← Back to Distinction 37

Dist. 37, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 1

Book I: On the Mystery of the Trinity · Distinction 37

Textus Latinus
p. 652

Articulus I.

De incircumscriptibilitate Dei.

Quaestio I.

Utrum Deus sit localis.

The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Each entry gives first the Latin source text (La.), then the English rendering (En.).

Circa primam1 proceditur sic. Quod Deus sit localis, ostenditur hoc modo.

1. Esse in loco et esse locatum convertuntur; sed Deus est in loco, ut in praecedentibus probatum est2: ergo Deus est locatum. Sed esse locatum est locale: ergo Deus est localis.

2. Item, quod est in uno loco tantum locale est: ergo si plus possunt omnia loca quam unum, et magis sapit naturam rei quod habet esse in toto, quam quod habet in parte, multo magis est locale quod est in omni loco. Sed Deus est in omni loco, quia ubique; ergo videtur maxime esse localis.

3. Item, Deus est ubique; ergo est hic a toto3: sed quod hic est, est in loco determinato, et quod est in loco determinato est locale: ergo etc.

4. Item, Deus est in loco aliquo determinato aut ergo secundum totum, aut secundum partem. Si secundum partem: ergo habet partem et partem, quod est inconveniens. Si secundum totum; sed quod secundum totum est in aliquo comprehenditur ab illo, et quod comprehenditur ab aliquo loco determinato est locale; ergo Deus est localis.

Contra:

1. Magister in littera4: «Localis non est, quia penitus non circumscribitur loco».

2. Item, ratione probatur sic: nihil dicitur temporale, nisi quod exceditur a tempore — temporalia enim in tempore sunt corruptibilia — ergo nihil dicitur locale, nisi quod exceditur a loco5; sed Deus non exceditur a loco: ergo etc.

3. Item, locus est accidens, ergo non denominat illud, nisi ad quod comparatur ut accidens6; sed ad Deum non potest comparari ut accidens: ergo non denominat Deum: ergo Deus non est localis.

4. Item, locus est quantitas continua divisibilis. Punctus autem est principium quantitatis indivisibile7; ergo magis convenit cum Deo punctus quam locus, quantum ad proprietates; sed Deus non dicitur punctalis nisi improprie et falso: ergo non debet dici localis.

p. 653

Conclusio.

Licet Deus aliquo modo sit in loco, tamen nullatenus dicitur localis.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod locale dicitur quod sequitur leges loci, sicut temporale quod sequitur leges temporis. Leges autem loci sunt quantum ad actum continendi, mensurandi, salvandi, terminandi, secundum quas locus se habet ad locatum per modum impartientis, et locatum se habet ad locum per modum suscipientis8. Et quoniam Deus sic est praesens loco, ut nihil ab eo omnino recipiat, sed solum eius indigentiam suppleat et det loco virtutem continendi et locato virtutem replendi; hinc est, quod Deus nullo modo dicendus est localis, sicut dicit Magister in littera9. Et rationes ad hoc inductae concedendae sunt.

Ad argumenta pro parte affirmativa:

Ad 1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod esse in loco et esse locatum convertuntur; dicendum, quod convertuntur ratione materiae circa ipsum corpus, tamen ratione virtutis vocabuli non. Nam haec determinatio in loco, ad hoc quod habeat veritatem locutio, non exigit nec ponit nisi praesentialitatem et indistantiam; sed esse locatum ponit ambitum et continentiam, esse locale ponit idoneitatem ad proprietates loci et indigentiam aliquam. Et ideo haec conceditur: Deus est in loco; tamen aliquid habet improprietatis, propter hoc quod haec praepositio in videtur importare continentiam ambientem. Sed haec est magis impropria: Deus est locatus. Et adhuc ista est plus impropria: Deus est localis; et ideo non est recipienda, sed exponenda.

Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est in uno loco est locale; dicendum, quod illud est, quia10 locus superexcellit ipsum locatum, unde illud determinat et definit; sed quando est in omnibus, ipsum superexcellit omnia loca. Et ideo super hoc non tantum possunt omnia loca, quantum potest unus locus super illud, quod est tantum in uno loco. Et ideo non est localis dicendus Deus.

Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Deus est hic etc.; dicendum, quod hic potest teneri dupliciter: aut demonstrative tantum, aut demonstrative et discretive11. Si tantum demonstrative, sic verum est, Deum esse hic, quia non est signare locum, cui Deus non sit praesens. Si autem discretive, falsum est esse hic; et non sequitur ex prima, et hoc sensu procedit sua ratio.

Ad 4. Ad illud quod quaeritur: aut Deus est secundum totum etc.; dicendum, quod in Deo sunt simul simplicitas et infinitas. Quando ergo apponitur circa Deum nomen importans totalitatem, potest dupliciter apponi: vel ratione simplicitatis, et sic significatur per nomen, ut si dicatur: totus Deus12. Et quoniam Deus in omni loco simplex est, et quodlibet est capax simplicitatis divinae; ideo ratione simplicitatis Deus est in quolibet loco totus. Potest iterum totalitas apponi ratione infinitatis, et hoc fit per adverbium, ut si dicatur: Deus est totaliter in loco hoc sive secundum totum; et sic, cum divina infinitas a nullo loco includatur, Deus in nullo est secundum totum.

Quando ergo quaeritur: aut secundum partem, aut secundum totum; dicendum, quod non dividit per immediata13, quia Deus nec est secundum partem, quia simplex, nec secundum totum, quia infinitus. Et ideo dicendus est totus in quolibet loco, non tamen totaliter; et ideo est in loco, non tamen localiter.

Scholion

I. Huius articuli quaestiones discutiuntur, ut ob ubiquitate divina removeantur illae imperfectiones, quae creaturarum praesentiam in loco comitantur, ut ipse S. Doctor observat supra in divisione textus huius distinctionis. — Solutio ad 4. eruitur ex communiter recepta distinctione inter totum simpliciter et totum et totaliter, quae in multis quaestionibus theologicis solvendis adhibetur. Aliis verbis eandem distinctionem adhibet S. Thom., S. I. q. 8. a. 2. ad 3.

II. Auctores: Alex. Hal., S. p. I. q. 9. m. 1. 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 14. 18. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1. — Henr. Gand., S. a. 32. q. 5. n. 39–42. — Durand., hic p. I. q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2. — Biel, hic q. unica.

---

English Translation
p. 652

Article I.

On the incircumscriptibility of God.

Question I.

Whether God is in a place.

Concerning the first1 one proceeds thus. That God is localis [in a place / spatially located] is shown in this manner.

1. To be in a place and to be located [esse locatum] are convertible; but God is in a place, as has been proved in the preceding2: therefore God is something located. But to be located is to be locale [in-place-able]: therefore God is localis.

2. Likewise, what is in only one place is locale: therefore if all places can [contain] more than one [can], and that which has being in the whole more savors the nature of a thing than that which has [being] in a part, then much more is that locale which is in every place. But God is in every place, since he is everywhere; therefore he seems most of all to be localis.

3. Likewise, God is everywhere; therefore he is here a toto [from-the-whole]3: but what is here, is in a determinate place, and what is in a determinate place is locale: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, God is in some determinate place either, then, according to the whole, or according to a part. If according to a part: then he has part and part, which is unfitting. If according to the whole; but what is in something according to the whole is comprehended by it, and what is comprehended by some determinate place is locale; therefore God is localis.

On the contrary:

1. The Master in the littera4: "He is not localis, since he is in no way circumscribed by place."

2. Likewise, by reason it is proved thus: nothing is called temporal, except what is exceeded by time — for temporal things in time are corruptible — therefore nothing is called locale, except what is exceeded by place5; but God is not exceeded by place: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, place is an accident, therefore it does not denominate that, except [the thing] to which it is compared as an accident6; but to God it cannot be compared as an accident: therefore it does not denominate God: therefore God is not localis.

4. Likewise, place is a continuous divisible quantity. The point, however, is the indivisible principle of quantity7; therefore the point agrees more with God than place does, as regards [its] properties; but God is not called punctalis [point-like] except improperly and falsely: therefore he ought not be called localis.

p. 653

Conclusion.

Although God is in some manner in a place, nevertheless he is in no way called localis.

I respond: It must be said that locale is so called which follows the laws of place, just as temporale [is so called] which follows the laws of time. The laws of place, however, are with regard to the act of containing, measuring, preserving, terminating, according to which place stands to the located by the manner of imparting, and the located stands to the place by the manner of receiving8. And since God is so present to a place that he receives nothing at all from it, but only supplies its indigence and gives to the place the power of containing and to the located the power of filling; hence it is, that God is in no way to be called localis, as the Master says in the littera9. And the reasonings adduced for this are to be conceded.

To the arguments for the affirmative side:

To 1. To that which is objected, that to be in a place and to be located are convertible; it must be said that they are convertible by reason of the matter [in question] regarding the body itself, but not by reason of the force of the term. For this determination in loco, in order that the speech may have truth, neither requires nor posits anything except presentiality and non-distance; but esse locatum posits a circuit and containment, esse locale posits a fittingness for the properties of place and some indigence. And therefore this is conceded: God is in a place; yet it has something of impropriety, because the preposition in seems to import an enveloping containment. But this is more improper: God is located. And further this is more improper still: God is localis; and therefore it is not to be received, but to be expounded.

To 2. To that which is objected, that what is in one place is locale; it must be said that this is so, because10 the place exceeds the located thing itself, whence it determines and defines it; but when [something] is in all [places], it itself exceeds all places. And therefore over this all places cannot prevail as much as one place can over that which is in one place only. And therefore God is not to be called localis.

To 3. To that which is objected, that God is here etc.; it must be said that here can be taken in two ways: either demonstratively only, or demonstratively and discretively11. If only demonstratively, then it is true that God is here, since one cannot point to a place to which God is not present. But if discretively, it is false to be here; and it does not follow from the first [proposition], and in this sense his reason proceeds.

To 4. To that which is asked: either God is according to the whole etc.; it must be said that in God there are at once simplicity and infinity. When therefore there is applied to God a name importing totality, it can be applied in two ways: either by reason of simplicity, and so it is signified by the noun, as if one says: totus Deus ["the whole God"]12. And since God in every place is simple, and any [place] is capable of the divine simplicity; therefore by reason of simplicity God is whole in any place. Again, totality can be applied by reason of infinity, and this is done through an adverb, as if one says: Deus est totaliter in loco hoc ["God is wholly in this place"] or secundum totum ["according to the whole"]; and so, since the divine infinity is included by no place, God is in no [place] according to the whole.

When therefore it is asked: either according to a part, or according to the whole; it must be said that he does not divide by immediates13, because God is neither according to a part, since simple, nor according to the whole, since infinite. And therefore he is to be called whole in any place, yet not wholly; and therefore he is in a place, yet not localiter [place-wise].

Scholion

I. The questions of this article are discussed so that there may be removed from the divine ubiquity those imperfections which accompany the presence of creatures in a place, as the Holy Doctor himself observes above in the divisio textus of this distinction. — The solution to [argument] 4 is drawn from the commonly received distinction between totum simpliciter and totum and totaliter, which is employed in solving many theological questions. In other words St. Thomas employs the same distinction, S. I. q. 8. a. 2. ad 3.

II. Authors: Alex. Hal., S. p. I, q. 9, m. 1, 2. — B. Albert., here a. 14, 18. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 3, a. 1. — Henr. Gand., S. a. 32, q. 5, n. 39–42. — Durand., here p. I, q. 2. — Dionys. Carth., here q. 2. — Biel, here q. unica.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Supple cum ed. 1 Magister. Paulo superius pro illocalitate Vat. illocabilitate, et mutabilitate pro mutatione.
    Supply with ed. 1 Magister. A little above, in place of illocalitate the Vatican [edition reads] illocabilitate, and mutabilitate in place of mutatione.
  2. Parte I. huius dist. a. 1. q. 2. — Adiectivum localis hic idem sonat ac loco circumscriptibilis. — Paulo inferius pro Sed esse Vat. cum aliquibus codd. sed omne, et subinde post locatum est ed. 1 interiicit esse.
    Part I of this distinction, a. 1, q. 2. — The adjective localis here means the same as loco circumscriptibilis [circumscribable by place]. — A little below, in place of Sed esse the Vatican [edition] together with some codices [reads] sed omne, and thereupon after locatum est ed. 1 inserts esse.
  3. Verbis a toto significatur locus sive modus argumentandi, qui iuxta diversitatem totius multiplex est, scil. locus a toto universali, a toto integrali, a toto in modo, a toto in loco, a toto in tempore. «Totum in loco [de quo hic agitur] est dictio comprehendens omnem locum adverbialiter, ut ubique, nusquam. Pars in loco est dictio comprehendens aliquem locum adverbialiter, ut hic, ibi. Locus a toto in loco est habitudo ipsius ad suam partem et tenet constructive et destructive. Constructive sic: Deus est ubique, ergo Deus est hic. Maxima: Cuicumque competit totum in loco, et quaelibet eius pars. Destructive sic: Caesar est nusquam, ergo Caesar non est hic. Maxima: Quidquid removetur a toto in loco, et a qualibet eius parte. Locus a parte in loco est habitudo ipsius ad suum totum; et est semper destructivus, ut: Caesar non est hic, ergo non est ubique. Maxima: Cuicumque non competit pars in loco, nec eius totum» (Petr. Hispan., Sum. tract. de Syllog. topico). — Vat. omittit a toto.
    By the words a toto is signified the topic or mode of arguing which, according to the diversity of the whole, is manifold, namely the topic a toto universali [from the universal whole], a toto integrali [from the integral whole], a toto in modo [from the whole in mode], a toto in loco [from the whole in place], a toto in tempore [from the whole in time]. "Totum in loco [the 'whole in place,' of which we treat here] is a term comprehending every place adverbially, such as ubique [everywhere], nusquam [nowhere]. Pars in loco ['part in place'] is a term comprehending some place adverbially, such as hic [here], ibi [there]. The topic a toto in loco is the relation of itself to its part and holds constructively and destructively. Constructively thus: God is everywhere, therefore God is here. Maxim: Whatever the whole-in-place belongs to, also any part of it [does]. Destructively thus: Caesar is nowhere, therefore Caesar is not here. Maxim: Whatever is removed from the whole-in-place, [is removed] also from any part of it. The topic a parte in loco is the relation of itself to its whole; and is always destructive, as: Caesar is not here, therefore he is not everywhere. Maxim: To whatever the part-in-place does not belong, neither [does] its whole" (Peter of Spain, Summulae, tract on the topical syllogism). — The Vatican [edition] omits a toto.
  4. Cap. 5.
    Chapter 5.
  5. Aristot., IV. Phys. text. 117. (c. 12.): Quoniam autem est, ut in numero, esse in tempore; accipietur aliquod maius tempus omni eo quod est in tempore. Quapropter necesse est, omnia ea quae in tempore sunt contineri a tempore, sicut et alia quaecumque in aliquo sunt, ut ea quae in loco sunt, a loco.
    Aristotle, Physics IV, text 117 (c. 12): "Since, however, to be in time is, as it were, [to be] in a number; some greater time will be taken than every [time] which is in time. Wherefore it is necessary that all those things which are in time be contained by time, just as also whatever other things are in something, as those which are in a place [are contained] by place."
  6. Cfr. supra pag. 475, nota 1.
    Cf. above page 475, note 1.
  7. Vide Aristot., de Praedicam. c. de Quantitate, et VI. Phys. text. 1. seqq.
    See Aristotle, Categories, chapter on Quantity, and Physics VI, text 1 ff.
  8. Cfr. Aristot., IV. Phys. text. 30. (c. 4.).
    Cf. Aristotle, Physics IV, text 30 (c. 4).
  9. Cap. 5. seqq. — Cfr. etiam Anselm., Monolog. c. 22.
    Chapter 5 ff. — Cf. also Anselm, Monologion c. 22.
  10. Cod. T bene adiungit tantum, quod et in obiectione habetur.
    Codex T rightly adds tantum ["only"], which is also had in the objection.
  11. Id est, discernendo hunc locum ab alio, ita ut hic sit et alibi non. Ad vocem prima, quae in subnexis occurrit, intellige: propositione, nempe: Deus est hic; et subinde sua ratio accipe pro ratio obiicientis.
    That is, by distinguishing this place from another, in such a way that he is here and not elsewhere. As to the word prima ["the first"] which occurs in what follows, understand: propositione ["proposition"], namely: God is here; and thereupon take sua ratio ["his reason"] for ratio obiicientis ["the reason of the one objecting"].
  12. Quod est totus, pro quo Vat. minus congrue totum. — Mox post simplicitatis divinae plurimi codd. cum ed. 1 adiungunt vel dictum, omittentes simul voculam subsequentem ideo, quam tamen cod. T retinet.
    Quod est totus ["which is whole"], for which the Vatican [edition reads] less fittingly totum. — Soon after simplicitatis divinae very many codices with ed. 1 add vel dictum ["or the saying"], omitting at the same time the following little word ideo ["therefore"], which however codex T retains.
  13. Hoc sibi vult; obiiciens non dividit per immediata membra. — In fine solutionis Vat. cum cod. cc omittit verba et ideo est in loco, non tamen localiter. Pro localiter multi codd. totaliter; mendose.
    This is what he means; the one objecting does not divide by immediate members. — At the end of the solution the Vatican [edition] together with codex cc omits the words et ideo est in loco, non tamen localiter ["and therefore he is in a place, yet not place-wise"]. In place of localiter, many codices [read] totaliter ["wholly"]; erroneously.
← Dist. 37, Part 1, Art. 3, Q. 2Dist. 37, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 2→