It now remains to show that any quantity is not another thing really distinct from substance; notwithstanding that it may be conceded by the philosophers as well as by the Saints that quantity is an accident and that quantity is some category other than substance.
But that I may rest upon a solid foundation, I shall begin from one distinction of this name ‘accident’ which can be deduced from the words of the venerable Father Anselm. According to this source this name ‘accident’ can be taken in a three-fold sense; namely, strictly, liberally, and very liberally.
By taking this term ‘accident’ in the strict sense, accident signifies thus a thing distinct from substance and inhering in that thing, namely, substance, and without which that substance can exist at least through divine power, so that there is no contradiction involved in the statement that that substance exists and is not informed by that accident really distinct.
And then an accident is called a thing really advenient to another thing and receding from it, or able to recede without the destruction of that substantial thing, not making one per se with that to which it really advenes; which I add by virtue of matter and substantial form. But such an accident can in no mode accede to a subject or recede from a subject without an entire change of that subject. For it is unthinkable that some subject may now be informed by one thing really distinct from it and afterwards may not be informed by that same thing, or conversely; and yet that it may in no mode be changed. For every thing really advening to another thing or receding from it really makes some change about that thing.
But ‘accident,’ when used in the liberal acceptation of the term, is called everything predicable of something contingently, which can be successively affirmed and denied of that by virtue of a real transmutation of that and not so much by virtue of a real transmutation of another; although it is not always necessary that it be successively verified and denied of that by virtue of a transmutation of that; but it can be successively affirmed and denied by virtue of the transmutation of another. And so likeness is called an accident of Sortes; not that likeness may be a certain thing really distinct from Sortes and from a quality of Sortes, really informing Sortes or a quality of Sortes; but because these can be successively verified, ‘Sortes is similar,’ ‘Sortes is not similar’ by virtue of the transmutation of Sortes. For if Plato be white, and Sortes black, and afterwards Sortes may become white and may be transmuted from blackness to whiteness by virtue of this alone, that Sortes is transmuted from blackness to whiteness, and Plato may not be transmuted; this proposition is true, ‘Sortes is not similar to Plato’; and afterwards this, ‘Sortes is similar to Plato’; and so then likeness thus advenes to Sortes by virtue of the transmutation of Sortes, although it may be able to happen to him without a transmutation of Sortes by virtue of a transmutation of Plato. For from this very fact, that Plato could become black, and could be transmuted from whiteness to blackness, while Sortes remains black and not changed; this proposition would be true, ‘Sortes is not similar to Plato,’ and afterwards this, ‘Sortes is similar to Plato.’ And so it is obvious that this relation ‘likeness’ can advene to or recede from Sortes through a change of Sortes and without a change of him. This is said, ‘Sortes can be similar at first and afterwards is not similar’; and conversely, both with a change of Sortes and without a change of Sortes. And that is called ‘accident’ when using the term in a liberal sense.
In a very free use of the term, ‘accident’ is called all that which can be suitable to something at one time and at another time can not be suitable to it, or might be able to be suitable to it and not suitable by virtue of a proper change as well as an inadequate change, or might not be able to be successively suitable to it and not be suitable through a proper change but specially through an inadequate change.
And in thus accepting the term it is not inconsistent to concede that some accident is suitable to God, for such an accident occasions no change either actual or possible in God.
‘Accident’ taken in the first way is most properly an accident; ‘accident’ taken in the second way is less properly an accident; but the third way is not properly an accident. And lest some one may believe that this distinction procedes from my head, let him read the venerable Anselm in his Monologium in Chapter XXV., where he says: “Of all things, surely, which are called accidents, some are understood to be able to be present or absent not except with some variation of the participant, as all colors; others are known not to effect any change at all about that of which they are said, either by acceding or receding, as certain relations. For it is, indeed, well known that I am neither older nor younger nor equal nor like the man who will be born after the present year; but I shall undoubtedly, be able to have and to lose all these relations to him, when he will have been born, without any change of myself, in proportion as he shall grow, or will be changed through diverse qualities.
And so it becomes plain, that of those, which are called accidents, certain to a certain degree bring commutability, but certain by no means impare immutability. Therefore, as the Supreme Nature in its own simplicity has never attributed a place to accidents effecting a change; so it sometimes does not disdain to say something about those accidents which by no means resist the supreme immutability; and yet there is nothing accidental about its essence, whence variableness itself can be conceived.
Whence, this can also be drawn, that it is susceptible of no accident. Surely, according to this mode those accidents, which by acceding or receding make some change, by this very effect are considered truly to happen to the thing which they change; so those, which are deficient by a similar effect, are discovered to be improperly called accidents.”
From these words the previous distinction can be deduced. For when he says that there are some accidents, which make some change by acceding or receding, which are not conceived to be able to be present and absent except with some variation of the participant, as all colors, it shows that some accidents, which produce some change, are things really distinct from their subjects and inhere in the same. For color is a certain quality really distinct from substance, and inherent in it. But through this, which he says, there are some which either by acceding or receding are known to effect no change at all about that of which they are said, as certain relations. It evidently shows that there is an accident which is not a thing really distinct from a subject outside advening to that subject and really receding from that. For it is impossible that some thing may really and truly inhere and inform some thing really distinct and afterwards may not inform it unless that thing be commuted. The same writer also gives assent to this through this which he says, that there are some accidents which do not at all impair immobility.
From this it is obvious that not every accident is really retained in its subject, for Anselm says that the Supreme Nature “sometimes does not disdain to say something about those accidents which by no means resist the highest immutability; and yet nothing is accidental about its essence, whence variation itself can be conceived.” For nothing is accidental to that Supreme Nature through real inherence and real information; and yet Anselm does not deny but concedes that some accident is suitable to it.
From which, according to the statement of Anselm, it is obvious that not every accident is really sustained in a subject; whence, this can also be concluded, that surely Supreme Nature is susceptible of no accident; for although some accident may be suitable to God, yet He really sustains none in Himself; and as it is of an accident, which is suitable to God, which is not really sustained in God, so an accident, which makes no change about that of which it is said, is not really sustained in that subject.
For if it could really be retained in a subject, as if a distinct thing in a distinct thing, the subject would necessarily be changed; for it would truly and really have in itself some thing inhering in itself, to which it was potentially prior, for it can not be without any change. For every thing which has at first one thing and afterwards another, either at first is deprived of some thing and afterwards may really be informed by it, or on the contrary it necessarily passes rapidly from one thing to another and consequently is changed; for according to Saint Gregory “to change is to go from one to another”; and according to the philosopher, “to change is to have yourself now otherwise than before.”
Therefore, it is obvious that an accident, which advenes to that, of which it is said, without any change, is not really sustained in a subject; for then the divine nature would be susceptible of some accident. And, indeed, when Anselm says that “some accidents make no change at all by acceding or receding,” he does not understand that such accidents may really accede as distinct things to a subject in informing it and may recede through the destruction or separation of one thing from another; for when, although Sortes appears black, Plato becomes white from black, no thing is separated from Sortes; but then that likeness is said to recede, by which Sortes was similar to Plato; for Sortes ceases to be similar to Plato. Whence, for likeness to accede to Sortes and to recede, is nothing other than that Sortes sometimes begins to be similar and sometimes ceases to be similar; and yet by virtue of this it is not necessary that Sortes receive some thing into himself or cease to have some thing in himself; as God, without the assumption of any thing into Himself and without the loss of anything existing in God, sometimes begins to be the justifier of the sinner and sometimes ceases to be the justifier of the sinner.
And so it is thus clearly established that it is according to the intention of Anselm to posit some accident which is a thing really distinct from the subject, really retained in that subject; as color is really retained in a body as a distinct thing in a distinct thing. But any accident is not a thing really sustained in a subject but is, indeed, called an accident; for it is contingently predicated of that, even if the constancy of the subject is posited. And that any of them can accede and recede through a change of that of which it is said, and even through an inadequate change, as is manifestly obvious; for that is obvious of relative accidents through an inadequate change, which Anselm says can advene to itself either through this, that another might increase or will be changed through diverse qualities. But that any may be able to advene to myself through a proper change of myself is also manifest, as was declared of likeness advening to Sortes. But that some accident may not be able to advene to that, of which it is said, except through an inadequate change is obvious through this which posits, that some accident can advene to God, even though God can in no mode be considered mutable.
And so it is obvious that this term ‘accident’ can be accepted in a three-fold sense; although that, which can not be suitable to anything except through an inadequate change, may improperly be called an accident to it, as Anselm says.
← Chapter XXXI in Which Replies Are Posited to the Previous Objections · Contents · Chapter XXXIII It Declares How Quantity Is an Accident, and How It Obtains With →