wherefore they had their own possessions, from which to derive a living:  and so much the more, since the Lord forbade even a king to have superabundant wealth to make too much show of magnificence:  both because he could scarcely avoid the excesses of pride and tyranny, arising from such things, and because, if the rulers were not very rich, and if their office involved much work and anxiety, it would not tempt the ambition of the common people; and would not become an occasion of sedition.

Reply Obj. 5:  That right was not given to the king by Divine institution:  rather was it foretold that kings would usurp that right, by framing unjust laws, and by degenerating into tyrants who preyed on their subjects.  This is clear from the context that follows:  “And you shall be his slaves [Douay:  ’servants’]”:  which is significative of tyranny, since a tyrant rules is subjects as though they were his slaves.  Hence Samuel spoke these words to deter them from asking for a king; since the narrative continues:  “But the people would not hear the voice of Samuel.”  It may happen, however, that even a good king, without being a tyrant, may take away the sons, and make them tribunes and centurions; and may take many things from his subjects in order to secure the common weal. ________________________

SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 105, Art. 2]

Whether the Judicial Precepts Were Suitably Framed As to the
Relations of One Man with Another?

Objection 1:  It would seem that the judicial precepts were not suitably framed as regards the relations of one man with another.  Because men cannot live together in peace, if one man takes what belongs to another.  But this seems to have been approved by the Law:  since it is written (Deut. 23:24):  “Going into thy neighbor’s vineyard, thou mayest eat as many grapes as thou pleasest.”  Therefore the Old Law did not make suitable provisions for man’s peace.

Obj. 2:  Further, one of the chief causes of the downfall of states has been the holding of property by women, as the Philosopher says (Polit. ii, 6).  But this was introduced by the Old Law; for it is written (Num. 27:8):  “When a man dieth without a son, his inheritance shall pass to his daughter.”  Therefore the Law made unsuitable provision for the welfare of the people.

Obj. 3:  Further, it is most conducive to the preservation of human society that men may provide themselves with necessaries by buying and selling, as stated in Polit. i.  But the Old Law took away the force of sales; since it prescribes that in the 50th year of the jubilee all that is sold shall return to the vendor (Lev. 25:28).  Therefore in this matter the Law gave the people an unfitting command.