nodies existing together,of tne dead restored to 9or Ageidents subsisting vithout a subject,and of wMmeTEhle other things whhahs however sdt ie well 3 nm heave been divinely wrought? For we ought not to that such things ¢en not be accomplished by God, use ve knoy experimentally that they can not be » according to neturegs laws, Therefore,sines there widently he: ssubrediekiam which ean be proven by evident vrovoesitions,invelved in the statement any substance conmletes EQUATE “cocticts in tro ' 6S,end sonsequently the same substance complete tself coexists in any body end anv vart of 1t;T I on the contrary, certain that it can be proved He | \ ugh the rules of logice,wvhich are known to be devoted 1 Knowledge and science, If it ic eonceded that | wR eeu ¥ bs; y: ‘es ee bs t be clearly proved from natural causes that the : tecedent is true. Por a christian ought not to say oved through demonstrative reasoning. fo also ve d that an angel is definitively s Wate tk any piece in every part;woreover, for the sane reagon ho one ght to cay that through thie same divine pover te lodics of the same identical epecies as well as thoce of verse species ean not coexist ingbhber in the seme ace. Por in this manner the Saviour,Jesus Christ, ered into the midst of Hie decciples when the doors ere closed,and came forth into the vorld from the losed wou of the virgin,and sseended into heaven h undivided body. If, therefore,no contradiction pears in the statement that tro bodies exist together n the same plage,no eontradiction apperrs in the tement that two parts of the same body exist toom this conelusion it is evident that for a reason ar to thet by which two parts of the body of ; pit wae gan through the divine nover 206xist together the same place,all the ‘parts of the body of Ghrist 0 i eooxts s¢ together in the same place. Prone that gnent follows the prineipal rrotion, For it is not impossible for Godsvho is to do more than ve oan think ot 4 bide 9 pass that all the carts of the body soexist in sane body, an 4a it is. not inmossible for Him to ete 6 the same entire substance in a vhole and the @ in any part,just as appears slear coneerning an 1 or the rational sowul,it manifestly follovs that $ not imoossible for God to bring it to pass thet entire substance of the body of Shrist coexist conan the body of christ ies cp: sae as a finger is not sigs a finzerisone of ijemente are retained, be placed vith the eye,so that both the hand ist in the plece 42 man would not a ee ae then the organs ¢en remain distinet and ereated have distinct a a tions,no matter how much they atgnt pe sandy therefore,this pringiple must not fate locally’ s is,vyhether indeed substantial or aceidentaly not concern the present diseussione Tn like wenner oy though the organs wight not be separate locally, mould not for this reacon follos that the hand Ld be in the foot,or the contrary;but only that ose organs would t#ist together in the same plage, ch is not ineonsistent with the distinetion of the Nsyac Has been shown;because with even the local arability of one vart from another it is establishhat one part is in another ac 16. dheieenovnosaele SON eran the manner in which the eye is in the head,as the whole of it;just as when the local inseparability the rational soul frow man it is established that. rational soul is a part of man;for the rational :; ' @ same place in which man is,end i it is part of mane In'the same wanner it is posle for the eye to bs a part of the head,and yet 7 the same place with the head. And thus the poslity of the existenze of the body of Christ with mhole host and with each part #8 it is clear.
6r,I assert nothing with respeet to the previous ements except that whieh is consistent vith tho ne of the Saints;put if any BPRRCHORY snould in agreement with theirs, lot it be (considered jas . is Paw t+he ¢eeninine mat uae nad wminde.
* push ie al a chapter VII.
The body of Christ is not seen by us in the cacrement of the al- tar with the bodily eve.
erefors, when the enbstance of the bread ceases to trthie body of the Lord,which begins to exist under species or bread by the divine power,is not per~ ed with the bodily eye but by faith and the uwundertae. which eonelucion ig@eGen from passages of Holy Fathers as well as fron ja; h number Augustine stated as quoted fm.
"yt wegne says,"in the svecioe of bread and wine h we seo,hehold invisihile things,that isyve do r to flesh and blood.’
Kkewise the same Augustine stetes in De Conseerationc, Snotton TXI.9 "Oui mandneant":"Thet which is seen",he Says, the broad ond the cup which also the eyes declare; that whieh faith for its instruction demande, pread is the body of christ, end the ewe is the a, ct bhai nmeinss we @ @alled the sacraments, be- @ in these one objest is seen end another is underkewise Gregory states in De consecratione, Distine-~ mh IIe, "Oula"yes follovs:"*{t is a great and dread ",he says,"that one object is seen and another derstood" Likewise 'ilary is also quoted in De ‘ratione, Distinetion TIe, *UD1": "The quantity’,!
“is not to be considered in this mystery,but the BAC. * aR oe ye Salad tly i oe ee a cee fae bn stood,although the species of bread is peakly.
Moreover for thie conclusion gram ng;for that which tenperceived vith the bodily in eny plece, can certainly be known to exist in ame place without expry yeassage. But no one vould ‘without the full authority of the Saviour end of ehurch that the body of Christ is really contained : the species of bread; therefore, it is not seen with the bodily eye. Likewise bodliy vision is i to all those squally disposed;pbut no unbeliever ives ith the bodily eye that the body of snrist 7 here. It is likerice manifest that no one perceives 7 any sensible quality hy eny cense whetcoever, the quality of the host. Just as is evicgent. ualities tangible and percertible by ghhe senses oF and from sensible ovelities,the near of christ iy therefore,seen in the sacrament of the altar he *hodily CYS.
— Chepter vrrt.
ma. The scoidente remeining after consecration are not evbiestively ain the body of christ. @ little has heen vreviously weitten Bbot range of the body of Christ under the sreocies of $1t still remains to set forth sone viers ng the aecidents rerneaining after the not ex- clear statement, that contrary cualitics , together in the body of Inrist.’ Bar exist subieatively in the hod of Chrict, the affect the came sapuad times some qualities of diverse hosts ove ont 7. statements it fobhons- | Dine the former or the latter qualities effect ody Of christ. Likerise the body of Shrist is not ae aney to sensible qualities, hich might,hovever, ppen if the accidents of the bread formed the body where he says: "There is no eubstanee except the gment." Nor do those secidents affect the sur- BEY SPORE? no naceident according to “whole or according to any vart of itself epvarste in place and eituation from its ovn primary a ot. But to the understanding it appears that some t of an accident of the host is separated in place situation from the surrounding air and from every of it;therefore, that accident is not subjectively | | - he air,amt for the seme reason is any part of ther. @ a place other than the (of its o7n subiect, pnt it is evident that the t and the sir oemmy dictinet PAR OOES SRE AT See y Kine | oe reover, those accidents do not ey subjectively Ihe substance of the bread, because that svbstance 4 * not exist,as was shorn vreviously. Therefore, it that the accidents remain vithout the subject; is confirmed by the Magieter in 300k or XIT.,where he says at the beginning: > js Pag * AS oot es hednoulry is raised concerning the aecidents and gelatin without a pect rather than that they exist in a suwhiect."
“tiem a The “uentitgerhion exiated befarn dn the cubstebee of the bread, yewe ‘ine yee St cs eover, it ean he shown by HAnY sTauaents that accidents sre e quentumyand that a quantity y roneine after SORSOCE SELON. Fivret as follovstac ing to Innocent (2I,0n De Gelevratione Miseeron, ® arthne®t*A suptile distinetion aust be cade wnong “thinges Thich ere distinet in the secramentinenely, viethLe formetha verity of bese body's and the epirituel tue, The form ig that of bread and winie, the verity at of fiesh and bleod,the virtue is that of unity charity. The first is the seerement and not the nti the segond is the sacrenent end the #Lesent; ira 1s the element end not the cacreanent.* From ); ehet distinct from the heantity of the of shriet; just ne it is not visibie throneh cone a ty visible in the pedy of Shrictjont 14 16 mani that thet visible form is 2 ovsntunyeings it te Gantct really reneine. Tn the sesond a8 follovertnat auentity of. thei deer galaeetty =o dose not have the shepe of the body of chrict, ody of Christ exists thers. Tn the fourth place ee which ie broken,and one part of m another,is a quantumpbut that a f i en and ene part of it is separate oa the body of chriet 1s not thie broken sia Te tog therefore, another quantity berlides or the ‘body of Christ exists there. More- Ss 3 Ss 3 took the bread, blessed it. and ‘peaneé it,* Mark sed At*,he says, "and i ty glear nccording to tke sory Fathorestut it vould take too long to > body of Christ is not eminent Doetor, the bless- oa states as ited in. consesratione, Dis- © SaYS, "is eaten; @atensle lives; becance though clainyve arose; nm ve eat,do va make vortions of Him." The sane rte” Srom theee passages it is clear that net From the quantity of the body or Shapter Xe ateensible qualities remain.
eover, it is not only estebliched that cuantity Anite qualities evbsist in the seme plese after onsecration. Yor nothing ic vieitile vithont + ae iple auelitv, >but the wie “ibile form romeains there ore,2 sensible quality also remains there. Taste © in the same place perteived,and yhiteness is and Blso the sense of touch apprehende the tangible ‘ des;rut no sense rerseives any quality of the of Christ; therefore, the sensible qualities, rhich Rl bd ee Fed hofore in the etibstance of the bread and nor without a subject,remaingas the Magister states ok TV.,Dictinetion XI.:"The svecies of bread and (exists there,as taste. Por which reason one obieat an,another is understood. "All the vreviors ctatenie he contivmed hy many other sapiid ina lah ta ons De dabeine the Pueharict for the cake of shy examining end erpleining them thet T way ™yto those not mnderstending, the "avae" and qualia" and the “anemoie"sand thet T have spoken BUPROSE + task heenuce of the nisrerte~ en .
y ailities es ities.
the pr tation of or 5 Sig ‘tae Taveescs substance Lie eonmposed of cubstantial parts > _Feally sareegraeele Aatomentsy whieh sre to onto way te agwuaed onlin piasties ‘p parts separate in 2 OM a...a te not only conmosed of matter and form,hich mtial parte and of diverse ahe aeters; but it snared of integral; narte,eny one of which | yond these parts are not in the same, situetion;: Tey th ey are separite in cituationjsnd wok vend y somos oa of parts end is not commored of BE ipatern wens ie eommased of subetantial sovarate in situation. Again,vhen a plese of “dividea into to equal parts,no ¢ NS twine), ing to itself “_— whole is generated, but there om tro substanoes really distinet;for in any other mA pieos of wood is divided into halves,tnhe te vowld remain with the subject in one half; ‘ore, according to this argument,no substance new substances making one Bf @f yood,end did not st together in the same place; therefore, they existed: 7 a efove as tore partes of one whole stick, separete in ituation. Again, one half of the etiek gan he destroy- while the other is not destroyed} put such a dese ruction is a destruction of subetan no} therefore, t SOS, thstance,thich existed nefors,ic now destroyed. And at is manifest that some substance,vhich existed beforeynoy remains; therefore, there existed before tro ubstantial parte of the seme etick of wood, composing ne atiek. Ags sin, the whiteness, rhich éntete in 8 pisse woOd,is a whole in some whole ani vart in partisither ae | a here is & whole in some whole substance and nart in part, there is a whole in come whole necident wand part part. If the firstoah | bile, granted, the sroposition mainteined,that there is some eubstance comporced Hstantial parts sevarate in situation,; ust as parts Thitoness are separate in place and situs itions If he second statement is grantedsit is necessary to: some primary subject to that secident,so that may be a whole in a'whole subject and part in t. “And if, indeed, sunstance is such a subieet,the position ie maintained; put if seeiee total subject of that accidentsthen T inquire out the subject of that secident just as about the nner and it becoues hovessary to avply the process efinitely,or that having extension i \; a. &- in pepe 80 en there eould b “Bou r juet as a reasonable dane ly end a whole tn any | whole under. rome pout this similia aritys? ned mee the eoul d — ended - oo , ong! HOveVver » nguished from one anoth ee one part royed, the other er not destr ‘oyed jand not only rt | hile they rewein, they | gen be “cbteatedesctalatege distinet wholecs e of rood or @ stone is divided, - ts a emi vn moles and not partss yet th hey are not nucge ao veior aloite thing ‘gan by “divine > wer exist without a at preceeding fundamental prinoipas this state- : be joinedynenely, that the infinite and in- make every thing ab-~ to, prior by nature and preserve it ae naturally voste- Exithout an avsolute thing,really distinct ac- ss A whole. e differentyit isay depe en ads upen or 9s ite own essential causejhnd ve manifestly held ISOC gi Givine pover produces ot without # netieel cau gut that God ean nraduce aa and yp prior without a subsequent. Againya subse= 30%.be the cause of # prior. Therefore, not exist without a euhsequent, atemont wust not be cons sidered,unles Sy because sequent thing is the naturel effect, naturally halite it is clear that the diaR end preserved the esuse without an whosexcer GQd,>Drevented the fire of tie “ot he oh i yet the Pang Jountless other nernnce from consuicing the servants of God eer é ene, ate rout “produotng z naturally prior 1 is pro- L preserved Athos a subsoquerite. Acainyan nore upon ite orn subject | * sooveryrrtor by neture up iis eR neaident | upodn. ‘ties oe sibjedt, will — ore snd to bite oreserved stipe ow Tra esrefore, it over God ean imnke prior by nature vith great is the divine vover. ng ths orn creatures te cola do whatever Aecoraing to this argent, if He ereatec a netureal object, ae de not necessitated = Bates of all things, according re will, can make, preserve and maintain a gequent, there ought to be no doubt ‘iB eee the sane power can produce and preserve any “whatever: without ever “y absolute inhering in (it. Por if the virtue “without a ¢ subject,it br ‘power to preserve and wain- erdject without every nceident. ror a more perfect and more actual, aperoseni ng e substance than an accident, aa Less voon en aeeident than an Istance,since secording to reason ss istic of a substance for it to exist 1uDo0n sone thing else; eee than the - Yo heltevory ino believes and holds that the cone al the altar with Dew sould wy the sane ics subsist without an state- Wiget ne 19 aoaident is a eane ga ae a part of the substance it adheres; therefore, no eontradiction is iin the statement that s substance 2an subge without an aecident. Again, everything, which let GOd,if anything else has existencesmust really reated by Cod; sthereforeyno accident could exist oreate substarnde,unless God of Nis own free will given existonees to it. But the divine power is a ject to no creature;therefore, thers is no contre- 5 min the statement that,if aise please God, oo 3: ecident can not sttsin existence in a ereated tance. ssailandeatal the existence of an acoldent necessarily 7s uron the existences of & substance, this ¢an not en excest for env one of theee reasons:¢ither be- se an accident is vart of a cubstance,and dg &@ whole can viet without narts;or because a substance is the ot of G1 aeeident ani an effect presiropeser its: cause; or hbeeause a substance is the natural ane “aecident,and a supposed tause is assumed and the. met follows in order. Sut that an agcident is not or @ substance is’ ina mifest ftom the Holy Pathers ell as from the philosovhors;since it is known to that a stibetanee is « composed of substances, not, eidents; therefore, no ac eident gould be a part HY substance. Nor does it suffice to sey, that a ae mt oe Geen othe previous statements,1t is conclusion se eleer reasoning, that in every sense he word it 1s not impossible vith Ge, omnir poten mor will it deserve to he denied thine He could orve substance without an accident inhering in just eae it is not impossible fo Nim to preserve a. prior without = subsequontsvhicn ean onfirined from this argmment by another reason. God over ell the individuals: of no leee efficacy then has ¢reated virtde one individu of the same species of destenntea efficacy w“rhetenae trithont viten’ of any sveciecs. Therefore, the ‘of Cod gen make thie cwhetenee withont ony a2 of that species of a desiensted accident. istiowe thet for thie reason the omntpotonee of n make thie erhstence vithont every individunl } oh Aocording to the ¢ reason, if an immerfeect, created virtue nOgses oe officney that 1% sovld preserve any scubctance every individual of ony enecies of areldent,ineffieacy that it w7412 not the imaezeur strength enough to preserve water without le quality? Prom this argucent,it seens hatysince inferior causes,impotent except of divine power,2an produce and : ‘ * ‘ ie @ substance without thie and thet aecident, not be impossible to me intsin o substance with accident. And if it should plea: on any sibstanze @ wonderful an and, eonsearen tay i, wad. eeuus enough to “substance + without. an accident; but it is ale neoupatinie vst, the ounipotence of God in cigs m epeneN) and inoteaty bebiever dares to aye st God aesires ee it frow | plage ak: For if natural causes ie oe ‘end introduce many absolute secidents, into the oe Stn on satan tat »* way erect Paty ident inhering in a subetance ean be dientroyea nout the transference of the mibstence or any part + from place to nlacajor that substance vill he ed loecallyy7hich ean not be grented. According to % argunent thet substance is separated from ite own eture;not only because it could not transfer ite salt any iteteionve of vlace,not dovrnvard sines it doses Peoveens the princihle of penetrating the earth, t as when it had seeidents;and it ean not move itf upward just.as it sould not beforgandyfpgptipe.- aR Ne see 8 /Yeason neither forward nor backrardgnor is it Lernaliv¥ py any natural agent,es 48 BYeArpy in- Lion;put also besause,cither the whole substance change ites entire place,whieh can not be granted, the varts of the substance, whion were before seed,came togetheor,As it ver stetepene points which can - granted,since no such princinle of moving ex- ts there;and,if there vera,thpre could not be « ger Treason vhy they should wanttetennerpithteeres, _ ta the rast,nor gould there be any reason why dle part cthavld he moved ‘horantocomuatpatetis e more than to another point near the end. Again, " preserving the entire substance of that voodsHe a hoth destroy @ll the absolute seeidents of one and preserve the ‘absolute accidents of the other svhich ig not immoseibie witn God, just as tt ie impossible for Him to deatroy a half of the white~ of one white body and preserve the other half of and at the sane tine vnile oe this arate the whole enbe ‘tance of the weed froin ites on eave vould that, nelf of thet substance £07 that part of the subetanee,all of whose agcidents been destroyed,enter into enother vart or totelly ate itself from that vart by ite on virtue? Tt b possible to contede any result such ae ean be lished hy erented vorer. Therefore, that part of — stance removed fromeits orn natuveg#will remain; 2h God @¢an by tis Owe wantvotéenDe remove sll ute accidents inhering in it hy destroying or nevarating them; therefore, God “An preserve a ange Loeally unmoved and destroy every absolute nt inhering in it, Againyevery material aphatance ture lly in a place either ctiram-orivrtively or n tively,e snecielly if tha nlsae eyrrounic the ange iteelfitherefore, it ic exietent under netiural nts in © vlaceyand is crescent in » plaeejend just is naturally prior to the aseidents themselver, so * naturally. present én the slaee itself hefore its aeoidents ere oreeont in that ple? Be Therefore, ko padiction ie involved in the statement that God ves & substance present in a viace vithout local lation of any wart at all of the evbstanee, tithe ) presence of aecidente ad that vlace. Tt is, fore, estebliched that He,vho svake end all things @,ean by the same virtue vreserve a sibstance separate the « Ghapter xv.
A material substance through. ite orn intrinsic setts de ares sent in the place in which it / is edt cin cari hed,; + tn gonnection with thet which } nas been demonstret— pefore gonecerning the distinetion of substantial separate in position and composing an extended cubstanee;it must nor be shorn that an exe ta yrnion are substances,is. oe sent La tne which it is elrounseriped, co that it is through ir a ar as B whole in the place and through a part in rt cof the place;for indeed every things which is ent in a place through itself or throush sone . elae present vith it,is present in that vlace. efore,sinse a materiel substance is present in “plage which circunseribes it,ythere is need that material substance be otesent in that vlace by 5) f or through something vith which it is presents ~ 1 is also present in that place. For I not only e it is vresent in a plses;because just as the sun gg is. pres ent in a place as though an object not te from the place. If it is conceded that waothiine eles hi ho whieh the vibtaal opie th "ese ve — ~ h at & a, through hie aie werore, if my are Drece o2 ba ubstan hy at ae Fax bo ms ig ta whieh th that a substen bee cukt ’ in its o7n ple subeaty heh ST. s vy nen ay Yaa te ‘is not itself nt inhering in with stateos ca tre thing any WS tate en nt ally,t titroug?
itself igs it will be pree through itself fea "ith thins cident; ce through ite om cubeteane?
ace Na nc Shoal — which at fo or nt ey!
See so Betve “bubetahe’ aged al gutb= ed or he a cuantim; therefore, either the substance in the manner already stated present with thet aceident s@cond vrovosition can not be conceded; because con- ring that medium with which the substance is pre- 9f raise the auestion just as before soneerning stance itself through fF is present with that accident in a quantita, so tha whole, losally yie present in the o16 and part in parte Ginee this is conceded,I proi forther as follovs:every substenge, which through lf or through perts intrinsie in itgis present some quanti having part outside of part,and its orn.
is present in a part of that whole,hae vert se- rate from part through itself formally and through s intrinsic in it,and every suen cart is through nif cireunseribed in a place surrounding it;for hing more is requited for this argument,that someng is civewnseribed in a place, bhanctik ugh itself formally vart sevarate from part,al- 1 part;therefore,s substance is circumscribed in ‘lace by iteelf end by parte intrinsic in it. From argument it follove that a substance throug theougn parts intrinsic in itself is present in lace. That the accidents are present in a place ris in opposition to those bbe Lemont es becauee, her: many nes are not separate locally,they are present in same place. Therefore, since a aubstanee ie not patated from its orn accldents,notvithstanding that © substance is present in a plageythe acgidents then @lves have been able to be present in the same place.
biskiedects yeove * that the rade woneining dn ne seorement oF Baad tat one sins be adduced through kay 7 appear to: any one, that ‘the quantity in the saeranent of the altar ic not an abs venity: dictinet t frou the quelities reueining stance of the body of sheistjand that sone eceded vefore eonsecration whieh was not thing really dietinet from the substance bread which does not romain after the conseera- “reason that the substance of the bread Aste iTomeversT revast the protestation bho: aida osaindl of this little ee that which ons ability peeause or the elds pasanan to belie eve with the saauhe la ‘ae ae un at per ie icine tal ov accident elsheving va act soparete frou part outside of pa arts is a _quantiniiy beenuse every the wand is really extended; but no +7 idng quent un; therefor ge — havin; ie ee a.
& part nae ee ss daanaoada gus to be unde Tstood by all, oe tnis argtuncnt it further follows something quantum is eit ity as though in its o et ae ae rid. Bub a) we it is a viene s nei ow quantity; for ae 2 | yy ait ect of a quantity y< modes” thet soothing is a quantim;it is oe thing + not renily distinet from 2 duentity. is statement: it an be concluded that everyuserintively in a placesis quan- wh is oinowes covintively in a plage and part in & parts for this reason an angel serintively in a place;therefore, that vhich eriptively in 9 placeyis a whole in a whole a art;but everything of the kind has part just as parts of a place are separ: parate from partyis herefore,every thing per se a unit existing eirewnseriptively is 9 quantun;and for the on it appears that every quantun paving part om part is circwnssoriptively in 2 is some place encompassing it;for ever nd is in a place in sven a manner that a whole place and pert in partyand cons iptively in the place.
“dhepter XVIT.
, In which eertein ¢ gaheineions es the proposition ere proved.
iy q oe “ same ge te = he aabeaeibine) an of wh {ak “ea and aon Os Nel nely st t. at an absolute &b ing res Aly dis tinet Pron Ze) eat ANLGG, 7 iat sole quantity is mot an absolute thi he really..
ea inet from a a quality. cee tea tT wee nae appear to.
& passage of the most Holy Tathor, the or, John of Damascus, 7ho states i aret ntity, #+e-the Gennes, aa fenus, sith eteang “1 af hud 3 a ct mot esyhnich gan not be tre if every quanys vy is a ‘Peally distinct from substance 3. thence states % venerable Tather, John of Dainecons! "Therefore, 16 SAYS, "hor nossibte ay ae SOT the same thing to luced decording to wie pursore to one principle ecording to another mirrtecs to anothe mberpand cert ain inathematicel things, which have heen toned ‘hefore, are resueed to a quanti; as,moreover, , Bhitude and truly stated im- Yy under that which is according to the apposite; on and small are named hatraes their op- "Tiscon vith % foe ‘aed ad to quentity, ater a the ese are the tates that the same thing is waierbice i under sane thing,sas bodys We Longs ty iy 4 genusyquantityy ss oben natin the sare things?
Fant for whieh reason it gan be ménevred, aleo to.the zenuc, qnentitvjrhich sold net he & y akevy aventity were a thine really distinct th: bat * Not ca PRET EC ce Sree a certain natur al object sommoced of antter .
ye “erme whitenes: suhicats VeLOngS to the ality sand, pecenco, the seme whiteness “thing paving part outsid ae es huatdon, belongs to the not or the same thing.
4 heb agcoraing ‘ o AY is to ile be the same to sayyquantun ic substence: i quantity is substence or quality. And _ is comuonly assorted taat Avictotle stete Pocteriores;tnet “that negative ie i Fenotely wention there cubstence or “All the qualities 4 in Shenwnes® vament of the alter a ate not one sidniid' foot of a single quantity.
the fomwerya ¢ goneral gonelisionyas 8 TELS, areanent or the altar are not one subject or Le quantity on ageount: of whigh those qualities salied « quanta. Just as a wan is called white beis the subjec ot of whiteness,or a Cire is e¢alled se it is the subject of heat; for ho agcident ?* was per se ean wsint orimarily as “ty one of mes and one nart of the santadnt 0 assert that sometimes it FRE oS pisos of 7000 is plased in water so that ag is in oe air ana ded part ds in the Ss i= has. been eecouphished, they say that sone oristang an a | whole is one in number and ,? * seycince one part sO. some neetden tomtom is a unit mt tn acoontads an eacident one in nuKcbor neo ES one part is wit in one of ae in fe rans instanee advanced rs in one RR ee hui anotier in another. Therefore, it is plain that an instance t he Found contrary to the provoasition asserting “agetdent one in number ean exist in soothing At through agerecation avg dl nd yet. that one part But at is inani~ anent ‘ nat a vnit unless rogntions and it is clear that one part of that ity is not eubjectively in one of those qualities nother in anothet's buen, 4 follows that all qualities are not the subiec i. of a quantity one niher. Ageingno acoident one in niusber 3 two aly trough: the ona eda natural 8 primary subiee apcident white- » subjeot of white- 2 consider eat 5 prduary subieot,whieh is ect eee accident and no part of it is the of thstyaceddent ana if the prisary On ‘ ei suiamenantin % ae remain, eke it follove 2 maibor is at fir et subjectively ‘prior qualitic a0 xt ion,ecitne whole pa et an any mieny, subjeets, hic : t cuont a be is counted according to the enumeration distinct unless Aistinet,if any one of them is tree x0 that 2 | distinot quality is the eubiect of = es is altogether pred eee and “guatattecsvhion is tricomp atible,besause it a om foltoy that 5. substance ¢ a quahtum with of whten it would be the Srmeatnte subfeet and - a quanti with other quantities of which the mediate subjects because bd ipa ne tone noatnting qualities ef whieh it is _the sub to tne snoonemaity | nat tro dimensions exist at Lane a eubs stance ist me mien le { tO ee Bits teaik in this fashion,iio not speak eonsistentiv.e in,although seeording to some it is not ineonsis~ % to maintain that distinet anante exist together, on are of 2 different ahearacter,or of the same fer-the-less thet diverse mae Tacter,yet meking a unitipe ntities of the same species most esrecially those meking a quantity one in number exist togethers ears impossible naturally or through Created Povrer. if any quality could be the subject of 6 distinct tity,those acuantities could not make a quantity in nwaber,ynor could they be distinguished im sies;thorefore,they could not exist at the same in the same plieeejand so it is manifest that not quality is the subject of a distinct quantity.
. } chapter Xe The quantity remaining is not; subjeetively in one quality ane, not in another. / oreover, that only one BOTS ere oe is subjeetive- n one quality and not in another,does not remain, that the remaining qualities sre not subjects of t quantity,is shovn fvou this statemsent,tnat,if one quality could be the subjeet of that quantity, in qualities sould not he quantities nor etively in a quantity,nor could. a quantity be gecetively in them. Sut it wee stated before that thats nor subjectively in a quantity,nor the subject of a quenta from that quelity vhiah vas the subject that quantity;vhich is known to be false.
ee it is wenifest that all the qualities rome the srorament of the altar are broken and divided, rhen the host is divided, all eliniler qualities Ain with each vert of the host, ior oen “Za ve said one quality is the immediate subject of a cuantity, @ other quality is the mediate subject of 4 ity. And, therefore, any onc is a quantum, because antity mediately ov immediately is subjectively “qualities; thie statement,I say,can not hold; ise,if ane quality gould be the immediate subject quantity ana another the mediate,sthis statement not be true,unless heecauce the suelity,vhioh is e immediate cunieet of the aneantitv,was subjectively that quality whieh ie the mediate atthi eat of the bAity; but this statement if olearly found to be sa,for one ¢orvoresl cuelity is not the subject of other corporeal quality;for aoler is not the eubiect eokor, for then & eolor mold really and truly be ite aie’ bidokewhioh is abcurd. From this argument, tefore,it follows among other statements, that no neroete of any quslity is cvredicated of an abstract another; for it is slear that one duality is not the ject of another auality. This goencluseion is also tablished by another argiacnt;for the destruction tie accident follove aither mediately or limmedistely n the destruction of the enbiest. Tf, therefore, that Lity gould be the subject of another auelity,it ld be necessary thet »vhen the qnality is destroyed which immediately in the evbstanse ac in Ber other qualities vould be destroyed. And so if a. gible quality is the imvediate subjeet of another ceptible by another sonse aud that of another, and gntinuing in order,it voula necessarily obtain lities are removed. Therefore.from all the state~ ts ~reviously mentioned,it ean evidently be 4on- Shepter xxT.
In which 1t ie troved by the testimony of the catholi? Doo tors that aualities are not svb- jJestively in a cuantity different Prom a substance.
the previous statements it remains to denon- ite that the qualities rewaining in the sserament of: altar after consecration are not subjectively in. mtity just as in a subjcct subtaining them. And: sonelusion ie to be confirmed, by the testimony Megteter contentiartiny meil on the De Summa Trinitate et fide Catholica, anaimze", also avoroved. "If a question is raised",he says, cerning the accidents which remainythat 1 is, concerning nem: what subject they are pit seems to me that ot tenet pe admitted that they st without a subject rather than that they exist in a From this passage it is clear that it is ecordange with the intention of that Doctor, that ae] alities, taste, heaviness,and suonde he sacrament of the Altar,sare not in — gub tively snd @eonsequently do not exist in a quality as subject sheeause they would not then be vithout feet but in a subject. Nor is it sufficient to that ‘he > does not intend that thoce qualities exist azist without 4 me Pui adde:"Seeause there is no ls ius thers except ce no cidents." This responges say,d0es not suffice use it never fallovs, that any accident exists vitn- a subject as long as it subsists in ite own vrimary medtete subjcet. Sut if the qualities remaining er conseerstior could exist in a quantity as in a ects the quantity would be the imnediate subject ently and consequently as long es they would ‘Quantity, hey vould not beist without 6 subject.
4 psome aceident can never be said to be eubsisting s@,as long as it subsists in its own mediate eub- But aecotding to the same Doetor the qualities fing in the sacrament of the SLLARORS so;for when he speaks of the que slities of which poke before,that they exist without a subjeet,he seys: accidents remain subsisting per se _ feithyby which rm and matter is concealed. "Therefore,it is ap- ‘that it is in saceordance vith the intention of skies: every subject. From this argument it that they do not exist in a quantity as in a exist there without e subjeot"; from this statement ity the eecidents exist rithout subject than thet they are brokeneAgsingthere is no