Prima Pars
Lecture 136: The Name and Procession of the Holy Spirit

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

To the second one proceeds thus, it seems that the name of image is not proper or private, you might say, right? To the sun, huh? And perhaps private is more the sense here, huh? Because, as Damascene says, huh? The Holy Spirit is the image of the what? Sun. Therefore, it is not private to the sun. Interesting objection, right? However, of the notion of image is a likeness with expression, as Augustine says in the book of the 83 questions. But this belongs to the Holy Spirit because he proceeds from another according to a way of likeness, huh? Because he's God too, right? Therefore, the Holy Spirit is an image, and therefore it is not private to the sun that he be the what? Image, huh? Now, the third object is the one we were kind of messing up there with the last one. More proper here. Moreover, a man is said to be the what? Image of God, right? According to that of the first epistle of the Corinthians, chapter 11, verse 7. A man ought not do what? Cover his head, right? Because he is the image and the glory of what? God. Therefore, it is not private to the what? Sun. But against all this is what Augustine himself says in the sixth book of the Trinity. That the sun alone is the what? Yeah. Oh. Most of Thomas has great respect for Augustine, huh? He has a great respect for Aristotle's reading about, in the airport there the night, where he was saying, talking about how the human soul doesn't come from your father, but it's infused by God, right? Bring your parents, bring care of the body, and so on. And he's going through his objections, you know. And as he's reading one of these things, he says, first of all, it's against the authority of Aristotle. And even though Thomas says that he gives a summa, right, the average authority would be the weakest in philosophy, right? The first thing he says is that it's against the authority of what Aristotle said. And then he goes on and gives a reason, you know, apart from that, you know, because he's respecting us for Aristotle, right? And philosophy in the same way, he's respecting us for Gussevier in theology, especially. So, now, I answer it should be said, huh, that the doctors among the Greeks, right, commonly call the Holy Spirit, right, the image of the Father and the Son, huh? But the Latin doctors, right, like you see in Augustine here, the course of Augustine here and this is the contrary. But the Latin doctors attribute to the Son alone the name of image, right? For it is not found in canonical scripture except about the, what? For it is said in the epistle to the Colossians, chapter 1, verse 15, who is the, what, image, right, of the invisible God, the firstborn of, what, creatures. And Hebrews 1, 3, who, when he, since he is the, what, splendor of the glory and the, what, figure of his, what, substance. I think I looked up that text, I think the substantia there is, Greek, it's humostasis, which is kind of interesting if you take in that sense, right? Because it's not taken here in the sense of person, right? Not the figure of the person, the substance. Now, some is a sign as a reason of this, that the Son comes together with the Father, not only in, what, nature, in the divine nature, but also in the notion of a beginning. So in the Trinity, the Father is the beginning of the Son, and both the Father and the Son are the beginning of the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit is not the beginning of anyone, huh? Because no one in the Trinity, no one in God proceeds from him, huh? But the Holy Spirit does not come together with the Son, nor with the Father, in some, what, notion, huh? But this does not seem to suffice, Thomas says. And this is a very important point he's making now. Because just as, according to the relations, huh, there is not to be noticed, huh, in God, neither equality nor inequality, as Augustine says, huh? So neither, what, likeness, which is required to the notion of image, huh? Now, this will come out very clearly, when you get into the comparative consideration, the last five questions, right? And you talk about the Father and the Son being equal, or they're being alike, and so on, right? And that's because they both, what, have the divine nature, right? And you don't say that they are alike, or unlike, or equal, or unequal, because one is the Father and one is the Son. It's because of their, what, being the same God, right? So, is the Father, is the Son more like the Father, because he's not only God, I mean, is the Son, put it this way, is the Son more like the Father than the Holy Spirit? Because not only are the Son and the Holy Spirit, I don't see God as the Father is, but the Holy Spirit also is. But in addition, he's a beginning, and the Holy Spirit is not. So he's likened to two things, and... He's got more. And the Holy Spirit was, yeah, yeah. No, no, that's a no-no, see? He said that likeness and equality, right, among the persons in the blessed Trinity should only be considered according to what is absolute in them, namely their divinity, their divine nature, right? Okay. So Thomas is rejecting this as the reason for what? Saying that the Son should be called the image, not the Holy Spirit. That he's more like him, huh? Thomas is saying that he's no more like the Father than is the, what, Son. Because likeness is considered according to the, what, what is absolute. And we'll say that reason he's getting there better when he did it than they compared to a thing, right? When you take up whether the three persons are equal or so on, right? You know, some people try to say, you know, well, the Father has a sin and authority, right? Therefore, he's not equal, right? And so on. We'll talk about that when we get to that point. That's one reason people try to give to say that the Son should be more called this. And Thomas rejects that reason. When others say that the Holy Spirit cannot be called the image of the Son because there is not an image of an image, nor can he be called the image of the Father because also an image is referred immediately to that of which it is an image. But the Holy Spirit is referred to the Father through the Son. Nor is he an image of the Father and the Son because thus there would be one image of two things which seems to be impossible. Whence remains of the Holy Spirit is in no way an image. But this is nothing. Can you imagine having this guy as a teacher? I said, hope be blessed. That's nothing to weigh in. Because the Father and the Son are one beginning of the Holy Spirit, as will be what? Shown below, right? Whence nothing prevents that of the Father and the Son, insofar as they are one, that there be one what? Image. Since even man is one image of the whole Trinity. and not three images, right? So, he's mentioned and rejected two reasons for saying this, right? As the Latin doctors say. And therefore, it ought to be said otherwise, that just as the Holy Spirit, although by his going forward, right, he, what, gets or takes, right, he sees the nature of the Father, right, just as the Son does, right, he is nevertheless not said to be, what, born. So likewise, although he receives a form, like that of the Father, in fact, the very same form, right, is not called a, what, image. Why? Because the Son proceeds as he thought, and so the very definition of the thought, that it be a likeness, right, of the species or to the species from which it, what, proceeds. It's not over of the notion of, what, love. Although this belongs to love, which is the Holy Spirit, insofar as it's, what, divine love, huh? So if I see you, right, and there proceeds from my seeing you an image of you in me, right, that image in me of you proceeds from you as a, what, likeness of you, right? But now if there proceeds from you in me a love for you, is that love proceeding from you as a likeness of you? No. It's more a, what, an inclination towards you, right? So love proceeds as a kind of breath inclining me towards the, what, love, right? Love doesn't proceed as an image proceeds, or as a definition proceeds, right? Which proceeds as a likeness of what? What is being imagined or thought, right? Do you know what a square is? See? Well, if I get a very perfect thought of what a square is, like Euclid has in the elements there, an equilateral and right-angled quadrilateral, well, this thought proceeds from my mind and from the thing I'm thinking about, right, as a likeness of it, so much so that I could say that a, what, square is an equilateral, right-angled quadrilateral. I can say it of it, right? It's a likeness of it. Or if I understand what wine is, right, and I have a certain likeness of wine in my imagination, maybe in my mind, but if I love the wine, right, is love proceeding as a likeness of that wine? No. It's proceeding as a, what, inclination of my heart towards the wine. So that's why Thomas would deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds as the Son of the Father and the Son, right? Or he proceeds as the likeness of them, right? He proceeds as our love, right? And that's not to proceed as a likeness of them, right? But because that love is divine love, it must be God, and therefore it must be like them, right? That's a very subtle distinction he's making now. And that's the way his master, Augustine, spoke. And apparently this is the way St. Paul speaks in Colossians 1.15, right? Now, what about Damascene, right? And Damascene is kind of representative there of the other teachers of the Greeks, right? So doctors and the teachers, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that Damascene and the other teachers of the Greeks commonly use the name image for what? Likeness, yeah. So you could say that the Holy Spirit is what? Completely like the Father and the Son. That's what they mean, right? That's perhaps not the most precise way of using the word, right? Because likeness is not the way love as such proceeds, right? It's the way the Son proceeds, right? From a father, right? Ship off the old block, right? The likeness of the Father, right? And that's the way a thought or an image proceeds from that of which it is a thought or what? Image. Shakespeare says in the sonnet, my eye has played the painter. That's a nice metaphor, right? Because the painter is clearly making a likeness of that which he's painting, right? So it proceeds as a likeness of something. Is that clear? That's important, too, you know, when you say, you know, why is the one who proceeds per modem maturae, by way of nature, and then per modem intellectus, that the Son and the, what, thought, right, the verbum, are the same thing, right? Because both the Son and the word or thought proceed as a likeness that of which they are. So they're the same. Because it's kind of beautiful about these three names, right? You have the name Son and then the name, what, thought, word, and what's in a way common to the two, image, right? So they're all private names of the Son, right? There's an order in which Thomas gives these names, right? Just like with the Holy Spirit, you get the name love before the name, what, gift. The name love explains the name gift, right? So in a sense, the fact that the Son proceeds by way of nature in a natural way as the Son of God, that he proceeds as the Father of God, right, of himself, is the reason why he's the image, why that name is private to him, right? And it's because the Holy Spirit proceeds by way of love, right, that he'll have the name gift, right? So these are perfectly in order. This is before an actor in Thomas's discourse about that which has no before and after. The truth doesn't require that the way we know be the way things are, right? So this is before and after in our knowing, something that has no before and after. I like how you're convinced about that. I'm not following everything. Keep going. I told you, it kind of would say I think that chorus there, you know. Now, if you think you've understood everything, it means you've understood nothing. If you've understood something, you've realized you've understood everything. So I really understand the Trinity. The famous words are Augustine, you know. If no one asks me what time is, I know what it is. If someone asks me what time is, I don't know. So I understand the Trinity. If someone asks me do you understand the Trinity, I'd say no. Why don't make a little progress, you know? Okay, what about now the third objection? The second objection you kind of see the answer to here, right? The second objection is saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, right? And He is what? Yeah. He proceeds as something like them, right? He doesn't proceed as the likeness of them. He doesn't do it. He doesn't do it. He doesn't do it. He doesn't do it. He doesn't do it. He doesn't do it. That's for the reasons we gave in the text there. That's a very subtle thing what Thomas is saying. Although the Holy Spirit is like the Father and the Son, nevertheless he is not an image, right, for the reason given. Because he doesn't proceed as the, what, Father, the Son, or the Father, or the Father, or the Son. One thing I find hard is that it seems that he proceeds in a way that fits, like in the last article he maps out the three things that belong to the notion of image. And it seems that all three of those fit the Holy Spirit. You know, the likeness of the species from a certain origin. So this is coming back to something else, and that is to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds by way of love, right? The way of going forth is different, but there's still that origin. I say, if I meet somebody, you know, and there proceeds from that person that I meet, right? A, what, an image of that person, right? And an image proceeds from that person as a likeness of them, right? Okay? I'm going to meet a beautiful girl, right? So, there proceeds from that beautiful girl, in me, an image of her, right? Okay? And that image is proceeding as a likeness of that girl, right? But now if I begin to like this girl, to love her, is my love of this girl proceeding as an image of her? Okay, but it is proceeding as an image of her. Well, he'll say, because it is the love of God, right? Then it must be like her, right? Okay? But insofar as it's proceeding by way of love, it's not proceeding as a likeness of her. That would be to take the analog, the thing that we're using as an analogy, on the human sphere, and like applying it to God, where when you apply to God, it does proceed as an image, where in the human sphere, it doesn't. Well, insofar as the Holy Spirit proceeds by way of love, he doesn't proceed as a likeness of God. But he perfectly liked God. He liked God every way. Yeah, yeah, yeah. He's just saying about the way he's going forward. Well, he has to be, because it's the love he comes. He's not denying that. But I don't think that's the principle of the way in which we speak of it's going forward. That's not what characterizes this going forward, it's the thing in the other. It's the going forward by way of love. The reason why he's God is that the love of God is the same thing as the being of God, right? Just as the reason why the thought of God, right, is God, is because the knowing of God, or the understanding of God, is the same thing as the being of God, right? Now in us, either the understanding or the loving is the same as our being, right? So the thought that proceeds in my understanding of something, even understanding myself, right, is not another self. But it is a likeness of myself, right? But the love doesn't proceed as a likeness of it, but the inclination I have to myself, right? Well, you have to go and say, bring something in besides that, right? Is something proceeding as an image of something, right? Well, that's not the way love proceeds, right? So what distinguishes the Son and the Holy Spirit is not that one is more like the Father than the other, right? Because there they're equal. Because both of them are God, is God. But what distinguishes them is that one proceeds as the thought of God, and therefore proceeds as a likeness of God, and the other proceeds not as the thought of God, or even the Son of God, but as the love of God, and that's not proceeding the way of a likeness. But St. Thomas would deny that there is a sense in which you can say the Holy Spirit is yourself. Yeah, in a sense, that's what you have to say in defense of the Greek doctors, right? But Augustine, in a sense, transcends them a bit, right? And Augustine, Solus filios, in a text he has it quoted here, in his encounter, the Son alone is the image of the Father, right? Okay? And why does Augustine say that when he would agree with the Greek doctors and the Church that the Holy Spirit is like the Father just as much as the Son, right? And that's what leads you to say, well, Joe, why can't you call that the same thing? But there's this other thing that what distinguishes the Son and the Holy Spirit, among other things, is they perceive the one is the thought of God and the other perceives the love of God. So the one perceives as the likeness of God, the other one doesn't perceive that way. And therefore, he's called the love of God, but he's not called the image of God. But the Son is called the image of God. And in a sense, Augustine is closer to the way Scripture, in fact, speaks, right? Because Scripture does speak of the Son as the imago dei, invisibili some, quote from Colossians there. But it doesn't speak of the Holy Spirit as being the image of the Father. You distinguish it in terms of their origin. Yeah. That's what you said up here, in terms of, you distinguish it in terms of the origin in something relevant, right? We don't speak of equality or inequality or likeness. What's relevant in terms of, since currently the relations we don't look at in God in equality or inequality nor likeness. We don't speak of the origin of the relations in this way. It would seem image is a better name for this. I mean, if you started calling the Holy Spirit the image of God, it could easily lead you into error about the way he perceives. Yeah. You would start, you know, it's not a better name. Yeah, and what's private, it's private to these persons, right? It's tied to the way they proceed, right? So in a sense, Thomas has shown, he doesn't have a special article here on the name Son, because he's talking about the name Father, But you say the name Son and then the name Word, right, are before the name image here in the treatise, right? And from both of those first two names, you can see the uniqueness here of the third name, right? Just like you'll see later on in the treatise on the Holy Spirit, that from the name of him as love, you can see the name of him as gift. But if you go back to the reason for that, you can say that both a son and a thought proceed as a likeness of the one of whom he is a son, and that of which it is a thought a thought of, a thought of in the sense of the object of thought. More characteristic of it. Yeah, yeah, but you can see that from the first two names, right? What's common with the first two names is that you have something proceeding from another as a likeness of it. Interesting, you know, why are we said to be the image of God? you're coming to that actually, I guess, now. But because you're proceeding, you know, has a likeness in some way of him, right? So, insofar as you proceed as something like God, we're said to be the son of God, not the love of God. Right? Let's do these things over. Now, Thomas says to the third, it should be said that the image of something is found in something in two ways. In one way, in a thing of the same nature, right? In species. As the image of the king is found in his, what? Son. Because they both have the same, what? Nature. In another way, in a thing of another nature. As the image of the king is found in the denarius, in the coin. In the first way, the son is the image of the father. Because he has the same nature as the father, not only in kind, but numerically the same, right? In the second way, the son is said to be the image of what? God, right? You don't have the same nature as God, huh? And therefore, to designating in man the imperfection of the image, man is not only said to be an image, but to the image, right? To which a certain, is designated a certain motion of one tending towards perfection. It can also be the image of God more by grace than we were by nature, huh? And it would be most of all an image of God through the beta-grish, right? When we see him as he is. But even there, we don't know him as much as he's knowable. Because he is infinitely knowable, right? But about the son of God, it cannot be said that he has idolized him. Why? Because he is the perfect image of the father, right? He's not, you know, like the son of Christ, and he becomes like the father of human beings. Well, there the church fathers, you know, developed the analogy, they say, to whom do you give, what do you give to Caesar? What has the image of Caesar on it? What do you give to God? What has the image of God on it? Maybe the soul. Take a little break here before we go to the Holy Spirit. Allow us to catch our breath. Thank you very much. I don't know about the Holy Spirit, I don't have too much time here, but my breath of fresh air makes a lot of more puns here. After these things, one should consider about those things which pertain to the person of the Holy Spirit. So in both Sumas, Thomas will take up the Son before the Holy Spirit, right? But that before and after is in our, that's in the order of learning. Who is not only called the Holy Spirit, but also what? The love and the gift of God. I know, you know, in the Holy Spirit sometimes the scripture is called, not the Holy Spirit, but also the Spirit of God. Sometimes he's in the Spirit of Jesus. It's kind of interesting that we generally call him the Holy Spirit, we don't call him usually the Spirit of God. We don't call Christ often the Son of God, right? But you can call the Holy Spirit the Spirit of God. The Holy Spirit seems to be the Spirit of God. But also he's called love and the what? The kind of priority there is getting the name Holy Spirit, huh? So there's going to be three questions here on the Holy Spirit. No, I mean one on the Holy Spirit, one on the love, one on the... There are two on the Son and only one on the Father, right? Now, whether this name Holy Spirit is private to some divine person, right? I think it's more private than proper. I'm saying, is this, you know, something that belongs to just one of the persons, right? We call the Holy Spirit. Because isn't the Father and the Son a Spirit? And aren't they holy, right? So that's a little problem about the name, right? We saw there's always a problem about naming things pertaining to the Holy Spirit in his proceeding, right? They don't have any names, right? Whether that divine person who's called the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, right? Not just from the Father, maybe. Third, whether he proceeds from the Father through the Son. And third, whether the Father and the Son are one beginning of the Holy Spirit, huh? Now, you divide these four into two or three, these four articles. Yeah. You kind of divide the first article against the last three, right? Obviously, two and three are connected, because they would proceed there, right? But the third one, the fourth article, is also related to that, huh? Proceeding from them is two or from one. Insofar as they are two, insofar as they are one. And Thomas will sometimes say both, but for different reasons, right? Insofar as he proceeds as what? God, right? He proceeds from what? The divine nature of the Father and the Son as is found in them. It's something one, right? But insofar as he proceeds as the mutual love of the Father and the Son, he proceeds from them as two, right? Anyway, you probably want to get to the name here today. That's okay. It's not much of a mention here. To the first, one goes forward thus. Notice the word six proceditor, right? That's the one goes forward thus to the first. You say that St. Thomas is very forward, isn't it? I think so, yeah. It seems that this name, Holy Spirit, is not the private name of any divine person, right? It makes more sense than going with the property. Because that's things proper as opposed to improper, right? That's why private is opposed to common, right? So if someone said it's person or divine person the private name of someone, well, no. The Holy Spirit seems to be the one, say, in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, right? Only one is the Father, only one is the Son, only one is the Holy Spirit. Well, no name common to the three persons is private to some person, right? But this name, Holy Spirit, is common to the three persons. For Hillary shows in the Eighth Book of the Trinity, in the Spirit of God, sometimes it signifies the Father, as when it is said, the Spirit of the Lord is upon me. Sometimes it signifies the Son, as when the Son says, in the Spirit of God I cast out, what? Demons. By the power of his nature he casts out demons. I don't know, he shows himself. Sometimes the Holy Spirit is there. I will pour forth my Spirit upon all flesh. Therefore, the name Holy Spirit is not private to some divine person. I'm not sure about all those texts, but we'll see what it says about that. Moreover, the names of divine persons are said, adaliquid, towards something, that's the concrete way of speaking relative, post-ti, adaliquid. As Boethius says in his book about the Trinity. But this name, Holy Spirit, is not said towards something, like Father and Son are, right? Therefore, this name is not private to some what? Moreover, because the Son is the name of some divine person, he cannot be called the what? The Son of this or that? What's that name? The Son of this one or that? Meaning a human being, I guess, huh? That's the way they chant, this or that man. Yeah, yeah. I declare the Latin, huh? Because obviously he's the Son of the Father, right? But he said to be the Spirit of this or that man. For it is said in Numbers 11, 17, The Lord said to Moses, I will take of your Spirit and give it to them, right? This may be equivocation, what the Spirit is referring to here. And fourth book of Kings, the Spirit of Elias rested upon what? Delicia. Therefore, the Holy Spirit does not seem to be the private name of some divine person. It's more just a pretty equivocation there. But against this is what is said in 1st Pistole of John, towards the end there. There are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. Now there's some question about that text, you know, there's a problem about that. But as Augustine says in the 7th Book of the Trinity, when it's asked which three, we say three persons. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is the name of a divine person. But certainly this is the tradition of the Church, to call this one person the Holy Spirit, right? Well, Thomas began by talking about the falsity of names here, right? Something that his master, Aristotle, had already talked about, right? Aristotle says that moral virtue is between, what, two vices, one in excess, one in defect. Like courage is between, what, full hardiness, yeah, and cowardice. Well, then you get the temperance, you see, well, it's between what? Yeah, but the excess has a name, and the defect didn't have a name, right? So the glutton is a man who eats too much, right? Well, what do you call the man who eats too little, say? It's more medical term. And it's a man who isn't. And it's a man who isn't. His suicide's pleasure is enough, right? If you say somebody's intemperate, you mean it goes to excess, right? You don't think somebody's intemperate is a defect. Well, Aristotle said it's so rare that it doesn't never got a name, right? So he invents a name. He lacks sensation, right? Has no taste. That's why he doesn't go... But that's a sign, right, of something being less known that doesn't have a name. There's supposed to be some chance, too. I actually said it should be said that since there are two going forwards in God, right, one of them, which is by way of love, does not have its own name, right? As has been said above, right? Whence the relations also which are taken according to this going forward are unnamed, as also has been said above. An account to this also the name of the person going forward in this way for the same reason does not have his own, what? Name. But just as there are accommodated some names from the use of those, what, in the custom, use can have the sense sometimes, not in there, but custom, right? Shakespeare's use there, you know, for custom, right? Use can always change the stamp of nature, he says. What does that mean? Custom can almost change the stamp of nature. Oh! Okay. What's the first example, you know, of the feminist, you know, who bought her baby girl a toy truck or something, you know, rather than a doll, and the little girl, you know, started, you know, teeing like a doll, you know. Use can almost change the stamp of nature, but not quite. Okay, so an account of which also the name of the person going forward this way for the same reason does not have his own name, right? But just as there are accommodated some names from the custom of those speaking to signifying the populations as when we name them, right, the name of what? Procession, right? And Spiracione. Now, that Spiracione just gets more to its own name, right? It's the breathing, right? But he used before the word procession to name even the, what, relation, right? And if you use breath to name the relation, right? Which, by the properness of their meaning, seem to signify more the notional acts, like breathing, right, huh? Right. Than the relations. So, also, to signifying the divine person who goes forward a way of love, there has been accommodated from the use of scripture this name, what? Holy Spirit. Now, of this suitableness, a reason can be taken from two things, huh? First, from the, what, commonness of the name Holy Spirit. It's kind of turning that thing around here. For as Augustine says in the 15th book on Trinity, because the Holy Spirit is common to both, huh? Therefore, he is properly called, but both are common, right? For both the Father is Spirit and the Son is the Spirit and the Father is Holy and the Son is Holy, right, huh? Now, you may see this sometimes in Thomas' commentary on the, this is St. Paul. The St. Paul will say, may God, the Father, bless you and the Son, if he's of the Holy Spirit, doesn't mention him. And Thomas says, well, we'll ask him to make you stop and think that the Holy Spirit is what? The union of the, in a way, of the two, right? And the bond of the two, right? And so, he gets the name of what's common to both, right? Kind of subtle. Subtle explanation, right, huh? Of why he should be understood, right? Say the other two. Second, from its own what? Meaning, right? And the difference is there's two reasons he's given. The first is ex ipso communicato, right? From the commonness of what is said. That might seem to be just a reason not to use it, right? But it's to make you stop and think that what? He is in some way the bond of the Father and the Son, huh? He proceeds from them as their mutual love, right? Okay? Therefore, he gets a name that's what? Common to all, right? Secondly, from its, from its proper, from some private meaning, let's say. For this name, breath, right? In bodily things, right? Signifies a certain, what? Impulse, right? And motion, huh? For breath and wind, right? Blowing. Blowing, yeah. Blowing. We call spirit, right? But it is proper to love to move and impel the will of the one loving towards the love, right? That's what we were saying before. It's more like, what? Love proceeds from the one love as an inclination towards in some way, right? The one love rather than as a likeness of it, huh? Love impels me to the one that I love rather than have a likeness of that one in, right? That's the work of the imagination or the memory or something. But holiness is attributed to those things which are ordered to God. because therefore this divine person goes forward by way of love by which God himself is loved, right? He's suitably named the what? Yeah. The holy breath. Insufflatsia. He breathes. He flashed that he has and he has blows on it. It's more like that. Well, when Christ gives them the power to, right? He breathes upon them, right? That signifies... It kind of confirms the word breath there, right? There's something kind of private about that name, right? And holy because, what? We're being breathed towards God, right? Pushed towards God, huh? Now, the first objection is saying, well, don't we use those two words towards the other person's too, right? It's often private. To the first effort should be said that this that I call Holy Spirit insofar as is taken in virtue of two, what? Words, you might say, right? Two dictions. It's common to the whole Trinity because by the name of the Spirit is signified the immateriality, the divine substance, huh? For the bodily Spirit, that's the first meaning of the Spirit, right? Is invisible and has little of matter, right? Whence to all immaterial and invisible substances we attribute this, what? Name, right? So, you know, when Aristotle takes up the place in the empty and time in the fourth book of natural hearing and he's going to deny that the empty exists, right? But Aristotle takes up the opinion of those who think of air as being empty, right? And of course, in daily speech, if, you know, if we took all the furniture out of this room and all of us out of this room, we looked in and said, the room's empty. Well, is the room really empty? No. Well, he should have said the room is filled up there. No.