11 this it ia olear that God, in Whom there is no potentialit", is i.material~lS What is immaterial is inoorporeal, theretore, God is inoorporeal. Furthermore, every body is quantitative and it. oon.tituent part. are in potentialit" to change. inoorporeal.14 Since there is no potentialit" in God, God 18 !O predicate ot God the attribute. ot iaaateriality. incorporeality,-- pure aot excluding compoaition,--thi. is equiz-lent to saying that God i. siaple) tor, being in which there is no matter. no compo.ition. no potency. is simple being. God,then,i. truly simple.l5 !hat whioh is simple i. indivisible; but being that i. undivided and indivisible i. neoessarily one. Furthermore, pure aot i8 incapable ot multiplioation or divi8ion, for either of these would limit the pert.ction of , . ;;. ..; lSSt. !homas. Contra Gent., I. chap. xiii. p. 38: Matter doe. not b.c~th. oau.. ot an actual thing exoept by being alter.d and chang.d. !beretore if God is immutabl •• H. oan nowis. b. a cause of thing. as th.ir matter. St. !homa., Summa !beologica, I a, q. S, art. 2, oor •• It is impo.sibi. that matter should .xi.t in God •••• beoause matter is in pot.ntiality. But ••• God i. pure aot, without any pot.ntiality. 14st. !bomas, Summa Th.ologica, I a, q. 3, art. 1, cor.1 ••• DO body i. in motion unie •• it b. put in .ation••••• ow ••• God i. the First Kover, and is HiII •• lf unmoved. 1h.r.for. it is olear that God is not a body. I St. !homas, Contra Gent., I, chap. xx, p. 42. Every quantitative "iUbitanoe i8 80mehow in pot.ntiality ••••• ow every body i. a quantitative sub.tanc.. !berefor. ev.ry body i. in potentiality. But God ia not in potentiality, but is pure aot •••• !b.r.tor. God i. not a body. l5St. !bomas, Summa Theologioa, I a, q. 3, art. 7, cor.: ••• ther. is n.ith.r composition of quantitative parts in God, .inc. He i. not a bodYJ nor compo.ition of form and matter, ••• !her.ror. it is clear that God ia nowise oompo.ite, but i8 altogeth.r •• imple.
12 pure aet and thus d.strey It. (Jod is pure aot; God is slaple Be14'gJ God i., ther.tore, .upremely one.16 Beoause God i. absolutely si~le th.ro is no distinotlon betwe.n His es •• noo and His exist.nc.. In material or oomposite things, .xist.noe i8 the aotualization ot the .'8enoe. ;;. 4. potenoy; He i. pure form, pure aot. enoe. 18 . Es.enoo ana .xist.noe, like .. tter and tora, aro related as potency and act. 17 In God, thore i. DO aatter, no • !beretore His 0.80noe i. Hi. 8xi8t l6St• !boma., Summa !h.olO!ioa, I a, q. 11, art ••, oor.l SiDo. one 18 an undiYide biing, it aDfthing is supremely on. it aust be supre .. ly beiDg, and .upremely undiyid.d. Wow bo1h ot th.s. belong to God. For H. is .upre.. l, being ina.muoh as HiB being is not detenain.d b,. any nature to whioh it is adjoiD.d, .inoe He 18 b.ing itselt, subdstent, absolutely und.tenainod. lhlt Be i. supreaely undirld.d 1naslllUch as Be iB diyid.d n.ith.r aotually, nor potentially, b.Y any aode ot diYision, 8inoe He is altogether dmpl ••••• H.no. it is manit •• t that God 18 one in the supre .. degre.. --- l7St. !boaa., Sum.a !beologioa, I a, q. a, art •• , oor •• ••• exi.teno • ..at oompared to es.on •• , it the latter i. a distinot realit" as aotuality to potentiality. St. !bo.s, Contra Gent., II, ohap, lxxi, p. 179. .... ••• neither 18 th.re aDTf;hing that .. tes one thug out ot .. tt.r and tora, .xo.pt the ag.nt which reduoe. the potential1 ty to aot, as Aristotle prcrt'8s (b.taph.}t tor .. tter and tora are related as potential1"'" and act. l8St. !hemal, Suaaa !b.ologioa, I a, q. a, art. 4, oor •• ... that thin" whos •• iisteno. ditt.rs troa it ...... noe, aust hay. its .xisteno. oaus.d by another. lhlt this oannot b. true ot God, beoau •• we call God the first .ttioi.nt oaus.. !b.r.for. it i. t.po.sibl. that in God Bi •• xist.no •• hould diff.r fro. Bi ••••• no •• St. !bo .. s, CoDtra Gent., I, ohap, xxii, p. 55. Existeno. denotes .kiiid of aotual1 tyJ Binoe a thin, is .aid to exist not through being in potentia 11 ty, but through being in aot. Wow .Y.rything to whioh an aot 18 becoming ud wbich is di.tinct trom that aot, is related th.reto a. potentiali"'" to aot; slnoe aot and pot.ntiality are r.oiprooal teras. Aooordingl,., if the diyin. e.s.no. is distinct trom it. exi.tenoe, it tollows that His e.senoe and exlstence are mutually related a8 pot.ntiali...,. and aot. Bow it has b.en proyed that in God there is nothing ot potentiality and that Be is pure act. !beretore God'. e •• ence i. not di.tinot trom Hi •• xi.tenoe. I
.' !!.! •••• no., what the
.' .!!. .!!. ill!.!. oreated thing_
65 .' BIBLIOGRAPHY ----------,-.--