Dist. 22, Art. 1, Q. 2
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/1/d/22/q/bon-sent-I-d22-a1-q2
----------------------------------------
### QUESTION II.

#### *Whether God has one only name, or several.*

Secondly it is asked, whether God has one only name, or several. And that [he has] several, it seems:

1. By the authority of Scripture, which calls him by diverse names. Exodus 6: *My great name Adonai I did not show to them*. Exodus 15: *Almighty is his name*. And in the Psalm: *The Lord is his name*. If therefore these are diverse names, it is clear by the authority of Scripture that God has several names.

2. Likewise, Dionysius in the book *On the Divine Names* assigns several names to God; Ambrose likewise in the book *On the Trinity*, and the Master likewise in the text [of the Sentences].

3. Likewise, this same [point] is seen by reason; since no name sufficiently expresses the divine being neither in itself nor in comparison to our intellect. Which is clear, since every perfection both is and is understood to be in God; and no name expresses the perfection of every condition: therefore since it cannot be done by one, we have need of several.

4. Likewise, that in which things agree and that in which they differ must be expressed either by several names, or it is necessary that one [name] be used equivocally; but equivocation generates ambiguity and is to be removed: therefore it is fitting to express [them] by diverse names. Since therefore in divine matters there is what is common and what is proper, and this in several [respects], it is necessary that there be several names.

5. Likewise, although there is one first truth, yet the articles of faith are many: if therefore faith concerning God believes many articles, and *what is believed in the heart unto justice must be confessed with the mouth unto salvation*, one can and ought to confess many articles with the mouth; but many articles are not expressly and explicitly expressed by one name: therefore it is necessary to have several names.

**On the contrary:** 1. Hilary: «It is not the thing that is subject to discourse, but discourse to the thing»: therefore since in God there is altogether real unity, therefore [there is unity] also of speech and of name.

2. Likewise, everything which is in God, is God; therefore that which signifies something which is in God, is God; but God is one: therefore all divine names have one signified; but all such [names] are synonyms, and by synonymous names no more is said by several than by one: therefore it seems that all [names] other than one are beyond what is necessary.

3. Likewise, the multiplication of divine names comes either from the side of the thing, or from the side of the intellects [understanding], or from the side of the effects. If from the side of the thing, then *goodness* and *truth* are not diverse names, since the thing is altogether one; if from the side of the effects, then likewise *unity* and *eternity* are not diverse, since they do not connote an effect; if from the side of the intellects only: then it seems that names of this sort are empty and vain, since they have nothing corresponding in the thing.

4. Likewise, in Scripture the name of God is set forth in the singular, whether [the name] be added to one [person], as when it is said: *The Lord is his name*, or to several, as when it is said: *In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit*: therefore since the account of a thing and of one thing, and of a name and of one name, is the same, therefore God has only one name.

> **Conclusion.** *We name God now by one name, now by several, according to the diverse modes by which "name" is taken.*

**I respond:** It must be said that in a name there are three [things], namely the vocal sound, the signification, and the ground of making known (*ratio innotescendi*). Whence "name" is also taken in many ways: sometimes for the signifying vocal sound, as when it is said: *Peter is the name of the Apostle*; and so it is established that in God there are several names. Sometimes "name" is taken for the thing signified, as when it is said: *the good and the honourable are the same in name*; and so in divine matters in a certain way one may say [there is] one name, in a certain way several. For if the thing signified be spoken of essentially, then all [the names are] one; if personally, then [there are] several and several corresponding names. Sometimes "name" is taken for the very note of recognition or the ground of making known; and so it must be said that in a certain way the name [is] one, in a certain way several.

For if the ground of making known be taken on the side of God, [God] is so made known by [his] power, which is one and great; and so the one name of God is also great or greatest. Whence Jeremiah 10: *Great are you, and great is your name*; as regards the ground of making known or the power through which he is made known, according to what is said in the Psalm: *God is known in Judah, in Israel his name is great*.

But if the ground of making known be taken by reason of the effects or creatures, then the names are diverse. For God is made known to us in three ways, namely by causality, by removal (*ablatio*), and by excellence; and according to this there is a multitude of names. For if he be named by causality, the names are many, since he has many effects; if by removal, the names are many, since many [things] are removed [from him], namely all created [things]; if by excellence, [the names are] many, since in many [things] — namely in all conditions of nobility — he exceeds creatures.

**To the arguments on the opposite side:**

4. From what has been said the [arguments] objected are clear. For as regards what is objected, that Scripture expresses the name of God in the singular; it must be said that Scripture for the most part predicates the name of God [as] great, admirable, holy and praiseworthy; and so it does not speak of "name" as vocal sound, but as the ground of making known on the side of God; and so [it is] one. Yet it does not follow: it speaks in the singular, therefore [the name is] one only, since frequently what is said in the singular is also said universally, as is clear in many examples in the Law, when it was said: *a man of the house of Israel*, or *a man who shall do this or that*, [and] it was understood of any man whatever.

1. To that which is objected, that the unity is on the side of the thing; it must be said that the plurality is [also] on the side of the thing,

so that "thing" be taken for "person". But if [it be taken] for the nature, although there be no plurality in itself, yet [there is plurality] insofar as it is made known. And therefore [there are] several names.

2. To that which is objected, that such names are synonyms; it must be said that names are then synonymous, when they differ on the side of vocal sound only. But here there is a difference according to the ground of making known, and therefore they are not synonymous. Another reasoning was stated above, in the eighth distinction, in the first problem.

3. To that which is objected, that if [the multiplication] comes from the side of understanding only, then such names are vain; it must be said that it does not come from this alone, since to that ground of making known there corresponds plurality in creatures, and in God there corresponds true unity comprehending that whole plurality. Whence since we understand God's power and wisdom through diverse [things], we name [them] in diverse modes; and since in God there is truly wisdom and power, therefore there is no vanity there.