|
State of the question. The meaning of the title is, as Cajetan
remarks, whether de facto it is true that the Deity, or rather God,
assumed the human nature.[662]
It seems not to be true, because the union did not take place in the
nature, but in the person; also because to assume in this manner could
be said of the three persons.
Nevertheless, St. Augustine or rather St. Fulgentius, who is
quoted in the counter-argument, says that the divine nature took our
nature.
Conclusion. In the strictest sense a person is said to assume
inasmuch as it is both principle and term of the assumption. In a
secondary sense, however, it can be said that the Deity or God
assumed the human nature inasmuch as the Deity was the principle of the
assumptive act but not its term. The whole article must be
read.[663]
All the other articles of this question, on the supposition of the
real possibility, even of the very fact of the incarnation of the
Word, examine what else was either possible or impossible. I say:
"on the supposition of the real possibility of the incarnation of the
Word," which, as already stated, is neither demonstrated by reason
alone, nor can be disproved, but is persuaded and defended against
those denying it, and is firmly held by faith.
|
|
