a. Exposition of the Opinion

115. There are here two extreme opinions.

One that posits only quantity to be, and to be able to be, in the Eucharist without a subject [Giles of Rome, Thomas Aquinas].

116. For this opinion there are four reasons.

The first is as follows: only quantity is individuated per se, and all other accidents are individuated through quantity; therefore, if there were some accident and it were not in quantity, it would be a ‘this’ and would not be a ‘this’.

117. Again [nn.117-119 are from Giles or Rome], if whiteness were separated from quantity, it would be perceptible and imperceptible. The proof that it would be perceptible is that it would be per se in the third species of quality [Aristotle, Categories 8.9a28-10a10]. The proof that it would be imperceptible is that a non-quantum cannot be sensed. If this be denied it is proved as follows, that according to the Philosopher, De Sensu et Sensato 6.445b3-11 about a certain matter of doubt: “if what is perceptible were divided infinitely, the sense power would be divided infinitely.” This consequence is only valid if the sense power has to increase according to the decrease of the perceptible thing; if then some perceptible thing is disproportionately less, the senses would have to increase disproportionately; but an indivisible perceptible thing is disproportionately less (so to speak) than any perceptible quantum;     therefore some sense power will be able to be disproportionately greater than any other. The consequent is false; therefore etc     .

118. Again, if whiteness were without quantity, it would be a spiritual quality because it would be indivisible; and it would be a bodily quality because it is in the third species of quality; and so it would be spiritual and non-spiritual.

119. Again, if it were without quantity and so spiritual, there would be no repugnance to its being in a spirit, and so a spirit could be white.