Prima Pars
Lecture 83: Divine Life and the Two Senses of Being in God

Transcript
================================================================================

That's Isidore? Isidore. Get him right now. Or Isidore. Let's look at Article 4 here. Where there are all things are life in God. This sounds a little strange, but the way they punctuate the text, right? Of St. John. And if you look at the Siddh Kanta there, that's where that thing arose. What fought to a mess, right? What was made in Siddh Kanta. In ipso vita erat, right? Okay. And of course, we have a little note in mind, maybe your text there too, right? A little different place you would punctuate there, you know? It says, thus Thomas reads with the Latin fathers, Augustine, Jerome, and others. Chrysostom and the other Greek fathers read, sine ipso factum est, nioe factum est. A ide punto posito, right? Okay. This is a thing that arises because of the text, but that's not so much important as to whether it's true or not. Okay. What is being said in that particular text or not. Okay. To the fourth one proceeds thus, it seems that all things are not life in, what? God. For it is said in the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 17. In him we live and move and are. It's always a very interesting text. But not all things in God are, what? Motion. Therefore, not all things in him are, what? Life. Moreover, all things are in God as in the first exemplar. But the things exemplified ought to conform to the exemplar, right? Since, therefore, not all things live in themselves, it seems that not all things in God are life, huh? How can a stone be life in God and not be life in itself, huh? Moreover, Augustine says in the book about true religion that the living substance is better than any non-living substance. So a tree is better than a stone. If, therefore, those things which in themselves do not live, in God are life, it seems that they are, what? More truly things in God, right? It seems that more truly are things in God than in themselves, which nevertheless seems to be false. Since in themselves they are an act, right? And God only an ability. Act of ability. More, just as good things are, what? Known by God? And those things which come to be in some time. So also bad things and those things which God is able to do but never come about. If, therefore, all things are life in God insofar as they are known by him, it seems that also bad things and things which never come to be are life in God insofar as they are known by him, which seems unsuitable. Unfitting. But against this is the text, the Latin fathers read it, that what was made in him was what? Life. But all things apart from God are made, therefore all things in God are life. Quite direct and instant, huh? I answer it should be said, as has been said above, that the to live of God, or the life of God, is his what? To understand. For in God are the same, the understanding, and what is understood, and the understanding itself. Whence whatever is in God is understood, is his very what? To live in his or his very life. Since, therefore, all things which are made by God are in him, as understood, it follows that all things in him are the divine life itself. So I'm life in God, huh? Okay. Now the first text is this interesting one from the Acts. To the first, therefore, it should be said, that creatures are said to be in God in two ways, huh? Now there we get back to the different meanings of being in, right? What two senses is he going to distinguish here? In one way, insofar as they are contained and conserved in the divine, what? Power. Just as we say those things are in us, which are in our power, right? And that is the, what? The seventh sense of in, in the fourth book of the Acts here. And in this way, creatures are said to be in God, even insofar as they are in their own, what? Natures. Because they still depend upon. In English, we sometimes say, you know, it's out of my hands. It means don't have to grow my, what? Power, right? And in this way should be understood the word of the Apostle. Now he calls, what? St. Paul by Antonia the Apostle. So I guess St. Paul has a rank of, what? Apostle, you know? Something to think of that, but he wasn't the twelfth guy elected. Matthias. But Thomas will say that St. Paul and St. Peter are called the Apostles by Antonia. I noticed that John Paul II used to call them the princes of the Apostles, right? And so we have a feast there, you know. I was married, I think. June 29th, right? It's the feast of Peter and Paul, right? And, of course, you see the prominence of those two of the four basilicals, right? St. Peter's and St. Paul's. So this is the way you should understand. In him we, what? Live and move and are, right? In the seventh sense of him. Because are to live and are to be, and are in our motion, is caused by, what? God, huh? But in another way, things are said to be in God as in a, what? Nor. That's not one of the eight senses the Aristotle distinguishes, right? But it might be, you know, run off one of them, right? Maybe they form and matter or something like this, right? But it's a different sense, nevertheless. And thus things are in God, through their proper reasons, which are not other in God from his very, what? Divine nature. Whence things insofar as they are in God thus are the divine essence. And because the divine essence is life, not of emotion, hence it is that things, in this way of speaking, are in God, not motion, but, what? Life, huh? Okay. Now, if you look at that first argument as an objection, right? To things being in God, right? What kind of a mistake is being made in that, if you try to take it as an objection to the truth of the body of the article? Yeah. Which the philosopher says is the most common mistake. This is in the book, and it says reputation is the most common mistake made in men's thinking, huh? So, that's nice, huh? I'd like to have a comment here, Thomas, on that first, you know. In particular, I mean, there's little hints about it, you know, but I'd like to see it. This, in him, we live, and live, and have our being? Yeah. Yeah. Because, you know, we were talking before, in the earlier article, about to be and to live are the same thing there, right? In the living thing, right? Or that to live is, you know. But how does it be taken in this text if it's distinguished from Soons, right? He doesn't have anything on his commentary, is it? He doesn't have a commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, or something. Oh, I see. Yeah. St. Christopher's got homilies on the Acts of the Apostles. Thomas doesn't have a commentary on that. That's funny. You would think that this would show up someplace. Well, I mean, it does, it shows up here, it shows up in many places, but I mean, I mean, it's just, I don't know if I've got a full explanation of it yet, about me, you can do nothing. Okay, the second objection, that all things are in God is in the first exemplar, and the things exemplared should be conformed to exemplar, right? Now, to the second it should be said, that the exemplata, the things exemplar, ought to be conformed to the exemplar according to the, what, notion of their form, not according to their way of, what, being. For sometimes a form has other being in the exemplar and in the exemplard, just as the form of the house in the mind of the artist has immaterial and understandable being, right? But in the house, which is outside the soul, it has sensible and material being. Whence the reasons of things which in themselves do not live are life in the divine mind, because in the divine mind they have the divine, what, being, huh? Which is the divine life. So, on the third objection, moreover, as Augustine says in the book on true religion, the living substance is better than the non-living one. If, therefore, those things which in themselves are not living are life in God, it seems that truer are things in God than in themselves. To the third, it should be said, that if the meaning or the definition of natural things, matter was not a part, but only form, in all ways, in a more true way, natural things would be in the divine mind, through their forms, than in themselves, huh? On account of which Plato laid down, that the separated man, huh, was a true man, huh? But the material man is man by, what, partaking, right? That's kind of assuming that the matter is something outside what a man is. And that's our style of taxism for this in the seventh book of wisdom, right? But because it is of the definition of natural things, matter is of the definition of matter, eternal things, it should be said, huh, that natural things have truer being, simply, in the divine mind, huh, than in themselves, because in the divine mind they have uncreated being, huh? In themselves they have, what, uncreated being, huh? So we have more being in God than in ourselves. But to be this, as for example, a man or a horse, has itself more truly in its own nature than in the divine mind, huh? Because to the truth of man pertains the material, which it doesn't have in the divine mind. Just as the house has more noble being in the mind of the artist than in matter, but nevertheless more truly is the house said to be, which is in matter, than which is in the mind. Because this is a house in act, that is a house in, what, potency, huh? So I'm more truly a man in myself than I am truly a man in God, right? Nevertheless, I have in God more being than I have in myself. Now the fourth one is arguing from the question of the bad, right? To the fourth it should be said, that although bad things are in the knowledge of God, insofar as they are comprehended by the divine knowledge, they are now however in God as created by God, right? Or as preserved by him, nor as things having a, what, definition or reason in God. For they are known by God through the notions of the good things, huh? Hence, it cannot be said that bad things are life in God. Okay, so that's an important thing to be said, huh? Sin is not life in God. Better get up. Okay? But this goes back to what Thomas said about, you know, how the bad things are known by God, right? And it's due to their defect that they're known through good things rather than through themselves. It's due to the defect of blindness that's known through sight. But sight can be known without blindness, huh? But blindness cannot be known without sight, right? So the bad is known through the good. Now those things which are not in any time can be said to be life in God, according as to live means to understand only, right? Insofar as he understood by God. Not insofar as, what, to live implies a principle of operation, right? Okay? So, now we can understand, I am the way, the truth, and the life, right? What would you say, Zadar? Would you explain that? I am the way, the truth, and the life, huh? No. The life, humanity, and the truth, and the life, and the freedom, and the divinity. Yeah. And they're tied together because of the close relation between life and truth. Yeah. Which you can see right here, right? Because if you look at this whole section here, you can see that the life here is part of the consideration of the divine, what? Knowledge, right? If you go back to the premium there at the beginning of question 14, right? At the consideration of those things which pertain to the divine substance, it remains to consider about those things which pertain to the operation of him, right? So, I sent this call, you know, the questions you read before, the ones about knowing and naming God, right? That's the treatise on the substance of God, right? From what he says here. And then he takes up the operations of God, even though they're the same thing, right? But started from creatures of the different things. And because the operation, because there's a certain operation which remains in the one doing, right? Certain things that proceed in exterior effect. First, we ought to consider about what? His knowledge and his will. For to understand is in the one understanding, and to will in the one willing. And afterwards, we'll talk about the potency of God, right? So, he's dividing these two against the potency of God, right? Which is considered as the beginning of the divine operation proceeding to an exterior effect. But then, quia vero intelligere, right? Because to understand is a certain, what? To live. After the consideration of the divine knowledge, we're not to consider about the divine life, right? He's kind of tying the two together, right? But then you can add that, what? Um... To live. To live. To live. To live. The second person is said to be truth itself and life itself. There's a kind of appropriation there, right? Because everything that you have, we forget the Trinity here, is common to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. So God the Father would say, I am life itself. I am truth itself, and the Holy Spirit would say that too. But when we appropriate something essential to one person, right, it's because of a certain likeness between what is private to that person, right, and that essential attribute, son. So because the Son proceeds by way of God understanding himself, he proceeds as the Word of God, right, the thought of God, right, then truth, which is tied up with knowing and thought, right, and life, which is tied up with thought. And if you link the two together, right, then they can be appropriated to what? The Word of God, the Son of God, right? Okay? And also, by the way, the example, you can speak of the Father, his life, and so our Lord says in the fifth chapter of John's Gospel, it belongs to the Father, he has life in himself. Yeah. So awesome. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So it shows it not being, you know, said privately to him, but by appropriation, right? Now, it's kind of interesting. When I grew up, you know, that text was often used by the Popes, I think, and in the Catechisms, they were divided into three rather than two. And then they would teach, you know, with him as truth, they would teach the Catechism, I mean, teach the Creed and so on, right? What you believe. And then as life, they would teach the sacraments and that sort of thing, right? And then as way, they would teach the commandments, right? And so on. So that it's kind of the three attributes of God. He's king, right? And therefore, commandments of do certain things and not do some things. He's priest, you know? And then he's, what, giving us life, you know, the sacraments. And then he's, what, a teacher, right? Or prophet or teacher, right? And then he's giving us the truth, right? See? So that's kind of interesting, right? And I said, you know, overworked, did you, when you were a little in catechisms and so on? It's kind of the text they would quote, right? Kind of to back up this division of Christian doctrine into, what, three, yeah? And when I got older and I was reading Thomas, as we saw in the beginning here, and he's following Augustine, he says the same thing, huh? You distinguish the sense of the letter and the spiritual sense, right? And, but then, both Thomas and Augustine say that there can be more than one sense of the letter. I don't know if it's talked that much nowadays, you know? But this seems to be an example of it, right? Yeah. Now, when I come back to the context in the Gospel of St. John, where this is said, right? And I believe it's when Philip or somebody is asking, you know, Christ says, you know, you know where I'm going and how to get there and so on. Well, you don't know. And so he's answering two questions, right? And when he says, I am in the road, he's telling us how to get there. But where he's trying to get is to, what, the truth itself and life, right? So, to divide it into two, right? According to the human nature of Christ and the divine nature of Christ, right? Maybe it fits the context more, right? But still you have this other one that is used a lot. I think it's more interesting kind of when it's in the context itself and it's cast light upon that. So you could, at this point, you know, stop and quote that and then talk about how these two things are appropriated to the second person. And then when you get to the tertia part, you know, Thomas will quote the idea that, you know, this is about Christ who, as man, is the road to God. The odas, huh? Okay. So, now we've got to go on to the, what, divine will. I don't know if we should do that today, but let's just look at the little cranium here. Of course, interesting, huh? I think when you study the Trinity, as you'll see, Thomas will be saying this, we have more names for the perception of the Son than we have for the perception of the Holy Spirit. We don't have a name for it. And we have more proper names for the Son than for the Holy Spirit, right? And this is, we name things as we know them, right? So that the, in some sense, the perception of the Son seems to be more known, right? Yeah. But I suppose here, you know, the fact that you take up the mind first before the will, maybe it's more... No, right? That would be kind of analogous, doesn't it? So after the consideration of those things which pertain to the divine knowledge, we're not to consider about those things which pertain to the divine will. So that first there would be a consideration about the divine will itself. Secondly, about those things which pertain to the will absolutely right. And then third, those things which pertain to the intellect in order to the what? Will. Now what the heck does that mean? Well, 19 here is about the will of God, right? And 20 is about what? The love of God, right? And this is, look at the premium there, to 20. Then we're not to consider about those things which absolutely pertain to the will of God. So this is the second of the three parts he gave in the first premium, right? And he says, In the desiring power there is found in us both the passions of the soul as joy, love, and so on, and the habits of the moral virtues. Whence first we're not to consider about the love of God, things that went out. Secondly, about the justice of God and the mercy of God. It's like the virtues of God, right? Okay. So, 20 and 21 are dealing with the absolute, right? What pertains to the will absolutely. Okay. Now, question what? 22. Okay, now this is the third part of the original distinction, right? So, with respect to all things, predestination and reprobation, and the things which follow upon these with respect to man, especially in order to eternal life. So, it takes you down, I guess, to 24, and then he takes up the divine power after that, huh? But the divine power looks back to the original division, right? Where you divide an understanding and willing against the making of the divine power, right? Because the one is a doer that remains in the doer, right? And the other one goes out, right? Okay. Now, let's go back to that first distinction a little bit, huh? How do you express this in English, right? What I would say in English is, I would divide doing into doing and making. I don't want to be good words, right? Okay. Now, how can you divide something into itself? What's the principle of naming here? Something that keeps its name because... Nothing to add. Nothing to add. Yeah. Something to add. Although, this act is more perfect than that, huh? Yet, there's something that stands out about making, right? Yeah. And that is that you have a product apart from the making, right? Yeah. Okay? While in the doing, remaining the doer, there's no product, right? Okay? I remember seeing an advertisement years ago in U.S. News, you know. Production-minded men, you know? Production-minded, right? You know? So, kind of an interesting example of this, right? Because the imperfect one, in a sense, has something in addition to the doing itself. And therefore, it gets a new name. Because there's something made, right? But the doing doesn't, right? So, as far as God is concerned, under this, we consider His, what? Understanding, and His willing, and loving, right? You know, the word He's going to emphasize there, right? But then He gets down to, I think it's article, I mean, question 24, I think it is. The power of God, right? And He's going to be talking about this activity, right? Okay? Now, in the Summa Contra Gentiles, right? He takes up the understanding and the ruling of God, in the first book, right? And then in the second book, He goes back and points out this distinction, and says, for a full knowledge of God, you have to go about this doing as well as that doing. And then He takes up this doing, and talks about God making the universe, and all those things, right? But it's, this is in the second book, this is in the first book, right? But here it's all in the, what? First book, right? Okay. And the way Thomas speaks there, too, he's going to talk about the divine providence in the, what? The third book, right? Okay. Right here, he seems to be taking up the providence with the understanding and the willing as kind of involving both of them, right? I suppose you look at providence in a couple of ways, maybe. You could think of, you know, God's plan in His mind, and so on. And that remains within God, but if you take God as, what, guiding us, then providence seems to be, what, have an exterior effect, right? He's leading us, right? You know? So, Thomas will talk in the second book of the Simiconic Gentiles about God making the universe, and then the third book about His conserving us in existence and ordering things, right? Yeah, yeah. Okay. But you'll see that as being kind of, have an exterior effect, right? So, there are little subtle differences here, you know? A little puzzling, you know, but divine providence is very interesting, huh? What's the, you looked at St. Catherine of Siena's book, you know, it's on divine providence, and one of the parts is on divine providence. I've often, you know, wondered why the Dominicans down there in, what I didn't call it, Providence College, was that from the town, or because of the order, you know? They have some emphasis upon that, huh? The Dominicans, you know, used to be known for putting their men in the right spot, you know, they know what you're best at, what you're best at, you know? That's providence, huh? That's the practical foresight, huh? When you read the treatise on providence, on prudence there in the secundi secundi, and Thomas talks about the integral parts of prudence, and one of them is called providencia, right? And I guess the Latin word prudencia is contraction of providence. So one of the objections is, well, this is the whole thing, it can't be a part, right? And Thomas says, well, we name it from the, what, principal part. So you might translate, you know, prudencia instead of prudence, which is kind of the Latin word, by foresight, huh? And I know some of the better writers, even, you know, Winston Churchill will speak of foresight, you know, more than prudence, huh? And it kind of describes this, huh? So, divine foresight, huh? It's kind of what Abraham would take up, his son Isaac, where it's the land, God will provide, but they said that's why they named the mountain, God will see, I forget, I don't know exactly how to translate the Hebrew, but it has to do with God seeing, because he will provide the land. It's kind of amazing, God's foresight, you know, range of things for us, you know? I saw him the other day, he was saying, you know, he's got an urge to do this or that, you know, that, you know, to learn this, you know, and then all of a sudden, he sees that I needed to do this, right? He was brushing up on his Spanish or something, you know, and then suddenly, he's called upon to, you know, to be in a context of using Spanish, but what moved him to take up Spanish, right? You see? You know? That's not the most pleasant thing in the world to do, maybe. All of a sudden, you know, he needs this, you know? So, you know, God is arranging these things, maybe, huh? You're kind of an angel, you know? I mean, Thomas talks about how sometimes, you know, you're illuminated as to why you should do this, other times just that you should do it, and you can't say, why? I just know that I should do it. It's kind of interesting, huh? The way God works these things out. They used to make a proportion, you know, that God is to our events, like the dramatist is to the events of the characters, right? He arranges them, so they make an interesting thing, you know? But it's beyond anybody in the play to see the whole thing, right? Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, Amen. God, our enlightenment, guardian angel, strengthen the lights of our minds, order to illumine our images, and allows us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, an angelic doctor, pray on us. And help us to understand what you have written. In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Amen. Before I go to the summa here, just another thing about this coupling in the Lord's Word, you know, of truth and life, right? I was thinking again at the Gospel of St. John, right? And in the fourth verse, right, after you get to it, his being the Word, and being God, and so on, and his being responsible for the rest of creation, and so on. He says in the fourth verse, In auto, right, in him, zoein, there was life. And then, the rest of the verse, And the life, he zoein, was, to foes, the light. To non-thropo, now. Well, there you're coupling foes, or light, with life, right? It's similar to coupling truth and life, because light is usually on the side of the knowing power. So, now, if you remember, I don't know, did we give you one time the logical and understandable division of the Gospel of St. John? As you know, following the rule of two or three, Thomas divides the Gospel of St. John into two parts, right? The first chapter, which is about showing the divinity of Christ, and then chapters 2 through 21, right? The manifestation of this by his life and death, right? And then 2 through 11 is by his living, and 12 through 21 by his death and his resurrection. Well, how is that 2 through 11 divided, huh? Well, of course, he divides it into two, huh? Chapter 2, which is showing his superiority to nature, right? And he transforms the water into wine, and so on. And then 3 through 11 is his, what, spiritual power. And that's, of course, divided also to two, because in 3 and 4, he talks about spiritual generation. 3 is where you have the Nicodemus coming, and I think it's a lesson on the baptism. And then 4 is kind of being extended to the non-Jews, like the Samaritan woman at the well, and so on. So 3 and 4 are dealing with spiritual generation. And then 5 through 11 are dealing with the gifts bestowed upon those spiritually generated. And chapter 5, and this is divided now into three. Chapter 5 is spiritual life. Chapter 6 is spiritual food. That's the famous one in the Eucharist, in St. John. And then 7 through 11 are dealing with his, what, spiritual teaching. And he divides that last part into two. 7, which is about the origin of his teaching. And then, when he divides 8 through 11, it's very interesting, because 8 to 9 are dealing with the enlightening character of his teaching. And 10 and 11 with the life-giving character. And he first does it, each of those are divided into two parts. In the first chapter, he deals more with this in words. And then, the next chapter reveals it with a deed, right? So, like, for example, in 8 and 9, 8 has the famous words, I am the light of the world, right? Okay? And then 9 has the curing of the blind man, right? So, that's kind of a miracle that illustrates the life-giving or light-giving thing. And then, 10 emphasizes life and so that he can return a life to us and so on. And 11 is the resurrection, is the erasing of the dead of Lazarus, right? Okay? Well, looking at chapter 8 here, where Christ says, I am the light of the world. He says, ego in me, I am, tophos, huh? I am like the true cosmos of the world, huh? Okay? And the one walking or following me will not walk in the dark, he says, huh? But he will have, and he says, tophos tastes as always. He will have the light of life, right? So, light and life are joined, huh? And that's, I think, similar, really, to the same reason that truth and life are joined in the words, I am the way, the truth, and the life, huh? Okay? But it goes back to what we're saying about Thomas, that in the Summa Theologiae, he puts the consideration of the life of God with his intellectual thing. So, he had that in two ways here, huh? Yeah. He says, I am the way, the truth, and the life, he couples those two. And then when he says, in him there was life, and the life was the what? Yeah. Of course, the word. But again, that's appropriation, because obviously there's life in the Holy Spirit, and there's probably another way in which life is appropriate to the Holy Spirit, but in this way, it's appropriated to the Son. And that's the same word that Aristotle has there for, when he talks about God. Zoe, right? Life, the word for life. It's kind of interesting. You know, the Greek word for animal is zoan, right? The word is zoo, and zoology, and so on. But the Greek word, or name for animal, comes from the word life. And the Latin word for animal comes from the word soul. And the soul is the, you know, first cause of life in the living body, right? So there's something similar, right? And it kind of goes back to what you learn in the three books about the soul, where Aristotle says that life in the plants is hidden. And so, although the plant does have a soul, does have a cause of life within itself, it's not named from the soul the way animals, because it's not hidden. It's more hidden. And that corresponds to the Greek, or the animal's name from what? Life. Not that the plants aren't alive, but they're not so clearly. Well, Aristotle, if you recall, when you're looking at the first book about the soul, Aristotle, after the premium, he goes to what his predecessors said about the soul. And some of them investigated what the soul was, the fact that, you know, a dog or a cat moves around from one place to another. And others investigated it from what would be the cause of sensation, right? So they investigated life where it was most known to us in animals and in the life of plants. So you had a scene where there's Zoe in Aristotle, you have it in the Gospel of John. Okay, well now we can come to the will, okay? So, question 19. And of course this consideration of the divine will is divided, of course, into three parts. And the first part is going to be this question 19. And the second part, which will be the next two questions, will be on those things that pertain absolutely to the will. And then the third part, which will be getting down here in 22, those things which pertain to the understanding in order to the will, right? Kind of both of them. Now, about the will, he says, 12 things are asked. First, whether in God there is a will, right? Secondly, whether God wills things beside himself. Then the third question, whether whatever God wills, he wills from necessity. And fourth, whether the will of God is the cause of things. And the fifth article, whether some cause can be assigned for the divine will. Why did he choose you to be? Whether the divine will is always fulfilled. Seventh article, whether the divine will is always fulfilled. The eighth article, whether the will of God imposes necessity upon the things that he wills. The ninth, whether in God there is will of bad things. The tenth, whether God has free judgment. We'd say free will, but free judgment. And then the eleventh and the twelfth ones. Whether one should distinguish in God the will of the sign. What the hell does that mean? And whether conveniently there are posited five signs about the divine will. We'll see what that strange doctrine is. But obviously the first question is whether there is any will in God at all, right? We'll see what that means. We'll see what that means. We'll see what that means. We'll see what that means. We'll see what that means.