Dist. 10, Art. 2, Q. 3
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-q3
----------------------------------------
### 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 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: *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: 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*: 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: 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; 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: 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: 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; 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*. 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*; 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. 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 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 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.

---