Chapter XI. Question 11 the unity of God
Why does St. Thomas now treat of God's unity? It seems that he should have discussed it before God's goodness, because unity is the first property of being considered in itself, and it precedes truth and goodness. Moreover, it seems that St. Thomas had already discussed God’s unity in the third question in connection with God's simplicity, because unity is the undividedness of being, and it was already shown in that question that God is the absolutely undivided and indivisible being, because He is not composed of matter and form, of essence and existence, of substance and accident, or of other parts.
In reply to this it must be said that in this eleventh question, as appears particularly from the third article, in which St. Thomas inquires whether there are one or several gods, he is concerned especially with God’s unicity; but God’s unicity has its foundation in the absolute indivisibility of the divine nature,’ that is, in the unity and absolute simplicity of the divine nature. Therefore, in order properly to discuss God’s unicity, St. Thomas speaks also of His indivisibility or of unity in the strict sense.
St. Thomas first treated of the divine nature, having considered it quasi-metaphysically as it is in itself. He now inquires whether this divine nature can be in several gods, just as one would ask whether Michaelness can be in several angels, as humanity is found in several numerically distinct human beings. It is therefore more a discussion of God’s unicity, as is evident from the third article of this question; but the two preceding articles treat of unity in general, in that it is along with simplicity the foundation of unicity.
Thus there are four articles. (1) Whether one adds anything to being. (2) Whether one and many are opposed to each other (this article confirming, as it were from on high, the fourth proof for God’s existence). (3) Whether there is only one God. (4) Whether God is supremely one.
1Summa theol., la, q.11, a.3 (first proof). 2 Cajetan’s commentary may be consulted concerning this difficulty about the arrangement of the subject matter of this part of the Summa.
To some this seems a repetition of the preceding; yet it is not, properly speaking, a repetition, but rather a case of circular contemplation,? which always returns to the same supreme truth (God is the self-subsisting Being), to behold the new rays emanating from it.
FIRST ARTICLE WHETHER ONE ADDS ANYTHING TO BEING
State of the question. The discussion is not about numerical unity, which is the principle of number and which belongs to the category of quantity, but it concerns transcendental unity, which is a property of being and which is found in every category of being, inasmuch as we speak of the unity of substance, of the unity and simplicity of quality, of the unity of action, and similarly of the other predicaments. This distinction is implied in the first objection of this article.
It must be noted that in ancient times Parmenides and Heraclitus seriously disputed this point. Parmenides affirmed the unity and unicity of being, even denying the multiplicity of beings. He proceeded along the lines of absolute realism, conceiving the universal as existing formally in the concrete, and thus he confused universal being with the divine being and said: Being cannot be diversified by itself (because being is being and nothing else); nor can it be diversified by something other than itself (because what would be other than being would be non-being, and non-being is nothing). Hence he concluded: “Being is being, non-being is non-being, and it is im possible to think of anything else.” In other words, multiplicity of beings is absolutely impossible. This argument was revived by Spinoza to prove the unicity of being.‘
St. Thomas, following the lead of Aristotle, examined this argument of Parmenides, and says of it: “In this Parmenides and his disciples were deceived, since they always referred to being as if it had one meaning and one nature, as is the case with any genus (which is diversified by extrinsic differences). But this is impossible. For being is not a genus, but is predicated (analogically) of various things and in many different senses.”1 For the modes of being are not extrinsic to being, but being is included in them. Thus quantity still is being.
But on the other hand, of ancient philosophers it was Heraclitus who denied the unity or indivisibility and identity of being; for he said that experience tells us that everything is becoming, and noth-
ing is, and so to some extent Heraclitus identified being and nonbeing with becoming, which thus would be its own reason for such, as the absolute realists maintain. Thus, contrary to Parmenides, he ends in denying the real validity of the principle of contradiction or of identity, namely, “being is being, non-being is non-being,” or “being is not non-being.”
Thereupon Plato sought to solve the problem of unity and multiplicity by admitting the intelligible order of ideas, the highest of which is the Idea of Good, which is one, indivisible, and immutable, and also admitting the sensible order in which all things undergo a change. This was a sort of juxtaposition of the doctrines of Parmenides and Heraclitus.®
Finally, Aristotle with greater penetration investigated the problem of unity and multiplicity, showing that unity is a transcendental property of being, and is found in every category of being.” In like manner, what makes Aristotle famous is his affirmation of the indivisibility and unicity of God, of the pure Act. But he did not explain how multiplicity of beings proceeds from the one God. For his reasoning did not lead him to admit the idea of a most free creation. The Neoplatonists, however, sought to explain by necessary emanation how plurality of beings proceeds from the One- Good, inasmuch as good is essentially self-diffusive. But in doing so they denied the revealed doctrine of an absolutely free creation, and contradicted themselves, because God in operating from a necessity of His nature could not produce anything finite or limited.* Now St. Thomas proceeds, however, in accordance with Aristotle’s doctrine, very much improving upon it.
Conclusion. One does not add any reality to being, but is only a negation of division.
This conclusion is proved from the analysis alone of the terms, for “one means undivided being.” This is evident from inductive reasoning, by considering the various categories of being: unity of substance is undivided substance, unity of quantity is undivided quantity, and the same applies to unity of quality, action, passion, relation, place, time, position. Nevertheless, one or undivided being is capable of being divided. Thus substance, which is composed of matter and form, man, who is a composite of soul and body, likewise the continuous (magnitude, movement, time), each: is undivided, but indefinitely divisible.
Hence from the analysis of the terms it is clear that unity is23 nothing but undivided being, as Aristotle had already shown.® Hence unity does not add any reality to being, but is only a negation of division.
From this we get the following corollary: one is convertible with being. Indeed what is convertible with another is that which is predicated absolutely first of it, or necessarily and immediately, whether as specific difference, or as an inseparable property. But every being is one, because it is either simple or composite. But what is simple is perfectly one, because it is undivided and indivisible. But what is composite has not being while its parts are divided. Hence every being is one.
That everything guards its unity as it guards its entity, is a sign in confirmation of this truth. Thus in every living being, whether rational or irrational, in every nation whose country is in danger of being attacked, we find this instinct for self-preservation. Thus the Church guards her unity of faith, government, and worship, just as she guards her being.
From this it is clear that one does not add any reality to being, but is only a negation of division. Thus there is only a distinction of the mind between them. And contrary to the teaching of Parmenides, just as being is predicated not univocally but analogically of the different categories of being and of different beings, so also is one. Thus unity can be merely either analogical, or generic, or specific, or numerical. The solution of the objections confirms this doctrine.
Reply to first objection. Transcendental unity, which is found in all the categories of being, differs from unity that is the principle of number, this belonging solely to the category of quantity. Pythagoras, and Plato to some extent, as also Bannez among modern philosophers, erred in not distinguishing between these unities. Yet there is clearly a distinction between them. Thus we say of a doctrine lacking in coherence that it is one among many others, but that it lacks unity. i
Does unity that is the principle of number add any reality to being? It does not add anything really distinct from being, because what is not being is nothingness; but it adds a special and limited mode of being, which is actually and implicitly contained in being, so that quantity still is being and not other than being.
It is in this sense that St. Thomas says at the end of his reply to the first objection: “The one which is convertible with being does not add a reality to being; but the one which is the principle of number does add a reality to being, which belongs to the genus of quantity.” In other words, although quantity is not an extrinsic
differentia to being, as rationality is an extrinsic differentia to the genus of animality, yet quantity connotes a special nature which the notion of being does not connote, and which does not apply to every being. On the contrary, one which is convertible with being does not connote any other nature than being, but the transcendental mode of this nature.
Reply to second objection. In this reply several arguments are presented that serve to elucidate the fourth way of proving God’s existence.
What is one or undivided absolutely may be divided accidentally. Thus what is one in essence and subject may have many accidents. Likewise the continuous is one absolutely or is actually undivided, but it can be divided indefinitely into still smaller parts. Thus it is one absolutely and many accidentally.
On the other hand, those things that are absolutely divided and many, are one accidentally. Thus those things that are many in number are one in species or in principle. Thus many men are absolutely many.
Therefore, since being is one absolutely, “being is divided by one absolutely and by many accidentally.” This means that one and many do not refer on equal terms to being; they are not coordinated but subordinated. “For multitude itself would not be contained under being, unless it were in some way contained under one.” Thus Dionysius says that “there is no kind of multitude that is not in a way one. But what are many in their parts, are one in their whole; and what are many in accidents, are one in subject; and what are many in number, are one in species; and what are many in species, are one in genus; and what are many in processions, are one in principle.” 1° Similarly, what are many in genera, are one in analogous being.
The elucidation of the fourth way ** follows from this, namely, that multitude, which is subordinate to one, cannot be the reason for the unity found by participation in it, the unity of similarity, for instance, either specific, generic, or analogical. Therefore, as St. Thomas says, “if one of some kind is found as a common note in several objects, this must be because some one cause has brought it about in them; for it cannot be that the common note of itself belongs to each thing, since each thing is by its very nature distinct from the other, and a diversity of causes produces a diversity of effects. Since, therefore, being is found as a common note in all things, which, in all that they are, differ from one another, it must of necessity be that being is attributed to them not
of themselves but from some one cause. And this seems to have been Plato’s idea, whose wish was that, prior to any multitude, there should be some unity, not only in numbers, but also in the natures of things.” 1? For this reason, too, it was stated in a previous article that “every composite has a cause, for things in themselves different cannot unite unless something causes them to unite.” 13 Thus the unity of being is preserved, which was the wish of Parmenides; yet it is neither univocal unity nor unicity of being that is preserved, but analogous unity of beings, which are dependent on the supreme Being.
Reply to third objection. “It is not nugatory to say being is one, because one adds an idea to being.” Likewise it is not nugatory or tautological to say every being is one and the same with its phenomena; for this is the principle of identity so determined that it can be called the principle of substance. Nor is it nugatory to say being is being, non-being is non-being, because by such statements it is affirmed that being is not non-being. Likewise if we say: Flesh is flesh, spirit is spirit; good is good, evil is evil. As our Lord says: “Let your speech be yea, yea: no, no.” 14 This means that being is necessarily by its nature opposed to non-being, as good is to evil, as spirit to flesh. By this the identity of being is affirmed against the contentions of absolute evolutionism.
Therefore one is undivided being. Hence one and being differ only in idea, and because our first concept is of being, one is related to being as a property to the essence from which it is derived, as, for instance, incorruptibility is related to a spiritual substance.
SECOND ARTICLE WHETHER ONE AND MANY ARE OPPOSED TO EACH OTHER
State of the question. This article completes the idea of unity, inasmuch as it is compared with its opposite. The principal difficulty is enunciated in the fourth objection of this article, namely, that a vicious circle must be avoided in definitions, and there seems to be a vicious circle here; for if one is undivided being, it is opposed to the previously accepted notion of the divided, or to multitude. Thus multitude would come before and not after one, which is contrary to what was stated in the previous article,’ and this would nullify the fourth way of proving God's existence.
Reply. One is opposed to many, but in various ways, inasmuch as one is considered the principle of number, or as it is convertible with being. For the one which is the principle of number, is opposed to multitude which is number, as the measure is to the thing measured; for number is multitude measured by one, as Aristotle says. But the one which is convertible with being, is opposed to multitude by way of privation, as the undivided is to the thing divided. Thus we speak of a united kingdom as being against a kingdom that is divided.
The first kind of opposition referred to here is of the relative order, as between father and son; the other is privative. Aristotle mentions two other kinds of opposition; 17 namely, contradictory (as between a thing and its negation, between being and non-being, one and not one), and contrary (as between two opposite habits, for instance, between virtue and vice). Among these four kinds of opposition, the kind that is verified between transcendental. unity and multitude is privative opposition.
Objection. But how is the principal difficulty to be answered? It is contended that if one is opposed to multitude, then it would follow that one comes after multitude, and is defined by it, as privation is by the want of form or perfection, as blindness is defined by privation of sight. But if unity is defined by privation of multitude, there is a vicious circle in definitions, for one is posited in the definition of multitude. Thus some define humility by its opposite, which is pride, as if it were a “privation of pride; also pride is defined by humility, as if it were a privation of humility.
St. Thomas, in his reply to the fourth objection, concedes that “division is prior to unity, not absolutely in itself, but according to our way of apprehension. For we apprehend simple things by compound things; and hence we define a point to be what has no part, or the beginning of a line.” Hence unity is defined by us as the privation of division, but not of multitude. Thus we conclude that one is prior to multitude, and is conceived as prior to multitude. In fact, as stated in this reply: what first comes to the mind is being; secondly, that this being is not that being, and thus we apprehend division; thirdly, comes the notion of one; fourthly, the notion of multitude. Hence we conclude that one is prior to multitude, although according to our way of apprehension it comes after division: for “we do not understand divided things to convey the idea of multitude except by the fact that we attribute unity to every part.” Hence there is no circle in definitions. Moreover, as Cajetan observes, division is negation, which is logical being. Hence
16 Metaph., Bk. X, chap. 1. 17 Ibid, Bk. V, chap. 10 (lect. 12 of St. Thomas’ commentary).
division is absolutely prior to unity in the intelligible order, but not in the natural order.
In the reply to the first objection, it is pointed out that multitude is the privation of unity and has its foundation in unity, because privation neither takes away entirely the existence or being of a thing, nor unity which is converted with being. For privation is the want of some perfection in a subject. Thus privation of being and of unity has its foundation in being and in unity. But this does not happen in the privation of special forms. Thus the privation of whiteness is not founded on whiteness, nor is the privation of sight on sight, but on the subject apt for sight.
It remains true, however, that opposition between one and many, inasmuch as, although many is one relatively and has its foundation in one, yet it is not one absolutely. What is many absolutely is one relatively, namely, according to either specific, generic, or analogical similarity. Also what is one absolutely, as man, is many relatively, by reason of its parts and accidents.
Reply to second objection. The other difficulty is solved, namely, that multitude is constituted by one, and therefore it is not opposed to multitude. In the reply it is stated that unities constitute multitude in so far as they have being, but not in so far as they are opposed to multitude. Thus the parts of a house make up the house by the fact that they are beings, not by the fact that they are “not houses,” namely “not the whole.” Every distinct part has a unity that is distinct from the unity of the whole.
The particular conclusions to be drawn from these first two articles are that unity is a.property of being, inasmuch as one is undivided being, and that multitude by way of privation is opposed to this transcendental unity, but presupposes it, and this for two reasons: (1) because multitude is a plurality of unities; (2) because multitude results from the division of a being that is one either by unity of genus or of species or of quantity or of subject.
THIRD ARTICLE WHETHER GOD IS ONE
State of the question. The discussion is not about the absence of division in God, for we have already seen, when treating of God's simplicity,’® that He is absolutely indivisible since there is no kind of composition in Him, either physical, metaphysical, or logical. But the discussion concerns God's unicity. A being, how- ever, is said to be unique, when there cannot be or at least are not other beings of the same species or genus. Therefore God is unique, if there cannot be many Gods. But, as we shall at once see, unicity has its foundation in unity, and God’s unicity in the absolute indivisibility of the Deity.
It must be noted that all polytheists denied God's unity, and likewise many heretics who admitted two principles, one of good and the other of evil, such as the Gnostics, the Marcionites, the Valentinians of the second century. Along with these we must include the Manichaeans of the third century, and finally the Albigensians of the thirteenth century. In the sixteenth century, too, the Tritheists, not having a proper conception of the real distinction between the three divine Persons, spoke as if there were three Gods.
Finally, the pantheists implicitly deny God’s unity, inasmuch as they admit a necessity of emanation of the divine nature in its external communication, just as the sun’s rays of necessity proceed from it. St. Thomas gives three reasons for idolatry or polytheism: (1) an excessive love for certain men, who were the objects of veneration; (2) ignorance of the true God; (3) demoniacal inspiration.
Reply. There is of necessity but one God.
This conclusion is of faith, as clearly seen from very many texts of Holy Scripture; e.g., “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.” 2° There is scarcely a page of the Old or New Testament in which there is not a reference to monotheism. Likewise the first words of the Nicene Creed are: “I believe in one God.” The Fourth Lateran Council says: “We firmly believe that there is only one true God . . . the one principle of all things.” 2 This same truth is equivalently expressed in the Vatican Council.”
Three proofs from reason are given of God's unicity. It is proved: (1) from God's simplicity; (2) from His infinity; (3) from the unity and order in the world. It is proved from God's simplicity as follows: It is impossible to communicate to many that by which any singular thing is this particular thing, for instance, that by which Socrates is this particular man as distinct from others. But because Socrates is not humanity, there can be many men. Since God, however, is His Deity, for the same reason He is both God and this God. Therefore it is impossible that there should be many Gods.
This reasoning is clear, and is made clearer by contrasting it with its opposite, when it is said: “If Socrates were a man by what makes him to be this particular man, as there cannot be many Socrates, so there could not be many men.” Hence, because in the same way God is God and this God, there cannot be many Gods.
For the understanding of the major, it must be noted that this whereby any singular thing is this particular thing cannot be communicated to many, whether we are speaking of individuality resulting from matter which is the foundation of quantity, or whether we are speaking of subsistence or of personality. Indeed, matter which is the foundation of quantity cannot be communicated to inferior things, that is, it cannot be participated by another subject, since matter is the ultimate subject and pure potency, capable of receiving but not of being received. But if we consider subsistence or personality, then that by which this particular thing cannot be communicated is that by which the nature is made incommunicable to another suppositum or person. Therefore in these two acceptations of the term “singularity” we have the verification of the major.
The minor, however, has its foundation in the truth that God is His own Godhead,?? which means that there is no distinction between either the Godhead and this Godhead (because Godhead is not a form received in matter), or between this Godhead and this God (because God is absolutely simple, and He does not constitute a whole of which the Godhead would be only an essential part). i
On the other hand, although there is not any distinction between Michaelness and this M ichaelness, Michael is not his Michaelness, because Michael represents the whole, of which Michaelness is the essential part, and besides this there is in Michael contingent existence and accidents.
Moreover, in contradistinction to the Godhead, the angelic nature taken generically can be communicated to many, inasmuch as there can be many subordinated angelic species according to the perfections of their intellectual power. But this plurality does not apply to the Godhead, for this is not only separated from matter, but transcends every species and genus.** From this first proof it is clear that God’s unicity is deduced from His unity, and from His simplicity or indivisibility.
The second proof is derived from God’s infinity.
There cannot be two or many infinitely perfect beings. But God
is the infinitely perfect being as stated above.*4 Consequently, there cannot be many Gods.
Proof of major. If there were two infinitely perfect beings, there would have to be a difference between them, and this difference would have to be a perfection and not an imperfection. Hence a certain “perfection would be wanting to one of them.” This means that each of them would have to be the self-subsisting Being, and then there would be no way of distinguishing between them, either on our part or in themselves. In other words, there is only one unreceived subsisting Being, just as there would necessarily be but one whiteness, if this were not received in anything. On the other hand, there is a real distinction between God and creatures, inasmuch as these are not their existence, and this, being an imperfection, cannot be in the infinitely perfect Being.
From this proof given by St. Thomas many Thomists deduce that the subsistent relations in the divine Persons, according as they denote regard to another (esse ad), are not absolutely simple perfections, for since filiation is not in the Father, He would be without some absolutely simple perfection and thus would not be God. For an absolutely simple perfection not only implies no imperfection, but it is better for one to have than not to have this. Hence the divine relations, according as they denote regard to another (esse ad), do not add a new perfection to the infinite perfection of the divine nature. The same is to be said of God's free act, for instance, the creative free act.
The third proof is derived from the unity of the universe, and thus the fifth way of proving God's existence is perfected from on high.?5
Things that are diverse do not harmonize in the same order, unless they are ordered thereto by one, because one is essentially the cause of one. But there is ordination, either of subordination or of coordination, between all existing things in the universe. Therefore all these things are ordered by the one, which must be most perfect, so that all things may be ordered by it. And this one is God.
The major is evident from what we said about unity and multitude; for multitude does not convey the idea of unity that is found in it.2° There must be an intelligent Ordainer, for He must perceive the reasons for the existence of things, and the means in the end. Moreover, He must be the self-subsisting Intellection, otherwise His intelligence would be ordered to intellection and
truth by a higher Ordainer. But there must be only one self-subsisting Intellection, just as there is only one self-subsisting Being.?7
Reply to second objection. God is said to be one or undivided by a privation of division. But this privation is only according to our mode of apprehension, because with us the concept of the composite is prior to that of the simple. Hence we define a point to be “what has no part.” 28
FOURTH ARTICLE WHETHER GOD IS SUPREMELY ONE
State of the question. We are concerned here with unity that is the foundation for unicity. This follows as a corollary from what was said about God’s simplicity.2° The difficulty that could be raised from the mystery of the most Holy Trinity is solved when we come to discuss this mystery. For the present, as regards the Trinity, only St. Bernard’s words are quoted: “Among all things called one, the unity of the divine Trinity holds the first place”; 30 that is, the unity is so sublime and intimate that it persists in the very Trinity of Persons. From this most exalted point of view God's unity is revealed. On the contrary, if this unity is not considered with reference to the Trinity, it constitutes the preamble to the faith, and is proved by reason alone, as we have seen. In fact, in this article it is proved by reason alone that God is supremely one.
The proof. What is supremely being and supremely undivided is supremely one; but God is supremely being (because He is the self-subsisting Being) and supremely undivided (because He is absolutely simple); * therefore God is supremely one. This means that He is infinitely farther removed from composition than even the highest angel, who is composed of essence and existence. In fact, God alone is essential unity; for creatures have not unity as an entity except by participation.
In the treatise on the Trinity, however, it is shown that the real distinction between the Persons does not take away from God His supreme unity, for this distinction has its foundation in the opposition of relation. This means that there js a real distinction between the Persons and not between these and the divine nature.s?
80 De consideratione, chap. 5.
Thus in the equilateral triangle the three equal angles are really distinct from one another and not really distinct from the superficies of the triangle, which is one and the same in these three angles. The closer is the unity effected by the real distinction, the nobler is this unity. This constitutes the very mystery of the Trinity.
Cajetan most correctly draws attention to this point so as to show that, although the divine nature is no way either really or formally distinct from paternity, yet this nature is communicable and is really communicated, whereas paternity is incommunicable. In like manner, although the first angle of a triangle is not really distinct from its superficies, and is not communicated to the other two angles, yet its superficies is really communicated. On this point Cajetan says: “As in the real order, so also in the formal order, or of formal aspects in themselves, and not as we speak of them, there is in God but one formal aspect, which is neither purely absolute nor purely relative, neither purely communicable nor purely incommunicable. But this aspect most eminently and formally contains whatever there is of absolute perfection and whatever the relativity in the Trinity demands. . . . But we are deceived when we proceed from the absolute and relative attributes in our approach to God, in that we imagine that the distinction between the absolute and the relative is, as it were, prior to the divine reality; and consequently we believe that this must be put under the other member. And yet there is totality of opposition, for the divine reality is prior to being and to all its differences; for it transcends being and one.” 33
This means that the divine reality, as it is in itself, contains formally and eminently all the most purely simple or absolute perfections, and also the divine relations, so that these real and subsistent relations are neither really nor formally (as realities) distinct from the nature. There is only a rationis ratiocinatae or virtual distinction between them and the divine nature.** Thus we see the sublimity of God's unity from revelation more clearly than from the most searching investigation of reason.
34 By the rationis ratiocinatae distinction is meant a distinction for which there is a foundation in the object distinguished. Thus there is a distinction rationis ratiocinatae between the spirituality and simplicity of the soul.
Rationis ratiocinatae means that the mind has reasoned out this distinction because of the object that is distinguished. (Tr.)
Footnotes
Chapter 12 of 27