|
Objection 1: It would seem that there was no need for a Divine
law. Because, as stated above (Article 2), the natural law is a
participation in us of the eternal law. But the eternal law is a
Divine law, as stated above (Article 1). Therefore there was no
need for a Divine law in addition to the natural law, and human laws
derived therefrom.
Objection 2: Further, it is written (Ecclus. 15:14) that
"God left man in the hand of his own counsel." Now counsel is an
act of reason, as stated above (Question 14, Article 1).
Therefore man was left to the direction of his reason. But a dictate
of human reason is a human law as stated above (Article 3).
Therefore there is no need for man to be governed also by a Divine
law.
Objection 3: Further, human nature is more self-sufficing than
irrational creatures. But irrational creatures have no Divine law
besides the natural inclination impressed on them. Much less,
therefore, should the rational creature have a Divine law in addition
to the natural law.
On the contrary, David prayed God to set His law before him,
saying (Ps. 118:33): "Set before me for a law the way of
Thy justifications, O Lord."
I answer that, Besides the natural and the human law it was necessary
for the directing of human conduct to have a Divine law. And this for
four reasons. First, because it is by law that man is directed how to
perform his proper acts in view of his last end. And indeed if man
were ordained to no other end than that which is proportionate to his
natural faculty, there would be no need for man to have any further
direction of the part of his reason, besides the natural law and human
law which is derived from it. But since man is ordained to an end of
eternal happiness which is inproportionate to man's natural faculty,
as stated above (Question 5, Article 5), therefore it was
necessary that, besides the natural and the human law, man should be
directed to his end by a law given by God.
Secondly, because, on account of the uncertainty of human judgment,
especially on contingent and particular matters, different people form
different judgments on human acts; whence also different and contrary
laws result. In order, therefore, that man may know without any
doubt what he ought to do and what he ought to avoid, it was necessary
for man to be directed in his proper acts by a law given by God, for
it is certain that such a law cannot err.
Thirdly, because man can make laws in those matters of which he is
competent to judge. But man is not competent to judge of interior
movements, that are hidden, but only of exterior acts which appear:
and yet for the perfection of virtue it is necessary for man to conduct
himself aright in both kinds of acts. Consequently human law could not
sufficiently curb and direct interior acts; and it was necessary for
this purpose that a Divine law should supervene.
Fourthly, because, as Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i,
5,6), human law cannot punish or forbid all evil deeds: since
while aiming at doing away with all evils, it would do away with many
good things, and would hinder the advance of the common good, which is
necessary for human intercourse. In order, therefore, that no evil
might remain unforbidden and unpunished, it was necessary for the
Divine law to supervene, whereby all sins are forbidden.
And these four causes are touched upon in Ps. 118:8, where it
is said: "The law of the Lord is unspotted," i.e. allowing no
foulness of sin; "converting souls," because it directs not only
exterior, but also interior acts; "the testimony of the Lord is
faithful," because of the certainty of what is true and right;
"giving wisdom to little ones," by directing man to an end
supernatural and Divine.
Reply to Objection 1: By the natural law the eternal law is
participated proportionately to the capacity of human nature. But to
his supernatural end man needs to be directed in a yet higher way.
Hence the additional law given by God, whereby man shares more
perfectly in the eternal law.
Reply to Objection 2: Counsel is a kind of inquiry: hence it must
proceed from some principles. Nor is it enough for it to proceed from
principles imparted by nature, which are the precepts of the natural
law, for the reasons given above: but there is need for certain
additional principles, namely, the precepts of the Divine law.
Reply to Objection 3: Irrational creatures are not ordained to an
end higher than that which is proportionate to their natural powers:
consequently the comparison fails.
|
|