Prima Secundae
279. Justification of the Impious (I-II q.113 aa.3-5): Free Will, Faith, and Turning Away from Sin
Class of 2016-04-14
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/279-justification-of-the-impious-i-ii-q-113-aa-3-5-free-will/

[0:00] Thank you, Thomas Aquinas, Deo gratias God, our enlightenment, help us, God, to know and love you. Guardian angels strengthen the lights of our minds, or to illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor. Help us to understand all that you have written. In the name of the Father, the Son, Holy Spirit. Amen.

[0:27] In Article Three, maybe we'll begin with the body of the article first, right? And that's what they call the respondeo part, the body of the article. It's the expression, and maybe it'd be easier to then see the how the objections can be answered, right? So he says, "I answer. It should be said that the justification of the impious comes about by God moving man to justice, as we define justice there in the previous one.

[1:05] For he it is who justifies the impious, as is said in the Epistle to the Romans, chapter four, verses five. Now, said God moving man to justice, right? Okay. Then he has a general statement here about how God moves things, right? What way? God, however, moves all things according to the mode or way of each one of them. He's a very simple example from the old science.

[1:39] Just as in natural things we see that in another way he moves are moved by him, heavy things which go down, and in another way light things which go up, an account of the diverse nature of both of these.

[1:57] Whence also, right, he moves men to justice according to the condition of human nature, right? Now, what does he see about the human nature there? But man, according to his own nature, right, has that he be a free what? Will. And therefore, in the one who has the use of free will, now there'll be some exceptions we'll see in the objections, huh? And therefore, in the one who has the use of free will, there does not come to be a motion from God or by God to justice without the motion of what?

[2:38] Free will. Now he goes and says how this takes place, and in this way, huh, he pours in the gift of justifying grace. That at the same time, right, simul, with this he moves free will to accepting the gift of grace. In those who are capable of this motion, again, that's going to be some, right? Like the little boy or the little guy that's got out of his mind, so to speak, right?

[3:17] Okay. That's why I thought it was better to be the body of the article first, you know. To third, then one goes forward. Thus, it seems that for the justification impious is not required the motion of free will. For we see that through the sacrament of baptism, little boys, little boys little ones, right, are justified, right, without the motion of what free will. And sometimes even what, sometimes adults, right?

[3:57] For Augustine says in the fourth book of Confessions that when a certain what friend labored under fevers, right, he laid there long without what sense, right, in a lethal sweat, I guess. And when he was what desperate, he was baptized, not knowing, right, and was recreated, right. Not recreated, but recreated. I have to pronounce that properly. That comes about through justifying grace. Here you seem to have two exceptions, right?

[4:37] One is the example from Augustine, and the one that's in the practice of the church, right, baptize. But God does not what. Power. Yeah. Not buying power. In the sacraments. Therefore, also he can justify man without the sacraments,

[5:05] without what motion of free will, right? Okay. Now, in the reply to the objection, he says first about the boys. To the first, therefore, it should be said that the boys are not capable of the motion of what free will. And therefore, they are moved by God to justice through only the what informing of their what soul.

[5:35] Now, this does not come about, however, without a what sacrament. Because just as original sin, from which they are justified, does not come to them by their own will,

[5:54] but through their bodily origin, right, their carnal origin. So also through a spiritual regeneration from Christ, they are what? regenerated Yeah. So he's pointing out two things, right? One is they don't have the use of free will. The other is they didn't contract it, right, through their their will, right? That would be something else. And the similar reason is about the furious, right? That's those who are out of their mind, right?

[6:26] And amentibus, uh, Without mind, huh? Who are mindless now, huh? He I guess is a negative prefix, isn't it? Amentibus would be without, like amorals mean you have no morals, right? Amentibus. who never have the what? Use of who have never had the use of free will. Now notice he says nunquam, right? Because there's going to be another thing about those who are who were sober for a while and became mad, huh?

[6:55] But if someone some time had the use of free will, and afterwards he lacks it, either through what sickness or something infirmity, or through sleep, right, huh? He does not achieve justifying grace by baptism adhered, huh, in exterior way, or through some other sacraments, unless before he had the sacrament in his proposal, right, intended to, huh? Which without the use of free will does not happen, right?

[7:31] So if I intend to be baptized, and then I go mad, you can baptize me apparently, right? Because I had, desire Yeah, I had both of them. And in this way, the one about whom Augustine speaks was recreated, right? Because before and what? After baptism, he had accepted baptism, right? Okay.

[7:59] On the second section, right? In sleeping, more than sleeping, man does not have the use of what? Reason, huh? Without which there cannot be the motion of free will. But Solomon in sleeping acquired from God, right, the gift of wisdom, as is had in the third book of the Kings, chapter three, and the second book of the Paralipomenon, right? That's what it means. Yeah. Therefore also for a like reason.

[8:41] Oh, if we have a reading for it, yeah, we have what I'm saying. Therefore also for a like reason, the gift of grace justifying is sometimes given to man by God without the motion of what? Free will, right? Now, Thomas has a lot of things to say in reply to this objection, right?

[9:09] And some things about what actually did happen to Solomon, right? Others about the difference between receiving wisdom and the reason, right? And something that more involves the will, right? To second it should be said also that Solomon, in sleeping, did not merit wisdom. Okay, I think the student falls asleep in class. He does not merit wisdom, huh? As Father Abbott would say in another way: the sleep of the senses, as, St.

[9:37] Teresa talks about, is not the same thing as snoozing in chapel. But in sleep, it had been declared to him, right? An account of the preceding what? Desire. That's a little bit like the person who, you know, had just made intended to get. Baptism, and then he got in a car accident, and then you can do it, I guess, right? Okay. An account of the foregoing desire, he was what?

[10:12] Wisdom was poured into him by God, right? Whence from his person is said in Wisdom, chapter seven, I what desired, I guess, and to me was given sense, huh? Okay. My mother always says, you know, according to her, good sense.

[10:33] She actually understood exactly by good sense, but that was something she always said. So in that way, it's it's solved in a similar way like the madman that Augustine speaks of in the first objection, right? Or another way, right? Huh? It could be said that that sleep that he was undergoing, right, was not what natural. What's that psalmist says? He gives to his beloved in sleep, right?

[11:01] See, that can be the sleep of contemplation, can it, huh? For it could be said that that sleep was not natural, but the sleep of what prophecy, according as is said in Numbers, chapter twelve, if someone among you is a prophet of the Lord, right? Through sleep, right, or in a vision, which means something what, like an imagination, right? Probably not not the exterior sense. I will speak to him, right?

[11:28] Huh? In which case, someone does have the use of free will. That's another way of solving the objection, right? Huh? So Thomas is is abundant now. Yeah, yeah.

[11:43] Now the third thing he points out, right? Huh? It's not another solution now, but a little distinction between this and what we're talking about in the grace and justification, rather. Nevertheless, it should be known that there's not the same reason about the gift of wisdom and about the gift of grace justifying the soul. For the gift of grace justifying the soul especially orders man to the good, which is the object of the will, not of the reason, right?

[12:19] And therefore, man is moved to it by a motion of the will, which is a motion of free will. But wisdom perfects the understanding, which goes before the will, because the object of the will is the good as known, right, by reason. Whence, without a complete motion of free will, right? Maybe that's significantly says there. The understanding can be enlightened by the gift of what wisdom, just as we see that in sleeping, some things are revealed to what men, right?

[12:58] Even the pharaoh right had the dreams of the seven fat one the seven. Joseph in the New Testament and Joseph in the Old Testament. Yeah, yeah. As is said in Job chapter thirty-three, when what Sleep overcomes men right, and they sleep in their little bed their lectulo, then I open the ears of men, and discipline instructs them right now.

[13:34] Now the third objection we'll see. Moreover, through the same cause, grace is produced in being, and is preserved right. Just like we said, God creates things and He preserves them right. In the second book of the Summa Contra Gentiles, we learn that He creates things right. In the third book, that His providence includes preserving them right. Okay.

[14:08] For Augustine says in the eighth book upon Genesis to the letter, that thus a man ought to be what turned towards God, that from him always he becomes what just But without the movement of free will, grace is preserved or conserved in men. Therefore, without the motion of free will, he can be what

[14:35] poured into him right from the beginning. Now Thomas is going to see a distinction there, right? Of course. He always does. Yeah. To the third, therefore, it should be said that in the infusion of justifying grace, there is a certain what changeover. That's what we transmutatio, right? A changeover, huh? Because trans means over, right? So you get the word translation, right? Over, carrying over. So changeover the soul, right?

[15:10] And therefore, there is required a motion that's proper to the human soul, right? That the soul be moved according to its own mode, right? But the conservation grace is without a what changeover, right? Whence, it does not require some motion on the part of the soul, but only a continuation of the influx of the divine, right? So when I learned the Pythagorean theorem, that's a certain what discourse in my mind, right?

[15:39] I followed the demonstration of my teacher there, Euclid of Athens and Alexandria, right? And then there's a real changeover of my soul, right? Amazing, just the theorem, right? But then it stays in me, right? Without my having to what have a discourse, right? At least for a while, right? I used to be afraid I'd forget it, so I would. When I gave an exam, you know, and they had the whole class, you know, to to do the exam, fifteen minutes.

[16:09] Then why they were taking an exam rather than just sitting there? Oh yeah, I do it on the board, you know. I thought that was crazy, but I thought that might impress a few of them, you know, that had a little more mathematical minds.

[16:25] Okay, the last thing we need to look at is the sed contra right? Huh. But against this is what is said in John six forty five. Everyone who hears from the Father and what learns comes to me, right? That reminds me of this text I was mentioning. I was reading Thomas's commentary on the Gospel of John, and he's talking about this sentence here in the third chapter, where John is defending Christ against his own disciples, right?

[17:00] And he says, "He who comes from above is above all. He who is of the earth belongs to the earth. Not the earth he speaks. He who comes from heaven is above all. " And then he says, he's talking about Christ there, right? And then he says, "He bears witness to what he has seen and heard. " Okay. Yet no one receives his testimony. But what is the difference between saying what he has seen and what he has heard?

[17:31] How do you take that, right? You know, Thomas has a very beautiful explanation of that, right? Huh? And he says, by seeing you learn from the thing itself, right?

[17:51] Why in hearing I don't learn from the thing itself, but from the knowledge of you or the knowledge of my my teacher, right? Huh? So Christ is both the Son of the Father, right? And then he comes from the being of the Father, right? But he's also the what? The Word of the Father, right? And that comes through the mind of God, right? And he says they're actually the same thing, right?

[18:18] Because the being of the Father and his understanding are the same thing, right? Huh? But there's a distinction in reason there, right? Between being and understanding, right? So by his being generated from the Father as his Son, he has seen something, right? It's from the thing itself. And insofar as he's the Word that proceeds, right, from the thinker, then he's the learning from the the mind of the Father, right?

[18:49] Huh? Or from his knowledge, right? Huh? In this text here, now you see, everyone who who hears from the Father, and then it says didici? And learns, yes, like he's a teacher, right? Huh? Okay. Why in seeing is not so much, you know, teacher there, right? Not from the knowledge, but from the thing itself, right? Okay, that's kind of interesting. Well, things, all kinds of nice things in the Gospel of.

[19:19] I guess he said that that you know that I just read that today that, the other three Gospels they begin after after John really, as John the Baptist has been imprisoned, right? They begin their narration of Christ's public life, and then John and the evangelist went back before, right? He hasn't been in prison, right? He's not in prison yet. Chapter three, right? He's still out there, baptizing, right?

[19:46] Interesting. We're on Scripture Day, right? Prima Secundae here. But I had to stick that in there. That was kind of beautiful, you know. Beautiful explanation. I think he's he's talked about it elsewhere, you know, but it came up again here. Okay, well that's Article Three, huh? Okay.

[20:11] Now Article Four. This is something less clear, but it's going to be affirmative also. To the fourth, then one goes forward. Thus, it seems that the justification of the impious does not require the motion of what faith, right?

[20:33] Now it might be good here also to read the what body of the article first, right, and then see the objections. I answer. It should be said that as has been said, right, the motion of free will is required for the justification impious. That's what we learned in Article Three, according as the mind of man is moved by God, right? Huh?

[20:59] For God moves the soul of man by converting it to Himself, huh? As is said in the eighty fourth Psalm, according to another what text, I guess, right? That God converting us, huh, or you, yeah,

[21:19] he makes us what alive, right? Okay, and therefore for the justification impious, there is required the motion of the mind by which it is converted to God, right?

[21:35] But the first turning, right, converting to God comes about through faith, according to that of Hebrews eleven six from authority here, right? The one, what exceeding approaching God, right, is necessary to believe that he is, right? So how can you be converted to God without what faith, right? And therefore the motion of faith is required for the justification of the what impious. Of course, it seems to me you could say also how can the will be converted without the reason in some way being converted, right?

[22:21] Because the will is moved by the reason, right, which proposes its object. Yeah. Let's look at the objections here, right? To the fourth, then one proceeds thus: It seems that for the justification of the impious is not required the motion of faith,

[22:45] for just as through faith man is justified, so also through some other things, huh? To wit, through fear, about which it is said in Ecclesiasticus one, the fear of the Lord expels sin.

[23:03] For the one who is without fear is not able to be what justified. It's interesting. huh? I mean we talk a lot now about mercy, right? you know? and so they say the church. They say the rosary there after Mass, some of the ladies there, you know, they they then they had the

[23:31] prayer at the end of the decade every decade yeah yeah. But then, but then after after they say the rosary, then they say the chaplet of divine mercy, yeah. But it seems the mercy of God is more of an object of hope, right? Okay, but here he's talking about about fear, right? Which is more the divine justice rather than mercy.

[23:55] And also through charity, right? Huh. According to that of Luke seven, many sins are what forgiven her because she loved much, right? Mary Magdalene, I guess. And again, through humility, right? According to that of James four, God resists the proud, right? Huh. But to the humble, he gives grace, right? And also through mercy, right? According to that of Proverbs fifteen, through mercy and faith are purged sins, huh?

[24:35] That's our verse. Yes. Yeah. Therefore, not more is the motion of faith required for justification than the motion of the four said virtues, huh? That means fear, and that means humility, right? Huh. Mercy, right? Huh. So, so what does Thomas say there? He's got a long reply to that.

[25:01] To the first, therefore, it should be said that the motion of faith is not perfect unless it be informed by what charity, huh? That's one of the virtues mentioned here in this text, here, right? huh. That covers much sin, right? Whence simul, meaning what together, right? You guys can understand simul because you understand before and after, right? Aristotle on the categories, he has a chapter on what before and then yeah and after, and then the chapter on what simul hama in Greek, right?

[25:40] Hama. That's kind of known by negation, right? Before and after, right? Okay. If you and I were born hama, if you and I were born simul, right? If you and I were born together, I wasn't born before after you, but I was neither before you. in my birth, nor after you in my birth, right? Then we were hama, simul in our birth, right? Crossing the finish line.

[26:08] Yeah, so we both get the prize there for the first baby of the new year or something. Used to have this contest in the paper, you know. I mean, who's the first baby, you know, in the?

[26:21] By that, yeah, some kind of what the prize was, Whence simul in the justification of the impious with the motion of faith is also the motion of what charity? Interesting.

[26:47] Now, free will is moved to God in order that it might be what subject to Him, right? Whence also there runs together, right, the act of filial fear and the act of what humility, right?

[27:08] Now it happens that one and the same act of free will is what of diverse virtues, right? According as one commands and another is commanded, Insofar as an act is able to be ordered to diverse what ends.

[27:28] Now the act of mercy operates against sin by way of satisfaction, and thus it what follows justification, right? Or by way of what preparation, Insofar as the merciful shall obtain mercy, right? That's in the Sermon on the Mount, right?

[27:54] And thus it is also able to go before justification, right? So Thomas is looking before and after again, right? Looking before and after together. Now I was I was thinking, you know, I was going back in to my favorite book, to the Summa Contra Gentiles, and it's divided into three parts, you know, God in Himself, and God is the beginning of things, and God is the end, right?

[28:22] So I'm reminded of the apocalypse which emphasizes and the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end, right? I said that's nice, you know, and this is divided into three parts, right? Grace in itself, and then the causes of grace, and now the third part, the effects of grace. Well, I kind of like that, huh? Because. You're looking before at the causes of grace, and then after is the effects, right?

[28:47] Of course, you can't do that with God, right? You can have the first parts about God in Himself, and then the causes of God, and then the effects of God, right? But you can have, the effects of God, but there's no causes of God, right? You see, so you can't use that, so you have to bring in this other part, right, that God is the beginning of the end of things.

[29:06] huh? if you read Thomas in the first chapter of the second book of the Summa Contra Gentiles, you'll see he can also divide things into two as well as into three. So my rule is a rule of two or three or both. Can be said there, right? Very profound what he does there. Anyway.

[29:44] Now. So, now what does he go on to say? It can go after right justification to be satisfaction. Can go before as. Preparing the way, right? Or even what? Can run Simo right? My goodness! He's using all these words of Aristotle, right? With the foregoing virtues, according as mercy is included in the love of what one's neighbor. That's beautiful, right? Everybody sees that, huh? Mm-hmm.

[30:28] Yeah, yeah. yeah. Okay. That's beautiful. beautiful. So you should dine a break to your truth then of what the objection is saying, right? Huh?

[30:47] Moreover, the act of faith. Second objection. Moreover, the act of faith is not required for justification, except in so far as through faith man knows what God. But also in other ways, man is able to know God, right? To wit, through natural knowledge and through the gift of what wisdom, right? Huh? Therefore, there's not required the act of faith the justification of the what impious, huh? Some hope here for Aristotle.

[31:19] I wonder. Cognitio naturalis, huh? Well, the second, it should be said that through the natural knowledge that one can have of God, right? Like our teacher Aristotle had, man is not converted to God in so far as he is the what object of the attitude and the cause of justification, when such knowledge does not suffice for justification.

[31:49] Yeah. The gift of wisdom presupposes what the knowledge of faith, as is clear from things said above about these things. I was kind of struck by it because Thomas, when he gets into the second book of the Summa Contra Gentiles, and he's arguing from Scripture, but also by reason, he's talking about how we have to take into account God's what effects, right? Huh? The things he's made and so on, and then he has a nice chapter there about the benefit we get from this, right?

[32:22] Huh? And it's kind of interesting because the first reason he gives is it helps us to admire God's wisdom, right? When we see these things that he's made, right? Huh? We realize how wise he is, and then he goes on to say that it makes us what

[32:50] realize how powerful God is, and then He says, when we see all the good they put into creatures, and he's the source of all this, then we what see his goodness. And I say, gee whiz, that's you know the ones that they attribute to the what Trinity, right? By wisdom to the Son and power to the Father and goodness to the Holy Spirit, right? But I was also thinking, you know, I could show you in Aristotle's books on in biology, right, when he's studying the structure of animals and the way they're put together, right, and he gives as a reason, right, that one can admire the beauty, right, the excellence, right, the one who made these things, right.

[33:36] So it's it's he's very like Thomas, right? Even though he's talking about what natural knowledge, right? But Thomas is giving the reason why the theologians should you know know something about the things that God has made, right? And the first reason he gives reminds me exactly almost the way Aristotle speaks there. So you have to admire Aristotle, you know, got pretty far. I always say, you know, that the

[34:02] in divine providence, you know, God brings good things out of bad sometimes, right? And you say, well, one thing that came from the Jews not being all converted, right, and actually being opposed to the Christians, and you know how they prosecute, I mean, persecute Saint Paul and others and so on. Well, then they were good witnesses to the authenticity of the books of the Old Testament, which the Christians are using to show that they they foretold the coming of Christ and so on.

[34:34] And someone might say, well, you you just must have invented those books, you know, and made them just you know, but here were your enemies, right? The Jews who had not been converted, how many of them were very you know even Saint Paul was very opposed to begin with. Then that they were witnesses to the authenticity of what those books. The thing about Aristotle is that he's witness to what natural reason can know about God, right?

[35:03] Because he didn't have any contact really with you know Christianity, and so suddenly people might think, you know, well, if you're just because you're Catholic, that you think you can know something about God by natural reason, you know. But here's a guy, you know, who's not in touch at all with with Christianity or even Judaism. When Aristotle or some of the other Greeks say that Plato refers to God, do they have in mind.

[35:32] When they say, when they mention God, they're not talking about the gods; they're talking about one God. Yeah, yeah, God. Yeah, Aristotle knows that there's one God, yeah, and he's supreme, right? When he gets through showing it. he even says, you know, he quotes Homer, right? The rule of many is not good, let there be one. And of course as Monsignor Dionne would say, the reason why they quote the poet is because you know everybody kind of accepts the poet.

[35:59] And it shows that there is something, you know, in our common understanding, you know, that that shows that the more developed arguments, you know, are in accord with the common sense, as my mother would say. strong in what is common Yeah, yeah, yeah. Aristotle understands it very well, right? Did he put the Greek pantheon at all into a context of one true God? Oh yeah, he thought there was only one God.

[36:29] Yeah, he thought one God. Yeah, he saw it very well. Yeah, yeah. I was reminded of Plato. and all. Plato had said, you know, that God is the measure of all things, right? Measure has to be something one, right? And he saw it very good, you know. And I was reading, you know, the Theaetetus who's arguing from God being the measure of all things, you know, but you know, as Socrates here in the dialogue he disagrees with the, you know, Protagoras, those guys who say, you know, that man is the measure of all things, which is really what the modern scientists sometimes think, you know, that they are the measure of all things.

[37:12] Hmm. Certainly for the English. It's kind of strange, you know. I mean, you know, Warren Murray tells me, you know, when you argue with these guys sometimes, and they sometimes we do slip into it, you know, without realizing it, you know, that nature is acting for an end, right? But then when you pin them down, they want to admit that nature has an end because then you have to bring in God.

[37:36] So I mean, they have to deny what what they naturally think, right? I mean, they find some, you know, thing in the animal and say, "Well, what this is for?" You know, it's naturally good, right? You know, and and say that's kind of loose way of speaking, you know, or something, you know. I mean, they can't possibly admit it, but you know, there's been some of these scandalous things.

[37:58] They've actually admitted that the reason why they don't accept these things is because it will lead to God, right? Even though their their thought is leading them that way. Yeah.

[38:15] Okay, so that's the second objection, right? Moreover, there are diverse articles of the faith. If, therefore, the act of faith is required for the justification of impious, it seems that when a man is first justified, he's got to think about all the articles, right?

[38:37] But this seems to be unfitting or not suitable, because such a thinking cogitatio is the idea of thinking out, right? Yeah. Cogitatio is really in English, it's like thinking about or thinking out, right? Yeah. Because such a cogitatio

[38:59] requires a what long time, right? Therefore, it seems that the act of faith is not required for justification. If that's the case, I hope it's not required.

[39:12] To third, therefore, it should be said that, as the apostle says in the epistle to the Romans, to the one believing in the one who justifies the impious, faith is regarded as what justice, according to the proposal of the grace of God. From which it is clear that in the justification of the impious, there is required the act of faith as regards this that man what believes God to be the what.

[39:39] Justifier of men through the mystery of Christ, huh? You have to believe that central thing, right, huh? Wasn't saying in the Psalms. I mean, in the epistles, you know, you have to believe that that there's a God and that He's our Redeemer in some way, right? That he he's a. rewarder Yeah Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[40:07] Okay. Now, what about the next article here? To the fifth, then one proceeds thus: It seems that for the justification of the impious, is not required the motion of the free will in sin, right?

[40:26] Yeah, yeah. Well, when they preach the confession, they'll say, you know, they want you to say the confession, the creed. I mean, the the the act of contrition. Yeah, yeah. And this is tied up to this here, right? You're supposed to have moved against sin before you got into the confession, all right? But he makes you say that again, right? So you, yeah, they didn't even have a texter, so he's a light there.

[40:50] In case you don't know the. Because if you don't know the confession of sins, you don't know the confession. Yeah. To the fifth, then one proceeds thus: It seems that for the justification impious, is not required the motion of free will in sin. Now that's kind of ambiguous the words there, right? It doesn't mean that you

[41:19] against sin, the sense, right? For charity alone suffices for the deletion of sins, according to that of Proverbs Universa delicta, huh? All what feelings, huh? All sins, charity what covers, huh? Okay, but not in a in a Lutheran sense, right? You got that? Cover, I think, is is got him in trouble there. But the object of charity is not sin, right? Therefore, it is not required for the justification impious the motion of what free will regarding to sin, huh?

[42:05] Now, in the reply, Thomas points out, to the first, therefore, it should be said that to the same virtue pertains the pursuing of one of two opposites, and the refusing of the other, right?

[42:23] And therefore, for charity, it pertains what? To love God. Yeah. So that also one detests sins through which the soul is separated from God, right? So say Basil says, "Don't tell me you love God and don't hate your sins." Yeah. Black and white right there.

[42:50] When Thomas expounds the creed, you know, he usually gives articles of the faith, and then the the fundamental. heresies, you know, against that one, you know, kind of pretends to same knowledge there.

[43:06] Moreover, who tends to the things before should not look at the things in the past, right? Okay, you can't turn back once you start to go one way. According to that of the apostle in the Ephesians, who looks back, right? I mean, forgetting the things that are in the past, right? Oblivious I suppose. You know, obliviscens right? Forgetting.

[43:36] To those things which are before, extending myself, right? To the destined prize, you might say, of the higher vocation I pursue. But tending in justice backwards are the sins that are in the past, right? Therefore, why not to forget them, right? Forget your sins. Nor in them we ought to want to extend by motion of free will, right? Yeah, I like that's what the book said. Don't you have to learn to forgive yourself?

[44:10] I don't like that. but that's kind of the objection. To the second should be said that to the past things a man not ought to return by love, right? But yet in this respect, right, forget them, right? That he may not be what. Yeah. Or tinted. Yeah. Okay. Yet, however, to record them, right, by consideration that he might what detest them, right, for thus he recedes from them, right.

[44:50] That's the way he understands what Paul is saying there. And but in Paul, remember the prosecute, prosecute the church, time. That's I'm the least of them then because I was forgiven because of my ignorance.

[45:12] Moreover, in the justification of the impious, there is not permitted one sin without another. For his impious, right? For the impious, right, is the one who what? Hopes for half forgiveness or is a half of forgiveness, I suppose, huh? Half a pardon Half a pardon. Yeah. Yeah. I want to give me these things but I like these ones over here Yeah. Yeah I want to keep the I think I wish that never happened at the confessional.

[45:50] If therefore in the justification of the impious is necessary for free will to be moved against sin, it is necessary that one think about all his sins, huh? Well, that's a long story. Let's say the least Which seems unfitting, right? Huh? First, because it requires a magnum tempo, so a great time, meaning a long time, not a good time, not a great time. Magnum. I had a great time, remember, when I was a teenager.

[46:30] For this thinking of these things, right? Huh? And then, because because of those sins of which man is what forgotten, right? I could not have what forgiveness, right? Therefore, the motion of free will in regard to sin is not required for justification of the impious, right?

[46:54] To third, it should be said that in the time preceding justification, it is necessary that a man, the individual sins when he committed, he should detest, right? But those of which he has what memory, right? Huh? And from such a preceding consideration, there follows in his soul a certain motion of detesting universally all sins, what committed, Among which also are included the sins that have been handed over, right, to oblivion, right?

[47:32] Because a man in that state is thus disposed that even about those that he does not remember, right, he would be what? Yeah, he would be broken down. Yeah, if they were in his memory, right? Huh? And this motion runs together for what justification? Huh?

[48:00] Now the text is very clear there, the one that they said contrary, but against this is what is said in Psalm thirty-one. You know how Thomas divides the Psalms, huh? You know he he uh discusses a number of ways of people have divided the psalms, and then he adopts the division of what Augustine, a division which is into what three, yeah. And Augustine notes that the fiftieth psalm, the one that Teresa of Avila so fond of, right, is a sin ask, I mean, a a psalm asking for forgiveness of sin, right?

[48:36] Huh? And then the hundredth psalm was a psalm of what good deeds and advancing in the life, and then the hundred fifty psalm was one of resting in God, right? So Augustine says that the fiftieth psalm is a clue to what the first fifty are about, right? And the hundredth, the second fifty is about, and the hundred fiftieth, the third, right? And so Thomas is commentary on the psalm, that's where he adopts that business—and you can see it.

[49:09] He got to about the 54th Psalm. One text, the 51st, and then they found a. I mean, in my lifetime, like the 52nd, the 53rd, 54th—that's as far as he got, right? But you can see, and actually, the first 50s are divided into decades, right? Each decade has some meaning, right? And as far as I guess, you know, I think the rosary, right, was kind of, you know, for the commoners who couldn't go to chapel and sing the 150 Psalms, right?

[49:39] You're giving them kind of a what? Something. Yeah, yeah. That's why you start out with 150, what? Hail Marys, right? And and fifth in decades and so on. So I kind of, you know, kind of annoys me, you know, they adopt the. When I was a little boy, was known as a Protestant number right, as opposed to Catholic number. Right, and then I'm always getting mixed up. with What the number is, because have a hard enough time remembering about having, you know, two things.

[50:09] So I say, I try to use the Catholic numbering as it was known as, and I call it the correct numbering, you know. You can see that that the minds that that you know don't see this important, right? They don't really realize importance of dividing into three, right? In the way both Augustine and Thomas did after Psalms, huh? Kind of a beautiful thing.

[50:38] But what can you do? Yeah. Okay, we got to get the body clear, right? But in the sed contra, huh? I confess against myself my injustice, right, to the Lord, and you remit the impiety of my sin, right.

[51:17] Hence, it should be said that the justification of the impious is a certain motion by which the human mind, huh? And mens doesn't mean just mind in our more narrow sense, right? Mind is opposed to the will.

[51:38] But it involves the will, right? The rational part of, the soul, which the human mind is moved by God from the state of sin to the state of what justice, huh? That's the changeover, by the way. Transmutatio,

[52:02] transubstantiation, huh? It's a changeover too, but a little different one. Now, it's necessary that the human mind have itself to both of these extremes, right? According to the motion of free will, just as the body has itself in locomotion, being moved by someone to the what? One two terms the motion, right? From black to white, or from here to there, right?

[52:35] Now, it's manifest in locomotion of bodies that the body moved recedes from the term from which, right? Which is my house when I come up here, and accedes to the term to which. So how can I come towards you guys without leaving my house?

[52:56] How can I go back to my house without leaving you guys? That's that's life, you know. Okay. So Thomas is very concrete here, very simple, right? Whence is necessary to human mind, when it is what justified that by the motion of free will he recede from sin and accede to what justice, huh? You turn away from your sins, right? Toward what justice, huh?

[53:32] Now recess and excess in the motion of free will is not locomotion, but it's taken according to detesting and desire, right? For Augustine says upon John expounding that the mercenary hover flees.

[53:53] The affections are affections, right? Our motions of our what souls. So that's how he carried the word motion over there, right? I was I was talking last night. I had the student over. Came on Wednesday night instead of Tuesday night because Tuesday night we're at this this visitation house dinner. Bishop shook hands with the bishop. Good man. Comes these things, but anyway. Um

[54:27] how it moves a word Yeah, yeah. I was talking to him about how Aristotle was arguing there in the eighth book of the physics. You know, to the unmoved mover, right? Huh. And but sometimes you know Aristotle will say, you know, the paralogia is reduced to the per se. So something that is moved by another is reduced to something that moves itself, right? And Plato takes this that the first cause moves itself because it knows and loves itself, right?

[55:04] Well, knowing and loving are verbs, and and as you know from the logic there, from the Peri Hermeneias, the noun signifies without time, right? And the verb signifies with time. And time is the number of motion, right? Going to before and after. So sometimes we speak of the act of the what of loving or knowing as being kind of a motion, right? And it's reflected in our language, right?

[55:36] When we use a verb, which signifies with time, right? But not with motion, as we define in the physics. It's not the act of what is able to be in so far as it's able to be, because motion, in the strict sense, is an imperfect act, right? And I always take a simple example, you know, when you're walking home, have you walked home? Yep. And when you have walked home, are you walking home?

[56:03] See, so so long as you're walking home, your being home is imperfectly realized, right? And when you finally are at home, you're no longer walking home, right? But in understanding, and loving, and even in in sensing, right?

[56:22] When I'm seeing you, have I seen you yet? Yeah. And when I I'm understanding something, have I understood yet? And I would say to my girl students, you know, when you're loving someone, have you loved them yet? Oh yes.

[56:42] You know. Wouldn't make any sense to say I'm loving you, but I haven't loved you yet. See, see. But when I'm making a house, have I made a house yet? See. I'm making dinner. Have I made dinner yet? See. And I'm driving here. Have I driven here yet?

[57:17] So when Plato says that the thing that moves itself is the first mover, right? He's using moving in a what? Different sense. Yeah, yeah. Aristotle is more apt to, you know, to be speaking, you know, more strictly, you know.

[57:38] Okay. So this use of word motion here, right? Doesn't mean it's motion in the sense of the definition of motion in the third book, huh? Shakespeare has in mind says things in motion sooner catch the eye than what not stirs, huh? Okay. That's kind of carried over, you know. When you get to the concupiscible appetite and the irascible appetite, right? Well, concupiscible appetite is named from desire, from from wanting, right?

[58:05] Which seems more like a what? Emotion, right? And liking something is not so much emotion, right? But wanting something that's kind of emotion, right? And anger is you know very much emotion, you know. And so even there, things in motion sooner catch the eye than what not stirs, right? And Shakespeare, you know, defines reason first of all by discourse, which is like a what? Motion, huh? And the the act of reason that is named from reason is reasoning, right?

[58:40] And reasoning is the act of reason that is like emotion, right? Or understanding is something else. Yeah, yeah. Then it's a little more you know obscure, right?

[58:59] So he's talking about motion here, right? But he's comparing it, right, to the sensible motion, right? I can't come to you without going away from my house, right? I can't go to my house without going away from you guys, okay?

[59:18] So he says it's manifest that in locomotion of bodies that the body recedes from the term from which, right? And exceeds the term to which, right? So I recede from the term from which my house, and I accede to the term to which your monastery here, okay? This room, huh? Whence is necessary that the human mind, when it's justified, that by the motion of free will it recedes from sin, which is like the term from which, right?

[59:51] Terminus a quo, and exceeds to what justice, huh? But the recess and excess in the motion of free will is taken according to detestation, right? And desire.

[1:00:06] For Augustine says in a, pardon the Gospel of Saint John, I guess, huh? The mercenary what flees, right, huh? That the affections are motions of our soul, right, huh? Laetitia is a diffusion, right, huh? Spelling out, so to speak. Timor is a flight of the soul, right?

[1:00:33] Ah, for we what go forward when we desire, right? We flee when we what fear and so on. It is necessary, therefore, that in the justification impious there be a twofold motion of free will, one by which one tends by desire to the justice of God, right? Another by which one detests what sin, huh? That's clear enough, huh?

[1:01:01] Thomas is condescending to make it very clear to us, isn't it? Okay. So. Article six, you want to take a little break here? Okay. Do that, refreshing.