|
Objection 1: It would seem that, in the Law, there should not
have been given a precept of fear. For the fear of God is about
things which are a preamble to the Law, since it is the "beginning of
wisdom." Now things which are a preamble to the Law do not come
under a precept of the Law. Therefore no precept of fear should be
given in the Law.
Objection 2: Further, given the cause, the effect is also given.
Now love is the cause of fear, since "every fear proceeds from some
kind of love," as Augustine states (Qq. lxxxiii, qu. 33).
Therefore given the precept of love, it would have been superfluous to
command fear.
Objection 3: Further, presumption, in a way, is opposed to fear.
But the Law contains no prohibition against presumption. Therefore
it seems that neither should any precept of fear have been given.
On the contrary, It is written (Dt. 10:12): "And now,
Israel, what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but that thou
fear the Lord thy God?" But He requires of us that which He
commands us to do. Therefore it is a matter of precept that man should
fear God.
I answer that, Fear is twofold, servile and filial. Now just as
man is induced, by the hope of rewards, to observe precepts of law,
so too is he induced thereto by the fear of punishment, which fear is
servile.
And just as according to what has been said (Article 1), in the
promulgation of the Law there was no need for a precept of the act of
hope, and men were to be induced thereto by promises, so neither was
there need for a precept, under form of command, of fear which regards
punishment, and men were to be induced thereto by the threat of
punishment: and this was realized both in the precepts of the
decalogue, and afterwards, in due sequence, in the secondary precepts
of the Law.
Yet, just as wise men and the prophets who, consequently, strove to
strengthen man in the observance of the Law, delivered their teaching
about hope under the form of admonition or command, so too did they in
the matter of fear.
On the other hand filial fear which shows reverence to God, is a sort
of genus in respect of the love of God, and a kind of principle of all
observances connected with reverence for God. Hence precepts of
filial fear are given in the Law, even as precepts of love, because
each is a preamble to the external acts prescribed by the Law and to
which the precepts of the decalogue refer. Hence in the passage quoted
in the argument, "On the contrary," man is required "to have
fear, to walk in God's ways," by worshipping Him, and "to love
Him."
Reply to Objection 1: Filial fear is a preamble to the Law, not
as though it were extrinsic thereto, but as being the beginning of the
Law, just as love is. Hence precepts are given of both, since they
are like general principles of the whole Law.
Reply to Objection 2: From love proceeds filial fear as also other
good works that are done from charity. Hence, just as after the
precept of charity, precepts are given of the other acts of virtue, so
at the same time precepts are given of fear and of the love of charity,
just as, in demonstrative sciences, it is not enough to lay down the
first principles, unless the conclusions also are given which follow
from them proximately or remotely.
Reply to Objection 3: Inducement to fear suffices to exclude
presumption, even as inducement to hope suffices to exclude despair,
as stated above (Article 1, ad 3).
|
|