2. Second Reason

Another argument posed to the question is of the following sort is: Just as a denomination that naturally denominates many things in general (as ‘whole’ and ‘part’, ‘accident’ and ‘substance’) does not denominate a whole through a part nor a subject through an accident (as the term ‘one’, which is naturally said of subject and accident, does not formally denominate the subject through the accident, for Socrates is not said to be ‘one’ by the unity of whiteness, so that if whiteness were one and Socrates were many, it would be simply true to say that Socrates was many and false to say that Socrates was one) - so, although ‘this thing that is a creature’ is naturally said in general both of the supposit and of the nature in beings, yet it will not denominate the supposit by reason of the nature unless it belongs to the supposit with a proper denomination. Now it does not in any way belong to the supposit of Christ that ‘creature’ could denominate him with a proper denomination, because the supposit of the Word is not a creature, for he is Creator; nor can it in any way denominate him save as it denominates the human nature, and it cannot denominate the supposit through the nature;     therefore etc     .

33. And hereby it is plain that Christ is said to be generated in time but not said to be a creature, because ‘generated’ there only naturally denominates the nature, and only according to the nature does it naturally denominate the supposit. But ‘creature’ naturally denominates, with proper denomination, both nature and supposit, and neither of these gives a reason for a denomination with respect to the other.Sc. neither does a created nature give a reason to denominate the supposit as created, nor does an uncreated supposit give a reason to denominate the nature as uncreated. ⁹²