If some people are going to hang around later after
I'm available. Some of you might have to go home
I suppose. But we're getting through
slowly. We've got three days, right?
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
In the name of the Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
Seed of wisdom. Pray for us.
Pray for us.
So it's already the last conference. Wow.
Wow.
Can we hang around here until when?
When do they kick us out?
Never? Okay.
Well, we'll just keep going.
We're almost finished with this section.
So,
we saw
the first part, then.
I've got too much stuff here.
There it is.
When the word was.
He was in the beginning.
Now we have to see where he was.
Well, he was with God.
That's where he was.
So, he's going to explain this.
Firstly, note that Deus, he was Apudeum, he was with God, signifies the divinity concretely.
It's not like divinitas, which is an abstract term.
He was with the divinity.
No.
He was with God, which is a concrete term.
It's something, well, something concrete.
Signifies the divinity concretely as a thing existing and not abstractly like divinity.
And that's when it is said here, Apudeum, where he was with God.
The word God signifies the person of the Father.
Because the preposition with.
signifies a distinction with the word.
Okay, so when it says, and the word was with God,
where he means God means
Father, the Father.
Okay?
Now he's going to talk about the actual preposition
with.
He was with the Father.
The preposition with
implies a certain conjunction of the thing
signified directly, here the word,
with the thing signified obliquely,
God.
So the word is what signified
directly,
and in relation to the word, you have God.
He was,
the word
was with God.
So he's saying about the word, well, he was with God.
With God is
obliquely,
signified, God is signified obliquely, that is, in his relationship with the word.
The preposition in
also signifies a conjunction,
but it signifies an intrinsic conjunction,
while with
signifies an extrinsic conjunction.
Both are said of divine things.
The Son is in the Father,
intrinsically,
by consubstantiality,
and he is with the Father extrinsically.
Okay?
He's in the Father because he's consubstantial with the Father,
but he's with the Father because he's distinct from the Father.
There's a distinction.
By a personal distinction alone,
Since the Son is distinguished from the Father
only by origin.
And when you study De Trinitate,
it's all about that origin.
That's what makes distinction
in the Trinity is origin.
Either you're the principle of origin
or you're what has been originated.
And it's the same with the third person,
the Holy Ghost.
And that's where the relations come from.
You're either the principle of something
or you've been principled by something.
You're originated or you're origin.
Thus, the evangelist uses
with here
to indicate the distinction of the person
of the Son from the Father.
And he says,
and the word was with God.
That is, the Son was with the Father
as one person with another.
Okay, that's what this added thing is.
And the word was with God
is to indicate that there's a distinction of persons.
We say, in the beginning was the Word.
So the Word exists.
Secondly, we say,
he's distinct from the Father.
And the Word was with God.
Then he goes into
a long description
of the different kinds of
senses of this word, with.
I'm going to have to skip it
because we're not getting very fast.
We're not going very fast.
The day's going to be over
and we're not even done the first instruction.
That doesn't work.
We've got other things to say.
But if anyone wants to know more about it,
I can talk to them.
It's,
it would just take a long time.
So we've gone into the third part.
What he was.
And the word was God.
Edeus erat verbum.
He says,
it might seem strange,
that the evangelist
only now speaks of what the word was
after having spoken
of when and where it was.
For a thing has to be what it is
before being in a time and place.
Right?
Because he talked at the beginning
of when it was
and then he said where it was.
But then only now
he's going to talk what it was.
Well, what it was
comes before where it was
and when it was.
It says to,
it's a question.
But there's a reason for this.
Quincy Domes gives it.
This is true with regard to created things.
That they have to be before they are,
before when and where.
But the word of God
is not said to be with God
as he is with men.
He is with men
as perfecting them
and making them wise and good.
And so he has to be first.
But he's not with the Father in this way.
As if the Father were perfected
and illumined by him.
So the word has to be
before he can
perfect
man.
Because that's what he does.
He perfects man.
So he has to be first.
But he's not with the Father
as perfecting the Father.
On the contrary.
Rather, he is with the Father,
with God,
in receiving natural divinity
from him who speaks the word.
And from him he owes the fact
that he is one God with him.
Therefore, because of the fact
that he is with God by origin,
it was necessary first to show
that the word was in the Father
and with the Father
before showing that he was God
because he is God
by the fact that he is in the Father
and with it.
See?
He was with the Father first
before he says that he was
because he is
because he was with.
Because he comes from the Father.
Make sense?
Sort of.
Okay.
Then fourthly,
explains the last part.
This was in the beginning with God.
This meaning the word.
The word was in the beginning.
This, hoc,
erat in principio,
abudem.
And he explains how this is just an epilogue
of the whole, what he just said.
The first word, this, meaning
which refers to what he just said.
And the word was God.
Well, this word that was just God
was in the beginning,
which goes back to the very first part.
In the beginning was the word.
And this was in the beginning.
With God goes to the second part
where he said,
and the word was with God.
So it's like an epilogue
of the whole thing.
He says the whole thing together.
This was in the beginning with God.
It's like
teaching a child.
God's nice.
He repeats it over again.
In the beginning was the word.
And the word was God.
So, no, he's just,
I'll repeat that again.
This was in the beginning
with God.
So it's simple.
Okay.
Now,
let's go on
to simple.
Where's simple?
Oh, where's simple?
I didn't bring simple.
We won't go into simple.
Easy, easy.
St. Paul is back in the house.
I guess.
It doesn't matter.
We can have,
we'll do St. Paul tomorrow.
It's probably better to be St. Paul separately.
Since we're on the
wavelength of St. John,
maybe it's probably better
we go on with St. John.
So this is the text
I was talking about before.
From the Contra Gentiles.
Contra Gentiles.
It's the fourth book.
There's four books
in the Summa Contra Gentiles
which was written
in the first book,
the Second Book,
which was written
in the First Book.
I don't know if you know
especially against the Muslims the first three books are philosophical books
because you know obviously they don't have the faith so you have to talk about
things that everybody can know about the faith so he argues against some of their
errors that way because there are plenty of errors in their religion do you know
that story what is the name again the price to pay anybody read that book it's
this Muslim in Iraq who was converted because he talked to he was in our army
barracks with this Catholic because you know they all used to be over there not
what I'm left but yeah yeah he was a high-ranking
leader
person anyway this he ended up being the same barracks with this Catholic and he
said well and he thought well I'm always this Catholic how did what he because he
was a noble guy this and he was first disgusted they put him with a Christian
then he said he's a pretty good guy I said yeah he's sweet I'm gonna try to
convert him he's such a good guy and so going into discussions with him and the
the Catholic just had him read the Quran because he had never really read it you
know he just got to read the Quran and he read the Quran he said this is
ridiculous so he stopped believing in Muslim being a Muslim Muslim that was the
first stage
and then afterwards see the guy didn't want to convert him because he knows he'd
really got in trouble if he did but finally he just well you can read this
you want to give him a gospel and he read the gospel and converted but it it
just shows how he's stupid their religion is really and that's what st.
Thomas does in the first three books and the fourth book well he shows the
The reasonability of these certain supernatural doctrines of the Catholic faith, which the
Muslims attack.
And someone was just telling me that some Muslims are talking about the Trinity.
Well, the Trinity, I mean, come on.
Can you believe that?
Well, here's St. Thomas is going to explain how we can believe that.
He's going to explain how we can believe it.
So the question he asks is, this is chapter 11 of the fourth book of the Conflict of Gentiles.
How generation is to be understood in the divinity?
And what is said of the Son of God in Scripture?
Because, you know, that's their big thing, the Muslims, that God has a son.
Well, God can't have a son.
And that's if, you know, in Jerusalem, the big temple that they built, or mosque they
put up.
Yeah.
Where the temple was.
On the dome, it's written, God has no son.
God has no son.
God.
It's pure blasphemy.
Because they think it's blasphemous to say that.
They think it's blasphemy to say that God has a son.
So it's one of the questions, obviously, he has to deal with his arguments against the
world.
So hang on.
Following a diversity of natures, one finds a diverse manner of emanation in things.
And the higher a nature is, the more intimate to the nature is that which emanates from
it.
So emanation, right?
It's manare, means to flow.
E manare means to flow from.
Ex manare.
To emanate, the word emanate in English.
So that's the principle.
The higher a nature is, the more intimate to the nature is that which emanates from
it.
And he's gonna explain that.
That as you go higher up on the level of natures, the higher they are, the more intimate is
to the nature.
to that nature what emanates from it. And he starts with the lowest level, which is
inanimate bodies. There can be no emanations in these inanimate bodies except by the action
of some one upon another. For this is the way in which fire is generated by fire, which
is an extraneous body, excuse me, when an extraneous body is changed by fire and brought
to the quality and species of fire. You know, so it's like Star Wars, you know, or Rocky,
you know, you get that guy. And that's the level a lot of people just stay on their whole
life. That's the little boys playing those games, right? But some people, that's what
they do.
They stay on their whole life. That's all they do. They just bang, bang. That's the
lowest level. When the emanation is simply the action of one thing on another. See, and
in fact, that's, people think that's a big deal. That's, most of the time, you know,
I've got power. I can smash this other thing. But that's the lowest level. The next highest
level is plants.
There, the emanation is simply the action of one thing on another.
The emanation starts from inside. It's, the plant moves itself. It doesn't move something
else. It grows. It's life. You know, that's the definition of life, right? Very simple.
Life is motusui, motion of oneself. If a thing moves,
itself, it's alive. You know, and that's just common sense, right? You see a snake
lying on the ground. If you want to know if it's alive, you kick it and see if it moves
itself. If it doesn't, well, it's dead. Motusui. And a plant has a motusui. It develops itself.
But, this emanation finishes outside. You have this whole development of the flower
and the seed, and then the seed goes out.
The term of this movement starts inside but ends out outside. The next level is animals.
I was talking about, wasn't I talking about the cat? Seeing the thread. It's incredible
when you think about it. The cat sees it. It gets it. So, there's something that ends
inside this motion starts in the outside but it goes inside the cat it ends up
inside the cat the cat sees that's that's life that's a higher level of
life that's sensitive life the cat sees
see but it's not completely motu sui because it has to start from outside
this thing which is sensation so the principle is different the principles
outside and the term is inside you know he's up seeing the string so that's
inside
but it starts outside so it's not completely motu sui also a cat cannot
know itself it just sees the it doesn't reflect on itself it doesn't have a
self-consciousness all its because it has sense knowledge it doesn't know
itself it knows so being outside itself
with me
which is sensible. So again, it's not suey. It's not itself. It knows something outside
itself, which is great. It knows, so there's a certain movement of life. You know, light
goes on inside, which is amazing. You know, a plant can't do that. A rock can't do that.
You know, your pet rocks. Well, that's just a joke. I mean, they're dead. But a cat's
not dead. It's not. But its life is imperfect because it's not completely, even though the
term of the movement is inside, the principle is outside. And it can't reflect on itself.
All it knows is sensible things outside.
The next level is the intelligence. The intelligence can reflect on itself. It can
know itself. Without, well, but there's different degrees of intelligent life. The first is
men, who can know themselves. They can reflect on their own being, a self-awareness. Whereas
a cat can do that.
They can just be aware of the threat outside of them. But, like the cat, this, to be aware
of himself, he first has to know something outside of himself. Because, as Aristotle
already said, the human mind is like a blank sheet that has nothing on it until it's put
into act by knowing something outside of itself. Once the intellect knows something through
its senses, it can know itself. And that's the intelligence. And that's the intelligence.
The intellect is put into act. And once it's in act, then it can see itself. But it's not
in act until it knows something outside itself. So, it's not perfect motus sui. It knows itself,
and not just the string. But it first has to know the string so they can be in act, so
they can know itself.
The next level is the angel. Because the angel, well, it doesn't know things outside itself.
You know, it doesn't have senses. It has the direct knowledge of itself. And that's the
higher sui. So, it's a higher sui. It's higher because it's more sui, because it doesn't
need anything outside itself to know itself. It doesn't have to be put into act by knowing
something by its senses. It's an act already. But, an angel is not its act of intellection,
like we saw in the goddess. In God, there's no difference between his knowing himself
and his being. So, that motion is completely sui, because there's no difference for God
between knowing and being. The angel has to be, and then know. So, his knowledge is not
him. So, it's less of a knowledge, it's a motus sui. Whereas God, it's the same thing,
as we said before. His knowledge of himself is himself. So, it's less of a knowledge of
himself. It's the same thing. He doesn't have to add another act on top of him knowing
himself to be. I mean, his being is his knowing of himself. It's the same thing. So, it's
a perfect motus sui. His motion of knowing himself is him. Whereas with the angel, it's
not. His knowledge of himself is something added on to his being. Okay? It's really pretty
simple.
Okay.
So, I'll just read the last, what St. Thomas says about this last thing, last stage.
Nonetheless, their life, the life of angels, does not attain the ultimate perfection.
For although the intention understood, that we talked about before, this intentio intellecta,
which is this concept that the intelligence produces when it knows, right? Intentio, intentio
is simply an act, an internal act that's directed to something. Tendere, where? It's directed
towards.
So, in this case, it's this act of our intellect towards what it knows. And that's what intention
is. And intention understood is precisely this concept that's produced when you know
something.
In the angels, that happens.
Intentio intellecta, by which he knows himself, is him. It's the same thing, as we just said
before, right?
So, he's, that's the most motus sui, because the motion itself is not different from him.
Whereas in an angel, it is. When an angel knows himself, it doesn't start outside himself.
He knows himself directly, but his knowledge of himself isn't him. Whereas in God, it is.
So it's as sui as you can get.
So that's the highest stage of life, because light is motus sui. And that's why the Lord
says, I am the life.
He is the spiritual energy, the object, and the whole.
Aristotle always said something a little bit like that. He said, God is thought thinking
itself.
That's good for a pagan.
See, he didn't think that God knew anything except himself, the world all that.
He believed it existed. We saw that this morning.
You think there is something between being and nothing,
but God doesn't know it because who cares?
I mean, we know that God knows it,
but he knows it because he makes it.
And Aristotle didn't know that
because he didn't know that God made things.
He didn't know where things came from,
but he didn't have this idea of creation,
which is Christian.
Well, it's in the Bible, right?
Moses.
But God knows everything else
other than himself
because he knows himself.
And knowing himself,
he knows those things
because he's the one who makes them.
So he knows them because he makes them.
He doesn't know them directly,
as I said before.
He doesn't,
because then he would be in potency
to those things.
But he knows them because he makes them.
Okay, now, that's just the beginning.
He explains this idea,
which is really key,
of intentio intellecta,
which really touches the essence
of who the second person of the Blessed Trinity is.
The word.
You see, we basically talked about this before,
but he goes in.
This is more detailed.
Now, I mean by the intention understood,
which, again, is this,
specie as expressa, right?
I mean by this,
what the intellect conceives in itself
of the thing understood.
It's very clear.
That's what I've been saying over and over again,
but that's,
I couldn't put it more clearly.
I mean by the intention understood,
what the intellect conceives in itself
of the thing understood.
Okay, it's the word.
To be sure,
anas,
this is neither the thing which is understood,
nor the very substance of the intellect,
but is rather a certain likeness of the thing understood,
conceived in the intellect,
and which the exterior word signify.
And thus, the intention itself is named the interior word,
which is signified by the exterior word.
It's the same thing we saw before, right?
When we know, we have this word that we express,
and that's what the exterior word means, it refers to.
Okay.
So,
and thus, the intention itself is named the interior word.
Okay, so that's what he said.
Indeed, that the intention aforesaid is not within us,
the thing understood is clear from that, from this.
So, there's a difference between this intention intellect
and the thing understood because it is one thing
to understand a thing and another
to understand the intention understood itself,
which is about the intellect, which is,
which is about the intellect, which is about the intellect,
what the intellect does when it reflects on its own work.
Now, that's really getting complicated,
but that's what logic is about.
In logic, you study, I mean, real logic, not just as for games,
games you play with arguments and all that.
It's kind of not very interesting logic.
That's called formal logic.
Material logic, real logic, which formal logic is kind
of linked to it, but is when you study what happens
when you know, you're studying the concept themselves.
You're not studying things.
You're studying the concept itself.
You're studying the object of your knowledge is the concepts.
And his point is that because in us, logic is different
from science, that means that there's a difference
between what we know and what we are.
Because what we know, the object of logic, is a different subject
than studying about ourselves.
So, it's not the same thing.
In other words, that's, okay.
Anyway. Now, that the intention understood is not the very
intellect within us is clear from this.
The being of the intention understood consists
in the very act of being understood.
The being of our intellect does not so consist.
Its being is not its act of understanding.
I know this is getting really complicated, but.
Again, he's just repeating the same thing.
The being of our idea is not the same thing as the being
of our intellect.
It's added onto it.
But in God, it's not like that.
The being of his intellect is the same thing
as the understanding of his intellect.
This act of understanding.
He intends to be understood.
It's the same thing, because you can't have a difference in God
because then you'd have to have something added
that's somehow adding to his intellect.
Where did the word, it couldn't come from anywhere
because he's the first mover.
So, his word, by which he knows himself,
is the same thing as himself.
It's not something added to him.
Okay. All right.
It's just saying the same thing we saw, but.
And so, St. Thomas goes on to explain about what happens in God.
Since in God, therefore, being and understanding are identical.
Okay. Here's what I'm saying.
Being and understanding is the same thing.
Understanding is something added onto him.
It's the same thing.
The intention understood in him is his very intellect.
There's no difference between his intellect and his idea.
His idea is an added on to his intellect.
Oh, he got an idea.
No, it's the same thing, because that's, it's impossible
for God to add something on.
So, his very intellect is the same thing
as his understanding, act of understanding.
Okay. And this is, if you're with me so far, hang on.
This is going to be.
Go on.
take us another step
and because the intellect in him
is the thing understood
what he understands is himself
he doesn't understand things all the time
especially in the beginning there was nothing but him
and because the intellect in him is the thing understood
it follows that in God
understanding himself
you know thought thinking himself
as Aristotle used to say
then the intellect
the thing understood which is the intellect
and the intention understood
which is this word that is always produced
when there is some sort of action but in this case
because it's perfect understanding
it's exactly the same thing
as what it understands
understood
all those three things are the same
the intellect
the thing understood
because it's the intellect understanding itself
and the intention
understood
are identical
elementary
right
okay
now
I'm going to apply all this to the word
the procession of the word which he calls divine generation
which is what scripture calls it
now this is not like generation in inanimate things
like the fire that produces fire
like in rocky
okay
it's not like that
because that's material
and the sun
the generation of the sun and the father
obviously is material
neither is it like a generation of plants or animals
because the term of the generation of the sun
is not separated as in plants
right
when the generation of plants
well the term is outside
and also
it's not like the generation
the
emanation of the sun
emanation and sensation where
the term is inside
but the principle is outside
you know which you know is outside
and that starts this movement of sensation
where the term is inside
but the principle is outside
well that's not the case
because the principle of this knowledge
that God has himself is in himself
it's not that he knows something outside
so it's not like sensation either
so it must be an intellectual imagination
so it must be an intellectual emanation
okay
so then he goes on to talk about this
intellectual procession
of the word
in God
it is manifest on the book
basically book one
that God understands himself
he talks about in the first book of the Contra Gentile
now whatever is understood
must in support of the word of God
as far as it is understood
be in him who understands
for the significance of the very act of understanding
is this
the apprehension of that which is understood by an intellect
that is that's what it means to know
is that the thing out that you know
becomes
in you
the form that makes the thing be what it is
becomes a form of your intellect
that's what we call apprehension
you bring it to yourself
so
he goes on
hence even our intellect
understanding itself
is within itself
because understanding means that the thing you understand is in you
or when you understand your very intellect
understanding
excuse me
understand your very intellect
well your intellect is in you
as being understood
as well as being
there
because of that
because it is
okay
that's what he said
hence even our intellect
understanding itself
is within itself
not only as
identified with itself
by its essence
but also as apprehended by itself
in the act of understanding
because your intellect
is in itself
as being understood
as well as being
okay
so all this isn't just
whistling dixie
this is
the basis of
well the blessed trinity
and so of everything
but the thing understood
in him who understands
is the intention understood
and the word
which is what we were talking about before
so god is in himself as being understood
well that's what it means to be the word
so that's why he called him the word
he's the institute
the thing understood
in him who understands
is the intention understood
in the word
see
now that would have been
complete nonsense
a couple hours ago
but hopefully now
it makes some sense
you know you go back home
and you know
tell your friends
did you know
that the thing understood
in him who understood
can all look at it
but the thing understood
in him who understands
is the intention understood
and the word
there is therefore in god
understanding himself
the word of god
and the word of god
as it were god understood
again understood
in the sense of being produced
not a passive understanding
god understood
meaning produced as a concept
just as the word of the stone
is in the intellect
and the stone understood
and to this point
is a saying of john
the word was with god
so now he's going to start taking
these different things we've seen
in the prologue
using these
fundamental notions
to explain why
what he's talking about
well that
now we can see what he means
the word was with god
because
the intention understood
or the word
is in god
that's what it is
in god understanding himself
the word as a god
as god
as it were god understood
is in god
just as the stone understood
is in the intellect understands
and so that's why the word was with god
because he's in god
as god understanding
well it's not really that hard
once you get used to the tune
because it's always the same tune
he's always saying the same thing
then he draws another conclusion
namely the conclusion that god is in god understanding himself
that the word was in god from all eternity
because god does not pass from potency to act
it's sort of the same thing we saw
in the commentary
on saint john
because he was always understanding
his word
so the word's been there forever
that's why in the beginning
what is he going to say
and so he writes
his word then is co-eternal with god
and is not added to him in time
as to our intellect is added in time
the interiorly conceived word
which is the intention understood
hence is the saying in john
in the beginning was the word
and he goes no further
recalling a point he had explained earlier
in book one
namely that the divine intellect
is not always in act
but is act itself
it's pure act
because again if it
if something
if it's different from pure act
well then
if it's not in act
it's not
it's not the
there would have to be something else
that added the act
to it
god is pure act
and he's one
it's what kajudin calls
the ipsa ratio deitatis
it's the very
reason
notion of deity
it's one
thing
which we cannot express
it's inipable
literally
inipable
we can express
certain
aspects of it
but it's one
it's one
and we can't
express the whole thing
that's what the word is
it's the expression of the whole thing
but
but that's him, that's not us.
So the divine intellect has to be
its very active understandings,
which is what we talked about before.
There's no difference.
It's the same thing.
Divine intellect is the same thing
as its active understanding.
We conceive of it differently,
and both of those things are there, in a sense,
because the intellect is there,
and his intellect is an act,
but his act and his intellect is the same thing.
But, St. John's goes on,
the being of the word,
interiorly conceived,
or the intention understood,
is the very act of being understood,
again, produced actively.
So the being of this word,
is to be understood,
that is, to be produced.
That's what the word is.
Therefore, the being of the divine word
is identical with that of the divine intellect.
Because what the divine word is,
is this being understood.
And that is the same thing as the intellect,
because there's no difference between the intellect
and its act.
So, the being of the divine word
is identical with that of the intellect.
It's identical with the being of the divine intellect.
And consequently,
with that of God himself,
who is his own intellect?
So the being of the word
is the same as the being
of the intellect,
and the intellect is the same thing as God,
so the word is God.
Okay?
Say it again.
Okay?
The being of this word
is simply the act of understanding,
again, in the positive sense.
And so, the being of the word
is the same thing as the divine intellect,
which is its act.
So, the being of the word
is the same as the intellect,
and the intellect is the same as God,
because there's no difference between God
and his intellect and him.
So, the word is God.
He has the nature of God.
He is God.
Because God's being and his nature
is the same thing, too.
I am who I am, right?
So.
All right.
We're almost done.
I think you're probably almost done, too.
When, therefore, this is said,
the word was God,
it is shown that the divine word
is not merely an intention understood,
like our word,
a concept that we produce,
but is also a thing existing
and subsisting in nature.
For the true God is a subsisting thing,
so the being of the word
is the same thing, too.
Since he is the highest degree being, per se.
If he's God,
well, he's subsisting in nature.
You know, he has subsistence.
You know, like a man subsists.
He stands on his own two feet.
He exists separately from everything else.
In other words,
he has personality.
Because personality is simply
a subsistence that exists
and has an intellectual nature.
So the word is a person
because he subsists.
I mean, he's a thing that exists.
It's not just a thought.
But it's God himself.
So.
But then,
isn't this against monotheism?
We have more than one God now.
We've got God,
and then we have the word.
Who's God?
Well,
see, this is where the Muslims
come in and say,
what's going on?
And this is where the mystery starts, too, really.
St. Thomas' response.
But the nature of God
is not in the word of God
as being one in species
and differing in number.
For example, men,
they're one in species.
We're all one in species.
We all have the human nature.
But we're different in number.
There's more than, you know,
we're not the same thing.
So we're the same in species
what we differ in number.
So when we say the word is God,
it doesn't mean that he differs from God.
It's not just that he has the same species
like we have the same species.
He also, he's the same thing.
He's the same in number.
Right?
Now, there's an easy proof for this
that he gives after,
which is in anything
that's not material,
if there's no matter in it,
there's only one,
thing that has that species.
For example, the angels
all have different species.
They have a different nature.
Because the only thing
that makes them different
is their nature.
So if they don't,
there can only be one thing
of that nature
because there's nothing else
to make it different than nature.
Whereas with us,
we don't have just nature.
We don't have just our species.
Our nature, our species,
we have matter as well.
So we can have the same nature
and yet be different
because our matter is different.
But angels don't have any matter.
So there's nothing to make them different
except nature.
So the nature is what it is.
So if it's different,
well, it's a different nature
or it wouldn't be different.
Right?
And the same thing is true of God.
There's only,
there can only be one God, God.
There can only be one thing
that has a divine nature.
So if the word has a divine nature,
well, he's one God with God
because there's only one God.
There can only be one God.
Just like it can only be one angel
because God doesn't have any matter.
Okay?
Yeah?
Make sense?
Then that's an easy argument.
I guess I'll try to give you the other argument.
Which is kind of deeper.
We'll finish with that.
And I may well finish you off completely with this, but.
So he goes on.
For the nature of God is not in the word of God
as being one in species and differing in number.
Like with us.
For the word has a nature of God
just as God's active understanding is his very being
as we said.
That's what we saw.
The word has God's nature
because the word is God's understanding.
Right?
The word is God's understanding.
And God's understanding is not different from his being
because in him to know and to be is the same thing.
So since the word is God's understanding of himself
and his understanding is the same thing as his being
and his being is the same thing as his nature.
Then there's no difference
between the word and the nature.
God and the word, the word has God's nature.
Okay.
So again, the word has God's nature
because the word is God's active understanding
which is his being.
But God's active understanding is his very being itself.
That's the key to understanding.
It can only be.
There's no, there's not, there's not any difference
between the word and God
because it's the same,
it's the same being.
I'll read this again.
The word has God's nature
because the word is God's active understanding
which is his being.
Okay.
That's what we said before.
The word is God's active understanding
and the same thing as his being.
And his being is the same thing as nature.
But God's active understanding is his very being itself.
Therefore, it is also his very nature itself
because God's being and his nature
are absolutely the same thing.
That it is, there's no,
this act, this, I don't know, even.
I see God twice.
The word's being is this being intelligent
and being understood in an active sense.
And that active intellection, which is being understood,
is the same thing as being.
So the word is God's being itself.
So that's who he is.
I mean, there's nothing else.
Divine being is absolutely one, in other words.
He has God's nature because he has his being,
but his being is only one being in God.
Therefore, the word, if it has God's nature,
it's not something else.
Okay.
This divine being is absolutely one.
It's not distinguished from his nature,
but identified with it completely.
And so since the word has God's nature
by means of its identity with this divine being,
it is absolutely divine nature itself
in number and his being.
The word is God's being,
and this being is the same thing as his nature.
There's not another nature that God has
that's separate from his being,
but the word is the same as the being.
So he says it's all one nature, one numerical nature,
which is why it's hard to understand, okay?
But that's the mystery of trinity.
That's what theology does, you know.
It tells us where what we don't understand is.
And that takes a lot of thinking
to see what you don't understand exactly.
But that's where the mystery is, that you can,
that everything is.
And you have to have in God
these two subsistences,
but one being.
There's one God, and yet there's,
well, we've shown two persons already,
but there's, you know, there's three.
Okay, we'll finish.
We'll finish.
Oh, we probably won't actually.
We are probably,
you're still reading.
Yeah, we'll have to stop there.
That was tough.
That's the hardest part, probably.
We'll probably do, but.
Is it any easier after?
Yeah, well, see, tomorrow we're going to talk about St. Paul.
No, not for us, for you, giving it the lecture.
Does it get any easier as I give it?
Yeah.
Yeah, I guess.
So, I mean, it's never easy.
I mean, it's mysterious, but.
Well, see, St. Paul is not as tough.
That's why I was thinking of doing St. Paul,
but I forgot to bring him,
because it's a little bit of a rest from this,
but at least it's done.
Not completely done, but we're basically,
it's downhill from there.
Maybe we can say the Angelus now.
It's a little bit early.
It's a little bit early, but way to finish.
The angel of the Lord declared unto Mary.
Jesus and the Holy Ghost.
Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.
Behold the handmaid of the Lord.
Be adorned with thee according to thy word.
Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.
And the word is with thee.
Amen.
And the word is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.
Pray for us, Holy Mother of God.
That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
Let us pray.
Forthforth we beseech thee, O Lord, that grace enter our hearts,
that we return to the incarnation of Christ,
that as the Son was made known through the message of the angel,
may by his passion and cross be brought to the glory of his resurrection.
Through the Son, Christ our Lord.
Amen.