Prima Secundae
Lecture 250: The Old Law: Its Goodness, Origin, and Promulgation Through Angels

Transcript
================================================================================

And finally, my father's cousin came over, a grown woman, you know, a little boy, and I said, Tom, play check with her, and she beat me, right? My mother said, I kind of felt sorry for you, Dwayne, she says, but I thought it was good for you to lose. Last time I was out with the grandchildren there, you know, in Missouri, you know, I got challenged by three of them to a game of chess, right? I was able to beat them all, you know, but I was worried, you know, the younger ones first and the older ones, you know, I was worried about Sarah, you know, she beat me. But the thing about Miles, what he did, the way he played, he imitate whatever move you took. So that's pretty clever, I thought, you know, it kind of got me, that's pretty clever to do that, you know. My brother Richard described, playing a game of chess some day, and my brother said I don't play much chess, you know, and he looked at the guy and he was looking, you know, he was real puzzled, you know, with my brother, and Richard said, why are you looking so puzzled, you know, and I said, I don't see anybody do that. You just know what he's doing, right? It looked more fun to play chess or checkers than to play these, you know, dice things. Oh, dice. Yeah. I mean, these games, you know. Yeah. Thus, therefore, he wished to give a law, right, huh? Which men were not able to fulfill by their own what? Powers, huh? And that's that men presuming about what? Sin. I mean, who are presumptuous, I should say, right? Would find themselves to be what? Sinners. Sinners, yeah. But being humbled, they would recur to the, yeah. You've seen Thomas there where he takes the three stages of man, right? And the first stage where he's left to himself and doesn't even know the law. The second where he's been introduced to the law but can't fulfill it. And then finally the age of grace, right, where he knows the law but has the grace whereby he can't fulfill the law. But he needs that, right, because the first one to think that his mind is, what, sufficient to, you know, find out the natural law. Well, you know, from the Supreme Court and society in general, they don't seem to know the natural law too much, right, huh? But they're kind of on their own, right, huh? You know, what do you think, you know? Well, they don't think. It's more like what you feel, I suppose, than what you think. Yeah, yeah, I see. Yeah, right, right. I know some professors would allow this to me to say, well, I feel that . . . Use that language. Now, the fourth objection is interesting here. Because what about that time, right, huh? You say, okay, that's okay, but I mean, they should be praying the way for us. We don't have what we need, you know? They don't have what they need. To the fourth, it should be said that although the old law does not suffice for saving man, nevertheless, there was another aid by what? Given by God to men. Simo, right? Together with the law, through which they were able to be saved. To wit, the faith of the, what? Mediator. Through which the ancient fathers were, what? Justified. Just as we also are justified, right, huh? And thus, God did not fail to men, but that he gave them, what? Yeah, yeah. Now, what in the body of the article corresponds to what he's saying here in the reply to the fourth objection? That is in the body of the article. What's the distinction that he makes there in the body of the article? Yeah, yeah. The old law ordered to Christ in two ways. In one way, by giving testimony to Christ, right? That's tied up with, what? Faith in the mediator, right? Okay. And then the other part was the one where you're being disposed in some way, in a remote way, right, huh? But that's not enough, right, huh? You need for them to be saved if they have this faith in the mediator, right, huh? So things are, you know, that's more difficult for them, right? But now they're impossible, right, huh? I think that's an interesting distinction, you know, in terms of the reply to the fourth objection. Because third objection there is talking more about how you're being disposed, right? Because you need humility, huh? Because we'll break your own arm. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. okay whether the old law was given to the angels to the third one goes for it thus it seems that the old law was not given to the angels but immediately by god for an angel is said to be a messenger right and thus the name of the angel implies being a what servant a minister not a lord according to that is psalm 102 bless the lord all you angels all his what yeah but the old law is given by moses by the lord right it's clear for he said in the exodus 20 that the lord spoke right these words these sermons and afterwards is joined i am the lord your god right and the same way of speaking is frequently repeated in exodus and the books following the law therefore the law is merely given by god for this timid goes along with that that convinces the system right moreover as it said in john 1 17 the law was given by what moses but moses immediately received from god for it is said exodus 33 the lord spoke to moses face to face as a man is accustomed to speak to his friend therefore the old law is immediately given by god more it belongs to the prince alone to what bring forth the law but the god alone is the prince of the source of the what salvation of souls i guess princeps you know is related to principium right and similar to the like rk you know is later on used for the head of the government right but it means the beginning right the source but the angels are spirits that are what administrators terrible insults the angels call administrators aren't they but that comes the word minister right administer what is what they call the head of the government there in england prime minister right yeah but if we get we get the minister really is a is a is a lowering uh name there the first servant of the people like the lord says and therefore the law um the old law was not what ought not to be given to the angels since they are ordered to the what salvation of souls now i'm convinced but now these encounters get me really confused but against this is what the apostle says to the galatians chapter 3 the law was given by the angels in the hand of the what and act 7 stephen says he received the law and the disposition of the what whose side is that answer it should be said that the law was given by god through the angels huh and apart from the general reason which dionysius assigns in the fourth chapter of the celestial hierarchy that the divine things ought to be what carried down to men by means of the angels right you know the higher angels illumine the light in the one below them right all the way down the line to get to us dimwits so but in addition to that general reason that what dionysia says a special reason right there is wherefore the old law ought to be given to the what angels for it has been said that the old law was what imperfect but it disposed right it's one of the two things it did for the perfect salvation of the human race which would be in the future through christ but this it seems that in all powers and arts that are ordered that the one which is what higher superior does the chief and perfect act through itself right but those which are what disposed to the ultimate perfection is done through what yeah so always just take the example of the chef there right out in the kitchen right now he doesn't peel the potatoes he doesn't pray doesn't even cut the potatoes he tells them how he wants them cut up right now depending on whether he's making french fries or making uh you know round bones okay this is the point there style makes right it's my father's company right they would get steel from the steel company or wood from the wood places but then they produce the final form right with the lower you know subordinated ones right and because my father would tell him what kind of steel he wanted right what size he wanted it so on and he used more steel than other people did in their wagons so my father's wagons never broke you know out on the farm and the farmers get a waggon you know that's and the steel breaks because it's like that in the land and they come storming down who makes a good wagon they say my father uh father's wagons are called the trade demons green king green king i tell you the story how my father used to have a thing on on machinery hill there in the minnesota state ferry it was the big ferry and all the farmers come down and so on and uh i see guys competitors there you know in the other other hills and and uh one year they they had some young lady there passing out things right father's laughing you know he says they go over there to to see the girl and they come over here to see the wagons he said use it and they need something else to attract people yeah for thus we see in all powers and arts that are ordered right that the one who is above as i said gives the what does the principle and chief work to himself right those which are disposed uh to to the ultimate perfection are done to the what ministers just as the my wife tells me i put the water on to heat the water or something you know put the pen um whence the navi factor the maker of the ship right puts together the ship to himself but he prepares the matter to his what subservient artists and therefore it is suitable that the perfect law of the new testament be given immediately to god himself having been made a man right but the old law through the ministers of god to it to the angels is given to what men and in this way the apostle in the this because the soul of the theology is in the scripture and this way the apostle in the beginning of the epistle to the hebrews proves the eminence of the new law to the old because in the new law god what spoke to us in his own son in the old law the speech is through the what to the angels huh okay thomas that's very convincing but what do you do about all those objections that we had you tied up for good to the first therefore it should be said that as gregory says in the beginning of the moralia the angel who is described as appearing to moses right sometimes is referred to as an angel sometimes as lord the angel huh on account of this that he what speaks yeah yeah no lord because he's preceding uh he's in charge right interiorly and he what efficacy of the speaking right by enlightening you that's something like we say about the preacher right he says the words and god enlightens you to receive the words right and this also it is that from the person of the lord the angel spoke well you know that isn't there one that's seen there in the in the thing with abraham there where he he has the three men come for dinner right and they're really what three angels right but he's because having seen his God, right? Because he's representing God, right? Representing the Trinity, aren't they? It's kind of a remarkable scene. He's saying to Sarah, quickly get the... Make a little breath of this, like that. That's a little bit like the way he's solving this one, you know? And saying that, following Gregory, huh? The second should be said, as Augustine says in the 12th book in Genesis to the letter. Is that the book you were reading, Father, or what? In the Exodus it is said that the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, right, huh? And though afterwards it is joined, he showed me his glory, right, huh? He showed me your glory, yeah. And he, what? He sensed what he saw, and he desired what he didn't see. Therefore he did not see the essence of God, huh? And therefore he was not immediately instructed by him. And therefore it is said that he spoke face to face, according to the, what? This is according to the opinion of the people, and the scripture is speaking according to what the people are saying, huh? That's a little strange explanation that Thomas has here. Who thought, right, that Moses spoke out to mouth to God. When through, what, the subject creature, that is, through the angel in the cloud, he spoke to him and appeared, huh? The book, Augustine and Thomas, think that Moses saw God face to face, you know, in a transitory way. And that St. Paul did, right? To them, you know, because they're preeminence. Or through the vision of the face is understood a certain, what, eminent and familiar contemplation, right? Below, nevertheless, the vision of the divine essence, huh? That doesn't deny what they say otherwise, or Augustine and Thomas, that at one time he saw in a passing way, right? The God as he is. St. Paul was taken up to the third heaven. We have the angel son. To the third, it should be said, it's only of the prince, by his authority, to institute the law. But sometimes he promulgates the law instituted to others. And thus, God, by his authority, instituted the law, but he promulgated it to the, what, angel son. So Thomas always follows Danesius there, right, huh? Are you men scandalized? Sapientis est ordinari, huh? Sort of, you know, in the world that a man has great power, we say he's very influential, right? He doesn't have to do everything himself. He can't do everything. Like Trump is saying, you know, I know the men who can get things done, you know? He's insane, natural. I know them all, you know? You know, I mean, he's got the connections, right? And boy, is he going to change things, you know, when he gets into power, right? He's going to restore America to its greatness. Kind of fun to watch it. It's a pleasing mind, right? Yeah, yeah. He says, before I get into office, he says, those four guys will be back from Iran, you know, that they have prisoners. You know, he's got to compare himself to Regan, right, huh? Because, you know, the guys that, they couldn't get out, you know? Jimmy Carter couldn't get out. Well, they released him before Regan took office, right? I guess you know what they expect from Regan. Well, same way with him, he's, they don't know what to expect. He's got to be back from Regan. He's got to be back from Regan. He's got to be back from Regan. He's got to be back from Regan. He's got to be back from Regan. Can you tamper another article now? To the fourth one goes forward this. It seems that the old law ought not to be given to only the people of the Jews, right? Playing favorites, right? Yeah. Yeah, yeah. That's what, how odd God the Jews is. It seems that the law ought not to have been given to only the people of the Jews. For the old law disposed for the salvation, which was in the future through Christ, as has been said. But the absolvation, the Christ that is to say, was not in the future only for the what? Jews, huh? But in all the Gentiles. So you're only disposing a part of the people, right? No, not often. According to that of Isaiah chapter 49, little is it me that I be a servant to what? Susciitating the tribes of Jacob, converting the what? Dregs. Dregs of Israel. Yeah, the dregs of Israel. That's what I swear. Yeah. I gave you in the light of what? Yeah, it's a light to the whole nations, huh? That you be my salvation all the way to the end of the earth. Now, that's where you get the, what is it called? Exchintium, isn't that the name of the, one of the things in Vatican II? The one about the church or something? Therefore, the old law was given to, what? Ought to be given to all the nations, huh? And not the one people alone. That's not to convince a dregs like me, you know? Moreover, it is, as it's said in Acts 10, verse 34, that God is not an acceptor of persons. So I've been told I shouldn't be an acceptor of persons, right? But in every race, huh? Every nation, who fears God and does what is just, he's acceptable to him, right, huh? Whom I to judge, as the Pope says. Therefore, not more for one people than to others, ought he to open the door, the road to salvation, right? Moreover, the law is given by the angels, or through the angels, as has been said about. But the minister of the angels is not only for Jews, but it's for all, ought to be exhibited to all the nations, to all peoples. For he said in Ecclesiasticus, okay? In each, what, nation he put in place a rector, right? But to all nations he gives, what, temporal goods, which are less the care of God than what spiritual goods, huh? Therefore, also the law ought to be given to all peoples, huh? That's really marvelous the way Thomas does this, huh? He makes you think, see how I'd be lost, huh? Told you my brother Mark and I were going to take some of these professors captive, you know? You drop the objections into their prison cell, and they don't think about, right? And they can go up with the answer, you know? But, you know? That'd be the ideal way to teach, right? The meaning, you see, that's all you get is that first part, and then you have to think about it, you know? Fears, most of all, understand the people. That's what it is about. Yeah, yeah. Well, it says in Psalm 147, that's especially clear text. He does not make such to every nation, he has not manifested their, what? Judgments, huh? Yeah. The Romans 3, huh? What therefore is more for the, what? Jew. Jew. Much in every way. First, because it was given to them, right, huh? That they might, what, believe the eloquent words of God, huh? How the hell is he going to get out of this mess he's got himself into? The answer should be said, that one reason, right, possible to be signed, wherefore more to the people, to the Jews, was given the law than to other people, because the others, what? Declining to idolatry, right, huh? Only the people, the Jews, remained in the cult of the one God. And therefore, the other people were unworthy to receive the law, lest the holy thing be given to dogs. Christ said, he's not given to the dogs, given to that woman, yeah. But this argument does not seem suitable, because that people, even after the law was given, declined to idolatry, right, huh? Which was more great, you know, because they received the law. Didn't he break the commandments or something there? To Moses, huh? Yeah. Right up in the mountains, didn't they do? Didn't they get the... That was like, poor little Joshua, he was obviously young and inexperienced. Sounds like battle crisis. Uh-uh. This is clear. Exodus 32 and Amos 5, right? Did you not, what? In the desert for 40 years, House of Israel, and you carried the tabernacle right to what? Your God. Your Molochah. And the image of your idols. The, what? Your God that you made for yourself. And expressly it is said in Deuteronomy 9, verse 6, I know there is not an account of your, what? Justices that the Lord God gave to you this, what? Land as a possession. Since you are durissime servicis, I'm a boast thick. The stiffest neck. Thick, yeah. This people, right, huh? But that ratio, right, huh? Is foreset there, huh? That they might, what? Fulfill the word. The Lord might fulfill his word, right, huh? That he promised to our fathers, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, huh? Now, which promises are made to them? The apostle shows. In Galatians 3, verse 16, huh? To Abraham are said the promises and to his, what? Seed, right, huh? It does not say to their seeds, as it were, in many, but to what? His seed, yeah. In one and to what? Christ. Your seed, which is Christ, huh? God, therefore, showed the law and other special benefits to that people on account of the promise, promise, yeah, that from them Christ would, what? Be born. Be born. It is suitable that that people from which Christ was to be born would be distinguished by a special, what? Sanctification, huh? According to that which is said in Leviticus, huh? Be holy because I myself am holy. So if the holy one is going to come from that race, they have to be. It's an expression. It was not, however, on account of the merit of Abraham that such a promise was, what? Made to him that Christ would be born from his, what? See? But by a gratuitous choice and, what? Vacation. Once it is said in Isaiah 41, who raised up a just man from the east and, what? Called him that he might, what? Follow him, huh? Thank you. Thank you. Thus, therefore, it is clear that only from the gratuitous election the fathers received a promise, and the people from them, generated right, received the law, according to Deuteronomy 4, verse 36. You heard the words of him in the middle of the fire, because he loved the fathers, and he chose their seed before others, or after others. If, however, it be asked again, wherefore, this people he chose, that from them Christ could be born, and not other, there remains a response of Augustine, which he gives upon John. Wherefore, he drew this one and not that one. I do not want to judge if I don't want to be mistaken. It's a beautiful passage from Augustine, classical, huh? As Aristotle would say, you know, we should try to improve, you know, some things our predecessors say, you know, but some things we should try to say as well as they said it. So Thomas, he gets that point. He just quotes his predecessor. Yeah, good advice, advice, you know. Now, objections. The first objection, therefore, it should be said, that although the future salvation through Christ was prepared for all, what? Nations. Nevertheless, it was necessary that Christ be born from one people, right? Who, on account of this, had before others prerogatives, right? According to that of Romans 9, verse 4. Of whom, to wit the Jews, right? Is the adoption of the sons of God and the testament and the legislature of whom, what? The fathers, right? The fathers at home. From whom Christ is according to the, what? The flesh, yeah? It's interesting, too, he said about holiness because obviously a lot of people went somewhere, I think it was a mark of holiness in the church, not only because either, he said Christ is holy, he could say that, and this is his body, or some of the members are holy, yeah, but it's also, he said, they said because the teaching is holy, and it gives holiness. So that's one of the marks that you're seeing, the individual holiness that anybody else is teaching is the thing that is entrusted to this one, to this one, to something paradoxical. To a second, it should be said that the accepting of persons has place in those things which are given, because they're owed to them, right, huh? Exhibit. In those things which are conferred from a gratuitous will, the exception of persons does not have, what? Place, huh? For he's not, what? He's not an acceptor of persons who from his liberality gives of himself to one and not to, what? Another, right? But if he be the dispenser of the common goods and does not distribute equally according to the merits of the person, then he's an acceptor of, what? Persons. Now, the solitary benefits that God confers to human race is from his, what? Yeah. Whence he is not a person except our persons if he gives to some before others, right, huh? Whence Augustine says in the book on the predestination of saints, all whom God, what? Teaches, mercy, what? By mercy he teaches. Whom he does not teach, by judgment he does not teach him. That describes our country today, right? This comes from the damnation of the human race for the son of the first parent. The Pope will be using these words, though, when he comes here. Yeah. He'd really be in trouble using these words, wouldn't he? To the third, it should be said that the benefits of grace are subtracted from men on account of, what? Kilt. But natural benefits are not subtracted. Now, among those, among which are the, what? Ministeries, services of the angels, huh? Which the order of natures requires, huh? That is that through the middle ones, the lower are governed, right? And also the, what? Subsidient. Yeah. Which, not only to men, but also to the beast, God administers. According to that of Psalm 35, he says, men and, what? The beast, huh? Time to quit now, or?