Aquinas (1225-1274)

He was born in 1225, Italy
Sent to Benedictine monks when he was 5 years old.
At the age of 19, Thomas resolved to join the recently founded Dominican Order.
In 1244, he became a Dominican friar.
Kidnapped by his own family and kept under house arrest more than one year.
…
Died in 1274
In 1316, Pope John XXII began a process of canonization and he declared Thomas a saint in 1323.
Pope Leo XIII made St. Thomas Aquinas the official theologian of the whole Roman Catholic Church in 1879.
In 1914, Pope Pious X singled out twenty-four theses of Thomist philosophy to be taught in Catholic institutions.

(a) Summa theologiae Ia 96: Concerning the dominion which belonged to man in the state of innocence

Whether men were equal in the state of innocence.

Obiectio 1: “Where we do not sin, we are all equal.” (Gregory)
Sed contra: “Order is the disposition of equal and unequal things in such a way as to give to each its proper place.” (Augustine)
Responsio: It is natural that there are both disparities in the body and the soul. The disparity among creatures is not because sin (it is not some sort of punishment or reward), but because God might exalt some above others, so that the beauty of order might shine more brightly.

▻ What we understand is that men are not equal by nature.

Whether in the state of innocence man would have had dominion over man
1. Master (dominus) and slave relation: Doesn’t exist in the state of innocence. Master uses someone for his personal good.
2. Governing and directing free men: Exists in the state of innocence: Master directs someone either towards the subject’s own good or towards the common good.

Obiectio 3: Subjection is opposed to liberty and man would not have had dominion over man in the state of innocence. (Augustine)
Sed contra: Among the angels some have dominion over others. Therefore it was not contrary to the dignity of the state of innocence that one man should be ruled by another.
Responsio: “Dominion” is understood in two ways:

▻ In the state of innocence, the second one is just and agreeable. "Such dominion would have existed in the state of innocence between man and man." So, dominion is acceptable when it serves for the common-good.

▸▸▸ “Wherever many things are directed to one end, there is always found one at the head, directing them,” Aristotle says. (p. 4)
▸▸▸ “For it is not out of any desire for mastery that just men command, rather they do so from a dutiful concern for others.” (Augustine)
▸▸▸ The objections to dominion in the article seems they arise depending on the first meaning of dominion.

(b) De regimine principum – Book I

Chapter I: That it is necessary for men who live together to be subject to diligent rule by someone

Soul rules the body, reason rules appetite and will, the heart or the head moves all the others: Therefore, in every multitude there should be some ruling principle.

▻ The ruling thing is not a ruling body like a king or the dominion of church, but it is some ruling principle. The principle of common good.
▻ Each activity of men is directed towards some end, as an intelligent being, it is his nature to work towards some end. However there are many ends and men therefore need something to guide him towards his end. If man lived in solitude, reason could manage him to his ends without any need for another king over him except himself. But, man is social and political by nature who lives in a community and it is not possible to live in solitude and he is not able to achieve everything he needs alone. This necessity leads to the division of labor in the fellowship. Then, a ruling force is needed to direct people to the good of the community/common good. "Where there is no governor, the people shall be scattered." Unlike private goods, common good unites people. However, it is possible for private interests to get along with the common good. Nevertheless, common good comes first for Aquinas because common good also promotes private interests as long as these private interests are reasonable and just.

Chapter II: The various forms of lordship or government

{[BAD/UNJUST] tyranny – oligarchy – democracy} – {polity – aristocracy – kingship [GOOD/JUST]}
“It is clear that a king is on who rules over the community of a city or province, and for the common good.” (p. 10)

▻ Something is right if it is directed to its proper end and not right if it is not. Common good is the proper good for the community of free men. It is also right and just even if a community of free men is ordered by a ruler who rules to secure the common good. We can evaluate the regimes depending on these principles as indicated above.
▻ Free man: Master of his own actions, Slave: A property of another. His definitions of free man and slave, his evaluation and categorization of the types of regimes are same as Aristotle's.

Chapter III: That it is more beneficial for a community of men living together to be ruled by one than by many

“The more effectively government preserves the unity of peace, therefore, the more beneficial it is; for we call something ‘more beneficial’ when it leads more effectively to its end.” (p. 10)

▻ "The good and wellbeing of a community united in fellowship lies in the preservation of its unity. This is called peace."

Nature operates for the best and in nature, government is always by one:

Heart rules other parts of the body, therefore body; reason rules appetite and will, therefore soul; one king of the bees; God rules the whole universe, etc.

Chapter IV: That just as the rule of one is the best when it is just, so its opposite is the worst; and this is proved by many reasons and arguments

The rule of a king is the best, the rule of a tyrant is the worst. Tyranny is worse than oligarchy because united evil is worse than divided. And also united good is better than divided. Therefore kingship is better than aristocracy.
“What renders government unjust is the fact that the private good of the ruler is sought at the expense of the good of the community.” (p. 12)

▻ Even though it is clear that Aquinas defends the rule of one rather than the rule of many or few, MAA (pp.243-244) says that Aquinas in Summa Theologica defends the mixed constitution against monarchy by criticizing the arguments for monarchy. However, in the political writings, he prefers monarchy to the rule of many because he says that to be united is better and more powerful than to be divided. So, the evil of a tyrant is the worst and the good of a king is the best.

Chapter V: How varied the forms of government were among the Romans; and that their commonwealth sometimes prospered under the government of many

Romans sometimes expelled their rulers and they sometimes changed their form of government.
"Peril lurks on either side, therefore: either the best form of government, kingship, may be shunned because tyranny is feared, or, if the risk is considered worthwhile, royal power may change into a wicked tyranny." (p. 16)

Chapter VI: That tyrannical government more often arises from the rule of many than from that of one; and so government by one is better

Dissention among the government by several persons is contrary to the good of peace that is the foremost goal of any social community.
Probability and statistics: It is more probable that the rule of many turns into tyranny than the rule of one. And statistically, in almost every case government by many has ended in tranny.

Chapter VII: The conclusion is that the rule of one man is the best simply. It is shown how a community should conduct itself in relation to him so as to remove the opportunity of his becoming a tyrant, but that even tyranny is to be tolerated for the sake of avoiding a greater evil

The power of the king should be restricted so that he will not easily be able to fall into tyranny. (Magna Carta – 1215 (?))

▻ The argument above is important. Here, he opens the way for the mixed constitution. The ruler will be a king, but the assembly and maybe elites can check and balance him. Also, the constitution can restrict him.

If the danger of rising against a tyrant is greater than living under his dominion, tyranny can be tolerated, even if you are able to overthrow him. Because a chaos in the society after a rebellion is a greater evil.

▻ He advises people not to rebel against the ruler even he is a tyrant. He gives the example of the first Christians under the rule of Roman emperors: They did not rebel against the emperor even though they suffered a lot.

▻ “It seems […] that steps are to be taken against the scourge of tyranny not by the private presumption of any persons, but through public authority.” (pp. 19-20) – (Roman Senate)

▻ So, a tyrant can be removed from a higher authority, for example the authority that made him ruler.

As a last resort, appeal to God’s justice: But in order to deserve such benefit from God, they must cease from sin, because it is a punishment of their sin that ungodly men are given power over them.

▻ There is a brief explanation of the conclusion of this chapter in MAA pp. 253-254.

Chapter VIII: The holy Doctor here asks whether honor or glory above all ought to motivate a king in ruling; and he presents opinions as to what view should be held on this question

It is the king’s task to seek the good of the community. However, what is the motivation for this for a king?

▻ Aristotle and Cicero thought that if honor and glory are not enough for a ruler, he may become a tyrant. However, a great souled man does not seek honor and glory, but seeks to receive men, their approval. As I understand, Aristotle and Cicero hope honor and glory are enough rewards for a wicked king. The good king regards the wellbeing of his citizens, on the contrary. [Nevertheless, check Aristotle's Ethics and Politics to be sure.]

Honor and glory are not suitable rewards for the office of king:

They are too fragile because they depend upon human opinion that is changeable.
The desire for human glory takes away greatness of soul.

▻ A man of virtue and strength of soul ought to despise glory for the sake of justice itself. "He shall find true glory who despises it." So, glory that is despised by good men is not a suitable reward for a good man. The suitable reward is the approval of good men, the fellows through caring the wellbeing of the fellows. For example, Nero Caesar doesn’t have even desire for glory, but love of pleasure.

Chapter IX: The Doctor here shows what is the true end of a king, which ought to motivate him to rule well

Earthly rewards are common for both a king and a tyrant.
However, the reward of a good king is blessedness. Blessedness (end) is the reward of virtue (means). (Uses "blessedness" instead of Aristotlean "happiness")
Blessedness is the ultimate end of desire. (It is not an earthly/temporal reward)
“A universal good is not found except in God.” (p. 27)

▻ "The king should look to God for his reward." God gives earthly rewards to both the wicked and the good kings. However, besides earthly rewards which are temporal, God promises the good king an eternal one. The good king receives his reward when the king of kings comes. This reward of "blessedness" is called the perfect good, "as comprehending all desirable things in itself". "But no earthly good can do this." "Blessedness is the ultimate end of desire." This is the suitable reward for a king. We can call blessedness as heavenly honor and glory.

Chapter X: The holy Doctor here declares that the reward of kings and princes is the highest degree of heavenly blessedness; and this is shown by many reasons and examples

Good for a community > good for an individual → reward of the ruler > reward of a subject of good behaviour

▻ Nice quote: "Power shows the man." (Quoted in Aristotle, Ethics 5:1 (1130a1))

Chapter XI: That the king and prince should strive after good government because this is good and useful for himself; and that the opposite attends the rule of the tyrant

“Tyrants err indeed who forsake justice for the sake of some earthly advantage” and it is obvious that it is stupidity “to lose such great and eternal goods for the sake of such small and temporal ones.” (p. 30)
The dominion of tyranny cannot endure for long.
“The memory of the just is blessed, but the name of the wicked shall rot.” (p. 34)

▻ Friendship: Aquinas seems to give the same importance to friendship with Aristotle. Also, it seems he bases the foundations of a good regime to friendship and says that the friendship between a tyrant and his subjects is small or it does not exist at all. A tyrant cannot have a firm friendship, he is not loved and there are reasons for this. Because of these and similar reasons, the dominion of a tyranny cannot endure for long. "The rule of the tyrant is sustained by fear alone," and fear is not good for a ruler who wants to endure for long. If the end of tyranny cannot happen by itself, the merciful and forgiving God can intervene because he doesn’t want and let his subjects burden for a long time under tyranny. "God permits tyrants to rule as a punishment for the sins of their subjects." It is called in the scripture "the wrath of God", but as said before, he doesn’t let this endure so long. However, there is a condition for that -as I read in MAA-, the subjects must deserve to be saved by God.

Chapter XII: That even such worldly goods as riches, power, honor and fame come more readily to kings than to tyrants; and of the ills which tyrants incur even in this life

▻ This is because God can punish the rulers like an earthly ruler punishes his ministers.

Chapter XIII: He proceeds to show what the duties of a king are; he shows also that, according to the way of nature, the king in his kingdom is like the soul in the body and God in the world
- Universal: Under the government of God. Divine government.
- Particular: The government of a lesser world under Divine government.

Form of governments:
Individual man is ruled by reason + king rules the community + king is an individual man → a community is ruled by the reason of an individual man

▻ Aquinas says that we learn how to act according to reason by nature. Observing nature gives us the laws of nature. Like reason rules soul and body, and divine rule rules corporeal and spiritual powers, the king rules the kingdom. (MAA, pp. 243-244 argues a different idea)
▻ (i) soul, (i.a) reason, (i.b) appetite, (i.c) will, (ii) body

Chapter XIV: From the similarity between Divine and human government, it follows that the king should act towards his subjects in his kingdom in the way that God does in distinguishing each thing according to its proper order and activity, and in the way that the soul does [in relation to the body]

King is the little God in his kingdom. We can infer the duties of the king from considering what God does in the world: 1) God made the world, 2) He governs the world that he made. The soul has similar deeds: 1) The power of the soul forms the body, and 2) the body is ruled and moved by the soul. The second activity is the task of a king. He directs the government. A king cannot rule a city if he doesn’t know the reason why it is instituted.
Sometimes, a king founds a city. Therefore, a king 1) founds and governs a city, or 2) only governs a founded city.

Chapter XV: That the government of a king is like the Divine government, and that such government may be compared to the steering of a ship. Also, a comparison is here made between priestly and royal dominion
- Directing something to an end external to itself
- If something has no end external to itself, the sole task is the preservation of the thing itself in a perfect condition.

“to govern” is to guide what is governed in a suitable fashion to its proper end.
Physician preserves a man’s life, teacher is required for education, a king is required for the acquire and preserve the good of the whole community, and the spiritual care towards the eternal salvation is guided by the ministers of the Church of Christ.
Citizen/member of a community: Who are guided in living well under the same laws and by the same government.
“But because the man who lives according to virtue is also directed towards a further end, which, as we have already said above, consists in the enjoyment of the Divine, the end of the whole community of mankind must therefore be the same as it is for one man. The final end of a multitude united in society, therefore, will not be to live according to virtue, but through virtuous living to attain to the enjoyment of the Divine.”

▻ Virtue is a means for the enjoyment of the divine as the ultimate end and the end of human association is a virtuous life.
▻ The final end is not directed only by human virtue, therefore by the guidance of a man. The guidance of the Lord Jesus Christ is needed also to be led to the glory of heaven.

“‘The grace of God is eternal life’, it is not human but Divine rule that will lead us to this end. And government of this kind belongs only to that King Who is not only man, but also God: that is, to our Lord Jesus Christ, Who by making men sons of God, has led them to the glory of heaven.” (p. 41)
Jesus Christ is called in Holy Scripture not only priest but king. So, there are duties of the earthly government and there are duties for the heavenly government. “The administration of this kingdom, therefore, is entrusted not to earthly kings, but to priests, so that spiritual and earthly things may be kept distinct.” (p. 41)

“Sezar’ın hakkı Sezar’a, Tanrı’nın hakkı Tanrı’ya,” sözü İsa tarafından söylenmiş ve Hristiyanlığın bu nedenle aslında özünde seküler olduğu iddiası varmış. Ama Aquinas’ın seküler bir argüman sunup sunmadığı ve genel olarak bu mesele tartışmalı… Ancak yukarıdaki alıntıya bakarsak kilisenin dünyevi iktidar üzerinde üstünlüğü olduğu gibi bir çıkarım yapamayız. Bu ikisinin kategorileri, bulundukları alan farklı olduğu için birbirlerinin işlerine karışmamaları da gerekir. Böylece aslında Aquinas'ın açıkça olmasa da teorik olarak sekülerizmi savunduğunu söyleyebiliriz.

Comparing the old law (the Old Testament) and the new law (the New Testament)

The old law: Temporal goods | priests were subject to kings
The new law: Heavenly goods | king must be subject to priests

Chapter XVI: King’s office is inferior to the priestly office.
- “Establishment” of the good life in the community
- “Preservation” on it once it is established
- “Improvement” of it
- Activity according to virtue (the chief requirement)
- A sufficiency of bodily goods necessary to virtuous conduct
- The community be established in the unity of peace
- The community united by the bond of peace be guided to act well
- (through the industry of the ruler) there be a plentiful supply of those things necessary to living well
- Men are mortal and they do not endure perpetually
- Perversity of will
- Peace is undone by the invasion of enemies
- The king has to do the succession of men (continuity)
- He should restrain man subject to him from iniquity by means of laws and commands (legislation and orders)
- He provides protection (protection and defense)

The duties of a king to make his subjects live well:
The good life of each man requires:
To establish the good life for a community requires three things:
There are three things detrimental to the permanence of the public good:
Therefore, the task of the king has a threefold character

(b) De regime principum – Book II

On foundation of a city: including the effects of climate, geography, and economic activities for the foundation and on the character of a city

Whether the old law enjoined suitable precepts concerning rulers

Responsio: “Hence the best ordering of government in any city or kingdom is achieved when one man is chosen to preside over all according to virtue; when he has under him others who govern according to virtue; and when such government nonetheless belongs to all, both because all are eligible for election to it and because it is elected by all. Such a ‘polity’ is the best form of government inasmuch as it is a benign mixture of kingship, because there is one man who presides; of aristocracy, because it is the rule of several according to virtue; and of democracy, that is, popular power, because the rulers can be elected from the people and it belongs to the people to elect the rulers.” (p. 54)

“Hence it is clear that the [old] law provided for the best form of government.” – mixed government

Burada Aquinas Yahudi devletine bakarak bir karma hükümet anlayışı savunuyor ve bu tip bir karma hükümet Cicero ve Plebius’un savunduğu cumhuriyete içkin karma hükümeti değil, monarşiye içkin bir karma hükümetten bahsediyor ancak bu konu da tartışmalıymış.

Does it contradict with the argument of kingship’s being the best form of government in his De regimine principum?

On Natural Law

"Law in general is ‘a kind of rational ordering for the common good, promulgated by the one who takes care of the community’ (Summa Theologiae IaIIae.90.4c)"
According to Aquinas, good is the thing that fosters the realization of the telos and evil is what inhibits it and the function of the law is to make men good and make them reach their ends (Jack Donnelly, Natural Law and Right in Aquinas' Political Thought, 1980 (abb. J.D.), p. 521). All laws rest on the divine reason and everything is arranged according to their design and order in God's reason. This is the most general law concerning every being and it is called "the eternal law". So, its characteristic is its being comprehensive.
"However, man, the rational creature, participates in the eternal law in a unique way, "though understanding the Divine Commandment. 'This participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is called the natural law.'" (J.D., p. 521) The theory of natural law indicates that the standards of morality are derived from the nature of the world and the nature of human beings (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Natural Law (abb. IEP-NL)). Natural law is derived from the eternal law, but its characteristic is its being only for the rational human beings. Reason is the distinctive feature that it is for. "The eternal law, for Aquinas, is that rational plan by which all creation is ordered (ST, IaIIae 91, 1); the natural law is the way that the human being “participates” in the eternal law (ST, IaIIae 91, 2)." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Natural Law Tradition in Ethics (abb. SEP-NL)) So, this means, regarding the rational being, natural law is the share of human being from eternal law. If human being is rational by nature, their morality conforms with rational action and the part of eternal law that can be comprehended by reason is the part that is appropriate to human reason: natural law. "Thus, Aquinas derives the moral law from the nature of human beings (thus, 'natural law')" (IEP-NL). "The notion that the natural law constitutes the basic principles of practical rationality implies, for Aquinas, both that the precepts of the natural law are universally binding by nature (ST, IaIIae 94, 4) and that the precepts of the natural law are universally knowable by nature (ST, IaIIae 94, 4; 94, 6) … Aquinas says that the fundamental principle of the natural law is that good is to be done and evil avoided. … On Aquinas's view, killing of the innocent is always wrong, as is lying, adultery, sodomy, and blasphemy; and that they are always wrong is a matter of natural law." (SEP-NL)
"For Aquinas, there are two key features of the natural law… . The first is that, when we focus on God's role as the giver of the natural law, the natural law is just one aspect of divine providence; and so the theory of natural law is from that perspective just one part among others of the theory of divine providence. The second is that, when we focus on the human's role as recipient of the natural law, the natural law constitutes the principles of practical rationality, those principles by which human action is to be judged as reasonable or unreasonable; and so the theory of natural law is from that perspective the preeminent part of the theory of practical rationality." (SEP-NL)
The application of the natural law to specific and particular circumstances is "human laws". "The twofold function of human law, within the general legal mission of making men good, is to restrain the wicked and to train men to be (more) virtuous." (J.D., p. 521). The natural law is prior to and above these human ordinances -human laws. "Despite their great value, natural and human law alone are insufficient to direct human affairs. They must be supplemented by what Aquinas calls the divine law, the inspired revelation contained in the Bible." (J.D., p. 521)
"Man thus has knowledge of the eternal law from two distinct yet complementary sources, the direct imprint of natural law (and its specifications in human law) and the revealed truths of the Bible. All parts of the law are but parts of the eternal law, yet each has its own particular character and content, and all are vitally needed by man." (J.D., p. 522)
What is the content of the natural law? According to Aquinas, the several precepts of the natural law are all based on a single first principle: 'good is to be done and ensued [prosequendum], and evil is to be avoided.' … for Aquinas good means roughly that to which one is naturally (teleologically) inclined." (J.D., 522-523)
"When human and natural law diverge, which ought to be obeyed? Aquinas repeatedly asserts that if a human law 'at any point... deflects from the law of nature, it is no longer a law but a perversion of law.' (95.2) We will call these purported laws, 'unjust laws'." (J.D., p. 525) For example, "A tyrannical law, since it is not in accord with reason, is not unconditionally a law but is, rather, a perversion of law (IaIIae.92.1, ad 4)".
The natural law theory is incompatible with atheism, deism, agnosticism, nihilism, and relativist and conventionalist views (SEP-NL).
Two additional sources:

Conclusion

In De regimine principum he seems to defend kingship over other regimes. However, as is obviously seen, in Summa Theologica he defends polity as a mixed form of government. This shift or difference is not clear for me. In MAA, he says Aquinas accepts kingship, but he also regards men as a social and political animal. Therefore, he defends each citizen to participate in politics and state affairs. In order to that he accepts ministries, assemblies, etc. This is polity as Aristotle defends in his later works. However, I have to make this point clear.
The relation between the Church and the political regime (state) is not clear. Make this point clear too: Whether he sees the Church above the state and therefore it can intervene the state affairs or he has a secular point of view.
The subject of natural law and laws in general. Study this subject.

Bibliography

Aquinas, T. (2004). Political Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.