Summa Theologica Part III (Secunda Secundae) Part 153

Accordingly, man tempts G.o.d sometimes by words, sometimes by deeds.

Now we speak with G.o.d in words when we pray. Hence a man tempts G.o.d explicitly in his prayers when he asks something of G.o.d with the intention of probing G.o.d's knowledge, power or will. He tempts G.o.d explicitly by deeds when he intends, by whatever he does, to experiment on G.o.d's power, good will or wisdom. But He will tempt G.o.d implicitly, if, though he does not intend to make an experiment on G.o.d, yet he asks for or does something which has no other use than to prove G.o.d's power, goodness or knowledge. Thus when a man wishes his horse to gallop in order to escape from the enemy, this is not giving the horse a trial: but if he make the horse gallop with out any useful purpose, it seems to be nothing else than a trial of the horse's speed; and the same applies to all other things. Accordingly when a man in his prayers or deeds entrusts himself to the divine a.s.sistance for some urgent or useful motive, this is not to tempt G.o.d: for it is written (2 Paralip 20:12): "As we know not what to do, we can only turn our eyes to Thee." But if this be done without any useful or urgent motive, this is to tempt G.o.d implicitly. Wherefore a gloss on Deut. 6:16, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy G.o.d," says: "A man tempts G.o.d, if having the means at hand, without reason he chooses a dangerous course, trying whether he can be delivered by G.o.d."

Reply Obj. 1: Man also is sometimes tempted by means of deeds, to test his ability or knowledge or will to uphold or oppose those same deeds.

Reply Obj. 2: When saints work miracles by their prayers, they are moved by a motive of necessity or usefulness to ask for that which is an effect of the divine power.

Reply Obj. 3: The preachers of G.o.d's kingdom dispense with temporal aids, so as to be freer to give their time to the word of G.o.d: wherefore if they depend on G.o.d alone, it does not follow that they tempt G.o.d. But if they were to neglect human a.s.sistance without any useful or urgent motive, they would be tempting G.o.d. Hence Augustine (Contra Faust. xxii, 36) says that "Paul fled, not through ceasing to believe in G.o.d, but lest he should tempt G.o.d, were he not to flee when he had the means of flight." The Blessed Agatha had experience of G.o.d's kindness towards her, so that either she did not suffer such sickness as required bodily medicine, or else she felt herself suddenly cured by G.o.d.

_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 97, Art. 2]

Whether It Is a Sin to Tempt G.o.d?

Objection 1: It would seem that it is not a sin to tempt G.o.d. For G.o.d has not commanded sin. Yet He has commanded men to try, which is the same as to tempt, Him: for it is written (Malach. 3:10): "Bring all the t.i.thes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in My house; and try Me in this, saith the Lord, if I open not unto you the flood-gates of heaven." Therefore it seems not to be a sin to tempt G.o.d.

Obj. 2: Further, a man is tempted not only in order to test his knowledge and his power, but also to try his goodness or his will.

Now it is lawful to test the divine goodness or will, for it is written (Ps. 33:9): "O taste and see that the Lord is sweet," and (Rom. 12:2): "That you may prove what is the good, and the acceptable, and the perfect will of G.o.d." Therefore it is not a sin to tempt G.o.d.

Obj. 3: Further, Scripture never blames a man for ceasing from sin, but rather for committing a sin. Now Achaz is blamed because when the Lord said: "Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy G.o.d," he replied: "I will not ask, and I will not tempt the Lord," and then it was said to him: "Is it a small thing for you to be grievous to men, that you are grievous to my G.o.d also?" (Isa. 7:11-13). And we read of Abraham (Gen. 15:8) that he said to the Lord: "Whereby may I know that I shall possess it?" namely, the land which G.o.d had promised him. Again Gedeon asked G.o.d for a sign of the victory promised to him (Judges 6:36, sqq.). Yet they were not blamed for so doing. Therefore it is not a sin to tempt G.o.d.

_On the contrary,_ It is forbidden in G.o.d's Law, for it is written (Deut. 6:10): "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy G.o.d."

_I answer that,_ As stated above (A. 1), to tempt a person is to put him to a test. Now one never tests that of which one is certain.

Wherefore all temptation proceeds from some ignorance or doubt, either in the tempter (as when one tests a thing in order to know its qualities), or in others (as when one tests a thing in order to prove it to others), and in this latter way G.o.d is said to tempt us. Now it is a sin to be ignorant of or to doubt that which pertains to G.o.d's perfection. Wherefore it is evident that it is a sin to tempt G.o.d in order that the tempter himself may know G.o.d's power.

On the other hand, if one were to test that which pertains to the divine perfection, not in order to know it oneself, but to prove it to others: this is not tempting G.o.d, provided there be just motive of urgency, or a pious motive of usefulness, and other requisite conditions. For thus did the apostles ask the Lord that signs might be wrought in the name of Jesus Christ, as related in Acts 4:30, in order, to wit, that Christ's power might be made manifest to unbelievers.

Reply Obj. 1: The paying of t.i.thes was prescribed in the Law, as stated above (Q. 87, A. 1). Hence there was a motive of urgency to pay it, through the obligation of the Law, and also a motive of usefulness, as stated in the text quoted--"that there may be meat in G.o.d's house": wherefore they did not tempt G.o.d by paying t.i.thes. The words that follow, "and try Me," are not to be understood causally, as though they had to pay t.i.thes in order to try if "G.o.d would open the flood-gates of heaven," but consecutively, because, to wit, if they paid t.i.thes, they would prove by experience the favors which G.o.d would shower upon them.

Reply Obj. 2: There is a twofold knowledge of G.o.d's goodness or will.

One is speculative and as to this it is not lawful to doubt or to prove whether G.o.d's will be good, or whether G.o.d is sweet. The other knowledge of G.o.d's will or goodness is effective or experimental and thereby a man experiences in himself the taste of G.o.d's sweetness, and complacency in G.o.d's will, as Dionysius says of Hierotheos (Div.

Nom. ii) that "he learnt divine things through experience of them."

It is in this way that we are told to prove G.o.d's will, and to taste His sweetness.

Reply Obj. 3: G.o.d wished to give a sign to Achaz, not for him alone, but for the instruction of the whole people. Hence he was reproved because, by refusing to ask a sign, he was an obstacle to the common welfare. Nor would he have tempted G.o.d by asking, both because he would have asked through G.o.d commanding him to do so, and because it was a matter relating to the common good. Abraham asked for a sign through the divine instinct, and so he did not sin. Gedeon seems to have asked a sign through weakness of faith, wherefore he is not to be excused from sin, as a gloss observes: just as Zachary sinned in saying to the angel (Luke 1:18): "Whereby shall I know this?" so that he was punished for his unbelief.

It must be observed, however, that there are two ways of asking G.o.d for a sign: first in order to test G.o.d's power or the truth of His word, and this of its very nature pertains to the temptation of G.o.d.

Secondly, in order to be instructed as to what is G.o.d's pleasure in some particular matter; and this nowise comes under the head of temptation of G.o.d.

_______________________

THIRD ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 97, Art. 3]

Whether Temptation of G.o.d Is Opposed to the Virtue of Religion?

Objection 1: It would seem that the temptation of G.o.d is not opposed to the virtue of religion. The temptation of G.o.d is sinful, because a man doubts G.o.d, as stated above (A. 2). Now doubt about G.o.d comes under the head of unbelief, which is opposed to faith. Therefore temptation of G.o.d is opposed to faith rather than to religion.

Obj. 2: Further, it is written (Ecclus. 18:23): "Before prayer prepare thy soul, and be not as a man that tempteth G.o.d. Such a man,"

that is, who tempts G.o.d, says the interlinear gloss, "prays for what G.o.d taught him to pray for, yet does not what G.o.d has commanded him to do." Now this pertains to imprudence which is opposed to hope.

Therefore it seems that temptation of G.o.d is a sin opposed to hope.

Obj. 3: Further, a gloss on Ps. 77:18, "And they tempted G.o.d in their hearts," says that "to tempt G.o.d is to pray to Him deceitfully, with simplicity in our words and wickedness in our hearts." Now deceit is opposed to the virtue of truth. Therefore temptation of G.o.d is opposed, not to religion, but to truth.

_On the contrary,_ According to the gloss quoted above "to tempt G.o.d is to pray to Him inordinately." Now to pray to G.o.d becomingly is an act of religion as stated above (Q. 83, A. 15). Therefore to tempt G.o.d is a sin opposed to religion.

_I answer that,_ As clearly shown above (Q. 81, A. 5), the end of religion is to pay reverence to G.o.d. Wherefore whatever pertains directly to irreverence for G.o.d is opposed to religion. Now it is evident that to tempt a person pertains to irreverence for him: since no one presumes to tempt one of whose excellence he is sure. Hence it is manifest that to tempt G.o.d is a sin opposed to religion.

Reply Obj. 1: As stated above (Q. 81, A. 7), it belongs to religion to declare one's faith by certain signs indicative of reverence towards G.o.d. Consequently it belongs to irreligion that, through doubtful faith, a man does things indicative of irreverence towards G.o.d. To tempt G.o.d is one of these; wherefore it is a species of irreligion.

Reply Obj. 2: He that prepares not his soul before prayer by forgiving those against whom he has anything, or in some other way disposing himself to devotion, does not do what he can to be heard by G.o.d, wherefore he tempts G.o.d implicitly as it were. And though this implicit temptation would seem to arise from presumption or indiscretion, yet the very fact that a man behaves presumptuously and without due care in matters relating to G.o.d implies irreverence towards Him. For it is written (1 Pet. 5:6): "Be you humbled ...

under the mighty hand of G.o.d," and (2 Tim. 2:15): "Carefully study to present thyself approved unto G.o.d." Therefore also this kind of temptation is a species of irreligion.

Reply Obj. 3: A man is said to pray deceitfully, not in relation to G.o.d, Who knows the secrets of the heart, but in relation to man.

Wherefore deceit is accidental to the temptation of G.o.d, and consequently it does not follow that to tempt G.o.d is directly opposed to the truth.

_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 97, Art. 4]

Whether the Temptation of G.o.d Is a Graver Sin Than Superst.i.tion?

Objection 1: It would seem that the temptation of G.o.d is a graver sin than superst.i.tion. The greater sin receives the greater punishment.

Now the sin of tempting G.o.d was more severely punished in the Jews than was the sin of idolatry; and yet the latter is the chief form of superst.i.tion: since for the sin of idolatry three thousand men of their number were slain, as related in Ex. 32:28 [*Septuagint version. The Vulgate has "twenty-three thousand."], whereas for the sin of temptation they all without exception perished in the desert, and entered not into the land of promise, according to Ps. 94:9, "Your fathers tempted Me," and further on, "so I swore in My wrath that they should not enter into My rest." Therefore to tempt G.o.d is a graver sin than superst.i.tion.

Obj. 2: Further, the more a sin is opposed to virtue the graver it would seem to be. Now irreligion, of which the temptation of G.o.d is a species, is more opposed to the virtue of religion, than superst.i.tion which bears some likeness to religion. Therefore to tempt G.o.d is a graver sin than superst.i.tion.

Obj. 3: Further, it seems to be a greater sin to behave disrespectfully to one's parents, than to pay others the respect we owe to our parents. Now G.o.d should be honored by us as the Father of all (Malach. 1:6). Therefore, temptation of G.o.d whereby we behave irreverently to G.o.d, seems to be a greater sin than idolatry, whereby we give to a creature the honor we owe to G.o.d.

_On the contrary,_ A gloss on Deut. 17:2, "When there shall be found among you," etc. says: "The Law detests error and idolatry above all: for it is a very great sin to give to a creature the honor that belongs to the Creator."

_I answer that,_ Among sins opposed to religion, the more grievous is that which is the more opposed to the reverence due to G.o.d. Now it is less opposed to this reverence that one should doubt the divine excellence than that one should hold the contrary for certain. For just as a man is more of an unbeliever if he be confirmed in his error, than if he doubt the truth of faith, so, too, a man acts more against the reverence due to G.o.d, if by his deeds he professes an error contrary to the divine excellence, than if he expresses a doubt. Now the superst.i.tious man professes an error, as shown above (Q. 94, A. 1, ad 1), whereas he who tempts G.o.d by words or deeds expresses a doubt of the divine excellence, as stated above (A. 2).

Therefore the sin of superst.i.tion is graver than the sin of tempting G.o.d.

Reply Obj. 1: The sin of idolatry was not punished in the above manner, as though it were a sufficient punishment; because a more severe punishment was reserved in the future for that sin, for it is written (Ex. 32:34): "And I, in the day of revenge, will visit this sin also of theirs."

Reply Obj. 2: Superst.i.tion bears a likeness to religion, as regards the material act which it pays just as religion does. But, as regards the end, it is more contrary to religion than the temptation of G.o.d, since it implies greater irreverence for G.o.d, as stated.

Reply Obj. 3: It belongs essentially to the divine excellence that it is singular and incommunicable. Consequently to give divine reverence to another is the same as to do a thing opposed to the divine excellence. There is no comparison with the honor due to our parents, which can without sin be given to others.

_______________________

QUESTION 98

OF PERJURY (In Four Articles)

We must now consider perjury: under which head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether falsehood is necessary for perjury?

(2) Whether perjury is always a sin?

(3) Whether it is always a mortal sin?