by ‘body’ a composite whose parts were separate and then came together? Or something assembled by someone who brought its parts together? Or something that can be separated and divided, with some parts detached from others, and the like? Or do you mean something composed of indivisible atoms, or of matter and form? Or do you mean something that can be pointed to, something that subsists in itself, or something that exists?

“If you mean the ‘first,’ we do not concede that these attributes, which you have called accidents, can subsist only in a body as thus defined. If you mean the ‘second,’ we do not concede that the implication cannot hold. For, according to us, the Lord Most High exists, subsists in Himself, and can be pointed to. Thus, on this interpretation, we do not concede that the implication fails.”

As for the assertion, “A composite is contingent”: if by ‘composite’ the speaker means the senses mentioned above—such as something whose parts were separate and then came together, something assembled by someone, or something capable of separation—then we do not accept the first, conditional premise. But if he means something that can be pointed to, or something that subsists in itself and possesses attributes, then we do not accept the negation asserted in the second premise.

Thus, the argument based on accidents consists of two premises—one stating an implication and the other denying its consequent—expressed in ambiguous terms. Once the intended meaning is clarified, one or both premises can be challenged and refuted. Since one of the two premises is invalid on every interpretation, the argument is invalid.