we know more certainly that fire differs from water than that heat differs from an accident inhering in something else—a quality perceptible to touch. Likewise, blackness and whiteness share more in being accidents, being colours, inhering in something else, being visible to the eye, and possessing other attributes than water and fire share n; for what the latter share concerns magnitude and similar quantitative features. Sharing qualitative features is more significant than sharing quantitative ones. If the former does not entail likeness, then the latter is even less likely to do so.

Furthermore, heat may be moderated by cold, as in something lukewarm: it is no longer hot like fire, nor cold like pure water. Water and fire themselves, however, cannot coexist.

Furthermore, different accidents share a single substrate, whereas the divisions themselves do not share a single substrate. This is discussed at length elsewhere.

The purpose here is to show their acknowledgment that the principles on which they based their opposition to the scriptural texts are unsound, and to expose their contradictions in this regard. When discussing logic and other subjects, they make statements that contradict what they say here. It is unlikely—or ordinarily impossible—that this should result merely from differing judgments while they fully understand both discussions. Rather, it results from an incomplete understanding and conception, and from fear that the two statements might not be incompatible, so that one does not venture to assert a contradiction; or from some form of bias