Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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."

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."

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) . 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.

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).

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.

Articulus 3

Argumentum 1

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.

Argumentum 2

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.

Argumentum 3

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.

Sed Contra

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.

Corpus

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.

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.

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.

Ad 1

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.

Ad 2

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.

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.