← Back to Distinction 10

Dist. 10, Art. 2, Q. 3

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

Textus Latinus
p. 237

Articulus II. De filiatione adoptionis.

Quaestio III. Utrum filiatio adoptionis sit in nobis per comparationem ad Christum.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum filiatio adoptionis sit in nobis per comparationem ad Christum; et hoc est quaerere, utrum simus filii adoptivi ipsius Christi. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Frequenter enim in Evangeliop237-4 vocat Dominus discipulos suos filios, et illos quos curabat: Confide fili; fides tua te salvum fecit. Si ergo vere dicebat, illi vere erant filii Christi; sed non naturales: ergo adoptivi.

2. Item, super illud ad Ephesios quartop237-5: Unus Deus et pater omnium; Glossa: « Deus est pater omnium creatione, sed fidelium regeneratione »; sed Christus creavit et recreavit: ergo Christus est pater omnium et fidelium. Sed fidelium est per adoptionem pater: ergo etc.

3. Item, filii adoptivi efficimur per gratiam inhabitantem; sed cum habitat in nobis una persona, necesse est, quod inhabitet et reliquap237-6: ergo si sumus filii unius personae, necesse est, quod totius Trinitatis: ergo Christi.

4. Item, unus est amor, quo amamus Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum; sed amor est ille qui facit nos clamare: Abba, Paterp237-7: ergo Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus sunt unus pater noster.

Sed contra: 1. Illius solius est adoptare, qui potens est generare; sed in divinis solus Pater generat, non Christus, vel Spiritus sanctusp237-8: ergo sumus filii adoptivi solius Patris: non ergo Christi.

2. Item, illius sumus filii adoptivi, cuius Christus est Filius per naturam, eo quod sumus eius fratres et coheredesp237-9; sed idem Christus est Filius solius Patris: ergo nos sumus filii adoptivi respectu unius solius personae, scilicet Patris: non ergo Christi.

3. Item, solus Filius est incarnatus, ne, si alius incarnaretur, esset confusio proprietatum, si nomen p. 238 filiationis transiret in aliam personamp238-1: ergo si filiatio non debet in divinis competere alii personae quam personae Filii, pari ratione nec paternitas.

4. Item, respectu illius solius dicimur filii, qui refertur ad nos vice versa; sed Filius Dei non dicitur ad nos, nec dicitur filius noster, sicut habitum est in primo librop238-2: ergo nec nos debemus dici filii ipsius Filii. Si tu dicas, quod etsi non referatur sub nomine filii, refertur tamen sub nomine patris; obiicitur contra hoc: quia esse patrem et fratrem sunt relationes incompossibiles respectu eiusdem; sed Christus est frater noster: ergo non est pater: ergo non sumus filii Christi.

Conclusio

Filiatio per adoptionem competit nobis respectu totius Trinitatis, et sic etiam Christi.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod absque dubio filiatio per adoptionem competit nobis respectu totius Trinitatis, a qua sumus creati et recreati, et sic competit nobis respectu Christi. Unde Christus potest dici pater noster. Sicut enim in divinis nomen principii accipitur essentialiter, utpote cum dicitur respectu creaturae, accipitur etiam notionaliter, cum dicitur respectu personaep238-3; sic nomen patris, si dicatur respectu personae, dicitur personaliter; si vero dicatur respectu rationalis creaturae, essentialiter dicitur. Unde sicut Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus sunt unum principium creaturae ratione productionis naturae; sic sunt unus pater ratione collationis gratiae. — Concedendae sunt igitur rationes ad hoc inductae.

Ad argumenta pro parte opposita: Ad 1. Ad illud quod primo obiicitur, quod illius est adoptare etc.; dicendum, quod illud habet locum in eis qui nati sunt, habere filios per viam generationisp238-4. Deus autem non solum habet Filium per productionem generationis, verum etiam multos sibi format filios per productionem creationis. Et sicut tota Trinitas illos creat dando naturam, sic recreat dando gratiam. Et sic adoptio ad totam Trinitatem spectat.

Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod eiusdem sumus filii nos et Christus; dicendum, quod verum est, quod eiusdem sumus filii, scilicet Patris aeterni, ex quo omnis paternitas in caelo et in terra nominaturp238-5; non tamen illius solius, quia aliter sumus nos filii, aliter Christus. Christus enim est Filius per generationem, quae est actio personalis; nos autem per creationem et gratificationem, quae est actio essentialis, et quam Pater communicat toti Trinitatip238-6. Ideo non sequitur, quodsi eiusdem sumus filii, cuius est Christus, quod nullius alterius. Verum est tamen, quod paternitas ipsi personae Patris appropriatur, secundum quod dicitur respectu nostri.

Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nomen proprietatis, communicatum aliis personis, inducit confusionem; dicendum, quod illud veritatem habet, quando nomen proprietatis sic communicatur, quod numeratur, utpote si duo filii essent in Trinitate; hoc autem contingeret, si alia persona incarnata fuisset. Si enim Spiritus sanctus esset natus de Virgine, filius esset et alius filius, quam sit Christus. Nunc autem non est sic. Nam etsi Christus et Spiritus sanctus dicantur esse pater noster per adoptionem, non tamen sunt alius et alius pater, immo tota Trinitas est unus pater noster, quamvis una sola personap238-7 sit Pater Christi.

Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non dicitur Filius noster, vel Spiritus sanctus noster; dicendum, quod ad hoc, quod aliquis sit noster pater, non oportet, quod ad nos referatur sub proprio nomine, sed sub hoc nomine, quod est pater; hoc autem modo dicere est, quod Filius Dei sit pater noster, quamvis non sit filius noster. — Nec valet quod obiicit de confusione relationum, quod idem sit pater et frater; dicendum enimp238-8, quod nihil impedit, diversas et omnino disparatas relationes inesse eidem secundum diversas naturas; et sic est in proposito. Nam Christus est pater noster secundum divinam naturam, et est frater noster secundum humanam naturam; hoc autem non facit confusionem proprietatum nec relationum, quia nec paternitas illa nec fraternitas proprietates personales importantp238-9.

---

English Translation

Article II. On the sonship of adoption.

Question III. Whether the sonship of adoption is in us by comparison to Christ.

Thirdly it is asked whether the sonship of adoption is in us by comparison to Christ; and this is to ask whether we are the adopted sons of Christ himself. And that it is so, seems [to be the case].

1. For frequently in the Gospelp237-4 the Lord calls his disciples sons, and those whom he healed: Be of good cheer, son; thy faith hath made thee whole. If therefore he spoke truly, they were truly sons of Christ; but not natural [sons]: therefore adoptive.

2. Likewise, upon that text to the Ephesians, chapter fourp237-5: One God and Father of all; the Gloss: « God is Father of all by creation, but of the faithful by regeneration »; but Christ both created and re-created: therefore Christ is Father of all and of the faithful. But he is Father of the faithful by adoption: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, we are made adopted sons through the indwelling grace; but when one Person dwells in us, it is necessary that the rest dwell alsop237-6: therefore if we are sons of one Person, it is necessary [that we are sons] of the whole Trinity: therefore of Christ.

4. Likewise, the love by which we love the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is one; but that love is the one that makes us cry: Abba, Fatherp237-7: therefore the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are our one Father.

On the contrary: 1. It belongs to him alone to adopt who has the power to beget; but in divine matters the Father alone begets, not Christ, or the Holy Spiritp237-8: therefore we are the adopted sons of the Father alone: therefore not of Christ.

2. Likewise, we are the adopted sons of him whose Son Christ is by nature, in that we are his brothers and coheirsp237-9; but the same Christ is the Son of the Father alone: therefore we are adopted sons in respect of one Person alone, namely the Father: therefore not of Christ.

3. Likewise, the Son alone was incarnate, lest, if another were incarnate, there should be a confusion of properties, if the name of sonship were to pass over into another Personp238-1: therefore if sonship ought not in divine matters to belong to any Person other than the Person of the Son, by parity of reasoning neither [ought] paternity.

4. Likewise, we are called the sons of him alone who is related to us in turn; but the Son of God is not said [to be related] to us, nor is he called our son, as was treated in the first bookp238-2: therefore neither ought we to be called the sons of the Son himself. If you say that, even though he is not referred to under the name of son, he is nevertheless referred to under the name of father; it is objected against this: that to be a father and to be a brother are incompossible relations in respect of the same [subject]; but Christ is our brother: therefore he is not [our] father: therefore we are not the sons of Christ.

Conclusion

Sonship by adoption belongs to us in respect of the whole Trinity, and thus also of Christ.

I respond: It must be said that without doubt sonship by adoption belongs to us in respect of the whole Trinity, by which we are created and re-created, and thus it belongs to us in respect of Christ. Hence Christ can be called our father. For just as in divine matters the name principle is taken essentially, as when it is said in respect of the creature, and is taken also notionally, when it is said in respect of a Personp238-3; so the name father, if it be said in respect of a Person, is said personally; but if it be said in respect of a rational creature, it is said essentially. Hence just as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one principle of the creature by reason of the production of nature; so they are one father by reason of the conferral of grace. — Therefore the reasons adduced for this are to be granted.

To the arguments for the opposite side: To 1. To that which is first objected, that it belongs to him to adopt, etc.; it must be said that this holds in those who are born, [namely] to have sons by way of generationp238-4. But God not only has a Son through the production of generation, but also forms for himself many sons through the production of creation. And just as the whole Trinity creates them by giving nature, so it re-creates [them] by giving grace. And thus adoption pertains to the whole Trinity.

To 2. To that which is objected, that we and Christ are the sons of the same [Father]; it must be said that it is true that we are the sons of the same, namely of the eternal Father, from whom all paternity in heaven and on earth is namedp238-5; yet not of him alone, because we are sons in one way, Christ in another. For Christ is the Son by generation, which is a personal act; but we [are sons] through creation and gratification, which is an essential act, and which the Father communicates to the whole Trinityp238-6. Therefore it does not follow that, if we are sons of the same as Christ is, [we are] of no other. It is nevertheless true that paternity is appropriated to the Person of the Father himself, according as it is said in respect of us.

To 3. To that which is objected, that the name of a property, communicated to other Persons, induces confusion; it must be said that this is true when the name of a property is so communicated that it is multiplied in number, as if there were two sons in the Trinity; but this would happen if another Person had been incarnate. For if the Holy Spirit had been born of the Virgin, he would be a son and another son than Christ is. But now it is not so. For although Christ and the Holy Spirit may be called our father by adoption, yet they are not one and another father, but rather the whole Trinity is our one father, although one Person alonep238-7 is the Father of Christ.

To 4. To that which is objected, that he is not called our Son, or our Holy Spirit; it must be said that, for someone to be our father, it is not required that he be related to us under his proper name, but under this name, which is father; and to speak in this way is [to say] that the Son of God is our father, although he is not our son. — Nor is the objection valid concerning the confusion of relations, that the same [subject] should be father and brother; for it must be saidp238-8 that nothing prevents diverse and wholly disparate relations from being in the same [subject] according to diverse natures; and so it is in the matter proposed. For Christ is our father according to the divine nature, and is our brother according to the human nature; but this does not produce a confusion of properties nor of relations, because neither that paternity nor [that] fraternity import personal propertiesp238-9.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Matth. 9, 15; Marc. 2, 19; Luc. 5, 34. — Matth. 9, 22: Confide, filia, fides tua te salvam fecit. Ibid. v. 2: Confide fili, remittuntur tibi peccata tua.
    Matthew 9:15; Mark 2:19; Luke 5:34. — Matthew 9:22: Be of good cheer, daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole. Likewise v. 2: Be of good cheer, son, thy sins are forgiven thee.
  2. Vers. 6. — Glossa hic allegata quoad sententiam convenit cum Glossa ordinaria, quam Strabus, Petr. Lombardus et Lyranus in hunc loc. exhibent. De enuntiato seq. cfr. supra pag. 30, nota 5. — In prima conclus. post et fidelium codd. KPQRbb non inconvenienter adiiciunt et infidelium.
    Verse 6. — The Gloss here cited agrees as to its sense with the Ordinary Gloss, which Strabo, Peter Lombard, and Lyra present on this passage. On the following statement cf. above p. 30, note 5. — In the first conclusion, after and of the faithful, codices KPQRbb not unfittingly add and of the unfaithful.
  3. Ioan. 14, 23: Si quis diligit me... ad eum veniemus et mansionem apud eum faciemus. — Codd. ACGHNTU (aa a secunda manu) bb inhabitent et reliquae.
    John 14:23: If anyone love me... we will come to him and make our abode with him. — Codices ACGHNTU (aa by a second hand) bb [read] let the rest dwell also.
  4. Rom. 8, 15.
    Romans 8:15.
  5. Cfr. I. Sent. d. 7. q. 2. — Quoad maiorem vide Iustinian., I. Instit. iur. civil. c. 11, ubi lex allegatur, qua inhabiles declarantur adoptare qui naturaliter impotentes sunt ad generandum. — Pro non Christus bene multi codd. atque edd. 1, 2 nec Christus, et dein pro vel Spiritui dictae edd. cum Vat. nec Spiritus.
    Cf. I Sent., d. 7, q. 2. — As to the major premise, see Justinian, Institutes of Civil Law, bk. 1, c. 11, where the law is cited by which those are declared unfit to adopt who are naturally incapable of begetting. — For not Christ many codices and editions 1, 2 rightly [read] nor Christ, and then for or the Holy Spirit the said editions with the Vatican [read] nor the Holy Spirit.
  6. Rom. 8, 17. et 29.
    Romans 8:17 and 29.
  7. Cfr. supra pag. 17, nota 3. et 7. — In fine arg. cod. bb addit alii personae quam personae Patris.
    Cf. above p. 17, note 3 and 7. — At the end of the argument codex bb adds to a Person other than the Person of the Father.
  8. Dist. 18. q. 6. — In maiori multi codd. pro dicimur incongrue dicuntur. Paulo inferius ante fratrem cod. bb repetit esse; dein circa finem arg. cod. U voci pater adiungit noster.
    Distinction 18, q. 6. — In the major premise many codices have, instead of we are called, incongruously they are called. A little below, before brother, codex bb repeats to be; then near the end of the argument codex U adds our to the word father.
  9. Cfr. I. Sent. d. 29. a. 1. q. 1.
    Cf. I Sent., d. 29, a. 1, q. 1.
  10. Codd. G cc et Vat. addunt et non per creationem. Paulo inferius pro dando naturam edd. dando vitam.
    Codices G, cc, and the Vatican add and not through creation. A little below, for by giving nature the editions [read] by giving life.
  11. Eph. 3, 15.
    Ephesians 3:15.
  12. Vide I. Sent. d. 29. dub. 1. et d. 34. q. 3. — Pro essentialis, et quam... Trinitati. Ideo edd. essentialis. Et quoniam... Trinitati: ideo.
    See I Sent., d. 29, dub. 1, and d. 34, q. 3. — For essential, and which... to the Trinity. Therefore the editions [read] essential. And since... to the Trinity: therefore.
  13. Vox persona abest a codd. GHILTZ; in cod. U scriptum est unus solus.
    The word Person is absent from codices GHILTZ; in codex U is written one alone.
  14. Edd. 1, 2 cum multis codd. omittunt enim.
    Editions 1, 2 with many codices omit for.
  15. Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.
    See the scholion to the preceding question. ---
← Dist. 10, Art. 2, Q. 2Dist. 10, Dubia→