Tertia Pars
3. Why God Became Man: Summa Contra Gentiles IV, 54 and the Thirteen Reasons
Class of 2008-09-25
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/003-why-god-became-man-summa-contra-gentiles-iv-54-and-the-thirteen/

[0:00] In the Name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. Amen. Thank you, God. Thank you, Guardian Angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas. Deo gratias. God, our enlightenment. Guardian Angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, order and illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. Saint Thomas Aquinas, angelic doctor, and help us to understand the truth of it. Name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit.

[0:29] Amen. Okay, I thought today we'd go through this same consideration in the Summa Contra Gentiles What I reproduced, you should have four pages there, is from the fourth book, the last book of the Summa Contra Gentiles, and it's chapter fifty-four of the fourth book, or little chapter, I guess, capitula means little chapter, Whether it was suitable for God to be made flesh, right, to become man. So we're going to look at the reasons, about eight of them that Thomas gives here, as opposed to the.

[1:07] Does everybody got a copy? Yeah. Eight reasons, which we're going to compare to ten reasons that he gave in the what Summa Theologiae, right? Okay. So let's go back to the first paragraph again, since some of you just come in. He says that someone diligently, lovingly, and piously considers the mysteries of the incarnation, he will find tantum so great a profunditut profunditatum, so great a depth of wisdom sapientiae, that it exceeds what human knowledge.

[1:50] According to that, is the Apostle, meaning Saint Paul, what is stupid of God is wiser than what men. Whence it comes about that to one considering piously, always, semper, magis et magis, more and more wonderful, admirable reasons of this mystery are made manifest. It reminds me of Aristotle in the biological works, where he is examining the what bodies of the animals and seeing how well put together they are, right?

[2:26] And he exclaims that he does this to appreciate the mind that what made them, put them together, right? So he's kind of admiring that, right? But a fortiori we can admire the same mind here when we consider the reasons for this what mystery.

[2:46] Now the first reason that Thomas gives will be in the next paragraph, and seems to be something we don't find reading the Summa Contra Gentiles explicitly Summa Theologiae, explicitly. First, therefore, this should be considered: that the incarnation of God was the most what? Efficient, the most efficacious aid to man tending towards beatitude. This is touching upon what? Hope, right? Whereby you tend towards God as you are in.

[3:22] For it has been shown in the third book of the Summa Contra Gentiles that the complete or perfect beatitude of man consists in the immediate vision of God. What Scripture says, seeing God as He is, right? As St. John says, huh? Or as St. Paul says, seeing Him face to face.

[3:46] Now, when you study, how is it possible to see God as He is? What's only if God Himself is joined to our mind as that by which we see Him. So, in His light, we shall see light. You might say, "Well, can we be joined to God's mind, to God Himself, as the understandable form by which we understand?" That sounds, you know, how could you hope for such a thing, right?

[4:14] Well, the incarnation is gives us hope, right? Because there He joined human nature to His very what? Person, huh? So that He became a man, right? If He can do that, then He can certainly join Himself to our mind, so we might see Him as He is.

[4:33] It could seem to some man that to this state numquam never posset was he able to arrive, huh? That the human understanding immediately right would be joined to the divine essence, the divine nature, the divine substance, as the understanding is joined to the what? Understandable, on account of the immense distance of the two what? Natures, huh? And thus he would what? Grow tepid, huh? About the seeking out this beatitude, huh?

[5:10] Detained, huh? By the opposite of hope, which is what? Desperation, right? But through this, that God wished to unite to Himself human nature in persona, right? Most evidently to men is shown that man is able to be united to God by the what? Understanding, seeing Him by seeing Him immediately, huh? It was therefore most suitable that God would assume human nature, right? To raising, right? To hope, right?

[5:51] God's plan. To raising hope for man to his what true beatitude, which is to see God as He is, huh? Whence he says, after the incarnation of Christ, men begin more to aspire to what this celestial or heavenly beatitude, according as he himself says, John ten ten, I have come that they might have life and have it more what abundantly, right?

[6:25] Now Thomas joins. I think that argument is kind of new. I mean, it's not really in the Summa Theologiae explicitly. Now the second argument he gives in the bottom of this first page, in a way, corresponds to the sixth and seventh arguments in the Summa Theologiae, right? And in a sense,

[6:50] we might prefer the devil to ourselves, right? Because he's superior mind, superior being in many ways, right? Huh? And we might not have enough appreciation of our own dignity as human being, huh? To know that we're going to be united if we are good to God immediately, huh? In the same way, we might because we're animals, right? We might seek our happiness in those things that we have in common with animals, and then again, through a lack of appreciation of our dignity, huh?

[7:27] Okay. This is tied up with the the main objection, or the first objection Thomas gives in the Summa Contra Gentiles to the incarnation would be, hey, there's an infinite distance between God and us, right? Huh? But we're ordered as an end to being joined to God immediately, and then you see it's not so inappropriate for him to what unite human nature immediately to himself in his own what person.

[7:59] So in a way, the second argument you could say corresponds in a way to the sixth and the seventh arguments in the in the second group there, right? The first and second in the second group, but I call them the sixth and the seventh. simul okay at the same time, right? Also through this, right? There's taken away from man impediments, huh? To attaining beatitude, huh? Okay. So this corresponds to the second group of reasons in the Summa, but especially to the sixth and the seventh, huh?

[8:35] For since the perfect beatitude and happiness, huh, you could say of man consists in the sole what enjoyment of God, huh? As has been said above. what does Augustine say? You know, happy the man who sees God even if he knows nothing else. Miserable the man who knows all other things but does not know God. Blessed also the man who knows other things if he doesn't know and God, but not for knowing other things, but for knowing God alone.

[9:06] Right. Okay. Since the perfect beatitude of man consists in the sole enjoyment of God, as has been shown above in the third book. Is necessary that whoever, in those things which are below God, adheres finally, right, will be impeded from partaking of true blessedness.

[9:36] To this, however, that man might be led to what things below and to adhere to those things that are below God as an end. This could be by what ignoring the dignity of his own what nature.

[9:54] From this it happens that some, considering themselves only according to their bodily and Sensing nature, which they have common with other animals, right? In bodily things and in the pleasures of the flesh, they seek a certain bestial beatitude. Now, there's some people in our society all around. Okay,

[10:22] but then sometimes people have another problem. But some, considering the excellence of some creatures above man, right, in regard to some things, they gave themselves over to the worship of them, right? Worshipping the world and its parts on account of the size of the thing, right, the magnitude of its quantity and the length of its time, or the spiritual substances, right, the angels and the demons, on account of the fact that they are found to exceed man both in their immortality and in the acumen, sharpness of their mind, estimating that in these as above man, existing above man, man should seek his beatitude, right?

[11:13] He says, although as regards some conditions, man is below some creatures, and in other things he is what likened or like the lowest creatures. Nevertheless, by order to his end, nothing exists higher than man except God alone, in whom alone the perfect beatitude of man consists.

[11:43] Now, this dignity of man that he might be beatified by the immediate vision of God, God shows most suitably to the fact that immediately he assumed what human nature. Whence, from the incarnation of God, we see it following that the greater part of men, giving up the worship of angels or demons and of any other creatures, and setting aside the pleasures of the flesh and bodily things, gave themselves to worshiping God what alone, in which, in whom alone, they expect the completion of their what beatitude, according to what the apostle warns, huh?

[12:30] The things that are above seek the things that are above, where Christ is sitting the right hand of God. Savor the things which are above, huh? Not the things which are upon earth, right? That's one argument here. The second argument, is Summa Contra Gentiles, but it seems to correspond to the sixth and seventh, the first two arguments, right? One of which is in terms of the devil, right?

[12:53] And the other in terms of what not knowing your dignity, right? But Thomas kind of puts the two of them what. Together, right? So there is an overlap there, but in the first argument, there is something more unique.

[13:07] Now, the third argument, the second one here, on page two, corresponds to the first argument in Summa Theologiae, the one from what, faith, huh? But it's interesting to read this because he says things a little differently and brings out it in different ways.

[13:29] Further, because the perfect beatitude of man consists in such a knowledge of God, which exceeds the faculty or ability of every created understanding, as has been shown in the third book, it is necessary for there to be a certain what, foretaste, huh, praelibatio of this knowledge in man, by which is directed to that fullness of blessed knowledge. And this foretasting comes about through what, faith, huh? That's why when Thomas is going to divide faith sometimes into two parts, faith about the divinity of Christ and faith about the humanity of Christ, huh?

[14:17] And then he'll quote what Christ says in chapter 17 of St. John, right? This is eternal life, right? You make know you and him whom you have sent. And so he says, well, faith is a foretaste of that eternal life, What does eternal life consist in what Christ tells us in seeing you and him whom you have sent, right? So the humanity and the divinity of Christ, huh?

[14:40] And therefore we have those two things in our what, faith, huh? Kind of a foretaste. Now he says the knowledge by which man is directed towards the last end, it is necessary that it be most what, certain. In that it is the beginning of all those things which are ordered to the last end. Just as the beginnings naturally known are most certain, he's talking about what? A whole is more than a part, right?

[15:15] To be or not to be, can't both be and not be, right? But? He says the most certain knowledge of something cannot be unless either it be known to itself, as to us are known the first beginnings of demonstration, what we call the what, axioms, huh? If equals add to equals, results are equal. The whole is more than the part, so on. Quantities equal to the same go to each other, so on.

[15:45] Or in those things which are known to themselves, they are what, led back, resolved, in the way that something becomes a what, a conclusion of demonstration becomes what, most certain, right? So if you follow the demonstrations of Euclid, you'll find that you're sure about the Pythagorean theorem, right? Not just taking it on.

[16:10] But that which is proposed to us about God to be held by faith cannot be what per se known to man, since it who is above the power of human understanding. Therefore, it is necessary that this be made known to man to someone to whom it is what per se known. And although to all seeing the divine essence, it is in some way known to itself. Nevertheless, for the most certain knowledge having, it is necessary to make a reduction to what the first beginning of this knowledge, to wit, to God Himself, to whom it is naturally per se known, not by the light of glory, and from whom it becomes known to all.

[17:02] Just as assurity of science is not had except by resolution to the first indemonstrable beginnings. It is necessary, therefore, for man for perfect certitude about the truth of faith, that he be instructed by God made a man, that man in a human way, right, might perceive divine instruction. And this is what is said in John one verse eighteen. No one has seen God, but the only begotten who is in the what bosom of his Father, he will what announce it.

[17:43] And the Lord Himself said, John eighteen verse thirty-seven. I for this was born, came into the world that I might give testimony to the truth. Thomas gives that quote beginning the Summa Contra Gentiles Why Saint Alphonsus the beginning

[18:01] the meditations on the passions begins with I came to cast fire upon the earth, right? We came to do both, right? But the purpose of the meditation the passions is to get the love of God, and the purpose of the Summa Contra Gentiles is to know the truth about these things.

[18:22] On account of which we see that after the incarnation of Christ, more evidently and certainly, men were instructed in divine knowledge. According to that of the prophet Isaiah chapter eleven, the earth is what filled with the knowledge of the Lord, right?

[18:43] So I was little boys and girls saying, why did God make me? They all could be said at one time at least. So that argument is the same as the first one in the in the Summa Theologiae, right? But Thomas, you know, explains a little differently there.

[19:14] Now the fourth argument here in the Summa, Contra Gentiles. Further, since the perfect blessedness of man consists in enjoyment of God, it is necessary that the affections of man be disposed to a desire of the divine what enjoyment. Just as we see to men, there's naturally a desire for what beatitude.

[19:48] But the desire for the enjoyment of something is caused from the love of that thing, right? It is necessary, therefore, for man tending towards perfect beatitude. That he be led into divine love, love of God. But nothing thus to love of someone leads us as an experience of his love towards us.

[20:16] But the love of God to men in no way could be more efficaciously shown to men than through this that he wished to unite himself to man in his very what person.

[20:32] And this is the first effect of love that we learned in our treatise on love, right? If you remember those who have heard that. For it is proper of love to unite the one loving with the loved, in so far as it is what possible. It is necessary, therefore, to man, tending to beatitude, that God become what man. That corresponds to the third argument in the what Summa Theologiae, right?

[21:01] And basically, get the same reasoning, isn't it? That nothing more moves us to love someone than experience of their what love for us, huh?

[21:12] So if a man and woman want to get married, you assume that they love each other, right? Because probably they want to be joined together, unless they have somebody's money. They love somebody. What's that Psalm eighteen? You know, where the sun comes out of the bridal chamber, right? And that's understood as referring to what the womb of Mary, right? Which is the bridal chamber where he, in a sense, is married to human what nature, yeah.

[21:41] So it's the same idea, right? That union is the effect of love, right? So by his becoming man, being united with us, our very nature in his very person, he showed how much he loved us, huh? That shows that further, you know, by what he does, but Thomas is talking about the mere fact of the incarnation itself,

[22:07] huh? Now I think in the Summa Theologiae, he uses that middle term to also show hope, right? In other words, if I'm convinced that you love me, then I hope to get good things from you, right? But also, if I'm convinced that you love me and love me in a unselfish way, right, that's going to move me to love you, right? So you could use the same middle term for both hope and for what love, love, yeah.

[22:41] But I think in both of these sumas he uses it for love. But if I remember rightly, in the Summa Theologiae, it's used for what the second reason for hope, right, huh?

[22:54] Doctor Perquist, yeah. Asked this maybe too early on it, but wondering why why do you think in this Summa Controversialis he begins with hope? Then, then, then later, we'll come back to faith and charity. Well, I think you know, hope is is the is the theological virtue that, in some ways, is least understood, huh? Right. And

[23:27] when Augustine and Thomas take up sacred doctrine according to faith, hope, and charity, according to hope, they take the Our Father, right? Yes. And as you know, in the Our Father, there's seven petitions, seven things we are taught by our Lord to ask for, right? But as Augustine and Thomas both point out, in teaching us what to ask for, we are at the same time being taught what to want.

[24:01] And so, if you look at the very order of the seven petitions, the first two refer to the what to the end, right? Huh. And then the second, the third, and the fourth to the means to the end, right? And then the last three, you know, deal with the impediments to the end. So the the fundamental thing there is the end, right? So by hope, we are tending towards God as our very end.

[24:32] And so Thomas says, I suppose, in the Summa Contra Gentiles, he's thinking the fact that God became man so we might reach this end, which is eternal life, huh? And so it's kind of naturally begin with hope because that's the the the virtue by which we tend towards this end, and we tend towards it as something possible, right? So that's perhaps the reason why he begins with with hope, right?

[25:00] I think does it have anything to do with? I suppose I'm thinking of sort of the audience or whatever that this work is meant for. So this work isn't isn't it has more of a general sense of appealing to reason or what's common to all men? Yeah. Well, again, put in the context a little bit of it too. Yeah. The the chapter before this is a chapter of objections, right?

[25:28] That's not suitable for God to become man, right? Oh. Okay. And the chapter following this is replying to all those twenty-seven or what objections they are, right? And it's a little bit like the order of the Summa. You know, we have the objections first, and then you have the body article. These are two different chapters. But the first objection is that it's out of order, right? Because God is infinitely above us, and man is among the lowest creatures, and therefore, for God to go all the way down here seems like you know the prince marrying Cinderella, but much more than that, right?

[26:06] And. So, because that distance, right? Okay. Now, so when Thomas begins these first two arguments, you might say, right, are connected, right? Although one is in terms of the good, one is in terms of avoiding the bad, right? But what's common to the first two arguments is the fact that there is something immediate between what

[26:36] God and us, right? That God in Himself, seeing Him face to face, right, is in fact our end, right? So between our ends, you might say, and God, there's there's nothing, right? It's an immediate thing, huh? And so our hope might be discouraged by the fact that there's such a distance between us. How can we be joined, right? Huh? Or why would he even consider joining himself to us, right?

[27:06] But when he joined human nature to his very person, then that arouses our hope that we can be united to him as the understandable, right? In the same way, the fact that he wants us to have him as an end immediately, right, means that in some way we're equal to the angels, right?

[27:29] And and far above the the dogs and the cats, right? You can't attain to God, right? Huh? Okay. So in terms of of the objections that have been made, right? You know, and the solution to objections, this right away goes back to the first objection. If you saw the chapter fifty three, I guess it would be. Would it have

[27:57] anything to do with somehow hope being more common to stealing people without paying or something? If there's there's a certain natural. Well, I mean, speaking as a philosopher, you know, I often say it's not enough to to want to know the truth, right? Yeah. If a man despairs of knowing the truth, as most professors in the academic world, we despair of knowing the truth, right? Yeah. And I always you know quote,

[28:30] Whitaker Chambers, you know, talking about his coming back to Columbia there, and and he's of course been convinced by the communists, right? You know, so he thought yeah the truth in some sense, right? But these are guys who didn't take this stuff seriously one way or another, right? But his metaphor was they tweeted ideas like ping pong balls.

[28:51] Well, I think it's a good description of the academic world. Yeah. Now, ping pong balls, something can knock back and forth, but you don't take the ping pong ball seriously, and you just play with it, right? Yeah. And that's the way they tweet ideas and thoughts, right? You know, knocking back, what do you think? You know, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang. But you never you never come to any truth, right?

[29:10] So these people are are in what despair, right? Huh? Okay. And I can see, you know, this is a very important thing in Plato's great dialogue, the Phaedo, right? Because in the Phaedo, they're trying to find out whether the human soul is immortal or not, and Socrates gives some arguments that seem to indicate the soul is immortal right? And then Simmias and Cebes come in with some objections, and everything seems to collapse, and they all fall into a kind of what despair, right?

[29:43] Huh? This is despair of what knowing the truth about the soul, right? And the guy that Phaedo is narrating is named from Phaedo because Phaedo is present. They see at the last day of Socrates, and he's narrating what took place, right, to another guy, huh? At This point there's a kind of a you know going back to Phaedo and the guy he's narrating and the other guy had that kind sinking feeling too is he hears this account of what took place right and and what did Socrates do right and then Phaedo says he never admired Socrates more his beautiful way of what leading them out of that what despair right remember my cousin was a philosopher too you know but when he saw the failure

[30:26] really you know really make an impression upon him right see and then I mentioned how in the second book of wisdom Aristotle raises or takes up the question how is man towards knowing the truth right and this is just after the first book of wisdom where he's shown that all these men before him who were looking for wisdom had not found it and you might say well you know but when Aristotle does in the first book of wisdom after after premium there he first narrates what his predecessors said about the causes and then he examines whether what they said makes sense or is sufficient right but when he narrates what they had to say he recalls the distinction of the four kinds of causes that

[31:25] we learned in natural philosophy and he says that in addition to seeing what they said about causes we're going to see if any of them touched upon any kind of cause besides the four

[31:41] and of course they didn't and they didn't even speak too clearly or distinguish clearly the four kinds but you get a confirmation there before you even get the critique of what they said that indeed there are four kinds of causes and that's already a step in the right direction and in the second book of wisdom you'll find out that in each kind of cause there must be a first cause that's already a great step towards knowing the first causes right so already Aristotle is kind of guiding you against you know a completely what idea failure from the first book right see at least you come away something positive right but then he asks and begins the second book how man is towards knowing the truth

[32:28] and I always used to say to students now if a modern philosopher was doing this he'd say can man know the truth but the point is

[32:41] it's obvious that man can know truth the question is how adequate is he to knowing the truth okay and so Aristotle asks and he begins his whole consideration he says the knowledge of truth is in one way difficult in another way easy. And I used to say to my students, now if you went down the row of professors' doors here, right, and knocked on each door, and you asked professor, "Is it easy or difficult to know the truth?"

[33:12] What would professor say? He'd say it's difficult, if not impossible, right? You'd say it's easy, wouldn't he? No, see. And finally comes the last door, and Aristotle's on the door. You say, now is the knowledge of truth easy or difficult? Aristotle says, well, one way it's difficult, another way it's easy. And then he goes on to give two different reasons why it's difficult, and then he shows in three ways that it's easy, right?

[33:43] And one way he says is that no one completely misses the truth. You can't completely miss the truth. And there's some part of the truth that everyone sees, like the whole is more than a part. And then through the efforts of many,

[34:00] we can get even a large amount of truth. If I discover one geometrical theorem in my lifetime, and you one, and you one, and you one, you one, right? Then all of a sudden we have a large group of theorems, right? So in one sense, like my mother used to say, many hands makes light work. So he's kind of guiding you against this what? Despair, right?

[34:23] So man wants to be blessed, right? Man wants to be happy. But as you find out in the third book of the Summa Contra Gentiles, he can't be blessed without knowing God, and without knowing God as He is. And he can only know God as He is if God is joined to him as that by which he sees God as well as what he sees.

[34:51] And so if you're thinking of that end that man is wanting above all else, right? The problem is not wanting it, but is it possible to have hope that you can get there, right? So that's kind of primarily in Thomas's mind, right, coming from the from the third book, right? But also coming from the what? The first objection that says not appropriate that things so far apart be joined, right?

[35:21] But it's in the very nature of man, in a sense, to want beatitude. And we realize what beatitude really is. It involves seeing God as He is.

[35:34] He knows that something exists. He naturally wants to know what it is, and only in this way can he know what it is. Okay.

[35:43] So the fourth argument in the Summa Contra Gentiles here corresponds to the what? Third, yeah, yeah. But the second argument was it was for hope, right, in the Summa. Theologiae, right? And and that was taken also from the fact that God's love for us makes us what hope for good things from Him, right?

[36:06] So if I'm convinced that God loves me, that's both a reason for having hope that He will do things for me, but it's also something that impels me to love Him in return, right? So it's kind of beautiful to that thing. They use it here in the Summa Contra Gentiles just to argue for love, right? Okay. But now the fifth argument Thomas gives here is not, I don't think, found in the Summa Theologiae.

[36:34] and it's another reason in terms of what love. So the fourth argument is the same basically as in the Summa Theologiae. Now the fifth one is another reason in terms of friendship. Further, since friendship consists in a certain what equality, those things which are very unequal do not seem to be able to be joined in what friendship.

[37:03] Therefore, that there might be a more familiar friendship between man and God, it was necessary to man that God become man, because naturally man is the friend of man, as Aristotle himself said in the eighth book of the Nicomachean Ethics. So that as we knew God visibly, we might be what carried away to a love of the invisible things. Yeah. So since he's coming down to our level, right?

[37:32] Okay. Just like when you have a little child, that you kind of come down to his level, right? Play with his blocks or something, you know, rather than than than do theology with him or something, right? So that that that gives the equivalent of friendship there, right? Huh?

[37:56] Now the sixth argument here. Now the sixth argument here is the same as the fourth argument, the one from needing what example, right? Huh? Okay. And the fact that no man is a perfect example. Likewise, it is manifest that beatitude is the reward of what virtue. Of course, Aristotle first pointed out, right? Even Shakespeare, he describes ethics. He says that part of philosophy that treats of happiness by virtue especially to be achieved.

[38:30] So virtue is the road to happiness, and vice is the road to misery, right? But to virtue we are provoked both by words and by what examples, huh?

[38:51] But examples of someone and their words. Are more efficacious to induce us to virtue when we have a more firm opinion, right, of their what goodness, huh? Now, about no pure man, are we able to have a what infallible opinion of their goodness, huh? Because even the most holy men are seen to have failed in some things, like Peter denied what Christ, huh? The apostles kind of ran away, most of them, anyway.

[39:24] Okay. Whence was necessary to man that he might be made firm in virtue, that God, right, that he take what both teaching and examples of virtue from a God-made

[39:44] humanato, huh? That's kind of an odd word, huh? Incidentally, you got to be kind of careful here. You know, if someone said to you, "Is Jesus Christ a human person?" What would you say? No. See That's dangerous, right? See, he's a person who is human, but he's not a human person. See, now if someone said is Jesus Christ a man, I'd say yes, no, no hesitation, right? But if they said Jesus Christ is a human person, I might think he's you know, from words disorderly put forward, from words disorderly put forward heresy results says heresy results, huh?

[40:20] See, we might take human person and human being as kind of you know the same thing, right? Human being, human person, man. See, there is only one person there, right? The divine person. I think it's the NAB that says in talking about Adam how in Adam all fell in a sense, but in a human being all were, a human being. It says, yeah, through a human being sin came into the world, and through through a human being justice or whatever it was they paraphrase St.

[40:52] Paul like that. That was the inclusive language thing. It's an attempt. Yeah, yeah. We won't be provoked to perfect Richard by that. We'll have to ask where the Christ is a human being too. We got to be careful of that. We'll see. Okay.

[41:15] On account of which the Lord Himself says in John thirteen verse fifteen, I have given you an example, right? He washes their feet, huh? That as I have done, so you might do, right? Huh? Later on, he says in the same chapter, "You love one other as I have loved you," right? So he gives an example of both what humility and of and of love, right? Okay.

[41:39] But that's the same as the fourth argument in the Summa Theologiae, right? Now the seventh one seems a little unique to the Summa Summa Contra Gentiles.

[42:06] Also, huh? Just as by virtues man is disposed to beatitude, so by sins he is what Impeded, right? Huh? For sin is contrary to virtue, and brings about an impediment to beatitude. Not only a disorder of the soul, according as it leads him away from a order to the end, but also he what offends God, from whom he expects what the reward of beatitude. According as God has care of human acts, and sin is contrary to divine charity, as has been shown more fully in the third book.

[42:56] And moreover, man having conscience of this offense. Through sin, he loses the confidence of what approaching God, which is necessary to achieving beatitude. It is necessary, therefore, for the human race that abounds in sin, right, that to him there be given some remedy against sin. But this remedy cannot be applied to him except through God, who can move the will of man in the good and reduce it to a suitable order, and who can remit the offense committed against him.

[43:43] For offenses are not remitted except by the one in whom the offenses are been committed. But from this, that man is what freed from his conscience of the offenses that he's done in the past, is necessary that he what be made aware of this the remission of his sin by God. But he cannot, with certitude, be made sure of this except God certifies this. He was suitable, therefore, to the human race seeking beatitude that God become man, so that thus he might what achieve remission of sins through God, and he might have certitude of this remission through the man God.

[44:40] Whence that the Lord says in Matthew nine verse six that you might know that the Son of Man has power to remit sins, and then he says, "Take up your thing, I guess, and walk with it, right." And the Apostle says in Hebrews nine verse fourteen that the blood of Christ cleanses our what consciences from dead works to serving the living God. So I guess you seem to be saying here something a little different than the Summa Theologiae, right?

[45:08] That did you have certitude that your sins are forgiven, right, through a man, what, to God made man? It's a little bit like, I suppose, to like we have an extension of that the sacrament of confession, right, where people you know get a certain

[45:26] certitude and relief through being forgiven in the sacrament of confession, right. I just remember remember my one of my mother's friends are you know making a general confession right, and talking you know how much relief she was after making this general confession you know and but telling my mother how much how what you know, but something like this huh that you might have more certitude that seems to be a little different argument than the one you have in the in the Summa Theologiae.

[46:03] But now the eighth argument, the last one, seems to be like the one in the Summa Theologiae very much. The tenth argument, and that is there. If I remember right, he has a little bit of Augustine's dialectic, right? Man sinned, therefore he should make reparation. But man can't do it. God could do it, but he doesn't. He's not the one who should make reparation. he should be man.

[46:27] Well, how'd he get out of this predicament? Well, God became man, and then man did penance. But it was sufficient because this man was the second person of the Blessed Trinity.

[46:47] From the tradition of the Church, we are taught that the whole human race was infected with sin. But this, the order of divine justice, has that sin without satisfaction is not remitted by what God. But to satisfy for the sin of the whole human race, no pure man could do this. Because each man, each purely man, right, is something less than the university of what of human race.

[47:24] It is necessary, therefore, that the human race might be liberated from this common sin, meaning especially original sin, that someone satisfied who both was a man, to whom satisfaction would be suited, and something above man, that his merit might be sufficient to satisfy for the sin of the whole what human race. Now more than man, as regards the order of beatitude, is nothing except God alone.

[47:55] For the angels, although they are superior as regards the condition of their nature, they are not superior as regards the order to the what end. That goes back to the first arguments that he gave here, right? This immediate thing, because we are made blessed by the same, right? That's why Thomas says, sometimes, among other reasons, why the angels appear in the form of a man, right? Because we are at the same end there.

[48:28] Is it just a misprint because it says they, not we, the other two consorts? No, they are made blessed by the same. They are made blessed by the same thing we are. Yeah, by God Himself. Okay.

[48:47] It is necessary, therefore, for men seeking beatitude, that God become what God man, yeah, to taking away the sin of the human race. And this is what John the Baptist says about Christ: "Behold, the Lamb of God," right. Behold, who takes away the sins of the world? And as the apostle says to Romans, as sin from one man, Adam, came to all in condemnation, so grace from one into all for justification from sin.

[49:22] Right. One human being. Yeah. Okay. So these, therefore, in like things, right, from which someone can conceive that was not incongruous, right, unsuitable to the divine goodness, right. I don't notice. Notice that first article we had in the summa. He's talking about the divine goodness, right? For God to become man, but it was most expedient to human what salvation.

[49:58] Okay. The last um uh last reason there. um I was also struck by how he says ex traditione ecclesiae, we really learn that from the Bible itself, don't we? that all human race is affected by sin. Yeah. I just wonder why it's specified from the tradition of the church, or maybe it doesn't matter.

[50:30] What's in both? You know. Yeah. Sure. Okay. Now, get a little summary here. I should have taped off this here. I got a few copies here, but I'll leave a couple copies here. You know, just just kind of summarize here a bit here.

[50:50] Maybe do something on it. Okay, the first, third, fourth, sixth, and seventh, and the tenth arguments in Summa Theologiae are found in both. Okay. So the first, third, fourth, sixth, and seventh, but sixth and seventh are combined, right? In the. In the tenth arguments in Summa Theologiae are found in both. Thus, six arguments are common to what? To both, huh?

[51:31] The second argument in the Summa Theologiae for hope, and the first argument in Summa Contra Gentiles are different arguments for hope. Okay. One is saying we're going to have hope because you know God loves us, right? We hope to receive good things from one who loves us. The Summa Contra Gentiles is pointing out that we hope to see God as He is face to face, which requires He be joined to us as that by which we understand, right?

[51:59] And could such a distance be overcome? You know, and Thomas says, "Well, when He joined human nature to His very person, we see how that distance can be overcome." So you have two different arguments, but both for hope, right?

[52:18] Now the fifth argument in the Summa Theologiae for the full partaking of divine nature, right? You know, God became man, so man might become God, right? I was seeing that one you had a church father, I don't know it was John, Chrysostom, or something. But yeah, other people say that besides Augustine, you know, I thought he's great. Um. In the eighth and ninth arguments, which were for the example of what humility, right?

[52:49] Humility, Seem to be unique in the Summa what? Theologiae, huh? Now, besides the distinct argument for hope, the Summa Contra Gentiles has another argument for charity, the fifth one, in terms of a certain equality between us, coming down to our level, and perhaps one for the certitude of forgiveness there in the seventh what? Argument of Summa Contra Gentiles. So now, if you combine the two how many arguments, do you have about thirteen arguments?

[53:23] I count, okay? And you can list them this way here: one for a full partaking of the divine nature, right? God became man, so that man might become God. Grace is a partaking of the divine nature. Okay.

[53:43] Now, following upon grace, there's of course faith, hope, and charity, and you have one argument for faith, which is what the same in both basically. You have two arguments for hope, right? One in each of them, but a different one.

[54:01] And you have two for charity: one which is found in both, and one which is found in addition only to the Summa Contra Gentiles, the one from the equality. One found in both of them for the example of how to act, right?

[54:20] Two from dignity, huh? Which is kind of run together in one argument in the Summa Contra Gentiles, but there's two different ones here: one about not subjecting yourself to the devil, and the other about being aware of the dignity of nature. And there's one for the certitude of forgiveness, and one for the full satisfaction for sin. The one for the certitude of forgiveness is kind of unique to the Summa Contra Gentiles, and one for the full satisfaction for sin, huh?

[54:51] Which is found in both of them. So there's about thirteen arguments, huh? Okay. So I went through this a lot as we go through here, but I just thought that's kind of a very important thing, you know. And you realize

[55:09] the wisdom of the one who decided to become a man, right? Okay. So a little break here before we go on. Mouthful.