Ad quartum dicendum, quod tunc conscientia erronea non sufficit ad absolvendum, quando in ipso errore peccat, ut quando errat circa ea quae scire tenetur. Si autem esset error circa ea quae quis non tenetur scire, ex conscientia sua absolvitur; sicut patet in eo qui ex ignorantia facti peccat, ut cum quis accedit ad alienam uxorem, quam credit suam. Reply Obj. 4: When a man sins in making the error itself, a false conscience is not enough to excuse him. This is the case when he makes a mistake about things which he is required to know. However, if the error is about things which he is not required to know, he is excused by his conscience, as is clear when one sins from ignorance of a fact, as when one approaches another’s wife, whom he thinks is his own. Articulus 4 Article 4 Utrum conscientia erronea liget Whether a false conscience can bind Quarto quaeritur utrum conscientia erronea liget. In the fourth article we ask: does a false conscience bind? Et videtur quod non. Quia ut dicit Augustinus, peccatum est dictum vel factum vel concupitum contra legem Dei. Ergo nihil ligat ad peccatum nisi lex Dei. Sed conscientia erronea non est secundum legem Dei. Ergo non obligat ad peccatum. Obj. 1: It seems that it does not, for Augustine says that sin is a word, deed, or desire contrary to the law of God. Therefore, nothing binds under pain of sin except God’s law. But a false conscience is not in accordance with God’s law. Therefore, it does not bind under pain of sin. Praeterea, Rom., XIII, 1, super illud: omnis anima potestatibus etc., dicit Glossa Augustini, quod inferiori potestati non est obediendum contra praeceptum superioris; sicut non est obediendum proconsuli, si contrarium imperator praecipiat. Sed conscientia erronea est inferior ipso Deo. Cum igitur conscientia praecipit contraria praeceptis Dei, praeceptum conscientiae errantis nullo modo obligare videtur. Obj. 2: On Romans (13:1), let every soul be subject to higher powers, Augustine says that we should not obey a lower power contrary to the commandment of a higher power, just as we should not obey the proconsul if his order is contrary to that of the emperor. But a false conscience is inferior to God. Therefore, when conscience gives orders contrary to the commands of God, the command of a mistaken conscience seems to impose no obligation whatever. Praeterea, secundum Ambrosium, peccatum est transgressio legis divinae, et caelestium inobedientia mandatorum. Ergo quicumque deviat ab obedientia legis divinae, peccat. Sed conscientia erronea facit deviare ab oboedientia potestatis divinae; quando scilicet aliquis habet conscientiam faciendi illud quod est lege divina prohibitum. Ergo conscientia erronea magis inducit in peccatum observata, quam liget in peccatum si non observetur. Obj. 3: According to Ambrose, sin is a transgression of the divine law and disobedience to the heavenly commands. Therefore, whoever disobeys the divine law sins. But a false conscience makes a man disobey the divine power when, for instance, his conscience tells him to do something which is forbidden by the divine law. Therefore, a false conscience leads one into sin if he follows it, rather than binds him under pain of sin if he does not follow it. Praeterea, secundum iura, si aliquis habet conscientiam quod uxor sua attineat sibi in aliquo gradu prohibito, et conscientia illa sit probabilis, tunc debet eam sequi etiam contra praeceptum Ecclesiae, etiam si excommunicatio addatur: si autem non sit probabilis conscientia, non ligatur ad hoc quod eam impleat, sed debet magis Ecclesiae obedire. Sed conscientia erronea, praecipue de per se malis, nullo modo est probabilis. Ergo talis conscientia non ligat. Obj. 4: According to the law, if a man’s conscience tells him that he and his wife are related within the forbidden degrees of kindred, and that conscience is probable, then he must follow it against a precept of the Church, even if an excommunication is attached to the precept. However, if his conscience is not probable, he is not bound to follow it, but should obey the Church. But a false conscience, especially about things which are intrinsically evil, has no probability at all. Therefore, such a conscience does not bind. Praeterea, Deus est misericordior quam aliquis dominus temporalis. Sed dominus temporalis non imputat homini ad peccatum illud quod ex errore committitur. Ergo multo minus per conscientiam errantem aliquis penes Deum obligatur ad peccatum. Obj. 5: God is more merciful than a temporal lord. But a temporal lord does not accuse a man of sin in something which he did by mistake. Therefore, in God’s sight a man is much less obliged under pain of sin by a mistaken conscience. Sed dicebat, quod conscientia erronea ligat circa indifferentia, non autem circa ea quae sunt per se mala. Obj. 6: It was said that a false conscience binds with reference to indifferent things, but not with reference to things which are intrinsically evil. Sed contra, ideo in illis quae sunt per se mala, conscientia errans dicitur non ligare, quia dictamen naturalis rationis est in contrarium. Sed similiter etiam naturalis ratio dictet contrarium conscientiae erroneae quae circa indifferentia errat. Ergo similiter ista non ligat. On the contrary, a mistaken conscience is said not to bind when dealing with things which are intrinsically evil because the dictate of natural reason opposes it. But natural reason in like manner opposes the false conscience which is mistaken about indifferent things. Therefore, that, too, does not bind. Praeterea, opus indifferens se habet ad utrumlibet. Sed quod est ad utrumlibet, non est necessarium fieri vel non fieri. Ergo ad opera indifferentia aliquis non obligatur ex necessitate per conscientiam. Obj. 7: An indifferent action may be accepted or rejected. But there is no necessary obligation to do or omit an action which may be accepted or rejected. Therefore, conscience imposes no necessary obligation to indifferent actions. Praeterea, si aliquis ex erronea conscientia contra legem Dei faciat, non excusatur a peccato. Si igitur ille etiam qui contra conscientiam sic errantem ageret, peccaret; sequeretur quod sive ageret secundum conscientiam erroneam, sive non ageret, peccatum incurreret; ergo esset perplexus ut peccatum evitare non posset; quod videtur impossibile, quia nullus peccat in eo quod vitare non potest, secundum Augustinum. Ergo impossibile est quod conscientia taliter errans liget. Obj. 8: If from a false conscience one acts contrary to the law of God, he is not excused from sin. Accordingly, if one who acted against his conscience, even when it was mistaken, were to sin, it would follow that, whether he acted according to his false conscience or not, he would sin. Therefore, he would be so perplexed that it would be impossible for him to avoid sin. But this seems impossible, because, according to Augustine: no one sins in that which he cannot avoid. Therefore, it is impossible for such a false conscience to bind. Praeterea, omne peccatum ad aliquod genus peccati reducitur. Sed si alicui dictat conscientia quod fornicetur, abstinere a fornicatione non potest ad aliquod genus peccati reduci. Ergo non peccaret sic contra conscientiam agens; ergo conscientia talis non ligat. Obj. 9: Every sin belongs to some genus of sin. But, if conscience tells one that he should fornicate, to abstain from fornication cannot be classified in any genus of sin. Therefore, he would not sin in thus acting contrary to his conscience. Therefore, such a conscience does not bind. Sed contra. Est quod dicitur Rom. XIV, vers. 23: omne quod non est ex fide, peccatum est, Glosa idest secundum conscientiam peccatum est, etiam si bonum sit in se. Sed conscientia quae prohibet illud quod in se est bonum, est conscientia erronea. Ergo talis conscientia ligat. On the contrary (1): On Romans 14:23, for all that is not of faith is sin, the Gloss says: that is, it is a sin in conscience, even if it is good in itself. But conscience which forbids that which is good in itself is false. Therefore, such a conscience binds. Praeterea, observare legalia post tempus gratiae revelatae non erat indifferens, sed per se malum: unde dicitur Gal. V, 2: si circumcidamini, Christus nihil vobis proderit. Sed tamen conscientia de circumcisione servanda obligabat; unde ibidem subditur: testificor autem omni circumcidenti se, quoniam debitor est universae legis faciendae. Ergo conscientia erronea ligat etiam in per se malis. Furthermore (2): Observance of the legal prescriptions of the Mosaic law in the new dispensation of grace was not indifferent but intrinsically evil. Hence, Galatians 5:2 says: if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. Nevertheless, conscience prescribing the observance of circumcision was binding. Hence, in the same Epistle we read: and I testify again to every man circumcising himself, that he is a debtor to do the whole law (Gal 5:3). Therefore, a false conscience binds in things intrinsically evil. Praeterea, peccatum principaliter in voluntate consistit. Quicumque autem vult transgredi praeceptum divinum, habet malam voluntatem. Ergo peccat. Sed quicumque credit aliquid esse praeceptum, et vult transgredi, habet voluntatem non servandi legem. Ergo peccat. Qui autem habet erroneam conscientiam sive in his quae sunt per se mala, sive in quibuscumque, credit id quod est contrarium suae conscientiae esse contra legem Dei. Ergo, si vult facere illud, facere vult contra legem Dei, et ita peccat; et ita conscientia, quantumcumque erronea, obligat ad peccatum. Furthermore (3): Sin is principally in the will. But whoever decides to transgress a divine commandment has an evil will. Therefore, he sins. Whoever believes that something is a command and decides to violate it wills to break the law. Therefore, he sins. Moreover, one who has a false conscience, whether in things intrinsically evil or in anything at all, believes that what is opposed to his conscience is contrary to the law of God. Therefore, if he decides to do that, he decides to act contrary to the law of God, and, so, he sins. Consequently, conscience, no matter how false it is, obliges under pain of sin. Praeterea, secundum Damascenum, conscientia est lex intellectus nostri. Sed facere contra legem est peccatum. Ergo et facere contra conscientiam quomodocumque. Furthermore (4): According to Damascene: conscience is the law of our understanding. But to act contrary to a law is a sin. Therefore, it is also a sin to act against conscience in any way. Praeterea, aliquis ex praecepto ligatur. Sed hoc quod conscientia dictat, hoc factum est praeceptum. Ergo, quantumcumque conscientia sit erronea, ligat. Furthermore (5): One is bound by a precept. But that which conscience dictates becomes a precept. Therefore, conscience binds, no matter how false it may be. Responsio. Dicendum, quod circa hoc diversae sunt opiniones. Quidam enim dicunt, quod conscientia potest errare vel in his quae sunt per se mala, vel in indifferentibus. Conscientia igitur errans in his quae sunt per se mala, non ligat; in indifferentibus autem ligat. Sed qui hoc dicunt, non videtur intelligere quid sit conscientiam ligare. Secundum hoc enim ligare conscientia dicitur, quod aliquis, nisi conscientiam impleat, peccatum incurrit; non autem hoc modo quod aliquis implens recte faciat. Alias enim consilium obligare diceretur: implens enim consilium recte agit; sed tamen ad consilia dicimur non ligari, quia qui consilium praeterit, non peccat; ad praecepta autem ligari dicimur, quia non servantes praecepta, peccata incurrimus. Non igitur propter hoc conscientia dicitur ad aliquid faciendum ligare, quod si illud fiat, ex tali conscientia bonum sit: sed quia si non fiat, peccatum incurritur. Non videtur autem possibile quod aliquis peccatum evadat, si conscientia, quantumcumque errans, dictet aliquid esse praeceptum Dei sive sit indifferens sive etiam per se malum; si contrarium, tali conscientia manente, agere disponat. Quantum enim in se est, ex hoc ipso habet voluntatem legem Dei non observandi; unde mortaliter peccat. Quamvis igitur talis conscientia, quae est erronea, deponi possit; nihilominus tamen dum manet, obligativa est, quia transgressor ipsius peccatum de necessitate incurrit. Diversimode tamen recta conscientia et erronea ligat: recta quidem ligat simpliciter et per se; erronea autem secundum quid et per accidens. I answer that: there are different opinions on this matter. For some say that conscience can be mistaken both in things which are intrinsically evil and also with regard to indifferent things. Furthermore, a mistaken conscience does not bind in things which are intrinsically evil, but does bind with regard to indifferent things. But those who say this do not seem to understand in what sense conscience imposes an obligation. For conscience is said to bind in so far as one sins if he does not follow his conscience, but not in the sense that he acts correctly if he does follow it. Otherwise, a counsel would be called obligatory, for one who fulfills a counsel acts correctly. Still, we do not say that we are bound to counsels, since one who neglects what is of counsel does not sin. But we say that we are bound to precepts because, if we do not keep them, we commit sin. Therefore, conscience is not said to bind in the sense that what one does according to such a conscience will be good, but in the sense that in not following it he will sin. Moreover, it does not seem possible for a man to avoid sin if his conscience, no matter how mistaken, declares that something which is indifferent or intrinsically evil is a command of God, and with such a conscience he decides to do the opposite. For, as far as he can, he has by this very fact decided not to observe the law of God. Consequently, he sins mortally. Accordingly, although such a false conscience can be changed, nevertheless, as long as it remains, it is binding, since one who acts against it necessarily commits a sin. However, a correct conscience and a false conscience bind in different ways. The correct conscience binds absolutely and for an intrinsic reason; the false binds in a qualified way and for an extrinsic reason. Dico autem rectam ligare simpliciter, quia ligat absolute et in omnem eventum. Si enim aliquis conscientiam habeat de vitando adulterio, istam conscientiam sine peccato non potest deponere, quia in hoc ipso quod eam deponeret errando, graviter peccaret; ea autem manente, non potest praeteriri in actu sine peccato. Unde absolute ligat et in omnem eventum. Sed conscientia erronea non ligat nisi secundum quid quia sub conditione. Ille enim cui dictat conscientia quod teneatur ad fornicandum, non est obligatus ut fornicationem sine peccato dimittere non possit, nisi sub hac conditione, si talis conscientia duret. Haec autem condicio removeri potest et absque peccato. Unde talis conscientia non obligat in omnem eventum: potest enim aliquid contingere, scilicet depositio conscientiae, quo contingente, aliquis ulterius non ligatur. Quod autem sub conditione tantum est, secundum quid esse dicitur. Dico etiam quod conscientia recta per se ligat, erronea autem per accidens; quod ex hoc patet. Qui enim unum vult vel amat propter alterum, illud quidem propter quod amat reliquum per se amat; quod vero propter alterum amat quasi per accidens, sicut qui vinum amat propter dulce, amat dulce per se, vinum autem per accidens. Ille autem qui conscientiam erroneam habet credens eam esse rectam (alias non erraret), inhaeret conscientiae erroneae propter rectitudinem quam in ea credit; inhaeret quidem, per se loquendo, rectae conscientiae, sed erroneae quasi per accidens: in quantum hanc conscientiam, quam credit esse rectam, contingit esse erroneam. Et exinde est quod, per se loquendo, ligatur a conscientia recta, per accidens autem ab erronea. Et haec solutio potest accipi ex verbis Philosophi in VII Ethicorum, ubi quasi eamdem quaestionem quaerit, utrum scilicet dicendus sit incontinens qui abscedit a ratione recta solum, vel qui abscedit etiam a falsa. Et solvit quod incontinens per se recedit a ratione recta, per accidens autem a falsa; et ab una quidem simpliciter, ab alia autem secundum quid. Quia quod per se est, simpliciter est; quod autem per accidens, secundum quid. I say that a correct conscience binds absolutely because it binds without qualification and in every circumstance. For, if one’s conscience tells him to avoid adultery, he cannot change that conscience without sin, since he would commit a serious sin in the very error of changing such a conscience. Moreover, as long as it remains, it cannot actually be set aside without sin. Thus, it binds absolutely and in every event. But a false conscience binds only in a qualified way, since it binds conditionally. For one whose conscience tells him he must fornicate is not obliged in such a way that he cannot omit the fornication without sin except on condition that such a conscience remains. But this situation can be changed, and without sin. Hence, such a conscience does not oblige in every event. For something can happen, namely, a change of conscience, and, when this takes place, one is no longer bound. That which is only conditional is said to be qualified. I also say that a correct conscience binds for an intrinsic reason, and a false conscience binds for an extrinsic reason. This is clear from the following. For one who wishes or desires something because of something else desires that because of which he desires the others for an intrinsic reason, and the other for an extrinsic reason, as it were. Thus, one who loves wine because of its sweetness loves sweetness for an intrinsic reason, and wine for an extrinsic reason. But one who has a false conscience and believes that it is correct (otherwise, he would not be mistaken), clings to his false conscience because of the correctness he believes is there, and, strictly speaking, clings to a correct conscience, but one which is false accidentally, as it were, in so far as this conscience, which he believes to be correct, happens to be false. It is for this reason that, strictly speaking, he is bound by a correct conscience, but accidentally by a false conscience. We can find this solution from what the philosopher says when he asks almost the same question, that is, whether one is guilty of excess only if he departs from right reason, or also if he departs from a mistaken reason. His solution is that one who departs from right reason goes to excess essentially, and one who departs from mistaken reason goes to excess accidentally. And a man departs absolutely from the former and with some qualification from the latter, for what is essential is absolute, and what is accidental is qualified. Ad primum igitur dicendum, quod quamvis id quod dictat erronea conscientia, non sit consonum legi Dei, tamen accipitur ab errante ut ipsa lex Dei. Et ideo, per se loquendo, si ab hoc recedat, recedit a lege Dei; quamvis per accidens sit quod a lege Dei non recedat. Reply Obj. 1: Although that which a false conscience dictates is out of harmony with the law of God, the one who is mistaken considers it the law of God. Therefore, taking the thing in itself, if he departs from this, he departs from the law of God, although it would be accidental that he does not depart from the law of God. Ad secundum dicendum, quod ratio illa procedit quando superioris et inferioris sunt distincta praecepta, et utrumque per se distinctim pervenit ad eum qui praecepto obligatur. Quod hic non contingit; quia conscientiae dictamen nihil aliud est quam perventio praecepti Dei ad eum qui conscientiam habet, ut ex dictis, art. 1 et 2, patet. Esset autem simile in exemplo proposito, si praeceptum imperatoris nunquam ad aliquem pervenire posset nisi mediante proconsule, et proconsul quod praecipit non praeciperet nisi quasi recitans imperatoris praeceptum. Tunc enim idem esset contemnere praeceptum imperatoris et proconsulis, sive proconsul verum diceret, sive mentiretur. Reply Obj. 2: The argument proceeds correctly when there are distinct commands from higher and lower sources, and both, as essentially distinct, reach the one who is obliged by the command. But this is not the situation here, since the dictate of conscience is nothing other than the delivery of a divine command to him who has the conscience, as is clear from what we have said. In the proposed example the cases would be similar if the command of the emperor could never reach a man except through the proconsul, and the proconsul would not order anything except in so far as he repeated the emperor’s commands. Then, it would be the same thing to despise the command of the emperor and the command of the proconsul, whether the latter spoke the truth or lied. Ad tertium dicendum, quod conscientia erronea errans in his quae sunt per se mala, dictat contraria legi Dei; sed tamen illa quae dictat, dicit esse legem Dei. Et ideo transgressor illius conscientiae efficitur quasi transgressor legis Dei; quamvis etiam conscientiam sequens, et eam opere implens, contra legem Dei faciens mortaliter peccet: quia in ipso errore peccatum erat, cum contingeret per ignorantiam eius quod scire debebat. Reply Obj. 3: A false conscience which is mistaken in things which are intrinsically evil commands something which is contrary to the law of God. Nevertheless, it says that what it commands is the law of God. Accordingly, one who acts against such a conscience becomes a kind of transgressor of the law of God, although one who follows such a conscience and acts according to it acts against the law of God and sins mortally. For there was sin in the error itself, since it happened because of ignorance of that which one should have known. Ad quartum dicendum, quod quando conscientia non est probabilis, tunc debet eam deponere; sed tamen dum manet, si contra eam faciat, mortaliter peccat. Unde per hoc non probatur quod conscientia erronea non liget dum manet, sed solum quod non ligat simpliciter et in omnem eventum. Reply Obj. 4: When a conscience is not probable, it should be changed. But, as long as such a conscience remains, one sins mortally if he acts against it. Hence, this does not prove that a false conscience does not bind as long as it remains, but that it does not bind absolutely and in every event. Ad quintum dicendum, quod ex illo argumento non concluditur quod conscientia erronea non liget ad peccatum si non impleatur; sed quod si impleatur, excusat a peccato. Unde non est ad propositum. Concludit autem verum, quando ipse error non est peccatum: utpote cum contingit ex ignorantia facti. Si autem ex ignorantia iuris, sic non concludit, quia ipsa ignorantia peccatum est; sic enim etiam apud saecularem iudicem non excusatur qui ignorantiam legis quam scire debet, allegat. Reply Obj. 5: We do not conclude from that argument that a false conscience does not bind under pain of sin if it is not followed, but that, if it is followed, it excuses from sin. Consequently, the argument is not to the point. When the error itself is not a sin, the conclusion is true, as when the error is due to ignorance of some fact. But, if it is ignorance of a law, the conclusion is wrong because the ignorance itself is a sin. For before a civil judge, also, one who thus appeals to ignorance of a law which he should know is not excused. Ad sextum dicendum, quod licet in ratione naturali sit unde possit procedi ad contrarium eius quod erronea conscientia dictat, sive sit error circa indifferentia, sive circa per se mala; tamen actu naturalis ratio non dictat; si enim dictaret contrarium, non erraret conscientia. Reply Obj. 6: Although in natural reason there is a basis for proceeding to the opposite of that which a false conscience dictates, whether the mistake is about indifferent things or things intrinsically evil, natural reason does not actually dictate the opposite. For, if it did dictate the opposite, conscience would not be mistaken. Ad septimum dicendum, quod quamvis opus indifferens, quantum in se est, ad utrumlibet se habeat; tamen huic qui exstimat hoc opus cadere sub praecepto, efficitur non indifferens propter suam aestimationem. Reply Obj. 7: Although an indifferent action, in so far as the act itself is concerned, can be accepted or rejected, still, when one thinks that such an action has been commanded, it loses its indifference because of his judgment. Ad octavum dicendum, quod ille qui habet conscientiam faciendi fornicationem, non est simpliciter perplexus, quia potest aliquid facere quo facto non incidet in peccatum, scilicet conscientiam erroneam deponere; sed est perplexus secundum quid, scilicet conscientia erronea manente. Et hoc non est inconveniens, ut aliquo supposito, homo peccatum vitare non possit; sicut supposita intentione inanis gloriae, ille qui tenetur eleemosynam dare, peccatum evitare non potest: si enim dat ex tali intentione, peccat; si vero non dat, transgressor est. Reply Obj. 8: One whose conscience tells him to commit fornication is not completely perplexed, because he can do something by which he can avoid sin, namely, change the false conscience. But he is perplexed to some degree, that is, as long as the false conscience remains. And there is no difficulty in saying that, if some condition is presupposed, it is impossible for a man to avoid sin; just as, if we presuppose the intention of vainglory, one who is required to give alms cannot avoid sin. For, if he gives alms, because of such an intention, he sins; but, if he does not give alms, he violates the law. Ad nonum dicendum, quod quando conscientia erronea dictat aliquid faciendum, dictat illud sub aliqua ratione boni, vel quasi opus iustitiae, vel quasi temperantiae, et sic de aliis; et ideo transgressor incurrit in vitium contrarium illi virtuti sub cuius specie conscientia illud dictat. Vel si dictat illud sub specie divini praecepti, vel alicuius praelati tantum, incurret peccatum inobedientiae conscientiam transgrediens. Reply Obj. 9: When a false conscience says that something must be done, it commands this under some aspect of good, either as a work of justice, or temperance, and so forth. Therefore, one who acts against such a conscience falls into the vice opposed to the virtue to which his conscience thinks it belongs when commanding it. Or, if such a conscience orders something under the guise of a command of God, or only of some superior, he commits the sin of disobedience by going against it. Articulus 5 Article 5 Utrum conscientia erronea in indifferentibus plus liget quam praeceptum praelati, vel minus Whether conscience in indifferent matters can bind more than the command of a superior, or less Quinto quaeritur utrum conscientia erronea in indifferentibus plus liget quam praeceptum praelati, vel minus. In the fifth article we ask: does conscience in indifferent matters bind more than the command of a superior, or less? Et videtur quod minus. Subditus enim religiosus vovit oboedire praelato suo. Sed tenetur votum reddere ut in Psal. dicitur: vovete et reddite. Ergo videtur quod tenetur praelato obedire contra conscientiam; et ita magis praelato quam conscientiae. Obj. 1: It seems to bind less, for a religious subject vows obedience to his superior. But he is required to keep his vow, as is said in Psalm 76:11: vow ye, and pay [them] to the Lord your God. Therefore, one seems to be obliged to obey a superior against his own conscience, and, thus, one is more obliged to obey a superior than conscience. Praeterea, praelato semper est obediendum in his quae non sunt contra Deum. Sed indifferentia non sunt contra Deum. Ergo in his tenetur obedire praelato; et sic idem quod prius. Obj. 2: A superior must always be obeyed in things which are not against God’s will. But indifferent things are not against God’s will. Therefore, one is obliged to obey a superior in these matters. We conclude as before. Praeterea, potestati superiori magis est obediendum quam inferiori, ut habetur in Glossa, Rom. XIII, 2. Sed anima praelati est superior quam anima subditi. Ergo magis ligatur subditus ex imperio praelati quam ex conscientia propria. Obj. 3: The higher power should be more obeyed than the lower power, as the Gloss says. But the soul of a prelate is higher than the soul of a subject. Therefore, the subject is bound more by the command of the superior than by his own conscience.