← Back to Distinction 8

Dist. 8, Art. 2, Q. 3

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 8

Textus Latinus
p. 195

Quaestio III. Utrum Christus sit filius naturalis ratione utriusque nativitatis, videlicet temporalis et aeternae.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum Christus sit filius naturalis ratione utriusque nativitatis, videlicet temporalis et aeternae. Et quod sic, videtur. De generatione enim aeterna non est dubium, de generatione vero temporali ostenditur sic.

(Fundamenta.)

1. Qui conformis est in natura ei, a quo generatur, est filius naturalis1; sed Filius Dei conformis est Mariae, ex qua est natus: ergo est naturalis filius ipsius.

2. Item, qui trahit naturam ab eo, a quo generatur, est filius naturalis; sed Christus a Virgine naturam traxit humanam: ergo est filius naturalis ipsius Virginis.

3. Item, natura est principium rei genitae2 et filiationis eiusdem ex parte mulieris ex hoc, quod concipit, nutrit et parit; et hoc totum Virgini competit respectu Christi: ergo Christus est eius filius naturalis.

p. 196

4. Item, si Christus est filius Virginis, aut ergo naturalis, aut adoptivus; non adoptivus, quia tunc non esset vera mater, nec ad Virginem spectat filium adoptare, nec Deus adoptari potest a creatura in filium, sed magis e converso: ergo videtur, quod sit naturalis eius filius.

Sed contra: (Ad oppositum.) 1. Nullus, qui est filius per gratiam, est filius per naturam, quia natura et gratia ex opposito dividuntur; sed quod Christus fecit se filium Virginis, hoc fuit dignationis et gratiae: ergo non est filius naturalis.

2. Item, nullus, qui voluntarie generatur, est filius naturalis, quia natura et voluntas sunt principia disparata3; sed Christus voluntarie genitus est de Virgine: ergo non est eius filius naturalis.

3. Item, nullus est filius naturalis, cuius generatio fit4 supra naturam; sed generatio Filii Dei ex Matre fuit per miraculum supra naturam, et nativitas similiter: ergo non est naturalis eius filius.

4. Item, nullus filius naturalis est prior suo principio generante, quoniam, si prior est, accidit ei5, quod producatur ab illo: ergo non est naturalis filius; sed Christus prior fuit quam Virgo, quae ipsum concepit: ergo ex parte temporalis nativitatis Christus non potest esse filius naturalis.

Conclusio.

Christus est filius naturalis secundum utramque nativitatem, temporalem videlicet et aeternam.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod penes utramque nativitatem Christus est filius naturalis. — (Conclusio.) Et (Ratio) ratio huius est, quoniam utraque nativitas consistit in productione similis ex simili secundum similitudinem per convenientiam in natura6. Unde secundum nativitatem aeternam generatur similis Patri, secundum nativitatem temporalem generatur similis Matri. Ideo utraque nativitas est naturalis, et ratione utriusque nativitatis Christus naturalis filius debet dici.

(Quaestio incidens solvitur.) Si autem tu quaeras, quam habitudinem dicit iste terminus naturalis; dicendum, quod magis dicit habitudinem principii quam habitudinem formae. Dicitur enim filius naturalis qui est a natura et qui trahit naturam ab aliquo, non quod ipsa filiatio sit proprietas consequens ipsam naturam. Unde haec est magis propria: (Corollarium) Christus est filius naturalis vel natura, quam: Christus est filius essentialis, vel filius essentia. Natura enim plus dicit in habitudinem principii vel causae, quam dicit in habitudinem formae7. — Fatendum est ergo8, Christum filium naturalem Virginis esse ratione temporalis nativitatis, sicut rationes ad primam partem ostendunt: et ideo concedendae sunt.

(Solutio oppositorum.) 1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod nullus, qui est filius per gratiam, est filius per naturam; dicendum, (Notandum) quod si illud intelligatur de gratia adoptionis, verum est; si vero intelligatur de gratia unionis, non est verum, quia, sicut habitum est supra9, « ista gratia fuit quodam modo isti homini naturalis ». — (Alia solutio.) Aliter etiam potest dici, quod verum est secundum eandem naturam. Christus autem nominat hypostasim in duabus naturis, et secundum illam duplicem naturam naturalis est filius Patris et naturalis est filius Matris, ita quod secundum divinam naturam comparetur ad Patrem, et secundum humanam comparetur ad Matrem. (Notandum.) Si autem mutua fiat comparatio, ut hypostasis illa secundum divinam naturam comparetur ad Matrem, et secundum humanam comparetur ad Patrem; sic non dicitur proprie filius naturalis; potest tamen dici naturalis filius per gratiam unionis, quae facit naturales proprietates invicem communicare10.

(Nota transpositionem solutionum.) 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod generatio Christi est supra naturam; dicendum, quod ita est supra naturam, quod est secundum naturam, ut dictum est supra11, quia ibi divina potentia in nullo praeiudicabat naturae; et ideo modus ille operandi non excludit naturae operationem nec aufert proli naturalem filiationem.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nihil generatur naturaliter quod generatur voluntarie; dicendum, quod falsum est, secundum quod naturam voluntas concomitatur; unde esto, quod natura esset omnino obediens voluntati, sicut et in Adam erat, idem generaretur, patre volente et natura operante. Et quoniam voluntas Filii non tollit vim generativam Matri; ideo non sequitur, quod si voluntarie ex ea nascitur, quod non naturaliter nascatur12.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod nullus filius est prior suo principio generante; dicendum, (Notandum) quod verum est secundum eam naturam, secundum quam est filius eius; et sic non habet instantiam in proposito, quia Christus secundum humanam naturam posterior est Virgine, quae ipsum concepit13.

p. 197

Si autem simpliciter intelligatur, habet instantiam in proposito, quia Christus habet in se duas naturas, secundum quarum unam praecedit tam naturam creatam quam maternale principium. (Notandum.) Ubi autem instantia est in proposito, ita quod non in alio, ferenda est secundum philosophicum documentum14.

---

English Translation

Question III. Whether Christ is a natural son by reason of each nativity, namely the temporal and the eternal.

Thirdly it is asked whether Christ is a natural son by reason of each nativity, namely the temporal and the eternal. And that he is, it seems. For concerning the eternal generation there is no doubt; but concerning the temporal generation it is shown thus.

(Foundations.)

1. He who is conformed in nature to the one from whom he is generated is a natural son1; but the Son of God is conformed to Mary, from whom he was born: therefore he is her natural son.

2. Likewise, he who draws his nature from the one by whom he is generated is a natural son; but Christ drew his human nature from the Virgin: therefore he is the natural son of the Virgin herself.

3. Likewise, nature is the principle of the thing generated2 and of its filiation on the part of the woman by the fact that she conceives, nourishes, and gives birth; and all this belongs to the Virgin with respect to Christ: therefore Christ is her natural son.

4. Likewise, if Christ is the son of the Virgin, then he is either natural or adoptive; not adoptive, because then she would not be a true mother, nor does it belong to the Virgin to adopt a son, nor can God be adopted by a creature into sonship, but rather the reverse: therefore it seems that he is her natural son.

On the contrary: (To the opposite.) 1. No one who is a son by grace is a son by nature, because nature and grace are divided in opposition; but that Christ made himself the son of the Virgin was a matter of condescension and grace: therefore he is not a natural son.

2. Likewise, no one who is generated voluntarily is a natural son, because nature and will are disparate principles3; but Christ was generated voluntarily of the Virgin: therefore he is not her natural son.

3. Likewise, no one is a natural son whose generation occurs4 above nature; but the generation of the Son of God from the Mother was through a miracle above nature, and likewise his nativity: therefore he is not her natural son.

4. Likewise, no natural son is prior to his generating principle, since, if he is prior, it is accidental to him5 that he be produced from it: therefore he is not a natural son; but Christ was prior to the Virgin who conceived him: therefore on the side of the temporal nativity Christ cannot be a natural son.

Conclusion.

Christ is a natural son according to each nativity, namely the temporal and the eternal.

I respond: It must be said that with respect to each nativity Christ is a natural son. — (Conclusion.) And (Ground) the ground of this is that each nativity consists in the production of like from like according to likeness through agreement in nature6. Hence according to the eternal nativity one like the Father is generated, according to the temporal nativity one like the Mother is generated. Therefore each nativity is natural, and by reason of each nativity Christ ought to be called a natural son.

(An incidental question is resolved.) But if you ask what relation this term natural expresses; it must be said that it expresses the relation of a principle rather than the relation of a form. For a natural son is so called who is from nature and who draws his nature from someone, not that the filiation itself is a property consequent upon the nature itself. Hence this is more proper: (Corollary) Christ is a natural son or a son by nature, than: Christ is an essential son, or a son by essence. For "nature" expresses more the relation of a principle or cause than it expresses the relation of a form7. — It must therefore be admitted8 that Christ is the natural son of the Virgin by reason of the temporal nativity, just as the reasons for the first part show: and therefore they are to be conceded.

(Resolution of the opposing arguments.) 1. To that, then, which is first objected on the contrary, that no one who is a son by grace is a son by nature; it must be said (Note) that if that be understood of the grace of adoption, it is true; but if it be understood of the grace of union, it is not true, because, as has been held above9, "this grace was in a certain way natural to this man." — (Another solution.) It can also be said otherwise, that it is true with respect to one and the same nature. But Christ names a hypostasis in two natures, and according to that twofold nature he is the natural son of the Father and the natural son of the Mother, so that according to the divine nature he is compared to the Father, and according to the human he is compared to the Mother. (Note.) But if a mutual comparison be made, so that that hypostasis according to its divine nature be compared to the Mother, and according to its human be compared to the Father; thus he is not properly called a natural son; yet he can be called a natural son by the grace of union, which makes the natural properties to be communicated to one another10.

(Note the transposition of the solutions.) 3. To that which is objected, that the generation of Christ is above nature; it must be said that it is above nature in such a way that it is according to nature, as was said above11, because there the divine power in no way prejudiced nature; and therefore that mode of operating does not exclude the operation of nature nor take away from the offspring its natural filiation.

2. To that which is objected, that nothing that is generated voluntarily is generated naturally; it must be said that it is false, in the sense in which the will accompanies nature; hence granting that nature were wholly obedient to the will, as it was in Adam, the same would be generated, with the father willing and nature operating. And since the will of the Son does not take away the generative power from the Mother; therefore it does not follow that, if he is born voluntarily of her, he is not born naturally12.

4. To that which is objected, that no son is prior to his generating principle; it must be said (Note) that it is true with respect to that nature according to which he is her son; and thus there is no counterinstance in the matter at hand, because Christ according to his human nature is posterior to the Virgin who conceived him13.

But if it be understood without qualification, there is a counterinstance in the matter at hand, because Christ has in himself two natures, according to one of which he precedes both the created nature and the maternal principle. (Note.) But where there is a counterinstance in the matter at hand, in such a way that there is none in another case, it must be brought forward according to philosophical teaching14.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. (p.195, nota 2) In seq. arg. est eius filius naturalis. Paulo superius pro De generatione enim cod. U De generatione eius.
    (p.195, note 2) In the following argument, is his natural son. A little above, for For concerning the generation codex U reads Concerning his generation.
  2. (p.195, nota 3) Cod. A generatae.
    (p.195, note 3) Codex A reads generatae ("of her who is generated").
  3. (p.196, nota 2) Cfr. Aristot., II. Phys. text. 49. (c. 8.) et III. Ethic. c. 5.
    (p.196, note 2) Cf. Aristotle, Physics II, text 49 (c. 8), and Nicomachean Ethics III, c. 5.
  4. (p.196, nota 3) Plurimi codd. non male sit.
    (p.196, note 3) Very many codices read, not badly, sit ("be").
  5. (p.196, nota 4) Sive: accidentale est ei. — Deinde post naturalis filius Vat. adiicit ipsius.
    (p.196, note 4) Or: it is accidental to him. — Then after natural son the Vatican edition adds of him.
  6. (p.196, nota 5) Communiter generatio definitur: origo viventis a vivente, ut principio coniuncto, in similitudinem naturae.
    (p.196, note 5) Generation is commonly defined: the origin of a living thing from a living thing, as from a conjoined principle, unto a likeness of nature.
  7. (p.196, nota 6) Cfr. supra pag. 188, nota 1. — Paulo superius post vel natura [ablativus pro a natura], quam Z bb subdunt haec.
    (p.196, note 6) Cf. above p. 188, note 1. — A little above, after or by nature [the ablative used for "from nature"], which Z and bb append: these things.
  8. (p.196) Pro Fatendum cod. K Concedendum. Paulo inferius post ad primam partem cod. A subiicit inductae.
    (p.196) For It must be admitted codex K reads It must be conceded. A little below, after for the first part codex A subjoins adduced.
  9. (p.196, nota 7) Dist. 4. a. 2. q. 3, ubi etiam Augustini verbi hic allati expositio habetur.
    (p.196, note 7) Distinction 4, article 2, question 3, where there is also an exposition of the saying of Augustine here adduced.
  10. (p.196, nota 8) Cfr. supra d. 4. a. 3. q. 3. ad 2.
    (p.196, note 8) Cf. above, distinction 4, article 3, question 3, reply to the second.
  11. (p.196, nota 9) Dist. 4. a. 3. q. 1. seq. — Paulo ante Vat. post quod est interserit etiam.
    (p.196, note 9) Distinction 4, article 3, question 1 and following. — A little before, after which is, the Vatican edition inserts also.
  12. (p.196, nota 10) Cfr. I. Sent. d. 6. q. 2, ubi quaeritur, utrum generatio Filii sit secundum rationem voluntatis.
    (p.196, note 10) Cf. Sentences I, distinction 6, question 2, where it is asked whether the generation of the Son is according to the account of the will.
  13. (p.196, nota 1) Vide supra pag. 29, nota 1.
    (p.196, note 1) See above, p. 29, note 1.
  14. (p.197, nota 1) Vel aliis verbis: ubi autem proponitur res, quae unica est in suo genere, ex ipsa potest et debet ferri instantia, ut etiam Aristot. docet. Nam VIII. Topic., insinuans locos sive documenta (cfr. B. Albert., Comment. in VIII. Topic. tr. 1. c. 2.), ex quibus tam qui opponit (interrogat) quam qui respondet argumenta depromere possit, inter locos respondenti servientes (c. 2.) locum affert de instantia, admonens simul: « Efflagitandum autem, instantias non in eo quod proponitur ferre, nisi unum tantum sit huiusmodi, ut dualitas parium numerorum solus primus [in quo casu instari potest contra eum qui inductione ex aliis numeris probat, binarium non esse primum]. Nam oportet, et eum qui instat, in altero [quam in proposito] instantiam inferre aut dicere, quod hoc solum tale est ». — Paulo superius pro maternale codd. A G Y Z materiale, cod. bb naturale. — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.
    (p.197, note 1) Or in other words: where, however, a thing is proposed that is unique in its kind, from that very thing a counterinstance can and ought to be brought, as Aristotle too teaches. For in Topics VIII, introducing the "places" or teachings (cf. Bl. Albert, Commentary on Topics VIII, tract. 1, c. 2) from which both the one who objects (interrogates) and the one who responds may draw their arguments, among the places serving the respondent (c. 2) he adduces the place concerning the counterinstance, admonishing at the same time: "It must be required, however, that counterinstances be brought not in what is proposed, unless only one of this kind exists — as the dyad is the only even prime number [in which case a counterinstance can be raised against one who proves by induction from other numbers that two is not prime]. For it is necessary that the one who raises the counterinstance bring it in another case [than the one proposed] or say that this alone is such." — A little above, for maternal codices A G Y Z read material, codex bb natural. — See the scholion to the preceding question. ---
← Dist. 8, Art. 2, Q. 2Dist. 8, Dubia→