I. To the Question

127. I reply that, since another nature could have a dependence of this idea just as does the assumed nature, and can even have it at the same time - for there is no repugnance either on the part of the natures (for the dependence of one nature is not repugnant to the dependence of another nature) or on the part of the Word (because only relations of reason are hereby posited in him, or no relations of reason, but only the fact that he terminates several real relations at himself - and this is not impossible, just as the whole Trinity terminates all the relations of creatures [2 d.1 nn.44, 48]) - therefore there is no reason for the impossibility or incompossibility of the assumption of another nature, even when the assumed nature remains united.