St. Thomas AquinasThe Summa TheologicaTranslated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province Index [<<
| >>]
OF THE PRECEPTS OF FAITH, KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING (TWO ARTICLES)(1) The precepts concerning faith; (2) The precepts concerning the gifts of knowledge and understanding. Index [<<
| >>]
Whether in the Old Law there should have been given precepts of faith? Objection 1: It would seem that, in the Old Law,
there should have been given precepts of faith. Because a precept is about
something due and necessary. Now it is most necessary for man that he should
believe, according to Heb. 11:6, "Without faith it is impossible to please
God." Therefore there was very great need for precepts of faith to be given.
Objection 2: Further, the New Testament is contained
in the Old, as the reality in the figure, as stated above (FS,
Question [107], Article
[3]). Now the New Testament contains explicit precepts of faith, for
instance Jn. 14:1: "You believe in God; believe also in Me." Therefore
it seems that some precepts of faith ought to have been given in the Old
Law also.
Objection 3: Further, to prescribe the act of a
virtue comes to the same as to forbid the opposite vices. Now the Old Law
contained many precepts forbidding unbelief: thus (Ex.
20:3): "Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me," and (Dt.
13:1-3) they were forbidden to hear the words of the prophet or dreamer
who might wish to turn them away from their faith in God. Therefore precepts
of faith should have been given in the Old Law also.
Objection 4: Further, confession is an act of faith,
as stated above (Question [3], Article
[1]). Now the Old Law contained precepts about the confession and the
promulgation of faith: for they were commanded (Ex.
12:27) that, when their children should ask them, they should tell
them the meaning of the paschal observance, and (Dt.
13:9) they were commanded to slay anyone who disseminated doctrine
contrary to faith. Therefore the Old Law should have contained precepts
of faith.
Objection 5: Further, all the books of the Old
Testament are contained in the Old Law; wherefore Our Lord said (Jn.
15:25) that it was written in the Law: "They have hated Me without
cause," although this is found written in Ps. 34 and 68. Now it is written
(Ecclus. 2:8): "Ye that fear the Lord, believe Him." Therefore the Old
Law should have contained precepts of faith.
On the contrary, The Apostle (Rm.
3:27) calls the Old Law the "law of works" which he contrasts with
the "law of faith." Therefore the Old Law ought not to have contained precepts
of faith.
I answer that, A master does not impose laws on
others than his subjects; wherefore the precepts of a law presuppose that
everyone who receives the law is subject to the giver of the law. Now the
primary subjection of man to God is by faith, according to Heb. 11:6: "He
that cometh to God, must believe that He is." Hence faith is presupposed
to the precepts of the Law: for which reason (Ex.
20:2) that which is of faith, is set down before the legal precepts,
in the words, "I am the Lord thy God, Who brought thee out of the land
of Egypt," and, likewise (Dt.
6:4), the words, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy [Vulg.: 'our'] God is
one," precede the recording of the precepts.
Since, however, faith contains many things subordinate
to the faith whereby we believe that God is, which is the first and chief
of all articles of faith, as stated above (Question
[1], Articles [1],7), it follows
that, if we presuppose faith in God, whereby man's mind is subjected to
Him, it is possible for precepts to be given about other articles of faith.
Thus Augustine expounding the words: "This is My commandment" (Jn.
15:12) says (Tract. lxxxiii in Joan.) that we have received many precepts
of faith. In the Old Law, however, the secret things of faith were not
to be set before the people, wherefore, presupposing their faith in one
God, no other precepts of faith were given in the Old Law.
Reply to Objection 1: Faith is necessary as being the principle of spiritual life, wherefore it is presupposed before the receiving of the Law. Reply to Objection 2: Even then Our Lord both presupposed
something of faith, namely belief in one God, when He said: "You believe
in God," and commanded something, namely, belief in the Incarnation whereby
one Person is God and man. This explanation of faith belongs to the faith
of the New Testament, wherefore He added: "Believe also in Me."
Reply to Objection 3: The prohibitive precepts
regard sins, which corrupt virtue. Now virtue is corrupted by any particular
defect, as stated above (FS, Question [18], Article [4], ad 3; FS, Question
[19], Article [6], ad 1, Article [7], ad 3). Therefore faith in one God
being presupposed, prohibitive precepts had to be given in the Old Law,
so that men might be warned off those particular defects whereby their
faith might be corrupted.
Reply to Objection 4: Confession of faith and the
teaching thereof also presuppose man's submission to God by faith: so that
the Old Law could contain precepts relating to the confession and teaching
of faith, rather than to faith itself.
Reply to Objection 5: In this passage again that
faith is presupposed whereby we believe that God is; hence it begins, "Ye
that fear the Lord," which is not possible without faith. The words which
follow---"believe Him"---must be referred to certain special articles of
faith, chiefly to those things which God promises to them that obey Him,
wherefore the passage concludes---"and your reward shall not be made void."
Index [<<
| >>]
Whether the precepts referring to knowledge and understanding were fittingly set down in the Old Law? Objection 1: It would seem that the precepts referring
to knowledge and understanding were unfittingly set down in the Old Law.
For knowledge and understanding pertain to cognition. Now cognition precedes
and directs action. Therefore the precepts referring to knowledge and understanding
should precede the precepts of the Law referring to action. Since, then,
the first precepts of the Law are those of the decalogue, it seems that
precepts of knowledge and understanding should have been given a place
among the precepts of the decalogue.
Objection 2: Further, learning precedes teaching,
for a man must learn from another before he teaches another. Now the Old
Law contains precepts about teaching---both affirmative precepts as, for
example, (Dt. 4:9),
"Thou shalt teach them to thy sons"---and prohibitive precepts, as, for
instance, (Dt. 4:2),
"You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take
away from it." Therefore it seems that man ought to have been given also
some precepts directing him to learn.
Objection 3: Further, knowledge and understanding
seem more necessary to a priest than to a king, wherefore it is written
(Malachi 2:7):
"The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law
at his mouth," and (Osee 4:6): "Because thou hast rejected knowledge, I
will reject thee, that thou shalt not do the office of priesthood to Me."
Now the king is commanded to learn knowledge of the Law (Dt.
17:18,19). Much more therefore should the Law have commanded the priests
to learn the Law.
Objection 4: Further, it is not possible while
asleep to meditate on things pertaining to knowledge and understanding:
moreover it is hindered by extraneous occupations. Therefore it is unfittingly
commanded (Dt. 6:7):
"Thou shalt meditate upon them sitting in thy house, and walking on thy
journey, sleeping and rising." Therefore the precepts relating to knowledge
and understanding are unfittingly set down in the Law.
On the contrary, It is written (Dt.
4:6): "That, hearing all these precepts, they may say, Behold a wise
and understanding people."
I answer that, Three things may be considered in
relation to knowledge and understanding: first, the reception thereof;
secondly, the use; and thirdly, their preservation. Now the reception of
knowledge or understanding, is by means of teaching and learning, and both
are prescribed in the Law. For it is written (Dt.
6:6): "These words which I command thee . . . shall be in thy heart."
This refers to learning, since it is the duty of a disciple to apply his
mind to what is said, while the words that follow---"and thou shalt tell
them to thy children"---refer to teaching.
The use of knowledge and understanding is the meditation
on those things which one knows or understands. In reference to this, the
text goes on: "thou shalt meditate upon them sitting in thy house," etc.
Their preservation is effected by the memory, and, as regards
this, the text continues---"and thou shalt bind them as a sign on thy hand,
and they shall be and shall move between thy eyes. And thou shalt write
them in the entry, and on the doors of thy house." Thus the continual remembrance
of God's commandments is signified, since it is impossible for us to forget
those things which are continually attracting the notice of our senses,
whether by touch, as those things we hold in our hands, or by sight, as
those things which are ever before our eyes, or to which we are continually
returning, for instance, to the house door. Moreover it is clearly stated
(Dt. 4:9): "Forget
not the words that thy eyes have seen and let them not go out of thy heart
all the days of thy life."
We read of these things also being commanded more notably
in the New Testament, both in the teaching of the Gospel and in that of
the apostles.
Reply to Objection 1: According to Dt. 4:6, "this
is your wisdom and understanding in the sight of the nations." By this
we are given to understand that the wisdom and understanding of those who
believe in God consist in the precepts of the Law. Wherefore the precepts
of the Law had to be given first, and afterwards men had to be led to know
and understand them, and so it was not fitting that the aforesaid precepts
should be placed among the precepts of the decalogue which take the first
place.
Reply to Objection 2: There are also in the Law
precepts relating to learning, as stated above. Nevertheless teaching was
commanded more expressly than learning, because it concerned the learned,
who were not under any other authority, but were immediately under the
law, and to them the precepts of the Law were given. On the other hand
learning concerned the people of lower degree, and these the precepts of
the Law have to reach through the learned.
Reply to Objection 3: Knowledge of the Law is so
closely bound up with the priestly office that being charged with the office
implies being charged to know the Law: hence there was no need for special
precepts to be given about the training of the priests. On the other hand,
the doctrine of God's law is not so bound up with the kingly office, because
a king is placed over his people in temporal matters: hence it is especially
commanded that the king should be instructed by the priests about things
pertaining to the law of God.
Reply to Objection 4: That precept of the Law does
not mean that man should meditate on God's law of sleeping, but during
sleep, i.e. that he should meditate on the law of God when he is preparing
to sleep, because this leads to his having better phantasms while asleep,
in so far as our movements pass from the state of vigil to the state of
sleep, as the Philosopher explains (Ethic. i, 13). In like manner we are
commanded to meditate on the Law in every action of ours, not that we are
bound to be always actually thinking about the Law, but that we should
regulate all our actions according to it.
|