Prima Pars
Lecture 163: The Visible Mission of the Holy Spirit

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

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen. God, our enlightenment, guardian angel, strengthen the lights of our minds, hoard and illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more quickly. St. Thomas Aquinas, the angelic doctor, help us to understand all that you have written. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, amen. We're up to Article 7 here, Question 43. Whether it belongs to the Holy Spirit, or whether it's suitable to the Holy Spirit, to be sent in a visible way, the first objection. The Son, according as he is sent visibly in the world, is said to be less than the Father. The Father is greater than I, he says. But never is it read that the Holy Spirit is less than the Father. Therefore, to the Holy Spirit, it does not belong to be visibly sent. That objection, obviously, is based upon not realizing the distinction, the way they're sent visibly. Because the second person of Christianity takes on human nature so that he is a man, right? The Holy Spirit doesn't become fire, or become a dove, or something, right? But these are just to signify his coming. Moreover, a visible mission is observed by some visible creature that is assumed, huh? You've got to be careful about the word assumed, right? As the mission of the Son, according to the flesh. But the Holy Spirit does not assume some, what? Visible creature. Whence he cannot be said to be in some visible creatures in another way than he was in others, except perhaps as in a, what? Sign. Just as is also true in the sacraments, and in all of the figures of the law there in the Old Testament. Therefore, the Holy Spirit is not sent visibly. Or it would be necessary that according to all of these things, right? Sacraments and so on, and these figures in the Old Testament, that there would be a visible mission to be observed, huh? To be noted. Moreover, every visible creature is in effect demonstrating the whole Trinity. Therefore, through those visible creatures, the Holy Spirit is not more sent than any other person. Because these are effects of the whole Trinity. Just as the Incarnation is, what? The work of just the Holy Spirit? No, it's the work of the whole Trinity, right? But it's appropriated the Holy Spirit because of his love and so on, huh? His being gratuitous and so on. Moreover, the Son is visibly sent, according to the most, what? Worthy visible creatures. Yeah, it's us. To it, according to human nature, huh? If therefore the Holy Spirit is sent visibly, he ought to be sent according to some rational creatures, and not according to the dove or fire or something like that, huh? Moreover, things that are sent, what? Visibly. Things that come about in a visible way, through divine dispensation, are dispensed through the, what? Ministry of the angels, huh? As Augustine says in the third book about the Trinity. If therefore some visible species appear, this is made by the, what? Yeah, it's done by the angels. And thus the angels are sent, not the Holy Spirit. I have to talk to my guardian angel about that. I'm sure he knows the answer to that question. If he had anything to do with this. Moreover, if the Holy Spirit is sent visibly, this is not except to make known an invisible mission, huh? Because invisible things are made manifest or made known through visible things. Therefore, to a one to whom an invisible mission was not made, neither should a, what? Visible mission be made. And to all to whom some invisible mission takes place, whether you're in the New or the Old Testament, there ought to be a visible mission, right? Something to manifest it. And clearly that isn't the case, huh? Is there a visible mission there when you were ordained or something? No. It should have been, though, right? According to this objection, right? Yeah. Therefore, the Holy Spirit should not be sent, what? Visibly. Against all this is what is said in Matthew 3, verse 16. That the Holy Spirit descended, came down, right? Upon the Lord, baptized, came down upon him in the form of a, what? Dove, huh? A dove, huh? You said that happened here? Yeah. Oh, I remember that. A couple months ago, yeah. I remember that. I remember that. That's the word through the covering. So, Tommy says, As I answer, it should be said that God provides for all according to the way of each. It is, however, natural to man that he be, what? Led by the hand to visible things, to invisible things, huh? If you have the Latin there, the Latin word there, it's a compound word, manu ducato, huh? And I mentioned this term, manudaxio, huh? Which Indian talked a lot about. But manudaxio is especially from the, what? The sensible. The something that is not sensible. And therefore, the invisible things of God ought to be made known to men through visible things. Thus, therefore, God himself, huh? And even the, what? Eternal processions of the persons shows them in a way to men, right? Through visible creatures according to some kind of, what? Sign or indications. And thus, it was suitable that also the invisible missions of the divine persons would be made known through some, what? Visible creatures. Now, that's common to the, to both the Son and the Holy Spirit. But now Thomas goes on to a distinction, huh? Between the two. But in another way for the Son and the Holy Spirit. For to the Holy Spirit, insofar as he goes forward as love, is suitable to be, what? A gift of sanctification, huh? But to the Son, insofar as he is the beginning of the Holy Spirit, the one from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds. It belongs to him to be the, what? Author of sanctification. So, does St. John say something like that, huh? For grace and truth. The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. So, he's like the principal there, right? And therefore, the Son is sent in a visible way as the author of, what? Sanctification. And therefore, as a man, huh? As he'll say in the implied rejections. But the Holy Spirit, as it were, a sign of the sanctification. That's kind of a subtle distinction he's seen between the way in which the Son and the way in which the Holy Spirit should be sent visibly, right? The first objection is, if I'm going to touch upon that, because the first objection says, why is the Son, a reason of his visible mission, said to be less than the Father? And the Holy Spirit is not said to be less than the Father, even though he's visibly sent too. To the first, therefore, it should be said that the Son, the visible creature in which he appeared, he assumes that in the unity of... this very what person so that what is said of that creature is able to be said of the what son of god so we'd say the son of god is a man right the son of god died son of god rose from the dead and so on and then even call mary the what mother of god even though she's the mother of god according to his human nature right but because that human nature is joined to the very person then she is the mother of god that's quite history in the church okay and thus by reason of the nature assumed the son is said to be less than the father and sometimes you say he's less than himself he is man is less than himself as as god but the holy spirit does not assume a visible creature in which he appears in the unity of his person so that what belongs to that visible creature right would be said of him so it'd be heretical to to deny that the son is what man right it would be radical to deny that the holy spirit is fire or a dove whence he cannot be said to be less than the father on account of the visible creature so that's very clear that the reason why the son is said to be less than the father according to his visible appearance right and the holy spirit is not it's a good objection to begin with to one time is orders these objections huh smart smart guy you know sapientis ordinari belongs to the wise man to order things huh to look before and after to see the before and after let's look back at the second objection that the visible mission is observed according to the what visible creature assumed as the mission of the son according to the flesh but the holy spirit does not assume some what visible creature once it cannot be said that in some visible creatures he is another way than he is in others except perhaps there's an assignment but this is also too in the sacraments huh the signs and all the legal figures the old testament therefore either the holy spirit should not be said visibly or according to all of these things there would be a what visible mission right thomas gets out of this by long quote from augustine see thomas has no no uh false pride right quoting the the master quote aristotle quote you know says he even quotes avicenna right anytime he talks about god being liberal generous he quotes avicenna right and says god alone is generous god alone is is you know gives us nothing back the second therefore it should be said that the visible mission of the holy spirit is not to be noted according to a what imaginary vision right which is the prophetic vision right because as augustine says in the second book about the trinity that the prophetic vision is not shown to bodily eyes through bodily what forms but in the spirit through spiritual images of bodies and let's use the word spiritual there for the imagination his imagination is in between the seeing of the eyes it's more immaterial and therefore more spiritual than the seeing of the eyes but they say the seeing of the eyes seems to be the most the least material the senses it seems to be close but the imaginary vision is even more spiritual and therefore it's the second meaning of the word to see before you get to the sense of to see the sense of to understand right okay and notice how how the sun being the thought is called the image of god but not image in the sense of imagination so what is formed in my imagination there if i am a prophet is not seen by the people around me some of these appearances the blessed virgin i guess you know they're in the imagination that the people around don't see it but he says that dove which came down upon christ in his baptism there and that fire which came down against upon the apostles in the pentecost uh was seen uh by the eyes right of whoever could see right so if you had been there right you would have seen the dove coming down right you'd been there in the when christ was baptized right and if you were there when they about to come out and preach you would see the fire coming down and you would have been prepped to hear what they had to say okay now so there i guess you see a distinction between an image formed right in the imagination of the prophet along with illumination in his mind to understand the image right it's even more essential and than this exterior fire or dove or whatever it is now he's going to make a or see a second distinction nor again does it have itself the holy spirit to this species or form as a son to the rock right because it is said the rock was christ okay for that rock was already in preach creation in the pictures and through its way of acting it is named by the name of christ which signifies but that dove and that fire only for signifying right was all at once right formed or came into existence but they seem to be like that flame which appeared right and how there was it to moses and to that column what on the bush on the bush yeah yeah excuse me yeah and to that column which the people followed in the what desert and to the what lightning and thunders which by which came about when the law was given on the mountain right um for for this reason huh these species of these body things were formed that they might signify something right and then they what passed away right thus therefore thomas says now thomas speaking his own person now thus therefore it is clear that the visible mission is neither to be observed according to prophetic visions right which take place in what second sense of vision which were imaginary and not bodily nor according according to what the sacramental signs of the old and the new testament in which things already pre-existing are taken to what signify something huh so bread already existed and wine already existed right before our lord uh used took these um to institute of sacraments huh and water already existed right okay but the holy spirit is said to be what sent in a visible way insofar as he is shown in some creatures as in what signs of certain attributes of him but signs what especially made for this purpose okay so he gets gets out of all those difficulties he he produced there right the ejection huh you got all those differences down so he's got a visible sign and as opposed to imaginary sign right and notice it has in common with the magic what's in the imagination that it's what formed right here now right you know for some purpose but it differs from it because it's exterior and visible to other people right who have eyes but it differs from the what the signs of the sacraments Like that, because those things already existed, right? And they're taken, you know, to signify something. But here you have something especially made, right? Just to indicate the Holy Spirit being sent in a way you can't see, right? But to indicate that in an exterior way, by something sensible in accordance with the weakness of man who needs to be led by something sensible, right? Now, the third objection, right? I suppose it's based upon the fact that the whole Trinity works these signs. So why isn't the Trinity being manifested, huh? So Thomas admits, to the third it should be said that although those visible creatures are worked or made by the whole Trinity, right? Nevertheless, they are made to what? Demonstrate or to show, to point out specially, this or that, what? Person. Just as by diverse names, the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit are signified, right? So also they are able to be, what? Signified by diverse things, huh? Although among them there is no, what? Separation or diversity, right? Thomas doesn't like to use the word separation or diversity. They'll admit the word distinction, right? The most general word, huh? It's safe using these general words. The fourth objection, huh? Why is the Son sent according to so noble a creature as man? And the Holy Spirit is sent with this inferior dove and even a non-living thing like fire, right? Well, to the fourth it should be said. He always touched upon this a bit in the second part of the body article, right? When he said other way for the two of them. That the person of the Son should be declared as the, what? Yeah. Grace and truth. This has been said. And therefore it's necessary that the visible mission of the Son come about by a, what? Rational nature to whom it belongs to act, right? And to whom it belongs to, what? Sanctify, huh? But a sign of sanctification can be any other, what? Creature. Nor was it necessary that a visible creature being formed for this purpose be assumed by the Holy Spirit in unity of a person. Because it was not assumed, an adequate agenda, huh? To doing something, right? But to indicate, right? Only. To signify only, you would say, right? Okay? I don't have to assume my words in my own person, do I? I put them forth just to signify, right? Yeah. An account of this, also, it was not necessary that it remain, but only so far as it's, what? It was doing its office, right? It's duty, huh? Officium, I guess, is. In this book of Cicero. The officiates, right? About duties. Those Romans, you know. Straight-laced guys, those Romans. The motto, West Point, honor duty country, right? I'm always afraid they're going to get waylaid, you know, because they'll pick up, what? Kant, you know, Aristotle. Kant's always talking about duties, you know? I say, oh, maybe they're going to be carried away with the word there, you know? And they're very concerned about the soldiers there. The idea of the sign of sanctification? Because, let's see, trying to figure this out, because it seems like we speak of the Holy Spirit, in a sense, in terms of thought, or sanctification, but surely the doer of sanctification. But he's not going to do anything through that dove, right? Through that fire, right? Yeah. Christ is going to be doing something to his human nature. He's going to be touching us and sanctifying us. He's going to die in his human nature and redeem us, right? So he's going to do all kinds of things to the human nature, why the Holy Spirit is not going to be doing things through those creatures that he... But the Holy Spirit is often referred to as the sanctifier. Yeah. As the one who is... So I mean, that's kind of his question. He seems to be referred to as, like, the author of sanctification. He comes to him back to the fact that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the, what? The Son, right? So, like, he breathes upon the, what? The apostles receive the Holy Spirit. So he's, in that sense, the actor, the author, the origin, the beginning, right? Of the mission. Of the Holy Spirit's mission. Sanctifying us. It was humanity. Right. So he's appearing in the mission and the intent is made to assume. I'm not denying what the Holy Spirit does, I think. Right. But what he does, he does in virtue of the Son's redemption. Well, he proceeds from the Son, yeah. But he doesn't do something through these creatures formed to signify his presence or his coming, right? But the Son, through assuming his own, what, person, human nature is going to do something through that human nature. So it's kind of a self thing that Thomas is pointing out, but it fits, or it fits together with that, huh? Now the sixth objection is saying, why don't you have this, you know, why don't you have the fire, and your ordain is like that, why doesn't, you know, fire come down on the top of your head, and I think it would be very impressive for the congregation, right? We'll have to make sure that that's the next thing. Number five, though. Is that concher? Oh, yeah. Spot was laying the land on it. Oh, there you go. Over in your hair. Or got burned off, I think. On the plane. Do we still need to do number five? Oh, okay. Yeah, this is what about the angels, okay? Why aren't they? Well, that's going to be solved something like the third objection, right? To the fifth, it should be said that those visible creatures formed by the ministry, they are formed, he says, by the ministry of the angels, right? But they're not formed by them to signify the person of the angel, but to signify the person of the, what? Holy Spirit. Because, therefore, the Holy Spirit was in those visible creatures as they signified in the sign, right? On account of that, by them, the Holy Spirit is said to be sent in the invisible way and not the, what? Angel. Okay, so just like in the third objection, he's not denying that the Trinity had something to do, but they didn't form it to signify eternity, but to signify the Holy Spirit's mission in particular, right? That's where the fire was sent, or formed, rather. Okay, now there's six objections saying, why don't you have an invisible, I mean, an invisible mission always attending an invisible one, right? Well, of course, there's a special importance in Christ, obviously, and in the apostles, why there would be a what? Yeah, and to even those standing around, right? Using their eyes would be able to see. To the sixth, it should be said, it is not of the necessity of the invisible mission, right? That it always be made known through some, what? Exterior, visible sign. But, as is said in the first epistle of the Corinthians, chapter 12, verse 7, the manifestation of the Spirit is given to someone for usefulness of the whole, what? Church, right? Which utility is this that through these visible, what, signs, the faith is both confirmed and propagated, huh? And this was done chiefly through Christ and through the apostles. They're pretty important guys, those apostles, huh? Another one where it gives the order. For the church, the apostles are kind of before everybody else, right? Except for Christ and Mary. According to that in Hebrews chapter 2, verse 3, that when the beginning was narrated, right, by the Lord, by those who, what, heard, in us it was, what, confirmed. And therefore, especially there ought to be a visible mission of the Holy Spirit, referred both to Christ and to the, what, apostles. And to some primitive saints, right? Primitivos, huh? What does that mean, primitive? Some of the first saints, right? Because through them, it's being propagated. In whom, in a certain way, the church is, what, founded, huh? So we say in this creed there, we call it the apostolic church, right? In some sense, it's founded on the apostles, right, and Christ. But now, he's going to point out a distinction here, right? Between Christ and the apostles. This is a subtle thing here. Thus, however, that the visible mission made to Christ shows an invisible mission to him, right? Not then at the same time, right? But in the beginning of his conception. It was made to him now. So when the Holy Spirit comes down in a dove, is that a sign of the sanctification of Christ's soul taking place at that moment? No. It's signifying back to what? When he was conceived, huh? Okay. March 8th. March 3th, right? Okay. You people celebrate it at the same time we do? Mm-hmm. Yeah. It's nine months ahead, right? And now he goes into a little bit of the signification of these things, huh? There was made a visible mission to Christ in baptism under the form of a, what, dove, which is a, what, fertile, fecundum animal, right? To showing in Christ the authority of giving grace to spiritual regeneration. It's very subtle, what Thomas is pointing out here. Whence the voice or the, yeah, of the Father intones in Matthew chapter 3, verse 17, that's the one that's taken at the baptism, this is my beloved Son, huh? So that to the likeness of the only begotten, others might be, what? Regenerated, huh? Of course, they say that Christ is not being, what? Sanctified by the water of the Jordan, right? But he's, in a sense, sanctifying the water. It's just the reverse of what happens to us in our baptism, where the water sanctifies us and watches us clean. But Christ is, what, establishing, in a sense, the matter of baptism, right? So it's just the reverse, in a sense, huh? Now, in the transfiguration, huh? This is in chapter 17 now of Matthew, right? The Holy Spirit is sent under the likeness of, what? A lucid cloud, right, huh? Who's showing the exuberance, huh? The abundance of the teaching of Christ, right? Whence the Father says there, hear him, hear him. He doesn't say that in the baptism, does he? He says, this is my beloved Son. Now, that ties up nicely with what St. John says, that the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came through, what? Jesus Christ, huh? And so, it kind of corresponds to these two things here, the dove, right? The way Thomas explains it. And the, what? Lucid cloud, right, huh? Now, something like that for the apostles, but a little different creatures are used here. To the apostles, under the species of, what? When breath, huh? I guess he's referring out to what? He's breathing upon them. To showing the power of their ministry in the dispensation of the sacraments, huh? Whence is said to them, whose sins you forgive, they are, what? Forgiving them, huh? They're remitted, huh? Sent back. That's an interesting Latin word, huh? There are three things like that. Their sins are sent back. But that corresponds to the, what? The dove in the case of Christ, right? With the difference they're talking about, right? But under tongues of fire, right? And it's important that you say, what? Tongues of fire, right? To showing the duty or office of, what? Teaching. Doctrine. Whence it is said, Acts 2, chapter 2, verse 4, that they began to speak in various, what? Tongues, huh? I suppose they're, you know, they're being motivated by charity, by the fire. Talking about divine things, huh? Fire is a good, what? Metaphor for God, huh? For the Trinity, too, huh? For God, huh? Now, what about the fathers, though, of the Old Testament? Because those guys are pretty important, huh? I mentioned how it sharp, you know, the four Gospels are being held up by that. You know, Isaiah is holding up Matthew and so on. Daniel is holding up John, I guess, and so on. It's a kind of beautiful symbolism. It says, To the fathers of the Old Testament, a visible mission of the Holy Spirit ought not to have been made, huh? Because there first ought to be perfected the visible mission of the Son, then, what? The Holy Spirit. Since the Holy Spirit manifests the Son, just as the Son manifests the, what? The Father, huh? But nevertheless, there were made, what? Visible apparitions of the divine persons to the fathers of the Old Testament. You know what, the three men who came to see Abraham? They thought he talked to God, huh? Which visible missions should not be called, because they were not made, according to Augustine anyway, to designating the indwelling of a divine person through grace, but to manifest something other than that, huh? So, another good mouthful from Thomas here, huh? Okay? Can I ask a question? Yeah. When you compare the missions, the mission of the Son, the mission of the Holy Spirit, when you take the visible mission of the Son, it seems to me it's something proper to that person. It only belongs to Him. Only the Son should have found flesh. But then if you look at the mission of the Holy Spirit, the invisible mission of grace, it doesn't seem to be proper just to that person. No, but I mean, in the case of the dove, in the case of the fires over the apostles, these are creatures made for that moment, right? To signify this... To signify this person. Yeah, yeah. It's like in the Gospels, you know, the Holy Spirit had not yet been given, right? You know? And you're referring to the real, full giving of Him on Pentecost, right? But even like on Pentecost, it's not just the Holy Spirit that's being given. It's not being sent in the sense of taking on an existence in a new mode. In other words, the Son takes on an existence in a new mode. Yeah, but the Holy Spirit is being given to the apostles in the Pentecost in abundance that never before, right? But just the Holy Spirit? Was it just the Holy Spirit that was given? Just the person of the Holy Spirit? Or was it the whole Trinity that was being given in grace, right? Well, you see, you've got to be sent, right? Which could only be proper to those persons who... Who are seen from another, yeah. Right. Yeah, yeah. And I suppose it's because there's... You know, appropriate to the Holy Spirit also grace, right? Because of... So, that's what it seems to be. It seems when you compare it to the missions, the one mission is, like, proper, but the other mission is, like, appropriation. Well, no, no. Because the Holy Spirit is truly being sent to the apostles in the Pentecost, right? He's given to them, right? And there is... There is a, we call it a visible sending because there is a visible creature formed to signify his invisible coming, right? When he is sent to them invisibly by grace, it's not just the Holy Spirit, right? Well, I think what St. Thomas says here about the way the two missions differ, because the Holy Spirit, since he proceeds as law that belongs to him, to be, might say, to be the gift of sanctification. Now, the sanctification law is an alternative, but it's appropriated to him, so the visible mission gives a sign of what he's being sent for, sanctification, right? The Son belongs to be the author of sanctification. Well, it's not the Son alone is the author of sanctification, right? Well, yes, because, in other words... Well, no, the visible sign is proper to the Son, but what it's signifying in terms of the author of salvation is actually common in the alternative. But it was only the Son who died on the cross. Well, that's what he says, that's the difference, because his visible mission is acting through visible, to some nature. The Holy Spirit's mission isn't acting through what appeared. That's what he says, that's the difference. Because Christ acts through the sign of the Son, but the Holy Spirit doesn't act through the sign of the Son. So that's kind of the point I'm making, is that it seems there's a kind of difference in that the mission of the Son seems to be proper to that person, where the invisible mission of the Holy Spirit, in a way, doesn't seem to be proper. Well, yeah, because, in other words, what he explains earlier in the article is what's meant by the invisible mission. And it's grace. But grace isn't the indwelling of one person of a trinity, a third person. Right. That's not what grace is. It's not just the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the soul. Right. And it's when you have an increase of grace, you don't have just an increase of the Holy Spirit, you have an increase of the whole trinity. So there's a new mode of existence, right? So you have this, that's what's meant. So if you think about what's meant by sending the Holy Spirit, it means that he takes on a new mode of existence in the creature. But it seems to me the Holy Spirit, as a separate person, as one person of a trinity, doesn't take on a new mode of existence without the others. So his being sent doesn't mean that. The sign that he assumed means that. The sign of the mission. I don't know about the invisible mission, right? Yeah, but you're talking about the visible mission of Christ. You're trying to compare visible and invisible. Well, I guess the point I'm making is that when you compare the mission of the two persons, the mission of the one person seems to be proper to that person. Where the mission of the other one doesn't seem to be proper. The mission of the author of sanctification is proper only to the Son. Yeah, because only Christ assumed human nature, only Christ had the cross. No, the Son assumed human nature. Only the Son, right? Only the Son. But the Son of the law and property didn't mean to be the author of sanctification. As a sign, his humanity belongs to him alone. That's true. And it wasn't that the instrument of our salvation? It was the instrument of the Son of the Son. Because he chose a sign to manifest this mission. He acted through the Son. But the mission isn't proper. I mean, see, the work that he accomplished isn't proper to him. You're trying to compare visible and invisible. I said, I'm going to say the mission. Go back to what you understand by mission. The mission is you take on a new mode of existence that you didn't have before. The Son took on, just the Son, took on a new mode of existence by assuming human nature. And that's what's meant by the visible mission, right? But the Holy Spirit doesn't take on a new mode of existence that's proper just to the Holy Spirit. Well, I think you can say two things here. One thing is the Holy Spirit doesn't come to us by himself. But, you know, there's four kinds of clauses, right? You're kind of emphasizing the third kind of clause, the mover, the maker, right? Okay. Now, the Holy Spirit doesn't, by himself alone, right, sanctify us, right? Okay. But, there's another kind of clause, which is what? The exemplar clause, right? So, there's a way in which when we love, right, say by charity, let's say, we have a likeness to the Holy Spirit in what is proper to him or private to him, you might say. Because he proceeds as love, right? So, I become like the Holy Spirit insofar as I love, right? In a way that's to him, yeah. Not that he alone loves, but because he, you know, he especially proceeds from the way of love, right? Now, I'm also called a, what? Son of God, right? I should be a son of God, okay? But I'm a son of God, according to what the scripture says, because I've been made, what? Like the son of God, right? You see? And so, I'm, in becoming a son of God, I'm assimilated in some way to what is private to, you can say private to, that's the decent word to use, to the second person, right? Because he is a son, right? Even in his, in his, in his, uh, divine person, right? He's the son of God, right? And so, when I become a son of God, I take an likeness to, to the son, rather than to the Father, or the, what? Holy Spirit. Because I don't become the father of God. Or, or, or father of God, now. Mary's the mother of God, but that's a little different point. But I don't become a, I never called a father of God, am I? I mean, I'm a proud man, but I don't, I don't, I never, I never, you know, aspire to be the father of God, right? But I do aspire to be a son of God, right? So there's something, you know, where I'm assimilated to the son, and by love I'm assimilated to the, what, Holy Spirit, right? I suppose it's fire, you know, partly, the warmth of the fire assimilates the, that they're going out to preaching, you know, not the philosopher, but, but with, uh, love for the, what, people that are going to try to convert, right? So they're, they're inflamed by, but with love to preach to the, the crowds out there, right? The lost sheep of Israel first, right? Yeah. And the, the Gentiles then, right? What about what you're saying? So I'm saying that, we speak of the causes, you know, God is a cause, we say, in two and a half ways. He's the, he's the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end, the mover or maker, and then the, what, the end, right? But then, the reason why I say half is he's not the intrinsic form of things, God is not my soul, right? But he's an exemplar, right? So God is, I, I'm, our soul is made in the image and likeness of God, or to the image and likeness of God, right? To indicate the, the, the distance. So he's a cause in the sense of an exemplar, right? An exemplar is kind of an extrinsic form that you imitate, right? Or a model actor, right? So, you know, I was talking about, you know, being a model to your children or something like that. Well, it has to be in a sense of cause, right? You know, we often imitate somebody that we admire or something like that, right? We try to be like that person, right? So, if you think of that kind of a cause exemplar, right, rather than, than maker, right? There's a way in which I'm like the Son and not the Father and the Holy Spirit insofar as I am a son of God, right? And there's a way in which I'm like the Holy Spirit as in a, as distinct from the Father and the Son, right? Insofar as I, I have this love, right? And is that where he calls out the mission of the Holy Spirit? Well, it's involved there because I'm being made like the Son and the Holy Spirit, right? Why? It's a new moment of existence. But I'm being made, I'm being made like the Son insofar as I, I know, but now it's really, really love as he says, right? But still, insofar as I know, I become like the Son, right? And in a way, I don't become like the Holy Spirit or the Father, right? And insofar as I love, I become like the Holy Spirit, right? So there's something private, you know? I mean, they're distinct, you know, between the Father and the Son in the, what, effect, right? In the effect. Yeah. Because there's a special likeness to the Holy Spirit or a special likeness to the Son. So that special, that effect, but does that affect the properties of the person of the Holy Spirit or does that affect something? Again, I think in terms of... Efficiently, yeah, yeah. I think in terms of what... Yeah. But that's... Yeah. See, if I make a statue of you, right? You'd be the, you know, I'm modeling it, I'm making it like you, right? But now I'd be the maker. I'd be beaclandial, whoever it is, right? You see? But you'd be a cause in some way of the statue too, right? Like the statue down in Virginia there, of Washington. You know? The Mafia came back, you know, years afterwards, after Washington died, and he said, well, that's not exactly the way he looked, and that's not the way he looked. The very man himself, you know. He even got struck by that one down there, I guess, in the state house down there somewhere, Virginia Tech it is. So Washington was, in a sense, what? He's in that statue, right? The very man himself. Oh. And this goes back to an earlier article that we talked about, you know, the Son is being sent, right? When we know him in a special way, right? But the knowledge, he says, it breathes love. Okay, but still fundamentally knowledge, right? But the knowledge breathes love. And then the love, we're similar to the Holy Spirit, right? So there's something distinct there, you know? You can notice four kinds of causes. Thomas, this morning there, in between the wake and the funeral, talking about the, Aristotle distributes his four senses of whole, right? And then he gets through, you know, he says, oh, one against three, and then, so he goes back to dividing four into two, right? Which Aristotle doesn't do explicit attacks, he just distributes his four senses of whole, right? Right. Okay. So, I'm just going to take, wait before we take a little break here. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.