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: 106  [<< | >>]

OF THE LAW OF THE GOSPEL, CALLED THE NEW LAW, CONSIDERED IN ITSELF (FOUR ARTICLES)

Consequenter considerandum est de lege Evangelii, quod dicitur lex nova.
  • Et primo, de ipsa secundum se;
  • secundo, de ipsa per comparationem ad legem veterem;
  • tertio, de his quae in lege nova continentur.
   In proper sequence we have to consider now the Law of the Gospel which is called the New Law:
  • and in the first place we must consider it in itself;
  • secondly, in comparison with the Old Law;
  • thirdly, we shall treat of those things that are contained in the New Law.
Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor. Under the first head there are four points of inquiry:
Primo, qualis sit, utrum scilicet scripta vel indita.     (1) What kind of law is it? i.e. Is it a written law or is it instilled in the heart?
Secundo, de virtute eius, utrum iustificet.     (2) Of its efficacy, i.e. does it justify?
Tertio, de principio eius, utrum debuerit dari a principio mundi.     (3) Of its beginning: should it have been given at the beginning of the world?
Quarto, de termino eius utrum scilicet sit duratura usque ad finem, an debeat ei alia lex succedere.     (4) Of its end: i.e. whether it will last until the end, or will another law take its place?

 

Index  [<< | >>]
First Part of the Second Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 106  [<< | >>]
Article: 1  [<< | >>]

Whether the New Law is a written law?

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex nova sit lex scripta. Lex enim nova est ipsum Evangelium. Sed Evangelium est descriptum, Ioan. XX, haec autem scripta sunt ut credatis. Ergo lex nova est lex scripta.   Objection 1: It would seem that the New Law is a written law. For the New Law is just the same as the Gospel. But the Gospel is set forth in writing, according to Jn. 20:31: "But these are written that you may believe." Therefore the New Law is a written law.
Praeterea, lex indita est lex naturae; secundum illud Rom. II, naturaliter ea quae legis sunt faciunt, qui habent opus legis scriptum in cordibus suis. Si igitur lex Evangelii esset lex indita, non differret a lege naturae.   Objection 2: Further, the law that is instilled in the heart is the natural law, according to Rm. 2:14,15: "(The Gentiles) do by nature those things that are of the law . . . who have [Vulg.: 'show'] the work of the law written in their hearts." If therefore the law of the Gospel were instilled in our hearts, it would not be distinct from the law of nature.
Praeterea, lex Evangelii propria est eorum qui sunt in statu novi testamenti. Sed lex indita communis est et eis qui sunt in novo testamento, et eis qui sunt in veteri testamento, dicitur enim Sap. VII, quod divina sapientia per nationes in animas sanctas se transfert, amicos Dei et prophetas constituit. Ergo lex nova non est lex indita.   Objection 3: Further, the law of the Gospel is proper to those who are in the state of the New Testament. But the law that is instilled in the heart is common to those who are in the New Testament and to those who are in the Old Testament: for it is written (Wis. 7:27) that Divine Wisdom "through nations conveyeth herself into holy souls, she maketh the friends of God and prophets." Therefore the New Law is not instilled in our hearts.
Sed contra est quod lex nova est lex novi testamenti. Sed lex novi testamenti est indita in corde. Apostolus enim, ad Heb. VIII, dicit, inducens auctoritatem quae habetur Ierem. XXXI, ecce dies venient, dicit dominus, et consummabo super domum Israel et super domum Iuda testamentum novum, et exponens quid sit hoc testamentum, dicit, quia hoc est testamentum quod disponam domui Israel, dando leges meas in mentem eorum, et in corde eorum superscribam eas. Ergo lex nova est lex indita.   On the contrary, The New Law is the law of the New Testament. But the law of the New Testament is instilled in our hearts. For the Apostle, quoting the authority of Jeremias 31:31,33: "Behold the days shall come, saith the Lord; and I will perfect unto the house of Israel, and unto the house of Judah, a new testament," says, explaining what this statement is (Heb. 8:8,10): "For this is the testament which I will make to the house of Israel . . . by giving [Vulg.: 'I will give'] My laws into their mind, and in their heart will I write them." Therefore the New Law is instilled in our hearts.
Respondeo dicendum quod unaquaeque res illud videtur esse quod in ea est potissimum, ut philosophus dicit, in IX Ethic. Id autem quod est potissimum in lege novi testamenti, et in quo tota virtus eius consistit, est gratia spiritus sancti, quae datur per fidem Christi. Et ideo principaliter lex nova est ipsa gratia spiritus sancti, quae datur Christi fidelibus. Et hoc manifeste apparet per apostolum, qui, ad Rom. III, dicit, ubi est ergo gloriatio tua? Exclusa est. Per quam legem? Factorum? Non, sed per legem fidei, ipsam enim fidei gratiam legem appellat. Et expressius ad Rom. VIII dicitur, lex spiritus vitae in Christo Iesu liberavit me a lege peccati et mortis. Unde et Augustinus dicit, in libro de spiritu et littera, quod sicut lex factorum scripta fuit in tabulis lapideis, ita lex fidei scripta est in cordibus fidelium. Et alibi dicit in eodem libro, quae sunt leges Dei ab ipso Deo scriptae in cordibus, nisi ipsa praesentia spiritus sancti?   I answer that, "Each thing appears to be that which preponderates in it," as the Philosopher states (Ethic. ix, 8). Now that which is preponderant in the law of the New Testament, and whereon all its efficacy is based, is the grace of the Holy Ghost, which is given through faith in Christ. Consequently the New Law is chiefly the grace itself of the Holy Ghost, which is given to those who believe in Christ. This is manifestly stated by the Apostle who says (Rm. 3:27): "Where is . . . thy boasting? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith": for he calls the grace itself of faith "a law." And still more clearly it is written (Rm. 8:2): "The law of the spirit of life, in Christ Jesus, hath delivered me from the law of sin and of death." Hence Augustine says (De Spir. et Lit. xxiv) that "as the law of deeds was written on tables of stone, so is the law of faith inscribed on the hearts of the faithful": and elsewhere, in the same book (xxi): "What else are the Divine laws written by God Himself on our hearts, but the very presence of His Holy Spirit?"
Habet tamen lex nova quaedam sicut dispositiva ad gratiam spiritus sancti, et ad usum huius gratiae pertinentia, quae sunt quasi secundaria in lege nova, de quibus oportuit instrui fideles Christi et verbis et scriptis, tam circa credenda quam circa agenda. Et ideo dicendum est quod principaliter nova lex est lex indita, secundario autem est lex scripta.    Nevertheless the New Law contains certain things that dispose us to receive the grace of the Holy Ghost, and pertaining to the use of that grace: such things are of secondary importance, so to speak, in the New Law; and the faithful need to be instructed concerning them, both by word and writing, both as to what they should believe and as to what they should do. Consequently we must say that the New Law is in the first place a law that is inscribed on our hearts, but that secondarily it is a written law.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in Scriptura Evangelii non continentur nisi ea quae pertinent ad gratiam spiritus sancti vel sicut dispositiva, vel sicut ordinativa ad usum huius gratiae. Sicut dispositiva quidem quantum ad intellectum per fidem, per quam datur spiritus sancti gratia, continentur in Evangelio ea quae pertinent ad manifestandam divinitatem vel humanitatem Christi. Secundum affectum vero, continentur in Evangelio ea quae pertinent ad contemptum mundi, per quem homo fit capax gratiae spiritus sancti, mundus enim, idest amatores mundi, non potest capere spiritum sanctum, ut habetur Ioan. XIV. Usus vero spiritualis gratiae est in operibus virtutum, ad quae multipliciter Scriptura novi testamenti homines exhortatur.   Reply to Objection 1: The Gospel writings contain only such things as pertain to the grace of the Holy Ghost, either by disposing us thereto, or by directing us to the use thereof. Thus with regard to the intellect, the Gospel contains certain matters pertaining to the manifestation of Christ's Godhead or humanity, which dispose us by means of faith through which we receive the grace of the Holy Ghost: and with regard to the affections, it contains matters touching the contempt of the world, whereby man is rendered fit to receive the grace of the Holy Ghost: for "the world," i.e. worldly men, "cannot receive" the Holy Ghost (Jn. 14:17). As to the use of spiritual grace, this consists in works of virtue to which the writings of the New Testament exhort men in divers ways.
Ad secundum dicendum quod dupliciter est aliquid inditum homini. Uno modo, pertinens ad naturam humanam, et sic lex naturalis est lex indita homini. Alio modo est aliquid inditum homini quasi naturae superadditum per gratiae donum. Et hoc modo lex nova est indita homini, non solum indicans quid sit faciendum, sed etiam adiuvans ad implendum.   Reply to Objection 2: There are two ways in which a thing may be instilled into man. First, through being part of his nature, and thus the natural law is instilled into man. Secondly, a thing is instilled into man by being, as it were, added on to his nature by a gift of grace. In this way the New Law is instilled into man, not only by indicating to him what he should do, but also by helping him to accomplish it.
Ad tertium dicendum quod nullus unquam habuit gratiam spiritus sancti nisi per fidem Christi explicitam vel implicitam. Per fidem autem Christi pertinet homo ad novum testamentum. Unde quibuscumque fuit lex gratiae indita, secundum hoc ad novum testamentum pertinebant.   Reply to Objection 3: No man ever had the grace of the Holy Ghost except through faith in Christ either explicit or implicit: and by faith in Christ man belongs to the New Testament. Consequently whoever had the law of grace instilled into them belonged to the New Testament.

 

Index  [<< | >>]
First Part of the Second Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 106  [<< | >>]
Article: 2  [<< | >>]

Whether the New Law justifies?

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex nova non iustificet. Nullus enim iustificatur nisi legi Dei obediat; secundum illud ad Heb. V, factus est, scilicet Christus, omnibus obtemperantibus sibi causa salutis aeternae. Sed Evangelium non semper hoc operatur quod homines ei obediant, dicitur enim Rom. X, non omnes obediunt Evangelio. Ergo lex nova non iustificat.   Objection 1: It would seem that the New Law does not justify. For no man is justified unless he obeys God's law, according to Heb. 5:9: "He," i.e. Christ, "became to all that obey Him the cause of eternal salvation." But the Gospel does not always cause men to believe in it: for it is written (Rm. 10:16): "All do not obey the Gospel." Therefore the New Law does not justify.
Praeterea, apostolus probat, ad Rom., quod lex vetus non iustificabat, quia ea adveniente praevaricatio crevit, habetur enim ad Rom. IV, lex iram operatur, ubi enim non est lex, nec praevaricatio. Sed multo magis lex nova praevaricationem addidit, maiori enim poena est dignus qui post legem novam datam adhuc peccat; secundum illud Heb. X, irritam quis faciens legem Moysi, sine ulla miseratione, duobus vel tribus testibus, moritur. Quanto magis putatis deteriora mereri supplicia, qui filium Dei conculcaverit, et cetera? Ergo lex nova non iustificat, sicut nec vetus.   Objection 2: Further, the Apostle proves in his epistle to the Romans that the Old Law did not justify, because transgression increased at its advent: for it is stated (Rm. 4:15): "The Law worketh wrath: for where there is no law, neither is there transgression." But much more did the New Law increase transgression: since he who sins after the giving of the New Law deserves greater punishment, according to Heb. 10:28,29: "A man making void the Law of Moses dieth without any mercy under two or three witnesses. How much more, do you think, he deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden underfoot the Son of God," etc.? Therefore the New Law, like the Old Law, does not justify.
Praeterea, iustificare est proprius effectus Dei; secundum illud ad Rom. VIII, Deus qui iustificat. Sed lex vetus fuit a Deo, sicut et lex nova. Ergo lex nova non magis iustificat quam lex vetus.   Objection 3: Further, justification is an effect proper to God, according to Rm. 8:33: "God that justifieth." But the Old Law was from God just as the New Law. Therefore the New Law does not justify any more than the Old Law.
Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, ad Rom. I, non erubesco Evangelium, virtus enim Dei est in salutem omni credenti. Non autem est salus nisi iustificatis. Ergo lex Evangelii iustificat.   On the contrary, The Apostle says (Rm. 1:16): "I am not ashamed of the Gospel: for it is in the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth." But there is no salvation but to those who are justified. Therefore the Law of the Gospel justifies.
Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, ad legem Evangelii duo pertinent. Unum quidem principaliter, scilicet ipsa gratia spiritus sancti interius data. Et quantum ad hoc, nova lex iustificat. Unde Augustinus dicit, in libro de spiritu et littera, ibi, scilicet in veteri testamento, lex extrinsecus posita est, qua iniusti terrerentur, hic, scilicet in novo testamento, intrinsecus data est, qua iustificarentur. Aliud pertinet ad legem Evangelii secundario, scilicet documenta fidei, et praecepta ordinantia affectum humanum et humanos actus. Et quantum ad hoc, lex nova non iustificat. Unde apostolus dicit, II ad Cor. III, littera occidit, spiritus autem vivificat. Et Augustinus exponit, in libro de spiritu et littera, quod per litteram intelligitur quaelibet Scriptura extra homines existens, etiam moralium praeceptorum qualia continentur in Evangelio. Unde etiam littera Evangelii occideret, nisi adesset interius gratia fidei sanans.   I answer that, As stated above (Article [1]), there is a twofold element in the Law of the Gospel. There is the chief element, viz. the grace of the Holy Ghost bestowed inwardly. And as to this, the New Law justifies. Hence Augustine says (De Spir. et Lit. xvii): "There," i.e. in the Old Testament, "the Law was set forth in an outward fashion, that the ungodly might be afraid"; "here," i.e. in the New Testament, "it is given in an inward manner, that they may be justified." The other element of the Evangelical Law is secondary: namely, the teachings of faith, and those commandments which direct human affections and human actions. And as to this, the New Law does not justify. Hence the Apostle says (2 Cor. 3:6) "The letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth": and Augustine explains this (De Spir. et Lit. xiv, xvii) by saying that the letter denotes any writing external to man, even that of the moral precepts such as are contained in the Gospel. Wherefore the letter, even of the Gospel would kill, unless there were the inward presence of the healing grace of faith.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illa obiectio procedit de lege nova non quantum ad id quod est principale in ipsa, sed quantum ad id quod est secundarium in ipsa, scilicet quantum ad documenta et praecepta exterius homini proposita vel verbo vel scripto.   Reply to Objection 1: This argument holds true of the New Law, not as to its principal, but as to its secondary element: i.e. as to the dogmas and precepts outwardly put before man either in words or in writing.
Ad secundum dicendum quod gratia novi testamenti, etsi adiuvet hominem ad non peccandum, non tamen ita confirmat in bono ut homo peccare non possit, hoc enim pertinet ad statum gloriae. Et ideo si quis post acceptam gratiam novi testamenti peccaverit, maiori poena est dignus, tanquam maioribus beneficiis ingratus, et auxilio sibi dato non utens. Nec tamen propter hoc dicitur quod lex nova iram operatur, quia quantum est de se, sufficiens auxilium dat ad non peccandum.   Reply to Objection 2: Although the grace of the New Testament helps man to avoid sin, yet it does not so confirm man in good that he cannot sin: for this belongs to the state of glory. Hence if a man sin after receiving the grace of the New Testament, he deserves greater punishment, as being ungrateful for greater benefits, and as not using the help given to him. And this is why the New Law is not said to "work wrath": because as far as it is concerned it gives man sufficient help to avoid sin.
Ad tertium dicendum quod legem novam et veterem unus Deus dedit, sed aliter et aliter. Nam legem veterem dedit scriptam in tabulis lapideis, legem autem novam dedit scriptam in tabulis cordis carnalibus, ut apostolus dicit, II ad Cor. III. Proinde sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro de spiritu et littera, litteram istam extra hominem scriptam, et ministrationem mortis et ministrationem damnationis apostolus appellat. Hanc autem, scilicet novi testamenti legem, ministrationem spiritus et ministrationem iustitiae dicit, quia per donum spiritus operamur iustitiam, et a praevaricationis damnatione liberamur.   Reply to Objection 3: The same God gave both the New and the Old Law, but in different ways. For He gave the Old Law written on tables of stone: whereas He gave the New Law written "in the fleshly tables of the heart," as the Apostle expresses it (2 Cor. 3:3). Wherefore, as Augustine says (De Spir. et Lit. xviii), "the Apostle calls this letter which is written outside man, a ministration of death and a ministration of condemnation: whereas he calls the other letter, i.e. the Law of the New Testament, the ministration of the spirit and the ministration of justice: because through the gift of the Spirit we work justice, and are delivered from the condemnation due to transgression."

 

Index  [<< | >>]
First Part of the Second Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 106  [<< | >>]
Article: 3  [<< | >>]

Whether the New Law should have been given from the beginning of the world?

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex nova debuerit dari a principio mundi. Non enim est personarum acceptio apud Deum, ut dicitur ad Rom. II. Sed omnes homines peccaverunt, et egent gloria Dei, ut dicitur ad Rom. III. Ergo a principio mundi lex Evangelii dari debuit, ut omnibus per eam subveniretur.   Objection 1: It would seem that the New Law should have been given from the beginning of the world. "For there is no respect of persons with God" (Rm. 2:11). But "all" men "have sinned and do need the glory of God" (Rm. 3:23). Therefore the Law of the Gospel should have been given from the beginning of the world, in order that it might bring succor to all.
Praeterea, sicut in diversis locis sunt diversi homines, ita etiam in diversis temporibus. Sed Deus, qui vult omnes homines salvos fieri, ut dicitur I ad Tim. II, mandavit Evangelium praedicari in omnibus locis; ut patet Matth. ult., et Marc. ult. Ergo omnibus temporibus debuit adesse lex Evangelii, ita quod a principio mundi daretur.   Objection 2: Further, as men dwell in various places, so do they live in various times. But God, "Who will have all men to be saved" (1 Tim. 2:4), commanded the Gospel to be preached in all places, as may be seen in the last chapters of Matthew and Mark. Therefore the Law of the Gospel should have been at hand for all times, so as to be given from the beginning of the world.
Praeterea, magis est necessaria homini salus spiritualis, quae est aeterna, quam salus corporalis, quae est temporalis. Sed Deus ab initio mundi providit homini ea quae sunt necessaria ad salutem corporalem, tradens eius potestati omnia quae erant propter hominem creata, ut patet Gen. I. Ergo etiam lex nova, quae maxime est necessaria ad salutem spiritualem, debuit hominibus a principio mundi dari.   Objection 3: Further, man needs to save his soul, which is for all eternity, more than to save his body, which is a temporal matter. But God provided man from the beginning of the world with things that are necessary for the health of his body, by subjecting to his power whatever was created for the sake of man (Gn. 1:26-29). Therefore the New Law also, which is very necessary for the health of the soul, should have been given to man from the beginning of the world.
Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, I ad Cor. XV, non prius quod spirituale est, sed quod animale. Sed lex nova est maxime spiritualis. Ergo lex nova non debuit dari a principio mundi.   On the contrary, The Apostle says (1 Cor. 15:46): "That was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural." But the New Law is highly spiritual. Therefore it was not fitting for it to be given from the beginning of the world.
Respondeo dicendum quod triplex ratio potest assignari quare lex nova non debuit dari a principio mundi. Quarum prima est quia lex nova, sicut dictum est, principaliter est gratia spiritus sancti; quae abundanter dari non debuit antequam impedimentum peccati ab humano genere tolleretur, consummata redemptione per Christum; unde dicitur Ioan. VII, nondum erat spiritus datus, quia Iesus nondum erat glorificatus. Et hanc rationem manifeste assignat apostolus ad Rom. VIII, ubi, postquam praemiserat de lege spiritus vitae, subiungit, Deus, filium suum mittens in similitudinem carnis peccati, de peccato damnavit peccatum in carne, ut iustificatio legis impleretur in nobis.   I answer that, Three reasons may be assigned why it was not fitting for the New Law to be given from the beginning of the world. The first is because the New Law, as stated above (Article [1]), consists chiefly in the grace of the Holy Ghost: which it behoved not to be given abundantly until sin, which is an obstacle to grace, had been cast out of man through the accomplishment of his redemption by Christ: wherefore it is written (Jn. 7:39): "As yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified." This reason the Apostle states clearly (Rm. 8:2, seqq.) where, after speaking of "the Law of the Spirit of life," he adds: "God sending His own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh, of sin* hath condemned sin in the flesh, that the justification of the Law might be fulfilled in us." [*St. Thomas, quoting perhaps from memory, omits the "et" (and), after "sinful flesh." The text quoted should read thus: "in the likeness of sinful flesh, and a sin offering ({peri hamartias}), hath," etc.]
Secunda ratio potest assignari ex perfectione legis novae. Non enim aliquid ad perfectum adducitur statim a principio, sed quodam temporali successionis ordine, sicut aliquis prius fit puer, et postmodum vir. Et hanc rationem assignat apostolus ad Gal. III, lex paedagogus noster fuit in Christo, ut ex fide iustificemur. At ubi venit fides, iam non sumus sub paedagogo.    A second reason may be taken from the perfection of the New Law. Because a thing is not brought to perfection at once from the outset, but through an orderly succession of time; thus one is at first a boy, and then a man. And this reason is stated by the Apostle (Gal. 3:24,25): "The Law was our pedagogue in Christ that we might be justified by faith. But after the faith is come, we are no longer under a pedagogue."
Tertia ratio sumitur ex hoc quod lex nova est lex gratiae, et ideo primo oportuit quod homo relinqueretur sibi in statu veteris legis, ut, in peccatum cadendo, suam infirmitatem cognoscens, recognosceret se gratia indigere. Et hanc rationem assignat apostolus ad Rom. V, dicens, lex subintravit ut abundaret delictum, ubi autem abundavit delictum, superabundavit et gratia.    The third reason is found in the fact that the New Law is the law of grace: wherefore it behoved man first of all to be left to himself under the state of the Old Law, so that through falling into sin, he might realize his weakness, and acknowledge his need of grace. This reason is set down by the Apostle (Rm. 5:20): "The Law entered in, that sin might abound: and when sin abounded grace did more abound."
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod humanum genus propter peccatum primi parentis meruit privari auxilio gratiae. Et ideo quibuscumque non datur, hoc est ex iustitia, quibuscumque autem datur, hoc est ex gratia, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro de Perfect. Iustit. Unde non est acceptio personarum apud Deum ex hoc quod non omnibus a principio mundi legem gratiae proposuit, quae erat debito ordine proponenda, ut dictum est.   Reply to Objection 1: Mankind on account of the sin of our first parents deserved to be deprived of the aid of grace: and so "from whom it is withheld it is justly withheld, and to whom it is given, it is mercifully given," as Augustine states (De Perfect. Justit. iv) [*Cf. Ep. ccvii; De Pecc. Mer. et Rem. ii, 19]. Consequently it does not follow that there is respect of persons with God, from the fact that He did not offer the Law of grace to all from the beginning of the world, which Law was to be published in due course of time, as stated above.
Ad secundum dicendum quod diversitas locorum non variat diversum statum humani generis, qui variatur per temporis successionem. Et ideo omnibus locis proponitur lex nova, non autem omnibus temporibus, licet omni tempore fuerint aliqui ad novum testamentum pertinentes, ut supra dictum est.   Reply to Objection 2: The state of mankind does not vary according to diversity of place, but according to succession of time. Hence the New Law avails for all places, but not for all times: although at all times there have been some persons belonging to the New Testament, as stated above (Article [1], ad 3).
Ad tertium dicendum quod ea quae pertinent ad salutem corporalem, deserviunt homini quantum ad naturam, quae non tollitur per peccatum. Sed ea quae pertinent ad spiritualem salutem, ordinantur ad gratiam, quae amittitur per peccatum. Et ideo non est similis ratio de utrisque.   Reply to Objection 3: Things pertaining to the health of the body are of service to man as regards his nature, which sin does not destroy: whereas things pertaining to the health of the soul are ordained to grace, which is forfeit through sin. Consequently the comparison will not hold.

 

Index  [<< | >>]
First Part of the Second Part  [<< | >>]
Question: 106  [<< | >>]
Article: 4  [<< | >>]

Whether the New Law will last till the end of the world?

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex nova non sit duratura usque ad finem mundi. Quia ut apostolus dicit, I ad Cor. XIII, cum venerit quod perfectum est, evacuabitur quod ex parte est. Sed lex nova ex parte est, dicit enim apostolus ibidem, ex parte cognoscimus, et ex parte prophetamus. Ergo lex nova evacuanda est, alio perfectiori statu succedente.   Objection 1: It would seem that the New Law will not last until the end of the world. Because, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. 13:10), "when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away." But the New Law is "in part," since the Apostle says (1 Cor. 13:9): "We know in part and we prophesy in part." Therefore the New Law is to be done away, and will be succeeded by a more perfect state.
Praeterea, dominus, Ioan. XVI, promisit discipulis suis in adventu spiritus sancti Paracleti cognitionem omnis veritatis. Sed nondum Ecclesia omnem veritatem cognoscit, in statu novi testamenti. Ergo expectandus est alius status, in quo per spiritum sanctum omnis veritas manifestetur.   Objection 2: Further, Our Lord (Jn. 16:13) promised His disciples the knowledge of all truth when the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, should come. But the Church knows not yet all truth in the state of the New Testament. Therefore we must look forward to another state, wherein all truth will be revealed by the Holy Ghost.
Praeterea, sicut pater est alius a filio et filius a patre, ita spiritus sanctus a patre et filio. Sed fuit quidam status conveniens personae patris, scilicet status veteris legis, in quo homines generationi intendebant. Similiter etiam est alius status conveniens personae filii, scilicet status novae legis, in quo clerici, intendentes sapientiae, quae appropriatur filio, principantur. Ergo erit status tertius spiritus sancti, in quo spirituales viri principabuntur.   Objection 3: Further, just as the Father is distinct from the Son and the Son from the Father, so is the Holy Ghost distinct from the Father and the Son. But there was a state corresponding with the Person of the Father, viz. the state of the Old Law, wherein men were intent on begetting children: and likewise there is a state corresponding to the Person of the Son: viz. the state of the New Law, wherein the clergy who are intent on wisdom (which is appropriated to the Son) hold a prominent place. Therefore there will be a third state corresponding to the Holy Ghost, wherein spiritual men will hold the first place.
Praeterea, dominus dicit, Matth. XXIV, praedicabitur hoc Evangelium regni in universo orbe, et tunc veniet consummatio. Sed Evangelium Christi iamdiu est praedicatum in universo orbe; nec tamen adhuc venit consummatio. Ergo Evangelium Christi non est Evangelium regni, sed futurum est aliud Evangelium spiritus sancti, quasi alia lex.   Objection 4: Further, Our Lord said (Mt. 24:14): "This Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world . . . and then shall the consummation come." But the Gospel of Christ is already preached throughout the whole world: and yet the consummation has not yet come. Therefore the Gospel of Christ is not the Gospel of the kingdom, but another Gospel, that of the Holy Ghost, is to come yet, like unto another Law.
Sed contra est quod dominus dicit, Matth. XXIV, dico vobis quia non praeteribit generatio haec donec omnia fiant, quod Chrysostomus exponit de generatione fidelium Christi. Ergo status fidelium Christi manebit usque ad consummationem saeculi.   On the contrary, Our Lord said (Mt. 24:34): "I say to you that this generation shall not pass till all (these) things be done": which passage Chrysostom (Hom. lxxvii) explains as referring to "the generation of those that believe in Christ." Therefore the state of those who believe in Christ will last until the consummation of the world.
Respondeo dicendum quod status mundi variari potest dupliciter. Uno modo, secundum diversitatem legis. Et sic huic statui novae legis nullus alius status succedet. Successit enim status novae legis statui veteris legis tanquam perfectior imperfectiori. Nullus autem status praesentis vitae potest esse perfectior quam status novae legis. Nihil enim potest esse propinquius fini ultimo quam quod immediate in finem ultimum introducit. Hoc autem facit nova lex, unde apostolus dicit, ad Heb. X, habentes itaque, fratres, fiduciam in introitu sanctorum in sanguine Christi, quam initiavit nobis viam novam, accedamus ad eum. Unde non potest esse aliquis perfectior status praesentis vitae quam status novae legis, quia tanto est unumquodque perfectius, quanto ultimo fini propinquius.   I answer that, The state of the world may change in two ways. In one way, according to a change of law: and thus no other state will succeed this state of the New Law. Because the state of the New Law succeeded the state of the Old Law, as a more perfect law a less perfect one. Now no state of the present life can be more perfect that the state of the New Law: since nothing can approach nearer to the last end than that which is the immediate cause of our being brought to the last end. But the New Law does this: wherefore the Apostle says (Heb. 10:19-22): "Having therefore, brethren, a confidence in the entering into the Holies by the blood of Christ, a new . . . way which He hath dedicated for us . . . let us draw near." Therefore no state of the present life can be more perfect than that of the New Law, since the nearer a thing is to the last end the more perfect it is.
Alio modo status hominum variari potest secundum quod homines diversimode se habent ad eandem legem, vel perfectius vel minus perfecte. Et sic status veteris legis frequenter fuit mutatus, cum quandoque leges optime custodirentur, quandoque omnino praetermitterentur. Sic etiam status novae legis diversificatur, secundum diversa loca et tempora et personas, inquantum gratia spiritus sancti perfectius vel minus perfecte ab aliquibus habetur. Non est tamen expectandum quod sit aliquis status futurus in quo perfectius gratia spiritus sancti habeatur quam hactenus habita fuerit, maxime ab apostolis, qui primitias spiritus acceperunt, idest et tempore prius et ceteris abundantius, ut Glossa dicit Rom. VIII.    In another way the state of mankind may change according as man stands in relation to one and the same law more or less perfectly. And thus the state of the Old Law underwent frequent changes, since at times the laws were very well kept, and at other times were altogether unheeded. Thus, too, the state of the New Law is subject to change with regard to various places, times, and persons, according as the grace of the Holy Ghost dwells in man more or less perfectly. Nevertheless we are not to look forward to a state wherein man is to possess the grace of the Holy Ghost more perfectly than he has possessed it hitherto, especially the apostles who "received the firstfruits of the Spirit, i.e. sooner and more abundantly than others," as a gloss expounds on Rm. 8:23.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Dionysius dicit, in Eccl. Hier., triplex est hominum status, primus quidem veteris legis; secundus novae legis; tertius status succedit non in hac vita, sed in patria. Sed sicut primus status est figuralis et imperfectus respectu status evangelici, ita hic status est figuralis et imperfectus respectu status patriae; quo veniente, iste status evacuatur, sicut ibi dicitur, videmus nunc per speculum in aenigmate, tunc autem facie ad faciem.   Reply to Objection 1: As Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v), there is a threefold state of mankind; the first was under the Old Law; the second is that of the New Law; the third will take place not in this life, but in heaven. But as the first state is figurative and imperfect in comparison with the state of the Gospel; so is the present state figurative and imperfect in comparison with the heavenly state, with the advent of which the present state will be done away as expressed in that very passage (1 Cor. 13:12): "We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face."
Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit in libro contra Faustum, Montanus et Priscilla posuerunt quod promissio domini de spiritu sancto dando non fuit completa in apostolis, sed in eis. Et similiter Manichaei posuerunt quod fuit completa in Manichaeo, quem dicebant esse spiritum Paracletum. Et ideo utrique non recipiebant actus apostolorum, in quibus manifeste ostenditur quod illa promissio fuit in apostolis completa, sicut dominus iterato eis promisit, Act. I, baptizamini in spiritu sancto non post multos hos dies; quod impletum legitur Act. II. Sed istae vanitates excluduntur per hoc quod dicitur Ioan. VII, nondum erat spiritus datus, quia Iesus nondum erat glorificatus, ex quo datur intelligi quod statim glorificato Christo in resurrectione et ascensione, fuit spiritus sanctus datus. Et per hoc etiam excluditur quorumcumque vanitas qui dicerent esse expectandum aliud tempus spiritus sancti.   Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xix, 31), Montanus and Priscilla pretended that Our Lord's promise to give the Holy Ghost was fulfilled, not in the apostles, but in themselves. In like manner the Manicheans maintained that it was fulfilled in Manes whom they held to be the Paraclete. Hence none of the above received the Acts of the Apostles, where it is clearly shown that the aforesaid promise was fulfilled in the apostles: just as Our Lord promised them a second time (Acts 1:5): "You shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence": which we read as having been fulfilled in Acts 2. However, these foolish notions are refuted by the statement (Jn. 7:39) that "as yet the Spirit was not given, because Jesus was not yet glorified"; from which we gather that the Holy Ghost was given as soon as Christ was glorified in His Resurrection and Ascension. Moreover, this puts out of court the senseless idea that the Holy Ghost is to be expected to come at some other time.
Docuit autem spiritus sanctus apostolos omnem veritatem de his quae pertinent ad necessitatem salutis, scilicet de credendis et agendis. Non tamen docuit eos de omnibus futuris eventibus, hoc enim ad eos non pertinebat, secundum illud Act. I, non est vestrum nosse tempora vel momenta, quae pater posuit in sua potestate.    Now the Holy Ghost taught the apostles all truth in respect of matters necessary for salvation; those things, to wit, that we are bound to believe and to do. But He did not teach them about all future events: for this did not regard them according to Acts 1:7: "It is not for you to know the times or moments which the Father hath put in His own power."
Ad tertium dicendum quod lex vetus non solum fuit patris, sed etiam filii, quia Christus in veteri lege figurabatur. Unde dominus dicit, Ioan. V, si crederetis Moysi, crederetis forsitan et mihi, de me enim ille scripsit. Similiter etiam lex nova non solum est Christi, sed etiam spiritus sancti; secundum illud Rom. VIII, lex spiritus vitae in Christo Iesu, et cetera. Unde non est expectanda alia lex, quae sit spiritus sancti.   Reply to Objection 3: The Old Law corresponded not only to the Father, but also to the Son: because Christ was foreshadowed in the Old Law. Hence Our Lord said (Jn. 5:46): "If you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also; for he wrote of Me." In like manner the New Law corresponds not only to Christ, but also to the Holy Ghost; according to Rm. 8:2: "The Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus," etc. Hence we are not to look forward to another law corresponding to the Holy Ghost.
Ad quartum dicendum quod, cum Christus statim in principio evangelicae praedicationis dixerit, appropinquavit regnum caelorum, stultissimum est dicere quod Evangelium Christi non sit Evangelium regni. Sed praedicatio Evangelii Christi potest intelligi dupliciter. Uno modo, quantum ad divulgationem notitiae Christi, et sic praedicatum fuit Evangelium in universo orbe etiam tempore apostolorum, ut Chrysostomus dicit. Et secundum hoc, quod additur, et tunc erit consummatio, intelligitur de destructione Ierusalem, de qua tunc ad litteram loquebatur. Alio modo potest intelligi praedicatio Evangelii in universo orbe cum pleno effectu, ita scilicet quod in qualibet gente fundetur Ecclesia. Et ita, sicut dicit Augustinus, in epistola ad Hesych., nondum est praedicatum Evangelium in universo orbe, sed, hoc facto, veniet consummatio mundi.   Reply to Objection 4: Since Christ said at the very outset of the preaching of the Gospel: "The kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Mt. 4:17), it is most absurd to say that the Gospel of Christ is not the Gospel of the kingdom. But the preaching of the Gospel of Christ may be understood in two ways. First, as denoting the spreading abroad of the knowledge of Christ: and thus the Gospel was preached throughout the world even at the time of the apostles, as Chrysostom states (Hom. lxxv in Matth.). And in this sense the words that follow—"and then shall the consummation come," refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, of which He was speaking literally. Secondly, the preaching of the Gospel may be understood as extending throughout the world and producing its full effect, so that, to wit, the Church would be founded in every nation. And in these sense, as Augustine writes to Hesychius (Epist. cxcix), the Gospel is not preached to the whole world yet, but, when it is, the consummation of the world will come.

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