13. On the Divine Simplicity. Disputed Question of the Power of God, 7 (1265–6)
13. On the Divine Simplicity. Disputed
Question of the Power of God, 7
(1265–6)
The collection of disputed questions gathered together as On the Power of God dates from 1265 to 1266, while Thomas was teaching in Rome and just prior to commencement of work on his masterpiece, the Summa theologiae. The disputed question on the simplicity of God deals with fundamental aspects of Thomas’s teaching on the human capacity to know and to talk about God.
Aristotle’s insistence that it is only with great difficulty and prolonged effort that we can establish the existence of anything beyond the realm of sensible objects was one that Thomas took to heart, not least because it so obviously harmonized with what is found in Scripture. The connatural object of the human mind is the essence of sensible reality. Our language is fashioned primarily to talk about such things. If our study of sensible objects provides a basis for proving that there are beings which are not material and changeable, we do not devise a new vocabulary to speak of what might be called metaphysical beings. Rather, the language first used to speak of material objects is extended in meaning to encompass immaterial beings as well. This extension of meaning of familiar language provides an Ariadne’s thread that enables us to return from the metaphysical stratosphere to the palpable objects of our sense experience. Theseremain our touchstone of certainty and the native habitat of our language.
A problem encountered in efforts to speak of the human soul and human thinking and willing as activities which are not physical changes is exacerbated when human language is employed to speak of God. Our knowledge of God is indirect, oblique, dependent on knowledge of sensible reality.
It may be thought that this difficulty disappears in the realm of faith when God reveals himself to us, in Scripture and in his divine son. For Thomas, revelation is merely a special case of the epistemological and terminological problem. God speaks to us in our language and mercifully observes what is for us the natural way of knowing.
The pattern of our efforts to know and talk about God is first to see how unlike the things of our immediate experience he is. Negative terms such as ‘immobile’ and ‘timeless’ and ‘immaterial’ are devised to express this. And yet there are certain things we affirm of God: that he is good, just, wise and loving. Of course these terms are learned in speaking about good, just, wise and loving human beings. How can God and creature share these terms?
This magnificent disputed question on the simplicity of God anticipates discussions that will occupy Thomas in the Summa theologiae. But here they receive a far more detailed and exhaustive treatment.
On the Power of God
QUESTION 7
ON THE SIMPLICITY OF GOD
This disputation addresses eleven questions: (1) whether God is simple; (2) whether in God substance and essence are the same as existence; (3) whether God is in a genus; (4) whether ‘good’, ‘just’ and ‘wise’ are incidental predicates of God; (5) whether those names signify the divine substance; (6) whether they are synonyms; (7) whether such names are said of God and creatures univocally or equivocally; (8) whether a relation exists between God and creatures; (9) whether relations between God and creatures are relations in creatures; (10) whether God is really related to creatures such that the relation is really in God; (11) whether temporal relations are relations of reason in God.
Article 1: Is God simple?
It seems that he is not.
1. From one simple thing only one thing comes, for a thing causes something the same as itself, according to the Philosopher. But a multitude of things proceeds from God. Therefore, he is not simple.
2. Moreover, when the simple is attained it is attained as a whole. But God is attained by the blessed since, as Augustine says, the greatest happiness is for the mind to attain God. Therefore, if he were simple, he would be attained as a whole by the blessed, but what is attained as a whole is comprehended. Therefore God is comprehended by the blessed – which is impossible. Therefore, God is not simple.
3. Moreover, what is the same does not satisfy the characteristics of different causes, but God does, as is evident in Metaphysics II. Therefore, there must be different things in him and he must accordingly be complex.
4. Moreover, wherever there is this plus that, there is composition; but in God there is this and that, namely, property and essence. Therefore, in God there is composition.
5. But it will be said that his property is the same as his essence. On the contrary: an affirmation and its negation are not verified of the same thing. But the divine essence is communicable to the three persons and incommunicability is a property. Therefore, property and essence are notthe same.
6. Moreover, that of which different categories are predicated is complex. But substance and relation are predicated of God, as Boethius says. Therefore, God is complex.
7. Moreover, in any thing there is substance, power and activity, as Dionysius says, from which it seems that activity follows power and substance. But there is plurality in the divine activities. Therefore, multitude and composition are to be found in his substance.
8. Moreover, wherever many forms are found, there must be composition. But there are many forms in God because, as Averroes says, all forms are actually in the first mover just as all are potentially in prime matter. Therefore, there is composition in God.
9. Moreover, whatever comes to a thing after it is complete is accidental to it. But some things are said of God temporally, for example, that he is creator and lord. Therefore, they are accidental to him. But there is composition of an accident with its subject. Therefore, there is composition in God.
10. Moreover, wherever there are many things there is composition. But there are three persons in God, that is, three things, as Augustine says. Therefore, there is composition in God.
ON THE CONTRARY:
1. Hilary says, ‘God is not made up of components in the human way, such that in him there is what is had and that which has.’
2. Moreover, Boethius says, ‘That truly is one in which there is no number.’ But wherever there is composition, there is number. Therefore, God is without composition and wholly simple.
It should be said that God must be held to be simple in every way. For now this can be proved by three arguments. Of which the first is this. It was shown in another disputation that all beings come from a first being, which we call God. However, in one and the same thing, which is at one time potential and at another time actual, potency is temporally prior to actuality even though by nature it is posterior. Absolutely speaking, act must be prior to potency, both in nature and in time, because every potential being is made actual by some actual being. Therefore, that being which makes all other beings actual and is himself from nothing else must be First Act without any mixture of potency. For if he were in any way potential, there would have to be a prior being through which he would become actual. In a complex thing of whatever kind of composition, potency is mingled with act. For in complex things, either one of the things of which it is composed is in potency to the other, like matter to form, subject to accident, genus to difference, or at the least all the parts are in potency to the whole. For the parts are as matter and the whole as form, as is evident from Physics 2. Thus no composite thing could be First Act. The first being that God is must be Pure Act, as has been shown. Therefore, since it is impossible that God be composed, he must be completely simple.
The second argument is this. Since composition is only of different things, these different things require some agent to unite them, because the different, as such, are not united. But for a composite to exist is for the things of which it is composed to be united. Therefore, since every composite thing must depend on some prior agent, the first being, who is God, from whom all things come, cannot be composite.
The third argument is this. The first being, who is God, must be most perfect and consequently the best, for the principles of things are not imperfect, as Pythagoras and Leucippus thought. The best is that in which no goodness is lacking; for example, the whitest is that in which nothing black is to be found. But this is impossible for any composite thing, since the good that results from the composition of parts, thanks to which the whole is good, is not in each of the parts. Hence the parts are not good with the goodness that is proper to the whole. Therefore, what is best is most simple and lacks all composition. This is the argument the Philosopher gives1 and Hilary too when he says that because God light he is not affected by the obscure and because he is power there are no weaknesses in him.
Ad 1. It should be said that Aristotle does not mean that a multitude cannot proceed from one, for since the agent causes something similar to itself and the effect imperfectly represents its cause, that which is united in the cause must be multiplied in the effects, much as all generable forms are, as it were, in the sun, which as its effects are distinct. Thus it comes about that through one capacity a thing can bring about different effects, as fire by means of its heat can both liquefy and solidify, make soft and hard, burn and char. And through the power of reason a man can acquire different sciences and perform the works of different arts. How much more, then, can God through his simple power create many things. The Philosopher means that something that remains the same does not cause different things at different times if it acts with the necessity of nature, unless this happens accidentally because of the diversity of matter or of some other accident. But this is not relevant here.
Ad 2. It should be said that the whole God is attained by the mind of the blessed but not wholly, because the mode of the divine knowability infinitely exceeds the mode of created intellect. Thus the created intellect cannot understand God as perfectly as he is intelligible and accordingly cannot comprehend him.
Ad 3. It should be said that one and the same God has the character of different causes because as pure act he is an agent and the exemplar of all forms, and as pure goodness he is the end of everything.
Ad 4. It should be said that property and essence in the divine do not differ really but in understanding alone, for paternity itself is the divine essence, as will be made clear later.
Ad 5. It should be said that what is one in being and different in understanding can have contradictories predicated of it, as the Philosopher says; it is evident that a point which is really one can be understood differently as beginning and end, but insofar as it is the beginning it is not the end and vice versa. Hence, since essence and property are the same in reality and differ in understanding, there is nothing to prevent the same thing from being communicable and incommunicable.
Ad 6. It should be said that absolute and relative do not really differ in divine things, but only in understanding, as has been pointed out, and thus no composition comes from this.
Ad 7. It should be said that God’s activity can be considered either on the part of the doer or of the done. If on the part of the doer, there is only one activity in God, which is his essence, for he does not do things by an action that would intervene between God and his willing, which is his very existence. But considered on the side of what is done, there are indeed different activities, since through his understanding there are diverse effects of the divine activity. But this does not introduce any composition in him.
Ad 8. It should be said that the form of the effect is found in one way in the natural agent and in another way in one who acts through art. For in that which acts by nature the form of the effect exists insofar as the agent assimilates its effect to its own nature, since every agent produces something like itself. This happens in two ways, for when the effect is perfectly like the agent, and equal to the power of the agent, the form is in the effect and cause according to the same account [ratio], as is evident in univocal agents, for example, when fire generates fire. But when the effect is not perfectly assimilated to the agent, and is not made equal to the power of the agent, then the form of the effect is not in the agent in the same sense, but in a more eminent way, as is clear in equivocal agents; for example, the sun generates fire.
In agents that work by art, forms of the effects pre-exist with the same account but not in the same way of existing, for in the effects they have material existence and in the mind of the artist intelligible existence. Something is said to be in the intellect both as that which is understood and as the species whereby it is understood, but the forms of art are in the mind of the artist as that by which something is understood. For it is because the artist conceives the form of the artefact that he produces it in matter. But the forms of things are in God in both ways, for although he acts through intellect, this is not without the action of nature. In lesser artefacts, art acts in virtue of extraneous nature, which it uses as an instrument, as the potter uses fire to make bricks. But the divine art does not use exterior nature in acting, but in virtue of its own nature causes its effect. Therefore the forms of things are in the divine nature as in an operative power, but not according to the same account, since no effect is equal to his power. Hence all forms which are multiplied in effects are as one in him, and thus no composition arises from this. Similarly, there are in his intellect many things understood through one and the same thing, namely his essence. But that many are understood through one does not introduce composition in the one understanding. Hence, from this it does not follow that there is composition in God.
Ad 9. It should be said that the relations which are said temporally of God are not really in him but only according to understanding. There is a real relation when one thing really depends upon another, whether absolutely or in a certain respect. Thus there is a real relation of knowledge to the thing known, but conversely only a relation in understanding, as is clear from the Philosopher. Therefore, since God does not depend on anything else, but rather all things depend on him, in other things there are real relations to God, but there can only be a relation of reason between him and things, because the intellect cannot understand a relation of this to that without understanding a relation of that to this.
Ad 10. It should be said that the plurality of persons introduces no composition in God. For the persons can be considered in two ways: first, as compared to essence with which they are really the same, and thus no composition results; second, as they are compared with one another, and then they are compared as distinct, not as made one. So no composition comes from this side either, since every composition is a union.
Article 2: Is substance or essence in God the same as existence?
It seems that it is not.
1. For Damascene says, in On Orthodox Faith I, that God exists is indeed manifest to us, but what he is in substance and nature is incomprehensible and entirely unknown. But the same thing cannot be at once known and unknown. Therefore, God’s existence and his substance or essence are not the same.
2. But it will be said that even God’s existence is unknown to us as to what it is, just like his substance. On the contrary: whether a thing is and what it is are two different questions, one of which we know and the other of which we do not, as is plain from the authority quoted as well. Therefore, that which answers to the question whether God exists and that which answers to the question what he is are not the same; existence answers to whether he is, and substance or nature to what he is.
3. But it might be said that God’s existence is known, not in itself, but in the likeness of the creature. On the contrary: in the creature are existence and substance or nature, and since God has both, he is like God in both, in that the agent causes something like himself. If therefore God’s existence were known through the likeness of created existence, his substance would have to be known through the likeness of created substance, and then we would know of God not only that he is, but what he is.
4. Moreover, one thing is said to differ from another by its substance. But that which is common to all provides no difference among them; hence the Philosopher says that being ought not to be put into the definition because the defined is not distinguished from anything else in that, since to be is common to all. But God is something distinct from all other things. Therefore, his existence is not his substance.
5. Moreover, only things whose existence is different are themselves different. But the existence of this thing is not different from the existence of that as existence, but rather insofar as it is in this or that nature. If then there should be some existence which is not in any nature other than existence, this will not be different from any other existence. Thus it follows that if the divine substance is his existence, he would be the existence common to anything.
6. Moreover, the being to which no addition is made is the being common to all. But if God were himself existence, he would be the being to which no addition is made, and therefore common, and then he would be predicated of everything and would be a God mixed with all things. Which is heretical and in disagreement with the Philosopher in the Book of Causes saying that the first cause rules all things without being confused with them.
7. Moreover, nothing is said of that which is wholly simple by way of concretion. But existence is such, for existence seems to relate to essence as white does to whiteness. Therefore, it is unfitting to say that the divine substance is existence.
8. Moreover, Boethius says that everything that is participates in that which is existence in order to be, and participates in something else in order to be something. But God exists. Therefore, besides his existence there is in him something else thanks to which he is something.
9. Moreover, what is most imperfect ought not to be attributed to God who is most perfect. But existence is most imperfect, like prime matter, for just as prime matter is determined by all forms, so existence, since it is most imperfect, has to be determined by all proper categories. Therefore, just as prime matter is not in God, so neither should existence be attributed to the divine substance.
10. Moreover, that which is signified in the manner of an effect does not belong to the first substance, which has no principle. But existence is such, for every being has existence according to the principles of its essence. Therefore, it is unfitting to say that the substance of God is existence itself.
11. Moreover, every proposition in which a thing is predicated of itself is self-evident. But if the substance of God were his own existence, subject and predicate would be the same in ‘God exists’. Therefore, it would be a self-evident proposition, which seems false, since it is demonstrable. Therefore, God’s existence is not his substance.
ON THE CONTRARY:
1. Hilary says in On the Trinity : ‘Existence is not an accident of God, but his subsistent truth.’ But that which is subsistent is the substance of the thing. Therefore, God’s existence is his substance.
2. Moreover, Rabbi Moses says that God is not being by essence, nor living by life, nor powerful by power, nor wise by wisdom. Therefore in God essence is not other than his existence.
3. Moreover, a thing is properly denominated from its quiddity, for the noun properly signifies substance and quiddity, as is said in Metaphysics 4. But this nominal phrase ‘that which is’ is of all names the most proper name of God, as is clear from Exodus 4. Therefore, since this name is imposed from that which is existence, it seems that God’s existence is his substance.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that in God existence is not other than his substance. In evidence of which it should be considered that, since causes producing different effects have one effect in common besides the different ones, it is necessary that their common effect should be produced by the power of some higher cause whose proper effect it is. And this because, since the proper effect is produced by a cause according to its proper nature or form, different causes having different natures and forms must have different proper effects.
Hence, if they have some effect in common, it cannot be their proper effect, but that of something higher, in virtue of which they act. Just as it is evident that different compounds all heat, such as pepper and ginger and the like, although each has its proper effect different from those of the others. Hence the common effect has to be referred to a prior cause whose proper effect it is, namely fire. Similarly, in celestial motions, each planetary sphere has proper motions as well as a common one which must be proper to some higher sphere moving them all according to diurnal motion.
But all created causes have one common effect, which is existence, although each has its proper effect by which they differ from one another. For heat causes something to be warm, and the builder causes a house to be. Therefore they have in common the fact that they cause existence, but differ in that fire causes fire and the builder causes a house. There must therefore be some cause higher, by whose power all cause existence and of which existence is the proper effect. And this cause is God.
The proper effect of any cause proceeds from it according to a likeness to its nature. Therefore, that which is existence must be the substance or nature of God. On account of which it is said in the Book of Causes that the Intelligence gives existence only insofar as it is divine, and the first effect is existence and before it nothing else is created.
Ad 1. It should be said therefore that being and existence are said in two ways, as is evident from Metaphysics 5. For sometimes it signifies the essence of the thing, or the act of being; sometimes it signifies the truth of the proposition, even in things which do not have existence, as we say that blindness exists because it is true that a man is blind. When therefore Damascene says that the existence of God is manifest to us, he understands the existence of God in the second way and not the first. In the first way the existence of God is the same as his substance, and just as his substance is unknown to us, so is his existence. But in the second way we know that God exists, since we form this proposition in our intellect from his effects.
The solution to the second and third difficulties is clear from this.
Ad 4. It should be said that the divine existence which is his substance is not common existence but is an existence different from any other existence. Hence, by his existence God differs from every other being.
Ad 5. It should be replied that, as is said in the Book of Causes, the existence itself of God is distinguished and individuated from any other existence in this that it is subsistent existence, and does not advene to any nature that is other than this existence. All other existence, not being subsistent, must be individuated by the nature and substance which subsists in that existence. Of these it is true that the existence of this is other than the existence of that because it is of another nature. Just as if there were one heat existing of itself without a matter or subject, it would be distinguished from every other heat by that very fact, although the heat in this subject differs from the heat in that because of their subjects.
Ad 6. It should be said that the ‘common being to which no addition is made’ does not mean no addition can be made to it; but the divine existence is not common existence. Just because in the common animal the difference rational is not included, this does not mean that no addition to it can be made, for there is also the irrational animal, which is a species of animal.
Ad 7. It should be said that the mode of signifying in our talk of things follows on our mode of understanding, for speech signifies the conceptions of the intellect, as is said in On Interpretation I. But our intellect understands existence in the way it is found in lower things, from which our knowledge begins and in which existence is not subsistent but inherent. Reason discovers that there is a subsistent existence and then, although what is called existence is signified in the manner of concretion, the intellect attributing existence to God transcends the mode of signifying, attributing to God what it signifies, but not the mode of signifying it.
Ad 8. It should be said that the saying of Boethius is to be understood of things to which existence belongs by participation, not by essence; that which is through its essence, if we attend to the import of speech, ought rather be called that which is existence than that which is.
Ad 9. It should be said that what I call existence is the most perfect of all things, which is clear because act is always more perfect than potency, and designated form is understood to be actual only when it is held to exist. For humanity or fieriness can be considered as existing in the potency of matter or in the power of the agent or even in the intellect, but that which has existence is made to be actually existent. It is thus clear that what I call existence is the actuality of all acts, and because of that is the perfection of all perfections. Nor should it be understood that something more formal could be added to that which I call existence, determining it, as act determines potency. This kind of existence is other in essence from that to which it is added and which determines it. Nothing extraneous can be added to it, since nothing other than non-being is extraneous to it, which can be neither form nor matter. Thus existence is not determined by another as potency is by act but rather as act is by potency. For in the definition of forms their proper matter is put in place of difference, as when we say the soul is the act of a physically organized body. In this way, this existence is distinguished from that, insofar as it is this nature’s or that’s, which is why Dionysius says that although living things are more noble than existent things, still to be is more noble than to live. For living things not only have life, but along with life they have existence.
Ad 10. It should be said that the order of ends follows the order of agents, such that the ultimate end answers to the first agent, and proportionately through the order other ends to other agents. For if the ruler of the city and the leader of the army and a single soldier be considered, it is clear that the ruler of the city is first in the order of agents at whose command the leader of the army marches to war, and under him is the soldier, who, at the command of the leader of the army, puts his hand to fighting. The end of the soldier is to slay the enemy, which is ordered to the victory of the army, which is the end of the leader, and this is further ordered to the good condition of the city or realm, which is the end of the ruler and king. Therefore, existence which is the proper effect and end of the activity of the first agent must hold the place of ultimate end. The end, though it is first in intention, is last in execution and is the effect of other causes. Therefore, created existence, which is the proper effect answering to the first agent, is caused by other principles, although what primarily causes existence is the first principle.
Ad 11. It should be said that a proposition can be of itself self-evident but yet not be such for this or that person. As when the predicate is of the definition of the subject yet the definition of the subject is unknown to someone. For someone ignorant of what a whole is the proposition stating that the whole is greater than its part would not be self-evident. For such propositions become self-evident when their terms are known, as is said in Posterior Analytics 1. But this proposition, ‘God exists,’ taken in itself is self-evident, because subject and predicate are the same. But it is not self-evident to us because we do not know what God is. So for us it requires demonstration, but not for those who see the essence of God.
Article 3: Is God in some genus?
It seems that he is.
1. For Damascene says that substance in matters divine signifies a species common to persons similar in species, and hypostasis points out the individual, namely Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Peter and Paul. So God is compared to Father, Son and Holy Spirit as species to individuals. But wherever species and individual are found, there genus is found, because the species is made up of genus and difference. Therefore it seems that God is in some genus.
2. Moreover, things that are in no way different are wholly the same. But God is not the same as other things. Therefore he differs from them in some way. But whatever differs from another, differs from it by some difference. Therefore, in God there is some difference, by which he differs from other things. It cannot be something accidental, because there is no accident in God, as Boethius says in On the Trinity . But every substantial difference divides some genus. Therefore, God is in a genus.
3. Moreover, things can be the same either in genus, or species or number, as is said in Topics 1.4. Therefore, different as well, for if one of opposites is said in many ways, so is the other. Therefore, God is different from creature only numerically, or numerically and specifically; and so it follows that he agrees with the creature in kind and thus is in a genus. If he differed generically from the creature, he would have to be in some other genus than the creature, since diversity springs from multiplicity, and thus generic difference requires a plurality of genera. Therefore, however you look at it, God must be in a genus.
4. Moreover, to whatever the notion of the genus substance fits, is in a genus. But the notion answering to substance is that which exists of itself, which especially belongs to God. Therefore, God is in the genus of substance.
5. Moreover, whatever is defined must be in a genus. But God is defined, for he is said to be pure act. Therefore, God is in some genus.
6. Moreover, whatever is predicated of something expressing what it is, and extends to others as well, either relates to it as species or as genus. But everything predicated of God is meant to express what he is, for all the categories, when they become divine predicates, amount to substance, as Boethius says. But it is evident that these pertain not only to God but also to other things, and thus they are in more. Therefore, either they are compared to God as species to individual or as genus to species, and either way God must be in a genus.
7. Moreover, anything is measured by the least in its genus, as is said in Metaphysics 10. But, as the Commentator says at that place, that by which all substances are measured is God. Therefore, God is in the same genus as other substances.
ON THE CONTRARY:
1. Whatever is in a genus, adds something to the genus, and consequently is composite. But God is wholly simple. Therefore, he is not in a genus.
2. Moreover, whatever is in a genus can either be defined or included in some defined thing. Since God is infinite, he is not like that. Therefore, he is not in a genus.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that God is not in a genus, which for now can be shown by three arguments. First, because nothing is put in a genus because of its existence but by reason of its quiddity, which is clear from this that the existence of anything is proper to it and distinct from the existence of any other thing, but the notion of substance can be common. Because of this the Philosopher too says that being is not a genus. God, however, is his own existence. Hence, he cannot be in a genus.
The second argument is this. Although matter is not a genus, nor is form difference, yet the notion of genus is drawn from matter, and the notion of difference is drawn from form; for example, in man sensible nature is that from which the notion of animal is drawn, and is material with respect to reason, from which the difference rational is drawn. An animal is something that has a sensitive nature, the rational is what has reason, hence there must be a composition of matter and form or of act and potency in anything that is in a genus. This cannot be the case with God, who is pure act, as has been shown. It remains therefore that he cannot be in a genus.
The third argument is this. Since God is absolutely perfect, he comprehends in himself the perfections of all genera, for this is the meaning of the absolutely perfect, as is said in Metaphysics 5. Whatever is in a genus is determined by the things that are of that genus, and thus God cannot be in some genus, for then he would not be of an infinite essence, nor of absolute perfection, but his essence and perfection would be limited to the range of one limited genus.
From which it is further evident that God is not a species or an individual, nor does he have either difference or definition, for every definition is from genus and species, hence no demonstration can be made about him except through effects, since the middle of the demonstration of the reasoned fact is the definition.
Ad 1. It should be said that Damascene speaks by way of similarity and not properly, for God’s name, which is God, has a similarity to species in this that it is predicated of numerically many distinct substantial things, but it cannot properly be called species because a species is not something numerically one and common to many but one only in reason; the numerically one divine substance is common to three persons, hence the Father and Son and Holy Spirit are one God, but Peter and Paul and Mark are not one man.
Ad 2. It should be said that the different and diverse differ, as the Philosopher says, for the diverse, absolutely speaking, is what is not the same, but the different relates to something, for one thing differs from another with respect to something. If, then, we understand the term ‘different’ properly, then this proposition is false: ‘Existent things that in no way differ, are the same.’ However, if the term ‘different’ is understood broadly, then it is true, and thus it can be conceded that God differs from others. But it does not follow that he differs by some difference, but that he differs from others by his substance: this must be said of first and simple things. For a man differs from an ass by the difference rational, but rational does not further differ from ass by some difference, since then there would be an infinite regress, but by itself.
Ad 3. It should be said that God is said to be diverse in genus from creatures, not as existing in a genus, but as existing wholly outside a genus.
Ad 4. It should be said that being-of-itself is not the definition of substance, as Avicenna says. For being cannot be the genus of anything, as the Philosopher proves, since nothing can be added to being which does not participate in it, but difference ought not to participate in the genus. If substance could have a definition, despite the fact that it is the most general genus, it would be this: a substance is something of whose very quiddity it is not to be in another. And then the definition of substance would not belong to God, who does not have a quiddity apart from his existence. Hence God is not in the genus of substance, but is above every substance.
Ad 5. It should be said that God cannot be defined, for the defined is comprehended by the intellect of the one defining. But God is incomprehensible by intellect; hence when God is said to be pure act, this is not his definition.
Ad 6. It should be said that it is required for the notion of genus that it be univocally predicated. But nothing can be univocally predicated of God and creatures, as will be evident below. Hence although those things which are said of God, are predicated of him substantially, nevertheless they are not predicated of him as a genus.
Ad 7. It should be said that although God does not pertain to the genus of substance as contained in a genus as the species or individual are contained in genus, he can be said to be in the genus of substance by reduction, as a principle, much as the point is in the genus of continuous quantity, and unity in the genus of number. In this way he is the measure of all substances, as unity is of numbers.
Article 4: Are good, wise, just and the like predicated of God as accidents?
It seems that they are.
1. Whatever is predicated of something not as signifying substance but what follows on nature signifies an accident. But Damascene says that good and just and holy as said of God follow nature and do not signify substance itself. Therefore they predicate accidents of God.
2. But it will be said that Damascene speaks with respect to the mode of signifying. On the contrary. The mode of signifying follows the notion of genus and must be referred to the thing, for the genus predicate signifies the substance of the subject, since it is predicated of it as what it is. But the foregoing names signify in the manner of following on the nature by reason of the genus, for they are in the genus of quality, which in its proper signification relates to a subject, for quality is that by which things are signified as to how they are. Therefore this mode of signifying must refer to the thing, such that what is signified by the foregoing names are things following on the nature of that of which they are predicated, and consequently they are accidents.
3. But it might be said that these names are not predicated of God with respect to their genus, which is quality, for names imposed by us are not properly said of God. On the contrary: if the genus were removed from a thing, the species would be falsely predicated of it: what is not an animal is falsely called a man. If therefore the genus of the predicate, which is quality, is not predicated of God, it is not only improperly but falsely predicated of God, and thus it would be false to say that God is just or that God is holy, which is absurd. Therefore, it must be said that the foregoing names are predicated of God as accidents.
4. Moreover, the Philosopher says that what truly is – that is, substance – is accidental to nothing. Therefore, for the same reason what in itself is an accident is an accident wherever. But justice and wisdom and the like are of themselves accidents. Therefore, there are accidents in God.
5. Moreover, there is an exemplar in God of whatever is found in created things, for he is the exemplar form of all. But wisdom, justice and the like are accidents in created things. Therefore they are accidents in God.
6. Moreover, wherever there is quantity and quality, there is accident. But in God there seems to be quantity and quality, for there is similarity and equality in God, since we say that the Son is similar and equal to the Father. But quality is caused from the unit in quality as equality is from the one in quantity. Therefore, there are accidents in God.
7. Moreover, anything is measured by the first in its genus. But God is not only the measure of substances, but of all accidents, because he is the creator of substance and accident. Therefore, in God there is not only substance but also accident.
8. Moreover, that without which something can be understood is accidentally predicated of it. Porphyry proves that there are some separable accidents because we can think of white crows and white Ethiopians. But God can be understood without good, as is evident in Boethius. Therefore, good signifies an accident in God, and the same goes for the others.
9. Moreover, two things are to be considered in the meaning of the name God: that from which it is imposed and that on which it is imposed. With respect to both, however, the word wisdom seems to signify an accident, for it is imposed from that which makes one wise, which seems to be the action of wisdom; and that from which it is imposed is some quality, and thus in God there is some accident.
ON THE CONTRARY:
1. Boethius says that God, since he is a simple form, cannot be a subject. But every accident is in a subject. Therefore, in God there cannot be any accident.
2. Moreover, every accident depends on something else, but there cannot be such dependence in God, because what depends on another must be caused. God, however, is the first cause, in no way caused. Therefore there cannot be an accident in God.
3. Moreover, Rabbi Moses says that names of this kind do not signify intentions added to the substance of God. But every accident signifies an intention added to the substance of its subject. Therefore the foregoing names do not signify an accident in God.
4. Moreover, an accident is something that comes and goes without the corruption of the subject. But this cannot be in God, since he is immutable, as is proved by the Philosopher. Therefore there can be no accident in God.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that without any doubt it must be held that in God there is no accident, which for the present can be shown by three arguments.
The first argument is this. Nothing extraneous is joined to any nature or essence or form, even though that which has the nature, form or essence can have something extraneous, for humanity receives only what is of the notion of humanity. This is clear from the fact that anything added to or subtracted from definitions signifying essence changes the definition, something clear in numbers too, as the Philosopher says.
But man, who has humanity, can have something which is not of the notion of humanity, such as whiteness and the like, which are not in humanity but in man. In every creature the difference between that which has and what is had obtains. For in composite creatures there is a twofold difference, since the supposit or individual itself has the nature of the species, as man has humanity and existence besides: for a man is neither his humanity nor his existence. So there can be an accident in man but not in humanity itself or in his existence.
In simple substances there is only one difference, namely, that of essence and existence. For in any angel, the supposit is its nature, for the quiddity of the simple is itself simple, as Avicenna says; but it is not its own existence. Hence, the quiddity subsists in its existence. In substances of this kind an intelligible accident can be found, but not a material one.
In God there is no difference between the haver and the had, or of participant and participated; indeed he is both his nature and his existence, and therefore nothing alien or accidental can be in him. Boethius seems to have hit upon this argument when he says, ‘That which is can have something beyond what it itself is, but existence as such has nothing other than itself within it.’
The second argument is this. Since accident is extrinsic to the essence of the subject, and the diverse are only joined by some cause, it would be necessary, if there were an accident in God, that this be due to some cause. But it cannot be any extrinsic cause, because then it would follow that the extrinsic cause acts on God and would be prior to him, as mover to moved, and maker to made. For an accident is caused in a subject from without insofar as an external agent acts on the subject in which the accident is caused.
Similarly, it cannot be from an intrinsic cause, as is the case with proper accidents, which have their cause in the subject. For a subject cannot be the cause of an accident in the same way that it receives the accident, because no potency moves itself to act. So it is necessary that it be susceptible of the accident because of one thing and be the cause of the accident because of another. But then it would be composed, like things that receive accidents because of matter and cause accidents because of form. But it was shown above that God is not complex. Hence it is impossible for there to be any accident in him.
The third argument is this. The accident relates to its subject as act to potency, since it is a certain form of it. Hence since God is pure act without any admixture of potency, he cannot be the subject of accident. It is plain from what has gone before that in God there is no composition of matter and form nor of any substantial parts nor of genus and difference nor of subject and accident. It is evident then that the names mentioned do not predicate an accident of God.
Ad 1. It should be said that Damascene speaks of those names not with regard to what they predicate of God but with regard to that from which they are imposed to signify. For they are imposed by us from certain accidental forms found in creatures and he wishes to prove from this that the substance of God is not made known to us by such names.
Ad 2. It should be said that although quality is the genus of human happiness and wisdom and justice, it is not their genus as said of God, because quality, as such, is called being insofar as it in some way inheres in a subject. Wisdom and justice are not named from this, however, but rather from some perfection or act, hence they enter into talk about God by reason of the difference and not by reason of the genus. On account of this Augustine says that as much as we can we understand good without quality and great without quantity. Hence it is not necessary that the mode which follows on the nature be found in God.
Ad 3. It should be said that if good and just were univocally predicated of God, the predication would be false, the genus being removed. However, nothing is said of God and creature univocally, as will be shown below, so the argument does not follow.
Ad 4. It should be said that wisdom, which is an accident, is not in God, but another wisdom not univocally meant, and for this reason the argument has no force.
Ad 5. It should be said that examples do not always perfectly represent the exemplar. Hence sometimes what is in the exemplar is found only defectively and imperfectly in the example. This is especially so in the things which exemplify God who is an exemplar exceeding every creature in degree.
Ad 6. It should be said that likeness and equality are said of God not because there is quality and quantity in him, but because we predicate of God that which in us signifies quality and quantity, as when we call God great and wise and the like.
Ad 7. It should be said that accidents are called being only in relation to substance as first being. Hence accidents are not measured by some first that is an accident, but by the first one that is substance.
Ad 8. It should be said that anything without which a thing can be understood with respect to its essence has the note of accident, for we cannot understand what is of the substance of a thing while ignoring something that is of its substance, as if we could understand what a man is without understanding animal. We do not know God in his essence but think of him from his effects. So nothing prohibits our thinking of him from the effect of his being and not thinking of him from the effect of his goodness. For it is thus that Boethius speaks. However, it should be noticed that although we can in a way understand God without understanding his goodness, we cannot understand God by understanding that he is not good, any more than we could understand man by understanding him not to be animal, since this would remove the substance of God, which is goodness. The saints in heaven who see God in his essence, in seeing God, see his goodness.
Ad 9. It should be said that wisdom is verified of God with respect to that from which the name is imposed, and it is not imposed from this that it causes wisdom but from this that the things of wisdom are intellectually possessed. For knowledge as knowledge refers to the known, but insofar as it is an accident or form it refers to the knower. To possess the things of wisdom is accidental to man but not to God.
Article 5: Do the foregoing names signify the divine substance?
It seems they do not.
1. For Damascene says that each of the things said of God should not be taken to mean what he is in his substance, but rather to show that he is not some relation, or any of the things from which he is separate, or any of those things which follow on nature or activity. The existence which is substantially predicated of something signifies what its substance is. But the foregoing names are not predicated of God substantially as if signifying his substance.
2. Moreover, no name that signifies the substance of a thing can truly be negated of it. But Dionysius says that as to the divine, negations are true and affirmations incompact. Therefore, such names do not signify the divine substance.
3. Moreover, these names signify the procession of the divine goodness to things, as Dionysius puts it. But the goodness proceeding from God is not the divine substance itself. Therefore, such names do not signify the divine substance.
4. Moreover, Origen says that God is called wise because wisdom fulfils us. But this does not signify the divine substance, but its effect. Therefore, these names do not signify the divine substance.
5. Moreover, in the Book of Causes it is said that the first cause is not named by the name of the first caused, which is intelligence. When, then, a cause is named with the name of its effect, this is not predication through essence but through causality. Therefore names said of God are not predicated of him substantially, but only causally.
6. Moreover, names signify conceptions of intellect, as is clear from the Philosopher. But we cannot understand the divine substance, for we do not know what God is, but only that he is, as Damascene says. Therefore we cannot name him with any name nor signify his substance.
7. Moreover, all things participate in the divine goodness, as is clear from Dionysius. But all things do not participate in his substance, but only the three persons. Therefore, divine goodness does not signify his substance.
8. Moreover, we can only know God from his likeness in the creature because, as the Apostle says, in Romans 1.20, ‘The invisible things of God are understood from the things that are made.’ But as we know him, so we name him. Therefore, we can only name him from the likeness of creatures. But when something is named from the likeness, the name is not predicated of it substantially but metaphorically. Thus it is clear that it is said of God secondarily, but primarily of that from which the likeness is taken. What signifies the substance of something is said first of it.
9. Moreover, according to the Philosopher, to signify substance is to signify this and nothing else. Therefore, if the name good signifies the divine substance, there will be nothing in the divine substance it does not signify, just as there is nothing in human substance that is not signified by ‘man’. But good does not signify wisdom, and thus wisdom would not be the divine substance and, by parity of reasoning, none of the others. Therefore, it cannot be said that these names signify the divine substance.
10. Moreover, as quantity is the cause of equality and quality is the cause of similarity, so substance is of identity. If, therefore, all such names signified the substance of God, they would suggest identity rather than equality and similarity, and thus the creature would be said to be the same as God insofar as he imitates his wisdom or goodness, or any of the others, which is absurd.
11. Moreover, in God, who is the principle of all nature, there can be nothing contrary to nature. The Gloss on Romans, ‘You are set against nature,’ makes clear he can do nothing contrary to nature, but that accident should be substance is contrary to nature. Therefore, since wisdom, justice and the like are in themselves accidents, it cannot be that in God they should be substance.
12. Moreover, when God is called good, this is a complex statement. But there would be no complexity if the goodness of God were his substance. Therefore, it does not seem that good signifies the divine substance, and for the same reason neither do the other names.
13. Moreover, Augustine says that God eludes every concept of our intellect and therefore cannot be included in intellect. But this would not be if these names signified the divine substance, because God would correspond to the concept of our intellect. Therefore names of this kind do not signify the divine substance.
14. Moreover, Dionysius says that the all good God is united to us when we know that in knowing we know nothing of him. But this would not be if what is conceived and signified were the divine substance. Therefore, the same conclusion as before.
ON THE CONTRARY:
1. Augustine says God is what it is to be brave and to be wise, and whatever you might say that signifies his substance. Therefore all such names signify the divine substance.
2. Moreover, Boethius says that when categories other than relation are used in divine predication, they all change into substance, much as ‘just’, although it seems to signify a quality, signifies substance, and similarly ‘great’ and others like them.
3. Moreover, whatever is said by way of participation is reduced to something said of itself and essentially. But the names mentioned are said of creatures by way of participation; therefore when they are taken back to God as to the first cause, they must be said of God essentially. And thus it follows that they signify his substance.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that some held that these names as said of God do not signify the divine substance, something Rabbi Moses most forcibly maintains. He says that such names should be understood of God in two ways: in one way, through the likeness of the effect, as God is called wise not because wisdom is something in him but because he accomplished his effects in the manner of the wise, that is, ordering each thing to its appropriate end, and similarly he is called living insofar as he acts in the manner of one having life, that is, acting of himself. In another way, by negation, such that when we say that God is living, we do not mean that life is in him, but we remove from God that mode of being whereby inanimate things exist. Similarly when we call God intelligent, we do not mean to signify that intellect is something in him, but we remove from God that mode of being whereby brutes exist, and so on with the others.
But both these ways seem insufficient and unfitting. The first, for two reasons, of which one is that on this interpretation there would be no difference between saying that God is wise and God is angry or God is fire. He is called angry because he acts in the manner of an angry person when he punishes, for this is what angry men are wont to do. He is called fire because he acts in the manner of fire when he cleanses, which fire in its way does. But this conflicts with the view of the saints and prophets speaking of God, who affirm some things of God and deny others, affirming that he is alive, wise and the like, and denying that he is a body or subject to passion. But according to this opinion, all things could with equal reason be said of and denied of God, this no more than that.
The second argument is this. Since according to our faith we hold that creatures did not always exist, which he concedes, it would follow that we cannot say that anyone wise and good existed before creatures did. It is obvious that before creatures existed none of these effects was achieved, neither in the manner of the good nor of the wise. But this is completely repugnant to faith, unless perhaps he means to say that before creatures it was possible to speak of the wise, not because he acted wisely, but because it was possible for him to do so. But then it would follow that something existing in God is signified by it, that is, substance, because whatever is in God is substance.
The second way seems absurd for the same reason. For the name of any species takes away some mode that does not belong to God; in the name of any species is included the signification of the difference by which is excluded the other species that is divided against it. Just as in the name of lion is included the difference quadruped by which the lion differs from the bird. Therefore if predications were made of God only to remove something, as we say God is living – because he does not have existence in the manner of the inanimate, as he says – so we can say that God is a lion because he does not exist in the manner of a bird. Moreover, the intellect always bases a negative on some affirmation, and from this it is clear that every negative is proved through an affirmative; hence unless the human intellect knew something affirmatively of God it could deny nothing of God. But it would know nothing, if nothing it says of God is verified of him affirmatively.
Therefore, according to the opinion of Dionysius, it should be said that names of this kind signify the divine substance, though deficiently and imperfectly. This is clear because every agent acts insofar as it is in act, and consequently brings about something similar. It is necessary that the form of the thing made is in some way in the agent, but diversely, because when the effect is equal to the power of the agent, it is necessary that the form is in the maker and made according to the same notion, for then the maker and the made would belong to the same species, which happens with all univocals, for man generates man, and fire fire. But when the effect is not equal to the power of the agent, the form is not in the maker and made according to the same notion, but more eminently in the agent. Insofar as it is in the agent, the agent has the power of producing the effect. Hence if the whole power of the agent is not expressed by what is made, it follows that the mode by which the form is in the agent exceeds the mode by which it is in the effect. And we find this in all equivocal agents, as when the sun generates fire.
It is clear that no effect is equal to the power of the first agent who is God; otherwise only one effect would proceed from that one power. But when from one power we find many and various effects proceeding, we are shown that any of those effects falls short of the power of the agent. Therefore, no form of any divine effect is of the same notion in the effect as in God. None the less, it must be there in a higher mode, and thus it is that all forms which are distinct in different effects and divided from one another are united in him as in one common power, just as all forms produced in lower things by the power of the sun are in the sun according to its unique power, to which all things generated by the action of the sun are assimilated in their forms.
So too the perfections of created things are assimilated to God according to his unique and simple essence. But when our intellect receives knowledge from created things, it is informed by the likenesses of the perfections found in creatures, such as wisdom, virtue, goodness and the like. Hence just as created things by their perfections are made similar to God, though deficiently, so our intellect is informed by the species of these perfections.
Whenever the intellect is assimilated to a thing through its intelligible form, then what it conceives and speaks according to that intelligible species is verified of the thing to which it is made similar through the species. For knowledge is the intellect’s assimilation to the thing known. What intellect, informed by the perfections of these species, thinks and says of God, must truly exist in God who answers to each of these species as that to which all are similar. If this kind of intelligible species in our intellect were made equal in similarity to the divine essence, it would comprehend him and this would be a perfect notion of God, as walking biped is a perfect notion of man.
But the species is not perfectly assimilated to the divine essence, as has been said; therefore, when the intellect attributes such names to God according to these conceptions, they signify the divine substance – not perfectly according as it is, but rather imperfectly as it is understood by us.
Therefore it should be said that each of these names signifies the divine substance, but imperfectly, not as comprehending it; and that is why the name He Who Is belongs especially to God, because it does not determine any form of God but signifies existence indeterminately. This is what Damascene means when he says that this name He Who Is signifies a boundless ocean of substance.
This solution is confirmed by the words of Dionysius, who says that because God precontains, simply and limitlessly, all existent things in himself, he is properly praised and named by diverse things. He says ‘simply’, because the perfections which are in creatures thanks to different forms, are attributed to God according to his simple essence; he says ‘limitlessly’ to show that no perfection found in creatures comprehends the divine essence such that the intellect could define God as that perfection is in him. This is also confirmed by what is said in Metaphysics 5, that the simply perfect is that which has in itself the perfections of all kinds, as the Commentator explains at that place.
Ad 1. It should be said that Damascene means that names of this kind do not signify what God is as comprehending and defining his substance; hence he adds that this name He Who Is, which indefinitely signifies the substance of God, is most properly attributed to God.
Ad 2. It should be replied that Dionysius says that negations of these names are true of God but does not assert that affirmations are false and incompact, but with respect to the thing signified they are truly attributed to God and in some way are in him, as has been shown; but with respect to the mode with which they signify they can be denied of God, for each of these names signifies some definite form, and thus they cannot be attributed to God, as has been said. Therefore, they can be absolutely denied of God since they do not belong to him in the mode signified, for the mode signified is according as they are in our intellect, as has been said; they belong to God in a more sublime mode, hence the affirmation is said to be not in every way fittingly conjoined because of the different mode. According to the teaching of Dionysius they are said in a threefold way of God, first affirmatively, as we say that ‘God is wise’; which we must say because there is in him some likeness of the wisdom flowing from him. Because wisdom is not in God as we understand and name it, it can truly be denied, saying ‘God is not wise.’ Wisdom is not denied of God because he falls short of it, but because it is in him more supereminently than it is said or understood, so we must say, ‘God is super-wise.’ And thus by this threefold manner of speaking according to which God is called wise, Dionysius conveys perfectly how these names are attributed to God.
Ad 3. It should be said that these names are said to signify the divine processions because they are first imposed to signify the processions as they are in creatures, and from their likenesses our intellect is led by the hand so that it can attribute them to God in a more eminent way.
Ad 4. It should be said that the word of Origen is not to be understood as meaning that when we say God is wise we mean to signify that God is the cause of wisdom, but that from the wisdom he causes our intellect is led to the point where it can attribute wisdom to him supereminently, as has been said.
Ad 5. It should be said that when God is said to be intelligent, he is named from his effect: because the name that signifies the substance of his effect cannot be attributed definitely to him according to the mode the name signifies; and thus this name although it belongs to him in a way, does not belong to him as his name, because what the name signifies is a definition; but it belongs to the effect as its name.
Ad 6. It should be said that this argument proves that God can not be named by a name defining his substance or comprehending it or equal to it: for in this way we do not know what God is.
Ad 7. It should be said that just as everything participates in the goodness of God – not numerically the same as he, but by similitude – so it participates in the existence of God. With this difference, however, that goodness implies the relation of some cause, for the good is diffusive of itself, but essence is signified in that in which it is, as at rest.
Ad 8. It should be said that in the effect there is found something in which it is like its cause and something in which it differs from its cause. It agrees with it either in matter or something like, as is evident in brick hardened by fire. Because the mud is heated by the fire, it is assimilated to fire, but because the heated is made heavy and hard it differs from fire, but it has this from the condition of matter. If, therefore, that in which the brick is made like the fire is said of fire, it would be properly said of it, and more eminently and first of all. For fire is hotter than the brick and again more eminently: because the brick is hot because heated but fire is naturally hot. But if we should predicate of fire that in which the brick differs from fire, this would be false; and a name having a condition of this kind in its concept could only be said metaphorically of fire. For it is false to call fire, the most subtle of bodies, gross although it can be called hard because of the violence of its action and its resistance to control. Similarly, in creatures there are things to be considered according to which they are made like God, which with respect to the thing signified imply no imperfection, like to be, to live, to understand, and so on. These are properly said of God, indeed more eminently and primarily of him than of creatures. There are other things in which creatures differ from God because of the fact that they are from nothing, such as potentiality, privation, motion and other like things, which are falsely said of God. Names that include such conditions in their concepts can be said of God only metaphorically, like lion, rock and the like, because they have matter in their definitions. Such names are said metaphorically of God because of a likeness of effect.
Ad 9. It should be said that this argument proceeds from the assumption that it signifies substance definitively or circumscriptively, but none of these names signifies the substance of God in this way, as has been said.
Ad 10. It should be said that although in God such perfections are the divine substance itself, in the creature they are not substantial perfections. Therefore with respect to them creatures are not said to be the same as God, but like him.
Ad 11. It should be said that it would be against nature if wisdom were in God according to its meaning as an accident, but this is not the case, as is evident from the foregoing. Nor is the authority invoked relevant: God does nothing against nature in himself because he does nothing in himself.
Ad 12. It should be said that the complexity of the remark when it is said that God is good does not refer to any composition in God, but to the composition that is in our intellect.
Ad 13. It should be said that God eludes the form of our intellect because he exceeds every form of our intellect, but not such that our intellect cannot be assimilated to God according to any intelligible form.
Ad 14. It should be said that from the fact that our intellect is not equal to the divine substance, the substance of God exceeds our intellect and thus is not known by us; what is ultimate in human knowledge of God is that one knows that he does not know God, because he knows that what God is exceeds everything that we can understand of him.
Article 6: Are these names synonyms?
It seems that they are.
1. Names are called synonyms which completely signify the same thing. But all these names said of God signify the same, because they signify the divine substance, which is in every way simple and one, as has been shown. Therefore all these names are synonyms.
2. Moreover, Damascene says that in the divine all things are one, except non-generation, generation and procession. But names signifying one are synonyms. Therefore, all these names as said of God, apart from those that signify the personal properties, are synonyms.
3. Moreover, things that are the same as one and the same thing are the same as one another. But wisdom in God is the same as his substance, and similarly will and power. Therefore, wisdom, power and will in God are wholly the same, and thus it follows that these names are synonyms.
4. It will be said that these names signify the same thing but according to different notions and therefore are not synonyms. On the contrary, a notion to which nothing in things responds is false and vain. But if the notions of these names are many and the thing is one, it seems that these notions are vain and false.
5. But it will be said that these notions are not vain, since something in God answers to them. On the contrary. Created things are made like God insofar as they proceed from an ideal likeness in him. But the plurality of ideas or of ideal notions is not taken according to their relation to creatures, for God himself according to his one essence is the idea of all things. Therefore, the notions of the names we say of God from the likeness of creatures have nothing answering to them on the side of the divine substance.
6. Moreover, that which is maximally one cannot be the root and basis of multiplicity; but the divine essence is maximally one. Therefore the notions of the foregoing names cannot be founded or rooted in the divine substance.
7. Moreover, the distinction of relations which are really in God causes the plurality of persons. Therefore, if something in God answered to the common notions of the attributes, there would also be a multitude of persons in God according to the multitude of attributes. Thus there would be more than three persons in God, which is heretical. So it seems that these names are completely synonymous.