Sed contra est quod dominus dicit, Matth. XV, loquens Iudaeis, quibus erat lex vetus data, irritum fecistis mandatum Dei propter traditiones vestras. Et paulo ante praemittitur, honora patrem tuum et matrem tuam, quod manifeste in lege veteri continetur. Ergo lex vetus est a Deo. On the contrary, Our Lord said (Matt 15:6) while speaking to the Jews, to whom the Law was given: You have made void the commandment of God for your tradition. And shortly before (verse 4) He had said: Honor thy father and mother, which is contained expressly in the Old Law (Exod 20:12; Dt. 5:16). Therefore the Old Law was from God. Respondeo dicendum quod lex vetus a bono Deo data est, qui est pater domini nostri Iesu Christi. Lex enim vetus homines ordinabat ad Christum dupliciter. Uno quidem modo, testimonium Christo perhibendo, unde ipse dicit, Lucae ult., oportet impleri omnia quae scripta sunt in lege et Psalmis et prophetis de me; et Ioan. V, si crederetis Moysi, crederetis forsitan et mihi, de me enim ille scripsit. Alio modo, per modum cuiusdam dispositionis, dum, retrahens homines a cultu idololatriae, concludebat eos sub cultu unius Dei, a quo salvandum erat humanum genus per Christum, unde apostolus dicit, ad Gal. III, priusquam veniret fides, sub lege custodiebamur conclusi in eam fidem quae revelanda erat. Manifestum est autem quod eiusdem est disponere ad finem et ad finem perducere, et dico eiusdem per se vel per suos subiectos. Non enim Diabolus legem tulisset per quam homines adducerentur ad Christum, per quem erat eiiciendus; secundum illud Matth. XII, si Satanas Satanam eiicit, divisum est regnum eius. Et ideo ab eodem Deo a quo facta est salus hominum per gratiam Christi, lex vetus data est. I answer that, The Old Law was given by the good God, Who is the Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. For the Old Law ordained men to Christ in two ways. First by bearing witness to Christ; wherefore He Himself says (Luke 24:44): All things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law . . . and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning Me: and (John 5:46): If you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe Me also; for he wrote of Me. Second, as a kind of disposition, since by withdrawing men from idolatrous worship, it enclosed them in the worship of one God, by Whom the human race was to be saved through Christ. Wherefore the Apostle says (Gal 3:23): Before the faith came, we were kept under the law shut up, unto that faith which was to be revealed. Now it is evident that the same thing it is, which gives a disposition to the end, and which brings to the end; and when I say the same, I mean that it does so either by itself or through its subjects. For the devil would not make a law whereby men would be led to Christ, Who was to cast him out, according to Mt. 12:26: If Satan cast out Satan, his kingdom is divided. Therefore the Old Law was given by the same God, from Whom came salvation to man, through the grace of Christ. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod nihil prohibet aliquid non esse perfectum simpliciter, quod tamen est perfectum secundum tempus, sicut dicitur aliquis puer perfectus non simpliciter, sed secundum temporis conditionem. Ita etiam praecepta quae pueris dantur, sunt quidem perfecta secundum conditionem eorum quibus dantur, etsi non sint perfecta simpliciter. Et talia fuerunt praecepta legis. Unde apostolus dicit, ad Gal. III, lex paedagogus noster fuit in Christo. Reply Obj. 1: Nothing prevents a thing being not perfect simply, and yet perfect in respect of time: thus a boy is said to be perfect, not simply, but with regard to the condition of time. So, too, precepts that are given to children are perfect in comparison with the condition of those to whom they are given, although they are not perfect simply. Hence the Apostle says (Gal 3:24): The law was our pedagogue in Christ. Ad secundum dicendum quod opera Dei perseverant in aeternum, quae sic Deus fecit ut in aeternum perseverent, et haec sunt ea quae sunt perfecta. Lex autem vetus reprobatur tempore perfectionis gratiae, non tanquam mala, sed tanquam infirma et inutilis pro isto tempore, quia, ut subditur, nihil ad perfectum adduxit lex. Unde ad Gal. III, dicit apostolus, ubi venit fides, iam non sumus sub paedagogo. Reply Obj. 2: Those works of God endure for ever which God so made that they would endure for ever; and these are His perfect works. But the Old Law was set aside when there came the perfection of grace; not as though it were evil, but as being weak and useless for this time; because, as the Apostle goes on to say, the law brought nothing to perfection: hence he says (Gal 3:25): After the faith is come, we are no longer under a pedagogue. Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, Deus aliquando permittit aliquos cadere in peccatum, ut exinde humilientur. Ita etiam voluit talem legem dare quam suis viribus homines implere non possent, ut sic dum homines de se praesumentes peccatores se invenirent, humiliati recurrerent ad auxilium gratiae. Reply Obj. 3: As stated above (Q79, A4), God sometimes permits certain ones to fall into sin, that they may thereby be humbled. So also did He wish to give such a law as men by their own forces could not fulfill, so that, while presuming on their own powers, they might find themselves to be sinners, and being humbled might have recourse to the help of grace. Ad quartum dicendum quod, quamvis lex vetus non sufficeret ad salvandum hominem, tamen aderat aliud auxilium a Deo hominibus simul cum lege, per quod salvari poterant, scilicet fides mediatoris, per quam iustificati sunt antiqui patres, sicut etiam nos iustificamur. Et sic Deus non deficiebat hominibus quin daret eis salutis auxilia. Reply Obj. 4: Although the Old Law did not suffice to save man, yet another help from God besides the Law was available for man, viz., faith in the Mediator, by which the fathers of old were justified even as we were. Accordingly God did not fail man by giving him insufficient aids to salvation. Articulus 3 Article 3 Utrum lex vetus fuerit data per angelos, sed immediate a Deo Whether the Old Law was given through the angels, or immediately by God? Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex vetus non fuerit data per Angelos, sed immediate a Deo. Angelus enim nuntius dicitur, et sic nomen Angeli ministerium importat, non dominium; secundum illud Psalmi CII, benedicite domino, omnes Angeli eius, ministri eius. Sed vetus lex a domino tradita esse perhibetur, dicitur enim Exod. XX, locutusque est dominus sermones hos, et postea subditur, ego enim sum dominus Deus tuus. Et idem modus loquendi frequenter repetitur in Exodo, et in libris consequentibus legis. Ergo lex est immediate data a Deo. Objection 1: It seems that the Old Law was not given through the angels, but immediately by God. For an angel means a messenger; so that the word angel denotes ministry, not lordship, according to Ps. 102:20,21: Bless the Lord, all ye His Angels . . . you ministers of His. But the Old Law is related to have been given by the Lord: for it is written (Exod 20:1): And the Lord spoke . . . these words, and further on: I am the Lord Thy God. Moreover the same expression is often repeated in Exodus, and the later books of the Law. Therefore the Law was given by God immediately. Praeterea, sicut dicitur Ioan. I, lex per Moysen data est. Sed Moyses immediate accepit a Deo, dicitur enim Exod. XXXIII, loquebatur dominus ad Moysen facie ad faciem, sicut loqui solet homo ad amicum suum. Ergo lex vetus immediate data est a Deo. Obj. 2: Further, according to Jn. 1:17, the Law was given by Moses. But Moses received it from God immediately: for it is written (Exod 33:11): The Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man is wont to speak to his friend. Therefore the Old Law was given by God immediately. Praeterea, ad solum principem pertinet legem ferre, ut supra dictum est. Sed solus Deus est princeps salutis animarum, Angeli vero sunt administratorii spiritus, ut dicitur ad Heb. I. Ergo lex vetus per Angelos dari non debuit, cum ordinaretur ad animarum salutem. Obj. 3: Further, it belongs to the sovereign alone to make a law, as stated above (Q90, A3). But God alone is Sovereign as regards the salvation of souls: while the angels are the ministering spirits, as stated in Heb. 1:14. Therefore it was not meet for the Law to be given through the angels, since it is ordained to the salvation of souls. Sed contra est quod dicit apostolus, ad Gal. III, lex data est per Angelos in manu mediatoris. Et Act. VII, dicit Stephanus, accepistis legem in dispositione Angelorum. On the contrary, The Apostle said (Gal 3:19) that the Law was given by angels in the hand of a Mediator. And Stephen said (Acts 7:53): (Who) have received the Law by the disposition of angels. Respondeo dicendum quod lex data est a Deo per Angelos. Et praeter generalem rationem, quam Dionysius assignat, in IV cap. Cael. Hier., quod divina debent deferri ad homines mediantibus Angelis, specialis ratio est quare legem veterem per Angelos dari oportuit. Dictum est enim quod lex vetus imperfecta erat, sed disponebat ad salutem perfectam generis humani, quae futura erat per Christum. Sic autem videtur in omnibus potestatibus et artibus ordinatis, quod ille qui est superior, principalem et perfectum actum operatur per seipsum; ea vero quae disponunt ad perfectionem ultimam, operatur per suos ministros; sicut navifactor compaginat navem per seipsum, sed praeparat materiam per artifices subministrantes. Et ideo conveniens fuit ut lex perfecta novi testamenti daretur immediate per ipsum Deum hominem factum; lex autem vetus per ministros Dei, scilicet per Angelos, daretur hominibus. Et per hunc modum apostolus, in principio ad Heb., probat eminentiam novae legis ad veterem, quia in novo testamento locutus est nobis Deus in filio suo, in veteri autem testamento est sermo factus per Angelos. I answer that, The Law was given by God through the angels. And besides the general reason given by Dionysius (Coel. Hier. iv), viz., that the gifts of God should be brought to men by means of the angels, there is a special reason why the Old Law should have been given through them. For it has been stated (AA1,2) that the Old Law was imperfect, and yet disposed man to that perfect salvation of the human race, which was to come through Christ. Now it is to be observed that wherever there is an order of powers or arts, he that holds the highest place, himself exercises the principal and perfect acts; while those things which dispose to the ultimate perfection are effected by him through his subordinates: thus the ship-builder himself rivets the planks together, but prepares the material by means of the workmen who assist him under his direction. Consequently it was fitting that the perfect law of the New Testament should be given by the incarnate God immediately; but that the Old Law should be given to men by the ministers of God, i.e., by the angels. It is thus that the Apostle at the beginning of his epistle to the Hebrews (1:2) proves the excellence of the New Law over the Old; because in the New Testament God . . . hath spoken to us by His Son, whereas in the Old Testament the word was spoken by angels (Heb 2:2). Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Gregorius dicit, in principio Moral., Angelus qui Moysi apparuisse describitur, modo Angelus, modo dominus memoratur. Angelus videlicet, propter hoc quod exterius loquendo serviebat; dominus autem dicitur, quia interius praesidens loquendi efficaciam ministrabat. Et inde est etiam quod quasi ex persona domini Angelus loquebatur. Reply Obj. 1: As Gregory says at the beginning of his Morals (Praef. chap. i), the angel who is described to have appeared to Moses, is sometimes mentioned as an angel, sometimes as the Lord: an angel, in truth, in respect of that which was subservient to the external delivery; and the Lord, because He was the Director within, Who supported the effectual power of speaking. Hence also it is that the angel spoke as personating the Lord. Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, XII super Gen. ad Litt., in Exodo dicitur, locutus est dominus Moysi facie ad faciem; et paulo post subditur, ostende mihi gloriam tuam. Sentiebat ergo quid videbat; et quod non videbat, desiderabat. Non ergo videbat ipsam Dei essentiam, et ita non immediate ab eo instruebatur. Quod ergo dicitur quod loquebatur ei facie ad faciem, secundum opinionem populi loquitur Scriptura, qui putabat Moysen ore ad os loqui cum Deo, cum per subiectam creaturam, idest per Angelum et nubem, ei loqueretur et appareret. Vel per visionem faciei intelligitur quaedam eminens contemplatio et familiaris, infra essentiae divinae visionem. Reply Obj. 2: As Augustine says (Gen ad lit. xii, 27), it is stated in Exodus that the Lord spoke to Moses face to face; and shortly afterwards we read, Show me Thy glory. Therefore He perceived what he saw and he desired what he saw not. Hence he did not see the very Essence of God; and consequently he was not taught by Him immediately. Accordingly when Scripture states that He spoke to him face to face, this is to be understood as expressing the opinion of the people, who thought that Moses was speaking with God mouth to mouth, when God spoke and appeared to him, by means of a subordinate creature, i.e., an angel and a cloud. Again we may say that this vision face to face means some kind of sublime and familiar contemplation, inferior to the vision of the Divine Essence. Ad tertium dicendum quod solius principis est sua auctoritate legem instituere, sed quandoque legem institutam per alios promulgat. Et ita Deus sua auctoritate instituit legem, sed per Angelos promulgavit. Reply Obj. 3: It is for the sovereign alone to make a law by his own authority; but sometimes after making a law, he promulgates it through others. Thus God made the Law by His own authority, but He promulgated it through the angels. Articulus 4 Article 4 Utrum lex vetus debuerit dari soli populo Iudaeorum Whether the Old Law should have been given to the Jews alone? Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex vetus non debuerit dari soli populo Iudaeorum. Lex enim vetus disponebat ad salutem quae futura erat per Christum, ut dictum est. Sed salus illa non erat futura solum in Iudaeis, sed in omnibus gentibus; secundum illud Isaiae XLIX, parum est ut sis mihi servus ad suscitandas tribus Iacob et faeces Israel convertendas, dedi te in lucem gentium, ut sis salus mea usque ad extremum terrae. Ergo lex vetus dari debuit omnibus gentibus, et non uni populo tantum. Objection 1: It would seem that the Old Law should not have been given to the Jews alone. For the Old Law disposed men for the salvation which was to come through Christ, as stated above (AA2,3). But that salvation was to come not to the Jews alone but to all nations, according to Is. 49:6: It is a small thing that thou shouldst be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to convert the dregs of Israel. Behold I have given thee to be the light of the Gentiles, that thou mayest be My salvation, even to the farthest part of the earth. Therefore the Old Law should have been given to all nations, and not to one people only. Praeterea, sicut dicitur Act. X, non est personarum acceptor Deus, sed in omni gente qui timet Deum et facit iustitiam, acceptus est illi. Non ergo magis uni populo quam aliis viam salutis debuit aperire. Obj. 2: Further, according to Acts 10:34,35, God is not a respecter of persons: but in every nation, he that feareth Him, and worketh justice, is acceptable to Him. Therefore the way of salvation should not have been opened to one people more than to another. Praeterea, lex data est per Angelos, sicut iam dictum est. Sed ministeria Angelorum Deus non solum Iudaeis, sed omnibus gentibus semper exhibuit, dicitur enim Eccli. XVII, in unamquamque gentem praeposuit rectorem. Omnibus etiam gentibus temporalia bona largitur, quae minus sunt curae Deo quam spiritualia bona. Ergo etiam legem omnibus populis dare debuit. Obj. 3: Further, the law was given through the angels, as stated above (A3). But God always vouchsafed the ministrations of the angels not to the Jews alone, but to all nations: for it is written (Sir 17:14): Over every nation He set a ruler. Also on all nations He bestows temporal goods, which are of less account with God than spiritual goods. Therefore He should have given the Law also to all peoples. Sed contra est quod dicitur Rom. III, quid ergo amplius est Iudaeo? Multum quidem per omnem modum. Primum quidem, quia credita sunt illis eloquia Dei. Et in Psalmo CXLVII dicitur, non fecit taliter omni nationi, et iudicia sua non manifestavit eis. On the contrary, It is written (Rom 3:1,2): What advantage then hath the Jew? . . . Much every way. First indeed, because the words of God were committed to them: and (Ps 147:9): He hath not done in like manner to every nation: and His judgments He hath not made manifest unto them. Respondeo dicendum quod posset una ratio assignari quare potius populo Iudaeorum data sit lex quam aliis populis, quia, aliis ad idololatriam declinantibus, solus populus Iudaeorum in cultu unius Dei remansit; et ideo alii populi indigni erant legem recipere, ne sanctum canibus daretur. I answer that, It might be assigned as a reason for the Law being given to the Jews rather than to other peoples, that the Jewish people alone remained faithful to the worship of one God, while the others turned away to idolatry; wherefore the latter were unworthy to receive the Law, lest a holy thing should be given to dogs. Sed ista ratio conveniens non videtur, quia populus ille etiam post legem latam, ad idololatriam declinavit, quod gravius fuit, ut patet Exod. XXXII; et Amos V, numquid hostias et sacrificium obtulistis mihi in deserto quadraginta annis, domus Israel? Et portastis tabernaculum Moloch vestro, et imaginem idolorum vestrorum, sidus Dei vestri, quae fecistis vobis. Expresse etiam dicitur Deut. IX, scito quod non propter iustitias tuas dominus Deus tuus dedit tibi terram hanc in possessionem, cum durissimae cervici sis populus. Sed ratio ibi praemittitur, ut compleret verbum suum dominus, quod sub iuramento pollicitus est patribus tuis, Abraham, Isaac et Iacob. But this reason does not seem fitting: because that people turned to idolatry, even after the Law had been made, which was more grievous, as is clear from Ex. 32 and from Amos 5:25,26: Did you offer victims and sacrifices to Me in the desert for forty years, O house of Israel? But you carried a tabernacle for your Moloch, and the image of your idols, the star of your god, which you made to yourselves. Moreover it is stated expressly (Deut 9:6): Know therefore that the Lord thy God giveth thee not this excellent land in possession for thy justices, for thou art a very stiff-necked people: but the real reason is given in the preceding verse: That the Lord might accomplish His word, which He promised by oath to thy fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Quae autem promissio eis sit facta, ostendit apostolus, ad Galat. III, dicens, Abrahae dictae sunt promissiones, et semini eius. Non dicit, seminibus, quasi in multis, sed quasi in uno, et semini tuo, qui est Christus. Deus igitur et legem et alia beneficia specialia illi populo exhibuit propter promissionem eorum patribus factam ut ex eis Christus nasceretur. Decebat enim ut ille populus ex quo Christus nasciturus erat, quadam speciali sanctificatione polleret; secundum illud quod dicitur Levit. XIX, sancti eritis, quia ego sanctus sum. Nec etiam fuit propter meritum ipsius Abrahae ut talis promissio ei fieret, ut scilicet Christus ex eius semine nasceretur, sed ex gratuita electione et vocatione. Unde dicitur Isaiae XLI, quis suscitavit ab oriente iustum, vocavit eum ut sequeretur se? What this promise was is shown by the Apostle, who says (Gal 3:16) that to Abraham were the promises made and to his seed. He saith not, ‘And to his seeds,’ as of many: but as of one, ‘And to thy seed,’ which is Christ. And so God vouchsafed both the Law and other special boons to that people, on account of the promise made to their fathers that Christ should be born of them. For it was fitting that the people, of whom Christ was to be born, should be signalized by a special sanctification, according to the words of Lev. 19:2: Be ye holy, because I . . . am holy. Nor again was it on account of the merit of Abraham himself that this promise was made to him, viz., that Christ should be born of his seed: but of gratuitous election and vocation. Hence it is written (Isa 41:2): Who hath raised up the just one form the east, hath called him to follow him? Sic ergo patet quod ex sola gratuita electione patres promissionem acceperunt, et populus ex eis progenitus legem accepit; secundum illud Deut. IV, audistis verba illius de medio ignis, quia dilexit patres, et elegit semen eorum post illos. Si autem rursus quaeratur quare hunc populum elegit ut ex eo Christus nasceretur, et non alium, conveniet responsio Augustini, quam dicit super Ioan., quare hunc trahat et illum non trahat, noli velle diiudicare, si non vis errare. It is therefore evident that it was merely from gratuitous election that the patriarchs received the promise, and that the people sprung from them received the law; according to Dt. 4:36, 37: Ye did hear His words out of the midst of the fire, because He loved thy fathers, and chose their seed after them. And if again it asked why He chose this people, and not another, that Christ might be born thereof; a fitting answer is given by Augustine (Tract. super Joan. xxvi): Why He draweth one and draweth not another, seek not thou to judge, if thou wish not to err. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, quamvis salus futura per Christum, esset omnibus gentibus praeparata; tamen oportebat ex uno populo Christum nasci, qui propter hoc prae aliis praerogativas habuit; secundum illud Rom. IX, quorum, scilicet Iudaeorum, est adoptio filiorum Dei, et testamentum et legislatio; quorum patres; ex quibus Christus est secundum carnem. Reply Obj. 1: Although the salvation, which was to come through Christ, was prepared for all nations, yet it was necessary that Christ should be born of one people, which, for this reason, was privileged above other peoples; according to Rm. 9:4: To whom, namely the Jews, belongeth the adoption as of children (of God) . . . and the testament, and the giving of the Law . . . whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ according to the flesh. Ad secundum dicendum quod acceptio personarum locum habet in his quae ex debito dantur, in his vero quae ex gratuita voluntate conferuntur, acceptio personarum locum non habet. Non enim est personarum acceptor qui ex liberalitate de suo dat uni et non alteri, sed si esset dispensator bonorum communium, et non distribueret aequaliter secundum merita personarum, esset personarum acceptor. Salutaria autem beneficia Deus humano generi confert ex sua gratia. Unde non est personarum acceptor si quibusdam prae aliis conferat. Unde Augustinus dicit, in libro de Praedest. Sanct., omnes quos Deus docet, misericordia docet, quos autem non docet, iudicio non docet. Hoc enim venit ex damnatione humani generis pro peccato primi parentis. Reply Obj. 2: Respect of persons takes place in those things which are given according to due; but it has no place in those things which are bestowed gratuitously. Because he who, out of generosity, gives of his own to one and not to another, is not a respecter of persons: but if he were a dispenser of goods held in common, and were not to distribute them according to personal merits, he would be a respecter of persons. Now God bestows the benefits of salvation on the human race gratuitously: wherefore He is not a respecter of persons, if He gives them to some rather than to others. Hence Augustine says (De Praedest. Sanct. viii): All whom God teaches, he teaches out of pity; but whom He teaches not, out of justice He teaches not: for this is due to the condemnation of the human race for the sin of the first parent. Ad tertium dicendum quod beneficia gratiae subtrahuntur homini propter culpam, sed beneficia naturalia non subtrahuntur. Inter quae sunt ministeria Angelorum, quae ipse naturarum ordo requirit, ut scilicet per media gubernentur infima; et etiam corporalia subsidia, quae non solum hominibus, sed etiam iumentis Deus administrat, secundum illud Psalmi XXXV, homines et iumenta salvabis, domine. Reply Obj. 3: The benefits of grace are forfeited by man on account of sin: but not the benefits of nature. Among the latter are the ministries of the angels, which the very order of various natures demands, viz., that the lowest beings be governed through the intermediate beings: and also bodily aids, which God vouchsafes not only to men, but also to beasts, according to Ps. 35:7: Men and beasts Thou wilt preserve, O Lord. Articulus 5 Article 5 Utrum omnes homines obligarentur ad observandam veterem legem Whether all men were bound to observe the Old Law? Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod omnes homines obligarentur ad observandam veterem legem. Quicumque enim subditur regi, oportet quod subdatur legi ipsius. Sed vetus lex est data a Deo, qui est rex omnis terrae, ut in Psalmo XLVI dicitur. Ergo omnes habitantes terram tenebantur ad observantiam legis. Objection 1: It would seem that all men were bound to observe the Old Law. Because whoever is subject to the king, must needs be subject to his law. But the Old Law was given by God, Who is King of all the earth (Ps 46:8). Therefore all the inhabitants of the earth were bound to observe the Law. Praeterea, Iudaei salvari non poterant nisi legem veterem observarent, dicitur enim Deut. XXVII, maledictus qui non permanet in sermonibus legis huius, nec eos opere perficit. Si igitur alii homines sine observantia legis veteris potuissent salvari, peior fuisset conditio Iudaeorum quam aliorum hominum. Obj. 2: Further, the Jews could not be saved without observing the Old Law: for it is written (Deut 27:26): Cursed be he that abideth not in the words of this law, and fulfilleth them not in work. If therefore other men could be saved without the observance of the Old Law, the Jews would be in a worse plight than other men. Praeterea, gentiles ad ritum Iudaicum et ad observantias legis admittebantur, 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. Frustra autem ad observantias legales fuissent extranei admissi ex ordinatione divina, si absque legalibus observantiis salvari potuissent. Ergo nullus salvari poterat nisi legem observaret. Obj. 3: Further, the Gentiles were admitted to the Jewish ritual and to the observances of the Law: for it is written (Exod 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 he that is born in the land. But it would have been useless to admit strangers to the legal observances according to Divine ordinance, if they could have been saved without the observance of the Law. Therefore none could be saved without observing the Law. Sed contra est quod Dionysius dicit, IX cap. Cael. Hier., quod multi gentilium per Angelos sunt reducti in Deum. Sed constat quod gentiles legem non observabant. Ergo absque observantia legis poterant aliqui salvari. On the contrary, Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. ix) that many of the Gentiles were brought back to God by the angels. But it is clear that the Gentiles did not observe the Law. Therefore some could be saved without observing the Law. Respondeo dicendum quod lex vetus manifestabat praecepta legis naturae, et superaddebat quaedam propria praecepta. Quantum igitur ad illa quae lex vetus continebat de lege naturae, omnes tenebantur ad observantiam veteris legis, non quia erant de veteri lege, sed quia erant de lege naturae. Sed quantum ad illa quae lex vetus superaddebat, non tenebantur aliqui ad observantiam veteris legis nisi solus populus Iudaeorum. I answer that, The Old Law showed forth the precepts of the natural law, and added certain precepts of its own. Accordingly, as to those precepts of the natural law contained in the Old Law, all were bound to observe the Old Law; not because they belonged to the Old Law, but because they belonged to the natural law. But as to those precepts which were added by the Old Law, they were not binding on any save the Jewish people alone.