Prima Secundae
Lecture 278: Judicial Precepts and the Order of Society

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

To the eighth objection here, huh? You've got a break in this thing here. We'll break it. More, it is possible that not only two, but even three, or many, come together to lie, right? Therefore, unsuitably, as it said in Deuteronomy 19, in the mouth of two or three tests. That's a nice text here. To the eighth it should be said that in human matters, huh? There cannot be had a probatio demonstrativa, an infallibus, huh? But it suffices a conjectura. A conjectura comes from the good word for guessing, right? A guessing, a probable guess, according to which the rhetorician persuades, huh? And therefore, although it is possible that two or three witnesses come together in some lie, two old men there were saying about the woman there, was it? Oh, sir. Yeah, yeah, yeah. However, it's not easy nor probable that they come together, right? And their testimony didn't agree, right? When they separate them, yeah. And therefore, one takes their testimony as a word true, right? Especially if they do not vacillate their testimony, or otherwise they are not suspected, right? And for this also is not easily to, what? For witnesses to decline from the truth, right? The law institutes that witnesses... Most diligently. Yeah. And that they be gravely punished, huh? Or found to be liars, as it has had in Deuteronomy, huh? Now, there is nevertheless some reason of this number to be determined to signifying the infallible truth of the divine persons, which sometimes are numbered to be two, because the Holy Spirit is the connection of the, what, two. Sometimes they express to be three. Three, as Augustine says, huh? In your law is written that the testimony of two men is, what, true, huh? Two or three, huh? Thomas comes back there, he's talking about the, that Christ should be in the tomb there, you know, three days, you know? And, of course, one thing is, of course, because perfection is number three, right, huh? And he also has the fact that there's kind of one day in there and two nights, huh? So, God, by his one, what, light cures our two darknesses. And then he quotes this thing about two or three witnesses, right? And many others, he says, can be out of any sin, but then he stops there. Take a break here before you go into this. Objection nine now here, huh? Okay. More of an objection nine. Punishment ought to be what? Taxed, right? Ought to be fixed, yeah. According to the quantity of the guilt, right, huh? Quince is said to Deuteronomy 25, Pro mincere pecate, for the measure of the sin, right, will be the mode of the what? Plagues, yeah. And Thomas explains the word modus here it's always in terms of measure, right, huh? The famous play is Shakespeare, measure for measure. Okay, but to some things that are equally what? Guilt, law establishes unequal punishments. For it's said in Exodus 22 that the thief will, what, restore five oxes, calf, yeah, for one, and four birds for one bird, right? Okay. Yeah. Oh, let's see. Hold this, I guess. Um, some not much, not very grave sins are punished by grave punishment, huh? For that man should be stoned who gathers wood on the Sabbath, huh? Uh, and the disobedient there is, I guess, the son, on account of little things, um, who gives himself order to, what, living it up and eating, I guess. He's commanded to be stoned, uh, therefore unsuitably in the law instituted punishments. Well, that's, that's a good objection, right? Yeah. You can't have unequal punishments. Oh, my goodness. Oh, my goodness. Yeah, well, oh, my God, Thomas. This is an unequal thing. It's a small objection. Good to take a break. It's a huge answer. Yeah. To the ninth it should be said that not only on account of the gravity of the, what, guilt, but also on account of other causes, a grave punishment should be, what, inflicted, huh? This is interesting. That's not the whole thing. Yeah. First, an account of the quantity of the sin, right, huh? Because to a greater sin, other things being equal, right, huh? A heavier punishment is old, right, huh? Secondly, an account of the custom of the sin, right, huh? Because through customary sins, men are not easily abstracted, withdrawn from them, except through grave punishment, huh? Third, an account of, what, great concubiscence or pleasure in the sin, because from these not easily are men, what, except through grave punishment, huh? Fourth, an account of the easiness of committing the sin and of being hidden in it, right? For these sins, when they are made manifest, should be punished more to the terror of others. Okay. Now, about the quantity of the sin, huh? A fourfold grade should be noted, right, huh? About one and the same thing done, right, huh? Which one is that when, involuntarily, one commits a sin, right, huh? Then, if altogether it's involuntary, then it wholly excuses from, what, punishment, huh? For it's said in Deuteronomy 22 that the, what, girl, right, who's oppressed in the field, right, is not guilty of sin because it calls out, right, huh? And no one, what, was there? Fear. Fear, yeah. Okay. If however in some way it was voluntary, but nevertheless he sins from, what, weakness, huh? As when someone sins from passion, then the sin is, what, diminished, huh? And the punishment, according to the truth of judgment, ought to be diminished. Unless, perhaps, an account of the common use, uh, usefulness, the punishment is, what, made greater to abstract men from these sins, as has been said. The second grade is when someone sins to the ignorant son, and then in some way one might be rendered or regarded as being guilty on account of neglecting to learn, right? But nevertheless he ought not to be, uh, by judges, but he should expiate his sin through, what, sacrifices. Whence it is said in Leviticus 4, the soul which sins through ignorance, et cetera, but this should be understood about the ignorance of the fact and not about the ignorance of the divine precepts, which all are held to. Oh, it's Friday night. Oh, yeah. Well they tell us about this, one of her lady friends there, you know, but she was on an airplane and she ate some meat, you know, and she took seriously about any meal on Friday, you know, and now it's like the freight's going to go down or something, you know, really punished, you know. But I suppose in those days they were serving you a meal. I mean, if they served you a meal, you could eat it on an airplane, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. But she was scared stiff, you know, that the airplane would go down or some other horrible thing would happen to her because of the shit. Third grade is when someone sins from pride, right, huh? That is from certain choice or from certain mouths, right? And then one should be punished according to the quantity of the crime. And the fourth grade is when someone sins through, what, stubbornness and pertinacity. And then, as it were, to a rebel and destroyer of the order and the law, he ought to altogether be, what, killed, huh? Tough guy this Thomas here, huh? According to this, it should be said that in the punishment of theft, one considers according to the law that which frequently is able to happen, right? And therefore, for the theft of some things, which can be easily guarded from, what, thefts? One does not render the, what, the thief, except twofold, huh? But sheep that cannot be easily guarded from theft, which are, you know, fed in the fields, and therefore it happens that, what, sheep are frequently subtracted. Once the law adds a, what, greater punishment, that four sheep for one sheep should be rendered, huh? And because the cattle, I guess, are difficultly guarded, yeah, because they're had in the fields, and they do not eat together, right? Together, right? Yeah. And therefore, even a greater punishment should be added, right? That there be quinquay boves, for one bove. And this, I say, unless the cattle, unless the animal is found living, what? Because then only a double is restored, just as another theft. Yes. Or it can be a presumption that he thought to restore it from the fact that he kept it, what? Alive. Preserved it alive. Or it can be said, according to the gloss, that the cattle has, what, five uses? Because it is offered up. It, uh... Meat. Milk. Milk. And... The hide is employed for various purposes. Yeah. Yeah. I can just tell my kids are with the cows together. Yeah. And therefore, for one cattle, five cattle are rendered. The other one has four usefulness. It's offered up. It feeds. It gives milk. And it administers. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. killed were some unfaithful, right? Tough talk there, Thomas. 10. Augustine says in the 21st Book of the City of God, eight general punishments in the law are described by Tullius, by Cicero. Damnum, vincula, verbera, talionum, that's that the same thing, I guess? Ignominium, exile, death, slavery, right? Oh my God. From which some things are commanded in the law. A what? A harm, I mean a loss. Damage, I guess. That's when the thief is condemned of what? He has to give up more of his own. He's lost, he's moved, maybe there's been some kind of loss. Okay. Vincula, about someone who is, blows, right? As the one who is sins, seems to be what? Worthy of stripes, prostrated, and beaten. Ignominia, I suppose some kind of disgrace, huh? It's inferred to those who do not wish to accept the brother, the wife of a brother did, huh? I got to marry my brother's wife when he dies. If he dies, it's not offspring. Yeah. Yeah, I have to express that, yeah. Who takes away the, what? Shua? And spits in the face of it, right? Death is inferred, as it's clarified, if it is, 20. Who chrises his father or mother, will die the death, and the punishment of what? That's the equal, I guess, of what you've done, right? The law induces, saying, eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. Therefore, it seems unsuitable that the other two punishments, exile and slavery, the old law does not. That's because they were slaves in Egypt or something. It's going to have some way out of this, Thomas. To the 10th, it should be said that the old law inflicted the punishment of death for more grave, what? Crimes. In those in which one sins against God, and in homicide, and in the, what? Theft of men? Can I think of that? Yeah. And in reverence, in reverence, lack of reverence to parents, and in adultery, and incest, okay? In the theft of other things, he's applied the punishment of what? Some harm done to him, some damages, yeah. Yeah. And, uh, striking people and mutilating of them will induce the punishment of talionis. In summary, in the sin of false testimony, right? Another lesser guilty things will induce the punishment of flagellation or ignominy, right? Put you in the stocks, okay? Induces the punishment of slavery, I guess, in two cases. In one in which, in the seventh year of remission, the one who was a servant does not wish, what, to use the benefit of the law, that he go out free. Once her punishment is inflicted upon him, he remain perpetual servant. Why would he want to be free? It's kind of strange. Secondly, he inflicts upon the theft when he does not have what he's able to restore as his head, huh? There's always this thing about the guy in the jail when he can't pay. Yeah, you know, so then. Now, the punishment of exile universally the law does not want to establish, because in that people God was worshipped, yeah. All other people being corrupted by idolatry, right? Once someone was universally excluded from that people, it would be given to him the occasion of idolatry. And therefore, in the first book of Kings, chapter 26, it said, that David said to Saul, Maledicti sun, who cast me out, that I might not dwell in the heredity of the Lord, saying, Go serve other gods. There would nevertheless be some particular exile, for it is said that the one who strikes his neighbor, who strikes his neighbor annoyingly, and who is proven to have no what hatred against him, will flee to the refuge of one city, and there remain until the death of the high priest. Then it's listed for him to return to his house, because in the universal damnation, people are considered, are accustomed for particular angers to be, what, sedated, huh? And thus the, um, that of the defunct neighbor, you know, that's prone to, what, his killing. That's a mouth, wasn't it? It's a fluid, just a fluid, Trent. That's awesome. Okay, now what about the coming of these, those dogs you had there earlier? Any other guys seen that? Okay. Okay. So this is the, um, number 11, yeah. Okay. Moral punishment is not owed except to guilt, but the brute animals cannot have, what, guilt. Don't say dogs sometimes seem to like they're embarrassed, you know, with what they've done? Yeah. Therefore, unsuitably, it's inflicted a punishment upon them. It's Exodus 21, huh? The, yeah, will be killed with stones, killed in a man or a woman, and Leviticus 20. We can kill an animal if they kill a human being, right? Don't we? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And the woman who, what, yeah, will be killed together with it. Thus, therefore, it seems that unsuitably, those things that you pertain to the, were unsuitably ordered in the old law. Let's see what he says about that. To the 11th, it should be said that the brute animals are commanded to be killed, not in account of their guilt, but in punishment of their, what, horns, who do not, uh, guard the earth, these animals from sins of this sort, huh? And therefore, more are the punished, the war is more punished if the, what, horned animal, ox, were from, what? Pushing or a guard. Yeah. And the, the third one, yeah. In which case, there could be a, what? They've been taken to avoid the danger. In other words, they've done it to the war, so they could. Yeah. Yeah. Or animals are killed in detesting of some sin, right? Unless, from their aspect, some whore, his, uh, striking man, huh? Hmm. Back home there, when we had the cat there, the woman next door was a bird lover, right? So my mother said, let the cat chase birds and see the cat chasing birds go after her, right? So I was assigned that task, which I carried out. I remember one time at dinner we were having a chicken, right, for dinner, and we had some chicken in front of us, so we gave it to the cat, you know what the cat did? He took the chicken, but he ran into the bushes with the chicken, you know, because he thought he'd be punished, you know, for eating bird meat, right, huh? It's kind of funny, though, I mean, you kind of learn to avoid killing the birds, yeah. Even though he'd give him the chicken, he'd give it to him, you know, and he ran in there because he was probably afraid we'd be out there spanking him or something, you know, for eating bird meat, huh? It's kind of funny. It struck me, you know, the way the cat had picked up the… I told you a funny story, though, was I was in a kind of a pre-med biology course, right? And somebody told me, don't take this, you know, of course everybody takes, take this course. But everybody had to do something practical, right? And so I could get a frog skeleton with no problem at all. Warren Murray had a bat skeleton, you know, he'd kill a bat in the attic. I said, now I need one more skeleton, you know, I get a bird skeleton, right, huh? Well, the kids, they started shooting at birds all the time. So I said, shoot me a bird, Dad, right? Okay. So I get the bird skeleton, and now I come in and bring it to my mother, and I said, I'm going to get all this meat off the thing. She said, well, it'll boil it in the thing, you know. So it's boiling it on the stove there in that kettle. And guess who comes over to visit my mother? Oh, what do you got in there, what do you got in there? I can't do it. You did it. But she was not an unreasonable one. I was in the room there, you know, to play a book or something, you know, and I heard her coming into the kitchen, and I heard her thinking, oh, what are you cooking, you know? I thought I'd be in deep trouble, you know. That's one of the reasons why I lost it. Yeah. That's going to be cool. Okay, we're down to the twelve now. Twelve apostles here, yeah. I haven't known about it yet. Oh, yeah. Moreover, the Lord commanded Exodus 21 that homicide would be punished by the death of the man. But the killing of a brute animal is regarded as less than the killing of a man, and therefore is not able to be, one cannot sufficiently recompense the punishment of what? For the killing of a brute animal. And so therefore is commanded, Deuteronomy 21, that when you find the, what, the endeavor of a man that's been killed, and you, what, are ignorant of what? The seniors of the next, what, city would take a, what, cap from the flock, isn't it? Oh, yeah, like a virgin, huh? And they lead them to the valley that is dry and rough and stony, right? Mm-hmm. Which is never cloud. And seed, do we see the seeds? Yeah, it would have never made it. And they fall in it, they... Kill it. Yeah. Yeah. That formal thing, you know, it's... To the twelfth, it should be said that the literal reason for that command was, as Rabbi Moses says, because frequently the killer was of the, what, city. Whence the killing of the... Yeah. Little calf came to what? To... Yeah, the... Oh, yeah. Yeah. Which came about to three things, huh? Because... One of which was that the seniors of the city swore that nothing was, what, overlooked in the guarding of the ways. Another, that because that who's condemned and they're killing the animal, there was, before the homicide was manifested, the animal was not killed. Third, because that place in which they killed the thing remained uncultivated, right? And therefore, to avoiding both losses, the men of the city easily would manifest the homicide, right? If they knew it. And rarely would there be, but some words or judgments would come about about this. Or this they brought about to terror and detesting of the homicide. For because, through the killing of the calf, which was a useful animal, and, yeah, especially before it labored under the yoke, it signified that whoever made a homicide, although he was useful and strong, would be killed. And by a cruel death, which was the, what, cutting off of the head. And that, as it were, vile and, what, from the good sorts of men, he's excluded. Which signifies that to the lamb killed in a stony place, an uncultivated place, would be, what, puterness. And mystically, through the little one is signified, you know, signified the flesh of Christ, right? Which does not draw a, what? Because it does not, he does not do sin. Nor does he, what, cut the land? He does not admit the stain of sedition, right? To break up the ground. Through this that he is, what, killed in a uncultivated land. Signifies the lowly death, you might say. Spies life of death of Christ. To which are purged all sins. And the devil is shown to be the author of homicide. Now that's a mouthful too. That's what the body of the article says, son. I answer, it should be said, that as Augustine brings in from Tully, or said by Tully in the second book, The City of God, the people is a, what, kind of definition of what a people is, right? It's a, bring together a multitude, right? By the consensus of law, and by a, what, common usefulness, right? Associated, you know. It's kind of a definition of what a people is, I guess. Whence to the notion of a people pertains there to be a communication of men to each other, by just, ordered by just, what, precepts of the law. Now there's a two-fold coming together of men to each other. One which comes about by the authority of the princes. Another which comes about by the private will of private persons, right? And because by the will of each are disposed, that one who is, what, subject to power, that is, by the authority of the princes, to which men are subject. It is necessary that judgments among men be exercised, and that punishments be inferred upon malefactors. But to the power of private persons are subject the, yeah. And therefore, by their own will, these things are able to communicate with each other, by buying, selling, giving, and other things of this sort. Now, about both communications, a law sufficiently orders them, huh? For it establishes judges, as is clear in Deuteronomy 16, 18. Judges and magistrates, you shall consecrate. in all the ports of the city, right? That they might judge the people by just judgment. Institutes also a just order of judgment, as is said in Deuteronomy. What is just judge? Whether it be, what, a citizen or a foreigner, there being no, what, distance of persons, huh? He undertakes the occasion of a, what? He takes away the occasion of an unjust judgment. Accepting, by prohibiting, the receiving of gifts to the judges, huh? I'll give you a little bit of, you know. What a Shakespeare hand. Yeah, with the character there, the local magistrate there where, you know, his servant wants him to uphold so-and-so in the trial there, you know, huh? You know, the man ought to get, you know, without his friendship, he ought to get a few little favors like this done, you know. He says, okay, okay, okay, you know. I'll go to you. Okay. Institutes also the number of witnesses, two or three, right? This is clear in Deuteronomy 17, huh? And it institutes certain punishments for diverse, what, crimes. Is that what we said later? But about things possessed, it is best, as the philosopher says in the same book of the politics, that possessions should be distinct and the use of them should be partly common, partly, what, communicated through the will of the possessors. And these three things were established in the law. For first, these possessions were divided among them, right? I will give you, what, to you, the land and possession, which you would divide by lot, huh? And because through the irregularity of possessions, many cities are destroyed, as the philosopher says in the second book of politics. Therefore, concerning the regulation of possessions, a threefold remedy, the law, what? One that, according to the number of men, would be equally divided, right? Whence it is said in numbers, to many you will give a wider, and to the fewer, narrow. Another remedy is that the possessions be not alienated forever, but in a certain time they are restored to their possessors. that there not be confounded the lineage of possessions. And third, the remedy to, what, taking away this confusion of these sort, that the nearest, right, the neighbors succeed to those dying, huh? First, in grade, the son. Secondly, the daughter. Third, the brothers. Four, the, what? And then, finally, five, whatever, neighbors. And for the distinction of the sorts conserved, ultimately, the law statute that women who are heirs should marry men of their tribe, as is said in Numbers 36. So, secondly, it instituted law that, as regards the use of things, that they should be, what, common, huh? And first, as regards care, where it says in Deuteronomy, you shall not see the, what, ox, sheep, or your brother. They are, they are. And you pass by. But you shall reduce him, bring him back to your brothers. Bring him back, yeah. And similarly, about others. Secondly, as regards the fruit, for it has been conceded commonly to all that is illicit, I guess, to go into the vineyard of one's friend to eat, so long as not taken outside, huh? And then as regards the poor, especially, to them is left the, what? Yeah, that's what I was talking about Ruth earlier, right? And fruits and, what? Yeah. And also, they have in common those things that are born in the seventh year, right? And they spread them around, I guess, or something. And third, the law statute established the communication made to those who were the lords of things. For one was pretty gratuitous. In the third year, you shall separate, what? A tithe? And they will become, what? Devites? And the foreigner? And the pupil and the widow? And they shall eat and be. Another was with recompense for uselessness, as through selling and buying and through loan and through deposit, above which all are found in our nation and suit in the law. Once it is clear that the old law sufficiently ordered the behavior of that pupil. And they will have a break after that, right? Far away from grace now, huh? Oh, my grace. I think it's the new laws that would be a little bit easier to take, I think. Yeah, yeah. I think it's the new laws that we have. I think it's the new laws that we have. I think it's the new laws that we have. I think it's the new laws that we have.