Part IV (Tertia Pars) Part 54 (1/2)
But these expressions are easily explained. Because Chrysostom and Damascene compare the Holy Ghost, or also the Son, who is the Power of the Most High, to seed, by reason of the active power therein; while Jerome denies that the Holy Ghost took the place of seed, considered as a corporeal substance which is transformed in conception.
Reply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (Enchiridion xl), Christ is said to be conceived or born of the Holy Ghost in one sense; of the Virgin Mary in another--of the Virgin Mary materially; of the Holy Ghost efficiently. Therefore there was no mingling here.
_______________________
THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 32, Art. 3]
Whether the Holy Ghost Should Be Called Christ's Father in Respect of His Humanity?
Objection 1: It would seem that the Holy Ghost should be called Christ's father in respect of His humanity. Because, according to the Philosopher (De Gener. Animal. i): ”The Father is the active principle in generation, the Mother supplies the matter.” But the Blessed Virgin is called Christ's Mother, by reason of the matter which she supplied in His conception. Therefore it seems that the Holy Ghost can be called His father, through being the active principle in His conception.
Obj. 2: Further, as the minds of other holy men are fas.h.i.+oned by the Holy Ghost, so also was Christ's body fas.h.i.+oned by the Holy Ghost.
But other holy men, on account of the aforesaid fas.h.i.+oning, are called the children of the whole Trinity, and consequently of the Holy Ghost. Therefore it seems that Christ should be called the Son of the Holy Ghost, forasmuch as His body was fas.h.i.+oned by the Holy Ghost.
Obj. 3: Further, G.o.d is called our Father by reason of His having made us, according to Deut. 32:6: ”Is not He thy Father, that hath possessed thee, and made thee and created thee?” But the Holy Ghost made Christ's body, as stated above (AA. 1, 2). Therefore the Holy Ghost should be called Christ's Father in respect of the body fas.h.i.+oned by Him.
_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Enchiridion xl): ”Christ was born of the Holy Ghost not as a Son, and of the Virgin Mary as a Son.”
_I answer that,_ The words ”fatherhood,” ”motherhood,” and ”sons.h.i.+p,”
result from generation; yet not from any generation, but from that of living things, especially animals. For we do not say that fire generated is the son of the fire generating it, except, perhaps, metaphorically; we speak thus only of animals in whom generation is more perfect. Nevertheless, the word ”son” is not applied to everything generated in animals, but only to that which is generated into likeness of the generator. Wherefore, as Augustine says (Enchiridion x.x.xix), we do not say that a hair which is generated in a man is his son; nor do we say that a man who is born is the son of the seed; for neither is the hair like the man nor is the man born like the seed, but like the man who begot him. And if the likeness be perfect, the sons.h.i.+p is perfect, whether in G.o.d or in man. But if the likeness be imperfect, the sons.h.i.+p is imperfect. Thus in man there is a certain imperfect likeness to G.o.d, both as regards his being created to G.o.d's image and as regards His being created unto the likeness of grace. Therefore in both ways man can be called His son, both because he is created to His image and because he is likened to Him by grace. Now, it must be observed that what is said in its perfect sense of a thing should not be said thereof in its imperfect sense: thus, because Socrates is said to be naturally a man, in the proper sense of ”man,” never is he called man in the sense in which the portrait of a man is called a man, although, perhaps, he may resemble another man. Now, Christ is the Son of G.o.d in the perfect sense of sons.h.i.+p. Wherefore, although in His human nature He was created and justified, He ought not to be called the Son of G.o.d, either in respect of His being created or of His being justified, but only in respect of His eternal generation, by reason of which He is the Son of the Father alone. Therefore nowise should Christ be called the Son of the Holy Ghost, nor even of the whole Trinity.
Reply Obj. 1: Christ was conceived of the Virgin Mary, who supplied the matter of His conception unto likeness of species. For this reason He is called her Son. But as man He was conceived of the Holy Ghost as the active principle of His conception, but not unto likeness of species, as a man is born of his father. Therefore Christ is not called the Son of the Holy Ghost.
Reply Obj. 2: Men who are fas.h.i.+oned spiritually by the Holy Ghost cannot be called sons of G.o.d in the perfect sense of sons.h.i.+p. And therefore they are called sons of G.o.d in respect of imperfect sons.h.i.+p, which is by reason of the likeness of grace, which flows from the whole Trinity.
But with Christ it is different, as stated above.
The same reply avails for the Third Objection.
_______________________
FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 32, Art. 4]
Whether the Blessed Virgin Cooperated Actively in the Conception of Christ's Body?
Objection 1: It would seem that the Blessed Virgin cooperated actively in the conception of Christ's body. For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii) that ”the Holy Ghost came upon the Virgin, purifying her, and bestowing on her the power to receive and to bring forth the Word of G.o.d.” But she had from nature the pa.s.sive power of generation, like any other woman. Therefore He bestowed on her an active power of generation. And thus she cooperated actively in Christ's conception.
Obj. 2: Further, all the powers of the vegetative soul are active, as the Commentator says (De Anima ii). But the generative power, in both man and woman, belongs to the vegetative soul. Therefore, both in man and woman, it cooperates actively in the conception of the child.
Obj. 3: Further, in the conception of a child the woman supplies the matter from which the child's body is naturally formed. But nature is an intrinsic principle of movement. Therefore it seems that in the very matter supplied by the Blessed Virgin there was an active principle.
_On the contrary,_ The active principle in generation is called the ”seminal virtue.” But, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. x), Christ's body ”was taken from the Virgin, only as to corporeal matter, by the Divine power of conception and formation, but not by any human seminal virtue.” Therefore the Blessed Virgin did not cooperate actively in, the conception of Christ's body.
_I answer that,_ Some say that the Blessed Virgin cooperated actively in Christ's conception, both by natural and by a supernatural power.
By natural power, because they hold that in all natural matter there is an active principle; otherwise they believe that there would be no such thing as natural transformation. But in this they are deceived.
Because a transformation is said to be natural by reason not only of an active but also of a pa.s.sive intrinsic principle: for the Philosopher says expressly (Phys. viii) that in heavy and light things there is a pa.s.sive, and not an active, principle of natural movement. Nor is it possible for matter to be active in its own formation, since it is not in act. Nor, again, is it possible for anything to put itself in motion except it be divided into two parts, one being the mover, the other being moved: which happens in animate things only, as is proved _Phys._ viii.
By a supernatural power, because they say that the mother requires not only to supply the matter, which is the menstrual blood, but also the s.e.m.e.n, which, being mingled with that of the male, has an active power in generation. And since in the Blessed Virgin there was no resolution of s.e.m.e.n, by reason of her inviolate virginity, they say that the Holy Ghost supernaturally bestowed on her an active power in the conception of Christ's body, which power other mothers have by reason of the s.e.m.e.n resolved. But this cannot stand, because, since ”each thing is on account of its operation” (De Coel. ii), nature would not, for the purpose of the act of generation, distinguish the male and female s.e.xes, unless the action of the male were distinct from that of the female. Now, in generation there are two distinct operations--that of the agent and that of the patient. Wherefore it follows that the entire active operation is on the part of the male, and the pa.s.sive on the part of the female. For this reason in plants, where both forces are mingled, there is no distinction of male and female.
Since, therefore, the Blessed Virgin was not Christ's Father, but His Mother, it follows that it was not given to her to exercise an active power in His conception: whether to cooperate actively so as to be His Father, or not to cooperate at all, as some say. Whence it would follow that this active power was bestowed on her to no purpose. We must therefore say that in Christ's conception itself she did not cooperate actively, but merely supplied the matter thereof.