Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| In reply to the question whether there is Nature that has no Subsistence.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter
IX.—In reply to the question whether there is
Nature that has no Subsistence.
For although2038
| 2038 Another
allegation of the Severian party is in view here. See Leont.,
De Sect., Act. 7, Contr. Nestor. et Eutych. 1.; John of
Dam., Dialect. 29. | there is no
nature without subsistence, nor essence apart from person (since in
truth it is in persons and subsistences that essence and nature are to
be contemplated), yet it does not necessarily follow that the natures
that are united to one another in subsistence should have each its own
proper subsistence. For after they have come together into one
subsistence, it is possible that neither should they be without
subsistence, nor should each have its own peculiar subsistence, but
that both should have one and the same subsistence2039
| 2039 Leont., De sect.,
Act 7. | . For since one and the same
subsistence of the Word has become the subsistence of the natures,
neither of them is permitted to be without subsistence, nor are they
allowed to have subsistences that differ from each other, or to have
sometimes the subsistence of this nature and sometimes of that, but
always without division or separation they both have the same
subsistence—a subsistence which is not broken up into parts or
divided, so that one part should belong to this, and one to that, but
which belongs wholly to this and wholly to that in its absolute
entirety. For the flesh of God the Word did not subsist as an
independent subsistence, nor did there arise another subsistence
besides that of God the Word, but as it existed in that it became
rather a subsistence which subsisted in another, than one which was an
independent subsistence. Wherefore, neither does it lack
subsistence altogether, nor yet is there thus introduced into the
Trinity another subsistence.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
