Tertia Pars
Lecture 128: Christ's Resurrection as Cause of Our Resurrection

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

Now, the argument or the signs were sufficient also to show in the true resurrection. And also the glorious, right? Resurrection. There was a true resurrection as shown in one way from the side of the, what? Body, huh? About which he shows three things. First, that it was a true body and, what? Solidum, huh? Solid, I guess. It's not a fantastic or imaginative body or a rare one as his heir, right, huh? And this, he shows through this that his body, that he gave his body as something, what? Touchable, right, huh? When see and sell, says in Luke chapter 24, touch and see, because the spirit does not have, what? Flesh and bones, as you see me to have, right? Secondly, by showing that it was a human body, he showed that, second, he showed that it was a human body by showing them his true, what? Features, yeah, which they could, what, look upon with their eyes, right? And third, he showed to them there was the same number of body that he had before by showing them the scars of the wound, right? Once it is said in Luke 24, he said to them, see my hands and my feet, because he's showing them the wounds, right? That's me, that's me. A glimpse is who? Okay? Another way he shows to them the truth of his resurrection from the sight of his, what? Soul, again united to his body. And he shows this through the works of a threefold life, huh? First, through this, through the work of, what, the nutritive life, huh? In this, that he ate and drank with the disciples, as is read in Luke 24, huh? Vegetative life, right? Secondly, through the works of the sensitive life. In this, that to the disciples, he responded to the things asked, right? And he saluted them, present, right? In which he showed himself to see and hear, and to sense, therefore. And third, through the works of the intellectual life, huh? In this, that he spoke with them and discoursed about the, what? Scriptures, huh? And that nothing would be lacking to the perfection of the making known. He showed himself also to have a divine nature. Through the miracle that he did in the fishes captured, right? And further through this, that them seeing, he ascended into heaven, right? For, as he himself said in John chapter 3, No one ascends in heaven, except the one who descended from heaven. The son of man, who is in heaven. Because the person is there, right? The glory of his resurrection, he shows to disciples. Through this, that he came into them, the door is being closed. According, as Gregory says in the homily, huh? That his flesh to be touched, the Lord, what? What? Yeah. Which he brought in, the door is closed, right? So he might show that after the resurrection, the resurrection of his body, to be of the same nature, and another, what? Glory, right? That's my jack-on thing. What about this first ejection? Can't the angels with unreal bodies do so many things? To the first, it should be said, that each of the signs, right, are not sufficient to manifest in the resurrection of Christ, but all, nevertheless, taken together, right, perfectly make known the resurrection of Christ. Most of all, an account of the testimony of Scripture, right, and the sayings of the, what? Angels. And the assertion of Christ himself, confirmed by, what? Miracles, huh? Now, the angels appearing did not assert themselves to be men, just as Christ truly asserts himself to be a, what? Man. But, nevertheless, in a different way, Christ ate, in another way, the angels, right? For the bodies assumed by the angels were not living bodies, or bodies having a soul, right? There was not a true eating, right? Although there was a true, what? Cutting up, I suppose, of the food, right? And a flowing of it into the interior part of the body assumed, right? Whence the angels said in Tobias 12, when I was with you, I seemed to eat and drink with you, right? But I use a invisible food, huh? But because the body of Christ was truly ensouled, huh, animated, truly was a, what? Eating, right? As Augustine says in the 13th book about the city of God, not the power, but the need of eating is taken away from the bodies of those, what? Yeah. So, I think we're doing eating in the next world? We could. We don't need to, huh? We don't need to. Whence, as Bede says, huh? Christ ate by power, not by need, right, huh? Now, the second objection here, right? Which is, there's some things that don't seem to be, what? Seem to be contrary to human nature that he did. Like, he vanished from their eyes, right? He went through the doors, right? And so on. Other things seem to be contrary to glory that he ate and drank, right? To the second, it should be said that signs are induced by Christ to proving the... Some signs are induced by Christ to proving the truth of his human nature. Other signs are to proving the glory of the, what? One rising. Now, the condition of human nature, according as it is considered in itself, as he guards the present state, is contrary to the condition of glory, according to that of St. Paul and 1 Corinthians. It is planted in infirmity, but it rises in, what? Power, right, huh? And therefore, those things which are brought in to showing the condition of glory would seem to have contrariety to nature, right? Not simply to the nature, but according to the, what? Present status of that nature, right? And a converso. So, once Gregory says in his homily that two marvelous things, and according to human reason, most contrary to each other, right, huh? The Lord shows, when after resurrection, his body, he shows to be both, what? Incruptible, and nevertheless, touchable, right? Now, what about this third objection here, about he shouldn't be touched, as it seems to say to Magdalene, right? To the third, it should be said, as Augustine says upon John, that the Lord says this, nole me tendre, do not, what? Touch me. I have not yet ascended to my father. That in that woman, right, is figured the church from the, what? Gentiles, which would not believe in Christ. except when he had ascended to the Father. Or thus in himself, he wished to be believed, Jesus, that is, thus to be spiritually touched, right? That he and the Father were one, right? You want here to what? Rise to his divinity? For that, he ascended to the Father. That thus, he would proceed in him, or in her, that he might be known to be equal to the Father, right? For this one still, in a fleshly way, right, believed in him, because as a man, she, what? Yeah. But the Maria, elsewhere, right, is read to have touched Christ, right? When together with the other woman, right, she approached and held his, what, feet. This makes no question, as Veriana says, huh? For that is of the figure, this of the, what? Yeah. That of the divine grace, this of, what, human nature, huh? Or, as Augustine says, this woman, still with Christ, wanted, I suppose, huh? To converse, just as before the Passion, right, huh? For joy, she thought nothing, what? Great. Although the flesh of Christ was much better made by rising, right? And therefore, he said, I have not yet ascended to my Father. As if to say, do not estimate me again to, what? Life. For that you see me in the earth, this is because I have not ascended yet to my Father, right, huh? But shortly I will ascend, right? Once he joins, I ascend to my Father and your Father. But partly because she was trying to have the same kind of a connection with him that she had when he was still in his mortal flesh, right? Now, the fourth objection. His clarity was not shown. To the fourth, it should be said that, as Augustine says, to Arosium, Christ, the Lord, rose with a, what, clarified or shining flesh, right? But he did not wish in that clarification to appear to his disciples, huh? Because they were not able with their eyes to, what, look upon such clarity, huh? For if, before he died for us and rose, when he was transfigured in the mountain, the disciples of his were not able to, what, see him, right? How much more, with his clarified flesh, the Lord, were they not able to, what, see him, huh? I don't know who Arosius is, but... It should also be considered that after the resurrection, the Lord this especially wished to show that it was the same one who was, what, dead, right, huh? Which would much be impeded if he showed to them the clarity of his body, right, huh? For the change which is according to aspect most of all shows the diversity of that which is seen, huh? Because the common sensibles, among which are the one and the many, and the same and the other, cite most of all, what, judges, right? But before the passion, lest the, what, disciples despise the infirmity of his passion, Christ most of all showed to them the glory of his majesty, huh? Which most of all the clarity of his body shows. And therefore, before the passion, he showed his glory to the disciples through his clarity. But after the resurrection, do other signs that they couldn't look upon this, huh? Now, what's that fifth objection that you say is coming in your text and not mine? Got it? They were putting it in small print. And it's not usually... Is it too small for you to read? No, we can read it. That's fine. Further, the angels introduced as witnesses for the resurrection seem insufficient from the want of agreement on the part of the evangelist. Because in Matthew's account, the angel is described as sitting upon the stone rolled back, while Mark states that he was seen after the women had entered the tomb. And again, whereas these mention one angel, John says that there were two sitting, and Luke says that there were two standing. Consequently, the arguments for the resurrection do not seem to agree. And there's a certain time there in which these things would take place, right? And there's a tomb can sometimes mean the surrounding area and so on, right? To the first, then, it should be said, as Augustine says in the book on the agreement of the Gospels, we are able to understand one angel to be seen by the woman, both according to Matthew and according to Mark, that we, what? Take them as, what? Into the monument. In some, what, space that there was some, what? Yeah. And to see an angel sitting upon a stone rolled back from the monument, right? As Matthew says. That this should be, what? Sitting on the right, as Mark says, huh? Then when they looked into the place in which the body of Christ lay, there was seen by them two angels, right, huh? The first one sitting, as John says, and after he had, what? Or seen standing, as Luke says, right, huh? Okay. So you come to my house, you might say, well, he was sitting there. And then somebody else say, well, he was standing. Oh, yeah. Now, this is a great, great contradiction, right? Okay. Now we come to the causality of the resurrection of Christ, right? And here he's talking now about the effect of it, right? What it was a cause of, rather than what he talked about in the last article in the first question there, where he's talking about what was the cause of the resurrection, right? Now, what it is a cause of, what is its causality? Then we ought to consider about the causality of the resurrection of Christ, and about this two things are asked. First, whether the resurrection of Christ is a cause of our resurrection, huh? Secondly, whether it is a cause of our justification. Because it's just a pride of the body, right? To the first one proceeds thus. It seems that the resurrection of Christ was not a cause of the resurrection of our bodies. For a sufficient cause being laid down is necessary for the effect to be laid down. If, therefore, the resurrection of Christ is a sufficient cause of the resurrection of our bodies, at once, when he rose, all the dead ought to have risen, right? If, therefore, the cause of the resurrection of the dead is the divine justice, that bodies are together, aborted or punished with their souls, as they, what, agree in merit or sin, as Dionysius says in the last chapter of the Pesciastical Hierarchy, and also Damascene in the fourth book, huh? But the justice of God necessarily was, what? Yeah, it was necessary the justice of God to be fulfilled, even if Christ had not, what? Risen, right? Therefore, Christ not rising, the dead would, what? Rise, huh? Therefore, the resurrection of Christ is not the cause of the resurrection of our, what? Bodies, huh? Moreover, if the resurrection of Christ is a cause, the resurrection of the bodies, it would either be, what? And... Is that the resurrection of Christ? Yeah, exemplar, which is tied up with the formal cause, right? Where it's all distinguishing between the intrinsic form and the exemplar, right? Or an effective cause, right? Or a meritorious cause, right? So he's going to say three kinds of causes it could be, but it's none of these, I guess. But it's not a causa exemplaris, because the resurrection of the bodies, Christ, or God works, right? According to that of John 5, the Father raises the dead, right? But God doesn't have to look at some exemplar outside himself, right? Likewise, it is not an efficient cause, because an efficient cause does not act except by contact, either spiritual or bodily. But it's manifest that the resurrection of Christ does not act through body contact to the dead who rise, on account of the distance of time and place, right? Similarly, not through a spiritual contact, which is through, what? Faith and charity. Because also, even the faithless and the sinners rise, huh? Nor is it a meritorious cause, because Christ rising now is no longer, what? A veicotor, he's no longer on the way. And therefore, he's not in the status or state of being out of the merit. And thus, in no way, his resurrection of Christ seemed to be a cause of our resurrection. Moreover, since death is the privation of life, it seems nothing other to destroy death than to, what? Bring back to life, which pertains to resurrection. But Christ, by dying, destroyed our death. Therefore, the death of Christ is a cause of our resurrection. Not, therefore, his resurrection, huh? But against this is what is said in 1 Corinthians 15. If Christ is preached that he rose from the dead, and so on, the gloss says, who's an efficient cause of our, what? Resurrection, huh? Now, where's Thomas do he starts with Aristotle, right? I answer, it should be said, that that which is first in some genus, huh? What's most perfect in some genus, huh? Is the cause of all those things which are after in that genus, huh? As is said in the second book of the metaphysics, huh? But the first in the genus of our resurrection, resurrection, resurrection of Christ. As is clear from the thing said above, it's the most perfect resurrection. So, the first in time, huh? To immortal resurrection. Whence is necessary that the resurrection of Christ be the cause of our resurrection, right? And this is what the apostle says, huh? Christ rose from the dead, primitia, right? That's the idea of being first, right? Of those sleeping, right? Because through man came death, meaning, I guess, Adam. And through man, the resurrection of the death. And this reasonably, he says, huh? For the beginning of human being alive is the word of God about whom it is said in the Psalm 35, Before you, or with you, is the fountain of what? Life. Whence he himself says in John chapter 5, As the father revives them, the dead, vivifies them, so also the son whom he wishes makes alive. But this, the natural order of things, divine instituted, has, that each cause first works in that which is what? Close to it, right? And through this it works in those things which are more remote. Just as fire first eats the nearer air, the woodshed, what? Eats the bodies that are distant, right? And God first enlightens the substances close to him, through whom he enlightens those more remote, as Dionysius says in the 13th chapter of the Celestial Harking. And therefore, the word of God first attributes immortal life to the body, naturally united to him, because that's closest to him. And through this he works the resurrection and all the others, huh? Okay, so. Makes use of our style there, huh? Okay. Shocking, huh? Our style should be used at this point. Second book of wisdom, as I call it. To the first, therefore, it should be said, that it has been said, the resurrection of Christ is the cause of our resurrection, through the power of the word, united, huh, which operates according to what? Will. And therefore, it is not necessary that at once the effect follows, but according to the disposition of the will of the word of God, that to which, that to which first we should be conformed to Christ's suffering and dying in this, what, sufferable and mortal life, that we might then arrive at partaking of the likeness of his resurrection, right? So we have to, he wills, I guess, huh? That we first be conformed to him suffering and dying, right, huh? So you've got to unite your own death to his death in some way, right? And your own suffering to his suffering, and then you can partake in the likeness of his resurrection. Now, to the second, it should be said that the justice of God is the first cause of our resurrection, right? The resurrection of Christ is the, what, second cause, huh? It's the distinction that Thomas is reading in the fifth book of wisdom, fifth book about physics, this distinction between the primary cause and secondary cause, huh? Which Thomas takes from the sun, huh? The rest of all those are two. And quasi-instrumentalis, huh? The chief cause and the instrumental cause. So, although the principal power of the agent is not determined to this instrument in a determined way, nevertheless, from this that he operates through this instrument, huh? The instrument is a cause of the, what, effect, huh? Thus, the divine justice, as far as itself is concerned, is not obligated, right, or necessitated to causing our resurrection through the resurrection of Christ, huh? That it could, it could, in another way, God could, in another way, liberate us, then, through the passion and resurrection of Christ, as has been said above. But from this, that he decreed that in this way he would liberate us, it is manifest that the resurrection of Christ is the cause of our, what, resurrection, right? So, if I decide to use this knife to kill you, right, then that knife will be an instrumental cause of your death, right, huh? Not necessarily, right, but because I've chosen to use this knife as my weapon to end your life, right? So, because he's chosen, right, God has chosen to, what, resurrect our bodies through the resurrection of Christ, right, then that becomes, what, an instrument, right, the secondary cause of the resurrection of our bodies, right, huh? He had to do it, but he's chosen to do it that way, right? Interesting choice that he makes, huh? My ways are not your ways, and my choices are not your choices. You can see the kind of stability of this choice, huh? Now, what kind of a cause is the resurrection of Christ, huh? Of our resurrection? To the third, it should be said that the resurrection of Christ is not, properly speaking, a cause meritorious, right? His death is a meritorious cause, right? But it's not a meritorious cause of resurrection. But it is a efficient cause, right, huh? And, as they say, Thomas will quote, you know, the principal cause and the secondary cause and the chief cause and the instrumental cause, right? That's still under that kind of cause, efficient cause. And, also, an exemplar, right, no? Okay. And, also, an exemplar, right, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. And, also, an exemplar, right, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. And that's the kind of cause that comes under what form, right? Efficient insofar as the humanity of Christ, according to which or by which he rose, right, is in some way a tool of his divinity, right, and works in the, what, power of his divinity, as has been said above. And therefore, just as the other things which Christ in his humanity did or suffered, right, from the power of his divinity are, what, saving for us, right, as has been said above. So the resurrection of Christ is an efficient cause of our resurrection by the divine power of whom it is proper to vivify the dead, right, which power in a present way attains all places and times. And such a virtual or contact of power suffices for the reason of this, what, efficient cause. And because, as has been said, the primordial cause of the resurrection of man is the divine justice from which Christ has the power to, what, make judgment insofar as he's the son of man. And the effective power of the resurrection extends not only to the good, but also to the bad, who are, what, subject to his judgment, right? Now, just as the resurrection of the body of Christ, from this that his body is, what, personally united to the word, is first in time, so also it is first in dignity and what? Perfection, right? Now, first, of course, is defined by before, and this is the first and the fourth senses of before in the categories, huh? As the gloss says in 1 Corinthians 15, For always that which is most perfect is an exemplar, right, which the less perfect imitate, right, each in their own way, huh? And therefore the resurrection of Christ is the exemplar. Sometimes they call that the exemplar, the model, right, huh? Which imitate, huh? Of our resurrection, right? Which is necessary, he says, not from the side of the one resuscitating, right, who does not need an exemplar, right, but from the side of those, what, resuscitated, whom it is necessary to conform to that resurrection, according to that of Philippians 3. He reformed the body of our humility configured to the body of his clarity, right, but showing me that it is a cause in the sense of an exemplar, right? So although the efficiency of the resurrection of Christ, it's being an efficient cause in some way, extends itself to the resurrection of both the good and the bad, and the exemplaritas, right, as being an exemplar, extends properly only to the good, right, who are made conformed to his, what, sonship. This is said in Romans 8, 29, huh? His resurrection is an efficient cause, the resurrection of the good and the bad, but as an exemplar, maybe properly speaking only of the, what, the good who are conformed to the body of his clarity, right? Now the fourth objection here. To the fourth, it should be said that according to the notion of the deficient cause, which depends upon the divine power, commonly both the death of Christ and also his resurrection is a cause of the destruction of death, both the destruction of death and the reparation of life, right? But according to the notion of exemplar, the death of Christ, to whom he, what, receded from mortal life, is a cause of the destruction of our mortal death, right, or death, but his resurrection, through which he began an immortal life, is the cause, the reparation of our life, but the passion of Christ is moreover, rather than a meritorious cause, right? And also, Thomas is very clear to, this is on what, causality, you might say, of the resurrection of Christ, right? And is it a cause in the sense of a meritorious cause? No. But it is a cause, as an efficient cause, and is a, what, exemplar, right? Just as we say in creation, you know, what kind of a cause is God, right? Well, he's an efficient cause, right? He's making us, right? That's efficient cause. And, but he's also an exemplar, because we're made in his, what, image and likeness, huh? He's also the purpose, right? You know? So his cause, I used to say to students, two and a half senses of the, four senses of the air style distinguishes, right? The efficient cause and end, and his exemplar would not be an intrinsic form of things, huh? Okay, we've got to stop. Okay, yeah. So, In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. Thank you, God. Thank you, Guardian Angels. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas. Deo Gracias. God, our Enlightenment, Guardian Angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, order in whom our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, Angelic Doctor. Pray for us. Help us to understand what you do. So, whether the resurrection of Christ is the cause of the resurrection of what? Souls. Souls, huh? That's funny you should say that, huh? Right in the body, huh? Yeah. Sounds like a heretic, huh? To the second one proceeds thus, it seems that the resurrection of Christ was not a cause of the resurrection of souls, huh? Oh, that's the first article, huh? It's the cause of the resurrection of the body. Yeah, there you go. Okay, he's not the heretic that I thought he was. Okay. St. Paul talks about that, right? For Augustine says upon the Gospel of St. John, that the bodies rise up through the, what, human dispensation, but the souls rise up through the substance of God. That seems to be saying that it's through his divine nature that he, what, resurrects the souls, right? That's through his body, and his own body resurrection, that he's raising up the bodies now. Okay. But the resurrection of Christ does not pertain to the substance of God, right? But to the human disposition. Therefore, the resurrection of Christ is a cause of the resurrection of bodies. It does not ever seem to be the cause of the resurrection of the, what, souls. Moreover, the body does not act upon the, what, spirit. But the resurrection of Christ pertains to the body, to his body that fell, right, to death. Therefore, the resurrection of Christ is not a cause of the resurrection of souls, huh? It's interesting because when Thomas talks sometimes about the effect of the death of Christ, huh? And you have three things after the death of Christ, huh? You have the descent to, what, hell. Then you have the resurrection, right? And then you have the, what, ascension, right? Three. Okay. So Thomas will go back to the division that you have in the Greeks of the goods of man, right? And they divide them into three kinds of goods. The goods of the soul, the goods of the body, and then exterior goods, huh? So in the descent to hell, where he gives them the beatific vision, that's the good of the soul. The resurrection of the body, that's the good of the body, right? And the ascension is getting in the right place, huh? Which is exterior goods. So he divides it according to those three, what, goods, right? Someone might say the resurrection just is concerned with the good of the body, right? So the descent into hell is for the good of the soul. And the one that's neglected the most, right? Because it's in the Apostles' Creed, but not in the, what, Nicene, Constantinople Creed, huh? What's the ascension for again? The exterior good, huh? The exterior. To be in the right place. Oh, yeah. Nice place to be, right? Yeah. But it's an exterior good, right? Okay. Moreover, because the resurrection of Christ is the cause of the resurrection of our bodies, the bodies of all rise, according to that of 1 Corinthians 15. All will rise, right? But the souls of all do not, what, rise, huh? Yes. Because some go into eternal punishment, as is said in Matthew chapter 25. Therefore, the resurrection of Christ is not a cause of the resurrection of the souls, huh? That's an interesting argument, huh? Moreover, the resurrection of souls is by remission of sins. But this was done or made through the, what, passion of Christ, huh? According to that of Apocalypse 1. He washed us from our sins in his, what, blood, huh? Okay, St. Thomas says there in the, what, sixth quatrain, right? Of the auto-devotee, devotee. Therefore, the passion of Christ, right? Is more the cause of the resurrection of souls than his, what, resurrection, huh? But against this is what the apostle says, huh? And that's the way of referring to St. Paul, right? By Antonio Messiah. Romans chapter 4, verse 25. He rose on account of our justification, right? And justification refers to the change in the soul from sin to grace and so on. Which is nothing other than the resurrection of souls. And upon this, in Psalm 29, it says, At vespers on the evening, there is, what, weeping? That the glosses, there's joy in the morning, right? That the resurrection of Christ is the cause of our resurrection, both of our soul, now in the present, and of the body in the, what, future. So, what do you gentlemen say? Interesting, the audience, right? Because he talked about the resurrection, being the cause of the resurrection of the bodies first, right? In the first article, it says that we're more, what? Well, maybe more known, maybe more known, right? And this here might be more controversial. The answer, it should be said, Thomas says, The resurrection of Christ acts in the power of his divine nature, which extends itself not only to the resurrection of bodies, but also to the resurrection of, what? Souls, right? For it is by God, or from God, that both the, what, soul lives through grace, and the body lives through the, what, soul. Of course, with grace comes God, right, huh? So, that's what they say, when the soul leaves the body, the body is dead, right? When God leaves the soul, what he does when he loses grace, then the soul is dead, huh? And therefore, the resurrection of Christ has, as a tool, right, instrumentality there, a power to, what, effect, not only with respect to the resurrection of the bodies, but also with respect to the resurrection of the souls, right? So, that other division I was getting from Thomas, according to the good of the soul, the good of the body, and the exterior, right? That should be understood according to the Nexagorean, right? Principle of division. You know, I think Segris said, Everything is inside of everything, right? Then someone said, Well, why is this a dog, and that a cat, and that a man? Everything is inside of everything, right? How is one thing? Well, we call a thing the way it has most of, right? Either absolutely, or in comparison to other things, right? So, the resurrection of the body seems to have, what, more to do with the body than the soul, right? But it should not be understood, except in the Nexagorean way of dividing things, right? Okay. Because you could say that the descent to these souls there in the Petrax and so on, that seems to be only benefiting their, what, soul, right, huh? Why the resurrection is going to benefit the body. So, at least in comparison, right? It's for that, huh? But it doesn't mean to eliminate that, right? It's the Nexagorean way of dividing things. Just like you say that, what, Macbeth is a tragedy, right? There's a little bit of comedy in there. A little comic relief at one point, huh? It's going to shock some people, you know, huh? But they still would have called it a tragedy because it has more of that, right? Than has comedy in there. Likewise, it also has the, what, aspect of an exemplar, right? With respect to the, what? With respect to the, what? Resurrection of souls. Because to Christ rising, we ought also, even according to our soul, to be conformed. As the Apostle says, Romans chapter 6. Christ rose from the dead to the glory of the Father. So we also ought to walk in the newness of life. That refers to the soul, right? And just as he, rising from the dead, no longer dies, so we ought to consider ourselves to be, what? Dead to sin, right? That we might live, what? With him, right? So it's a cause both in the sense of a, what? A third kind of cause, instrumental, right? Insofar as it's instrumental is, what? Divinity and so on. But it's also an exemplar, right? Which is the second kind of cause, huh? Now what about this text from Augustine, huh? Yeah. To the first therefore it should be said, that Augustine calls the resurrection of souls to come about in the sense of God, as regards, what? Partaking, right? Now sometimes we define grace as, what? Sharing the divine nature and partaking of it, right? Because by partaking of the divine goodness, souls become just and, what? Good, huh? Not, however, by partaking of any creature. Whence, when it is said, Christ has been said, that souls rise to the substance of God, he adds to this, huh? By partaking of, what? God. Participatione in him, dearie. The soul becomes blessed, right? Not by the partaking of a holy, what? Soul, right? But by partaking of the glory of the body of Christ, our bodies are made, what? Glorious, huh? That's pretty good, Thomas. Pretty good defense there. That misunderstanding of the text of Augustine, right? I think the whole paragraph. Yeah. That's the lesson there. You see, Thomas doing this a lot with Aristotle, you know, some other authors understand the text of Thomas, I mean, of Aristotle, and then Thomas will show, you know, how it means by this. There's a famous text in the metaphysics there, where Aristotle seems to be saying that God knows only himself, right? And he can't know anything, you know, that's inferior to him, you know. And yet, you know, as Thomas points out, in the Dianima, and in the metaphysics, in the dialectic, he criticizes, you know, Empedocles' position because it makes us to know something that God doesn't know, right? And Aristotle's observed, right? So Thomas understands the text of Aristotle, saying what God knows what chiefly, right? And it's by knowing himself that he knows other things, right? It's not by knowing directly as the chief thing he's thinking about anything else, right? The chief thing he thinks about, and the only thing he thinks about is himself. But understanding himself so perfectly, he knows everything that's in effect of him, right? Everything that could be an effect of him, it's in his power. So, but a lot of people misunderstand what Aristotle is saying there, right? Was that Thomas' text? What's in the 12th book? The 12th book of Wisdom, yeah. But it comes up other times, too, when he talks about these things in the Summa Cate Gentiles of the Great Works. Okay, to the second it should be said, that the efficacy of the resurrection of Christ pertains to souls, not through what? Its own power, the body arising, but by the power of what? The divinity to which it is personally, what? United, huh? That goes back to the first thing he's saying, that the resurrection of Christ in the text there in the corpus, huh? That the resurrection of Christ acts in the power of his divinity, right? And therefore, it gives grace in that way. Now, what about the third text here, huh? Because not all souls resurrect in this sense, right? That all bodies resurrect. To the third, therefore, it should be said that the resurrection of souls pertains to, what? Merit, which is an effect of justification. But the resurrection of bodies is ordered to punishment or reward, which are the effects of the one, what? Judging. But to Christ, it does not pertain to justify all, but to judge all, right? And therefore, all are resuscitated according to their body, but not according to their, what? Soul. So they can receive. Part of the argument for the resurrection, one argument for the resurrection, whether it will be the resurrection, apart from the authority that there will be, is that so that the one who has sinned or done well, right, huh? And his body will share in the punishment or the reward of what he's done in the flesh, right? So he's saying that here, right, huh? Now, the fourth objection, huh? This is done to the, what? Passion of Christ, huh? To the fourth, it should be said that in the justification of souls, two things run together, right? Come together. To it, the remission of, what? Guilt. And then the newness of life through grace, right? As regards efficacy, right? Efficient cause, I suppose he means there. Which is through the, what? Divine power. Both the passion of Christ, as well as the resurrection, right? Is a cause of the justification as regards, what? Both, huh? But as regards this other kind of causality, which is the exempla, right? Which is under the second kind of cause. Form. Properly, the passion and death of Christ is the cause of the remission of, what? Guilt. And the death of Christ, huh? And the death of Christ, huh? Is the cause of the remission of guilt, through which we die to, what? Sin, right? But resurrection is the cause of the newness of life, which is through, what? Grace. Grace or justice. And therefore, the apostle says, Romans 4, that he was, what? To death, that is to say, huh? On count of our sins, right? And he rose from the dead for the sake of our justification. But the passion of Christ is also a, what? Meritorious cause. Yeah. Why was the resurrection a meritorious cause? I don't think so. No. But it's death, right? Yeah, right.