Dist. 4, Art. 1, Q. 2
Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 4
Quaestio II. Utrum Christus possit dici filius Spiritus sancti.
Secundo quaeritur, utrum Christus possit dici filius Spiritus sancti. Et quod sic, videtur:
1. Quia Damascenus1 dicit: «Descendit in Virginem Verbum tanquam σπόρος, id est semen»; sed quod operatur ad alicuius generationem mediante semine habet rationem patris: si ergo hoc modo operatus est Spiritus sanctus, ut dicit Damascenus, ergo est pater eius. (Ad oppositum.)
2. Item, pater dicitur2 qui deducit rem ad esse: ergo si magis deducit rem ad esse, magis debet dici pater: ergo si Spiritus sanctus magis est operatus ad hoc, quod caro Christi produceretur in esse, quam aliquis pater respectu prolis procreandae; videtur, quod Christus sit filius Spiritus sancti, loquendo proprie.
3. Item, Spiritus sanctus cum Virgine operatus est Filii Christi conceptionem, nec minus operatus est Spiritus sanctus quam Virgo, sed multo amplius3: si ergo Christus dicitur filius Virginis, et Virgo dicitur eius mater; videtur, quod multo fortius debeat Spiritus sanctus dici eius pater.
4. Item, omne quod est de aliquo per actum conceptionis, habens similitudinem substantiae cum illo, dicitur eius filius4; sed Christus conceptus est de Spiritu sancto et similis est in substantia cum illo: ergo Christus est filius Spiritus sancti.
5. Item, quicumque habet gratiam Spiritus sancti, hoc ipso est filius eius; sed Christus ab instanti conceptionis habuit gratiam excellentissimam Spiritus sancti5: ergo videtur, quod filiatio conveniat Christo respectu Spiritus sancti.
Sed contra: 1. Christus nullius est filius nisi natura; sed solius Patris, vel Matris est filius per naturam: non ergo Spiritus sancti6. (Fundamenta.)
2. Item, filiatio respicit hypostasim; sed hypostasis Filii Dei nullo modo habet comparari ad Spiritum sanctum in habitudine filiationis, immo potius in habitudine principii7: ergo simpliciter falsum est dicere, quod Christus sit filius Spiritus sancti.
3. Item, si Christus est filius Spiritus sancti, ergo Spiritus sanctus est pater Christi, et Deus Pater est pater Christi: ergo duo patres in Trinitate8.
4. Item, si Christus est filius Spiritus sancti, quia operatus est eius conceptionem, ergo pari ratione Christus est filius suus; sed hoc nec ratio nec fides admittit, quod eadem res se ipsam gignat9, quod idem sit pater et filius sibi: ergo si Christus non est filius suus, pari ratione nec Spiritus sanctus pater eius.
5. Item, ad hoc est auctoritas Augustini, quam Magister ponit in littera10: «Quis dicere audebit, Christum esse filium Spiritus sancti, cum hoc ita sit absurdum, ut nullae fidelium aures hoc valeant sustinere»? Videtur igitur tanquam haereticum dicere, Spiritum sanctum esse patrem Christi.
Conclusio
> Nullatenus admittitur locutio, quod Christus sit filius Spiritus sancti.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod absque dubio ista locutio non admittitur nec est admittenda, tum propter vitandum errorem circa generationem tempop. 101ralem, tum circa generationem aeternam. (Ratio 1.) Ad vitandum errorem circa generationem temporalem, quia, cum secundum illam dicitur Christus conceptus de Virgine et Spiritu sancto, si diceretur Spiritus sanctus eius pater, sicut Virgo eius mater, iam videretur ex hoc Christus natus esse de Maria et Spiritu sancto11, sicut nascitur proles de muliere et viro. Quodsi hoc falsum est — quia proles partem accipit a patre et partem accipit a matre, in qua assimilatur patri et matri in eadem forma et natura; et hoc non est reperire in Christo quantum ad eius conceptionem, immo soli Matri assimilatur in natura assumpta — non12 debet admitti, Christum esse filium Spiritus sancti, sed solius Virginis Matris, ad manifestandam et servandam veritatem et proprietatem (Ratio 2.) temporalis generationis. — Sumitur etiam ratio ex parte generationis aeternae, quare13 catholici talem sermonem non admittant, ne scilicet confusio fiat aeternarum relationum et proprietatum. Unde cum proprium sit personae Patris generare respectu personae Filii, nullatenus admittitur, Christum esse filium Spiritus sancti, in quo14 non est alia persona vel hypostasis quam illa, quam Pater ab aeterno genuit. — Ideo propter vitandos errores tam circa generationem temporalem quam circa aeternam, non recipiunt theologi praedictam locutionem. — Unde concedendae sunt rationes ad praedictam partem.
1. Ad illud quod primo obiicitur de Damasceno, quod Verbum Dei descendit in Virginem ad modum seminis; dicendum, quod semen in se duplicem habet proprietatem: unam in hoc, quod habet in se vim activam: alteram in hoc, quod agit producendo similem in forma et natura. Damascenus ergo assumit similitudinem seminis ad operationem Spiritus sancti ratione primae proprietatis, non secundae. Cum vero assumit15, quod operatio ad modum seminis facit productivum principium habere habitudinem patris, hoc intelligitur ratione secundae proprietatis.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Pater est qui producit16 rem ad esse; dicendum, quod ista non est tota ratio patris, quia necesse est, quod conveniat in natura et forma; sed Spiritus sanctus non convenit cum Christo in natura et forma, secundum quam producit ipsum ad esse.
3. 4. Ad duo obiecta sequentia iam patet responsio per iam dicta. Quod enim obiicit, quod Virgo dicitur mater, et quod17 Spiritus sanctus pater; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia Virgo conformatur Christo in natura, secundum quam conceptus est ex tempore; Spiritus autem sanctus, quamvis Christo sit similis in natura, non tamen est eius principium secundum illam; et ideo non cogit ratio tertia, nec quarta.
5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de gratia, dicendum, quod quamvis de aliis hominibus concedi possit, quod sint filii Spiritus sancti propter gratiam, quam ipsi suscipiunt et mediante18 qua in filiorum Dei adoptionem assumuntur: tamen circa Christum non habet locum propter unionem, quae non tantum facit, illum hominem esse filium Dei per gratiam, sed filium Dei per naturam. Et ideo non sic conceditur de ipso, quod sit Spiritus sancti filius, sicut conceditur de aliis hominibus.
I. Omnes concedunt, quod ista locutio non sit admittenda, quia saltem inconvenienter et improprie dicitur. Posteriores autem theologi cum S. Thoma eandem decernunt esse simpliciter falsam; attamen in rationibus pro hac conclusione allatis non conveniunt; de quo videri potest Ægid. R., qui, reiectis quatuor opinionibus (inter quas sunt etiam quaedam rationes a S. Thoma in Commentario probatae) tandem profert et latius explicat eam rationem, quae ab eodem S. Thoma in Summa affertur. — S. Bonav. autem modo loquendi diverso usus, in afferendis rationibus sequitur magistrum suum Alexandrum.
II. Similia dicenda sunt circa seq. (3.) quaestionem. Negant omnes, eam locutionem posse simpliciter concedi. Tamen Alex. Hal. (loc. cit.) opinatur, quod «posset concedi cum determinatione, ut est filius Trinitatis per creationem». Sed recte S. Bonav. cum ceteris magistris sustinet, quod nec ratione creationis nec ratione sanctificationis per gratiam, immo nullo modo ista locutio concedenda sit. — Tamen quoad rationem principalem iterum a S. Bonav. discedit S. Thomas, cum eam sumat ex hoc principio, quod solum ratione aeternae generationis debeat dici Filius Dei, «quia quando in aliquo invenitur perfecta ratio alicuius nominis, nullo modo recipitur illud nomen de eo cum determinatione diminuente» (hic q. 1. a. 2.).
III. De utraque quaest.: Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 8. m. 3. a. 4. — Scoti loci collecti apud Hier. de Montefortino, l. IV. q. 32. a. 3. — S. Thom., hic q. I. a. 2; S. III. q. 32. a. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 4. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. I. a. 2. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. I. q. 2. — Ægid. R., hic q. I. a. 3. — Durand., hic q. I.
---
Question II. Whether Christ can be called the son of the Holy Spirit.
Secondly it is asked whether Christ can be called the son of the Holy Spirit. And that he can, it seems:
1. Because the Damascene1 says: «The Word descended into the Virgin like σπόρος, that is, seed»; but that which works toward the generation of something by means of seed has the character of a father: if therefore the Holy Spirit worked in this way, as the Damascene says, then he is his father. (To the contrary.)
2. Likewise, he is called father2 who brings a thing into being: therefore if he brings a thing into being to a greater degree, he ought the more to be called father: therefore if the Holy Spirit worked more toward this, that the flesh of Christ should be brought into being, than any father with respect to the offspring to be procreated; it seems that Christ is the son of the Holy Spirit, speaking properly.
3. Likewise, the Holy Spirit together with the Virgin effected the conception of the Son, Christ, nor did the Holy Spirit work less than the Virgin, but much more3: if therefore Christ is called the son of the Virgin, and the Virgin is called his mother; it seems that all the more strongly ought the Holy Spirit to be called his father.
4. Likewise, everything that comes from another through the act of conception, having a likeness of substance with it, is called its son4; but Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit and is like it in substance: therefore Christ is the son of the Holy Spirit.
5. Likewise, whoever has the grace of the Holy Spirit is by that very fact his son; but Christ from the instant of conception had the most excellent grace of the Holy Spirit5: therefore it seems that sonship belongs to Christ with respect to the Holy Spirit.
On the contrary: 1. Christ is the son of no one except by nature; but he is son by nature of the Father alone, or of the Mother: therefore not of the Holy Spirit6. (Foundations.)
2. Likewise, sonship regards the hypostasis; but the hypostasis of the Son of God can in no way be compared to the Holy Spirit in a relation of sonship, but rather in a relation of principle7: therefore it is simply false to say that Christ is the son of the Holy Spirit.
3. Likewise, if Christ is the son of the Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spirit is the father of Christ, and God the Father is the father of Christ: therefore there would be two fathers in the Trinity8.
4. Likewise, if Christ is the son of the Holy Spirit, because he effected his conception, then by parity of reasoning Christ is his own son; but this neither reason nor faith admits, that the same thing should beget itself9, that the same should be father and son to itself: therefore if Christ is not his own son, by parity of reasoning neither is the Holy Spirit his father.
5. Likewise, to this there is the authority of Augustine, which the Master sets down in the text10: «Who will dare to say that Christ is the son of the Holy Spirit, since this is so absurd that no ears of the faithful can bear it»? It seems therefore to be heretical to say that the Holy Spirit is the father of Christ.
Conclusion
> In no way is the expression admitted, that Christ is the son of the Holy Spirit.
I respond: It must be said that without doubt this expression is not admitted nor is it to be admitted, both to avoid error concerning the temporal generation, and concerning the eternal generation. (First reason.) To avoid error concerning the temporal generation: because, since according to that generation Christ is said to have been conceived of the Virgin and the Holy Spirit, if the Holy Spirit were called his father, as the Virgin is his mother, it would thereby seem that Christ was born of Mary and the Holy Spirit11, as offspring is born of a woman and a man. But if this is false — because offspring takes part from the father and part from the mother, in which it is made like to father and mother in the same form and nature; and this is not to be found in Christ as regards his conception, but rather he is made like only to the Mother in the nature assumed — then it must not12 be admitted that Christ is the son of the Holy Spirit, but of the Virgin Mother alone, in order to manifest and preserve the truth and propriety (Second reason.) of the temporal generation. — A reason is also drawn from the side of the eternal generation, why13 Catholics do not admit such language, namely lest a confusion be made of the eternal relations and properties. Hence, since it is proper to the person of the Father to beget with respect to the person of the Son, in no way is it admitted that Christ is the son of the Holy Spirit, in whom14 there is no other person or hypostasis than that which the Father begot from eternity. — Therefore, to avoid errors both concerning the temporal generation and concerning the eternal, theologians do not accept the aforesaid expression. — Hence the reasons for the aforesaid position must be granted.
1. To that which is first objected concerning the Damascene, that the Word of God descended into the Virgin after the manner of seed; it must be said that seed has in itself a twofold property: one in this, that it has in itself an active power: the other in this, that it acts by producing something like in form and nature. The Damascene therefore takes the likeness of seed in regard to the operation of the Holy Spirit by reason of the first property, not the second. But when he takes it15 that operation after the manner of seed makes a productive principle have the relation of father, this is understood by reason of the second property.
2. To that which is objected, that the Father is the one who produces16 a thing into being; it must be said that this is not the whole account of father, because it is necessary that he agree in nature and form; but the Holy Spirit does not agree with Christ in the nature and form according to which he produces him into being.
3. 4. To the two following objections the response is already clear from what has been said. For as to what it objects, that the Virgin is called mother, and that17 the Holy Spirit is father; it must be said that it is not alike, because the Virgin is conformed to Christ in the nature according to which he was conceived in time; but the Holy Spirit, although he is like Christ in nature, is nevertheless not his principle according to that nature; and therefore neither the third reason nor the fourth compels.
5. To that which is objected concerning grace, it must be said that, although of other men it may be granted that they are sons of the Holy Spirit on account of the grace which they receive and by means of18 which they are taken up into the adoption of the sons of God: nevertheless concerning Christ this has no place, on account of the union, which makes that man to be the son of God not only by grace, but the son of God by nature. And therefore it is not granted of him, that he is the son of the Holy Spirit, in the way it is granted of other men.
I. All concede that this expression is not to be admitted, because at least it is said unfittingly and improperly. But the later theologians, with St. Thomas, decide that it is simply false; yet they do not agree in the reasons brought forward for this conclusion; on which one may consult Giles of Rome, who, having rejected four opinions (among which are also certain reasons proved by St. Thomas in the Commentary), at last brings forward and more fully explains that reason which is set forth by the same St. Thomas in the Summa. — But St. Bonaventure, using a different manner of speaking, in bringing forward his reasons follows his master Alexander.
II. Like things are to be said concerning the following (3rd) question. All deny that this expression can simply be conceded. Yet Alexander of Hales (loc. cit.) holds the opinion that «it could be conceded with a qualification, as he is the son of the Trinity by creation». But rightly does St. Bonaventure, with the other masters, maintain that neither by reason of creation nor by reason of sanctification through grace, indeed in no way, is this expression to be conceded. — Yet as to the principal reason St. Thomas again departs from St. Bonaventure, since he draws it from this principle, that only by reason of the eternal generation ought he to be called the Son of God, «because when in something the perfect account of some name is found, that name is in no way received of it with a diminishing qualification» (here q. 1. a. 2.).
III. On both questions: Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 8. m. 3. a. 4. — Scotus's passages collected in Hier. de Montefortino, l. IV. q. 32. a. 3. — S. Thom., here q. I. a. 2; S. III. q. 32. a. 3. — B. Albert., here a. 4. — Petr. a Tar., here q. I. a. 2. 3. — Richard. of Middleton, here a. I. q. 2. — Giles of Rome, here q. I. a. 3. — Durand., here q. I.
---
- Libr. III. de Fide orthod. c. 2. Ipsa Damasc. verba habentur supra in lit. Magistri, d. III. c. I. Vat. voci sporos, quam Graecis litteris descriptam exhibet (σπόρος), cum originali praefigit θεός et dein post id est subiicit divinum. Codd. sporos mutarunt in scopon.Book III, On the Orthodox Faith, c. 2. The very words of the Damascene are found above in the text of the Master, d. III. c. I. The Vatican edition, to the word sporos, which it presents written in Greek letters (σπόρος), prefixes from the original θεός and then after id est subjoins divinum. The codices changed sporos into scopon.
- Cod. G est, Vat. est vel dicitur. Mox pro ergo si magis cod. aa et edd. 1, 2 ergo qui magis.Codex G est, the Vatican edition est vel dicitur. Shortly after, for ergo si magis codex aa and editions 1, 2 read ergo qui magis.
- Vide infra a. 3. q. 1, seq. — Paulo inferius pro eius mater codd. F N T esse mater.See below a. 3. q. 1, following. — A little further down, for eius mater codices F N T read esse mater.
- Pro filius, quod ex codd. M O Z bb restituimus, alii codd. cum edd. perperam pater. Paulo superius pro per actum codd. lv M O U Z et edd. 1, 2 per modum.For filius, which we have restored from codices M O Z bb, the other codices with the editions wrongly read pater. A little above, for per actum codices lv M O U Z and editions 1, 2 read per modum.
- Cfr. infra d. XIII. tam lit. Magistri quam Comment. — Mox pro filiatio codd. A G L N T U V aa filius.Cf. below d. XIII, both the text of the Master and the Commentary. — Shortly after, for filiatio codices A G L N T U V aa read filius.
- Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 2.
- Vide I. Sent. d. II. 12. et 29.See I Sent., d. II, 12 and 29.
- Cfr. supra d. I. a. I. q. 4. in corp. — Post ergo duo patres codd. K U Z supplent sunt.Cf. above d. I. a. I. q. 4. in the body. — After ergo duo patres codices K U Z supply sunt.
- Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 47. (c. 4.): Generat autem nihil ipsum se ipsum. Idem dicit August., I. de Trin. c. I. n. 1, insuper II. de Trin. c. 10. n. 18. ait: Neque enim Iesus etiam Spiritus sancti filius, aut etiam suus filius credi aut intelligi potest. — Paulo ante pro filius suus codd. E N habent filius Filii.Aristotle, On the Soul II, text 47 (c. 4): Nothing generates its very self. The same says Augustine, On the Trinity I, c. I, n. 1, and moreover in On the Trinity II, c. 10, n. 18 he says: For neither can Jesus be believed or understood to be the son of the Holy Spirit, nor even his own son. — Shortly before, for filius suus codices E N have filius Filii.
- Hic c. 2.Here c. 2.
- Cod. T de Maria per Spiritum sanctum.Codex T reads de Maria per Spiritum sanctum (of Mary through the Holy Spirit).
- Vat. cum paucis codd. ideo non.The Vatican edition with a few codices reads ideo non.
- Cod. X quia, et dein pro admittant cum codd. K U admittunt.Codex X reads quia, and then for admittant with codices K U reads admittunt.
- Vat. supplet Christo. Mox cod. T nisi illa pro quam illa.The Vatican edition supplies Christo. Shortly after, codex T reads nisi illa for quam illa.
- Scil. obiiciens, non Damascenus, et quidem in propos. minori primi arg. (quod minor etiam assumtio vocatur, notum est). — Paulo superius pro Damascenus ergo assumit cod. K clarius Damascenus vero sumit. Pro Cum vero assumit Vat. Cum vero assumitur in ratione, quae et dein post habitudinem adiicit vel similitudinem.That is, the one objecting, not the Damascene, and indeed in the minor proposition of the first argument (that the minor is also called the assumption is well known). — A little above, for Damascenus ergo assumit codex K reads clarius Damascenus vero sumit. For Cum vero assumit the Vatican edition reads Cum vero assumitur in ratione, which then after habitudinem adds vel similitudinem.
- Vat. hic et in fine solut. perducit. — Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.The Vatican edition here and at the end of the solution reads perducit. — Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 2.
- Pro et quod edd. ergo et.For et quod the editions read ergo et.
- Pro et mediante edd. immediate, posita virgula post mediante. — De hac solut. cfr. infra d. 10. a. 2. q. 1.For et mediante the editions read immediate, placing a comma after mediante. — On this solution cf. below d. 10. a. 2. q. 1.