Dist. 8, 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/8/q/bon-sent-III-d8-a2-q3
----------------------------------------
### Question III. *Whether Christ is a natural son by reason of each nativity, namely the temporal and the eternal.*

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

*(Foundations.)*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

### Conclusion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---