Dist. 10, Art. 2, Q. 1
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/3/d/10/q/bon-sent-III-d10-a2-q1
----------------------------------------
### Article II. *On the sonship of adoption.*

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

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

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

*(Arguments for the affirmative side.)*

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

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

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

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

**On the contrary:**

*(For the negative side.)*

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

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

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

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

### Conclusion.

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

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

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

**To the arguments for the affirmative side:**

*(Solution of the opposed [arguments].)*

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

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

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

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