Prima Secundae
Lecture 273: Ceremonial Precepts Before the Mosaic Law

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

God our enlightenment, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, order the luminary bridges, and arouse us to consider more quickly. St. Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor, and help us to understand what you have written. So we're in 102 Article 6, right? Are we up to about the sixth objection? That's kind of where I think we are. About six, don't we? We're in 102 Article 6. Okay, I hope so. He's got an English text there, because my vocabulary is a little English. To the sixth it should be said, as is said in Ecclesiasticus, that he is a clothing of the body, announces about the man. And therefore, the Lord wished that his people would be distinguished from other peoples, not only by the sign of circumcision, right, which was in the flesh, but also by a certain distinction of clothing or habitus, right? And therefore, it's prohibited that they be put on a vestment from, what, wool and linen? Now, lana is what? It's lana and lino. Lino is, which is, yeah, it's lana and lino. Lino is linen? Which is lana or lino? Lana. Lana, lino. Yeah. Yeah. And that woman be not dressed, right, in male clothing, right, huh? Or the reverse, right? On account of two things. First, to avoid the worship of idolatry, right, the cult of idolatry, because they used various vestments put together from these diverse things, right? The Gentiles in the culture of their, what, or worship of their, what, gods, right? And therefore, in the worship of Mars, woman used the arms of men, weapons, I suppose. And in the worship of Venus, a converso. Conversely, men used the clothing of woman, huh? Another reason was for declining, or from, what, lust, right, luxurium. For through these various mixtures and vestments, all disordered mixture of, what, intercourse was excluded, huh? For that the woman put on the male vestment, or reverse, was incentive of, what, concupiscence. And gave a occasion to, what, libido, lust. The figurative reason was because in the vestment put together from wool and linen was forbidden the conjection of, what, simple innocence, which is figured by wool, and of subtle malice, which is figured by, what, linen, huh? And it prohibited also that the woman would not, what, usurp teaching for herself, right? Or other offices of men, huh? Or that a man would not decline to the softness of, what? Oh. Now, this goes over at Catholic U, huh? That, of all, they used to have sometimes, you know, nuns for students, you know, and of course, there seems to be so many different kinds of nuns, you know, and investments, you know. We're always trying to remember what kind of nun this was, you know, and so on. And once in a while, once you'd call upon one of the nuns, you know, and they'd always get so embarrassed, you know. It's kind of funny, you know, we kind of get used to that. Okay, so let's look now at the septimum, right? To the seventh, it should be said that, as Jerome says, upon the Gospel of Matthew, the Lord, what, ordered, was it? Yeah, commanded, that in the four angles of their, what, garments, they would make isin, fringes, yeah, to distinguish the people of Israel from other, what, peoples, huh? Whence, through this that they professed to be Jews, and therefore, through the, what, sight of this sign, they were led into remembering the law, right? What, however, is said, you will bind them in your hand, and they'll always be before your eyes. The Pharisees, badly interpreted, right? Writing in the membranes of the Declado Moises, and they, what, tied them in front, as it were, a crown, right? I don't know, is it walking like the thing in front of you a little bit? Yeah. We're a crown, as you say, yeah, that they might be moved before their eyes, right? When, however, the intention of the Lord commanding was that they be bound in the hand that is in their operation, right? And they would be before the eyes, that is in, what, in meditation, yeah, meditation. So if I say, keep this before your eyes, it doesn't mean a round piece of paper in front of your eyes, especially when you're driving, but keep it in mind, right? But in your hands, it means what you do, right? In the hyacinth, what? Fittis, what is that? Okay, what you inserted in the clothing, they signified the celestial intention, which ought to be joined to all of our, what, works. Why would you do this for that? It can also be said that because that people was, what, carnal or fleshly, and of hard, what, stiff-necked, yeah, is necessary to sensible things of this sort that they be, what, aroused to the observance of the, what, law. To the eighth, it should be said, or to the eighth objection here in 102, Article 6. To the eighth, it should be said that the affection of man is twofold. One is by reason or according to reason. The other is according to, what, passion. Now, according to the affection of reason, it makes no difference what man does about the brute, what, animals. Because all were subject to him, right? Were subject to the power from God. According to that of Psalm 8, you have put all these under your, what, feet. And according to this, the apostle says there is no care for God about, what, the cattle or something. Because God does not ask for men what they do about the cattle or about the other, what, animals, huh? But since we're body and soul, right, huh? But as regards the affection of the passion, the affections of man are moved about animals. Because all for the passion of mercy, right, arises from the, what, afflictions of others, right, huh? And it happens that even, what, rude animals sense pains, right, huh? And therefore there can arise in man the affection of mercy about the afflictions of, what, animals, huh? And it's near that one who is exercised in the affection of mercy about animals is more from this disposed for the affection of mercy about men, huh? Or vice versa, if you're cruel to the animals, you might pass over and be cruel to men, right? For the just man knows the souls of his, what, beasts, huh? But the viscera of the impious are cruel, right? I'm always struck by Aristotle, you know, when he begins the book on the poetic art, and he talks about, what, tragedy, right? And tragedy moves us to, what, pity and fear, right? But pity is like, what, mercy in a sense, right? It's kind of the first thing that's civilized in some sense, right? That kind of a fiction, right? It has a civilizing influence, right? And therefore, that the Lord would recall the Judaic people being prone, what, to cruelty. He's really wacky there, isn't he, right? Don't you say? He would recall, what, them to mercy, right, eh? Because they were prone to cruelty, eh? He wished to exercise them in mercy, also about, what, rude animals, right? So they would be inclined to be, what, kind to men. Prohibiting some things about animals to come about, which seem to retain to a certain, what? Cruelty, right, eh? And therefore, he prohibited that they cook the, what, goat in the milk of his mother, right? And it did not bind the mouth of the, uh, um, want to feed when he's working, right? And they wanted not to kill the mother with her, what, you know, offspring. Although it could also be said that these were prohibited in detestation of idolatry, right? For the Egyptians regarded it as, what, bad? The, uh, cattle that are running around, I mean, going around, eat of the, what, fruits, right? Does anyone feed them, I guess, huh? What? Here, of this, for the Egyptians held it to be wicked to allow the ox to eat of the grain while freshening of corn. Yeah, yeah. And some of the evildoers, right, use the mother of the bird, and it's young, right, captured together, right, for the fecundity and fortune about the nourishment of their, what, children. And also because in their auguries there, their, yeah, omens, yeah, they recognized their regard this as being something fortunate, right, for two it is, that they found the mother in Cubans with the children, right? Right. That means what, would she add her young or give birth to them, or what, in Cubans? She'd be sitting on them, I guess, a little warm sitting on her young than it sits here. I remember this little boy going to the corner grocery store, and my mother would send me over there, in this kind of wooded area, to get over to the corner grocery store. And there had been, you know, at one time, you know, a walkway through there, you know, and so on. So I kind of, you know, like that. Came to do it, there was a mother cat with her kittens, right? And I was kind of very surprised at this, you know. And I started looking at it, and then kind of I sensed that the mother cat was a little bit, you know, nervous of my presence, you know, and then I, so I ran away, you know. But I said, remember that, you know, huh? You know, it's a kind of striking scene to see, you know. My wife and I always talk about my daughter when she was a little girl, and she had a cat there, and the cat was giving birth to kittens, you know. And she's, you know, almost in tears, you know, and so on. And when is she has ten children, huh? Now about the mixture of animals, diverse in species, right? The sense of the letter is, can be threefold, right? One, for detesting the idolatry of the Egyptians, right? Who use diverse mixtures in service of the, what, planets? Who, according to diverse conjunctions, huh, have diverse effects upon diverse species of things. And for another reason, to excluding, what, coming together against nature, right? Third, for taking away universally the occasions of concupiscence. For animals of diverse species do not mix together easily to each other. Unless this be, what, procured by men, right? And in the aspect of coitus of animals, it's excited, what? The motion of concupiscence in men, huh? Whence also in the tradition of the Jews, the precept was found, as Rabbi Moses said, that men should avert their eyes from animals going together, right? The figurative reason of these things is because, to the ox grinding thing, right? To the preacher bringing forth the seeds of doctrine, right? It was not necessary to subtract, what, food, as the apostle says, so that you can live from your profession. We ought not to, what, hold the mother with the children, because in some things, the spiritual senses should be retained as the worst sons, and should be dismissed as little observance as the mother. Just as in all the ceremonies of the law. This is very subtle, this stuff. And it's prohibited also that the beast, that is, the popular men, right, we do not make to come together, that is, to have a union with other kinds of animals, that is, with Gentiles, huh? Or Jews, huh? To the ninth, it should be said that all those mixtures in agriculture are prohibited in the letter, in detestation of idolatry, because the Egyptians, in the veneration of stars, made diverse mixtures, huh? And in the seeds, and in animals, and in vestments, clothings, representing diverse conjunctions of the stars. Or all these mixtures were prohibited, various mixtures were prohibited for detesting the union that is against, what, nature, huh? And they have also a figurative reason, because the Jews shall not, what, yeah, is spiritually to be understood that the church, which is the spiritual vineyard, but not to plant alien doctrine, right, huh? Not to put the seeds in alien doctrine out there. And that the field, that is the church, which is the church, the Algeria is the field, is the church, should not be seeded with diverse seed, that is, Catholic doctrine and heretical doctrine, no. Nor should one, what, have plowing at the same time, the ass and the, what, ox, is it? Because the foolish one ought not to be associated in preaching with the wise men, right, huh? Because one impedes the other. See how Thomas uses sometimes the word ass there, you know, huh? Now, to the eleventh one, it should be said that the malefici, the doers of evil, right, and the priests of idols, huh, use in their rights the bones and the fleshes of dead men, right? There's something going on in Worcester there, you know, there's some bones, you know, stolen from some mausoleum, and today the headlines was the second mausoleum that they think was people who were getting bones down. What, what, what are they doing that for, you know? Are they malefici, as he says, right? This reminds me kind of what's going on in Worcester, right, right now. What? The mausoleum, there was some bones stolen from a mausoleum at the Hope Cemetery, I think it is, in Worcester, yeah. And then I guess there was, you know, switched down to the second, you know, probably of bones from some other mausoleum have been right, so they're, yeah, and so they, these, what we've got here in the eleventh one, the malefici, right, the doers of evil, and the priests of idols used in their rights, the bones and the fleshes of dead men, right? What do they want? these four. I think it's a gruesome thing, you know, huh? You wonder what kind of, you know, what they're up to, you know? And therefore, too, removing the cult of idolatry, the Lord commanded that the, what, lesser priests who, in definite times, ministered in the sanctuary, should not be, what? What? Yeah, they shouldn't be in contact with the death, right? Except those who may be, those who are very close, right? Father and mother and persons of this sort, right? For the high priest ought to be always prepared for administering the sanctuary, and therefore there was totally prohibited to him, access to the dead, huh? No matter how close they were, right? Won't the Jews, you know, very, very quickly, too, don't they say that about the Jews? That's just their custom. I don't know why exactly it is, but it's something to do with this. I don't know. Did they reprieve these? To the Jews very, very quickly, you know, the dead. I've heard people say that. I don't know whether it's true or not, but I've heard people say that that's what their custom is. The high cultural standards of hygiene, washing the hands, for example, before eating, they didn't know anything about microorganisms, but also the bearing of excretions, instead of letting it just lay it out, and also bearing the dead, and also the rules about what foods were unclean, shellfish in particular, which would spoil like that, in those conditions, no refrigeration. So it's quite amazing how the Lord led them towards basic principles of hygiene, millennia, before anybody else. And that's what that German do. Yeah. They're very excellent medical people, too, aren't they? Usually the Jews. They're very, very, very, quite a few doctors for their number. He has command also that they do not lead into a wife a, what? But a virgin, right? Both on account of the reverence that one should have for the priests, whose dignity, in a way, would seem to be diminished by such a conjugal relation, right? And also on account of the sons, to whom it would be, what, ignominy, the baseness of their mother, right? Which, most of all, should be avoided, because the dignity of priesthood was conferred according to the succession of the genus, right? You had to be in a certain tribe, didn't you, to be a priest? It was commanded also that they do not, what, cut the hair, right? Or the, what? Beards. You guys, that's why you're going to beards, right? Nor that they make in their flesh, right? Incision, right? To removing the right of idolatry. For the priests of the Gentiles, was it cut their hair and their beard? Once it said in Baruch VI, the priests sat, what, having cut tunics and their heads and their beard shaved, yeah. Did the Indians shave a lot too, or what? Yeah, I don't know what the reason that was, yeah. And also in the worship of idols, they cut themselves with knives and lances, little lances, is there something? It's a surgical, you know, there's no time on it. Whence there are contrary precepts for the priests of the old law. Now, the spiritual reason of these things is because the priests ought to be entirely removed from the works of the dead, right? Which are the works of sin. And therefore they ought not to, what, cut the hair? The head, rather. That is to lay down their wisdom, right? Because they say the hair is your thoughts, right? That has that sense. Nor to put down the, what, beard. That is perfection of, what, wisdom, huh? And what does Shakespeare say? And love, which grey birds call divine. In order to cut their vestments or to cut their flesh, right? And to do not incur the vice of schism, huh? Quite as, take a little break there, huh? Before we go on to the duration of the ceremony precepts, but this is not his, his detail down to all the little things. Looking ahead at that part on, on grace, you know, where Thomas would divide the treatise on grace, and the grace, grace by itself, and then the causes of grace, and then the effects of grace, right? That, you know, looking before and after, right, huh? It's just like, you know, the treatise on love, where he takes up love in itself, or by itself, and then the causes of love, and then the effects of love, right? That's, you know, a nice division into three, right? But this is all over, you know, the place in a sense. Get you thinking about these things, though, right? Now imagine if you went and read through, you know, the books of the Old Testament, and from time to time, and you come back and read this, and, you know, yeah, and then one will, will interest you in the other, right, huh? Okay, then we're not to consider about the duration of the ceremonial precepts. And first, four things are asked. Whether there were ceremonial precepts before the law, that being before Moses or what? Whether in the law they had some power of what? Justifying one, I suppose, from what? Sin, right? Freeing you from sin. Third, whether they seized when Christ, Christ coming, right? And fourth, whether it be a mortal sin to observe them after Christ. Okay. To the first, then, one goes forward thus. It seems that the ceremonies of the law, that there were ceremonies of the law before the law, yeah. For the sacrifices and holocausts pertain to the ceremonies of the old law, as has been said above. But there are sacrifices and holocausts before the law. For it is said in Genesis chapter 4, that Cain offered of the fruits of the earth gifts to what? The Lord, right? Abel offered from the firstborn of his flock, right? And from there, what? Fat, eh? And that Noah also offered holocausts to the Lord, as is said in chapter 8, eh? And Abraham, likewise, eh? Similar, there. As is said in Genesis chapter 22, eh? When does Moses first appear? In Exodus, or what? That book? Second book? He's not in Genesis, is he? I don't think so, yeah. So these are all examples taken from Genesis, right? Which are before the law by Tuna Masia. Okay. Therefore, there are ceremonies of the old law before the law, right? That's kind of, to me, laws. Moreover, the construction of the altar pertains to the ceremonies of sacred things, right? And to their anointing, I guess. But these were found before the law. For it is read in Genesis chapter 13, that Abraham built an altar for the, what? Lord. And about Jacob is said in Genesis 28, that he took a stone and, what? Raised it up as a, what? Pouring oil down upon it, right? Therefore, there were legal ceremonies before the law. I'm convinced of all this, aren't you? How could he possibly take the other thing? Just perversity is always taking the opposite side, right? Showing you how dumb you are when you're accepting these arguments. It's on the other side, right? Moreover, among the legal sacraments, first would seem to have been, what? Circumcision, right? So, like, baptism, right, for us. But circumcision was before the law, as is clear in Genesis chapter 17. And likewise, priesthood was before the law, for he said in Genesis 14, that Melchizedek was a priest of the high, what? God. And Christ is a priest according to the order of Melchizedek, isn't he? So, I mean, this is really something. Therefore, there were ceremonies of the sacraments before the law. I don't think you ever untie these, Thomas. I don't think you ever can. Nobody can untie these. I got you now. I told you that I had a student when I was teaching, he was teaching in California. He'd come in very often in class and he put a real good objection, you know. And I'd heard these, you know, arguments for him. So I didn't tie it, you know, and so on, right? He told me after the course one time, you know, he said, I came in, you know, a good day and I thought, I've got him today, isn't it? You know? And then I'd heard these things, you know, but it's new to him, right? He thinks he's got something, you know, he's going to get me. He's a good student, right? And beautiful like that because he pulls the checks like this and like this. And then as I started to untie it, you know, you'd see him kind of, you know, like that. It was just marvelous, you know. You don't often have a student like that, you know, and he was good to see that, you know. No, I don't think he did, but he told me after he confessed that he thought he was trying to get me this thing. That's good for a student like that. Okay. So this one from the Kisenach is really strong. Moreover, the discretion, the distinction, you might say, of clean animals from the unclean ones pertain to the ceremonies of observances, right? As has been said above. But there is such a discretion or distinction before the law, right? For it's said in Genesis 7, from all clean animals take what? Yeah, 7 and 7. And from the animals that are unclean, 2 and 2. Now, what 7 and 7 and 2 and 2 mean? I don't know, but maybe you gentlemen know. Therefore, the legal ceremonies were there before the law, right? But against this is what is said in Deuteronomy chapter 6. These are the precepts and the ceremonies which the Lord your God has commanded, that I, what, teach you, right? And Deuteronomy means, what, the second law, doesn't it? I mean, second, it's kind of a summary of the law the second time, you know, the law is being presented. But they would not need to have been taught about these things if before these ceremonies already were, right? Therefore, the ceremonies of the law were not there before the law. Well, let's see what Thomas says in the response. I answer it should be said, that as it's clear from the things said, that the ceremonies of the law are ordered to two things. Now, what are the two things? To it, to the worship of God, that's one thing, and to what? Signifying Christ in some way, huh? Now, in the Latin here, it says, ad figurandum Christum, right? So figure sometimes has a sense of what? Kind of like a sign, right? What do we call in speech there? Figure of speech, or we use the word, right? It's something that, what it immediately signifies is not what it means, right? But it's something else that it's signifying, right? We use the word figurative speech, right? So, I don't know why it is exactly, huh? Although we take, I suppose, you know, from how do you recognize a dog or a cat or a tree, you know? By the figure mainly, right, huh? How do you recognize this is a chair? I recognize these chairs when I come in, I'm pretty smart. But how do you recognize this to be a chair? Yeah, yeah. And of course, in the case of animals, I mean, is the shape of the animal what the animal is? No. But it's a sign of the kind of animal that he is, isn't it? And that's how we know animals and plants and even artificial things, right, is by their what? Shape, their figure, right? So maybe this gets extended to the idea of being a what? A sign, right, huh? When they talk about, what do you call it in, about an image or a likeness, right, huh? It's got to be either in the specific nature of that thing or what is a sign of that specific nature. And so if I make a statue of a man, you say, well, this is a man, right? Not that it has anything of a man except the, what, shape of a man, right, huh? And so if I make a statue of a man, right, huh? And so if I make a statue of a man, right, huh? And so if I make a statue of a man, right, huh? And so if I make a statue of a man, right, huh? And so if I make a statue of a man, right, huh? And so if I make a statue of a man, right, huh? And so if I make a statue of a man, right, huh? And so if I make a statue of a man, right, huh? Mafia came back, you know, after Washington had died, right, and he saw all these paintings of Washington and all these statues of Washington, you know, huh? I guess he went down to Virginia with that very famous statue and said, that, that's the man, you know? And he recognized, you know, the man he had known, right, huh? You know, this was really, I like this, it was good of Washington, right? So you see that statue, right, huh? So the interesting word figure there, he's a little puzzled by it sometimes. Myself, but I think it is the idea of a sign, isn't it, huh? Yeah, well, shadow's got the, the, the sign, yeah, yeah, the sheep of it, yeah, yeah, yeah. Some people are very good at doing that, you know, and giving a shadow, you know, and they have that kind of painting, it's what they call a shadow, used to do it in the, yeah, yeah. And we have some of them, you know, especially from the, you know, the early days of America, right, huh? Yeah. Some of these famous people sometimes. So, he says, the ceremonies of the law are already two things, to the worship of God and to signifying Christ, huh? Now, whoever worships God, it is necessary that to some determined things, he, what, worships him, huh? Which pertain to the exterior, right? Worship, huh? Now, the determination of the divine worship pertains to the, what, ceremonies, huh? And just as the determination of those things, through which or by which we are ordered to our neighbor, right, pertain to the judicial precepts, right, huh? Which I guess we're going to be taking up after this. Okay? As has been said above. And therefore, just as, and therefore as a man, among men, generally, there are some, what, judicial things, not instituted from the authority of the divine law, but ordered by the reason of men, right? So, also, there are certain ceremonials, not from the authority of any law determined, but only according to the will and the, what, devotion of men, worshiping, what, God, huh? And because, also, before the law, there were some special men, right, huh, enjoying the prophetic, what, spirit, spirit of prophecy. It should be believed, credendum est, right, that from a divine instinct, as it were from a, what, private law, that's kind of a strange thing to say, a private law, right, huh? They were led to a certain way of worshiping God, right, huh? Which was both suitable for the inward, what, worship, which is the first reason, right, for it, and also was in agreement or congruent for signifying the mysteries of Christ, which were figured or signified, right, through some of the things they, what, did, huh? According to that, in the first epistle of the Corinthians, omnia, infigurum, continge batilis. Everything happened to them in what? In figure, huh? Look up what Thomas says about that sometime, you know? There's the word figure there, right, huh? Omnia, infigurum, huh? There were, therefore, before the law certain ceremonies, right? He's not denying that, right? There's a large element of truth. Even Brickell's thought he saw in the objections, right? But not, however, ceremonies the law, because they were not instituted by some, what, law-giving, right, huh? To the first, therefore, it should be said, huh, that these offerings and sacrifices and holocausts, the ancients offered them before the law from a certain devotion of their, what, private or their own will, right? According as seemed to them, right, huh, suitable that they take in the things, which, what, they received from God, I should say, right? Which they offered in, what, reverence for God? And they protested, therefore, that they worship God, who is the, what, beginning and the end of all things, huh? There you get the way Thomas divides summa theologiae, right? Summa conscientilis, even more explicitly. God himself, and then God is the beginning and God is the end, right? I have a request. Yeah. I wanted to ask you, what is the conscientilis your favorite? Read it. Read it. You know, in terms of what you can know about God by natural reason as well as by faith, right? It's more expensive, the summa conscientilis, than the summa theologiae, right? You know, I always make a comparison there between the considerations, say, the divine, what, goodness, right? Now, in the summa theologiae, you have, what, God is good, and God is goodness itself, right? And then what does it have, huh? Where you can't, anything bad in God, right? And then he's a summa bonum, right? Well, in the summa conscientilis, you've got five chapters, right? And what's the one that's missing in the summa theologiae? That God is the, what, the good of every good, as Augustine says, right? Okay, so he enfolds a piece of that, right, huh? So if you look at the, you know, article, say, that's showing that God is simple, or the article is showing that God is, what, infinite, right? Or the article that shows that God is one, you'll have more arguments for it in the summa conscientilis than in the summa, what, theologiae, right, huh? What you have in the summa theologica, of course, is a great expansion on the summa conscientilis in terms of, what, moral theology, right? So you have the whole secunda secunde, right, the second part, right? We're reading the first part of the second part now. And then you have the other part, you know, is really the thickest part, right, the secunda secunde, right, we go into all the virtues. So as far as knowing God in his, what, nature, right, it's more complete in the summa, right? So, see, well, now that I think about moral theology, of course, I realize what a bad guy I am, right, and realize how bad the world is, right? And this makes me very, what, unhappy, right, huh? And I should look at the mirror sometime and see what I really am, right, you know? But I like to think about God. That's the most interesting thing to think about is God, right? And it's awfully developed in the summa contra gentiles, right? Okay? And, you know, if you compare it to the way he proceeds there in the summa contra gentiles, he takes up first, you know, that the argument, after the arguments of the existence of God, he takes up the, or even before, he takes up the arguments of the existence of God. If you look at the arguments from motion, they're much more complete in the summa contra gentiles, right? This is based upon two premises. The first premise can be shown by three arguments. The second one, you know, in the summa you might have just one, right? Okay? And he's got two arguments from motion, just one in the summa, you know? Okay? And then when he gets into it, because he's emphasized the argument from motion even more fully than in the summa theology later on, he takes up first the fact that God is unchanging, right? And that introduces you, of course, to development of act and ability, right? And while in the summa, if you look at it, he's got to develop that thing about God being pure act at the beginning of the treatise of the simplicity of God, right? It doesn't arise naturally from that as it does from the consideration of God being the unmoved mover. Because in both summas, one of the arguments for the unmoved mover is to begin by saying that nothing moves itself, right? And one of the arguments in that is from the definition of motion, right? Which is the act of what is able to be insofar as it's able to be. And so something is an ability. And so something is an ability. to motion, right? And so it's got to be actualized by something already in act. So you begin to see how act is before ability, right? And you kind of naturally develop the argument for the, what, God being pure act. If you look at the arguments in the Summa Contra Gentiles, it'll give you a right, almost like a summary of the ninth book of Aristotle, right? Where act is simply before ability, right? So it's developed much more fully, right? But the Summa Theologiae, you know, is very good, though, with the objections, you know, you have, you don't have it so much in the Summa Contra Gentiles, huh? But you get into, you know, the unity of God, maybe 20 arguments or something, you know, so I assume, you know, a few arguments, because it's for beginners, so-called, right, huh? You know? But it's giving these guys plenty of ammunition with the Muslims down there in Spain. So I was going to show you my my brother's, the card, my brother's funeral there, you know, my brother Marcus, but he has a quote from Summa Contra Gentiles, right? And how the study of wisdom is the best thing around, right? And it was interesting that they took it from the Summa Contra Gentiles, you know? I'm going to have to ask my sister-in-law there, who thought of that passage, you know, to put it on my brother's card, beautiful, beautiful. But actually, when I was from college, you know, we had a course called Natural Theology that was in the Philosophy Department. And we actually did the articles in the Summa Theologiae before you get to the Trinity, you know? And, because, yeah, there are some reason there, right? And that was my favorite course, you know? But then when I got the Summa Concentrias, even more deeply, you know? So, compare the consideration of the two things, right? I like to think about God, you know? And that taught me to think about God, huh? Yeah, yeah, yeah. I always say, I think about God, because I can't think of anything better than think about. He's very interesting, you know? Even he talks about the incarnation there in the fourth book, you know, he kind of develops it from Scripture, you know? Well, it kind of rises from Scripture, you know? There seems to be this talk about generation, you know, and God, you know, and he's graduated into the thing. So, in that sense, I would think it's better to begin there, right? Even in the Summa Theologiae, right? He talks about that. But for the development of moral theology, I have much more of that in the Summa Theologiae, right? It's much more fully developed there. Okay. So, so he's not denying that they had a certain, what? Devotion, and they had good sacrifice, even, right? Holocaust, but it's more a, what? Private thing, right? Ex qua dam devocione, from a certain devotion of their own, what? Will, right, huh? But they were, what? Inspired by God, too, right? It's a prophetic thing, huh? To the second should be said that they also instituted certain sacred things which seemed to them suitable, right? In reverence for divine things, huh? That there'd be some places set apart from others, right? Given over to the divine, what? Worship, right? Yeah. Places where these were. To the construction of the altar and its anointing, right? Okay. So they found a place suitable for this. Now, what about the circumcision, right? To the third, it should be said that the sacrament of circumcision was established by divine command before the, what? Law. Whence this cannot be said to be a sacrament of the law as it were instituted in the law, right? As if it began there. But only as it were to be observed in the law, right, huh? So it started by, what, Abraham, wasn't it? Yeah. And so it was commanded by God, right, huh? Whence it cannot be said to be a, what, sacrament of the law in the sense of being instituted in the law, right? But only as being, something to be observed in the law, right? And this is what the Lord himself says. Well, the argument of authority is the strongest, right? John chapter, what, seven. That circumcision is not from Moses. Well, he's the one who's the lawgiver, wasn't he? Yeah. But is from his, what, fathers, right? Abraham. Priesthood also there was before the law among those, what, worshipping God, huh? According to a human, what, determination, right, huh? Because his dignity they attributed to the, what, firstborn, is it? Okay. So my brother Richard should be offering up, right? Okay. The firstborn, right, huh? That's his prerogative, huh? Yeah. To the fourth, about the distinction of the animals, huh? To the fourth, it should be said that the distinction of clean and unclean animals was not before the law as regards their, what, eating. Because it was said in Genesis 9, huh? Everything that moves and lives will be for you, what? Yeah, food, right? See, boom. But only as regards the, what? Offering the sacrifices, huh? Because they offered sacrifices from certain, what? Definite animals, right, huh? If, however, there's some discretion of animals as regards eating, this is not because the eating of them as regards illicit, because none was prohibited by law, but on account of either abomination, right? Something's I don't want to eat, you know? Only eels, for some reason. I don't know, it just, it turned me off. Or custom, right, huh? Just as we see now that some, what, foods in some lands are abominable, right? Which in other ones are, what, eaten, huh? You know? She's in the movies too, right, huh? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha We'll see what the Master says To the second it should, one proceeds thus. It seems that the ceremonies of the old law had the power of justifying in the time of the law. Oh, he's going to take the opposite side? My goodness. Expiation from sin and the consecration of man pertain to justification. But in Exodus chapter 29, it is said that through the dispersion of blood, right, and the anointing of oil, they consecrated, right, the priests, right, and their vestments, right? And it is said in Leviticus 16 that the priest, through the sprinkling of blood of the bull, right, expiated the sanctuary from the uncleanlinesses of the sons of Israel and from the, what, transgressions and sins. Therefore, the ceremonies of the old law had the power of justifying. You're getting on the hairs in your coast town. I don't know about you, Thomas. Moreover, that which, through which man pleases God, pertains to, what, justice, huh? According to that is Psalm 10. Just is the Lord, and he loves, what, just things. But through ceremonies, some were, what, pleasing to God? According to that of Leviticus chapter 10. In what way are you able to please God in your ceremonies with a lugubrious mind? Not a joyful mind, right? Yeah. Lugubri, huh? We got the word in English, don't we? Lugubrious? Yeah. Lugubrious. So it pleases God, right? So God is pleased by justice, right? Therefore, the ceremonies of the old law had the virtue of just of a kind. Just of a kind. Moreover, those things are divine cult, more that pertain to the soul than to the body. According to that of Psalm 18. The law of the Lord is immaculate, converting souls. But through the ceremonies of the old law, the leper was, what, cleansed? As is said in Leviticus 14. Therefore, much more would the ceremonies of the old law be able to cleanse the, what, soul. Justifying it, huh? Okay. But now here's an authority, huh? He's always stubborn, these authorities, right? But against this is what the apostle says. In the second chapter of the epistle to the Galatians. If there was given a law which could justify, Christ died for no need, right? Gratis, huh? That is without cause, huh? But this is not fitting, right? Therefore, the ceremonies of the old law did not, what, justify, right? There are statements like that in the New Testament, huh, besides that one. Maybe the summa cognitiveness, you might have more than one citation, right? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha