Prima Pars
135. Summa I, Q.39 a.8 (2): Unity, Equality and Concord; Power, Wisdom and Goodness; 'From Him, Through Him, In Him', and the Glory of the Father
Class of 2008-05-08
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/10-prima-pars/135-summa-i-q-39-a-8-2-unity-equality-and-concord-power-wisdom/

[0:00] Okay. The second consideration of God is, in so far as He's considered as something what, one. And thus Augustine appropriates to the Father unity, oneness, huh? To the Son equality, which is a kind of oneness, right? And to the Holy Spirit concord. Comes the word heart, I guess, huh? How would you translate concord in English? Concord. Use the word concord. Let's forget this talent here. What? Agreement.

[0:34] What? Agreement for. Yeah. Harmony. Yeah. Yeah. Maybe somebody used the word heart in there, you know? Or connection, right? Huh? Which three things is manifest implies some kind of what unity, right? But differently, right? For unity is said absolutely, right? Not presupposing anything else. And therefore, it's appropriated to the Father, who does not presuppose some other person from which he proceeds, right? Since he is the beginning, not from a beginning.

[1:21] We'll see this in the glory of the Father later on today. Okay. I'm looking forward. Equality, however, implies unity in respect to another. For equal, the equal is what has one quantity with another. And therefore, equality is appropriated to the Son, who is a beginning from a beginning.

[1:57] So I'd be one without a Son, but if my Son is equal to me, you know, equality begins with him, right? Connection, however, implies unity of two things, right? Two other.

[2:17] Or translating, you said harmony, right? If you harmonize two things, right? Whence is appropriated to the Holy Spirit, in so far as He is from two.

[2:31] Okay. Now the next paragraph is going to touch upon the objection, right? Huh? From which is able to be understood what Augustine says. The three are one in account of the Father, right? Equal in account of the Son, connected in account of the Holy Spirit, huh? Okay. Now, how should this be understood? It doesn't mean, you know, that they're one through the Father in the way in which he rejected before that the Father was wise through the Son, right?

[3:05] Okay. He says it is manifest that that is attributed to to each thing in which it is first found, right? Just as all lower things are said to live on account of the what living soul, right? So when Aristotle distinguishes the three souls. They'll call them the living soul, the sensing soul, and the understanding soul, right? You say, well, why do you call this the living soul?

[3:34] Isn't the sensing soul alive? Isn't the understanding soul alive? Isn't the understanding soul sensing also? See, but we attribute it to what it's first found, right? Okay. So the plant you first find life in bodies, right? So they call that the living soul, and then in the animal you first find sense, and then finally we speak of our soul as the understanding soul. Even Shakespeare calls our soul the understanding soul.

[4:04] Okay. So in the same way, unity is found at once in the person of the Father, even if per impossibile, right? The other persons are removed, right? Still, be unity there in God. So even those philosophers knew that God was one, right?

[4:24] They would see unity as belonging to God. Aristotle ends up the consideration of God there in the twelfth book of Wisdom by saying there's only one God, and in fact he quotes the poet, "The rule of many is not good; let there be one." So he says. Okay. But Sindiyan explains very well why he does those things, you know, to show that what he's saying is not so far removed, you know, from our common understanding that even the poet, right, sees something of this truth.

[4:56] But you wouldn't speak of equality in God, would you? Aristotle didn't speak of equality in God, right? He wouldn't speak of equality between God, and us, either. It's that matter. So there'd be no equality, right? But if you knew about the Son, you know, there were heretics who admitted the divinity of the Son, but denied the divinity of the what? Yeah, they called them Semi-Arians or something.

[5:18] I guess they had named, the Macedonians. Um, but equality would be found with that with the Son, but you don't need the Holy Spirit for equality, right? Okay.

[5:33] But removing the other persons, there's not found equality in the Father, but at once laying down the Son being there and the Son in the full sense that he is, there's found equality, right? And therefore, all are said to be equal in count to the Son, not because the Son is the beginning of equality for the Father, right? But because the father, then unless the son were equal to the father, the father could not be said to be what?

[6:02] Yeah. So if I want to be equal to the son, but I'm going to have to, you know, generate somebody equal to be. Um.

[6:13] For equality is first what considered in reference to the son, and this that the Holy Spirit is equal to the Father, he has from the what son, because he gets the divine nature from the son. Similarly, if you exclude the Holy Spirit, who is the connection of the two, one cannot understand the unity and the connection between the Father and the Son, and therefore all is said to be connected in account of the Holy Spirit.

[6:45] Because, positing the Holy Spirit, laying down the Holy Spirit, one finds whence the Father and the Son are able to be said to be what. Connected, huh? Okay. Why don't you do that one before I break? Or okay, I can wait for lunch. Some other things I need to do. One.

[7:10] Now the third one is taken according to what? There's a power in God, right? To doing something or causing something, right? According to the third consideration, by which in God a sufficient power is considered to causing things, is taken the third appropriation, to wit, of the what? Power and the wisdom and the what? Goodness, huh? This is always a kind of easier one to seem to me to understand.

[7:41] It doesn't seem quite as abstract as the first two seem, right? Maybe you're in a church someday. But you haven't decreed that, right? I believe in God the Father, right? Almighty, right? So he alone Almighty. No, it's appropriated to him, right? Okay.

[8:05] Now here Thomas says that there's a what? Double appropriation here, right? I was reminded a little bit of that text we looked at at the beginning of class there on leading by the hand, right? Per similia et opposita, right? And here there's going to be an appropriation by similitude to the properties of the persons, the divine persons, and then a kind of appropriation by opposition to what you find in their counterparts in creatures, or at least in us, lowly creatures.

[8:43] Which appropriation comes about both by reason of likeness, if one considers what is found in the divine persons, or what is in the divine persons,

[8:55] and by reason of unlikeness, if one considers what is in creatures. Huh? Here's a double explanation in this one, huh? For potentia, power, has the notion of a beginning, right? So in the ninth book of wisdom, Aristotle begins by talking about power, right? And he says, power is the beginning, of motion or change in another, He goes on to the senses of power. but. That's the fundamental meaning of power, right?

[9:27] It's a beginning. So he's of course, a student of Aristotle, as, you know, Thomas. For power has the notion of a beginning, right? Whence it has a likeness with the heavenly Father, who is the beginning of the whole divinity. That famous phrase, huh? But we also saw an article where, explicitly about the Father, he asked what he said. Principium, remember that.

[9:58] But then, by way of unlikeness, but this fails sometimes for the earthly father, on account of his what? Yeah, yeah. I'm beginning to feel that.

[10:16] Especially you got a suitcase that's too heavy. Hire somebody. Use the wisdom. Yeah. Bigger wheels. Now, wisdom has a likeness with the what? Celestial Sun, insofar as he is the what? The Word, which is nothing other than the conceived wisdom. Yeah, the concept of wisdom. Then, by way of unlikeness, it fails sometimes in the earthly son, on account of the what? Yeah, yeah. So I was quoting the English expression: to play the young man means what?

[11:00] Play the fool. Aristotle talks about the young man there in the in the rhetoric. huh? compares the young man and the old man, and then he compares the and the prime of life, as he calls it, prime of life.

[11:27] But you know, they see when they talk about courage. You know, the virtues, the moral virtues, are in between two vices, one excess and one defect, but it's not equidistant from the two vices. So temperance is closer to what? Let's say puritanism, right? Yeah. Than it is to intemperance, right? It's named intemperance because it's more opposed to it. But courage is closer to what? Foolhardiness, than to cowardice.

[11:58] huh? So the young are more courageous, right? They're closer to the foolhardy. As opposed to Falstaff, right? Was reading King Henry the Fourth, Part One there on the on the strip a little bit.

[12:25] Now, goodness, huh? Which is the reason and the object of love. St. Thomas takes up love in the prima secundae, and he takes up the causes of love. The first cause is the good, right? But the way he syllogizes is that what? The good is the object of love, right? And then that the object of love is the cause of love. So the Holy Spirit is love, one of his names, right?

[12:56] Well, then, goodness is connected with that. So, goodness, since it is the reason and the object of love, has a likeness with the divine spirit, with love. But it has a repugnancy to the what earthly spirit, huh? According as it implies a certain what, violent, huh? Impulse, right?

[13:27] In so far as it is said, the spirit, the robust, is as were a what? Wind knocking down the wall, driving the wall. So what do we say in English, huh? What be? What do we say about this person? He's uh

[13:45] hot tempered. Often he people go to excess in all of this sort of thing, right? Carried away. Okay. Now the the next part here is an applied an objection there, right? Which is taken from the word virtus, right? Which is always a problem for us. I'll translate that sometimes. Because sometimes Aristotle takes virtus as meaning, or translates as virtue, right? Other times, virtus means what? Power, right?

[14:23] Okay. And I notice when I when I study the names of the angels, there's a problem there, you know. Between the Greek and the Latin and so on, because that same you know words of the sort, Virtus, powers, you know. If you look at the Greek, it's a little different. Okay. Virtus is appropriated to the Son and the Holy Spirit, not according as virtus is said to be the power itself of the thing, but, but according as the virtue is said to be that which what proceeds from the power.

[15:01] In so far as we say that something made virtuous is the virtuous agent, huh? So sometimes we name the effect, huh? And say that's justice, right? We don't mean the virtue, but you mean the thing you did as result of this, huh? So this can be applied to the Son and the Holy Spirit because they proceed, right, From the power. Don't worry too much about that. But that word virtus gives you a problem sometimes because it's various uses.

[15:36] Up above when I talked about the earthly spirit, is that is that talking about for a person or for the wind or both? It's like that's what spirit means wind breath, right? And. I don't know. I don't know if "spirited" in English has necessarily a bad sense, you know, but wouldn't be the proper word where it would indicate that. Sometimes, sometimes it might have a connotation. We say someone's high spirited; they think they're kind of excessive.

[16:09] Yeah, yeah. It's translated here an earthly son, This is sometimes absent by reason of the lack of ears. The next one. The spirit of new goodness. The spirit as strong as ever. Anger. Yes, they put that as the person instead of the. So, I guess the point was that the spirited person. You know, the word "lust," you find the word "lust" used in Shakespeare for a vigorous young man, right?

[16:47] He's lusty. It doesn't have the sense of the vice of lust, right? But it has become for us, you know, synonym for for what the vice, right? And you know something like that too with the other strong emotion, like anger, right?

[17:04] You know, when I was growing up, you know, the top of the capital vices would be called anger, right? But you got to be careful what you mean by that, right? Because you know, even Christ gets angry sometimes, right? And that's nothing bad. But why did anger come to be the name of a vice, right? If not because what he's saying here, right? Anger, people are always doing every time.

[17:26] Let's have to read it. Out of anger, someone has done something terrible, right? You see, he's moved. You know, strong thing. So, lust and anger, right? Huh? You see, people are moved to do bad things. Moved, right? You know, you know, acting on impulse. Act young man. What? To act young man. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, the idea here, though, that's more going back to the in the sun, but you know, to act on impulse, right?

[17:57] You're moved, right? Like somebody's driven by the wind. Yeah. Driven by this impulse. Yeah. We'll take a little break here now before we do the fourth one here. Sorry. Thank you. To the last now, the fourth consideration.

[18:17] Now, according to the fourth consideration, insofar as God is considered in relation to His effects, there's taken that appropriation. Now, from which right, or from whom? Through whom right,

[18:37] and what? In whom right? Okay. Now, this is taken from what? The end of chapter eleven in the Epistle to the Romans, huh? Okay. But in that particular text, um,

[18:58] you take it as being said of God essentially, but you could also what? Appropriate the three to these, and Augustine does this. So, let's look at this before we get to the text. Now he says this preposition ex or from right implies sometimes the relation of a material cause, which has no place in God. Okay. So we can say that the table is from wood, right? Huh?

[19:32] Okay. So nature makes something from some material, right? And human art makes something from from some matter, right? Huh? Okay. Now sometimes it signifies the relation of a what? Efficient cause, right? Okay. Which belongs to God by reason of His what? Active power, right? So we could say that the Pietas came from Michelangelo, right? In one sense of from, and it came from marble in another sense, right?

[20:08] Now Thomas, in the commentary in that chapter and other places, sometimes too, he'll point out three senses of from, right? Something is also said to come to be from its opposite, right? Okay. So the hard comes to be from the soft, right? Okay. And when they talk about creation, right? Well, you don't have something from matter in that sense at all. But you could say, in a way, from the opposite, it's from nothing, right?

[20:36] But that's not as the matter is a different sense, right? And then, but in this second sense he gives here, from God, right? Okay. So when you're created, you're not created from matter. Although

[20:53] this chair or table was made from matter, but you were made from nothing, meaning simply what? Yeah, but that's not what you're made out of, right? Okay. And you're also made from from God, right? In the sense of the efficient cause.

[21:13] Whence is appropriated to the Father, just as what power, right? Okay. So we say that the translation of the translation is bad here, but so that from Him and through Him and in Him are all things, right? From Him is appropriated to the Father, right? Because from there is signifying what, not from matter, not from the opposite, but from the what efficient cause, from the mover, the maker, right?

[21:45] And therefore, since power is appropriated to the Father, the same reason from Him could be appropriated to the Father, right? As we say, the creature is from Him, meaning from God, speaking properly, but speaking appropriately,

[22:04] it's from the Father, right? Okay. Now this preposition per designates sometimes a middle what cause, as we say that the what the carpenter operates through the hammer, okay, or the Michelangelo through the chisel or something, right? And the chisel.

[22:31] And thus the per sometimes is not appropriated, right? But proper to the Son, according to that of Saint John, chapter one, verse three, the Gospel, that all things are made what through Him, right? Not because the Son is like a hammer, he's an instrument, but because he is a beginning from a beginning, right?

[22:57] Sometimes, though, it designates the relation of the form through which the agent operates, as we say that the artist operates through his what art, and whence just as wisdom and art are appropriated to the Son, right? So also the words through whom, right?

[23:25] Now this preposition in denotes properly the relation of the container, right? I mentioned how the famous text of Aristotle, the fourth book of what natural hearing, the fourth book of the physics, where he distinguishes eight senses of in, right? But he doesn't order the senses there, and so Thomas comes along and says we're going to order the senses, but in the way Aristotle teaches us in the fifth book of wisdom, and so he goes through his eight senses, and the first sense of in is we're in this room, that's the most sensible of the senses, okay?

[24:02] Then the second sense is what my teeth are in my mouth, the part is in the whole, right? And the third sense is what. The genus is and the species. And the fourth sense is sense of the species and the genus. Does a transition there because the first three senses something is in something where it's actually there, right? But then the fourth sense you see the species is in what the genus is only in potency only in their impotency, and then form is said to be in matter, and then I've got you what?

[24:35] Yeah, actually the sixth sense is whole and parts, but that's like form and matter because whole and parts is form and matter. Then the seventh sense is I've got you in my power. Okay, that's another kind of ability, potency as opposed to actuality the last sense is I left my heart in San Francisco, right? Or where your treasure is, Christ says there your heart shall be. He's where, where, right?

[25:00] Looking all the way back to the first sense of in. Where are you? I'm in this room, right? Okay. Now Thomas doesn't go into all these meanings here, but but this preposition in denotes properly the relation of a container. But things are contained by God in two ways. In one way, according to their likenesses, right? In so far as things are said to be in God, in so far as in His knowledge, and in this way, what I say in ipso would be appropriate to the Son, right?

[25:37] Because He's like knowledge of wisdom. In another way, there can things are contained by God in so far as God, by His goodness, right, conserves them and governs them, bringing them to a suitable what? end. And thus, in which is appropriate to the Holy Spirit, just as what? Goodness, huh?

[26:05] Now he replies to that objection. Nor is necessary that the relation of a final cause, although it be the first of the causes, right, should be appropriated to the Father. That was the objection, right? Who is the beginning, not of the beginning? Because of the divine person of whom the Father is the beginning, do not proceed as to an end, right? Since each of them is the last end, but by a natural procession, which pertains more to the notion of a natural what?

[26:42] Power, than end. Okay, Stop a little upon that a little bit there. Now that is very close to the Greek, which is the last verse here, chapter eleven.

[27:05] And let's read you the English a little bit first. Famous text here. O the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been His counselor? Or who hath first given to Him? It shall be recompensed unto Him again. What nobody, right?

[27:41] And then the last sentence: For ex ex autou from Him, right? And di autou right through Him, right? And in Him are what all things, right? To whom be what glory forever in all the ages, huh? Amen. That's the end of the chapter, huh? Now, um. How would you explain those words, right?

[28:21] At first, you'd apply it to God Himself, right? Not to one of the persons of the Trinity, in particular, right? It seems to me that those three words, in a way, touch upon the three causes that we attribute to God. Remember the four kinds of causes: matter, form, mover, and end.

[28:46] Those are the only kinds of causes there are. And in what sense of cause is God a cause? Remember my famous answer to that.

[29:07] No, two and a half. Two and a half. Yeah, yeah. He's in no way a cause as matter, right? Okay. Now Plato talks about the second cause, form. He speaks of form and the model or exemplar, right? And the form is the intrinsic form of things. God is not the intrinsic forms of things. God is not my soul, right? But the model or exemplar is an extrinsic form after which something is modeled or that imitates, huh?

[29:42] And so, since you and I or our soul is made in the image and likeness of God, right? God is in some way a cause in the sense of form, in the sense of an exemplar or what model, right? And it's interesting that the philosopher Aristotle, in the first book of Natural Hearing, the first book of the so-called Physics, he says that form is something what God-like.

[30:08] And he's reasoning against Plato, right? He reasons against Plato from what is common to his own thinking and Plato's thinking, right? And that is that form is something godlike. And Thomas explains well. That's why is it Plato Aristotle said that form is something godlike because God is pure act, and form is act as opposed to matter, which is potency or ability. And so, in so far as form is an act, it has some distant likeness of these, right, to God, who's pure act.

[30:40] So it shows the profundity of these two greatest philosophers, the men whom Plato, I mean Thomas, calls the philosophi principales, the chief philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, right? That's it. And but they both see form as something godlike. Then

[31:01] God is a cause in the sense of the mover or maker, the creator, which introduces that kind of cause. But most of all, he's a cause in the sense of what? Final cause. Yeah. So when you say that, use the text here, ta panta all things are ex ex autou from him, right? And through him, right? And in him, right? You could attribute it to the three what ways in which God is a cause, right?

[31:32] All things are from him as the what maker, creator, creator of them, through him, through his what knowledge, yeah, maybe exemplar, and in him as what cause in the sense of in. Now Thomas comments in in the commentary in the this is a Paul tapanta. He says, "What does that include sin?" And then of course he quotes Augustine that sin is nothing, and the man who sins becomes nothing, right?

[32:00] So whatever there is of being, he says, "And sin is from God." But you know, so guess what's so funny about about Sartre, right? The? The atheist, right? You know, he's trying to see the dignity of man from the non-being, yeah. And it's like you know, kind of fiendishy about this, you know, because if man had some dignity independent of God, he would be his non-being. But to make non-being the source of you know freedom and everything is a great mistake, as we learned there in the first book of Natural Hearing.

[32:35] Um. Okay, now Thomas says something interesting there, because at the end of that passage, there, for from him and through him and in him are all things. Of course, the English translation here, the Protestant one is not very good. For of him and through him and to him, right? You know, and of him is not the right translation, right? It's from, right? Okay. Um.

[33:07] And even in the interlinear, they they have of him, you know, instead of from him, right? So it should be really translated from him, right? And that's what the Latin has in the text of Thomas. You have the Latin here. Um.

[33:22] From him, right? Um. X. Um. But Thomas taking the whole passage there. Why is he at the end there? We get to that. To him, auto, he doxa the glory, right? eis tous aionas, that is unto the ages eternally, right? Amen, right? Why does he say glory here, right? Okay. I got thinking about that again because it's kind of interesting. You know, we honor God, right? And we glorify God, right?

[34:05] And honor and glory are very similar, right? But are they simply synonyms, or is there a little difference in meaning? What would you say? Seems like you honor him by glorifying him. Okay. But is there any distinction between honoring God and glorifying God? They seem to be almost the same thing, you know, and and we probably take them in our almost as being synonymous, right? But there seems to be some distinction.

[34:43] I mean, what is it? It's a connotation that glorifying is a higher sort of yeah higher thing than honoring. Yeah. I remember years ago, it might have been in Thomas's explanation of the Mass somewhere, you know, that he made a certain saw a certain distinction between honor and glorify. That we honor God as the beginning of all things, huh? And we glorify him as the what end of all things, huh?

[35:13] Okay. Um, and that's kind of interesting, right? Um, and in trying to explain that, we were saying to one of my students, um, we're commanded to honor our father and mother, right? But would we glorify our mother and father? See, see, no, see, because our mother and father are a beginning of us, right? And therefore, in some way, we should honor them not as much as God, but nevertheless to honor them, huh?

[35:47] Because that's the first commandment has to depend somehow on God, right? It's appropriate to just put right there, right? Um, Thomas quotes scripture, you know, if I am the Father God, you know, where is my honor? And so, um, but you wouldn't mean to glorify your parents, right? So that was a very interesting distinction. I thought, you honor God as the beginning of all things, the Alpha, and you glorify him as the what Omega, right?

[36:19] And this phrase you're talking about earlier you remember which one you were talking about earlier, when you were talking about, does it might be relevant to this? Oh yeah. Moses asked God, "Let me see your show me your glory." Yeah. And he says, "I will show you every good." Yeah, and good, as Aristotle points out, pertains to the end, right? So Aristotle talks about the four kinds of causes.

[36:39] He identifies the end with the good, and that's why he argues in the second book of Wisdom: if you take away the end, you take away the good. Okay. So the fact that glory and showing every good are put together kind of confirms this what

[37:02] explanation, right? Okay. Now I was looking up the the text in in John there. I mean, mean in Saint Paul, and seeing what Thomas's commentary upon it, you know,

[37:18] and he gives another kind of meaning here to to glory, in addition to the one that we just gave, you know, which is correct, you know, in a way, but another meaning.

[37:40] Then, when he says, and of course, I don't know, Thomas's text a little different here because the text has both honor and glory in it, right? So Thomas stops upon it.

[37:51] Then, when he says, "ipse honor et gloria," to him, honor and glory, right? I think in the end of the end of the canon, I just in the Roman right, you have honor and glory. I think both words mentioned, isn't it? Then, when he says to him honor and glory, he shows the dignity of God, right, which consists in two things, which are Said before, for from this

[38:20] that from him and through him and in him are all things. Right, there is owed to him honor and reverence. Right, he always ties up honor and reverence a lot, huh? And subjection from what, and being subject from the whole creature, right? Be subject to him. And then he quotes Malachi, chapter one, verse six: "If I am the Father, where is my honor?" Okay, that fits in very well with honor your father and mother too, Okay, but then the earlier words there, which I was quoting to you, quote them again here.

[38:59] For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Who hath been his counselor? Right, to be needed to be counselled. Right, or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again. Okay,

[39:11] Thomas commentary. From this, therefore, that from another he does not take neither counsel, right, nor any gift, right. There is what owed to him what glory,

[39:29] just as contrary wise it is said in one Corinthians chapter four verse seven. If you have received, why do glory? Okay, first of all, why do glory in your knowledge of of the Trinity? You have taken it from Augustine and Thomas and so on. Ah, why do glory? As if you did not, as if you had not taken it from another, right? Huh? Okay. of course when Gregory talks about the forms of pride.

[40:01] Huh? One form of pride is to claim to have an excellence that you don't have, right? Okay. Now I have the excellence of knowing the Pythagorean theorem, but I'm not going to let anybody know I learned it from Euclid there. Well, see, that's another kind of pride, right? You see, you know, I really got it from another, but I, you know, said, "Well, I, I found out by myself," you know, or I try to give the impression, you know, huh?

[40:26] Okay. Um, and because this is proper to God, it is said in Isaiah chapter forty-two, verse eight: "I will not give my glory to another." Okay.

[40:42] So, what's interesting about that, or one thing interesting about it is, um, God, and especially the Father, is a beginning that is what. Uncaused. There has no beginning, right? Okay. And in so far as God is the beginning of things, He's like the Father of all things. Even Homer says, right, calls Zeus the Father of mortals and immortals, right? Then there's owed to him what. Honor, right?

[41:17] But insofar as he what is a beginning, not from a beginning. So he got neither counsel nor any gift from anybody else. Then you what glorify him, right? Okay. So,

[41:36] and say you honor God as the what beginning of all things. You glorify him as the end of all things, right? But maybe you could also say you glorify him as what.

[41:59] Yeah, not from it. It's not from anything else. He receives from none else, right? And here he's what a beginning, right? Okay. So when Thomas distinguishes the Father from the Son, they're both a beginning. But the Son is a beginning from a beginning, and the Father is a beginning not from beginning. So that's why you speak of the glory of the Father, right? Sometimes to bring him back to the glory of the Father because he's the beginning, not from another, right?

[42:38] Okay. Or you could say, does not receive from another, right? Okay. I don't mean Thomas's text said both honor and glory, but you know the Greek text just says glory there at that point. But it's right after the fact that he is not designated counselor, no one giving him any gifts, and so on. So that's kind of an interesting

[43:01] distinction between honor and glory. Thomas is a little more complete if you look at the text here, as I was mentioning. For example, he talks about in he distinguishes between what, or from rather, he distinguishes three senses of from, right? Just two of them here, right? From matter, from the maker, but from the opposite, another sense, right? Okay.

[43:32] You may recall we define matter. How is Aristotle define matter as a cause? He says that from which something comes to be, existing within it, right? And that from which something comes to be could apply to the opposite as well as matter, and could apply to the maker in some way, right? But the second part of the definition, existing within it, separates it from both the opposite, which is not in that it comes to be, and from the what carpenter who, to the best of my knowledge, is not inside the chair here, right?

[44:06] Okay. So the chair came to be from wood, existing within it. Is still in the chair. Came to be from the carpenter, but from the extrinsic cause.

[44:21] Came from the opposite, not as medial cause as such, right? But something that happens to the real cause, one of the real causes matter, right? But the opposite is not in there.

[44:34] Now, when Thomas explains the definition of matter there in the second book of Natural Hearing, he just mentions, you know, that this second part of the definition excludes it from the what? From the opposite. Didn't even talk about the mover, right? But here you get a very complete text, right?

[44:52] So sometimes you find Thomas more full, more explicit in one text than another, right? Sometimes even in the scriptural text, you you could say, since the explanation of the preposition from is more complete here, in in the fifth reading of the eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, than it is in the text where he explains the definition of matter, right?

[45:21] I was kind of struck by a thing about glory. I was looking this over. So he gets down to in. He'll say, and this preposition in designates also a threefold relation of cause. In one way, it designates matter, as we say the soul is in the body, and form and matter in general, right? And in this way, is not said that all things are in God, because He is not material cause of things.

[45:59] In another way, it designates the relation of the efficient cause, in whose power it is to dispose of its effects. And according to this, all things are said to be in in Him, according as all things are in His power, and consist in His and are in His disposition. According to that, is Psalm ninety four verse four. In His hand are all the what ends of the earth.

[46:24] Of course, we use the expression daily life. It's out of my hands. I don't have any control of it, right? I got you in my power.

[46:36] And he quotes a beautiful one from Acts chapter seventeen twenty eight. In Him we live and move and are. In a third way, it designates the relation of a final cause, according as the whole good of a thing, as conservation consists in the best thing. And according to this, all things are said to be in God as in a goodness conserving them. And then he quotes Colossians one seventeen.

[47:03] And all things constantly. Constantly, can you understand? Right in Him, right. So, very complete explanation. But Scripture is the soul of theology. Let's look at the last part now here of this thing. We're dealing with some of those objections that came number five, right? Which I explicitly bring up another thing. Just touch upon them.

[47:40] Okay. So, as regards that which is sought about other things, it should be said that truth, since it pertains the understanding, is appropriated to the what? Son, right. But nevertheless, it is not private to him.

[48:01] For truth, as has been said above, can be considered insofar as it is in the understanding, or insofar as it is in the thing. Therefore, just as understanding, the understanding itself and thing, essentially taken, are essential and not personal, so truth. But the definition which Augustine induces or brings in there is given of truth according as it is what appropriated to the what son. In the sense we speak of truth as being a conformity of something.

[48:41] Okay, so the son has to be conformed to the father, right? The book of life directly imparts a knowledge, but in the oblique, life.

[48:57] That's the way of speaking here, mathematical form. For, as is said above, it is the knowledge of God which He has about what those who are going to have eternal life. Whence is appropriated to the Son, although life is appropriated to the Holy Spirit, right? In so far as it implies a certain interior motion, and thus it belongs with what is private to the Holy Spirit in so far as He is loved.

[49:29] So that's the way in which life is appropriated to Him in that in the creed, right? Is it called the vivificantem right? Yeah yeah, just the Holy Spirit, gives life The the Father and the Son don't. See, that's appropriated to Him, right? But liber, which means the idea of knowledge, is appropriated to the Son. So you say liber vitae, which is saying directly, is liber, right?

[49:56] Ezekiel speaks of the book written inside and outside. So often you say that's within humanity. Yeah, that's interesting. Okay, to be written by another is not of the notion of a book in so far as it is a book, but in so far as it's something artificial. That's a little bit hard to understand, but anyway, will let Thomas go by with that. Whence it is not implied origin, nor is it personal, but appropriated to a what person, right?

[50:28] Ipsum autem qui est is appropriated to the person of the Son, not according to its proper notion, but by reason of something what joined to that. In so far as what in the speech of God to Moses is prefigured the liberation of the human race, which was made to the Son. Um, that's anything of the text there. Is that where the burning bush is, or what? Where where the words I am who am?

[51:03] Yeah yeah yeah. See, I I read the Church Fathers, you know, where the burning bush represents the incarnate Son, right? And the fire represents His divinity, and the bush is what human nature. And the fire not consuming the bush is that the divine nature being infinite doesn't swallow up the what? human nature. Yeah, and so Moses wonders why the fire doesn't consume the what bush, and we might wonder subsequently why the divine nature doesn't swallow up the what?

[51:34] Human nature. Yeah. Also, it's an image secondarily, of the Blessed Virgin when the Word becomes flesh in her womb, it doesn't destroy her. No, no, no. If you take "I am who am" being said in context, then there is reference to the second person, you know. I think does he mean here about the liberation of human race? Because Moses asked, because he was sent to Moses to deliver the Israelites, yeah, and he said, "Tell them I am."

[52:01] who sent you. Yeah. But nevertheless, according as qui, hein, qui est, is taken relatively, it can refer sometimes to the person, the Son, and thus it is taken personally. If we say the Son is the what generated, who is right? Just as the generated God is personal, but taken infinitely without this is essential. And although this pronoun, this pronoun iste, right, grammatically speaking, would seem to pertain to some definite person, right?

[52:44] Nevertheless, anything demonstrable, grammatically speaking, can be what called a person, even though in its very nature it is not a person, as we say iste lapis right, the stone and iste asinus, right. Hence, grammatically speaking, the divine essence, according as it signified and stands through this name God, can be demonstrated by this pronoun iste. According to Exodus 15, 2, Iste is my God, and I will glorify him.

[53:25] Coming back again to the sight of the glory you discuss, on my mind as I happen to be struck by, you know, the one Psalm. I think it's Psalm sixty two, which is one of the Psalms of thirst. Oh God, you are my God, whom I seek; for you, my flesh pines, and my soul thirsts like the earth parched that's without bother. I said, I gazed towards you, in the sanctuary, to see your power and your what?

[53:51] Glory. Yeah. Well, in a sense, you could say the power refers to what It could be the beginning of things, right? And his glory, his being the what end of things, huh? The other explanation I had of power and glory there was that he's talking about the flesh as well as what the soul, right? And you might say, well, the soul seeks the glory, the vision of God, right?

[54:19] But power is connection with the resurrection, right? Because when the Sadducees are talking to Christ, and they deny the resurrection, right? And they're trying to put them in a possible situation: the man, the woman who had seven husbands, right, and no children by any of them, and whose wife would she be? You know, because if they resurrected, God, it'd be husband and wife again, right? And and Christ says, well, no, you you err, he says, right?

[54:46] You wonder, knowing neither the power of God nor the what scriptures, right? But there, the power of God is is in the context what's referring to what power of God to raise people. I think went out, you know, and took a gaol. You know, most people would say would not believe in the resurrection as possible, right? And they would say this, not knowing the power of God and not knowing the scriptures, right?

[55:16] So one way I was taking power and glory there was referring to what? Oh God, you are my God, whom I seek for you. My flesh pines, right, and my soul thirsts. So both the body and the soul are seeking God, but the body is kind of seeking the power of God right raising up again, you know, and and the soul is seeking the glory of God, right?

[55:37] Another way you could say it is that, as if I gaze towards you in the sanctuary, that means God in His divine nature, and power and glory to see Him as the beginning and the end, right? Like another Psalm, you know, sing joyfully the Lord, all your lands, serve the Lord with gladness, come before him this joyful song. who hath the Lord? is God, He made us as we are, His people, the flock He tends.

[56:04] There you got the same, but the division of sacred doctrine: God in Himself, God is the Maker, God is as the end, because providence is under the end. So. Gregory, and

[56:19] this also points out um glory as being a title of the Holy Spirit. Yeah, Well, maybe somebody it could be appropriating it again. But I was thinking too of the Te Deum. You know, there you speak of the glory of the Father. I think in the Te Deum. It's interesting they speak.

[56:38] He speaks of the glorious choir of the apostle. In glory. they achieved their end. yeah. I mean, Thomas, what's the name of the definition of Ambrose? Clara notitia cum laude, right? So that's what heaven is, right? Clear knowledge of God with praise, right? Father glorify thy name, And then the voice came, I have glorified it, and will glorify it again. Yeah. I mean, I think glory is appropriate to the Father, though, see, because of, sometimes,

[57:18] because because he's the beginning, not from the beginning, right? That's the other meaning of that glory that I was saying here, you know. In other words, we glorify God because He's the end of all things, right? And we glorify God because He's what? He didn't get anything from anybody else, right? See. And so Thomas will say, "Why are you glorying? him, You know, why should I glory about the good I've done?

[57:50] It didn't really come from me; it came from God, right? " When Saint Paul says you glory just in God, right, knowing God, but not in himself as accomplished. That's

[58:10] enough for today, isn't it? Now next time we're going to go into what the third question, huh? Let's just look at the premium list for a second before we we break up here.

[58:28] No, we're we're saying that there's three that the persons in God are distinguished by what? Relations of what? Origin, yeah, yeah. So if you go back to the what?

[58:48] Glory, glory in your words, huh? Yeah, okay. So you go back to the proemium at the beginning of thirty nine, right? In the consideration of these 15 questions dealing with the persons, right? Ten were considering the persons absolutely, and then five what? Imperative consideration, right? So he says after those things which have been treated about the divine persons absolutely, it remains to consider about the persons in comparison to the essence, right?

[59:26] And that's the question we just what went through, right? You can see why appropriation belongs there, right? Because you're saying can you appropriate something that pertains to the essence of God to the persons, and you can, but it doesn't mean that that can't understand what that means, right? And and why you're doing that. So that's just part of the consideration, but the fundamental question was whether the what person was the same thing as the divine nature, and the answer was yes.

[59:52] Okay. Okay. Now the next thing going to compare it to the properties and to the what? That means the relations, right? And then there's going to be a third question comparing it to the what he calls the actus notionales, huh? Like to generate, huh? Or to breathe, right? Well, is the act of generating something different from the Father, really? See, my act of generating my my children is something really different from me.

[1:00:27] Just like my walking is something really different from me, right? My walking is not my legs, is it? My seeing is not my eyes. So is the Father gener is the generating something really different from the Father? Well finally get to that question, right? Huh? See, you notice how thorough Thomas is, all right? He compares the persons to the divine nature, the divine essence first, and that's what these are.

[1:00:52] It's about. Now he's going to compare them to what? The relations or properties, right? And in the proemium here, it's, beginning of question forty, he says then we're not to ask about the persons in comparison to the relations or the properties, right? And about these four things are asked. And the fundamental question is: Whether the relation is the same thing as the person, right? Just like he asked in the previous question: Whether the what divine substance, or divine essence, or divine nature, was the same thing as a person, right?

[1:01:29] And then, secondly, whether the relations distinguish and constitute the persons, right? And third, whether abstracting by your understanding the relations and the persons, that remain. these persons or hypostasis distinct. And then, whether the relations, according to our way of understanding, presuppose the acts of the persons or the person, there would be a multiple answer to that. You'll find out. Be different for the father and the son, so on.

[1:02:03] But for Shakespeare says, you know, reason is ability to look before and after, right? And what sense is the father before generating? And what sense is is the father after generating? In our way of understanding, in other words, does he generate because he's the father, or is he the father because he generated? I'll tell us. I have a subtle answer to that, right?

[1:02:34] So we'll start next week, huh?