title: Dist. 10, Art. 2, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 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 primo[^p235-1]: *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 quarto[^p235-2]: *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 se[^p235-3]»; 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 quinto[^p235-4]: *Deus nos sibi reconciliavit per Christum*: ergo videtur, quod adoptati sumus per ipsum.

**Sed contra:** (*Ad oppositum.*)
1. Ad Romanos octavo[^p235-5]: *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 tertio[^p235-6]: *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.

<!-- page 236 -->

3. Item, ante Christi incarnationem Deus habuit homines filios, sicut ipse dicit de Salomone: *Ero illi in patrem*[^p236-1]; 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 filiatio[^p236-2] non fuerit facta per Christum.

Iuxta hoc quaeritur, per quod donum gratiae efficiamur filii adoptivi; videtur enim, quod per *caritatem*, sicut dicit Augustinus[^p236-3]: «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 *per*[^p236-4] 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 assumtam[^p236-5]. — 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 adoptavit[^p236-6] 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 sexto[^p236-7]: «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 per[^p236-8] 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 Trinitatis[^p236-9]»; 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 Augustinus[^p236-10], «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

<!-- page 237 -->

Augustinus[^p237-1], 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 octavo[^p237-2]: *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 dispositive[^p237-3]. (*Ad quaestionem incidentem. Notandum.*)

english:
### 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 one[^p235-1]: *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 four[^p235-2]: *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 se[^p235-3]»; 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 five[^p235-4]: *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 eight[^p235-5]: *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 three[^p235-6]: *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 father*[^p236-1]; 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 adoption[^p236-2] 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 says[^p236-3]: «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 *through*[^p236-4] 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 nature[^p236-5]. — 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 adopted[^p236-6] 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 six[^p236-7]: «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 *through*[^p236-8] 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 undivided[^p236-9]»; 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 says[^p236-10], «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 says[^p237-1], 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 eight[^p237-2]: *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 dispositively[^p237-3]. (*To the incidental question. Note.*)

la: Vers. 12.

en: Verse 12.

la: Vers. 4. seq.

en: Verse 4 and following.

la: Secundum Aristot., II. Phys. text. 66. (c. 6.). Cfr. tom. II. pag. 638, nota 3.

en: According to Aristotle, *Physics* II, text 66 (c. 6). Cf. tome II, p. 638, note 3.

la: Vers. 18. — In *maiori* pro *sumus Deo* codd. H I (K primitus) L U 15.

en: Verse 18. — In the *greater* [number of witnesses], for *we are to God* codices H I (K originally) L U 15 [read otherwise].

la: Vers. 15. — Z aa *sumus Filio Dei*.

en: Verse 15. — Z aa [read] *we are to the Son of God*.

la: Vers. 5. — Seq. loc. Script. est ibid. v. 8.

en: Verse 5. — The following Scripture passage is in the same place, v. 8.

la: Libr. II. Reg. 7, 14; I. Paral. 22, 10. — In conclus. pro *Filium Dei* plurimi codd. perperam *Filius Dei*.

en: 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.].

la: Edd. cum paucis codd. *filiationis adoptio*. In hoc argumento respicitur communis definitio causae, quae iam posita est supra pag. 22, nota I.

en: 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.

la: 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.

en: *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.

la: 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.

en: 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.

la: Cfr. infra d. 13. a. 2. q. 1. et 3. — Paulo superius pro *filii adoptivi* cod. K *filii Dei adoptivi*.

en: Cf. below, d. 13, a. 2, q. 1 and 3. — A little above, for *adoptive sons* codex K [reads] *adoptive sons of God*.

la: Edd. cum paucis codd. verbo *adoptavit* praefigunt *nos*.

en: The editions, with a few codices, prefix *us* to the verb *adopted*.

la: 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.

en: 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.

la: Cod. U *sive haec praepositio per*.

en: Codex U [reads] *whether this preposition through*.

la: 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*.

en: 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*.

la: 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.

en: *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.

la: 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*.

en: 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*.

la: Vers. 29.

en: Verse 29.

la: Non pauci codd. et edd. 1, 2 *dispensative*; Vat. post *dispositive* subiicit et *praeparative*.

en: Not a few codices and editions 1, 2 [read] *dispensatively*; the Vatican edition, after *dispositively*, subjoins also *preparatively*. ---

latin_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_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.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp. 235–237 (PDF 257–259; offset pdf = printed + 22), read Left column top→bottom then Right column on each page, with the body and footer bands reflowed column-by-column. Per the Vol II/III override the PDF column read is authoritative wherever the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 16706–16835) cascade-fragments — here the two-column body interleaves badly and the per-page footers shatter. The OCR was cross-checked for footnote-marker spacing and clean running prose. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Alignment.** VERIFIED. q2 = *Utrum filiatio adoptionis conveniat nobis per Christum* — whether the sonship of adoption belongs to us through Christ (the 2nd of Art. II's three inquiries, "in others through Christ"). Opener raw 16706 *Secundo quaeritur, utrum filiatio adoptionis conveniat nobis per Christum. Et quod sic, videtur. 1. Ioannis primo: Dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri…* — NOT q1 *…sit in Christo* [raw 16508] or q3 *…sit in nobis per comparationem ad Christum* [raw 16836]. CONCLUSION: *Verum est per omnem modum, quod sumus filii adoptivi per Christum* — true in every mode (whether *per* names a meritorious/dispositive cause or an effective one, and whether by propriety or appropriation); the *Quaestio incidens* on which gift of grace makes us adoptive sons is resolved per conformity to the natural Son's image — remotion-from-evil (baptismal grace) and ordering-to-good (faith/charity, with fear/humility merely dispositive).

**Page-split map.**
- **p. 235** (PDF 257): the tail of q1's free-standing SCHOLION occupies the top of the L column and the upper R column; q2 then opens mid-L-column with the ARTICULUS II / QUAESTIO II header, title, opener, args 1–4 (*Fundamenta*), and *Sed contra* (*Ad oppositum*) args 1–2. Footer notes 1–6 → `[^p235-1]`–`[^p235-6]` (all q2's; the q1 scholion carries no numbered markers).
- **p. 236** (PDF 258): *Sed contra* args 3–4, the *Quaestio incidens*, CONCLUSIO, Respondeo (*Duplex sensus*, Conclusio 1/2/3, Conclusio generalis), and the *Solutio oppositorum* (Ad 1/2, Ad 3 with *Notandum*). Footer notes 1–10 → `[^p236-1]`–`[^p236-10]`.
- **p. 237** (PDF 259): the tail of Ad 3, Ad 4, the reply to the incidental question (*Notandum*), then q2's own free-standing SCHOLION (§I–II, spanning both columns). Footer notes 1–3 → `[^p237-1]`–`[^p237-3]` (all q2's). Footer notes 4 and following on p. 237 belong to q3, whose body opens mid-p.237 (R column) after the scholion.

**Apparatus.** 19 entries, per-page restart, page-suffixed markers: p.235 nn.1–6, p.236 nn.1–10, p.237 nn.1–3. The SCHOLION carries no numbered markers (its author registers are scholion text, not footers).

**Footer hand-off.** RECEIVED from d10-a2-q1: NONE — q2's body begins on p.235 under its own running head (`DIST. X. ART. II. QUAEST. II.`) and opens a fresh per-page footer sequence (p.235 nn.1–6 all q2's), confirmed eyes-on; q1 (incl. its scholion) was fully accounted for across pp.232–235. FORWARDED to d10-a2-q3: NONE — q2's footers are exhausted at p.237 note 3 (*dispositive³*); p.237 footer notes 4 (*Matth. 9, 15…*) and following key q3's body (q3 opens mid-p.237 R column after q2's scholion), confirmed eyes-on `/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p237-{L,R}-2.png`.

**Scholion.** `has_scholion: true`. q2 prints its OWN free-standing two-part SCHOLION on p.237 (§I: how St. Thomas and others recast the question as a twofold inquiry — whether adoption belongs to the whole Trinity, and whether it is through the Son alone — plus the appropriation taxonomy and the parallel-loci author register Alex.Hal./S.Thom./B.Albert/Petr.a Tar./Aegid./Richard/Dionys.Carth.; §II: the next [3rd] question's response is a corollary of q2's principles). §II explicitly forward-covers q3 — so q3 may lack a free-standing scholion of its own; verify eyes-on when q3 is built. The scholion carries no numbered footnote markers.

**`[?]` flags:** NONE.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 10, Art. 2, Q. 3

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 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 Evangelio[^p237-4] 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 quarto[^p237-5]: *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 reliqua[^p237-6]: 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, Pater*[^p237-7]: 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 sanctus[^p237-8]: 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 coheredes[^p237-9]; 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
<!-- page 238 -->
filiationis transiret in aliam personam[^p238-1]: 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 libro[^p238-2]: 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 personae[^p238-3]; 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 *generationis*[^p238-4]. 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 nominatur*[^p238-5]; 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 Trinitati[^p238-6]. 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 persona[^p238-7] 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 enim[^p238-8], 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 important[^p238-9].

---

english:
### 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 Gospel[^p237-4] 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 four[^p237-5]: *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 also[^p237-6]: 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, Father*[^p237-7]: 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 Spirit[^p237-8]: 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 coheirs[^p237-9]; 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 Person[^p238-1]: 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 book[^p238-2]: 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 Person[^p238-3]; 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 *generation*[^p238-4]. 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 named*[^p238-5]; 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 Trinity[^p238-6]. 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 alone[^p238-7] 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 said[^p238-8] 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 properties[^p238-9].

---

la: 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.*

en: 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.*

la: 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.*

en: 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.*

la: 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.*

en: 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.*

en: Romans 8:15.

la: 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.*

en: 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.*

en: Romans 8:17 and 29.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 17, nota 3. et 7. — In fine arg. cod. bb addit *alii personae quam personae Patris.*

en: 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.*

la: 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.*

en: 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.*

la: Codd. G cc et Vat. addunt *et non per creationem.* Paulo inferius pro *dando naturam* edd. *dando vitam.*

en: Codices G, cc, and the Vatican add *and not through creation.* A little below, for *by giving nature* the editions [read] *by giving life.*

en: Ephesians 3:15.

la: Vide I. Sent. d. 29. dub. 1. et d. 34. q. 3. — Pro *essentialis, et quam... Trinitati. Ideo* edd. *essentialis. Et quoniam... Trinitati: ideo.*

en: 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.*

la: Vox *persona* abest a codd. GHILTZ; in cod. U scriptum est *unus solus.*

en: The word *Person* is absent from codices GHILTZ; in codex U is written *one alone.*

la: Edd. 1, 2 cum multis codd. omittunt *enim.*

en: Editions 1, 2 with many codices omit *for.*

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands of printed pp. 237–238 (PDF 259–260; offset pdf = printed + 22), `/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p23{7,8}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 16836–16922) as the base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. PDF-priority inversion applies (VOL II/III override): the Respondeo, replies, and all footers were read column-by-column from the PDF, the OCR being cascade-fragmented there.

**Alignment verified.** q3 = *Utrum filiatio adoptionis sit in nobis per comparationem ad Christum* (opener raw 16840 *Tertio quaeritur, utrum filiatio adoptionis sit in nobis per comparationem ad Christum; et hoc est quaerere, utrum simus filii adoptivi ipsius Christi*). Distinct from q1 (*sit in Christo*, raw 16508) and q2 (*conveniat nobis per Christum*, raw 16706).

**Page-split map.** q3 opens mid-p.237 R column (after q2's scholion, which ends `...ON.` above the `QUAESTIO III.` header). p.237 R holds: title + opening + objections 1–4 + Sed contra 1–2 + the start of Sed contra 3. Page break to p.238 falls inside Sed contra 3 ("...si nomen | filiationis transiret..."), placed at `<!-- page 238 -->`. p.238 holds: rest of Sed contra 3 + Sed contra 4 + Conclusio + Respondeo + replies Ad 1–4, ending at *...proprietates personales important* immediately before `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.` (the d10-dubia chunk).

**Apparatus (15 entries, per-page restart, page-suffixed markers).**
- **p.237 nn.4–9** (`[^p237-4]`–`[^p237-9]`) — q3's share of p.237's footer sequence. p.237 nn.1–3 were consumed by q2 (received hand-off confirmed eyes-on: the L/R-2 footer bands of p.237 show nn.1–3 keyed to q2's scholion-area text, nn.4–9 keyed to q3's objections). No suffix collision because q2 used `[^p237-1..3]`.
- **p.238 nn.1–9** (`[^p238-1]`–`[^p238-9]`) — all nine of p.238's footers belong to q3's body; the DUBIA opener on the bottom of p.238 R carries no markers (its footers begin on p.239).

**Footer hand-off RECEIVED from d10-a2-q2:** p.237 nn.1–3 (consumed by q2); q3 leads with p.237 n.4 (*Matth. 9, 15...*). Confirmed eyes-on `/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p237-{L,R}-2.png`.

**Footer hand-off FORWARDED to d10-dubia:** NONE. q3's footers are exhausted at p.238 n.9 (*Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*). The DUBIA block opens on the bottom of p.238 R (running head still `DIST. X. ART. II. QUAEST. III.` — note the dubia text is laid out under the q3 page) but its own footer sequence restarts on p.239.

**Scholion disposition:** `has_scholion: false`. q3 prints no free-standing scholion. q2's scholion §II ("II. Responsio ad sequentem (3.) quaest. elicitur tanquam corollarium ex principiis in 2. quaest. stabilitis...") explicitly forward-covers q3, and p.238 n.9 reads *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* ("See the scholion to the preceding question"). Both confirmed eyes-on `/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p237-R-0.png` and `/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p238-R-2.png`.

**Marginal labels** (rendered inline in parens, not anchors): p.237 *Notandum* (against the *re-/remotionem* line in q2 region); p.238 *Conclusio* (against the Respondeo), *Solutio oppositorum* (against Ad 1), *Notandum* (against the *Verum est tamen... appropriatur* clause in Ad 2). These are Quaracchi running marginalia, kept out of the body per CLAUDE.md.

**`[?]` flags:** NONE. All damaged OCR (e.g. `palernitas`→paternitas, `gralificationem`→gratificationem, `proprHo`→proprio, `important0`→important⁹) resolved unambiguously against the PDF column bands.

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 10, Dubia

title_alt: Dubia circa litteram Magistri (Dub. I–V)

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master (Doubts I–V)

source_text:
<!-- page 238 -->

### DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI.

#### Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt quaestiones circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de illa distinctione, quam ponit Magister: *Secundum* aliquando exprimit conditionem naturae[^238-1], aliquando unitatem personae, aliquando habitum, aliquando causam. Videtur enim ista distinctio esse *inartificialis* et *superflua* et *diminuta*. *Inartificialis*, quia membra ista nullam videntur habere convenientiam. *Superflua* videtur,
<!-- page 239 -->
quia eadem vi, qua importat proprietatem[^239-1] naturae, importat unitatem et proprietatem personae. *Diminuta* etiam videtur distinctio, quia, sicut potest importare *habitum*, ita etiam potest importare *novem genera accidentium*[^239-2]: ergo videtur, quod his membris octo membra debuerunt adiungi. — Item quaeritur, ubi sic diversimode accipiatur, cum non videatur habere tot intellectus.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod haec distinctio (*Notandum*), etsi videatur esse rudis, tamen est multum rationabilis, et hoc, si attenditur, super quid fundatur. Nam (*Distinctio*) prima divisione[^239-3] haec praepositio *secundum* potest importare *concomitantiam*, vel *causam*. Si causam importet, tunc est quartum membrum; si concomitantiam, sic (*Subdistinctio*) tripliciter potest[^239-4] importare: aut secundum *inhaerentiam*, aut secundum *unionem*, aut secundum *adiacentiam* sive assistentiam. Si secundum *inhaerentiam*, sic importat proprietatem naturae; nam proprietas inhaeret ei, cuius est proprietas. Si secundum *unionem*, sic importat proprietatem personae. Si secundum *assistentiam* sive adiacentiam, sic dicit habitum. — Quartum autem membrum, quod est secundum principalis divisionis, Magister non subdividit. Potest tamen dividi secundum quatuor genera causarum. — Omnibus enim modis haec dictio *secundum* consuevit accipi[^239-5], sicut (*Exempla*) potest per exempla monstrari. Si enim dicatur: Christus, secundum quod homo, fuit passibilis; sic importat *conditionem naturae*. Si dicatur: Christus, secundum quod homo, creavit stellas[^239-6]; sic importat *unitatem personae*. Si dicatur: Christus, secundum quod homo, fuit vestitus et calceatus et *ut homo inventus*[^239-7]; sic importat habitum. Si dicatur: Christus, secundum quod Deus, creavit mundum, et secundum quod homo, praedicavit divinum verbum; sic importat *causam efficientem*. Si dicatur: Christus, secundum quod Deus, est suppositum divinae naturae, et secundum quod homo, est animal rationale; sic importat *causam formalem*. Si dicatur: Christus, secundum quod Deus et homo, est praemium nostrum; sic importat *causam finalem*. — Possunt autem multa huiusmodi exempla congruentia inveniri. De *causa* autem *materiali* secundum *divinam* naturam non contingit invenire[^239-8]; secundum autem *humanam* contingit, ut si dicatur: Christus, secundum quod homo, conceptus fuit de purissimis sanguinibus Virginis[^239-9].

#### Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *nos dicimur filii adoptivi, quia, cum nati fuerimus filii irae, per gratiam facti sumus filii Dei*. Si enim hoc verum est, tunc Angeli beati et homo in statu innocentiae non fuissent filii adoptivi: ergo nec ius habuissent in hereditate[^239-10] regni; quod absurdum est.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Magister loquitur de adoptione secundum plenam rationem; et sic ponit *extraneitatem*, quae secundum actum est, quae quidem extraneitas est elongatio et abalienatio a Deo per culpam; et hoc quidem modo non conveniret Angelis ratio filiationis[^239-11]. *Largius* tamen accipiendo extraneitatem, sive quantum ad culpam, quae inest, sive quia potuit inesse, se extendit ad omnes filios adoptivos. Et hoc quidem modo Angeli possunt dici filii[^239-12].

#### Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, *Christum esse filium Virginis naturaliter et per gratiam*. Videtur enim, quod ista duo non sint compossibilia. Si enim hoc est *naturale*, iam non est *gratuitum*, et e converso.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod gratia unionis non repugnat nec incompossibilis est cum proprietate naturali, immo facit eam communicari. Et Magister loquitur hic de gratia unionis. — Vel potest dici (*Aliter*), quod *gratia* et *natura* bene possunt de eadem re dici per comparationem ad diversa; et sic est in proposito. Nam Christus, in quantum homo, est naturalis filius Virginis; in quantum autem Deus, est filius Virginis, non per naturam nec per adoptionem, sed per gratiam unionis[^239-13].
<!-- page 240 -->

#### Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Hilarius, quod ille, scilicet Christus, est *filius origine, non adoptione; veritate, non nuncupatione* etc. Videtur enim, quod sit ibi *verborum inculcatio*. Idem enim est esse filium origine et nativitate. — Item videtur, quod sit *superfluitas*. Nam omnis filiatio aut est naturalis, aut gratuita: ergo per *originem*, vel *adoptionem*: igitur superfluunt alia membra. — Item, quid est quod dicitur aliquis filius *nuncupatione*? Aut enim *vera* est nuncupatio, aut *falsa*; si vera: ergo vel per adoptionem, vel per generationem; si falsa: ergo non debet inter membra praedicta reponi. — Item, si ob[^240-1] creationem dicuntur filii, cum ergo asini sint a Deo creati, erunt filii Dei, quod absurdum est.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in praedicto verbo (*Differentiae*) Hilarius innuit nobis quatuor filiationis differentias, quarum sufficientia haberi potest sic. Ille enim dicitur filius alicuius, qui ab ipso est et ei conformatur; hoc autem potest esse dupliciter: aut emanatione naturali et in unitate essentiae, et sic est (*Notandum*) filius unigenitus Patris, quem dicit Hilarius esse filium *origine*, contra Photinum; *veritate*, contra Sabellium; *nativitate*, contra Arium. Et hoc in primo libro[^240-2] fuit expositum. Aut potest esse ab alio in diversitate substantiae; et hoc potest esse tripliciter secundum triplicem modum conformitatis. Aut enim conformatur quantum ad rationem imaginis naturalis, et sic est filius creatione; aut quantum ad rationem imaginis et similitudinis, quae attenditur in gratia et donis gratuitis, et sic est filius per adoptionem; aut conformatur in natura imaginis, sed discordat per deordinationem voluntatis, sicut homo peccator, et sic est filius nuncupatione.

Ex his patent differentiae filiationis; patent nihilominus verba praedictae distinctionis, quod non inculcantur, sed valde rationabiliter dicuntur. Patet etiam responsio ad obiecta. Non enim sine causa dicuntur illa tria vocabula; et quamvis pro eodem accipi possit *origo* et *nativitas*, non tamen frustra ponitur unum cum altero; hoc enim est[^240-3] propter haereses elidendas.

Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod omnis filius aut est filius per naturam, aut per gratiam; dicendum, quod falsum est, nisi extendatur nomen *naturae* et *gratiae* ad illud quod est ex mera Dei *benevolentia*, et ad illud quod habet quis *ab origine*. Et hoc quidem modo filiatio per creationem potest dici quodam modo esse per *naturam*, quodam modo per *gratiam*; sed non sequitur propter hoc, quod talis sit filius adoptivus, vel naturalis.

Ad illud quod quaeritur de filiatione per nuncupationem, dicendum, quod ille sic dicitur filius, qui habet *conformitatem* per naturam imaginis[^240-4], sed *difformitatem* per culpam; et hoc, inquam, modo *nuncupatio* ista quodam modo habet veritatem, quodam modo non, quia quodam modo est filius, quodam modo adversarius. Et ideo sola *nuncupatione* dicitur filius, sicut Abraham dixit ad divitem damnatum: *Recordare, fili*[^240-5] etc.

Ad illud quod ultimo obiicitur, quod si pater est per creationem, debet dici pater bestiarum; dicendum, quod non sequitur: quia non quaecumque creatio facit aliquem dici filium, sed creatio illa, in qua confertur insigne divinae imaginis, per quam configuratur homo Deo et idoneus efficitur ad hoc, ut sit filius adoptivus[^240-6].

#### Dub. V.

Item quaeritur de illo verbo Ambrosii in littera: *Per adoptionem sumus filii, ille vero per veritatem naturae*. Cum enim *factum* per veritatem et *dictum* per similitudinem non univocentur, sed aequivocentur, sicut homo pictus et homo verus in homine[^240-7]; tunc filiatio nobis et Christo competit aequivoce. Et hoc ipsum videtur confirmari per illud quod dicitur Ioannis vigesimo[^240-8]: *Ascendo ad Patrem meum et Patrem vestrum*; Gregorius ibi: « Aliter *meum*, et aliter *vestrum* ». Sed *contra hoc* est, quod Christus dicitur *frater noster*; sed non diceretur ex hoc *frater*, si aequivoce essemus filii: ergo etc. — Item, cum dicitur: Deus est[^240-9] *pater Christi* et *pater noster*, aut *eadem* paternitate, aut *alia*. Si *eadem*: ergo si paternitas dicitur uniformiter, pari ratione et filiatio. Si *alia*: ergo in persona Patris sunt duae paternitates, quod simpliciter absurdum est.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod nos et Christus (*Notandum*) dicimur filii Dei, nec omnino *aequivoce*, nec omnino *univoce*; non *univoce*, quia una est filiatio temporalis et gratuita, alia naturalis et aeterna; non *aequivoce*, quia mediante illa filiatione et per conformationem ad illam filii efficimur adoptivi. Sicut enim a Patre *omnis paternitas in caelo et in terra nominatur*[^240-10], sic a Filio omnis filiatio. — Similiter si quaeratur, utrum uniformiter dicatur Deus pater noster et Filii; dicendum, quod nec omnino *uniformiter*, nec omnino *difformiter*, quia pater dicitur
<!-- page 241 -->
tur Filii paternitate aeternali et personali, pater vero noster ex tempore et essentialiter. Et sicut essentia non ponit in numerum cum persona, ut sint res duae; sic nec una paternitas cum alia, ut sint duae paternitates. Et sic patent rationes et obiectiones ad utramque partem. Non enim valet illa obiectio de homine picto et vero; nam homo pictus nihil habet de veritate hominis, filius autem adoptivus aliquid habet de veritate filii, quamvis non sit filius naturalis[^241-1].

---

english:
### DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

#### Doubt I.

In this part there are questions concerning the text, and first there is inquiry concerning that distinction which the Master lays down: *Secundum* (according to) sometimes expresses a condition of nature[^238-1], sometimes a unity of person, sometimes a habit, sometimes a cause. For this distinction seems to be *unmethodical* and *superfluous* and *defective*. It is *unmethodical*, because these members seem to have no coherence. It seems *superfluous*,
because by the same force by which it signifies a property[^239-1] of nature it signifies the unity and property of the person. The distinction also seems *defective*, because, just as it can signify a *habit*, so likewise it can signify the *nine genera of accidents*[^239-2]: therefore it seems that to these members eight members ought to have been added. — Likewise it is asked where it is taken so diversely, since it does not seem to have so many senses.

**I respond:** It must be said that this distinction (*Note*), although it may seem crude, is nevertheless quite reasonable, and this if one attends to that upon which it is founded. For (*Distinction*) by the first division[^239-3] this preposition *secundum* can signify *concomitance* or *cause*. If it signifies cause, then it is a fourth member; if concomitance, then (*Subdistinction*) it can signify it[^239-4] in three ways: either according to *inherence*, or according to *union*, or according to *adjacency* or assistance. If according to *inherence*, then it signifies a property of nature; for a property inheres in that of which it is the property. If according to *union*, then it signifies a property of the person. If according to *assistance* or adjacency, then it states a habit. — But the fourth member, which is of the principal division, the Master does not subdivide. It can nevertheless be divided according to the four genera of causes. — For in all these ways this word *secundum* is wont to be taken[^239-5], as (*Examples*) can be shown by examples. For if it be said: Christ, as man, was passible; thus it signifies a *condition of nature*. If it be said: Christ, as man, created the stars[^239-6]; thus it signifies *unity of person*. If it be said: Christ, as man, was clothed and shod and *found as a man*[^239-7]; thus it signifies a habit. If it be said: Christ, as God, created the world, and as man preached the divine word; thus it signifies *efficient cause*. If it be said: Christ, as God, is the supposit of the divine nature, and as man is a rational animal; thus it signifies *formal cause*. If it be said: Christ, as God and man, is our reward; thus it signifies *final cause*. — But many fitting examples of this kind can be found. But concerning *material cause* according to the *divine* nature it does not happen that one finds [an example][^239-8]; according to the *human*, however, it does happen, as if it be said: Christ, as man, was conceived of the most pure blood of the Virgin[^239-9].

#### Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked concerning this which he says, that *we are called adopted sons, because, having been born sons of wrath, we are made through grace sons of God*. For if this is true, then the blessed Angels and man in the state of innocence would not have been adopted sons: therefore neither would they have had a right in the inheritance[^239-10] of the kingdom; which is absurd.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Master speaks of adoption according to its full meaning; and thus he posits an *estrangement* which is according to act, which estrangement indeed is an alienation and a being-set-apart from God through fault; and in this way the account of sonship would not belong to the Angels[^239-11]. Yet taking estrangement *more broadly*, whether as regards the fault which is present, or because it could have been present, it extends to all adopted sons. And in this way the Angels can be called sons[^239-12].

#### Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked concerning this which he says, that *Christ is the son of the Virgin naturally and through grace*. For it seems that these two are not compossible. For if this is *natural*, then it is no longer *gratuitous*, and conversely.

**I respond:** It must be said that the grace of union is not repugnant to, nor incompossible with, the natural property, but rather causes it to be communicated. And the Master speaks here of the grace of union. — Or it can be said (*Otherwise*) that *grace* and *nature* can well be said of the same thing by comparison to diverse things; and so it is in the case at hand. For Christ, insofar as he is man, is the natural son of the Virgin; insofar as he is God, however, he is the son of the Virgin, not by nature nor by adoption, but by the grace of union[^239-13].

#### Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked concerning this which Hilary says, that he, namely Christ, is *son by origin, not by adoption; by truth, not by appellation*, etc. For it seems that there is here a *piling-up of words*. For to be a son by origin and by birth is the same. — Likewise it seems that there is *superfluity*. For all sonship is either natural or gratuitous: therefore by *origin* or by *adoption*: hence the other members are superfluous. — Likewise, what is it for someone to be called a son by *appellation*? For either the appellation is *true* or *false*; if true: then either by adoption or by generation; if false: then it ought not to be placed among the aforesaid members. — Likewise, if on account[^240-1] of creation they are called sons, since then asses are created by God, they will be sons of God, which is absurd.

**I respond:** It must be said that in the aforesaid word (*Differences*) Hilary intimates to us four differences of sonship, the sufficiency of which can be had thus. For one is called the son of someone who is from him and is conformed to him; and this can be in two ways: either by natural emanation and in unity of essence, and thus is the (*Note*) only-begotten Son of the Father, whom Hilary says to be a son by *origin*, against Photinus; by *truth*, against Sabellius; by *birth*, against Arius. And this was expounded in the first book[^240-2]. Or it can be from another in diversity of substance; and this can be in three ways according to the threefold mode of conformity. For either he is conformed as regards the account of the natural image, and thus is a son by creation; or as regards the account of the image and likeness, which is regarded in grace and gratuitous gifts, and thus is a son by adoption; or he is conformed in the nature of the image, but is at variance through the disorder of the will, like a sinful man, and thus is a son by appellation.

From these the differences of sonship are clear; the words of the aforesaid distinction are likewise clear, that they are not piled up, but are said very reasonably. The response to the objections is also clear. For not without cause are those three words used; and although *origin* and *birth* can be taken for the same thing, nevertheless one is not set down with the other in vain; for this is[^240-3] for the sake of beating down heresies.

To that which is objected, that every son is either a son by nature or by grace; it must be said that this is false, unless the name of *nature* and of *grace* be extended to that which is from the mere *benevolence* of God, and to that which someone has *from his origin*. And in this way sonship by creation can be said in one way to be by *nature*, in another way by *grace*; but it does not follow on this account that such a one is an adopted son, or a natural son.

To that which is asked concerning sonship by appellation, it must be said that one is called a son in this way who has *conformity* through the nature of the image[^240-4], but *deformity* through fault; and in this way, I say, that *appellation* has truth in one way, in another way not, because in one way he is a son, in another way an adversary. And therefore he is called a son by appellation alone, just as Abraham said to the damned rich man: *Remember, son*[^240-5], etc.

To that which is objected last, that if he is a father by creation, he ought to be called the father of beasts; it must be said that it does not follow: because not every creation makes someone be called a son, but that creation in which is conferred the mark of the divine image, by which man is configured to God and made fit for this, that he be an adopted son[^240-6].

#### Doubt V.

Likewise it is asked concerning that word of Ambrose in the text: *By adoption we are sons, but he by the truth of nature*. For since the *made* by truth and the *said* by likeness are not univocal but equivocal, like a painted man and a true man in [the term] man[^240-7]; then sonship belongs to us and to Christ equivocally. And this very thing seems to be confirmed by that which is said in John, chapter twenty[^240-8]: *I ascend to my Father and your Father*; Gregory there: « *Mine* in one way, and *yours* in another way ». But *against this* is the fact that Christ is called *our brother*; but he would not on this account be called *brother*, if we were sons equivocally: therefore, etc. — Likewise, when it is said: God is[^240-9] the *Father of Christ* and *our Father*, [it is] either by the *same* paternity or by *another*. If by the *same*: then if paternity is said uniformly, by parity of reasoning so also sonship. If by *another*: then in the person of the Father there are two paternities, which is simply absurd.

**I respond:** It must be said that we and Christ (*Note*) are called sons of God, neither altogether *equivocally* nor altogether *univocally*; not *univocally*, because one sonship is temporal and gratuitous, the other natural and eternal; not *equivocally*, because by the mediation of that sonship and through conformation to it we are made adopted sons. For just as from the Father *all paternity in heaven and on earth is named*[^240-10], so from the Son [comes] all sonship. — Likewise, if it be asked whether God is called our Father and the Son's uniformly; it must be said that [it is] neither altogether *uniformly* nor altogether *differently*, because he is called father
of the Son by an eternal and personal paternity, but our father from time and essentially. And just as essence does not enter into number with person, so that there are two things; so neither does one paternity with another, so that there are two paternities. And thus the reasons and objections on either side are clear. For that objection concerning the painted and the true man is not valid; for a painted man has nothing of the truth of [being a] man, whereas an adopted son has something of the truth of [being a] son, although he is not a natural son[^241-1].

---

la: Cfr. supra pag. 17, nota 3. et 7. — In fine arg. cod. bb addit *alii personae quam personae Patris*.

en: 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*.

la: Codd. M O voci *proprietatem* praemittunt *conditionem sive*.

en: Codices M O prefix *conditionem sive* (a condition, or) to the word *proprietatem*.

la: Quae secundum Aristot., de Praedicam., sunt: Quantitas, qualitas, relatio, actio, passio, ubi, quando, situs, habitus. — Mox pro *debuerunt* cod. bb *debeant*.

en: Which according to Aristotle, *On the Categories*, are: quantity, quality, relation, action, passion, where, when, position, habit. — Shortly after, for *debuerunt* codex bb reads *debeant*.

la: Pro *Nam prima divisione* cod. Y *Nam possumus dicere, quod*.

en: For *Nam prima divisione* codex Y reads *Nam possumus dicere, quod*.

la: Cod. O hic interiicit *hunc*.

en: Codex O here inserts *hunc*.

la: Praepositivus, Sum. p. III. c. de Quatuor proposit., quae hic notandae sunt, ait, « quod hoc syncategorema *secundum* septem modis accipitur vel pluribus. Notat enim causam meritoriam, efficientem, formalem, vel quasi formalem, naturam, conditionem naturae, unitatem personae. Causam meritoriam, ut cum dicitur: Christus, secundum quod homo, redemit nos i. e. in humanitate fecit opera nostrae redemptionis meritoria » etc.

en: Praepositivus, *Summa*, pt. III, the chapter *On the Four Propositions* which are to be noted here, says, « that this syncategorem *secundum* is taken in seven modes or more. For it denotes meritorious cause, efficient, formal, or quasi-formal, nature, condition of nature, unity of person. Meritorious cause, as when it is said: Christ, as man, redeemed us, i.e. in his humanity performed the meritorious works of our redemption », etc.

la: De hoc exemplo cfr. infra lit. Magistri, d. XI. c. 3.

en: On this example cf. below the text of the Master, d. XI, c. 3.

en: Philippians 2:7.

la: Cod. O supplet *exemplum*; Vat., omisso *invenire*, prosequitur *sed tantum secundum humanam*.

en: Codex O supplies *exemplum*; the Vatican edition, omitting *invenire*, continues *sed tantum secundum humanam*.

la: Cfr. de hoc dubio Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 6. m. 2. a. 2. in corp.; B. Albert., hic a. 2; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.; Aegid. R., hic dub. lit. 2.

en: On this doubt cf. Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, pt. III, q. 6, m. 2, a. 2, in the body; Bl. Albert, here a. 2; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text; Aegidius Romanus, here dub. on the text, 2.

la: Cod. A *hereditatem*. Voci *regni* cod. U annectit *caelestis*.

en: Codex A reads *hereditatem*. To the word *regni* codex U attaches *caelestis*.

la: Edd. sic: *et haec quodam modo non conveniret Angelis ratione filiationis*. Paulo inferius pro *sive quia potuit* cod. U *sive quae potuit*. Post pauca pro *adoptivos* edd. *adoptionis*.

en: The editions read thus: *et haec quodam modo non conveniret Angelis ratione filiationis*. A little below, for *sive quia potuit* codex U reads *sive quae potuit*. Shortly after, for *adoptivos* the editions read *adoptionis*.

la: Cfr. supra a. 2. q. 1. in corp. et q. 2. ad 1. 2; Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 10. m. 6. a. 5; B. Albert., hic a. 12; S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2; Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 2.

en: Cf. above a. 2, q. 1, in the body, and q. 2, ad 1 and 2; Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, pt. III, q. 10, m. 6, a. 5; Bl. Albert, here a. 12; St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 2, sub-question 2; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 2.

la: Vide supra d. 4. a. 2. q. 3. et a. 3. q. 2; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.; Aegid. R., hic dub. lit. 5.

en: See above d. 4, a. 2, q. 3, and a. 3, q. 2; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text; Aegidius Romanus, here dub. on the text, 5.

la: Codd. I L Z aa *per*.

en: Codices I L Z aa read *per*.

la: Dist. 9. q. 2. et dub. 3. nec non d. 26. dub. 7. — Mox post *substantiae* cod. bb addit *et conformitate rationis*.

en: Distinction 9, q. 2, and dub. 3, as well as d. 26, dub. 7. — Shortly after, following *substantiae* codex bb adds *et conformitate rationis*.

la: Cod. U *fit*.

en: Codex U reads *fit*.

la: Complures codd. cum edd. *qui habet per conformitatem naturam imaginis*; nostram lectionem veriorem defendunt codd. A G P Q bb.

en: Several codices together with the editions read *qui habet per conformitatem naturam imaginis*; codices A G P Q bb defend our reading as the truer one.

la: Cfr. supra d. 4. dub. 2. seq.; B. Albert., hic a. 17; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.; Aegid. R., hic dub. lit. 8-10.

en: Cf. above d. 4, dub. 2 and following; Bl. Albert, here a. 17; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text; Aegidius Romanus, here dub. on the text, 8-10.

la: Secundum Aristot., de Praedicam. c. 1.

en: According to Aristotle, *On the Categories*, c. 1.

la: Vers. 17. — Gregor., II. Homil. in Evang. homil. 25. n. 6. ait: *Cum meum dicat et vestrum, cur non communiter dicit nostrum? Sed distincte loquens indicat, quia eundem Patrem et Deum dissimiliter habeat ipse quam nos. Ascendo ad Patrem meum, videlicet per naturam, et Patrem vestrum per gratiam* etc.

en: Verse 17. — Gregory, *II Homilies on the Gospel*, homily 25, n. 6, says: *Since he says both "mine" and "yours," why does he not say "ours" in common? But speaking distinctly he indicates that he himself has the same Father and God otherwise than we do. "I ascend to my Father," namely by nature, "and your Father" by grace*, etc.

la: Codd. A T V et alii *esse*. In fine arg. post *absurdum est* cod. U subiicit *dicere*.

en: Codices A T V and others read *esse*. At the end of the argument, after *absurdum est*, codex U subjoins *dicere*.

la: Eph. 3, 15. Cfr. supra a. 2. q. 2. seq. et d. 8. a. 2. q. 2. — Paulo superius ante *per conformationem* edd. omittunt *et*.

en: Ephesians 3:15. Cf. above a. 2, q. 2 and following, and d. 8, a. 2, q. 2. — A little above, before *per conformationem* the editions omit *et*.

la: Cfr. de hoc dubio Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 10. m. 6. a. 1; B. Albert., hic a. 16.

en: On this doubt cf. Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, pt. III, q. 10, m. 6, a. 1; Bl. Albert, here a. 16. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (PDF-priority inversion per the Vol II/III override) for printed pp.238–241 (PDF 260–263; offset pdf = printed + 22), cross-checked against IA djvu OCR raw lines 16923–17085. Fresh literal English translation doubt-by-doubt. `has_scholion: false` — the *Dubia circa litteram* carry no scholion (none printed; the running heads read `DIST. X. DUBIA.`).

**Dubia count.** Five dubia verified against the PDF column bands: Dub. I (the threefold/fourfold sense of *secundum*), Dub. II (whether the unfallen were adopted sons), Dub. III (Christ son of the Virgin naturally and by grace), Dub. IV (Hilary's four differences of sonship), Dub. V (Ambrose: equivocity of sonship in us and in Christ). Each has its own *Respondeo*.

**Page-split map** (printed → content):
- **p.238** (bottom of L col → R col): DUBIA header + Dub. I opener (`In parte ista … conditionem`). The DUBIA opener begins in the L column of p.238 directly after d10-a2-q3's close (`… adoptio ad totam Trinitatem spectat.`). p.238 footers split by body anchor: only n.**1** anchors in this chunk's body (Dub. I, `conditionem naturae`); the remaining p.238 footers (nn.2–9, the q3 sequence printed in the same footer block) belonged to the prior chunk d10-a2-q3 and were captured there. **Footer hand-off received: NONE** (prior chunk forwarded none) — and confirmed: the q3 share of p.238 is fully held in d10-a2-q3.
- **p.239** (Dub. I cont. → Dub. III): footers nn.1–13 (1–7 L col, 8–13 R col). Running head `DIST. X. DUBIA.`, page number 239.
- **p.240** (Dub. IV + Dub. V): footers nn.1–10 (1–6 L col, 7–10 R col). Running head `SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`, page number 240.
- **p.241** (top only — Dub. V close): footer n.1 (`Cfr. de hoc dubio Alex. Hal. … B. Albert., hic a. 16`), sitting above the `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` separator that opens d.11's notes. Running head `DISTINCTIO XI.`, page number 241.

**Apparatus total:** 24 entries — p.238 n.1; p.239 nn.1–13; p.240 nn.1–10; p.241 n.1. Markers are page-suffixed to keep the four per-page restarted sequences distinct (e.g. `238-1`, `239-1`, `240-1`, `241-1`).

**Boundary lock.** DISTINCTIO XI begins at raw line **17086** (running-head `DISTINCTIO XI.`), immediately after Dub. V's closing sentence (`… quamvis non sit filius naturalis[^241-1].`) at the top of p.241. The d.11 Lombard littera (`DISTINCTIO XI / CAP. I / Utrum Christus sit creatura, vel factus`) is the next semantic unit and is NOT part of this chunk. **Confirmed NO footer leaks into d.11:** the p.241 dubia footer (n.1) is held here; d.11's own apparatus begins below the `NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM` line on p.241 and is not touched.

**`[?]` flags.** None. All five doubts, all *Respondeo* bodies, and all 24 apparatus entries read cleanly from the 450 dpi column bands; no illegible spots.

**DISTINCTIO X is now COMPLETE** (divisio + a1 q1–q3 + a2 q1–q3 + dubia). The Vol III **d.1–d.10 DECADE-POLISH GATE is now due** — per CLAUDE.md "Polish-blocker cadence," the next action is the three-pass d.1–d.10 polish-blocker, NOT d.11 translation.