Confusion

Passages

Every passage tagged with this emotion in the Vela corpus. Search the body text, narrow by source or register, click through to a book’s profile to see how the passage sits with the rest of the work.

Page 105 of 112 · 20 per page

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  Reply. Neither riches, nor poverty, nor any other exterior condition is of itself the good of man. Such things are good only as tending to the good of reason. Hence vice may arise out of any of them, when they are not turned to man’s use according to the rule of reason. Still not for that are they to be accounted simply evil, but only the abuse of them is evil. Arg. 6. Virtue, lying in the mean, is spoilt by either extreme. There is a virtue called liberality, which consists in giving where one should give, and holding one’s hand where one should hold it. On the side of defect is the vice of stinginess, which holds its hand in all cases indiscriminately. On the side of excess is the vice of lavish giving away of everything, as is done by those who embrace voluntary poverty, a vice akin to prodigality. Reply. The golden mean is not determined according to quantity of exterior goods, but according to the rule of reason. Hence sometimes it happens that what is extreme in quantity of some exterior commodity is the mean according to the rule of reason. There is none who tends to great things more than the magnanimous man, or who in expenditure surpasses the munificent, or princely man. The rule of reason does not measure the mere quantity of commodity employed, but the condition of the person and his intention, fitness of place, time, and the like, also many conditions of virtue. Therefore one does not run counter to virtue by voluntary poverty, even though one abandon all things. Nor is this an act of prodigality, seeing that it is done with a due end and other due conditions. To expose oneself to death, under due conditions, is an act of fortitude and a virtue: yet that is going far beyond the abandonment of one’s possessions. CHAPTERS CXXXIII, CXXXVI OF VARIOUS MODES OF LIVING ADOPTED BY THE VOTARIES OF VOLUNTARY POVERTYFIRST MODE. The first mode is for the possessions of all to be sold, and all to live in common on [the capital fund accumulated by] the price, as was done under the Apostles at Jerusalem: As many as had possessions in lands or houses sold them, and laid the price at the feet of the Apostles, and division was made to each according to the need of each (Acts iv, 34, 35). Criticism. It is not easy to induce many men with great possessions to take up this mode of life; and if the amount realised out of the possessions of a few rich is divided among many recipients, it will not last long. Reply. This mode will do, but not for a long time. And therefore we do not read of the Apostles instituting this inode of living when they passed to the nations among whom the Church was to take root and endure.

• From Amplified Holy Bible (2015)

  7 “It may be that their supplication [for mercy] will come before the LORD , and everyone will turn from his evil way, for great is the anger and the wrath that the LORD has pronounced against this people.” 8 Baruch the son of Neriah did everything that Jeremiah the prophet commanded him, reading from [Jeremiah’s scroll] the words of the LORD in the LORD ’s house. 9 Now in the fifth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, in the ninth month, a fast was proclaimed before the LORD for all the people in Jerusalem and all the people who came to Jerusalem from the cities of Judah. 10 Then Baruch read to all the people the words of Jeremiah from the scroll of the book in the house of the LORD , in the chamber of Gemariah the son of Shaphan the scribe, in the upper court, at the entry of the New Gate of the LORD ’s house. 11 When Micaiah the son of Gemariah, the son of Shaphan, had heard all the words of the LORD from the scroll, 12 he went down to the king’s house, into the scribe’s chamber; and behold, all the princes were sitting there: Elishama the scribe, Delaiah the son of Shemaiah, Elnathan the son of Achbor, Gemariah the son of Shaphan, Zedekiah the son of Hananiah, and all the [other] princes. 13 Then Micaiah declared to them all the words that he had heard when Baruch read from the scroll to all the people. 14 Therefore all the princes sent Jehudi the son of Nethaniah, the son of Shelemiah, the son of Cushi, to Baruch, saying, “Take in your hand the scroll from which you have read to the people and come [to us].” So Baruch the son of Neriah took the scroll in his hand and went to them. 15 And they said to him, “Sit down now and read it to us.” So Baruch read it to them. 16 Now when they had heard all the words, they turned one to another in fear and said to Baruch, “We must surely report all these words to the king.” 17 And they asked Baruch, “Tell us now, how did you write all these words? At his (Jeremiah’s) dictation?” 18 Then Baruch answered them, “He dictated all these words to me, and I wrote them with ink on the scroll.” 19 Then the princes said to Baruch, “Go and hide, you and Jeremiah, and do not let anyone know where you are.” The Scroll Is Burned 20 Then they went into the court to the king, but they [first] put the scroll in the chamber of Elishama the scribe; then they reported all the words to the king. 21 So the king sent Jehudi to get the scroll, and he took it out of the chamber of Elishama the scribe. And Jehudi read it to the king and all the princes who stood beside the king.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  Now it is not difficult to see how both of these can be present in one and the same substance of the soul: that is, the possible intellect, which is in potency to all intelligible objects, and the agent intellect which makes them actually intelligible; because it is not impossible for a thing to be in potency and in act with respect to one and the same thing in different ways. Therefore, if we consider the phantasms themselves in relation to the human soul, in one respect they are found to be in potency, inasmuch as they are not abstracted from individuating conditions, although capable of being abstracted. In another respect they are found to be in act in relation to the soul, namely, inasmuch as they are [sensible] likenesses of determinate things. Therefore potentiality with respect to phantasms must be found within our soul so far as these phantasms are representative of determinate things. This belongs to the possible intellect which is, by its very nature, in potency to all intelligible objects, but is actuated by this or that object through species abstracted from phantasms. Our soul must also possess some active immaterial power which abstracts the phantasms themselves from material individuating conditions. This belongs to the agent intellect, so that it is, as it were, a power participated from the superior substance, God. Hence the Philosopher says [De Anima, III, 5, 430a 14] that the agent intellect is like a certain habit and light. In the Psalms it is also said: “The light of Thy countenance is signed upon us, O Lord” (Ps. 4:7). Something resembling this in a certain degree is apparent, in animals who see by night. The pupils of their eyes are in potency to every color inasmuch as they have no one determinate color actually, but make colors actually visible in some way by means of a certain innate light. Indeed, some men thought that the agent intellect does not differ from our habitus of indemonstrable principles. But this cannot be the case, because we certainly know indemonstrable principles by abstracting them from singulars, as the Philosopher teaches in the Posterior Analytics [II, 19, 100b 4]. Consequently the agent intellect must exist prior to the habitus of first indemonstrable principles in order to be the cause of it. Indeed, the principles themselves are related to the agent intellect as certain of its instruments, because the intellect makes things actually intelligible by means of such principles.

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  The Church of Geneva consisted of all baptized and professing Christians subject to discipline. It had, at the time of Calvin, a uniform creed; Romanists and sectarians being excluded. It was represented and governed by the Venerable Company and the Consistory. 1. The Venerable Company was a purely clerical body, consisting of all the pastors of the city and district of Geneva. It had no political power. It was intrusted with the general supervision of all strictly ecclesiastical affairs, especially the education, qualification, ordination, and installation of the ministers of the gospel. But the consent of the civil government and the congregation was necessary for the final induction to the ministry. Thus the pastors and the people were to co-operate. 2. The Consistory or Presbytery was a mixed body of clergymen and laymen, and larger and more influential than the Venerable Company. It represented the union of Church and State. It embraced, at the time of Calvin, five city Pastors and twelve Seniors or Lay-Elders, two of whom were selected from the Council of Sixty and ten from the Council of Two Hundred. The laymen, therefore, had the majority; but the clerical element was comparatively fixed, while the Elders were elected annually under the influence of the clergy. A Syndic was the constitutional head.703 Calvin never presided in form, but ruled the proceedings in fact by his superior intelligence and weighty judgment.704 The Consistory went into operation immediately after the adoption of the Ordinances, and met every Thursday. The reports begin from the tenth meeting, which was held on Thursday, Feb. 16, 1542.705 The duty of the Consistory was the maintenance and exercise of discipline. Every house was to be visited annually by a Minister and Elder. To facilitate the working of this system the city was divided into three parishes—St. Peter’s, the Magdalen, and St. Gervais. Calvin officiated in St. Peter’s. The Consistorial Court was the controlling power in the Church of Geneva. It has often been misrepresented as a sort of tribunal of Inquisition or Star Chamber. But it could only use the spiritual sword, and had nothing to do with civil and temporal punishments, which belonged exclusively to the Council. The names of Gruet, Bolsec, and Servetus do not even appear in its records.706 Calvin wrote to the ministers of Zürich, Nov. 26, 1553: "The Consistory has no civil jurisdiction, but only the right to reprove according to the Word of God, and its severest punishment is excommunication."707 He wisely provided for the preponderance of the lay-element.

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  To the envoys who found John at Breisach, April 23, he gave his promise to return with them to Constance the next morning; but with his usual duplicity, he attempted to escape during the night, and was let down from the castle by a ladder, disguised as a peasant. He was soon seized, and ultimately handed over by Sigismund to Louis III., of the Palatinate, for safe-keeping. In the meantime the council forbade any of the delegates to leave Constance before the end of the proceedings, on pain of excommunication and the loss of dignities. Its fourth and fifth sessions, beginning April 6, 1415, mark an epoch in the history of ecclesiastical statement. The council declared that, being assembled legitimately in the Holy Spirit, it was an oecumenical council and representing the whole Church, had its authority immediately from Christ, and that to it the pope and persons of every grade owed obedience in things pertaining to the faith and to the reformation of the Church in head and members. It was superior to all other ecclesiastical tribunals.307 This declaration, stated with more precision than the one of Pisa, meant a vast departure from the papal theory of Innocent III. and Boniface VIII. Gerson, urging this position in his sermon before the council, March 23, 1415, said308 the gates of hell had prevailed against popes, but not against the Church. Joseph was set to guard his master’s wife, not to debauch her, and when the pope turned aside from his duty, the Church had authority to punish him. A council has the right by reason of the vivifying power of the Holy Spirit to prolong itself, and may, under certain conditions, assemble without call of pope or his consent.

• From Emotional Beats: How to Easily Convert your Writing into Palpable Feelings (2018)

  Moody — temperamental, changeable, short-tempered, glum, morose, sullen, mopish, irritable, testy, peevish, fretful, spiteful, sulky, touchy. Neat — clean, orderly, tidy, trim, dapper, natty, smart, elegant, well-organized, super, desirable, spruce, shipshape, well-kept, shapely. New — fresh, unique, original, unusual, novel, modern, current, recent. Old — feeble, frail, ancient, weak, aged, used, worn, dilapidated, ragged, faded, broken-down, former, old-fashioned, outmoded, passé, veteran, mature, venerable, primitive, traditional, archaic, conventional, customary, stale, musty, obsolete, extinct. Part — portion, share, piece, allotment, section, fraction, fragment. Place — space, area, spot, plot, region, location, situation, position, residence, dwelling, set, site, station, status, state. Plan — plot, scheme, design, draw, map, diagram, procedure, arrangement, intention, device, contrivance, method, way, blueprint. Popular — well-liked, approved, accepted, favorite, celebrated, common, current. Predicament — quandary, dilemma, pickle, problem, plight, spot, scrape, jam. Put — place, set, attach, establish, assign, keep, save, set aside, effect, achieve, do, build. Quiet — silent, still, soundless, mute, tranquil, peaceful, calm, restful. Right — correct, accurate, factual, true, good, just, honest, upright, lawful, moral, proper, suitable, apt, legal, fair. Run — race, speed, hurry, hasten, sprint, dash, rush, escape, elope, flee. Say/Tell — inform, notify, advise, relate, recount, narrate, explain, reveal, disclose, divulge, declare, command, order, bid, enlighten, instruct, insist, teach, train, direct, issue, remark, converse, speak, affirm, suppose, utter, negate, express, verbalize, voice, articulate, pronounce, deliver, convey, impart, assert, state, allege, mutter, mumble, whisper, sigh, exclaim, yell, sing, yelp, snarl, hiss, grunt, snort, roar, bellow, thunder, boom, scream, shriek, screech, squawk, whine, philosophize, stammer, stutter, lisp, drawl, jabber, protest, announce, swear, vow, content, assure, deny, dispute. Scared — afraid, frightened, alarmed, terrified, panicked, fearful, unnerved, insecure, timid, shy, skittish, jumpy, disquieted, worried, vexed, troubled, disturbed, horrified, terrorized, shocked, petrified, haunted, timorous, shrinking, tremulous, stupefied, paralyzed, stunned, apprehensive. Show — display, exhibit, present, note, point to, indicate, explain, reveal, prove, demonstrate, expose. Slow — unhurried, gradual, leisurely, late, behind, tedious, slack. Stop — cease, halt, stay, pause, discontinue, conclude, end, finish, quit. Story — tale, myth, legend, fable, yarn, account, narrative, chronicle, epic, sage, anecdote, record, memoir. Strange — odd, peculiar, unusual, unfamiliar, uncommon, queer, weird, outlandish, curious, unique, exclusive, irregular. Take — hold, catch, seize, grasp, win, capture, acquire, pick, choose, select, prefer, remove, steal, lift, rob, engage, bewitch, purchase, buy, retract, recall, assume, occupy, consume. Tell — disclose, reveal, show, expose, uncover, relate, narrate, inform, advise, explain, divulge, declare, command, order, bid, recount, repeat. Think — judge, deem, assume, believe, consider, contemplate, reflect, mediate. Trouble — distress, anguish, anxiety, worry, wretchedness, pain, danger, peril, disaster, grief, misfortune, difficulty, concern, pains, inconvenience, exertion, effort. True — accurate, right, proper, precise, exact, valid, genuine, real, actual, trusty, steady, loyal, dependable, sincere, staunch. Ugly — hideous, frightful, frightening, shocking, horrible, unpleasant, monstrous, terrifying, gross, grisly, ghastly, horrid, unsightly, plain, homely, evil, repulsive, repugnant, gruesome. Unhappy — miserable, uncomfortable, wretched, heart-broken, unfortunate, poor, downhearted, sorrowful, depressed, dejected, melancholy, glum, gloomy, dismal, discouraged, sad. Use — employ, utilize, exhaust, spend, expend, consume, exercise.

• From Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (1990)

  It is all impersonation, whether the sex underneath is true or not.” —Parker Tyler, “The Garbo Image” quoted in Esther Newton, Mother Camp Categories of true sex, discrete gender, and specific sexuality have constituted the stable point of reference for a great deal of feminist theory and politics. These constructs of identity serve as the points of epistemic departure from which theory emerges and politics itself is shaped. In the case of feminism, politics is ostensibly shaped to express the interests, the perspectives, of “women.” But is there a political shape to “women,” as it were, that precedes and prefigures the political elaboration of their interests and epistemic point of view? How is that identity shaped, and is it a political shaping that takes the very morphology and boundary of the sexed body as the ground, surface, or site of cultural inscription? What circumscribes that site as “the female body”? Is “the body” or “the sexed body” the firm foundation on which gender and systems of compulsory sexuality operate? Or is “the body” itself shaped by political forces with strategic interests in keeping that body bounded and constituted by the markers of sex? The sex/gender distinction and the category of sex itself appear to presuppose a generalization of “the body” that preexists the acquisition of its sexed significance. This “body” often appears to be a passive medium that is signified by an inscription from a cultural source figured as “external” to that body. Any theory of the cultural constructed body, however, ought to question “the body” as a construct of suspect generality when it is figured as passive and prior to discourse. There are Christian and Cartesian precedents to such views which, prior to the emergence of vitalistic biologies in the nineteenth century, understand “the body” as so much inert matter, signifying nothing or, more specifically, signifying a profane void, the fallen state: deception, sin, the premonitional metaphorics of hell and the eternal feminine. There are many occasions in both Sartre’s and Beauvoir’s work where “the body” is figured as a mute facticity, anticipating some meaning that can be attributed only by a transcendent consciousness, understood in Cartesian terms as radically immaterial. But what establishes this dualism for us? What separates off “the body” as indifferent to signification, and signification itself as the act of a radically disembodied consciousness or, rather, the act that radically disembodies that consciousness? To what extent is that Cartesian dualism presupposed in phenomenology adapted to the structuralist frame in which mind/body is redescribed as culture/nature? With respect to gender discourse, to what extent do these problematic dualisms still operate within the very descriptions that are supposed to lead us out of that binarism and its implicit hierarchy? How are the contours of the body clearly marked as the taken-for-granted ground or surface upon which gender significations are inscribed, a mere facticity devoid of value, prior to significance?

• From White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America (2016)

  the lower number of a three-to-one margin in illiteracy rates between slave and northern states. Wayne Flynt noted that the 1850 federal census announced that illiteracy rates among whites were 20.3 percent in the slave states, 3 percent in the middle states, and .42 percent in New England. That makes it over 40:1 with New England and 7:1 for the middle states. See Wayne Flynt, Dixie’s Forgotten People: The South’s Poor Whites (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1979), 8. On the call for a Confederate publishing trade, see Michael T. Bernath, Confederate Minds: The Struggle for Intellectual Independence in the Civil War South (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2013). 23 . See “The Differences of Race Between the Northern and Southern People,” Southern Literary Messenger ( June 1, 1860): 401–9, esp. 403. On patrician rule in the South, see Frank Alfriend, “A Southern Republic and Northern Democracy,” S outhern Literary Messenger (May 1, 1863): 283–90. On tempting the poor, see “Message of Gov. Joseph E. Brown,” November 7, 1860, in The Confederate Records of Georgia, ed. Allen D. Candler, 5 vols. (Atlanta, 1909–11), 1:47; William W. Freehling and Craig M. Simpson, Secession Debated: Georgia Showdown in 1860 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992); Bernard E. Powers Jr., “‘The Worst of All Barbarism’: Racial Anxiety and the Approach of Secession in the Palmetto State,” South Carolina Historical Magazine 112, no. 3/4 (July–October 2011): 139–56, esp. 151; Harris, Plain Folk and Gentry, 134. And on vigilante societies and “Minute Men” companies, see West, From Yeoman to Redneck, 68–69, 76–81, 84, 91–92. Northern observers in the southern states wrote that many poor whites opposed secession but felt “forced to maintain silence.” See “The Poor Whites at the South—Letter from a Milwaukee Man in Florida,” Milwaukee Daily Sentinel, April 15, 1861. Alfriend repeated the same argument as Governor Brown, that the Lincoln administration would win over the poor whites by “all the glozing arts at the command of himself and his adroit advisers, he will flatter the vanity and pamper the grasping and indolent propensities of the people for federal bounties and cheap lands,” and that the Republican message will peculate down to the “lower strata of Southern society.” He also predicted that what awaited the South was either a war of conquest or a class war: “If not conquest, it will be civil war, not between the North and South, but between the slaveholder and the non-slaveholder backed by the North.” See “Editor’s Table,” Southern Literary Messenger (December 1, 1860): 468–74, esp 472. 24 . James D. B. De Bow was a South Carolinian who relocated to New Orleans to publish his own periodical. At first titled the Commercial Review of the South and West, it later became De Bow’s Review. Although early in his career he advocated public education and industrialization in the South, he fully embraced the secessionist rhetoric that “cotton is King” and slavery was the major source of the South’s superiority. De Bow published The Interest in Slavery of the Southern Non-Slaveholder as a pamphlet in 1860, and then republished the piece as articles in the Charleston Mercury and De Bow’s Review . See James De Bow, “The Non-Slaveholders of the South: Their Interest in the Present Sectional Controversy Identical with That of Slaveholders,” De Bow’s Review, vol. 30 (January 1861): 67–77; Eric H. Walther, “Ploughshares Come Before Philosophy: James D. B. De Bow,” in The Fire-Eaters (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1992), 195–227; and Sinha, The Counter-Revolution of Slavery, 234. Governor Joseph Brown of Georgia made a similar appeal to poor whites; he praised the high wages in the South, and warned that if slavery was eliminated poor whites would lose legal and social status and slaves would plunder those living in the mountainous region of the state—a region known for a high proportion of poorer nonslaveholders. Elite secessionists praised his appeal and felt it was “well calculated to arouse them” to the cause of secession and would fortify their minds against all appeals that might “array the poor against the wealthy.” See Johnson, Toward a Patriarchal Republic, 49–51. 25 . Rable, The Confederate Republic, 32–35, 40–42, 50–51, 60–61; Johnson, Toward a Patriarchal Republic, 63–65, 110, 117–23, 153, 156; William C. Davis, Jefferson Davis: The Man and His Hour (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1991), 308; Stephanie McCurry, Confederate Reckoning: Power and Politics in the Civil War South (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010), 51, 55, 63, 75, 81; and G. Edward White, “Recovering the Legal History of the Confederacy,” Washington and Lee Legal Review 68 (2011): 467–554, esp. 483. The Southern Literary Messenger felt that constitutional reform should restrict the franchise from “classes incapable of exercising it judicially,”

• From Sex in the Sea: Our Intimate Connection with Kinky Crustaceans, Sex-Changing Fish, Romantic Lobsters, and Other Salty Erotica of the Deep (2016)

  press their vents closely together: Like the vast majority of fish, haddock and cod are external fertilizers, releasing both eggs and sperm into the water column. In many species, pair-spawning is a common strategy for helping close the gap between sperm and egg in a swirling sea. More on how all that works in Act III. Cod sex also culminates: Jeffrey A Hutchings, Todd D. Bishop, and Carolyn R. McGregor-Shaw, “Spawning behaviour of Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua: Evidence of mate competition and mate choice in a broadcast spawner,” Can. J. Fish Aquat Sci 56 (1999): 97–104. different fishing techniques can cramp: Sherrylynn Rowe and Jeffrey A. Hutchings, “Mating systems and the conservation of commercially exploited marine fish,” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 18(11) (2003): 567–572, doi:10.1016/j.tree.2003.09.004. all males in a population sing the same song: Daryl J. Boness, Phillip J. Clapham, and Sarah L. Mesnick, 2002. “Life History and Reproductive Strategies,” in Marine Mammal Biology: An Evolutionary Approach, ed. A. Rus Hoelzel (Oxford: Blackwell Science, 2002), 278–324. humpback whales also produce hit singles: Ellen C. Garland et al., “Dynamic horizontal cultural transmission of humpback whale song at the ocean basin scale,” Current Biology (2011), doi:10.1016/j.cub.2011.03.019. there are about four males to every female: K. C. Hall and R. Hanlon, “Principal features of the mating system of a large spawning aggregation of the giant Australian cuttlefish Sepia apama (Mollusca: Cephalopoda),” Marine Biology 140(3) (2002): 533–545, doi:10.1007/s00227-001-0718-0. to easily fool a bigger male: R. T. Hanlon et al., “Transient sexual mimicry leads to fertilization,” Nature 433 (2005): 212. deception is taken a half step further: C. Brown, M. P. Garwood, and J. E. Williamson, “It pays to cheat: Tactical deception in a cephalopod social signaling system,” Biology Letters 8 (2012): 729–732. females fake having male parts: Elizabeth Preston summarizes this fascinating feature in her article “For disguise, female squid turn on fake testes,” Inkfish (blog), Discover, October 10, 2014, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/inkfish/2014/10/10/#.VdF2lixViko. developing absolutely enormous testes: Robert R. Warner, “Synthesis: Environment, Mating Systems, and Life History Allocations in the Bluehead Wrasse,” in Model Systems in Behavioral Ecology: Integrating Conceptual, Theoretical, and Empirical Approaches, ed. L. A. Dugatkin (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001), 227–244. their testes shrink way down: This is an example of some of the colorful details provided by Warner during our conversation about bluehead wrasse, November 19, 2014. there are simply too many wrasse: Warner, “Synthesis.” Chapter Three: Flex Your Sex in some situations: Many of the details about how sex change works in marine fish came from my interviews of Dr. Robert Warner of University of California, Santa Barbara, and Dr. Matthew Grober of Georgia State University. For an overview of the theory of sex change, see Roldan C. Muñoz and Robert R. Warner, “A new version of the size-advantage hypothesis for sex change: Incorporating sperm competition and size-fecundity skew,” American Naturalist 161(5) (2003): 749–761, and Robert R. Warner, “The adaptive significance of sequential hermaphroditism in animals,” American Naturalist 109(965) (1975): 61–82.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  1157. Secondly, at (905) he mentions something that could lead someone to suppose that there is a finite power in an infinite magnitude. For we see some lesser magnitude that has greater energy than a larger magnitude, as a small amount of fire has more active power than a large amount of air. But that does not permit us to conclude that an infinite quantity has a finite power, because if a still greater magnitude is taken, it will have greater power; for example, even though a greater quantity of air has less power than a small fire, yet if the quantity of air be much increased, it will have more power than the small fire. 1158. Thirdly, at (906) he presents his intended demonstration: Let AB be an infinite quantity, and BC a finite magnitude of another kind, having a finite power; let D be a mobile that is being moved by the magnitude BC in time EZ. But because BC is a finite magnitude, it is possible to take a larger magnitude; let us therefore take one which is in double proportion. Now, the greater the power of a moving cause, the more it moves in less time, as was proved in Book VII. Therefore, the double of BC will move the same mobile, namely, D in one-half the time, namely, ZT, so that the time EZ is bisected by the point T. By continually adding to BC, the time of the motion will be decreased, yet no matter how much is added to BC, it can never traverse AB, which exceeds BC beyond any proportion, as the infinite exceeds the finite. And since AB has finite power, it moves D in a finite time. Consequently, by continually lessening the time BC consumes in moving, we shall reach a time less than the time consumed by AB in its action of moving, because every finite is surpassed by dividing. It will follow, therefore, that the lesser power will move in less time, and this is impossible. What remains, therefore, is that there was an infinite power in the infinite magnitude, for the power of the infinite magnitude exceeded every finite power. This has been proved by subtracting time, because every finite power must have some determinate time in which it causes motion. This is clear from the following consideration: If so much power acts in so much time, a greater power will move in a time smaller but yet definite, i.e., finite, according to an inverse proportion, such that, by as much as is added to the power, by so much is the time decreased. Consequently, no matter how much is added to a finite power, so long as the power remains finite, so will the time always remain finite, for a time will be reached that will be as much less than a previously given time as the power growing by addition is greater than a power previously given.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  Reply to the Fifth Objection. According to Augustine (Gen. ad lit. v, 5) the angels’ knowledge of God is not derived from visible creatures: wherefore the visible creature was made that it might manifest God not to the angels, but to the rational creature which is man: so that this proves to be the end of creatures. Now the end though it is first in intention is the last in execution, wherefore man was made last. Reply to the Sixth Objection. According to Augustine (Super Gen. i, 5) the creation of heaven and earth did not precede in duration the formation or production of light, wherefore he does not mean to say that the spiritual nature was created before the first day by a priority of duration, but by a kind of natural order: because the spiritual substance and formless matter considered in their respective essences are not subject to the changes of time. Consequently we cannot infer that the spiritual creature was formed before the corporeal, since even before the formation of light mention is made of the creation of the corporeal creature denoted by the earth. According to others the creation of heaven and earth belongs to the first day, because together with them time was created: although the division of time into day and night began with light: hence time is stated to be one of the four things first created, namely the angelic nature, the empyrean heaven, formless matter and time. Reply to the Seventh Objection. Jerome is expressing himself in accordance with the opinion of the early doctors. Reply to the Eighth Objection. This argument would avail were each creature brought into being as existing absolutely by itself: for then it would be fitting for each one to be created separately according to the degree of its goodness. Seeing, however, that all creatures are produced as parts of one universe, it was fitting that all should be produced together so as to form one universe. Reply to the Ninth Objection. Although it would conduce to a certain dignity of the spiritual creature were it created before the visible creature, it would not conduce to the, dignity and unity of the universe.

• From Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years (2009)

  theological revolution of 518, but from his exile among friends in the safety of Egypt, Severus remained a powerful voice as the factions struggled for dominance at the imperial Court. In 527 there came to the throne one of the most significant emperors in the history of Byzantium: Justinian, nephew and adopted son of Justin, who was destined to do so much to transform the former Eastern Roman Empire (see pp. 429–31). He was torn between his wish to preserve the fragile agreement of 519 with Rome and his continuing awareness of Miaphysite partisanship in the East – not least from his energetic and unconventional wife, Theodora, who became an active sympathizer with the Miaphysite cause, very ready to express her own opinions and act on them. Some extraordinary double messages began emerging from the imperial Court.9 Justinian sought repeatedly to make concessions to the Miaphysites, but also fitfully treated them as dangerous rebels, and remained open to advice or active intervention from the pope. In 535 and 536 there were starkly contrasting choices to fill key bishoprics: following Theodora’s intervention in the episcopal election in Alexandria, an avowed Miaphysite called Theodosius became bishop there. Yet in Constantinople, Bishop Anthimus, a Miaphysite sympathizer, was forced out after Pope Agapetus, who happened to have travelled east on a diplomatic mission to the Emperor, directly lobbied Justinian for his removal. The exiled Bishop Severus was faced with condemnation by a synod of pro- Chalcedonian bishops; against a background of increasing repression and even executions of Miaphysite sympathizers, he made a decision with great significance for the future. He gave his blessing to discreet consecrations of bishops who would be reliable Miaphysites: a complete parallel succession to their rivals backed by the Emperor. When Theodosius was likewise swiftly deprived of the see of Alexandria in 536, the Empress secretly made sure that he had a safe refuge in Constantinople, and, like Severus, Bishop Theodosius began to build up a Miaphysite alternative to the Chalcedonian Church. The Empress’s protégés even began spreading Miaphysite Christianity beyond the formal boundaries of the empire. To the south of Egypt, the King of Nobatia (a northern kingdom of Nubia) was converted in the 540s, turning what had previously been a small cult into a Court religion. Christianity eventually spread eastwards through much of what is now Sudan, halfway to the Niger as far as Darfur, and remnants of it survived in one Nubian kingdom into the eighteenth century. Archaeology has revealed the ruins of superb churches, some of which have preserved extensive remains of wall paintings in a tradition created over several centuries depicting biblical scenes, saints or leading bishops.10 Like the Copts, Nubian Christians achieved a blend of Greek culture with their own, using both Greek and their vernacular in their worship. Fragments of

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  Nevertheless, it is difficult to see how anything can be generated from them. For it is quite evident that nothing is generated out of the body and blood of Christ which are truly there, because these are incorruptible. But if the substance, or even the matter, of the bread and wine were to remain in this sacrament, then, as some have maintained, it would be easy to account for this sensible object which succeeds to them. But that supposition is false, as was stated above ([4577]Q[75], AA[2],4,8). Hence it is that others have said that the things generated have not sprung from the sacramental species, but from the surrounding atmosphere. But this can be shown in many ways to be impossible. In the first place, because when a thing is generated from another, the latter at first appears changed and corrupted; whereas no alteration or corruption appeared previously in the adjacent atmosphere; hence the worms or ashes are not generated therefrom. Secondly, because the nature of the atmosphere is not such as to permit of such things being generated by such alterations. Thirdly, because it is possible for many consecrated hosts to be burned or putrefied; nor would it be possible for an earthen body, large enough to be generated from the atmosphere, unless a great and, in fact, exceedingly sensible condensation of the atmosphere took place. Fourthly, because the same thing can happen to the solid bodies surrounding them, such as iron or stone, which remain entire after the generation of the aforesaid things. Hence this opinion cannot stand, because it is opposed to what is manifest to our senses.

• From Little Birds (1979)

  “You must not give that first surrender so much importance. I think that was created by the people who wanted to preserve their daughters for marriage, the idea that the first man who takes a woman will have complete power over her. I think that is a superstition. It was created to help preserve women from promiscuity. It is actually untrue. If a man can make himself be loved, if he can rouse a woman, then she will be attracted to him. But the mere act of breaking through her virginity is not enough to accomplish this. Any man can do this and leave the woman unaroused. Did you know that many Spaniards take their wives this way and give them many children without completely initiating them sexually just to be sure of their faithfulness? The Spaniard believes in keeping pleasure for his mistress. In fact, if he sees a woman enjoy sensuality, he immediately suspects her of being faithless, even of being a whore.” The illustrator’s words haunted me for days. Then I was faced with a new problem. Summer had come and the painters were leaving for the country, for the beach, for far-off places in all directions. I did not have the money to follow them, and I was not sure how much work I would get. One morning I posed for an illustrator named Ronald. Afterwards he set the phonograph going and asked me to dance. While we were dancing he said, “Why don’t you come to the country for a while? It will do you good, you will get plenty of work, and I will pay for your trip. There are very few good models there. I am sure you will be kept busy.” So I went. I took a little room in a farmhouse. Then I went to see Ronald, who lived down the road in a shed, into which he had built a huge window. The first thing he did was to blow his cigarette smoke into my mouth. I coughed. “Oh,” he said, “you don’t know how to inhale.” “I’m not at all interested,” I said, getting up. “What kind of pose do you want?” “Oh,” he said laughing, “we don’t work so hard here. You will have to learn to enjoy yourself a little. Now, take the smoke from my mouth and inhale it . . . “I don’t like to inhale.” He laughed again. He tried to kiss me. I moved away. “Oh, oh,” he said, “you are not going to be a very pleasant companion for me. I paid for your trip, you know, and I’m lonely down here. I expected you to be very pleasant company. Where is your suitcase?” “I took a room down the road.” “But you were invited to stay with me,” he said. “I understood you wanted me to pose for you.” “For the moment it is not a model I need.”

• From History of the Christian Church: The Complete Set of Eight Volumes (1858)

  written text: the Hebrew Matthew and the Greek proto-Mark; (2) Gospels partly original and partly second-handed: our canonical Gospels falsely attributed to Matthew, Mark, and Luke; (3) Gospels of the second and third hand: Marcion’s and the Apocryphal Gospels. V. The theory of a common Oral Tradition (Traditionshypothese). Herder (1796), Gieseler (who first fully developed it, 1818), Schulz (1829), Credner, Lange, Ebrard (1868), Thiersch (1845, 1852), Norton, Alford, Westcott (1860, 6th ed., 1881), Godet (1873), Keil (1877), and others. The Gospel story by constant repetition assumed or rather had from the beginning a uniform shape, even in minute particulars, especially in the words of Christ. True, as far as it goes, but must be supplemented, at least in the case of Luke, by pre-canonical, fragmentary documents or memoranda (dihghvsei"). See the text. VI. The Tendency hypothesis (Tendenzhypothese), or the theory of Doctrinal Adaptation. Baur (1847) and the Tübingen school (Schwegler, Ritschl, Volkmar, Hilgenfeld, Köstlin), followed in England by Samuel Davidson (in his Introd. to the New Test., 1868, revised ed., 1882). Each Evangelist modified the Gospel history in the interest of the religious school or party to which he belonged. Matthew represents the Jewish Christian, Luke the Pauline or Gentile Christian tendency, Mark obliterates the difference, or prepares the way from the first to the second. Every individual trait or characteristic feature of a Gospel is connected with the dogmatic antithesis between Petrinism and Paulinism. Baur regarded Matthew as relatively the most primitive and credible Gospel, but it is itself a free reproduction of a still older Aramaic Gospel "according to the Hebrews." He was followed by an Urlukas, a purely Pauline tendency Gospel. Mark is compiled from our Matthew and the Urlukas in the interest of neutrality. Then followed the present Luke with an irenical Catholic tendency. Baur overstrained the difference between Petrinism and Paulinism far beyond the limits of historic truth, transformed the sacred writers into a set of partisans and fighting theologians after modem fashion, set aside the fourth Gospel as a purely ideal fiction, and put all the Gospels about seventy years too far down (130–170), when they were already generally used in the Christian church—according to the concurrent testimonies of Justin Martyr, Tatian, Irenaeus, and Tertullian. Volkmar went even beyond Baur in reckless radicalism, although he qualified it in other respects, as regards the priority of Mark, the originality of Luke (as compared with Marcion), and the date of Matthew which he put back to about 110. See a summary of his views in Hilgenfeld’s Einleitung, pp. 199–202. But Ritschl and Hilgenfeld have considerably moderated the Tübingen extravagancies. Ritschl puts Mark first, and herein Volkmar agrees. Hilgenfeld assigns the composition of Matthew to the sixth decade of the first century (though he thinks it was somewhat changed soon after the destruction of Jerusalem), then followed Mark and paved the way from Petrinism to Paulinism, and Luke wrote last before the close of the first century.

• From Models for Writers: Short Essays for Composition (2018)

  And despite all these ways of using his “trophies,” the photographer continues to preserve his prey. — Barbara Bowman, student. [image file=Image00004.gif] Using AnalogyAnalogy is a special form of comparison. When a subject is unobservable, complex, or abstract — when it is so unfamiliar that readers may have trouble understanding it — analogy can be effective. By pointing out certain similarities between a difficult subject and a more familiar or concrete subject, writers can help their readers grasp the difficult subject. Unlike a true comparison, though, which analyzes items that belong to the same class (breeds of dogs or types of engines), analogy pairs things from different classes that have nothing in common except through the imagination of the writer. In addition, whereas comparison seeks to illuminate specific features of both subjects, the primary purpose of analogy is to clarify the one subject that is complex or unfamiliar. For example, to explore the similarities (and differences) between short stories and novels (two forms of fiction), you would probably choose comparison. Short stories and novels belong to the same class (fiction), and your purpose is to reveal something about both. If, however, your purpose is to explain the craft of fiction writing, you might note its similarities to the craft of carpentry. In this case you would be drawing an analogy because the two subjects clearly belong to different classes. Carpentry is the more concrete subject and the one more people will have direct experience with. If you use your imagination, you will easily see many ways that the tangible work of the carpenter can be used to help readers understand the abstract work of the novelist. Depending on its purpose, an analogy can be made in a sentence or in several paragraphs to clarify a particular aspect of the larger topic being discussed, or it can provide the organizational strategy for an entire essay. Consider the following analogy: People are like stained-glass windows. They sparkle and shine when the sun is out, but when the darkness sets in, their true beauty is revealed only if there is a light from within. — Elisabeth Kübler-Ross An analogy can also help a writer address an abstract issue. In the following, the Harvard Nuclear Study Group raise the questions “What is the balance between American and Soviet nuclear arsenals? Who is ahead?” When the question is asked in this manner, it might appear easy to give a definitive and objective answer. Unfortunately, this is not the case. No definitive answer is possible. This can best be understood by way of analogy. Comparing the nuclear arsenals of the superpowers is like comparing the strengths of two football teams. Each team may be stronger in some departments: one in running, the other in passing; one in special teams, the other in placekicking. Specialists try to predict the winner by comparing, for example, one side’s aerial attack with the other side’s pass defense. This is a better comparison than contrasting the quarterbacks or receivers.

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  Again. The effect proceeds from the active cause by the latter’s action. But God’s action is eternal: else He would become an actual agent from being an agent in potentiality: and it would be necessary for Him to be reduced to actuality by some previous agent, which is impossible. Therefore the things created by God have been from eternity. Moreover. Given a sufficient cause, its effect must necessarily be granted. For if, given the cause, it were still unnecessary to grant its effect, it would be therefore possible that, given the cause, the effect would be or not be. Therefore the sequence of the effect to its cause would only be possible: and what is possible, requires something to reduce it to actuality. Hence it will be necessary to suppose some cause whereby it comes about that the effect is made actual, and thus the first cause was not sufficient. But God is the sufficient cause of creatures being produced: else He would not be a cause; rather would He be in potentiality to a cause: since He would become a cause by the addition of something: which is impossible. Therefore it would seem necessary, since God is from eternity, that the creature was also from eternity.

• From The Erotic Mind (1995)

  Not at all important [-0-1-2-3-4-] Very important e. Guilt (related emotions: remorse, naughtiness, dirtiness, and shame) Not at all important [-0-1-2-3-4-] Very important f. Anger (related emotions: hostility, contempt, hatred, resentment, and revenge) Not at all important [-0-1-2-3-4-] Very important 16. Before or during this experience, which of the following drugs did you use? (note as many as apply) a. None b. Alcohol c. Barbiturates/tranquilizers (“downers”) d. Stimulants (cocaine, “speed”) e. Marijuana f. Nitrite inhalants (“poppers”) g. Psychedelics (LSD, “ecstasy,” etc.) PART II: SEXUAL FANTASIESThe focus of Part II is your personal experiences with sexual fantasy, in the past as well as the present. A sexual fantasy is simply a mental image, daydream, thought, or feeling that turns you on. Fantasies can be brief and simple or long and complex. If you’re unclear about what fantasies are, read the fantasy section in Chapter 1. 17. At what age do you first remember having a sexual fantasy? 18. Describe one of the first sexual fantasies you can remember. 19. Considering all your sexual fantasies that include other people, what proportion of the important characters—besides yourself—are of the same or opposite sex as you? All same sex [-0-1-2-3-4-] All opposite sex Following are a variety of statements about sexual fantasy. How frequently does each statement apply to you personally? For each statement, select a number from this scale that best reflects your experience: Never [-0-1-2-3-4-] Very frequently 20. I fantasize about my past sexual experiences. 0 1 2 3 4 21. I fantasize about desired future experiences. 0 1 2 3 4 22. I fantasize about things that couldn’t really happen. 0 I 2 3 4 23. I fantasize about things I wouldn’t actually want to do. 0 1 2 3 4 24. I fantasize about someone besides my regular sex partner(s). 0 1 2 3 4 25. I fantasize when I masturbate. 0 1 2 3 4 26. I fantasize when I’m having sex with a partner. 0 1 2 3 4 27. I fantasize about sex with two or more partners at the same time. 0 1 2 3 4 28. I have fantasies when I don’t want to. 0 1 2 3 4 29. I’m embarrassed or uncomfortable about my fantasies. 0 1 2 3 4 30. I think my fantasies are less interesting than other people’s. 0 1 2 3 4 31. I wonder if my fantasies are normal. 0 1 2 3 4 32. I wish my fantasies were different than they are. 0 1 2 3 4 33. I’ve made a conscious effort to change my fantasies. 0 1 2 3 4 34. Imagine yourself really wanting to be sexually aroused but, for some reason, you’re not. Based on everything you know about your sexuality, describe the fantasy that would be the very most likely to arouse you. 35. What are your ideas about what makes this fantasy so exciting? Please be as specific as you possibly can.

• From The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 4: Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300-1700) (1984)

  PS. Sac. Sum.Sei. Unt. Bill. Blngr. Alb. Antib. Assert.orth. Coen. Cone. Dec. Eliz. Ev.Joh. Ggn. Grat.just. Luc. Nacht. Or.err.miss. Perf. Resp. Brent. Resp.Coch. Scrip.auth. Sum. Test. Ver. Bon.VIII. Un.sanct. Bonagr. Paup. Bonuc. Boss. Def.trad. Hist.var. Br. Comp. Brad.Catts. Brd.Clr. Cons. Ep. Grat. Laud. Mar. Praec.et disp. PRIMARY SOURCES xvi Interpretation of the Book of Psalms. Basel, 1524 Response to a Question about the Sacrament. Wittenberg, 1525 Summary of Salvation [Summa der Seligkeit]. Augsburg, 1525 Instruction for Those in Illness and Peril of Death [Unterricht (Underricht) derer, so in Kranckheiten und Todesnöten hegen]. Wittenberg, 1527 Eberhard Billick Heinrich Bullinger Response to Albert of Brandenburg. Zurich, 1532 Brief Response to Cochlaeus [Brevis Antibole]. Zurich, 1554 Orthodox Assertion of Both Natures in Christ. Zurich, 1534 Sermon on the Lord's Supper [De coena Domini sermo]. Zurich, 1558 On Councils. Zurich, 1561 Five Decades of Sermons. Zurich, 1552 Refutation of the Papal Bull against [Queen] Elizabeth. London, 1571 Commentary on the Gospel of John. Zurich, 1543 The Opposition of Evangelical and Papal Doctrine [Gägensatz . . . der Euangehschen und Bäptischen leer]. Zurich, 1551 The Grace of God that Justifies Us for the Sake of Christ through Faith Alone, without Good Works, while Faith Meanwhile Abounds in Good Works. Zurich, 1554 Commentary on Luke. Zurich, 1546 On the Holy Supper [Von dem heiligen Nachtmal]. Zurich, 1553 The Origin of the Error of the Mass. Basel, 1528 The Perfection of Christians. Zurich, 1551 Response to Show that the Doctrine of Heaven and of the Right Hand of God Should Not Be Overthrown by the Contrary Doctrine of Johann Brenz. Zurich, 1562 Response to the Book of Johannes Cochlaeus on the Canonical Scripture and the Catholic Church. Zurich, 1544 On the Authority of Holy Scripture. Zurich, 1538 Summa of the Christian Religion. Zurich, 1556 A Brief Exposition on the Unique and Eternal Testament or Cov- enant of God. Zurich, 1534 Persecution [Veruolgung]. Zurich, 1573 Pope Boniface VIII Unam sanctam Bonagratia of Bergamo On the Poverty of Christ and the Apostles Agostino Bonuccio Jacques Benigne Bossuet Defense of the Tradition of the Holy Fathers History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches Johann Wilhelm Baier. Compendium of Positive Theology Thomas Bradwardine. The Cause of God, against Pelagius Bernard of Clairvaux On Consideration Epistles On Grace and Free Will In Laud of Mary On Precept and Dispensation

• From Saint Thomas Aquinas Collection (22 Books) (2016)

  I answer that, According to the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 3,4), the mean of justice is considered with regard to an equation between thing and thing according to a certain proportion. Wherefore, since the very name of satisfaction implies an equation of the kind, because the adverb “satis” [enough] denotes an equality of proportion, it is evident that satisfaction is formally an act of justice. Now the act of justice, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 2,4), is either an act done by one man to another, as when a man pays another what he owes him, or an act done by one man between two others, as when a judge does justice between two men. When it is an act of justice of one man to another, the equality is set up in the agent, while when it is something done between two others, the equality is set up in the subject that has suffered an injustice. And since satisfaction expresses equality in the agent, it denotes, properly speaking, an act of justice of one man to another. Now a man may do justice to another either in actions and passions or in external things; even as one may do an injustice to another, either by taking something away, or by a hurtful action. And since to give is to use an external thing, the act of justice, in so far as it establishes equality between external things, signifies, properly speaking, a giving back: but to make satisfaction clearly points to equality between actions, although sometimes one is put for the other. Now equalization concerns only such things as are unequal, wherefore satisfaction presupposes inequality among actions, which inequality constitutes an offense; so that satisfaction regards a previous offense. But no part of justice regards a previous offense, except vindictive justice, which establishes equality indifferently, whether the patient be the same subject as the agent, as when anyone punishes himself, or whether they be distinct, as when a judge punishes another man, since vindictive justice deals with both cases. The same applies to penance, which implies equality in the agent only, since it is the penitent who holds to the penance [poenam tenet], so that penance is in a way a species of vindictive justice. This proves that satisfaction, which implies equality in the agent with respect to a previous offense, is a work of justice, as to that part which is called penance. Reply to Objection 1: Satisfaction, as appears from what has been said, is compensation for injury inflicted. Wherefore as the injury inflicted entailed of itself an inequality of justice, and consequently an inequality opposed to friendship, so satisfaction brings back directly equality of justice, and consequently equality of friendship. And since an act is elicited by the habit to whose end it is immediately directed, but is commanded by that habit to whose end it is directed ultimately, hence satisfaction is elicited by justice but is commanded by charity.