Monotheism

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

Monotheism (from the Greekmonos "only", andtheos "god") is a word coined in comparatively modern times to designatebelief in the onesupreme God, the Creator and Lord of the world, the eternal Spirit, All-powerful, All-wise, and All-good, the Rewarder of good and the Punisher ofevil, the Source of ourhappiness and perfection. It is opposed toPolytheism, which isbelief in more gods than one, and toAtheism, which is disbelief in any deity whatsoever. In contrast withDeism, it is the recognition ofGod's presence and activity in every part of creation. In contrast withPantheism, it isbelief in aGod of conscious freedom, distinct from the physical world. BothDeism andPantheism are religiousphilosophies rather thanreligions.

On the other hand, Monotheism, likePolytheism, is a term applying primarily to a concrete system of religion. The grounds of reason underlying monotheism have already been set forth in the articleGOD. These grounds enable the inquiring mind to recognize theexistence of God as a morally certaintruth. Its reasonableness acquires still greater force from the positive data associated with the revelation ofChristianity. (SeeREVELATION.)

Primitive monotheism

Was monotheism the religion of ourfirst parents? Many Evolutionists andRationalistProtestants answer No. Rejecting the very notion of positive,Divine revelation, they hold that the mind of man was in the beginning but little above that of his ape-like ancestors, and hence incapable of grasping sointellectual a conception as that of Monotheism.

They assert that the first religious notions entertained by man in his upward course towards civilization weresuperstitions of the grossest kind. In a word, primitive man was, in their opinion, a savage, differing but little from existing savages in hisintellectual, moral, andreligious life.Catholic doctrine teaches that the religion of ourfirst parents was monotheistic andsupernatural, being the result ofDivine revelation. Not that primitive man without Divine help could not possibly have come toknow and worshipGod. Thefirst man, like his descendants today, had by nature the capacity and the aptitude for religion. Being a man in thetrue sense, with the use of reason, he had the tendency then, as men have now, to recognize in the phenomena of nature the workings of a mind and a will vastly superior to his own. But, as he lacked experience and scientificknowledge, it was not easy for him to unify the diverse phenomena of the visible world. Hence he was not without danger of going astray in his religious interpretation of nature. He was liable to miss the importanttruth that, as nature is a unity, so theGod of nature is one. Revelation was morallynecessary for ourfirst parents, as it is for men today, to secure the possession oftrue monotheisticbelief and worship.

The conception thatAlmighty God vouchsafed such a revelation is eminently reasonable to everyone who recognizes that the end of man is toknow,love, and serveGod. It is repugnant to think that the first generations of men were left to grope in the dark,ignorant alike of thetrue God and of their religiousduties, while at the same time it wasGod's will that they shouldknow andlove Him. The instruction in religion which children receive from theirparents and superiors, anticipating their powers of independent reasoning, and guiding them to a rightknowledge ofGod, being impossible for ourfirst parents, was not without a fitting substitute. They were set right from the first in theknowledge of their religiousduties by aDivine revelation. It is aCatholicdogma, intimately connected with thedogma oforiginal sin and with that of the Atonement, that ourfirst parents were raised to the state ofsanctifying grace and were destined to asupernatural end, namely, thebeatific vision ofGod inheaven. This necessarily impliessupernaturalfaith, which could come only by revelation.

Nor is there anything in soundscience or philosophy to invalidate this teaching that Monotheisticbelief was imparted byGod to primitive man. While it may betrue thathumanlife in the beginning was on a comparatively low plane of material culture, it is alsotrue that the first men were endowed with reason, i.e., with the ability to conceive with sufficient distinctness of a being who was the cause of the manifold phenomena presented in nature. On the other hand, ahumble degree of culture along the lines of art and industry is quite compatible with right religion and morality, as is evident in the case of tribes converted toCatholicism in recent times; while retaining much of their rude and primitive mode of living, they have reached very clear notions concerningGod and shown remarkable fidelity in the observance of His law. As to the bearing of the Evolutionistic hypothesis on this question, seeFETISHISM.

It is thus quite in accordance with the accredited results of physicalscience to maintain that thefirst man, created byGod, was keen of mind as well as sound of body, and that, through Divine instruction, he began life with right notions ofGod and of his moral and religiousduties. This does not necessarily mean that his conception ofGod was scientifically and philosophically profound. Here it is that scholars are wide of the mark when they argue that Monotheism is a conception that implies a philosophic grasp and training of mind absolutely impossible to primitive man.

The notion of thesupreme God needed for religion is not the highly metaphysical conception demanded by right philosophy. If it were, but few could hope forsalvation. TheGod of religion is the unspeakably great Lord on whom man depends, in whom he recognizes the source of hishappiness and perfection; He is the righteous Judge, rewarding good and punishingevil; the loving and merciful Father, whose ear is ever open to theprayers of His needy and penitent children. Such a conception ofGod can be readily grasped by simple, unphilosophic minds — by children, by the unlettered peasant, by the converted savage.

Nor are these notions of a supreme being utterly lacking even where barbarism still reigns. Bishop Le Roy, in his interesting work, "Religion des primitifs" (Paris, 1909), and Mr. A. Lang, in his "Making of Religion" (New York, 1898), have emphasized a point too often overlooked by students of religion, namely, that with all their religious crudities andsuperstitions, such low-grade savages as the Pygmies of the Northern Congo, the Australians, and the natives of the Andaman Islands entertain very noble conceptions of theSupreme Deity. To say, then, that primitive man, fresh from the hand ofGod, was incapable of monotheisticbelief, even with the aid ofDivine revelation, is contrary to well-ascertained fact. From the opening chapters of Genesis we gather that ourfirst parents recognizedGod to be the author of all things, their Lord and Master, the source of theirhappiness, rewarding good and punishingevil. The simplicity of their life made the range of their moralobligation easy of recognition. Worship was of the simplest kind.

Mosaic monotheism

The ancient Hebrew religion,promulgated by Moses in the name ofJehovah (Jahweh), was an impressive form of Monotheism. That it was Divinely revealed is the unmistakable teaching ofHoly Scripture, particularly of Exodus and the following books which treat explicitly ofMosaic legislation. Even non-Catholic Scriptural scholars, who no longer accept thePentateuch, as it stands, as the literary production of Moses, recognize, in great part, that, in the older sources which, according to them, go to make up thePentateuch, there are portions that reach back to the time of Moses, showing the existence of Hebrew monotheistic worship in his day. Now, the transcendent superiority of this Monotheism taught by Moses offers a strongproof of its Divine origin. At a time when the neighbouring nations representing the highest civilization of that time —Egypt,Babylonia, Greece — were giving an impure andidolatrous worship to manydeities, we find the insignificant Hebrew people professing a religion in whichidolatry, impure rites, and a degrading mythology had no legitimate place, but where, instead,belief in theone true God was associated with a dignified worship and a loftymoral code. Those who reject the claim ofMosaic Monotheism to have been revealed have never yet succeeded in giving a satisfactory explanation of this extraordinary phenomenon. It was, however, pre-eminently the religion of the Hebrew people, destined in the fullness of time to give place to the higher monotheistic religion revealed by Christ, in which all the nations of the earth should find peace andsalvation. The Jewish people was thusGod's chosen people, not so much by reason of their own merit, as because they were destined to prepare the way for the absolute and universal religion,Christianity. TheGod of Moses is no mere tribal deity. He is the Creator and Lord of the world. He gives over to His chosen people the land of theChanaanites. He is a jealousGod, forbidding not only worship of strange gods, but the use of images, which might lead to abuses in that age of almost universalidolatry. Love ofGod is made aduty, but reverential fear is the predominant emotion. The religious sanction of thelaw is centred chiefly in temporal rewards and punishments. Laws of conduct, though determined byjustice rather than by charity and mercy, are still eminently humane.

Christian monotheism

The sublime Monotheism taught byJesus Christ has no parallel in the history ofreligions.God is presented to us as the loving, merciful Father, not of one privileged people, but of allmankind. In this filial relation withGod — a relation of confidence, gratitude,love — Christ centres ourobligations both toGod and to our fellow-men. He lays hold of the individualsoul and reveals to it its high destiny of Divine sonship. At the same time, He impresses on us the correspondingduty of treating others asGod's children, and hence as our brethren, entitled not simply tojustice, but to mercy and charity. To complete thisidea ofChristian fellowship,Jesus shows Himself to be theeternal Son of God, sent by His heavenly Father to save us fromsin, to raise us to the life of grace and to the dignity of children ofGod through the atoning merits of His life and death. Thelove ofGod the Father thus includes thelove of His incarnate Son. Personal devotion toJesus is the motive of right conduct inChristian Monotheism. Co-operating in the sanctification ofmankind is the Holy Ghost, the Spirit oftruth and life, sent to confirm the faithful infaith, hope, and charity. These three Divine Persons, distinct from one another, equal in all things, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are one in essence, a trinity ofpersons in the one, undividedGodhead (seeTRINITY). Such is the Monotheism taught byJesus. The guaranty of thetruth of His teaching is to be found in His supreme moral excellence, in the perfection of Hisethical teaching, in Hismiracles, especially Hisbodily resurrection, and in His wonderful influence onmankind for all time. (Cf.John 17:3;1 Corinthians 8:4) AsChristianity in its beginnings was surrounded by thepolytheisticbeliefs and practices of thepagan world, a clear and authoritative expression of Monotheism wasnecessary. Hence the symbols offaith, or creeds, open with the words: "I [we]believe inGod [theon, deum]" or, more explicitly, "I [we]believe in oneGod [hena theon, unum deum]". (SeeDenzinger-Bannwart, "Enchiridion", 1-40; cf.APOSTLES' CREED;ATHANASIAN CREED;NICENE CREED.) Among the earlyheresies, some of the most important and most directly opposed to Monotheism arose out of the attempt to account for the origin ofevil. Good they ascribed to one divine principle,evil to another. (SeeGNOSTICISM; MANICHÆISM;MARCIONITES.) Thesedualisticerrors gave occasion for a vigorous defence of Monotheism by such writers asSt. Irenæus,Tertullian,St. Augustine, etc. (see Bardenhewer-Shahan, "Patrology", St. Louis, 1908).

The samedoctrine naturally held the foremost place in the teaching of the missionaries who converted the races of NorthernEurope; in fact, it may be said that the diffusion of Monotheism is one of the great achievements of theCatholicChurch. In the variousconciliar definitions regarding theTrinity of Persons in God, emphasis is laid on the unity of the Divine nature; see, e.g., Fourth Council of Lateran (1215), inDenzinger-Bannwart, "Enchiridion", 428. Themedieval Scholastics, taking up the traditionalbelief, brought to its support a long array of arguments based on reason; see, for instance,St. Thomas, "Contra Gentes", I, xlii; andSt. Anselm, "Monol.", iv. During the last three centuries the most conspicuous tendency outside theCatholicChurch has been towards such extreme positions as those of Monism andPantheism in which it is asserted that all things are really one in substance, and thatGod is identical with the world. TheChurch, however, has steadfastly maintained, not only thatGod is essentially distinct from all things else, but also that there is only oneGod. "If any one deny the onetrueGod, Creator and Lord of all things visible and invisible, let him beanathema" (Conc. Vatican., Sess. III, "De fide", can. i).

Mohammedan monotheism

OfMohammedan Monotheism little need be said. TheAllah of theKoran is practically one with theJehovah of theOld Testament. Its keynote isislam, submissive resignation to the will ofGod, which is expressed in everything that happens.Allah is, to use the words of theKoran, "The Almighty, the All-knowing, the All-just, the Lord of the worlds, the Author of the heavens and the earth, the Creator of life and death, in whose hand is dominion and irresistible power, the great all-powerful Lord of the glorious throne.God is the mighty . . . the Swift in reckoning, who knoweth every ant's weight of good and of ill that each man hath done, and who suffereth not the reward of thefaithful to perish. He is the King, the Holy, . . . the Guardian over His servants, the Shelterer of theorphan, the Guide of theerring, the Deliverer from every affliction, the Friend of the bereaved, the Consoler of the afflicted, . . . the generous Lord, the gracious Hearer, the Near-at-hand, the Compassionate, the Merciful, the Forgiving" (cited from "Islam", by Ameer Ali Syed). The influence of theBible, particularly theOld Testament, onMohammedan Monotheism is well known and need not be dwelt on here.

Monotheism and polytheistic religions

What has thus far been said leads to the conclusion thatChristian Monotheism and its antecedent forms,Mosaic and primitive Monotheism, are independent in their origin of thePolytheistic religions of the world. The various forms ofpolytheism that now flourish, or that have existed in the past, are the result of man's faulty attempts to interpret nature by the light of unaided reason. Wherever the scientific view of nature has not obtained, the mechanical, secondary causes that account for such striking phenomena as sun, moon, lightning, tempest, have invariably been viewed either as living beings, or as inert bodies kept in movement by invisible, intelligent agents. This personalizing of the striking phenomena of nature was common among the highestpagan nations of antiquity. It is the common view among peoples of inferior culture today. It is only since modernscience has brought all these phenomena within the range of physical law that the tendency to view them as manifestations of distinct personalities has been thoroughly dispelled. Now such a personalizing of nature's forces is compatible with Monotheism so long as these different intelligences fancied to produce the phenomena are viewed asGod's creatures, and hence not worthy of Divine worship. But where the light of revelation has been obscured in whole or in part, the tendency to deify these personalities associated with natural phenomena has asserted itself.

In this waypolytheistic nature-worship seems to have arisen. It arose from the mistaken application of a sound principle, which man everywhere seems naturally to possess, namely, that the great operations of nature are due to the agency of mind and will. Professor George Fisher observes: "Thepolytheistic religions did noterr in identifying the manifold activities of nature withvoluntary agency. The spontaneous feelings ofmankind in this particular are not belied by the principles ofphilosophy. Theerror ofpolytheism lies in the splintering of that will which is immanent in all the operations of nature into a plurality of personal agents, a throng of divinities, each active and dominant within a province of its own" ("Grounds of Christian and Theistic Belief", 1903, p. 29).Polytheistic nature-worship is to be found among practically all peoples who have lacked the guiding star ofDivine revelation. Such history of these individualreligions as we possess offers little evidence of an upward development towards Monotheism: on the contrary, in almost every instance of known historic development, the tendency has been to degenerate further and further from the monotheisticidea. There is, indeed, scarcely aPolytheistic religion in which one of the manydeities recognized is not held inhonour as the father and lord of the rest. That this is the result of an upward development, as non-Catholic scholars very generally assert, is speculatively possible. But that it may as well be the outcome of a downward development from a primitive monotheisticbelief cannot be denied. The latter view seems to have the weight of positive evidence in its favour. The ancient Chinese religion, as depicted in the oldest records, was remarkably close to pure Monotheism. The grossPolytheistic nature-worship of the Egyptians of later times was decidedly a degeneration from the earlier quasi-Monotheisticbelief. In theVedic religion a strong Monotheistic tendency asserted itself, only to weaken later on and change intoPantheism. The onehappy exception is the upward development which the ancient AryanPolytheism took in the land of the Iranians. Through the wise reform of Zoroaster, the various gods of nature were subordinated to the supreme, omniscient spirit,Ormuzd, and were accorded an inferior worship as his creatures.Ormuzd washonoured as the creator of all that is good, the revealer and guardian of thelaws of religious and moral conduct, and the sanctifier of thefaithful. The sense ofsin was strongly developed, and a standard of morality was set forth that justly excites admiration.Heaven andhell, the final renovation of the world, including thebodily resurrection, were elements inZoroastrianeschatology. A nobler religion outside the sphere ofrevealedreligion is not to be found. Yet even this religion is rarely classed by scholars among monotheisticreligions, owing to thepolytheistic colouring of its worship of the subordinate nature-spirits, and also to its retention of the ancient Aryan rite of fire-worship, justified byZoroastrians of modern times as a form of symbolic worship ofOrmuzd.

The so-called survivals in higherreligions, such asbelief in food-eating ghosts, pain-causing spirits,witchcraft, the use of amulets and fetishes, are often cited as evidence that even such forms of Monotheism asJudaism andChristianity are but outgrowths of lowerreligions. The presence of the greater part of thesesuperstitiousbeliefs and customs in the moreignorant sections ofChristian peoples is easily explained as the survival of tenacious customs that flourished among the ancestors ofEuropean peoples long before their conversion toChristianity. Again, many of thesebeliefs and customs are such as might easily arise from faulty interpretations of nature, unavoidable in unscientific grades of culture, even where the monotheisticidea prevailed. Superstitions like these are but the rank weeds and vines growing around the tree of religion.

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT