Tertia Pars
Lecture 95: The Holy Spirit's Descent at Christ's Baptism

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

To the sixth, one goes forward thus. It seems that, unsuitably right, the Holy Spirit is said to what? Descend upon Christ baptized in the form of a what? Dove. I guess that's what I translate, Columbo. For the first objection. For the Holy Spirit dwells in man by grace. But in the man Christ, there was the fullness of grace from the very beginning of his conception in which he was the only begotten from the Father as has been said above. Therefore, he is full of grace and truth in St. John says, right? Therefore, the Holy Spirit ought not to have been sent to him in what? Baptism. He wasn't getting grace at that time, was he? No. Moreover, Christ is said to have what? Come down into the world by the mystery of the Incarnation when he emptied himself, taking on the form of a what? Slave, right? He's in the form of God, right? That's a very nice text for us philosophers, you know, because we use the word form sometimes for the nature of a thing, no? So scripture has it the same way of speaking. But the Holy Spirit was not, what? Incarnate, huh? Therefore, it seems to be said unsolubed that the Holy Spirit came down, huh? There's a difference there between the Holy Spirit and man, right? Moreover, in the baptism of Christ ought to be shown as in an exemplar, right, in a model. That which comes about in our baptism. But in our baptism, there does not come about some visible mission of the, what? The Holy Spirit. Therefore, neither in the baptism of Christ ought there to come about a visible sending of the Holy Spirit. She was kind of, I think, sleepy that day, you know, so I shouldn't make any fusser or muster. Moreover, the Holy Spirit is, what? Derived from Christ to all others, huh? As is said in the Gospel of John, chapter 1, of his fullness we have all received. But the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles, not in the form of a dove, but in the form of, what? Fire. Therefore, neither upon Christ ought he to have descended in the form of a dove, but rather in the form of, what? Fire. Against all this is said in Luke, chapter 3, that the Holy Spirit came down in a bodily species as a dove upon him, right? Now, he says, Thomas says, I am sure it should be said that this was done about Christ in his baptism, as Chrysostom says, what was done pertains to the mystery, right, of all those who afterwards would be, what? Baptized, huh? But all who are baptized by baptism of Christ receive the Holy Spirit, right? Unless they accede to this in a fictitious way, huh? According to that of Matthew 3, where John, he just says about Christ's baptism as opposed to his, that he will baptize you in the Holy Spirit. And so we're trying to show this about what's going to happen to us in our baptism like this, and therefore it's suitable that upon the Lord baptized, the Holy Spirit descends, because that's what he's going to do when we are baptized, right? Is this a little Nisi cosmic? Or is it just like if they're, it is sort of referred to people that are, unless they're pretending they want to be baptized? Yeah, yeah. They don't really believe it, yeah. It's going through the motions, yeah. Sacrilege, right? Okay. Or if they just, they've painted, like an example is after St. Thomas' time, but I think there was one in Spain who had a lot of Jews who would fame becoming Christians so that they wouldn't make it to another country. But that doesn't really force that because they may have come on their own accord, but they weren't even on that. Inquisition, is that what's around? To the first, therefore, it should be said that as Augustine says in the 15th book about the Trinity, absurdissimo best, it is most absurd, right? To say that Christ, when he was already of 30 years, right? Already 30 years old, to have accepted or received the Holy Spirit, right? But he came to baptism just as without sin, so also not without the, what? The Holy Spirit. For if it has been written about John, even, that he was filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb of his mother, what should be said about the man Christ, huh? Whose flesh, conception of whose flesh was not carnal or bodily or fleshly, but was what's spiritual by the Holy Spirit himself, huh? Now, therefore, that is in baptism, his body, that is the church, right? Was thought worthy to be, what? Prefigured, right, huh? In which those baptized especially received the, what? Holy Spirit, huh? Kind of subtle, right, huh? So the Holy Spirit comes down upon Christ, baptizing him as a sign that he's coming down upon his spirit, his mystical body, right? The church, right? When they are baptized, right? Not that he is receiving grace down the Holy Spirit for the first time, or even, you know, abundance or something, right? He already has that, huh? You know, it's a little off, but I was thinking, you know, about those two ways of dividing the articles of faith, and one is into three, according to the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, and the other is according to the man, the divinity of Christ, right? And both divisions are good, right? And that's our purpose. But which is more appropriate to theology, which is more the science? Which is more appropriate to theology, those two divisions? Well, I'm going to argue for the other, right? Because in the other, you know, for example, you take the six articles dealing with the divinity of Christ, and the way purpose divides them, right? It's improvement upon the two medieval ones. You have one article about the divine nature, right? Then two articles about the Trinity, one about the distinction between the Father and the Son, proceeding with the Son from the Father, and then one for the Holy Spirit, right? Proceding from the Father and the Son. And then you have three dealing with the works of God, right? And the creation, right? And then the sanctification of souls, and then the clarification of them, right? Okay, then. Well, in the... In order to follow the division according to the Trinity, though, right, you have to put creation with the Father and sanctification and glorification with the Holy Spirit. And that's by appropriation, as they call it, remember that particular thing? And there's a reason for appropriation, and there's something appropriate about it, as a way of understanding, you know, the more known or less known to the more known, to us, right? But it's not as, what, as fundamental, right? In other words, you know, is creation a work of God the Father as distinct from the God the Son, God the Holy Spirit? Or is glorification, you know, a work of the Holy Spirit as distinct from the Father and the Son? No, you've got to explain, well, no, we're appropriating that, but is in fact a work of the whole Trinity? And that's respected more in the division into what? Two, yeah. And so I can assume there, you know, you take up creation, it's taken up not with God the Father, but after you've taken up the whole Trinity, and now you're talking about the works of God, creation, and so on, right? So it seems to me that the division into two is more, what, theological, right? More appropriate to the discussion of these things in science, huh? Because it's more fundamental in a sense to an understanding of creation to know that it's a work of the whole Trinity than that it's appropriate to the Father, although that's good to know, too, obviously, right? But appropriation doesn't mean that it's a work of the Father as a distinction of the two. It's really a work of the whole Trinity here, a work of the divine, by the divine nature, which is common to the three. So a sign of what I'm saying, then, is that in the theological works, like Thomas' Summa, you're really following the division more into two than into, what, three, right? And it's kind of striking because the prima pars of the Summa is about God, divine nature, the Trinity, and then the apparitions, right? And then the tertiary pars here is more about the human nature of Christ, huh? I think the Athanasian Creed follows that division, right? And the one right before Thomas there, in the fourth ladder of the Council, right, it has that division into two. It just reminds me, when speaking about meditation, the things that we should think about in the meditation, I think I'd like to recommend three things. Think about God and His works, about your soul and His work, those two things, God and your soul. That's pretty much covered everything. Because in a sense, you're going to explain, you know, the creed, when you divide it into three. You say, well, I believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth. Someone might say, well, He created things, and others two didn't, right? And in order to understand it, you have to say, well, we're appropriating, right, what is in fact a work of the whole Trinity. We're appropriating it to the Father as a way of manifesting something about the Father through what is more known to us, right? Well, it's kind of complicated to do that, right, huh? But it's kind of interesting that the creed, you know, does that. It was our reading in the, I said it was in here or somewhere. I guess it was here. But in the thing on the Gospels, too, what about Christ being 30 years old, huh? What Augustine says, right? Well, 30 is three times, what, 10. And so he says, the whole Christian life consists in, what, believing in the Trinity, right? And then obeying the Ten Commandments. That's the whole thing. And that shows perfection of Christ at the age of 30, right? I think it's beautiful, I think. You know? But it just, there you have the division of the three, right? It's beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, he said, I think. Dogmatic theology and moral theology, right? What that division. Okay. So, I guess to a primum there, what's most absurd, right? We're just finished. Finished that, okay. So the second one is, what about this going down, right? Okay. And of course, this is a nice distinction between the Father, between the Son and the Holy Spirit, right? The Son is really said to descend because he really does become a man, right? But the Holy Spirit doesn't become a dove, right? To leave the Lord descendant. To become a dove. So, he doesn't, you know, then we said to go down, right? Well, why is he said to come down then? On Christ, huh? But to the second, it should be said, and then as Augustine says in the second book about the Trinity, the Holy Spirit is said to come down, right? Upon Christ in a, what, bodily form as a dove, right? Not because the substance of the Holy Spirit itself is seen, which is, what? Invisible. Nor, again, that that visible creature was taken on in the unity of a divine person. Just as it is said, huh? Nor is it said that the Holy Spirit is a dove, as it's said that Christ, the Son of God, is a man by reason of the union, right? Nor in this way is the Holy Spirit seen in the form of a dove as John saw the lamb killed in the Apocalypse, right? As it's had in Apocalypse 5, 6. That vision was made in the spirit through spiritual images of bodies, huh? But about that dove, no one ever doubted but that it was seen by what? By eyes, yeah, huh? It wasn't in the imagination, right? It was to the exterior eye, right? Nor in this way does the Holy Spirit appear in the form of a dove as it's said in 1 Corinthians 10 that the rock was Christ, huh? For that was already, what? In the creature and by way of its action was, what? Given the name of Christ, right? Which is signified, huh? But this dove, only to signifying something suddenly, right? Or all at once, it existed and then afterwards, what? Ceased to be, right, huh? Just as the flame which appeared in the bush to, what? Moses, right? It was shortly. The Holy Spirit, therefore, is said to descend upon Christ not by reason of any union to the, what? Dove. But either by reason of the dove signifying the Holy Spirit which came, what? Christ. Or by reason of spiritual grace which from God in a certain way, by way of a certain descent, right? comes down to the, what? Yeah. There's a beautiful quote there, right? From James 1.17. Every perfect gift and every perfect, everything perfect given, every perfect gift. Every gift comes down, right? These are some myths. Coming down from the Father of what? Lights, huh? So the natural light of reason and the light of, what? Grace, right? And the light of glory and so on. All these lights come. They're coming down from the Father because they, what? Are less full in us, right? Than they are in the Father, right? Or in God. Sense? I like that text, you know, for the fact that it's talking about the, what? The best gifts, it seems, right? Yeah. And they're coming down from the Father of lights. That kind of indicates, well, these lights are, what? The greatest gifts, huh? I mean, I do it too much as a thinker, you know? The light of reason, the light of, but sometimes light is taken for things besides the light of reason, right? Those things very much so, right? Um, now why doesn't it come about one in ours, you know? I mean, you just see, I didn't see the, can we down upon this little one here? Yeah. Yeah, I have to be, because I just noticed, did you notice the volume of Aristotle here in the corner? I'm pretty sure it's the Aristotle volume. That McKee on the side? On the edge there? Yeah, I don't think, yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's an addition of Aristotle there. It's like, a little bit, huh? It looks like that McKee would be. So she didn't have a dove, she had a volume of Aristotle drop on her. Poor kid having a volume of Aristotle. Pretty heavy, pretty heavy. Wham! Wham, yeah. All these little girls, they take their turn holding the baby, you know? They're pretty good, actually. I mean, it makes them a little bit nervous, you know? But, I mean, they're pretty well trained by now. I mean, they get an experience that each baby that comes along. Did their mom make the dresses, by the way? I don't know if she did or not. I don't see mixes. Maybe he had friends. Yeah. There's an old dog that tries to be crazy. Oh, I didn't even notice the dog. The dog is there. I can't see it now, yeah. It's kind of funny, you know? The dog would come and, you know, talk to me, you know? I'm sitting in the room there, you know? You want to be affectionate with him, you know? Really? Yeah. And he'd roll on. His dog showed, you know, it's kind of a way of smitting to you, you know? And so on. A dog is so different than a cat. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah, we know. But it's kind of remarkable the way a dog is really, you know, wants human companionship. Right, yeah, yeah. And the way that they get a certain attachment to it. My son now, I think today, he's going off to Saudi Arabia for about three or four weeks, you know? When he comes back, that dog would be crazy. He'd go crazy, you know? Oh, yeah. You know, he's not that crazy about the dog. Yeah, yeah. That's the way it was when my dad was working when we were kids. And he would come home for the dog. He'd go for a shark when he came home. Well, after he was home, I don't know, the dog is so loud. You know, he wasn't particularly effective or anything. But when he came home from work, he just, oh, the dog went out of his mind. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Pet him in, you know, he'd do this for a long time, you know, for the dog. Yeah, he's shaking. He's shaking. He can't get over his hair. Of course, my dad would get a lot excited to me. He'd say, oh, oh, oh. I'm talking, you know, all excited. Yeah. Well, you know, the kings of England, they had that lion. And we're down to the third objection was about us, right? But we have this. To the first, it should be said that as Chrysostom says upon Matthew. That's what he's going to get prayers for, was it? Chrysostom on Matthew? I don't think it was, wasn't it? I thought it was on John, but I could have. Oh, maybe it was John, yeah. It was one of those. Either way. Thomas thought that was a good trade. Paris for it. I thought it was a good sense of proportion either way. Yeah, yeah. What that French king, you know, that has maybe a false conversion, I don't know, you know, but he's supposed to have said Paris is worth a mass, yeah. Oh, really? Yeah, kind of a cynical statement, right? Which king was that? Oh, really? The Protestant Reformation? Navarre. Emory and Navarre. Well, Thomas was the same kind. He's rich for it, you know. Chrysostom is worth it. It's worth a Paris. Either one. One or the other. Paris isn't worth both of them. So, Chrysostom says upon Matthew that, in the beginnings of spiritual things, right, always there appear, what? Sensible visions, huh? On account of those who are not able to, what? Yeah, any understanding of the bodiless nature, right? So that, if they do not come about afterwards, huh? From those things that at one time are done, they can receive, what? Faith, huh? I remember seeing, you know, the Ten Commandments there, Cecil de Mille, you know, and you see that when you were little? I think so. And, you know, when the Ten Commandments are being written, right? You've got a fire, you know? And then it goes like that, and it wasn't a thing, you know? And so, yeah, it's kind of a long movie. I guess there was like a break there, you know, you go out to the men's room like that. But, so, during the break, I got on the men's room there, and there's a guy here in the room right there, and he says, gee, he says, it makes you really think, you know? Like, this is an awful important thing, you know? And I thought to myself, you know, and this was good for this man, right? I mean, to me, being kind of a sophisticated guy, that doesn't do too much, you know? But, he made a good effect in that sensible way of thought, by sensible of the world, right? Yeah, yeah. And, so I said, yes, yeah, I just, you know, I tried to be as serious I could to be about it, you know? Even though I was not as struck as he was, you know? He was, right, you know? He was struck by it. So, I made a big impression upon him. It's kind of interesting, how it affects him like that. I think it reminds me that Father Wagner said when, oh, you talk about it, I don't know. Well, somehow we got on a rocket ship and said, this is one of my children. We're talking about the space shuttle and going to the moon and all this stuff. One of the kids, you know, being really impressed with going to the moon and the spaceship and stuff. He says, what do you think, Father, what do you think the angels think about us going to the moon? He said, they're probably not too impressed. And, therefore, about Christ baptized, the Holy Spirit, in a visible way, descended in a, what, bodily form, that upon all those baptized afterwards, he might be believed to, what, descend invisibly, right? And then the fourth one, well, it's a long apply to the fourth ejection. I'll let that break here. Before we look at the fourth ejection, okay. We're in the fourth section here, right? This is about the wise appear under the dove rather than fire. To the fourth, it should be said that the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove upon Christ baptized for four reasons, huh? Did you know that? First, on account of the disposition that's required in the one baptized, that he do not proceed, what, fictitiously, huh? Non ficto seccetit, because, as is said in the Book of Wisdom, Chapter 1, the Holy Spirit flees the fiction of what? Discipline, right? And the dove is a, what, simple animal lacking astuteness and... Deseat, right? Yeah. I mean, it's cunning. Once it is said in Matthew 10, verse 16, be simple as what? It does, huh? That's beautiful, isn't that beautiful? Secondly, to designate it the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, which the dove, by its properties, signifies. I'm going to refer you to the footnote here to Rabanis there in the golden chain, right? On Matthew, huh? So on. For the dove dwells along, what, flowing streams, I guess? That, seeing its enemies, I guess, that's the, cheaper towards that. So is that an equal? In order that I'm perceiving the hawk. Hawk, yeah, okay. Ah. It hides itself in, of age, okay? Which pertains to the gift of wisdom, by which the saints along the, what, flowing rivers of divine scriptures reside. That they might evade the, what, coming down the devil upon them, right? That's beautiful, he said, huh? Also, the dove chooses the better grains, huh? Which pertains to the gift of knowledge, by which the saints, huh? Choose those healthy positions, right? By which they are, what, nourished, huh? So I'm nourishing myself with the tainahori, right, huh? It's nice things from Chrysostom and other people. Also, the dove nourishes other ones, alien, little ones? Other birds, yeah. Yeah. By which, which pertains to the gift of counsel, by which holy men, huh? Who were, what, the little ones? Mm-hmm. That is, imitators of the devil are nourished by teaching and, what, example, huh? Also, the dove does not, what, injure, I suppose? Tear. Tear with its, what, beak, or what? Which pertains to the gift of understanding, huh? By which the saint did not pervert the good positions, by tearing them, I suppose, huh? In the custom of the, what? Heretics. Heretics, huh? Also, the dove lacks, um, bile, or what? Gau. Gau, yeah. Oh. Okay. Uh, which pertains to the gift of piety, by which these saints lack, what, irrational anger, huh? What do you mean when you say somebody's got gall? What does that mean? He's got gall. I hear that expression sometimes. I think of nerve. Yeah. Yeah, they're arrogant or forward. Yeah. Yeah. That's what an angry person is, like, right? With irrational angers like that. Hey, Mr. Gall. All galls divided into three parts. Also, the dove makes its nesta in the caverns of the rock, which pertains to the gift of fortitude by which saints, in the wounds, is it, of the death of Christ, who is a firm rock, huh? Yeah. They place their nets, right? That is their own refuge in hope, right? Mm-hmm. It's in the prayer there, too, then. Oh, it's going to be. Yeah. Yeah. Also, the dove has a, what kind of groan, is it? Groan, right. For its son. Which pertains to the gift of fear, of which saints delight in moaning for their sins, huh? Kind of a moaning sound, yeah, huh? Yeah. That's beautiful, huh? Urbanus was, what, about the 8th century? Monk? He was in there. Thomas quotes him in some of the container. Let me see that, Urbanus. Mm-hmm. So, it designates the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, you know. We could question you about those sins if you got them down. Third, the Holy Spirit appears in the form of a dove on account of the proper effect of baptism, which is the remission of sins and reconciliation to God, huh? For the dove is a mild, huh? Animal, huh? And therefore, as Chrysostom says upon Matthew, in the deluge, huh? One appeared this animal, right, bearing the branch of the olive and announcing the common tranquility of the earth, right? Okay, and now the dove appears in baptism, showing liberation to us, huh? Okay, fourth, the Holy Spirit appears in the form of a dove upon the Lord baptized, to designating the common effect of baptism, which is the construction of ecclesiastical unity, huh? So, when it is said in Ephesians 5, that Christ handed himself over, that he might show for himself a glorious church, having neither, what, stain or wrinkles or anything of this sort, washing it by the washing of water in the word of life. And therefore, suitably, the Holy Spirit in baptism is shown in the form of a dove, which is an animal that is friendly, right? And Greg coming together in the thought. Whence, in Canonical 6, it is said about the church, one is clumpamea. It's beautiful, huh? So, when you give the sermon on this, you can go to this God Quartum, right? And amaze, you can amaze the congregation, right? You've got to see this out there bit by bit, you know, huh? But a lot of beautiful things you could do to spice up, shall we say, your sermon, you know? The Holy Spirit, however, descended upon the apostles in the form of fire on account of two different reasons, right? First, to showing the fervor by which their hearts ought to be moved to predicate or to teach or to preach. Christ everywhere among all the pressures of the world, right? And therefore, he appeared in what? Firing, yeah. Tongues, yeah. Whence the great Augustine says upon John, in two ways, the Lord shows visibly the Holy Spirit. Through the dove, upon the Lord baptized. Through fire, upon the what? Disciples congregated. For their simplicity, without guile, here fervor is shown, right? Therefore, lest through what? Through the spirits being sanctified, we have what? Door, which we oppose to the simplicity of the thing. He was shown in the what? Dove, huh? And they are what? Simplicity remain frozen, frigid. He's demonstrated in what? Fire. Fire. Who's stolen again there? Deceit, I think. Nor should we move because the tongues are what? Divided, but we know unity in the what? Dove. Dove, huh? Secondly, because, as Chrysostom says, it is necessary to, what? No one's defects? No one's crimes or sin. Yeah. Which comes about in baptism. Because of that, mildness is what? Necessary, right, huh? Which is shown in the dove. But where we have gotten grace, there remains a time of what? Judgment, which is signified by what? Fire. For you. I guess you know shit, I mean it's free. Now, was this dove a, what, real animal, right? No. To the seventh one goes for thus, it seems that that dove in which the Holy Spirit appeared was not a true what? Animal, right? For that seems to what? To hold his form, right? To appear, which appears according to likeness. But Luke says that the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form as a what? Dove in it. Therefore, it was not a true dove, but a certain likeness of a dove. I guess he's trying to argue from the text there of Luke, right? He descended as, secret, not my Greek here. Moreover, just as nature does nothing in vain, so neither God, as is said in the first book about the universe. But since that dove did not, what, arrive except that it might signify something and pass away, as Augustine says in the second book of Trinity, in vain would it have been a true what? Dove. Because this could come about to a likeness of a dove. Therefore, that dove was not a true animal, right? Moreover, the properties of a thing lead to a knowledge of the nature of that thing. If, therefore, that dove was a, what, true animal, the properties of the dove would signify the nature of a true animal, not the effects of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, it is not seen that that dove was a true animal, not the fact that it was a true animal, not the fact that it was a true animal, not the fact that it was a true animal. Well, Augustine gets into these things. So it's not just Thomas that's feeding these things to a pulp, it's Augustine as well. Against this is what Augustine says in the book on Christian agony, struggle, huh? Nor is, nor is, nor is this what we say, right? That the Lord Jesus Christ, we say only, what? But the Holy Spirit, in a fallacy or fallaciously, appeared to the eyes of men, but both those bodies were true, we believe, right? I answer it should be said, and it has been said above, is not fitting that the Son of God, who is the truth of the Father, right? I am the way, the truth of the life, should use some, what? Fiction. And therefore, not a, what? Fantastic or imaginary thing, but a true body he took, right? And because the Holy Spirit is said to be the Spirit of Truth, as is clear in John 16, so also he appeared, he formed a true dove in which he appeared, right? Although he did not assume this dove in the unity of his person, right? Whence, after the foresaid words of Augustine, he joins, or adds, just as it was not necessary, right, or not suitable, that, what? The Son of God deceived men, right? So it is not suitable, appropriate, that the Holy Spirit would deceive men, right? But to the omnipotent God, who made the universe from nothing, right, it was not difficult to make the true body of a dove, right, without the ministry of other, what? It does, it does, and they have to generate this dove, just as it was not difficult to make a true body in the womb of Mary without the male, what, see? Since the bodily creature, both in the visceral woman, forming a man, and in the world, performing the dove, served by the command and the will of God. To the second, it should be said that the Holy Spirit is said to come down in the form or likeness of a dove, not to exclude the truth of the dove, but to show that he did not appear in a, what, form of his own substance, right? To the second, it should be said that it was not superfluous to form a true dove, that in it the Holy Spirit might appear, because through the truth of the dove, it signified the, what, truth of the Holy Spirit and of his, what, effects, huh? So it wasn't superfluous, huh? So much for these bird lovers, huh? To the third, it should be said that the properties of the dove, in the same way, lead to, what, signifying the nature of the dove and to designating the effects of the Holy Spirit. Because of the fact that the dove has such properties, naturally, I guess, right? It happens, or it comes about, that the dove can also signify the Holy Spirit, right? That metaphor, right? That's the real thing, right? It's the basis for this metaphorical signification. But it does come down to St. Mark's Square there. St. Mark's Square, right? Oh, yeah. St. Mark's Square. They go on there. Yeah. They're replacing them. Yeah, yeah. Keep on trying to prop it up. St. Mark was expecting that. I was thinking. Oh. It floods certain times of the year, too, you know. I've been there when it's not been flooded, but I've seen pictures of it flooded, people walking. Even inside the church? Well, I don't think he's had the church so much, but you know, the square there, yeah. They have pictures of it, they're walking as ramps, you know, with the ramps and so on. So, you've got to choose a town to visit Venice. You've been to Venice, huh? Mm-hmm. You've been to the Northeast? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. With all the technology involved. Yeah. Now that we've got icons. Now that we've got icons. Now that we've got icons. We can just sweep them underneath that. I know. It'll fix it. Oh, really? Hopefully that is the same thing. Oh, wow. The whole place, or just here and then? It sounded like the whole place. It can mark what place, though, you know. History. Mm-hmm. Now, whether suitably Christ being baptized was the voice of the what Father heard protesting, professing the Son, right? The first Protestant. What? The first Protestant. Yeah, I guess so. To the eighth one proceeds thus, it seems that unsuitably Christ being baptized there was the voice of the Father heard professing his what? Yeah. So incidentally, I have a footnote here from the last article there. The contrary opinion, Ambrose seems to what? Did you have it, no? No, I haven't. Yeah. And they have a quote here. Descendit spiritus sanctus, right? He says, in speciae, not in veritate columbae. Hmm. So we're following Destin rather than Ambrose, right? For the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to this, that they appear in a sensible way, right? Are said to be sent visibilitair, right? Visibly, right? But it doesn't belong to the Father to be sent. We saw that in the Treatise on the Trinity, right? It's just clear through Augustine in the second book of the Trinity. And the idea of being sent has involved the idea of proceeding from another person. When the Father doesn't proceed from anybody, so he's not able to be said to be sent. Therefore, neither should, what? Appear, yeah. But what can't appear without being sent? Let's see what the Thomas says, though. Okay, more of a vox, voice, right? Is, what? The word in the heart conceived, right? But the Father is not a verbal. It's the Son, right? Therefore, unsuitably, is he made known in the voice, huh? Moreover, the man Christ does not begin to be the Son of God in baptism, as some heretics think, huh? But from the beginning of his conception, he was the Son of God, right? More, therefore, in his birth ought the voice of the Father to have professed, right? In the divinity of Christ than in his, what? Against all this is what is said in Matthew chapter 3. Behold a voice from heaven, from heaven saying, this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, right? Which I please myself. Well, I answer, Thomas says, it should be said that it has been said above. In the baptism of Christ, which was an exemplar of our baptism, there ought to be shown what is perfected in our baptism, right? But the baptism by which the faithful are baptized, right, is made holy in the, what? Calling upon and in the virtue of the, what? Trinity, huh? That's why we profess the faith according to the Trinity, right? In three. According to that, in Matthew 28, 19. Going, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, huh? I think, I think, doce te omniscientis, it doesn't say make disciples of all nations, it's not what the text says. It might say that, yeah. Huh? Yeah, I think so. Yeah. Unless that's from a different God. It's only in Matthew that, that is, it's only in Matthew. And therefore, in the baptism of Christ, as Jerome says, huh, the mystery of the Trinity is shown, for the Lord himself is baptized in his human nature, right? The Holy Spirit comes down in the habit of a dove and the voice of the Father giving testimony to the Son is heard, huh? He's got the whole Trinity there, right? And therefore, suitably, in that baptism, the Father is also declared in the voice, huh? It's got to be made known some way, isn't it? He's got an applied objection saying this was the stupid way of doing it, huh? To the first, it should be said that the visible sending adds something above the appearing, huh? To it, the authority or the source of the one, what? Sending. And therefore, the Son and the Holy Spirit who are from another are said not only to appear but also to be sent visibly, The Father of her who is not from another is able to, what? Appear but he's not able to be sent. It's a big, well, there are times it appears to me and I was going to solve the thing, right? But you don't find that the Father is said to be sent there in Scripture. You don't find that that the Holy Spirit is sent. I'll send you the Holy Spirit from the Father and Christ said something like that. The second should be said, huh? that the Father is, what? Not shown in the voice except as the author of the voice, right? Or as speaking to the voice. And because it is proper to the Father to produce the word, right? Which is to say or what? To speak. And therefore, most suitably, the Father is made known to the voice which, what? the word, huh? Whence the voice from the Father brought forth protests the sonship of the, what? Word. And just as the form or species of the dove in which the Holy Spirit is shown is not the nature of the Holy Spirit nor the species or appearance of man in which is demonstrated the Son himself is not the, what? Nature of the Son of God so also the voice itself does not pertain to the nature of the word or the Father speaking. Whence John chapter 5 the Lord says nor his voice that is of the Father have you ever heard that nor have you seen his, what? Form. Through which as a Christend says upon John little by little leading them into the, what? philosophical dogma I guess you've got a footnote there not to confuse you with the philosophers in our sense, right? You find things in the early church fathers there that they'll speak of, you know Christian philosophy meaning the Gospels, right? Yeah. It shows that neither the, what? Voice about God is about God nor the species but it is above the figures and such, what? Species, yeah. And as just the dove and also the human nature assumed by Christ was done by the, what? Holy Spirit by the Holy Trinity rather so also the formation of the voice, right? But nevertheless in that voice is declared only the Father as the one, what? Speaking. That's why I sometimes call him the Speaker the House just as human nature the Son alone assumes, right? And as in the dove only the Holy Spirit is shown, right? As is clear to Augustine in the book about faith to Peter is that one of the Dr. Works? I don't know. Genesis. Yeah, yeah. Something else.