[ 0 → 14] Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. [ 14 → 18] Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. [ 18 → 22] Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen. [ 23 → 24] St. Thomas. [ 24 → 27] Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen. [ 30 → 41] So, we'll continue with St. Thomas. [ 41 → 44] A couple of you have remarked that you actually understood something of what I was saying yesterday, [ 45 → 49] which is encouraging, because I wasn't very clear sometimes, especially at the end. [ 51 → 55] I apologize, but I get confused myself sometimes. [ 56 → 58] This is not easy stuff. [ 60 → 67] So, we'll just finish his commentary. [ 70 → 79] Well, it's this question in the Contra Gentiles, the fourth book, chapter 11. [ 81 → 85] It's an interesting book, the Contra Gentiles, because it's quite different from the Summa. [ 86 → 88] If you read the Summa, it's always, you know, the objections. [ 90 → 93] There's response, and then there's response to objections. [ 94 → 106] The Contra Gentiles is, it's kind of a stream of consciousness method, sort of like James Joyce. [ 106 → 109] It just goes on and on and on. [ 109 → 114] There's no, it's not as ordered, in a way. [ 116 → 118] So, in a way, it's kind of hard to organize it. [ 118 → 120] But you get these flashes of light. [ 120 → 130] When you listen to him talk, St. Thomas, as you, hopefully you had, if you, we've been reading this. [ 130 → 135] You don't understand everything he's saying, necessarily, but sometimes it gets through. [ 139 → 142] And particularly on this point, I think it's good to read something like that, [ 143 → 146] because that's all we're ever going to get on the, about the Trinity anyway. [ 146 → 147] We're not going to understand it. [ 147 → 150] I was just talking to you, one of you, about, [ 150 → 155] the famous story of St. Augustine, it says, after he wrote his De Trinitate. [ 158 → 163] I forget how the story goes, but the idea is that this man takes him out by the ocean, [ 164 → 168] on the beach, and tells him, well, dig a hole in the sand. [ 169 → 173] So he does, and he says, now put the ocean in your hole. [ 173 → 174] I said, well, that's not going to fit. [ 174 → 176] He said, well, that's what you're trying to do. [ 177 → 179] Put the Trinity in your little head. [ 180 → 188] And yet, what he says, in his De Trinitate, is the basis of all of Trinitarian theology ever since. [ 188 → 191] So, you know, he put something in his little hole. [ 191 → 196] So that's what we're trying to do, is put a little water in our little hole here. [ 196 → 199] And that's pretty good already, okay? [ 200 → 202] And it's life-giving, this water. [ 202 → 206] It's the fountain that mounts up to eternal life, right? [ 207 → 210] And it multiplies itself, right? [ 210 → 210] That's what our Lord said. [ 210 → 212] That's what our Lord says to the seminarians. [ 212 → 213] That's how it works. [ 215 → 217] And that's kind of how theology works, too. [ 217 → 221] You get a little bit, and it multiplies. [ 222 → 226] You get one little idea, and then you can understand all sorts of other things you never understood before. [ 227 → 235] And that's what St. Thomas says in his famous Councils to this friar, [ 235 → 238] asking for some advice about reading, about studying. [ 238 → 240] There's 16 Councils. [ 240 → 245] And the first one is, don't jump into the ocean. [ 246 → 247] Go through little rivulets. [ 249 → 252] And you get little things you understand, and then it gets bitter, okay? [ 254 → 256] You jump in the ocean, you're just going to drown. [ 257 → 258] Just try to get little things. [ 258 → 260] So I'm going to try to give you some more little rivulets. [ 265 → 265] Okay. [ 267 → 269] So now he's going to go on to explain. [ 270 → 276] How in spite of this absolute unity in nature, [ 277 → 284] there's still distinction in God, because we've explained how the Word is God. [ 285 → 287] And there's one God. [ 287 → 288] It's numerically one. [ 289 → 290] There's only one God. [ 291 → 294] And God is God, and the Word is God. [ 294 → 298] There's God the Father, and there's God the Son, and there's only one God. [ 299 → 299] But there's... [ 299 → 301] Now he's going to explain the distinction. [ 304 → 305] Because obviously that's the question that follows. [ 305 → 307] Well, how can they be one? [ 309 → 311] And yet, still you're saying they're distinct. [ 311 → 313] If there's this absolute unity, how can they be distinct? [ 316 → 320] Now he starts by using the example of the distinction between three things. [ 320 → 328] One is subsistence, essence, and being. [ 329 → 338] He says, although in God, these are most truly one, [ 341 → 345] there is still in God whatever belongs to the notion of a subsistence, [ 347 → 350] or of essence, or of being itself. [ 351 → 353] So now he's going to explain what he means by these terms. [ 355 → 358] For it belongs to him that he should not be in something. [ 359 → 361] That's what it means to subsist. [ 363 → 364] You exist. [ 365 → 367] You stand on your own two feet. [ 367 → 369] We're talking about the difference between substance and accident. [ 371 → 372] A substance subsists. [ 373 → 377] It exists separately on its own from everything else. [ 378 → 380] Whereas an accident doesn't subsist. [ 380 → 382] It exists in something else. [ 383 → 383] Right? [ 383 → 384] We talked about that yesterday. [ 385 → 387] A color, for example, exists in something that's colored. [ 388 → 389] You just can't have a color walking. [ 389 → 392] There has to be something colored that walks around. [ 393 → 396] Color has to exist in something that subsists. [ 398 → 399] That's what it means to subsist. [ 404 → 410] And God subsists because he doesn't exist in something else. [ 410 → 413] And each of the persons subsists. [ 414 → 416] And that's really where the mystery is. [ 419 → 421] They aren't accidents. [ 422 → 423] They're substances. [ 424 → 425] They're subsistences. [ 428 → 429] In this one subject. [ 431 → 432] But anyway, that's not what he's talking about yet. [ 432 → 434] He's just talking about the notion of subsistence. [ 436 → 443] Means it's something that is not in something but subsists. [ 445 → 447] And God, well, that's true about God. [ 447 → 448] He subsists. [ 448 → 449] God doesn't exist. [ 449 → 450] He's something else, obviously. [ 450 → 451] He's a substance. [ 454 → 461] Also, we call him essence because he is what he is. [ 461 → 462] That's what an essence means. [ 463 → 465] It's the essence of something is what it is. [ 466 → 468] So that applies to God as well. [ 468 → 469] He's an essence. [ 471 → 472] He is what he is. [ 477 → 478] And also being. [ 479 → 484] It means that he is in act. [ 491 → 500] So subsistence, essence, and being are three different notions. [ 502 → 504] And they all apply to God. [ 506 → 507] He is subsistence. [ 507 → 508] He is an essence. [ 508 → 510] And he is being. [ 514 → 521] Then he goes on to show how in God, similarly, there must be the three things that belong [ 521 → 523] to intellectual activity. [ 524 → 532] Just as God subsists, and he has an essence, and he is, but with regard to his intellectual [ 532 → 533] activity. [ 538 → 539] There are these three things. [ 540 → 552] Namely, the one who understands, his active understanding, and the intention understood [ 552 → 554] that we talked about yesterday. [ 556 → 559] Understood in an active sense. [ 560 → 563] This species expressa. [ 564 → 565] The word. [ 566 → 566] What? [ 566 → 568] The concept. [ 568 → 570] The concept in which he knows. [ 572 → 572] Himself. [ 572 → 573] In fact. [ 574 → 575] So in God, you have these three things. [ 576 → 577] The one who understands. [ 579 → 581] His active understanding, which is the same thing. [ 582 → 583] There's no difference in God, right? [ 583 → 584] Because he's always an act. [ 586 → 588] He's not one thing, and then he's adding another act. [ 588 → 589] It's the same thing. [ 590 → 592] And then there's this intention understood. [ 592 → 592] Understood. [ 592 → 593] Which again, is the same thing. [ 593 → 607] Because it perfectly expresses what he is, to the point where it's exactly the same thing, [ 607 → 609] which we just tried to explain. [ 609 → 613] It's the same being. [ 613 → 616] And as I mentioned, there's only difference is relation. [ 616 → 619] Now that's what we can explain now, what the difference is. [ 619 → 622] Because that's what we have to explain here. [ 622 → 627] That there's still a distinction, and I mentioned before, the distinction is on the level of [ 627 → 628] relation. [ 628 → 633] So this is what he can explain. [ 633 → 638] So all these three things, the one who understands, his active understanding, and this intention [ 638 → 647] understood, must all be in God, because he's an intellectual being. [ 647 → 650] So he's the one who understands. [ 650 → 651] There's his active understanding. [ 651 → 653] And there's his intention understood. [ 653 → 656] All those things are necessary for a being to understand, that is an intellectual being. [ 656 → 658] So all those three things are in God. [ 658 → 662] He's just not some sort of blind force. [ 662 → 670] I remember my best friend when I was a kid, I met him after, years later, we were talking [ 670 → 671] about God. [ 671 → 672] And for him, that's what God is. [ 672 → 673] He's a force. [ 673 → 675] I think that's in some movie somewhere. [ 675 → 677] He's a force. [ 677 → 679] Well, he's not just a force. [ 679 → 680] He knows. [ 680 → 681] He knows. [ 681 → 682] He knows. [ 682 → 682] He knows. [ 682 → 687] So he has an active understanding, which is the same as active being, and he has his [ 687 → 693] intention understood, which are all one thing. [ 693 → 705] However, unlike subsistence, essence, and being, which are in fact one thing, period, [ 705 → 711] by their very nature, these three things imply a certain distinction. [ 711 → 726] Because it's intention understood, even though it's the same thing as the one who understands, [ 726 → 738] because it's a perfect act of knowledge, and so it's exactly what it knows, nevertheless, [ 738 → 739] there remains this relation of origin. [ 739 → 740] It's the same thing. [ 740 → 741] It's the same thing. [ 741 → 741] It's the same thing. [ 741 → 742] It's the same thing. [ 742 → 750] The art of understanding is from origin to this principle of understanding. [ 750 → 759] In the one who's the principle of the act of understanding, there's a relation of origin [ 759 → 765] to this act of understanding, which is the same thing as him. [ 765 → 769] I'm sorry. [ 769 → 770] I'm sorry. [ 770 → 771] I'm sorry. [ 771 → 772] That's an active relation of origin. [ 772 → 777] That is, the one who understands has an active relation of origin. [ 777 → 779] He's the one who God knows. [ 781 → 786] And there's a passive relation of origin in the word, [ 786 → 788] which is the fruit of this active knowledge. [ 790 → 795] The father knows himself, and the son is the fruit of that, [ 795 → 797] actually of our father knowing himself. [ 798 → 800] So the father begets the son. [ 800 → 802] And the son is begotten by the father. [ 804 → 810] So the father has a relation of origin, that he is the origin of the son, [ 810 → 813] and the son has a passive relation of origin to the father. [ 814 → 816] He is begotten by the father. [ 817 → 819] So even though they're the same thing, [ 821 → 823] the same being that we talked about before, [ 827 → 829] God's absolutely one. There's only one God. [ 830 → 830] It's one thing. [ 832 → 837] They remain, nevertheless, a relation of origin. [ 838 → 842] Active in the father, passive in the son. [ 843 → 845] And that's what makes a difference. [ 845 → 846] That's what they are. [ 848 → 849] They're relations. [ 855 → 859] So that's why, in spite of the absolute union of the word to its principle, [ 859 → 861] and one essence, [ 863 → 866] there remains, nevertheless, a distinction between them, [ 867 → 871] which consists in these opposing relations. [ 874 → 875] And the Council of Florence, [ 876 → 881] in the 15th century, [ 883 → 887] puts it this way. [ 889 → 892] In God, all things are one and the same, [ 892 → 903] except for the opposition of relation. [ 906 → 908] In God, all things are one and the same. [ 908 → 910] It's exactly the same thing. [ 910 → 911] Everything in God is one, [ 912 → 915] except when there is an opposition of relation. [ 917 → 919] See, the Council of Florence, [ 919 → 925] if you remember, if you've done any serious ecclesiastical history, [ 926 → 930] its main object was to reconcile the Greeks. [ 932 → 936] Because, you know, there was already the schism of the Greeks [ 936 → 940] that had happened centuries before that. [ 942 → 945] At the Council of Florence, they had the Greeks come, [ 945 → 948] and they reconciled. [ 949 → 953] But to do that, they had to solve certain difficulties [ 953 → 957] that had arisen between the Greek theology [ 957 → 959] and the Roman theology [ 959 → 962] on this question of the Trinity. [ 962 → 967] Because the Greeks insisted on the fact [ 967 → 977] that the original creed said, [ 979 → 984] How does it go again? [ 984 → 987] The Father proceeds from the Father. [ 988 → 990] The Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father. [ 991 → 993] It didn't say it proceeds from the Father and the Son. [ 996 → 999] The words et filioque, you may have heard that. [ 999 → 1002] That's what they talked about, which means and the Son, [1002 → 1005] was added a couple hundred years later. [1005 → 1010] Originally, what the first creed said was the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father [1010 → 1011] because that's what our Lord says. [1011 → 1012] It's right in the Gospel, right? [1015 → 1018] He doesn't say it proceeds from the Son. [1019 → 1023] That comes from the Church and the reflection and everything. [1024 → 1025] And St. Thomas talks about it. [1025 → 1027] And it's very simple. [1028 → 1032] Because the only difference in the persons is relation of origin, [1033 → 1035] if the Holy Ghost didn't proceed, [1035 → 1035] if the Holy Ghost didn't proceed from the Son, [1036 → 1037] he wouldn't be distinct from the Son. [1039 → 1041] That's where the filioque comes from. [1042 → 1045] The Holy Ghost has to proceed not just from the Father, [1045 → 1047] but from the Father and the Son. [1053 → 1054] And so that's what we're talking about. [1054 → 1058] That's why it's saying here in the Council of Florence, [1058 → 1063] it was explaining to these Greeks, you know, what the creed has to be. [1063 → 1064] And they did accept it. [1065 → 1065] That's the point. [1067 → 1070] They ended up not really following through [1070 → 1074] because one of the reasons they did it was they were being attacked by the Muslims [1074 → 1076] and they wanted some help from the West. [1076 → 1078] So, anyway, that's the whole thing. [1082 → 1086] It's explaining to them, in God, everything is one, [1087 → 1089] except where there's not opposition of relation. [1089 → 1094] So if there's not an opposition of relation between the Son [1094 → 1095] and the Holy Ghost, [1095 → 1095] then there's not an opposition of relation. [1095 → 1098] If the Holy Ghost doesn't proceed from the Son, [1098 → 1099] he's not distinct from the Son. [1101 → 1101] You see? [1103 → 1104] If there's no opposition of relation, [1105 → 1108] that is, if the Holy Ghost doesn't proceed from the Son, [1108 → 1110] well, there's no difference between the Holy Ghost and the Son. [1110 → 1114] You can't say there's three persons in the Blessed Trinity, [1114 → 1115] which the Greeks wanted to say, [1116 → 1119] unless you have this opposition of relation. [1121 → 1123] See, part of it is, this whole thing with St. Augustine [1123 → 1124] and his De Trinitate, [1125 → 1127] he's the one who really understood [1127 → 1130] the Blessed Trinity, [1131 → 1133] the little hole in the sand. [1133 → 1135] But, I mean, it still got, he got somewhere [1135 → 1138] that it's a matter of this opposition of relation. [1139 → 1140] The Greeks hadn't got, really understood. [1141 → 1142] That wasn't part of their theology. [1143 → 1144] That's part of the problem. [1145 → 1145] But, anyway, [1151 → 1154] this is really what it comes down to. [1155 → 1158] The distinction of the persons, [1158 → 1160] and what we're talking about here is the Father and the Son, [1162 → 1167] their difference isn't in the essence, [1168 → 1171] it's in, simply in these opposing relations. [1175 → 1176] Of origin. [1178 → 1181] The Son proceeds from the Father. [1181 → 1182] He really does. [1184 → 1185] The theology, [1185 → 1186] even used the word produced. [1188 → 1190] The Son is produced. [1192 → 1192] By the Father, [1192 → 1194] but it obviously doesn't mean created, okay? [1195 → 1197] But he comes from the Father. [1199 → 1200] He really does. [1201 → 1202] He's really the Son. [1202 → 1204] And the Father is really the Father. [1205 → 1207] And that's what makes him distinct. [1208 → 1210] Otherwise, they're exactly the same thing. [1212 → 1213] Okay. [1215 → 1216] So, St. Thomas is going to explain this a little bit. [1220 → 1221] Now, you encouraged me, [1221 → 1222] the couple of you who talked to me [1222 → 1224] about what I was talking about yesterday. [1224 → 1226] I thought nobody understood what I was talking about. [1227 → 1229] But, apparently some of you do. [1229 → 1232] So, here we go. [1235 → 1236] Therefore, [1236 → 1239] since in God, [1240 → 1241] the one understanding, [1242 → 1244] the act of understanding, [1245 → 1247] and the intention understood, [1248 → 1249] which is his own word, [1250 → 1251] are the same thing, [1254 → 1256] there must most truly be in God [1257 → 1259] that which belongs to the notion [1259 → 1261] of the one understanding, [1262 → 1265] that which belongs to the notion of the act of understanding, [1266 → 1268] and that which belongs to the notion [1268 → 1270] of the intention understood, [1270 → 1272] or word. [1272 → 1274] So, he's just explaining what I was talking about. [1274 → 1279] But, in the essence of interior word, [1279 → 1283] which is the intention understood, [1283 → 1285] there is this, [1285 → 1287] that it proceeds [1287 → 1289] from the one understanding, [1289 → 1292] according to his act of understanding, [1292 → 1295] since it is, as it were, [1295 → 1298] the term of the intellectual operation. [1298 → 1300] See, that's what happens [1300 → 1303] when you have the act of understanding. [1303 → 1304] That's what happens when you have the act of understanding. [1304 → 1306] That's what understanding means, [1306 → 1309] is to conceive this concept, [1309 → 1311] this word, [1311 → 1312] this interior word. [1312 → 1314] This is what he goes on to say. [1314 → 1316] For, in the act of understanding, [1316 → 1318] the intellect conceives [1318 → 1320] and forms [1320 → 1322] the intention, [1322 → 1324] or the essence understood, [1324 → 1326] and this is the interior word. [1328 → 1330] It is necessary, therefore, [1330 → 1332] that from God, [1332 → 1334] according to his very act of understanding, [1334 → 1339] there proceed his word. [1339 → 1342] God knows, so, [1342 → 1345] knowing is precise what it is, [1345 → 1347] is to produce this word, [1347 → 1349] in which you know. [1349 → 1350] If you don't produce a word, [1350 → 1352] well, you don't know. [1352 → 1358] God knows, so he produces it. [1358 → 1361] The word of God is, therefore, [1361 → 1363] compared to God understanding, [1363 → 1366] whose word he is, [1366 → 1370] as to him from whom he is. [1370 → 1373] For this belongs to the very notion [1373 → 1375] of a word. [1375 → 1378] So, Revelation teaches us [1378 → 1380] that there is a word. [1380 → 1382] That's what we started with, right? [1382 → 1384] In the beginning was a word. [1388 → 1390] Well, that's what it means. [1393 → 1396] There's God's understanding. [1396 → 1397] There's God understanding, [1397 → 1398] and then there's [1398 → 1400] the fruit of his understanding, [1400 → 1402] his word. [1402 → 1404] Therefore, although in God [1404 → 1406] the one understanding, [1406 → 1408] the act of understanding, [1408 → 1410] and the intention understood, [1410 → 1411] or word, [1411 → 1413] are by essence one, [1413 → 1415] and for this reason it is necessary [1415 → 1419] that each be God, [1419 → 1420] the one understanding, [1420 → 1421] the act of understanding, [1421 → 1422] and the intention understood, [1422 → 1424] are all one thing. [1424 → 1427] They're all God. [1427 → 1429] Nevertheless, there remains [1429 → 1434] the sole distinction of relation, [1434 → 1436] insofar as the word is related [1436 → 1439] to the one who conceives [1439 → 1444] as to him from whom he is. [1444 → 1447] Insofar as the word is related [1447 → 1450] to the one who conceives [1450 → 1451] as to him from whom he is. [1452 → 1465] . [1465 → 1467] This is why the evangelist, [1467 → 1469] seeing that he had said [1469 → 1472] the word was God, [1472 → 1474] to keep one from understanding [1474 → 1475] that all distinction [1475 → 1477] between the word and God speaking [1477 → 1478] or conceiving the word [1478 → 1479] was taken away, [1479 → 1481] added, [1481 → 1484] this was in the beginning with God. [1484 → 1486] . [1486 → 1488] Okay, so he said the word was God, [1488 → 1490] but to make sure we don't get mixed up, [1490 → 1492] I think, well that means there's no distinction, [1492 → 1493] then he adds it right away, [1493 → 1494] this was in the beginning with God. [1494 → 1496] . [1496 → 1498] Which is what we said, [1498 → 1499] exactly the same thing we saw [1499 → 1501] in his commentary on the Gospel of John, right? [1501 → 1502] . [1502 → 1503] He's perfectly consistent with himself. [1503 → 1504] I'm just repeating myself, [1504 → 1506] but it doesn't hurt, right? [1506 → 1507] . [1507 → 1510] This is pretty heavy stuff. [1510 → 1511] . [1511 → 1513] And it's worth thinking about it [1513 → 1515] over and over again. [1515 → 1517] That's what we're going to be doing for eternity. [1517 → 1521] . [1521 → 1523] We won't need to, you know, [1523 → 1524] go look for something else [1524 → 1526] to keep us so entertained. [1526 → 1528] This is it. [1528 → 1529] . [1529 → 1530] And it will be plenty, [1530 → 1531] more than plenty. [1531 → 1532] . [1532 → 1534] And we'll see everything else in that too, [1534 → 1537] but that would be accidental. [1537 → 1539] . [1539 → 1541] See, our life will really be [1541 → 1542] their life. [1542 → 1543] . [1543 → 1544] It will be ours. [1544 → 1545] . [1545 → 1546] I came that I might have life [1546 → 1547] and that I might have it [1547 → 1548] to the full. [1548 → 1549] . [1549 → 1550] Well, that's full. [1550 → 1553] . [1553 → 1555] Overflowing. [1555 → 1558] . [1558 → 1561] So now it gets easy. [1561 → 1562] . [1562 → 1564] Using these fundamental notions, [1564 → 1566] he goes on to show how these, [1566 → 1568] they explain the different expressions [1568 → 1570] that the Holy Scripture uses to speak [1570 → 1571] about the second person [1571 → 1573] of the Blessed Trinity. [1573 → 1574] . [1574 → 1575] And some of these we've seen before, [1575 → 1576] but now this doesn't, [1576 → 1578] again, it doesn't hurt to repeat them. [1578 → 1579] . [1579 → 1580] And it becomes easier as you, [1580 → 1581] it's like a language, [1581 → 1582] you learn to speak it [1582 → 1583] and it's just, [1583 → 1584] oh yeah, of course. [1584 → 1589] . [1589 → 1591] He starts with the text of St. Paul, [1591 → 1593] which calls him the image [1593 → 1594] of the invisible God. [1594 → 1595] . [1595 → 1596] We haven't gotten to that part yet, [1596 → 1597] that's Colossians. [1597 → 1598] . [1598 → 1599] We saw Hebrews, [1599 → 1601] but we'll get to Hebrews too. [1601 → 1604] . [1604 → 1606] The image of the invisible God. [1606 → 1608] . [1608 → 1610] Now the word interiorly conceived [1610 → 1611] is a kind of notion [1611 → 1613] and likeness [1613 → 1614] of the thing understood. [1614 → 1617] . [1617 → 1619] But a likeness of one thing [1619 → 1622] existing in another [1622 → 1625] is essentially an exemplar [1625 → 1627] if it stands to the other [1627 → 1628] as principle. [1628 → 1630] . [1630 → 1632] Or it is essentially an image [1632 → 1633] if it is related to that [1633 → 1635] whose likeness it is [1635 → 1636] as to a principle. [1636 → 1638] . [1638 → 1639] Okay, say, [1639 → 1640] so if you've got a likeness [1640 → 1641] of one thing [1641 → 1642] that's in another. [1642 → 1647] . [1647 → 1650] If this thing [1650 → 1651] is the principle [1651 → 1653] of the other thing, [1653 → 1654] then this likeness [1654 → 1655] is an exemplar [1655 → 1656] of the other thing. [1656 → 1657] . [1657 → 1659] Okay. [1659 → 1661] The two things are alike. [1661 → 1662] If this is the principle [1662 → 1663] of this thing, [1663 → 1665] then that likeness [1665 → 1668] is called an exemplar [1668 → 1670] of the other thing. [1670 → 1671] . [1671 → 1676] If this thing [1676 → 1677] is the principle [1677 → 1679] of the other thing, [1679 → 1681] then this becomes an image [1681 → 1682] of that thing. [1682 → 1683] . [1683 → 1684] Okay? [1684 → 1685] So you've got this likeness [1685 → 1686] in two things, [1686 → 1688] if this thing [1688 → 1689] is the principle [1689 → 1690] of that thing, [1690 → 1691] then this is an exemplar [1691 → 1692] of that other thing. [1692 → 1693] If this thing [1693 → 1694] is produced [1694 → 1695] by the other thing, [1695 → 1696] then this likeness [1696 → 1697] is an image [1697 → 1698] of the other thing. [1698 → 1702] . [1702 → 1704] Now, [1704 → 1705] in our intellect, [1705 → 1706] one sees an example [1706 → 1708] of each of these situations, [1708 → 1709] where since the likeness [1709 → 1710] of the artifact [1710 → 1711] existing in the mind [1711 → 1712] of the artist [1712 → 1713] is the principle [1713 → 1714] of operation [1714 → 1715] which constitutes [1715 → 1716] the artifact, [1716 → 1717] you know, [1717 → 1718] I have a mind, [1718 → 1719] I have an idea [1719 → 1720] in my mind [1720 → 1721] that I'm going [1721 → 1722] to make a table, [1722 → 1723] so I've got this idea [1723 → 1724] in my mind [1724 → 1725] of a table, [1725 → 1726] becomes the principle [1726 → 1727] of the table. [1727 → 1728] . [1728 → 1729] The likeness, [1729 → 1730] then, [1730 → 1731] in the mind [1731 → 1732] of the artist [1732 → 1733] is related [1733 → 1734] to the artifact [1734 → 1735] as an exemplar [1735 → 1736] to that exemplified. [1736 → 1737] . [1737 → 1738] The idea I had [1738 → 1739] becomes the example [1739 → 1740] according to which [1740 → 1741] I make the table. [1741 → 1742] . [1742 → 1743] So the table, [1743 → 1744] its likeness [1744 → 1745] is the principle [1745 → 1746] and its likeness [1746 → 1747] is, [1747 → 1748] in my mind, [1748 → 1749] is an exemplar [1749 → 1750] and in it [1750 → 1751] is an image. [1751 → 1754] . [1754 → 1755] But the likeness [1755 → 1756] of a natural thing [1756 → 1757] conceived [1757 → 1758] in our intellect [1758 → 1760] . [1760 → 1761] is related [1761 → 1762] to the thing [1762 → 1763] whose likeness [1763 → 1764] it is [1764 → 1765] as to a principle. [1765 → 1766] Like, okay, [1766 → 1767] this thing, [1767 → 1768] um, [1768 → 1769] this is the other [1769 → 1770] way around. [1770 → 1771] . [1771 → 1772] The likeness [1772 → 1773] of a natural thing [1773 → 1774] conceived in our intellect [1774 → 1775] is related to the thing [1775 → 1776] whose likeness [1776 → 1777] it is. [1777 → 1778] See, [1778 → 1779] the idea of the table, [1779 → 1780] when I know it, [1780 → 1781] the idea [1781 → 1782] is the principle [1782 → 1783] of the image [1783 → 1784] in my mind. [1784 → 1785] . [1785 → 1786] So there, [1786 → 1787] my idea [1787 → 1788] is an image. [1788 → 1789] . [1789 → 1790] Because [1790 → 1791] the principle [1791 → 1792] is here. [1792 → 1793] . [1793 → 1794] It's the tableness [1794 → 1795] which becomes [1795 → 1796] the principle [1796 → 1797] of the idea [1797 → 1798] in my mind. [1798 → 1799] . [1799 → 1800] Whereas when I make [1800 → 1801] a table, [1801 → 1802] it's the image, [1802 → 1803] the idea [1803 → 1804] in my mind [1804 → 1805] is the image. [1805 → 1808] . [1808 → 1809] Since, [1809 → 1810] however, [1810 → 1811] God understands [1811 → 1813] both himself [1813 → 1817] and other things, [1817 → 1822] his act of understanding [1822 → 1823] is the principle [1823 → 1824] of things understood [1824 → 1826] by him, [1826 → 1827] since they are caused [1827 → 1828] by his intellect [1828 → 1829] and will. [1829 → 1832] . [1832 → 1833] So, [1833 → 1834] right, [1834 → 1836] active understanding, [1836 → 1839] production of the word, [1839 → 1840] is the principle [1840 → 1841] of all these other things [1841 → 1842] that he makes, [1842 → 1843] just like the principle [1843 → 1844] in my mind [1844 → 1845] that made the table [1845 → 1846] is the principle, [1846 → 1847] exemplar of all these things [1847 → 1848] that I make. [1848 → 1849] So, [1849 → 1850] I'm saying with God, [1850 → 1851] to compare [1851 → 1852] the things [1852 → 1853] made by God [1853 → 1854] to this [1854 → 1855] active understanding [1855 → 1856] which is his word, [1856 → 1857] then the word [1857 → 1858] is the [1858 → 1859] exemplar [1859 → 1860] of the things [1860 → 1861] that are made. [1861 → 1862] . [1862 → 1863] . [1863 → 1868] But, [1868 → 1871] this active understanding, [1871 → 1872] if it is referred [1872 → 1873] to the intelligible [1873 → 1877] which is himself, [1877 → 1878] and not to the things [1878 → 1881] he makes, [1881 → 1883] then it's referred to, [1883 → 1884] it's referred to him [1884 → 1885] as a principle [1885 → 1886] and not [1886 → 1888] as an exemplar. [1888 → 1889] When he makes something [1889 → 1890] according to his word, [1890 → 1891] well, the word is an exemplar [1891 → 1892] for those things. [1892 → 1893] But, when it's a matter [1893 → 1894] of this word [1894 → 1895] compared to God [1895 → 1896] understanding himself, [1896 → 1899] well, the principle is God. [1899 → 1900] So, this thing is [1900 → 1902] an image, [1902 → 1903] if it's referred [1903 → 1904] to God [1904 → 1905] knowing himself. [1905 → 1908] And that's what he's saying. [1908 → 1913] I'll say that again. [1913 → 1914] His active understanding [1914 → 1915] is a principle [1915 → 1917] of things understood by him, [1917 → 1918] sincere cause [1918 → 1919] by his intellect, [1919 → 1920] but it is referred [1920 → 1921] to the intelligible [1921 → 1922] which is himself, [1922 → 1924] as to a principle. [1924 → 1925] For this intelligible [1925 → 1927] is identified [1927 → 1928] with the intellect [1928 → 1930] understanding [1930 → 1931] of which the word [1931 → 1932] conceived [1932 → 1934] as a certain emanation. [1934 → 1935] That is, [1935 → 1936] the intellect understanding [1936 → 1942] produces the word. [1942 → 1943] So, the word [1943 → 1946] isn't the principle anymore. [1946 → 1947] It's the fruit [1947 → 1949] of the understanding. [1949 → 1951] And so, it's the image. [1952 → 1953] You know, [1953 → 1954] the word, [1954 → 1955] that's exactly [1955 → 1956] what the word is. [1956 → 1957] It's the picture of God. [1957 → 1958] It's God's knowledge [1958 → 1959] of himself. [1959 → 1960] Excuse the word. [1960 → 1961] I mean, [1961 → 1962] this is silly, [1962 → 1963] but a selfie. [1963 → 1964] Yuck. [1964 → 1965] But, that's [1965 → 1966] not bad [1966 → 1967] as an example. [1967 → 1968] But, you see, [1968 → 1969] the picture comes [1969 → 1970] from God [1970 → 1971] understanding [1971 → 1972] himself. [1972 → 1973] So, [1973 → 1974] the word [1974 → 1975] is God's [1975 → 1976] knowledge [1976 → 1977] of himself. [1977 → 1978] Excuse the word. [1978 → 1979] I mean, [1979 → 1980] this is silly, [1980 → 1981] but a selfie. [1981 → 1982] The picture comes [1982 → 1983] from what he's [1983 → 1984] looking at, [1984 → 1985] which is himself, [1985 → 1986] in that case. [1986 → 1987] If he's knowing [1987 → 1988] the world, [1988 → 1989] then this word [1989 → 1990] is the principle. [1990 → 1991] But, compared [1991 → 1992] to God, [1992 → 1993] it's an image. [1993 → 1994] It's the image. [1994 → 1995] It's the reflection [1995 → 1996] of what we saw [1996 → 1997] with Saint Paul, [1997 → 1998] right? [1998 → 1999] It's the reflection. [1999 → 2000] He's the mirror. [2000 → 2001] That's who he is. [2001 → 2002] Okay, [2002 → 2003] so, [2003 → 2004] therefore, [2004 → 2005] the word [2005 → 2006] of God [2006 → 2007] must be referred [2007 → 2008] to the other [2008 → 2009] things understood [2009 → 2010] by God [2010 → 2011] as exemplar, [2011 → 2012] and he must be [2012 → 2013] referred to [2013 → 2014] God himself, [2014 → 2015] whose word [2015 → 2016] he is, [2016 → 2017] as image. [2017 → 2018] Hence, [2018 → 2019] one reads [2019 → 2020] of the word [2020 → 2021] of God [2021 → 2022] in Colossians [2022 → 2023] that he is [2023 → 2024] the image [2024 → 2025] of the invisible [2025 → 2026] God. [2026 → 2027] And we'll see [2027 → 2028] that text [2028 → 2029] tomorrow [2029 → 2030] of Saint Paul. [2032 → 2033] Then he explains, [2033 → 2034] Saint Thomas [2034 → 2035] goes on [2035 → 2036] to explain [2036 → 2037] the text [2037 → 2038] we saw [2038 → 2039] this morning [2039 → 2040] in Hebrews, [2040 → 2041] 1 to 3, [2041 → 2042] where he's called [2042 → 2043] the figure [2043 → 2044] of the substance [2044 → 2045] of God. [2045 → 2046] Now, [2046 → 2047] there is [2047 → 2048] a difference [2048 → 2049] between intellect [2049 → 2050] and sense. [2050 → 2051] For sense [2051 → 2052] apprehends [2052 → 2053] a thing [2053 → 2054] in its exterior [2054 → 2055] accidents, [2055 → 2056] which are [2056 → 2057] color, [2057 → 2058] taste, [2058 → 2059] quantity, [2059 → 2060] and others [2060 → 2061] of this kind. [2061 → 2062] But intellect [2062 → 2063] enters into [2063 → 2064] what is interior [2064 → 2065] to the thing. [2065 → 2066] You know, [2066 → 2067] you know [2067 → 2068] the essence [2068 → 2069] of the thing, [2069 → 2070] and since [2070 → 2071] every knowledge [2071 → 2072] is perfected [2072 → 2073] by the likeness [2073 → 2074] between knower [2074 → 2075] and the known, [2075 → 2076] there must be [2076 → 2077] in the sense [2077 → 2078] a likeness [2078 → 2079] of the sensible [2079 → 2080] thing [2080 → 2081] with regard [2081 → 2082] to its sensible [2082 → 2083] accidents. [2088 → 2089] You know, [2089 → 2090] you see [2090 → 2091] the color [2091 → 2092] that you see [2092 → 2093] is actually [2093 → 2094] what's there. [2094 → 2096] It's an image. [2096 → 2098] It's a likeness. [2099 → 2101] But, [2101 → 2102] with regard [2102 → 2103] to sense, [2103 → 2104] it's a likeness [2104 → 2105] of the sensible [2105 → 2106] accident. [2106 → 2107] In the intellect, [2107 → 2108] however, [2108 → 2109] there must be [2109 → 2110] a similitude [2110 → 2111] of the thing [2111 → 2112] with regard [2112 → 2113] to its essence. [2113 → 2114] Okay, [2114 → 2115] because knowledge [2115 → 2116] is this idea [2116 → 2117] of correspondence, [2117 → 2118] right? [2118 → 2119] So, [2119 → 2120] if sense knowledge [2120 → 2121] is a correspondence [2121 → 2122] to the exterior [2122 → 2123] accident, [2123 → 2124] if it's [2124 → 2125] intellectual knowledge, [2125 → 2126] it's correspondence [2126 → 2127] according to [2127 → 2128] the essence [2128 → 2129] of the thing. [2129 → 2131] Therefore, [2131 → 2132] the word [2132 → 2133] conceived [2133 → 2134] in the intellect [2134 → 2135] is the image [2135 → 2136] or exemplar [2137 → 2138] of the substance [2138 → 2139] of the thing [2139 → 2140] understood. [2144 → 2145] Right? [2145 → 2146] If you look [2146 → 2147] at it [2147 → 2148] with regard [2148 → 2149] to creatures, [2149 → 2150] well, [2150 → 2151] then it's [2151 → 2152] the exemplar [2152 → 2153] of the thing, [2153 → 2154] of the substance [2154 → 2155] of the thing. [2155 → 2156] But, [2156 → 2157] if it's [2157 → 2158] with regard [2158 → 2159] to God, [2159 → 2160] then it's [2160 → 2161] the image [2161 → 2162] of the substance [2162 → 2163] of the thing, [2163 → 2164] of the substance [2164 → 2165] of the thing, [2165 → 2166] which is [2166 → 2167] why, [2167 → 2168] then, [2168 → 2169] since then [2169 → 2170] the word [2170 → 2171] of God [2171 → 2172] is the image [2172 → 2173] of God, [2173 → 2174] which he [2174 → 2175] just explained, [2175 → 2176] it is necessary [2176 → 2177] that the image [2177 → 2178] of God [2178 → 2179] in his, [2179 → 2180] it is necessary [2180 → 2181] the image [2181 → 2182] of God [2182 → 2183] in his essence, [2183 → 2184] because that's [2184 → 2185] what intellectual [2185 → 2186] knowledge is, [2186 → 2187] it's of the essence. [2187 → 2188] So, [2188 → 2189] it's an image [2189 → 2190] of his essence, [2190 → 2191] not just an image [2191 → 2192] of exterior actions, [2192 → 2193] it's an image [2193 → 2194] of his actions, [2194 → 2195] and that's why [2195 → 2196] Saint Paul says [2196 → 2197] he's the figure [2197 → 2198] of his substance. [2198 → 2199] He's explaining [2199 → 2200] that term. [2200 → 2201] The figure, [2201 → 2202] the caractere, [2202 → 2203] we saw the word, [2203 → 2204] of his [2204 → 2205] . [2205 → 2206] It's not, [2206 → 2207] not just, [2207 → 2208] it's of his [2208 → 2209] essence. [2209 → 2210] So, [2210 → 2211] the sun [2211 → 2212] is the [2212 → 2213] essence [2213 → 2214] of the [2214 → 2215] essence [2215 → 2216] of God. [2216 → 2217] So, [2217 → 2218] the sun [2218 → 2219] is the figure, [2219 → 2220] the representation, [2220 → 2221] the caractere, [2221 → 2222] the expression, [2222 → 2223] the image [2223 → 2224] of the [2224 → 2225] essence [2225 → 2226] of God, [2226 → 2227] of his [2227 → 2228] substance, [2228 → 2229] the figure [2229 → 2230] of his [2230 → 2231] substance. [2231 → 2232] And that's [2232 → 2233] why he's [2233 → 2234] equal to [2234 → 2235] God, [2235 → 2236] because he's [2236 → 2237] the perfect [2237 → 2238] likeness [2238 → 2239] of that [2239 → 2240] substance, [2240 → 2241] to be a perfect [2241 → 2242] likeness, [2242 → 2243] to be able to [2243 → 2244] really express [2244 → 2245] what he is, [2245 → 2246] to be the knowledge [2246 → 2247] of what he is. [2247 → 2248] He wouldn't [2248 → 2249] really know. [2249 → 2250] He wouldn't [2250 → 2251] attain him [2251 → 2252] as he [2252 → 2253] is. [2253 → 2254] So, [2254 → 2255] to attain him [2255 → 2256] as he [2256 → 2257] is, [2257 → 2258] it has to be [2258 → 2259] perfect, [2259 → 2260] equal. [2260 → 2261] So, [2261 → 2262] the [2262 → 2263] Aryans [2263 → 2264] are [2264 → 2265] wrong. [2265 → 2266] The [2266 → 2267] sun [2267 → 2268] is equal [2268 → 2269] to the [2269 → 2270] Father, [2270 → 2271] or he [2271 → 2272] wouldn't [2272 → 2273] be [2273 → 2274] the [2274 → 2275] Word. [2275 → 2276] He [2276 → 2277] then [2277 → 2278] distinguishes [2278 → 2279] the [2279 → 2280] notion [2280 → 2281] of [2281 → 2282] image. [2282 → 2283] For [2283 → 2284] first, [2284 → 2285] there's [2285 → 2286] the image [2286 → 2287] that does [2287 → 2288] not share [2288 → 2289] the nature [2289 → 2290] of that [2290 → 2291] of which [2291 → 2292] is an [2292 → 2293] image, [2293 → 2294] whether it [2294 → 2295] be an [2295 → 2296] image with [2296 → 2297] respect to [2297 → 2298] exterior [2298 → 2299] accidents, [2299 → 2300] like the [2300 → 2301] statue [2301 → 2302] of a [2302 → 2303] man, [2303 → 2304] which [2304 → 2305] is [2305 → 2306] a concept [2306 → 2307] which is [2307 → 2308] a likeness [2308 → 2309] of his [2309 → 2310] essential [2310 → 2311] nature, [2311 → 2312] but it [2312 → 2313] doesn't [2313 → 2314] share in [2314 → 2315] his [2315 → 2316] nature. [2316 → 2317] Obviously, [2317 → 2318] it's just a [2318 → 2319] concept, [2319 → 2320] but it's [2320 → 2321] a concept, [2321 → 2322] it's a [2322 → 2323] likeness [2323 → 2324] of his [2324 → 2325] nature, [2325 → 2326] not just [2326 → 2327] an exterior [2327 → 2328] accident, [2328 → 2329] like a [2329 → 2330] statue [2330 → 2331] of the [2331 → 2332] man. [2332 → 2333] However, [2333 → 2334] it is [2334 → 2335] an image [2335 → 2336] to actually [2336 → 2337] share [2337 → 2338] the nature [2338 → 2339] of that [2339 → 2340] of which [2340 → 2341] it is [2341 → 2342] an image. [2342 → 2343] If you [2343 → 2344] had a [2344 → 2345] concept [2345 → 2346] of a [2346 → 2347] man, [2347 → 2348] which [2348 → 2349] is [2349 → 2350] on a [2350 → 2351] level [2351 → 2352] of nature, [2352 → 2353] that was [2353 → 2354] also [2354 → 2355] shared [2355 → 2356] in the [2356 → 2357] nature [2357 → 2358] of the [2358 → 2359] man, [2359 → 2360] then it [2360 → 2361] wouldn't [2361 → 2362] be [2362 → 2363] just [2363 → 2364] an image. [2364 → 2365] It would [2365 → 2366] be a [2366 → 2367] son, [2367 → 2368] because it [2368 → 2369] would be [2369 → 2370] a likeness, [2370 → 2371] but it [2371 → 2372] would be a [2372 → 2373] likeness that [2373 → 2374] shares in [2374 → 2375] the nature [2375 → 2376] of that [2376 → 2377] of which [2377 → 2378] is a [2378 → 2379] likeness, [2379 → 2380] and that's [2380 → 2381] what a [2381 → 2382] son is, [2382 → 2383] something [2383 → 2384] that's [2384 → 2385] like [2385 → 2386] its [2386 → 2387] principle, [2387 → 2388] and it [2388 → 2389] shares [2389 → 2390] its [2390 → 2391] nature [2391 → 2392] and its [2392 → 2393] principle. [2393 → 2394] It goes on to [2394 → 2395] apply this to [2395 → 2396] the word [2396 → 2397] and show why [2397 → 2398] he's called [2398 → 2399] the son. [2399 → 2400] This word [2400 → 2401] is an image, [2401 → 2402] it's a [2402 → 2403] likeness, [2403 → 2404] but it's [2404 → 2405] also an image [2405 → 2406] that shares [2406 → 2407] in the [2407 → 2408] nature [2408 → 2409] of that [2409 → 2410] of which [2410 → 2411] it is [2411 → 2412] a likeness, [2412 → 2413] that's [2413 → 2414] why [2414 → 2415] it's [2415 → 2416] called [2416 → 2417] son, [2417 → 2418] is what [2418 → 2419] you're [2419 → 2420] going [2420 → 2421] to [2421 → 2422] say. [2422 → 2423] The image [2423 → 2424] of a [2424 → 2425] son [2425 → 2426] is more, [2426 → 2427] but the [2427 → 2428] image of [2428 → 2429] a [2429 → 2430] thing [2430 → 2431] which has [2431 → 2432] the same [2432 → 2433] nature [2433 → 2434] without [2434 → 2435] whose image [2435 → 2436] it is, [2436 → 2437] is like [2437 → 2438] the son [2438 → 2439] of a [2439 → 2440] king. [2440 → 2441] In him, [2441 → 2442] the image [2442 → 2443] of his [2443 → 2444] father appears [2444 → 2445] and is [2445 → 2446] the same [2446 → 2447] in nature [2447 → 2448] as his [2448 → 2449] father. [2449 → 2450] Now it [2450 → 2451] was shown [2451 → 2452] in common [2452 → 2453] with the [2453 → 2454] one who [2454 → 2455] speaks [2455 → 2456] the same [2456 → 2457] nature. [2457 → 2458] The conclusion [2458 → 2459] therefore is [2459 → 2460] that the [2460 → 2461] word is [2461 → 2462] not only [2462 → 2463] image, [2463 → 2464] but also [2464 → 2465] son. [2465 → 2466] For so to [2466 → 2467] be one's [2467 → 2468] image is [2468 → 2469] to be of [2469 → 2470] the same [2470 → 2471] nature [2471 → 2472] with him [2472 → 2473] is not [2473 → 2474] found in [2474 → 2475] one who [2475 → 2476] cannot be [2476 → 2477] called a [2477 → 2478] son, [2478 → 2479] so long [2479 → 2480] as we [2480 → 2481] are not [2481 → 2482] called [2482 → 2483] sons. [2483 → 2484] The [2484 → 2485] word [2485 → 2486] is [2486 → 2487] not [2487 → 2488] the [2488 → 2489] same [2489 → 2490] as [2490 → 2491] the [2491 → 2492] word [2492 → 2493] son. [2493 → 2494] The [2494 → 2495] word [2495 → 2496] son [2496 → 2497] is [2497 → 2498] not [2498 → 2499] the [2499 → 2500] same [2500 → 2501] as [2501 → 2502] the [2502 → 2503] word [2503 → 2504] son. [2504 → 2505] The [2505 → 2506] word [2506 → 2507] son [2507 → 2508] is [2508 → 2509] the [2509 → 2510] origin [2510 → 2511] of [2511 → 2512] the [2512 → 2513] word. [2513 → 2514] Son [2514 → 2515] is [2515 → 2516] the [2516 → 2517] origin [2517 → 2518] of [2518 → 2519] God. [2519 → 2520] Son [2520 → 2521] is [2521 → 2522] the [2522 → 2523] origin [2523 → 2524] of [2524 → 2525] the [2525 → 2526] word [2526 → 2527] son. [2527 → 2528] That's [2528 → 2529] what [2529 → 2530] the [2530 → 2531] word [2531 → 2532] son [2532 → 2533] means. [2533 → 2534] The [2534 → 2535] word [2535 → 2536] is [2536 → 2537] a [2537 → 2538] deep [2538 → 2542] Okay, one last [2542 → 2545] stage. I mean, he goes on, but I think we have to stop. [2551 → 2552] This new name of [2552 → 2556] son leads to another consideration, for it implies that the procession [2556 → 2558] of the word must be natural. [2562 → 2564] It's not just something he thought up [2564 → 2565] one day, well, I think I'll do this. [2568 → 2571] It's not something he wills to do. It's natural. [2574 → 2576] Creation wasn't natural, it's something God [2576 → 2580] decided, but he didn't decide to have a son. It's natural. [2583 → 2584] And that agrees [2584 → 2588] with what we said about the word's intellectual procession, because that's not [2588 → 2592] chosen. God is, by his nature, intellectual. [2593 → 2595] He doesn't choose to have a word. [2596 → 2598] It's his nature to have a word. [2598 → 2604] Well, St. Thomas explains and goes on to show how this [2604 → 2607] leads to the notion of generation. We talk about [2607 → 2612] unigenitus. He's the only begotten [2612 → 2615] son. That's in scripture, too. [2617 → 2620] And this notion of generation includes both [2620 → 2624] procession, enlightness, and [2624 → 2628] identity of nature. He explains. [2628 → 2632] St. Thomas. Manifestly, however, God understands [2632 → 2636] himself naturally, just as he is naturally, because his [2636 → 2640] understanding is not different from his being. He would just keep saying the same thing. [2640 → 2641] It's simple. [2645 → 2647] For his act of understanding [2647 → 2652] is his being. There's no [2652 → 2656] difference. Really. It's the same thing. [2658 → 2663] But it is an act of understanding. [2663 → 2667] As well as being an act of being. [2667 → 2670] But it's the same thing. [2670 → 2681] Therefore, the word of God, understanding himself, naturally proceeds from him. [2682 → 2683] And since the [2683 → 2686] word of God is of the same nature as God speaking, and his like-mindedness is of the same nature, [2686 → 2688] God speaks. [2688 → 2694] and his likeness, it follows that this natural procession be unto a likeness of him [2694 → 2699] from whom there is a procession in identity of nature. [2702 → 2705] Natural procession be unto a likeness of him [2705 → 2709] from whom there is a procession in identity of nature. [2710 → 2716] Therefore, but, excuse me, but the essence of true generation and living thing [2716 → 2721] consists in the fact that what is generated proceeds from him who generates as his likeness [2721 → 2724] and is identified with him in his nature. [2725 → 2727] That's what generation is. [2729 → 2730] It's a likeness. [2730 → 2732] It proceeds in identity of nature. [2734 → 2738] Therefore, the word of God is truly begotten by God speaking. [2741 → 2744] And his proceeding can be called generation. [2744 → 2746] Or birth. [2748 → 2750] This is why the psalmist says, [2750 → 2753] this day have I begotten you. [2756 → 2758] That is, in eternity. [2759 → 2763] Which is always present and in which there is no notion of past or future. [2763 → 2764] That's this day. [2766 → 2767] Odie. [2772 → 2773] Which is eternity. [2773 → 2773] There's no. [2774 → 2775] There's no tomorrow. [2776 → 2777] There's no yesterday. [2777 → 2778] It's all today. [2784 → 2788] Thus it is clear that the Arians erred in saying that the father generated his son by his will. [2788 → 2791] For things which are by will are not natural things. [2791 → 2792] Okay. [2792 → 2793] So, so much for the Arians. [2796 → 2798] Okay, let's shoot. [2799 → 2800] Yeah, for now. [2804 → 2808] Hmm. [2814 → 2815] Yeah. [2815 → 2816] Jewel. [2817 → 2818] Alumnus Sanctus. [2819 → 2822] You [2823 → 2826] Yeah. [2827 → 2832] Um [2832 → 2834] mm hmm. [2834 → 2834] Mm hm. [2834 → 2834] Mm hmm. [2834 → 2864] Thank you.