Abstract

This chapter highlights a well-known problem for defenders of transubstantiation: namely, the apparent impossibility of supposing that accidents can be separated from their substance. It begins by arguing that Aquinas’s account of accidents, in which the truth-making function of accidents relative to their substances is understood in terms of the existence of such accidents, is highly susceptible to this kind of objection. The next section considers Giles of Rome’s attempts to overcome this worry, most specifically by distinguishing the existence of an accident from its truth-making function, both of which are described. Giles maintains that the existence of an accident is to be identified with the existence of its substance. According to Scotus, this means that Giles is scarcely better off than Aquinas in defending himself against the worry about separated accidents, since a separated accident needs its own existence and, Scotus avers, there is no way for an accident to gain existence when separated. Scotus agrees with Giles that the truth-making function of accidents is to be distinguished from their existence, and holds that accidents, even when united to their substances, have their own proper existence. Overall, the tale is one of the increasing hypostatization of accidents in the light of pressures from Eucharistic doctrine.