Ontology or the Theory of Being Part 5

(3) Finally, the relations which we apprehend as obtaining between them, we see to be necessary and immutable relations. They embody necessary truths which are for our minds the standards of all truth. Such necessary truths cannot be grounded either in the contingent human mind, or in the contingent and mutable actuality of the things of our immediate experience. Therefore we can and must infer from them the reality of a Necessary, Immutable Being, of whose essence they must be imitations.

If, then, this ideal order of intrinsically possible essences is logically and ontologically prior to the contingent actualizations of any of them (even though it be posterior to them _in the order of our knowledge_, which is based on _actual experience_), there must be likewise ontologically prior to all contingent actualities (including our own minds) some _Necessary Intelligence_ in which this order of possible essences has its ideal being.

19. CRITICAL a.n.a.lYSIS OF THOSE INFERENCES.-The validity of the general line of argument indicated in the preceding paragraphs has been seriously questioned. Among other criticisms the following points have been urged(99):-

(1) _Actual_ things furnish the basis of irrefragable proofs of the existence of G.o.d-the Supreme, Necessary, Eternal, Omniscient, and Omnipotent Being. But we are here inquiring whether a mind which has not yet so a.n.a.lysed actual being as to see how it involves this conclusion, or a mind which abstracts altogether from the evidence furnished by actual things for this conclusion, can prove the existence of such a being from the separate consideration of possible essences, their attributes and relations. Now it is not evident that to such a mind possible essences reveal themselves as having _eternal_ ideal being. Such a mind is, no doubt, conscious that it is not itself the cause of their possibility. But it sees that actual things _plus_ the abstract character of its own thought account sufficiently for all their features as it knows them. To the question: Is not their ideal being _eternal_? it can only answer: That will depend on whether the world of actual things can be shown to involve the existence of an Eternal Intelligence. Until this is proved we cannot say whether possible essences have any ideal being other than that which they have in human minds.

(2) The actual things from which we get our concepts of possible essences do not exist _necessarily_. But, granted their existence, we know from them that certain essences are _de facto_ possible.

They are not _necessarily_ given to us as possible, any more than actual things are necessarily given to us as actual. Of course, when they are thought of at all, they are, as objects of thought, necessarily and immutably identical with themselves, and related to one another as mutually compatible or incompatible, etc. But this necessity of relations, hypothetical as it is and contingent on the mental processes of a.n.a.lysis and comparison, involved as it is in the very nature of being and thought, and expressed as it is in the principles of ident.i.ty and contradiction, is just as true of actual contingent essences as of possible essences;(100) and it is something very different from the sort of necessity claimed for possible essences by the contention that they must be conceived as having ideal being _necessarily_. The ideal being they have in the human mind is certainly not necessary: the human mind might never have conceived these possible essences.

But must the human mind conceive a possible essence as having _some_ ideal being _necessarily_? No; unless that mind has already convinced itself, from a study of _actual_ things, that an Eternal, Necessary, Omniscient Intelligence exists: to which, of course, such essences would be eternally and necessarily present as objects of thought. If the human mind had already reached this conviction it could then see that "even if there were no human intellect, things would still be true in relation to the Divine Intellect. But if both intellects were, _per impossibile_, conceived as non-existent truth would persist no longer."(101) Suppose, therefore, that it has not yet reached this conviction, or abstracts altogether from the existence of G.o.d as known from _actual_ things; and then, further, imagines the actual things of its experience and all human intellects and finite intellects of whatsoever kind as non-existent: must it still conceive possible things as possible? No; possibility and impossibility, truth and falsity will now have ceased to have any meaning. After such attempted abstraction the mind would have before it only what Balmes describes as "the abyss of nothing". And Balmes is right in saying that the mind is unable "to abstract all existence". But the reason of the inability is not, as Balmes contends, because when it has removed actual things and finite minds there still remains in spite of it a system or order of possible essences which forces it to infer and posit the existence of an Eternal, Necessary Mind as the source and ground of that order. The reason rather is because the mind sees that the known _actual_ things, from which it got all its notions of possible essences, necessarily imply, as the only intelligible ground of their actuality, the existence of a Necessary Being, in whose Intelligence they must have been contained ideally, and in whose Omnipotence they must have been contained virtually, from all eternity. From contingent _actuality_, as known to it, the mind can argue to the eternal actuality of Necessary Being, and to the impossibility either of a state of absolute nothingness, or of an order of purely possible things apart from all actuality.

(3) Of course, whether the mind has thus thought out the ultimate implications of the actuality of experienced things or not, once it has thought and experienced those things it cannot by any effort banish the memory of them from its presence: they are there still as objects of its thought even when it abstracts from their actual existence. But if, while it has not yet seen that their actuality implies the existence of a Necessary, Omniscient and Omnipotent Being, it abstracts not only from their actual existence but from the existence of all finite minds (itself included), then in that state, so far as its knowledge goes, there would be neither actual nor ideal nor possible being. Nor can the fact that an ideal order of possible things still persists in its own thought mislead it into concluding that such an ideal order really persists in the hypothesis it has made. For it knows that this ideal order still persists for itself simply because it cannot "think itself away". It sees all the time that if it could effectively think itself away, this ideal order would have to disappear with it, leaving nothing-so far as it knows-either actual or possible. Mercier has some apposite remarks on this very point. "From the fact," he writes, "that those abstract essences, grasped by our abstractive thought from the dawn of our reason, have grown so familiar to us, we easily come to look upon them as pre-existing archetypes or models of our thoughts and of things; they form a fund of predicates by which we are in the habit of interpreting the data of our experience. So, too, the hypothetically necessary relations established by abstract thought between them we come to regard as a sort of eternal system of principles, endowed with a sort of legislative power, to which created things and intelligences must conform. But they have really no such pre-existence. The eternal pre-existence of those essence-types, which Plato called the 'intelligible world,' the t?p?? ???t??, and the supposed eternal legislative power of their relations, are a sort of mental optical illusion. Those abstract essences, and the principles based upon them, are the products of our mental activity working on the data of our actual experience.

When we enter on the domain of _speculative reflection_ ... they are there before us; ... but we must not forget that reflection is _consequent_ on the spontaneous thought-activity which-by working abstractively on the actual data of sensible, contingent, changeable, temporal realities-set them up there.... We know from psychology how those ideal, abstract essence-types are formed....

But because we have no actual memory of their formation, which is so rapid as practically to escape consciousness in spontaneous thought, we are naturally p.r.o.ne to imagine that they are not the product of our own mental action on the data of actual experience, but that they exist in us, or rather above us, and independently of us. We can therefore understand the psychological illusion under which Plato wrote such pa.s.sages as the following: 'But if anyone should tell me why anything is beautiful, either because it has a blooming, florid colour, or figure, or anything else of the kind, I dismiss all other reasons, for I am confounded by them all; but I simply, wholly, and perhaps navely, confine myself to this, that nothing else causes it to be beautiful, except either the presence or communication of that abstract beauty, by whatever means and in whatever way communicated; for I cannot yet affirm with certainty, but only that by means of beauty all beautiful things become beautiful (t? ?a?? t? ?a?? ????eta? ?a??). For this appears to me the safest answer to give both to myself and others, and adhering to this I think that I shall never fall [into error].... And that by magnitude great things become great, and greater things greater; and by littleness less things become less.'(102) St. Augustine's doctrine on the invariable laws of numbers, on the immutable principles of wisdom, and on truth generally, draws its inspiration from this Platonic idealism."(103)

But this Platonic doctrine, attributing to the abstract essences conceived by our thought a reality independent both of our thought and of the actual sense data from which directly or indirectly we derive our concepts of them, is rejected as unsound by scholastics generally. When we have proved from actual things that G.o.d exists, and is the Intelligent and Free Creator of the actual world of our direct experience, we can of course consider the Divine Intellect as contemplating from all eternity the Divine Essence, and as seeing therein the eternal archetypes or ideas of all actual and possible essences. We may thus regard the Divine Mind as the eternal t?p?? ???t??, or _mundus intelligibilis_. This, of course, is not Plato's thought; it is what St. Augustine subst.i.tuted for Platonism, and very properly. But we must not infer, from this truth, that when we contemplate possible essences, with all the characteristics we may detect in them, we are contemplating this _mundus intelligibilis_ which is the Divine Mind. This was the error of the ontologists. They inferred that since possible essences, as known by the human mind, have ideal being independently of the latter and of all actual contingent reality, the human mind in contemplating them has really an intuition of them as they are seen by the Divine Intellect Itself in the Divine Essence; so that, in the words of Gioberti, the _Primum Ontologic.u.m_, the Divine Being Himself, is also the _primum logic.u.m_, or first reality apprehended by human thought.(104)

Now those authors who hold that the ideal order of possible essences contemplated by the human mind is seen by the latter, as so contemplated, to have some being, some ideal being, really independent of the human mind itself, and of the actual contingent things from which they admit that the human mind derives its knowledge of such essences,-these authors _do not hold_, but _deny_, that this independent ideal being, which they claim for these essences, is _anything Divine_, that it is the Divine Essence as seen by the Divine Intellect to be imitable _ad extra_.(105) Hence they cannot fairly be charged with the error of ontologism.

Renouncing Plato's exaggerated realism, and holding that our knowledge of the ideal order of possible essences is derived by our mind from its consideration of _actual_ things, they yet hold that this ideal order is seen to have some sort of being or reality independent both of the mind and of actual things.(106) This is not easy to understand. When we ask, Is this supposed independent being (or reality, or possibility) of possible essences the ideal being they have in the Divine mind?-we are told that it is not;(107) but that it is something from which we can _infer, by reasoning_, this eternal, necessary, and immutable ideal being of these same essences in the Divine Mind.

The considerations urged in the foregoing paragraphs will, however, have shown that the validity of this line of reasoning from possible essences to the reality of an Eternal, Divine, Immutable Intelligence is by no means evident or free from difficulties. Of course, when the existence of G.o.d has been proved from actual things, the conception of the Divine Intelligence and Essence as the ultimate source of all possible reality, no less than of all actual reality, will be found to shed a great deal of new light upon the intrinsic possibility of possible essences.

Since, however, our knowledge of the Divine is merely a.n.a.logical, and since G.o.d's intuition of possible essences, as imitations of His own Divine Essence, completely transcends our comprehension, and is totally different from our abstractive knowledge of such essences, our conception of the manner in which these essences are related to the Divine Nature and the Divine Attributes, must be determined after the a.n.a.logy of the manner in which our own minds are related to these essences.

20. ESSENCES ARE INTRINSICALLY POSSIBLE, NOT BECAUSE G.o.d CAN MAKE THEM EXIST ACTUALLY; NOR YET BECAUSE HE FREELY WILLS THEM TO BE POSSIBLE; NOR BECAUSE HE UNDERSTANDS THEM AS POSSIBLE; BUT BECAUSE THEY ARE MODES IN WHICH THE DIVINE ESSENCE IS IMITABLE _ad extra_.-(_a_) The ultimate source of the _extrinsic_ possibility of all contingent realities is the Divine Omnipotence: just as the proximate source of the extrinsic possibility of a statue is the power of the sculptor to educe it from the block of wood or marble. But just as the power of the sculptor presupposes the _intrinsic_ possibility of the statue, so does the Divine Omnipotence presuppose the intrinsic possibility of all possible things. It is not, as William of Ockam ( 1347), a scholastic of the decadent period, erroneously thought, because G.o.d can create things that such things are intrinsically possible, but rather because they are intrinsically possible He can create them.

(_b_) Not less erroneous is the _voluntarist_ theory of Descartes, according to which possible essences are intrinsically possible because G.o.d freely willed them to be possible.(108) The _actuality_ of all created things depends, of course, on the free will of G.o.d to create them; but that possible essences are what they are, and are related to each other necessarily as they are, because G.o.d has willed them to be such, is absolutely incredible. Descartes seems to have been betrayed into this strange error by a false notion of what is requisite for the absolute freedom and independence of the Divine Will: as if this demanded that G.o.d should be free to will, _e.g._ that two _plus_ two be five, or that the radii of a circle be unequal, or that creatures be independent of Himself, or that blasphemy be a virtuous act! The intrinsic possibility of essences is _not_ dependent on the Free Will of G.o.d; the actualization of possible essences is; but G.o.d can will to actualize only such essences as He sees, from comprehending His own Divine Essence, to be intrinsically possible.

But it derogates in no way from the supremacy of the Divine Will to conceive its free volition as thus consequent on, and illumined by, the Divine Knowledge; whereas it is incompatible with the wisdom and sanct.i.ty of G.o.d, as well as inconceivable to the human mind, that the necessary laws of thought and being-such as the principles of contradiction and ident.i.ty, the principle of causality, the first principles of the moral order-should be what they are simply because G.o.d has freely willed them to be so, and might therefore have been otherwise.

From the fact that we have no direct intuition of the Divine Being, some philosophers have concluded that all speculation on the relation of G.o.d to the world of our direct experience is necessarily barren and fruitless. This is a phase of agnosticism; and, like all error, it is the exaggeration of a truth: the truth being that while we may reach real knowledge about the Divine Nature and attributes by such speculation, we can do so only on condition that we are guided by a.n.a.logies drawn from G.o.d's creation, and remember that our concepts, as applied to G.o.d, are a.n.a.logical (2).

"We can know G.o.d only by a.n.a.logy with contingent and finite beings, and consequently the realities and laws of the contingent and finite world must necessarily serve as our term of comparison.

But, among finite realities, we see an essential subordination of the extrinsically possible to the intelligible, of this to the intrinsically possible, and of this again to the essential type which is presupposed by our thought. Therefore, _a pari_, we must consider the omnipotent will of G.o.d, which is the first and universal cause of all [contingent] existences, as under the direction of the Divine Omniscience, and this in turn as having for its object the Divine Essence and in it the essential types whose intrinsic possibility is grounded on the necessary imitability of the Divine Being.

"When, therefore, in defence of his position, Descartes argues that 'In G.o.d willing and knowing are one and the same; the reason why He knows anything is because He wills it, and for this reason only can it be true: _Ex hoc ipso quod Deus aliquid velit, ideo cognoscit, et ideo tantum talis res est vera_'-he is only confusing the issue. We might, indeed, retort the argument: 'In G.o.d willing and knowing are one and the same; the reason why He wills anything is because He knows it, and for this reason only can it be good: _Ex hoc ipso quod aliquid cognoscit, ideo vult, et ideo tantum talis res est bona_,' but both inferences are equally unwarranted. For, though willing and knowing are certainly one and the same _in G.o.d_, this one and the same thing is formally and for our minds neither will nor intellect, but a reality transcending will and intellect, a substance infinitely above any substances known to us: ?pe???s?a, _supersubstantia_, as the Fathers of the Church and the Doctors of the Schools call it. But of this transcendent substance we have no intuitive knowledge. We must therefore either abandon all attempts to find out anything about it, or else apprehend it and designate it after the a.n.a.logy of what we know from direct experience about created life and mind.

And as in creatures will is not identical with intellect, nor either of these with the nature of the being that possesses them; so what we conceive in G.o.d under the concept of will, we must not identify in thought with what we conceive in Him under the concept of intellect, nor may we with impunity confound either in our thought with the Nature or Essence of the Divine Being."(109)

(_c_) Philosophers who deny the validity of all the arguments advanced by theists in proof of the existence of a transcendent Supreme Being, distinct from the world of direct human experience, endeavour to account in various ways for the intrinsic possibility of abstract essences.

Agnostics either deny to these latter any reality whatsoever (16), or else declare the problem of their reality insoluble. Monists of the materialist type-who try to reduce all mind to matter and its mere mechanical energies (11)-treat the question in a still more inadequate and unsatisfactory manner; while the advocates of idealistic monism, like Hegel and his followers, refer us to the supposed Immanent Mind of the universe for an ultimate explanation of all intrinsic possibility. Certainly this must have its ultimate source in some mind; and it is not in referring us to an Eternal Mind that these philosophers err, but in their conception of the relation of this mind to the world of direct actual experience. It is not, however, with such theories we are concerned just now, but only with theories put forward by theists. And among these latter it is surprising to find some few(110) who maintain that the intrinsic possibility of abstract essences depends ultimately and exclusively on these essences themselves, irrespective of things actually experienced by the human mind, irrespective of the human mind itself, and irrespective of the Divine Mind and the Divine Nature.

As to this view, we have already seen (19) that if we abstract from all human minds, and from all actual things that can be directly experienced by such minds, we are face to face either with the alternative of absolute nothingness wherein the true and the false, the possible and the impossible, cease to have any intelligible meaning, or else with the alternative of a Supreme, Eternal, Necessary, Omniscient and Omnipotent Being, whose actual existence has been, or can be, inferred from the actual data of human experience. Now the theist, who admits the existence of such a Being, cannot fail to see that possible essences must have their primary ideal being in the Divine Intellect, and the ultimate source of their intrinsic possibility in the Divine Essence Itself. For, knowing that G.o.d can actualize intrinsically possible essences by the creative act, which is intelligent and free, he will understand that these essences have their ideal being in the Divine Intellect; that the Divine Intellect sees their intrinsic possibility by contemplating the Divine Essence as the Uncreated Prototype and Exemplar of all intrinsically possible things; and that these latter are intrinsically possible precisely because they are possible adumbrations or imitations of the Divine Nature.

(_d_) But are we to conceive that essences are intrinsically possible precisely because the Divine Intellect, by understanding them, makes them intrinsically possible? Or should we rather conceive their intrinsic possibility as antecedent to this act by which the Divine Intellect understands them, and as dependent only on the Divine Essence Itself, so that essences would be intrinsically possible simply because the Divine Essence is what it is, and because they are possible imitations or expressions of it? Here scholastics are not agreed.

Some(111) hold that the intrinsic possibility of essences is _formally_ const.i.tuted by the act whereby the Divine Intellect, contemplating the Divine Essence, understands the latter to be indefinitely imitable _ad extra_; so that as the actuality of things results from the _Fiat_ of the Divine Will, and as their extrinsic possibility is grounded in the Divine Omnipotence, so their intrinsic possibility is grounded in the Divine Intellect. The latter, by understanding the Divine Essence, would not merely give an ideal being to the intrinsic possibility of essences, but would make those essences _formally_ possible, they being only _virtually_ possible in the Divine Essence considered antecedently to this act of the Divine Intellect. Or, rather, as some Scotists explain the matter,(112) this ideal being which possible essences have from the Divine Intellect is not as extrinsic to them as the ideal being they have from the human intellect, but is rather the very first being they can be said _formally_ to have, and is somehow intrinsic to them after the a.n.a.logy of the being which mere logical ent.i.ties, _entia rationis_, derive from the human mind: which being is intrinsic to these ent.i.ties and is in fact the only being they have or can have.

Others(113) hold that while, no doubt, possible essences have ideal being in the Divine Intellect from the fact that they are objects of the Divine Knowledge, yet we must not conceive these essences as deriving their intrinsic possibility from the Divine Intellect. For intellect as such presupposes its object. Just, therefore, as possible essences are not intrinsically possible because they are understood by, and have ideal being in, the human mind, so neither are they intrinsically possible because they are understood by, and have ideal being in, the Divine Mind.

In order to be understood actually, in order to have ideal being, in order to be objects of thought, they must be intelligible; and in order to be intelligible they must be intrinsically possible. Therefore they are formally const.i.tuted as intrinsically possible essences, not by the fact that they are understood by the Divine Intellect, but by the fact that antecedently to this act (in our way of conceiving the matter: for there is _really_ no priority of acts or attributes in G.o.d) they are already possible imitations of the Divine Essence Itself.

This view seems preferable as being more in accordance with the a.n.a.logy of what takes place in the human mind. The speculative intellect in man does not const.i.tute, but presupposes its object. Now, while _actual_ things are the objects of G.o.d's _practical science_-the "_scientia visionis_," which reaches what is freely decreed by the Divine Will,-_possible_ things are the objects of G.o.d's _speculative_ science-the "_scientia simplicis intelligentiae_," which is not, like the former, productive of its object, but rather contemplative of objects presented to it by and in the Divine Essence.

Why, then, ultimately will the notions "square" and "circle" not coalesce so as to form one object of thought for the human mind, while the notions "equilateral" and "triangle" will so coalesce? Because the Essence of G.o.d, the Necessary Being, the First Reality, and the Source of all contingent reality, affords no basis for the former as a possible expression or imitation of Itself; in other words, because Being is not expressible by nothingness, and a "square circle" is nothingness: while the Divine Essence does afford a basis for the latter; because Necessary Being is in some intelligible way imitated, expressed, manifested, by whatever has any being to distinguish it from nothingness, and an "equilateral triangle"

has such being and is not nothingness.

It is hardly necessary to add that when we conceive the Divine Essence, contemplated by the Divine Intellect, as containing in itself the exemplars or prototypes of all possible things, we are not to understand the Divine Essence as the _formal_ exemplar of each, or, _a fortiori_, as a vast collection of such formally distinct exemplars; but only as _virtually_ and _equivalently_ the exemplar of each and all. We are not to conceive that possible essences are seen by the Divine Intellect imaged in the Divine Essence _as in a mirror_, but rather _as in their supreme source and principle_: so that they are faint and far off reflections of It, and, when actualized, become for us the only means we have, in this present state, for reaching any knowledge of the Deity: _videmus nunc per speculum_.(114)

21. DISTINCTION BETWEEN ESSENCE AND EXISTENCE IN ACTUALLY EXISTING CONTINGENT OR CREATED BEINGS.-Pa.s.sing now from the consideration of possible essences as such, to the consideration of actually existing essences, we have to examine a question which has given rise to a great deal of controversy, partly on account of its inherent difficulty, and partly because of a mult.i.tude of ambiguities arising from confusion of thought: What is the nature of the distinction between essence and existence in the actually existing things of our experience?

We have seen already that the _concepts_ of essence and existence are distinct from each other (12, 13); in other words, that in all cases there is at least a _logical_ distinction between the essence and the existence of any being. We must, however, distinguish between created or contingent beings and the Uncreated, Necessary, Self-Existent Being. The latter exists _essentially_, eternally, by His own Essence, so that in Him essence and existence are _really identical_. His essence is _formally_ His Existence; and, therefore, in thinking of His Essence we cannot positively exclude the notion of existence or think of Him as non-existent. The distinction between essence and existence, which we find in our thoughts, is, therefore, when applied to G.o.d, a _purely logical_ distinction, due solely to our finite human mode of thinking, and having no ground or basis or reason in the reality which is the object of our thought. On this there is complete unanimity among scholastic philosophers.

But while we conceive that G.o.d actually exists by that whereby He is G.o.d, by His Essence Itself, we do not conceive that any created or contingent being exists by that whereby it is what it is, by its essence. We do not, for example, regard the essence of Socrates, whether specific or individual (that whereby he is a _man_, or that whereby he is _this_ man, Socrates), as that whereby he actually exists. In other words, the essence of the existing Socrates, being a contingent essence, does not necessarily demand or imply that it actually exist. Our concept of such an essence does not include the note of actual existence. Therefore if we find such an essence actually existing we consider this actually existing essence as caused or produced, and conserved in existence, by some other being, _viz._ by the Necessary Being: so that if it were not so created and conserved it would be a pure possibility and nothing actual.(115) The same difference between the Necessary Being and contingent beings will be seen from considering their existence. The abstract concept of existence is rendered definite and determinate by the essence which it actualizes. Now every finite essence is of some particular kind; and its existence is rendered determinate by the fact that it is the existence of a definite kind of essence. The existence of a contingent being we conceive as the actuality of its essence; and its essence as a definite potentiality of existence. Thus if we conceive existence as a perfection it is restricted by the finite nature of the potentiality which it actualizes. But the existence of the Necessary Being is the plenitude of actuality, an existence not restricted by being the existence of any essence that is determinate because finite, but of an essence that is determinate by being above all genera and species, by being infinite, by being Itself pure actuality, in no sense potential but perfectly and formally identical with actual existence. While, therefore, the essence of the Necessary Being is a necessarily existing essence, that of a contingent being is not necessarily existent, but is conceived as a potentiality which has been _de facto_ actualized or made existent by the Necessary Being, and which may again cease to be actually existent.(116) On this too there is unanimity among scholastic philosophers.

We distinguish mentally or logically between the essence of an actually existing contingent being and its existence; considering the former as the potential principle, in relation to the latter as the actualizing principle, of the contingent existing reality. But is the distinction between such an essence and its existence something more than a logical distinction? Is it a real distinction? This is the question in dispute.

And in order to avoid misunderstanding, we must be clear on these two points: firstly, of what essence and existence is there question? and secondly, what exactly are we to understand by a real distinction in this matter?

22. STATE OF THE QUESTION.-In the first place, there is no question here of the relation of a _possible_ essence as such to existence. The possible essence of a contingent being, as such, has no reality outside the Divine Essence, Intellect, Will, and Omnipotence. Before the world was created the possible essences of all the beings that const.i.tute it were certainly really distinct from the actual existence of these beings which do const.i.tute the created universe. On this point there can be no difference of opinion. To contend that it is on the eternal reality of the possible essence that actual existence supervenes, when a contingent being begins to exist, would be equivalent to contending that it is the Divine Essence that becomes actual in the phenomena of our experience: which is the error of Pantheism.

Again, before a contingent thing comes into actual existence it may be virtually and potentially in the active powers and pa.s.sive potentialities of other actually existing contingent things: as the oak, for instance, is in the pa.s.sive potentiality of the acorn and in the active powers of the natural agencies whereby it is evolved from the acorn; or the statue in the block of marble and in the mind and artistic power of the sculptor.

But neither is there any question here of the relation of such potential being or essence as a thing has in its causes to the actual existence of this thing when actually produced. Whatever being or essence it has in its active and pa.s.sive causes is certainly really distinct from the existence which the thing has when it has been actually produced. Nor is there any doubt or dispute about this point. At the same time much controversy is due to misunderstandings arising from a confusion of thought which fails to distinguish between the essence as purely possible, the essence as virtually or potentially in its causes, and the essence as actually existing. It is about the distinction between the latter and its existence that the whole question is raised. And it must be borne in mind that this essence, whether it is really distinct from its existence or not, is itself a positive reality from the moment it is created or produced. The question is whether the creative or productive act-whereby this essence is placed "outside its causes," and is now no longer merely possible, or merely virtual or potential in its causes, but something real _in itself_-has for its term _one reality_, or _two realities_, _viz._ the essence as real subjective potentiality of existence, and the existential act or perfection whereby it is const.i.tuted actually existent.(117)

The question is exclusively concerned with the essence which began to exist when the contingent being came into actual existence, and which ceases to exist when, or if, this being again pa.s.ses out of actual existence; and the question is whether this essence which actually exists is really distinct from the existence whereby it actually exists. Finally, the question concerns the essence and existence of any and every actual contingent reality, whether such reality be a substance or an accident. Of course it is primarily concerned with the essence and existence of substances; but it also applies to the essence and existence of accidents in so far as these latter will be found to be really distinct from the substances in which they inhere, and to have reality proper to themselves.

23. THE THEORY OF DISTINCTIONS IN ITS APPLICATION TO THE QUESTION.-In the next place, what are we to understand by a _real_ distinction in this matter? Ambiguity and obscurity of thought in regard to the theory of _distinctions_, and in regard to the application of the theory to the present question, has been probably the most fertile source of much tedious and fruitless controversy in this connexion.

Antic.i.p.ating what will be considered more fully at a later stage (30), we must note here the two main cla.s.ses of distinction which, by reflecting on our thought-processes, we discover between the objects of our thought. The _real_ distinction is that which exists in things independently of the consideration of our minds; that which is discovered, but not made, by the mind; that which is given to us in and with the data of our experience.

For example, the act of thinking is a reality other than, and therefore _really_ distinct from, the mind that thinks; for the mind persists after the act of thinking has pa.s.sed away.

Opposed to this is the mental or logical distinction, which is the distinction made by the mind itself between two different concepts of one and the same reality; which is not in the reality independently of our thought, but is introduced into it by our thought, regarding the same reality under different aspects or from different points of view. The mind never makes such a distinction without some ground or reason for doing so.

Sometimes, however, this reason will be found exclusively in the mind itself-in the limitations of its modes of thought-and not in the reality which is the matter or object of the thought. The distinction is then said to be _purely_ logical or mental. Such distinctions are _entia rationis_, logical ent.i.ties. An example would be the distinction between the concept "man" and the concept "rational animal," or, in general, between any definable object of thought and its definition; the distinction, therefore, between the essence and the existence of the Necessary Being is a purely logical distinction, for in a definition it is the essence of the thing we define, and existence is of the essence or definition of the Necessary Being.

Sometimes, again, the reason for making a mental distinction will be found in the reality itself. What is one and the same reality presents different aspects to the mind and evokes different concepts of itself in the mind: though really one, it is virtually manifold; and the distinction between the concepts of these various aspects is commonly known as a _virtual_ distinction. For example, when we think of any individual man as a "rational animal," though our concept of "animal nature" is distinct from that of "rational nature," we do not regard these in him as two realities co-existing or combining to form his human nature, but only as two distinct aspects under which we view the one reality which is his human nature. And we view it under these two aspects because we have actual experience of instances in which animal nature is really distinct and separated from rationality, _e.g._, in the brute beast. Or, again, since we can recognize three grades of life in man-vegetative, sentient, and rational-we conceive the one principle of life, his soul, as virtually three principles; and so we distinguish mentally or virtually between three souls in man, although in reality there is only one. Or, once more, when we think of the Wisdom, the Will, and the Omnipotence of G.o.d, we know that although these concepts represent different aspects of the Deity, these aspects are not distinct realities in Him; but that because of His infinite perfection and infinite simplicity they are all objectively one and the same self-identical reality.

A virtual distinction is said to be _imperfect_ (thus approaching nearer to the nature of a purely logical distinction) when each of the concepts whereby we apprehend the same reality only prescinds _explicitly_ from what is expressed by the other, although one of them is found on a.n.a.lysis to include _implicitly_ what is expressed by the other. Such is the distinction between the _being_ and the _life_ of any living thing; or the distinction between the spirituality and the immortality of the human soul; or the distinction between _Infinite_ Wisdom and _Infinite_ Power: the distinction between the divine attributes in general. A virtual distinction is said to be _perfect_ (thus approaching nearer to the nature of a real distinction) when neither of the concepts includes either explicitly or implicitly what is expressed by the other. Such, for instance, is the distinction between the principle of intellectual life and the principle of animal or sentient life in man; for not only can these exist separately (the former without the latter, _e.g._ in pure spirits, the latter without the former, _e.g._ in brute beasts), but also it will be found that by no a.n.a.lysis does either concept in any way involve the other.(118)

Our only object in setting down the various examples just given is to ill.u.s.trate the general scholastic teaching on the doctrine of distinction.

In themselves they are not beyond dispute, for the general doctrine of distinction is not easy of application in detail; but they will be sufficient for our present purpose. Probably the greatest difficulty in applying the general doctrine will be found to lie in discriminating between virtual distinctions-especially perfect virtual distinctions-and real distinctions.(119) And this difficulty will be appreciated still more when we learn that a real distinction does not necessarily involve _separability_ of the objects so distinguished. In other words there may be, in a composite existing individual being, const.i.tutive factors or principles, or integral parts, each of which is a positive real ent.i.ty, really distinct from the others, and yet incapable of existing separately or in isolation from the others. "Separability," says Mercier,(120) "is one of the signs of a real distinction; but it is neither essential to, nor a necessary property of the latter. Two separable things are of course really distinct from each other; but two ent.i.ties may be really distinct from each other without being separable or capable of existing apart from each other. Thus we believe that the intellect and the will in man are really distinct from each other, and both alike from the substance of the human soul; yet they cannot exist isolated from the soul." Therefore, even though the objects which we apprehend as distinct, by means of distinct concepts, be understood to be such that they cannot actually exist in isolation from each other, but only as united in a composite individual being, still if it can be shown that each of them has its own proper reality independently of our thought, so that the distinction between them is not the result of our thought, or introduced by our thought into the individual thing or being which we are considering, then the distinction must be regarded as real. If, on the other hand, it can be shown that the different aspects which we apprehend in any _datum_ by means of distinct concepts have not, apart from the consideration of the mind, apart from the a.n.a.lytic activity of our own thought, each its own proper reality, but are only distinct mental views of what is objectively one and the same reality, then the distinction must be regarded as logical, not real,-and this even although there may be in the richness and fulness of that one reality comparatively to the limited capacity of our minds, as well as in the very const.i.tution and modes of thought of our minds themselves, a reason or basis for, and an explanation of, the _multiplicity of concepts_ whereby we attain to an understanding of some _one reality_.

24. SOLUTIONS OF THE QUESTION.-Postponing further consideration of the serious problems on the validity of knowledge and its relation to reality, to which those reflections inevitably give rise, let us now return to the main question: the nature of the distinction between the essence and the existence of any actually existing contingent being. We need not be surprised to find that the greatest minds have been unable to reach the same solution of this question. For it is but a phase of the more general metaphysical problem-at once both ontological and epistemological-of the nature of reality and the relation of the human mind thereto. Nor will any serious modern philosopher who is at all mindful of the wealth of current controversial literature on this very problem, or of the endless variety of conflicting opinions among contemporary thinkers in regard to it, be disposed to ridicule the medieval controversies on the doctrine of distinction as applied to essence and existence. No doubt there has been a good deal of mere verbal, and perhaps trifling, argumentation on the matter: it lends itself to the dialectical skill of the controversialist who "takes sides," as well as to the serious thought of the open-minded investigator. It is not, however, through drawing different conclusions from the same premisses that conflicting solutions of the question have been reached, but rather through fundamentally different att.i.tudes in regard to the premisses themselves which different philosophers profess to find in the common data of their experience. When we have once grasped what philosophers mean by a logical or a real distinction as applied to the relation between essence and existence we shall not get any very material a.s.sistance towards the choice of a solution by considering at length the arguments adduced on either side.(121)

Those who believe there is a real distinction(122) between the essence and the existence of all actually existing contingent beings mean by this that the real essence which comes into actual existence by creation, or by the action of created causes, is a reality distinct from the existence whereby it actually exists. The actually existing essence is the total term of the creative or productive act; but what we apprehend in it under the concept of _essence_ is really distinct from what we apprehend in it under the concept of _existence_: the existence being a real principle which _actualizes_ the essence, and this latter being itself another real principle which is in itself a positive, subjective _potentiality_ of existence.(123) Neither, of course, can actually exist without the other: no actual existence except that of a real essence; no existing essence except by reason of the existence which makes it actual. But these two real principles of existing contingent being, inseparable as they are and correlative, are nevertheless distinct realities-distinct in the objective order and independently of our thought,-and form by their union a really _composite_ product: the existing thing.

We might attempt to ill.u.s.trate this by the a.n.a.logy of a body and its shape or colour. The body itself is really distinct from its actual shape and colour: it may lose them, and yet remain the same body; and it may acquire other shapes and colours. At any time the body has actually some particular shape and colour; but that by which it is formally so shaped and coloured is something really different from the body itself. Furthermore, before the body _actually_ possessed this particular shape and colour, these were in it _potentially_: that is to say, there were then in the body the real, pa.s.sive, subjective potentialities of this particular shape and colour. So too _that by which_ a real (contingent) essence actually exists (_i.e._ the existential _act_, existence) is really distinct from _that which_ actually exists (_i.e._ the essence, the _potentiality_ of that existential act). The a.n.a.logy is, however, at best only a halting one. For while it is comparatively easy to understand how the pa.s.sive, subjective _potentiality_ of a shape or colour can be _something real_ in the _already actually existing_ body, it is not so easy to understand how the _potentiality of existence_, _i.e._ the real essence, can be anything that is itself real and really distinct from the existence.(124) The oak is _really_ in the acorn, for the pa.s.sive, subjective potentiality of the oak is in the actual acorn; but is this potentiality anything really distinct from the acorn? or should we not rather say that the _actual_ acorn _is potentially_ the oak, or _is_ the potentiality of the oak? At all events even if it is really distinct from the actual acorn, it is in the actual acorn. But is it possible to conceive a _real, subjective potentiality_ which _does not reside in anything actual_?(125) Now if the real essence is really distinct from its existence it must be conceived as a _real, subjective potentiality_ of existence.