Liber III, Pars II — Quod praeter legem humanam et naturalem, oportuit dare legem evangelicam et divinam. Cap. XXX.

Liber III, Pars II — Quod praeter legem humanam et naturalem, oportuit dare legem evangelicam et divinam. Cap. XXX.

Some have presumed from their own understanding, saying that theology is superfluous, since we have physical disciplines that determine everything about being and the evangelical and divine law, from which we have both human and natural law, seem to prohibit all vices and prescribe all virtues. However, it was necessary to give an evangelical and divine law in addition to the natural and human law, and we can pursue this in three ways according to what is commonly taught by the doctors. The first way is taken from the aspect of punishing sins. The second is from the aspect of our knowledge. The third is from the aspect of the end, without regard to the final good we intend to attain. The first way is clear. For (as was said above) the human law does not punish all sins, which occurs for two reasons. The first is that generally the people cannot attain a precise form of living; therefore, it is necessary to overlook some sins and not punish them by human law, so that it can endure in the people: for it would not be possible for anyone to govern for long if they wanted to punish all sins and correct all transgressions. Moreover, even if all transgressions could be punished by the ruler, it is not possible to punish all offenses simply because not all of them come to the ruler's attention. In fact, some offenses are so hidden that the inner desires, which cannot be punished by human law, remain unaddressed. Therefore, it was necessary to establish a law beyond human law so that no evil would remain unpunished and no good would go unrewarded. For this purpose, human law alone is insufficient to achieve what needs to be done. Thus, it was necessary to give an evangelical and divine law, according to which both inner and outer transgressions would be prohibited, and their violators would be punished either in this world or in the next. From this, it can be seen how human law prohibits desires and how it fails to do so, as it only restricts actions but not the will. As was mentioned above, this must be declared. Therefore, it should be noted that if we consider the intention of the legislator, human law prohibits all sins, or they ought to be prohibited; for neither the king nor anyone else has the right intention unless they intend to act with a clear conscience. But when it comes to achieving perfect virtue, no one can be led to do so unless they intend to avoid all sins; if we consider the law in terms of the legislator's intention, it prohibits the mind and desire. Indeed, as is clear from the Philosopher. In the Politics, when he argues against Socrates, he states that desire is more prohibited than external acts, because external acts lead us to virtue if they are good, and to vice if they are bad, when they proceed from an inner appetite. But if we consider human law, it is not in terms of the legislator's intention, but rather in terms of punishment. Thus, it is said that it does not prohibit the mind and spirit, because such offenses are not punished. Indeed, according to this reasoning, not only does human law not prohibit inner desires, but it also does not prohibit all external offenses. For under human laws, lesser evils are sometimes overlooked in order to avoid greater ones. So that simple fornications are permitted, and are not punished by human laws. To avoid adultery. The second way shows that the evangelical and divine law is necessary, as it is derived from our understanding and the uncertainty of our judgment. For regarding particular contingencies and human actions, there are so many different judgments among people that the same matters have different laws among various nations; according to the judgment of some, a certain law is enacted, which according to the judgment of others is unjust. Therefore, since there can be doubt and error in human judgments, the evangelical and divine law was necessary, around which error cannot prevail. The third way is derived from the final good that we intend to achieve. For since such a good is beyond our natural capacities, the natural and human law, which assist us in achieving that good which we can attain naturally, are not sufficient to reach that supernatural good. Therefore, the evangelical and divine law was necessary, by which we are ordered toward that good. Therefore, it is fitting for kings and princes, who ought to be like demigods, to possess understanding without concupiscence, to embody a way of living, and to serve as a rule for actions, so that just as they surpass others in power and dignity, they may also excel them in goodness and virtue.