Prima Pars
123. Why only the Son is the image, and the name 'Holy Spirit' (q.35, a.2; q.36, a.1)
Class of 2008-03-14
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/10-prima-pars/123-why-only-the-son-is-the-image-and-the-name-holy-spirit-q/

[0:00] Now, if it's a personal name, is it proper to be what? Son. To the second one proceeds thus: it seems that the name of image is not proper or private, you might say, right, to the Son. Perhaps private is more the sense here,

[0:23] because, as Damascene says, the Holy Spirit is the image of the what? Son. Therefore, it is not private to the Son. That's an interesting objection, right?

[0:45] Moreover, of the notion of image is a likeness with expression, as Augustine says in the book of the eighty-three questions. But this belongs to the Holy Spirit, because he proceeds from another, according to a what way of likeness? Because he's God too, right? Therefore, the Holy Spirit is an image, and therefore it is not private to the Son that he be the what image?

[1:18] Now the third objection is the one we were kind of messing up there with the last one. More proper here. Moreover, man is said to be the what image of God, right? According to that of the first epistle to Corinthians, chapter eleven, verse seven. A man ought not to what cover his head, right? Because he is the image and the glory of what God. Therefore, it is not private to the what Son.

[1:53] But against all this is what Augustine himself says in the sixth book of the Trinity that the Son alone is the what? Thomas has great respect for Augustine.

[2:16] He has a great respect for Aristotle's reading about in the airport there, where he was saying, talking about how the human soul doesn't come from your father, but's infused by God, right? When your parents prepare the body and so on. And he's going through his objections, you know, and he's refuting one of these things. He says, first of all, it's against authority for Aristotle. And even though Thomas says the De Summa, right, the argument for authority would be the weakest in philosophy, right?

[2:49] The first thing he says is against the authority of what Aristotle said, and then he goes on and gives a reason, you know, apart from that, you know, but he kind of said to respect the answer for Aristotle, right? And philosophy, in the same way, the respect against Augustine here in theology, especially.

[3:11] Now, I answer. It should be said that the doctors among the Greeks, right, commonly call the Holy Spirit, right, the image of the Father and the Son.

[3:27] But the Latin doctors, right, like we see in Augustine here, according to Augustine, they said contrary. But the Latin doctors attribute to the Son alone the name of image, right? For it is not found in canonical Scripture except about the what, Son. For it is said in the Epistle to the Colossians, chapter one, verse fifteen. Who is the what image right of the invisible God, the firstborn of what creatures?

[4:07] And Hebrews one three, who when he since he is the what splendor of the glory, and the what figure of his what substance. I think I looked up that text. I think the substantia there is Greek it's hupostasis which is kind of interesting if taken that sense, right? That's not taken here in the sense of person, right? Not the figure of the person, but the substance.

[4:43] Now, some is a sign is a reason of this that the Son comes together with the Father, not only in what nature, in the divine nature, but also in the notion of a beginning. So in the Trinity, the Father is the beginning of the Son, and both the Father and the Son are the beginning of the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit is not the beginning of anyone, because no one in the Trinity, no one in God proceeds from him.

[5:20] But the Holy Spirit does not come together with the Son nor with the Father in some what notion, huh? But this does not seem to suffice, Thomas says. And this is a very important point he's making now, because just as, according to the relations, huh, there is not to be noticed in God neither equality nor inequality, as Augustine says, huh?

[5:56] So neither what likeness which is required to the notion of image, huh? This will come out very clearly when you get into the comparative consideration. The last five questions, right? And you talk about the father and the son being equal, or they being alike, and so on, right? And that's because they both what have the divine nature, right? And you don't see that they are alike, or unlike, or equal, or unequal, because one is the father and one is the son.

[6:30] It's because of their what being the same God, right? Okay. So is the father is the son more like the father because he's not only God? It means is the son put it this way is the son more like the father than the Holy Spirit because not only are the son the Holy Spirit I only see God as the father is but the and the Holy Spirit also is but in addition he's the beginning and the Holy Spirit is not so he's like in two things and he's got more and the Holy Spirit what yeah yeah well no no that's that's that's a no no saying that likeness and equality right in among the persons in the Blessed Trinity should only be considered according to

[7:30] what is absolute in them namely their divinity their divine nature okay so Thomas rejecting this is the reason for what saying that the son should be called the image not the the Holy Spirit that he's more like him Thomas he's saying that he's no more like the father than is the what son because likeness is considered according to the what what is absolute okay Thomas said that reason he's giving there better when we get to the comparative thing right when we take up whether the three persons are equal or so on right now

[8:17] some people try to say well the father well the father has a certain authority right that they're not equal right and so on we'll talk about them when we get to that point

[8:31] that's one reason people try to give to say that the son should be more called this Thomas rejects that reason okay whence others say that the Holy Spirit cannot be called the image of the son because there is not an image of an image

[8:54] nor can he be called the image of the father because also an image is referred immediately to that of which it is an image but the Holy Spirit is referred to the Father through the Son.

[9:09] Nor is he an image of the Father and the Son, because thus there would be one image of two things, which seems to be impossible.

[9:22] Whence remains that the Holy Spirit is no way an image, but this is nothing. Do you imagine having this guy as a teacher? Said hope be your last. That's nothing to wait.

[9:40] Because the Father and the Son are one beginning of the Holy Spirit, as will be what shown below. Right. Whence nothing prevents that of the Father and the Son, in so far as they are one, that there be one what image. Since even man is one image of the whole Trinity, not three images, right?

[10:11] So he's mentioned and rejected two reasons for saying this, right? As the Latin doctors say, and therefore it ought to be said otherwise that just as the Holy Spirit, although by his going forward, right, he what gets or takes right, he sees the nature of the Father, right, just as the Son does, right. He is not nevertheless not said to be what born.

[10:50] So likewise, although he receives a form like that of the Father, in fact the very same form, right, he is not called a what image. Why? Because the Son proceeds as a thought, and so the very definition of the thought that it be a likeness, right, of the species or to the species from which it what proceeds, is not over of the notion of what love.

[11:25] Although this belongs to love, which is the Holy Spirit, in so far as it's what divine love, huh? So if I see you, right, and there proceeds from my seeing you an image of you in me, right, that image in me of you proceeds from you as a what likeness of you, right? But now, if there proceeds from you in me a love for you, is that love proceeding from you as a likeness of you?

[12:08] No, it's more a what an inclination towards you, right? See, so love proceeds as a kind of breath, inclining me towards the what love, right? Love doesn't proceed as an image proceeds or as a definition proceeds, right? Which proceed as a likeness of what what is being imagined or thought, right?

[12:38] Do you know what a square is? See, well, if I get a very perfect thought of what a square is, like Euclid has in the Elements, there, an equilateral and right-angled quadrilateral, right? Well, this thought proceeds from my mind and from the thing I'm thinking about, right, as a likeness of it, huh? So much so that I could say that a what square is an equilateral right-angled quadrilateral.

[13:14] I can can say it of it, right? It's a likeness of it. Or if I understand what wine is, right, then I have a certain likeness of wine in my imagination, maybe in my mind. But if I love the wine, right, is love proceeding as a likeness of that wine? No, it's proceeding as a what inclination of my heart towards the wine.

[13:48] So that's why Thomas would deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds as the Son of the Father and the Son, right? Or he proceeds as the likeness of them, right? He proceeds as their love, right? And that's not to proceed as a likeness of them, right? But because that love is divine love, it must be God, and therefore it must be like them, right?

[14:20] That's a very subtle distinction he's making there, and that's the way his master Augustine spoke. And apparently, this is the way Saint Paul speaks in Colossians one fifteen. Right.

[14:40] Now, what about Damascene, right? And Damascene is kind of representative there of the other teachers of the Greeks, right? So doctors and the teachers, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that Damascene and the other teachers of the Greeks commonly use the name "image" for what Perfect. likeness, yeah?

[15:11] So you can say that the Holy Spirit is what completely like the Father and the Son. Yeah, that's what they mean, right? But that's perhaps not the the most precise way of using the word, right?

[15:32] Because likeness is not the way love as such proceeds, right? It's the way the Son proceeds from a Father, right? Ship off the old block, right? A likeness of the Father, right? And that's the way a thought or an image proceeds from that of which it is a thought or what image.

[16:00] Shakespeare says in the what sonnet, "My eye has played the painter." That's a nice metaphor, right? Because the painter is clearly making a likeness of that which he's painting, right?

[16:17] So it proceeds as a likeness or something. Is that clear? That's important too, you know. We say, you know, why is the one who proceeds per modum naturae by way of nature, and then per modum intellectus, that the Son and the what thought, right, the verbum, are the same thing, right? Because both the Son and the word or thought proceeds as a likeness that which they are.

[17:00] So they're the same. Because it's kind of beautiful about these three names, right? You have the name Son, and then the name what thought, word. You know what's in a way common to the two, image, right?

[17:19] So they're all private names of the Son, right? There's an order in which Thomas gives these names, right? Just like with the Holy Spirit, you get the name, love, before the name what gift. The name love explains the name gift, right? So in a sense, the fact that the Son proceeds by way of nature, in a natural way, as the son of God, that he proceeds as the father of God, right, of himself, is the reason why he's the image, why that name is private to him, right?

[18:07] It's because the Holy Spirit proceeds by way of love, right, that he'll have the name gift, right? So this is a perfect order. This is before and after Thomas's discourse about that which has no before and after.

[18:28] The truth doesn't require that the way we know be, the way things are, right? So this is a before and after in our knowing. Something that has no before and after. I like how you're convinced about that. I'm not following everything. Keep going. I told you to kind of accept the course, sir. You know, now if you think you've understood everything, it means you've understood nothing. If you've understood something, you realize you've understood everything.

[19:07] Sometimes I ask myself, do I really understand eternity? The famous words of Augustine, you know, if no one asks me what time is, I know what it is. But if someone asks what time is, I don't know.

[19:27] So I understand the Trinity, but if someone asks me do you understand the Trinity, I'd say no. But I make a little progress, you know. a little bit a little bit later

[19:46] Okay. What about now? Third objection. We second objection. We kind of see the answer to here, right? The second objection is saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, right? And He is what?

[20:12] Yeah, He proceeds as something like them, right? He doesn't proceed as the likeness of them. That's for the reasons we gave in the text there. That's a very subtle thing with Thomas is saying, although the Holy Spirit is like the Father and the Son, nevertheless He is not an image, right? For the reason given,

[20:38] because He doesn't proceed as the what? Father and the Son of the Father, or the Father and the Son, right? One thing I find hard is that it seems that he proceeds in a way that fits, like in the last article, he he maps out the three things that belong to the notion of image. Yeah. And it seems that all three of those fit the Holy Spirit, you know.

[21:04] the likeness of the species from a certain origin. So this is coming back to something else, and that is to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds by way of love, right? Origin. The way of going forth to an origin is the way of going forth is different, but there's still that origin and. I say, I say, if I meet somebody, you know,

[21:29] and there proceeds from that person that I meet, right? A what? An image of that person, right? And that image proceeds from that person as a likeness of them, right? Okay. I may meet a beautiful girl, right? So,

[21:50] there proceeds from that beautiful girl in me an image of her, right? Okay. And that image is proceeding as a likeness of that girl, right? Okay. But now if I begin to like this girl to love her, is my love of this girl proceeding as a image of her? Okay, but in God, it is proceeding as an image. I mean, well, he'll he'll say,

[22:22] because it is the love of God, right? Then it it must be like Him, right? Okay. But insofar as it's proceeding by way of love, it's not proceeding as a likeness of her. That would be to take the analog, the thing that we're using as an analogy on the human sphere, and like applying it to God, where but when you apply to God, it does proceed as an image, where in in the human sphere it doesn't.

[22:51] Well, insofar as the Holy Spirit proceeds by way of love, He doesn't proceed as a likeness of God, right? But but He's but He's perfectly like God. He's not denying that. He's just saying about the way He's going, is He going forth and has a like path of

[23:12] likeness? Well, He doesn't because He's like Him. He's not denying that, but that's I don't think that's that's not the principal way in which we speak of His going forth. That's not what characterizes this going forth as a thing from the other. It's a going forth by way, of love and by way of life By the way, but the reason why he's God is that the love of God is the same thing as the being of God, right?

[23:45] Just as the reason why the the thought of God, right, is God, is because the the knowing of God or the understanding of God is the same thing as the being of God, right? Now in us, neither the understanding nor the loving is the same as our being, right? So the thought that precedes my understanding of something, even understanding myself, right, is not another self,

[24:15] but it is a likeness of myself, right? But the love doesn't precede the likeness of it, but inclination I have to myself, right? So of the three three things that were kind of part of the definition of image, which one doesn't apply to the Holy Spirit? Well, you have to go and say

[24:43] bring something in. Besides that, right, is something proceeding as an image of something, right? Well, that's not the way love proceeds, right? So what what distinguishes the father, the the son, and the Holy Spirit is not that one is more like the Father than the other, right? Because they're they're equal, because both of them are God is God.

[25:18] But what distinguishes them is that one proceeds as the thought of God, and therefore proceeds as a likeness of God, and the other proceeds not as the thought of God or even the son of God, but as the love of God, and that's not proceeding in the way of a likeness. But Saint Thomas wouldn't deny that there is a sense in which you can say the Holy Spirit is himself.

[25:46] Yeah, in a sense, that's what you have to say in defense of the Greek doctors, right? But Augustine, a sense transcends them a bit, right? And Augustine *Solus Filius*. a text he has quoted here in the Contra: the Son alone is the image of the Father, right? Okay, And why does Augustine say that when he would agree with the Greek doctors that the and the Church that the Holy Spirit is but like the Father just as much as the Son, right?

[26:16] And that's what leads you to say, well, Joe, why can't you call that the same, thing? But there is this other thing that what distinguishes the father, the son, and the Holy Spirit. Among other things, is they perceive the one as the thought of God, and the other perceives as the love of God. So the one perceives as the likeness of God, the other one doesn't perceive that way.

[26:37] And therefore, he's called the love of God, but he's not called the what the image of God. But the Son is called the image of God, and in a sense, Augustine is closer to the way Scripture in fact speaks, right? The Scripture does speak of the Son as the imago dei, invisibilis quote from Colossians there, but doesn't speak of the Holy Spirit as being the image of the Father, our God.

[27:03] Since you distinguish it in terms of their origin, yeah, that's what he says up here in terms of you distinguish in terms of origin. It's something relative, right? We don't speak of equality or inequality or likeness in terms of what's in terms of since it's kind of relations, we don't look at in God either quality, inequality, nor likeness. We don't speak of the origin of the relations in this way.

[27:37] It would seem image is a better name for this. I mean, if you started calling the Holy Spirit the image of God, it could easily lead you into error about the way he proceeds. Yeah. You would start he was not the very thing. Yeah, and what's private? It's private to these persons, right? Is tied to the way they proceed, right?

[28:08] So, in a sense, Thomas has shown he doesn't have a special article on the name Son because he's talking about the name Father to go together. But you say the name Son and then the name Word, right? Are before the name Image here in the treatise, right? And from both of those first two names, you can see the uniqueness here of the third name, right? Just like you'll see later on in the treatise on the Holy Spirit, that from the name of Him as love, you can see the name of Him as gift.

[28:50] If you go back to you know the reason for that, you can say that both a Son and a thought proceed as a likeness of the one of whom he is a Son, and that of which it is a thought, a thought of, thought of in the sense of the object of thought. Which makes it his more clean than that name; it's more distinctive, more characteristic of.

[29:16] Yeah, yeah, yeah. But you see, from the first two names, right? What's common with the first two names is that you have something proceeding from another as a likeness of it.

[29:41] Interesting, you know, why are we said to be the image of God? Why you're coming back to that subject, I guess now, but because we're proceeding, you know, as a likeness in some way of Him, right?

[30:00] So, insofar as you proceed as something like God, we're said to be the Son of God, not the love of God, right? Two these things over.

[30:31] Now Thomas says to the third, it should be said that the image of something is found in something in two ways. In one way, in a thing of the same nature, right, in species, as the image of the king is found in his what, son, because they both have the same what, nature. In another way, in a thing of another nature, as the image of the king is found in the denarius, huh, in the coin.

[31:02] In the first way, the son is the image of the father, because he has the same nature as the father, and not only in kind but numerically the same, right? In the second way, the son is said to be the image of what, God, right? You don't have the same nature as God, huh?

[31:25] Man, yeah, man. And therefore, to designating in man the imperfection of the image, man is not only said to be an image, but to the image, right? To which a certain is designated a certain motion of one tending towards perfection. So now, so we be the image of God more by grace than we were by nature, huh? And we be most of all an image of God to the beatific vision, right?

[31:56] When we see him as he is. But even there, we don't know him as much as he is knowable, because he is infinitely knowable, right?

[32:08] But about the son of God, it cannot be said that he is the image of him. Why? Because he is the perfect image of the father, right? He's not, you know, like the son in Christ even comes like the father in human things.

[32:25] That explains that example where I took Caesar in the coin. Yeah. Well, there, there the church fathers, you know, develop the analogy. They say, "to whom, do you give? What do you give to Caesar? What has the image of Caesar on it? What do you give to God? What has the image of God on it, namely the soul. Take a little break here before we go to the Holy Spirit.

[32:58] Allow us to catch our breath. Tell about the Holy Spirit. We don't have too much time here. Breath of fresh air makes another more puns here than.

[33:11] After these things, one should consider about those things which pertain to the person of the Holy Spirit. So, in in both Sumas, Thomas will take up the Son before the Holy Spirit, right? But that before and after is in our, That's in the order of learning. Who is not only called the Holy Spirit, but also what? The love and the gift of God.

[33:45] I know you know the Holy Spirit. Sometimes the scripture is called not the Holy Spirit, but also the Spirit of God. Sometimes in the Spirit of Jesus. It's kind of interesting that we generally call him the Holy Spirit. We don't call him the Spirit of God. Though we call Christ often the Son of God, right? But you can call the Holy Spirit the Spirit of God. But the Holy Spirit seems to be.

[34:13] But also, he's called love and the what? The kind of priority there is given the name Holy Spirit. Well, there are going to be three questions here on the Holy Spirit.

[34:29] No, I mean one on the Holy Spirit, one on love, one on the Holy Spirit. There are two on on the Son and only one on the Father, right?

[34:39] Now, whether this name Holy Spirit is private to some divine person, right? I guess more more sense of private than proper. Okay, the same is this. You know, something that belongs to just one of the persons, right? We call the Holy Spirit because isn't the Father and the Son a Spirit? Aren't they holy, right? Well, what's you know, a little problem about the name, right? We saw there's always a problem about naming things pertaining to the Holy Spirit and his his proceeding, right?

[35:15] They don't have any names, right? It's hard to Whether that divine person who is called the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, right? Not just from the Father.

[35:36] Third, whether he proceeds from the Father through the Son. And third, whether the Father and the Son are one beginning of the Holy Spirit.

[35:53] Now, you divide these four into two or three. These four articles. Yeah, You kind of divide the first article against the last three, right?

[36:13] Obviously, two and three are connected because they proceed there, right? But the third one, the fourth article, is also related to that. We see even them as two or from one. Insofar as they are two, insofar as one, and Thomas sometimes says both, but for different reasons, right?

[36:38] Because insofar as he proceeds, as what God, right? He proceeds from what the divine nature, the Father and the Son, as is found in them. It's something one, right? But insofar as he proceeds as the mutual love of the Father and the Son, he proceeds from them as two, right? So, anyway, probably want to get to the name here today. That's okay.

[37:07] To the first one goes forward thus. Notice the word "sic procedit," right? That's the one goes forward thus to the first. We say that St. Thomas was a very forward thinker. I think so. Yeah.

[37:25] It seems that this name, Holy Spirit, is not the private name of any divine person, right? It makes more sense in going the property. Because because that's proper as opposed to improper, right? That's why private is opposed to common, right?

[37:49] So someone said, "Is person or divine person the private name of some one?" No. The Holy Spirit seems to be one, same the the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, right?

[38:08] Only one is the Father. Only one is the Son. Only one is Holy Spirit. Well, no name common to the three persons is private to some person, right?

[38:21] But this name, Holy Spirit, is common to the three persons. For Hilary shows in his book of the Trinity, in the Spirit of God, sometimes signifies the Father, as when it is said, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me." Sometimes it signifies the Son, as when the Son says, "In the Spirit of God, I cast out what demons."

[38:57] By the power of his nature, he casts out demons. He shows himself. Sometimes the Holy Spirit is there. I will pour forth my Spirit upon all flesh. Therefore, the name Holy Spirit is not private to some what divine person. Not sure about those texts, but

[39:24] see what it says about that. Moreover, the names of divine persons are said ad aliquid towards something. That's the concrete way of speaking, relative, pro se ad aliquid As Boethius says in his book about the Trinity, but this name Holy Spirit is not said towards something like Father and Son are right. Therefore, this name is not private to some what.

[40:05] Moreover, because the Son is the name of some divine person, he cannot be called the what the son of what this or that. What's that?

[40:29] The son of this one, meaning a human being, I guess. Yeah, that's what they meant. This or that man. Yeah, yeah, like declaring the Latin, huh? Because obviously he is the son of the Father, right?

[40:46] But he said to be the Spirit of this or that man. For it is said in Numbers eleven seventeen, the Lord said to Moses, "I will take of your spirit and give it to them," right? That's maybe equivocation. What the Spirit is referring to here. And fourth, Book of Kings, the Spirit of Elias rested upon what. Elisha.

[41:16] Therefore, the Holy Spirit does not seem to be the private name of some divine person. That's more just equivocation. Against this is what is said in First Epistle John towards the end. There, there are three who give testimony in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. There is some question about the that text. You know, problem about that. Just the end. But as Augustine says in the seventh book of Trinity, when it is asked which three, we say three persons.

[41:51] Therefore, the Holy Spirit is the name of a divine person. But certainly, this is the tradition of the Church to call this one person the Holy Spirit, right?

[42:04] Well, Thomas begins by talking about the positive names here, right? Something that his master Aristotle had already talked about, right? Aristotle says that moral virtue is between what two vices: one excess, one defect. Like courage is between what

[42:31] full hardiness, yeah, and cowardice. Well, then you get the temperance. You see, well, it's between what Insensibility. and temperance. Yeah, but the excess has a name, and the defect didn't have a name, right? So the glutton is a man who eats too much, right? What do you call the man who eats too little? see It's more medical term. And um it's a man who doesn't. pursue since pleasures enough, right?

[43:03] See, if you say somebody's intemperate, you mean goes to excess, right? You don't think somebody's intemperate is a defect. Well, Aristotle, says, it's so rare that it doesn't ever got a name, right? So he invents name. He lacks sensation, right? Has no taste. That's why he doesn't call it. But that sign, right, is something being less known, right? It doesn't have a name.

[43:36] Suppose there be some chance too. I answer you said it should be said that since there are two going forwards in God, right? One of them, which is by way of love, does not have its own name, right? As has been said above, right?

[44:02] Whence the relations also which are taken according to this going forward are unnamed, as also has been said above. And account to this also the name of the person going forward in this way, for the same reason, does not have his own what name.

[44:29] But just as there are accommodated some names from the use of those what the custom use can have the sense sometimes not in there but custom, right? Shakespeare's use there, you know, for custom, right? Use can almost change the stamp of nature. He says, "What does that mean? Custom can almost change the stamp of nature, almost." Okay. What's the famous example? You know, the feminist, you know, who bought her baby girl a toy truck or something, you know, rather than a doll, and the little girl, you know, started, you know, treated like a doll, you know.

[45:15] Use can almost change the stamp of nature, but not quite. Okay, so in account of which also the name of the person going forward in this way, for the same reason, does not have his own name, right? But just as there are accommodated some names from the custom of those speaking to signifying the above relations, as when we name them, right, the name of what procession, right?

[45:55] And Spiratione Now that Spiratio gets more to its own name, right? It's the breathing, right? but he used before the word procession to name even the what. Relation, right?

[46:09] Have used breath to name the relation, right? Which, by the properness of their meaning, seem to signify more the notional acts like like breathing, right? Huh? Breath. Then the relations. So also to signifying the divine person who goes forward a way of love, there has been accommodated from the use of scripture this name what Holy Spirit.

[46:45] Now, of this suitableness, a reason can be taken from two things. First, from the what commonness of the name Holy Spirit. He's kind of turning the thing around here. For as Augustine says in the fifteenth book on Trinity, because the Holy Spirit is common to both, therefore he is properly called what both are common, right? For both the Father is Spirit and the Son is a Spirit, and the Father is holy and the Son is holy, right?

[47:27] Now you may see this sometimes in Thomas's commentary on this is Saint Paul. The Saint Paul will say, "May God the Father bless you and the Son." It is out the Holy Spirit doesn't mention him. Thomas says, "Well, well, that makes you stop and think that the Holy Spirit is what the union in a way of the two, right, and the bond of the two, right? And so he gets the name, and it's common to both, right?

[47:54] Kind of a subtle, subtle explanation, right? Huh? Of why he should be understood, right? When you say the two. Second, from its own what meaning, right? I know the difference between the two reasons he's giving. The first is ex ipsa communitate, right? From the commonness of what is said, that might seem to be just to be the not to use it, right? But it's to make you stop and think that what he is in some way the bond of the Father and the Son.

[48:36] Now he proceeds from the measure mutual love, right? Okay, therefore he gets the name that's what common to all right? Secondly, from its from its proper, from some. Private, meaning you might say. For this name, breath, right, in bodily things, right, signifies a certain what? Impulse, right? And motion, huh? For breath and wind, right? Blowing, blowing, yeah. We call spirit, right? But it is proper to love that move and impel the will, the one loving, towards the love, right?

[49:36] That's what we were saying before. It's more like what? Love proceeds from the one loved, as an inclination towards, in some way, right? The one loved, rather than as a likeness of it, huh?

[49:53] Love impels me to the one that I love, rather than have a likeness of that one in me, right? That's the work of the imagination or the memory or something. Okay.

[50:08] But holiness is attributed to those things which are ordered to God. Because therefore, this divine person goes forward by way of love, by which God Himself is loved, right? He suitably named the what? Yeah. The holy breath.

[50:36] That's what it's called on Holy Thursday when the bishop blesses the holy oil. It's called the insufflatio Yeah. Breathes on it. Yeah. He doesn't just blow on it. More of it. Yeah. Yeah. Well, when Christ gives them the the power to what? Spin. He breathes upon them, right? That signifies. It kind of confirms the word breath there, right? So there is something kind of private about that name, right?

[51:10] And holy because what? Being breathed towards God, right? Being pushed towards God, huh? Now, the first objection was saying, "Why don't we use those two words towards the other persons too?" Right? It's all kind of private. To the first, therefore, it should be said that this that I call Holy Spirit, in so far as is taken in virtue of two what? Words, you might say, right? Two diction's is common to the whole Trinity.

[51:53] Because by the name of Spirit is signified the immateriality of the divine substance, huh? Or the bodily spirit—that's the first meaning of spirit, right—is invisible and has little of matter, right? Whence to all immaterial and invisible substances we attribute this what name, right? Okay. So you know, when Aristotle takes up the place and the empty and time in the fourth book of Natural, hearing, and he's going to deny that the empty exists, right?

[52:40] But Aristotle takes up the opinion of those who think of air as being empty, right? Of course, in ordinary speech, if you know, if we took all the furniture out of this room and all of us out of this room, we looked in and said, "The room's empty." Well, is the room really empty? No. No, he should have said the room is filled with air. But we say it's empty, don't?

[53:07] Is there's nothing in the room, right? But now, of course, we all know that air exists, right? So air is the name of something that exists, substantial, but that you can hardly see, right? It seems to have little matter, right? So the name lends itself then to being applied to something that is in no way sensible, and that is entirely material. Yeah, yeah. Yeah,

[53:39] Shakespeare likes to talk about that thin air a lot. They melted into thin air. Of course, Anaxagoras says that the mind is the thinnest of all things.

[53:56] Well, strictly speaking, it's not thin in the original sense of the word thin, right? But it's kind of interesting that you should carry that word over. It's sort of the least amount of matter. Yeah, and it can penetrate all things. Because the way he says it's the thinnest of all things, and therefore it knows all things, right? I said, well, how's that follow? Because it's the thinnest of all things, it can get inside of all things, and therefore it penetrates all things, can know all things.

[54:24] This is a good example of the word spirit there of how how we carry names over from sensible things, right? We carry the word air over to these things rather than the word earth or something, right?

[54:39] For a spirit, in its first meaning, is a invisible body, right, and has little matter. Because of those two things, to all immaterial and visible substances we tribute this name. Of course, most people think of the soul as being kind of a what air-like substance in the shape of the man, right? And we mentioned how in Dante, right, when he meets the souls of those who have died before him, right, he recognizes the soul, some friend, but then he tries to embrace them, hug them, and it's very, you know, can't hug air very well, can you?

[55:17] It's frustrating. For us. So Thomas is admitting that, to some extent, the objection, right? There's a way in which you could call each member a Holy Spirit, right? Or you could call God a Holy Spirit, I suppose, right? Okay. But if it be taken in by way of one diction, right? Thus, from the use of the church is accommodated to signifying one of the what three persons.

[56:00] To wit, the one who goes forward by way of love, for the reason said. Okay, I think the first reason, you know, also. Give the second reason later on.

[56:15] It's interesting how things don't have names, like you know, even in geometry where things are easily known, right? The square has a name, and the oblong has a name, and the rhombus, the rhomboid, and the trapezium. But does an equilateral triangle have a name?

[56:37] Yeah, but equilateral triangle maybe is taken there and kind of functions as a name, right? We don't really, you know, have one name, you know, but it's kind of been taken, you know, in in vi unius dictionis, as Thomas says it, right? But it's a different thing for the Holy Spirit, right? Because there's a way in which equilateral triangle should be adapted to that one thing, right?

[57:04] But we don't have a name for it, right? Now you see when porphyry gives the five predicables, right? You can take these first of all as being what names, right? Genus, species, difference, property, and accident. But then when I say that equilateral triangle is a species of triangle, right? Well, the species here has got.

[57:37] It doesn't have. Doesn't have. No, no, I'm saying equilateral triangles is species of triangle, right? But equilateral triangles is a species there, right? And it functions as a species, but it's not one, one word, one name, right? We don't have one name, right?

[57:57] So there are things that don't, even very familiar things sometimes they don't have have one name, right? I don't know why square got a name, equilateral triangle didn't. Here's a here's a different problem, right?

[58:19] Now the second objection says, well, this name is not taken what? It doesn't signify aliquid, right? The second, therefore, it should be said that although this name Holy Spirit is not said relatively, right? Thomas has been in that. See, just like he he said about the word person, right? It's not said towards something, right? Nevertheless, it is laid down for something relative. In so far as it is accommodated, right, to signifying a person distinct from others by relation alone, right.

[59:02] Okay. That's a little different from the word person, but the similarity in the the what the name itself is not relative towards another, right? But it signifies something. What it's accommodated to signifying something relative, right? And then he gives a second way of explaining it, right? It is able, however, to be understood in the name some relation, if by the word spirit you understand as it were, breathe, right?

[59:36] So if you see that the Holy Spirit is the the breath of the Father and the Son, right? The breath of something may seem to imply what a breather, right? Okay. So Thomas gives two things, right? He kind of emphasizes first the accommodation, right? But if you go back to the body article he gives two reasons, and one is from common meaning of Holy Spirit, and therefore you have to explain this as being the Church accommodating it to this fact, and he gives a reason why it's appropriately accommodating to him, right?

[1:00:14] But then he gives a reason that's more primary, right, or proper, and that's because breath is a relation to to moving us, right? Remember my mother would say you know she'd be sitting at the dining room table there after dinner you know and she's going to get up and do the dishes or something you know and she's sitting there for a while just waiting until the spirit moves her.

[1:00:39] But there, remember the idea of the spirit as something that moves things, right? I think we use that kind of you know in politics and so on as the spirit, you know, moving people, right?

[1:00:58] I think it was Dionysius about because wind spirit moves things, so it makes them seem like they're alive. He said he saw a leaf one day blowing on the ground. He said it looked kind of like a crab that was crawling because of the way it was moving. He said it looked like it was moving it and giving it life. So those are two things that are.

[1:01:18] characteristic of the spirit So money is spiritual because it moves people. Right. I talked instead about snow. Snow really moves people. Calls them to action. Yeah.

[1:01:45] Without snow, even the economies sort of. Snow. There's something about snowstorms that get people going. Yeah. Yeah. He's thinking. Material. Money makes the world go round. That's the thing. Most people have to find something that's beautiful. Exactly. Most people.

[1:02:24] Okay. Now, to the third, it should be said that in the name of the Son is understood only the relation of Him who is from a beginning, right? To that beginning. But in the name of the Father is understood the relation of a beginning. Likewise, in the name of the Spirit, it's kind of interesting, huh? And the Spirit is not a beginning inside the Trinity, right? In so far as it implies a certain motive power, right?

[1:03:00] But to no creature does it belong. Belong to be a what? Beginning with respect to some divine person, but the reverse, And therefore he's able to be called our father, right? And our spirit,

[1:03:19] spirit that moves us, right? Not over our son. Some say it's able to call our son, but not our son. But the relation is Sheshun. It's crazy, kind of, kind of surprising he solves it that way, though, because some extent they're taking spirit there in terms of what the human spirit, right? I don't know why he doesn't solve it that way, but

[1:03:52] I think other times he does solve it that way. So we should stop now. It's page four twenty-one there.