De Unione Verbi - Article 2
Concerning the Union of the Word Incarnate
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. Objection 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. Objection 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. Objection 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. Objection 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. Objection 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. Objection 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. Objection 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. Objection 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. Objection 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. Objection 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. Objection 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. Objection 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. Objection 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. Objection 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. Objection 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. Objection 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. Objection 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. Objection 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 [ ratio of 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.
Back to Main Page
De Unione - Article 3
Concerning the Union of the Word Incarnate
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).
Back to Main Page
De Unione Verbi - Article 4
Concerning the Union of the Word Incarnate
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.
Back to Main Page