Part IV (Tertia Pars) Part 40 (1/2)

Reply Obj. 2: Angels are called sons of G.o.d by adoptive sons.h.i.+p, not that it belongs to them first; but because they were the first to receive the adoption of sons.

Reply Obj. 3: Adoption is a property resulting not from nature, but from grace, of which the rational nature is capable. Therefore it need not belong to every rational nature: but every rational creature must needs be capable of adoption.

_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 23, Art. 4]

Whether Christ As Man Is the Adopted Son of G.o.d?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ as man is the adopted Son of G.o.d. For Hilary says (De Trin. ii) speaking of Christ: ”The dignity of power is not forfeited when carnal humanity [*Some editions read 'humilitas'--'the humility or lowliness of the flesh'] is adopted.”

Therefore Christ as man is the adopted Son of G.o.d.

Obj. 2: Further, Augustine says (De Praedest. Sanct. xv) that ”by the same grace that Man is Christ, as from the birth of faith every man is a Christian.” But other men are Christians by the grace of adoption. Therefore this Man is Christ by adoption: and consequently He would seem to be an adopted son.

Obj. 3: Further, Christ, as man, is a servant. But it is of greater dignity to be an adopted son than to be a servant. Therefore much more is Christ, as man, an adopted Son.

_On the contrary,_ Ambrose says (De Incarn. viii): ”We do not call an adopted son a natural son: the natural son is a true son.” But Christ is the true and natural Son of G.o.d, according to 1 John 5:20: ”That we may ... be in His true Son, Jesus Christ.” Therefore Christ, as Man, is not an adopted Son.

_I answer that,_ Sons.h.i.+p belongs properly to the hypostasis or person, not to the nature; whence in the First Part (Q. 32, A. 3) we have stated that Filiation is a personal property. Now in Christ there is no other than the uncreated person or hypostasis, to Whom it belongs by nature to be the Son. But it has been said above (A. 1, ad 2), that the sons.h.i.+p of adoption is a partic.i.p.ated likeness of natural sons.h.i.+p: nor can a thing be said to partic.i.p.ate in what it has essentially. Therefore Christ, Who is the natural Son of G.o.d, can nowise be called an adopted Son.

But according to those who suppose two persons or two hypostases or two supposita in Christ, no reason prevents Christ being called the adopted Son of G.o.d.

Reply Obj. 1: As sons.h.i.+p does not properly belong to the nature, so neither does adoption. Consequently, when it is said that ”carnal humanity is adopted,” the expression is metaphorical: and adoption is used to signify the union of human nature to the Person of the Son.

Reply Obj. 2: This comparison of Augustine is to be referred to the principle because, to wit, just as it is granted to any man without meriting it to be a Christian, so did it happen that this man without meriting it was Christ. But there is a difference on the part of the term: because by the grace of union Christ is the natural Son; whereas another man by habitual grace is an adopted son. Yet habitual grace in Christ does not make one who was not a son to be an adopted son, but is a certain effect of Filiation in the soul of Christ, according to John 1:14: ”We saw His glory ... as it were of the Only-begotten of the Father; full of grace and truth.”

Reply Obj. 3: To be a creature, as also to be subservient or subject to G.o.d, regards not only the person, but also the nature: but this cannot be said of sons.h.i.+p. Wherefore the comparison does not hold.

_______________________

QUESTION 24

OF THE PREDESTINATION OF CHRIST (In Four Articles)

We shall now consider the predestination of Christ. Under this head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether Christ was predestinated?

(2) Whether He was predestinated as man?

(3) Whether His predestination is the exemplar of ours?

(4) Whether it is the cause of our predestination?

_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 24, Art. 1]

Whether It Is Befitting That Christ Should Be Predestinated?

Objection 1: It would seem unfitting that Christ should be predestinated. For the term of anyone's predestination seems to be the adoption of sons, according to Eph. 1:5: ”Who hath predestinated us unto the adoption of children.” But it is not befitting to Christ to be an adopted Son, as stated above (Q. 23, A. 4). Therefore it is not fitting that Christ be predestinated.

Obj. 2: Further, we may consider two things in Christ: His human nature and His person. But it cannot be said that Christ is predestinated by reason of His human nature; for this proposition is false--”The human nature is Son of G.o.d.” In like manner neither by reason of the person; for this person is the Son of G.o.d, not by grace, but by nature: whereas predestination regards what is of grace, as stated in the First Part, Q. 23, AA. 2, 5. Therefore Christ was not predestinated to be the Son of G.o.d.