Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 33 [<< | >>]
| Deinde considerandum est de modo et ordine conceptionis Christi. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. | We have now to consider the mode and order of Christ's conception, concerning which there are four points of inquiry: |
| Primo, utrum corpus Christi in primo instanti conceptionis fuerit formatum. | (1) Whether Christ's body was formed in the first instant of its conception? |
| Secundo, utrum in primo instanti conceptionis fuerit animatum. | (2) Whether it was animated in the first instant of its conception? |
| Tertio, utrum in primo instanti conceptionis fuerit a verbo assumptum. | (3) Whether it was assumed by the Word in the first instant of its conception? |
| Quarto, utrum conceptio illa fuerit naturalis vel miraculosa. | (4) Whether this conception was natural or miraculous? |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 33 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod corpus Christi non fuerit formatum in primo instanti conceptionis. Dicitur enim Ioan. II, quadraginta et sex annis aedificatum est templum hoc, quod exponens Augustinus, in IV de Trin., dicit, hic numerus perfectioni dominici corporis aperte congruit. Et in libro octoginta trium quaest. dicit, non absurde quadraginta sex annis dicitur fabricatum esse templum, quod corpus eius figurabat, ut, quot anni fuerunt in fabricatione templi, tot dies fuerint in corporis dominici perfectione. Non ergo in primo instanti conceptionis corpus Christi fuit perfecte formatum. | Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's body was not formed in the first instant of its conception. For it is written (Jn. 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 (Questions. lxxxiii, 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. |
| Praeterea, ad formationem corporis Christi requirebatur motus localis, quo purissimi sanguines de corpore virginis ad locum congruum generationi pervenirent. Nullum autem corpus potest moveri localiter in instanti, eo quod tempus motus dividitur secundum divisionem mobilis, ut probatur in VI Physic. Ergo corpus Christi non fuit in instanti formatum. | Objection 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. |
| Praeterea, corpus Christi formatum est ex purissimis sanguinibus virginis, ut supra habitum est. Non autem potuit esse materia illa in eodem instanti sanguis et caro, quia sic materia simul fuisset sub duabus formis. Ergo aliud fuit instans in quo ultimo fuit sanguis, et aliud in quo primo fuit caro formata. Sed inter quaelibet duo instantia est tempus medium. Ergo corpus Christi non fuit in instanti formatum, sed per aliquod tempus. | Objection 3: Further, Christ's body was formed of the purest blood of the Virgin, as stated above (Question [31], Article [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 space of time. |
| Praeterea, sicut potentia augmentativa requirit determinatum tempus in suo actu, ita etiam virtus generativa, utraque enim est potentia naturalis ad vegetabilem animam pertinens. Sed corpus Christi fuit determinato tempore augmentatum, sicut et aliorum hominum corpora, dicitur enim Luc. II, quod proficiebat aetate et sapientia. Ergo videtur quod, pari ratione, formatio corporis eius, quae pertinet ad vim generativam, non fuerit in instanti, sed determinato tempore quo aliorum hominum corpora formantur. | Objection 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 (Lk. 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. |
| Sed contra est quod Gregorius dicit, XVIII Moral., Angelo nuntiante, et spiritu adveniente, mox verbum in utero, mox intra uterum verbum caro. | 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." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod in conceptione corporis Christi tria est considerare, primo quidem, motum localem sanguinis ad locum generationis; secundo, formationem corporis ex tali materia; tertio, augmentum quo perducitur ad quantitatem perfectam. In quorum medio ratio conceptionis consistit, nam primum est conceptioni praeambulum; tertium autem conceptionem consequitur. | 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 quantity. of these, the second is the conception itself; the first is a preamble; the third, a result of the conception. |
| Primum autem non potuit esse in instanti, quia hoc est contra ipsam rationem motus localis corporis cuiuscumque, cuius partes successive subintrant locum. Similiter et tertium oportet esse successivum. Tum quia augmentum non est sine motu locali. Tum etiam quia procedit ex virtute animae iam in corpore formato operantis, quae non operatur nisi in tempore. | 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. |
| Sed ipsa formatio corporis, in qua principaliter ratio conceptionis consistit, fuit in instanti, duplici ratione. Primo quidem, propter virtutem agentis infinitam, scilicet spiritus sancti, per quem corpus Christi est formatum, ut supra dictum est. Tanto enim aliquod agens citius potest materiam disponere, quanto fuerit maioris virtutis. Unde agens infinitae virtutis potest in instanti materiam disponere ad debitam formam. Secundo, ex parte personae filii, cuius corpus formabatur. Non enim erat congruum ut corpus humanum assumeret nisi formatum. Si autem ante formationem perfectam aliquod tempus conceptionis praecessisset, non posset tota conceptio attribui filio Dei, quae non attribuitur ei nisi ratione assumptionis. Et ideo in primo instanti quo materia adunata pervenit ad locum generationis, fuit perfecte formatum corpus Christi et assumptum. Et per hoc dicitur ipse filius Dei conceptus, quod aliter dici non posset. | But the body's very formation, in which conception principally 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 (Question [32], Article [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 God, since it is not attributed to Him except by reason of the assumption 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 assumed. And thus is the Son of God said to have been conceived; nor could it be said otherwise. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod verbum Augustini utrobique non refertur ad solam formationem corporis Christi, sed ad formationem simul cum determinato augmento usque ad tempus partus. Unde secundum rationem illius numeri dicitur perfici tempus novem mensium, quo Christus fuit in utero virginis. | Reply to Objection 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. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod motus ille localis non comprehenditur infra ipsam conceptionem, sed est conceptioni praeambulus. | Reply to Objection 2: This local movement is not comprised within the conception itself, but is a preamble thereto. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod non est assignare ultimum instans in quo materia illa fuit sanguis, sed est assignare ultimum tempus, quod continuatur, nullo interveniente medio, ad primum instans in quo fuit caro Christi formata. Et hoc instans fuit terminus temporis motus localis materiae ad locum generationis. | Reply to Objection 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. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod augmentum fit per potentiam augmentativam ipsius quod augetur, sed formatio corporis fit per potentiam generativam, non eius qui generatur, sed patris generantis ex semine, in quo operatur vis formativa ab anima patris derivata. Corpus autem Christi non fuit formatum ex semine viri, sicut supra dictum est, sed ex operatione spiritus sancti. Et ideo talis debuit esse formatio ut spiritum sanctum deceret. Sed augmentum corporis Christi fuit factum secundum potentiam augmentativam animae Christi, quae cum sit specie conformis animae nostrae, eodem modo debuit corpus illud augmentari sicut et alia corpora hominum augmentantur, ut ex hoc ostenderetur veritas humanae naturae. | Reply to Objection 4: Increase is caused by the augmentative power of that which is the subject of increase: but the formation of the body is caused by the generative power, not of that which is generated, but of the father generating from seed, in which the formative power derived from the father's soul has its operation. But Christ's body was not formed by the seed of man, as stated above (Question [31], Article [5], ad 3), but by the operation of the Holy Ghost. Therefore the formation thereof should be such as to be worthy of the Holy Ghost. But the development of Christ's body was the effect of the augmentative power in Christ's soul: and since this was of the same species as ours, it behooved His body to develop in the same way as the bodies of other men, so as to prove the reality of His human nature. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 33 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod corpus Christi non fuit animatum in primo instanti conceptionis. Dicit enim Leo Papa, in epistola ad Iulianum, non alterius naturae erat caro Christi quam nostrae, nec alio illi quam ceteris hominibus anima est inspirata principio. Sed aliis hominibus non infunditur anima in primo instanti suae conceptionis. Ergo neque corpori Christi anima debuit infundi in primo instanti suae conceptionis. | Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's body was not animated in the first instant of its conception. For Pope Leo says (Ep. ad Julian.): "Christ's flesh was not of another nature than ours: nor was the beginning of His animation different from that of other men." But the soul is not infused into other men at the first instant of their conception. Therefore neither should Christ's soul have been infused into His body in the first instant of its conception. |
| Praeterea, anima, sicut quaelibet forma naturalis, requirit determinatam quantitatem in sua materia. Sed in primo instanti conceptionis corpus Christi non habuit tantam quantitatem quantam habent corpora aliorum hominum quando animantur, alioquin, si continue fuisset postmodum augmentatum, vel citius fuisset natum; vel in sua nativitate fuisset maioris quantitatis quam alii infantes. Quorum primum est contra Augustinum, IV de Trin., ubi probat eum spatio novem mensium in utero virginis fuisse, secundum autem est contra Leonem Papam, qui, in sermone Epiphaniae, dicit, invenerunt puerum Iesum in nullo ab humanae infantiae generalitate discretum. Non ergo corpus Christi fuit animatum in primo instanti suae conceptionis. | Objection 2: Further, the soul, like any natural form, requires determinate quantity in its matter. But in the first instant of its conception Christ's body was not of the same quantity as the bodies of other men when they are animated: otherwise, if afterwards its development had been continuous, either its birth would have occurred sooner, or at the time of birth He would have been a bigger child than others. The former alternative is contrary to what Augustine says (De Trin. iv), where he proves that Christ was in the Virgin's womb for the space of nine months: while the latter is contrary to what Pope Leo says (Serm. iv in Epiph.): "They found the child Jesus nowise differing from the generality of infants." Therefore Christ's body was not animated in the first instant of its conception. |
| Praeterea, ubicumque est prius et posterius, oportet esse plura instantia. Sed secundum philosophum, in libro de Generat. Animal., in generatione hominis requiritur prius et posterius, prius enim est vivum, et postea animal, et postea homo. Ergo non potuit animatio Christi perfici in primo instanti conceptionis. | Objection 3: Further, whenever there is "before" and "after" there must be several instants. But according to the Philosopher (De Gener. Animal. ii) in the generation of a man there must needs be "before" and "after": for he is first of all a living thing, and afterwards, an animal, and after that, a man. Therefore the animation of Christ could not be effected in the first instant of His conception. |
| Sed contra est quod Damascenus dicit, in III libro, simul caro, simul Dei verbi caro, simul caro animata anima rationali et intellectuali. | On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): "At the very instant that there was flesh, it was the flesh of the Word of God, it was flesh animated with a rational and intellectual soul." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, ad hoc quod conceptio ipsi filio Dei attribuatur, ut in symbolo confitemur, dicentes, qui conceptus est de spiritu sancto; necesse est dicere quod ipsum corpus, dum conciperetur, esset a verbo Dei assumptum. Ostensum est autem supra quod verbum Dei assumpsit corpus mediante anima, et animam mediante spiritu, idest intellectu. Unde oportuit quod in primo instanti conceptionis corpus Christi esset animatum anima rationali. | I answer that, For the conception to be attributed to the very Son of God, as we confess in the Creed, when we say, "who was conceived by the Holy Ghost," we must needs say that the body itself, in being conceived, was assumed by the Word of God. Now it has been shown above (Question [6], Articles [1],2) that the Word of God assumed the body by means of the soul, and the soul by means of the spirit, i.e. the intellect. Wherefore in the first instant of its conception Christ's body must needs have been animated by the rational soul. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod principium inspirationis animae potest considerari dupliciter. Uno modo, secundum dispositionem corporis. Et sic non ab alio principio inspirata est anima corpori Christi, et corporibus aliorum hominum. Sicut enim statim, formato corpore alterius hominis, infunditur anima, ita fuit in Christo. Alio modo potest considerari dictum principium solum secundum tempus. Et sic, quia prius tempore formatum fuit perfecte corpus Christi, prius tempore fuit etiam animatum. | Reply to Objection 1: The beginning of the infusion of the soul may be considered in two ways. First, in regard to the disposition of the body. And thus, the beginning of the infusion of the soul into Christ's body was the same as in other men's bodies: for just as the soul is infused into another man's body as soon as it is formed, so was it with Christ. Secondly, this beginning may be considered merely in regard to time. And thus, because Christ's body was perfectly formed in a shorter space of time, so after a shorter space of time was it animated. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod anima requirit debitam quantitatem in materia cui infunditur, sed ista quantitas quandam latitudinem habet, quia et in maiori et minori quantitate salvatur. Quantitas autem corporis quam habet cum primo sibi infunditur anima, proportionatur quantitati perfectae ad quam per augmentum perveniet, ita scilicet quod maiorum hominum maiorem quantitatem corpora habent in prima animatione. Christus autem in perfecta aetate habuit decentem et mediocrem quantitatem, cui proportionabatur quantitas quam corpus eius habuit in tempore quo aliorum hominum corpora animantur; minorem tamen habuit in principio suae conceptionis. Sed tamen illa parva quantitas non erat tam parva ut in ea non posset ratio animati corporis conservari, cum in tali quantitate quorundam parvorum hominum corpora animentur. | Reply to Objection 2: The soul requires due quantity in the matter into which it is infused: but this quantity allows of a certain latitude because it is not fixed to a certain amount. Now the quantity that a body has when the soul is first infused into it is in proportion to the perfect quantity to which it will attain by development: that is to say, men of greater stature have greater bodies at the time of first animation. But Christ at the perfect age was of becoming and middle stature: in proportion to which was the quantity of His body at the time when other men's bodies are animated; though it was less than theirs at the first instant of His conception. Nevertheless that quantity was not too small to safeguard the nature of an animated body; since it would have sufficed for the animation of a small man's body. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod in generatione aliorum hominum locum habet quod dicit philosophus, propter hoc quod successive corpus formatur et disponitur ad animam, unde primo, tanquam imperfecte dispositum, recipit animam imperfectam; et postmodum, quando perfecte est dispositum, recipit animam perfectam. Sed corpus Christi, propter infinitam virtutem agentis, fuit perfecte dispositum in instanti. Unde statim in primo instanti recepit formam perfectam, idest animam rationalem. | Reply to Objection 3: What the Philosopher says is true in the generation of other men, because the body is successively formed and disposed for the soul: whence, first, as being imperfectly disposed, it receives an imperfect soul; and afterwards, when it is perfectly disposed, it receives a perfect soul. But Christ's body, on account of the infinite power of the agent, was perfectly disposed instantaneously. Wherefore, at once and in the first instant it received a perfect form, that is, the rational soul. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 33 [<< | >>]
Article: 3 [<< | >>]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod caro Christi prius fuit concepta, et postmodum assumpta. Quod enim non est, non potest assumi. Sed caro Christi per conceptionem esse incoepit. Ergo videtur quod fuerit assumpta a verbo Dei postquam fuit concepta. | Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's flesh was first of all conceived, and afterwards assumed. Because what is not cannot be assumed. But Christ's flesh began to exist when it was conceived. Therefore it seems that it was assumed by the Word of God after it was conceived. |
| Praeterea, caro Christi fuit assumpta a verbo Dei mediante anima rationali. Sed in termino conceptionis accepit animam rationalem. Ergo in termino conceptionis fuit assumpta. Sed in termino conceptionis dicitur iam concepta. Ergo prius fuit concepta, et postmodum assumpta. | Objection 2: Further, Christ's flesh was assumed by the Word of God, by means of the rational soul. But it received the rational soul at the term of the conception. Therefore it was assumed at the term of the conception. But at the term of the conception it was already conceived. Therefore it was first of all conceived and afterwards assumed. |
| Praeterea, in omni generato prius tempore est id quod est imperfectum, eo quod est perfectum, ut patet per philosophum, in IX Metaphys. Sed corpus Christi est quiddam generatum. Ergo ad ultimam perfectionem, quae consistit in unione ad verbum Dei, non statim in primo instanti conceptionis pervenit, sed primo fuit caro concepta, et postmodum assumpta. | Objection 3: Further, in everything generated, that which is imperfect precedes in time that which is perfect: which is made clear by the Philosopher (Metaph. ix). But Christ's body is something generated. Therefore it did not attain to its ultimate perfection, which consisted in the union with the Word of God, at the first instant of its conception; but, first of all, the flesh was conceived and afterwards assumed. |
| Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de fide ad Petrum, firmissime tene, et nullatenus dubites carnem Christi non fuisse conceptam in utero virginis priusquam susciperetur a verbo. | On the contrary, Augustine says (De Fide ad Petrum xviii [*Written by Fulgentius]): "Hold steadfastly, and doubt not for a moment that Christ's flesh was not conceived in the Virgin's womb, before being assumed by the Word." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, proprie dicimus Deum factum esse hominem, non autem proprie dicimus quod homo factus sit Deus, quia scilicet Deus assumpsit sibi id quod est hominis; non autem praeexstitit id quod est hominis, quasi per se subsistens, antequam susciperetur a verbo. Si autem caro Christi fuisset concepta antequam susciperetur a verbo, habuisset aliquando aliquam hypostasim praeter hypostasim verbi Dei. Quod est contra rationem incarnationis, secundum quam ponimus verbum Dei esse unitum humanae naturae, et omnibus partibus eius, in unitate hypostasis, nec fuit conveniens quod hypostasim praeexistentem humanae naturae, vel alicuius partis eius, verbum Dei sua assumptione destrueret. Et ideo contra fidem est dicere quod caro Christi prius fuerit concepta, et postmodum assumpta a verbo Dei. | I answer that, As stated above, we may say properly that "God was made man," but not that "man was made God": because God took to Himself that which belongs to man---and that which belongs to man did not pre-exist, as subsisting in itself, before being assumed by the Word. But if Christ's flesh had been conceived before being assumed by the Word, it would have had at some time an hypostasis other than that of the Word of God. And this is against the very nature of the Incarnation, which we hold to consist in this, that the Word of God was united to human nature and to all its parts in the unity of hypostasis: nor was it becoming that the Word of God should, by assuming human nature, destroy a pre-existing hypostasis of human nature or of any part thereof. It is consequently contrary to faith to assert that Christ's flesh was first of all conceived and afterwards assumed by the Word of God. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, si caro Christi non fuisset in instanti formata seu concepta, sed per temporis successionem, oporteret alterum duorum sequi, vel quod assumptum nondum esset caro; vel quod prius esset conceptio carnis quam eius assumptio. Sed quia ponimus conceptionem in instanti esse perfectam, consequens est quod in illa carne simul fuit concipi et conceptum esse. Et sic, ut dicit Augustinus, in libro de fide ad Petrum, dicimus ipsum Dei verbum suae carnis acceptione conceptum, ipsamque carnem verbi incarnatione conceptam. | Reply to Objection 1: If Christ's flesh had been formed or conceived, not instantaneously, but successively, one of two things would follow: either that what was assumed was not yet flesh, or that the flesh was conceived before it was assumed. But since we hold that the conception was effected instantaneously, it follows that in that flesh the beginning and the completion of its conception were in the same instant. So that, as Augustine [*Fulgentius, De Fide ad Petrum xviii] says: "We say that the very Word of God was conceived in taking flesh, and that His very flesh was conceived by the Word taking flesh." |
| Et per hoc patet responsio ad secundum. Nam simul dum caro illa concipitur, concepta est et animatur. | From the above the reply to the Second Objection is clear. For in the same moment that this flesh began to be conceived, its conception and animation were completed. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod in mysterio incarnationis non consideratur ascensus, quasi alicuius praeexistentis proficientis usque ad unionis dignitatem, sicut posuit Photinus haereticus. Sed potius ibi consideratur descensus, secundum quod perfectum Dei verbum imperfectionem naturae nostrae sibi assumpsit; secundum illud Ioan. VI, descendi de caelo. | Reply to Objection 3: The mystery of the Incarnation is not to be looked upon as an ascent, as it were, of a man already existing and mounting up to the dignity of the Union: as the heretic Photinus maintained. Rather is it to be considered as a descent, by reason of the perfect Word of God taking unto Himself the imperfection of our nature; according to Jn. 6:38: "I came down from heaven." |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 33 [<< | >>]
Article: 4 [<< | >>]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod conceptio Christi fuerit naturalis. Secundum enim conceptionem carnis Christus dicitur filius hominis. Est autem verus et naturalis hominis filius, sicut et verus et naturalis Dei filius. Ergo eius conceptio fuit naturalis. | Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's conception was natural. For Christ is called the Son of Man by reason of His conception in the flesh. But He is a true and natural Son of Man: as also is He the true and natural Son of God. Therefore His conception was natural. |
| Praeterea, nulla creatura producit operationem miraculosam. Sed conceptio Christi attribuitur beatae virgini, quae est pura creatura, dicitur enim quod virgo Christum concepit. Ergo videtur quod non sit miraculosa, sed naturalis conceptio. | Objection 2: Further, no creature can be the cause of a miraculous effect. But Christ's conception is attributed to the Blessed Virgin, who is a mere creature: for we say that the Virgin conceived Christ. Therefore it seems that His conception was not miraculous, but natural. |
| Praeterea, ad hoc quod aliqua transmutatio sit naturalis, sufficit quod principium passivum sit naturale, ut supra habitum est. Sed principium passivum ex parte matris in conceptione Christi fuit naturale, ut ex dictis patet. Ergo conceptio Christi fuit naturalis. | Objection 3: Further, for a transformation to be natural, it is enough that the passive principle be natural, as stated above (Question [32], Article [4]). But in Christ's conception the passive principle on the part of His Mother was natural, as we have shown (Question [32], Article [4]). Therefore Christ's conception was natural. |
| Sed contra est quod Dionysius dicit, in epistola ad Caium monachum, super hominem operatur Christus ea quae sunt hominis, et hoc monstrat virgo supernaturaliter concipiens. | On the contrary, Dionysius says (Ep. ad Caium Monach.): "Christ does in a superhuman way those things that pertain to man: this is shown in the miraculous virginal conception." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut Ambrosius dicit, in libro de incarnatione, multa in hoc mysterio et secundum naturam invenies, et ultra naturam. Si enim consideremus id quod est ex parte materiae conceptus, quam mater ministravit, totum est naturale. Si vero consideremus id quod est ex parte virtutis activae, totum est miraculosum. Et quia unumquodque magis iudicatur secundum formam quam secundum materiam; et similiter secundum agens quam secundum patiens, inde est quod conceptio Christi debet dici simpliciter miraculosa et supernaturalis, sed secundum aliquid naturalis. | I answer that, As Ambrose says (De Incarn. vi): "In this mystery thou shalt find many things that are natural, and many that are supernatural." For if we consider in this conception anything connected with the matter thereof, which was supplied by the mother, it was in all such things natural. But if we consider it on the part of the active power, thus it was entirely miraculous. And since judgment of a thing should be pronounced in respect of its form rather than of its matter: and likewise in respect of its activity rather than of its passiveness: therefore is it that Christ's conception should be described simply as miraculous and supernatural, although in a certain respect it was natural. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Christus dicitur naturalis filius hominis inquantum habet naturam humanam veram, per quam est filius hominis, licet eam miraculose habuerit, sicut caecus illuminatus videt naturaliter per potentiam visivam quam miraculose accepit. | Reply to Objection 1: Christ is said to be a natural Son of Man, by reason of His having a true human nature, through which He is a Son of Man, although He had it miraculously; thus, too, the blind man to whom sight has been restored sees naturally by sight miraculously received. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod conceptio attribuitur beatae virgini, non tanquam principio activo, sed quia ministravit materiam conceptui, et in eius utero est conceptio celebrata. | Reply to Objection 2: The conception is attributed to the Blessed Virgin, not as the active principle thereof, but because she supplied the matter, and because the conception took place in her womb. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod principium passivum naturale sufficit ad transmutationem naturalem quando naturali et consueto modo movetur a principio activo proprio. Sed hoc in proposito non habet locum. Et ideo conceptio illa non potest dici simpliciter naturalis. | Reply to Objection 3: A natural passive principle suffices for a transformation to be natural, when it is moved by its proper active principle in a natural and wonted way. But this is not so in the case in point. Therefore this conception cannot be called simply natural. |