Tertia Pars
5. Aquinas on the Incarnation: Its Timing, the Plan of the Third Part, and Why Christ Has Not One Nature but Two (ST III, q.1 a.6 – q.2 a.1)
Class of 2008-10-02
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/005-aquinas-on-the-incarnation-its-timing-the-plan-of-the-third/

[0:01] In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of, the Holy Spirit, Amen. 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, Pray for us and help us to understand what you're reading. Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen. Amen.

[0:25] Being the feast of the Guardian Angels here, in the Latin rite anyway, you should get special help in our studies today from our Guardian Angels.

[0:39] So we're up to the sixth article and question one here. To the sixth, one proceeds thus: It seems that the work of the incarnation ought to have been deferred to the end of the what world. huh? For it is said in Psalm ninety-one. My old age in what?

[1:04] In mercy, right? Bounds, huh? That is in the late last day, as the gloss says. But the time of incarnation is maxime, most of all, the time of mercy, according to that of Psalm ninety-one. Also, when came the time of what? Of mercy. Therefore, the incarnation ought to have been deferred till the end of the what world. huh? Would that have been so merciful, though, to have delayed it till then?

[1:45] Moreover, as has been said, the perfect in the same thing is in time after the what imperfect. Therefore, that which is most perfect ought to be last in time.

[2:02] But the highest perfection of human nature is in its union to the Word, because in Christ it was pleasing that all the what fullness of divinity would indwell, or dwell in them, as the Apostle says in Epistle of the Colossians. Therefore, the incarnation ought to be deferred until the end of the what world.

[2:31] Moreover, it is not suitable to come about the two things what can be done through one. But one coming of Christ is sufficient for the salvation of human nature, which will be at the end of the world. Therefore, he should not have come before by the incarnation. One coming is enough.

[2:56] Why these two comings? I guess they're two what articles of the faith, right? Two, twelve articles, and they define them by twelve sometimes. But again, this is what is said in the prophet Habakkuk, in the middle of the years, right? I made known. Sounds like Dante, right? In the middle of the years. Therefore, the mystery of incarnation, by which he was made known to the world, should not be deferred until the end of what time.

[3:41] So, what is Thomas going to say about this? It's always good to hear what Thomas has to say. I answer it should be said that just as it was not suitable for God to be made incarnate from the beginning of the world, for the reasons we gave in the last article, so it is not suitable that the incarnation be deferred until the end of the world, which appears first from the union of the divine and the human nature.

[4:14] For as has been said, the perfect in one way in time precedes the what imperfect. Now, in that that goes from the imperfect, in

[4:30] that which becomes like perfect from being imperfect, the imperfect in time precedes the perfect. But in that which is the efficient cause of the maker of perfection, the perfect in time precedes the what imperfect. So, perfection of Thomas's mind, right, precedes our mind going from an imperfect state to a more perfect state.

[4:59] Now, in the work of the incarnation, both of these things what come together, because human nature in the incarnation is brought to its highest what perfection.

[5:17] And therefore, it is not suitable that from the beginning of the human race the incarnation was what made. That was one of the reasons given back in the previous article.

[5:32] But at the same time, the incarnate Word is also the efficient cause, the maker of human perfection, according to that of John one sixteen, first chapter of John's Gospel, of his fullness we have all received, huh? We have taken. him. And fullness, is, another word for what? Perfection, right? And therefore, it is not suitable or not to be that the work of the incarnation be deferred until the end of the world, but the perfection of glory, right?

[6:11] To which will be led at last human nature through the incarnate Word. That will be in the what? End of the world, huh? So that's the first reason he gives. We'll chew upon that a little bit.

[6:39] So Thomas sees some element of truth in the second objection, not the whole truth, huh? Secondly, from the effect of human salvation, for as is said in the book on the questions of the New and the Old Testament, it's among the works, I guess, of Augustine. In the power of the One giving is when and how much He wishes to what? Show mercy, right?

[7:08] He comes there for a win He knows He ought to what? Come in and make grateful, right? The future what? Benefit, huh? For when by a certain what Sickness? sickness, huh, of the human race, man began to what? Forget, right? The knowledge of God among men and customs were what? Changed. He thought it worthwhile to choose Abraham, in which there would be a form of the what?

[7:52] Renewal of the knowledge of God and of morals, huh? And when what? This reverence was yet what? Weaker. Afterwards, through Moses, He gave the what? Law, by letters. And because nations what? Spurned it, huh? Not subjecting themselves to Him, nor those who accepted it observed it, huh? With a motion of mercy, right? The Lord sent His Son, who, giving remission to all sins, offered to God the Father these same ones justified.

[8:39] If however this remedy were deferred until the end of the world, wholly the knowledge of God and the reverence of God and the honesty of morals would have been what? Abolished in the earth, huh?

[9:02] Third, it appears that this would not be what suitable to the manifestation of divine power, which in many ways saves men, not only through faith of the future, in the future, but also through faith of the what present and the past. So the prophets were saved by what faith in the future coming, and we are saved by what faith in what happened in the past.

[9:40] So that's kind of strange, a little bit of that reason, huh? But it's interesting, huh? Different ways of saving us. Some of us are saved by looking forward, and some by looking backwards. Not that would fit in the political system today, but it's like it's like uh it says in the I think it's

[10:07] Mark's Gospel when I went to Jerusalem. It's those who went before and those who went after. Christ goes on. Yeah, yeah. yeah, It symbolizes this here. what he's saying. the first one is about this obscure text from Psalm 91.

[10:35] To the first, it should be said that the gloss expounds that about mercy leading to what glory. If, however, is referred to the mercy shown to the human race by the incarnation of Christ, it should be known that as Augustine says in the Book of Retractions,

[10:59] the time of the incarnation can be compared to the what youth of the human race, on account of the vigor and the fervor of what faith, that is, of the faith which acts through love.

[11:19] But to old age, which is the sixth age, on account of the number of what times, because Christ came in the sixth age, and although in the body there cannot be at the same time youth and old age, right? There can nevertheless be in the what soul. This, on account of what?

[11:51] Alacrity, but I don't know how to say it in English. Quite. Yeah. This, on account of gravity. Okay. And therefore Augustine says that it was not what

[12:12] it was not necessary, right, for what divinely, yeah, to come the Master, right, by the imitation of whom the human race would be formed in the best what, yeah, except in the time of what youth, huh?

[12:38] Otherwise, elsewhere he says that Christ came in the sixth age of the human race as it were in what? Yeah. Kind of unusual. It's an obscure text, though, from the the psalm. I thought interesting though that he sort of dismissed the interpretation right off the bat. He says. But that's spoken about the glory. But even if you say about this, and that's what Jesus. Yeah, yeah.

[13:12] Where does the notion of the sixth age come from? I think it's maybe old, an older. I'm not cosmology, but sort of it's understanding human life in the sixth age, and then they also refer to the world as six ages because sometimes it depends, like the covenants of God, where it's common. Augustine, the first who came on it, because I'm sure

[13:39] he's been found. Now the second objection we said already made the distinction: the body, the article, right? That the work of the incarnation not only should be considered as the limit of the motion from the imperfect to the perfect, the human race, the human nature is being brought gradually to its highest perfection, and is being joined to Him, but also as the beginning the perfection in human nature, as has been said.

[14:10] Therefore, it ought not to be at the very beginning or at the very what end. Because if it's at the very beginning, human, what nature would have been raised to its highest perfection right away, rather than gradually brought to this perfection. And if we were delayed to the end, then the what one whose fullness we all receive would not be here until the end. We'd all miss out on the fullness of this one, huh?

[14:40] So that's a very subtle thing that Thomas says. Okay. Now the third objection. Why have two comings, right? And you can do with one.

[15:04] To third, it should be said that as Chrysostom says, upon that of John three verse seventeen, God did not send His Son into the world that He might judge the world. Two are the comings of Christ, right? The first that He might remit our sins, the second that He would what judge.

[15:29] For if He had not done this, all would have what been lost, huh? For all had sinned and knew the glory of God. Whence is clear the ought not to have what deferred the coming of His mercy until the end of the world, huh? In a way, the first time He comes in what, or I can mercy. The second time He comes more in justice, huh? So the second coming is more fearful one than the first, huh?

[15:59] The first gives us hope. Okay, let's stop for a second here. There's six articles in this first question, right? Now you know you can't understand the division into six, huh?

[16:24] Now, if you're going to divide these six articles, would you divide them into two or three? Trying to understand the the six that Thomas has.

[16:54] The first one against the other five. Why would you do that? Just be different. I mean, I mean, don't the last two, for example, naturally go together? Because they're both dealing with the time, right? Should he have come earlier or or later than he did come, right? Shouldn't have been the first place and then when? Yeah, yeah, yeah. But then the third and fourth go together, right?

[17:22] The third and fourth are both about what? Sin, right, huh? The third one, would he have come without our sin, right? And assuming that he would not have, did he come more for what? Original sin or actual sin, right? He came for both, but to some extent, original sin more because that's affects the whole human race, right? And it involves the common good in the way that the other doesn't.

[17:50] And then the first two, in a way, both fit together, don't they? Because one case you say, was it suitable considering what God is that he should do such a thing? And Thomas points to the goodness of God, right, huh? Okay. And was it what useful to man that he became, that's right. So it's kind of two sides of the same discussion, right? Okay.

[18:18] Because for it to be suitable to become man, it's got to in some sense fit him, and it's got to be useful to us, right? And so the two sides he takes up in those first two. So it seems to me most natural to divide it into what? Three parts, huh? So Thomas leads us to understand that these six can be divided into three, and each of the three into what?

[18:39] Two, right? And obviously the first two are the most important, but the second two are rather important, huh? And someone was saying that Francis de Sales says the opposite of what Thomas says, huh? I didn't know.

[19:01] Have you seen that Francis de Sales? You've seen that in his text. Under the love of God, is what it is. I think. Good. Yeah, I've read. I've read this part of it that is mentioned in this book. Yeah, it doesn't have the reference there, so it makes me the love of God. Yeah, yeah, I can give you the reference. Yeah, I mean the footnote says it's in Albert.

[19:24] Albert. Albert too, yeah, yeah. Yeah There's tons of slaves to do That's a little more particular, right? It's singling out, in a sense, one reason that he came, and saying that's kind of the is that the sine qua non. He said, and it's all these other reasons, right? It's more particular, and the last two questions are more particular too, dealing with the exact time that he's coming.

[19:58] The most fundamental ones would be whether he. Should have come right, and then Whitney should have come right. That's more secondary, right? Okay. Now, so we don't get lost, just look again at the premium here to the first question, which is actually a premium to more than just the first question.

[20:27] And even look back at the one for a second at the prologue, right? In the prologue, there he gives a first division of the whole third part of the Summa,

[20:41] and that's going to be divided into three parts. First, we're going to consider the Savior Himself, right? Secondly, his sac sacraments, right, by which we what get obtain salvation, and third, about the end of immortal life, to which we arrive by rising to Him. So that's the division of the whole third part of the Summa, and it's into what three parts? Okay.

[21:20] I mentioned that those same three things are done in the same order in the Summa Contra Gentiles in the fourth book. But in the second part of the fourth book, he takes up the Savior and the Sacraments, and then in the third part, the end of immortal life. But it's the same order, right? And the sacraments are like the what instruments of Christ. That's why when they talk about the sacraments having something sensible and something what spiritual, right?

[21:56] They say it both fits the nature of man, who's an animal that has reason, right? And it fits what the Word made flesh, whether something sensible and something what something more divine that can't be sensed.

[22:14] And when Thomas talks about the priesthood, there he talks about how you need something what sensible, more ways than one, something sensible, but something spiritual, right? And therefore, he says the angels can't be a what priest, right? But he says that the priest be both something sensible and something spiritual. spiritual makes the priest both an instrument of Christ and also what fitting us human beings who are this composite nature.

[22:54] So the sacraments are. Very closely tied. Now, in the catechism of the Catholic Church, the sacraments are in the what second part, huh? But they follow upon the what? You can put them back in the first part if you wanted to, because they follow upon the the mysteries of the faith, right? Okay. Now, in the first of these three parts, and incidentally, Thomas didn't finish the tertia pars huh?

[23:26] He got up through what part of the treatise on the sacraments, huh? And the rest of it that they fill in with what? So Thomas goes from the the sentences, right, where a lot of these same questions are taken up. Okay. Now, the first of these parts, right? He divides not into three, but into what two?

[23:49] And only the first of these two is found in the Summa what? Contra Gentiles, right? About the first, there occurs a twofold consideration. First, about the mystery of incarnation, according or by which God, for our salvation, was made a man.

[24:11] Secondly, about those things which what by the Savior himself, or our Savior, that is the incarnate God, were done and suffered, right, undergone. Okay. Now that second part there, as they say, is kind of like a summary of the history of the Gospels, right? That you have in the Gospels. And that's not in the Summa Contra Gentiles.

[24:40] So we're in the first of these two parts, huh? Now that first part is divided into three in the premium to question one, right? So about the first three things occurred to be considered. First, about the suitability conveniencia of the incarnation itself, right? And that's the one question. devoted to that question one, right, which we saw was divided into three parts. Secondly, about the what? Mode, right, or way of the union of the incarnate Word.

[25:18] And third, about those things which Which follow upon this union, right? So questions two through fifteen will be about the what? How man and God were joined in this incarnation, right? And then things that follow upon that, starting question what? Sixteen. Okay.

[25:41] So now we're ready to go to the second of these three parts, right? Which is question two, right? How does Thomas divide that into two or three?

[25:58] Then we ought to consider. Then we ought to consider about the the mode, the way of the union of the incarnate word. And first, as regards the union itself.

[26:18] Secondly, as regards the what person assuming human nature, right? Third, as regards the nature what assumed. huh So, some days it's good to just review what the you know where you are, right? Where am I? It's good to know that, right? Okay.

[27:03] And this, the first of these, is going to be in this second question, right? So he says about the first of these, twelve things are asked.

[27:18] First, whether the union of the incarnate word was made in what the nature? Did the human nature and the divine nature come together and make one nature, as Eutyches says? Right. Before there were two natures, and afterwards there was one nature. Well, you might know that's Eutychian, right? Or was the divine nature turned into human nature? Right. The word was made flesh.

[27:50] The second article, and this is probably after you've seen the negative answer to the first one, right? Whether it was made in what Person, right?

[28:06] That the two natures were joined in what one person, right? But the two natures didn't come together and form something, right? Some said, you know, the divine nature was in place of the soul for Christ, and all kinds of heresies, you know, that raised this business.

[28:29] Okay. Now the third article, in a way, is connected with this, but it's part of the question about the words here, right? Further, whether it was made in the what suppositum, right? Or the hypostasis, right? Now there's all kinds of questions there. First of all, about the word itself, right? Because hypostasis,

[28:58] as far as the word itself is concerned, should stand for any individual what substance, right? But in a rational nature, that would be the same thing as a person, huh? But the Greeks will speak instead of three persons; they'll speak of three hypostasis, using hypostasis in a way for person, huh? But then there are people, you know, who say there are two hypostases in one person, you know, and you know.

[29:22] So there's a lot, a lot of history behind the reason why Thomas is stopping upon these these words, huh? And then you see the word hypostasis, etymologically speaking, is from what stand under means hypostasis. So it has the same etymology as the word what substance, right? And so when they're studying the Trinity, they say there are three hypostases, and then the heretics would say there are three substances to kind of what transliterate the word, right, or give the same etymology.

[29:58] And the word substance is used in Latin for the nature as well. So three substances would seem to be saying there's three natures, and that would be heretical in talking about the Trinity. Yet three hypostases, the word hypostasis and substantia seem to be what the same, right? It's like if I was to say in English, take the English equivalent, three understandings in God. Are there three understandings in God?

[30:25] See, the understanding hypostasis both have the same what etymology, right? So all kinds of problems, right, that people had because of the words, huh? And sometimes Thomas quotes, you know, Jerome, you know, there's poison under this word, you know, because people are being misled by it, right? So.

[30:50] And fourth, whether the person or hypostasis Christi, as if he's taking them now as being kind of synonymous, right? Whether after incarnation it is what composed. Well, that's going to get you in trouble too.

[31:09] So the second and the third and the fourth articles are all dealing with what somewhat the same thing, right? But the second, the third, and the fourth articles are kind of subordinated, right,

[31:24] to the fundamental second article there. The fifth article, whether there was made some union of the soul and the body in what? Yeah. Now as Thomas explains, when he takes up the six heresies in the Summa Contra Gentiles, someone to say that the soul and the body of Christ were not united, because if they were united, you would have been a human person. And you have two persons.

[31:58] So to keep one person in incarnation, they said the body and the soul of Christ were united to his person, but not to each other. So all these things are now long tradition of of the heresies, huh?

[32:18] What? They think of everything. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. So, so, so Thomas is not just you know needlessly multiplying these things. And the sixth article, whether human nature was united to the Word what, accidentally,

[32:46] like by being clothed or something, right? Did God clothe Himself with human nature, right? But then He would not really become a man, huh? He more than I become my clothes. Clothes make the man.

[33:19] See, there are those who say, you know, that God dwelt in this man in a very special way. Well, then, this human nature would be joined to God only accidentally, like the temple is to God or something.

[33:41] Now, whether the union itself is something what, created, huh? That's a frightening topic for discussion, right? And eight, whether it is the same thing as the what assumption? He took to himself human nature, right? He took to himself human nature from Mary, right? Okay, Is that the same thing as the union, right?

[34:23] Now we're on the topic of union. Whether this is the greatest of what? Unions. I'm very interested in finding out whether that is so, huh?

[34:39] Even a greater union, the union of our mind with God in the beatific vision. Thomas is giving there in the Summa Contra Gentiles as the first reason for the suitability of the Incarnation is to raise our hope of being united to what God and the beatific vision, right? Well, if this is an even greater union, then we can hope that such a lesser union, right, would take place.

[35:11] Ten, whither the union of the two natures in Christ was made by what? Grace. Eleven, whither some merits preceded it, right? And twelve, whither some grace was natural to the man Christ.

[35:45] Most of those last questions are dealing with the union itself, right? So before we tried to find the two or three, we'll go through the twelfth, all right? Okay. Thanks. Put out the best of us. So

[36:09] let's go to the first article here. To the first one proceeds thus: It seems that the union of the incarnate Word was made in one what nature?

[36:26] For Cyril says, and it's brought into the what text of the Council of Chalcedon, right? It is not necessary to understand two natures, but the one nature of the incarnate Word. Serious things, are Cyril, that you're saying there,

[36:50] which would not come about unless there was a union in the nature. Therefore, the union of the incarnate Word was made in the nature. He's he's a very important Cyril, isn't he? One of the great councils. I don't know, Thomas. You're going to have to explain these things to us.

[37:13] Moreover, Athanasius says, and this is the what Athanasian Creed, right? As the rational soul and flesh come together in the constitution of the human nature, so God and man come together in the constitution of some one nature.

[37:36] Therefore, there was made a union in nature. Athanasia is now in trouble huh? Athanasian Creed. It's a very important thing. Footnote says what? Yeah, he's number two. Well, even even the last isn't perfect because the last question. You made reference to another one. This one was second side hundred. One, three, there's two. You don't have an objection to that? I had the second objection. No. That's too bad for you guys.

[38:17] Did they reply to it? Somebody really likes Athanasius. Yeah. Yeah, they replied to it. Yeah, they do. Yes, secondly. Some of you have, and some don't. Somebody went first. One break. They don't have an objection, but they have a reply to it. Okay. Somebody was asleep. Yeah. As soon as you have a text, you know where knot is left out. You know, I agree with that. and it's clear that the knot should be in there.

[38:52] You know, and I will teach it because St. Gregory says, but the nuns, you know, they pass it right down. if it doesn't have the knot in there, they won't put it in because that's changing the text.

[39:09] Moreover, one of two natures is not denominated from the other, except that they are what changed in some way into each other. But the divine and the human nature in Christ are denominated from each other. For Cyril says the divine nature was made incarnate, and Gregory Nazianza says the human nature was deified.

[39:40] This is clear through Damascene. Therefore, from the two natures, it seems that there was what made one nature. Well, you all convinced youretics. It says it's dangerous to read the Eastern Fathers.

[40:06] But against all this is what is said in the determination of the Council of Chalcedon. My footnote says Part Two, Act Five. Anyway, we confess that in the what,

[40:23] in the novissimis diebus, the last days, the Son of God, the only begotten Son of God, without confusion, right, without being changed, without being divided inseparably, is recognized, and what, never taking away the difference of the natures on account of the what union. The two natures remain what unchanged and intact. So, therefore, the union was not made in the nature, right?

[40:58] Okay. Now, Thomas, Thomas is going to go back and explain the word nature, like the great Boethius does. I answer: It should be said that for the evidence of this question, it is necessary to consider what is nature. That's a reasonable request on Thomas's part, Wilson.

[41:21] Now it should be known that the name of nature is taken from what? Being born. Being born. So, say something is natural. You could say in English, it's inborn.

[41:37] It is said or taken. Whence it is first placed upon right this name upon the generation right of living things. Which is called nativity or pululatio,

[41:56] sprouting. Okay, that nature would be said as the word nasciturum. Then it is what translatum, huh? carried over the name of nature to signify the beginning or the source of this what generation. Okay. Incidentally, notice Thomas used the word translatum there if you have the Latin, huh? And he sometimes speaks of the translatio nominis, right? Now the word translation,

[42:39] when it's carried over into English, what does the word translation mean? Does he mean carrying over the name? No, it means carrying over the what? Meaning. Yeah, yeah. So translation here is something different, right? Now it's interesting that the Greek word for translation is what metaphora, so it's etymologically the same as translatio. But for some reason in English, we use the word metaphor when a name is carried over.

[43:13] Okay. Like you rat, you pig, you know. There's a carrying over of a name, right? Okay. And we use the word translation, which is the same etymologically for the carrying over of the what meaning, not the word, right? Okay.

[43:36] But Thomas will speak of a translatio nominis, right? See, you can use carrying over for whatever is carrying over, right? In one case, you're carrying over the meaning, right, from one language to another. But in the other case, in even one in the same language, you're carrying over a word, but giving it a new what meaning, right? So the word birth or nature is placed upon birth first, right?

[44:07] And then it's carried over and placed upon the source of the birth and the what? And then it's carried over to any intrinsic source of what motion or change. Huh? You can go on to explain these things. So, but Aristotle takes up the word nature in the what fifth book of wisdom, right? That's where you get these different senses. And he orders the meanings, right? So birth is a rather what striking phenomenon, and should strike everybody.

[44:38] And so it's not surprising that it would get a name, right? Okay. But then the source of the baby within the mother is hidden, and so that gets what? He carried the word over, right, with a new meaning by the relation it has to the outward birth.

[45:00] So he says, "Then translatum est nomen." Then the name was carried over of nature to signify the principium whose generation is. the beginning, the source of this generation of this birth.

[45:14] So it's by the ratio, relation of the second thing to the first, as the source of that, that the name is carried over. So it's not purely by chance; it's carried over. And because the beginning of generation in living things is intrinsic, further is derived the name of nature to signify what any intrinsic principle of motion. And this is the meaning of nature that Aristotle defines in the second book of Natural hearing, the so-called Physics.

[45:49] When you say that Philosophy of nature or natural philosophy is about natural things, right? Things that have within themselves a cause of their own motion or what change. According as the philosopher, meaning Aristotle, says in the second book of the Physics, that nature is a beginning of motion in that in which it is intrinsic, as such, and not by what happening, right? He adds those last words, as explains there, because a doctor might cure himself by the art of medicine that he has within himself.

[46:25] But is the art of medicine nature? No, because it's accidental; it happens. That the man who's sick also has the art to cure that, right?

[46:45] And then, as Aristotle argues in that same book, this beginning is either active, like the form, or passive, like the what matter. Whence sometimes nature is called form, and sometimes what matter, right? Okay. You've heard me explain the natural philosophy, but just a little bit, you know. I always take the example of the harassed mother who's being asked these questions by an inquisitive little son. And

[47:22] why does the tree grow and the stone doesn't grow, Mama? Well, the harassed mother says it's the nature of a tree to grow. It's not the nature of a stone to grow. Now she really hasn't fully answered the kid's question, right? But when she says it's the nature of the tree to grow, and it's not the nature of the stone to grow, is she saying something about the cause of the tree growing and of the stone not growing?

[47:57] Well, the same sun shines on both. The same rain comes down upon both. They can be in the same soil, at the same nutrients, huh? Everything on the outside is the same, and the one grows and the other doesn't.

[48:14] It must be due to something within, at least in part, that the one grows and the other doesn't, huh? Because the outside is the same, right? But this is nature in the sense of form. The act of the sense, "Huh? The tree builds itself up." Now, my second example is if you put the log in the fire, and the little boy throws the stone in the fire, right?

[48:37] The log burns up; stone doesn't. Mama, why? What's the nature of wood to burn in fire? It's not the nature of a stone to burn fire. Now she's saying anything about the cause. Well, again, the outside is the same. The same flames are licking the log and licking the stone, but the one burns up and the other doesn't. So there's something inside the what wood whereby it can be acted upon by the fire in this way, and something else in the rock that resists being acted upon by the fire in this way.

[49:21] And that's nature in the sense of what the passive sense, in the sense of matter, right? So the first meaning Aristotle gives of nature is birth. The second meaning, relative to birth, is a source of birth within the mother, right? The third sense, what generalizes the second sense, and says any intrinsic source of of motion, right? And then the fourth and fifth sense break down the active and the passive sense of what nature, right?

[49:57] And because the end of natural generation is in that which is generated, the essence, right, of the species, which the definition signifies, hence it is also that this essence of the species is called what nature, what the thing is. And in this way, Boethius defines nature in the book about the two natures, saying nature is what the specific difference in forming each what thing, making it to be what it is, because that specific difference, species making difference, is what completes the definition of the species.

[50:39] Now this is the last sense of nature that Aristotle gives, huh? And this means the nature means what the thing is, and thus therefore now we speak about nature according as nature signifies the essence of the thing or what it is, right? Or the quiddity, the whatness of the what species, huh? What is the whatness of the, quiddity? So we're talking about the fifth sense. Well, it'd be

[51:15] at least the sixth sense, right? What was that Is it The first sense is birth. The second is the source of of birth inside the mother. The third is the generalized sense of any source of change within. Fourth and fifth sense are matter and form. Oh, that's fourth. Yeah, and then later on, it comes a sense of what it is, right? Okay. I think I mentioned before how Shakespeare moves the word, right, birth, from the first meaning to this last meaning, right, in that passage I gave you before, huh?

[51:53] Revolts from true birth, right? Stumbling on abuse in that passage. For not so good, but on the earth doth live, and so on. He goes on to say, "Not so wild but on the earth doth live, but to the earth some special good doth give. Nor art so good, but strained from that fair use, revolts from true birth, stumbling out of use. What does that mean? Revolts from true birth.

[52:20] Revolting from your true what? Nature. So Shakespeare has moved it from the first to last meaning. I imagine I would say you know about some guy. He can't move the word.

[52:34] And people often get stuck, you know, on the first meaning, right? You see that in the English philosophers, you know, and they make fun of the Christians talking about infused virtues, right? Well of course the first meaning, of, infused is poured in.

[52:53] There's one guy who used to say, you know, what do you think this song is? A bucket for grace, you know. But they're stuck in the first meaning of the word, right?

[53:03] You know. Yeah. Speaking of infused virtues, don't mean you know that God has a picture there that the reason He pours them into this song, but it doesn't come from within, right? So on, And so on. So now you know what the word nature means, right? That's the first thing you got to know. Thomas says, right? Now, taking in this way nature, it is impossible, he says, right,

[53:36] for the union of the incarnate Word to be made in the what nature, right? And now Thomas is going to proceed by way of what?

[53:51] Either or solecism, right? Okay. In three ways something one is constituted from two or more things. In one way, from two things, perfect things, integral things, remaining, right? And this cannot come about except in those things whose form is what? Composition, order, or figure, right? Just as from many stones, without any order, united, through only being what put together, that comes about a what? Pile, right? What's the word?

[54:36] Pile. Oh, pile. Pile. Yeah. So, so his incarnation is a pile here of God, and okay. From stones and pieces of wood, lumber disposed according to some order, and also reduced to some figure, comes about a house.

[55:06] And by this, some lay down a union to be by way of confusion, which is without order, or commensuration, which is with order. But this cannot be, first, because composition, order, or figure is not a what substantial form, but it's something what accidental, right?

[55:43] And thus it would follow that the union of incarnation was not per se but per accidens. Which will be what disproven below. Secondly, because from this sort of thing, there does not come to be one thing simply, but only in somewhat qualified way. Secundum quid, for there would remain many things in what act.

[56:17] In third, because the form of such is not nature, but more art, as the form of a house. And thus they would not be constituted one nature

[56:33] in Christ as these guys want. Okay. In another way, it comes about something from things that are perfect, but what changed right? As from the elements, there comes about a what mixed body right? And thus some say that the union of the incarnation was made by a mode of what complexion right? On ancient physics, there right, when earth and air and air and water and so on combined to make flesh, right?

[57:15] It didn't remain earth, air, fire, and water, right? But they were changed, right, and had a new substantial form, right, which is the form of the mixed body, right.

[57:28] But this cannot be right. First, because the divine nature is altogether what unchangeable, as has been said and shown in the first part. You can see the order of the summa here, right?

[57:49] Even though in Peter's confession of faith, he begins with the human nature, right? Incarnation. Got to read, understand God to see why this cannot be in this manner.

[58:04] Whence neither can he be converted into another, since he is what incorruptible. Nor can another be converted into him, since he himself is ingenerable. Secondly, because that which is commixtio and notice in Latin in Thomas the Latin, mixtio is a much stronger word than our word mixture, right? We take a mixture, we think of the things that still remaining, actually, right? But what they call mixture in the ancient physics is what really substantial change, right?

[58:46] Okay, where the earth, air, fire, and water—the elements—come together and don't remain earth, air, fire, and water, but a new substance is produced. Right? Through these things being what changed? Yeah, yeah. Okay. So, in that which is commixed, none of the things mixes the same in what species. For flesh differs from each species another. It's either earth, nor fire, nor water, right?

[59:17] And thus Christ could neither be of the same nature with the Father nor with His Mother. He neither be God nor man, right? Third, because from these things which what differ much, there cannot come about a what mixture.

[59:43] For the species of one would be dissolved as if one puts a what drop of water right in the amphora of wine. And according to this, since the divine nature in infinitum infinitely exceeds human nature, there would not be a mixture, but there would remain only what divine nature. Now, in the burning bush, right? What's the symbolism of that? The church fathers say that the fire represents the divine nature, and fire is often a metaphor for God and His divine nature by its what light representing God's understanding, and by its warmth His love, and by its power to transform things.

[1:00:38] Right, the power of God, and the what bush represents the human nature of Christ, and the fact that the fire does not consume the bush is that the divine nature does not what swallow up, right? You see, if you try to put them together, one would be what? Yeah, yeah, dropping a drop of wine in the ocean, right? Okay.

[1:01:08] So he has what three arguments, huh? And often you see Thomas doing this in the Summa and in the disputed questions. He'll stop when he gets the arguments. You can give more, but the fourth argument tends to make you forget the first one, and then he always stops at three, right? The arguments is all the mind can take up you know take up, you know. Surprising, as they say, often three shows up.

[1:01:39] I was reading about the. Sacrament of Confession. There, Thomas is saying that this is kind of a a curing of the soul, right? And he recalls that Aristotle says, you know, sometimes the body is cured just by its own internal powers, right? Sometimes it's cured with the help of some medicine or something exterior, right? And then he says, now our soul can't be cured just by itself, and therefore you need what something outside as well, okay?

[1:02:18] So he says, if you are going to really cure somebody's body, you've got to remove everything that all the harm that came from this disease, right? So you are going to cure the soul, you've got to remove all the evil that comes from sin, right? Well, how many evils come from sin?

[1:02:39] Three, yeah, yeah. Says first, he says is the first thing that happens to you is a disorder in your soul, right? You turn from God, you know, in some excessive way to some creature thing, right? That's the first evil that you get in your sin, right? The second is you become what

[1:03:00] worthy of being punished, right? You are in need of being punished, and third, you've been what weakened as far as what doing good and avoiding evil, not right? So we have three evils that come from sin, right? That seems to sum it up pretty well, right? And then he goes into explain how confession will remove these three, right?

[1:03:23] So sometimes three is enough because that's all there is, right? But even if it's not all there is, it's enough for a mind. Most cases, you know, to see it. So he gives three reasons why this second way of union cannot be what taking place between the divine nature and the human nature. This is second union where the two natures are changed in order to form one nature, right?

[1:03:51] You can't change God, right? That's his fundamental reason, huh? Okay. And secondly, if you what change the two of them to form one nature, neither one of the original natures remains, so you'd be neither God nor man, right? Okay. And the third one is you can't combine natures where there is no what balance, right? Where one infinitely exceeds the other, right? One would be swallowed up in the other.

[1:04:28] Third way, it comes to be something from some things not being changed, but being what imperfect, huh? As from the soul and the body comes to be a man, right? And likewise from diverse members, right?

[1:04:50] Now, this cannot be said of the mystic incarnation. Here he goes again. Three more arguments, right? First, because both nature is perfect in its own what definition, right? The divine and the what human.

[1:05:17] Secondly, because the divine and human nature are able to constitute something by way of what quantitative parts, as our organs, right, our members constitute the body, because the divine nature is incorporeal, right. Nor can they come together in the manner of the soul and the body, of form and matter, right? Because the divine nature is not able to be the form of anything, especially of a bodily thing.

[1:05:48] That was shown back in the treatise on the substance of God, right? It would also follow that the species resulting would be communicable to many, and thus there would be many Christ's. That's kind of a footnote, though, to the second argument.

[1:06:06] Third, because Christ would be neither what of human nature nor of divine, because any difference added varies a species, as unity and numbers, as said, the eighth book of the metaphysics. It's beautiful what Aristotle does in the eighth book of metaphysics, the eighth book of wisdom, where he says that the natures of things are like what numbers, and you add or subtract one from a number, and you don't have the same number anymore.

[1:06:34] I can see that, you know, in Shakespeare's excitation there, right? What is a man if his chief good and market of his time be but to sleep and feed, a beast no more? So you might say if you have a body. And you add life, then you have a what? You have a plant.

[1:07:01] And if the body and life, and you add sense, and you got a what? Animal, a beast. But then, to a body and life and sense, you add reason, and you got man, right? Subtract reason, you got animal. Subtract sense, you've got a what? Plant. Subtract life, you've got just an inanimate body, a stone or something, right? So, nature of things like numbers. You add or subtract something, you have a different what?

[1:07:36] Nature. So, Aristotle seeing a little bit of truth, Plato's saying that the natures of things are numbers, right? Well, no, no, not really, but but he sees what he's what we call a good what student, right? A good student is like the earth, humble, right? He is what the master says, listens to it carefully, right? He has some discretion and judgment, right? But then some fruitfulness, right?

[1:08:10] So he takes what's good in what Plato says. They're not numbers, but they're like numbers, right, in this way. That's why he can use the word more or less, like Shakespeare does, right? You know, I'm trying to explain when Shakespeare says, "What is a man if his chief good and market of his time be but to sleep and feed a beast no more?" Right? And I take it as numbers, right?

[1:08:37] What is the three if it be what half of four? Two. No more, right? Because there is a necessary connection between being two and being half of four, like there is between being three and half of six, right? So, what is the three if it be half of four? A two, no more, right? There's a necessary connection between a beast and what the chief good of a beast is, and between a man and what the chief good of a man is.

[1:09:08] So, if the chief good of a man is nothing more than to sleep and feed like that of the beast, then man is no more than a beast. That's really like numbers, isn't it? There's some precision there.

[1:09:27] So there's no way this union can be made in what nature, right? Now, some people have taken the words as Saint John there, and the word was made flesh, and they would understand it as meaning what? Yeah, Yeah. The union was in the nature, but that don't make no sense. You think about it.