1/25/2016 SummaTheologica:TREATISEONLAW(QQ90108):Question.

91OFTHEVARIOUSKINDSOFLAW(SIXARTICLES)

SacredTextsChristianityAquinasIndexPreviousNext

BuythisBookatAmazon.com

SummaTheologica,bySt.ThomasAquinas,[1947],atsacredtexts.com

OFTHEVARIOUSKINDSOFLAW(SIX
ARTICLES)
Wemustnowconsiderthevariouskindsoflaw:underwhich
headtherearesixpointsofinquiry:

(1)Whetherthereisaneternallaw?

(2)Whetherthereisanaturallaw?

(3)Whetherthereisahumanlaw?

(4)WhetherthereisaDivinelaw?

(5)WhetherthereisoneDivinelaw,orseveral?

(6)Whetherthereisalawofsin?

Whetherthereisaneternallaw?

Objection1:Itwouldseemthatthereisnoeternallaw.Because
everylawisimposedonsomeone.Buttherewasnotsomeone
frometernityonwhomalawcouldbeimposed:sinceGodalone
wasfrometernity.Thereforenolawiseternal.

Objection2:Further,promulgationisessentialtolaw.But
promulgationcouldnotbefrometernity:becausetherewasno
onetowhomitcouldbepromulgatedfrometernity.Therefore
nolawcanbeeternal.
http://www.sacredtexts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum229.htm 1/11
1/25/2016 SummaTheologica:TREATISEONLAW(QQ90108):Question.91OFTHEVARIOUSKINDSOFLAW(SIXARTICLES)

Objection3:Further,alawimpliesordertoanend.Butnothing
ordainedtoanendiseternal:forthelastendaloneiseternal.
Thereforenolawiseternal.

Onthecontrary,Augustinesays(DeLib.Arb.i,6):"ThatLaw
whichistheSupremeReasoncannotbeunderstoodtobe
otherwisethanunchangeableandeternal."

Ianswerthat,Asstatedabove(Q[90],A[1],ad2AA[3],4),a
lawisnothingelsebutadictateofpracticalreasonemanating
fromtherulerwhogovernsaperfectcommunity.Nowitis
evident,grantedthattheworldisruledbyDivineProvidence,as
wasstatedintheFP,Q[22],AA[1],2,thatthewholecommunity
oftheuniverseisgovernedbyDivineReason.Whereforethe
veryIdeaofthegovernmentofthingsinGodtheRulerofthe
universe,hasthenatureofalaw.AndsincetheDivineReason's
conceptionofthingsisnotsubjecttotimebutiseternal,
accordingtoProv.8:23,thereforeitisthatthiskindoflawmust
becalledeternal.

ReplytoObjection1:Thosethingsthatarenotinthemselves,
existwithGod,inasmuchastheyareforeknownand
preordainedbyHim,accordingtoRom.4:17:"Whocallsthose
thingsthatarenot,asthosethatare."Accordinglytheeternal
conceptoftheDivinelawbearsthecharacterofaneternallaw,
insofarasitisordainedbyGodtothegovernmentofthings
foreknownbyHim.

ReplytoObjection2:Promulgationismadebywordofmouth
orinwritingandinbothwaystheeternallawispromulgated:
becauseboththeDivineWordandthewritingoftheBookof
Lifeareeternal.Butthepromulgationcannotbefrometernity
onthepartofthecreaturethathearsorreads.

ReplytoObjection3:Thelawimpliesordertotheend
actively,insofarasitdirectscertainthingstotheendbutnot
passivelythatistosay,thelawitselfisnotordainedtothe
endexceptaccidentally,inagovernorwhoseendisextrinsic
tohim,andtowhichendhislawmustneedsbeordained.But
theendoftheDivinegovernmentisGodHimself,andHislaw
isnotdistinctfromHimself.Whereforetheeternallawisnot
ordainedtoanotherend.

Whetherthereisinusanaturallaw?

Objection1:Itwouldseemthatthereisnonaturallawinus.
Becausemanisgovernedsufficientlybytheeternallaw:for
Augustinesays(DeLib.Arb.i)that"theeternallawisthatby
whichitisrightthatallthingsshouldbemostorderly."But
naturedoesnotaboundinsuperfluitiesasneitherdoesshefailin
necessaries.Thereforenolawisnaturaltoman.
http://www.sacredtexts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum229.htm 2/11
1/25/2016 SummaTheologica:TREATISEONLAW(QQ90108):Question.91OFTHEVARIOUSKINDSOFLAW(SIXARTICLES)

Objection2:Further,bythelawmanisdirected,inhisacts,to
theend,asstatedabove(Q[90],A[2]).Butthedirectingof
humanactstotheirendisnotafunctionofnature,asisthecase
inirrationalcreatures,whichactforanendsolelybytheir
naturalappetitewhereasmanactsforanendbyhisreasonand
will.Thereforenolawisnaturaltoman.

Objection3:Further,themoreamanisfree,thelessishe
underthelaw.Butmanisfreerthanalltheanimals,onaccount
ofhisfreewill,withwhichheisendowedaboveallother
animals.Sincethereforeotheranimalsarenotsubjecttoa
naturallaw,neitherismansubjecttoanaturallaw.

Onthecontrary,AglossonRom.2:14:"WhentheGentiles,
whohavenotthelaw,dobynaturethosethingsthatareofthe
law,"commentsasfollows:"Althoughtheyhavenowrittenlaw,
yettheyhavethenaturallaw,wherebyeachoneknows,andis
consciousof,whatisgoodandwhatisevil."

Ianswerthat,Asstatedabove(Q[90],A[1],ad1),law,beinga
ruleandmeasure,canbeinapersonintwoways:inoneway,as
inhimthatrulesandmeasuresinanotherway,asinthatwhich
isruledandmeasured,sinceathingisruledandmeasured,inso
farasitpartakesoftheruleormeasure.Wherefore,sinceall
thingssubjecttoDivineprovidenceareruledandmeasuredby
theeternallaw,aswasstatedabove(A[1])itisevidentthatall
thingspartakesomewhatoftheeternallaw,insofaras,namely,
fromitsbeingimprintedonthem,theyderivetheirrespective
inclinationstotheirproperactsandends.Nowamongallothers,
therationalcreatureissubjecttoDivineprovidenceinthemost
excellentway,insofarasitpartakesofashareofprovidence,
bybeingprovidentbothforitselfandforothers.Whereforeit
hasashareoftheEternalReason,wherebyithasanatural
inclinationtoitsproperactandend:andthisparticipationofthe
eternallawintherationalcreatureiscalledthenaturallaw.
HencethePsalmistaftersaying(Ps.4:6):"Offerupthesacrifice
ofjustice,"asthoughsomeoneaskedwhattheworksofjustice
are,adds:"Manysay,Whoshowethusgoodthings?"inanswer
towhichquestionhesays:"ThelightofThycountenance,O
Lord,issigneduponus":thusimplyingthatthelightofnatural
reason,wherebywediscernwhatisgoodandwhatisevil,which
isthefunctionofthenaturallaw,isnothingelsethananimprint
onusoftheDivinelight.Itisthereforeevidentthatthenatural
lawisnothingelsethantherationalcreature'sparticipationof
theeternallaw.

ReplytoObjection1:Thisargumentwouldhold,ifthenatural
lawweresomethingdifferentfromtheeternallaw:whereasitis
nothingbutaparticipationthereof,asstatedabove.

ReplytoObjection2:Everyactofreasonandwillinusis
http://www.sacredtexts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum229.htm 3/11
1/25/2016 SummaTheologica:TREATISEONLAW(QQ90108):Question.91OFTHEVARIOUSKINDSOFLAW(SIXARTICLES)

basedonthatwhichisaccordingtonature,asstatedabove
(Q[10],A[1]):foreveryactofreasoningisbasedonprinciples
thatareknownnaturally,andeveryactofappetiteinrespectof
themeansisderivedfromthenaturalappetiteinrespectofthe
lastend.Accordinglythefirstdirectionofouractstotheirend
mustneedsbeinvirtueofthenaturallaw.

ReplytoObjection3:Evenirrationalanimalspartakeintheir
ownwayoftheEternalReason,justastherationalcreature
does.Butbecausetherationalcreaturepartakesthereofinan
intellectualandrationalmanner,thereforetheparticipationof
theeternallawintherationalcreatureisproperlycalledalaw,
sincealawissomethingpertainingtoreason,asstatedabove
(Q[90],A[1]).Irrationalcreatures,however,donotpartake
thereofinarationalmanner,whereforethereisnoparticipation
oftheeternallawinthem,exceptbywayofsimilitude.

Whetherthereisahumanlaw?

Objection1:Itwouldseemthatthereisnotahumanlaw.For
thenaturallawisaparticipationoftheeternallaw,asstated
above(A[2]).Nowthroughtheeternallaw"allthingsaremost
orderly,"asAugustinestates(DeLib.Arb.i,6).Thereforethe
naturallawsufficesfortheorderingofallhumanaffairs.
Consequentlythereisnoneedforahumanlaw.

Objection2:Further,alawbearsthecharacterofameasure,as
statedabove(Q[90],A[1]).Buthumanreasonisnotameasure
ofthings,butviceversa,asstatedinMetaph.x,text.5.
Thereforenolawcanemanatefromhumanreason.

Objection3:Further,ameasureshouldbemostcertain,as
statedinMetaph.x,text.3.Butthedictatesofhumanreasonin
mattersofconductareuncertain,accordingtoWis.9:14:"The
thoughtsofmortalmenarefearful,andourcounselsuncertain."
Thereforenolawcanemanatefromhumanreason.

Onthecontrary,Augustine(DeLib.Arb.i,6)distinguishes
twokindsoflaw,theoneeternal,theothertemporal,whichhe
callshuman.

Ianswerthat,Asstatedabove(Q[90],A[1],ad2),alawisa
dictateofthepracticalreason.Nowitistobeobservedthatthe
sameproceduretakesplaceinthepracticalandinthe
speculativereason:foreachproceedsfromprinciplesto
conclusions,asstatedabove(DeLib.Arb.i,6).Accordinglywe
concludethatjustas,inthespeculativereason,fromnaturally
knownindemonstrableprinciples,wedrawtheconclusionsof
thevarioussciences,theknowledgeofwhichisnotimpartedto
usbynature,butacquiredbytheeffortsofreason,sotooitis
fromthepreceptsofthenaturallaw,asfromgeneraland
http://www.sacredtexts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum229.htm 4/11
1/25/2016 SummaTheologica:TREATISEONLAW(QQ90108):Question.91OFTHEVARIOUSKINDSOFLAW(SIXARTICLES)

indemonstrableprinciples,thatthehumanreasonneedsto
proceedtothemoreparticulardeterminationofcertainmatters.
Theseparticulardeterminations,devisedbyhumanreason,are
calledhumanlaws,providedtheotheressentialconditionsof
lawbeobserved,asstatedabove(Q[90],AA[2],3,4).Wherefore
TullysaysinhisRhetoric(DeInvent.Rhet.ii)that"justicehas
itssourceinnaturethencecertainthingscameintocustomby
reasonoftheirutilityafterwardsthesethingswhichemanated
fromnatureandwereapprovedbycustom,weresanctionedby
fearandreverenceforthelaw."

ReplytoObjection1:Thehumanreasoncannothaveafull
participationofthedictateoftheDivineReason,butaccording
toitsownmode,andimperfectly.Consequently,asonthepart
ofthespeculativereason,byanaturalparticipationofDivine
Wisdom,thereisinustheknowledgeofcertaingeneral
principles,butnotproperknowledgeofeachsingletruth,such
asthatcontainedintheDivineWisdomsotoo,onthepartof
thepracticalreason,manhasanaturalparticipationofthe
eternallaw,accordingtocertaingeneralprinciples,butnotas
regardstheparticulardeterminationsofindividualcases,which
are,however,containedintheeternallaw.Hencetheneedfor
humanreasontoproceedfurthertosanctionthembylaw.

ReplytoObjection2:Humanreasonisnot,ofitself,theruleof
things:buttheprinciplesimpressedonitbynature,aregeneral
rulesandmeasuresofallthingsrelatingtohumanconduct,
whereofthenaturalreasonistheruleandmeasure,althoughitis
notthemeasureofthingsthatarefromnature.

ReplytoObjection3:Thepracticalreasonisconcernedwith
practicalmatters,whicharesingularandcontingent:butnot
withnecessarythings,withwhichthespeculativereasonis
concerned.Whereforehumanlawscannothavethatinerrancy
thatbelongstothedemonstratedconclusionsofsciences.Noris
itnecessaryforeverymeasuretobealtogetherunerringand
certain,butaccordingasitispossibleinitsownparticular
genus.

WhethertherewasanyneedforaDivinelaw?

Objection1:ItwouldseemthattherewasnoneedforaDivine
law.Because,asstatedabove(A[2]),thenaturallawisa
participationinusoftheeternallaw.Buttheeternallawisa
Divinelaw,asstatedabove(A[1]).Thereforetherewasnoneed
foraDivinelawinadditiontothenaturallaw,andhumanlaws
derivedtherefrom.

Objection2:Further,itiswritten(Ecclus.15:14)that"Godleft
maninthehandofhisowncounsel."Nowcounselisanactof
reason,asstatedabove(Q[14],A[1]).Thereforemanwasleftto
http://www.sacredtexts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum229.htm 5/11
1/25/2016 SummaTheologica:TREATISEONLAW(QQ90108):Question.91OFTHEVARIOUSKINDSOFLAW(SIXARTICLES)

thedirectionofhisreason.Butadictateofhumanreasonisa
humanlawasstatedabove(A[3]).Thereforethereisnoneedfor
mantobegovernedalsobyaDivinelaw.

Objection3:Further,humannatureismoreselfsufficingthan
irrationalcreatures.ButirrationalcreatureshavenoDivinelaw
besidesthenaturalinclinationimpressedonthem.Muchless,
therefore,shouldtherationalcreaturehaveaDivinelawin
additiontothenaturallaw.

Onthecontrary,DavidprayedGodtosetHislawbeforehim,
saying(Ps.118:33):"SetbeforemeforalawthewayofThy
justifications,OLord."

Ianswerthat,Besidesthenaturalandthehumanlawitwas
necessaryforthedirectingofhumanconducttohaveaDivine
law.Andthisforfourreasons.First,becauseitisbylawthat
manisdirectedhowtoperformhisproperactsinviewofhis
lastend.Andindeedifmanwereordainedtonootherendthan
thatwhichisproportionatetohisnaturalfaculty,therewouldbe
noneedformantohaveanyfurtherdirectionofthepartofhis
reason,besidesthenaturallawandhumanlawwhichisderived
fromit.Butsincemanisordainedtoanendofeternalhappiness
whichisinproportionatetoman'snaturalfaculty,asstatedabove
(Q[5],A[5]),thereforeitwasnecessarythat,besidesthenatural
andthehumanlaw,manshouldbedirectedtohisendbyalaw
givenbyGod.

Secondly,because,onaccountoftheuncertaintyofhuman
judgment,especiallyoncontingentandparticularmatters,
differentpeopleformdifferentjudgmentsonhumanacts
whencealsodifferentandcontrarylawsresult.Inorder,
therefore,thatmanmayknowwithoutanydoubtwhatheought
todoandwhatheoughttoavoid,itwasnecessaryformantobe
directedinhisproperactsbyalawgivenbyGod,foritis
certainthatsuchalawcannoterr.

Thirdly,becausemancanmakelawsinthosemattersofwhich
heiscompetenttojudge.Butmanisnotcompetenttojudgeof
interiormovements,thatarehidden,butonlyofexterioracts
whichappear:andyetfortheperfectionofvirtueitisnecessary
formantoconducthimselfarightinbothkindsofacts.
Consequentlyhumanlawcouldnotsufficientlycurbanddirect
interioractsanditwasnecessaryforthispurposethataDivine
lawshouldsupervene.

Fourthly,because,asAugustinesays(DeLib.Arb.i,5,6),
humanlawcannotpunishorforbidallevildeeds:sincewhile
aimingatdoingawaywithallevils,itwoulddoawaywithmany
goodthings,andwouldhindertheadvanceofthecommon
good,whichisnecessaryforhumanintercourse.Inorder,
http://www.sacredtexts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum229.htm 6/11
1/25/2016 SummaTheologica:TREATISEONLAW(QQ90108):Question.91OFTHEVARIOUSKINDSOFLAW(SIXARTICLES)

therefore,thatnoevilmightremainunforbiddenand
unpunished,itwasnecessaryfortheDivinelawtosupervene,
wherebyallsinsareforbidden.

AndthesefourcausesaretoucheduponinPs.118:8,whereitis
said:"ThelawoftheLordisunspotted,"i.e.allowingno
foulnessofsin"convertingsouls,"becauseitdirectsnotonly
exterior,butalsointerioracts"thetestimonyoftheLordis
faithful,"becauseofthecertaintyofwhatistrueandright
"givingwisdomtolittleones,"bydirectingmantoanend
supernaturalandDivine.

ReplytoObjection1:Bythenaturallawtheeternallawis
participatedproportionatelytothecapacityofhumannature.But
tohissupernaturalendmanneedstobedirectedinayethigher
way.HencetheadditionallawgivenbyGod,wherebyman
sharesmoreperfectlyintheeternallaw.

ReplytoObjection2:Counselisakindofinquiry:henceit
mustproceedfromsomeprinciples.Norisitenoughforitto
proceedfromprinciplesimpartedbynature,whicharethe
preceptsofthenaturallaw,forthereasonsgivenabove:but
thereisneedforcertainadditionalprinciples,namely,the
preceptsoftheDivinelaw.

ReplytoObjection3:Irrationalcreaturesarenotordainedtoan
endhigherthanthatwhichisproportionatetotheirnatural
powers:consequentlythecomparisonfails.

WhetherthereisbutoneDivinelaw?

Objection1:ItwouldseemthatthereisbutoneDivinelaw.
Because,wherethereisonekinginonekingdomthereisbut
onelaw.NowthewholeofmankindiscomparedtoGodasto
oneking,accordingtoPs.46:8:"GodistheKingofallthe
earth."ThereforethereisbutoneDivinelaw.

Objection2:Further,everylawisdirectedtotheendwhichthe
lawgiverintendsforthoseforwhomhemakesthelaw.ButGod
intendsoneandthesamethingforallmensinceaccordingto1
Tim.2:4:"Hewillhaveallmentobesaved,andtocometothe
knowledgeofthetruth."ThereforethereisbutoneDivinelaw.

Objection3:Further,theDivinelawseemstobemoreakinto
theeternallaw,whichisone,thanthenaturallaw,accordingas
therevelationofgraceisofahigherorderthannatural
knowledge.ThereforemuchmoreistheDivinelawbutone.

Onthecontrary,TheApostlesays(Heb.7:12):"The
priesthoodbeingtranslated,itisnecessarythatatranslationalso
bemadeofthelaw."Butthepriesthoodistwofold,asstatedin
http://www.sacredtexts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum229.htm 7/11
1/25/2016 SummaTheologica:TREATISEONLAW(QQ90108):Question.91OFTHEVARIOUSKINDSOFLAW(SIXARTICLES)

thesamepassage,viz.theleviticalpriesthood,andthe
priesthoodofChrist.ThereforetheDivinelawistwofold,
namelytheOldLawandtheNewLaw.

Ianswerthat,AsstatedintheFP,Q[30],A[3],distinctionis
thecauseofnumber.Nowthingsmaybedistinguishedintwo
ways.First,asthosethingsthatarealtogetherspecifically
different,e.g.ahorseandanox.Secondly,asperfectand
imperfectinthesamespecies,e.g.aboyandaman:andinthis
waytheDivinelawisdividedintoOldandNew.Hencethe
Apostle(Gal.3:24,25)comparesthestateofmanundertheOld
Lawtothatofachild"underapedagogue"butthestateunder
theNewLaw,tothatofafullgrownman,whois"nolonger
underapedagogue."

Nowtheperfectionandimperfectionofthesetwolawsistobe
takeninconnectionwiththethreeconditionspertainingtolaw,
asstatedabove.For,inthefirstplace,itbelongstolawtobe
directedtothecommongoodastoitsend,asstatedabove
(Q[90],A[2]).Thisgoodmaybetwofold.Itmaybeasensible
andearthlygoodandtothis,manwasdirectlyordainedbythe
OldLaw:wherefore,attheveryoutsetofthelaw,thepeople
wereinvitedtotheearthlykingdomoftheChananaeans(Exod.
3:8,17).Againitmaybeanintelligibleandheavenlygood:and
tothis,manisordainedbytheNewLaw.Wherefore,atthevery
beginningofHispreaching,Christinvitedmentothekingdom
ofheaven,saying(Mat.4:17):"Dopenance,forthekingdomof
heavenisathand."HenceAugustinesays(ContraFaust.iv)that
"promisesoftemporalgoodsarecontainedintheOld
Testament,forwhichreasonitiscalledoldbutthepromiseof
eternallifebelongstotheNewTestament."

Secondly,itbelongstothelawtodirecthumanactsaccordingto
theorderofrighteousness(A[4]):whereinalsotheNewLaw
surpassestheOldLaw,sinceitdirectsourinternalacts,
accordingtoMat.5:20:"Unlessyourjusticeaboundmorethan
thatoftheScribesandPharisees,youshallnotenterintothe
kingdomofheaven."Hencethesayingthat"theOldLaw
restrainsthehand,buttheNewLawcontrolsthemind"(
Sentent.iii,D,xl).

Thirdly,itbelongstothelawtoinducementoobserveits
commandments.ThistheOldLawdidbythefearof
punishment:buttheNewLaw,bylove,whichispouredintoour
heartsbythegraceofChrist,bestowedintheNewLaw,but
foreshadowedintheOld.HenceAugustinesays(Contra
Adimant.Manich.discip.xvii)that"thereislittledifference
[*The'littledifference'referstotheLatinwords'timor'and
'amor''fear'and'love.']betweentheLawandtheGospelfear
andlove."

http://www.sacredtexts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum229.htm 8/11
1/25/2016 SummaTheologica:TREATISEONLAW(QQ90108):Question.91OFTHEVARIOUSKINDSOFLAW(SIXARTICLES)

ReplytoObjection1:Asthefatherofafamilyissuesdifferent
commandstothechildrenandtotheadults,soalsotheone
King,God,inHisonekingdom,gaveonelawtomen,while
theywereyetimperfect,andanothermoreperfectlaw,when,by
theprecedinglaw,theyhadbeenledtoagreatercapacityfor
Divinethings.

ReplytoObjection2:Thesalvationofmancouldnotbe
achievedotherwisethanthroughChrist,accordingtoActs4:12:
"Thereisnoothername...giventomen,wherebywemustbe
saved."Consequentlythelawthatbringsalltosalvationcould
notbegivenuntilafterthecomingofChrist.ButbeforeHis
comingitwasnecessarytogivetothepeople,ofwhomChrist
wastobeborn,alawcontainingcertainrudimentsof
righteousnessuntosalvation,inordertopreparethemtoreceive
Him.

ReplytoObjection3:Thenaturallawdirectsmanbywayof
certaingeneralprecepts,commontoboththeperfectandthe
imperfect:whereforeitisoneandthesameforall.Butthe
Divinelawdirectsmanalsoincertainparticularmatters,to
whichtheperfectandimperfectdonotstandinthesame
relation.HencethenecessityfortheDivinelawtobetwofold,as
alreadyexplained.

Whetherthereisalawinthefomesofsin?

Objection1:Itwouldseemthatthereisnolawofthe"fomes"
ofsin.ForIsidoresays(Etym.v)thatthe"lawisbasedon
reason."Butthe"fomes"ofsinisnotbasedonreason,but
deviatesfromit.Thereforethe"fomes"hasnotthenatureofa
law.

Objection2:Further,everylawisbinding,sothatthosewhodo
notobeyitarecalledtransgressors.Butmanisnotcalleda
transgressor,fromnotfollowingtheinstigationsofthe"fomes"
butratherfromhisfollowingthem.Thereforethe"fomes"has
notthenatureofalaw.

Objection3:Further,thelawisordainedtothecommongood,
asstatedabove(Q[90],A[2]).Butthe"fomes"inclinesus,notto
thecommon,buttoourownprivategood.Thereforethe
"fomes"hasnotthenatureofsin.

Onthecontrary,TheApostlesays(Rom.7:23):"Iseeanother
lawinmymembers,fightingagainstthelawofmymind."

Ianswerthat,Asstatedabove(A[2]Q[90],A[1],ad1),the
law,astoitsessence,residesinhimthatrulesandmeasures
but,bywayofparticipation,inthatwhichisruledand
measuredsothateveryinclinationorordinationwhichmaybe
http://www.sacredtexts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum229.htm 9/11
1/25/2016 SummaTheologica:TREATISEONLAW(QQ90108):Question.91OFTHEVARIOUSKINDSOFLAW(SIXARTICLES)

foundinthingssubjecttothelaw,iscalledalawby
participation,asstatedabove(A[2]Q[90],A[1],ad1).Now
thosewhoaresubjecttoalawmayreceiveatwofoldinclination
fromthelawgiver.First,insofarashedirectlyinclineshis
subjectstosomethingsometimesindeeddifferentsubjectsto
differentactsinthiswaywemaysaythatthereisamilitarylaw
andamercantilelaw.Secondly,indirectlythusbytheveryfact
thatalawgiverdeprivesasubjectofsomedignity,thelatter
passesintoanotherorder,soastobeunderanotherlaw,asit
were:thusifasoldierbeturnedoutofthearmy,hebecomesa
subjectofruralorofmercantilelegislation.

AccordinglyundertheDivineLawgivervariouscreatureshave
variousnaturalinclinations,sothatwhatis,asitwere,alawfor
one,isagainstthelawforanother:thusImightsaythat
fiercenessis,inaway,thelawofadog,butagainstthelawofa
sheeporanothermeekanimal.Andsothelawofman,which,
bytheDivineordinance,isallottedtohim,accordingtohis
propernaturalcondition,isthatheshouldactinaccordancewith
reason:andthislawwassoeffectiveintheprimitivestate,that
nothingeitherbesideoragainstreasoncouldtakeman
unawares.ButwhenmanturnedhisbackonGod,hefellunder
theinfluenceofhissensualimpulses:infactthishappensto
eachoneindividually,themorehedeviatesfromthepathof
reason,sothat,afterafashion,heislikenedtothebeaststhatare
ledbytheimpulseofsensuality,accordingtoPs.48:21:"Man,
whenhewasinhonor,didnotunderstand:hehathbeen
comparedtosenselessbeasts,andmadeliketothem."

So,then,thisveryinclinationofsensualitywhichiscalledthe
"fomes,"inotheranimalshassimplythenatureofalaw(yet
onlyinsofarasalawmaybesaidtobeinsuchthings),by
reasonofadirectinclination.Butinman,ithasnotthenatureof
lawinthisway,ratherisitadeviationfromthelawofreason.
Butsince,bythejustsentenceofGod,manisdestituteof
originaljustice,andhisreasonbereftofitsvigor,thisimpulseof
sensuality,wherebyheisled,insofarasitisapenalty
followingfromtheDivinelawdeprivingmanofhisproper
dignity,hasthenatureofalaw.

ReplytoObjection1:Thisargumentconsidersthe"fomes"in
itself,asanincentivetoevil.Itisnotthusthatithasthenature
ofalaw,asstatedabove,butaccordingasitresultsfromthe
justiceoftheDivinelaw:itisasthoughweweretosaythatthe
lawallowsanoblemantobecondemnedtohardlaborforsome
misdeed.

ReplytoObjection2:Thisargumentconsiderslawinthelight
ofaruleormeasure:foritisinthissensethatthosewhodeviate
fromthelawbecometransgressors.Butthe"fomes"isnotalaw
inthisrespect,butbyakindofparticipation,asstatedabove.
http://www.sacredtexts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum229.htm 10/11
1/25/2016 SummaTheologica:TREATISEONLAW(QQ90108):Question.91OFTHEVARIOUSKINDSOFLAW(SIXARTICLES)

ReplytoObjection3:Thisargumentconsidersthe"fomes"as
toitsproperinclination,andnotastoitsorigin.Andyetifthe
inclinationofsensualitybeconsideredasitisinotheranimals,
thusitisordainedtothecommongood,namely,tothe
preservationofnatureinthespeciesorintheindividual.And
thisisinmanalso,insofarassensualityissubjecttoreason.
Butitiscalled"fomes"insofarasitstraysfromtheorderof
reason.

Next:Question.92OFTHEEFFECTSOFLAW(TWO
ARTICLES)

http://www.sacredtexts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum229.htm 11/11