In the Sixth Article We Ask: DO THINGS EXIST MORE TRULY IN THE WORD OR IN THEMSELVES?
Difficulties:
It seems that things do not exist more truly in the Word, for
1. A thing exists more truly where it exists through its essence than where it exists only through its likeness. But things exist in the Word only through their likeness, and in themselves through their essence. Therefore, they exist more truly in themselves than in the Word.
2. But it was said that they exist more nobly in the Word because in the Word they have a more noble act of existence.--On the contrary, as Augustine says, a material thing has a more noble act of existence in our soul than it has in itself, yet it exists more truly in itself than it does in our soul. For the same reason, a thing exists more truly in itself than it does in the Word.
3. What exists actually exists more truly than what exists potentially. But a thing existing in itself is in act; in the Word, however, it exists only potentially, like a product existing in a craftsman. Therefore, a thing exists more truly in itself than it does in the Word.
4. The ultimate perfection of a thing is its operation. Now, things existing in themselves have their own operations--which they do not have as they exist in the Word. Therefore, they exist more truly in themselves than in the Word.
5. Only things of one character can be compared. Now, the act of existence which a thing in itself has is not of the same character as that which it has in the Word. Therefore, at least one cannot say that a thing exists more truly in the Word than in itself.
To the Contrary:
1'. As Anselm says, a creature as it exists in the Creator is a creative essence. But an uncreated act of existence exists more truly than the created act. Therefore, a thing has existence in the Word more truly than it has in itself.
2'. We assert that there are ideas in the divine mind, just as Plato asserted that the ideas of things exist outside of it. Now, according to Plato, the "separated man" was more truly man than the material man; hence, he called the separated man "man in himself." For this reason, and, indeed, because of the position of the Faith, things exist more truly in the Word than in themselves.
3'. That which is truest in any class is the measure for the entire class. But the likenesses of things existing in the Word are the measures of the truth of all things, because a thing is said to be true in so far as it imitates that upon which it was modeled, and this archetype exists in the Word. Therefore, things exist more truly in the Word than in themselves.
REPLY:
As Dionysius says, effects fall short of perfectly imitating their causes which are above them, and, because of this distance between the cause and the effect, something is truly predicated of the effect that is not predicated of the cause. For example, amusements are not properly said to be amused, although they are causes of our being amused. Now, this certainly could not happen unless the manner of the causes' existence were more sublime than the things predicated of their effects, And we find this to be true of all equivocal efficient causes. For example, the sun cannot be said to be hot, even though other things are heated by it; and this is because of the superiority of the sun over those things that are called hot.
When, therefore, we ask if things exist more truly in themselves than in the Word we must make a distinction, because more truly can refer to the truth of the thing or to the truth of the predication. If it refers to the truth of the thing, then undoubtedly the truth of things as they exist in the Word is greater than that which they possess in themselves. But, if it refers to the truth of predication, then the opposite is true. For man is more truly predicated of a thing which is in its own nature than it is of a thing as it is in the Word. But this is not due to any defect in the Word, but, rather, to its great superiority, as was pointed out.
Answers to Difficulties:
1. If one is thinking of truth of predication, then, simply speaking, it is true that a thing exists more truly where it exists through its essence than where it exists through a likeness. But if one considers the truth of the thing, then a thing exists more truly where it exists through a likeness which is its cause than where it exists through a likeness which it has caused.
2. The likeness of a thing in our soul is not the cause of that thing, as is the likeness existing in the Word. Hence, there is no parallel.
3. An active potency is more perfect than an act which is its effect. It is according to this kind of potency that creatures are said to exist potentially in the Word.
4. Although creatures as they are in the Word do not have their own operations, nevertheless, they have more noble operations inasmuch as they cause things as well as the operations of things.
5. Although the act of existence of creatures in the Word and their act of existing in themselves are not of the same character univocally, they are of the same character analogously.
Answers to Contrary Difficulties:
1'. This argument proceeds from the truth of the thing, not from the truth of predication.
2'. Plato was criticized for asserting that natural forms exist in their own natures, without matter--as though matter were merely accidentally related to natural species. If this were true, "natural things" could be truly predicated of things without matter. Our position, however, is not the same as Plato's. Hence, there is no parallel.
3'. The reply to the third argument is the same as our reply to the first.