versal, knows more in regard to the being inherent than he who knows particularly, hence too the universal is better than the particular demonstration. Moreover if there is one certain definition, and no equivocation, the universal will not subsist less, but rather more than certain particulars, inasmuch as in the former there are things incorruptible, but particulars are more corruptible. Besides, there is no necessity that we should apprehend this (universal) to be something besides these (particulars), because it shows one thing, no more than in others which do not signify substance, but quality, or relation, or action, but if a person thinks thus, it is the hearer, and not demonstration, which is to blame.
Again, if demonstration is a syllogism, showing the cause and the why, the universal indeed is rather causal, for that with which any thing is essentially present, is itself a cause to itself, but the universal is the first, therefore the universal is cause. Wherefore the (universal) demonstration is better, since it rather partakes of the cause and the why, besides up to this we investigate the why, and we think that then we know it, when this is becoming, or is, not because something else (is), for thus there is the end and the last boundary. For example, on what account did he come? that he might receive money, but this that he might pay his debts, this that he might not act unjustly, and thus proceeding, when it is no longer on account of something else, nor for the sake of another thing, then we say that he came, and that it is, and that it becomes on account of this as the end, and that then we especially know why he came. If then the same occurs, as to all causes and inquiries into the why, but as to things which are so causes as that for the sake
