|
Objection 1: It seems that God is not everywhere. For to be
everywhere means to be in every place. But to be in every place does
not belong to God, to Whom it does not belong to be in place at all;
for "incorporeal things," as Boethius says (De Hebdom.), "are
not in a place." Therefore God is not everywhere.
Objection 2: Further, the relation of time to succession is the
same as the relation of place to permanence. But one indivisible part
of action or movement cannot exist in different times; therefore
neither can one indivisible part in the genus of permanent things be in
every place. Now the divine being is not successive but permanent.
Therefore God is not in many places; and thus He is not everywhere.
Objection 3: Further, what is wholly in any one place is not in
part elsewhere. But if God is in any one place He is all there; for
He has no parts. No part of Him then is elsewhere; and therefore
God is not everywhere.
On the contrary, It is written, "I fill heaven and earth."
(Jer. 23:24).
I answer that, Since place is a thing, to be in place can be
understood in a twofold sense; either by way of other
things---i.e. as one thing is said to be in another no matter how;
and thus the accidents of a place are in place; or by a way proper to
place; and thus things placed are in a place. Now in both these
senses, in some way God is in every place; and this is to be
everywhere. First, as He is in all things giving them being, power
and operation; so He is in every place as giving it existence and
locative power. Again, things placed are in place, inasmuch as they
fill place; and God fills every place; not, indeed, like a body,
for a body is said to fill place inasmuch as it excludes the
co-presence of another body; whereas by God being in a place, others
are not thereby excluded from it; indeed, by the very fact that He
gives being to the things that fill every place, He Himself fills
every place.
Reply to Objection 1: Incorporeal things are in place not by
contact of dimensive quantity, as bodies are but by contact of power.
Reply to Objection 2: The indivisible is twofold. One is the term
of the continuous; as a point in permanent things, and as a moment in
succession; and this kind of the indivisible in permanent things,
forasmuch as it has a determinate site, cannot be in many parts of
place, or in many places; likewise the indivisible of action or
movement, forasmuch as it has a determinate order in movement or
action, cannot be in many parts of time. Another kind of the
indivisible is outside of the whole genus of the continuous; and in
this way incorporeal substances, like God, angel and soul, are
called indivisible. Such a kind of indivisible does not belong to the
continuous, as a part of it, but as touching it by its power; hence,
according as its power can extend itself to one or to many, to a small
thing, or to a great one, in this way it is in one or in many places,
and in a small or large place.
Reply to Objection 3: A whole is so called with reference to its
parts. Now part is twofold: viz. a part of the essence, as the form
and the matter are called parts of the composite, while genus and
difference are called parts of species. There is also part of quantity
into which any quantity is divided. What therefore is whole in any
place by totality of quantity, cannot be outside of that place,
because the quantity of anything placed is commensurate to the quantity
of the place; and hence there is no totality of quantity without
totality of place. But totality of essence is not commensurate to the
totality of place. Hence it is not necessary for that which is whole
by totality of essence in a thing, not to be at all outside of it.
This appears also in accidental forms which have accidental quantity;
as an example, whiteness is whole in each part of the surface if we
speak of its totality of essence; because according to the perfect idea
of its species it is found to exist in every part of the surface. But
if its totality be considered according to quantity which it has
accidentally, then it is not whole in every part of the surface. On
the other hand, incorporeal substances have no totality either of
themselves or accidentally, except in reference to the perfect idea of
their essence. Hence, as the soul is whole in every part of the
body, so is God whole in all things and in each one.
|
|