Prima Secundae
227. The Footprint of the Trinity, Christ as the Road, and Whether All Are Subject to Human Law (Opening reflections; ST I-II q.96 a.5)
Class of 2015-06-25
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/227-the-footprint-of-the-trinity-christ-as-the-road-and-whether/

[0:00] Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Amen. Thank you, God. Thank you, Guardian Angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas. God, our enlightenment. Guardian Angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, order the luminary images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor, help us to understand what you are written. Father, Son, Holy Spirit, Amen. Let's see if you guys can syllogize, huh? Okay. Now syllogism is a question of finding middle term, right, huh?

[0:37] Okay. So, what's middle term? Why do you have to use your reason, as Shakespeare teaches us, to look before and after, in order to see the footprint, huh, of the Trinity, huh?

[0:59] Why do you have to use your reason? In the way Shakespeare teaches us, which means to look before and after, right? Why must you use your reason in order to know the what footprint or the vestigium, as they say in Latin, of the Trinity, huh? What's the middle term? Oh, the

[1:23] vestigium. I think of it in terms of something that has God as a beginning. That's what I think of. So, in order to understand what beginning is, you have to know it. Yeah. Before and after, something. Yeah, yeah. Well, Chris, when Thomas is explaining the difference between vestigium and the image, right? The? Vestigium is a you know a confusa, he says, huh? Likeness of the Trinity, and the image is a distinct, you know.

[2:04] Okay. And in the articles of reading the sentences recently, right, he's talking about the vestigium. There's more than one way you can see a vestigium, huh? Footprint in what creatures, right? But Thomas says there's something common to every one of these, huh? And that is that there's a beginning, a middle, and an end, huh? So you find in the creature a beginning, middle, and end, and this is a what footprint of the Trinity, where the Son is, whereas in the middle and the Holy Spirit at the end, right, huh?

[2:38] Father in the beginning, right? Thomas always said the Father is a principium, right? Um, so, um, in order to find a beginning, middle, and end, must you look before and after? Yeah. And when you look before and after in the creature, and you find a beginning, middle, and end, then you're finding a footprint, right? So beginning, middle, and end is the middle term, right? Connecting the definition of reason as Shakespeare teaches us, right?

[3:11] What it is to use reason, right? Ultimately, to look before and after, and what discovering, right? A footprint. I was looking another beautiful article there in the sentences which I read before, but reading it again, you know. Sollicite frequenter et reverenter Yeah. Solicite is carefully Read carefully frequently and reverently, right? Well, the article was whether the father is before the son, or at least prior to the son, right?

[3:50] Of course, do you have to look before and after to find out about this, huh? I think so. Yeah, but it's not in terms of beginning, middle, and end, right? It's another looking before and after, right? Huh? So it's the middle term here to show that the father is not before the what? Son.

[4:20] Which middle term requires you to look before and after? I'm inclined to say it's order. Maybe it's. What kind of word? Well, it's interesting, huh? Because what Thomas does in the article, right, is to say that the father is not before the son in time, right? Or by nature, right? Or in knowledge, right? Or in dignity, right? And then he goes on to show that he's not before in each of those four ways, right?

[5:09] Well, what are those four ways? That's exact order which he gives them, right? Those exactly are what. Time senses of before. Yeah, that we have in the categories, right? Was it chapter 15, I remember, I think, but you know the chapter on before there in the categories, which comes after the chapters on opposites, right? And first, I would give those are the four chief meanings of what?

[5:37] Yeah. Well, this is a word that is equivocal by what reason, and therefore there's a before and after in the what meanings. And the first meaning, of course, is time, right? This time is tied up with what the before and after of motion, right? Time is the number of the before and after in motion. And so Shakespeare says, right, things in motion sooner catch the eye than what not stirs.

[6:05] So the first meaning of before for us is what, in time, right? And this falls under this general truth that Thomas gives us in the disputed questions on power, right, where he says that he's talking about the word proceeding there used in the scriptures, you know, talking about God and how proceeding comes from the continuous, right? He says that all of our words begin in the what, continuous, right?

[6:32] And of course Aristotle shows in the eight books of natural hearing that the road is continuous, and the motion over the road is continuous, and the time it takes to go down the road is continuous, right? So you have to look before and after to understand the word what, before. Just like you'd have to do so to understand the word in, right? When Thomas is trying to understand the word in there, Aristotle doesn't order them there in the text he gives us, right?

[7:05] But Thomas gets a little hint that Aristotle is there, and then he orders all eight of them from one to eight, right? And so unless you can look before and after in a word that's equivocal by reason, right, a word that's equivocal by chance, there's no order, right? I have this student comes to the to the to my class. His name is Richard, and I said, my brother Richard, you know, you know, but there's no connection.

[7:32] They just by chance, he and my brother Richard. And I speak of Richard the Lionhearted, you know, and so on. But this is the common example, you know, that names, you know, are not

[7:44] that way. So you have to look before and after to understand a word that's equivocal by reason. And it's not until you understand the senses of before that you can see eventually, right? It's another argument, perhaps, that the Father is not before the Son in any of these ways, right? He can't be before him in time because the Son is eternal too, right? And he can't be before him in what knowledge because because relatives are known together, right?

[8:16] And they're together by nature, right? And the dignity of us doesn't attach to what's relational, but to but absolute in eternity. So he goes, eliminates all those, right? So I've got I'm impressed with Shakespeare and and just how even through those two articles, right? I tried to to them occasionally, you know, reading them these things in God there first book of the sentences.

[8:52] By the way, do you guys read the Bible over every year? You mean liturgically or personally, or both? Well, either you know between the two. Pretty pretty much we cover well we don't cover the whole Bible and the literature but we cover a good part we cover I'm pretty sure all the New Testament yeah a lot of the Old Testament not everything but a lot of it yeah and then individually we read I've been rereading my biography of John Quincy Adams right you know and it's amazing how many things but he made a resolution you know early in life to read through the whole Bible every year so every year he'd go through and read the Bible it's a shorter Bible too what it's a

[9:33] shorter Bible how come so yeah yeah a little bit shorter so again these questions are coming out about John Quincy Adams they said said to him always this morning he said who wrote the Monroe Doctrine you know about the you know of course it was John Quincy Adams and of course Monroe announced it in his inaugural address you know in the beginning of his second term I think it was but the actual words were copied For him by John, Quincy yeah.

[10:02] One thing after another, he's responsible for, right? He's kind of interesting. It was considered the greatest Secretary of State ever. Oh yeah, he's very, very, very good Secretary of State. No, it's

[10:22] three there in that passage I was giving there from Thomas, right? Carefully, frequently, and fervently Yeah, you get have all three, right? Anyway, I was reading the twenty-second chapter, I think it was Matthew, right? And towards the end of that chapter,

[10:44] one of the Pharisees asked him, "What is the great commandment?" Right? And Christ says, "Well, the first and the greatest commandment is, yeah, but what does he say in the text? You know, there are three things he says, right? What? Love the Lord your God with all your heart, With your all your heart,

[11:06] yeah, yeah, yeah, and the word mind there is dianoia right? Which Aristotle uses sometimes right? In talking about reason. Well, what do those three mean? You know, well, Thomas in the golden chain, right? Catena Aurea, he gives a number of explanations, but the first one he gives is the one that kind of struck me up very much, and it's by Chrysostom, right? Okay, I don't know if you've seen that explanation Chrysostom gives, but it's kind of interesting, right?

[11:44] He says that the first thing to love God with your whole heart, right? Is a love that you can sense because it's partly what sensible, yeah, yeah, sensible, sensible, able to be sensed, right? And it's kind of interesting, said you know. Okay, he says the second thing that Christ says there, with your whole soul, right? Well, this is a love now that is much more just spiritual, right?

[12:16] It's a love you can't sense, he says, but it's a love that you know when you understand that God is good, you know. Because I was thinking those five chapters of Thomas there in the Summa Contra Gentiles, where the first chapter says that God is good, the second brings out that He's goodness itself, and the third chapter therefore there can't be anything bad in Him, and then fourth,

[12:45] He's the good of every good, and then fifth, He's summum bonum, right? This is, you know, that's what he understands the second thing there. That's very interesting, and then the third part is where I suppose out of the love of God, right? Use your reason to always think about God, right, and to remember God, et cetera, et cetera, right. So this is a beautiful explanation, I thought.

[13:10] You know, the other explanations of the words, you know, they probably have some truth in them too, you know. But this one was most interesting, right? And I was thinking, you know, about about the first one there being a love that is somewhat what sensible, right? And I'm influenced a lot by Saint Alphonsus Liguori, right? It's interesting in terms of three. Yeah, we're talking about three. Three times in his life, he did his meditations on the what Passion of Christ, right?

[13:42] Huh. But at the beginning, I think it was the first the first one where he has kind of a little golden chain of quotes from the Church Fathers, right? And they're all insisting upon the fact that this is the way to come to love God, huh? By meditating on the Passion of our Lord, right? It's very appropriate to us, right? Okay. And Augustine says, you know, a tear shed, you know, in meditating the Passion of Christ is worth, you know, all this, you know.

[14:12] But it's really a beautiful collection he has from the, you know, he realized the importance of this. But isn't that a love that is to some extent what sensible, right? Able to be sensed, right? Huh? Because you're dealing with something that is what close to your senses, of the man dying on the cross and so on, right? Huh? And greater love than this hath no man than to lay down his life for his friends, right?

[14:35] So you're you're struck by what the excellence of what Alphonsus is bringing out in these things, right? This is kind of the key thing, right? And you think of Mary Magdalene, right? huh? Or these female saints, right? Who maybe on Friday, you know, Christ would appear to them in his suffering, right? Huh? So that there would be what a love that touched upon the what the sensible, right?

[15:01] You know. It strikes me something you know like that when you talk about faith too, right? Because the profession of faith of Peter is what complete, right? And the Church is built on the profession of faith of Peter, right? Well, what is the profession of faith by Peter? It was in 16th chapter, I guess, of Matthew. He says, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God," right?

[15:32] So he starts with the what human nature of Christ, which is sensible, right? Huh? Especially to those guys, right? Who saw what others had wished to see and never saw, right? Huh? And then you ascend to the what the divinity, right, of Christ, right? Okay. Which is not what sensible, right? Huh? Okay. Same order, right? That that the great Chrysostom is seeing there in the commandment of what of love, right?

[16:02] Huh? Now I was thinking, you know, the you know I had this concern with with road, right? Huh? You know, we told you about my doctoral thesis, right? My doctoral thesis was a comparison of Aristotle and Descartes on the roads and looking knowledge, right? Huh? And basically, there are three roads to be considered, right? In looking knowledge, and one is the natural road in our knowledge, which is the road from the senses into reason.

[16:41] And then there's the common road of reasoned out knowledge, which is studied in logic, the road of reason as reason, right? And then there is the what private road of each reasoned out knowledge, right? Aristotle's very good on private piece of knowledge right Aristotle is very good on all three of them, and Descartes, you know, problems with with all of them, right? Huh? So I was thinking about when I first you know got thinking about these, it was because Monsignor was talking about the way of proceeding, right?

[17:16] And he'd start off with this famous text in the Metaphysics there, where Aristotle is talking about the way of going forward in mathematics is not the way of going forward in natural science, and sorry, not the way of going forward in wisdom, right? And so you have to be educated as to the way of going forward in each of these sciences. Well, then Thomas has a famous commentary on there, and he says,

[17:44] Aristotle says, you know, before you can really learn geometry or really learn natural philosophy, you have to know the way of proceeding in that science, right? Then Thomas said, and for this reason also, logic must be learned before the other sciences, right? Because it teaches the common way of going forward in reasoned-out knowledge, right? So you learn about syllogism and definition and things you use and all of these things.

[18:10] And so the logic professor at Laval there was quoting that text, right? Just kind of preparation, you know, for what I'm going to do is something from logic, right? And then and then those of us who were going to Monsignor's class, he said, "you have two modes to proceed, huh? " Because we just heard the you know, from the text of Thomas, right? "You have two modes to proceed, right?

[18:36] And so and he's talking about the the way of proceeding that is in conformity with the nature of our soul, right? Huh? But then when Aristotle talks about that in the first chapter of the Physics, right? I noticed that he not only uses that way of speaking that Monsignor had and Thomas has, but he also calls it the road, right? Huh? And so I I was pointing this out to Monsignor, right?

[19:04] And he says, "Yes, that's much more concrete." When he says "road," right? Okay. I said, "Well," and then I mentioned how I ran across this text of Thomas later on, where Thomas says that virtue is the road to happiness, and vice is the road to misery. How concrete that is, and how true it is, right? You know, and how it's confirmed every day in the daily paper.

[19:32] You know, where somebody is in misery now, right? Because he's following the road of vice, right? And so then I got thinking, you know, about how Christ is what the road, right? How concrete that is, huh? It's the word "hodos" there, right?

[19:59] But before I come back to that eh Just while I was on that thing of Thomas, I was looking at the the Gospel of Matthew there again, and where Christ speaks of two roads, right? The one is the road that leads to hell and to misery, right? And this is the broad road, and many there are who enter into the broad road, right? And then this other road, which is kind of narrow, right?

[20:21] But it leads to what life and happiness, right? And it's a little bit like Thomas saying, you know, it's very concrete, though, right? Thomas's way of speaking when he says that virtues are road to happiness and vices are road to misery, right? But Christ speaking these two roads, how very concrete Christ is in his way of speaking, right? And very similar to Thomas or Thomas, very similar, I should say, to our Lord, right?

[20:47] Okay. Now, of course, you had to stop and say, "What do you mean by road? " In some sense, right? Huh? And remember speaking to this the Paul here when he was a little boy, you know, I said to Paul one day just out of nonsense, I said, "Paul, what do you think of the basic road in human knowledge? " And he says, "There are cars and trucks on it.

[21:15] " So you know where you begin, right? With the sensible road, right? And so I said, "Now, when Christ says, 'I am the road, '

[21:26] what does he mean? We're not going to drive over him or something, you know? Ride up him or something, are we? What does it mean, huh? The road, right? " So I got thinking about that, and I said, "Well,

[21:42] I was thinking of this this famous book there, The Imitation of Christ, right? " Which I know Saint Theresa of Lisieux there. I think that is memorized yeah, yeah, yeah. And of course Aristotle said, you know, that man is the most imitative of the animals, and at first we learn by imitation, huh? And I say, now maybe this is what he means by saying he's the road, right?

[22:12] We don't drive up this road, we don't gallop off this road, or run up this road, or walk up this road, right? But it's Christ. What does it mean to? He's going to be the road for us, right? Does it mean maybe? Oh, yeah. Yeah, to imitate him, right? Huh? And then you know, learn of me for I'm, meek, and humble heart, right? Huh? And so we can, or Christ says, you know, take up your cross and follow me, right?

[22:41] Now that that means kind of imitating him, right? Huh? Following his footsteps, huh? So that's that's what it means, huh? Said that Saint Peter after the resurrection too, and he was about to say, "What about this man? That's not your business. You follow me. " Yeah, yeah. Don't mind anybody else. Yeah.

[23:02] So it's very concrete that that image of the road, huh? And the way that human beings are made in the East Buddhist traditions and the Taoist traditions, they talk about the way in a similar kind of way as well. The road. Yeah. Yeah. And it seems to me, perhaps, that may God made our lives to seek a road, His road, the road ultimately. But even the different traditions of philosophy.

[23:33] and faith I mean, word word way is what they translate a lot of times. Who does? But way is not as it is concrete, you know, as as road is right now. It's curious. I saw in a passage of Gerard Manley Hopkins, the Jesuit poet from a hundred and some odd years ago. He, I think, it was in there where I saw this, where he remarked that some of the people in the countryside—I don't know if it was in over in Wales or where it was—were in the countryside, and the people were still accustomed instead of we we use the expression always.

[24:06] It's always been that way. They use the expression all roads, all roads, instead of saying which sounds strange to us, but that was their that was what they what we mean by always. They say all roads. Yeah. That's kind of curious. Yeah. Very concrete, though. Yeah. Yeah, but but it's it's this connection with what's sensible and what they mean by it. Yeah. Could be from the Roman times where all roads used to lead to Rome.

[24:32] A vestige of the colonial past. I'm getting into the part of his sentences there. which is to. The Holy Spirit, he's even more difficult to understand than the Father and the Son, though.

[25:06] But Thomas Thomas says that the word love is used in three ways in talking about God. huh? Absolutely. Yeah. The words he uses is essentially notionally and personally, yeah. And you know, the articles where the Holy Spirit is love, right now, because their objections, because everybody that you know, God Himself is love, right? And everybody in the Trinity, they're loves, huh? And then there's the love of the Father and the Son that gets rise, and that's called the notional, right, sense of love, huh?

[25:52] And of course, there's the love which is something personal, and this is going to be the Holy Spirit. So I mean, really, really difficult things here, huh? Not, not something for a Sunday homily on Trinity Sunday. I know, I know. We come back from Mass sometimes with my mother, you know, and she'd say, "I wish the priest would explain that a little bit." You know, not about the Trinity.

[26:16] She'd talk about something, you know, something that something, something like that, you know. Because sometimes he's fond of the audience. He heard it maybe all her life, you know. In those days, you hear every year you hear the same Gospels again, and kind of puzzled over that thing. But they can kind of see where you're sitting, prudence tonight to explain the Trinity.

[26:39] In fact, lose your audience and more than one way. Well, you know, Thomas was saying, you know, over there, you know, talking about the whether the Father generated Son by will, right? You can't say that, but anyway, was it necessary for the Son for the Father generate the Son? What would you say?

[27:12] God is a necessary being, and he doesn't generate by will. Would there be a difference between saying he's begotten by nature or necessity? Well, that's another thing he brings out. That's another article, right? But one article is whether you know it's by nature that he's generated. But insofar as divine nature is the same as paternity, right? Otherwise, the Son could generate too. But I mean, then he gets into another article, which is whether it's necessary that.

[27:51] And of course, it goes back to the fact that God is, per se, what necessary, necessary to himself, so that everything that's in God is necessary, right? So therefore, it is necessary that the Father generate the Son. It's necessary that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, right? So, if you say it's necessary that God be three persons, the answer is is yes, right?

[28:21] But the reason why you say that is because you know God is what altogether necessary, right? And because you believe that there are three persons in God, therefore you can syllogize that it's necessary, right? Huh? But the thing is that we don't see the reason why it is necessary. It came very clear to me now that we're reading this, right? See, how is he going to show that, right?

[28:44] See, and you know, I can give you a reason why the triangle has its interior angles equal to to right angles, right? Huh? Why it must be so, right? But in the case of God, I don't see the reason why there must be three persons in God. So that I believe that there are three persons in God, and because I know that God is altogether necessary, then I can conclude that it's that God is necessarily three persons.

[29:13] But why he's necessarily three persons, I don't know. You see, you know, you realize how how exactly where we are, right? You know, but when you see God face to face, if you get that far, right, then you'll see why he must be three persons.

[29:38] And but anyway, when Thomas is talking about that, he distinguishes the various senses of the word necessary. Right, that's a beautiful text. You know, he does this right. I said to myself, I should really copy that text and put it in the fifth book of metaphysics where Aristotle. picks up the word necessary, right? And he distinguishes the different senses of it. It's a beautiful text, you know. So I copied over and I put it in a thing here, and then I opened up my thing where I had the fifth book of the metaphysics and opened up to necessary and said, looked in there, it's already in there, the text.

[30:20] I'd already first the other time, the earlier time when I'd read the the thing, you know. But it's just a beautiful text, right? Huh? And then I came back to my my favorite imitation of Aristotle, you know. Aristotle wrote Introduction to Philosophy, dialogue, right? And it's been lost, right? But there are little fragments of it, you know, that they have. And the main fragment that you have is where Aristotle in the dialogue says, "Should you philosophize or not, right?

[30:54] " And if you think you should philosophize, then do so, right? If you think you should not philosophize, you are going to have to philosophize to show why not, right? Well, in my little way, I was imitating him and saying, you know, is it necessary to understand the word necessary?

[31:15] If you say yes, then you better understand the word, huh? You know, that's why they have that in the fifth book of wisdom, right, where he distinguishes the senses of the words, right, in this beautiful text when he's going to talk about this necessary for God to, I mean, for the Father to generate the Son, right? And you better understand these senses, right? But if you say no, you kind of have to what?

[31:40] Yeah, yeah. Not whether necessary means saying why And and there are many senses necessary, right? And is it necessary, for example, to know logic to philosophize?

[32:01] Well, and I got to be careful now. Is it necessary that the man who philosophizes knows logic? Do men philosophize sometimes without knowing logic?

[32:23] And and my teacher Albert the Great, huh? One of my teachers, Albert the Great, says, you know, the cause of the error of the early Greeks was they didn't know what logic, right? Huh? And if you look in the first book of Natural Hearing, there Aristotle takes you know part Leucippus, right? Huh? And it's because partly he doesn't know what logic, right? Huh? And he makes several mistakes that we study, kinds of mistakes that we study in logic, right?

[32:51] Huh? So is logic necessary to philosophize? Is necessary to philosophize what Yeah, yeah. So, so Thomas distinguishes these senses, right? Okay. But he says that the the basic distinction of this necessary is between this absolute necessity that's based upon what a thing is, right? And then this conditional necessity that's based upon extrinsic things like the mover or maker or the what the end, right? So, necessity that comes from the mover or maker is force, right?

[33:35] Okay. So the police pick me up and put me into the car. I necessarily go into the the paddy wagon, right? But because of their what? Force. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But that's not necessary in the way that it's necessary for the triangle to have it's. You know, I'm neces I necessarily go into the paddy wagon because the police are more strong than I am, at least a group of them are, right?

[34:02] And push me, right? Okay. Then the other kind of necessity is is a necessary need. Well, if you want to live, right? See. And then Thomas says, is necessary to have a boat. Well, if you're going to make a trip, you know, or a horse, if you're going to take a trip, you know. So in that sense, you see, logic is necessary for philosophy, right? If you want to philosophize well, well, and avoid, you know, large amount of error, then you need to know what logic.

[34:37] I told you what my old teacher, Kasurik, said. You know, I never really got the text difference there, but he said Augustine says the only part of logic worth teaching is the part about errors. How you make how you make errors, right? I don't know if Augustine said that, but but I mean that that's only a part of logic, right? Now to know these different kinds of mistakes.

[35:00] And in some difficult matter, you know, and it's an argument that's very convincing, you know, and Thomas pulls out some kind of mistake, and it's obviously this kind of mistake once you understand it, and amazing thing.

[35:19] Would you say that philosophy, if it's done well, will necessarily? You're probably using that word. Lead to logic in order to improve one's philosophizing. Well, you need logic, right, to to to define well and to reason well, right? But you won't ever arrive at logic without philosophizing, and it will enhance one's ability to be a philosopher. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, I mean, Aristotle, you know, he's talking about Socrates there.

[35:53] He says Socrates is trying to syllogize, right? And a sign of this, he was always trying to define, and definition is really the main middle term there in the syllogism, huh? So you see these guys kind of working their way towards this.

[36:15] But sometimes, you know, Aristotle speaks to them as coming to the truth, being coerced by the truth itself, not really seeing the reason why this has to be so.

[36:27] Which suddenly can't apply to people nowadays with homosexual marriage and all the rest of this nonsense, right? This is ridiculous. What's going on? So. Up to Article Five here in Question Ninety Six, I think.

[36:53] To the fifth one goes forward. Thus, it seems that not all are what subject to the law, right? I get this from some organization, and they have their quote: "No one is above the law." Thomas is going to distinguish here about that.

[37:21] For those are subject; those alone are subject to the law, to whom what, or for whom the law is laid down. But the apostle says in the first epistle of Timothy that to the just one the law is not laid down.

[37:42] Therefore, the just are not subject to human law. Put that in your paper. Moreover, Urban the Pope says, "Huh, has had in the decrees nineteen question two that who is led by what a private law in no way what is restricted by the what? Public. There's no reason required, right? That he be restricted by the public one, right?

[38:26] But by a private law of the Holy Spirit, all spiritual men are what led who are the sons of God, right? According to that of Romans eight verse fourteen, who are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God. So even the devil can quote scripture, right?

[38:54] Therefore, not all men are subject to human law. Moreover, the jury's peritus, on the one experienced to the law, says that the prince is what freed Freed from the laws.

[39:22] What's that organization, Judicial Watch? You know, no one is above the law, right? They're always examining what the government itself is doing. But who is what? Untied from the law is not subject to the law; therefore, not all are subject to the law.

[39:51] But against this is what the apostle says, Romans thirteen: Every soul is subject to what higher powers. But no one seems to be subject to power who is not subject Subject to the law, which the power bears power.

[40:12] Therefore, all men ought to be subject to the to human law. Now, what's Thomas going to say about these things? You certainly can confuse the issue, right?

[40:27] I answer: It should be said, as has clear from the things said above, that the law, of its definition, has two things, or its notion: first, that it is a rule of human acts, or it's a measure of human acts, right? It's a rule. Secondly, that it has a power of what coercing.

[40:54] In two ways, therefore, someone can be subject to the law. In one way, as a thing ruled is subject to the rule. So we get the word regular, huh?

[41:11] The regular person lives by the rules. And in this way, all right, those are subject to power are subject to the law, which the power what brings forth, huh?

[41:32] But that someone is not subject to a power can happen in what? In one way, because he is what simply, free from all subjection yeah, from all subjection. Whence those who are of what one city or one kingdom, right, are not subject to the laws of the prince of another city or kingdom, huh? No as in Thomas's example, so. Okay. Just as they are not subject to his what Dominion.

[42:09] dominion, huh? In another way, according as he is ruled by a what higher law, as if someone is subject to the proconsul ought to be ruled by his what commandment, huh? But not always in those things, for he is dispensed from this by the emperor.

[42:37] For as regards this, he is not what restricted by the command of the lower, right? When he is directed by the command of the superior.

[42:50] And according to this, it happens that someone simply is subject to the law, according as what? That someone simply subject to the law, according to what? Something. According to something, he is not subject or restricted by the law, according as he is being ruled by a what? Superior law, right?

[43:17] In another way, someone is said to be subject to the law as the one coerced to the one coercing, huh? As the one forced by the one forcing.

[43:34] So it's a father. It's a father's law, right? That's what. That's what we have a cogent argument. It's kind of forcing you to acknowledge. the conclusion.

[43:47] And in this way, virtuous and just men are not subject to the law, but only the bad, huh? For what is forced and violent is contrary to the what will. But the will of the good is in harmony with the law, from which the will of the bad is in discord. And and therefore, according to this, the good are not under the law, but only the what?

[44:19] Bad. What's distinction he makes, huh? Okay. Now going back to objections. To the first, therefore, it should be said that that argument proceeds about the subjection, which is by way of what? Force. For thus there is no law laid down for the just men, huh? Because they are to themselves a law, right? In so far as they show the work of the law written in their hearts, huh?

[45:03] As the apostle says in the in the epistle to Romans, huh? Whence in them the law does not have the coercing power, as it has in the what? Unjust, right?

[45:27] To second, it should be said, huh? That the law of the Holy Spirit. Is above every law humanly laid down, and therefore spiritual men, according as they are led by the law of the Holy Spirit, are not subject, right, to the law as regards those things which are repugnant to the leading of the Holy Spirit. But nevertheless, this very thing is of the leading of the Holy Spirit that spiritual men are subject to what human laws, are according to that of one Peter two, be subject to every human creature on account of God.

[46:23] Third objection about the prince. To the third, it should be said that the prince is said to be released from the law as regards the coactive or, the forceful power of the law, for no one is properly coerced by himself. People say sometimes I force myself to do that, but it's because in some sense it's against their what? Their will, right? Some will they have anyway, right? I force myself to eat some salmon.

[47:00] huh? I didn't want to ver- For the sake of charity, maybe. I didn't want to embarrass the hostess or something, you know. And she served me something that I detested. I offered up for those souls in purgatory Yeah, so I might be said in that sense to force myself to eat it,

[47:22] One of my little, girl's relatives there. they said she made a coffee cake and she put coffee grounds in instead of the coffee thing in there. You know, so everybody's pretending to like what they're eating, you know. You don't want to upset the little girl, you know, She was, trying to please them, you know.

[47:48] Spare the poor girl her tears. Tell her when she's twenty one and she'll laugh. Yeah. Before that, she'll cry. Probably when you're trying to be polite and pretend to eat something which is really terrible and try to secretly feed it to their dog and their dog refuses.

[48:10] That happened when we were in Portugal as religious sisters. Some of them were very simple souls from Yeah. Brazil, and they were... And so, one of the she made a special cake for us, Americans for some occasion. I don't know what it was, And we brought it. away, a ton! It turned out instead of sugar, she put salt in. it. It looks the same as white stuff, white powder.

[48:35] And oh, we bit it and we're like oh, that's just horrible, horrible cake. Poor girl. Yeah. that's kind of commonplace. when we talk about the nuns' cooking, you know, is not the most collectible cuisine, you know.

[49:07] Thus, therefore, the prince is said to be what free from the law, because no one, right, can bear a genuine condemnation upon him, right? Huh? If he acts against the what law, right? L'état c'est moi Doesn't get any better than that. Whence over that of Psalm fifty, to myself only I have sinned, right? That's maybe David saying that. To thee, to thee, alone. To thee. to thee, yeah.

[49:44] That the king does not have a man who. Judges his, deeds. but as regards the directive power of the law, right? The prince is subject to the law by his own what will, right? According to that said in the constitutionibus that since all, from the chapter Cum omnes that whoever what, gives right, law for others, he himself ought to obey his own what law. Do what I say, as I do.

[50:30] And the authority of the wise man says. the ball I guess you would say Yeah. Which you uh give to others I don't know how you say that in two words And um those people are what criticized by the Lord, right? Who say and do not do right, and who impose heavy burdens upon others that they themselves do not move their finger, right, to release them.

[51:06] Whence, as regards the judgment of God, the prince is not what free from the law as regards the directive power of it. But ought to be voluntary, not what coerced is fulfilling the law.

[51:25] But also the prince is above the law in so far as if it be expedient, he can what change the law, right? Huh. And dispense in it. For the circumstances of place and time. This was written before constitutional monarchies came about, Magna Carta and all. And there was an interesting point here in the middle of St. Thomas's answer about. Hence, the subjects of one city or kingdom are not bound by the laws of the sovereign of another city or kingdom, since they are not subject to his authority.

[52:06] There's a trend in the progressive branch of the Supreme Court to cite foreign cases, foreign law statutes, and also common law from other English tradition countries like Zimbabwe, United Kingdom, and other I gather non-compatible legal traditions to buttress their the decisions they want to make because there is no precedent in our own system to support where they want to go. So when I drive on the left side of the street, I was I was English law, yeah.

[52:38] You're just following the philosophy of the Supreme Court. I know it's terrible. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Experiments against reality. To six, one goes.