Prima Secundae
214. Who Makes Law, Promulgation, Eternal Law and Natural Law (Q. 90, Articles 3–4; Q. 91, Articles 1–2)
Class of 2015-03-26
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/214-who-makes-law-promulgation-eternal-law-and-natural-law-q/

[0:00] That's what Obama thinks. We won. If you look at the Constitution, the legislature is put first, right? Huh? Because legislature gets its name from what? Yeah, yeah. They make the law, and then the executive is supposed to carry out the law. So he not only doesn't carry out the law, he makes the law. It's just, it's just, maddening yeah you know, But

[0:32] that's maddening because he's mad Yeah he is I think no but, yeah. Okay. The church he belonged to in Chicago, you know, heard a little more about there. But the rules are, you know, it's crazy. Nothing, nothing, not really Christian. To third, then one proceeds thus. It seems that the reason of anyone can make law. Let's see how he can argue for that now.

[1:06] Four, the apostle says, huh? So by antonomasia we call Saint Paul the apostle, right? John, John Paul II used to call Peter and Paul the princes of the apostles, right? So they're called apostle by.

[1:28] I notice in some of these Latin texts they don't have the word apostle. They're capitalized. It should be capitalized when it's used by antonomasia. The same way they quote Aristotle sometimes. The philosopher says, "Well, should be capitalized if you're using it by antonomasia, for the apostle says in the Epistle to the Romans, chapter two, that the what Gentiles who do not have the law of Moses, right?

[1:58] When they do those things naturally, which are the law, they are to themselves a law, right? Huh? Be careful about being to yourself a law. That way of speaking, but I mean, we're talking about the natural law there, right?

[2:14] But this commonly is said about what can be said about all. Therefore, each one is able to make a law for himself, huh? Yeah I think that's maybe provocation

[2:30] We see this natural law. Did we make that law? He's talking about the natural law. Did we make that? I don't think so. Where is he seeing it? Yeah, it was Aristotle saying, you know, if a man doesn't love his father or honor his father, um, he's in need of punishment. You know, this guy is obvious. Doesn't need an argument. Yeah, yeah, he needs a punishment. Yeah.

[3:00] Because he should know that. Yeah. That's not a thing you ask. What I should honor my father or respect him? I mean, you're a father, of, your country too.

[3:21] Moreover, as the philosopher says in the second book of the ethics, the intention of the lawgiver is that he might lead men into what virtue. You wouldn't know that in America these days, would you? To lead them into vice.

[3:43] But each man or every man, any man, can lead in to virtue. Okay. Therefore, the reason of any man is productive of law. Yeah, makes law.

[4:01] Moreover, just as the prince, that's what it is—the word principium, right? Latin, right? See, and you can say with the word principle too—that's what it is—the word principium. But, but just as the prince of the city is the governor of the city, so each what father, right, is the governor of the house. Okay.

[4:25] I was reading there that law, that law, guide to Spain. There you know, get to find all these little strange habits they have, right? And there's one city there you know where the newborn babies are laid out on a blanket in the street, and the gacho he jumps over them. It's absolutely crazy because if he slips, he'd come down and who kills the baby? And the gacho is supposed to be, you know, fleeing the Eucharist out of fear.

[4:54] You know, he's kind of a devil, right? Huh? So what a odd. I said, what a white, you know. And then in the same little part of Spain, there, on the feast of Saint Agatha, right, they they elect two women to be mayors of the city for a day or whatever it is. Because Agatha, I guess, is is the patroness of married women. I guess that's what they say.

[5:17] And but they they they have one of these replicas of a straw man, you know, and they burn it. You know, they said they should tell that to the feminists over here. You know, get a replica of a man, they burn it. You know, as part of the ceremony, I mean, day in Saint Agatha, you know. So it's I was telling Warren on the phone, you know, he said there's some crazy customs there in in Spain in these little little countries, you know.

[5:44] This is Washington Irving, really. No, no. So this is this is my guide to Spain. You know, I have a guide to Spain. You know, and they had a picture of the gacho, you know, jumping over, you know, the the babies. And I said, my God, didn't look he's going to make it. He's starting the his jump, you know. But they say, you know. And the nervous parents, they say.

[6:11] What? Yeah, yeah, he's a man. Yeah, yeah. This is something else about the about the the woman. There was another another item there in another place. These things should be outlawed.

[6:28] Yeah. But the prince of the city can what? Make law for the city, right? Therefore, each father can make law for his own household. Well, that's that's what I think. Yeah. Okay. Against this is what Isidore says in the book of Etymologies, and is had in the what? Yeah, my text says Gratian. Gratian,

[7:01] law is the what? Constitution of the people, according to which those what? greater by age Together with the people, sanction something, right? Therefore, it is not of just anyone to make the law, right?

[7:23] Thomas says, "I answer: It should be said that law properly, first and chiefly, regards the order to the common good. " It's on the previous article. But to order something to the common good belongs either to the whole multitude, he says, or to someone taking place, you might say, the whole multitude, huh? And therefore, to what constitute a law either pertains to the whole multitude, or it pertains to the public person who has care of the whole what multitude, right?

[8:09] For in as in all others, to order to the end is of the one to whom is what proper that end. So the general in charge of the army, right? He makes the laws, so to speak, right? Because he's what in charge of the whole.

[8:35] Okay. To the first, therefore, it should be said that this has been said above. Law is in someone not only as in the one ruling or making the rule, right? But also it's in someone by participation, as in the one what ruled. And this way, each one is to himself a law, in so far as he partakes of the order of someone ruling. And this would be God in the case of the natural what law.

[9:08] Wisdom is to speak the truth and to act in accordance with nature, giving ear there too, right? So who are you listening to? Yourself? No, you're listening to nature, right? Right? Yeah.

[9:25] Whence it is subjoined there, huh? Who show the work of law written in their hearts, right? They didn't write it. They didn't write it. No.

[9:38] That's an expression Paul the Six uses in the. Yeah, yeah. Sometimes they call it written law too, though. You see, but written in in your in your nature.

[9:53] Remember one one guy there at the the county house there, you know, when you get these horrible things coming out the terrorists there, you know, burning people and. So on, you know, you know, I still think there must be something in their mind that tells them this is not right what they're doing, you know, but it's so clouded over, you know, by their their habits and their upbringing

[10:18] Saturday I went to the session there of the Massachusetts for citizens for life, right, you know, and so you know they have three or four different speakers and so on, you know, and they they actually first it was set up, you know, like the chairs, you know, and then they what they did was to put them around tables, right, and that's the more friendly and the more relaxed, you know, and people open up more, you know, but there's a woman sitting with Rosie and I, you know, and she was

[10:53] talking to her, you know, and so interesting what these people have been through, some of these people, you know, and I guess she she was molested when she was young, you know, and she got pregnant, you know, with this older man, right, and she didn't know what to do, and then there was some, you know, talk about abortion or something like that, you know, but she went to the library and she read about the even the baby's heartbeat is there, She said, I'm not going to go through with that, you know, and so she had the child, you know, and she wasn't telling these things, you know, and when she got married finally and she had five children and then the husband left her and

[11:28] she had to raise the children herself, and but now now those children, you know, are married and she got a lot of grandchildren and so we've got a lot of nice, you know, but interesting the stories of these people and what they've been through, some of them, you know, got a very must be a strong woman, you know, to put up with all this nonsense, but then she saw the heartbeat, there, she said, I'm going to go through with that.

[11:55] That's what she's interested in I guess The Masters citizens for life, you know, she got here on the right side, you know, but yeah, yeah. Oh boy, the speakers too. I wouldn't go through with all they went through, but it's just it's terrible. Um, okay.

[12:26] So when you say ipsi sibi sunt lex, right? You got to understand that property what we mean, right? Now this law that's written and that's by nature and ultimately by God, huh? Okay. Now second thing here. Any man can, yeah, that's true, right? I mean, okay. Um, to second it should be said that a private person is not able to what He is efficaciously into what virtue, huh?

[12:58] Who is able only to what? Yeah. And if his munition is not what received, it does not have the vim coactivam, the forceful one, right? Huh? Which Allah ought to have, right? So that he can efficaciously lead one into virtue, as the philosopher says, huh? Paul

[13:27] says that too, but that's where the yeah, governor has the sword. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Remember my mother saying, you know, you know, you get really out of hand, you know, then you're out of the hands of your parents, and the state comes in and it scares the wits out of you.

[13:50] Okay. But the multitude or the public person, right? Huh? Has the what? Coactiv, the forceful power, right? Yeah. They can inflict what punishments and so on, as will be said later on, right? And therefore, him only is it to make what laws, huh? Okay.

[14:21] Is it not denying you now? You know, I mean that someone can have good influence upon you. You know, that's why parents, you know, they're especially concerned that their children have the right friends, right? That's a great deal to do with. Oh yeah. Great deal to do with it. That's what I always use is when people say, "Judge not." Yeah. Yeah. Well, then don't tell your kids don't.

[14:45] Yeah. Avoid the drug yet? I say my kids went to Trivium School, you know, and they're very strong Catholics, you know, and so the children are pretty, will be better than I think in the average high school, you know, and and that gives them a good background, you know. Same way some of these non-Catholics, when they go to Tac, you know, Thomas Aquinas, they get, you know, converted, you know, because of the good moral thing.

[15:10] Yeah. Goes on most colleges, maybe it's not too, too, too good, you know. And you get into that. Yeah. Spring break, you know. Was Nixon saying that on Fox News? I didn't see it, but Hannity was doing it, you know, and it's just. Hmm. I went to college in Daytona Beach. It's the hardest.

[15:39] The whole world goes to Daytona Beach for spring break. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sex, drugs, and rock and roll. That's all they do for two weeks. Yeah.

[15:53] To third should be said. Just as man is a part of the house, right? So the house is a part of the what city, huh? But the city is the perfect community, right? It has everything necessary for the good life. See, I didn't have a Euclid in my family, you know. Didn't have a Shakespeare in my family. Didn't have a Mozart in my family. Didn't have an Aristotle in my family.

[16:19] Didn't have a Thomas Aquinas in my family. You know. had a good crying child. And therefore, just as the good of one man is not the last end, but is ordered to the common good, right? So also the good of one house is ordered to the good of one what city, which is the perfect community, right? So sometimes you might draft the father of a family, right?

[16:53] Huh? Which is not good for the, but he's necessary for the good of the what? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Whence the one who governs some family is able to make some precepts or what statutes, not however those which properly have the ratio of of law, huh? Okay. You know, if you go back to practical philosophy, right? You you have these three parts of practical philosophy, right? The one they call monastic doesn't mean monastic; it means from one, you know, the ethics, right?

[17:31] And then you have the the thing in the family, and then you have the thing in the city, right? So coming down from Aristotle, the school of Aristotle, you have those three three books, right? Huh? You have the Nicomachean Ethics and the Eudemian Ethics and the Magna Moralia and so on. Then you have a one on the family, right? Which may not be Aristotle himself, but it's in the school, right?

[17:51] And then you have the the politics, right? Huh? So Aristotle would would do the the greatest, right? Huh? So he would maybe write the one on the politics, and somebody else write the one in the family. Although he talks about the family there in the beginning of the politics, right? Just like he he did zoology more than botany, right? Somebody else in the school did botany. Yeah.

[18:15] Yeah. Okay. But you know, Thomas gives the reason why you have these three, huh? You know, because not every action of the white individual is an action of the family. So I could give an example in class, right? Say, you know that what I'm going to do this evening, you know, huh? I consider the good of Dwayne Berquist, I would read Shakespeare, right? Being at these little ones in the house, I'm going to read some fairy tales, right?

[18:50] See. That's not no good so much for me as Shakespeare would, but I'm considering now the common good of the family, which is the little ones, right? And so I read these fairy tales or

[19:05] C. S. Lewis's little stories to them and so on, right? Donalds and okay. So, but some things I do I might do just for myself, right? So I'm going to read Shakespeare, right? This house is quiet now. What am I going to do? Well, what's good for Dwayne Berquist is Shakespeare or Euclid or Thomas Aquinas or something, right? And okay. But other things I do as a father, right?

[19:37] I might say, you know, I'm going to live in this neighborhood or something. I buy a house in this neighborhood, right? Or some neighborhoods I wouldn't want to be in, you know. And so, but then when I go to vote, I'm doing so as part of my community, and I'm trying to think of not the good of Dwayne Berquist so much, in particular, or the good of my family in particular, but the whole country. What's the best man for the job, right?

[20:12] But Thomas points out that the family and the city don't have the unity of my body, right? You know, when the action of my hand is an action of me, you know. You know, but not every action of the part is an action of the family, right? Or every action of the family is an action of the city, right?

[20:34] Okay. Now we got a third part of the definition of law, right? Huh? It's something of reason, right? And it's what for the common good, right? And it's made by what the multitude or the who is in charge of the multitude, right?

[20:57] Saint Louis of France, right? Or who's it? Who's the great guy in England there? This great king, yeah. Edward. Yeah, Edward, yeah. Who was it, the? Alfred. No, not Alfred. Yeah, Alfred was it? Alfred, you know. Yeah, I think so. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think he even translated some of Boethius. You know, hadn't been a good, good man.

[21:24] Now we need one more thing, which is the idea of promulgation, right? Okay. Let's come back one to the idea of the common good, huh? Just a little bit about what common good is. In the full sense, a common good is a good that many can share in, right? Without diminishing it, all right.

[21:56] So if we go and buy a pie, you guys and I, we can all share in that pie, right? But none of us is going to get the whole pie. So it's not it's common good, but not in the fullest sense, right? But if we get out our our friend Euclid there and we learn the Pythagorean theorem, you can know the whole of it, right? And the whole argument for it, and you can do the same, right?

[22:25] And you and you and me, and it's not diminished in any way the truth, right? Truth is a common good in the full sense, right? And we might even understand better with helping each other, right? You know, because one of us sees something someone else doesn't see, right? Okay.

[22:48] So I ask people, "Is the Pythagorean theorem is that the good of Pythagoras? No, it's the good of all of us, right? And in no ways it's diminished by being shared with many, right? Is God a private good? Private good of the monks.

[23:11] Only for Catholics. It's a common good, right? And is something lost by sharing this good with many? Won't be enough God left for the rest of us. That's why we still think we're the King of God, Holy Communion. We've probably hardly all the Holy Communion. We've hardly taken a little bit off His finger. We haven't even that much. I guess they're like we don't even need that much

[23:52] Okay He's so big. But in a way, a piece of music, right, or a play, is a common good too, right? In the sense that we can hear the same piece of music, and it's not diminished by. In fact, we enjoy it more that you know we hear it together. You know, for a concert, you know, you get you pay more attention to the piece of music maybe than you do when you're sitting at home or something.

[24:16] Okay, but now the fourth element Whether promulgation is of the notion of what law. To the fourth, one proceeds thus: It seems that promulgation is not of the ratio of what law. For natural law, most of all, has the notion of what law. What was called the unwritten law, right? By by the great Sophocles. Sophocles is the greatest of the Greek poets after Homer, right? He and he's.

[24:49] I was sitting around the library one time, and I ran across this Greek expression. You know that Sophocles is Homer writing tragedy, and Homer is Sophocles writing epic. You know.

[25:03] I mean, the two of them, you know, they saw that connection between those two. You know. You read the plays of the Greeks. You know, you can see Sophocles is the best to write play, right? Let me give us some. He speaks on unwritten law, right? Aristotle will quote him, right, when he talked about the the natural law, right? This other law. Antigone, right? That's one of the Greek plays.

[25:27] Okay, so natural law, most of all, has the notion of what law. And if some law of the city is opposed to natural law, it's really not a law. So it's a mislaw.

[25:42] But the natural law does not need promulgation, right? Therefore, it's not of the notion of law that be promulgated. The word promulgation is going to be somewhat analogous, right? Cumbical. Yeah, but natural reason makes this known, right?

[26:03] So someone says, "I didn't know I was supposed to do good and avoid bad." You know, if you're ignorant of that, you know you need a punishment, right? We need punishment, right? When somebody says

[26:19] Yeah That's not enough Yeah Yeah. Aristotle says, you know that it's always bad to dishonor your parents, right? Always bad adultery, he says, and murder is always bad, and stealing is always bad, right? And even more generally, you know, to do bad, right? It's bad to do bad. Yeah. But if you don't know that, you need of what punishment? I need of of argument, right? Send them to school.

[26:55] Get some more government money to send them to school. Yeah, yeah. Okay. Moreover, it pertains or belongs to law properly to obligate, right, something to doing or not doing something, right?

[27:20] But not only are those obligated to fulfill the law before whom the law is promulgated, but also others. Therefore, promulgation is not of the notion of what law.

[27:33] Moreover, the obligation of law extends also to the future, because laws place necessity upon future what negotiations. But promulgation comes to the present, right?

[27:50] That's why Obama doesn't believe the Constitution. Yeah, that's history. Therefore, promulgation is not the necessity of law, right? But against this is what is said in the decree decrees. This is ingratiation, right?

[28:12] That the laws are instituted when they're promulgated, huh? Hence, it should be said that as has been said, huh? Law is placed upon others by way of what a rule and measure. But a rule and measure are placed upon something through this that they are applied to those who are what ruled and measured. Whence, in order that law would obtain or obtains the power of what obligating, which is proper to law, it must be applied to men who ought to be ruled according to it, huh?

[28:57] Now, such an application comes about through this that. They are led into a knowledge of these things from the promulgation, whence the promulgation is necessary in order that the law might have its own what power. Okay. Now Thomas ends up the whole what question here, and thus from the four things fore said, one can what gather together.

[29:30] And you often find when they're talking about discourse, they use the word collativa colligere you know, Because you're bringing together in in reasoning, you're bringing together the major and the minor premise, and then deducing the conclusion. Well, that equates to definition, right? So from these four things, one can collect the definition of law, which is nothing other than a certain what ordering of reason to the common good by the one who has care of the community and what. Promulgated, So you need all those four parts in the what definition.

[30:10] Now you've been ruled by the laws, but now you know what a law is, huh? So next time the judge, you appear before the judge, ask him, "What is a law, judge? " See if he knows what the law is.

[30:25] If they say, "Law is what you're supposed to do," he couldn't define it. What you broke. Now, to the first, it should be said that promulgation of the natural law is from this that God what has inserted in the minds of men that it be known what naturally.

[30:53] Okay. I call it natural. Yeah, yeah, But this is because the word promulgation here is being used in an analogous sense, right? You know, you go out there and bang, bang, in the city post, you know, that's promulgation, right? Or you get, you know, blow the horn and then you announce, you know, that you shall drive on the right side of the street. That's promulgation. That's kind of more known, right?

[31:22] Huh? But ignorance of the law is no excuse, right? Then properly promulgated. Of course, you know Washington is making so many rules now that they can they get they get you in their pockets, you know, because they. guys want to spy on everybody. Yeah, yeah, and when they don't want you, they don't like you, you know. So they say, "Oh, you broke this, you broke the rule, and such, and you're going to pay for it now with this and this and this."

[31:51] Yeah, yeah. I know. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, these agencies make their own rules too, some some extent. Now, to those before whom the law is not promulgated, are obligated to observing the law in so far as it comes to their knowledge to others, right? Or, can come through what?

[32:33] Now the promulgation present that's extended in the future through the firmness of what the written law, right? Which, in a certain way, is always what promulgating it, huh?

[32:51] When Isidore says in the second book etymologies that law is called from what legendo, I suppose that means reading, huh? You never know what these these what these etymologies are correct according to the the etymologist because it is what. Yeah, yeah.

[33:13] Etymology, I guess, comes from the Greek word for what—the cause, right? The aitia Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's kind of the origin of these things.

[33:28] Why don't we take a break? Sure. Now we come to question ninety-one here on the diversity of the laws, right? Then we ought to consider about the diversity of the laws, and about these four things are asked: first, whether there is some eternal law;

[33:53] secondly, whether there is some natural law, right? Third, whether there is some human law, just mean like the positive law they call sometimes. Fourth, whether there is some what divine law? I suppose that means now. It doesn't mean the same thing as Lex Aeterna was lex divina. Mean here, it means you know, like the ones that you have these particular ones that you have.

[34:29] And whether it is one only or many that's lex divina, I guess. Okay. Six, whether there is some law of sin. Now, what the heck is that about?

[34:44] Yeah, I know. Yeah. Saint Paul caused more trouble There was some was an article there at the Voltaic about the the Marxists taking over the lex vacata, you know, and enforcing it. Okay. Now, as Aristotle

[35:08] talks about the law, he usually begins with lex humana, right, and then he goes to lex naturalis, right. So the order here is what theological order, huh? And not the

[35:20] philosophical order, right? I told you my teacher Kasurik there was we'd be meeting once in a while with have a dinner and then talk about the law, you know, and Chris the lawyers. I mean, the first age of laws is the we've written down law, the laid down law, you

[35:41] know. To the first, then one proceeds thus: it seems that there is not some eternal law, for every law is placed upon some people, right, some people.

[35:58] But there is not from eternity someone unto whom a law. Yeah. For only God is from eternity. Therefore, no law is eternal. That convinces me, because I want the dim guy, not the the wit here. But the

[36:16] moreover promulgation is of the notion of what law? The very definition of law, right? But promulgation cannot be from eternity. Because there is not, from eternity, someone to whom we could be promulgated. Therefore, no law can be eternal. That convinces me too. Right? I'm not the last word though on what's true or false. Okay. Moreover, law implies an order to an end. But nothing is eternal that is ordered to an end.

[36:55] For only the last end is eternal. Therefore, no law is what eternal. So this is touching upon that part of the definition that says it's ordered to the common good as an end, right? But in general, it's ordered to an end. And then the second objection is against it from what promulgation. And the first one is in terms of to whom is this law being given, right?

[37:26] God doesn't give himself a law, does he? Okay. But against this is what Augustine says in the first of his book about free judgment.

[37:49] The law which is named or called the what highest reason, right, cannot be what seen to anyone understanding, right, and not be seen what

[38:11] yeah yeah for the unchangeable and eternal, right? They go together, unchanging and eternal. Okay. What the heck is he going to do now? I answer: It should be said that as has been said above, nothing is a what. Nothing other is law than a certain what dictate of the practical reason in the prince, right, who governs some perfect what community. But it is manifest, however, that supposing the world is ruled by divine providence, right, as has been had in the first book,

[39:09] that the whole what community universe is governed by the what divine reason. And therefore the there was a question how to translate ratio there, right? Yeah. And therefore, the reason for the governing of the world, let's say, in God existing in the what? Prince of the universe, right? The beginning universe has a notion of law. He's talking about how God is what? Maybe conceived eternally, right? The law is going to impose upon the universe, or what?

[39:51] But anyway, and because the divine reason or mind conceives nothing, time, but has a what? Eternal concept, as is said in Proverbs eight. Hence, it is necessary that this law of this sort must be called what? Eternal.

[40:15] Let's see how he gets out of the objections. Ah, he's not out of this, out of the way yet. To first, therefore, it should be said that those things which are not in themselves, they exist before what? God, huh? In so far as they are foreknown and foreordained in the mind of God, huh? According to that of Romans chapter four, who calls those things which are not as those things which what are?

[40:58] So I got called when there was not. I was thinking this morning, you know, of how how. And if I asked you this question, you know, from your great knowledge of in, is the genus in the species, or the species in the genus? What would you wisely answer? Both. Huh? Both. Yeah, but it can't be the same sense of in, right? Okay. So the genus is in the species, as in a what?

[41:34] Composed whole, right? But the species is in the genus, as in a universal whole, right? Okay. And the genus is actually in the species, right? And the species is in a kind of potency in the genus, right? It's not action to make the difference, right? Huh? Okay. So quadrilateral is in square, right? As the genus in definition, right? And square is in quadrilateral as a species is in the universal genus, right?

[42:07] Okay. So is creatures in God, or is God in creatures? Well, we say in Him we live and move and have our being, so we're clearly in Him, right? But is God when we say that God is? Infinite and therefore everywhere and everything. In another sense, God is in everything, right? Has power is in the thing; it has power over, right? And knowledge is in the thing that you know.

[42:39] We speak of a penetrating mind, right? That knows things, and God's mind is is the most penetrating mind that I know of. You know.

[42:58] So those things which in themselves are not exist before God in so far as they are foreknown and foreordained, right? He called those things which are not there's those things which are. He chose you in Himself, right? Thus, therefore, the eternal what concept of the divine law has a notion of a what eternal law, according as by what God. It is ordered to the governing of things foreknown by Him.

[43:36] It was kind of God's plan, right? Maybe a little bit like, like maybe the king, you know, thinks out the law that he's going to impose upon the city, right? And he hasn't imposed it yet, right?

[43:51] Another damn law here, you know, taxing us or whatever it might be, right? But how do they think of these things, you know? Huh? Always thinking some new thing to tax, right? Huh?

[44:06] Because they're power grabbing money grabbing control freaks Yeah. Now, to the second, it should be said that promulgation comes to be both by what the spoken word, I guess, and the written word, right? And in both ways, the eternal law has promulgation on the part of what God promulgating it because both the what divine word, huh? Yeah, I know. I'm reading the the De Veritate, you know.

[44:47] and Christi they don't uh in the in the Latin text that I got off the thing. They don't have verbum capitalized. It should be capitalized, I think, like this because it's antonomasia, you know. Um,

[45:01] because the divine word is eternal, right? And the what the writing of the book of life, huh? We got we got an article in the book of life there in the De Veritate too. What the book of life is is eternal,

[45:26] but on the side of the creature hearing or inspecting, right? It cannot be a eternal what promulgation. That's kind of interesting what he's saying there, right? Huh? It's promulgated in the word he said, huh? Which is the second person of the Trinity, right? There's a promulgation there.

[45:51] Yeah, you heard my little poem, right? God the Father said it all in one word. No wonder when that word became a man, he spoke in words so few and wise. He was the brevity and soul of it.

[46:09] A little borrowing there from Shakespeare, guys. I told you what I found in the like, it's the 13th book of wisdom. You know, Aristotle says we should say some things better than our predecessors and other things try to say them as well as they said them. You know. I always quote that thing of Augustine Thou hast made us for thyself and our hearts are restless until they rest in you, and you can't say any better than that.

[46:38] But Shakespeare says things too; you can't think of a better way of saying them, you know. Even Abe Lincoln says some things so well sometimes, you know, that you say I can't really improve upon that.

[46:56] It's really disgraceful not to say things as well as your predecessors said them. That's what most philosophers I hear—they don't say as well as others have said before them.

[47:11] Okay. To the third, it should be said that law implies an order to the end. What? Actively, in so far as through it we are some things are ordered to the end. Not, however, what? Passively.

[47:33] That the law itself is ordered to an end, except what? Per accidens, in the one governing whose end is outside himself, to whom it is necessary, or to which it is necessary, that his law be ordered. But the end of the divine governing is what?

[47:53] God himself. Nor is his law something other from himself, huh? Whence the eternal law is not ordered to a what? Another end, huh? Okay. Let me say we should stop now, or what? If you want to, or make you want. You want to do another article? Okay. Whether, there is in us some natural law.

[48:27] It seems that there is what? Not in us a natural law. So Aristotle was mistaken then. For man is governed sufficiently through the eternal law.

[48:52] For Augustine says in the book on free judgment that the eternal law is that by which what? Is just that all things be most ordered, right? But nature does not abound in the superfluous.

[49:09] This is it does not fail in necessary things. Therefore, there is not some law which is what natural to man. Moreover, through the law, man is ordered in his acts to the end. But the ordering of human acts to the end is not by nature, as happens in the irrational creatures, which only by natural desire act for the sake of an end. But man acts for an end through reason and will, right?

[49:44] Therefore, there is not some what natural law for man. Sounds like Kant would like this objection. It seems to me. More the more one is free, the less one is under the what law. But man is freer than all the animals on account of free judgment, right? Which he has before all the other animals. Since therefore the other animals are not subject to natural law, neither is man subject to natural law.

[50:23] Good scanni for his objection, son. But against this, Romans two, it says when the Gentiles, huh, who do not have the law, right? Notice the way the law there is used, right, Huh?

[50:38] I mean, you see, the law is going to be said of all these different kinds of law, but it's used here. You're talking about what? Those laws that are written in the Exodus or the Deuteronomy or something, right? Okay. When they naturally do those things which they do, right? Huh?

[50:56] The gloss says, huh? That although they do not have the written law, they nevertheless have the unwritten law, as my friend Sophocles would say, right? Which is the natural law, by which each one understands and is conscious to himself what is good and what is what bad. So the people naturally. Understand that you should do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

[51:29] No one I could agree with mean to me, make me cry. Well, therefore I shouldn't be mean to other people, should I? You think I should? Just sometimes Sometimes Just for a change Well, right is a spice of life, huh?

[51:48] I guess that was kind of Obama's slogan. It might change. We need irrationality in the White House. Well, the answer should be said. as has been said above. Law, since it is a rule and measure, can be in two ways in something, right? In one way, as in what is ruling or measuring, right?

[52:19] I suppose that's the way eternal law is in God, right? Huh? This is the one ruling and measuring. In another way, as in the one ruled and measured, because in so far as it partakes something of the rule or measure, or is thus ruled or what measured, huh? When, since all things which are what subject to divine providence are ruled and measured by the eternal law, it is manifest that all partake in some way, right, the eternal law, in so far as from the, yeah, from the pressing upon of it, huh, have an inclination to their own acts and their ends.

[53:09] But among others, huh, the rational creature is subject in a more excellent way to the divine providence, huh? Because the others are ordered to what to partake of God's goodness in some way, but the rational creature is ordered to God Himself, huh, to know and love Him. Because that's how we were made to know and love Him. Um.

[53:40] But also in so far as he becomes a partaker of what providence, right? Providing for himself and for others, right? Whence also in him eternal the eternal reason is partaken of, right, to which he has a natural inclination to a suitable act and an end, huh? And such a partaking of the eternal law in the rational creature is a what natural law? That's kind of a definition of natural law that maybe Aristotle wouldn't use, right, huh?

[54:20] Um. But it's a theological definition of it, right? Okay. Just like if you define man as imago dei, right? You know, it's a theological definition of man, huh?

[54:36] The philosopher says, "Well, he's an animal and has reason." Funny in the metaphysics, Aristotle calls him a two-footed animal. That's what he calls him. Whence the psalmist says, "Huh, sacrifice, right? The sacrifice of what? Justice, which has what? Some people seeking what are the works of justice? Son, they're supposed to do. He says, 'Many says, who will show us good things or what is good? ' To which question he responds, 'Sealed upon us is the light of your what?

[55:16] Face, I guess, huh, Lord? Because the light of natural reason, by which we discern what is good and bad, right? Which pertains the natural law is nothing other than a pressing upon of the divine law on us, huh? Whence it is clear that the natural law is nothing other than a partaking of the eternal law in the rational what creature, huh?

[55:50] Now he says the first objection, huh, that man is sufficiently governed by the eternal law. He says that argument proceeds if natural law was something diverse from the what eternal law, but it is not, however, except a certain partaking of it, huh? To the second it should be said that every doing of reason and of will is derived in us from that which is according to what nature.

[56:34] So, in the case of reason, there's natural understanding, right? And the case of the will, there's a natural willing of happiness, huh? And well some other things we naturally will. Because all reasoning, oh, he's saying that. Because all reason, I didn't look ahead. I didn't. I plead innocent. Innocent. Don't punish me. But you're tainted. You read it before.

[57:02] I mean, same thing. He's teaching me in the De Veritate. For er all reasoning is derived from beginnings, huh? Not from principles, but from beginnings. We're removing the words now. You see, we're we're making progress. From beginnings naturally known. And every desire of those things which are for the end is derived from a natural desire of the last end. And thus also is necessary that the first directing of our acts to an end comes about through the what natural law.

[57:43] Now to the third, what about the animals in us? It should be said that also the irrational animals partake of what the eternal thought in some way, just as the rational creature. But because the rational creature partakes of it in an understandable and rational way, right, or understandable and reasonable way, let's get this down into English. Therefore, the partaking of the eternal law in the reasonable creature is properly called what law?

[58:18] For law is something of reason. As has been said above, in the unreasonable creature, the reasonless creature, it is not partaken of in a what reasonable way. Whence it cannot be called law, except by what certain likeness, huh? Okay. So what about these scientists talking about the laws of nature right now? That's a different sense of the certain likeness there, right? Okay.

[58:57] Why do they talk about the laws of nature? There's no lawgiver. Put them in their place, huh? I saw a quote from Heisenberg that I that I I couldn't download for some reason the computer there, but he's saying you know, you know,

[59:17] the beginning of a drink, you know, it's easier to be in the drink to put God out of the picture, right? But then at the bottom of the drink, he says, "The drink of modern science is talking about." And but at the bottom of the thing, you find God again. It's not kind of surprised that Heisenberg would say that, you know, huh? You know, the first sip, you know, you're kind of intoxicated, you know, and there's no God, you know, and then you find at the bottom of the glass, though, you.

[59:46] It's kind of interesting. Why talk about a law? There's no lawgiver, right? There's no mind there. If the laws of nature are something of of reason, whose reason is it?

[1:00:09] All good things must come to an end, huh?