the falsity) (1) of these views is known through plain reason, and a full conception of them is itself sufficient to know their falsity.

[The Negators’ Mainstay: The Argument from Composition]

These people sought to evade the implication of composition. (2) Yet they have no proof whatsoever for denying everything denoted by “composition” in all these senses. Rather, their mainstay is that a composite depends upon its parts, that its parts are other than itself, and that whatever depends upon something other than itself cannot be necessary in itself.

(They may also say: “An attribute depends upon a substrate, and whatever depends upon a substrate cannot be necessary in itself” 3)

(3) Rather, it is an effect.

Every expression in this argument is ambiguous (4). Thus, the expression “necessary in itself” may refer to