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, Q30, A3, 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. Second, 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 (Q90, A2). 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 Canaanites (Exod 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 (Matt 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. Second, it belongs to the law to direct human acts according to the order of righteousness (Q90, A4): 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. Third, 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 a little difference 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 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. Articulus 6 Article 6 Utrum sit aliqua lex fomitis Whether there is a law in the fomes of sin? 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. Obj. 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. Obj. 3: Further, the law is ordained to the common good, as stated above (Q90, A2). But the fomes inclines us, not to the common, but to our own private good. Therefore the fomes has not the nature of law. Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, Rom. VII, video aliam legem in membris meis, repugnantem legi mentis meae. On the contrary, The Apostle says (Rom 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 (A2; Q90, A1, 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 (A2; Q90, A1, ad 1). Now those who are subject to a law may receive a twofold inclination from the lawgiver. First, insofar 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. Second, 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 insofar 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, insofar 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 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 Obj. 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, insofar as sensuality is subject to reason. But it is called fomes insofar as it strays from the order of reason. Quaestio 92 Question 92 De effectibus legis Of the Effects of Law Deinde considerandum est de effectibus legis. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. We must now consider the effects of law; under which head there are two points of inquiry: Primo, utrum effectus legis sit homines facere bonos. (1) Whether an effect of law is to make men good? Secundo, utrum effectus legis sint imperare, vetare, permittere et punire, sicut legisperitus dicit. (2) Whether the effects of law are to command, to forbid, to permit, and to punish, as the Jurist states? Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum legis sit facere homines bonos Whether an effect of law is to make men good? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod legis non sit facere homines bonos. Homines enim sunt boni per virtutem, virtus enim est quae bonum facit habentem, ut dicitur in II Ethic. Sed virtus est homini a solo Deo, ipse enim eam facit in nobis sine nobis, ut supra dictum est in definitione virtutis. Ergo legis non est facere homines bonos. Objection 1: It seems that it is not an effect of law to make men good. For men are good through virtue, since virtue, as stated in Ethic. ii, 6 is that which makes its subject good. But virtue is in man from God alone, because He it is Who works it in us without us, as we stated above (Q55, A4) in giving the definition of virtue. Therefore the law does not make men good. Praeterea, lex non prodest homini nisi legi obediat. Sed hoc ipsum quod homo obedit legi, est ex bonitate. Ergo bonitas praeexigitur in homine ad legem. Non igitur lex facit homines bonos. Obj. 2: Further, law does not profit a man unless he obeys it. But the very fact that a man obeys a law is due to his being good. Therefore in man goodness is presupposed to the law. Therefore the law does not make men good. Praeterea, lex ordinatur ad bonum commune, ut supra dictum est. Sed quidam bene se habent in his quae ad commune pertinent, qui tamen in propriis non bene se habent. Non ergo ad legem pertinet quod faciat homines bonos. Obj. 3: Further, law is ordained to the common good, as stated above (Q90, A2). But some behave well in things regarding the community, who behave ill in things regarding themselves. Therefore it is not the business of the law to make men good. Praeterea, quaedam leges sunt tyrannicae, ut philosophus dicit, in sua politica. Sed tyrannus non intendit ad bonitatem subditorum, sed solum ad propriam utilitatem. Non ergo legis est facere homines bonos. Obj. 4: Further, some laws are tyrannical, as the Philosopher says (Polit. iii, 6). But a tyrant does not intend the good of his subjects, but considers only his own profit. Therefore law does not make men good. Sed contra est quod philosophus dicit, in II Ethic., quod voluntas cuiuslibet legislatoris haec est, ut faciat cives bonos. On the contrary, The Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 1) that the intention of every lawgiver is to make good citizens. Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, lex nihil aliud est quam dictamen rationis in praesidente, quo subditi gubernantur. Cuiuslibet autem subditi virtus est ut bene subdatur ei a quo gubernatur, sicut videmus quod virtus irascibilis et concupiscibilis in hoc consistit quod sint bene obedientes rationi. Et per hunc modum virtus cuiuslibet subiecti est ut bene subiiciatur principanti, ut philosophus dicit, in I Polit. Ad hoc autem ordinatur unaquaeque lex, ut obediatur ei a subditis. Unde manifestum est quod hoc sit proprium legis, inducere subiectos ad propriam ipsorum virtutem. Cum igitur virtus sit quae bonum facit habentem, sequitur quod proprius effectus legis sit bonos facere eos quibus datur, vel simpliciter vel secundum quid. Si enim intentio ferentis legem tendat in verum bonum, quod est bonum commune secundum iustitiam divinam regulatum, sequitur quod per legem homines fiant boni simpliciter. Si vero intentio legislatoris feratur ad id quod non est bonum simpliciter, sed utile vel delectabile sibi, vel repugnans iustitiae divinae; tunc lex non facit homines bonos simpliciter, sed secundum quid, scilicet in ordine ad tale regimen. Sic autem bonum invenitur etiam in per se malis, sicut aliquis dicitur bonus latro, quia operatur accommode ad finem. I answer that, as stated above (Q90, A1, ad 2; AA3,4), a law is nothing else than a dictate of reason in the ruler by whom his subjects are governed. Now the virtue of any subordinate thing consists in its being well subordinated to that by which it is regulated: thus we see that the virtue of the irascible and concupiscible faculties consists in their being obedient to reason; and accordingly the virtue of every subject consists in his being well subjected to his ruler, as the Philosopher says (Polit. i). But every law aims at being obeyed by those who are subject to it. Consequently it is evident that the proper effect of law is to lead its subjects to their proper virtue: and since virtue is that which makes its possessor good, it follows that the proper effect of law is to make those to whom it is given, good, either simply or in some particular respect. For if the intention of the lawgiver is fixed on true good, which is the common good regulated according to Divine justice, it follows that the effect of the law is to make men good simply. If, however, the intention of the lawgiver is fixed on that which is not simply good, but useful or pleasurable to himself, or in opposition to Divine justice; then the law does not make men good simply, but in respect to that particular government. In this way good is found even in things that are bad of themselves: thus a man is called a good robber, because he works in a way that is adapted to his end. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod duplex est virtus, ut ex supradictis patet, scilicet acquisita, et infusa. Ad utramque autem aliquid operatur operum assuetudo, sed diversimode, nam virtutem quidem acquisitam causat; ad virtutem autem infusam disponit, et eam iam habitam conservat et promovet. Et quia lex ad hoc datur ut dirigat actus humanos, inquantum actus humani operantur ad virtutem, intantum lex facit homines bonos. Unde et philosophus dicit, II Polit., quod legislatores assuefacientes faciunt bonos. Reply Obj. 1: Virtue is twofold, as explained above (Q63, A2), viz., acquired and infused. Now the fact of being accustomed to an action contributes to both, but in different ways; for it causes the acquired virtue; while it disposes to infused virtue, and preserves and fosters it when it already exists. And since law is given for the purpose of directing human acts; as far as human acts conduce to virtue, so far does law make men good. Wherefore the Philosopher says in the second book of the Politics (Ethic. ii) that lawgivers make men good by habituating them to good works. Ad secundum dicendum quod non semper aliquis obedit legi ex bonitate perfecta virtutis, sed quandoque quidem ex timore poenae; quandoque autem ex solo dictamine rationis, quod est quoddam principium virtutis, ut supra habitum est. Reply Obj. 2: It is not always through perfect goodness of virtue that one obeys the law, but sometimes it is through fear of punishment, and sometimes from the mere dictates of reason, which is a beginning of virtue, as stated above (Q63, A1). Ad tertium dicendum quod bonitas cuiuslibet partis consideratur in proportione ad suum totum, unde et Augustinus dicit, in III Confess., quod turpis omnis pars est quae suo toti non congruit. Cum igitur quilibet homo sit pars civitatis, impossibile est quod aliquis homo sit bonus, nisi sit bene proportionatus bono communi, nec totum potest bene consistere nisi ex partibus sibi proportionatis. Unde impossibile est quod bonum commune civitatis bene se habeat, nisi cives sint virtuosi, ad minus illi quibus convenit principari. Sufficit autem, quantum ad bonum communitatis, quod alii intantum sint virtuosi quod principum mandatis obediant. Et ideo philosophus dicit, in III Polit., quod eadem est virtus principis et boni viri; non autem eadem est virtus cuiuscumque civis et boni viri. Reply Obj. 3: The goodness of any part is considered in comparison with its whole; hence Augustine says (Confess. iii) that unseemly is every part that harmonizes not with its whole. Since then every man is a part of the state, it is impossible that a man be good, unless he be well proportionate to the common good: nor can the whole be well established unless its parts be proportionate to it. Consequently the common good of the state cannot flourish, unless the citizens be virtuous, at least those whose business it is to govern. But it is enough for the good of the community, that the other citizens be so far virtuous that they obey the commands of their rulers. Hence the Philosopher says (Polit. ii, 2) that the virtue of a sovereign is the same as that of a good man, but the virtue of any common citizen is not the same as that of a good man. Ad quartum dicendum quod lex tyrannica, cum non sit secundum rationem, non est simpliciter lex, sed magis est quaedam perversitas legis. Et tamen inquantum habet aliquid de ratione legis, intendit ad hoc quod cives sint boni. Non enim habet de ratione legis nisi secundum hoc quod est dictamen alicuius praesidentis in subditis, et ad hoc tendit ut subditi legi sint bene obedientes; quod est eos esse bonos, non simpliciter, sed in ordine ad tale regimen. Reply Obj. 4: A tyrannical law, through not being according to reason, is not a law, absolutely speaking, but rather a perversion of law; and yet insofar as it has something of the ratio of a law, it aims at the citizens’ being good. For all it has in the nature of a law consists in its being an ordinance made by a superior to his subjects, and aims at being obeyed by them, which is to make them good, not simply, but with respect to that particular government.