“omn absoints Bébadenva: swndcr the syoblce of -sidaeaalad sthenent, that it would exist possible for God ageo ding ears cont wed of loose 2 texture or of denise not be said thet the adjacent over according to the pra ny daslens. of.
9 eituntion aigterent sattes in 2 1 PhBOe oT.
ocording to. citust ion,. ouent that it its anit f se id 10, ee ays thet for. this, stete As. 8. ‘quantin,o eortain, or en. of Pribsse, estima ie not an pkcuie no order can be designated quantity emong the cubste y of orrist axles woe 5 a _mmber, havi senate eget Ve.
% TOT Eeinoiples of those previously, that material substance © & quantum through its own substantial parts, For,ac- cording to those writers, just as a whole substance eriste pefore a whole 5 eisai the parts of a substance exict pefore the parts of quantity;therefore, the parts of the substance exist wineniie the parts of enon "gael or do they exist in distinct ee gl o not exist in the same place,because they are ho more in one place than in another;therefore,in that prior hing they exist in distinct places,but the substance nebtrcead having parte existing in distinet places stance is a quantum in that prior thing and a sub ance is a quantum through itself and through its own in a place, ntrinsiec parts. Again, everything »shiengtied hrough its own intrinsic, substantial parts, && einummeemsh= ugh the same. A material substanee is cireumseribed a place trrough itself and through its intrinsic arts, which is: elear from the principles of those riters;for aceording to them there is no passive cir- unseription of location exoert a certain respect.
nt according to those holding sueh an ovinion,the respect is changed according to a variation of funda- nent as well as of a terminus. Therefore,since substance 1 quantuty are really distinguished,the passive cir- Mmseription,by which quantity is cirousseribeds¥ill To?
(phere Da distinot;and so 2 substance is in a place by & J "4 { passive eireunseription,and quantity vy nother;and gonsequentiy substance in iteslf and its 1 substantial parts is fundamentally cireumscrived in a place,and is formally ciroumseribed in a place itw own proper eiremsecription. Butyvhen all the ther things are cireunseribed,those two things are fficient for this statement,that something is a wantun; therefore, substance is a quantum vithout an bsolute quantity really distinct. Againgthere is a Local separation of one part of a substance ‘rom esnother part, and andther separation of one part 8 quantity from another vart of a quantity, because om this statement,fundament and terminus @&eqap,and other respect are distinct according to them,it is ecossary that the respescts be distinguished,but those listaness are distinguished. But the local separation of parts constituting some whole can hot exist with- out a quantity;therefore,sinece the parts of a substance gre locally separate before the perts of a quantity, just as they are beforse;so the substance will be a a quantum before that quantity fencdnsidered in existence.
And so from the erguments advanced and from many other statements whieh I omit for the sake of brevity,it vould pear to any one that there is no quantity except extraposition of parts composing one whole for which aposition,whether local or situal sevaration of © ae.
103 ts, parts are not required except those which are se- ate and essential intrinsic causes are regarded as in- nsic eauses, namely, the efficient and final,and eon equently in this vay the parts of 4 substance making whole ean be sevarate in situation and one ean be utside of another by virtue of its own naturel causes.
ut the quantity,which is an absolute thing different rom & substancesie neither an intrinsie nor an extrinsic ise of those parte,on aceount of which sueh a quantity s not required for that extrapocition or situal se- eretion of parts. wherefore, from the principles of eny writers,it could be argued as follovs:reepect, fundament, n: terminus are sufficient for real existence, and they are extrinsic catises; but ascording to them situal Sparation of parts or extraposition of parts of a sub- tance beyond the varts themselves adds nothing except he respect which has nothing in place of fundament and erminus except those parts of the substance. Thera, »vhen the parts themselves of substance and the — i¢ causes which causes then to separate ere as- ne »that respect will be sufficiently maintained. There- Fore, if there is required for thet seperation of arts of a substances another quantity which is a thing “4 ‘erent from substance, that quantity vill be either fundament or a termimis of that respect,vhich can ot be Sonceded as has been shoyn,or it will be the insie cause of that respect and consequently vith- % it the relation of respect ean not be assumed; wCintial parts oan affirmed. But when the extraposition $8 assumed thout the local or situel separation of parts,it is considered quantity;therefore,it is held that some ole having pert outside of part without euch a quantity could be a quantity,and so every quantity distinet from metance and quelity seems to be superfluous. And ff the preceding ergunents,through which it vas oved that substance oan be a quantum without a quantity lifferent from substance,can be employed to prove that foentity ean be @ quantum vithout a different quantity, the discussion of which I pass over for the sake of rovity. Yet from the previously mentioned arguments it can be deduced that there is no nesessity for ase suming a quantity @ifferent from substanee and quality, because for this statement,that substance as rell as:: quality is a quantus,it is sufficient that substance and qualities ere produced by virtue of essential causes jand that parts of these are produced in distinct pleaees by virtue of the same causes without the production of any other at all,or that one part Lakes on existence outside of another part. For another D .; < —_ TOs.
thing does not seem to be required for this statement, a dees Shapter XXX.
Concerning objections contrary to the preceding statements.
For a fuller explanation of the preceding stateits somé objections must be raised. For from various wrees, different reagone # eg voll as phi- osophic,of which I shall cite a fewyare adduced to) ove that every bi is £:) ici Gat Tens hes ae converted into the body of Shrist;so in like anner some quantity “ill be converted into the body ye Christ, Againyjust as the bread 1s converted into he body of Christ,so the substance of the bread is onverted into the quantity of the body of Christ, an gonsequently the quantity of the body of Christ gins to exist under the species of bread by virtue va the sacrament;for vhich Treason it follows that the Dody of christ vould be a quantum both logally and siroumseriptively in the sacrament of the altar by yirtuc of the conversionf{which is falsée Again,if some quantity vas not dish tinet from Lf Pt Snr ren Ubstances quantity rorld not remain in the sacrament 6 the altar;just as the substance of the bread does remain there,vhich is well known to be false. Again hase nt hom 108 ’ 9 aceident is really the same as a substance; but every quantity is an aecident,which is proved to be in accordance with the intention of the Saints and tne philosophers vy their testimony. For the blessed mgustine in De Trinitates Sapitulo TV.:"In created nd changeable things thatembink dhanothats 7 ot affirmed according to substance,is affirmed 2a- ording to accident;for all things are accidental to hem, which ean be lost or diminished, whether megni- tudes or qualities and that which is affirmed with Reference to something,as friendships, relationships, Tikenesses, equalities, and ditything else of such a eharacter;also situations and habits,also place and Boe, * Againgthe same writer in the same book in hapter X.:"In things which are great by pertaking of magnitude, it is one thing for them to exist, another ¥ be greatyas a great house,a great mountains s great ind;in these things,therefore,magnitude is one thing, and that which is great because of that magnitude is pnother; ana, certainly that,wvhich is a great house,is not magnitude." AgainyAtistotie assumes nine predica~ Rents as accidents, avong which he enuserates quantity) — all ah nese stateuents it is plain that magnitude ls an acoidentyand consequently it is a thing distinct Prom substance.
4 Again,gthat,»vhich is contrary to every opinion of tne Doctors, is not to be received as if it were a Satholic , pinion. It is also contrary to experience, because T09 yhen a corporeal subetence is divided without the yonversion of anything into it,it is effected of a = quantity without the loss of any of its own part, : ethecsur,if quantity was not a different ing seadix distinct frou eubstantes Agein,gin diverse bstances differing in spesies,the quantity is the me in species;for the longitude or latitude in 4 ndful of air or fire is not different in spedies, hich would not be true if longitude vas not really istinet from substance. Bheinyttedectiorn that no oe mentity is really the seine as quali tyiggg according the vhilosopher,auslity is not a quantum exeept ouch aceident;for if quality was the sane as quantity, hen it would be a quantum per se and without addition.
: is also impossible in accordance vith nature for » with another body whieh is quantity;because the Limensions mutgally expell ene snother;but quality > thiornmethine cn: ras really not distinct fron quality and any quantity beteancee. Therefore, if quantity Reklly not distinet from substance, tvo quantities yould naturally sexist together,and so two solidities “profundities, and tro longitudes,end two latitudes d exist together;indesd many more than tyvo; because por that teason whiteness vould have its own quantitys the same reson taste vould have its own, and neat orn and humidity and deyness their own,and so none of thee is in all in one subject, et YRXT.
A vevly to the objections in the suecesding ahepters.
But it now remains to show that all those reasons ° not sufficiently agree in stating thst there is “quantity different,really distinct from substance n¢ quality;for when it ie first reduced to this in- onsisteney, that some quantity is converted into the ody of Christ,it oan first be affirmed that the op- osite of that statement is not found in sacred seripture,; or Tt have never read it in the Sacred Seriptures nor an the cenonical law nor in some authorized work, that guentity is not converted into the body of Christ.
they do not remotely indlieste whether a quantity e308 is not converted into the body of Christ; just ss they do not raise the question whether a quantun ‘ converted in the body of Christ,although someywriters, nom one is permitted to contradict because they mutually ondew one another,assert that a quantity is not con- ‘ted into the body of Christ.
In the second place,alithough it hey he foung that quantity is not converted into the body of Chrict, a is no need to concede that quantity is a thing a fferent from quality and substance,for the mode of eould preclude the prodiestion quantity is lonverted into the body of Christ, just as according to writers. Although humanity is not a thing really istinet from menjyet it is conceded that man is white, and it is denied that humanity is white;not because himenity is a thing really diectinet from manjbut be~ SGtise this noun,memenity,and this nounsmanghas a Gifferent mode of signification, nasely, grammatical or logicel., Bot T have shown eleevhere hor tossible it is,vithout « distinction of the things introduced, for the vredieation to be false necanse oP various grome Watical or logical modes of significations tin the third vlises it ean be affirmed that ne vice how much this statement might be conceded, thet Mamaia is sonverted inte the body of Christ,yet this Happens thet this proposition is true,a quantity is converted into the body of Christ;and frequently those things, which exist through aeecident,are denied vy writers; though in accordance with the virtue of signification hey ought not to be denied. Wherefore, no matter how ch some quantity is not a thing yeally distinet converted into. the body. of dhrictyend o quentity is sonverted into the body of Christ. Just as ageord- ang to many writers fundament and relation are not distinct things and consequently whiteness end likeness Bre not things really distinot,and yet these two states ments obtain at the same time:whitenese exists, and likonoss does not exist. 3ut,not-vithn-standing tne 51 tement that some quantity es not a sejising reeray disom the sobstance of the preadsyet those two things Clattene.
do not at the same time obteinithe substence of tha bread aaa "the substance of the bread is converted into the body i of Christsaltnough this proposition is false,a quantity is converted into the body of Cchrist,can be expleined ae followsialthough some quentity is a thing different from substance, yet this nouns quent ity, daeoteE pert exists outside of another,or that one part is sevarate from another;pbut this noun, substanceydoes not connote that one part is separate in situation from another;and for that reason Tf do not see that a con trediction ie involved in the statement thet this pro- poeition is trues: ’ ef the bread is converted into the oe of Christ,while this vropocition is FOr the pread having part senarate fom part is converted into the body of christj;on the eontrary,it ean be false,while the other proposition is true,because it ean involve s fallsev,nawely,one part of theybread is seperate in situetion from another pert. Therefore, if God,who ean make all things, should make the subject of the breed to exist somevhere pre~ @isely in that mode in which the body of Christ exists : der the species of bread,yso that no substance of that bread would exist no-where logally or ciroum- seriptivelys thon this vrovesition vould be truc,that thing is substance, and this proposition would be false, thet thing is a substance having part separate from pert. And if God could then convert that eubstance into : body of Christ, which I do not think a Christian ght to say can not be done by God;this proposition . true, the substance of the bread is converted into he body of christ, and this vrovosition by implication © false,the sumstance of the vresd having part: se~ prate fron part in situation if g converted into the he substances of the presd heaving part seperate Troi part as not converted into the body of cned ehe from this p roposition it follows,thet quantity is not converted Into the body of Christ. Therefore,it is plain that, :lthough that proposition is in a sense true,the stbstance of the bread having part separate® matera, yet that proposition could be true,the substance of the bec is converted into the body of Christy vhile thad woposition is false,the substance of the bread having rt outside of nart separete from port is converted nto the body of Christ;and erksaly while this poposition is true,having pert separate from part not converted into.the body of christ, the negative f whion ould. be true,even while the first provosition s faleo;true on aggount of that cause of the truth, puely, the substance of the rend does not have part eparate from partyand so it could easily be said that, though this proposition is in ® sense true, some wentity is not a thing dictinet from the eubstance f the preadsgyet this proposition conld be true,tne Poa: is converted into the body of Christ,and con- equent ly while this proposition is true,a quantity is e ody of Christ,and consequently. the opposite of 9€ 4BY¥ene, ape pee et ae “4 seme ec ccsciies Uke 9 ‘converted into the pody of christ. And the entire ason ie,because,aithough this proposition is in rs) nse $Lud, the cubstance is reslly the same as some tity,vyet this provesition gould be true,the sub- stance of the read ie really not the same thing as bh quantity;jvet as,although this provesition is in a nse tme,the substance of the bread is a substance ving part separate from part,yot this provoscition mld be true, the subetanee of the bread is not 8 sub~ nee having cart eeparate from part,becauea it follows that possible propositionythe substance of the ed does not have part separate frou part,cven ough this vroposition is true,bread exists. There} re,it is lear frou the prenies es that this NOUN, ntity,sonnetes or presents to the understanding a ing different from that which is ¢connoted or presiatiteeietasse, iaaiata toytne tind that ch Mater which it is vrodiesated,is having part false, even te the substance remains; just as seense trve,brend ie sbetance Tre.
stance having pert seperate from vart,and yet, though substance itself remains,it o eonld be false. Juct some say that this notm, Likeness, connotes that to plities of the sane character exist together in the ure of thingsyand yet many Catholi¢cs say that white- se and some likeness are one thing and not things ly distinet,although this prepesition could ve’ rue,whiteness exists,while this proposition is false, ikeness exists. And indeed,althonugh they might conede that this vroposition | ae keness,as long as,of cource,tvo whitenosses in the ture of things exist;yet this proposition might be @,though whiteness remains,whiteness ie likeness, , cause it would involve s dnLAcioy, nancies tes wnitenesses ly exist outside of the mind. Therefors, it is elear 1 the previous statements thet,altnough sone quantity not 2 thing really dictinct fron the substance of : vreadj;yet this proposition could be true,the sub- nee of the bread is converted into the body of st,though this proposition is false,quantity is uiverted into the body of COhvistjgand this sencliucion ue to the diverse mode of expressing or of denot- the relation of those two nounsysubstance and ntitye psnutianianac ane same reasoning it is clear that, . % rrgukoameis cod in the canon of he Bible or in the eanonical lev or in the meitings he Doctors approved by the Rowen Church,that the hd ee Niet ubstance of the vread is not converted into the quanti- y of the body of Christybecause they do not mention sivet begause of the diverse mode of expressing or indicating the relation of thoee NOUNS, substance and vantity, this proposition eould be verified,the eub- i of the bread is converted into the substance > the body of Christ,although this proposition was alee, the substance of the bread is converted into he quantity of the body; just as beeause of the diverse of expressing those novne,cubdstance and quentity, ne things would ‘not be things really distinete And mat any one of sane mind,sunless he who alone desired o ve galied a rabbi,wiehes to affirm that all,vho 0 say that this proposition is true,the substance of he pread is converted into the body of Christ; and his proposition is false,the substance of the bread is 0 converted into «4 relation; not-with-standing the tement that some relation naucly,relation of de-~ ulence itself won God sie not a thing different ron the body of christ. And so it is manifestly clear moherist oan in this Sea eS aa Ss ca: = Ree ERR Una: Ee Sg ee ee eneerning the sacrament of tho way be eacil®, preservedjalthough it conceded that some quantity is not a thing reelly distinct from substance; just as T concede thet some lation is really distinct from cubstance, which state- mt many Catholics concede. For it is no more to be und in sacred sevipture quantity is not convert- — into the body of Christ that substance is not converted o the quantity of the body of Ghrict,tnan that 4 lation is not converted intosa relations, And, thete- ¥O,just as it ean be attimed aeco0rding to the eatholic ith that some relation is not @ thing really dis~ et from the substance og the bread,end some relation not distinet from the substance of the body of Christ; then it is necessary to coneede that some relation somes respect ig converted inte the body of Christ; the substance of the bread is sonverted into retion just as into e gonsequente or to assign some de of expressing or o p ienting the relation of 86 houns, substance and relation, on account of which me thing can truly bes ied of anotherj;and likevise one of them ¢an truly 6 attriputed to one and another denied of the same; a ay “gpposed to the faith, + a quantity is converted into the body of Christ, the substance off the bread is converted into the antity of the beter ot Sheiset,or to assign some diverse de of expressing those nomne, substance and quantitys which reason one proposition can be conceded, a= her can not be coneceded,no matter hor much some tity is not a thing different from substanae, which is easy to dog just ac it wae shorn elsevhere;nor is more aiffionlt then to shom in what way some quantity not a thing distinct from substence; and yet that is vronesition is false,avantity is substance; but sause this applies more to logic then to theology, herefore,pass on. “ith roferense to that stateuwent oh is introduced under the lest head in the second econ, namely, that some quantity of the body of Christ an to exist in the sacrament of the altar by virtue the sacrament,and then by virtue of the sacrament pody of Christ vas = anantins both locally and omeeriptively in the saerament of the elter,it t be stated that it does not follow; for jvet ae is not valid according to some wriverestiiat the tity of the body of chréét or the body existing ue @ place locelly ie in the sporament of the altar; herefore,the body of Chriet there is a quantum and in, eee b vp Piel ca ertaty of the body of Christ begins to exist ) sacrament of the altar by virtue of the sacreient; 4 eon e ae b there locally. Wherefore,vhother this proposition eonesded,or is not concededssiran read vy virtue of conversion, this proposition, hovever, aid felsegthe body of Christ is a quantus under . | ss assertion, that the body of Christ a quantity or a quantum neither by the pover of con~ ‘sion nor by the povrer of the sacrement;noterithnding the fact that this gfoposition is trues the ay of Christ having cart seperate from vart,nsanely, heaven, ovicts there under the species of bread by porer of conversionj;yet this proposition is cimply 36,the body of Christ by the rover of conversion ae part separate from part under the species of resi. Whereforeshe,who would desire to concede that proposition must be conceded in accordanes vith virtue of languaye,some quantity is eubstance, could ly reply te all the arguments relative to that eot by conceding or deneying the vropositions the ‘Sequences by putting in plees of that noun, titas,this entire exvression,» thing having part ‘ate from nert;because they vould have ti say thet 6 t70 expressions, quantity eontinuceus and pet mtyand e thing having part separate from patt, mould onvertiples;in fact one would pe a sertnttton ing oleae of einer’ Sex Sie ot ae ee ne usedgthie expression,a thing neving , seperate from part,must be used in place of that yu sand it could be easily seen,if the proposition eonsequence vould deserve to be i quantity is gonverted into the body or seaedat, 4 as that expression, 4 thing heving part separate from t,is converted into the bedy of Christ. Similiarly proposition must be conceded, the substance of the is converted into a qyantity, just as this pro» | a tion must be conceded,the substance of the bread converted intoge thing having part ceparate from jalthough that thing does not have pert separate from in the specics of bread, beceuse it does not exist re locally and cirewnseriptively in a plage,but eleerheres And I certainly eonfecs that I have read either in the eanonieel Lew or in the rees of the saints or in the decree of some High iff,or in some general council,or in seme authorized ting such 2 ~roposition, quantity is not cenverted © the body of Christ, the substance of the bread is converted into quantity,or soue similier proposiips.eateviisnes. ES OEE Nowever, this ‘caictiastihe holly false,tne vread is converted into the body pares which is 4 cuaEAY under the species of “And if you say:if those writers concede suoh ositions,they a14 not do this,;unles s influenced by ete ee that they anite apeetty the aeoidents in the. sacrament of the alter do subsist per se withont a subjectsand that all ties exist in & subject? I ask: fron what authentic L ture they obtained the statoment,that in the sad- ent of the altar there is some subject of ponderosity de ponderous;also from what scripture did they n the statement that God ean not ereate tro ees, they have in their defense for thet there is something of whieh God °8 not Ean es eae destroy Wionenh ie orn peatoethid, e;thet mortal man men;and inmmereble statements of such a character eh are manifestly not in eccord with the the sutic soriptures? Sosthen it is easy to see that it not contrary to the Christien faith to effirm that quantity is not s thing really distinct from: tence peeauce of thic statement, that quantity | ld then be converted into the body of thristiyet such a way that it is converted in noe mode into substances whieh is there 2 quantity;nor does it tvadiot the statement which is aftervard adduced,: .¥ aoee not then wenadss in the sacrament, 6 alter;for although some quantity passes Overs ely, that quantity which vas not a thing distinct a the substance of the bread;yet one other quantity ne,ynemelysthat which ic not really distinct from ty;nor does it seem more in conflict with the: pements of the Holy Fathers that one quantity, whioh: not a thing different from cubstances passes over, another quantity,which is not a thing different a quality,vemains, than that one relatgon. or respeat, Lon is not a thing really different ‘cone substances 08 over,and another realtion or resvest,yrvhich is a thing really different from quality, tensinse how two quantities ean exist togethet,will be n farther one igs XXXIT.
To show that both propositions — ae obtaingsome quentity is not 4 thing ae Peally distinct from substance,and Ls cnentity is an aceldent.
it now remains to shoy that some quentity is not nt thing really distinet from substance; not- eeravending the fact that it is conceded eo hal well as Saints that quentity is an ‘accident, titan 4 4 ia 4 predicaxent different from subnee, but that I way stand on a solid foundation, shall begin: % one distinetion of this nouny,ac- dent,which can be deduced from the words of the nerable Father Anseliu.e According to this source nowunsaccident,can ve taken in a three-fold sense; 4 is,in a restrictive sense, in a liberals and & vary free use of the terms, Sy taking this houns sceident, | he. strict sense,it signifies in this sense-a thing stinot froia substance’ ignoring in that things ply, substances and without which thet substance oan ast axist through divine vorver,so that there is ontradiction involved in the statement that that tance existe,and is not informed by that really inst accidentjend then an aceident is considered ng really advenient to another thingyssnd vith- ng frou it,or able to vithdray vithout the de- tion of that substantial thing,not forming per-ce with that to which it really sdvenes;which I pecause of matter and substantial form jend Guz i ca He: ‘ aa a ee sie acini. without a onange of that objects | For a“ unthinkable ' | the? some sub feat is nov ‘athens ~ thing YPeally distinct from that,and afterrvaris ve Antormga by thet same thing or sonverss Li end int the iiveral aceoptation of ow termyis considered : thing predicable of something contingently,vhicn successively affirmed and denied of another se of a'real trans ote ation of it,and not so much Lhough it pen is black, end Sortse afterverds hecones e to bidexness, eile haere 00 first 1 ie not similar to boyand afterrardatite proposition, sortes is similar datos And. s0 it apo Dears that th hat. relations Lixonoss, aftermar rds is not cheng re of Sortes and * ed accident ‘using the term in the wide sense.
1a very free use of the term,an accident is zon- ered everything which ean be associated with some-- z at one time,and at another time ean not be as- Sith it and not < oar Pegs Es in employing the t#em such a cence it is not in-. nsistent to gongede that some aeelident is associated ith God,that such an accident ocercions no change Rither esotual nor possible in God. An segident taken the first sense is most properly an aeoident;in second sense it is less properl# an accident; but the third sense it is improperly an asclidentjends some one may believe that that distinction srmeede- om my brainylet him vead the venerable Anselm in + Monologium in chanter XXV.,» where he states; "Of things, indeed, yhich are eclled accidents, some are ; understood to be present or absent exgept with e variation of the narticipant,as all colors; others known to effect no change at alldeontrery to that elation with which they sre effireed either by achment or withdrawal,as certain relations. Tor = dane is indeed established that tothe man vho vill be born <4: \ yer the present year T an neither greater nor less, egqueal,nor similar;but T shall be able to have ail se relationg, undoubtedly, so far as-he is concerned, 1 he will hava been born,rithont entire change ‘of * e2@ Dlaingbeesuse of those things,which ere conte none no means are can in accord vith the Michact acclidents,vhich by acceding sain make ae change, by their very operation pea i ch sin Sous aeeidentsy,rhioh « “these words roe aietinotion orevil na w are not understood to be able to be b or absent excert vith some vabiarion iat the rticipantyas all colors,it shovs that some accidents, reduce some changes are things really distinct ser own subjects and inhere in the same. For > 2 certain quality distinct from substance,really the outside to that stibject and veesding from the mo.For it is impossible that something really and ly inheres and informs ea different thing really jictinct and aftervards @e-not inform it unlecs that ing is commted. The same writer abso gives assent this statement through this which he states,that — ere are some accidents which do not at all remove mobility.
‘From this argument it is clear that ic really retained in its own subject, for Andoim tes that the"highest nature" "according to those ccidents, which are in no degree in opposition to the hest non=commtabilitys sonetines does not disap~ ve of peing mentioned; and yet something of its Rednbe; rece which variation oan be understood,is not idental";for nothing in ali nature happens through 1 inhnerenes or real information,yet Anselm doses not ney, but coneedes that sose accident: Prom which ageording to the statement of Anselm, it @lear that Tee aijont is really sustained a subjects vherefore, this conclusion gan alsa be wn, that the supernatural is susceptible of no ac- ent;for although sone accident pelongs to God,yat really sustains none in Himselfjand Just as it is an aceldent which bs appropriate to Gods whi chit really guatained, co an secident,rhich makes no Inge about that of whieh it is affirmed,is not ape ‘a Ei a ouster 3 it roula truly and really have in it- ‘potentially apap change is to be | constituted now met en entire changes ie not really sustained in a subnse agotdente Ask indsed ° when Absolu states that eccidents "te \e" ~” does not mean that some contanes ae ahi be fortes receive some thing fro himself or cease to have ome thing in himself; juat oo. Gods withont: the assiwap~ ion of any thing athall into Hiuselfrand. without the ie of anything at ei existing in Cody at eny time Ne becins to be the justifier of the sinner. And so in is way it ic established theatgit is saecording to the tention of Anselm to aesime some aecident which is thing really distinot from the sub jootyheally sustein- dn that subject; just as color is realiv sustained the body as a distinet thing in 2 distinet thinge it ome ageident ic not a thing reelly sustained in “subjects but is indeed enlled an accident: because it ¢ sontingently wradicated of that,even if the con~ taney of the subject is nespned.And that something of fortes. But that some Likenece can not advene to t of which it.is affirmed excovt through » different angey is clear through thic statement that sexe—re= Ag nnarnliind elie i ee “e ep ae cA ae aa ge:; se of enothers ie, galled en acoldent of ityas Aneel states.
cae ee ae) a Este : #.
Ee aoe - Chapter XXII.
rade hor quantity is ene ident, and how in agreenent with” this is the statement, that some quantity is not 4 thing distinet from adele ee esides I ician, 4 aust be sho quantity is an accident. When this has been shown, 4111 ve glear how those statements exist together, . quantity is not a thing really distinet from stances and quantity is an eocident;whereforoyit (be known that juct as not every relation is a ng really distinet from substance, really inhering teas wany anoient Cathelie Doctors state and some wn Catholics agree with them;and so not every relation ‘en eceident secording to the first mode of explaining term, accidents nor is every relation, hovever,an acaident rording to the. second mode of expressing the term, ident, because sone pvelation pertains to God aceoord~ to cirouns stances,and sometimes does not vertain 10d; but this is not yossible through a chenge of ¢ sitbply through a change of the ereature; and t ds conceded that weiation is an aecident,and f accident. So it can be “separate froin pert through nm chengeyas’ 5 sono gatholies gay,yand it has arena tioned, vefore ti net the poiy of wrist nas : part dopkrate from part,>d peesuse it exists ly and g@ireunmserip tively in heaven, and the sane though not destroyed ean cease to exist locally circuuseriptively,and can begin to exist sacranentelly the —* of wresdyend so does not then have —— a “snenge of itself, st another time does o part separate from part,is an accident;and is not a thing elways 4 a@istinet and inhering in tango, Justis in bods thing really distinct; so quantity soi according to the second use of the © ing it to ere it does not eve part sepate rte pert in situation, juct. as in a sense the body of ee: under the species of pread;then this oro tion 4 is trues no substance is quantity, fia tne veacon for vonlitye That ewbeten = pert separate from part in ide sontsacoorsin at ybeaauce ke had nat | substencegaLtnonsn for this statement, that — is oe local shange api ven @e So those statements th truetsome quantity is not a thing different sihotence om mek that relation is an accident. thts mode those dure oiaeababie es aan be suecessively ently the same as LRT the: sane ne sienna But for be a nigel ae sas necessary | s 5 trues quent ity is an beelaoin: tes an ecctacnt” and 1 yet he in inthe oad cbr ronmteny as ramsber, and the conay ‘here things »is sonsideres an Ag—