Prima Secundae
Lecture 301: Justification of the Impious: Grace, Faith, and Free Will

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

But in the poetic metaphor, the word doesn't really have that meaning, right? Yeah, it's a likeness there, yeah. Okay. Time for another one here, right? The second one proceeds thus. It seems that for the emission of guilt, which is a justification of impetus, is not required a pouring in a grace. For one can be removed from one contrary, without this that he be led to another, if the contraries are what? But the state of guilt and the state of grace are contrary and mediata. For there is a middle state of innocence, in which a man neither has grace nor does he have what? Guilt, huh? Is there a middle state? The little kid, is he guilty of? Yeah, he's praising him. Well, I mean, maybe if you tell him original sin, but I mean, is he guilty of murder or, you know? He doesn't have a virtue, do you? Yeah. He doesn't have grace. He may not justify it. He's not without sin. He's not without sin. Let's look at what they apply a little bit to this, huh? 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, yeah. For it is possible among men to happen that one man neither, what? Loves another, right? Nor hates him, right, huh? But if he offends him, right, that he, what, dismisses this offense, this cannot happen without some special, what? Yeah, benevolence. It's benevolence of God to man to be repaired. But the benevolence of God to man, maybe he's willing well to him, right, is said to be repaired, right, through the gift of, what? Grace. And therefore, although it is, what? Listen, before man is sin, that he can be without grace and without, what? Guilt, right? But nevertheless, after grace, he cannot be without, what? Well, we'll see if the body makes that reply a little more illuminating, huh? Moreover, let's look at the second objection. The remission of guilt consists in the, what? Divine, what he reputes to him, right? What he replies to him, right? Yeah. According to that, Psalm 31, 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 through remission of guilt. That sounds almost like Luther there, right? No, it's the contempt. I agree. No. Familiarly agrees 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, huh? Back in question 110, I guess. 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? Which, yeah, that someone is not imputed a sin by God, who proceeds from the divine love, huh? 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, huh? Maybe something we'll see better after we see the body of the article. Moreover, no one is subject at the same time to two contraries. Thank God. But some sins are contraries, as prodigality and illiberality. Therefore, the one who's subject to the sin of prodigality is not at the same time subject to the sin of illiberality. It can happen, therefore, that before he is, what? To it, yeah. It can happen that before he was subject to it, right? Therefore, by sinning by the vice of prodigality, he's liberated from the sin of illiberality. Unless there is remitted some sin without grace. There you go. To a third, it should be said, as Augustine says in the book on marriage, nuptials, and concubiscence, 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, huh? Okay. But does not suffice, but there's add, and about the, what? First ones, pray that they be remitted to you, right, huh? See? They don't disappear when you stop sinning. No longer murdering anybody, you know, so I don't have to get remittance 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? Guilt. Once, at the same time, he has the guilt of both sins, huh? Oh, my gosh. Okay? For these sins are not contrary to each other on the side of, or turning you away from God, right? From which side sin has guilt, huh? Suck, there's a way of getting out of this, right? Because all these, all these, you know, her style says that the, there's two vices opposed to the, yeah, yeah? But every sin, as we said, every sin is not only turning away from God, but running away from God. Yeah. You don't get closer to God because you stop running away. Even if you turn back, you have to run back. Yeah. Against this is what is said in Romans 3, 24. It justified gratis through his, what? Grace, huh? I answer it should be said that man, by sinning, offends God, huh? Just as it's clear from the things foresaid. But the offense is not remitted to someone, except through this, that the. soul of the one offended right well yeah he's put in peace with the one offending right these soul and therefore according to this the sin of man is said to be remitted when god is what at peace with us which peace consists in the love by which god what helps 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 insofar as from him we sometimes what yeah oh sure and sometimes again we recuperate recuperated 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 they cannot be understood the remission of guilt without an infusion of grace put that in your pipe and smoke it a little bit i imagine it is yeah well you put him with the deal nine edition didn't they yeah so we kind of get to do this Thank you, Thomas Aquinas, deo gratias. God, our enlightenment, help us, God, to know and love you. Guardian angels, drink the lights of our minds, or to illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor. Amen. Help us to understand what you have written. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen. In Article 3, 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 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 defined justice there in the previous one. For he it is who justifies the impious, as is said in the epistle to the Romans, chapter 4, verses 5. Now, it's a God moving man to justice, right, huh? 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. Here's a very simple example from the old science. It's 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, huh? Whence also, right, he moves men to justice according to the condition of human nature, right? Now, what is, do you 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, 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 emotion from God or by God to justice without the emotion of, what, 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 that aren't, right? Like the little boy or the little guy that's got out of his mind, so to speak, right? Okay. That's why I thought it was better to read the body of the article first here, 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, huh? If you're little boys, there's little ones, right? Are justified, right, without the motion of, what, free will. And sometimes even, what, sometimes adults, right? 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. That's how we pronounce that properly. It comes about through justifying grace. Here you seem to have two exceptions, right? One is an example from Augustine and the one that's in the practice of the church, right? Baptized. But God does not, what? Power. Yeah. Not buying power. In the sacraments, huh? And therefore also he can justify man without the sacraments, without, what, motion of free will, right? Okay. Now, in 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. Now this does not come about, however, without a, what? Sacrament. Because just as original sin from which, or they are justified, huh? Did not come to them by their own will, but through their bodily origin, right? Their current origin. So also through a spiritual regeneration from Christ, they are what? Great. 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 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? And amentibus, huh? Without mind, huh? Who are mindless now, huh? A, I guess, is a negative prefix, isn't it? Amentibus would be without, like amorals. I mean, you have no morals, right? A, amentibus. Who never have the, what? 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 were sober for a while and became mad, huh? But if someone sometime 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 an 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? So if I intend to be baptized, and then I go mad, you can baptize me, apparently, right? Because I had, 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? Now, the second section, right? In sleeping, more of in 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 it's had in the third book of the Kings, chapter 3, and the second book of the Leftovers, right? That's what it means. Yeah. Therefore, also, for a like reason. Oh, if we have a reading order, yeah, we have a reading order. 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? 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. When the student falls asleep in class, he does not merit wisdom, huh? That's not a habit we'd say, in another way. The sleep of the senses, St. Teresa talks about snoozing in chapel. But in sleep, it had been declared to him, right, an account of the preceding, what, desire. This is a little bit like the person who, you know, had just made it intended to get, you know. baptism, and then he got in a car accident, and then you can do it, I guess, right? Okay. And account of the foregoing desire, he was, what, wisdom was poured into him by God, right? Whence from his person is said in wisdom, chapter 7, I, what, desired, I guess? And to me was given sense, huh? Okay. My mother always says, you know, pour into her good sense. She actually understood exactly my good sense, but that was what she always said. So in that way, it's solved in similar 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 psalm when it says he gives to his beloved in sleep, right? So that can be the sleep of contemplation, can't it, huh? For it could be said that that sleep was not natural, but the sleep of, what, prophecy. According as it is said in Numbers, chapter 12, 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 the exterior sense. I will speak to him, right, 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 abundant, huh? He has a two-way sword. Yeah, yeah. 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, justification, rather. And 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? 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, for a reason. Whence without a complete motion of free will, right, maybe that's significant what he 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? Even the Pharaoh, right, had the dreams of the seven fat one, the seven? Joseph of the New Testament and Joseph of the Old Testament. Yeah, yeah. As it is said in Job chapter 33, when what? Sleep overcomes men, right? And they sleep in their little beds there, like too low. Then I open the ears of men, and discipline instructs them, right, huh? Now, the third objection, we'll see. Moreover, through the same cause, grace is produced in being and is preserved, right? Just like we say God creates things and he preserves them, right? In the second book of the Sumacan Gentiles, we learn that he creates things, right? In the third book, that his providence includes preserving them, right? Okay. For Augustine says in the eighth book upon Genesis to the letter, that this a man ought to be, what? Turned towards God, that from whom always he becomes, what? Just, huh? Without the movement of free will, grace is preserved or conserved in men. Therefore, without the motion of free will, he can be, what? Poured into them, right, from the beginning. Now, Tom's going to see a distinction there, right? Yeah. To the third, therefore, it should be said that in the infusion of justifying grace, there's a certain, what? Changeover. That's probably Transmutatia, right? A changeover, huh? Because trans means over, right? So you get the word translation, right? Over, carry over. So changeover of the soul, right? And therefore, there's 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 in the power 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? I followed a demonstration of my teacher there, Euclid of Athens in Alexandria, right? And then there's a real, what, changeover of my soul, right? Amazing, it's a certain, 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 do the exam, 15 minutes, and then while they were taking the exam, rather than just to sit in there. Or, yeah, I'd do it on the board, you know. You probably thought it was crazy, but I thought that might have impressed a few of them, you know, that had a little more mathematical minds. Okay, the last thing we need to look at is the Siddhanta, right, huh? Against this is what is said in John 6, 45, everyone who hears from the Father and, what, learns, comes to me, right? That reminds me of this text I was mentioning there, I was reading Thomas' 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? And he says, He who comes from above is above all. He who is of the earth, belongs to the earth, and of 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? How do you take that, right? You know? Thomas has a very beautiful explanation of that, right? And he says, By seeing, you learn from the thing itself, right? By hearing, I don't learn from the thing itself, but from the knowledge of you or the knowledge of my teacher, right? 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 from the mind of God, right? And he says, They're actually the same thing, right? Because the being of the Father and his understanding are the same thing, right? 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? And it's from the thing itself. And insofar as he's the Word that proceeds, right? From the thinker, then he's learning from the mind of the Father, right? Or from his knowledge, right? And this text here, now you see, everyone who hears from the Father, and then it says, Didici, then? And learns, yes, like he's a teacher, right, huh? Okay. Why in seeing, he's not so much, you know, a teacher there, right? Not from the knowledge, but from the thing itself, right? It's kind of interesting. Things, all kinds of nice things in the Gospel. I guess he said that, you know, I was just reading that today, that the other three Gospels, they begin after John, really, as John the Baptist has been imprisoned, right? They begin their narration of Christ's public life. And then John, the evangelist, went back before, right? He's been in prison, right? He's not in prison yet. Chapter 3, right? He's still out there baptizing, right? Interesting. On Scripture Day, right? Primo Secundi here. I had to stick that in there. That was kind of beautiful, you know? Beautiful explanation. I think he's talking about it elsewhere, you know, but it came up again here. Okay, well, that's Article 3, huh? Now, Article 4, 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? Now, it might be good here also to read the 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 justification impious. That's what we learned in Article 3. According as the mind of man is moved by God, right, huh? For God moves the soul of man by converting it to himself, huh? As is said in the 84th Psalm, according to another, what, text, I guess, right? That God converting us, huh? Or you, yeah. He makes us, what, alive, right? Okay. And therefore, for the justification impious, there is to require the motion of the mind by which it is converted to God, right? But the first turning, right, according to God, comes about through faith, according to that of Hebrews 11.6. I reject it from authority here, right? One 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? Because the will is moved by the reason, right? Which proposes its object here. Let's look at the objections here, right? To the fourth, then, one precedes us. It seems that the justification of the impious is not required in the motion of faith. For just as through faith man is justified, so also through some other things, huh? To wit, through fear, huh? About what it is said in Ecclesiasticus 1. The fear of the Lord expels sin. 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, and they, they had the, the, the, the, the, the, yeah, yeah, yeah, but then, but then after, after they say the rosary, then they say the, the, the chapter of the mercy, yeah. But it seems the mercy of God is more of an object of hope, right, huh? But here he's talking about, about fear, right, huh? Which is more divine justice rather than mercy. And also through charity, right, huh? According to that of Luke 7. Many sins are, what? Forgiven her, right? Because she loved much, right? Mary Megan, I guess. And again, through humility, right? According to that of James 4. God resists the proud, right, huh? But to the humble, he gives grace, right? And also through mercy, right? According to that of Proverbs 15. Through mercy and faith are purged sins, huh? 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, what does Thomas say there? He's got a long reply to that, huh? 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? And Aristotle in the categories, he has a chapter on what? Before and then the, yeah, and after. And then the chapter on what? Simul. Amma in Greek, right? Amma. That's kind of known by negation, right? Of 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 or 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. 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. It was the first baby, you know, in the... Yeah, so I'm glad 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, huh? It's interesting. 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? Now, it happens that one in 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, huh? 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? And thus it is also able to go before justification, right? So Thomas is looking before and after again, right? You know, 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? 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, well, 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? 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? Right? You see? So you can't use that, huh? So you have to bring in this other part, right? That God is the beginning of the end of things, 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 the rule of two or three or both. It can be said there, right? Very profound, what he does there. Anyway, now, so, now what does he go on to say? It can go after, right? Justification to be satisfaction. It can go before it. preparing the way, right? Or even what? It 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. That's beautiful. So he's dying on a great deal of truth in what the objection is saying, right? Moreover, the act of faith, second objection, moreover the act of faith is not required for justification except insofar as through faith man knows what? God. But also in other ways, man is able to know God, right? To it, through natural knowledge and through the gift of what? Wisdom, right? Therefore, there's not required the act of faith, the justification of the what? Impious, huh? Is there some hope here for Aristotle? I wonder. Cognizio, Dr. Rellis, huh? Well, to 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 insofar as he is the, what? Object of the attitude and the cause of justification. When such knowledge does not suffice for justification. 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 Sumerkan 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, huh? And it's kind of interesting because the first reason he gives is that he 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, realize how powerful God is. And then he says when we see all the good that he's put into creatures and he's the source of all this then we, what, see his goodness. And I say, gee, 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 in biology, right, when he's studying the structure of animals and the way they're put together, right? And he gives us a reason, right, that one can admire the beauty, right, the excellence, right, the one who made these things, right? So it's very like Thomas, right, even though he's talking about, what, natural knowledge, right, huh? But Thomas is giving the reason why the theologian 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, in divine providence, you know, how 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 St. 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 foretold the coming of Christ and so on. And someone might say, well, 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, and how many of them were very, you know, even St. 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? Because he didn't have any contact really with Christianity. And so you suddenly feel like thinking, well, if you're, yes, because you're a Catholic, did 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 Christianity or even Judaism. When Aristotle or some of the other Greeks say that Plato refers to God, do they have in mind? When they say, when they mention God, they're not talking about the God, they're talking about one God. Yeah, 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 much as I would say, the reason why they quote the poet is because, you know, everybody kind of accepts the poet and it shows that there's something, you know, in our common understanding, you know, that shows that the more developed arguments, you know, are in accordance, you know, common sense, as my mother would say. It's strong and what is common. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I still understand it very well, right? Did he put the Greek pantheon at all into a context of one true God or? Oh, yeah, and he thought there was only one God, yeah, he saw it very well, yeah, yeah. I was reminding you 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 super conscientious 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, the people 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. Hmm? Certainly for the English. It's kind of strange, you know, I mean, you know, what Warren Murray tells me, you know, when you argue with these guys sometimes, and they sometimes, you do, to slip into it, you know, without realizing it, you know, as if nature is acting for an end, right? But then when you pin them down, they don't want to pin the nature as an end, because then you have to bring them back. So, I mean, they have to deny what they naturally think, right? And when they found some, you know, thing in the animal, and say, well, I don't know what this is for, you know? You just naturally do it, right? You know? And, and they say, well, that's kind of a loose way of speaking, or something, you know? They can't possibly admit it, but, you know, there's been some of these scandalous things that actually admitted that the reason why they don't accept these things is because they'll lead to God, right? Even though their, their thought is leading them that way. So that's the second objection, right? Moreover, there are diverse articles of the faith. If, therefore, the act of faith is required for justification of the impious, it seems that when a man is first justified, he's got to think about all the articles, right? But this seems to be unfitting or not suitable because such a thinking, cogitatsio is really thinking out, right? Yeah. Cogitatsio is really, in English, it's like thinking about or thinking out, right? Yeah. Because such a cogitatsio requires a, what, long time, right? Therefore, it seems that the act of faith is not required for justification. To the 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 he guards this, that man, what, believes God to be the, what, the fire of men through the mystery of Christ, huh? You have to believe that central thing, right? What does it say in the Psalms, I mean, in the Epistles, isn't it? You have to believe that there's a God and that he's our Redeemer in some way, right? That he's our Redeemer