Prima Secundae
Lecture 277: Christ's Resurrection and the Old Law's Judicial Precepts

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

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. Thank you, God. Thank you, guardian angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas. God, our enlightenment. Guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, or to illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor. Help us to understand what you are written. Son, Holy Spirit, Amen. Probably the 22nd now distinction, you know, huh? You know, these nice little particular things, huh, about Christ. Now, here, ask this question. Was it necessary for Christ to rise from the dead? Was it necessary? Yeah, absolutely necessary. Absolutely, you know. Well, Thomas is going to say, there are three reasons why it was necessary. He said, well, this is very interesting, I said, you know. I've never seen this question asked this way, you know. And he says, and the first reason he gives, I was talking to my student last night, because we're doing the physics, right? Of course, he goes to the third book of the physics, right? Where Aristotle has a famous passage there where he compares two words, which are not synonyms, but they're close. The words, what, perfect and whole, right? My part is something imperfect or incomplete, right? So, he's already shown, you know, that the body of Christ, who is in the thing, was still attached to the second person, right? And the soul, of course, was the cross, too. And he says, now, if these parts were not united and whole, then there'd be something imperfect, right? And it's not fitting, you know, that the second person of the Trinity take on something, what, imperfect, right, huh? So, therefore, the body has to be brought back together to have, because the whole is better than the part, right, huh? That's the first reason he gives, right? See. And the second reason he gives is, he goes back to Christ's death on the cross, right? That this was most painful and most, what, shameful, this kind of death, right? And, therefore, his maximum, what, humility that he had in undergoing this kind of death merited, right, the glorification of his, what, body, right, that it had undergone this. And, therefore, it's necessary that he rise, glorious, you know, in the thing, huh? Now, what's the third reason, huh? Well, the third reason is that our, huh, is for us, that the glorifying of our body must come through Christ, who is the head of the church, right? And he's going to have to, what, first his own self, have perfection of the body, and then it's passed on to us. So he had to rise to the dead to start the whole process, you know? Beautiful, beautiful, a little text. I never, I have to remember that thing. Yes, maybe it's asked in the Summon, too, but I don't remember, you know, it's been so long since I looked at the third part there, but just beautiful little things like that in there, you know? Beautiful text. Yeah, understandable, too, that's too hard, you know, to work with, huh? Okay, we're up to 105, huh? We're going to start there, I guess. Then we're not to consider about the reason for the judicial precepts, huh? And about this, four things are asked. And these four things are in regard to the four things that you have to have the law for, right? First, by reason of the judicial precepts, which pertain to the, what, princes, huh? To the leaders of the country, right? Secondly, about those things which pertain to the, what? Life together, you might say, huh? Of men to each other, huh? Third, about those things which pertain to others outside the city, right? Extraniences, huh? And fourth, about those things which pertain to the household, right? Domestic common conversation, you know, husband and wife, and father and son, and master and slave, right? And so, Thomas has that division there, you know, the three parts, three kinds of associations in the house, and in some of St. Paul's thistles, right? Where he's talking now what husbands and wives should do to each other, how they should act towards each other, and how father and son should act towards each other, and how the master and the slave should act towards each other, and it's divided into that thing, you know, okay? Maybe, you know, given that these, I think these are kind of particular things here, maybe as we look at the objections, we can go from the first objection to the reply to the first objection, you know, then the second objection, you know, because they're kind of particular, and then, yeah. If I do myself, sometimes I'll just take my computer and I'll copy the replies, and then I'll go through all the rejections, and see the answers, and then I'll read the body of the article, and then I'll read the replies again to the rejections, you know, sometimes, but this way, kind of. Okay. To the first, then, one goes forward thus. It seems that unsuitably has the old law ordered things about the rulers, right? The princes. Because, as the philosopher says in the third book of the politics, the ordering of the people especially depends upon the greatest prince or ruler. But in the law is not found in what way we're not to institute the supreme prince. But there is found things about the lower rulers or princes. First, provide from the whole people, wise men, right? These aren't the top people, right? The top guy. And Numbers 11, you know, gather together 70 men, right, huh? Of the seniors of Israel, yeah. And in doubt to the Rani one, give from you wise men and what? Gnarles. Gnarly old men. Having knowledge or experience. Yeah. Therefore, insufficiently is the old law ordering the princes of the people, right? Seems to be ignoring the top person, right? That's a serious objection, right? No. Thomas says, to the first, therefore, it should be said that this people was ruled under a special care by God, right, huh? When sin is said in Deuteronomy 7, 6, the, what? The Lord God, right, huh? Your Lord God has chosen you, right? That you might be a people that are, what? Special to him, yeah. And therefore, the Lord reserved to himself, huh? The institution of the supreme, what? Ruler, right? Yeah. I don't know what you're doing now in your liturgy, but you've been doing the book of Samuel for, seems like two weeks at least now, if not more, you know? And you sign this, and you're just demanding the kingship there, you know? And then, yeah. And this is what Moses asked in Numbers, what, 27, huh? The Lord God, right, will provide, right, for what? Flesh of spirits, huh? A man who will be over this multitude, huh? And thus, from the ordering of God, was instituted Joshua in the, what, principality after Moses, right? And about the, what, individual judges, right? They were ruling there before they had a king, right? Who were after, what, Joshua, right, huh? It was read that the Lord raised up for his people a savior, and the spirit of the Lord was in him, as is clear in Judges, chapter, what, 3. And therefore, also, the election of a king, the Lord did not commit to people, but he reserved this to himself, huh? We should have our president, I think, huh? I think we need. We're obviously unable to choose one. I know. Somebody said, if God wanted us to have democracy. Yeah. Okay. As is clear in Deuteronomy, chapter 17, huh? You will constitute him, what, king, huh? Whom the Lord, your God, right, has chosen, huh? Okay. So that's taking special care over the highest, not. That's right. I don't remember that. Yeah. Yeah. So that's a good answer to that first objection, right? Because it seems like you're neglecting the supreme ruler, and then, no, he's giving special care for that, huh? He's serving it for himself, right? And when, what's his name? Samuel there goes to David's father, right, and goes to all the sons, and, not this one, not this one, none of them, you know? Do you have any more? Any more? Yeah. Yeah. The Lord hasn't chosen any of us. The Lord hasn't chosen. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Second objection. As Plato says, it belongs to the best to what? Bring out the best, right? But the best ordering of a city or a people is to be governed through a, what? King. Because this kind of rule, most of all, represents the divine rule, by which the one God rules the universe from the beginning, right? Therefore, the law ought to institute a king for the people, and not permit it for their, what? Judgment, huh? Deuteronomy 17, huh? And when he said, I will constitute over me a king, you will constitute him, and so on, huh? Well, Thomas has a, what? Interesting answer to this. To the second it should be said that the king is the best rule of the people if it not be corrupted, huh? That's a big yes. So Aristotle divides the government into basically, what, six kinds, right, huh? He had the rule of the one, the few, and the many, but a good form and a bad form of that, right, huh? And the kingship is the rule of, what, one, and tyranny would be the rule of one that's bad, right? And that'd be the worst form of government, right? Then you have the, what, you know, the aristocracy, then you have the... The oligarchy, yeah. Then you have the, what, republic and democracy, right? That's at least, you know, bad, right, huh? You know? So the one government is the least good, the republic, and the opposite of it is the least bad, right? The other one is the best itself, and worse than the... Yeah, yeah. You say that the prisoners of the Constitution tried to create a hybrid between making a democratic republic because it's not a pure republic and it's not a pure democracy. Yeah, yeah, yeah. They didn't like the word democracy. It was a bad word for them, right? Okay. So... So it begins, Thomas, at this point, huh? Okay. But on account of the great power which is conceded to the king, right, huh? Easily the kingdom can degenerate into a, what, tyranny unless there be, what, perfect virtue of the one to whom such a power is, what, conceded to them. Because there's not except a virtuous man that can bear well good fortunes, as the philosopher says in the fourth book, huh? The Ethics, huh? And they had these big prizes coming out, you know, from the, the, the... You know of the mega-bomb? Yeah, yeah, mega-thing, you know. And they're talking about, you know, most of these guys who win the big prizes in five years, they're broke. Because they don't know how to do it with the... They're broke and divorced or other jobs. Yeah. They hate themselves. Yeah. Now, perfect virtue is found in few, huh? And especially the Jews were prone to both, what, cruelty and to avarice, huh? So, through which vices men most of all fall into, what, tyranny, huh? To avarice and cruelty, huh? And therefore the Lord from the beginning, right, did not institute a king for them, right, with full power like a king would have, but it could degenerate into this tyranny, but the judge and the governor in their, what, custody more, right? But afterwards, the king, at the petition of the people, as it were, in dignitatis, huh? He conceded, right? As is clear through what he said to Samuel, right, huh? They have not cast off you, but me, lest I reign over them, huh? So, that's a good answer to this. But he instituted, nevertheless, in the beginning, right, about the king that should be instituted. First, the way of what? Choosing, right? In which two things were determined. To wit, that in his election, one awaits the judgment of the Lord, right, huh? And secondly, he did not make a king from some other nation, because such kings are accustomed to be little affected to the nation to which they are put over. Yeah. And consequently, he did not really care about them, right? Secondly, he ordered about the kings instituted, how they ought to have themselves as he guards themselves, right? That they do not multiply their chariots and horses and their wives. But then, didn't Solomon get a lot of wives and they come into idolatry, isn't it? Watch your wisdom, find wisdom to Solomon that he needs. Nor also that they are not to have immense, what, wealth, right? Because from the desire of these things, princes declined to tyranny and they left justice, huh? He instituted also in what way they should have themselves to God, that they always read and think about the law of God, right? That they'd always be in the fear of God and obedience, huh? Who was that king? Lewis the Ninth, was he the one? Lewis the Ninth? Yeah, he was a saint, wasn't he? They'd always be in the work. Institute also in what way they should have themselves to those subject to them, right? That they do not treat them with contempts, probably, right? Or oppress them, or decline from justice, right? Moreover, as it's said in Matthew 12, the third objection now, every kingdom divided in itself is made desolate, right? Which is also, by experience, made clear in the people of the Jews, right? In which the division of the kingdom was a cause of its, what, destruction. But the law especially ought to, what, intend those things which pertain to the common salvation of the people. Therefore, there ought to be in the law prohibited the division of the kingdom into two kings, nor should this, what, to be induced by the divine authority. As is read, it's inducted by the authority of the Lord through, what, the prophet. Yeah, okay. Now, to theory it should be said that the division of the kingdom and the multitude of kings more is, what, to that people given in punishment for their many dissensions, huh? Which are most of all against the kingdom of, what? Yeah. Than to their progress, yeah. Once it is said, O.C. chapter 13, I will give to them a king and my furo. I will give you Obama. And O.C. 8, huh? That they shall reign, but not for me, right? They will be, what? Just proof of them. Moreover, just as priests are instituted for the, what, usefulness of the people and those things which pertain to God, this is clear Hebrews chapter 5, so also the princes are instituted for the, I mean, for the usefulness to their people in human things, huh? But to these priests and the Levites who are in the law, they are, what, given over some things in which they are able to live, right? As the tithes, firstfruits, and many other things of this sort. Therefore, likewise, to the princes, the people, there ought to be ordered some things once they are sustained. And especially when they are, what, riveted from accepting of what? Gifts, huh? As is clear, exists 23. You shall not take gifts which blind even the prudent, huh? And subvert, huh? the words of the just. To the fourth it should be said that the priests through the succession of what? Origin are given over to sacred things. And this therefore that they might be had in greater what? Reverence. If not just anybody from the people who is able to become a what? Priest. The honor of which gives way to reverence for the divine worship. And therefore it's necessary that to them some special things be given both in what? Deci mis, the ties, yeah. First fruits. But also in the offerings and sacrifices in which they live. But the principles as the princes as has been said are assumed from the whole people. And therefore they insert in what? Proper possessions, private possessions from which they are able to live. right? And especially since the Lord prohibited them also in the king lest they superabound in what? Wealth? Or magnificent clothing, right? Because it's not easy but from these that they would what? Be raised up to pride and tyranny. Also because the princes were not much wealthy and it was laborious the principal office in full solicitude they would not be much affected for by the people, right? And thus be taken away the bad era sedition, huh? They're talking about in the meeting they were talking about how all these guys go down to Washington after they're down there in Congress for 15, 20 years they were poor when they went down there and now they're rich. How does that take place? Yeah, yeah. Standing near the system it's just cash floating in the air that it was all in the house. Whoever as the fifth objection alright whoever as kingship is the best regime so tyranny is the worst corruption of the regime but the lord right instituting the king instituted a what? Yeah as it said in one book of kings this will be the right of your king who will command you, right? He'll take your sons and make soldiers and so on for the sacrifice of punishment I guess. Therefore unsuitably is provided through the law about the earning of princes. To the fifth it should be said that that right was not given to the king from divine institution but was more pronounced a what? Usurpation of the kings which they what? Degenerating into tyranny and depraving their subjects and this is clearly what is added in the end that they will be what you will be to them as servants because that's probably what a tyrant is, right? Which properly pertains to the tyrant because the tyrants command their rules as slaves and the last freemen whence this was Samuel said this to deter them lest they ask for a king and it follows that people do not wish to hear the voice of Samuel law. It can happen nevertheless that even a good king without being tyranny takes sons and constitutes tribunes and centurions and many he takes from the subject on account of procuring the common what? okay that's got a way there pretty well defending the law against these objections but against this is that the people of Israel are commended by the beauty of their what? Yeah so order is a part of what? Beauty, right? So is beauty more the object of the reason or the will? Which is an interesting topic, right? What a type of order there you might think it's more to do with reason than with some connection with the other too but the beauty of order of the people depends upon the instituting of good institution of princes therefore through the law the people were well instituted about their what? Beginnings you know what Thomas says in the body of the article the whole story here now bits of bits of food here I answer it should be said that concerning the good ordering of princes or rulers in some city or nation two things should be what observed one of which is that in all that all should have some part right in the what governing yeah but because through this is conserved the peace of the people and all love and keep such an ordering as Aristotle says in the second book of the politics so another that should be noted is according to each species of rule or ordering of princes of which there are diverse species as the philosopher considers in the third book of the what politics huh yeah hang on right here especially right kings in which one rules according to virtue right and aristocracy which is the power rule of the best in which some few command or rule according to virtue right whence the best ordering of princes is in some city or kingdom in which one is over them according to virtue who looks over all and under this some few huh ruling according to virtue but nevertheless such princes in some way pertain to all both because they were to be chosen from all and also because they are chosen what by all so it's such as the best polity well commixed well mixed together from the kingship in so far as one or all and aristocracy in so far as many rule according to virtue and from democracy that is the power of the people in so far as from the people who are able to be chosen princes and to the people pertains the princes and this and this was instituted according to the divine law for Moses and his successors governing the people as it were singularly ruling over all right which is a certain species of kingship they chose also 72 old guys according to virtue rule by senior citizens 80 years old or younger or older yeah and this would be aristocratic right democratic that these were chosen right from the whole people for it said provide from all your people wise men right and also the people would choose them right once it is said practice another question I'll go to article 2 To the second one proceeds thus. It seems that unsuitably we treat the precepts, the judicial precepts, as regards the manner of people towards each other, right? For men are not able to live peacefully among each other if one takes those things which are of the other. But this seems to be induced in the law. My goodness. For it said in Deuteronomy 23, entering in the vineyard of your neighbor, right, eat grapes as much as you want. That's kind of like saying it says in the Bible that there is no God. That's not likely. Somebody told me they have that kind of rule, in Europe here in some places, you can walk through and pick an apple out. That's just to keep the peace, probably. People are inclined to do that, so it's a neighbor. I thought it was also the idea that this is given creation, given to all, oh my God. Yeah, I was in that country, probably. No. There's a way to keep the peace. I thought it was all the time. You can't put a plow on you at all. All right, and it wasn't like you could go to a basket and fill it up. It's not that simple. Pull up a truck. Take an apple. Now, let's look at the reply to that first objection, right, because it would be pretty particular. To the first, therefore, it should be said that as the apostle says in the epistle of the Romans, who loves his neighbor, right, loves and fulfills the law, right? Because all the priests of the law, especially those ordered to one's neighbor, seem to be ordered to this end, that men would, what, love one another. Now, from love it proceeds that men would communicate, share their goods with each other, right? As is said in the first epistle of John, right? Who sees his brother undergoing necessity, suffering necessity, and closes his bowels, I guess, from it. In what way does the charity of God remain in him, right? And therefore, the law intends for men to be accustomed to easily, what, sharing their goods with one another, right? Just as the apostle says in the first epistle of Timothy, he commands the, what, the rich to easily give and share, yeah. Now, it is not easily communicative that which is not, what, which is not sustained, that his neighbor takes some little thing, right? Yeah, without any great detriment to him. And therefore, the law orders that, wandering into the vineyard of his neighbor, is he able there to eat the, what? Yeah, that's what it seems, yeah. But not to carry them outside, as the father would say. Nay, from this, given the occasion of great damage, from which peace is disturbed, which among those who are disciplined are not, what, disturbed from the taking of little things, but more friendship is confirmed, and men are accustomed to easily sharing. Huh? You've got a beautiful custom, you know, and a beautiful spirit. Yeah. You see that, I know, we all are here with the Lebanese, the food. Yeah. They will give you more, way more than you need, and they kind of insist on you taking more, more than you need. Yeah, well, that's not a good idea. That's not a good idea. You're from the northern side, you're colder up there, kind of in the Mediterranean world, at least. Yeah, yeah. You know, I don't know if Warren was talking about where, I was in Spain, one of those places where you could, you know, as you walk through, you could take an orange, right? But I guess people would do it, but they have those oranges that they use for marmalade or something like that. And they really, really, very bitter, you say, ah! Well, that's the oranges. Those are the sweet ones. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So I don't know if you're talking about those kind of oranges here, but I mean, that's not... That's probably what they do with any of the pans and bigger fruit. Dang it, let's do it. I think back now about my days as a boy there, you know, and taking green apples off the trees of the people, you know. Warren and I used to meet down in the Sippy River there, you know, but there was, you found a nice apple tree down there, you know, and it would belong to the Lincoln City. It was kind of nice, you know, to refresh yourself with a green apple there after. When I was down in Florida in high school, we used to go, I ran on the track team and we'd go out, one of the places we'd go, the orange town, it was, now it's all developed, back then it was still all of the orange shoot groves. And some of them were left, but they weren't really cared for. Yeah. We used to go through there and we'd pick some of the oranges and we'd go through there. I don't mind on the track team in the inner city when they were having our workouts, they'd run by those open markets. Those zero-micareans and they'd grab oranges as they went by. They were fresh and great. But didn't Ruth in there, the custom there, Ruth, she could pick up the grain that fell or something? That's something in the law, too, that the poor would follow. They weren't to reap everything clean. Yeah. They were to leave something and the poor would follow and pick up the remnants. Yeah. That was accustomed to them to be. I think it was especially it was pretty much provided for either in the law or one of them. Don't get into the building. Yeah. A little different than the way we look at it, you know, nowadays. You know, kind of... Not only did you share so much, I mean, it's... Yeah, you always see that usually in smaller business, more personable. You see the owner or whoever they are, they're good to the employees. They let them have the extra thing to the customers and say, oh, don't worry about it and take that. And I always remember it's good business. It's nothing I can please everybody when you do that. But it's a small thing, you know. I remember I was very pleased when I went with my very great mom and we went out for a burger and my favorite burger and went down the floor and it's not up here. And I ordered my sandwich and there was a whole bunch of us at the table. My sister's got seven kids and her son-in-law came and all these people and so we're all feasting at the place and I complained because I didn't want something on the burger and they put it on. I ate it anyway. And the gal said, well, we won't want you to pay for it then. I said, oh, okay. Well, I wasn't paying for it. I wasn't paying for it. She just said, well, we'll pay for it. Okay. Second one here now, I guess, that's an objection. From this, many cities and kingdoms are destroyed because the possessions, right, arrive at the woman as the philosopher says in the second book of the politics. But this was introduced into the old law for it's said in Numbers 27 that a man when he's dead without a son, the heredity will pass to the daughter and therefore not conveniently as does the law provide for the salvation of the people. It was in Shakespeare's history play there, right, where the law, the Selic law, you know, is supposed to be that doesn't descend to the female, the kingship. What was it, Henry V? In the very beginning with Henry V he's deciding, you know, he's going to go over there and claim his kingdom, right? And then the bishop of the carmen there is explaining, you know, that the French are not being honest about what the law really was there and so on with what these lands were. Some of them had a law against that, right, that you couldn't descend to the female, right? About something like this. The second should be said that the law did not establish that woman would succeed to the goods of the father, the paternal goods, except in the case of the, what, lacking of male sons, right? Then it was necessary that there be a succession to the females would be considered in consolation on patris, on the consoling of the father, to whom it would be grave if its heredity altogether passed to the extraneous people, huh? So I'll leave it to my daughter, I mean, rather than have it go to the strangers, right? But it, they added to this, however, about this law, a certain caution, right? Commanding that the woman succeeding to the paternal heredity would marry, right? Men of their tribe, I guess, huh, to which the, so that the lots of tribes would not be confounded, huh, as it's had in numbers, huh? Yeah, the outcome. Yeah. Okay, third objection now. Moreover, the society of men, most of all, for this is concerned, that men, what, selling and buying, I guess, exchange things, right, which they need, as is said in the first book of the politics. But the old law took away the, what, selling, for it commanded that the possessor of what is sold would return to the seller in the 50th year, the jubilee year, as is clear in Leviticus 25. On suivi, therefore, the law instituted this, or the people about this, huh, that's kind of an odd thing, right? Yeah. Fifty years, jubilee. You can't give up your slaves too, didn't you, someone? Yeah. Okay, let's see what he says about this. To theory, it should be said, as the philosopher says in the second book of the politics, that the regulation of possessions adds much to the conserving of a city or of a people. Whence, as he himself says, that among the cities, the cities of the Gentiles, it was established that no one, right, would be able to sell, what, his possession, except for a, what, her. Because if one could sell possessions, it would happen that all possessions would come to, what, a few. That's like where we are. And thus would be necessary for the city or the region to be evacuated of habit, inhabitants. Wow. And therefore the old law to removing a danger of this sort, thus ordered that, what, that one would come to the necessities of men, conceding the possession of, the selling of possessions to a certain time, and nevertheless removing the danger, commanding that at a certain time the possession sold would return to the salt. I wonder if you can get this to the States today, I don't think you could very well. And this instituted that the, what, yeah, would not be confounded, but there would always remain the same distinction in tribes, huh? It's all like the Near East now with the tribes, huh? You get the tribe on the Near East side. And because the domestic, what, houses were not distinguished by, what, the transits? A lot of the Yen. It was conceded that they could be sold forever, right? Just as mobile goods, huh? But there was not established the number of the homes of the city as there was a, what, a possession to which nothing was, what, added, huh? But it was able to add something to the number of homes in the city. Well, so. The house hour were not in the, what, the house hour which were not in the city, right, but in the village, huh, not having walls, were not able to be sold, what, forever. Because these kinds of houses were not constructed except for, what, okay. And therefore the law should be established right about, what, oh. The priest from, we have in the parish now, who's from Columbia, right, huh? He's down there again for a couple of vacations there. He's talking about the, about the, the, some of the old villages, you know, where they get up and go to mass at four o'clock in the morning before they go out to the fields, right? I think that, I think that. God bless the priest. Yeah. There's some nice customs down there, yeah. I thought Columbia's in kind of a bad, you know, condition there. I remember the people that I knew from Columbia, they said, you don't go to bed without even hearing a gun by your bed, you know, or something, you know. You need to depend on the way you live. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It was kind of, I got impression it was kind of a horrible place. Maybe in the, that's what we had when the candidate came here a few years ago, it was from down there, it says, and I guess it's in the big cities, do you remember? I'm not sure where it is, but the drug business. The drugs, he said, is kind of like, it's in the wilderness war. Yeah. Yeah. They were getting supported by the Shedda's tyranny in Venezuela, too. Yeah. It was destabilized in Columbia, but they had a very good president for some time, Uribe, his name was, who really was doing good stuff. I don't know what's been going on in the last few years now. We're still on what, third objection here? Start the fourth one. Okay. Can we have the fourth objection then? Okay. Moreover, it's most expedient for the necessities of men that men be prompt to what? Which promptitude is taken away through this, that the creditors do not what? Yeah. Whence it is said in Ecclesiasticus, many are what? For this the law induced, huh? Because first it commanded, Deuteronomy 15, that who owes something from his what? For the neighbor or brother, ought not to what? Signific. Yeah. Because the year of remission is of the Lord. Hey, socialists here. Yeah. In Exodus 22, it said that if the Lord being what? The animal loaned, I guess, Mutuatum, was dead, right, huh? So he'd not be held to what? To pay back. Yeah. Secondly, because he takes away from insecurity, which is had through the what? Pledge. Pledge, yeah? For he said in Deuteronomy 24, when you, what? From your neighbor. Nothing. He owes you. Do not enter, what? Yeah. Nor at night time before you will be the pledge, but immediately you'll render it to him. No, that's all right. Therefore, insufficiently was ordered in the law about, what? Loans, is it? Rejoice. How long will apply to this? To the fourth it should be said, that it has been said, the intention of the law was to accustom men, huh, to its precepts, to this, that they would be, what? Easily coming to each other's aid and necessities, right, huh? Yeah. Because this is most of all a fomentum, something, encouraging friendship, right, huh? Okay. And this facility of coming to aid, not only was established in those things which, gratuitously, right, in the absolutely are given, but also in those things which are, what, kind of my loan, yeah. When you say somebody, are you giving this to me or are you lending it to me, right? I borrow two of my father-in-law, he says, what does it say right here? I said, well, I couldn't see anything there, you know. He'd give me his name, you know, or something like that. Come on, dear. Come on, dear. Come on, dear. Come on, dear. But also in those things which were lent, because this kind of subvention is more frequent and necessary for many things. And the facility is such a, what? Yeah, is in many ways instituted. First, that they be, what? Easily. Yeah. Nor that they are retracted from this by the approaching year of remission that is had in Duit Army, 15. That's the quote, take heed to thyself, lest perhaps a wicked thought steal upon me. And it's about, I don't want to give because the year of remission is coming. I don't want to give. Yeah, it's eternity. I don't want to be gentle enough to hear, you know, the year, the jubilee year when I'm not allowed to plant my crops. So I'm going to need more, so I don't want to give as much now because that's coming up. That's about, but you can use it. Secondly, lest the one to whom something is, yeah, is weighed down with either, what, usury, is it? Or some, what? The cessities of life. Yeah. Omnino vitae necessari. Things are very necessary for life, I guess. And if they be taken, that they be immediately, what? Restored. Yeah. Where it's said in Deuteronomy 23, you will not, what? Loan down. Loan down. Lent from other money to Israel. Yeah. You will not take in place of the, what? What? Because you will, what? You will place his soul to yourself. Oh, yeah, the, yeah, the two stones are the millstone. You know, we're going to do it. And if you take away his millstone, one or the other, then basically he's going to die. And take from your neighbor, what, his vet, his clothing, and return it to him before sunset? I would like that expression. Third, that you are not, what, requested or required, you know, with opportunity, right? For if you lend money to my poor people who dwells with you, you will not urge him, as it were, like one exacting, you know, to get them. And in account of this, it is commanded Deuteronomy 24, when you, what, request from your neighbor or something, which you owe him, you know, and he'll stand outside, bring to you. Yes. Because the house is the safest receptacle of each thing, each one. Once man's house is his kingdom, I gather, I mean, is his, is his castle. Once is, is molesting the man to invade his house, huh? Then also because it's not considered to the creditor, did he take the, what, pledge that he wished. But more to the debtor, did he give what he needs less. Fourth instituted that in the seventh year, the debts would be entirely remitted, huh? I guess near that seventh year, I'm not going to lend anything to you, that's for sure. It was probable that those who, what, were able to render something, yeah, before the seventh year would, what, and they would not gratisly defraud the one lending. If, however, they were entirely impotent, huh? To give the same reason that there would be a debt remitted from the love, which was also about giving it newly on account of indigence, huh? If we can't pay you back, you just forgive it, right? About animals lent, this law commanded that on account of the negligence of the one to whom they were lent, right, huh? If in his absence they die or may be weakened, they are compelled to return them, right? If, however, him being present and diligently guarding them, they die or are debilitated, they are not to be arrested, yeah, and most of all, if they were, what, because they could also have died and been weakened with the one lending them, yeah. And thus, if the conservation of the animal is sought, already some gain, I suppose, is given from the loaning, it would not be a gratuitous loaning, right? And this should be most of all observed when the animals were, what, what, yeah, yeah, because then they would have a certain price for the use of the animals, once nothing would accumulate, right, right, for the restitution of the animals, except in account of the negligence of the one guarding them. If, however, they were not admitted, they could be some, have some equity, at least they restore what... The use of the dead animal, it would have happened. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Hmm. I don't know if we can get this through Congress, I don't think we will. There are 12 arguments. To the fifth it should be said. We can go back to the fifth. Moreover, from the defrauding of the deposit, most of all, a great danger is imminent, and therefore a great caution should be observed. It's also said in 2 Maccabees that the priest called down from heaven, the one who, from what, laid down a law about the deposits, that those who, what, would keep it safe. But in the precepts of the old law, little caution about deposits was observed. It was said in Exodus 22 that in the loss of a deposit, there was established an oath before whom was made the deposit, and therefore there was not about this a suitable wording made by the law, but to the fifth it should be said in Exodus 22 that this difference is between... the what? Loan and the deposit. Because the loan is given for the use of the one who is traded. But the deposit is traded for the what? Yeah. And therefore one is more confined, yeah, in some cases to returning the loan than to, yeah. The deposit can be lost in two ways. In one way from an inevitable cause, either natural as if it were dead or extrinsic as if it was captured by enemies or if it were eaten by a beast. So I had this when Paul came up to visit my daughter, you know, probably the kids you know, but they brought their dogs to, right? And the dog got and ate a couple of the chickens, right? So I don't think anything was given for this. I don't think that they had any fun about it. It's kind of funny though. I should tell them to read this though. They'll just know what they do next time. Yeah. Yeah. You cut open the dog. You cut open the dog. In which case is held to what? Bring to the what? And that which, what? What remains of the animal killed, right? So I have to ask my wife, I gave the rest of the chicken, you know, back to, back to my daughter's family. In other four said cases, nothing is held now to render anything, right? But only to expurging, huh? Suspicion of fraud, huh? He's held to give a, what, oath I guess? Okay. In other way, he can lose some avoidable cause as to theft. And then in account of negligence in his guarding, he's, he's held to be returning, yeah. But as has been said, the one who, uh, loaning, takes the animal, is held to render even if it is what? Yeah. But of lesser negligence is held the, the depositor, who, the one to which deposit, I guess, who is not held except case of theft. No wonder the Pharisees and so on, like people really take it up with the, the law, right? And all these things to keep track of them. Well, that's what I remember in moral theology when they cover justice. You've got all of this stuff on contracts and all that. It's just endless, endless, endless. It was, it was, it was, it was the most depressing part of moral theology. It's just this endless maze of things. It was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was one gives them their pay, less they lacking food, huh, but those who rent other things are, are customary, well, which, and therefore they do not need, but the price of, yeah, for their daily food, and therefore there's not the same ratio in both, I understand that a little bit of what he's saying. said it, moreover, since often there, what, arises the necessity of judges, right, there ought to be easy access to judges, therefore unsuitably there's a law established that they should go to one place to what, yeah, can you have the judges all over the place, you know what you're saying, to the seventh it should be said that the judges judges are constituted for this among men, to determine what is ambiguous among men, what can be ambiguous about justice among men, now, in two ways something can be ambiguous, I didn't know that, in one way, among those who are civil, right, you know, and for taking away this doubt, the law commands, that judges and magistrates be constituted a tribe that they might judge the tribe, that they might judge the people by just judge, you know, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia, sharia. Yeah, the bishop, the cardinal there of Quebec. And therefore, for this, taking away this doubt, the law constituted that all would, what, run back to the place, the chief place chosen by, what, God, in which there was a high priest, eh, who would determine the doubtful things about the ceremonies of the divine worship, and the supreme judge of the people who would determine what pertains to the judgments of men. Just as now through, yeah, a consultation, causes from inferior judges are deferred to superior judges. That's the Supreme Court, you know what I say? That's the Supreme Court coming in there. Yeah. Once it is said in Deuteronomy 17, if something is difficult and ambiguous, and you see this before the judge, and the judgment among the, what, the portuses, that's what used to judge in the gates, yeah, in the verba variari, yeah, go up to the place which the Lord has chosen, right, and you will come to the priests of the Levite, Janus, and to the, whoever is the judge at that time. And these ambiguous judgments do not frequently emerge, whence from this fact, people are not weighed down, huh? Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.