PROPOSITION LXXXII.
The Divine Intelligence is the measure of Ontological Truth in finite Being; while finite Being is the measure to the human intellect of conceptual Truth, in all that pertains to the cognition of itself.
This Proposition, including both members, is simply a Corollary of the doctrine enunciated in preceding Theses, more particularly in the last. It stands in need, therefore, rather of exposition than of demonstration.
I. IN THE FIRST MEMBER Infinite Being has been excluded, for two reasons. The one is, that the term, measure, has no place in the Things of God. For Measured and Measure are relative terms and require real distinction; and a dependence, at least, of the former on the latter. But it is metaphysically impossible that there should be either a real distinction between the Divine Nature and the Divine Intelligence, or a dependence of the Divine Nature on the Divine Intelligence. The other is, that if such terms could be applied to Things Divine, the Divine Nature would with more show of reason be considered as measure of the Divine Intelligence, than the Divine Intelligence as measure of the Divine Nature. For it is not because God conceives His nature to be such, that It is such; but rather, because It is such, He conceives It as such.
The statement, then, having been thus restricted to finite Being, it is sufficiently clear that God is the measure of Ontological Truth in existing things, for two reasons already suggested in the preceding Thesis. For He is the Measure of their existence, because He is their Artificer. Therefore, He is Measure of their Truth; since Ontological Truth is, essentially and intrinsically, nothing more nor less than the entity of these Beings. Then, He is their Measure, because their Being is constituted after the pattern of those Prototypal Ideas in the Divine Intelligence, which are the exemplar Cause of all created things; and they themselves are true, in so far as they correspond with those Types. Wherein they are discrepant from those Types, (either owing to the operation of secondary causes or to the action of free-will), they are not true; because in such respect they exhibit, not Being, but defect of Being. So far, then, as existing things are concerned, there is little or no difficulty. But does the same hold good in the case of possible beings? Considered as intrinsically possible, their only reality, (as we saw in the Article on Possible Being in the Second Book), is the Divine Nature as imitable, and the Divine Intellect, conceiving the imitability in such or such definite grade. Therefore, as real, they are identified with God. But their extrinsic possibility may be regarded from two points of view. If their extrinsic possibility is taken to represent directly the production, indirectly the thing to be produced, or (to speak after the manner of the School) the creative power in recto, the capacity for being created on the part of the possible Being in obliquo; then, again, their possibility is really identified with the Divine Will. If, however, their extrinsic possibility is taken to represent the thing to be produced directly, the possible act of production indirectly; the real foundation of such concept is the Prototypal Idea in the Divine Intelligence as Pattern, and the efficacy of the Divine Will as efficient Cause, without both of which, these possibles could not be truly conceived as capable of existence. So that, in this respect, their Ontological Truth would be as absolutely dependent on the Divine Intelligence as the Truth of existing things.
II. THE SECOND MEMBER of the Proposition is equally clear to those who have mastered the principles of Ideology, and receives no little light from the discussions on Conceptual Truth in the two preceding Articles. The human intellect, at the beginning, is purely facultative, and is determined to its acts of thought by the external objects which are presented to it through the senses; and its cognitions are true, when their representations are conformable with the object which they represent. Consequently, Conceptual Truth is measured by the Truth of finite Being. Of course it would be measured in a much higher sense by the Truth of Infinite Being; if the human intellect were naturally capable of the intuition of God. But, as it is, the only knowledge of God to which the mind of man can naturally attain, is arguitive, being deduced from his cognitions of the creature; and therefore in the enunciation of the Thesis, the direct measure of the human intellect is restricted to finite Being.
This most interesting question must not be discussed, without affording the reader an opportunity of seeing what the Angelic Doctor has to say on the subject. Let the following quotations, therefore, serve as specimens of his teaching. It would be difficult to find anything more clear or more beautifully simple. 'The things of nature, from which our intellect derives its knowledge, measure our intellect; but are measured by the Divine Intelligence, in Which are all things created, as all works of art are in the mind of the artificer. Thus, the Divine Intelligence is measuring, not measured; while a thing of nature is both measuring and measured. But the human mind is measured, and does not measure the things of nature; but only productions of art. Wherefore, a thing of nature is constituted between two intelligences; and is denominated true by reason of its equation with both. For it is said to be true, in regard of its correspondence with the Divine Intelligence; forasmuch as it fulfils that to which it has been ordained by the Divine Intelligence. . . . Again; an entity is said to be true, in regard of its adequation with human intelligence; forasmuch as it has a natural aptitude for engendering a true estimate of itself. . . . Now, the first-mentioned form of Truth in an entity has precedence over the second; because its comparison with the Divine, has precedence over its comparison with the human, Intellect. Hence, even if there were no human intellect, entities would still be called true, by virtue of their relation to the Divine Intelligence.'{1} Once more: 'The knowledge of the human intellect is, in a certain sort of way, caused by entities. Hence it comes to pass, that the objects knowable are the measure of human knowledge. For the Judgment of the intellect is true, because so the thing really is; and not the other way about. But the Divine Intelligence, by Its knowledge, is the Cause of things. Hence, this knowledge must necessarily be the measure of things; as art is the measure of the productions of art, each one of which is perfect, in proportion as it comes up to the artistic conception. The Divine Intelligence, therefore, stands in a similar position to entities, that entities occupy in relation to human intelligence. Now, falsity, which is the result of a want of equation between the human mind and the object, is not in the entities, but in the human mind. If, therefore,' (i.e. in consequence of the inverse position of the Divine and human Intellect respectively, in relation to the things of nature, mentioned above) 'there were not an entire equation between the Divine Intelligence and entities; the falsity would be in the entities, not in the Divine Intelligence. However, there is no falsity in entities; because so much as each has of Being, so much has it of Truth.'{2}
COROLLARY.
Hence, 'the Divine Truth is measure of all Truth. For the Truth of the human intellect is measured by the external object or entity; . . . and the Truth of the entity is measured by the Divine Intelligence, which is Cause of entities.'{3}
DIFFICULTIES.
I. The first objection made to the above doctrine is, that it represents Transcendental Truth as manifold, not one. For actual conformity is something very different from aptitudinal; and conformity with the speculative intellect is not the same as conformity with the practical, according to which the things of nature are created.
ANSWER. All these various significations of Transcendental Truth are determinations of one adequate meaning, to which the rest can be reduced. That meaning expresses the natural aptitude of Being to produce, in whatsoever intellect, a true estimate of itself. Actual conformity adds nothing to this, save an extrinsic denomination derived from co-existing cognition. In a similar way, conformity with the speculative, does not differ from conformity with the practical, intelligence; save that in the former there arises a real relation, which, however, presupposes the Transcendental Truth of the creature.
II. The second objection is, that Ontological Truth, fundamentally at least, denotes the relation of that which is measured to its measure. Consequently, it can only regard the Divine, and not the human, Intellect. For this latter, as has been declared, does not measure the things of nature, but is measured by them.
ANSWER. It is not true to say, that relation of the measured to its measure is essentially included, although only fundamentally, in Ontological Truth. If it were so, then the Divine Nature could not be true; because it is impossible that, in any true sense, It should be measured. Moreover, the statement that Transcendental Truth includes the relation aforesaid, is only true of speculative cognition, and that too only partially; for in practical cognition, as we have seen, the relation is transverse.
III. It is, lastly, objected, that Conceptual Truth consists in a conformity of the concept with its object. Therefore, Ontological Truth cannot consist in the conformity or conformability of the object or entity with the cognition; because there is in this case no relation of mutual similarity, but rather of dissimilarity.
ANSWER. The Antecedent is granted; but tbe Consequent must be denied. The reason is, that Conceptual and Ontological Truth are not univocal, as will be presently seen. This understood, the natural inference tells precisely the other way. For, if it is essential to Conceptual Truth, (i.e. to the Truth of intellectual cognition), that the concept should be conformable to the object; this would more than imply, that the object is naturally capable of exciting in the intellect this conformity with itself. But what is this, if not that conformability of Being with intellect, which constitutes Ontological Truth?
{1} 'Res naturales ex quibus intellectus noster scientiam accipit, mensurant intellectum nostrum ut dicitur 10 Metaphys. sed sunt mensuratae ab intellectu divino, in quo sunt omnia creata, sicut omnia artificiata in intellectu artificis. Sic ergo intellectus divinus est mensurans, non mensuratus; res autem naturalis mensurans et mensurata. Sed intellectus noster est mensuratus, non mensurans quidem res naturales sed artificiales tantum. Res ergo naturalis inter duos intellectus constituta, secundum adaequationem ad utrumque vera dicitur. Secundum enim adaequationem ad intellectum divinum dicitur vera, in quantum implet hoc ad quad est ordinata per intellectum divinum. . . . Secundum autem adaequationem ad intellectum humanum dicitur res vera, in quantum nata est de se formare veram aestimationem. . . . Prima autem ratio veritatis per prius inest rei quam secunda; qua prior est comparatio ad intellectum divinum quam humanum; unde etiam si intellectus humanus non esset, adhuc res dicerentur verae in ordine ad intellectum divinum.' De Verit. Q. i, a. 2, c.
{2} 'Scientia intellectus humani a rebus quodammodo causatur. Unde provenit quod scibilia sunt mensura scientiae humanae; ex hoc enim verum est quod intellectu dijudicatur, quia res ita se habet, et non e converso. Intellectus autem divinus per suam scientiam est causa rerum. Unde oportet quod scientia ejus sit mensura rerum; sicut ars est mensura artificiatorum, quorum unumquodque in tantum perfectum est, in quantum arti concordat. Talis igitur est comparatio intellectus divini ad res, qualis est rerum ad intellectum humanum. Falsitas autem, causata a inaequalitate intellectus humani et rei, non est in rebus, sed in intellectu. Si igitur non esset omnimoda adaequatio intellectus divini ad res, falsitas esset in rebus, non in intellectu divino. Nec tamen in rebus est falsitas; quia quantum unumquodque habet de esse, tantum habet de veritate.' c. Gentes, L. I, c. 61.
{3} 'Divina veritas est mensura omnis veritatis. Veritas enim nostri intellectus mensuratur a re quae est extra animam. . . . Veritas autem rei mensuratur ad intellectum divinum, qui est causa rerum.' Ibidem, c. 62.