Dist. 4
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-littera
----------------------------------------
### DISTINCTION IV.

### Chap. I. *Why the incarnation is attributed to the Holy Spirit, although it is the work of the Trinity.*

But since the incarnation of the Word, as was treated in what precedes, is truly the operation of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, it seems to us worthy of investigation why in Scripture this work is more often attributed to the Holy Spirit, and Christ is recorded to have been *conceived and born* of him. — For the operation of the incarnation is not attributed more often to the Holy Spirit because he alone did it without the Father and the Son, but because the Holy Spirit is the charity and the gift of the Father and of the Son, and by the inestimable charity of God *the Word was made flesh*, and by the ineffable gift of God the Son of God united to himself *the form of a servant*. Therefore the frequent denomination of the Holy Spirit from that work does not exclude the Father or the Son, but rather, when one is named, the three are understood, as often happens in other works. Hence Augustine, raising a question about this, settles it in this manner in the *Enchiridion*, saying thus: «Since the whole Trinity made that creature which the Virgin conceived and bore — although it pertains to the person of the Son alone — for the operations of the Trinity are not separable — why in making it was the Holy Spirit alone named? Or even when one of the Three is named in some work, is the whole Trinity understood to operate? So it truly is, and it can be taught by examples». — You have heard the question proposed and its solution or exposition.

### Chap. II. *Why Christ is said to be conceived and born of the Holy Spirit.*

«But we must not delay longer on this. For this is what moves [the question]: how is Christ said to be born of the Holy Spirit, since he is in no way the son of the Holy Spirit?» — «Are we then to say that the father of the man Christ is the Holy Spirit, so that God the Father begot the Word, the Holy Spirit the man, so that from these two substances Christ would be one and the son of God the Father according to the Word, and the son of the Holy Spirit according to the man, in that the Holy Spirit had begotten him as his father of the Virgin Mother? Who will dare to say this, since it is so absurd that no ears of the faithful can endure it?» «Hence, since we confess that Christ was born of the Holy Spirit from the Virgin Mary, how he is not the son of the Holy Spirit, and yet is the son of the Virgin, since he was born both of him and of her, is difficult to explain. Without doubt he was not born of him as of a father, but of her as of a mother». — «But it is not to be granted that whatever is born from any thing is forthwith to be called the son of that same thing. For — to omit that a son is born of a man in one way, and a hair, a louse, a worm in another, none of which is a son; so, to omit these things, since they are unbecomingly compared to so great a matter — certainly those who *are born of water and the Holy Spirit* no one would rightly call sons of the water, but they are called sons of God the Father and of mother Church. So then Christ was born of the Holy Spirit, and yet is not the son of the Holy Spirit; just as conversely not all who are called the *sons* of someone, are consequently said to have been *born* of him, as those who are adopted. They are also called *sons of gehenna* not as born of it, but as prepared for it». «Since therefore something is born from someone, and yet not so as to be his son; nor again is everyone who is called a son born of him whose son he is called; assuredly this manner, by which Christ was born the son of Mary, and not the son of the Holy Spirit, intimates to us the grace of God, by which the man, with no preceding merits, in the very beginning of his nature, by which he began to be, was joined to the Word of God in so great a unity of person that he should be the same Son of God who is the Son of man, and the Son of man who is the Son of God; and so in the assumption of the human nature that very grace would become in a certain way natural to that man, by which he could admit no sin. Which grace is for this reason signified through the Holy Spirit, because he is properly so God as also to be the gift of God». «Through this, then, that the nativity of Christ is said to be of the Holy Spirit, what else is shown than that very grace by which the man was, in a wonderful and ineffable manner, joined to and bound together with the Word of God and bodily filled with divine grace»?

It can also be said that Christ according to his humanity is for this reason *born* of the Holy Spirit, because he *made* him. For inasmuch as he is man, he himself was also *made*, as the Apostle says. He is therefore said to be *conceived* and *born* of the Holy Spirit, not that the Holy Spirit was to the Virgin in place of seed, for it was not from the substance of the Holy Spirit that she received the seed of her offspring, but because by the grace of God and the operation of the Holy Spirit there was assumed from the flesh of the Virgin that which was united to the Word of God. And in the Gospel, according to this understanding, it is read of Mary, *that she was found with child of the Holy Spirit*. The reason for this saying Ambrose intimates in the second book *On the Holy Spirit*, saying: «What is from anything is either *of its substance* or *of its power*: *of its substance*, as the Son, who [proceeds] from the Father, and the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son; *of its power*, however, as all things are from God. How then

did Mary conceive in her womb of the Holy Spirit? If as it were *of his substance*, then the Spirit was converted into flesh and bones. By no means. But if the Virgin conceived as it were *of his operation* and power, who would deny that the Holy Spirit is the author of the Lord's incarnation?»

### Chap. III. *Why the Apostle says that Christ was made, whom we confess to have been born.*

But it can be asked, since we profess the Savior to have been *born*, why the Apostle says he was *made of the seed of David*, and in another place, *made of a woman*, since to be made is one thing and to be born another. He therefore signified something by this word. For since the flesh of the Lord was not formed in the womb of the Virgin of human seed and made a body, but by the effect and power of the Holy Spirit; therefore the Apostle says *made*, not *born*. For to *generate* by seed admixed and the clot of blood is one thing, to *procreate* not by mixture but by power is another. Men can *generate* sons, but not make them. — See, why the Apostle said *made*, and not *born*: namely, lest his nativity, which was without the seed of a man, should be thought like ours, which is brought about by the commingling of seeds. But for this reason, when the Apostle said *made*, he added *of the seed of David*: because, although the seed of a man did not intervene in the conception of the Virgin, nevertheless, since Christ was formed from that flesh which is constituted of seed, it is rightly said that he *was made*.

---