Tertia Pars
Lecture 3: The Suitability and Necessity of the Incarnation

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

We're up to the first article here, now the first question. To the first, one proceeds thus, it seems that it is not suitable for God to become flesh, right? I'm a man. For since God from eternity was the very, what, essence of goodness, thus it was best for him to be so, right, as he was from eternity. Right? Couldn't be better. But God from eternity was without all flesh, and therefore it is most suitable for him not to become, what, united to flesh, huh? Could he be any better than he was from, was he eternally? He's the best he could be, right? Therefore it is not suitable for God to become incarnate, huh? Moreover, those things which differ at infinite distance, right, are unsuitably joined, as it would be unsuitable juncture is someone, what, painted, I suppose, an image in which to the human head was joined, what? Like a horse, huh? But God and flesh differ, what? Simply. Since God is most simple, but flesh composed, very much so, and especially human flesh, therefore it is unsuitable that God be, what, joined to flesh, right? Shakespeare is a great play there. Although it ends well, right, you know? How could she, the commoner, marry the son of the duke, right? They just don't do that thing, right? But the distance here is nothing in prayer to the distance between God and God. That's, that's, that's, that's suitable, you know? Thus differs the body from the, what, highest spirit, as Alice from the highest goodness, huh? This seems like a Manichaean argument, huh? I think I haven't thought I'd even answer this argument. But altogether would it be unsuitable that God, who is the highest goodness, assume what? Wickedness, yeah. Therefore, it is not suitable that the highest spirit, uncreated, uncreated spirit, assume a body, huh? That's a Manichaean argument there. Moreover, it is unsuitable that the one who excels the great be contained in the least, and to whom belongs the care of great things to be transferred down to these little things. But God, who bears the care of the whole universe, the whole world, the whole universe is not sufficient to grasp. Therefore, it seems unsuitable that in the little body of the vagina and so on, of infancy, be hidden to whom, what? The universe is not sought to be equal. And that he be taken from his throne, you might say, of the whole universe, right? Down to his little, what? In the board of the Virgin's womb, it says in the, in the day, right? As the Lucianus writes to Augustine, right? Just to see, entirely acceptable. Aren't you convinced now? But against this, it seems most suitable that through visible things be shown the invisible things of God. For for this, the whole world is made, as is clear through those words of the Apostle. Now that's again an example of what? St. Paul being named what? Antonia. Romans 1, verse 20. The invisible things of God, the things which are made, being understood, are seen. But, as Damascene says in the beginning of the third book, huh? Through the mystery of the Incarnation is shown at once the goodness and the wisdom and the justice and the power of God, right? The virtue of God. His goodness because he did not despise the, what? Infirmity of our, what? Plasm. Our makeup. Justice because, what? Not... He didn't... Yeah, he didn't want to overcome the devil by just power, right? But by justice, right? That he, you know, putting Christ to death, right? Or instigating this in a way was, what? Overstepping his bounds, huh? Nequevi, repentic, mortihominem, right? Not by violence, as it were, right? Wisdom because of a most, what? Difficult situation he found a, what? Most suitable solution. Of power or virtue, infinite, because nothing is more than that God become man. I mentioned that. It's what Thomas brings out more in Summa Gentilis, right? But this is the greatest thing that God has made. The word made flesh, right? That was the greatest making that there was. It will be. Therefore, it was suitable for God to be, what? Well, how's Thomas going to handle on to this? I don't know who he's going to... I think he's got himself an O this time. Okay? The answer should be said that to each thing is suitable that which belongs to it by reason of its own, what? Nature. Just as it is suitable to man to reason. Now, get that into your head. Because this belongs to him insofar as he, what? Is rational. Insofar as he has reason according to his nature. But the very nature of God is what? Goodness, huh? This is clear through Dionysius in the first chapter about the divine names. Whence whatever pertains to the thought, the notion of good, is suitable to what? God, huh? It's suitable that God be good, I guess, huh? Who could disagree with that? He's goodness itself. It belongs over to the notion of the good that it communicates itself to what? Others. As is clear through Dionysius in the book and the divine names. What's the chapter? Unum est, what? Diffusivum sui. You know that thing. Whence to the notion of the highest good, right? It's the fifth thing Thomas shows about God's goodness in the summa. It pertains that in the highest way he communicates himself to what? Creatures. Creatures, right? Which most of all comes about through this that he thus joins a created nature, right? To himself so that there is what? One person from these three the word, the flesh, and the soul, right? As Augustine says in the third, thirteenth book on the Trinity. Whence it is manifest that it is suitable for God to become what? Incarnate. So you convinced by that argument? What Thomas will, we're not talking about, you know, the greatest of the creatures in that sense, you know, but he's joining the creature to himself, right? But this is going to be a separate question why he became a man rather than an angel, right? People say, better on instead of on. you know, you know, But did he bestow upon human nature a great good by assuming human nature? Could he have bestowed, you know, a greater good than that upon human nature? Because no matter how much grace he gave, say, some human being, some particular human being, that would never equal the grace of the union. So it's interesting that Thomas does in terms of the goodness of God. That's not all that can be said, but that's the fundamental place where he begins. Okay, now, what do you call the first objection here, huh? Because he's got it by his objections. And then he's most beautifully determined the matter, as Shostalda would say. Now, should you understand this in the sense that God became better by becoming man? That's kind of the way the objection is going, right? He couldn't be better than he was. To the first, therefore, it should be said that the mystery of the Incarnation is not fulfilled by this, that God in some way is what? Changed from his status, right? In which he was, what? From eternity. But through this, that in a new way, he united himself to the creature, right? Or rather, and it's a better thing, it to himself, right? Okay? It is always suitable that the creature, which by reason of itself is changeable, right? Does not always have itself in the same way, right? And therefore, it's a creature, when first it was not at all, right? Was produced in being, it was suitable, that for when it was not united to God, afterwards it was, what? United to him, right? Now, you know, it's a very simple and inadequate comparison I make, but I think it's kind of interesting. And a couple again here, but you take this point right here, right? We say that's the person, right? And the line represents the divine nature, okay? Now, if the human nature was not, what, joined to that person, right? Then you'd have this human person right here. But if I draw the line like this, has this been changed at all, this first line or the end point? No. But the second line has been drawn to what? That point, huh? So at this point, what's called A, is beginning of line B and beginning of line C, right? So this one person, which is the word of God, that now subsists both in divine nature and in the what? Yeah. This is adding nothing to the divine nature of all, right? Drawn to the divine, what? Personality, right? But if this is just created by itself without being drawn to him, there would have been another person there and you'd have the heresy and the stories and so on. Now, second objection is so we can show you. Things are joined, things are infinitely apart, huh? Doesn't like a good idea, isn't it? To the second, it should be said that being united to God in unity of a person was not suitable to the human flesh by the condition of its nature, right? But it was nevertheless suitable to God. That according to the, what, infinite excellence of his goodness, united it to himself for the, what, salvation of man, right? In other words, it was the mercy of God, right? I suppose, huh? It wasn't justice to unite human nature to him, right? Human nature didn't deserve that. Unless it wasn't suitable to human nature to have such a great benefit conferred upon it, right? But it was suitable to his infant mercy to do this on. Okay? So it comes to being some truth in objection, right? To bring out the truth that objection doesn't take into account. Now, the third objection, that was the Manichaean one, wasn't it? Mm-hmm. Okay. To the third, it should be said that whatever other condition by which any creature differs from the creator, by the wisdom of God is, what, instituted and is ordered to the goodness of God, for God, on account of his own goodness, since it is uncreated, unchangeable, bodiless, produces creatures that are mobile and, what? Body, body, yeah. And likewise, the evil of, what, punishment by the justice of God is introduced to an account of the, what, glory of God, huh? But the evil of guilt is committed by receding from the art of the divine wisdom and from the order of the divine, what, goodness. And therefore, it's suitable for him to assume created nature, it was changeable, bodily, and subject to punishment, but it was not however suitable to him to assume the evil of what? Yeah. It's assumed everything we have except our sinful, our sin. Now, the fourth argument is easily solved, right, huh? He didn't cease to be God by becoming man, right? To the fourth, it should be said as Augustine responds in the epistle to Luciano, huh? That Christian teaching doesn't have this, that God is thus infused into human flesh, that he, what, deserts, huh? Abandons or loses the care of the governance of the universe, huh? Or to that, what, little body, right? As it were, contracted, he's transferred, huh? Lost his greatness. For this thinking or sense is of men who are unable to think of anything except, what, bodies, right? They can't transcend their imagination. Aristotle, in the fourth book of natural hearing there, says that it's a common opinion of the Greeks, right? Whatever is must be somewhere. If it isn't somewhere, it doesn't exist. So to be in place is the property of what is. And there's bodies that are in place, so everything is a body. They can't transcend that, right? So when my soul leaves my body, will it be somewhere, someplace? That's kind of hard for me to think about. How can I be and not be in some place, right? Okay. God, however, not in size, but in virtue is great, right? Whence the magnitude of his power, what, has no what? Straightening or listening in a narrow place, right? It's not, therefore, incredible that the word of man going forth is heard at the same time by many and the whole by all, that the word of God being permanent is everywhere. It's a whole. Kind of helpful there, right? When the word of God being permanent is everywhere, right? When the word of God being permanent is everywhere, right? When the word of God being permanent is everywhere, right? When the word of God being permanent is everywhere, right? When the word of God being permanent is everywhere, right? When the word of God being permanent is everywhere, right? When the word of God being permanent is everywhere, right? When the word of God being permanent is everywhere, right? When the word of God being permanent is everywhere, right? There's nothing unsuitable, follows God being incarnate. In other words, he remains God, right? It doesn't seem to be God because he becomes a man. Some people thought, you know, he becomes a flesh man. The sphere becomes a cube, right? The sphere becomes a cube, it's a longer cube, right? He'd be a sphere. That's not the way God becomes a man. He remains God, and therefore, everything that pertains to God pertains to him. Should we look at another article? Okay. Now, to the second one proceeds thus. It seemed it was not necessary for the reparation of the human race for the word of God to become flesh. For to the word of God, since he is perfect God, nothing of power, right, came to him through the flesh assumed. He didn't get some power he didn't have by assuming flesh, did he? He's so powerful. If, therefore, the word of God prepared nature, also without the assumption of flesh, right, he would be able to what? Repair it, huh? As you mentioned before, these two senses are necessary that are particularly relevant to this. That without which the end cannot be reached, and that without which the end cannot be reached well, right? So it's necessary to understand those senses are necessary. You know, in philosophy, sometimes you say, is logic necessary for the philosopher, or can you philosophize without logic? Yeah, yeah. So it's necessary to philosophize well logic, huh? Sir Albert the Great says, you know, the Greeks, you know, before Aristotle and Plato, made many mistakes because they didn't have logic, right? So you can philosophize without logic, right? But you can't philosophize well without logic, huh? So what sense was it necessary for Christ to become man, right? Which of those two senses? Moreover, for the reparation of the human nature, which had collapsed through, that's a good description of us, huh? Through sin, nothing other would seem to be required than that man satisfied his sin, right? But God does not require for man more than he's able, right? And since he is more prone to, what, taking mercy, and showing mercy than to punishing, just then as he imputes to man the act of sin, so it seemed that he would impute to him the washing out on the deleting of the sin by the, what, contrary act. He was not therefore necessary to the preparation of human nature for the word of God to become, what? Flesh, huh? Moreover, to the salvation of man, especially pertains that God be, what? What, we hear it. Once in Malachi, chapter one, verse six, if I am the Lord, where is my fear? If the Father, where is my honor, huh? Honor your father and mother. But from this, men begin more reverence God, that they consider him to be elevated above all things, huh? And remote from the, what, senses of man. Once in Psalm 112, it says, excelsis super hominus gentis dominus, he's raised above all the nations, all the gent nations. And above the heavens, all the natural things, even, is his glory, right? And after that is said, who is like our God, huh? When the fourth ladder in consulate says, you cannot know the likeness of the creature to God without a greater, what? Unlikeness, huh? And this is one place of scripture says, you know, who's like God, right? Because the likeness is so distant, right, huh? It seems more that they're not alike, not like them, which pertains to reverence. Therefore, it seems not suitable to human salvation that God becomes like us through the assumption of flesh, right? That's going to diminish our, what, regarding God as above us, you know? That's an interesting objection, huh? But against this, that by which the human race was freed from perdition or loss is necessary for human salvation. But the mystery of divine incarnation is of this sort, according to that of John, chapter 3, verse 16. For God thus so loved the world, huh? That he gave his only son, that all who believe in him will not perish, but would have, what? Eternal life, huh? And there you seem to be speaking of the incarnation as, what? The way to get to eternal life, right? So you can put it under, God is the end, right, huh? Therefore, it's necessary for the human salvation, for its safety, for God to become, what? Flesh, right? Now, Thomas is not going to give the whole teaching about this, so he's going to have to go to the fifth book of, what? Wisdom for that, right? He's going to give these two sentences in terms of the end, huh? I answer it should be said that to some end, something is said to be necessary in two ways, huh? In one way, without which, something is not able to be, as food is necessary for the conserving preservation of human life. You've got to eat if you want to live. But another way to what, or by which, something better and more suitably arises at the end. As a horse is necessary to a journey, huh? I hope you get some horse here or something, huh? I can get home, right? I can get home without a horse, but yeah. You see the difference between those two senses, huh? Now he's exemplifying with what? Logic, right, huh? Now, to know the conclusion of a syllogism, do you have to know the premises? Which sense of necessary is that? Yeah. You can't know the conclusion without the premises. But it's logic necessary to philosophize, huh? What sense of necessary is that? Second sense. Second sense, yeah. So, as DeConnick said, Thomas was a most humble student of Aristotle, right? It's amazing the way he pulls out the things, what he needs from Aristotle. And the thing about reading Thomas, you read Thomas, you know, in a way you're reading Aristotle, and you're reading Augustine, and you're reading Boethius, and you're reading all these other guys, Albert and so on, right? And like the Kajetan says there in the beginning of the Summa, he so reverence the, what, fathers of the Church who seem to inherit the mind of them all, right? So, in a way, you're reading all these guys and you read him, huh? When I read a modern philosophy, I have the impression I'm reading this one guy, you know? Not anybody else, you know? I never had that sense, right? The distinction that keeps showing up for people who say, well, I'm not understanding that to this day. I saw, I was reading some of the things of Benedict XVI, right? And one of the things under the speech I think it was looking at I just went through some of the speeches. It's one of the universities there in Rome that he gave the speech so it was a little more informal and so on and I think it was kind of a question period and what did you particularly enjoy when you were a student and so on, huh? And it was Augustine, right? And then he liked there was Bonaventure, yeah, yeah. So, you can see kind of the cast of his mind, right? I see Paul VI or maybe you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, Thomas, you know, but he didn't mention Thomas, he just said Augustine and Bonaventure because of the two, you know, and some other Franciscans too, but you get a certain thing of what and some other things that he said that he said caught his attention, right? Of course, Augustine, you know, the confession is, you know, it really had work of that sort in Thomason, but it's probably the most red work of Augustine, and it impresses people the most. So he said, in the first way, for God to be incarnate was not necessary for the reparation of human nature. For God, through his omnipotent power, was able to repair human nature in many other ways. But in the second way, it's necessary for God to be what? To the reparation of human nature. Whence, Augustine says in the 13th book of the Trinity, we shall show not that another way was possible to God that was lacking, but to whose power all things are equally subject, but that a more suitable way, right, of healing our misery, right? There was not, huh? Now, something you might compare the arguments he gives in the Summa Cana Gentiles with the ones here. But let's look at the ones here, and then maybe I'll... They're almost the same, but there's a little difference in the order and so on. I think in the Summa Cana Gentiles, about eight reasons given, I think. Here you have ten, right? But he divides it into two, huh? No more suitable way to move man towards the good, and no more suitable way to move away from the bad, right? And this is able to be considered as regards the promotion of man to the good. First, as regards the end, which is more made certain from the fact that, what? One believes God himself, what? Speaking, huh? Whence Augustine says in the 11th book on the City of God that man more confidently might walk to the truth. Truth itself, the Son of God, having assumed man, constituted and founded, what? Faith, huh? So you have God himself become a man, teaching you like a being, right? That first reason is in terms of, what? Faith, huh? Second, as regards hope, which through this is most of all, what? Aroused, yeah? Whence Augustine says in the 13th book of the Trinity, for nothing was so necessary to arousing our hope than to be shown how much God loved us, huh? What greater, what, indication of this is there than that the, what, Son of God would, what, deign to undergo a consortium of our nature, a sharing of our nature, huh? So it's a sign of love. The first, you know, we didn't preach on love in a minute, Thomas. The first effect of love is to unite, right? So if you united our nature to himself, the greatest sign of love, right, than this, huh? And here he takes it as, what, strengthening our hope because we hope in the one who, what, loves us, like we hope in our parents because we think they love us, okay? Now the third theological virtue. Third, as regards charity, which most of all by this is, what, aroused, huh? Said it. Whence Augustine says in the book, the Catechizondis Wittibus, huh? Said, this is the first catechetical instruction that he's trying to tell, but, you know, the rough guys, you know. And this friend had asked Augustine, you know, what do you suggest me to do in these raw candidates? Well, you narrate what God has done for us, right? With the view to showing God's love for us, huh? What greater cause is there the coming of the Lord than that God would show his love to us, right? That's a little bit like that quote we had in the previous article there, right? God so loved the world, right? He sent his only begotten Son. And afterwards, he subjoins. If we were slow to love, right, at least let us not be slow to, what, return love, huh? And we developed that some in the chorus, too. Remember, Thomas and Father Augustine talked about that, huh? But Augustine, they were saying, you know, in the other passage we had in that chorus, that nothing arouses love for us more for another person than the experience of their love for us, right? So God's love for us arouses both hope and love in us, right? Fourth, it regards correct operation, right? Correct doing. In which, for us, he gave us an example, right? Now, I just love this thing that he quotes from the Testament because it's a little bit of dialectic, right? You say this, this, that, that, that, that, then you untie, right, the two. He does a number of these things from Augustine, huh? Man should not be followed, right? Although he can be seen, right? God should be followed, but he could not be seen. Therefore, they might be shown to man both someone who can be seen by man in whom man should follow. God became a, what? Man, huh? Okay? So we all need example, right? And Heisenberg talks about that, right, huh? You're the scientist, huh? Going to the influence of man, like Niels Bohr, right? You know, and you're thinking. So, you need someone you can see to follow, but the men you see aren't worthy of being followed, at least entirely, right? God should be followed, but He can't be seen. Well, you've got a problem there, right? Well, God becomes man, and Saul's. It's beautiful, though. I mean, it's just a beautiful way. And they say, when you read Thomas, you read Augustine, too, right? Well, it's beautiful what Augustine says there. In his sermon on the, what? Birth of the Lord, huh? Christmas, huh? What a wonderful Christmas sermon that would have been, huh? To hear Augustine, those things, huh? And then fifth, last but not least, as regards the full partaking of divinity, which is truly the beatitude of man and the end of human life. And this was, what? Given to us through the humanity of Christ. For Augustine says in his certain sermon on the birth of the Lord, God was made man so that man might become, what? God. Some other saints have said the same thing, right? God became man so man might become God. To his full participation, right? Of the divine nature. You just kind of chew these things over and roll them over in your mind, you know. But it's not too hard to remember those five. You just remember faith, hope, and charity, and how he argues. And then doing, right? And then finding the end there, the full participation. Now the other side, huh? Similar to the removal, or to flight from evil, right? First, through this, that man would be instructed, lest he prefer, what? The devil to himself, right? When the devil is more intelligent than we are, right? It's a superior thing, right? And then we might, wait. So that man would not venerate him, who is the author of what? Sin, huh? You know, I was thinking about this abortion business, you know, how all over the world now, it's so prevalent, you know, and put into law in all these places and so on. I wonder if there's something really diabolic about that, right? Because the devil hates us, right? Because he's lost, and we are still capable of it, right? What greater satisfaction would his hate and envy of us have than to have us kill our own offspring, huh? And, you know, put in there as well as our own. Salvation, if I don't. It's also a rage against the incarnation of some other life. I just don't think in terms of the devil, but I'm thinking about it recently. It's got kids in my mind. There's something very diabolical about this acceptance of it. Diabolical culture is always the name of human sacrifice. Often it was the children, like Moloch. The strongest bond that exists is between a mother and a child, so the symbol of bond that strong requires almost something diabolical. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Common enemy of man, as Shakespeare calls him. Now how does this help us to avoid referring the devil to ourselves? Once Augustine says in the 13th book about the Trinity, when God, what, was thus able to join human nature, that there became, what, one person, those proud, malignant spirits, right, would no longer dare to what? Put themselves before man because they did not have what? Flesh, yeah. You can see how this would kind of, especially appealing, this, referring the devil to yourself because he doesn't have flesh, because you are what? You're a Phryomanichean, right? Because flesh, you think of it as evil, right? But there it lends a certain frequency to John's way of speaking this. But it's necdoche, right? He became flesh, right? Only down to the flesh. The devil doesn't have. Yeah. Secondly, because by this we are instructed, how great is the dignity of human nature, lest we, what? Stay in it by sinning, right? Once Augustine says in the book on true religion, God showed us how high a place among creatures human nature has. In this, that to men, in a true man he appeared. And then the one from Leo Papa, Leo the Great, in his sermon on nativity, Recognize, as a Christian, your dignity, right? And being made a, what? Share of the divine nature. Do not, what? In your old vileness, undegenerate, right? Okay? We'll go back to that. Third, because to taking away the, what? Resumption of man. Now that's more, what? Resumption is no name for pride, right? It's starting to use in pride. But things want to be even more explicit about that. The grace of God, with no merits preceding, right? In Christ the man is commended to us, right? As it's said in the 13th book of the Trinity. It's not the original, right? You know, the beautiful, the beautiful passage in Aristotle where he says, You should try to say some things better than our predecessors said them, right? And other things you should try to say as well as they said them. I think that Thomas, you know, quotes Augustus in, you know, saying it in a way that he couldn't be really improved upon. Why should I try to improve upon what can't be improved upon, right? It's like Einstein said about some pieces of Mozart, you know. It couldn't make it seem more perfect because perfect is imperfect. Well, the fourth one is, both the third and the fourth, in a way, tied with pride. But here you have the word for pride, superbia. Hottiness. Because the pride of man, which is the maxima, the greatest, impediment, lest he, what, adhering God, through so great a humility of God is, what, argued against, you might say, and can be, what, healed, right? As the best it says, huh? You see in the, we talked about the chapters there where Christ is preparing the apostles, right? Right? 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and St. John. But Thomas divides into three, right? He first prepares them by giving his example, right? Then he prepares them by his words in chapters 14 through 16. And then by praying for them, right? And I sometimes compare that, you know, to what a father has to do, right? His first responsibility is to give good example to his children. That's very necessary to give good example to his children. And then as they get a little bit older, and, you know, instructing them in words as to what's, what? What you should do, what you shouldn't do. And you can't stop there. Then you've got to pray, hey, well, what? Profit from your example and from your words, right? And those three things, huh? But the example that Christ gives there, you know, washing your feet is first an example of what? Humility, right? And then at the end of that chapter, he talks about loving. As I have loved you, right? It's kind of interesting, you've got the humility and the example of love there. But they go together in a sense. You can't have really love without humility, huh? Humility is in some sense a foundation for the other virtues, huh? I think those are very interesting reasons. But it kind of shows the extent of pride and how difficult it is to remove it, right? I can change the science that he talks about. Sin of self-love, but this is me, you know, and he can't get rid of it. It's like so deeply rooted in him, right? So he compares it, you know, you know how the worst part of it reads, you have to watch out, you know, and so on. And it seems like I was thinking about John XXIII there. You can see how he's, you know, always trying to do that. Or St. Teresa of Avila on her autobiography and so on. But it needs something as radical as God becoming, you know, he emptied himself, taking on the form of a slave and becoming obedient even to death and so on. That's quite an example of humility, right? That's an example of humility. Because if we need that, we're so taken up with ourselves. Fifth, to liberating man from what? Slavery. Which as Augustine says in 13th Book of the 20th, it was what? But it had to be this way that the devil, right, would be overcome by the justice of the man, Jesus Christ, huh? Okay? So he overstepped his authority. He had some authority over us sinners because we were under original sin, right? But Christ was in no way under original sin. So in attacking Christ, he overstepped his authority. And therefore, he was justly deprived of his kingdom, you know? Somebody, right? Now, what's this fifth thing here? Well, notice, Thomas gives the same kind of dialectic that he had from Augustine above, right? For a pure man could not make satisfaction for the whole human race, huh? But God is not one who satisfies him to be sinning. It means it's necessary that Jesus Christ be both, what? God and man, right, huh? So that as man, he can, what? Be satisfying for the sin of man. But as God, he can be efficacious in his satisfying for the sin of man. So infirmity receives from, what? Power. And from majesty, humility. So that what is, what? Suitable to remedies. One and the same mediator of God and man could die from the one, from being a man, and rise again from the other, right? Unless he was true God, he could not bring remedy. Unless he was true man, he would not give, what? Example, right? A little bit of the same kind of dialectic he had above, right? During his top of giving example. He says there are many other utilities which follow upon this above the comprehension of the sons of man. He says there are many other utilities which follow upon this above the son of man. He says there are many other utilities. He says there are many other utilities. He says there are many other utilities. He says there are many other utilities. He says there are many other utilities. He says there are many other utilities.