Tertia Pars
Lecture 104: Christ's Miracles Concerning Spiritual Substances and Celestial Bodies

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

I mean, I said before we finish this summer, this spring, get through the thing on miracles, because then that's the break between that and the... His exit. His exit. What? Two, three articles of 44 done, because there's four articles in the question of 45, so if we had to do, like, five or four, actually, you'd be able to do it. Okay. Now, these are the categories, huh? The first one's a little more. Okay. Then what I consider about the singular species of miracles, huh? Notice the way he divides them. The miracles that he did about spiritual substances, huh? Get you into the pigs, you... Then about the miracles which he did about the celestial bodies. Then about the miracles which he did about men, right? And then about the miracles which he did about irrational creatures, huh? To the first, then, one goes forward thus. It seems that the miracles which Christ did concerning the spiritual substances were not, what, suitable, huh? For among the, what, spiritual substances, the holy angels are superior, right? Right, you might say, huh? They've come before demons. Because, as Augustine says in the third book about the Trinity, the spirit of life, the rational spirit, right, huh? The one who deserted, right? And is a sinner, is ruled through the, what? The pious and just spirit of life, huh? Rational spirit. He's immrational there for standing. But Christ is not read to have done some miracles about the good angels, huh? Therefore, neither about the demons should he have done some miracles, huh? Moreover, the miracles of Christ are ordered to making known his divinity. But the divinity of Christ should not be made known to the demons. It should not be made known by them. Yeah. Because through this would be impeded the mystery of his passion, right, huh? According to that of 1 Corinthians 2. If they had known, huh? They would never have crucified the Lord of glory, huh? So you don't have to have demons to know about this, right? Therefore, he should not have done any miracles among demons, or about demons. Moreover, the miracles of Christ are ordered to the glory of God. Whence it is said in Matthew 9.8, that seeing the, what? The crowd seeing the paralytic, healed by Christ, huh? They feared and glorified God who gave such power to men. But to demons it does not pertain to glorify God, huh? Because not beautiful is praise in the mouth of the sinner. I don't know if I should praise God or not. Yeah. But I read that thing. Whence, as it is said in Mark 1, huh? He did not allow the demons to speak those things which pertain to his glory, right? Therefore, it seems it's not suitable that he do some miracles among the demons, huh? Moreover, miracles done by Christ are ordered to the salvation of men. But some demons were ejected from men, right? With harm to these men, huh? Sometimes a body one, as it is said, that the demon to the command of Christ claiming and, what? Tearing up the man, right? Went out for the man, right? And he was made as if dead, right? So many said that he is dead, right? Sometimes with the loss of things, right? As when the demons, at his prayers, were sent into the pigs who went jumping over the cliff into the sea. Went to citizens of that region, asked him to get out of here, right? Therefore, it seems unsuitably that he did what these miracles are. But against this is what is said in Zacchaeus chapter 13, huh? That this was forenounced, huh? Where it said, I would take the unclean spirit from the earth, huh? I answer it should be said that the miracles which Christ did, huh? Were certain arguments or signs, huh? Of the faith which he himself taught, huh? But it was in the future and that through the power of his divinity, he would exclude the power of the demons from the men who were to believe in him, right? According to that of John chapter 12, verse 31. Now is the prince of this world cast out, right? And it's not exactly that it's been done, but it's so approximate, right? This is the 12th is the chapter of John where you begin to approach the passion, right? And therefore it was suitable that among the other miracles you'd also liberate those obsessed by the demons, yeah. To the first, therefore, it should be said that men, just as by Christ they were to be, what, freed from the power of the demons, so through him they were to be associates, right? Our neighbors, huh? The angels are our neighbors. According to that, Colossians 1.20, giving peace through the blood of his cross, of those who are in heaven and those who are on earth. And therefore, about the angels, it was not suitable that he, what, show to men, except that the angels would appear to men, right, huh? Which they did in his birth and in his, what? Resurrection and his ascension, yeah. The important events. To the second, it should be said, huh? That Christ, to that extent, was made known to the demons as much as he wanted them to know, huh? And so much he wanted them to know as was suitable, right? Or necessary. But he was made known to them, not as to the holy angels, through which there is, what, eternal life, but through certain temporal effects, huh? Of his power. And first, that seeing Christ hunger after fast, they would guess him not to be the son of God. Whence upon that of Luke 4, if you are the son of God, huh? Amber says, what, um, what did he wish this, what does this want, huh? This beginning of this speech, right? Except that he might know the son of God to come, right, huh? But that he did not think that he would come through this infirmity of body, right? Not ridiculous to the Greeks, but ridiculous to the demons, huh? He would come with this, what, weakness of body, right? But afterwards, having seen miracles, right, from a certain suspicion, they guessed, huh? You can check to Robert, it's guessed. Him to be the, what? Son of God. Whence upon that of Mark 1, I know that you are the Holy One of God, huh? Christism says, they did not have a, what, certain or firm knowledge of the coming of God, right, huh? They knew him to be the Christ promised in the law. Whence it is said, Luke chapter 4, because they knew him to be the Christ, the United One. he knew him to be the Christ, he knew him to be the Christ, he knew him to be the Christ, but, however, that they confessed him to be the Son of God was more from what? Suspicion and from certitude, right? Suspicion, Thomas, there is weaker than opinion, right? And, you know, he's in the praying with the logic there, right? Where opinion is the effect of dialectical reasoning and suspicion of rhetorical reasoning, right? Whence Bede says upon Luke that the demons confessed the Son of God, and as afterwards is said, they knew him to be the, what, anointed one, huh? But when the devil saw him weakened, fatigued by fasting, he understood him to be a true man, right? But when he did not succeed in tempting him, whether he was the Son of God, he, what, doubted, huh? Now, however, through the power of the signs, either he understood, or rather he suspected, right, him to be the Son of God, right, huh? Not, therefore, would he have, what, persuaded the Jews to crucify him, huh? Because Christ either did not think to be the Son of God, huh? But because he did not see that he himself would be damned by the death of him? Or seen that he would be the ruler. Yeah. About this mystery hidden from the ages, huh? The Apostle says that none of the princes of this world knew. If they had known, they would not have, what? Not have glory, yeah. So he didn't, yeah, make known his divinity fully to them, right? Now, so they would give glory to God, huh? To the third, it should be said that the miracles in the expulsion of demons, Christ did not do an account of the, what, benefit of the demons, but an account of its benefit to men, huh? That, yeah. And therefore, he prevented them to speak to his praise, right, huh? First, an account of the example, right, huh? Because, as Athanasian said, he, what, prevented them, their speech, right? Even though they were confessing two things, right, huh? That he might accustom us that we would not care about such things, right? Even if they speak, what, two things, huh? Because you might believe them, and they speak false things, right? Like, Macbeth, right? Macbeth, right? Yeah. They spoke, you know, hail, you know, king and son. The way that, I think it was in, he didn't permit them to speak. I mean, Simon Peter confessed to him, and he said, blessed are you. The demons confessed to him, and he said, shut up. I said, why? So we would never, so we would learn never to believe a liar even if he speaks the truth. Yeah, yeah. And Shakespeare talks about that a lot, in that great play there. For no one should be right when divine scripture is present to be instructed by the devil, right? Because it's dangerous, huh? Because with truth, frequently the demons accept lies, huh? Or as Christendom says, huh? It is not necessary, huh? No, not suitable for them to, what? Assert the glory of the apostolic office, huh? Nor should the mystic of Christ be published by a fetid tongue, huh? Because not beautiful is praise in the mouth of the, what, sinner, huh? Is that what's wrong? Third, because, as Bede says, huh? Because he did not wish from this to enkindle the envy of the Jews, huh? Hence also the apostles are ordered to be reticent about this, right? Lest the divine majesty being preached the dispensation of his passion would be deferred, right? We just had a gospel today. He used confession in Matthew and he said, strictly, don't tell anybody who's a cross. Because Chris is always telling somebody you don't publish them. They go, I don't publish, you know what he's done for them. And they were, I remember when Tom started talking, it was that sinful for them to not obey him, you know? Yeah, yeah. The more he told them, be quiet, the more he published. Okay, how about the harm being dumb and, you know, the pigs and so on, that property, huh? To the fourth, it should be said, huh? That Christ specially came to teach and to do miracles for the utility of men, right? But chiefly, as regards the salvation of their soul, right? He wasn't there to make you wealthy, right? And therefore, he permitted demons whom he cast out, right? To infer some harm to men, right? Either in their body or in their exterior possessions, right? In things. An account of the salvation of the human soul to the instruction of what? Men, huh? Whence Christendom says upon Matthew that Christ permitted to the demons to go into the pigs, right, huh? Not as if being persuaded by the demons, huh? But that he might, what, first instruct the magnitude of the harm of the demons who are... Like snares for men. Yeah. Secondly, that all might, what, learn that neither, even against the pigs, would they dare to do something, right? Unless he conceded it, right? He makes that point in his comment. Third, that he might show that the more grave things, huh, done in those men than in the porcs, unless they were aided by divine, what? Providence, huh? An account of the same causes, he permitted him who was liberated by the demons for some time to be more gravely afflicted, right, huh? From which, nevertheless, affliction he continuously, what? Liberate, huh? Through this also is shown, as Bede says, that often those, when they are, what, convert to God after their sins, attempt, huh? When you seek to... To return to God. Yeah, when you try to be converted to God after your sins, right? Oh, yeah. By greater and new attacks, right? The ancient enemy, right? We are attacked by them, right? Yeah. Which they do, that they might inculcate a hatred of virtue, right? Mm-hmm. Or they might vindicate the injury, their expulsion. The man healed is like dead, as Jerome says, huh? Because it's said to those killed, I mean, healed, you are dead and your life is hidden with Christ. God. I remember Warren showing me that the Dominican he was giving a retreat to the nuns, right? This is the text he's using, right? You know? Mortuost, he said. Vita vestra granites con Cristo in there. Okay, now the second article is a little more positive. He's relying upon Dionysius, right, who has more authority than he perhaps should have. They thought Dionysius was a Dionysius, well, converted by Paul in the Areopagus in Athens there. I guess it's in the Acts of the Apostles, right? Mm-hmm. So he's called Dionysius the Areopagus, and then Dionysius the Suda-Areopagus is a scriptural scholar. The Suda-Areopagus. The liar. The liar. The second one proceeds thus, it seems unsuitably that by Christ were made miracles about the heavenly, what? Bodies, huh? For as Dionysius says in the fourth chapter of the Divine Names, it does not belong to divine providence to corrupt the nature, but to save it, right? But the celestial bodies, according to their nature, are incorruptible and unalterable. Now, that's according to the teaching of Aristotle, right, huh? Maybe Plato, too, but you don't necessarily pretty agree with that, huh? Mm-hmm. As is shown in the first book about the universe, huh? De Chirobundo. Therefore, it was not suitable. Incidentally, I mentioned that before, but the Greek word there can mean the heavens or it can mean the whole universe, right? And the book is really about the universe, so it should be translated about the universe. But it's translated into Latin, De Chilo. It seemed to be not covering everything in the book. So, then you find it, given the title, De Chirobundo, right? De Chirobundo, okay? But it's a good example of how you talked about earlier about the word substance there, right? But the word is used both for what? Part of the whole. Yeah, the part and the whole, yeah. Therefore, it's not suitable that through Christ there might be some change about the order of celestial bodies, right? Now, you've got to take this to a grain of salt. We don't fully agree with this thing about the heavenly bodies. Moreover, according to the motion of the heavenly bodies, the course of time is designated, huh? So, we measure time for that. According to that of Genesis 1.14, there were lights in the firmament of heaven, and these are in signs for times and days and years, huh? Therefore, having changed the course of the heavenly bodies, the very distinction order of times has changed, huh? But this is not read to have been perceived by the astrologers, meaning astronomers, huh? Who contemplate the stars and compute the months, huh? As it said, Isaiah 47. Therefore, it seems that through Christ there was not any change made about the course of the heavenly bodies, huh? Moreover, it was more suitable for Christ to do miracles, living and teaching, than dying, because, as it said in 2 Corinthians, he was crucified from infirmity, but it is from the power of God, according to which he did miracles. Also, because his miracles were confirming his teaching, huh? But in his life, Christ is not read to have performed any miracle about the heavenly bodies, right, huh? Nay, the Pharisees asking from him a sign from heaven, wouldn't give it, yeah, refused to give it. Therefore, it seems that neither in death should he have, what, done some miracle about the heavenly bodies. I said, there would have been a reason to do it at that time, huh? Not before. But it is said in Luke 23 that there were, what, darkness and the whole earth until the ninth hour, when the sun was obscured, right, huh? In many ways this might take place, you know, and we come up in these, necessarily, long apply, you had secundum here, especially. I answer, it should be said, that as has been said above, the miracles of Christ ought to be such as to sufficiently show him to be, what, God, huh? But this over is not evidently shown through the changes of lower bodies, huh? Which can also be moved by other, what, causes. As it is to be shown through the transmutation or change of the course of the heavenly bodies, which, by God alone, are, what, unchangeably ordered, huh? And this is what Dionysius says in the epistle to Paul of Christ. It's necessary to know that not otherwise, huh, at some time it's able to be, what, change the motion of the order of the heavens, unless you have a cause, right, moving this, who made all things, right, and changes them according to his own speech. And therefore it was suitable that Christ do miracles even concerning the heavenly bodies, not to manifest more fully divinity, right? But maybe at the time of his death it's necessarily necessary to do so, huh? Now, is this against the nature of these bodies, huh? But to the first, therefore, it should be said that just as it is natural, huh, to the lower bodies to be moved by the heavenly bodies, huh, which are superior according to the order of nature. And, of course, the typical example of this is that the tides and so on are not unnatural, right, huh? Even though they're not, what, fouling from the nature of water by itself, right? But it's natural for them to be moved by their higher bodies, huh? So it is natural, right, to each creature that it be changed by God according to his, what, will, right? Once Augustine says in the 22nd book against Faust, as had in the gloss, Romans 11, then, God, the creator of all natures, right? Nihio contra naturum facet. There's nothing against nature, right, huh? Because that is the nature of each thing that he does. That's a marvelous thing, huh? And therefore, the nature of the heavenly bodies are not corrupted when their course is changed by God, huh? But they would be corrupted if, by some other cause, they were, what, changed, huh? Thomas in the chapter, the Summa Contagentia is about that, right? There's nothing against the nature of things, right? The miracles are not unnatural. Now, what about time, huh? To the second it should be said that through the miracle made by Christ, there was not perverted the order of, what, times, huh? For according to some, huh, those darknesses, or that obscuring, hiding of the sun, right, which happened in the Passion of Christ, right, was on account of this, that the sun with, what, withheld its rays, huh? But no change being made about the motion of the heavenly bodies, huh? According to which times are, what, measured, huh? Whence Jerome says upon Matthew, whence the luminous body, huh? More we drew its, what? Its rays, uh, lest, what? The sun is lower than man. Yeah. Yeah. The Indian would enjoy its light. The Indian would enjoy its light. Now, he says, such a retraction of rays should not be understood as if the sun in its own powers had to emit rays or to withdraw them, right, huh? For not from choice, but from nature it emits its rays, huh? As Dianysius says in the fourth chapter of the divine names. But the soul is said to withdraw its rays insofar as by the divine power it was done that the, uh, rays of the sun did not arrive at the earth, huh? Now, Origen says that this happened on account of the interposition of clouds, huh? Whence upon Matthew, he says, it should be understood that some most dark clouds, huh? And many of them, and great ones, ran together above Jerusalem, right, in the land of Judea, right, huh? And therefore there were made profound darknesses in the sixth hour until the... I remember waiting for a good Friday one year, and I was in grade school, you know, and I said, that should be really a dark day, you know. It's all right through the sun, you know. God didn't, God didn't. I think, therefore, that also, what, other signs were made in the Passion, right, huh? That the veil was cut or something, that the earth trembled, right, huh? That these were made only in Jerusalem, right? Yeah, one wishes to extend this to the land of Judea, right, huh? And kind of, of the fact that it said that the darknesses are made on the whole earth, right? Of course, it's going to be land. Yeah, whole land. Which is understood about the land of Judea, as it's said in the third book of the Kings. It says, Abdias to Elias. The Lord, your God, lives if there is a nation or a kingdom where God did not, what, seek you. Showing that he sought him in the nations which are around Judea. But about this more, one should believe Dionysius, right, huh? Who, aculata fide, huh? The eye of faith, expected this to have happened through the, what, coming between, of the moon, between us and the, what, sun, like an eclipse or something, huh? Yeah. Okulata. They have, who is an eyewitness, to, as to this having occurred by the moon. Oh, ok, that's a bit of a chance again. Yeah, because he did it with his own eyes, yeah. Yeah, temporary, that's what he said. Yeah, yeah. If he says in the epistle to Polycarp, right, contrary to opinion, right, huh? The sun, right, we saw, getting in between there? Yeah, yeah, yeah, that we saw the moon, yeah, also. In Egypt, right, existing, as it's said there, right, huh? He designates there for miracles, right? I don't know, it's all this report from Dionysius, they feed it, right? I don't think so, no. But it would be a miracle. Yeah. It would be a miracle because that time, the full moon, plus the day to get. And he designates there for miracles, huh? I wish the first is that the natural eclipse of the sun through the interposition of the moon never happens except in the time of the conjunction of the sun and the moon. But then there was a moon in opposition to the sun on the 15th day existing. Right, the middle of the month, that's the day. Which was the Paschal Feast of the Jews. Once, he said, it was not a, what, agreement of time? Yeah. The second miracle is that about the sixth hour, the sun was seen together with the sun in the middle of the heavens. In the evening, it appeared in its own place in the east, opposite the sun. Now, this is all Dionysius, right? Once, he says, and again, we saw it with the moon from the ninth hour, in which it withdrew from the sun. The darkness is disappearing or seizing until evening, right? It's supernaturally restored to the, what? The opposite of the sun. That is diametrically opposed to it, huh? And therefore, it is clear that it was not disturbed at the customary time of time, which, by divine power is made, and that to the soul, sun, supernaturally, it exceeded, outside its proper time, right? And receding from the sun, right? In its own place, it was restored in suitable time, huh? Okay, this is interesting, but I think you have to, it's the grain of salt, I think. The third miracle is, naturally, the eclipse of the sun always begins from the, what? Part, and arrives at the east. I didn't know that. And this, because the moon, according to its own motion, by which it has moved from the east, west to the east, is faster than the sun in its own motion. And therefore, the moon, from the west arriving, obtains the sun and goes across it, tending towards the east. But then the moon had already close the sun, and it was distant from it to the half of a circle. It's in the opposite. Once it was necessary that it revert to the east, towards the sun and attain it from the eastern part, receding against the west. And this is what is said, that the eclipse from the east we saw beginning and going so far as to the end of the sun, right? Mm-hmm. Because it eclipsed the whole afterwards retreating, huh? Tom's got all respect to this guy, but that was... The fourth miracle was that in the natural eclipse, from the same part began the sun, right? To reappear from the same part. From which it began to be obscured. Because the moon, subjecting itself to the sun, in its natural motion, goes across the sun towards the east, right? Mm-hmm. And thus, the, what, western part of the sun, which it first occupies, it first leaves. But then the moon miraculously from the east towards the west returning, did not, what, pass over the sun? And it would be more western, I guess. Yeah. But after it arrived at the end of the sun, it reversed back towards the east. Oh, correct. And thus, the part of the sun, which it last occupied, first also had left. And thus, from the eastern part, began the eclipse. But in the western part, began first to appear the clarity. And thus, it is what is said. And again, we see that not from the same, that is not from the same part of the sun, it was the defect in the, what, did not begin at the same point, do it on the same side of the sun, but on the opposite side. Mine's a note here. For, for, uh, repurgationum, right? Yeah. Qua interpreters, recent, see, or, recent interpreters, render per accursum and recursum. Oh, and recursum, so the, the meaning, and then what's drawn in it. Yeah. But it contrasts, it couldn't bear metrum factor. Now, the fifth miracle, Chrysostom adds upon Matthew 1, saying that three hours then, the darkness is, what, remained, when the eclipse of the sun, in the moment, what, passed over. Yeah. Does not have, what, a delay? Yeah. Would those know who consider. Whence is going to be understood that the sun rested upon, and then the sun. Rested upon the sun. Yeah. Unless we wish to say that the time of darkness is computed from the instant in which the soul, the sun began to be scared, to the instant in which it was totally repurged. Purged again. But, as Origen says upon Matthew, against this, the suns of this age say, in what way is this marvelous thing done that none of the Greeks or barbarians wrote about it? And he says that someone by the name of Phlegon, in his chronicles, wrote this in the beginning of the prince, the rule of, I guess, Tiberius Caesar was made, right then? But it does not signify that it was done in the full moon. Hmm. It is. It's possible, therefore, that this happened because the astrologers everywhere existing on the earth at that time were not solicitous about observing the eclipse, because it wasn't the time for it. But that obscurity from some passion of the air they thought happened. But the Egyptian, where clouds rarely appear on account of swimming into the air, Dionysius was moved and his companions, that they observed about it, the force had been guaranteed. I'll take that with a grain of salt, Tom. Salt from reverence, as they say. You see how, you know, one of these enemies of the church would say, you know, see how easy he is to fix up these stories. Now, what about the third objection here, right, which is that he was crucified from infirmity? Why should he be moved to the miracles? And like I was saying, to the third it should be said, that then especially was it necessary, through miracles, to show the divinity of Christ, when in him most of all appeared the infirmity according to, what, human nature. And therefore, in the birth of Christ, a new star appeared in the, what, heavens. When Maximus says in his sermon on nativity, if you, what, despise the manger, look up in a little bit your eyes, huh, and see a new star in the heavens, protesting to the world, the divinity, the divine birth, huh? But in the passion, still yet a greater infirmity about the amount of Christ appeared. And therefore, it's necessary that he show, that greater miracles show about the principle, what, luminaries of the world, right? And therefore, Christendom says upon Matthew, this is a sign that those, what, promise to those asking? Yeah, he promise to those who want. Saying, this depraved and adulterous generation demands a sign, and no sign will be given to accept the sign of John and the prophets, signifying the cross and resurrection. And this, much more marvelously, is in him who was crucified for this to come about, than walking upon the, what, birth. It's more appropriate to have the miracle at this time. He's crucified, and then we're going to have to stop here, huh? We're going to stop here, because we'll be finding three and then three. Three and four, and then we'll go into that transfiguration, which I'm dying to get to. Yeah, yeah. Yeah.