Treatise on Law

Summa Theologiae #28

by Thomas Aquinas

Book by Thomas, Aquinas, Saint

Genres: Philosophy, Theology, Law, Religion, Politics, Nonfiction, Classics

116 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1265

About the author

Philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas, a Dominican friar and theologian of Italy and the most influential thinker of the medieval period, combined doctrine of Aristotle and elements of Neoplatonism, a system that Plotinus and his successors developed and based on that of Plato, within a context of Christian thought; his works include the Summa contra gentiles (1259-1264) and the Summa theologiae or theologica (1266-1273).

Saint Albertus Magnus taught Saint Thomas Aquinas.

People ably note this priest, sometimes styled of Aquin or Aquino, as a scholastic. The Roman Catholic tradition honors him as a "doctor of the Church."

Aquinas lived at a critical juncture of western culture when the arrival of the Aristotelian corpus in Latin translation reopened the question of the relation between faith and reason, calling into question the modus vivendi that obtained for centuries. This crisis flared just as people founded universities. Thomas after early studies at Montecassino moved to the University of Naples, where he met members of the new Dominican order. At Naples too, Thomas first extended contact with the new learning. He joined the Dominican order and then went north to study with Albertus Magnus, author of a paraphrase of the Aristotelian corpus. Thomas completed his studies at the University of Paris, formed out the monastic schools on the left bank and the cathedral school at Notre Dame. In two stints as a regent master, Thomas defended the mendicant orders and of greater historical importance countered both the interpretations of Averroës of Aristotle and the Franciscan tendency to reject Greek philosophy. The result, a new modus vivendi between faith and philosophy, survived until the rise of the new physics. The Catholic Church over the centuries regularly and consistently reaffirmed the central importance of work of Thomas for understanding its teachings concerning the Christian revelation, and his close textual commentaries on Aristotle represent a cultural resource, now receiving increased recognition.

Reviews

[Jeremiah Lorrig · Rating 4 out of 5]

Brilliant ideas. Difficult to parse.

I truly love Aquinas. I just wish he wrote more like… well, pretty much anyone else. Except German philosophers. Anyone but German philosophers. 🤣

[Illiterate · Rating 4 out of 5]

An imaginative theory of ethics in terms of eternal, natural, divine, and human law. (Secular natural law theory, with innate desire as moral motivation, retains much interest.)

[Erik Graff · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was the first book I completed upon enrolling into Loyola University Chicago's philosophy program, presumably for David Ozar's class on ethics. In this class we discussed Natural Law, Deontological, Utilitarian and Virtue ethical systems, Aquinas being representative of the former. So far as Natural Law was concerned most class discussion concerned the position of the Catholic Church as regards abortion.

Natural Law ethics is rather moribund today thanks to the general acceptance of evolutionary theory. The Thomistic position, however, is that every thing has a nature prefigured in the mind of the creator and that the goal of human behavior ought be to realize the harmonious perfection of these natures.

The only person I have ever met who ostensibly subscribed to Natural Law ethics was Father Piderit, a Jesuit who served for a few disasterously tumultuous years as president of the university.

[JR Snow · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really good stuff. Even if you disagree with the content of Aquinas, you have to appreciate his clear and precise form of writing.

He basically sets forth his topic (For example, 'On the effects of law') and his specific question related to the nature or definition of it (for example, "Is the effect of law to make human beings good?")

Then, he lists several objections to his question, citing authorities, arguments, and evidence along the way. Admittedly, some of his objections seem rather trite, but many are not.

Then, he summarizes his reply to their objections "I reply that" and proceeds to list his replies to the rebuttals to his question.

This edition includes a helpful introduction explaining the contributions of Aristotle and the medieval synthesis.

[Marc Schaeffer · Rating 4 out of 5]

brilliant! but I'm going to have to re-read it before concluding it is actually 100% correct.

[Luke Adams · Rating 5 out of 5]

Foundational stuff.

[John · Rating 2 out of 5]

It's exceedingly difficult to take the writings of Aquinas seriously from a modern-day perspective. On the one hand, his stylized approach to his subjects is tedious in the extreme. Perhaps in his day, the idea of positing the antitheses to his own assertions carried both more interest and more weight, but a reader in 2023 wishes he'd dispense with the preliminaries, cut to the chase, and simply tell us what he believes, not what he doesn't believe.

On the other hand—and constituting a much more serious obstacle to granting the writings of Aquinas any significant weight—his interminable appeals to Biblical authority reduce his writing from philosophy to mere theology. Granted, today's readers will be expected to view Aquinas' writings within their proper historical context, but in so doing, we are compelled to categorize his arguments as being steeped in the ignorance of medieval thought in general. If Aquinas manages to elucidate principles that later thinkers would reiterate, refine, and use as the foundation for subsequent philosophical developments, it is not due to some brilliant foresight on his part but rather to the elucidation of self-evident truths that would have been uncovered in any case. After all, how profound can the man be, whose brilliant insights include: "[A]n act of virtue is when a man does a virtuous thing in a way in which a virtuous man does it"?

[Árni Freyr]

Ég las þessa í útgáfu lærdómsritanna. Þýðing Þórðar Kristinssonar er frábær og stórskemmtilegur inngangur Garðars Gíslasonar þar sem stiklað er á stóru um ævi og fræðimennsku Tómasar var að mínu mati hápunktur bókarinnar.

Hvað varðar ritið sjálft veltir Tómas upp mikilvægum spurningum um eðli laga og tengsl laga og siðferðis. Margar niðurstöður hans eru góðar og gildar enn í dag. En það fer ekki á milli mála að hann var kirkjunnar maður og hann hleypur oft í skjól trúarinnar þegar á móti blæs í röksemdarfærslunum. Útleiðslur hans struku stærðfræðingnum í mér ansi margar öfugt og hann eyðir óheyrilega stórum hluta verksins í að þræta gegn tilbúnum mótrökum. Textinn á góða spretti en er heilt yfir alltof knappur. Það er þó ekki svo slæmt, því hann er víða óheyrilega þurr og leiðinlegur.

[Mike Horne · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoy reading St. Thomas. But his method makes it hard to understand his thoughts on politics. But I understand natural Law a hair more.

[Tyler · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reading Aquinas is something like staring up at an ancient at Sequoia. You are filled with sense of the grandeur of his mind and the limits of your own.

I’m certainly no lawyer and have a limited understanding of the law. From my own reading, I have heard that this is mandatory reading in most law programs and has had a profound impact on Western law. I appreciated his discussions of justice since justice in our day seems to have such little mooring. His discussion of the relation of natural law, Divine Law, and human law was organizing. Due to the sheer number of arguments he made, I have trouble recalling his various deductions to make his points. This book will remain a reference for the future.

[Drew Norwood · Rating 4 out of 5]

Aquinas here discusses the foundations of the law—the definition of law, the eternal, natural, and human law, and the relation between them. He builds from eternal law, derived from God directly, to natural law, which is “nothing else than the rational creature’s participation of the eternal law,” to human law, whose end “is the common good.”  This orderly arrangement helps show the scope and purpose of our human (positive) laws and it helps keep each in perspective.

Aquinas says that the human law: (1) is promulgated for the common good, (2) that it trains mean in virtue, and (3) that it curbs men’s vices. Because human law is not the eternal law, but rather is based upon it, and because it is promulgated for civil society, human law does not prohibit everything that the divine law prohibits. They are not coextensive. “Now human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained.” And again, “[t]he law which is framed for the government of states, allows and leaves unpunished many things that are punished by Divine providence. . . Wherefore, too, human law does not prohibit everything that is forbidden by the natural law.” On the positive side, “[t]he purpose of the law is to lead men to virtue, not suddenly, but gradually.”

The derivation of human laws from the eternal law also helps us judge our positive laws. “Laws framed by man are either just or unjust. If they be just, they have the power of binding in conscience, from the eternal law whence they are derived, according to Prov. 8:15: ‘By Me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things.’” To be just, human laws must be based on God’s divine law, though the human law does not prohibit or coerce all that the divine law does. The human law, due to its purpose, is more limited than the divine, but it is drawn from the same moral standard.

Reading Aquinas gives me a greater appreciation for those who summarize him.

[J · Rating 1 out of 5]

I'll give Aquinas credit for this, he created a unique system of argumentation which at least entertains the possibility of objections to his thought. That being said, this excerpt from the summa theologica generally sucks. Aquinas's arguements are dependnt on a slavishly loyal reading of Aristotle/Augustine/The Bible, and like City of God, if you start with the supposition that your sources are inerent then you can justify just about anything you want, regardless of how noble you think your intentions are. The thing is, the capacity to use citations well doesn't make you a great thinker, it just makes you a clarifier. It's all too easy to see how this kind of reasoning leads to a dead, inhuman sort of dogmatism and a near total inability to confront and question the actual world around you. Unless you care deeply about church scholasticism, don't even bother picking it up. And if you do, then do your friends a favor and get a life.

[Amy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Aquinas believes law ideally creates good people by imposing moral obligations rather than forcing subjects to do or not do something. Human law is derived from natural law which comes from divine law, which is good. So all law, ideally, should be good because it comes from God and makes people want to be good.

"Laws framed by men are either just or unjust. If they be just, they have the power of binding in conscience, from the eternal law whence they are derived.."

Also, "the rules and measure of human acts is the reason, which is the first principle of human acts..Consequently it follows that law is something pertaining to reason".

Yeah, kinda dry, so it was slow reading. I don't think I'll seek out any Aquinas again, but that's just personal preference.

[Adam Cherson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I rate this book a 4.0 on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being best. A very interesting emphasis on the practical, as opposed to the speculative, as being the best foundation for the creation of laws. Suggests that the best type of government combines all the others and also that the appropriate response to tyrannical government is the ‘other cheek’ approach.
There are some laws which may be ignored when there is a greater good for the community to be achieved. All laws commend acts of virtue but not all acts of virtue are commanded by laws since some virtuous acts are for the private good and laws are not made for the private good. Laws are better made by lawmakers than by judges, but judges are essential to work out details.

[Jenna · Rating 3 out of 5]

Aquinas theological theory, "Treatise On Law" was that all law is came from the highest-----which is God. That by creation God sets limited being in existence apart from Himself. He also mentioned that there is no eternal law, because every law was exercise by someone. Since, there is no someone existing: that God alone is the eternity.

The words alone above is enough for me to understand his theory, I'm not going to criticize Aquinas it's basically a fundamental idea that I grow up with, and I'm however familiar with his law. Yes, I disagree with it completely, because his theory does not have enough proof to exercise with.

[Luke Langley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Treatise on Law covers Questions 90–97 of the Summa Theologica Part 1, it is a short but extraordinary set of questions from the 'Summa Theologica' treating the origins and nature of Law, human, natural, and divine law. Aquinas gives a definition of law (a certain dictate of reason, for the common good, made by him who has the care of the community and promulgated) followed by proofs for the founding authority of law, the limiting extents of law, and most importantly the purpose of law- "Law is given for the purpose of directing human acts, and insofar as human acts conduce to virtue, to that extent does law make man good." (Q-92)

[Thordur · Rating 3 out of 5]

Tómas af Aquina var uppi á 13. öld. Á sama tíma og hann var að skrifa þessa bók þá geysaði Sturlungaöld á Íslandi. Þessi bók fjallar um lög, ýmiskonar lög. T.d. fjallar hún um mannalög, náttúrulög, og eilíf lög. Hvenær getum við fylgt lögum, hvaða lögum, og hverra er að fylgja lögum og hvenær er það ekki hægt? Tómas talar um þetta allt og á köflum þá verður þetta nokkuð flókið.

Ég velti fyrir mér þýðingum á svona efni. Stundum virðist hugmyndin óskiljanleg eða að það vanti eitthvað inní. Tapaðist eitthvað við þýðingu eða er maður sjálfur ekki nógu glöggur til að skilja hvert verið sé að leiða mann? Gott samt að renna í gegnum þetta. Það situr alltaf eitthvað eftir.

[Nicholas Shelton · Rating 4 out of 5]

Four stars, Maybe closer to five.
It's hard not to give the Summa five stars.

To be honest, I thought I would hate this book. I read it originally for Phil & Eth.
Aquinas gets a bad rap for strawmaning arguments and to be sure, he does that way too much for comfort, but his style demands he always has another argument so it kinda demands that.

With that. Crisp political writing and solid argumentation. He even admits that political philosophy may progress over time. He sets up executive authority and I think lays the groundwork for republicanism.

Certainly a thrill to read.

[Simon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good!

[Andrew Noselli · Rating 3 out of 5]

There seems to be a blatant contradiction contained in Aquinas' propositions that the Old law is based on natural law and therefore is immutable and, secondly, that the Old law must necessarily be subject to revision due to the changing nature of the world. From this I can only conclude that the logic of Aquinas must be subject to the tu quoque method of invalidation in that his disquisition reveal that he was essentially of two minds: his double-tongued methodology of rhetoric insured that his logic was infallible, always correct and eternally right because from his position he could argue on both sides of the coin, suggesting that in natural cases the world of things was governed by words and, conversely, in divine cases, the world of thing was established the limits of speech. It appears that several centuries before Ludwig Wittgenstein erected his linguistics as the foundation of all mathematical principles, Aquinas was confronted by similar pathways in the divergence between freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Such are the precepts which hold moderate democrats in abeyance from more rigidly left-leaning Democrats. Three stars.

[Felipe · Rating 2 out of 5]

Aquinas understands law as "an ordination of reason for the common good by one who has the care of the community, and promulgated". He divides it into divine, natural and human law, such that each has as a principle the directing of things towards the common good. His notion that divine law is "the plan of governace of the world existing in God as the ruler of the universe" makes me roll my eyes as an atheist, and the idea that natural law (which I don't think exists) is merely the participation of rational creatures in the eternal law also feels weak.

His overreliance on reason as the chief instrument of law fails to account for the starking differences in the legal code of various places. If human law, which is devised through reason, follows natural law and is validated by custom, and in turn natural law is a participation in divine law, how come legal codes across civilizations are vastly different, such that a heinous crime in one place is accepted in another? Aquinas' law theory hinges on the notion that there exists a universal moral order which is discoverable by reason, which is not the case, in my view.

[KingSolomon · Rating 2 out of 5]

Another shame. I respect his intent, and agree with many of the conclusions. But the text is riddled with glaringly shocking logical fallacies. And this is ignoring the frustrating straw-manning of the objections. That is understandably flawed, and the intro hinted to this as well. But what is egregious is the fundamentally flawed reasoning Aquinas uses in so many arguments. I plan on rereading this so I can attempt to point out every single one; an onerous task. Be it confusing particulars with generalities, circular arguments, loaded questions, appeal to authority, etc. Another category of glaring error I should add, and it’s on par with his confusing particulars and generalities, is that he either defines something too narrowly unnecessarily, drawing improper conclusions. Or he will mistakenly switch the semantic of a word mid-topic, thus leading to wrong reasoning. This is an error I noted in approximately every Socratic dialog. The first being the most egregiously transgressed. This is a necessary book for observing flawed arguments.

2 stars.

[Judy]

Aquinas deals with the laws of society and why men uphold them. By treating this question he is also dealing with the different stages of conscience in the human being, but he does not approach this aspect of it in a conscious manner. The section on natural law was of particular interest to me: natural law to him was apparently that law of goodness or right behavior which man can know through reasoning. "Natural law is the link between the mind of man and the mind of God. " intro. vii. Aquinas uses the word law in a very broad sense, sometimes he seems to be referring to the Hebrew Bible laws; other times he means man-made laws etc. "...it belongs to the law to induce men to observe its commandments. This the Old Law did by the fear of punishment: the 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." p. 25 "....the first precept of the natural law is that good is to be done and ensued, and evil is to be avoided." p. 60 Aquinas asserts that the goal of a law should be the common good.

[Eva Haneborg]

This is used in my legal philosophy course to illustrate the theory of natural law. He do allude to law stemming from human nature and morals. Like when he uses arguments that man is a social animal to derive certain obligations and freedoms. However, this is the exception. Most of the book refers to the authority of the bible to derive law. Not human nature.

I find it strange that seldom in history does anyone use mans nature and morals as the supreme measure. Why do we always have to refer to an authority or turn to relativism? Don't most people have strong feelings about what is right and wrong, beautiful and true? And dont these feelings seem to be similar in most people even across cultures? Why do we have to turn to God to acknowledge these intuitions as truths?

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

I find these shorter topical excerpts from the Summa a great introduction into Aquinas in chunks rather than addressing the whole at once. Here you get presented his views on the law(eternal, natural, human, and the Old Testament law) enough to make sense of where he stood and to get the insight into understanding his thinking on the matter. Some questions are more interesting for me than others. It does have some relevance today too, although it reflects a lot of the times it was written.

[Tasnia Hossain · Rating 4 out of 5]

Aquinas believed that the goal in life was to work towards a final unity with God. His target audience was those who were non-religious. He believed that reason cannot corrupt faith, as reason is a God-given gift. Often, but not without struggle, Aquinas had made the attempts to develop a Christian
philosophy out of century-old Greek ideas that were congenial with Aristotelian thoughts, without producing heretical ideas. Difficult passages.

[Jesse Kessler · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you are going to engage in thought about laws or legal theory, you are going to encounter Aquinas either directly or indirectly; you might as well do so from an informed perspective. Also, this is a lot shorter than you might expect. Aquinas's writing structure makes this extremely easy to peruse or reference.

[Adam C · Rating 3 out of 5]

Aquinas would be a republican today who would not take too kindly to the separation of church and state.

I can see why this book at the time was in the canon of philosophy of law, but reading it now there are so many gaps and holes in his logic, it's almost comical. It's still a worthwhile study even if you are aetheist/agnostic, and it's a fun exercise in practicing logic and rhetoric.

[Lecy Beth · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book of legal philosophy is a small part of Aquinas's life work, Summa Theologica and I really enjoyed the way it was structured, posing philosophical questions with a response being made in the form of an argument followed by a rebuttal of that argument. Very lawyery. The reading is dense but taking my time with it was a good choice because I learned a lot.

[Rifat Islam · Rating 5 out of 5]

loved the framing of how human laws are only legitimate if they are in accord with the natural and the divine. could be interesting to read further on how later thinkers on civil disobedience reconcile with aquinas' thought here on the force of law