Dist. 4, Art. 1, Q. 1
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/3/d/4/q/bon-sent-III-d4-a1-q1
----------------------------------------
### Article I. *On the conception of Christ in comparison with the Holy Spirit as efficient cause.*
### Question I. *Whether the incarnation of the Son of God ought to be appropriated to the Father, or to the Holy Spirit.*

Concerning the first point one proceeds thus and asks whether the incarnation of the Son of God ought to be appropriated to the Father, or to the Holy Spirit. And that it ought to be appropriated to the *Father* seems so.

1. The incarnation or conception of Christ is nothing other than the mission of the Son (*to the opposite*); but the mission of the Son belongs more to the Father than to the Holy Spirit: therefore by the same reasoning the incarnation and conception also.

2. Likewise, the incarnation of the Son is nothing other than His being given — whence at His Nativity we sing: *A Son is given to us* — but giving belongs most of all to the Father, according to that of John, chapter three: *So God loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son:* therefore it seems that the conception ought to be appropriated to the Father, not to the Holy Spirit.

3. Likewise, the annunciation of the conception of the Son of God was made through the Angel Gabriel, who is the *strength of God*; but strength or power is appropriated to the Father, not to the Holy Spirit: therefore by the same reasoning the incarnation also.

4. Likewise, the divine power is most of all manifested in that operation whose extremes are separated by the greatest distance, that is, an infinite one; but the union of the Son of God and the creature is a union of things infinitely distant: therefore in that operation there is most of all a manifestation of the divine power. But a work of this kind is appropriated to the Father, not to the Holy Spirit: therefore the conception also.

But *on the contrary,* it seems that it ought to be appropriated to the *Son.*

5. The work of conception pertains to the work of reparation; but the work of reparation pertains to the Word: therefore the conception also.

6. Likewise, to Him is properly attributed the formation of the flesh, to whom is attributed the assuming [of it]; but the assuming of the flesh is attributed to the Word alone: therefore it seems that to Him alone ought the conception itself to be appropriated.

7. Likewise, to that person ought the conception of the flesh in time most of all to be appropriated, to whom the conception from eternity most of all belongs; but this is the person of the Son, according to what is said in Proverbs, chapter eight: *The depths were not yet, and I was already conceived.*

8. Likewise, a work which is most of all manifestative of the divine wisdom is to be appropriated to the person of the Son of God; but such is the mystery of the incarnation, because, as is said in Job 8, *His prudence struck the proud one:* therefore it seems that the sacrament of conception is to be appropriated to the Son of God.

But against this is:

1. The authority in the Creed (*Foundations*): « He was conceived of the Holy Spirit »; it is not said of the Father, or the Son. And in Luke, chapter one: *The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee.* Likewise in Matthew, chapter one: *For that which is born in her is of the Holy Spirit.*

2. Likewise, by reason, because the work of the incarnation is manifestative of the divine goodness and charity; but this is appropriated to the Holy Spirit: therefore etc.

### Conclusion

> The incarnation of the Son of God ought most of all to be appropriated to the Holy Spirit, both on account of the exclusion of error and on account of the manifestation of the truth.

**I respond:** It must be said that the work of the incarnation (*Conclusion 1*) is manifestative of the divine *power, wisdom,* and *goodness* according to the diverse conditions found in it. For it happens that one may speak of it with respect to the things that can be united (*Distinction*), and with respect to the *manner of the union,* and with respect to the *fruit of the union.* — In comparison with the *things that can be united,* between which there is an infinite distance, the divine *power* is manifested. — But in comparison with the most fitting *manner of the union,* as it was suited for the human remedy, the *wisdom* of God is manifested. — But in comparison with the *fruit* or with the consequent effect, by which He offered Himself to God and the Father as an odor of sweetness, the divine *goodness,* mercy, and charity are manifested. And this is what Damascene says in book three, chapter one: « There is shown at once in the incarnation the goodness, justice, and wisdom of God: goodness indeed, because He did not despise the infirmity of His own

handiwork, but His bowels were moved, when it had fallen, and He stretched forth His hand; justice, because, man having been conquered, He did not make another conquer the tyrant; wisdom, because He found the most fitting solution of the *apori,* that is, of the difficulty ». Since therefore in the work of the incarnation, according to diverse considerations, it happens that one finds things appropriated to the three persons very excellently and pre-eminently: hence it is that the conception (*Conclusion 2*), since it is the work of the three persons, can be appropriated to the three persons according to diverse considerations, as the reasons that were brought forward before show.

Scripture nevertheless appropriates [it] more to the Holy Spirit than to any of the three persons (*A twofold reason why it is appropriated more to the Holy Spirit*), and this for a twofold reason, namely on account of the exclusion of error, and on account of the manifestation of the truth. — On account of the exclusion of error (*Reason 1*): because in human conception the concupiscence of foulness, and through this original guilt, is wont to insinuate itself. Lest therefore that be said to have been in the conception of Christ, He is said to have been *conceived of the Holy Spirit:* to exclude the *carnal commingling* He is said to be *conceived of the Spirit*; but to exclude the *foulness of concupiscence* He is said to be conceived not only *of the Spirit,* but *of the Holy Spirit.*

But the other reason is on account of the manifestation of the *truth* (*Reason 2*). For that which most of all prepared the Virgin for the conception of the Son of God was the divine love. Whence, just as a woman conceives through the delight of the man and his adhesion, which is with desire and love of the generative power; so the blessed Virgin, on account of the *singularity of love,* singularly conceived God from God; and therefore she is said to have conceived *of the Holy Spirit.* And this reason Hugh of St. Victor assigns in a certain little book of his, where he speaks thus: « The Virgin Mary conceived of the Holy Spirit, not because she received the seed of the offspring from the substance of the Holy Spirit, but because through the love and operation of the Holy Spirit she ministered the substance from the flesh of the Virgin for the divine offspring. For because the love of the Holy Spirit singularly burned in her heart, therefore in her flesh it wrought marvels; and because His love admitted no companion in the heart, its operation in her flesh had no exemplar ».

And thus it is plain that, on account of the *exclusion of error* and the *manifestation of the truth,* the incarnation of the Son of God ought most of all to be appropriated to the Holy Spirit (*Conclusion 3*). And on account of these two reasons appropriation is frequently made in Scripture, as was shown in the first book.

From these things, moreover, the response to the objections is manifest (*On the arguments to the opposite*), because they conclude truly by diverse ways that the mystery of the incarnation can for diverse causes be appropriated to any of the three persons. But if anyone should wish from these to argue that the work of the incarnation ought to be appropriated more to the Father or the Son than to the Holy Spirit; to all there is one response: because they proceed from an insufficient ground and err *according to consequent*, because one single reason does not suffice to appropriate [something] to one person alone, where with respect to another person a reason of greater fittingness is found; and so it is in the matter at hand.

Yet those two reasons which are founded upon this, that the incarnation of the Son of God is nothing other than mission, and that the conception is nothing other than the assuming of the flesh (*To arguments 1 and 6 in the opposite*), do not hold, because both mission and assuming import a relation which *properly* can regard the person of the Father and of the Son; but conception bespeaks an effect and operation which is common to the three persons and is appropriated to the Holy Spirit from the causes aforesaid; although other reasons of fittingness also can be assigned, whether because, the Holy Spirit being named, the other persons are understood, who is the unity and communion of both, as Augustine explains in the text; or because in the incarnation there was a most copious outpouring of the divine goodness. And thus to the Holy Spirit the conception is appropriated (*Note*), both by reason of what is *proper,* because He is the unity of both, and by reason of what is *appropriated,* because He is the goodness of both. — From these things, moreover, the response to the objections can sufficiently be plain.