phyrian tree. He adds, by way of confirmation, that there can be more than one definition; although a definition is supposed to represent the entire essence of the entity defined. But the answer is plain. Suarez is confounding the metaphysical with the logical whole in his first argument. The metaphysical whole is the ultimate species, which is composed,-to preserve the logical terminology,— of the proximate genus and the specific difference. But in one and the same line of abstraction there is not more than one proximate genus or more than one specific difference. Each specific nature consists of but one material part and of but one formal part. A somewhat similar reply must be made to the confirmatory argument. Definitions of one and the same object may be multiplied, either because they are incomplete, (and this is the sort of multiplication which Aristotle contemplates in the passage from the De Anima cited by Suarez); or because essential, physical, accidental, definitions of the same object are mutually distinct, (and such is the multiplication which Aristotle refers to in the three passages from the Posterior Analytics, quoted by the same authority). But there can be only one adequate metaphysical definition of a specific nature; just as the nature itself is one only.

There is a second striking resemblance between the proximate genus and specific difference,-or the material and formal part of an essence,―on the one hand, and matter and its substantial Form on the other; viz. that neither of the two elements in each order can exist independently of the other. In the physical order matter, as we have seen, cannot exist without Form, or Form without matter; in the metaphysical order the material part cannot exist without the formal, or the formal without the material. Thus, in man animality must be rational, and rationality must be animal. Neither is it possible for animality to be, unless informed by rationality or irrationality.

There is a third observable resemblance. In material substance no necessity exists for any distinct act of union between matter and the Form, because union enters into the essential nature of the Form; in like manner, there is no necessity for a metaphysical union between the material and formal parts of an essence, because the latter is essentially the metaphysical act of the former. A rational animality is identical with an animality as rationalized. It is hardly necessary to add, that Suarez,-consistently with that independence of entity which he erroneously, as is here maintained, attributes both

to matter and Form in the physical order,--denies the truth of this last parallel; so that, while admitting the statement in regard of the metaphysical, he rejects it when applied to the physical, constituents; whether with sufficient justice, it is for the reader to determine.

PROPOSITION CCXXII.

Though the metaphysical composition of the essential nature with its supposit approaches more nearly to a real composition than that which is constituted by the union of the material with the formal part in a specific nature; yet the specific difference approaches more nearly to the true nature of a Form than the integral essence.

I. THE FIRST MEMBER of this Proposition, wherein it is asserted that the metaphysical composition of an essential nature with its supposit approaches more nearly to a real composition than the combination of the material with the formal part in a specific nature, is thus declared.

It is to be observed that this Member virtually contains two propositions, since it is implied that in neither case is the composition real. This first proposition is easy of proof. For universals and abstract concepts, as such, are incapable of existence. Therefore, as such, they are not real. But all metaphysical composites are universals and abstract concepts. Therefore, formally they are not real, nor is their composition real. Nevertheless, they are founded in reality; for thus it is that they are distinguished from merely logical concepts. It follows as a consequence, that the second and explicit proposition which is made in this Member depends upon the nature of the reality which is the foundation of these two metaphysical compositions respectively. Wherefore, the metaphysical distinction between a specific nature and the supposit is founded upon a real minor distinction between the two in the concrete; whereas the metaphysical distinction between the material and formal part of a specific nature is not founded upon any real distinction either major or minor. The Antecedent is thus declared. We know from Supernatural Theology that it is possible for a substantial nature to exist without its proper personality; and, moreover, there is no intrinsic repugnance. But no real distinction is possible between the proximate genus and specific difference of an individual entity. Genera cannot exist save in their species. No one has seen, or ever will see, an animal that is neither rational nor brute. Hence, the two concepts bear the

relation to each other of the determinate to the indeterminate. Nevertheless, even here there is remotely a real ground of distinction. For, though a rational entity, (using the term, rational, according to its specific meaning), is,-by implication, at least,—— .necessarily animal; yet animality does not necessarily include rationality, seeing that de facto there are many animals which are not rational. Therefore, though when united in the same physical composite, the two are really inseparable; yet in diverse physical entities one really exists without the other.

II. THE SECOND MEMBER, in which it is asserted that the specific difference approaches more nearly to the true nature of a Form than the integral essence, is thus declared. The integral essence does not exhibit any real characteristic of a Form relatively to the supposit with which it is metaphysically composed. For really the supposit is itself an act modally determining the substance; since all, even substantial, modes so far share in the nature of an accident that they depend upon, and perfect, substance. In the present instance, substance of itself possesses this essential perfection, that it can stand alone and neither postulates nor admits a Subject of inhesion. This it has as substance. But supposit adds this ulterior and complemental perfection, that substance is thereby made incommunicable as a nature to any other supposit or person. Hence, if anything,-substance, or the specific nature, assumes the nature of a Subject relatively to its mode, rather than the supposit relatively to its substance. Again: Supposit is no part of the essential nature, but a supplemental perfection; therefore, if Subject at all, it would assume the nature of an accidental. Subject. But such composition is not metaphysical. Once more: The supposit depends for its origin and existence upon, and therefore presupposes, the specific nature; but so considered, the nature exhibits more of the characteristics of a material than of a formal cause. On the other hand, the specific difference has the characteristics of a true Form, as has been shown.

PROPOSITION CCXXIII.

The metaphysical Form, understood in either of these ways, exercises no formal causality.

DECLARATION OF THE PROPOSITION.

From the explanation given under the second Member of the previous Thesis it will be obvious, that the specific nature does not.

exercise any formal causality in the supposit; since its causality would, if anything, be material. So, again, the specific difference exercises no formal causality in the proximate genus; although there is more semblance of formal causality in this than in the former instance. The reason why there can be no formal causality, speaking even metaphysically, is this; that in the species the proximate genus and specific difference are objectively identical, and formal causality postulates a real distinction between the Subject and the Form. To resume the old instance:-In humanity rationality is really identified with animality; the only difference being, that the latter is an indeterminate, the former a determinate, concept, but both of the same object.

ARTICLE IX.

Accidental Forms.

The causality of the accidental Form so closely resembles that of the substantial Form, that the detailed examination already instituted of the latter will spare the necessity of a like prolixity touching the former. The division of the subject-matter will be nearly the same. Consequently, the present Article will be divided into five brief Sections, as follows:

1. The real formal causality of accidents.

2. The nature of such causality.

3. The effects.

4. The eduction of accidental Forms out of the potentiality of their Subject.

5. The causality of modes.

Accidents which have a true entity of their own distinct from that of their substantial Subject and intrinsically determine the latter, exercise a true formal causality.

PROLEGOMENON I.

So far as the present discussion is concerned, accidents may be conveniently divided into two classes, viz. those which intrinsically determine, either immediately or mediately, their substantial Sub

ject, and those on the other hand which only extrinsically affect their Subject by a sort of reference and consequent denomination. We may assume, as an instance of the latter class, clothes. These are said to be an accident of their wearer, because they are referred to him in a special way; as they are his, and by reason of them he is said to be clothed. Suarez subdivides the former; but the subdivision necessarily introduces questions touching individual Categories and their respective subordinate species, about which there may be a difference of opinion. It will, therefore, be better to wait till these Categories are treated er professo.

One thing it is necessary to add by way of caution. That which relatively to another is an accident, in itself may be a substance; as in the instance given. Clothes, as woollen or linen textures, are substances; relatively to him who wears them they are accidents.

PROLEGOMENON II.

The term, causality, like that of Being, is analogously applied to accident. For, as accident is not simply Being, but Being of Being; so the formal causality of accident is not univocal with the formal causality of the substantial Form. The former presupposes its Subject already fully constituted in its essential nature; the substantial Form is congenital with its Subject. Wherefore, accident has no causal connection with the absolute existence of its Subject, though it does causally affect the existence of its Subject as such or such. Thus, for instance, whiteness presupposes the constitution of the integral substance of the rose, while causally affecting its existence as a white rose. It hence follows that the causality of an accidental Form does not result in the absolute oneness of the resultant composite, but only in an adventitious oneness. Lastly: The formal causality of an accidental Form is inferior after a sort to the material causality of its substantial Subject. It gets more than it gives. On the contrary, the causality of a substantial Form is in all respects of a nobler order than that of matter.

DECLARATION OF THE PROPOSITION.

Wherever there is a real potentiality on the part of the Subject and a real actuation on the part of the supervenient Form, there must necessarily be a true formal causality. But in the accidental composites included under the present Thesis there existed, prior to actuation, a real potentiality on the part of the substantial Subject