EIGHTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 13, Art. 8]

Whether This Name "God" Is a Name of the Nature?

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 _theein_ which means to take care of, and to cherish all

things; or from _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.

Obj. 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 A. 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 Obj. 1: All that Damascene says refers to providence; which is

the source of the signification of the name "God."

Reply Obj. 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 (Q. 12, A. 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.

_______________________

Summa Theologica, Part I (Prima Pars) From the Complete American Edition · 第 106 / 722 题