Selections from Three Works. Francisco Suárez

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ civil law and those arising under divine law, 257–260.

       X. Is the Natural Law Binding Not Only with Respect to the Virtuous Act but Also with Respect to the Manner of Its Performance, in Such a Way That This Law Cannot Be Fulfilled, Save by an Act That Is Good in Every Particular?

      St. Thomas’s discussion of precepts and virtuous action, 260; Difference between affirmative and negative precepts, 260–261; Difference between fulfilling a precept and refraining from the transgression thereof, 261; Conditions requisite to good moral action distinguished, 262; First proposition: the mode of voluntary action is requisite for the observance of the natural law, 263; various objections and answers thereto, 264–267; Second proposition: to act with knowledge is, in a sense, necessary for the fulfilment of a natural precept, 267–268; Extent and nature of this knowledge, 268–271; Third proposition: natural law imposes obligation as to mode of practising virtue, 271–273; Suárez deals with conflicting opinions and doubt, 273–274.

      [print edition page xxxi]

       XI. Does the Natural Law Impose as an Obligatory Mode of Action That Mode Which Springs from the [Natural] Love of God, or from Charity?

      Nature of this question, 274; Natural law and the love of God as the Author of nature, 275–276; In what sense the assertion that the love of God is an obligation of the natural law should be understood, 276–277; The opinion of Gregory of Rimini is rejected, 277–279; Mode of action springing from infused charity not required for the observance of natural law, 279–280; Discussion of certain conflicting opinions and objections, 280–283; Explanation of passages from Scriptures and Augustine, 283–286.

       XII. Does the Natural Law Not Only Forbid Certain Acts, but Also Invalidate Contrary Acts?

      Permission and punishment do not properly come under natural law, 286; Whether natural law may invalidate an act done in contravention of an obligation imposed by that law, 287; Rules for determining when acts are invalid by natural law, 289–291; Some acts prohibited by natural law may be validated, 291.

       XIII. Are the Precepts of the Natural Law Immutable of Themselves and Intrinsically?

      How law may be changed, 291–293; No lapse or change possible in natural law, either in its entirety or in individual precepts, so long as rational nature endures, 293; Proofs of this principle, 296; Discussion of certain views of Aristotle and St. Thomas on this principle, 296–299; Suárez on adaptation of natural law to changing subject-matter, 299; Whether natural law can be eradicated from the minds of men, 300–301.

       XIV. Does the Natural Law Admit of Change or Dispensation through Any Human Power?

      First opinion: change of or dispensation from natural law possible through human agency in some cases according to certain Doctors, 301–302; First argument in behalf of this opinion supported by examples concerning division of common into private property, restraint of natural liberty, changes in natural property rights, and in natural precepts on contracts and testaments, 302–303; Second argument supported by examples concerning dispensation from vows and oaths, from marriages that are merely ratified, from obligation of episcopal residence, from diriment impediments to

      [print edition page xxxii]

      matrimony, &c., 303–305; Second opinion: human law unable to abrogate or dispense from natural law, 305–307; How things pertain to natural law, 307; Its relation to human will, 308; First assertion: no human power can abrogate any natural precept, 309–312; Second assertion: precepts of natural law which depend upon consent of human will for binding force may be subjected to human dispensation, 312–313; Third assertion: subject-matter of natural law may be so changed through human law that the obligation imposed by natural law will be changed, 313; Reply to first opinion—the example regarding division of property is refuted, 314–315; Division of property not contrary to positive natural law, 315–316; The objections of Fortunius Garcia to this doctrine are answered, 316–318; Reply to second example (on restraint of natural liberty): natural law of dominion, as distinguished from preceptive natural law, may be changed by human agency, 318–319; Replies to third and fourth examples, 319; Answer to second argument in support of first opinion (examples of dispensations from natural law), 320; Reply to first example (vows and oaths), 320; To second example (concerning marriage that is merely ratified), 321; To third example (obligation of episcopal residence in diocese), 322–324; To fourth example (diriment impediments to matrimony), 324; To other examples, 324–326.

       XV. Whether God Is Able to Grant Dispensations from the Natural Law, Even by His Absolute Power

      Reason for doubt in regard to this question, 326–327; Three classes of natural precepts are first distinguished in connexion with dispensation, 327; First opinion: God is able to grant dispensations with respect to all natural precepts, 328; Opinion rejected, 329; Absurdity of first opinion demonstrated by examples, 330; Second opinion (Scotus’s opinion): precepts of Second Table of Decalogue can be subjected to dispensation but not those of First Table, 330–332; This opinion rejected, 332–334; Not only precepts relating to God are necessary by virtue of natural law but those relating to one’s neighbour as well, 335; Arguments of Scotus are answered, 335–337; Third opinion (that of Major and Durandus): that negative Commandments of Decalogue do not admit of dispensation with exception of Fifth Commandment, 337–338; Assertion of Major that all affirmative Commandments admit of dispensation, 338; Assertion of Durandus that Commandments of First Table do not admit of dispensation but that this is not true of Second Table, 339; Suárez’s objections to Durandus’s proposition, 339; Fourth opinion: that none of Commandments of

      [print edition page xxxiii]

      Decalogue admits of dispensation even by absolute power of God, 340; St. Thomas’s argument in support of this opinion, 340–341; Suárez’s approval and exposition of the fourth opinion, 341–342; Examples to prove that change in human dominion brought about by God is not a dispensation, 342–345; Natural precepts the subject-matter of which does not depend on divine power of dominion are immutable and do not admit of dispensation, 345; Status of the Commandments under this doctrine, 345–346; Discussion of St. Bernard’s opinion, 346–348; Whether there are natural precepts, apart from Decalogue, from which dispensations may be granted, by divine power, 348–349; Solution: God does not grant dispensations from natural precepts, but does change the subject-matter or circumstances of such precepts, 349–350; Suárez’s proofs and arguments confirming this solution, 350–353; His additional argument that dispensation from natural precepts is not possible in that they flow as necessary consequences from natural principles, 353–355.

       XVI. Does the Natural Law Afford Any Opportunity for Epieikeia (Equity) or Interpretation, Whether Made by God or by Man?

      Whether natural law affords opportunity for epieikeia, 355–356; Only God may employ epieikeia with respect to natural law according to certain authorities, 356; Others assert that epieikeia with respect to natural law may be effected through a human being, 356; Another opinion: that natural law is not susceptible of epieikeia, 357–358; Last opinion preferred by Suárez, 358; Distinction between epieikeia and interpretation, 358–359; First assertion: many natural precepts require frequent interpretation and exposition, 360–361; Second assertion: true epieikeia has no place in any natural precept, in so far as it is natural, 361; Confirmation of this doctrine by examples, 361–364; Confirmation by reasoning, 364; Epieikeia has no place in negative precepts of natural law, 365–366; Distinctions between positive and natural law with respect to epieikeia, 366–370; Answer to objection citing apparent exceptions where epieikeia is alleged to apply to natural law, 370–372; Third assertion: natural law, as established through positive law, may admit of epieikeia, 372–373.

       XVII. Is the Natural Law Distinguished from the Ius Gentium СКАЧАТЬ