|
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.
|
|