Reply Obj. 4:  A distinction was observed with regard to hostile cities.  For some of them were far distant, and were not among those which had been promised to them.  When they had taken these cities, they killed all the men who had fought against God’s people; whereas the women and children were spared.  But in the neighboring cities which had been promised to them, all were ordered to be slain, on account of their former crimes, to punish which God sent the Israelites as executor of Divine justice:  for it is written (Deut. 9:5) “because they have done wickedly, they are destroyed at thy coming in.”  The fruit-trees were commanded to be left untouched, for the use of the people themselves, to whom the city with its territory was destined to be subjected.

Reply Obj. 5:  The builder of a new house, the planter of a vineyard, the newly married husband, were excluded from fighting, for two reasons.  First, because man is wont to give all his affection to those things which he has lately acquired, or is on the point of having, and consequently he is apt to dread the loss of these above other things.  Wherefore it was likely enough that on account of this affection they would fear death all the more, and be so much the less brave in battle.  Secondly, because, as the Philosopher says (Phys. ii, 5), “it is a misfortune for a man if he is prevented from obtaining something good when it is within his grasp.”  And so lest the surviving relations should be the more grieved at the death of these men who had not entered into the possession of the good things prepared for them; and also lest the people should be horror-stricken at the sight of their misfortune:  these men were taken away from the danger of death by being removed from the battle.

Reply Obj. 6:  The timid were sent back home, not that they might be the gainers thereby; but lest the people might be the losers by their presence, since their timidity and flight might cause others to be afraid and run away. ________________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 105, Art. 4]

Whether the Old Law Set Forth Suitable Precepts About the Members of the Household?

Objection 1:  It would seem that the Old Law set forth unsuitable precepts about the members of the household.  For a slave “is in every respect his master’s property,” as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 2).  But that which is a man’s property should be his always.  Therefore it was unfitting for the Law to command (Ex. 21:2) that slaves should “go out free” in the seventh year.

Obj. 2:  Further, a slave is his master’s property, just as an animal, e.g. an ass or an ox.  But it is commanded (Deut. 22:1-3) with regard to animals, that they should be brought back to the owner if they be found going astray.  Therefore it was unsuitably commanded (Deut. 23:15):  “Thou shalt not deliver to his master the servant that is fled to thee.”