Prima Secundae · Law

Of the Duration of the Ceremonial Precepts

I-II, q. 103 · Four articles

Prooemium · Thomas's plan for this question

Deinde considerandum est de duratione caeremonialium praeceptorum. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum praecepta caeremonialia fuerint ante legem. Secundo, utrum in lege aliquam virtutem habuerint iustificandi. Tertio, utrum cessaverint Christo veniente. Quarto, utrum sit peccatum mortale observare ea post Christum.

We must now consider the duration of the ceremonial precepts: under which head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether the ceremonial precepts were in existence before the Law?

(2) Whether at the time of the Law the ceremonies of the Old Law had any power of justification?

(3) Whether they ceased at the coming of Christ?

(4) Whether it is a mortal sin to observe them after the coming of Christ?

  1. 1 Whether the Ceremonies of the Law Were in Existence Before the Law?
  2. 2 Whether, at the Time of the Law, the Ceremonies of the Old Law Had Any Power of Justification?
  3. 3 Whether the Ceremonies of the Old Law Ceased at the Coming of Christ?
  4. 4 Whether Since Christ's Passion the Legal Ceremonies Can Be Observed Without Committing Mortal Sin?

Articulus I

Whether the Ceremonies of the Law Were in Existence Before the Law?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod caeremoniae legis fuerint ante legem. Sacrificia enim et holocausta pertinent ad caeremonias veteris legis, ut supra dictum est. Sed sacrificia et holocausta fuerunt ante legem. Dicitur enim Gen. IV, quod Cain obtulit de fructibus terrae munera domino; Abel autem obtulit de primogenitis gregis sui, et de adipibus eorum. Noe etiam obtulit holocausta domino, ut dicitur Gen. VIII; et Abraham similiter, ut dicitur Gen. XXII. Ergo caeremoniae veteris legis fuerunt ante legem.

It would seem that the ceremonies of the Law were in existence before the Law. For sacrifices and holocausts were ceremonies of the Old Law, as stated above (Q. 101, A. 4). But sacrifices and holocausts preceded the Law: for it is written (Gen. 4:3, 4) that "Cain offered, of the fruits of the earth, gifts to the Lord," and that "Abel offered of the firstlings of his flock, and of their fat." Noe also "offered holocausts" to the Lord (Gen. 18:20), and Abraham did in like manner (Gen. 22:13). Therefore the ceremonies of the Old Law preceded the Law.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, ad caeremonias sacrorum pertinet constructio altaris, et eius inunctio. Sed ista fuerunt ante legem. Legitur enim Gen. XIII, quod Abraham aedificavit altare domino; et de Iacob dicitur Gen. XXVIII, quod tulit lapidem et erexit in titulum fundens oleum desuper. Ergo caeremoniae legales fuerunt ante legem.

Further, the erecting and consecrating of the altar were part of the ceremonies relating to holy things. But these preceded the Law. For we read (Gen. 13:18) that "Abraham . . . built . . . an altar the Lord"; and (Gen. 28:18) that "Jacob . . . took the stone . . . and set it up for a title, pouring oil upon the top of it." Therefore the legal ceremonies preceded the Law.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, inter sacramenta legalia primum videtur fuisse circumcisio. Sed circumcisio fuit ante legem, ut patet Gen. XVII. Similiter etiam sacerdotium fuit ante legem, dicitur enim Gen. XIV, quod Melchisedech erat sacerdos Dei summi. Ergo caeremoniae sacramentorum fuerunt ante legem.

Further, the first of the legal sacraments seems to have been circumcision. But circumcision preceded the Law, as appears from Gen. 17. In like manner the priesthood preceded the Law; for it is written (Gen. 14:18) that "Melchisedech . . . was the priest of the most high God." Therefore the sacramental ceremonies preceded the Law.

Arg. 4 Objection 4

Praeterea, discretio mundorum animalium ab immundis pertinet ad caeremonias observantiarum, ut supra dictum est. Sed talis discretio fuit ante legem, dicitur enim Gen. VII, ex omnibus mundis animalibus tolle septena et septena; de animantibus vero immundis, duo et duo. Ergo caeremoniae legales fuerunt ante legem.

Further, the distinction of clean from unclean animals belongs to the ceremonies of observances, as stated above (Q. 100, 2, A. 6, ad 1). But this distinction preceded the Law; for it is written (Gen. 7:2, 3): "Of all clean beasts take seven and seven . . . but of the beasts that are unclean, two and two." Therefore the legal ceremonies preceded the Law.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod dicitur Deut. VI, haec sunt praecepta et caeremoniae quae mandavit dominus Deus vester ut docerem vos. Non autem indiguissent super his doceri, si prius praedictae caeremoniae fuissent. Ergo caeremoniae legis non fuerunt ante legem.

On the contrary, It is written (Deut. 6:1): "These are the precepts and ceremonies . . . which the Lord your God commanded that I should teach you." But they would not have needed to be taught about these things, if the aforesaid ceremonies had been already in existence. Therefore the legal ceremonies did not precede the Law.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut ex dictis patet, caeremoniae legis ad duo ordinabantur, scilicet ad cultum Dei, et ad figurandum Christum. Quicumque autem colit Deum, oportet quod per aliqua determinata eum colat, quae ad exteriorem cultum pertinent. Determinatio autem divini cultus ad caeremonias pertinet; sicut etiam determinatio eorum per quae ordinamur ad proximum, pertinet ad praecepta iudicialia; ut supra dictum est. Et ideo sicut inter homines communiter erant aliqua iudicialia, non tamen ex auctoritate legis divinae instituta, sed ratione hominum ordinata; ita etiam erant quaedam caeremoniae, non quidem ex auctoritate alicuius legis determinatae, sed solum secundum voluntatem et devotionem hominum Deum colentium. Sed quia etiam ante legem fuerunt quidam viri praecipui prophetico spiritu pollentes, credendum est quod ex instinctu divino, quasi ex quadam privata lege, inducerentur ad aliquem certum modum colendi Deum, qui et conveniens esset interiori cultui, et etiam congrueret ad significandum Christi mysteria, quae figurabantur etiam per alia eorum gesta, secundum illud I ad Cor. X, omnia in figuram contingebant illis. Fuerunt igitur ante legem quaedam caeremoniae, non tamen caeremoniae legis, quia non erant per aliquam legislationem institutae.

I answer that, As is clear from what has been said (Q. 101, A. 2; Q. 102, A. 2), the legal ceremonies were ordained for a double purpose; the worship of God, and the foreshadowing of Christ. Now whoever worships God must needs worship Him by means of certain fixed things pertaining to external worship. But the fixing of the divine worship belongs to the ceremonies; just as the determining of our relations with our neighbor is a matter determined by the judicial precepts, as stated above (Q. 99, A. 4). Consequently, as among men in general there were certain judicial precepts, not indeed established by Divine authority, but ordained by human reason; so also there were some ceremonies fixed, not by the authority of any law, but according to the will and devotion of those that worship God. Since, however, even before the Law some of the leading men were gifted with the spirit of prophecy, it is to be believed that a heavenly instinct, like a private law, prompted them to worship God in a certain definite way, which would be both in keeping with the interior worship, and a suitable token of Christ's mysteries, which were foreshadowed also by other things that they did, according to 1 Cor. 10:11: "All . . . things happened to them in figure." Therefore there were some ceremonies before the Law, but they were not legal ceremonies, because they were not as yet established by legislation.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod huiusmodi oblationes et sacrificia et holocausta offerebant antiqui ante legem ex quadam devotione propriae voluntatis, secundum quod eis videbatur conveniens ut in rebus quas a Deo acceperant, quas in reverentiam divinam offerrent, protestarentur se colere Deum, qui est omnium principium et finis.

The patriarchs offered up these oblations, sacrifices and holocausts previously to the Law, out of a certain devotion of their own will, according as it seemed proper to them to offer up in honor of God those things which they had received from Him, and thus to testify that they worshipped God Who is the beginning and end of all.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod etiam sacra quaedam instituerunt, quia videbatur eis conveniens ut in reverentiam divinam essent aliqua loca ab aliis discreta, divino cultui mancipata.

They also established certain sacred things, because they thought that the honor due to God demanded that certain places should be set apart from others for the purpose of divine worship.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod sacramentum circumcisionis praecepto divino fuit statutum ante legem. Unde non potest dici sacramentum legis quasi in lege institutum, sed solum quasi in lege observatum. Et hoc est quod dominus dicit, Ioan. VII, circumcisio non ex Moyse est, sed ex patribus eius. Sacerdotium etiam erat ante legem apud colentes Deum, secundum humanam determinationem, quia hanc dignitatem primogenitis attribuebant.

The sacrament of circumcision was established by command of God before the Law. Hence it cannot be called a sacrament of the Law as though it were an institution of the Law, but only as an observance included in the Law. Hence Our Lord said (John 7:20) that circumcision was "not of Moses, but of his fathers." Again, among those who worshipped God, the priesthood was in existence before the Law by human appointment, for the Law allotted the priestly dignity to the firstborn.

Ad 4 Reply to Objection 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod distinctio mundorum animalium et immundorum non fuit ante legem quantum ad esum, cum dictum sit Gen. IX, omne quod movetur et vivit, erit vobis in cibum, sed solum quantum ad sacrificiorum oblationem, quia de quibusdam determinatis animalibus sacrificia offerebant. Si tamen quantum ad esum erat aliqua discretio animalium, hoc non erat quia esus illorum reputaretur illicitus, cum nulla lege esset prohibitus, sed propter abominationem vel consuetudinem, sicut et nunc videmus quod aliqua cibaria sunt in aliquibus terris abominabilia, quae in aliis comeduntur.

The distinction of clean from unclean animals was in vogue before the Law, not with regard to eating them, since it is written (Gen. 9:3): "Everything that moveth and liveth shall be meat for you": but only as to the offering of sacrifices because they used only certain animals for that purpose. If, however, they did make any distinction in regard to eating; it was not that it was considered illegal to eat such animals, since this was not forbidden by any law, but from dislike or custom: thus even now we see that certain foods are looked upon with disgust in some countries, while people partake of them in others.

Articulus II

Whether, at the Time of the Law, the Ceremonies of the Old Law Had Any Power of Justification?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod caeremoniae veteris legis habuerint virtutem iustificandi tempore legis. Expiatio enim a peccato, et consecratio hominis, ad iustificationem pertinent, sed Exod. XXIX, dicitur quod per aspersionem sanguinis et inunctionem olei consecrabantur sacerdotes et vestes eorum; et Levit. XVI, dicitur quod sacerdos per aspersionem sanguinis vituli expiabat sanctuarium ab immunditiis filiorum Israel, et a praevaricationibus eorum atque peccatis. Ergo caeremoniae veteris legis habebant virtutem iustificandi.

It would seem that the ceremonies of the Old Law had the power of justification at the time of the Law. Because expiation from sin and consecration pertains to justification. But it is written (Ex. 39:21) that the priests and their apparel were consecrated by the sprinkling of blood and the anointing of oil; and (Lev. 16:16) that, by sprinkling the blood of the calf, the priest expiated "the sanctuary from the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and from their transgressions and . . . their sins." Therefore the ceremonies of the Old Law had the power of justification.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, id per quod homo placet Deo, ad iustitiam pertinet; secundum illud Psalmi X, iustus dominus, et iustitias dilexit, sed per caeremonias aliqui Deo placebant, secundum illud Levit. X, quomodo potui placere domino in caeremoniis mente lugubri? Ergo caeremoniae veteris legis habebant virtutem iustificandi.

Further, that by which man pleases God pertains to justification, according to Ps. 10:8: "The Lord is just and hath loved justice." But some pleased God by means of ceremonies, according to Lev. 10:19: "How could I . . . please the Lord in the ceremonies, having a sorrowful heart?" Therefore the ceremonies of the Old Law had the power of justification.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, ea quae sunt divini cultus magis pertinent ad animam quam ad corpus; secundum illud Psalmi XVIII, lex domini immaculata, convertens animas. Sed per caeremonias veteris legis mundabatur leprosus, ut dicitur Levit. XIV. Ergo multo magis caeremoniae veteris legis poterant mundare animam, iustificando.

Further, things relating to the divine worship regard the soul rather than the body, according to Ps. 18:8: "The Law of the Lord is unspotted, converting souls." But the leper was cleansed by means of the ceremonies of the Old Law, as stated in Lev. 14. Much more therefore could the ceremonies of the Old Law cleanse the soul by justifying it.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, Galat. II, si data esset lex quae posset iustificare, Christus gratis mortuus esset, idest sine causa. Sed hoc est inconveniens. Ergo caeremoniae veteris legis non iustificabant.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Gal. 2) [The first words of the quotation are from 3:21: St. Thomas probably quoting from memory, substituted them for 2:21, which runs thus: 'If justice be by the Law, then Christ died in vain.']: "If there had been a law given which could justify [Vulg.: 'give life'], Christ died in vain," i.e. without cause. But this is inadmissible. Therefore the ceremonies of the Old Law did not confer justice.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, in veteri lege duplex immunditia observabatur. Una quidem spiritualis, quae est immunditia culpae. Alia vero corporalis, quae tollebat idoneitatem ad cultum divinum, sicut leprosus dicebatur immundus, vel ille qui tangebat aliquod morticinum, et sic immunditia nihil aliud erat quam irregularitas quaedam. Ab hac igitur immunditia caeremoniae veteris legis habebant virtutem emundandi, quia huiusmodi caeremoniae erant quaedam remedia adhibita ex ordinatione legis ad tollendas praedictas immunditias ex statuto legis inductas. Et ideo apostolus dicit, ad Heb. IX, quod sanguis hircorum et taurorum, et cinis vitulae aspersus, inquinatos sanctificat ad emundationem carnis. Et sicut ista immunditia quae per huiusmodi caeremonias emundabatur, erat magis carnis quam mentis; ita etiam ipsae caeremoniae iustitiae carnis dicuntur ab ipso apostolo, parum supra, iustitiis, inquit, carnis usque ad tempus correctionis impositis. Ab immunditia vero mentis, quae est immunditia culpae, non habebant virtutem expiandi. Et hoc ideo quia expiatio a peccatis nunquam fieri potuit nisi per Christum, qui tollit peccata mundi, ut dicitur Ioan. I, et quia mysterium incarnationis et passionis Christi nondum erat realiter peractum, illae veteris legis caeremoniae non poterant in se continere realiter virtutem profluentem a Christo incarnato et passo, sicut continent sacramenta novae legis. Et ideo non poterant a peccato mundare, sicut apostolus dicit, ad Heb. X, quod impossibile est sanguine taurorum aut hircorum auferri peccata. Et hoc est quod, Gal. IV, apostolus vocat ea egena et infirma elementa, infirma quidem, quia non possunt a peccato mundare; sed haec infirmitas provenit ex eo quod sunt egena, idest eo quod non continent in se gratiam. Poterat autem mens fidelium, tempore legis, per fidem coniungi Christo incarnato et passo, et ita ex fide Christi iustificabantur. Cuius fidei quaedam protestatio erat huiusmodi caeremoniarum observatio, inquantum erant figura Christi. Et ideo pro peccatis offerebantur sacrificia quaedam in veteri lege, non quia ipsa sacrificia a peccato emundarent, sed quia erant quaedam protestationes fidei, quae a peccato mundabat. Et hoc etiam ipsa lex innuit ex modo loquendi, dicitur enim Levit. IV et V, quod in oblatione hostiarum pro peccato orabit pro eo sacerdos, et dimittetur ei; quasi peccatum dimittatur non ex vi sacrificiorum, sed ex fide et devotione offerentium. Sciendum est tamen quod hoc ipsum quod veteris legis caeremoniae a corporalibus immunditiis expiabant, erat in figura expiationis a peccatis quae fit per Christum. Sic igitur patet quod caeremoniae in statu veteris legis non habebant virtutem iustificandi.

I answer that, As stated above (Q. 102, A. 5, ad 4), a twofold uncleanness was distinguished in the Old Law. One was spiritual and is the uncleanness of sin. The other was corporal, which rendered a man unfit for divine worship; thus a leper, or anyone that touched carrion, was said to be unclean: and thus uncleanness was nothing but a kind of irregularity. From this uncleanness, then, the ceremonies of the Old Law had the power to cleanse: because they were ordered by the Law to be employed as remedies for the removal of the aforesaid uncleannesses which were contracted in consequence of the prescription of the Law. Hence the Apostle says (Heb. 9:13) that "the blood of goats and of oxen, and the ashes of a heifer, being sprinkled, sanctify such as are defiled, to the cleansing of the flesh." And just as this uncleanness which was washed away by such like ceremonies, affected the flesh rather than the soul, so also the ceremonies themselves are called by the Apostle shortly before (Heb. 9:10) justices of the flesh: "justices of the flesh," says he, "being laid on them until the time of correction."

On the other hand, they had no power of cleansing from uncleanness of the soul, i.e. from the uncleanness of sin. The reason of this was that at no time could there be expiation from sin, except through Christ, "Who taketh away the sins [Vulg.: 'sin'] of the world" (John 1:29). And since the mystery of Christ's Incarnation and Passion had not yet really taken place, those ceremonies of the Old Law could not really contain in themselves a power flowing from Christ already incarnate and crucified, such as the sacraments of the New Law contain. Consequently they could not cleanse from sin: thus the Apostle says (Heb. 10:4) that "it is impossible that with the blood of oxen and goats sin should be taken away"; and for this reason he calls them (Gal. 4:9) "weak and needy elements": weak indeed, because they cannot take away sin; but this weakness results from their being needy, i.e. from the fact that they do not contain grace within themselves.

However, it was possible at the time of the Law, for the minds of the faithful, to be united by faith to Christ incarnate and crucified; so that they were justified by faith in Christ: of which faith the observance of these ceremonies was a sort of profession, inasmuch as they foreshadowed Christ. Hence in the Old Law certain sacrifices were offered up for sins, not as though the sacrifices themselves washed sins away, but because they were professions of faith which cleansed from sin. In fact, the Law itself implies this in the terms employed: for it is written (Lev. 4:26; 5:16) that in offering the sacrifice for sin "the priest shall pray for him . . . and it shall be forgiven him," as though the sin were forgiven, not in virtue of the sacrifices, but through the faith and devotion of those who offered them. It must be observed, however, that the very fact that the ceremonies of the Old Law washed away uncleanness of the body, was a figure of that expiation from sins which was effected by Christ.

It is therefore evident that under the state of the Old Law the ceremonies had no power of justification.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illa sanctificatio sacerdotum et filiorum eius, et vestium ipsorum, vel quorumcumque aliorum, per aspersionem sanguinis, nihil aliud erat quam deputatio ad divinum cultum, et remotio impedimentorum ad emundationem carnis, ut apostolus dicit; in praefigurationem illius sanctificationis qua Iesus per suum sanguinem sanctificavit populum. Expiatio etiam ad remotionem huiusmodi corporalium immunditiarum referenda est, non ad remotionem culpae. Unde etiam sanctuarium expiari dicitur, quod culpae subiectum esse non poterat.

That sanctification of priests and their sons, and of their apparel or of anything else belonging to them, by sprinkling them with blood, had no other effect but to appoint them to the divine worship, and to remove impediments from them, "to the cleansing of the flesh," as the Apostle states (Heb. 9:13) in token of that sanctification whereby "Jesus" sanctified "the people by His own blood" (Heb. 13:12). Moreover, the expiation must be understood as referring to the removal of these bodily uncleannesses, not to the forgiveness of sin. Hence even the sanctuary which could not be the subject of sin is stated to be expiated.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod sacerdotes placebant Deo in caeremoniis propter obedientiam et devotionem et fidem rei praefiguratae, non autem propter ipsas res secundum se consideratas.

The priests pleased God in the ceremonies by their obedience and devotion, and by their faith in the reality foreshadowed; not by reason of the things considered in themselves.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod caeremoniae illae quae erant institutae in emundatione leprosi, non ordinabantur ad tollendam immunditiam infirmitatis leprae. Quod patet ex hoc quod non adhibebantur huiusmodi caeremoniae nisi iam emundato, unde dicitur Levit. XIV, quod sacerdos, egressus de castris, cum invenerit lepram esse mundatam, praecipiet ei qui purificatur ut offerat, etc.; ex quo patet quod sacerdos constituebatur iudex leprae emundatae, non autem emundandae. Adhibebantur autem huiusmodi caeremoniae ad tollendam immunditiam irregularitatis. Dicunt tamen quod quandoque, si contingeret sacerdotem errare in iudicando, miraculose leprosus mundabatur a Deo virtute divina, non autem virtute sacrificiorum. Sicut etiam miraculose mulieris adulterae computrescebat femur, bibitis aquis in quibus sacerdos maledicta congesserat, ut habetur Num. V.

Those ceremonies which were prescribed in the cleansing of a leper, were not ordained for the purpose of taking away the defilement of leprosy. This is clear from the fact that these ceremonies were not applied to a man until he was already healed: hence it is written (Lev. 14:3, 4) that the priest, "going out of the camp, when he shall find that the leprosy is cleansed, shall command him that is to be purified to offer," etc.; whence it is evident that the priest was appointed the judge of leprosy, not before, but after cleansing. But these ceremonies were employed for the purpose of taking away the uncleanness of irregularity. They do say, however, that if a priest were to err in his judgment, the leper would be cleansed miraculously by the power of God, but not in virtue of the sacrifice. Thus also it was by miracle that the thigh of the adulterous woman rotted, when she had drunk the water "on which" the priest had "heaped curses," as stated in Num. 5:19-27.

Articulus III

Whether the Ceremonies of the Old Law Ceased at the Coming of Christ?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod caeremoniae veteris legis non cessaverint in Christi adventu. Dicitur enim Baruch IV, hic est liber mandatorum Dei, et lex quae est in aeternum. Sed ad legem pertinebant legis caeremoniae. Ergo legis caeremoniae in aeternum duraturae erant.

It would seem that the ceremonies of the Old Law did not cease at the coming of Christ. For it is written (Bar. 4:1): "This is the book of the commandments of God, and the law that is for ever." But the legal ceremonies were part of the Law. Therefore the legal ceremonies were to last for ever.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, oblatio leprosi mundati ad legis caeremonias pertinebat. Sed etiam in Evangelio praecipitur leproso emundato ut huiusmodi oblationes offerat. Ergo caeremoniae veteris legis non cessaverunt Christo veniente.

Further, the offering made by a leper after being cleansed was a ceremony of the Law. But the Gospel commands the leper, who has been cleansed, to make this offering (Matt. 8:4). Therefore the ceremonies of the Old Law did not cease at Christ's coming.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, manente causa, manet effectus. Sed caeremoniae veteris legis habebant quasdam rationabiles causas, inquantum ordinabantur ad divinum cultum; etiam praeter hoc quod ordinabantur in figuram Christi. Ergo caeremoniae veteris legis cessare non debuerunt.

Further, as long as the cause remains, the effect remains. But the ceremonies of the Old Law had certain reasonable causes, inasmuch as they were ordained to the worship of God, besides the fact that they were intended to be figures of Christ. Therefore the ceremonies of the Old Law should not have ceased.

Arg. 4 Objection 4

Praeterea, circumcisio erat instituta in signum fidei Abrahae; observatio autem sabbati ad recolendum beneficium creationis; et aliae solemnitates legis ad recolendum alia beneficia Dei; ut supra dictum est. Sed fides Abrahae est semper imitanda etiam a nobis; et beneficium creationis, et alia Dei beneficia, semper sunt recolenda. Ergo ad minus circumcisio et solemnitates legis cessare non debuerunt.

Further, circumcision was instituted as a sign of Abraham's faith: the observance of the sabbath, to recall the blessing of creation: and other solemnities, in memory of other Divine favors, as stated above (Q. 102, A. 4, ad 10; A. 5, ad 1). But Abraham's faith is ever to be imitated even by us: and the blessing of creation and other Divine favors should never be forgotten. Therefore at least circumcision and the other legal solemnities should not have ceased.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, ad Coloss. II, nemo vos iudicet in cibo aut in potu, aut in parte diei festi aut Neomeniae aut sabbatorum, quae sunt umbra futurorum. Et ad Heb. VIII dicitur quod, dicendo novum testamentum, veteravit prius, quod autem antiquatur et senescit, prope interitum est.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Col. 2:16, 17): "Let no man . . . judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a festival day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come": and (Heb. 8:13): "In saying a new (testament), he hath made the former old: and that which decayeth and groweth old, is near its end."

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod omnia praecepta caeremonialia veteris legis ad cultum Dei sunt ordinata, ut supra dictum est. Exterior autem cultus proportionari debet interiori cultui, qui consistit in fide, spe et caritate. Unde secundum diversitatem interioris cultus, debuit diversificari cultus exterior. Potest autem triplex status distingui interioris cultus. Unus quidem secundum quem habetur fides et spes et de bonis caelestibus, et de his per quae in caelestia introducimur, de utrisque quidem sicut de quibusdam futuris. Et talis fuit status fidei et spei in veteri lege. Alius autem est status interioris cultus in quo habetur fides et spes de caelestibus bonis sicut de quibusdam futuris, sed de his per quae introducimur in caelestia, sicut de praesentibus vel praeteritis. Et iste est status novae legis. Tertius autem status est in quo utraque habentur ut praesentia, et nihil creditur ut absens, neque speratur ut futurum. Et iste est status beatorum. In illo ergo statu beatorum nihil erit figurale ad divinum cultum pertinens, sed solum gratiarum actio et vox laudis. Et ideo dicitur Apoc. XXI, de civitate beatorum, templum non vidi in ea, dominus enim Deus omnipotens templum illius est, et agnus. Pari igitur ratione, caeremoniae primi status, per quas figurabatur et secundus et tertius, veniente secundo statu, cessare debuerunt; et aliae caeremoniae induci, quae convenirent statui cultus divini pro tempore illo, in quo bona caelestia sunt futura, beneficia autem Dei per quae ad caelestia introducimur, sunt praesentia.

I answer that, All the ceremonial precepts of the Old Law were ordained to the worship of God as stated above (Q. 101, AA. 1, 2). Now external worship should be in proportion to the internal worship, which consists in faith, hope and charity. Consequently exterior worship had to be subject to variations according to the variations in the internal worship, in which a threefold state may be distinguished. One state was in respect of faith and hope, both in heavenly goods, and in the means of obtaining them—in both of these considered as things to come. Such was the state of faith and hope in the Old Law. Another state of interior worship is that in which we have faith and hope in heavenly goods as things to come; but in the means of obtaining heavenly goods, as in things present or past. Such is the state of the New Law. The third state is that in which both are possessed as present; wherein nothing is believed in as lacking, nothing hoped for as being yet to come. Such is the state of the Blessed.

In this state of the Blessed, then, nothing in regard to worship of God will be figurative; there will be naught but "thanksgiving and voice of praise" (Isa. 51:3). Hence it is written concerning the city of the Blessed (Apoc. 21:22): "I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty is the temple thereof, and the Lamb." Proportionately, therefore, the ceremonies of the first-mentioned state which foreshadowed the second and third states, had need to cease at the advent of the second state; and other ceremonies had to be introduced which would be in keeping with the state of divine worship for that particular time, wherein heavenly goods are a thing of the future, but the Divine favors whereby we obtain the heavenly boons are a thing of the present.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod lex vetus dicitur esse in aeternum, secundum moralia quidem, simpliciter et absolute, secundum caeremonialia vero, quantum ad veritatem per ea figuratam.

The Old Law is said to be "for ever" simply and absolutely, as regards its moral precepts; but as regards the ceremonial precepts it lasts for even in respect of the reality which those ceremonies foreshadowed.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod mysterium redemptionis humani generis completum fuit in passione Christi, unde tunc dominus dixit, consummatum est, ut habetur Ioan. XIX. Et ideo tunc totaliter debuerunt cessare legalia, quasi iam veritate eorum consummata. In cuius signum, in passione Christi velum templi legitur esse scissum, Matth. XXVII. Et ideo ante passionem Christi, Christo praedicante et miracula faciente, currebant simul lex et Evangelium, quia iam mysterium Christi erat inchoatum, sed nondum consummatum. Et propter hoc mandavit dominus, ante passionem suam, leproso, ut legales caeremonias observaret.

The mystery of the redemption of the human race was fulfilled in Christ's Passion: hence Our Lord said then: "It is consummated" (John 19:30). Consequently the prescriptions of the Law must have ceased then altogether through their reality being fulfilled. As a sign of this, we read that at the Passion of Christ "the veil of the temple was rent" (Matt. 27:51). Hence, before Christ's Passion, while Christ was preaching and working miracles, the Law and the Gospel were concurrent, since the mystery of Christ had already begun, but was not as yet consummated. And for this reason Our Lord, before His Passion, commanded the leper to observe the legal ceremonies.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod rationes litterales caeremoniarum supra assignatae referuntur ad divinum cultum, qui quidem cultus erat in fide venturi. Et ideo, iam veniente eo qui venturus erat, et cultus ille cessat, et omnes rationes ad hunc cultum ordinatae.

The literal reasons already given (Q. 102) for the ceremonies refer to the divine worship, which was founded on faith in that which was to come. Hence, at the advent of Him Who was to come, both that worship ceased, and all the reasons referring thereto.

Ad 4 Reply to Objection 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod fides Abrahae fuit commendata in hoc quod credidit divinae promissioni de futuro semine, in quo benedicerentur omnes gentes. Et ideo quandiu hoc erat futurum, oportebat protestari fidem Abrahae in circumcisione. Sed postquam iam hoc est perfectum, oportet idem alio signo declarari, scilicet Baptismo, qui in hoc circumcisioni succedit; secundum illud apostoli, ad Coloss. II, circumcisi estis circumcisione non manu facta in expoliatione corporis carnis, sed in circumcisione domini nostri Iesu Christi, consepulti ei in Baptismo. Sabbatum autem, quod significabat primam creationem, mutatur in diem dominicum, in quo commemoratur nova creatura inchoata in resurrectione Christi. Et similiter aliis solemnitatibus veteris legis novae solemnitates succedunt, quia beneficia illi populo exhibita, significant beneficia nobis concessa per Christum. Unde festo phase succedit festum passionis Christi et resurrectionis. Festo Pentecostes, in quo fuit data lex vetus, succedit festum Pentecostes in quo fuit data lex spiritus vitae. Festo Neomeniae succedit festum beatae virginis, in qua primo apparuit illuminatio solis, idest Christi, per copiam gratiae. Festo tubarum succedunt festa apostolorum. Festo expiationis succedunt festa martyrum et confessorum. Festo tabernaculorum succedit festum consecrationis Ecclesiae. Festo coetus atque collectae succedit festum Angelorum; vel etiam festum omnium sanctorum.

The faith of Abraham was commended in that he believed in God's promise concerning his seed to come, in which all nations were to blessed. Wherefore, as long as this seed was yet to come, it was necessary to make profession of Abraham's faith by means of circumcision. But now that it is consummated, the same thing needs to be declared by means of another sign, viz. Baptism, which, in this respect, took the place of circumcision, according to the saying of the Apostle (Col. 2:11, 12): "You are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand, in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in Baptism."

As to the sabbath, which was a sign recalling the first creation, its place is taken by the "Lord's Day," which recalls the beginning of the new creature in the Resurrection of Christ. In like manner other solemnities of the Old Law are supplanted by new solemnities: because the blessings vouchsafed to that people, foreshadowed the favors granted us by Christ. Hence the feast of the Passover gave place to the feast of Christ's Passion and Resurrection: the feast of Pentecost when the Old Law was given, to the feast of Pentecost on which was given the Law of the living spirit: the feast of the New Moon, to Lady Day, when appeared the first rays of the sun, i.e. Christ, by the fulness of grace: the feast of Trumpets, to the feasts of the Apostles: the feast of Expiation, to the feasts of Martyrs and Confessors: the feast of Tabernacles, to the feast of the Church Dedication: the feast of the Assembly and Collection, to feast of the Angels, or else to the feast of All Hallows.

Articulus IV

Whether Since Christ's Passion the Legal Ceremonies Can Be Observed Without Committing Mortal Sin?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod post passionem Christi legalia possint sine peccato mortali observari. Non est enim credendum quod apostoli, post acceptum spiritum sanctum, mortaliter peccaverint, eius enim plenitudine sunt induti virtute ex alto, ut dicitur Lucae ult. Sed apostoli post adventum spiritus sancti legalia observaverunt, dicitur enim Act. XVI, quod Paulus circumcidit Timotheum; et Act. XXI, dicitur quod Paulus, secundum consilium Iacobi, assumptis viris, purificatus cum eis intravit in templum, annuntians expletionem dierum purificationis, donec offerretur pro unoquoque eorum oblatio. Ergo sine peccato mortali possunt post Christi passionem legalia observari.

It would seem that since Christ's Passion the legal ceremonies can be observed without committing mortal sin. For we must not believe that the apostles committed mortal sin after receiving the Holy Ghost: since by His fulness they were "endued with power from on high" (Luke 24:49). But the apostles observed the legal ceremonies after the coming of the Holy Ghost: for it is stated (Acts 16:3) that Paul circumcised Timothy: and (Acts 21:26) that Paul, at the advice of James, "took the men, and . . . being purified with them, entered into the temple, giving notice of the accomplishment of the days of purification, until an oblation should be offered for every one of them." Therefore the legal ceremonies can be observed since the Passion of Christ without mortal sin.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, vitare consortia gentilium ad caeremonias legis pertinebat. Sed hoc observavit primus pastor Ecclesiae, dicitur enim ad Gal. II, quod, cum venissent quidam Antiochiam, subtrahebat et segregabat se Petrus a gentilibus. Ergo absque peccato post passionem Christi legis caeremoniae observari possunt.

Further, one of the legal ceremonies consisted in shunning the fellowship of Gentiles. But the first Pastor of the Church complied with this observance; for it is stated (Gal. 2:12) that, "when" certain men "had come" to Antioch, Peter "withdrew and separated himself" from the Gentiles. Therefore the legal ceremonies can be observed since Christ's Passion without committing mortal sin.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, praecepta apostolorum non induxerunt homines ad peccatum. Sed ex decreto apostolorum statutum fuit quod gentiles quaedam de caeremoniis legis observarent, dicitur enim Act. XV, visum est spiritui sancto et nobis nihil ultra imponere oneris vobis quam haec necessaria, ut abstineatis vos ab immolatis simulacrorum, et sanguine, et suffocato, et fornicatione. Ergo absque peccato caeremoniae legales possunt post Christi passionem observari.

Further, the commands of the apostles did not lead men into sin. But it was commanded by apostolic decree that the Gentiles should observe certain ceremonies of the Law: for it is written (Acts 15:28, 29): "It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things: that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication." Therefore the legal ceremonies can be observed since Christ's Passion without committing mortal sin.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, ad Gal. V, si circumcidimini, Christus nihil vobis proderit. Sed nihil excludit fructum Christi nisi peccatum mortale. Ergo circumcidi, et alias caeremonias observare, post passionem Christi est peccatum mortale.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Gal. 5:2): "If you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing." But nothing save mortal sin hinders us from receiving Christ's fruit. Therefore since Christ's Passion it is a mortal sin to be circumcised, or to observe the other legal ceremonies.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod omnes caeremoniae sunt quaedam protestationes fidei, in qua consistit interior Dei cultus. Sic autem fidem interiorem potest homo protestari factis, sicut et verbis, et in utraque protestatione, si aliquid homo falsum protestatur, peccat mortaliter. Quamvis autem sit eadem fides quam habemus de Christo, et quam antiqui patres habuerunt; tamen quia ipsi praecesserunt Christum, nos autem sequimur, eadem fides diversis verbis significatur a nobis et ab eis. Nam ab eis dicebatur, ecce virgo concipiet et pariet filium, quae sunt verba futuri temporis, nos autem idem repraesentamus per verba praeteriti temporis, dicentes quod concepit et peperit. Et similiter caeremoniae veteris legis significabant Christum ut nasciturum et passurum, nostra autem sacramenta significant ipsum ut natum et passum. Sicut igitur peccaret mortaliter qui nunc, suam fidem protestando, diceret Christum nasciturum, quod antiqui pie et veraciter dicebant; ita etiam peccaret mortaliter, si quis nunc caeremonias observaret, quas antiqui pie et fideliter observabant. Et hoc est quod Augustinus dicit, contra Faustum, iam non promittitur nasciturus, passurus, resurrecturus, quod illa sacramenta quodammodo personabant, sed annuntiatur quod natus sit, passus sit, resurrexerit; quod haec sacramenta quae a Christianis aguntur, iam personant.

I answer that, All ceremonies are professions of faith, in which the interior worship of God consists. Now man can make profession of his inward faith, by deeds as well as by words: and in either profession, if he make a false declaration, he sins mortally. Now, though our faith in Christ is the same as that of the fathers of old; yet, since they came before Christ, whereas we come after Him, the same faith is expressed in different words, by us and by them. For by them was it said: "Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son," where the verbs are in the future tense: whereas we express the same by means of verbs in the past tense, and say that she "conceived and bore." In like manner the ceremonies of the Old Law betokened Christ as having yet to be born and to suffer: whereas our sacraments signify Him as already born and having suffered. Consequently, just as it would be a mortal sin now for anyone, in making a profession of faith, to say that Christ is yet to be born, which the fathers of old said devoutly and truthfully; so too it would be a mortal sin now to observe those ceremonies which the fathers of old fulfilled with devotion and fidelity. Such is the teaching of Augustine (Contra Faust. xix, 16), who says: "It is no longer promised that He shall be born, shall suffer and rise again, truths of which their sacraments were a kind of image: but it is declared that He is already born, has suffered and risen again; of which our sacraments, in which Christians share, are the actual representation."

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod circa hoc diversimode sensisse videntur Hieronymus et Augustinus. Hieronymus enim distinxit duo tempora. Unum tempus ante passionem Christi, in quo legalia nec erant mortua, quasi non habentia vim obligatoriam, aut expiativam pro suo modo; nec etiam mortifera, quia non peccabant ea observantes. Statim autem post passionem Christi incoeperunt esse non solum mortua, idest non habentia virtutem et obligationem; sed etiam mortifera, ita scilicet quod peccabant mortaliter quicumque ea observabant. Unde dicebat quod apostoli nunquam legalia observaverunt post passionem secundum veritatem; sed solum quadam pia simulatione, ne scilicet scandalizarent Iudaeos et eorum conversionem impedirent. Quae quidem simulatio sic intelligenda est, non quidem ita quod illos actus secundum rei veritatem non facerent, sed quia non faciebant tanquam legis caeremonias observantes; sicut si quis pelliculam virilis membri abscinderet propter sanitatem, non causa legalis circumcisionis observandae. Sed quia indecens videtur quod apostoli ea occultarent propter scandalum quae pertinent ad veritatem vitae et doctrinae, et quod simulatione uterentur in his quae pertinent ad salutem fidelium; ideo convenientius Augustinus distinxit tria tempora. Unum quidem ante Christi passionem, in quo legalia non erant neque mortifera neque mortua. Aliud autem post tempus Evangelii divulgati, in quo legalia sunt et mortua et mortifera. Tertium autem est tempus medium, scilicet a passione Christi usque ad divulgationem Evangelii, in quo legalia fuerunt quidem mortua, quia neque vim aliquam habebant, neque aliquis ea observare tenebatur; non tamen fuerunt mortifera, quia illi qui conversi erant ad Christum ex Iudaeis, poterant illa legalia licite observare, dummodo non sic ponerent spem in eis quod ea reputarent sibi necessaria ad salutem, quasi sine legalibus fides Christi iustificare non posset. His autem qui convertebantur ex gentilitate ad Christum, non inerat causa ut ea observarent. Et ideo Paulus circumcidit Timotheum, qui ex matre Iudaea genitus erat; Titum autem, qui ex gentilibus natus erat, circumcidere noluit. Ideo autem noluit spiritus sanctus ut statim inhiberetur his qui ex Iudaeis convertebantur observatio legalium, sicut inhibebatur his qui ex gentilibus convertebantur gentilitatis ritus, ut quaedam differentia inter hos ritus ostenderetur. Nam gentilitatis ritus repudiabatur tanquam omnino illicitus, et a Deo semper prohibitus, ritus autem legis cessabat tanquam impletus per Christi passionem, utpote a Deo in figuram Christi institutus.

On this point there seems to have been a difference of opinion between Jerome and Augustine. For Jerome (Super Galat. ii, 11, seqq.) distinguished two periods of time. One was the time previous to Christ's Passion, during which the legal ceremonies were neither dead, since they were obligatory, and did expiate in their own fashion; nor deadly, because it was not sinful to observe them. But immediately after Christ's Passion they began to be not only dead, so as no longer to be either effectual or binding; but also deadly, so that whoever observed them was guilty of mortal sin. Hence he maintained that after the Passion the apostles never observed the legal ceremonies in real earnest; but only by a kind of pious pretense, lest, to wit, they should scandalize the Jews and hinder their conversion. This pretense, however, is to be understood, not as though they did not in reality perform those actions, but in the sense that they performed them without the mind to observe the ceremonies of the Law: thus a man might cut away his foreskin for health's sake, not with the intention of observing legal circumcision.

But since it seems unbecoming that the apostles, in order to avoid scandal, should have hidden things pertaining to the truth of life and doctrine, and that they should have made use of pretense, in things pertaining to the salvation of the faithful; therefore Augustine (Epist. lxxxii) more fittingly distinguished three periods of time. One was the time that preceded the Passion of Christ, during which the legal ceremonies were neither deadly nor dead: another period was after the publication of the Gospel, during which the legal ceremonies are both dead and deadly. The third is a middle period, viz. from the Passion of Christ until the publication of the Gospel, during which the legal ceremonies were dead indeed, because they had neither effect nor binding force; but were not deadly, because it was lawful for the Jewish converts to Christianity to observe them, provided they did not put their trust in them so as to hold them to be necessary unto salvation, as though faith in Christ could not justify without the legal observances. On the other hand, there was no reason why those who were converted from heathendom to Christianity should observe them. Hence Paul circumcised Timothy, who was born of a Jewish mother; but was unwilling to circumcise Titus, who was of heathen nationality.

The reason why the Holy Ghost did not wish the converted Jews to be debarred at once from observing the legal ceremonies, while converted heathens were forbidden to observe the rites of heathendom, was in order to show that there is a difference between these rites. For heathenish ceremonial was rejected as absolutely unlawful, and as prohibited by God for all time; whereas the legal ceremonial ceased as being fulfilled through Christ's Passion, being instituted by God as a figure of Christ.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod, secundum Hieronymum, Petrus simulatorie se a gentilibus subtrahebat, ut vitaret Iudaeorum scandalum, quorum erat apostolus. Unde in hoc nullo modo peccavit, sed Paulus eum similiter simulatorie reprehendit, ut vitaret scandalum gentilium, quorum erat apostolus. Sed Augustinus hoc improbat, quia Paulus in canonica Scriptura, scilicet Gal. II, in qua nefas est credere aliquid esse falsum, dicit quod Petrus reprehensibilis erat. Unde verum est quod Petrus peccavit, et Paulus vere eum, non simulatorie, reprehendit. Non autem peccavit Petrus in hoc quod ad tempus legalia observabat, quia hoc sibi licebat, tanquam ex Iudaeis converso. Sed peccabat in hoc quod circa legalium observantiam nimiam diligentiam adhibebat ne scandalizaret Iudaeos, ita quod ex hoc sequebatur gentilium scandalum.

According to Jerome, Peter withdrew himself from the Gentiles by pretense, in order to avoid giving scandal to the Jews, of whom he was the Apostle. Hence he did not sin at all in acting thus. On the other hand, Paul in like manner made a pretense of blaming him, in order to avoid scandalizing the Gentiles, whose Apostle he was. But Augustine disapproves of this solution: because in the canonical Scripture (viz. Gal. 2:11), wherein we must not hold anything to be false, Paul says that Peter "was to be blamed." Consequently it is true that Peter was at fault: and Paul blamed him in very truth and not with pretense. Peter, however, did not sin, by observing the legal ceremonial for the time being; because this was lawful for him who was a converted Jew. But he did sin by excessive minuteness in the observance of the legal rites lest he should scandalize the Jews, the result being that he gave scandal to the Gentiles.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod quidam dixerunt quod illa prohibitio apostolorum non est intelligenda ad litteram, sed secundum spiritualem intellectum, ut scilicet in prohibitione sanguinis, intelligatur prohibitio homicidii; in prohibitione suffocati, intelligatur prohibitio violentiae et rapinae; in prohibitione immolatorum, intelligatur prohibitio idololatriae; fornicatio autem prohibetur tanquam per se malum. Et hanc opinionem accipiunt ex quibusdam Glossis, quae huiusmodi praecepta mystice exponunt. Sed quia homicidium et rapina etiam apud gentiles reputabantur illicita, non oportuisset super hoc speciale mandatum dari his qui erant ex gentilitate conversi ad Christum. Unde alii dicunt quod ad litteram illa comestibilia fuerunt prohibita, non propter observantiam legalium, sed propter gulam comprimendam. Unde dicit Hieronymus, super illud Ezech. XLIV, omne morticinum etc., condemnat sacerdotes qui in turdis et ceteris huiusmodi, haec, cupiditate gulae, non custodiunt. Sed quia sunt quaedam cibaria magis delicata et gulam provocantia, non videtur ratio quare fuerunt haec magis quam alia prohibita. Et ideo dicendum, secundum tertiam opinionem, quod ad litteram ista sunt prohibita, non ad observandum caeremonias legis, sed ad hoc quod posset coalescere unio gentilium et Iudaeorum insimul habitantium. Iudaeis enim, propter antiquam consuetudinem, sanguis et suffocatum erant abominabilia, comestio autem immolatorum simulacris, poterat in Iudaeis aggenerare circa gentiles suspicionem reditus ad idololatriam. Et ideo ista fuerunt prohibita pro tempore illo, in quo de novo oportebat convenire in unum gentiles et Iudaeos. Procedente autem tempore, cessante causa, cessat effectus; manifestata evangelicae doctrinae veritate, in qua dominus docet quod nihil quod per os intrat, coinquinat hominem, ut dicitur Matth. XV; et quod nihil est reiiciendum quod cum gratiarum actione percipitur, ut I ad Tim. IV dicitur. Fornicatio autem prohibetur specialiter, quia gentiles eam non reputabant esse peccatum.

Some have held that this prohibition of the apostles is not to be taken literally, but spiritually: namely, that the prohibition of blood signifies the prohibition of murder; the prohibition of things strangled, that of violence and rapine; the prohibition of things offered to idols, that of idolatry; while fornication is forbidden as being evil in itself: which opinion they gathered from certain glosses, which expound these prohibitions in a mystical sense. Since, however, murder and rapine were held to be unlawful even by the Gentiles, there would have been no need to give this special commandment to those who were converted to Christ from heathendom. Hence others maintain that those foods were forbidden literally, not to prevent the observance of legal ceremonies, but in order to prevent gluttony. Thus Jerome says on Ezech. 44:31 ("The priest shall not eat of anything that is dead"): "He condemns those priests who from gluttony did not keep these precepts."

But since certain foods are more delicate than these and more conducive to gluttony, there seems no reason why these should have been forbidden more than the others.

We must therefore follow the third opinion, and hold that these foods were forbidden literally, not with the purpose of enforcing compliance with the legal ceremonies, but in order to further the union of Gentiles and Jews living side by side. Because blood and things strangled were loathsome to the Jews by ancient custom; while the Jews might have suspected the Gentiles of relapse into idolatry if the latter had partaken of things offered to idols. Hence these things were prohibited for the time being, during which the Gentiles and Jews were to become united together. But as time went on, with the lapse of the cause, the effect lapsed also, when the truth of the Gospel teaching was divulged, wherein Our Lord taught that "not that which entereth into the mouth defileth a man" (Matt. 15:11); and that "nothing is to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving" (1 Tim. 4:4). With regard to fornication a special prohibition was made, because the Gentiles did not hold it to be sinful.

Showing Thomas's answers only.