Tertia Pars
Lecture 25: Virtues, Gifts, and Grace in Christ

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

The second one goes forward thus, it seems that in Christ there were not what? Virtues, right? For Christ had an abundance of grace, but grace suffices to doing all things rightly. According to that of 2 Corinthians, my grace is sufficient for you. Therefore in Christ there were not what? Virtues, huh? Moreover, according to the philosopher in the 7th book of the Ethics, in the 7th book of the Ethics, Aristotle has completed talking about human virtue, right? In books 2 through 6 he talks about human virtue. In books 2 through 5 about the moral virtues. In books 6 about the virtues of reason itself, right? At the end of the first book he's given this division of human virtue into these two kinds. What is he doing then in book 7? Well, he does two things. He talks about those dispositions that either are habits that fall short of virtue, or vice for that matter, right? Or that go beyond the human, what? Common measure, right? And Aristotle calls those heroic virtues, right? Of course, it's interesting that he speaks that way, because in Greek mythology a hero is, strictly speaking, something in between a human being and a god. He has one parent human and one parent a god, right? So he may have Zeus as a father and a human mother, or he may be like Achilles as a goddess for his mother and a human being for his father, right? There's something divine, something above the ordinary, huh? Okay. So Thomas often comes back to what the philosopher says there. Moreover, according to the philosopher in the 7th book of the Ethics, virtues divide against a certain, what? Heroic or divine habit, huh? Which is attributed to divine men, huh? But this, most of all, belongs to Christ. Therefore, Christ does not have virtues, but something higher than virtue, right? But sometimes Aristotle calls it higher than virtue, too, right? But sometimes the word virtue is kept for the human level, huh? Moreover, as in the second, has been said in the second part. All the virtues are had, what? Together, huh? But to Christ it's not suitable to have all the virtues, as is clear about liberality and, what? Magnificence. Now, these are the two virtues concerned with money and possessions and so on, huh? And liberality with, you know, small things, and magnificence with, you know, endowing the chapel there at TAC or someplace, right? Yeah, big gifts, you know, you know? It is a big gift. Yeah, yeah. Which have their act concerning, what? Divizia, huh? Which is, yeah. And these are the virtues that Aristotle takes up after courage and temperance or moderation. It takes up in Book 3. And then, beginning of Book 4, he takes up liberality and magnificence, huh? Or generosity, you could call it, you know? Which wealthy, which Christ contemned, right? And contemned for, right? Okay? The son of man has no place where he can lay his head, right? He's not attached to these things, huh? The devil took up on the thing and offered him all the kingdoms of the world, right? If only he'd come down and worship me. Okay? And more temperance and continence are about, what? Base desires, which in Christ were not to be found. Therefore, Christ didn't have those virtues, right? But against this is what is said upon that of Psalm 1, 2. But in the law of the Lord is his, what? Will. His will is in the law of the Lord. Here, Christ is shown to be full of every, what? Good, right? But this is the definition of virtue of Augustine, part of it. Bona qualitas mentis, right? A good quality of the rational part of man, right? His virtue. Therefore, Christ was full of, what? Every virtue, huh? Now, Thomas here touches upon distinction, which he has given in the second part here. And we've talked a bit about it before. That grace is in the, what? Soul, right? But the virtues are in the, what? Powers of the soul, right? And there's kind of a correspondence here, because just, because I have this kind of a soul, there falls upon having this kind of a soul, these kinds of, what? Powers, right, huh? Well, then when grace is put into my soul, if it is, right? Then there falls into the, what? Powers, certain virtues that are appropriate, huh? Especially, what, in terms of grace is faithful with charity, but they're also infused moral virtues and so on. So I say, as Thomas says, I answer, it should be said, as has been had in the second part, that just as grace regards or respects the, what, essence of the soul, right? So virtue, as regard to its, what? Power, huh? Whence is necessary that just as the powers of the soul are derived from its essence, huh? In logic, we'd say, what, the powers of the soul are like properties, right? Something outside the nature, but that follows upon the nature, huh? So the virtues are certain, what? Things derived from grace, huh? But the more perfect a beginning or cause is, right? The more it, what? Presses upon things, its effects, huh? Whence, since the grace of Christ was most perfect, huh? It follows that from it, there went forth virtues to perfecting the, what? Each of the powers of the soul. As regards, what? All the acts of the soul, right? And thus Christ had, what? All virtues, huh? So just as you're two, you're going to be half a four, right? So if you have grace, you're going to have, what? Virtues, yeah. That the virtues will follow from the grace, right? Because what grace is, just as being half a four, or being a third of six, follow from being, what? Two, yeah. It's appropriate that the partaking of the divine nature should be in our nature, right? Okay, the first objection, huh? Doesn't grace suffice, huh? It's a little bit like saying, you know, what do you need half of four? You've got two. Well, they go together, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that grace is enough for a man as he guards all the things by which he is ordered to, what? Beatitude, right? For these, grace perfects some immediately to itself, right? As to make the soul, what? Pleasing to God, right? That's what they call it, gratia gratum. Gratians. And those are the sort. And some by means of the virtues, right? Which proceed from grace, huh? So the homeroom teacher now is in high school, you know, he says, well, money isn't everything, you know. And this wise guy says, well, what it is, it'll buy. He just gave us a little fatherly lecture, right? In the homeroom, you know, that money isn't everything, right? And this wise guy says, well, what it is, it'll buy. Well, grace isn't everything, but what it isn't, it will, what? Produce, right, huh? Namely the what? The virtues, right? So in that sense, it's enough. Like this guy says, money is enough, right? Now, the second objection is about what is this teaching of Aristotle there, right? That about what Christ has, right? This heroic virtue, right? And he says, that habit, which is called heroic or divine, right? Aristotle, does not differ from virtue commonly said, except according to a what? More perfect way, right? Insofar as someone is disposed to the good in a certain higher way than is commonly what? Belonging to all, right? Whence through this is not shown that Christ did not have virtues, but he had them most perfectly above the common way, right? Which people have this. Just as Plotinus laid down a certain, what sublime way of virtues, which is said to be of the, what, purged soul, right? Sometimes Thomas comes back to that text of Plotinus and so on, and we should explain the books of the Bible, right? And the book of, what, Proverbs, and then Ecclesiastes, and then the, what, Song of Songs, and so on. And the book of Proverbs is more ordered to a human mode of virtue whereby you live in this world, using the goods of this world, but moderately and reasonably, right, huh? Not getting drunk with the wine, but, you know, enjoying a little bit of wine, a meal, and so on. And, but then, you see, you get the enthusiast, you know, vanity, vanity, and all is vanity. You realize that even these little pity, moderate pleasures are kind of, what? Yeah, yeah. And so you kind of order to a kind of contempt of even the, what, margis of these things, right? And then the soul is being purged from them, right, huh? When you get to the Song of Songs, then you're a purged soul, right? So you have kind of a higher and higher virtues, right, huh? And Thomas is kind of alluding to that, but he comes back to that when he divides the books of the Old Testament, huh? I told you about that little work that Thomas called the Comandazione, that retensione, sacrificio, right? Now, did Christ have generosity, liberality, and magnificence, huh? To the third, it should be said that liberality and magnificence are commended about wealth, right? Insofar as someone not only, what? Appreciates, you might say, right? But values the wealth. Oh, it is not so much, what? Appreciate the wealth. And he wishes to, what? Retain them, omitting that which is necessary to use them for, you might say, right? But he, least of all, huh? Appreciates or treasures wealth, who wholly contemns them, right? And gets rid of them on account of a, what? A love of perfection, right? So there's a, there's a, there's a, there's a value to take, I guess, of poverty, right? You're, you're, this is, you're seeking a perfection of the soul, right? Remember a guy going to the mini guard there, I guess you signed some statement, right? And he says, I'm legally dead now, he says. And therefore, in this, that Christ had contempt, you might say, for all wealth, right? There shows in him the highest grade of, what? Liberality and innocence. Although he also, what? Exercised the act of liberality, right? According as it was suitable for him to do, right? By, what? Giving to the poor, right? Quits. Quits. How do you translate that? Was he gave, he gave to the poor the things that were given to him? Yeah. When the Lord said to Judas, what you're going to do, do quickly, right? The disciples didn't realize what he meant, what he had in mind. The disciples understood Christ to have commanded that he'd give something to the poor, yeah. Notice, the act of virtue is to give according to your circumstances, right? And to what you have, right? Okay. So what might be generous in one man might be extravagant in somebody else, right? Can't feed his family or something after he gives away this, right? Okay. So, Christ had the act of liberality, too. Now, base desires, Christ did not have at all, right? Okay. Nino, as we'll be clear later on. But an account of this is not excluded, but that he had temperance, huh? Which is the more perfect in man, the more he lacks, what? Base desires, huh? Hence, according to the philosopher in the seventh book of the Ethics, the man who's temperate, as we did, the virtue of temperance, right? In this differs from the man who's continent, huh? As I mentioned before, or in the seventh book, he takes up not only heroic virtue, right? But also things like, what? Continents, right? Which are less than, what? Normal virtue, right? Okay. So something that is either above or below human virtue, right? Okay. It's commonly found. That the tempered man, and this differs from the containing man, that the tempered man does not have, what? But these desires, which the continent man undergoes, huh? So in our style of talk, they've got virtue, vice, and then in the middle, continents and incontinents, huh? And the continent, incontinent man, they both have bad desires, but the continent man, I don't struggle, his reason wins out. Well, it's quite a struggle, you know. I had to call my buddy, so I wouldn't, you know, take a drink or something, you know? My AA buddy or something, you know? And what incontinent man, his passions went out, right? But then he regrets the fact that he gave in, right? So he's not totally bad, right? Okay. Quite a, what? Vicious man has bad desires and enjoys them, right? Satisfying them, right? Quite a tempered man is, what, doesn't really have, to speak of these base desires, right? Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Whence, thus taking continents, says the philosopher, takes it there in the seventh book of Necomagnetics. From this, that Christ had every virtue, he did not have continents, which is not a virtue, but something, what? Less than virtue. That's how thorough Aristotle is, right? And he gets through going through all these virtues of man, then he talks about some other habits, some of which are, what, above human virtue, or below human vice, he calls bestial, you know? And then he has these things like continents, incontinence, which is not quite a virtue, not quite a vice in the full sense. Takes these things that are lesser. I suppose if you hear confessions, you're meeting many people of continents or incontinence. And, yeah, one of the seven wise men of Greece, their bias, you know, he says, most men are bad. Aristotle, in the rhetoric, you know, when he talks about the passions and how you arouse the passions and quiet them and so on, when he comes to talk about fear, Christ has a lot about the things to fear. One thing he says to fear is to be in the power of another man because it's a rule men do evil whenever they can. It's like Aristotle, no way. So he agrees with bias, right? You know? It's kind of funny how these appointees, you know, one guy, the guy's, you know, going to be appointed to the commerce, was it? He had to step back, you know, because he's got an investigation. And the guy's going to be appointed to the secretary of, what is it, treasury, you know? He didn't pay his income tax. And they all say, it's an honest mistake, you know. He's a busy man. He's a bad guy. Yeah, they're trying to say it's an honest mistake, you know. We got to appoint to be the attorney general and something like that. He's the guy that arranged the pardon for a rich, that terrible guy. But Muslims are bad. It's pieces, you know. There's a little blurb in the water that this fellow talking about how his daughter mentioned that Obama read backwards as the Latin word Amabo, I will love. Amabo, I will go on to see if Christ had faith or not. Amabo, I will go on Article 3, to the third one goes forward thus, it seems that in Christ there was faith. I think he's going to take the opposite side, Thomas. For faith is a more noble virtue than the moral virtues. As for example, temperance and the morality, right? But virtues of that kind were found in Christ, as has been said in the previous article, in fact. And much more, therefore, was there in him, what? Faith. That's a nice, talented argument, huh? The less noble virtues were found in him, suddenly the more noble one would be found in him. Moreover, Christ did not teach the virtues which he did not have. That sounds reasonable, right? According to that of Act 1, Jesus began to do and to teach, and they always emphasize the order, right? But about Christ, it is said in Hebrews 12, that he is the author, right? And the one who consummates, huh? Completes his faith. Therefore, in him there must have been most of all faith, right? That's a beautiful text, that one there. The auteur in consummate there. Hide, huh? We have a time, so we should explain that in a way that we'll show. The wonderfulness of that text, but it doesn't. Let's get from the argument here. Moreover, whatever is of imperfection is excluded from the blessing, but in the blessed there is faith. Now, that's a strange thing to say. For upon that of Romans 1, verse 17, the justice of God is revealed in him from faith to faith. The gloss says, from the faith of what? Words and hope to the faith of things and species of seeing, I guess, huh? Therefore, it's kind of a strange text, huh? Therefore, it seems that also in Christ there was faith, since nothing of imperfection. Since it applies nothing of what? Imperfection. But against this is what is said in Hebrews 11, 1. That faith is the argument, huh? The conviction of what is not what. Yeah. And that's part of the text I did. The text is, when Thomas goes back to, he's defining faith, right? And the whole text is that faith is the, what? The hypostasis, huh? The substance of things hoped for, kind of like a foundation. And then the Greek word, let's say, transit argumentum, it's actually a link, right? It's also the word aristotis and refutation. But it also has a sense of overcoming, right? So it's the, so I translate it usually, the conviction of what is not what? Seeing, right? The mind is overcome, accepting what it doesn't see, okay? It doesn't mean the refutation of what is not seen, it doesn't make any sense. But, I mean, Aristotle's book on physical refutations, on the words of Lingintas. But they often badly translate that, right? The assurance of things hoped for, that's not what it means. And the... The evidence of what is not seen. Yeah, yeah, of what is not seen, yeah. Yeah, it's very, very, very good. The evidence comes from what is seen, yeah, yeah, yeah. That's always one text I always check, every time a new Bible comes out, you know, it's just how they translate this stuff. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But to Christ, nothing was not appearing, right? According to that, that Peter says to him, you know all things, do you love me? You know all things, you know I love you. It's in the last chapter of John. Therefore, in Christ, there was what? Faith. The answer should be said, that as has been said in the second part, the object of faith is a divine thing that is not what? Seen. Now, the habit of virtue, just as any other one, receives its species, right? From its, what? Object, huh? And therefore, excluding that the divine thing is not what? Seen. One excludes the notion of what? Faith. But Christ, in the first instant of his, what? Conception. Saw God fully through his essence. He had the, what we call the beauty vision, right? As will be, what, clear the law, right? Whence faith in him could not be. So Christ had no faith, huh? So did Mary have faith, then? So she'd be the supreme example of faith, then, huh? She destroys all heresies, right? Even the father of Christmas. I'm the mother, would you? Why do you persecute me? Now, the first objection is saying that faith is more noble than the moral virtues, right? So how can he have the lesser, not having the, what? Greater, yeah. That's a good, that's a good objection, huh? To the first, therefore, it should be said that faith is more noble than the, right? Yeah. Why? Because it is about a more, what? Noble matter, huh? More noble object, huh? But nevertheless, it implies a certain defect in comparison to that matter, which is to not see, right? But you're believing, huh? Which defect in Christ was not, right? And therefore, there could not be in him faith, although there could be in him moral virtues, which, in their very definition, do not imply any defect in comparison to their, what? What matters, right? That's beautiful, good way he solves that, huh? The second one, well, it was Christ's teaching of virtue then that, to second it should be said that the merit of faith consists in this, that man, from obedience to God, right, ascends to those things which he does not, what? See. According to that of Romans, chapter 1, verse 5. To obeying, to what? In faith, right? In all nations, for his, what? His name. That translates very well, I guess. How's your text have that translated? For obedience to the faith in all nations for his name. Okay, I guess that's close enough. That's insolent. Okay. But Christ had most fully obedience to, what? According to that of Philippians, chapter 2, he was made obedient to death, even the death of the cross he was on, right? And thus, nothing pertaining to merit did he teach that he did not more excellently, right, fulfill, huh? That's interesting what he argues there, huh? Okay, now this last one is a problem in the word, right? To the third, therefore, it should be said, that as the gloss says there, faith propriae, properly, is that by which I believe things that are not seen, right? But faith, which is a thing seen, is said, what? Improperly. And by a certain likeness, as regards, what? The certitude, or the firmness of the adherence, right? It's like seeing and believing. Yeah. I'll believe it when I see it. Yeah. Now, it's not taking believing in the strict sense, properly, right? Yeah. But it's in terms of the certitude of it, huh? It's kind of like St. Thomas said that. I won't believe it unless I can put my finger in his hand. Yeah. Of course, there's another question of what he's talking about. So, Christ didn't have one of the theological virtues, right? Nobody. Now, whether in Christ there was hope, right? To the fourth, one goes forward thus. It seems that in Christ there was what? Hope. He's going to take the opposite side again. For it is said in Psalm 30, verse 2, for the person of Christ, in you, Lord, I have what? Hoped. But the virtue of hope is that by which man hopes in God. Therefore, the virtue of hope was in Christ. Moreover, hope is the expectation of future blessedness, as has been had in the second part here when we talked about hope. But Christ expects something pertaining to the attitude, to it the glory of his what? Body. Therefore, it seems that in him there was hope, right? That's not what one's achieving hopes for, right? One's achieving hopes for the beauty of the vision, right? And, and, uh... Didn't I say that in a psalm? I could have used that maybe in a psalm for a river, like rested in hope or something. I forget what it is. It's often in reference to the resurrection. Yeah. It's often like that. Moreover, each one is able to hope for that which pertains to his perfection, if it's in the, what, future, right? But something was in the future that pertained to perfection of Christ, according to that in Ephesians chapter 4. To the consummation of the saints, in the work of ministry, in the building of the body of, what, Christ? That the mystical body of Christ you're speaking of there? Therefore, it seems that it belongs to Christ to have hope, right? Or hope to have us under his feet, right? Or at least the bat under his feet, huh? But against that is what is said in Romans chapter 8, verse 24. What one sees, what does one, one does, what does one hope for? We have it. And thus it is clear that just as faith is of things not seen, so what? Hope is. But faith was not in Christ, as has been said, therefore neither hope, right? So he says, I answer it should be said, that just as it is of the definition of faith, that someone assents to those things which he does not see, huh? Thomas defines the act of believing as assenting while thinking about it. So it is of the notion of hope that someone expects that which he does not yet have. And thus faith, insofar as it is a theological virtue, is not about anything not seen, but only about, what? God not seen, right? So also hope, insofar as it is a theological virtue, has for its object, the enjoyment of God, right? Which man chiefly expects through the, what? Virtue of hope. But, it's consequential, right? The consequence, the one who has the virtue of hope is also able to expect divine aid in other things. Just as the one who has the virtue of faith not only believes, what? God about divine things, but also about some other things which are, what? Divinely revealed, huh? But Christ, from the beginning of his conception, had fully the, what? Divine enjoyment, huh? And therefore he did not have the virtue of, what? Hope. But he had, nevertheless, hope with respect to those things which he had not yet, what? Obtained, huh? Although he did not have faith with respect of, what? Anything. Because although he knew fully all things by which holy faith is excluded from him, right? Nevertheless, he did not fully have all the things which pertain to his, what? Affection as a man, right? Because he didn't yet have the immortality and the glory of his body which he would be able to, what? Hope. So in some qualified sense he seems to admit that Christ has some hope with that. But since it's chiefly about, what? The division, which he had fully, he doesn't strictly speaking have hope, huh? Okay. And so when he replied to the first objection he says, to the first therefore it should be said that this is not said of Christ by the hope which is a theological virtue. Because that's about, what? Yeah, chiefly about that. But in that some other things, right? He hoped for not yet having them, right? And then the second objection says, well, doesn't it pertain to beatitude, right? The glory of the body? He says, to the second it should be said that the glory of the body does not belong to beatitude as that in which beatitude chiefly consists, right? But to a certain, what? Overflowing from the glory of the soul as is said in the second part. Just like when you understand something and try to figure something out once you understand you get kind of, what? Exhilaration of the body, right? The Greek guy found that he's supposed to jump out of his path and run down and out putting his clothes on, right? He's so exhilarating, right? Whence hope according as it is a theological virtue does not regard the beatitude of the body but the beatitude of the soul, right? Which consists in the divine enjoyment, right? Now this last objection I guess as I was saying he's been talking more about his mystical body, right? Which is not complete, right? His body's not complete The third, it should be said that the building of the church through the conversion of the faithful does not pertain to the perfection of Christ by which in himself he is perfect, right? But according as he leads in others to a partaking of his own, what? Perfection And because hope is said properly with respect to that which is expected by the one having hope, right? Not properly as it's said that the, what? Virtue of hope belongs to Christ for the reason of what's said So the third one is talking about the mystical body and the second one about his what? Yeah It's interesting the way he ordered these objections and Thomas is arguing about whether let's say my knowledge of the mystical, right? That remain in heaven That remain, yeah because it's a material thing maybe Well, very interesting very well Probably a part of all my understanding Yeah, yeah, yeah But Thomas is trying to manifest this, right? Even though it's an imperfect knowledge compared to the knowledge of the division but he says when you know the truth there's a dialectic whereby you arrive at the truth Is that lost? No, he says when you know the truth you can more what? Perfectly order the dialectic whereby you can lead someone else to the truth, right? So you don't cease to know dialectic arguments because you have a necessary argument You're not seeing something that disappears, right? Yeah But you can have these probable arguments as well as necessary arguments they have to destroy the probable arguments, right? But actually they're perfected, right? So my knowledge of you could be even more perfect, right? In heaven than it is now I've got time for an article here Yes Whether in Christ there were now the donah, right? These are like the gifts of the Holy Spirit, I guess. Now to the fifth, one goes forward thus. It seems that in Christ there were not the gifts. I'm going to take the other side now. It got negative, right? Contrary guy. Just as is commonly said, the gifts are given in aid of the virtues. But that which is in itself perfect does not need an outside aid, right? Since therefore in Christ there were, what, perfect virtues, it seems in him there was no, what, gifts. I don't want to back up these things. Moreover, it does not seem to be the same one to give gifts and to receive them, right? Because to give is of the one having, to receive of the one not having. But to Christ it belongs to give the gifts. According to that of Psalm 67, he gave gifts to men. Therefore, to Christ it does not belong to receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit. It's more divine to give than to receive, right? Moreover, four gifts, among the seven, right, seem to pertain to the contemplation of the road, the way, to wit, wisdom, science, understanding, and counsel, which pertains to, what, prudence. Whence the philosopher in the sixth book of the Ethics numbers these among the intellectual virtues, huh? Well, of course, it's weird. Wisdom isn't that many senses, huh? I said, wisdom is four years old today. Yeah, that's one meaning. Yeah. Sophia is that. Yeah. But Christ had the contemplation of the, what, father man, right? Therefore, he did not have these gifts. This objection kind of hurt to take into account, and I want to know more about the gifts. But anyway. But against this is what is said in Isaiah chapter 4, verse 1. The seven women grasped one man, right? That is the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit Christ through the glass. That's from Jerome, and my text says that one's from Jerome. So, good authority. Answered should be said, that as has been said in the second part, the gifts are properly certain perfections of the powers of the soul by which they're apt to be moved by the Holy Spirit, huh? So, there's something kind of different in the virtues, huh? Virtues, you're a little bit more on your own. A little bit more on your own. But the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Certain perfections whereby you can be moved by the Holy Spirit in a way that's wholly what? Yeah, yeah. But virtues act more in a way closer to human. It is manifest, however, that the soul of Christ most perfectly was moved by the Holy Spirit. That's really a good argument, huh? Damn good, huh? Wish I could come up with that, huh? Wish I had thought of that. So simple, you know, but to the point. According to that of Luke chapter 4, Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, came up from the Jordan, right? And was led by the Spirit, huh? In the desert, huh? To be tempted and so on, huh? Whence it is manifest that in Christ was most excellently the, what? Gifts, huh? I was going to say, can I understand that better if you've studied the gifts, right? But there really is something unique, huh? Perfections of the powers whereby you're to be, what? Moved by the Holy Spirit. It's a blind thing. That's heroic virtue, right? When Thomas talks about the gifts, he kind of goes back to that text of Aristotle about heroic virtues, right? But it is something where you're being moved in a way that seems to be very much about the human way. To the first, therefore, it should be said, huh? That which is perfect according to the order of its what? Nature needs to be aided by that which is of a higher nature. As man, no matter how perfect he is, huh? Needs to be aided by what? God, huh? And in this way, the virtues need to be helped by the gifts which perfect the powers of the soul according as they are moved by the, what? The Holy Spirit. Really fun things, those gifts. Now, about the giver and the giver and the given, huh? To the second, it should be said that Christ, not by the same or according to the same, is receiving and giving the gifts of the Holy Spirit. But he gives them according as he's God, right? And gets them or receives them according as he is man. Again, it goes back to the distinction between the two, what? Natures, right? Once Gregory says, huh? In the second book of the Morals that the Holy Spirit, huh? Kind of my future. Never deserted the, what? Humanity of Christ, right? From whose, what? He proceeds, right? About the third objection, I'm not sure how to take that exactly. But anyway. To the third, it should be said that in Christ there is not only the knowledge of the Fatherland, but also a knowledge of the road, as will be said below. But nevertheless, even in the Fatherland, in heaven, huh? There are, in some way, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, as has been had in the second part before we have to go and study that text, you know? Don't worry about it right now for our present purpose. Let's go to the last article now on this.