Prima Pars
Lecture 140: Love and Gift as Divine Personal Names

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

what do you say is a man an author by his books by his articles and whatever else he's written what would you say you might say that wouldn't you huh yeah but yeah but if he's writing something worthwhile he'd say he's an author by his knowledge in some way right indulgence and so on right so when you say the father and the son love each other by the holy spirit which way he's speaking yeah see because you see he's an author by his books you're denominating him from what proceeds from him right and when you say the father and the son love each other by the holy spirit you're denominating them by what proceeds from them that's not false is it see is it false to say that I am I am an author by my books see but you have to realize that's that by we use the preposition there but it's like the adjective and they put the adjective in Latin we have to use the article or I mean the preposition because they don't have all these cases and so on but that's different than when you say I'm an author by my knowledge right I told you some of these guys are there so many words a day you know turn out you know some of these novelists especially right they hold themselves to so many words you know a day and eventually get the thing written right by hit or miss so by knowledge and by diligence right they're an author right in a different way than they're an author by their books they might say if you don't have any books you're not an author okay you see so now you know what it means to say a little bit there was a second Vatican council say you know to penetrate and to illuminate these mystics as much as possible you should take Thomas as a teacher you know passage there and of course the official Latin text there has the reference there to Paul VI there you know he's speaking about Thomas and he's speaking how he should reverence all the doctors of the church right but among them especially Thomas you know but kind of used to joke you know some people say you faut de passer Saint Thomas right well fine if you can do it but as I say you know you gotta catch up with him before you get ahead of him right and I don't think I caught up with the man you know I mean you're kind of you know teaching the physics the books of natural hearing and you know since 1935 when I had been you know been teaching he still sees something new when he goes through them you know there's a guy there's a teaching so one could probably teach the street of some trinity for 25 30 years and say I still see something new when I go through it right so I haven't quite caught up with Thomas but as soon as I catch up with them I'm gonna spread ahead of them but I've never met anybody you know who's really caught up with like say Thomas in theology or even with Aristotle and philosophy right there are things that you know I would copy Aristotle I mean I know I'm never going to catch up with them and I keep on reading them and studying them but still I'm caught up with them so let's look now to apply to the objections I guess here at the letter now the first objection was taken from what Augustine says in the 7th book of the Trinity I don't see any that retraction there of Augustine I don't know I was reading this thing by our Holy Father there on Augustine I don't know if you have a chance to read that but I guess quite a few of the books of the Trinity are published surreptitiously you know without his permission right and then when he later came back to it he added a few more books and then he revised the ones he had right so part of this retraction might be because of that right you know but the first part is saying the Father is not wise by generated what wisdom right what Thomas explained to the first therefore it should be said that wise or understanding in God is not taken except essentially right you have the two different words right and therefore it cannot be said that the Father is wise or understanding by the Son not even in some other meaning right it's always taken as were essentially and then you have for the other one strictly speaking only the Father is the Speaker of the House right that's why I kind of name him that but he alone really speaks right all three of them understand he alone says something and that's taken but always notionally or relatively but to love is taken not only essentially but also notionally because of the in opium he said the poverty you might say of the what word son and according to this we can say that the Father and the Son love each other by the Holy Spirit but it's one way of being understood right second objection and here let's look at the second part of the objection nor can it be taken notionally because what Thomas seems to say it can be because for a like reason one could say that the Father and the Son breathe by the Holy Spirit right or the Father generates by the Son right then okay to the second it should be said that when in the understanding of some action is implied a determined effect the beginning or the source of the action can be denominated both from the action itself and from the effect of that action right just as we can say that the tree is flowering by its what flowering and by the flowers right the one is being the action and the other is the flowers right or you could say I speak by my speaking and by my what words right but when in an action is not included a determined effect then one cannot denominate the beginning of the action from the effect but only from the action for we do not say that the tree produces a flower by what flower but by the production of a flower right in this therefore that I say breathes or generates there is implied a what notional act relative only once we are not able to say that the father breathes by the holy spirit or he generates by the son but we are able to say that the what father says by the word right as by a person proceeding from him right and he speaks by speaking as by a notional act right because to say implies a determined person proceeding since to speak is to produce a what word and similarly to love insofar as it is taken in a notional or relative way is to produce love and therefore we can say that the father loves the son by the holy spirit as by a person proceeding and by love itself as by a what notional act as by as by as by The third one is saying, well, does he love us and the Son and himself, also by the Holy Spirit? To the third, it should be said that the Father, not only the Son, but also himself and us, he loves by the Holy Spirit. Because as has been said, to love, insofar as it is taken notionally or personally or relationally, that only implies a production of a divine person, but also the person produced by way of love, who has a, what, relation to the thing loved. Whence, just as the Father says himself, and every creature by the word, which he generates, right? Like in my little poem there, right? God the Father said it all, one word. He said himself and all of us, too, one word. Insofar as the generated word sufficiently represents the Father and all creatures, right? So he loves himself and every creature by the Holy Spirit, insofar as the Holy Spirit proceeds as the love of the first, what, goodness, huh? By which the Father loves himself and every, what, creature. And thus also it is clear that the respect or relation applied to the creature, both in the word and in the love proceeding, is as it were, what, secondary. Insofar as the truth, the divine truth and divine goodness are the beginning of a source of understanding and loving. What, creature? Creature, yeah. We've got to take a little break in it after that, huh? Sure. And again, ladies and gentlemen, that was not called for him. Consequently, when asked about what? Gift, right? And about this, two things are asked. One, whether gift can be a personal need, right? And secondly, whether it is proper or private to the Holy Spirit. It's always a problem, but how do you translate appropriate? You know, a lot of people tend to translate it proper, but sometimes it has a sense of what? Private, right? You need to. The first one goes forward thus. It seems that gift is not a personal name. For every personal name implies some distinction in divine matters. But the name of gift does not imply some distinction in divine or in God. For as Augustine says in the 15th book on the Trinity, the Holy Spirit is thus given as the gift of God that also he gives himself, right? Yeah. Therefore, he's not distinct from himself, right? Therefore, a gift is not a personal name. Moreover, no personal name belongs to the divine essence or substance, nature. But the divine essence is the gift that the Father gives to the Son, as is clear through Hillary, or by Hillary, in the 9th book on the Trinity. Hillary seems to be second to Augustine, and I was quoting him a lot. Anywhere near, Augustine. Therefore, a gift is not a what? Personal name, right? So a gift is something you give, right? And the Father gave the divine nature to the Son. Moreover, according to Damascene, nothing is subject or subservient, right, in the divine persons. But gift implies a certain what? Being subject to both the one to whom it is, what? Given, and to the one by whom it is given. That's the only truth about our gifts, right, huh? If I give a gift to someone, that gift is something below me, and for the sake of this other person, right? Therefore, a gift is not a personal name, huh? Moreover, a gift implies a relation to the creature, and thus it seems to be said of God in time, huh? But personal names are said of God eternally, as Father and Son. Therefore, a gift is not a personal name. Oh, I'm convinced it's not, right, aren't you? At this point, yes. A little learning is a dangerous thing, as they say. A little reading is a dangerous thing. But against this is what Augustine says in the 50th Book of the Trinity. That just as the body of the flesh is nothing other than the flesh itself, so the gift of the Holy Spirit is nothing other than the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is a personal name. Therefore, also what? Gifted, huh? What is Thomas going to say about all this? I answer, it should be said that in the name of gift is implied a, what? Aptness, right? To being given, right? So can I have a gift for you before I've given it to you? Can I have a gift for you before I've given it to you? See? And something that has an aptness to be given, right? Now, what is given has a relation both to that by whom it is given, right? And to that to whom it is given. For it would not be given by someone unless it was his to give, right? And to that to whom it is given, then it might be what? His. His. Now, a divine person is said to be of someone, either according to origin, right? As a son is said to be of the Father. He's the son of the Father. Or insofar as it is had by, what? Someone, huh? Now, we are said to have that which we can, what? Freely use and enjoy as we wish, huh? And in this way, so do I really have a library book? Do I really have it? Yeah, that's your personal library, yes. But not a public library. Yeah, yeah. It's got returned with its date, right? Yeah. And in this way, a divine person is not able to be had except by a reasonable creature, right? Who is joined to God, right? For other creatures are able to be moved by a divine person, right? But not that it be in their power to enjoy a divine person and to use his, what? Effect, huh? Now, to this, sometimes, a rational creature arrives. That he become a partaker of the divine word and of the preceding love. So that he is able to freely know God and to rightly love him, huh? Truly know him and to rightly love him, huh? Whence only a rational creature is able to have a divine person. But to this that he have him thus, he cannot, by his own power, arrive. Whence is necessary that this be given to him from above? For that is said to be given to us that we have otherwise or from another. And thus, it belongs to a divine person to be given and to be a, what? Gift, huh? So it can only be given as a gift to, what? A rational creature, huh? You can't give as a gift to a dog. Because they can't know or love, huh? And the first objection was saying, well, if the Holy Spirit gives himself, there's no distinction between the give and the gift, right? And if this is a personal name, it's got to be a type of relation of some sort, huh? To the first, therefore, it should be said that the name of gift implies a personal distinction, according as a gift is said to be a someone through origin, huh? But nevertheless, the Holy Spirit gives himself insofar as he is, what? Of himself, right? Is able to use himself, or rather, enjoy himself, huh? Just as a man is said to be free, who is of himself, right? And this is what Augustine says in his commentary on John. But what is more yours than you? Or it should be said, and better, Thomas says, right? That a gift necessarily is in some way of the, what? One giving. But this to be of that is said in many ways, huh? In one way, by way of identity. Just as Augustine says on John, right? That's what he just referred to, right? So a free man is said to be of himself, right? But a slave is of another. In that sense, a gift is not distinguished from the one giving, but only from the one to whom it is what? Given, huh? And thus the Holy Spirit is said to give himself, right? Because as soon as they say that in marriage, right? To give yourself to your partner, right? Okay? Self-giveness. Yeah, but you couldn't give yourself if you were not of yourself. If you were not yours, to give. So, I mean, it's not like Thomas invented it in a way. We have that way of speaking. Name or God or God. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay? Now, in another way, right? Something is said to be of someone as a, what? Possession or as a, what? Servant, yeah. Slave. And thus it is necessary that the gift be essentially distinguished from the one, what? Giving. And thus the gift of God is something, what? Creating, huh? The theological virtues are gifts, right? I'm speaking of them as gifts. But in a third way, something is said to be of this by way of origin only, right? And in this way, the son is said to be the son of the, what? Father, right? Because he's a possession of the father. Because the father and the son are the same. But because the son proceeds from the father, right? And the Holy Spirit might be said to be the breath of the father and the son, right? Because he proceeds from them, right? So, insofar, therefore, as gift in this way is said to be of the one giving, right? As the saint proceeds from him, right? Thus is distinguished from the one giving personally. And is a, what? Personal name, right? So, Thomas distinguishes then three ways, right? That this is of that, right? Only one of them would be sufficient to be a, what? Personal name, right? Not as a possession, right? Yeah. Now, the second thing here is, what about the divine essence being a gift, right? Okay. The second should be said that the essence is said to be a gift of the father in the first way. Because the essence is of the father by way of what? Identity, right? Okay. So, it's not a possession that the father had that he gave the son. And does the essence as such proceed from the father? No, because then the essence would be really distinct from the father, right? Okay. Now, the third objection takes it from what? The way in which a possession, right? Or a slave is said to be of someone, right? That's why they used to object to the whole thing. I now pronounce you man and wife. Because that makes the wife something of the husband, but not the husband something of the wife, right? Using the word man, right? So, he says, gift, according as it is a personal name in God, does not imply subjection. That was the second sense he gave of this is of that, right? But of origin only, right? In comparison to the one giving. In comparison, however, to the one to whom it is given, it implies the free use or enjoyment, as has been said. Now, the fourth objection says, what about the objection that says that what's given to the creature is in time, right? And this is, well, then Thomas goes back to the fact that gift is really something that is apt to be given, right? And that's nice, they have to be actually given, right? So, I have your gift before I give it to you. To the fourth, it should be said that gift is not said from this that in act it is given, but insofar as it has an aptness, huh? That it can be given, right? Whence, from eternity, the divine person is said to be a gift, although he's given to us in time, right? Right? Demonstration in the Latin there, legion extemporary dot dita, right? Given from time, right? We'd say in time, right? Nor from the fact that it implies a relation to the creature is it necessary that it be essential, but that it include something essential in its, what? Understanding. Just as the divine essence is included in the understanding of the person, has been said above. Okay, we've got time to go in one more here, maybe? Then we'll be up to the... Okay. Now, he's explained in that first article the sense in which gift could be a personal name, right? Insofar as it is said to proceed or go forward from the giver, right? Not insofar as it's the same thing as a giver, right? And not insofar as it's a possession, right? But now, is it something that makes it appropriate to the Holy Spirit in particular, right? That the one who proceeds as love should be called gift, right? Rather than the one who proceeds in some other way, like the Son who proceeds from the Father, right? Now, to the second one who proceeds thus, it seems that gift is not the private name of the Holy Spirit. For gift is said from this that is given. But just as it's said in Isaiah chapter 9, verse 6, A son is given to us, right? Therefore, to be a gift belongs to the Son, just as the Holy Spirit. That's in that subjection. Moreover, every... Yeah, John says he so loved the will that he gave his own... Yeah, so you find in other texts like that. Moreover, every private name or property name of some person signifies some property of that person, right? But this name, gift, does not signify some property of the Holy Spirit. But we'll see about that. Therefore, gift is not the... What? Private name of the Holy Spirit, huh? If you but knew the gift of God, you would ask him for a drink. It seems that he's talking about something. Moreover, the Holy Spirit can be said to be the spirit of some man, as has been said above. But it cannot be said to be the gift of some man, but only the gift of God. Therefore, gift is not the private name of the Holy Spirit, huh? But against this is what Augustine says in the fourth book. Who's this guy, Augustine? Oh, he's showing up in these things. I don't know. Did you read those five general addresses there, if you want, Augustine? If you go to... Well, they would print it in the register. I hope they don't put that in the book for him. That was the same. Just get done. But against this is what Augustine says in the fourth book about the Trinity. For just as to be born is what? For the Son to be from the Father. So for the Holy Spirit to be the gift of God is to be or to proceed from the Father and the Son. So for the Holy Spirit to be said to be the gift of God is for him to proceed from the Father and the Son. But the Holy Spirit gets his own name insofar as he proceeds from the Father and the Son. Therefore, gift is the proper name of the Holy Spirit. Let's see how Thomas unties this now, right? This is like the plot of a fiction, right? And Aristotle says in the book about the poetic art that a good plot should consist of two parts. Tying the knot or knots and then untying them, right? And that's another reason why the Philobuthos in the way is like a philosopher, but like the theologian insofar as he ties a knot first and then he unties a knot. But I'd love to make this comparison because Aristotle, in comparing the young poet or the imperfect poet with the perfect poet, he says that the young poets are better at tying the knot than untying it. And I think sometimes when people criticize a movie or something that they see, you know, and they say that it wasn't untied properly, right? And I know it's the same thing, you know, with those philosophers, they're better at tying your mind into a knot than they are to untie the knots that they do, you know? It's like leaving the cistern open, as Thomas says, so it can fall in, you know, you're responsible for it there. I was telling you that time I was teaching at St. Mary's College in California, and those days are a little more strict, you know, about things. And I was teaching a course on the Marxism, right? And so when you do this, you actually send a letter down to the bishop's office, or the registrar would send you, get permission to use these books that were things. And I mentioned on my list there, you know, this book by Feuerbach, you know, The Essence of Christianity, which is a very blasphemous book, right? And I was not going to use the whole book, it was just, you know, a few things in there, because it's important for going from Hegel to Marx, right? And so when the letter came back from the office, you know, he called me in the registrar, you know, and he says, you're doing permission to use that book, but it adds that you're responsible for anybody who loses his faith because of it. The mission had that much, or whoever's working on it, had that much concern. Yeah, yeah, that was a good thought, so you know, you know? So Feuerbach says, the human mind is infinite, infinite is God, therefore the human mind is God. And therefore the meaning of the incarnation is not that God became man, but that man himself is God. I mean, you've reversed a book, you know, but... But Feuerbach, I mean, Karl Marx and Engels, you know, they became enthusiastic Feuerbachians, you know. This is being a Dominican. Yeah, it's terrible. And it should be said that gift, as it is taken personally in God, right, is the Holy Spirit's own name, a proper name, huh? Now, how does Thomas get to this? To the evidence of this, it should be known that gift is properly a, what? A giving that is not to be returned, right? According to the philosophy. He's got to go back to that guy, right? So going back to Augustine for authority, but to Aristotle gave the reason. That is, that it is not given with the intention of being, what? It's not returned, huh? Now, sometimes when somebody, you know, gives you something, you say, or hands you something, you say, you know, are you giving me this? Yeah. You know, what does that mean? You see? No, I understand. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You see? And my father now, you know, lend me a tool, you know, and say, and you see what it says there? I say, what, you know, it's his name or something, you know. You want that tool, tool back, you know, and barring. So now, that's taking giving in the fullest sense of the word, right? And it'd be only in a kind of qualified sense, if I'm lending you something, then I'm giving you this, right? Okay? I don't know that you use this, but I'm not really giving it to you. Back. Okay? Because he used to, you know, keep these strange quotes, and he says, Kajitin says there's no conscience where books are concerned. Yeah. If you ever lend somebody a book, you know, that you can't replace so easily, and they never returned it, you know. That's why we all get used to, you know, writing down who they lend the book to, because otherwise they'd go, who the heck did I lend that book to, you know, and someone's got it, and it's gone, you know. A friend of ours, you know, Larry Brown used to write in his book and say, this book belongs to Larry Brown. Right. Put parentheses, but not exclusively. Unless it implies a, what, gratuitous giving, right? But the reason for gratuitous giving is love. And therefore we give something gratis to someone, because we wish to him, what? Yeah, we will to him, good, right? The first, therefore, that we give to him is the love by which we wish to him, what? Good. This is very important, what he says here. Whence it is manifest that love has the notion of the first gift, by which all gratuitous gifts are what given, right? Whence, since the Holy Spirit goes forward as love, this has... and said, he goes forward in the notion of the first, what? Gift. Whence Augustine says in the 15th book of the Trinity that through the gift that is the Holy Spirit, many, what? Proper goods or private goods are divided among the members of, what? Christ, right? John Paul's second quote is that verbatim. Mm-hmm. It precedes his first gift. Yeah, yeah. What I noticed in the, what is it, in the Our Father, I think it's in Matthew and in Luke, you have the Our Father, right? And in one of them, he talks about, you know, you being bad as you are and how to give your children good things, you know? But not the Father then, you know? But then the other text, it says, instead of give gifts, give the Holy Spirit. And you say, well, what's the reason for these two, right? I say, well, here it is, right? Mm-hmm. Because to give you the Holy Spirit, he gives at first, before he gives all these other gifts, right? Mm-hmm. Okay. So there's an order here then why Thomas takes up the name of the Holy Spirit that is love in question, what, 37, right? Before he takes up his name of, what, gift, right? Because the reason why he gets the name of gift is because it precedes as love. So, let's see the order in Thomas, huh? Now, the first objection, right? How about the Son is said to be given to us, and so on, right? To the first, therefore, it should be said that just as the Son who goes forward by way of, what, thought, huh? The Son, which has in its notion that it be a likeness of its beginning, is called properly an imago, right? And notice again, you have the same order there, right? He took up his name as verbum before he took up his name as what? Imigo, right? Okay. Although the Holy Spirit is also what? Like the Father, right? It doesn't precede as a likeness, it precedes as love. So also the Holy Spirit, because it precedes as love, is properly said to be the gift, although the Son also is what? Given, huh? For this that the Son is given is also from the love of the Father, according to that of John 3.16. For thus God loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, right? So God there is standing for the Father, huh? And the second one says, well, what about the, how does this signify a property of the Holy Spirit, right? Well, in the name of gift is implied that it be of the giver, the origin, that's one of the meanings of it. And thus it implies a property of the origin of the Holy Spirit, who proceeds as love, and therefore as a gift. Now the third objection. To the third it should be said that gift, before it is given, is only something of the giver, right? But after it is given, it is of the one to whom it is given. Because therefore gift does not imply giving an act, it cannot be said that it be the gift of man, but it's the gift of God, what? Giving. But when, however, it is given, then it is of the man, right? Either his spirit or his, what? Gift. Okay, now we're going to, you know, stop here, right? But let's just recall the division of the treatise, right? Is the treatise on the trinity divided into two or three parts? Yeah. And Thomas gave in the premium to the treatise a reason for this, right? That the persons are distinguished by relations of origin. So therefore he says, according to the order of teaching or learning, one should first of all speak a precession, which he did in one question, and then about the relations, which he does in another one, and then the third about the persons, right? Okay? And the persons, of course, is taking up about 15 questions, isn't it? First two parts, just one question each, right? So you have one question on the precessions, right? One question on relations, and 15 on the persons, right? Now I mentioned how in the great disputed questions de potencia, which has 10 questions, right? Each divided into many articles. But the last three questions are about the processions, and the relations, and the, what? Persons. Although the order is, what? Yeah, the relations and the persons, and then the processions, right? But that's according to the order of disputation, right? Which have the same three parts, right? Okay? Now, the 15 questions, you could possibly understand division of the 15, it might have completely break down. So are the 15 questions divided into 15 parts, or are they divided into two or three? Two or three. Yeah, yeah. And is it two or three? Which is it? Two or three. Two. Yeah, yeah. The absolute consideration of the persons, and that took up 10 questions. We just finished that today. Let me get set finished. And then the comparative consideration of persons, which will be the next five, what? Last questions, yeah. Now, the 10 questions on the absolute consideration of persons, right? Is that divided into two or three? Two or three? Yeah. Because you can see the persons in general, the first four questions, and then the part we just finished, these six questions were devoted to the persons in particular, right? Now, where are those six questions divided into two or three? Because you had one question about the Father, two about the Son, and three about the, what? Holy Spirit, right? So, one is not divided, except in the article, right? We'll go into all those details. But the Son was two, and the Holy Spirit three, right? Now, the last part will be, what? Five questions, right then? And notice by my device here, that there are 17 questions on the, what? Trinity, right? And 17 is a number that Augustine uses to explain the number of those who are saved. Because, you know, at the end of the Gospel of St. John, it explicitly mentions that there are 153 fish that are caught. And Augustine says, well, if you take the number 17, you take 17, 16, 15, all the way down to one, and add them up, you get 153. And how does 17 then, you know, the number to explain the mystery there, right? Well, 10 is what? The sum of 10 and 7. So those who obey the Ten Commandments through the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit are the ones that are saved, right? I was recently reading a book about Shakespeare, right? And you know how many feet he's buried? 17 feet. That's not as weird, right? Yeah. Because I don't think the author, you know, you didn't realize the significance of it. It struck me, right? That means he's saved, right? Or at least it's a sign. Yeah, yeah. It's not full of 7, 5? No, it's 17, you know. That's, you know, I'll specify, I wouldn't bury it 17 feet deep. But anyway, that's, I kind of remember, there's 17 questions here, huh? But that's kind of my playful way to remember, right? I don't know, is that Joseph Pierce's new book? Shakespeare? No, no, no. It was one by, I forget his name now, the English, I forget there. I can't remember his name. Gee, he's got to be reading it, too. Anyway, it's not Asquith. No, no, no, no, it's Quinell, Peter Quinell, with two N's in there, you know. But, you know, kind of a little light reading, you know. A few things I like, you know, something you don't like. Does it talk about his writings? Yeah, yeah, it's kind of a life of Shakespeare, but it, you know, talks about his writings as they came up and so on. Thank you. A few odd things pick up, like Shakespeare's buried 17 feet deep. He didn't see the exhibit, but he just mentioned that, you know. He said to have been buried 17 feet deep. So, anyway, these last five questions now are going to be the comparative consideration, right? So let's look at Thomas' cranium there, just in the last minute here. After those things which have been tweeted, what, about the Divine Persons, is absolute, right? It remains to consider about the Persons in this comparative, right? But he says, in comparison to the, what, essence, and to the, what, properties, and to the notional acts, right? And the comparison of them to, what, each other, right? So probably divide those first three against the last, what, two, right? Okay. You've got to compare the Persons to the Essence, to the Properties, and to the notional acts, right? And then you can compare them to each other, right? Right. Okay. So, we've got a lot of things here, right? So next time we'll start looking at the Persons related to the Essence, right? But notice the first fundamental article there. Where the Essence in Divine Things is the same as the, what, Persons? Or are there three Persons and, and Nature? Or is the Nature the same thing as the Persons, huh? Is there any distinction, in other words, in God between the Father and the Divine Nature? Is there any real distinction between the Son and the Divine Nature? Is there any real distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Divine Nature? There's a distinction of reason, right? There was some different thought there. The Divine Nature and, and God the Father, right? And the Son and so on. But, Thomas said there's no real distinction between the Father and the Divine Nature, between the Son and the Divine Nature. They're all identical with the Divine, what, Nature. But there's a real distinction between the Father and the Son, right? This hot position, relation, right? But, but the relation of fatherhood is towards the Son. It's not towards the Divine Nature. He's not the Father of the Divine Nature. The Son is not the Son of the Divine Nature, is he? No. He's the Son of the Father, and the Father is the Father of the Son. So, towards each other, they're related, and therefore, distinguished by relations. It's just one kind of opposition, as the philosopher teaches us, even in the categories and in the fifth book of Wisdom, right? Interesting, huh? The first book of Aristotle, in the first science there, talks about these opposites. And the 14 books of Wisdom, right? The fifth book talks about it again, right? And it comes up here in theology. That's going to be the fundamental thing to see, right? And then, whether one can speak of three persons of one, what? Essence, huh? Well, that's kind of a supportive question, but it's a question of, what's that word of mean there, right? You've read the problems, you don't know enough about this. And then, whether essential names can be predicated of the persons in plural or in singular. So, are there three gods, or just one god, huh? So, a whole bunch of questions there about the language, right? Yeah. What does the great Hillary say from names of words put forth disorderly? Heresy arises? So, Thomas is very careful to see how you can speak about these things, right? So, actually, what? Two to some extent, but certainly three, four, five, six, right? Those four are all concerned about what you can say of what. But now, seven and eight are something different, aren't they, right? Whether the essential attributes can be appropriate to the person's son. And then, about how you actually appropriate them. Thomas is going to say, yes, you can. Even though you've got to be careful. I say, you know what you're doing, right? And then, how it appropriates power to the Father, and wisdom to the Son, maybe your goodness to the Holy Spirit, and so on. But you have some strange appropriations there, between Augustine and Hillary. But it's kind of interesting when you think about them, right? Why this is justified, though, you have to see it first, right? Strange, right? It's common to all three of them, right? And the Son doesn't have more wisdom than the Father and the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit doesn't have more goodness, so the Father has more power than others. But why you can appropriate these things, right? And what's the reason for doing that, right? So, but notice, the first article is the fundamental one, right? You can want to see. And the two through six, they're all about, I speak of these things, right? And seven and eight kind of go together, right? You can see, you can divide it into three if you wanted to, maybe, yeah? But we'll see a little bit more. You can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you can see, you