Prima Secundae
216. Summa I-II q.91 aa.5–6 and q.92 a.1: The old law and the new law, the 'law of hot blood', and whether law makes men good
Class of 2015-04-09
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/216-summa-i-ii-q-91-aa-5-6-and-q-92-a-1-the-old-law-and-the-new/

[0:00] If the divine law is one only, right? To the fifth, one goes for it. Thus, it seems that the divine law is one only. For of one king and one kingdom, there is one law. That makes sense. But the whole human race is compared to God as to one king, according to that of Psalm 46. God is king of all the earth, right? Therefore, there is only one divine law.

[0:34] That's that's impressive, right? Only one king and one kingdom, right? And therefore, only one law. Yeah. Moreover, every law is ordered to the end which the legislator intends in those to whom he gives a law, right? But one and the same is it what God intends for all men, right? According to that of the first epistle to the Timothy, he wishes all men omnes omnes to be saved, right, and to come to a knowledge of the what truth.

[1:19] I like the Saint Paul the second part there, come to a knowledge of the truth. That's all I know how many says And therefore, there is only one divine law. Moreover, the divine law would seem to be closer to the eternal law, which is one, than the natural law, the higher, that a revelation of grace is than the knowledge of what nature. But there is one natural law of all men, right?

[1:50] Therefore, much more the divine law. Well, I'm convinced, huh? A beautiful text here, but against this is what the apostle says, huh? In the epistle to the Hebrews, translato sacerdotio, right? Yeah, is necessary that there be a translation of the what law carrying over of it. I know, sir, you know Thomas's or the church was pointing out that Galilee means what Transmigration. or... Yeah yeah, Some kind of thing.

[2:27] Yeah. and that you know when Christ's coming down from Galilee to be baptized, right now you have to have a translation from vice to virtue in order to to go and be baptized. But the priesthood, huh? I guess that sacerdotium, huh? Is twofold, right? As is said, what there, right? The Leviticus, huh? Levitical. The Levitical priesthood. And the sacerdotium Christi, right, huh? It's kind of strikes me, huh?

[3:04] What's it that Psalm there where you have the Christ as being King and Priest, right, huh? The Christ, you had the contrast of the King, one King and one Priest, huh? Okay. Therefore, there is a twofold divine law: the old law and the new law, right?

[3:25] I answer: It should be said. This has been said in the first part. Distinction is the cause of number, huh? Okay. That's the clear title. Distinction is the cause of number. Okay. There's a number of guys here, this room, right? Yeah. Some distinction to us. That's the cause of being here, a number of five, right?

[3:54] But in two ways, things are found to be distinguished. My goodness. In one way, as those things which are altogether diverse in species, or in kind, as the horse and the what? Ox, I guess, huh? Okay. The cat and the dog.

[4:18] In another way, as the perfect and the imperfect in the same what? Species. As the boy and the man. Okay, that's interesting distinction, right? Distinction of distinctions, right?

[4:36] So there's a definition of definition, right? Now, what's the question is to ask? Okay. And in this way, the divine law is distinguished into the old law and the what? New law, huh?

[5:10] Whence the apostle in the epistle to the Galatians compares the status of the old law to that of the boyish existing under the pedagogue, right? But the status of the new law to the status of the perfect man, huh? Who is no longer under the pedagogue, huh? Okay.

[5:39] So that's kind of his proof or sign, I should say, of the the kind of distinction that there is between the new law and the old law, right, huh? It's not the distinction of the cat and the dog or the the horse and the ox, right? But it's like the distinction of The boy and the man, right? Okay.

[6:05] Now, the perfection and perfection of both laws pertain to the according to three things which pertain to law. This has been said above, huh? For first, it pertains to law that it order us to the what common good as to an end. This has been said above, huh? Which is able to be twofold, to wit, the earthly and sensible good, right? And to such a good, the old law ordered us directly.

[6:44] Whence, at once, in Exodus three, in the beginning of the law, the people are invited to the earthly kingdom of the Canaanites, and again, the understandable and celestial good, right? And to this, the new law is ordered, huh?

[7:07] Whence, at once, Christ, at the beginning of the kingdom of the heavens, in the beginning of his preaching, right, invites them, saying, "Do penance, for its approach is now, huh? The kingdom of the heavens, and what's his name did that too, John the Baptist, yeah. So it's kind of striking that the both. Kind of the same thing Yeah.

[7:37] And therefore, Augustine says in the fourth book against Faust that promises of temporal things are contained in the old what Testament, huh? And therefore, it's called old.

[7:55] But the promise of eternal life pertains to the what New Testament, huh? This guy's strong. You mix it that strong, isn't it, huh? You know, I mean, because you certainly do have in the Old Testament references to the eternal life too, right? To seeking the face of God of Jacob and so on, right? That's the point Father Harder makes about the adders. He says so many people, understandably, pray for health and well-being and all this, but you can't be serious if that's all that we should be praying for.

[8:41] No? The attitude promises something much more than that. Yeah. And he's very interesting On the Our Father, we say that kingdom come, right? But this is the heavenly kingdom, isn't it? Yeah.

[9:05] Secondly, it pertains to the law to direct human acts according to the order of justice, in which also the new law what abounds above the old law by ordering the interior acts of the what soul, right? According to that of Matthew chapter five, unless your justice abounds more than that of the scribes and the what Pharisees, you will not enter into the kingdom of the heavens.

[9:43] And therefore, it is said that the old law restrains, right? Restrains the hand. The hand, the new law, the what soul, right? Huh? And in my text, it refers to the magistrum. Right, Peter Lombard, huh And in reference to the third book of the Sentences, distinction, what, forty, huh? Okay.

[10:17] At one point there, Christ says, "Do what the scribes and the Pharisees, you know, command you. you know, Do not, but not as they do. You know, you know, but it's some kind of a

[10:31] exterior thing, right? That you're being told to follow, right? Huh? Just under the old law, until Christ has died, huh? Okay. Third, it pertains to the law to lead men into the observances of the what commandments, huh? And this the old law does by the fear of punishments, huh? But the new law does this through what love, huh? Which is poured into the hearts, to our hearts, through the grace of Christ, huh?

[11:15] Which is conferred in the new law, but in the old law is what figured, yeah. And therefore Augustine says against what a disciple of the Manichaeans that a brief difference of the law and the gospel is fear and love, huh? It's interesting that he used the word law there for the old law, right? Use the word evangelia there, huh? Fear and love, huh? So it induces us to obey the law, right?

[11:53] It's more fear in the Old Testament, huh? It's more love in the New Testament, huh? To the first, therefore, it should be said that just as the father in the house proposes other commands to the boys and to the adults, so also the one King God, in His one what kingdom, gives another law to what men still existing in a perfect way, and another what more perfect one to those led by the hand through the what prior law to the greater capacity of what divine things, huh?

[12:49] manuductio there. I'm not seeing the arms, big thing there. Manuductio Yeah. Yeah. To the second, it should be said that the salvation of men cannot be except through what Christ,

[13:16] according to that of Acts chapter four, there is no other name given to men in whom it is necessary for us to be saved, and therefore the law leading us perfectly to salvation, or leading all perfectly to salvation, could not be given except after the what? Yeah.

[13:44] But before there was given to the people from whom Christ was to be born a law that is preparing right for the reception of what Christ, in which certain rudiments of the saving justice are contained.

[14:15] To third, it should be said that the natural law directs man according to certain common what precepts, in which belongs what are contained or what are imperfect, and therefore is one of all. But the divine law directs men in certain what particular things, to which the perfect and imperfect do not have themselves in similar ways, right? And therefore it is necessary for the divine law to be twofold, right?

[14:54] Huh? Didn't Christ say, "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you shall not have what"? Life in you. Yeah, yeah. But is that what he said in the Old Testament to the Jews? No. And remember the kind of their scandal when he proposes, right? You know, in the sixth chapter, John, right? It was something new, right, and something hard to accept, right? Huh? Some people turned away, right?

[15:26] Huh? But it's something higher than that, huh? Isn't Christ saying in the Sermon on the Mount, you know, that if you look at the woman with lust in your heart, right? You've already committed adultery, right? Isn't that touching upon the second thing that Thomas gives here, right? Huh? You know, or you're desiring your neighbor's house your neighbor's house or something, or his or his possession, right? That this is what

[16:11] going further than the than the Ten Commandments, right? The Ten Commandments touch on that too, but not as fully as he does in the Sermon on the Mount.

[16:40] These discussions between Christ and the scribes and Pharisees about divorce and so on, right? Did Moses give them some kind of? Accepting. Yeah, yeah. So he's being more strict there Christ, right? That's what I just read. I told him this morning. Father Harden says, "One of his conferences on indissolubility of marriages Don't forget. " One of the reasons why Christ was crucified was because of his teaching on monogamy.

[17:11] Don't forget. Because he says that Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Mormons are opposed to monogamy on principle. Okay. To the sixth, one goes forward this. It seems that there is not a law of fomitis right? Fomes. How is the best way of translating that? I've seen it translated with kindling, but that's that's by way of comparison. I don't try to translate it Yeah, sometimes I don't translate it, but it's at least by by way of comparison.

[18:04] I, oh my goodness, I'll make sure. Chips of wood, especially for kindling, feeding a fire. So that's what it's taken from. Yeah, literally. That's what it literally means So so it's used by way of comparison, like a figure of speech. Which wood chips? It's some kind of kindling wood. Is something you would use to start. We'll call it the law of hot blood. Sparks of blood. Okay.

[18:42] For Isidore in the fifth book of the etymologies, right? Says that law consists in what? Reason. Yeah. By reason. But what do you call it now? Kindling. Kindling. Yeah. There's no there's no because it's just it's a yeah metaphor. But hot blood does not consist in reason, but more it what it deviates from reason. Therefore, hot blood does not have the notion of law.

[19:18] Moreover, every law is obligatory, right? Thus, that those who do not observe it are transgressors, right? But hot blood does not constitute what someone a what transgressor from this that one does not follow it. But more, what is a transgressor if he what follows it? Therefore, hot blood does not have the notion of law, right?

[19:50] Moreover, law is ordered to the common good, as has been had above. But hot blood does not incline one to the common good, but more to the private good. Therefore, the fomes do not have the notion of law.

[20:10] That's that's that decides the matter, doesn't it? Yeah. But the soul of theology is what the scripture, scripture, yeah. But against this is what the apostle says in the seventh chapter to the epistle of Romans. I see another law in my what members, huh? Repugnant to the law of my what mind, so he does use the word law there, right? But it's kind of a strange use of the word law.

[20:48] I answer: It should be said, as has been said above, that law essentially is found in what what regulates and measures, right? But participative, right? It is partaken of in that which is measured and what ruled, right?

[21:16] Thus, that every inclination or ordering that is found in those that are subject to the law can be said to be law by what participation.

[21:34] Now, it is possible in those things which are subject to law for some inclination to be found in two ways from the what legislator, huh? In one way, in so far as it directly inclines those subject to it to something, right? And diverse ones sometimes to diverse acts, according to which way one can say that other is the law of soldiers, right? Another is the law of what merchants, huh?

[22:13] Another way, indirectly, in so far as through this that the what legislature takes away, I guess, huh? Someone subject to it some dignity that he would have otherwise, right? He would find that he goes over into another order and is, as it were, into another what law?

[22:44] As if the soldier is what? Yeah Take away on what you're saying Turned out of the army Yeah. Exilicia destitutor, a destitute of the military, he goes over into the law of the rustics,

[23:04] yeah, or the merchants, huh? Okay. Just speaking of the mercantile origin of the modern city, right? Thus, therefore, under God, the lawgiver, right? Diverse creatures have diverse natural inclinations,

[23:29] such that to one something is in some way a law, right? But to another is against the what law, right? As if I should say that to what steals it, free. Free windum what is that

[23:52] Yeah okay What? Fierceness, some kind of fierceness. Oh, okay. Furibundam is in some way a law of the dog to bark, I guess, huh? But it's against the law of the what sheep or of another mild animal, right? Okay, so the sheep doesn't come and bark at you, I guess, huh?

[24:15] It is, however, a law of man which he gets from the divine ordering, according to his own condition, that he act in accordance with what reason, huh? And should be reasonable, huh? Even woman, huh?

[24:32] Yeah even a woman is a bad if if you're using inclusive language. Which, however, law is what was so valid in the first state that nothing either apart from reason, right, or against reason could what rise up suddenly, I guess, huh? In men, huh? But when man receded from God, right, he was born into this

[25:07] according to the impetus of what sensuality, and to each one in particular, this happens. The more he withdraws from reason, so that thus in some way he is made like the beasts, which are brought forth by the impetus of sensuality, huh? According to that of Psalm forty-eight, that man, when he was in honor, did not understand his status, right? But he was compared to the foolish beasts and was made like them, huh?

[25:49] Thus, therefore, this inclination of sensuality, this hot blood, huh, which is called the hot blood by Burkeus, in other animals simply has the rule of what law? They should act in accordance with their hot blood, huh?

[26:14] Aristotle says the animals they fight over food and sex, right, huh? And they should, huh? That's the law for them, right, huh? In that way in which

[26:28] such can be called a law, right, huh? Because it's partaking of a law, right, according to a direct inclination, huh? In men, however, according to this, it does not have the notion of law, but is more a deviating, a departing from the law of reason, right?

[26:52] But in so far as through divine justice man is made destitute of original justice, and the vigor of reason—ah, that's something lacking—the vigor of reason nowadays.

[27:05] That is the what impetus of sensuality, which leads him. It has the notion of law in so far as it is a punishing thing, and consequently from the what divine law,

[27:24] depriving man of his proper what dignity, huh? What does Saint Paul praise? and ask God to relieve. him From the stimulus he had, or something that, yeah, this was, I guess, left in him to keep him from getting pride, proud from the revelation that had been made to him, right?

[27:48] So this is law in the sense of something what? Partaken of from what? Law, right? But in the way of what? Punishment. Very, very strange use of the word law, but we gotta, you know, defend Saint Paul's use of law in this case.

[28:10] To the first, therefore, it should be said that that argument proceeds about hot blood considered by itself, in so far as it inclines to evil, and thus it does not have the ratio of law, right?

[28:25] The definition of law, right? But according as it follows from what? The justice of the divine law, right? Just as if it was said that The law was what? That someone noble, on account of his guilt, be permitted to be led into what? Yeah. Yeah. He's being punished by that law Yeah yeah

[29:13] Pride comes before a fall. Just that he fall, right? Because of his pride. It's a great play there of Sophocles. there, is it Ajax, right?

[29:36] Ajax was what? Why was he punished? You know. You know he, yeah, because he said, "I don't need you," you know, said to the gods. you know I'm too great a warrior, right? That comes out comes out in the play, right? That's it was his pride, right? And it's rejecting the assistance of the gods, right? That led him to be punished in this way, right? So he thought that the wild beast that he was slaying was the Greeks.

[30:09] Great man, that Sophocles, right? Because he talks about the natural law too, you know, on the written law. The other play there, Antigone, right? So,

[30:21] okay, I put him up with Homer and Shakespeare. Sophocles, he's one of the great Greek poets. The second should be said that that objection proceeds about law as a rule and measure. Okay. Thus, those deviating from the law are constituted transgressors. But thus, hot blood is not a law, but a certain partaking of it, right? But in the line of punishment, I guess.

[30:56] To the third, it should be said that that argument proceeds about hot blood as regards its own what inclination, not as regards its what origin, huh? But nevertheless, if one considers the inclination of sensuality, in so far as it's in the other animals, thus it is ordered to the common good, right? That is to the conservation of nature in the species or in the individual.

[31:26] And thus is also in man, in so far as sensuality is subject to reason, right? But the hot blood is said according as it goes outside the order of what reason, huh? Well, we have to wait till he gets into the particulars of the lex fomitis before we can understand this kind of a thing here.

[31:56] It's obscure, obscure text there, huh? It's all because of St. Paul saying that in Romans seven there, right, huh? It's inspired Yeah. What? I was being facetious. No I didn't hear you just Moments of absent-minded as he wrote that.

[32:20] But I mean, notice when that text from St. Paul, "I see another law in my members, repugnant to the law of my mind, as if it's not a law."

[32:31] Full sense, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Should we want to do more here? Okay. Then when I Now to consider about the effects of law, right? And about this two things are asked. First, whether the effect of the law is to make men what good, huh? That's what it should be, I think.

[33:11] Second, whether the effect of laws, the effects that's probably effectus in the plural sense, there, right? Are to what command, to prohibit, to permit, and to punish, huh? As the legisperitus says, huh? The one experienced in the law.

[33:42] To the first one goes forward. Thus, it seems that it's not of the law to make men good, huh? For men are good through virtue. For virtue is what makes its ever good, and its own act good, as Aristotle says, in, the full definition there in the second book of the ethics.

[34:06] But virtue is in man from God alone, huh? For he makes it in us without us. That's with the infused virtues, I guess. But anyway, this has been said above in the definition of virtue, taken from Augustine. Therefore, it's not of the law to make men good, but yeah, the virtues.

[34:29] Moreover, law is not help man unless he obeys the law. But this very fact that a man obeys the law is from his what goodness, huh? And therefore, goodness is before in man to the law. Therefore, the law does not make men good, huh? This man's looking before and after, right? Now, he says that all will not profit you unless you obey the law, right? But you obey the law because you're a good guy.

[35:05] Yeah. So you got to be good before. Well, I suppose it's for you to obey the law freely, right? Now, but the little kid, you know, he's going to be punished if he doesn't obey the law. That's right. I take off my belt, you know, I just whack the table like that, and they they sober up the kids. That's right.

[35:39] I should do that. That's why I like to give them the crowbar. Moreover, the law is ordered to the common good. But some have themselves well to what in those things which pertain to the commune right, which nevertheless in their own things do not have themselves well right, huh?

[36:09] Therefore, it does not pertain to the law that it make men what good, huh? So I know, say some men who politicians who do good for the city or country and get get in their private life, yeah.

[36:33] Moreover, some laws are tyrannical, as the philosopher says in his politics, huh? But the tyrant does not intend the what the goodness of the subjects, but only to his own usefulness. Therefore, it is not of law to make men what good, huh?

[36:56] But against this is what the philosopher says, huh? In the second book of the ethics, that the will of each legislator is this that he might make the citizens what good? I answer, it should be said, this has been said above, that law is nothing other than a what dictate of reason in the one presiding, right, huh? By which those subject are governed, but of each one what subject, the virtue is the virtue is that he be what subject well, yeah.

[37:38] By which he's governed, yeah. Thus we see that the virtue of the irascible and the concupiscible consists in this that they are bene obedientes, obedientes, they obey well reason, right?

[37:56] And in this way, the virtue of each subject is that he be well subject to the what the prince, right? As the philosopher says in the first book of the what politics, huh?

[38:16] Should listen to the pope, huh? Okay, listen to the bishop. what did uh, Padre Pio say about that woman in Wisconsin? People should obey their bishop. Did he say that? Yeah, yeah. they asked they asked him about it you know all he said was people should obey their bishop. he was. She was not obeying her bishop, right? Yeah. I think she stopped going to church, something like that.

[38:43] Is I know. Despite her her apparitions, so called, you know, but he didn't say anything about the apparitions are real or not. Just that people should obey their bishops. Word to the wise is sufficient, I guess.

[39:02] Okay. Hence, it is manifest, right? Okay. To this, therefore, are ordered each law that it be obeyed by the what? Yeah. Hence, it is manifest that this is proper to the law to lead the subjects into their proper what virtue. Hence, therefore, virtue is what makes its haver what good. It follows that the proper effect of law is to make what good those to whom it is given, either simply or what secundum quid, huh?

[40:07] If the intention of the one bearing the law tends to the true good, which is the common good, according to what? Divine Justice governing. It would follow through the law that men become good simply. If, however, the intention of the legislature is born towards that which is not good simply, but useful or delightful to himself, or repugnant to the divine justice, then the law does not make men good simply, but only secundum quid, right?

[40:47] To wit, in the order to such a regime. Thus, the good is found even in what per se malis things that are as such bad, as someone said to be a good what thief who acts in a way that is suitable to his end.

[41:14] Now, to the first, it should be said the twofold is virtue, as has been said above, namely the acquired one, right, from repeated acts, and the one poured in by God, right. Okay. Now, to both of these, something what being accustomed to deeds does, right? But diversely, huh? Because the virtue which is what acquired, acquired it causes, right? it's caused by repeated acts, as the virtue Aristotle talks about.

[41:49] But to the infused virtue, it disposes, right? And it helps to preserve it and what? Advance it, yeah. And because law is for this given that might direct human acts, in so far as human acts are done for virtue, right? To that extent, to that extent the law makes men what good, huh? Whence the philosopher says in the second book of the Politics that the lawgivers, by accustoming men in a certain way, makes them what good, huh?

[42:32] To the second, it should be said that not always does someone obey the law from the perfect goodness of virtue, but sometimes from the fear of punishment. Sometimes from only the dictate of reason, right? Which is a certain what? Beginning of virtue, huh? Without having the what, the virtue. Sometimes men just want to do what's good. for the command of reason at all. okay.

[43:24] So that's the same with the child, right? He's still being, you know, because of the. Okay. And sometimes some the only the what, Dictate of reason right, Should do that, huh?

[43:50] Okay, the third argument now. That the good of each part is considered in proportion to its whole, right? Whence Augustine says in the third book of Confessions that ugly is every part that is not what, fit its whole. Since therefore each man is a part of the city, it is impossible that some man be good unless he be well what proportioned to the common good. Nor can the what whole be able to what

[44:31] consist to yeah consist well unless it be from parts that are proportioned to it, right? Whence it is impossible that the common good of the city has itself well unless the citizens are virtuous, at least in regard to those what.

[44:51] Yeah, to those things to which it is he's governed. It suffices, however, as regards the good of the community, that others are so far virtuous that they obey the what commands of the princes, right? Therefore, the philosopher says in the third book of the Politics that the same is the virtue of the prince and of the good man, but not always the same as the virtue of each what.

[45:24] Citizen and of the good man. And Aristotle will say that in the best city the virtue of the good man and the virtue of the good citizen are the same, right? But in these disordered communities, the virtue of the good citizen is not the virtue of a good man.

[45:42] My brother-in-law when he studied jurisprudence in law school years ago wrote a paper. He took a line from Proverbs when. When the just man prospers, the city rejoices. That's beautiful. Then you go to think about jurisprudence on that.

[46:06] When the when the just when the good man does well, that's joy to the city, shouldn't it? If you have a good well, ordered side Well our other side

[46:22] The little sisters of the poor put them in jail. Now, to the fourth, it should be said that the lex tyrannica, right? Since it is not according to reason, is not simpliciter speaking, the law, but more as a certain perversion of the law, right?

[46:42] But nevertheless, in so far as it has something of the notion of law, it intends that the citizens be what good, huh? For it does not have the notion of law except according as is the dictate of someone presiding, right, over his subjects, and to this he he aims that the one subject to the law, the one subjects rather, are very well obedient to the law, right?

[47:14] Which is to make them good, not simply, but in in order to such a what rule, yeah, yeah. Like a sedan or something Mm hmm An Easter Sunday there on TV at the the evening that they had the the whole of Gone with the Wind, you know.

[47:44] That that movie makes you tend to think again about you know the old South, you know, and so on. And I guess actually the the the the slaves were actually like their government down there, kind of, you know, for the most part, you know, they weren't, you know, ready to take up more take up arms more in defense, you know, in the South, than the United States.

[48:13] you know, where citizens are very obedient, huh? Yeah. That's what they say. If it isn't forbidden, it's mandatory. If it isn't mandatory, it's forbidden. That's a communist. D. J. Castricius used to say, you know, the old saying is, "Come the revolution, we'll all eat strawberry shortcake. " I don't like strawberry shortcake. Come the revolution, you'll like it.

[48:53] Okay. Shall we stop now?