SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 8, Art. 2]

Whether God Is Everywhere?

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.

Obj. 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.

Obj. 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 Obj. 1: Incorporeal things are in place not by contact

of dimensive quantity, as bodies are but by contact of power.

Reply Obj. 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 Obj. 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.

_______________________

Summa Theologica, Part I (Prima Pars) From the Complete American Edition · 第 65 / 722 题