Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Cry 'Woof'

Home
Catholic
CT 15: The Unicity of God

CT 15: The Unicity of God

Last updated on: December 23, 2014 at 4:01 pm by willduquette

CT 15: The Unicity of God 2014-12-23T16:01:45-05:00 willduquette

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

We’re blogging through St. Thomas Aquinas’ Compendium Theologiae, sometimes called his Shorter Summa. Find the previous posts here.

Now we begin to see the payoff from the dry metaphysics of the previous three chapters as Thomas proves that there is only one God.

The conclusion is evident that there can be but one God. If there were many gods, they would be called by this name either equivocally or univocally.

To use a word equivocally is simply to use it with multiple unrelated meanings. The word light can mean the photons by which I see, it can mean the quality of a room that’s well lit, and it can mean the weight of a pencil on my desk. To use a word univocally is to use it with a single meaning. So if there are many “gods”, either we mean different kinds of thing, each of which we call a “god”, or we mean many things of exactly the same kind.

If they are called gods equivocally, further discussion is fruitless; there is nothing to prevent other peoples from applying the name “god” to what we call a stone.

Words carry meaning; but the word is not the meaning. To have a fruitful conversation, you have to make sure you’re using words the same way.

If they are called gods univocally, they must agree either in genus or in species.

Recall from the previous chapters that genera and species are ways to classify essences. I am a human being, a rational animal; my dog is also an animal, though not rational. We are the same, in that we are both animals; we differ, in that we belong to different species. So for two “god”’s to be the same kind of thing, they need to share the same essence in whole (species) or in part (genus).

But we have just shown that God can be neither a genus nor a species comprising many individuals under Himself. Accordingly a multiplicity of gods is impossible.

He continues,

Again, that whereby a common essence is individuated cannot pertain to many. Although there can be many men, it is impossible for this particular man to be more than one only.

You and I are distinct individuals, though sharing the same essence (humanity), because we are made of different matter. We need something over and above our essence to distinguish us and make us individuals. And the corollary is that the matter I’m made of is only me; it could only become someone else if I were to die.

So if an essence is individuated by itself, and not by something else, it cannot pertain to many. But the divine essence is individuated by itself, since God’s essence is not distinct from His existence; for we have shown that God is His essence. Hence God cannot be more than one only.

So if an essence defines an individual all by itself, then it’s already an individual. You can’t add anything to it to get another individual. And this is the case for God; so He’s unique.

Thomas usually gives two arguments; this topic is so important he’s giving a third.

Another consideration is the following. A form can be multiplied in two ways: first, by specific differences, as in the case of a generic form; in this way color is differentiated into the various species of color; secondly, by the subjects in which it inheres, for example, whiteness.

A generic form is the form that belonging to a genus gives to something. Because a dog is an animal, it has the form of an animal: it can take in nourishment and it can move by itself. Such a form can be “multiplied”, made many, by dividing into multiple species by applying specific differences. Similarly, the form “color” can be divided into all of the colors of the color wheel.

Another way a form can be multiplied is by existing in many things. There are many dogs; and for any color there are many things that have that color.

But note what these two cases have in common: there has to be multiple things—subjects—to which the form applies.

Therefore any form incapable of being multiplied by specific differences cannot be multiplied at all, if it is a form that does not exist in a subject. Thus whiteness, if it were to subsist without a subject, would not be more than one.

Now, the Godhead, we’ve seen, is not a genus; it isn’t multiplied by specific differences. And the Godhead, we’ve seen, isn’t a species predicated of individuals; if the Godhead is a form, then, it doesn’t subsist in individual subjects:

But the divine essence is very existence, ipsum esse, which does not admit of specific differences, as we have shown. Since, therefore, the divine existence is a quasi-form subsisting by itself, seeing that God is His existence, the divine essence cannot be more than one.

Note that word quasi-form. God is like a form that might subsist in a subject; but the Godhead is also distinct from all of the other forms we know of. He’s not quite like anything else, and our terms and definitions fail to capture Him.

So, metaphysically, there’s no way left to get multiple Gods, not in the sense of the First Cause whose essence is His Existence; and Thomas concludes with satisfaction:

Accordingly a plurality of gods is impossible.

Believing Thomas

compendium theologiae

Thomas Aquinas

Previous Post

October 27, 2014

Becoming Family and Encouraging the Unnoticed

Next Post

October 29, 2014 Notebook V2.2.0 Rises From The Dead

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Admin App o' the Morning Ask the Dogmat Believing Thomas Bits of Fiction Blasts from the Past Bootstrapping the Interior Life Catholic Mom Christian Living Deep Thoughts from the Doghouse Dominicana Evangelii Gaudium Interviews It Was A Dark and Stormy Night Links to This and That Lumen Fidei Meme Watch On Writing Operation Gratitude Pedant Errant Photography Quill Random Barkings S'Mary's World Shakers of Salt Software Development The Dog Whistler The Dogmat Sez Third Orders Thomas Aquinas Uncategorized Vikings at Dinos Woof Guide to Cinema Woof Guide to History Woof Guide to Literature Woof Guide to Obscure Catholic Music Woof Guide to Philosophy Woof Guide to Popular Music Woof Guide to Technology Woof Guide to Theology Words I Wish I'd Written Works For Me

Select a Month September 2016 August 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was the last king of Israel before the Assyrian conquest?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Shallum Jehoahaz Amon Hoshea