Prima Secundae
233. Before and After, Definition by Causes, and the Old Law: Who Is Bound by It and Why It Came in the Time of Moses (ST I-II q.98 aa.5-6)
Class of 2015-09-24
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/233-before-and-after-definition-by-causes-and-the-old-law-who/

[0:00] In the Name of the Father, the Son, Holy Spirit. Amen. Thank you, God. Thank you, guardian angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas. Deo gratias God, our enlightenment, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, in order to illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor. Pray for us. Help us to understand what you have written. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Amen.

[0:34] Come back a little bit to my aside there last time when I was talking about the order of Matthew, right? In Matthew, the order in Peter's profession of faith, thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and then kind of the order in John, where he brings out that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was toward God, and in fact the Word was God, and then we find out that the Word is responsible for everything came to be, and then finally we find out the Word became flesh, right, and dwelt among us.

[1:19] So he goes in the reverse order, right, from the divinity of the Word, right, to his humanity, right, and so I was kind of contrasting those two orders, I mean, why they were,

[1:33] and I mentioned, you know, that the going from the humanity of Christ to his divinity is following the natural road in our knowledge, and the natural road in our knowledge is the what? First road in our knowledge. So what is the natural road in our knowledge? From sensors to reason. To reason, yeah, yeah. So you go from the sensible Christ, right, to the one that's not able to be sensed, right.

[2:04] You're going from the reason into there. And of course, there are other ways to do this in Scripture, like for example, when you, any time you have metaphors, right? The Lord is my rock, right. You're going from what? The sensible, right? To something understandable, right? And when Moses, you know, saw the burning bush,

[2:30] some of the church fathers say that the this represents Christ, right, in his two natures, huh? And and the bush is human nature, and the fire is divine nature, and the fire does not consume the bush, the human nature is not swallowed up by the what? Divine one, right, huh? And so again, he's being led from the what? Senses into to reason, right? Well. And I was thinking about that in terms of you know the order of the Gospels too, right?

[3:05] Where Matthew, Mark, and Luke emphasize, in a next agreement sense, the anointed one, right? And Matthew, he's anointed as king. Mark is anointed as prophet or teacher, and Luke, he's anointed as what priest, right? And now seeing that three, and of course i'm caught up with this idea that sacred doctrine can be divided into two or three, right? So maybe another division here, right? And then I'd be the great discoverer of another distinction.

[3:44] But then, as I thought about a little bit more, I said it really corresponds to the distinction of sacred doctrine according to faith, hope, and charity. So faith corresponds to the prophet or teacher, and hope or prayer, right? To the priest, the and then the commands of love and ten commandments to the king, right? Christ, the king. But then, interesting thing about that is that you're in that connection of those two, right?

[4:22] You have the order of what Matthew, right, or Peter's profession, right, where he professes that he's the anointed one before he gets to the divine. And in Mark, and I guess in Luke too, when they the account of that at Cesarea Philippi, they just mentioned out the Christ, right? So it's very very much that that's primary, right? The others not even mentioned there, right?

[4:54] But then it struck me, you know, the fact that that Augustine in his Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, and Charity, written for you know gentlemen who asked him to give him a summary of the Christian doctrine, this is appropriate to a beginner, right? And Thomas in his Catec Catechetical Instructions follows the same order, right? Faith, hope, and charity. With faith, you expound the creed, and with hope, you expound the Our Father, and with the charity, you expound the two commandments of love and the ten commandments.

[5:29] And Thomas even follows that order in his Compendium of Theology, written for his companion there, Brother Reginald, right? We wanted a little you know theology to carry around with him, you know, so he could you know in his spare time refresh his mind up reading this again, right? But Thomas follows the division according to faith, hope, and what charity. With him, maybe a little higher level than the catechetical instructions, but still basically the same order.

[5:59] What's guys interesting, right? The connection between those two, right? Because this is for the beginners, right? And the Matthew comes first because you're first led from the what humanity of Christ, and then from that to his what divinity, right? But the the second order, the order in John is used to be, you know, fixed in our mind. When I was a boy, there you always at the end of Mass, you you said the beginning of John's Gospel.

[6:27] I don't know if you guys are. Young enough to remember that? No, that's the end of every Mass. Did you know that? That was already changed by the time I came around. Yeah, but that was yeah, yeah, And it's you're very familiar with that because we we said it at the end of Mass. It's like the last thing, and almost the mass, huh? And that's the order that's followed in theology, right?

[6:45] So that's more the road of what theology, right? And this is kind of a different order, right? But this other one is, you know, a sign that it ties in with the Christ being the what anointed one, which is more proportioned to us. And this is used for the beginners, right? So with the truth, all things what fit together, right? Huh?

[7:15] I was thinking again a little bit of Shakespeare's definition of reason, which I think is very good, right? Huh? But if you go to these two masters here, Albert the Great and Thomas Aquinas, huh? They both divide logic, right? But Albert the Great divides logic into two parts,

[7:40] which are. Say by the bell. Two parts of the left that he divides logic Huh I don't know what Albert does. Yeah, he divides logic into the art of defining and the art of reasoning. Okay. Now, if you compare this with Shakespeare's definition, right? These the two main kinds of discourse, right? Because our definition there of discourse, right? Discourse, as Thomas often says, has a two senses, right?

[8:23] One is the going from this to that, but then the stricter and more profound sense of discourse is coming to know what you don't know through what you do know, right? Huh?

[8:39] So I ask students, you know, what is a perfect number, and they don't know, but they come to know through the definition of what a perfect number is, a number equal to the sum of its parts. That is, that what measures it evenly, right? So six is a perfect number, and 28, I guess, is the second perfect number, and so on. But six is measured only by one, by two, and by three, but not by four or five.

[9:05] And one plus two plus three equals six, right? Now you know what a perfect number is, right? Okay. And now you know a perfect number is always a composite number and not a a what prime number, right?

[9:21] What's interesting, right? This shows the harmony between Albert there and Shakespeare's definition of what reason, right? Huh? Because he puts the most fundamental thing he says is that reason is the ability for discourse, which can you break down into the two main kinds of discourse: coming to know the simple unknown, as Albert says, right? By definition, coming to know the complex unknown, a statement, right? By what reasoning, huh?

[9:54] father to miss this but? Anyway. Um. Now Thomas, of course, divides logic into what three parts, right? And it's because when he begins his Praemium to logic, he's dealing with the works of Aristotle, right? And so he goes back to what Aristotle does in the De Anima, where he distinguishes the first act of reason and the second act of reason. The first act of reason being understanding what something is, the second act, understanding the true or the false by composing or dividing the things you understood in the first act, and then to that you can add a third act, reasoning, right?

[10:39] And so Aristotle's got he's the father of logic, Aristotle, because he's the first guy to write the basic books of logic. So he has the categories, which deals with the first act of reason, then Peri Hermeneias with the statement, right? And then the rest of the books are all about reasoning, some stronger than others, right?

[11:01] Now, in the part on reasoning, in the Posterior Analytics, right, Aristotle then shows how you define too, even though it's in the third act. But because definition, he says, is the beginning of what the syllogism, right? Beginning, especially of demonstration, and that's why he said Socrates wanted to syllogize because sign of which is he wanted to define. And so,

[11:36] but Aristotle points something out very interesting about this, and that is that there's a connection between definition and demonstration, and that a complete definition differs from a demonstration by position only. And what does that mean, right? Well, he points out that when you try to define something, you want to understand what the thing is, you've got to understand what makes it to be what it is, and that means to understand its what causes.

[12:16] So even in answering the question what is it, which you do when you define, right? You're going to be making use of the causes of the thing you're trying to what define, right? While in demonstrating, you answer the question why, right? And that's very clearly, right, a knowledge of the cause, right? It's more obvious that the question why asks for a cause than the what,

[12:48] yeah, than the question what, right? Okay, but the question what asks for a cause too. So I was reminded of this, you know. When Thomas was reading the sentences we've been doing recently, and he has an article there on Augustine's definition of infused virtue, and it's kind of interesting the objections against, you know, that you have against Augustine's definition. And one objection is, you know, well, there are other definitions of virtue besides Augustine's, you know, so Augustine's definition must be lacking something, or.

[13:27] And Thomas says, well, there can be many incomplete or partial definitions of the same thing. And but a complete definition would bring in all the causes, huh? Okay. Now the example I've always given class was, you know, suppose someone asked you what a knife is, right?

[13:55] And I'd say, what is a steak knife? To take a favorite example of mine, you know. Okay. Well, it's a tool for cutting a filet mignon, right? You know, you know its purpose already. Yeah, yeah. So now this is a definition of the knife by one of its causes, the most important cause, the end or purpose of the steak knife, right? Or in general, the end of the knife is to cut something, right?

[14:28] Okay. But now you might also give a definition of the knife by its parts, right? It's a tool composed of a blade and a handle, right? And these are like the parts of the knife, right? That tells you what a knife is in a sense, right? But it's more in terms of the matter if parts are like matter, right? And you can bring in the form that the blade should be inserted in the handle, right?

[15:00] Okay. So on. Well, what do you have in Augustine's definition of infused virtue? You've ever heard that? Well, it's something like this: bona qualitas, a good quality, right? Mentis of the mind, right? Huh? By which one lives rightly, right? And one can only use to be right, and which God what pours into us without us, right? Okay. Without our doing anything to acquire it, it's not by repeated acts like the virtues Aristotle talks about.

[15:41] Well, Thomas says he got all four causes of the infused virtue, right? Huh? And the bona qualitas, a good quality, is like the form, right? Of the bona qualitas mentis of the mind, right, of the part that is reason or shares in reason, that's got the matter in which it exists, right, and then by which one lives well, right, is the end, right, and which God pours in us without us, yeah, that's all the causes, right.

[16:16] It's a beautiful thing, right, huh? Okay. But I was thinking again, you know, about how you know if you look at the beginning of of Aristotle's work there in the eight books of Natural Hearing, the very first reading, huh? And a little question about the the Latin, the Greek text there, but Aristotle says any understanding and epistasthai, right, comes from knowing, you know, the beginnings, the causes, the elements, right, and so on.

[16:52] And Thomas, of course, explains what this means, right? He's saying understanding what or understanding why is either one is by the causes, as Aristotle shows in the what fourth in the second book of the what Posterior Analytics, right? Okay. You can see that with these definitions, right? You could say, and you can make a kind of demonstration, say, a knife is a tool for cutting. A tool for cutting should have a blade and a handle and so on, right?

[17:23] And then you could syllogize, therefore, a knife has a blade and a handle, right? Okay. Or like he does in the in the Posterior Analytics itself, he gives a definition of demonstration by its end. A definition is what I mean. Demonstration is a syllogism, making us know the cause and that of which it is a cause, and it cannot be otherwise. But then he reasons from that to what the matter must be that a syllogism that's called a demonstration is made of, right?

[17:55] It's got to be made from statements, you know, that are necessary, and so on goes on. And so he he syllogizes the definition from matter from the definition by what end, right? You could do the same thing with definition and say, you know, you know, definition is speech making known what a thing is. And speech making known what a thing is is composed of a genus and what differences, right, of the thing you're defining.

[18:24] And so you could demonstrate the definition by matter for the definition by end, right? Or you could combine them all and say definition is speech composed of a genus and difference, this sort of thing, right? Making known what it is, right? Huh? You could bring in the whole picture, right? Huh? Well, that's the other part of Shakespeare's definition, isn't it? Because it's looking before and after, and the crowning sense of before is the cause is before the what.

[18:53] Effect, huh? It's kind of marvelous. Wasn't I talking last time about the order of the soul and the powers of the soul, and the what acts of those powers, right? And there's what maybe two orders of that, of those three, and they're just the what reverse, right? In one sense of before, the soul is before its powers, and the powers are before the acts of those powers.

[19:31] In another sense of before, the acts of the powers are before the powers, and the powers are before the what soul, right? What two senses are those?

[19:51] Which of the five senses of before that you have from the mortal chapter on the before there? Is it uh is it? the First sense, if the first sense is in time.

[20:08] Or in motion Well, I don't know if you have the soul in time before you have, you know, reason, right? Before you have the use of reason,

[20:21] you haven't used your reason yet. But the soul is before its powers in what sense, always? Well, fourth sense is better, right? Yeah, but the more obvious sense is what?

[20:43] But the powers of the soul are like properties of the soul, right? They they follow from the nature of the soul, right? So the soul is a cause of its what? Powers, right?

[20:57] And some powers of our soul, right? You know, have the soul even as its subject, right? Huh? But other ones are joined in the body, right? And then the powers are the causes of their what? Acts, right? Because I have a reason. Because I have a reason, I can look before and after, as I'm doing, today.

[21:22] Okay. So the soul is before its powers, and the powers before their acts, as a cause is before an effect. But that's the so-called fifth sense. Not fifth in order, but the fifth sense is, you know, put alongside the second sense, the different sense. But it's mentioned by Aristotle that side sense because it's so important for philosophy, right? General for the mind, right?

[21:57] Okay. If you don't believe me, let's ask why. Why is it so important? But by asking this question, we eventually go to God, right? Okay.

[22:15] I just think you know of how when you say a perfect definition, you know, it's by causes, right? Can God be defined then? He has no causes, right?

[22:36] Okay. But now the other sense of of another sense of order, in which the acts of the powers are before the powers, and the powers are before the soul, would be what sense?

[22:58] That's what I thought was the first sense. No, no, because I I don't have the act of of reason before I have the power reason, do I? No.

[23:19] Well, Aristotle, when he you know teaches us about the powers, you know, he says that we know the powers through their acts. Okay. How do you know that you're the ability to look before and after? How do you know there's such an ability as as the great Shakespeare speaks of the ability to look before and after? Yeah, yeah. If you never look before and after, you know.

[23:47] So you know the power by the act, and you know the kind of soul you have by the what power, right? So, and Aristotle investigates, you know, the famous question with the human soul, right? The understanding soul, as Shakespeare calls it, whether that's immortal or not, right? Huh? Or does it have an act that is what not in the body, right? And then Aristotle can show in many ways that the soul has an act, understanding universal, right?

[24:23] Understanding continuous things in an uncontinuous way, that it is what has an act that is not in the body, right? And therefore, has a power that is not in the body, right? And therefore, it's not immersed in matter, right? But it's like a thing that is floating in the water, right? It's only partly in the in the matter, right? So it has, and because we know that being is before doing, right?

[24:51] If it is doing that is not in the body, then it is being that is not what tied to the body, right? And therefore, the soul would survive death, right? Aristotle was able to reason from that too that the that the human soul didn't come from your mother and father, your soul. He says that in the book on the generation of animals, right?

[25:18] And so those things are very interesting, right? See that. What's so what sense of before is it Well it's the third sense of before? In the discourse of reason or in our knowledge, right? Okay. So yeah, just the reverse order there, right? Okay. Okay. Let's look at our. Article six here, article five rather.

[25:59] To this fifth one goes forward. Thus, it seems that all men are obligated to observing the old law. That's something that comes up in the Acts of Apostles, doesn't it? Some people were maintaining that, weren't they?

[26:20] For some, whoever is subject to the king, is necessary that he be subject to the law of the king, right? See, he's tying up law with king here, right? It's objection. But the old law is given by God, who is the Rex omnis terrae, the King of all the earth. As in Psalm forty-six, it is said. There are other psalms that talk about that. Therefore, all those inhabiting the earth are held to observance of the law.

[26:57] Moreover, Jews are not able to be saved unless they observe the old law. For it is said in the Book of Deuteronomy, chapter twenty-seven, maledictus, huh? Cursed in the sense, the one who does not remain in the what sermons or the speeches of this law, right, huh? Nor does what perfect them in his work.

[27:27] If therefore other men, without the observance of the law of the old law, were able to be saved, worse would be the condition of the Jews than that of other men, huh? When the apostle says the law, None of us could. Maybe double, double it in here.

[27:52] Moreover, Jews and Gentiles rather were admitted to the what Judaic rite and to the observances of the law. For it is said in Exodus chapter twelve, verse forty-eight, if one of the what

[28:11] strangers pilgrims, yeah, one of the wandering around, I guess, on the peregrinus, wish to what go over to your colony, your city, town, and to make the what passover of the Lord, let the male first be what, Circumcised. yeah, and then he can what celebrate the rite, huh? And therefore it would be just as one who is indigenous to that land, huh?

[28:41] But in vain, right, were some admitted to the what extraneous to the legal observances from the divine ordinance. If without these legal observances, they were able to be what saved. Therefore, no one can be saved unless he observes the law.

[29:07] But against this, as Dionysius says, the ninth chapter of the Celestial Hierarchy—that's the one that what Albert the Great commented on, Thomas commented on the De Divinis Nominibus, the divine names, the divine names—that many of the Gentiles were reduced to God or led back to God by the what angels. I hope that's Aristotle. But it stands to reason that the what Gentiles did not observe the law, the old law, and therefore without the observance of the law, someone was able to be what saved.

[29:59] Well, I, Thomas Aquinas, that is to say, I respond that it should be said that the old law makes known the precepts of the what natural law, and then adds above this right certain private precepts. I would translate appropriate there private myself.

[30:28] a lot of times I think of the common good and the proper good, and it's better to say the private good, right? Because common good is the proper good too. In fact, it's you have a great obligation to to do that.

[30:48] Well, that's one thing the Pope was saying there today, and the thing that he's talking about the immigrants, right? Huh? And how you have to treat them as you want to be treated yourself, right? And then kind of applied that, you know, the reproduction, right? Yeah, that's clearly fully as he could, but he was, you know, and in applying it to that, you know, the the

[31:15] you do not want to be aborted yourself, right? He didn't get quite that explicit, but it's interesting that it's an actual law which has a lot in the commandments, right? And it's interesting Aristotle when he talks about virtue lying in the middle, right between two extremes. He's pointing out there's no what there's no mean, he says, no virtuous mean of what is already an extreme, right? So, let's say murder right now.

[32:04] But one of the examples he gives there is adultery, right? Adultery, he says, is always wrong. So it's not not a question of don't commit adultery too much or too little, but just the right amount. Well, no, no, there's no mean, he says, of the extreme, right? Okay, and you know, don't get drunk too much or too little, just the right amount. No, to be drunk is already to be in in in excess, right?

[32:35] So there's no mean of the. But it's interesting. Aristotle will see, you know, adultery as what naturally bad, right? So as regards those things which the old law contains of the law of nature, all are held to the observance of the old law.

[32:58] Not because they pertain to the old law, right? But because they are of the law of what nature. But as regards those things which the old law adds above this, right? Huh? They are not held to the observance of the old law, except the what people of the Jews, right? Okay, so we've got it over them, right?

[33:25] You have to obey the natural law there. It's interesting what yesterday when the Pope spoke to the American bishops. Yeah. Mm-hmm. First thing he says, I'd like to greet all the Jews.

[33:43] That was funny. I don't know how many Jews that were one of the bishop, but the reason for this is because the old law, as has been said, right, was given to the people of the Jews, as they might obtain a certain what preeminence or prerogative of what holiness, right? On account of reverence of Christ, who was going to what be born from that what people.

[34:18] And was I telling you that there? The I think I'm here was on on EWTN there. You know they have these people who are converts to Catholicism and so on, right? And but the immaculate conception, right? Huh? You know this made sense to this person, right? Was talking, right? Huh? Because if Christ was going to be born from this one, right? How could he be born, you know, of a woman who's contaminated with with sin, right?

[34:47] Huh? It makes sense to him, you know. You know, I mean, apart from the fact that you should define it, right? But some people, you know, have the difficulty there. The immaculate conception was defined in when. Yeah, yeah, all right, yeah, yeah. And then they defined later on at the end assumption, right? Huh? Like the beginning and the end Yeah, yeah. I always tell that story that where somebody said, you know, if they define it, I don't know if I can stay in the church.

[35:16] And someone said, "Don't worry," he says you're already out of the church. Okay. Now, whoever are what putting the status, right? Huh? For some special what sanctification, they others are not obliged except those, huh? Okay.

[35:51] So I mean. Take the the vows, huh? You know, certain vows, right? Not everybody is held to those, right? Okay. Just as some clerics, right, are obligated to some things, right? Huh? Who are given over to the divine what service, to which the lay are not what obliged, right? Huh? Okay, that's a good way of manifesting it, right? And likewise, religious, right, are what obligated to certain works of perfection, right?

[36:27] Huh? From their profession, to which the seculars are not what. Yeah. So you got to do that. Be careful that twenty dollar bill, right? Because you're you're you're taking the vow. He's more bound by the seventh commandment than you are. Yeah. I remember a Dominican talking to me, he says, you know, you sign some things. I guess you go in and sign, so that if you receive inheritance, let's say, right, while you're a member of the order, it doesn't go to you; it goes to the order, right?

[36:56] Right. So, so he's joking, he says, "I'm legally dead," he says. It's kind of funny, buddy. I remember when I when I was preparing for my final vows, I put out like a last will and testament. Yeah, yeah. Sort sort of with that in mind. Yeah. That's my death is going to be the day of my vows, and my brother-in-law was a lawyer. Yeah. He wrote back and he says, "Well, legally speaking, that wouldn't take effect unless you happen to die the day you take your vows, because your spiritual death is not the same as your physical death.

[37:31] " It's like you have to kind of reword that. And likewise, right, this is similar to some special things, right, are obligated that what people, right, to which other peoples were not what obligated, right? Huh?

[37:52] Whence it is said in Deuteronomy chapter eighteen, "You will be perfect and without stain with the Lord your God," right? Huh? Okay. So we speak of the the vow taking as state of perfection too, right? There's a word to that. And on account of this also, they used a certain what profession, right? Huh? This is clear in Deuteronomy twenty six. I profess today, right, before the Lord God, etc.

[38:24] Right. So that's that's interesting. Okay. Now, to the first objection about obeying the king, it should be said that whoever are subject to the king are obliged to what observing his law, which he proposed commonly to all, right? Huh? But if he institutes some things to be observed from his what familiar ministers, to which others are not what obliged, yeah.

[39:01] You know what about there being a worse state than other men, right? To second should be said that man, the more he is joined to God, the more he's in a better condition, and therefore the more the people of the Jews was restricted, you might say, or tied to more to the divine cult, right? It was more worth than other what peoples, huh? Whence it is said in Deuteronomy four, what other nation is thus what?

[39:40] Celebrated, renowned, famous, illustrious, glorious. Yeah, that has ceremonia that refers to one of the three kinds of laws, right? Justa iudicia, the judicial laws, and then the universal law, right?

[40:12] And likewise, for the same reason, huh? Clerics are of better condition than the lay, and religious than the what secular, right? Remember the nuns told me that in grade school there, you know, you're almost assured of salvation if you become a priest, you know, they tried to talk into being a priest.

[40:33] You're a shoo-in Okay. To third, it should be said that the Gentiles, right, more perfectly and securely what obtained salvation under the observances of the law than under the natural law alone, right? And therefore, to that they are admitted, right? Just as now the lay are transferred to the what Clerical state. and seculars, huh? I mean, it's like secular priests, huh? To religion, right? You know, although without this they are able to be what saved.

[41:24] Okay. It's a nice little article then, huh? Now we get to the sixth article. To the sixth, one proceeds thus. To the sixth, one goes forward thus. To translate into the native language. it seems that the old law, right, was not suitably given. what In the time of Moses. time of Moses, huh?

[42:00] For the old law disposes for the salvation which was in the future, through Christ, as has been said. But at once, huh? Man after sin needs the what remedy of this salvation. Therefore, immediately after sin, the old law ought to have been what given. Strike while the iron's hot.

[42:31] Moreover, the old law was given for the sake of the holiness, huh, of those from whom Christ would what born, yeah. But to Abraham began to come about the promise of the seed that was Christ, huh?

[42:51] Therefore, right away, huh, in the time of Abraham, one ought to have given the law, right? These objections are all the Monday morning quarterbacks. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[43:07] Moreover, as Christ was not born from other descendants from from Noah except from what Abraham in particular, to whom was made the what promise, huh? So also he was not born from other sons of Abraham except from David, huh? To whom what the promise was renewed, right? According to that of Second Book of Kings, chapter twenty-three. He said what? The man said to whom was constituted.

[43:48] jacob. How do they translate that? Who? Yeah. Didn't make sense to me. The man to whom it was appointed concerning the Christ of the God, of Jacob. Okay.

[44:09] he's descending through Jacob, right? Huh? He's talking about being narrowed down to under whom Christ came, right? huh. 23: 1. These are David's. list. Da- oh, this is David himself speaking. David, the son of Jesse, said, "the man to whom it was appointed concerning the Christ, of the God of Jacob." He's speaking about himself, These are the words of David, and that's what he's describing himself: the man to whom it was appointed concerning the Christ.

[44:53] and our Jacob. Therefore, the old law ought to have been given after David, just as it was given after what? Abraham, have to narrow down, right? Okay.

[45:06] Well, against this is what the apostle says. That's by antonomasia, right? I was reading Thomas there in the sentences. He says grace is said by antonomasia too. Yeah.

[45:29] Interesting. And God is said to love us by antonomasia because he loves everything he's made, right? But he loves us with a kind of friendly love, huh? That's what the most general definition I think of grace. St. Paul says everything is grace. Yeah. Everything's a gift. Yeah. Yeah. And then you can distinguish

[45:59] them. Because Thomas used grace even for even God being gratis, I mean, it's the whole creation, really, you know, and but again, you want to distinguish grace and nature, you know, using grace in a in antonomastic sense, you know. That's what the definition Saint Paul gives of grace most generally. It's a gift divinely given and then he explains it says it's a gift because he doesn't owe it, to anybody.

[46:22] It's divinely given because nobody else can give it. Yeah. Yeah. And then I'll distinguish the senses. Okay. So against this is what the apostle says to the Galatians chapter three, that the law was laid down on account of what? Transgression. Until would come the seed to which it was what? Promised. Yeah. Ordered by the angels in the hand of the mediator. That is given in an orderly way, right?

[47:04] As the gloss says. Therefore, it was congruent, suitable, that the old law was given in order of that time. Okay, Thomas, let's find here so you can get out of this this nut, knot.

[47:28] And it should be said that most suitably the old law was given in the time of Moses. The reason for which can be taken from two things, according to which each law right is laid down for two kinds of what men. For it is laid down to some who are hard-hearted, I guess, juries, and superb, proud, super. It's going above right now. Who, by the law, are restricted right and dominated right?

[48:14] It is laid down for the what good who instructed by the law right are aided to fulfilling what they what intended. It was suitable, therefore, in such a time to give the old law to what. To convict men, yeah, Of, their pride.

[48:46] Okay. Now, about two things, man is proud. Huh. As he's getting too close for comfort here. To wit, of knowledge and of what power.

[49:07] Of knowledge, as if natural reason is sufficient, right, for him for salvation, right, and therefore that from this what pride he might right. He was permitted to man right to what his own rule right the rule of his own reason without the aid of a written what law.

[49:39] And man would experience right, huh? But he would be learned by experience that he suffered a defective reason, huh? He's got intellectus adumbratus huh

[49:56] To this, that men usque as far as what idolatry right and the most what ugly. Yeah. Around the time Abraham were what fallen down. huh? It's homosexuality among other things, wasn't it? huh? Yeah, now we're back to that, right?

[50:23] And therefore, after these times, was necessary. For a written law to be given, right, as a remedy for human what, ignorance, because through law there comes about a knowledge of sin, right, as is said in Romans three twenty.

[50:46] But after a man was instructed by law, he must be what, convicted. His pride about what, yeah, when he was not able to fulfill what he in fact knew he should do, right.

[51:13] And therefore, as the apostle concludes to Romans chapter eight, verse three, because, huh, what was impossible, the law, in which he was what, Firm. By flesh, God sent His Son, that the justification of the law might be fulfilled in us. Kind of a difficult text you got there, first Thomas, there. But you see the point there, right? This is a second difficulty, weakness, right?

[51:53] On the part of the good law was given as a what aid? Because then it was most necessary to the people, right? When the natural law began to be obscured and encountered the exuberance of the excess of sins, right?

[52:19] That's what Shakespeare says: fair is foul, and foul is fair, hovering through the fog and filthy air. So two things, right? One is the filthiness, right? Superabundance here, exuberance. That's a lot of different weird trends again, but yeah, yeah, overflowing character of our sins. It was necessary for this aid, right, to be given in certain order. Ah, that through the imperfect to the perfect they might be led by the what hand?

[52:57] So when we had Laval there, Monsignor Dionne was always talking about manuductio right. But Thomas, if you look at the question one seventeen, I think it is Article One, where he talks about the teacher, right? He speaks the teacher leading the student from the known to the unknown in two ways, and one of the ways is manuductio right? So, senior gave, a course, on manuductio in logic, and manuductio in wisdom, because these are most difficult sciences.

[53:34] And therefore, between the law of nature and the law of grace, it was necessary that the old law be what given, huh? The law of nature didn't suffice because it had been obscured by the exuberant, exuberant sinning. Yeah. Mozart opera

[53:58] there, Don Giovanni, right? The exuberant sinner. He reminds me of it Got down to hell at the end He. Talks about the power. Before we got to the bishop, the bishop who had been—he's already dead when we got there—but his name was Bishop Power, and on his coat of arms he had potestas It was at least he was an Irishman, and it doesn't help. To first, therefore, it should be said that at once after the sin of the first man, it was not what suitable for the old law to be given.

[54:40] Because first, because man not yet recognized himself to what needed, being confident about his own what reason. Also, because not yet had the dictamen, the saying of what natural law, been what darkened through the customs of what sinning.

[55:14] The second, it should be said, that the law ought not to be given except to a people, right? Because for the common good, we saw in the definition of law, for it is a preceptum commune, right? This has been said.

[55:30] And therefore, in the time of Abraham, they were given certain family precepts, as the word right, familiar precepts, and as the word domestic ones, of God to what men, right? We're talking all about about this thing on the family there in Philadelphia, right? Because, you know, Donald's talking, you know, about that and other people. The Pope said also, I saw it was remarked to the bishops how we need we need to preach the gospel of the family, and he says, which I'm going to do very clearly, like in Philadelphia.

[56:05] Oh, good. I mean, there he'll say something about, yeah. Now it's funny. I was thinking, you know, of the before and after, so you know, I said you have to be a man, woman before you can be a what husband and a wife. Okay.

[56:34] Now, when I was a little boy, I had heard you'd never have children until after you married. So in my little head, you know, I thought that you can be a man and a woman without being husband and wife, right? But you can't be a husband and wife without being what? Married. Without being a man and woman. See, so that man, woman is before husband and wife in what sense is before?

[57:06] In time, but also in the second sense, right? And it's kind of striking you because you see the connection of the first and second sense there right now, okay? So not only is one in time a man and a woman before you are husband and wife, but you can be a man, woman without being husband, wife, but you can't be husband, wife without being a man, woman, right?

[57:28] Well, I thought, you know, from the the explanation of the sacrifice and so on, right, that you couldn't be a father and mother until after you were husband and wife. Little did I know, right? I remember as a little boy, you know, my my first thought, you know, you know, defending the church, right? I thought there was a pretty good argument, right, about the importance of this sacrament, right?

[57:50] Because the only thing I knew about marriage was the sacrament of matrimony that we've been taught in the fourth catechism and so on, right? And it's been made clear, you know, that you never were a mother and father until after you were husband and wife, right? So I thought that just as man and woman is before being husband and wife, husband and wife is before being mother and father, right?

[58:17] Well, this is going to be an argument for the for the greatness of the church, right? Or the, you know, you know, you know, if you don't realize how great is the sacrament, right, you got a mother and father. Yeah, yeah. But

[58:35] maybe father and mother is not before husband and I mean after husband and wife in the second sense, right? I think you can say definitely husband and wife is after man and woman, right? But in this case, it's it's better this way, right? You know, in that sense, you could say, you know,

[58:58] that that come before, right? But it can be, can be a mother and father. And it used to solve the you know that chapel wedding in the old days. Yeah, in old other times and cultures, they had different names for those children. They were illegitimate. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I remember one complaining about the name illegitimate child. He said, "In my day, we called a love child." He liked the idea.

[59:25] Illegitimate. Because the stigma that went with that title. Yeah, yeah, yeah. There have been attempts in the law to get rid of that title to diminish the stigma. One of my colleagues had some relative, you know, who used to always say, you know, the first child can come anytime. After that, it takes nine months. So must have must have run enough currency now. I know my mother said when she was young, she knew a couple that just got married and and they had a child before the nine months were up, and the customary way in those days was to say, "Well, it was premature."

[1:00:04] Yeah, yeah. Premature. And my mother told something like this. They all laughed, and she was young enough she couldn't figure out what was the joke. Yeah. It was premature. Everybody just laughed.

[1:00:23] Okay. And therefore, in the time of Abraham, were given certain familiar precepts, as it were, domestic ones, right, of God to what men. But afterwards, his posterity being multiplied, right, so much so that they begin to be what a people, huh? And they what? Yeah. A law then could be suitably given, right? Huh. For servants are not part of the people or the city, right? To whom the law is to be given given, yeah, as the philosopher says in the third book of the Politics.

[1:01:12] Okay. Now the third objection here. To third, it should be said that because the law ought to be what given to some people, right? Huh.

[1:01:28] But Not only those from whom Christ was born, right, accepted the what law, but the whole people signed with the sign of circumcision, right, which was a sign of the promise made to Abraham and what believed by him, right, as the apostle says. And therefore, also before David, it was necessary that the law be given to a people so what brought together, right? Okay, we'll deal with that, Thomas.

[1:02:05] Don't try that again. Okay, should go on here.