Prima Pars
Lecture 148: The Four Appropriations: Divine Attributes to Persons

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

It's anything that God sends to us, we expect it to be happiness, right? They need to be responsible for that. That's interesting what the philosopher says there. So, and this is what Augustine says, that that love, pleasure, happiness, felicitas, or fruitfulness, or beatitude, right, which is the end of the rational creature, is called by him, what, useless, right? Augustine's explaining the words of Hillary, right? There's Thomas, and he saw Bonaventure there, you know, right in the life of Francis, right? Let us leave a saint to write the life of a saint. Let us leave a doctor of the church, I guess, and he's playing the doctor of the church, right? And this is what Augustine shows when he says that the Holy Spirit, right, in the Trinity, is the, what, suavitas, the sweetness of the generator and the one generated, right? And then pouring down upon us, right, with a marvelous arginus and abundance, right? And thus it is clear, and now in the next paragraph, Thomas is completing the explanation of the first appropriation, but also answering the objection that was there, right? And thus it is clear wherefore eternity, species, or beauty, and use, or enjoyment, are attributed to persons, or appropriate to them, right? But not, however, the words essence, or what? Operation, as they're too general. Because in the notion or definition of these, on account of their community, their commonness, there's not found some likeness in what is proper to the persons, right? So you all agreed about that first, you're going to follow Hillary? I mean, Augustine does. Thomas does, right? It's good enough for these guys. It's good enough for me, huh? I can't watch the people upon these guys. I quoted you many times, you know, at the Connex, you know, somebody says to me one day, Il faut dépasser, Saint-Termain. He says, fine, if you can do it. It's good to, he said, go beyond Thomas. Fine, if you can do it. I mean, the present Pope there makes no bones about the fact that he's getting his thoughts from Augustine right up there. He hasn't even got to thank Thomas yet. Okay, the second consideration of God is, insofar as he's considered as something, what? One. And thus, Augustine appropriates to the Father unity, huh? Oneness, huh? To the Son equality, which is a kind of oneness, right? And to the Holy Spirit, concord. Comes the word heart, I guess, huh? How would you translate concord in English? Concord. You used the word concord. I forget this town here. What? But, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but and therefore, it's appropriate to the Father who does not presuppose some other person on which he proceeds, right? Since he is a beginning, not from a beginning. We'll see this in the glory of the Father later on today. Equality, however, implies unity in respect to another. For equal, the equal is what has one quantity with another. And therefore, equality is appropriated to the Son who is a beginning from a beginning. So I'd be one without a Son, but if my Son is equal to me, you know, equality begins with Him, right? Connection, however, implies unity of two things, right? Or, you know, transacting, you said harmony, right? If you harmonize two things, right? Whence is appropriate to the Holy Spirit insofar as he is from two. Okay, now, the next paragraph is going to touch upon the objection, right? From which is able to be understood what Augustine says. The three are one in account of the Father, right? Equal in account of the Son. Connected in account of the Holy Spirit, huh? Okay, now, how should this be understood? It doesn't mean, you know, that they're one through the Father in the way in which he rejected before that the Father was wise through the Son, right? He says it is manifest that that is attributed to each thing in which it is first found, right? Just as all lower things are said to live on account of the, what? Living soul, right? So when Aristotle distinguishes the three souls, they'll call them the living soul, the sensing soul, and the understanding soul, right? You say, well, why do you call this the living soul? Isn't the sensing soul alive? Isn't the understanding soul alive? Isn't the understanding soul sensing also? So, but we attribute it to what it's first found, right? Okay, so the plant, you first find life in the bodies, right? So we call that the living soul, and then in the animal, you first find sense, and then finally, we speak of our soul as the understanding soul, and even Shakespeare calls our soul the understanding soul. So, in the same way, unity is found at once in the person of the Father, even if per impossibile, right, the other persons are removed, right? There will still be unity there in God. So even those philosophers knew that God was one, right? They would see unity as belonging to God. Aristotle ends up the consideration of God there in the 12th Book of Wisdom by saying there's only one God, and finally he quotes the poet. You know, the rule of many is not good, let there be one. But, since he explained for a while why he does those things, you know, to show that what he's saying is not, but so far removed, you know, from our common understanding that even the poet, right, sees something of this truth, right? But you wouldn't speak of equality in God, would you? Aristotle didn't speak of equality in God, right? You wouldn't speak of equality between God and us, either. It's that matter. So there'd be no equality, right? But if you knew about the Son, you know, there were heretics who admitted the divinity of the Son, but denied the divinity of the, what? And they called them Semi-Arians or something, I guess they had named the Macedonians. But equality would be found with the Son, but you don't need the Holy Spirit for equality, right? But removing the other persons, there's not found equality in the Father. But at once, laying down the Son being there, and the Son in the full sense of He is, there's found equality, right? And therefore all are said to be equal on account to the Son. Not because the Son is the beginning of equality for the Father, right? But because the Father, that unless the Son were equal to the Father, the Father could not be said to be what? Yeah. So if I want to be equal to somebody, I'm going to have to, you know, generate somebody who will be equal to me. For equality is first what considered in reference to the Son. And this, that the Holy Spirit is equal to the Father, He has from the Son, because He has the divine nature from the Son. Similarly, if we exclude the Holy Spirit, who is the connection of the two, one cannot understand the unity of the connection between the Father and the Son. And therefore all are said to be connected on account to the Holy Spirit. Because, positing the Holy Spirit, laying down the Holy Spirit, one finds whence the Father and the Son are able to be said to be what? Connected, huh? Okay. Why don't you do that one before I break? Okay. I think I'm going to put a little... Some other things in the fourth one. Now the third one is taken according to what? There's a power in God, right? Doing something or causing something, right? According to the third consideration, by which in God a sufficient power is considered to causing things, is taken the third appropriation. To it, of the, what? Power and the wisdom and the, what? Goodness, huh? This is always a kind of easier one, it seems to be, to understand. It doesn't seem quite as abstract as the first two seem, right? Maybe you're in a church someday. But you haven't agreed there, right? I believe in God the Father Almighty, right? So, he alone Almighty? No. It's appropriated to him, right? Okay. Now here Thomas says that there's a, what? Double appropriation here, right? As you remind a little bit of that text you looked at in the beginning of the class there, on leading by the hand, right? Parasimilia adiposita, right? And here, there's going to be an appropriation by similitude to the properties of the persons, the divine persons, and then kind of appropriation by opposition to what you find in their counterparts in creatures, or at least in us, lowly creatures. Which appropriation comes about, both by reason of likeness, if one considers what is found in the divine persons, or what is in the divine persons, and by reason of unlikeness, if one considers what is in creatures. Here's a double explanation in this one. For potencia, power has the notion of a beginning, right? So in the ninth book of wisdom, Aristotle begins by talking about power, right? And he says, power is the beginning of motion or change in another. He goes on to the senses of power, but that's the fundamental meaning of power, right? It's a beginning. So, he's, of course, a student of Aristotle, as you know, Thomas. For power has the notion of a beginning, right? Whence it has a likeness with the Heavenly Father, who is the beginning of the whole divinity, that same phrase. But we also saw an article, where, explicitly about the Father, he asked what he said. Principium, remember that? But then, by way of unlikeness, but this fails sometimes for the earthly father, on account of his, what? Yeah, yeah. I'm beginning to feel that bad. Especially when you get a suitcase that's too heavy. I hire somebody. Use the wisdom. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Now, wisdom has a likeness with the, what? Celestial son, insofar as he is the, what? The word, which is nothing other than the conceived wisdom. Yeah, concept of wisdom. Then, by way of unlikeness, it fails sometimes in the earthly son, on account of the, what? Yeah, yeah. So, I was quoting the English expression, to play the young man. Means what? Play the fool. Aristotle talks about the young man there, in the rhetoric, huh? Compares the young man and the old man, and then compares the prime of life. It's a little age, time of life. But you know, they say when they talk about courage, you know, the virtues, the moral virtues, are in between two vices, one in excess and one in defect. But it's not equidistant from the two vices, so temperance is closer to what? Let's say, puritanism, right? Than it is to intemperance, right? It's named intemperance because it's more opposed to it. But courage is closer to, what, foolhardiness than to cowardice, huh? So the young are more courageous, right? But they're closer to the foolhardy. As opposed to Falstaff, right? And he's reading King Timothy IV, Part I, there on the strip a little bit. Now, goodness, huh? Which is the reason and the object of love. So when Thomas takes up love in his Prima Secundae, and he takes up the cause of love, the first cause is the good, right? But the way he syllogizes is that what? The good is the object of love, right? And then that the object of love is the cause of love. So, the Holy Spirit is love, one of his names, right? Well, then goodness is connected with that, huh? So goodness, since it is the reason and the object of love, has a likeness with the divine spirit, with love. But it has the repugnancy to the, what, earthly spirit, huh? According as it implies a certain, what, violent, huh? Impulse, right? As far as it is said, the spirit, the robust, is as we're a, what, wind knocking down the wall, driving the wall. So what do we say in English, huh? What do we say about this person? Often people go to excess, you know, with this sort of thing, right? Carried away. Now, the next part here is an objection there, right? Which is taken from the word virtus, right? Which is always a problem for us, how to translate that sometimes. Because sometimes Aristotle takes virtus as meaning, or we consider it as virtue, right? Other times virtus means what? Power. Power, right? Okay. And I noticed when I studied the names of the angels, there's a problem there, you know? Between the Greek and the Latin and so on. Because they're saying, you know, words of the sort. Virtus, powers, you know. If you look at the Greek, it's a little different. Okay. Virtus is appropriated to the Son and the Holy Spirit, not according as virtus is said to be the power itself of the thing, but, huh? But according as the virtue is said to be that which, what, proceeds from the power. Insofar as we say that something made virtuous is the virtuous agent, huh? So sometimes we name the effect, huh? And say that's justice, right? We don't mean the virtue, but you mean the thing you did as a result of this, huh? So this can be applied to the Son and the Holy Spirit because they proceed, right? From the power. Don't worry too much about that. But that word virtus gives you a problem sometimes because it's various uses. Up above when I talked about the earthly spirit, so is that talking about for a person or for the wind or a boat? It's like that's what spirit means, wind and breath, right? And I don't know if spirited in English has necessarily a bad sense, you know, but would it be the proper word where it would indicate that, huh? Sometimes it might have a connotation where you say someone's high spirit, you think you're kind of excessive. Yeah, yeah. Translated here, an earthly son, this is sometimes absent by reason of the lack of years. Next one. Next one. Next one. The spirit under goodness, the spirit is the strong, is that the lust? No. Yes, they put that as a person instead of the soul, the spirit of the person. You know, the word lust, you find the word lust used in Shakespeare for a vigorous young man, right? He's lusting. It doesn't have the sense of the vice of lust, right? But it has become for us, you know, a synonym for what? The vice, right? And, you know, something like that too with the other strong emotion like anger, right? You know, when I was growing up, you know, the capital of vice is one that we call it anger, right? Well, you've got to be careful what you mean by that, right? Because, you know, even Christ gets angry sometimes, right? And that's nothing bad. But why did anger come to be the name of a vice, right? If not, because of what he's saying here, right? Anger, people are always doing, you know, every time, you've got to lose anger every day. Out of anger, someone's done something terrible, right? You see? He's moved, you know, those strong things. So lust and anger, right, huh? You see? People are moved to do bad things. Moved, right? Acting on impulse. What? Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, the idea here, though, that's more going back to the sun. But, you know, to act on impulse, right? You're moved, right? Like someone driven by the wind. Yeah. Driven by this impulse. Yeah. We'll take a little break here now before we do the fourth one here. Sorry. Thank you. to the last now, the fourth consideration. Now, according to the fourth consideration, insofar as God is considered in relation to his effects, there's taken that appropriation. Now, from which, right? Or from whom? Through whom, right? And what? In whom, right? Now, this is taken from what? The end of chapter 11 and the epistle to the Romans, huh? But in that particular text, you take it as being said of God, essentially, but you could also, what? And appropriate the three to this. And Augustine does this, so. Let's look at this before we get to the text. Now, he says, this preposition, ex, or from, right, implies sometimes the relation of a material cause. which has no place in God, huh? Okay. So we can say that the table is from wood, right, huh? Okay. So nature makes something from some material, right? And human art makes something from some matter, right, huh? Okay. Now, sometimes it signifies the relation of a, what? Efficient cause, right? Okay. Which belongs to God by reason of his, what? Active power, right? So we could say that the Pietas came from Michelangelo, right? In one sense of from. And it came from marble in another sense, right? But Thomas, in the commentary in that chapter, and other places sometimes, too, he'll point out three senses of from, right? Something is also said to come to be from its opposite, right? Okay. So the hard comes to be from the soft, right? Okay. And then when they talk about creation, right, well, you don't have something from matter in that sense at all. But you could say, in a way, from the opposite, it's from nothing, right? But that's not, it's the matter, it's a different sense, right? And then, but in this second sense he gives here, from God, right, huh? Okay. So when you're created, you're not created from matter, although this chair or table was made from matter, but you were made from nothing, meaning simply what? Yeah. But that's not what you're made out of, right? Okay. And you're also made from God, right? In the sense of the efficient cause. Um, whence is appropriated to the Father just as, what? Power, right? Okay. So we say that, um, um, the translation of things tends to matter, but, so that from him and through him and in him are all things, right? From him is appropriate to the Father, right? Because from there is signifying what? Not from matter, not from the opposite, but from the, what? Efficient cause from the mover, the maker, right? And therefore, since power is appropriate to the Father, the same reason, from him could be appropriate to the Father, right? As they would say, the creature is from him, meaning from God, speaking properly, but speaking appropriately, um, it's from the Father, right? Okay. Now this preposition, pair, designates sometimes a middle, what? Cause. As we say that the, what? The carpenter operates through the hammer, okay? Or the mycladula through the chisel or something, right? Hammer and chisel. And thus, the pair sometimes is not appropriated, right? But proper to the Son, according to that of St. John, chapter 1, verse 3, the Gospel, that all things are made, what? Through him, right? Not because the Son is like a hammer, right? He's an instrument, but because he is a beginning from the beginning, right? Sometimes, though, it designates the relation of the form through which the agent operates, huh? As we say that the artist operates through his, what? Art, huh? Whence, just as wisdom and art are appropriated to the Son, right? So also the words through whom, right? Now this preposition, in, denotes properly the relation of the container, right? I mentioned how the famous text of Aristotle, the fourth book of what? Natural Hearing, the fourth book of the Physics, where he distributes his eight senses of in, right? But he doesn't order the senses there. And so Thomas comes along and says, we're going to order the senses. But in the way Aristotle teaches us in the fifth book of Wisdom. And so he goes through these eight senses, huh? And the first sense of in is, we're in this room. That's the most sensible of the senses, huh? And the second sense is what? My teeth are in my mouth. The part is in the whole, right? And the third sense is what? The genus is in the species. And the fourth sense is the sense which is species in the genus. Now there's a transition there, because the first three senses, something is in something where it's actually there, right? But then the fourth sense, you see the species is in what? The genus is only in their impotency. And then form is said to be in matter. And then I've got you in what? Yeah, actually the sixth sense is whole in parts, but that's like form in matter, because whole is to parts is form in matter. And the seventh sense is, I've got you in my power. That's another kind of ability, both actuality. And the last sense is, I left my heart in San Francisco, right? Where your treasure is, Christ says, there your heart shall be. He's the word where, right? Looking all the way back to the first sense of in. Where are you? I'm in this room, right? Okay. Thomas doesn't go into all these meanings here, but. But this preposition in denotes properly the relation of a container. But things are contained by God in two ways. In one way, according to their likenesses, right? Insofar as things are said to be in God, insofar as in his knowledge. And in this way, what I say in ipso, would be appropriated to the Son, right? Because he's like knowledge or wisdom. In another way, things are contained by God, insofar as God, by his goodness, right? Conserves them and governs them, bringing them to a suitable, what? In. And thus, in which is appropriated to the Holy Spirit, just as what? Goodness, huh? Now, he applies to that objection. Nor is it necessary that the relation of a final clause, although it be the first of the clauses, right? It should be appropriated to the Father. That was the objection, right? Who is the beginning, not of the beginning. Because the divine person of whom the Father is the beginning do not proceed as to an end, right? Since each of them is the last end. But by a natural procession, which pertains more to the notion of a natural, what? Power. Stop it a little upon that, a little bit there. Now, that is very close to the Greek, which is the last verse here, chapter 11. And let's read you the English a little bit there first. Famous text here. Oh, the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God, how unsearchable are his judgments and his ways past finding out. For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counselor? Or who hath first given to him? It shall be recompensed unto him again. What, nobody, right? And then, the last sentence. For ex out to, from him, right? And de out to, right? Through him, right? And in him are what? All things, right? To whom be, what? Glory forever in all the ages, huh? Amen. That's in the chapter, huh? Now, um, Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen. How would you explain those words, right? At first you'd apply it to God himself, right? Not to one in the person, the Trinity in particular, right? But it seems to me that those three words, in a way, touch upon the three causes that we attribute to God. Remember the four kinds of causes? Matter, form, mover, and end. Those are the only kinds of causes there are. And in what sense of cause is God a cause? Remember my famous answer to that? Was it three and a half? No, two and a half. Two and a half, yeah. He's in no way a cause as matter, right? Now, Nehrstahl talks about the second cause, form. He speaks of form and the motto or exemplar, right? And the form is the intrinsic form of things. But God is not the intrinsic form of things. God is not my soul, right? But the motto or exemplar is an extrinsic form after which something is modeled or that it imitates. And so since you and I are our soul is made in the image and likeness of God, right? And God is in some way a cause, a sense of form, a sense of an exemplar or what? Model, right? And it's interesting that the philosopher Aristotle, in the first book of natural hearing, the first book of the so-called physics, he says that form is something, what? God-like. And when he's reasoning against Plato, right? He reasons against Plato from what is common to his own thinking and Plato's thinking, right? And that is that form is something God-like. And Thomas explains, well, that's why Plato and Aristotle said that form is something God-like. Because God is pure act, and form is act as opposed to matter, which is potency or ability. And so insofar as form is an act, it has some distant likeness of these, right, to God who is pure act. So it shows the profundity of these two greatest philosophers, the men whom Plato, I mean, Thomas calls the philosophie percipue, the chief philosophers, Plato and Aristotle, right? That's it. But they both see form as something God-like. Then God is a cause in the sense of the mover or maker, the creator, which is that kind of cause. But most of all, he's a cause in the sense of what? Yeah. So when you say that, use the texture, tapanta, all things, are ex-autu, from him, right, and through him, right, and in him, right, you could attribute it to the three, what, ways in which God is a cause, right? All things are from him, as the, what, maker, creator, creator of them, through him, through his, what, knowledge, yeah, maybe exemplar, and in him, as, what, cause in the sense of in. And Thomas comments in the commentary on that. This is a, tapanta, he says, well, does that include sin? And then, of course, it goes to Augustine that sin is nothing, and the man who sins becomes nothing, right? So, whatever there is of being, he says in sin is from God, but, you know, so. That's what's so funny about Sartre, right, the atheist, right, you know, he's trying to see the dignity of man from his non-being, yeah? And it's like, you know, kind of fiendishy about this, you know, because, if man had some dignity independent of God, he would be his non-being. But to make non-being the source of, you know, freedom and everything is a great mistake, as we learned there in the first book of natural hearing. okay, now, Thomas says something interesting there, because at the end of that passage there, for from him and through him and in him are all things, and of course, the English translation here, the Protestant one, is not very good, for of him and through him and to him, right? You know? And, of him is not so good in translation, right? It's from, right? Okay? And even in the interlinear, they have of him, you know, instead of from him, right? So it should be really translated from him, right? And that's what the Latin has in the text of Thomas. They have the Latin here. From him, right? Next. Thomas, taking the whole passage there, why is he at the end there when he gets through with that? To him, auto bi hedoxa, the glory, right? Eis, tus, ionas, that is, unto the ages, eternally, right? Amen, right? Why does he say glory there, right? Okay? Like, I think about that again because it's kind of interesting. You know, we honor God, right? And we glorify God, right? And honor and glory are very similar, right? But are they simply synonyms or is there a little difference in meaning? What would you say? That you honor him by glorifying him. Okay. But is there any distinction between honoring God and glorifying God? They seem to be almost the same thing, you know? And we probably take them in our, almost as being synonymous, right? But there seems to be some distinction on them. What is it? It's a connotation that glorifying is a higher sort of, a higher thing than honoring. Yeah. I remember years ago, it might have been in Thomas' explanation of the Mass somewhere, you know, that he made a student, or saw a student distinction in honor and glorify. That we honor God as the beginning of all things, huh? And we glorify him as the, what? End of all things, huh? Okay. And that's kind of interesting, right? And in trying to explain that, we were saying to one of my students, we're commanded to honor our father and mother, right? But would we glorify our mother and father, see? No. See? Because our mother and father are a beginning of us, right? And therefore, in some way, we should honor them not as much as God, but nevertheless, to honor them, right? And that's the first commandment after the commandment of God, right? It's appropriate to split right there, right? In Thomas quotes scripture, you know, if I am the father of God, you know, where's my honor? And so on. But you wouldn't really glorify your parents, right? So that was a very interesting distinction, I thought. You honor God as the beginning of all things, the alpha, and you glorify him as the, what? Omega, right? And this phrase you were talking about earlier, remember when you were talking about that you might delve into this? Oh yeah, Moses asked God to let me see your glory, show me your glory. Yeah. And he says, I will show you every good. Yeah. And good, as Aristotle points out, pertains to the end, right? So when Aristotle talks about the four kinds of causes, he identifies the end with the good. And that's why he argues in the second book of wisdom, if you take away the end, you take away the good. So the fact that glory and showing every good I put together kind of confirms this, what? Explanation, right? Okay. Now, I was looking up the text in John there, I mean in St. Paul, and seeing with Thomas' commentary upon it, you know. And it gives another kind of meaning here to glory, in addition to the one that we just gave, you know, which I think is correct, you know, in a way. But another meaning, huh? Then when he says, and of course, I don't know if Thomas' text is a little different here, because the text has both honor and glory in it, right? So Thomas slaps upon it. Then when he says, ipse, honor and glory, to him, honor and glory, right? I think in the end of the canon, I guess in the Roman rites, you have honor and glory, I think, both words mentioned, isn't it? Then when he says, to him, honor and glory, he shows the dignity of God, right? Which consists in two things, which... are said before for from this that from him and through him and in him are all things right there is owed to him honor and reverence right he always ties up honor and reverence a lot and subjection from what and being subject from the whole creature right he's subject to him and he quotes malachi chapter 1 verse 6 if i am the father where is my honor okay that's isn't very well honor your father and mother too okay but then the earlier words there which i was quoting to quote them again here um for who hath known the mind of the lord who hath been his counselor right i mean you need to be counseled right or who hath first given to him and it shall be recompensed unto him again okay uh thomas comments from this therefore that from another he does not take neither counsel right nor any gift right there is what owed to him what glory okay just as contrary wise it is said in 1 corinthians chapter 4 verse 7 if you have received why do you glory okay purpose why do you glory in your knowledge of of the trinity you have taken it from augustine and thomas and so on uh why do you glory as if you did not as if you had not taken it from another right huh okay of course when gregory talks about the forms of pride one form of pride is to claim to have an excellence that you don't have right now i have the excellence of knowing the pithagorean theorem but i'm not going to let anybody know i learned it from euclid there but see that's another kind of pride right you see you know if i really got it from another but i you know so i thought i felt out by myself you know or i tried to get an impression you know okay um and because this is proper to god it is said in isaiah chapter 42 verse 8 i will not give my glory to another okay so um what's interesting about that or one thing interesting about it is um uh god and especially the father is a beginning that is what there has no beginning right okay okay and insofar as god is the beginning of things he's like the father of all things even homer says right called zeus the father of mortals and immortals right then there's owed to him what honor right huh but insofar as he what is a beginning not from the beginning so he got neither counsel nor any gift from anybody else then you what glorify him right okay so um um and say you honor god as the what beginning of all things you glorify him as the end of all things right but maybe you could also say you glorify him as what um yeah not from it it's not from anything else you can see some none else right uh and here he's what um a beginning right huh okay so when thomas distinguishes the father from the son they're both a beginning but the son is a beginning from a beginning the father is a beginning not from a beginning so that's why you speak of the glory of the father right sometimes uh to bring him back to the glory of the father because he's the beginning uh not from another right huh okay or you could say does not be seen from another right then okay i don't mean that was the text said both honor and glory but you know the Greek text just has glory there at that point but it's right after the fact that he is not the native counselor no one giving him any gifts and so on that's kind of interesting uh distinction between honor and glory now thomas is a little more complete if you look at the text here as i was mentioning for example he talks about in he'll distinguish between what or or from rather you distinguish three senses of from right just two of them here right from matter from the maker but from the opposite in a sense right you may recall we define matter how is there a style to find matter as a cause he says that from which something comes to be existing within it right and that from which something comes to be could apply to the opposite as well as matter and could apply to the maker in some way right but the second part of the definition existing within it separates it from both the opposite which is the carpenter who to the best of my knowledge is not inside the chair here right okay so the chair came to be from wood existing within it existing within the chair it came to be from the carpenter based from an extrinsic cause came from the opposite not as immediate cause as such right but something that happens to the real cause one of the real causes matter right but the opposite is not in there you know when thomas explains the definition of matter there in the second book of natural hearing he just mentioned you know that this is second part definition excludes it from the what from the opposite we didn't even talk about the mover right but here you got a very complete text right so sometimes you find tom that's more for more explicit one text than another right and sometimes even in the scriptural text you could say in a sense the explanation of the preposition from is more complete here in in the fifth reading of the 11th chapter of the epistle to the romans than it is in the text where he explains the definition of matter right but it's kind of struck by that thing about glory was living this over so he gets down to the end he'll say and this preposition in designates also a threefold relation of cause in one way it can designate matter as we say the soul is in the body and form and matter in general right and in this way is not said that all things are in god because he is not the material cause of things in another way it designates the relation of the efficient cause in whose power it is to dispose of its effects and according to this all things are said to be in him according as all things are in his power and consistent is in his disposition according to that is psalm 94 verse 4 in his hand are all the what ends of the earth because we use the expression daily life it's out of my hands i'm in control of it right i bet you my power and he quotes a beautiful one from the acts chapter 17 28 in him we live and move and are in a third way it designates the relation a final cause according as the whole good of a thing as conservation consists in the best thing and according to this all things are said to be in god as in a goodness conserving them and he quotes colossians 117 and all things constant thing because they didn't just stand right in him right the explanation but scripture is a soul theology let's look at the last part now here of this uh thing where he's dealing with some of those objections that came number five right which i explicitly bring up another uh thing just touch upon them um okay so as you guys said which is thought about other things it should be said that truth since it retains the understanding is appropriated to the what son right but nevertheless it is not private to him okay for truth as has been said above can be considered insofar as is in the understanding or insofar as it is in the thing is is Therefore, just as understanding, the understanding itself, and thing, essentially taken, are essential and not personal, so true. But the definition which Augustine induces or brings in there is given of truth according as it is, what, appropriated to the, what, son. In the sense we speak of truth as being a conformity of something. Okay, so the son, in the sense, conformed to the father, right? The book of life directly imparts a knowledge, but in the oblique, life. That's the way of speaking they have, they have something in that grammatical form. For, as it is said above, it is the knowledge of God which he has about, what, those who are going to have eternal life. Whence is appropriated the son, although life is appropriated the Holy Spirit, right? In so far as it implies a certain interior motion. And thus it belongs with what is private to the Holy Spirit in so far as he is loved. So, that's the way in which life is appropriated to him in the creed, right? Is it called the vivificantum, right? Yeah. Just the Holy Spirit gives life, the father and the son don't. See? That's appropriated to him, right? But liber, which means the idea of knowledge, is appropriated to the son. So, you say liber vitae, which is saying directly is liber, right? Ezekiel speaks of the book written inside and outside. The father's obviously saying that's within the humanity. Yeah. That's interesting. Okay. To be written by another is not of the notion of a book in so far as it is a book, but in so far as it is something artificial. That's a little bit hard to understand. But anyway, we'll let Thomas go by with that. Whence it does not imply origin, nor is it personal, but appropriated to a, what? Person, right, huh? Ipsum outim, who am, huh? Or who is. Is appropriate to the person of the son, not according to its proper notion, but by reason of something, what? Joined to that, huh? Insofar as, what? In the speech of God to Moses, is prefigured the liberation of the human race, which was made to the son. I'm trying to get a text there. Is that where the burning bush is, or what? Where are the words, I am? Who am? I am, yeah. Yeah, see? I read the Church Fathers, you know, where the burning bush represents the incarnate son, right? And the fire represents his divinity. And the bush is, what? Human nature. And the fire not consuming the bush is that the divine nature, the infinite, doesn't swallow up the, what? Human nature. Yeah. And so, Moses wonders why the fire doesn't consume the, what? Bush. And we might wonder, subsequently, why the divine nature doesn't swallow up the, what? Human nature. Yeah. Also, it's an image, secondarily, of the Blessed Virgin, when that word becomes flesh in her womb. Yeah. It doesn't destroy her. No. No. No. If you take I am who am being said in the context, then there's reference to the, what? Second person, you know? I think, does he mean here, though, about the liberation of human race? Because Moses asked, because he was sent to Moses. Yeah. Deliberate. So he said, tell them, I am who sent you. Yeah. But nevertheless, according as qui, hein, qui est, is taken relatively, it can refer sometimes to the person, the son. And thus, it is taken personally. If we say the son is the, what, generated who is, right? Just as the generated God is personal. But taken infinitely, without this, is essential. And although this pronoun, iste, right, grammatically speaking, would seem to pertain to some definite person, right? Nevertheless, anything demonstrable, grammatically speaking, can be, what, called a person. Even though, in its very nature, it is not a person. As we say, iste, lapis, right, grammatum, and iste, asimus, right? Whence, grammatically speaking, the divine essence, according as it signified and stands through this name, God, can be demonstrated by this pronoun, iste, according to Exodus 15.2. Isti is my God, and I will glorify him. Okay, back again to this, I did the glory that's got on my mind, as I happened to be struck by, you know, there's one psalm, I think it's Psalm 62, which is one of the psalms of thirst, huh? O God, you are my God, whom I seek, for you my flesh pines, and my soul thirsts, like the earth parched, that's without bother. I said, I gazed towards you in the sanctuary, to see your power and your, what? Word. Yeah. Well, in a sense, you could say the power refers to what? It could be the beginning of things, right? And his glory, his being the, what, end of things, huh? The other explanation I had of power and glory there was that he's talking about the flesh as well as, what, the soul, right? And you might say, well, the soul seeks the glory, the vision of God, right? But power has a connection with the resurrection, right? Because when the Sadducees are talking to Christ, and they deny the resurrection, right? And they're trying to put him in a possible situation, the man, the woman who had seven husbands, right? And no children by any of them, and whose wife would she be, you know, because if they resurrected, I'd be a husband and wife again, right? And Christ says, well, no, you err, he says, right? You wonder. Knowing neither the power of God, nor the, what, scriptures, right? But there, the power of God is, is in the context where it's referring to, what, the power of God to raise, you know, people. I think going out, you know, and took a gal port, you know, most people would say, would not believe in that the resurrection is possible, right? And they would say this, not knowing the power of God, and not knowing the scriptures, right? So one way I was taking power and glory there was referring to, what, O God, you are my God, whom I seek, for you, my flesh pines, right? And my soul thirsts, so both the body and the soul are seeking God, but the body is kind of seeking the power of God, the right reason up again, you know? And the soul is seeking the glory of God, right? Another way you could say it is that, as if I gaze towards you in the sanctuary, that means God is to my nature, and power and glory to see him as the beginning and the end, right? Like another psalm, you know, sing joyfully to the Lord all your lands, serve the Lord with gladness, come before him this joyful song, who hath the Lord is God, he made us as we are, his people, the flock, he ends. There you've got the same, but the division of sacred doctrine, God in himself, God is the maker, God is the end, because providence is not the end, so. And Gregory, this also points out on the glory of God's faith. Yeah. Well, in some way, it could be appropriate, you know, to him. But I was thinking, too, of the te deum, you know? There you speak of the glory of the Father, I think, in the te deum. Oh, it's interesting, he speaks of the glorious choir of the Apostle, in glory, they achieve it, man. Yeah. I mean, Thomas, what's the name of the definition of Ambrose? Clara notitia cum laude, right? So that's what heaven is, right? Clear knowledge of God with praise, right? Glorify thy name, and I have glorified it, and will glorify it again. Yeah. I mean, I think glory is appropriate to the Father, though, see, because of, sometimes, because, because he's the beginning, not from the beginning, right? That's the other meaning of that glory, that I was saying here, you know? In other words, we glorify God because he's the end of all things, right? And we glorify God because he's, what? He didn't get anything to anybody else, right? And so Thomas will say, well, why are you glorying him, you know? Why should I glory the good I've done? It didn't really come from me, it came from God, right? When St. Paul says, you glory just in God, right? Knowing God, but not in himself as accomplished. That's enough for today, isn't it? That's enough for today, isn't it? That's enough for today, isn't it? That's enough for today, isn't it? That's enough for today, isn't it? That's enough for today, isn't it? That's enough for today, isn't it?