Part, Question
1 1, 4 | existence itself, of ~itself subsistent (Q[3], A[4]). Consequently,
2 1, 7 | anything, but ~He is His own subsistent being as was shown above (
3 1, 9 | incorporeal substances, being subsistent forms which, although with ~
4 1, 11 | since He ~is being itself, subsistent, absolutely undetermined.
5 1, 12 | it belong to be His own subsistent being. ~Therefore what exists
6 1, 13 | kind what is ~perfect and subsistent is compound; whereas their
7 1, 14 | understanding which is not subsistent is ~understood, something
8 1, 14 | divine understanding which is subsistent.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[14] A[
9 1, 29 | individuals are not only subsistent, but ~also substand. But
10 1, 29 | all ~nature - that is, a subsistent individual of a rational
11 1, 29 | essence itself; and so it is subsistent, for ~the divine essence
12 1, 30 | also several ~realities subsistent in the divine nature; which
13 1, 30 | nevertheless they are not several subsistent realities - that is, several ~
14 1, 30 | part of the nature, but the subsistent reality in that ~nature.
15 1, 32 | simple forms; and to ~signify subsistent things we use concrete terms.
16 1, 33 | divine Word is something ~subsistent in the divine nature; and
17 1, 34 | must needs be something subsistent; ~for whatever is in the
18 1, 37 | both Word ~and Love are subsistent. Therefore, when we say
19 1, 39 | creatures relations are not subsistent. But in God relations are ~
20 1, 39 | But in God relations are ~subsistent, and so by reason of the
21 1, 39 | Son signifies either one ~subsistent, with two denominations;
22 1, 40 | but when the relation is subsistent, it does not ~presuppose,
23 1, 41 | relations ~themselves as subsistent, there would not be several
24 1, 41 | Wherefore there can be ~but one subsistent filiation in God: just as
25 1, 41 | there could be but one ~subsistent whiteness.~Aquin.: SMT FP
26 1, 75 | souls of brute animals are subsistent?~(4) Whether the soul is
27 1, 75 | human soul is something subsistent?~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[75] A[
28 1, 75 | human soul is not something subsistent. ~For that which subsists
29 1, 75 | the soul is not something subsistent.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[75] A[
30 1, 75 | OBJ 2: Further, everything subsistent operates. But the soul does
31 1, 75 | Therefore the soul is not subsistent.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[75] A[
32 1, 75 | Further, if the soul were subsistent, it would have some ~operation
33 1, 75 | human soul is not something subsistent.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[75] A[
34 1, 75 | substance, that is, something ~subsistent.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[75] A[
35 1, 75 | principle both ~incorporeal and subsistent. For it is clear that by
36 1, 75 | something ~incorporeal and subsistent.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[75] A[
37 1, 75 | Firstly, for anything subsistent; secondly, for that which
38 1, 75 | sense, as being something subsistent; but not in the ~second,
39 1, 75 | souls of brute animals are subsistent?~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[75] A[
40 1, 75 | souls of brute animals are subsistent. For ~man is of the same '
41 1, 75 | 2]), the soul of man is subsistent. Therefore the souls of
42 1, 75 | souls of other ~animals are subsistent.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[75] A[
43 1, 75 | it follows that they are subsistent; just as the human ~intellectual
44 1, 75 | human ~intellectual soul is subsistent.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[75] A[
45 1, 75 | alone we believe to have a subsistent soul: whereas the souls ~
46 1, 75 | souls ~of animals are not subsistent."~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[75] A[
47 1, 75 | souls of brute animals are subsistent. But ~Aristotle held that
48 1, 75 | operations they are not subsistent. For the operation of anything
49 1, 75 | to the act of a form. A subsistent form, however, does not ~
50 1, 75 | also as regards anything ~subsistent that is a form alone. For
51 1, 75 | it is impossible for a ~subsistent form to cease to exist.~
52 1, 75 | matter and form, but are subsistent forms, it is ~clear that
53 1, 76 | per se" existence and is subsistent, as ~was said above (Q[75],
54 1, 76 | separate intellects are subsistent substances, and ~consequently
55 1, 37 | both Word ~and Love are subsistent. Therefore, when we say
56 1, 39 | creatures relations are not subsistent. But in God relations are ~
57 1, 39 | But in God relations are ~subsistent, and so by reason of the
58 1, 39 | Son signifies either one ~subsistent, with two denominations;
59 1, 40 | but when the relation is subsistent, it does not ~presuppose,
60 1, 41 | relations ~themselves as subsistent, there would not be several
61 1, 41 | Wherefore there can be ~but one subsistent filiation in God: just as
62 1, 41 | there could be but one ~subsistent whiteness.~Aquin.: SMT FP
63 1, 74 | souls of brute animals are subsistent?~(4) Whether the soul is
64 1, 74 | human soul is something subsistent?~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[75] A[
65 1, 74 | human soul is not something subsistent. ~For that which subsists
66 1, 74 | the soul is not something subsistent.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[75] A[
67 1, 74 | OBJ 2: Further, everything subsistent operates. But the soul does
68 1, 74 | Therefore the soul is not subsistent.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[75] A[
69 1, 74 | Further, if the soul were subsistent, it would have some ~operation
70 1, 74 | human soul is not something subsistent.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[75] A[
71 1, 74 | substance, that is, something ~subsistent.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[75] A[
72 1, 74 | principle both ~incorporeal and subsistent. For it is clear that by
73 1, 74 | something ~incorporeal and subsistent.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[75] A[
74 1, 74 | Firstly, for anything subsistent; secondly, for that which
75 1, 74 | sense, as being something subsistent; but not in the ~second,
76 1, 74 | souls of brute animals are subsistent?~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[75] A[
77 1, 74 | souls of brute animals are subsistent. For ~man is of the same '
78 1, 74 | 2]), the soul of man is subsistent. Therefore the souls of
79 1, 74 | souls of other ~animals are subsistent.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[75] A[
80 1, 74 | it follows that they are subsistent; just as the human ~intellectual
81 1, 74 | human ~intellectual soul is subsistent.~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[75] A[
82 1, 74 | alone we believe to have a subsistent soul: whereas the souls ~
83 1, 74 | souls ~of animals are not subsistent."~Aquin.: SMT FP Q[75] A[
84 1, 74 | souls of brute animals are subsistent. But ~Aristotle held that
85 1, 74 | operations they are not subsistent. For the operation of anything
86 1, 74 | to the act of a form. A subsistent form, however, does not ~
87 1, 74 | also as regards anything ~subsistent that is a form alone. For
88 1, 74 | it is impossible for a ~subsistent form to cease to exist.~
89 1, 74 | matter and form, but are subsistent forms, it is ~clear that
90 1, 75 | per se" existence and is subsistent, as ~was said above (Q[75],
91 1, 75 | separate intellects are subsistent substances, and ~consequently
92 1, 84 | held that universals are ~subsistent, the universal considered
93 1, 84 | mere participations of ~the subsistent universals which he called
94 1, 89 | the rational soul is a subsistent form, as above ~explained (
95 1, 89 | corporeal matter, and is subsistent, and exceeds the ~capacity
96 1, 103 | But some creatures are subsistent forms, ~as we have said
97 1, 117 | the sensitive ~soul were subsistent, having being and operation
98 1, 117 | And since a simple and subsistent thing cannot be made except
99 1, 117 | therefore, ~it is not a subsistent form, its relation to existence
100 1, 117 | to exist forasmuch as the subsistent composites exist ~through
101 1, 117 | independent of the ~body, it is subsistent, as proved above (Q[75],
102 1, 117 | action of God is ~something subsistent: and thus it must needs
103 1, 117 | body - or else it is not subsistent, but a perfection of the ~
104 3, 4 | Nevertheless, if human nature were subsistent in this way, it ~would not
105 3, 25 | speaking honor is given to a subsistent thing in its entirety: ~
106 3, 35 | designates something as having subsistent being.~Aquin.: SMT TP Q[
107 Suppl, 76| generation ~and corruption is not subsistent of itself, so as to be able
|