Article 2 — Whether it should be said that Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit?

Objection 1: It would seem that we should not say that Christ was conceived of (de) the Holy Spirit. Because on Rom. 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 ‘from Him’ (ex ipso). For from Him (ex ipso), are heaven and earth, since He made them: but not of Him, since they are not made of His substance. But the Holy Spirit did not form Christ’s body of (de) His own substance. Therefore we should not say that Christ was conceived of (de) the Holy Spirit.

Obj. 2: Further, the active principle of (de) which something is conceived is as the seed in generation. But the Holy Spirit 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 Spirit 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 Spirit.

Obj. 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 Spirit, it seems that a mingling took place of the Holy Spirit 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 Spirit.

On the contrary, It is written (Matt 1:18): Before they came together, she was found with child, of (de) the Holy Spirit.

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 Spirit 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 Spirit in such a way that the efficiency of the Holy Spirit be referred to the body assumed, and the consubstantiality to the Person assuming.

Reply Obj. 1: Christ’s body, through not being consubstantial with the Holy Spirit, cannot properly be said to be conceived of (de) the Holy Spirit, but rather from (ex) the Holy Spirit, 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 Spirit.

Reply Obj. 2: It seems that on this point there is a difference of opinion between Jerome and certain other Doctors, who assert that the Holy Spirit took the place of seed in this conception. For Chrysostom says (Hom. i in Matth.): When God’s Only-Begotten was about to enter into the Virgin, the Holy Spirit preceded Him; that by the previous entrance of the Holy Spirit, 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 Spirit, 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 Spirit 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 Spirit in one sense; of the Virgin Mary in another—of the Virgin Mary materially; of the Holy Spirit efficiently. Therefore there was no mingling here.