In our effort to talk about God, we look in effect for words or names common to God and creature, and then ask questions about how the meanings of such common terms must vary in order to permit the extension of the vocabulary of creatures to God. There are certain words whose meaning is as broad as that of being itself. These so-called transcendental properties of being have an ordered set of meanings which enable them to be used in each of the categories. It is just because they are not confined to one category that they are said to transcend categorical limitations.
The transcendentals are ‘one’, ‘true’, ‘good’ and ‘beauty’ and the claim comes down to this: whatever is, is one; whatever is, is true; whatever is, is good; whatever is, is beautiful. This entails that, like being, they are ‘said in many ways’, that is, as Thomas would put it, that they are analogical terms. The extension of such names to God may seem to involve the following simple argument:
Whatever is, is good.
God exists.
Therefore, God is good.
The following selection will make clear that the matter is a good deal more complicated than that. God is not just another being among the things that are.
In Chapter 6, we saw how painstakingly Thomas looks into the way in which terms like ‘wise’ and ‘just’ can be applied to God. The base forsuch terms is of course much less broad than it is for the transcendentals. Man as the image and likeness of God provides a privileged springboard to knowledge of the divine. But Thomas, having established God’s simplicity in Question 3 of Part 1 of the Summa theologiae, is initially concerned with the way in which God shares terms with anything whatsoever. First he will discuss good in general; then he will speak of the goodness of God.
Summa theologiae, Part 1
QUESTION 5
on goodness in general
We turn now to the good, and first to good in general, then to the goodness of God. There are six things to be asked about the first: (1) whether good and being are the same thing; (2) supposing that they differ only in account, which account is first, that of good or of being? (3) supposing being to be first, whether every being is good; (4) to what cause is the notion of the good reduced? (5) whether the notion of good consists in manner, species and order; (6) how good is divided into moral, useful and pleasant.
Article 1: Do good and being differ in reality?
It seems that they do.
1. Boethius says in On the Hebdomads that it is one thing for things to be good and another for them to exist. Therefore, good and being really differ.
2. Moreover, nothing is informed by itself. But good is said of being by way of informing it, as we are told in the Book of Causes 6. Therefore good differs from being in reality.
3. Good is susceptible of more and less, but existence is not; therefore good really differs from being.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Augustine says in On Christian Doctrine 1.32 that we are good because we exist.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that good and being are the same in reality and differ only in account. Which is clear from this: the notion of good consists in this that something is desirable, which is why the Philosopher, in Ethics I, says that the good is that which all things desire. But it is manifest that a thing is desirable insofar as it is perfected, for all things desire their own perfection. A thing is perfected to the degree that it is actual; clearly, then, a thing is good to the degree that it is being, for existence is the actuality of every thing, as is clear from the foregoing. So it is obvious that good and being are really the same, but good adds the note of desirable, which being does not.
Ad 1. It should be said that although good and being are really the same, because they differ in account a thing is not called a being simply speaking and good simply speaking in the same way. For since being means that something is properly actual, and act is related to potency, a thing will be called a being simply speaking insofar as it is first distinguishable from mere potency. But this is the substantial existence of the thing. Hence it is because of its substantial existence that a thing is said to be simply speaking. Through superadded acts something is said to be in a certain respect, as to be white means to be in a certain respect, for to be white does not replace being potential simply speaking, since it attaches to a thing already actually existing. But good expresses the note of the perfected, which is desirable, and consequently it expresses the note of the complete. Hence that which is completely perfected is said to be good simply speaking. What does not have the complete perfection it is meant to have, although it has some perfection insofar as it is actual, is not called perfect simply speaking nor good simply speaking but only in a certain respect. Therefore, with respect to first existence, which is substantial, something is called being simply speaking and good in a certain respect, that is, insofar as it is, but according to the complete act something is called being in a certain respect and good simply speaking. Therefore, what Boethius said, that a thing is good is one thing and that it is another, should be understood in terms of being good and of being simply speaking, because something is being simply speaking by first act and good simply speaking by ultimate act. However, it is good in a certain respect because of first act and according to the ultimate act it is being in a certain respect.
Ad 2. It should be replied that good is said by way of informing, insofar as good simply speaking is meant, with reference to the ultimate act.
Ad 3. Similarly, in response to the third, it should be noted that good admits of more or less according to a supervenient act, such as knowledge or virtue.
Article 2: Is the notion of good prior to that of being?
It seems that it is.
1. The order in names is according to the order of the things signified by them. But Dionysius puts good before being among the names of God as is clear from On the Divine Names 3. Therefore the notion of good is before that of being.
2. Moreover, that which is prior in notion extends to more things, but good extends to more things than does being, because, as Dionysius says in On the Divine Names 5, the good extends to the existing and non-existing, whereas being extends to the existing alone. Therefore, good is prior in notion to being.
3. That which is more universal is prior in notion. But good seems to be more universal than being, because the good has the note of the appetitible. But for some non-being is desirable, for it is said of Judas in Matthew 26.24: ‘It were better for that man if he had not been born.’ Therefore, the good is prior in notion to being.
4. Moreover, not just existence is desirable, but also life and wisdom and many other things, and so it seems that existence is a particular desirable thing whereas good is universal. Therefore, good is absolutely prior in notion to being.
ON THE CONTRARY:
In the Book of Causes it is said that the first of all created things is existence.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that being is prior in notion to good, for the notion signified by the name is what the intellect conceives of the thing and signifies by means of the word; therefore, that is prior according to notion which is first conceived by intellect. But it is being that intellect knows first, because anything is knowable to the degree that it is actual, as is said in Metaphysics 9. Hence being is the proper object of intellect, and thus is the first intelligible, as sound is the first audible. Therefore, being is prior in notion to good.
Ad 1. It should be said that Dionysius discusses the divine names insofar as they imply causality in God, for we name God, as he says, from creatures, as the cause from effects. But good, since it has the note of the desirable, implies the relation of final cause, whose causality is first, because an agent only acts for the sake of the end, and the matter is moved to form by the agent, hence it is said that the end is the cause of causes. Thus, in causing, the good is prior to being, as end is to form, and for this reason, among the names signifying divine causality, good is placed before being.
Again, because according to the Platonists, who did not distinguish matter from privation, matter is non-being, the participation in good extends to more things than the participation of being. For prime matter participates in the good, since it desires it (nothing desires anything other than its like), but it does not participate in being, since they held it to be non-being. Therefore, Dionysius says that good extends to non-existing things.
Ad 2. Thus the solution to the second is obvious. If not, it should be said that good extends to existing and non-existing things according to causality and not according to predication, such that by non-existing we understand not simply that which wholly is not, but things which are potential and not actual, because the good has the note of end, in which not only the things that are actual rest, but to which also are moved those things which are not in act but only in potency. Being implies only the relation of formal cause, whether inherent or exemplar, whose causality extends only to things in act.
Ad 3. It should be said that not to be is not as such desirable, save incidentally, insofar as the taking away of some evil is desirable, which evil is taken away by non-being. But the taking away of evil is not desirable except insofar as some good is negated by the evil. Therefore that which is desirable in itself is existence and non-existence only incidentally, insofar as some existence is desired in which a man would not be deprived. Thus non-being is called good only incidentally as well.
Ad 4. It should be said that life and knowledge and the like are desired insofar as they are actual, hence in all of them some existence is desired. Thus only being is desirable and consequently nothing is good except being.
Article 3: Is every being good?
It seems not.
1. The good adds to being, as is clear from what has been said. But the things that add something to being, contract it, for example, substance, quantity, quality and other such things. Therefore, the good contracts being and not every being is good.
2. Moreover, no evil is good. Isaiah 5.20: ‘Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil.’ But some being is called evil. Therefore, not every being is good.
3. Moreover, good has the note of the desirable. But prime matter does not have the note of the desirable, but only of desiring. Therefore, prime matter does not have the note of the good. Therefore, not every being is good.
4. Moreover, the Philosopher says in Metaphysics 3.2 that there is no good in mathematicals. But mathematicals are kinds of being, otherwise there would be no science of them. Therefore, not every being is good.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Every being that is not God is a creature of God. ‘For every creature of God is good,’ as is said in 1 Timothy 4.4. Therefore, every being is good.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that every being, insofar as it is a being, is good. For every being, insofar as it is a being, is actual and in some way perfect, because every act is some sort of perfection. Therefore, the perfected has the note of the appetitible and good, as is clear from what has been said. It follows, therefore, that every being, as such, is good.
Ad 1. It should be said that substance, quantity and quality, and what is contained under them, contract being by applying being to some quiddity or nature. Good does not add to being in this way, but adds only the note of appetitible and perfection, which belongs to existence in whatever nature it is. Hence good does not contract being.
Ad 2. It should be said that no being is called evil insofar as it is being, but insofar as it lacks some existence, as a man is called evil insofar as he lacks some virtue, and the eye is called bad insofar as it lacks the sharpness of sight.
Ad 3. It should be said that prime matter, just as it is being only in potency, so it is good only in potency. Although, according to the Platonists, prime matter can be said to be non-being, because of the adjunct privation. But it participates in something of good, namely its order or aptitude to good. Therefore, it does not belong to it to be desirable, but that it should desire.
Ad 4. It should be said that mathematicals do not subsist separately in existence, because if they should subsist, there would be good in them, namely their own existence. But mathematicals are separate only in understanding, insofar as they are abstracted from motion and from matter, and thus they are abstracted from the note of end, which has the note of mover. There is nothing absurd in the fact that there should be no good or note of good in some being as it is thought, since the notion of being is prior to that of good, as was said above.
Article 4: Does good have the note of final cause?
It seems not.
1. As Dionysius says in On the Divine Names 4, the good is praised as beauty is. But beauty implies the note of formal cause. Therefore, good has the note of formal cause.
2. Moreover, the good is diffusive of its existence, as can be drawn from the words of Dionysius when he says that the good is that by which all things subsist and are. But to be diffusive implies the note of efficient cause. Therefore, good has the note of efficient cause.
3. Moreover, Augustine says in On Christian Doctrine 1.32 that because God is good, we exist. But we are from God as from an efficient cause. Therefore, the good implies the note of efficient cause.
ON THE CONTRARY:
The Philosopher says in Physics 2.3, ‘The others are causes in the sense of the end or the good of the rest.’ Therefore, the good has the note of final cause.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that since the good is that which all things desire, it has the note of end, for it is manifest that the good implies the note of end. However, the notion of good presupposes the notions of efficient cause and of formal cause. For we see that what is first in causing is the last caused, for fire first warms before it introduces the form of fire, since heat in fire follows on substantial form. But in causing, the good and end are found first, which move the efficient; second, the action of the efficient, moving to form; third, form advenes. So it must be the reverse in what is caused: first there is the form, through which the thing is being; second, there is in it its effective power, according to which it is perfected in being (for anything is perfect when it can make something like itself, as the Philosopher says in the Meteorology 4.3); third, the notion of the good follows, on which perfection in the thing is grounded.
Ad 1. It should be said therefore that the beautiful and good are indeed the same in subject, since they are founded on the same thing, namely, form, and because of this the good is praised as beauty is. But they differ in notion. For good properly looks to appetite, for the good is that which all things desire. And so it has the note of end, for appetite is like a movement towards the thing. But beauty looks to the cognitive power, for things are called beautiful which when seen please. Hence beauty consists of fitting proportion, for sense takes pleasure in things duly proportioned, as in things similar to itself; for sense is a kind of reason, as is every knowing power. And since knowledge comes about through assimilation, and similitude looks to form, the beautiful properly pertains to the notion of formal causality.
Ad 2. It should be said that the good is said to be diffusive of its being in the way in which the end is said to move.
Ad 3. It should be said that anyone having a will is called good insofar as he has a good will, because by means of the will we use all else in us. Hence a man who has a good intellect is not called good, but one who has a good will. Will looks to the end as its proper object, hence the remark, ‘Because God is good, we are,’ refers to the final cause.
Article 5: Does the notion of good consist of mode, species and order?
It seems not.
1. Good and being differ in notion, as has been said above, but mode, species and order seem to pertain to the notion of being because, as is said in Wisdom 11.21, ‘But thou hast ordered all things in measure and number and weight.’ To these three, species, mode and order are reduced, because, as Augustine says in the literal commentary on Genesis 4.3, ‘Measure fashions the mode of each thing, and number gives every thing its species, and weight draws a thing to rest and stability.’ Therefore, the notion of good consists of mode, species and order.
2. Moreover, mode, species and order are certain goods. Therefore, if the notion of good consists of mode, species and order, mode must have mode, species and order, and similarly species and order. Therefore, it will go on to infinity.
3. Moreover, evil is the privation of mode, species and order. But evil does not totally remove the good. Therefore, the notion of good does not consist of mode, species and order.
4. Moreover, that of which the notion of good consists cannot be called evil. But we speak of an evil mode, an evil species, a bad order. Therefore, the notion of good cannot consist of mode, species and order.
5. Moreover, mode, species and order are caused by weight, number and measure, as can be inferred from the authority of Augustine. But not all good things have weight, number and measure, for Ambrose says in the Hexameron 9 that the nature of light is that it not be created in number or in weight or in measure. Therefore, the notion of good does not consist of mode, species and order.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Augustine says in On the Nature of the Good that these three, mode, species and order, are, as it were, certain general goods created by God in things, and thus, where these are great, there are great goods, where they are small, there are small goods, where they are not, there is no good. Which would not be the case if the notion of good did not consist of these. Therefore, the notion of good consists of mode, species and order.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that anything is called good insofar as it is perfect, for thus it is desirable, as was said above. But that is called perfect which is lacking nothing of the mode of its perfection. But since anything is that which it is through its form, and form presupposes some things and other things necessarily follow on it, in order for something to be perfect and good, it must have form and the things presupposed to it and the things consequent on it. Presupposed to form is the determination or commensuration of principles, whether material, or the things which effect it, which is what mode means. Hence it is said that measure preshapes mode. The form itself is meant by species, because a thing is constituted in its species by form. That is why number is said to supply species, because the definitions signifying the species are like numbers, as the Philosopher says in Metaphysics 7.3. For just as the species of number changes when a unit is added or subtracted, so in definitions when a difference is added or subtracted. The inclination to the end or to action or something like follows on form because a thing acts insofar as it is actual, and tends towards that which befits it according to its form. This pertains to weight and order. Hence the notion of good, insofar as it consists in perfection, also consists in mode, species and order.
Ad 1. It should be said that these three do not follow on being except insofar as it is perfect and thus is good.
Ad 2. It should be said that mode, species and order are called goods in the same way they are called beings, not because they are subsistent things, but because by them other things are both being and good. Hence it is not necessary that there be other things thanks to which these are good, for they are not called good as if they were formally good by other things, but because by them some things are formally called good; just as whiteness is not called being as if it were so by something, but because thanks to it something else is in a certain respect, namely white.
Ad 3. It should be said that any existence is according to some form, hence mode, species and order follow on any kind of being of the thing, as a man has species, mode and order insofar as he is a man, and similarly insofar as he is white, he has mode, species and order, and insofar as he is virtuous and knowing or anything else that is said of him. But evil negates some being, as blindness negates sight, hence it does not take away every mode, species and order, but only the mode, species and order that follow on being sighted.
Ad 4. It should be said that, as Augustine says in On the Nature of the Good, every mode, as mode, is good (and the same can be said of species and order), but a bad mode or bad species or bad order are so called either because they are less than they ought to be or because they are not proportioned to the things they ought to be proportioned to and are called bad because they are alien and incongruous.
Ad 5. It should be said that the nature of light is said to be without number, weight and measure, not simply speaking, but by comparison with bodily things, because the power of light extends to all bodily things, insofar as it is an active quality of the first altering body, namely the heavens.
Article 6: Is good fittingly distinguished into honourable, useful and pleasant?
It seems not.
1. The good, as the Philosopher says in Ethics 1.6, is divided into the ten categories. But honourable, useful and pleasant can be found in any category. Therefore good is not fittingly divided by these.
2. Moreover, the members of a division are opposites, but these three do not appear to be opposites, for some honourable things are pleasant, and nothing dishonourable is useful (but honourable and useful would have to be opposed if the members of the division were opposites), as Cicero also says in On Offices. Therefore, the foregoing division is inappropriate.
3. Moreover, where one thing is for the sake of another, then there is but one. But the useful is not good except insofar as it is pleasant and honourable. Therefore, the useful ought not to be divided against the pleasant and honourable.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Ambrose uses this division in his work On Offices 1.9.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that this division may seem to be proper to the human good. But if we take a more common and higher notion of good, this division will be seen to belong properly to the good as good. For something is good insofar as it is desirable and the term of the movement of appetite. The termination of this movement can be considered from the point of view of the movement of a natural body. But the motion of a natural body is terminated, simply, at the limit; and only in a certain respect at the midpoint through which it passes to the limit that terminates the motion. And it is called a term of motion insofar as it terminates some part of the motion. But that which is the ultimate term of the motion can be understood in two ways: either the thing itself towards which it tends, such as place or form; or rest in the thing. So then in the motion of appetite, that which is desirable as terminating the motion of appetite in a certain respect, as a middle through which it tends towards something further, is called useful. That which is desired as ultimate, totally terminating the motion of appetite, as something in which appetite tends essentially, is called the honourable, because that is called honourable which is desired in itself. But that which terminates the motion of appetite as rest in the things desired is pleasure.
Ad 1. It should be said that good, insofar as it is the same in subject as being, is divided by the ten categories, but this division belongs to it according to its proper notion.
Ad 2. It should be said that this division is not through opposite things, but through opposite notions. Those things are properly called pleasant which have only that aspect of the notion of desirability that is pleasure, since sometimes the harmful and dishonourable are called useful, which are not desired in themselves but are desired only as leading to something else, like the taking of bitter medicine. Things are called honourable which are desired for themselves alone.
Ad 3. It should be said that good is not divided into these three as something univocal predicated equally of them, but as something analogous which is predicated first of one, and then of the others. It is first said of the honourable and secondarily of the pleasant, and thirdly of the useful.
QUESTION 6
ON THE GOODNESS OF GOD
We turn now to the goodness of God, about which four things are asked: (1) whether to be good belongs to God; (2) whether God is the highest good; (3) whether he alone is essentially good; (4) whether all things are good by the divine goodness.
Article 1: Does it belong to God to be good?
It seems not.
1. The notion of the good consists of mode, species and order. But these do not seem to belong to God, since God is immense and is not ordered to anything else. Therefore, it does not belong to God to be good.
2. Moreover, the good is that which all things desire, but all things do not desire God, because all things do not know him and nothing desires what it does not know. Therefore, it does not belong to God to be good.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Lamentations 3.25 says, ‘The Lord is good to them that hope in him, to the soul that seeketh him.’
RESPONSE:
It should be said that the good especially belongs to God, for something is good insofar as it is desirable. But each thing desires its perfection, but the perfection and form of the effect are a kind of likeness of the agent, since every agent produces its like. Hence the agent itself is desirable and has the notion of good, for this is what is desired in it, that its likeness might be participated. Since therefore God is the first effective cause of all things, it is manifest that the notion of good and desirable belong to him. Hence Dionysius in On the Divine Names 4, attributes good to God as the first efficient cause, saying that God is called good as that by which all others subsist.
Ad 1. It should be said therefore that to have mode, species and order pertains to the notion of caused good. But good is in God as in a cause, hence it is for him to impose on others mode, species and order. Hence these three are in God as in their cause.
Ad 2. It should be said that all things, in seeking their proper perfections, seek God himself, insofar as the perfections of all things are certain likenesses of the divine existence, as is clear from what has been said. Of the things that seek God, some know him in himself, and this is proper to the rational creature; others know certain participations of his goodness, something that extends to sensible knowledge; some have natural desire without cognition, as inclined to their ends by a knowing superior.
Article 2: Is God the highest good?
It seems he is not.
1. The highest good adds something to good, otherwise it would belong to every good. But whatever is by way of addition to something, is composed. Therefore, the highest good is composed. But God is supremely simple, as has been shown. Therefore, God is not the highest good.
2. Moreover, the good is that which all things seek, as the Philosopher says. But there is nothing save God alone that all things seek, since he is the end of everything. Hence, nothing other than God is good. Which can also be seen from what is said in Matthew 19.17: ‘One there is who is good, and he is God.’ But the highest is said in comparison with others, as the hottest in comparison with all hot things. Therefore, God cannot be called the highest good.
3. Moreover, the highest implies comparison. But things which are not of the same genus are not comparable, as sweetness is inappropriately called greater or less than the line. Therefore, since God is not in a genus with other goods, as is evident from the foregoing, it seems that God cannot be called the highest good with respect to them.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Augustine, in On the Trinity 1.2, says that the trinity of divine persons is the highest good that can be discerned by minds that have been cleansed.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that God is the highest good absolutely, not only in some genus or order of things. For as has been said, good is thus attributed to God insofar as all desired perfections flow from him as from their first cause. But they do not flow from him as from a univocal agent, as is clear from the above, but as from an agent who does not share with his effects the notion of a species or genus. The likeness of the univocal cause is found uniformly in the effects, but is more excellent in the equivocal cause, as heat exists in a more excellent mode in the sun than in fire. Therefore, when good is said of God as of the first non-univocal cause of all things, it must be in him in the most excellent mode. That is why he is called the highest good.
Ad 1. It should be said that the highest good adds to good, not something absolute, but only a relation. The relation by which something is said of God relatively to creatures is not really in God, but in the creature; it is in God as he is understood, just as the knowable is named relative to knowledge, not because the knowable refers to knowledge, but because knowledge refers to the knowable. Thus there need not be any composition in the highest good, but only that other things fall short of him.
Ad 2. It should be said that when good is said to be what all things desire, this should not be understood as if each good were desired by everything, but rather because whatever is desired has the notion of the good. When it is said that no one save God alone is good, this should be understood as essentially good, as will be said later.
Ad 3. It should be said that those things which are not in the same genus, if they are contained in different genera, are in no way comparable. God is said not to be in the same genus as other good things, not because he is in another genus, but because he is outside any genus but the principle of every genus. Thus he is compared to others by way of excess, and such a comparison implies the highest good.
Article 3: Is God alone essentially good?
It seems that he is not.
1. Just as one is convertible with being, so too is good, as was shown above. But every being is essentially one, as is clear from the Philosopher in Metaphysics 4.2. Therefore, every being is essentially good.
2. Moreover, if good is that which all things seek and existence itself is desired by all, the existence of each thing is its good. But each thing is essentially a being. Therefore, each thing is essentially good.
3. Moreover, everything is good by its own goodness. If then there is a thing which is not good in its own essence, it will have to be the case that its goodness is not its essence. Therefore that goodness, since it is some being, must be good, and if by some other goodness, again the goodness of that will be sought. Therefore, either we go on to infinity or we come to a goodness which is not good because of some other goodness. For that reason we should stop with the first. Therefore everything is good through its own essence.
ON THE CONTRARY:
Boethius says in On the Hebdomads that every thing other than God is good by participation and therefore not essentially.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that God alone is good through his essence. For anything is said to be good insofar as it is perfect. But there is a threefold perfection of the thing. First, insofar as it is constituted in its existence. Second, insofar as the accidents necessary for its perfect operation are added to it. Third, the perfection the thing has insofar as it reaches something else as its end. For example, the first perfection of fire consists in the existence it has thanks to its substantial form; its second perfection consists in heat, lightness and dryness, and the like; its third perfection is insofar as it rests in its own place.
No creature has this threefold perfection according to its essence, but God alone, whose essence alone is his existence and to whom no accidents come since what belong to other things accidentally belong essentially to him, such as to be powerful, wise and the like, as is clear from what has been said. Nor is he ordered to anything else as his end, but he himself is the ultimate end of all things. Thus it is clear that God alone has every kind of perfection according to his essence. Therefore, God alone is essentially good.
Ad 1. It should be said that one does not imply the note of perfection, but of indivision alone, which belongs to each thing according to its essence. The essences of simple things are undivided both actually and potentially. But the essences of composite things are undivided only actually. Thus, each thing must be one in its essence, but not good, as has been shown.
Ad 2. It should be said that although any thing is good insofar as it has existence, still the essence of the created thing is not its existence, and therefore it does not follow that the created thing is good in its essence.
Ad 3. It should be said that the goodness of the created thing is not its very essence, but something superadded, either its existence, or some added perfection, or the order to the end. But the goodness superadded in this way is called good as it is called being: it is called being because it is something, not because something else is because of it. For that reason, it is called good because something is good because of it, not because it itself has some other goodness by which it is good.
Article 4: Are all things good by the divine goodness?
It seems that they are.
1. Augustine says in On the Trinity 8.3: ‘Take this thing and that, take away this good and that, and see, if you can, the good; what you will see is God, not good by another good, but the good of every good.’ But everything is good by its own good. Therefore, everything is good by the good that is God.
2. Moreover, Boethius says in On the Hebdomads that every thing is called good insofar as it is ordered to God, and by reason of the divine goodness. Therefore, all things are good by the divine goodness.
ON THE CONTRARY:
All things are good insofar as they exist. But a thing is called being, not by the divine existence, but from its proper existence. Therefore things are not called good by the divine goodness, but by their own.
RESPONSE:
It should be said that in things which imply a relation nothing prevents something from being extrinsically denominated, as something is denominated placed from place and measured from measure. But there is a diversity of opinion concerning things said absolutely. For Plato held that there are separated species of all things and that individuals are denominated from them, by participating in the separated species; for example, Socrates is called man with reference to the separate idea of man. And just as he posited a separate idea of man and of horse, which he called man itself and horse itself, so he posited separate ideas of being and of one which he called being itself and one itself, and it is by participation in them that each thing is called being and one. That which is good itself and one itself, he held to be the most high God, from whom all things are called good by way of participation. Although this opinion seems irrational insofar as it posited separate species of natural things, subsistent in themselves, as Aristotle proved again and again, still it is absolutely true that there is something one that is essentially good which we call God, as is clear from the foregoing. Aristotle agrees with this opinion. From the first, which is essentially being and good, each thing can be called good and being, insofar as it participates in him by way of some assimilation, although remotely and deficiently, as is clear from the above. Therefore, each thing is called good from the divine goodness as from the first exemplar, efficient and final principle of all goodness. Nevertheless, each thing is called good by a likeness of the divine goodness inherent in it, which is formally its own goodness denominating it. Thus there is one goodness of all things as well as many goodnesses.
Ad 1–2. The response to the objections is evident through this.