Part, Question
1 1, 3 | But in created things the "suppositum" is not ~identical with
2 1, 3 | essence must differ from the "suppositum," because the essence ~or
3 1, 3 | supposita." ~Therefore "suppositum" and nature in them are
4 1, 3 | and therefore, in them ~"suppositum" is not the same as nature.~
5 1, 3 | nature differ from His ~"suppositum"; nor His essence from His
6 1, 13| quality is to signify the ~"suppositum" with a nature or determined
7 1, 13| individualized not by any "suppositum," but by and of themselves,
8 1, 13| nature ~existing in some "suppositum." Hence, so far as concerns
9 1, 13| His nature but as to ~His "suppositum," accordingly as He is considered
10 1, 13| animal; for in the ~same "suppositum" there is sensible nature
11 1, 13| subject are the same as to ~"suppositum," but different as to idea.
12 1, 13| intellect draws to the "suppositum" what it places in the ~
13 1, 13| the form existing in the "suppositum"; according to the saying
14 1, 16| convertible with ~being, as to suppositum, yet they differ logically.
15 1, 25| understood under the notion of ~"suppositum" possessing nature, and
16 1, 29| substance means a subject or ~"suppositum," which subsists in the
17 1, 29| and ~thus it is called "suppositum." It is also called by three
18 1, 29| Sometimes it refers to the "suppositum," as when we ask, ~What
19 1, 30| meaning the essence, but the "suppositum" which is made clear by
20 1, 31| only a ~distinction of "suppositum"; and hence we can properly
21 1, 31| because He is another "suppositum" of the ~divine nature,
22 1, 31| particular thing, refers ~to the "suppositum"; and so, there is sufficient
23 1, 31| which is the name of the "suppositum"; whereas, if we ask, What ~
24 1, 31| its meaning to a given "suppositum"; as, for ~instance, "white"
25 1, 31| as excluding every other "suppositum" from the ~predicate. Thus,
26 1, 31| for it refers to the ~"suppositum," as excluding any other
27 1, 31| as excluding any other suppositum from the one which it ~qualifies.
28 1, 31| predicate, and not to the ~"suppositum." So, when Augustine says
29 1, 31| they do not differ in ~"suppositum," as part and universal.
30 1, 31| But the Son differs in "suppositum" ~from the Father; and so
31 1, 36| to be considered, the ~"suppositum" acting, and the power whereby
32 1, 36| medium, for the more a "suppositum" is prior in ~action, so
33 1, 39| is the same as person or "suppositum," there can be ~only one "
34 1, 39| there can be ~only one "suppositum" of one nature, as is clear
35 1, 39| essence; whence it is called "suppositum" or "hypostasis." Therefore ~
36 1, 39| essence is the same as ~"suppositum," which in intellectual
37 1, 39| cannot be a distinction of "suppositum" in creatures ~by means
38 1, 39| the individual is the ~"suppositum" of the form; so also in
39 1, 39| term, refers to the same ~"suppositum." Nor is this contrary to
40 1, 39| can be referred to the "suppositum"; ~whereas in the negative
41 1, 39| thing signified and the ~"suppositum." Whence, in the affirmative
42 1, 39| considered in the light ~of "suppositum," whereas the adjective
43 1, 39| something added to the ~"suppositum." Therefore substantive
44 1, 39| but it belongs to the ~"suppositum" implied in the substantive.
45 1, 40| and acts belong to a "suppositum." Now, properties are not
46 1, 39| is the same as person or "suppositum," there can be ~only one "
47 1, 39| there can be ~only one "suppositum" of one nature, as is clear
48 1, 39| essence; whence it is called "suppositum" or "hypostasis." Therefore ~
49 1, 39| essence is the same as ~"suppositum," which in intellectual
50 1, 39| cannot be a distinction of "suppositum" in creatures ~by means
51 1, 39| the individual is the ~"suppositum" of the form; so also in
52 1, 39| term, refers to the same ~"suppositum." Nor is this contrary to
53 1, 39| can be referred to the "suppositum"; ~whereas in the negative
54 1, 39| thing signified and the ~"suppositum." Whence, in the affirmative
55 1, 39| considered in the light ~of "suppositum," whereas the adjective
56 1, 39| something added to the ~"suppositum." Therefore substantive
57 1, 39| but it belongs to the ~"suppositum" implied in the substantive.
58 1, 40| and acts belong to a "suppositum." Now, properties are not
59 3, 2 | Whether it took place in the suppositum or hypostasis?~(4) Whether
60 3, 2 | distinguish the nature from the suppositum of the nature (which is
61 3, 2 | these the nature and the suppositum really differ; not indeed
62 3, 2 | separate, but because the suppositum includes the ~nature, and
63 3, 2 | the ~species. Hence the suppositum is taken to be a whole which
64 3, 2 | is not predicated of the ~suppositum, for we do not say that
65 3, 2 | nature ~(as in God), the suppositum and the nature are not really
66 3, 2 | it is ~an essence, and a "suppositum" as it is subsisting. And
67 3, 2 | And what is said of a ~suppositum is to be applied to a person
68 3, 2 | Incarnate took place in the suppositum or ~hypostasis?~Aquin.:
69 3, 2 | did not take ~place in the suppositum or hypostasis. For Augustine
70 3, 2 | other" [aliud] differ in ~suppositum. Therefore the union of
71 3, 2 | did not take place ~in the suppositum.~Aquin.: SMT TP Q[2] A[3]
72 3, 2 | this man is said to ~be a suppositum, because he underlies [supponitur]
73 3, 2 | place in the ~hypostasis or suppositum. Hence in the same Synod (
74 3, 2 | to the same hypostasis or suppositum in created things, since
75 3, 2 | not signify diversity of suppositum, but only ~diversity of
76 3, 2 | do not imply diversity of suppositum or ~hypostasis, but diversity
77 3, 2 | be called a hypostasis or suppositum, ~seeing that it is in union
78 3, 2 | said to be a hypostasis or suppositum.~Aquin.: SMT TP Q[2] A[3]
79 3, 2 | another individual which is a suppositum or a ~person of that nature,
80 3, 2 | or ~nature; secondly, for suppositum or hypostasis - hence the
81 3, 2 | namely, inasmuch ~as the same suppositum is signified when I say "
82 3, 2 | whereas it is not the same suppositum of Father ~and Son.~Aquin.:
83 3, 2 | nature has being in its own ~suppositum does not take place by means
84 3, 3 | and points to the same suppositum. ~But the Divine Nature
85 3, 3 | Nature is not a distinct suppositum from the Person of the ~
86 3, 3 | take it to Himself, for the suppositum of the Father and the Son
87 3, 3 | considered as a subsisting suppositum. However, some of the ~things
88 3, 3 | Incarnation has no ~other suppositum than the suppositum of the
89 3, 3 | other suppositum than the suppositum of the Divine Person, as
90 3, 3 | natures, there would be one suppositum of ~two natures of the same
91 3, 3 | there would be only one ~suppositum. Therefore the aforesaid
92 3, 3 | and form constitutes a new suppositum, the ~consequence is that
93 3, 3 | does not constitute a new suppositum, as ~was said above (A[6]).
94 3, 3 | account of the unity of ~suppositum, one man having two human
95 3, 3 | account of the unity of suppositum. So likewise, if two Divine
96 3, 3 | not from the unity of suppositum, but ~because they have
97 3, 4 | perfection of one ~person or suppositum, but of something which
98 3, 4 | other than the uncreated suppositum, the Person ~of the Son
99 3, 4 | human nature, as it is in a ~suppositum, because, as Damascene says (
100 3, 4 | Christ there is but one suppositum and one hypostasis. But
101 3, 4 | inasmuch as it is in a suppositum; and hence, since we cannot
102 3, 4 | since we cannot say a ~suppositum was assumed, so we cannot
103 3, 4 | the concrete, as ~if the suppositum were presupposed to the
104 3, 4 | we must not see any other suppositum in the assumed nature, except ~
105 3, 4 | that there was but one ~suppositum of human nature, which is
106 3, 4 | fitting that as one Divine suppositum is incarnate, so He should ~
107 3, 7 | and action belongs to the suppositum and the ~individual. Hence
108 3, 10| account of the identity ~of suppositum. And in this way it may
109 3, 16| two ~things distinct in suppositum or hypostasis, one can be
110 3, 16| in person, but also in ~suppositum or hypostasis; we say that
111 3, 16| 39], A[4]. Now of every suppositum of any nature we may truly ~
112 3, 16| word "God" stands, is a ~suppositum of human nature this word
113 3, 16| cannot come together in one ~suppositum, the proposition is necessarily
114 3, 16| can ~come together in one suppositum, the matter is not remote,
115 3, 16| of the Incarnation in one suppositum, in which neither ~exists
116 3, 16| God," but by reason of the suppositum, which is a hypostasis of ~
117 3, 16| and are ~distinguished in suppositum; and hence they are not
118 3, 16| But because they agree in ~suppositum, they are predicated of
119 3, 16| nature, but in the eternal suppositum, which by ~union is a suppositum
120 3, 16| suppositum, which by ~union is a suppositum of human nature, as stated
121 3, 16| something new, yet ~the suppositum of the human nature is not
122 3, 16| nature, ~but by reason of the suppositum, it does not follow that
123 3, 16| Man" stands for a created ~suppositum: even as must be said by
124 3, 16| we signify the eternal suppositum, which is the Person of ~
125 3, 16| because there is only one suppositum of both natures. Now ~"God"
126 3, 16| Jesus," ~we mean a created suppositum, as those who assert two
127 3, 16| and not by reason of the suppositum.~Aquin.: SMT TP Q[16] A[
128 3, 16| 1~Reply OBJ 2: This one suppositum, which is of the human and
129 3, 16| Afterwards ~in time it was made a suppositum of human nature by the Incarnation.
130 3, 16| is not true, ~viz. that a suppositum of human nature assumed
131 3, 16| human nature, not in its ~suppositum, but in itself; and thus
132 3, 16| to be in a newly created suppositum. But God is said ~to have
133 3, 16| eternally pre-existing suppositum of the Divine Nature. And
134 3, 16| not made God, because this suppositum, viz. the Person of the
135 3, 16| Christ are the same as the ~suppositum of God and Man, as was shown (
136 3, 16| man" has a ~personal suppositum: because, to be God is not
137 3, 16| human nature, but in His suppositum. Now the suppositum of human
138 3, 16| His suppositum. Now the suppositum of human nature, ~of Whom "
139 3, 16| materially, i.e. for ~the suppositum; placed in the predicate
140 3, 16| human nature but to the suppositum of ~the human nature, Which
141 3, 16| Further, "man" implies a suppositum of human nature. But Christ ~
142 3, 16| Christ ~was not always a suppositum of human nature. Therefore
143 3, 16| that in Christ there is one suppositum ~and one hypostasis, as
144 3, 16| pointing to Christ, the eternal suppositum is necessarily ~meant, with
145 3, 16| materially so as to signify the ~suppositum, as was said (A[1], ad 4).
146 3, 16| nevertheless signifies the ~eternal suppositum which did not begin to be.
147 3, 16| since it signifies ~the suppositum when placed in the subject,
148 3, 16| either by reason of the suppositum or by reason of ~the nature.
149 3, 16| be added by reason of the suppositum, since the ~suppositum of
150 3, 16| the suppositum, since the ~suppositum of the human nature in Christ
151 3, 16| the nature rather than the suppositum, since it ~is added as a
152 3, 16| reduplication] is attracted to the suppositum, this proposition is to
153 3, 16| the subject refers to the suppositum - and ~as placed in the
154 3, 16| nature is created and the suppositum uncreated, ~therefore, although
155 3, 16| belongs to every man who is a suppositum of human nature ~alone to
156 3, 16| nature. Hence of every such ~suppositum it follows that if it is
157 3, 16| simply. But Christ is a suppositum not merely of human nature,
158 3, 16| we signify the ~eternal suppositum which is God naturally.
159 3, 16| taken as referring to the suppositum; and in this way, since
160 3, 16| in this way, since the ~suppositum of the human nature in Christ
161 3, 16| the nature rather than the suppositum, as stated above (A[10]), ~
162 3, 16| attracts "man" to the suppositum; and hence "Christ as this
163 3, 16| of human nature, and a ~suppositum and a hypostasis of the
164 3, 16| But every hypostasis and ~suppositum and being of human nature
165 3, 16| may refer either to the suppositum or to the nature. Hence ~
166 3, 16| taken as referring ~to the suppositum, it is clear that Christ
167 3, 16| is a person, since the ~suppositum of human nature is nothing
168 3, 16| nature, so a hypostasis, suppositum, and ~being of nature in
169 3, 16| itself ~a hypostasis or suppositum or a being of nature. Hence
170 3, 17| truly be predicated of the suppositum or person, except ~in God,
171 3, 17| it is signified by the ~suppositum. For we cannot truly say
172 3, 17| naturally predicated of its suppositum. But ~we say that Christ
173 3, 17| they are signified in the ~suppositum, it must be by reason of
174 3, 17| must be by reason of the suppositum that "one" or "two" be ~
175 3, 17| opinion, would seem to be the suppositum completed with its final ~
176 3, 17| maintain ~one person and one suppositum in Christ, as is clear from
177 3, 17| does not ~exclude another suppositum, but another nature, since
178 3, 17| whereby it is ~drawn to the suppositum, it would be a true proposition -
179 3, 17| properly refers to the ~suppositum. even as all relative things
180 3, 17| distinct, but in an indistinct suppositum, i.e. inasmuch as it underlies ~
181 3, 17| that He is two, since the ~suppositum of the human nature in Christ,
182 3, 17| predicated is said ~of the suppositum, which is implied by the
183 3, 17| because He has not duality of ~suppositum, it cannot be said that
184 3, 17| the ~nature, but also the suppositum is said to be a substance,
185 3, 17| unless there is diversity ~of suppositum. But diversity of nature
186 3, 17| there is no diversity of suppositum.~Aquin.: SMT TP Q[17] A[
187 3, 19| it is only ~a subsisting suppositum that operates; hence, according
188 3, 24| salvation, which belongs to a ~suppositum acting for the end of beatitude.
189 3, 25| one hypostasis, and one suppositum, He is given one ~adoration
190 3, 35| can only be the eternal suppositum, then ~no other than the
191 3, 35| cannot be; since the eternal suppositum cannot be receptive of a
192 3, 46| the ~hypostasis, in the suppositum, yet observing the distinction
193 3, 46| to be attributed ~to the suppositum of the Divine Nature, not
194 3, 46| Passion belongs to the "suppositum" of the Divine Nature by
195 3, 50| dead was identical in its suppositum because ~alive and dead
196 3, 50| of the identity of ~the suppositum, as stated above. ~Aquin.:
197 3, 50| identically according ~to suppositum, but the same specifically
198 3, 50| according to form: wherever the ~suppositum subsists in only one nature,
199 3, 50| Christ according to the suppositum of the Word of God.~Aquin.:
200 3, 50| Christ by reason of ~the suppositum, from which suppositum follows
201 3, 50| the suppositum, from which suppositum follows the unity of identity;
202 3, 58| of nature, but unity of ~suppositum, as explained above (Q[16],
|