|
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.
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): "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.
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.
On the contrary, It is written (Mt. 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 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.
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."
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.]):
"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."
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 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.
|
|