Library of the World's Best Literature, Ancient and Modern — Volume 02
General
Library of the World's Best Literature, Ancient and Modern — Volume 02
Literature -- Collections
Our manner of speech, therefore, denotes the substance of God, yet
denotes it imperfectly, because creatures are imperfect manifestations
of Him. When we say that God is good, we do not mean that He is the
cause of goodness or that He is not evil. Our meaning is this: What we
call goodness in creatures preexists in God in a far higher way. Whence
it follows, not that God is good because He is the source of good, but
rather, because He is good, He imparts goodness to all things else; as
St. Augustine says, "Inasmuch as He is good, _we are_."
HOW CAN THE ABSOLUTE BE A CAUSE?
From the 'Quæstiones Disputatæ'
The relations which are spoken of as existing between God and creatures
are not really in Him. A real relation is that which exists between two
things. It is mutual or bilateral then, only when its basis in both
correlates is the same. Such is the case in all quantitive relations.
Quantity being essentially the same in all quanta, gives rise to
relations which are real in both terms--in the part, for instance, and
in the whole, in the unit of measurement and in that which is measured.
But where a relation originates in causation, as between that which is
active and that which is passive, it does not always concern both terms.
True, that which is acted upon, or set in motion, or produced, must be
related to the source of these modifications, since every effect is
dependent upon its cause. And it is equally true that such causes or
agencies are in some cases related to their effects, namely, when the
production of those effects redounds in some way to the well-being of
the cause itself. This is evidently what happens when like begets like,
and thereby perpetuates, so far as may be, its own species.... There
are cases, nevertheless, in which a thing, without being related, has
other things related to it. The cognizing subject is related to that
which is the object of cognition--to a thing which is outside the mind.
But the thing itself is in no way affected by this cognition, since the
mental process is confined to the mind, and therefore does not bring
about any change in the object. Hence the relation established by the
act of knowing cannot be in that which is known.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account