Prima Pars
151. Q.43 a.8 on Who Sends Whom, and Why the Trinity Is Taught Before the Incarnation
Class of 2008-07-10
https://berquistcourse.com/course/theology/10-prima-pars/151-q-43-a-8-on-who-sends-whom-and-why-the-trinity-is-taught/

[0:00] I want to talk about the order of talking about the Trinity before the incarnation. Is that the right order? To the eighth, one goes forward. Thus, it seems that no divine person is sent except by the one from whom he proceeds. What? Eternally, huh?

[0:25] Because, as the great Augustine says in the fourth book of the Trinity, the Father is sent by no one, because he is from no one.

[0:38] That's the way you translated. The Father is sent by or from no one, because he is from no one. If, therefore, some divine person is sent by another, is necessary that he be from that one.

[1:03] Moreover, the one sending has authority with respect to the one sent. But with regard to a divine person, there cannot be any authority except of origin. The one proceeds from the other. Therefore, it is necessary that the divine person which is sent be from the one sending him. This convinces me.

[1:29] If the third objection, if a divine person can be sent by one from whom he is not, nothing would prevent saying that the Holy Spirit is given by a man, right? Although he's not from him, which is against what Augustine says in the fifteenth book about the Trinity. Therefore, no divine person is sent except by the one from whom he is. I

[1:58] was all determined in my mind after reading these objections, but then I got this sed contra you know, and I got tied into a knot. But against this is that the Son is what sent by the Holy Spirit, according to that of Isaiah chapter forty-eight verse sixteen. And now what the Lord God and His Spirit sent me. Huh? I think Christ quotes it, doesn't he? When he's in the synagogue one time.

[2:30] But the Son is not from the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the divine person is sent by someone from whom he is not. Now Thomas, in reply, is going to not reply to objections in particular, right? Because he's going to solve it in the body of the article, but he's going to really mix up the thing here, right? And be careful here now, though. I answer. It should be said that about this some are found to have spoken.

[3:01] In other ways, huh? Different modes. For according to some, a divine person is not sent except by the one from whom he is eternally right. That's what my my you know inconsidered judgment. He'd ask me this out of the blue, right? I'd say, you know, having read the first seven articles, wouldn't you answer it that way? Yeah. But Thomas is going to kind of stretch it here a bit.

[3:32] And according to this, when the Son of God is sent by the Holy Spirit, it refers to the what human nature, right? According as he is sent to preaching by the Holy Spirit, huh?

[3:50] But Augustine, I don't know, this is a troublemaker. Augustine is really a troublemaker. Stirs things up a lot. Augustine, however, says in the second book of the Trinity that the Son is sent both what by himself and by the Holy Spirit. Now, now he got you know the Holy the Son is not from himself, so how can he send himself? And he's not from the Holy Spirit, so how can he be sent by the Holy Spirit?

[4:20] This is really, you know, this is a way to conclude, isn't it? And he also says, apparently, Augustine, huh? The Holy Spirit also is sent both what by himself and by the Son. Well, Son is okay, but by himself, I don't know. Get that?

[4:45] And thus, to be sent in God does not belong to any person, right? But only to the person existing from another. But to send belongs to what each person, huh? And what no? He seems to be holding on at this point to you can't be sent unless you're from another, right? But the sender can be what someone other than the one from whom you are. That's just kind of a I know.

[5:16] Okay, now Thomas is going to see the truth is somewhere in between, right? Both of these have, in some way, truth. He says. I'm glad I'm not entirely mistaken, right? There's some truth in what I first think.

[5:41] For when some person is said to be sent, there is designated what both a person existing from another, right, and a visible or invisible effect, right, by which or point to which. The sending of that divine person is to be noted, right? You know, we've seen those two things before, right? That you're sent from here to there, right? But it's not really a change in God, right?

[6:13] Okay, but in a way, some persons are from somewhere. Let's say they're from another person, right? Okay, and they're not sent by a change to us, but through a change in us, they're sent to be in us in a new way, as known or what loved by by one. Okay.

[6:38] If therefore Thomas says sending designates as a what beginning of the person who is sent, thus not just any person sends, right? But only the one to whom it belongs to be a beginning of that person, and thus the son is sent only by the father, right? And the Holy Spirit by the Father and the Son, since the Son proceeds only from the Father, right? And therefore he's only what sent by the Father.

[7:19] If the word "sending" right designates the ones a what beginning of that person who is sent, and the Holy Spirit proceeds both from the Father and the Son, so he can be said to be sent by the Father and the Son, right? But not the what Son sending himself, the Holy Spirit sending himself. If, however, the person sending is understood to be the beginning or source of the effect, right, in the creature, according to which mission should be observed, thus the whole Trinity sends the person what sent, and that's maybe what you were talking about, Father, a little bit earlier, right?

[8:01] See the truth in what you say. So, so, so, yeah. But not on account of this does man give the Holy Spirit, right? Because not even the effect of grace is he able to what cause. So give up your ambition to send the Holy Spirit to somebody, and through this is clear the solution to the objections, right?

[8:32] Incidentally, when you go through the disputed questions of Thomas, sometimes he'll come down one side and answer the objections on the other side, right? But sometimes he'll say the truth is what in between, and then he'll answer both sets of objections. You know, it's much more complicated, but that's true, you know.

[8:52] So, so after the break, we'll talk a little bit about the. The order of our teaching, you know, and then we'll talk a little bit about names, okay? Example here in the Trinity the Incarnation just to see the point. Sometimes in scripture it says do good and avoid evil. Another times it said in scripture, turn away from the evil you are doing and do good. Now Thomas is a man who looks before and after.

[9:30] Notices that these two passages, the order is what? Just the reverse, right? The one good is before evil. The other is evil before good. I mean, turn away from evil. Okay.

[9:45] Now you've seen that you've seen those two kinds of things in scripture, right? Okay. Okay. Now you see this also in the the Psalms in the Our Father, right? These kind of main prayers, right? In the Our Father, the you know that will be done. So the doing of good is before the ones about turning away from the bad. Forgive us our sins and so on, right?

[10:19] Yes, I guess. But in the Psalms, it's the reverse order. Because as Thomas, following Augustine, there says the first fifty Psalms are concerned with repentance and fighting against your sin, right? And the correct number, the fiftieth Psalm, is this one that Saint Teresa of Avila was so fond of, right? What's a Psalm asking God to forgiveness, right? And then doing good deeds comes in the second fifty, right?

[10:50] And resting in God in the last fifty. So it's just the reverse of the order of the Our Father. You have the same parts in the Our Father and in the Psalms, right? So hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come is, kind of resting in God, right? Thy will be done. Give us this day our daily bread. is a good deed, right? Then the ones with sin is a lack, right?

[11:12] So it's something like you know that order with do good and avoid evil, turn away from evil and do good. Okay. So Thomas says, well, that's not not random in scripture, right? But how do you explain those two orders? How can one be before the other and vice versa? Nothing can be so. Right. What way does one come before the other?

[11:37] Probably the avoiding evil and doing good in terms of our experience, Because we're usually doing evil before we're doing good. Yeah. Well, Thomas, the terms Thomas would use would be in the one you have the order of intention. Yeah. Okay. Because you primarily intend to do good, that you want to avoid the bad, right? Okay. In the same way as a philosopher, right? I want to know the truth and avoid error, right?

[12:11] I want to avoid error because I intend to know the truth, right? Because I intend to know the truth, as a consequence of that, I want to avoid error, which would be an impediment to my knowing the truth, right? Okay. And then he calls the other order, the order of execution, the order of carrying out, right? Huh? You see. And so, as you say, you are in a sinful state more or less, and so the first thing you got to do is be what?

[12:38] turned away through. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And even you know, in baptism, I think this is the final washing and so and symbolism. And I think it's kind of appropriate, therefore, that the that the psalms be in the order of execution because they're what drawn out, right? Huh? Okay. Now the Our Father is compact. right. Now this is something different that I am going to talk about now, but notice how you could have exactly the reverse order, right?

[13:10] Okay. Now, as Paul VI said one time, you know the whole church is built on the faith of Peter. That's what Christ said. But what is the faith of Peter?

[13:24] Well, he said Caesarea Philippi, where other people are saying Christ is this and Christ is the heaven. They're all mixed up. And so, what do you say? And he says what? Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Okay. And he praises him. Christ praises him, right? That flesh and blood did reveal this to you, but my Father, who's in heaven, right? And then then he goes on to say, "thou, Peter, upon this rock I will build my church, " and so on, right?

[13:53] But notice the order there, right? The humanity is given before the what divinity, right? Okay. Now you know that that Peter and and John are very close. You see this in the Gospel of Saint John. And now at the end of the Gospel of Saint John, Saint John says, "These things are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. " Well, actually, the same profession of faith as Peter has made, right?

[14:27] Except Peter is addressing Christ as a person, so he says you, and and John is not, so he says Jesus, right? Is the Christ the Son of what God? Doesn't use the word living, but same thing, basically. Okay, so that's one order, right? Huh? Okay. But now, if you look at the beginning of John's Gospel, and some people say John's Gospel is the greatest Gospel, but anyway,

[14:59] it begins by saying the beginning was the Word, and the Word was towards God, right? And the word was God, so you get the divinity of the word, right? And then the dogma says, and the word was made flesh, which was the greatest making of God according to Thomas it was not the gentiles. Okay, so there you go from the what Divinity. divinity of the word to his being man, just in first order.

[15:28] So how can what's the correct order? Is it? Well, somebody might ask, what's the correct order? You know, do good and avoid evil, or turn away from your sins and try to be good. So,

[15:44] what would be the difference in these two orders? Well, look for a second here in question one seventeen, whether one man can teach another. Right? You know, not going to go into the whole thing here, but just in the body of the article, the last in in the Marietti text the, last paragraph here, the last thing,

[16:10] where it begins: the teacher leads the student from things already known to a knowledge of the unknown in two ways. Do you have that part? Ducit aut magister. You understand my Latin, this pronunciation. The schepulum exprimitis. Okay. This is a text someone said the other often referred to. First, he says by proposing to him, right, some aids, auxilia. This is question one seventeen, article one, at the end, towards the end of the body of the article.

[16:48] Right after a quote from the Post Analytics that all teaching and all learning is from pre-existent knowledge, right? That quote there from Aristotle. Okay. He says the teacher, however, leads the student from things foreknown to a knowledge of the unknown in two ways. First, he says by proposing to him some aids or tools, right, which his understanding uses to acquiring knowledge, as when he proposes to him some statements less universal.

[17:28] That seems like out of order. It's the reverse of the order that that his teacher Aristotle taught him in the beginning of the eight books of Natural Hearing, or when he proposes to him some sensible examples, right, or some likenesses or what opposites, huh? Or things of this sort, from which the understood understanding of the one learning, and they use the word in Latin, manuducitur. I was talking about that word in the text we had today.

[17:59] By which the understanding of the one learning is led by the hand to a knowledge of the truth unknown, right? And Monsignor Dianne gave a course which was on the manuductio proper to logic, right? And another one on the manuductio proper to wisdom, which is totally neglected, he says. Okay.

[18:31] Now, in another way, when he strengthens the understanding of the one learning, right? Not by some active power, as it were, of a superior nature, like our guardian angels, turning the lights of our minds. You know how I say that? That little prayer. Just as has been said above about the angels illuminating us, right? Why? Because all human understandings are one grade in the order of nature.

[19:01] But in so far as he proposes to the student the order of what premises or principles. To conclusions, because perhaps by himself he does not have such a power of bringing things together so that he can deduce from the principles conclusions. And therefore it is said in the first book of the Posterior Analytics that a demonstration is a syllogism making us to what? To know. And in this way, the one who demonstrates makes the what?

[19:38] here knowing. Okay. So these are two different ways, right? And what is before in one order might be what after in another, right? Okay. Now,

[19:55] in the easy science, like Euclid's elements, right, which some people don't find so easy, but not so easy, you hardly need any induction at all. See, and you're mainly doing the second thing here, right? But in these other sciences, the induction required is what extensive, yeah, and especially in science like logic, which has the greatest difficulties, Thomas says, maximum difficultatum, and in wisdom, right?

[20:29] Now, this reminds me of the text in the fifth book of wisdom there, when Aristotle talks about the word before, right? And he proceeds a little differently than he does in the categories, right? Because the fifth book begins with the word beginning, a very good place to begin. And that first reading dealing with the word beginning ends up with a common notion of beginning. What is first, he says, in being or becoming or knowing?

[21:09] And when he gets to talk about before, he says, well, before and after is talking about order. In order proceeds from some beginning, and so he recalls the notion of what beginning, and he divides before and after into those three: before in being, before in what knowing, and before in becoming. And this corresponds roughly to the first three meanings of before in the categories. Okay. The fourth one is is much more distant, right?

[21:41] That's the one in goodness, right? And Aristotle takes that up and he takes the word perfect, which is more appropriate there. Okay. When he gets into talking about before in knowing, then he points out a distinction, fundamental distinction between the senses and reason. For the senses, the senses know only the singular. And so, the senses do the senses at any way know the universal? No. Well, see, I see a man over here.

[22:19] I see a glass. I see a chair here. In a sense, the universal is exemplified in the singular, right? But the senses know directly. You could say the singular, right? Which exemplifies the universal. So for the senses, the singular is more known than the universal. Okay. The singular is known directly, and if the universal is known at all by the senses, it's known insofar as it's exemplified, right?

[22:48] Okay. For reason, it's just the reverse. As the great Boethius says, a thing is singular when sensed, the universal is understood. When I understand what this is over here, but I understand what's a man, two-footed animal. Um.

[23:12] And the singular is kind of what less known to reason. Um. So what you are as an individual is less known to me than that you are a man. Okay. So that kind of corresponds a little bit to this, right? Because he says, proponentur aliqua sensibilia exempla, right? See, manudexia goes back to the fact that our knowledge begins in the senses, and therefore we have to begin with what sensible examples.

[23:49] You can't teach without sensible examples, right? And so that's kind of before, according to the senses, right? Okay. Now, in what sense is the humanity of Christ before the divinity of Christ?

[24:16] Yeah, because our knowledge begins with the senses, right? So the humanity of Christ is sensible, right? You know, touch the fingers in his side, right, and so on. Then you trust his eyes, trust his touch, but actually, I guess it's enough that he sees him. But anyway, but the humanity is sensible, right? And Thomas interprets the words of him, my Lord, my God. My Lord is referring to him as man.

[24:45] That even as man, he's our Lord, and and God is what's invisible, right? So the same order as in Peter's confession of faith, right? Okay. But obviously, it goes back to the fact that for the senses, the singular is before the universal, and the human nature of Christ, right, for the senses is more known than divine nature. That's an understatement, right? Because the divine nature, does not seem to be known at all, right?

[25:17] Okay. And you know, the Holy Spirit coming there, and the fire was more what known for the senses, right? Than the Holy Spirit, right? Okay.

[25:32] Or in the order of what manuductio, if you want to use that word, right? Okay. In the order of manuductio, the human nature of Christ comes before the what divine nature, right? But now, the second order, he refers to the order of demonstration, right? And if you know the the postanalytics, you could also say the order of what definition, right? Okay. Now, which is before in definition?

[26:08] The universal, I was going to say, but I don't know what. Yeah, but I mean, when you talk about, and the word was made flesh, right? In that sentence, and the word was made flesh, the word is in that statement, isn't it? But you already learned about the word and defined it in a sense, right?

[26:32] We spoke about the word was eternal, right? And the word was towards God, someone who is God. It's Father, actually, right? You don't maybe know at that point, but later on he's called the Son. You know, the the one who is God that he's towards is the Father, right? And then that the Word is God, right? So the Word is defined without the flesh,

[27:01] but the flesh is what? The incarnation involves the Word in its what definition. See, what is the incarnation? Without trying to be too exact on that for next year, or next year I should say. But you can say that in the definition of the incarnation would be what the Word, right? But in the definition of the Word, so far as we can define the Word, and say what the word is, is the incarnation.

[27:38] So the Word of God, second person of Blessed Trinity, and so on, is before the what incarnation in definition. In other words, to understand the incarnation, you've got to know who the Son of God is, who the Word of God is, the the second person of Blessed Trinity is, and that this person took human nature to himself and joined it to his person, right? So you can't.

[28:17] So you can say that the the mystery of the Trinity, in definition, is before the mystery of the what, incarnation. So in the order of defining or stating what these things are, in in the order of understanding, right?

[28:38] Um, and that's the order that Saint John is following in the beginning of his gospel, right? In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was towards God, and the Word was God. Then later on, you realize that the Word became flesh, right? You have to understand the Word a little bit before you can understand what is meant by saying the Word was made flesh, right? Which has problems being understood, right?

[29:04] But the Word became man, right? How does this take place, right? And so on. But in terms of the senses, the flesh, right? The human nature is sensible in the way that the word is not, right? The word cannot be sensed, right? And therefore, the senses, the human nature of Christ is before, right?

[29:31] Do you see that? Now, why does Thomas give manuductio before the other, right? Because that's before for us, right? Because we start the senses, right? So, Peter's confession of faith, or the confession of faith that Saint John has it in his gospel, right? These things are written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, right? It follows that what that order, right?

[30:01] But it's like the order of manuductio, right? Or it's the order of what is before for the senses, right? But the other order is more for reason itself. That's trying to understand these things and define them, right? So far as they can be, you know, said, and then your understanding of the Trinity and the distinction of the persons of the Trinity, your understanding of the Word of God, right, the Son of God, is presupposed, right, to understanding what Saint John says next: the Word was made flesh.

[30:38] Which is a what synecdoche right? For the for the name there, right? You know, synecdoche is where the name of the what part is given for the whole, right? And you know that you know a lot of heretics took it as being said not by figure of speech, right? Okay. So, but apart from that that problem with the word, you're saying in the Word was made flesh, the Word was made man, right?

[31:05] You know the creed says what? What order does the Creed have Well, I mean, I'd say that in the Nicene Creed, you know. Because here's the Word of Jesus Christ there, you know, but it kind of talks about as divinity a bit, huh? and then he became man, right? Okay. So one is the order of manuductio, you might say, right? One is the order of what is before in knowledge for the senses, and therefore for man, right?

[31:47] And the other is what is before in definition. If you use that word, it'd be a wrong word to use, right? That what is before in definition.

[31:58] Now, take a simple example of this order here. When Socrates asks in the dialogues, some of them, when he asks Meno, what is. What is virtue, right? And Mino gives examples, right? Okay. Or suppose you ask me, what is an animal, right? And I said, well, it's something like a dog or a cat or a horse, right? Okay. Now, dog and cat and horse are closer to your senses, right?

[32:35] Than animal, because dog and cat and horse are closer to your pet dog, your pet cat, your pet horse, if you have one. Okay.

[32:49] So, in leading you by the hand from your dog, my cat, your horse, or from dog, cat, and horse to animal, that's the order of manuductio right? The order whose beginning is the senses, right? But now, if I was to define dog an animal, right? Would dog be in the definition of animal?

[33:22] I define the dog as a four-footed animal that barks and like that. So, animal would be in the definition of dog, right? So then you say animal is before dog in definition,

[33:38] and so the definition of animal as a living body with senses, right, is before the definition of dog as an animal. It's four-footed and barks and so on, right? You see, that'd be like the order of demonstration, second order, right? So, Aristotle talks in the beginning of the Eight Books of Natural Hearing that we should, but we know the confused before the distinct, and therefore the general before the particular.

[34:11] He's talking about the more universal before the less universal. He's talking about in terms of what order of definition, order of demonstration. So, to understand what a dog is, you have to understand what a animal is, right? But you

[34:30] so that in the order of understanding, animal is before dog. But in the order from the senses, dog is before animal, right? Okay. So it's like that with the Trinity and and the Incarnation, right? That in the order of defining and understanding, the Trinity is before the Incarnation. It leads into what understanding the what Incarnation, right? But if you go back to the senses, right, then the humanity of Christ is before the divinity of Christ, right?

[35:12] So when when Saint Peter says. You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God, right? He ascends from his humanity, right, which is Christ, the Anointed, right, to his what divinity, right?

[35:29] Who's that priest that used to, you know, go around to the parishes and so on, talk about the Sacred Heart of Jesus, right? But you know they say the proper order there is you start with the physical heart of Christ, right, and then it's emotional attachment for us, and then the love of his human will, and then finally the love of his divine will, right? So you are ascending in that order, right, and that is like the order of manuductio because that order is in some sense is more fundamental.

[36:02] In the same way that the order of manuductio is given before the other order, right? Monsignor Dionne was talking about the manuductio required for wisdom, and he had a beautiful text of Albert the Great, right? And Albert was contrasting sciences like natural science, which require experience, and geometry and arithmetic, which don't require experience. You can sit in your in your office and think these things out, right, in imagination.

[36:38] But then when he speaks of wisdom, he says experience. Monsignor Dionne says, "What does he mean by experience? It doesn't mean the experience of being." He says,

[36:52] "No, what does experience mean in the original sense? Experience means what bringing together many singulars into memory, right? But the experience required for wisdom is not many singulars, but the many what particular sciences, huh? And a little bit like experience, right? It's like going from the lesser first to the more universal, like induction from the singulars to the universal, okay? So you have to have a certain foundation in logic and geometry and natural philosophy and even ethics and political philosophy before you try to acquire wisdom, right?

[37:31] But when you study wisdom, you find out that it's about the most universal things, like being and one and true good, and these enter into the definition of everything else. And the axioms are seen there distinctly in wisdom. These enter into all other things. So in the order of what definition and demonstration, wisdom is before all the rest. And they don't demonstrate, you know, the beginnings of wisdom.

[37:55] Wisdom demonstrates their beginnings. Aristotle spends the fourth book of wisdom there defending the axiom of being and unbeing, underlies everything, and so in the order of demonstration, in the order of definition, wisdom is before all the rest. But yet it's the last part of philosophy to be learned. As Thomas says, when he gives the order of learning the sciences, because the experience, he requires this experience of all the other what fundamental, more particular sciences.

[38:27] Okay. So I see that the Gospels of course, come before the Summa, right? In the Gospels, you kind of what see the humanity of Christ before you start to understand his what divinity, right? That's sort of the way that people around Christ they see humanity, and so gradually they begin to be aware of his divinity, right? You know the conversations of the Last Supper. There, you know, show us the Father.

[38:59] What do you mean? He's you know, Father's not the Father. We ain't talking about. But even them, the humanity is more what. More known right? So, Well even the way you phrase the question. it says who, who, who do men say that the Son of Man? is Mhm He didn't say who the Son of God. is Mhm. So you know him as the son of man before you know him as the son of God.

[39:26] That's kind of the order from the senses and the order of ontotexia, but also the first order. So it's significant that Thomas gives that order first, right?

[39:41] So we've just got through considering the Trinity, right? And now in the fall, we'll proceed to talk about the Incarnation, Tertia Pars. So we're following the order of what understanding, the order of defining, right? Okay. The order of Saint John the beginning of his gospel, rather than... It's interesting that you know the account in Mark and uh, Luke of that same question, right? They just have Peter saying, "You are Christ."

[40:14] You know, But Matthew you know, is just like, "apostle, right?" Mark and Luke are apostles, right? And you know, Saint Peter, I mean, how Saint Augustine says, you know, that they put Matthew and John at the outside to hold it, hold up together. And this is a good example, right? That you don't have the complete profession of faith. In the words of Mark and Luke, it's implied, but it's not spelled out the way it is in the Great.

[40:45] And of course, in St. John's, even more spelled out. it was divinity, right? Even in his first epistle, Saint John talks about what we've seen and heard, touched with our hands about the Word of Life. Yeah. It's the same order there to according to the senses to. Yeah. Could have you? So we we treat the trinity. We're following the order of understanding, rather than the other way.

[41:11] Could have we gone the other way? Is it possible to do? Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. But but the point is, as you try to understand Christ, right? Eventually, you're going to have to come to the fact that that he's not a human person, but a divine person, right? You see? and there's not two persons there, like the story of somebody thought, right? And so eventually, you're going to have to understand the Trinity to understand Christ, right?

[41:39] So, sort of St. Thomas written written a theology in the other order? Well, you you could do that, yeah. And in a sense, we do that, of course, when we talk to our children, right? You know, the children are introduced more to the human nature of Christ. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And and and Thomas does say that, you know, that that comes first, and you know, you know, as children and even older children, right, so we're kind of led by the human nature of Christ to.

[42:12] his divine nature, right? Okay. Um the Everlasting Man. Chesterton I quote it that kind of bravado of Churchill. You know, someone said to him later in life, "You know, you prepared to meet your creator. Question is, is he prepared to meet me?"