Obj. 2:  Further, whatever is subject to the King, is subject to the King’s law.  Now the Son, according to 1 Cor. 15:28, 24, “shall be subject . . . to God and the Father . . . when He shall have delivered up the Kingdom to Him.”  Therefore the Son, Who is eternal, is subject to the eternal law.

Obj. 3:  Further, the eternal law is Divine providence as a type.  But many necessary things are subject to Divine providence:  for instance, the stability of incorporeal substances and of the heavenly bodies.  Therefore even necessary things are subject to the eternal law.

On the contrary, Things that are necessary cannot be otherwise, and consequently need no restraining.  But laws are imposed on men, in order to restrain them from evil, as explained above (Q. 92, A. 2).  Therefore necessary things are not subject to the eternal law.

I answer that, As stated above (A. 1), the eternal law is the type of the Divine government.  Consequently whatever is subject to the Divine government, is subject to the eternal law:  while if anything is not subject to the Divine government, neither is it subject to the eternal law.  The application of this distinction may be gathered by looking around us.  For those things are subject to human government, which can be done by man; but what pertains to the nature of man is not subject to human government; for instance, that he should have a soul, hands, or feet.  Accordingly all that is in things created by God, whether it be contingent or necessary, is subject to the eternal law:  while things pertaining to the Divine Nature or Essence are not subject to the eternal law, but are the eternal law itself.

Reply Obj. 1:  We may speak of God’s will in two ways.  First, as to the will itself:  and thus, since God’s will is His very Essence, it is subject neither to the Divine government, nor to the eternal law, but is the same thing as the eternal law.  Secondly, we may speak of God’s will, as to the things themselves that God wills about creatures; which things are subject to the eternal law, in so far as they are planned by Divine Wisdom.  In reference to these things God’s will is said to be reasonable (rationalis):  though regarded in itself it should rather be called their type (ratio).

Reply Obj. 2:  God the Son was not made by God, but was naturally born of God.  Consequently He is not subject to Divine providence or to the eternal law:  but rather is Himself the eternal law by a kind of appropriation, as Augustine explains (De Vera Relig. xxxi).  But He is said to be subject to the Father by reason of His human nature, in respect of which also the Father is said to be greater than He.

The third objection we grant, because it deals with those necessary things that are created.

Reply Obj. 4:  As the Philosopher says (Metaph. v, text. 6), some necessary things have a cause of their necessity:  and thus they derive from something else the fact that they cannot be otherwise.  And this is in itself a most effective restraint; for whatever is restrained, is said to be restrained in so far as it cannot do otherwise than it is allowed to. ________________________