Prima Pars
125. Summa I, q.36, aa.3-4: From the Father Through the Son, and the Father and Son as One Source of the Holy Spirit
Class of 2008-03-27
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/10-prima-pars/125-summa-i-q-36-aa-3-4-from-the-father-through-the-son-and-the/

[0:00] Article three here now. To the third one goes forward thus. Most of it procedit, right? The Latin. It seems that the Holy Spirit does not go forward from the Father to the Son. For what goes forward from one to another does not go forward from him immediately, right? Immediately means a negation of what, of the middle, right? If therefore the Holy Spirit goes forward from the Son from the Father to the Son, he does not go forward from the Father immediately, which seems to be what unsuitable.

[0:44] Moreover, if the Holy Spirit goes forward from the Father through the Son, he does not go forward from the Son except on account of the Father. And then the famous principle of Aristotle, right? Propter quod unumquodque tale, illud magis, right? Now you've heard me explain that principle, right? No. Okay.

[1:09] Aristotle will often state that briefly, but I kind of expanded into three statements. Okay. So you say when the same belongs to two things,

[1:37] but to one because of the other, it belongs more to the cause. Okay, that's one way of expanding. Now we manifest that first in simple things. We say if the fire is hot and the air around the fire is hot, but the air around the fire is hot because of the fire, which is hotter. Yeah. And if sugar is sweet and my coffee is sweet, but my coffee is sweet because of sugar, which is sweeter.

[2:25] And if salt is salty and my French fries are salty, but my French fries are salty because of the salt, which is saltier. Yeah. But now you can apply this to philosophy, right? If the premises of a syllogism are known, right, and the conclusion that syllogism is known, but the conclusion is known because of the premises, which is more known. Yeah. Okay. And then in ethics, we talk about the good.

[3:00] If the if health is desirable and the medicine is desirable. But the medicine is desirable because health is desirable, which is more desirable. Yeah. So the guy is trying to apply that to this, right? If the Father

[3:21] produces the Holy Spirit, right, through the Son, right, then he doesn't proceed from the Son except on account of the what, Father, right? Therefore, he more proceeds from the Father than from the Son, right? These are based upon his understanding what is meant here, but but you can see how these come to proceed. Moreover, the Son has being through generation. If therefore the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son, it would follow that first or before generated the Son, and afterwards goes forward the Holy Spirit, and thus the going forward of the Holy Spirit would not be eternal, which is heretical.

[4:10] Okay, just chosen. You know, heretical comes in the Greek word for choice. Yeah. Yeah. Somebody told me years ago about the guy who was saying, I guess the time when you're going to define the assumptions of the other person. I don't know if I go along with that, you know. I don't know if I have to leave the church. You're already out of it. Says.

[4:44] Moreover, when someone says that what is said to operate through another, right? The reverse what can be said, just as we say that the king acts through the what bailiff, so it can also be said that the bailiff acts through the what king. But in no way do we say that the Son breathes the Holy Spirit through the Father. Therefore, in no way can it be said that the Father breathes the Holy Spirit through the Son.

[5:17] Okay. So we see in human affairs, right? If if I'm the instrument of the of the boss, right, I'm acting through him, right, but in the sense he's acting through me, we say both, right? But in this case, we don't, right? Okay. But against all this is what Hilary says in the book about the Trinity.

[5:46] Um. Keep this, he said. Right. I pray, religion of my faith, that I might always what obtain the Father, you, and the Son. One with you, I might adore. and the Holy Spirit, who what. Who, the only generated one, right, goes forward, huh? Maria, how do you translate that in your text?

[6:21] I ever possess the Father, namely thyself, that I may adore Thy Son together with Thee, and that I may deserve Thy Holy Spirit who is through Thy only Begotten.

[6:35] Okay. I answer. It should be said that in all ways of speaking in which one is said to what act through someone, right? This preposition per or through designates

[6:58] some cause or what beginning of that act. But when the action is between the doer and the done or the maker and the made, sometimes that causal preposition, to which is subjoined this preposition per, is the cause of the action, according as it goes forth in the agent, and then it is a cause to the agent that it acts, whether it be a final cause or formal or an effective or mover cause.

[7:34] Final, as when I say that the artist acts through what his desire for wealth, right, or profit. Formal, when I say that one operates through his art, right,

[7:52] and the mover, when, if we say that he acts through the command of what another, right? So your wish is my command, right? Into the command of another, right? Okay.

[8:12] Sometimes, however, the causal way of speaking, to which is joined this preposition per or through, is the cause of the action, according as it is terminated to the thing made or done, as when we say that the artist acts through his what hammer, right? Got it down now. I got the text of Hillary as I translated it. Yeah. Keep I pray thee this pious faith, this my pious faith undefiled, even till my spirit departs.

[8:44] Grant that this may be the utterance of my convictions, so that I may ever hold fast that which I profess in the creed of my regeneration, that I was baptized in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Let me, in short, adore Thee, our Father, and Thy Son together with Thee. Let me win the favor of Thy Holy Spirit, who is from Thee through Thy only Begotten.

[9:04] Okay. So, Thomas is is making a what manifold distinction there, right? Of what through can mean, right? And it can mean the cause through which the agent what acts. Would it be the end or the mover or the what formal cause, right?

[9:26] So I act through the hope of what profit, right? That's the end. I operate through what demand of another, right? That's the mover. Or operate through my art, right? Okay. And he says those three are all about the thing as it proceeds from the the doer, right? But then if we say I act through my hammer, that's a little different, right? Because there you're thinking of how it terminates in the what thing you're acting upon.

[9:57] And what is not signifying that the hammer. Is the cause to the artist that he what act right? But that is the cause to the artificial thing that it proceed from the what artist um. And this it has from the artist he's moving the hammer right.

[10:20] So if you say Michelangelo made the Pietas to his art, then that's acting as a cause right? Because he made it through his chisel, hammer and chisel, this is the other way.

[10:35] And this is what some say that this preposition, per or through, sometimes notes authority in recto. He says, as when it says the king acts through the what bailiff or his officer. Sometimes in the oblique, when you say that the bailiff operates through the what king.

[10:59] Now, what does it mean when you talk about the father and the son? Because therefore the son has from the father that from him proceeds the Holy Spirit. It can be said that the father breathes the Holy Spirit through the son. Or, which is the same thing, that the Holy Spirit goes forward from the father through the what son.

[11:28] You got that? Because the father has, the son has from the father, right? The divine nature, right? And therefore he has the power of breathing the Holy Spirit from the father, right? And therefore, in that sense, it can be said that the father through the the son breathes the what Holy Spirit, um. But I think in order to understand that fully, they've got to distinguish from all these misunderstandings that are in the objections, son.

[12:05] Hard for this is that it's not going to be the use of per as in through the hammer. It's the other ones. Well, it's wait till the clarification comes to get the objection, son. Because the first objection is saying, if he does it through the son, then he's not the immediate source, right, of the Holy Spirit, and that seems to be unsuitable, right?

[12:33] So he says to the first, therefore it should be said that in every action there are two things to be considered. One is the what individual who's acting, right? And the other is the power by which he acts, um. Just as fire heats by heat, um. If therefore in the Father and the Son is considered the power by which they breathe the Holy Spirit, there does not come any what middle there, right?

[13:14] Because this power is one and the same. In fact, it is the divine what substance, in so far as it's in the Father and the Son. Okay. If, however, one considers the two persons breathing, right?

[13:33] Thus, since the Holy Spirit commonly proceeds in common from the Father and the Son, it is found that the Holy Spirit is immediately from the Father, in so far as he is from him, and in a middle way, in so far as he is from the what Son.

[13:58] I think that is say what he's saying there, right? If, however, we consider the persons breathing, thus the Holy Spirit in common proceeds from the Father and the Son. One finds that the Holy Spirit goes forward immediately from the Father, in so far as he's from the Father, right? Who's got the power to breathe him, right? He's breathing him by the power he has, but also you can say he's what mediately in a middle way, in so far as he is from the what Son, who is from the Father, right?

[14:32] I'm making a little comparison there between that and Adam, remember? You know, is Adam's son immediately from Adam? Yeah. Yeah, it's immediately from Adam and from Eve, right? Huh? But since Eve is from Adam, then in a way he's from Adam. There we go. He's also from Adam directly, immediately, right? Something a little bit like that, okay?

[15:08] And thus he is said to proceed from the Father through the Son, just as Abel proceeds immediately from Adam. Oh my goodness, I've been using that example. I mean, you know.

[15:24] Just as Abel proceeds immediately from Adam, in so far as Adam was his father, right? And not immediately, but immediately through middle, right? In so far as Eve was his mother, who proceeded from Adam, right? From his rib. Although this example of material going forward seems to be inept, to signifying the immaterial procession of the divine persons, huh? That just helps me to kind of see what Thomas is saying, right?

[15:54] Huh? Okay. So he's applying this objection that says he doesn't proceed immediately from the father if he proceeds from the father through the Son. Well, he proceeds both from the father and the son, and insofar as the son proceeds from the father, then it's through the son, right? But he also proceeds immediately from the father, and this is something a little bit like our friend Adam, right?

[16:18] That Abel proceeds from Adam directly, and he proceeds from Adam through Eve, who came from there for the middle. The second objection was that one the same over here, right?

[16:41] He says to the second, it should be said that if the son got from the father another power and number, not the same power numerically speaking, right, but another one, right, to breathing the Holy Spirit, it would follow that he is like a second cause and an instrumental cause,

[17:08] and thus he would proceed more from the father than from the what, son. But one in the same in number is the power of breathing in the father and the son, right? And therefore he proceeds equally from what, both.

[17:29] Although sometimes he said chiefly and properly to proceed from the father, on account of the fact that the son has this power from the father, right? But it's one the same power he has that the father has. This is the one in the same nature that he has, right? Numerically one in number, yes. Okay, and the power and the substance are the same. Now the third one is trying to say that this is going to end up making the Holy Spirit not be eternal, right?

[17:58] Okay. To the third, it should be said that the generation of the son is co-eternal with the one generated, right? Whence the father was not before he generated the son.

[18:15] In fact, it could be the father without generating the son. Likewise, the proceeding of the Holy Spirit is co-eternal with its beginning, huh? Whence the son was not before in time, we might say, or in duration, generated. Then the Holy Spirit, what? Yeah, they were together, right? But both are what eternal. So the son was always proceeding from the father, or always is proceeding from the father, and the Holy Spirit from the two of them.

[18:53] It's not that the son proceeded from the father and then, then after a while, the Holy Spirit proceeded from the two of them, right? Actually, They got to know each other for a while. Well, that's Adam and Eve. That's Adam and Eve. They get through each other, and then Abel proceeded, right? But Eve didn't go by way of generation. Yeah, but but Eve went came from Adam before Abel came from Adam and Eve, right?

[19:17] Sure. But that that's inept, inept. Says they can place it. Okay. Now, why don't you say the reverse? That the Holy Spirit breathes the, the Son breathes the Holy Spirit through the what, Father, right? Okay.

[19:39] We say that when something is said to act through another, there is not always this conversion, right? For we do not say that the hammer acts through the what? Maker. Maker, yeah. We say that the bailiff acts through the king, because. Because it belongs to the bailiff, right, to act, since he is the lord of his own what act, right? But the hammer, it doesn't belong to the hammer to act, but only to be what acted, yeah, to be moved.

[20:19] Whence, it is not designated except as a what instrument. The bailiff is said to operate through the king, although this preposition through denotes a what middle, because as the individual the suppositum is before and acting, so its power is more what immediate to the effect, because the power of the first cause joins the second cause to its what effect. Hence, the first principles in science are said to be immediate, right, in demonstrative sciences.

[21:06] Thus, therefore, insofar as the bailiff is the middle in the order of the agents acting, the individuals acting, he is said the king is said to act through the bailiff, but according to the order of their powers, the bailiff operates through the king, gets his power from the king, right? Because the power of the king makes the action of the bailiff achieve its effect. But there is a order between the father and the son, not as regards their power, but only as regards their what.

[21:46] Yeah, their persons. And therefore, it is said that the father breathes through the son, and not the what reverse, otherwise, you'd be saying that the son what is getting his power from the father, and it's a different power than than the father has, huh? But he's received the same nature, the same power that the numerically that the father has, huh? This is kind of comparable to the different senses of in, like the power of the king is in the bailiff, yeah, in the bailiff.

[22:21] Well, you wouldn't say it the other way around, yeah. Why? It's a different sense in which the king operates through the bailiff, and the bailiff operates through the the king, right? Yeah.

[22:37] And the bailiff, the king is operating through the bailiff as one person operating through another person, right? But the bailiff is operating through the king in the sense that his power is is is kind of like cause and effect, effect and cause. That's what I'm thinking.

[23:02] When you say that the king acts through the bailiff. The bailiff is not the cause there. The king is only the cause. He's moving the bailiff in a sense, right? But when you say that the bailiff acts through the king, then you're saying he's getting his power from the king to act. I was thinking that's more cause that way. I was thinking, yeah, the king is the cause of.

[23:23] He's the cause, in fact, that makes it the bailiff was the second cause. Yeah, yeah, it's an instrumental cause. And then the other way around. Yeah. But the idea of instrument is a cause that is a a a move mover, right? And therefore, the the

[23:42] principal cause is the cause of the bailiff or the mover of instrument acting, right? Okay. So you can say the chisel makes the statue through being moved by Michelangelo, right? But you say Michelangelo's making the statue through. That's not naming a cause there.

[24:10] At least, insofar as the action is proceeding from Michelangelo, right? Although you can see maybe as far as it's terminating in the in the statue, is it cause of the statue in some way?

[24:24] But its its ability to bring out the statue out of the marble comes from Michelangelo, right? He's the cause. You got to be careful when you say that the father breathes the Holy Spirit through the son, right? We need to be clarified to get to the fourth. I can get some more time here.

[24:47] Okay. Whether the Father and the Son are one beginning of the Holy Spirit, to the fourth one proceeds thus: It seems that the Father and the Son are not one beginning of the Holy Spirit.

[25:11] First, because the Holy Spirit does not seem to go forward from the Father and the Son in so far as they are one. Neither in nature, because the Holy Spirit thus would proceed from what himself, because he is one with them in nature.

[25:33] Nor in so far as they are one in some property, because one property cannot be of two what individual persons, as it seems. Therefore, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as they are many. Therefore, the Father and the Son are not one what beginning of the Holy Spirit.

[26:12] Moreover, when it is said that the Father and the Son are one beginning of the Holy Spirit, this cannot designate a personal unity, because thus the Father and the Son would be one what person.

[26:31] Nor would the unity of a what could be meant in unity of of a property, because if an account of one property the Father and the Son are one beginning of the Holy Spirit. So, for like reason, an account of two properties, the Father would seem to be two beginnings of the Son and the Holy Spirit, which is unsuitable. Therefore, the Father and the Son are not one beginning of the Holy Spirit.

[27:08] Moreover, the Son does not more agree with the Father than the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit and the Father are not one beginning with respect to some divine person. Therefore, neither should the Father and the Son. Right. That seems to be saying that the Father and Son are more one than the what Holy Spirit and the Father.

[27:30] So, if the Father and the Holy Spirit and the Son, insofar as they are one, are beginning of one person, why shouldn't the Holy Spirit and the Father be beginning of one?

[27:46] Okay. Moreover, if the Father and the Son are one beginning of the Holy Spirit. Either one that is the Father, or there are one that is not the Father, but you can't see the one of these, because if it is the one that is the Father, it would follow that the Son is the Father.

[28:10] If the one that is not the Father, it would follow that the Father is not the Father. Yeah, therefore it should not be said that the Father and the Son are one beginning of the Holy Spirit.

[28:26] Stop all these objections. The way they explain the medieval way of teaching, it was like this: on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, I'll give lectures, and then on Tuesday, Thursdays, and Saturdays, we're going to pull out these little difficult points, and you guys are going to give objections for, and you guys are going to give objections against, and then I'll come in and solve the whole problem, and then I'll answer.

[29:02] If I think you guys have the truth, I'll answer their objections or vice versa, or if I think you both had only a part of the truth, I'll answer all your objections. Right? Well, did all these? Did you come for the objection on your own? You give another objection.

[29:19] What's kind of rigorous training, right? And I remember one time when I was teaching at St. Mary's College in California, there was some request down from one of the University of California system or someplace, wanted to come down, put on a medieval disputation. We decided not to do it. That would have been kind of interesting.

[29:45] Do they do that in Thomas Aquinas? Sometimes they do a sort of a mock version of that. Yeah, I guess. Yeah. they do that sometimes. at Christendom for like October Fest. or something. Yeah, yeah. They did something once about the qualities, right? Oh, yeah, it was joke, but they do it like you know the the virtues of watching television or something like that.

[30:08] You see, you catch your public defense there, you know, and then you you go down, you treat everybody around you to a drink, you know. When Kajetan got through, you know, his defense was so great, you know, that they picked off on their shoulders, took him down, gave him a drink, you know.

[30:26] We're really kind of stuck compared to the medieval people, aren't we? Some ways, kind of backward. But at least we're moving. I don't know where we're going or where where we came from. We're on the move. And baby, back home.

[30:53] Moreover, down to the fifth objection, I guess. Huh. Moreover, if the Father and the Son are one beginning of the Holy Spirit, it seems reversed to be said that there is what that the one beginning of the Holy Spirit is the Father and the Son, but this seems to be false because this that I call a beginning, it either stands for the person of the Father or the person of the Son, and in both way it is false.

[31:22] Therefore, also it is false that the Father and the Son are one what beginning of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, one in substance makes the same. If therefore the Father and the Son are one beginning of the Holy Spirit, it would follow that they are the same beginning, but this is denied by many. Therefore, it ought not to be conceded that the Father and the Son are one beginning of the Holy Spirit.

[31:53] Moreover, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, because they are one beginning of the creature, are said to be one Creator. But the Father and the Son are not one breather, but two breathers. as is said by many.

[32:12] Which also agrees with the sayings of Hilary, who says in the second book of the Trinity that the Holy Spirit should be confessed to be from the Father and the Son as authors, right, as originators. Therefore, the Father and the Son are not one beginning of the Holy Spirit. No one could ever untie this mess, huh? Who could ever do that?

[32:39] But against this is what Augustine says in the fifth book of the Trinity. This guy is troublemaker. That the Father and the Son are not two beginnings, but one beginning of the Holy Spirit. So, he's behind this, huh? Augustine, huh? He's one of the person who raises this question, anyway.

[33:02] I answer: It should be said that the Father and the Son, in all things, are one, in which they are not distinguished by the relation of what the opposition of relation. Why did you put that translation a little better? The Father and the Son, and all things, are one in which the opposition of relation does not what distinguish among them, right? Whence, in this which is to be the beginning of the Holy Spirit, the one from which the Holy Spirit proceeds, they are not opposed relatively, huh?

[33:38] It follows that the Father and the Son are one beginning of the what Holy Spirit, huh? Now some say that this is improper—that the Father and the Son are one beginning of the Holy Spirit, because this name beginning, taken singularly, does not signify a person, but a property. They say that it is taken what? Yeah. And because an adjective is not determined by an adjective, it cannot be suitably said that the Father and the Son are one beginning of the Holy Spirit, unless one be understood in an adverbial way, the sense be they are one beginning, that is in one way.

[34:33] But in a similar reason, it could be said that the Father is two beginnings of the Son and the Holy Spirit. That is in two what? Ways.

[34:48] So it should be said, therefore, that this name beginning, although it what? That this name, although this name beginning signifies a property, nevertheless it signifies. Is It in a what substantial way, just as this name Father or Son also in created things, whence it takes its what number from the form signified, just as other substantial names do. So just as the Father and the Son are said to be one God, on account of the unity of the form signified by this name God, so they are one beginning of the Holy Spirit, on account of the unity of the property signified in this name what beginning.

[35:41] That's hard to understand exactly what he's saying there, right? Okay, maybe become more clear when you take up the what objections, huh? Okay. Now the first objection says, huh, the Holy Spirit does not seem to proceed from the Father and the Son in so far as they are one, for neither in nature, right? Because that nature is common to the Holy Spirit too, and therefore the Holy Spirit would proceed from himself because he's one with them in nature, right?

[36:17] Nor also in so far as they are one in some property, because one property is not of two what? Yeah, it seems. Okay, there's weakness there. Therefore, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son in so far as they are what many. Therefore, they're not one beginning, but two beginnings, right?

[36:44] To the first, therefore, it should be said that if one pays attention to the power of breathing, right, the virtus spiritiva, the breathing power, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son in so far as they are one in the breathing power, right?

[37:04] Which in a way signifies the nature with a property, as will be said what? Udoch. Okay. What does that mean? He's going to tell us later. But essentially saying that the the power of breathing the Holy Spirit

[37:25] is the divine nature, right? In so far as it's in the Father and the Son, okay. It's not the divine nature in so far as it's in the Holy Spirit. Okay. So it's kind of a mixed thing there, right? Huh? In definition, huh?

[37:43] Nor is it unsuitable that one property be in two what persons, of whom there is one what nature. So that there's a weakness in the objection, right? But if one considers the the individual substances of the breathing, right, the persons of the breathing, thus the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son insofar as they're many, for He goes forward from them as the love uniting the two.

[38:23] So the Father, notice, he's making a distinction here. He's saying that there are two ones here, two persons breathing the Holy Spirit, right? They're not one; there's two persons breathing the Holy Spirit, but they're breathing Him by one ability to breathe, which is the divine substance, huh? In so far as it's in the Father and the Son, so in a way they're breathing Him as one, and in a way they're breathing Him as what two persons, right?

[38:58] Okay, and therefore the Holy Spirit's proceeding is kind of the the love of the Father and the Son, right? But by one ability to breathe.

[39:17] The second objection is saying, well, when we say that the Father and the Son are one beginning of the Holy Spirit, one cannot designate there a personal unity, right? They're not one person, because then the Father and the Son would be one person, right?

[39:38] Nor can it signify a unity of a property, because if, on account of one property, the Father and the Son are one beginning of the Holy Spirit, for a like reason, on account of two properties, the Father would seem to be two beginnings, right? Of the Son and the Holy Spirit, which does not seem to be fitting. Therefore, the Father and the Son are one beginning of the Holy Spirit.

[40:07] Thomas says, "Well, for the second, it should be said that when it is said that the Father and the Son are one beginning of the Holy Spirit, there's designated what one property, which is the form signified through the what name.

[40:26] It does not, however, follow that, on account of many properties, one can say that the Father is many what beginnings, because that would imply plurality of what persons, huh?

[40:45] Think about it there. The third objection is saying the Son does not more agree with the Father than the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit and the Father are not one beginning with respect to any divine person, right? Therefore, neither should the Father and the Son. Right. This objection is concentrating upon the idea that if the Father and the Son are one beginning of the Holy Spirit, they must have more in common than the Holy Spirit.

[41:16] But the Holy Spirit is what. Same nature. Yeah, same nature as them. So he's just as much one with the Father and the Father as the Son is. So why why this special? Why are the Father and the Son more one than the Father and the Holy Spirit? That's what you seem to be implying, right? Okay.

[41:42] Now this is the thing that's going to come out more in the treatise on the comparison of the persons, but Thomas points out here. To the third, it should be said that according to the relative properties, right? There is not attended in God likeness or what, unlikeness, but according to the essence of the substance, right?

[42:09] Whence, just as the Father is not more like himself than the Son, right, than to the Son, so the Son is not more like the Father than the what Holy Spirit. Okay. This is this come up in the treatise more explicitly on the comparison of persons, right? Now some people say, "Well, is the Son more like the Father than the Holy Spirit is like the Father? " Or

[42:41] you say the the the Son shares with the Father that he's a breather, of the Holy Spirit, right? So he has more in common with the Father than the Holy Spirit does. Therefore, he's more what, like him? And Thomas will say, "No, you you speak of one person being like another one because he has the same what, same nature. Yeah, yeah, yeah. " Maybe I'm said better when you get into that treatise, but that's that's involved, right?

[43:18] The fact that the Son agrees somebody with the Father doesn't make him more like the Father than the Holy Spirit. Okay. Now the fourth objection here, right? Fourth objection seems to proceed by contradiction, right? If the Father and the Son are one beginning of the Holy Spirit, either they are the one that is the Father or the one that is not the Father. It seems like you've got to give one or the other, right?

[43:59] But neither one can be given, because if they are the one that is the father, it would follow that the son is the father, right? If the one that is not the father, it would follow that the father is not the father.

[44:14] Okay. But now those things really contradictory. So, to the fourth, it should be said that these two, to wit, the father and the son are one beginning that is the father, or one beginning that is not the father, are not opposed contradictorily. They seem to be, but they're not.

[44:50] Whence it is not necessary to give either one of them, right? What's the contradictory of saying that the Father and Son are one beginning that is the Father?

[45:18] It's not the one beginning that is not the Father, but they're not the one beginning that is the Father. Okay, you see that? Indicate the right thing you're affirming. Whence when we say, "whence it's not necessary that one of them be given, right? Because when things are opposed contradictorily, you got to say one or the other. You know, let's go back to what Hamlet says there: "To be or not to be, that is the question."

[45:51] And it's a question because you can't both be and not be, and because you must either be or not be, right? So things are opposed contradictorily. You can't admit both, but you can't deny both, right? So if these two things are opposed contradictorily in their spoken of in objections, then you have to give one or the other, right? But Thomas says they're not opposed contradictorily, huh?

[46:31] What's the contradictory? You are the man that is doing Berquist You are not the man that's right. Yeah, it's not. You are the man that is not doing Berquist See? See? See? So if I say either you are the man that is doing Berquist, or you are the man that is not doing Berquist, what's this here?

[47:06] Is this the man that is doing breakfast, or is this the man that is not doing breakfast? Which is it? It's neither. How's that possible? Well, those are not contradictory, right? The man that is doing breakfast and the man that is not doing breakfast are they contradictory? Either you're the man that is doing breakfast or you're the man that is not doing breakfast. No. Either you are the man that is doing breakfast or you are not the man that is doing breakfast, right?

[47:40] And this is not the man that is doing Berquist See? Obviously not the first. That's the second, right? So like, trying to think about that with Andrew Peel, why are you thinking of? Well, either he's here or he's there. He's in both places. Was that a contradiction? Yeah. No, because the contradiction would be not to be here and there, but to be here and not here. Yeah, yeah, same way, right?

[48:07] So notice the main thing the sophist wants to do is to get you in a contradiction, right? So he tries to make things appear to contradict each other that don't contradict each other, right? In the sense of the objection, you are taking things as being contradictory that really are not contradictory.

[48:32] Whence, when we say that the Father and the Son are one beginning, this that I say beginning does not have a what determined supposition,

[48:45] but a confused one for two persons what together. Whence, in the process, there is the fallacy of the what? Yeah, now this this is a one of the six kinds of mistakes from words that Aristotle distinguishes in the Book on Sophistical Refutations Notice how everything you know, Aristotle comes in here sooner or later, right? All these different treatises, right? From a confused supposition to a what determined, huh?

[49:19] Okay. Now this same objection or same solution will come out to the fifth one here, where the guy is saying that this one beginning has to either stand for the person of the Father or the person of the Son, right?

[49:42] And Thomas says to the sixth, it should be said that it can be said suitably that the Father and the Son are one beginning, according as the word beginning stands confusedly and indistinctly for two what persons together, right?

[50:04] Oh, okay. Okay, was the same objection, the same reply in both of those discussions tonight. The sixth objection is saying that they are what? How can you say they're one beginning? Right, the same beginning. Well, indistinctly, yeah.

[50:34] Now the seventh objection here, actually two breathers here, right? Different two beginnings, right? To the seventh, it should be said that some say, right, that the Father and the Son, although they are one beginning, the Holy Spirit, are nevertheless two breathers, right? On account of the distinction of what persons, huh? Just as they are two what breathing, right? Because actions refer to what individual substances. Nor is it the same reason about this name Creator, because the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as they are two what distinct persons, as has been said.

[51:33] And the first reply, it says, but the creature does not proceed from the three persons as they are distinct persons, but as they are one in their substance or nature. But it seems that one can say better, right? That breathing is adjective, right? Breather is what substance. We can able to say therefore that the Father and the Son are two ones breathing on account of the plurality of persons, right?

[52:16] Not, however, two what Breather's on account of there being what One breathing. For adjective, adjective names have their number according to the what individual substances, but substantive ones from themselves according to the form signified, right?

[52:40] So Thomas, say we're willing to say that there are two persons breathing the Holy Spirit, right? Then there are two breathers of the Holy Spirit, because breather seems to be said absolutely, right? And there's only one power breathing that they have, right?

[53:00] But when Hilary says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as authors, it should be explained that he lays down the substantive for the what adjective, right? But it is two in breathing, right?

[53:19] Okay, that's enough for today.