I. Adoptionism and the Church. — a) To-

wards the close of the eighth century, Archbishop EHpandus, of Toledo, and his disciple Felix, Bishop of Urgel in Catalonia, taught that there is a twofold filiation in Christ, and that, as man. He is not the natural, but only an adopted Son of God. The Adoptionists appealed to Holy Scripture, to the writings of Isidore of Sevilla, and to certain ambiguous phrases in the Mozara- bic liturgy in support of their false teaching.
b) Contemporary theologians of the stamp of Beatus of Astorga, Agobard of Lyons, Paulinus of Aquileja, Richbod of Treves, and especially Alcuin, soon perceived that the doctrine of a twofold filiation involved the heresy of a double personality in Christ, and that, consequently, Adoptionism was merely a new form of Nestori- anism. Pope Hadrian the First took the same view. In a dogmatic epistle (A. D. 785) he warned the Spanish bishops against the poisonous doctrines of EHpandus and his followers, "who
ADOPTIONISM 197
do not blush to affirm that the Son of God is an adopted son, — a blasphemy which no other here- tic has dared to enunciate, except the perfidious Nestorius, who claimed that the Son of God is a mere man." ^ Adoptionism was solemnly con- demned at a council held "by Apostolic authority" in Frankfort, A. D. 794.^
2. Adoptionism Refuted from Divine Revelation. — Since Adoptionism is little more than a thinly veiled Nestorianism, it is scarcely necessary to enter into its refutation after what we have said against the latter heresy.^
Felix and Elipandus succeeded in veiling the heretical implications of their teaching by a dialectic device, which logic enables us to expose by means of the so-called supposition of terms. " Even where we are dealing with one and the same univocal term, there are various ways in which it may be construed. The same term may stand for something different." * Thus, in the proposition : " Christ as man is the true and natural Son of God," the phrase " as man " may be construed as meaning " Christ according to His humanity," ^ or " Christ re- garded as this particular man." ® In the last-mentioned case " this particular man " is identical with the Divine
1 Cfr. Denringer-Bannwart, En- Vol. I. Cfr. also the Kirchenlexi- chiridion, n. 299. kon, 2nd ed.. Vol. I, 242 sqq.
2 Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 311 sqq. Z Supra, pp. 89 sqq.
Cfr. H. K. Mann, The Lives of -t G. H. Joyce, S. J., Principles
the Popes in the Early Middle Ages, of Logic, pp. 37 sq., London 1908.
Vol. I, Part II, pp. 439 sqq., Lon- i = secundum humanitatem. This
don 1902. On the Neo- Adoptionism is what logicians call the sensus
of Abelard and the qualified Adop- formalis rednplicativus.
tionism of certain later theologians 6 ;zz ut hie homo. This is techni-
see J. F. Sollier, art. " Adoption- cally called the sensus specificativus. ism " in the Catholic Encyclopedia,
198 UNITY IN DUALITY
Hypostasis of the Logos, and thus understood the prop- osition is unexceptionable. But to assert, as the Adop- tionists did, that " Christ [regarded as this particular man] is the Son of God not by generation, but by adop- tion, not by nature, but by grace," "^ is to assert the exist- ence of two persons in Christ and to deny the Hypostatic Union of the two natures. Hence the dogmatic prin- ciple : " Christ, regarded as this particular man, is not an adoptive but the natural Son of God," ^ is merely an application of the doctrine of the Communication of Idioms.
a) Adoptionism is unscriptural. The Bible nowhere refers to Jesus as the adopted Son of God, but consistently calls Him the true, the only- begotten, and the only Son of God in the strict sense of these terms.
When, e. g., St. John speaks of " the only-begotten Son of God who is in the bosom of the Father," ® he evidently refers to Jesus. St. Paul, too, in teaching: God " spared not even his own Son, but delivered him up for us all," " plainly says that the Person who was delivered up was God's own {i. e., natural) Son. And when Jesus after His baptism emerged from the Jordan, the voice of the Father spoke from heaven : " This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." "
The Adoptionists appealed to Rom. I, 4: " Who was predestinated the Son of God (6piadevTo He who is predestined to be the Son of God, they ar-
7 " Christum [ut hunc hominem] 8 " Christus, ut hie homo, est
non geticre esse Filium Dei, sed Filius Dei naturalis, non adoptivus."
adoptione, non naturd, sed gratid." 0 John I, i8.
Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiri- lO Rom. VHI, 33.
dion. n. 311. 11 Matth. Ill, 17.
ADOPTIONISM 199
gued, cannot be the natural Son of God, but a son by grace only, i. e., by adoption. The majority of the Greek Fathers,^- however, do not interpret opi^eiv in the sense of "predestine" (Trpoopi^eiv) , but in the sense of " show," " prove," " demonstrate, " and they translate the Pauline text as follows : " The Son of God was shown (demonstrated, proved) to be such by His resurrection." This interpretation is borne out by the context.^' But even if we accept the word " praedestinatus," which is supported by the authority of the Vulgate, the Latin Fathers, Irenseus, and Epiphanius, as a correct trans- lation of bpiadcvTos, Rom. I, 4 furnishes no argument in favor of Adoptionism. The obvious meaning of the text would then be : " The man Jesus was predestined by the Hypostatic Union to be the natural Son of God." Or, as St. Augustine puts it: "Jesus was predestined, so that He who was to be the Son of David according to the flesh, should yet be in power the Son of God." ^* The notion that the only-begotten Son of God was pre- destined to be an adoptive son of His Father, is posi- tively repugnant to the Christological teaching of St. Paul."
b) The earlier Fathers had implicitly rejected Adoptionism in their teaching on the Hypostatic Union.
a) Many relevant Patristic texts have been collected by Alcuin in his Liber adversus Haeresin Felicis}^ St.
12 E. g., St. Chrysostom, Horn, in tiem filius David, esset tamen in Rom., II, n. 2. virlute Filius Dei." {De Praedest.
13 Cfr. the commentary of Estius Sanctor., XV, n. 31.)
upon this passage; also Suarez, De 15 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Divine
Incarn., disp. 50, sect. 2. Trinity, pp. 56 sqq.
14 " Praedestinatus est ergo lesus, 16 Reprinted in Migne, P. L., CI, ut qui ^uturus erat secundum car- 87 sqq.
200 UNITY IN DUALITY
Augustine appeals to the Bible. " Read, therefore, the Scriptures," he says, " nowhere will you find it said that Christ is a Son by adoption." ^'^ St. John of Damas- cus says in a recently discovered treatise against the Nes- torians : " We confess, therefore, in regard to our Lord Jesus Christ, who is one of the Holy Trinity [that He has] two natures, each perfect according to its own defini- tion and concept, lest we introduce a change or commix- ture, but only one hypostasis, lest we allow a duality of persons and a fourth person to slip into the Trinity. For the nature constitutes [not causally, but formally] an- other [being], while the hypostasis determines another [one and a] person." Professor Fr. Diekamp of Miin- ster, to whom we are indebted for our knowledge of this treatise, comments on it as follows : " Damascene's pur- pose is to demonstrate the unity of the Divine Hypo- stasis. He begins by introducing one argument on which all others depend, namely, that the assumption of two hypostases in Christ would necessarily entail the assumption of a twofold sonship and of a fourth person in the Godhead." ^^
)8) The only Patristic objection that can be urged against our dogma is drawn from the writings of St. Hilary. " Potestatis dignitas non amittitur," he
17 Contr, Secund. Manich., 5 : Tptd5oj, Bvo fiev vaeLs^ eKOLffTiiv " Lege itaque Scripturas, nusquam reXelav Kara rhv eai'T^s &pov re invenies de Christo dictum, quod icoi Xoyov, tva fii] rpoirr}v ij adoptione sit filius." Cfr. also his avyx^vffiv elffdywfiev^ filav de ttjv Tract, in loa., VII, 4: " Oportebat v7r6(TTacni>, tva fiT] 8vdda vlwv Kal ergo ut ille baptisaret, qui est Filius rerapTov rji rpidSi Trapeiaevey Dei unicus, non adoptatus. Adop- KUfiev irpSffunoV' if fiev yap v tati Filii ministri sunt unici; unicus &\\o iroiei, i/ de inrdcTTaffis &Wov habet potestatem, adoptati ministe- Kal Trp6cwvov d rium." ologischc Quartalschrift (Tubingen),
18 Here is the passage in the 1901, pp. 561 sqq. On the subject- original Greek: " 'O/ioXoyovfiey matter of this paragraph the stu- TOiyapovv enl rov Kvplov iiixuv dent may consult Petavius, De hi- 'Irjffoii Xpiarov, rov evbs rijs iylas cam., VII, 2 sqq.
SCHOLASTIC CONTROVERSIES 201
says, " diim carnis humilitas adoptatiir." ^^ But, as St. Thomas points out, adoptatiir in this passage can only refer to the union of Christ's human nature with the Person of the Divine Logos.-" This interpretation is in perfect accord with another passage from the same work where St. Hilary says: " Miilti nos filii Dei, sed non talis hie Filius; hie enim et verus et proprius est Fi- lius, origine, non adoptione, veritate, non nunciipatione, nativitate, non creatione." -^ It is indeed true that the Mozarabic liturgy contains such expressions as " adoptio Christi" and refers to Jesus as "homo adoptivus" ; but it nowhere employs the term " Ulius adoptivus," and the context shows that adoptare is used for assiimere, homo cuioptiviis being therefore equivalent to homo assumptus, i. e. inearnatus.
3. rfHEOLOGiCAL CONTROVERSIES. — The funda- mental fallacy of Adoptionism is brought into clearer light by the Scholastic controversies which arose over two cognate questions, namely: (i) Is there room for a second filiation based on grace besides the natural sonship of Christ resulting from the Hypostatic Union? and (2) Is the Di- vine Sonship of Jesus Christ based on more than one title ?
a) Durandus-^ and numerous Scotist theologians-^ admit that Jesus, as this specific man, was the natural
19 De Trinit., II, 27. Other re- humanae naturae ad personam censions have adoratur instead of Filii."
adoptatur. ' . 21 De Trinit., Ill, 11.
20 S. TheoL, 3a, qu. 23, art. 4, 22 Comment, in Quatuor Libros ad 4: " Impropria est locutio, et Sent., Ill, dist. 4, qu. i. accipitur ibi adoptatio pro unione 23 Scotus himself seems to have
202 UNITY IN DUALITY
and not merely an adopted Son of God,^* but contend that there was room for a second filiation, parallel to the first, and resulting from grace. It is the essen- tial function of sanctifying grace, they argued, to elevate him in whom it indwells to the state of adoptive son- ship. But sanctifying grace indwelled in the human soul of Christ. Consequently, Christ, as man, is not only the natural Son of the Father, but also an adoptive Son of the Trinity. This view, while not identical with the Adoptionist heresy of Felix and Elipandus,^^ is false and dangerous. The same arguments which Pope Hadrian the First and the Council of Frankfort marshalled against Adoptionism can be effectively urged against Durandus' theory of Christ's adoptive sonship. Adop- tion is commonly defined with St. Thomas as " an act of grace by which a stranger is constituted or installed as son and heir." ^^ Therefore, " Christ cannot be called the adopted Son of God, except it be supposed that he is not one Person with the Logos, or that the Logos, by assuming human nature, lost His natural Sonship and became something foreign to God." ^^ He who is by nature the Son of God, cannot become an adopted son by grace, because He already possesses more than the rights and privileges which adoption confers. Hence the Coun- cil of Frankfort says : " Adoptivus diet non potest nisi is qui alienus est ah eo, a quo dicitur adoptatus," ^* i. e., Adoption presupposes that the person to be adopted is not
been guilty of inconsistency in his traneae in filium et haeredem treatment of this question. gratuita assumptio." S. Theol,, 3a,
24 They were ignorant of the de- qu. 23, art. 1.
cision of the Council of Frankfort, 27 Wilhelm-Scannell, A Manual
but held its doctrine. of Catholic Theology, Vol. II, p.
25 As Vasquez asserts in his Com- 128.
mentary on the Sumtna Theologica 28 Cfr. Hardouin, Concil., IV,
of St. Thomas, p. 3, disp. 89. 875.
20 " Adoptio est personae ex-
SCHOLASTIC CONTROVERSIES 203
a son but a stranger to the adopting Father. It follows that Christ possessed sanctifying grace, which elevates men to the dignity of " children of God," merely as an ornament,'^ because, in the words of Suarez, He " was incapable of being adopted." ^** This idea is emphasized by the Council of Frankfort : " Unde in Dei Filitim non cadit nomen adoptionis, quia semper verus Filius, sem- per Dominns, ac per hoc et post assumptum hominem veri Filii vocahuliim non amisit, qui numquam verus desiit esse Filius." ^^
Holy Scripture and the Fathers never predicate adop- tive sonship of Christ. On the contrary, they accentuate the fact that, whereas men are children of God by law (i. e., by adoption), Christ is the natural Son of God in the true and strict sense of the term.^-
b) Suarez ^^ and Vasquez ^* take a different view. They reject the idea of adoptive filiation and contend that as Christ's eternal yewrjaK is inadequate to explain His Divine Sonship, there must be a secondary reason why, as man. He is the natural Son of God, This secondar}^ reason, ac- cording to their theory, which they base on Heb. I, 2, is the state of grace proper to Christ, as man, by virtue of the Hypostatic Union. It is this state of grace which en- tails the " divine heritage." This supplementary divine filiation does not, however, rest on generation in the strict sense of the term, and hence Suarez and Vasquez are
29 Ornatus. Kara fil/iTjaiv ' Kara
ZoDe Incarn., disp. 49, sect 2, Kal Kara a\ri0eiav avrbs — We
n. 5. have been called sons of God by
31 See Hardouin, Concil., IV, adoption and imitation, but He [is
877. Cfr. also De Lugo, De Myst. the Son of God] in nature and
Incarn., disp. 31, sect. i. truth." Cfr. Billuart, De Incarn.,
52 Thus Cyril of Alexandria, diss. 21, art. 2, § 3.
In loa., I, 12 (Migne, P. G., 33 De Incarn., disp. 49, sect. 1 sq.
LXXIII, 153) : viol 5e iifieh kc- 31 Comment, in S. Th., Ill, disp.
K\ri/J.eda Qeov Kara deaiv Kal 89, c 14.
14
204 UNITY IN DUALITY
constrained to admit two preposterous and indemonstra- ble corollaries : ( i ) that, side by side with natural filia- tion in Christ there exists another, which is figurative or analogical ; and (2) that the man Jesus is the natural Son not only of the Father, but of the whole Blessed Trin- ity. Vasquez appeals to Pope Hadrian's remark that the exclamation " This is my beloved Son " proceeded from the whole Trinity, and not from the Father alone, and that it was addressed to Christ as man rather than as God. But Hadrian does not say that the Trinity ad- dressed Christ as its Son; he merely says that it ad- dressed Him as " Son of the Father," and was well pleased in Him as such. The idea of a secondary natural filia- tion based on Christ's humanity is as foreign to the Fathers as the notion of adoptive sonship which it entails. A secondary natural filiation in the strict sense can have its ontological cause only in generation by the Father ; in a figurative and analogical sense it is equivalent to that adoptive sonship which is based upon human sanctity and divine inheritance, and which Suarez and Vasquez reject. If the concept of Christ's natural (divine) son- ship be founded on something besides the relation of generation between Father and Son, the difficulties be- come labyrinthine. If the eternal yevvrjcrK were not the only source of natural sonship in the Godhead, the Holy Ghost, too, might be called the natural Son of God, and Christ, as man, would be the natural son of the Holy Ghost, nay of the Logos, and consequently His own Son. To escape such absurdities it is necessary to hold that natural divine sonship is based solely on eternal genera- tion and not on the fact that " Christ as man is sanctified and has a title to the divine inheritance." ^^ St. Thomas says : " Christus est Filius Dei secundum perfectam ra-
8S Suarez, /. c, sect. 2, n. 30.
SCHOLASTIC CONTROVERSIES 205
tionem filiationts; iinde quamzns secundum humanam na- ttiram sit creatus et iustificatus, non tamen debet diet Fi- lms Dei neqiie ratione creationis neque ratione iustifica- tionis, sed solum ratione generationis aeternae, secundum quam est Filius solius Patris. Et idea nullo modo debet did Christus Filius Spirit us S. nee etiam totius Trini- tatis." 3«
The weakest point of the theory is the corollary, ex- pressly admitted by Suarez, that Christ, as man, would have to be called " the natural Son of the Trinity." This preposterous idea is opposed to the teaching of St. Au- gustine," and especially to that of St. Fulgentius, who says: " Proinde non solum lesum Christum Ulium Trini- tatis omnino non dicimus, sed etiam sic coniitetmir lesum Christum solius Dei Patris Filium, ut eum nullatenus separemus. Magnae quippe impietatis est, alium putare Christum, alium lesum Christum, qiium unus sit utique Dei et hominis Filius lesus Christus, Filius scil. solius Pa- tris, non totius utique Trinitatis." ^* In vain do Suarez and Vasquez urge that if the Father or the Holy Ghost would become incarnate, either would thereby become Son of God, i. e., Son of the entire Trinity. " Such a man," retorts De Lugo, " would not be an adoptive son, because he would not be a stranger, nor a natural son, be- cause not produced by natural generation." In virtue of the Communication of Idioms the incarnate Father would yet be none other than the Father, and the Holy Ghost none other than the Holy Ghost, though in His human nature each would appear as " Son of Man." ^^
36 S. TheoL. 3a, qu. 32, art. 3. 39 De Lugo, De Myst. Incarn.,
37 Enchir., c. 38 sqq. disp. 3 1 , sect. 3,
38 Fragm. c. Fabian., c. 32.
2o6 UNITY IN DUALITY
Readings : -^ De Lugo, De Mysterio Incarnationis, disp. 31, sect. I sqq. — Enhuber, Dissert, de Haeresi Adoptianorum (Migne, P. L., CI). — 'J. Bach, Dogmengeschichte des Mittelalters, Vol. I, pp. 102 sqq., Wien 1873. — * Hefele, Konsiliengeschichie, 2nd ed., Vol. Ill, pp. 630 sqq., Freiburg 1877. — J. A. Ketterer, Karl der Grosse und die Kirche, Miinchen 1898. — K. Giannoni, Paulinus II., Patriarch von Aquileja, Wien 1896. — E. H. Limborgh, Alcu- inus als Bestrijder van het Adoptianisme, Groningen igoi. — Alzog-Pabisch-Byme, Manual of Universal Church History, Vol. II, pp. 174 sqq., Cincinnati 1899. — T. Gilmartin, Manual of Church History, Vol. I, 3rd ed., Dublin 1909. — Wilhelm-Scannell, A Man- ual of Catholic Theology, Vol. II, 2nd ed., pp. 126 sqq., London 1901. — H. K. Mann, The Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages, Vol. I, Part II, pp. 439 sqq., London 1902.