← Back to Distinction 10

Dist. 10, Art. 2, Q. 2

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

Textus Latinus
p. 235

Articulus II. De filiatione adoptionis.

Quaestio II. Utrum filiatio adoptionis conveniat nobis per Christum.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum filiatio adoptionis conveniat nobis per Christum. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Ioannis primop235-1: Dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri, his qui credunt in nomine eius; constat, quod Evangelista loquitur de Verbo incarnato: ergo videtur, quod per ipsum nos simus filii Dei; sed non alii filii quam adoptivi: ergo etc. (Fundamenta.)

2. Item, ad Galatas quartop235-2: Misit Deus Filium suum factum ex muliere, ut adoptionem filiorum reciperemus: ergo si Filius ad hoc missus est in carnem, videtur, quod per Christum simus filii adoptivi.

3. Item, «omne per accidens reducitur ad per sep235-3»; sed filii per adoptionem sunt filii per accidens respectu filii naturalis, qui per se et proprie est filius: ergo si solus Christus est filius naturalis, videtur, quod nullus adoptetur in filium nisi per ipsum.

4. Item, per ipsum sumus filii Dei effecti, per quem sumus Deo reconciliati; sed Deo reconciliati sumus per Christum, sicut dicitur secundae ad Corinthios quintop235-4: Deus nos sibi reconciliavit per Christum: ergo videtur, quod adoptati sumus per ipsum.

Sed contra: (Ad oppositum.) 1. Ad Romanos octavop235-5: Non accepistis spiritum servitutis iterum in timore, sed spiritum adoptionis filiorum: ergo videtur, quod nostrae filiationis adoptio proprie attribuenda sit Spiritui sancto, non Christo.

2. Item, Ioannis tertiop235-6: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu sancto etc.; et iterum: Sic est omnis, qui natus est ex spiritu; sed cui attribuitur nativitas, eidem attribuenda est filiatio: si ergo per Spiritum sanctum renascimur spiritualiter, videtur, quod per ipsum proprie, non per Christum adoptemur in filios. Quodsi tu dicas, hoc competere utrique; arguitur saltem, quod per appropriationem non competat Christo, sed Spiritui sancto; praedictae autem rationes videbantur ostendere oppositum.

p. 236

3. Item, ante Christi incarnationem Deus habuit homines filios, sicut ipse dicit de Salomone: Ero illi in patremp236-1; sed constat, quod nondum Filius Dei in carnem advenerat: ergo si Christus Filium Dei nominat incarnatum, videtur, quod non simus filii Dei per Christum.

4. Item, quantumcumque sit Filius incarnatus, nullus tamen est Dei filius adoptivus, nisi qui suscipit donum gratiae gratum facientis, qua suscepta, etiam ante incarnationem est filius: ergo posita, vel remota incarnatione Filii Dei, salva manet ratio adoptionis: videtur igitur, quod nostrae adoptionis filiatiop236-2 non fuerit facta per Christum.

Iuxta hoc quaeritur, per quod donum gratiae efficiamur filii adoptivi; videtur enim, quod per caritatem, sicut dicit Augustinusp236-3: «Sola caritas est, quae discernit inter filios regni et perditionis». — Videtur etiam, quod per fidem, sicut Ioannis primo dicitur: Dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri, his qui credunt in nomine eius. — Videtur nihilominus, quod per timorem; super illud ad Romanos octavo: Non accepistis iterum spiritum servitutis etc.: Glossa: «Timor castus, qui est bonus et perficiens, generat nos filios». — Videtur etiam, quod per gratiam baptismalem, per auctoritatem Domini, Ioannis tertio: Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu sancto; sed hoc est per baptismum. — Quaeritur ergo: cui istarum gratiarum sive donorum attribuitur proprie filiatio adoptionis? Et si omnibus quodam modo, quaeritur, cui magis proprie? (Quaestio incidens.)

Conclusio

Verum est per omnem modum, quod sumus filii adoptivi per Christum.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod cum quaeritur, utrum simus filii adoptionis per Christum, hoc potest dupliciter intelligi: quia praepositio illa perp236-4 potest importare causam effectivam, vel meritoriam sive dispositivam. (Duplex sensus.) Et si causam meritoriam vel dispositivam importat, absque dubio verum est, quod simus filii adoptionis per Christum. (Conclusio 1.) Ipse enim nobis meruit gratiam, per quam sumus filii adoptivi, in quantum est caput Ecclesiae. Et hoc non solum respicit divinam naturam, sed etiam naturam assumtamp236-5. — Si vero importet causam effectivam, sic adhuc verum est; (Conclusio 2.) Pater enim nos adoptavit per Filium et Spiritum sanctum. Et si per appropriationem loquamur, per Filium adoptavitp236-6 quoad inchoationem, (Conclusio 3.) per Spiritum sanctum quoad consummationem. Ad nostram enim adoptionem duo concurrunt, scilicet redemptio, quae facta est per Filii missionem, et gratificatio, quae facta est per missionem Spiritus sancti. Et hoc est quod dicitur in libro de Anima et spiritu, capitulo sextop236-7: «A Patre per Filium et Spiritum sanctum ad nos divina descendunt. Pater siquidem tradidit Filium, quo redimeret nos; misit Spiritum sanctum, qui servos adoptaret in filios; Filium dedit in pretium redemptionis, Spiritum sanctum in privilegium adoptionis».

Et sic patet, quod per omnem modum — sive perp236-8 dicat rationem dispositivam, sive effectivam, et hoc, sive per proprietatem, sive per appropriationem — verum est, quod sumus filii adoptivi per Christum. (Conclusio generalis.) — Et concedendae sunt rationes, quae hoc ostendunt.

Ad argumenta in oppositum: (Solutio oppositorum.) Ad 1, 2. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium de Spiritu sancto, dicendum, quod filiatio adoptionis convenit Spiritui sancto et appropriari potest ratione gratificationis; sed per hoc non excluditur, quin conveniat Filio. Si enim per proprietatem loquamur, «indivisa sunt opera Trinitatisp236-9»; si vero per appropriationem, nihil impedit, quin aliquid diversis de causis possit pluribus personis appropriari. Et per hoc patet sequens obiectum.

Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod filii adoptivi fuerunt ante adventum Christi; dicendum, quod etsi fuerunt ante adventum Christi secundum rem, non tamen ante fidem venturi fuerunt filii adoptivi, quia, sicut dicit Augustinusp236-10, «nullus salvari potuit sine fide Mediatoris». (Notandum.) Praeterea, ante Christi adventum non fuit plena ratio filiationis, quia nullus hereditatem poterat assequi, quantumcumque iustus esset. Et si tu obiicias de Angelis, quod sunt filii; dicendum, quod etsi non sint filii mediantibus meritis Christi hominis, sunt tamen per effectum et conformitatem filii Dei. «Oportet enim, sicut dicit

p. 237

Augustinusp237-1, nos in filios adoptari per eum qui est Filius per naturam».

Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod incarnatione posita, non ponitur filiatio, nec remota removetur; dicendum, quod hoc non arguit, nostrae adoptionis Christum non esse causam; sed ostendit, incarnationem non esse totam causam, quia completur filiatio in missione Spiritus sancti.

Ad illud vero quod ultimo quaeritur, per quod donum gratiae fiamus filii adoptivi; dicendum, quod filii Dei sumus, in quantum sumus conformes imagini Filii naturalis, secundum illud ad Romanos octavop237-2: Quos praedestinavit, conformes fieri imagini Filii eius. Hoc autem est dupliciter: aut per remotionem a malo, et hoc est per gratiam baptismalem, quae in quantum est sacramentalis, medela est contra malum; aut per ordinationem ad bonum, et hoc potest esse dupliciter: aut ex parte intellectus, et sic fides; aut ex parte affectus, et sic caritas. Si autem dicatur timor, vel humilitas facere filios, hoc est dispositivep237-3. (Ad quaestionem incidentem. Notandum.)

Scholion

I. Hanc quaestionem plures cum S. Thom. (in Comment.) aliis verbis proponunt, scilicet duplici quaestione, utrum adoptio conveniat toti Trinitati, et utrum fiat per Filium tantum. Communiter docetur, quod ipsa secundum causam efficientem conveniat tribus divinis personis, ita tamen, ut appropriari possit Patri, quatenus adoptio habet similitudinem cum attributo paternitatis. Secundum causam agentem mediam sub diverso respectu eadem appropriari potest vel Filio, vel Spiritui S. — De his: Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 10. m. 6. a. 2. i. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 2. 3; S. III. q. 23. — B. Albert., hic a. 10. 15. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2. R. — Aegid. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 2. 1. quaestiunc. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2. a. 1. 2. 3.

II. Responsio ad sequentem (3.) quaest. elicitur tanquam corollarium ex principiis in 2. quaest. stabilitis. Non invenimus alios doctores explicite de hoc quaestionem instituentes. Cfr. I. Sent. d. 18. q. 6.

---

English Translation

Article II. On the sonship of adoption.

Question II. Whether the sonship of adoption belongs to us through Christ.

Secondly it is asked whether the sonship of adoption belongs to us through Christ. And that it does seems to be the case.

1. John, chapter onep235-1: He gave them power to become the sons of God, to those who believe in his name; it is established that the Evangelist speaks of the incarnate Word: therefore it seems that through him we are sons of God; but no other sons than adoptive ones: therefore, and so on. (Foundations.)

2. Likewise, Galatians, chapter fourp235-2: God sent his Son, made of a woman, that we might receive the adoption of sons: therefore if the Son was sent into flesh for this purpose, it seems that through Christ we are adoptive sons.

3. Likewise, «everything that is per accidens is reduced to the per sep235-3»; but sons by adoption are sons per accidens with respect to the natural son, who per se and properly is the son: therefore if Christ alone is the natural son, it seems that no one is adopted into a son except through him.

4. Likewise, we are made sons of God through him through whom we are reconciled to God; but we are reconciled to God through Christ, as is said in Second Corinthians, chapter fivep235-4: God reconciled us to himself through Christ: therefore it seems that we have been adopted through him.

On the contrary: (To the opposite.) 1. Romans, chapter eightp235-5: You have not received the spirit of servitude again in fear, but the spirit of the adoption of sons: therefore it seems that the adoption of our sonship should properly be attributed to the Holy Spirit, not to Christ.

2. Likewise, John, chapter threep235-6: Unless one is reborn of water and the Holy Spirit etc.; and again: So is everyone who is born of the Spirit; but to whatever the birth is attributed, to the same the sonship must be attributed: if therefore we are reborn spiritually through the Holy Spirit, it seems that through him properly, not through Christ, we are adopted into sons. But if you should say that this belongs to both; it is argued at least that by appropriation it does not belong to Christ, but to the Holy Spirit; and the aforesaid reasons seemed to show the opposite.

3. Likewise, before the incarnation of Christ God had men as sons, as he himself says of Solomon: I will be to him a fatherp236-1; but it is established that the Son of God had not yet come into flesh: therefore if Christ names the incarnate Son of God, it seems that we are not sons of God through Christ.

4. Likewise, however much the Son be incarnate, no one is nonetheless an adoptive son of God except him who receives the gift of sanctifying grace, which once received, he is a son even before the incarnation: therefore whether the incarnation of the Son of God be posited or removed, the account of adoption remains intact: it seems therefore that the sonship of our adoptionp236-2 was not brought about through Christ.

Alongside this it is asked, by which gift of grace we are made adoptive sons; for it seems that it is through charity, as Augustine saysp236-3: «Charity alone is what discerns between the sons of the kingdom and of perdition». — It seems too that it is through faith, as is said in John, chapter one: He gave them power to become the sons of God, to those who believe in his name. — It seems nonetheless that it is through fear; upon that passage in Romans, chapter eight: You have not received again the spirit of servitude etc.: the Gloss: «Chaste fear, which is good and perfecting, begets us as sons». — It seems too that it is through baptismal grace, by the authority of the Lord, in John, chapter three: Unless one is reborn of water and the Holy Spirit; but this is through baptism. — It is asked therefore: to which of these graces or gifts is the sonship of adoption properly attributed? And if to all in some manner, it is asked, to which more properly? (An incidental question.)

Conclusion

It is true in every mode that we are adoptive sons through Christ.

I respond: It must be said that when it is asked whether we are sons of adoption through Christ, this can be understood in two ways: for that preposition throughp236-4 can import an effective cause, or a meritorious or dispositive one. (A twofold sense.) And if it imports a meritorious or dispositive cause, it is without doubt true that we are sons of adoption through Christ. (Conclusion 1.) For he himself merited grace for us, by which we are adoptive sons, insofar as he is the head of the Church. And this regards not only the divine nature, but also the assumed naturep236-5. — But if it imports an effective cause, then it is still true; (Conclusion 2.) for the Father adopted us through the Son and the Holy Spirit. And if we speak by appropriation, through the Son he adoptedp236-6 as to the inception, (Conclusion 3.) through the Holy Spirit as to the consummation. For two things concur toward our adoption, namely redemption, which was brought about through the Son's mission, and sanctification, which was brought about through the mission of the Holy Spirit. And this is what is said in the book On the Soul and the Spirit, chapter sixp236-7: «From the Father through the Son and the Holy Spirit divine things descend to us. The Father indeed handed over the Son, that he might redeem us; he sent the Holy Spirit, who might adopt servants into sons; he gave the Son as the price of redemption, the Holy Spirit as the privilege of adoption».

And thus it is clear that in every mode — whether throughp236-8 expresses a dispositive account, or an effective one, and this, whether by propriety or by appropriation — it is true that we are adoptive sons through Christ. (General conclusion.) — And the reasons that show this are to be conceded.

To the arguments on the opposite side: (Resolution of the opposing arguments.) To 1, 2. To that which is first objected to the contrary concerning the Holy Spirit, it must be said that the sonship of adoption belongs to the Holy Spirit and can be appropriated by reason of sanctification; but by this it is not excluded that it belongs to the Son. For if we speak by propriety, «the works of the Trinity are undividedp236-9»; but if by appropriation, nothing prevents that one thing, for diverse causes, can be appropriated to several persons. And by this the following objection is clear.

To 3. To that which is objected, that there were adoptive sons before the coming of Christ; it must be said that although there were [such] before the coming of Christ according to the thing, nonetheless they were not adoptive sons before faith in the one to come, because, as Augustine saysp236-10, «no one could be saved without faith in the Mediator». (Note.) Moreover, before the coming of Christ there was not the full account of sonship, because no one could attain the inheritance, however just he might be. And if you should object concerning the angels, that they are sons; it must be said that although they are not sons by the mediating merits of Christ as man, they are nonetheless sons of God through the effect and conformity. «For it is necessary, as

Augustine saysp237-1, that we be adopted into sons through him who is Son by nature».

To 4. To that which is objected, that when the incarnation is posited, sonship is not posited, nor when it is removed is it removed; it must be said that this does not prove that Christ is not the cause of our adoption; but it shows that the incarnation is not the whole cause, because the sonship is completed in the mission of the Holy Spirit.

But to that which is asked last, by which gift of grace we may become adoptive sons; it must be said that we are sons of God insofar as we are conformed to the image of the natural Son, according to that passage in Romans, chapter eightp237-2: Whom he predestined, [these] to be made conformed to the image of his Son. And this is in two ways: either through removal from evil, and this is through baptismal grace, which insofar as it is sacramental is a remedy against evil; or through ordering to the good, and this can be in two ways: either on the part of the intellect, and so faith; or on the part of the affection, and so charity. But if it be said that fear or humility makes sons, this is dispositivelyp237-3. (To the incidental question. Note.)

Scholion

I. This question many, with St. Thomas (in his Commentary), pose in other words, namely with a twofold question: whether adoption belongs to the whole Trinity, and whether it comes about through the Son alone. It is commonly taught that, according to the efficient cause, it belongs to the three divine persons, yet in such a way that it can be appropriated to the Father, inasmuch as adoption has a likeness to the attribute of paternity. According to the mediate agent cause, under a diverse respect, the same can be appropriated either to the Son or to the Holy Spirit. — On these: Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. III, q. 10, m. 6, a. 2, i. — St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 1, quaestiunc. 2, 3; S. III, q. 23. — B. Albert, here a. 10, 15. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 2, R. — Giles [of Rome], a. 2, quaestiunc. 2, 3. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 3, q. 2, 1, quaestiunc. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2, a. 1, 2, 3.

II. The response to the following (3rd) question is drawn out as a corollary from the principles established in the 2nd question. We do not find other doctors expressly framing a question on this. Cf. I Sent., d. 18, q. 6.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Vers. 12.
    Verse 12.
  2. Vers. 4. seq.
    Verse 4 and following.
  3. Secundum Aristot., II. Phys. text. 66. (c. 6.). Cfr. tom. II. pag. 638, nota 3.
    According to Aristotle, Physics II, text 66 (c. 6). Cf. tome II, p. 638, note 3.
  4. Vers. 18. — In maiori pro sumus Deo codd. H I (K primitus) L U 15.
    Verse 18. — In the greater [number of witnesses], for we are to God codices H I (K originally) L U 15 [read otherwise].
  5. Vers. 15. — Z aa sumus Filio Dei.
    Verse 15. — Z aa [read] we are to the Son of God.
  6. Vers. 5. — Seq. loc. Script. est ibid. v. 8.
    Verse 5. — The following Scripture passage is in the same place, v. 8.
  7. Libr. II. Reg. 7, 14; I. Paral. 22, 10. — In conclus. pro Filium Dei plurimi codd. perperam Filius Dei.
    2 Kings (Samuel) 7:14; 1 Chronicles 22:10. — In the conclusion, for the Son of God [acc.] very many codices erroneously [read] the Son of God [nom.].
  8. Edd. cum paucis codd. filiationis adoptio. In hoc argumento respicitur communis definitio causae, quae iam posita est supra pag. 22, nota I.
    The editions, with a few codices, [read] adoption of sonship. In this argument the common definition of cause is regarded, which has already been set out above on p. 22, note 1.
  9. Libr. XV. de Trin. c. 18. n. 32. In textu orig. huius testimonii voci regni annexum est aeterni et pariter voci perditionis adiunctum aeternae. — Testimonium e Ioannis primo allat. habetur ibi v. 12, et seq. testimonium e Rom. 8. ibi v. 15. Glossa, quae est ordinaria et secundum August. (cfr. infra lit. Magistri d. XXXIV. c. 4. seqq.), habetur apud Strabum et Lyranum. In ea transcribenda cod. U vocabulo filios addidit Dei. Verba ex Ioannis tertio allegata habentur ibi v. 5.
    On the Trinity XV, c. 18, n. 32. In the original text of this testimony, to the word of the kingdom is annexed eternal, and likewise to the word of perdition is adjoined eternal. — The testimony cited from John, chapter one, is found there at v. 12, and the following testimony from Romans 8 there at v. 15. The Gloss, which is the ordinary one and according to Augustine (cf. below in the Master's text, d. 34, c. 4 ff.), is found in Strabo and Lyra. In transcribing it, codex U to the word sons added of God. The words cited from John, chapter three, are found there at v. 5.
  10. In plurimis codd. deest per et pro praepositio scriptum est propositio; in codd. V bb vocula per a secunda manu inserta est. Vide finem corp.
    In very many codices per is lacking, and for preposition is written proposition; in codices V bb the little word per was inserted by a second hand. See the end of the corpus.
  11. Cfr. infra d. 13. a. 2. q. 1. et 3. — Paulo superius pro filii adoptivi cod. K filii Dei adoptivi.
    Cf. below, d. 13, a. 2, q. 1 and 3. — A little above, for adoptive sons codex K [reads] adoptive sons of God.
  12. Edd. cum paucis codd. verbo adoptavit praefigunt nos.
    The editions, with a few codices, prefix us to the verb adopted.
  13. Textus origin. sonat sic: «A Patre per Filium et Spiritum S. vel potius in Spiritu divina ad nos descenderunt... quo redimeret servos, misit Spiritum S., quo servos... adoptionis, se denique totum servat in hereditatem adoptatis». Haec ultima verba etiam in cod. O exstant.
    The original text runs thus: «From the Father through the Son and the Holy Spirit, or rather in the Spirit, divine things have descended to us... in order that he might redeem servants, he sent the Holy Spirit, by whom [he might make] servants... of adoption, [and] finally he himself keeps the whole for the adopted unto the inheritance». These last words are also present in codex O.
  14. Cod. U sive haec praepositio per.
    Codex U [reads] whether this preposition through.
  15. Vide supra pag. 12, nota 2. — De hac solut. cfr. supra d. 1. a. 1. q. 1. — In fine solut. codd. L aa omittunt sequens.
    See above, p. 12, note 2. — On this solution cf. above, d. 1, a. 1, q. 1. — At the end of the solution, codices L aa omit following.
  16. Epist. 190. (alias 157.) c. 2. n. 5. seq.; in Ioan. Evang. tr. 109. n. 2; de Peccat. origin. contra Pelag. et Coelest. c. 23. n. 28; de Corrept. et gratia, c. 7. n. 11. — Quoad alteram rationem adductam vide sententiam Anselmi, quam supra pag. 66, nota 7. allegavimus.
    Letter 190 (alias 157), c. 2, n. 5 f.; On the Gospel of John, tr. 109, n. 2; On Original Sin against Pelagius and Caelestius, c. 23, n. 28; On Rebuke and Grace, c. 7, n. 11. — As to the other reason adduced, see the opinion of Anselm, which we cited above on p. 66, note 7.
  17. Vide supra pag. 30, nota 4. Cfr. etiam infra d. 13. a. 2. q. 3. — Paulo superius post de Angelis, quod sunt filii codd. B C D M O addunt Dei, cod. cc et Vat. et non per merita Christi hominis.
    See above, p. 30, note 4. Cf. also below, d. 13, a. 2, q. 3. — A little above, after concerning the angels, that they are sons, codices B C D M O add of God, codex cc and the Vatican edition [add] and not through the merits of Christ as man.
  18. Vers. 29.
    Verse 29.
  19. Non pauci codd. et edd. 1, 2 dispensative; Vat. post dispositive subiicit et praeparative.
    Not a few codices and editions 1, 2 [read] dispensatively; the Vatican edition, after dispositively, subjoins also preparatively. ---
← Dist. 10, Art. 2, Q. 1Dist. 10, Art. 2, Q. 3→