Prima Pars
Lecture 102: The Book of Life and Divine Predestination

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

creatures, right? Thomas says elsewhere you know that the causes are superior to effects so the order of causes is even better than the order of what? Effects, right? But also God's end is to what? Let the creature partake of his goodness, right? His own excellence, right? And God is not only good in himself but he's a cause of all the things, right? So he wants to give creatures his share of his goodness but also his share in his causality. So it's not because he himself is insufficient in his causality or what he can do but because he wants us to be like him in some way, right? And like him even insofar as he is a, what? A cause, huh? So Monsignor Dianne used to speak, you know, he teaches my order among teachers, right? As I was saying, I mean, I got a text of Rostal there and I look at it and what's he saying? And then I pick up Thomas and say, oh, no, so that's to unfold, you know? But sometimes you need somebody to unfold Thomas too for you, you know? And so he had this beautiful order of teachers, right? With Thomas you'll find the kind of guy who could really fully understand Aristotle. I know, I read sometimes the Greek commentators in Aristotle, you know, and for the most part they can only kind of paraphrase Aristotle and you can't, you paraphrase him too correctly sometimes. And so you realize how it takes to this, you know, sin, right? So the kind of he'd lecture on Thomas and say, I'm just here to, you know, teach you how to read Thomas. But that's when you have the church fathers there, you know? I know one time in a parish there I was giving a little course around the parables, right? My wife being, you know, grade school, high school teacher. She says, now, don't come in there and tell them what it's all about. Let them look at the parable and sit around the table and discuss what the parable means. And then after they, you know, argue back and forth and mess up the text and so on, then they come and explain what it means. So I'll try that closely. I just remember them sitting around the table there and I'm going to see it, you know, often and I'm not going to the table and they're talking about the parable about the man who comes out the wedding garment. Of course, as far as conversation goes, you know, it was kind of mean of him to fill him out just because he didn't have the right clothing on and so on. Of course, if you've read the church fathers, right, who proportionate the text to you, the wedding gown is charity, right? And so God comes in there and this guy doesn't have any charity. What are you doing here? He don't belong to heaven. There's so much more to follow, you know, and you can see that left to ourselves, we don't really understand the scripture very well. Even my mother, when I was a kid, when they went to college and something like that. But she'd come back sometimes on Mass on Sunday and she'd say, I wish the priest would explain that she was kind of puzzled by something, you know, in the gospel or the epistle where it was and so on. But I know you've seen those wonderful books that the Dominicans put out there, the ones that the, this is before Havadigan 1, Havadigan 2, rather, where we had kind of the same gospel year after year, you know. And they gave the, you know, selection of the golden chain of comments which were the church fathers and then maybe seven or eight sermons by different church fathers on that particular gospel, you know. And I've read through sometimes, you know, we'll go through the, the two of the year with those things. And if only, you know, it was written, you know, so that even priests, ordinary priests in that parish could have something a little more to say about the thing. And you need the church fathers to proportion these things too, right? And, oh, one thing that always stuck in my mind was when they're trying to pin down Christ and they want to get him in trouble with the authorities so they say, it's lawful to give tribute to Caesar, right? And Christ says, well, show me the coin of the realm. Whose image is that? It's Caesar's. Well, then give to Caesar. What is Caesar's? And give to God what is God's, right? The church fathers come in on that and they say, well, our Lord is giving us a proportion, right? Lettness and ratios. But in particular, what are you giving to Caesar? What is the image of Caesar on it? The image of that coin, right? What do you give to God? What is the image of God on it? What is the image of God on it? Your soul, right? So you give your soul to God. It's just beautiful the way they develop the text, huh? Yeah. And those texts could be developed in a way that even, you know, people who have no philosophical training or theological training, you know, to speak of. We would see more in the scripture than they saw before, right? I remember one time I was talking in the parish and I was talking about the turning of water into wine, right? And how this, in a way, disposes us for the mystery of the Eucharist, huh? And, but the thing when he changed the water into wine, he didn't keep the accidents of water, which kind of destroyed the reason for doing it, you know, this sort of thing. But, by wine having, you know, visible its own features, you know the miracle has taken place, right? So, in a sense, that miracle shows something of Christ's power to transubstantiate something, right? And, therefore, it makes us more disposed to believe the mystery of the Eucharist that you have. but I was also making the point there that it was actually a question of Mary that he performed this miracle, right? So, in a sense, you can kind of see this miracle as preparing the way for the greater thing of the Eucharist, huh? It means a greater thing to change wine into the blood of our Lord, obviously, than water into wine, right? You're on the way there, so to speak, right? But the fact that the accidents of wine, as I say, shows the miracle, I think, a sense of evidence that the miracle had taken place, right? And of course, it says in Scripture, you know, and his disciples believed in him, right? You know, it's one of the things there, but it's also preparing for the beliefs that comes up in the sixth chapter of John, you know, where some people are turning away, saying, this is hard, saying, help me give us this flesh to eat, and so on. Now, the third objection belongs to the same to aid and to impede, but predestination cannot be impede of anybody, so I can't be anybody. So he says, to the third, it should be said that the second causes are not able to escape the order of the first universal cause, but they carry it out, right? And that's the reason he says, my predestination is able to be aided by creatures, but not impede. so I can't aid him to damn somebody, right? I can swear, but is that going to help? But my prayers can help somebody, right? For this reason. Now we come to the book of life, right? I can't do it. I can't do it. I can't do it. I can't do it. Title, right? Then we're not to consider about the book of life. And about this three things are asked. First of all, what is the book of life? And of what life is the book? And third, whether someone can be rubbed out of the book of life. Probably simply, because they couldn't have quit there, I had to come in. Would you have a dull wink there? To the first, one proceeds thus. It seems that the book of life is not the same thing as, what? Predestination. For it is said in the book of Ecclesiasticus, right? All of these things are the, what? Book of life. The gloss says that is the new and the, what? Old Testament. But this is not predestination. Therefore, the book of life is not the same thing as predestination. Maybe there's some multiplicity of meanings of the phrase, the book of life. More of Augustine says in the 20th book of the City of God, he says that the book of life is a certain divine, what? Power? By which there comes about. So that each thing, its good deeds, or its bad deeds, are reduced to, what? Memory, right? But the divine power does not seem to pertain to predestination, but more to the attribute of, what? Power, right? It's going to come up here in the next question, right? Power of God. Moreover, reprobation is opposed to predestination. If, therefore, the book of life or predestination, there would be found a book of death, just as the book of life, huh? It's a little bit of excursion into symbolic theology, right? But against this is what is said in the gloss upon that of Psalm 68. They will be, what? Rubbed out? Deleted? In the book of the living. And this book is a knowledge of God, by which he predestines to life, whom he foreknows. Now, my little text says that the gloss is sort of cassidor. But I've got some too, yeah. I think it's a moment. I answer, it should be said, that the book of life in God is said metaphorically, right? So we are in symbolic theology here, right? A little bit. According to a likeness taken from human beings. For it is customary among men that those who are chosen for something, right, are written down in the book. As soldiers, right, or counselors, right, who in olden times were called patres conscripti, fathers written down, right, yeah? Now, it is clear from the things foresaid that all the predestined are chosen by God to have, what, eternal life, huh? Therefore, the writing down or the conscription of the predestined is called the, what, book of life, huh? Now, that is said metaphorically to be written in the understanding of someone, the mind of someone, that is firmly held in his, what, memory, right? So write this down in your mind now, to use that expression a little bit. According to that of Proverbs 3, be not forgetful of my law, right, and have your heart guard or keep my, what, precepts, huh? Yeah. And after a few things it says, describe them or write them down, describe them, or write them down, describe them, describe them, so write down, right, then in the tables of your heart. For in material books something is written down to succor, the memory, to aid the memory, right? So God's memory needs to be in, right? Whence God's knowledge by which he firmly, huh, retains someone to be predestined to eternal life is called the, what, book of life, huh? Whence just as the, what, scriptures of the book is a sign of those things which ought to come about, right, so the knowledge of God is a certain sign before him of those who are going to be led to, what, eternal life. According to that of the second verse of Timothy, the, uh, stands the firm, what, foundation of God, huh, having this sign, God knows those who are his, right? So what does Saint Jesus say, name is written in heaven, right? Written where? The book of life. Okay, the first objection says, well, here's a gloss, huh, who says that, uh, the book of life is the Bible. Seems like not a bad way of speaking the Bible. To the first, therefore, it should be said that the book of life can be said in two ways, huh? In one way, the writing down of those who are chosen to life, and thus we speak now of the book of what? Life. In another way, that can be called the book of life, the writing down of those things which lead to life, huh, and this in two ways. Either as of things to be done, right? And thus, the New and the Old Testament are called the book of life, huh, or as of those things what done, huh? And thus, that divine power by which it comes about that to each one in memory are reduced his deeds, right, is called the book of life, huh, just as the liber militiae, the military book, right, can be called either that in which are written down those chosen to the military life, or in which is treated the military art, huh, or in which are recited the deeds of the soldiers, right? Also, this is going to solve the, what, second objection, huh, which your professor is talking about your good or bad deeds being reduced to them, right? That's when Shakespeare talks about that book being brought out, and you're going to read it in that book, and then I'll weep, you know, and I see what I've done, or haven't done than I should have done, and so on, right? Okay, so those first two objections are based upon the fallacy of convocation, right, taking other senses of the book of life, right, than the one we're concerned with in this particular one, right? Now, to the third, what about twice in their book of death than this book of life, huh? To the third, it should be said that it's not customary to write down those who are, what, repudiated, but those who are chosen, right, whence to reprobation does not correspond the book of death as to the predestination, the book of what? Well, he's taking it from human to things, see, because he says in the body of it, right, the first sentence of the body, the book of life and God is said metaphorically, according to a likeness taken from human things, right? So he's saying there's not customary among human things to have the book of those rejected, right? They write down those who are accepted, right? And therefore, there's, by that metaphor, there's more appropriate to talk about a book of life than a book of, you know, when they're divorced. Yeah. Moses commanded us to write a libellum of repudiation. Repudiation. How are they going to answer that? I don't know. So that was a question of one of the Jews, but of course he said that was because they misunderstood something, this decree. That's good. The objection. I can't find that now. Now, the ad quarto, this is ad quarto, right? That's referring to the said contra-objection, right? He's putting out that in definition, the book of life differs from predestination, right? For it implies the knowledge of predestination, right? Just as also from the gloss-induced appears, right? In Latin it says, This day is notitia day, right? Qua predestinava la vita. That's what it's name of precisely the knowledge of God, huh? Shall we stop? We'll go on. Hmm? of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. God, our mighty man, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, order women our images, and arouse us to consider more correct. In Thomas Aquinas, an angelic doctrine. Great. Help us to understand the maturity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. So we're up here to the second article on the Book of Life. Well, the Book of Life is only with respect to the life of glory of the predestined. The second one proceeds thus. It seems that the Book of Life is not only with respect to the life of glory of the predestined. For the Book of Life is a knowledge of life. But God, through his own life, knows every other life. Therefore, the Book of Life is especially said with respect to the divine life, and not only with respect to the life of the predestined. Moreover, as the life of glory is from God, so also the life of nature. If, therefore, the knowledge of the life of glory is said to be the Book of Life, so also the knowledge of the life of nature should be called a Book of Life. Moreover, some are chosen for grace, who are not chosen for the life of glory. As is clear through what is said in the Gospel of St. John, chapter 6. Have I not chosen twelve of you? And one of you is a devil? So he's chosen even the one who is a devil. That's from the devil. But the Book of Life is a writing down of the divine choice, as has been said. Therefore, also, it's with respect to the life of grace. That covers all the bases there. The life of nature, the life of grace, and the life of God himself, in addition to the life of the glory of the saints, and so on. So, he's going to exclude all those in some way or other. But against this, it is said that the Book of Life is a knowledge of predestination, as has been said. But predestination does not regard the life of grace, except insofar as it's ordered to glory. For those are not predestined who have grace, and they fall away from glory. But the Book of Life, the Book of Life, therefore, is not said, except with respect to the life of glory. I answer it should be said that the Book of Life, as has been said, implies the writing down, or certainly writing down, or in knowledge, of those chosen to life. I don't know which choice is the key word here. I'm going to be in answering suggestions. But one is chosen for that which does not belong to him by his very nature. And also to that one is chosen that has the notion of an end. You don't choose the end, but you choose the end to the end. That's in reference to the end. For the soldier is not chosen or written down that he might be armed, but for this that he fight. That's the end. For this is the proper office, or its own office, you could say, to which the military is ordered. But the end above the, existing above the nature, is a life of glory, as has been said. Whence, properly speaking, the Book of Life regards the life of glory. That's what he chose it for. Now what about God's life, because he knows his own life, he knows other lives, and so on. But to the first, therefore, it should be said that the divine life, even in so far as it's a glorious life, right, it's natural to God. Whence, with respect to it, there's no choice. And consequently, no Book of Life. For we do not say that some man is chosen to have sense, or any of those things which follow upon nature. Whence also, from this, is clear the solution to the second objection, which is taken from the actual life. For with respect to the natural life, there's no choice, nor a Book of Life. So the choice is the key thing there, right? What does Shakespeare say? Nature cannot choose your origin? Do you choose to be white or black? Do you prefer an animal? Or prefer an animal? Do you make this choice? Now the third objection, now, is going to be going to this next article, too, about being deleted from the Book of Life. To the third should be said, this is the one now from the life of grace, right? The third life that we had to exclude from the Book of Life, in a way. To the third it should be said, that the life of grace does not have the notion of an end, but the notion of that which is towards an end. Whence, one is not said to be chosen for the life of grace, as if that's what he's ultimately chosen for, but insofar as the life of grace is ordered to, what? Glory, right? And in account of this, those who have grace and fall out from glory are not said to be chosen simpliciter, but secundum quid, right? Not simply, but in some way, right? That's the distinction he said is what? Runs all the way through philosophy, but apparently all the way through theology, right? And the second kind of mistake outside of speech, right? There's a mistake for mixing up simply, not simply, but in some way. If you study philosophy, you'll find that all the way through, starting with Mino's observance there and logic of this kind of mistake. And likewise, they are not said to be written simply in the book of life, but only secundum quid, in some perfect way, huh? Insofar as there exists about them in the ordering and knowledge of God that they were to have some order to eternal life according to the participation of grace. So as soon as you understand that kind of distinction, and you'll see it coming up again and again, right? But you'll find that even in the, as you said it many times before, but the first distinctions there of what is involve this kind of distinction. Did you come to be when you walked in this room? Well, in some way you did. I came to be, yes, as I was. Yeah. In the state that I was after I walked in the room. Yeah, you came to be in this room. You didn't come to be simply, right? Right. But when you were generated or something, then you came to be simply, right? Yeah. If you leave this room where you cease to be, in some way, you'll cease to be in this room, right? That's being in a qualified sense. Are there chairs in this room? Are there chairs in the trees out there? Absolutely. Yeah, see? But you have to qualify, right? In some way, right? And in the thing on fallacies there that some people think is by time, some people doubt it, you know? Okay? Right, right, right. I think so. You know, all the time he's locked up there. For his former co-students. But anyway, when he's talking about this kind of mistake for mixing up simply in some respect, so Pichita and Sekundum Quid, he says that this goes back to the perfect and the what? Imperfect, right? Okay. So in the case of the great Mino there, the great dialogue there, you know, there the mistake in the argument of Mino is based upon the assertion that you can't know in some way what you don't know. Now, can I know what I don't know? And the scientist is looking for the cure for some kind of disease, right? Does he know what he doesn't know? Yeah. If he didn't know in some way what he didn't know, right, it would make any sense to pay him to do his research, right? On the other hand, if he knew simply without qualification, you don't have to pay him either because you already have, I mean, I'm going to tell you what it is, but I mean, you don't have to pay him to do research because you already had the answer, right? And so, that's really kind of a beautiful thing. I always tell the students, you know, in ethics, talking about these things, that all day long you're doing something, what, bad, because in some ways it's good. Or you're not doing what's good to do because in some ways it's bad, right? And notice there's nothing so good in this world that it doesn't prevent you from doing something else that's good. So, you could look upon anything good as in some way bad, right? And I'll say to them, you know, if someone annoys you at work, should you murder them? No, that's bad. Yeah, but it gets rid of annoyance in your life. So, in some way. So, I say, this is not such a strange distinction, right? Because you're always, all day long, you're doing something bad because in some ways it's good. Or you're not doing what's good to do, like you have to go to Mass, say, because in some ways it's bad, it prevents you from having another hour of sleep or something, right? So, I mean, you know, and that means you can always find, you can always find a reason for not doing what you should do and a reason for doing what you shouldn't do. But you have to, you have to make this kind of mistake. As Aristotle says there, you know, the man who does wrong, he's mistaken. What kind of mistake is it? Well, this is kind of the one. So, I mean, it runs through the whole of philosophy. I just gave an example there from logic and one from, from ethics, right? But it dominates wisdom, right? You know, the division of being is being, is that thing, yeah? And so, once you get kind of a hand on this kind of distinction, it's not so surprising, you know? That ethical one is like the test in the sentence where if a man could shoot his mother-in-law right between the eyes in 50 cases, I'd say, I'd say he's a good shot. But I wouldn't say he's a good man. I can't believe you are pretty close to it. Now, this same distinction is going to come up in the next article, see? Whether someone is, what, deleted, huh? He's a good one. He's a good one. He's a good one. rubbed out from the Book of Life. To the third one proceeds, thus, it seems that no one is blotted out from the Book of Life. For Augustine says, oh by the way, I saw, was it in April, was it? John, I mean that Benedict XVI went up to Pavia, I guess. That's where the remains of Augustine. Yeah, and he's, you know, making kind of a personal pilgrimage and he was acknowledging his debt to Augustine, in particular his debt in his first encyclical, you know, and charity and so on. I didn't realize that where Augustine's remains were. I didn't know how they got up there. Did you? I'm sorry, I don't remember any exact place. Pavia, it was. You said he went to Augustine. Yeah, yeah. There was a major irrelevant thing that he wrote with the Pavia, the Augustinian Montessori, and I think that was the first recording. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, well, I think I had a picture of it there in the capital reporting where I saw it. So I was going to bring it in there. I just had to start to the book. For Augustine says in the 20th book of the City of God, that the foreknowledge of God, which cannot fail, is the book of life. But from the foreknowledge of God, nothing can be subtracted. Likewise, neither from predestination. Therefore, neither from the book of life can someone be deleted. Moreover, whatever is in something is in it in the manner of that in which it is. Whatever is received is received, according to the Holy Receiver. I can't say that quite like that. But the book of life is something eternal and unchangeable. Therefore, whatever is in it is there, not in a temporal way, but in an unchangeable and unable to be deleted way. Moreover, deletion is opposed to scripture or writing. But someone is not able, newly, to be written, right, in the book of life. Therefore, neither from the deleted. So why is it going to go on? Try and answer this, right? Well, here's the said contra. It is said in the book, in the Psalm 68, they are, what, deleted from the book of the living. So Thomas says, I answer, it should be said, that some say that from the book of life, no one is able to be deleted truly. But someone is able to be deleted, according to the opinion of men, right? For it is customary in scriptures that something is then said to come about when it becomes known. Now I know you love me, God says. Now it's been made known. That's kind of a subtle way of praying. And according to this, some are said to be written in the book of life, insofar as men opine, think that they are written there, on account of the present justice which they see in them. But when it appears, either in this age or in the future, that they have fallen away from this justice, then they are said to be, what, deleted, right? And thus also, it's expounded, right, in the gloss, in my edition, it says, what, is it Cassiodorus, right? Anyone told us to that, no? And thus this deletion is expounded in the commentary on the 68th Psalm, right? And again, the quote again, we had in the same content there, okay? But because to not be deleted from the book of life is laid down among the rewards of the just, according to that of the book of the Apocalypse, Revelation chapter 3, verse 5, who thus conquers will be clothed in white garments, and I will not delete his name from the book of life. That's another reference to deleting, huh? Which is promised to the saints, not only in the opinion of men, right, it is able to be said that to be deleted or not to be deleted from the book of life not only should be referred to the opinion of men, he doesn't seem to be entirely rejecting that opinion, right? But he says there's something more to be said. But also, as regards the thing itself. Now, he's going to explain how this can be said, huh? It's a kundum remma, not just according to the opinion of men. For the book of life is the writing down of those ordered to eternal life. To which one is ordered from two things. To wit, from the divine predestination, huh? And that's the first thing. And this ordering never fails, huh? If you're ordered to eternal life by divine predestination, then you can never be removed from that, huh? And from grace, right? Because grace, by its very nature, is ordered to eternal life. As Christ, you speak of it as... Well, yeah. Yeah, eternal life. Whoever has grace from this very fact is worthy of eternal life. And this ordering sometimes fails, because some ordered from grace that they have to having eternal life, they nevertheless fall away from it through mortal sin. So be careful. This is the scripture. It's too full. So those who are ordered to have eternal life from divine predestination are some fidgete, right? Simply. Written in the book of life. Because they are there written as ones are going to have eternal life in itself, right? And these are never deleted from the book of life. But those who are ordered to have eternal life not from divine predestination, but only from grace. And those who are ordered from predestination also are by grace to eternal life. But now he's talking about those who are not ordered to have eternal life from divine predestination, but only from grace, right? Do they have this order? Not from the divine predestination. Are said to be written in the book of life not simply, but sequined and quid, huh? In some way. In some imperfect way. Because they are there written to have eternal life not in itself but only in its, what? Cause. And such are able to be deleted from the, what? Book of life, huh? Which deletion does not refer to the knowledge of God, huh? As if God knew, foreknew something and afterwards became ignorant. But to the thing, what? Known. Which God knows before to have been ordered in eternal life and afterwards not to be ordered when they fell away from grace. So that distinction is kind of anticipated in part of the rejection of the previous article where you have the same kind of distinction, right? And there he's talking about, you know, just refer to the life of what? Grace, right? Or just to the life of glory. And he says, well, simply the life of glory, right? But the life of grace in some way, huh? And here he says, well, can you be deleted from the book? Well, not if you're there simply, but if you're there in some way, right? If you're ordered to eternal life by divine predestination, then you're there simply. And if you're ordered to divine life by grace... alone, and not by divine predestination, then you're written there only in some way. So notice, once you know this distinction between simply and in some way, then in a particular matter this distinction is going to come up. You have to understand what makes it to be simply so and what not simply so, right? I know in ethics you say, in general, what is a good human act, right? Is it a pleasant human act? Because a pleasant human act can be good in some way, or is good in some way, but is it good simply? Not necessarily, no. So what does it mean to be good simply in a human act? It needs to be reasonable. So a reasonable human act is a good human act simply speaking, right? A pleasant human act is a good human act only secundum quid, huh? So you have to realize what makes it to be so simply. Well here he's saying, what makes it to be simply written in the, without qualification, written in the Book of Life, huh? Predestination, yeah. Yeah. And if you're ordered to eternal life by having grace, but not by divine predestination, then you're only written in a perfect way there, right? Yep. Secundum quid, huh? You can't really avoid that distinction. Now the first objection says, well, the foreknowledge of God cannot fail, and so on. Well, Thomas has already made the distinction, but he gives it again here. To the first, therefore, it should be said that this deletion, as has been said in the body article, does not refer to the Book of Life on the side of God's, what, foreknowledge, right? As if in God there is some, what, changeable, changeableness, but on the part of the things foreknown, which are, in fact, what? Yeah. The second objection is saying, well, the Book of Life is in God, it's unchangeable, right? Eternal. To the second, therefore, it should be said that although things in God are unchangeable in an unchangeable way, nevertheless, in themselves they are changeable, right? And to this pertains the deletion of the Book of Life, just as God knows what changing things in an unchanging way, right? Yeah. I used to say, even, you know, when you take up the definition of motion, say, in actual philosophy or the definition of time, the definition of time is timeless, huh? And the definition of motion is unchanging, right? There's not a change in the definition. Of course, we used to have, you know, interesting time because one thing we find out about change is there's something unlimited about change, huh? And therefore, it seems opposed to what a definition is because the definition comes from the word for limit, huh? So how can you have a limit of an unlimited thing, huh? But in fact, we know things in a different way than they are without being false. You can have a good knowledge of the bad, right? You can know the bad in a good way. You know, Preeti says you can't, you know, avoid the badness you know the cause of the bad, right? So the man who knows the cause of the bad, right, has a good knowledge of the bad, huh? Does that make his knowledge of the bad false? Well, the sinner has a bad knowledge. He didn't call it knowledge at all. A bad opinion about the bad, huh? He didn't ask good. Okay, now, let's look at the third objection again here. That deletion is opposed to writing, right? But someone cannot be newly written in the book of life, there can no more can be deleted. So the third should be said. In that way in which someone is said to be deleted from the book of life, it can be said that he has written there, what? De novo, Either according to the opinion of men, right? He didn't exclude that opinion, did he? He said there's something else to be seen. Or according as newly, he has an order to eternal life through what? Grace, huh? Which also is comprehended under the divine knowledge although it's not new to him. So God doesn't newly know it's new as we know newly what's new. Look who's here. Actually, I'm out of class and I'm teaching the Greek philosophy or philosophy green. Some of you press it, what's new? Or what's new? Same whole thing. You're the thing about Socrates on someone who says, you know, Socrates, he says, you're always saying the same things about the same things. So it's better than what you guys do is always say opposite things about the same thing because they're contradicting themselves, right? now we're up to the divine what power right and then we had the divine beatitude after that and then we'll be up to 20 will begin that 27 because i always remember that 27 because as thomas says in scripture if you have the square of a number right or even the cube of a number it has the same symbolism as the original number well i mean as if three has some particular meaning right oh then nine will have that same symbolism okay well 27 is three times three times three right so it's kind of significant it's a cube of three and three is the trinity right that's great so that's why i remember 27 yeah i don't know how many questions there are in the trinity there are so many 27 no there's 17 significance that gustin has i have to kind of introduce the thing there at the tribune graduation right and so the former headmaster calls me up and he says okay i'll be there yeah he says you know we've got 17 graduates you know i said oh boy so now i know what i'll say you know when i got when i got though to the campus i said um i've been making sure i was 17 and i said how many no oh i was around 16 16. there you go yeah i was gonna you know because 70 was a symbol of those who are saved right it was a nice nice way you know you say oh what a wonderful idea you had there you know and i said all set the 17 you know and then talk about those that fell short now after the consideration of the divine knowledge and the divine will right and of those things which pertain to the divine knowledge and divine will it remains to be considered about the divine power let's just look for a second back to the question 14 that we did the introduction because the beginning of question 14 right before it here let's just review that for a second the premium there before question 14 this is kind of premium to the whole treatise on the what operations of god right so he says after the consideration of those things which belong or pertain to the divine substance right so that was when he considered the what simplicity of god the perfection of god the infinity of god the unchangeableness of god and unity of god right and the things that kind of attached to one of those five right and i think i mentioned before how in the other summa the summa kind of gentiles the consideration of divine substance has those five parts too as a sum of different order which the five are taken up but it's involved around those five and in both summa he take up the substance of god before his operation then okay it remains to consider about those things which pertain to his what operation okay now recall for a second right in all creatures the substance and the operation are two different things and there's a real distinction between the substance of any creature uh would it be the angel or man or the dog or three and what it does right so we who have our knowledge starting from creatures we have this distinction in mind between the substance of the thing and its operation and so only turn to god we have two thoughts in mind but we find out eventually the substance of god and the operation of god are the same thing right but the there's two different considerations by us because we're going from what creatures to god right okay and you know my goal mathematical comparison there right okay say um just to simplify like here you say this is the substance and this is the operation this isn't the creature right and they correspond um these two different points though to ordering god where both the substance and the operation are one of the same point right one of the same thing right but if we knew this point from creatures and say this is the end of the line called s and this is the end of the line called what bowl yeah and so we're coming back to god but we're going from the many towards the the one right but the many comes from the fact that these are many creatures right instead of what we can know god but we have to what negate that distinction as being a real distinction in god right but it is the distinction in our knowledge right and as i mentioned before in the consideration of the substance of god although you have the same five parts in both sumas uh yours a little bit different but in both sumas you take up the existence of god first you show that god first you show that god exists unless thomas says if god doesn't exist we can forget about theology there's no point of theology so you can have the existence of god first always then the substance of god right then the operation of god right and as you'll find out you've got to understand the operations of god to be able to understand so far as you can the trinity right so the order of those four it seems to me is kind of unchangeable and you follow that order in the uh both sumas and the compendium of theology which is extensive but it still has a lot to say so he's um pointing out now what he's just finished right consideration of the divine substance and now we're going to consider about the divine operation right now he makes a distinction here right then and because a certain operation there is which remains in the door and another kind which proceeds from the door to some outside effect right exterior effect now this is a distinction that aristotle makes in the book of wisdom right an activity or doing like seeing or hearing or smelling or tasting or an activity like loving or understanding remains in the door and has no exterior effect as such right but baking of some sort right and cutting or pounding or so on is an activity that has an exterior effect right you know aristotle say all kinds of things about these two operations right but the operation that has an exterior effect seems to be a perfecting of the thing made so making a chair is a perfecting of the chair not a perfecting of the carpenter as such right and and teaching is a perfecting of the what yeah not of the teacher as such right okay now this is i said before you've got to be careful here because you can be deceived even the wise are deceived as aristotle says by the accidental and that's the first kind of mistake outside the speech the mistake of the accidental mixing up uh what is so as such and what is so by happening and you say well does making a chair perfect the carpenter well if he makes uh the the same chair over and over again right he's probably not learning anything about making a chair making the same kind of chair over if i can right and yet you might make making the chair very well each time right if a man makes mcdonald hamburgers or something like that or hot dogs all day long right then barbecues you know the texas barbecue um he might make pretty good barbecue you know and so on but um he's not learning anything right so it's accidental to making that the maker be anyway perfected right