IV. Objection to Scotus’ Opinion and its Solution

119. But there is an argument against the second part of the solution [nn.108-109]: for it is asked what unity the assumption would be made to in that part [Bonaventure].Sentences 3 d.1 a.1 q.3, “If it be said that the three persons assume one and the same man, a contradiction is involved in every way, whether the assumption is understood to be to the unity of nature or to the unity of person. For if such assumption is made to the unity of nature, then one nature is constituted from the divine and the human nature; therefore there is no distinction between the assumer and the assumed and so no true assumption. But if the assumption is to the unity of person, then the several persons communicate together in one person; therefore the several persons are not several persons... Because of this implied contradiction, then, it is neither possible nor intelligible for several persons to assume one and the same nature.” ⁵ Not to the unity of the nature, because then the nature assumed would be the same as the nature assuming; nor to the unity of the person, because ex hypothesi the person is not the term of the union but the essence is [n.109]; therefore the assumption would not be made to any unity.

120. I reply and say that the assumption would be to a unity, not of identity or of composition, but of union of this nature with that; and thus the union would be a special dependence of nature on nature, like the one that now exists of nature on person. So when you say [n.119], ‘if the assumption were to the unity of the nature, then the nature assumed would be one with the nature assuming’, I say that one should not concede the assumption is to the unity of the nature, but that there is only there a union with the nature, and only an assumption to the unity of union of nature with nature; for when ‘unity of nature’ is spoken of, then the term ‘unity’ - by the force of the [grammatical] construction - is taken for ‘unity of identity’ or ‘unity of composition’, and neither of these is present there. But ‘unity’ is not taken in this way when something is said to be assumed ‘to the unity of person’, for - by the force of the construction in this case -‘unity’ is taken for ‘unity of union’ [cf. 1 d.2 n.403].

121. On the contrary [Bonaventure]:Sentences 3 d.5 a.1 q.1, “When the action of assuming terminates at some unity, then the ‘assume’ stated of something signifies not only union but also that the union terminates at the unity of the assumer. And since the union does not terminate at the unity of nature but rather at the unity of person, therefore ‘to assume’ does not belong to the divine nature; for the divine nature did not assume the human nature into the unity of nature; and so in this way it is not conceded that the divine nature assumed it, that is, took it to itself or to its own unity. But if the term of the assuming has regard to the relation of union, then it is conceded that the divine nature assumed the human nature, that is, united it with itself; for it did unite human nature to itself, although not in the divine nature itself but in one person.” ⁶ just as this inference holds, ‘the person is the first term of the union, therefore the nature is assumed into unity of person’, so does this inference seem to hold, ‘the nature is the first term of the union, therefore the thing assumed is united in unity of nature’.

122. I reply that, although the consequences ‘therefore it is united in unity of nature’ and ‘therefore it is united in unity of person’ do not equally follow (although indeed this latter consequence does follow, because the consequent, by force of the construction of ‘unity’ with ‘person’, signifies the same as the antecedent), yet the second consequence [sc. second in n.121] does not hold, because the antecedent signifies that ‘nature’ is the term of the union but the consequent signifies unity of ‘identity’ of nature with nature or of person with person, or it signifies ‘composition’ of nature with nature. Hence the tacit assumption in one of the enthymemesPeter of Spain, Tractatus tr.5 n.3, “An enthymeme is an imperfect syllogism, that is, a speech in which, when not all the propositions have been set down beforehand, a conclusion is hurriedly inferred.” ⁷ [n.121] is true, namely this one, ‘what is united to the person is united to the unity or into the unity of the person’; but the tacit assumption in the second consequence is false, namely this one, ‘what is united to the nature is united to the unity or into the unity of the nature’.

Nor is there a real difficulty here but only a grammatical one; for in reality the unity of person is not formally communicated to the assumed nature but only to it as a term of dependence, just as neither is the unity of nature - if nature were the term of the union - formally communicated to the assumed nature; nor even is some third composite thing made from the assuming person and the assumed nature, just as not from nature and nature either; but there is only a different mode of speaking when saying ‘unity of nature’ and ‘unity of person’, because in the first, from the mode of speaking, unity of identity or of composition is indicated, but in the second the locution only indicates union with the person as with the term.