Dist. 4, Art. 1, Q. 2
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-q2
----------------------------------------
### 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 Damascene 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 father 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 more: 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 son; 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 Spirit: 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 Spirit. *(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 principle: 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 Trinity.

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 itself, 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 text: «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 Spirit, 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 not 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, why 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 whom 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 it 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 produces 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 that 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 of 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.