4. Every lawgiver must comprise in his legislation those enactments without which the law could not be observed. Now law being set over reason,! man could not follow the law unless all other things belonging to man were subjected to reason.
Hence it is said: Tour reasonable service (Rom. xii, 1); and, "This is the will of God, your sanctification (1 Thess. iv, 9).
Hereby is excluded the error of such as say that those acts alone are sinful, whereby our neighbour is either hurt or shocked.
* As is the case with those whose god is their belly t The interest that we take in some things by way (Phil, iii, 19): i.e., who live for drink, and will do of much needed recreation and distraction of mind, anything to get it, and for the lusts of the lower belly: cannot be called an u unnecessary interest."
that is their 'religion,' an insult to the living God. t That is, law being set to govern the rational will.
CHAPTER CXXlI-Ofthe reason for which Simple Fornication is a Sin by Divine Law, and of the Natural Institution of Marriage HENCE appears the folly of those who say that simple fornication is not a sin.* For they say: Given a woman free from a husband, and under no control of father or any other person, if any one ap- proaches her with her consent, he does her no wrong, because she is pleased so to aft, and has the disposal of her own person: nor does he do any wrong to another, for she is under no one's control: therefore there appears no sin. Nor does it seem to be a sufficient answer to say that she wrongs God, for God is not offended by us except by what we do against our own good (Chap. CXXI):f but it does not appear that this condu6t is against man's good: hence no wrong seems to be done to God thereby. In like manner also it does not appear a sufficient answer, that wrong is thereby done to one's neighbour, who is scandalised: for sometimes a neighbour is scanda- lised by what of itself is not a sin, in which case the sin is only incidental: but the question is not whether fornication is a sin incidentally, but whether it is a sin ordinarily and in itself.
We must seek a solution from what has been said before: for it has been said (Chapp. XVI, LXIV) that God has care of everything according to that which is good for it. Now it is good for everything to gain its end, and evil for it to be diverted from its due end. But as in the whole so also in the parts, our study should be that every part of man and every aft of his may attain its due end. Now though the semen is superfluous for the preservation of the individual, yet it is necessary to him for the propagation of the species: while other excretions, such as excrement, urine, sweat, and the like, are needful for no further purpose: hence the only good that comes to man of them is by their removal from the body. But that is not the obje6t in the emission of the semen, but rather the profit of generation, to which the union of the sexes is diredled. But in vain would be the generation of man unless due nurture followed, without which the offspring generated could not en- dure. The emission of the semen then ought to be so dire6ted as that both the proper generation may ensue and the education of the offspring be secured.
Hence it is clear that every emission of the semen is contrary to the good of man, which takes place in a way whereby generation is impossible; and if this is done on purpose, it must be a sin. I mean a way in which genera- tion is impossible in itself, as is the case in every emission of the semen with- out the natural union of male and female: wherefore such sins are called c sins against nature.' But if it is by accident that generation cannot follow from the emission of the semen, the a6t is not against nature on that account, nor is it sinful; the case of the woman being barren would be a case in point.
Likewise it must be against the good of man for the semen to be emitted under conditions which, allowing generation to ensue, nevertheless bar the * Fornication is said to be * simple,' when neither t This saying should be noted by all moralists. It of the parties is married. — There is plain speaking in means that ethics must stand on rational, and not on this chapter, but it contains "a godly and wholesome mere theological grounds. The theological argument doctrine, and necessary for our times." There would should supervene upon the ethical, and complete its be less sin, if there were a little more plain speaking force: but ethics are not theology, as air is not sun- to persons under temptation. light.
due education of the offspring. We observe that in those animals, dogs for instance, in which the female by herself suffices for the rearing of the off- spring, the male and female stay no time together after the performance of the sexual aft. But with all animals in which the female by herself does not suffice for the rearing of the offspring, male and female dwell together after the sexual aft so long as is necessary for the rearing and training of the off- spring. This appears in birds, whose young are incapable of finding their own food immediately they are hatched: for since the bird does not suckle her young with milk, according to the provision made by nature in quadru- peds, but has to seek food abroad for her young, and therefore keep them warm in the period of feeding, the female could not do this duty all alone by herself: hence divine providence has put in the male a natural instinft 01 standing by the female for the rearing of the brood. Now in the human species the female is clearly insufficient of herself for the rearing of the offspring, since the need of human life makes many demands, which cannot be met by one parent alone. Hence the fitness of human life requires man to stand by woman after the sexual aft is done, and not to go off at once and form connexions with any one he meets, as is the way with fornicators. Nor is this reasoning traversed by the faft of some particular woman having wealth and power enough to nourish her offspring all by herself: for in human afts the line of natural reftitude is not drawn to suit the accidental variety of the individual, but the properties common to the whole species.* A further consideration is, that in the human species the young need not only bodily nutrition, as animals do, but also the training of the soul. Other animals have their natural instinfts (suas prudentias) to provide for themselves: but man lives by reason, which [read quarn] takes the experi- ence of a long time to arrive at discretion. Hence children need instruftion by the confirmed experience of their parents: nor are they capable of such instruftion as soon as they are born, but after a long time, the time in faft taken to arrive at the years of discretion. For this instruftion again a long time is needed; and then moreover, because of the assaults of passion, whereby the judgement of prudence is thwarted, there is need not of instruftion only, but also of repression. For this purpose the woman by herself is not compe- tent, but at this point especially there is requisite the concurrence of the man, in whom there is at once reason more perfeft to instruft, and force more potent to chastise. Therefore in the human race the advancement of the young in good must last, not for a short time, as in birds, but for a long period of life. Hence, whereas it is necessary in all animals for the male to stand by the female for such time as the father's concurrence is requisite for bringing up of the progeny, it is natural for man to be tied to the society of one fixed woman for a long period, not a short one. This social tie we call marriage. Marriage then is natural to man, and an irregular connexion outside of marriage is contrary to the good of man; and therefore fornica- tion must be sinful.
Nor yet should it be counted a slight sin for one to procure the emission of the semen irrespective of the due purpose of generation and rearing of issue, on the pretence that it is a slight sin, or no sin at all, to apply any part of one's body to another use than that to which it is naturally ordained, as if, for example, one were to walk on his hands, or do with his feet something * This is the scholastic form of the principle of general consequences.
GOD THE END OF CREATURES that ought to be done with his hands. The answer is that by such inordinate applications as those mentioned the good of man is not greatly injured: but the inordinate emission of the semen is repugnant to the good of nature, which is the conservation of the species.* Hence, after the sin of murder, whereby a human nature already in actual existence is destroyed, this sort of sin seems to hold the second place, whereby the generation of human nature is pre- cluded.
The above assertions are confirmed by divine authority. The unlawfulness of any emission of semen,u^on which offspring cannot be consequent, is evident from such texts as these: Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with Womankind: Thou sbalt not lie with any beast (Levit. xviii, 22, 23): Nor the effeminate, nor sodomites, shall possess the kingdom of God (1 Cor. vi, 10). The unlawfulness of fornication and of all connexion with any other woman than one's own wife is clear from Deut. xxiii, 17: There shall be no whore among the daughters of Israel, nor whoremonger among the sons of Israel: Keep thyself from all forni- cation, and beyond thine own wife suffer not the charge of knowing another (Tob. iv, 13): Fly fornication (1 Cor. vi, 18).
Hereby is refuted the error of those who say that there is no more sin in the emission of the semen than in the ejection of other superfluous products from the body.
CHAPTER CXXlll-That Marriage ought to be Indissoluble LOOKING at the matter rightly, one must see that the aforesaid reasons not only argue a long duration for that natural human partnership of male and female, which we call marriage, but further imply that the partnership ought to be lifelong.
1. Property is a means to the preservation of human life. And because natural life cannot be preserved in one and the same person of the father living on for all time, nature arranges for its preservation by the son succeeding his father in likeness of species: wherefore it is appropriate that the son should succeed his father in his property. It is natural therefore that the father's interest in his son should continue to the end of his life, and that father and mother should dwell together to the end.f 2. Woman is taken into partnership with man for the need of child- bearing: therefore when the fertility and beauty of woman ceases, there is a bar against her being taken up by another man. If then a man, taking a woman to wife in the time of her youth, when beauty and fertility wait upon her, could send her away when she was advanced in years, he would do the woman harm, contrary to natural equity.
3. It is manifestly absurd for the woman to be able to send away the man, seeing that woman is naturally subject to the rule of man, and it is not in the power of a subjedl to run away from control. It being then against the order of nature for the woman to be allowed to desert the man, if the man were * In any community in which the inordinate t If the family is a good thing, and family property practice here mentioned is carried on without scruple a good thing, divorce must be an evil thing, as dissol- or remorse, the race is sure to suffer for it. Historians ving the family, do not dwell on this unsavoury topic: but the inordi- nation in question was the ruin of the Greek race, politically, socially, and physically.
allowed to desert the woman, the partnership of man and woman would not be on fair terms, but would be a sort of slavery on the woman's side.
4. Men show a natural anxiety to be sure of their own offspring; and whatever stands in the way of that assurance runs counter to the natural instindt of the race. But if the man could send away the woman, or the woman the man, and form a connexion with another, certainty as to parentage would be difficult, when a woman had intercourse first with one man and then with another.
5. The greater the love, the more need for it to be firm and lasting. But the love of man and woman is counted strongest of all; seeing that they are united, not only in the union of the sexes, which even among beasts makes a sweet partnership, but also for the sharing in common of all domestic life, as a sign whereof a man leaves even father and mother for the sake of his wife (Gen. ii, 24). It is fitting therefore for marriage to be quite indis- soluble.
6. Of natural a6ts, generation alone is dire&ed to the good of (the specific) nature: for eating and the separation from the body of other excretions con- cern the individual, but generation has to do with the preservation of the species. Hence, as law is instituted for the common good, the fun&ion of pro- creation ought to be regulated by laws divine and human. Now the laws laid down ought to proceed on the basis of the dictate of nature (ex naturali in- stin£iu),i{ they are human laws, as in the exa<5t sciences every human discovery takes its origin from principles naturally known: but if they are divine laws, they not only develop the dictate of nature, but also make up the deficiency of what nature dictates, as dogmas divinely revealed surpass the capacity of natural reason. Since then there is in the human species a natural exigency for the union of male and female to be one and indivisible, such unity and indissolubility must needs be ordained by human law. To that ordinance the divine law adds a supernatural reason, derived from the significancy of mar- riage as a type of the inseparable union of Christ with His Church, which is one as He is one.* Thus then irregularities in the ad of generation are not only contrary to the dictate of nature, but are also transgressions of laws divine and human:t hence on this account any irregular behaviour in this matter is even a greater sin than in the matter of taking food or the like. But since all other fadlors in human life should be subordinate to that which is the best thing in man, it follows that the union of male and female must be regulated by law, not from the mere point of view of procreation, as in other animals, but also with an eye to good manners, or manners conformable to right reason, as well for man as an individual, as also for man as a member of a household or family, or again as a member of civil society. Thus understood, good manners involve the indissolubility of the union of male and female: for they will love one another with greater fidelity, when they know that they are indissolubly united: each partner will take greater care of the things of the house, reflecting that they are to remain permanently in possession of the same things: occasions of quarrels are removed, that might otherwise arise * Eph. v, 22-33. See Ethics and Natural Lav, where: Ethics and Natural Lam, pp. 109-125. St p. 276: Political and Moral Essays, pp. 287-289. Thomas speaks of the * divine law ' as known in the t This distinction between the dictate (or exi- Jewish and Christian revelation. In a * state of pure gency) of nature, and the divine law, answering to nature/ without revelation, we should have had to what Cardinal Newman calls " the critical and the argue a priori that God must have willed to ratify the judicial function of conscience " {(grammar of Assent, exigences of human nature and natural reason, and pp. 102-107), ls °f the first importance in the theory command their observance. What those exigences of of morals. I have endeavoured to bring it out else- nature are see Chap. CXXIX.
between the husband and the wife's relations, if the husband were to divorce his wife; and thus affinity becomes a firmer bond of amity: also occasions of adultery arc cut off, occasions which would readily offer themselves, if hus- band could divorce his wife, or wife her husband.* Hence it is said: But I say to you that whoever putteth away bis wife^ except for fornication, and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and he that marrietb her that is put away, committeth adultery (Matt, xix, 9): But to them that are united in marriage, it is not I that give commandment, but the Lord, that the wife depart not from her husband (1 Cor. vii, 10).
Divorce was reckoned an impropriety also among the ancient Romans, of whom Valerius Maximus (De memor. dictis, II, 1) relates that they believed that the marriage tie ought not to be broken off even for barrenness, f Hereby the custom is banned of putting away wives, which however in the Old Law was permitted to the Jews for their hardness of heart, because they were prone to the killing of their wives: so the less evil was permitted to keep out the greater.
CHAPTER CXXIV- That Marriage ought to he between one Man and one JV oman ONE general reason holds for all animals, which is this, that every animal desires free enjoyment of the pleasure of sexual union as of eating: which freedom is impeded by there being either several males to one female, or the other way about: and therefore animals fight alike for food and for sexual jealousy. But in men there is a special reason, inasmuch as man naturally desires to be sure of his own offspring. But here a diffe- rence comes in. Both of the above mentioned reasons hold for the case of the cohabitation of one female with several males: but the second reason does not hold against the cohabitation of one male with several females, — I mean cer- tainty in point of parentage is not in that case prevented. But the first reason makes against it: for as the free enjoyment of the female is taken from the male, if the female has another partner, so the same free enjoyment is taken from the female, if the male has more than one partner.
2. In every species of animal in which the sire takes any interest in the offspring, one male keeps company with one female only, as in all birds that rear their young in common: for one male could not avail for several females as a helper in the rearing of their progeny: whereas in animals in which the males take no interest in the offspring, one male consorts with several females promiscuously, and the female with several males, as appears in dogs, poultry, and the like.; But the male's interest in the offspring is greater in the human species than in any other.§ 3 and 4. The reason why a wife is not allowed more than one husband at a time is because otherwise paternity would be uncertain. If then while the wife has one husband only, the husband has more than one wife, there * Carried down to our own time, St Thomas's t Except where man takes interest in the off- words come to this, that to make adultery a legal spring, and sets limits to a promiscuity which in all ground of divorce is to set a premium on adultery. animals, man himself included, makes against the t In the Latin editions this remark appears in the improvement of the stock, next chapter. I have restored it to the chapter to § Evolutionists at any rate ought not to reject this which it evidently belongs. I know of no historical method of argument from the lower animals to man.
evidence to show that the Jews were " prone to the If animal species, man included, develop at all, they killing of their wives." develop towards monogamy.
will not be a friendship of equality on both sides, friendship consisting in a certain equality. There will not be the friendship of a free man with a free woman, but a sort of friendship of a slave with her master. The hus- band might well be allowed a plurality of wives, if the understanding were allowable, that the friendship of each with him was not to be that of a free woman with a free man but of a slave with her master. And this is borne out by experience: for among men that keep many wives the wives are counted as menials.
5. From one man having several wives there arises discord at the domestic hearth, as experience shows.
Hence it is said: They shall be ttoo in one flesh (Gen. ii, 24).
CHAPTER CXXV-Tbat Marriage ought not to take place between Kindred SINCE in marriage there is a union of different persons, those persons who ought to reckon themselves as one because of their being of one stock, are properly excluded from intermarrying, that they may love one another more ardently on the mere ground of their common origin.* 2. Since the intercourse of man and wife carries with it a certain natural shame, those persons should be prevented from such intercourse who owe one another a mutual reverence on account of the tie of blood. And this is the reason touched on in Leviticus xviii.
3. Excessive indulgence in sexual pleasures makes for the corruption of good manners: for such pleasures of all others most absorb the mind and hinder the right exercise of reason. But such excessive indulgence would ensue, if the intercourse of the sexes were allowed among persons who must necessarily dwell under the same roof, where the occasion of such intercourse could not be withdrawn.
5. In human society the widening of friendships is of the first impor- tance. That is done by the marriage tie being formed with strangers, t It is to be observed that as that inclination is c natural/ which works upon obje&s as they usually occur, so law too is framed for what usually happens. Thus it is no derogation from the reasons above alleged, that in some particular case the venture may turn out otherwise: for the good of the individual ought to be overlooked in view of the good of the many, since the good of the multitude is ever more divine than the good of the individual.^ Lest however any particular complaint might remain wholly without remedy, there rests with legislators and others on like footing authority to dispense in a general enactment so far as is necessary in a par- ticular case. If the law is human, a dispensation may be given by men possessed of power like to that which made the law. If the law is a divine ena6tment, a dispensation may be given by divine authority, as in the Old Law a dispensatory indulgence seems to have been granted for plurality of wives, and for concubines, and divorce.§ #The idea is that two sources of affection ought vexing the Universities with the question, whether the not to be intermixed: the intermixture may be the prohibition in Leviticus xviii, 1 6, from which Julius II spoiling of them both. had dispensed him, was merely human, at least under t St Thomas fails to draw the argument from the the New Law, or divine, and therefore beyond the dreadful physiological effecls of endogamy, or ' breed- competence of papal dispensing power, ing in.' § This * dispensation,' frequently mentioned by I Cf. note, p. 284. The words next following must St Thomas, seems to -have been nothing more than have been much in evidence, when Henry VIII was *dpt<riv aftapTij/tarw, that overlooking of (what in a CHAPTER CXXVI-TAat not all Sexual Intercourse is Sin THE members of the body being the instruments of the soul, the end of every member is the use of it, as in the case of any other instru- ment. But there are members of the body the use of which is for the intercourse of the sexes: that therefore is their end. But that which is the end of any natural thing cannot be in itself evil, because the things of nature are ordinances of divine providence. Therefore the intercourse of the sexes cannot be in itself evil.
3. Natural inclinations are put into things by God, who is the prime mover of all. Therefore it is impossible for the natural inclination of any species to be directed to an objedt in itself evil. But in all full-grown animals there is a natural inclination to sexual union, which union therefore cannot be in itself evil.
4. That without which something good and excellent cannot be, is not in itself evil.* But the perpetuity of the species in animals is not preserved except through generation, which is of sexual intercourse.
Hence it is said: She sinnetb not^ if she marry (1 Cor. vii, 36).
Hereby is excluded the error of those who totally condemn marriage, which some do because they believe that temporal things proceed not from a good but from an evil principle, t CHAPTER CXXVII-TAat of no Food is the Use sinful in itself EVERYTHING is done rationally, when it is direfled according to its due bearing upon a due end. But the due end of the taking of food is the preservation of the health by nourishment. Therefore what- ever food can serve that end, may be taken without sin.
2. Of no thing is the use evil in itself unless the thing itself be evil in itself. J But no food is in its nature evil; because everything is in its nature good (Chap. VII); albeit some particular food may be evil to some particular person, inasmuch as it makes against his bodily health. Therefore of no food, considered as such and such a thing, is the partaking a sin in itself: but it may be a sin, if a person uses it irrationally and not to his health.
3. To apply things to the purpose for which they exist is not in itself evil. But plants exist for the sake of animals, some animals for the sake of more perfect stage of society would have been) sins, which have opened out so widely since St Thomas's mentioned by St Paul (Rom. iii, 25, where, because the text is much misunderstood, I am compelled to refer to my 3{otes on St Paul, k.L). This overlooking appears again in Ads xvii, 30 (vrtpi&o'w); and is re- ferred to in Romans v, 13: Sin is not imputed when there is no lavr. At the time spoken of there was no perfect law, either revealed or natural, because a very rude society could not bear such perfection. I may refer to Aquinas Etbicus, I, 284, 30 1: Political and Moral Essays, pp. 184-188: and the conference on 'Progressive Morality in Oxford and Cambridge Conferences, Second Series, pp. 205^2 14. I make these somewhat egotistic references, because among Catholics the science of morals is handled sometimes as law, with canons and authorities; sometimes as an exaft science, like mathe- matics, lying out of the category of time; seldom with much regard to history and anthropology, aspedls day.
day.
* It is not ' evil in itself,' that is, not absolutely, universally, and under all circumstances. Neither is it universally and under all circumstances good; but where there is a good, of nature established, there is somehow, and under some conditions, a natural and good way of attaining to that good; and where there is for all men but one way of attaining that good, the said cannot be evil for ever and for all.
t He means the Manicheans. There is a Mani- chean sentiment lurking in some souls, as though the intercourse of the sexes were a necessary evil, only permissible because inevitable, but a bad adt in itself. They should take to heart St Augustine's saying: " He does not perfectly believe in Thee, O Lord, who objects to any creature that Thou hast made."
t e.g., obscene language, or a bad book.
others, and all for the sake of man (Chap. LXXXI). Therefore to use either plants, or the flesh of animals, either for eating, or for any other purpose for which they are useful to man (ve/ ad quidquid aliud sunt bomtni utilia)> is not in itself a sin.
4. The defe6l which makes sin redounds from soul to body, but not backwards from body to soul: forv by sin we mean a disorder of the will. But articles of food concern the body immediately, not the soul. Therefore the taking of various foods cannot be in itself a sin, except in so far as it is inconsistent with reflitude of will. And that may come to be in several ways: in one way by some inconsistency with the proper end of food, as when for the pleasure of eating one uses food that disagrees with health cither in kind or in quantity. Another way would be when the food becomes not the condition of him who eats it, or of the society in which he lives, as when one is more nice in his food than his means will allow, or violates the social conventions of those with whom he sits at table. A third way would be in the case of certain foods prohibited by some special law: thus in the Old Law sundry meats were forbidden for what they signified; and in Egypt of old the eating of beef was prohibited, lest agriculture should suffer;* and again' there is the case of rules prohibiting the use of certain foods in order to check the lower appetites.f Hence the Lord says: Not what enteretb in at the mouth defileth a man