Summa Theologiae Part I, QQ. 3, 12, 13: God's simplicity, how He is known, His names

Objection 1. It seems that God is a body. For a body is that which has the three dimensions. But Holy Scripture attributes the three dimensions to God, for it is written: He is higher than the Heaven, and what wilt thou do? He is deeper than Hell, and how wilt thou know? The measure of Him is longer than the earth and broader than the sea (Job xi. 8, 9). Therefore God is a body.

Scripture: Job 11:8-9

Obj. 2. Further, everything that has figure is a body, since figure is a quality of quantity. But God seems to have figure, for it is written: Let us make man to our own image and likeness (Gen. i. 26). A figure is called an image, according to the text: Who being the brightness of His glory and the figure [i.e., the image] of His substance (Heb. i. 3). Therefore God is a body.

Scripture: Gen 1:26, Heb 1:3

Obj. 3. Further, whatever has material parts is a body. Scripture attributes corporeal parts to God. Hast thou an arm as God? (Job xl. 4); and The eyes of the Lord are upon the just (Ps. xxxiii. 16); and The right hand of the Lord hath wrought strength (Ps. cxvii. 16). Therefore God is a body.

Scripture: Ps 34:15, Ps 118:16, Job 40:9

Obj. 4. Further, position belongs only to bodies. Something which supposes position is said of God in the Scriptures: I saw the Lord sitting (Isa. vi. 1), and He standeth up to judge (Isa. iii. 13). Therefore God is a body.

Scripture: Isa 6:1, Isa 3:13

Obj. 5. Further, only bodies or things corporeal can be a local term whence (terminus a quo) and a term whither (ad quem). But in the Scriptures God is spoken of as a local term whither (ad quem), according to the words, Come ye to Him and be enlightened (Ps. xxxiii. 6), and as a term whence (a quo): All they that forsake Thee shall be written in the earth (Jer. xvii. 13). Therefore God is a body.

Scripture: Jer 17:13, Ps 34:5

On the contrary, It is written in the Gospel of St. John (iv. 24); God is a spirit.

I answer that, Absolutely, it is true God is not a body; and this can be shown in three ways. First, because no body is in motion unless previously moved by something else, as is evident from induction. It has been already proved that God is the Prime Mover; and is Himself unmoved. Therefore it is clear God is not a body. Second, because the First Being must of necessity actually exist, and in no way remain in a state of potentiality. Although in any single thing that passes from a state of potentiality to a state of actuality, the potentiality is prior in time to the actuality; nevertheless, absolutely speaking, actuality is prior to potentiality; for whatever is in potentiality can only be reduced into actuality by some actual being. It has been already proved that God is the First Being. It is therefore impossible that in God there should be any potentiality. But every body is in potentiality, because whatever is continuous, formally considered, is divisible to infinity; it is therefore impossible that God should be a body. Third, because God is the most noble of beings. It is impossible for any body to be the most noble of beings; for a body must be either animate or inanimate. An animate body is manifestly nobler than any inanimate body. An animate body is not animate because it is a body; otherwise all bodies would be animate. Therefore its animation depends upon some other thing, as our body depends for its animation on the soul. That force by which a body becomes animated must be nobler than the body. Therefore it is impossible that God should be a body.

Reply Obj. 1. As we have said above, Holy Writ puts before us spiritual and Divine things under the comparison of corporeal things. Hence, when it attributes to God the three dimensions under the comparison of corporeal quantity, it implies His virtual quantity; thus, by depth His power of knowing hidden things; by height the transcendence of His excelling Power; by length His unending Existence; by breadth His generous love for all. Or, as says Dionysius, by the depth of God is meant the incomprehensibility of His Essence, by length the progress of His all-pervading Power, by breadth His overspreading all things, inasmuch as all things lie under His protection.

Reply Obj. 2. Man is said to be after the image of God, not as regards his body, but as regards that whereby he excels other animals. Hence, when it is said, Let us make man to our image and likeness, it is added, And let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea (Gen. i. 26). Man excels all animals by his reason and intelligence. Hence it is according to his intelligence and reason (which are incorporeal), that man is said to be according to the image of God.

Scripture: Gen 1:26

Reply Obj. 3. Corporeal parts are attributed to God in Scripture on account of His actions, and this is owing to a certain parallel. For as the act of the eye is to see, the eye of God signifies His power of seeing (intellectually, not sensibly), and so on with the other parts.

Reply Obj. 4. Whatever pertains to position, also, is only attributed to God by some sort of parallel. He is spoken of as sitting, on account of His unchangeableness and dominion; and as standing, on account of His power of overcoming whatever withstands Him.

Reply Obj. 5. We draw near to God by no corporeal steps, since He is everywhere, but by the affections of our soul, and by the actions of that same soul do we withdraw from Him; thus, to approach or to recede signify merely spiritual actions based on the metaphor of local motion.

Objection 1. It seems that no created intellect can see the Essence of God. For Chrysostom on the text, No one has seen God at any time, says, Not prophets only, but neither Angels nor Archangels have seen God. For how can a creature see what is increatable? Dionysius also says, speaking of God: Neither is there sense, nor image, nor opinion, nor reason, nor knowledge of Him.

Obj. 2. Further, everything infinite, as such, is unknown. But God is Infinite, as was shown above (Q. VII.), therefore in Himself He is unknown.

Obj. 3. Further, the created intellect knows only existing things. For what falls first under the apprehension of the intellect is being. But God is not something existing; but rather above existence, as Dionysius says: therefore God is not intelligible; but above all intellect.

Obj. 4. Further, there must be some proportion between the knower and the known, since the known is the perfection of the knower. But no proportion exists between the created intellect and God; for there is an infinite distance between them; therefore the created intellect cannot see the Essence of God.

On the contrary, It is said, We shall see Him as He is (1 John iii. 2).

Scripture: 1John 3:2

I answer that, Since everything is knowable according as it is actual, God, Who is Pure Act (Actus Purus) without any potentiality, is in Himself supremely knowable. What is supremely knowable in itself, may be not knowable to any particular intellect, on account of the excess of the intelligible object above the intellect; as, for example, the sun, which is supremely visible, cannot be seen by the bat by reason of the excess of light in it.

Therefore the opinion of some who consider this, inclines them to the idea that no created intellect can see the Essence of God. This opinion, however, is not tenable. For as the ultimate beatitude of man consists in the use of his highest function, which is that of the intellect; if we suppose that the created intellect could never see God, it would either never attain to beatitude, or its beatitude would consist in something else beside God; which is opposed to Faith. For the ultimate perfection of the rational creature is to be found in its principle of existence; for a thing is perfect so far as it attains to its principle. The same opinion is also against Reason. For there resides in every man a natural desire to know the cause of any effect which he sees; and thence arises wonder in men. If the intellect of the rational creature could not reach so far as to the first cause of things, the natural desire would remain void.

Hence it must be absolutely granted that the Blessed see the Essence of God.

Reply Obj. 1. Both of these authorities speak of the vision of comprehension. Hence Dionysius premises immediately before the words cited, He is universally to all incomprehensible, etc. And Chrysostom, likewise just after the words quoted, says: He says this of the most certain vision of the Father, which is such a perfect consideration and comprehension as the Father has of the Son.

Reply Obj. 2. The infinity of matter not made perfect by form, is unknown in itself, because all knowledge comes by the form; whereas the infinity of the form not limited by matter, is in itself supremely known. God is Infinite in this way, and not in the first way: as appears from what is said above (Q. VII.).

Reply Obj. 3. God is not said to be not existing as if He did not exist at all, but because He exists above all that exists; inasmuch as He is His own Existence. Hence it does not follow that He cannot be known at all, but that He exceeds every kind of knowledge; which means that He is not comprehended.

Reply Obj. 4. Proportion is twofold. In one sense it means a certain habitude or relation of one quantity to another, according as double, treble, and equal are species of proportion. In another sense every habitude of one thing to another is called proportion. In that sense there can be a proportion of the creature to God, inasmuch as it is related to Him as the effect to its Cause, and as potentiality to its Act; in this way the created intellect can be proportioned to know God.

Objection 1. It seems that no name can be given to God. For Dionysius says that, Of Him there is neither name, nor can one be found of Him; and it is said: What name is His, and the name of His Son, if thou knowest? (Prov. xxx. 4).

Scripture: Prov 30:4

Obj. 2. Further, every name is either abstract or concrete. But concrete names do not belong to God, since He is simple, nor do abstract names belong to Him, forasmuch as they do not signify any perfect subsistence: therefore no name can be said of God.

Obj. 3. Further, nouns are taken to signify substance with quality, and verbs and participles signify substance with time; pronouns the same by demonstration or relation; but none of this can be applied to God, for He has no quality, nor accident, nor time; moreover, He cannot be felt, so as to be pointed out; nor can He be described by relation, inasmuch as relations serve to recall a thing mentioned before nouns, participles, or demonstrative pronouns. Therefore God cannot in any way receive a name from us.

On the contrary, We read: The Lord is a man of war, Almighty is His name (Exod. xv. 3).

Scripture: Exod 15:3

I answer that, According to the Philosopher, words are signs of ideas, and ideas the similitude of things; it is thus evident that words relate to the meaning of things through the medium of the intellectual conception. It follows that we can give a name to anything in as far as we can understand it. It was shown above (preceding Q., A. 11 and 12) that in this life we cannot see the Essence of God; but we know God from creatures as their principle, and also by way of excellence and remotion [of defect]. In that way therefore He can be named by us from creatures, nevertheless not so as to express by the name what belongs to the Divine Essence in Itself; as the name man expresses the essence of man as he really is, since it signifies the definition of man in his essence; for the idea expressed by the name is the definition.

Reply Obj. 1. The reason why God has no proper name, or is said to be above description by a name, is because His Essence is above all that we understand about God and signify in word.

Reply Obj. 2. Because we know and name God from creatures, the names we attribute to God signify what can belong to material creatures, of which the knowledge is natural to us. Because in creatures of this kind what is perfect and subsistent, is compound; whereas their form is not a complete subsistence, but rather is that whereby a thing is; hence it follows that all names used by us to signify a complete subsistence must have a concrete meaning as applicable to compound things; whereas names given to signify simple forms, signify a thing not as a subsistence, but as that whereby a thing is; as, for instance, whiteness signifies whereby a thing is white. And as God is simple and self-subsisting, we attribute to Him abstract names to signify His simplicity, and concrete names to signify His Subsistence and Perfection, although both these kinds of names fail to express His mode of Being, forasmuch as our intellect does not know Him in this life as He is.

Reply Obj. 3. To signify substance with quality is to signify the subject (suppositum) with the nature or determined form in which it subsists. Hence, as some things are said of God in a concrete sense, to signify His Subsistence and Perfection, so likewise names are applied to God signifying Substance with quality. Verbs and participles which signify time, are applied to Him because His Eternity includes all time. As we can apprehend and signify simple subsistences only by way of compound things, so we can understand and express simple eternity only by way of temporal things, because our intellect has a natural affinity to compound and temporal things. Demonstrative pronouns are applied to God as describing what is understood, but not what is felt. For we can only describe Him as far as we understand Him. Thus, according as nouns and participles and demonstrative pronouns are applicable to God, so far can He be described by relative pronouns.