Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 91 [ << | >> ]
| Deinde considerandum est de diversitate legum. Et circa hoc quaeruntur sex. | We must now consider the various kinds of law: under which head there are six points of inquiry: |
| Primo, utrum sit aliqua lex aeterna. | (1) Whether there is an eternal law? |
| Secundo, utrum sit aliqua lex naturalis. | (2) Whether there is a natural law? |
| Tertio, utrum sit aliqua lex humana. | (3) Whether there is a human law? |
| Quarto, utrum sit aliqua lex divina. | (4) Whether there is a Divine law? |
| Quinto, utrum sit una tantum, vel plures. | (5) Whether there is one Divine law, or several? |
| Sexto, utrum sit aliqua lex peccati | (6) Whether there is a law of sin? |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 91 [ << | >> ]
Article: 1 [ << | >> ]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sit aliqua lex aeterna. Omnis enim lex aliquibus imponitur. Sed non fuit ab aeterno aliquis cui lex posset imponi, solus enim Deus fuit ab aeterno. Ergo nulla lex est aeterna. | Objection 1: It would seem that there is no eternal law. Because every law is imposed on someone. But there was not someone from eternity on whom a law could be imposed: since God alone was from eternity. Therefore no law is eternal. |
| Praeterea, promulgatio est de ratione legis. Sed promulgatio non potuit esse ab aeterno, quia non erat ab aeterno cui promulgaretur. Ergo nulla lex potest esse aeterna. | Objection 2: Further, promulgation is essential to law. But promulgation could not be from eternity: because there was no one to whom it could be promulgated from eternity. Therefore no law can be eternal. |
| Praeterea, lex importat ordinem ad finem. Sed nihil est aeternum quod ordinetur ad finem, solus enim ultimus finis est aeternus. Ergo nulla lex est aeterna. | Objection 3: Further, a law implies order to an end. But nothing ordained to an end is eternal: for the last end alone is eternal. Therefore no law is eternal. |
| Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in I de Lib. Arb., lex quae summa ratio nominatur, non potest cuipiam intelligenti non incommutabilis aeternaque videri. | On the contrary, Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 6): "That Law which is the Supreme Reason cannot be understood to be otherwise than unchangeable and eternal." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, nihil est aliud lex quam quoddam dictamen practicae rationis in principe qui gubernat aliquam communitatem perfectam. Manifestum est autem, supposito quod mundus divina providentia regatur, ut in primo habitum est, quod tota communitas universi gubernatur ratione divina. Et ideo ipsa ratio gubernationis rerum in Deo sicut in principe universitatis existens, legis habet rationem. Et quia divina ratio nihil concipit ex tempore, sed habet aeternum conceptum, ut dicitur Prov. VIII; inde est quod huiusmodi legem oportet dicere aeternam. | I answer that, As stated above (Question [90], Article [1], ad 2; Articles [3],4), a law is nothing else but a dictate of practical reason emanating from the ruler who governs a perfect community. Now it is evident, granted that the world is ruled by Divine Providence, as was stated in the FP, Question [22], Articles [1],2, that the whole community of the universe is governed by Divine Reason. Wherefore the very Idea of the government of things in God the Ruler of the universe, has the nature of a law. And since the Divine Reason's conception of things is not subject to time but is eternal, according to Prov. 8:23, therefore it is that this kind of law must be called eternal. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ea quae in seipsis non sunt, apud Deum existunt, inquantum sunt ab ipso praecognita et praeordinata; secundum illud Rom. IV, qui vocat ea quae non sunt, tanquam ea quae sunt. Sic igitur aeternus divinae legis conceptus habet rationem legis aeternae, secundum quod a Deo ordinatur ad gubernationem rerum ab ipso praecognitarum. | Reply to Objection 1: Those things that are not in themselves, exist with God, inasmuch as they are foreknown and preordained by Him, according to Rm. 4:17: "Who calls those things that are not, as those that are." Accordingly the eternal concept of the Divine law bears the character of an eternal law, in so far as it is ordained by God to the government of things foreknown by Him. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod promulgatio fit et verbo et scripto; et utroque modo lex aeterna habet promulgationem ex parte Dei promulgantis, quia et verbum divinum est aeternum, et Scriptura libri vitae est aeterna. Sed ex parte creaturae audientis aut inspicientis, non potest esse promulgatio aeterna. | Reply to Objection 2: Promulgation is made by word of mouth or in writing; and in both ways the eternal law is promulgated: because both the Divine Word and the writing of the Book of Life are eternal. But the promulgation cannot be from eternity on the part of the creature that hears or reads. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod lex importat ordinem ad finem active, inquantum scilicet per eam ordinantur aliqua in finem, non autem passive, idest quod ipsa lex ordinetur ad finem, nisi per accidens in gubernante cuius finis est extra ipsum, ad quem etiam necesse est ut lex eius ordinetur. Sed finis divinae gubernationis est ipse Deus, nec eius lex est aliud ab ipso. Unde lex aeterna non ordinatur in alium finem. | Reply to Objection 3: The law implies order to the end actively, in so far as it directs certain things to the end; but not passively—that is to say, the law itself is not ordained to the end—except accidentally, in a governor whose end is extrinsic to him, and to which end his law must needs be ordained. But the end of the Divine government is God Himself, and His law is not distinct from Himself. Wherefore the eternal law is not ordained to another end. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 91 [ << | >> ]
Article: 2 [ << | >> ]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sit in nobis aliqua lex naturalis. Sufficienter enim homo gubernatur per legem aeternam, dicit enim Augustinus, in I de Lib. Arb., quod lex aeterna est qua iustum est ut omnia sint ordinatissima. Sed natura non abundat in superfluis, sicut nec deficit in necessariis. Ergo non est aliqua lex homini naturalis. | Objection 1: It would seem that there is no natural law in us. Because man is governed sufficiently by the eternal law: for Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i) that "the eternal law is that by which it is right that all things should be most orderly." But nature does not abound in superfluities as neither does she fail in necessaries. Therefore no law is natural to man. |
| Praeterea, per legem ordinatur homo in suis actibus ad finem, ut supra habitum est. Sed ordinatio humanorum actuum ad finem non est per naturam, sicut accidit in creaturis irrationabilibus, quae solo appetitu naturali agunt propter finem, sed agit homo propter finem per rationem et voluntatem. Ergo non est aliqua lex homini naturalis. |
Objection 2: Further, by the law man is directed, in his acts, to the end, as stated above (Question [90], Article [2]). But the directing of human acts to their end is not a function of nature, as is the case in irrational creatures, which act for an end solely by their natural appetite; whereas man acts for an end by his reason and will. Therefore no law is natural to man. |
| Praeterea, quanto aliquis est liberior, tanto minus est sub lege. Sed homo est liberior omnibus animalibus, propter liberum arbitrium, quod prae aliis animalibus habet. Cum igitur alia animalia non subdantur legi naturali, nec homo alicui legi naturali subditur. | Objection 3: Further, the more a man is free, the less is he under the law. But man is freer than all the animals, on account of his free-will, with which he is endowed above all other animals. Since therefore other animals are not subject to a natural law, neither is man subject to a natural law. |
| Sed contra est quod, Rom. II, super illud, cum gentes, quae legem non habent, naturaliter ea quae legis sunt faciunt, dicit Glossa, etsi non habent legem scriptam, habent tamen legem naturalem, qua quilibet intelligit et sibi conscius est quid sit bonum et quid malum. | On the contrary, A gloss on Rm. 2:14: "When the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law," comments as follows: "Although they have no written law, yet they have the natural law, whereby each one knows, and is conscious of, what is good and what is evil." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, lex, cum sit regula et mensura, dupliciter potest esse in aliquo, uno modo, sicut in regulante et mensurante; alio modo, sicut in regulato et mensurato, quia inquantum participat aliquid de regula vel mensura, sic regulatur vel mensuratur. Unde cum omnia quae divinae providentiae subduntur, a lege aeterna regulentur et mensurentur, ut ex dictis patet; manifestum est quod omnia participant aliqualiter legem aeternam, inquantum scilicet ex impressione eius habent inclinationes in proprios actus et fines. Inter cetera autem rationalis creatura excellentiori quodam modo divinae providentiae subiacet, inquantum et ipsa fit providentiae particeps, sibi ipsi et aliis providens. Unde et in ipsa participatur ratio aeterna, per quam habet naturalem inclinationem ad debitum actum et finem. Et talis participatio legis aeternae in rationali creatura lex naturalis dicitur. Unde cum Psalmista dixisset, sacrificate sacrificium iustitiae, quasi quibusdam quaerentibus quae sunt iustitiae opera, subiungit, multi dicunt, quis ostendit nobis bona? Cui quaestioni respondens, dicit, signatum est super nos lumen vultus tui, domine, quasi lumen rationis naturalis, quo discernimus quid sit bonum et malum, quod pertinet ad naturalem legem, nihil aliud sit quam impressio divini luminis in nobis. Unde patet quod lex naturalis nihil aliud est quam participatio legis aeternae in rationali creatura. |
I answer that, As stated above (Question [90], Article [1], ad 1), law, being a rule and measure, can be in a person in two ways: in one way, as in him that rules and measures; in another way, as in that which is ruled and measured, since a thing is ruled and measured, in so far as it partakes of the rule or measure. Wherefore, since all things subject to Divine providence are ruled and measured by the eternal law, as was stated above (Article [1]); it is evident that all things partake somewhat of the eternal law, in so far as, namely, from its being imprinted on them, they derive their respective inclinations to their proper acts and ends. Now among all others, the rational creature is subject to Divine providence in the most excellent way, in so far as it partakes of a share of providence, by being provident both for itself and for others. Wherefore it has a share of the Eternal Reason, whereby it has a natural inclination to its proper act and end: and this participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is called the natural law. Hence the Psalmist after saying (Ps. 4:6): "Offer up the sacrifice of justice," as though someone asked what the works of justice are, adds: "Many say, Who showeth us good things?" in answer to which question he says: "The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us": thus implying that the light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil, which is the function of the natural law, is nothing else than an imprint on us of the Divine light. It is therefore evident that the natural law is nothing else than the rational creature's participation of the eternal law. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ratio illa procederet, si lex naturalis esset aliquid diversum a lege aeterna. Non autem est nisi quaedam participatio eius, ut dictum est. | Reply to Objection 1: This argument would hold, if the natural law were something different from the eternal law: whereas it is nothing but a participation thereof, as stated above. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod omnis operatio, rationis et voluntatis derivatur in nobis ab eo quod est secundum naturam, ut supra habitum est, nam omnis ratiocinatio derivatur a principiis naturaliter notis, et omnis appetitus eorum quae sunt ad finem, derivatur a naturali appetitu ultimi finis. Et sic etiam oportet quod prima directio actuum nostrorum ad finem, fiat per legem naturalem. |
Reply to Objection 2: Every act of reason and will in us is based on that which is according to nature, as stated above (Question [10], Article [1]): for every act of reasoning is based on principles that are known naturally, and every act of appetite in respect of the means is derived from the natural appetite in respect of the last end. Accordingly the first direction of our acts to their end must needs be in virtue of the natural law. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod etiam animalia irrationalia participant rationem aeternam suo modo, sicut et rationalis creatura. Sed quia rationalis creatura participat eam intellectualiter et rationaliter, ideo participatio legis aeternae in creatura rationali proprie lex vocatur, nam lex est aliquid rationis, ut supra dictum est. In creatura autem irrationali non participatur rationaliter, unde non potest dici lex nisi per similitudinem. |
Reply to Objection 3: Even irrational animals partake in their own way of the Eternal Reason, just as the rational creature does. But because the rational creature partakes thereof in an intellectual and rational manner, therefore the participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is properly called a law, since a law is something pertaining to reason, as stated above (Question [90], Article [1]). Irrational creatures, however, do not partake thereof in a rational manner, wherefore there is no participation of the eternal law in them, except by way of similitude. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 91 [ << | >> ]
Article: 3 [ << | >> ]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sit aliqua lex humana. Lex enim naturalis est participatio legis aeternae, ut dictum est. Sed per legem aeternam omnia sunt ordinatissima, ut Augustinus dicit, in I de Lib. Arb. Ergo lex naturalis sufficit ad omnia humana ordinanda. Non est ergo necessarium quod sit aliqua lex humana. |
Objection 1: It would seem that there is not a human law. For the natural law is a participation of the eternal law, as stated above (Article [2]). Now through the eternal law "all things are most orderly," as Augustine states (De Lib. Arb. i, 6). Therefore the natural law suffices for the ordering of all human affairs. Consequently there is no need for a human law. |
| Praeterea, lex habet rationem mensurae, ut dictum est. Sed ratio humana non est mensura rerum, sed potius e converso, ut in X Metaphys. dicitur. Ergo ex ratione humana nulla lex procedere potest. |
Objection 2: Further, a law bears the character of a measure, as stated above (Question [90], Article [1]). But human reason is not a measure of things, but vice versa, as stated in Metaph. x, text. 5. Therefore no law can emanate from human reason. |
| Praeterea, mensura debet esse certissima, ut dicitur in X Metaphys. Sed dictamen humanae rationis de rebus gerendis est incertum; secundum illud Sap. IX, cogitationes mortalium timidae, et incertae providentiae nostrae. Ergo ex ratione humana nulla lex procedere potest. | Objection 3: Further, a measure should be most certain, as stated in Metaph. x, text. 3. But the dictates of human reason in matters of conduct are uncertain, according to Wis. 9:14: "The thoughts of mortal men are fearful, and our counsels uncertain." Therefore no law can emanate from human reason. |
| Sed contra est quod Augustinus, in I de Lib. Arb., ponit duas leges, unam aeternam et aliam temporalem, quam dicit esse humanam. | On the contrary, Augustine (De Lib. Arb. i, 6) distinguishes two kinds of law, the one eternal, the other temporal, which he calls human. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, lex est quoddam dictamen practicae rationis. Similis autem processus esse invenitur rationis practicae et speculativae, utraque enim ex quibusdam principiis ad quasdam conclusiones procedit, ut superius habitum est. Secundum hoc ergo dicendum est quod, sicut in ratione speculativa ex principiis indemonstrabilibus naturaliter cognitis producuntur conclusiones diversarum scientiarum, quarum cognitio non est nobis naturaliter indita, sed per industriam rationis inventa; ita etiam ex praeceptis legis naturalis, quasi ex quibusdam principiis communibus et indemonstrabilibus, necesse est quod ratio humana procedat ad aliqua magis particulariter disponenda. Et istae particulares dispositiones adinventae secundum rationem humanam, dicuntur leges humanae, servatis aliis conditionibus quae pertinent ad rationem legis, ut supra dictum est. Unde et Tullius dicit, in sua Rhetor., quod initium iuris est a natura profectum; deinde quaedam in consuetudinem ex utilitate rationis venerunt; postea res et a natura profectas et a consuetudine probatas legum metus et religio sanxit. |
I answer that, As stated above (Question [90], Article [1], ad 2), a law is a dictate of the practical reason. Now it is to be observed that the same procedure takes place in the practical and in the speculative reason: for each proceeds from principles to conclusions, as stated above (De Lib. Arb. i, 6). Accordingly we conclude that just as, in the speculative reason, from naturally known indemonstrable principles, we draw the conclusions of the various sciences, the knowledge of which is not imparted to us by nature, but acquired by the efforts of reason, so too it is from the precepts of the natural law, as from general and indemonstrable principles, that the human reason needs to proceed to the more particular determination of certain matters. These particular determinations, devised by human reason, are called human laws, provided the other essential conditions of law be observed, as stated above (Question [90], Articles [2],3,4). Wherefore Tully says in his Rhetoric (De Invent. Rhet. ii) that "justice has its source in nature; thence certain things came into custom by reason of their utility; afterwards these things which emanated from nature and were approved by custom, were sanctioned by fear and reverence for the law." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ratio humana non potest participare ad plenum dictamen rationis divinae, sed suo modo et imperfecte. Et ideo sicut ex parte rationis speculativae, per naturalem participationem divinae sapientiae, inest nobis cognitio quorundam communium principiorum, non autem cuiuslibet veritatis propria cognitio, sicut in divina sapientia continetur; ita etiam ex parte rationis practicae naturaliter homo participat legem aeternam secundum quaedam communia principia, non autem secundum particulares directiones singulorum, quae tamen in aeterna lege continentur. Et ideo necesse est ulterius quod ratio humana procedat ad particulares quasdam legum sanctiones. | Reply to Objection 1: The human reason cannot have a full participation of the dictate of the Divine Reason, but according to its own mode, and imperfectly. Consequently, as on the part of the speculative reason, by a natural participation of Divine Wisdom, there is in us the knowledge of certain general principles, but not proper knowledge of each single truth, such as that contained in the Divine Wisdom; so too, on the part of the practical reason, man has a natural participation of the eternal law, according to certain general principles, but not as regards the particular determinations of individual cases, which are, however, contained in the eternal law. Hence the need for human reason to proceed further to sanction them by law. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio humana secundum se non est regula rerum, sed principia ei naturaliter indita, sunt quaedam regulae generales et mensurae omnium eorum quae sunt per hominem agenda, quorum ratio naturalis est regula et mensura, licet non sit mensura eorum quae sunt a natura. | Reply to Objection 2: Human reason is not, of itself, the rule of things: but the principles impressed on it by nature, are general rules and measures of all things relating to human conduct, whereof the natural reason is the rule and measure, although it is not the measure of things that are from nature. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod ratio practica est circa operabilia, quae sunt singularia et contingentia, non autem circa necessaria, sicut ratio speculativa. Et ideo leges humanae non possunt illam infallibilitatem habere quam habent conclusiones demonstrativae scientiarum. Nec oportet quod omnis mensura sit omni modo infallibilis et certa, sed secundum quod est possibile in genere suo. | Reply to Objection 3: The practical reason is concerned with practical matters, which are singular and contingent: but not with necessary things, with which the speculative reason is concerned. Wherefore human laws cannot have that inerrancy that belongs to the demonstrated conclusions of sciences. Nor is it necessary for every measure to be altogether unerring and certain, but according as it is possible in its own particular genus. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 91 [ << | >> ]
Article: 4 [ << | >> ]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non fuerit necessarium esse aliquam legem divinam. Quia, ut dictum est, lex naturalis est quaedam participatio legis aeternae in nobis. Sed lex aeterna est lex divina, ut dictum est. Ergo non oportet quod praeter legem naturalem, et leges humanas ab ea derivatas, sit aliqua alia lex divina. |
Objection 1: It would seem that there was no need for a Divine law. Because, as stated above (Article [2]), the natural law is a participation in us of the eternal law. But the eternal law is a Divine law, as stated above (Article [1]). Therefore there was no need for a Divine law in addition to the natural law, and human laws derived therefrom. |
| Praeterea, Eccli. XV dicitur quod Deus dimisit hominem in manu consilii sui. Consilium autem est actus rationis, ut supra habitum est. Ergo homo dimissus est gubernationi suae rationis. Sed dictamen rationis humanae est lex humana, ut dictum est. Ergo non oportet quod homo alia lege divina gubernetur. |
Objection 2: Further, it is written (Ecclus. 15:14) that "God left man in the hand of his own counsel." Now counsel is an act of reason, as stated above (Question [14], Article [1]). Therefore man was left to the direction of his reason. But a dictate of human reason is a human law as stated above (Article [3]). Therefore there is no need for man to be governed also by a Divine law. |
| Praeterea, natura humana est sufficientior irrationalibus creaturis. Sed irrationales creaturae non habent aliquam legem divinam praeter inclinationem naturalem eis inditam. Ergo multo minus creatura rationalis debet habere aliquam legem divinam praeter naturalem legem. | Objection 3: Further, human nature is more self-sufficing than irrational creatures. But irrational creatures have no Divine law besides the natural inclination impressed on them. Much less, therefore, should the rational creature have a Divine law in addition to the natural law. |
| Sed contra est quod David expetit legem a Deo sibi poni, dicens, legem pone mihi, domine, in via iustificationum tuarum. | On the contrary, David prayed God to set His law before him, saying (Ps. 118:33): "Set before me for a law the way of Thy justifications, O Lord." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod praeter legem naturalem et legem humanam, necessarium fuit ad directionem humanae vitae habere legem divinam. Et hoc propter quatuor rationes. Primo quidem, quia per legem dirigitur homo ad actus proprios in ordine ad ultimum finem. Et si quidem homo ordinaretur tantum ad finem qui non excederet proportionem naturalis facultatis hominis, non oporteret quod homo haberet aliquid directivum ex parte rationis, supra legem naturalem et legem humanitus positam, quae ab ea derivatur. Sed quia homo ordinatur ad finem beatitudinis aeternae, quae excedit proportionem naturalis facultatis humanae, ut supra habitum est; ideo necessarium fuit ut supra legem naturalem et humanam, dirigeretur etiam ad suum finem lege divinitus data. |
I answer that, Besides the natural and the human law it was necessary for the directing of human conduct to have a Divine law. And this for four reasons. First, because it is by law that man is directed how to perform his proper acts in view of his last end. And indeed if man were ordained to no other end than that which is proportionate to his natural faculty, there would be no need for man to have any further direction of the part of his reason, besides the natural law and human law which is derived from it. But since man is ordained to an end of eternal happiness which is inproportionate to man's natural faculty, as stated above (Question [5], Article [5]), therefore it was necessary that, besides the natural and the human law, man should be directed to his end by a law given by God. |
| Secundo, quia propter incertitudinem humani iudicii, praecipue de rebus contingentibus et particularibus, contingit de actibus humanis diversorum esse diversa iudicia, ex quibus etiam diversae et contrariae leges procedunt. Ut ergo homo absque omni dubitatione scire possit quid ei sit agendum et quid vitandum, necessarium fuit ut in actibus propriis dirigeretur per legem divinitus datam, de qua constat quod non potest errare. | Secondly, because, on account of the uncertainty of human judgment, especially on contingent and particular matters, different people form different judgments on human acts; whence also different and contrary laws result. In order, therefore, that man may know without any doubt what he ought to do and what he ought to avoid, it was necessary for man to be directed in his proper acts by a law given by God, for it is certain that such a law cannot err. |
| Tertio, quia de his potest homo legem ferre, de quibus potest iudicare. Iudicium autem hominis esse non potest de interioribus motibus, qui latent, sed solum de exterioribus actibus, qui apparent. Et tamen ad perfectionem virtutis requiritur quod in utrisque actibus homo rectus existat. Et ideo lex humana non potuit cohibere et ordinare sufficienter interiores actus, sed necessarium fuit quod ad hoc superveniret lex divina. | Thirdly, because man can make laws in those matters of which he is competent to judge. But man is not competent to judge of interior movements, that are hidden, but only of exterior acts which appear: and yet for the perfection of virtue it is necessary for man to conduct himself aright in both kinds of acts. Consequently human law could not sufficiently curb and direct interior acts; and it was necessary for this purpose that a Divine law should supervene. |
| Quarto quia, sicut Augustinus dicit, in I de Lib. Arb., lex humana non potest omnia quae male fiunt, punire vel prohibere, quia dum auferre vellet omnia mala, sequeretur quod etiam multa bona tollerentur, et impediretur utilitas boni communis, quod est necessarium ad conversationem humanam. Ut ergo nullum malum improhibitum et impunitum remaneat, necessarium fuit supervenire legem divinam, per quam omnia peccata prohibentur. | Fourthly, because, as Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5,6), human law cannot punish or forbid all evil deeds: since while aiming at doing away with all evils, it would do away with many good things, and would hinder the advance of the common good, which is necessary for human intercourse. In order, therefore, that no evil might remain unforbidden and unpunished, it was necessary for the Divine law to supervene, whereby all sins are forbidden. |
| Et istae quatuor causae tanguntur in Psalmo XVIII, ubi dicitur, lex domini immaculata, idest nullam peccati turpitudinem permittens; convertens animas, quia non solum exteriores actus, sed etiam interiores dirigit; testimonium domini fidele, propter certitudinem veritatis et rectitudinis; sapientiam praestans parvulis, inquantum ordinat hominem ad supernaturalem finem et divinum. | And these four causes are touched upon in Ps. 118:8, where it is said: "The law of the Lord is unspotted," i.e. allowing no foulness of sin; "converting souls," because it directs not only exterior, but also interior acts; "the testimony of the Lord is faithful," because of the certainty of what is true and right; "giving wisdom to little ones," by directing man to an end supernatural and Divine. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod per naturalem legem participatur lex aeterna secundum proportionem capacitatis humanae naturae. Sed oportet ut altiori modo dirigatur homo in ultimum finem supernaturalem. Et ideo superadditur lex divinitus data, per quam lex aeterna participatur altiori modo. | Reply to Objection 1: By the natural law the eternal law is participated proportionately to the capacity of human nature. But to his supernatural end man needs to be directed in a yet higher way. Hence the additional law given by God, whereby man shares more perfectly in the eternal law. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod consilium est inquisitio quaedam, unde oportet quod procedat ex aliquibus principiis. Nec sufficit quod procedat ex principiis naturaliter inditis, quae sunt praecepta legis naturae, propter praedicta, sed oportet quod superaddantur quaedam alia principia, scilicet praecepta legis divinae. | Reply to Objection 2: Counsel is a kind of inquiry: hence it must proceed from some principles. Nor is it enough for it to proceed from principles imparted by nature, which are the precepts of the natural law, for the reasons given above: but there is need for certain additional principles, namely, the precepts of the Divine law. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod creaturae irrationales non ordinantur ad altiorem finem quam sit finis qui est proportionatus naturali virtuti ipsarum. Et ideo non est similis ratio. | Reply to Objection 3: Irrational creatures are not ordained to an end higher than that which is proportionate to their natural powers: consequently the comparison fails. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 91 [ << | >> ]
Article: 5 [ << | >> ]
| Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod lex divina sit una tantum. Unius enim regis in uno regno est una lex. Sed totum humanum genus comparatur ad Deum sicut ad unum regem; secundum illud Psalmi XLVI, rex omnis terrae Deus. Ergo est una tantum lex divina. | Objection 1: It would seem that there is but one Divine law. Because, where there is one king in one kingdom there is but one law. Now the whole of mankind is compared to God as to one king, according to Ps. 46:8: "God is the King of all the earth." Therefore there is but one Divine law. |
| Praeterea, omnis lex ordinatur ad finem quem legislator intendit in eis quibus legem fert. Sed unum et idem est quod Deus intendit in omnibus hominibus; secundum illud I ad Tim. II, vult omnes homines salvos fieri, et ad agnitionem veritatis venire. Ergo una tantum est lex divina. | Objection 2: Further, every law is directed to the end which the lawgiver intends for those for whom he makes the law. But God intends one and the same thing for all men; since according to 1 Tim. 2:4: "He will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth." Therefore there is but one Divine law. |
| Praeterea, lex divina propinquior esse videtur legi aeternae, quae est una, quam lex naturalis, quanto altior est revelatio gratiae quam cognitio naturae. Sed lex naturalis est una omnium hominum. Ergo multo magis lex divina. | Objection 3: Further, the Divine law seems to be more akin to the eternal law, which is one, than the natural law, according as the revelation of grace is of a higher order than natural knowledge. Therefore much more is the Divine law but one. |
| Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, ad Heb. VII, translato sacerdotio, necesse est ut legis translatio fiat. Sed sacerdotium est duplex, ut ibidem dicitur, scilicet sacerdotium leviticum, et sacerdotium Christi. Ergo etiam duplex est lex divina, scilicet lex vetus, et lex nova. |
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Heb. 7:12): "The priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation also be made of the law." But the priesthood is twofold, as stated in the same passage, viz. the levitical priesthood, and the priesthood of Christ. Therefore the Divine law is twofold, namely the Old Law and the New Law. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut in primo dictum est, distinctio est causa numeri. Dupliciter autem inveniuntur aliqua distingui. Uno modo, sicut ea quae sunt omnino specie diversa, ut equus et bos. Alio modo, sicut perfectum et imperfectum in eadem specie, sicut puer et vir. Et hoc modo lex divina distinguitur in legem veterem et legem novam. Unde apostolus, ad Gal. III, comparat statum veteris legis statui puerili existenti sub paedagogo, statum autem novae legis comparat statui viri perfecti, qui iam non est sub paedagogo. |
I answer that, As stated in the FP, Question [30], Article [3], distinction is the cause of number. Now things may be distinguished in two ways. First, as those things that are altogether specifically different, e.g. a horse and an ox. Secondly, as perfect and imperfect in the same species, e.g. a boy and a man: and in this way the Divine law is divided into Old and New. Hence the Apostle (Gal. 3:24,25) compares the state of man under the Old Law to that of a child "under a pedagogue"; but the state under the New Law, to that of a full grown man, who is "no longer under a pedagogue." |
| Attenditur autem perfectio et imperfectio utriusque legis secundum tria quae ad legem pertinent, ut supra dictum est. Primo enim ad legem pertinet ut ordinetur ad bonum commune sicut ad finem, ut supra dictum est. Quod quidem potest esse duplex. Scilicet bonum sensibile et terrenum, et ad tale bonum ordinabat directe lex vetus; unde statim, Exodi III, in principio legis, invitatur populus ad regnum terrenum Chananaeorum. Et iterum bonum intelligibile et caeleste, et ad hoc ordinat lex nova. Unde statim Christus ad regnum caelorum in suae praedicationis principio invitavit, dicens, poenitentiam agite, appropinquavit enim regnum caelorum, Matth. IV. Et ideo Augustinus dicit, in IV contra Faustum, quod temporalium rerum promissiones testamento veteri continentur, et ideo vetus appellatur, sed aeternae vitae promissio ad novum pertinet testamentum. |
Now the perfection and imperfection of these two laws is to be taken in connection with the three conditions pertaining to law, as stated above. For, in the first place, it belongs to law to be directed to the common good as to its end, as stated above (Question [90], Article [2]). This good may be twofold. It may be a sensible and earthly good; and to this, man was directly ordained by the Old Law: wherefore, at the very outset of the law, the people were invited to the earthly kingdom of the Chananaeans (Ex. 3:8,17). Again it may be an intelligible and heavenly good: and to this, man is ordained by the New Law. Wherefore, at the very beginning of His preaching, Christ invited men to the kingdom of heaven, saying (Mt. 4:17): "Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. iv) that "promises of temporal goods are contained in the Old Testament, for which reason it is called old; but the promise of eternal life belongs to the New Testament." |
| Secundo ad legem pertinet dirigere humanos actus secundum ordinem iustitiae. In quo etiam superabundat lex nova legi veteri, interiores actus animi ordinando; secundum illud Matth. V, nisi abundaverit iustitia vestra plus quam Scribarum et Pharisaeorum, non intrabitis in regnum caelorum. Et ideo dicitur quod lex vetus cohibet manum, lex nova animum. |
Secondly, it belongs to the law to direct human acts according to the order of righteousness (Article [4]): wherein also the New Law surpasses the Old Law, since it directs our internal acts, according to Mt. 5:20: "Unless your justice abound more than that of the Scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Hence the saying that "the Old Law restrains the hand, but the New Law controls the mind" (Sentent. iii, D, xl). |
| Tertio ad legem pertinet inducere homines ad observantias mandatorum. Et hoc quidem lex vetus faciebat timore poenarum, lex autem nova facit hoc per amorem, qui in cordibus nostris infunditur per gratiam Christi, quae in lege nova confertur, sed in lege veteri figurabatur. Et ideo dicit Augustinus, contra Adimantum Manichaei discipulum, quod brevis differentia est legis et Evangelii, timor et amor. | Thirdly, it belongs to the law to induce men to observe its commandments. This the Old Law did by the fear of punishment: but the New Law, by love, which is poured into our hearts by the grace of Christ, bestowed in the New Law, but foreshadowed in the Old. Hence Augustine says (Contra Adimant. Manich. discip. xvii) that "there is little difference [*The 'little difference' refers to the Latin words 'timor' and 'amor'—'fear' and 'love.'] between the Law and the Gospel—fear and love." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut paterfamilias in domo alia mandata proponit pueris et adultis, ita etiam unus rex Deus, in uno suo regno, aliam legem dedit hominibus adhuc imperfectis existentibus; et aliam perfectiorem iam manuductis per priorem legem ad maiorem capacitatem divinorum. | Reply to Objection 1: As the father of a family issues different commands to the children and to the adults, so also the one King, God, in His one kingdom, gave one law to men, while they were yet imperfect, and another more perfect law, when, by the preceding law, they had been led to a greater capacity for Divine things. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod salus hominum non poterat esse nisi per Christum; secundum illud Act. IV, non est aliud nomen datum hominibus, in quo oporteat nos salvos fieri. Et ideo lex perfecte ad salutem omnes inducens, dari non potuit nisi post Christi adventum. Antea vero dari oportuit populo ex quo Christus erat nasciturus, legem praeparatoriam ad Christi susceptionem, in qua quaedam rudimenta salutaris iustitiae continerentur. | Reply to Objection 2: The salvation of man could not be achieved otherwise than through Christ, according to Acts 4:12: "There is no other name... given to men, whereby we must be saved." Consequently the law that brings all to salvation could not be given until after the coming of Christ. But before His coming it was necessary to give to the people, of whom Christ was to be born, a law containing certain rudiments of righteousness unto salvation, in order to prepare them to receive Him. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod lex naturalis dirigit hominem secundum quaedam praecepta communia, in quibus conveniunt tam perfecti quam imperfecti, et ideo est una omnium. Sed lex divina dirigit hominem etiam in quibusdam particularibus, ad quae non similiter se habent perfecti et imperfecti. Et ideo oportuit legem divinam esse duplicem, sicut iam dictum est. | Reply to Objection 3: The natural law directs man by way of certain general precepts, common to both the perfect and the imperfect: wherefore it is one and the same for all. But the Divine law directs man also in certain particular matters, to which the perfect and imperfect do not stand in the same relation. Hence the necessity for the Divine law to be twofold, as already explained. |
Index [<<� | >>]
First Part of the Second Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 91 [ << | >> ]
Article: 6 [ << | >> ]
| Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sit aliqua lex fomitis. Dicit enim Isidorus, in V Etymol., quod lex ratione consistit. Fomes autem non consistit ratione, sed magis a ratione deviat. Ergo fomes non habet rationem legis. | Objection 1: It would seem that there is no law of the "fomes" of sin. For Isidore says (Etym. v) that the "law is based on reason." But the "fomes" of sin is not based on reason, but deviates from it. Therefore the "fomes" has not the nature of a law. |
| Praeterea, omnis lex obligatoria est, ita quod qui ipsam non servant, transgressores dicuntur. Sed fomes non constituit aliquem transgressorem ex hoc quod ipsum non sequitur, sed magis transgressor redditur si quis ipsum sequatur. Ergo fomes non habet rationem legis. | Objection 2: Further, every law is binding, so that those who do not obey it are called transgressors. But man is not called a transgressor, from not following the instigations of the "fomes"; but rather from his following them. Therefore the "fomes" has not the nature of a law. |
| Praeterea, lex ordinatur ad bonum commune, ut supra habitum est. Sed fomes non inclinat ad bonum commune, sed magis ad bonum privatum. Ergo fomes non habet rationem legis. |
Objection 3: Further, the law is ordained to the common good, as stated above (Question [90], Article [2]). But the "fomes" inclines us, not to the common, but to our own private good. Therefore the "fomes" has not the nature of sin. |
| Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, Rom. VII, video aliam legem in membris meis, repugnantem legi mentis meae. |
On the contrary, The Apostle says (Rm. 7:23): "I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, lex essentialiter invenitur in regulante et mensurante, participative autem in eo quod mensuratur et regulatur; ita quod omnis inclinatio vel ordinatio quae invenitur in his quae subiecta sunt legi, participative dicitur lex, ut ex supradictis patet. Potest autem in his quae subduntur legi, aliqua inclinatio inveniri dupliciter a legislatore. Uno modo, inquantum directe inclinat suos subditos ad aliquid; et diversos interdum ad diversos actus; secundum quem modum potest dici quod alia est lex militum, et alia est lex mercatorum. Alio modo, indirecte, inquantum scilicet per hoc quod legislator destituit aliquem sibi subditum aliqua dignitate, sequitur quod transeat in alium ordinem et quasi in aliam legem, puta si miles ex militia destituatur, transibit in legem rusticorum vel mercatorum. |
I answer that, As stated above (Article [2]; Question [90], Article [1], ad 1), the law, as to its essence, resides in him that rules and measures; but, by way of participation, in that which is ruled and measured; so that every inclination or ordination which may be found in things subject to the law, is called a law by participation, as stated above (Article [2]; Question [90], Article [1], ad 1). Now those who are subject to a law may receive a twofold inclination from the lawgiver. First, in so far as he directly inclines his subjects to something; sometimes indeed different subjects to different acts; in this way we may say that there is a military law and a mercantile law. Secondly, indirectly; thus by the very fact that a lawgiver deprives a subject of some dignity, the latter passes into another order, so as to be under another law, as it were: thus if a soldier be turned out of the army, he becomes a subject of rural or of mercantile legislation. |
| Sic igitur sub Deo legislatore diversae creaturae diversas habent naturales inclinationes, ita ut quod uni est quodammodo lex, alteri sit contra legem, ut si dicam quod furibundum esse est quodammodo lex canis, est autem contra legem ovis vel alterius mansueti animalis. Est ergo hominis lex, quam sortitur ex ordinatione divina secundum propriam conditionem, ut secundum rationem operetur. Quae quidem lex fuit tam valida in primo statu, ut nihil vel praeter rationem vel contra rationem posset subrepere homini. Sed dum homo a Deo recessit, incurrit in hoc quod feratur secundum impetum sensualitatis, et unicuique etiam particulariter hoc contingit, quanto magis a ratione recesserit, ut sic quodammodo bestiis assimiletur, quae sensualitatis impetu feruntur; secundum illud Psalmi XLVIII, homo, cum in honore esset, non intellexit, comparatus est iumentis insipientibus, et similis factus est illis. | Accordingly under the Divine Lawgiver various creatures have various natural inclinations, so that what is, as it were, a law for one, is against the law for another: thus I might say that fierceness is, in a way, the law of a dog, but against the law of a sheep or another meek animal. And so the law of man, which, by the Divine ordinance, is allotted to him, according to his proper natural condition, is that he should act in accordance with reason: and this law was so effective in the primitive state, that nothing either beside or against reason could take man unawares. But when man turned his back on God, he fell under the influence of his sensual impulses: in fact this happens to each one individually, the more he deviates from the path of reason, so that, after a fashion, he is likened to the beasts that are led by the impulse of sensuality, according to Ps. 48:21: "Man, when he was in honor, did not understand: he hath been compared to senseless beasts, and made like to them." |
| Sic igitur ipsa sensualitatis inclinatio, quae fomes dicitur, in aliis quidem animalibus simpliciter habet rationem legis, illo tamen modo quo in talibus lex dici potest, secundum directam inclinationem. In hominibus autem secundum hoc non habet rationem legis, sed magis est deviatio a lege rationis. Sed inquantum per divinam iustitiam homo destituitur originali iustitia et vigore rationis, ipse impetus sensualitatis qui eum ducit, habet rationem legis, inquantum est poenalis et ex lege divina consequens, hominem destituente propria dignitate. | So, then, this very inclination of sensuality which is called the "fomes," in other animals has simply the nature of a law (yet only in so far as a law may be said to be in such things), by reason of a direct inclination. But in man, it has not the nature of law in this way, rather is it a deviation from the law of reason. But since, by the just sentence of God, man is destitute of original justice, and his reason bereft of its vigor, this impulse of sensuality, whereby he is led, in so far as it is a penalty following from the Divine law depriving man of his proper dignity, has the nature of a law. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de fomite secundum se considerato, prout inclinat ad malum. Sic enim non habet rationem legis, ut dictum est, sed secundum quod sequitur ex divinae legis iustitia, tanquam si diceretur lex esse quod aliquis nobilis, propter suam culpam, ad servilia opera induci permitteretur. | Reply to Objection 1: This argument considers the "fomes" in itself, as an incentive to evil. It is not thus that it has the nature of a law, as stated above, but according as it results from the justice of the Divine law: it is as though we were to say that the law allows a nobleman to be condemned to hard labor for some misdeed. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod obiectio illa procedit de eo quod est lex quasi regula et mensura, sic enim deviantes a lege transgressores constituuntur. Sic autem fomes non est lex, sed per quandam participationem, ut supra dictum est. | Reply to Objection 2: This argument considers law in the light of a rule or measure: for it is in this sense that those who deviate from the law become transgressors. But the "fomes" is not a law in this respect, but by a kind of participation, as stated above. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de fomite quantum ad inclinationem propriam, non autem quantum ad suam originem. Et tamen si consideretur inclinatio sensualitatis prout est in aliis animalibus, sic ordinatur ad bonum commune, idest ad conservationem naturae in specie vel in individuo. Et hoc est etiam in homine, prout sensualitas subditur rationi. Sed fomes dicitur secundum quod exit rationis ordinem. | Reply to Objection 3: This argument considers the "fomes" as to its proper inclination, and not as to its origin. And yet if the inclination of sensuality be considered as it is in other animals, thus it is ordained to the common good, namely, to the preservation of nature in the species or in the individual. And this is in man also, in so far as sensuality is subject to reason. But it is called "fomes" in so far as it strays from the order of reason. |