Prima Secundae
Lecture 281: The New Law: Grace, Justification, and Timing

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

and Son, Holy Spirit. Amen. Thank you, God. Thank you, Guardian Angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas. Dios, gracias. God, our Enlightenment, Guardian Angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, order the human images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor, help us to understand all that you have written. Let's just look at the body of the article, the first article again, question 106, because it ties up with what's going to be taken up in article 2. He says, I answer it should be said that each thing seems to be that which is in it most, what, potent, as the philosopher says in the ninth book of the Ethics. That's when Aristotle says that reason, more than anything else, is man, right? Now that which is potissimum, most potent in the law of the New Testament, and in which its whole power consists, is the grace of the Holy Spirit. Kind of a strange thing at first when you hear that, which is given by faith in Christ. And therefore, chiefly, principally, like Aristotle would say, the new law is the grace itself of the Holy Spirit, which is given to the faithful of Christ. And this manifestly appears through the apostle, meaning St. Paul, who in the epistle to the Romans, the third chapter says, where is your glorifying? Your glorifying is excluded. To what law? The things done, no, but through the law, but through the law of what? Faith. He calls the grace of faith. He calls that law the grace of what? Faith. And more expressly in Romans chapter 8, the law of the spirit of life in Jesus Christ frees me from the law of sin and death. When Augustine says in the book on spirit and letter, that the law of things to be done is written in stone tablets, right? But the law of faith is written in the hearts of the faithful. And he says elsewhere in the same book that what are the laws of God by God himself written in our hearts? It's nothing other than the presence of the Holy Spirit. He's present by what? Grace. Now, does anything else pertain to the new law, right? This is what principally belong, pertains to it, right? Now, the new law has some things that are disposing, huh? For the grace of the Holy Spirit, huh? To receiving it. And others that are pertaining to the use of this grace, huh? Those are two different things, which are, as it were, secondary, huh? Secondary in the new law, about which is necessary for the faithful Christ to be instructed, both in words and by, what? Yeah. Both about things to believe, right? As well as about things to be, what? Done. And therefore, it should be said that chiefly, the new law is a law, what? Inside of us, right? Secondarily, it is a, what? Written law, right? Okay. It's an order there, right? It's first and second. Now, they just look at the first, reply to the first objection there, where he touches upon these things again. It should be said that in the writings of the gospel are not contained except those things which pertain to the what? Grace of the Holy Spirit, either as disposing for it, as he said before, right? Or as ordered to the use of this grace, huh? Two different things. As disposing, as regards the understanding by faith, right? Which is given the grace of the Holy Spirit are contained in the gospel, right? Those things which pertain to making known the divinity or the humanity of what? Christ, huh? According to the affection, those things that are contained in the gospel which pertain to the contempt of the world, which a man becomes capable of the grace of the Holy Spirit, huh? For the world, that is, the lovers of the world, right? Cannot grasp the Holy Spirit, huh? Not receive him, as it's said in John chapter 14. Now, the use of her of spiritual grace is in the works of the virtues, the deeds of the virtues, to which in many ways the scriptures of the New Testament exhort men, right? Okay. Now, because it's chiefly grace, he's going to answer this question, that what? The new law does justify, right, right? But as his custom is in the dispute, see, he argues against it, right? But it's partly because you're thinking the law is being chiefly the what? The written one, right? No one is justified unless he obeys the law of God, according to that of Hebrews 5, 9. Christ was made, right, to all obeying, you might say, him, right, because of eternal salvation. But the gospel does not always achieve, right, that men obey it, right? It does not always work that out. For it is said in Romans 10, not all obey the gospel. Therefore, the new law does not, what, justify, right? Now notice when Thomas answers that in the reply to that. That, to what, to the first therefore it should be said, that that objection proceeds about the new law, not as regards that which is principle or chief in it, right? But as regards that which is secondary in it, huh? That is, as regards those documents or precepts that are proposed in an exterior way to men, right, huh? Either by word or by the written word, huh? Okay. Moreover, the apostle, the second objection now, moreover the apostle proves in the Romans, huh, that the old law does not justify because it arriving on the scene, right, huh? Disorder, shall we say, right? How do they translate prayer? Very cut, see, oh, wandering away. Transgression and transgression. Yeah, transgression, yeah. Prayer is very cut, see, oh. For it is said in Romans 4, the law worked anger, right, huh? Where there is no law, there's no transgression, right? But much more does the new law add, what? Increased transgression. For he is more worthy of, what, punishment, who after the new law has been given, sins, right, huh? Yeah. According to that of Hebrews 10, huh? He makes, what? The one making void, you might say, the law of Moses, huh? Uh, will die without any, what, mercy, huh? Upon two or three witnesses, right? How much more the one who, what, merits greater punishments, who capitals upon the Son of God, right, huh? Therefore, the new law does not justify just as neither does the old, right? Well, now, you're going to answer that, right, huh? That the grace of the New Testament, although it aids men to not sinning, it does not overconfirm in good that men are not able to sin, huh? For this pertains to the status of glory, right? Then you're rendered incapable of sinning anymore. And therefore, someone, after receiving the grace of the New Testament sins, is more worthy of, what, punishment. As it were, being ungrateful for greater benefits and not using an aid given to him, right, huh? But not on account of this, as it said, that the new law, what, works anger, right? Because as regards itself, it's a sufficient aid to not, what? Sinning, yeah. But you have to, you know, use the grace that's in you. Doesn't he say that, Timothy or somebody? Stir up the grace in you? Yeah, they could say that in general. Now, the third objection. Moreover, to justify is a proper effect of God, huh? According to that of Romans 8. It's God who justifies. But the old law was given by, what, God? Just the new law. This is a different objection, right? The first two are saying that the new law doesn't, what, justify, right? This one is saying, even the old law justifies, huh? So it's kind of the opposite, you can see. That's why it's separated from the other two. Therefore, the new law does not more justify than the old law, right, huh? Well, to the third, it should be said that God did give the new law and the, what, old law. Well, it wasn't God. But he says the unus deus, right? Because it's not a bad God that gave the old law like that. There it takes it. You must even think of that. But aliter and aliter, right, in other ways, right? For he gave the old law written on stone tablets, right? But the new law he wrote, he gave it written in the, what, fleshly tables of the heart, right? As the apostle himself says in the 2 Corinthians, huh? And Augustine says in the book on spirit and letter that the letter, right, written outside of man, right? And, yeah, in the service of what? Damnation. The apostle calls that, right? It should be that. But then in the New Testament, the administration of the spirit and of justice. Because through the gift of the spirit we work justice and we are freed from the damnation of transgression. Now, against this, and let's go to the same country now. But against this is that the apostle says in the epistle of the Romans, I will not, what, be ashamed of the gospel? For it's the power of God for salvation to everyone believing, right? But it's not a salvation except to those justified. Therefore, the law of the gospel justifies. Now, Thomas says, I answer, it should be said that it has been said in the previous article, that to the law of the gospel two things pertain, right? One, principally or chiefly, right, huh? Chief is a prince, right? In English we say chief, right? You're influenced by the Indians, right? Principally or chiefly. To it, and that's what's brought in the other article, that's why I wanted to review it, you know, a little bit in the beginning of class. The grace of the Holy Spirit, right, huh? Given inwardly, right? And as regards this, or as far as this is concerned, right? The new law, what, justifies by grace, huh? Whence Augustine says, book on spirit in the letter, that there, to wit in the Old Testament, the law was laid down extrinsically, right? By which the unjust were terrified, yeah. But here in the New Testament, it is given inwardly, right? By which they are, what, justified, huh? That's an amazing difference, isn't it? The other pertains to the gospel secondarily, right? Now, what are these things? Not grace itself, which is what, this principle, but the, what, documents of the faith, right, huh? And then the precepts, ordering human affection and human acts, huh? And as regards this, the new law does not, what, justify, right? It's like the old law in that respect, huh? Whence the apostle says in the second epistle to the Corinthians, the letter kills the spirit, however, gives life. And Augustine says in the book on spirit and the letter, that through the letter is understood a certain writing existing outside of man, right? Even of the moral precepts as are contained in the, what, gospel. Whence also the letter of the gospel kills, huh? That's a pretty strong statement for Thomas to say. Unless there be, right, within the grace of faith healing, right? Okay, Thomas, I'll let you get away with that. That's quite a, quite a mouthful, I think, on this part. Okay, now we get two. There are two questions coming up about the time of the new law, right? Whether it ought to have been given from the beginning of the world, right? And if it's going to last to the end of the world, huh? Or is the age of the Holy Spirit coming, as some people say? Okay. To the first, then, one goes forward thus. It seems that the new law ought to have been given from the beginning of the world, huh? For there's no accepting of persons before God, right? As is said in Romans 2. But all men, what? Sin and need the glory of God, as is said in Romans 3. Therefore, for the beginning of the world, the law of the gospel ought to be given, so that all men could be, what? Yeah, hated by it, huh? Come to its aid, huh? Now, what does Thomas say in reply to that objection? What's his likeness here? They use, well, Succor and St. Latin, they just transliterate it. It doesn't mean soccer. Well, there's some connection, though, though, I mean. Could be, huh? Of course, in New York City there, I used to always say when the cops found the kid that's lost to his mother or something, you know, the, you know, ice cream cone or something, you know, to suck for him, you know. Now, how does he reply to this first objection? The first, therefore, it should be said that the human race, on account of the sin of the first parent, merited to be, what? Deprived of the aid of grace. And to whom it is not given, this is from, what? Justice. To whom, however, it is given, this is from grace, huh? Gratuitous, huh? As Augustine says in the book on the perfection of justice. Whence it is not an accepting of persons before God, huh? From this that do not all, from the beginning of the world, does he propose, what? The law of grace, huh? The law of grace, which was to be proposed in a suitable order, right, huh? Yeah. Some of our visitors, and they say, why is it, you know, because they're thinking of these terrorists, chopped people's heads off the head of God. Yeah. And they say, well, that's what God in the Old Testament had to do to do that. But now in the New Testament, we're not supposed to do that. So is it the same God from the Old Testament? The New Testament, they could wipe out all these people. And so one of the things I say is just, well, we had to learn certain things first before we were ready for this law of waterway, because I don't think it's easy to answer. If you go back to that parable, you know, about the people being hired to work in the land, you know, and they're accusing him, you know, of being unjust, right? And, but no, he was just to all of them, right? But to some he was more, what? Yeah, yeah. Yeah, so is that the accepting of persons? And that's interesting because the translation we have is poor, because it doesn't translate it to the letter. Yeah. Because he says in the Greek, he says, he said, is your eye evil because I am good? Yeah. And that's the definition of ending. Yeah. The evil eye. Yeah. You can't bear to see the goodness that you give to somebody else. Yeah. Now the second objection. Just as in diverse places there are diverse men, so in diverse times, huh? But God, who wishes all men to be saved, right? As is said in the first epistle of Timothy, that's by his antecedent will, as they say, commands the gospel to be preached in all places, as is clear in Matthew and Mark. Therefore, in all times, he ought to, what? Longer, yeah. So that it should have been given from the beginning of the world. That's an interesting article, right? Because you have two places, I mean, two things very similar, place and time. That's where Aristotle takes them up in the fourth book, right? So if he should preach the gospel everywhere, then he should preach it all the time. You know? So you have a difference. That's the difference, you know? It's the difference between place and time, you know? Let's see what the master says, huh? That the diversity of places does not vary the diverse status of the human race, which is varied through the succession of time. And therefore, in all places, the new law is proposed, but not in all times, huh? Although, in every time, there were some things pertaining to the New Testament, huh? This has been said above, huh? Reading another world history there, you know. In the Shrewsbury Library there, a $40 book, but get more than $1. So, okay, I'll get that more. It was like, yeah. You see the different statuses of men, right? Yeah, oh yeah, oh yeah. Moreover, more is necessary for the salvation of men, the spiritual salvation of men, which is eternal, than their, what, bodily salvation, right? Which is temporal. But God, from the beginning of the world, provided for man those things which are necessary for body salvation. Giving you, as I'd say, what? Into man's power, right? Into man's power. All things which were created for the sake of man. Therefore, also, the new law, which is most necessary for spiritual salvation, ought to be given to all men from the beginning of the world, huh? It's a pretty good argument, isn't it? Almost this time, huh? I'll never get out of this one. To the first, to the third, it should be said that those things which pertain to bodily salvation, you might say, right? They serve man as regards his, what, nature, which is not taken away by sin, right? But those things which pertain to spiritual salvation, or to grace, which he loses by sin, right? And therefore, there's not the same reason as you thought, Berkwester, about both of these things. I think twice before I challenged the doctor, right? You tell the story of Thomas' life, you know, some guy, you know, opposed to him, you know, and Thomas is very calm, you know. He goes to scandalize, he would object to the mask, you know. Thomas explained very much to him, guy's mistake. You know, he told me why he was in ignorance, you know, or mistaken. But against this, and listen, I said conscious, interesting text he has. But against this is what the apostle himself says in the first epistles of the Corinthians. Not before what is spiritual, but what is animal. He's looking before and after this, St. Paul, right, huh? But the new law is maxima, most spiritual. Therefore, the new law should not be given from the beginning. Well, let's see what the master says now about that question. The answer should be said that a three-fold reason can be assigned. Wherefore, the new law ought not to be given from the beginning of the world, right? Can I take a little pause and you get the first reason, then you know your pause, and so on, huh? Which the first is because the new law, as has been said, is chiefly the grace of the Holy Spirit, huh? Which ought not to be given, what? Abundantly, right? Before the impediment of sin. Before the impediment of sin. Before the impediment of sin. Before the impediment of sin. Before the impediment of sin. Before the impediment of sin. From the human race is taken away. Consummated by the what? Redemption through Christ. Whence it is said in John 7. Not yet was the spirit given. Why not though? Because Christ not yet was what? Glorified. In this reason the apostle assigns manifestly an epistle to the Romans. Whence after he had set forth about the law. The spirit of life, he adds, God, sending his son in the likeness of the flesh of sin, right? Of sin, damned sin, right, in the flesh. That the justification of the law might be fulfilled in us. Now we pause and take a breath and that's the first argument, right? What's the first reason now? Why didn't Christ come from the beginning of time? That's another question that comes up when he takes up the incarnation, right? Okay. The second reason can be signed from the perfection of the new law, right? For nothing is brought to what? To perfection at once from its what? Beginning. But by certain temporal, right? Succession, huh? Just as one is first a boy, huh? And afterwards a man, right, huh? In this reason the apostle assigns the epistle to the Galatians. That the law was the pedagogue, right? The pedagogue was a slave, right? Who would go to school, right? Make sure he goes to school and doesn't loiter on the way, right? He's himself. The law was our pedagogue in Christ. That we, right, might be justified from faith. But when faith comes, we are no longer under the pedagogue, huh? I never had a pedagogue taking me to school, but... I had my sister, she was. Yeah. I remember Sister Carolyn, the principal, stopping me on the steps and saying, how come my brother Marcus hasn't been in school? I said, he was sick. I said, faith, look at the principal. He said, look at the person to whom you are speaking. We were scared, what's that, of Sister Carolyn? Sister, St. Joseph's sisters. That's who it's terrifying. It's true. If you didn't go to the children's mass on Sunday, you know, you got to call in, you know. We're all going down to the principal's office, you know. Everybody's trying to stay behind the other guys, you know. They're all afraid of Sister Carolyn. So, in time, the imperfect is before the perfect, huh? In goodness, the perfect is before the imperfect, huh? The third reason is taken from this fact that the new law is the law of grace. And therefore, first, a man ought to be left to himself in the state of the old law. That falling into sin, right, huh? Knowing his own, what? Infirmity, weakness. Recognize himself to need grace. And the apostle assigns this reason in the epistle to the Romans. The law entered in that sin might abound, you might say, or delictum would be, what? And where delictum abounded, even more abounding would be, what? Grace. So, at least Thomas goes into those three states of man, right? First, he didn't even know what was bad, right? And the second state knew what was bad, but couldn't avoid it. And then the third state, right? Grace, huh? I suppose man's pride is a hard thing to cure, you know. Into paganism, it seems, kind of. Yeah, yeah. We had a mass last night there, Rosie and I, for the start of the 40 days, you know, and they had a little meeting afterwards, you know, and this one guy who had worked with Father and so on, and he was talking about the one woman, you know, I guess it was named Davis, I guess. And she was working in an abortion clinic, you know, and she didn't realize what was wrong, you know. But the doctor was doing these abortions quickly, you know, and the woman who was bleeding, right? She said, we can take him. Go on, go on, go on, next one year. Go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on Okay, so what are the three reasons now? Cross-redemption. Oh, good book. It's just as a boy becomes a man, the development essentially, I think of man's understanding of his need for grace. That's the third one, yeah, correct. I figured out just out of efficiency I can condense the second one. Brevity is a soul, okay, okay, now. the new law should remain until the end of the world, right? To the fourth one goes forward thus. It seems that the new law ought not to what? Endure all the way to the end of the world, right? Because as the apostle says in the first epistle of the Corinthians, when what is perfect comes about, then is what limited that which is imperfect, right? It's part of the instant. The first half says in the third book of the, what? Physics, right, huh? Whole and perfect mean almost the same thing. Yeah, so partial is imperfect, right, huh? We have a partial understanding of what Thomas understood, right? We have a partial understanding. But the new law is ex parte. For the apostle says, ex parte, huh? We know. And ex parte, we what? Prophesize, huh? Therefore, the new law should be taken away, right? Another more perfect one succeeding it, right? Well, Thomas often quotes that passage there that he began with there, when they talk about how faith will be, you know, eliminated by the beauty of the vision, right? I mean, this is mixing up two things, huh? Which I'm sure Thomas will point out. Let's look at the reply to this, huh? To the first, therefore, it should be said, that as Dionysius says in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, huh? Thomas didn't, what, comment on that, but... Albert the Great did, huh? Thomas commented on the divine names. Three-fold is the status of men, right, huh? First of the old law, right, huh? Second of the new law, and then the third status succeeds not in this life, but in the fatherland, right? Patria. In the same motherland, it says patria. There should be some objections from the... Not being inclusive. Yeah. I mean, even our football team is called the Patriots. I mean, not the Matriots. They're a football team. Yeah. Amazing. I guess there's some... I kind of heard a little bit on the radio there, something about Jeter, you know, was being honored someplace, and Jeter, the famous baseball player for the Yankees, right? And he used to retire this year, you know, and he's been getting some honors, like that, and our Patriots quarterback was there, you know, and he says, we goofed, you know, the game, you know. Coating him, you know. We missed him. But the first status, that is, of the old law, right, is figurales, right? The figure there we said was signifying, right, huh? And imperfect with respect to the gospel. So, also, this status is what? Figurales, huh? And imperfect with respect to the status of fatherland, huh? Which coming about, this status, what? Yeah. Just as it's said there, we see now through a mirror and enigma, right? Then face to face, huh? It's that piece of music, the enigma thing, that the British composer did. Okay. Let's look at the second objection. Moreover, the Lord, in John 16, promises to his disciples, in the coming of the Holy Spirit, the paraclete, a knowledge of all truth. But not yet does the church know all truth in the status of the New Testament. Therefore, there ought to be expected another status in which, through the Holy Spirit, all truth will be made, what? Manifest, huh? That's an interesting objection. To the second it should be said, as Augustine says in his book Against Faust, Montanus and Priscilla, right, huh? Laid down that the promise of the Lord about the Holy Spirit, giving it, was not completed in the apostles. Can't wait for the age of the Holy Spirit, huh? The new age, right? But in them. But in them. And similarly, the Manichaeans laid down that it was completed in Manichaea, whom they called the Spirit Paraclete, and therefore both did not receive, right, the what? Apostles, in which is manifestly shown that that promise was completed in the apostles. Just as the Lord, right, again promised them, right, he will be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days from here. So how many days was he baptized in the Holy Spirit how many days after his ascension? That's kind of the first novena, isn't it? That's kind of the first novena, yeah. Yeah. But these vanities are excluded through this that is said, huh? Not yet was the Spirit given because Jesus was not yet, what, glorified. From which it is given to be understood that at once, Christ being glorified in the resurrection and the ascension, right, then the Holy Spirit was given. And to this is excluded also the vanity of some, right, huh? Who said that one should expect another time of the Holy Spirit, huh? Now, the Holy Spirit taught the apostles all truth about those things which pertain to the necessity of salvation, to wit, the things that must be believed and the things that must be done. But he did not, however, teach them about all future events, huh? Didn't tell us when the world's going to come to an end, right? As well as many other things. For this does not, what, pertain to them, according to that of Acts 1, it is not yours to know the times and the moments which the Father has laid down in his power. Yeah, ladies and saints, yeah. Moreover, just as the Father is other from the Son and the Son from the Father, other in the masculine, so the Holy Spirit is other from the Father and the Son. But there was a certain status suitable to the person of the Father, to which the status of the old law, in which men were, what, to intend towards generation, right? Likewise, there is another status suitable to the person of the Son. To wit, the status of the new law, in which the clerics, huh? Aiming at wisdom, right? Which is appropriate to the Son, would be in charge, right? Therefore, there is a third status of the Holy Spirit, in which spiritual men would rule, right? Well, to the third, it should be said that the old law was not only of the Father, but also the Son, because Christ was figured in the old, what? Law. Whence the Lord says in John chapter 5, if you believed Moses, undoubtedly you would, what, believe also me, right? Perhaps you'd also believe me. For he wrote about me, right? For he wrote about me, right? For he wrote about me, right? Similarly, the new law is not only about Christ, but also the Holy Spirit, according to that of Romans 8. The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, etc. Hence, one should not be expected of the law, which is that of the Holy Spirit. He's coming up with the Holy Spirit. I don't think he was, but it's the mentality. Bernard Langer was the anthology. He did a reinvented trance. The power he bothered was that the academics was, well, dogmas are unchanging, but they are formulated in historical context. And historical context are ongoing and changing. The only ones who really understand that are the academics, not the vicious. So the academics have to tell the vicious what the dog is really eating today. That's what he's called. It's historical religion. Fourth objection, I guess. Moreover, the Lord says, Matthew 24, this gospel will be preached, right? This gospel of the kingdom, I guess, right? Will be preached in the whole world, right? And then will come the consummation. But the gospel of Christ already is preached in the whole world. But nevertheless, the consummation has not come, right? Therefore, the gospel of Christ is not the gospel of the kingdom. But the future is another gospel of the Holy Spirit, as it were another law. Okay? That's interesting. And the fourth, it should be said that when Christ, at once in the beginning of the gospel predication, said, right, the kingdom of heaven is, what, right near. It is most stupid, stultissimum, to say that the gospel of Christ is not the gospel of the kingdom. But the preaching of the gospel of Christ can be understood in two ways. In one way, as it guards the opening up of the knowledge of Christ, right? And thus was preached the gospel in the universal world, even in the time of the, what, apostles, as Chrysostom says. And according to this, he's added, and then there will be a, what, consummation. He's understood about the destruction of Jerusalem, about which, in the letter he spoke, right, huh? In another way, it can be understood the preaching of the gospel in the whole world with full effect, huh? Thus, that in each nation there be founded a, what, church. And thus, as Augustine says in the epistle to Hesias, not yet is preached the gospel in the whole universe, in the whole world. But this being done, there will come the consummation of the world, huh? So, it's kind of ambiguous there, exactly when it's fully, as it was when they, reading about those North American martyrs, you know, that book that Warren gave you. Yeah, wow. You think ISIS is cruel. These guys are really. You get it over, it's kind of quick, it seems, but I don't know what they do around before that. Yeah, yeah, that's what's always amazing to me about the North American martyrs, is how much they put up with for so long. Yeah, yeah. And they're such with Job, and he came back. Yeah. That's remarkable. That's remarkable. Yeah. But again, this is what the Lord says, Matthew 24. I say to you, right, that this generation will not, what, pass away until all these things, until all these things are fulfilled, huh? Which Christmastom expounds about the generation of the faithful of Christ, huh? Therefore, the state of the faithful of Christ will remain all the way to the, what, end of the, Thomas is going to reply now, the body of the article. I answer, it should be said that the status of the world can be varied in two ways, right? In one way, according to the diversity of the law, and thus to this status of the new law, no other status will, what, succeed. Now, the status of the new law succeeds to the status of the old law as the more perfect to the imperfect. But no status of the present life can be more perfect than the status of the new law. For nothing can be nearer to the last end than what immediately introduces or leads into the last end, huh? But this is what the new law does, huh? Once the apostle says in the epistle to the Hebrews, huh? Having, therefore, brothers, faith in the, what, entrance of the holy saints in the blood of Christ, which, what, brought for us a new way, right? We accede to it, huh? Once there cannot be some more perfect status of the present life than the status of the new law, because, to that extent, something is more perfect the closer it is to the, what, last end, huh? Another way the status of men can be varied according as men diversely have themselves to the same law, either more perfectly or less perfectly. And thus the status of the old law many times was, what, changed. When sometimes the laws were kept in the best way, sometimes they were altogether, what, yeah. That's just how I guess though. Thus also the status of the new law is diversified. According to diverse places and times and persons, huh? Insofar as the grace of the Holy Spirit more perfectly or less perfectly is had by some. But it should not be expected that there would be some future status in which more perfectly the grace of the Holy Spirit will be had than what? Yeah. Especially from the apostles, huh? Who took the first fruit, you might say, of the Spirit, huh? The apostles are, what, of all the other saints except for Mary and maybe Joseph? That is, in the time before and more abundant than others. They took it in time before and also more abundantly, right? As the gloss says in Romans 8, huh? What does Einstein say about Mozart, huh? I couldn't perfect this because perfection is imperfectible. That's what he's saying though, right, huh? You can't perfect this. Okay, we can take a little break here before we go on to 107 here. Thank you. Thank you.