|
Objection 1: It seems that this name, "God," is not a name of
the nature. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. 1) that "God
Theos is so called from the theein and to cherish all things; or from
the aithein, that is to burn, for our God is a fire consuming all
malice; or from theasthai, which means to consider all things." But
all these names belong to operation. Therefore this name "God"
signifies His operation and not His nature.
Objection 2: Further, a thing is named by us as we know it. But
the divine nature is unknown to us. Therefore this name "God" does
not signify the divine nature.
On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Fide i) that "God" is a name
of the nature.
I answer that, Whence a name is imposed, and what the name signifies
are not always the same thing. For as we know substance from its
properties and operations, so we name substance sometimes for its
operation, or its property; e.g. we name the substance of a stone
from its act, as for instance that it hurts the foot [loedit pedem];
but still this name is not meant to signify the particular action, but
the stone's substance. The things, on the other hand, known to us
in themselves, such as heat, cold, whiteness and the like, are not
named from other things. Hence as regards such things the meaning of
the name and its source are the same.
Because therefore God is not known to us in His nature, but is made
known to us from His operations or effects, we name Him from these,
as said in Article 1; hence this name "God" is a name of operation
so far as relates to the source of its meaning. For this name is
imposed from His universal providence over all things; since all who
speak of God intend to name God as exercising providence over all;
hence Dionysius says (Div. Nom. ii), "The Deity watches over
all with perfect providence and goodness." But taken from this
operation, this name "God" is imposed to signify the divine nature.
Reply to Objection 1: All that Damascene says refers to
providence; which is the source of the signification of the name
"God."
Reply to Objection 2: We can name a thing according to the
knowledge we have of its nature from its properties and effects. Hence
because we can know what stone is in itself from its property, this
name "stone" signifies the nature of the stone itself; for it
signifies the definition of stone, by which we know what it is, for
the idea which the name signifies is the definition, as is said in
Metaph. iv. Now from the divine effects we cannot know the divine
nature in itself, so as to know what it is; but only by way of
eminence, and by way of causality, and of negation as stated above
(Question 12, Article 12). Thus the name "God" signifies
the divine nature, for this name was imposed to signify something
existing above all things, the principle of all things and removed from
all things; for those who name God intend to signify all this.
|
|