Reply Obj. 1:  The Law excluded the men of no nation from the worship of God and from things pertaining to the welfare of the soul:  for it is written (Ex. 12:48):  “If any stranger be willing to dwell among you, and to keep the Phase of the Lord; all his males shall first be circumcised, and then shall he celebrate it according to the manner, and he shall be as that which is born in the land.”  But in temporal matters concerning the public life of the people, admission was not granted to everyone at once, for the reason given above:  but to some, i.e. the Egyptians and Idumeans, in the third generation; while others were excluded in perpetuity, in detestation of their past offense, i.e. the peoples of Moab, Ammon, and Amalec.  For just as one man is punished for a sin committed by him, in order that others seeing this may be deterred and refrain from sinning; so too may one nation or city be punished for a crime, that others may refrain from similar crimes.

Nevertheless it was possible by dispensation for a man to be admitted to citizenship on account of some act of virtue:  thus it is related (Judith 14:6) that Achior, the captain of the children of Ammon, “was joined to the people of Israel, with all the succession of his kindred.”  The same applies to Ruth the Moabite who was “a virtuous woman” (Ruth 3:11):  although it may be said that this prohibition regarded men and not women, who are not competent to be citizens absolutely speaking.

Reply Obj. 2:  As the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 3), a man is said to be a citizen in two ways:  first, simply; secondly, in a restricted sense.  A man is a citizen simply if he has all the rights of citizenship, for instance, the right of debating or voting in the popular assembly.  On the other hand, any man may be called citizen, only in a restricted sense, if he dwells within the state, even common people or children or old men, who are not fit to enjoy power in matters pertaining to the common weal.  For this reason bastards, by reason of their base origin, were excluded from the ecclesia, i.e. from the popular assembly, down to the tenth generation.  The same applies to eunuchs, who were not competent to receive the honor due to a father, especially among the Jews, where the divine worship was continued through carnal generation:  for even among the heathens, those who had many children were marked with special honor, as the Philosopher remarks (Polit. ii, 6).  Nevertheless, in matters pertaining to the grace of God, eunuchs were not discriminated from others, as neither were strangers, as already stated:  for it is written (Isa. 56:3):  “Let not the son of the stranger that adhereth to the Lord speak, saying:  The Lord will divide and separate me from His people.  And let not the eunuch say:  Behold I am a dry tree.”

Reply Obj. 3:  It was not the intention of the Law to sanction the acceptance of usury from strangers, but only to tolerate it on account of the proneness of the Jews to avarice; and in order to promote an amicable feeling towards those out of whom they made a profit.