Prima Secundae
Lecture 260: Moral Precepts, Charity, and Justification in the Old Law

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

One of the objections is that sin is against, what, charity, right? But there's only two commandments of love, right? Love God, love your neighbors. It shouldn't be against God, against your neighbor, and against yourself, right? Well, we used to always, some days, we'd discuss that thing, you know, why isn't there a command to love yourself, right? And sometimes we'd say, you know, well, it's a, what, something natural to love yourself, right? So why do you need a commandment for it, right? And we'd point out, you know, that with the, the commandment to love your neighbor, it says, love your neighbor as yourself, right? Well, then there must be a way that you love yourself, that you should love yourself, if you're commanded to love your neighbor as you love yourself, right? So it's kind of implied in that, right? But anyway, apropos of this, Thomas brings out how the command that's not stated here, apparently, right, to love yourself is included in the two commandments that you have. Now, how would you tie it in with the two commandments, then? Or with which one would you tie it in with? Well, you could be your neighbor, because it says to love your neighbor as yourself. Yeah, yeah, you see, that's kind of implied. That's one, but all you say, because, well, if I love my neighbors for the sake of God, because that's the image, well, and so am I. So you could say, you could say the same reason that I should love myself. Not because of my neighbor, but the same reason I'm taking the image of God about myself. The question is, is the love of oneself, you know, a part of the commandment to love your neighbor, right? Or is it really, according to that statement, right, something presupposed to the commandment to love your neighbor, right? Or is it, if you already presupposes that you love yourself, right, in a certain way, that you should, right, and you shouldn't love your neighbor in that same way for his own sake and so on, then it's really not a part of that second commandment, right? But it's presupposed to it, right? Anyway, Thomas does the text, he says, that it's understood in the commandment to love God. Because you don't love God, you don't really love yourself, he says. That's kind of interesting, right, huh? Because you probably, because of this thing, the command to love your neighbor as yourself, you'd say it's tied up with the second one. Well, there's an indication that it has something to do with that. But it's really looking before and after, right? Something presupposed to that. What's presupposed to the commandment? So we're in the love of God. So it must be included in the love of God. That you don't love yourself unless you love God. And they can see that here, right? That's kind of interesting, huh? So it's not that he's talking about charity as such that he brings out this, you know, but he's talking about this particular division of sin, right? Against God, against yourself, and against your neighbor, and what it is. I can explain that to one. But I propose the answer to this objection, right? Based upon there being just two commandments of love. So I should just be sin against God and sin against your neighbor. This would be sin against yourself, right? And, but he answers that, huh? By pointing out how the love of oneself is included in the love of God, right? Because unless you love God, you don't really love yourself. That's really interesting, I think, huh? Those are the kind of things I try to put in my notes, you know. Because I say you wouldn't know where you'd find that text, you know, huh? And Saturday we went to the, to this conference on the physician-assisted suicide, you know, which is held an assumption there from about 9 to 12 in the morning there. And the two speakers, one was the bishop, of course, of Worcester, right? And then this Jesuit who's both a priest and a doctor, right, huh? So, the bishop spoke first, you know. And, of course, when he talked about, in the beginning, he talked about the natural law, right, huh? Of course, he used the definition of the natural law that you have in the, what, summa, right? The natural laws are partaking of the, what, the eternal law, right? The law, yeah. And, but you can also hate that there's a definition of, that's a theological definition of it, huh? But what would be the philosophy's definition of natural law, right? What does natural law mean, huh? I think it means natural in two senses, right? That the natural law is about what is naturally good or bad, right? Like it's naturally good to honor your father and mother, naturally bad to murder your neighbor and so on, steal of your neighbor. But also that it's, what, naturally known, right? You don't have to have a discourse, huh, to do it, huh? But he was saying, you know, that you know these things both by reason and by, what, faith, right, huh? But then you could have a definition of, you know, that's in theology and one that's in philosophy, huh? And the theologian would go back all the way back to God because everything is defined in reference to God, right, huh? But the philosopher kind of considers things in themselves, right? And so he'd look at the natural law as being defined in terms of nature, right, huh? It's things that are naturally known and things that are, what, naturally good or naturally bad, right, huh? What's naturally known about what is naturally good or bad, see? And that's, you know, it's not defined by God, but I mean, it's still in reference to God, ultimately. These earlier questions, I consider out some of the least little consideration. Yeah, he'll do that again in the next article, you know, talk about that, you know. But, I mean, the natural law is really about things that are natural, you know. I thought, I think, to reason them out, right? Now, what is there saying there is 350,000 abortions by Planned Parenthood this last year, you know? And so when Obama or Clinton is supporting it, you say, Obama supports the murder of 350,000. Well, there's a headline, you know, Obama supports the murder of 350,000 babies. You know, they never use the headline, but... At least, at least. When I have my night job there with him at the printing press, it's all in the morning press, and, you know, it kind of, you know, it just kind of makes you stop and think, you know. But if you're supporting Planned Parenthood, you're supporting the murder of 350,000 babies a year. Well, they're still talking about it, but, you know. So now we're down to what? The first objection, right, huh? To the first it should be said that the Lord does not say, if you wish to enter life, observe one command, but observe, what? All the commands, among which are contained the command about the love of God and, what? One's neighbor, huh? To the second it should be said that under the command of charity is contained that you love God from your whole heart, heart, to which pertains that you refer all things to God, right? And therefore the precept of charity a man cannot, what, fulfill unless he refers all things to, what, God, huh? Therefore the one who honors his parents is held to honor them from, what, charity? But not by reason of this precept, which is to honor your parents, huh? But by reason of this precept, to love the Lord your God from your whole, what, heart, huh? And since these are two affirmative precepts, not obliging one all the time, right? They can oblige one for diverse, what, times. And thus it can happen that someone fulfilling the precept about the honoring of their parents does not then transgress the precept about the omission of the mode of, what, charity, huh? You can avoid some of the inconvenience that he's talking about. To the third it should be said that to observe all the precepts of the law, a man is not able unless he fulfills the precept of charity, which has not come about without grace. And therefore it's impossible what Pelagius says, that a man fulfill the law without what grace, huh? I used to read that in high school, my cousin Donald had these English volumes, you know, of the works of Augustine. and you know what they have, and you used to read all these things about the Pelagius and so on. So his name stinks in your mind. Going to Article 11 here. To the 11th one goes for it thus. It seems that unsuitably are distinguished the other moral precepts of the law apart from the, what, Decalogue, right? Because, first of all, as the Lord says in Matthew chapter 22, in the two precepts of the law, the whole, what, law and the prophets are, what, hanging, right, on the two precepts of charity. But these two precepts are, what, unfolded, expounded, by the ten precepts of the Decalogue, right? The two tablets, the three and the seven. Therefore, it's not necessary to have other moral, what, precepts, huh? Well, this objective is not looking before and after, right? Because there's something more particular than the ten, right, huh? Boy, probably. Moreover, the moral precepts are distinguished from the judicial ones and from the, what, ceremonial ones, huh, as has been said. But the determinations of the common precepts of the moral ones pertain to the judicial and ceremonial precepts. For the common moral precepts are contained under the, what, Decalogue, or even presupposed Decalogue, as has been said. Therefore, unsuitably are they treated other moral precepts apart from the Decalogue, right? Precepts should not be most part of necessity, as they would say. Command should not be ordered without. Moreover, the moral precepts are about the acts of all the, what, virtues, as has been said above. But just, therefore, as in the law are laid down moral precepts apart from the Decalogue pertaining to the worship of God, liberality, and mercy, right, and chastity, so also there ought to be laid down other precepts pertaining to other virtues, right? To fortitude, to sobriety, and others of this sort, huh? Which, nevertheless, is not found, right? Therefore, not suitably are they distinguished in the law the other moral precepts, which are apart from the Decalogue, like they are, just for some of them, and not all, right? Okay, but against this is what is said in Psalm 18, that the law of the Lord is immaculate, converting, what, souls. But through the other moral commands, which are added, or above the Decalogue, supraeduntur added above, man is conserved without, what, the stain of sin, and his soul is conferred to God. Therefore, it pertains to the law that other, what, moral precepts be treated. Now, what's Tom's going to say here? The answer should be said, that just as is clear from the things for said, the judicial precepts and the ceremonial have, what, string or force from their institution alone, right? Because before they're instituted, it would not seem to differ whether thus or otherwise they would come about, huh? Is that true, about the priesthood being restricted to the man? Yeah. I think it would be a figure, it would be a figure of Christ. Do you know how people, you know, in some of these funny churches, you know, they might have some communion service with soda pop or something, you know, instead of wine, right? Well, God could have, you know, introduced it in beer if he wanted to instead of wine. I would have been kind of shocked if he did. I mean, isn't that something he instituted in bread of this sort and wine of this sort, right? And that's it, right? But he could have done it in beer or in something else, right? Fudge or something. Milk of human kindness, right? So that's kind of the idea. Some things are, what, from their institution, right? But the moral precepts, huh, from the very, what, dictated natural reason have their efficacy, huh? Even if they were never, what, in law, yeah. And of these, there is a threefold grace, huh, or grade, rather. For some are certissima, most certain, right? Most sure, to use the English word for certain. And therefore they are so, what, manifest, that they do not need, what? Yeah, yeah. Uncle Cirque's story says the word manifest, like catching somebody with the hand, right? He's got his hand and the money, and you catch him, you know, no question about him being guilty, right? Right? For some are most certain, and so manifest, that they do not need a, what? To be edited, right? To be established, or thought out. As the commands about the love of, what, God, and one's neighbor, and others of this sort, as had and said above, which are, as it were, the very ends of the, what, precepts, huh? Whence in these known, is able to err, by judgment of what? Reason, huh? Some are more determined, whose reason, at once, huh? Anyone, even the, what? The, yeah? Is able easily to see. And nevertheless, because in fewer of these, right? It happens for human judgment to be perverted, it happens sometimes. These need some addition, right? And these are the precepts of the, what? Decalogue, right? And some are, are, whose reason is not so manifest, but only to the, what? Wise, huh? And these are the pre, more precepts that are added above the Decalogue. Treated by the, what? Moses and, and Aaron, yeah. So, he has a distinction in the three here, right? He's looking before and after, right? Which comes first, second, and what? Third, yeah. And he said that there's a Decalogue. The Decalogue is pretty certain, you know, I mean, even, you know, when Aristotle's in the Nicomachean Ethics, and he's talking about how virtue lies in the middle, right? And so on. And then he says, but there's no, you know, mean of the extreme, right? So he says, there's no mean of adultery, for example, right? You know, if you don't do too much, you're too little, you know? It is wrong, right? I mean, that's kind of obvious to Aristotle, right? And you can find Aristotle saying things like that about theft or about, you know, so, murder and so on, right? So, and honor your father and mother, right? They see that, right? Even that old pagan Aristotle, right? He sees that. Then you have things that are even more particular than that, right? Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Now, because those things which are manifest are the beginnings for knowing those things which are not what? Manifest. Then the other moral precepts added above the Decalogue are reduced to the precepts of the Decalogue by way of a certain what? Addition to them, right? For in the first precept of the Decalogue it's prohibited the cult of what? Iringas, huh? Which are super added, huh? Other precepts prohibiting those things which are ordered to the cult of idols, right? As is had in Deuteronomy chapter 18. You will not find, what? Among you, one who, what? Sacrifices his son or his, what? Yeah. What? Yeah. But leading them through fire, right? Nor a evildoer, right? Or incantanto, right? A singer. It doesn't mean an opera singer, I hope. Nor the, what? Consulting the python. Yeah. And seeking from the dead truth and so on, huh? Okay. So that's quite a queer, weird world out there. Condemning that, right, huh? The second precept prohibits, what? Perjury, right, huh? To this is added the prohibition of, what? Blasphemy. And the prohibition of false teaching. Deuteronomy 13. Bring that one back. Yeah. To the third precept are added above all the ceremonial precepts, right? To the fourth precept about the honor of parents is added the precept about the honoring of the old, right, huh? According to that of Levite, chapter 19, huh? Before what? The old one? Right there, yeah. Rise up and honor the person of the old, right, huh? Okay. And universally, all precepts inducing one to the reverence to be shown to the greater, or the benefits to be shown to equals or even to what? Lesser ones, huh? To the fifth precept, which is about the prohibition of homicide, is added the prohibition of hate and violation against what? Any kind of violation against one's neighbor, right? According to that of Levite 19, you will not stand against the, what, the blood of your neighbor, and also the prohibition of the hate of brothers, huh? You will not hate your brother in your, what, heart, huh? Yeah. That word, the volitzy on this, is from grinding, like grinding an act, like pulling the grudge. To the sixth precept, which is about the prohibition of adultery, is added above the precept about the prohibition of, let's bring a woman to lease, a loose, yeah. And the, according to that, Deuteronomy 23, there will not be a, what, harlot among the daughters of Israel, nor a fornicator, right, about the sons of Israel. And also the prohibition of the vice against nature, right, huh? See, I seem to have forgotten about this. So you can see, this is not quite as obvious, right? It's added now. Yeah. According to that of Levite 18, chapter 18, with the male you will not mix, right? And with the beast you will not go together. The seventh precept about the prohibition of theft, there is joined the precept about the prohibition of usury, right? According to that of Deuteronomy 23, you will not, what, for usury, yeah. And the prohibition of fraud, according to that of Deuteronomy 25, you will not have in your, what, your bag diverse ways. And universally, all the things which pertains to the prohibition of calumny and stealing. To the eighth precept, which is about the prohibition of false testimony, there is added to the prohibition of false, what, judgment, according to that of Exodus 23. Nor your judgment of many will you acquiesce to the sentence of the many, right? That you deviate from the truth, what the pole says, right? Most men, I know people are... The stability of a windsock. Yeah, yeah. The mental stability of a windsock. But they were like... And the prohibition of a lie, right, huh? Flee from the lie, right? And the prohibition of detraction, right? You will not be a, what, incriminator and a whisperer in the people. Cicero. That's a beautiful word, Cicero. To the other last precepts, nothing else is joined because through them, universally, all bad desire is, what, prohibited, right? So he applies the first objection, that to the love of God and a neighbor hoarded the, what, precepts of Decalogue, according to the manifest notion of what is owed to God or to your neighbor, right? And then the other ones that we just talked about a bit, according to a reason, more, what, hidden, huh? Okay? I could make that same kind of thing, I suppose, in looking philosophy, too, right, huh? You could say that there are some things that are manifestly fouling, right, huh? And then some other things that are more hidden, right? That comes up with some magnificent things. Some things, even how to reason them out, you kind of agree, right? How do you find the center of a circle, you know, kind of the way it begins, how do you find the center of a circle? Yeah, yeah, you draw one line in the circle, and then you bisect it, and you draw at the right angles, you know, and then you bisect that, yeah, yeah. But I haven't proved that that's going to be the center, have I, right? And you can see how Euclid does it, but you kind of, you know. See that, you know? But other things, you know, that the angles at the extremity and at the center, you know, are on the same circumference, or, you know, double, double, you know, so everything's going to be hidden, you know, okay? To the second, it should be said. Now, the second objection is saying, well, you've got these other ones, you know, like the judicial laws and the judicia and the ceremonial, right? He says, the precepts, the ceremonial and the judicial ones are determinative of the precepts of the Decalogue, ex vi institutionis, huh? A way of the institution, right? Not, however, by way of what? Natural instinct, as the moral precepts are added, right? So he sees that distinction. I guess you'd say that the force is the same. Well, I mean, some have their authority from the institution, right? And some from natural instinct, right? They go back to an actual, an actual law. So these ones that are added still have its foreign instinct? Yeah, the ones that he gave here in the body of the article, yeah. But they have to be made their own. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Are you going to go into the ceremony in the next couple? Yeah, I thought they had a... It'd be beautiful. Oh, look. Tranking objection. Yeah. Okay, now, what about, you know, the irregularity of the, not all these ones are being taken up, right? Kind of picking and choosing their scripture. To the third, it should be said that the precepts of the law are ordered to the common good. And because the virtues ordering one to another directly pertain to the common good, and likewise the virtue of, what, chastity, insofar as the act of generation serves the, what, common good of the species. Therefore, about these, what, fritches directly... Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. given precepts and what yeah but to the act of fortitude is given a precept proposed by the what the one's leading one to battle or exhorting one to battle which is undertaken from the common good once is clear in deuteronomy 23 where he's commanded to the priest do not what fear right and do not give way similarly also the act of what gluttony permitted is committed to paternal monition right because it's contrary to domestic good yeah once the daughter to army 21 on the person of parents remain the what they can yeah yeah and they're giving away ourselves over to eating and luxury which is sexual i guess and banquets and so on yeah because they used to have these city dinners you know that they talk about you know and make fun of you know dickens and other ones you know describing these people you're over eating you know these things and just stuffing themselves but that's not uh that's what in the real green's new testament defines a little word transliterated from the latin uh commesatio this they define it as um imodern banquets and belly cheer with riotous that's something english knowledge you have the description of banquets you know just this that's one of the best things kind of funny too but dickens or another english friend i saw in uh with harriet james harriet he's just described food so well yeah yeah okay 12 here now with the moral precepts of the old law justify right to the 12th when one proceeds us it seems that the moral precepts of the old law are what justify the problem with the word here right for the apostle says romans 2 for not hearers of the law are what just before god but doers of the law are justified but the doers of the law are said those who fulfill the precepts of the law therefore the precepts of the law fulfilled do in fact justify you know i got the authority of saint paul there right now of course the devil can quote scripture they say and shakes for you and shakes you told us that yeah whoever it said in the viticus 18 keep or guard my laws and my judgments judges judgments which a man doing will live in them right but the spiritual life of a man is by justice therefore the precepts of the law fulfilled do in fact justify more of the divine law is more efficacious than the human law but the human law justifies for there's a certain justice in this that the precepts of the law are fulfilled therefore the precepts of the law justify it seems equivocation it's running through this somehow here against this is what the apostle says the second epistle to the corinthians litter up cheated the letter kills which according to augustine the book on the spirit and the letter right is understood about the moral precepts and therefore the moral precepts do not justify they kill you know thomas begins with something that if you're not there this is the famous example of aristotle he's talking about equivocal words that are equivocal by reason and it should be said that just as healthy is properly and first said about what has health right paraposterous huh i don't notice huh you're talking about a word here that is equivocal by reason right huh so uh in logic we distinguish first between an equivocal word and a univocal word right what's that distinction yeah and then they divide equivocal into equivocal by chance right and equivocal by what reason right huh so i have a guy comes to my house and usually on tuesday night it's going to be wednesday night this week because he couldn't make tuesday but his name is richard right i'm always saying you know my brother richard but you know does someone look at these two guys and say we'll give them the same name because they have the same something rather no you and my brother are what equivocally named richard right if it's equivocal by reason there's an order among the meanings right huh that's the way they kind of talk about it right so you got prior and posteriors here the first meaning of healthy is the body that has a good condition right and then something else is called healthy because it's a sign of that or because it produces that or it preserves that or something right okay that's the example our style gives there right in the metaphysics i use the example of the of healthy right so this example is a common example but it's easy paraposterous it signifies uh uh you know what what signifies health right okay get a healthy complexion or something right or vice versa or what concerns health right like you know this diet or or this exercise or something right now yeah but not but not yeah yeah that's that's not that's not healthy food so thus justification first and properly said to be the what the doing or making of justice right secondary and quasi what improperly what is what that is called justification the signification of justice right or the disposition to justice right in which two ways is manifest that the precepts of the law justified in so far as they what dispose men for the grace of christ justifying right which they also what signify right because as augustine says in his work against faust he's a manichaean right faustus dion wants to dance to always take the fact that when augustine was going to meet faust the first time you know and he didn't know whether what faust was saying was true or false because they couldn't judge it right but he discovered the faust didn't know the liberal arts so he was you know something wrong with this man right he said remember the time of the importance of the liberal arts what if augustine had been reduced to liberal arts how would he have seen through faustus right because as augustine says in his work against faustus the what life of that people itself was prophetic right and figured christ signified him that's the word figurative we speak of figurative speech right signify something else but if we speak about justification propriae dicta right properly said thus it should be considered that justice can be taken insofar as it is in what habit or insofar as it is in what act and according to this justification is said duplicitera with duplicity right in two ways getting a you know inappropriate translation to amuse you gentlemen in one way according as man becomes just by what acquiring the habit of what justice another way according as he does what hooks of justice and according to this justification is nothing other than the carrying out of what justice i'm going to make another see another distinction here justice over just as the other virtues can be taken either to that acquired by our reputed acts right or that poured in by god right now the acquisita is caused from what works but the infuse is caused by god himself through his what grace and this is the true justice about which now we're speaking right so now he's trying to clean up this uh confusion here right according to which someone is said to be just before god according to that of romans 4 2. if abraham was justified from the works of the law he would have glory but not but before god for this justice cannot be caused by the moral precepts which are about what human acts and according to this the moral precepts are not able to justify by causing what justice but if one takes justification for the carrying out of justice thus all the precepts of the law justify although in different ways for the ceremonial precepts contain justice in itself in general insofar as they exhibit what in the worship of god you're showing the worship of god but in a special way they do not contain in themselves justice except from the determination alone of the what divine law and therefore about pieces of this sort that they do not justify except from the devotion and the obedience of those what doing them right because by the institution that they are required right but the moral precepts and the judicial ones contain that which in itself is just either in general or also in what particular right but the moral precepts contain that which is in itself just according to the general justice which is all virtues aristotle says in the fifth book of the ethics that's the book of justice that's one sense of justice plato innocence is kind of approaching that now because plato sees that temperance is in what the concubiscible right and courage is in the irascible and prudence is in reason and he's got no place for what justice he doesn't really have the will separated you know from uh okay mixed up with the reason he didn't see it as separate from that anymore things so he doesn't know what to do with it right and then he talks about well it's the coronation of all these parts you know and this is kind of a little like you speak of justice you know in adam and eve before the fall right you know the parts are in harmony with each other you know all the parts of man and so on and that's the effect of each part having its virtue right then they're all in harmony she doesn't have to have a special part for justice so aristotle's got to distinguish all these senses of justice because he spent all this time in the school of plato a great guy that played home first man to show by word and deed that the happy life is the virtuous life that's an aristotle put up to honor his teacher the judicial precepts pertain to special justice which consists in what pertains to the what contract of human life which is among men towards each other right now to the first therefore it should be said that the apostle takes their justification for the carrying out of justice right to second it should be said that the man making or doing the precepts of the law is said to live in them because he does not incur the punishment of what death which was inflicted upon the transgressors of the law in which senses induced this the pause induces this to the third it should be said that the precepts of human law require justice justifies the precepts of human law about which we're not asking for the moment but only about the justice which is awkward day so that's a bit of uh to justice that text right you have to distinguish the number of senses of justice and take a little break here now before we start the ceremonial things we start the ceremonial things we start the ceremonial things we start the ceremonial things we start the ceremonial things we start the ceremonial things we start the ceremonial things