Prima Secundae
194. Where Original Sin Lives: Flesh or Soul, Chief and Instrumental Causes (ST I-II q.83 a.1)
Class of 2015-01-08
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/11-prima-secundae/194-where-original-sin-lives-flesh-or-soul-chief-and-instrumental/

[0:00] About the subject of original sin. This guy's thorough. First, whether the subject of original sin is before the flesh or before the what? Soul, right? Is Your soul corrupting your body, or is your body corrupting your soul.

[0:25] Secondly, if the soul, my goodness, I was going to say that. Whether through essence or through its what? Powers. Third, whether the will is before the subject of original sin than the other powers.

[0:47] You are going to put that will in its place, right? Um for, whether some powers of the soul are especially infected, to wit, the generative power, right? The concupiscible power in the sense of what? Touch. So, whether

[1:15] original sin is more in the flesh than in the soul. The first, therefore, one proceeds thus. It seems that original sin is more in the flesh than in the soul.

[1:32] When flesh wars against the spirit, right? There you go. The repugnance of the flesh to the mind Proceeds in the corruption of original sin. But the root of this repugnance consists in the flesh. So, Falstaff says he's got more flesh than other men, so he's got more excuse.

[1:58] For even the apostle says, not only Falstaff, but the apostle says, to Romans seven, I see another law in my members, right? That is repugnant to the law of my mind. Therefore, original sin chiefly consists, or it consists chiefly or principally in the flesh, in the flesh, right? That- that's he's even got Saint Paul now. you know? Saint Paul and Falstaff together. Falstaff is just a mouthpiece of Saint Paul.

[2:30] Yeah, yeah, yeah. Disciple of Saint Paul. And the large one. Moreover, each thing is more potent in its cause than in the effect. Just as heat is more in the fire heating than in the water heated. But the soul is infected by the infection of original sin through the carnal what? Seed.

[3:04] Therefore, original sin is more in the flesh than in the soul. And of course, you know the soul is created by God, isn't it? Right. Yeah, we don't attribute that to God. Yeah. So it's only considered that filthy body, right? The problem arises because obviously the body is the thing here.

[3:28] You're really tying yourself into knots this time, Thomas. I'll never get out. Yeah, the rest of these pages are actually blank. He had nothing to say after this. Moreover, original sin—we contract original sin from our first parent. Insofar as we were in him, according to a seed-like ratio. Thus, therefore, there was what there the soul, but only the what flesh, flesh. Yeah. Therefore, original sin is not in the soul, but in the flesh.

[4:12] That's right. Like you said, comes from Adam, not from God. It provides for the flesh, not the soul. There you go. However, the irrational soul, created by God, is poured into the body, right? If, therefore, the soul is infected by original sin, it would follow that it was from what creation, creation, or infusion. It was what made filthy or something.

[4:50] What do they say? Corrupted. Corrupted. And this God would be the cause of sin, who is the author of creation and of infusion, which is the same.

[5:02] Moreover, no one who is wise, right, pours a precious what liquid into a vase of which he knows that the liquor will be what. Infected.

[5:18] But the rational soul is more precious than any what liquor. If, therefore, the soul can be infected from the union of the body by the infection of original guilt, God, who is wisdom itself, would never pour a soul into such a body. There you go. He says, "Christ, they don't pour you no longer." That's right. New wine, new wineskins. But he does pour it in, right? Yeah.

[5:50] Therefore, it is not what stained from the flesh. Therefore, original sin is not in the soul at all, but just in the flesh. Against this is it the same thing as the subject of virtue and vice, or of sin which is contrary to what virtue? But flesh cannot be the subject of virtue,

[6:24] for the apostle says in what Romans seven, I know that there is not dwell in me that is in my flesh the good. The good. Therefore, flesh cannot be the subject of original sin, but only the soul.

[6:51] You say good and bad are in the same thing, right? So not good in my flesh. Switching our minds off. I answer: It should be said that something can be in something in two ways. We know that going back to the fourth book of physics. In one way, as in a cause, either a chief cause, right, or an instrumental cause. Another way can be in something as in a what Subject.

[7:28] subject, huh? Now, original sin, original sin of all men, was in Adam himself, as in a first principle cause, according to that of the apostle Romans chapter five verse twelve, in whom all what Have. Sinned, huh?

[7:54] But in the bodily seed, original sin is as in a what instrumental cause. In that, through the active power of the seed, there is what carried over original sin to the offspring, together with human nature. But as in a subject, original sin in no way can be in the flesh, but only in the what soul.

[8:29] The reason for this is that it has been said above. In this way, from the will of the first parent, original sin is carried over to posterity through a certain what generative motion. Just as from the will of some man, is derived actual sin to his other what parts. Parts.

[9:00] In which derivation, this should be noted. That whatever comes from the motion of the will, of sin, To whatever, To ever, to some part of the human body, right, which part of man, right? Whatever part, which in some way is able to be a partaker of sin, right? Either through what, By way of subject or by way of instrument, it has the ratio of guilt, huh? Just as from the the will of what gluttony, I guess, huh?

[9:39] There comes about the what desire for food to the concupiscible, and the taking of food, huh, to the hand and the mouth, huh? Yeah. Which, insofar as they are moved by the will to sin, are what instruments? Instruments. But that. It is further derived to the nourishing power and to the interior members, which are not actively moved by the will, does not have the notion of guilt. Some

[10:18] digestion is not. Sharing sin. It's not moved by the will where the hand is, right? Thus, therefore, since the soul is able to be the subject of guilt, flesh does not of itself have it be the subject of guilt. And whatever comes of the corruption of first sin to the soul has a notion of guilt, but what comes to flesh does not have the notion of guilt, but of what?

[11:00] Punishment. Punishment or pain. Thus, therefore, the soul is the subject of original justice, original sin rather, but not the flesh. You should read it again, Thompson. Yeah. Let's look at the reply to the objection. Maybe that'll help us. Yeah. We'll be back. So, dealing to text now from Romans, right? I see another law in my members repugnant to the law of my mind. And then he argues, and that therefore original sin is what principally in the what?

[11:47] Flesh. Yeah. Called lex fomitis, right? Okay, we'll come to law eventually. I hope. The first, therefore, should be said that, as Augustine says in the book of Retractions, the apostle speaks there of man already what redeemed, redeemed, who has been liberated from what guilt, but is subject to punishment. For a reason of that, reason of which sin is said to what dwell in the flesh. Hence, from this does not follow that flesh is the subject of guilt, but only of punishment.

[12:34] It's pretty slim. Get it roughly subtle, Thompson. Yeah. Dimwit. Second objection now. Something is more potent in its cause than its effect, right? But the soul is infected by the infection of original sin through the what fleshly seed, right? So, must be more there in the body, right?

[13:06] To second, it should be said that original what sin is caused from the seed as from an instrumental cause, right? Now, it is not necessary that something be chiefly an instrumental cause, be more chiefly an instrumental cause than in the effect, but only in the what principal cause.

[13:40] And in this way, original sin was more what in Adam. In a stronger way, was in Adam, in whom it was according to the notion of actual sin. Yeah, that's interesting. So Thomas, when he comes to the third kind of cause, the mover or maker. He always what quotes that text of Avicenna, right? He distinguishes between the chief cause and the instrumental cause, right?

[14:38] Third objection now: the original sin we can track original sin from the first parent, in so far as what we were in him, seed-like reason, according to the seed ratio. That ratio—that's a terrible word. Got to fix that.

[15:03] Thus, over the soul is not there, but only the flesh. If original sin is not in the soul, but in the flesh, original sin we can track from the first parent, in so far as it was in him, according to a seminal reason, right?

[15:25] But the soul isn't there. in that thing but in the flesh To the third, it should be said that the soul of this man was not according to a what seminal seed-like reason in Adam sinning, as in a what effective beginning. Yeah, but in a beginning that is disposing, I guess. In that the bodily seed, which is we carried over from Adam, right?

[16:01] By its power does not affect the what rational soul, but merely what disposes for it. I think I half understand that Thomas. I guess that seed-like reason is not the same thing as the seed of the flesh. Maybe that's what he's—is that what he's trying to distinguish there? That's one other thing. I don't know. We still seem to make it more difficult about the soul and what God's doing, right?

[16:40] That's the next objection. Fourth one here, right? The rational soul created by God is poured into the body. If therefore the soul was what infected, yeah, Which is sin. consequently from what its creation or infusion, it would be what stained. Yeah. And thus God would be the cause of sin, who is the author of creation and pouring in. To the

[17:25] fourth, it should be said that the infection, original sin, in no way is caused by God, right? But from the sin alone of the first parent, through fleshly what generation, and therefore since creation implies the relation of the soul to God alone, right? It cannot be said that the soul is stained from its what creation. Creation.

[18:01] But the infusion implies a respect both to God what pouring in, and to the flesh to which the soul is poured in. to which the soul is poured in.

[18:18] And therefore, respect being had to God pouring in, it cannot be said that the soul is stained through what being poured in, but only having respect to what the body to which it is poured in.

[18:40] That's an awfully subtle thing he's saying here. It would be lost on most moderns who are influenced by Descartes, the Cartesian dualism, but also perhaps many of our ecumenical brethren as well. The Catholic understanding of of the human being being soul and body together as a single unit, essentially. That's correct. That helps us perhaps understand what Thomas is saying. And if we did not have that understanding of human nature, what a human being is, then understanding Thomas would be, well, more difficult.

[19:22] Or no? Well, we don't get into Descartes' understanding of the soul because it's all fouled up up, right? Yeah. Yeah. Even Heisenberg said Thomas makes more sense than Descartes. Did he really know you?

[19:36] He didn't know you. He didn't have that training. Fifth one here. What about God? Who's going to pour it into this poor container, right? To the fifth, it should be said that the common good is preferred to the singular good.

[20:08] Whence God, according to his what wisdom, does not forego right the universal order of things, which is that to such a body, such a soul is what ordained, ordained, so that what one avoids the singular infection of the soul,

[20:34] especially since the nature of the soul has that it what does not begin that it be not begin to be right except in a body right now as was had in the first part of it And Thomas's argument gets to origin and so on right now. Right, so the souls were created, you know, by themselves. For it is

[21:08] better for it to be thus according to nature than in no way to be right now, especially since it is able through grace to evade damnation. I don't know about this Thomas? I have to come back to that one. Yeah.

[21:27] Okay. Let's go back to the body article. Look at that again. I answer: It should be said that something is able to be in something in two ways. In one way, as in a what cause, either a chief cause or a what instrumental cause. Another way, as in a what subject. Subject, right?

[22:04] Now, original sin, original sin of all men, was in Adam himself as in the first cause, principal cause, right? Not as the instrumental cause, but first principal cause, right? According to that of the Apostle Romans five twelve, in whom all what sin,

[22:29] but in the bodily what seed, right? There is found original sin as in a what instrumental cause. By the fact that. Transmits. In that through the active power of the seed is carried over original sin. To the what offspring together, together with what human nature, right? So you know, if they had not sinned, they would have been carried over the original justice, right? Simul cum natura humana together with human nature, right?

[23:15] Huh? But as in a subject, original sin in no way is able to be in flesh, but only in the soul. So he has a threefold distinction there, right? Huh? See, something can be

[23:47] in something as in a cause, and then he subdivided into two: principal or instrumental, yeah, or as in a subject, right? And he said, original sin can be in what Adam, the principal cause, right? And in the seed as a what instrumental cause, the tool, right? But it can only be in the soul, as in what?

[24:17] Got three different things going. Yeah, three. Three is the first number, You say all, right? It's all mixed up then. It's all. It's all infected. No, it's all distinguished, right? Yes, distinguished into three, right? Huh?

[24:34] Interesting. We use we use the word where in talking about in, right? Huh? You know, the first sense of in is what in place, right? Huh? Of course, where in its first meaning refers to what place, right? Huh? Where are we? We're in this room here, right? Huh? But if you say, you know,

[24:59] where is number? You know, in logic, I might say what's in the the genus quantity, right? Ah, and that's one of the senses of in, right? The species is said to be in the what genus, right? Huh? That's the fourth sense, I guess, of in, right? First sense of in place. Second is part and whole, right? Third is what genus and species, and the fourth is species and genus, right?

[25:33] So we we say, you know, where would you put dog Well in substance? Where would you put number Well in quantity? Where would you put virtue well in quality, right? Where would you put father well in towards something, right? And so,

[25:56] where is original sin? Where is it? Three different things. Yeah, in in one way it's Adam, right? That's original sin is. It's a principal cause. It's in the seed, as in a what? Tool. And it's in the soul as in a subject, right?

[26:35] Correct the fundamental distinction, you know, the threefold distinction there, right? Original sin of all men was in Adam, as in a first principal cause, right? In the body, seed, original sin is as in a what? Instrumental cause, right?

[27:06] But isn't a subject? It was what? No way able to be in the flesh, but only in the soul. Yeah, yeah. So when when uh, Michelangelo made the pietas, right?

[27:26] Was the shape of the pietas where? In what is it? In what is it? In what is it? You say. Where is it? Where is it? The shape. The shape. of the side Yeah, but is it a subject? It's in the what? Marble, isn't it? No. But it's in Michelangelo as a what? Principal cause, right? The artist. It's in it's in the hammer and chisel, as in a what?

[27:58] Tool, right? It's not too hard to see there, right? Now he's saying, but where is original sin? Where is the principal cause, like Michelangelo? Except in this case, it's it's it's Adam, right? And it's in what? As a tool, not in the hammer and chisel, but in the what? Seed. But in a subject, it's in the what? Soul. What are you saying, right? Okay. You see, how does it go back to the definition of reason, right?

[28:34] Where is all this coming up to the definition of reason? Well, so the reason is the ability for large discourse, right? Looking before and after, right? You point out that in the ability for large discourse is understood the ability for small discourse, right? And in the ability to look before and after, it's ability to what?

[29:03] Yeah, yeah, and the ability to see a before and after is included the ability to see a what distinction? Distinction, right? And you can show that from the axiom, the obvious statement about before and after that nothing is before or after itself, right? So if this is before that, there's some distinction between this and that, right? Okay. So the ability to look before and after is included the ability to look for distinctions, right?

[29:40] Or is the ability to see a before and after is included the ability? What? Yeah. If I say that wine is better than beer, right? As I do often. That's your fourth sense of. My son in law at Christmas time. my son in. law and And my own son Marcus, there you know, they drink a lot of beer, you know, huh? And so I kept them telling them that, but they're too late to be educated.

[30:10] I mean, they drink wine too, you know. Funny, I kind of lost my taste for beer, kind of. I think he wants no of it. It's got to be, you know, you know, sausage or something, you know, which calls for beer. It's a sausage. See, but you couldn't say that that wine is better than beer. You couldn't distinguish between wine and beer, right? Okay. You couldn't say Mozart's music is better than Haydn.

[30:48] You know, distinguish the two. So okay, then having made all those distinctions, or rather seen all those distinctions, I should say, times that we've made, yeah, don't make them, yeah, sounds too artificial, right?

[31:15] Then he says the next paragraph. Who is right's best, right? The reason of this is right, because this has been said above. In this way, right, from the will of the first parent, original sin is carried over to one's posterity, right, through a certain what? Emotional generation, yeah, and it's like the tool, right, huh? Okay.

[31:47] In other words, if we were not generated from Adam, we would not have original sin. Yeah. He compares it just as from the will of some man, right, is derived actual sin, right. Parts. Together. Parts, right? To my hands, striking you, killing you, or something, right?

[32:12] Or your mouth, whatever it is, saying evil things. That's when we wash out the mouth, right? That's right. I was just saying that's what our Lord says. That is from the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. But then he talks about how the sin is what comes out of the mouth, comes from the heart. He says the same thing.

[32:36] In which derivation this can be noted, right? That whatever comes from the motion of the will of sin, right, huh, to any what? Any part of man, which in some way is able to partake of the sin, right, huh? Or by way of subject? Either by way of being the subject of it, right, or by way of what instrument has the notion of what guilt? Yeah, it's yeah.

[33:08] Just as from the will of gluttony comes the desire of food to the what and the desire of food to the hand, and the taking of food to the hand and the hands in the mouth, right? Which, insofar as they are moved by the will to sin, are tools, instruments of sin, right?

[33:36] But that they are further derived to the nourishing power into the lower members. Interior members, sorry. which are not actively moved by the will. It does not have the right seal of what guilt. Am I digesting the food? It's not a bad thing morally. Yeah, yeah. Since thus, therefore, since the soul is able to be the subject of guilt, right?

[34:07] Flesh of itself does not have to be the subject of what guilt. Guilt, huh? Whatever then comes from whatever comes of the corruption of the first sin to the soul has the notion of what guilt. Guilt, but what comes to the flesh does not have the notion of what guilt, but punishment, but of punishment, huh?

[34:37] Thus, therefore, the soul is the subject of original sin, but not the what flesh. So the continuation of original sin being passed down. I'm trying to think. I don't know if I make sense of it. I'll wait. I have to wait. I mean, saying here that the soul is able to be the subject of guilt, right? But the flesh of itself does not have that it be the subject of guilt, huh?

[35:06] So the act of generation is not. Yeah, but you're talking about the flesh itself, not the not be of itself, right? The subject of guilt, huh? Then

[35:24] whatever comes of the corruption of the first sin to the soul has the aspect of what guilt. Yeah, but what comes to the flesh

[35:36] does not have the notion of guilt, but of what punishment? Punishment, huh? Thus, therefore, the soul is the subject of original sin, not the flesh. It's not because of concupiscence. It's not because concupiscence is in the is in the parts of the soul, and that's no. Because sin is in the will, as he said before. It's the will. So the will of your first parent.

[36:12] That's the cause of the guilt of sin. Okay. But how interesting how the soul can be affected by the physical medium. Of the transmission of the seed, the instrumentality. Well, you see, you're you're receiving the human nature in a sense from Adam, right? Right. But you're receiving it without original justice, right? Right. Right. So therefore, the the soul in a sense is what. Vitiated. Vitiated, yeah. Vitiated, yeah.

[36:41] It's lacking something. subject to God, right? It should, right? So that's where it is chiefly. Yeah. Yeah. In one way, chiefly in the first father, because he's the chief cause, but. Let's look at the objections again here. You know, this is hard stuff. Yeah. And look at the first objection again. The repugnance of the flesh to the mind proceeds from the corruption of original sin, right? Mm-hmm.

[37:09] But doesn't the root of this repugnance consist in the flesh? Doesn't the apostle say in Romans seven, "I see another law in my members, right? Repugnant to the law of my mind. Therefore, original sin consists chiefly in the what? Flesh, right? Well, he says, now maybe Augustine got a little, you know, because the book of retractions, right? Yeah. To the first, therefore, should be said as Augustine says in the book of retractions.

[37:40] Who's do I say? Every professor should be made to write a book of retractions. They're not smart enough to discover their own mistakes, though. That's the trouble you know they have. They they wouldn't retract if they don't recognize their own mistakes. Okay. Yeah.

[37:57] To the first, therefore, should be said as Augustine says in the book of what? Retractions. The apostle speaks there of man, what? Already redeemed, right? Who has been liberated from his what? Guilt. Guilt, right? By baptism, right? Grace. Grace. But he's subject to what? Punishment. Yeah. By reason of which. It is called. Yeah. Sin in the flesh. Sin is said to dwell in the flesh. Yeah. By reason of the punishment.

[38:33] Once from this, it does not follow that flesh is the subject of guilt, but only of punishment. Punishment. But we speak of it as sin dwelling in the flesh. Or he does there. No. Because it's a consequence of sin, he attributes it to the cause. Hmm.

[38:59] It's very subtle. Very subtle. Moreover, the the applied in second section. Moreover, each thing is more in the cause than in the effect, as heat is more in the fire heating than in the water heated, right?

[39:19] But the soul was infected by the infection of original sin through what? The seed in the flesh. Infection of the seed. Yeah. I think this was. Yeah. Therefore, original sin is more in the flesh than in the soul, right? The second should be said that original sin is caused from the seed as from an instrumental cause.

[39:47] Now, it is not necessary that something be more chiefly in the instrumental cause than in the effect, but only in the principal cause, right? Yeah. So that that axiom applies. He's saying to the chief cause, the principal cause, rather than the instrumental. In this way, original sin was more in Adam, in which it was, according to what? Character of an actual sin. Yeah, yeah. Let's take an example.

[40:16] The teacher, right? If the teacher is wiser than the student, he should be, right? In regard to what he's teaching, anyway, right? Are the words of the teacher wiser than the student?

[40:41] The words of the teacher. See. Those are his tools. Yeah, because the words of the teacher are what his tools he uses to teach, right? Huh. Mm-hmm. And they're really sounds, right? Huh. Mm-hmm. And are those sounds capable of wisdom? No.

[41:02] If we speak of the teacher's words as being wise, what does that mean? It's like an attribution, is what you're saying. Yeah, yeah. But he he transmits his knowledge to the student by his what? His words, right? Huh. But the words themselves are not wiser than the student. Those sounds are not wiser than the student, are they? Hopefully not.

[41:29] In that case, he's just memorizing words, right? Yeah. So. Wisdom is is the perfection of of the mind. The reason, right? So wisdom is in the mind of the teacher, right? Huh. But he's trying to communicate that wisdom to the student, so it be in the mind of the student, and he's doing this through through his what? Words, huh? Mm-hmm. After these bad teachers, right? They're they're deceiving by their words, right?

[42:01] Huh. Passing on corruption through the arms. Usually, they're deceived first. In some way, anyway. So he's saying the original sin, in that way, is more in what? Adam, right? Than us, because it's more the guilt than he has, right? Yeah. But you wouldn't say it's more than the seed. Yeah.

[42:31] Makes sense, doesn't it? Yeah. Okay. Now, third objection. Original sin, we can track original sin from the first parent, insofar as it was in him, according to a what? Seed-like notion. However, you would say that, whatever that is. But thus there was not there the what soul, the soul, but only the flesh. Therefore, original sin is not in the soul, but in the what flesh.

[43:29] To the third, it should be said that the soul of this man, right, was not according to a what seminal reason in Adam sinning, as in a what effective beginning, how? But as in a what disposing disposing one, right? Yeah. In that the what bodily seed, which is carried over from Adam, by its power does not make yeah the the rational soul, okay, but disposes for it, right?

[44:10] Okay, that's true. The parents, right? The parents don't make the soul of the child, right? They dispose of it. Yeah, the dog, I guess, the parents make the soul of the dog, right? Okay. But

[44:23] your parents don't make rational soul, the rational soul, because that because that's not something that depends upon the body, right? It doesn't come about the rational soul through the what transformation of matter, right? And Aristotle himself has talked about this in the book on the generation of animals, right? That the rational soul doesn't come from the parents. Amazingly, he saw that, right? Yeah. But he saw it because what he learned about the rational soul in the De Anima, right?

[44:53] It doesn't depend on the body. Yeah, that's very amazing. Now the fourth objection: the rational soul is created by God to in what poured into the body. Yeah. The rational soul created by God is poured into the body. If therefore the soul is infected by original sin, yeah, it follows that it is from its what creation or its or in its stain stain, and thus God would be the cause of sin, who is the author of creation and infusion, yeah.

[45:41] To the fourth, it should be said that the infection, original sin, in no way is caused by God, but it's what only from the sin alone of the first parent, yeah, through carnal generation. So it includes both the instrument and the principal cause. And therefore, since creation implies respect, a relation of the soul to God alone, it cannot be said that the soul is stained from its what creation.

[46:20] But the infusion implies respect both to God, what pouring it in, and to the flesh to which the soul is what poured it poured in.

[46:35] And therefore, having respect to God pouring it in, it cannot be said that the soul is stained through what being poured in. But only having respect to the what body to which it is what poured in.

[46:59] So being poured into that kind of body, it receives what human nature, right without what original justice, Even to us dimwits a bit, huh? Hmm. We even to us demons. In other words until the soul is united to the body, it wouldn't have original sin. Yeah, it's not on the part of God pouring in, just on the part of the matter that receives it, passing on the nature.

[47:35] It's not created, you know. It's not created in time before it's infused, right? That's all I was saying. Yes, I get it. It's distinguishing. Yeah. The sixth objection is the most interesting, some of these. Yeah. No one wise, huh, pours what a precious liquid Liquor, liquid into a vase, right? That's infected. From which he knows that the liquid will be infected, right? To be making wine. you've got to pour it into the right barrels, right?

[48:02] That's right. But the rational soul is more precious than any liquor, right? Yes. If therefore the soul from the union of body is able to be infected by the infection of no guilt, God who is wisdom itself would never. He would never do it. Yeah. Never would pour a soul into body. He does so. He does pour it in. Therefore, it's not stained from the flesh. Thus, therefore, original sin is not in the soul, but in the flesh.

[48:36] In the flesh. Each of these follows. Each of these is building on the previous one. Yeah. This is yeah. The fifth, it should be said that the common good is referred to the what singular good, right? Whence God, according to his wisdom, does not forego the universal order of things. Which is that to such a body, such a soul should be poured in, right? In order that he might avoid the singular infection of this soul, especially since the nature of the soul has that it begins to be, it does not begin to be except in a body, which is something we took up in the prima pars.

[49:27] And it's better for us to be according to nature than in no way to be, right? Especially since it can be what avoid damnation through grace. Yeah. Yeah. Can you go and tell them to understand that? Yeah. Gotta stop them or what? Sure. Yeah, that's good.