Dating the De Unione

1. The treatments given in the Disputed Questions Concerning the Nature of the Word Incarnate are fragmentary and do not parallel the categories in relevant discussions in other works very closely (esp. De Unione art. 1). This is partly a result of the fact that article 1 of this work runs together issues which Aquinas is careful to treat seperately elsewhere. The problem posed in D.Q. Inc. a. 1, is "Whether this Union was brought about in the person or in the nature?" Elsewhere Aquinas devotes an article to the nature and the person seperately (E.g. Summa Theologiae, III, q. 2 aa. 1-2). Further, Aquinas' discussion in this article focuses more explicitly on the various Christological heresies and their condemnations than the other works. The summary nature of the discussion, its tendency to run together issues that are treated seperately elsewhere and its relatively poor organization lead me to believe that the Disputed Question may well be an early work. Fr. Torrell, on the basis of the as yet unpublished findings of the Leonine Commission concerning the ancient catalogues, tells us that its authenticity can no longer be questioned. He dates it as a late work (April or May, 1272) due to the "connection" between the discussions of the unity of Christ's esse in a. 4 and S.T., III, q. 17, a. 2. In light of this relation Torrell says, "it is highly implausible that Thomas would have inserted this dispute in his teaching program, outside of any link with works underway or foreseen for the immediate future." Consequently, he sees it as almost contemporaneous with the beginning of the Tertia Pars.

The problem with this rational is that it seems unlikely that St. Thomas would change his, elsewhere firm, position that Christ has one esse in writing a preparatory work for the Summa only to revert to his original position in that work itself. Further, Fr. Torrell's dates D.Q. Inc. only in terms of article 4, but as I have suggested above article one is much less developed than the parallel texts in the Summa (or even those in III Sent. d. 6 for that matter). Further, article 3 (which preceeds the central article on Christ's esse) about whether Christ can be called one in the neuter has no direct parallel in the Summa Theologiae. In the Summa the article previous to that on Christ's esse asks whether Christ is one. While the subjects dealt with are similar the approach and structure of these articles seem somewhat different. This seems unusual if it were in fact prepatory to that work as Fr. Torrell argues.

Reading the D.Q. Inc. as an early work mitigates these concerns, notably the one concerning Christ's esse, as it is more believable that it was written at a stage where his views were not yet fixed than to claim that he wavered on the issue (i.e. of Christ's esse) during, or immediately prior to, the writing of the Summa. This view also fits with the fact that other articles of the work show themselves to be less developed than the parallel discussions in the Summa. Jean-Pierre Torrell, O.P., Saint Thomas Aquinas: Volume I The Person and His Work, Tr. Robert Royal, (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1996), pp. 206 and 336-337. Of course, until the complete findings of the Leonine Commission are made public any conclusions drawn here can only be considered provisional.

© Mr. Jason Lewis Andrew West
(jlawest@watarts.uwaterloo.ca)

Disputed Question: Concerning the Union of the Word Incarnate

1. Quaeritur utrum haec unio facta sit in persona, vel in natura. Videtur autem quod in natura.
Article 1: Whether this union was brought about in the person or in the nature? It seems that it was in the nature.
Dicit enim Athanasius quod sicut anima rationalis et caro unus est homo; ita Deus et homo unus est Christus. Sed anima rationalis et caro uniuntur in unam naturam humanam. ergo Deus et homo uniuntur in unam naturam Christi.
1. For Athanasius says (On the Creed) that "just as the rational soul and the body are one man, so God and man are one Christ". But the rational soul and the body are united into one human nature. Therefore, God and man are united into the one nature of Christ.
Praeterea, Damascenus dicit in iii libro: hoc facit haereticis errorem, quia dicunt idem naturam et hypostasim. Sed hoc non videtur falsum esse: quia in quolibet simplici, et praecipue in Deo, idem est suppositum et natura. Ergo non est falsum quod haeretici dicunt, quod si unio facta sit in persona, sit facta in natura.
2. Besides, Damascene says in the third book of Concerning the Orthodox Faith, "This produces the error of the heretics, because they say the nature and the hypostasis are the same". But this does not seem to be false, because in anything simple, and especially in God, suppositum and nature are the same. Therefore what the heretics say, that if the union was brought about in the person, it was brought about in the nature, is not false.
Praeterea, Damascenus dicit in iii libro, quod inconvertibiliter et inalterabiliter unitae sunt ad invicem duae naturae. Sed unio naturarum videtur importare unionem naturalem. Ergo unio facta est in natura.
3. Besides, Damascene says in the third book that "the two natures were mutually united unchangeably and inalterably. But the union of natures seems to imply a natural union. Therefore, the union was brought about in the nature.
Praeterea, in omnibus illis in quibus suppositum aliquid habet praeter naturam speciei, vel accidens vel naturam individualem necesse est quod differat suppositum a natura, ut patet per Philosophum in vii Metaph. Sed si unio humanae naturae ad verbum non est facta in natura humana, non pertinebit ad naturam speciei ipsius verbi. Ergo sequetur quod oppositum verbi sit aliud a natura divina; quod est impossibile. videtur ergo quod unio facta sit in natura.
4. Besides, in all those things in which the suppositum possesses something beyond the nature of the species, either an accident or an individual nature, it is necessary that the suppositum differ from the nature, as is clear from the Philosopher in book 7 of the Metaphysics (com. n. 20-21). But if the union of human nature to the Word did not occur in the human nature it will not belong to the nature of the species of the Word itself. Therefore, it would follow that the suppositum of the Word would be different from the divine nature, which is impossible. Therefore, it seems that the union was brought about in the nature.
Praeterea, omnis unio terminatur ad aliquod unum, quod est posterius ipsa unione. Sed unitas personae verbi, cum sit aeterna, non est posterior unione quae facta est in plenitudine temporis. Ergo unio non est facta in persona.
5. Besides, every union is terminated in something one, which is posterior to the union itself. But the unity of the person of the Word, since it is eternal, is not posterior to the union which was brought about in the fullness of time. Therefore the union was not brought about in the person.
Praeterea, unio importat additamentum quoddam. Unde non potest fieri unio in aliquo quod est summae simplicitatis. Sed persona verbi, cum sit vere deus, est summae simplicitatis. Ergo in persona verbi non potest fieri unio.
6. Besides, a union entails a certain addition. Hence, a union cannot be brought about in something which is of highest simplicity. But, the person of the Word, since he is true God, is of the highest simplicity. Therefore, a union cannot be brought about in the person of the Word.
Praeterea, duo quae non sunt unius generis, non possunt in aliquo uniri: ex linea enim et albedine non fit unum. Sed humana natura multo plus differt a divina quam ea quae differunt genere. Ergo non potest simul humanae et divinae naturae unio fieri in persona una.
7. Besides, two things which are not of one genus cannot be united in something: for one thing does not arise from a line and whiteness. But human nature differs much more from the divine nature than those things which differ in a genus. Therefore, the union of human and divine natures cannot be brought about in one person at the same time.
Praeterea, persona et natura verbi differunt solum secundum modum intelligendi, in quantum in persona verbi importatur relatio originis, non autem in natura. Sed per relationem originis verbum non refertur ad humanam naturam, sed ad patrem. Ergo eodem modo se habent ad naturam assumptam persona verbi, et natura eius. Si ergo est facta unio in persona, erit facta unio in natura.
8. Besides, the person and the nature of the Word differ only according to the mode of understanding, in so far as a relation of origin is entailed in the person of the Word, but not in the nature. But, the Word is not related to human nature through the relation of origin, but to the Father. Therefore the Word and the Word's nature are related to the assumed nature in the same way. If, therefore, the union was brought about in the person, it would have been brought about in the nature.
Praeterea, incarnatio excitat nos ad Deum incarnatum diligendum. Sed non debemus plus diligere unam personam divinam quam aliam; quia quorum est eadem bonitas, debet esse eadem dilectio. Ergo unio incarnationis facta est in natura communi tribus personis.
9. Besides, the incarnation stimulates us to love God Incarnate. But we should not love one divine person more than another; since their goodness is the same, the love ought to be the same. Therefore, the union of the incarnation occurred in the nature common to the three persons.
Praeterea, secundum Philosophum in ii De Anima, vivere viventibus est esse. Sed in Christo est duplex vita, scilicet humana et divina. Ergo est illi duplex esse, et per consequens duplex persona: esse enim est suppositi vel personae. Non ergo facta est unio in persona.
10. Besides, according to the Philosopher, in book II On the Soul (com. 37), in living things living is being. But in Christ life is two-fold, namely human and divine. Therefore being is two-fold for him and, consequently, there is a two-fold person: for being is of the suppositum or the person. Therefore the union was not brought about in the person.
Praeterea, sicut forma partis comparatur ad materiam, ita forma totius ad suppositum. Sed forma partis non potest esse nisi in materia propria. ergo forma totius, quae est natura, non potest esse nisi in proprio supposito, quod est persona humana. et eadem ratione natura divina est etiam in persona divina. Ergo, si sint ibi duae naturae, oportet quod sint ibi duae personae.
11. Besides, just as the form of a part is compared to matter, so the form of a whole is compared to a suppositum. But the form of a part cannot exist except in its own matter. Therefore, the form of the whole, which is the nature, cannot exist except in its own suppositum, which is a human person. And by the same reason the divine nature also exists in the divine person. Therefore, if there were two natures there, it would be necessary that there be two persons there.
Praeterea, omne quod vere praedicatur de aliquo, potest supponere pro ipso. Sed natura divina vere praedicatur de persona verbi. Ergo potest supponere pro ipsa. Si ergo facta est unio in persona, vere potest dici quod facta sit unio in natura.
12. Besides, everything which is truly predicated of something, is able to supposit for it. But the divine nature is truly predicated of the person of the Word. Therefore, it is able to supposit for the person of the Word. If, therefore, the union was brought about in the person, it can be truly said that it was brought about in the nature.
Praeterea, omne quod unitur alicui, aut unitur ei essentialiter aut accidentaliter. Sed humana natura non unitur verbo accidentaliter, quia sic retineret suam personalitatem, et essent duae personae. Omnis enim substantia alteri adveniens retinet suam singularitatem; sicut vestis induta, et equus equitantis. Ergo advenit ei essentialiter quasi pertinens ad essentiam vel naturam verbi. Est ergo unio facta in natura.
13. Besides, everything that is united to something, is united either accidentally or essentially. But human nature is not united to the Word accidentally, because it would thus retain its own personality and there would be two persons. For every substance added to another retains its own singularity, as the garment which has been put on or the horse which is being ridden. Therefore, human nature comes to the Word essentially as though pertaining to the essence or nature of the Word. Therefore the union occurred in the nature.
Praeterea, nihil quod comprehenditur sub alio, extendit se ad aliquid extrinsecum; sicut quod comprehenditur loco non est in exteriori loco. Sed suppositum cuiuslibet naturae comprehenditur sub natura illa, unde et dicitur res naturae. Sic enim comprehenditur individuum sub specie, sicut species sub genere. Cum ergo verbum sit suppositum divinae naturae, non potest se extendere ad aliam naturam ut sit eius suppositum, nisi efficiatur natura una.
14. Besides, nothing that is included in another stretches out to something outside, just as what is found in a place is not also outside the place. But the suppositum of any nature is found in that nature, hence it is called a thing of nature. In this way, the individual is included under a species, just as the species is included under a genus. So since the Word is the suppositum of the divine nature, it is not able to stretch out to another nature so as to be its suppositum, unless one nature is brought about.
Praeterea, natura se habet ad suppositum per modum formalioris, et simplicioris et constituentis. Hoc autem modo non potest se habere natura humana ad personam verbi. Ergo persona verbi non potest esse persona humanae naturae.
15. Besides, nature is related to suppositum through a more formal and more simple mode, and the nature constitutes it. But, human nature cannot be related to the person of the Word in this way. Therefore the person of the Word cannot be a person of human nature.
Praeterea, actio attribuitur supposito vel personae: quia actiones singularium sunt, secundum Philosophum. Sed in Christo sunt duae actiones, ut Damascenus probat in libro iii. Ergo sunt ibi duae personae. Non ergo facta est unio in persona.
16. Besides, action is attributed to the suppositum or person, since actions belong to particular things, according to the Philosopher (Metaph. Ch. 1, ). But, there are two actions in Christ as Damascene proves in book three (De Fide Orth. Ch. xv). Therefore, there are two persons there. Therefore, the union is not brought about in the person.
Praeterea, persona definitur esse natura proprietate distincta. Si ergo facta est unio in persona, sequitur quod facta sit unio in natura.
17. Besides, person is properly defined as a nature made distinct as a property. If therefore the union occurred in the person, it follows that it occurred in the nature.
Sed contra. Est quod Augustinus dicit in libro De Fide ad Petrum: duarum naturarum veritas manet in Christo secundum unam personam. Praeterea, ad Orosium dicit: duas naturas cognoscimus in una persona filii.
But on the contrary is 1) what Augustine says in the book Concerning the faith to Peter [spurious]: "The truth of the two natures remain in Christ according to one person. 2) In "To Orosius" [spurious] he also says "we know two natures in the one person of the Son."
Respondeo. Dicendum quod ad evidentiam huius quaestionis, primo, oportet considerare quid est natura, secundo, quid est persona; tertio, quomodo unio verbi incarnati facta est in persona, non in natura.
I answer that for a clear understanding of this question, first it is necessary to consider what a nature is, second what a person is, and third how the union of the Word incarnate occurred in the person, not in the nature.
Sciendum est ergo, quod nomen naturae a nascendo sumitur. Unde primo est dicta natura, quasi nascitura, ipsa nativitas viventium, scilicet animalium et plantarum. Deinde tractum est nomen naturae ad principium praedictae nativitatis. Et quia huiusmodi nativitatis principium intrinsecum est, ulterius derivatum est nomen naturae ad significandum interius principium motus, secundum quod dicitur in ii Physic., quia natura est principium motus in quo est, per se, non secundum accidens. Et quia motus naturalis praecipue in generatione terminatur ad essentiam speciei, ulterius essentia speciei, quam significat definitio, natura vocatur. Unde et Boetius dicit in libro De Duabus Naturis, quod natura est unumquodque informans specifica differentia. Et hoc modo hic natura accipitur.
Therefore, it should be known that the name "nature" is taken from being born (nascendo). Hence, nature, or "about to be born", was first said of the actual birth of living things, namely of plants and animals. Next the name nature was transferred to the principle of the aforementioned nativity. And since the principle of this kind of nativity is interior, the name nature was further extended to signifying a more interior principle of motion, according to what is said in II Physics (com. 1), that nature is a principle of motion in which [motion] is per se, not accidental. Since natural motion especially in generation is terminated at the essence of a species, we may say further, the essence of a species, which a definition signifies, is called a nature. Hence Boethius also says in "Concerning the Two Natures" that nature is the specific difference informing each and every thing. And it is in this way that nature is taken here.
Ad intelligendum autem quid sit persona, considerandum est quod si aliqua res est in qua non sit aliud quam essentia speciei, ipsa essentia speciei erit per se individualiter subsistens. Et sic in huiusmodi re idem esset realiter suppositum et natura, sola ratione differens; in quantum scilicet natura dicitur prout est essentia speciei, suppositum vero in quantum per se subsistit. Si vero aliqua res sit intra quam praeter essentiam speciei, quam significat definitio, sit aliquid aliud, vel accidens vel materia individualis; tunc suppositum non erit omnino idem quod natura, sed habebit se per additionem ad naturam. Sicut apparet praecipue in his quae sunt ex materia et forma composita. Et quod dictum est de supposito, intelligendum est de persona in rationali natura: cum persona nihil aliud sit quam suppositum rationalis naturae, secundum quod Boetius dicit in libro De Duabus Naturis, quod persona est rationalis naturae individua substantia.
However, in order to understand what a person is, it must be considered that if there is some thing in which there is nothing other than the essence of the species, the essence of the species itself will be subsisting individually through itself. Thus, in a thing of this kind nature and suppositum would be really the same, differing only by reason; that is, the thing is called a nature insofar as it is the essence of the species, but it is called a suppositum insofar as it subsists through itself. But, if there were anything within a thing beyond the essence of the species, which the definition signifies, it would be something other, either an accident or the matter of an individual. Then the suppositum will not be entirely the same as that nature, but it will be constituted by an addition to the nature, as is most evident in those things which are composed of matter and form. And what was said concerning the suppositum must be understood concerning the person in a rational nature, since a person is nothing other than a suppositum of a rational nature according to what Boethius says in the book Concerning the Two Natures, that person is an individual substance of a rational nature.
Sic ergo patet quod nihil prohibet aliqua uniri in persona quae non sunt unita in natura; potest enim individua substantia rationalis naturae habere aliquid quod non pertinet ad naturam speciei, et hoc unitur ei personaliter, non naturaliter. Hoc igitur modo accipiendum est quod natura humana unita est verbo Dei in persona, non in natura: quia si non pertinet ad naturam divinam, pertinet autem ad personam ipsius, in quantum persona verbi assumendo, adiunxit sibi humanam naturam. Sed de modo huiusmodi coniunctionis dubitatio et discordia accidit. Videmus enim in creaturis quod dupliciter aliquid alicui advenit; scilicet accidentaliter, et essentialiter.
Hence, it is obvious that nothing prevents some things being united in a person which are not united in the nature. For an individual substance of a rational nature can have something which does not pertain to the nature of a species and this is united to it personally, not naturally. Therefore, in this manner it must be taken that the human nature was united to the Word of God in the person, not in the nature: since if it does not pertain to the divine nature, nevertheless it pertains to his person, insofar as the person of the Word joined human nature to himself by assuming it. But concerning the manner of this kind of conjunction doubt and discord occurs. For we see in creatures that something comes to another in two ways; namely accidentally and essentially.
Nestorius igitur, et ante ipsum Theodorus Mopsuestenus, posuerunt naturam humanam coniunctam esse verbo accidentaliter; scilicet secundum gratiae inhabitationem: ponentes quod verbum Dei unitum erat homini Christo sicut habitans in ipso ut in templo suo. Videmus autem quod omnis substantia coniuncta alteri accidentaliter, retinet seorsum suam propriam singularitatem, sicut vestis adveniens homini aut domus continens habitatorem: unde sequitur quod homo ille habuerit propriam singularitatem quae est personalitas eius. Sequebatur ergo secundum Nestorium, quod in Christo persona hominis esset distincta persona a persona verbi; et quod esset alius filius hominis, et alius Filius Dei. Unde Beatam Virginem non confitebatur matrem Dei, sed matrem hominis.- Sed hoc est omnino absurdum. primo quidem, quia Sacra Scriptura aliter loquitur de hominibus in quibus verbum dei habitavit per gratiam, et aliter de Christo. Nam de aliis dicit quod factum est verbum Domini ad talem prophetam, sed de Christo dicit: verbum caro factum est, id est homo; quasi ipsum verbum personaliter sit homo. Secundo, quia apostolus ad Philipp. hanc unionem exinanitionem Filii Dei vocat. Manifestum est autem quod inhabitatio gratiae non sufficit ad rationem exinanitionis. Alioquin exinanitio competeret non solum Filio, sed etiam Patri et Spiritui Sancto, de quo Dominus dicit Ioan. xiv: apud vos manebit, et in vobis erit; et de se et Patre: ad eum veniemus, et apud eum mansionem faciemus. Propter hoc igitur et multa alia, praedictus error damnatus est in Concilio Ephesino.
Therefore, Nestorius, and Theodorus Mopsuestenus before him, posited that the human nature was conjoined to the Word accidentally; namely according to the indwelling of grace: positing that the Word of God had been united to the man Christ as if by dwelling in him as in his temple. But we see that every substance accidentally conjoined to another retains its own proper singularity separately, as when clothes are put on by man or a house contains an inhabitant. Hence it follows that man will have a proper singularity which is his personality. Therefore, according to Nestorius it followed that the person of man in Christ was a distinct person from the person of the Word, and that one was the son of man and the other the Son of God. Hence the Blessed Virgin was not acknowledged as the mother of God, but the mother of a man. -- But this is entirely absurd. First, indeed, because Sacred Scripture speaks in one way concerning men in whom the Word of God dwelled through grace, and in another way concerning Christ. For concerning other men it says that the Word of the Lord was brought to a given prophet, but concerning Christ it says "The Word was made flesh", that is a man; as if the Word itself were personally a man. Second, since the Apostle in the letter to the Philippians calls this union an emptying of the Son of God. But it is clear that the indwelling of grace is not adequate to the notion of emptying. Otherwise emptying would belong not only the Son, but also to the Father and the Holy Spirit, concerning which the Lord says "He will remain with you, and he will be in you" and concerning himself and the Father: "We will come to him and make a home with him". Therefore, on account of this and many other things, the aforesaid error was condemned in the Council of Ephesus.
Quidam vero cum Nestorio sustinentes humanam naturam accidentaliter verbo advenisse, voluerunt evitare dualitatem personarum quam ponebat Nestorius, ponentes quod verbum assumpsit animam et corpus sibi invicem non unita; ut sic non constitueretur persona humana ex anima et corpore. Sed ex hoc sequitur maius inconveniens, quod Christus non vere fuerit homo; cum ratio hominis consistat in unione animae et corporis. Et ideo etiam hic error damnatus est sub Alexandro iii in Concilio Turonensi.
Certain men, holding with Nestorius that human nature had come to the Word accidentally, wanted to avoid the duality of persons which Nestorius posited, positing that the Word assumed a soul and a body to itself not united to each other; so that a human person would not produced from a soul and a body. But from this a greater absurdity follows, i.e. that Christ was not truly a man; since the notion of a man consists in the union of a soul and a body. And thus this error was also condemned under Alexander III in the Council of Tours.
Alii vero acceperunt aliam partem, ponentes naturam humanam verbo essentialiter advenire; ut quasi conflaretur una natura, sive essentia, ex natura divina et natura humana. Et ad hoc quidem Apollinaris Laodicensis tria dogmata posuit, ut Leo Papa dicit in epistola quadam ad Constantinopolitanos, quorum primum fuit quod posuit animam non esse unitam in Christo, sed verbum carni loco animae advenisse. Ut sic ex verbo et carne fieret una natura, sicut in nobis ex anima et corpore. In quo quidem dogmate Apollinaris secutus est Arium. Sed quia evangelica Scriptura expresse de anima Christi loquitur, secundum illud Ioan. x: potestatem habeo ponendi animam meam, incidit in secundum dogma, ut poneret quidem animam sensitivam esse in Christo, non autem rationalem; sed verbum fuisse homini Christo loco intellectus. sed hoc est inconveniens; quia secundum hoc, verbum non assumpsisset humanam, sed bestialem naturam, ut Augustinus contra eum arguit in libro LXXXIII Quaestionum. Tertium dogma eius fuit, quod caro Christi non est de femina sumpta sed facta de verbo in carnem mutato atque converso. Hoc autem est maxime impossibile: quia verbum Dei, cum sit vere Deus, est immutabile omnino. Unde propter haec dogmata damnatus est Apollinaris in Concilio Constantinopolitano; et Eutyches, qui eius tertium dogma secutus est, in Concilio Chalcedonensi.
But others took the other side, positing that human nature was joined to the Word essentially; so that it is as if one nature or essence was produced out of the divine and human nature. And on this point indeed Apollinaris made three claims, as Pope Leo says in a certain letter to the Constantinopolians. First, he posited that a soul was not united to Christ, but that the Word had come to the flesh in place of the soul. As a result, one nature was produced from the Word and the flesh, just as in us one nature is produced from the soul and the body. In which doctrine Apollinaris also followed Arius. But since the evangelical Scriptures explicitly speak about the soul of Christ, according to that passage of John: (10:18) "I have power of laying down my soul," he fell into the second opinion, so that he even posited that there was a sensitive soul in Christ, but not a rational soul; rather he posited that the Word took the place of the intellect in the man Christ. But this is unfitting because according to this the Word did not assume a human, but a bestial nature, as Augustine argued against him in the book Eighty-Three Questions. His third teaching was that the flesh of Christ was not taken from a woman but made from the Word changed into flesh and even conversely. But this is most impossible, because the Word of God, since he is truly God, is completely immutable. For these doctrines of Apollinaris were condemned in the Council of Constantinople, as was that of Eutyches, who followed his third teaching, in the Council of Chalcedeon.
Sic igitur, si non est facta unio in persona sed solum secundum habitationem, secundum Nestorium, nihil novum in Christi incarnatione accidit. Quod vero facta sit unio in natura, secundum Apollinarem et Eutychen, est omnino impossibile. Cum enim species rerum sint sicut numeri, in quibus addita vel subtracta unitate variant speciem, ut dicitur in viii Metaph., quaecumque natura est in se perfecta, impossibile est quod recipiat alterius naturae additionem. Vel, si reciperet, non esset eadem natura, sed alia. Divina autem natura est perfectissima. Similiter etiam humana natura habet perfectionem suae speciei. Unde impossibile est quod una alteri adveniat unione naturali. Et si esset possibile, iam id quod ex utroque constitueretur neque esset natura divina neque humana: et sic Christus esset neque homo neque Deus, quod est inconveniens. Relinquitur ergo quod humana natura non est unita verbo neque accidentaliter neque essentialiter, sed substantialiter, secundum quod substantia significat hypostasim, et hypostatice vel personaliter.
So, therefore, if the union was not made in the person, but only according to inhabiting, as Nestorius claimed, nothing new happened in the incarnation of Christ. But, that the union occurred in the nature, as Apollinaris and Eutyches claimed, is completely impossible. For since the species of things are like numbers in which added and subtracted units vary the species, as is said in book 8 of the Metaphysics, it is impossible that whatever nature is complete in itself should receive the addition of another nature. (cf. William of Auxerre) Or if it did receive, it would not be the same nature, but another one. But the Divine nature is most complete. Similarly, even the human nature has the completion of its own species. Hence it is impossible that one [nature] should be joined to another in a natural union. Even if it were possible, then surely that which was produced from both would be neither a human nature nor a divine nature; and thus Christ would be neither man nor God, which is unfitting. Therefore, it remains that the human nature was united to the Word neither accidentally, nor essentially, but substantially; insofar as substance signifies a hypostasis, and hypostatically or even personally.
Huius autem unionis exemplum in rebus creatis nullum est propinquius quam unio animae rationalis ad corpus, quod ponit Athanasius. Non quidem secundum quod anima est forma corporis, quia verbum non potest esse forma in materia; sed secundum quod corpus est animae instrumentum, non quidem extrinsecum et adventitium, sed proprium et coniunctum. Unde Damascenus dicit humanam naturam esse organum verbi. Esset autem adhuc similius, sicut Augustinus dicit Contra Felicianum, si fingamus, sicut plerique volunt, esse in mundo animam generalem, quae passibilem materiam ad diversas formas, unam faceret secum esse personam.
But there is no example of this union in created things nearer than the example Athanasius posits, of the union of the rational soul to the body. Not indeed in the way that the soul is the form of the body, because the Word cannot be a form in matter; but in the way that the body is the instrument of the soul, not indeed an extrinsic and foreign instrument, but its own and a conjoined one. Hence Damascene said that the human nature is the implement of the Word. However, we would find a closer example Augustine says in Contra Felicianus, if we suppose, as very many want, that there is a generic soul in the world, which as matter received of diverse forms, would make one person with itself.
Sed tamen omnia huiusmodi exempla sunt deficientia: quia unio instrumenti est accidentalis; sed haec est quaedam unio singularis supra omnes modos unionis nobis notos. Sicut enim Deus est ipsa bonitas et suum esse, ita etiam est ipsa unitas per essentiam. Et ideo, sicut virtus eius non est limitata ad istos modos bonitatis et esse qui sunt in creaturis, sed potest facere novos modos bonitatis et esse nobis incognitos; ita etiam per infinitatem suae virtutis potuit facere novum modum unionis, ut humana natura uniretur verbo personaliter, non tamen accidentaliter. Quamvis ad hoc in creaturis nullum sufficiens exemplum inveniatur. Unde Augustinus dicit in epistola Ad Volusianum, de hoc mysterio loquens: si ratio quaeritur, non est admirabile: si exemplum poscitur, non est singulare. Demus Deo aliquid posse, quod fateamur nos investigare non posse; in talibus enim tota ratio facti est potentia facientis. Et Dionysius dicit in cap. ii De Divin. Nom.: Iesus secundum nos divina compositio, id est unio, et ineffabilis est verbo omni, et ignota menti; tamen et ipsi primo dignissimorum angelorum.
Nevertheless, all examples of this kind are deficient: because the union of an instrument is accidental; but, this is a certain singular union above every mode of union known to us. For just as God is goodness itself and his own being, so also he is unity itself through [his] essence. And thus, as his power is not limited to these modes of goodness and being which are in creatures, but is able to make new kinds of goodness and being unknown to us; so also he was able to make a new kind of union through the infinity of his own power, in order for human nature to be united to the Word personally, but not accidentally, although no adequate example for this can be found in creatures. Hence Augustine speaking of this mystery in the epistle to Volusianus (3) "If a reason is sought, it is not wonderful; if an example is demanded, it is not unique. We must grant that something is possible for God, which we confess that we cannot investigate; for in such things the entire reason for the thing made is the power of maker." And Dionysius says in cap. 2 of the Divine Names: "According to us Jesus is a divine composition, that is a union, and he is ineffable by any word and unknown to the mind, and also to the first of the most worthy angels himself.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod similitudo non attenditur quantum ad hoc quod ex anima et carne sit una hominis natura; sed quantum ad hoc quod utrobique constituitur una persona.
Resp. 1: A similarity is not observed according to this, that from a soul and a body there is one nature of man, but according to this, that one person is constituted from both.
Ad secundum dicendum quod quamvis in divinis natura et suppositum, sive persona, non differant realiter, differunt tamen ratione ut dictum est. Et quia idem est subsistens in natura humana et divina, non autem eadem essentia ex utroque componitur, inde est quod unio facta est in persona, ad cuius rationem pertinet subsistere; non autem ad naturam, quae importat essentiam rei.
Resp. 2: Although nature and suppositum, or person, do not differ really in divine things, nevertheless, they differ by reason, as was said. And because the same thing is subsisting in human nature and in the divine, but the essence composed from both is not the same, hence it is that the union was made in the person, to whose character it pertains to subsist; but [subsisting does] not [pertain] to the nature which implies the essence of the thing.
Ad tertium dicendum quod naturae quidem unitae sunt in Christo; non tamen in natura, sed in persona. Quod apparet ex hoc ipso quod dicuntur inconvertibiliter et inalterabiliter naturae esse unitae.
Resp. 3: The natures were indeed united in Christ; yet not in the nature, but in the person. This is evidence for the fact that the natures are said to be unchangeably and unalterably united.
Ad quartum dicendum quod haeretici, dicentes quod non est facta unio in persona, sed quod sit facta in natura, non reputabant aliud esse personam et aliud naturam nec re nec ratione; et ideo decipiebantur.
Resp. 4: Heretics, saying that the union did not occur in the person, but in the nature, did not think that the person and the nature differ - neither in reality, nor in reason; and thus they were deceived.
Ad quintum dicendum quod proprie secundum unionem dicitur aliquid unitum, sicut secundum unitatem dicitur aliquid unum. Et ideo unio non intelligitur terminari ad personam divinam secundum quod est una in se ab aeterno, sed secundum quod est unita humanae naturae in tempore. Et ita unio secundum modum intelligendi praecedit personam, non prout est una, sed prout est unita.
Resp. 5: Something is properly called "united" according to a union, just as something is called "one" according to a unity. And thus, a union is not understood to be terminated in the divine person insofar as it is one in itself from eternity, but insofar as it is united to the human nature in time. And thus according to the mode of understanding the union precedes the person, not as it is one, but as it is united.
Ad sextum dicendum quod unio non dicitur fieri in persona divina, quasi ipsa persona divina constituatur ex duobus sibi invicem unitis. Hoc enim eius summae simplicitati repugnaret. Sed dicitur unio esse facta in persona, in quantum divina persona simplex subsistit in duabus naturis, scilicet divina et humana.
Resp. 6: A union is not said to have occurred in the divine person, as if the divine person itself were constituted out of two things united to each other. For this would be contrary to its highest simplicity. But a union is said to have occurred in the person, insofar as the simple divine person subsists in two natures, namely the human and the divine.
Ad septimum dicendum quod duo quae sunt diversa secundum genus, non uniuntur in una essentia vel natura; nihil tamen prohibet quin uniantur in uno supposito. Sicut ex linea et albedine non fit aliqua essentia; inveniuntur tamen in uno supposito.
Resp. 7: Two things which are diverse according to genus may not be united in one essence or nature; yet nothing prevents that they should be united in one suppositum. In the same way, some essence does not come out of whiteness and line, yet they are found in one suppositum.
Ad octavum dicendum quod persona Filii Dei dupliciter potest considerari. uno modo secundum communem rationem personae, prout significat quoddam subsistens; et secundum hoc unio facta est in persona secundum rationem personae, sicut supra dictum est. Alio modo potest in persona Filii considerari id quod est proprium personae Filii, scilicet relatio qua refertur ad Patrem. Et secundum huius relationis rationem non consideratur unio duarum naturarum.
Resp. 8: The person of the Son of God can be considered in two ways. In one way according to the common character of a person, as it signifies something subsisting; and according to this, the union occurred in the person according to the character of a person, as was said above. In another way, that which is proper to the person of the Son can be considered in the person of the Son, namely, the relation by which he is referred to the Father. And the union of the two natures is not considered according to the character of this relation.
Ad nonum dicendum quod sicut incarnatio nihil bonitatis adiicit ad personam divinam, ita etiam nihil adiicit ei diligibilitatis. Unde persona verbi incarnati non est plus diligenda quam persona verbi simpliciter, licet sit secundum aliam rationem diligenda; quae tamen ratio sub universali bonitate verbi comprehenditur. Et propter hoc etiam non sequitur, si incarnationis unio facta est in una persona et non in alia, quod propter hoc una persona sit magis diligenda quam alia.
Resp. 9: As the incarnation adds nothing of goodness to the divine person, so also it adds nothing of lovability to Him. Hence the person of the Word incarnate should not be more loved than the person of the Word simply, although it must be loved according to another aspect, which aspect, nevertheless, is understood as falling under the universal goodness of the Word. On account of this also it does not follow, if the union of the incarnation occurred in one person and not in another that on account of this one person must be loved more than another.
Ad decimum dicendum quod esse est et personae subsistentis, et naturae in qua persona subsistit; quasi secundum illam naturam esse habens. Esse igitur personae verbi incarnati est unum ex parte personae subsistentis, non autem ex parte naturae.
Resp. 10: Being (esse) belongs both to the subsisting person and to the nature in which the person subsists; in the sense that the person has being according to that nature. Therefore, the being of the person of the incarnate Word is one on the part of the subsisting person, but not on the part of the nature.
Ad undecimum dicendum quod non eodem modo se habet natura ad suppositum, sicut se habet forma ad materiam. materia enim non constituitur in esse nisi per formam; et ideo forma requirit determinatam materiam, quam faciat esse in actu. Sed suppositum non solum constituitur per naturam speciei, sed etiam alia quaedam potest habere. Et ideo nihil prohibet naturam aliquam attribui supposito alterius naturae.
Resp. 11: Nature is not related to suppositum in the same way as form is related to matter. For matter is not constituted in being except through a form; and thus form requires determinate matter which it [i.e. the form] may make to exist actually. But a suppositum is constituted not only through the nature of a species, but it can also have certain other things. Thus, nothing prevents some nature being attributed to a suppositum of another nature.
Ad duodecimum dicendum quod natura divina praedicatur de persona divina propter identitatem rei, non autem secundum proprietatem modi significandi. Et ideo non oportet quod supposito uno supponatur alterum; quia etiam in divinis haec est vera: persona generat; non tamen haec est vera: essentia generat.
Resp. 12: The divine nature is predicated of the divine person according to the identity of the thing, but not according to the suitability of the mode of signifying. Thus it is not necessary for one suppositum to take the place of the other; since this is also true in divine things: "the person begets"; yet, this is not true, "The essence begets".
Ad decimumtertium dicendum quod humana natura unita est verbo, non quidem accidentaliter, neque etiam essentialiter, quasi pertinens ad divinam naturam verbi; sed substantialiter, id est hypostatice, quasi pertinens ad verbi hypostasim vel personam.
Resp. 13: Human nature was united to the Word certainly not accidentally, nor also essentially, as if pertaining to the divine nature of the Word; but substantially, that is hypostatically, as if pertaining to the hypostasis or person of the Word.
Ad decimumquartum dicendum quod persona verbi comprehenditur sub natura verbi, nec potest se ad aliquid ultra extendere. Sed natura verbi, ratione suae infinitatis, comprehendit omnem naturam finitam. Et ideo, cum persona verbi assumit naturam humanam, non se extendit ultra naturam divinam, sed magis accipit quod est infra. Unde dicitur Ad Philipp. ii, quod cum in forma Dei esset Dei Filius, semetipsum exinanivit; non quidem deponens magnitudinem formae dei, sed assumens parvitatem humanae naturae.
Resp. 14: The person of the Word is included under the nature of the Word, nor can it extend itself to something beyond. But the nature of the Word, by reason of its own infinity, includes every finite nature. Thus, when the person of the Word assumes human nature, it does not extend itself beyond the divine nature, but the greater receives what is beneath it. Hence, it is said in Philippians (2:6-7) that "while" the Son of God "was in the form of God, he emptied his very self." Not only laying aside the greatness of the form of God, but also assuming the smallness of human nature.
Ad decimumquintum dicendum quod sicut natura verbi est infinita, ita et persona verbi infinita est. Et ideo natura divina verbi correspondet ex aequo ipsi personae verbi secundum se. Natura autem humana correspondet verbo secundum quod factum est homo. Unde non oportet quod natura sit simplicior et formalior illo homine qui est verbum caro factum, et constituens ipsum in quantum est homo.
Resp. 15: Just as the nature of the Word is infinite, so too the person of the Word is infinite. Thus, the divine nature of the Word corresponds equally to the person of the Word in itself from an equality. But, human nature corresponds to the Word inasmuch as it was made man. Hence, it is not necessary that the nature is simpler and more formal than that man who is the Word made flesh and constituting himself inasmuch as he is a man.
Ad decimumsextum dicendum quod actio est suppositi secundum aliquam naturam vel formam; et ideo non solum diversificantur actiones secundum diversitatem suppositorum, sed etiam secundum diversitatem naturae vel formae. Sicut etiam in uno et eodem homine alia actio est videre, et alia audire, propter diversas potentias. Unde in Christo propter duas naturas sunt duae actiones, licet sit una persona vel hypostasis.
Resp. 16: Action is of a suppositum according to some nature or form; and thus actions are not only diversified according to the diversity of supposits, but also according the diversity of nature or form. Just as also one action is seeing and another is hearing in one and the same man on account of diverse powers. Hence, there are two actions in Christ on account of the two natures, although there is one person or hypostasis.
Ad decimumseptimum dicendum quod persona est quidem substantia distincta proprietate ad dignitatem pertinente, non autem secundum quod substantia significat essentiam vel naturam, sed secundum quod significat hypostasim.
Resp. 17 A person is indeed a substance distinguished by a property pertaining to dignity, but not insofar as substance signifies an essence or nature, but inasmuch as it signifies a hypostasis.

Concerning the Union of the Word Incarnate

1. Secundo quaeritur utrum in christo sit una tantum hypostasis vel suppositum, aut duo. Et videtur quod non sit una tantum.
Article 2: Whether there is only one hypostasis or suppositum in Christ or two? It seems that there is not only one:
Dicit enim Augustinus in libro Contra Felicianum: in mediatore Dei et hominum, aliud Dei Filius, aliud hominis filius fuit. Sed nihil quod est unum supposito vel secundum hypostasim, est aliud et aliud. ergo in Christo non est unum suppositum tantum vel hypostasis.
1. For, Augustine says in the book "Against Felicianus" (c.xi) "In the mediator of God and of man, the Son of God was one thing and the son of man another". But, nothing that is one in suppositum or according to hypostasis differs from one another. Therefore, in Christ there is not only one suppositum or hypostasis.
Praeterea, Augustinus dicit in libro De Trin. quod in Christo utrumque est Deus propter suscipientem Deum, et utrumque homo propter susceptum hominem. Sed nihil quod est unum supposito vel secundum hypostasim est duo, ut possit dici utrumque. Ergo in Christo non est una hypostasis tantum sive suppositum.
2. Further, Augustine says in the book On the Trinity that each [of the natures] in Christ is God on account of God who receives, and each is man on account of the man received. But nothing that is one in suppositum or according to the hypostasis is two, in such a way that it may be called both. Therefore, there is not only one hypostasis or suppositum in Christ.
Praeterea, natura humana in Christo quaedam substantia est. Sed non fuit substantia universalis, quia substantia universalis non est extra animam. Ergo fuit substantia particularis. sed substantia particularis est hypostasis. Ergo in Christo humana natura fuit hypostasis. Sed humana natura in Christo est aliquid praeter hypostasim verbi Dei. Ergo in Christo est aliqua hypostasis praeter hypostasim verbi Dei; et ita in Christo sunt plures hypostases.
3. Further, the human nature in Christ is a certain substance. But, it was not a universal substance, because a universal substance does not exist beyond the mind. Therefore, it was a particular substance. But, a particular substance is a hypostasis. Therefore, the human nature in Christ was a hypostasis. But the human nature in Christ is something beyond the hypostasis of the Word of God; and thus there are many hypostases in Christ.
Praeterea, hoc nomen homo univoce dicitur de Christo et de Petro. Sed cum dicitur de Petro, nihil aliud importat quam aliquid compositum ex anima rationali et corpore. Ergo neque etiam cum dicitur de Christo. Sed praeter animam et corpus est in Christo hypostasis vel suppositum verbi Dei. Ergo in Christo aliud est hypostasis vel suppositum humanae naturae, et aliud hypostasis vel suppositum divinae. Et sic in Christo non est una tantum hypostasis vel suppositum.
4. Further, this name "man" is said univocally of Christ and of Peter. But when it is said of Peter it entails nothing other than something composed of a rational soul and a body. Therefore, it also [entails this] when it is said of Christ. But, beyond the soul and the body, in Christ there is the hypostasis or the suppositum of the Word of God. Therefore, in Christ the hypostasis or suppositum of the human nature is one thing and that of the divine nature is another. And, thus, there is not only one hypostasis or suppositum in Christ.
Praeterea, nihil infinitum contineri potest sub natura finita. Sed suppositum vel hypostasis Dei verbi infinitatem habet. Ergo non potest contineri sub natura humana, quae est finita. Sed omne suppositum continetur sub natura cuius est suppositum. Ergo suppositum quod est verbum Dei non potest esse suppositum humanae naturae, sed necesse est esse aliquod aliud suppositum. Ergo in Christo est aliquod aliud suppositum praeter suppositum quod est verbum Dei. Sunt ergo in Christo duo supposita vel hypostases.
5. Further, nothing infinite can be contained under a finite nature. But, the suppositum or hypostasis of the Word of God possesses infinity. Therefore, it cannot be contained under a human nature which is finite. But, every suppositum is contained under that nature whose suppositum it is. Therefore, the suppositum which is the Word of God cannot be the suppositum of a human nature, but there must be some other suppositum. Therefore, there is some other suppositum in Christ beyond the suppositum which is the Word of God. Therefore, there are two supposita or hypostases in Christ.
Praeterea, sicut se habet genus ad speciem, ita se habet species ad individua. Sed eadem species non potest esse in diversis generibus. Ergo unum individuum non potest esse in diversis speciebus. Sed hypostasis est substantia individua, et similiter suppositum. Ergo non potest esse una hypostasis vel suppositum humanae naturae et divinae, quae non sunt unius speciei.
6. Further, just as a genus is related to the species, so the species is related to an individual. But, the same species cannot be in different genera. Therefore, one individual cannot be in diverse species. But, the hypostasis is an individual substance, as is the suppositum. Therefore, there cannot be one hypostasis or suppositum of the human and divine natures, as these do not [belong to] one species.
Praeterea, sicut in trinitate est una natura in tribus personis, ita in Christo sunt duae naturae in una persona. Sed tres personae sunt unum propter unitatem naturae, secundum illud Ioan. x: Ego et Pater unum sumus. Ergo Christus est duo propter dualitatem naturarum. Sed de nullo quod est unum supposito vel secundum hypostasim, potest dici quod sint duo. Ergo Christus non est unum supposito vel secundum hypostasim.
7. Further, just as there is one nature in three persons in the Trinity, so there are two natures in one person in Christ. But, the three persons are one on account of a unity of nature, according to John 10:30: "I and the Father are one". Therefore, Christ is two on account of the duality of natures. But, nothing which is one in [its] suppositum or according to [its] hypostasis, can be called two. Therefore, Christ is not one in [his] suppositum or according to [his] hypostasis.
Praeterea, Christus secundum quod est Filius Dei, habet aliquid commune cum Patre; secundum autem quod dicitur filius hominis, nihil habet cum Patre commune. Ergo in Christo aliud est Filius Dei, et aliud filius hominis; non est ergo unum supposito vel secundum hypostasim.
8. Further, Christ has something in common with the Father insofar as he is the Son of God, and insofar as he is the son of man, he has nothing in common with the Father. Therefore, in Christ the Son of God is one thing and the son of man is another, so he is not one in suppositum or according to the hypostasis.
Praeterea, id quod est de se incommunicabile non videtur de se posse fieri communicabile; sicut nec quod de se est impossibile, potest fieri possibile, ut Commentator dicit in x Metaph. Sed humana natura secundum quod est in Christo, de se est incommunicabilis, cum sit aliquid particulare. Ergo non potest communicari supposito divinae naturae: non ergo potest esse idem suppositum humanae naturae et divinae.
9. Further, what is incommunicable of itself [i.e. by virtue of its nature] does not seem to be able to become communicable by itself. Just as, what is impossible of itself cannot become possible, as the Averroes says in X Metaph. But, insofar as the human nature is in Christ it is incommunicable of itself, since it is something particular. Therefore, it cannot be communicated to the suppositum of the divine nature; so the suppositum of the human and of the divine nature cannot be the same.
Praeterea, unumquodque resolvitur in ea ex quibus consistit. Si ergo detur per impossibile quod verbum Dei deponeret humanam naturam; iam humana natura haberet hypostasim propriam et suppositum. Ergo et adhuc unita habet propriam hypostasim et suppositum; non ergo est ibi una hypostasis tantum, vel suppositum unum.
10. Each thing is resolved into those things out of which it consists. Therefore, if it were granted, through some impossibility, that the Word of God set aside the human nature, then the human nature would have its own hypostasis and suppositum. Therefore, in the united state [i.e. in the hypostatic union] it has its own hypostasis or suppositum united. Therefore, there is not only one hypostasis or one suppositum here. (Translator's note: The argument of the objection is that if there would be two supposita when the natures are seperated, then there are two when they are united. This is relevant to the medieval debate about the ontological status Christ's human nature would have if God disolved the hypostatic union at some time after uniting the human nature to the Divine nature).
Praeterea, non magis dependet natura a supposito quam suppositum a natura. Sed non potuit a verbo Dei assumi suppositum humanae naturae, quin assumeretur ipsa natura humana. Ergo neque etiam potuit assumi natura humana, quin assumeretur suppositum humanae naturae. Sed assumens non est assumptum. Ergo suppositum humanae naturae non est ipsum suppositum verbi Dei; ergo in Christo sunt duo supposita.
11. Further, nature is not more dependent upon the suppositum than the suppositum is upon the nature. But the suppositum of the human nature could not be assumed by the Word of God, without the human nature itself being assumed. Therefore, neither could [the Word of God] assume human nature without also assuming the suppositum of the human nature. But, the thing assuming is not the assumed (Cf. Leonine text of Quodlibet IX,1 for references on this statement). Therefore, the suppositum of the human nature is not the suppositum of the Word of God, and therefore there are two supposita in Christ.
Praeterea, anima et corpus in Christo non fuerunt minoris virtutis aut dignitatis quam in nobis. Sed in nobis ex compositione animae et corporis constituitur hypostasis sive suppositum. Ergo et in Christo. Non autem suppositum vel hypostasis verbi Dei, quod est aeternum cum praedicta unio sit temporalis. Ergo in Christo sunt duo supposita vel duae hypostases.
12. The soul and the body were not less powerful or dignified in Christ than in us. But, in us a hypostasis or suppositum is constituted from the composition of the soul and the body. Therefore, this also happens in Christ. But, the suppositum or hypostasis of the Word of God, which is eternal, [cannot be so constituted] since the aforesaid union is temporal. Therefore, there are two supposita or hypostases in Christ.
Praeterea, in Christo sunt tres substantiae: corpus, anima et Deus. Sed anima non est suppositum corporis. Ergo Deus non est suppositum humanae naturae.
13. Further, there are three substances in Christ: body, soul and God. But the soul is not the suppositum of the body. Therefore, God is not the suppositum of the human nature.
Praeterea, secundum Porphyrium, individuationem facit aggregatio proprietatum quas impossibile est in alio reperiri. Sed in Christo fuit aggregatio proprietatum pertinentium ad humanam naturam, quae non possunt in alio reperiri. Ergo fecerunt individuationem verbi Dei, quod non est susceptivum accidentium. Ergo in Christo est aliud individuum, sive suppositum, quam suppositum verbi Dei; sunt ergo in Christo duo supposita.
14. Further, according to Porphyry, an aggregation of properties which cannot be found in another thing produces individuation. But, in Christ there was an aggregation of properties pertaining to the human nature, which cannot be found in another. Therefore, they would have produced the individuation of the Word of God which does not receive accidents. Therefore, there is another individual or suppositum in Christ than the Word of God. Therefore, there are two supposita in Christ.
Praeterea, in his quorum non est aliqua proportio, non potest fieri unum. Sed divinae naturae, quae est infinita, nulla est proportio ad humanam, quae est finita. Ergo non potest ex duabus naturis fieri una hypostasis, vel unum suppositum.
15. Further, those things without some proportional relationship are not able to be one. But, there is no proportion [between] the divine nature, which is infinite, and the human, which is finite. Therefore, one hypostasis or one suppositum cannot be brought about from two natures.
Praeterea, generatio terminatur ad suppositum; particulare enim est quod generatur. Sed in Christo est duplex nativitas, temporalis scilicet et aeterna. Ergo in Christo est duplex suppositum, et non unum tantum.
16. Further, generation is terminated in the suppositum; for a particular is what is generated. But, there is a two-fold nativity in Christ. Namely, a temporal and an eternal one. Therefore there is a two-fold suppositum in Christ, and not merely one.
Praeterea, verbum Dei assumpsit corpus et animam, non quidem ut separata, sed ut unita. Sed suppositum humanae naturae nihil est aliud quam anima et corpus prout sunt unita. Ergo in Christo est aliud suppositum praeter suppositum verbi Dei.
17. Further, the Word of God assumed a body and a soul not, indeed, as separated, but as united. But the suppositum of the human nature is nothing other than the soul and the body as united. Therefore, in Christ there is another suppositum beyond the suppositum of the Word of God.
Praeterea, non potest esse idem simplex et compositum. Sed suppositum humanae naturae est compositum, cum humana natura sit composita; non enim suppositum potest esse simplicius quam natura cuius est suppositum. Ergo, cum suppositum divinae naturae sit simplex, erit in Christo aliud suppositum praeter suppositum divinae naturae.
18. The same thing cannot be both simple and composite. But, the suppositum of the human nature is composite, since the human nature is composed. For the suppositum cannot be more simple than the nature whose suppositum it is. Therefore, since the suppositum of the Divine nature is simple, there will be a suppositum in Christ besides the suppositum of the divine nature.
Sed contra. Est quod Damascenus dicit in iii libro: in Domino Iesu Christo unam hypostasim cognoscimus.
To the contrary, 1. is what Damascene says in book III On the Orthodox Faith: "we know that there is one hypostasis in the Lord Jesus Christ."
Praeterea, eorum quae differunt supposito, unum de altero non praedicatur. Si ergo in Christo esset aliud suppositum hominis et aliud Dei, non posset dici quod homo sit Deus, vel Deus est homo; quod est erroneum. Non ergo in Christo est aliud suppositum Dei et aliud hominis.
2. Further, [in] those things which differ in suppositum, one is not predicated of another. Therefore, if the suppositum of man and of God were different in Christ, it could not be said that man is God or that God is man; which is an error. Therefore, the suppositum of man and God do not differ in Christ.
Respondeo. Dicendum quod quidam volentes evitare Nestorii haeresim, ponentis in Christo duas personas, posuerunt in Christo unam personam, sed duas hypostases, sive duo supposita. Dicentes hunc hominem, demonstrato Christo, esse suppositum et hypostasim humanae naturae, non autem divinae; quia per hoc quod dicitur hic homo, nihil aliud importatur quam quaedam particularis substantia ex anima et carne composita. Pertinere tamen dicebant humanam hypostasim vel suppositum ad personam verbi, propter hoc quod est a verbo assumpta. Et haec est opinio, quae ponitur prima in vii distinctione iii Sentent.
I answer that, certain men wanting to avoid the heresy of Nestorius, i.e. the heresy of positing two persons in Christ, posited one person in Christ, but two hypostases or supposita. They said that this man, pointing to Christ, is a suppositum and a hypostasis of the human nature, but not of the divine nature; because of the fact that he is called "this man", nothing else is entailed than a certain particular substance composed from a soul and flesh. Yet, they say that a human hypostasis or suppositum pertains to the person of the Word, because it was assumed by the Word. And this is the opinion which is posited first in III Sentences, distinction VII.
Sed qui hoc posuerunt, primo quidem, vocem propriam ignoraverunt. Hypostasis enim nihil aliud est quam individua substantia, quae etiam significatur nomine suppositi. Dicit autem Boetius, in libro De Duabus Naturis, quod persona est individua substantia rationalis naturae. Sic ergo patet quod non potest esse hypostasis rationalis naturae, quin sit persona. Manifestum est autem naturam humanam esse rationalem naturam; unde, si in Christo sit propria hypostasis humanae naturae vel proprium suppositum praeter hypostasim vel suppositum verbi Dei, consequens est quod sit propria persona humanae naturae in Christo praeter hypostasim verbi. Et sic non differt haec positio a positione Nestorii.
But, in the first place, those who posited this were ignorant of the proper word. For a hypostasis is nothing other than an individual substance, which is also signified by the name "suppositum". Now Boethius says, in the book On the Two Natures that a person is an individual substance of a rational nature. So, therefore, it is obvious that it there cannot be a hypostasis of a rational nature, unless it is a person. Now it is clear that the human nature is a rational nature; hence, if there is a proper hypostasis or proper suppositum of the human nature in Christ beyond the hypostasis or suppositum of the Word of God, it follows that there is a proper person of the human nature in Christ beyond the hypostasis of the Word. And, thus, this position would not differ from the position of Nestorius.
Secundo, quia si detur quod persona addat supra hypostasim in rationali natura proprietatem aliquam ad dignitatem pertinentem, sicut dicuntur aliqui personatum habere quasi aliquam dignitatem habentes, sequetur quod unio humanae naturae ad verbum non sit facta nisi in aliquo accidentali, idest in aliqua proprietate ad dignitatem pertinente: quod etiam Nestorius posuit. Unde sciendum est, hoc esse haeresim damnatam in quinto Concilio apud Constantinopolim celebrato, ubi sic legitur: si quis introducere conatur in mysterio Christi duas subsistentias, seu duas personas in unam personam dici secundum dignitatem et honorem et adorationem, sicut Theodorus et Nestorius insanientes conscripserunt; talis anathema sit. Nec enim abiectionem personae vel subsistentiae suscipit Sancta Trinitas incarnato uno de Sancta Trinitate Dei verbo.
Second, because if it is granted that the person adds to a hypostasis in a rational nature some property pertaining to dignity, just as all wearing a mask are said to be like one having some dignity, it would follow that the union of the human nature to the Word was not brought about except in something accidental, namely, in some property pertaining to dignity: which is what Nestorius also posited. (St. Thomas' account of person here relies on the traditional etymology of person given by Boethius cit. loc.). Hence, it must be known that this heresy was condemned in the fifth Council carried out at Constantinople where it is read (in the following words): "If anyone tries to introduce two subsistences into the mystery of Christ or to argue that two persons are said to be one person according to dignity and honor and adoration, as Theodorus and Nestorius wrote foolishly; let them be anathema. For the Holy Trinity did not receive a person or subsistence cast away in the one incarnation of the Holy Trinity from the Word of God.
Ut igitur sciri possit quid in talibus concedendum sit et quid negandum, considerandum est quod nominum ad individuationem pertinentium, sive sint nomina primae impositionis, sicut persona et hypostasis, quae significant res ipsas, sive sint nomina secundae impositionis sicut individuum, suppositum, et huiusmodi, quae significant intentionem individualitatis, quaedam eorum pertinent ad solum genus substantiae, sicut suppositum et hypostasis, quae de accidentibus non dicuntur, et persona in rationabili natura, et etiam res naturae secundum acceptionem Hilarii. Quaedam vero pertinent ad individuationem in quocumque genere, sicut individuum, particulare et singulare, quae etiam in accidentibus dicuntur. Est autem substantiae proprium ut per se et in se subsistat; accidentis autem est in alio esse. Et ideo illa nomina quae pertinent ad individuationem substantiae, in illis solum locum habent quae per se et in se subsistunt. Et propter hoc etiam de partibus substantiarum non dicuntur, quia non sunt in seipsis sed in toto, quamvis non sint in subiecto. De quibus tamen dici possunt nomina ad individuationem pertinentia convenienter tam in substantiis quam in accidentibus. Non enim potest dici quod haec manus sit persona, vel hypostasis aut suppositum; quamvis dici possit quod sit aliquid particulare, singulare, vel individuum. Manus enim etsi pertineat ad genus substantiae, quia tamen non est substantia completa in se subsistens, non dicitur hypostasis aut suppositum vel persona.
Therefore, in order that it may be known what must be conceded and what denied in these matters, it is necessary to consider which of the names pertain to individuation, whether they are names of first imposition, such as 'person' and 'hypostasis', which signify things themselves, or whether they are names of second imposition, such as 'individual', 'suppositum', and others of this kind, which signify the intention of individuality. Some of these pertain only to the genus of substance, such as 'suppositum' and 'hypostasis', which are not said of accidents, and person in a rational nature, and also a thing of nature according to the understanding of St. Hillary. But, others pertain to individuation in every genus, such as 'individual', 'particular' and 'singular', which are also said of accidents. Now, it is proper to a substance that it subsists through itself and in itself (per se et in se); but it is the character of an accident to be in another. And thus, those names which pertain to the individuation of a substance, only have a place in those things which subsist through themselves and in themselves. And for this reason also these names are not said of the parts of substances, since they are not in themselves but in a whole, although they are not in a subject. Yet, the names pertaining to individuation as much in substances as in accidents can fittingly be said of those things. For it cannot be said that this hand is a person, or a hypostasis or a suppositum; although it can be said that it is some particular, singular or individual. For even if a hand pertains to the genus of substance, yet because it is not a completed substance, subsisting in itself, it is not called a hypostasis or a suppositum or a person.
Sic igitur, quia humana natura in Christo non per se separatim subsistit sed existit in alio, id est in hypostasi verbi Dei (non quidem sicut accidens in subiecto, neque proprie sicut pars in toto, sed per ineffabilem assumptionem), ideo humana natura in Christo potest quidem dici individuum aliquod vel particulare vel singulare, non tamen potest dici vel hypostasis vel suppositum sicut nec persona. Unde relinquitur, quod in Christo non est nisi una hypostasis vel suppositum, scilicet divini verbi. Dici vel hypostasis vel suppositum sicut nec persona. Unde relinquitur, quod in Christo non est nisi una hypostasis vel suppositum, scilicet divini verbi.
Thus, therefore, since the human nature in Christ does not subsist separately through itself but exists in another, i.e. in the hypostasis of the Word, (indeed not as an accident in a subject, nor properly as a part in a whole, but through an ineffable assumption), thus the human nature in Christ can indeed be called some individual or particular or singular, yet it cannot be called a hypostasis or suppositum, just as it cannot be called a person. Hence, it remains that in Christ there is only one hypostasis or suppositum, namely the Divine Word.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod de Christo dicuntur et divina et humana; et si quaeratur id de quo dicuntur, unum et idem est; si autem consideretur id secundum quod praedicantur, aliud et aliud est, ut Augustinus dicit in i De Trinit. Quia secundum naturam divinam de Christo praedicantur divina quidem secundum naturam divinam, humana vero secundum naturam humanam. Cum ergo dicitur quod in Christo aliud est Dei Filius et aliud hominis filius, alietas non est referenda ad id de quo utrumque praedicatur, quod est unum suppositum utriusque filiationis, sed ad id secundum quod praedicatur. Et ideo Augustinus ibidem subiungit: aliud, inquam, pro distinctione substantiae, id est naturae; non alius pro unitate personae.
1. Human and divine things are said of Christ; and if it is asked what they are said of, [the answer is] one and the same thing. But, if one considers that according to which they are predicated, [this] is one thing and another, as Augustine says in On the Trinity, cap.vii, since divine things are predicated of Christ according to the divine nature, but human things are predicated of Him according to the human nature. Therefore, when it is said that in Christ the Son of God is one thing and the son of man another, this otherness must not be referred to what both are predicated of, that is one suppositum of each filiation, but to that according to which predication takes place. And, thus, Augustine in the same place adds "I say 'other' [aliud] on account of a distinction of substance," i.e. of nature, "not other [alius] on account of the unity of person."
Ad secundum dicendum quod de Christo praedicatur quidem divina natura; sed humana natura de eo praedicari non potest, sicut nec de Petro, cum quo est univoce homo. Unde non potest dici, quod christus sit duo, vel utrumque, quamvis sint duae naturae. Suppositum autem humanae naturae praedicatur quidem de Christo; sed non ponit in numerum cum supposito divinae naturae, ut ostensum est. Unde relinquitur quod, cum Christus dicitur utrumque, intelligatur materialiter. Sicut cum dicitur, paries et tectum sunt domus, quia utrumque ad unam domum concurrit. Unde et Augustinus, in libro Contra Felicianum, dicit quod unus atque idem homo, et corpus dicitur et animus. Vel potest dici quod hoc quod dicitur utrumque, referendum est ad numerum nominum duas naturas significantium. Homo enim Christus dicitur et Deus et homo, sicut et Deus verbum, dicitur Deus et homo. Et hoc est quod dicitur utrumque Deus, propter suscipientem Deum; quia scilicet hoc nomen Deus praedicatur et de Deo et de homine; et utrumque homo, propter susceptum hominem, quia hoc nomen homo de utroque praedicatur.
2. In fact, the divine nature is predicated of Christ, but the human nature cannot be predicated of him, just as it cannot be predicated of Peter, with whom [Christ] is univocally a man (On account of the real distinction between being and essence, it is false to say "Peter is his humanity" or "Peter is human nature"). Hence, it cannot be said that Christ is two or both, although there are two natures. But, a suppositum of a human nature is indeed predicated of Christ; but it does not combine in number with the suppositum of the divine nature, as was shown. Hence it remains that when Christ is called both, it is understood materially, just as when it is said that walls and a roof are a house, because both coincide in one house. Hence, Augustine also says, in the book Against Felicianus that one and the same man is called both body and soul. Or it can be said that what is called "both" must be referred to the number of names signifying the two natures. For the man Christ is called both God and man, just as God the Word is called both God and man. And this is why both are called God, on account of receiving God, since, of course, this name 'God' is predicated both of God and of man; and also both are called man on account of receiving man, because this name 'man' is predicated of both.
Ad tertium dicendum quod ad rationem hypostasis vel suppositi non sufficit quod aliquid sit particulare in genere substantiae; sed ulterius requiritur quod sit perfectum et in se subsistens, ut dictum est.
3. It does not suffice for the character of a hypostasis or suppositum that something is a particular in the genus of substance; but, further, it is required that it be complete and subsisting in itself as was said.
Ad quartum dicendum quod univocatio et aequivocatio attenditur secundum quod ratio nominis est eadem vel non eadem. Ratio autem nominis est quam significat definitio; et ideo aequivocatio et univocatio secundum significationem attenditur, et non secundum supposita. Et ideo hoc nomen homo univoce dicitur de Christo et de Petro, quia utrobique significat unam naturam, scilicet humanam, compositam ex anima et corpore; sed in Christo supponit suppositum aeternum, quod non supponit in Petro.
4. Equivocation and univocality are found inasmuch as the nature (ratio) of the name is the same or different. For the nature of a name what the definition signifies (This refers to Metaphys. 1012a24-25. In other places St. Thomas usually states this as: "ratio quam significat nomen est definitio." Cf. S.T. I, a. 13, 1); and thus equivocation and univocality are found according to the signification, and not according to the supposita. And thus, this name "man" is said univocally of Christ and of Peter, because it signifies one nature in both, namely, human, composed from a body and a soul; but, in Christ it [i.e. the term 'man'] supposits an eternal suppositum in Christ, which it does not supposit in Peter.
Ad quintum dicendum quod esse infinitum convenit supposito vel hypostasi verbi Dei secundum divinam naturam; secundum vero humanam naturam competit ei esse sub natura humana. Unde Dionysius dicit quod intra nostram factus est naturam qui omnem ordinem, secundum omnem naturam substantialiter excedit.
5. Being infinite belongs to the suppositum or hypostasis of the Word of God according to the divine nature; but, according to the human nature it belongs to it to be under a human nature. Hence Dionysius says that he was produced within our nature who substantially exceeds every order, according to every nature.
Ad sextum dicendum quod nomen speciei significat naturam, sicut et nomen generis; unde si una species esset in diversis generibus, sequeretur quod una natura esset duae naturae. Sed individuum importat aliquid quod non pertinet ad naturam; et ideo non est contra rationem individui, quod idem individuum sit suppositum duarum naturarum.
6. The name "species" signifies a nature, just as the name "genus" does; hence, if one species were in different genera, it would follow that one nature was two natures. But "individual" entails something which does not pertain to the nature; and, thus, it is not contrary to the character of an individual, that the same individual is the suppositum of two natures.
Ad septimum dicendum quod natura divina est omnino idem secundum rem cum qualibet trium personarum; et ideo tres personae possunt dici esse unum. Sed humana natura non est omnino idem secundum rem cum suo supposito, et ideo non praedicatur de eo: et sic non potest Christus dici esse duo propter duas naturas.
7. The divine nature is entirely the same as all three of the persons in reality; and thus the three persons can be called one being (esse). But, the human nature is not entirely the same as its suppositum in reality, and so it is not predicated of it, and so thus Christ cannot be said to be two on account of the two natures. (Cf. ad 2)
Ad octavum dicendum quod Filius Dei habet commune cum Patre divinam naturam, non autem hypostasim vel personam; filius autem hominis non habet commune cum Deo Patre nec hypostasim nec naturam. Unde ex hoc non sequitur quod inter Filium Dei et filium hominis sit distinctio in persona vel hypostasi, sed solum in natura.
8. The Son of God has the divine nature in common with the Father, but not the hypostasis or the person; now the son of man does not have either the hypostasis or the nature in common with God the Father. Hence it does not follow from this that there is a distinction in person between the Son of God and the son of man, but only a distinction of nature.
Ad nonum dicendum quod natura humana assumpta a verbo Dei, in quantum est individua, habet quod non possit esse in multis; et secundum hoc dicitur incommunicabilis. Sed, ex hoc ipso quod est natura, habet quod sit in aliquo supposito.
9. The human nature assumed by the Word, inasmuch as it is individual, has the property that it cannot be in many things. And in this respect it is called incommunicable. But from that fact that it is a nature, it has the property of being in some suppositum.
Ad decimum dicendum quod humana natura quamdiu est verbo unita, quia non secundum se existit, non habet proprium suppositum vel hypostasim praeter personam verbi. Sed si separaretur a verbo, haberet non solum propriam hypostasim aut suppositum, sed etiam propriam personam; quia iam per se existeret. Sicut etiam pars corporis continui, quamdiu est indivisa a toto, est in potentia et non in actu; sed solum facta divisione.
10. As long as the human nature is united to the Word of God, it does not have its own suppositum or hypostasis beyond the person of the Word, because it does not exist in itself. But if it were separated from the Word, it would have, not only its own hypostasis or suppositum, but also its own person; because it would now exist per se. Just as also a part of a composite body, as long as it is undivided from the whole, is [i.e. exists per se] only potentially, not actually; but this is only brought about by separation.
Ad undecimum dicendum quod in supposito includitur natura, non autem e converso; et ideo non potuit assumi suppositum quin assumeretur natura. Potuit enim e converso contingere.
11. Nature is included in the suppositum, but not conversely. And thus the suppositum could not be assumed without the nature. But, it was able to happen conversely.
Ad duodecimum dicendum quod unio animae et corporis in Christo ex hoc ipso est dignior quam in nobis, quia non terminatur ad suppositum creatum, sed ad suppositum aeternum verbi Dei.
12. The union of the soul and the body in Christ is more worthy than in us because it is not terminated in a created suppositum, but in the eternal suppositum of the Word of God.
Ad decimumtertium dicendum quod anima unitur corpori ut forma eius ad constituendum humanam naturam, non sic autem unitur in Christo divinitas humanitati; quia non est facta unio in natura, ut supra dictum est. Et ideo non est similis ratio.
13. The soul is united to the body as its form for constituting the human nature, but the divinity is not united to the humanity in Christ in this way; because the union was not brought about in the nature as was said above. And, thus, the nature [ratioof the two cases] is not the same.
Ad decimumquartum dicendum quod propriorum accidentium aggregatio sufficienter probat individuationem humanae naturae in Christo; non autem quod habeat rationem suppositi vel hypostasis, quia non per se existit.
14. The aggregation of his own accidents sufficiently proves the individuation of the human nature in Christ; but it does not have the character of a suppositum or a hypostasis because it does not exist per se.
Ad decimumquintum dicendum quod non est facta hoc modo unio humanae naturae ad personam vel hypostasim verbi in Christo, ut adaequetur ei quasi comprehendens ipsam, vel secundum aliquam proportionem certam a persona verbi excedatur; quia adhuc manet persona verbi excedens humanam naturam in infinitum. Qui tamen infinitus excessus non excludit quin quodam ineffabili modo persona Dei humanam naturam sibi copulaverit in unitatem hypostasis. Quinimmo infinita virtus assumentis efficacius ad maiorem unionem operatur.
15. The union of the human nature to the person or the hypostasis of the Word in Christ is not brought about in this way, that it is made equal to [the person of the Word] as if including it or as though the person of the Word exceeds it according to some fixed proportion, since the person of the Word still exceeds the human nature infinitely. Yet, [this] infinite difference does not exclude the person of God joining the human nature to itself in the unity of the hypostasis in an ineffable way. Nay rather, the infinite power of the one assuming works more effectively towards a greater union.
Ad decimumsextum dicendum quod generatio terminatur ad suppositum quidem sicut quod generatur, ad naturam autem sicut ad id quod per generationem accipitur; unde forma dicitur generationis terminus. Et quia generationes et motus secundum terminos distinguuntur, inde est quod Christi sunt duae nativitates secundum duas naturas, sed unum nascens propter suppositi unitatem.
16. Generation is indeed terminated in the suppositum as to what is generated, but in the nature as to that which is received through generation. Hence, form is called the terminus of generation. And since generations and motions are distinguished according to their terms, hence there are two nativities of Christ according to the two natures, but one nativity according to the unity of the suppositum.
Ad decimumseptimum dicendum quod anima et corpus unita constituunt suppositum et hypostasim, si per se existat quod ex utroque componitur; quod in proposito non contingit.
17. The united soul and body constitute a suppositum and a hypostasis, if what is composed from both exists per se; which does not happen in this case.
Ad decimumoctavum dicendum quod Christus est simplex secundum divinam naturam, compositus autem secundum naturam humanam, ut patet per Dionysium i capite De Divinis Nominibus.
18. Christ is simple according to the divine nature, but composite according to the human nature, as is evident from Dionysius in chapter one of The Divine Names.

Concerning the Union of the Word Incarnate

1. Tertio quaeritur utrum christus sit unum neutraliter vel duo. Et videtur quod sit duo neutraliter.
Article 3: "Whether Christ is one or two in the neuter?" It seems that he is two in the neuter:
Dicit enim Augustinus in I Trinit.: quia forma dei suscepit formam hominis, utrumque est deus, et utrumque homo. Sed in eo quod est unum tantum non potest dici utrumque. ergo christus non est unum tantum, sed duo.
Objection 1: For Augustine says in On the Trinity, I, ch. 7: Since the form of God took the form of man, both are God and both are man. But to the extent that he is only one he cannot be called "both". Therefore, Christ is not merely one, but two.
Praeterea, sicut in tribus personis divinis est una natura, ita in una persona Christi sunt duae naturae. Sed tres personae divinae dicuntur unum propter unitatem naturae. Ergo Christus dicendus est duo propter duas naturas.
Objection 2: Further, just as there is one nature in the three divine persons, so there are two natures in the one person of Christ. But, the three divine persons are called one because of a unity of nature. Therefore Christ must be called two because of the two natures.
Praeterea, Augustinus dicit Contra Felicianum: aliud est Filius Dei, et aliud filius hominis. sed ubicumque est aliud et aliud, ibi sunt duo. Ergo Christus, secundum quod est Filius Dei et filius hominis, est duo.
Objection 3: Further, Augustine says in Against Felicianus I, ch.11: the Son of God is one thing, the son of man another. But, wherever there is one thing and another, there are two things. Therefore, insofar as Christ is the Son of God and the son of man, he is two.
Praeterea, illud quod est unum supposito, fit alterum ex seipso successive propter diversum accidens; sicut Socrates senex a seipso puero. Sed sicut differentia accidentalis facit alterum, ita differentia substantialis facit aliud. Ergo si idem suppositum mutari posset de una differentia substantiali in aliam esset aliud et aliud. Pari ergo ratione, si idem suppositum habeat simul duas differentias substantiales, simul erit aliud et aliud. Sed habere duas naturas, est habere duas differentias substantiales: quia natura est unumquodque informans specifica differentia, ut Boetius dicit in libro De Duabus Naturis. Ergo Christus simul est aliud et aliud; et ita simul est duo.
Objection 4: Further, that which is one in the suppositum becomes different from itself successively because of diverse accidents; just as Socrates as an old man is different from himself as a boy. But just as an accidental difference makes something other, so a substantial difference makes another thing. Therefore if the same suppositum can be changed from one substantial difference to another it would be one thing and another thing. Therefore, for the same reason, if the same suppositum has two substantial differences at the same time, it will be one thing and another thing at the same time. But to have two natures is to have two substantial differences; because a nature is the specific difference informing each and everything as Boethius says in Concerning the Two Natures. Therefore, Christ is one thing and another thing at the same time, thus he is two things at once.
Praeterea, unumquodque est illud quod vere de eo praedicatur. Sed aliud praedicat hoc nomen homo de Christo, et aliud hoc nomen Deus: hoc enim praedicat utrumque nomen quod significat. Sicut enim hoc nomen album nihil aliud significat quam qualitatem, secundum philosophum; ita hoc nomen homo nihil aliud significat quam humanitatem quae est aliud a divinitate, quam significat hoc nomen Deus. Ergo Christus est aliud et aliud; et ita est duo.
Objection 5: Further, each thing is that which is truly predicated of it. But, this term "man" predicates one thing of Christ and this term "God" another thing. For each name predicates what it signifies. For just as this name white signifies nothing other than a quality according to the Philosopher; so this name man signifies nothing other than humanity which is different from divinity, which this name "God" signifies. Therefore, Christ is one thing and another thing, and thus he is two.
Sed dicebat, quod hoc nomen homo in sui significatione includit suppositum humanitatis, non est aliud a supposito divinitatis. Et ideo Christus, secundum quod est Deus et homo, non est aliud et aliud. Sed contra, ad diversitatem aliquorum non requiritur quod sint diversa secundum omne quod in eis est; sed sufficit si secundum aliquid sunt diversa. Homo enim et asinus conveniunt quidem in animali, sed differunt rationali et irrationali differentia. Ad hoc ergo quod aliud praedicet hoc nomen homo de Christo et aliud hoc nomen Deus, sufficit si natura significata sit alia et alia, quamvis sit suppositum idem.
Objection 6: But, it was said that this term "man" includes in its own signification the suppositum of humanity, which is not different from the divine suppositum. And thus, Christ, insofar as he is God and man is not one thing and another. But to the contrary, it is not required for the diversity of some things that they be diverse according to everything which is in them; but, it suffices if they are diverse in any way. For a man and an ass indeed agree in being animals, but they differ by the differentia rational and irrational. In order, therefore, that the term "man" should predicate one thing of Christ and the name "God" another thing, it suffices if the nature signified is one thing and another thing, although the suppositum is the same.
Praeterea, Christus, in quantum Deus, est aliud unum unitate increata; in quantum autem est homo, est unum unitate creata. Sed unitas creata et unitas increata sunt duae unitates. Ergo Christus est duo.
Objection 7: Further, Christ, inasmuch as he is God, is one thing by an uncreated unity; but inasmuch as he is man he is another individual thing by a created unity. But created and uncreated unities are two unities. Therefore, Christ is two.
Praeterea, sequitur: Christus est unum tantum; ergo est hoc et non aliud. A destructione consequentis: sequitur, si non potest dici quod Christus sit homo et non aliud, quod non possit dici quod Christus sit unum tantum. Sed haec est falsa: Christus est homo tantum. Ergo Christus est homo et aliud; et ita Christus est duo.
Objection 8: Further, it follows: Christ is only one; therefore he is this thing and not another. From the denial of the consequent: it follows if it cannot be said that Christ is a man and not something else, then what cannot be said is that Christ is only one. But this is false: Christ is only a man. Therefore, Christ is a man and something else; and thus he is two.
Praeterea, haec propositio, Christus est Deus et homo, est propositio plures, cum sit de praedicato copulato. Sed omnis talis propositio praedicat plura. Ergo Christus non est unum tantum, sed plura.
Objection 9: Further, this proposition, Christ is God and man, is an ambiguous proposition, since it has a conjoint predicate. But every such proposition predicates many things. Therefore, Christ is not merely one, but many.
Praeterea, secundum Philosophum, in viii Metaph., ex pluribus quorum unum est in potentia et aliud non, non fit aliquid unum, sed multa. Unde cum dico: homo est animal bipes, praedicatur de homine aliquid unum; non autem cum dicitur, Socrates est albus musicus. Sed humanitas et divinitas non se habent ut potentia et actus. Ergo cum dicitur, Christus est Deus et homo, non ponitur unum, sed multa; et ita Christus non est unum, sed duo.
Objection 10: Further, according to the Philosopher in 10 Metaphys. 15-6, from many things, one of which is in potency and the other is not, does not come one thing, but many things. Hence when I say " man is a two-footed animal", something one is predicated of man; but not when it is said "Socrates is a white musician". But humanity and divinity are not related as potency and act. Therefore, when it is said Christ is God and man there is not one thing posited, but many things. And thus Christ is not one but two.
Praeterea, suppositum dicitur id quod est subsistens. Sed alia ratio subsistendi est filii hominis, et Filii Dei. Ergo est aliud et aliud suppositum; et ita Christus non est unum, sed duo.
Objection 11: A suppositum is called that which is subsisting. But the manner (ratio) of subsisting for the son of man and the Son of God is different. Therefore they are one suppositum and another. And thus Christ is not one but two.
Praeterea, differentia conducit ad pluralitatem. sed maxima differentia est inter humanam naturam et divinam. Ergo maxime Christus est duo.
Objection 12: Further, a difference leads to plurality. But there is the greatest difference between man and God. Therefore, Christ is surely two.
Praeterea, nihil unum potest participare incompossibiles proprietates. Sed Christo conveniunt incompossibiles proprietates; sicut esse aeternum et in tempore natum, infinitum et loco circumscriptum, et alia huiusmodi. Ergo Christus non est unum, sed duo.
Objection 13: Further, nothing one can share in incompatible properties. But incompatible properties belong to Christ; just as to be eternal and to be born in time, to be infinite and to be circumscribed in a place, and other things of this kind. Therefore, Christ is not one, but two.
Praeterea, Christus est homo. Homo autem est humanitas, quia essentia rei est idem cum eo cuius est essentia, ut dicitur in vii Metaph. Ergo Christus est sua humanitas. Est etiam divinitas. Cum ergo humanitas non sit divinitas, sequitur quod Christus non sit unum, sed duo.
Objection 14: Further, Christ is a man. But, a man is humanity, because the essence of a thing is identical with the thing whose essence it is, as is said in book VII of the Metaphys. Therefore, Christ is his own humanity. He is also divinity. Therefore, since humanity is not divinity, it follows that Christ is not one, but two.
Sed contra. Christus non est duae personae nec duae hypostases nec duo supposita, ut ex praedictis patet; nec duae naturae, quia humana natura non praedicatur de Christo. Ergo Christus non est duo.
To the contrary - 1. Christ is not two persons, nor two hypostases, nor two supposita, as is clear from the aforesaid; neither is he two natures, because the human nature is not predicated of Christ. Therefore, Christ is not two.
Praeterea, secundum Boetium De Unitate et Uno, unumquodque ideo est, quia unum numero est. Si ergo Christus non sit unum, sequitur quod non sit ens.
2. Further, according to Boethius Concerning Unity, each and every thing is because it is one in number. Therefore, if Christ is not one, it follows that he is not a being.
Praeterea, ea quae de se invicem praedicantur, non ponunt in numerum. Sed homo et Deus de se invicem praedicantur in Christo. Ergo Christus non est duo, secundum quod Deus et homo.
3. Further, those things which are predicated mutually of each other are not pluralized. But, man and God are predicated of one another in Christ. Therefore, Christ is not two insofar as he is God and man.
Praeterea, maior est unio divinae et humanae naturae in Christo, quam unio accidentis et subiecti ut supra habitum est. Sed accidens et subiectum sunt unum numero, secundum Philosophum. Ergo multo magis Christus est unum, secundum quod Deus et homo.
4. Further, the union of the human and divine natures in Christ is greater than the union of an accident to a subject as is stated above. [a. 1] But, an accident and its subject are one in number, according to the Philosopher [5 Metaphys., com. 7] Therefore, much more is Christ one insofar as he is God and man.
Praeterea, Athanasius dicit de Christo: licet Deus sit et homo; non duo tamen, sed unus est Christus.
5. Further, Athanasius says of Christ: "Although he is God and man, nevertheless he is not two, but he is one Christ".
Praeterea, quod factum est unum, unum est; sicut quod factum est album, est album. Sed secundum Hugonem, in libro De Sacramentis, Verbum Dei est factum unum cum homine. Ergo Christus, Deus et homo existens, est unum.
6. Further, what is made one, is one; just as what is made white is white. But according to Hugh in the book On the Sacraments [II,1, cc., 4 and 9], the Word of God was made one with man. Therefore, Christ, existing as God and man, is one.
Praeterea, unitas est qua unumquodque dicitur unum. Sed post unitatem trinitatis maxime unitas est Verbi incarnati. Ergo est maxime unum.
7. Further, unity is that by which each and every thing is called one. But, after the unity of the Trinity the greatest unity is of the Word incarnate. Therefore, he [i.e. Christ] is entirely one.
Respondeo. Dicendum quod masculinum genus, quia est formatum, consuevit ad personam referri; et ideo manifestum est quod Christus non est duo masculine, sed unus: quia in Christo non sunt duae personae, sed una.
I answer that, a word formulated in the masculine gender is customarily referred to the person; and thus it is clear that Christ is not two in the masculine, but one; since there are not two persons in Christ, but one.
Quidam vero ponentes in Christo unam personam, posuerunt in Christo duo supposita aut duas hypostases, unam Filii Dei, aliam filii hominis. Unde, licet non dicerent Christum esse duo masculine propter unitatem personae, dicebant tamen ipsum esse duo neutraliter, propter dualitatem suppositorum. Sed quia haec etiam opinio repugnat fidei veritati ut supra habitum est; ideo, hac opinione praetermissa, considerandum est utrum supposito quod in Christo sit una hypostasis et unum suppositum, utrum Christus debeat dici duo neutraliter, vel unum.
But, certain authors, positing one person in Christ, posited two supposita or hypostases, one of the Son of God and another of the son of man (Cf. S.T. III, q. 2, a. 3). Hence, although they did not say that Christ is two in the masculine because of the unity of person, still they said that he was two in the neuter because of the duality of supposita. But, because this opinion too is contrary to the truth of the faith, as was said above; thus, leaving aside this opinion, we must consider whether, supposing that in Christ there is one hypostasis and one suppositum, Christ ought to be called two in the neuter or one.
Ad cuius evidentiam considerandum est quod unum denominative dicitur quod habet unitatem, sicut album quod habet albedinem, sive quod ei subiicitur. et eadem ratione multa denominative dicuntur a multitudine, et duo a dualitate. Quia vero unum convertitur cum ente, sicut est esse accidentale et esse substantiale, ita dicitur aliquid esse unum vel multa vel secundum formam accidentalem, vel secundum substantialem. Secundum quidem formas accidentales dicitur aliquid multa quod est subiectum diversis formis accidentalibus vel successive vel simul. Successive quidem, sicut Socrates sedens est alter a se stante; unde Socrates, in quantum est prius stans et postea sedens, est multa successive. simul autem, sicut Socrates in quantum est albus et musicus est multa.
For a clear understanding of this, we must consider that what has unity is called 'one' denominatively, just as a white thing is what has whiteness, or what is a subject for it. And for the same reason 'many' is said denominatively from a multitude, and two from a duality. But, since one (unum) is convertible with being (ente), so according as it is an accidental and a substantial being (esse), something is called one or many either according to an accidental form or according to a substantial form. Indeed, something which is a subject for diverse accidental forms is called many, either successively or simultaneously, according to the accidental forms. Successively, indeed, as when Socrates sitting is different from Socrates standing; hence, Socrates, insofar as he is first standing and later sitting, is many things successively. Simultaneously, on the other hand, as when Socrates, insofar as he is white and musical, is many.
Quod enim animal bipes, quod praedicatur de Socrate, sit unum et non multa, ex hoc contingit, quia unum eorum comparatur ad alterum ut potentia ad actum, ut dicitur in viii Metaph. Album autem et musicum non sic se habent ad invicem; et ideo Socrates, in quantum est albus et musicus, est multa, non quidem simpliciter, sed secundum quid. Sicut et secundum accidentia dicitur aliquid esse secundum quid, et non simpliciter. Secundum substantiam autem dicitur aliquid unum et multa simpliciter sicut ens. Sed secundum Philosophum, in v Metaph., substantia secundum duos modos dicitur, scilicet: suppositum, quod de alio non praedicatur; et forma, vel natura speciei, quae de supposito praedicatur. Et haec quidem in creaturis puris non sunt simul unum et multa. Non est enim una numero essentia diversorum suppositorum, nec iterum invenitur in creaturis puris aliquod unum suppositum habens duas naturales substantias. Sed hoc singulare est in Christo; primum autem est singulare in tribus personis divinis. Manifestum est ergo quod Christus potest dici aliqualiter unum, quia est unum supposito; et aliqualiter multa, vel duo, quia est habens duas naturas. Multo amplius quam Socrates, de quo praedicatur unum, in quantum est unum subiecto; multa, in quantum est album et musicum.
However, a two-footed animal, which is predicated of Socrates, is one and not many, since one of them is compared to the other as potency is to act, as is said in VIII Metaphy. [text. 15-6] (i.e. being two-footed is a way of being an animal, whereas being white is not a way of being musical. Cf.Aquinas, In Metaph. Marietti, 8, lect. 5, 1755 A. Cf. obj. 10.ys). Now white and musical are not related to each other in this way; and thus Socrates insofar as he is white and musical is many, indeed not simply, but in a certain respect (Cf. obj. 10). This is because it is according to accidents that something is said to be in a certain respect, and not simply. But something that is a being is called one or many simply, according to substance. But according to the Philosopher, in V Metaphy., [text. 15] (Reference? Cf. X.L.3., 1979. #903?), substance is said in two ways, namely: the suppositum, which is not predicated of another; and the form, or nature of the species which is predicated of the suppositum. And indeed in mere creatures these are not one and many at the same time. For the essence of different supposita is not one in number, nor again is some one suppositum found in pure creatures having two natural substances. But this singular is in Christ [i.e. one suppositum and two natures]; but first [type of] singular is in the three divine persons [i.e. one essence, dietas, and three supposita]. Therefore, it is clear that Christ can in some measure be called one, since he is one suppositum; and in some way many, or two, because he has two natures - much more so than Socrates, of whom one is predicated insofar as he is one in subject; many, inasmuch as he is white and musical.
Sed considerandum est, quid horum dicatur simpliciter, et quid secundum quid. Sciendum est ergo, quod simpliciter et proprie dicitur aliquid esse tale, quod est secundum seipsum tale. Dicitur autem aliquid esse secundum seipsum tale, quod est secundum totum, magis quam quod est secundum partem; quia pars non est simpliciter idem toti. Ipsum autem cum sit reciprocum, est relativum identitatis. Et ideo quod convenit alicui secundum totum, magis convenit ei simpliciter quam quod convenit ei secundum partem. Unde si aliquid natum sit convenire alicui secundum totum et partem, si conveniat ei solum secundum partem, dicitur convenire ei secundum quid, et non simpliciter. Sicut si dicatur Aethiops albus qui habet albos dentes. Secus autem est de eo quod non est natum inesse nisi secundum partem; sicut aliquis dicitur simpliciter crispus, si habeat capillos crispos. Manifestum est autem quod suppositum significatur per modum totius, natura autem per modum partis formalis, ut ex supradictis patet. Et ideo, cum unum et multapossint referri et ad suppositum et ad naturam, manifestum est quod si aliquod unum suppositum habeat plures naturas substantiales, erit unum simpliciter et multa secundum quid. Cuius signum est; quia ea quae differunt supposito et sunt unum in eo quod per se pertinet ad naturam, sunt plura quidem simpliciter, sed unum genere vel specie. Et ideo, e contrario, si unum suppositum habeat multas naturas, erit unum simpliciter et multa secundum quid. Quia igitur Christus est unum suppositum habens duas naturas, sequitur quod sit unum simpliciter, et duo secundum quid.
But, we should consider which of these is said simply and which in a qualified way. Therefore, it must be known that something is said to be such a thing simply and properly which is such according to itself. But, something is said to be such according to itself is according to a whole, more than according to a part; because a part is not the same as a whole simply. Now the term "ipsum", since it is reciprocal, is a relative term of identity. And thus what belongs to something according to the whole, belongs to it more simply than what belongs to it only according to a part. Hence, if it is appropriate for something to belong to another according to both whole and part, then if it belongs to it only according to the part, it is said to belong to it in a certain respect, and not simply. Just as if an Ethiopian who has white teeth is called white. It is quite otherwise for something which can be attributed only according to a part; as when someone is called curly simply if he has curly hair. But it is clear that the suppositum is signified through the manner of a whole, but the nature through the manner of a formal part, as is obvious from the aforesaid. Thus, although one and many can be referred both to the suppositum and the nature, it is clear that if some one suppositum has many substantial natures, it will be one simply and many in a certain respect. A sign of this is that those things which differ in suppositum and are one in that which pertains to the nature per se, are indeed many simply, but one in genus or species. And thus, from the contrary, if one suppositum has many natures it will be one simply and many in a certain respect. Since, therefore, Christ is one suppositum having two natures, he will be one simply and two in a certain respect.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod hoc quod Augustinus dicit, utrumque deus et utrumque homo, non est referendum ad dualitatem suppositi secundum quam Christus simpliciter duo esse diceretur; sed ad dualitatem naturarum per duo nomina significatarum, quae sunt Deus et homo. quia scilicet de Deo praedicantur humana et divina; et de homine praedicantur etiam divina et humana.
1. What Augustine says, "both are God and both are man", must not be referred to a duality of supposita in the sense that Christ would be called two simply; but to a duality of natures through the two names of the things signified: which are "God" and "man", since, of course, human and divine things are predicated of both God and man.
Ad secundum dicendum quod unaquaeque divinarum personarum est omnino idem secundum rem cum divina essentia, nec aliquid additur in persona supra naturam divinam quod aliquam diversitatem substantialem faciat. Et ideo per hoc quod in natura divina conveniunt tres personae, sunt simpliciter unum. Non autem similiter se habet humana natura ad divinam personam; unde non est similis ratio.
2. Each of the divine persons is entirely identical with the divine essence in reality, nor is anything added to the divine person over and above the divine nature which could produce any substantial diversity. And thus since the three persons agree in the divine nature, they are one simply. But the human nature is not related to the divine person in a similar way; hence the reasoning is not the same.
Ad tertium dicendum quod in Christo dicitur esse aliud filius hominis, et aliud Filius Dei, propter hoc quod aliam et aliam naturam praedicat utrumque nomen; non propter hoc quod sit aliud et aliud suppositum, ad quod sequeretur Christum esse simpliciter duo. Cum enim suppositum humanum et divinum sint differentia, necesse esset substantialiter differre.
3. In Christ, the son of man is said to be one thing and the son of God another, because each name predicates a different nature; not because there is a different suppositum [for each nature], from which it would follow that Christ is two simply. For since the human and the divine suppositum would be different, it would be necessary that they differ substantially.
Ad quartum dicendum quod diversae formae inhaerentes, sive in eodem sive in diversis temporibus, non faciunt aliud simpliciter, si maneat idem suppositum; sed solum propter suppositum; quando suppositum est diversum.
4. Diverse forms inhering, whether in the same or diverse times, do not make another thing simply, if the same suppositum remains [they only produce many things simply] on account of the suppositum; when the suppositum is diverse.
Ad quintum dicendum quod in hoc nomine album intelligitur albedo, et subiectum albedinis; sed albedo determinate, subiectum autem albedinis indeterminate. Nam cum dicimus album, intelligimus aliquid albedine informatum; non autem determinatur quid sit illud, sicut determinatur forma. Similiter etiam cum dico hominem, vel aliquid aliud substantialiter dictum, intelligitur habens humanitatem. Sed quia aliquid determinatur ad speciem per suam essentiam vel naturam, non autem per suum accidens; in hoc nomine homo determinate intelligitur id quod est habens humanitatem, magis quam in hoc nomine album intelligatur habens albedinem. Et quia id quod per nomen determinate intelligitur est proprie nominis significatum; magis hoc nomen homo significat suppositum humanitatis, quam hoc nomen album subiectum albedinis. Quamvis nec hoc nomen homo significet humanitatis suppositum, secundum quod est determinatum in sua singularitate; sed solum secundum quod est determinatum in natura speciei. Quia ergo suppositum humanae naturae et divinae in Christo, secundum quod accipitur in sua singularitate discretum, est unum et idem in duabus naturis determinatis; est quidem simpliciter unum secundum seipsum, secundum quid autem duo, in quantum scilicet habet duas naturas.
5. In this name "white" [album] [both] whiteness is understood and the subject of whiteness (Reading "nomine" for Marietti's "homine"). But, whiteness is understood determinately, the subject of whiteness is understood indeterminately. For when we say "white", we understand something informed by whiteness; but, that does not determine what it is [quid sit], in the way that the form is determined. So also, when I say man, or something else said substantially, "having humanity" is understood. But, since something is determined to a species by its essence or nature, but not through its accidents, by the name "man" is determinately understood that which has humanity, more than having whiteness is understood in the name "white". And since that which is understood determinately through a name is the thing properly signified by the name, the name "man" signifies the suppositum of humanity more than the name "white" signifies the subject of whiteness. Although the name "man" does not signify humanity's suppositum insofar as it is determined in its own singularity; but [it does so] only insofar as it is determined to the nature of a species. Therefore, since the suppositum of the human and divine nature in Christ according as it is taken in its discrete singularity separately, is one and the same thing in two determined natures, He is indeed one thing simply according to himself, but he is two in a certain respect, namely, insofar as he has two natures.
Ad sextum dicendum quod ad hoc quod aliquid sit aliud, non oportet quod secundum totum distinguatur, ad hoc tamen quod simpliciter sit aliud, oportet quod distinguatur secundum seipsum.
6. For something to be other, it is not necessary that it be distinguished according as it is a whole, but for it to be other simply, it is necessary that it be distinguished according to itself.
Ad septimum dicendum quod ex hoc quod unitas creata non est unitas increata, non potest concludi quod Christus sit duo; sed
quod subsistat in duplici unitate, sicut subsistit in duplici natura.
7. From the fact that a created unity is not an uncreated unity, it cannot be concluded that Christ is two; but that he subsists in a two-fold unity, just as he subsists in a two-
fold nature.
Ad octavum dicendum quod si Christus esset unum, quod est homo, et non aliud quam homo; sequeretur quod esset unum omnino, id est et secundum naturam et secundum suppositum. per hoc autem quod Christus est unum quod est homo, et aliud quod est Deus, sequitur quod sit duo secundum naturam; non autem quod sit omnino et simpliciter duo, propter unitatem suppositi.
8. If Christ were one thing, that is a man, and not other than man; it would follow that he would be completely one, that is both according to nature and according to the suppositum. But, by the fact that Christ is one thing, that is a man, and another thing, that is God, it follows that he is two according to nature, but he is not two entirely and simply, on account of the unity of the suppositum.
Ad nonum dicendum quod illud de quo plura praedicantur in propositione quae est de copulato praedicato, non oportet esse plura simpliciter; alioquin Socrates esset plura simpliciter, si sit albus et musicus. Et ideo non oportet, si Christus est Deus et homo, quod sit duo simpliciter.
9. It is not necessary for that of which many things are predicated in a proposition with conjoint predicate to be many simply. Otherwise Socrates would be many things simply, if he were white and musical. And thus it is not necessary if Christ is God and man that he is two simply.
Ad decimum dicendum quod ex divina natura et humana non fit unum secundum naturam. Concurrunt tamen in unum suppositum propter quod Christus est unum.
10. One thing according to nature is not made out of the human and divine natures. Yet, they come together in one suppositum because Christ is one.
Ad undecimum dicendum quod sicut non oportet quod Christus sit duo filii, propter hoc quod alia ratione est natus a Patre, et alia a matre; ita etiam non oportet quod sit duo secundum suppositum, propter diversam rationem subsistendi qua subsistit in quantum Deus et in quantum homo.
11. Just as it is not necessary that Christ is two sons, on account of the fact that in one way he was born from the Father and in another way from [his] mother; so also, it is not necessary that he be two according to the suppositum, on account of a different manner of subsisting by which he subsists insofar as he is God and insofar as he is man.
Ad duodecimum dicendum quod maxima differentia quae est inter humanam naturam et divinam, ostendit quod non potest esse una natura Dei et hominis; non autem ex hoc sequitur quod non possit esse unum suppositum utriusque naturae.
12. The greatest difference is that between the human nature and the divine nature, this shows that there cannot be one nature of God and man; but it does not follow from this that there cannot be one suppositum of both natures.
Ad decimumtertium dicendum quod nihil prohibet contrarias et incompossibiles differentias inesse eidem secundum diversa: sicut homo secundum animam est incorruptibilis, et secundum corpus corruptibilis. Et ita etiam in Christo opposita quaedam conveniunt secundum humanam et divinam naturam.
13. Nothing prevents contraries and incompatible differences being present in the same thing in different ways: just as a man is incorruptible with respect to the soul and corruptible with respect to the body. And so too certain incompatible things belong to Christ according to the human and divine nature.
Ad decimumquartum dicendum quod haec est falsa, homo est humanitas; non enim omnino idem significatur per utrumque. Quia, ut Philosophus dicit, in vii Metaph., quod quid est, id est essentia uniuscuiusque, est idem cum eo quantum ad ea quae sunt per se, non autem quantum ad ea quae sunt per accidens. Et ideo quidquid sit illud cui potest aliquid accidere praeter naturam suae speciei, non est omnino idem cum sua essentia. Homini autem multa accidunt praeter essentiam speciei. Unde patet quod non est omnino idem homo et humanitas; nam humanitas dicitur qua aliquis est homo, et sic in sua significatione includit sola ea quae pertinent ad essentiam speciei. Homo autem dicitur qui habet humanitatem, in quo etiam multa sunt alia praeter essentiam speciei.
14. This is false: a man is humanity; for what is signified through both is not entirely the same. Since as the Philosopher says, in book VII of the Metaphys. that which is, i.e. the essence of anything, is identical with the thing with regard to those things which are per se, but not with regard to those things which are accidentally. And thus, whatever is a thing to which something can pertain besides the nature of its own species, is not entirely identical with its essence. Now many things happen to a man beyond the essence of the species. Hence it is obvious that a man and humanity are not entirely the same. For "humanity" means that by which anything is a man and so it includes only those things which pertain to the essence of the species in its signification. But, "man" means the one who has humanity, in whom, indeed, there are many other things beyond the essence of the species (Cf. The account of suppositum in terms of what is beyond the essence in III, q. 2, a. 2).

Concerning the Union of the Word Incarnate

1. Quarto quaeritur utrum in Christo sit unum tantum esse.
Article 4: "Whether there is only one being in Christ?"
Et videtur quod non.
And it seems that there is not.
In Christo enim est esse divinum et humanum; quae non possunt esse unum, quia esse non dicitur univoce de Deo et creaturis. Ergo in Christo non est tantum unum esse, sed duo.
Objection 1: For there is both a divine and a human being in Christ; which cannot be one, because being is not said univocally of God and creatures. Therefore, in Christ there is not only one being, but two.
Praeterea, cuilibet formae respondet suum esse: aliud enim est esse album, et aliud esse hominem. Sed in Christo sunt duae formae; quia, cum in forma Dei esset, formam servi accepit, ut dicitur Philipp. ii, non tamen formam dei deposuit. Ergo in Christo est duplex esse.
Objection 2: Further, to any form corresponds its being; for it is one thing to be white, and another to be a man. But, in Christ there are two forms; since, "while he was in the form of God, he took the form of a slave", as is said in Philippians, 2:7, yet he did not set aside the form of God. Therefore, in Christ there is a two-fold being.
Praeterea, secundum Philosophum, in ii de Anima, vivere viventibus est esse. Sed in Christo est duplex vita; scilicet humana, quae fuit privata per mortem; et divina, quae per mortem privari non potuit. Ergo in Christo non est tantum unum esse, sed duo.
Objection 3: Further, according to the Philosopher, in book II of the de Anima [com. 37], in living things, living is being. But there is a two-fold life in Christ; namely a human life, which he was deprived of through death; and a divine life, which he could not be deprived of through death. Therefore, there is not only one being in Christ, but two.
Sed contra, quidquid est unum simpliciter est unum secundum esse. Sed Christus est unum simpliciter, ut supra habitum est. Ergo in eo est unum esse.
To the contrary, whatever is one simply is only one being. But, Christ is one simply, as was said above. Therefore, there is only one being in him.
Respondeo. Dicendum quod huius quaestionis est quodammodo eadem ratio et praemissae; quia ex eodem dicitur aliquid esse unum, et ens. Esse enim proprie et vere dicitur de supposito subsistente. Accidentia enim et formae non subsistentes dicuntur esse, in quantum eis aliquid subsistit; sicut albedo dicitur ens, in quantum ea est aliquid album. Considerandum est autem, quod aliquae formae sunt quibus est aliquid ens non simpliciter, sed secundum quid; sicut sunt omnes formae accidentales. Aliquae autem formae sunt quibus res subsistens simpliciter habet esse; quia videlicet constituunt esse substantiale rei subsistentis. In Christo autem suppositum subsistens est persona Filii Dei, quae simpliciter substantificatur per naturam divinam, non autem simpliciter substantificatur per naturam humanam. Quia persona Filii Dei fuit ante humanitatem assumptam, nec in aliquo persona est augmentata, seu perfectior, per naturam humanam assumptam. Substantificatur autem suppositum aeternum per naturam humanam, in quantum est hic homo. Et ideo sicut Christus est unum simpliciter propter unitatem suppositi, et duo secundum quid propter duas naturas, ita habet unum esse simpliciter propter unum esse aeternum aeterni suppositi. Est autem et aliud esse huius suppositi, non in quantum est aeternum, sed in quantum est temporaliter homo factum. Quod esse, etsi non sit esse accidentale - quia homo non praedicatur accidentaliter de Filio Dei, ut supra habitum est - non tamen est esse principale sui suppositi, sed secundarium. Si autem in Christo essent duo supposita, tunc utrumque suppositum haberet proprium esse sibi principale. Et sic in Christo esset simpliciter duplex esse.
I answer that in a certain measure solution of this question and the previous one is the same; because something is said to be one [esse unum] and to be a being [ens] from the same thing. For being [esse] is truly and properly said of the subsisting suppositum. For accidents and non-
subsisting forms are said to be insofar as something subsists by means of them; just as whiteness is called a being, insofar as something is white by means of it. Now we should consider that there are some forms by which something is a being, not simply, but in a certain respect; [and] such are all accidental forms. But, there are some forms by which a subsisting thing has being simply; because, obviously, they constitute the substantial being of the subsisting thing. Now in Christ the subsisting suppositum is the person of the Son of God, which is made a substance simply through the divine nature, but it is not made a substance simply through the human nature; since the person of the Son of God existed before he assumed humanity, nor was he increased or perfected through having assumed a human nature. But, the eternal suppositum is made a substance through the human nature insofar as it is this man. And thus just as Christ is one simply on account of the unity of the suppositum, and two in a certain respect on account of the two natures, so he has one being simply on account of the one being of the eternal suppositum. But, there is also another being of this suppositum, not insofar as it is eternal, but insofar as it became a man in time. That being, even if it is not an accidental being, because man is not accidentally predicated of the Son of God, as was said above [art. 1] - nevertheless, it is not the principle being of its suppositum, but [its] secondary [being]. Now if there were two supposita in Christ, then each suppositum would have its own principle being. And thus there would be a two-fold being in Christ simply.
Ad primum ergo dicendum quod esse humanae naturae non est esse divinae. Nec tamen simpliciter dicendum est quod Christus sit duo secundum esse; quia non ex aequo respicit utrumque esse suppositum aeternum.
1. The being of the human nature is not the being of the divine nature. Yet we cannot say simply that Christ is two with regard to being; because each case does not relate in an equal way to the eternal suppositum.
Et similiter etiam dicendum est ad alia.
And we must reply similarly to the other objections.