Prima Secundae
Lecture 217: The Four Wounds of Nature and Their Effects

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

Okay, to the third one proceeds thus. It seems inconvenient that it lay down as the wounds, vulnerable, you vulnerable, you woundable, right? To be of nature from falling from sin, right? Which are infirmity, ignorance, malice, and concubiscence. Now this sounds familiar, so I've heard about these things before. For the same thing is not the effect and the cause of the same. But these are laid down as causes of sin, as is clear from the things foresaid, right? Therefore they ought not to be laid down as effects of sin. Moreover, malice names a certain sin. Therefore it ought not to be laid down among the effects of sin. Moreover, concubiscence is something natural. Do you know what comes natural? Isn't there a song like that? Since it is an act of the concubiscible power. But that which is natural ought not to be laid down as a wound of nature, right? Therefore concubiscence ought not to be laid down as a wound of nature, right? Moreover, it is said that the same thing to sin from infirmity and to sin from what passion. But concubiscence is a certain passion. Therefore it ought not to be divided against, what? Infirmity, right? He's making a mess of this position, right? More of Augustine in the book on nature and grace, huh? Lays down to, what? Punishments, I suppose? Of the, to the soul, what? Sinning, to which ignorance and difficulty, from which arises error and, what? Torma, I guess, yeah. Which four do not agree with these four. Therefore it seems that one of them is laid down insufficiently. Contrary to this is the authority of Bede, huh? So the argument from authority is strongest in theology, right? Bede's a good authority, isn't he? This article I'm just going to be very good to carry out the advice of the Greeks. Know thyself, right? You know, you can know yourself pretty good for this article. I have to do that with Aristotle's Nicomache in Ethics, you know, where he has, you know, the various riches he gives there, you know. Say, now, do I have this one? I don't think so. Do I have this one? It's pretty, pretty discouraging, you know, huh? And then there was a scripture saying, you know, you look at yourself in the mirror and then you turn around and you forget. Forget it, forget how defective you are, right? So here's a little mirror for you to see yourself, huh? The answer should be said that through original justice, perfectly reason contained, right, the inferior powers of the soul, right? That's one of the things promised for us in heaven, right, that our reason would be perfectly in control of our emotions, right? And reason itself was perfected by God being, what, subject to him, huh? My wife is right across something by Father Dalzón, you know, who's kind of the founder of the Sumptionists. He's talking about faith there, you know. Faith enables us to see things as God sees them. I said, that's kind of a beautiful little statement, right? You know, the way, that's what faith really is, no? Seeing things the way God sees them, right? I mean, seeing things, you know, like, the way God sees them, you know. We're a long way from original justice. But this original justice was subtracted, huh? Through the sin of the first parent, as already been said, right? And therefore, all the powers of the soul remain, in a certain way, destitute of their own, what? Yeah, lacking in their own order. By which they are naturally ordered to, what? Virtue. Because when Aristotle talks about the moral virtues, huh, it's the lower powers partaking of reason, huh? He divides the soul into the part that's reasonable, essentially, and that is reasonable by participation, right? But if they're not perfectly subject to reason, then they don't partake fully of reason, right? And so they're destitute of their proper order, by which they are naturally ordered to, what? Virtue. And this destitution is called the, what? Yeah. That's interesting, huh? It's maybe a little, taking the body, right? A wound, right? But it's maybe a little metaphorical, you know, but the wound of the soul, right, huh? The powers, huh? Now, there are four powers of the soul which are able to be the subject of the, what? Virtues. This has been said. To wit, reason, in which is foresight, huh? I noticed my good friend, Winston Churchill, he calls it foresight. He doesn't call it prudence, huh? So he's my authority for this matter, huh? I was reading a book there, and they were referring to the famous speeches, you know, on, after we made battle there, in Pennsylvania. Gettysburg. Gettysburg. I guess, Everett, you know, spoke for about two hours, huh? And after he heard Lincoln speak, he said, what I'm learning, he said, it took me two hours to say what you said in two minutes. But the real example of the brevity is the soul wit, huh? You know, that Abe Lincoln there, in two minutes said as much or more, then the other guy said in two hours. He said, great power, Terry, oh, what's going on? That's a beautiful example. I'm going to bring it in. I'm going to read the little text where he said that. But it's a beautiful example of what the difference is. But there are four powers of the soul which are able to be the subject of virtues, as has been said above. Reason, in which is, what, foresight, right? The will, in which is, what, justice, taking the cardinal virtues here, right? The irascible, in which is, what, for, yeah, for truth, courage, and the concubiscible, in which is, what, temperance, huh? I mentioned, you know, that people can see the difference between reason and the emotions, right? And even between the irascible and the concubiscible, right? Better than they can see the distinction between the will in these, right? And so when Plato, in the laws, or in the republic, is talking with the parts of the soul, he's just got three parts, right? And the reason, and thumas, and what? Epithumia, right? He has no will. They're distinct from them, right? So he has no place to put justice, right? He has, you know, foresight or prudence in reason and courage, and thumas, and temperance, and epithumia, but he's got no place to put justice. So he's got something like original justice, you know, the harmony of these three parts, right? But Aristotle's seeing more clearly the distinction there, right? As I mentioned before, I know it's myself in teaching, you know, the hard time people have seeing the distinction between the love that is an emotion and the love that is a what? Yeah. Now, it's interesting the way we speak of, you know, talking earlier there about how if your parents had not met you, you would not be, you know? I remember saying to my mother one time, you know, without you, mother, I would not have... been. Well, thank you, she said. But we used the expression there, you know, unless your parents met and fell in love, right? Why do we use that word to fall in love, right? I used to ask students in class sometimes, why do you say fall in love, right? You know, is there a downfall? I mean, why do you use the word? We all use that expression, you know, fell in love. And sometimes we even use it, you know, without persons, you know, we saw this house, you fell in love at this house or something, you know, just fell in love at this place. So what does that mean, fell in love? Why do you say that? Yeah, you kind of fall into the power of love, right? So love is, you know, if you look at the two German of Verona there in the beginning, you know, Proteus is what? In the power of love, right? And you can't be wise, you know, his friend is talking about the power of love, right? You know? But we just say that in terms of the will, you know, so much, right? One falls in love, it's almost like one is knocked down by the force of something and the wind is knocked down of you, it's powerful. Or one is smitten. You know, you're wounded, you could be so smitten you're decapitated. It's interesting how there's these sort of images, the metaphors, and the test is the word in, and you're in the power. Yeah, yeah. So you're trying to, you know, see the distinction between those. So, so insofar as reason is what? Destitute of its order to the true. There is the wound of, what? Ignorance. I think I was mentioning, was it in St. John's epistle there, right? Right? The pneuma planes, right? The spirit of, what? Error, right? The word error comes from the word, what? To wander, right? Like a knight errant, a wandering knight. And the Greek word is the same thing. Planet, we get the word planets, right? Because they seem to wander around the sky, right? As distinguished from the fixed stars, right? So the wound of ignorance. Insofar as, what? The will to the good is the wound of, what? Yeah. Because the object of the will is the good, in general. Insofar as the erasculous institute in its order to the, what? Difficult, the arduous. There is the wound of, what? Infirmity. What did St. Benedict do? Jump in the push. And insofar as the concubiscence is destitute of the order to the delectable, moderated by reason, right? There is the wound of, what? I had a delectabulae moderatum ratione this morning. Yeah. Well, that too, but I had, I listened to once his clarinet quintet, and then his horn quintet, and then his oboe quartet. Very beautiful. Delectabulae moderatum ratione. That's what it was. It's a wound of concubiscence, right? Thus, therefore, these four are the wounds inflicted on the whole of human nature from the sin of the first, what? Parent. And because, but because the inclination to the good of virtue in each one is diminished through, what? Actual sin, as is clear from what went before. And these four, what? Wounds. What? Yeah. Insofar as through sin, reason is what? Yeah. Especially in things to be done. And the will is hardened towards the good. Hard hearts, huh? Doesn't Christ get angry there with the Pharisees and so on? We see how hard their hearts were, you know? It's one of the few examples we see Christ get angry, but it's a, it's a reasonable anger, right? But it's about the hardness of their hearts, huh? And the will is what? There. Be the heart towards the good. And the more difficulty in acting well, yeah? And concubiscence more, what? Burns. Burns, yeah. There. Know thyself now. You see how you're wounded, huh? Mm-hmm. You know, that, that story of, he tells of the man going down from the Jerusalem to Jericho, right? And he fell among robberies, you know? And all these wounds, you know? And finally the Good Samaritan took him up and brought him to the inn, which I guess is the church, right? Gave the guy some money to take care of, you know? And anything is massive when I come back, I will. That's kind of interesting, huh? You know? Sometimes people go out of the way, you know, to help somebody, you know? And when God comes back, he'll, he'll tell you what you were worked on. James said about that. What? The priest and Levi passed him by? Because they saw he'd always part of him and robbed. Now to the first, it should be said that nothing prevents that which is an effect of one sin to be the cause of a, what? Another sin, right? From this that the soul is disordered through a preceding sin, it more easily is inclined to sinning, right, huh? As they say, this is our experience, you know? It's a starting place in ethics, right? Experience, right? And Thomas gives the order of the sciences, he says you should, you know, learn geometry before natural philosophy, natural philosophy before ethics, and ethics before what? Wisdom, right? But ethics requires more experience than natural philosophy, right? The old man is supposed to have some wisdom, I guess. As they say, no fool worse than an old fool. You can expect wisdom in age, right, huh? You know, that's why Shakespeare in King Leary, you know, the guy says, you're old before your age, what do you mean? You're old before you're wise. It's bad not to get old, but not to get wise, get some wisdom with age. Now, the question, the words here, these are the objections. To the second should be said that malice is not taken here pro piccato, for the sin, right, huh? But for a certain proneness of the will to what? Evil, right? According to that which is said in Genesis 8. Prone are the senses of man to evil from his adolescence, huh? If you're a misanthrope, I say you're getting plenty of material here, right, to raise mankind even more, right? To the third, it should be said, that it has been said, that concupiscence, insofar as it is natural to man, insofar as it is subject to what? Reason, right? But that it exceed the limits of reason, this is to man against what? Nature, huh? I tell you, I was reading, my son sent me for my birthday there, a biography of John Quincy Adams, right? Kind of interesting. you know but a number of the people in the adam's family you know and relatives died of alcohol you know so it's kind of a the sense of the genes i don't know maybe it is but uh you know he had sons and brothers i think a brother died and a son who died of this you know and um there are other famous people in the family to read so we say you know but but you know that's obviously a you know i mean to me it seems you know i mean doing too much is is to be your own punch it's the sole punishment you know you know i mean the man can go on you know and end his life by drinking too much that seems uh but it's a sign of how bad off we are you know seem to indicate that in cultures where alcohol has been present for longer periods of time yeah there seemed to be a resistance that developed within the population uh to alcoholism whereas populations that had been more recently introduced to alcohol for example irish uh also american indians yeah there was a much greater problem with drunkenness because there seemed to be a lack of resistance to this yeah yeah i heard people say too there's something about the indian you know it's more subject to this i don't know i mean the man who drinks to excess doesn't enjoy it more i don't think and he suffers more from from picking to excess john quincy yeah yeah he was secretary to one of the guys in around these 10 i think you know to moscow you know yeah he did a lot of good things but there's a slab of country here you know from minnesota over you know that's belongs to us now because of john quincy adams you know everybody's going to give it up and he saved it and they call it the adams uh land there it's in the northern part of minnesota and right across you know i've seen it on the map in the book here that i read you his uh term in office secretary of state uh some of the latin american republics had petitioned to join the union guatemala honduras i think maybe costa rica as well and he was vehemently against it he said that culturally religiously they're just too different yeah this would not be a happy marriage he really formulated the monroe doctrine though you know because he was secretary of state under monroe and so he formulated the monroe doctrine in fact he wrote some monroe speeches you know when he had the whole congress against him and on the front it should be said that infirmity commonly can be called every passion right insofar as it weakens the what strength of the soul and impedes reason right but b takes infirmity what strictly strictly according as it is opposed to what fortitude which is a kind of of strength right which pertains to the what harassable now to the fifth it should be said that the difficulty which is placed in the what book of augustine right includes these three things which pertain to the appetitive powers to it malice infirmity and concubiscence right for from these three it follows or happens that someone does not easily tend towards the good but error and what pain are wounds fouling right for from this someone what dull is sorrowful that he is infirm about those things which he is what yeah we should take a little break there because article for her now to the fourth one goes forward this it seems that deprivation or lack of mode species in order is not an effect of sin because augustine says in the book on the nature of the good that where these three are great great is the good where they are small small is the good where there is none none but sin does not what annul the good of what nature and therefore it does not take away mode species in order right however nothing is a cause of itself but sin itself is a privation of both species in order right as augustine says in the book on the nature of the good therefore privation of mode species in order is not an effect of what sin but doesn't realize how universal good is more diverse sins have diverse effects but mode species in order since they are certain diverse things would seem to have diverse what lacks or privations therefore they are deprived through diverse sins therefore there is not is not therefore in effect of any what sin deprivation of mode species in order right always takes a long time to absorb that teaching of augustine right i think thomas has an article on that doesn't he back in the prima paris where he talks about the good you know before he takes up the goodness of god right he kind of you know he's addressing beginners you know like us and uh he shows that uh what the good is in general and so on before he takes up god being good huh of course he does even better in the summa kind gentiles huh and then he takes that thing up of augustine that god is the good of every good but against us is that sin is in the soul as infirmity or sicknesses in the body right you're saying to somebody you're sick you know you're talking about your soul you listen to some people you know i mean they're really yeah yeah you talk about this homosexual marriage like that i just feel like saying you are sick so in psalm 6 it said have mercy on me lord because i am sick yeah but infirmity of the body huh deprives the mode species in order of the body itself therefore sin deprives mode species in order in the soul right i don't know if you can make a verb out of lack yeah lackens i don't think it works you can say deprived from privation but answer it should be said this has been said in primo in the first part right and that is question five article five right that's the one that's talking about the general question on the good right um answer it should be said that as has been said in the first part mode species in order follow every what each created good as such right and also each what being for every being and good is considered through some form by which is taken the what species huh now the form of each thing whatever it might be right whether it be a substantial form or an accidental form is according to some what measure once is said in the eighth book of wisdom the metaphysics the book of first philosophy that the forms of things are as what numbers huh there's a marvelous thing there because aristotle you know is going to disagree with plato you know that numbers are behind everything right and uh yet he sees it soon what truth is what plato's saying right huh and this comes out when he says that the what forms of things are like what numbers right so you know if you have a a body there right and you add life then you get a plant right then you add sense and you get an animal you add a reason you get man right so when shakespeare says what is a man right if his chief good and market of his time be but to sleep and feed a beast no more right he sees it it's like a number right you know it's really kind of amazing that shakespeare writes it says so well you know he must have been wise i don't know he seems to be uh i don't know self-taught a bit you know yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah even the classical music station they play mozart all the time you know not all not as not all the time but i mean more than any other composer you know something more than beethoven i'm always kidding beethoven's he's pumping up the music you know okay and from this it has a certain what mode huh which regards what measure right i know one gap there of all who wrote a doctoral thesis on modem and thomas right but uh it's interesting how aristotle will speak of the uh you know what we say the way of proceeding in a science right but the greek word for way there instead of way is is tropas and uh i'm always helped with my friend washington derby you know he speaks of a turn of mind right because tropes doesn't sense of a turn of mind right so to do this science you have to turn your mind this way and to do that way you got to turn that way so it's a very it's a very what uh suggestive word that aristotle has uh tropas huh now um in latin this tropas of going forward is called the modus procidenti right it's a more abstract word but thomas is often quoting i mean uh augustine right huh that measure prefigian right and so you can say that the way of proceeding should what fit the subject right just like your pants should your shoe should fit your your feet right and so in some ways the fact is taken from the defeating and measure makes sense right now why in english we translate it you know modus procidenti as the way of proceeding to go fully into english the way of going forward right but each of the words has something in them right huh and say diane used to say you know sometimes the the best word is in you know this language and sometimes you know but sometimes there's something in each language you know with the word right so tropas and modus and and uh way all have a different origin entomologically and so on right they all bring out something about this right um so he's explaining that you know the use of the word there the forms of things are like numbers and from this it has a certain mode huh which regards measure right and from its form each thing is ordered to its what end i can see that in shakespeare's thing there right huh what is a man if his chief good and market of his time you but to stephen feet there's a connection between what a man is and what his chief good or end will be right so you see how beautiful that is thus therefore according to the what a man is and what a man is and what a man is and what a man is and what a man is and what a man is and what a man is and what a man is and what a man is and what a man is and what a man is and what a man is of goods there are diverse grades of mode species and what order for there is a certain good pertaining to the very substance of nature which has its own what mode species in order and that is neither what deprived or diminished diminished through sin right there's also a certain good of what natural inclination and this also has its own mode species in order right so you see the universality of good right and this is diminished through sin as has been said but is not wholly taken away right there is also a certain good of virtue and grace which also has its own what mode species and order and this is taken away entirely through mortal sin right there's also a certain good which is an act that is ordered which also has its own mode species in order right and the privation of this is essentially sin itself right and thus it is clear in what way sin is a privation of mode species in order and it what deprives or diminishes old species in order it's not the same mode species in order but the mode species in order in inclination is what diminished or deprived right but by the sin itself the act itself is deprived of the mode species in order it should have whence is clear the response to the first two objections huh because he's saying sin doesn't and all the good of nature the mode species in order of nature but it does the most species in order the inclination right and then the second one is taking the act of sin right and that is a privation the mode species in order okay and that's what a different what that's not the effect of sin it is in itself huh to the third it should be said that mode species in order follow one another right this has been clear and he gave a little explanation of that right because the key thing is is the form and the form is what like a number it's right he always comes back to Aristotle there in the eighth book of wisdom right beautiful thing there he takes up matter and form in the union the two right that's what he says that the form is it's in a way like numbers right so what is a man if his chief good and market his time he's but to sleep and feed a beast no more I used to say to the students you know what is the three if it be half of four two no more at two no more but you see you know the the likeness there that that Shakespeare sees and Aristotle sees between numbers and uh once they follow each other because they have a a mode right now because that's tied up with measure right but it's because there's likeness to number and then there also follows in every form an inclination to something right once they are what semo right together deprived and what diminished right so put that in your pipe and smoke it for a while now With their death and other body defects are effects of sin. What a mess that gets us into it. It's not to question that we can get all this evil stuff. They can get into law, you know. But we've got to stay in there firmly and look in the mirror and see how awful we are. To the fifth one proceeds thus. It seems that death and other body defects are not effects of what? Sin, huh? I'm interested in how you know. For if the cause were equal, the effect would be what? Equal. But these defects are not equal in all. But in some, defects of this sort more abound, right? When, however, original sin was equal in all, right? As what? Which would, it would seem of which, right? These, what? Most of all, effects, right? Original sin, huh? Therefore, death and defects of the sword are not effects of sin, right? They should be equal enough, huh? You know, you've got a death, right? You know, the fifth says there, huh? It's a false death, huh? What are you fighting this for, huh? Second, moreover, the cause is removed, the effect is removed. But all sin being removed by baptism or penance, these defects are not removed, huh? If I go to confession, I'll be a young man again, right? Yeah. Ponce de Ligone didn't know how to get it. He knew, apparently. The fountain of use is the baptismal fountain. Yeah. That's what he forgot. Therefore, they are not effects of sin. Moreover, actual sin has more the notion of guilt than original sin, huh? But actual sin does not change the nature of the body to some defect, therefore, much less it's original sin. Therefore, death and other body defects and not effects of sin. But against this now, huh? The argument of authority is strongest, huh? Scripture is the sole theology is. Who said that? Wasn't it, wasn't it, wasn't it, to deal with the, against this is what the apostle says in Romans 5.12? Through one man, sin came into this world, and through sin, death, huh? That kind of solves it, right? Now, let's see, kind of the reason for this. I answer, it should be said, that something is a cause of another in two ways. In one way, per se, another way, paracidense, huh? Per se, something is a cause of another, that according to the power of its own nature or form, produces the, what? Effect, huh? Whence it follows an effect is per se intended by its, what? Cause, huh? Whence since death and defects of this sort are outside the intention of the one sinning, right? It is manifest that sin is not per se the cause of these defects, huh? Now, paracidense, something is a cause of another, if it be a cause by removing the thing preventing it, huh? As is said in the 8th book of the physics, huh? That's the Veristatel's book, right, huh? That the one, what? Removing the column, right? Paracidense moves the stone, yeah, yeah. Okay, so it falls to the ground, right, huh? They're describing that book on John Quincy Adams, right? His wife was getting quite active socially there, and they had these big dances, you know, they had a whole floor there in the house. But before he invited all the people in, he put extra pillows down the wall. Because there's so many people coming to the dance, you know, it was a thing to do. He was afraid the whole thing would collapse, you know, huh? That happened in Rome, somewhere, at the American seminary, he had some room and the whole floor collapsed. Yeah, yeah. And in this way, the sin of the first parent is the cause of death and of all of these defects in human nature. Did I get my hands on that guy? Do you realize? Call it trouble you caused. Insofar as through the sin of the first parent is taken away original justice, right? To which not only the lower powers of the soul were contained under reason without any, what? Disorder, but also the whole body was contained under the soul without any, what? Defect, as is had in the first when we discussed the original state of man, right? And therefore, this original justice being taken away through the sin of the first parent, just as it was wounded, huh? Human nature as regards the soul through the disorder of the powers of the soul, right? As has been said above. So also, corruptible was effected through the, what? Disorder of the body itself, huh? Now, the subtraction of original justice as the notion of, what? Punishment. Just as also the subtraction of grace, huh? Whence also death and all bodily defects following upon it are certain punishments of, what? Original sin, huh? And although these defects were not intended by the one sinning, I didn't intend all this harm to them. I mean, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Nevertheless, they are ordered according to the justice of God punishing them. Now, to the first, therefore, it should be said that the equality of the cause per se causes a equal effect, huh? For augmented or diminished, the cause per se is increased or diminished the effect, right? The hotter the fire, right? The more the more it burns up the thing. But the equality of the cause removins, prohibins, huh? It's an accidental cause. Does not show the equality, what? Of effects, huh? For someone with equal impulse, knocks down columns, it does not follow that the stones placed above will be equally, what? Moved, right? But that will be more, what? Quickly moved, which is more grave according to the property of his nature, to which it is left when the, what? Prohibiting thing has been removed. Thus, therefore, original justice, huh? Being removed, the nature of the human body was left, what? To itself. And according, according to this, according to the diversity of the natural makeup of the body, right? Complexion. Oh. Yeah. Of some, the bodies of some, were subject to more, what? Defects. Defects. And some to less, although, what? Original justice. Original sin. Yeah. Yeah. That explains a lot. Yeah. Well, Paul said that explains. About people. You have to see that distinction between the cause per se and the cause per actions, right? You have to see that distinction between the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause. You have to see that distinction between the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause of the cause. To the second, it should be said that original, what, guilt, I guess, and actual are removed by the same by which also are removed these, what, defects, according to that of the apostle, Romans 8, 11. He will make, what, living our mortal bodies, right, through the spirit dwelling in us. But both come about according to the order of divine wisdom in a suitable time. Sapientis est ordinari, right, for sense of order in time, right. It is necessary, therefore, that to the immortality and, what, not, yeah, being not able to suffer, right, of glory, which is begun in Christ, right, and through Christ is acquired for us, we arrive, right, conformed before to his, what, we suffer like he does, right. When is it necessary that for some time, right, the ability to suffer, right, in our bodies humains, right, to what, being promoted to the lack of sufferability, glory, right, conformed to Christ, so we have to suffer his passions, right, to some extent, before we can be promoted to this. To the third, yeah. To the third, it should be said, that in actual sin, we are able to consider two things, the substance of the act and the reason for, what, guilt, huh? Now, on the side of the substance of the act, a sin, an actual sin can, what, cause some body defect, just as from superfluous food, some are made, what, sick and die. Yeah, like I was saying earlier about the, the Duncan Adams, right, huh? I looked up something about Henry Adams there, you know, kind of famous thing that education, Henry Adams, so, but he's quite an anti-Semite, you know, huh? Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, he was, bad dealings with them, or something, you know? Which one of these, I can't believe in a God that became a man and got spit in the face by a Jew? One of them said that. That's why he wouldn't believe in Christianity, he wouldn't believe in Christ, because he can't believe God would do that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. He thought the Jews were really out to take over the world, and so on, lots of things he had. I had to tell you this story, you know, we came back from a kind of vacation, something like that, and my father said, let's go out to dinner. I'll take out the dinner because he wanted my mother to have to prepare something, you know, a thing, and so on. So as he was going into the restaurant, and so on, along comes this business friend of my father. He said, oh, come on in, and he buys dinner for all of us, you know, and he pays for everything, and I was kind of surprised my father let him do it, you know? And he said afterwards to us, well, he's Jewish, right? He doesn't want to be regarded as a tightwad. He wants to overcome their reputation by his generosity, and if you don't let him be generous, he'll be offended. And so my father understood what to do, you know? I was very knowledgeable in that way, you know? He got a lot of steel from some woman who sold steel, you know, and he just treated her very kindly, you know. It's kind of unusual for a woman to be able to steal, you know? Well, he understood the people, you know, and the ways that, you know, handled it, too. But on the side of the guilt, it deprives grace, which is given to man to rectifying the acts of the soul, but not given to, what, the defects of body, yeah, in the way the original justice did this, right? And therefore, actual sin does not cause these defects in the way the original does. The original takes away the original justice, right? Whereby the body was subject to the soul, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'll take one more article here. But death, yeah, to the sick.