II.
Sed de persona maxime dubitari potest, quaenam ei definitio possit aptari.
Si enim omnis habet natura personam, indissolubilis nodus est, quaenam inter naturam personamque possit esse discretio; aut si non aequatur persona naturae, sed infra terminum spatiumque naturae persona subsist.i.t, difficile dictu est ad quas usque naturas persona perueniat, id est quas naturas conueniat habere personam, quas a personae uocabulo segregari. Nam illud quidem manifestum est personae subiectam esse naturam nec praeter naturam personam posse praedicari. Vestiganda sunt igitur haec inquirentibus hoc modo.
Quoniam praeter naturam non potest esse persona quoniamque naturae aliae sunt substantiae, aliae accidentes et uidemus personam in accidentibus non posse const.i.tui (quis enim dicat ullam albedinis uel nigredinis uel magnitudinis esse personam?), relinquitur ergo ut personam in substantiis dici conueniat. Sed substantiarum aliae sunt corporeae, aliae incorporeae.
Corporearum uero aliae sunt uiuentes, aliae minime; uiuentium aliae sunt sensibiles, aliae minime; sensibilium aliae rationales, aliae inrationales.
Item incorporearum aliae sunt rationales, aliae minime, ut pecudum uitae; rationalium uero alia est inmutabilis atque inpa.s.sibilis per naturam ut deus, alia per creationem mutabilis atque pa.s.sibilis, nisi inpa.s.sibilis gratia substantiae ad inpa.s.sibilitatis firmitudinem permutetur ut angelorum atque animae. Ex quibus omnibus neque in non uiuentibus corporibus personam posse dici manifestum est (nullus enim lapidis ullam dicit esse personam), neque rursus eorum uiuentium quae sensu carent (neque enim ulla persona est arboris), nec uero eius quae intellectu ac ratione deseritur (nulla est enim persona equi uel bouis ceterorumque animalium quae muta ac sine ratione uitam solis sensibus degunt), at hominis dicimus esse personam, dicimus dei, dicimus angeli. Rursus substantiarum aliae sunt uniuersales, aliae particulares. Vniuersales sunt quae de singulis praedicantur ut h.o.m.o, animal, lapis, lignum ceteraque huiusmodi quae uel genera uel species sunt; nam et h.o.m.o de singulis hominibus et animal de singulis animalibus lapisque ac lignum de singulis lapidibus ac lignis dic.u.n.tur. Particularia uero sunt quae de aliis minime praedicantur ut Cicero, Plato, lapis hic unde haec Achillis statua facta est, lignum hoc unde haec mensa composita est. Sed in his omnibus nusquam in uniuersalibus persona dici potest, sed in singularibus tantum atque in indiuiduis; animalis enim uel generalis hominis nulla persona est, sed uel Ciceronis uel Platonis uel singulorum indiuiduorum personae singulae nuncupantur.
II.
But the proper definition of Person is a matter of very great perplexity. For if every nature has person, the difference between nature and person is a hard knot to unravel; or if person is not taken as the equivalent of nature but is a term of less scope and range, it is difficult to say to what natures it may be extended, that is, to what natures the term person may be applied and what natures are dissociate from it. For one thing is clear, namely that nature is a substrate of Person, and that Person cannot be predicated apart from nature.
We must, therefore, conduct our inquiry into these points as follows.
Since Person cannot exist apart from a nature and since natures are either substances or accidents and we see that a person cannot come into being among accidents (for who can say there is any person of white or black or size?), it therefore remains that Person is properly applied to substances. But of substances, some are corporeal and others incorporeal. And of corporeals, some are living and others the reverse; of living substances, some are sensitive and others insensitive; of sensitive substances, some are rational and others irrational.[58]
Similarly of incorporeal substances, some are rational, others the reverse (for instance the animating spirits of beasts); but of rational substances there is one which is immutable and impa.s.sible by nature, namely G.o.d, another which in virtue of its creation is mutable and pa.s.sible except in that case where the Grace of the impa.s.sible substance has transformed it to the unshaken impa.s.sibility which belongs to angels and to the soul.
Now from all the definitions we have given it is clear that Person cannot be affirmed of bodies which have no life (for no one ever said that a stone had a person), nor yet of living things which lack sense (for neither is there any person of a tree), nor finally of that which is bereft of mind and reason (for there is no person of a horse or ox or any other of the animals which dumb and unreasoning live a life of sense alone), but we say there is a person of a man, of G.o.d, of an angel.
Again, some substances are universal, others are particular. Universal terms are those which are predicated of individuals, as man, animal, stone, stock and other things of this kind which are either genera or species; for the term man is applied to individual men just as animal is to individual animals, and stone and stock to individual stones and stocks. But particulars are terms which are never predicated of other things, as Cicero, Plato, this stone from which this statue of Achilles was hewn, this piece of wood out of which this table was made. But in all these things person cannot in any case be applied to universals, but only to particulars and individuals; for there is no person of a man if animal or general; only the single persons of Cicero, Plato, or other single individuals are termed persons.
[58] For a similar example of the method of _diuisio_ cf. Cic. _De Off._ ii. 3. 11. Cf. also _Isag. Porph. edit. prima_, i. 10 (ed. Brandt, p.
29).
III.
Quocirca si persona in solis substantiis est atque in his rationabilibus substantiaque omnis natura est nec in uniuersalibus sed in indiuiduis constat, reperta personae est definitio: "naturae rationabilis indiuidua substantia." Sed nos hac definitione eam quam Graeci [Greek: hupostasin]
dic.u.n.t terminauimus. Nomen enim personae uidetur aliunde traductum, ex his scilicet personis quae in comoediis tragoediisque eos quorum interest homines repraesentabant. Persona uero dicta est a personando circ.u.mflexa paenultima. Quod si acuatur antepaenultima, apertissime a sono dicta uidebitur; idcirco autem a sono, quia concauitate ipsa maior necesse est uoluatur sonus. Graeci quoque has personas [Greek: prosopa] uocant ab eo quod ponantur in facie atque ante oculos obtegant uultum: [Greek: para tou pros tous opas t.i.thesthai.] Sed quoniam personis inductis histriones indiuiduos homines quorum intererat in tragoedia uel in comoedia ut dictum est repraesentabant, id est Hecubam uel Medeam uel Simonem uel Chremetem, idcirco ceteros quoque homines, quorum certa pro sui forma esset agnitio, et Latini personam et Graeci [Greek: prosopa] nuncupauerunt. Longe uero illi signatius naturae rationabilis indiuiduam subsistentiam [Greek: hupostaseos] nomine uocauerunt, nos uero per inopiam significantium uoc.u.m translaticiam retinuimus nuncupationem, eam quam illi [Greek: hupostasin]
dic.u.n.t personam uocantes; sed peritior Graecia sermonum [Greek: hupostasin]
uocat indiuiduam subsistentiam. Atque, uti Graeca utar oratione in rebus quae a Graecis agitata Latina interpretatione translata sunt: [Greek: hai ousiai en men tois katholou einai dunantai. en de tois atomois kai kata meros monois huphistantai], id est: essentiae in uniuersalibus quidem esse possunt, in solis uero indiuiduis et particularibus substant. Intellectus enim uniuersalium rerum ex particularibus sumptus est. Quocirca c.u.m ipsae subsistentiae in uniuersalibus quidem sint, in particularibus uero capiant substantiam, iure subsistentias particulariter substantes [Greek: hupostaseis] appellauerunt. Neque enim pensius subtiliusque intuenti idem uidebitur esse subsistentia quod substantia.
Nam quod Graeci [Greek: ousiosin] uel [Greek: ousiosthai] dic.u.n.t, id nos subsistentiam uel subsistere appellamus; quod uero illi [Greek: hupostasin]
uel [Greek: huphistasthai], id nos substantiam uel substare interpretamur.
Subsist.i.t enim quod ipsum accidentibus, ut possit esse, non indiget.
Substat autem id quod aliis accidentibus subiectum quoddam, ut esse ualeant, subministrat; sub illis enim stat, dum subiectum est accidentibus.
Itaque genera uel species subsistunt tantum; neque enim accidentia generibus speciebus*ue contingunt. Indiuidua uero non modo subsistunt uerum etiam substant, nam neque ipsa indigent accidentibus ut sint; informata enim sunt iam propriis et specificis differentiis et accidentibus ut esse possint ministrant, dum sunt scilicet subiecta. Quocirca [Greek: einai]
atque [Greek: ousiosthai] esse atque subsistere, [Greek: huphistasthai]
uero substare intellegitur. Neque enim uerborum inops Graecia est, ut Marcus Tullius alludit, sed essentiam, subsistentiam, substantiam, personam totidem nominibus reddit, essentiam quidem [Greek: ousian], subsistentiam uero [Greek: ousiosin], substantiam [Greek: hupostasin], personam [Greek: prosopon] appellans. Ideo autem [Greek: hupostaseis] Graeci indiuiduas substantias uocauerunt, quoniam ceteris subsunt et quibusdam quasi accidentibus subpositae subiectaeque sunt; atque idcirco nos quoque eas substantias nuncupamus quasi subpositas, quas illi[59] [Greek: hupostaseis], c.u.mque etiam [Greek: prosopa] nuncupent easdem substantias, possumus nos quoque nuncupare personas. Idem est igitur [Greek: ousian]
esse quod essentiam, idem [Greek: ousiosin] quod subsistentiam, idem [Greek: hupostasin] quod substantiam, idem [Greek: prosopon] quod personam.
Quare autem de inrationabilibus animalibus Graecus [Greek: hupostasin] non dicat, sicut nos de eisdem nomen substantiae praedicamus, haec ratio est, quoniam nomen hoc melioribus applicatum est, ut aliqua id quod est excellentius, tametsi non descriptione naturae secundum id quod [Greek: huphistasthai] atque substare est, at certe [Greek: hupostaseos] uel substantiae uocabulis discerneretur.
Est igitur et hominis quidem essentia, id est [Greek: ousia], et subsistentia, id est [Greek: ousiosis], et [Greek: hupostasis], id est substantia, et [Greek: prosopon], id est persona; [Greek: ousia], quidem atque essentia quoniam est, [Greek: ousiosis] uero atque subsistentia quoniam in nullo subiecto est, [Greek: hupostasis] uero atque substantia, quoniam subest ceteris quae subsistentiae non sunt, id est [Greek: ousioseis]; est [Greek: prosopon] atque persona, quoniam est rationabile indiuiduum. Deus quoque et [Greek: ousia] est et essentia, est enim et maxime ipse est a quo omnium esse proficiscitur. Est [Greek: ousiosis], id est subsistentia (subsist.i.t enim nullo indigens), et [Greek: huphistasthai]; substat enim. Vnde etiam dicimus unam esse [Greek: ousian]
uel [Greek: ousiosin], id est essentiam uel subsistentiam deitatis, sed tres [Greek: hupostaseis], id est tres substantias. Et quidem secundum hunc modum dixere unam trinitatis essentiam, tres substantias tresque personas.
Nisi enim tres in deo substantias ecclesiasticus loquendi usus excluderet, uideretur idcirco de deo dici substantia, non quod ipse ceteris rebus quasi subiectum supponeretur, sed quod idem omnibus uti praeesset ita etiam quasi principium subesset rebus, dum eis omnibus [Greek: ousiosthai] uel subsistere subministrat.
[59] quas illi _Vallinus_; quasi _uel_ quas _codd. meliores_.
III.
Wherefore if Person belongs to substances alone, and these rational, and if every nature is a substance, existing not in universals but in individuals, we have found the definition of Person, viz.: "The individual substance of a rational nature."[60] Now by this definition we Latins have described what the Greeks call [Greek: hupostasis]. For the word person seems to be borrowed from a different source, namely from the masks which in comedies and tragedies used to signify the different subjects of representation. Now _persona_ "mask" is derived from _personare_, with a circ.u.mflex on the penultimate. But if the accent is put on the antepenultimate[61] the word will clearly be seen to come from _sonus_ "sound," and for this reason, that the hollow mask necessarily produces a larger sound. The Greeks, too, call these masks [Greek: prosopa] from the fact that they are placed over the face and conceal the countenance from the spectator: [Greek: para tou pros tous opas t.i.thesthai]. But since, as we have said, it was by the masks they put on that actors played the different characters represented in a tragedy or comedy--Hecuba or Medea or Simon or Chremes,--so also all other men who could be recognized by their several characteristics were designated by the Latins with the term _persona_ and by the Greeks with [Greek: prosopa]. But the Greeks far more clearly gave to the individual subsistence of a rational nature the name [Greek: hupostasis] while we through want of appropriate words have kept a borrowed term, calling that _persona_ which they call [Greek: hupostasis]; but Greece with its richer vocabulary gives the name [Greek: hupostasis] to the individual subsistence. And, if I may use Greek in dealing with matters which were first mooted by Greeks before they came to be interpreted in Latin: [Greek: hai ousiai en men tois katholou einai dunantai. en de tois atomois kai kata meros monois huphistantai], that is: essences indeed can have potential existence in universals, but they have particular substantial existence in particulars alone. For it is from particulars that all our comprehension of universals is taken. Wherefore since subsistences are present in universals but acquire substance in particulars they rightly gave the name [Greek: hupostasis] to subsistences which acquired substance through the medium of particulars. For to no one using his eyes with any care or penetration will subsistence and substance appear identical.
For our equivalents of the Greek terms [Greek: ousiosis ousiosthai] are respectively _subsistentia_ and _subsistere_, while their [Greek: hupostasis huphistasthai] are represented by our _substantia_ and _substare_. For a thing has subsistence when it does not require accidents in order to be, but that thing has substance which supplies to other things, accidents to wit, a substrate enabling them to be; for it "substands" those things so long as it is subjected to accidents. Thus genera and species have only subsistence, for accidents do not attach to genera and species. But particulars have not only subsistence but substance, for they, no more than generals, depend on accidents for their Being; for they are already provided with their proper and specific differences and they enable accidents to be by supplying them with a substrate. Wherefore _esse_ and _subsistere_ represent [Greek: einai] and [Greek: ousiosthai], while _substare_ represents [Greek: huphistasthai]. For Greece is not, as Marcus Tullius[62] playfully says, short of words, but provides exact equivalents for _essentia, subsistentia, substantia_ and _persona_--[Greek: ousia] for _essentia_, [Greek: ousiosis]
for _subsistentia_, [Greek: hupostasis] for _substantia_, [Greek: prosopon] for _persona_. But the Greeks called individual substances [Greek: hupostaseis] because they underlie the rest and offer support and substrate to what are called accidents; and we in our term call them substances as being substrate--[Greek: hupostaseis], and since they also term the same substances [Greek: prosopa], we too may call them persons. So [Greek: ousia] is identical with essence, [Greek: ousiosis] with subsistence, [Greek: hupostasis] with substance, [Greek: prosopon] with person. But the reason why the Greek does not use [Greek: hupostasis] of irrational animals while we apply the term substance to them is this: This term was applied to things of higher value, in order that what is more excellent might be distinguished, if not by a definition of nature answering to the literal meaning of [Greek: huphistasthai]=_substare_, at any rate by the words [Greek: hupostasis]=_substantia_.
To begin with, then, man is essence, i.e. [Greek: ousia], subsistence, i.e. [Greek: ousiosis, hupostasis], i.e. substance, [Greek: prosopon], i.e. person: [Greek: ousia] or _essentia_ because he is, [Greek: ousiosis], or subsistence because he is not accidental to any subject, [Greek: hupostusis] or substance because he is subject to all the things which are not subsistences or [Greek: ousioseis], while he is [Greek: prosopon] or person because he is a rational individual. Next, G.o.d is [Greek: ousia], or essence, for He is and is especially that from which proceeds the Being of all things. To Him belong [Greek: ousiosis], i.e.
subsistence, for He subsists in absolute independence, and [Greek: huphistasthai], for He is substantial Being. Whence we go on to say that there is one [Greek: ousia] or [Greek: ousiosis], i.e. one essence or subsistence of the G.o.dhead, but three [Greek: hupostaseis] or substances. And indeed, following this use, men have spoken of One essence, three substances and three persons of the G.o.dhead. For did not the language of the Church forbid us to say three substances in speaking of G.o.d,[63] substance might seem a right term to apply to Him, not because He underlies all other things like a substrate, but because, just as He excels above all things, so He is the foundation and support of things, supplying them all with [Greek: ousiosthai] or subsistence.
[60] Boethius"s definition of _persona_ was adopted by St. Thomas (S. i.
29. 1), was regarded as cla.s.sical by the Schoolmen, and has the approval of modern theologians. Cf. Dorner, _Doctrine of Christ_, iii. p. 311.
[61] Implying a short penultimate.
[62] _Tusc._ ii. 15. 35.
[63] For a similar submission of his own opinion to the usage of the Church cf. the end of _Tr._ i. and of _Tr._ ii.
IV.
Sed haec omnia idcirco sint dicta, ut differentiam naturae atque personae id est [Greek: ousias] atque [Greek: hupostaseos] monstraremus. Quo uero nomine unumquodque oporteat appellari, ecclesiasticae sit locutionis arbitrium. Hoc interim constet quod inter naturam personamque differre praediximus, quoniam natura est cuiuslibet substantiae specificata proprietas, persona uero rationabilis naturae indiuidua substantia. Hanc in Christo Nestorius duplicem esse const.i.tuit eo scilicet traductus errore, quod putauerit in omnibus naturis dici posse personam. Hoc enim praesumpto, quoniam in Christo duplicem naturam esse censebat, duplicem quoque personam esse confessus est. Qua in re eum falsum esse c.u.m definitio superius dicta conuincat, tum haec argumentatio euidenter eius declarabit errorem. Si enim non est Christi una persona duasque naturas esse manifestum est, hominis scilicet atque dei (nec tam erit insipiens quisquam, utqui utramque earum a ratione seiungat), sequitur ut duae uideantur esse personae; est enim persona ut dictum est naturae rationabilis indiuidua substantia.
Quae est igitur facta hominis deique coniunctio? Num ita quasi c.u.m duo corpora sibimet apponuntur, ut tantum locis iuncta sint et nihil in alterum ex alterius qualitate perueniat? Quem coniunctionis Graeci modum [Greek: kata parathesin] uocant. Sed si ita humanitas diuinitati coniuncta est, nihil horum ex utrisque confectum est ac per hoc nihil est Christus. Nomen quippe ipsum unum quiddam significat singularitate uocabuli. At si duabus personis manentibus ea coniunctio qualem superius diximus facta est naturarum, unum ex duobus effici nihil potuit; omnino enim ex duabus personis nihil umquam fieri potest. Nihil igitur unum secundum Nestorium Christus est ac per hoc omnino nihil. Quod enim non est unum, nec esse omnino potest; esse enim atque unum conuert.i.tur et quodc.u.mque unum est est.
Etiam ea quae ex pluribus coniunguntur ut aceruus, chorus, unum tamen sunt.
Sed esse Christum manifeste ac ueraciter confitemur; unum igitur esse dicimus Christum. Quod si ita est, unam quoque Christi sine dubitatione personam esse necesse est. Nam si duae personae essent, unus esse non posset; duos uero esse dicere Christos nihil est aliud nisi praecipitatae mentis insania. Cur enim omnino duos audeat Christos uocare, unum hominem alium deum? Vel cur eum qui deus est Christum uocat, si eum quoque qui h.o.m.o est Christum est appellaturus, c.u.m nihil simile, nihil habeant ex copulatione coniunctum? Cur simili nomine diuersissimis abutatur naturis, c.u.m, si Christum definire cogitur, utrisque ut ipse dicit Christis non possit unam definitionis adhibere substantiam? Si enim dei atque hominis diuersa substantia est unumque in utrisque Christi nomen nec diuersarum coniunctio substantiarum unam creditur fecisse personam, aequiuoc.u.m nomen est Christi et nulla potest definitione concludi. Quibus autem umquam scripturis nomen Christi geminatur? Quid uero noui per aduentum saluatoris effectum est? Nam catholicis et fidei ueritas et raritas miraculi constat.
Quam enim magnum est quamque nouum, quam quod semel nec ullo alio saeculo possit euenire, ut eius qui solus est deus natura c.u.m humana quae ab eo erat diuersissima conueniret atque ita ex distantibus naturis una fieret copulatione persona! Secundum Nestorii uero sententiam quid contingit noui?
"Seruant," inquit, "proprias humanitas diuinitasque personas." Quando enim non fuit diuinitatis propria humanitatisque persona? Quando uero non erit?
Vel quid amplius in Iesu generatione contingit quam in cuiuslibet alterius, si discretis utrisque personis discretae etiam fuere naturae? Ita enim personis manentibus illic nulla naturarum potuit esse coniunctio, ut in quolibet homine, cuius c.u.m propria persona subsistat, nulla est ei excellentissimae substantiae coniuncta diuinitas. Sed forta.s.se Iesum, id est personam hominis, idcirco Christum uocet, quoniam per eam mira quaedam sit operata diuinitas. Esto. Deum uero ipsum Christi appellatione cur uocet? Cur uero non elementa quoque ipsa simili audeat appellare uocabulo per quae deus mira quaedam cotidianis motibus operatur? An quia inrationabiles substantiae non possunt habere personam qua[64] Christi uocabulum excipere possint[65]? Nonne in sanctis hominibus ac pietate conspicuis apertus diuinitatis actus agnoscitur? Nihil enim intererit, cur non sanctos quoque uiros eadem appellatione dignetur, si in adsumptione humanitatis non est una ex coniunctione persona. Sed dicat forsitan, "Illos quoque Christos uocari fateor, sed ad imaginem ueri Christi." Quod si nulla ex homine atque deo una persona coniuncta est, omnes ita ueros Christos arbitrabimur ut hunc qui ex uirgine genitus creditur. Nulla quippe in hoc adunata persona est ex dei atque hominis copulatione sicut nec in eis, qui dei spiritu de uenturo Christo praedicebant, propter quod etiam ipsi quoque appellati sunt Christi. Iam uero sequitur, ut personis manentibus nullo modo a diuinitate humanitas credatur adsumpta. Omnino enim disiuncta sunt quae aeque personis naturisque separantur, prorsus inquam disiuncta sunt nec magis inter se homines bouesque disiuncti quam diuinitas in Christo humanitasque discreta est, si mansere personae. Homines quippe ac boues una animalis communitate iunguntur; est enim illis secundum genus communis substantia eademque in uniuersalitatis collectione natura. Deo uero atque homini quid non erit diuersa ratione disiunctum, si sub diuersitate naturae personarum quoque credatur mansisse discretio? Non est igitur saluatum genus humanum, nulla in nos salus Christi generatione processit, tot prophetarum scripturae populum inlusere credentem, omnis ueteris testamenti spernatur auctoritas per quam salus mundo Christi generatione promitt.i.tur.
Non autem prouenisse manifestum est, si eadem in persona est quae in natura diuersitas. Eundem quippe saluum fecit quem creditur adsumpsisse; nulla uero intellegi adsumptio potest, si manet aeque naturae personaeque discretio. Igitur qui adsumi manente persona non potuit, iure non uidebitur per Christi generationem potuisse saluari. Non est igitur per generationem Christi hominum saluata natura,--quod credi nefas est.
Sed quamquam permulta sint quae hunc sensum inpugnare ualeant atque perfringere, de argumentorum copia tamen haec interim liba.s.se sufficiat.
[64] quae _codd._