Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It seems that God is a body. For a body is that which has the three dimensions. But Holy Scripture attributes the three dimensions to God, for it is written: "He is higher than Heaven, and what wilt thou do? He is deeper than Hell, and how wilt thou know? The measure of Him is longer than the earth and broader than the sea" (Job 11:8,9). Therefore God is a body.

Objection 2: Further, everything that has figure is a body, since figure is a quality of quantity. But God seems to have figure, for it is written: "Let us make man to our image and likeness" (Gn. 1:26). Now a figure is called an image, according to the text: "Who being the brightness of His glory and the figure," i.e. the image, "of His substance" (Heb. 1:3). Therefore God is a body.

Objection 3: Further, whatever has corporeal parts is a body. Now Scripture attributes corporeal parts to God. "Hast thou an arm like God?" (Job 40:4); and "The eyes of the Lord are upon the just" (Ps. 33:16); and "The right hand of the Lord hath wrought strength" (Ps. 117:16). Therefore God is a body.

Objection 4: Further, posture belongs only to bodies. But something which supposes posture is said of God in the Scriptures: "I saw the Lord sitting" (Is. 6:1), and "He standeth up to judge" (Is. 3:13). Therefore God is a body.

Objection 5: Further, only bodies or things corporeal can be a local term "wherefrom" or "whereto." But in the Scriptures God is spoken of as a local term "whereto," according to the words, "Come ye to Him and be enlightened" (Ps. 33:6), and as a term "wherefrom": "All they that depart from Thee shall be written in the earth" (Jer. 17:13). Therefore God is a body.

On the contrary, It is written in the Gospel of St. John (Jn. 4:24): "God is a spirit."

I answer that, It is absolutely true that God is not a body; and this can be shown in three ways. First, because no body is in motion unless it be put in motion, as is evident from induction. Now it has been already proved (Question 2, Article 3), that God is the First Mover, and is Himself unmoved. Therefore it is clear that God is not a body. Secondly, because the first being must of necessity be in act, and in no way in potentiality. For although in any single thing that passes from potentiality to actuality, the potentiality is prior in time to the actuality; nevertheless, absolutely speaking, actuality is prior to potentiality; for whatever is in potentiality can be reduced into actuality only by some being in actuality. Now it has been already proved that God is the First Being. It is therefore impossible that in God there should be any potentiality. But every body is in potentiality because the continuous, as such, is divisible to infinity; it is therefore impossible that God should be a body. Thirdly, because God is the most noble of beings. Now it is impossible for a body to be the most noble of beings; for a body must be either animate or inanimate; and an animate body is manifestly nobler than any inanimate body. But an animate body is not animate precisely as body; otherwise all bodies would be animate. Therefore its animation depends upon some other thing, as our body depends for its animation on the soul. Hence that by which a body becomes animated must be nobler than the body. Therefore it is impossible that God should be a body.

Reply to Objection 1: As we have said above (Question 1, Article 9), Holy Writ puts before us spiritual and divine things under the comparison of corporeal things. Hence, when it attributes to God the three dimensions under the comparison of corporeal quantity, it implies His virtual quantity; thus, by depth, it signifies His power of knowing hidden things; by height, the transcendence of His excelling power; by length, the duration of His existence; by breadth, His act of love for all. Or, as says Dionysius (Div. Nom. ix), by the depth of God is meant the incomprehensibility of His essence; by length, the procession of His all-pervading power; by breadth, His overspreading all things, inasmuch as all things lie under His protection.

Reply to Objection 2: Man is said to be after the image of God, not as regards his body, but as regards that whereby he excels other animals. Hence, when it is said, "Let us make man to our image and likeness", it is added, "And let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea" (Gn. 1:26). Now man excels all animals by his reason and intelligence; hence it is according to his intelligence and reason, which are incorporeal, that man is said to be according to the image of God.

Reply to Objection 3: Corporeal parts are attributed to God in Scripture on account of His actions, and this is owing to a certain parallel. For instance the act of the eye is to see; hence the eye attributed to God signifies His power of seeing intellectually, not sensibly; and so on with the other parts.

Reply to Objection 4: Whatever pertains to posture, also, is only attributed to God by some sort of parallel. He is spoken of as sitting, on account of His unchangeableness and dominion; and as standing, on account of His power of overcoming whatever withstands Him.

Reply to Objection 5: We draw near to God by no corporeal steps, since He is everywhere, but by the affections of our soul, and by the actions of that same soul do we withdraw from Him; thus, to draw near to or to withdraw signifies merely spiritual actions based on the metaphor of local motion.

Articulus 1

Argumentum 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod deus sit corpus. Corpus enim est quod habet trinam dimensionem. Sed sacra Scriptura attribuit deo trinam dimensionem, dicitur enim iob XI, excelsior caelo est, et quid facies? profundior inferno, et unde cognosces? longior terra mensura eius, et latior mari.

Ergo deus est corpus.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, omne figuratum est corpus, cum figura sit qualitas circa quantitatem. Sed deus videtur esse figuratus, cum scriptum sit Gen. I, faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram, figura enim imago dicitur, secundum illud Hebr. I, cum sit splendor gloriae, et figura substantiae eius, idest imago. Ergo deus est corpus.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, omne quod habet partes corporeas, est corpus.

Sed Scriptura attribuit deo partes corporeas, dicitur enim iob XL, si habes brachium ut deus; et in Psalmo, oculi domini super iustos; et, dextera domini fecit virtutem.

Argumentum 4

Praeterea, situs non convenit nisi corpori. Sed ea quae ad situm pertinent, in Scripturis dicuntur de deo, dicitur enim Isaiae VI, vidi dominum sedentem; et Isaiae III, stat ad iudicandum dominus.

Argumentum 5

Praeterea, nihil potest esse terminus localis a quo vel ad quem, nisi sit corpus vel aliquod corporeum. Sed deus in Scriptura dicitur esse terminus localis ut ad quem, secundum illud Psalmi, accedite ad eum, et illuminamini; et ut a quo, secundum illud hierem. XVII, recedentes a te in terra scribentur.

Ergo deus est corpus.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod dicitur Ioan. IV, spiritus est deus.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum absolute deum non esse corpus. Quod tripliciter ostendi potest. Primo quidem, quia nullum corpus movet non motum, ut patet inducendo per singula.

Ostensum est autem supra quod deus est primum movens immobile.

Unde manifestum est quod deus non est corpus. Secundo, quia necesse est id quod est primum ens, esse in actu, et nullo modo in potentia. Licet enim in uno et eodem quod exit de potentia in actum, prius sit potentia quam actus tempore, simpliciter tamen actus prior est potentia, quia quod est in potentia, non reducitur in actum nisi per ens actu.

Ostensum est autem supra quod deus est primum ens. Impossibile est igitur quod in deo sit aliquid in potentia. Omne autem corpus est in potentia, quia continuum, inquantum huiusmodi, divisibile est in infinitum.

Impossibile est igitur deum esse corpus.

Tertio, quia deus est id quod est nobilissimum in entibus, ut ex dictis patet.

Impossibile est autem aliquod corpus esse nobilissimum in entibus. Quia corpus aut est vivum, aut non vivum.

Corpus autem vivum, manifestum est quod est nobilius corpore non vivo. Corpus autem vivum non vivit inquantum corpus, quia sic omne corpus viveret, oportet igitur quod vivat per aliquid aliud, sicut corpus nostrum vivit per animam. Illud autem per quod vivit corpus, est nobilius quam corpus.

Impossibile est igitur deum esse corpus.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, sacra Scriptura tradit nobis spiritualia et divina sub similitudinibus corporalium. Unde, cum trinam dimensionem deo attribuit, sub similitudine quantitatis corporeae, quantitatem virtualem ipsius designat, utpote per profunditatem, virtutem ad cognoscendum occulta; per altitudinem, excellentiam virtutis super omnia; per longitudinem, durationem sui esse; per latitudinem, affectum dilectionis ad omnia.

Vel, ut dicit dionysius, cap. IX de div. Nom., per profunditatem dei intelligitur incomprehensibilitas ipsius essentiae; per longitudinem, processus virtutis eius, omnia penetrantis; per latitudinem vero, superextensio eius ad omnia, inquantum scilicet sub eius protectione omnia continentur.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod homo dicitur esse ad imaginem dei, non secundum corpus, sed secundum id quo homo excellit alia animalia, unde, Gen. I, postquam dictum est, faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram, subditur, ut praesit piscibus maris, etc..

Excellit autem homo omnia animalia quantum ad rationem et intellectum. Unde secundum intellectum et rationem, quae sunt incorporea, homo est ad imaginem dei.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod partes corporeae attribuuntur deo in Scripturis ratione suorum actuum, secundum quandam similitudinem. Sicut actus oculi est videre, unde oculus de deo dictus, significat virtutem eius ad videndum modo intelligibili, non sensibili. Et simile est de aliis partibus.

Ad 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod etiam ea quae ad situm pertinent, non attribuuntur deo nisi secundum quandam similitudinem, sicut dicitur sedens, propter suam immobilitatem et auctoritatem; et stans, propter suam fortitudinem ad debellandum omne quod adversatur.

Ad 5

Ad quintum dicendum quod ad deum non acceditur passibus corporalibus, cum ubique sit, sed affectibus mentis, et eodem modo ab eo receditur. Et sic accessus et recessus, sub similitudine localis motus, designant spiritualem affectum.