Tertia Pars
118. Summa III q.55 a.5-6 and q.56 a.1: The Signs That Prove the Resurrection, and Christ's Resurrection as the Cause of Ours
Class of 2010-12-09
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/13-tertia-pars/118-summa-iii-q-55-a-5-6-and-q-56-a-1-the-signs-that-prove-the/

[0:00] To the fifth, one proceeds thus: It seems that Christ ought not to declare the truth of resurrection by arguments, huh? Whereas Ambrose says, "Take away arguments where faith is sought, huh?" Famous quote there. But about the resurrection of Christ, faith is sought, right? Therefore, arguments have no place.

[0:29] Moreover, this is another quote that you always see. Moreover, Gregory says faith does not have merit to which human reason what gives experience, right? But to Christ, it does not pertain to take away the merit of faith. Therefore, to him it does not pertain to confirm the resurrection through what arguments, huh?

[0:59] Moreover, Christ came into the world that through him men might obtain what beatitude, right? According to that of John chapter ten, I came that they might have life, and they might have it more abundantly. But through showings of this sort of arguments, there seems to be given or placed a impediment to human beatitude, huh? Because as is said in John twenty, from the mouth of the Lord about two times, I guess, blessed are those who have not seen and believed, right, huh?

[1:38] Therefore, it seems that Christ ought not, by some arguments, to make known his what resurrection, huh? But against this is what is said in Acts chapter one, verse three, that Christ appeared to the disciples during those forty days in multis argumentis, huh? Okay, speaking about the kingdom of God, huh? Well, it's interesting. Yeah. Text, huh? Yeah.

[2:14] I answer. It should be said that argument is said in two ways, huh? Sometimes argument is a certain reason making belief about some doubtful thing, right? Producing belief about some doubtful thing. Sometimes an argument is said some sensible sign, right? That is brought in to the making known of some what truth, huh? For thus also Aristotle sometimes in his books uses the name of what argument, huh?

[2:53] Is a reference there to Prior Analytics? In the first way, then taking argument, Christ does not prove to the disciples his resurrection by arguments, because such a proof, argumentative proof, would proceed from some what beginnings, some principles, which if they were not known to disciples, nothing would be made known to them to them, because from the unknown something cannot be made what known. If ever it were known to them,

[3:36] it would not what transcend human what reason, and therefore it would not be efficacious to constructing the faith of the resurrection, which exceeds human reason, right? For it is necessary that beginnings are taken from the same genus, as is said in the first book of the Posterior

[4:05] Analytics. But he proves his resurrection to them through the authority of sacred Scripture, which is the foundation of faith. When he says, "It is necessary for all things which are written in the law and in the Psalms and the Prophets about me," as is said in Luke twenty-four.

[4:31] If ever one takes in the second way argument, then Christ is said to have declared his resurrection by arguments, in so far as through certain most evident signs he shows himself to truly have risen, right?

[4:54] Whence also in the Greek, where we have in multis argumentis and the Latin, in place of argument is placed tekmerion, which is a what evident sign proving something, right? Okay, that's a word you find Aristotle too. Tekmerion for the strong sign. Yeah. Okay. So just in regular life, an example that would be.

[5:29] It's for a strong sign, right? You know, Augustine defines sign as what strikes the senses and brings to mind something other than itself, right? But then this very strong sign is called tekmerion in Aristotle, right? Huh? This is this is the thing used the word used apparently and translated by argumentum, but you know, but this is the one in Greek. Thomas knows a little bit of Greek, I guess.

[6:00] You think of, I would take Maria. Yeah. I think Aristotle's example is that of the the woman who's milking her breasts as a sign she's had a child. Good. Okay.

[6:21] So signum evidens, right? That's kind of like the definition of which signs of the resurrection of Christ he shows to his disciples for two reasons.

[6:34] First, because the hearts of them, right, were not disposed that they would what easily accept faith the resurrection. Whence he himself says to them, Luke 24, Oh stutti, how stupid, and slow in heart to believing, huh? Okay. " In Mark 16, huh? The exprobavit, huh? He upbraided the incredulity of them, right, and the hardness of their what heart, you know.

[7:12] I think I mentioned that you know, I was reading Thomas there in the Roman version of the sentences, and he's talking about how grace and the love of God. He was talking about the love of God and how the love of God can continually grow, right? There's no limit to how much you can grow, but no matter how much your your love of God grows, can never equal the love of God that someone who sees God face to face has, and it can never equal.

[7:48] This is why you know I went to mass this morning, and they were they happened to have the passage from from Matthew, right, where Christ is saying about you know John the Baptist, right, and I think that's one way to understand those words, right? No one born a woman is greater than than him, but he was least in the kingdom of heaven, right? Is is greater, huh?

[8:11] So the one who's least in the kingdom of heaven, who sees God face to face, he loves God more than John the Baptist does, huh? And then the other thing Thomas says, you can never love God as much as the Blessed Virgin does, or as the apostles, right? And so it's stupid, he says, to think you're going to arrive at a love of God as great as they have, right?

[8:36] Huh? But that doesn't mean you can't keep on what more and more, yeah, yeah. So, but even so, you get rid of it, but they're stupid and tardy, right? Yeah, and the hardness of their heart, right?

[8:54] So it's partly for themselves, right? But secondly, that through signs of this sort shown to them, they could render more efficaciously their or their testimony would be rendered more what efficacious, right? According to that of one John one, what we have seen and heard, and our hands have what touched, yeah, held, yeah. This we testify, right? Huh? Okay.

[9:24] Now to the first argument, the one from the text from Ambrose, huh? To the first, it should be said that Ambrose there speaks of arguments proceeding by what human reason, which are invalid for showing those things which are of what faith, right? Okay. So we don't go to the philosopher to show that Christ rose from the dead, right? Okay. No, and he did he did not give those kind of arguments, right?

[9:53] Huh? But of course. The Greek text is more clear because it uses the word for s evident sign, right, rather than for philosophical argument. Now the text from Gregory there, I don't know if often those are both texts that are quoted a lot, you know, and Thomas will ask, you know, whether theology should proceed argumentatively, right? And these are always in the objections, you know. These two texts, I've seen them before.

[10:27] The second should be said that the merit of faith is from this: that man, from the command of God, believes what he does not what see. Whence only that reason excludes merit, which makes one see by knowledge that which is proposed to be believed, right? And such is a demonstrative reason, right? But these kind of reasons Christ does not bring in to declaring his resurrection. He didn't have a demonstration like you have in geometry, right?

[11:00] The Stegling theorem or something like that. To third, it should be said, as has been said, that the merit of the attitude, which faith causes, is not wholly excluded unless man does not wish to believe except those things which he what sees. But that someone, those things which he does not see, that he believes through some what visible signs, some signs seen, does not wholly take away faith nor its merit, right?

[11:45] Just as Thomas, to whom it is said, because you have seen me, you believe, right? Now, as Thomas says, it's one thing he saw and another thing that he believed, right? He saw the wounds and he believed he was what God. So he believed what he did not see, right? But he saw something, right, that disposed him to believe what he did not see. But it is a more perfect faith that does not require aids of this sort to believe, right?

[12:21] Whence to convince them of the defect of faith in some, the Lord says, unless you see what signs and wonders, you do not believe, huh? And according to this, can be understood that those who are so of such prompt soul that they believe God even not seeing what the signs are blessed in comparison to those who do not believe unless they see what such, right? But Thomas is saying then that the signs are there both for the apostles because the weakness of their faith, which Christ, you know, stulti, arguably, but also to make their testimony for us more credible, right?

[13:09] Okay. And so they often talk about Thomas as being important for us, right? Okay. Now, whether the arguments or signs which Christ induced sufficiently make known the truth of resurrection. To the sixth, one proceeds thus: It seems that the arguments which Christ brings in do not sufficiently make known the truth of his resurrection.

[13:43] For nothing that Christ showed what his disciples after the resurrection that also the angels appearing to men right either did not show or were not able to what show, huh? For the angels frequently in human effigy showed themselves to men, right, and spoke with them and conversed and ate, right, like they're in the ancients. as if they were true men, right. Just as is clear in Genesis chapter eighteen about the angels whom Abraham received with hospitality, right?

[14:27] In the book of Tobias about the angel who led and re-led them, right. And nevertheless, the angels did not have true bodies naturally united to them, right? Huh. Which is required for the resurrection? Sounds like an objection from a modern philosopher, right? How he's telling his senses. Not therefore the signs which Christ showed to the disciples were sufficient to make known his what resurrection, right?

[15:01] Moreover, Christ rose by a glorious resurrection. That is having at the same time human nature with glory, right? But some things that Christ showed to disciples which seem to be contrary to human nature, just as that from the eyes of them he vanished, right? And that he came into them, the doors being closed. And some things seem to be contrary to glory, that he ate and drank with them, right?

[15:34] Huh. And that he also had the scars, you might say, of the wounds, right? Therefore, it seems that those arguments are not sufficient nor suitable to showing the faith of the resurrection.

[15:54] Moreover, the body of Christ was not such that after the resurrection it ought to be touched by mortal man. When he himself says to Magdalene, "Do not touch me," right? For I am not yet ascended to my Father. Therefore, it is not suitable to manifesting the truth of the resurrection that he showed himself touchable, right, to his disciples.

[16:25] Moreover, among the gifts of the glorified body, especially would seem to be clarity, right? Which nevertheless, in the resurrection, is shown by no sign, no argument. Therefore, it seems insufficient those arguments to manifest the quality of the resurrection of Christ that he rose glorious, right? I guess with Moses, even Moses, they had a cover up his face because it's just too too bright, you know. Huh?

[16:57] Remember when I first went out with Rosie after? I'd given her her ring, you know, and she had it on. So I went out to my friend of mine, and he said, "Rosie, would you cover it up." You know, you know, it's just too bright. It's come a nice way of complimenting the size of Dave and all that, you know. Did very very nicely.

[17:25] It wasn't bright. Yeah. Moses' face wasn't Christ. But against this is that Christ, who is the very wisdom of God, about which it is said sweetly and suitably, disposes all things, as is said in Sapientia 8, right?

[17:55] What? This book has a fifth objection. Oh well, that's not in here. It says it came from a more recent codices of the Vatican. It's not an older edition. Okay. This does have an ad quintum, but it doesn't give the fifth objection here. But I know it's over here; it gives the ad quintum. Yeah. So when we get to that, you can get the fifth objection.

[18:25] I answer: It should be said that Christ made known his resurrection in two ways, to wit, by testimony and by argument or a sign, and both making known in its own kind was what sufficient, huh?

[18:51] Now there is used a twofold testimony to making known his resurrection to disciples. Which neither which can be what? Replied. The first of which is the testimony of the angels, huh? That's interesting. Who announced to the woman the resurrection? As is clear through all the what evangelists, huh?

[19:20] Another is the testimony of the what scriptures, huh? Which he himself proposed to to the showing of his own what resurrection, as is said in Luke twenty four. Is that the discourse to the

[19:39] to the disciples of Emmaus, right? He started to go through the scripture and all these things are going to take place, right? That's interesting. Testimony of the angels and the testimony of sacred scripture, huh? Now the argument or the signs were sufficient also to showing the truth of the resurrec the true resurrection, and also the glorious right resurrection. There was a true resurrection as shown in one way from the side of the what body, about which he shows three things: first, that it was a true body and what solidum, huh, solid, I guess, not a fantastic or imaginative body or a rare one as as air, right, huh?

[20:33] And this he shows through this that his body, that he gave his body, as something what touchable, right, huh? When Christ himself says in Luke chapter twenty four, touch and see, because that his spirit does not have what flesh and bones as you see me to have, right?

[20:56] Secondly, by showing that it was a human body, he showed that second he showed that it was a human body by showing them his true what features, yeah, which they could what look upon with their eyes, right? Okay. And third, he showed to them there was the same in number body that he had before by showing them the scars of the wounds, right? Once it is said in Luke twenty four, he said to them, "See my hands and my feet," because he's showing them the wounds, right?

[21:35] That it's me. This is me. Ego sum Okay. Another way he shows to them the truth of his resurrection from the sight of his what soul again united to his body, and he shows this through the works of a threefold life, huh? First, through this, through the work of what nutritive life, huh? In this, that he ate and drank with the disciples, as is read in Luke twenty four, huh?

[22:13] vegetative life, right? Secondly, through the works of the sensitive life, in this that to the disciples he responded to the things asked, right? And he saluted them present, right? In which he showed himself to see and hear and to sense, therefore, right? And third, through the works of the intellectual life, huh? In this that he spoke with them and discoursed about the what scriptures, huh?

[22:51] And that nothing would be lacking to the Perfection of the making known, he showed himself also to have a divine nature through the miracle that he did in the fishes captured, right?

[23:06] And further through this, that them seeing, he ascended into heaven, right? For as he himself said in John chapter three, no one ascends in heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man who is in heaven. Because the person is there?

[23:31] The glory of his resurrection he shows to disciples through this that he came into them. The door is being closed, according as Gregory says in the homily,

[23:46] that his flesh to be touched, the the Lord what? Allow them What? Yeah, allow them to handle his flesh. Yeah, which he brought in. Door is closed, right? So he might show that after the resurrection, resurrection his body

[24:08] to be of the same nature and another what glory, right, what about this first objection? Can't the angels with unreal bodies do some of these things?

[24:48] To the first, it should be said that each of the signs, right, are not sufficient to manifest in the resurrection of Christ, but all nevertheless taken together, right, perfectly make known the resurrection of Christ.

[25:10] Most of all, on account of the testimony of Scripture, right, and the sayings of the what angels and the assertion of Christ himself, confirmed by what miracles, huh?

[25:29] Now the angels appearing did not assert themselves to be men, just as Christ truly asserts himself to be a what man. But nevertheless, in a different way, Christ ate in another way the angels, right? For the bodies assumed by the angels were not living bodies or bodies having a soul, right?

[25:58] There was not a true eating, right? Although there was a true what? Cutting up, I suppose, the food, right? And a throwing of it into the interior part of the body, soul, right?

[26:17] Whence the angel said in Tobias twelve, "When I was with you, I seemed to eat and drink with you, right? But I use a invisible food.

[26:32] But because the body of Christ was truly insouled, animated, truly was a what? Eating, right? As Augustine says in the thirteenth book about the city of God,

[26:51] not the power, but the need of eating is taken away from the bodies of those what? Yeah. So I think we're doing eating in the next world We don't need to huh We don't need to. Whence as Bede says, "Huh? Christ ate by power, not by need, right? "

[27:22] Now the second objection here, right? Which is there some things that don't seem to be what? Seem to be contrary to human nature that he did, like he vanished from their eyes, right? He went through the doors, right? And so on. Other things seem to be contrary to glory that he ate and drank, right? To the second, it should be said that signs are induced by Christ to proving the

[27:51] some signs are induced by Christ to proving the truth of his human nature. Others signs are to proving the glory of the what? One rising.

[28:08] Now the condition of human nature, according as it is considered in itself, as regards the present state, is contrary to the condition of glory, according to that of Saint Paul in one Corinthians. It is planted in infirmity, but it rises in what? Power, right? And therefore, those things which are brought in to showing the condition of glory would seem to have contrariety to nature, right? Not simply to the nature, but according to the what?

[28:41] Present status of that nature, right? And a converso. Whence Gregory says in his homily that two marvelous things. And according to human reason, most contrary to each other, right? The Lord shows when, after resurrection, His body He shows to be both what incorruptible and nevertheless touchable, right?

[29:14] Now, what about this third objection here about He shouldn't be touched, as seems to say to Magdalen, right? To the third, it should be said, as Augustine says upon John, that the Lord says this, "Noli me tangere," do not what touch me. I have not yet ascended to my Father. That in that woman, right, is figured the Church from the what Gentiles, which would not believe in Christ. Except when he had what ascended to the Father, or thus in himself he wished to be believed, Jesus.

[30:07] That is, thus to be spiritually touched, right? That he and the Father were one, right? He wanted her to what rise to his divinity,

[30:31] For that. he ascended to the Father. That thus he would proceed in him or in her that he might be known to be equal to the Father, right? Huh?

[30:54] For this one still, in a fleshly way, right, believed in him because, as a man, she what? Yeah. But that Maria elsewhere, right, is read to have touched Christ, right? Huh? When together with the other woman, right, she approached and held his what feet. This makes no question, as Severianus says, huh?

[31:28] For that is of the figure, this of the what? Sex. Yeah, that of the divine grace, this of what human nature. Or, as Augustine says, this woman still with Christ wanted, I suppose, huh, to converse just as before the Passion, right? Huh? For joy, she thought nothing. What great, although the flesh of Christ was much better made by rising, right? And therefore he said, "I have not yet ascended to my Father, as if to say, do not estimate me again to what Life.

[32:20] For that you see me in the earth, this is because I have not ascended yet to my Father, right? Huh? But shortly I will ascend, right? Once he joins, I ascend to my Father and your Father. Huh?

[32:44] Partly because she was trying to what have the same kind of a connection with him that she had when he was still in his mortal flesh, right?

[32:59] Now the fourth objection: His clarity was not shown. To the fourth, it should be said that, as Augustine says to Orosium, Christ, the Lord, rose with a what? Clarified or shining flesh, right? But he did not wish, in that clarification, to appear to his disciples, huh? Because they were not able, with their eyes, to what? Look upon such clarity, huh?

[33:40] For if before he died for us and rose, when he was transfigured in the mountain, the disciples of his were not able to what? See him, right? How much more with his clarified flesh, the Lord, were they not able to what? See him, huh?

[34:00] So I know who Orosius is, but anyway, it should also be considered that after the resurrection, the Lord, this especially, wished to show that it was the same one who was what? Dead, right, huh? Which would much be impeded if he showed to them the clar clarity of his body, right, huh? For the change which is according to aspect, most of all shows the diversity of that which is seen, huh?

[34:36] Because the common sensibles, among which are the one and the many, and the same and the other, sight most of all what? Judges, right? But before the passion, lest the what? Disciples despise the infirmity of his passion. Christ most of all showed to them the glory of his majesty, huh? Which most of all the clarity of his body shows. And therefore, before the passion, he showed his glory to the disciples through his clarity.

[35:12] But after resurrection, through other signs, they couldn't look upon this, huh? Now, what's the fifth objection that you say is coming in here? Text, not mine. Got it. Put it in small, small print. And then it's not, it's not usually. It's too small for you to read. No, it's fine. Further, the angels introduced as witnesses for the resurrection seem insufficient from the want of agreement on the part of the evangelists, because in Matthew's account the angel is described as sitting upon the stone rolled back, while Mark states that he was seen after the women had entered the tomb.

[35:54] And again, whereas these mention one angel. John says that there were two sitting, and Luke says that there were two standing. Consequently, the arguments for the resurrection do not seem to agree. And there is some time there in which these things could take place, right? And there is the tomb, can sometimes mean the surrounding area, and so on, right? To the first, then it should be said, as Augustine says in the book on the agreement of the Gospels, we are able to understand one angel to be seen by the woman, both according to Matthew and according to Mark, that we what take them as what into the monument in some what space that there was some what yeah, and to see an angel sitting upon

[36:47] a stone rolled back from the monument, right? As Matthew says, that this should be what sitting on the right, as Mark says, huh? Then, when they looked into the place in which the body of Christ lay, there was seen by them two angels, right? Huh? The first one sitting, as John says, and after he had what

[37:18] after first seen standing, as Luke says, right? Huh? Okay. So, if I come to my house, you might say, "Well, he was sitting there," and somebody else say, "Well, he was standing." Oh yeah. This is great, great contradiction, right?

[37:35] Okay. Now we come to the causality of the resurrection of Christ, right? And here he's talking now about the effect of it, right? Yeah. What it was the cause of, rather than what he talked about in the last article in the first question there, where he's talking about what was the cause of the resurrection, right? What it is a cause of, what is its causality?

[38:01] Then we ought to consider about the causality of the resurrection of Christ, and about these two things are asked: first, whether the resurrection of Christ is a cause of our resurrection, huh? Secondly, whether it is a cause of our justification, or is it just applied to the body, right?

[38:21] To the first one proceeds thus: it seems that the resurrection of Christ was not a cause of the resurrection of our bodies, for the a sufficient cause being laid down is necessary for the effect to be laid down. If, therefore, the resurrection of Christ is a sufficient cause of the resurrection of our bodies, at once when he rose, all the dead ought to have risen, right If therefore the cause; should have the effect, right?

[38:50] That's right. Moreover, the cause of the resurrection of the dead is the divine justice. That bodies are together awarded or punished with their souls, as they what agree in merit or sin, as Dionysus says in the last chapter of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and also Damascene in the fourth book.

[39:18] But the justice of God necessarily was what? Yeah, it was necessary the justice of God to be fulfilled, even if Christ did not what risen right. Therefore, Christ not rising, the dead would what rise. Therefore, the resurrection of Christ is not the cause of the resurrection of our what bodies. Huh.

[39:47] Moreover, if the resurrection of Christ is a cause the resurrection of the bodies, it would either be what an Exemplary cause? Yeah, exemplar, which is tied up with the what formal cause, right? Aristotle distinguishes between the intrinsic form and then the exemplar, right? Or an effective cause, right? Or a meritorious cause, right?

[40:13] So he's going to say three kinds of causes it could be, but it's none of these, I guess. But it's not a causa exemplaris exemplaris because the resurrection of bodies, Christ or God works, right? According to that of John five, the Father raises the dead, right? But God doesn't have to look at some exemplar outside Himself, right? Likewise, it is not an efficient cause because an efficient cause does not act except by contact, either spiritual or bodily.

[40:49] But it's manifest that the resurrection of Christ does not act through bodily contact to the dead who rise on account of the distance of time and place, right? Similarly, not through a spiritual contact, which is through what faith and charity, because also even the faithless and the sinners rise, huh? Nor is it a meritorious cause because Christ rising now is no longer what a viator he's no longer on the way, and therefore he's not in the status or state of being able to merit.

[41:31] And thus, in no way, does the resurrection of Christ seem to be a cause of our resurrection. Moreover, since death is the privation of life, nothing seems it seems nothing other to destroy death than to what bring back to life, which pertains to resurrection. But Christ, by dying, destroyed our death. Therefore, the death of Christ is a cause of our resurrection. Not therefore his resurrection, huh? But Against this is what is said in one Corinthians fifteen.

[42:15] If Christ is preached that he rose from the dead and so on, the gloss says who's an efficient cause of our what resurrection, huh? Now, where's Thomas? Do he starts with Aristotle, right? I answer it should be said that that which is first in some genus, huh? What's most perfect in some genus, huh? Is the cause of all those things which are after in that genus, huh?

[42:50] As is said in the second book of the metaphysics, huh? But the first in the genus of our resurrection, resurrection, resurrection of Christ, as is clear from the things said above, is the most perfect resurrection. So, the first in time huh? To immortal resurrection. Whence is necessary that the resurrection of Christ be the cause of our resurrection, right? And this is what the apostle says: Christ rose from the dead, primitiae, right?

[43:25] That's the idea of being first, right? Of those sleeping, right? Because through man came death, meaning I guess Adam, and through man the resurrection of the dead.

[43:40] And this, reasonably, he says, huh? For the beginning of human being alive is the word of God, about whom it is said in the Psalm thirty-five: "Before you or with you is the fountain of what life." Whence he himself says in John chapter five, as the as the Father revives them, the dead vivifies them, so also the Son, whom He wishes, makes alive.

[44:15] But this, the natural order of things, divine instituted, has that each cause first works in that which is what close to it, right? And through this it works in those things which are more remote, just as fire first heats the near air, through which it what heats the bodies that are distant, right? And God first enlightens the substances close to Him, through whom through whom He enlightens those more remote, as Dionysius says in the thirteenth chapter of Celestial Hierarchy.

[44:52] And therefore the word of God first attributes immortal life to the body naturally united to Him, because that's closest to Him. And through this he works the resurrection and all the the others, huh? Okay, so, excuse me, where I started there, huh? Okay.

[45:18] Shocking, huh? Our style should be used at this point. Second book of wisdom, as I call it. To the first, therefore, should be said that as has been said, the resurrection of Christ is the cause of our resurrection through the power of the Word united, huh?

[45:43] Which operates according to what will, and therefore is not necessary that at once the effect follows, but according to the disposition of the will of the Word of God,

[45:57] that to which. That to which, first we should be conformed to Christ suffering and dying, in this what, sufferable and mortal life, that we might then arrive at partaking of the likeness of His resurrection, right? So we have to, He wills, I guess, huh? We first be conformed to Him suffering and dying, right? So you got to unite your own death to His death in some way, right?

[46:26] And your own suffering to His suffering, and then you can partake in the likeness of His resurrection. Now to the second, it should be said that the justice of God is the first cause of our resurrection, right? The resurrection of Christ is the what, second cause, huh? This is a distinction that Thomas, I was just reading in the fifth book of Wisdom, fifth book of metaphysics, this distinction between the the primary cause and secondary cause, huh?

[47:01] Which Thomas takes from episteme, and quasi instrumentalis, huh? The chief cause and instrumental cause. So although the principal power of the agent is not determined to this instrument in a determined way, nevertheless, from this that He operates through this instrument, huh? The instrument is a cause of the what, effect, huh?

[47:33] Thus the divine justice, as far as itself is concerned, is not obligated, right, or necessitated, to causing our resurrection through the resurrection of Christ, huh? That it could, it could in another way, God could in another way liberate us, then through the passion and resurrection of Christ. This has been said above.

[47:59] But from this that He decreed that in this way He would liberate us, it is manifest that the resurrection of Christ is the cause of our what, resurrection, right?

[48:13] So if I decide to use this knife to kill you, right? Then that knife will be an instrumental cause of your death, right? Not necessarily, right? But because I've chosen to use this knife as my weapon to end your life, right? Okay. So because he's chosen, right? God has chosen to what? Resurrect our bodies through the resurrection of Christ, right? Then that becomes what, an instrument, right?

[48:43] The secondary cause, the resurrection of our bodies, right? Huh? He had to do it, but He is chosen to do it that way, right? Interesting choice that He makes, huh?

[48:57] My ways are not your ways, and my choices are not your choices. You can see the kind of suitability this choice. Now, what kind of a cause is the resurrection of Christ? Of our resurrection. To the third, it should be said that the resurrection of Christ is not, properly speaking, a cause meritorious, right? His death is a meritorious cause, right? But it's not a meritorious cause or resurrection.

[49:32] But it is a efficient cause, right? And but as I say, Thomas will quote ever since the principal cause and the secondary cause and the chief cause and the instrumental cause, right? But that's still under that kind of cause, efficient cause, and also an exemplar, right? And that's the kind of cause that comes under what form, right? Efficient, in so far as the humanity of Christ, according to which or by which he rose, right, is in some way a tool of his divinity, right, and works in the what power of his divinity, as has been said above.

[50:22] And therefore, just as the other things which Christ, in his humanity, did or suffered, right, from the power of his divinity are what saving for us, right, as has been said above, so the resurrection of Christ is an efficient cause of our resurrection by the divine power of whom it is proper to vivify the dead, right,

[50:53] which power, in a present way, attains all places and times, and such a virtual or contact of power suffices for the reason of this what efficient cause. And because, as has been said, the primordial cause of the resurrection of man is the divine justice, from which Christ has the power to what make judgment, in so far as he is the Son of Man. The effective power of the resurrection extends not only to the good, but also to the bad who are what subject to his judgment, right?

[51:39] Now, just as the resurrection of the body of Christ, from this that his body is what personally united to the Word, is first in time, so also it is first in dignity and what perfection, right? Now, first of course is defined by before, and this is the first in the fourth senses of before in the categories, huh? As the gloss says in one Corinthians fifteen, for always that which is most perfect is an exemplar, right, which the less perfect imitate, right, each in their own way, huh?

[52:23] And therefore, the resurrection of Christ is the exemplar. Some of you call that the exemplar, the model, right, huh? Which imitates, huh, of our resurrection, right?

[52:37] Which is necessary, he says not from the side of the one resuscitating, right, who does not need an exemplar, right, but from the side of those what resuscitated, whom it is necessary to conform to that resurrection. According to that of Philippians three, he reformed the body of our humility, configured to the body of his clarity, right? But showing me that it's a cause in the sense of an exemplar, right?

[53:12] So although the efficiency of the resurrection of Christ, it's being an efficient cause in some way, extends itself to the resurrection of both the good and the bad, the exemplaritas, right, as being an exemplar, extends properly only to the good, right, who are made conform to his what sonship, as is said in Romans eight twenty nine. His resurrection is an efficient cause the resurrection of the good and the bad, but as an exemplar, maybe properly speaking, only of the what the good who are conformed to

[53:52] the body of his clarity, right? Now the fourth objection here. To the fourth, it should be said that according to the notion of the efficient cause which depends upon the divine power, commonly both the death of Christ and also his resurrection is a cause of the destruction of death, both of the destruction of death and the reparation of life, right? But according to the notion of exemplar, the death of Christ, through whom he what, receded from mortal life, is a cause of the destruction of our mortal death, right, or our death.

[54:42] But his resurrection, through which he began an immortal life, is the cause the reparation of our life, huh? But the passion of Christ is, moreover, both as a meritorious cause, right? And

[54:58] also Thomas is very clear. This is a this is on what causality you might say of the resurrection of Christ, right? And is it a cause in the sense of a meritorious cause? No, but it is a cause as an efficient cause and is a what exemplar, right?

[55:21] Just as we say in creation, you know, what kind of a cause is God, right? Well, he's an efficient cause, right? He's making us, right? That's efficient cause. And but he's also an exemplar because we're made in his what image and likeness, huh? Is also the purpose, right? So his

[55:46] cause, I used to say to students, two and a half senses of the four senses that Aristotle distinguishes, right? Is efficient cause an end, and is exemplar, but not the intrinsic form of things.

[56:03] Okay, gotta stop. Okay, so.