|
Objection 1: It seems that no name can be given to God. For
Dionysius says (Div. Nom. i) that, "Of Him there is neither
name, nor can one be found of Him;" and it is written: "What is
His name, and what is the name of His Son, if thou knowest?"
(Prov. 30:4).
Objection 2: Further, every name is either abstract or concrete.
But concrete names do not belong to God, since He is simple, nor do
abstract names belong to Him, forasmuch as they do not signify any
perfect subsisting thing. Therefore no name can be said of God.
Objection 3: Further, nouns are taken to signify substance with
quality; verbs and participles signify substance with time; pronouns
the same with demonstration or relation. But none of these can be
applied to God, for He has no quality, nor accident, nor time;
moreover, He cannot be felt, so as to be pointed out; nor can He be
described by relation, inasmuch as relations serve to recall a thing
mentioned before by nouns, participles, or demonstrative pronouns.
Therefore God cannot in any way be named by us.
On the contrary, It is written (Ex. 15:3): "The Lord is a
man of war, Almighty is His name."
I answer that, Since according to the Philosopher (Peri Herm.
i), words are signs of ideas, and ideas the similitude of things, it
is evident that words relate to the meaning of things signified through
the medium of the intellectual conception. It follows therefore that
we can give a name to anything in as far as we can understand it. Now
it was shown above (Question 12, Articles 11,12) that in
this life we cannot see the essence of God; but we know God from
creatures as their principle, and also by way of excellence and
remotion. In this way therefore He can be named by us from
creatures, yet not so that the name which signifies Him expresses the
divine essence in itself. Thus the name "man" expresses the essence
of man in himself, since it signifies the definition of man by
manifesting his essence; for the idea expressed by the name is the
definition.
Reply to Objection 1: The reason why God has no name, or is said
to be above being named, is because His essence is above all that we
understand about God, and signify in word.
Reply to Objection 2: Because we know and name God from
creatures, the names we attribute to God signify what belongs to
material creatures, of which the knowledge is natural to us. And
because in creatures of this kind what is perfect and subsistent is
compound; whereas their form is not a complete subsisting thing, but
rather is that whereby a thing is; hence it follows that all names used
by us to signify a complete subsisting thing must have a concrete
meaning as applicable to compound things; whereas names given to
signify simple forms, signify a thing not as subsisting, but as that
whereby a thing is; as, for instance, whiteness signifies that
whereby a thing is white. And as God is simple, and subsisting, we
attribute to Him abstract names to signify His simplicity, and
concrete names to signify His substance and perfection, although both
these kinds of names fail to express His mode of being, forasmuch as
our intellect does not know Him in this life as He is.
Reply to Objection 3: To signify substance with quality is to
signify the "suppositum" with a nature or determined form in which it
subsists. Hence, as some things are said of God in a concrete
sense, to signify His subsistence and perfection, so likewise nouns
are applied to God signifying substance with quality. Further, verbs
and participles which signify time, are applied to Him because His
eternity includes all time. For as we can apprehend and signify simple
subsistences only by way of compound things, so we can understand and
express simple eternity only by way of temporal things, because our
intellect has a natural affinity to compound and temporal things. But
demonstrative pronouns are applied to God as describing what is
understood, not what is sensed. For we can only describe Him as far
as we understand Him. Thus, according as nouns, participles and
demonstrative pronouns are applicable to God, so far can He be
signified by relative pronouns.
|
|