Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

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.

Objection 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.

Objection 3: Further, God is called our Father by reason of His having made us, according to Dt. 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 (Articles 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 xxxix), 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 God or in man. But if the likeness be imperfect, the sonship is imperfect. Thus in man there is a certain imperfect likeness to God, both as regards his being created to God'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 God 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 God, 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 to Objection 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 to Objection 2: Men who are fashioned spiritually by the Holy Ghost cannot be called sons of God in the perfect sense of sonship. And therefore they are called sons of God 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.

Articulus 3

Argumentum 1

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod spiritus sanctus debeat dici pater christi secundum humanitatem.

Quia secundum philosophum, in libro de generat. Animal., pater dat principium activum in generatione, mater vero ministrat materiam.

Sed beata virgo dicitur mater christi propter materiam quam in conceptione eius ministravit. Ergo videtur quod etiam spiritus sanctus possit dici pater eius, propter hoc quod fuit principium activum in conceptione ipsius.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, sicut mentes aliorum sanctorum formantur per spiritum sanctum, ita etiam corpus christi est per spiritum sanctum formatum. Sed alii sancti, propter praedictam formationem, dicuntur filii totius trinitatis, et per consequens spiritus sancti.

Videtur ergo quod christus debeat dici filius spiritus sancti, inquantum corpus eius est spiritu sancto formatum.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, deus dicitur pater noster secundum hoc quod nos fecit, secundum illud Deut. XXXII, nonne ipse est pater tuus, qui possedit et fecit et creavit te? sed spiritus sanctus fecit corpus christi, ut dictum est.

Ergo spiritus sanctus debet dici pater christi secundum corpus ab ipso formatum.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in enchirid., natus est christus de spiritu sancto non sicut filius, et de maria virgine sicut filius.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod nomina paternitatis et maternitatis et filiationis generationem consequuntur, non tamen quamlibet, sed proprie generationem viventium, et praecipue animalium. Non enim dicimus quod ignis generatus sit filius ignis generantis, nisi forte secundum metaphoram, sed hoc solum dicimus in animalibus quorum generatio est magis perfecta. Nec tamen omne quod in animalibus generatur, filiationis accepit nomen, sed solum illud quod generatur in similitudine generantis. Unde, sicut Augustinus dicit, non dicimus quod capillus qui nascitur ex homine, sit filius hominis; nec etiam dicimus quod homo qui nascitur sit filius seminis, quia nec capillus habet similitudinem hominis; nec homo qui nascitur habet similitudinem seminis, sed hominis generantis.

Et si quidem perfecta sit similitudo, erit perfecta filiatio, tam in divinis quam in humanis. Si autem sit similitudo imperfecta, est etiam filiatio imperfecta. Sicut in homine est quaedam similitudo dei imperfecta, et inquantum creatus est ad imaginem dei, et inquantum creatus est secundum similitudinem gratiae. Et ideo utroque modo potest homo dici filius eius, et quia, scilicet, est creatus ad imaginem eius; et quia est ei assimilatus per gratiam. Est autem considerandum quod illud quod de aliquo dicitur secundum perfectam rationem, non est dicendum de eo secundum rationem imperfectam, sicut, quia socrates dicitur naturaliter homo secundum propriam rationem hominis, nunquam dicitur homo secundum illam significationem qua pictura hominis dicitur homo, licet forte ipse assimiletur alteri homini. Christus autem est filius dei secundum perfectam rationem filiationis.

Unde, quamvis secundum humanam naturam sit creatus et iustificatus non tamen debet dici filius dei neque ratione creationis, neque ratione iustificationis, sed solum ratione generationis aeternae, secundum quam est filius patris solius. Et ideo nullo modo debet dici christus filius spiritus sancti, nec etiam totius trinitatis.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod christus conceptus est de maria virgine materiam ministrante in similitudinem speciei. Et ideo dicitur filius eius. Christus autem, secundum quod homo, conceptus est de spiritu sancto sicut de activo principio, non tamen secundum similitudinem speciei, sicut homo nascitur de patre suo.

Et ideo christus non dicitur filius spiritus sancti.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod homines qui spiritualiter formantur a spiritu sancto, non possunt dici filii dei secundum perfectam rationem filiationis. Et ideo dicuntur filii dei secundum filiationem imperfectam, quae est secundum similitudinem gratiae, quae est a tota trinitate. Sed de christo est alia ratio, ut dictum est.

Ad 3

Et similiter dicendum est ad tertium.