Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that the multitude and distinction of things does not come from God. For one naturally always makes one. But God is supremely one, as appears from what precedes (Question 11, Article 4). Therefore He produces but one effect.

Objection 2: Further, the representation is assimilated to its exemplar. But God is the exemplar cause of His effect, as was said above (Question 44, Article 3). Therefore, as God is one, His effect is one only, and not diverse.

Objection 3: Further, the means are proportional to the end. But the end of the creation is one---viz. the divine goodness, as was shown above (Question 44, Article 4). Therefore the effect of God is but one.

On the contrary, It is said (Gn. 1:4,7) that God "divided the light from the darkness," and "divided waters from waters." Therefore the distinction and multitude of things is from God.

I answer that, The distinction of things has been ascribed to many causes. For some attributed the distinction to matter, either by itself or with the agent. Democritus, for instance, and all the ancient natural philosophers, who admitted no cause but matter, attributed it to matter alone; and in their opinion the distinction of things comes from chance according to the movement of matter. Anaxagoras, however, attributed the distinction and multitude of things to matter and to the agent together; and he said that the intellect distinguishes things by extracting what is mixed up in matter.

But this cannot stand, for two reasons. First, because, as was shown above (Question 44, Article 2), even matter itself was created by God. Hence we must reduce whatever distinction comes from matter to a higher cause. Secondly, because matter is for the sake of the form, and not the form for the matter, and the distinction of things comes from their proper forms. Therefore the distinction of things is not on account of the matter; but rather, on the contrary, created matter is formless, in order that it may be accommodated to different forms.

Others have attributed the distinction of things to secondary agents, as did Avicenna, who said that God by understanding Himself, produced the first intelligence; in which, forasmuch as it was not its own being, there is necessarily composition of potentiality and act, as will appear later (Question 50, Article 3). And so the first intelligence, inasmuch as it understood the first cause, produced the second intelligence; and in so far as it understood itself as in potentiality it produced the heavenly body, which causes movement, and inasmuch as it understood itself as having actuality it produced the soul of the heavens.

But this opinion cannot stand, for two reasons. First, because it was shown above (Question 45, Article 5) that to create belongs to God alone, and hence what can be caused only by creation is produced by God alone---viz. all those things which are not subject to generation and corruption. Secondly, because, according to this opinion, the universality of things would not proceed from the intention of the first agent, but from the concurrence of many active causes; and such an effect we can describe only as being produced by chance. Therefore, the perfection of the universe, which consists of the diversity of things, would thus be a thing of chance, which is impossible.

Hence we must say that the distinction and multitude of things come from the intention of the first agent, who is God. For He brought things into being in order that His goodness might be communicated to creatures, and be represented by them; and because His goodness could not be adequately represented by one creature alone, He produced many and diverse creatures, that what was wanting to one in the representation of the divine goodness might be supplied by another. For goodness, which in God is simple and uniform, in creatures is manifold and divided and hence the whole universe together participates the divine goodness more perfectly, and represents it better than any single creature whatever.

And because the divine wisdom is the cause of the distinction of things, therefore Moses said that things are made distinct by the word of God, which is the concept of His wisdom; and this is what we read in Gn. 1:3,4: "God said: Be light made . . . And He divided the light from the darkness."

Reply to Objection 1: The natural agent acts by the form which makes it what it is, and which is only one in one thing; and therefore its effect is one only. But the voluntary agent, such as God is, as was shown above (Question 19, Article 4), acts by an intellectual form. Since, therefore, it is not against God's unity and simplicity to understand many things, as was shown above (Question 15, Article 2), it follows that, although He is one, He can make many things.

Reply to Objection 2: This reason would apply to the representation which reflects the exemplar perfectly, and which is multiplied by reason of matter only; hence the uncreated image, which is perfect, is only one. But no creature represents the first exemplar perfectly, which is the divine essence; and, therefore, it can be represented by many things. Still, according as ideas are called exemplars, the plurality of ideas corresponds in the divine mind to the plurality of things.

Reply to Objection 3: In speculative things the medium of demonstration, which demonstrates the conclusion perfectly, is one only; whereas probable means of proof are many. Likewise when operation is concerned, if the means be equal, so to speak, to the end, one only is sufficient. But the creature is not such a means to its end, which is God; and hence the multiplication of creatures is necessary.

Articulus 1

Argumentum 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod rerum multitudo et distinctio non sit a deo. Unum enim semper natum est unum facere. Sed deus est maxime unus, ut ex praemissis patet.

Ergo non producit nisi unum effectum.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, exemplatum assimilatur suo exemplari. Sed deus est causa exemplaris sui effectus, ut supra dictum est.

Ergo, cum deus sit unus, effectus eius est unus tantum, et non distinctus.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, ea quae sunt ad finem, proportionantur fini. Sed finis creaturae est unus, scilicet divina bonitas, ut supra ostensum est.

Ergo effectus dei non est nisi unus.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod dicitur Gen. I, quod deus distinxit lucem a tenebris, et divisit aquas ab aquis.

Ergo distinctio et multitudo rerum est a deo.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod causam distinctionis rerum multipliciter aliqui assignaverunt. Quidam enim attribuerunt eam materiae, vel soli, vel simul cum agente. Soli quidem materiae, sicut democritus, et omnes antiqui naturales, ponentes solam causam materialem, secundum quos distinctio rerum provenit a casu, secundum motum materiae. Materiae vero et agenti simul distinctionem et multitudinem rerum attribuit Anaxagoras, qui posuit intellectum distinguentem res, extrahendo quod erat permixtum in materia.

Sed hoc non potest stare propter duo. Primo quidem, quia supra ostensum est quod etiam ipsa materia a deo creata est.

Unde oportet et distinctionem, si qua est ex parte materiae, in altiorem causam reducere. Secundo, quia materia est propter formam, et non e converso. Distinctio autem rerum est per formas proprias. Non ergo distinctio est in rebus propter materiam, sed potius e converso in materia creata est difformitas, ut esset diversis formis accommodata.

Quidam vero attribuerunt distinctionem rerum secundis agentibus.

Sicut Avicenna, qui dixit quod deus, intelligendo se, produxit intelligentiam primam, in qua, quia non est suum esse, ex necessitate incidit compositio potentiae et actus, ut infra patebit.

Sic igitur prima intelligentia, inquantum intelligit causam primam, produxit secundam intelligentiam; inquantum autem intelligit se secundum quod est in potentia, produxit corpus caeli, quod movet; inquantum vero intelligit se secundum illud quod habet de actu, produxit animam caeli.

Sed hoc non potest stare propter duo. Primo quidem, quia supra ostensum est quod creare solius dei est. Unde ea quae non possunt causari nisi per creationem, a solo deo producuntur, et haec sunt omnia quae non subiacent generationi et corruptioni. Secundo, quia secundum hanc positionem, non proveniret ex intentione primi agentis universitas rerum, sed ex concursu multarum causarum agentium. Tale autem dicimus provenire a casu.

Sic igitur complementum universi, quod in diversitate rerum consistit, esset a casu, quod est impossibile. Unde dicendum est quod distinctio rerum et multitudo est ex intentione primi agentis, quod est deus. Produxit enim res in esse propter suam bonitatem communicandam creaturis, et per eas repraesentandam.

Et quia per unam creaturam sufficienter repraesentari non potest, produxit multas creaturas et diversas, ut quod deest uni ad repraesentandam divinam bonitatem, suppleatur ex alia, nam bonitas quae in deo est simpliciter et uniformiter, in creaturis est multipliciter et divisim. Unde perfectius participat divinam bonitatem, et repraesentat eam, totum universum, quam alia quaecumque creatura. Et quia ex divina sapientia est causa distinctionis rerum, ideo Moyses dicit res esse distinctas verbo dei, quod est conceptio sapientiae.

Et hoc est quod dicitur Gen. I, dixit deus, fiat lux. Et divisit lucem a tenebris.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod agens per naturam agit per formam per quam est, quae unius tantum est una, et ideo non agit nisi unum. Agens autem voluntarium, quale est deus, ut supra ostensum est, agit per formam intellectam. Cum igitur deum multa intelligere non repugnet unitati et simplicitati ipsius, ut supra ostensum est, relinquitur quod, licet sit unus, possit multa facere.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod ratio illa teneret de exemplato quod perfecte repraesentat exemplar, quod non multiplicatur nisi materialiter. Unde imago increata, quae est perfecta, est una tantum. Sed nulla creatura repraesentat perfecte exemplar primum, quod est divina essentia. Et ideo potest per multa repraesentari. Et tamen secundum quod ideae dicuntur exemplaria, pluralitati rerum correspondet in mente divina pluralitas idearum.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod in speculativis medium demonstrationis, quod perfecte demonstrat conclusionem, est unum tantum, sed media probabilia sunt multa. Et similiter in operativis, quando id quod est ad finem adaequat, ut ita dixerim, finem, non requiritur quod sit nisi unum tantum. Sed creatura non sic se habet ad finem qui est deus.

Unde oportuit creaturas multiplicari.