Tertia Pars
46. Aquinas on the Incarnation (ST III q.16, a.7–10): Was Man Made God? Is Christ a Creature? Did This Man Begin to Be?
Class of 2009-05-14
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/046-aquinas-on-the-incarnation-st-iii-q-16-a-7-10-was-man-made/

[0:00] Article seven here, right? How about the reverse now, right? Can you say God was made man? Can you say man was made God? That's a little more difficult.

[0:21] Doesn't St. Paul speak of him as being predestined? God. Yeah, we'll see what Thomas says. Never saw Thomas here. To the seventh one goes for thus. It seems that this is true. Man was made God, right?

[0:41] For it is said in Romans one that before, right, it was promised to the prophets, huh, in the holy scriptures about his son, who was made to him from the seed of David according to the flesh. But Christ, according as his man, is from the seed of David according to the flesh, and therefore man is made what? Moreover, Augustine says in the first book on the Trinity.

[1:32] Such was the what. Taking on the reception or substance of it, taking on that he made God what man and man what God. But the reason of that taking on this is true that God was made man, therefore this is true that man was made God. I know this is what you know Thomas says. Sometimes God became man, so that man could become God. No, but that would be participatively We'll see what Thomas says.

[2:18] You know, I've often thought you know that if you're going to, you teach these things right, you got to give the guy the objections without the body, you know, and let him struggle with them for a while, you know, does it take a long time to go through? And then next day give him the the body, you know, then let him struggle to answer the objections, and then the third day give him.

[2:39] When I was giving them the text, you know, whether charity is friendship, on of course love and friendship, I would just give them the objections, right, and know that two days they look up the text, so then stew with the objections, you know, because it seems to indicate that he can't be friendship, right, and then. He resolve it. Well, I wish he'd make up his mind.

[3:13] Moreover, Gregory Nazianzen says in the epistle to Celidonium that God was what humanatus, huh I mean human, man. However, deificatus, right, or in whatever other way it should be named. But God, by that reason, for that reason, is said to be humanatus because he was made man. Therefore, man, for that reason, should be said to be deificatus, made God because he was made God. That's what the word means, deificatus, right?

[3:50] And therefore, this is true that man was made God. Moreover, when it is said that God was made man, the subject of the making or the union is not God but human nature, which this name man signifies. But that seems to be the subject of the making to which the making is attributed. Therefore, this is more true that man was made God than God was made what man.

[4:23] We can't make anything of God. We can make something of human nature. So, that's a pretty convincing argument. But wisely and slow they stumble, that run fast. Let's not jump to any conclusions, huh? Because of these objections. But against this is what Damascene says in the third book. For we do not say that man was what made God, God, but God what was made human. But the same thing it is to become God and to be deificatus, right, to make God.

[5:05] Therefore, this is false that man was what made God. Now, it's not interesting to see what Thomas does with this problem. Well, this is one of the ones where he fell on his face and prayed God for enlightenment. So they said he did. Then he get up and say, Ah! Then comes the side to tell you.

[5:34] I answer. It should be said that this statement, "Man was made what God, " can be understood in three ways. In one way, that this participle factus made determines what absolutely. Either the subject or the predicate, and in this sense it is false, because neither that man of whom is said made, nor God is made, as will be said what below. So that's articles eight and nine.

[6:21] And under this sense, this is false that God was made man. But under this sense, one does not ask here about these what statements. Okay.

[6:39] Okay. Another way it can be understood that factus determines the what composition. In this sense, that to say that man was made God, that is, it was made that a man be God, and under this sense, both are true, that man was made God and God and God was made what man.

[7:11] It's like saying it was brought about that God is man and man is God, right? Okay. But this is not the what proper sense of these what ways of speaking, unless perhaps it be understood that man does not have what

[7:45] personal supposition, but simple whatever that means. I take a little note here. Supposition is said to be simple when it's taken for primario per se significato.

[8:15] Maybe it means the nature there. Not referring to this. Yeah. Yeah. So it's taken as when we say man is uh the lord, of the beast, or something. You don't mean any particular man, You think of a human nature. as you think of this man or that man or a man or something. like that. Yeah. Yeah. But if you take this man, then you talk about the person, and that person here is the Son of God, not a human person.

[9:18] But hic homo, this man is not made God, because this supposes to him, right? I mean, the person of the Son of God from eternity was God.

[9:32] Nevertheless, man, commonly speaking, right, was not always what God. And a third way is properly understood, according as this participle factus places coming to be about man in respect to God as the what? End of making Yeah, the. term the limit of its making And in this sense

[10:20] Supposing the same person in Christ, man and God, term the limit of its making And in this sense. That in Christ there is the same person and hypostasis and suppositum of God and man, right? This proposition is what? Right. Because when it is said that man was made God, man has what?

[10:49] Supposition. But to be God is not verified of man by reason of human nature, but by reason of what? Suppositum. But that suppositum of a human nature, about which is verified God, is the same as the hypostasis or person of the Son of God, who was always God, right? Whence it cannot be said that this man, right, that man, began to be God, or that he began to be God, or that he was made God,

[11:29] because that person was always God. If our that other person or hypostasis, if there was another person and hypostasis of God and of man, so that to be God was said of that man in a conversal, certain what conjunction of the supposita, or of the personal dignity or affection or inhabitation, as historians say, then by a like reason it can be said that God that man was made God, that is joined to God, and that God was made man that is joined to God.

[12:13] Or not joined to man, rather. Yeah, if you're talking about man in general, you can't say that man became God, right? If you're talking about a man became God, can you say that? No, and why not? That a man was made God.

[12:54] Well, that a man stands for the person there, right? And the person is the Son of God. So he he couldn't be be made God, yeah. That's kind of a subtle thing, huh?

[13:11] But don't we have that in the in the religion that God became man for us, so we would become God? Oh, it's a quote from Augustine, but he explains the way that you can understand that correctly. But there's other ways that you can't say. But he's trying to be pretty subtle and. Seeing the three different ways you can understand it.

[13:37] Most people aren't that. subtle. But it's kind of understanding it improperly, the way of speaking that you can say it. So I was, you know, scandalized by the Pope saying that that religion or faith, I guess, is is purified by reason, huh? Yeah, that sounds strange. And then I heard Father Archbishop Burke, you know, saying that faith purifies reason.

[14:04] Okay. Okay. Well, that's a mouthful, Thomas. I have to I have to chew on that for a while, huh? Yeah. One of those things they say, you know, well, I understood something of that.

[14:25] Next time I read it, I understood more of it. And if I live long enough, I might come to fully understand. But if not, if I get something to look forward to. Yeah. Yeah.

[14:43] Okay. Now we got to look at the implied objections. Huh? Thought we were out of this mess, but I guess we're not. Okay. The first one is taken from Romans one, right? Qui ante promiserat per prophetas suos in scripturis sanctis. But before he promised, right, to his prophets and the holy scriptures of his Son, who was made, was it? What's that thing of evil? Yeah, I never noticed that before.

[15:15] I looked it up here, and they try this this doing concerning concerning his Son, who was made to him of the seed of David. To the first, it should be said that in those words of the apostle, this relative qui, right, that refers what

[15:47] for the person of the Son, right? Ought not to be understood on the side of the predicate, as it were, something existing. As if someone what existing from the seed of David, right, according to the flesh, has been made the son of God, in which sense the objection proceeds. But that to be understood on the side of the subject, that the sense be that the son of God was made to him, to wit, to the honor of the Father, as the gloss expounds, existing from the what seed of David according to the flesh, as if it were to say, the son of God having flesh from the seed of David to the honor of God.

[16:44] That's clear as mud, right? Yeah, that's that's clear. But what is not saying, I think, is clear, that the that someone existing from the seed of David according to the flesh was made the son of God. That wouldn't be what make any sense.

[17:14] That's the sense he says in which the objection proceeds. But that to be understood on the part of the subject, that the sense be that the son of God was made to him, to wit, to the honor of the Father,

[17:31] existing from the seed of David according to the flesh, as if one were to say, the son of God having flesh from the seed of David to the honor of God.

[18:19] A little hard to get out of the text, but the one who is from the seed of David according to the flesh is not the subject. That was, yeah. But the subject is the the son of God, right? Who was made, what?

[18:54] Who, insofar as he has flesh from the seed of David, right? Is honoring the Father. Yeah, because at the beginning of the epistle, he says he refers to Paul, the called apostle, set apart unto the gospel of God. I think there that might suppose stand for the Father, the gospel of God, which he promised through the prophets. I think it's referring maybe the Father, and then I guess.

[19:25] that's what it's talking about Now the second objection is taken from Augustine's text, right? Such was that taking on that God was made man and man God, right? And he understands that in the

[19:47] second sense, where they're both true. I guess to the second should be said that the word of Augustine should be understood in that sense, according as from that taking on. The incarnation was made, that man would be God and God would be what man. In which sense both speakings are true, as has been said. That's a middle case, I guess. Lucas is not speaking most properly.

[20:41] And likewise should be said in regard to the third objection now from Gregory Nazianzus, right? And the fourth objection is saying that what making is said more of man than of God, right? So if you can say God was made man, could you say more so that man was made God because man is more what made than God, right? Okay.

[21:38] So he says to the fourth, it should be said that the term placed in the subject holds materially, like we always say the predicate is what formal and the subject, as a word subject indicates, is held materially. Again, no kind of Latin grammar. I mean, medieval grammar. That is for the suppositum, but placed in the predicate, it's held what formally. That is for the nature signified. That's kind of a common thing Thomas will say.

[22:16] The predicate is formal with respect to the subject, right? And the subject is is underlying, right? That gets said materially. And therefore, when it is said that man was made what God, the becoming is not attributed to human nature, but to the suppositum, right? Of human nature, which is God from eternity, and therefore it does not belong to it to what become God. Whenever it is said that God was made man, the making is understood to terminate to what human nature itself.

[23:05] And therefore, properly speaking, this is true that God was made what man, but this is false that man was made what God. Just as in Socrates, when before he was a man, was afterwards made white.

[23:28] Pointing to Socrates, we can say this is true: this man today was made white, but this is false that this white thing today was made a man. Here he was a man.

[23:45] If, however, from the part of the subject there was placed some name signifying human nature in the abstract, it could, in this way, signify as a subject of making. If we say that the human nature was made what of the Son of God, right? Okay. Are we saying human nature was was was drawn to right the divine nature? We need a break after that. article. So we have to argue here now, huh?

[24:27] To the eighth, one proceeds thus: It seems that this is true that Christ is a what creature? For Pope Leo says a new and unheard of what

[24:47] coming about, huh? God who is and was becomes a what creature? But that is even to be said of Christ that the Son of God was made through incarnation. Therefore, this is true: Christ is a what creature?

[25:13] Moreover, the properties of a nature are able to be said of the common hypostasis of both natures by whatever name it is what signified. But it is a property of human nature to be a creature, just as it is a property of the divine nature to be a creator. Therefore, both can be said of Christ, to wit, that he is a creature and that he is uncreated and the creator.

[25:52] Moreover, the more principal part of a man is the soul than the body. But Christ, by reason of the body which he drew from the virgin, is said simply to be born of the virgin. Therefore, by reason of the soul which was created by God, he ought to be said simply there that Christ is a what creature?

[26:21] But against all this is what Ambrose says in his book about the Trinity: Numquid dictum est: Factus est Christus. Never should it be said. Is that? How does he translate that text? Numquid On the contrary, Ambrose says: Was Christ made by a word? Was Christ created by a command Is it to say no?

[27:14] What way can a creature in God be said to be? For God is of a simple nature, not of a conjoint one. Therefore, this should not be conceded that Christ is a creature. I answer: It should be said that, as Jerome says, I did that thing again.

[27:34] That from words disorderly put forward, heresy arises. Whence, with heretics, we ought neither to have what names in common, lest we favor their what error, right? But the Arians, heretics, said that Christ was a what creature, and less than the Father. Not only by reason of the human nature, but also by reason of the what divine person. And therefore, it not ought not to be said absolutely that Christ is a creature, or less than the Father, but with a determination to it according to human nature.

[28:22] Now, there I think "absolutely" has a sense of simpliciter right? It's you see Okay." By the other text we're looking at there. Absolutely, as opposed to relative,

[28:42] and cum determination, like saying secundum quid, in a sense, to it according to his human nature, right? But those things about which what one is not able to suspect, right, that they belong to the divine person according to himself.

[29:09] What? Say again. Right. They are able simply to be said about Christ. Yeah. I guess the things about which there's no confusion. Yeah, yeah,

[29:26] yeah. Those things about which one would not suspect that they could be what belong to the divine person in himself, right? Can be said simply about Christ by reason of his human nature, for we say simply that Christ suffered, died, and was buried, just as in

[29:48] bodily things and human things, those things which in doubt to the whole or the part, if they're in some part, we do not attribute to the whole simply, that's without determination. For we do not say that the Ethiopian is white, right? But that he is white in his what? Teeth. That example is back there, Aristotle's book on the on the fallacies, huh?

[30:20] But we say that he is without what. Determination, crispness in the hair, because this cannot belong to him except according to his what, heirs, right. Now, what about this text from Leo Papa? To first, it should be said that sometimes the holy doctors, right, causa brevitate, an account of brevity, right, having omitted the determination, right, use the name of creature about Christ, right. But it ought nevertheless in their sayings to be understood, right.

[31:06] To second, it should be said, and that all properties of human nature, as of the divine, are able in some way to be said of Christ, right. Whence Damascene says in the third book that Christ, who is said to be God and man, is what, creatable and increatable, and visible into parts and not visible to parts. But nevertheless, those things which have some doubt about it in nature cannot be said without what determination.

[31:44] Whence he himself afterwards that adds or joins that that one hypostasis, to wit, of Christ, is what, increated by its deity and created in its what, yeah.

[32:04] Just as a conversely it ought not to be said without determination that Christ is incorporeal or unable to suffer, to avoiding the error of the Manicheans, right. Who posited that Christ did not have a true body, right, and that he was not truly what suffering, right. But it should be said with determination that Christ, according to his divine nature, is bodyless and unable to suffer. Right.

[32:40] So there's a little leeway there, right. Especially with a heretic around the corner, huh? To third, it should be said about the nativity from the Virgin. No doubt is able to arise that it belongs to the person of the Son of God, right. As it could be about creation, and therefore the reason for both is not what. Same.

[33:34] Thomas seems to be saying that you can say that Christ is a creature according to his human nature, but you can't say simply or it's dangerous to say simply that Christ is a creature,

[33:46] because you might say that the person there is a creature. That's not true. Considering how prone we are to make mistakes. Yeah. Okay. To the ninth, one proceeds thus: It seems that that man, pointing to Christ, right, began to be. For Augustine says upon John,

[34:25] before the world was, neither we were right, nor that mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, right. But that which was not always began to be. Therefore, that man, according to Christ, began to what be?

[34:48] Moreover, Christ began to be a man. But to be a man is to be simply. Back to that again. But that man began to be what simply.

[35:03] Moreover, man implies a suppositum of human nature. But Christ was not always the suppositum of human nature. Therefore, that man began to be right. But against this is what is said in Hebrews ultimate eight, Jesus Christ, yesterday, today, and here.

[35:30] Well Thomas is going to say, I think that this should not be said simply, right? I answer, it should be said that this ought not to be said that that man, according to Christ, began to be if nothing is what added. And this for a twofold reason.

[35:50] First, because the saying is simply false, according to the what position of the Catholic faith, in which we lay down in Christ one suppositum, and one hypostasis, just as what one person. According to this, is necessary that when it is said that, or according to this man, according to Christ, one designates the what suppositum. To whose eternity it is repugnant that he began to what be. whence this is false, this man began to be.

[36:37] Nor does it stand in the way here that it belongs to him to begin to be of what Human nature, which is signified by this name man. Because the term in the subject posited is not held formally for the nature, but more materially for the suppositum, as has been said above.

[37:06] So you say this man began to be right. You are talking about this person, and this person didn't begin to be. Secondly, because even if it were true. It ought nevertheless not to be used without determination to avoiding the heresy of Arius, right? Who, just as he attributed to the person of the Son of God that he was a creature, and that he was less than the Father, so he attributed to it that it began to be, saying that it was when it was not.

[37:52] Yeah. Yeah. Now that first text there from Augustine, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that that authority should be understood with determination, as if one were to say that the man Christ Jesus was not before the world was, according to humanity. Okay, that's kind of second and third, right? He

[38:31] must have known he's going to cause all these verbal problems, right? By taking on human nature. There's no planet in that. verbal planets. Yeah.

[38:47] Yeah. More of a crazy begin to be man, but to be man is to be simply right. Okay. To the second, it should be said that

[39:09] with this word or verb incipit right, there does not follow the argument from the inferior to the superior. It does not follow this thing began to be white, therefore it began to be what colored, huh?

[39:30] And this, therefore, because to begin implies now to be and not before, does not follow. This was not before white, therefore this was not before what colored, huh? Now esse simpliciter is what superior, more universal, to being a man, right? Hence it does not follow that Christ when he began to be a man, therefore he began to what be.

[40:08] Back to the first book of Natural Hearing. If the dog becomes a cat, and the cat is an animal, then the dog becomes an animal. No, he always was an animal, right? Okay. To the third, it should be said.

[40:48] What's he saying? The third objection: man implies a suppositum of human nature, right? But Christ was not always the suppositum of human nature. Therefore, that man began to what be.

[41:05] To the third, it should be said that this name "man," as it is taken for Christ, although it does signify human nature, which began to be, nevertheless, it stands for or supposes a eternal suppositum, which does not begin to be, huh?

[41:26] And therefore, because, according as it is placed in the subject, it stands for the suppositum, right? According how it is placed in the predicate, you phrase the nature, and therefore, this is false that the man Christ began to be, but this is true that Christ began to be a man. Question. Yeah. Christ, I thought, meant Messiah, the Messiah, and the Mighty Man yeah, and he wasn't a man until he became incarnate.

[41:56] So why would you say Jesus? Jesus began to be a man, but not Christ, because Christ had to be Jesus. Always what existed, you could say, but Christ had to have a time of his creation. No, within the incarnation. No. That's right. It well, I guess, depends on a lot of the things there. Because if you read it this way, it sounds like Christ always was, but then Christ always wasn't.

[42:25] The second person of the Trinity, was that he wasn't always Christ, because he wasn't always anointed with the Messiah. I guess he explained that before about different meanings of Christ and so forth. It's, I guess, it's a subtle thing. Okay, very subtle. You got to if you go over it a few times.

[42:56] It's interesting that Saint Paul, when he's talking about the Exodus, there's that famous line where he says the rock was Christ. He doesn't say the rock was the second person. He doesn't say rock was the word. He says the rock was Christ. It's interesting, anyway. I don't know what that.

[43:12] Different ways in which Christ is present. That's an argument point for people to get. You have a complicating factor of time versus eternity, and we're thinking in a temporal fashion, whereas eternity is the ever-present. And so, I don't know how that complicates things, but it does. It's just hard for us to think about. But the rock is signifying Christ, huh? He's present there, but in a way, in a certain way.

[43:44] Yeah, Yeah. I think in the Old Testament, many things signify Christ, Doesn't mean Christ, the man yet is. Yeah, yeah. The same with the comment that St. Thomas makes about when Christ began the Sermon on the Mount, he sat down and he opened his mouth, and he says, "Why does he say he opened his mouth?" He says, "When he talked, he says he opened his mouth." Well, because he often spoke and taught through the mouths of the prophets, but now he's speaking with his own mouth.

[44:17] So. That's probably touching on what you're what you're talking about there. But like you said, Christ sometimes refers to divinity, sometimes to humanity, the anointing divinity, because the two are joined there. So you have to read through the Father and Saint Thomas a bunch of times.

[44:40] I think there are texts in Thomas, where he'll say you know that Christ is is naming him from his human nature, right? No, then then I find these other ones where he'll say it's both, you know, but yeah. But it's because he says the word Christ means what the anointed one, so it brings in the anointer. It's implied at least there, right? And the anointed, and therefore both the divine nature or the divine that anoints and the human that is anointed, right?

[45:12] If you say no, it just means the anointed, you know, and the eval that implies someone anointing. You know, I'm more inclined, you know, to to think of Christ as signifying the the human, yeah, yeah. And and if it's in with with not only Peter's confession of faith, right, but when they say that you know kings and priests and prophets are anointed, all these are

[45:45] things that belong to Christ as man, right? That's kind of where they divide sometimes Matthew and Mark and Luke, you know, and say well Luke is emphasizing the priesthood of Christ, right? And therefore it begins and ends in the temple and tells us about his preaching the temple and so on. I mean, I mean, I mean, as a child and so on. And then Mark is what emphasizing his prophetic role.

[46:12] Therefore, it begins with the voice in the desert and so on, and then kind of inserts them going out, you know, and the Lord confirming their teaching with the miracles, signs he worked, and then Matthew emphasizes the kingship of Christ. That's why the adoration the magi and so on, other things they point to. But but the kind of thinking, you know, that you're dividing them according to human nature, right?

[46:39] As opposed to John is emphasizing more the divine nature. As they say, sometimes Thomas does take the name Christ, right? You know, as as involving both the anointer and the anointed, right? And then both, right? But you know, I always take John's confession of faith at the end of chapter 20, you know, almost the end of the gospel there, next last chapter. These things are written that you might believe.

[47:18] That Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and believing you would have a life in Him. It seems to me that's the same profession of faith as that of Peter. You know, in John, Peter and John are so close, and you see them in the Acts of the Apostles and they're very close. And the difference being, of course, that Peter makes his profession of faith in the presence of Christ, so he says, "Thou art the Christ, the Son, Living God."

[47:43] And of course, John is not doing in the presence of Christ like that. So he doesn't say thou, but he says Jesus, right, is the Christ, the Son of God. Doesn't use the word living, but it's same really profession of faith. But there, you know, I say, why is Jesus in the in the subject, and Christ and Son of God in the what predicate, right? What must be that Jesus in some way, you know, is more appropriate,

[48:17] and not as explicitly either man or God, right? Why Christ is more man, and Son of God is. There's even there's even evidence of the different way of seeing it in the you want to call it the prejudices of modern scholarship biblical they refer to this Jesus of history, the, Christ of faith. So in a certain way, humanity is this Jesus, and divinity is the Christ. That seems to be there at least my simple understanding what they're presenting.

[48:50] Anyways, they're saying there's a difference between believing in Him as God, living in him as a man, and they identify the name Jesus with humanity Christ. with divinity. Yeah. I guess. But you know, when the Jesus is kind of explained in the name there in in Matthew there, and the angel says, "Call him Jesus, because he'll save people from their sins." Well, you know, when when Christ or called now, when he later on is forgiving people of sin and they're offended, some of the Pharisees or whatever it is, because this is something only God can do, He can't do.

[49:28] So you might say the name Jesus, you know, isn't that you know, applicable to God as well as to to His humanity, right? He's named that as man. Yeah, yeah, because because of the union. I suppose Yes, yeah.

[49:59] That touches on what he said before about the about the way of speaking by his power and his. How did that projection go? Refers about his power. Something belongs to both, because he says there, and only God can forgive sins, that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins. So there's something referring to power as a divinity, yes, but manifested, yeah, or something.

[50:27] Yeah. Where are we at here? Article ten. Ten versus Okay Okay so that's similar somewhere Okay To the tenth one proceeds thus: It seems that this is false, that Christ, according as he is man, is a creature. Or according as man, he began to what? Be.

[51:13] For nothing in Christ is created except human nature. But this is false: that Christ, according as he is man, is human nature. Therefore, also this is false: that Christ, according as he is man, is a what creature?

[51:42] Moreover, a predicate is more said of a what term placed in what? Reduplication than about the what? Subject proposition. Just as if it is said that a body, according as it is coloured, is what visible, it follows that the coloured is visible. But this is not

[52:18] absolutely, as has been said, conceded that the man Christ is a what creature. This seems to refer to the person, right? Therefore, neither this that Christ, according as he is man, is a what creature.

[52:39] Moreover, whatever is said of any man according as he is man is said of him per se and simply. But the same is what per se and secundum quod ipsum. In English, I often say per se or to itself and as such, right? So, if you say that two per se is a number, you could say two through being two is a number, or two as such is a number.

[53:19] Two as two is a number, right? That's why I think it's secundum quod ipsum. But this is false: that Christ per se and simpliciter is what Creature. a creature, huh?

[53:39] Therefore, this also is false. Christ, according as man is a what? To be very, very yes, lengthy. But against this, you don't use this in your sermons, that's for sure.

[54:26] But against this, everything that is is either creator or creature. But this is false that Christ, according as he is man, is the creator. Therefore, this is true that Christ, according as he is man, is a creature. I can kind of follow that.

[54:51] Now he says, "I answer it should be said that when it is said that Christ, according as he is man, right, this name man can be what taken? Taken Restate that area. In doubling, yeah, we double it. Another way of saying it. Either by reason of the suppositum or by reason of the nature, right?

[55:24] If it is taken over again by reason of the suppositum, since the suppositum of human nature in Christ is eternal and uncreated, this will be what false, right? Christ, according as he is man, is a creature. If Harvard is taken over, resumed by reason of human nature, thus it is what true, because by reason of the human nature, or according to human nature, it belongs to him to be a creature, as has been said.

[56:05] It should be known, however, that a name thus resumed in reduplication more properly holds for the nature than for the what suppositum. It is resumed in the strength of the predicate, which holds what formally, right?

[56:30] For the same in speech, Christ, according as man, as if one to say, Christ, according as he is a man. And therefore, this should be more conceded than than what negated or denied. Christ, according as man, is what creature. If, however, there be added something to which it is drawn to suppose it to, then the statement should be more denied than conceded. If, for example, one were to say, "Christ, according as he is this man, is a what creature," you see the difference between that, right?

[57:10] We say, "Christ, as he is this man, is a creature." Well, then, as he is this man, referring to the person, that person is not a creature. But if you say Christ as man is a creature, right? Then you're thinking of what? Yeah, you're thinking of the the on the side of the predicate, as you said, and therefore is referring to the formally and therefore is referring to the what nature, right?

[57:43] Okay. Out of TAC, you know, they get they do a little bit of the Latin, the medieval grammar, you know. Forget who the main text is for that, but I remember Mark. I think has to teach that, you know, because he has his background in that. But Warren very often criticizes saying, "They should be teaching them to to read Latin, not not just a Latin grammar." But but I mean, you know, we're not familiar with that too much, you know.

[58:16] I remember as a Laval, there are people in the linguistics there. You know, some of them have gotten back to the Latin grammar. You know, get pretty pretty subtle. You know, huh? But you know, that's where you got the the awareness that the Latin grammarians were too stupid to figure out the grammar of their own language, so they copied the Greek grammar and tried to force it onto Latin, and that's where they got mixed up in their cases.

[58:42] Because the in Greek, I guess they have four cases, right? They call it nominative case case, so it's not case in the sense. And the genitive, they say, imagine something that is before the action of the verb, and the dative with the action of the verb, and the accusative after it, right? So Latin said we had something like the nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, right? And then they had this thing they don't have in Greek, so they added on the ablative right?

[59:18] But ablative really functions like what, signifying something before the action of verb, like I hit you with my my my sword or my club or something, and so it should maybe be placed last, right? And and so what you might find, you know, the ablative in Latin might be in the genitive in Greek, right? And then I guess the dative in Latin is. After the action of the of the verb, after the accusative, right?

[59:48] So I gave the book to you, you know, and so so this all that stuff to Latin, and then then they said then the English grammarians imitated the Latin grammarians and tried. So so we were all too stupid to figure out the grammar of our own thing, you know. So they're trying to figure out what the grammar of our own language should be, right? And it's very very complicated, you know, and very.

[1:00:13] Only ordinary words. Yeah, yeah, yeah. We see, of course, the Greeks is actually the softest thing to begin the study of grammar, you know. But the Greeks, you know, succeeded in understanding their own wonderful language, but we're not. We're still kind of stumbling along.

[1:00:33] There were not a lot of priests missionaries who figured out and wrote out the grammars of the American Indian languages. Yeah. Yeah Can you. Imagine just from bottom up. Yeah,

[1:00:45] Yeah. Amazing. Yeah. I had a colleague who that was his kind of his work, you know, work in the Indian languages. Really? Wow. I don't know what to do, but motivates these people, but that's rough stuff. Is there an assumption? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, George O'Bann is retired now, like me, but

[1:01:12] doing all kinds of research and going out talking to Indians and picking up all kinds of old things. What department then would he have been with? Well, he is in French and linguistics, you know, was kind of he used to teach a linguistics. course at Assumption. Okay. And uh, but he taught French too. I think French was the original background there, you know.

[1:01:33] Okay. To the first, therefore, should be said that although Christ is not human nature, right? He is nevertheless having human nature, huh? Now the name of creature is apt to be said not only of the abstract but also the concrete, huh? For we say that humanity is a creature, and that man is a what creature? Amen. Yeah.

[1:02:27] So when you're saying Christ as man is a creature, you're not saying that Christ is human nature, are you? The word creature can be said of the concrete as well as the abstract, huh?

[1:02:46] Satisfy you? Now the second objection. To the second, it should be said that man, according as is placed in the subject, more regards the suppositum, right? But as it is placed in reduplication, it more regards the what? Natures has been said. And because the nature is created, the suppositum is uncreated, right?

[1:03:27] Therefore, although it is not conceded this simply that this man is a creature, right? It is conceded nevertheless that Christ, according as he is man, is what a creature, huh?

[1:03:44] So he's a secundum quid a creature, right? Hope he knows that. Wasn't Thomas writing the Tertia Pars when Christ appeared to him and from the cross and said, "Bene scripsisti de me I mean Thomas was supposed to come in with a manuscript, of it, you know." and says, is this, you know, acceptable, is this worthy of you. And the Lord is supposed to reply from the cross, you know.

[1:04:10] You've written well, Thomas. I went to the College of Saint Thomas, on the main two buildings there, between the two of them, is kind of there's two arches you can walk under, you know, and then there's a kind of walkway between this on the second floor, and you can walk from one to the other ones. And there's a right in the center there's a statue of Thomas, and underneath it says, "bene scripsisti Thomas, you've written well, Thomas."

[1:04:34] So we can't be too uh, we can't be very docile here to this Tertia Pars My memory may be full of details that aren't really there, but I thought it was uh when he wrote about the Eucharist in particular, and presented it, and our Lord said, "you've written well about me." That's the detail I remember, but it makes it more personal, I guess. About my mother. that's another story.

[1:05:10] He didn't take that part in. That's a Franciscan gloss. Gloss. Okay, the third objection here. Whatever is said of any man according as he is man, is said of him what per se and simply. But this is false if Christ is per se and simply creature. Therefore, this is false that Christ, according as he is man, is a creature, right?

[1:05:57] To the third, it should be said that to any man who is a suppositum of only human nature, right? And you say only. Yeah. Yeah. It belongs that he does not have being except according to what human nature, and therefore about any such suppositum it follows, if according as he is man, he is a creature, that he be a creature what simply. But Christ is not only a suppositum of human nature, but also of a divine nature, according to which he has uncreated being, and therefore it does not follow if according as man is a creature.

[1:06:45] That simply he be a what creature. Two markers to go. What time do we have to stop here? Okay.