God within creatures without being part of them
the matter of insisting on the immanent or the transcendent deity
The decisive qualification is the repeated word specially: Chesterton contrasts religious emphases and their supposed effects on conduct. Read as a denial that orthodox Christianity can affirm God's presence within human beings, his antithesis would conflict with an important witness to the old theology he defends.
In Summa theologiae I, question 8, article 1, Thomas Aquinas argues that God is present in every creature as the continuously acting cause of its existence, without being a constituent of its essence. His reply to objection 1 explicitly combines God's superiority to everything with God's presence in everything. Article 3 then distinguishes this universal presence from the special presence of God in rational creatures through knowing and loving him by grace. This is an interior relation that preserves the distinction between creature and Creator; divine nearness need not mean divine-human identity. The inspected English text is the Dominican translation's second revised edition (1920), reproduced by New Advent; the Prima Pars was composed in 1265–1268, centuries before these English terms became the vocabulary of Campbell's controversy. See question 8, articles 1 and 3, and the Latin edition's chronology.
Campbell himself calls transcendence an obvious truth while demanding that immanence move into the foreground of preaching: The New Theology (first published 1907), chapter I. Thus the dispute is not exhausted by asking whether God is within us or beyond us. It concerns what divine presence means, what distinctions it preserves, and what follows from emphasizing it. Aquinas supplies a doctrinal qualification to Chesterton's closing epigram; he does not establish Chesterton's separate historical claim that one emphasis produces Tibet and the other Christendom.
Sources
Revision 1 of 1 · 2026-11-07 · Suggest an edit