Part IV (Tertia Pars) Part 53 (2/2)
FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 32, Art. 1]
Whether the Accomplishment of Christ's Conception Should Be Attributed to the Holy Ghost?
Objection 1: It would seem that the accomplishment of Christ's conception should not be attributed to the Holy Ghost, because, as Augustine says (De Trin. i), ”The works of the Trinity are indivisible, just as the Essence of the Trinity is indivisible.” But the accomplishment of Christ's conception was the work of G.o.d.
Therefore it seems that it should not be attributed to the Holy Ghost any more than to the Father or the Son.
Obj. 2: Further, the Apostle says (Gal. 4:4): ”When the fulness of time was come, G.o.d sent His Son, made of a woman”; which words Augustine expounds by saying (De Trin. iv): ”Sent, in so far as made of a woman.” But the sending of the Son is especially attributed to the Father, as stated in the First Part (Q. 43, A. 8). Therefore His conception also, by reason of which He was ”made of a woman,” should be attributed princ.i.p.ally to the Father.
Obj. 3: Further, it is written (Prov. 9:1): ”Wisdom hath built herself a house.” Now, Christ is Himself the Wisdom of G.o.d; according to 1 Cor. 1:24: ”Christ the Power of G.o.d and the Wisdom of G.o.d.” And the house of this Wisdom is Christ's body, which is also called His temple, according to John 2:21: ”But He spoke of the temple of His body.” Therefore it seems that the accomplishment of Christ's conception should be attributed princ.i.p.ally to the Son, and not, therefore, to the Holy Ghost.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Luke 1:35): ”The Holy Ghost shall come upon Thee.”
_I answer that,_ The whole Trinity effected the conception of Christ's body: nevertheless, this is attributed to the Holy Ghost, for three reasons. First, because this is befitting to the cause of the Incarnation, considered on the part of G.o.d. For the Holy Ghost is the love of Father and Son, as stated in the First Part (Q. 37, A.
1). Now, that the Son of G.o.d took to Himself flesh from the Virgin's womb was due to the exceeding love of G.o.d: wherefore it is said (John 3:16): ”G.o.d so loved the world as to give His only-begotten Son.”
Secondly, this is befitting to the cause of the Incarnation, on the part of the nature a.s.sumed. Because we are thus given to understand that human nature was a.s.sumed by the Son of G.o.d into the unity of Person, not by reason of its merits, but through grace alone; which is attributed to the Holy Ghost, according to 1 Cor. 12:4: ”There are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit.” Wherefore Augustine says (Enchiridion xl): ”The manner in which Christ was born of the Holy Ghost ... suggests to us the grace of G.o.d, whereby man, without any merits going before, in the very beginning of his nature when he began to exist was joined to G.o.d the Word, into so great unity of Person, that He Himself should be the Son of G.o.d.”
Thirdly, because this is befitting the term of the Incarnation. For the term of the Incarnation was that that man, who was being conceived, should be the Holy one and the Son of G.o.d. Now, both of these are attributed to the Holy Ghost. For by Him men are made to be sons of G.o.d, according to Gal. 4:6: ”Because you are sons, G.o.d hath sent the Spirit of His Son into your [Vulg.: 'our'] hearts, crying: Abba, Father.” Again, He is the ”Spirit of sanctification,” according to Rom. 1:4. Therefore, just as other men are sanctified spiritually by the Holy Ghost; so as to be the adopted sons of G.o.d, so was Christ conceived in sanct.i.ty by the Holy Ghost, so as to be the natural Son of G.o.d. Hence, according to a gloss on Rom. 1:4, the words, ”Who was predestinated the Son of G.o.d, in power,” are explained by what immediately follows: ”According to the Spirit of sanctification, i.e.
through being conceived of the Holy Ghost.” And the Angel of the Annunciation himself, after saying, ”The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,” draws the conclusion: ”Therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of G.o.d.”
Reply Obj. 1: The work of the conception is indeed common to the whole Trinity; yet in some way it is attributed to each of the Persons. For to the Father is attributed authority in regard to the Person of the Son, who by this conception took to Himself (human nature). The taking itself (of human nature) is attributed to the Son: but the formation of the body taken by the Son is attributed to the Holy Ghost. For the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Son, according to Gal. 4:6: ”G.o.d sent the Spirit of His Son.” For just as the power of the soul which is in the s.e.m.e.n, through the spirit enclosed therein, fas.h.i.+ons the body in the generation of other men, so the Power of G.o.d, which is the Son Himself, according to 1 Cor.
1:24: ”Christ, the Power of G.o.d,” through the Holy Ghost formed the body which He a.s.sumed. This is also shown by the words of the angel: ”The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,” as it were, in order to prepare and fas.h.i.+on the matter of Christ's body; ”and the Power of the Most High,” i.e. Christ, ”shall overshadow thee--that is to say, the incorporeal Light of the G.o.dhead shall in thee take the corporeal substance of human nature: for a shadow is formed by light and body,”
as Gregory says (Moral. xviii). The ”Most High” is the Father, whose Power is the Son.
Reply Obj. 2: The mission refers to the Person a.s.suming, who is sent by the Father; but the conception refers to the body a.s.sumed, which is formed by the operation of the Holy Ghost. And therefore, though mission and conception are in the same subject; since they differ in our consideration of them, mission is attributed to the Father, but the accomplishment of the conception to the Holy Ghost; whereas the a.s.sumption of flesh is attributed to the Son.
Reply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (QQ. Vet. et Nov. Test., qu. 52): ”This may be understood in two ways. For, first, Christ's house is the Church, which He built with His blood. Secondly, His body may be called His house, just as it is called His temple ... and what is done by the Holy Ghost is done by the Son of G.o.d, because Theirs is one Nature and one Will.”
_______________________
SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 32, Art. 2]
Whether It Should Be Said That Christ Was Conceived of (_de_) the Holy Ghost?
Objection 1: It would seem that we should not say that Christ was conceived of (_de_) the Holy Ghost. Because on Rom. 11:36: ”For of Him (_ex ipso_) and by Him, and in Him, are all things,” the gloss of Augustine says: ”Notice that he does not say, 'of Him' (_de ipso_), but 'of Him' (_ex ipso_). For of Him (_ex ipso_), are heaven and earth, since He made them: but not of Him [de ipso, since they are not made of His substance.” But the Holy Ghost did not form Christ's body of (_de_) His own substance. Therefore we should not say that Christ was conceived of (_de_) the Holy Ghost.
Obj. 2: Further, the active principle of (_de_) which something is conceived is as the seed in generation. But the Holy Ghost did not take the place of seed in Christ's conception. For Jerome says (Expos. Cathol. Fidei) [*Written by Pelagius]: ”We do not say, as some wicked wretches hold, that the Holy Ghost took the place of seed: but we say that Christ's body was wrought,” i.e. formed, ”by the power and might of the Creator.” Therefore we should not say that Christ's body was conceived of (_de_) the Holy Ghost.
Obj. 3: Further, no one thing is made of two, except they be in some way mingled. But Christ's body was formed of (_de_) the Virgin Mary.
If therefore we say that Christ was conceived of (_de_) the Holy Ghost, it seems that a mingling took place of the Holy Ghost with the matter supplied by the Virgin: and this is clearly false. Therefore we should not say that Christ was conceived of (_de_) the Holy Ghost.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Matt. 1:18): ”Before they came together, she was found with child, of (_de_) the Holy Ghost.”
_I answer that,_ Conception is not attributed to Christ's body alone, but also to Christ Himself by reason of His body. Now, in the Holy Ghost we may observe a twofold habitude to Christ. For to the Son of G.o.d Himself, who is said to have been conceived, He has a habitude of consubstantiality: while to His body He has the habitude of efficient cause. And this preposition of (_de_) signifies both habitudes: thus we say that a certain man is ”of (_de_) his father.” And therefore we can fittingly say that Christ was conceived of the Holy Ghost in such a way that the efficiency of the Holy Ghost be referred to the body a.s.sumed, and the consubstantiality to the Person a.s.suming.
Reply Obj. 1: Christ's body, through not being consubstantial with the Holy Ghost, cannot properly be said to be conceived ”of” (_de_) the Holy Ghost, but rather ”from (_ex_) the Holy Ghost,” as Ambrose says (De Spir. Sanct. ii.): ”What is from someone is either from his substance or from his power: from his substance, as the Son who is from the Father; from his power, as all things are from G.o.d, just as Mary conceived from the Holy Ghost.”
Reply Obj. 2: It seems that on this point there is a difference of opinion between Jerome and certain other Doctors, who a.s.sert that the Holy Ghost took the place of seed in this conception. For Chrysostom says (Hom. i in Matth. [*Opus Imperf., among the supposit.i.tious writings]): ”When G.o.d's Only-Begotten was about to enter into the Virgin, the Holy Ghost preceded Him; that by the previous entrance of the Holy Ghost, Christ might be born unto sanctification according to His body, the G.o.dhead entering instead of the seed.” And Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): ”G.o.d's wisdom and power overshadowed her, like unto a Divine seed.”
<script>