Reply Obj. 2: Angels are called sons of G.o.d by adoptive sonship, 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,_ Sonship 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 sonship of adoption is a partic.i.p.ated likeness of natural sonship: 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 sonship 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 sonship. 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.
Obj. 3: Further, just as that which has been made was not always, so also that which was predestinated; since predestination implies a certain antecedence. But, because Christ was always G.o.d and the Son of G.o.d, it cannot be said that that Man was "made the Son of G.o.d."
Therefore, for a like reason, we ought not to say that Christ was "predestinated the Son of G.o.d."
_On the contrary,_ The Apostle says, speaking of Christ (Rom. 1:4): "Who was predestinated the Son of G.o.d in power."
_I answer that,_ As is clear from what has been said in the First Part (Q. 23, AA. 1, 2), predestination, in its proper sense, is a certain Divine preordination from eternity of those things which are to be done in time by the grace of G.o.d. Now, that man is G.o.d, and that G.o.d is man, is something done in time by G.o.d through the grace of union. Nor can it be said that G.o.d has not from eternity pre-ordained to do this in time: since it would follow that something would come anew into the Divine Mind. And we must needs admit that the union itself of natures in the Person of Christ falls under the eternal predestination of G.o.d. For this reason do we say that Christ was predestinated.
Reply Obj. 1: The Apostle there speaks of that predestination by which we are predestinated to be adopted sons. And just as Christ in a singular manner above all others is the natural Son of G.o.d, so in a singular manner is He predestinated.
Reply Obj. 2: As a gloss [*From St. Augustine, De Praed. Sanct. xv]
says on Rom. 1:4, some understood that predestination to refer to the nature and not to the Person--that is to say, that on human nature was bestowed the grace of being united to the Son of G.o.d in unity of Person.
But in that case the phrase of the Apostle would be improper, for two reasons. First, for a general reason: for we do not speak of a person"s nature, but of his person, as being predestinated: because to be predestinated is to be directed towards salvation, which belongs to a suppositum acting for the end of beat.i.tude. Secondly, for a special reason. Because to be Son of G.o.d is not befitting to human nature; for this proposition is false: "The human nature is the Son of G.o.d": unless one were to force from it such an exposition as: "Who was predestinated the Son of G.o.d in power"--that is, "It was predestinated that the Human nature should be united to the Son of G.o.d in the Person."
Hence we must attribute predestination to the Person of Christ: not, indeed, in Himself or as subsisting in the Divine Nature, but as subsisting in the human nature. Wherefore the Apostle, after saying, "Who was made to Him of the seed of David according to the flesh,"
added, "Who was predestinated the Son of G.o.d in power": so as to give us to understand that in respect of His being of the seed of David according to the flesh, He was predestinated the Son of G.o.d in power.
For although it is natural to that Person, considered in Himself, to be the Son of G.o.d in power, yet this is not natural to Him, considered in the human nature, in respect of which this befits Him according to the grace of union.
Reply Obj. 3: Origen commenting on Rom. 1:4 says that the true reading of this pa.s.sage of the Apostle is: "Who was destined to be the Son of G.o.d in power"; so that no antecedence is implied. And so there would be no difficulty. Others refer the antecedence implied in the participle "predestinated," not to the fact of being the Son of G.o.d, but to the manifestation thereof, according to the customary way of speaking in Holy Scripture, by which things are said to take place when they are made known; so that the sense would be--"Christ was predestinated to be made known as the Son of G.o.d." But this is an improper signification of predestination. For a person is properly said to be predestinated by reason of his being directed to the end of beat.i.tude: but the beat.i.tude of Christ does not depend on our knowledge thereof.
It is therefore better to say that the antecedence implied in the participle "predestinated" is to be referred to the Person not in Himself, but by reason of the human nature: since, although that Person was the Son of G.o.d from eternity, it was not always true that one subsisting in human nature was the Son of G.o.d. Hence Augustine says (De Praedest. Sanct. xv): "Jesus was predestinated, so that He Who according to the flesh was to be the son of David, should be nevertheless Son of G.o.d in power."
Moreover, it must be observed that, although the participle "predestinated," just as this participle "made," implies antecedence, yet there is a difference. For "to be made" belongs to the thing in itself: whereas "to be predestinated" belongs to someone as being in the apprehension of one who pre-ordains. Now that which is the subject of a form or nature in reality, can be apprehended either as under that form or absolutely. And since it cannot be said absolutely of the Person of Christ that He began to be the Son of G.o.d, yet this is becoming to Him as understood or apprehended to exist in human nature, because at one time it began to be true that one existing in human nature was the Son of G.o.d; therefore this proposition--"Christ was predestinated the Son of G.o.d"--is truer than this--"Christ was made the Son of G.o.d."
_______________________
SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 24, Art. 2]
Whether This Proposition Is False: "Christ As Man Was Predestinated to Be the Son of G.o.d"?
Objection 1: It would seem that this proposition is false: "Christ as man was predestinated to be the Son of G.o.d." For at some time a man is that which he was predestinated to be: since G.o.d"s predestination does not fail. If, therefore, Christ as man was predestinated the Son of G.o.d, it seems to follow that as man He is the Son of G.o.d. But the latter is false. Therefore the former is false.
Obj. 2: Further, what is befitting to Christ as man is befitting to any man; since He belongs to the same species as other men. If, therefore, Christ, as man, was predestinated the Son of G.o.d, it will follow that this is befitting to any other man. But the latter is false. Therefore the former is false.
Obj. 3: Further, that is predestinated from eternity which is to take place at some time. But this proposition, "The Son of G.o.d was made man," is truer than this, "Man was made the Son of G.o.d." Therefore this proposition, "Christ, as the Son of G.o.d, was predestinated to be man," is truer than this, "Christ as Man was predestinated to be the Son of G.o.d."
_On the contrary,_ Augustine (De Praedest. Sanct. xv) says: "Forasmuch as G.o.d the Son was made Man, we say that the Lord of Glory was predestinated."
_I answer that,_ Two things may be considered in predestination. One on the part of eternal predestination itself: and in this respect it implies a certain antecedence in regard to that which comes under predestination. Secondly, predestination may be considered as regards its temporal effect, which is some gratuitous gift of G.o.d. Therefore from both points of view we must say that predestination is ascribed to Christ by reason of His human nature alone: for human nature was not always united to the Word; and by grace bestowed on it was it united in Person to the Son of G.o.d. Consequently, by reason of human nature alone can predestination be attributed to Christ. Wherefore Augustine says (De Praedest. Sanct. xv): "This human nature of ours was predestinated to be raised to so great, so lofty, so exalted a position, that it would be impossible to raise it higher." Now that is said to belong to anyone as man which belongs to him by reason of human nature. Consequently, we must say that "Christ, as Man, was predestinated the Son of G.o.d."
Reply Obj. 1: When we say, "Christ, as Man, was predestinated the Son of G.o.d," this qualification, "as Man," can be referred in two ways to the action signified by the participle. First, as regards what comes under predestination materially, and thus it is false. For the sense would be that it was predestinated that Christ, as Man, should be the Son of G.o.d. And in this sense the objection takes it.
Secondly, it may be referred to the very nature of the action itself: that is, forasmuch as predestination implies antecedence and gratuitous effect. And thus predestination belongs to Christ by reason of His human nature, as stated above. And in this sense He is said to be predestinated as Man.
Reply Obj. 2: Something may be befitting to a man by reason of human nature, in two ways. First, so that human nature be the cause thereof: thus risibility is befitting to Socrates by reason of human nature, being caused by its principles. In this manner predestination is not befitting either to Christ or to any other man, by reason of human nature. This is the sense of the objection. Secondly, a thing may be befitting to someone by reason of human nature, because human nature is susceptible of it. And in this sense we say that Christ was predestinated by reason of human nature; because predestination refers to the exaltation of human nature in Him, as stated above.
Reply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (Praedest. Sanct. xv): "The Word of G.o.d a.s.sumed Man to Himself in such a singular and ineffable manner that at the same time He may be truly and correctly called the Son of Man, because He a.s.sumed Man to Himself; and the Son of G.o.d, because it was the Only-begotten of G.o.d Who a.s.sumed human nature."
Consequently, since this a.s.sumption comes under predestination by reason of its being gratuitous, we can say both that the Son of G.o.d was predestinated to be man, and that the Son of Man was predestinated to be the Son of G.o.d. But because grace was not bestowed on the Son of G.o.d that He might be man, but rather on human nature, that it might be united to the Son of G.o.d; it is more proper to say that "Christ, as Man, was predestinated to be the Son of G.o.d,"