Prima Secundae
269. Summa I-II q.110 a.1: Does Grace Place Something in the Soul? The Three Senses of Grace, the Four Causes, and Our Knowledge Beginning from the Continuous
Class of 2016-03-03
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/269-summa-i-ii-q-110-a-1-does-grace-place-something-in-the-soul/

[0:00] In the Name of the Father and the Son, Holy Spirit. Amen. Thank you, God. Thank you, Guardian angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas. Deus gratias, guide our enlightenment our enlightenment. Help us, God, to know and love you. Guardians, strengthen the lights of our minds, ward off phantasms and illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor. Help us to understand what you have written.

[0:33] Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Amen. Okay. So this is the second and the first part, right? and then necessity of grace, and now the essence of it, and then we're going to have the division of it, right? In the next question. Where are we in this class? We're starting one ten now. Question one ten. Okay. Then we're not to consider about the grace of God as regards its essence.

[1:03] That is what it is, right? And about this, four things are asked. First, whether grace places something in the soul. Secondly, whether grace is a what quality.

[1:23] Third, whether grace differs from an infused what virtue. And fourth, about the subject of grace, huh? Is it in the powers of the soul or is it the soul itself?

[1:40] So let's look at the first article. To the first one goes forward. Thus, it seems that grace does not place something in the soul.

[1:54] For just as man is said to have the grace of God, so also he is said to have sometimes the grace of another man. Whence, for example, is said in Genesis chapter thirty-nine that the Lord gave Joseph grace in the sight of the prince of the prison. So he had him in his good grace, as you might say, right? Well, that's something in the prince of the thing, rather than.

[2:21] Okay. That's one sense of the word grace can be said, right? Huh? Okay. And he'll be distinguishing that in the body, the article, the three senses of grace. But through this or by this that a man is said to have the grace of a man, nothing is laid down in the one who has the grace of another, but in the one who grace one has, right?

[2:54] And it lays down in certain what exception of the person, accepting that person. Therefore, through this that a man is said to have the grace of God, nothing is placed in the soul. Does only signify that God accepts him, right? There's one sense of grace, but that's not the one we're interested in here, right? So it's a good reply to the objection, right?

[3:20] To the first, therefore, should be said that also in this that someone is said to have the what grace of man is understood in him to be something that is what acceptable to the man, just as one is said to have the grace of God, but in a different way, because that which is what acceptable to a man in another man is presupposed to one's love of that man.

[3:52] But it is caused from the divine love that in man he be pleasing to God, as has been said, right? So Thomas looking before and what after, right? So the good is the good in a man an effect of our love, or is it more the cause of our love?

[4:21] Is the good another man is that more an effect of my love for this other man, or the cause of my loving him? Yeah. I love him because he's good. Yeah. But now in the case of God, is God's loving me an effect of the good in me, or is it what

[4:44] is God's love the cause of the good that is in me? Yeah. So it just reverses, right? That's a beautiful example of looking before and after in the fifth sense that Aristotle gives, but the one that is really attached in the second sense, as I mentioned before, right? Okay.

[5:08] But as Thomas will point out more fully in the body article, these different senses of grace have a what? Yeah. And he's touching upon that here, right? And he replied to the first objection too.

[5:24] Second. Moreover, as the soul makes alive the body, right, vivifies the body, right, so God vivifies the soul. Whence it is said in Deuteronomy 30, He is your life.

[5:42] But the soul vivifies the body immediately. Therefore, nothing falls in the middle between God and the soul. Therefore, grace does not place something created in the soul, right?

[5:58] Now. But is God the cause of life in the soul, in the way the soul is the cause of life in the body? No. The soul is the cause of life in the body because it's the what form of the body. Aristotle calls it the first act, right? The substantial form of the body. Okay.

[6:20] But God is a cause of the life of the what Body as a what Mover and maker. Mover and maker. Yeah. Yeah. So I take three pills in the morning and three pills in the evening. Some other things, not so well. The doctor has this has me on this regimen, right? So,

[6:44] am I healthy by this medicine, or am I healthy by my health? As a formal cause, right? Okay. But my medicine as a what efficient cause or assisting efficient cause, and so on. Kasurik in one of his books that he's thanking this wealthy woman who who paid for his going to graduate school, right? And he's assisting efficient causes development, huh?

[7:24] Yeah, yeah. She's quite a woman, I guess. It was very important to know the four kinds of what causes, huh? Now, causes that which something depends upon, right, for its being or coming to be, right? So, Aristotle distinguishes the kinds of causes. He begins with what matter first, huh? The way I used to teach that in class, there, and I taught an assumption. I put the word spelled out C A T on the board, right?

[8:03] I say now, when you walk into the classroom, you see that word on the board, huh? What's the most undeniable and therefore the most known dependence that that word has upon something other than itself?

[8:24] What does the word C A T on the board there depend upon for its being there? Chalk, yeah. Probably the board or something. Yeah. What's the letters C A and T, right, huh? Okay. And I say if anybody denies that, right, we'll take away the C and erase it, and take away the A and erase that, and take away the T. Okay. Now, where is the word cat?

[8:51] It's not. See, that's it's like what's most known, right, huh? Okay. You don't see anybody putting it on the board, right? You come into the room, right, and it's on the board, right. But even if you don't see the writer, you at least see that it depends upon C, A, and what T. Okay. What else does it depend upon? Anything else? Well, then I leave the word cat on the board, and then I print next to it A C T.

[9:20] Same word, same letters, right? Does the word cat depend upon anything besides the letters C and A and T? Because you had the same letters in the word act, right? For the uh order? Yeah. That's a different kind of cause, right? Then, okay. First kind of cause is matter, right? Huh? Matter is defined as that from which something comes to be existing. What in it, right? Okay. You might say that the word came to be from the the writer or the printer, right?

[10:04] Huh? But he's not in it. Say. And you might say that sometimes a thing comes to be from its opposite, right? He became healthy from being sick, right? But the sickness is not in the health, right? So the matter is that from which something comes to be existing in it, huh? But the second kind of cause is what we call form, right? And order is an example of that kind of cause.

[10:35] Okay. What's the third kind of cause? Yeah, the mover or the maker, right? Huh? And you say now, why is the C before the A, right? Huh? Because the A in the other one is before the C, so it's not because it's A that it comes before or after C, right? Huh? That depends upon the the printer, the writer, huh? Okay.

[11:07] Well, if he can put the C before the A and put the A before the C, like Berkeley's can do in his great ability, his unlimited or somewhat unlimited ability. Why did he put the C before the A? Well, it could be because he wanted to talk about his favorite animal, the king of the beasts.

[11:36] Or why do you put the A before the C? Well, maybe wanted to talk about human acts or something, right? Or maybe even you wanted to talk about the ninth book of wisdom, which is about ability and act, right? You want to talk about playing Shakespeare? Yeah, the five acts or something, yeah. And therefore, right? That's another kind of cause.

[12:02] It's my purpose was to talk about my favorite animal. Apologies to our friend out here. He's barking vigorously when I arrived. Don't care. I said, hope he's not barking at me. Yeah. Yeah. He just needs classes that's all.

[12:20] So the purpose, right? Huh? Kind of cause. So here we're talking about two kinds of causes, right? Is God a cause of the life of the soul as the form intrinsic to the thing? Say. No, it's more as the what, the maker, the mover, right? Okay. But grace is a cause of the life of the soul as a form, right? Get it done. And then we're going to find out whether it's a form in the powers or in the the soul, right?

[12:54] Huh. Okay. So to the second, it should be said that God is the life of the soul by way of an efficient cause, right? But the soul is the life of the body by way of being a formal cause. See?

[13:17] So the letters are cause in the way of what matter, right? And the order of the letters are cause of the word cat as a what intrinsic form. But the writer as a what efficient maker.

[13:34] It's interesting here. Aristotle gets the third cause. He speaks of the mover before the what maker, right? Why does he do that? Motion is before known. Yeah, things in motion sooner catch the eye than what not stirs, huh? I'm thinking about that statement of Shakespeare. It seems to be in trochaic meter, right, huh? See, once you stop and think about that, right? Because that's the what? It's not the conversational meter that we tend to fall into, which is the iambic, right?

[14:10] Okay. I had a question for you, and it's a little tangential, but it should be a very brief one. Yeah. And that is, motion catches sooner catches the eye than that which not stirs. Yeah. And Aristotle in De Anima is talking about color in the primary power of the eye. The object of the eye. Object of the eye, yeah. And so, in motion would be one of the common sensibles that's shared.

[14:45] Common sensibles, yeah. Senseless. You know, coffee. Sorry about that. And but I was curious why I'm beginning to understand his distinctions in that. But why wouldn't Shakespeare say like color sooner catches the eye? Why does he choose motion? Because he thinks that's true. You know, I take the example of all the the you know I get the newspaper in the morning, and there's a section called sports, right?

[15:22] Now, people are taken up with sports. It seems to be somewhat, right, huh? Maybe too much, huh? But every sport has some ball that's moving around, right? And you're watching the ball moving around, and and the players they're moving around, and you watch they're moving around the way they move, right? So all you're doing is watching what? Yeah, what's got your attention here, huh? Yeah. And when you're in the in the the train D4, you're picking up somebody at a train or airplane, something like that, and they don't see you, but they're coming out to the gate.

[15:55] You know, what what do you do? You you you do that to get somebody's attention, right, Might be some of you owe money to, or something like that. You're not going to say here, here, here. You see, that catches your attention, right? You know, if you're hiding, right? You don't try to move around too much, right? You know, you're going to shoot the animal or something, right?

[16:18] You want to move too much, right? You got to be quiet and then wait there patiently until the animal runs across your path. You see?

[16:30] You know, thing struck me when I was thinking about it. You know how isn't kind of strange if we say in motion, things in motion, is the thing in motion or is the motion in the thing? And you say, well, that's kind of strange. Maybe there's two different senses here of in. We see that when you go through the eight senses of in, right? The first we see is in the third and fourth sense, right, which are right next to each other.

[16:56] The third sense of in is the genus is in the what species, huh? And the fourth sense is the species is in the genus. Well, can A, B, and B and B and A? Well, not if it's the same sense of in, right? Huh? So the genus is in the species as a composing part, right, of the what species, huh? Which is composed of the genus and differences, huh?

[17:27] But the species is in the genus, right? As in a what universal whole, right? Huh? But it's in their inability, right? Huh? It's not composing the the genus, huh? Okay. So animal, the meaning of animal is not a composition of dog, cat, horse, and elephant, because then a cat as an animal would be composed of a dog, a cat, a horse, and an elephant, right? Yeah. Yeah.

[17:55] Yeah. So you can have what two different senses of in that are very striking there, right? Huh? That the genus is in the species, and then the species and the genus play different senses, right? And so when Aristotle talks about the accident and the accident is in the substance, right? That would be more like the what?

[18:30] Well, it'd be more like the f it'd be the the fifth sense, right? The form in the matter, right? Okay. Okay. But when you say that you know a thing in motion, right? Then we got different senses in there, right? It's not one of the eight senses Aristotle gives, but it can maybe be attached to one of these, huh? By some likeness, huh? And when you say, you know, he's in health, right?

[18:56] The same way, right? Yeah. Yeah. That's kind of strange, huh? Because is the form in the matter, or is the matter in the form? Which would you say first? I would think the form is in the matter. Yeah, yeah. Okay. So the the shape of the table here is in the wood, right? Okay. But could the matter be said to be in the form in some a different sense?

[19:30] Well, where do we get the word form first? Because I think we've mentioned before here this beautiful beginning that Thomas says in the Disputed Questions on Power, right, De Potentia, where he says that all of our names, you know, all our knowledge begins with the senses, and the sensible senses don't transcend the continuous. So we start to name things with something what continuous, so it's in the continuous, right?

[19:58] And that's why the first meaning of in is Is what in place, which is something continuous. The first meaning of before is in time, which is something continuous, right? Well, where do we get the idea of form first? huh? Is it a substantial form. The soul is the form. Oh, what? What do you mean? What's the first sense of form? Yeah, which is in the continuous, right?

[20:26] Okay. Like the the triangle has a certain form and so on, right? The sphere is a certain form, right? And a cube, right? Huh? But isn't the form like a what? A limit, right? Yeah. So in a sense, the the area, the the matter, whatever it is of the sphere, is in the what contained in the surface, right? Just like we speak of place, right? Huh? We're in this room, but the inner surface of the room is containing us, right?

[21:00] Yeah. You can see how you could speak of matter being in form, right? Huh? It's like in its what? Its limit, huh? You know, what limits it? Huh? Contains it, right? That's how people think of their soul in their body. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But it's it's you know later using the word form, right? When you apply it to substantial form. And you know, in Aristotle or Thomas following Aristotle, talk about the early Greeks.

[21:28] You know, they thought of every form kind of as an accident, right? And matter is substance, right? And every accident is every form is an accident of this matter. And so you know Plato a bit and then Aristotle a bit saw form in this other sense.

[21:52] Eventually, form is carried over to what a thing is, huh? What does Saint Paul say? Is about Christ? huh? He's in the form of God, he took on the form of a slave. Yeah. Okay. But it's interesting, huh? How this goes back to the what? Continuous always, right? It's time to my my student here who comes in Tuesday night there now saying. Uh, when Thomas takes up the substance of God, and of course we know the substance of God more negatively, right?

[22:31] Huh. But in the Summa contra Gentiles, the first thing he takes up about the substance of God is that it's unchanging. There's no motion in God, right? And therefore, God is eternal, right? Huh. But there he's starting from what? Motion, right? Which is something continuous, right? And that's going to be negated of God, right? Um. And this goes back to the proofs for the existence of God, huh?

[23:01] The first proof is always from motion, right? In the Summa Contra Gentiles, the first two proofs are for motion, right? And then when he goes into talk about the substance of God, the first thing he brings out is that unchanging is no motion, and therefore God is not what in time, right, huh? Now if you compare my life to God's life, huh? My life is very much in time, right, huh?

[23:30] And my life has a beginning in time. I was born on January eighteenth, nineteen thirty-six. I must have been in my mother's womb then, about April of nineteen thirty-five. So with as close as I can get, huh, as precise as I can get, huh, beginning of my life was sometime in nineteen thirty-five, maybe April, sometime in there. I don't know exactly when the end is going to be, but it can't be too far off now.

[23:57] And but besides that, there is a what before and after, right, huh? Because this year is after last year and before next year, if I have a next year, right. And

[24:13] that's because my life is in motion too, right, huh? While in God's life, there's no beginning and there's no what end like there is in the things that are in time, and there is no before and after, right, huh? So Boethius's definition of eternity is tota simul, all at once, right? No before and after. And perfect possessio right? Vitae interminabilis, huh? A life that has no beginning, no end, right, huh?

[24:46] Well, that's how you're starting off with something continuous, right? Motion and and time, in a sense, is tied up with motion, which is the number of the before and after in motion, right? And then when you get to God, you deny, you know, any motion in God, and therefore deny what belongs to time. Unlike things that are in time that have a beginning and end and a before and after, God has none, right, huh?

[25:11] That doesn't mean he's bored or he's frozen, right? Because I always think back of when I was a little kid there, and you read the fairy tales, and there'd be a picture in the book, you know, and the wicked witch of the north or whatever is has put a spell upon them, and everybody's frozen, right, and the and some now, right? And they had the picture of the the the turkey or whatever it is, and he's holding it there, right?

[25:39] It's not until Prince Charming shows up and kisses the princess, you know, that everybody will come alive again, right, huh? But God's life is not what the you know Boethius says that the now that flows makes time, right? The now that stands still, right, makes what. Eternity, right? Well, it's not like you made the now of time stand still, right? Because that would give him a very insufficient life, right?

[26:05] I have practically no life at all in the now of time, right now. I can't even think, right? I can't even say my name in the in the now of time. Can you? I mean, I get two syllables of my name, Duane, right? I can't even say both syllables at once, right? You know, I'm really, I'm really extremely limited, huh? So, you know, to point out that it's not the the now of time that's been stopped still to make this eternity, he says, perfect possession, right?

[26:35] A completed prepossession, right? Well, then I said, what does Thomas do after he's shown this about God that he's in no way changing, right? And in no way in what time, but it's in eternity, right? What's the next thing he shows, right? Well, that God is not what composed in any way, right? Does that go back to continuous? See, what the word composed means to put it into native English, it means put together, right?

[27:09] What's the first meaning of put together? Yeah, you put one together, another, right? So they're touching, right, or becoming one, and you have something what continuous, right? Okay, so you're starting off with the continuous, right? And then you're going to negate that of God, right? But the first meaning of put together is a continuous, right? So the first thing we show about God, if we do so inductively in this part, is to show God is not a body, right?

[27:42] Then later on we show that he's not he's not put together from matter and form, right? And then he's not put together from substance and and to and being, right? And there's no accidents and so on, right? But the first meaning of put together, right, is what you find in a body, right? Which is something continuous, huh? So, what's the third thing he shows about God, right?

[28:09] Say, or that he's perfect and therefore good, right? Say, I said that perfect seemed to go back to continuous. You know, that's that's a little more. It's not so obvious as the first two, right? See, because in one case, in the case of motion, that's one continuous thing. But in the case of put together, you're thinking more of a of magnitude, right? Huh? Like a line or a surface or a body, right?

[28:34] Huh? Because it's kind of hard to put together, you know, the parts of time, right? Because the other one's gone, you know. The next one is here. Yeah, yeah, yeah. we can say, you know, that the week is put together from seven days, right? Huh? But when Tuesday is here or Thursday is here now, I guess Wednesday is longer here. So how can you put together Tuesday and Wednesday, right?

[29:01] See, you know, so I mean, the first meaning of put together would be magnitude, right? Like in the body, right? Okay, so different kind of continuous, right? Then you have the first one's motion. Well, what do you get when you get to perfect? But but what's a continuous thing there, Mister Burquist? You and your your emphasis upon the continuous being the beginning of all our knowledge.

[29:25] That's kind of you know puts away this. That's probably why you put it third, right, Thomas? Right? It's further removed from the continuous, right? As I was thinking about it, you know, I remember this beautiful thing that Aristotle points out in the physics, and Thomas is always quoting it, and you've probably heard it quoted here in this class. He says, "Whole and perfect mean almost the same thing."

[29:52] Ah, well, now if whole and perfect mean Almost the same thing. What is the whole? What's the first meaning of the whole? All the parts are together? Yeah, yeah. It's the integral whole, as you call it sometimes, huh? The composed whole, right? Okay. Now,

[30:19] it's kind of very clear with the case of the whole and the part to make it up. Which is better, right? Which is better, you know, a whole car or a steering wheel?

[30:37] Which is better, you know, a fruit puree floater, you know, just ice cream or just a fruit puree? What's better, you know, a chair or a leg or a seat or a chair, right? It's obviously the whole is what better, you know. And so you kind of introduce the idea of the perfect, right? Because the whole is like the perfect, right? That's one way of showing how it goes back to the continuous, huh?

[31:07] I mean, people would see, you know, that the whole is better than the part more easily than they would see that form is better than matter, the soul is better than the body.

[31:21] See, but the whole car is better than the fender, you know. You want a car, whole car, or you want a fender? Yeah. You want your whole dinner or just a part of it, right? You want your whole wage this week or you want just part of it, you know? You want your appetizer, not the whole meal.

[31:41] In Quebec, you know, and the menu there, if you're getting an appetizer and a main course and some kind of dessert, it's called repas complet, you know, complete meal, right? Huh? Wasn't a complete meal, the whole meal, right? Better than just you know part of it, right? Yeah. Yeah. It's interesting huh the old Alka-Seltzer commercial I can't believe I ate the whole thing

[32:08] It's interesting how how how the the complete meal got three parts, right? Now the idea of three being the idea of whole, so on. And you know, as Aristotle says we use the word three in praising God, right? God excited, so He knows about the Trinity. But it's the idea that the idea of God being all perfect, right? Three has some perfection about it,

[32:33] huh? Mozart is always writing music with three movements of these, right? That seems to be necessary. But if you look at the word "perfect," what does it mean?

[32:49] Well, I mean, comes from factum made. Something is made, right? When I was going back and we were talking about the third kind of cause, his first set was is the mover, and then like that is the what maker, right? And

[33:05] you know these are similar, the mover and the maker, because they both cause an act, right? But the most known act is motion, and then the act that the maker makes is what form, right? But then you're being introduced again to the idea of what act is being better than what ability, right? And so when we know that God is pure act, we know something about His perfection and therefore His what goodness, right?

[33:31] It's kind of amazing to see how our mind is led there, right? But Thomas, in this beautiful text from the sentence, I mean from the De Potentia, is talking about how our names go back to the what continuous, right?

[33:47] That's kind of funny because there's two definitions of the continuous, right? That whose parts meet at a common boundary, right? And the other one is that which is divisible forever. Well, God is altogether simple. He's not divisible at all, right? So what can be further away from God in terms of divisibility than that which is divisible what forever, right? Cut a line in half, and then cut the other one in half, and cut that in half, and you can go on what forever, right?

[34:18] That's about as divisible as something could be, right? And so you're starting off with something as divisible forever, and reasoning to something that is not divisible at all, right? It's not put together anyway, right? I'm put together in all kinds of ways, right? You know. Falling apart at the same time Well, yeah, yeah, yeah. That's a problem.

[34:50] Can you divide a thing from itself? I mean, sometimes we see a man is divided against himself, right? That's because he's got some multiplicity in him, right? One part of him is gets the other part, right? You

[35:07] know, they're just advertising the radio all the time, you know. If you're don't let drugs and alcohol take your life over, and they all call this number, you know, and they're going to cure you of your attachment, your things. I mean, there's just something, you know, conflict going on in people, right? And Shakespeare compares it to a little city, you know, it's in civil war, right? That man is in a state of kind of a civil war, right?

[35:31] Which is kind of a beautiful metaphor if you want to say, but yeah, yeah, yeah. Republican president kind of civil war right now. People are calling other people real names, you know, huh? Charlatan and you know, and it's just this. I don't know what's going to happen. And the Democrats in the campaign, whoever gets in, you know, they'll be playing back what the other Republicans said about so and so, you know.

[36:12] they could always shoot back and say Yeah but compared to you he's insane They don't consult me enough not yet. No, the third objection here. Moreover, in the Epistle to the Romans, upon those words, "Grace to you and peace," right? Grace, that is, says the gloss, is the remission of what sins? But the remission of sins does not place in the soul anything, but only in God, not imputing sin, right?

[36:54] According to that of Psalm thirty-one, blessed the man to whom God does not impute sin. Now this is like Luther or somebody, right? Therefore, neither does grace place something in the soul, right? Huh? Well, here is Augustine now in his Book of Retractations Poor Augustine. huh Where. He says grace to be the remission of sins. Huh? Peace to be in the reconciliation of what God? Huh?

[37:26] Not thus should it be taken as if peace itself and reconciliation do not pertain to what general grace, but that specially by the name of grace is signified the what remission of sins? Huh?

[37:43] But not only the remission of sins pertains to grace, but also many other gifts of God. And therefore, the remission of sins does not come about without some effect, divinely caused in us. This will be more clear what later on he talks about the causes and so on.

[38:03] Okay. Now, against this, light places something in the thing enlightened, right? Illuminated. But grace is a certain light of the soul, whence Augustine says in the book on Nature and Grace, huh? That the when the person who disobeys the law, right? Huh? Rightly does the light of truth desert him, and being deserted by it, he becomes blind. Therefore, grace lays down something in the what soul.

[38:44] So when Christ cures somebody who's blind, right? And now they have something that's in the soul Yeah, it was not there. Yeah. Okay. Now Thomas says in the body article, it's going to distinguish three senses of grace, right?

[39:05] Answer. It should be said that according to the common way of speaking, and I assume this is somewhat in Latin, right? Grace is accustomed to be taken in what three ways? In one way, for the love of someone, you can't see that in English word grace, you know.

[39:27] Just as we are accustomed to say that this soldier has the grace of the king, that is, the grace has him as someone what grateful to him, right? Secondly, it is you and my good graces is kind of expression that we get maybe the nearest to an English, you know, where we have that sense. Now the second sense, it's for some gift given gratis, right? Okay.

[39:57] Just as we are accustomed to say, I. Do this grace for you. I don't know if we say it exactly in English. I don't think, but something like that sometimes. He did it gratis We say he did it gratis. Yeah. Yeah.

[40:19] Third is taken for the recompension of a benefit received gratis, right? Okay. So if you pay me what you owe, I'm not going to say thank you so much, huh? But if you do it gratis, right, huh? Then I'm going to say thank you, thank you.

[40:40] I get to the door of the church, you know, going in, and I open up for the person behind me, saying, "Be my guest," I say. Well, that's gratis, right? And they say, "Thank you." That's the third sense here, right? Gracias, we say. I guess that's from the Spanish or something, right? But it goes back to the Latin, right? Okay, that's the third sense.

[41:02] So the word grace is a univocal word or an equivocal word. Yeah, but now is it equivocal by chance, or are these three senses by reason?

[41:18] The reason, as you know, looks before and after. So if there's an order among the senses, then it's equivocal by what reason? Like there's an order, you know, the eight senses of in, right, from the first to the eighth sense, right, now. And there is a order of the four main senses of before, right, huh? Okay. Well, it's an order among these three, right, huh? Because the first, in a way, is the cause of the second, the second of the third, and so on.

[41:49] I have to give you something gratis if you're going to thank me, right? Say gratis. And you give me something gratis because you like me. Yeah.

[42:03] Now, as regards the last two, right, the second and the third sense, it is manifest that grace lays down something in the one who receives grace, right?

[42:18] The first is a gift given what? Gratis, huh? Not paying something that you owe the person, right, huh? But it's something you give, right? Gratis, huh? Secondly, the recognition of this gift, huh? You're giving thanks, right? Thank you.

[42:43] But as regards the first, there's a difference to be noted about the grace of God and the grace of what men at the sense of being in my good graces, right?

[42:56] Because the good of the creature comes from the divine will. That is from the love of God, who wishes good to some what creature, right? Huh? Then there flows forth, right, some good into the what creature. That's we were saying before that the the love of God is a cause of the good in what creatures. Huh?

[43:24] But in in our case, it's the reverse, right? The good in creatures is a cause of our loving them, right? Huh? I love the girl because she's beautiful. She's not beautiful because I love her. But if you compare with God now, right? Huh? You know, beautiful soul, right? Huh? That soul is beautiful because God loves it, right?

[43:50] For the will of man is moved from a good pre-existing in what things. And hence it is that the love of man does not cause entirely the goodness of the what thing, but it presupposes it either in part or it might be wholly, right? Huh? Okay.

[44:15] It's clear, therefore, that each what. It follows each love of God some good in the creature, right? Caused, right? Huh? Sometimes, but not co-eternal to the what eternal love, right? Because God doesn't change, right? He decides suddenly one day I'll like all. No.

[44:42] And according to the difference of this good, what it might be, huh? There differs the what. There's a difference is considered in the love of God to creatures, right? One common, according as He loves all things which are, right? Because it's good to be, right? So all things that He created, He loves them, right? As is said in Wisdom eleven, according as right the natural being He bestows upon created things.

[45:21] There's a word, largitor, right? Shakespeare has that, huh? Large discourse, right? Okay. Another is a special love, right? According as He draws the rational creature above the condition of what? Yeah. Above there, right? Supra. supra. To the partaking of the divine what? Good. Huh. And according to this love, He is said to love someone what? Simpliciter, right? Simply, yeah. So God loves, I know. You're going to say He loves all creatures.

[46:02] Secundum quid, in some way, but He loves us simply, right? Call you no longer servants, but friends, right? You love your your friends simply, but you love other things, right? Secundum quid, right? Okay.

[46:26] Thus, therefore, through this that it is said. Oh, okay. Because according to this love, God loves simply the eternal good of the creature, right? Which eternal good is Himself?

[46:48] Thus, therefore, through this, a man is said to have the grace of God is signified a certain what? Something supernatural, right? Coming into man from what? From God, huh? But sometimes, nevertheless, the grace of God is said to be the eternal love itself of God, right? According as it is said also to be the grace of predestination, in so far as God, in gratuitous way, and not from what merits, predestines someone or chooses them, right?

[47:26] As was said in Ephesians chapter one, verse five, He predestined us into adoption of sons in the glory in the praise of what? The glory of His grace, right? What's gratia there in that quote? That's that's the grace that's in God, right? Rather than the grace that He's put into us, huh?