|
Objection 1: It would seem that the name 'Word' does not import
relation to creatures. For every name that connotes some effect in
creatures, is said of God essentially. But Word is not said
essentially, but personally. Therefore Word does not import relation
to creatures.
Objection 2: Further, whatever imports relation to creatures is
said of God in time; as "Lord" and "Creator." But Word is
said of God from eternity. Therefore it does not import relation to
the creature.
Objection 3: Further, Word imports relation to the source whence
it proceeds. Therefore, if it imports relation to the creature, it
follows that the Word proceeds from the creature.
Objection 4: Further, ideas (in God) are many according to their
various relations to creatures. Therefore if Word imports relation to
creatures, it follows that in God there is not one Word only, but
many.
Objection 5: Further, if Word imports relation to the creature,
this can only be because creatures are known by God. But God does
not know beings only; He knows also non-beings. Therefore in the
Word are implied relations to non-beings; which appears to be false.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Questions. lxxxiii, qu.
63), that "the name Word signifies not only relation to the
Father, but also relation to those beings which are made through the
Word, by His operative power."
I answer that, Word implies relation to creatures. For God by
knowing Himself, knows every creature. Now the word conceived in the
mind is representative of everything that is actually understood.
Hence there are in ourselves different words for the different things
which we understand. But because God by one act understands Himself
and all things, His one only Word is expressive not only of the
Father, but of all creatures.
And as the knowledge of God is only cognitive as regards God,
whereas as regards creatures, it is both cognitive and operative, so
the Word of God is only expressive of what is in God the Father,
but is both expressive and operative of creatures; and therefore it is
said (Ps. 32:9): "He spake, and they were made;" because
in the Word is implied the operative idea of what God makes.
Reply to Objection 1: The nature is also included indirectly in the
name of the person; for person is an individual substance of a rational
nature. Therefore the name of a divine person, as regards the
personal relation, does not imply relation to the creature, but it is
implied in what belongs to the nature. Yet there is nothing to prevent
its implying relation to creatures, so far as the essence is included
in its meaning: for as it properly belongs to the Son to be the Son,
so it properly belongs to Him to be God begotten, or the Creator
begotten; and in this way the name Word imports relation to
creatures.
Reply to Objection 2: Since the relations result from actions,
some names import the relation of God to creatures, which relation
follows on the action of God which passes into some exterior effect,
as to create and to govern; and the like are applied to God in time.
But others import a relation which follows from an action which does
not pass into an exterior effect, but abides in the agent---as to
know and to will: such are not applied to God in time; and this kind
of relation to creatures is implied in the name of the Word. Nor is
it true that all names which import the relation of God to creatures
are applied to Him in time; but only those names are applied in time
which import relation following on the action of God passing into
exterior effect.
Reply to Objection 3: Creatures are known to God not by a
knowledge derived from the creatures themselves, but by His own
essence. Hence it is not necessary that the Word should proceed from
creatures, although the Word is expressive of creatures.
Reply to Objection 4: The name of Idea is imposed chiefly to
signify relation to creatures; and therefore it is applied in a plural
sense to God; and it is not said personally. But the name of Word
is imposed chiefly to signify the speaker, and consequently, relation
to creatures, inasmuch as God, by understanding Himself,
understands every creature; and so there is only one Word in God,
and that is a personal one.
Reply to Objection 5: God's knowledge of non-beings and God's
Word about non-beings are the same; because the Word of God
contains no less than does the knowledge of God, as Augustine says
(De Trin. xv, 14). Nevertheless the Word is expressive and
operative of beings, but is expressive and manifestive of non-beings.
|
|