Scotus Academicus, Tomus sextus: De Legibus Divinis et Humanis

The present Question treats chiefly of the threefold cause of the Mosaic Law, namely of its Efficient, Ministerial, and Declarative or Promulgating cause. That is to say, whether the old law had God as its institutor, the Angels as its ministers and signifiers, and Moses as its promulgator.

Note 1. That although before the Mosaic law several other laws had been prescribed to men by God, and especially to Adam, the propagator of the human race, so that he might hand them down to his posterity — namely concerning the worship of the divine Majesty through sacred rites and sacrifices, concerning the observance of the Sabbath day, and concerning the keeping of natural equity toward one's neighbor, so that no one do to another what he would not have done to himself, etc. — and also to Noë, the restorer of mankind after the flood, to whom and whose sons God prescribed those precepts which are called those of the Noachides, of which mention was made above; nevertheless it is certain that before the Mosaic law no law divinely consigned to men in writing existed, but all whatsoever then endured were handed down either by the dictate of natural reason or by tradition received from our forefathers.

Hence the Mosaic law is rightly judged to be the first of all laws constituted and posited for men by God in writing; wherefore it is called the first of all posited laws; for a positive divine law signifies a certain whole body of right posited by God himself for men, in which men are gathered together into one mystical body under special signs or sacraments in order to divine worship. But in this way men before Moses were not so instructed into an assembly, nor did they have special common laws prescribed concerning Sacrifices or Sacraments to be frequented. The same must be said of other rites or customs to be instituted; wherefore that whole first period is called the time of the natural law, because during that whole period the natural law alone prevailed, inscribed upon the hearts of men, with divine grace assisting it and promoting nature itself toward the supernatural order. Whence, although it be true to say with Tertullian praised above, that very many precepts were implanted by God in divers men before the law of Moses was prescribed, yet no law was posited for them whereby he might unite those men themselves unto divine worship and unto entering into perfect concord with one another.

Note 2. Before the Mosaic law was drawn up, precepts of a threefold kind had been implanted in men by God, whereby he might restore and reform deviating nature, as Alensis lucidly teaches and explains q. 2, memb. 1, art. 3, saying: that there is a threefold inordination of nature, because there is an inordination of the concupiscible itself, of the irascible itself, of the rational itself; for before the flood the inordination of the concupiscible chiefly prevailed, and in order to restrain and order this, a certain law was added in which man lived before the flood, Gen. 3: Under thee shall be thy appetite, namely under reason. But this law being broken, after the flood there was a great inordination of the irascible, namely when the sons of Noë wished to build a tower up to the Heavens; wherefore a law was given to order the irascible toward one's neighbor: which was, Flesh with blood you shall not eat; and the reason was unto horror of blood and detestation of homicide, that man might shrink from shedding human blood. Afterward > there followed in the time of Abraham an inordination of the rational: because all

were idolaters: against this inordination there was given to Abraham the law of Circumcision, in sign of the recall of that people unto God to be wor- shipped, and in sign of a covenant between the faithful people and God. Of Genesis 17: And it shall be a sign between me and you. The first inordination was of man toward himself: the second of man toward his neighbor: the third, of man toward God: because on account of idols he abandoned divine worship: therefore thus some law was added to man before the flood, and afterward in the time of Abraham.

Such are the words of Alensis, by which under the name of law he understands not a law consisting of many precepts, but special precepts prescribed to men.

Note 3. That not without a positive law must the matter have been deferred until the times of Moses, as Alensis explains in the same place:

since indeed it itself is the right of men living under one right: previously it was necessary, that there should be a united people, before a law should be given: but from the time of Cir- cumcision began the unity and distinction of a people: whence Hugh says, that from then began the unity of the people of God, and the unity of the conversation of the faithful, which was first figured through the Sacrament of Circumcision: afterward it is signi- fied through the Sacrament of Baptism: and therefore previously a law ought not to have been given: nay rather, the law of Circumcision was a sign of future grace, and therefore it ought to precede. Moreover, previously it was needful that there should be a foundation of the law, before a law should be given. Now those foundations were four, name- ly faith in one God, and faith in the incarnation, probation of faith, and firm- ness of faith. For before it was given, there needed to be an attestation of faith in one God, and this preceded in the sign of Circumcision, which was posited in sign of a covenant between God and the people. But the attestation of faith in the Incarnation was made, when the promise was made to Abraham concerning Christ, In thy seed, etc.: but because testimony in the mouth of one does not suffice, nay rather in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word stands: therefore more often was this promise made, even to Isaac and Jacob, that being repeated to each, In thy seed, etc., before a law should be given. But neither ought it to have been given imme- diately, nay rather previously it was needful that there should be a faith proved: now it was proved in Egypt through adversities: namely that no adversity could turn them away from the faith, to whom the law leading into God trine incarnate was to be given: it was needful also that it should be confirmed, lest the people could be seduced by some fallacy: now it was confirmed in many signs and won- ders, which the Lord wrought and showed in the going out of Egypt, and through the desert. But these things having been done and fulfilled, it ought to be given to Moses, whereby it leads into Christ: but this was completed in the fourth age.

Saint Thomas brings forward another cause of this delay and postponement in promulgating the old law until the times of Moses, namely that that law was prescribed to two kinds of men. First, to the hard and proud, who are checked and held back by the law: Second, to the good, who instructed by the law are helped and directed in fulfilling what they intend. And each respectably the old law was fittingly given. That it was given on account of men of the former kind is evident, because men boasted over two things, namely over knowledge and over power: over knowledge indeed, as if natural reason sufficed them for attaining salvation; which error, that proud man might lay aside, it was needful that the ingenuity of reason, permitted for a long time throughout long time without the aid of a written law, be allowed to experience its own defect from this, that down to idolatry and most certain vices it lapsed about the times of Abraham, it being now posited that it was needful that a law be given as a remedy for human ignorance; because indeed the law made known sin previously acknowledged. But when man through the law was convicted of his former ignorance, he was convicted also of his infirmity, while he adverted that he was unable to fulfill what he had known to be right. Likewise it is proved concerning the upright and just, to whom the aid of grace was necessary when through the exuberance of sins the natural law was already beginning to be obscured and darkened: for it was needful that aid of this kind be ministered in a certain order, that they might be led by the hand through imperfect things unto perfection; wherefore between the law of nature and the law of grace the old law ought to be interposed.

These things noted by way of prelude, three things here occur to be determined: First, whether the old law is good, and founded by the true God. Secondly, whether it was meritoriously intimated through Angels or through the Son of God, who by Isaiah is called the Angel of great counsel. Thirdly, whether Moses was only its promulgator, or whether he in some part instituted and completed it.

First Conclusion. — The old law truly was founded by the true God, and Father of our Lord Jesus, as by a legislator.

This is of faith against various heretics. First, for the Cerdonianists, on the testimony of Saint August., book De Haeresibus, num. 21, thought that the God of the Law and of the Prophets was neither a good God nor the Father of Christ the Lord, but that God whom they called just. But this error the Manichees, Marcionists, and Valentinians renewed and propagated, who despised the Old Testament, affirming with sacrilegious mouth that the God who gave the law through Moses and spoke to the Hebrews was not the true God, but one of the princes of darkness. Before which errors Simon Magus preceded, affirming that there are two Gods, one good, the other evil, as Clement Romanus relates, book Constit., cap. 19. Against which plagues various Fathers out of the Saints fought, but especially Irenaeus book 1. cap. 10. and 21. Epiphanius Heresy 21. and 66. Tertullian in the book Adversus Valentinianos, and in four books Contra Marcionem. Augustine in the books Contra Faustum, and Contra Adamantum Manichaeum, and Contra adversarium Legis et Prophetarum, but especially in the books De Spiritu et littera.

Proof 1. The conclusion is proven by the authorities of Sacred Scripture, in which Christ approves the old law and fulfills it: for He Himself professes, I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it; wherefore, that He might keep the precepts of the law, He was circumcised, was carried by His parents to the temple and offered, so that things might be done according to the custom of the law concerning Him. Likewise He went up to the temple on feast days, that He might adore together with the rest; He ate the Paschal Lamb with His disciples, according to the precepts of the law. Moreover, in Matt. 15 Christ the Lord calls the old law the commandment of God, saying to the Jews: You have made void the commandment of God because of your traditions. In Luke 1 Zachary testifies that it is the same God of Israel who has wrought the redemption of His people, and who has spoken through the mouth of His holy prophets, who are from the beginning of the world; and in the same place the most blessed Virgin testifies in

her Canticle, saying: He has taken up Israel His servant, being mindful of His mercy, as He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham, etc.

It is confirmed by the testimony of the Apostles; for St. Peter in Acts 3 speaks thus:

God who foretold through the mouth of all the prophets that Christ His Son should suffer, and has fulfilled it.

St. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans thus begins: Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an Apostle, separated unto the Gospel of God, which He had promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures concerning His Son, etc. And the Epistle to the Hebrews likewise begins thus: God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all in these days has spoken to us by His Son. Therefore since the old law is a commandment of God, and since Christ proved and fulfilled it, and urged again and again in His sermons and colloquies that it was to be kept by others; moreover, since the same God who instituted the New Testament, prescribing it to us through His Son, also spoke through the prophets and the fathers and prescribed the law, it is necessary either that heretics likewise reject the New Testament, or confess that the Old Testament also was founded by the true and only God. — To these add that in the New Testament the Mosaic law is approved and praised as good: for St. Paul to the Romans 7 says: The law indeed is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good; and 1 Tim. 1: we know that the law is good, if any man use it lawfully; Galatians 3: the law was our pedagogue in Christ, that we might be justified by faith; but after faith is come, we are no longer under a pedagogue. Since therefore the law, as pedagogue, led us to faith in Christ, certainly it could not fail to be good, seeing that it directed and conducted us to so perfect a mark and end. — Wherefore the Council of Toledo deservedly decreed thus in its confession of faith: If anyone shall say or believe that one God is of the ancient law and another of the Gospels, let him be anathema; which decree the Council of Trent renewed at the beginning of session 4, where, treating of the Canonical Scriptures, it established and decreed that the sacred Synod receives and venerates all the books both of the Old Testament and of the New, since one God is the author of both,... with equal affection of piety and reverence.

This assertion of ours can also be confirmed by reason. First, for the foundation of the heretics is false, and demolished by most efficacious arguments and demonstrations in the first Tractate of our Theology, in the Question on the Unity of God, where we proved that it is impossible that there be two or more gods. Then, even if per impossibile there were more than one, it would not follow from this that the old law is to be referred to an evil god; because this god, if he existed, as the heretics feign, would be the most intense enemy of Christ the Lord, and of His Father, namely of the good God; and consequently that law would not have to be attributed to such an evil god which bears witness concerning Christ and leads by hand to Christ: for he would not have sanctioned a law by which his own kingdom would be utterly destroyed; since indeed the Manichaeans and other heretics contended that the old law and the kingdom of the prince of this world, whom they called the just god or the evil god, had been altogether overthrown through Christ the Lord; according to that oracle of the same Christ the Lord: Now shall the prince of this world be cast out. But the old law bears witness concerning Christ, according to that word at the end of Luke: All things must needs be fulfilled which are written in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me; and John 5: If you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also: for he wrote of me. And he had premised: Search the Scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting: and they are they which give testimony of me; and you will not come to me that you may have life. Finally, it belongs to the same one to propose the end and to dispose the means for attaining it: but the evangelical law is the end of the Mosaic law, which as a pedagogue led us to Christ as to the end; according to that word to Rom. 10: Christ is the end of the law unto justice to every one that believeth. Therefore the same God who is the author of the evangelical law is also the author of the Mosaic law.

You will object 1. That text of Ezekiel, chapter 20, where God speaking of the old law says, I gave them statutes that were not good, and judgments in which they shall not live: therefore truly the old law was not good, and consequently neither from a good god nor from the true God, who cannot be the author of any evil.

I answer. The Holy Fathers give various answers to the passage cited above. First, for St. Jerome says on that passage, that the discourse here is not about the old law, but about the iniquitous laws of tyrants and the impious rites of the gentiles, by which the Jews, dispersed through the regions because of their iniquities, are weighed down and punished by the just judgment of God. Whence indeed it is confirmed; for in the same chapter the Lord had said before, in verse 11: I gave them my statutes, and showed them my judgments, which if a man do he shall live in them. Therefore in the prior text God speaks of another kind of precepts than the divine ones: but these can be nothing other than the precepts of the Gentiles by which the Jews were burdened.

But on the hypothesis that the aforesaid text must be understood of the old law, I answer with St. Gregory, book 28 of the Moralia, c. 21, that the precepts of the old law are said to be not good comparatively, not absolutely: because doubtless, compared with the precepts of the new law, which are better, they do not possess that goodness: for what is good absolutely holds, comparatively and in respect of a better good, the character of not-good. It is said, moreover, that men do not live in them: because they are not sufficient for directing men to eternal life, nor do they bestow sanctity upon the soul. These rags of infancy, He says, which He Himself gave through the prophet to infants, the Lord reproved, saying:

I gave them statutes that were not good, that is, evil, as if they were evil in respect of worse things, and good, since they are not good comparatively to better ones: even as God said to the erring Jewess concerning Sodom and Gomorrah: You have justified your sisters in all your abominations which you have wrought. So the good precepts given to the unlearned are recorded as not good beside the subsequent better precepts of the Old Testament.

I answer 2. That the old law is not good is alleged also from Scripture: for by the testimony of the Apostle, Rom. 7: sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence; and c. 4: the law works wrath: for where there is no law, neither is there transgression; c. 5: the law entered in that sin might abound; 1 Cor. 15: the strength of sin is the law; 2 Cor. 3: the letter kills, and it is the ministration of death, and of condemnation. And Scripture concluded all under sin, Galatians 3. For the sake of transgressions the law was laid down: yet nevertheless it is good of itself absolutely: for Rom. 7: the law indeed is holy, and the commandment holy, and good; Gal. 3: the law was our pedagogue in Christ, that we might be justified by faith; 1 Tim. 1: the law is good, if any man use it lawfully, etc.

You will object 2. That saying of the Apostle to the Hebrews 8, where, speaking of the Old and the New Testament, he says: If that first had been without fault, surely no place would have been sought for a second; but the law which is not without fault is not good; for good arises from an integral cause, but evil from any defect whatever; hence the Apostle judges that the old law was not good.

I answer by distinguishing the major: The Old Testament was not without fault, as though it were an induction to fault, I deny; because it was occasioned by the fault committed, and demonstrated a fault previously unknown, I concede. Hence St. Thomas aptly says on this passage that something can belong to a law in two ways: either in itself, and thus it was good; or in respect of those to whom it was given, and thus it is said to have fault on account of two things: First, because it did not give the power to purge sins committed, as the same Apostle indicates later in chapter 10, It is impossible that with the blood of bulls and of goats sins should be taken away. Second, because it did not give assisting grace for avoiding sins, but only for knowing them; and thus it was an occasion of sin, according to that of Romans 7, I had not known concupiscence if the law did not say: Thou shalt not covet; and thus it is said not to be without fault, because it left men in the very fault.

You will insist: From the Apostle to the Romans 7, The law entered in that sin might abound: therefore the law is truly inductive to sin. Likewise from the same Apostle to the Galatians 3, Whosoever are under the works of the law are under the curse; but what is under the curse is evil: therefore truly the works of the old law were evil.

He answers to the first, our Alexander q. 28 art. 2, that something can contribute to the increase of sin in two ways, namely either by occasion or by cause; but the law entered in that sin might abound, not by cause, as though it were inductive to sin, but by occasion; for as the Apostle says there, But taking occasion by the commandment, sin wrought in me all manner of concupiscence.

To the second indeed the same responds, that the curse is twofold: one of punishment, another of fault; in the former way those who were under the law were also under the curse, not because they were under the works of the law, insofar as they were works of the law; but only insofar as they presumed concerning those works, trusting in themselves.

You will object 3. In the old law, as is clear from chapter 21 of Exodus, among the judicial precepts the penalty of retaliation holds place, Soul for soul, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; but this precept of law was disapproved by Christ the Lord in Matthew 5 in these words: You have heard that it was said to them of old: Eye for eye, etc.; But I say to you, not to resist evil. Therefore the old law commanded something to be disapproved; and accordingly it was neither good nor founded by the good and true God.

I answer, that this law of retaliation is not reproved by Christ the Lord as evil; for it was most excellent for that time for which it was enacted; but by these words, But I say to you, etc., Christ instituted one better and more perfect, as St. Augustine expressly explains in book De Sermone Domini in monte:

The justice of the Pharisees, he says, is lesser, not to exceed the measure of vengeance, lest anyone repay more than he received, and this is a great step: For no one is easily found who wishes to render a blow for a blow received, and hearing one word of abuse, to be content to return one, and one worth just as much; but more often, disturbed by anger, he avenges immoderately: either because he thinks him unjust who wounded him first, he wounds with greater pleasure him who had not wounded him. Such a mind the law in part restrained wherein it is written: eye for eye, tooth for tooth; by whose names a measure is signified, that injury should not pass beyond vengeance, and this > is the beginning of peace. Perfect peace indeed is wholly to refuse such vengeance: therefore whoever renders only as much as he received, already forgives something: for the guilty does not merit so much punishment as he who was wounded by him while innocent suffered.

And book 19 Contra Faustum chapter 25, It is not the fuel but the boundary of anger: not that what lay dormant might thereby be kindled, but lest what burned might extend further.

You will say 1. The sacrifices of the old Law were unpleasing and hateful to God: therefore the law which instituted such sacrifices was not good. The antecedent is proved from Psalm 50, If thou hadst desired sacrifice, I would indeed have given it: with burnt offerings thou wilt not be delighted. Isaiah 1, To what purpose do you offer me the multitude of your victims? I am full: incense is an abomination to me. Your new moons, and your solemnities my soul hateth, I have laboured in bearing them. But the Apostle in Hebrews 10, explaining that verse of Psalm 39, Sacrifice and oblation thou didst not will, says: Oblations, and sacrifices, and holocausts for sin thou didst not will, neither are they pleasing to thee, which are offered according to the law: therefore the law commanding those sacrifices was not acceptable to God, nor consequently instituted by him; since he hated nothing of the things he made.

I answer 1. That in the cited words of the Prophets it is foretold that those sacrifices would cease in the time of the Evangelical law; but from this it is not consequent that they were evil while the Mosaic law stood. Second, the Prophets do not disapprove in those words the sacrifices themselves, but the perverse mind of the offerers, who although they were in most grievous sins nevertheless thought by sacrifices offered with the will of mortal sin to appease God: whence Isaiah 1, When you shall multiply your prayers, I will not hear them, for your hands are full of blood. Third, the Prophets signify by this manner of speaking that these sacrifices were imperfect, which they freely confess: just as we shall say below that the old law also, although good, was nevertheless imperfect.

You will object 5. The works of the word of God are perfect, as is said in Deuteronomy 32: but the Mosaic law was not perfect: wherefore the Apostle says in Hebrews 7, that there is a disannulling of the preceding commandment on account of its weakness and unprofitableness: therefore God is not the author of that law. Moreover, Ecclesiasticus chapter 3 says, I have learned that all the works which God has made continue for ever: but the Mosaic law ought not to remain for ever; since with the advent of the new law it was to be set aside. Finally, those things which are from God are good, and suffice for salvation: but the old law was insufficient for salvation: therefore it must not be judged to have been established by the true God.

I answer to the first, something can be called perfect either simply and absolutely, or relatively and comparatively with respect to those to whom it befits. I grant, however, that the old law was not perfect simply and absolutely, but only respectively and comparatively with respect to those to whom it was to be given, and for the time during which it was to be given: for the Jews were still untrained and as it were children, for whom a Pedagogue was necessary, by whom they might be instructed through fear of punishments: but the time had not yet come in which the law of grace would be given, which is perfect absolutely and simply: for it was due to be given only in the fullness of time. And just as precepts given to children are perfect when account is taken of them, although they are not absolutely and simply perfect: so also the old law was perfect when account was taken of the Jews who were to be instructed by it: it was likewise perfect with respect to the time, for the time did not demand anything more perfect, since it had to precede the law that is simply perfect. To the second I say: those works of God are eternal which God made perfect simply and absolutely, this I concede: those which he made perfect only comparatively and for a certain time, this I deny: for since they were referred to something else, and were made by God in order toward something else, when that to which they were referred arrives, they must cease. Hence the Apostle says in Galatians 3: Where faith is come, we are no longer under a pedagogue.

To the third I say that those things which are good and from God, together with the help of grace, truly suffice for salvation, this I concede: unless they have the help of grace annexed to them, this I deny. Now God furnished this help also to the Jews, just as he furnishes to all the nations a help sufficient for salvation; though he bestowed it with more abundant honor and richer mercy upon the faithful of Christ living under the Evangelical law.

You will object 6. That law is not from God which does not accord with the eternal law of God: but the old law does not accord with the eternal law of God; for the eternal law, says St. Augustine in the books De libero arbitrio, commands one to relinquish love of temporal things and to turn oneself cleansed toward eternal things; but the old law turns the soul toward temporal things; since it promises temporal goods alone as a reward to its observers, as is evident from many texts of Exodus, and also of Deuteronomy, especially chapter 28, where Moses, addressing the people of Israel, says:

if thou keep the commandments of the Lord thy God, and walk in his ways,... the Lord will make thee abound in all goods, in the fruit of thy womb, and in the fruit of thy cattle, in the fruit of thy land, which the Lord swore to thy fathers to give thee. The Lord will open his excellent treasure, heaven, that he may give rain to thy land in its season: and will bless all the works of thy hands.

Alexander of Hales answers that there is a twofold conversion toward temporal things: one indeed on account of temporal things alone, so that therein one's state may rest, after which manner the Mosaic law did not convert men toward temporal things: the other conversion is made toward temporal things, not on account of these themselves, but on account of eternal goods; and in this way the law of Moses converts toward temporal goods, that man may thereby be raised up to eternal things, namely that man may be moved by the gift to the love of the giver himself, namely God. Whence in Deuteronomy 11, Moses, speaking to the Israelites in the place of God, says:

If then you obey my commandments, which I command you this day, that you love the Lord your God, and serve him with your whole heart, and with your whole soul, he will give to your land rain early and late, that you may gather in your corn, and your wine, and your oil, and hay out of the fields to feed your cattle, and that you yourselves may eat and be filled.

Second Conclusion. — The old law was delivered by God to Moses through the ministry of Angels.

Proof 1. from Scripture, Acts 7, where it thus speaks of Moses: This is he that was in the church in the wilderness with the Angel, who spoke to him in mount Sina, and with our fathers, who received the words of life to give to us. And the Apostle says in Galat. 3: Why then the law? It was set because of transgressions, and ordained by Angels in the hand of a mediator, namely Moses, who says of himself in Deuter. 5: I stood between the Lord and you at that time, to show you his words. And in Heb. 2: For if the word spoken by Angels, etc., where by that word he understands the Mosaic law, as is evident from the words following: for he compares it with the Evangelical law, and signifies that this is the difference between the old law and the new, that the old law, as a law of servitude, was delivered to the Jews through Angels: but the new law, because it is the law of grace, was prescribed to us through the Son of God.

This very thing the holy Fathers teach commonly: namely first of all St. Dionysius in book De Coelesti Hierarchia, chapter 1, where, having said that the celestial intelligences are chiefly called by the name of Angels, for this reason that first in them is the divine illumination, and next illuminations are conveyed through them to us which surpass our natural knowledge, he straightway adds: for so the law, as divine scripture testifies, was given to us through Angels. Then, unfolding how the Angels led all the Patriarchs and Prophets to the knowledge of divinity, he concludes: Have they not also handed down, according to divine scripture, that that same legislative law was given to Moses by the just God indeed: that they may teach the people going before the divine and sacred representations of them? But the same Theologian condemns that heresy, since the works of the Angels toward us have been permitted, as though he alone perceived those things of the divine law which pertain to the state contained therein, and to the heavenly state which first raises one up to Divinity.

Reason itself persuades this same thing. For it was most fitting that, since the perfect law was to be given through God himself incarnate, the imperfect law, which disposed one toward the perfect law, should be delivered to men not through God himself, but through the ministry of Angels.

You will say: He who spoke to Moses, prescribing to him the old law, called himself God and Lord. Exodus 20, saying: I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt: therefore he was not an Angel, but the divine Word: which, since it is God, is called the Angel of great counsel in Isaias.

I answer that the Angelic legislator claimed such a name for himself, not because he wished to be seen as God, but because he spoke in the name of God, and bore and represented him: whence St. Gregory the Great in the preface of book Iob cap. 2 says of the Angel who is written to have appeared to Moses, that he is at one moment called Angel and at another Lord: Angel on account of the ministry by which he served the others by speaking: but he is called Lord, because presiding over interior things he ministered the effect of speaking. When he speaks with him obedience is rendered, and by dispensation he is called Angel, and by inspiration Lord. — And St. Augustine had said before this, lib. 3. De Trinitate, cap. 1, writing: When the precepts of the heavenly judge are endured, it is not angels who give thanks; but the judge himself commands: while prophetic holiness speaks of him, even if we say: the prophet says, he willed nothing else than that the Lord be understood to have spoken; and if we say: the Lord said, we do not withdraw the prophet, but remind of what he said through him.

Third conclusion. — Moses was only the promulgator of the old law: but by no means its institutor.

Proof: First indeed from chapter 20 of Exodus, where God alone is asserted to have founded and ordered all the precepts of the old law which follow afterwards, in these words: And the Lord spoke these words: I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage: thou shalt not have strange gods before me, thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, etc. Afterwards indeed all the precepts of that law are handed down under the same tenor of words, whether moral, and pertaining to the Decalogue, or ceremonial, or judicial: and consequently it follows that all the precepts of that law were founded by God commanding and ordaining, and promulgated through Moses.

Proof 2. If any precepts of the old law had been founded by Moses, especially either the ceremonial or the judicial ones, as someone holds: yet these also have God himself as author, as is clear from holy Scripture, which whenever it treats of such precepts, often repeats and inculcates these words: The Lord spoke to Moses. Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: or adds this: Moses spoke to the children of Israel, all things which the Lord had commanded. But concerning the judicial precepts, Exodus 21, where they begin to be handed down, God addresses Moses thus: These are the judgments which thou shalt set before them: if thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve thee. Likewise chapter 25, in which the ceremonial precepts are treated of, we read: And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the children of Israel, that they take me first-fruits, etc. From which ways of speaking it stands thence that nothing at all was derived from Moses and promulgated except in the name of God the legislator. Finally, the old law is simply called the law of the Lord: which is an indication that it was founded by the Lord. Whence deliberately John 1: The law was given by Moses; grace and truth were made by Jesus Christ. For as Clement of Alexandria observes in book 1 of the Paedagogus: The law was given by Moses, not by Moses, but by the Word, and indeed concerning the law, it was merely given, he says, Scripture by Moses; but truth and grace are not said merely to be given by Christ, but, what

You will say 1: The old law is for the most part called the law of Moses, especially Malachia 3 and Luke 2. Whence by Clement the Roman Pontiff, and by certain others, Moses is called not only the promulgator of that law, but also its legislator: therefore some of its precepts were instituted by Moses by his own authority.

I deny the consequence: for in the same places in which the old law is called the law of Moses, it is also called the law of the Lord, that it may be signified to have been handed down by the Lord; for in the same chapter 3 of Malachia God speaks thus: Remember the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded him in Horeb, for all Israel, precepts and judgments: but Luke 2 it is said thus: After the days of her purification were fulfilled, Mary, according to the law of Moses, carried him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord, as it is written in the law of the Lord. By which it is signified that the same law was called both of the Lord and of Moses: of the Lord indeed as of the author, of Moses as of the promulgator.

You will say 2: The precept concerning the bill of divorce was given not by God, but by Moses, according to that saying of Christ the Lord, Matth. 19, where when he had said that it is not lawful for a man to put away his wife, because what God hath joined together, let no man put asunder, the Disciples inquiring: Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? he said to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so: therefore Moses instituted some precepts of the old law.

I deny the antecedent: for if Moses himself had instituted the bill of divorce, it would follow that he himself had by his own authority granted the faculty of dissolving legitimate marriage: but no man can by his own authority grant such a faculty, since what God hath joined together, let no man put asunder, saith Christ; and consequently the precept concerning the bill of divorce was granted not by Moses, but by God. Nor is any force to be drawn from those words: Moses commanded, and permitted: for if from thence it were licit to infer that Moses was the author of this commandment, it would also be licit to infer that he was the author of the Decalogue: for Mark 7, Christ reproaching the Jews, because on account of their traditions to be kept they made void the precept of God, says: For Moses said: Honour thy Father and thy Mother. Nor likewise is any force to be drawn from these words, but from the beginning it was not so: for although from the beginning God did not give this faculty to men, that whenever they wished with impunity to put away their wives, they might give a bill to those whom they would put away; nevertheless from that it does not follow that God could not afterwards concede this faculty on account of the hardness of heart: for, as Alexander says, member 1, article 2, ad quintum,

the law was given to the hard for a scourge: that he might punish them by making them understand punishments, and by withdrawing delights, and in respect of this the law gave the bill of divorce, which is in the law by permission, that he might withdraw the hard, namely, and perverse from evil, because they were prone to kill their wives: therefore that he might scourge them in this, he ordained that it should not be licit for them again to take wives after they had given a bill of divorce.