Prima Pars
127. The Holy Spirit as Love and as Gift (ST I, q.37 a.2 replies; q.38) and the Order of the Treatise on the Trinity
Class of 2008-04-03
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/10-prima-pars/127-the-holy-spirit-as-love-and-as-gift-st-i-q-37-a-2-replies/

[0:00] Okay, so let's look now to apply it to the objections. I guess you're into that. Now the first objection was taken from what Augustine says in the seventh book of the Trinity. Is any that retraction there, Augustine? I don't know. I was reading this thing by our Holy Father there on Augustine. I don't know if you had a chance to read that, but I guess quite a few of the books of the Trinity actually were published surreptitiously, you know, without his permission, right?

[0:36] And then when he later came back to it, he he added a few more books and he revised the ones he had, right? So part of this retraction might be because of that, right? You know, but the first part is saying the Father is not wise by generated what wisdom, right? What Thomas explained, you know. To the first, therefore, it should be said that wise or understanding in God is not taken except essentially, right?

[1:05] You have the two different words, right? And therefore, it cannot be said that the Father is wise or understanding by the Son, not even in some other meaning, right? It's always taken as we're essentially.

[1:23] And then you have for the other one, strictly speaking, only the father is the speaker of the house, right? That's how I kind of name him that, because he alone really speaks, right? All three of them understand, but he alone says something. So, and that's taken what always notionally or relatively.

[1:46] But to love is taken not only essentially, but also what notionally because of the, inopiam, he said, the poverty you might say of the what word son. And according to this, we can say that the father and the son love each other by the Holy Spirit, but it's in one way of being understood, right? Okay.

[2:14] Second objection. Yeah, and here let's look at the second part of the objection. Nor can it be taken notionally, because what Thomas seems to say can be, because for a like reason one could say that the father and the son

[2:40] breathe by the Holy Spirit, right? Or the father generates by the son, right? Okay. To the second, it should be said that when in the understanding of some action is implied a determined effect, the beginning or the source of the action can be denominated both from the action itself and from the effect of that action, right?

[3:13] Just as we can say that the tree is flowering by its what flowering, I don't know if it's a different English, and by the flowers, right? The one is being the action, and the other is the flowers, right? Okay.

[3:30] Or you could say I speak by my speaking and by my what words, right? But when in an action is not included a determined effect, then one cannot denominate the beginning of the action from the effect, but only from the action. For we do not say that the tree produces a flower by what flower, Flower. but by the production of a flower, right?

[4:03] In this, therefore, that I say breathe or generates, there is implied a what, notional act, relative not only. Whence we are not able to say that the Father breathes by the Holy Spirit, or He generates by the Son,

[4:29] but we are able to say that the what Father says by the Word, right? As by a person proceeding from Him, right? And He speaks by speaking, as by a notional act, right?

[4:50] Because to say implies a determined person proceeding, since to speak is to produce a what word, and similarly to love, insofar as it is taken in a notional or relative way, is to produce love, and therefore we can say that the Father loves the Son by the Holy Spirit, as by a person proceeding, and by love itself as by a what notional act. A third one is saying, "Well, does he love us and the Son and Himself also by the Holy Spirit?"

[5:30] To the third, it should be said that the Father not only the Son, but also Himself and us, He loves by the Holy Spirit, because as has been said, to love in so far as it is taken notionally or personally or relationally, not only implies the production of a divine person, but also the person produced by way of love, who has a what relation to the thing loved.

[5:59] Whence, just as the Father says Himself and every creature by the Word which He generates, right? Like in my little poem there, right? God, the Father said it all, one word. He Said Himself and all of us too, one word. In so far as the generated Word sufficiently represents the Father and all creatures, right? So He loves Himself and every creature by the Holy Spirit, in so far as the Holy Spirit proceeds as the love of the first what goodness, by which the Father loves Himself and every what creature.

[6:41] And thus also it is clear that the respect or relation implied to the creature, both in the Word and in the love proceeding, is as it were what secondary. In so far as the truth, the divine truth, and divine goodness, are the beginning, or source of understanding and loving every what creature, creature, yeah. We're going to take a little break in a minute, then. And again, ladies and gentlemen I was going to see, ladies and gentlemen, that was I called for.

[7:19] Consequently, when asked about what gift, right? And about this, two things are asked: one, whether gift can be a personal name, right? And secondly, whether it is proper or private to the what Holy Spirit, huh? It's always a problem, but how do you translate "proprium You know, a lot of people tend to translate "proper," but sometimes it has a sense of what Private, right? You need,

[7:56] to the first one goes forward. Thus, it seems that gift is not a personal name. For every personal name implies some distinction in divine matters, but the name of gift does not imply some distinction in divine or in God.

[8:22] For as Augustine says in the fifteenth book on the Trinity, the Holy Spirit is thus given as the gift of God that also He gives Himself, right? Yeah. Therefore, He's not distinct from Himself, right? Therefore, gift is not a personal name.

[8:47] Moreover, no personal name belongs to the divine what essence or substance nature. But the divine essence is the gift that the Father gives to the Son, as is clear through Hilary or by Hilary in the ninth book of the Trinity.

[9:13] Hilary seems to be second to Augustine. now Thomas quoting him a lot. Not anywhere near Augustine. Therefore, gift is not a what personal name, right? So, a gift is something you give, right? And the Father gave the divine nature to the Son.

[9:35] Moreover, according to Damascene, nothing is subject or subservient, right, in the divine persons. But gift implies a certain what being subject to both the one to whom it is what given, and to the one by whom it is given. That's only true about our gifts, right? Huh?

[10:06] If I give a gift to someone, that gift is only below me and the sake of the other person, right? Therefore, gift is not a personal name.

[10:20] Moreover, gift implies a relation to the creature, and thus it seems to be said of God in time. But personal names are said of God eternally, as Father and Son.

[10:41] Therefore, gift is not a personal name. I'm convinced it's not, right? Aren't you? At this point, a little learning is a dangerous thing, as they say. A little reading is a dangerous thing. But against this is what Augustine says in the fifteenth book of the Trinity.

[11:05] That just as the body of the flesh is nothing other than the flesh itself, so the gift of the Holy Spirit is nothing other than the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is a personal name.

[11:22] Therefore, also what gift is? Now, what is Thomas going to say about all this? I answer: It should be said that in the name of gift is implied a what aptness, right? To being given, right?

[11:51] So, can I have a gift for you before I've given it to you? Can I have a gift for you before I've given it to you? And something that has an aptness to be given, right?

[12:09] Now, what is given has a relation both to that by whom it is given, right, and to that to whom it is given. For it would not be given by someone unless it was his to give, right? And to that to whom it is given, that it might be what his.

[12:37] Now, a divine person is said to be of someone, either according to origin, right? As the Son is said to be of the Father, he's the Son of the Father, or in so far as it is had by what someone, huh? Now we are said to have that which we can what freely use and enjoy as we wish, huh?

[13:09] And in this way, so do I really have a library book? Library book. Do I really have a secure personal library? Yes, but not a public library. Yeah, yeah. It's got to be returned by this date, right? Yeah.

[13:30] And in this way, a divine person is not able to be had except by a reasonable creature, right? Who is joined to God, right?

[13:45] For other creatures are able to be moved by divine person, right? But not that it be in their power to enjoy a divine person, and to use his what effect?

[14:03] Now, to this, sometimes a rational creature arrives, that he become a partaker of the divine word and of the preceding love, so that he is able to freely know God and to rightly love Him, truly know Him and to rightly love Him.

[14:30] Whence only a rational creature is able to have a divine person, but to this that he have him thus he cannot by his own power arrive. Whence is necessary that this be given to him from above?

[14:53] For that is said to be given to us that we have otherwise or from another. And thus it belongs to divine person to be given and to be a what gift?

[15:13] So it can only be given as a gift to what? A rational creature. Can't give as a gift to the dog. Okay. Because they can't know or love. Because

[15:38] the first objection was saying, "Well, if the Holy Spirit gives Himself, there's no distinction between the give and the gift, right? " And if this is a personal name, it's got to be tied with relation in some sort.

[15:55] To the first, therefore, it should be said that the name of gift implies a personal distinction, according as a gift is said to be as someone to origin.

[16:11] But nevertheless, the Holy Spirit gives Himself in so far as He is what of Himself, right? Is able to use Himself, or rather, enjoy Himself,

[16:29] just as a man is said to be free who is of himself, right? And this is what Augustine says in his commentary on John. But what is more, yours than you?

[16:46] Or it should be said, and better, Thomas says, right, that a gift necessarily is in some way of the what one giving. But this to be of that is said in many ways.

[17:06] In one way, by way of identity. Just as Augustine says on John, right? That's what we just referred to, right? Okay. So a free man is said to be of himself, right? But a slave is of another.

[17:30] And in that sense, a gift is not distinguished from the one giving, but only from the one to whom it is what given, huh?

[17:43] And thus the Holy Spirit is said to give Himself, right? It's the same thing they say about marriage, right? To give yourself to your partner, right? Huh? Okay. Self giveness Yeah, but you couldn't give yourself if you were not of yourself. If you were not yours to give. So I mean, it's not that Thomas invented that way. We have a way of speaking. Nemo dat quod non habet.

[18:07] Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. Now, in another way, right? Something is said to be of someone as a what possession or as a what servant, yeah. Say.

[18:24] And thus it is necessary that the gift be essentially distinguished from the one what giving. And thus the gift of God is something what created, huh?

[18:46] The theological virtues are gifts, right? I'm speaking of them as gifts. But in a third way, something is said to be of this by way of origin only, right? And in this way, the Son is said to be the Son of the what Father, right? Because he's a possession of the Father.

[19:10] No. Because the Father and the Son are the same. No. But because the Son proceeds what from the Father, right? And the Holy Spirit might be said to be the breath of the Father and the Son, right? Because he proceeds from them, right?

[19:31] So, in so far, therefore, as gift in this way said to be of the one giving, right? That is, to say, it, proceeds from him, right? Thus is is distinguished from the one giving personally, and is a what personal name, right? So Thomas distinguishes them three ways, right?

[20:01] That this is of that, right? Only one of them would be sufficient to be a what personal name, right? Huh. Okay. That's why you wouldn't say the father of the son. I mean, the father. How would you say this? Son of the father. Not as a possession, right? Yeah.

[20:31] Now the second thing here is what about the divine essence being a gift, right? Okay. The second should be said that the essence is said to be a gift of the father in the first way, because the essence is of the father by way of what? Identity, right? Okay. So it's not a possession that the father had that he gave the son.

[21:11] Okay. And does the essence, as such, proceed from the father? No, because then the essence would be really distinct from the father, right? Okay.

[21:36] Now the third objection takes it from what? The way in which a possession, right, or a slave is said to be of someone, right?

[21:53] That's why they used to object to the whole thing, I now pronounce you man and wife, because that makes the wife something of the husband, but not the husband something of the wife, right? Using the word man, right? So we just object to this, right? More equally.

[22:18] So he says, "Gift, according as it is a personal name in God, does not imply subjection. " That was the second sense he gave of this, of that, right? But of origin only, right? In comparison to the one giving.

[22:34] Comparison, however, to the one to whom it is given, it implies the free use or enjoyment, as has been said. Now the fourth objection says, "What about the objection that says that what's given to the creature is in time, right? " And this is. Well, then Thomas goes back to the fact that gift is really something that is apt to be given, right? Not necessarily have to be actually given, right?

[23:05] So I have your gift before I give it to you. To the fourth, it should be said that gift is not said from this that in act it is given. But in so far as it has an aptness, that it can be given, right? Whence, from eternity, the divine person is said to be a gift, although he's given to us in time, right? Can you trace in the Latin there?

[23:34] It's ab aeterno, ex tempore datur right? Given from time, right? We'd say in time, right? Um. Nor from the fact that it implies a relation to the creature, is it necessary that it be essential? But that it include something essential in its what understanding? Just as the divine essence is included in the understanding of the person, as has been said

[24:07] before. Okay, we've got time to go one more here, maybe. Then we'll be up to the. Now. he's explained, kind of, in that first article the sense in which gift could be a personal name, right? Insofar as it is said to what proceed or go forward from, right, the giver, right? Okay, not insofar as it's the same thing as a giver, right? And not insofar as it's a possession, right?

[24:48] Okay, but now is it something that makes it appropriate to the Holy Spirit in particular, right? Okay. That the one who proceeds as love should be called gift, right? Rather than the one who proceeds in some other way, like the son who proceeds from the father, right?

[25:12] Now, to the second one who proceeds. Thus, it seems that gift is not the private name of the Holy Spirit, for gift is said from this that is given. But just as it's said in Isaiah chapter nine verse six, puer natus est nobis, filius datus est nobis, a son is given to us, right? Therefore, to be a gift belongs to the son, just as the Holy Spirit.

[25:40] That's a nice objection. Moreover, every and yeah, what is it? John says he so loved the world that he gave his own. Yeah, so you find in other texts like that. Moreover, every private name or property name of some person signifies some property of that person, right? But this name gift does not signify some property of the Holy Spirit. But we'll see about that. Therefore, gift is not the what private name of the Holy Spirit.

[26:18] Christ says, "If you but knew the gift of God, you would ask Him for a drink." It seems that he's talking about something. Moreover, the Holy Spirit can be said to be the spirit of some man, as has been said above.

[26:36] But it cannot be said to be the gift of some man, but only the gift of God. Therefore, gift is not the private name of the Holy Spirit.

[26:50] Obscure objection. But against this is what Augustine says in the fourth book. Who's this guy, Augustine? Always showing up in these things. I don't know. Did you read those those five generalities there a few months ago, Augustine? If you go to, oh, they've been printed in the register. I hope that they'll put them in book form. That was the same publisher. But against this is what Augustine says in the fourth book about the Trinity.

[27:20] For just as to be born is what for the son to be from the father, so for the Holy Spirit to be the gift of God is to be or to proceed from the Father and the Son.

[27:39] So for the Holy Spirit to be said to be the gift of God is for Him to proceed from the Father and the Son. But the Holy Spirit gets His own name in so far as He proceeds from the Father and the Son. Therefore, gift is a proper name of the Holy Spirit. Let's see how Thomas unties this knot, right? Huh?

[28:04] Notice how this is like the plot of a what fiction, right? Right. And Aristotle says in the book about the poetic art that a good plot should consist of two parts: tying the knot or knots and then untying them, right? Huh? And that's another reason why the philomythos in a way is like a philosopher but like the theologian way is like a philosopher, but like the theologian in so far as he ties a knot first and then he unties a knot.

[28:28] But I'd love to make this comparison because Aristotle, in comparing the the young poet or the imperfect poet with the perfect poet, he says that the young poets are better at tying the knot than untying it. And I think sometimes when people criticize a movie or something that they see, you know, and they say that that it wasn't untied properly, right? And notice the same thing, you know, with most philosophers, they're better at tying your mind into knots than they are to untie the knots that they do, you know.

[29:01] So like leaving the cistern open, as Thomas says, something can fall in, and you know, you're responsible for there. I was doing the seminars for his teaching at Saint Mary's College in California. He was just a little more strict, you know, about things. And I was teaching, of course, on Marxism, right? And so when you do this, you actually send a letter down to the to the bishop's office or the registrar would send you get permission to use these books that were things in.

[29:36] And I mentioned on my list there, you know, this book by Feuerbach, you know, The Essence of Christianity, which is a very blasphemous book, right? And I was not going to use the whole book, but just a few things in there because he's important for going from Hegel to Marx, right? And so when the letter came back from the office, you know, he called me in the registrar.

[29:56] You know, he says you're getting permission to use that book, but it adds that you're responsible for anybody who loses his faith because of it.

[30:04] The bishop had that much, or whoever's working for him, had that much concern. Yeah, yeah, that was a good thought. so you know you know Don't leave the cistern open. So Feuerbach says the divine, the human mind is infinite. Infinite is God. Therefore, the human mind is God, and therefore the meaning of the incarnation is not that God became man, but that man himself is God. I mean, you've reversed a book, you know.

[30:33] but But Feuerbach, I mean Karl Marx and Engels, you know, they became enthusiastic Feuerbachians, you know. This is being a Dominican. Yeah, it's terrible. And it should be said that gift, as it is taken personally in God, right, is the Holy Spirit's own name, a proper name.

[31:07] Now, how does Thomas get to this? To the evidence of this, it should be known that gift is properly a what? A given, a giving that is not to be returned, right? According to the philosophy, he's got to go back to that guy, right? Okay. So going back, goes back to Augustine for authority, but to Aristotle, gave the reason. That is that it is not given with the intention of being what It's not returned.

[31:41] Now, sometimes when somebody, you know, gives you something, you say, or hands you something, you say, "Are you giving me this? " Yeah. You know, what does that mean? You see. No, I didn't. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You see, and my father now, you know, you know, lend me a tool. You know, I'd say, "Now you see what it says there. " I say, "What? " You know, it's his name or something.

[32:06] You know, you want that tool, tool back. You know, borrowing. So now that's taking giving in the fullest sense of the word, right? Okay.

[32:25] And only in a kind of qualified sense, if I'm lending you something, then I'm giving you this, right? Okay. Don't let you use this, but I'm not really giving it to you. Back. Okay.

[32:42] Because he used to, you know, keep these strange quotes, and he says, Kajitin says, "There's no conscience where books are concerned. " Yeah. Now, if you're going to lend

[32:53] somebody a book, you know that you can't replace so easily, and they never return it, you know, and that's why people get used to, you know, writing down who they lend the book to, because otherwise they go, "Who the heck did I lend that book to? " You know, and someone's got it, and it's it's gone, you know. A friend of ours, Larry Brown, used to write, "in this book and say This book belongs to Larry Brown.

[33:15] " Right. Put parentheses, but not exclusively. Unless it implies a what gratuitous giving, right? But the reason for gratuitous giving is love. And therefore we give something gratis to someone because we wish to him what? Yeah, we will to him good, right? The first, therefore, that we give to him is the love by which we wish to him what? Good. This is very important. What he says here: Whence it is manifest that love has the notion of the first gift, by which all gratuitous gifts are what given, right?

[34:10] Whence, since the Holy Spirit goes forward as love, as has been said he goes forward in the notion of the first what gift. Whence Augustine says in the fifteenth book of the Trinity that through the gift that is the Holy Spirit many what

[34:33] proper goods or private goods are divided among the members of what Christ right. John Paul II quoted that verbatim and it's one of his discourses on the Holy Spirit. It precedes as first gift. Yeah, yeah. Well, I noticed in the um was in in the Our Father I think it's in Matthew and in Luke you had the Our Father right, and in one of them he talks about you know you being bad as you are and not give your children good things you know, well not the Father then you know, but then the other text it says instead of give gifts give the Holy Spirit, and you say well what's the reason for these two right?

[35:17] See well here it is right because through giving the Holy Spirit he gives at first before he gives all these other gifts right. Okay.

[35:31] So there's an order here then why Thomas takes up the name of the Holy Spirit that is love in question what thirty seven right? Before he takes up his name of what gift right? Because the reason why he's it's the name of gift is because he precedes as love huh?

[35:53] So you see the order in Thomas huh? Okay. Now to the first objection right? How about the Son is said to be given to us and so on right? To the first therefore it should be said that just as the Son who goes forward by way of what thought huh? The Son, Which has in its notion that it be a likeness of its beginning is called properly an imago right?

[36:32] And notice again you have the same order there, right? He took up his name as verbum before he took up his name as what imago right? Okay. Although the Holy Spirit is also what like the Father right? It doesn't precede as a likeness it precedes as love. So also the Holy Spirit because it precedes as love is properly said to be the gift although the Son also is what given huh?

[37:00] For this that the Son is given is also from the love of the Father according to that of John three sixteen for thus God loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son right? So God there is standing for the Father huh?

[37:26] The second one says, "Well, what about the? How does it signify a property of the Holy Spirit, right? Well, the name of gift is implied that be of the giver, the origin. That's one of the meanings of it, and thus it implies a property of the origin, the Holy Spirit, who proceeds as love and therefore as a gift.

[37:54] Okay. Now the third objection. To the third, it should be said that gift, before it is given, is only something of the giver, right? But after it is given, it is of the one to whom it is given. Because therefore gift does not imply giving an act, it cannot be said that it be the gift of man, but the gift of God, what giving. But whenever it is given, then it is of the man, right?

[38:32] Either his spirit or his what gift given. Okay. Now we're going to, you know, stop here, right? But it's just to recall the division of the treatise, right?

[38:50] Is the treatise on the Trinity divided into two or three parts? Three. Yeah. And Thomas gave in the proemium to the treatise a reason for this, right? That the persons are distinguished by relations of origin. So therefore, he says, according to the order of teaching or learning, once you first of all speak of procession, which he did in one question, and then about the relations, which he does another one, and then third about the persons, right?

[39:25] Okay. And the persons, of course, is taking up what fifteen questions. First two parts, just one question each, right? So you have one question on the processions, right? One question on relations, and fifteen on the persons, right? Now I mentioned how in the great disputed questions de potencia, which has ten questions, right, each divided into many articles, but the last three questions are about the processions, and the relations, and the persons, although the order is what yeah the relations and the persons and then the processions, right?

[40:06] But that's according to the order of disputation, right? Which had the same three parts, right? Okay. Now the fifteen questions you couldn't possibly understand division into fifteen. Mine completely break down. So are the fifteen questions divided into fifteen parts, or they divided into two or three? Two or three. Yeah, yeah. And is it two or three? Which is two or three? Two, two. Yeah, yeah. He spent the the absolute consideration of the persons, and that took up ten questions.

[40:44] We just finished that today. If we can say finished. And then the comparative consideration of persons, which will be the next five, what last questions? Yeah.

[40:59] Now, the ten questions on the absolute consideration of persons, right? Is that divided into two or three? Two. Yeah. Because you consider the persons in general in the first four questions, and then the part we just finished, these six questions were devoted to the persons in particular, right? Now, where are those six questions divided into two or three? Two. Because

[41:31] you had one question about the Father, two about the Son, and three about the what Holy Spirit, right? So one is not divided, except into articles, right? We'll go into all those details. But the Father, the Son was two, and the Holy Spirit three, right? Okay. Now the last part will be what five questions, right? Huh? Okay. And no, it's by the way my device here that there are seventeen questions on the what Trinity, right?

[42:09] And seventeen is a number that Augustine uses to explain the number of those who are saved. Because you know at the end of the Gospel of Saint John, they explicitly mention that there are fifty-three fish that are caught. And Augustine says, "Well, if you take the number seventeen, you take seventeen, sixteen, fifteen, all the way down to one, and add them up, you get one fifty-three. And how does seventeen then, you know, the number to explain the mystery there, right?

[42:41] Well, ten is what the sum of ten and seven. So those who obey the ten commandments through the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit are the ones that are saved, right? I was recently reading a book about Shakespeare, right? And you know how many feet he's buried? Seventeen feet. Yeah. Because I don't think the author, you know, didn't realize the significance of it. It struck me, right?

[43:07] That means he's saved, right? Or at least it's a sign. Yeah, yeah. It's not four thousand five. No, it's seventeen. You know, that's that's. Yeah, I'll specify. Yeah, I went buried seventy feet deep. But anyway, that's—I can't remember. There's 17 questions here. That's kind of my playful way to remember, right? By the way, is that Joseph Pierce's new book or Shakespeare? No, no, no. It was one by—I forget his name now.

[43:41] The English author there. Can't remember his name. Gee, just got to read it too. The Wakefield? Huh? It's not Askwith. No, no, no, no. It's Quinell, Peter Quinell. with two N's in there, you know. But nice, you know, kind of a little light reading, you know. A few things I like and some that you don't like. Does it talk about his writing? Yeah, yeah. It's kind of a life of Shakespeare, but it, you know, talks about his writings as they came up and so. A few odd things you pick up, like Shakespeare was buried 17 feet deep Yeah.

[44:18] funny He didn't say any sentences but he just mentioned that, you know. He said to have been buried seventeen feet deep. So. seventeen questions on the Trinity. So anyway, these last five questions now are going to be the absolute, the comparative consideration, right? So let's look at Thomas Aquinas here, just in the last minute here. After those things which have been treated about the divine persons absolute, right?

[44:46] It remains to consider about the persons in this comparative, right? But he says in comparison to the what essence and to the what properties

[45:03] and to the notional acts, right? And the comparison of them to what each other, right? So probably divide those first three against the last what two, right? Okay.

[45:21] You're going to compare the persons to the essence, to the properties, and to the notional acts, right? And then you can compare them to each other, right? Right. Okay. So we've got a lot of things here, right?

[45:41] So next time we'll start looking at the persons related to the essence, right? But notice the first fundamental article there: whether the essence in divine things is the same as the what persons, or the three persons and and nature, or is the nature the same thing as the persons? huh? Is any distinction, in other words, in God between the Father and the divine nature? Is any real distinction between the Son and the divine nature?

[46:15] Is any real distinction between the Holy Spirit and the divine nature? There's a distinction of reason, right? There was somewhat different thought there, the divine nature and and God the Father, right? And Son and so on. But Thomas Aquinas said there's there's no real distinction between the Father and the divine nature, between the Son and divine nature. They're all identical with the divine what nature. But there's a real distinction between the Father and the Son by this opposition, of relation right?

[46:48] But but the relation of fatherhood is towards the Son. It's not towards the divine nature. It's not the Father the divine nature. The Son is not the Son of the divine nature. No, he's the Son of the Father, and the Father is the Father of the Son. So towards each other they're related, and therefore distinguished by relations, which is one kind of opposition, as the philosopher teaches us, even in the Categories and in the Fifth Book of Wisdom, right?

[47:16] Interesting, huh? The first book of Aristotle, in the first science, there talks about these opposites. and the fourteen books of wisdom, right? The fifth book talks about it again, right? And it comes up here in theology. That's that's going to be the fundamental thing to see, right?

[47:37] And then, whether one can speak of three persons of one what essence, huh? That's kind of a subordinate question, but it's a question of what? What's that word "of" mean there, right? Huh? You run into problems. You know enough about this.

[47:59] And then, whether essential names can be predicated of the persons in plural or in singular? Are they three gods or just one god, huh?

[48:11] Okay. So a whole bunch of questions there about the language, right? Yeah. What does the great Hilary say? From names or words put forth disorderly, heresy arises. So Thomas is very careful to see how you can speak about these things, right?

[48:33] So actually, what two to some extent, but certainly three, four, five, six, right? Those four are all concerned about what you can say of what, okay?

[48:53] But now seven and eight are something different, aren't they, right? Whether the essential attributes can be appropriate to the person. And then about how you actually appropriate them. Thomas is going to say yes, you can, even though you got to be careful, you know know what you're doing, right? And then, you know, how you appropriate, say, power to the Father, and wisdom to the Son, maybe your goodness to the Holy Spirit, and so on.

[49:22] But he has some strange appropriations there between Augustine and Hilary. But it's kind of interesting to think about them, right? The whiteness is justified, though you have to see that first, right? Okay.

[49:39] Strange, right? What's common to all three of them, right? And one, one doesn't, the Son doesn't have more wisdom than the Father and the Holy Spirit. Holy Spirit doesn't have more goodness, so the Father more power than others. But why you can appropriate these things, right? And what's the reason for doing that, right?

[50:06] So, but no, the first article is the fundamental one, right? You want to see, and the two through six. They're all about. I speak of these things, right? And seven and eight kind of go together, right? So you could divide it to three if you wanted to, maybe, huh? But we'll see a little bit more.