Tertia Pars
Lecture 7: The Union of the Incarnate Word in Person, Not Nature

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

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen. God, our enlightenment, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, order and illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor. Pray for us. And help us to understand what you are. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen. Amen. Being the feast of the guardian angels here, in the Latin rite anyway, you should get special help, you know, in our studies today from our guardian angels. So we're up to the sixth article in question one here. To the sixth one proceeds thus. It seems that the work of the Incarnation ought to have been deferred to the end of the, what? World, huh? For it is said in Psalm 91, My old age in what? In mercy, right? Bounds, huh? That is in the late last day, as the gloss says. But the time of the Incarnation is maximized, most of all, the time of mercy. According to that of Psalm 91 also. When came the time of, what? Of mercy. Therefore, the Incarnation ought to have been deferred till the end of the, what? World, huh? Would that have been so merciful, though, to have delayed it till then? Moreover, as has been said, the perfect in the same thing is in time after the, what? Imperfect. Therefore, that which is most perfect ought to be last in time. But the highest perfection of human nature is in its union to the Word. Therefore, because in Christ, it was pleasing that all the, what? Fullness of divinity would indwell, as the Apostle says in the Episcopal of Colossians. Therefore, the Incarnation ought to be deferred until the end of the, what? World. Moreover, it is not suitable to come about the two things, what can be done through one. But one coming of Christ is sufficient for the salvation of human nature. which will be at the end of the world. Therefore, he should not have come before by the Incarnation. One coming is enough, huh? One coming. Why these two comings, huh? I guess they're two, what, articles of the faith, right? Two of the twelve articles, and they define them by twelve sometimes. But against this is what is said in the prophet Habakkuk. In the middle of the years, right? I made known. Sounds like Dante, right? In the middle of the year. Therefore, the mystery of the Incarnation, by which he was made known to the world, should not be deferred until the end of, what? Time, huh? So, what is Thomas going to say about this? It's always good to hear what Thomas has to say. I answer, it should be said that just as it was not suitable for God to be made incarnate from the beginning of the world, for the reasons we gave in the last article, so it is not suitable that the Incarnation be deferred until the end of the world, which appears first from the union of the divine and the human nature. For as has been said, the perfect in one way in time precedes the, what? Imperfect. Now, in that that goes from the imperfect, and that which becomes like perfect from being imperfect, the imperfect in time precedes the perfect. But in that which is the efficient cause of the maker of perfection, the perfect in time precedes the, what? Imperfect. So, perfection of Thomas' mind, right? Precedes our mind going from an imperfect state to a more perfect state, huh? Now, in the work of the Incarnation, both of these things, what? Come together, huh? Because human nature, in the Incarnation, is brought to its highest, what? Perfection. And therefore, it is not suitable that from the beginning of the human race, the Incarnation was, what? Made, huh? That was one of the reasons given, in fact, in the previous article. But, at the same time, the Incarnate Word is also the efficient cause, the maker of human perfection. According to that of John 1.16, this chapter of John's Gospel, of his fullness we have all received, huh? We have taken him. And fullness is another word for what? Perfection, right? And therefore, it is not suitable, or not to be, that the work of the Incarnation be deferred until the end of the world. But the perfection of glory, right? To which will be led at last human nature, through the Incarnate Word, that will be in the, what? End of the world, huh? So that's the first reason he gives. We'll chew upon that a little bit. So Thomas sees some element of truth in his second objection, not the whole truth, huh? Secondly, from the effect of human salvation. For as is said in the book on the questions of the New and the Old Testament, it's among the works, I guess, of Augustine, in the power of the one giving is when and how much he wishes to, what? Show mercy, right? He comes there for a win. He knows he ought to, what? Come in. And make grateful, right? The future, what? Benefit. For when, by a certain, what? Sickness, huh? Of the human race, man began to, what? Forget, right? The knowledge of God among men, and customs were, what? Changed. He thought it worthwhile to choose Abraham, in which there would be a form of the, what? Renewal of the knowledge of God and of morals, huh? And when, what? This reverence was yet, what? Weaker. Afterwards, through Moses, he gave the, what? Law, by letters. And because nations, what? Spurned it, huh? Not subjecting themselves to him, nor those who accepted it observed it, huh? With a motion of mercy, right? The Lord sent his Son, who, giving remission to all sins, offered to God the Father, these same ones justified. If, however, this remedy were deferred until the end of the world, wholly the knowledge of God and the reverence of God and the honesty of morals would have been, what? Abolished in the earth, huh? Third, it appears that this would not be, what? Suitable to the manifestation of divine power, which in many ways saves men, not only through faith of the future, but also through faith of the, what? Present and the past, huh? So the prophets were saved by, what? Faith in the future coming. And we are saved by, what? Faith in what happened in the past, huh? So, that's kind of strange. A little bit of that, two reasons, huh? But it's interesting, huh? Different ways of saving us. Some of us are saved by looking forward and some by looking backwards. Ha, ha, ha. That's right. Ha, ha, ha, ha. Ha, ha, ha. I don't know how they would have said any political system today, but... It's like it says in Mark's Gospel, when I work in Jerusalem, it says, those who went before and those who went after Christ goes on. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It symbolizes this here, what he's saying. The first one is about this obscure text now from Psalm 91. To the first it should be said that the gloss expounds that about mercy leading to what? Gloria. If, however, it's referred to the mercy shown to the human race by the incarnation of Christ, it should be known, as Augustine says in the Book of Retractions, the time of the incarnation can be compared to the, what? Youth of the human race. An account of the vigor and the fervor of, what? Faith, huh? That is the faith which acts through love. But to old age, which is the sixth age, an account of the number of what times, because Christ came in the sixth age. And although in the body, there cannot be at the same time youth and old age, right? There can nevertheless be in the, what? Soul. This is an account of what? This is an account of gravity, huh? And therefore, Augustine says that it was not, what? It was not necessary, right? For, what? Divinely, huh? To come the master, right? By the invitation of whom the human race would be formed in the best, what? Yeah. Except in the time of, what? Youth, huh? Otherwise, elsewhere, he says that Christ came in the sixth age of the human race, as it were in, what? Yeah. Unusual. He flogged it out of section. It's an obscure text, though, from the psalm, huh? I thought it was interesting, though, that he sort of dismissed the interpretation right off the bat. But that's spoken about the glory. But even if, what do you say about this? And that's what he gives us. Where does the notion of the sixth age come from? I guess maybe old, not cosmology, but sort of, it's understanding human life in the sixth age, and then they also, the critical world is in sixth age. Sometimes it depends on, like, the covenants of God, where it's common. Now, the second objection, we said already he made the distinction of the body of the article, right? That the work of the Incarnation not only should be considered as the limit of the motion from the imperfect to the perfect, the human race, the human nature is being brought to Christly to its highest perfection, and it's being joined to him, but also as the beginning of the perfection in human nature, has been said. Therefore, it ought not to be at the very beginning or at the very, what, end, huh? Because if it's at the very beginning, human, what, nature would have been raised to its highest perfection right away, rather than gradually brought to this perfection. And if we were delayed to the end, then the, what, one whose fullness I'll receive would not be here until the end. We'd all miss out on the fullness of this one, huh? So, that's a very subtle thing that Thomas says, huh? Okay, now the third objection, huh? Why have two comings, right? What do you do with one, huh? The third, it should be said that as Chrysostom says, upon that of John 3, verse 17, God did not send his son into the world that he might judge the world. Two are the comings of Christ, right? The first, that he might remit our sins, the second, that he would, what, judge. For if he had not done this, all would have, what, been lost, huh? For all had sinned in the glory of God. Whence is clear the ought not to have, what, deferred the coming of his mercy until the end of the world, huh? In a way, the first time he comes in, what, more like in mercy, the second time he comes with more injustice, huh? So, the second coming is more fearful, huh? Than the first, huh? The first gives us hope. Okay, let's stop for a second here. There's six articles in this first question, right? Now, you know you can't understand the division into six, huh? Now, if you're going to divide these six articles, would you divide them into two or three? Let's try and understand the six that Thomas has. Why would you do that? I mean, don't the last two, for example, naturally go together? Because they're both dealing with the time, right? Should he have come earlier or later than he did come, right? Should it happen in the first place and then when? Yeah, yeah, yeah. But then the third and fourth go together, right? The third and fourth are both about, what, sin, right, huh? The third one, would he have come without our sin, right? And assuming that he would not have, he'd come more for, what, original sin or actual sin, right? He came for both, but to a certain extent, original sin is more because that affects the whole human race, right? And it involves a common good in the way that the other doesn't. And then the first two, in a way, both fit together, don't they? Because one case you say, was it suitable, considering what God is, that he should do such a thing? And Thomas points to the goodness of God, right, huh? Okay? And it was useful to man that he became this, right? So it's kind of two sides of the same discussion, right? Okay? Because for it to be suitable for him to become man, it's got to, in some sense, fit him. And it's got to be useful to us, right? And so the two sides he takes up in those first two. So it seems to me most natural to divide it into, what, three parts, huh? So Thomas leaves us to understand that these six can be divided into three, and each of the three into, what, two, right? And obviously the first two are the most important, but the second two are rather important, huh? And someone was saying that Francis de Sales says the opposite of what Thomas says, huh? I don't know. Have you seen that, Francis de Sales? Have you seen that in his text? On the love of God, is that what it is, I think? Yeah. Good one. I've read it. I've read it. Part of it. That's the section. It's mentioned in this book, right? Yeah. It doesn't have the reference there, so. It might be in the love of God, huh? Yeah. Yeah, I could give you the reference. I mean, the footnote says it's in St. Albert. Albert, too, yeah. That's a little more particular, right? It's singling out, in a sense, one reason that he came and saying that's kind of the, is that the sine qua non? You see? And it's all these other reasons, right? It's more particular. And the last two questions are more particular, too, dealing with the exact time that was coming. The most fundamental ones would be with each other. Should have come, right? And then, would he should have come, right? That's more secondary, right? Okay. Now, so we don't get lost. Just look again at the premium here to the first question, which is actually a premium to more than just the first question. And even look back at the, if you want, for a second at the prologue, right? In the prologue there, he gives, he firstly division of the whole third part of the Summa. And that's going to be divided into three parts. First, one's going to consider the Savior himself, right? Secondly, his sacraments, right? By which we, what? Obtain salvation. And third, about the end of immortal life, to which we arrive by rising through him. So that's the division of the whole third part of the Summa. And it's into, what, three parts, huh? I mentioned that those same three things are done in the same order in the Summa Cante Gentiles in the fourth book. But in the second part of the fourth book, he takes up the Savior and his sacraments, and then the third part, the end of immortal life. But it's the same order, right? And the sacraments are like the, what, instruments of Christ. And that's why when they talk about the sacraments having something sensible and something, what, spiritual, right? They say it both fits the nature of man, who's an animal that has reason, right? And it fits, what, the word made flesh, whether something sensible and something, what, something more divine that can't be sensed, huh? And when Thomas talks about the priesthood there, he talks about how you need something, what, sensible, more ways than one, something sensible, but something spiritual, right? And therefore, he says, the angels can't be a, what, priest, right? But he says that the priest to be both something sensible and something spiritual makes the priest both an instrument of Christ and also, what, fitting us human beings who are at this composite nature, huh? So the sacraments are very closely tied, huh? Now, in the catechism of the Catholic Church, the sacraments are in the, what, second part, huh? But they follow upon the, what? You could put them back in the first part if you wanted to because they follow upon the mysteries of the faith, right? Now, in the first of these three parts, and incidentally, Thomas didn't finish the Tertia Paris, huh? You get up to, what, part of the, it is on the sacraments, huh? And the rest of it that they fill in with, what, from Thomas, though, from the sentences, right? Where a lot of these same questions are taken up. Okay. Now, the first of these parts, right? He divides God into three, but into, what, two. And only the first of these two is found in the Summa, what? Conte Gentiles, right? About the first, there occurs a two-fold consideration. First, about the mystic incarnation, according or by which God, for our salvation, was made a man. Secondly, about those things which, what? By the Savior himself, or our Savior, that is, the incarnate God, were done and suffered, right? Under God. Okay. Now, that second part there, as they say, is kind of like a summary of the history of the Gospels, right? That you have in the Gospel, son. And that's not in the Summa Conte Gentiles, son. So we're in the first of these two parts, son. Now, that first part is divided into three in the premium to question one, right? So about the first three things occur to be considered. First, about the suitability, conveniencia, of the incarnation itself, right? And that's the one question devoted to that, question one, right? Which we saw is divided into three parts. Secondly, about the, what? Mode, right? Or way of the union of the incarnate word. And third, about those things which follow upon this union, right? So questions two through fifteen will be upon the, what? But how man and God were joined in this incarnation, right? And then things that follow upon that started in question, what? Sixteen, huh? Okay. So now we're ready to go to the second of these three parts, right? Which is question two, right? Okay. How does Thomas divide that into two or three? Then we're not to consider, we're getting a question too now, you all there. Then we're not to consider about the mode, the way of the union of the incarnate work. And first, as regards the union itself. Secondly, as regards the, what, person assuming human nature, right? Third, as regards the nature, what, assumed, huh? So some days it's good to just review what the, you know, where you are, right? Where am I? It's good to know that, right? Okay. And this, the first of these is going to be in the second question, right? So he says about the first of these, 12 things are asked, huh? First, whether the union of the incarnate word was made in what? The nature. Did the human nature and the divine nature come together and make one nature, as Yudike says, right? Before there were two natures and afterwards there was one nature. Well, you might know that's heretical, right? Or was the divine nature turned into the human nature, right? The word was made flesh. The second article, and this is probably after you've seen the negative answers in the first one, right? Whether it was made in what? A person, right? You know, the two natures were joined in what? One person, right? But the two natures didn't come together and form something, right? Some said, you know, the divine nature was in place of the soul for Christ. All kinds of heresies, you know, that rise in this business. Now, the third article, in a way, is connected with this, but it's part of the question about the words here, right? Further, whether it was made in the, what? Suppositum, right? Or the hypostasis, right? There's all kinds of questions there, first of all, about the word itself, right? Because hypostasis, as far as the word itself is concerned, should stand for any individual substance, right? You know, but in a rational nature, that would be the same thing as a person, huh? But the Greeks will speak, instead of three persons, they'll speak of three hypostasis, using hypostasis in a way for person, huh? But then there are people, you know, who said there were two hypostasis in one person, you know? And, you know, so there's a lot of history behind the reason why Thomas is stopping upon these words, huh? And then you see the word hypostasis, etymologically speaking, is from what? Stan Bunder, it means hypostasis. So it has the same etymology as the word, what? Substance, right? And so when they're studying the Trinity, and they say there are three hypostasis, and then the heretics would say there are three substances to kind of, what, transliterate the word, right, or give it the same etymology. And the word substance is used in Latin for the nature as well. So three substances would seem to be saying there's three natures, and that would be heretical, talking about the Trinity. Yet, three hypostasis, the word hypostasis in substance, they seem to be, what, the same, right? It's like if I was to say in English, to take the English improvement, three understandings in God. Are there three understandings in God? See, for understanding hypostasis, we've had the same, what, etymology, right? So all kinds of problems, right, that people had because of the words, huh? And sometimes Thomas quotes, you know, Jerome, you know, there's poison under this word, you know, because people are being misled by it, right? So, and fourth, whether the person or hypostasis, Christi, as if he's taking them now as being kind of synonymous, right? Whether after incarnation it is, what, composed. Well, that's going to get you in trouble too. So the second and the third and the fourth articles are all dealing with, what, somewhat the same thing, right? But the third and the fourth articles are kind of subordinated, right, to the fundamental second article there. The fifth article, whether there was made some union of the soul and the body and what? Now, as Thomas explains when he takes up the six heresies in the Summa Cumma Gentiles, some wanted to say that the soul and the body of Christ were not united. Because if they were united, you would have been a human person. Then you'd have two persons. So to keep one person in incarnation, they said the body and the soul of Christ were united to his person, but not to each other. So all these things have got a long tradition of the heresies, huh? What? They think of everything. Yeah, oh yeah. So Thomas is not just, you know, needlessly multiplying these things. And the sixth article, whether human nature was united to the word, what, accidentally, like by being clothed or something, right? Did God clothe himself with human nature, right? But then he would not really become a man, huh? He more than I become my clothes. Clothes make the man? So there are those who say, you know, that God dwelt in this man in a very special way. Well then, this human nature would be joined to God only accidentally. Like the temple is to God or something. Now, whether the union itself is something, what, created, huh? That's a frightening topic for discussion, right? And eight, whether it is the same thing as the, what, assumption. He took to himself human nature, right? He took to himself human nature from Mary, right? Okay. Is that the same thing as the union, right? Now we're on the topic of union. Whether this is the greatest of what? I'm very interested in finding out what that is so, huh? Even a greater union, an union of our mind with God and the beatific vision. Thomas is giving there in the Summa Conte Gentilis as the first reason for the suitability of the Incarnation is to raise our hope of being united to, what, God and the beatific vision, right? Well, if this is an even greater union, then we can hope that such a lesser union, right, would take place, huh? Ten, whether the union of the two natures in Christ was made by, what, grace. Eleven, whether some merits preceded it, right? And twelve, whether some grace was natural to the man Christ. Most of those last questions are dealing with the union itself, right? So before we try to find the two or three, we'll go through the twelfth, all right? Thanks. Put out the best of the last. So, let's go to the first article here. To the first one proceeds thus. It seems that the union of the incarnate word was made in one, what? Nature. For Cyril says, and it's brought into the, what? The text of the Consul of Chalcedon, right? It is not necessary to understand two natures, but the one nature of the incarnate word. Serious things are Cyril that you're saying there. Which would not come about unless there was a union in the nature. Therefore, the union of the incarnate word was made in the nature. He's a very important Cyril, isn't he? In those really consuls. I don't know, Thomas, you're going to have to explain the stories to us. Moreover, Athanasia says, and this is the Athanasian Creed, right? As the rational soul and flesh come together in the constitution of the human nature, so God and man come together in the constitution of some one nature. Therefore, there was made a union in nature. Athanasia is now in trouble, huh? Athanasian Creed. It's a very important thing. Footnote says, what? You also. Even the Latin is imperfect because the last question you made reference to someone who wanted to listen for a second meeting. Go ahead, the second objection, huh? No. That's too bad for you guys. Did they reply to it? Somebody really liked that information. Yeah, they replied to it. Some of you have it, some don't. Somebody went for a home break. They don't have the objection, but they had to reply to it. Okay. Somebody had to sleep. Yeah. Sometimes you have a text, you know, where a knot is left out, you know. I agree with that. And it's clear that the knot should be in there, you know. I will teach it because you're going to say, but the nuns, you know, they prize it right now. If it doesn't have the knot in there, they won't put it in because that's changing the text. Moreover, one of two natures is not denominated from the other, except that they are, what, changed in some way into each other. But the divine and the human nature in Christ are denominated from each other. For Cyril says the divine nature was made incarnate. And Gregory Nazianza says the human nature was deified. This is clear through Damascene. Therefore, for the two natures, it seems that there was, what, made one nature, huh? Are you all convinced you're heretics? Yeah. It's dangerous to read the Easter fondant. But against all this is what is said in the determination of the Council of Chalcedon. My footnote says part two, act five. But anyway. We confess that in the, what, the Vissimis Diebusa, the last days, the Son of God, the only begotten Son of God, without confusion, right, without being changed, without being divided inseparably, it's recognized, and what? Never taking away the difference of the natures on account of the, what, union, huh? The two natures remain, what, unchanged, intact, and so on. Therefore, the union was not made in the nature, right? Now, Thomas, I could, we should tell you, he's going to go back and explain the word nature, or like the great Boethius does. So, I answer, it should be said, that for the evidence of this question, it is necessary to consider, what is nature? That's a reasonable request on Thomas' part, when you say? Now, it should be known that the name of nature is taken from, what, being born. So, say something that's natural, you could say in English, it's inborn, huh? It is said or taken, huh? Whence it is first placed upon, right, this name, upon the generation, right, of living things, huh? Which is called nativity, or pululatio, huh? Sprouting, yeah, okay, that nature would be said as a word, nashitura, right? Then it is, what, translatum, huh? Carried over, the name of nature to signify the beginning or the source of this, what, generation, huh? Incidentally, you notice Thomas used the word translatum there, if you have the Latin, huh? And he sometimes speaks of the translatio nominis, right? Now, the word translation, when it's carried over into English, what does the word translation mean? Does it mean carrying over the name? No. It means carrying over the, what, yeah, yeah. So, translation here is something different, right? Now, it's interesting that the Greek word for translation is, what, metaphorio. So, it's etymologically the same as translatio. But for some reason in English, huh, we use the word metaphor when a name is carried over. Like, you rat. You pig, you know. There's a carrying over of a name, right, huh? Okay. And we use the word translation, which is the same etymologically, for the carrying over of the, what, meaning. Not the word, right? Okay. But Thomas will speak of a translatio nominis, right? See. You can use carrying over for whatever's carrying over, right? In one case, you're carrying over the meaning, right? From one language to another. But in the other case, in even one in the same language, you're carrying over a word, but giving it a new, what, meaning, right? So, the word birth or nature is placed upon birth first, right? And then it's carried over and placed upon the source of the birth. And then it's carried over to any intrinsic source of, what, motion or change, huh? You'll go on to explain these things. So, but Aristotle takes up the word nature in the, what, fifth book of wisdom, right? That's where you get these different senses. And he orders the meanings, right? So, birth is a rather, what, striking phenomenon. I'm sure it struck everybody. And so, it's not surprising that it would get a name, right? Okay. But then the source of the baby within the mother is hidden. And so, that gets, what? He carried the word over, right? With a new meaning. By the relation that it has to the outward birth. So, he says, then translatum est nomen. Then the name was carried over of nature to signify the principium whose generation is. The beginning, the source of this generation, of this birth, huh? So, it's by the, what, ratio, relation of the second thing to the first. It's the source of that, that the name is carried over. So, it's not purely, by chance, it's carried over. And because the beginning of generation in living things is intrinsic, further is derived the name of nature to signify, what? In the intrinsic principle of motion. And this is the meaning of nature that Aristotle defines in the second book of natural hearing, the so-called physics. When you say that thought... philosophy of nature or natural philosophies about natural things, right? Things that have within themselves a cause of their own motion or what? Change. According as the philosopher, meaning Aristotle, says in the second book of the physics, that nature is a beginning of motion in that which it is, intrinsic, as such and not by what? Happening, right? He has those last words, explains there, because a doctor might cure himself by the art of medicine that he has within himself. But is the art of medicine nature? No. Because it's accidental, it happens. But the man who's sick also has the art to cure that, right? And then as Aristotle argues in that same book, this beginning is either active like the form or passive like the, what? Matter. Whence sometimes nature is called form and sometimes, what? Matter, right? You've heard me explain the natural philosophy, but just a little bit, you know? I always take the example of the harassed mother who's being asked these questions by an inquisitive little son. And why does the tree grow and the stone doesn't grow, mama? Well, the harassed mother says it's the nature of the tree to grow. It's not the nature of a stone to grow. Now, she really hasn't fully answered the kid's question, right? But when she says it's the nature of the tree to grow, and it's not the nature of the stone to grow, is she saying something about the cause of the tree growing and of the stone not growing? Well, the same sun shines on both, the same rain comes down upon both. It can be in the same soil at the same nutrients, huh? Everything on the outside is the same, and the one grows and the other doesn't. It must be due to something within, at least, in part, that the one grows and the other doesn't, huh? Because the outside is the same, right? But this is the nature of the sense of form, the act of the sense, huh? The tree builds itself up. Now, my second example is, if you put the log in the fire, and the little boy throws the stone in the fire, right? The log burns up, the stone doesn't. Mama, why? Well, it's the nature of wood to burn in fire. It's not the nature of a stone to burn in fire. Now, she's saying anything about the cause. Well, again, the outside is the same. The same flames are licking the log and licking the stone, but the one burns up, and yet it doesn't. So there's something inside the, what? Wood, whereby it can be acted upon by the fire in this way. And something else in the rock that resists being acted upon by the fire in this way. And that's nature in the sense of what? The passive sense, in the sense of matter, right? So the first meaning our style gives of nature is birth, huh? The second meaning, relative to birth, is a source of birth within the mother, right? The third sense, what? Generalizes the second sense and says any intrinsic source of motion, right? And then the fourth and fifth sense break down the active and the passive sense of what? Nature, right? And because the end of natural generation is, in that which is generated, the essence, right? Of the species, which the definition signifies. Hence it is also that this essence of the species is called what? Nature, what the thing is. And in this way, Boethius defines nature in the book about the two natures, huh? Saying nature is, what? The specific difference in forming each, what? Thing, you know? Making it to be what it is. Because that specific difference, species making difference, is what completes the definition of the species. Now this is the last sense of nature that Aristotle gives, huh? And this means, the nature means what the thing is, huh? And thus, therefore, now we speak about nature. According as nature signifies the essence of the thing, or what it is, right? Or the quiddity, the whatness of the, what? Species, huh? What is the whatness of the, quiddity? So we're talking about the fifth sense. Well, it'd be at least the sixth sense, right? The first sense is birth. The second is the source of birth inside the mother. The third is the generalized sense of any source of change within. Fourth and fifth sense are matter and form. Oh, that's fourth. Yeah. And then later on, it becomes a sense of what it is, right? I think I mentioned before how Shakespeare moves the word, right? Birth from the first meaning to this last meaning, right? In that passage I gave you before, huh? Revolts from true birth, right? Stumbling out of use, remember that passage? For not so good, but on the earth doth live, and so on. Well, he goes on to say, Not so wild, but on the earth doth live, but to the earth some special good doth give. Nor art so good, but strained from that fair use. Revolts from true birth. Stumbling out of use. What does that mean, revolts from true birth? Revolting from your true, what? Nature, huh? So Shakespeare has moved it from the first to the last meaning, huh? I imagine how much of a sudden I would say, you know, about some guy, He can't move the word. And people often get stuck, you know, on this meaning, right? You see that in the English philosophers, you know, when they make fun of the Christians talking about infused virtues, right? Well, of course, the first meaning of infused is poured in. There's one guy who used to say, you know, What do you think this song is? A bucket for grace, you know? But they're stuck in the first meaning of the word, right? You know? Yeah. Speaking of infused virtues don't mean, you know, that God has a picture there, that the reason He pours them into this song, but it doesn't come from within, right? So on. And so on. So now you know what the word nature means, right? That's the first thing you've got to know, Thomas says, right? Now, taking in this way nature, it is impossible, he says, right? For the union of the incarnate word to be made in the, what? Nature, right? Now Thomas is going to proceed by way of, what? Either or, socialism, right? In three ways, something one is constituted from two or more things. In one way, from two things, perfect things, integral things, remaining, right? And this cannot come about except in those things whose form is, what? Composition, order, or figure, right? Just as for many stones, without any order, united, the only being what put together, that comes about a, what? Pile, right? What's the word? Pile. A pile. So it's an incarnation of a pile here of God. From stones and pieces of wood, lumber, disposed according to some order, and also reduced to some figure, comes about a house. And by this, some lay down a union to be by way of confusion, which is without order, or commensuration, which is with order. But this cannot be. First, because composition, order, or figure is not a, what? Substantial form. But it's something, what? Accidental, right? And thus, it would follow that the union of incarnation was not per se, but per acedence.