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 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.
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 fashioned 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 "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 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 sonship is perfect, whether in G.o.d or in man. But if the likeness be imperfect, the sonship 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 sonship. 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 fashioned spiritually by the Holy Ghost cannot be called sons of G.o.d in the perfect sense of sonship. And therefore they are called sons of G.o.d in respect of imperfect sonship, 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.
Nevertheless, before the conception she cooperated actively in the preparation of the matter so that it should be apt for the conception.
Reply Obj. 1: This conception had three privileges--namely, that it was without original sin; that it was not that of a man only, but of G.o.d 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 G.o.d." 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 pa.s.sively, just as other mothers achieve this through the action of the male seed.
Reply Obj. 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.
Reply Obj. 3: In order for a transformation to be natural, there is no need for an active principle in matter, but only for a pa.s.sive principle, as stated above.
_______________________
QUESTION 33
OF THE MODE AND ORDER OF CHRIST"S CONCEPTION (In Four Articles)
We have now to consider the mode and order of Christ"s conception, concerning which there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether Christ"s body was formed in the first instant of its conception?
(2) Whether it was animated in the first instant of its conception?
(3) Whether it was a.s.sumed by the Word in the first instant of its conception?
(4) Whether this conception was natural or miraculous?
_______________________
FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 33, Art. 1]
Whether Christ"s Body Was Formed in the First Instant of Its Conception?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ"s body was not formed in the first instant of its conception. For it is written (John 2:20): "Six-and-forty years was this Temple in building"; on which words Augustine comments as follows (De Trin. iv): "This number applies manifestly to the perfection of our Lord"s body." He says, further (QQ. lx.x.xiii, qu. 56): "It is not without reason that the Temple, which was a type of His body, is said to have been forty-six years in building: so that as many years as it took to build the Temple, in so many days was our Lord"s body perfected." Therefore Christ"s body was not perfectly formed in the first instant of its conception.
Obj. 2: Further, there was need of local movement for the formation of Christ"s body in order that the purest blood of the Virgin"s body might be brought where generation might aptly take place. Now, no body can be moved locally in an instant: since the time taken in movement is divided according to the division of the thing moved, as is proved _Phys._ vi. Therefore Christ"s body was not formed in an instant.
Obj. 3: Further, Christ"s body was formed of the purest blood of the Virgin, as stated above (Q. 31, A. 5). But that matter could not be in the same instant both blood and flesh, because thus matter would have been at the same time the subject of two forms. Therefore the last instant in which it was blood was distinct from the first instant in which it was flesh. But between any two instants there is an interval of time. Therefore Christ"s body was not formed in an instant, but during a s.p.a.ce of time.
Obj. 4: Further, as the augmentative power requires a fixed time for its act, so also does the generative power: for both are natural powers belonging to the vegetative soul. But Christ"s body took a fixed time to grow, like the bodies of other men: for it is written (Luke 2:52) that He "advanced in wisdom and age." Therefore it seems for the same reason that the formation of His body, since that, too, belongs to the generative power, was not instantaneous, but took a fixed time, like the bodies of other men.
_On the contrary,_ Gregory says (Moral. xviii): "As soon as the angel announced it, as soon as the Spirit came down, the Word was in the womb, within the womb the Word was made flesh."
_I answer that,_ In the conception of Christ"s body three points may be considered: first, the local movement of the blood to the place of generation; secondly, the formation of the body from that matter; thirdly, the development whereby it was brought to perfection of quant.i.ty. Of these, the second is the conception itself; the first is a preamble; the third, a result of the conception.
Now, the first could not be instantaneous: since this would be contrary to the very nature of the local movement of any body whatever, the parts of which come into a place successively. The third also requires a succession of time: both because there is no increase without local movement, and because increase is effected by the power of the soul already informing the body, the operation of which power is subject to time.
But the body"s very formation, in which conception princ.i.p.ally consists, was instantaneous, for two reasons. First, because of the infinite power of the agent, viz. the Holy Ghost, by whom Christ"s body was formed, as stated above (Q. 32, A. 1). For the greater the power of an agent, the more quickly can it dispose matter; and, consequently, an agent of infinite power can dispose matter instantaneously to its due form. Secondly, on the part of the Person of the Son, whose body was being formed. For it was unbecoming that He should take to Himself a body as yet unformed. While, if the conception had been going on for any time before the perfect formation of the body, the whole conception could not be attributed to the Son of G.o.d, since it is not attributed to Him except by reason of the a.s.sumption of that body. Therefore in the first instant in which the various parts of the matter were united together in the place of generation, Christ"s body was both perfectly formed and a.s.sumed. And thus is the Son of G.o.d said to have been conceived; nor could it be said otherwise.
Reply Obj. 1: Neither quotation from Augustine refers to formation alone of Christ"s body, but to its formation, together with a fixed development up to the time of His birth. Wherefore in the aforesaid number are foreshadowed the number of months during which Christ was in the Virgin"s womb.
Reply Obj. 2: This local movement is not comprised within the conception itself, but is a preamble thereto.
Reply Obj. 3: It is not possible to fix the last instant in which that matter was blood: but it is possible to fix the last period of time which continued without any interval up to the first instant in which Christ"s body was formed. And this instant was the terminus of the time occupied by the local movement of the matter towards the place of generation.