FEPAOS.NS a a. = Se ee ee sist Ss af a, 74) = The Genre of Titles and Chapters of the Tract of the Venerable Ockam con cerning the Body of Christ. ; Question I.
Whether a point is an absolute thing really distinct from a quantity.
Question II.
Whether a line and a surface are really distinguished from gone anoth- er and from 6 body..
Question IIT.
Whether a body, vhich is a quantity,is an absolute thing really dis- tinot from a substance. : Tues ‘a, Chapter TI.
The pody of Christ is truly contained under the species of bread. Chapter II.
» © The body of Christ ic really contained under the species of breads 7 Chapter IIT. The substance of the bread is changed into the body of Christ.
Shavter IV.
Se ee ae Se eS eg ee The substance of the bread is changed into the body of Christ,not iné to the divinity,or the souvl,or the blood,or into some accident al the sunstances Chapter Ve The substance of the bread does not remain after the consecration. Chapter VI.
a The body of Christ is not cirmmseribed in a plaee in the sacrament i S ay re Shapter VII. The body of Christ is not seen by us in the sacrament of the altar by the bodily eye.: 2 Chapter VIII. The accidents rewaining after the consecration are not subjectively in the body of Christ. ae Chapter TX. The quantity,which existed before in the substance of the pread,re=- meinse Chapter XX. The ¢@sensible qualities remain. 5: Chapter XI. Every extended material substance is composed of substantial parts “really distinct. | | , gnapter XII.: fF an absolute prior thing can exist by the divine power without a pos- terior thing. :: Chapter XIIt. ‘The omnipotence of God can create substance without every absolute accident formally inhering in ite Shapter XIV.
An extended substance, locally inmovables,can be preserved, although ail _its own absolute accidents are destroyed through the divine power. Chapter XV.
A material substance is present through its own intrinsic parts in® the place in which it is cirowumseribed.
Chapter XVI.
Jertain arguments are advanced to prove that the quantity remaining in the sacrament of the altar is not really distinet from the Chapter XVII.
Jertain conelusions to the proposition are proved.
Shavter XVIII. All the qualities in the saerement of the altar are not one subjeot of one quantity. Chapter XIX. Not any quality is the immediate subject of a quantity. . Chapter XX The quantity renaining is not subjectively in one quality and not in another.
x Tt is proved by the testimony of the Catholic Doctors thet qualities are not subjectively in a quantity different from a substance. , Chapter XXTI. A quantity really distinct from a substance can not be the subject of the qualities in the sacrament of the alter,io-g : testimony of the philosophers. Chapter XXIII. The quantity remaining in the sacrament is not an absolute thing really distinet from the qualities remaining in the same saerament. | Chapter XXIV. a One quantity,which wae not an absolute thing really distinet from the _ substance of the bread,existed before the conoretation.
Chapter XXV. A substance ean be a quantum without every absolute thing really dis- finct, added to it.
Chapter XXVI. Other reasons are adduced to prove the same conclusion, nasely, that Jownstance ean be a quantum without a distinet quantity added to it. Chapter XXVIT. } The same conclusion, which was stated before,seems to follow from the jstatoments of the opponents.
Chapter XXVIII.
Substance is 2 quantim through its own substantial parts without jevery quantity which is a thing really distinet from substance and javality. : Chapter XXIX, Proof of the same conclusion,rhich vas stated before,through the ar- lgunents taken fron the statements of the Catholic Doctors. . Chapter XXX. Soneerning objections contrary to the previous statements.
chapter XXXI. a A reply to the previous objections,in the following chapters. 4 XXXII _ To show that the propesitions obtain at the same time:some quantity te not a thing really distinct from substance,and quantity is an ace ‘cident.
Chapter XXXITI. It explains how quantity is an acoident,and how along with this the reposition obtains,some quantity is not a thing distinet from substance eo, ¥ chapter XXXTVe a The views of Augustine,set forth above in chepter III.,in the fourth and fifthe arguments, are refuted.
| Chapter XXXV.
Now quantity is a predicament distinct from quelity and substance; lnot-wvith-standing the fact that no quantity can be distinet from a part [of a thing,from a substance and « quality. | Chapter XXXVI.
The previous opinion ought not to be objected to as heretical. Chapter XXXVIT.
The vreviovs opinion is not contrary te experience.
how some longitudes differ in species. : Chapter XXXIX. Concerning a different method of predicating quantity. Chapter Xbe Pes In whet menner diverse quantities cart gist subjectively in a sub-_ “ stance, although two bodies ean not naturally exist together. : Ghapter XLI.
Coneerning the solution of certain arguments contrary to the previous statements.
The very renotined tract of the Venerable Inceptor,tilliam of Ockemof Pnegland,a very famous teacher of sacred theology,a most discriminating investigator in the realm of truth,a member of the order of the Fratres Minores, concerning the sacrament of the altar and with special referg | enee to the distinction of voint, Line, surfade, body, quantity, quality, and substance,begins euspiciously..
_ Gonserning the conversion of the bread into the body 9f of Christ, just as states ea sertain gloss on De Consecra~_ tione, Distinction T¥,*In secramentorum": "There are various opinions. One opinion asserts that that substance, which was at first bread,is afterwards the flesh and the blood lof Christ, that is,the bread is an the altar et cetera, ecause the body is vresent. The sesond opinion holds thet the substance of the bread and the vine oeases to jexict there,and only the accidents remain;nanely, taste, jcolor and likeness;and under these accidents the body lor Christ begins to exist there. The third opinion — Inoldas that the substance of the bread and the vine remains there,and that the body of christ existe poth lin the same vlace and under the same svecies;it is argued, that is,I advance this argument." Kagh opinion, however, acknowledges that the body of Christ is present here. The second opinion is more true according to he De Sumne Trinitetes *Pirmiter,# une"; these are the ords of the Gloss. According to this gloss it appears at the substance of the bread is converted into the vody of Christ,so that the substance of the bread doos Jnot romain, but only the accidents,rhich existed before } in the substange of the bread,remain. And in confir~ mation of that truth it is stated according to the De Summa Trinitate, "Firmiter",iust as the gloss pre- viously mentioned asserts: "There is one univeraal church of all the feithful,outside of whieh no one at 211 is saved;in which the vriest and the sacupfice are the very sane person,Jesus Christ, vhose bone and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine,since the bread is trans- evubctantiated into the body and the vine into blood by the divine power ty With reference to tne declaration of that truth, ‘gome questions must be acked about tvo points partieularly;first,as to what is ¢lear coneerning the entity and the distinction of those accidents; secondly, about the separation of the same accidents from their subject., Moreover, because it is comnonly conceded by all thet color,taste and such sensible quelities are really - distinguished from each other,and also from substance; _ therefore, since this is conceded,some questions must Risa. akeda respecting the distinetion of these qualities a quantity, 2m eotitude,and of such ‘Blige, concerning which there is considerable doubt in what manner they are distinguished. And because that consideration pore fteains not only to theology put also t; ry cinee t is the province of philosophy to understatd the | meture of things and their distinetions; therefore, it is necessary to learn what the rhilosovhers have thought on this matter,and especially what Aristotle, | the prince of philosophers, thinks, and also what the theologians say;put in order that Tgnay proceed more irderly,I shall inquire first soncerning the distinction of point, line, surface,and body, and afterrards of other matters.
Whe eS Ouestion Te Therefore,I ask first mhether a point is an absolute thing roally aistinet from quantity. That it ds i pas © of each one is distinguished ASE ett REN.
from thet of whieh it is a terminus, but a point is Ape terminus ef a line; therefore, it ies really dietingutsn- ed from & Line, and sonsequentiy’ ae resson really distinguished from any quantity. On the @ubetance or quantity contrary,every positive thing is pr quality or relationsand so of other predicarents; but a point is not substance distinct from quantity, relation nor a quelity distinet from quantity, nor & ae bietinot from quantity,and so of other reppective genera; therefore,a point is not a thing different from quantity. Before ansvering th’ on this subject I make in advange one statement, namely, thet whatever I shail state under whatever form of words, which ean in eny sense be rervarded as contrary to what- ever has veen stated in sacred seripture,or in the writing of the Saints,or contrery to the determination or dootrine of the Roman churohgor gontrary to the opinion of the Doctors approved by’ the ehurch; I shall not state it as an affirmationsbut rather as a qua n the person of those who also hold the avinion to discussed,whether that opinion is trues or false, atholic, heretical or erroneous; wherefore, if tT state ahelar words,I say that it is not stated Taving advanced this suggestion,I shall proeede with reszec$ to the question proposed in this fashion: & Pirst,t shall show that a point is not soi and absolute,really distinet from any auality and eepecially from a Lline;in the second place,I shall eite some reasons and authorities to prove that a point is a different thing;in the third place,I shall Peply to these propvesitions. First, therefore, I prove thet a point is not a thing aifferent from a lings from any quantity;and in the first place by reasons besed on physies;in the second place through the passages of the vhilosophers;in the third plage through theological reasons.
According to the first way If areue first ostensively ac follows:if a point is a thing different from quantity, it is either substance or accidentj;but a point is not substance distinet from quantity »nor accident distinct from quantity;therefore,a point is not a thing aifferent from quantity.
: The major premise is known;the winor premise I Povesand first the first part, namely,that 2a point ee substance is either matter or form or a composite or Sl is not substance distinct from quantity,because every stanee sbstracted from matter. But it is evident hat point is not matter or form or composite;nor is onents; therefore, ot ae in this mannerinsmely,that 4 Soir is nok an aacident Indivisible distinet from quantity;in the first place in this manner:every absolute accident is placed in some subject equal to ityso that that aceident is pither a whole in an entire subject and in any yeeyeo® 2 whole in a whole and part in part,or is an ingen eeident heaving an indivisible subjeot,just as & spiritual accident is in a rational soul,eas though in its ovn primary and edequate subject. But a point in none of those three modes has or can have some orimary and sdeauate subject; therefore, the isajor cremise of that syllogism is plein through induetion as regards jpvery absolute seston The first part of the minor premico,nanely, that a point does not have some adequate Jeurject ¢ ao that there is a whole in a whole and in pach nart,is clear; because I take a point terminating tne line A,sand let that be called 3,and by taking enother eorresponding voint and let it be ealled ¢;then T ask fmotner Bis in Ayas though in its own adequate subject, ve in the subject of({ the Line itself,and it follovs 3 in either way,that ¢ will be in the saie adequate ut ject for the same reason.
_ ‘Then t argue as follovs:rhatever things are in the Jreme adequate subject, do not differ either in situation jor in place;but 8 and ¢ are distinguished or separate Jin place and in situation;therefore, they do not oxist Jin the same adequate subject. If it is stated that 2 is not in the entire line, A,nor in the subject of [the line,A,iteeif,mt in part of the line itself,or in part of the subjection the other hand if 3 is not fin the entire line as though in an adequate subject, ‘nor in the entire subject of the line itself; therefore, it is in part as if in an adequate subjeetsylet that part be Djthen I argve;3 is D as though in an adequate gutbjeet therefore, for the same reason anothor point corresponding to itcelf By td which D will terminate from enother part,will be in Diteelf as though in. an adequate subject,and let that we be called EF.
Prom which argument it follows that 3 and F are in the same adequate subjeet,and consequently they are “not separate in“B@aee and in situations which is very manifestily. false. So therefore some point ean not be “subject, so that the vhole is in the whole and the whole in any vartjnot only besause two points of that ‘divisible would then not be separate in situation, which is false;put also beeause a point the same in “muuber vould be in tro situations, hich is a faleem aise tea CaN ah f it is stated that a voint is, some divisible part, but nother point does not actually correspond to that in some divisible quantwayas though in its own adequate | “ry:+ts" party nor ean sorresrpond to itself; because that part Ar tee pan not be existent per se,but only not existent in 7 Pate. agli oe Mia ag £544 ae ie: KA A le pnother;on the contrery,whatevor part is designatedscod nc. te a Ra EA ay 2 'bPatis absolute power sepavate it from another Din el woe ce part,and can preserve it existent per se;therefore, my magni RIG bhat part,yvhich is the primary and sdequate subject oe bf a point,God can preserve without another; therefore, let it be considered in existenee,then it will actually have iagtner voint,which will be for the same reason ; n that subject as though in its orn ordinary subject; — because there is no greater reason for one point ter- inating a line to be in that entire line or in that entire subject of thet line,than for another point terminating the same linesjand consequently those tyro points will not be separate ‘tn situation, because those accidents, which are in the same adequate subject, are not separate in situation. Moresover,a corresponding wUues*4ystTauc Jo AYO Sly BuTusasouosd 4oOU1y snowesl sy point does not exist only potentially in the way in hich the future axists potentially;tnerefore,it ex- ists in the nature of things,and consequently has a- | nother primary ean sited wo it can not be granted un- ea: see Gaede be Ras a line er a subject of a line terminating at i eer ga Br another point;;therefore, those to points are in the “tok a e divisible subjeotses though in an iia aia: ate hee 2 ee prrom another. The second pert of the ehief minor [premise is thus proved, nanely, thet a point is not a whole in an entire subject,and pert in pert, because i+ \ would then be a quanti, anditimeg,proposition be main- jteained, The third vart of that minor premise,namely, that jit is not in some indivisible as though in its own ‘and adequate subjectyis clears because that er eee mlegrouls be either substance or accident; at is not accident, becetise T ask in what genus; and it is clear that it ean not be coneeded to be in a gerne different from the genus,svbstancee Similarly, jinquiry would have to be made concerning the subject Jor that accident, just as of the subject of a point, fend thet indivisible is not substancesbeeause,if it is e substance, it is either matter or form or a composite, Jor a substance abstracted from metter; put it is not matter, because all; s divisible;nor is it for, pecausey if it is forts it i either form extended and consequently is divisible,or it is form not extended, ational soul alone is not extended; but it 4a cei eek thet it is not tational soul;therefore,it is manifest, osite,snor is eee Geeite;and it is manifest,that is not form abstracted from matter;therefore,it is some indivisible substence,which ean be the orginal ( / and eonsequently it is a rational soul, because she, pe wees that it is not form which is the second part of 2 col- AO dg ‘ y Eiosa ies a nd adequate subject of a point. Moreover,if there is I a stone some indivisible cubstanee,which san be the f wrimary and adequate subject of a point;then I take it fhat substance,and I ask whether or not it makes a [ee 7h Whole per se with the matter and the form of the stone; he so,there vould therefore be sone indivisible sub- Btance in a stone,whiech vould be matter or form vith respeat to the material,stone;beceuse whenever sone — f gums pev VL tA] in, 1 : are of diverse character in the genus, substance, making | ja whole per se,one of them is the agent, put the rest hts the power,and gonsequently one is matter and the Gy oT Pest is form, gut it is impossiple for thet indivisible 7 a to ve vorimary matter,because primary matter is © But if that indivisible substance doses not sail whole per se with the matter end the form of the f J [ h ston At is not part of the stoné,and Sonsequontly ean not be vart of the stone,and consequently it ean not be part of some substan .
Breer substance, which oan not be part of some iguweenunoes PEM ONE 55 205: is subsistent per se,and is per se in @ genus ana in yg species,and consequentiy that substance would be bsistent ver se and vould be per se in @ genus and We a composite; but every such te 2 divisible and a hing having parts really distinct; therefore, none of them is divisible. co therefore it sppears, that neither ome indivisible nor some divisible can be a primary ia . a Ind adequate subject of a point itseif,if a point is certain absolute thing reelly distinet from every divisible. Tf it is stated in relation to the principal reunent that the major premise is falsesfor lecidents,rhich are not wholes in © whole,and in nc ert,nor,wholes in wholes and parts in varts,and are: a a indivisible accidents having indivisible subjectsi —/, ut indivisible accidents having divisible subjects, nd yet do not exist in some part,but a whole in a eerie as time is in the entire movement of the pee cee mtire heaven,and yet is not in aes, par vt of heaven.
Akorise, dowbleness is a whole in an entire annie: ind neithordoubleness nor some part of it ds) in vart fa double with reapest to the came half. And,it joes GS of many other aecidente,that they ar@e.An 8.
yates sassy hole, and vet nedhner they themselves nor part of hem ere in some part of 5 a ss reply is >t sufficient:fire st,beasuss it aceents the fallacy nat there are some indivisible aeceidents existing it first in some divisible, and yet in no part of it; refore,time is not some absolute acoident really letinet from motion and from permanent things,existing ibjectively in the entire motion and in no part.
n the second place that reply is not sufficient, Cy een ao ae ee ‘ Pe fAe x Net. Rp pret Te Aled 1a “oe. he Ve. 1 4p :, i sf ‘ g , ’ - y aN ye pet ares to j y- Se fovea eee eo Jan oe, 9 poh tank aA Grevse Teach i Lee OOO, mause,if this is granted,the argument still holds, _ ee T2 } whole inp whole and 8 whole in some part,or,a whole. hatte ma whole,and vet is separate in no part in place and ein from some accident existing in the sane : uvieet adequate to ityis clear thecause sotor is not 2 nhes feperate from the color of the same subject. Like wises ae! fame, a? it 1s anothor aecident,is not separate in situation rom some aecident existing in the same subject adequate , it. Likewise,doubleness is not separate in situation om some accident existing in the came subject,as-af——/ 2 + cont hdequate to itj;and so ome secident existing in the same subject adequate ko Atsput_ a point is not separate in sitnation from hay coint of that ouantumof which it is a point; there- re end ffore,tvo points oan not exist in the same primary snd hdequate subject,vhich hovever would be necessary if D ocint was an indivisible seeident having some difrisipie for an adequate subject. 3...ayy yee sin situation In the third place no accident ie rrom any part whatever of its ovn priaery and adequate Jewnjoot, just as ne yn thensas of that part A is not tal ert compounding with A. Similarly,if time or doubloness Le an accident really distinet from a dovnble or motions it is manifest thet time is not separate in situation Prom some part. of motion,nor is doubleness separate in ici - Het i situation from some part of a double, and so of every other aeeident;but if any divisible whatever is de- Icignated which ought to be considered the palgknmlo subject of that point,it is wanifest that this is separate in situation from another part of this divisible; therefore, that divisible is not the primary 4nd adequate cunject of sina: That argument is sonfirmeds because, when sowe aecident that re i ' it is clear by induction | equate subject, that ag~ tl is not more separate in situation from one pert of that subject then from another, but ig is wariifest that that point is more separate be bttuation from one part of that divisible,whatever part ig decignated, then from another; therefore, that divisible lis not.the primary subicet of that point. From which argument it is clear that a roint is not some absolute ‘eecident really distinct from every divisible,having for a vcrimeary and adequate subject some divisible, nemely,that. hich is a subject (in) itself or per se and not through its own parte Moreover,it can not be onceded that a voint soundoting two halves,in which t exists subjectively,is in one nalf more than in leper both,and then an accident the gene ih number would be in subjeets many in number, hich is impossible,or in neither and consequentiy none subjectively. If it is stated that & point some indivisible subject,just as was mentioned be~- fore, this statement does not suffice ss vas proved before. And T shall prowe it again; because there world ve some indivisible in 2 divisible subject, nomely, in 2 stone. Let that stone be divided accord= %-Uray L ing to that indivisible,and I ask whether that in- Givisible remeins or does not remaine If it remains, I ask vhere it remains;whethor vith each part,or in ‘one and not in another,or apart from both. The first statement ean not be Senwedets bewnuee then some eubstance one in nmunber vould be in qietinet vleces,not ‘meking a whole, ynich is naturally impossible. The second statement can not bé conceded, because there is ‘no creater reason for its being in one part than in another. Similerly the third statement ean not be eonceded because then nothing existing ver se or in some other would make a whole ver se,poth of which “appears to be false and imoossible. In the second place I argue chiefly as follows:every positive and absolute thing really distinct from every other thing,not meak- ding a whole ver se,as if a part with anothers 1s ver se n the genus;put a point,if it is such an indivisible thing,is not part of some divisible,nor does it make whatever; therefore,it will rhole ver se with: vt on yer se in some predicament; but sien ‘statement is 1 Othe, flee, because then it would be either 4 uantity or quality or, respect, any one of his is : lse according to those wigintaining such indivisibles.
e@ major premise of that syllogiem is manifest; because, hen there are some things dietinet according to thoms selves es wholes,of which neither is part of another, there te no greater reason for one of them to be per se in some oredicament than in anothor,as is elear by induction.
But it is stated in relation to that statement that 2 point is not per se in a genus,but only through Te- ie auction; because it does not exist excent as 4 tennis a. of quantity. But that reply is not sufficient; first peoause @ line would not then be ver se in the genttc, ‘ouentity, sines it does not exist except as 9 terminus of e@ Yuantity. If it is stated that a line is not only the terminus of a quantity, but is also 4 a quanta ters therefore,it is per se in a genus, “Bet & point: is eee 7 mer se a quantity;therefore,it is not per hte the | ux indivisinlesnot only vill it be tne terminus of 8 e cuntityy jae Ee ae geregation o1 is a part of iacanntilg existing vor se in 4 vlandieementel ) \ 7a at ~toposition is clear by induction of every things ne j Cor tary,: clear because, if thet major selaake ae ia a oeaae.
wey to prove that some thing exists per se in a genus is destroyed; for in this manner T may gay of other things, thet something does not exist per se in a genus, because fit is the terminuc of some substance,ivet as you state, thet a point is not per se in a genuc because it is the terminus of something existing cer ge in a genus; therefore, this proposition ic clear, that every thing ja whole ver se exists ver se in some prediesment,or he Kes is part of something existing per se ina predicament; put it is clear } part of something exis adits per se in a predicament; therea voint is ner se ina predicament 7 which vase proved point is not such an indivisiple thing. In the third place T argue ‘as fellors:it is iupossible that thore, tually, are infinite things distinet according to eweLves as wholes, and of which none is a part of other,ani which do not make some unit. But if a int could be such an indivisible thing, sueh would tually be infinite;because I take a plece of wood, t is manifest seeording to those vwriters,that there © infinite lines heresvecauce there are not so many t that there ean be more,and any of them is aetually inated at some voint, because otherwise no line to PA Aephecs pe tae iw ¢ Ate fain pa Os Add tur.)
“distinct from every divisible. In the fourth place Teargue as follows:some@ positive and absolute thing / ~ / Z me “| Ae bic ce not caused neh division utone; 64 art CUere™ ff | Oe, ao. a. ae Fae co i Lettre | Cos cata ‘i Aree ee therefore, 1et a niece of rood be divided,and T ask Thaey ) Pivout the terminating pointe, vhether or not they have existed before. Tf so,it is certain that they will not ve separate in situation;therefore,a point was im mediate in a noint,ywhich is false,even according to those vriters. If they vere not in existence before end exist news they are therefore generated anev, and onceduently some absolute things vould necossariiy € generated through division alone, which is false. tN A eee Ay p tbr A i tar Ave) eee FO tA leony? A. ees. 1 the fifth place;hecsuse some new absolute thing pantie i~ it a és: et oe at Pb CAA ee ats ena ao r rey Te F 3 Aten dein VAAL © not generated nor is an absolute thing destroyed miss n fone ivan £ hewn Con tumteten ose parts separate before can ve contintous. Sut fi a point wes weg euch an invisible thing, thonever ev St ae parts. were become continuous,of nesessity some ste [OOM ttle m thing,namely,one point connecting those two pointe, 1d be genereted;on the sontrary it would folloy 4 infinite, absolute things distinct according to eee themselves as wholes vould be destroyed, and infinite / thinge vould be generated; just as can be deduced through the third principal argument previously stated, all of rhich statements are imposcible, and consequentle _ ae ‘a point is not such an indivisible thinge t% tue that sane gonelusion through theclogical ergmnents; first in this way:every absolute thing distinet sc- eording to itself as a whole from another absolute thing,of rhich it is not the subject or effect or eonversely,God can eareate without it. Bet if a point , it is menifest that ie such an indivisible thingsa line saecording to itself la ry (as 2 whole is distinguished from a point; because pit is manifest that a l&ne is not 2 part of a point,nor is a point a vart of a line,nor is 2 line even the subject of a point,as was proved before, nor aonvercely : es a point the subject of a linejnor is a line even tho eause of a point nor conversely;as id manifest e hurried examination of ell classes of causes; ‘therefore,Cod ean of His absolute pover imeke a line rthout avery. points fhen IT ask whether that line is ‘inite or infinite;if it is infinite and without every int,and consequently is to no purpose considered & int for terminating @ line, end yet it is not for 1 different reason asemed by those thus affirming; if that line is not terminated nor finite,and it 4ete in the nature of things AM chancett re is infinite, vhich appears to be manifestly false, — Me : se that line will not for this reason be greater a, that point vas depertted' ér destroy- iitherefore,that line will in no manner be infinite, ho metter to rhat extent nll the points ere destroyode Horeover,if all the voints are destroved by God,and tne line is preserved;I ask whether or not that line _ l cervedenaveed ) ae cont inuoury, tf e0y and i4-ts nottsontinuoue) through point, because it does not exist | aye Asie SE ceuceniit es point is assuned there to no purposce f it is not continuous;T ask whether some part of it ls continuous, and it-veturne to the preceding areuaontyefurn psn ts oT, no cart is continuous;from which argunent it follows Lvpethe7 hat there ic some line whieh is composed of continuous, =~ - sywhich is impossible. Similarly that line is ontinuous or diserete;if continuous, the proves sition }) Len I rey ow predneda maintainea;if dicerete,then any cart is divided to an infinite quantwn at all parts of it which is (70, dint meossibles But that reasoning proves that a line is PRaEMIETNE; : ufficiently gontinuovs end finite through; ite own nature mernae hag barren ithout every other thing added to itsand consequently. ac acons to no purvese ic a enint eonsidered to di ers A 1 6h Barns dite tte, ‘indivisible thing. If it is stated that God can: of His o7n meooiate pover arested a line vithout 2 a ghen soe absolute thing ay /mife wan 8: f a 7;?? o wv Atettinb ind a Abroad So thesteh Cte Cm wae ag C4i4+-3.¢ 4 pnskore P< MONO { POEL SS hes oh ttah« ‘oe ats “a Oe Baers PA feet A hath Wfve re be % = game Ath fee Que Mea bt bate ih Oe a Seren. Oy Le fe UO) DotA dh, Atwn. ee Fey \: de freer ry, AP 3 i 4 oe ae | page e+ pach at i Att aa mciuew he f nye cua a Perey | LESS Ee arately so that it gan beng ant gan be made Sprénen the divine porer thout all or them joined tagether,so that none of them exists with it, vhich is especially true;since these things aceording to themselves as 4 whole are really distinet and neither is an effect or’ of another;just as it is of a point and of a line.
If a point as such an indivicible thing,but this line loan through nature exist vyitnout this or that point,and go of others and so of any one;therefore,God can make this (Line without every point,and so the proposition | is maintainede Moreover,if that, rvhicl Lily pendent on something, as +hewgh an effect and an pyre parated from it through the divine DONEY Nuch noTS t an accident in the anaerament of the altar depends i efore separation on a pHpetanse as wedi on a oause ee /” its own subject, and yet through the divine i eo _ rst argument holds. That reasoning is senfirnmed BUSe according to the philosopher in the second < of the Physios:"Quentity is per se finite or infinites QA pr on its own siinin’ cata oho made without | itj,and so the Jrtery too wer, hea eam CAA ass e quantity doaia be finite throug: f sate a li imal ings juet as a line is ve" veints ac ie—temoueh /_ in the sacrament of the alter the quantity is arated from every substance through a different ing; therefore,a line is separated from every sub- j; at. Then I ask about the point terminating that line, whether or not it is separated from every subject; mode pe ae ae ae | mhich ean not aa ieiih put chee a iia 3 (tind, 6, it it is not subjectively in a substance,sinee it not there unless it is the hod or Shrist,in which Bem.
Ss edvia or in some pert of a line as if in the primaty adequate subject and not through-a-part, just as hi / ¢ wef eness is here said to be in Gortess becuse it is oe / “e er ee ‘one part of Sortessa point could ne oparate ae le eee ace and situation fro no part of a eubject nauelyy— / on eat Fi line or a part of a lineyas was affirmed before, /; is manifestly false as was proved before, Beet Oe ang ea eee A statements and many other statethe previous he oreation of all aes really pak: qaeay sub stances separate from wetter,and erincipaliy the Pational soul and its own accidents,and that a point g ‘thing indivisible, positive, and absolute, really from a line and every quantity. But they might any thing divisible in iteelf is formally inite, terminative end gontinuous,if it is continuous pont every other thing added to it;causelly it ie erminetives finite, and continuous through Gog and other causes ceo piepdne it in esse, vThatever those causes re from which (comes this line without every other