Theologia Moralis Novissimi Ecclesiæ Doctoris S. Alphonsi, in Compendium Redacta, etc., 576. Thomas and Baldwin’s Gazetteer, 720. Thomas’s Dictionary of Biography, 720. Thomas Grant, First Bishop of Southwark, 855. Thomas, S., of Villanova, Life of, 573. Tigranes, 575. True to Trust, 281. Twelve Tales for the Young, 576. Université Laval: Sixième Centenaire de S. Thomas d’Aquin à S. Hyacinthe et à Quebec, 281. Verne’s The Baltimore Gun Club, 575. Virtues of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, The, 288. What is Darwinism? 429. Who is Jesus Christ? 431. Wilberforce’s The Church and the Empires, 859. Wilson’s Illustrious Soldiers, 719. Wood’s Ecclesiastical Antiquities, 143. Worcester’s Dictionary, 720. THE CATHOLIC WORLD. VOL. XIX., NO. 109.—APRIL, 1874. The Principles Of Real Being. IV. Intrinsic Principles of Substance and Suppositum. We have briefly shown in the preceding article that a complete being, to be a substance and a suppositum, requires no positive addition to its three intrinsic principles, but needs only to be left to itself. This is, in our opinion, an obvious truth. But as there are philosophers of high repute who do not fully share the same opinion, and, on the other hand, the notions of substance and of suppositum are both intimately connected with some theological truths which cannot be well explained without a distinct knowledge of what these two notions really imply, we deem it expedient to enter into a closer examination of the subject, that we may better understand by the light of reason, and confirm by the weight of authority, the traditional doctrine on substance and suppositum, their essential constitution, formal distinction, and supernatural separability. Substance is very commonly described as “that which is in itself and by itself”—_quod in se et per se subsistit_. This definition exhibits the “predicamental” substance—that is, a substance ultimately complete, which is at the same time a suppositum also, according to Aristotle’s comprehensive conception of substance. And it is for this reason that such a definition is made up of two members; of which the first—viz., “that which exists in itself”—strictly applies to substance as such; whilst the second—viz., “that which subsists by itself”—strictly refers to the suppositum as such, and exhibits substance as possessing its own natural subsistence or suppositality.