44 oonoept i8 primarily applioable to the oreature from whoa it i8 d~ived, how oan it iD any sense be applioable to God? It St. ihoDl&s names God ..... from the oreature, how does he span the immeasurable distarioe that separates being trom Being? How can that be oalled"knowledge", which is af- firmed ot things between which there are esaential differenoes ot indetiftable degree? Brietly, the answer to all these questioi. is oontained in the dootrine ot the analogy of being. By analogioal predication we predicate an attribute ot the oreatureand ot God, but, as applied to God, it is treed trom the lim! tations whioh attend it in the oreature. We see at onoe that the attribute as applicable to the creature does not mean exactly the same a8 it does when that same attribute is applied to God. Still the two predications are not wholly dissimilar. We may say, they are partly alike and partly ditterent. l 7bere are many analogical terms. All positive pertections tormally attributed to God, suoh, for instanoe, as were noted in the seoond ohapter, are predicated analogioally. Eaoh predioation is expressive ot a partioular meaning yet all oombine in a united ettort to give human expression to I 1 st. Thomas, Summa Theologioa, I a, q. 13, art. 5, oor.1 For we oan name God only from creatures. '!hus, whatever is said ot God and oreatures, is said aooording to the relation ot a creature to God as its prinoiple and oause, wherein all pertections ot things pre-exi'st excellently. Bow this mode ot oommunity ot idea is a mean between pure equivocation and simple univoo_tion. For in analogies the idea is not, as it is in univocal., one and the same, yet it is not totally diver.e aa in equivocals.
46 the incomprehensible greatness of God. Whose indivisible unity we~ffirm even while we name Him Wisdom, Goodness. Truth or any other of the various analogical terms by which we signify God. Among these numerous analogical terms there is one to whioh practical- 1y all the others can be reduced,that, namely, of being. . ... .. ; Being is fundamental to the entire Thomistic metaphysio; it i8 a oonoe~t to which all others are in some way related. 2 If the analigy of being is used to illustrate Thomistic metaphysio, the reason for doing so should be clear. We began our study of God's existence with composite being. We sought the cause of the becoming of composite being in Being that never becomes because it is the plenitude of perfection. The point from which we started was being as known through experience; the Being to which our reasoned conclusion led us lies infinitely beyond the scope of direct experience; still, because we know being that begins to be or oeases to exist, we know that there is a Being Whonei ther begins nor ceases to be. The predication of being of the finite and of the Infinite is not purely attributive nor is it purely negative. The only kind of being immediately known to us is being composed of potency and aot. When we affi~ being of God. it is not the essentially limited existence of. let u. I 201giati-Zybura: ~ Key ~ ~ Study 2!!!. Thoma. translated from the Italian of Olgiati by Zybura. Herder Book Co., St. Louis, 1929,.p. 441 For S •• Thomas, the supreme principles of thought and reality stand in intimate relation to the metaphysical concept. of being. Note: The theme of this entire treati.e is that the "key" to the understanding of St. Thomas' philosophy is an understanding of his conoept of being.