d. About the Three Reasons Adduced for the Second Conclusion

380. On the above basis I respond to the reasons that he adduces for the second conclusion:

That the first reason [n.338] does well prove that God can make a form in flux or in coming to be, just as he can make it in settled being, without a subject; but it does not follow that a created agent can thus make a form in flux without a subject; rather the opposite follows, that it cannot make a form at rest without a subject, but as causing motion it causes in effect a form in flux.

381. The second reason [n.339], namely that God so endows a separated accident that everything can belong to it that could belong to it in a subject, proves the opposite, for nothing could belong to it in a subject save only that it was the term of motion; therefore, in no way could something else belong to it outside a subject. And so some other subject of motion must be granted, because, according to him [n.333], the subject of motion is different from the term of motion.

382. His third reason [n.340], namely that it is not of the essence of motion that the subject is in flux because of it, does well prove that God can make motion without a subject, but does not prove it of a created agent. For a created agent cannot separate anything at all from what is of the essence of it. Indeed, according to the response to the first reason [n.379] the opposite follows, because a created agent can no more separate a form from a subject in flux than from a subject in settled being; but a created agent cannot be the active cause of a form in settled being without a subject, therefore not of a form in flux either.