Question One. Whether the Divine Nature assumed the Human Nature or was Able to Assume it

1. About the fifth distinction I ask whether the divine nature assumed human nature or was able to assume it.a

a.a [Interpolation] About this fifth distinction, where the Master treats of the extremes of the assumption, two questions are asked: first whether divine nature did assume or was able to assume; second whether a created person was assumed or was able to be assumed. Argument about the first.

2. That it did assume:

A divine person assumed human nature; therefore divine nature did too. Proof of the consequence: because they are the same in reality; therefore they are the same with respect to any real action, whether they are disposed to the real action as principle or as term, because a real action is both from a real principle as it is real and not as it is an intention only, and is to a real term.

3. Further, that it was able to assume:

Proof: because divine nature, since it is infinite, includes in itself the idea of every supposit; therefore it can supply the place of any created supposit, and so be the person of a created nature.

4. On the contrary:

If divine nature did assume human nature, then, since it is one and the same in the three persons, the result is that three persons would have assumed human nature.

5. Again, proof that the divine nature was not able to:

Because I ask what the unity was into which it did the assuming. Not unity of person because nature as nature is not a person; not unity of nature because then either this nature and that would be the same nature, or one nature would have come to be from both natures. Each is impossible; therefore divine nature was not able to assume into either unity.