Prima Pars
Lecture 138: The Procession of the Holy Spirit and the Unity of Principles

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

Article 3 here now, to the third one goes forward thus. Most of the word percheditator, right? It seems that the Holy Spirit does not go forward from the Father to the Son. For what goes forward from one to another does not go forward from him immediately, right? Immediately means there's a negation of what? Of a middle, right? If therefore the Holy Spirit goes forward from the Father to the Son, he does not go forward from the Father immediately, which seems to be unsuitable. Moreover, if the Holy Spirit goes forward from the Father to the Son, he does not go forward from the Son except on account of the Father. And then the famous principle of Aristotle, right? Popter quad un quad quede iludmages, right? You've heard me explain that principle, right? Okay. Aristotle will often state that briefly. But I kind of expanded into three statements, huh? Okay. So you say, when the same belongs to two things, but to one because of the other. It belongs more to the cause. Okay, it's one more expanded. Now, we manifest that first in simple things. We say, if the fire is hot and the air around the fire is hot, but the air around the fire is hot because of the fire, which is hotter. Yeah. And if sugar is sweet and my coffee is sweet, but my coffee is sweet because of sugar, which is sweeter. And if salt is salty and my French fries are salty, but my French fries are salty because of the salt, which is saltier. But now, you can apply this to philosophy, right? If the premises of the syllogism are known, right? And the conclusion of that syllogism is known, but the conclusion is known because of the premises, which is more known. And then, in ethics, we're talking about the good. If health is desirable and the medicine is desirable, but the medicine is desirable because health is desirable, which is more desirable. Yeah. So, the guy's trying to apply this, right? If the Father produces the Holy Spirit, right? Through the Son, right? Then, he doesn't proceed from the Son, except on account of the, what? Father, right? Therefore, he more proceeds from the Father than from the Son, right? These are based upon his understanding of what he's meant here, right? But you can see how these comes to proceed. Moreover, the Son has been through generation. If, therefore, the Holy Spirit is from the Father through the Son, he would follow that first, or before he generated the Son, and, afterwards, goes forward the Holy Spirit. And, thus, the going forward of the Holy Spirit would not be eternal, which is heretical, which is chosen. The word heretical comes in the Greek word for choice. On you. Yeah. So, there's something years ago about the guy who was saying, I guess, the time we're going to have to find the assumptions of the Blessed Richard. I don't know if I'd go along with that, you know. Now, I'll have to leave the church. I said, you're already out of this. Moreover, when someone says that, what? It's said to operate through another, right? The reverse, what? Can be said, huh? Just as we say that the king acts through the, what? Belief. So, it can also be said that the Belief acts through the, what? King. But, in no way do we say that the Son breathes the Holy Spirit through the Father. Therefore, in no way can it be said that the Father breathes the Holy Spirit through the Son, huh? So, we say in human affairs, right? If I'm the instrument of the boss, right? I'm acting through him, right? But, in a sense, he's acting through me. We say both, right? But, in this case, we don't, right? But, against all this is what Hillary says in the book about the Trinity. Keep this, he says, right? I pray, religion of my faith, that I might always, what? Obtain the Father, you, and the Son, one with you, I might adore, and the Holy Spirit, who, what? Who, the only generated one, right? Goes forward, huh? How do you translate that in your text? Don't possess the Father in the name of the Son, that I may adore thy Son together with thee, and that I may deserve thy Holy Spirit who is through thy only begotten. Is this Mary? Yeah. Very right. Mary. Okay. I answer, it should be said, that in all ways of speaking, in which one is said to what? Act through someone, right? This preposition, pair, or through, designates some cause or what? Beginning of that act, huh? But when the action is between the doer and the done, or the maker and the made, sometimes that causal preposition, to which is subjoined, this preposition pair, is the cause of the action according as it goes forth in the agent. And then it is a cause to the agent that it acts. Would it be a final cause, or formal, or an effective or mover cause, huh? Final is when I say that the artist acts through what? His desire for wealth, right? Or profit. Formal when I say that one operates through his art, right? And the mover, when we say that he acts through the command of what? Another, right? So your wish is my command, right? Into the command of another, right? Okay. Sometimes, however, the causal way of speaking, to which is adjoined this preposition pair or through, is the cause of the action according as it is terminated to the thing made or done. As when we say that the artist acts through his, what? Hammer, right? Got it down now? I got the text of Hillary as I translated it. Yeah. Keep, I pray, this my pious faith undefiled, even till my spirit departs. Grant that this may be the utterance of my conviction, so that I may ever hold fast that which I professed and created in my regeneration, and I baptized in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Let me, in short, adore thee, our Father, and thy Son together with thee. Let me win the favor of thy Holy Spirit who is from thee through thy only God. Okay. So, Thomas is making a, what? Manifold distinction there, right? Of what through can mean, right? And it can mean the cause through which the agent, what? Acts, would it be the end or the mover or the, what? Formal cause, right? So, I act through the hope of, what? Profit, right? That's the end. I operate through, what? Command of another, right? That's the mover. Or I operate through my art, right? Okay. And he says, those three are all about the thing as it proceeds from the doer, right? But then if we say, I act through my hammer, that's a little different, right? Because there you're thinking of how it terminates in the, what? Thing you're acting upon. And what is that signifying that the hammer is not signifying that the hammer. is the cause to the artist that he, what, act, right? But that is the cause to the artificial thing that it proceed from the, what, artist, um? And this it has from the artist who's moving the hammer, right? So if you say Michelangelo made the pietas through his art, then that's acting as a cause, right? Because he made it through his chisel, hammer and chisel. This is the other way. And this is what some say, that this preposition, pair or through, sometimes notes authority in recto, he says, as when it says the king acts through the, what, bailiff or his officer. Sometimes in the oblique, when you say that the bailiff operates through the, what, king. Now, what does it mean when you talk about the father and the son? Because, therefore, the son has from the father that from him proceeds the Holy Spirit. It can be said that the father breathes the Holy Spirit through the son. Or, which is the same thing, that the Holy Spirit goes forward from the father through the, what, son. You got that? Because the father has, the son has from the father, right? The divine nature, right? And, therefore, he has the power of breathing the Holy Spirit from the father, right? And, therefore, in that sense, it can be said that the father, through the son, breathes the, what, Holy Spirit. But, I think, in order to understand that fully, you've got a distinction from all these misunderstandings that are in the objection, son. Part of this is that it's not going to be the use of pair as someone through the hammer. That's the other ones. Well, it's the way to the clarification comes to get the objection, son. Because the first objection is saying, if he does it through the son, then he's not the immediate source, right, of the Holy Spirit. And that seems to be unsimilar, right? So, he says, To the first, therefore, it should be said that in every action there are two things to be considered. One is the, what, individual who's acting, right? And the other is the power by which he acts. Just as fire heats by heat. If, therefore, in the Father and the Son is considered the power by which they grieve the Holy Spirit, there does not come any, what, middle there, right? Because this power is one and the same. In fact, it is the divine, what, substance, insofar as it's in the Father and the Son. If, however, one considers the two persons breathing, right, thus, since the Holy Spirit commonly proceeds and come from the Father and the Son, it is found that the Holy Spirit is immediately from the Father insofar as he's from him, and in the middle way, insofar as he is from the, what, Son. Now, he doesn't see what he's saying there, right? If, however, we consider the persons breathing, thus the Holy Spirit in common proceeds from the Father and the Son, huh? When finds that the Holy Spirit goes forward immediately from the Father, insofar as he's from the Father, right? He's got the power to breathe him, right? He's breathing him by the power that he has. But also you could say he's, what, mediate, in the middle way, insofar as he is from the, what, Son, who is from the Father, right? Let me make a little comparison there between that and Adam, remember? You know, is Adam's Son immediately from Adam? Yeah. Yeah, it's immediately from Adam and from Eve, right? But since Eve is from Adam, then in a way he's from Adam to Eve, yeah. He's also from Adam directly. Immediately, right? Something a little bit like that. Okay. And thus he is said to proceed from the Father through the Son, just as Abel proceeds immediately from Adam. Oh my goodness, huh? I can use my example. I mean, I, you know. Just as Abel proceeds immediately from Adam, insofar as Adam was his father, right? And, not immediately, but immediately, from the middle, right? Insofar as Eve was his mother, who proceeded from Adam, right? From his rib. Although this example of material going forward seems to be inept to signifying the immaterial possession of the divine person, so. But it does help me to kind of see what Thomas is saying, right, huh? So he's applying this objection that says he doesn't proceed immediately from the Father if he proceeds from the Father through the Son. Well, he proceeds both from the Father and the Son. And insofar as the Son proceeds from the Father, then it's through the Son, right? But he also proceeds immediately from the Father. And this is something a little bit like our friend Adam, right? That Abel proceeds from Adam directly, and he proceeds from Adam through Eve, who came from there, from the middle. The second objection was that one that's saying over here, right? I hope they're caught in the quad, right? It says, to the second it should be said that if the Son got from the Father another power in number, not the same power, numerically speaking, right, but another one, right? To breathe in the Holy Spirit, he would follow that he is like a second cause and an instrumental cause. And thus he would proceed more from the Father than from the, what? Son. But one in the same in number is the power of breathing in the Father and the Son, right? And therefore he proceeds equally from, what? Both. Although sometimes he said chiefly, if properly could proceed from the Father, on account of the fact that the Son has this power from the Father, right? But it's one in the same power he has that the Father has. This is the one in the same nature that he has, right? Right. In American one. In number. Okay. And the power and the substance are the same. And the third one is trying to say that this is going to end up making the Holy Spirit not be eternal, right? Okay. To the third, it should be said that the generation of the Son is co-eternal with the one generated, right? Whence the Father was not before who generated the Son. In fact, it could be the Father without generating the Son. Likewise, the proceeding of the Holy Spirit is co-eternal with its beginning, huh? Whence the Son was not before in time, if you might say, or in duration, generated, then the Holy Spirit, what? Yeah, they were together, right? But both are, what? Eternal. So the Son was always proceeding from the Father, or always is proceeding from the Father, and the Holy Spirit from the two of them. So, it's not that the Son proceeded from the Father, and then after a while, then the Holy Spirit proceeded from the two of them, right? Actually, they got to know each other for a while. Well, that's Adam and Eve. That's Adam and Eve. They had to know each other. And then Abel proceeded, right? But Eve didn't go by the white generation. Yeah, but Eve came from Adam before Abel came from Adam and Eve, right? But then, that's... Inept, inept. So it's taking place here, huh? Now, why don't you say the reverse, that the Holy Spirit breathes, the Son breathes the Holy Spirit through the, what? Father, right? Okay. Well, it says, when something is said to act through another, there is not always this conversion, right? For we do not say that the hammer acts through the, what? Maybe, yeah. We say that the bailiff acts through the king because... because... because... It belongs to the bailiff, right? To act, right? Since he is the lord of his own, what? Act, right? But the hammer, it doesn't belong to the hammer to act, but only to be, what? Acted. Yeah, to be moved. Whence it is not designated except as a, what, instrument, huh? The bailiff is said to operate through the king, although this preposition, too, denotes a, what? Middle. Because, as the individual, the suppositum, is before enacting, so its power is more, what, immediate to the effect, huh? Because the power of the first clause joins the second clause to its, what, effect. Whence the first principles in science are said to be immediate, right, in Demacian sciences. Thus, therefore, insofar as the bailiff is the middle, in the order of the agent's acting, the individual's acting, he is said, the king is said to act through the bailiff. But according to the order of their powers, the bailiff operates through the king. He gets his power from the king, right? Because the power of the king makes the action of the bailiff achieve its effect. But there is a order between the father and the son, not as regards their power, but only as regards their, what? Yeah, their persons. And therefore, it is said that the father breathes through the son, and not the, what, reverse, huh? Otherwise, he'd be saying that the son, what, he's getting his power from the father, and it's a different power than the, than the father has, huh? But he's received the same nature and the same power that the, in America, that the father has, huh? This is kind of comparable to the different senses of him. Like the power of the king is in the bailiff. Yeah. In the bailiff. Or you would say it the other way around. It's a different sense in which the king operates through the bailiff, and the bailiff operates through the king, right? And then the bailiff, the king is operating through the bailiff as one person operating through another person, right? But the bailiff is operating through the king in the sense that his power is, is, is... It's kind of like cause and effect, effect and cause. That's what I'm thinking. When you say that the king acts through the bailiff, the bailiff is not the cause there, huh? The king is only the cause. He's moving the bailiff in a sense, right? But when you say that the bailiff acts through the king, then you're saying he's getting his power from the king to act, huh? I was thinking... That's more cause, that way, yeah. I was thinking of, yeah, the king is the cause of, he's the cause of, in fact, you mentioned the bailiff, who's the second cause. Yeah, yeah, it's your mental cause. But the idea of an instrument is a cause that is a mover, right? And therefore the principal cause is the cause of the bailiff, or the mover and instrument acting, right? So you can say the chisel makes the statue through being moved by Michelangelo, right? But you say Michelangelo is making the statue through, that's not naming a cause there, at least insofar as the action is proceeding from Michelangelo, right? Although you can see me as far as it's terminating in the statue, it's a cause of the statue in some way. But it's ability to bring out the statue, how the marble comes from Michelangelo, right? It's a cause. You've got to be careful when you see that the Father reads the Holy Spirit through the Son, right? May it be clarified to get to the fourth act, we've got some more time here? Yeah, sure. Okay. whether the Father and the Son are one beginning of the Holy Spirit. To the fourth one proceeds thus. It seems that the Father and the Son are not one beginning of the Holy Spirit. First, because the Holy Spirit does not seem to go forward from the Father and the Son insofar as they are one. Neither in nature, because the Holy Spirit thus would proceed from what? Himself. Because He is one with them in nature. Nor insofar as they are one in some property, because one property cannot be of two, what? Individual persons, as it seems. Therefore the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as they are many. Therefore the Father and the Son are not one, what? Beginning of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, when it is said that the Father and the Son are one beginning of the Holy Spirit, this cannot designate a personal unity, because thus the Father and the Son would be one, what? Person. Nor would the unity of a, what? Could be meant in unity of a property, because if an account of one property, the Father and the Son are one beginning of the Holy Spirit, so for like reason, on account of two properties, the Father would seem to be two beginnings of the Son and the Holy Spirit, which is unsuitable. Therefore, the Father and the Son are not one beginning of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, the Son does not more agree with the Father than the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit and the Father are not one beginning with respect to some divine person. Therefore, neither should the Father and the Son, right? That seems to be saying that the Father and the Son are more one than the, what? The Holy Spirit and the Father. So if the Father and the Holy Spirit and the Son, insofar as they are one, are beginning of one person, why shouldn't the Holy Spirit and the Father be beginning of one? Moreover, if the Father and the Son are one beginning of the Holy Spirit, either one that is the Father or they are one that is not the Father. But you can't see the one of these. Because if it was the one that is the Father, it would follow that the Son is the Father. If the one that is not the Father, it would follow that the Father is not the Father. Yeah, therefore it should not be said that the Father and the Son are one beginning of the Holy Spirit. Stop all these objections. The way they explain the medieval way of teaching was like this. On Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, I'll give lectures, see? And then on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, we're going to pull out these little difficult points. And you guys are going to give objections for and you guys are going to give objections against. And then I'll come in and solve the whole problem. And then I'll answer, if I think you guys had the truth, I'll answer their objections or vice versa. Or if I think you both had only a part of the truth, I'll answer all your objections, right? Did you come put the objection on your own and you give another objection? Well, it's kind of rigorous training, right? I remember one time when I was teaching at St. Mary's College in California and there was some request down from one of the University of California assistant there someplace. Well, I have to come down and put on a medieval dissertation. We used to have not to do it. That would have been kind of interesting. Do they do that in Thomas Aquinas? Sometimes they do sort of a mock version of that. Yeah, I can see. Do they do that for like Octoberfest or something? Yeah, yeah. They did something about the qualities, right? Oh, yeah. They do it like, you know, something like that. They have a dissertation about it. Well, you say, you got your public defense there, you know, and then you'd go down and treat everybody around you to a drink, you know. When Kajetan got through, you know, his defense was so great that they'd pick up on their shoulders to come down and give him a drink, you know. We're really kind of stunning compared to the medieval people, aren't we? In some ways. Kind of backward. But at least we're moving. I don't know where we're going or where we came from. I'll move. Maybe that one. Moreover, down to the fifth objection, I guess, huh? Moreover, if the Father and the Son are one beginning of the Holy Spirit, it seems reversed to be said that there is what? That the one beginning of the Holy Spirit is the Father and the Son. But this seems to be false because this that I call a beginning, it either stands for the person of the Father or the person of the Son. And in both ways it is false. Therefore also it is false that the Father and the Son are one, what? Beginning of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, one in substance makes the same. If therefore the Father and the Son are one beginning of the Holy Spirit, it would fall that they are the same beginning. But this is denied by many. Therefore it ought not to be conceded that the Father and the Son are one beginning of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, because they are one beginning of the creature, are said to be one creator. But the Father and the Son are not one breather, but two breathers, as is said by many. Which also agrees with the sayings of Hillary, who says in the second book in the Trinity, that the Holy Spirit should be confessed to be from the Father and the Son as authors, right, as originators. Therefore the Father and the Son are not one beginning of the Holy Spirit. And who could ever untie this mess, huh? Who could ever do that? But against this is what Augustine says in the fifth book of the Trinity, this guy is a troublemaker, that the Father and the Son are not two beginnings, but one beginning of the Holy Spirit. so he's behind this song, I guess to know. He's one of the person who raises this question anyway. I answer it should be said that the Father and the Son in all things are one in which they are not distinguished by the relation of what? The opposition of relation. I put that a little better. The Father and the Son in all things are one in which the opposition of relation does not, what, distinguish among them, right? Whence in this, which is to be the beginning of the Holy Spirit, the one from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds, they are not opposed relatively. It follows that the Father and the Son are one beginning of the, what, Holy Spirit. Now, some say that this is improper, that the Father and the Son are one beginning of the Holy Spirit, because this name beginning, taken singularly, does not signify a person, but a property. They say that it is taken, what? Yeah. And because an adjective is not determined by an adjective, it cannot be suitably said that the Father and the Son are one beginning of the Holy Spirit, unless one be understood in an adverbial way, in the sense, be there one beginning, that is in one way. But in a similar reason, it could be said that the Father is two beginnings of the Son and the Holy Spirit, that is in two, what, ways, huh? So, it should be said, therefore, that this name beginning, although it, what, that this name, although this name beginning, signifies a property, nevertheless, it signifies it in a what? Substantial way. Just as this name Father or Son also in created things. Whence it takes its what? Number from the form signified, just as other substantial names do. So just as the Father and the Son are said to be one God, on account of the unity of the form signified by this name God, so they are one beginning of the Holy Spirit on account of the unity of the property signified in this name what? Beginning. That's hard to understand exactly what he's saying there, right? Maybe become more clear when you take up the what? Objections, huh? Okay. Now the first objection says, huh? The Holy Spirit does not seem to proceed from the Father and the Son insofar as they are one. For neither in nature, right? Because that nature is common to the Holy Spirit too. And therefore the Holy Spirit would proceed from himself. Because he's one with them in nature, right? Or also insofar as they are one in some property. Because one property is not of two what? Yeah. It seems. Okay. There's weakness there. Therefore the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son insofar as they are one in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son Thus the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son have more in common than the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in to the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son and Thomas in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son if the Father in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son Son in the Son in the Son in the Son in the Son What's the contradictory of saying that the Father and Son are one beginning that is the Father? It's not the one beginning that is not the Father, but they're not the one beginning that is the Father. Do you see that? That can indicate the right thing for me. Whence when we say, whence it's not necessary that one in the beginning, right? Because when things are opposed contradictory, you've got to say one or the other. Let's go back to what Hamlet says there, to be or not to be. That is the question. And it's a question because you can't both be and not be, and because you must either be or not be, right? So things are opposed contradictorily. You can't admit both, but you can't deny both, right? So if these two things are opposed contradictorily and they're spoken of in objections, then you have to give one or the other, right? But Thomas says, I don't suppose contradictorily, huh? What's a contradictorily? You are the man that is doing breakfast. Yeah. It's not, you are the man that is not doing breakfast. I think it'd be him, him, him, him, him, him. See? See? So if I say, either you are the man that is doing breakfast, or you are the man that is not doing breakfast, what's this here? Is this the man that is doing breakfast? Or is this the man that is not doing breakfast? Which is it? It's neither. How is that possible? Well, those are not contradictories, right? The man that is doing breakfast and the man that is not doing breakfast. Are they contradictories? Either you are the man that is doing breakfast or you are the man that is not doing breakfast. Either you are the man that is doing breakfast, or you are not the man that is doing breakfast, right? And this is not the man that is doing breakfast. See? Obviously not the first. Let's get the second, right? Sort of like, I better think about that with Roger Peele, by the way, thinking that, well, either he's here or he's there. Yeah. But it's in both places. Was that a contradiction? Yeah. No, because the contradiction would be not to be here and there, but to be here and not here. Yeah. Yeah. Same way, right? So, notice, the main thing the sophist wants to do is to get you in contradiction, right? So he tries to make things appear to contradict each other that don't contradict each other, right? In the sense of this objection, you're taking things as being contradictory that really are not contradictory. When we say that the Father and the Son are one beginning, this that I say beginning does not have a, what? Determined supposition, but a confused one for two persons, what? Together. Whence in the process there is the fallacy of the, what? Now, this is a, one of the six kinds of mistakes from words that Aristotle that Aristotle distinguishes in the whole conscious of reputations. Notice how everything, you know, Aristotle comes in here sooner or later, right? All these different treatises, right? From a confused supposition to a, what? Determinant, huh? Now, this same objection or same solution will come out to the fifth one here, where the guy is saying that this one beginning has to either stand for the person of the Father or the person of the Son, right? And Thomas says, to the sixth, it should be said that it can be said suitably that the Father and the Son are one beginning, according as the word beginning stands confusedly and indistinctly for two, what? Persons together, right? Oh, oh. Okay. Okay, it was the same objection and the same reply in both of those. That sixth objection is saying that they are, what? How can you say it? They're one beginning, right? They're the same beginning. Well, indistinctly, yeah. Now, the seventh objection here, actually two breathers here, right? Different two beginnings, right? To the seventh, it should be said that some say, right? That the Father and the Son, although they are one beginning, the Holy Spirit, are nevertheless two breathers, right? On account of the distinction of, what? Persons, huh? Just as they are two, what? Breathing, right? Because actions refer to, what? Individual substances. Nor is it the same reason about this name created, because the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as they are two, what? Distinct persons. This has been said, why it says. But the creature does not proceed from the three persons as they are distinct persons, but as they are one in their substance or nature. But it seems that one can say better, right? That breathing is adjective, right? Breather is, what? Substance. We can, able to say, therefore, that the Father and the Son are two ones breathing on account of the plurality of persons, right? Not, however, two, what? Breather's on account of there being, what? One breathing. For adjective, adjective names have their number according to the, what? Individual substances. But substantive ones from themselves according to the form signified, right? So what Thomas say, we're willing to say that there are two persons breathing the Holy Spirit, right? Then there are two breathers of the Holy Spirit. Because breather seems to be said absolutely right. And there's only one power of breathing that they have, right? But when Hillary says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as authors, it should be explained that he lays down the substantive for the, what? Adjective, right? But it's his to his breathing, right? I think that's enough for today, huh?