Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

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.

Objection 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.

Objection 3: Further, the law is ordained to the common good, as stated above (Question 90, Article 2). But the "fomes" inclines us, not to the common, but to our own private good. Therefore the "fomes" has not the nature of sin.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Rm. 7:23): "I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind."

I answer that, As stated above (Article 2; Question 90, Article 1, 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 (Article 2; Question 90, Article 1, ad 1). Now those who are subject to a law may receive a twofold inclination from the lawgiver. First, in so far 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. Secondly, 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.

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."

So, then, this very inclination of sensuality which is called the "fomes," in other animals has simply the nature of a law (yet only in so far 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, in so far as it is a penalty following from the Divine law depriving man of his proper dignity, has the nature of a law.

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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, in so far as sensuality is subject to reason. But it is called "fomes" in so far as it strays from the order of reason.

Articulus 6

Argumentum 1

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.

Argumentum 2

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.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, lex ordinatur ad bonum commune, ut supra habitum est.

Sed fomes non inclinat ad bonum commune, sed magis ad bonum privatum.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, Rom. VII, video aliam legem in membris meis, repugnantem legi mentis meae.

Corpus

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.

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.

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.

Ad 1

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.

Ad 2

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.

Ad 3

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.