Article. 2 - Whether it should be said that Christ was conceived of [de] the Holy Ghost?

Objection 1: It would seem that we should not say that Christ was conceived of [de] the . Because on Rom. 11:36: "For of Him [ex ipso] and by Him, and in Him, are all things," the gloss of Augustine says: "Notice that he does not say, 'of Him' [de ipso], but 'of Him' [ex ipso]. For of Him [ex ipso], are heaven and earth, since He made them: but not of Him [de ipso], since they are not made of His substance." But the did not form Christ's body of [de] His own substance. Therefore we should not say that Christ was conceived of [de] the .

Objection 2: Further, the active principle of [de] which something is conceived is as the seed in generation. But the did not take the place of seed in Christ's conception. For Jerome says (Expos. Cathol. Fidei) [*Written by Pelagius]: "We do not say, as some wicked wretches hold, that the took the place of seed: but we say that Christ's body was wrought," i.e. formed, "by the power and might of the Creator." Therefore we should not say that Christ's body was conceived of [de] the .

Objection 3: Further, no one thing is made of two, except they be in some way mingled. But Christ's body was formed of [de] the Virgin Mary. If therefore we say that Christ was conceived of [de] the , it seems that a mingling took place of the with the matter supplied by the Virgin: and this is clearly false. Therefore we should not say that Christ was conceived of [de] the .

On the contrary, It is written (Mat. 1:18): "Before they came together, she was found with child, of [de] the ."

I answer that, Conception is not attributed to Christ's body alone, but also to Christ Himself by reason of His body. Now, in the we may observe a twofold habitude to Christ. For to the Son of God Himself, who is said to have been conceived, He has a habitude of consubstantiality: while to His body He has the habitude of efficient cause. And this preposition of [de] signifies both habitudes: thus we say that a certain man is "of [de] his father." And therefore we can fittingly say that Christ was conceived of the in such a way that the efficiency of the be referred to the body assumed, and the consubstantiality to the Person assuming.

Reply to Objection 1: Christ's body, through not being consubstantial with the , cannot properly be said to be conceived "of" [de] the , but rather "from [ex] the ," as Ambrose says (De Spir. Sanct. ii.): "What is from someone is either from his substance or from his power: from his substance, as the Son who is from the Father; from his power, as all things are from God, just as Mary conceived from the ."

Reply to Objection 2: It seems that on this point there is a difference of opinion between Jerome and certain other Doctors, who assert that the took the place of seed in this conception. For Chrysostom says (Hom. i in Matth. [*Opus Imperf., among the supposititious writings]): "When God's Only-Begotten was about to enter into the Virgin, the preceded Him; that by the previous entrance of the , Christ might be born unto according to His body, the Godhead entering instead of the seed." And Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): "God's wisdom and power overshadowed her, like unto a Divine seed."

But these expressions are easily explained. Because Chrysostom and Damascene compare the , or also the Son, who is the Power of the Most High, to seed, by reason of the active power therein; while Jerome denies that the took the place of seed, considered as a corporeal substance which is transformed in conception.

Reply to Objection 3: As Augustine says (Enchiridion xl), Christ is said to be conceived or born of the in one sense; of the Virgin Mary in another---of the Virgin Mary materially; of the efficiently. Therefore there was no mingling here.