Prima Secundae
Lecture 280: The New Law as Instilled Grace and Written Precepts

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

He says, look, if you can do this to me, who are old and wise, what can she do to me, who are young and foolish? There's some ancient author who made these stories up, I think, you know. It's got no point to it, though, you know, huh? If she can do this to me, who are old and wise, what can she do to you, who are young and foolish? I told you when you were at the law there, you used to go read this one part in Albert's books where he's talking about women, you know, and playing in your place and so on. But then he says, and if I told what, you know, the whole world, what all I know about women, he says, the whole world would be stupefied, he said. So we enjoyed that. You've got to see that, though. I mean, maybe he's reading, you're thinking about Solomon, you know, Solomon. He said, and if I told, you know, everything I know about women, right, the whole world would be stupefied. I mean, if he told us everything you know about Hillary, the whole world would be stupefied. I don't mind. All of them, that's... Yeah, bad news, yeah. Okay. So that's a danger, right, to be led into idolatry. Especially this was prohibited about those nations that were nearby, right, which was about which it was more probable that they would retain their own rights, right? If, however, if they wish to set aside the worship of their idolatry and transfer themselves to the worship of the law, they could be led then into matrimony. It's clear about Ruth, right, which, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led, who led The perpetual objection of idolatry, huh? Yeah. Interesting. Okay. When we get to the last objections, which are with the husband and wife, I guess, what, to, what, to seven, eight, and nine, here? We're on to our own wives, here, we're ready to six, so we're five, here. War with the Lord in leading wives, certain grades of consanguinity and affinity it commanded to avoid, right, huh? And so it'll be therefore as it commanded that if someone was dead without children, the brother of the wife would take his wife, yeah, the wife of the man who was without debriefs, right, his brother would take, right? Okay. To the seventh it should be said that as Chrysostom says upon, what, Matthew, right, huh? And that it is imitical, right? Not imitical, yeah, among the Jews, right, huh? Who all they did was for the present, what, life. It was established that, yeah, that a son would be born from the, what, brother, right, huh? Which was a certain mitigation of death, right, huh? But no one other than the brother or the, what, yeah, would be worded, right? To take the wife of the one who is, what, died, huh? Because not thus is it believed, huh? That the one who from such a conjunction would be born is the son of the one who, what? And again, that the extraneous does not thus have, what, yeah, as a brother to whom relation, this was just, huh? From which it is clear that the brother and taking the wife of the brother, person of the, yeah. It's kind of odd to answer the question. Why don't we have to do that anymore? Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, he's not, you know, close in age otherwise, you know, I mean, close in origin. Okay, now, more, eighth one. Among the man and the wife, just as there is a great familiarity, so there also be a most firm faith, right? But this could not be if the matrimony is dissolvable. And so be there for the Lord permitted. Deuteronomy 24, that someone, what, could dismiss his wife. The book of repudiation or something? So you've got to put it in writing, I guess you want to do it, huh? Okay. And that further... He's not able to recover. Yeah. Couldn't take her back. Goodness. And after he was married for a while, he came back to the College of Carlsons and said, I think I'd rather be poor. He'd rather come back and they said, come. He learned his lessons. No, it's not worth it. To the eighth, it should be said that the law permits the repudiation of the wife, not because it was just simplicity, right, huh? But on account of the hardness of the, what? Shoes, huh? But about this is necessary to treat more fully when we treat a matrimony in the supplement, the third part, right, huh? Third part is about Christ who is man, is the way to God, right, huh? And then about the sacraments, right, which are kind of tools of now the ninth objection. Just as the wife is able to, what? Break the faith to her husband, right? So the servant to the Lord and the son to the father. But for investigating the injury of the slave to his master or the son to the father, there is not instituted in the law any sacrifice, right? Superfluously, therefore, it does seem to be instituted the sacrifice of what? To investigating the adultery of the wife. This, there seems sensibly to be treated in the law, the judicial precepts about the domestic persons, obviously a patriotic society. To the ninth, it should be said that wives break the faithfulness and matrimony through adultery, right? And easily they do so, right? On account of what? Pleasure, right? And hiddenly, because the eye of the adapter observes darkness, right? Cloudiness, as said in Job 24. But it's not the same reason about the Son to the Father and the Servant to the Lord, because such infidelity does not proceed from the concupiscence of pleasure, but more from what? Milizia. Nor can it thus be hidden as the infidelity of the adulterous. What about Iago and his master's not aware of his... Take a little break now before we go to the body of the article, huh? Yeah. Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and Iago and I And they said, Contras, said in Psalm 18, Judicia Domini Vera, Justificata in Semi-Tipsa, themselves. Hence, it should be said that the community of domestic persons to each other, or the communion of domestic persons to each other, as the philosopher says in the first book of the politics, is according to the daily acts which are ordered to the necessity of life. The life of man is conserved in two ways. In one way it regards the individual, insofar as a man, the same in number, lives. And for such a life, or the conservation of such a life, there are for man, what, exterior goods, right? From which a man has clothing, food and clothing, right? And other necessities of life. In which things, administering such things, a man needs what? Servants, huh? That's the old philosophy, political philosophy, or the club always to say, you know, now each man is his own slave. I think he would like to revive probably slavery, you know. Another way is conserved the life of man according to his species or kind, right? By generation, for which a man needs what? A wife, huh? So that he might from her generate a what? Son, huh? Thus, in the domestic communion, there are three combinations. To wit, of the master to the servant or slave, of the man to the, what, wife, and of the father to the, what, son, huh? And as regards all of these, the old law treats of precepts that are suitable, right? For as regards the servants or the slaves, it institutes that they be treated, what, modestly, both as regards labors, lest they be afflicted by immoderate labors. Whence Deuteronomy 5th, the Lord commands that on the day of the Sabbath, the servant and the servant, the aid, rest, right? Just as you rest, huh? And again, as regards the punishments to be inflicted, it imposes, right, a punishment, what, yeah, that one demisses them, free, huh? So you can't mutilate them, I guess, huh? I'll remember that. Okay. And likewise, it stands that in the maidservant, that in, what? Yeah, yeah. Well, when does he do that? Well, that was in the seventh one, wasn't it? Right, an objection. Okay, well, let me leave that. Well, that someone would need it as a wife, right, huh? Okay. Likewise, he commanded a specialty about servants who were from the people themselves, that in the seventh year, they would, what, go forth free with all the things that they brought, their clothing and so on. And it's commanded also that one gives them a, what? Okay, so that's the servants, I guess, huh? Okay, how generous, huh? About wise, one establishes the law as regards to, what? Leading wise, huh? That they lead as wise those of their own tribe, right? As is said in numbers, huh? And this, lest the, what, divisions of the tribes be confused, huh? And because someone, that someone should take a wife, yeah, without, what, who's died without offspring, right? Right. That's had. And this, that the one who was not able to have successors according to the origin of flesh, would at least do adoption and thus not holy with his, what, the memory of the defunct completed, huh? It's real concern about immortalizing yourself, huh? It's interesting. I had quite that appreciation of that, huh? The State of the Union isn't the best thing you're going to have in the house is getting married. It prohibited some persons, lest they be, what, led in marriage, right, huh? To wit, the alien ones, right, huh? In account of the danger of seduction, right? In religion, so on. And those who are near, in account of the natural reverence, which is owed to them, huh? Okay? The establishes also in what way wise led should be tweeted, right, huh? That they be not, what, lightly given over to infamy, right? When it commanded to be punished, the one who would say, what, false, right? Yeah. Crime imposed upon his wife, huh? Okay, it's had to honor in 22. And also on account of the, what? The hatred of the wife, the son would not suffer, what, detriment, right? Because if you get rid of the wife, then the son would be disgraced, right? His mother had been cast off. Yeah. And also on account of the odium, the wife would not, what, reflected, but more with a written book, one dismisses Sarah. And therefore also a greater love would be attracted from the beginning among those to join kind of sugar, yeah. It preceded that when one took a what? Yeah. That nothing, even that enjoined to do something of public necessity, right? That he might freely enjoy, rejoice with his wife, right? That's the way you'd have to go off to war, right? Something like that. How do you marry a wife and get to make out of going into a war? Not the works of the other, does it? I don't think so. I've heard of too many guys that got killed and they were not married. A friend of mine was, he was called up to service from the reserves at the first 12 war, about like a month after he got married. But also the other people before, they get married just before they go off. I was at West Point there, you know, and I was kind of in the stands there, you know, watching the parade and so on, you know, and so on. I talked to this woman next to me, you know, that beautiful woman and so on. And I asked her what she was doing there and so on. She said, you know, we were talking about the soldiers. I was married to one, she says, you know. And then I, I didn't know whether she had thought, I thought she was divorced or something, you know. And then she told me she'd been killed in battle, right? You know, and so on. She was getting nervous because there was some talk about going to war at one of those times, you know, when I was there and so on. So she said, it makes you nervous again, you know. You realize it is, it's kind of hard to be a soldier's wife, you know, when they go off. I know my son, Paul, being an officer, I mean, you have the problem with your men, sometimes, you know, the men would go off and the women get kind of, get lonely, you know, and then they get involved some other man and he's got, he comes to him as the commanding officer, you know, and so it's really, really a bad, it's a hard thing, you know, it takes a real strong woman to be a good, you know, a good, hungry wife. A lot of things can go wrong. Yeah, that's happened with a young fellow. I know about his visit with you many years ago when he came up in Afghanistan and his wife told him, like, pick him up to the airport, you know, go out there. She's leaving and then he had him but he recovered. Yeah. From time to time, I was talking about some case, and I was trying to help somebody. And about sons, instituted that the fathers would, what? Give them discipline, right? Instructing them in the faith, right? Once it is had in Exodus 12, that when they, what? Your sons say to you, what is this religion? You say to them, the victim is a, what? Passing over the Lord? And that you instruct them in morals, right, huh? That the fathers would say, huh? Yeah. Yeah. And give them support to eating and lust and so on. Drinking and so on. These. Okay. Well, now we can set aside the old law, huh? The burden of the old law. The old gracias, huh? Yeah. Yeah. So, should we begin the next one here, or should we? Yes. Okay. This is 106. Consequently, we're not to consider about the law of the, what, gospel, he calls it, which is called the new law, right? So, the law of the gospel is one name he gives to it, and then the new law. And first, about it in itself, or by itself. Secondly, about it in comparison to the old law, and that's in the next question. Third, about those things which are contained in the new law, and that's in question 108, so a division into three, right? Now, about the first four things are asked. First, how is it, huh? Were they written, or what? For it in, or for it in. Yeah. Secondly, about its power, whether it justifies, right, huh? We say the old law doesn't justify, don't we, sometimes, here, that sin? It doesn't know it would justify. Third, about its beginning, whether it ought to be given from the beginning of the world, huh? And then about its end, huh? Whether it ought to endure all the way to the end, or whether there ought to succeed to it, another law. I wonder if he's going to say about that. Okay, so he's looking before and after, right, huh? To the first, then, one goes forward thus. It seems that the new law is a, what? Written law. It's not. You can see it's not a written law. Well, the new law is the gospel itself. But the gospel is, what? Written, descriptive. That's how we describe it. It's got to change its meaning, huh? It doesn't mean necessarily written down, does it? It describes something. For John 20, it said, These things are written that you might, what? Believe. Therefore, the new law is a written law. My goodness. Moreover, the law, how do they translate indita, the law? Well, yeah. And still law is the law of nature, according to that of Romans 2. Those who do naturally those things which are the law, who have the, what? Work of the law written on their hearts, right? If, therefore, the law of the gospel was a law, still, it does not differ from the law of, what? Nature, right, huh? The Greeks talked about that written law, right, huh? Sophocles, to bury your brother. Moreover, the law of the gospel is proper to those who are in the state of the New Testament. But the lex indita is common to those who are in the, what? And to those who are in the, what? Old Testament. For it is said in the Book of Wisdom, in the seventh chapter, that the divine wisdom transfers itself to the nations in holy souls, right? Constituting friends of God and prophets, huh? And therefore, the new law is not a law, what? It's said contra. The new law is the law of the... Yeah. But the law of the New Testament is, what? Instilled in our hearts, yeah. For the apostle says in the epistle to the Hebrews, the Hebrews, the eighth chapter, inducing authority which is had in Jeremiah 31, behold, the days will come, says the Lord, and I will, what? Complete, huh? Upon the house of Israel and upon the house of, what? Judah. A new testament, huh? And expounding what this testament is, he says, because this is a testament which I would dispose to the house of Israel by giving my laws in their mind, right? And I'll write them on their heart, huh? Therefore, the new law is a law instilled, huh? Hmm. Now, Thomas gets really Titus on a knot again, isn't he, huh? Yeah. Mm-hmm. Thomas begins, huh? I answer it should be said, huh? Often, you know, when I read these things, they say, now, where is he going to begin, you know? Kind of interesting, huh? Until I'm not sure man understands me is knowing where to begin, huh? The answer should be said that each thing seems to be, right, that which is the most potent in it, right? As the philosopher says in the ninth book of the Ethics, huh? Reason more than anything else is man, Aristotle says. Now, that which is putissimo, huh? Most potent, I guess, huh? In the law of the New Testament, and that in which its whole, what, power consists, is the grace of the Holy Spirit, which is given by the faith of, what? Christ. And therefore, chiefly, the new law is the grace of the Holy Spirit, which is given to the faithful of Christ, huh? This guy usually should say this, huh? Because he kind of started with the distinction between law and grace, right? We're going to take up law, and then we're going to take up grace, right? We haven't come to the, you know, treat us on grace yet. He seems to be saying already that the new law is principality, right? Chiefly, the new law is what? Yeah, it's very unusual, I think. It doesn't strike you as, he's stretching my mind, huh? And this manifestly appears to the apostle, who, in the epistle to the, what, Romans, the third chapter says, Ubi est ergo gloriatio tua. Where is your, what? Gloriatio. Gloriatio. It is excluded. To what law? Of words or deeds? No, but to the law of what? Yeah. That's strange. The legion fide, because the law, it doesn't seem to be different things. He calls the, what? Grace of self. Grace of faith. The law, right? Before he said the gratia spiritus sancti which datere per fidem Christi, right? So does gratium go with fide or legion there? Yeah, so. So grace of self. So the grace of faith, though, he calls it. The grace of faith, he calls it. Ipsa gratium. Yeah. The law. Yeah. That's how I would say that. I mean, yeah, but does legion go with fide, you think, or whether gratia? I think. and express more expressly in the epistle to the romans eight the law of these what in christ jesus liberates me from the law of sin and death there he seems he's talking to putting law with what grace right then but the other one seems he's saying gratium fide once as augustine says in the book on spirit and the letter that just as the law of factorum of deeds was written on stone tablets right so the law of faith right is written on the hearts of the faithful you could use that phrase before there the legend fide in the law of faith and elsewhere in the same book of augustine which are the laws of god written by god right in the hearts except the what present of the holy spirit this is very hard for us to understand thomas this is what you give us as your birthday gift or birthday cake for the new law has some things right as dispositive right disposing for the grace of the holy spirit and pertaining to the use of this grace which are as it were secondary in the new law right now about which is necessary for the faithful of christ to be instructed both by words and by writings right tradition and scripture both about what should be believed right as about what should be done and therefore it should be said that principality chiefly uh the new law is a law what instilled in us but secondarily is a law what written written we're gonna chew on this uh body of the article but before we go and chew on it let's look at the reply to the objections right and the first objection says that the new law is the gospel itself right but the gospel is written these things that john says and the apostle evangelist these things are written that you might believe therefore the new law is the law the first therefore should be said that in the writing of the gospel are not contained except those things which pertain to the grace of the holy spirit either as disposing for the grace of the holy spirit right or as what hoarding them as far as the use of this what grace just as disposing as regards the what understanding through faith right through which is given the grace of the holy spirit are contained in the gospel those things which pertain to manifesting the divinity humanity or the humanity of what christ now how does how does thomas divide the the bible what does he say about that yeah the law was given by moses but grace and truth came through jesus christ that's interesting right so their law is the old testament right it's called the law right and then the new testament is about what what grace grace maybe truth too but grace he seems to have this seems to be in harmony with what these the way he divides the bible right you know and it's taken from the words isn't it of john for the law was given by moses but grace and truth came through jesus christ my guardian angel says you must chew this do i don't swallow this without chewing it oh it starts again from the reply to the first to the first therefore it should be said that in the writing of the gospel is not contained or are not contained except those things which pertain to the grace of the holy spirit either as disposing for it right or as ordering one to the use of this grace now as disposing as regards to the what understanding through faith through whom or through whom is given what the grace of the holy spirit there are contained in the gospel those things which pertain to making known the divinity or the humanity right of christ now according to what affection right are contained in the the gospel those things which pertain to the contempt of the world through whom or through which man becomes capable right to the of the grace of the holy spirit for the world that is the lovers of the world are not able to what grasp the holy spirit as is had in john chapter 14 but the use of spiritual grace is in the works of the what virtues to which in many ways the scripture the new testament exhorts what men that's the explanation of dispositive and the ordinative values and who is gratia right the use of this grace right they said the at the end there the use of the spiritual grace is in the works of the virtues to which in many ways the scripture the new testament exhorts what men right but the other part what disposes for the grace of the holy spirit right what things it pertain to men you the divinity or humanity of Christ, and that's an intellectum per freedom, right? But then according to the affections, pertain to the contempt of the world, in which a man becomes capable of the grace of the Holy Spirit. Thank goodness, Thomas, you are stretching our minds today. True that too, then. To little pieces, right? Now, the second objection, that this is the same thing as the natural law, right? So if this is the instilled law, it would be the same thing as the law of nature, he's saying, right? The second, it should be said, in two ways, is something what? Instilled in man, right? In one way, instilled in heaven, as pertaining to human nature, right? And thus, the natural law is a law instilled in man, right? In another way, is something instilled in man, as it were, added above, right? His nature, right? Through the gift of what? Grace. In this way, the new law is instilled in man, not only indicating what should be done, but also aiding to fulfilling it, right? This is the light that enlightens every man coming into the world. He says, that's the, he calls it the Lumen Inditome. And he says, the Lumen Confusum, he says, when Christ said, the light came into the world, that men loved darkness more. Well, they didn't love that unreason more than reason, I think. You've heard of it, but this superhanded light. Mm-hmm. You use the phrase, the Lumen Inditome in your room. Yeah. That's what he says. He calls it the natural light. Yeah. Lumen Inditome. Yeah. Yeah. That's one of the Inditome that Thomas talks about here, right? But that's different from the one that is this one here, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Now, the third objection, right? The law of the Gospel is proper to those who are in the status of the New Testament, but the instilled law is common to those who are in the New Testament and to those who are in the Old Testament. Therefore, the New Law is not a law instilled, huh? To the third, it should be said that no one ever had the grace of the Holy Spirit, except by faith of what? Christ. Either explicit or implicit, huh? But to the faith of Christ, man pertains to the New, what? Testament, huh? Testament, huh? Once whoever had the law of grace instilled, according to this, they pertain to the, what? New Testament, huh? That's very subtle. I expected. That's when he says, like, about Abraham, Abraham rejoiced to see my day. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So we better stop now. Okay. Okay.