Prima Secundae
243. Summa I-II Q.101 a.4 and Q.102 a.1-2: Dividing the Old Law Ceremonies, and Their Causes in the Letter and in Figure
Class of 2015-10-29
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/243-summa-i-ii-q-101-a-4-and-q-102-a-1-2-dividing-the-old-law/

[0:02] Guide our enlightenment, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, ordain illuminary images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor, help us to understand what you have written. Amen. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Amen. Guess we're up to the last article here in question one hundred one, article four. That's where we left off.

[0:33] To the fourth one goes forward. Thus, it seems that the ceremonies of the old law are unsuitably divided into sacrifices, sacreds, sacraments, and observances. For heaven's sakes, a division into four.

[1:00] I was, I was, I needed a little bit of relief, you know, from doing moral theology, you know, and and this quote that I give from the Sapiential books in the Old Testament that he who adds another science adds another pain, it says. And Thomas says, "Well, there's the pain of learning, which is the discomfort of learning, and because that's special about ethics, because it's kind of uncertain compared to some, so it's kind of painful to learn.

[1:31] But then also the pain of seeing one's own defects, right, and the defects of the world around one, right. That's kind of depressing, right? So I figured I said I got through reading the second book of the sentences, right, which has got a lot of stuff about morality there. So so I need a little break from this. So so I said I go back and reread the the compendium of theology, right?

[1:57] What's interesting in compendium of theology as regards the substance of God is concerned, he divides it really into three instead of into five. And so the unity of God is not a separate part. Like if you look at the beginning of the Summa in the prima pars, there he divides the consideration of substance of God into five parts. Right. The simplicity of God, the perfection of God, which is attached as goodness, right?

[2:26] The infinity of God as being omnipresent, therefore, and then as being unchangeable and therefore infinite, and finally as being one. Well, in the compendium of theology, the unity of God is in the middle of the treatise on the simplicity of God. Okay. It's not a separate part, right? And then he takes up the infinity of God before his perfection, but he points out that the infinity of God is tied to his perfection rather than.

[2:55] The infinity of a straight line, right? Because the infinity of a straight line is where it's lacking an endpoint. Mm, But God is not said to be infinite by negation. I mean, by privation or lack, but simply by negation, right? And you're negating any potency that's going to contract his actuality. So it pertains to perfection, right? And then he argues from that to perfection of God, right?

[3:19] So perfection of God and infinity of God are together, right? And he starts with the unchangeableness of God, like he does in the Summa Contra Gentiles. So there you have, you know, three instead of. So the question then remains: Why these what five, right? I mentioned years ago, you know, I was going to give a talk at one convention, and I was going to compare the consideration of substance of God in the two Summas and in the Compendium, right?

[3:49] And I said that's a little bit too, you know, too much. So I just do it with the two Summas, right? And I didn't think it was appropriate to say that one order is correct and the other is incorrect, or that one is even better than the other. You know, that would be presumptuous for this dimwit to say that. But I thought I should restrict myself to showing what do you see in proceeding in one order better, right?

[4:19] And what in the other order better, right? And there's some reasons you can say each one brings out something, right? And so you might ask, why does Thomas, you know, divide into five, huh? And not just into three like he does in the Compendium, right? Because makes sense, huh? And it follows the rule of two or three, right? Which he seems to follow quite often, huh?

[4:44] Sorry. And I say, well, maybe wants to emphasize the one unity of God because he's going to take up the Trinity, right? Doesn't want to have you not have it fixed in your mind, you know. That whatever is the distinction of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, it's not a distinction of three gods, right? There's only one God, right?

[5:07] And maybe pulls out the infinity because that's going to help us to understand how God can create, right? And that's the next part there in the prima pars after the Trinity, right? But I have to think about that some more right now. So.

[5:27] Go back to work. Yeah, yeah, oh yeah, yeah. It's very, very interesting. But let me ask you this little question here. I know you've been looking before and after, right, into your direction of William Shakespeare, right? And

[5:48] if this is before that, right? Can that be before this? What would you say? In different senses but before Yeah, but only in different senses, huh? Okay.

[6:04] So, is the human nature of Christ before the divine nature, or is the divine nature before the human nature? In different senses, one is before the other. Yeah. And so in learning our experience, and learning we have the humanity before the humanity. So Peter's confession of faith in chapter sixteen, that Chaseria, he did by, is going from humanity to the divinity, huh? Thou art the Christ, the Son, the Living God, right?

[6:39] And the doubting Thomas is, huh? His profession of faith, my Lord and my God, right? When Thomas comments on that, and he says, my Lord, he's referring to his human nature because even as man, he's our Lord, and not only as God, right? And it's appropriate because he's got to be led through the senses, right? To you know, to make his confession of faith, right? Doesn't get quite the priority.

[7:07] He says, better as those who without this, right? But you're going from the human nature to the divine nature. So which sense of before is that? From the human nature to the divine nature of Christ. Which sense of which one of the four central senses is it? Before knowing,

[7:28] start from our side. Yeah. So and that's which sense there? That's the third sense. Yeah, yeah. But in what sense is the divine nature before the human nature? In being, In being, yeah, because it can be without. second sense. Yeah, yeah. And how about? In better, yeah. Doesn't the Christ say, you know, the Father is greater than I, according to his human nature? The quasi-fifth sense. Yeah, the cause.

[7:56] Yeah, the cause, right? Now you can't really say in in the first sense, but in a sense attached to the first sense, right? Because Christ's divine nature is not in time, right? So Christ's nature is not before his human nature in time, right? But I suppose if you ask Christ, he'd say something like he said, you know, before Abraham was, I am, right? And why does he speak that way, right?

[8:30] Well, because eternity is not before time and time. But you could say maybe eternity is before time in duration, right? Okay. Before there was any time, God was, right? Or God is, I should say, right? Okay. See what I mean? So that's a sense that is on the side of the first sense, but it's not the first sense, right? Okay, so you got to be very careful, right?

[8:59] Huh? I used to say to the students, you know, did what was the reason why you passed the exam? Was the reason why you passed the exam because you studied,

[9:18] or was the reason why you passed the reason why you studied passing the exam? See, that that's not the best reason, I say, you know, to study, right? But let's see that a lot of students do that, right? Okay, so is studying for the exam and passing the exam are they both ahead of each other, right? Ahead of the other in the same sense? Say, I said, what?

[9:52] We're both. In case you're talking about the reason why, and therefore the cause, right? Okay, but what's the problem here? Two different senses of cause, right? So studying is a cause of your passing the exam in the sense of the mover or maker, right? Made it possible for you to pass the exam. But passing the exam, if that's the extent of your interest in these things, is the reason why you studied, right?

[10:21] To pass the exam, that was a cause in the sense of what end or purpose, right? Okay. Now Aristotle has an interesting thing there, right? In the ethics, he talks about how you acquire virtues by what repeated acts, right?

[10:42] And then he he raised a question now: How can we say it's by doing what courageous things that you become courageous? Huh? So are you courageous because you did courageous things, or do you create do courageous things because you're courageous? Which is it?

[11:05] Well, then you know is is this before that, and that before this in the same sense? Is it you know is it the doing of courageous acts before you have the virtue of courage, right? Is that different than the doing of courageous acts after you have courage, right? Because he says you know you do it more perfectly, right? After you have the virtue, and you do it with greater what stability, right?

[11:41] Huh? See, why beforehand, before you have acquired the virtue, it's a great struggle, right? And you don't do this perfectly, right? And and it's not the same stability that you're going to do the courageous thing before you have the virtue. To complicate things with the four temperaments, you have temperaments that are more courageous by nature, temperaments which are more fearful by nature.

[12:08] Yeah. And so the developing the habit of courage is harder for those with the fearful type of temperaments, but what virtue? Yeah, yeah. But the natural gift that some of might have, you know, natural gift might come before is doing courageous acts in a different way than the habit would, right? Huh? You know, so I mean, can distinguish those things. I was reading the Compendium of theology, right, and got through the part there in the Trinity, right?

[12:37] Huh? And Thomas raised the question there. Did God the Father, right? Huh? Generate the Son because He's the Father, right? Or is He the Father because He generated the Son?

[13:05] Because father and son are relatives, right? And they're based upon the act of generation, right? And you know how in the order of the Summa and the Prima Pars, there he takes up what? It's divided into three, the processions, right? And then the relations that are based upon those processions, right? And then the persons who are those relations in a sense. So there it seems that because he generated the Son, that's why he's the father and the one who was generated is the son, right?

[13:45] But then he says, "Yeah, but doesn't the father generate the son? Doesn't the person have the act of generation, right? " And so doesn't he have to be that person before he can perform the act of generating the Son? That's a very difficult thing, though, right? huh? And Thomas says, "Well, if by father you mean the relation as relation, right, then it's what after the what generation, right?

[14:27] Because he's he generated the son, right? Then he has this relation to the son, a father, right? See. But if by father you mean the subsisting person, right? Then it's before, right, the act of generation, right? And because he has the ability to generate, right, then he can generate, right? That's a very subtle thing, right? Well, he says in the case of the Son, in both cases it's after, right?

[14:58] Because he naturally the generation of the Son is before the Son, right? And before him being the Son, right? Well, that's very very subtle, right?

[15:10] So. These are only senses of before and our understanding Yeah, yeah, yeah. Not in the Trinity itself Oh well, yeah. There's a there's a before and after in our knowledge of the Trinity, right? Okay. So we can consider fatherhood as simply as relation, right? Or it can consider as being the same thing as a father and the same as this person and constituting this person, right? And the person has to be constituted before he can, you know, generate somebody, right?

[15:50] But as a relation, he's it's a result. That's what we understand, right? That's very very very subtle. And this is the compendial theology, too, right? Brother Reginald, right? is walking around with this. Yeah, this is the catechism for the brothers. So

[16:20] now, first objection: the ceremonies of the old law figure what Christ, signified Christ in some way. But this comes about only through sacrifices, through which is figured the sacrifice by which Christ offers himself as a what oblation and host to God, as is said in the Epistle to the Ephesians, chapter five. Therefore, only the sacrifices are ceremonial.

[16:54] Moreover, the old law is ordered to the new one. But in the old law, the what? But in the new law, rather, the sacrifice itself is the sacrament of the what altar. Thomas's book is called *De Venerabili Sacramento Altaris. Therefore, in the old law, one ought not to distinguish between sacraments and sacrifices.

[17:25] This guy can really confuse an issue, can he? He's confused me. Yeah, my teacher can speak. So that's the business of the teacher to confuse the issue. So we do don't think we understand as much as we think we understand, huh? Just we have really a few objections, to St Thomas. Moreover, the sacred is called what is what dedicated to God, right? Huh. According to which mode, the tabernacle and the vases, huh, dishes, are what?

[17:58] Have to be sanctified. Yeah, to be made sacred. But all ceremonial are ordered to the cult of God, as has been said. Therefore, all the ceremonial things are what sacred, huh? Therefore, one part of the ceremonies ought not to be called sacred, huh? Or sac, sacra, sacred things, holy things, huh? Moreover, observances are said from observing, huh? But all the precepts of the law ought to be observed.

[18:35] For it is said in Deuteronomy eight eleven, observe and beware lest you forget your Lord, the Lord your God, right, and that you neglect His commands and His judgments and His ceremonies. Therefore, these observances ought not to be laid down as one part of the ceremonials.

[18:56] Moreover, the solemnities among the ceremonial are numbered, since they are in the future, the shadow of the future, right? As is clear in the Epistle to the Colossians. But likewise, the offerings and the gifts is clear through the apostle in the epistle to the Hebrews, chapter nine, verse nine, which nevertheless don't seem to be contained underneath these four. Therefore, unsuitably, the foregoing distinction of the ceremonials.

[19:28] Why do you do this to me, Thomas? I told you, I told you about this guy, my friend, my brother, you know, self-teaching philosophy. You know, he's describing the way the students, you know, look up at you, you know, and say, "Why are you doing this to me? "

[19:44] He has another science. He has another pain. Why are you doing this to me? Why did I ever do you But against this is what that in the what old law, each of these. Of the foregoing are called what? Ceremonia. How do they translate ceremonia there? Because in English we say ceremonies, but that's

[20:11] yeah, yeah. There's no way to do it. For sacrifices are called ceremonia in Numbers, the book of Numbers, right, fifteenth chapter, to offer the vitulum, right, and its sacrifices and the what? Pouring out.

[20:31] As his what? Ceremonies, right? Demand, right? Okay. Oh yeah, was it in the compendium theology there? Thomas mentions something, you know. Oh, no, it wasn't there. No, excuse me, it's in the sentences, and he's talking about whether the the spark of reason can be what extinguished, and this is referring to the natural what law and so on, and Thomas is saying what can be obscured, but it can't be really extinguished, right?

[21:02] And then he mentions something from one of the church fathers, I guess it is, where he speaks, you know, of this, and then the irascible and the concupiscent appetite under the likeness of certain animals, right? And so he speaks of the spark there as being the eagle, right? Because I guess people say the eagle flies above all what all the other even birds, right? So I mean the the eagle the the spark there, you know, natural spark, is above everything else, right?

[21:38] Okay. And then the the vitulum here, which is mentioned, here that's what reminded me of the vitulum That's represents the what concupiscent appetite, right? And that's the the bull calf or something, you know. And guess what animal represents the irascible? No, no. He says the lion. The lion is. Yeah. Yeah. It's kind of interesting how you know how we speak of the lion as being the king of the forest, right?

[22:06] And Thomas says you know that the the irascible is shares in reason more than the what concupiscent, right? Because irascible, you know, you're doing this for that. I'm gonna get even with you, right? That's why I'm doing this. And there's this kind of a connection there with reason, right? Even though you hear reason imperfectly, right? While the concupiscible, you know, you sit there with your candy, you know, you know your pop or whatever it is, and you don't even think about it, you just put it in your mouth, right?

[22:36] You know, so it doesn't have much connection with reason, right? So it's kind of interesting, you know, like I was mentioning how Mozart's last symphonies, right, the last five symphonies, well, the first and the fifth of them, right, the two extremes are both in C major, right, and they both represent magnanimity. Which is the virtue in irascible, right? And then the 40th and 38th both represent what?

[23:04] Fortitude, which is again in irascible, right? Okay. So it's dominated by irascible. This Mozart is putting the finishing touches on his 40 or so symphonies, right?

[23:19] And you know, in the Jupiter Symphony, that fact that the English critic called the name the Jupiter, right? That's that's not concupiscible. That's the like the lion, right? Huh? You know. Okay.

[23:36] Now about the sacrament of order, it is said in Levites seven. This anointing of Aaron and his sons in the what? Ceremonias, huh? Okay. This is a text from argument from authority, right? From the fact that these are all called ceremonia. And about the sacred things, it is said in Exodus 38. These are the tools of the tabernacle, the testimony, and the ceremonies of the Levites, right?

[24:01] And the observances. If you are averse, not following me, nor what? Observing the ceremonies which are proposed to you, right? Okay. So there's texts like this, I guess, in Scripture. Maybe there are others besides these, but he gives these ones. So this is kind of coming from Scripture, right? Huh? Distinction of these four being observances are being ceremonies. What Thomas is going to do with a distinction of four?

[24:32] That's just terrible. You got to distinguish into two or three, don't you? So one way of getting four is to distinguish into what? One and three. See, like when Thomas divides order in comparison to reason, right? He divides it into four, right? There's the order which reason does not make but considers, like the natural order. There's the order which reason makes in its own acts. There is the order which reason makes in the acts of the will, and the order which reason makes in exterior matter, like in this table.

[25:09] And so natural philosophy is about that first order, he says. Logic is about the second order. Ethics and other parts of practical philosophy about the third order, and the mechanical arts, right? Like the art of cooking, the art of carpentry, and so on, concerned with the last kind of order, right? Although he divides into four, if you stop and think, the first order could be what? Distinguished from the last three, because the first is an order not made by reason, right?

[25:36] The last three are orders made by reason, in its own acts or in the acts of the will, which are very close to it, or then exterior matter, right? But here he's going to divide it into what? Two, not one and three, but two and what? Two, yeah. So looking at this guy get away with the division of four. We can avoid that, huh? No. What about the four cardinal virtues, right?

[26:14] So, how would you divide those into four original? We might do that, you know, for brevity's sake, right? What? One and three. Yeah, you kind of divide prudence, which is in reason, and the other ones, which are in the appetite, right? Yeah. Okay. But here it's two and two, right? That's allowable too, according to the rule of two or three, yeah. An answer should be said. This has been said.

[26:44] The ceremonial precepts are ordered to the worship of God, in which worship can be considered both what the worship itself and those what. Yeah. And the tools of worshiping, right? Huh?

[27:05] Now, the worship, especially, especially consists in the sacrifices, right, which are offered in reverence of what God. The instruments of worshiping pertain to the what sacra. Okay, he's following the order in which these things are enumerated, right?

[27:28] Just as the tabernacle and the vases and other things of this sort, right? Okay. Now the other two are on the part of those what worshiping. Two things can be considered. One is their being what instituted for divine cult, which comes about through certain consecration either of the people or the ministers themselves, and to this pertains the what sacraments. Huh? That's very close to us, right? You might say, you know, you go to you go to mass, and and the priest has been what consecrated for this, and the people are baptized, right?

[28:12] They're going to receive communion. They have a sacrament too, right? Huh? So, get the people sometimes too, right? Okay. And then there are what individual what way of behaving, right? Conversatio doesn't mean just conversation, but way of life, by which they are distinguished from those who do not what worship God, right? And to this pertain observances as like in food and vestments and others of this sort, right?

[28:41] Okay. So that makes sense, doesn't it? Okay. Now, to the first, therefore, should be said that sacrifices ought to be offered both in some places and to some men, right? And the whole of this pertains to the worship of God. Whence, just as through sacrifices signified Christ what offered up right, so through the sacraments and the sacred things of those are figured the what sacraments and the sacred things of the new law, and through their observances is what figured the way of behaving of the people of the what new law, which all which pertain to what Christ.

[29:39] Now, to the second, it should be said that the sacrifice, the new law, that is the what Eucharist. Now, sometimes they explain that word as meaning what Thanksgiving, right? Huh? Because Christ gives, but sometimes Thomas takes it as being. Eucharist, so good grace, ah, you know, the plenitude of grace, ah, like he says in the little prayer, you know. Okay. Eucharist is said to contain the one who is the very source of grace, right?

[30:15] So he says the sacrifice of the new law, that is Eucharist, contains Christ Himself. That's kind of the end of all the sacraments, ah. Who is the author of sanctification? He sanctified the people through his own what blood, as is said in the Epistle of Hebrews. And therefore the sacrifice also is a what sacrament, ah. But the sacrifices of the old law do not contain Christ. But they figured him, yeah.

[30:50] And therefore they are not called what. Yeah. But for designating them apart, there were certain sacraments of the old law, which were figures of the future what. Yeah. Behold the Lamb of God, right? Was he a lamb or what?

[31:18] Although to some consecrations certain sacraments. Sacrifices are what are joint. Now to the third objection, about aren't all these things sacred and holy? Well, that's what he says. To the third, it should be said that also sacrifice and sacraments are sacred, but some things that are sacred.

[31:44] That is dedicated to the cult of worship Yeah. But nevertheless, were not sacrifices nor what sacraments, and therefore they retain the common name of what sacred, ah. Okay. So we've met that way of speaking before, haven't we? Right. Maybe right in the first book of logic, right?

[32:08] Aristotle sometimes distinguishes disposition against habit, right? And other time he divides habit. He says habit is a disposition. Well, how can he have it both ways? huh

[32:23] Disposition can be the genus or one of the species under disposition Yeah. A habit is like a firm disposition, right? Huh. So it has something special that not every disposition has, right? Huh. You know, I used to talk, you know, say, you know, talk about somebody's mood, right? And sometimes you tell a joke or something, and somebody's mood changes, right? Huh. Or either you see these things, you know, for people stopping at a drink on the way back from work, you know, and it's mood changer, right?

[32:56] This is called. I mean, it's something easily changed, right? Huh? So something comes in, and then they they change, you know. But a habit is something you know you can't just you know. Yeah. Yeah.

[33:17] That's a mood changer. If you just do that thing, you know, one swallow does not make a summer, you know. Put Aristotle. Yeah. So the one that has nothing special beyond the meaning of disposition, right, keeps the common name, and then the other one gets, say, what, new name, right? Huh? Okay. And then I used to always say, you know how my mother didn't like it when I said man is an animal.

[33:47] Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you know, you can use animal as two senses, right? Huh? So he's not just an animal. So now my husband, well, that's better Dwight. My mother never went to college, but she, she didn't, shouldn't, shouldn't, she didn't like me saying that man is an animal. I always joke about that, you know. You don't have to treat the girl like a thing, you know.

[34:23] Treat her like nothing, then, huh? Not treat her as a thing. You got to treat her as nothing, right? To the fourth, it should be said, huh? I used to give an example in class. I'd say, uh, uh, if the biologist says you're an animal, that's maybe not insulting you, right? But if your girlfriend says you're an animal, that's insulting you.

[34:55] To the fourth, it should be said that those things which pertain to the lifestyle that we say we say nowadays of the people worshipping God retain for themselves a common name of what observances. So he's solving that in a similar way, right? Insofar as they what fail from the foregoing, they do not are not called sacra or holy because they do not have an immediate respect to the worship of God, right?

[35:23] Huh? As the tabernacle and the vases do, right? Huh? But to certain what, to certain consequence, they are ceremonial insofar as they pertain to a certain suitability of the people worshipping God, huh?

[35:43] This observation used to be when I was young. We used to have to fast from what midnight, right? Huh? Now you fast an hour, you know, but that's kind of a what? Is that a sacred thing, or is it something you know for the to be suitable people, you know, going in there eating, you know? Down on hamburgers and going seafood communion—that's kind of irreverent, right? You're not too well disposed towards these things, right?

[36:15] Some people like to wait some time a little after mass too before they eat something, you know. I can't always do that all the time, but but I mean that makes sense, you know. Kind of out of a certain proper disposition, right? Okay.

[36:48] So they keep the common name of observances. now. So he solves third and fourth in similar manner, right? Okay. To the fifth, it should be said that just as sacrifices are offered in the determined place, so also they are offered at determined times. Huh? Whence also the solemnities are what to be numbered among things that are what sacred, but oblations and gifts are what to be numbered with sacrifices because they are offered to God.

[37:23] Whence the apostle says, "Every what priest, huh, is taken from men and constituted for men in those things which are to God." Then he offered dona, which means what gifts, right? And sacrifices, right? Okay. So kind of other words are used talking about these things because they're offered to God, he says. Okay, we'll let Thomas off then on this one, shall we? This is pretty good.

[37:58] Okay, now we go. Go to question 102. Then we're not to consider about the causes of the ceremonial what precepts, huh? And about this, four things are asked. I'm sure you all have asked these things, huh?

[38:21] But notice the first two of these are more what general than the last four about those four ones that he had in the previous what article, right? So first, whether the ceremonial precepts have a cause?

[38:43] You didn't know that Thomas or not, huh? Okay. And if they do, whether they have a cause in the letter or only a what? Yeah.

[38:58] Might think careful that word literal, right? Because we use it in a different way. When we talk about the the literal sense of Scripture, I think the people are eliminating what metaphor from that, right? But Thomas says that's the sense of the letter. So I like to translate literal sense to sense of the letter rather than literal sense because we use literal sense in opposition to the figurative sense, right?

[39:27] When you say the Lord is my rock, you know, is that what's the sense of the letter that he's a rock? No. But what what it signifies the rock, right? Because in the case of metaphor, it signifies some thing which in turn signifies something, right?

[39:50] So that for Thomas would still be among the sense of the letter, right? The fundamental sense of the letter is not that God is a rock, but what that metaphor signifies.

[40:10] Okay. So we'll see what that means better when we get to the article. Then the last four is about the causes of the sacrifices, right? The causes of the sacraments, the causes of the what things that are sacred, right? But not sacraments or sacrifices, and the causes of the observances, right? So it's Thomas looking before in this question.

[40:42] In the fifth sense, the quotes that Aristotle gives, right? Huh? Which I leave aside in the second sense, but it's not fifth in order.

[40:59] You see the division later on of grace. He talks about grace in itself, and then the causes of grace, and then the effects of grace, right? And that's very much looking before and after, right, the thing.

[41:15] To the first, then one goes forward. Thus, it seems that the ceremonial precepts don't have a cause, because upon that of Ephesians two, chapter, I mean chapter two, verse fifteen, emptying out the what law? Yeah,

[41:47] that is the gloss says that emptying the old laws regards the what fleshly observances on decrees. That is what? Gospel precepts. Yeah. Oh, by the decrees, that's the way. Translated very well. Okay.

[42:09] That is by evangelical precepts which are reasonable, right? Ex ratione. But if the observances of the old law were from reason, in vain, right, would be what emptied or evacuated through the reasonable decrees the new law. Therefore, should the ceremonial observances of the old law don't have any what reason, right? That makes sense, right? We emptied out that nonsense, right? Meaningless, meaningless stuff.

[42:50] Moreover, the old law succeeds to the law of what nature. But in the law of nature, there was some precept that had no reason except that it might what prove the obedience of man, right? As Augustine says in the eighth book on the Genesis to the letter about the prohibition of the wood of the life to real life. Therefore, also in the old law, there are some precepts given in which the obedience of man was tested, we might say, which had no reason in themselves, right?

[43:34] Moreover, the works of man are called moral, according as they are by reason. If therefore the there is some reason for the ceremonial precepts, they would not differ from the what moral precepts. It seems, therefore, that the ceremonial precepts do not have any cause. The reason of the what?

[43:59] The reason for some precept is taken from some cause, right now. Okay. This guy always messes the thing up, huh? Doesn't he? Huh. But against this is what is said in Psalm eighteen: the precept of the law is what, lucid, huh? Enlightening the eyes, huh? Illuminating the eyes. But the ceremonials are what, precepts of God? Therefore, they are lucid, which would not be unless they had a reasonable cause.

[44:35] Therefore, the ceremonial precepts have a reasonable cause. Remember, we started talking about some guy. You know, he says, "You don't exercise the mind like you exercise the body." You know, you exercise the body, you don't exercise the mind.

[45:02] And Aristotle gives the first meeting there, or use of the, you know, dialectics, right? To exercise the mind, right? This exercise of the mind, right? Especially if you give him just the thing here and let him stew for a while before you give him the body of the article, right?

[45:22] So he says, "I answer. It should be said that since it belongs to the wise man, the wise one, to order, right? Sapientis est ordinari." According to the philosopher in the first book of metaphysics, It's in, what you call the premium, right, to to wisdom, he gives a six-part description of the wise man, and the culminating one is this one here. And Thomas quotes that, you know, in beginning of the commentary in the Nicomachean Ethics before he divides order into those four that I was talking about and knowledge and the basis of that.

[45:57] And so he quotes what Aristotle says here. It's a very famous statement. He says, "Why is that? Well, wisdom is the highest perfection of reason, and it's proper to reason to know order, right? Therefore, the wise man most of all orders, right? So that's beautiful, right?

[46:18] The wise man most of all looks before and after, right? I suppose he most of all appreciates beauty too. Yeah, because that involves order, yeah. Yeah.

[46:38] Now, since it belongs to the wise one to order, those things that proceed from divine wisdom must be what ordered, huh? As the apostle says in the epistle to the Romans, chapter thirteen, verse one. Thomas actually quotes that in the Latin: "Quae a Deo sunt ordinata sunt, the things which are from God are ordered, right."

[47:03] Now, to this that some things be ordered, two things are required. First, that they be ordered to a suitable end, which is the beginning of the whole order in things to be done.

[47:20] For those things which happen by chance, apart from the intention of the end, or which do not come to be for anything seriously but in play, right? Are said to be inordinata, disordered. Yeah, yeah. And secondly, is necessary that that which is ordered to the end be proportioned to the end.

[47:54] And from this it follows that the reason for those things which are for the End Is taken from the end itself, just as the reason for the disposition of the what? Teeth I guess you'd say Teeth of the saw Saw is taken from cutting, which is the what? End, as is said in the second book of the what? Physics. Yeah. Now it is manifest that the ceremonial precepts, just as all other precepts of the law, are instituted from the divine wisdom.

[48:34] Whence it is said in Deuteronomy four, "This is your wisdom and understanding before the people." Whence it is necessary to say that the precepts, the ceremonial precepts, are ordered to some end, Which we've got to discover, right? From which reasonable causes of them can be what? Able to be assigned. Yeah. Okay.

[49:05] Now I think Shakespeare would approve of that, right? That whole article, especially the first part that sapientis est ordinare right? That's where the guy's little thing says "boom out of order.

[49:35] Now what about that first one about? It seems that sometimes they don't have any reason for them, right? The first, therefore, it should be said that the observances of the old law can be said to be what? Without reason, in this regard, huh? That they are what? They don't have a reason in their own what? Nature, right? Huh? For example, that a vestment should not be what?

[50:04] From wool and linen. Yeah. Yeah. But they can have a reason from their order to something else, right? In so far as either what something to this is signified, right? Or something is what included. But the decrees of the new law, which especially consist in what faith and love, from their very nature are what reasonable acts, huh?

[50:41] This is what you're talking about, you know, the natural law. What is the natural law about, right? Why is it called natural? Well, because it's about things that are what

[50:54] by their very nature good or bad, right? Huh? It's about what's naturally good, naturally bad, right? And something that you also what? Naturally, no, right? Huh?

[51:07] So the reason there is in the very act itself, right? Huh? It pertains to it in itself. But the ones, the new ones, they have their what the decrees, of, the new law, which is especially consistent in faith and love of God, are of their very nature, from their very nature, reasonable acts, right?

[51:41] So, is it reasonable to go around killing little lambs, sacrificing them? In itself? It might signify something, right? To the second, should be said that the prohibition of the what ligni, I guess the wood or the tree, of the knowledge of good and bad was not made an account of this that that tree was naturally what bad, huh? But that prohibition had some reason from its order to what else?

[52:18] In so far as through this something was figured out, and thus also the ceremonial precepts of the old law have a reason in ordinatio ad aliud huh? In order to something else, yeah.

[52:37] To the third, it should be said that moral precepts secundum suam naturam, according to their very nature, have reasonable what causes, as you should not kill, you should not commit theft, and so on. But the ceremonial precepts have reasonable causes ex ordinatione ad aliud from the order to another, as has been said, right? You all satisfied with that? Now, to the second one goes forward. Thus, it seems that the ceremonial precepts do not have a literal cause, but a figural one only.

[53:37] For among the ceremonial precepts, especially are circumcision and the offering up, immolation. The what? Paschal lamb. Yeah, of the paschal lamb, but immolatio—that's like the

[53:56] burning up, right? I mean, the offering. I mean, the idea is so you destroy it, right? When you make a sacrifice, yeah. But both of these do not have except a figural cause, because each of these is given as what sign? For it is said in Genesis seventeen verse eleven, circumcidetis, cut around the flesh, right? The preputium that might be a sign of your compact between me and what you, right?

[54:37] Just like you take the the animals and the cattle country and you belongs to me, right? You know, you know. Is that in itself? I mean, if there's nobody else around, why would you do that? You know, but it's serious matter. They're in the west. Steal my my cattle, right? You one of my cattle, right? If I find my stamp on the one that you've got in your bin, you're going to be you better.

[55:06] You better explain this, say the least, because my sheriff shooter is coming out. Just taking the law into your own hands with these things. It was okay in those matters. Didn't have anybody else around.

[55:27] Okay. And in the celebration of the what Passover is that phase? Passing over Exodus thirteen. This will be a sign in your hand and is where a monument before your eyes, right? Therefore, much more of the other ceremonialies do not have accept a figural cause even these most important ones. That's very much more so. The dialectical place, huh? Exercise the mind. These dialectical places useful for that, right?

[56:03] Okay. Moreover, effects are what proportioned. Should be proportioned to its cause, right? But all the ceremonials are figurallah, as was said above, huh? It's question one and one, article two. Okay. Therefore, they do not have except a figural cause.

[56:33] Moreover, that which is of itself indifferent, whether it be done thus or not thus, does not seem to have any literal cause. Yeah, I think a better way to translate that.

[56:48] But some things in the ceremonial precepts, there are some things in the ceremonial precepts, which do not seem to differ whether they be done thus or thus.

[56:58] As about the number of animals to be offered, and other particular things of this sort's circumstances. Therefore, the precepts of the old law do not have a what?

[57:14] A letter. Letters, the letters are easy. And the thing, I forget the word there. But against this, just as the ceremonial precepts figure Christ, right? So also the what? Historical accounts of the Old Testament. For it is said in one to Corinthians, omnia in figura contingebant illis Everything in figure happened to them, right? Huh?

[57:53] But in the histories of the Old Testament, apart from the mystical sense or the figure one, there is also the sense of the what? Letter. Therefore, also the ceremonial precepts, apart from their figural causes, have also what? Literal causes, huh? Don't leave me here, Thomas. I'll be in confusion the rest of my life. I won't be able to get a good night's sleep because my my mind will be.

[58:21] Unresolved. Yeah, my mind will. All night long, I will be thinking about this. Yeah. It would be cruel to leave me without a a resolution here.

[58:35] Well, let's see what the master does. The answer should be said that it has been said above. The reason of those things which are ordered to an end necessarily is taken from the end, right? Now, the end of the ceremonial precepts is twofold.

[58:56] I didn't know that. For they are ordered to the worship of God for that time, and also to figuring Christ, huh? Just as also the words of the prophets respect or regard the present time, but that they are also said in figure of what the future. As the great Jerome says, huh? Who wrote the epistle on the scripture there at the feast of Saint Jerome? Who's friends that?

[59:32] Who wrote the epistle on the scripture studies that's dedicated to Jerome? He's called the great one of the popes. Oh, it's Benedict Fifteenth. It was about a hundred years ago. Yeah.

[59:52] As Jerome says upon Osee, I very like to Osee. He's kind of a good, good, interesting prophet. If therefore the reasons for the ceremonial precepts of the old law are thus, therefore the reasons for the ceremonial precepts of the old law can be taken in two ways, right? Huh? In one way, from the reason for the divine worship that was for that time to be observed, huh?

[1:00:21] And these reasons are said to be what? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Or would they pertain to? Would they pertain to avoiding the cult of idolatry, or to what? Removing some. Remembering, yeah. Some dependence of God. God. Or to insinuate the divine excellence, right? Or to designate some disposition of mind which is required in those what at that time worshiping God, huh?

[1:01:01] Another way the reasons can be assigned according as they are ordered to figuring Christ, and thus they have figural and mystical reasons, huh? Thomas uses that term mystical sometimes with a sense, the spiritual sense of scripture, huh?

[1:01:18] Would it be taken from Christ Himself and the Church, which pertains to what allegory, or would it pertain to the morals of the Christian people, which pertains to the moral sense, huh? Or would it refer to the state of future glory, insofar as in it we are introduced through Christ, which pertains to the anagogical sense. That goes back to the senses given the first question of the Summa.

[1:01:54] Now to the first objection. To the first, therefore, it should be said that just as the what. Understanding of metaphorical speech and scriptures is what. According to the letter. Yeah.

[1:02:13] So that's why you should translate that as I said the sense of the letter, right? Confusion in our language here. So also the meanings of the ceremonies of the law, which are commemorative of the benefits of God and the kind which are instituted, or of other things which pertain to that status, right? Do not transcend the order of what. Yeah.

[1:02:40] Whence did one assign the cause the celebration of the Passover, which is a sign of liberation from Egypt, and the circumcision is a sign of the what pact agreement that God had with what Abraham pertain to the literal what cause?

[1:03:06] To second, that argument proceeds as if the ceremonial precepts were given only. To what? Figuring the future, not to in the present, worshiping God. To the third, about these little particular things, two birds you sacrifice. or so. To the third, it should be said that just as in human laws, what is said in universal has a reason, right? But not as regards the particular conditions. And but these are from the what?

[1:03:45] Judgment of those instituting it. So also many particular determinations in the ceremonies of the old law do not have a what? Literal cause, but only a figurative one. In common, though, they have also a what? Yeah.

[1:04:08] As you go into the four points in particular. Take a little break here before.