Wherefore since thou hast seen what is the form of perfect and imperfect
good, now I think we must show in what this perfection of happiness is
placed. And inquire first whether there can be any such good extant in
the world, as thou hast defined; lest, contrary to truth, we be deceived
with an empty show of thought. But it cannot be denied that there is
some such thing extant which is as it were the fountain of all goodness.
For all that is said to be imperfect is so termed for the want it hath
of perfection. Whence it followeth that if in any kind we find something
imperfect, there must needs be something perfect also in the same kind.
For if we take away perfection we cannot so much as devise how there
should be any imperfection. For the nature of things began not from that
which is defective and not complete, but, proceeding from entire and
absolute, falleth into that which is extreme and enfeebled. But if, as
we showed before, there be a certain imperfect felicity of frail goods,
it cannot be doubted but that there is some solid and perfect happiness
also." "Thou hast," quoth I, "concluded most firmly and most truly."
"Now where this good dwelleth," quoth she, "consider this. The common
conceit of men's minds proveth that God the Prince of all things is
good. For, since nothing can be imagined better than God, who doubteth
but that is good than which is nothing better? And reason doth in such
sort demonstrate God to be good that it convinceth Him to be perfectly
good. For unless He were so, He could not be the chief of all things.
For there would be something better than He, having perfect goodness,
which could seem to be of greater antiquity and eminence than He. For it
is already manifest that perfect things were before the imperfect.
Wherefore, lest our reasoning should have no end, we must confess that
the Sovereign God is most full of sovereign and perfect goodness. But we
have concluded that perfect goodness is true happiness, wherefore true
blessedness must necessarily be placed in the most high God." "I agree,"
quoth I, "neither can this be any way contradicted." "But I pray thee,"
quoth she, "see how boldly and inviolably thou approvest that which we
said, that the Sovereign God is most full of sovereign goodness." "How?"
quoth I. "That thou presumest not that this Father of all things hath
either received from others that sovereign good with which He is said to
be replenished, or hath it naturally in such sort that thou shouldst
think that the substance of the blessedness which is had, and of God who
hath it, were diverse. For if thou thinkest that He had it from others,
thou mayest also infer that he who gave it was better than the receiver.
But we most worthily confess that He is the most excellent of all
things. And if He hath it by nature, but as a diverse thing, since we
speak of God the Prince of all things, let him that can, invent who
united these diverse things. Finally, that which is different from
anything, is not that from which it is understood to differ. Wherefore
that which is naturally different from the sovereign good, is not the
sovereign good itself. Which it were impious to think of God, than whom,
we know certainly, nothing is better. For doubtless the nature of
nothing can be better than the beginning of it. Wherefore I may most
truly conclude that which is the beginning of all things to be also in
His own substance the chiefest good." "Most rightly," quoth I. "But it
is granted that the chiefest good is blessedness?" "It is," quoth I.
"Wherefore," quoth she, "we must needs confess that blessedness itself
is God." "I can neither contradict," quoth I, "thy former propositions,
and I see this illation followeth from them."
"Consider," saith she, "if the same be not more firmly proved hence,
because there cannot be two chief goods, the one different from the
other. For it is manifest that of those goods which differ, the one is
not the other, wherefore neither of them can be perfect, wanting the
other. But manifestly that which is not perfect, is not the chiefest,
wherefore the chief goods cannot be diverse. Now we have proved that
both blessedness and God are the chiefest good, wherefore that must
needs be the highest blessedness which is the highest divinity." "There
can be nothing," quoth I, "concluded more truly than this, nor more
firmly in arguing, nor more worthy God himself." "Upon this then," quoth
she, "as the geometricians[136] are wont, out of their propositions
which they have demonstrated, to infer something which they call
_porismata_ (deductions) so will I give thee as it were a
_corollarium_. For since that men are made blessed by the obtaining
of blessedness, and blessedness is nothing else but divinity, it is
manifest that men are made blessed by the obtaining of divinity. And as
men are made just by the obtaining of justice, and wise by the obtaining
of wisdom, so they who obtain divinity must needs in like manner become
gods. Wherefore everyone that is blessed is a god, but by nature there
is only one God; but there may be many by participation." "This is,"
quoth I, "an excellent and precious _porisma_ or
_corollarium_." "But there is nothing more excellent than that
which reason persuadeth us to add." "What?" quoth I.
"Since," quoth she, "blessedness seemeth to contain many things, whether
do they all concur as divers parts to the composition of one entire body
of blessedness, or doth some one of them form the substance of
blessedness to which the rest are to be referred?" "I desire," quoth I,
"that thou wouldst declare this point, by the enumeration of the
particulars." "Do we not think," quoth she, "that blessedness is good?"
"Yea, the chiefest good," quoth I. "Thou mayest," quoth she, "add this
to them all. For blessedness is accounted the chiefest sufficiency, the
chiefest power, respect, fame, and pleasure. What then? Are all these--
sufficiency, power, and the rest--the good, in the sense that they are
members of it, or rather are they referred to good as to the head?" "I
understand," quoth I, "what thou proposest, but I desire to hear what
thou concludest." "This is the decision of this matter. If all these
were members of blessedness, they should differ one from another. For
this is the nature of parts, that being divers they compose one body.
But we have proved that all these are one and the same thing. Wherefore
they are no members, otherwise blessedness should be compacted of one
member, which cannot be." "There is no doubt of this," quoth I, "but I
expect that which is behind." "It is manifest that the rest are to be
referred to goodness; for sufficiency is desired, because it is esteemed
good, and likewise power, because that likewise is thought to be good.
And we may conjecture the same of respect, fame, and pleasure. Wherefore
goodness is the sum and cause of all that is desired. For that which is
neither good indeed, nor beareth any show of goodness, can by no means
be sought after. And contrariwise those things which are not good of
their own nature, yet, if they seem such, are desired as if they were
truly good. So that the sum, origin, and cause of all that is sought
after is rightly thought to be goodness. And that on account of which a
thing is sought, seemeth to be the chief object of desire. As if one
would ride for his health, he doth not so much desire the motion of
riding, as the effect of health. Wherefore, since all things are desired
in respect of goodness, they are not so much wished for as goodness
itself. But we granted that to be blessedness for which other things are
desired, wherefore in like manner only blessedness is sought after; by
which it plainly appeareth, that goodness and blessedness have one and
the self-same substance." "I see not how any man can dissent." "But we
have showed that God and true blessedness are one and the self-same
thing." "It is so," quoth I. "We may then securely conclude that the
substance of God consisteth in nothing else but in goodness.
[136] _Vide supra_, _Tr_. iii. p. 40.