Scholastica commentaria in Primam Partem Summae Theologicae

SUMMARY OF THE ARTICLE.

First conclusion: If we attend to the thing signified the conclusion is affirmative.

Second conclusion: If we attend to the mode of signifying, the conclusion is negative. These conclusions are evident in the article.

COMMENTARY.

ON this article read Durandus in the cited d. 22, q. 1; and for knowing which names are said properly of God, and which metaphorically, the reply to the first argument of this article is to be noted.

Concerning the replies to the arguments it is to be noted that the imperfection which is found in the divine names consists in the mode of signifying: either in this, that they signify after the mode of a nature composed with a supposit, and of this kind are concrete substantial names, e.g. God; or in this, that they signify after the mode of what inheres in another, of which kind are the names that convey the divine attributes in the concrete, as wise, just, etc.; or finally in this, that they signify after the mode of an incomplete form, and these are abstract names, as goodness etc. But it is to be noted that this imperfection holds entirely on the side of the signifying term, and not on the side of the thing signified: and therefore it is to be granted without qualification that these names are said properly of God.

Concerning the reply to the second note that St. Augustine is to be expounded with the same understanding with which St. Thomas expounds St. Dionysius, book 5, On the Trinity, ch. 10, at the end, where he suggests that no name is said properly of God. Finally note that that testimony of St. Ambrose cited in the On the contrary argument is not found in book 2 On Faith as it is reported by St. Thomas and by the Master of the Sentences in the cited dist. 22; but it is found in book 2 On the Trinity, in the Preface, which book was perhaps called On Faith by the Master and by St. Thomas because it is entitled by St. Ambrose On the Faith of the Trinity.