Prima Secundae
220. Eternal Law, Part 2: Whether All Law Comes from the Eternal Law, and What Is Subject to It (Articles 3–5)
Class of 2015-05-28
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/220-eternal-law-part-2-whether-all-law-comes-from-the-eternal/

[0:00] Now to the third article. To the third one goes for this: It seems that not every law is derived from the eternal law. For there is a certain law of the what? fomes We don't know how to translate that. That's kind of law in kind of almost metaphorical sense, right? But but it, however, is not derived from the eternal law or the divine law, right? Which is the eternal law.

[0:33] For to it pertains the what? Prudence of the flesh, about which the apostle says in the epistle of the Romans, they cannot be subject to the law of God, right? So, therefore, not every law proceeds from the what? Eternal law. Well, that makes sense to me.

[1:02] I'm easily taken in, of course. Of course, you're willing victim. Moreover, nothing iniquitous, huh? Can is able to proceed from the eternal law, because it has been said the eternal law is by which, right? It is just that all things be most what? Ordered. But some laws are iniquitous, huh? According to that of Isaiah 10. Woe to those who what?

[1:42] Someone will quote that to the Supreme Court sometimes. To the Congress, yeah, yeah, yeah. And to the president, executive orders too. They put that over the entrance. They become the legislators. Yeah. Remind them when they go in, you know. Therefore, not every law proceeds from the divine law, right?

[2:21] So, is the law admitting, you know, making lawful, so to speak, abortion? Is that really a law? You know, people should be stopped in that, right? When they use the word law, there, right?

[2:41] Moreover, Augustine says in the first book on free judgment that the law which is written, right, for ruling the people, rightly it permits many things which are what? Would be punished, I suppose, through divine providence, or could be vindicated. But the ratio of divine providence is eternal law, as has been said. Therefore, not every law that is right proceeds from the eternal law.

[3:19] That was a question of whether a Catholic could vote for a restriction on abortion. And the church said yes. And you might have to make clear that you're opposed to all abortion, but you can still, you know, that's the best you can do, right?

[3:40] You say have a abortion after three months or some, you know, whatever. Some restriction is good, even if it's not permitting at all, right?

[3:55] It does some good that way. But against this is what is said in Proverbs chapter eight, verse fifteen. Divine wisdom says, "Huh? Through me kings rule, and the what makers of law discern just things." Okay.

[4:24] But the ratio of divine wisdom is the eternal law. Therefore, all laws proceed from the eternal law. Okay. Well, see what the master says now.

[4:49] He says take what Berquist says with a grain of salt. he says, "till you see what I have to say." Be." Able to distinguish what I say from Berquist.

[5:00] He's taken in by these objections. That's not the purpose of the course. Like me showing my students, you know that sometimes the part is more than the whole. Say, oh yeah, yeah.

[5:27] Hence it should be said. as has been said above. Law implies a certain what? Yeah, thought that is directive of actions towards their end, right? But in all movers that are what ordered, right? In all ordered movers. It. Is necessary that the virtue or power of the second mover is derived from the virtue or power of the what first mover. Because the second mover does not move except in so far as he is moved by the what first.

[6:08] Aristotle talks about that in the beginning of the Ethics, there, right? Huh? Whence in all, governors, we see the same thing that the reason of the government is derived from the first one governing to the what seconds, huh?

[6:33] Just as the reason of those things which are done in the city is derived from the king through precept to the what lower administrators, huh? Even better example, the army, right? huh? It's interesting how Aristotle compares the order of the universe to the order of the army, right? Because the order is more manifest there than it is in the city, huh?

[7:09] And in artificial things also, right? The reason for artificial acts is derived from the architect, on the chief artist, to the lower artists, right? Who operate by what hand? My father's company, you know, when they would start a new product or a new procedure, you know, this one guy was something real smart. He'd he'd show everybody else how to do it, and then they'd all follow him, right?

[7:36] And very valuable worker. my father had down there. He was kind of a natural, naturally adept at these things and so on. Natural kind of engineer. Yeah. Since therefore the eternal law is the what reason for the governing in the supreme or highest governor, right? One governing, it is necessary that all the reasons of government or governing which are found in the what lower governors are derived from the what eternal law.

[8:14] And these reasons of the lower ones governing, are whatever other laws there are besides the what eternal law, whence all laws, in so far as they partake of right reason, insofar they are what. derived from the eternal law. Yeah, yeah. I mean, I just said, translated it well. Whence all laws, insofar as they partake of what right reason, in so far as they are derived from the eternal what?

[8:44] To that extent. Yeah. So they partake as much of right reason as they are derived from the eternal law. So yeah, that's kind of. an interesting grammar there On account of this, Augustine says in the first book of the Free Judgment, Free Will, that in the temporal law nothing is just or and legitimate or lawful that is not what derived, right? That men have not derived for themselves from the eternal law.

[9:23] You could tack that up also Yeah. The Supreme Court underneath the vote. Yeah. Yeah. You have two quotes there. Mm-hmm. Or you could put it above above the Constitution. To paraphrase Shakespeare, "do not revolt from two births, stumbling on abuse.

[9:44] Yeah, it's pretty good fire lens. Okay. Now the first thing there. About that kind of a strange use of the word law. The first, therefore, it should be said that the fomes, right, have the ratio of a law in man, in so far as they are a what punishment fouling what divine justice.

[10:20] And according to this, is manifest that they are derived from the eternal law, kind of unusual way of being derived, right? But in so far as they incline to what sin, thus they are contrary to the law of God, and do not have the notion of law, as is clear from the things said above. Refers you back to question ninety one, article six.

[10:49] So it has the idea of law in a very diminished sense. Yeah, so far as it's a punishment, huh? Following divine justice, huh? So one of the things you said earlier about the effects of law is punishment. And one of the characteristics of law punishment.

[11:22] So we deserve because of the rebellion we deserve to have this disorder as well. Yeah, yeah, No, it's because we, our reason, will not subject to God, then should be subject to reason. Will are not subject. Two. I know what I hear on the radio. there as I was driving up here? Once a day, somebody dies from a drug overdose in this state. I guess something like that.

[11:53] Yeah. Just they can't control themselves, right? You know. You have to take people away and put them away for a while. Some kind of thing where they try to calm them down Calm them down and get them to stop

[12:18] Other people can't control their anger. You know, People can't control their concupiscence, huh? Desire to drink. Okay. The second thing here about these iniquitous laws. To the second, should be said that human law, to that extent, has the notion of law, right? In so far as it's according to right what reason, huh? And according to this, and by this is manifest that it is derived from the eternal law.

[13:01] Insofar as it recedes from reason, right. Thus it is said to be a what a wicked law, right? And thus it does not have the notion of law, but more of a certain what violence.

[13:22] So this thing about abortion, is it really a law or is it a violence huh It's legislative violence? Yeah, yeah. It's established Institutionalized violence. Yeah, Yeah. It's like divorce, legalized divorce is institutionalized injustice, Yeah whatever. It's interesting. There's no word "violent" have the sense of something outside of nature, right? I

[13:56] mean, even if you know you're supposed to stone up, you know, Yes against the natural That's a violent, yeah. as opposed to It's force against the natural. Yeah, yeah. They call it a violent thing, you know. Kind of interesting word that he uses there, violent. Yeah, that's what that I always thought of because I think violence, in one way I've seen it referred to, is it's a force applied against a natural inclination.

[14:20] So all contraception, even if it's consensual, is a kind of violence. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Because it's against the natural inclination. Is there any sort of etymological relationship between violence and violation? Those two words, any sort of. Well, that's violence too, yeah.

[14:41] Violence comes from Latin "violentia violent something violent Yeah. Aristotle and Thomas talk about violence, right? It's something that's opposed to the natural, right? Yeah. Because I know I've seen that violence is opposed to a natural inclination and coercion or coaction against a voluntary. Yeah, it's not according to the natural inclination of the thing, right? It's just this is violently pushing the rock Yeah. yeah. So the Supreme Court decision, as you recall.

[15:21] Institutionalized violence. Yeah, violence. And nevertheless, in so far, huh, in that what iniquitous law, in so far as it observes something of the likeness of law, right? An account of the order of the power of the one who makes the law, right? According to this, also is derived from the eternal law, for all power is from what the Lord. Christ says this to what. Pontius Pilate. Yeah.

[16:01] yeah. You have no authority over me except... Yeah, he said. He claims to have the power over him, right? And Christ, in a sense, admits that he does, in some way, have it, but from God, right? To use it, not to abuse it. Yeah, yeah, but he does say it's from God. and he kind of sobers up him a little bit, right? But

[16:28] again, that's a diminished sense of law, right? No, I always take the famous example, you know, of the word "perfect" or "complete," right? Huh? And house caught in fire and it's completely burned. Completely destroyed. Yeah, but yeah, you say completely, right? My house is as far as it can be from being complete once it's completely burned down, right? Total your car. Yeah.

[17:03] My car is a complete total wreck. Total wreck. A total wreck. Yeah, all in pieces there on the highway. You know. I always got to remember to call, and say a prayer to my guardian angel before I drive because I'm getting old now, and I got to start making mistakes or something, not being alert enough, you know. but maybe my guardian angel can save me from a few collisions or something.

[17:31] Or something You need another driver, you know. Chauffeur Yeah. You see, those little cars have been been driven around a little bit now. they drive themselves, you know.

[17:50] Yeah. I'm kind of. I'm nervous about that. The worst, the first computer glitch to have the huge lawsuit that the computer malfunctioned and I crashed. Yeah, it's it looks bad. No, you can see. No, so in both the first and the second objections, he's saying that their law only in a kind of diminished sense, huh? Yeah. I mean, Aristotle, when he talks about being, right,

[18:23] ends up by saying kind of the last sense of it. You can be blind, right, or something like that, right? You can be ignorant, right? That to be, or that's a very, very loose sense of to be, right? Now it's a being of what reason, right? Now, see, but still, you know, it's true to say that so and so is blind, right? huh? The gospel today, he was blind, right?

[18:49] Christ, Son of David, Miss pity on me, right? And. But if it's true, you know, there's this very diminished sense of being there, right? To be ignorant, to be blind, to be dead. Is that to be? Or not to be

[19:20] Yeah Yeah, yeah. Because reason takes as if it were something, right? It's something in reason only. In reality, outside the reason, it's nothing. Is it something to be dead?

[19:47] Now, the lady who died this morning. you gotta rest her soul. In Spanish, there are two different verbs to be. One is sort of a maybe goes to. The essence of something, and another is sort of a temporary state, if I remember correctly. And Troy and Bridgette said that too, like you said, you would say the more permanent sense would be, "I am an American, I am a man, or, something."

[20:17] But if you answer the phone, the way they answer the phone, they use the other verb which means I'm I'm here, like right now I'm here. So that's they answer the phone literally. They say I am, but they use the temporary sense of that's how they answer the phone. We say hello, they say I am, show, but use the sense of the temporary, transitory. sense. See, Thomas, you know when he talks about Aristotle there in the fourth book, Aristotle saying being is in many ways.

[20:46] But Thomas, you know this plethora that Aristotle has there, basically four ones, right? You have substance first, and then you have accidents, and then you have coming to be, right? See, so is there coming to be in this world?

[21:04] Is there coming to be, right? Because coming to be in a way is is not yet being, right? And yet coming to be, you know, the grandchild. So this grandchild is coming to be, right? And and then finally you get negations, right? That's at least sense of the four, right? Be all that you're going to be. Yeah. Join the army. Yeah. See. It's one of the advertisements.

[21:28] that they had recently Yeah. Yeah. Some years ago, anyway. See, we can be said to be in this room right now, which is when the accidents, right, one of the categories, accident. But when you're walking, you said to be somewhere. Mm-hmm. And then it's no more. Yeah. You might be coming to be somewhere, but. Like the bread is rising. Yeah. Because the bread is coming to be bread.

[22:00] Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So it's not strange that you know that the law can be used in these what very diminished senses if even being can right, huh?

[22:16] I was reading reading the one in the sentences there where he's talking about this name is most proper to God who is right, I am who am right. And Thomas goes on about four reasons. I won't go into all of them, but the first one, which I think was from Jerome, he's saying, well, most of your life is in your past or in your future, but you don't really have that life anymore, do you?

[22:43] See, but God has all His life at once, right? And most of our life is, we don't have it. It's gone, or it's you know somewhere to come, you know, but it's that that isn't here either, you know. So I don't have much of my life, right?

[23:05] Being is very, very. I hardly? am you know I hardly am don't think of it. You know, I don't even have today. I don't even have my life today. You know, part of my life today is gone. Part of my life to come. I found that Owen Bennett, Thomas' philosopher, used to say. He said, "How much does that exist? " His example of the chain. How much of that exists?

[23:32] By the time you just think about it, it's gone. Okay, you've got the third objection now, right? Okay. To the third, it should be said that human law is said to permit some things, right? Not, as it were, approving of them, right? Huh? But as not being able to what? Direct them, right? Huh? For many things are directed by divine law, which cannot be directed by what?

[24:22] Human law, huh? Whence this that human law does not what? Enter into these things, right? About which is not able to what? Direct. Comes from the order of what? Divine law, right?

[24:43] It would be different, however, to prove those things which the eternal law. Yeah. Whence from this it should not be had that human law is not derived from eternal law, but that is not able to what follow it perfectly, right? That should be a big scandal, didn't it? Didn't both Augustine and Thomas say that they should allow houses of prostitution? You know, because if they don't allow houses of prostitution, then innocent people will be attacked and.

[25:15] Right. Wasn't there the famous incident too in the Old Testament there, right? When the people there who wanted. Yeah, they wanted the men, you know, instead of the woman. Instead, you know, less perverse.

[25:34] Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, there's some things that that the human law cannot really what control, right? Huh? So permits them, but does not what approve of them, right? Huh?

[26:02] I don't know what these these bishops and people want to you know approve of these things. They want to permit them, you know, you know, it's it's uh it's going to be yeah it's it's it's one thing somebody commends a sin anybody can commit a sin any sin but another thing to say it's okay yeah yeah they're trying to say it's okay yeah that's justifying sin and that's cooperation equal and that's that's that was what Augustine said one thing you're missing you defend the sin with your reason you're committing two sins yeah yeah problem is you can do that directly or indirectly because by carefully parsing your words some bishops from what I've heard I've heard some bishops actually talking about having some sort of

[26:48] mechanism to allow for same sex marriages you know because they're just decent people most of them and you know they can't help it or whatever but just even any sort of approach that you're taking to try to approve of that to say that it's okay to keep keep away from it and to just to let it happen all of these things are condoning it essentially approve of it because you can't otherwise you're cooperating it's not like it's not like the weather happening as people cooperate yeah well people raise the question about you know in Paul's letters he's talking about slavery you know and talking about how the slaves should behave to their masters and so on and say Paul you know say well he should

[27:34] be attacking slavery as being you know unjust or something you know and maybe in society in that time right you couldn't really abolish slavery right and and so the question is how a master should treat his slave and you know and how the slave should you know respond to his master and so on right but is that you know that to be understood as as permitting something you know what's fascinating too is that just the natural trajectory of Christianity is not compatible with slavery sure there were attempts in you know in the Hispanic world with slavery colonial times in the American South it was Christianity that rooted it out one way or another through feudalism in Europe and through Christian intervention in the 19th and

[28:22] 20th centuries and only in Islam is there really slavery anymore of the old type anyway so you wonder about just the natural trajectory of Christianity that slavery stays wherever Christianity was born it's a it's a cycle of the 13th right you know the little volume that they have of the some more famous cycles one where he's dealing with with slavery there you know I don't know whether they're abolishing it in Brazil or someplace but you know occasionally even to say something about this you know I read it years ago by look at it I think some earlier popes had spoken about it when earlier on when they first were discovering the Americans and so forth yeah.

[29:05] I've read about some of them Well who's it to ask Christ there about about about the Moses gave them permit to to send away their wife, and the reason apparently was that that they couldn't divorce them; they'd have to kill them. They killed the wife, right? And therefore, to avoid the killing the wife, that they permitted the the book of repudiation was that that the way they explain it.

[29:33] I mean, that he was permitting something that was it's not the way from the beginning the Lord says, right? And that he, you know, who who you know marries someone, I mean, who had been married to someone else, is committing adultery, right? Huh? I mean, he seems to defend Moses, right, as he's permitting the lesser evil to avoid the yeah, it's better to allow them to have a book, or whatever it was, of repudiating of The marriage, than to have them killing their wives, isn't that the?

[30:06] That I don't know, I'm not familiar with that, uh, Hmm? part of the law, yeah. It's in the Gospel of Matthew, In, Matthew, but he doesn't mention about the reason why. He just said he permitted it because of your hardness of heart. But I don't know the passage in the Old Testament about the killing the wives. Yeah, yeah. I think that was the reason for it. You know.

[30:39] You know this crazy music we have around. It isn't really music, you know. Should we permit that? You know, that some people need it. You know. Aristotle talks there. You know, as if when he talks about music at the end of the eighth book of the Politics, right? Huh. You know, and talks about kind of music people should be brought up on and so on, but he seems to speak as if he could allow for the the hoi polloi, right, the crowd, some of this, you know, trash.

[31:04] trashy music. You know, I don't know. Yeah. It's like somebody said to me once about listening to rock and roll stuff, one of my nephews or something. and I said, well, I said, no, it's not the worst thing you can do, but it's kind of like smoking cigarettes or getting tattoos. It's just really stupid. It's just really dumb. Yeah. Wasn't John XXIII, wasn't he famous for saying, "You know, you correct some things, and some things you

[31:33] you can correct. You know, other things you permit. You might say. Not saying, not saying you're approving of it, you know. I think they say one eye open and one eye closed. I see a problem where people focus on the perfect thing, they make the perfect the enemy of the good, or the good the enemy of the perfect, however it goes. For example, with the abortion issue, if there's a candidate who is for limiting abortion, Mhm.

[32:09] but there are no candidates who are completely against abortion, then morally, I gather, it would be acceptable to vote for the candidate who would limit it, as opposed to just saying no, I'm not going to vote at all, and so an even worse, state of abortion will be established or maintained.

[32:34] If you say you can't prevent all of it, yeah, I mean, prevent some of it, right? Yeah, you're. Then you're permitting you're permitting the other to exist because you can't control it, right? Right. If you try to abolish abolish it all, you get none, nothing happens, right? But if you can limit it in some way, yeah, yeah. Yeah, that's one. That's that's that's where that's the difference, I think, when.

[32:57] Cardinal Burke, when he was bishop of St. Louis, put a letter out. He made the point: it's never. a question People often, in a kind of sloppy way, sloppy manner of speaking about it, they'll say, "Well, you just vote for the lesser of two evils." And he said, "We never vote for evil. We never approve of evil. We vote for the restriction of the evil as much as is in our power."

[33:19] So it's like the gay marriage thing. I can't stop you from doing that. I can't control the legislation, but I don't. mean I'm never going to approve of it. I'm never going to wink and nod and say, "Well, you you go ahead. We'll we'll approve of this for you. No way. no way. There's no cooperation. on it. That's the difference. We're never approving evil. We want to restrict as much as possible.

[33:38] Right. Exactly. We don't want to approve. It'll break your number. Okay. Okay. The fourth one goes forward. Does it seems as necessary, necessary, and eternal things are subject to the what, law?

[34:14] For everything reasonable is subject to what, reason. That sounds good. But the divine will is reasonable, since it is just. Therefore, it's subject to reason. But the eternal law is the divine what, reason or thought. Therefore, the will of God is subject to the eternal law. But the will of God is something eternal. Therefore, also, eternal necessary things are subject to the eternal law.

[34:56] This guy can really tie you up, can he? Huh. Moreover, whatever is subject to the law is subject to the law of the king. But the son, as he says, and as is said in the first epistle to the Corinthians, was subject to God and the Father when he treats hands over to them their kingdom. Therefore, the son, who is eternal, is subject to the eternal law.

[35:23] Well, that maybe could be get two natures there, huh? Maybe you can find a way out of that. Not quite, quite so. Taken in by that argument. Moreover, the eternal law is the what reason behind the divine providence, right? But many things that are necessary are subject to the divine providence, as the permanence of bodiless substances, right, and of the celestial bodies which they thought were eternal, right.

[35:59] Therefore, even necessary things are subject to the divine law. But against all this, those things which are necessary are impossible to be otherwise, to have themselves otherwise. That's the way the Latin goes,

[36:21] That starts influencing your English then all your reading. Whence it does, they do not need what to be controlled, right, or to be restrained. Yeah, yeah, held in check. Yeah, held together, contained, hold back, restrained.

[36:51] But there is law imposed upon man that he might be what restricted from bad things. Therefore, those things which are necessary are not subject to the law.

[37:08] I answer: It should be said, as has been said above, that the eternal law is the reason behind the divine governing. But whatever things are subject to the divine government are sub. Therefore, whatever things are subject to the divine government are subject to the what eternal law. Those things which are what not subject to the eternal law are neither what subject to the divine law, right?

[37:45] Now the distinction of these can be noted from those things which happen about us, around us. For those things are subject to human governing that are able to what come to be by man.

[38:05] But those things which pertain to the nature of man are not subject to the what government. To wit, that man has a soul, or a hand, or hands, or feet. huh Or that it's male or female Yeah,

[38:24] Thus, therefore, to the eternal law, are subject all things which are in the things created by what God. Whether they are what. Yeah. But those things which pertain to the nature or the essence, the divine nature or essence, are not subject to the what eternal law, but are really what. eternal law Yeah. Yeah. Okay, makes sense. You know, take a similar problem here. Does God have any?

[39:03] Is any purpose for God? Or is any purpose for the Trinity? You know, I was seeing in the sentences one objection against the Trinity was one God is enough, right? And you don't need more, right? This is something you say with regard to an end, right?

[39:28] So I mean, the objection is saying you know, is if you if you need a second or third, it's because the purpose requires that, right?

[39:40] But that's not why there's three persons in God for some what purpose or need, right? Because something is what per se necessary, huh? So does God have a purpose?

[40:01] We can say He acts for purpose when He creates, right? But that purpose is Himself, right? Is He Himself ordered to some purpose? It's kind of hard to understand.

[40:20] So, he's, saying the divine nature, which is what necessary to be as it is, right? Is in what subject to the divine law, right? But it is the law, right? In that way, you could say the divine nature is the end of the whole what universe, right?

[40:42] God is not for the sake of some end, but He is the end for which everything else is. It's a strange, strange one, that God. It's a little strange. You got to think about him, you know. God's angry with us.

[41:22] Now, to the first objection, it should be said that we can speak of the will of God in two ways. In one way, as regards the will itself, and thus, since the divine will, or the will of God, rather, is His very what essence is not an accident of it, right? It is not subject to the divine what governing, nor to the eternal law, but it is the same thing as the eternal law, right?

[41:59] Another way we can speak of the divine will as regards those things which God wills about creatures, which are subject to the what divine law, in so far as the reason for these things is found in divine wisdom.

[42:20] And by reason of these things, the will of God is said to be what reasonable. Otherwise, by reason of Him, He Himself, it more should be said to be reason itself.

[42:39] See, someone asked you, "Does God act wisely? " Well, with respect to us, He does, right? He pours His wisdom out upon things, right?

[42:51] But as regards himself, does he act wisely, or should you say that no, he is wisdom itself? Better said. We we try to live wisely, right? Because we're not wisdom itself, right? But we try to live wisely, not live too foolishly. You know, we do a few foolish things, I guess, in our life here and there. But we try to be act wisely, right? See, does God try to do that in His own life?

[43:25] You know, does He try to act wisely too, or does He? Sounds funny. Or is He wisdom itself? That's better said, right? And God, God also tries to. li to live wisely It just sounds so funny Yeah He's trying Yeah

[44:02] To live wisely. Yeah. Who's trying? Yeah. I wonder if, if Christ in His human nature could be said to be trying to live wisely.

[44:10] I can't do otherwise, right? It's impeccable. But even someone who who can't fail, right, is still could still be trying to. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[44:32] Was he obeying God in His human nature? Yeah. Was he as man obeying God? Seems to me, yeah. Not my will, but thine be done. Not my will, there means what it's human will, I guess so.

[45:12] So God acts wisely, if regard to the creatures, right, more so than to Himself. Rather, there He is wisdom itself. To a second should be said that the Son of God is not what made by God, but He's naturally generated from Him.

[45:39] And therefore, He is not subject to what divine providence or to the eternal law, but rather He Himself is the eternal law. Right to a certain appropriation, right. This is clear through Augustine in the book on religion. He is said, however, to be subject to the Father by reason of His human nature, according to which also the Father is said to be greater than Him. Yes sir He said that Yeah.

[46:12] So the Arians said, "No." Yeah. Now the third objection, huh? We concede, huh? What is the third objection? Well, saying that some necessary things are subject to divine providence, like the permanence of the bodyless substances, right,

[46:40] and the heavenly bodies. Maybe shouldn't have conceded that, but. Aristotle had a mystery there, right? But he helped him to see that there is no last instance of things.

[46:59] To the fourth, it should be said, right? That's he what said contra, right? So he's answering both objections, both sides. To the fourth, it should be said that, as the philosopher says in the fifth book of metaphysics, that some necessary things have a cause of their necessity, like the conclusion of a demonstration. And thus, this that is impossible, and that therefore this that is impossible to be otherwise, they have what from another, right?

[47:35] And this itself is a what restraint that is most efficacious. For whatever things are what contained, are to that extent said to contain, in so far as they are not able to what do otherwise than is disposed about them. Because the Democritus said, you know, about necessary things you should look for a reason? Aristotle said, well, there are some things that are necessary, what, through another, right?

[48:18] And therefore, for those things you can look for reason. And the example was a demonstration, right, where the conclusion is necessary, but the theorems in Euclid are necessary, but they're known through other statements, right?

[48:38] Good time for another article. Okay, number five here. To the fifth, one goes forward. Thus, it seems that the natural things that are contingent are not subject to the eternal law.

[48:58] For the promulgation is of the notion of law, or the definition of law, right? But promulgation is not able to come about except what? To rational creatures Yeah, it can only be made to rational creatures, to whom something is able to be announced, denounced.

[49:33] Therefore, only rational creatures are subject to the eternal law, and therefore not natural contingent things. Moreover, those things which obey reason partake in some way of what reason, as is said in the first book of the Ethics. But the eternal law is the highest ratio, as has been said above. Since therefore natural contingent things do not partake in some way of reason, but they are wholly without reason, it seems that they are not subject to the what?

[50:09] To the eternal law. So the insects, so on. It doesn't seem reasonable to me. Moreover, the eternal law is most efficacious. But in natural contingent things, there happens defects.

[50:32] They are not therefore subject to the eternal law, right? It's a big window that my daughter has in the, you know, where they, eat you know, their meals, their breakfast and lunch and dinner, even. You know, it's a big window like that that the birds, you know, wham, you know, I, yeah, I hope they're not going to break the window someday, but you know, there's usually at least one bird that does that when I'm there, you know.

[50:57] I heard one swaying, and then bang, they hit the biggest round window of the church. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, it's a big window, you know, and they tend to, you know, I mean, if it's clear, do you know? These are stained, you mean, or or just? No, they're just clear. Yeah, if it's clear, then they think they can fly in there. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. They must be the barn swallows because I'm down in the workshop down there, and I got a big garage door open, and they're always flying in and fly around and come back out.

[51:27] So they want to go in and fly around and fly out. Okay. But now again, this is what is said in Proverbs eight, verse twenty-nine. When what he made it around the what sea, it's what limit, huh? And placed a law, right, to the waters that they do not go beyond their what limits, huh? Okay.

[52:05] Answer should be said that one speaks otherwise about the law of man and otherwise about the eternal law, which is the law of God. For the law of man does not extend itself to rational creatures, except to rational creatures which are subject to what man, right? So, when the king there tried to to plan their ways, right? That didn't work. When the English king there was, and the yeah, I don't know what what the history really is, but it's a story told, right?

[52:44] King Canute was it? The reason for which is because the law is directive of acts which belong to those subject to the governance of someone. Whence no one properly speaking imposes law upon his what his own acts, right?

[53:11] Whence whatever things are done about the use of what irrational things subject to man are done by the act of the man himself moving these things.

[53:26] So I know about those cows and chickens, you know, over there. For irrational creatures of this sort do not what act by themselves, but are led by what others, as has been said above.

[53:47] And therefore, a man is not able to impose a law upon irrational creatures. huh However much they are subject to him, what about the dog, though? You say or the.

[54:09] But to rational what things subject to themselves, they can what impose a law in so far as to his what precept or command, right? There is impressed upon the mind of them a rule which is a source of what acting, right?

[54:33] But just then, as a man impresses by what Declaring declaring that some interior beginning of acts be subject to man, so also God impresses upon the whole of nature beginnings of their what own action. And therefore, in this way, God is said to command the whole of nature, according to that of Psalm one forty-eight. He laid down a precept and will not be what? Yeah, God not be kind of out of front.

[55:12] And in this way, all motions and actions of the whole nature are subject to the eternal law. Hence, another way, irrational creatures are subject to the eternal law, in so far as they are moved by what? Divine providence, not by understanding the divine precept as the what? Rational creatures.

[55:38] But when we train a dog, aren't we posing something like God in a sense, right? Because habit is like a second nature, right? A little like God.

[55:58] To the first therefore, it should be said: in this way, the impressing of an inward, huh, active beginning, as regards what natural things, has itself what? Has the promulgation of law as regards men, right? Because through the promulgation of the law, there is impressed upon man a certain principle that's directive of human action, as has been said. So this is similar to the given nature whereby certain form of action is

[56:35] given. To second, should be said that irrational creatures do not partake of human reason, nor do they obey it. They partake partake nevertheless by way of obedience of divine what? Reason. For to more extends the power of the divine reason than the power of human reason. And just as the members or parts of the body of man are moved to the command of reason, but nevertheless do not partake reason, because they do not have some what grasping or to reason, so also irrational creatures are moved by God, but nevertheless not on account of their being what?

[57:26] Rationals. Don't we move the animals a little bit? You know, something he speaks this way, kind of pointing it out a little bit. They're doing that doesn't make them rational. No, no.

[57:42] To the third, it should be said that the defects which happen in natural things, although they are outside the order of particular causes. They are nevertheless not outside the order of what, yeah, especially the first cause, which is God, whose providence nothing is able to escape, right? Subterfugere, to flee out from under, huh? Subterfugere as is said in the first. And because the eternal law is the reason the divine providence has been said, therefore the defects, even of natural things, are subject to the eternal law, huh?

[58:25] Stop there.