FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   468   469   470   471   472   473   474   475   476   477   478   479   480   481   482   483   484   485   486   487   488   489   490   491   492  
493   494   495   496   497   498   499   500   501   502   503   504   505   506   507   508   509   510   511   512   513   514   515   516   517   >>   >|  
e. Nor is it necessary that as long as the creature is it should be created; because creation imports a relation of the creature to the Creator, with a certain newness or beginning. _______________________ FOURTH ARTICLE [I, Q. 45, Art. 4] Whether to Be Created Belongs to Composite and Subsisting Things? Objection 1: It would seem that to be created does not belong to composite and subsisting things. For in the book, _De Causis_ (prop. iv) it is said, "The first of creatures is being." But the being of a thing created is not subsisting. Therefore creation properly speaking does not belong to subsisting and composite things. Obj. 2: Further, whatever is created is from nothing. But composite things are not from nothing, but are the result of their own component parts. Therefore composite things are not created. Obj. 3: Further, what is presupposed in the second emanation is properly produced by the first: as natural generation produces the natural thing, which is presupposed in the operation of art. But the thing supposed in natural generation is matter. Therefore matter, and not the composite, is, properly speaking, that which is created. _On the contrary,_ It is said (Gen. 1:1): "In the beginning God created heaven and earth." But heaven and earth are subsisting composite things. Therefore creation belongs to them. _I answer that,_ To be created is, in a manner, to be made, as was shown above (Q. 44, A. 2, ad 2, 3). Now, to be made is directed to the being of a thing. Hence to be made and to be created properly belong to whatever being belongs; which, indeed, belongs properly to subsisting things, whether they are simple things, as in the case of separate substances, or composite, as in the case of material substances. For being belongs to that which has being--that is, to what subsists in its own being. But forms and accidents and the like are called beings, not as if they themselves were, but because something is by them; as whiteness is called a being, inasmuch as its subject is white by it. Hence, according to the Philosopher (Metaph. vii, text 2) accident is more properly said to be "of a being" than "a being." Therefore, as accidents and forms and the like non-subsisting things are to be said to co-exist rather than to exist, so they ought to be called rather "concreated" than "created" things; whereas, properly speaking, created things are subsisting beings. Reply Obj. 1: In the proposition "the
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   468   469   470   471   472   473   474   475   476   477   478   479   480   481   482   483   484   485   486   487   488   489   490   491   492  
493   494   495   496   497   498   499   500   501   502   503   504   505   506   507   508   509   510   511   512   513   514   515   516   517   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

created

 

things

 

composite

 
subsisting
 

properly

 

Therefore

 

belongs

 

natural

 

belong

 
speaking

creation

 
called
 
Further
 

substances

 
accidents
 

beings

 

presupposed

 

generation

 
matter
 
heaven

creature

 
beginning
 

imports

 

relation

 
subsists
 

directed

 

material

 
simple
 

Creator

 

separate


newness

 

proposition

 

concreated

 

accident

 

subject

 

whiteness

 

Metaph

 

Philosopher

 

component

 

result


Composite

 

emanation

 
Created
 

Belongs

 

Subsisting

 

Things

 

Causis

 
Objection
 

produced

 

answer