|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
every case], the string of word-meanings must be everywhere introduced. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Though each word is in itself inadequate, and though the meaning of "Brahman" is not merely the sum total of the meanings of words spoken alongside it, the inadequate words taken together are mutually corrective and serve to define, if not Brahman itself, a correct and useful way of speaking about Brahman, a correct usage of the word "Brahman." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We can now read ST I.13.4 against this background. The introductory section of the Summa Theologiae is a defense and exposition of the possibility of doing theology. Within this larger topic, I.13 deals with the possibility of naming God, and the status of the (largely scriptural) names used with reference to God. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ST I.13.1-3 establish three points of particular relevance for our understanding of 13.4: a. although God is infinite and not subject to limitation, names can be legitimately used with reference to God (article 1); b. these names refer to the substance of God, and do not merely exclude erroneous conceptions (article 2); c. the words which we use regarding God's perfections apply more appropriately, and not less so, to God than they do to human realities to which we also apply them. Thus, it is appropriate to say "God is good," although we have no other example of perfect goodness that would justify this use of the word "good" (article 3). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In ST I.13.4, Aquinas rejects the view that all names applied to God are synonymous since God is totally simple and therefore by his very essence the referent of all names. If the referent of all names is a single, simple reality, how could they not all mean the same thing? The response is as follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On the contrary, all synonyms united with each other are redundant, as when we say, "vesture clothing." Therefore if all names applied to God are synonymous, we cannot properly say "good God," or the like, and yet it is written, "O most mighty, great and powerful, the Lord of hosts is thy name." (Jeremiah 32.18) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I answer that, These names spoken of God are not synonymous. This would be easy to understand, if we said that these names are used to remove, or to express, the relation of the cause to creatures; for thus it would follow that there |
|
|
|
|
|