Utrum Lex Vetus promittebat tantum temporalia vel etiam aeterna Whether the Old Law promised only temporal things or also eternal things Quaestiuncula 1 Quaestiuncula 1 Ad quartum sic proceditur. To the fourth we proceed thus. Videtur quod Lex Vetus non solum temporalia, sed aeterna promittebat. Illud enim in lege promittitur quod merces legis ponitur. Sed Deus seipsum mercedem Abrahae promisit, qui est bonum aeternum, ut patet Genes. 15. Ergo non solum temporalia, sed aeterna promittebat. Obj. 1: It appears that the Old Law promised not only temporal things, but also eternal things. For in the law what is promised is asserted as the reward of the law. But God promised his very self, who is the eternal good, as Abraham’s reward; this is clear in Genesis 15. Therefore it promised not only temporal things, but eternal. Praeterea, quod promittitur in lege, est praemium virtutis. Sed praemium virtutis debet esse melius virtute. Cum igitur virtus sit melior omni mercede temporali, videtur quod lex terrena promittere non debuerit. Obj. 2: Furthermore, what is promised in the law is the reward of virtue. But the reward of virtue ought to be better than virtue. Therefore, since virtue is better than every temporal reward, it appears that the law should not promise earthly things. Praeterea, illud quod est contra rationem virtutis, in lege fieri non debet. Sed virtuti contrarium est, et ejus corruptivum, ut actus ejus propter bonum terrenum fiat. Ergo promissio terrenorum in lege fieri non debuit. Obj. 3: Furthermore, what is opposed to the notion of virtue should not be present in the law. But it is contrary to virtue, and can corrupt it, that its acts be done for the sake of an earthly good. Therefore the promise of earthly things should not occur in the law. Sed contra, illis solis potest homo ad bene faciendum invitari, quae in pretio habet. Sed carnalis populus, cui Lex Vetus data fuit, sola bona temporalia in pretio habebat. Ergo eorum sibi promissio fieri debuit. On the contrary, a man can be appropriately motivated to act rightly only for things that he holds as valuable. But the carnal people to whom the Old Law was given held only temporal goods as valuable. Therefore the promise of such things should be given them. Praeterea, 1 Corinth. 15:46: non prius quod spirituale, sed quod animale. Sed Lex Vetus primo danda erat. Ergo non spiritualis promissio sed temporalis in ea fieri debuit. Furthermore, it is not the spiritual which is first but the physical (1 Cor 15:46). But the Old Law was given first. Therefore in it there should be not a spiritual promise, but a temporal one. Quaestiuncula 2 Quaestiuncula 2 Ulterius. Videtur quod Lex Vetus non differat a nova per radicem timoris et amoris. Moreover, it appears that the Old Law does not differ from the New by their roots being in fear and love. For the difference within a law does not follow from the diversity in those who observe the law, but rather vice versa. For a law is a rule and measure of those who observe it. But whether one does something from fear or love arises from diverse dispositions of those observing the law. Therefore the two laws are not distinguished in reference to this. Differentia enim legis non attenditur ex diversitate observantium legem, sed potius e converso; cum lex sit regula et mensura observantium ipsam. Sed facere aliquid ex timore vel amore contingit ex diversa dispositione observantium legem. Ergo penes hoc duae leges non distinguuntur. Obj. 1: For the difference within a law does not follow from the diversity in those who observe the law, but rather vice versa. For a law is a rule and measure of those who observe it. But whether one does something from fear or love arises from diverse dispositions of those observing the law. Therefore the two laws are not distinguished in reference to this. Praeterea, nullus fructuose legem custodit, nisi qui ex amore eam observat. Sed in statu Veteris Legis multi fuerunt qui eam fructuose observabant, vitam aeternam ex hoc promerentes. Ergo Lex Vetus et Nova non distinguuntur per timorem et amorem. Obj. 2: Furthermore, no one fruitfully keeps the law unless he observes it from love. But in the state of the Old Law there were many who observed it in a fruitful way, those deserving eternal life due to this. Therefore the Old and New Laws are not distinguished by fear and love. Praeterea, timor servilis, qui contra amorem dividitur, respicit poenam. Sed majoris poenae comminatio fit in Nova Lege quam in Veteri, ut patet Hebr. 10:29: quanto, inquit, putatis deteriora mereri supplicia etc.? Ergo Lex Nova magis in timore consistit quam Vetus. Obj. 3: Furthermore, a servile fear—which the fear is divided against love—looks to punishment. But the threat of a greater punishment is found in the New Law than in the Old, as is clear in Hebrews 10:29, where it says, how much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God? Therefore the New Law rests upon fear more than does the Old. In contrarium est quod Augustinus dicit quod brevis differentia legis et Evangelii est timor et amor. On the contrary, Augustine says that the abbreviated distinction between the law and the Gospel is fear versus love. Praeterea, Rom. 8:15: non accepistis spiritum servitutis iterum in timore; dicit Glossa: praecepta in Veteri Lege timore servabantur. Furthermore, you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear (Rom 8:15), and a Gloss says, the precepts in the Old Law were kept by fear. Quaestiuncula 3 Quaestiuncula 3 Ulterius. Videtur quod Lex Vetus non sit magis onerosa quam Nova. Moreover, it appears that the Old Law is not more burdensome than the New. Quod enim se habet ex additione ad aliud, plura continet. Sed Lex Nova addit supra Veterem, Matth. 5. Ergo plura continet; et ita videtur difficilior. Obj. 1: For what has something additional in it contains more. But the New Law adds to the Old Law, according to Matthew 5. Therefore it contains more, and so it appears to be more difficult. Praeterea, quanto est perfectior status virtutis, tanto majorem difficultatem habet: quia ars et virtus circa difficile et bonum sunt, ut dicitur in 2 Ethic. Sed status Novae Legis est perfectior quam status Veteris. Ergo Lex Nova est difficilior. Obj. 2: Furthermore, to the degree that a state of virtue is more perfect, so does it hold a greater difficulty, since art and virtue are concerned with the difficult and good, as is said in the Ethics 1. But the state of the New Law is more perfect than the state of the Old. Therefore the New Law is more difficult. Praeterea, infirmis et parvulis levia onera sunt imponenda. Sed illi qui erant in Veteri Lege, parvulis comparantur; qui autem sunt in Nova, viris perfectis, ut patet Gal. 4. Ergo Lex Nova est gravior quam Vetus. Obj. 3: Furthermore, light burdens should be placed on the weak and small. But those who were under the Old Law are likened to the small, and those under the New to men who have been perfected, as is clear in Galatians 4. Therefore the New Law is heavier than the Old. Sed contra est quod dicitur Matth. 11:30: jugum meum suave est, et onus leve. On the contrary, Matthew 11:30 says, my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. Praeterea, Act. 15:10, dicit Petrus de Veteri Lege: hoc est onus quod nec nos nec patres nostri potuerunt portare. Ergo et cetera. Furthermore, Peter says of the Old Law, why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? (Acts 15:10). Therefore and so on. Solutio 1 Response to Quaestiuncula 1 Respondeo dicendum ad primam quaestionem, quod secundum Dionysium in 5 cap. Ecclesiast. hierarch., Lex Nova media est inter Ecclesiam caelestem et statum Veteris Legis; et ideo aeterna bona, quae in caelesti Ecclesia palam et copiose exhibentur, in Nova Lege manifeste promittuntur; in Veteri autem Lege non promittebantur, nisi sub quibusdam figuris. Unde Hebr. 10:1, dicitur: umbram habens lex futurorum bonorum. Et hoc propter tres causas praecipue. Primo ut ex his quae cognoscebant, assuefierent etiam a Deo majora sperare. Secundo ut non solum cognitio, sed affectus, a temporalibus ad aeterna manuduceretur. Tertio, quia bona aeterna nondum statim eis poterant exhiberi, nondum soluto pretio; unde dilatio promissorum inefficacem faceret apud infirmos promissionem. I answer that, according to Dionysius in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, the New Law is a middle between the heavenly Church and the state of the Old Law. And therefore the eternal good, which is manifested clearly and fully in the heavenly Church, is promised manifestly in the New Law, whereas it was promised in the Old Law only under certain figures. Whence Hebrews 10:1 says, the law has but a shadow of the good things to come. And this was for three chief reasons. First, so that from these figures they might come to know, and become accustomed to hoping for, greater things from God. Second, so that not only their knowledge but also their affection might be led by the hand toward eternal things. Third, because eternal goods could not be shown to them immediately, as the price had not yet been paid; whence a delay of the [eternal] promises would render the promise ineffective with the weak. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod ubicumque promittuntur aeterna in Veteri Lege, hoc est sub quadam figura et similitudine temporalium; et secundum hoc etiam Deus se mercedem Abrahae constituit ad litteram, quasi remuneratorem in multiplicatione seminis et in terrae promissae collatione. Vel dicendum, quod hoc intelligitur de promissione communiter omnibus facta in Veteri Lege, non autem de illa quae fiebat specialiter ad aliquos perfectos viros, qui ad Legem Novam pertinebant. Reply Obj. 1: Wherever eternal things are being promised in the Old Law, this is under a certain figure and likeness of temporal things. And following this, God even establishes himself literally as Abraham’s reward, insofar as he rewards him in the multiplication of his seed and in the bestowing of Promised Land. Or it could be said that this should be understood of the promise made commonly to all under the Old Law, but not of the one that was made specifically to certain perfected men, who belonged to the New Law. Ad secundum dicendum, quod promissiones temporales non ponuntur in lege quasi praemia virtutum, sed quasi incitamenta quaedam ad virtutem. Reply Obj. 2: Temporal promises are not put in the law as the rewards of the virtues, but as certain incentives to virtue. Ad tertium dicendum, quod sicut facere aliquid timore poenae est contra rationem perfectae virtutis, tamen ducit ad virtutem; ita etiam facere aliquid propter retributionem temporalem; et ideo sicut in lege fit comminatio poenae, ita etiam potest fieri promissio temporalis mercedis. Reply Obj. 3: Just as doing something from fear of punishment is against the notion of perfect virtue, and still it leads one to virtue, so too does doing something from fear of temporal retribution. And therefore just as in the law there is a threat of punishment, so too can there be a promise of temporal reward. Solutio 2 Response to Quaestiuncula 2 Ad secundam quaestionem dicendum, quod ex ipso modo legislationis apparet quod Lex Vetus est lex timoris, Lex autem Nova lex amoris. Lex enim Nova ex ostensione divinae caritatis initium sumpsit: quia in effusione sanguinis Jesu Christi, qui fuit perfectissimae caritatis signum, Novum Testamentum consummatum est. Lex autem Vetus in ostensione divinae potestatis, quae timorem incutit, initium sumpsit; unde et in ipsa legislatione propter fulgura, voces, et tonitrua terror audientes invasit, ut dicerent: non loquatur nobis Dominus, ne forte moriamur, Exod. 20:19; To the second question, it should be said that from the very mode of their law-giving it is apparent that the Old Law is a law of fear, and the New Law a law of love. For the New Law took its beginning from a display of divine charity, since the New Covenant was consummated in the pouring out of the blood of Jesus Christ, who was the sign of the most perfect charity. However, the Old Law took its beginning in a manifestation of divine power, which inspires fear; whence too in the very giving of the law, on account of the lightning, the voice, and the thunder, terror seized those listening to the point that they said, let not God speak to us, lest we die (Exod 20:19). et ideo Vetus Lex homines praecipue inducebat per comminationem poenarum; Nova vero Lex per beneficia exhibita, et speranda; et hoc satis competebat statui humani generis, ut prius quasi rudis populus per timorem poenae cogeretur, postmodum vero per amorem in bono perficeretur; sicut enim timor est via ad amorem, ita Lex Vetus ad Novam. And therefore the Old Law led men chiefly through its threat of punishments, whereas the New Law did so through blessings shown and hoped for. And this was sufficiently fitting to the state of the human race, such that first as an uncultivated people it was coerced by fear of punishment, and later it would be perfected in the good by love. For just as fear is the path to love, so the Old Law is to the New. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod ista differentia non tantum sumitur ex parte observantium legem, sed ex modo editionis legis, ut dictum est. Reply Obj. 1: This difference is drawn not only from the side of those observing the law, but also from the manner of giving the law, as was said. Ad secundum dicendum, quod illi qui in Veteri Lege ex amore legem observabant, perfecti erant; unde ad Legem Novam pertinebant, in qua est status perfectionis. Reply Obj. 2: Those who observed the Old Law from love were perfected. Whence they belonged to the New Law, wherein is found the state of perfection. Ad tertium dicendum, quod quamvis Lex Nova majora supplicia comminetur, tamen comminatio suppliciorum non est principalis inductio in Legem Novam, sicut erat in Lege Veteri; sed magis promissio praemiorum, et commemoratio beneficiorum quae ad amorem incitant; et ideo Lex Nova non timorem, sed amorem, principalem radicem habet. Reply Obj. 3: Although the New Law threatens greater penalties, still the threat of the penalties is not the principal inducement in the New Law, as it was in the Old. Rather, it is the promise of rewards and the recollection of blessings that incite one to love. And therefore the New Law has as its principal root not fear but love. Solutio 3 Response to Quaestiuncula 3 Ad tertiam quaestionem dicendum, quod difficile et onerosum mensuratur secundum virtutem sustinentis: aliquid enim onerosum est debili quod forti est leve. Et ideo de onere legis et Evangelii possumus loqui dupliciter: aut quantum ad gravitatem praeceptorum secundum se, aut per comparationem ad virtutem observantium. To the third question, it should be said that the difficult and burdensome is measured according to the strength of the one enduring it, for something is burdensome to the weak that is light to the strong. And therefore we can speak of the burden of the law and the Gospel in two ways: either as regards the heaviness of the precepts according to themselves, or through their comparison to the power of those observing them. Si primo modo; sic quantum ad numerum praecepta Veteris Legis erant magis onerosa: quia Lex Vetus arctabat ad caeremonialia multa, et judicialia: Lex autem Nova ad moralia tantum, quae etiam lex naturae imperat, et in uno verbo abbreviato dilectionis Dei et proximi concluduntur. Sed quantum ad explicationem istorum praeceptorum, sic praecepta Novae Legis quodammodo sunt difficiliora: quia magis explicatur virtus praeceptorum moralium in Nova Lege quam Veteri; et superaddit Lex Nova consilia, quamvis ad ea non cogat; et quaedam etiam prohibet quae Lex Vetus permittebat, infirmitati deferens, sicut libellum repudii, et hujusmodi. If we are speaking in the first way, then as regards number the precepts of the Old Law were more burdensome. For the Old Law draws together many precepts for ceremonial and judicial matters, whereas the New Law has only precepts regarding moral matters, ones that even the law of nature commands, and they are contained in one short phrase: the love of God and neighbor. But as regards the explication of these precepts, in this way the precepts of the New Law are in a certain way more difficult. For the power of the moral precepts is more explicit in the New Law than in the Old, and the New Law adds the counsels, although it is not coercive as regards them, and the New Law even forbids certain things that the Old Law permitted, as a concession to weakness, such as the bill of divorce, and the like.