Question 3. Whether there is only one God

157. I ask whether there is only one God.

Argument that there is not:

I Corinthians 8.5: “As there be gods many and lords many.”

158. Again thus: God is; therefore Gods are.

The proof of the consequence is that singular and plural indicate the same thing although they differ in mode of signification;     therefore they include the same predicate taken proportionally. Therefore as the singular includes the singular predicate so the plural includes the plural.The point seems to be that if ‘God’ includes the predicate ‘is’ then ‘Gods’ must include the predicate ‘are’ because the difference between singular and plural is in mode and not in thing signified. A parallel would be ‘God is masculine’ (‘Deus’ is a masculine word in Latin] therefore ‘Gods are masculine’ (i.e. each occurrence of ‘Deus’ is an occurrence of a masculine). The error here is exposed below n.185. ¹²⁵

Proof in a second way is that just as God is that than which a greater cannot be thought [n.11], so Gods are that than which greaters cannot be thought; but things than which greaters cannot be thought exist in fact, as it seems, because if they did not exist in fact greaters than them could be thought; therefore etc     .

159. In addition, every real being by participation is reduced to something such by essence; created individuals in any species are real by participation, otherwise they would not be many;     therefore they are reduced to something such by essence; therefore there is some man, some ox by essence, etc     . But whatever is by essence and not by participation is God;     therefore etc     .

160. Again, more goods are better than fewer; but whatever is better should be posited in the universe;     therefore etc     .

161. Again, anything that, if it is, is a necessary being is simply a necessary being; but if there is another God it is a necessary being;     therefore etc     . Proof of the major: grant the opposite of the predicate, ‘it is not simply a necessary being’, and the opposite of the subject follows, namely that, if it is, it is a possible being and not a necessary being.

Response: the opposite of the subject should be inferred in this way, ‘it is not a necessary being if it exists’, where the relation of antecedent and consequent is denied.

162. To the contrary:

Deuteronomy 6.4: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one God;” and Isaiah 45.5:

“Beside me there is no God.”Interpolation: “The argument for this is by means of the Philosopher Metaphysics 12.8.1074a31-37: if there are two [gods], one of them would have matter. And (ibid. 1076a4): a plurality of principles is not good; therefore there is one ruler. And Damascene De Fide Orthodoxa 1.5 sets down three reasons: this god would lack that one, that one differs from this; second, neither would be everywhere; third, they would regenerate things badly - and this agrees with the second reason. The Master [Lombard, I d.3 ch.3]: one of them would be superfluous. - Again, by reason, because as he [Aristotle] says above, unity is the principle of duality and of every multitude; Proclus Institutio Theologica ch.21. - Again, how would they come together under a genus or a species? Composition follows either way. This agrees with the first reason of the Philosopher.” ¹²⁶

I. To the Question

163. [The opinion of others] - InInterpolation: “When setting down this concept of God in this question, that he necessarily exists of himself, or is independent in existence, or is an uncreated being, or the unmovable first mover, one will be able to make use of the opinion of Aristotle about the intelligences [Metaphysics 12.8.1073a14-74b14], if they are thus Gods, which is dealt with in I d.8 p.2 q. un. nn.3-11. - As to the fourth concept, there is no demonstration of the affirmative if, according to Aristotle [ ibid. 12.6-7.1072a9-23], one of them moves with a diurnal motion and the other moves the zodiac and each exists of itself. But this concept is saved by setting down this concept or description of God: a being of infinite intellectuality, will, goodness, power; a necessary being, existing of itself. Hence, in advance of this question, one must prove all the following things of God: thus, that some being is altogether first with a triple primacy was proved in the preceding question [nn.42-67], and that it necessarily exists [n.70], and is infinite [nn.111-136]; and the same about the intellect, will, and power, in the same place [nn.75-100]. Thus the question is not being begged here.” ¹²⁷ this question the conclusion is certain. But some say that this conclusion is not demonstrable but only accepted on faith; and for this there follows the authority of Rabbi Moses [Maimonides], Guide of the Perplexed I ch.75: “the unity of God is received from the Law.”

164. This is also argued by reason, that if it could be known by natural reason that God is one, therefore it could naturally be known that God is naturally a singular; therefore the singularity of God and his essence as singular could be known, which is false, and the contrary was said above in the question about the object of theology [Prol. nn.167-168].

165 [Scotus’ own opinion] - However it seems that the unity might be shown by natural reason, and that by taking a way, first, from infinite intellect, second from infinite will, third from infinite goodness, fourth from the idea of infinite power, fifth from the idea of an infinite absolutely, sixth from the idea of necessary being, seventh from the idea of omnipotence.

166. [First way, from infinite intellect] - On the part of infinite intellect the argument is first as follows: an infinite intellect knows most perfectly any intelligible whatever insofar as it is intelligible in itself;Interpolation: “because it is the whole of being, for a finite intellect has this power, although not most perfectly nor all at once.” ¹²⁸ therefore, if there are Gods - let them be a and b - a knows b most perfectly, namely insofar as b is knowable. But this is impossible. The proof is that either it knows b through the essence of b or it does not. If it does not and b is knowable through its essence, then a does not know b most perfectly and insofar, that is, as it is knowable. For nothing knowable through its essence is most perfectly known unless it is known through its essence, or through something more perfect which includes the essence which it is in itself; but the essence of b is included in nothing more perfectly than in b, because then b would not be God. But if a knows b through the essence of b itself, then the act of a itself is naturally posterior to the essence of b itself, and so a will not be God. Now the proof that the act of a itself is posterior to b itself is that every act of knowing which is not the same as the object is posterior to the object; for an act is neither prior to nor simultaneous in nature with anything other than the act, because then the act might be understood without the object, just as conversely.

167. If it be said that a understands b by the essence of a itself, which is most similar to b itself, namely in this way, that a understands b in the idea of a species common to a itself and to b itself, on the contrary: neither response saves the fact a understand b most perfectly, and consequently a is not God, because the knowledge of a thing in a similar and a universal only is not a knowledge most perfect and intuitive of that thing, and so a would not know b intuitively nor most perfectly, which is the conclusion intended.

168. The argument second on the part of the intellect is as follows: one and the same act cannot have two adequate objects; a is the adequate object of its own intellection, and b would be the adequate object of the same intellection if a could understand b; therefore it is impossible that a understand in a single intellection perfectly all at once both a and b. If a have intellections that are really distinct then it is not God.Interpolation: “because a has its own essence as adequate object; therefore it does not have essence b as adequate object. But b would be the adequate object for intellection a if that intellection could understand a and b perfectly all at once.” ¹²⁹ The major is plain, because otherwise the act would be adequated to an object which, when removed, the act would no less be at rest in and adequated to, and so such an object would be in vain.

169. [The second way, from infinite will] - As to the second way the argument is as follows: an infinite will is correct, therefore it loves whatever is lovable insofar as it is lovable; if b is another God it is to be loved infinitely (sinceInterpolation [in place of ‘if b is another...since’]: “and with as much love as it can if it is infinite; but b is to be loved to infinity when it is set down as being another God, and consequently.” ¹³⁰ it is an infinite good) and to be loved infinitely by a will that is able thus to love it; therefore the will of a loves b infinitely. But this is impossible because a naturally loves itself more than b. Proof: for anything whatever naturally loves its own being more than the being of something else of which it is not a part or an effect; but a is nothing of b whether as a part or as an effect; therefore a naturally loves itself more than it loves b. But a free will, when it is correct, is in conformity with the natural will, otherwise the natural will would not always be correct; therefore if a has this correct will it loves itself with an elicited act more than it loves b; therefore it does not love b infinitely.

170. A second argument about will is as follows: a either enjoys b or uses it; if it uses it then a has a disordered will; if it enjoys b and enjoys a then a is blessed in two objects neither of which depends on the other, because just as a is blessed in itself so it is blessed in b. But the consequent is impossible, because nothing can be actually blessed in two total beatifying objects; the proof is that when either object is destroyed it would nevertheless be blessed; therefore it is blessed in neither.Interpolation: “Also it seems plausible that what is completely at rest in one adequate object could not be at rest in another object.” ¹³¹

171. [Third way, from infinite goodness] - About the third way, namely about the idea of infinite good, the argument is as follows: the will can in an ordered way desire a greater good and love more a greater good; but several infinite goods, if they were possible, include more goodness than one infinite good; therefore the will could in an ordered way love several infinites more than one infinite, and consequently it would not rest in any single infinite good. But this is contrary to the idea of good - that it be infinite and not give rest to any will whatever.

172. [The fourth way, from infinite power] - As to the fourth way, about infinite power, I argue thus: there cannot be two total causes of the same effect in the same order of cause [n.73]; but infinite power is the total cause in idea of first cause with respect to any effect, therefore there can be no other power in idea of first cause with respect to any effect, and so there is no other cause infinite in power.

173. The proof of the first proposition is that then it would be possible for something to be the cause of something on which that something did not depend. Proof: nothing essentially depends on a thing such that, when that thing does not exist, it would no less exist; but if c has two total causes, a and b, and in the same order, then when either of them does not exist, c would no less exist on the other of them, because when a does not exist c would no less exist on b, and when b does not exist c exists no less on a.

174. Next to this is an argument about the unity of any first thing in any of the aforesaid primacies [n.41]; for nothing is exceeded by two first exceeding things, or no finite thing is essentially ordered to two first ends; for there would be something in relation to an end such that, when the end did not exist, it would no less have an end, as was argued before [nn.173, 73], and it would be essentially exceeded by something such that, when that thing did not exist, it would no less have an essential exceeder by which it was essentially measured, and from which it would essentially receive its perfection, which is impossible; therefore it is impossible for there to be two first ends of any two finite things, or two first eminents of two exceeded things.

175. [The fifth way, from the infinite absolutely] - About the fifth way I say that an infinite cannot be exceeded, and I argue thus: whatever perfection can be numerically in diverse things has more perfection in several of them than in one, as is said in On the Trinity VIII ch.1 n.2; therefore the infinite cannot at all numerically be in many things.

176. [The sixth way, from necessary being] - About the sixth way I argue first thus: a species that can be multiplied, namely in individuals, is not of itself determined to a definite number of individuals, but as far as concerns itself it allows of an infinity of individuals, as is plain in all corruptible species;     therefore if the idea of ‘necessary existence’ is multipliable in individuals, it does not determine itself to a definite number, but, as far as concerns itself, allows of an infinity. But if there could be infinite necessary beings, there are in fact infinite necessary beings; therefore etc     . The consequent is false, therefore so too is the antecedent from which it follows.Interpolation: “Let this reason be stated under another form from the idea of primacy as follows: one thing of one idea that is disposed to many things of one idea is not determinate with respect to that plurality, or to a definite determination of them; there is no instance in nature with respect to supposits nor in cause with respect to things caused, unless you make an instance in the proposed case. But deity will be one thing of one idea, and according to you it is related to many things of one idea; therefore of itself it is not determinate to a definite plurality of singulars, nor can it be made determinate from elsewhere, because that is repugnant to the first thing; therefore deity exists in infinite supposits. This reasoning seems to be founded on the fact that primacy is indeterminate of itself.” ¹³²

177. Secondly I argue thus, and next to this way: if there are several infinite beings they are distinguished by some real perfections [n.71]; let those perfections be a and b. Then as follows: either those two things distinct by a and b are formally necessary beings by a and b or they are not. If they are not then a is not the formal idea of necessarily existing, and consequently not b either; therefore also what includes them is not a first necessary, because it includes some reality which is not formally the necessity of existing, nor necessary of itself. But if the two things are formally necessary beings by a and b, and if in addition to this each of them is a necessary being by that in which one of them agrees with the other, then each of them has in itself two reasons each of which is formally necessary being, but this is impossible, because neither includes the other; therefore when either reason is removed each would be this sort of necessary being by the other reason, and so something would be formally a necessary being by a reason such that, when the reason was removed, it would nevertheless be a necessary being, which is impossible [n.71].

178. [The seventh way, from omnipotence] - About the seventh way, namely omnipotence, it seems that it is not demonstrable by natural reason, because omnipotence - as will be plain elsewhere [n.119] - cannot be proved by natural reason in the way Catholics understand omnipotence, nor can it be proved by reason of infinite power.

179. Yet from omnipotence as believed the intended proposition may be argued for in this way: if a is omnipotent then it can cause being and not being in the case of anything else, and so it could destroy b, and so might make b impotent of everything, and the consequence is thus that b is not God.

180. This reasoning is not valid, just as some reply to it, because b is not an object of omnipotence since omnipotence has regard to the possible for its object; but b was posited as necessary [n.177] just like a. Therefore one argues in another way by declaring thus the reason of Richard [of St. Victor] in On the Trinity I ch.25:Interpolation: “where he speaks thus: ‘Any omnipotent that was such that everything else could do nothing will be able easily to effect things’.” ¹³³ just as the omnipotent by its willing can produce whatever is possible, so by its not willing it can impede or destroy anything possible; but if a is omnipotent it can will everything other than itself to exist, and so by its willing them to bring them into existence. But it is not necessary that b will all the things that a wills, because the will of b is contingently related to them, just as the will of a is to the things that b wills, if it is God [n.156]. But if b does not will them to be, then none of them exists. Therefore if there are two omnipotents, each of them would make the other impotent, not by destroying it, but by preventing by its non-willing the existence of the things willed by the other.

181. But if you say, by playing the sophist as it were, that they may agree in their will, although there is no necessity [n.180], but they would as it were make a pact, still I argue that neither of them will be omnipotent; for if a is omnipotent it can produce by its willing any willed possible other than itself; from this it follows that b could produce nothing by its own willing, and so it is not omnipotent. Now that this follows is plain from the fourth way [n.172], because it is impossible for there to be two total causes of one effect, because from the fact that the effect is totally caused by one, it is impossible that it be caused by the other.Interpolation: “I do not wish to adduce here certain arguments of some people relative to the question, on which one should rely because they are answerable and perhaps prove just as much that there is a single angel in a single species, if an angel is simple in its essence [an implicit reference to St. Thomas Aquinas]; or if they are proofs yet they do not proceed from what is naturally known to us. Nor should they be adduced as in need of being answered, because they are not opposed to the conclusion that I maintain.” ¹³⁴

II. To the Arguments

A. To the Arguments for the Other Opinion

182. To the arguments [nn.163-164, 157-160] - For first to those that are for the other opinion. I reply to the authority of Rabbi Moses [n.163] and I say that God’s being one is handed down in the Law; for because the people were uneducated and prone to idolatry therefore they needed to be instructed by the Law about the unity of God, although it could by natural reason be demonstrated. For it is thus received by the Law that God exists (Exodus 3.14: “I am who am”, and the Apostle says in Hebrews 11.6: that “he who comes to God must believe that he is”), and yet it is not denied that God is demonstrable; therefore by parity of reasoning it should not be denied either that it could be demonstrated by reason that God is one, although it be ‘received’ from the Law. Also, it is useful for things which can be demonstrated to be handed down to the community also by way of authority - both because of the negligence of the community in inquiring into truth, and also because of the impotence of the intellect and the errors of those who make inquiry by demonstration, because they mix many false things in with their truths, as Augustine says in The City of God XVIII ch.41 n.2. And therefore, because the simple who follow such demonstrators could be in doubt as to what to assent to, so an authority is a safe and stable and common way about the things it can neither deceive nor be deceived about.

183. To the second reason about the singular [n.164] I say that it is one thing for singularity to be conceived either as an object or as part of an object, and another thing for singularity to be precisely the mode of conceiving or that under which the object is conceived. An example: when I say ‘universal’, the object conceived is a plurality, but the mode of conceiving, that is, the mode under which it is conceived, is singularity; thus in the case of logical intentions, when I say ‘singular’, what is conceived is singularity, but the mode under which it is conceived is universality, because what is conceived, in the way it is conceived, is indifferent to many things. Thus I say in the proposed case that the divine essence can be conceived as singular such that singularity is conceived either as the object or part of the object; yet it does not follow that the essence can be conceived as it is singular, such that singularity be the mode of the concept; for thus to know something as singular is to know it as this, as a white thing is seen as this, and in this way it was said before [n.164] that the divine essence is not known under the idea of singularity; and therefore there is in the argument a fallacy of figure of speech [Aristotle, Sophistical Refutations 1.4.166b10-14], by changing thing to mode.

B. To the Principal Arguments

184. To the principal reasons [nn.157-160]. - I say that the Apostle [n.157] is speaking of idols, and so of ‘gods’ in name only; and he adds there: “but for us there is one God,” because “all the gods of the Gentiles are demons.”

185. I say to the second [n.158] that the consequence is not valid, because number is not a grammatical mode of signifying as are other grammatical modes that mean precisely a mode of conceiving a thing without any reality corresponding to such a mode of conceiving; hence they mean precisely some aspect in a thing by which the intellect can be moved to conceive such a thing.Interpolation: “although that which moves [the intellect] is not anything in reality; for masculinity does not require anything masculine in reality but something corresponding to masculinity, namely active power or something of the sort.” ¹³⁵ But number truly includes a subsumed thing; hence the inference follows ‘men are running, therefore several men are running’. But it is not like this in the case of the other co-signified things in a noun or a verb, because this inference does not follow ‘God exists, therefore God is masculine’Interpolation: “the inference ‘there are several men, therefore that are several rational animals’ holds, but the inference ‘God is a generator, therefore God is of the masculine gender’ does not hold.” ¹³⁶ [in Latin the word for ‘God’ is a masculine noun, ‘Deus’], because it suffices for masculinity that there is something in the thing from which the mode of conceiving might be taken, such as activity. I say therefore that only the term ‘Gods’ conceived in the plural mode includes a contradiction, because the mode of conceiving is repugnant to that which is conceived in that mode. - When therefore the consequence is proved that the same thing includes the singular and plural [n.158], I say that it includes the singular under a mode of conceiving fitting to the concept but it includes the plural in a mode impossible to that concept; and therefore the singular, insofar as it includes the concept and the mode of conceiving, includes an idea that is as it were in itself true, but the plural, insofar as it includes those two things, includes an idea that is as it were in itself false. And so it does not follow that the plural is true of the plural as the singular is of the singular, because about that whose idea is in itself false nothing is true [n.30].

186. Through this is plain the response to the other proof ‘that than which a greater cannot be thought’ [n.158] because Gods are not thinkable without contradiction, because the mode is repugnant to the thing conceived; and therefore the major is to be glossed as was said before in the preceding question [n.137]. Now for sense and truth it is required that the idea of the subject not include a contradiction, as was said in the second question of this distinction [n.30].

187. To the third [n.159] I say that the major proposition is not first but is reduced to this ‘every imperfect thing is reduced to a perfect thing’; and because every being by participation is imperfect, and only that being is perfect which is a being by essence, therefore does the proposition follow.Interpolation: “namely that ‘every being by participation is reduced to a being by essence’ which being is perfect. So that the conclusion, then, might truly follow...” ¹³⁷ But this major about ‘imperfect’ has to be distinguished in this way: a thing is imperfect according to a perfection simply when the perfection does not necessarily have an accompanying imperfection, because it does not include in itself a limitation, as ‘this good’, ‘this true’, ‘this being’; and an imperfect of this sort is reduced to a perfect of the same nature, namely ‘good’, ‘being’, and ‘true’, which indicate perfections simply. But a thing is imperfect according to a perfection non-simply when the perfection includes a limitation in its idea, and so it necessarily has an annexed imperfection, as ‘this man’, ‘this ass’; and imperfects of this sort are not reduced to a perfect by essence absolutely of the same idea as to their specific idea, because they still include imperfection, because they include a limitation, but they are reduced to a first perfect that contains them super-eminently and equivocally. What is imperfect then in the first way is reduced to a perfect simply according to a perfection of the same nature, because something can according to that nature be simply perfect. But what is imperfect in the second way is not reduced to something perfect according to a perfection of the same nature; for because that nature includes imperfection, therefore it cannot be a perfect thing simply, because of the limitation, but it is reduced to some simply perfect equivocal that eminently includes that perfection. And for this reason an imperfect good is reduced to a perfect good, but a stone, which is imperfect, is not reduced to a simply perfect stone, but to supreme being and to supreme good, which include that perfection virtually [n.69].

188. To the final one [160] the response is that many finite goods are better than fewer finite goods, but not many infinite goods.

189. But this does not seem to respond to the argument, because it seems that all things that would be better if they existed should be posited within beings, and most of all within the supreme being, which is a ‘necessary being’, because there whatever could exist is good and must necessarily be there; but many infinite goods, if they existed, would be better; therefore it seems that many infinite goods should be posited in the nature of the supreme good.

190. To this I reply that when it is said in the major ‘things which would be better if they existed should be posited there’, I say that by the ‘if’ either a possible positing is implied or a positing of incompossibles is. If in the first way I say that the major is true and the minor false, because the implication in the minor is not possible but is of incompossibles. But if the ‘if’ implies a positing of incompossibles then the minor is true and the major false; for things that would only be better from a positing of incompossibles would not be better, nor are they even good, just as that which only exists from the positing of incompossibles altogether does not exist, just as neither does the posited thing on which it depends.