SECOND ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 99, Art. 2]

Whether the Old Law Contains Moral Precepts?

Objection 1: It would seem that the Old Law contains no moral

precepts. For the Old Law is distinct from the law of nature, as

stated above (Q. 91, AA. 4, 5; Q. 98, A. 5). But the moral precepts

belong to the law of nature. Therefore they do not belong to the Old

Law.

Obj. 2: Further, the Divine Law should have come to man's assistance

where human reason fails him: as is evident in regard to things that

are of faith, which are above reason. But man's reason seems to

suffice for the moral precepts. Therefore the moral precepts do not

belong to the Old Law, which is a Divine law.

Obj. 3: Further, the Old Law is said to be "the letter that killeth"

(2 Cor. 3:6). But the moral precepts do not kill, but quicken,

according to Ps. 118:93: "Thy justifications I will never forget, for

by them Thou hast given me life." Therefore the moral precepts do not

belong to the Old Law.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ecclus. 17:9): "Moreover, He gave

them discipline [Douay: 'instructions'] and the law of life for an

inheritance." Now discipline belongs to morals; for this gloss on

Heb. 12:11: "Now all chastisement (_disciplina_)," etc., says:

"Discipline is an exercise in morals by means of difficulties."

Therefore the Law which was given by God comprised moral precepts.

_I answer that,_ The Old Law contained some moral precepts; as is

evident from Ex. 20:13, 15: "Thou shalt not kill," "Thou shalt not

steal." This was reasonable: because, just as the principal intention

of human law is to create friendship between man and man; so the

chief intention of the Divine law is to establish man in friendship

with God. Now since likeness is the reason of love, according to

Ecclus. 13:19: "Every beast loveth its like"; there cannot possibly

be any friendship of man to God, Who is supremely good, unless man

become good: wherefore it is written (Lev. 19:2; 11:45): "You shall

be holy, for I am holy." But the goodness of man is virtue, which

"makes its possessor good" (Ethic. ii, 6). Therefore it was necessary

for the Old Law to include precepts about acts of virtue: and these

are the moral precepts of the Law.

Reply Obj. 1: The Old Law is distinct from the natural law, not as

being altogether different from it, but as something added thereto.

For just as grace presupposes nature, so must the Divine law

presuppose the natural law.

Reply Obj. 2: It was fitting that the Divine law should come to man's

assistance not only in those things for which reason is insufficient,

but also in those things in which human reason may happen to be

impeded. Now human reason could not go astray in the abstract, as to

the universal principles of the natural law; but through being

habituated to sin, it became obscured in the point of things to be

done in detail. But with regard to the other moral precepts, which

are like conclusions drawn from the universal principles of the

natural law, the reason of many men went astray, to the extend of

judging to be lawful, things that are evil in themselves. Hence there

was need for the authority of the Divine law to rescue man from both

these defects. Thus among the articles of faith not only are those

things set forth to which reason cannot reach, such as the Trinity of

the Godhead; but also those to which right reason can attain, such as

the Unity of the Godhead; in order to remove the manifold errors to

which reason is liable.

Reply Obj. 3: As Augustine proves (De Spiritu et Litera xiv), even

the letter of the law is said to be the occasion of death, as to the

moral precepts; in so far as, to wit, it prescribes what is good,

without furnishing the aid of grace for its fulfilment.

________________________

Summa Theologica, Part I-II (Pars Prima Secundae) From the Complete American Edition · 第 637 / 746 题