Part I (Prima Pars) Part 8 (1/2)
Reply Obj. 3: Goodness is not divided into these three as something univocal to be predicated equally of them all; but as something a.n.a.logical to be predicated of them according to priority and posteriority. Hence it is predicated chiefly of the virtuous; then of the pleasant; and lastly of the useful.
_______________________
QUESTION 6
THE GOODNESS OF G.o.d (In Four Articles)
We next consider the goodness of G.o.d; under which head there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether goodness belongs to G.o.d?
(2) Whether G.o.d is the supreme good?
(3) Whether He alone is essentially good?
(4) Whether all things are good by the divine goodness?
_______________________
FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 6, Art. 1]
Whether G.o.d is good?
Objection 1: It seems that to be good does not belong to G.o.d. For goodness consists in mode, species and order. But these do not seem to belong to G.o.d; since G.o.d is immense and is not ordered to anything else. Therefore to be good does not belong to G.o.d.
Obj. 2: Further, the good is what all things desire. But all things do not desire G.o.d, because all things do not know Him; and nothing is desired unless it is known. Therefore to be good does not belong to G.o.d.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Lam. 3:25): ”The Lord is good to them that hope in Him, to the soul that seeketh Him.”
_I answer that,_ To be good belongs pre-eminently to G.o.d. For a thing is good according to its desirableness. Now everything seeks after its own perfection; and the perfection and form of an effect consist in a certain likeness to the agent, since every agent makes its like; and hence the agent itself is desirable and has the nature of good. For the very thing which is desirable in it is the partic.i.p.ation of its likeness. Therefore, since G.o.d is the first effective cause of all things, it is manifest that the aspect of good and of desirableness belong to Him; and hence Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv) attributes good to G.o.d as to the first efficient cause, saying that, G.o.d is called good ”as by Whom all things subsist.”
Reply Obj. 1: To have mode, species and order belongs to the essence of caused good; but good is in G.o.d as in its cause, and hence it belongs to Him to impose mode, species and order on others; wherefore these three things are in G.o.d as in their cause.
Reply Obj. 2: All things, by desiring their own perfection, desire G.o.d Himself, inasmuch as the perfections of all things are so many similitudes of the divine being; as appears from what is said above (Q. 4, A. 3). And so of those things which desire G.o.d, some know Him as He is Himself, and this is proper to the rational creature; others know some partic.i.p.ation of His goodness, and this belongs also to sensible knowledge; others have a natural desire without knowledge, as being directed to their ends by a higher intelligence.
_______________________
SECOND ARTICLE [I, Q. 6, Art. 2]
Whether G.o.d Is the Supreme Good?
Objection 1: It seems that G.o.d is not the supreme good. For the supreme good adds something to good; otherwise it would belong to every good. But everything which is an addition to anything else is a compound thing: therefore the supreme good is a compound. But G.o.d is supremely simple; as was shown above (Q. 3, A. 7). Therefore G.o.d is not the supreme good.
Obj. 2: Further, ”Good is what all desire,” as the Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 1). Now what all desire is nothing but G.o.d, Who is the end of all things: therefore there is no other good but G.o.d. This appears also from what is said (Luke 18:19): ”None is good but G.o.d alone.” But we use the word supreme in comparison with others, as e.g.
supreme heat is used in comparison with all other heats. Therefore G.o.d cannot be called the supreme good.
Obj. 3: Further, supreme implies comparison. But things not in the same genus are not comparable; as, sweetness is not properly greater or less than a line. Therefore, since G.o.d is not in the same genus as other good things, as appears above (QQ. 3, A. 5; 4, A. 3) it seems that G.o.d cannot be called the supreme good in relation to others.
_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Trin. ii) that, the Trinity of the divine persons is ”the supreme good, discerned by purified minds.”
_I answer that,_ G.o.d is the supreme good simply, and not only as existing in any genus or order of things. For good is attributed to G.o.d, as was said in the preceding article, inasmuch as all desired perfections flow from Him as from the first cause. They do not, however, flow from Him as from a univocal agent, as shown above (Q. 4, A. 2); but as from an agent which does not agree with its effects either in species or genus. Now the likeness of an effect in the univocal cause is found uniformly; but in the equivocal cause it is found more excellently, as, heat is in the sun more excellently than it is in fire. Therefore as good is in G.o.d as in the first, but not the univocal, cause of all things, it must be in Him in a most excellent way; and therefore He is called the supreme good.
Reply Obj. 1: The supreme good does not add to good any absolute thing, but only a relation. Now a relation of G.o.d to creatures, is not a reality in G.o.d, but in the creature; for it is in G.o.d in our idea only: as, what is knowable is so called with relation to knowledge, not that it depends on knowledge, but because knowledge depends on it. Thus it is not necessary that there should be composition in the supreme good, but only that other things are deficient in comparison with it.