A. To the Common Arguments

62. To the arguments.

To the first [n.2] I say that what is infinite is not combinable as a part, because the whole is more perfect than the part and nothing is more perfect than the infinite; the infinite can however be united to, that is, it is able to be the term of the dependence on it of something else.

63. And when the addition is made there [not in the Ordinatio, but in the Lectura 3 d.1 n.3] that ‘the infinite cannot be added to, therefore neither can it be united to’, I reply that the infinite does not have in itself any entity formally, but virtually or eminently, and so human nature, the way the Word does not have human nature in himself, can be added to the Word, that is, such a nature may formally depend on the Word; but human nature as it is in the Word eminently or virtually does not in this way depend on the Word, because it does not in this way have dependent entity.

64. To the second [n.3], a proportion, that is, a determinate relation, is conceded, but not a quantitative one, the sort that is said to be of double to half or of one quantity to another; rather, the sort conceded is said to be generally of passive to active and, conversely, of active to passive or of act to potency; but human nature is able, with a special dependence, to be dependent in respect of a divine person, and this dependence is a sufficient proportion for such union.

65. To the third [n.4] I say that contraries are incompossible not because they are diverse - that is, agree in nothing - (for in this way things diverse in genus are more diverse than contraries), but because, even though they agree in many things, there is a repugnance in them; and this sort of repugnance is not between things that agree in nothing or in little; so divine and human nature, although they are more diverse than contraries, are nevertheless not more repugnant. An example: surface and whiteness are more diverse than white and black, and yet a surface can be white, though white cannot formally be black, or conversely, because of their formal repugnance.

66. To the fourth [n.5] I say that some undergoing corresponds to the incarnation act, whereby it is an act passing over to another; but this undergoing is not signified, properly speaking, by ‘to be incarnated’, but by ‘to be united’ or ‘to be assumed’ - for this action, as it passes over to an object, passes over to human nature, not to the Word; and so what, on the part of human nature, corresponds to the act is an undergoing. Although formally and grammatically, therefore, ‘to be incarnated’ seems to indicate the undergoing of the action ‘to incarnate’, yet ‘to be assumed’ signifies the undergoing really in the nature united, which undergoing is more properly signified by ‘to be united’ or ‘to be assumed’; and I concede that the nature assumed does undergo, and is in a state of potency