Prima Secundae
278. Summa I-II q.112 a.5 and q.113 a.1–2: Knowing Whether One Has Grace, and the Justification of the Sinner
Class of 2016-04-07
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/278-summa-i-ii-q-112-a-5-and-q-113-a-1-2-knowing-whether-one/

[0:00] whether a man is able to know himself to have grace. This is the same Joan of Arc. question This is what she answered, she didn't read; she couldn't read. To the fifth one goes forward. Thus, it seems that a man is able to know himself to have grace.

[0:23] For grace is in the soul through its essence. That's what we learned, while back. But the most certain knowledge of the soul is of those things which are in the soul by its very what essence, as is clear by Augustine in the twelfth book, upon Genesis to letter. Therefore, grace most certainly can be known by the one who has grace.

[0:58] Of course, that doesn't mean it's in the mind through its essence, right? Let me see what Thomas says. The first, therefore, it should be said that those things which are by their essence in the soul. Are known by a what experimental, experiential knowledge, insofar as a man experiences them through the what inward beginnings of their acts.

[1:41] The experiences through their acts, right? The intrinsic beginnings of these acts, right? But he perceive we perceive what just as we perceive the will by willing, and life in the works. So he's answering the objection there, is he?

[2:01] Maybe it'll become clear when you go to the body of the article. Okay, gonna hold you in abeyance here, Thomas. But grace is something habitually an habitual grace. Yeah That's one part. of it I think Thomas answered the same thing when you talk about you know the man know whether there's charity or not, right? Could a man know whether he's worthy of love or hate, You know, he doesn't know.

[2:27] Would grace have actually a physical reality? I don't know if you want to use the word physical. That's a weird translation they put in the English. They don't use essence, they use physical reality. Oh my goodness, what a terrible translation! Can't trust the translators, Sam. They they tell many a lie, you know. Yeah, yeah, Burnham, I think so. That's somebody good.

[2:54] I think the reason may be because of the answer he's talking about more physical things, perhaps least as far as the life sort of sense of the life and your physical aspect of the life, anyway, maybe the heart, life signs. or something.

[3:14] Moreover, just as second objection. Moreover, just as knowledge is a gift of God, so also grace. But the one who has received what knowledge of him knows himself to have knowledge, right? According to that of Wisdom seven, the Lord gives to me what of those things which are what true knowledge. He gives to me true knowledge of the things which are. That's what it is. Yeah, yeah.

[3:46] Funny word, all these Latin said, don't they? I think English is much more natural word order. Therefore, for like reason, the one who receives grace from God knows himself to have grace, right? Well, maybe there's something about knowledge, right? That you might be able to know when you know. You know, people have hard time sometimes thinking they know that they don't know.

[4:14] To second should be said that it's of the what ratio of knowledge. That a man has certitude about those things of which he has what knowledge, and likewise it's of the notion of faith that a man is certain about those things of which he has what faith, and this because certitude pertains to the perfection of the what understanding in which the aforesaid gifts that is knowledge and faith exist, and therefore whoever has science or faith is certain that he what has it,

[4:55] but there's not a similar reason why grace and charity and others of this sort would be known, right, because they perfect not the mind but the desiring power, right? But Thomas is going to admit that a man can know whether he has the faith, right, but he can't know for certain. And that he has what charity, right? I mean, that's going to be more explained when we come to talk about those virtues in particular, right?

[5:26] That's the nature of of faith that if you really have it, you have the certitude about these divine things. Charles De Koninck talking about, you know, he thought he had faith, right? Because he felt that he had the certitude about these things, right? And you couldn't know them by natural reason, like the things you knew in philosophy, right? So I must have the faith, you know. But he would never be presumptuous and say, "I know I have charity."

[5:51] See, even though I love my wife and children, but maybe it's an actual. Too easy, right? But interesting, the reason he gives there in terms of what certitude. Do you agree? I suppose. It's a safe bet, anyway. I know we were just talking about that the other day about the is that the light? of faith is more.

[6:25] That's more certain. It's a it's a more perfect, like it's a stronger light, it's more certain light than the light of natural reason. So if you if you have a faith, that's why you have that certitude. Yeah. I charity, maybe even hope, well, they're in the will, right? Saint Bonaventure talks about a way of knowing about charity is by signs. You know, by some signs. Mm-hmm. When Thomas talks about charity, there he talks about how love can be different kinds of love, right?

[7:04] And they can be very much like each other, right? You know, in the case of of faith, you've got the certitude there, certitude about something that you can't know by natural reason, right? I'm certain that there's three persons in God, huh? I couldn't know this by natural reason, right? And some people, I think, are certain of that even if they can't answer objections about it. Yeah, yeah.

[7:31] Maybe certain about it even if they can't explain all. of it Yeah. They don't have the best understanding of it, but they're certain of it. Yeah, yeah.

[7:43] I can see why the Muslims you know, think that we were. Polytheists, yeah, you know, it's kind. Moreover, light is more knowable than what darkness, huh? Because according to the apostle in the Epistle to the Ephesians, everything that is made manifest, right, is light, huh? But sin, which is a spiritual darkness. Can be known by certitude by the one who has sin. Well, that's a dark thing, right?

[8:28] Therefore, much more grace, which is a spiritual light. Oh boy, you want to catch me with that argument? That's that's damn good, that one.

[8:55] To the third, it should be said that sin has for its beginning and for its object a changeable good, right? Which is known to us.

[9:09] Where's that one of those novels? I think it's Dickens, yeah, where the man is committed to murder, you know, and Dickens represents, you know, his internal state very good, you know, because he's waiting for the body to be found, right? When will it be found? When will you know? Somebody comes. Hey, did you hear about that murder? And all this, you know, it was enough to convince you not to commit a murder, you know, and and be waiting, you know, this thing.

[9:49] But the object or end of grace is what unknown to us on account of the immensity of its light, huh? According to that of one Timothy, he inhabits what inaccessible light, huh? Yes, Aristotle said right, huh? That those things like God, our mind is what Like the eye of the bat. like the eye of the bat, light of day, right? So it's the light of the the bat couldn't go out during the day because it's too bright for him, right?

[10:22] Huh? That's the way these things are for us, huh? I'm supposed to quote Aristotle. I'm always getting a better text there from scripture, right? Because

[10:56] in faith, there's a kind of a dark analogy. It's an imperfect interpretation, right? Moreover, the apostle says in one Corinthians, the fourth objection: we do not, however, take the what spirit of this world, but the spirit which is from God, that we might know the things which are given by God, right, to us. But grace is especially a gift of God, and therefore the man who receives grace through the Holy Spirit, through the same Spirit knows grace to have been given to him.

[11:39] Now, Thomas says, to the fourth, it should be said that the apostle there speaks of the gifts of what glory, which are given to us in hope, which we know most certainly by faith, although we do not know through certitude us to have what grace through which we are able to what merit merit them. Or he might be speaking of a what privilege knowledge, which is the revelation.

[12:10] Hence he adds, God reveals these to us through the what Spirit. So there's two ways of understanding that. I should say. Okay, to the

[12:29] fifth. Moreover, Genesis 22, from the person of the Lord is said, Abraham. Now I know that you fear the Lord, that is, I have made you to know. He speaks there about what chaste fear, which is not without grace, and therefore a man is able to know himself to have grace.

[13:01] To the fifth, therefore, it should be said that also that what word, to Abraham said to Abraham, can refer to an experiential knowledge, right? Which is by the what exhibition of his deed, right? In the work which Abraham did, it can be known by experience that he had the fear of God, right? Or also it can be referred to what revelation.

[13:37] Now against all this is what is said in Ecclesiastes. Yeah, yeah, nine one. No one knows whether he be worthy of hate or what love.

[13:51] So, but grace making us acceptable to the love of God. Yeah, to worthy of the love of God. Therefore, no one can know whether he has grace, making him acceptable to God. No one knows whether he be worthy of hate or love. Now Thomas gets to the body of the article here, I just kind of flatten our minds more fully here now. The answer should be said in three ways.

[14:31] Something is able to be known. That's news to me. In one way by revelation, and in this way, someone can know himself to have what grace, because God reveals this sometimes to some from a special what? Yeah. That the joy of security, right, even in this life, begins in them,

[15:00] and more confidently and more strongly do they pursue magnifica opera, and they sustain the evils of the what present life, huh? Just as to Paul just said to him, "My grace suffices for you." That's a beautiful, beautiful use of Paul's text there. Yeah. My grace suffices for you. So Paul could accomplish many great things. huh? Magnifica opera.

[15:42] In another way, a man knows something through himself or by himself and this with what certitude. And thus, no one is able to know himself to have grace,

[15:56] for a certitude cannot be had about something unless it can be what judged by its own what beginning. Thus, certitude is had about demonstrative conclusions, to indemonstrable universal what beginnings, huh? Quia. For no one can know himself to have scientific knowledge of some conclusion if he ignores the what beginning.

[16:29] But the beginning, however, of grace and its object is God Himself, who, on account of His excellence, is unknown to us. According to that of the Book of Job, chapter thirty-six, verse twenty-six, behold, the great God, huh, conquering our what knowledge. And therefore, His presence in us or His absence, huh, cannot be known by certitude. According to that of Job nine verse eleven, if He comes to me, I will not see Him.

[17:11] If He goes away, I will not what understand. I remember what's his name saying that. Was it the the great saint there in the Middle Ages? There's a few others Hmm What? Christus was earlier Was it Bernard? Or it was one of the really great ones. I'm trying to remember what it was. I remember him saying that, right, to his friars or friends.

[17:48] I don't know. Was Benedict? I remember that. This distracts me because I remember seeing him one time. Was it Benedict? Maybe Benedict. Or who's the other guy? I mean, there was a whole age named after him—the one who helped out with the Crusades, or something. But what? He died the age of. I don't know what age man is feeling these. Not Charlemagne, no.

[18:22] No, no. Who's the one that uh Cluny not Cluny but. uh Bernard you're thinking of Bernard of Clairvaux yeah, that's what I'm thinking yeah. It might have been him, that he said that. but I didn't know Don't take a forgetful man. Thinking of all these things that that uh King Lear says when he comes to himself a little bit. Okay. Um.

[19:10] And therefore, man cannot what by certitude judge whether he has grace, right? According to that of the first epistle to Corinthians, chapter four. But nor do I what judge myself, but the one who judges me is the Lord. So I don't know whether I don't judge myself as worthy of love or hate, right? Okay. In the same place, he says, "My conscience doesn't accuse me, but I'm not thereby justified."

[19:39] Yeah. Yeah. In a third way, something is known conjecturally, right? Per aliqua signa. That means like almost like a guess, right? Conjecture is the Latin word for guess. Okay. And in this way, someone is able to know himself to have grace, right? Insofar as he perceives himself to delight in God and to contemn earthly things. And insofar as a man is not conscious to himself of some mortal sin, huh?

[20:12] According to the mode, it can be understood what is had in Apocalypse two verse seventeen. To the one conquering, I will give a what hidden bread, which no one knows except the one who receives it. Because the one who receives it, through the experience of its what sweetness, huh, knows. Which the one who does not experience, that who does not receive, does not does not experience it, who does not receive it, right?

[20:43] But this, knowledge, nevertheless, is imperfect, huh? Oh. Whence the apostle says, "First epistle to Corinthians, I'm not conscious to myself anything, but not in this am I justified." This is what you were thinking, yeah. Because as is said in Psalm 18 Delicta quis intelligit Yeah. From my sins, cleanse me, Lord. From my hidden. ones Yeah. from hidden ones. Occultis meis. Yeah, it's interesting what he says about the the one conquering the hidden manna, Manna means.

[21:25] it's Hebrew for. What is it? You don't know what it is. What is it? It's hidden manna. That's even more. hidden. Something more hidden than what it was. Man who.

[21:38] Can we take a little break before we talk about the effects of grace, because. Now we talked about the what grace in itself and the causes of grace and now we're going to talk about the effects of grace, right? Look at the premium here. Then we're not to consider about the effects of grace, beginning of question one thirteen, and first about the justification of the impious, which is an effect of operating grace, huh?

[22:13] And secondly, of merit, which is an effect of cooperating grace, huh? So in question one thirteen, he's talking about what effect, which is the justification of impious, and if you look at one fourteen,

[22:33] it's entitled what de meritoria, which is the effect of cooperating grace, huh? Okay. These are the last two questions. The whole thing. Really? It comes to an end. Well, no, this is the first part of the second part We can't do a whole second part of the second part. You're not done yet. Oh my goodness.

[23:01] Okay. Then we're not to consider about the effects of grace and first about the justification of impious, which is an effect of operating grace. Second, of merit, which is an effect of cooperating grace. And about the first ten things are asked. First, what is the justification of the impious?

[23:27] Secondly, whether for it is required an infusion of grace? Third, whether there is required for it some motion of free will? Fourth, whether there is required for it a motion of faith? That's interesting that he has those two different articles. Fifth, whether there is required for it a motion of free will against sin?

[23:58] I bet you have to. I'm be sorry for your sins and be sorry not to continue. Yeah. Six, whether to the foregoing should be numbered also the what remission of sins, huh?

[24:19] Seventh, whether in the justification impious there is an order of time? That's a very sensible order, or whether it is subito, all at once. I wonder if that word subito comes from. it. Apparently you're speaking Italian, aren't they? Maybe it's the same Italian. Yeah, subito.

[24:43] Eight about the natural order of those things which run together for the justification. So we ordered, men. We we're all set here for our questions. Nine,

[25:01] whether the justification of the impious is the greatest work of God. Oh my goodness. And ten, whether the justification of the impious is miraculous.

[25:21] Maybe it's not miraculous. Only God can do it. And we'll see. We'll see. We'll see what the let Thomas in his own way. Yeah Allow ourselves to be instructed

[25:40] Okay. Further, the justification of the impious is a remission of sins. To the first, then one goes forward. Thus, it seems that the justification of the impious is not a remission of sins.

[25:59] For sin is not only opposed to justice, but to all virtues. This is clear from the foregoing. But justification, the name signifies a certain motion to justice. Therefore, not every remission of sin is a justificatio, a justifying. Since every motion is from contrary to what contrary. I assume there's some equivocation here in the word justice. I'll bet that's what. This is the most common mistake, as Aristotle says.

[26:39] Yeah. Yeah. That's what we had with the Supreme Court there, you know. Marriage, you know, between. Yeah. And this is this is really. one of them Marriage is about love. Well no can I. Can I just love someone?

[26:56] Not to the first. Therefore, it should be said that every sin, according as it implies a certain what disorder of a mind not subject to God, right? Can be called what justice Justice. Contrary to the foresaid justice. That's what we'll learn in the body of the article. So. Okay.

[27:38] According to that of the first epistle John, I guess, everyone who commits a sin, whatever sin it might be, and makes a what, Iniquity. yeah, which is against equity and justice, right? And sin is a what, iniquitas.

[27:59] And according to this, the emotion of any sin is said to be justification. Okay, so we'll say it better in the body of the article, but it's obviously equivocation.

[28:14] Some of these articles, Thomas begins with the article, the objection from equivocation, right? Because you have to first clear up the word, right? That's a powerful one I was reading in Thomas today in the Summa Contra Gentiles, the contradiction. I mean, the equivocation, right? Yeah, no, it has to be something.

[28:44] Of course, you have to go back to Aristotle there in the fifth book of wisdom. Moreover, each thing ought to be denominated from that which is potissimum in ipso, right? That is most potent in it, as is said in the second book on the soul, right? Who's that by? Under.

[29:12] But the omission of sins is especially by faith, according to that of the Acts chapter fifteen. By faith, purifying their hearts, right, and also through charity, according to that of Proverbs chapter ten, universa delicta operit caritas. Charity covers all sins, so to speak, or all defects. Much more, therefore, ought to the omission of sins to be denominated from faith or from charity than from justice, And faith and charity are theological virtues of a much greater than these cardinal virtues.

[29:58] Let's see what the master says. To the second, it should be said that faith and charity speak of a special order of the human mind to God, according to the understanding, which I suppose is faith, and the affections, which is charity. But justice implies generally a whole rectitude of order, and therefore it is more denominated this change that takes place in justification from justice than from charity or faith.

[30:35] I think that goes back to Plato, right? Because Plato couldn't distinguish between the will and the emotions, right? So he said that fortitude is in the irascible, and

[30:51] temperance in the concupiscible, and prudence in the reason. Well, then there's justice, no? Professor Justice. Well, that's the the order of all of them, right? So it has a kind of broad sense in in Plato, right? Huh? And it does have here, right? Original justice, right? The eno refers to the order of all of them, right?

[31:17] Okay. Moreover, the remission of sin seems to be the same thing as what a calling, right? Huh? Now, though, someone is called who's in a distance.

[31:37] One is distant from God through sin, but vocation precedes what? Justification, according to that of Romans eight, whom he has called, these also he has justified. Therefore, justification is not the omission of what sins.

[32:04] To the third, it should be said that vocation or calling refers to the aid of God, inwardly moving, and arousing the mind to desert what.

[32:19] Which motion of God is not the remission of sin, but the what cause of it? huh? Okay, maybe that'll be more fully unfolded in the body of the article.

[32:41] But against this, what is said in Romans eight, upon that, whom he has called, these he also just justifies, right? The glass says by the remission of their sins, right? Therefore, the remission of sins is justification.

[33:05] Well, calling is calling you back from sin. I guess you are saying, right? Yeah. And the ones that he calls back from sin are the ones he justifies. Therefore, remission of sins. Well, let's see what he says in the body of the article. I answer: It should be said that justification, taken in a passive sense, right, implies a motion to what justice? Justus calefactio a motion to heat.

[33:44] Now, since justice, in its definition, implies a certain what? Rightness, rectitude of order. It can be taken in two ways. In one way, according as it implies a certain right order in the act of what of man, and according to this, justice has laid down a certain virtue, whether it be particular justice, which orders the act of man according to rectitude, in comparison to another individual man, or whether it be legal justice, which orders according to rectitude the act of man in comparison to the common good of the multitude, as is clear in the fifth book of the ethics.

[34:43] In another way, justice is said, in so far as it implies a certain what rectitude of order in the very inward disposition of man. In so far as the highest part of man is subject to God, and the lower powers of the soul are subject to the supreme power, which is reason. And this disposition, the and the philosopher calls this disposition in the fifth book of Ethics, justice metaphorice metaphorically called.

[35:26] And this justice in man can be can come to be in two ways. In one way, by way of a simple generation, which is from privation to form. And in this way, justification can belong to the one who is not in sin, when he receives this justice in God. Just as Adam is said to have received original what justice right? That's closer to what Plato is using that word justice right, rather than for a particular virtue right that's in the will.

[36:08] In another way, there can come about this justice in man by reason of a motion which is now from contrary to contraries. huh And it's it's from what some like from a form to a form right, rather than from the lack of a form to a form right. According to this, justification implies a what change transmutation from the state of injustice to the state of what the force of justice.

[36:44] And in this way, we speak here of the justification of the impious, according to that of the Apostle in the Epistle to the Romans, chapter four, verse five. And to the one who does not what, Work or do anything Yeah,

[37:03] but to the one believing right, in the one who justifies the impious and so on. And because motion is more named from the term to which than from the term from which. Therefore, this change by which one is transmuted from the state of injustice to the remission of sin, it sorts its name from the term to which, and is called the what. Yeah.

[37:40] So the omission of sins is what from the term from which. Yeah, the term to which is Justification. is a justice, right? Justice, metaphorically speaking, almost right. Where the highest power is subject to God, and the lower power is to the higher power.

[38:10] And their order is what in the vertical direction, right? Why would be a metaphor instead of just a new imposition, like a further imposition? Why is it a metaphor? Well, maybe now sometimes you use the word metaphor, you know, strictly speaking, right, for figure of speech, right? But sometimes, you know, for more what, a more distant meaning, right?

[38:48] As if it's not a metaphor in the strict sense. But it can be for the the last sense of it, almost, yeah, yeah. Because because metaphor really just means what carried over, right? And but is it often opposed to the proper use of the term? Yeah, sometimes, yeah, yeah, but sometimes, you know, I suppose you know that you carried the the ultimate or the last carrying over, right?

[39:13] Huh? It seemed to be what most carried over, right? Okay, but it's still a new imposition, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's because of likeness. it's a likeness, to the earlier. Yeah, I don't know if Thomas is saying here that that it's a metaphor, right? Huh? You know, but I mean, it's you find Aristotle sometimes, you know, when the meaning is very what carried over a long, long distance, that it's what almost like a metaphorical sense, right?

[39:44] Huh? I mean, seems to me in this case, t here is a t here is an obvious likeness between this later sense, right? Because you have an order. Yeah. So I I'm not necessarily saying it's a it's a

[40:01] metaphor in the strict sense or the full sense. Strictly speaking, in a metaphor, you know the the the word is not really carried over, right? Huh? And therefore, if it was really carried over, it would have the same shock it has, right? You pig, you know, you ate the whole pie, you know, you know. Well, you want to express your your emotion there, right? You jackass, right?

[40:26] That's why metaphors are so important in poetry. Yeah, I mean, yeah, yeah, yeah. But I mean, if if it was another meaning of the word, then we would have the the force, right? You know.

[40:45] And and this to me doesn't seem to be so much that sort of thing, right? Um Uh But if you carry I'm thinking carry the sense over which is what metaphor means Yeah, but it's not it's not a new imposition of the name Not a new name. Yeah, A new meaning of the name, but it's carried over. So that's what I think the use of metaphor means is just carried over.

[41:14] But we do that all the time. Whenever we have an analogous name, you're always doing that. Yes. Well metaphors are a kind of analogy. just in the proper way that's all Metaphor is being used metaphorically

[41:30] Thomas actually used that term impositio nominis right. The placing upon, which has the idea of a what stable, what meaning you know, imposition. right I read imposition" English. But uh in the poetic metaphor, the word doesn't really have that meaning, right?

[41:53] It's very tenuous. Yeah, it's a likeness there. Yeah It's because it's moving. Yeah. Okay. Okay, time for another one here, right? The second one proceeds thus. It seems that for the remission of guilt, which is justification of the impious, is not required the pouring in of grace.

[42:31] For one can be removed from one contrary without this that he be led to another, if the contraries are what? Yeah. But the state of guilt and the state of grace are contrary immediate, for there is a middle state of innocence, in which a man neither has grace nor does he have what? Guilt, huh? Yeah. Like the child Is there a middle state But is there a middle state?

[43:04] The little kid is he guilty of? Yeah, he's pretty young. Well, I mean, may have committed original sin, but I mean, is he guilty of of murder or? He doesn't have virtue, do they? Yeah. He doesn't have grace. He's not justified. He's not without. He's not without sin. But he's not without. But he's not without. He doesn't have any virtues. Look what you've piled up to this.

[43:47] To the first, therefore, it should be said, huh? That more is required in order that what an offense be remitted to the one offending, Then to this that's simpliciter, someone not offending is not had in what Hatred. hatred, yeah.

[44:10] For it is possible among men to happen that one man neither what loves another, right? Nor hates him, right? Now. But if he offends him, right?

[44:27] That he what dismisses this offense, this cannot happen without some special what? Yeah, benevolence. But the benevolence of God to man to be prepared.

[44:56] But the the benevolence of God to man maybe his willing will to him right is said to be repaired right through the gift of what grace. And therefore, although it is what. Is it before man is sin Listen before man is sinned that he can be without grace and without what guilt right? Nevertheless, after grace, he cannot be without what. After sin he would not be without guilt is that he had grace.

[45:47] Well, we'll see if the body makes that reply a little more illuminating. Huh. Moreover, let's go to the second objection. The remission of guilt consists in the what divine.

[46:11] But he imputes to him right when he applies to him right. Blessed man to whom God imputes no guilt, no sin. Yeah. According to that Psalm thirty-one, blessed the man to whom God does not impute sin. But the infusion of grace places also something in us, as has man above. Therefore, the infusion of grace is not required for remission of guilt. That sounds almost like Luther there, right?

[46:43] Yeah. No, he never read St Thomas He didn't I thought he hated St Thomas He did, but he never read him Familiarity breeds contempt, but it's not the only. To the second, it should be said that the love of God not only consists in the act of the will of God, right? But also implies a certain effect of grace, as has been said. What above? Back in question one ten, I guess.

[47:16] So also this that God does not impute sin to man, implies a certain effect in the one to whom his sin is not imputed, right?

[47:32] Which. is not imputed. Yeah, someone is not imputed a sin by God, proceeds from the divine love. So he's saying that divine love does not only consist in the act of the divine will, but also implies a certain what? Effect of grace, as has been said above. Guess. Again, maybe something will seem better after we see the body of the article.

[48:05] Moreover, no one is subject at the same time to two contraries. Thank God. But some sins are contraries, as prodigality and illiberality. The two brothers. Yeah.

[48:25] Therefore, the one who is subject to the sin of prodigality is not the same time subject to the sin of illiberality. It can happen, therefore, that before he is what?

[48:41] Before he's subject to it, yeah. It could happen that before he was subject to it, right? Therefore, by sinning by the vice of prodigality, he is liberated from the sin of illiberality, and thus there is remitted some sin without grace.

[49:02] Two wrongs make a right. There you go. To third, it should be said that, as Augustine says in the book on marriage, nuptials, and concupiscence, if from sin one desists, if this would be to not have sin, it would suffice that Scripture would run, "My son, you have sinned; do not what, add to it."

[49:33] Okay. But does not suffice, but does add, and about the what? First ones. That's in the first state. Pray that they be remitted to you, right? See, they don't disappear when you stop sinning.

[49:51] No longer murdering anybody, you know, so I don't have to get remittances from my murder. For the sin passes away in act and remains in what guilt, as has been said above. And therefore, when someone from the sin of one vice goes over to the sin of the contrary vice, he ceases to have the act of the what? Former, past, but he does not cease to have the what?

[50:22] Guilt. Hence, at the same time, he has the guilt of both sins. Oh my gosh. Okay. For the sins are not contrary to each other on the side of their turning you away from God, right? From which side sin has guilty.

[50:47] I've got a way of getting out of this, right? Because all these, all these. Her style says that the there's two vices opposed to the. Yeah. But against this is what is said in Romans three twenty four, it justified gratis through his what, grace.

[51:26] Hence it should be said that man, by sinning, offends God. Just as is clear from the things foresaid. But the offense is not remitted to someone, except through this that the. Soul of the one offended, right? Pacifies the one offended. The offender pacifies the one offended, or something like that. Well, yeah, he's put in peace with the one offending, right? His soul. And therefore, according to this, the sin of man is said to be remitted when God is what At peace with us,

[52:10] which peace consists in the love by which God what loves us. For the love of God, as far as it is on the side of the divine act, is eternal and what unchangeable. But as far as the effect which it impresses upon us, sometimes it is what interrupted. In so far as from him we sometimes what, yeah, fall short, and sometimes again we what recuperate, huh? Recuperated.

[52:54] Now the effect of divine love in us, which is taken away through sin, is what grace, by which a man is becomes worthy of eternal life. From which mortal sin excludes us, and therefore there cannot be understood. The remission of guilt without an infusion of grace, Yeah.

[53:29] Let's put that in your pipe, and, smoke it a little bit. Mm hmm Imagine he has a long commentary on that I imagine he does. yeah. Oh, you print him with the Leonine edition, didn't they? Sylvester Ferrara and the

[53:55] Contra Gentiles Summa Contra Gentiles Yeah.