Sufficiency of the New Law, the Sermon on the Mount, and the Evangelical Counsels (ST I-II Q.108 A.2-4)

Orientation #

He opens by recalling what the class had already admitted — that the New Law should command or prohibit some exterior works (a. 1) — and now asks how it does so sufficiently. He breaks mid-way (“take a break here now”), and at the end of a. 3 says “let’s talk the grace next time.” The neighbouring classes treat q. 107–108 before, and the treatise on grace (q. 109) after.

The class, in order #

1. Four objections against sufficiency in exterior acts (“how does it do so sufficiently”) #

He reads the objections of a. 2 and remarks, with approval of their force: “I think he’s shown pretty thoroughly the insufficiency of the new law right here. I would say — wouldn’t you? Now you guys got to defend it.”

1. To the New Law belongs especially faith working through love (Gal. 5:6 — in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails nor uncircumcision, “the integrity of the flesh”), and the New Law makes explicit things to be believed that the Old did not (the Trinity); so it should also add exterior moral works not determined in the Old.
2. The Old Law instituted not only sacraments but sacred things; the New instituted sacraments but no sacred things (consecration of temple, vessels, or celebrating a solemnity).
3. The Old had observances for the ministers and for the people; the New gives observances to ministers (Matt. 10: take no gold or silver; Luke 9 and 10) but none to the faithful people.
4. The Old had judicial precepts besides moral and ceremonial; the New treats none.

Sed contra: Matt. 7 — whoever hears my words and does them is like a wise man building on rock; the wise builder omits nothing necessary. He notes this is an argument from authority.

Aside: on objection 2 he observes that ceremonial arrangement is left to prelates — the celebrant who is “not so good at getting a start singing” has the people recite the entrance and communion verses; St Benedict left the order of the Psalms in the office to each abbot, so monasteries vary.

2. The body of a. 2: two and only two things commanded (“we are either led into grace”) #

The point: the New Law in exterior things commands or prohibits only (a) what leads us into grace, and (b) what pertains of necessity to the right use of grace.

• Since we cannot obtain grace of ourselves but only through Christ, Christ Himself instituted the sacraments by which grace is attained: baptism, the Eucharist, order (instituting apostles and the seventy-two disciples), penance, indissoluble matrimony; confirmation He promised through the sending of the Holy Spirit; and from His institution the apostles anointed the sick with oil.
• The right use of grace is through works of charity, which so far as they are of necessity for virtue are moral precepts, already in the Old Law; so here the New adds nothing about exterior works.
• The determination of these works — toward the worship of God (ceremonial) and toward the neighbour (judicial) — is not of the necessity of the interior grace in which the law consists; so it falls not under precepts but under human judgment, of each man for himself and of temporal or spiritual prelates for the common utility. He pauses on “what’s a temporal prelate?” He flags the distinction as “interesting”: two sets of things to command — one to acquire grace, the other to live in accordance with grace.

3. Replies 1 and 2, with the digression on indulgences (“instituted by Christ to give grace”) #

• Reply 1: matters of faith are above human reason, so we cannot reach them except by grace; a more abundant grace coming required more to be believed to be unfolded. But to the works of the virtues we are directed by natural reason, the rule of human doing; so no precepts beyond the moral precepts, which are of the dictate of reason. Aside: Thomas, treating charity, denies charity toward demons and the damned as confirmed in evil, citing Aristotle’s Ethics that with a man confirmed in wickedness one should break off communication.
• Reply 2: in the sacraments of the New Law grace is given, which is not from the Old but only from Christ — hence they must have institution from Him. He asks the class for the old catechism definition of a sacrament and gets it: “an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace,” which contains and confers grace — “you got the word institution right here.” In sacred things (consecration of temple or altar, celebration of a feast) no grace is given.
  • Qualification he insists on: “you got to be careful about that” — the Church from its treasure can give an indulgence: the holy door; a first mass; possibly attending a baptism; dedication feasts of the Roman churches; a student reports a plenary indulgence for visiting a Maronite church on the feast of St Maron (two days ago). This is not part of the New Law but the Church proclaiming it; recent practice cut down the number of indulgences and emphasized important ones — the rosary said with others, reading Scripture for a half hour. (An aside about a priest’s 25th and 50th anniversary.)

4. Reply 3: the precepts to the apostles (“not as ceremonial observances, but as moral”) #

Two readings, both given:

1. Augustine (On the Consent of the Evangelists): these were not precepts but concessions — the apostles could go preaching without staff, having the power to take their necessities from those to whom they preached (“the worker is worthy of his food”). He does not sin but goes beyond who carries his own provision and does not take his living from those he evangelizes, as Paul is said to have done — not wanting to annoy them.
2. Other saints (he names Chrysostom and Bede, referring to the Catena Aurea on Matthew): temporal statutes for that time, when they were sent to preach in Judea before the Passion, since the disciples were still little ones under Christ’s care and little exercised, to be trained gradually and then freed for preaching to the whole world. With the Passion imminent these were removed — Luke 22: “when I sent you without purse or staff, did you lack anything?” “Nothing.” “Now let him who has a sack take it.” For then the time of perfect liberty was at hand, when each man’s own judgment is left to him in things not of the necessity of virtue. His gloss: “You can wear shoes now — you can if you want, but you don’t have to.”

5. Reply 4 and the turn to a. 3 (“insufficiently orders man” about inward acts) #

Judicial things in themselves are not of the necessity of virtue as regards their determination but only according to the common notion of justice; so the Lord left them to those who have care of others, spiritual or temporal. Some judicial precepts of the Old Testament He did explain, because of the bad understanding of the Pharisees.

Objections of a. 3, which he twice calls “a really serious statement,” “a serious matter”:

1. Of the ten precepts of the Decalogue the Lord adds something only about three: the prohibitions of homicide, adultery, and perjury.
2. Of the judicial precepts He orders nothing except about repudiation of a wife, retaliation, and persecution of enemies.
3. He orders nothing about the ceremonial precepts.
4. Good works should not be done for any temporal good, but He teaches only about avoiding human praise, and only in three works (fasting, almsgiving, prayer).
5. Man is naturally solicitous about the necessities of living, as other animals are — Prov. 6, go to the ant, who prepares food in summer; a precept against the inclination of nature is iniquitous, being against natural law; so He unsuitably forbids solicitude about food and clothing. (“We had that gospel this morning.”)
6. Judgment is an act of justice (Ps. 93: until justice be turned into judgment), so it should not be prohibited.

Sed contra: Augustine, On the Lord’s Sermon on the Mount — that He sat and said “these my words” signifies that His discourse is filled with all the precepts by which Christian life is formed to be perfect.

6. Body of a. 3: the order of the Sermon on the Mount (“contains the whole informing of Christian life”) #

Thomas’s order, as Berquist lays it out: after declaring the end, beatitude, and commending the apostolate through whom the evangelical teaching was to be promulgated, the Lord orders the interior motions of man — first as regards oneself, then as regards the neighbour.

• As to oneself, in two ways, because there are two inward motions about things to be done: the will about things to be done, and the intention about the end. He orders the will by the diverse precepts of the law, that a man abstain not only from exterior works bad in themselves but from interior ones and from the occasions of evil; He orders the intention by teaching that in the goods we do we seek neither human glory nor earthly wealth stored up on earth.
• As to the neighbour: that we not judge rashly, unjustly or presumptuously, yet not be so remiss as to commit good things to the unworthy.
• Last, the way of fulfilling the doctrine: imploring divine aid, striving to enter by the narrow gate of pure virtue, warning against seducers, and that observing the commands is necessary — confession of faith, or hearing only, does not suffice.

7. Replies 1–3 of a. 3: what the Pharisees got wrong (“they did not have a right understanding”) #

• Reply 1: the Lord added completion to those precepts about which the scribes and Pharisees had a wrong understanding, chiefly three. About adultery and homicide they held only the exterior act prohibited, not the interior desire — more so here than about theft or false testimony, because the motion of anger toward homicide and of concupiscence toward adultery seem in some way natural to us (so, a student and he agree, they were thought less culpable), whereas the desire of stealing or of false witness does not. About perjury they judged rightly that it is a sin but thought swearing in itself frequently desirable; the Lord shows an oath is not to be desired as a good, but that it is better to speak without one unless necessity requires.
• Reply 2: about judicial precepts they erred in two ways. (i) What in the Law of Moses were permissions they took as per se just — repudiation of a wife (usually a foreign one); hence the Lord prohibited repudiation and the taking of usury, “lend, expecting nothing thence.” (ii) What the Law instituted for justice they carried out from another motive, in three precepts: revenge, from eye for an eye (given that justice be observed, not that man seek revenge) — so the Lord teaches the soul should be prepared to sustain even more; cupidity, from the precept of restitution with an addition (given for justice, not to give place to cupidity) — so we should be ready to give more; hatred, from the precepts about killing enemies (established for justice, not to satisfy hatred) — so we ought to love enemies and be ready to do well to them. These are to be taken according to the preparation of the soul, as Augustine says.
• Reply 3: moral precepts remain wholly in the New Law, being per se of the notion of virtue; judicial ones do not remain of necessity in the Law’s determination but are left to men’s judgment; ceremonial precepts are wholly fulfilled in the thing itself — the Lamb sacrificed — so nothing is ordered about them in this common teaching. Elsewhere He shows the whole bodily cult is turned into something spiritual: to the Samaritan woman, the hour comes when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will they adore, but the true adorers will adore the Father in spirit and in truth.

8. Replies 4–6: the three earthly goods and fourfold disordered solicitude (“honors, wealth, and pleasures”) #

• Reply 4: all earthly things reduce to three — honours, wealth, pleasures — per 1 John 2:16: concupiscence of the flesh (delights of the flesh), concupiscence of the eyes (wealth), pride of life (ambition of glory and honour). The Law did not promise superfluous delights of the flesh but prohibited them; it did promise high honour and abundance of wealth (Deut. 28 — He will make you higher than all nations, and He will make you abound in all good things), which the Jews understood grossly, so as to serve God for that end. Hence the Lord removes this: works of virtue are not to be done for human glory, and He sets down three works to which all others reduce — fasting (whatever restrains concupiscence), almsgiving (whatever is for love of neighbour), prayer (whatever is for the worship of God) — chosen as those by which men are most accustomed to seek glory. Then, that we not set our end in wealth: “do not store up treasures for yourselves on earth.” Aside: “What am I eating today? Pizza again.”
• Reply 5: not necessary but disordered solicitude is forbidden — a fourfold disorder (“that would be a nice study for a sermon”): (i) constituting our end in temporal things, serving God for food and clothing; (ii) being solicitous with despair of divine aid — “your Father knows that you need these things”; (iii) presumptuous solicitude, trusting that one’s own care can procure them without divine aid — removed by “a man cannot add anything to his stature”; (iv) being preoccupied with care of temporal things, solicitous about the future.
• Reply 6: He does not prohibit the judgment of justice, without which holy things cannot be withheld from the unworthy, but a disordered judgment.

9. Article 4: objections against determinate counsels (“counsels are given about things expedient”) #

Aside on the name: he has a granddaughter named Grace — “I call her the graceful one.” He hands the objections to the students: “this is what you guys are — it’s for you guys now.”

1. Counsels are given about what is expedient to the end, but the same things are not expedient for all; so no determinate counsels should be proposed to everybody. — He calls the reply “a marvelous thing”: “I should have known this 25 years ago.” Reply 1: the counsels considered in themselves are expedient for all; it is from the indisposition (the affections) of some that they are not expedient to someone. Hence the Lord, proposing the evangelical counsels, always mentions men’s suitability: poverty, Matt. 19 — “if you wish to be perfect… go and sell all you have”; perpetual chastity — “there are eunuchs who have made themselves so for the kingdom,” then “he who can take it, let him take it”; and the Apostle on virginity — “I say this for your profit, not to cast a snare upon you.”
2. Counsels are about the greater good, but there are no determined grades of the greater good. Reply 2: greater goods in particular are undetermined in individuals, but those which are simply and absolutely greater goods in general are determined, and all particulars reduce to them. He comments: “it’s kind of a strange answer.”
   • Student exchange here: are the counsels not rather removing impediments than the goal itself? He grants the wording — not obstacles but things that slow you down — and notes that Thomas does not say the state of perfection consists in obeying the counsels, but that they remove impediments to pursuing perfection of soul, which admits of different grades.
3. Obedience pertains to perfection of life, yet no counsel of it is given. Reply 3: a counsel of obedience is given in “follow me,” which we follow not only by imitating His works but by obeying His commands — John 10, “my sheep hear my voice and follow me.” Aside: the word for obedience comes from hearing and listening in Latin, Greek, Syriac, in many languages.
4. Many things pertaining to perfection of life are put among the precepts (love your enemies; the precepts given to the apostles), so the counsels are unsuitably treated, since not all are proposed and they are not distinguished from precepts. Reply 4: what is said about true love of enemies (Matt. 5, Luke 6), referred to preparation of the soul, is of the necessity of salvation, and so is laid down among precepts; but to show this to enemies promptly in act, where no special necessity occurs, belongs to particular counsels. Those of Matt. 10, Luke 9 and 10 were precepts of discipline for that time, or concessions as said above, and so are not brought in as counsels.

Sed contra: the counsels of a wise friend bring much usefulness — Prov. 27, the soul is sweetened by the good counsels of a friend; but Christ is most of all wise and a friend.

10. Body of a. 4: counsels and the law of liberty (“the more he adheres to one, the more he recedes”) #

1. The difference between counsel and precept: a precept implies necessity; in a counsel the choice — “you might say, option” — is left to the one to whom it is given.
2. Therefore counsels are suitably added above precepts in the New Law, which is the law of liberty, and not in the Old Law.
3. So the precepts of the New Law are about what is necessary to attain the end of eternal beatitude, into which the New Law immediately introduces; the counsels are about what enables a man to attain that end better and more expeditiously.
4. Man is set between the things of this world and spiritual goods, and the more he adheres to one the more he recedes from the other, and conversely. He who wholly adheres to the things of this world, constituting his end in them, having them as the reasons and rules of his deeds, is wholly cut off from spiritual goods; this disorder the precepts take away. But wholly to give up the things of the world is not necessary for reaching the end — a man can use them, provided he does not put his end in them, and still reach beatitude, though he arrives more expeditiously without them; and about this the counsels are given.
5. The goods of this world pertaining to the use of human life are three: wealth of exterior goods (concupiscence of the eyes), delights of the flesh (concupiscence of the flesh), honours (pursuing the presidency). To set these three aside entirely, so far as possible, belongs to the gospel counsels, and on these three every religion is founded — “religion in the sense of a status,” professing the state of perfection: wealth abdicated through poverty, delights of the flesh through perpetual chastity, pride of life through the servitude of obedience. (Aside: “the Dominican says to me, he’s now legally dead or something.”)
6. Observed simply, these are the counsels simply proposed; observed in some special case, the counsel secundum quid — in that case: giving something to a poor man follows the counsel as regards the deed done; abstaining for a determined time from the delights of the flesh to give oneself to prayer follows the counsel for that time; not following one’s own will in something it would be licit to do — benefiting enemies when not held to, or remitting an offence one could justly avenge — follows the counsel in that case. All particular counsels reduce to those three general ones. He closes: “Three is the first number about which we say all.”

His words #

• “formed faith” — faith that acts through love (Gal. 5:6).
• “sacred things” — consecrations of temple, altar, vessels, celebrations of solemnities, as distinct from sacraments; no grace is given in them.
• “temporal prelate” — he pauses over the phrase; the one with temporal care of others, to whom judicial determinations are left.
• “concessions” — Augustine’s reading of Matt. 10: not precepts but permissions granted the apostles.
• “preparation of the soul” — the mode in which the precepts of loving enemies and sustaining injury bind.
• “disordered solicitude” — the fourfold disorder about temporal things, as against necessary solicitude.
• “counsel” / “counsels” — as against precept: the option is left to the one to whom it is given [ASR often renders “consul”].
• “counsel secundum quid” — “in some way,” i.e. in that particular case.
• “religion” — here “in the sense of a status,” professing the state of perfection.

Texts #

Read in class

• Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 108, a. 2 (objections, sed contra, body, replies)
• Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 108, a. 3 (objections, sed contra, body, replies)
• Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 108, a. 4 (objections, replies, sed contra, body)
• Quoted within: Gal. 5:6; Matt. 7; Matt. 10; Luke 9, 10; Luke 22; Prov. 6; Ps. 93; 1 John 2:16; Deut. 28 (inferred, “twenty-eight”); Matt. 19; John 4 (the Samaritan woman, inferred); John 10; Prov. 27; Matt. 5, Luke 6

Mentioned

• Augustine, On the Consent of the Evangelists
• Augustine, On the Lord’s Sermon on the Mount
• Chrysostom and Bede, via the Catena Aurea on Matthew
• Aristotle, Ethics (breaking off communication with one confirmed in wickedness)
• Thomas Aquinas, on charity (no charity toward demons or the damned)
• The old catechism definition of a sacrament
• St Benedict’s Rule (order of the Psalms left to the abbot)

His questions #

• How does the New Law sufficiently order exterior works? Only by commanding what leads us into grace (Christ’s sacraments) and what of itself pertains to the right use of grace (moral precepts of virtue).
• What was the old catechism definition of a sacrament? An outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace — which contains and confers grace.
• What is a temporal prelate? Left open; he raises it in passing as the one with temporal care of the common utility.
• If no grace is given in “sacred things,” what of indulgences attached to churches and feasts? The Church from its treasure grants them; this is not part of the New Law but the Church’s own proclamation.
• Why did the Pharisees think the interior desire forbidden in homicide and adultery rather than in theft or false witness? Because anger toward homicide and concupiscence toward adultery seem in some way natural to us, hence were thought less culpable.
• Why are determinate counsels proposed to all, if the same things are not expedient for all? In themselves they are expedient for all; only the indisposition of a man’s affections makes them inexpedient for him — hence Christ always adds “if you wish,” “he who can take it.”
• Are the counsels not rather a removing of impediments than the perfection itself? Yes — Thomas does not say perfection consists in them; they remove what slows a man down in pursuing perfection of soul.
• Why are counsels added in the New Law and not the Old? Because the New Law is the law of liberty, in which the choice is left to the one counselled.