|
First conclusion. There is a distinction between union as implying a
relation, and assumption that implies an action; for this relation is
in Christ's humanity and follows the active assumption, which is the
foundation for this relation, just as passive generation is the
foundation of the relation of filiation.
Second conclusion. Hence assumption implies becoming, whereas union
implies having become. Thus we say of what took place, that the Word
assumed the human nature, and even now that it is united with the
Word.
Third conclusion. Whereas union implies a relation of
quasi-equivalence, and both the divine nature and the human nature are
declared united; but assumption, which is the action of the one
assuming, does not designate the divine nature, but the agent assuming
and the human nature that is assumed.
Fourth conclusion. Who unites and who assumes are not the same
absolutely, for only the Son of God assumed the human nature, but
the Father and the Holy Spirit are said to unite, but not to
assume. For union as an action implies only the conjunction of
extremes, whereas assumption as an action means the same as the taking
to oneself, inasmuch as He who assumes unites to Himself personally,
and is the end of the terminating action and not merely its beginning.
Every external action of God is common to the three persons, just as
omnipotence is, from which action derives its power; but one person,
such as the person of the Word, can be separately the terminus of some
real relation.[613]
|
|
