ng added to it;indeed if any other thing rere | stroyed and thie line were preserved by Godgit would uly be finite,terminetive and continuous;and there ve since sveh an indivisible thing is not aseumed on ont of other things,it seens juet as impossible as efluous to affirm that a voint is such en indiible. And if it is asked:hat is a point? Is it a divisible ‘anever should be made that by stating bes Andivisipie?.
naan tL. Uf aw Audrwran, H Sena «p—~ ing similer whion ean es ear a substitute for rh according to the vroper signification of speech, ught to be conceded that point is,souéthing whole comprised of a noun and e vent wath an eryening conjunetion or edverb or this pronoun, ey according to which one mey at pleasure give diverse itions expressing something of & noun,of that point, and therefore, juct as this predicate, a sible thingsis vredicated of such a subject,end squently of a composite of an adisetive and a antives so it is predicsted of a voint. Winivatstes: — say that this noun, privation,is equivalent ¢ gnifieation to thie entire euprossions subjectun Batu, and for this reason, jus t. ae Ts supsoetdl Aeek verses they concede this sition, privetion is matter; a0 if this noun, toirt, tivalont in signification to that entire ex- longa line is no farther lengthenedsor to same ar expression, of which one part is linea,and parte are soue ie a verb connected vi Be big aint 1s Line,point is cible. Por whatever is true of this noun, line, ed sigmifteatively, ic true of this noun, 2oint when signifieatively,and thic (is true)in speaking ording to the virtue of signifisationsyet this (is me )not-vith-ctanding the foot that ane proposition, whigh this noun,point,is substituted, could exist ; se,and another srovosition, in which this noun, neste acstmed, vill not exist ver s6é,and conversely; st as whatever is Peedt sted or one of the conver- s when used signifleatively,is true of the rest taken significatively; and yet one of them exists 80 and not the rest;rvherefore, this vroposition is re in the first mode,every man te en animel, and s is not, every thing which Laughs is an animel.
it this noun, voint,7411 he ocuivalontitm stgnification some composite of » now or ndverh or a conjunction an adverh and this Hie diksna hee al we a aommosite an Oblique ease and a verb,7hich ean not according ~: the proper signifiesation of speech express in king grammatically a substitute for a verbjand sequently every sentence,in which it ts employed, not according to 2 vcrorer signification, tut is 7 tive speechsand ean be redweed to a figure is enlled vy the grammerians shypallage, of which state, that hypeallace is the conversion of esses or “auch @ eharacter. But those propositions and simtler DOORN nes must not be conceded according to the proper signification of specch, just os prover provositions net net he dispensed with throuch a grammatical | megand consequently in the investigation of the ruth one must not argue from these vronositions, : | Meeathe sense rh ey have from the intention of the authors;put they pe net be conceded under that senseyvhioch they have ly mbly, thet one diction is asimoed in place of Aes Arties Attn Ney" sentence or of one coumosed of many dictions, and ence by trensposing and ina Aan even ay sterkthe part of the sentence into another vart,and some~ one gramnatieal seaident into another,or in a filer mode by converting,so that the sense of thet Bint4son, point is indivisibleymay be that propos sition, line is not farther lengthened,any vart of which, ¢ versie divisiblesor another similar sense aecord- | a te.one desires to explain the preceding proposition.; the sense of that proposition,a point is divishble e that or some similer sense:whatever part af aii as © of all verbal nouns and 211 nouns formed from erbs, conjunctions, pronouns, propositions, and in ral of all sincatecsorematies,and in cene real of: which are not especielly those having the vietue Ste ed San i noun;so that thepdoen not be the extremes of a position distinet froin a copule without every figure @ proper signification of speech. And secording — nis chatement, all such propositions:iaction is in so,imotion ic in mobili,similitude is in eimili, tess is the terninus of 9 notion, every thing is ned through vroduction;fire is made warm by heate .: ~ Bt Aw Kt 5 oe and innumerable propositions of such a character, — He thy = 1 are found in the statements of the philosophers the Saintssand even in sac pcoripturesimat be oy: ratively dieposed of through some grammatical * Nor is it ineonsistent to concede that the ° ophers and the Saints thus spoke figuratively, a arte? 7 oneny such statements ere fommd in sacred scripture; - lever "by accepting the statements of sacred: ay 7 F rer ret lk faod * re in a spiritual sens@jon the conterry the ——[ekatacien the Dance and common made of speaking frequently also /; ‘such figurative exprescions;as oan be proved statenents of the gvramsarians treating e simneretore: not only the diction ean significa imvrover ntives ere used which have ppropriate signification such as they have vhen rst formed. And just as transference takes piece eording to the gremmuarians for a three-foRi eason; use sometimes for a metrical reason as in the ; sometimes for the sake of embelishment as in | - orical discourse; sometimes for the sake of necessity, her brevity ov utility, ss s in pRilosophy;and in all , modes transference takes place in theology. 20 application of such nouns,whether abstraat or conerete, ee 26 for a three-fold reas ion dammiee dela the many errors Cea sons Oo— a t all the statements of the philosovhers and of.: Sainte aceording to the proper slenifieat tion of: oe a8 follows egntnet the previously mentioned e thoue “not speonuse | trey | are,the lisite of the gontinuation ine ta the first mode of sneaking per se;but no tion, ortains for ge?to the essential ratio of a.
ive. In the third mhdooss it follovs from the same rill ne privetion end 2 surface and a body;fov & ky On ree hp wove limited by 2 terninant, and re i ~ ‘he eA dw £. feotaae of ivf Loy of Pn, CT Aon my te es thet “parte of a line are terminated at a point is alrays dif~ itself";thereis inatvicihte, is neither finite nok innabie eimtn place the Philos sopher in the Kook > whose ae | 16 end of two lines ‘ching each athe exist to- jer yout no to parts of thoce ‘lines exist together, - the lines themselves exist together; therefore, les the lines and their parts there are other ngs which exist together which ean not exist oxcert indiv sible points. In the eigth vlace,in the eighth the sixth books of Phy ste es he states that “those ee are continuous of which the ends are a unit*; : | in one’ line are itj;but it is manifest that neither those halves some parts of them are a wit;therefore, besides there are some things which are a wit. In the place the philosooher in the same plaes affirms s divisible and a voint indivisipleyand something mous. emnpoced Of indivisibles, vhich vauld he mieee such indivisibles could exist hesides tenth place the vhilosovher states th the ste that Peinoe horever an imvartible is in- “Tnnunereble atten or. such character might be adineed, because of mich it seems ‘4tie according to the intention of the philosopher betas cud indivisibles reslly distinet from isible things.
, third principal division replys to the arguuents because a way of solving other points could appear ‘the solution of the previous stateuents;I there- “pees by thos Se argnuents for the sake of brevity, ts reply to these {ot eben: ) s the first I state thet an instant is not. bias abs solute thing really distinet from every isinte things which ean be vroved $y various TOY Se tybeoauss it does not heve some primary subject quate subject ough an aecident in its own subjee Motively. T™ the second place, because then God could not inless he ¢onld necessarily produce 8 when. suipedeed, could not naturally be destroveds gan not be destroyed geither through the esided bua Adaiadicte of b nor through the aheende of Beets: - through the induction of their contrary. th place veceuse, if there seve such 2 tidng, ae a genus, per sey rhicn is manifest eae eee together ¢ all things of the sane EE I Gaeoreige™ La ee it to pass that ell past aii AR exist, which however are infinite.
t te the sixth place Cod ean ereate an instant apart ite own entire subjeet,vhich ic impossible. | a i: re the cake or brevity T vases by the vrecentation | Rose areuments;put I declere that neither change generation is such an indivisible things And. efore in accordance vith the provious statements t all sueh expressions are fig urative and metavhorical, bh instant is indivisiple,ceneration 1a netant, lien change is in an instant,gen eration: te cui ene i eS stantial form is a terminus of generation,to have La changed ic a terminus of motion,and such like; 2 use in all sas aie sente mces in tlaae eme of the proposition one noun is: only the foree of a noun in s dl dla ie hee.
force of 4 nown and a verb,or has the fores of composite of diverse « substantives, which eome tO 8 vroper slg nifioation of speech Ww ot express a eubetitute for 2 verbynor cen the and & proposition be distinet from the other and the cop ula; wherefore, so far as cone¢erns recast xt it is etet ime of such prop Acs gy See Se 8s Pr ts Semaine’ proper signification of speech it vould not be bene Lotum;it is then bene. Thus it vould not he nene Lotun A is somethings yet there might be such an ex- ession,A is something to be aceented,as thovgh a taphorical and figurative exvression thet might be 1ivalent to this expression:that whisk is then bone, is something,or to another expression of sen a Sinracter. Trus I affirm ont such vroresitioneseenecration sudden,and these of ae ena they are a proper exvressions, but figurativeseand it is for his reason,that this noun,yinstant,and this nown, eration, and noun of such a eharecter,are not finite owns having finite signifieations,es if they signify ¢ially certain things for rhieh they have to sub tute,according to the mode in which such NOUNS, ngeol, whiteness, blackness, heat, ao0ld,have finite nifications;but there are certain derivitatives ii verbs or other parts of speech er similar to hyvhich are not formed excent for the sake of; tor oF eubellishment or for the sake of brevith of 7 essione And therefore just as many stetemente ostry and in an ornate manner of speaking are not } be quoted unless they ere disposed of or explained; so many statements are not for tre sake of brevity . S accepted according to the proper sirnifiesation speeches % according to the intention of the authors ements, "ho spoke figuratively for towne sufficiently kno, that such rai. Mey not true secord- “te a srover signification of speech, a Withough some fer yriters have not knovn this, Wherefore,T affirm 4 that propo sition,generation is in en instant,is if one thing is in another; just as through thie; vocition, vater is in a vase,it is denoted that one ing to none of those im “$4 he stated that gration is in an instant, but t} nae nroposition, dation is in an instant,ought to be accepted under t sense, "when something is generated,a vert s not erated before a part,put the vhole is cenerated the seme time",a¢ bicnels rrief prop socition, coneration 1 én instant,suiay be ‘be assumed for the sake of ty in place of that long exoresction, then something nerated,a part is not generated before a part, but whole ig generated at the seme tine." Similerly iF ng a siaymedciti under thet SENSCy | atone 5 ee cee ai - or loses one tn ee ‘8 aft er mn time, ts put itn pee en 2. long expression e ai dinilar. expr osetons And when it is stated sccordto the preceding statements, generation is nothing, ffir that generation is ponte st rates der thet s sens something is generated,ons whole. Lerlinapiecnees ee and not a part of matter is acquired Fefore whe And under the sense oprosed to ‘thie, thie [Toe ion is false,generation is nothing. And,if it is miseds generation, is not a terminus per se,or the invs of a continuous thing,or is something con- ous; therefore,, it is nothing; because every things is in these infrriors,is continuous or vart of timous ahingt tt must be stated that that vro- ion is trne from the virtue of the exvression ooording to every vrover eignification of speech: ‘thing, vhicn is in these inferiors,is ver se a nd continuous or the terminus of a continuous ag; because the other vart ic true, namely, every ‘A unit per se is continuous in these inferiors, a ae co to 2 prover ‘ghenirtcation oF speoah thi eposition fonld be true according to the vroper enification of speoch,zeneration is con’ fatione tbat ther is true ne: gording ta the vroper signification “speechsand the reason this propesition is not true cording to the proper signification of speech: ate neration is eontinuous, or the terminus of afcont inuots ie.
Apt. true according to the meaning of the isa they understand this proposition, vhen ething is generated, one part of the form is not oe ired mediately vefore another, or before something he samo ratio vas required, And th erefore it mus ‘be imagined that generation is something positive aN dt really distinet from every sontinnous fthing;on the contrary according 19 prover signifiaation of speech, neither of those | positions is true, generation is something, zeneration thing,or generation is negation or vrivation; as not any of these vcronos sitions is true aceordin: he proper.: signification of speechgman is something, s nothing, vhether. gi m or privations and by accepting signifieatively sl11 the terms, be- Rnanoed ting to the sroter cienification of speed! en abstract, generatio,ought not to be formed from oe r 2 verb, senerari, than such an abdetract,hominitas, 3 thet accusative cace,hominen;and therefore theengie he Ler mode through vhich you inight reply to such 3 oveated from an abstract term corresponding feat | steely to that sible case, hominem, thet ts fis ( Latin bern ahi ie it iss thing. tT U > ae ae : Pee p: Me ) D Ramrtny mall ol, LA : hn duon questions;genesration ic sither oma i hie \ nothing anil so of other statoments;because thus ‘questions are also not proner sceording to the . sienifiecation of 5 eo if they oueht to be tod, they ought to be accepted saccording to the sper sence of those using ah Y affirm.of such ions,whether reneration is eomething.and of ys coniunetions,and in garner al of sincatbrormatics and rH hs~; ta Soh: abstracts,in place Of whieh Py nee | A page in vlaee of those, for which titute their ovn gon rates, eed ‘for tnone it” place of wnhon thes. ennstitnte on sonereates, unless they eauelly inelwde in Afying, some cinenterormatic. Whatever is conecded gonerets, ovent to he eoneveded eecording to the : eignifieation of speech of en ahctrect tore. erefore just as Aristotle coneedes that prodon,mwan runs,so he wonld soneede this proposition, e ae per se in the first mode;it mect he is with a Subsittute a vans ein oy dice etn nN tm eer ge 8 nevished from ae: many “aveh ~erepositions; ines they are not per se in the first mode,and yet is manifest that they arse true and many of them fall er faithsso that the oposite are heretical. Where- ey neither among the yaitooovhers nor enone the neientsSainte nor mong other writers is it found, they have made such 8 distinction betreen an ab-~ oF and B gonerete,as the modern writers make; put eee ee ee A / é LAD OE “AP beh 2 the ancient writers thefermany synontins with | Cee ee ir ovn aonetotes, and many abstracts ought not to be idered eceording to the crooner signification of ch;but they eould only become formed for anv of three reasons previously mentioned. And therefore Oo not eenture the ancient writers, heanrse they ned such shatracts for the sake of utility and hue well known that he had moderate solicitude nouns,as appears in the first book of Physies.
kid a eh ae me ae this FOASONs writers aocovdine - Jonseanen iy it ovghnt e stated pocoraing to the aa stetements that h are accepted by modern scholarsj;nor are they ignifiecation a aecepted according to the vroper @peech eny wore than if from those adverbe, dum, ee tunes iam, and from other adverbs,end from sueh o:: iunetione, siyety vel, Att tay and from others eh. Practs are (i 5 AN tas,ilamn: »siitas,attites, etitas,quiitas,and because of ‘ Seth propositions may be formed: dimnitas is somesiiteas is something sie 1s Li God,and so of second point Taf.
“propos sitionss #6 hat the” philosopher does ak ankeee that a point fithin the definition of 2 line,es if something i essence of a line,or as.if introducing come- m of the essence of a line and distinct from a > definition oxpreseing ‘ds some privation meal ty distinet Peri a nis ag oumnonty imagine;vhien it is iispossible to imaginoy thet & voint is something, cither a privative ioust aptly noint is splesebladth ba point is not pocitive; PRO WEAANE to the per signifi Leettony thew eens are not contradictorics:to see a man is Be sks Gaal ~~ something, and this by ac all the termes significatively. And for these neither virtue of sveech. And this Preeding: statements was affirmed according - brpotnyas cautvetont in's signification to ane" hetefore no oxpression is appropriate in which ae affirmed. that in bili tx granmnatically it may a eubstitue with respect to a. verb. But if another ated Me me is divisihle:heanses it is equivalent to ‘thisiso much qvantum or of so much extension ething,and a quantum is divisible,and so of other yoositions.
s Yegards the third toint T concede orovortionatealv a ‘ ot 43 jeer dine and of a surface just ae of 4a voint; vherejust.as aocording to one mode of sveaking this oy osition must. be aohead ed,a voint is divisible, so s erovosition is not pppropt ie bropositions® bs? somethings ne v ing, nor as + is formed,ic falee. Yherefore,it must bet: ¢ tern ninate i= valent and, £ hat verminate is £ Beer ent hebetnelt disey ey *.. from a terminate, hether e srivative ng that Lonel nets ta’ there is there aie f nouns sipnitying the same nouns in obliaue eases, hominis and homini, signify sane things,vet in entirely diverse grammatical Se And there is no inconsistency soneerning such sy if one a oabie within a definition expressing something he noun of another now. For thus this nowny ens 5 within the definition expressing something of nown of that noun,umm,and of that noun, vers, and hat novn,bontmsand vet nothing is signified mA one nom that is not signified throurh the ¢ although it is understood throusk one noun in an © | ique ¢casé as well as in a direct case,snd not * yagr another noun wnless in a direct case;rherefore, ve beat. @ be f theouss this noun, vemm,it is wsed in en oblicus as vell as in a direct case;for the reason that Siteens knovable and cognizable by the mderctand, && sLlest. But through this novun,ens,it is not employ- ent in a direct case only,and indeed in the sition it could be comeeded either proverly or atively ‘aooording to a diverse mode of affirming me thing 1s both termens, nd eet eee , ee Ryan the sans nates itself;iust as the same th ing under -te ands f,or the same*that is the same to itself. And n it is stated that a vositive nover essentially des 8 nrivation, it ie clear because that vropn wust be contededss point is rrivation,a sur- Divas tonvand this is according to the proper fication of speech,and according to the fancy of | ) imagine thet privation is something apart fh SReqnot od i ip te which imagines, thet © voint fe from a line by whatever “dmaginablejaccording to which intent that Doctor ae to Teject that opinion in opposition to which offers the aroments touched upon before. But that ton does not so affirm,nor does it eny more affirm @ point is privetion than it is 2 nosi tive;al- nines jefinition expressing something Of, @ nonn f one vrivative noun or epivetive scongent onght -Agsimed,. And therefore secording to the virtue peeanye ither it mist be eonesded that a voint is ‘oxProssion is improper in which this noun,veint, as no such exvression onght.to be aecerted i ide the fourth fointsxnioh wae touched upon " i # A “4 : hr ro fxs Avot. ne Keen cae the Dector,it can ve stated in: i s weve that the philosopher there as well es in Kk Of Physics, as also in other plecee speaking nt <poke secording to the famors opinion in pie orn custom; peeause he adapted a mode of expression of othersyrhen a ace io eas Lae a dy, ther Bocording: to intention: 2 own peeseg ces: toue ching uD Pon © er anton he ip as at bee! ag ecording to in-- ony it does not seein that he exercised much carey ise he then frequently spoke as menip dofana therefore he did treet of such tatters sz seaneae 46 intentions requently expressed the oppocite; just as tim states in ° k of Preaieane nts that "sencra “and species Latency substances." But in the seventh book of mee s,rhere he invuires | socording to intention ther genus and species,: generally universels are tences. He decides necording to intention that universal is a substance;s eo ie it in the propos sition. re is it found that Aristotle thoroughly treated mee env iee that question, vyhether a voint s be things thoreroroye12 their ovn Dvasseaces, which sips interprotedsb »eonuse he speaks either fF tia wercoordang: to that famous opinion,or for in different ways ina different passages.
the bask of) Ppbaicavonts ocak e ie Ae bie om jake s,but through might be =f fe ss oi cr = =) 7 a. = oD Ke we =) as mes fale ct “g ven ion a oF =} “3 as oD ie epes of wood a Sl: Pe a, affirmed thet 2 point,if there is oun) @ thing,ic termine of 8 line then that a stone is the nines of a viese of yood,since the distinetion be~ erence hetveen 2 stone and a plece of wood, Nor it any more be stated that a point is an nocident substanee,oristing in a line then a stone is in a 96 of 700d. And therefore the s mon terminus, this propesition,notring is between perte of a line and they ineke a vwnit £0 thet tro things are required for this stato-~ gontinuous,namely,that nothing when one bodv is nother body is in snother cituetion,s bodies Shape ig Locally another mediu,those * Loc od ee a 1eyAlS 4: _ viies are hat continuouse.. quired Yythat they make e wh se,and for this: gontiguous things are not continnoussend so this proposition, parts of a line are joined int as though at 2 common terminuc,end through mdr provocitions, the philosovher understands In.carts of oubstituted for a ae a ae itelies exactly force of.a novnyin signifying that it is not ally distingwi shea from Sovaiieie 400 e terminus and snother is 9 TPeaioelo- But in so immsyand a line tc temnineted those nowne,terminens * ond temeinate & signify sitterentiy, iets pics eR te n that cranes ition sen be denied or eanaaded novording Ly vis rleaced to express in various ways the fiontions of substantives;yet T affirm this, that must not be imagined that a line is a certain thing is a termini, bet ‘fron this very statanent. that As. ouch: & thing and is not farther lengthened, ¢ sata to be terminated there. Just as when ve fiat whiteness £6 the temninus o whiten: ngyand ntiel form is a terminus of generations 1% must: meginea that there ‘a there one thing, vhich ening and generation, and aftervards or at, the ome, thing An an 1other thing which is whiteness: statanent ) x ae : a Se be underchedd th ough tion: Sad? deck fe the tote of cemevnton:e just as it is s — it st be stated provortionately As regards the at is folloring point point,it ean be ste > philosophor ae necording to the 3 point r affirin that this: substa arious vayse ‘Sometines oat that itn may bes the sense of ie | pene ree ‘hing is redium mn “thenjona oie, Ne ll “Yonos ition must be coneeded, the ends ex str een whicn there af nedimn ution toa this: oi stan fon; and so no tv things, rt in vhatever manner, s the philosopher intend this, ough this ‘proposition those things touch one jotiroon wnt on “nothing te 8 cscenstone ‘under= yee ua are aes oxtet Saul ada ay and: 8 nis eed be true) eond mode, be ecauce ace and eitue tion.
ae bests is stated t hat ‘no parts of tro) lines exist Ag@e opting Ne hie) a ctenents thet come hanes touch 7 a stated tint those things are continuone nee aA 4c iheriifest thet tiet exvlained,becsuse it is false Lil Saat ae a virtue of svaech since it involves that proposition 4 involves #4 ce stionsiaeny inom APS one Wan; for if ie are ythoy. are heny,¢ and consequently they are not ee a Theveforest state. that that te the unders standing philososher, those thing are continuous which oa sey that isyt ney: aro not separate, or maton nothing | ae a ieteis uring Ss regards the Hososher | ed of indiyis cibles,it 4 pinvaieas, Je ae stated thet it would have been use- pes sopioucly thet 8 continuous thing is ee ee there were some : not nto prove. one gonelneion through ae e gould ee ee ere one suffi cient mediums 7: to prove gh however others vovwlda neat those hrough seni others less aa toe @ gan ei adn “continuous desing is not gomposed more apparent to ma theletictens and to | 1 elsewhere; anid therefore there ig Pegordes the tenth voint, Bort es about ie pre peed.ing points; ” : Aarsittoag A ot - oS Pfr eremtireten Cte ad agaordi ou Ba vee eos See The Second Questions he second place it is asked wheather a line and 2 are really distinguished from eAaoh other and 1 body. It is argued that they are;beanuse they tinct svecies of quantity sesording to the Alososher er) the Predi: sament s 8; therefore, they ape Sateeiieai shed from each other and from a body.
egards the scontrary;iust as the relation of 2 peint not ietinct from ® surface,nor a surface from * cons sequent Ly a line and a surface are not: ' ng dished from e neh other or from a body. ee to that question T deslare that a line and «& @ are not things distinct from each other and boa. For that a Aine is not distinot ‘from a sony aistinst from a & line;for if a line vere Rane of which mould be nant of enother. Similarly, Lot divide one -gontinuons thing unless He ian ah end pene nev thingee TAKe= n it docs, not seem contradictory that there erict a: surface without e line,and consequently shomla pe & surface not terminated; and yet it e of finite latitude. But that a surface should anet - from 4 _ nody can be proved through the akspieuriwrenson;tesnuse & different equate subject can not ve aecigned to ityes is. tly clear. This statement can dkenie be proved : the third hoe tbyiovt eronld be surfeges - aetually art only finite potentially;beeauce Sin! eueabies eione: of the body setusallv exist, the others do not exist exeest only votentially. nposition to those affirming thus;either the or the body are joined to a surface which is © nature of things and is eristent,or is joined ntace which is not in the nature of things but can ne first id) cranted; then that surface actuelly - aaestaamapeeigltR aetuelly meeded, then those parts of en Aeliyynot sotuntiysnor 4 in ‘the ecdiien mods, hen they are not continuous, But it way be nod thet deh suptene is not imaced said to exist ially,heoause it is not in the nature of things; Savee tt is not separated from a body; just as. ape anid to exist potentially,not that they may in the, nature or things, but hbeaause they are parate from a whole. The contrary does not suffices hecanse mit eneer an inconsistoney follows, that, infinite thinge ere in the nature of things e quantity. In the second plage because every< which is in the nature of things and ie not part ther, existe siiwply in an aet corresponding to ite hh ourfase is in the nature of things,and is ert of another;therefore, it exists simpiy ly. Tm She third vlace it is sosgbecause,iust as ntermedinte surface is not separate from ea body, ther is the extrane separate fron @ body; there} :. » that middle rotually exists. So therefore,it svrears that if x , oY cae the the first ean not ee eranted, because then > would be part of a body or both would be L parts of anothers *hich gan not he eonseded. is stated that S| axaheneaaan aati it is not mame part ofa bodsrs yatad the sane ratioass another Therefore, if a surface a se a unit,or is of ratio as another sort of a body,vhich is parts of bse» cigs t would be the net vse consequently aan foes 7 vould be Stbe : y,enon of whi on a the argunionts set forth in : ‘Nor ean the oO) nied statement He soneedods? AnOlLVs v mae & unit ies ager tion, DecHUbE then it e would in on; then mines no contradiction appen) that G Od could create water ae without B suredds just as the same Place and sit uation without 4 a body would then be a continuous infinite : Lement is conceded, i) oe that such & “0 efas 2. essuued in vane. Ly then ‘pefore trenceuds ste tiation @ surfed as ons, be without Pei tance or > 79 t soomeuuethy there would be. another subeton ie subjostively quant teen Srom the “it is olear that a line and a ney’ ft ty at oe Bs be Meo her or from a ‘bodys As x een gards the , Bt i ‘petien ¢ nat those sonee 2 Sy eae a. ate ‘£2 faa a nyetes ms en wmnety here he 2 neti t sitee. Wherefore, Pen dasiiée the thats of one of eae ouch moder of signify img 1 be nO more than.
sade ana ramibors FO a diversity. of modes qtticns for the distine etion of sD yr ee oh - pass “over for the pres ead hes quertityy te an absolute thing ronlly dt-tinct trne bec sauce secording Evia e: ster nook of Pos toriores:"A diate in which one or edicament is denied in stist AS thie propoeiti n is immediate, no suh— a quantity, ond sons ean 9 substance is = frou 9 quantity. "As regards to ihe. a substsnee of itself has partsstherefore, it. itself a quentyn; therefore it is nokie Russi 7 a different thing send con-equently it is not Brant thing te Re egarding that eieut ion iin he first iatis tein one pinion by vay of narration; Rens? Avett oc sin the. stata the objeations aveinst that refute theme ing. tho first statements T affirm thet a quentity sheolute things atrterent and really dis stinct ots But AL this nowngtuentitys ed that some quantity, yg not substance a * op among in ive ae sane oe ae ve ratio anong parts are aleo in man of the came Lvas,althourh all the vcarts are not of the sane as. man sot such parte they ate 20 ge « from as not ceuselly mores are many, although they ate scenti a @AUISSSy, tna Rect Set selver, but through th G1Y O7n © a ficient end m natives that naturally anc divine rinelgee through eregted agency, sover, they do end cituation.y And thereist in the same vlazve end ; ecount of this thet by whatever ageney they ereateg agency's oduced, they are so thatyone part.
xist in a distinet situation ¢ another in situation weh no different thing ie pro~ vroduced by «4 arate tai and is outside no a atsen © how ith “ityena de there s another place encompass~ prodnet iteelf, that croduct,no matter hov eould inhere in it,7o0uld be different thine & that the whole s Artivery in that vlace; n the contire place and part ri wact, and tindige tS oor ide hody per se er a iatne ee varte Tee or part Dlace,if the ~laee is sting ciromeseriptively tn 2 unding ite And #6 tha substance itself, through nas pert outside of part tO Atyiae ¢ 1 quanti, and it is of substance that some substence has partes dis of same quality, vhich would be 4 quantum oF pee out every thing added to it;on the contrary if ld be separated from every ot? ler thing and could yart outside of part,and consequently that ‘ ' erefore some cuentity is a srbstance,and some Bey 18 @ quality;just ac some substance has pert Ei 6 of vart,and some quality has part outside of Lag hw pew. +S) te fed = ca ca - be i Sd Rood © on -~ hed ad ‘the second place T vroeve this ‘some substance is quantity,and it ¢an in the mode be proved that some quality is quantity, op way;every absolute hing srior te aneather ab- ‘thingycod gan of His orn absoluts »vover preserve “sad a posterior not by changing that prior this substance ssaryy co thet. ‘the opposite g. statenont involves a contradiction, if God on precerve that sbsolute vrior thingy that gompelled to change it from place to place.
that orior thing may erior be ae etroyed. without eather that is not « sivomeserintiv vely mi ronceded, then t that e is a cuoukua tuererens this is sone cuantity not a different posterior thing; therte+ Ss some. quantity te without quantits ir it re not cirewsseristively ntrary I hake one pert of that substangees and T i, % s hether or not it is in the ely or dire meeriptively in whidh there is another ee it is changed 1: eeniieson scause before 3 in the same DLAC. at ¢ not in the same place ,is in another place end ine. entire vlede. tok cae kde oe ind gonseauently * ole 1s, eirownsert tively in a place and ¢on- is @ quantim vithout every much more a hchciohcaet ha the God @an not ‘preserve - opinion, than + to affirm that Oe quantity ne it is affirned that that. Watetenee arts axeent through cquantityj;and the ity ig destroyed at does not 3 "vA sivomicetiotive ly Sontrary to thece statements, sition does not vicintes ons sistency always follovs s;that God of His own nts vorer zen not preserve a vrior twine withou “change hy dosth ying the sosterior thing. More- e veply embeages © false » s atement, namely, that 3 does not - a¥e partes exccot through 2 different thing; first, because, if ice is prior to the entire quant: S part of. a 45 the subject SoS oa to varte of toncestherefore, substance does Wlarly through a.different thing 2 Regine eh remains without neal Ay “eior that ror: the.sane 2 rotor to a different quentity. tf it is stated does not have | jifferent perts except ais | pare’ of cabbie is or in salve hons” enti oned A! ae . an entire body end a whole in any part.
is in another Bub ~ S of quantity the res namely,sa ; tt is wenifest nat ench quantity djicsubetance es, oxi isted ore division aes minteir iede In the second plsee