1. Exposition of the Opinion

93. Here the assertion is made [William of Ware] that the three persons can assume the same nature.

Because what is prior can exist without contradiction in the absence of the posterior, and consequently the prior can remain indistinct when a distinction is made in the posterior; but the idea of singularity or individuation in created nature is prior to the idea of person, as is plain, because the Word assumed an individual nature not yet existing in a person [n.32]; therefore it can remain the same individual nature although there are several personhoods extrinsic in respect of the nature.

94. Further, the distinction of relation is not a sufficient reason for distinguishing absolutes, as is plain from induction; therefore, since the distinction of divine persons is relational, there is, for this reason, no need for the absolute nature to be distinguished; but the [created] nature can be assumed by the three persons (as is plain); therefore it is possible for them to assume the nature without distinction in the nature.

95. Therefore is the assertion made that, just as the same soul can be in diverse parts of the body, and the same body can be miraculously in diverse places, so one nature can exist at the same time in two supposits (when those supposits are extrinsic and not the same as the nature).