NATURAL LAW

THE NATURAL LAW: A CASE FOR NATURAL THEOLOGY

By: Daniel McMillin and Cheyenne Sellars

The Natural Law

The greatest injustice that prevailed in the United States was the discrimination against African Americans. The racial inequality that continued to desecrate this nation was unacceptable. Ever since the slavery was abolished after the Civil War, as is noted, the 13th amendment where it states: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” However, this did not end the widespread, systematic discrimination. It was not until the 1950s and 1960s, during the Civil Rights Movement, that many great pioneers stood up against the injustice, such as Rosa Parks, Fred Gray, Malcolm X, W. E. B. Du Bois, and Martin Luther King, Jr.

One of the most profound statements during this era, and one of the greatest documents ever penned in human history, was written in the margins of the local newspaper. In Birmingham, Alabama, on April 12, 1963, around 50 civil rights leaders, including Dr. King, were arrested after leading an anti-segregation protest as a part of the Birmingham Campaign. This was Dr. King’s 13th arrest, but this one stands out as the most significant, drawing the attention of the press and the president of the United States, John F. Kennedy.

While King was incarcerated, one of his friends smuggled in a copy of the Birmingham newspaper. Within the pages of this issue was an open letter that criticized Dr. King and his actions. This letter was written by eight local religious leaders. While he was isolated in his cell, Dr. King had a lot on his mind and much to consider, so he wrote a response. He defended his actions with dignity and integrity. Dr. King, without the use of notes or research materials, wrote from his heart 7,000 passionate and empowering words that moved the hearts of the American people. He rightly criticized the religious leaders that sat idly by as their fellow humans were being wrongfully mistreated. He criticized the American people, especially white Americans, that sat passively watched and waited on the sidelines while he risked everything to make a difference, bring about change, and restructure their society.

Dr. King was a highly intelligent and well-educated individual. He obtained his doctoral studies in systematic theology at Boston University's graduate school, where he would become exposed to the great theologians and philosophers. Many of these great men of the past, would be utilized within his letter. Men such as Augustine, the great theologian and bishop of Hippo, who said, “an unjust law is no law at all.”[1] This would spark a question that is of great interest to Dr. King. “How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust?” And so, he explores what the essence of “law.” In his quest, he discovers that, “a just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.”[2] A just law is what aligns with the moral or the natural law. His argument is clear as he approaches the law and justice to a higher standard. He appeals to a transcendent law.

This concept of the natural law does not originate with Martin Luther King, Jr. In fact, he sites his resource within this letter where he writes, “in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” In this paper, I want to explore the concept of the natural law from the writings of Thomas Aquinas, who is the authority on this topic. His work on the natural law is Western civilizations standard guide on this subject and it is for that reason that we will analyze Aquinas’ view on the natural law. This will allow us to have a deeper understanding of this topic as well as how to implement this into our ethical discussions. Since this was such a vital resource to Dr. King as he fought for racial equality, we should approach this text seriously and thoughtfully.

Thomas Aquinas and the Natural Law

The Summa Theologica is one of Thomas Aquinas’ most popular and profound works. It was written as a summary (the word Summa literally means summary) for beginners; that they may be able to grasp the greatest realities of which mankind could ponder. He writes that all may be able to draw near unto God that they may know Him, though He is incomprehensible, He is knowable. But Aquinas not only writes about God and His nature but also about God and His relationship with mankind. Within this astounding volume, Aquinas’ addresses the natural law in his Treatise On Law. Within this section, he discusses, in general: (1) the essence of law, (2) the various kinds of law, (3) and the effects of law; and in particular: (1) the eternal law, (2) the natural law, (3) the human law, and (4) the divine law. What we will focus on in this paper is question ninety-four, Of The Natural Law. However, I do believe that it would be helpful to summarize the arguments that have been made before hand in order to clarify what may seem murky without some sort of context to clear things up.

Aquinas defined the law as “an ordinance of [practical] reason, for the common good, made by him who has care of the community, and promulgated [made known].” From this law, he argued that we must obey laws only when they conform to eternal law, that is, the law of God which is the highest law. When the eternal law is self-evident, that is to say, it is exhibited in the universal principles of practical reason, and so, he appeals to the natural law.

Question 94: The Natural Law

Budziszewski notes some mistakes that the majority of students have when reading the Summa Theologica, a challenge that I faced when reading as well. “To many beginners –and even some experienced thinkers –St. Thomas’s distinctions seem unnecessary picky. But Question 94 is not a place where one can afford to be careless; the luminosity of his inquiry lies precisely in the care with which he frames the questions and develops.”[3] 

In the course of these six articles concerning these questions of the natural law, Aquinas tackles a question with each article, then gives three objections and provides his response in three parts. To summarize the discussion, Aquinas treats this topic on this topic of the natural Law with 6 articles, which are as follows: (1) What is the natural law? (2) What are the precepts, that is, general rules of the natural law? (3) Whether all acts of virtue are prescribed by the natural law? (4) Whether the natural law is the same in all? (5) Whether the natural law is changeable? (6) Whether the natural law can be abolished from the heart of man?

Article 1: Whether the Natural Law is a Habit?

Our first point we consider is that some believe natural law to be a habit. 1. Aristotle mentions three things in the soul of man as power, habit, and passion. Since natural law cannot be a power or a passion, it must be a habit. 2. Basil says we have a conscience or inborn conviction that is natural law each man has in his mind. When considering synderesis (deep conscience) as a habitual knowledge, it follows that natural law is also a habit. 3. The natural law will always be a part of man whether or not he spends time thinking about it. Since he is not always actively considering the law, it must be a habit as something we do without thinking about it. However, consider Augustine’s definition of habit as “that whereby something is done when necessary.” We see the natural law does not fit this definition especially when we consider babies who do not know better and sinful men who have chosen an evil path as they do not act by the natural law of man.

Aquinas further defines habit by differentiating two uses of the word. He again affirms that natural law is not a habit and contrasts an action itself with the incentive for or process by which the action was based on and carried out, “that which a man does is not the same as that by which he does it.” He uses the example that we use correct grammar out of learned habit. It is the grammar itself that allows it to be used commonly in conversation, but the usage of correct grammar is not the same as a grammar rule, rather, the correct usage follows the rule.

Consequently, a habit cannot be a law. Secondly, he goes on to say that we may call something a habit if it is habitual for us. He is saying that we can classify things as habits because we use them habitually; however, that does not make the essence of that thing a habit. Rather, it is by holding the essence of that thing habitually that it becomes a habit. He speaks of reason, habit, and the natural law in the same manner when he speaks of keeping a habit out of habit verses out of reason and showing that a law must be the principle behind the habit.

Reply 1. While many would like to use Aristotle’s definition of a soul to show that natural law must be a habit, Aquinas points to the purpose of this original statement—to categorize virtues which are understood to be principles of action, and thus only mentions three points of action. Aquinas is showing this is not the entirety of what is in a soul (as knowledge and will are also part), rather that those three categories were chosen to fit the subject Aristotle was addressing. Thus, we cannot use this argument to say that natural law is a habit. Reply 2. Aquinas points out that a law each man has in his mind is based on precepts and understood by intellect, while it is a habit in use, the principle does not reside in the habit, rather the habit is formed from the ability to recognize and understand the principle. Reply 3. There is no need to argue the reasoning of objective 3 as it is sound reasoning and natural law will always be held habitually. We only must recognize that this truth does not mean natural law is a habit itself. Last, he notes that natural law can be in a person habitually even when he is unable to consciously use it.

Article 2: Whether the Natural Law Contains Several Precepts or One Only?

The next question that Aquinas is concerned with pertains to whether the natural law contains several precepts or only one precept. It would seem that the natural law only has one precept or rule. 1. Since a law is similar to a rule, natural law could only have one rule; for if we consider many rules, there must also be many laws. 2. Natural law results from human behavior which can be considered one as a whole even if individual behaviors vary. 3. Since law is based on reason and there is only one reason, there must also be one natural law. Natural law is to practical matters as principles are to demonstrative matters. Since there are several indemonstrable principles, there are several precepts that exist outside and above natural law.

The idea of self-evident principles is tackled next by defining two versions that can be considered self-evident in themselves and self-evident in human context. He then goes to arrange these self-evident principles such as something cannot be proven and denied at the same time or the fact that we exist (state of being). When discussing this existence (being) he mentions that the first must be the idea of good. All practical matters rest on the foundation that all desire good and the desire to seek good is the first precept all the precepts and laws rest on. Goodness is the ultimate end that is sought and anything evil is contrary to goodness. The natural inclination of man is towards the good and in this natural inclination is to preserve life, its own nature and being, and avoid the natural obstacles life presents.

He then differentiates natural inclinations that are not exclusive to humans and shared with all living things on earth. Last, he talks of reason that is exclusive to man and how it leads to the desire to know the truth of God and live with other humans in society. Using the negative examples, he again asserts that anything aligning with this is part of the natural law. J Budziszewski wrote, “To say that something has a natural inclination to act in a certain way is nothing more than to say that in view of the kind of thing it is, acting that way is what is fitting for it, what is good for it, what actualizes it, what helps it to develop properly and flourish. Not that it can’t act differently. Not that it won’t.  Not that it won’t tend to. Not that it won’t want to. Not that it won’t like to. But if it does act in those other ways, it will be diminished, and may even break.”[4]

Reply 1. It is reasonable to think that everything points to one precept for natural law because there is one precept above all these, we must only be careful to place it in the right category above the others. He makes the point that something may be self-evident to one person, but not to another who has not learned the fact yet. He clarifies that some things are self-evident to everyone, while some things only to the wise who understand the terms being discussed. Reply 2. It is stated that any natural inclination even that of anger is part of the natural law if exercised in reason. Here he clarifies that natural law is one with many precepts, but that they are based on one foundational precept. Reply 3. Anything that follows reason is under a law of reason, natural law falls under a law of reason, but that does not require one precept of natural law.

Article 3: Whether All Acts of Virtue Are Prescribed by the Natural Law?

Does the natural law order acts of virtue? It seems that all acts of virtue cannot be prescribed by natural law. 1. All acts of virtue cannot be under natural law and applied to the common good, because there are some acts of virtue that are exclusive to one individual. 2. If natural law is good, then anything against it is sin. Since some sins are the result of man’s nature, natural law cannot be all good or all acts of virtue cannot be under natural law. 3. Virtue cannot be a part of natural law because the natural must be in common to all but something that would be virtuous for one person could be harmful to another. Aquinas holds the view and quotes Damascene claiming that virtues fall under natural law. He again defines two usages of the word. Speaking first about virtuous in relation to natural law in that every virtue is that which man is inclined to by nature and uses the example of reason. By nature, humans are reasonable beings, so their inclination is to act reasonably. The other term refers to acts of virtue individually. These fall under reason and man has discovered their use in society, but are not individually prescribed by natural law.

Reply 1. While individuals may exert temperance, the root of the matter is still the natural inclinations of humans and therefore common to all. Reply 2. He specifies two uses of the word nature: (1) sins being improper and against nature and natural law and (2) nature in the sense that these are behaviors seen in man and animal. While humans have the natural desire to mate, homosexuality is considered to be sinful because it is a twisted form of true nature. Reply 3. He notes that some individual acts may be good for some and bad for others.

Article 4: Whether the Natural Law Is the Same in All Men?

Is the natural law the same to everyone and everything? It would seem the natural law is not the same in all men, and so, Aquinas addresses the fact that natural law is not the same for everyone. 1. The Decretals claim that the natural law is contained in the Law and the Gospels. However, since not every man obeys these laws, they are not a natural inclination for everyone. 2. The claim is made that the Law, and thereby natural law since it is contained in the Law, is just or virtuous, however it also says justice for one may not be carried out in the same way for another. Since it is changeable in this way, natural law by being synchronous with justice, cannot be the same for everyone. 3. Here we focus on the natural inclinations of natural law. It is pointed out that different men have different goals and pleasures; therefore, they do not have the same inclinations and natural law cannot be the same in all of them.

Isidore takes the stand that natural law is, indeed, common to all. Aquinas specifies that reason as a whole pertains to the natural law and that through reason, all men can find a common truth, such as the truth that we need oxygen to breathe. He then addresses another type of reason which is conditional to individual circumstances and people. Speculative reason is unchangeable and common to all, but practical reason is special to specific conditions and situations. One sentence that sums it up well is “the more we descend to matters of detail, the more frequently we encounter defects.” He says there is one truth, one natural law, true principles, but there is also principle that become commonly known to groups of people through practice such as some cultures thinking handshakes are polite. Basically, not every action in detail will be the same for every man, as everyone has different levels of understanding, but the big picture principles will apply to all.

He then says that there is a way to speak about principles as to their true identity and infallibility and a way to speak of them as it applies to what a group of men generally understand, for there are some truths that not all men know. Additionally, there are conclusions we can draw from principles that are correctly applied. By placing more conditions and details on these principles, we may create a situation that does not hold true to the principle. Such as returning stolen items are a good thing. However, if one of those items is poison intended to kill someone then the principle would not hold true.

Aquinas concludes by noting that the natural law is the same for all of us. The conclusions reached based on those principles may differ among individuals while there are some that hold true for a vast majority. So Natural law for everyone, some situations are the same for most people in the world, and then there are a few isolated cases that differ completely. There is also room for corruption and perversion of these principles and any conclusions based on these perversions cannot be used as reasonable arguments against the idea that natural law is the same for everyone.

Reply 1. The first objection is based on a sentence taken out of context. A correct use of the language would say that whatever is in the law and gospels, is also under the natural law, but not that the natural law is defined by Law and the Gospels. Reply 2. He says that Aristotle is referring to things that are just all together, not situations where the principle of justice is applied. The fallacy in objection 2 is that they are using a detailed situation to draw conclusions about a principle. Reply 3. In perspective, while every man will live and seek out different things, all men are using their reason to make decisions, which is still all men being inclined to reason as outlined by natural law.

Article 5: Whether the Natural Law Can Be Changed?

Can the natural law change? Is it immutable? We now address the argument that natural law is changeable. 1. The law was written to correct the law of nature, something that needs correction is changed and changeable. 2. He points out that some things are against the natural law such as killing, but then were commanded by God. Since God is assumed inerrant, the natural law is changeable. 3. It is said that having all things in common is natural law, however human laws do not follow this principle, so natural law must have been changed.

Aquinas takes the position that natural law has existed since creation and not changed. First, things can be added to natural law without changing it. Just as adding a child to a family does not change the fact that the family has existed since its creation in marriage. Some things are added for the benefit of man as a whole. Second, the opposite is true in way of subtraction. As situations change, different conclusions must be reached. This does not change law, but rather the relevance of its application. He says that the first principles of natural law are unchangeable, but the second principles can be changed.

Reply 1. It is specified that the written law was not to change the natural law, but rather to right the perversion of the natural law and bring men’s actions closer to it. Reply 2. We are reminded that anything God commands is natural law because it stems from Him. When talking about the specific examples, men killing men can be sinful, but God gives life to all and can take the life He owns as death was the consequence of man’s sin. With theft, we are reminded that all things belong to God first and foremost. Reply 3. Natural law can apply in that all men had the inclination or that nothing was there to oppose an inclination towards something. Nature did not give us clothes, but reason shows the benefit of clothes and therefore this idea was an addition to natural law, which we have seen that an addition to the law does not mean the law has changed.

Article 6: Whether the Law of Nature Can Be Abolished from the Heart of Man?

Can the natural law exist apart from man’s will? We now address the argument that the law can be formally removed from man’s heart, that is, those who are beyond the age of reason and not insane. 1. Romans 2:14 speaks of the law being blotted out of man’s heart. If the law of justice and law of nature are the same, then natural law can be abolished. 2. The law of grace produces better results than natural law. If the law of grace can be blotted out by sin and is much better than the law of nature, how can we say that the lesser law could not be erased? 3. The justice of the law is enforced. Some actions such as enforcing a law oppose natural law. This means that the natural law was not in the heart of man.

The natural law is written on the hearts of men and cannot be taken away, even by iniquity. The first common precepts and principles of the natural law that are truly common to all cannot be removed. The secondary principles that are drawn from the first principles and applied to specific circumstances are able to be forgotten. These laws can be blotted out by evil persuasions and corrupt habits. Just because an unnatural vice is considered virtuous by the common law of man and enforced as such, does not mean the first principles of the law have been blotted out. Even these men use rational thinking; however, a twisted version of principle presented rationally does not have any effect on the principle.

Reply 1. Everything that Aquinas said in his immediate response is repeated in his first response, “sin blots out the law of nature in particular cases, not universally, except perhaps in regard to the secondary precepts of the natural law.” Reply 2. While grace is more effectual, nature is more long-lasting. We cannot say since the fleeting can be abolished, the persistent can also be abolished. The first argument considered the law of grace higher in its ethical nature but failed to address the strong presence the natural law takes. Reply 3. The argument holds true but only when applied to secondary principles and there are specific cases for this to be used appropriately.

Paul’s View of the Natural Law

The great reformer, Martin Luther, said, “Unless I am convinced by Scripture or by evident reason I cannot recant. For my conscience is held captive to the Word of God.”[5] If he was truly swept away by Scripture, where would his appeal to the natural law be found within the Bible? The Bible does not explicitly state the words “natural law” or “moral law.” How can Dr. King appeal to a natural law and be a man who appeals to Scripture? As many of us may know, the Bible does discuss the natural law in Romans 2:14-16. The apostle Paul said to the Romans:

“For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.”

The first word that Paul writes to the Romans is the word “for,” which is meant to reflect upon what has been previously written. Before, Paul appeals to God’s impartiality (Rom. 2:11) and how God judges people on whether or not they have sinned, that applies to everyone equally (Rom. 2:12). “The criterion of the judgment is not whether one has access to the Mosaic law, as Jews did, but whether one has sinned.”[6] Paul has previously noted that God is knowable. Everyone has access to “that which is known about God” and it is those things that are found “within” everyone one of us (Rom. 1:19). And so, “since both gentile and Jew know what God requires, God can charge both with sin on the final day. Whether one possess the Mosaic law on that day will be of no advantage.”[7]

To be righteous in the sight of God, that is, “just before God,” one must live in accordance with God’s law (Rom. 2:13). But these Gentile pagans did not have a law. Jews were hearers of the law, whereas Gentiles were not “hearers of the law.” But that is not what saves one from eternal judgment. One is not exempt because they simply have heard the word; they must be “doers of the law,” that is the Mosaic law, to “be justified.” Since God is a righteous judge, who, on “the day of wrath and revelation” will enact “righteous judgment” (Rom. 2:5). God declares those who are righteous and exempt from punishment because of their submission to God and in effect his law. However, as Paul will discuss later in this epistle, is that no one is truly righteous since they are all under sin (Rom. 3:9-10) and have all fallen short of God’s glory (Rom. 3:23). Man can only be counted righteous, or justified, by the “grace” of God that God has given through the sending of His Son on the cross which has truly redeemed us from our sins (Rom. 3:24-26). In sum, God judges impartially not on the basis of what they possess not on what they do.

In verses 14-16, Paul notes how Gentiles do what the Mosaic law requires, even though they did not have access to the Mosaic law. He explicitly states that they “do not have the law,” to remove any suspension that they had knowledge of the written and recorded law of Moses. And yet, though they had not acquired the Mosaic law, they still did “do instinctively the things of the Law” (Rom. 2:14). Though they did not have the law they sometimes do things accordance to the law. As they have some knowledge of God (Rom. 1:19-21) they have some knowledge of the law. It follows, that they can differentiate between what is “good” and “evil” (Rom. 2:6, 9-10). This knowledge of morality, knowing right from wrong, which is a sign of maturity (Heb. 5:11). However, they do not always do it, which is indicated by “whenever” they do things in accordance with His law. “When they do what God requires without having the Mosaic law to guide them, gentiles show that they have an instinctive sense of right and wrong…they sometimes do what the Mosaic law was driving at with its commands, but they do this without actually having those commands spelled out for them in a legal code.”[8] This law that they live by is not absent of the eternal law, but rather, it is in accordance with and dependent upon it. It is “a law to themselves.” Though the Gentiles do not have common knowledge of the eternal law, through their internal law, “they attest knowledge of divine moral standards.”[9] 

Paul clarifies the essence of the “law to themselves” or the natural law in verse 15. This law that they possess is something “written in their hearts.” Thielman notes that there are “three characteristics of their moral consciousness show that gentiles have form of God’s law: the essence of the law is within them, they have a conscience, and they can engage in moral reasoning about the action of other around them.”[10] The Jews do not have an advantage over the Gentiles because the Gentiles have what everyone else has, a conscience.  “They possess a God-given form of the divine law, a form that is in keeping with the Mosaic law.”[11] 

The law to the Jews was written on tablets of stone, whereas, the Gentiles have a law “written in their hearts.” “The justice of this law runs deeper than the written law and actually accomplishes what the legislator who formed the written law was driving at.” (Thielman 137) If all people are obligated to obey the law of God, and the law is “written” on the “hearts” of everyone, Jew and Gentile (the human race), then it is possible to live a just life that is in accordance with the law of God since everyone has it. Everyone has equal standing in as they stand before God on the day of judgment. Osborne says, “the point here is that the Gentiles stand alongside the Jews before God.”[12] (Osborne 69)

The Gentiles did not have access to the Mosaic law, but they did have a law unto themselves that was found internally. Grant Osborne says that “they do have an internal ‘law’ in the sense of a moral conscience that allows them to understand God’s basic requirements.”[13] Paul says that it is “their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them.” It is obvious that since they had a conscience, man’s inner awareness of morality, is where the natural law that is written in our hearts is found. Douglass Moo writes about the conscience and notes that it is “a reflective mechanism by which people can measure their conformity to a norm.”[14] Paul makes it clear, by this point, that the Gentiles have a moral standard that God holds them accountable to: (1) “Bearing witness” –their conscience functions as a moral compass and (2) “Among one another” –their moral deliberations with each other yield accusation and, occasionally, defense of one another.[15] 

The natural law of the heart prepares everyone for the final judgment. “On the day” of judgement, “God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus” (Rom. 2:16). God is the only Being powerful enough to save (Rom. 1:16). Christ is the only source of redemption (Rom. 2:24), justification (Rom. 5:1, 9), reconciliation or peace (Rom. 5:1; 10-1), and eternal life (Rom. 5:21). Since Christ died, God’s grace is made available to all who obtain it by faith (Rom. 5:6, 8). When the day arrives, the omniscient Host of heaven will judge all of mankind. He is able to judge all of humanity since He, who knows all the hidden things, the things that are visible to all and the things that are invisible. Thielman sums up the main point of this passage in writing that “the final day will bring to light the existence of an internal moral standard among the gentiles by which God can judge them, a moral standard that for the purposes of a just judgment is identical to the law that the jews possess in written form.”[16]

Conclusion

After analyzing Thomas Aquinas’ most profound work on the natural law, we can know, without a doubt, that our claim to a higher law, the eternal law, and a law found within every person, the natural law, is sure! When we make claims to the natural law, we can know that it is valid. And when we look to any injustice and are seeking to establish a just law, we can know, as Dr. King knew, that “a just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God.”[17] We know that there is a moral standard that we must all appeal to and are judged by. If we are to make a law, it must square up with the just law of God. In sum, the natural law is the way that human beings participate in the eternal law. Let us stand in awe of the God that has created us in such a way as to where we may know Him and can participate in His eternal law. Praise be to the God whose wrath “is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness” who is evidently “known” by all of His creatures, “for since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made.” Since God has revealed Himself, and written a law within our hearts, we “are without excuse” (Rom. 1:18-20).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Great Books. Vol. II. Chicago, IL. Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952.

Bruce, F.F. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans. Tyndale New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI. Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1963.

Budziszewski, J. Commentary on Thomas Aquinas's Treatise on law. New York. Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Budziszewski, J. Written on the Heart: The Case for Natural Law. Downers Grove, IL. InterVarsity Press, 1997.

King, Martin Luther, Jr. Letter from Birmingham Jail. Penguin Classics, 2018.

Luther, Martin. Diet of Worms.

Moo, Douglass. Romans. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI. W.B. Eerdmans, 1996.

New American Standard Bible: La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995.

Osborne, Grant R. Romans. IVP New Testament Commentary. Downers Grove, IL. Intervarsity Press, 2003.

Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI. Baker Academic, 2018.

Thielman, Frank. Romans. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. ed. Clinton E. Arnold. Grand Rapids, MI. Zondervan, 2018.

Wright, N.T. Paul and the Faithfulness of God. Parts III & IV. Minneapolis, MN. Fortress Press, 2013.

 END NOTES

[1] Augustine, On Free Choice of the Will, 1:5.1.5.11.33.

[2] King, Letter from Birmingham Jail.

[3] Budziszewskim, Commentary on Thomas Aquinas's Treatise on Law, 136.

[4] Budziszewski, Written on the Heart: The Case for Natural Law, 146.

[5] Martin Luther, Diet of Worms.

[6] Thielman, Romans, 134.

[7] Thielman, Romans, 135.

[8] Thielman, Romans, 137-138.

[9] Moo, Romans, 151.

[10] Thielman, Romans, 137.

[11] Osborne, Romans, 69.

[12] Osborn, Romans, 69.

[13] Osborne, Romans, 68.

[14] Moo, Romans, 152.

[15] Thielman, Romans, 138.

[16] Thielman, Romans, 140.

[17] King, Letter from Birmingham Jail.