← Back to Distinction 10

Dist. 10, Art. 2, Q. 1

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 10

Textus Latinus
p. 232

Articulus II. De filiatione adoptionis.

Consequenter quaeritur de secundo principali, scilicet de filiatione adoptionis. Et circa hoc incidunt tria inquirenda. Primum est, utrum filiatio adoptionis sit in Christo. Secundum est, utrum sit in aliis per Christum. Tertium est, utrum sit in nobis per comparationem ad Christum.

Quaestio I. Utrum filiatio adoptionis sit in Christo.

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum filiatio adoptionis sit in Christo; quod est quaerere, utrum Christus sit filius adoptivus. Et quod sic, videtur.

(Argg. pro parte affirmativa.)

1. Hilarius de Trinitatep232-4: «Potestatis dignitas non amovetur, dum carnis humanitas adoptatur»: si ergo hoc dicit quantum ad assumtionem humanae naturae a Verbo, videtur, quod in Christo humana natura sit adoptata.

2. Item, Spiritus caritatis est ille qui facit filios adoptionis, sicut patet ad Romanos octavop233-1: Non accepistis iterum spiritum servitutis in timore, sed spiritum adoptionis filiorum; sed Christus habuit spiritum dilectionis, secundum quod alii, quem et accepit per donum gratiae, in quantum homo: ergo est filius adoptivus.

3. Item, aut Christus est filius Dei, secundum quod homo, aut non. Si non; et alii homines sunt filii Dei: ergo maioris dignitatis sunt alii homines, quam ille qui est Deus; quod absurdum est. Si igitur est Filius Dei, secundum quod homo, aut naturalis, aut adoptivus; sed non naturalis, quia tunc esset eiusdem naturae, secundum quod homop233-2: restat ergo, quod sit filius adoptivus.

4. Item, omnes sumus filii Dei per creationemp233-3; sed hoc non impedit, quin possimus esse filii per adoptionem mediante dono gratiae: ergo pari ratione, quamvis Christus sit Filius Dei per aeternam generationem, nihil impedit, quin sit filius Dei adoptivus per susceptionem gratiae divinae in tempore. Si tu dicas, quod hoc est propter culpam, per quam facti sumus filii iraep233-4, quae non fuit in Christo; sed contra: Angeli sunt filii per adoptionem gratiae, sicut scribitur Iob trigesimo octavo: Cum me laudarent astra matutina, et iubilarent omnes filii Dei: ergo etc.

Sed contra:

(Pro parte negativa.)

1. Ad Philippenses secundop233-5: Dominus noster Iesus Christus in gloria etc., ibi Glossa: «In quantum homo, assumsit nomen Dei non per gratiam adoptionis, sed per gratiam unionis». Si tu dicas, quod non negat, Christum esse filium adoptivum, sed negat, ipsum esse Deum adoptivum, cum sit Deus verus; sed contra: sicut Christus est Deus verus, ita est Filius Dei verus: ergo sicut veritas Deitatis non patitur, ipsum dici Deum per adoptionem, sic veritas filiationis non admittit gratiam adoptionis.

2. Item, Ambrosius tractans illud verbum ad Romanos primop233-6: Praedestinatus est etc.: «Legi et relegi Scripturas; Iesum Filium Dei nunquam adoptione inveni»; sed non debemus Christo attribuere quod non possumus per Scripturas authenticas, aut rationes necessarias confirmare: ergo omnino est reiiciendum, Christum esse filium Dei adoptivum.

3. Item, Augustinus, de Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibusp233-7: «Natus est secundum veritatem naturae ex Deo Dei Filius, secundum veritatem naturae ex homine hominis filius, ut non adoptione, non appellatione, sed in utraque nativitate filii nomen nascendo haberet». Si ergo tam Filius Dei quam Virginis non adoptione, non nuncupatione, sed natura; ergo neutrius est filius adoptivus.

4. Item, quicumque adoptatur, de non-filio fit filius — si enim esset filius, iam non adoptaretur in filium — sed Christus ab aeterno fuit filius secundum divinam naturam; statim cum fuitp233-8, filius fuit secundum humanam: ergo etc. Et quia multae ad hoc inducuntur auctoritates in littera, ista sufficiant.

p. 234

Conclusio.

Nullatenus admittitur, Christum esse filium Dei per adoptionem, sive proferatur simpliciter, sive cum determinatione.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod absque dubio haec conclusio non admittitur, scilicet Christum esse filium Dei per adoptionem, sive proferatur simpliciter, sive cum determinatione, utpote si addatur: in quantum homo.

Ratio autem huius est, quia filiatio respicit personam, sicut dictum fuit suprap234-1; sed adoptio in adoptato praesupponit extraneitatem, et ponit gratificationem, et ordinat ad possidendam hereditatem; et ista sunt tria substantialia ipsi adoptioni. (Tria in adoptione.) Ad hoc ergo, quod aliquis sit filius per adoptionem, necessario requiritur, quod persona illa habeat ante adoptionem aliquo modo extraneitatem; quia non adoptantur filii proprii, sed alieni. Necesse est etiam, quod recipiat donum gratiae, per quod ordinatur ad possidendam hereditatem. — Quamvis autem inp234-2 Christo competant duo ultima, scilicet gratiae susceptio et hereditatio secundum naturam assumtam; extraneitas tamen non competit. Ille namque extraneus est a filiatione, qui est non-filius. (Distinctio.) Non-filius autem dupliciter potest dici: vel negative, vel contrariep234-3. Non-filius negative dicitur, qui non habet filiationem Dei, sive habeat oppositam filiationem, sive non. Non-filius contrarie sive privative dicitur ille qui est filius irae. — Ad hoc ergo, quod aliqua persona sit adoptabilis, necesse est, quod secundum suam primam originem vel sit indifferens ad filiationem gratiae et irae, vel habeat filiationem irae. Et quia persona Christi nullo istorum modorum etiam secundum naturam assumtam habuit extraneitatem, quia nec peccatum habuit nec habere potuit; omnes autem aliae personae, habentes gratiam, habuerunt aliquam extraneitatem: hinc est, quod de omnibus habentibus gratiam potest dici, quod sint filii adoptivi, excepta sola persona Christi, ratione iam dicta. — Concedendae sunt igitur rationes ad partem istam.

Ad argumenta pro parte affirmativa:

(Solutio oppositorum.)

Ad 1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur de Hilario, quod in Christo humanitas adoptatur; dicendum, quod humanitas dicitur adoptari non ratione illius singularis naturae, quae assumta fuit a Verbo in unitatemp234-4 personae, sed ratione consimilium, quia per illam unionem adoptati sunt alii homines.

Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod spiritus caritatis facit illos adoptivos; dicendum, quod verum est in his quae habent extraneitatem aliquam; et quia hanc non est reperire in Christo, ideo non tenet ratio illa, quia procedit ab insufficienti.

Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, utrum Christus sit filius Dei, secundum quod homo; potest concedi, quod sic. — Et si quaeratur, utrum sit filius per gratiam, vel per naturam; dicendum, quod secundum quod homo, est filius per gratiam; sed tunc non sequitur: ergo est filius adoptivus, quia hoc non est per gratiam adoptionis, sed per gratiam unionis, quae multo est excellentior nec habet repugnantiam ad filiationem naturalem, immo facit illam communicari; nec importat aliquam imperfectionem nec amittitur nec consumitur, sicut gratia adoptionis, prout explicatum fuitp234-5. (Notandum.)

Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod filii per creationem fiunt filii per adoptionem; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia filii per creationem, quamvis non sint omnino extranei a Deo, tamen possunt esse extranei, si per culpam fiant filii diaboli; nec per creationem sunt perfecti filii, quia non sunt similitudine gratiae insigniti. Non sic autem est de eo qui per generationem est filius; ille enim non est extraneus nec potest fieri, nec potest magis consignari; et ideo non potest per adoptionem Filius Dei de novo fieri. Et ideo ratio illa non valet, quoniam non est simile hinc et indep234-6.

Scholion

I. Haec quaestio cohaeret cum alia de filiatione, quae supra d. 8. a. 2. q. 2. tractata est; ipsa elidit haeresim Adoptianorum, nec non quasdam opiniones inter catholicos disputatas, quae illi errori nimis videntur favere. Adoptianismi auctores (ab an. 783) fuerunt Elipandus, archiepisc. Toletanus, et Felix, episc. Urgelitanus, qui, teste Epistola synodica Concilii Francofordiensi (an. 794), docuerunt: «Confitemur et credimus, eum factum ex muliere, factum sub lege, non genere [scilicet generatione] esse Filium Dei, sed adoptione, non natura, sed gratia». Disputatum est inter posteriores doctos viros, quo praecise sensu isti haec verba intellexerint, utrum scilicet omnino negaverint, Christum esse Filium Dei naturalem, renovantes purum Nestorii errorem, an potius statuerint duas filiationes, alteram naturalem, quatenus est Deus verus, alteram adoptivam, quatenus est homo. Certum autem est, Epistolam illam Concilii Francofordiensis illis opprobrasse: «Per adoptionem vos separatis hominem Christum a Deo». Reprobatus est hic error iam an. 785 in Epistola Hadriani I. ad episcopos Hispaniae, tum in praedicto Concilio, praesidentibus Legatis Hadriani celebrato, tum altera Hadriani Epistola ex Concilio Romano an. 794 emissa ad episcopos Hispaniae. Inter alia plurima Hadrianus notat, quod isti «eum adoptivum et non proprium Filium confitentur, quasi alienus a Patre aliquando fuerit, aut per carnis extraneus ab eo factus fuisset assumtionem». Hanc haeresim scriptis confutarunt primo abbas Beatus et Etherius episc. Osmae, Hispani; deinde S. Paulinus Aquileiensis, Alcuinus aliique.

II. Pro intelligentia huius quaestionis observamus haec pauca. Fide constat tum contra Arium, quod Christus secundum personam divinam est Filius naturalis Patris eique consubstantialis et coaeternus; tum contra Nestorium, quod Christus homo propter unitatem personae vi communicationis idiomatum est Filius Dei naturalis. Restabat autem quaestio solvenda, utrum Christus, secundum quod homo, dici debeat vel possit Filius Dei naturalis, an adoptivus. Praepositio autem secundum, ut iam notant Magister (hic c. 1.) et auctor noster (supra a. 1. q. 1. et dubium I.), dupliciter intelligi potest, scilicet proprie reduplicative, ut notet causam, vel specificative (cfr. pag. 226, nota 4.). Si reduplicative, sensus est, quod Christus per humanitatem sive mediante humanitate sit filius Dei naturalis; quod nemo unquam dixit, cum manifestum sit, quod humana natura, in se considerata, nec secundum suam essentiam nec secundum suam originem (quae est per creationem) habeat relationem divinae generationis naturalis. Si specificative; tunc sumitur homo concrete ut in humana natura subsistens. Et secundum hunc sensum media aetate et etiam posterius in scholis in utramque partem disputatum est, et exortae sunt variae opiniones, quae nunc communiter non satis distare ab errore Adoptianismi censentur. Pro aliquali excusatione affertur, quod antiqui Scholastici non cognoverint praecise decreta Hadriani I. et Concilii Francofordiensis. Certa omnino igitur censenda est conclusio S. Bonaventurae, S. Thomae, Alexandri Hal. aliorumque; pro qua stabilienda auctor noster duo affert fundamenta inconcussa, scilicet primo, quod filiatio respicit personam, unde, supposita una persona, una est etiam filiatio.

III. Scot. (hic in utroque Scripto q. unica) impugnat primum conclusionis fundamentum supra notatum atque negat, quod filiatio sit praecise suppositi et non naturae; unde circa ipsam conclusionem loquitur problematice et videtur (in Report. loc. cit.) putare, quod locutio: Christus, secundum quod homo, est filius adoptivus, vitanda sit vel tantum ob malum intellectum haereticorum, vel quia Christus iam habuit ius hereditatis. Nec Richardus a Med. penitus reprobat praedictam locutionem. Durand. autem (II. Sent. d. 4. q. 1.) eam expressius affirmat esse in se veram; quem nonnulli Nominales secuti sunt. De quibusdam aliis posteriorum theologorum opinionibus circa hanc quaestionem consulantur libri recentiores. — Praeter locos citatos: Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 10. m. 4. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 3; S. III. q. 23. a. 4. — B. Albert., hic a. 9. 13. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. 3. — Biel, de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. unica.

---

English Translation

Article II. On the sonship of adoption.

Next there is inquiry concerning the second principal point, namely concerning the sonship of adoption. And concerning this three things fall to be investigated. The first is, whether the sonship of adoption is in Christ. The second is, whether it is in others through Christ. The third is, whether it is in us by comparison to Christ.

Question I. Whether the sonship of adoption is in Christ.

Concerning the first one proceeds thus, and it is asked whether the sonship of adoption is in Christ; which is to ask whether Christ is an adoptive son. And that he is, it seems.

(Arguments for the affirmative side.)

1. Hilary, On the Trinityp232-4: "The dignity of power is not removed while the lowliness of the flesh is adopted": if therefore he says this with regard to the assumption of the human nature by the Word, it seems that in Christ the human nature is adopted.

2. Likewise, the Spirit of charity is the one who makes sons of adoption, as is clear at Romans 8p233-1: You have not received again the spirit of bondage in fear, but the spirit of the adoption of sons; but Christ had the spirit of love, as others do, which he also received through the gift of grace, insofar as he is man: therefore he is an adoptive son.

3. Likewise, either Christ is the Son of God, as man, or not. If not; then other men are sons of God: therefore other men are of greater dignity than he who is God; which is absurd. If therefore he is the Son of God, as man, [he is] either natural or adoptive; but not natural, because then he would be of the same nature, as manp233-2: it remains, therefore, that he is an adoptive son.

4. Likewise, we are all sons of God by creationp233-3; but this does not prevent us from being able to be sons by adoption through the gift of grace: therefore by like reasoning, although Christ is the Son of God by eternal generation, nothing prevents him from being an adoptive son of God through the reception of divine grace in time. If you say that this is on account of fault, through which we became sons of wrathp233-4, which was not in Christ; on the contrary: the angels are sons by the adoption of grace, as is written at Job 38: When the morning stars praised me, and all the sons of God rejoiced: therefore etc.

On the contrary:

(For the negative side.)

1. At Philippians 2p233-5: Our Lord Jesus Christ in glory etc., where the Gloss [says]: "Insofar as he is man, he assumed the name of God not through the grace of adoption, but through the grace of union." If you say that this does not deny that Christ is an adoptive son, but denies that he is an adoptive God, since he is true God; on the contrary: just as Christ is true God, so is he the true Son of God: therefore just as the truth of the Deity does not allow that he be called God by adoption, so the truth of the sonship does not admit the grace of adoption.

2. Likewise, Ambrose, treating that word at Romans 1p233-6: He was predestined etc.: "I have read and reread the Scriptures; I have never found Jesus the Son of God by adoption"; but we ought not to attribute to Christ what we cannot confirm through authentic Scriptures or necessary reasons: therefore it is altogether to be rejected that Christ is an adoptive son of God.

3. Likewise, Augustine, On Ecclesiastical Dogmasp233-7: "He was born, according to the truth of nature, the Son of God from God; according to the truth of nature, the son of man from man, so that not by adoption, not by appellation, but in each nativity he had the name of son by being born." If therefore both as Son of God and as [son] of the Virgin he is so not by adoption, not by naming, but by nature; then he is the adoptive son of neither.

4. Likewise, whoever is adopted is made a son from a non-son — for if he were a son, he would not now be adopted into a son — but Christ from eternity was a son according to the divine nature; the moment he wasp233-8, he was a son according to the human [nature]: therefore etc. And since many authorities are adduced for this in the text, let these suffice.

p. 234

Conclusion.

It is in no way admitted that Christ is the Son of God by adoption, whether it be uttered simply or with a qualification.

I respond: It must be said that without doubt this conclusion is not admitted, namely that Christ is the Son of God by adoption, whether it be uttered simply or with a qualification, as for instance if it be added: insofar as he is man.

Now the reason for this is that sonship regards a person, as was said abovep234-1; but adoption presupposes in the one adopted an extraneousness, and posits a gracing, and orders [him] to the possessing of an inheritance; and these are the three things substantial to adoption itself. (The three [elements] in adoption.) For this, then, that someone be a son by adoption, it is necessarily required that that person have, before the adoption, in some way an extraneousness; because proper sons are not adopted, but strangers. It is also necessary that he receive the gift of grace, through which he is ordered to the possessing of an inheritance. — Although, however, inp234-2 Christ the last two belong, namely the reception of grace and the inheritance according to the assumed nature; nevertheless extraneousness does not belong. For he is a stranger to sonship who is a non-son. (A distinction.) But non-son can be said in two ways: either negatively or contrarilyp234-3. A non-son is said negatively [of one] who does not have the sonship of God, whether he have an opposite sonship or not. A non-son contrarily or privatively is said of him who is a son of wrath. — For this, then, that some person be adoptable, it is necessary that, according to its first origin, it be either indifferent to the sonship of grace and of wrath, or have the sonship of wrath. And since the person of Christ in none of these ways, even according to the assumed nature, had extraneousness, because he neither had sin nor could have it; whereas all other persons having grace had some extraneousness: hence it is that of all who have grace it can be said that they are adoptive sons, except the person of Christ alone, for the reason already given. — Therefore the reasons for this side are to be granted.

To the arguments for the affirmative side:

(Solution of the opposed [arguments].)

To 1. To that, then, which is first objected from Hilary, that in Christ the humanity is adopted; it must be said that the humanity is said to be adopted not by reason of that singular nature which was assumed by the Word into the unityp234-4 of the person, but by reason of those like it, because through that union other men have been adopted.

To 2. To that which is objected, that the spirit of charity makes them adoptive; it must be said that this is true in those things which have some extraneousness; and because this is not to be found in Christ, therefore that reasoning does not hold, because it proceeds from an insufficient [ground].

To 3. To that which is objected, whether Christ is the Son of God, as man; it can be granted that he is. — And if it be asked whether he is a son by grace or by nature; it must be said that as man he is a son by grace; but then it does not follow: therefore he is an adoptive son, because this is not through the grace of adoption, but through the grace of union, which is much more excellent and has no repugnance to natural sonship, but rather causes it to be communicated; nor does it imply any imperfection, nor is it lost nor consumed, as the grace of adoption [is], as was explainedp234-5. (Note.)

To 4. To that which is objected, that sons by creation become sons by adoption; it must be said that it is not alike, because sons by creation, although they are not altogether strangers to God, nevertheless can be strangers, if through fault they become sons of the devil; nor are they perfect sons by creation, because they are not marked with the likeness of grace. But it is not so with him who is a son by generation; for he neither is a stranger nor can become [one], nor can he be more [deeply] sealed; and therefore he cannot by adoption be made the Son of God anew. And therefore that reasoning does not hold, since it is not alike on the one side and the otherp234-6.

Scholion

I. This question coheres with the other concerning sonship, which was treated above in d. 8, a. 2, q. 2; it itself destroys the heresy of the Adoptianists, as also certain opinions disputed among Catholics which seem to favor that error too much. The authors of Adoptianism (from the year 783) were Elipandus, archbishop of Toledo, and Felix, bishop of Urgel, who, as the synodal letter of the Council of Frankfurt (an. 794) witnesses, taught: "We confess and believe that he, made of a woman, made under the law, is the Son of God not by descent [that is, by generation], but by adoption, not by nature, but by grace." It has been disputed among later learned men in what precise sense these men understood these words, namely whether they altogether denied that Christ is the natural Son of God, renewing the pure error of Nestorius, or rather established two sonships, the one natural, insofar as he is true God, the other adoptive, insofar as he is man. But it is certain that that letter of the Council of Frankfurt reproached them: "By adoption you separate the man Christ from God." This error was condemned already in the year 785 in the letter of Hadrian I to the bishops of Spain, then in the aforesaid Council, celebrated under the presidency of Hadrian's legates, then in another letter of Hadrian issued from the Roman Council of the year 794 to the bishops of Spain. Among many other things Hadrian notes that these men "confess him an adoptive and not a proper Son, as though he had at some time been a stranger to the Father, or had been made extraneous from him through the assumption of the flesh." This heresy was refuted in writing first by the abbot Beatus and Etherius, bishop of Osma, Spaniards; then by St. Paulinus of Aquileia, Alcuin, and others.

II. For the understanding of this question we observe these few [points]. It is certain by faith, both against Arius, that Christ according to the divine person is the natural Son of the Father and consubstantial and coeternal with him; and against Nestorius, that Christ as man, on account of the unity of the person, is by the force of the communication of idioms the natural Son of God. But there remained a question to be solved, whether Christ, as man, ought to be or can be called the natural Son of God, or adoptive. Now the preposition secundum ["according to"], as the Master (here c. 1) and our author (above a. 1, q. 1, and dubium I) already note, can be understood in two ways, namely properly reduplicatively, so that it denotes a cause, or specificatively (cf. p. 226, note 4). If reduplicatively, the sense is that Christ through his humanity, or by means of his humanity, is the natural Son of God; which no one ever said, since it is manifest that human nature, considered in itself, neither according to its essence nor according to its origin (which is by creation) has a relation of natural divine generation. If specificatively; then man is taken concretely as subsisting in human nature. And according to this sense it was disputed on both sides in the middle age, and also later in the schools, and various opinions arose, which now are commonly held not to stand far enough from the error of Adoptianism. By way of some excuse it is brought forward that the old Scholastics did not precisely know the decrees of Hadrian I and of the Council of Frankfurt. Altogether certain, therefore, is to be held the conclusion of St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas, Alexander of Hales, and others; for the establishing of which our author brings forward two unshaken foundations, namely first, that sonship regards a person, whence, one person being supposed, the sonship also is one.

III. Scotus (here, in both Writings, q. unica) attacks the first foundation of the conclusion noted above, and denies that sonship is precisely of a suppositum and not of a nature; whence concerning the conclusion itself he speaks problematically, and seems (in the Reportata, loc. cit.) to think that the locution "Christ, as man, is an adoptive son" is to be avoided either only on account of the bad understanding of the heretics, or because Christ already had the right of inheritance. Nor does Richard of Mediavilla utterly reject the aforesaid locution. Durandus, however (II Sent., d. 4, q. 1), more expressly affirms it to be true in itself; whom certain Nominalists followed. Concerning certain other opinions of later theologians on this question let more recent books be consulted. — Besides the places cited: Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. III, q. 10, m. 4. — St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 2, quaestiunc. 3; Summa III, q. 23, a. 4. — B. Albert, here a. 9, 13. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 1. — Denis the Carthusian, on this and the following questions, here q. 3. — Biel, on this and the following questions, here q. unica.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Libr. II. n. 27: «Ita potestatis dignitas non amittitur, dum carnis humilitas adoptatur». In quae verba (ut etiam editores Maurini animadverterunt) Hincmarus, archiepiscopus Rhemensis (✝ 882), in prooemio Dissertat. posterioris de Praedestinatione hanc fecit annotationem: «Sicut ipsorum qui interfuerunt concilio relatione didicimus, Domnus Carolus Felicem, infelicem Orgellitanae civitatis episcopum, synodali decreto haereticum comprobatum atque damnatum comperit, etiam revictum invenit, quia, corrupto muneribus iuniore bibliothecario Aquensis palatii, librum beati Hilarii rasit et, ubi scriptum erat: quia in Dei Filio carnis humilitas adoratur, immisit carnis humilitas adoptatur». Alcuin., VI. contra Felicem Urgellitan. episc. c. 6. ait: «Tu omnino perverse dicis adoptatur, ubi beatus Hilarius ait adoratur». Nihilominus editores Maurini verbum adoptatur retinendum esse duxerunt, tum quia, ut referunt, in nonnullis codd. iam ante Felicem exaratis sic scriptum sit; tum quia adoptatur hic omnino idem significet atque assumitur; tum demum, quia verbum adoratur, licet a dictionibus proxime antecedentibus (panni sordent; Deus adoratur, quas Alcuinus contra Felicem affert) non dissentiat, tamen contextui non congruat. Ambrosius haec Hilarii verba ante oculos habuisse videtur, cum scriberet I. de Fide, c. 4. n. 32: Caro est, quae involvitur, divinitas, cui ab Angelis ministratur. Ita nec dignitas naturalis maiestatis amittitur, et assumtae carnis veritas comprobatur. — Pro amovetur, quae est vera scriptura codd. B H M N U W, alii codd. non pauci et Vat. admovetur, codd. A bb admittitur. Lectionem variantem admittitur pro amittitur, sicut et scripturam codd. nostr. humanitas pro humilitas, commemorant etiam editores Maurini.
    Bk. II, n. 27: "So the dignity of power is not lost while the lowliness of the flesh is adopted." On which words (as the Maurist editors also noted) Hincmarus, archbishop of Reims (✝ 882), in the preface of the latter Dissertation on Predestination made this annotation: "As we have learned from the report of those who were present at the council, Lord Charles found that Felix, the unhappy bishop of the city of Urgel, proven a heretic and condemned by synodal decree, was also refuted, because, the younger librarian of the palace of Aachen having been corrupted by bribes, he scraped out a book of blessed Hilary and, where it was written: that in the Son of God the lowliness of the flesh is adored, he inserted: the lowliness of the flesh is adopted." Alcuin, Against Felix bishop of Urgel, bk. VI, c. 6, says: "You speak altogether perversely [saying] is adopted where blessed Hilary says is adored." Nevertheless the Maurist editors judged that the word adoptatur ["is adopted"] should be retained, both because, as they report, it is so written in some codices copied already before Felix; and because adoptatur here means altogether the same as is assumed; and finally because the word adoratur ["is adored"], although it does not disagree with the immediately preceding phrases (the garments are soiled; God is adored, which Alcuin cites against Felix), nevertheless does not fit the context. Ambrose seems to have had these words of Hilary before his eyes when he wrote On the Faith I, c. 4, n. 32: It is flesh that is wrapped about; it is the divinity that is ministered to by the angels. So neither is the natural dignity of the majesty lost, and the truth of the assumed flesh is proven. — For amovetur ["is removed"], which is the true reading, codices B H M N U W, not a few other codices, and the Vatican [edition] read admovetur; codices A bb admittitur. The variant reading admittitur for amittitur, as also the reading of our codices humanitas for humilitas, the Maurist editors also mention.
  2. Vers. 15. — Paulo inferius pro alii, quem et (cod. G etiam) Vat. et alii, quem.
    Verse 15. — A little below, for alii, quem et (cod. G etiam) the Vatican [edition reads] et alii, quem.
  3. Cod. bb (K ad marginem) addit et secundum quod Deus. Paulo superius post absurdum est edd. subiungunt dicere.
    Cod. bb (K in the margin) adds and as God. A little above, after absurdum est the editions subjoin dicere.
  4. Cfr. supra pag. 102, nota 4. — Mox pro quin possimus edd. 1, 2 cum multis codd. quin possumus. Subinde post esse filii codd. c bb supplent Dei. Paulo inferius pro nihil impedit cod. bb nihil impellet.
    Cf. above p. 102, note 4. — Presently, for quin possimus editions 1, 2 with many codices [read] quin possumus. Then, after esse filii codices c bb supply Dei. A little below, for nihil impedit cod. bb [reads] nihil impellet.
  5. Eph. 2, 3: Eramus natura filii irae. — Seq. loc. Script. est Iob 38, 7, quae verba etiam Gregorius accipit de Angelis. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 72, nota 3.
    Eph. 2:3: We were by nature sons of wrath. — The following scriptural place is Job 38:7, which words Gregory too takes of the angels. Cf. tom. II, p. 72, note 3.
  6. Vers. 11. — Glossa in hunc loc. apud Petr. Lombard. sic sonat: Cave, qualiter intelligas virorum illustrium, Ambrosii et Augustini verba praemissa, ne sibi contraire putentur. Scito ergo, quia est donatio naturalis et est donatio gratuita. Naturali donatione dedit Pater nomen, quod est super omne nomen, Deo Filio, non homini i. e. Christo, secundum quod Deus, non secundum quod homo; nec fuit aliud dare, quam sibi aequalem generare. Gratuita vero donatione dedit homini Christo, non Deo; quia Christus non in quantum Deus, sed in quantum homo per gratiam accepit nomen Dei, nec per gratiam adoptionis, sed per gratiam unionis, ut non sit adoptivus Deus, sed verus Deus, cui flectitur omne genu.
    Verse 11. — The Gloss on this place in Peter Lombard runs thus: Beware how you understand the foregoing words of the illustrious men, Ambrose and Augustine, lest they be thought to contradict one another. Know therefore that there is a natural gift and there is a gratuitous gift. By a natural gift the Father gave the name which is above every name to God the Son, not to man, that is, to Christ as God, not as man; nor was it anything else to give than to generate one equal to himself. But by a gratuitous gift he gave [it] to the man Christ, not to God; because Christ, not insofar as God but insofar as man, received the name of God through grace, and not through the grace of adoption, but through the grace of union, so that he is not an adoptive God, but the true God, to whom every knee bows.
  7. Vers. 4. — Petr. Lombard., in hunc loc., testimonium, quod hic affertur, Ambrosio tribuit; sed P. Nicolai annotat in ed. oper. S. Thomae, hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 3: «Nihil tale Commentarius in Epistolas Pauli, qui ementito Ambrosii nomine praenotatur, nec alibi apud verum et legitimum Ambrosium occurrit; etsi lib. I. de Fide, c. 17. (n. 111.): Non est idem [ed. Maurin. Ambros. unum] adoptivus et verus, inquit, nec Filius diceret: Unum sumus (Ioan. 10, 30.), si se cum Filio [ed. Maurin. vero], qui verus non esset, ipse conferret» etc. Cfr. etiam hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. in fine. Sententia similis illi, quae hic Ambrosio adscribitur, habetur apud August., contra Secundin. Manich. c. 5: Lege itaque Scripturas, nusquam invenies de Christo dictum, quod adoptione sit Filius Dei. — Pro adoptione codd. K L adoptivum. — De minori cfr. supra pag. 24, nota 8.
    Verse 4. — Peter Lombard, on this place, attributes to Ambrose the testimony here brought forward; but P. Nicolai notes in the edition of the works of St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 2, quaestiunc. 3: "Nothing of the kind occurs in the Commentary on the Epistles of Paul, which is prefaced under the falsely-assumed name of Ambrose, nor elsewhere in the true and legitimate Ambrose; although in bk. I On the Faith, c. 17 (n. 111): The adoptive and the true [son] are not the same [Maurist ed. Ambros. one], he says, nor would the Son say: We are one (John 10:30), if he were conferring himself with a Son [Maurist ed. true] who were not true" etc. Cf. also here the text of the Master, c. 2, at the end. A sentence similar to that which is here ascribed to Ambrose is found in Augustine, Against Secundinus the Manichee, c. 5: Read the Scriptures, therefore, and you will nowhere find it said of Christ that he is the Son of God by adoption. — For adoptione codices K L [read] adoptivum. — On the minor [premise] cf. above p. 24, note 8.
  8. Cap. 2; in quo testimonio textus origin. post ut addit veritas geniti, et codd. M O pro in, quod edd. cum cod. cc omittunt, substituunt ut. — Paulo inferius post si ergo edd. cum pluribus codd. supplent est, et dein pro nuncupatione codd. G K L T W Z aa habent nuncupative.
    Chapter 2; in which testimony the original text after ut adds the truth of the begotten one, and codices M O substitute ut for in, which the editions together with cod. cc omit. — A little below, after si ergo the editions with several codices supply est, and then for nuncupatione codices G K L T W Z aa have nuncupative.
  9. Vat. post fuit subiicit homo; deinde post humanam codd. Q bb repetunt naturam. — Hoc arg. insinuatur ab August., Epist. 140. (alias 120.) c. 4. n. 10. his verbis: Haec [nativitas spiritualis] enim adoptio dicitur. Eramus enim aliquid, antequam essemus filii Dei, et accepimus beneficium, ut fieremus quod non eramus; sicut qui adoptatur, antequam adoptaretur, nondum erat filius eius, a quo adoptatur, iam tamen erat qui adoptaretur. Et ab hac generatione gratiae discernitur ille Filius, qui cum esset Filius Dei, venit, ut fieret filius hominis, donaretque nobis, qui eramus filii hominum, filios Dei fieri. Factus est quippe ille quod non erat, sed tamen aliquid aliud erat; et hoc ipsum aliquid Verbum Dei erat etc. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.
    The Vatican [edition] after fuit adds homo; then after humanam codices Q bb repeat naturam. — This argument is hinted at by Augustine, Letter 140 (otherwise 120), c. 4, n. 10, in these words: For this [spiritual nativity] is called adoption. For we were something before we were sons of God, and we received the benefit that we should be made what we were not; just as he who is adopted, before he was adopted, was not yet the son of him by whom he is adopted, yet was already one who might be adopted. And from this generation of grace is distinguished that Son who, although he was the Son of God, came to be made the son of man, and to grant to us, who were sons of men, to be made sons of God. For he was made what he was not, yet was nevertheless something else; and that very something was the Word of God etc. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 2.
  10. Dist. 8. a. 2. q. 2. — Secundum Aul. Gellium, lib. V. c. 19, adoptio consistit in eo, quod «in alienam familiam inque liberorum locum extranei sumuntur». Cfr. Iustinian., I. Institut. iur. civil. c. 11; August., II. de Consensu evang. c. 3. n. 5. seq.; Serm. 139. (alias 31. de Verbis Domini) c. 1. n. 1. A concilio Francoford. (an. 794) adoptio sic definita est: Quid est adoptio, nisi caritatis copulatio, qua pater adoptione sibi copulat filium, quem proprium non habet? Cfr. etiam S. Paulini, patriarch. Aquileiens., libellus Sacrosyllabus contra Elipandum, concilii Francofordiensis an. 794 decreto missus ad provincias Hispaniae, c. 7.
    Distinction 8, a. 2, q. 2. — According to Aulus Gellius, bk. V, c. 19, adoption consists in this, that "strangers are taken into an alien family and into the place of children." Cf. Justinian, Institutes of Civil Law I, c. 11; Augustine, On the Agreement of the Evangelists II, c. 3, n. 5 f.; Sermon 139 (otherwise 31, On the Words of the Lord), c. 1, n. 1. By the Council of Frankfurt (an. 794) adoption was thus defined: What is adoption, but a binding of charity, by which a father binds to himself by adoption a son whom he does not have as his own? Cf. also the Sacrosyllabus of St. Paulinus, patriarch of Aquileia, against Elipandus, sent by decree of the Council of Frankfurt of the year 794 to the provinces of Spain, c. 7.
  11. Vocula in abest a cod. G. Mox pro susceptio cod. F plenitudo. Post pauca pro tamen codd. N W X autem.
    The little word in is absent from cod. G. Presently, for susceptio cod. F [reads] plenitudo. After a few [words], for tamen codices N W X [read] autem.
  12. De differentia inter negationem et privationem cfr. Aristot., IV. Metaph. text. 4. (III. c. 2.). — Pro potest dici cod. G potest considerari.
    On the difference between negation and privation cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics IV, text 4 (III, c. 2). — For potest dici cod. G [reads] potest considerari.
  13. Cod. G unitate. Vide expositionem Maurinorum in hunc loc., supra pag. 232, nota 4. allatam.
    Cod. G [reads] unitate. See the exposition of the Maurists on this place, brought forward above at p. 232, note 4.
  14. In fundam. et d. 4. a. 2. q. 3. et d. 8. a. 2. q. 3. ad 1.
    In the foundation, and d. 4, a. 2, q. 3, and d. 8, a. 2, q. 3, ad 1.
  15. Cfr. August., I. de Serm. Domini in monte, c. 23. n. 78, et III. contra Faust. c. 3. — Paulo superius pro consignari cod. bb configurari.
    Cf. Augustine, On the Lord's Sermon on the Mount I, c. 23, n. 78, and Against Faustus III, c. 3. — A little above, for consignari cod. bb [reads] configurari. ---
← Dist. 10, Art. 1, Q. 3Dist. 10, Art. 2, Q. 2→