Prima Secundae
231. God Alone Is Good, 'I Am Who Am': Divine Simplicity and the Senses of 'To Have'
Class of 2015-09-17
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/231-god-alone-is-good-i-am-who-am-divine-simplicity-and-the-senses/

[0:01] Name of the Father, the Son, Holy Spirit. Amen. Thank you, God. Thank you, guardian angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas, Deo gratias. God, our enlightenment. Guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, our illuminating images, and arouse us to consider more quickly. St. Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor, help us to understand all that you have written. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Amen.

[0:34] Okay, going to make a little excursion today, right? So I was thinking about the passage there that is in the Gospel of Saint Mark, where Christ says, "Why do you call me good? God alone is good, huh? "

[0:56] And why does he, you know, say that as man he's not good, right? But God alone is good, huh? I was thinking about that again, and then I was thinking of the words of Christ to Saint Catherine of Siena, right? And he says something similar, right?

[1:20] He says, "Remember just two things: I am who am, and you are she who is not." Okay. Now you'd say, well, it doesn't Christ know that Saint Catherine exists? Doesn't Christ know in the Gospel there that his human nature is something good, right?

[1:44] So, what is the reason why he says these two things, right? It's interesting to compare these two ways, right, huh? And I think it goes back to what you learn when you take up the substance of God in theology, huh? And Thomas in the two Summas, when he takes up the substance of God, he has what five things that he shows, right? So you have the what simplicity of God, right, huh?

[2:16] The unchangeableness of God, right, huh? Perfection and therefore the goodness of God, right? The unity of God, the infinity of God, right? You have these five things.

[2:28] And so, what is there in the treatise on the simplicity of God and the treatise on the perfection and goodness of God that leads these two ways of speaking, these two ways of speaking proportionally, right? One about the goodness, the other about the being of God, right? Well, what's common to the two? Do you know? They would need Christ to speak in that way, right? As if Catherine of Siena doesn't exist, right?

[3:03] As if his human nature is not good, right? Only God is good. Yeah, but we're both creature and good simply it's not simply because God is more good, right? Than than the human nature of Christ, right? It's not simply because God exists more fully than Catherine of Siena, because he's going beyond that in his way of speaking. It's a very strong way of speaking, right? Remember, you are she who's not.

[3:36] Who are you talking to? You know, they'd say, you know, the guy you know, and somebody in philosophy class, you know, asked the guy, you know, "Do I exist?" And the professor just said, "Who's talking? Who's asking that question?" Yeah, yeah, yeah. So I mean, he says Christ, right? You know, who are you talking to? And you told Catherine of Siena this, right? And

[4:09] well, if you go to the the treatise on the goodness, let's say, of God, in the Summa contra Gentiles, right, my favorite work. There's five chapters about the goodness of God, right? Chapters thirty-seven, thirty-eight, thirty-nine, forty, and forty-one, right? And in the thirty-seventh chapter, he shows that God is good, right? In the thirty-eighth chapter, that God is not only good, but his goodness itself, right? And then in the thirty-ninth chapter, he says, "Well, there's going to be nothing bad in God if his goodness itself, right?"

[4:51] And then he defends what Augustine had said that God in the next chapter that God is the good of every good. If he's goodness itself, right, and everything is good by goodness, right, then God is the good of every good, right? But there's other ways of showing that too. That he's the end of all things, so he's the good of every good. And then finally, kind of anticlimactic, the last chapter, forty-one, there, that God is what sumum bonum, right?

[5:23] Okay. So I think Christ is saying this, huh? Because he knows that something is good because of goodness, right? And God is the only thing that is what goodness itself, right? So it's through goodness that you are good, and God is the only thing that is goodness itself. Then God, in some ways, the only one that is what good, right? Okay.

[5:55] When I was something like that, when he says to Saint Catherine of Siena, "Remember just two things: I am who am, right, and you are she who is not, right." And I was going to use that to attack the feminists, put them in their place, but but what do you learn in the treatise on the simplicity of God, right? We learn that the to be of God is his very what substance, right?

[6:25] The being of God is a substance, and in no creature is the being right. The creature itself, huh? It's something added to it, right? And this is proven again, as you mentioned before, through God being what pure act, right? Because your being is to your substance that they're not the same thing, as act is to ability, right? So something that has its being other than its substance is not going to be what pure act, right?

[6:58] It's going to be okay. So this goes back to what Aristotle shows in the ninth book of wisdom that simply speaking, act is before ability, and therefore the first being, the first cause, is pure act, and therefore the first being, the first cause, that being that God, its very substance is to be, right? Okay. Why in every creature they have their being from God, so their substance is not their being, okay?

[7:30] So it's by your being that you are, because in English the word "being" can be used in two senses, right? Being can mean what is, right? Like you're a human being, right? Or it can mean the act of existence, right? Exists itself. Well, being in the sense of "essay" or "to be," right, is whereby you are said to be a being in the other sense. Well, God's the only thing that's being itself, therefore he's the only being, right?

[8:02] Playing in the two different senses there of of being, right? So the reason is is proportional, similar, right? In the case of what he's saying to the young man, it is right that

[8:18] why do you call me good? God alone is good, right? And what he says to Catherine of Siena, just remember that I am who am, and you are she who is not, right? It's the same thing, huh? It must be the same mind that said these two things, right? That may accept the authenticity of these words to Saint Catherine, right? But I was struck by the likeness between our Lord's way of speaking there, right, and the way he speaks in the Gospel, and but the one is talking about being, and the other about the goodness of God, right?

[8:54] Does it make sense? Okay. Then, but notice another difference, though, besides the fact of being in goodness, fundamental difference there. In the one, he says that he, I am who am, right? Other case, he seems to be saying, I am not what, good, right? God alone is good, right? Well, in the one case, he's speaking of himself as God. In the other case, he's speaking of himself as what, as man, right?

[9:29] Just like Christ says in one of the Gospels, you know, the Father is greater than I, right? He's saying that of himself as man, right? But even as man, he's lessing himself as God, right? Okay.

[9:46] So there's another difference between these two, right? Now, in one case, he's speaking of himself as man. In the case as God, right? He's making the same point about God, though, right? Proportionally, right? That's. That's very interesting, huh? To see that, huh? Well, then I was checking up a little bit the Gospels there. As far as I can see, from my shabby, shoddy research, this words that I saw in Mark, you find them also somewhat in Matthew, and in what?

[10:25] Luke, but not in John, right? There's a little difference in the account, you know, in the three, those three Gospels, but they all touch upon this, right? This parallel passage, but nothing in John, right? I said it's appropriate, right? That he might speak in those three passages, right? Of himself as man, and not in John, where he's emphasizing more the divinity, right?

[10:55] Okay. Now I got thinking about again this this morning after Mass there, because the priest was kind of interesting sermon he gave. We had a text from Saint Paul. I don't know you probably didn't have the same text, right? But it's epistle. The epistle reading was from Saint Paul talking to Timothy, right? And don't let them make fun of you because of your age, and so you had something, right, huh?

[11:22] And you did office this morning sorry? Yeah, yeah, yeah. So he he gives gives you know many pieces of advice he gives, right? What was interesting in in Father's sermon this morning was that he said it seems to me that one of these things that he said is really the basis for all these things, right, huh? And that was the idea that where Saint Paul says don't neglect the gift given to you.

[11:50] Okay. That's kind of interesting. You're saying that, right? But then what really struck me was that he said he was making a little point about that, kind of applying it to us, you know. And then he went to the ceremony for baptism. And I don't know you probably you know perform baptisms, and I don't know what what the liturgy is, but I've noticed this before, you know, in the baptism.

[12:20] I guess I think it was when you anoint the baby with oil, and you're saying the baby now now you are a priest, and a prophet, and a king.

[12:32] I was struck by that, right? And of course I got thinking about of course the those three Gospels, right, huh? Because I'll take those three Gospels and distinguish them in Anaxagorean fashion, right? That Matthew emphasizes the what kingship of Christ, right? Um, the Mark the prophetic role, and the priesthood of Christ, right, huh? That's you know an Anaxagorean way of speaking, right? You know, I say that huh Anaxagoras, you know, said that everything is in everything of everything, and then somebody said, well, then why do you call this a cat and this a tree and this a stone, right?

[13:19] And poor Anaxagoras says, well, we call it by what it has most of, right? So I call this the the Anaxagorean way of naming things, where you name something from what it has most of all, either absolutely, right, or in comparison to other things, right? So it doesn't mean that you know that the kingship alone is talked about in Matthew, the priesthood alone in Luke, you know, or the prophetic role, but either it talks more about being a king here, more about being a prophet here, or more being a priest here, or at least in comparison to the Gospels, right?

[14:01] That that Luke talks more about him being the priest, and they point out how it begins in the temple and ends the temple, and more references to the temple and so on, and like in in Matthew, is it that the the Magi I guess are only in Matthew and so on, all kinds of things, right? Emphasizes how he descended from David and so on, and so I think about it, and it says, well, now.

[14:30] I think I was talking the week before, wasn't I, about the three ways to divide sacred doctrine, right? Remember that? Yeah, which you find in the Enchiridion of St Augustine, in Thomas's catechetical instructions, in the Compendium of Theology, right? That's the division of sacred doctrine. But then you have in the Summa contra Gentiles the division of sacred doctrine into God in Himself, God is the Maker and His effects, and then God is the end and His providence, right?

[15:05] So you have God in Himself, God is the beginning, God is the end, right? And that's what you follow in the Summa Theologiae, but it's not as easy to see because of the expansion of the part of the human humanity and so on, second part. So I said, well, maybe this is another way of divine sacred doctrine, right? So then I got thinking about it some more, and I said, well, maybe you know it's really somewhat like that into faith, hope, and charity, right?

[15:38] Because could you, in an Anaxagorean way of speaking, right? You know, one of the part the part on on charity, I mean the part on charity in Augustine and Thomas, you talk about the two commandments of love, right? And the Ten Commandments, right? Then now, to which of these two do you appropriate commands? Priest or prophet or king?

[16:13] Yeah. Yeah. Say. And to whom would you appropriate prayer? Now, under hope, they take up prayer, right? Augustine and Thomas, they are father, right? Now, sometimes they all marry too, but basically the thing. To whom does belong to pray? So, a king to pray, prophet to pray, a priest to pray, right? But whom does it seem to be?

[16:45] Yeah, yeah, the priest, yeah. And then the prophet is the one's going to give you the what? The teaching, which is the creed, right? So you got the same thing. It comes in very, very, very beautiful, right? Okay.

[17:07] But then I came back, you know, to the fundamental difference in this talked about in these words to Catherine of Siena and the words to the young man, right? And I said,

[17:23] why is it that we say, you know, like Thomas in the Summa Contra Gentiles? He shows that God is what good, and then He's goodness itself, right? Now, can you say that for a creature? Hmm. You can say the creature is good some way, right? But you can't say the creature is goodness itself, right? And this leads back, you know, to the key word, huh? Word that's so key that there's a chapter on it in the categories, huh?

[17:58] What word is it that's relevant here? What word is is key to understanding this way of speaking? It's a key word in the categories, huh? Not talked about too much, but I somewhat puzzled over the text there. It's the word to have or to has, has, huh? Now, if you know the categories, huh? Can almost explain the whole categories by the use of the word has, right?

[18:38] Because what what was the categories about? Yeah, yeah. But you know the the ancients, the ancient commentators used to refer to the Isagoge as the book of the five names, right? Genus, different species, property and accident, huh? And the categories as the book of the ten names, right? But what are those ten names? The names of.

[19:09] Yeah, the highest genus, right? Okay. Now, does the genus have something? Is the genus said to have something? No. Yeah, but a genus is said to have species, huh?

[19:31] So Euclid tells us that there's five kinds of what quadrilaterals, right? Huh? So quadrilaterals a genus that has what? Five species, right? Huh? So that's one example of the word "has." Pretty important. This is about the highest ten highest genus, right? Okay. So a genus has species, huh? Now is the reverse true? Does a species have a genus? Okay. Now, is that the same meaning it has?

[20:06] No. I mean, I get two meanings it has, right? But very, can you understand the categories of Aristotle? If you don't understand how a genus has species and how a species has a genus, can you understand that? You got to understand at least those two senses of as, right? Okay.

[20:27] Now, what else does a species have besides a genus? Properties. Yeah. But even before properties, what does it have? It has differences, It has differences, right? Okay. So,

[20:46] is that the same meaning it has to have a genus and to have differences? I don't think so. No. That's that's a what? Third sense, right?

[20:58] Now, if a species has a genus and it also has differences, then it has a what? Has a definition. Yeah. Hey. Now, is that another meaning of as? To have a genus is to have a definition. No. No. No. No. To have a difference. No. To have a definition. No. So now we got four senses of have, right? Okay. Now, a genus doesn't have a definition, right?

[21:36] I got to be careful. Sometimes a genus has a definition, but not because it's a genus, but because it's a species of a higher genus. Yeah. Okay. But what does a genus have as genus, as well as a species having? The species has what? I mean, can the genus be said to have differences? By the way. Yes. Yeah. And Aristotle says that the differences that one genus has will not be the same as another genus unless one is under the other, right?

[22:14] Okay. Well, now I'm getting lost. That's the fifth sense or the sixth sense. I think sixth sense. I think sixth sense about yeah. Okay. What else does a what does a genus have that a different the species also has? Not a definition, right?

[22:36] A genus doesn't have a definition. Okay. Thomas won't make that point. No. In other words, it's per accidens in a sense that a genus has a definition because it's not as genus, right? But as species, that it has it, right? Huh? Okay.

[22:58] We're up to seven, I think. Think so, yeah. Lucky seven. Yeah. Well, a genus has what? A name. The species has a name, right? Okay. That's each of us on the same sense, right? Together, let the go through is one sense. Now we get eight senses of to have, right? Huh? See how important that is. No wonder we started a chapter on to have, right? Okay. And now what?

[23:30] What other sense of have that's very important for the what? Categories. What has what? It's very important to understand the categories. Does species have a property? Okay. Okay. That's nine. Yeah. It's nine. Yeah. You better put the better divide these senses. Yeah. Maybe it has accidents too, right? Okay. Yeah. Yeah. But you're missing a big one here, you know. It's very important to understand the categories, huh?

[24:11] Category. Let me see if the highest genus we said. Let me see what the categories is, but but what does it? What does what does substance have? Substance.

[24:29] Being. Yeah, but more tied up with the category. It has accidents, right? Huh. Okay. I have a size, right? I have a shape. I have some health. I have some knowledge, right? Huh. See, so a substance has what? Accidents, right? Huh. Okay. And accidents have what?

[24:55] Corresponding to that. I guess they have subject. you could say. Yeah, they have a subject, right? So to have accidents and to have a subject of the same thing.

[25:12] Okay. Well, I mean, that's enough to show. Aristotle said three was enough. Yeah. But you wonder why Aristotle, you know, took up the word "has" there, right? Huh? He doesn't distinguish all the senses with three. No, no, no. In fact, I haven't even finished yet with that. He does that, right? Like a two hundred and sixty-three sense. Yeah. Now it shows you how you know you could almost explain maybe the whole almost of the categories, right?

[25:47] But the the word "have," right? Okay. We'll stop there with the senses. There, just sufficiently manifested there, right now, by kind of induction. Is there a connection between have and end? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

[26:08] I read if a text of Thomas there, and someone is quoting Augustine. Every sin is in the will. Augustine says. And Thomas Thomas stops on the word in there, right?

[26:27] And in one sense, every sin is in the will. But in another sense, every sin is not in the will. What are the two senses of in there? One is, as a subject, I guess. Yeah, and one is as a what cause right? Huh.

[26:56] So if I tell a lie, that's a what sin right? Huh. But the subject of that is my vocal ability, right? Huh. You know, or if I, you know, strike you, you know, and kill you, right? Huh. That's an act of my what? It's a sinful act, right? Huh. Okay. But the cause is in in the will, right? Huh.

[27:29] Then he distinguishes the two ways in which the will can be the cause of a sin. One per se, one per accidens, some. And that's relevant to what we're talking about here, right? You know. But when the will directly chooses something, right? Huh. Then it's a per se cause of this, right? But when it doesn't restrain something that it should restrain, then it's per accidens it's a cause, right?

[28:02] Okay. So I didn't stop the pillar when it's falling in you, right? And I could have, shook it and it would have missed you, right? Am I responsible for your downfall? Sorry, I didn't restrain what I could have restrained, right? Huh. Okay.

[28:24] Um. So now, when you try to understand the words to have, though, apart from the you know context of the categories, right? Huh. Probably the easiest has is to understand something exterior to me, right? So I have a book. You know. Am I what I have? I have a car out there. Still out there, I think it is. I have a house. unless it's burned down. unless it's burned down.

[29:04] Yeah, Aristotle uses the example. I have a wife. That's a very hard example. We said. I always like to build on what he says about how difficult relations are. Yeah, yeah. And you just say, especially your in-laws. Yeah. We were joking about last night there, the other night there, Tuesday night there, this thing. His expression. I've had it. What sense of had that is I've had it.

[29:37] But you know, if you say you know a a man has a wife, but a wife has a husband, right? Is that the same sense of has?

[29:49] But no, so you start with the sense of has. You know, we take the expression the has and the have-nots, right? Now they're referring to having something that is what outside you, right? You you have money. You have, you know, this and that, right? And somebody else didn't have any money. He said, "Have not." You know, maybe the fact we use the word "have" and "have not" shows that sense of "have" is very much prior in our mind, right?

[30:13] Okay. But now, as you start to go inside me, right? Huh? And you say, "Well, I have two arms, right? Okay. Now that's got more to do with me than my having some money or having a car or something like that. But am I two arms?

[30:37] It's closer to me than my having a car, right? But nevertheless, my having two arms is not me, right? And how about my having some knowledge, right?

[30:55] Am I knowledge? Good will too. I have love, right? Okay. But am I love, right? So our friend, you know, that Saint Paul says. I mean, Saint Saint John says, right? That God is love, right? Okay. But we have love, and we're not love itself, right? Okay. Thomas has some wisdom, right? Is Thomas wisdom itself?

[31:35] So it seems you're not what you have, right? Even if it be what within you, right? Huh? And therefore, it's very. If it's outside you, like the the car that you have, right? Now, okay.

[31:50] What's the difference between health and healthy, right? Well, I'm healthy, you know. Can you describe that in terms of health? I have health, right? Okay. If I'm wise, I have some what? Wisdom, right? Huh? Okay.

[32:22] I got a big big ambiguity in the word "love," there, right? Now, if I love someone, I have love. Okay. But it seems that you're not what you have, right? Okay.

[32:42] So now, what about God, though, right? Does God have love, or is He love? Yes. Yes. Both. Yes. Yeah, but now you got a little problem there, right? Now. Because in our whole discourse, inductively going through your having and my having, right? One is never what he has, right?

[33:13] If you are what you eat, and you have a good steak, are you what you eat? I don't think so. Okay, but now you look at as I said, like Thomas is saying in the thirty-seven, thirty-eight chapters. He has one chapter that says God is good, right? Next one that says He's goodness itself. But grammatically, goodness means I mean good means that you have goodness, right? Huh?

[33:44] So why should you go around saying that God is whatever he has? So if God has wisdom, he is wisdom, right? Huh? And that's kind of interesting, you know, for me as a philosopher. Um, I'm always kidding my little grandchild, Sophia, right? And I say, philosopher means a lover of Sophia, a lover of wisdom. So I love you.

[34:14] And but if God is wisdom itself, you could say that if you love wisdom, in a way, you love what? God, huh? That's the way you do, huh?

[34:27] Because God is wisdom, right? But why do we use both ways of speaking of God, right? That God, we would say, is good, and God is goodness itself, right? Huh? Or that God is what wise, right? Huh? And He's wisdom itself, right? Huh? This can't be composed. Yeah, what we say is wisdom itself to bring out His simplicity, right? Huh? See, there's no difference between God and His wisdom, right?

[35:07] Huh? Okay. But why do we say that God then is wise? Why not just say God is wisdom and we are wise? Huh? Well, then you'd be changing around and saying, why do you call God wise? Man alone is wise. The angels are wise, and God is God is wisdom itself, right? He's not wise. But then you say that would be detracting something from God, right? Huh?

[35:37] And what good would it be to be wisdom itself if you weren't wise by this? Huh? Yeah, yeah. And we we realize that our human way of speaking doesn't quite fit God, right? Huh. You know, Thomas is always quoting Dionysius, you know, saying that the affirmative statements about God they don't quite fit. You see,

[36:08] because if you say God is just wise, period, right, or God is good, then you seem to be denying the simplicity of God, right? You seem to be saying that he has goodness or he has wisdom, but he's not goodness or wisdom itself, right? You deny his simplicity, right? If you say he's just wisdom itself, but he's not wise by it, how good is that, right? Huh?

[36:36] You see? You see, in this, Does my knowledge know something? Do you think? Or is my knowledge that by which I know something? It's this, right? Huh? It's my knowledge. Don't know nothing, huh?

[36:59] Now, what good would knowledge be if if no one knew by it? If you were knowledge itself, would you know anything? Does geometry know the the theorems of geometry?

[37:21] Or do I, my geometry, knows some theorems? Huh? Yeah. So we're kind of forced to what say both that God is what wise and what yeah. And you can find it. You can find this text in scripture now. It was Saint John, I guess. He says God is love, huh? Here, quoting scripture in in church a lot, but then a place to find, you know, God so loved the world that he sent his only, you know.

[37:56] So is he love itself or did he just love? You know, Partake of love, right? So I realize I'm, I'm forced to say both, but for imperfect what reasons, right? Huh? So back when Thomas gets into a discussion, you know, of can you make statements about God, right? Huh? Well, as the philosopher shows in the book on statements, there, the second book in logic, after the categories, right?

[38:23] You think you have problems there? You get into the statement, and a statement is put together from at least a noun and a verb, right? And the what's the definition of noun and verb, right? Huh? Well, they're both a what? Each is a vocal sound that signifies by human agreement or custom. No part of it signifies by itself, right? Huh? But the difference between the noun and the verb is that the verb signifies with time, right?

[38:56] And the noun without what time, right? Huh? And of course, time could be the present, or the past, the future, and so on. Well, now, how can you make statements about God? You've got to use the verb, right? And God is not in time. Well, hell of a problem there. Now, you all know that statement is is in, I guess it's in John, right? Where Christ, you know, says that Adam, I mean, Abraham saw my day, and he's not even fifty years old, and you saw you seen Abraham, and Christ says, before Abraham was, I am, right?

[39:41] There he seems to be kind of touching upon his what eternity, right? But because you know how Thomas explains uh t the now of eternity with the now of time, right? He uses the circle as an example, right? And the now of eternity is like the center of the circle, right? And the nows of time are like the points on the circumference, one which is before or after another point, right?

[40:09] But they're all directly across from the what point that is the center of the circle, and so God's eternity, in some sense, encompasses all of time, right? And he expresses that by saying, "I am He who is," and distinguishes Catherine of Siena by saying that she is she who is not. Yeah, that's the reason I gave, though, you know, that that he is his own being, right?

[40:33] His own to be, his own existence, right? Why we are not, right? He also expresses his his being in eternity as opposed to Saint Catherine in time, as well. Yeah. And also his being, substance, simply her being a creation out of nothing. Yeah, yeah. But the problem is, you know, Thomas has to explain, you know, how we can use a verb in talking about God, right? Which we have to do to make a statement about God, right?

[41:05] But you realize the imperfection of our way of knowing, right? We're kind of limited, right, in making statements about God, right? We have to understand what it means to say, "In the beginning was the Word," right? That doesn't mean the what past time, right? See,

[41:24] and why you sometimes use this or that verb, you know, huh? You know, that's a very hard thing to understand, you know, huh? But his more basic problem is the one about has, right? You know, because to say that God is wise is not to say that He's wisdom itself, right? It's to say that He has wisdom, right? But the unusual thing about God is that He is whatever He has.

[41:51] So if He has knowledge, He is knowledge itself, right? If He has love, He is love itself. If He has justice, He is justice itself. If He has mercy, He's mercy itself, right? I'm sometimes merciful to the student, but

[42:10] am I mercy, right? Am I merciful to the student? No, see, see, I'm never what I have, right? That's that's a big difference between us and God, right? Whatever I am said to have, I am not. Whatever God has, He is. huh? You have existence but you are not. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But we have to use it in both ways, right? As what is good in them, right?

[42:36] You know, we call God goodness itself because of the simple way, huh? That He has, you know, and then we say He's what? He's wise, right? Because of His perfection, right? That He's perfected by this, right? My wisdom is not wise. I have I'm a little bit wise by the wisdom that I have, but. My my wisdom is not wise, You'd be knowing something, right? that's where my mind went.

[43:15] Then you see this last week, and then this morning with the nice sermon there, I've got a young priest there from Columbia, you know, and an assistant now in the parish, and

[43:33] so that was kind of interesting, right? I was kind of struck by that thing he quoted from the ceremony of the baptism, right? Huh? Right in those three things, huh? Priest and prophet and king, right?

[43:49] I was giving him that order, you know, starting with what priest, right? Huh? It was appropriate for the baptism, huh? Okay, let's go now to Article Two here.