Again, certain precepts are given in respect of a man to his fellow citizens:  for instance, about buying and selling, judgments and penalties:  this is the second part of the judicial precepts.  Again, certain precepts are enjoined with regard to foreigners:  for instance, about wars waged against their foes, and about the way to receive travelers and strangers:  this is the third part of the judicial precepts.  Lastly, certain precepts are given relating to home life:  for instance, about servants, wives and children:  this is the fourth part of the judicial precepts.

Reply Obj. 1:  Things pertaining to the ordering of relations between one man and another are indeed infinite in number:  yet they are reducible to certain distinct heads, according to the different relations in which one man stands to another, as stated above.

Reply Obj. 2:  The precepts of the decalogue held the first place in the moral order, as stated above (Q. 100, A. 3):  and consequently it is fitting that other moral precepts should be distinguished in relation to them.  But the judicial and ceremonial precepts have a different binding force, derived, not from natural reason, but from their institution alone.  Hence there is a distinct reason for distinguishing them.

Reply Obj. 3:  The Law alludes to the division of the judicial precepts in the very things themselves which are prescribed by the judicial precepts of the Law. ________________________

QUESTION 105

OF THE REASON FOR THE JUDICIAL PRECEPTS
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider the reason for the judicial precepts:  under which head there are four points of inquiry: 

(1) Concerning the reason for the judicial precepts relating to the rulers;

(2) Concerning the fellowship of one man with another;

(3) Concerning matters relating to foreigners;

(4) Concerning things relating to domestic matters.
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 105, Art. 1]

Whether the Old Law Enjoined Fitting Precepts Concerning Rulers?

Objection 1:  It would seem that the Old Law made unfitting precepts concerning rulers.  Because, as the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 4), “the ordering of the people depends mostly on the chief ruler.”  But the Law contains no precept relating to the institution of the chief ruler; and yet we find therein prescriptions concerning the inferior rulers:  firstly (Ex. 18:21):  “Provide out of all the people wise [Vulg.:  ‘able’] men,” etc.; again (Num. 11:16):  “Gather unto Me seventy men of the ancients of Israel”; and again (Deut. 1:13):  “Let Me have from among you wise and understanding men,” etc.  Therefore the Law provided insufficiently in regard to the rulers of the people.