C. To the Third

162. As to the third [nn.110-111] I concede the consequence about possibility when one is speaking of an absolute accident.

163. But if you are arguing about a relative accident [cf. n.26], using the fact that dependence on the First thing is more essential than dependence on anything posterior to the First - I reply that the dependence of a relation on a foundation is most essential, such that the idea of relation is impossible without it. If substance, therefore, cannot be the foundation of some relation but only an accident can, the relation must more essentially depend on the accident which can be its foundation than on the substance. But this is not because the relation is an accident, but because a relation is a relation, as was said in the preceding solution [n.53].