Dist. 22, Art. 1, Q. 3
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-q3
----------------------------------------
### QUESTION III.

#### *Whether all divine names are said by transference.*

Thirdly it is asked, whether all divine names are said by transference (*translative*), or whether some are also said properly. And that all are said by transference, it seems.

1. In the *Rules of Faith* it is said: «Everything simple properly *is*, and is improperly *said*»; but that which is said improperly is named improperly: since therefore God is simple, he is named improperly; but impropriety is reduced to propriety: therefore the divine names are said improperly of God, [and] properly of others; but what is said of one [thing] improperly is said by transference, if [it is said] of another properly: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, each thing, just as it happens to be understood, also happens to be signified: but it does not happen that God be understood except through the properties and conditions of creatures, therefore neither [does it happen that he be] named [otherwise]; but what is named according to alien properties is always named by transference: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, there is only a twofold theology, namely mystical and symbolic, according to what Dionysius wills; but each names God by transference — for the mystical [does so] through spiritual and invisible creatures, and the symbolic through bodily ones — therefore every naming of God is by transference.

4. Likewise, every divine name is imposed for the sake of our instruction; but all our

doctrine begins from sense: therefore every name of God is taken according to some sensible [thing]; but in God there is no sensible property in truth, but only by transference: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. The Apostle says to the Ephesians 3, speaking of God: *From whom all paternity in heaven and on earth is named*; but if paternity on earth is named from the paternity of God: therefore God is more properly and more principally called *Father* than other [things], therefore not by transference. This same [thing] Dionysius and the Damascene say, leaning on this authority of the Apostle. For the Damascene says: «It must be known that the name of paternity and of filiation and of procession has not been transferred by us to the blessed Deity, as the divine Apostle says: *From whom all paternity*»: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, blessed Ambrose says, and it is found in the text [of the Sentences], that the difference of the divine names is threefold, and one [class] from these is the names by transference: therefore not all are said by transference.

3. Likewise, certain [things] are said of God which have an opposite in every creature, such as eternity and immensity; but a name of transference is taken according to some likeness: therefore such names are not by transference.

4. Likewise, certain [things] are said of God, the signified of which is properly in God alone, like this name *good* and *who is*, Luke 18: *No one is good but God alone*. And Augustine says that «God alone truly is, in comparison with whom the rest are not».

> **Conclusion.** *Not all names are said of God by transference: for when they signify a thing whose truth is in God and whose opposite is in creatures, in no way are they transferred; when they signify a thing whose truth is in God and whose likeness is in creatures, they are transferred according to imposition, not according to the thing; finally, when they signify a thing whose truth is in creatures and whose corresponding property is in God, they are properly transferred.*

**I respond:** To this some have wished to say that certain names there are which God imposed on himself, [and] certain [names] which we have imposed on him. If we speak of the names which God imposed on himself, since he properly understands himself, names of this sort are proper; and such are said to be *good* and *who is*. Whence Dionysius seems to wish that that name *good* alone be proper and principal; the Damascene indeed [wishes] that that name *who is* alone is proper and principal; and the one attends in the name to perfection, the other to absolution (*absolutio*), each however to propriety. But if we speak of the names which we have imposed on him, then since we do not know God except through creatures, we do not name him except through the names of creatures; and therefore [we name him] only by transference, either because [these names] more properly and earlier befit creatures, or because they were earlier imposed on creatures, although they do not more properly befit creatures. And this is

a certain transference, although, properly speaking, it is [only] transference when [the names] more properly befit those [things] from which they are transferred, as *to laugh* [befits] men more properly than meadows.

But this position does not seem to stand. For since we know God in three ways, namely through effect, through excellence, and through removal (*ablatio*), it is established that in all these modes it happens that God be named. If [we name him] through effect, there is no transference there; likewise, if [we name him] through removal, since transference is taken according to some likeness: «for all who transfer transfer according to some likeness».

And therefore it must be said otherwise, that certain names there are which signify a thing whose truth is in God and whose opposite is in the creature, like *immense* and *eternal*; and such [names] are in no way transferred, neither according to the thing nor according to imposition. Certain [names] signify a thing whose truth is in God and whose likeness is in the creature, like *power*, *wisdom*, and *will*; and such names are transferred from creatures to God, not according to the thing, but according to imposition; since they were imposed on creatures earlier than on God, although they are earlier in God. There are certain names which signify a thing whose truth is in the creature and whose corresponding property is in God, like *stone* and *lion* — for the thing signified is in the creature, but the likeness of the property, like stability and fortitude, is in God — and these are properly [names] of transference. It must therefore be granted that in divine matters there are some names of transference, [but] not all.

1. To that which is objected, that *simple* is said improperly; it must be said that *to say* there is not to name, but to enunciate, since for the simple there is no composition in being, but there is composition in enunciating, and therefore [it is said] improperly; not so in naming. — Or say that not every utterance [made] improperly is an utterance by transference.

2. To that which is objected, that [God] is understood only through creatures; it must be said that, although he is understood only through creatures, yet [he is] not [understood] only through likeness; rather, he is knowable through negation and unlikeness.

3. To that which is objected, that symbolic and mystical theology name God by transference; it must be said that, although the mystical [theology] names God by transference as regards the properties of excellence, yet it does not name only thus, but also through abnegation; and therefore not only by transference.

4. To that which is objected, that all our doctrine begins from sense; it must be said that it is true; and every name has something sensible, namely a vocal sound, that it may be heard; but it is not necessary that it have a sensible signification, since the word of the understanding (*verbum intelligentiae*), which is insensible, puts on a sensible vocal sound.