Tertia Pars
4. Would God Have Become Incarnate Without Sin? Original Sin and the Timing of the Incarnation (ST III q.1 aa.3–5)
Class of 2008-09-25
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/004-would-god-have-become-incarnate-without-sin-original-sin/

[0:00] So let's look now at the third article, right? Whether if man had not sinned, nevertheless God would have become what incarnate. Of course, Thomas is going to take I think the position that, as far as we know from Scripture, it's because of man's sin, right?

[0:25] To the third one proceeds thus. It seems that if man had not sinned, nevertheless God would have become what flesh. For remaining the cause, there remains the effect, right?

[0:41] But as Augustine says in the thirteenth book about the Trinity, many other things ought to be thought about in the incarnation of Christ besides what absolution from sin.

[1:00] Therefore, even if man had not sinned, God would have what? Yeah. So even these thirteen reasons that we saw between the two Sumas, there are many reasons for the what incarnation scenes apart from what sin, right? So you can see how a person might wonder a little bit about this.

[1:22] Moreover, it pertains to the omnipotence of the divine power that he perfects his what works, and that he manifests himself through some infinite what effect. But no pure creature can be said to be an infinite effect, since every one is limited by his very essence or nature.

[1:50] But in the work of the incarnation alone, there seems especially to be made known the infinite effect of the divine power. Through this, that things that are distant and infinite distance are what joined. In so far as it has been made that man was God, right, or God was man,

[2:16] in which also work most of all is seen to be perfect universe. Through the fact that the last creature to to which man is joined to the first, namely God. Therefore, if man had not sinned, God would not have become what. God would have become what incarnate. Okay. So in a sense, man is what the minor cosmos, right? So in joining man or human nature to himself, God is joining in the sense the whole what universe to himself, huh?

[2:53] So you can give reasons why he might become man, right? Apart from this. Sin of man. No, an a fortiori argument. Moreover, human nature by sin was not made more capable of grace,

[3:21] but after sin, he was capable of the union of grace, right? Which is the greatest grace. Therefore, if man had not sinned, human nature would have been what capable of this grace. But God does not subtract from human nature the good of which he is capable. Therefore, if man had not sinned, God would have become incarnate.

[3:51] Moreover, the predestination of God is eternal. But it is said in Romans chapter one verse four about Christ that he was predestined to be the Son of God Son of God in what power. Therefore, before sin is necessary for the Son of God to be made what incarnate, in order that the predestination of God would be fulfilled. What's in the arguments if he didn't foresee our sin, right?

[4:23] Moreover, the mystery of the incarnation is what first revealed to man, as is clear through this that is said. This is now what bone for my bones, that the apostle says is a great sacrament in Christ in the church. As is clear in Ephesians five,

[4:49] but man could not be what prescient, know beforehand his own fall, for the same reason that neither an angel could. As Augustine proves, Super Genesim ad litteram. Therefore, if man had not sinned, God would have been what incarnate. And does that refer a little bit to marriage or something like that? Being the symbol. Yeah, yeah. We're going back to to to yeah. It was Eve came from the what side of Adam, right?

[5:31] And the church came from the side of Christ and that sort of thing. Okay. But against all this is what Augustine says in the book about the words of the Lord, explaining that which is had in Luke nineteen ten. The Son of Man came to seek and to save what had perished. If man had not sinned, the Son of Man would not have what come. So Augustine seems to be taking the other side, right?

[6:05] And in the first Timothy, upon those words, Christ came into this world that He might save what, Or make safe sinners. The gloss says, "I

[6:21] guess, praying from Augustine, there is no cause of coming for the Christ the Lord except that He make what sinners safe, take away the what illnesses, the wounds, and there is no need for the medicine." Okay, so Augustine and the authorities seem to be on the other side. Of course, the word Jesus is explained there in the Gospel of Matthew, just in Matthew there. You should call Jesus because He will save His people from their what sins?

[6:53] I guess that's the word Jesus comes like the word Joshua isn't it? And Jesse and Isaiah. Yeah, yeah, it has the idea of savior, right? So in a sense, I suppose the word Christ means anointed, but the word Jesus means savior, really. And the apostle explains that right. He called Jesus, tells Joseph, "Because He shall save His people from their sins." That name Jesus might seem to indicate, you know, what Augustine is saying here, right?

[7:22] That that's seeing quite none of His coming, right? Okay. That um, by the way, that that fifth one that seemed cryptic to you, I even looked up Saint Augustine, and it didn't help with that reference. The gloss. Yeah. Yeah, I was looking in my footnote here. It says the Ord et Lomb ex Aug, meaning Augustine. So you know, sometimes those glosses are identified. Sometimes they're not. Oh, I'm sorry.

[7:51] No, no, on the fifth one. The fifth argument. Yeah, the fifth one. It seemed kind of something like a non sequitur or something there. Right, and I thought maybe that I looked up Augustine on Genesis through the letter. It would help, but it didn't really. In other words, it's applying seems to be applying something to Adam. Oh, yeah. Well, I guess it was that Ephesians. I think.

[8:18] You know, the fact that Adam is cast into a sleep, right? Sleep, sleep of death, as Shakespeare says. You know, it's in his death. You know, that Christ gives birth. You know, maybe something like the church is trying to say that in the sleep Adam was given a vision of Christ or something. Yeah. Well, I think it's common of the fathers that when Adam was put into the sleep and he came out, that he under he might say the sleep was sort of a mystic sleep.

[8:44] He didn't just fall asleep, conk out at the end of the day or something. So it was something where he foresaw the sort of the incarnation. He was given a knowledge of the incarnation, but I think that's what he's saying that this is a

[9:01] if he had a knowledge of the self, I might say, the incarnation, but he didn't necessarily have a knowledge of his sin. Therefore, if he didn't sin, he still would have had this sort of prophetic knowledge of the incarnation. I think that's what the reasoning of the argument is, because it's theoretically he's Augustine in his work there is arguing the angels didn't know about their fall, we can't know about our fall ahead of time.

[9:23] But seems that Adam knew about the incarnation, so I think that's the reasoning of the argument. Or in the text of Paul too, there Magnum sacramentum is saying about matrimony, right? I mean, would it be a sign of the union of Christ and the Church if Adam didn't sin or something? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Because that's that's another thing about the Eve was both the body of Adam and the bride of Adam.

[9:48] It's like the Church is the body of Christ and the bride at the same time. Well, I answer. Thomas says it should be said that some about this have opined diversely. Right. For some, huh? And in my Marietti edition we have that it refers down to no less than Albert the Great in the third of the sentences, and Alexander Hales, right, who has this in our earlier Summa Theologiae, right.

[10:19] So there are some, you know, respectable people, not, you know, that some about this have thought diversely. For some say that even if man had not sinned, the Son of God would have become incarnate. Others assert the what contrary, to whose assertion it seems we're not to more assent. So Thomas is a little careful here, but he seems to definitely think that we should assent to what Augustine says.

[10:53] Um, for those things which come about from the will alone of God, above what is owed to the creature, right? The can we say that that human nature is owed this incarnation?

[11:14] Um, do not become known to us except in so far as they are treated in what sacred scripture, through which or by which the divine will becomes what known.

[11:30] Whence, since in sacred scripture everywhere the reason for the incarnation is assigned from the sin of the first man. More suitably is it is said that the work of the incarnation is ordered by God in the remedy of what sin. Thus, that sin not existing, the incarnation would not have been. Although the power of God is not limited, this right, because he could do that, for he would be able, even sin not existing, for God to be what.

[12:07] Yeah, that's a pretty good reason, huh? Modesty, huh? How many parts go with the modest truth? Can I ask a question? Might be elemental. Justin Martyr argues, I guess, maybe some other fathers argue that the angels that appeared in the Old Testament for Christ,

[12:35] like how how was that? Is that an incarnation of Christ? If he's appearing as a man to these men. Well, it's not incarnation, but he might might represent this. Maybe that's why they appeared as men. Like a foreshadowing of the incarnation. So it's kind of a revelation from God in the form of a man, and they're sort of foreshadowing something a bit more perfect than he actually takes on nature.

[13:02] Would incarnate would be into flesh, something like that. I don't know the exact definition. Yeah. As opposed to the spiritual apparition. Didn't didn't Saint Thomas talk about that in the missions about those what they what those angelic forms were, and he says they're more like in the mind than really fleshly beings. Didn't we see that in the missions? No, but he talks about them also as being outside in the senses, right?

[13:33] Whereas the angels, you know, that you see at the tomb, the one sitting at the head and the thing, they form something that looks like like a human. Yeah, but the Old Testament ones don't mean. Well, a lot of the the prophets, a lot of it is in the imagination, yeah. Like when it says God walked with Adam, God walked with Abraham and talked with him and stuff like that.

[13:58] He was arguing that was Jesus at the time. So that was in like the missions. Jesus appeared to Abraham. Right. Hospitality. Right. Yeah, but Jesus would not have been incarnate at that time. I mean, God would not have been. It would have been just like it says in the Apocalypse about the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world. I say, well, he was slain and figured before.

[14:18] He was really, only a man once Okay. The first argument was saying that there are many things to be thought of. Augustine says, right, besides. Thomas says, to the first, therefore, it should be said that all the other causes which are assigned pertain in some way to the remedy of what sin.

[14:50] For if man had not sinned, he would have been what filled with the light of divine wisdom, and he would be perfect by the rectitude of what justice.

[15:05] Ah. To knowing all things that were what necessary, right? But because man deserting God was what collapsed, collapsed to bodily things. It's very like that. It was suitable that God, assuming flesh, might exhibit also through bodily things to him the remedy of what salvation. Whence Augustine says on that of John John chapter one, verse fourteen chapter verse fourteen, the Word was made flesh, right? Flesh blinded thee, but and flesh will heal thee, because thus Christ came that from the flesh he might extinguish the vices of the flesh.

[15:57] huh? All those 13 reasons, right? They all have something to do with the remedy of sin. The second objection huh? God's got to have a what infinite effect to show himself off.

[16:23] To the second, it should be said that in that way of production of things from nothing, the infinite divine power is shown. When you take up creation and the reason why only God can create, the creation requires an infinite power. Because the further something is what removed from act and ability, the more need of power to bring it into act. But there's kind of an infinite distance between nothing and something, right?

[16:55] So it takes infinite power to create. So this is one way that God shows his what infinite power. Then after the command to show that.

[17:06] Now he says, "To the perfection also of the universe, it suffices in a natural way that the creature be ordered, thus to God as to an end. For this exceeds the limits of the perfection of nature, that the creature be united to God in what personal.

[17:32] But the main objection, our reply is in the first sentence there, right? Now the third one was, how is God going to what subtract from us some of which we are capable, right?

[17:46] To the third, it should be said that a twofold capacity can be noted in human nature. One according to the order of a natural power, which by God is always filled, who gives to each thing according to its natural what capacity. But another is according to the order of the divine power to which every creature is obedient. ad nutum. And to this it pertains this capacity.

[18:24] But God does not what fill every such capacity of nature. Otherwise, God what could not make any creature except what he has made in him, which is false, as has been shown in the what first. He

[18:45] could have made us with more grace, right? Now nothing prevents. Human nature to be led to something greater after sin, huh? for God permits evil things to come about that thence something what better might be elicited. Whence it is said in Romans five twenty, where iniquity abounded, grace superabounded. huh? Whence in the benediction of the Paschal candle is said, "O happy what Fall. which such and such a redeemer merited."

[19:30] right. Such and so great. We were teaching high school kids there the the you know. So why is it called a happy fall? Christ, one girl says they fell down together. Laughter That wasn't the answer. it's looking far. Laughter. Yeah, misery loves company. Yeah Well, that's one. reason why the high school the boys and the girls really have separate instruction, you know, they're kind of answering with a view to the other one.

[20:13] But Thomas will often point out how there's some good things like the patience of the martyrs, not possible without something bad, right? So some very great good things, and even the death of our Lord on the cross, you know, he undertook this what out of love for us, right? And this would not be possible without this Judas and the rest of them. So

[20:39] it's not impossible that some evil might be the occasion for God to bring out something. What? Yeah, yeah. What's kind of interesting, huh? That God probably would not have become man, right? If man had not fallen, right? So the greatest thing that he made is like in the Summa Contra Gentiles, the greatest thing that God made, the Word was made flesh. That's the greatest making there ever was.

[21:02] That making would not have taken place without the fall of man. Excuse me. So the third objection, is saying that what, man is kind of owed this, right, or God has to give us this because this is something which we're capable. But Thomas distinguishes those two capacities.

[21:36] God says, "You won't get the best of me." Huh? I do something even greater because you've done this. Huh? See, he's an unusual, God. You know.

[21:52] Nothing quite like him. Yeah. It's like me saying to somebody, you know, because you offended me, I'm going to do something even better for you. than I would have done if you'd not offended me. I don't know, Is there some example of that in, more strictly human? things Our Lord, our Lord says in the Sermon on the Mount, he says, "if you take if somebody takes your cloak, give him your cloak as well."

[22:14] Yeah, yeah. Just like that's in the Psalm. He says that Psalm 68 when he says that which I stole not, that that's what I paid. So which is kind of like saying, if you steal from me, I'll make the restitution for you.

[22:29] That's just that's God's way. Markets will bail you out Yeah, that's right With somebody else's money, yeah. Now the fourth argument, is from predestination, of course, that's more easily solved. To the fourth, it should be said that predestination presupposes the foreknowledge of what future things. And therefore, since God predestined the salvation of some man to be fulfilled through the prayer of others, so also He predestined the work of incarnation as a remedy of what?

[23:12] Now, the fifth one here about the nothing prevents, huh? Something to be, some effect to be revealed to someone to whom the cause is what? Not revealed, huh? Therefore, to the first man could be revealed something of the mystery of the incarnation without his being what? Prescient, Of his own fault. yeah, of his own fault. For not everyone who knows the effect knows the cause, and even the philosopher knows that.

[23:57] We're always asking the question, "Why?" You know, and don't you know often know why this is so? Now, given that it's in terms of sin, huh, that He came. Now, next question arises then, right? To the fourth. Just a fact check on this in general about this last one.

[24:24] In some way, he's leaving it open, and says because he says it's possible, but he says as far as Scripture goes, Scripture seems to be pointing us to the fact to give us the answer. But in a way, it's still just kind of just not definitely known or whatever. How would we Well, Thomas a little a little modest there in his reply, right? Yeah. But he's saying that if something is not owed to us, right?

[24:56] Huh? But is given to us, right? Then we have to more rely upon why this is given to us in the words of Scripture, right? And Scripture always seems to speak as if He became man because of what the sin of Adam yeah That was the point when I had a course in Christology. that was the point that was challenged by my professor. He brought up some of the Christological hymns in St.

[25:24] Paul, where St. Paul seems to be revealing that Christ has a role in creation apart from redemption. That He has a role as the first born of all creatures. I thought it was a pretty good argument, but I mean St. Thomas knew that Scripture too. So, but you know, in other words, it seemed to me that there are parts of Scripture that kind of hint at the fact that Christ may be fulfilling a role in creation that He would have fulfilled anyway, even apart from sin.

[25:55] St. Paul has things to say about Christ. I don't know if Thomas is denying that. there's something brought out to the incarnation besides redemption of man, right? You see, because I mean, like he'll talk like how how the union of human nature to God, in a sense, is bringing everything back to God, right? You see, and it's interesting in these psalms, you know, where you're praising God, usually you go to the angels first, and then you go to the material world below us, and then man is last, right?

[26:31] And you see that in a lot of these in the psalms, and also in the praise of the three guys' children and the thing. And Thomas will follow that order here. in Summa, you know, he takes up he takes up the creatures, he takes up the angels first, then kind of the gross material world, and then last of all, man, right? Huh? And so, and of course, the Greeks saw something of this, and they said man is what a little cosmos, right?

[26:57] Yeah. So he has the thing. So there's certain appropriateness that man's nature be what joined to God, because in a sense the whole creation is being joined to him. If man is part of it, I mean that's. But would that reason be enough for him to become man? He could he could do it just for that reason if he wanted to, right? Thomas is not denying that.

[27:24] This really depends upon the divine will. Which is revealed in scripture. so. And we you know that you know from scripture we can't really reason this out from from reason alone, right? Or from the nature of God, right?

[27:41] Maybe what he's saying because he what he says is it seems we should give assent more to this. Right, Because I think probably the evidence of scripture is more. If this is more evidence, which I don't, he's not excluding the other, but he's just saying that it seems more reasonable to assent to this based on. He's he's he's cautious there, you know. And. uh. I think that also it depends on what Adam's state would have been, how he would have lived his life, if he wouldn't have sinned.

[28:14] Would we need all these thirteen things? Could he could have had directly correspond with God in his natural state at some point? I think somebody said that Pope John Paul II wrote about that. I don't remember what work, but that Adam would have eventually progressed into the beatific vision, just living his life the way it was meant. Wouldn't have to die or anything like that. But even the creed, you know, it sort of says, you know, for us men and for our what salvation, It sort of means some sin, I guess.

[28:53] That's what I thought he might have meant when he spoke of the tradition of the church. Oh, okay. So it's like this, the creed.

[29:00] But all of that it seems to me is talking about, given the fact of the fall. So of course, Adam did fall, So now that's where scripture is coming from, and the traditions coming from. But not necessarily. It's not saying it couldn't have been otherwise. Yeah, Thomas says God could have become man without that. But his will seems to have been that because of the sin. As far as we judge from the words of scripture, you know.

[29:32] Okay. To the fourth one proceeds thus. Seems that God chiefly was made flesh for the remedy of what actual sins, than for the remedy of what original sin.

[29:53] For the more grave a sin is, the more it is opposed to human salvation. On account of which God was made what flesh, right?

[30:06] But actual sin is more grave than original sin. For the minima, the least punishment is due to original sin, as Augustine says against Julian. Therefore, chiefly the incarnation of Christ was ordered to the deleting of actual what sins.

[30:30] So actual sins divided into what venial sin and mortal sin, right? But then original sin is a different kind of sin. It's more peccatum naturae, they say.

[30:45] But to the original sin is not owed the punishment of sense, right? But only the loss of the vision, right? Pretty damning, as in the second book is had. But Christ came for the satisfaction of sins by undergoing what Suffering of the cross. Suffering of the senses on the cross, not however the punishment of what? Yeah, of losing the vision, right? Because he had no loss of the divine vision or the enjoyment of it.

[31:22] Therefore, he chiefly came to delete the actual sin and the original sin. That's a pretty good argument. Moreover, Chrysostom says in the second book on the compunction of the heart that this is the affection of a faithful servant. That the benefits of his Lord, which are commonly given to all, he regards as being what given to him alone, right?

[31:54] As if the what about himself alone? Paul speaking, thus writes the Galatians: he loved me and handed himself over for me, right? So if another man died for you, like sometimes one man does die for another man, right? You'd be pretty, you know, grateful towards this one man, right? That's the way you should regard Christ, right? He died just for me.

[32:22] But our own sins are what actual. The original is a common sin. Therefore, we ought to have this affection. That we estimate him chiefly to a common account of what actual sins, right? Then he came more for me, for my actual sins.

[32:49] But against this is what is said, John one twenty nine. Behold, this the Lamb of God. Behold, who takes away the sins of the world. As if these are the common ones, huh?

[33:08] I answer: It should be said that it is certain that Christ came into this world not only to delete that sin that was what carried down originally to posterity of Adam, but also to the deletion of all sins which afterwards were added.

[33:33] Not that all are deleted, right? Because there is an account of the defect of men that they do not adhere to Christ, huh? According to that of John three nineteen, the light came into the world, and men loved the darkness more than the light.

[33:55] But because he exhibited what was enough for the deletion of all sins, huh? Whence it is said, Romans five, not as the defect, shall we say, so was the gift, right? But judgment from one in condemnation, grace from what many sins into justification.

[34:25] Now to that chiefly, to deletion of that sin chiefly Christ came when that sin was what greater. But something is said to be greater in two ways. Thomas always sees distinctions that we don't see, huh?

[34:46] In one way, intensively, as that is greater whiteness, which is more what intense whiteness, huh? And in this way, actual sin is more than original sin because it has more of the reason of the voluntary, as has been said in the second.

[35:11] Another way, something is said to be more extensively, as that is said to be greater whiteness, which is on a greater what surface. And in this way, original sin,

[35:27] through this was infected what the whole human race, right? Okay. In that sense, it is greater than any actual sin, which is private to one person, right?

[35:40] And as regards this, Christ chiefly came to taking away what sin? And he quotes the philosopher, insofar as the good of the nation is more divine than the good of one. As is said in one ethicorum right? Superiority of the common good there. Aristotle says in the ethics there that it's lovable to achieve happiness for one man.

[36:11] You help your friend or your son or somebody, you know, to to be happy. That's lovable, he says. But it's more divine, he says, huh? To make a city happy, huh? And of course, God is concerned with the good of the whole universe, right? Which we cannot be, right? But when we're concerned with the good of the whole city, then we're more like God than when we're concerned with just the good of one man, our friend or our son or something of that sort.

[36:37] huh So the common good, economic defends the common good, huh? Okay. Now the first objection, he says, to that, to the first one, therefore it should be said that that reason proceeds about the what intensive magnitude of the sin.

[37:13] The second objection was saying, what about Christ? Did he undergo suffering of the senses, right? To the second, it should be said that to original sin in the future retribution is not owed the pain of what sense, huh? Because the pains that we sensibly undergo in this life, as hunger, thirst, death, and things of this sort, proceed from what original sin. And therefore, Christ, that he might fully satisfy original sin, wished to what suffer sensible pain, as death and other things of this sort.

[38:01] That he might what? Take away, I guess. Yeah. Let me consume them, right? So the second argument was arguing that that the sensible pain is what we get for our actual sin in the next world, right? Therefore, he must have been chiefly doing that. Thomas says, well. No, the the sensible pains are also result of original sin, and Christ trying to remove original sin undergoes the punishment that follows original sin.

[38:39] He's undergoing the punishment that we undergo because original sin, which is hunger, thirst, Not ignorance, Death. And, ignorance too, yeah. Okay, he didn't, no, he couldn't, yeah. He's going to bring it out probably in the third injection now. Okay.

[39:03] He's talking about how we got to make this personal, right? Say, I know a guy who died for me. Gee whiz, who was that guy? Okay. To third, it should be said that as Chrysostom there brings them in, those words the apostle said, not as if wishing to diminish, right? The most ample and the what gifts of Christ diffused through the the earth, huh? But that for what?

[39:42] All he what? Yeah, himself. He only. How do you translate "abnoxiis there? in your translation? English translation. The apostle used these words not as if wishing to diminish Christ's gifts, ample as they are, in spreading throughout the whole world, but that he might account himself alone the occasion of them.

[40:15] Okay. He was the. indicated himself as the harm. Yeah. Right, the cause of the harm. Yeah. For what is it if to others he what? Bestowed them right. When those things are given you are so what? Whole and perfect right. As if to no other one from these was anything given. huh. I got so many presents for him I mean. I can aware of the fact that other people got presents too.

[40:54] From this, therefore, that someone ought to regard these benefits as being made for himself, right? He ought not to estimate that they are not given to what others, huh? And therefore, it does not exclude, but that chiefly he came to abolish the sin of the whole what nature, than the sin of one person. But that common sin was thus perfectly cured in each one, as if it was what cured in one alone.

[41:31] And moreover, on account of the union of charity, the whole that was given to all, each one ought to what ascribe to himself, right?

[41:44] So what you do for my friend, I consider done for me, right? Was Christ says too, right? We're most imitative in that respect, huh? The next two articles are going to be about? whether he should have what? Come earlier. But he should have stayed around long, huh? We've got time for it, go on. or?

[42:19] Five It's pretty short. Article five is pretty short. Go on. Okay. To the fifth one proceeds thus. It seems that it was suitable for God to be what flesh from the beginning of the human what race, huh? For the work of incarnation proceeds from the immensity of the divine charity or love, as Saint Paul says in Ephesians two, God who is rich in mercy, on account of the exceeding love by which he loves us, exceeding charity, when we were what dead in sins, he what revived us in Christ.

[43:14] But charity does not delay to come to the friend undergoing necessity, according to that of Proverbs three twenty eight. Don't say to your friend, go and come back tomorrow. I give to you, and you can give immediately. Therefore, God should not have deferred the work of incarnation, but immediately from the beginning to the Incarnation he should have come to the help. That's a pretty convincing argument. It's a pretty convincing argument.

[43:44] Yeah. It's usually scripture against God now, right? The devil can quote scripture, but yeah, that's pretty pretty serious stuff here. Thomas is involved, huh? What have you been waiting for?

[44:02] Moreover, one Timothy one, Christ came in this world to make sinners saved, right? That kind of confirms that that's the reason for his coming, right?

[44:15] But many would have been saved if, from the beginning of the human race, God was made what incarnate. For many, beginning of the human race God perished in their sin in diverse ages. Therefore, it is more suitable that from the beginning of the human race, God was incarnate. huh? Those guys didn't have the sacraments, didn't have the scripture. Oh my gosh! I don't know how he's going to get out of this one.

[44:53] Moreover, the work of grace is not less ordered than the work of nature. But nature takes its origin from the perfect, as Boethius says in the book on the Consolation of Philosophy. Therefore, the work of grace ought to be from the beginning perfect. But in the work of the incarnation is considered the perfection of grace, according to that that the Word was made flesh and then later is joined, full of grace and what?

[45:25] truth Therefore, Christ from the beginning of the human race ought to have been made incarnate. Now, against all this is what is said in Galatians four, verse four, that when came the fullness of time. God sent His own Son, made from a woman. Where the gloss says, and this one here is in my text here, identified as being from Ambrose,

[45:58] that the fullness of time is what was for limited or defined by God the Father when He would send His Son. But God, by His wisdom, defines all things. Therefore, in most suitable time, God was made flesh. And thus, it was not suitable that from the beginning of the human race, God was what Makes flesh. Well, it was puzzling when I first remember reading this article a few years ago, and very, very puzzling.

[46:32] You know, why, why did He delay, right? Okay, he gives basically the reasons he gives in the Summa Contra Gentiles too. I answer it should be said that the work of the incarnation is chiefly ordered to the reparation of human nature through the abolition of sin. It is manifest that was not suitable from the beginning of the human race before sin for God to be incarnate.

[47:08] For one does not give medicine except to the infirm. Let's start talking now about before Adam and sin, right? Whence the Lord says, Matthew nine, there is no need for the well of the medicine of the doctor, but to those having themselves badly, bad health. For I have not come to call the just, but what sinners, right?

[47:37] But also immediately after sin, it was not what suitable for God to become flesh. First, on account of the condition of human sin, which came from what pride, a man sinned through pride.

[47:59] Whence, in that way, was man to be liberated? That, growing humble, he recognizes himself to need a what liberator, right? Whence, on that of Galatians three, ordered through the angels and the hand of the mediator, the gloss says,

[48:21] this was done with great counsel that after the fall of man, not immediately was the Son of God sent. For God first left man in the what in his free will, right, in libero arbitrio, in the natural law, that thus he might know what. The powers of his what nature,

[48:50] where when he failed he might receive the law, right? Which, being given, sickness still was strong, right? Not of the law, but by the vice of nature. That thus, having known his infirmity, he would clamor, right? Shout for the medicine, the medical doctor, and would seek the.

[49:18] What are you talking about? The the extent of what the pride of man, right? And Thomas will talk about the time where man is kind of left to himself entirely, right? And there he doesn't even know what's good to do, right? And then the time under the law, where he. Knows what is good but doesn't do it, and then he sees another defect in himself, right? And now he's ready, right, to both receive truth and what grace from Christ, right?

[49:50] Because he realizes he's inadequate to knowing the truth adequately without Christ and without grace. Even if he knew the truth, he wouldn't be able to do it.

[50:01] That's quite a impediment, you might say, pride, right? But you have to, in a sense, realize your need before you can you can accept the the doctor, right? Today in Christendom, the consciousness of the need, the consciousness of the existence of sin, have been sort of disappearing. Yeah, yeah. Don't think they need him, you know. They got themselves distracted sufficiently. Remember my friend Jim Francetic getting in the hospital or something.

[50:37] He says to me, Berquist He says, "Don't worry if you if you know enough to go to the hospital and you have this." He says, "If you have this," he says, "you want to go to the hospital." That's that's the old joke about the Irishman goes to the doctor's office. He's sitting there in the waiting room. Another fellow sits there and he says, "Boy, I hope the doctor finds something wrong with me."

[50:59] Why would you say that? Well, I hate to feel this bad and be healthy. And if you make that to those two of the reasons given in the Summa Theologiae, the suitability of the thing, terms of humility, right, which two arguments that Thomas had in the Summa Theologiae.

[51:37] Secondly, on account of the order of going forward in goodness, according as is from the imperfect to the perfect, where the apostle says in the first epistle to Corinthians, "Not before what is spiritual, but what is what animal. Then what is spiritual? First, the man of earth, earthly. Secondly, the man of heaven, heavenly. Right. So, in a sense, he's saying this is the nature of man to be brought from an imperfect stage to a perfect stage.

[52:18] And then, third, on account of the dignity or worth of the incarnate Word, because on that of Galatians 4, when came the fullness of time, the gloss says, "This is Augustine, I guess." My think says. When a greater what judge comes, than the what series of the heralds and so on, right? A longer one ought to proceed, right? No, it's, given the given the excellence of Christ coming, there ought to be all kinds of what foretelling of his coming, right?

[52:52] People coming ahead and so on, right? You know, the president comes in to give the State of the Union, right? The guy comes in, you see that on you know TV, I guess, huh? Before the the guy comes in and announces, you know, before the president walks in, right? So, for its reason, there should be all these people coming before Christ. We do that part now, as master.

[53:14] I insist on it. Now, those three reasons are given in Summa Congentiles, huh? But this fourth one is, is is given here, lest the fervor of faith by the length of time go tepid, huh? This is a very frightening thing here, because around the end of the world, the charity of many will what? Yeah, this is a reference to Matthew twenty four twelve and Luke eighteen, verse eight.

[53:58] When the Son of Man comes, do you think you will find faith upon here? But this is kind of understandable. What does this have to do with this question? It seems like it would fit in the other one about the

[54:14] delay, because isn't this the one saying that he should have come? Well, if he'd come at the very beginning, then this prolixity of time would have led to this tepidness even sooner than it did, yeah. Oh, because it came. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.

[54:35] But those those two passages are kind of you know make us think you know Antichrist, you know, the other side of this thing, huh? The people's faith and charity will grow weak, you know. Okay, I thought it would fit more with this other article six saying that if he waits too long, it's going to be too late. That'll fit just a big ice cube. No, no.

[55:02] But you know, I mean, they'll speak of the acts of the apostles and something like that, and the church is more fervent in those days, right? Yeah. And and maybe in the Middle Ages they're more fervent in some way, maybe than we are, you know, and and we seem to be getting very cold. A certain way that's what I know. Saint Bonaventure talks about why it took him so long to come the first time.

[55:22] Yeah. He says, but there was sort of like if you know something's coming and it's put off a little more and more, if you're if you're interested in the coming, it'll make your desire and fervor increase and grow. Yeah. Said which which you see in the Old Testament with the prophets, anyway.

[55:41] Now the first objection was saying, you know, you don't hesitate to come, right? But the first, therefore, it should be said, huh, that charity does not defer to come to the aid of the friend, but observing the what opportunity of conditions and the condition of the persons, huh?

[56:02] I remember one time when Monsignor Dion was talking there about the confessions of Saint Augustine, right? And Saint Augustine's mother goes to the bishop, right, wants the bishop to talk to Augustine, right, straighten the guy out. And bishop says, not yet, not yet. See, that's not a act of charity, right? They realize that Augustine is not yet what teachable, yeah, yeah, okay.

[56:33] For if the doctor, right, from beginning of the medicine of the sickness, gave medicine to the infirm, man, he would what? Less profit. Yeah, or he'd more harm than aid, right? And therefore, also the Lord did not immediately give the remedy of the incarnation to the human race, lest they what condemn it, holding a contempt from pride, right? If before they did not know his own what, yeah, yeah.

[57:11] Now Augustine even talks about people falling into sins of the flesh, right? Huh? Which more manifests to a fallen, right? And you know, he spoke of some proud nuns or something, you know, proud, proud celibate. Um, they would be to advantage to fall into sins of the flesh, right? Because it might cure them of their what pride, you know. So that's that's a very difficult thing to

[57:48] root out. Saint Bernard says that if the Blessed Mother wasn't humble, it wouldn't matter if she was such a virgin, she was so pure. Oh, she wasn't humble.

[58:04] Okay. the second objection we'll say, when more people have been saved, right? To the second, it should be said that Augustine responds to this in the book on the six questions of the pagans, saying, huh,

[58:23] that then Christ wished to what appear to men, and among them to what preach his teaching or doctrine, when he what, when and where he knew. He would be what? We would believe in him, right? For in those time times and in those places, such men in his teaching knew to be such, not all, but many in his what?

[59:02] Presence. Yeah. Oh yeah. Who neither in him, the dead being raised, would wish to what? Believe, right? But Augustine, reproving this response, right, says in the book about perseverance, we are never able to say what that the Tyrians and the Sidonians, such powers having been done among them, right. Would not have wished to believe. Christ didn't say the opposite, right? If these same signs had worked in there, they would have repented, right?

[59:50] Or if they would not have believed if they had been done, since the Lord Himself attests the fact that that they were done. They would have done the the penance of their humility, right? If in them had been done what those signs of the power of those. Then, as it were, solving this, the Apostle says, "Is not of the one wishing or willing, nor the one running, but of the what God having mercy.

[1:00:25] Those whom He what foresaw, if among them these things were done, right, they would believe by the miracles. To whom He wished to what aid, others He did not come to the aid of. About whom, in His predestination, in a hidden way, but justly He judged otherwise. Thus, His mercy in these who are liberated, and His truth or justice in those who are punished, without doubt we believe, right?

[1:01:00] That's very hard to people to accept, you know. We were first reading these things, and wait a minute, Augustine, because my cousin Dolly had two volumes of the works of Augustine. You know, I go to the cousin's house, I read these things about Augustine. You know, you know, so straightening my straightening out my thinking, you know, but it's really kind of that's a hard teaching, you know, huh?

[1:01:19] Yeah, it's a hard teaching, you know. But why do some people have better parents, right, and guide them in life better, you know? Why are some people getting better parents or better brothers or something, or better teachers or something that other people, you know, just had bad friends, bad parents, bad this, bad that, you know? I shouldn't shouldn't be too curious to try to assign the reasons for these things, right?

[1:01:52] But both the mercy and the justice of God will be seen in these things, more or less in this life, but in future life more so.

[1:02:14] Okay, now the old distinction of the ninth book of wisdom. To the third, it should be said that the perfect is before the imperfect in diverse things, right? In time and nature, it is necessary that the perfect be that to which that which brings other things to perfection, right? But in one and the same thing, the imperfect is before in time, although it is after in nature.

[1:02:41] Thus, therefore, the imperfection of human nature in duration precedes the what? The eternal perfection of God precedes, right? But there follows, if the what, consummate perfection of man in union to God. So that's the thing Aristotle talks about in the ninth book of Wisdom, right? That ability is before act in the thing that goes from ability to act. But simply speaking, act is before because something goes from ability to act.

[1:03:12] The reason is something already an act. So people get mixed up in that all the time. So those who think that matter is the beginning of all things are making the mistake of what? Simply and not simply, right? Because ability is before act in some way, and they think that simply speaking it must be first. That's a second kind of mistake outside of what? Speech. Very common mistake.

[1:03:45] They only think about how the egg is before the chicken, and not how the chicken. is. Yeah, Aristotle answers the question, Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Right.

[1:03:54] He does, or he doesn't. He does. Of course, he does, brother. He answered. We didn't talk for a second like you were saying. Actually, address that for another question. No, no, no, no. I'd be interesting if they had that phrase back then. But since you asked me, right, since I was a question, you asked which came first, the chicken or the egg? Right. Yeah, yeah. You're still nervous.

[1:04:30] Some people are better brethren than others. Did I erase that? I don't know what to use. You have them. You're out of your own. Put it on. Why me? It's curious that, he begins here from the suitability of the incarnation, right? And the other work, other summa, the ends of that.

[1:05:03] I mean, there the emphasis is upon this: the greatest thing God is made, right? And here it's emphasis upon what getting back to God is the what? The end, yeah. The beginning and the end. Yeah, I mean, in both summas, as we're putting out before, you consider God Himself, God is the maker, and God is the end, right? But in the Summa Theologiae, the incarnation is under God is the end, right?

[1:05:36] In the Summa Contra Gentiles, is taken up under God is the maker. The word was made flesh. The greatest making here. So there's a little difference in in where they're considered, even though they do talk about somewhat the same thing, right? And maybe that's something to do with why he begins with the suitability of this, because that's tied up with the end.

[1:06:04] And in the other one he talks about was he made a man? First of all, how was he made a man? And then why was he made a man? Last.