I answer that, As stated above (AA. 4, 5), there belong to the natural law, first, certain most general precepts, that are known to all; and secondly, certain secondary and more detailed precepts, which are, as it were, conclusions following closely from first principles.  As to those general principles, the natural law, in the abstract, can nowise be blotted out from men’s hearts.  But it is blotted out in the case of a particular action, in so far as reason is hindered from applying the general principle to a particular point of practice, on account of concupiscence or some other passion, as stated above (Q. 77, A. 2).  But as to the other, i.e. the secondary precepts, the natural law can be blotted out from the human heart, either by evil persuasions, just as in speculative matters errors occur in respect of necessary conclusions; or by vicious customs and corrupt habits, as among some men, theft, and even unnatural vices, as the Apostle states (Rom. i), were not esteemed sinful.

Reply Obj. 1:  Sin blots out the law of nature in particular cases, not universally, except perchance in regard to the secondary precepts of the natural law, in the way stated above.

Reply Obj. 2:  Although grace is more efficacious than nature, yet nature is more essential to man, and therefore more enduring.

Reply Obj. 3:  This argument is true of the secondary precepts of the natural law, against which some legislators have framed certain enactments which are unjust. ________________________

QUESTION 95

OF HUMAN LAW
(In Four Articles)

We must now consider human law; and (1) this law considered in itself; (2) its power; (3) its mutability.  Under the first head there are four points of inquiry: 

(1) Its utility.

(2) Its origin.

(3) Its quality.

(4) Its division.
________________________

FIRST ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 95, Art. 1]

Whether It Was Useful for Laws to Be Framed by Men?

Objection 1:  It would seem that it was not useful for laws to be framed by men.  Because the purpose of every law is that man be made good thereby, as stated above (Q. 92, A. 1).  But men are more to be induced to be good willingly by means of admonitions, than against their will, by means of laws.  Therefore there was no need to frame laws.

Obj. 2:  Further, As the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 4), “men have recourse to a judge as to animate justice.”  But animate justice is better than inanimate justice, which contained in laws.  Therefore it would have been better for the execution of justice to be entrusted to the decision of judges, than to frame laws in addition.

Obj. 3:  Further, every law is framed for the direction of human actions, as is evident from what has been stated above (Q. 90, AA. 1, 2).  But since human actions are about singulars, which are infinite in number, matter pertaining to the direction of human actions cannot be taken into sufficient consideration except by a wise man, who looks into each one of them.  Therefore it would have been better for human acts to be directed by the judgment of wise men, than by the framing of laws.  Therefore there was no need of human laws.