s in a subject than for another quality:but the quality taining in the sacrament of the altat: deauobotuexist the quantity as in a subjeet,for it is elear that nderosity is a quality;for ageording to it something ae seid to be of such 4 charatterj;and yet the ponderosity taining there doss not exist in a quantity as in a ject. Secause if sondsrosity eould exist in soue=- thing as in a subjset,tnst subdiject so..ld: ¥ealwy and ly be ponderous as every subjeet,in whieh there is tar after consecration is ponderous by means of that nderosity which remains in the same sacrament. A tain gloss.on De voneséecratione, Distinetion TI..on % statemont. In that gloss he addresses those rho hhe..ctateuent that he affirus that aecidents 111 to the earth as follows:"3ut it is objected, since accidents alone rewain there",slso "the aceidents said to fall,sltiough they do not have hesviness.
Y ie eateis warm;but nothing remaining in the sacrament of the & oo sf 4 - ay: es Y Gonsecration,yet it does not exist in something h gan be ¢alled rondsrous from thatns sume Yeason there is nothing whito there, but whiteness @giste there;and there is nothing vhite re as ponderosity is thore,and hhthe there is no subject there sustaining taste,deriv- ite name from taste. From this argument it plain- follors that atantity is not a subject informed by e6 qualities nor deriving ite name from them For it vere under those qualities,it would truly be evous,vATm or cold,white,sweet or bitter, 7hich elainly contrary to the praviouslv mentioned gloss.
her point ean aleo be dravn from the vreeeding ei eos ’ Syneamely,that in the sacrament of the sltat | riness does not exist;fronm this statement follovs that a quantity having hneavinece does not st there,sincse every permanent and continuous ity is a line or a surface or a body. Therefore, quantity having heeviness was there,then it vould ecessary that there shovld he there either ea Line ng heaviness,or a surface having heaviness, or per a gs tf it ean not be said that dy having heaviness. 3ut, ne or 4a surface has heaviness and not a bodv, becatice previously eited gloss states that a body alone hes sss;from this statement it follows that,if some having heaviness exists adsanicans this prameent ...of thet nonderosity, and for that reason rould be necessary to say tha quantity is the gots ibject of other qualities;rut that all qualities — Hist there subsisting vet, vy divine virtue. Again, “oly Mother Ia: Vidiblaaliaias mitins the sacrament § the body of Christ reads as follons: "the socident se out a subject in the samae thing that faith may 1 ho gea,while the invicible soncesled bv a different dee ie visibly ressivei,and the sensesywik i Peto them,ara rendered free fron eptiong Prom these vreceding rasearzes and many ere it is elearly astaplished that not only one dent exists without a auahieot in the sacrament of eitar, put thet aceidents exist vithout © subject, nsinely, the qualities from which the senses jndre;vhioh a be true if ail ane qualities vere in « arantity ge ina TE since that is the opinion ny Doctors who are ta be rovered, namely, the uagiste®: ntiarumyHostiensic, Ganfridi,and of many other ¢ eg a f rs on the deerees and deoretals;it seems consistent the Catholic faith to say that all the aunlities ning in the saeranent of the altar after conseeration t exist in something, neither in a quentity nor ar h f those wontioned is plains for Hostiensts.
ae oe delovratione Micsarunn # Orn uarthee"s gloss on De coneeorationa, DistinetiontI., "Tn torunm, and the Wagister Sententiarwa In Book tinetion TI. 2sita three opinions eoncerning conve wsiongof the bread into the body of christ: "ones Be eky)*eererts that that substance, whi gh vas 4 at firstsis afterwards the flesh and the blood et. The second ocinion holds that. the substance of the a d of the wine geaser to exist and the saecidents ains nanoly, tastes color, honviness, and likeness; nder those accidents the body of Christ begins to here. The third opinion holds that the evbctanece end of the it remiins there snd that the body at Mirae seine place ond under * The second opinion is approved by all the tes mentioned; from all of thoi | t+ appears that ent and authorized Destors maintained only | that the qualities rewain per se without a subject; herefore they did not asert taht tho qualitias subjectively in s nothing. VWhererore, any also, ho that the qualities rewaining in the sacrament of or exist in & quantity just es in a subjeat, cite passages: or the authorizes Doctors to prove that cteceriniestenarestsee ote without a sitb- A oot ina Fete tet of he ete = Sententinmum on i Bacebive +o the SPMG wit iayt, ton ge other Dector PSyo8 Hostions eis vet T have roune that they mh to one reseiving the body Pistyhe states ac follows:*continwing in thy visible grester then thyreas 28 OF aquantit bvivet Shoe ant the 3 a nico thyself." Kcaingthe gloss on thot Gone seoratione 1» Distination It., "Dupliciter": He had on the oross,or according the glorifies hody which oe epiritually s subject to no cence." Agnin in the | i visible quantity iered in this myectery;but the virtue sacrament; where the gloss states: "The quantity be so estimated that the body of dhrist is under 8 smaller quantity and greater in ® larger the authorized Dootors,7ho have discussed the sacrament thing else with reference Sea syy et it ie clear from the passages previously ad that it ean neither direetiy nor indirectly be acluded thet the qualities exist in aquantity juat Reet tfiet effect the gloss on that chapdér be geectations, Dietinetion TI. ’ neo Nerenga sedis th eT x confess that heaviness and the other qualities the saerament are perceived by the bodily senses I acknowledge thet under thoge species broken end “ymieh worngthe entire and 7 unbroken body ‘of Shrist and treat the whole ey thet the whole ic vetetyed: satens Motion thet he ealle the epecler,rhich ho are broken and vorn,qlities;therefors,to no: ae roUuld some quentitys7hioh gould be the sudjest Shapter XXIT.
The statement that a quantity really distinct from a stbstance is not the subject,quantum,ir the gaerament of the altarsyic also con- ;, firmed by the testimony of the phi- a losopherse ne As ceanrit that a quantity voally dietinet from ubstance is not the subject of qualities sould be onfirined not only by the testimony of the Holy Fathers nt also by the testimony of the philosovhers. Therefore, is sufficient to cite Aristotle,the Prince of phi- mhers.But he says in the Praedicomontis that substance ne ie cuscertive of contraries through change of fjand he galls this the sroverty of substance sper, But if there zould exist betveen substance qualities one quantity bherénpeihinme wedia and staining sensible and corvoresl qualities,it is fest that that aquentity vould be suscertive of it is asteblished,beceuse it would Freceive at one rhiteness, at another time blaeknees;at one time would be warmsat another time coldjat one time is sveet,at another time bitter;end so a thing erent from a substance vould be susceptive of a aties. Again,according to the same vhilevovher a ration according to sensibis quality is distinguish-: necessary for it to lose @ own qualities.
oreforesa white body niaje become vari fied, andy Then is has been aecouplishad, it gan not be conceded hat it loses the former whitenc as and gaine a ner itences; for nothing is here an 8 gent whieh ean ine ce whiteness spike this body;but this ean net be true quantity is a: Wwetveen substance and quelities; for if it is a mediums it.deemgepesary that the rare- "ied substance have a nev quentity,just as will be since tho newness of its ated and shown J git n aceident follows in consequence of the newness of fhe subject,it is nesessary that whiteness should be and for the same reason any quality existing sub etively in that guentity vould be new.; Chepter X¥XTTT.
The bean te yenaining i thes eaerament is not ean abcolrte thing Teally distinet from the qualities remaining in the same sacrament.; rom the preceding statements,it evidently foliors: at the quantity remaining in the sacrement of the: er is not sn absolute thing qualities remaining in the sacraments. Fat ler Prat ine in a stills as ina swblectyor BR ect of a quantity and is not subjectively in a tity,and it is manifest mR: qualities after evation are quanta,since they ere long,vide and epi therefore, it foliovs that those qualities are: ta,and not throvgh quantity shih is an absolute ec a really adistinet from those qualities. Againga |; B having part separate from vart is a ieee: t is manifest that the vonderesity remaining’: @ sacrament of the altar has part separate. t70 a wa ic a a oh ie 4 auantine and not any other quality will be a quantum and not an ity really distinet from thet.: ‘merere: eembebvation snot was ia one quantity vhich vas not an abso ‘osiene thing really distinat from” hind aed ying a of the or - convincing arene nde gee that before consecration was not an absolute thing not remain after consecration, just as the subnot vremein. And this conelusion <i Badeod be dedused from the opaptor,s Fox ita quality ould without Q quantity really qistinet, this arate | " etuation just as the parts of a iee.toir oan not be peparate without sere. yould Also nave peen a quante not f Thererore, deetroved pody of Christ Le consecrated, shich seens ‘the dicta of evniads Pathors,or it the bread thetanees Of the bread, and ly does not remain, just as the substance of aped not ’rometts "OVO 9 substance oan be a quantwa with- ed thing really distinet sous to it. shorn pefrere that the divine porer ean 4 preserve every substance without every abso- ident inhering in ote It was als proved thats typed a a MG he divine ag ‘ eo in the future Oc cnten or destroy or ‘ance ell not eompelleda to trans~ substance from place to place or to change oh is ie a quontuas mnoved preeegen agecora- teclf ns a whole and any substantial vart of it, freely. or " gontingent ly, end to dectiroy avery OES agent destroys some accident of the sane ject without the destruction and local change of subjeet;it must not, herefore,be said that it is prptble for the divine pover,to which all things completely subjected, to destroy every quantity, oh ds an absolute aecident inhering in that wood, ut, the destruction of that wood and without local bate RS e of the same.’ P8sny this has been secomplisheds ist he sadd that that substance is s quantuing since cy, has part outside of vart just as before;for unle Ss of that substance rere separatasgas before, could not be an entire substance in 4 whole eg e ace and perts in vert,just as previously before the ruetion of the accident;snd unless,as a consequences substance was locally moved,rvhich is contrary he proposition. 7 hat substange is,therefore,*® entum and eeceording to the proposition no accident, n ic an absolute accident, inheres in it, because Fding to the proposition every such accident is yed thyough the divine pover; therefore, that » through divine + paver yn0 part of, ab is. dex oa « or corrupted: thereforey the owbetantial parts ptainedy e. that every rida parts separate in place and situstionyis a tin; or: or whether those varts are not penanate in place tuatdony hich ean not be granted, because it vould frou: thia argument that they would be locally » For if they are not loeally ee vere e looally merene th ae one of shee has = gol IE ghangedse So ke ne part of that substances nanelysA and I niin “Agooerists with that part of the place t previously existed or does not coexist with et of the place. qf it does cooxiets for the. reason another pert of that substance coexists another part of the Phace with which it aoexisted exfrom. which it follows that the whole substance s with the whole place and part in part,and uently that entire substanse has varts separate rT if A does not ooexiet; with that part i is presont in something at first and eftervards not remeainygis not present in that place,is ne- wily transferred from place to place;and so that 4 would change the entire place,which is contrary ie proposition. Nor is it sufficient to say that ch is an aecident of that subsetance;and for that ny then that quantity is destroved,there is no sub- ce in the place,nor is it locally changed, because nes not heen theologicsaliy stated. Tor: the authorized Dectors and in accordance vith the vnretation of the ¢anonical Seren An angel in & place and is transferred frou one place to her, as much soever it ie not a auentun but is in- [sibile,s lacking all the varts ereated to be separate. @ally;therefore,it vould be much more appropriate a substance having perts ereated to be separate eolly to be in a place and pe changed locally,aleh 4t scoapialy have a quantity vyhieh is an absolute son the sontraryiing matter hoy much a substance be serarate fron avery accident,vyet it will be ‘part of it wiki be in a place;and then I esk ate es ae ce ee as Tas before and ie considered extended,or is in eher place and consequently is changed Logs Liy, which contrary to the vvroepesition. Nor is it sufficient say that that substance is not in a place eireunrwiptively put def ‘initivelys boeause to say this is concede the PRD POSs She For if the former proposition Srnvained, froin this very statement that that substance in a place definitively,it will be in a vlaee ciromvtively;the reason for this is;beesause if that _ that any part of it is in a place de~ gaid that it is,for the sane in another ve art definitively; ethan de 5ut every whole having te separate Seusity is in a place cirowsecriptively; pefore, thst entire substance is in a place cireun- tively jtheroforey that whole substance is cireun- rtively in a plage, But if it is stated that Ais definitively in thet part of a place in which it beforeseitnor this is because it is elsewhere aefi- ely and consequently is logally changed, or because not cowewheres which gan net be conceded, since hn @n angel uust be placed somevhere.e lowever,if ee in whieh it was nefore,and yet in the nature of inge it really remains. So thenysince the divine ean preserve a substance in tne same place and troy every accident inhering in it,which is an ab- inte accident,there is no contradiction involved the statement,that 2 substance is a a ines. ouentity added to it;for it veauires n to preserve tro substances created to const itue one ‘eakene @ with rout Bil the abe a eeu in itywhen | they do not wake awoly, A ana Bit requires no less virtue to A and B in distinct places without ell the + asoddents inhering in them, when they do not one whole body of wate erythan when they 7 become f one body of vate’. But the omnipotenes of parete A and LB from alt a ee s just a ees id not “soperate the one body of rater at Rome , their orn parts wnton ave sopeirete and consequently that total subs tance would be 7 without a quantity veelly distinct a statonent that God e¢ould al power | preserve that substance a # Hie oreate: a. vy! His pn nd the own a aiduieses sntsjif this rere nev rox a. pe ne eth ayn nerhiich te in the Yestseven to: the other aot in the F vast or thee asa heatl piavey Sut 41 aocs heologieel stateto the on atinct sarte of tho accidents, it to praserve the parts of the the subject vithout local cshenge part of it, than to preserve the without local oe destroy- dictinet > at 12 eottont soe one part of the sae cident is in one inet parte of the st rt ete of he stn is thic: statement which vas or .
rial subste ince has owhstant tuations Por Coa oon preserve an absolute aecldent i tenn: place and situation pea sestroving the inet as is ovident ‘in the sacrament of the therefore, t? ere is. no -eontradtotion involved in tatoment that Gad vreserves aya He wenn erie accident inheres ew pstane e will extates port wel over supniys sartni Ly and: norte thing s into the ov begin Y nothing hecoues or begins eninapigntaieiy ino ot 9 2 otystal; outa be safer no to sonseded is statement; 3 Peay of Sheist oineod Ses cehinn sk ood: it. becomes, that isy passes over inte the oe the voay ee st. ‘Lg formed of the t ata not exist before “sonsosnatioltor if peers pope single pie that. ohnicl did’ not exis Bo cps timinnh eanre otend, therefore, th nt neers from such tonvoersion, s Lvoly but the bread is des teoyed in a single fant of the utterance a the bread ic a somposite at ic instars sass fa 3 is corrupted oF: destroyed in sacrament of the etter. sn cuianiaime incadaiy ok ore = the acoidents in the sam place by destroyi: es | stance, it will not be pays possit sLe for Him to. ‘a substance in the same. place by destroying an enter ao the subs stance will be @ quantum sahil destroy one half of i could preserve the other g the i a half of that Se 2 trout this stateuont it fetanee that a part Tnvolves no » grester hastens a stion(ta sey) substance nine De ce ee sible,seo Sak: the whole is in hole place and part in yp: arts than (to say )the ubstance Lacking every such part is in sowe sible places so that the whole is in the whole and the whole in every part. But an angel,lack- very intergral part,vithout every absolute houk« added to it gan be a whole in some divisible a whole in any part; ther afore, there is dotion in the statement thet soe fed to be separate locally,is le divisible place and pert in part without uantity added to itjfrom this arguaent it follow will be eirouseeriptively in a place without — tity added to it. This veaconing is confirmed; is no noe of a eontradiction invelved in the nt that a sorporesl substance exists in a place penesanent vith iteslf without ve ae t in ? can docinttavety ain cc, place without every BbEo- @ tyand so there WALL be a quantum Bede R ty absolute thing edaea to ite Thevofore, ‘_ ‘seems #0 be no sontradietion involved is the pee ement that some substance is 4 auantua without a | ythingsas an ahsolute secident added to ite | ue | 3 | a f eee gee om the former re aS ONS» © one ean he: adane aa ar prin, Gatnolic Doe shomeversdeney ‘the previons ‘lv nontioned cons 6 absolute nection whole eunje ent ay rh Wash at part, can} mith tne fon anit thet oneness ies ssciarnt inhoring in it, the extrinsic re- aventent. to it can be teken from the extre emes 9 writers the respect bass in reistion to ite. respect;therefora, the statement ance and that tts they call anan- inherencé. But substance e00x- 1 is a an acelaont; “I vt | = ity yes 2 Skene isstiee For aceord- Respect of the vresentiality 7 quantity is prior to mpedt of the inherence of a avuantity in relation e substances and thes respect of the ore esentiality ert ‘of. a substance in relation to vart of ite" ity is prior to & respect of inherenece of vart cipahedaiaete in relation to a vart of a substance; 1 can be proved through this inne that it is A ossib le that there ic.9 respect of inherence of ty in telation to i< substance without the sect of the presentiality of a quantity in relation substense,and eonsequently without the resvect * presentiality of a substance in relation to aantity beets +2 those deities vresentialities By exist together gosoraine to their principles, tiality ean exist without meet of inherence;for s substance is present g to those writers, the prior a8 t tam th dvi yower without the — Ba atl hale be Hy 5 Any te ae om Ae Sonate ey 0 amid in Atyent @ reepect of the ‘yee i an in relation to a part of a substance; needed, the vhole substance is ore- ie Ain entire quantity and papart of ‘the substance resent in part of 8 quantity with out espeat of 20K jeeuent ly vidhont this statenent, it;for no thing part and part g @ quantum. Again the respect t+ bso hon a & the respect of the precontiality of the whole whole place and part in pvartj;and consequently nformed by some quantity which is an absolute ing really distinct from a substance; therefore, the sstence vill be a cuantim vithout a quantity.
stance in relation to the whole place,and of « part the substance in relation to part of the place, could ‘be preserved vitnout the respect of the inheronee the quantity in telation to the subetanee;vhen this geouplished, the substanee itcelt willbe vresent in 1 be giveuceriptively in a place and yet will not ‘this disevssion it remaine to show that a Site (antum without a quantity stance is also a quantum ‘substantial parts without every quan= difrerent ‘thing absolutes res ally dige a the firet Pane?
vated ARC e But frou this f expressed by. some suthes who een not ert, Bs it is, not hone to have: been veveated by Gods “s Wiadted to he log OT on patts of substance as well as of the qualities, just as they |. “prought into being, co they.ate made seoarate by | tue of an efficient and final cause;for hy the e virtue by which different parts of & substance Of @islities proceeds from non-being to being, also take on existence in dist inet piaces. And + ed just. es nothing Is neces sergly required aside an efficient,final,formeal cause,nor is it previously ended for this statasent that a substance and parts a subs stance are brought rroit gage into beings | also nothing as ide from the @suses vreviously men- med is necessarily required for this a woatuleass stad pert of @ substance ic outside of another,or is ¢ from another part. For it would seem wonieroe Z that a single accident in rerior to a substance and parts could mekete one part of 2 subs ae outside hother part,and yet the essential cause of 4 thing 1d not do this without such an accident;for such | A#eciient is not required fer’ a seoaration of those 'ts,since to substances ean be separate,even if y vere separated from all the aceidents;and such an pident is not required for this statement,sthat th S,which constitute ad hoe e rhole,sinee there to be no reason shy parts prior by nature can: = ith every accident constitute a whole the parts vbostance ae of atte: aneh & qua es esolution « or From: this * mateo 3 Av~ tarate,e and c are quanta, dpe 2) tatement, that ossential gauses malities in die- ntity following Cab ete SOP, Who raat ubstance and a placing one cide of enothon vith ‘that isatannn abs solutes cally. aietinet hing to.to them, or unless he breaks asunder or de= troye their unity. Agsin,! intend to show that a petance is a qventun thrgue its orn substential ts intrinsic in ite Thet,vhich is cireumssoriptively n a rlade through its own intrinsic yarisyis @ quentiva heough its own intrinsic parts, because it was shovyn efors thet avery thing,vhieh is eirauiseriptively in Disc, is & quantua;but every msterigl substance ciremiseriptively in a place through its on suba ential pertsj;because,as was shown before, every tae prial substance,which is extended,is present in a lace through ites own essential parts,so that the hole subetance is vrecent in the entire plece,and rt of the substance is srecent in vart of the plage; Bt every such thing is ina place cirewmnsoriptively, he eo every such swhetsnee ic quantum through parts insie in ite Nor is it suffieient to say that’s stances does not heave varts excent through a cuantity, ni on is a thing dietinet fron eubstance,for a substance not depend on some accident of ite ovryand ¢on- lently the parte of a substance ao not depend upon x parts of an aacilente Trerefore,if a quantity is eclident of the subs tance, the parts of a substance 20% devend either upon & quantity or upon vearts of quantity, and so a substance does not have varts ugh quantity. This econelusion is gonfirmed, for ing has existence and distinct existence through same thing; therefore, through that through whioh e are parts of a substance, through the same they also distinguished, but the parts of 8 substance not exist through quantity:; therefore, they are not tinguished tnrough er rns substance erent from substance. Again,if quantity is a thing fferent from substance, then it vill not make a part & substanceto exist separate from a part of a siubnee, tmlese it is an efficient and finel osause; but ae 3 3 efficient or finel eaus ality making parte to exist narately does not prevent that thing from being a ntun through its ovn parts inherent in it;for since D ontiat as an efficient and final csuse,vill make parts og any aquentity at all to exict eqparately, uentity could be a quantun or have part outside of * through its own parts. From this argument it is er that ne matter to what extent one different ntity mig shit be added to that bstanes, which has outside of part; @hhkarer that substande vould a quantum through iteent and its own intrinsic 3 as parts of s substance in themselves and for hing else exgept Livduen their o7n intrinsic ¢dauces, ply, tho, efficient and finslyare locally separate.
= it is not sufficient to say that 4a quantity, which en accident,is tne formel eause why a substance is tum, Just as whiteness ic a formel cause why some is vhite;this conclusion does not obtain, because nuuber exists nor through whieh parts of § WARE separste in situation,is spt ei forme L gause why t thing is a quantum, 3ut a quantity,whieh is an petite ts not that through which a substance is rua lly ‘one in number,for through the same thing a a formal caus se why its own subject existg@ or will i¢ @ wnit;nor indeed is quantity a formal cauce ough which the parts of substance are locally se- Ate,just as something is white through whiteness; f then, just as it is impossible that somethings 6 " One another as certein wholes existing per sey, Ough quantity whieh is an accident, just as body 1 Melly separete,and vette cortain wholes not i inaking mhola,rhicn is false, “or the omnipotence of God d at first divide 8 stick of vood into tyvo parts hase one of then in! tngland but the other nore ay and aftervards separate those pieces of wood Bs cctsa, Hee pert pstance exists and is one in number. 23ut no secident exist;therefore, the formal ¢atuse why its own siub- @ white without whiteness,whether they are separate hite through vhiteness, could be dépakube- in clade an situation without such a quentity,even if they are parts constituting some whole,so it oe inpossible ‘hose iin, wulek are merely cevarate in situation wep?
gidents. wnon this naa would be logally sevarate,and yot they quantity, because thoee pieces such a quantitw by accident. argument it is clear that perts of a subste be separate through ouch A quantity,just ac white by whiteness.
chapter XXTX, Proof of the same conclusions ‘ mhich was vroved before by argu ments taken from the statewents of the Satnolis Toctors.
m addition to the preceding arguments,others muct dduced, based partly on the statesents of other pane Do stors 3p WHO, hovever,aesume such, ho oS quen- Meaie ite between substance and augilic. Doctor: cc biahst aptae t. thin ol his statement eredibl, use T have no desire to detract from the pover of since i could eaone i teh more than we eould think : nip % 7 ee, ben Pe eae ' my Me Uy sVUmless I should notice an evident cone i. Br ne bee ik sone i}, PN, ey ae eat. fr: Be: ot hy: » ae a SP Wate we WF ay Bhat aken hy Y ott “es $5 i eae Action followed. For that Doctor,nauely, Scotus, stptes Ook IVs, Distinction X, Question Iv.:"That the infinite a sacranentally er of God could preserve,the body of chrict under he Bpecies of bread without this statement,that it stence locally and sa hadaeir econo Cnt Meaven or elsevhere.* Therefore,it may be assumed the body of shric it: eri sich 3 acramentally under spedies, and ceages to exist locally in heaven and pre Ate to exist looally ana eireumsorintively,.
Riv.which mas before distinct frou substance and Itysrewains, or docs not romain, but is destroyed.
not be 8 seid ‘that thet quantity is « iestroyed} goording hea those weiter cS in the same place, an iveyand sonsenentiy an ayconrte thing is not broyed through a variation of hati dash isy hut, ate ling’ to the same mriterey imiiety doec nee exiet in fen except as a respec ots therefore, it ic not necessary eli qdectroyed an aG= aintein that. something is r nt of this statement, that ne ody of Ghrist ceases xist locally in heaven. TI eeaforey every absolute ney hich existed hefore,remeins,and so that gus wntity So iesd vi: therefore, sine e®,aecording to those writers, 4 substance is a quantum through thet quantity,: 7 st as 8 body is white through whiteness, fust ne a. of | is informed by the wvhiteone ss inkering in it,and a that it is Mpite;sco itis impossible that ig substance is informed by that quantity inhering in it uniess = dg 8 quanti. Therefore,it is nesessary for that: jotor to say that that body of christ would teed ‘truly be a quantum by tint ywuantity, if the pre-:: ing pvonosition is balinaizies, sur wnt thie state~-: t ought not. to be PoNeedods Tne ‘separate from part is not a quantwun;put,if the dos statement is maintained tie substance of the of Shrist does not have vart separate from part; Sea it were ‘tapos that hody opexists with of christ are locally ceperatesT take those L7Oy Ly yA and | 5, Then Tt ask coneerning Aywhether at hest or with any pett,and for lexicts with the whole th game Teason vhether 3 coexists with the yvhole host * ny wart, end through the proposition, the body of t is not in a place other than under the species rand; therefore, 7ith whatever one mart coexists, the seine another part eoexiste,and consedauently are not Locally distinct. But if von say that A dete vith one. part of the Sost end not with a- Bot part,and 3B: coexists vith another mart and not n the formerjend so Gietinet parts of tas noay of ist would coexvict with dictinet parte af the speclos reed, 7h hich is false; because from thet argument it ove that the whole body of Christ vould not be in vert of the hoatson the eontrery the entire body Shris 7% ic in no part of the hoct. Tt aleo Follovs the body of Christ is in » place cirowmnecriptively, Of which stetements are false. Therefore, it ‘Te-~ @ that,if that position is maintained, the body of a 1Ave te Ck 43 nor nog +7 lontly vould not be a quentins whian ism ‘on, But they themselves suggest one response se and. similar arguments when they say that reronce of quantity,is necessarily tang 2 | is in a quentum nent inugus and perre gas ig * © parts in a whole. Por it is not pnderetood iat something is a measurable cnrantinaygpat itis not Pe designa are in a wnoae the order of this part in vte- don to. another according tottine intervening quantity. t situation, whieh is assumed bv certain persons, zells Por another vredicauent. For,if the order of the parts 1a whole is presupvoseds tue he order of perts in relation to vlace or perts of piece or losality;that is to say,that parts are ooex- Ged vith parts just as the whole is sald st first “be eomsensurate with the whole slece in whieh it its ovn ubiety,co' thet potted esupposes situstion as a difference of auantitey, and ‘the ubioty, rnd it is pos sibie for God to sena~ @ this situstion from the quantity remaining in first situation, not only through the negation of ety, just as Ne could ereate some body outside of <2 universe,and then it gould not have that seegnd uation, because it vould not ith whose parts. the parts contained would be econ msurate;but even if a terminus asswmied for which omueneuration or coextension sould | gith aiasthow hody;4it is veietaie for God Preserve the seaSond as a quantum, and its coexistence elation to, easinay Br vet without that coex~ ion or the perts of one in relation to the parts e A ent e.
ee ear oa Nap gh alt tate th LS ‘lil 7 ought to be offended ee r r the sake of seeking the truth arid of yif they ere true,it is srofitahle to hear L We isadtcne order that they may be exvlained that the truth Pan thie wey be more clearly known. If they ere dee,it is an advantacs fewttqhavto be refuted. 2ut thet responce is not sufficient,can in the first ace be proved ac follows:if situation, which ice fference of quarntity,states the order of varts eens for this statement, that some= fis a quantim;T eekiof what character is that er of varts in the whole,or te it an order of parts tuated 30 that one vert is higher and another vart is er,one ibrt Before and enother behind,one towarde Vest,another tovards the Yest;or is it an order of action, because surely one mart is more perfeet and other is wore imperfect;or is it an seaee whole part, just as He ae is part of the nead, or is} an order of causality, because one part is the enause : Ree Ser etenetine nature of things sts before another? Tor T'do not see by 9 different » that the order of parts in » rhole,ss ocereioned situation, if that provos ition Ls - soneodeds the pody > situation,vhicn ae. of ieecon not be understood by other modessfor any this way eolneide wath bas substanee sf Ghricst,if the whole substance of the Ghrist were separate frow every quantity, wvhich Ee entire substance of the body. of Christ is served without this statement, thet it ise @ quantum, t vould pe a part of a substance more verfect than athor yas it now is;yet one part dc now no more a of another,nor is one vart any more the cause of her, nor is one part any more prior by natire than another a then be, and so it is. elear that no order of parts 1@ whole ean be coincident with the parts of @ sub— 6 when it is joined to a poantdiy without ve able to correspond with it when it is not. oon- with a quantity aside from that order which is Yation,rhich suffices for this statement, it is a quantum yout such an order of parts re- logel separation of parts,and consequently w is a quantwa permanent and continuous,unlese eh has situstion,is vie but no long i is id oF parts oe Tf, therefore, he hody of Ohrist is 9» quantum according to the pre- isly assumed statement,it is. necessary for it to be s;and econceuRently it is nesesrery fer one part to e sevarate from another,and for one vart to he outside Puncthers which is not true if the former vroposition retained.
lvnin, every quientin ie extended, but nothing is ex~ mded miless one part is sevarate fron enother,and (outside of another;for the precence of a quantim b eny thing is not srfficient for exténecion, for —_ rational govl would he a atantinn sinee it eoexists is vrecent in the entire body and in every part And so it is esteblished that,if the body of ist were a avantun in tne eaerament of the altar, the retention of the first vrovocition it would have 4 outside of rart,boesuse it vonld tmity be « extemied s0 would heve situation which inadonrer the order warts in a vlace. Againyevery finite auantum con- Zou and permanen it is sconfiguratedi;put an order of ts 4n a place is reauired for figure,if it is present Ane. any other'order of parts in a whole s not suffice for figirre, which is clear from this enent;for it is nossiple for figure to be ghanged by @ lecal change of varts. For if all the parts is oguired for figuresrnevefore, if parte aould paratey it is manifes st that. aeeeicure pares Por if God. rould through His own