TO THE SAME
HOW SUBSTANCES CAN BE GOOD IN
VIRTUE OF THEIR EXISTENCE
You ask me to
state and explain somewhat more clearly that obscure question in my Hebdomads1concerning the manner in which substances can be good in virtue of
existence without being absolute goods.2
You urge that this demonstration is necessary because the method of this kind
of treatise is not clear to all. I can bear witness with what eagerness you
have already attacked the subject. But I confess I like to expound my Hebdomads
to myself, and would rather bury my speculations in my own memory than
share them with any of those pert and frivolous persons who will not tolerate
an argument unless it is made amusing. Wherefore do not you take objection to
the obscurity that waits on brevity; for obscurity is the sure treasure-house
of secret doctrine and has the further advantage that it speaks
a languageunderstood only of those who
deserve to understand. I have therefore followed the example of the
mathematical3 and cognate
sciences and laid down bounds and rules according to which I shall develop all
that follows.
I. A common conception is a statement generally accepted as soon as it is made. Of these there are two kinds. One is universally intelligible; as, for instance, "if equals be taken from equals the remainders are equal." Nobody who grasps that proposition will deny it. The other kind is intelligible only to the learned, but it is derived from the same class of common conceptions; as " Incorporeals cannot occupy space," and the like. This is obvious to the learned but not to the common herd.
II. Being and the thing that is4are different. Simple Being awaits manifestation, but a thing is and exists5 as soon as it has received the form which gives it Being.
III. A thing that exists can participate in something else; but absolute Being can in no wise participate in anything. For participation is effected when a thing already is; but it is something after it has acquired Being.
IV. That which exists can possess, something besides itself. But absolute Being has no admixture of aught besides Itself
V. Merely to be something and to be something absolutely are different; the former implies accidents, the latter connotes a substance.
VI. Everything that is participates in absolute Being6 through the fact that it exists. In order to be something it participates in something else. Hence that which exists participates in absolute Being through the fact that it exists, but it exists in order to participate in something else.
VII. Every simple thing possesses as a unity its absolute and its particular Being.
VIII. In every composite thing absolute and individual Being are not one and the same.
IX. Diversity repels; likeness attracts. That which seeks something outside itself is demonstrably of the same nature as that which it seeks.
These preliminaries are enough then for our purpose. The intelligent interpreter of the discussion will supply the arguments appropriate to each point.
Now the problem is this. Things which are, are good.
For all the learned are agreed that every existing thing tends to good and
everything tends to its like. Therefore things which tend to good are good. We
must, however, inquire how they are good - by participation or by substance. If
by participation, they are in no wise good in themselves; for a thing which is
white by participation in whiteness is not white in itself by virtue of
absolute Being. So with all other qualities. If then they are good by
participation, they are not good in themselves; therefore they do not tend to
good. But we have agreed that they do. Therefore they are good not by
participation but by substance.
But those
things whose substance is good are substantially good. But they owe their
actual Being to absolute Being. Their absolute Being therefore is good;
therefore the absolute Being of all things is good. But if their Being is good,
things which exist are good through the fact that they exist and their absolute
Being is the same as that of the Good. Therefore they are substantial goods,
since they do not merely participate in goodness. But if their absolute Being
is good, there is no doubt but that, since they are substantial goods, they are
like the First Good and therefore they will have to be that Good. For nothing
is like It save Itself Hence all things that are, are God - an impious
assertion. Wherefore things are not substantial goods, and so the essence of
the Good does not reside in them. Therefore they are not good through the fact
that they exist. But neither do they receive good by participation, for they would in no
wise tend to good. Therefore they are in no wise good.7
This problem admits of the
following solution.8
There are many things which can be separated by a mental process, though they
cannot be separated in fact. No one, for instance, can actually separate a
triangle or other mathematical figure from the underlying matter; but mentally
one can consider a triangle and its properties apart from matter. Let us,
therefore, abstract mentally for a moment the presence of the Prime Good, whose
Being is admitted by the universal consensus of learned and unlearned opinion
and can be deduced from the religious beliefs of savage races. The Prime Good
having been thus for a moment abstracted, let us postulate as good all things
that are, and let us consider how they could possibly be good if they did not
derive
from the Prime Good. This
process leads me to perceive that their Goodness and their existence are two
different things. For let me suppose that one and the same substance is good,
white, heavy, and round. Then it must be admitted that its substance,
roundness, colour, and goodness are all different things. For if each of these
qualities were the same as its substance, weight would be the same thing as
colour or goodness, and goodness would be the same as colour; which is contrary
to nature. Their Being then in that case would be one thing, their quality
another, and they would be good, but they would not have their absolute Being
good. Therefore if they really existed at all, they would not be from good nor
good, they would not be the same as good, but Being and Goodness would be for
them two different things. But if they were nothing else but good substances,
and were neither heavy, nor coloured, and possessed neither spatial dimension
nor quality, beyond that of goodness, they (or rather it) would seem to be not
things but the principle of things. For there is one thing alone that is by
nature good to the exclusion of every other quality. But since they are not
simple, they could not even exist at all unless that which is the one sole Good
willed them to be. They are called good simply because their Being is derived front
the Will of the Good. For the Prime Good is essentially good in virtue of
Being; the secondary good is in its turn good because it derives from the good
whose absolute Being is good. But the absolute Being of all things derives from
the Prime Good which is such that of It Being and Goodness are rightly
predicated as identical. Their absolute Being therefore is good; for thereby it
resides in Him.
Thereby the problem is solved. For though things be good
through the fact that they exist they are not like the Prime Good, for the
simple reason that their absolute Being is not good under all circumstances,
but that things can have no absolute Being unless it derive from the Prime
Being, that is, the Prime Good; their substance, therefore, is good, and yet it
is not like that from which it comes. For the Prime Good is good through the
fact that it exists, irrespective of all conditions, for it is nothing else
than good; but the second good if it derived from any other source might be
good, but could not be good through the fact that it exists. For in that case
it might possibly participate in good, but their substantial Being, not
deriving from the Prime Good, could not have the element of good. Therefore when
we have mentally abstracted the Prime Good, these things, though they might be
good, would not be good through the fact that they exist, and since they could
not actually exist unless the true good had produced them, therefore their
Being is good, and yet that which springs from the substantial Good is not like
its source which produces it. And unless they had derived from it, though they were good yet they could not be good
through the fact that they exist because they were apart from good and not derived
from good, since that very good is the Prime Good and is substantial Being and
substantial Good and essential Goodness. But we need not say that white things
are white through the fact that they exist; for they drew their existence from
the will of God but not their whiteness. For to be is one thing; to be white is
another; and that because He who gave them Being is good, but not white. It is
therefore in accord
ance with the
will of the Good that they should be good through the fact that they exist; but
it is not in accordance with the will of one who is not white that a thing have
a certain property making it white in virtue of its Being; for it was not the
will of One who is white that gave them Being. And so they are white simply
because One who was not white willed them to be white; but they are good
through the fact that they exist because One who was good willed them to be
good. Ought, then, by parity of reason, all things to be just because He is
just who willed them to be? That is not so either. For to be good involves
Being, to be just involves an act. For Him being and action are identical; to
be good and to be just are one and the same for Him. But being and action are
not identical for us, for we are not simple. For us, then, goodness is not the
same thing as justice, but we all have the same sort of Being in virtue of our
existence. Therefore all things are good, but all things are not just. Finally,
good is a general, but just is a species, and this species does not apply to
all. Wherefore some things are just, others are something else, but all things
are good.
1 Similarly Porphyry divided the works of Plotinus into six Enneades or groups of nine.
2 Cf. discussion of the nature of good in Cons. iii. m. 10 and pr. 11 (infra pp. 274 ff.).
3 On this mathematical method of exposition cf. Cons. iii. pr. 10 (infra p. 270).
4 Esse
= Aristotle's
5 Consistere
=
6 Id quod
est esse =
7 Cf. the similar reductio ad absurdum in Tr. 5 (infra, p. 98) and in Cons. v. pr. 3 (infra, p. 374).
8 Vide supra, p. 6, n. b.