|
Objection 1: It seems that this name HE WHO IS is not the
most proper name of God. For this name "God" is an incommunicable
name. But this name HE WHO IS, is not an incommunicable name.
Therefore this name HE WHO IS is not the most proper name of
God.
Objection 2: Further, Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iii) that
"the name of good excellently manifests all the processions of God."
But it especially belongs to God to be the universal principle of all
things. Therefore this name "good" is supremely proper to God, and
not this name HE WHO IS.
Objection 3: Further, every divine name seems to imply relation to
creatures, for God is known to us only through creatures. But this
name HE WHO IS imports no relation to creatures. Therefore this
name HE WHO IS is not the most applicable to God.
On the contrary, It is written that when Moses asked, "If they
should say to me, What is His name? what shall I say to them?"
The Lord answered him, "Thus shalt thou say to them, HE WHO
IS hath sent me to you" (Ex. 3:13,14). Therefor this
name HE WHO IS most properly belongs to God.
I answer that, This name HE WHO IS is most properly applied to
God, for three reasons:
First, because of its signification. For it does not signify form,
but simply existence itself. Hence since the existence of God is His
essence itself, which can be said of no other (Question 3, Article
4), it is clear that among other names this one specially denominates
God, for everything is denominated by its form.
Secondly, on account of its universality. For all other names are
either less universal, or, if convertible with it, add something
above it at least in idea; hence in a certain way they inform and
determine it. Now our intellect cannot know the essence of God itself
in this life, as it is in itself, but whatever mode it applies in
determining what it understands about God, it falls short of the mode
of what God is in Himself. Therefore the less determinate the names
are, and the more universal and absolute they are, the more properly
they are applied to God. Hence Damascene says (De Fide Orth.
i) that, "HE WHO IS, is the principal of all names applied to
God; for comprehending all in itself, it contains existence itself as
an infinite and indeterminate sea of substance." Now by any other
name some mode of substance is determined, whereas this name HE
WHO IS, determines no mode of being, but is indeterminate to
all; and therefore it denominates the "infinite ocean of substance."
Thirdly, from its consignification, for it signifies present
existence; and this above all properly applies to God, whose
existence knows not past or future, as Augustine says (De Trin.
v).
Reply to Objection 1: This name HE WHO IS is the name of
God more properly than this name "God," as regards its source,
namely, existence; and as regards the mode of signification and
consignification, as said above. But as regards the object intended
by the name, this name "God" is more proper, as it is imposed to
signify the divine nature; and still more proper is the
Tetragrammaton, imposed to signify the substance of God itself,
incommunicable and, if one may so speak, singular.
Reply to Objection 2: This name "good" is the principal name of
God in so far as He is a cause, but not absolutely; for existence
considered absolutely comes before the idea of cause.
Reply to Objection 3: It is not necessary that all the divine names
should import relation to creatures, but it suffices that they be
imposed from some perfections flowing from God to creatures. Among
these the first is existence, from which comes this name, HE WHO
IS.
|
|