基督教傳統既強調上帝不可言說，又認為祂可被言說。兩說應如何調和，向來是經院哲學家爭論的重點。本文探討晚期經院哲學家蘇亞雷的論點，並指出其中困難。蘇亞雷聚焦於語言之溝通面、強調說者之命名行為旨在使聽者理解其意圖，並根據這點修正多瑪斯和司各脫之說。多瑪斯認為人類由於認知的有限性而無法言說無限的上帝。但蘇亞雷指出，即使擁有無限理智的上帝也無法向言說其自身，因為所說的內容超出人類理解的範圍。司各脫認為上帝的可言說性在於某些名稱能夠基於命名者的意圖而恰當指涉上帝，即使人無法以言語描述上帝的本質。蘇亞雷反駁此說，認為說者在命名時務必使用聽者能夠理解的語詞，不可僅憑自己意圖而任意為之。但本文將指出，蘇亞雷對司各脫的批評不盡公平，因為司各脫強調命名須基於對對象的正確認識、不具任意性。此外，蘇亞雷還混淆了概念本身及其在聽覺經驗中的形成過程，從而誇大了聽者理解能力對於命名行為的約束力。

The Christian tradition holds both that God is ineffable and that God can be named. Scholastic philosophers seek to reconcile these claims. This paper investigates Francisco Suárez’s contribution to this issue and identifies its problems. Suárez’s strategy focuses on the communicative aspect of language, and emphasizes that in imposing a name, the speaker must aim at making the hearer understand his intention. The emphasis on linguistic communication enables Suárez to correct Aquinas’ and Scotus’ respective theories of divine ineffability. Aquinas holds that man is incapable of speaking of the infinitely perfect God because of his finite intellect. But Suárez argues that even God with His perfect intellect cannot speak of Himself to human beings, because the spoken content would be incomprehensible to them. Scotus maintains that although no human language can describe the divine nature, God can still be given a name insofar as the human speaker intends to use it to refer to Him. But Suárez argues to the contrary that the speaker cannot impose the name at will and should endeavor to make the hearer understand his intention. Nevertheless, this paper argues that Suárez misunderstood Scotus, because the latter explicitly held that the imposition of name is not an arbitrary affair but should be based on the correct understanding of the object named. Furthermore, Suárez confuses concept as such with the formation of concept in auditory experience, thereby exaggerating the role of the hearer’s understanding in constraining the imposition of names.