Tertia Pars
71. Summa III q.31 a.3–4: The symbolism of the genealogy numbers, the women in the genealogy, and why Christ took flesh from a woman
Class of 2010-01-14
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/071-summa-iii-q-31-a-3-4-the-symbolism-of-the-genealogy-numbers/

[0:00] it. Okay. Oh my gosh, the next one is even longer, right? Oh Lord. Okay, it's about the forty-two and seventy something. Okay. Would allow to skip this right you said.

[0:29] To the third, therefore, it should be said that, as Augustine says in the book on Consent of the Evangelists, right, or the agreement of them, Matthew instituted what the kingly dignity in Christ, right, or to insinuate the one to bring that out. But Luke is what? Yeah. That's interesting because before he had said that he's descended in a way from both the king and the what priest, right?

[1:04] And that she has the blood of Elizabeth in her and the blood of Joseph in her, right? She's descended from, in some sense, both David, right, and from the

[1:17] Eli, right, or I mean from the Elies. Okay. Of course, Matthew especially emphasizes the kingship of Christ, huh? And that's why in Matthew, say, I guess only Matthew have the

[1:41] three wise men coming, right? But Luke emphasizes the priestly character, right? And that's why the Luke begins and ends in the temple, and is much mentioned of the temple throughout the gospel.

[2:11] Whence, in the generations of Matthew, is signified the taking on of our sins, huh? By the Lord Jesus Christ, huh? In so far as through the origin of his flesh, right, he took on the likeness of the flesh of sin, without sin, right? He took on the punishment in the sense of death and exhaustion and so on. In the generations, however, of Luke, are signified the washing away of our sins, right?

[2:52] Which is through the sacrifice of Christ, huh? And therefore, the generations of Matthew are enumerated descending, right? Luke, however, ascending, right? That's beautiful the way Thomas sees that difference there. Hence, it is that Matthew, from David, descends through what Solomon, right? In whose mother he what sinned? That's Bathsheba, right? Luke, however, to David ascends through Nathan, right? Huh? Through the what prophet of who of which name?

[3:36] God expiated his what sin, huh? That's right. yeah. He's not saying it's his father but he's saying the name is connected. Yeah. And kind of beautiful the way he he tells them the story of the man who took the lamb I guess to somebody. Who is a man? Punish him, you know. And you are the man. Yeah. But. I used to take that when you talk about the what they call the poetic argument, right?

[4:09] Since it's very very appropriate, right? You kind of see yourself in the mirror Shakespeare says, right? You see what you really are. And hence it is also that Matthew wishes to signify Christ descending to our mortality.

[4:39] The generations from Abraham down to Joseph, right? And as far as nativity or birth of Christ descending, he commemorates these from the beginning of his what gospel. But Luke, not from the beginning of his gospel, right? But from the baptism of Christ, narrates the generation,

[5:10] and not going down, but what ascending, right? This apparently, this is you know, he's quoting what Augustine here, so Thomas here is relying upon the other great greatest mind,

[5:30] just as Thomas says what Plato and Aristotle are the chief philosophers. So I would say Augustine and Thomas are the chief theologians, huh? As we're a priest, right? In expiating sins, right? More assigning, right? Where the testimony of what? John. John is John the Baptist.

[6:06] Yeah, saying, "Behold, takes away the sins of the world," right? And going up, he goes beyond Abraham, right? And goes all the way to God,

[6:20] to which the cleansed and expiated are reconciled, huh? By emphasizing, you know, our taking on our sinful flesh, in a sense, the Christ, huh? For what is the appearance of a sinful flesh anyway? He just takes it down from Abraham, from from human origin, right? And

[6:50] rightly, he takes on the origin of what adoption, right? Because by adoption we are made the sons of God, huh? But through the what flesh degeneration, the Son of God is made the son of what man, huh?

[7:14] And satisfying enough, huh? He demonstrated not thus, as he said Joseph to be the son of Eli, that he was generated him, but because he was adopted by him, right? Since also, And so to be son of God yeah, When he's made so by God, right?

[7:39] Now, what about these numbers? These numbers. I'll see what he's going to do with this. The number what forty to the time of the present life pertains, huh?

[7:53] On account of the four parts of the world, huh? The Shakespeare speaks in of England one of the four corners, you know. Kind of somewhat limited view of the world. Let's see, Thomas here

[8:10] explains you know the symbolism of the number twelve and the apostles, huh? That he sends forth the what apostles to the four corners of the world, right, to preach the Trinity, huh? Three times, bro. Yeah, three times for you.

[8:30] I just got recently, you know, I tend to have an orange in the morning, right, for breakfast, and I cut the orange in exactly twelve pieces.

[8:42] So you take three, you eat each one in three bites. And let's see, I have these little clean bacon things, and I cut them into probably twelve. Two, I wasn't, you know, doing it for purposes. This is the, you know, well, just a good size to eat, you know. I mean, you know, to eat bite by bite, and I say, well, I don't pretend to die. You're mystically inspired.

[9:13] Yeah, yeah, yeah. So anyway, but you know, sometimes people people I think they they they want to make fun of Augustine's explanation of these numbers, right? Because there's more than one way to what?

[9:37] Yeah, there's more than one way of seeing symbolism in these numbers, right? Huh? But for Augustine and Thomas, there can be more than one sense of the what? Letter. Yeah. So if I see another symbolism in a number, right? Huh?

[9:56] It's no problem. It's no problem. Yeah. That's what Augustine says about. I think he says about 153 fish in other places. He says, "Well, there may be other ways of explaining this, but you can't say this was wrong. " Yeah, that's the point. See, Thomas, whatever you know thing is is orthodox, right? And and can be accommodated to it. Can be the sense of the letter, the God who who sees many things at once, right?

[10:30] Can see many senses of other. Unique. I think they kind of don't realize that you know, or they're not real with what Augustine and Thomas say, and therefore they'll make fun of those numbers when they really shouldn't, right? You know, because it seems kind of arbitrary. You say, "Well, you could maybe do it some other way, right? " Explain the numbers. And Thomas sometimes for the same number would give a couple explanations of it, right?

[11:06] So he says the number forty pertains to the time of the present life, right? On account of the four parts of the world in which we live our what? Live our mortal life, right? Under Christ's ruling, right? For quadraginta right? huh? has four times ten, and ten from one, proceeding to four, constitute what? All number, right? Okay.

[11:48] No. Now, this this way I explain. Plato, because Plato, Plato said one, two, three, four, and this is what. This is understanding. This is episteme,

[12:12] because you go from the premises conclusion, right? Understanding, it's it's not from this to this, it's. Great one, yeah. This is what opinion, because from your premises you reason to what, Different conclusions. So, Aristotle, speaks a dialectic. he sometimes says, Dialectical reasoning is reasoning from probable opinions to opposite what, conclusions, huh? Okay. Like the great Socrates teaches us in the Mino, right? Well, Mino wants to know whether virtue can be taught, and Socrates says we don't even know yet what virtue is.

[12:52] But let's see what can be said for and against, right? So then he he reasons with probability that virtue can be taught, and then he reasons the probability that virtue cannot be taught, right? That's what dialectical reasoning is. So it's reasoning from probable opinions to opposite conclusions. That's three. And then four is the symbol of what, the senses, huh? This is dialectical reasoning, and it's because the senses now bring in the body, right, huh?

[13:22] But you know how Plato would say, you get one point, you got a point. Two points, you got a what, line. Three points, you got what, the surface, and another point up here, and you've got what, so it takes four points, right, four dimensions, and that's all there is, four dimensions, right? So you got one, two, three, four. What do they add up to? Ten. Ten, yeah.

[13:46] So that's one way of trying to explain why ten has got such a significance, right? So, so, so ipsa decem ab uno right? From one usque ad quattuor, progrediente numerus is consummated, right? Okay. Now, one can also take ten as referring to the what, Decalogue, huh? Okay. Then I found it in Thomas one time where the number eleven, you know, refers to sin, right? Because it transgresses and goes beyond ten, you know.

[14:31] Of course, when I was in high school, my buddies and I used to sit at table eleven. And so our group became known as table eleven, you know. And then years later, I find out that this is a symbol of transgression of the law. I didn't know myself. Significant that was. Friend of mine in high school, part

[14:56] of a group of guys that were twelve guys and called themselves the apostles and called themselves the dirty dozen. We see sometimes they take the twelve of the apostles to take the decalogue, the ten, right, and then the two commandments of love, the love of God and neighbor, right, and so you have two and ten, twelve, right? That's what. The way they live and the way they teach and so on.

[15:25] So, denarius can refer to the Decalogue, right? And four quaternarius to the prison life, right? Or also to the four what? Yeah. Yeah. That's not the one. This is just arbitrary, you know. But either one is for Thomas, what? Yeah, yeah. And they can both be a sense of the letter and a meeting that is hidden in this number, right? Okay. According as Christ what, or by which Christ rules in us, right?

[16:02] And therefore Matthew, commending the royal prison of Christ, his his being king, places forty what persons, excepting what himself, huh? Ah, but this should be understood that if it is the same Jechonias who is placed at the end of the second, what fourteen, and in the beginning the third as Augustine, what, which is son,

[16:37] which is said to be made to signify that in Jechonias there was made a certain what, turning to extraneous nations, right? When they there is a transmigration to Babylon, right? Which was also prefiguring Christ from what circumcision Gentiles, Gentiles, yeah, I agree. Okay. Okay. Jerome, however, says that two was the what Joachim, huh? Um, that is Jechonias father to wit and son, right? Huh. Of whom both is taken on in the generation of Christ, so that there stands a distinction in generations, which the evangelist distinguishes through three fourteens, right?

[17:36] Mm-hmm. Which ascends to what? Forty-two. Forty-two. Which number also belongs to the Holy Church? Huh. For this number arises from what scenario? Six. Yeah. Which signifies the labor of the present life, huh? And seven, which signifies the rest of the future life, and six times seven are forty-two. Yeah. And the number quaternarius fourteen, which is constituted from the denarius of the ten and the four, right? By addition, aggregation, to the same meaning pertains that was attributed to to what quaternarius So in the one case it's four times ten.

[18:36] Four plus ten. Yeah. You know, Augustine takes seventeen. You know, to explain the the fish that are caught in the thing, he takes number seventeen. He says those who obey the ten commandments, according to the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. So he adds ten and seven rather than. Mm-hmm. No. Yeah. So he can can do both. You know, just just you know the freedom that you have there, right?

[19:01] Okay. Um. So in the case of explain the number twelve, right? It's sometimes explained in terms of three times four, Preaching the Trinity to the four corners of the world, and sometimes to what ten plus two. The Decalogue plus the Commandments of love of God and neighbor. So he compares it to quadrantia, which consurgit rises from the same numbers, but according to multiplication.

[19:43] It's funny though. I mean, universally in our experience of modern scholars and so on, they are always making fun of, you know, I heard scriptural scholars say. You know, I was kind of amused to see Augustine talking about. Yeah. I think it is something to laugh about, but it was also something to be serious about too, right? Yeah. Something beautiful about it. I've heard Father Cisterius tell us we have to remember too that the people to whom Augustine preached were merchants, so they loved numbers.

[20:09] Yeah. They loved to deal with numbers all the time. So that's one of the things that, in a certain way, he commented even to them. To some extent, he was part of their culture too. This would have been their way of inculturating the gospel.

[20:25] you know my Pythagorean theorem, right? So what was the first Pythagorean theorem in numbers, whole numbers? Three, four, five. Yeah. Yeah. Well, remember how two places he said in the De Anima right, Of Aristotle, he distinguishes three souls, right, and what four grades of life and five genera of powers, right. So to understand the connection between the three and the four and the five is really kind of central to seeing the De Anima as a whole, right?

[21:00] And then you get to Scripture. I mean, to the Trinity, right? You have three persons, four relations, but five notions. Yeah. So you have three, four, five, right? And it's it's kind of a way of relating those those together, right?

[21:19] How does five notions give you only four relations, and four relations give you only three persons, right? See. Or how do five genera of power give you only four grades of life? Well, it's because one of the genera of powers naturally follows upon the others, right? So if you have sense or reason, you're going to have what desire. So desire doesn't give you a separate order, right?

[21:46] So you have those who have only the the living powers, reproduction, growth, nourishment. Then those who have in addition to that what sensation, and those that have in addition to sensation locomotion, and then those that have in addition what reason, right? But not, and then those who have what you know will or or sense desire because they're going to follow upon having sense or what.

[22:16] Reason, right? So then you say why five because you only four, right? And then why although you have four grades of life, you have only three souls, right? Well, Thomas will explain that in terms of the fact that the soul is, in a way, rising above what mere matter, right? That's why the modern, you know, biologists would be kind of afraid to talk about soul, right? Huh?

[22:39] And so sensation rises above matter in a way that what the local, the powers of digestion so do not, right? But the idea of walking is a different kind of materiality. But then you get to reason, you have something very much immaterial, right? So in terms of rising above matter, right? I mean, they say, well, the plant powers, you know, the living powers rise above matter in some way because they don't

[23:19] simply follow the chemical principles, right? Like in the old physics show, they had, well, fire is helping to digest your food, right? But if fire were just left itself, it just burns the whole body, right? You know, so I mean, the use of these chemicals is is is limited and directed by what the plant soul, right? And so you know the organization, stability of a living organism is a marvelous thing, right?

[23:54] And the great physicist there, Heisenberg, you know, who's probably next to Einstein in terms of the greatness of his mind, you know, but he says, you know, the living organism, he says, the stability is is not probable at all from the point of view of physical principles, huh? It's kind of beautiful, you know, you know, and Heisenberg of course was brought up in the school of Niels Bohr and so on.

[24:18] And what got Niels Bohr going with the atom, right? Was the atom had it was kind of imagined to be kind of miniature solar system, right? But a miniature solar system that's always coming into contact with those other solar systems would have absolutely no stability, right? And so there's stability in the atom that can't be explained by mechanical principles like a miniature solar system, right? But then when you come to the living organism, the stability of that is not explained by by physical principles, physics and chemistry, yeah.

[24:53] And so you can see that in the in the living organism, even the plant, there's a kind of rising above, you know, material means a bit. But then when you get to sensation, you have a kind of a immaterial knowing, but not, and that's not an embodied organ.

[25:13] But when I, you know, receive the, you know, the shape of this in my eye, my eye doesn't take on this shape, right? There's a kind of immaterial receiving there, but yet I receive in the bodily organ, right? My senses, and then when I get to my understanding or my reason, then I rise entirely above matter because my reason is not in the brain. It's not universal reason.

[25:38] It's not in the brain. It's power of the soul that it has in itself, but not in the body. That's why we have only three souls, despite there being four grades of life, right? But the but the difference between an oyster, say, and and a dog, is not a different kind of immateriality, another way of rising. But nevertheless, there's some superiority of that dog that can move around to the oyster or something.

[26:06] That's the same way the Trinity say. Well, if there are five notes, why are there only four relations? There are four relations, and you distinguish the persons by relations. Why don't you have four persons? Yeah. So it's kind of I create those things three, four, five by the Pythagorean theorem. You know, I might kill your arties, but anyway, it always kind of sticks by my mind. You know,

[26:33] you know, I just, I just, I'll put the board up triangle, you know, say three persons, four relations, five. How do you explain that, right? Three souls, four grades of life, five genera of power. How do you explain the difference in numbers, right? We need to break here. I'm sorry. We can finish this one reply here. I guess okay. So you can add and and multiply these numbers, right?

[27:07] To explain them. Okay. So almost at the end of the second or third reply. Now the number which Luke uses in the generations of Christ, right, signifies the universality, universe, right? Yeah, of sins. For denarius, right, as were the number of what justice, right, is shown in the ten precepts of the law. But sin is the transgression of the law. And the transgression of the number ten.

[27:54] Oh, here it comes now. I'm in trouble now. I'm going to show up. However, this is done. Okay. Now seven signifies what? Universality. How do they translate universi totum? Yeah, because time as a whole is you know divided by the revolution seven days, right? And seven times eleven are seventy-seven,

[28:32] and thus through this is signified the universe of sins which are taken away by Christ. Now Thomas didn't, you know, apart from explaining the symbolism of the numbers. He didn't seem to directly respond to the discrepancy in numbers

[29:02] in the number of generations. I don't remember that, and they replied to you. Yeah, yeah. I mean, maybe someone could say, you know, well, here we give the grandfather and his grandson, or here, you know, but he doesn't, he doesn't try to do youth in this, and I don't remember. Good

[29:36] night. I'll get back to. Okay, now. Yeah, the fourth figure, right, Okay. So there's a discrepancy in who generated whom, right? He says, "To the fourth, it should be said that as as Jerome says upon Matthew, right? Because Joram, the king, right,

[30:17] got mixed up with the what? Most impious Jezebel, right? Therefore, as far as to the third generation, his memory is what taken away, lest he be placed in the holy order of nativity, huh? Don't get mixed up with Jezebel,

[30:43] that's for sure. And thus, as Chrysostom says, huh? As much blessing as was made upon Jehu, right? Who made what? Vengeance upon the house of Ahab and Jezebel, huh? So great is the malediction upon the house of Joram on account of what? The daughter of the iniquity Ahab and Jezebel, that all the way to the fourth generation his what sons were cut off, the number of kings, as is written in Exodus 20 verse 5, huh?

[31:25] I'll render the sin of the parents to the children as far down as the third and fourth generation, huh? It should be noted then that other kings were sinners who are placed in the genealogy of Christ, huh? But there was not what a continual impiety of them, huh? Just explain, a bit the numbers, I don't know. As is said in the book of the questions, the New and Old Testament, huh?

[31:54] Solomon, by merit of his father, was what remiss in his kingdom. Roboam by merit of Asa, the son of Abias, his sons. Of these, there three. There is a continual impiety, huh? Sounds like the Kennedys, I guess. Three strikes, yeah.

[32:28] That came out in the debates there, because the question was saying, you know, are you going to do this in the seat, you know, Kennedy? You know, he says not the seat of Kennedy, it's just it belongs to the citizens of Massachusetts to the blood Kennedy. For the guy in his place, you know. Okay.

[32:47] Now, in the fifth one, what about this discrepancy or difference, at least in the woman mentioned, right, huh? To the fifth, it should be said that, as Jerome says upon Matthew, in the genealogy of the Savior, right, huh? None of the what holy woman is taken, but those whom what Scripture reprehends, right? So that the one who came on account of sinners, right, huh? Being born of sinners would delete the sins of what Oh.

[33:25] Whence there is placed Thamar, who was reprehended for her what? So they met her. Oh, is it uncle with such a father-in-law? Okay. Um.

[33:43] And Rahab, who was a. harlot. And Ruth, who was what? Foreign. Was she Morby? She in Morby. Something like that. And Bathsheba, right? Mm-hmm. The wife of Uriah, right, who was adulterous, right?

[34:07] Who nevertheless, by her own name, is not placed, but is designated for the name of her husband, right? Both on account of the sin of her, right? Because she was what. Conscious. Conscious of homicide, right?

[34:29] And also by naming the man descendant, David might be called back to what, right? And because Luke designated Christ, intends to designate Christ as the expiator of what Yeah. Our sinners, I could, yeah, yeah. He does not make mention of such woman, right?

[34:59] The brothers of Jude are commemorated that one might show them to pertain to the people of God. Since nevertheless, Ishmael, the brother of Isaac, and Esau, the brother of Jacob, were separated from the people of God, on account of which, in the generation of Christ, they are not what.

[35:22] And also that pride about noble birth, I guess, huh, would be excluded, right, huh? For many of the brothers of Judas were born from what slave, and all were what princes of, and they are at the same time patriarchs and princes of tribes, right? Phares and Zara are named together, as Ambrose says upon Luke, because to them the twofold life of what the people is described: one according to the law, which is signified by Zara, and other by faith, which is signified by Phares huh My wife's a Gemini.

[36:11] My wife's a Gemini, I think. Fratres autem Jacobi are placed because all ruled in diverse times, which in other kings did not happen, or because like similar was both their iniquity and their misery, huh? I notice how the church fathers were nevertheless kind of forced into these because the heretics, you know, who were what pointing out these discrepancies or apparent discrepancies in scripture, right? So in a sense, you are kind of

[36:52] in a way. That's why he also had to, you know, start to investigate the the Trinity and so on, the Incarnation, so on. Kind of starting point, right? Was not so much curiosity as it were the necessity of defending, right? Yeah.

[37:10] So so Augustine says, you know, that heresy is necessary for the development of theology. Otherwise, you would kind of be afraid to touch some of these things, huh? Because they're so so difficult, right? Yeah. But you are kind of forced to do so, huh?

[37:36] Okay, I've got to go four now. Here, the fourth one goes forward. Thus, it seems that the matter of the body of Christ. Christ ought not to be taken from a woman, right? For the masculine sex is more noble than the female sex.

[37:57] But most of all, was it fitting that Christ take that which was perfect in human nature? Therefore, it does not seem that he ought to have taken flesh from a woman, but more from a man, just as what Eve was formed from the.

[38:22] Moreover, whoever is conceived from a woman is contained in the womb of the woman, right? But God, who fills heaven and earth, as is said in Jeremiah twenty-three, twenty-four, does not belong that he be contained in the small womb of a woman. Therefore, it seems he ought not to be conceived a woman. I think that's what the heretics said something, you know. You know, it's like he's he's you know he's got the whole universe, right?

[38:52] And now he's being confined in this little space, More with, those who are conceived from the woman undergo a certain uncleanliness, as is said in Job twenty-five. Never can man be justified in comparison to God, or pure, clean, born of a what woman, huh? But in Christ there ought to be no uncleanliness, huh? For he is the wisdom of God, about whom is said in the Book of Wisdom, chapter seven, nothing stained comes into it into it.

[39:35] Therefore, it seems he ought not to have assumed flesh and woman, right? But against all this nonsense is what is said in Galatians four four. God sent His Son made from a woman. He said, "Deus filius factum ex muliere Well, what does the Master say? The answer: It should be said that although the Son of God, right, was able to take on human flesh from whatever matter he wished, right, most suitably nevertheless, right, did he take flesh from the woman, right?

[40:22] First, because through this the whole of human nature was what ennobled, huh? Whence Augustine says in the Book of the Eighty Three Questions, huh,

[40:38] that the liberation of man ought to appear in both what sex. So, I remember I was lecturing on the enunciation, right? Huh? That the order of our redemption kind of corresponds to the order of our falling, right? But it begins from Eve and then goes to the man, right? Huh? And so our our redemption begins from Mary saying, "Be it done to me," okay, and then proceeds to the to the man, is conceived, right?

[41:17] So the liberation of man ought to appear in both sexes. Therefore, because he was what he had to take on the man, right? Huh? Which sex is more honorable? Here's Augustine saying that, right? Ah, it was suitable that the.

[41:44] Liberation of the female, right? Sex. Here appear because that man was born of a what woman? To be kind of left out there. This is real women's liberation. True, true, true liberation, yeah, true liberation. Yeah, yeah. The preacher of women's liberation. Secondly, because through this, the truth of the incarnation would be what made known Whence Ambrose says in the book about the incarnation. huh Many things you find according to nature, and what beyond nature, right?

[42:31] According to the condition of nature, he was in the what womb, right? Of the feminine woman's body, right? But above the condition, a virgin what? Above the condition of nature, right? A virgin conceived, and a virgin generated or brought forth. That one might believe that because he was what God, who renews nature, and was a man who, according to nature, was born from. Now, in both Latin and Greek, homine is what the common word, right?

[43:15] It doesn't mean in English. You don't have two words, right? Used to explain that nauseum to the students. When you're doing the Peri Hermeneias, you know of course you have noun and verb, right? And in Greek and Latin, you have the same word for noun and name. See, we have different names: name, noun, yeah. And so, you know, when you read the commentators and the Peri Hermeneias they're explaining it, you know.

[43:43] But now Aristotle is using the word nomen in the sense of or onoma, in the sense of what name, and now he's using the sense of what noun as opposed to verb and so on, right? So in one sense, if verb is onoma. in another sense, you divide it one against the other, right? But here, here it's the reverse, and here they have two words: one for femina and ver, and then homo, But we don't have two words for homo and vir, so we use the same word, right?

[44:11] That's that's the language, right? There used to be one woman in either daily mass in the old days. There, she was always, you know, correcting the text and and just wait for her to say it. And get your nerves a little bit. What did you do, you know? I feel like they're all saying, "Woman, that is not the word." What they're doing, the professor said, "Oh, it's just, it is, just they're stubborn, you know."

[44:41] That's why I will say, whether you call it horizontal, whether you call it vertical, it's really just. So that's the great Ambrose, huh? one of the four or five great doctors of the Western Church, and Augustine says in the Epistle to Volusiana, that's to a woman, Volusiana, it? Looks like a woman's name, isn't it? Is this the one? I know I can't. There's a bishop with a similar name, but I can't remember what it is.

[45:19] Well, he's talking about. Okay. Okay, Epistle to Volusianus How's it translated in English? Just and Augustine says, and then in parentheses, E ad Balos abbreviates it. You don't know what the whole word is If the omnipotent God, right, man ubicumque anywhere is that? Wherever formed Yeah, wherever formed It. Was not created from the maternal womb, but suddenly, right, was brought to our view, right? Would it not confirm an opinion of error that neither a true man did he take on would be in any way believed, right?

[46:19] And when all these things were done marvellously, would take away that he did it what mercifully? For now, between what God and man, he appears mediator. That in the unity of his person he joins both natures, and the customary things he what sublimes with customary things, and he tempers the unaccustomed things by customary things. That's that's marvellous, right? Marvellous way Augustine speaks, huh?

[47:06] So that's to the truth of the incarnation, right? That's the third, because in this way is completed all the diversity of the human generation. For the first man was produced from the slime of the earth, right? Without a man and a woman, Eve was produced from a man without a woman, right? Other men are produced from a man and a woman. Whence this fourth, as it were, proper or private, that Christ is left, that he produced from a woman without a man.

[47:55] That's kind of unusual that third reason, huh? Yeah, I remember that one. St. Thomas is for the completion of the universe, all the possibilities. Yeah. Neither man nor woman, man only, woman only. Yeah. What else is left? I think the first one, you know, is most interesting. Now Thomas has put that first too. Okay.

[48:22] Now, what about this objection? Why you get more noble sex and so on? To the first, therefore, it should be said that the masculine sex is more noble than the feminine. Right.

[48:37] Therefore, he assumed human nature in the masculine sex, huh? But lest the feminine sex be what despised, it was fitting that he took on flesh. the woman. I think that's very, that's very

[48:59] well said, very, true. when Augustine says in the book on the Christian struggle, ah, do not what do not despise yourselves, men. the Son of God, right, The God and man. Do not despise yourselves, but women, right? For the Son of God was born from one. That's marvelous. That's indeed, excellent.

[49:43] Okay, now the second objection here. What about confining him in that territory there? Did he suffer at least claustrophobia here or something? The second it should be said as Augustine says in the twenty-third book against Faust, who used this objection, Right, I knew there was some heretic in this objection. I've seen this before. Not plainly, he says, the Catholic faith, which Christ, the Son of God, born according to what from the Virgin, in any way, the same Son of God, thus was included or contained in the womb of the Vir of the mother, as if what he was not outside there, right?

[50:40] As if he had given up the administration of heaven and earth. This reminds me of Homer there, you know, who are during the battle there, right? Homer, I mean, Zeus's wife is is on the opposite side, right, in the battle. So she comes down, gets dressed up, you know, seduces the, you know, taking love with her, and then he gets up. He's very mad, you know, because the battle.

[51:04] But it's like you know he being confined in the womb here was not be able to tend to the universe like like Zeus and Homer, you know. You can see how how they can try to make fun of this, you know, and say that he's reduced to being on a level of Zeus, right? Or even less. Yeah. Ah, as if he what as if he he had gone out from the Father, right?

[51:32] He was not in the Father. Ah. But you, O Manichaean, right? Huh. In that heart, by which nothing are you able except to think of bodily things, they didn't apparently believe in immaterial things. And they're a little bit like, the Sadducees and so on. are not are wholly unable to what grasp these things, right? Huh?

[52:03] I remember my cousin Donald trying to explain to his mother that Christ in His divine nature had no body, and she just couldn't understand that.

[52:13] Whatever's I was making, right? I mean, that's how far you know, huh? You know. As he says in the Epistle to Felicianum of men,

[52:34] this is what sense that they are not able to think of what anything except what bodies, right? Huh? Of which no one is able to be what everywhere, the whole, right? Ah, because through what. yeah Something has to be there. I guess something other has to be there. Yeah, My text is Patra I think it must be parts, though, right? Yeah, Parts. Yeah, Parts here. Parts. here.

[53:06] I got an R there after the T. Yeah. Yeah. Tantaparthya. One there has necessary, okay. For much other is the nature of the soul than the body, right? Huh? How much more then of God, who is the creator of the soul and the body, right? Huh?

[53:31] He knows what to be everywhere, right? Huh? And to be contained by no place, huh? He knows to come, not receding from where he was. He knows to go away, not to deserve it.

[53:51] yeah. We talked about that mission of the persons of the Trinity, right? It's not by going from one place to another place, right? They cease to be in one place and come to be another place. It's said to be some place by

[54:11] no factor. To the third, it should be said that in the conception of the woman of the man from the woman, there is not anything unclean, in so far as it is the what work of God. Whence it is said in Acts 10. 15, what God created, do not call common; that is unclean, huh? But there's nevertheless there's some uncleanliness coming from what sin. huh? Insofar as with what lust, huh?

[54:49] One is conceived for a mixture of the man and the woman, which nevertheless in Christ was not, as has been shown above. I was looking at the Pope's address there for the seventh centenary of Duns Scotus, right? Oh, in the recent? Well, I know this was back in a year or so ago, but I guess he held to my conception in Duns Scotus. huh I think I've read it before, but it seems to say there's a letter there, you know.

[55:25] Okay. If, however, there is some uncleanliness there, from this in no way would be what word of God be stained, huh? With no way is what changeable, right? Prince Augustine says in the book against the five heresies, God says the Creator of man, "What is it that what would move you in my nativity? I am not conceived by the

[56:03] desire of lust, right? What is it that troubles thee in my birth? Oh, okay, okay, that's good. Thank you. I, the mother from whom I was born, I made her right. Made her without sin, by the way, Tom.

[56:23] And if the ray of the sun knows to dry out the sordid members of the terrain yeah, yeah. Was it. There was a place in Rome there, the Cloaca Maxima. you always hear about that in the Latin books, you know, where all the the trash of the city. But does not know what to be stained by them, right? Much more of the splendor of the eternal life, eternal light, wherever it radiates, is able to what cleanse, huh?

[57:04] But itself not to be what polluted, yeah, yeah. My first first answer is better there, right? Especially sticking to matter conception. So, gotta stop here now, or what? Yeah.