Gregory T. Doolan

On a number of occasions, when considering the names that can properly be said of God, Aquinas notably holds that the most proper name is ‘He Who Is’. In this way, Aquinas’s account of divine naming could be seen to stand in contrast to the Platonic tradition of favoring the name of ‘Good’ for the first principle since, in that tradition, the Good is beyond being. With that said, it is important to note that Aquinas himself at times speaks in terms similar to the Platonists, observing both that God is beyond being (supra ens) and that the name of ‘Good’ should, in a respect, be seen as the ‘principal name of God’ (principale nomen dei), namely, inasmuch as he is a cause. This paper offers clarification on how Aquinas reconciles this claim about ‘Good’ as the principal name of God with his position that ‘He Who Is’ is the most proper name of God. Fundamental to this investigation is a consideration of Aquinas’s treatment of as he presents them in his commentary The Divine Names of Ps.-Dionysius.

Introduction

On a number of occasions, when considering the names that can properly be said of God, Aquinas notably holds that the most proper name is ‘He Who Is’.{1} In this way, Aquinas’s account of divine naming could be seen to stand in contrast to the Platonic tradition of favoring the name of ‘Good’ for the first principle since, in that tradition, the Good is beyond being.{2}

1. See, e.g., Scriptum super libros Sententiarum magistri Petri Lombardi episcopi Parisiensis I (hereafter Super Sententiis I), ed. P. Mandonnet, vol. 1 (Paris: Lethielleux, 1929), d. 8, q. 1, a. 1 (Mandonnet 1.194–97); Super Sententiis I, d. 8, q. 1, a. 3 (Mandonnet 1.199–201); Liber de veritate catholicae Fidei contra errores infidelium seu Summa contra Gentiles (hereafter SCG), ed. C. Pera and P. Caramello, vols. 2–3 (Turin-Rome: Marietti, 1961), I, c. 22 (Marietti 2.33:211); Contra errores Graecorum ad Urbanum papam (hereafter Contra errores Graecorum), vol. 40 A in Sancti Thomae de Aquino Opera Omnia (Rome: Commissio Leonina, 1967), c. 1 (Leon. 40A.72:55–67); In librum Beati Dionysii De divinis nominibus expositio (hereafter In De div. nom.), ed. C. Pera, P. Caramello, and C. Mazzantini (Turin-Rome: Marietti, 1950), c. 5, lect. 1 (Marietti 236:635); Quaestiones disputatae de potentia (hereafter De potentia), in Quaestiones disputatae, ed. P.M. Pession, 8th rev. ed., vol. 2 (Turin-Rome: Marietti, 1949), q. 7, a. 5 co. (Marietti 2.199); Thomas Aquinas, Pars prima Summae theologiae (hereafter ST I), vol. 4–5 in Sancti Thomae de Aquino Opera Omnia (Rome: Commissio Leonina, 1888, 1889), q. 13, a. 11 (Leon. 4.162).
For an excellent overview of Aquinas’s treatment of the divine name Qui est, see Brian T. Carl, ‘The Kataphatic and Apophatic Propriety of “Qui Est”’ in Summa Metaphysicae ad Mentem Sancti Thomae: Essays in Honor of John F. Wippel, The Catholic University of America Press, forthcoming.

2. Here, and in what follows, I will follow the convention of italicizing words when they refer to notions, concepts, natures, or forms.