Tertia Pars
Lecture 77: The Genealogies of Christ and Numerical Symbolism

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

I had a guy in high school there who had a photograph of memory. You'd give him a poem, let's say, two or three pages long, go through it once and close the book and recite the whole thing. Didn't know what to do with his memory, though. Yeah. Yeah, that's unfortunate. But it's kind of amazing. They had a professor like that in college, too. I don't know how many languages he knew and all kinds of things he did. Professor, you've always said you've never forgotten what he read or something like that? Well, he always understood what he read. I know you said that. It's more than I can say. I understood everything I read. Far from it. Oh, my gosh. The next one is even longer, right? Oh, Lord. Okay, it's about the 42 and the 70-something. Okay. We're about to skip this train, you said. To the third, therefore, it should be said that, as Augustine says in the book on the consent of the evangelists, right, or the agreement of them, Matthew instituted what? The kingly dignity in Christ, right? Or to insinuate, you want to bring that out. But Luke is what? Yeah. That's interesting, because before you'd said that he's descended in a way from both the king and the priest, right? And that she has the blood of Elizabeth in her and the blood of Joseph in her, right? She's descended from, in some sense, both David, right, and from the Eli, right? Or I mean, from the Eli's. Okay. Of course, Matthew especially emphasizes the kingship of Christ, huh? And that's why in Matthew, say, I guess it's only in Matthew you have the three wise men coming, right? But Luke emphasizes the, what, priestly character, right? And that's why Luke begins and ends in the temple, huh? And there's much mention of the temple throughout the gospel, huh? Whence in the generations of Matthew is signified the taking on of our sins, huh? By the Lord Jesus Christ, huh? Insofar as through the origin of his flesh, right, he took on the likeness of the flesh of sin. And without sin, right, he took on the punishment in the sense of death and exhaustion and so on. In the generations, however, of Luke are signified the washing away of our sins, right? Which is through the sacrifice of Christ, huh? And therefore, the generations of Matthew are enumerated descending, right? Luke, however, ascending, right? It's beautiful the way Thomas sees that difference there. Hence it is that Matthew, from David, descends through, what, Solomon, right? In whose mother he, what, sinned. That's Bathsheba, right? Luke, however, to David, ascends through Nathan, right, huh? Through the, what, prophet of which name, God expiated his, what, sin, huh? Yeah, that's right, yeah. He's not saying to his father, but he's saying that the name is connected. Yeah. And, kind of beautiful the way he tells him the story of the man, the lamb, I guess, of somebody, and, who is a man, punish him, you know? You are the man, yeah. I used to take that when you talk about the, what they call the poetic argument, right? In a sense, it's very appropriate, right? You can kind of see yourself in the mirror, Shakespeare says, right? You see what you really are. And, hence, it is also that Matthew wishes to signify Christ descending to our mortality, the generations from Abraham down to Joseph, right? And, as far as nativity or birth of Christ descending, he commemorates these from the beginning of his, what, gospel, huh? But Luke, not from the beginning of his gospel, right? But, from the baptism of Christ narrates a generation. And, not going down, but, what, ascending, right? This is, apparently, this is, you know, he's quoting what Augustine here, right? Yeah. So, Thomas here is relying upon the other greatest mind, just as Thomas says, what, Plato and Aristotle are the chief philosophers. So, I would say, Augustine and Thomas are the chief theologians, huh? Um, as we're a priest, right? In expiating sins, right? More assigning, right? We're the testimony of, what? John. John. John. John Baptist. Yeah. Saying, behold, takes away the sins of the world, right? And, going up, he goes beyond Abraham, right? And, goes all the way to God. To which the cleansed and expiated are reconciled, huh? By emphasizing, you know, our taking on our sinful flesh, in a sense, the Christ, huh? Or, in his appearance of our sinful flesh, anyway. He just takes it down from Abraham from human origin, right? And, rightly, he takes on the origin of, what? Adoption, right? Because, by adoption, we are made the sons of God, huh? But, to the, what? Flesh degeneration, the son of God is made the son of, what? Man, huh? And, Sata's son, enough, huh? He demonstrated, not thus, as he said, Joseph, to be the son of Eli, that he was generated from him, but because he was adopted, by him, right? Since, also, yeah, which is made so by God, right? Now, what about these numbers, huh? These numbers, huh? Let's see what he's going to do with this. The number, what? Is it 40? Mm-hmm. To the time of the present life pertains, huh? On account of the four parts of the world, huh? The Shakespeare speaks, you know, of English, up in one of the four corners, you know? Kind of, somewhat limited to the world. That's what Tom's son has explained, you know, the symbolism of the number 12 for the apostles, huh? That he sends forth the, what? Apostles to the four corners of the world, right? To preach the Trinity, huh? Oh, yeah. They preach, right? Yeah. Three times four, yeah. I was kind of recently, you know, I tend to have an orange in the morning, right, for breakfast, and I cut the orange in exactly 12 pieces. So, take three, each one in three bites. And, let's see, I have these little clean bacon things, and I cut them into 12, too. I wasn't, you know, doing it on purpose, you know, it was just a good size to eat, you know, I mean, you know, to eat by by by, and I said, well, now I'll pretend that I... You're mystically inspired. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. So anyway, but you know, sometimes people, I think they want to make fun of Augustine's explanation of these numbers, right? Because there's more than one way to what? Skim and pat. Yeah, there's more than one way of seeing a symbolism in these numbers, right? But for Augustine and Thomas, there can be more than one sense of the what? Letter, yeah. Yeah, so if I see another symbolism in a number, right, there's no problem. There's no problem, yeah. I think he says about 153 vision and other places too. He says, well, there may be other ways of explaining this, but you can't say this was wrong. Yeah, that's the point, see? Whatever, you know, thing is orthodox, right? And can be accommodated to it, can be the sense of the letter. You know, the God who sees many things at once, right, can see many, sense of the letter. I think that they kind of don't realize that, you know, or they don't view it, what Augustine and Thomas say. And therefore, they'll make fun of those numbers when they really shouldn't, right? It seems kind of arbitrary to say, well, I think you could do it some other way, right? Explain the numbers, huh? And Thomas sometimes, for the same number, would give a couple of explanations on it, right? So he says the number 40 pertains to the time of the present life, right? An account of the four parts of the world in which we leave our, what? Live our mortal life, right? Under Christ's ruling, right? For Quadriginta, right, has four times ten. And ten from one proceeding to four constitute what? All number, right? Now, this is why I explain it. Plato said one, two, three, four. And this is what? This is understanding. This is epistening, because you go from the premises conclusion, right? Understanding, it's not from this to this, it's one. This is what? Opinion, because from your premises, you reason to what? Different conclusions. So Aristotle speaks a dialectic, he sometimes says, Dialectical reasoning is reasoning from probable opinions to opposite, what? Conclusions, huh? Okay? Like the great Socrates teaches us in the Mino, right? Where Mino wants to know whether virtue can be taught, and Socrates says we don't even know yet what virtue is. But let's see what can be said for and against, right? So then he reasons with probability that virtue can be taught, and then he reasons with probability that virtue cannot be taught, right? That's what dialectical reasoning is. So it's reasoning from probable opinions to opposite conclusions. So that's three. And then four is a symbol of what? The senses, huh? It's a dialectical reasoning. And it's because the senses now bring in the body, right? But you know how Plato would say, you get one point, you get a point. Two points, you've got a, what? Line. Three points, you've got, what? Surface. And another point up here, and you've got, what? So it takes four points, right? Four dimensions. And that's all there is. Four dimensions, right? So you've got one, two, three, four. What do they add up to? Ten. Ten, yeah, so. That's one way of trying to explain why ten has got such a significance, right? So. So. So, ipsa decim ab uno, right? From one, usqued quator, huh? Procreante, numer, is consummated, right? Okay. Now, one can also take ten as referring to the, what? Decalat, huh? Okay. Then I found it in Thomas one time where the number 11, you know, refers to sin, right? Because it transgresses and goes beyond ten, you know? Of course, when I was in high school, my buddies and I used to sit at table 11. And so, our group became known as table 11, you know? And then in the years later, I find out that this is a symbol of the integration of the law. I didn't realize how significant that was. A friend of mine in high school was part of a group of guys that were 12 guys, and they called themselves the apostles, they called themselves the dirty dozen. You see, sometimes they take the 12 of the apostles to take the Decalat, the 10, right? And then the two commandments of love, the love of God and neighbor, right? And so you have two and 10, that's 12, right? So that's what, the way they live and the way they teach and so on. So, denarius can refer to the Decalogue, right? And four, quaternarius, to the prison life, right? Or also to the four, what? Yeah. Yeah. And some of you go, well, this is just arbitrage, you know? But either one is for Thomas, what? Yeah, yeah. And it can both be a sense of the letter and a meaning that is hidden in this number, right? Okay. According as Christ, what? Or by which Christ rules in us, right? And therefore, Matthew, commending the royal prison of Christ, his being king, places 40, what? Persons. Accepting, what? He himself, huh? But this should be understood that if it is the same Giaconius who is placed at the end of the second, what, 14? And in the beginning of the third as Augustine, what? Wicious, huh? Which is said to be made to signify that in Giaconius there was made a certain, what? Turning to extraneous nations, right? When they, there's a transfiguration to Babylon, right? Which was also prefiguring Christ from what? Circumcision? Gentiles. Gentiles, yeah. I agree. Okay. Okay. Jerome, however, says that two was the, what? Joachim, huh? That is Giaconius. Father to wit and son, right? Of whom both is taken on in the generation of Christ. So that there stands a distinction in generations, which the evangelist distinguishes through three 14s, right? Which ascends to what? 42. Which number also belongs to the Holy Church, huh? For this number arises from what? Scenario. Six. Yeah? Which signifies the labor of the present life, huh? And seven, which signifies the rest of the future life. And six times seven are 42. And the number quaterdenaris, 14, which is constituted from the denaria of the ten and the four, right? By addition, abbreviation, to the same meaning that pertains that was attributed to what? Quaterdenario. So in the one case it's four times ten. Yeah. You know, in Justin, it takes 17, you know, to explain the fish that are caught in the thing. He takes number 17, he says, those who obey the ten commandments, according to the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. So he adds ten and seven rather than, you know? Yeah. So you can do both. It's just none of the freedom that you have there, right? Okay. So in the case of explaining the number 12, right? It's just explained in terms of three times four, reaching eternity to the four corners of the world. And sometimes to, what, ten plus two. You know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know the Decalogue plus the commandments of the love of God and neighbor. So it compares to Quagentia, which consurgent rises from the same numbers but according to multiplication. It's funny though, universally, in my own experience of modern scholars and so on, they're always making fun of scriptural scholars saying I was kind of amused to see Augustine talking about it. I think it is something to laugh about, but it was also something to be serious about too, right? Something beautiful about it. I've heard Father Peter tell us that the people came home with us and preached were merchants so they loved numbers. They loved to deal with numbers all the time. That's one of the things that he accommodated even to them and to some extent he was part of their culture too. This would have been their way of inculturating the gospel. You know my Pythagorean theorem there, right? What was the first Pythagorean theorem in numbers, whole numbers? Three, four, five? Yeah, yeah. Well, you remember how two places I see it. In the Dianima, right? The Verstappel. He distinguishes three souls, right? And what? Four grades of life and five genera of powers, right? So to understand the connection between the three and the four and the five is really kind of central to seeing the Dianima as a whole, right? And then you get to scripture, I mean to the Trinity, right? You have three persons, four relations, but five notions, yeah. So you have that three, four, five, right? And it's kind of a way of relating those together, right? How does five notions give you only four relations and four relations give you only three persons, right? Or how do five genera of power give you only four grades of life? Well, it's because one of the genera of powers naturally falls upon the others, right? So if you have sense or reason, you're going to have what? Desire, right? So desire doesn't give you a separate order, right? So you have those that have only the living powers, reproduction, growth, nourishment. Then those who have in addition to that, what? Sensation. And those that have in addition to sensation, locomotion. And then those that have in addition, what? Reason, right? But not, and then those who have what? You know, will or sense desire because they're going to follow upon having sense or what? Reason, right? So then you say why five because you're only four, right? And then why, although you have four grades of life, you have only three souls, right? Well, Thomas will explain that in terms of the fact that the soul is in a way rising above, what? Mere matter, right? And that's why the modern, you know, wow, this would be kind of afraid to talk about soul, right? And so sensation rises above matter in a way that, what, the local, the powers digestion do not, right? But the idea of walking doesn't need a different kind of materiality. But then you get to reason you have something very much immaterial, right? So, in terms of rising above matter, right? I mean, they say, well, the plant powers, you know, the living powers rise above matter in some way because they don't simply follow the chemical principles, right? like in the old physics show and they had, well, fire is helping you to digest your food, right? But a fire just left itself for the whole body, right? You know? So, I mean, the use of these chemicals is limited and directed by, what, the plant's soul, right? And so, you know, the organization, stability of a living organism is a marvelous thing, right? And the great physicist there, Heisenberg, you know, who's probably next to Einstein in terms of the greatness of his mind, you know, but he says, you know, the living organism, he says, the stability is not probable at all from the point of view of physical principles, huh? And it's kind of beautiful, you know, and Heisenberg, of course, was brought up in the school of Niels Bohr and so on. And what got Niels Bohr going with the atom, right, was the atom had, it was kind of imagined to be kind of a miniature solar system, right? But a miniature solar system that's always coming into contact with other solar systems would have absolutely no stability, right? And so there's stability in the atom that can't be explained by mechanical principles like a miniature solar system, right? But then when you come to the living organism, the stability of that is not explained by physical principles of physics and chemistry. So you can see that in the living organism, even in the plant, there's a kind of rising above, you know, material means a bit. But then when you get to sensation, you have a kind of immaterial knowing, but not, and it's not in the body organ. But when I, you know, receive the, you know, the shape of this in my eye, my eye doesn't take on this shape, right? There's a kind of immaterial receiving there. But yet I receive in a bodily organ, right? My senses. And then when I get to my understanding of my reason, then I rise entirely above matter because my reason is not in the brain, it's not universal reason, it's not in the brain. It's the power of the soul that it has in itself but not in the body. That's why I have only three souls, despite there being four grades of life, right? But the difference between an oyster, say, and a dog is not a different kind of immateriality, another way of rising. But nevertheless, there's a superiority of the dog that can move around to the oyster or something of that sort. And the same way to Trinity, you say, well, if there are five notes, why are there only four relations? If there are four relations and you distinguish the persons by relations, why don't you have four persons? So it's kind of, I can relate those things three, four, five, but the statement theorem, you know. I might kill your hearties, but anyway. No, I just got six of my mind away, you know. You know, I just, I just, I put the board up, trying, you know, and say, three persons, four relations, five. How do you explain that, right? three souls, four grades of life, five grade of power. How do you explain the difference in numbers, right? You need a break here? I'm just going to finish this one reply here, I guess. Okay. So, you can add and multiply these numbers, right? To explain them, huh? So we're almost at the end of the second, or third reply. Now, the number which Luke uses in the generations of Christ, right, signifies the universality, universe, right? Yeah, of sins. For denarius, right, as were the number of what justice, right, is shown in the ten precepts of the law. But sin is the transgression of the law, and the transgression of the number ten. Oh, here it comes now. I'm in trouble now. I'm in trouble. However, this is down. Okay. Now, seven signifies what? Universality? How do they translate that? Universality taught them. Yeah, because time as a whole is, you know, divided by the revolution of seven days, right? And seven times eleven are seventy-seven. And thus, this is signified the universe of sins which are taken away by Christ. Thank you. Now, Thomas didn't, you know, apart from explaining the symbolism of the numbers, he didn't seem to directly respond to the discrepancy in numbers, in the number of generations. I don't remember, you seem to remember that in the reply, did you? I mean, maybe someone could say, you know, well, here we give the grandfather and his grandson, or here, you know. But he doesn't, he doesn't try to, do you, in this, I didn't say, remember, yeah. Good night. I'll get back to you. Okay, now. You give it one in a fancy. Yeah, the fourth theory, right, there's a discrepancy in who generated whom, right? He says, to the fourth, it should be said that as Jerome says upon Matthew, right, because Joram, the king, right, got mixed up with the, what, most impious Jezebel, right? Therefore, as far as to the third generation, his memory is, what, taken away. Lest he be placed in the holy order of nativity, huh? Don't get mixed up with Jezebel, that's for sure. And thus, as Chrysostom says, huh? As much blessing as was made upon Jehu, right, who made, what, avenger upon the house of Achab and Jezebel, huh? So great is the malediction upon the house of Joram on account of, what, the daughter of the iniquity, Ahab and Jezebel, that all the way to the fourth generation is, what, sons were cut off in the number of kings, as is written in Exodus 20, verse 5, huh? How render the sin of the parents to the children as far down as the third and fourth generation, huh? It should be noted then that other kings were sinners who are placed in the genealogy of Christ, huh? But there was not, what, a continual impiety of them, huh? Just explain a bit the numbers, I don't know. As is said in the book of the questions of the New and Old Testament, huh? Solomon, by merit of his father, was, what, remiss in his kingdom? Roboam, by merit of Asa, the son of Abias, his sons. Of these three, there is a continual impiety, huh? Sounds like the Kennedys, I guess. That came out in the debates there because the question was saying, you know, are you going to do this in the seat, you know, of Kennedy, you know? He says, it's not the seat of Kennedy, it belongs to the citizens of Massachusetts. It doesn't belong to Kennedy. It's anything for the guy in his place, you know. Okay. Now, in the fifth one, what about this discrepancy or difference, at least, in the woman mentioned, right, huh? To the fifth, it should be said that as Jerome says upon Matthew, in the genealogy of the Savior, right, huh? None of the, what, holy woman is taken. But those whom, what, scripture reprehends, right? So that the one who came on account of sinners, right, huh? Being born of sinners would delete the sins of, what? Oh. Whence there is placed Thamar, who was reprehended for her, what? Okay. And Rahab, who was a parlor, and Ruth, who was, what, foreign? Was she a Moabite? Something like that. Yeah. And Bathsheba, right? Mm-hmm. The wife of Uriah, right, who was adulterous, right? Mm-hmm. Uh, who nevertheless, by her own name is not placed, but is designated for the name of her husband, right? Both on account of the sin of her, right? Mm-hmm. Because she was, what? Conscious. Conscious of homicide, right? And also by naming the man the sin of David might be called back to what? Mm-hmm. Right? And because Luke designated Christ, intends to designate Christ as the expiator of, what? Yeah. Our sinners. I could, yeah. Yeah. He doesn't make mention of such woman, right? The brothers of Jude are commemorated that one might show them to pertain to the people of God. Since, nevertheless, Ishmael, the brother of Isaac, and Esau, the brother of Jacob, were separated from the people of God, huh? An account of which, in the generation of Christ, they are not, what? And also that pride about normal birth, I guess, huh? We would be excluded, right, huh? For many of the brothers of Judas were born from, what? Slave. And all were, what? Princes of, and they were at the same time patriarchs and princes of tribes, right? Faraz and Zarm are named together, as Ambrose says, upon Luke, because to them the twofold life of what? The people is described, one according to the law, which is signified by Zara, and the other by faith, which is signified by Phares, huh? My wife said Gemina. My wife said Gemina, I think. Frater is out of Giaconius, are placed because all ruled in diverse times, which in other kings did not happen. Or because, like or similar, it was both their iniquity and their misery, huh? I noticed how the church fathers were nevertheless kind of forced into these because the heretics, you know, who were, what, pointing out these discrepancies or apparent discrepancies in scripture, right? So, in a sense, you're kind of, in a way, that's why you also had to, you know, start to, you know, investigate the Trinity and so on, the Incarnation and so on. Kind of the starting point, right? Not so much curiosity as it were the necessity of defending, right? Yeah. So, so Degustin says, you know, that heresy is necessary for the development of theology. Otherwise, they would kind of be afraid to touch some of these things, huh? Because they're so, so difficult, right? Yeah. But you're kind of forced to do so. Okay, I've got to go forward now, here. To the fourth one goes forward thus. Thus, it seems that the matter of the body of Christ ought not to be taken from a woman, right? For the masculine sex is more noble than the female sex, huh? But most of all, was it fitting that Christ take that which was perfect in human nature, huh? Therefore, it does not seem that he ought to have taken flesh from a woman, but more from a man. Just as, what, Eve was formed from the... Moreover, whoever is conceived from a woman is contained in the womb of the woman, right? But God, who fills heaven and earth, as it's said in Jeremiah 23, 24, does not belong that he'd be contained in the small womb of a woman. Therefore it seems he ought not to be conceived a woman. I think that's what the heretics said something. It's like he's got the whole universe, right? And now he's being confined in this little space. More with those who are conceived from the woman undergo a certain uncleanliness. As is said in Job 25, never can man be justified in a person to God or a pure, clean, born of a woman. But in Christ there ought to be no uncleanliness. For he is the wisdom of God about whom is said in the book of Wisdom, chapter 7, nothing stained comes into it. Therefore it seems he ought not to have assumed flesh a woman, right? But against all this nonsense is what is said in Galatians 4. God sent his son made from a woman, huh? He said, Well, what does the master say, huh? The answer should be said that although the son of God, right, was able to take on human flesh from whatever matter he wished, right? Most suitably, nevertheless, right, did he take flesh from the woman, right? First, because through this, the whole of human nature was, what, ennobled, huh? Whence Augustine says in the book of the 83 questions, huh, that the liberation of man ought to appear in both, what, sex. So, I remember I was lecturing on the enunciation, right, huh? That the order of our redemption kind of corresponds to the order of our falling, right? But it begins from Eve and then goes to the man, right, huh? And so our redemption begins from Mary saying, Be it done to me. Okay? And then proceeds to the man as conceived, right? So the liberation of man ought to appear in both sex. Therefore, because it was, what, he ought to take on the man, right, huh? Which sex is more honorable. Here's Augustine saying that, right? It was suitable that the liberation of the female, right, sex, here appear because that man was born of a, what, woman, huh? You can kind of have a doubt there, right? This is real. Women's liberation. True liberation, yeah. True liberation. That's what I guess. Yeah, yeah. The preacher of women's liberation. Secondly, because through this, the truth of the Incarnation would be, what? I mean, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Homine is what? The common word, right? It doesn't mean in English you don't have two words, right? You should explain that ad nauseum to the students, you know? When you're doing the periharmenaeus, you know, of course, you have noun and verb, right? And in Greek and Latin, you have the same word for noun and name. You see, we have different names, name, noun, yeah. And so, you know, when you read the commentators and the periharmenaeus, they'll be explaining it all. But now Aristotle's using the word nomen in the sense of, or onoma, in the sense of what name, and now he's using the sense of what noun as opposed to verb and so on, right? So in one sense, if verb is onoma, in another sense, you divide it one against the other, right? But here, here, you see versa, and here they have two words, one for femina and ver, and then homo, but we don't have two words for homo and ver, so we use the same word, right? That's the language, right? We try to change the language. You see, one woman in daily maths in the old days, she was always, you know, correcting the text, and I'd just wait for her to say it. It'd get in your nerves a little bit. What did you do, you know? So I'd feel like they were all saying, woman, that is not the word. Well, they do have a purpose, you know, it's just, you know, they're stubborn, you know. That's why I would say, whether you call it horizontal, whether you call it vertical, it's really just quick. So that's the great Ambrose, huh? One of the four or five great doctors of the Western Church, huh? And Augustine says in the epistle to Volusiana, that's to a woman? Volusiana, it looks like a woman's name, doesn't it? Is this the one, I don't know, I thought there's a bishop, with a similar name, but I can't remember what it is. Well, I thought it was. He's talking about. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, the omnipotent God, right, man, who we come qua, anywhere is that? Where it's formed. Yeah, where it's formed. It was not created from the maternal womb, but suddenly, right, was brought to our view, right? Would it not confirm an opinion of error, that neither a true man did he take on, would it be in any way believed, right? And when all these things were done marvelously, it would take away that he did it, what, mercifully? For now, between, what, God and man, he appears mediator, that in the unity of his person, he joins both natures. And the customary things, he, what, sublimes with customary things. And he tempers the unaccustomed things by customary things. That's marvelous, right? That's the way Augustine speaks. So, that's to the truth of the Incarnation, right? Third, because in this way is completed all the diversity of the human generation. For the first man was produced from the slime of the earth, right? Without a man and a woman. Eve was produced from a man without a woman, right? Other men are produced from a man and a woman. Whence this fourth, as it were, proper or private, that Christ is left, that he produced from a woman without a man. That's kind of unusual, that third reason, huh? Yeah. I remember that one from St. Bob. Yeah. This is for the completion of the universe. Yeah. All the possibilities. Yeah. Neither man and woman. Man only. Woman only. What else is left? Yeah. I think the first one, you know, is most interesting. Thomas has put that first, too. Okay. Now, what about this objection while you get the more noble sex and so on? To the first thereof it should be said that the masculine sex is more noble than the feminine, right? Therefore, he assumed human nature in the masculine sex, huh? To the first thereof it should be said that the feminine sex is more noble than the feminine sex is more noble than the feminine sex is more noble than the feminine sex is more noble than the feminine sex is more noble than the feminine sex is more noble than the feminine sex is more noble than the feminine sex is more noble than the feminine sex is more noble than the feminine sex is more noble than the feminine sex is more noble than the feminine sex is more noble than the feminine sex is more noble than the feminine sex is more noble than the feminine sex is more noble than the feminine sex is more noble than the feminine sex is more noble than the feminine sex is more noble than the feminine sex is more noble than the feminine sex is more noble than the feminine sex is more noble than the feminine sex is more noble than the feminine sex is more noble than the feminine sex is more noble than the feminine sex is more noble than the feminine sex is more noble than the feminine sex is more noble than the feminine sex is more noble than the feminine sex is more noble than the feminine sex is more noble than the