|
State of the question. It seems that it is not fitting, because only
strangers are adopted, and nobody is a stranger to God.
Reply. Yet the answer is in the affirmative, for the Apostle says:
"Who hath predestinated us unto the adoption of
children."[1588]
Theological proof. To adopt is to admit someone to share in
another's inheritance. Thus a rich man adopts a poor man's son.
But it is fitting that God of His infinite goodness admit His
intellectual creatures to share in His inheritance, which is the
enjoyment of Himself. For God is rich and happy in Himself, that
is to say, in the enjoyment of Himself. Therefore it is indeed
fitting for God to adopt sons.
It must be noted that reason alone cannot apodictically prove the
possibility of this adoption; for this would be to prove the
possibility of grace, which is essentially supernatural in that it is a
participation of the divine nature of God's intimate life which
therefore transcends the scope of truths that can be proved by reason
alone.
But posited the revelation of this truth, God's infinite goodness
makes it clear that it befits Him to adopt. Its possibility can
neither be proved nor disproved, but we are persuaded of it and it is
firmly held by faith alone.
First doubt. What is the difference between divine adoption and human
adoption?[1589]
Reply. The difference is that a man in adopting someone, for
example, a poor man's son, does not make this son worthy to inherit
from him, but in adopting such a person presupposes as worthy him whom
he chooses. On the contrary, God makes the man whom He adopts
worthy by the gift of His grace to receive the heavenly inheritance.
Hence divine adoption is far superior to human adoption and much more
real; for it elevates one to the higher order of the divine life and
proceeds from uncreated love which is effective and productive of
grace. It regenerates the soul so that the adoptive son is said to be
"born... of God,"[1590] not indeed by nature as the
only-begotten Son, but by grace, that is, regenerated spiritually
by infused grace.
Second doubt. What is the difference between adoptive sonship and
natural sonship?
Natural sonship is the relation that befits anyone inasmuch as by
virtue of birth such a person receives from the generator either the
numerically identical nature as in the case of the divine person or
specifically the same nature as in created beings. Hence taken in the
strict sense it is defined as "the origin of a living being from a
living principle in the likeness of nature."[1591] Thus the
foundation of natural sonship is passive generation.
Adoptive sonship is a qualified imitation of natural sonship inasmuch
as the adopted does not receive the adopter's nature, but a right to
the inheritance as if he were the true son. Hence adoption among
jurists and theologians is generally defined as being the gratuitous and
free assumption of a stranger to the inheritance of the adopter.
The solution of the objections of this article confirms the reply.
Reply to first objection. "Considered in his nature, man is not a
stranger in respect to God as to the natural gifts bestowed on him;
but he is as to the gifts of grace and glory, " because he has these
not by nature, but only by adoption.
Reply to second objection. Adoptive sonship is a participation in the
resemblance of divine natural sonship, hence the Apostle says: "He
predestinated us to be made conformable to the image of His
Son."[1592] In other words, just as the only-begotten Son
received from all eternity the whole divine nature from His Father,
so the adoptive son receives in time a participation of the divine
nature.
Reply to third objection. "Spiritual goods can be possessed by many
at the same time, not so material goods. Wherefore none can receive a
material inheritance except the successor of a deceased being; whereas
all receive the spiritual inheritance at the same time in its entirety
without detriment to the ever-living Father."
|
|
