Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum omnis lex humanitus posita a lege naturali derivetur Whether every human law is derived from the natural law? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non omnis lex humanitus posita a lege naturali derivetur. Dicit enim philosophus, in V Ethic., quod iustum legale est quod ex principio quidem nihil differt utrum sic vel aliter fiat. Sed in his quae oriuntur ex lege naturali, differt utrum sic vel aliter fiat. Ergo ea quae sunt legibus humanis statuta, non omnia derivantur a lege naturae. Objection 1: It would seem that not every human law is derived from the natural law. For the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 7) that the legal just is that which originally was a matter of indifference. But those things which arise from the natural law are not matters of indifference. Therefore the enactments of human laws are not derived from the natural law. Praeterea, ius positivum dividitur contra ius naturale, ut patet per Isidorum, in libro Etymol., et per philosophum, in V Ethic. Sed ea quae derivantur a principiis communibus legis naturae sicut conclusiones, pertinent ad legem naturae, ut supra dictum est. Ergo ea quae sunt de lege humana, non derivantur a lege naturae. Obj. 2: Further, positive law is contrasted with natural law, as stated by Isidore (Etym. v, 4) and the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 7). But those things which flow as conclusions from the general principles of the natural law belong to the natural law, as stated above (Q94, A4). Therefore that which is established by human law does not belong to the natural law. Praeterea, lex naturae est eadem apud omnes, dicit enim philosophus, in V Ethic., quod naturale iustum est quod ubique habet eandem potentiam. Si igitur leges humanae a naturali lege derivarentur, sequeretur quod etiam ipsae essent eaedem apud omnes. Quod patet esse falsum. Obj. 3: Further, the law of nature is the same for all; since the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 7) that the natural just is that which is equally valid everywhere. If therefore human laws were derived from the natural law, it would follow that they too are the same for all: which is clearly false. Praeterea, eorum quae a lege naturali derivantur, potest aliqua ratio assignari. Sed non omnium quae a maioribus lege statuta sunt, ratio reddi potest, ut iurisperitus dicit. Ergo non omnes leges humanae derivantur a lege naturali. Obj. 4: Further, it is possible to give a reason for things which are derived from the natural law. But it is not possible to give the reason for all the legal enactments of the lawgivers, as the jurist says. Therefore not all human laws are derived from the natural law. Sed contra est quod Tullius dicit, in sua Rhetor., res a natura profectas, et a consuetudine probatas, legum metus et religio sanxit. On the contrary, Tully says (Rhet. ii): Things which emanated from nature and were approved by custom, were sanctioned by fear and reverence for the laws. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in I de Lib. Arb., non videtur esse lex, quae iusta non fuerit. Unde inquantum habet de iustitia, intantum habet de virtute legis. In rebus autem humanis dicitur esse aliquid iustum ex eo quod est rectum secundum regulam rationis. Rationis autem prima regula est lex naturae, ut ex supradictis patet. Unde omnis lex humanitus posita intantum habet de ratione legis, inquantum a lege naturae derivatur. Si vero in aliquo, a lege naturali discordet, iam non erit lex sed legis corruptio. I answer that, As Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5) that which is not just seems to be no law at all: wherefore the force of a law depends on the extent of its justice. Now in human affairs a thing is said to be just, from being right, according to the rule of reason. But the first rule of reason is the law of nature, as is clear from what has been stated above (Q91, A2, ad 2). Consequently every human law has just so much of the nature of law, as it is derived from the law of nature. But if in any point it deflects from the law of nature, it is no longer a law but a perversion of law. Sed sciendum est quod a lege naturali dupliciter potest aliquid derivari, uno modo, sicut conclusiones ex principiis; alio modo, sicut determinationes quaedam aliquorum communium. Primus quidem modus est similis ei quo in scientiis ex principiis conclusiones demonstrativae producuntur. Secundo vero modo simile est quod in artibus formae communes determinantur ad aliquid speciale, sicut artifex formam communem domus necesse est quod determinet ad hanc vel illam domus figuram. Derivantur ergo quaedam a principiis communibus legis naturae per modum conclusionum, sicut hoc quod est non esse occidendum, ut conclusio quaedam derivari potest ab eo quod est nulli esse malum faciendum. Quaedam vero per modum determinationis, sicut lex naturae habet quod ille qui peccat, puniatur; sed quod tali poena puniatur, hoc est quaedam determinatio legis naturae. But it must be noted that something may be derived from the natural law in two ways: first, as a conclusion from premises, second, by way of determination of certain generalities. The first way is like to that by which, in sciences, demonstrated conclusions are drawn from the principles: while the second mode is likened to that whereby, in the arts, general forms are particularized as to details: thus the craftsman needs to determine the general form of a house to some particular shape. Some things are therefore derived from the general principles of the natural law, by way of conclusions; e.g., that one must not kill may be derived as a conclusion from the principle that one should do harm to no man: while some are derived therefrom by way of determination; e.g., the law of nature has it that the evil-doer should be punished; but that he be punished in this or that way, is a determination of the law of nature. Utraque igitur inveniuntur in lege humana posita. Sed ea quae sunt primi modi, continentur lege humana non tanquam sint solum lege posita, sed habent etiam aliquid vigoris ex lege naturali. Sed ea quae sunt secundi modi, ex sola lege humana vigorem habent. Accordingly both modes of derivation are found in the human law. But those things which are derived in the first way, are contained in human law not as emanating therefrom exclusively, but have some force from the natural law also. But those things which are derived in the second way, have no other force than that of human law. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod philosophus loquitur de illis quae sunt lege posita per determinationem vel specificationem quandam praeceptorum legis naturae. Reply Obj. 1: The Philosopher is speaking of those enactments which are by way of determination or specification of the precepts of the natural law. Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio illa procedit de his quae derivantur a lege naturae tanquam conclusiones. Reply Obj. 2: This argument avails for those things that are derived from the natural law, by way of conclusions. Ad tertium dicendum quod principia communia legis naturae non possunt eodem modo applicari omnibus, propter multam varietatem rerum humanarum. Et exinde provenit diversitas legis positivae apud diversos. Reply Obj. 3: The general principles of the natural law cannot be applied to all men in the same way on account of the great variety of human affairs: and hence arises the diversity of positive laws among various people. Ad quartum dicendum quod verbum illud iurisperiti intelligendum est in his quae sunt introducta a maioribus circa particulares determinationes legis naturalis; ad quas quidem determinationes se habet expertorum et prudentum iudicium sicut ad quaedam principia; inquantum scilicet statim vident quid congruentius sit particulariter determinari. Reply Obj. 4: These words of the Jurist are to be understood as referring to decisions of rulers in determining particular points of the natural law: on which determinations the judgment of expert and prudent men is based as on its principles; in so far, to wit, as they see at once what is the best thing to decide. Unde philosophus dicit, in VI Ethic., quod in talibus oportet attendere expertorum et seniorum vel prudentum indemonstrabilibus enuntiationibus et opinionibus, non minus quam demonstrationibus. Hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. vi, 11) that in such matters, we ought to pay as much attention to the undemonstrated sayings and opinions of persons who surpass us in experience, age and prudence, as to their demonstrations. Articulus 3 Article 3 Utrum Isidorus inconvenienter qualitatem legis positivae describat Whether Isidore’s description of the quality of positive law is appropriate? Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod Isidorus inconvenienter qualitatem legis positivae describat, dicens, erit lex honesta, iusta, possibilis secundum naturam, secundum consuetudinem patriae, loco temporique conveniens, necessaria, utilis; manifesta quoque, ne aliquid per obscuritatem in captionem contineat; nullo privato commodo, sed pro communi utilitate civium scripta. Supra enim in tribus conditionibus qualitatem legis explicaverat, dicens, lex erit omne quod ratione constiterit, dumtaxat quod religioni congruat, quod disciplinae conveniat, quod saluti proficiat. Ergo superflue postmodum conditiones legis multiplicat. Objection 1: It would seem that Isidore’s description of the quality of positive law is not appropriate, when he says (Etym. v, 21): Law shall be virtuous, just, possible to nature, according to the custom of the country, suitable to place and time, necessary, useful; clearly expressed, lest by its obscurity it lead to misunderstanding; framed for no private benefit, but for the common good. Because he had previously expressed the quality of law in three conditions, saying that law is anything founded on reason, provided that it foster religion, be helpful to discipline, and further the common weal. Therefore it was needless to add any further conditions to these. Praeterea, iustitia pars est honestatis; ut Tullius dicit, in I de Offic. Ergo postquam dixerat honesta, superflue additur iusta. Obj. 2: Further, Justice is included in honesty, as Tully says (De Offic. vii). Therefore after saying honest it was superfluous to add just. Praeterea, lex scripta, secundum Isidorum, contra consuetudinem dividitur. Non ergo debuit in definitione legis poni quod esset secundum consuetudinem patriae. Obj. 3: Further, written law is condivided with custom, according to Isidore (Etym. ii, 10). Therefore it should not be stated in the definition of law that it is according to the custom of the country. Praeterea, necessarium dupliciter dicitur. Scilicet id quod est necessarium simpliciter, quod impossibile est aliter se habere, et huiusmodi necessarium non subiacet humano iudicio, unde talis necessitas ad legem humanam non pertinet. Est etiam aliquid necessarium propter finem, et talis necessitas idem est quod utilitas. Ergo superflue utrumque ponitur, necessaria et utilis. Obj. 4: Further, a thing may be necessary in two ways. It may be necessary simply, because it cannot be otherwise: and that which is necessary in this way, is not subject to human judgment, wherefore human law is not concerned with necessity of this kind. Again a thing may be necessary for an end: and this necessity is the same as usefulness. Therefore it is superfluous to say both necessary and useful. Sed contra est auctoritas ipsius Isidori. On the contrary, stands the authority of Isidore. Respondeo dicendum quod uniuscuiusque rei quae est propter finem, necesse est quod forma determinetur secundum proportionem ad finem; sicut forma serrae talis est qualis convenit sectioni; ut patet in II Physic. Quaelibet etiam res recta et mensurata oportet quod habeat formam proportionalem suae regulae et mensurae. Lex autem humana utrumque habet, quia et est aliquid ordinatum ad finem; et est quaedam regula vel mensura regulata vel mensurata quadam superiori mensura; quae quidem est duplex, scilicet lex divina et lex naturae, ut ex supradictis patet. Finis autem humanae legis est utilitas hominum; sicut etiam iurisperitus dicit. Et ideo Isidorus in conditione legis, primo quidem tria posuit, scilicet quod religioni congruat, inquantum scilicet est proportionata legi divinae; quod disciplinae conveniat, inquantum est proportionata legi naturae; quod saluti proficiat, inquantum est proportionata utilitati humanae. I answer that, Whenever a thing is for an end, its form must be determined proportionately to that end; as the form of a saw is such as to be suitable for cutting (Phys. ii, text. 88). Again, everything that is ruled and measured must have a form proportionate to its rule and measure. Now both these conditions are verified of human law: since it is both something ordained to an end; and is a rule or measure ruled or measured by a higher measure. And this higher measure is twofold, viz., the Divine law and the natural law, as explained above (A2; Q93, A3). Now the end of human law is to be useful to man, as the jurist states. Wherefore Isidore in determining the nature of law, lays down, at first, three conditions; viz., that it foster religion, inasmuch as it is proportionate to the Divine law; that it be helpful to discipline, inasmuch as it is proportionate to the nature law; and that it further the common weal, inasmuch as it is proportionate to the utility of mankind. Et ad haec tria omnes aliae conditiones quas postea ponit, reducuntur. Nam quod dicitur honesta, refertur ad hoc quod religioni congruat. Quod autem subditur, iusta, possibilis secundum naturam, secundum consuetudinem patriae, loco temporique conveniens, additur ad hoc quod conveniat disciplinae. Attenditur enim humana disciplina primum quidem quantum ad ordinem rationis, qui importatur in hoc quod dicitur iusta. Secundo, quantum ad facultatem agentium. Debet enim esse disciplina conveniens unicuique secundum suam possibilitatem, observata etiam possibilitate naturae (non enim eadem sunt imponenda pueris, quae imponuntur viris perfectis); et secundum humanam consuetudinem; non enim potest homo solus in societate vivere, aliis morem non gerens. Tertio, quantum ad debitas circumstantias, dicit, loco temporique conveniens. Quod vero subditur, necessaria, utilis, etc., refertur ad hoc quod expediat saluti, ut necessitas referatur ad remotionem malorum; utilitas, ad consecutionem bonorum; manifestatio vero, ad cavendum nocumentum quod ex ipsa lege posset provenire. Et quia, sicut supra dictum est, lex ordinatur ad bonum commune, hoc ipsum in ultima parte determinationis ostenditur. All the other conditions mentioned by him are reduced to these three. For it is called virtuous because it fosters religion. And when he goes on to say that it should be just, possible to nature, according to the customs of the country, adapted to place and time, he implies that it should be helpful to discipline. For human discipline depends first on the order of reason, to which he refers by saying just: second, it depends on the ability of the agent; because discipline should be adapted to each one according to his ability, taking also into account the ability of nature (for the same burdens should be not laid on children as adults); and should be according to human customs; since man cannot live alone in society, paying no heed to others: third, it depends on certain circumstances, in respect of which he says, adapted to place and time. The remaining words, necessary, useful, etc. mean that law should further the common weal: so that necessity refers to the removal of evils; usefulness to the attainment of good; clearness of expression, to the need of preventing any harm ensuing from the law itself. And since, as stated above (Q90, A2), law is ordained to the common good, this is expressed in the last part of the description. Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta. This suffices for the Replies to the Objections. Articulus 4 Article 4 Utrum inconvenienter Isidorus divisionem legum humanarum ponat Whether Isidore’s division of human laws is appropriate? Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inconvenienter Isidorus divisionem legum humanarum ponat, sive iuris humani. Sub hoc enim iure comprehendit ius gentium, quod ideo sic nominatur, ut ipse dicit, quia eo omnes fere gentes utuntur. Sed sicut ipse dicit, ius naturale est quod est commune omnium nationum. Ergo ius gentium non continetur sub iure positivo humano, sed magis sub iure naturali. Objection 1: It would seem that Isidore wrongly divided human statutes or human law (Etym. v, 4, seqq.). For under this law he includes the law of nations, so called, because, as he says, nearly all nations use it. But as he says, natural law is that which is common to all nations. Therefore the law of nations is not contained under positive human law, but rather under natural law. Praeterea, ea quae habent eandem vim, non videntur formaliter differre, sed solum materialiter. Sed leges, plebiscita, senatusconsulta, et alia huiusmodi quae ponit, omnia habent eandem vim. Ergo videtur quod non differant nisi materialiter. Sed talis distinctio in arte non est curanda, cum possit esse in infinitum. Ergo inconvenienter huiusmodi divisio humanarum legum introducitur. Obj. 2: Further, those laws which have the same force, seem to differ not formally but only materially. But statutes, decrees of the commonalty, senatorial decrees, and the like which he mentions (Etym. v, 9), all have the same force. Therefore they do not differ, except materially. But art takes no notice of such a distinction: since it may go on to infinity. Therefore this division of human laws is not appropriate. Praeterea, sicut in civitate sunt principes et sacerdotes et milites, ita etiam sunt et alia hominum officia. Ergo videtur quod, sicut ponitur quoddam ius militare, et ius publicum, quod consistit in sacerdotibus et magistratibus; ita etiam debeant poni alia iura, ad alia officia civitatis pertinentia. Obj. 3: Further, just as, in the state, there are princes, priests and soldiers, so are there other human offices. Therefore it seems that, as this division includes military law, and public law, referring to priests and magistrates; so also it should include other laws pertaining to other offices of the state. Praeterea, ea quae sunt per accidens, sunt praetermittenda. Sed accidit legi ut ab hoc vel illo homine feratur. Ergo inconvenienter ponitur divisio legum humanarum ex nominibus legislatorum, ut scilicet quaedam dicatur Cornelia, quaedam Falcidia, et cetera. Obj. 4: Further, those things that are accidental should be passed over. But it is accidental to law that it be framed by this or that man. Therefore it is unreasonable to divide laws according to the names of lawgivers, so that one be called the Cornelian law, another the Falcidian law, etc. In contrarium auctoritas Isidori sufficiat. On the contrary, The authority of Isidore suffices. Respondeo dicendum quod unumquodque potest per se dividi secundum id quod in eius ratione continetur. Sicut in ratione animalis continetur anima, quae est rationalis vel irrationalis, et ideo animal proprie et per se dividitur secundum rationale et irrationale; non autem secundum album et nigrum, quae sunt omnino praeter rationem eius. Sunt autem multa de ratione legis humanae, secundum quorum quodlibet lex humana proprie et per se dividi potest. Est enim primo de ratione legis humanae quod sit derivata a lege naturae, ut ex dictis patet. Et secundum hoc dividitur ius positivum in ius gentium et ius civile, secundum duos modos quibus aliquid derivatur a lege naturae, ut supra dictum est. Nam ad ius gentium pertinent ea quae derivantur ex lege naturae sicut conclusiones ex principiis, ut iustae emptiones, venditiones, et alia huiusmodi, sine quibus homines ad invicem convivere non possent; quod est de lege naturae, quia homo est naturaliter animal sociale, ut probatur in I Polit. Quae vero derivantur a lege naturae per modum particularis determinationis, pertinent ad ius civile, secundum quod quaelibet civitas aliquid sibi accommodum determinat. I answer that, A thing can of itself be divided in respect of something contained in the notion of that thing. Thus a soul either rational or irrational is contained in the notion of animal: and therefore animal is divided properly and of itself in respect of its being rational or irrational; but not in the point of its being white or black, which are entirely beside the notion of animal. Now, in the notion of human law, many things are contained, in respect of any of which human law can be divided properly and of itself. For in the first place it belongs to the notion of human law, to be derived from the law of nature, as explained above (A2). In this respect positive law is divided into the law of nations and civil law, according to the two ways in which something may be derived from the law of nature, as stated above (A2). Because, to the law of nations belong those things which are derived from the law of nature, as conclusions from premises, e.g., just buyings and sellings, and the like, without which men cannot live together, which is a point of the law of nature, since man is by nature a social animal, as is proved in Polit. i, 2. But those things which are derived from the law of nature by way of particular determination, belong to the civil law, according as each state decides on what is best for itself. Secundo est de ratione legis humanae quod ordinetur ad bonum commune civitatis. Et secundum hoc lex humana dividi potest secundum diversitatem eorum qui specialiter dant operam ad bonum commune, sicut sacerdotes, pro populo Deum orantes; principes, populum gubernantes; et milites, pro salute populi pugnantes. Et ideo istis hominibus specialia quaedam iura aptantur. Second, it belongs to the notion of human law, to be ordained to the common good of the state. In this respect human law may be divided according to the different kinds of men who work in a special way for the common good: e.g., priests, by praying to God for the people; princes, by governing the people; soldiers, by fighting for the safety of the people. Wherefore certain special kinds of law are adapted to these men. Tertio est de ratione legis humanae ut instituatur a gubernante communitatem civitatis, sicut supra dictum est. Et secundum hoc distinguuntur leges humanae secundum diversa regimina civitatum. Quorum unum, secundum philosophum, in III Polit., est regnum, quando scilicet civitas gubernatur ab uno, et secundum hoc accipiuntur constitutiones principum. Aliud vero regimen est aristocratia, idest principatus optimorum, vel optimatum, et secundum hoc sumuntur responsa prudentum, et etiam senatusconsulta. Aliud regimen est oligarchia, idest principatus paucorum divitum et potentum, et secundum hoc sumitur ius praetorium, quod etiam honorarium dicitur. Aliud autem regimen est populi, quod nominatur democratia, et secundum hoc sumuntur plebiscita. Aliud autem est tyrannicum, quod est omnino corruptum, unde ex hoc non sumitur aliqua lex. Est etiam aliquod regimen ex istis commixtum, quod est optimum, et secundum hoc sumitur lex, quam maiores natu simul cum plebibus sanxerunt, ut Isidorus dicit. Third, it belongs to the notion of human law, to be framed by that one who governs the community of the state, as shown above (Q90, A3). In this respect, there are various human laws according to the various forms of government. Of these, according to the Philosopher (Polit. iii, 10) one is monarchy, i.e., when the state is governed by one; and then we have Royal Ordinances. Another form is aristocracy, i.e., government by the best men or men of highest rank; and then we have the Authoritative legal opinions and Decrees of the Senate. Another form is oligarchy, i.e., government by a few rich and powerful men; and then we have Praetorian, also called Honorary, law. Another form of government is that of the people, which is called democracy, and there we have Decrees of the commonalty. There is also tyrannical government, which is altogether corrupt, which, therefore, has no corresponding law. Finally, there is a form of government made up of all these, and which is the best: and in this respect we have law sanctioned by the Lords and Commons, as stated by Isidore (Etym. v, 4, seqq.). Quarto vero de ratione legis humanae est quod sit directiva humanorum actuum. Et secundum hoc, secundum diversa de quibus leges feruntur, distinguuntur leges, quae interdum ab auctoribus nominantur, sicut distinguitur lex Iulia de adulteriis, lex Cornelia de sicariis, et sic de aliis, non propter auctores, sed propter res de quibus sunt. Fourth, it belongs to the notion of human law to direct human actions. In this respect, according to the various matters of which the law treats, there are various kinds of laws, which are sometimes named after their authors: thus we have the Lex Julia about adultery, the Lex Cornelia concerning assassins, and so on, differentiated in this way, not on account of the authors, but on account of the matters to which they refer.