defuncti deleretur. Prohibuit etiam quasdam personas ne in coniugium ducerentur, scilicet alienigenas, propter periculum seductionis; et propinquas, propter reverentiam naturalem quae eis debetur. Statuit etiam qualiter uxores iam ductae tractari deberent. Ut scilicet non leviter infamarentur, unde mandatur puniri ille qui falso crimen imponit uxori, ut habetur Deut. XXII. Et quod etiam propter uxoris odium filius detrimentum non pateretur, ut habetur Deut. XXI. Et etiam quod, propter odium uxorem non affligeret, sed potius, scripto libello, eam dimitteret, ut patet Deut. XXIV. Et ut etiam maior dilectio inter coniuges a principio contrahatur, praecipitur quod, cum aliquis nuper uxorem acceperit, nihil ei publicae necessitatis iniungatur, ut libere possit laetari cum uxore sua.    With regard to wives the Law made certain prescriptions as to those who were to be taken in marriage: for instance, that they should marry a wife from their own tribe (Num. 36:6): and this lest confusion should ensue in the property of various tribes. Also that a man should marry the wife of his deceased brother when the latter died without issue, as prescribed in Dt. 25:5,6: and this in order that he who could not have successors according to carnal origin, might at least have them by a kind of adoption, and that thus the deceased might not be entirely forgotten. It also forbade them to marry certain women; to wit, women of strange nations, through fear of their losing their faith; and those of their near kindred, on account of the natural respect due to them. Furthermore it prescribed in what way wives were to be treated after marriage. To wit, that they should not be slandered without grave reason: wherefore it ordered punishment to be inflicted on the man who falsely accused his wife of a crime (Dt. 22:13, seqq.). Also that a man's hatred of his wife should not be detrimental to his son (Dt. 21:15, seqq.). Again, that a man should not ill-use his wife through hatred of her, but rather that he should write a bill of divorce and send her away (Dt. 24:1). Furthermore, in order to foster conjugal love from the very outset, it was prescribed that no public duties should be laid on a recently married man, so that he might be free to rejoice with his wife.
Circa filios autem, instituit ut patres eis disciplinam adhiberent, instruendo eos in fide, unde habetur Exod. XII, cum dixerint vobis filii vestri, quae est ista religio? Dicetis eis, victima transitus domini est. Et quod etiam instruerent eos in moribus, unde dicitur Deut. XXI, quod patres dicere debent, monita nostra audire contemnit, commessationibus vacat et luxuriae atque conviviis.    With regard to children, the Law commanded parents to educate them by instructing them in the faith: hence it is written (Ex. 12:26, seqq.): "When your children shall say to you: What is the meaning of this service? You shall say to them: It is the victim of the passage of the Lord." Moreover, they are commanded to teach them the rules of right conduct: wherefore it is written (Dt. 21:20) that the parents had to say: "He slighteth hearing our admonitions, he giveth himself to revelling and to debauchery."
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, quia filii Israel erant a domino de servitute liberati, et per hoc divinae servituti addicti, noluit dominus ut in perpetuum servi essent. Unde dicitur Lev. XXV, si paupertate compulsus vendiderit se tibi frater tuus, non eum opprimes servitute famulorum, sed quasi mercenarius et colonus erit. Mei enim sunt servi, et ego eduxi eos de terra Aegypti, non veneant conditione servorum. Et ideo, quia simpliciter servi non erant, sed secundum quid, finito tempore, dimittebantur liberi.   Reply to Objection 1: As the children of Israel had been delivered by the Lord from slavery, and for this reason were bound to the service of God, He did not wish them to be slaves in perpetuity. Hence it is written (Lev. 25:39, seqq.): "If thy brother, constrained by poverty, sell himself to thee, thou shalt not oppress him with the service of bondservants: but he shall be as a hireling and a sojourner . . . for they are My servants, and I brought them out of the land of Egypt: let them not be sold as bondmen": and consequently, since they were slaves, not absolutely but in a restricted sense, after a lapse of time they were set free.
Ad secundum dicendum quod mandatum illud intelligitur de servo qui a domino quaeritur ad occidendum, vel ad aliquod peccati ministerium.   Reply to Objection 2: This commandment is to be understood as referring to a servant whom his master seeks to kill, or to help him in committing some sin.
Ad tertium dicendum quod circa laesiones servis illatas, lex considerasse videtur utrum sit certa vel incerta. Si enim laesio certa esset, lex poenam adhibuit, pro mutilatione quidem, amissionem servi qui mandabatur libertati donandus; pro morte autem, homicidii poenam, cum servus in manu domini verberantis moreretur. Si vero laesio non esset certa, sed aliquam apparentiam haberet, lex nullam poenam infligebat in proprio servo, puta cum percussus servus non statim moriebatur, sed post aliquos dies. Incertum enim erat utrum ex percussione mortuus esset. Quia si percussisset liberum hominem, ita tamen quod statim non moreretur, sed super baculum suum ambularet, non erat homicidii reus qui percusserat, etiam si postea moreretur. Tenebatur tamen ad impensas solvendas quas percussus in medicos fecerat. Sed hoc in servo proprio locum non habebat, quia quidquid servus habebat, et etiam ipsa persona servi, erat quaedam possessio domini. Et ideo pro causa assignatur quare non subiaceat poenae pecuniariae, quia pecunia illius est.   Reply to Objection 3: With regard to the ill-treatment of servants, the Law seems to have taken into consideration whether it was certain or not: since if it were certain, the Law fixed a penalty: for maiming, the penalty was forfeiture of the servant, who was ordered to be given his liberty: while for slaying, the punishment was that of a murderer, when the slave died under the blow of his master. If, however, the hurt was not certain, but only probable, the Law did not impose any penalty as regards a man's own servant: for instance if the servant did not die at once after being struck, but after some days: for it would be uncertain whether he died as a result of the blows he received. For when a man struck a free man, yet so that he did not die at once, but "walked abroad again upon his staff," he that struck him was quit of murder, even though afterwards he died. Nevertheless he was bound to pay the doctor's fees incurred by the victim of his assault. But this was not the case if a man killed his own servant: because whatever the servant had, even his very person, was the property of his master. Hence the reason for his not being subject to a pecuniary penalty is set down as being "because it is his money."
Ad quartum dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, nullus Iudaeus poterat possidere Iudaeum quasi simpliciter servum; sed erat servus secundum quid, quasi mercenarius, usque ad tempus. Et per hunc modum permittebat lex quod, paupertate cogente, aliquis filium aut filiam venderet. Et hoc etiam verba ipsius legis ostendunt, dicit enim, si quis vendiderit filiam suam in famulam, non egredietur sicut ancillae exire consueverunt. Per hunc etiam modum non solum filium, sed etiam seipsum aliquis vendere poterat, magis quasi mercenarium quam quasi servum; secundum illud Levit. XXV, si paupertate compulsus vendiderit se tibi frater tuus, non eum opprimes servitute famulorum, sed quasi mercenarius et colonus erit.   Reply to Objection 4: As stated above (ad 1), no Jew could own a Jew as a slave absolutely: but only in a restricted sense, as a hireling for a fixed time. And in this way the Law permitted that through stress of poverty a man might sell his son or daughter. This is shown by the very words of the Law, where we read: "If any man sell his daughter to be a servant, she shall not go out as bondwomen are wont to go out." Moreover, in this way a man might sell not only his son, but even himself, rather as a hireling than as a slave, according to Lev. 25:39,40: "If thy brother, constrained by poverty, sell himself to thee, thou shalt not oppress him with the service of bondservants: but he shall be as a hireling and a sojourner."
Ad quintum dicendum quod, sicut philosophus dicit, in X Ethic., principatus paternus habet solam admonendi potestatem; non autem habet vim coactivam, per quam rebelles et contumaces comprimi possunt. Et ideo in hoc casu lex mandabat ut filius contumax a principibus civitatis puniretur.   Reply to Objection 5: As the Philosopher says (Ethic. x, 9), the paternal authority has the power only of admonition; but not that of coercion, whereby rebellious and headstrong persons can be compelled. Hence in this case the Lord commanded the stubborn son to be punished by the rulers of the city.
Ad sextum dicendum quod dominus alienigenas prohibuit in matrimonium duci propter periculum seductionis, ne inducerentur in idololatriam. Et specialiter hoc prohibuit de illis gentibus quae in vicino habitabant, de quibus erat magis probabile quod suos ritus retinerent. Si qua vero idololatriae cultum dimittere vellet, et ad legis cultum se transferre, poterat in matrimonium duci, sicut patet de Ruth, quam duxit Booz in uxorem. Unde ipsa dixerat socrui suae, populus tuus populus meus, Deus tuus Deus meus, ut habetur Ruth I. Et ideo captiva non aliter permittebatur in uxorem duci nisi prius rasa caesarie, et circumcisis unguibus, et deposita veste in qua capta est, et fleret patrem et matrem, per quae significatur idololatriae perpetua abiectio.   Reply to Objection 6: The Lord forbade them to marry strange women on account of the danger of seduction, lest they should be led astray into idolatry. And specially did this prohibition apply with respect to those nations who dwelt near them, because it was more probable that they would adopt their religious practices. When, however, the woman was willing to renounce idolatry, and become an adherent of the Law, it was lawful to take her in marriage: as was the case with Ruth whom Booz married. Wherefore she said to her mother-in-law (Ruth 1:16): "Thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God." Accordingly it was not permitted to marry a captive woman unless she first shaved her hair, and pared her nails, and put off the raiment wherein she was taken, and mourned for her father and mother, in token that she renounced idolatry for ever.
Ad septimum dicendum quod, sicut Chrysostomus dicit, super Matth., quia immitigabile malum mors erat apud Iudaeos, qui omnia pro praesenti vita faciebant, statutum fuit ut defuncto filius nasceretur ex fratre, quod erat quaedam mortis mitigatio. Non autem alius quam frater vel propinquus iubebatur accipere uxorem defuncti, quia non ita crederetur (qui ex tali coniunctione erat nasciturus) esse filius eius qui obiit; et iterum extraneus non ita haberet necessitatem statuere domum eius qui obierat, sicut frater, cui etiam ex cognatione hoc facere iustum erat. Ex quo patet quod frater in accipiendo uxorem fratris sui, persona fratris defuncti fungebatur.   Reply to Objection 7: As Chrysostom says (Hom. xlviii super Matth.), "because death was an unmitigated evil for the Jews, who did everything with a view to the present life, it was ordained that children should be born to the dead man through his brother: thus affording a certain mitigation to his death. It was not, however, ordained that any other than his brother or one next of kin should marry the wife of the deceased, because" the offspring of this union "would not be looked upon as that of the deceased: and moreover, a stranger would not be under the obligation to support the household of the deceased, as his brother would be bound to do from motives of justice on account of his relationship." Hence it is evident that in marrying the wife of his dead brother, he took his dead brother's place.
Ad octavum dicendum quod lex permisit repudium uxoris, non quia simpliciter iustum esset, sed propter duritiam Iudaeorum; ut dominus dicit, Matth. XIX. Sed de hoc oportet plenius tractari cum de matrimonio agetur.   Reply to Objection 8: The Law permitted a wife to be divorced, not as though it were just absolutely speaking, but on account of the Jews' hardness of heart, as Our Lord declared (Mt. 19:8). Of this, however, we must speak more fully in the treatise on Matrimony (SP, Question [67]).
Ad nonum dicendum quod uxores fidem matrimonii frangunt per adulterium et de facili, propter delectationem; et latenter, quia oculus adulteri observat caliginem, ut dicitur Iob XXIV. Non autem est similis ratio de filio ad patrem, vel de servo ad dominum, quia talis infidelitas non procedit ex concupiscentia delectationis, sed magis ex malitia; nec potest ita latere sicut infidelitas mulieris adulterae.   Reply to Objection 9: Wives break their conjugal faith by adultery, both easily, for motives of pleasure, and hiddenly, since "the eye of the adulterer observeth darkness" (Job 24:15). But this does not apply to a son in respect of his father, or to a servant in respect of his master: because the latter infidelity is not the result of the lust of pleasure, but rather of malice: nor can it remain hidden like the infidelity of an adulterous woman.

This document converted to HTML on Fri Jan 02 19:10:20 1998.