Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 32 [ << | >> ]
| Deinde considerandum est de principio activo in conceptione Christi. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. | We shall now consider the active principle in Christ's conception: concerning which there are four points of inquiry: |
| Primo, utrum spiritus sanctus fuerit principium activum conceptionis Christi. |
(1) Whether the Holy Ghost was the active principle of Christ's conception? |
| Secundo, utrum possit dici quod Christus sit conceptus de spiritu sancto. | (2) Whether it can be said that Christ was conceived of the Holy Ghost? |
| Tertio, utrum possit dici quod spiritus sanctus sit pater Christi secundum carnem. |
(3) Whether it can be said that the Holy Ghost is Christ's father according to the flesh? |
| Quarto, utrum beata virgo aliquid active egerit in conceptione Christi. |
(4) Whether the Blessed Virgin cooperated actively in Christ's conception? |
Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 32 [ << | >> ]
Article: 1 [ << | >> ]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod efficere conceptionem Christi non debeat attribui spiritui sancto. Quia, ut Augustinus dicit, in I de Trin., indivisa sunt opera Trinitatis, sicut et indivisa est essentia Trinitatis. Sed efficere conceptionem Christi est quoddam opus divinum. Ergo videtur quod non magis sit attribuendum spiritui sancto quam patri vel filio. | 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 God. Therefore it seems that it should not be attributed to the Holy Ghost any more than to the Father or the Son. |
| Praeterea, apostolus dicit, Galat. IV, cum venit plenitudo temporis, misit Deus filium suum factum ex muliere, quod exponens Augustinus, IV de Trin., dicit, eo utique missum, quo factum ex muliere. Sed missio filii attribuitur praecipue patri, ut in prima parte habitum est. Ergo et conceptio, secundum quam factus est ex muliere, debet praecipue patri attribui. |
Objection 2: Further, the Apostle says (Gal. 4:4): "When the fulness of time was come, God 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 FP, Question [43], Article [8]. Therefore His conception also, by reason of which He was "made of a woman," should be attributed principally to the Father. |
| Praeterea, Proverb. IX dicitur, sapientia aedificavit sibi domum. Est autem sapientia Dei ipse Christus, secundum illud I Cor. I, Christum Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam. Domus autem huius sapientiae est corpus Christi, quod etiam dicitur templum eius, secundum illud Ioan. II, hoc autem dicebat de templo corporis sui. Ergo videtur quod efficere conceptionem corporis Christi debeat praecipue attribui filio. Non ergo spiritui sancto. |
Objection 3: Further, it is written (Prov. 9:1): "Wisdom hath built herself a house." Now, Christ is Himself the Wisdom of God; according to 1 Cor. 1:24: "Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God." And the house of this Wisdom is Christ's body, which is also called His temple, according to Jn. 2:21: "But He spoke of the temple of His body." Therefore it seems that the accomplishment of Christ's conception should be attributed principally to the Son, and not, therefore, to the Holy Ghost. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Luc. I, spiritus sanctus superveniet in te, et cetera. |
On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 1:35): "The Holy Ghost shall come upon Thee." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod conceptionem corporis Christi tota Trinitas est operata, attribuitur tamen hoc spiritui sancto, triplici ratione. Primo quidem, quia hoc congruit causae incarnationis quae consideratur ex parte Dei. Spiritus enim sanctus est amor patris et filii, ut in prima parte habitum est. Hoc autem ex maximo Dei amore provenit, ut filius Dei carnem sibi assumeret in utero virginali, unde dicitur Ioan. III, sic Deus dilexit mundum ut filium suum unigenitum daret. |
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 God. For the Holy Ghost is the love of Father and Son, as stated in the FP, Question [37], Article [1]. Now, that the Son of God took to Himself flesh from the Virgin's womb was due to the exceeding love of God: wherefore it is said (Jn. 3:16): "God so loved the world as to give His only-begotten Son." |
| Secundo, quia hoc congruit causae incarnationis ex parte naturae assumptae. Quia per hoc datur intelligi quod humana natura assumpta est a filio Dei in unitatem personae non ex aliquibus meritis, sed ex sola gratia, quae spiritui sancto attribuitur, secundum illud I Cor. XII, divisiones gratiarum sunt, idem autem spiritus. Unde Augustinus dicit, in Enchirid., iste modus quo est natus Christus de spiritu sancto, insinuat nobis gratiam Dei, qua homo, nullis praecedentibus meritis, ex ipso primo exordio naturae suae quo esse coepit, verbo Dei copularetur in tantam unitatem personae ut idem ipse esset filius Dei. | Secondly, this is befitting to the cause of the Incarnation, on the part of the nature assumed. Because we are thus given to understand that human nature was assumed by the Son of God 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 God, whereby man, without any merits going before, in the very beginning of his nature when he began to exist was joined to God the Word, into so great unity of Person, that He Himself should be the Son of God." |
| Tertio, quia hoc congruit termino incarnationis. Ad hoc enim terminata est incarnatio ut homo ille qui concipiebatur, esset sanctus et filius Dei. Utrumque autem horum attribuitur spiritui sancto. Nam per ipsum efficiuntur homines filii Dei, secundum illud Galat. IV, quoniam estis filii Dei, misit Deus spiritum filii sui in corda nostra, clamantem, abba, pater. Ipse est etiam spiritus sanctificationis, ut dicitur Rom. I. Sicut ergo alii per spiritum sanctum sanctificantur spiritualiter ut sint filii Dei adoptivi, ita Christus per spiritum sanctum est in sanctitate conceptus ut esset filius Dei naturalis. Unde Rom. I, secundum unam Glossam, quod praemittitur, qui praedestinatus est filius Dei in virtute, manifestatur per id quod immediate sequitur, secundum spiritum sanctificationis, idest, per hoc quod est conceptus de spiritu sancto. Et ipse Angelus annuntians, per hoc quod praemiserat, spiritus sanctus superveniet in te, concludit, ideoque et quod nascetur ex te sanctum, vocabitur filius Dei. | 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 God. Now, both of these are attributed to the Holy Ghost. For by Him men are made to be sons of God, according to Gal. 4:6: "Because you are sons, God hath sent the Spirit of His Son into your [Vulg.: 'our'] hearts, crying: Abba, Father." Again, He is the "Spirit of sanctification," according to Rm. 1:4. Therefore, just as other men are sanctified spiritually by the Holy Ghost; so as to be the adopted sons of God, so was Christ conceived in sanctity by the Holy Ghost, so as to be the natural Son of God. Hence, according to a gloss on Rm. 1:4, the words, "Who was predestinated the Son of God, 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 God." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod opus conceptionis commune quidem est toti Trinitati, secundum tamen modum aliquem attribuitur singulis personis. Nam patri attribuitur auctoritas respectu personae filii, qui per huiusmodi conceptionem sibi assumpsit; filio autem attribuitur ipsa carnis assumptio; sed spiritui sancto attribuitur formatio corporis quod assumitur a filio. Nam spiritus sanctus est spiritus filii, secundum illud Galat. IV, misit Deus spiritum filii sui. Sicut autem virtus animae quae est in semine, per spiritum qui in semine concluditur, format corpus in generatione aliorum hominum; ita virtus Dei, quae est ipse filius, secundum illud I ad Cor. I, Christum Dei virtutem, per spiritum sanctum corpus formavit quod assumpsit. Et hoc etiam verba Angeli demonstrant dicentis, spiritus sanctus superveniet in te, quasi ad praeparandam et formandam materiam corporis Christi; et virtus altissimi, idest Christus, obumbrabit tibi, idest, corpus humanitatis in te accipiet incorporeum lumen divinitatis, umbra enim a lumine formatur et corpore, ut Gregorius dicit, XVIII Moral. Altissimus autem intelligitur pater, cuius virtus est filius. | Reply to Objection 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: "God sent the Spirit of His Son." For just as the power of the soul which is in the semen, through the spirit enclosed therein, fashions the body in the generation of other men, so the Power of God, which is the Son Himself, according to 1 Cor. 1:24: "Christ, the Power of God," through the Holy Ghost formed the body which He assumed. 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 fashion 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 Godhead 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. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod missio refertur ad personam assumentem, quae a patre mittitur, sed conceptio refertur ad corpus assumptum, quod operatione spiritus sancti formatur. Et ideo, licet missio et conceptio sint idem subiecto, quia tamen differunt ratione, missio attribuitur patri, efficere autem conceptionem spiritui sancto, sed carnem assumere filio attribuitur. | Reply to Objection 2: The mission refers to the Person assuming, who is sent by the Father; but the conception refers to the body assumed, 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 assumption of flesh is attributed to the Son. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro de quaest. Vet. et Nov. Test., quaestio ista gemina ratione potest intelligi. Primo enim domus Christi Ecclesia est, quam aedificavit sibi sanguine suo. Deinde potest et corpus eius dici domus eius, sicut dicitur templum eius. Factum autem spiritus sancti filii Dei est, propter naturae et voluntatis unitatem. | Reply to Objection 3: As Augustine says (Questions. 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 God, because Theirs is one Nature and one Will." |
Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 32 [ << | >> ]
Article: 2 [ << | >> ]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus non debeat dici conceptus de spiritu sancto. Quia super illud Rom. XI, ex ipso et per ipsum et in ipso sunt omnia, dicit Glossa Augustini, attendendum quod non ait de ipso, sed ex ipso. Ex ipso enim caelum sunt et terra, quia fecit ea. Non autem de ipso, quia non de substantia sua. Sed spiritus sanctus non formavit corpus Christi de substantia sua. Ergo Christus non debet dici conceptus de spiritu sancto. | Objection 1: It would seem that we should not say that Christ was conceived of [de] the Holy Ghost. Because on Rm. 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. |
| Praeterea, principium activum de quo aliquid concipitur, se habet sicut semen in generatione. Sed spiritus sanctus non se habuit sicut semen in conceptione Christi. Dicit enim Hieronymus, in Exposit. Catholicae fidei, non, sicut quidam sceleratissimi opinantur, spiritum sanctum dicimus fuisse pro semine, sed potentia et virtute creatoris dicimus esse operatum, idest formatum, corpus Christi. Non ergo debet dici quod Christus sit conceptus de spiritu sancto. | Objection 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. |
| Praeterea, nihil unum de duobus formatur nisi aliquo modo commixtis. Sed corpus Christi formatum est de virgine Maria. Si ergo Christus dicatur conceptus de spiritu sancto, videtur quod facta sit commixtio quaedam spiritus sancti et materiae quam virgo ministravit, quod patet esse falsum. Non ergo Christus debet dici conceptus de spiritu sancto. | Objection 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. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Matth. I, antequam convenirent, inventa est in utero habens de spiritu sancto. |
On the contrary, It is written (Mt. 1:18): "Before they came together, she was found with child, of [de] the Holy Ghost." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod conceptio non attribuitur soli corpori Christi, sed etiam ipsi Christo ratione ipsius corporis. In spiritu autem sancto duplex habitudo consideratur respectu Christi. Nam ad ipsum filium Dei, qui dicitur esse conceptus, habet habitudinem consubstantialitatis, ad corpus autem eius habet habitudinem causae efficientis. Haec autem praepositio de utramque habitudinem designat, sicut cum dicimus hominem aliquem de suo patre. Et ideo convenienter dicere possumus Christum esse conceptum de spiritu sancto, hoc modo quod efficacia spiritus sancti referatur ad corpus assumptum, consubstantialitas ad personam assumentem. | 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 God 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 assumed, and the consubstantiality to the Person assuming. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod corpus Christi, quia non est consubstantiale spiritui sancto, non proprie potest dici de spiritu sancto conceptum, sed magis ex spiritu sancto, sicut Ambrosius dicit, in libro de spiritu sancto, quod ex aliquo est, aut ex substantia aut ex potestate eius est, ex substantia, sicut filius, qui a patre est; ex potestate, sicut ex Deo omnia, quo modo et in utero habuit Maria ex spiritu sancto. | Reply to Objection 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 God, just as Mary conceived from the Holy Ghost." |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod super hoc videtur esse quaedam diversitas Hieronymi ad quosdam alios doctores, qui asserunt spiritum sanctum in conceptione fuisse pro semine. Dicit enim Chrysostomus, super Matth., unigenito Dei in virginem ingressuro praecessit spiritus sanctus, ut, praecedente spiritu sancto, in sanctificationem nascatur Christus secundum corpus, divinitate ingrediente pro semine. Et Damascenus dicit, in III libro, obumbravit super ipsam Dei sapientia et virtus, velut divinum semen. | Reply to Objection 2: It seems that on this point there is a difference of opinion between Jerome and certain other Doctors, who assert that the Holy Ghost took the place of seed in this conception. For Chrysostom says (Hom. i in Matth. [*Opus Imperf., among the supposititious writings]): "When God'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 Godhead entering instead of the seed." And Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): "God's wisdom and power overshadowed her, like unto a Divine seed." |
| Sed hoc de facili solvitur. Quia secundum quod in semine intelligitur virtus activa, sic Chrysostomus et Damascenus comparant semini spiritum sanctum, vel etiam filium, qui est virtus altissimi. Secundum autem quod in semine intelligitur substantia corporalis quae in conceptione transmutatur, negat Hieronymus spiritum sanctum fuisse pro semine. | 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. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut dicit Augustinus, in Enchirid., non eodem modo dicitur Christus conceptus aut natus de spiritu sancto, et de Maria virgine, nam de Maria virgine materialiter, de spiritu sancto effective. Et ideo non habuit hic locum commixtio. | Reply to Objection 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. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 32 [ << | >> ]
Article: 3 [ << | >> ]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod spiritus sanctus debeat dici pater Christi secundum humanitatem. Quia secundum philosophum, in libro de Generat. Animal., pater dat principium activum in generatione, mater vero ministrat materiam. Sed beata virgo dicitur mater Christi propter materiam quam in conceptione eius ministravit. Ergo videtur quod etiam spiritus sanctus possit dici pater eius, propter hoc quod fuit principium activum in conceptione ipsius. | 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. |
| Praeterea, sicut mentes aliorum sanctorum formantur per spiritum sanctum, ita etiam corpus Christi est per spiritum sanctum formatum. Sed alii sancti, propter praedictam formationem, dicuntur filii totius Trinitatis, et per consequens spiritus sancti. Videtur ergo quod Christus debeat dici filius spiritus sancti, inquantum corpus eius est spiritu sancto formatum. | Objection 2: Further, as the minds of other holy men are fashioned by the Holy Ghost, so also was Christ's body fashioned by the Holy Ghost. But other holy men, on account of the aforesaid fashioning, 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 fashioned by the Holy Ghost. |
| Praeterea, Deus dicitur pater noster secundum hoc quod nos fecit, secundum illud Deut. XXXII, nonne ipse est pater tuus, qui possedit et fecit et creavit te? Sed spiritus sanctus fecit corpus Christi, ut dictum est. Ergo spiritus sanctus debet dici pater Christi secundum corpus ab ipso formatum. |
Objection 3: Further, God is called our Father by reason of His having made us, according to Dt. 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 (Articles [1],2). Therefore the Holy Ghost should be called Christ's Father in respect of the body fashioned by Him. |
| Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in Enchirid., natus est Christus de spiritu sancto non sicut filius, et de Maria virgine sicut filius. | 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." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod nomina paternitatis et maternitatis et filiationis generationem consequuntur, non tamen quamlibet, sed proprie generationem viventium, et praecipue animalium. Non enim dicimus quod ignis generatus sit filius ignis generantis, nisi forte secundum metaphoram, sed hoc solum dicimus in animalibus quorum generatio est magis perfecta. Nec tamen omne quod in animalibus generatur, filiationis accepit nomen, sed solum illud quod generatur in similitudine generantis. Unde, sicut Augustinus dicit, non dicimus quod capillus qui nascitur ex homine, sit filius hominis; nec etiam dicimus quod homo qui nascitur sit filius seminis, quia nec capillus habet similitudinem hominis; nec homo qui nascitur habet similitudinem seminis, sed hominis generantis. Et si quidem perfecta sit similitudo, erit perfecta filiatio, tam in divinis quam in humanis. Si autem sit similitudo imperfecta, est etiam filiatio imperfecta. Sicut in homine est quaedam similitudo Dei imperfecta, et inquantum creatus est ad imaginem Dei, et inquantum creatus est secundum similitudinem gratiae. Et ideo utroque modo potest homo dici filius eius, et quia, scilicet, est creatus ad imaginem eius; et quia est ei assimilatus per gratiam. Est autem considerandum quod illud quod de aliquo dicitur secundum perfectam rationem, non est dicendum de eo secundum rationem imperfectam, sicut, quia Socrates dicitur naturaliter homo secundum propriam rationem hominis, nunquam dicitur homo secundum illam significationem qua pictura hominis dicitur homo, licet forte ipse assimiletur alteri homini. Christus autem est filius Dei secundum perfectam rationem filiationis. Unde, quamvis secundum humanam naturam sit creatus et iustificatus non tamen debet dici filius Dei neque ratione creationis, neque ratione iustificationis, sed solum ratione generationis aeternae, secundum quam est filius patris solius. Et ideo nullo modo debet dici Christus filius spiritus sancti, nec etiam totius Trinitatis. | I answer that, The words "fatherhood," "motherhood," and "sonship," 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 xxxix), 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 sonship is perfect, whether in God or in man. But if the likeness be imperfect, the sonship is imperfect. Thus in man there is a certain imperfect likeness to God, both as regards his being created to God'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 God in the perfect sense of sonship. Wherefore, although in His human nature He was created and justified, He ought not to be called the Son of God, 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. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Christus conceptus est de Maria virgine materiam ministrante in similitudinem speciei. Et ideo dicitur filius eius. Christus autem, secundum quod homo, conceptus est de spiritu sancto sicut de activo principio, non tamen secundum similitudinem speciei, sicut homo nascitur de patre suo. Et ideo Christus non dicitur filius spiritus sancti. | Reply to Objection 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. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod homines qui spiritualiter formantur a spiritu sancto, non possunt dici filii Dei secundum perfectam rationem filiationis. Et ideo dicuntur filii Dei secundum filiationem imperfectam, quae est secundum similitudinem gratiae, quae est a tota Trinitate. | Reply to Objection 2: Men who are fashioned spiritually by the Holy Ghost cannot be called sons of God in the perfect sense of sonship. And therefore they are called sons of God in respect of imperfect sonship, which is by reason of the likeness of grace, which flows from the whole Trinity. |
| Sed de Christo est alia ratio, ut dictum est. | But with Christ it is different, as stated above. |
| Et similiter dicendum est ad tertium. | The same reply avails for the Third Objection. |
Index [<<� | >>]
Third Part [ << | >> ]
Question: 32 [ << | >> ]
Article: 4 [ << | >> ]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod beata virgo aliquid active egerit in conceptione corporis Christi. Dicit enim Damascenus, in III libro, quod spiritus sanctus supervenit virgini, purgans ipsam, et virtutem susceptivam verbi Dei tribuens, simul autem et generativam. Sed virtutem generativam passivam habebat a natura, sicut et quaelibet femina. Ergo dedit ei virtutem generativam activam. Et sic aliquid active egit in conceptione Christi. | 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 God." But she had from nature the passive 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. |
| Praeterea, omnes virtutes animae vegetabilis sunt virtutes activae, sicut Commentator dicit, in II de anima. Sed potentia generativa, tam in mare quam in femina, pertinet ad animam vegetabilem. Ergo, tam in mare quam in femina, active operatur ad conceptum prolis. | Objection 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. |
| Praeterea, femina ad conceptionem prolis materiam ministrat ex qua naturaliter corpus prolis formatur. Sed natura est principium motus intrinsecum. Ergo videtur quod in ipsa materia quam beata virgo ministravit ad conceptum Christi, fuit aliquod principium activum. | Objection 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. |
| Sed contra est quod principium activum in generatione dicitur ratio seminalis. Sed, sicut Augustinus dicit, X super Gen. ad Litt., corpus Christi in sola materia corporali, per divinam conceptionis formationisque rationem, de virgine assumptum est, non autem secundum aliquam rationem seminalem humanam. Ergo beata virgo nihil active fecit in conceptione corporis Christi. | 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. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod quidam dicunt beatam virginem aliquid active esse operatam in conceptione Christi, et naturali virtute, et supernaturali. Naturali quidem virtute, quia ponunt quod in qualibet materia naturali est aliquod activum principium. Alioquin, credunt quod non esset transmutatio naturalis. In quo decipiuntur. Quia transmutatio dicitur naturalis propter principium intrinsecum non solum activum, sed etiam passivum, expresse enim dicit philosophus, in VIII Physic., quod in gravibus et levibus est principium passivum motus naturalis, et non activum. Nec est possibile quod materia agat ad sui formationem, quia non est actu. Nec est etiam possibile quod aliquid moveat seipsum, nisi dividatur in duas partes, quarum una sit movens et alia sit mota, quod in solis animatis contingit, ut probatur in VIII Physic. | 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 passive intrinsic principle: for the Philosopher says expressly (Phys. viii) that in heavy and light things there is a passive, 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. |
| Supernaturali autem virtute, quia dicunt ad matrem requiri quod non solum materiam ministret, quae est sanguis menstruus; sed etiam semen, quod, commixtum virili semini, habet virtutem activam in generatione. Et quia in beata virgine nulla fuit facta resolutio seminis, propter integerrimam eius virginitatem, dicunt quod spiritus sanctus supernaturaliter ei tribuit virtutem activam in conceptione corporis Christi, quam aliae matres habent per semen resolutum. Sed hoc non potest stare. Quia, cum quaelibet res sit propter suam operationem, ut dicitur II de caelo; natura non distingueret ad opus generationis sexum maris et feminae, nisi esset distincta operatio maris ab operatione feminae. In generatione autem distinguitur operatio agentis et patientis. Unde relinquitur quod tota virtus activa sit ex parte maris, passio autem ex parte feminae. Propter quod in plantis, in quibus utraque vis commiscetur, non est distinctio maris et feminae. | 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 semen, 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 semen, 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 semen 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 sexes, 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 passive on the part of the female. For this reason in plants, where both forces are mingled, there is no distinction of male and female. |
| Quia igitur beata virgo non hoc accepit ut esset pater Christi, sed mater, consequens est quod non acceperit potentiam activam in conceptione Christi, sive aliquid egerit, ex quo sequitur ipsam patrem fuisse Christi; sive nihil egerit, ut quidam dicunt, ex quo sequitur huiusmodi potentiam activam sibi frustra fuisse collatam. Et ideo dicendum est quod in ipsa conceptione Christi beata virgo nihil active operata est, sed solam materiam ministravit. Operata tamen est ante conceptionem aliquid active, praeparando materiam ut esset apta conceptui. | 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. Nevertheless, before the conception she cooperated actively in the preparation of the matter so that it should be apt for the conception. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illa conceptio tria privilegia habuit, scilicet, quod esset sine peccato originali; quod esset non puri hominis, sed Dei et hominis; item quod esset conceptio virginis. Et haec tria habuit a spiritu sancto. Et ideo dicit Damascenus, quantum ad primum, quod spiritus sanctus supervenit virgini purgans ipsam, idest, praeservans ne cum peccato originali conciperet. Quantum ad secundum, dicit, et virtutem susceptivam verbi Dei tribuens, idest, ut conciperet verbum Dei. Quantum autem ad tertium, dicit, simul et generativam, ut, scilicet, manens virgo posset generare, non quidem active sed passive, sicut aliae matres hoc consequuntur ex semine viri. | Reply to Objection 1: This conception had three privileges---namely, that it was without original sin; that it was not that of a man only, but of God and man; and that it was a virginal conception. And all three were effected by the Holy Ghost. Therefore Damascene says, as to the first, that the Holy Ghost "came upon the Virgin, purifying her"---that is, preserving her from conceiving with original sin. As to the second, he says: "And bestowing on her the power to receive," i.e. to conceive, "the Word of God." As to the third, he says: "And to give birth" to Him, i.e. that she might, while remaining a virgin, bring Him forth, not actively, but passively, just as other mothers achieve this through the action of the male seed. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod potentia generativa in femina est imperfecta respectu potentiae generativae quae est in mare. Et ideo, sicut in artibus ars inferior disponit materiam, ars autem superior inducit formam, ut dicitur in II Physic.; ita etiam virtus generativa feminae praeparat materiam, virtus vero activa maris format materiam praeparatam. | Reply to Objection 2: The generative power of the female is imperfect compared to that of the male. And, therefore, just as in the arts the inferior art gives a disposition to the matter to which the higher art gives the form, as is stated Phys. ii, so also the generative power of the female prepares the matter, which is then fashioned by the active power of the male. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod ad hoc quod transmutatio sit naturalis, non requiritur quod in materia sit principium activum, sed solum passivum, ut dictum est. | Reply to Objection 3: In order for a transformation to be natural, there is no need for an active principle in matter, but only for a passive principle, as stated above. |