Tertia Pars
Lecture 5: The Suitability of the Incarnation: Arguments and Synthesis

Transcript
================================================================================

Point is a kind of a, you know, going back to Phaedo and the guy he's narrating, and the other guy here, that kind of sinking feeling too, is he hears this account of what took place, right? And what did Socrates do, right? And then Phaedo says he never admired Socrates more. He has a beautiful way of, what, leading him out of that, what, despair, right? I remember my cousin was a philosopher too, you know, when he saw the failure, really, you know, really make an impression upon him, right? Right, huh? And then I mentioned how in the second book of Wisdom, Aristotle raises or takes up the question, how is man towards knowing the truth, right? And this is just after the first book of Wisdom, where he's shown that all these men before him who were looking for wisdom had not found it. And you might say, well, you know? But when Aristotle does in the first book of Wisdom, after the premium there, he first narrates what his predecessors said about the causes, and then he examines whether what they said makes sense or is sufficient, right? But when he narrates what they had to say, he recalls the distinction of the four kinds of cause that we learned in natural philosophy, and he says that in addition to seeing what they said about causes, we're going to see if any of them touched upon any kind of cause besides the four. And of course they didn't, huh? And they didn't even speak too clearly or distinguish clearly the four kinds, huh? But you get a confirmation there, before you even get the critique of what they said, that indeed there are four kinds of causes. And that's already a step in the right direction. And in the second book of Wisdom, you'll find out that in each kind of cause there must be a first cause. That's already a great step towards knowing the first causes, right? So already Aristotle is kind of guiding you against, you know, a complete, the, what, idea failure from the first book, right? See? We used to come away with something positive, right? But then he asks in the beginning of the second book, how man is towards knowing the truth. And I always used to say to the students, now if a modern philosopher was doing this, he'd say, can man know the truth? But the point is, it's obvious that man can know truth. The question is, how adequate is he to knowing the truth? I don't know. Okay. And so Aristotle asks, and he begins his whole consideration, he says, the knowledge of truth is in one way difficult and in another way easy. And I used to say to my students, now if you went down the row of professors' doors here, right, and knocked on each door, and you ask the professor, is it easy or difficult to know the truth? What did the professor say? He'd say, it's difficult, if not impossible, right? He wouldn't say it's easy, would he? No. And finally he comes to the last door, and Aristotle's on the door. And you say, now is the knowledge of truth easy or difficult? And Aristotle says, well, one way it's difficult, and the other way it's easy. And then he goes on to give the reasons, two different reasons why it's difficult, and then he shows in three ways that it's easy, right? And one way he says is that no one completely misses the truth. You can't completely miss the truth. And there's some part of the truth that everyone sees, like the whole is more than a part. And then through the efforts of many, we can get even a large amount of truth. If I discover one geometrical theorem in my lifetime, and you one, and you one, and you one, you one, right? Then all of a sudden we have a large group of theorems, right? So in one sense, like my mother used to say, many hands make slight work. So he's kind of guarding you against this, what, despair, right? Okay? So man wants to be blessed, right? Man wants to be happy. But as you find out in the third book of the Summa Cana Gentiles, he can't be blessed without knowing God, and without knowing God as he is. And he can only know God as he is, if God is joined to him, as that by which he sees God, as well as what he sees. And so if you're thinking of that in, that man is wanting above all else, right? The problem is not in wanting it, but is it possible to have hope that you can get there, right? So that's kind of primarily in Thomas' mind, right? Coming from the third book, right? But also coming from the first objection, which is not appropriate that things so far apart be joined, right? But it's in the very nature of man, in a sense, to want beatitude. And we realize what beatitude really is, it involves seeing God as he is. He knows that something exists, and he actually wants to know what it is. And only in this wake he knows what it is. Okay? So the fourth argument of the Summa Cana Gentiles here corresponds to the, what, third, yeah. But the second argument was that it was for hope, right, in the Summa Elogie, right? And that was taken also from the fact that God's love for us makes us hope for good things from him, right? So if I'm convinced that God loves me, that's both a reason for having hope, that he will do things for me, but it's also something that impels me to love him in return, right? So it's kind of beautiful to see that thing. They use it here in the Summa Cana Gentiles as just to argue for love, right? But now, the fifth argument Thomas gives here is not, I don't think, found in the Summa Theologiae. And it's another reason in terms of what? Love. So the fourth argument is the same, basically, as in the Summa Theologiae. Now the fifth one is another reason in terms of friendship. Further, since friendship consists in a certain, what? Equality. Those things which are very unequal do not seem to be able to be joined in what? Friendship. Therefore, that there might be a more familiar friendship between man and God, it was necessary to man that God become man, because naturally man is the friend of man, as Aristotle himself said in the book of the Nicomagnetics. So that, as we knew God visibly, we might be what carried away to a love of the invisible things. Yeah. So in a sense, it's coming down to our level, right? Just like when you have a little child there, you kind of come down to his level, right? Play with his blocks or something, you know? Rather than the theology with him or something, right? So that gives the equivalent of friendship there, right? Now the sixth argument here, huh? Now the sixth argument here is the same as the fourth argument, the one from leading what? Example, right? And the fact that no man is a perfect example. Likewise, it manifests that beatitude is the reward of what? Virtue, huh? Of course, Aristotle first pointed that out, right? In Shakespeare, he describes ethics, he says, that part of philosophy that treats happiness by virtue, especially to be achieved. So virtue is the road to happiness, and vice is the road to misery, right? But to virtue, we are provoked both by words and by what? Examples, huh? But examples of someone and their words are more efficacious to deduce us to virtue when we have a more firm opinion, right? Of their, what? Goodness, huh? Now about no pure man, are we able to have a, what? Infallible opinion of their goodness, huh? Because even the most holy men are seen to have failed in some things, like Peter denied, what? Christ, huh? And the apostles kind of ran away, most of them anyway, right? Okay. Whence it was necessary to man that he might be made firm in virtue, that God, right, that he take, what? Both teaching and examples of virtue from a God made human. Humanato, huh? That's kind of an odd word, huh? Incidentally, you have to be kind of careful here, you know. If someone said to you, is Jesus Christ a human person? What would you say? See? That's dangerous, right? He's a person who is human, but he's not a human person. Now, if someone said, is Jesus Christ a man? I'd say yes, no hesitation, right? But if they said, Jesus Christ is a human person, I might think he's, you know, from words disorderly put forward, you know what he says? Heresy results, huh? We might take human person and human being as kind of the same thing, right? Human being, human person, yeah? There's only one person there, right? The divine person. I think it's the NAB that says, in talking about Adam, how in Adam all fell, in a sense, but in a human being all were a human being. It says, yeah, through a human being, sin came into the world, and through a human being, justice, or whatever it was. They paraphrase St. Paul like that. That was the inclusive language thing. It's an attempt, yeah. We won't be provoked to perfect Richard by that. We'll have to ask where the Christ is a human being, too, yeah? We've got to be careful with that. We'll see. On account of which the Lord himself says, in John 13, verse 15, I have given you an example, right? He washes their feet, huh? That is, I have done, so you might do, right? Later on, he says in the same chapter, you love one another as I have loved you, right? So he gives an example of both, what? Humility and of love, right? But that's the same as the fourth argument in the Summa Theologiae, right? Now the seventh one seems a little bit unique to the Summa Contagentilis, huh? Also, huh? Just as by virtues man is disposed to beatitude, so by sins he is, what? Impeded, right, huh? For sin is contrary to virtue and brings about an impediment to beatitude. Not only a disorder of the soul, according as it leads him away from a order to sort of win, but also he, what? Offends God from whom he expects, what? The reward of beatitude, according as God has care of human acts. And sin is contrary to divine charity, as has been shown more fully in the third book. And moreover, man having conscience of this offense, through sin, huh, he loses the confidence of what? Approaching God, huh? Which is necessary to achieving beatitude. It is necessary, therefore, for the human race that abounds in sin, right? That to him there be given some remedy against sin, huh? But this remedy cannot be applied to him except through God, who can move the will of man in the good and reduce it to a suitable order, and who can remit the offense committed against him. For offenses are not remitted except by the one in whom the offenses are been committed. But from this, that man is, what? Freed from his conscience of the offense that he's done in the past. It's necessary that he, what? He made aware of this, the remission of his sin, by God. But he cannot, with certitude, be made sure of this, except God certifies this, huh? He was suitable, therefore, to the human race, seeking beatitude, that God become man, so that thus he might, what? Achieve remission of sins through God, and he might have certitude of this remission through the man God, huh? Whence that the Lord says in Matthew 9, verse 6, that you might know that the Son of Man has power to missing sins. And then he says, take up your thing, I guess, and walk with it, right? And the Apostle says in Hebrews 9, verse 14, that the blood of Christ cleanses our, what? Consciences from dead works to serving the living God, huh? So, I guess you seem to be saying here something a little different than the Summa Theologiae, right? The idea that you have certitude that your sins are forgiven, right? Through a man, what? To God made man, huh? It's a little bit like, I suppose, too, like we have an extension of that, the sacrament of confession, right? Where people, you know, get a certain certitude and relief through being forgiven in the sacrament of confession, right? I just remember one of my mother's friends are, you know, making a general confession, right? And talking, you know, how much relieved she was after making this general confession, you know, but telling my mother, you know, how much, you know, there's something like this, huh? That you might have more. That seems to be a little different argument than the one you have in the Summa Theologiae. But now, the eighth argument, the last one, seems to be like the one in the Summa Theologiae very much, the tenth argument, huh? And that is, there, if I remember right, he has a little bit of Augustine's dialectic, right? Man sinned, therefore he should make reparation, but man can't do it. God could do it, but he doesn't, he's not the one who should make reparation, he should be man. Well, how'd he get out of this predicament? Well, God became man, huh? And then man did penance. But it was sufficient because this man was the second person in the best identity. From the tradition of the Church, we are taught that the whole human race was infected with sin, huh? But this, the order of divine justice has, that sin without satisfaction is not remitted by what? God. But to satisfy for the sin of the whole human race, no pure man could do this, huh? Because each man, each purely man, right, is something less than the university of what? Of the human race. It's necessary, therefore, that the human race might be liberated from this common sin, meaning, especially original sin, that someone satisfied who both was a man, huh? To whom satisfaction would be suited, and something above man that his merit might be sufficient to satisfy for the sin of the whole, what? Human race. Now, more than man as regards the order of beatitude is nothing except God alone, huh? For the angels, although they are superior as regards the condition of their nature, huh? They are not superior as regards the order to the, what, end. That goes back to the first arguments that he gave here, right, huh? This immediate thing, huh? Because we are made blessed by the same, right? That's why Thomas says sometimes, among other reasons, why the angels appear in the form of a man, right, huh? Because we are, have the same end there. Now, is it just a misprint because it says they, not we, yeah, the contour? No, they're made blessed by the same. They're made blessed by the same thing we are. Yeah, by God himself. Okay. It is necessary, therefore, for man seeking beatitude that God become, what? God-man, yeah, to taking away the sin of the human race. And this is what John the Baptist says about Christ. Behold the Lamb of God, right? Behold who takes away the sins of the world. And as the Apostle says to Romans, as sin from one man, Adam, came in all in condemnation, so grace from one into all for justification for sin, right? one human being. Yeah. So these, therefore, in like things, right, from which someone can conceive that it was not incongruous, right, unsuitable to the divine goodness, right? Notice in that first article we had in the Summa, he's talking about the divine goodness, right? For God to become man. But it was most expedient, huh? To human, what? To salvation. Thank you. The last reason there, I think, I was also struck by how he says ex-tradizione ecclesiae. We really learn that from the Bible itself, don't we, that all human race is affected by sin. I just wonder why he specified from the tradition of the church, I mean, it doesn't matter. Well, it's in both, you know. Yeah, sure. Yeah. Okay. Now, I get a little summary here. I should have typed out this here. I got a few copies here, but I'll leave a couple copies here, you know, with this. Let's just kind of summarize it here a bit here. Maybe you can do something on it here. Okay, the first, third, fourth, sixth, and seventh, and the tenth arguments in Summa Theologiae are found in both. Okay. So the first, third, fourth, sixth, and seventh, but sixth and seventh are combined, right? And the tenth arguments in Summa Theologiae are found in both. Thus, six arguments are common to what? To both, huh? The second argument in the Summa Theologiae for hope, and the first argument in Summa Contra Gentiles are different arguments for hope. Okay? One is saying we're going to have hope because, you know, God loves us, right? We hope to receive good things in one who loves us. The Summa Contra Gentiles is pointing out that we hope to see God as he is face to face, which requires that he be joined to us as that by which we understand, right? And could such a distance be overcome, you know? And Thomas says, well, when he joined human nature to his very person, we see how that distance can be overcome. So you have two different arguments, but both for hope, right? Now, the fifth argument in the Summa Theologiae for the full partaking of divine nature, right? You know, God became man, so that man might become God, right? I was seeing that one, you had a church father, I don't know, it was John Chrysostom or something, but other people say that besides Augustine, you know? I thought he was great. And the eighth and ninth arguments, which were for the example of what? Humility, right? Humility, seem to be unique in the Summa, what? Theologiae, huh? Now, besides the distinct argument for hope, the Summa Contra Gentiles has another argument for charity, the fifth one, in terms of a certain equality between us, coming down to our level. And perhaps one for the certitude of forgiveness there in the seventh, what? Argument of Summa Contra Gentiles. So now, if you can fight the two, how many armies do you have? About 13 arguments, I count, okay? And you can list them this way here. One for a full partaking of the divine nature, right? God became man, so that man might become God. Grace is a partaking of the divine nature, okay? Now, falling upon grace, there's, of course, faith over charity. And you have one argument for faith, which is, what? The same in both, basically. You have two arguments for hope, right? One in each of them, but a different one. And you have two for charity, one which is found in both, and one which is found in addition only to the Summa Contra Gentiles, the one from the equality. One found in both of them for the example of how to act, right? Two from dignity, which is kind of run together in one argument in the Summa Contra Gentiles, but there's two different ones here. One about not subjecting yourself to the devil, and the other about being aware of the dignity of your nature. And there's one for the certitude of forgiveness, and one for the full satisfaction for sin. One for the certitude of forgiveness is kind of unique to the Summa Contra Gentiles, and one for the full satisfaction for sin, which is found in both of them. So, there's about 13 arguments, huh? Okay? So, I won't do this a lot as we go through here, but I just thought that's kind of a very important thing, you know? And you realize the wisdom of the one who decides to come in, right? So, I won't break him before we go on. It's a mouthful, huh? It sure is. So let's look now at the third article, right? Whether if man had not sinned, nevertheless God would have become what? Incarnate, huh? Of course, Thomas is going to take, I think, the position that, as far as we know from Scripture, it's because of man's sin, right? To the third one proceeds thus, it seems that if man had not sinned, nevertheless God would have become what? Flesh. For remaining the cause, there remains the effect, right? But as Augustine says in the 13th book about the Trinity, many other things ought to be thought about in the incarnation of Christ, besides, what, absolution from sin. Therefore, even if man had not sinned, God would have what? So even these 13 reasons that we saw between the two Summas, there's many reasons for the, what, incarnation scenes apart from, what, sin, right? So you can see how a person might, you know, wonder a little bit about this. Moreover, it pertains to the omnipotence of the divine power that he perfect his, what, works. And that he manifests himself to some infinite, what, effect. But no pure creature can be said to be an infinite effect, since everyone is limited by his very essence or nature. But in the work of the incarnation alone, there seems especially to be made known the infinite effect of the divine power. Through this, that things that are distant and infinite distance are what? Joint. In so far as it has been made that man was God, right? Or God was man. In which also work, most of all, is seen to be perfect universe. Through the fact that the last creature, to wit, man, is joined to the first, right? Namely God. Therefore, if man had not sinned, God would not have become what? God would have become what? In current, huh? Okay? So, in a sense, man is, what, the minor cosmos, right? So, in joining man, or human nature, to himself, God is joining, in a sense, the whole, what, universe to himself, huh? So, you can give reasons why he might become man, right? Apart from this sin of man. Now, an E. Forziori argument. Moreover, human nature by sin was not made more capable of grace, but after sin, he was capable of the union of grace, right? Which is the greatest grace. Therefore, if man had not sinned, human nature would have been, what, capable of this grace. But God does not subtract from human nature the good of which he is capable. Therefore, if man had not sinned, God would have become incarnate, huh? Moreover, the predestination of God is eternal. But it is said in Romans, chapter 1, verse 4, about Christ, that he was predestined to be the Son of God in, what, power. Therefore, before sin is necessary for the Son of God to be made, what, incarnate, in order that the predestination of God would be fulfilled, huh? What seems to be the arguments if he didn't foresee our sin, right? Moreover, the mystery of the Incarnation is, what, first revealed to man as is clear through this that is said, this is now, what, bone for my bones, huh? That the Apostle says is a great sacrament in Christ in the Church. As is clear in Ephesians 5. But man could not be, what, Christian, know beforehand his own fall for the same reason that neither an angel caught, huh? As Augustine Pooh's supergenesis to the letter. Therefore, if man had not sinned, God would have been, what, incarnate. I think that's referring a little bit to marriage or something like that, huh? Being a symbol of... Is it? Yeah, yeah. We'll bring back to... In other words, Eve came from the, what, side of Adam, right? And the Church came from the side of Christ and that sort of thing. But against all this is what Augustine says in the book about the words of the Lord. Explaining that which is had in Luke 19.10. The Son of Man came to seek and to save what had perished. If man had not sinned, the Son of Man would not have, what, come. So Augustine seems to be taking the other side, right? And in the first Timothy, upon those words, Christ came into this world that he might save, what, make safe sinners. The glass says, huh? It's, I guess, a prank for Augustine. There is no cause of coming for the Christ the Lord except that he make, what, sinners safe. Take away the, what, illnesses, the wounds and there's no need for the medicine. So Augustine said the authority seems to be on the other side. Of course, the word Jesus is explained there in the Gospel of Matthew. I mean, just in Matthew there, you should call it Jesus because he'll save his people from their, what, sins. I guess that's the word Jesus comes, like the word Joshua, isn't it? And Jesse and Isaiah. Yeah, yeah. It has the idea of Savior, right? So in a sense, I suppose the word Christ means anointed, but the word Jesus means Savior. And the apostle explains that, right? You need to call him Jesus, huh? Because he shall save his people from their sins. So that name, Jesus might seem to indicate, you know, what Augustine is saying here, right? That's, uh, see, quite none of his coming, right? Okay. That fifth one, does that seem cryptic to you? I even looked up, uh, St. Augustine and it didn't help for that reference. The gloss? Yeah. Yeah, I'm just looking in my footnote here, it says, the, uh, Ord et Lomb ex Ag mit Augustine. So, you know, sometimes, those glosses are identified sometimes, they're not. Oh, I'm sorry, no, no, on the fifth one. The fifth argument? Yeah, the fifth one, it seemed kind of, uh, something like a non sequitur or something there, right? And I, I thought maybe, if I looked up, uh, Augustine on Genesis there through the letter, it would help that it didn't go. In other words, it's applying, it seems to be applying something to Adam. Oh, yeah, well, I guess it was at, um, Ephesians. Yeah, I think, yeah. You know, the fact that Adam is cast into a sleep, right? Sleep, though he was death. It's Shakespeare says, yeah, you know, it's in his death, you know, that Christ gives birth, you know, to the, to the church. Maybe it's something like you were just trying to say that in the sleep and Adam was given a vision of Christ or something. Well, I think it was, it's common in the fathers that when Adam was put into the sleep and he came out, that he understood, he might say, the sleep was sort of a mystic sleep. He didn't just fall asleep and conk out at the end of the day or something. So, it was something where he foresaw the, sort of, the incarnation. He was given a knowledge of the incarnation. But, um, I think that's what he's saying that this is a, um, if he had a knowledge of the self, I might say the incarnation, but he didn't necessarily have a knowledge of his sin, therefore, if he didn't sin, he still would have had this prophetic knowledge of the incarnation. I think that's what the reasoning of the argument is. because he, it's, theoretically, he's Augustine in his work there is arguing that the angels didn't know about their fault, we can't know about our fault ahead of time, but it seems that Adam knew about the incarnation in the point. So, I think that's the reasoning. Or, if it takes from Paul, too, there, Magda, the sacramentum is saying about matrimony, right? I mean, would it be a sign of the union of Christ and the church? If Adam isn't a sinner? Yeah, yeah. Because that's another thing about the Eve was both the body of Adam and the bride of Adam. It's like the church is the body of Christ and the bride of Adam. Well, I answer, Thomas says, it should be said that some about this have opined diversely. Right? For some, and in my Marietta edition, we have that, it refers down to no less than Albert the Great in the third of the sentences, and Alexander Haley's, right, who has this in our earlier Summa Eloge, right? So there are some, you know, expectable people, not, you know, that some about this have thought diversely. For some say that even if man had not sin, the Son of God would have become what? Flection. Others assert the what? Contrary, to whose assertion it seems we're not to more assent. I know, so Thomas is a little careful here, but he seems to definitely think that we should assent to what Augustine says. For those things which come about from the will alone of God, above what is owed to the creature, right? Can we see it? That human nature is owed this incarnation, huh? Do not become known to us except insofar as they are treated in what? Sacred Scripture, through which or by which the divine will becomes what? Known, huh? Whence, since in sacred Scripture everywhere, the reason for the incarnation is a sign from the sin of the first man. More suitably, it is said that the work of the incarnation is ordered by God in the remedy of what? Sin. Thus, that sin not existing, the incarnation would not have been. Although the power of God is not limited to this, right? He could do that. For he would be able, even sin not existing, for God to be what? Yeah. Well, I think that's a pretty good reason, huh? Modesty, yeah. How many reports go with the modest truth? Can I ask a question? It might be elemental. So, Justin Martyr argues, and I guess maybe some other fathers argue, that the angels that appear in the Old Testament were Christ. Like, how was that? Is that an incarnation of Christ? If he's appearing as a man to these men? Well, it's not incarnation, but he might represent this. Maybe that's why they appeared as men. Like a foreshadowing of the incarnation. So, it's kind of a revelation from God in the form of a man, and they're sort of foreshadowing in the form of a man, and it's more perfect. When incarnate would be into flesh, something like that. I don't know the exact definition. Yeah. As opposed to a spiritual operation. Didn't St. Thomas talk about that in the missions, about what those angelic forms were, and he says there's something more like in the mind than really fleshly beings. Didn't we see that in the missions? No, but he talks about them also as being outside in the senses, right? In other words, the angels, you know, that you see at the tomb, the one sitting at the head and the finger, they form something that looks like a human, you know? Yeah, but the Old Testament ones, didn't he say? Well, a lot of the prophets, a lot of it is in the imagination, yeah. Yeah. Like when it says God walked with Adam, God walked with Abraham and talked with him and stuff like that. He was arguing that was Jesus at the time. So, that's what we're saying like what George said. He had been a word to Abraham. Right. The hospitality. Right. Yeah. But Jesus would not have been incarnate at that time. I mean, the Son of God would not have been incarnate. Just like it says in the Apocalypse about the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world. I say, well, he was slain and figured before. He was really only a man once. Okay. The first argument was saying that there are many things to be thought of, Guston says, right? He says, Thomas says, to the first therefore it should be said that all the other causes which are assigned pertain in some way to the remedy of what? Sin. For if man had not sinned, he would have been what? Filled with the light of divine wisdom and you would be perfect by the rectitude of what? Justice. To knowing all things that were what? Necessary, right? But because man deserting God was what? Collapsed. That's the bodily things, huh? That's great. It was suitable that God, assuming flesh, might exhibit also through bodily things to him the remedy of what? Salvation. Whence Augustine says on that of John 1, 1 chapter, verse 14, the word was made flesh, right? Flesh blinded thee, huh? And flesh will heal thee. Because thus Christ came that from the flesh he might extinguish the vices of the flesh, huh? All those 13 reasons, right? They all have something to do with the remedy of sin, huh? The second objection, huh? God's got to have a what? Infinite effect, huh? To show himself off. To the second it should be said that in that way of production of things from nothing, the infinite divine power is shown, huh? When you take up creation, and the reason why only God can create, that creation requires an infinite power, huh? Because the further something is, what, removed from act and ability, the more the need of power to bring it into act. But there's kind of an infinite distance, huh? Between nothing and something, right? So it takes an infinite power to create. So this is one way that God shows us, what, infinite power. He didn't have to become man to show that. Now he says, to the perfection also of the universe, it suffices in an actual way that the creature be ordered thus to God as to an end, huh? For this exceeds the limits of the perfection of nature, that the creature be united to God in what? Persona. Persona, huh? Okay, but the main objection, our reply is in the first sentence there, right? Now the third one was, how is God going to, what, subtract from us some good of which we are capable, right? To the third it should be said that a two-fold capacity can be noted in human nature. One according to the order of a natural power, which by God is always filled, huh? Who gives to each thing according to its natural, what, capacity. But another is according to the order of the divine power to which every creature is obedient. And to this it pertains this capacity, huh? But God does not, what, fill every such capacity of nature. Otherwise God, what, could not make any creature except what he has made in him, which is false as has been shown in the, what, first. He could have made us with more grace, right? Now nothing prevents human nature to be led to something greater after sin, huh? For God permits evil things to come about, that then something, what? Better. Better might be elicited, huh? Whence it is said in Romans 5 20, where nicotine abounded, grace super abounded, huh? Whence in the benediction of the Paschal candle is said, O happy, what? Fall. Which such and such a redeemer merited, right? Such and so great. We were teaching high school kids there, the, you know, so why was it called a happy fall? And Chris, one girl says, they fell down together. Laughter That wasn't the answer, it's looking far. Laughter Yeah, misery loves company in misery. Laughter Well, that's, that's what.