You are on page 1of 22

franciscan-archive.

org

http://www.franciscan-archive.org/bonaventura/opera/bon03060.html

COMMENTARIA IN QUATUOR LIBROS SENTENTIARUM -- Lib. III, d. III, p. I, a. 1, q. 1.


S. Bonavent urae Bagnoregis S. R. E. Episc. Card. Albae atque Doctor Ecclesiae Universalis Comment aria in Quat uor Libros Sent ent iarum Magistri Petri Lombardi, Episc. Parisiensis TERTII LIBRI COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM III. PARS I. De sanct if icat ione beat ae Virginis. St . Bonavent ure of Bagnoregio Cardinal Bishop of Alba & Doctor of the Church Comment aries on t he Four Books of Sent ences of Master Peter Lombard, Archbishop of Paris BOOK THREE COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION III PART I On t he Sanct if icat ion of t he Blessed Virgin. ARTICLE I Quest ion 1 Latin text taken from Opera Omnia S. Bonavent urae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1887, Vol. 3, pp. 60-65. Notes by the Quaracchi Editors. There is also asked concerning the Flesh of the Word, whether it was conceived beforehand. DIVISION OF THE TEXT Above Master [Peter] dealt with the Incarnation; here he deals indeed with the Conception. And because before the Conception of the Son of God there

ARTICULUS I. Quaest io I. Opera Omnia S. Bonavent urae, Ad Claras Aquas, 1887, Vol. 3, pp. 60-65. Cum Notitiis Originalibus

Quaeritur etiam de carne Verbi, an, priusquam conciperetur.

DIVISIO TEXTUS. Supra egit Magister de incarnatione; hic vero agit de conceptione. Et quia ante conceptionem Filli Dei praecessit sanctificatio Virginis, ideo ista pars habet

duas partes. In prima determinat, qualiter Virgo Maria fuerit per Spiritum sanctum sanctificata et ab omni labe purgata. Secundo vero determinat, qualiter caro Christi fuerit per Spiritum sanctum concepta, infra distinctione quarta: Cum vero incarnatio Verbi etc.

preceded the sanctification of the Virgin, for that reason this part (of his text) has two parts. In the first he determines, how the Virgin Mary was sanctified by [per] the Holy Spirit and purged from all stain [labe]. Second he determines indeed, how the Flesh of Christ was conceived by [per] the Holy Spirit, below in the fourth distinction: When indeed the Incarnation of the Word etc. The first part is divided in two parts, in the first of which he determines (what) concerns sanctification, which preceded the Conception of Christ. In the second, indeed, he inquires, whether the Flesh of Christ could have been thus tithed in Abraham, as it could be sanctified in the Virgin. For that reason he first deals with the sanctification; but second the tithing, there (where he says): Moreover since that Flesh etc.. The first part is divided into three parts. In the first part he determines what was the requirement [exigentia] for the sanctification. In the second, what was the cause of the sanctification, there (where he says): The Holy Spirit also purged Mary entirely etc. But in the third, what was the efficacy of the sanctification, there (where he says): However that the sacred Virgin from then on existed immune from all sin etc.. But this part, in which the sanctification of the Virgin is dealt with, regards the present consideration.1 TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS For an understanding [intelligentiam] of this part there occurs here the question about the sanctification of the Virgin as much as regards two things. First one asks concerning the sanctification of the Virgin as much as regards congruence of time. Second, indeed, as much as regards efficacy of virtue.

Prima pars dividitur in duas partes, in quarum prima determinat de sanctificatione, quae praecessit Christi conceptionem. In secunda vero inquirit, utrum caro Christi ita potuerit in Abraham decimari, sicut in Virgine potuit sanctificari. Ideo primo agit de sanctificatione; secundo vero de decimatione, ibi: Cum autem illa caro etc.

Prima pars dividitur in tres partes. In prima parte determinat, quae fuerit sanctificationis exigentia. In secunda, quae fuerit sanctificationis causa, ibi: Mariam quoque totam Spiritus sanctus etc. In tertia vero, quae fuerit sanctificationis efficacia, ibi: Quod autem sacra Virgo ex tunc ab omni peccato etc. Haec autem pars, in qua agitur de Virginis sanctificatione, spectat ad praesentem considerationem.1

TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM. Ad intelligentiam huius partis incidit hic quaestio circa sanctificationem Virginis quantum ad duo

Primo quaeritur de santificatione Virginis quantum ad congruentiam temporis.

Secundo vero, quantum ad efficaciam virtutis.

Circa primum quaeruntur tria. Primo quaeritur, utrum caro Virginis sanctificata fuerit ante animationem. Secundo quaeritur, utrum anima eius sanctificata fuerit ante originalis contractionem. Tertio quaeritur, utrum sanctificata fuerit 2 ante nativitatis originem.

Concerning the first, three things are asked. First one asks whether the flesh of the Virgin had been sanctified before (Her) animation. Second, one asks, whether Her soul had been sanctified before the contraction of the original (sin). Third one asks, whether (Her flesh) had been2 sanctified before the origin of (Her) birth.
1

1 Haec

ultima propositio, quae in omnibus codd. exhibetur, desideratur in edd. 2 Codd. A R T V W Y Z dd adiiciunt tota, pro quo in cod. N legitur beata Virgo, in cod. S anima eius. Verbum tota non respondet ipsi quaestioni; apte autem poneretur cito. Paulo superius voci originalis Vat. praefigit peccati.

This last proposition, which is exhibited in all the codices, is wanting in the editions. 2 Codices A R T V W Y Z and dd add wholly [tota], in place of which codex N reads the Blessed Virgin [beata Virgo], in codex S Her soul [tota]. The word wholly [tota] does not respond to the question itself; but (the word) swiftly [cito] is aptly placed. A little above this, to the word original [originalis] the Vatican edition adds sin [peccati].

p. 61 ARTICULUS I. De sanctificatione Virignis quoad congruentiam temporis. QUAESTIO I. Utrum caro Virginis sanctificata fuerit ante animationem. CIRCA PRIMUM sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum caro Virginis sanctificata fuerit ante animationem. Et probatur primo, quod sic: ARTICLE I Concerning the sanctification of the Virgin as regards congruence of time. QUESTION 1 Whether the flesh of the Virgin has been sanctified before its animation. CONCERNING THE FIRST one proceeds thus and asks, whether the flesh of the Virgin had been sanctified before (its) animation. And first it is proven, that yes (it was):

1. Ieremiae primo:1 antequam formarem te in utero, novi te; constat, quod beata Virgo excellentior fuit quam Ieremias: ergo prius fuit approbata et purificata eius caro, quam esset formata. Sed ante fuit formata quam animata: ergo ante fuit carnis sanctificatio quam animatio.

1. The first (chapter) of Jeremiah:1 before I formed you in the womb, I knew you; it is established, that the Blessed Virgin was more excellent than Jeremiah: therefore Her flesh was approved and purified before it had been formed. But it had been formed before it was animated: therefore the sanctification of (Her) flesh was before (its) animation. 2. Likewise, on that (verse) of the first (chapter of the Gospel) of (St.) Luke:2 The infant exulted in joy in my womb; the Gloss (says): The spirit of life was not yet in him, and already the spirit of grace was : therefore much stronger was this (spirit) in the Lords Mother, who was more worthy than John: therefore (Her flesh) was sanctified before (receiving) the spirit of life, and thus before (its) animation. 3. Likewise, sanctifying virtue is no less potent, than staining and defiling virtue [virtus inficiens et foedans]; but the flesh can be stained and befouled before animation: therefore by an equal reason before the infusion of the soul, it can be rather more strongly sanctified, since opposites come into being about the same thing .3 If therefore this has been conceded to the Blessed Virgin, however much congruous it is to be conceded to a pure creature; it seems, that Her flesh has been sanctified before (its) animation. 4. Likewise, the conception of the glorious Virgin was from a legitimate marriage and from holy parents and from a sterile mother, according to that which a certain history narrates;4 therefore it seems, that that conception, which is according to a legitimate marriage and according to the help of the Holy Spirit, is holy and immaculate; it seems, that the flesh of the Virgin Mary had been sanctified in its very conception. But the conception was before the animation: therefore (Her flesh) had been sanctified before having been animated.

2. Item, super illud Lucae primo:2 Exsultavit in gaudio infans in utero meo; Glossa: Nondum erat in eo spiritus vitae, et iam erat spiritus gratiae : ergo multo fortius hoc fuit in Domini matre, quae dignior fuit quam Ioannes: ergo sanctificata fuit ante spiritum vitae, et ita ante animationem.

3. Item, non est minus potens virtus sanctificans, quam sit virtus inficiens et foedans; sed caro infici potest et foedari ante animationem: ergo pari ratione ante animae infusionem, immo fortiori potest sanctificari, cum opposita nata sint fieri circa idem .3 Si ergo beatae Virgini hoc concessum est, quantumcumque congruum est concedi purae creaturae; videtur, quod caro eius ante animationem sanctificata fuerit.

4. Item, conceptio gloriosae Virginis fuit de legitimo matrimonio et de parentibus sanctis et de matre sterili, secundum quod narrat quaedam historia;4 videtur ergo, quod ipsa concepta fuerit virtute Spiritus sancti: si ergo illa conceptio, quae est secundum legitimum matrimonium et secundum Spiritus sancti adiutorium, est sancta et immaculata; videtur, quod caro Virginis Mariae in ipsa sua conceptione fuerit sanctificata. Sed ante fuit conceptio quam animatio: ergo fuit ante sanctificata quam animata.

SED CONTRA: 1. Bernardus ad Lugdunenses:5 Ante conceptionem sanctificari minime poterat, quia non erat; sed nec in ipso conceptu propter peccatum, quod inerat ; sed constat, quod illud non dictum propter peccatum, quod esset in parentibus, quia potuissent eam concipere sine peccato: ergo dicit propter causam peccati, quae erat in carne: ergo non videtur, quod sanctificatio fuerit ante infusionem animae.

ON THE CONTRARY: 1. (St.) Bernard (of Clairvaux in his letter) to (the Canons of the Cathedral) of Lyons:5 Before conception it could have been sanctified very little [minime], because it was not; but neither [could it have been] in the very conception because of the sin, which was therein ; but it is established, that that is not said because of sin, which may have been in the parents, because they could have conceived Her without sin: therefore he says it because of the cause of sin, which was in (their) flesh: therefore it does not seem, that the sanctification was before the infusion of (Her) the soul. 2. Likewise, the sanctification is by some gift [per aliquod munus] of grace of the Holy Spirit; but grace does not have (its) to be[esse] in the flesh, but in the soul; therefore it does not seem, that grace had been infused into the flesh before the soul. 3. Likewise, the to be [esse] of grace presupposes the to be [esse] of nature: if therefore sanctification means an effect of vivifying grace, it seems impossible, that the flesh be sanctified before it be vivified6 by the soul. 4. Likewise, nothing pertains to sanctification, which does not pertain to glorification; but flesh before animation does not pertain to glorification nor to resurrection whence fetuses aborted before animation do not rise again, as Augustine says7 therefore (Her) flesh before animation was not capable [idonea] of sanctification: therefore the flesh of the Virgin has not been sanctified before (being) animated. CONCLUSION The Flesh of the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified before its animation.

2. Item, sanctificatio est per aliquod munus gratiae Spiritus sancti; sed gratia non habet esse in carne, sed in anima; ergo non videtur, quod ante fuerit carni gratia infusa quam animae.

3. Item, esse gratiae praesupponit esse naturae, et perfectio gratia perfectionem naturae: si ergo sanctificatio dicit effectum gratiae vivificantis, impossible videtur, quod caro sanctificetur, antequam ab anima vivificetur.6 4. Item, nihil pertinet ad sanctificationem, quod non pertinet ad glorificationem; sed caro ante animationem non pertinet ad glorificationem nec resurrectionem unde foetus abortivi ante animationem non resurgunt, ut dicit Augustinus7 igitur caro ante animationem non erat idonea ad sanctificationem: ergo non fuit caro Virginis ante santificata quam animata.

CONCLUSIO. Beatae Virginis caro ante animationem non fuit sanctificata.

RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod caro beatae Virginis ante animationem non fuit sanctificata; non quia Deus non potuerit carnem Virginis purificare ante quam animare, sed quia sanctificatio habet esse per aliquod donum gratuitum superadditum, quod quidem non habet esse in carne, sed in anima. Ideo si caro beatae Virginis dicitur sanctificari, aut hoc intelligitur mediante gratia existente in eius anima, vel mediante gratia existente in animabus parentum. Constat, quod non mediante gratia existente in eius anima, quia tunc esset oppositio in adiecto,

I RESPOND: It must be said, that the flesh of the Blessed Virgin has not been sanctified before (its) animation; not because God could not have purified the flesh of the Virgin before animating it., but because sanctification has (its) being [esse] through some gratuitous, superadded gift [donum], which indeed does not have (its) to be [esse] in the flesh, but in the soul. For that reason if the flesh of the Blessed Virgin is said to be sanctified, either this is understood by means of a grace existing [existente] in Her soul, and/or by means of a grace existing [existente] in the souls of (Her) parents. It is established, that (it could not have been) by means of a grace existing in Her soul, because then there would have been oppositio in adiecto,
1

Vers. 5. Cfr. August., VI. de Gen. ad lit. c. 8. n. 13. seq. 2 Vers 44. Glossa, quae ordinaria est et sumta ex Ambros. Exposit. Evang. Luc. 1, 15. (libr. I. n. 33.), habetur apud Strabum et Lyranum in dictum locum. 3 Secundum Aristot., de Praedicam. c. de Oppositis, et II. Topic. c. 3. (c. 7.). De infectione carnis ante animationem vide II. Sent. d. 31. dub 1. Pro fortiori edd. a fortiori, cod Y multo fortiori. 4 Cfr. Epist. 50. inter opera Hieronymi, quae agit de nativitate sanctae Mariae, c. 2, et Damasc., IV de Fide orthod. c. 14. 5 Epist. 174. n. 7. in fine, quae epistola directa fuit ad Canonicos Lugdunenses, quorum aliqui festum Conceptionis B. M. V.. celebrant, licentia a Romano Pontifice non petita. Paulo inferius pro quod esset cod. V quod erat, et deinde pro ergo dicit cod. N ergo dicitur. 6 Cod. T antequam animetur. 7 Enchirid. c. 85. n. 23; XXII. de Civ. Dei, c. 13. Edd. perperam supplent in libro de Baptismo parvulorum. In maiori post glorificationem codd. M O subiungunt vel resurrectionem.

Verse 5. Cf. Augustine, A Literal Exposition of Genesis, Bk. VI, ch. 8. n. 13 ff. 2 Verse 44. This gloss, which is the ordinary one, is also taken from Ambrose's Exposition on of the Gospel of Luke, 1, 15. 3 According to Aristotle, On the Predicaments, ch. "On Opposites", and on Topics, Bk. II, ch. 3. (ch. 7). concerning the infection of the flesh before animation, see Sent., Bk. II, d. 31. dubium 1. In place of more strongly [fortiori] the editions have a fortiori, codex Y much more strongly [multo fortiori]. 4 Cf. Letter 50 among the works of (St.) Jerome, which deals with the nativity of St. Mary, ch. 2, and Damascene's, On the Orthodox Faith, Bk. IV, ch. 14. 5 Letter 174, n.7, at the end of which letter, addressed to the Canons of Lyons, some of whom celebrated the Feast of the Conception of the B. V. M., not having sought license [to do so] from the Roman Pontiff. A little below this for which may have been [quod esset] codex V reads which was [quod erat], and then for therefore he says [ergo dicit] codex N has therefore it is said [ergo dicitur]. 6 Codex T reads before it was animated [antequam animetur]. 7 In his Enchiridion, ch. 85, n23; The City of God, Bk. XXII, ch. 13. The editions faultily supply here in his book On the Baptism of

children [in libro de Baptismo parvulorum]. To the major [maiori] after glorification [glorificationem] codices M and O subjoin and/or resurrection [vel resurrectionem]. p. 62 videlicet quod caro sanctificetur ante animae creationem, et tamen sanctificetur per virtutem gratiae illius animae; sequitur enim,1 quod idem sit prius et posterius in uno et eodem. Si autem intelligatur hoc fieri per gratiam, quae collata fuerit animabus parentum, hoc non potest esse, triplici ratione. namely, that the flesh be sanctified before the creation of the soul, and nevertheless be sanctified by virtue of the grace of that soul; for1 it follows, that the same thing would be prior and posterior in regard to one and the same thing. But if it this be understood to have come into being [fieri] through a grace, which had been gathered from the souls of [Her] parents, this could not be, for a threefold reason. First: because the grace2 of sanctification does not have it in its power to be transfused from parent to offspring, for the reason that the offspring is not in the parent according to its soul; on that account neither does it have the grace of sanctification in its parent. And this is what (St.) Bernard says (in his letter) to (the Canons) of Lyons: Before conception (Her soul) could be sanctified very little, because it was not ; this must be explained according to (Her) soul; for (Her flesh) was in them according to the flesh as a cause, but that being [esse] was not sufficient for the grace of sanctification, which respects the soul. The second reason is: that, even if this were possible, that the sanctification be derived from the parent into the offspring,3 just as original justice [would have been]; never, however, is it derived by means of a lustful [libidinoso] union, because then there would have been two opposites at one and the same time in the same thing. And for that reason (St.) Bernard says:4 As it happened [forte] there was sanctity among the embracing spouses and in Her who was conceived. But this reason does not allow (the possibility at hand). For in what manner was there sanctity without the sanctifying

Prima: quia gratia2 sanctificationis non habet transfundi a parente in prolem, pro eo quod proles non est in parente secundum animam; ideo nec in parente habet sactificationis gratiam. Et hoc est quod dicit Bernardus ad Lugdunenses: Ante conceptionem minime sanctificare potuit, quia non erat ; exponendum est secundum animam; erat enim in eis secundum carnem causaliter, sed illud esse non sufficiebat ad sanctificationis gratiam, quae respicit animam.

Secunda ratio est: quia, etsi hoc esset possibile, quod sanctificatio derivaretur a parente in prolem,3 sicut originalis iustitia; nunquam tamen derivatur mediante coitu libidinoso, quia tunc duo opposita essent simul et semel in eodem. Et ideo dicit Bernardus:4 Forte inter amplexus maritales sanctitas fuerit et concepta. Sed hoc ratio non admittit. Quomodo namque sanctitas absque Spiritu sanctificante, aut Spiritui sancto societas cum peccato fuit? Aut quomodo peccatum non fuit, ubi libido non defuit ?

was there sanctity without the sanctifying Spirit, or a society with sin by the Holy Spirit? Or how was there no sin, where lust [libido] was not lacking ? Tertia ratio est: quia esto quod sanctificatio adesset, et libido defuerit virtute divina; non tamen decuit, ut deesset, propter hoc quod haec est solius beatae Virginis praerogativa; sola enim ipsa, ut Sancti dicunt, sine peccato concepit et sine dolore peperit; et ideo hoc parentibus concedi non debuit beatae Virginis, sed soli Virgini reservari. Unde Bernardus:5 Dico, Virginem gloriosam de Spiritu sancto concepisse, non autem conceptam fuisse; dico, peperisse virginem, non tamen partam fuisse. Alioquin ubi erit praerogative Matris, de qua singulariter creditur exsultare et munere prolis et carnis integritate, si eam dederis matri? Non est hoc Virginem honorare, sed eius honori detrahere . Et ideo simpliciter concedendum, quod caro eius ante animationem non fuit sanctificata. Et concedendae sunt rationes, quae hoc probant. The third reason is: that be it that the sanctification be present, and lust [libido] be lacking by divine virtue; it was not, however, fitting, that it be lacking, for the reason that this is the prerogative of the Blessed Virgin alone; for only She, as the Saints say, conceived without sin and gave birth without pain; and for that reason this ought not be conceded to the parents of the Blessed Virgin, but be reserved to the Virgin alone. Whence (St.) Bernard (says):5 I say, that the glorious Virgin conceived of the Holy Spirit, not however that She was conceived; I say, that the Virgin gave birth, not however that She had been born. Otherwise what will there be of the prerogative of the Mother, concerning whom it is believed that She alone [singulariter] exults both on account of the gift [munere] of [Her] Child and the integrity of [Her] flesh, if you would give this to (Her) mother? This is not to honor the Virgin, but to detract from Her honor . And for that reason it simply must be conceded, that Her flesh has not been sanctified before (its) animation. And the reasons, which prove this, are to be conceded. 1. Therefore to that which is objected in the Contrary concerning Jeremiah: He knew (him) before He formed (him); it must be said, that that a being known [notitia] does not posit anything about him, but about the proposal of God predestining (him), just as the election and loving-choice [dilectio] and eternal predestination (of a individual) does not posit anything about the one predestined;6 and for that reason it does not follow from this, that the flesh of Jeremiah and/or of the Virgin has been sanctified before it was formed. 2. To that which is objected concerning John (the Baptist), that there was not yet in him the spirit of life; it must be said, that in Scripture something is said to become, when

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur in contrarium de Ierimia: Ante cognovit, quam formavit; dicendum, quod notitia illa non ponit aliquid circa ipsum, sed circa propositum Dei praedestinantis, sicut electio et dilectio et praedestinatio aeterna non ponit aliquid circa praedestinatum;6 et ideo non sequitur ex hoc, quod caro Ieremiae vel Virginis ante fuerit sanctificata quam formata.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Ioanne, quod nondum erat in ipso spiritus vitae; dicendum, quod in Scriptura aliquid dicitur fieri, quando innotescit; et non esse, quando non apparet.

Et ideo dicitur spiritus non fuisse in Ioanne, quia non apparebat; adhuc enim in utero erat;7 spiritus gratiae in eo dicitur fuisse, quando in occursum Domini exsultavit in ventre.

it becomes known; and not to be [non esse], when it does not appear. And for that reason the spirit (of life) is said not to have been in John, because it did not appear (at that time); for until then he was in the womb [utero];7 the spirit of grace is said to have been in him, when he exulted in the womb [ventre] on meeting the Lord. 3. To that which is objected, that the flesh can be stained before animation, therefore (it can) also be sanctified (beforehand); it must be said, that (the case) is not similar, because the generation of the flesh from flesh is (something) carnal not spiritual; for that reason vitiated flesh has rather to be transfused [habet transfundi] from vitiated flesh, than holy (flesh transfused) from parents sanctified through grace.8 4. To that which is objected, that the conception of the Virgin was from a legitimate marriage, therefore etc.: it must be said, that that is entirely probable, namely, that She had been conceived from a sterile (mother) and from conjugal union without all actual fault; it does not however follow, that She had been conceived without the cause of sin, because original (sin) is so transfused from those who generate from a legitimate union, as from those who generate from a adulterous union, just as had been shown in the Second Book (of the Sentences).9 And if one objects, that the original cause ought not to be there, because (the conception) come to be by means of the virtue of the Holy Spirit fecundating (St. Anne), and because of (this) fecundation of the sterility of the mother, which was not by a man, but by God; it must be said, that that (argument) is not valid, because this may be able to be similarly objected concerning (Sts.) John (the Baptist) and Isaac,10 who were conceived from sterile (mothers).
1 2

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod caro potest infici ante animationem, ergo et sanctificari; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia generatio carnis ex carne est carnalis, non spiritualis; ideo magis habet transfundi caro vitiosa ex carne vitosa, quam sancta ex parentibus sanctificatis per gratiam.8

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod conceptio Virginis fuit ex legitimo matrimonio, ergo etc.: dicendum, quod totum illud est probabile, videlicet quod concepta fuerit ex sterili et ex coitu coniugali absque omni culpa actuali; non tamen sequitur, quod concepta fuerit absque causa peccati, quia ita transfunditur originale ex illis qui generant ex coitu legitimo, sicut qui generat ex coitus adulterino, sicut ostensum fuit in secundo libro.9 Et si obiiciat, quod non debuit ibi esse causa originalis, quia facta est mediate virtute Spiritus sancti fecundante, et propter fecundationem sterilitatis maternae, quae non fuit ab homine, sed a Deo; dicendum, quod illud non valet, quia hoc similiter posset obiici de Ioanne et Isaac,10 qui de sterilibus sunt concepti.

Cod. N etiam. Cfr. Bernard., Epist. 174. n.

6.
2 3

Non pauci codd., inter quos A T V, cum edd. ratio.

Codex N also. Not a few of the codices, among which A T V, with the editions read reason here. 3 Codices A T V read in the offspring.

3 4

Codd. A T V prole. Epist. 174. n. 7. Pro Aut quomodo peccatum textus originalis habet aut certe peccatum quomodo, et pro Spiritui sancto, quae lectio concordat cum textu originali, codd. A T et alii exhibent Spiritum Sanctum, dum in aliss codd. exstant tantum litterae S. S. Cfr. August., V. contra Iulian. Pelagian. c. 15. n. 52, et VI. Op. imperf. contra Iulian. c. 28. 5 Loc. cit., ubi textus originalis sic: Alioquin ubi erit praerogativa Matris Domini, qua singulariter... si tantundem dederis et matri eius? Non est etc. Pro partam codd. A T U V partum. Subinde pro Alioquin ubi codd. O V Alioquin non, pro Matris cod. O Mariae et pro exsultare idem cod. O exaltata, codd. A T V X exsultari. Aliquantulum superius pro concedi non debuit cod. M concedi non decuit, edd. concedi non potuit. 6 Cfr. I Sent. d. 40. per totam. Eodem modo haec Ieremiae verba exponunt [trans. debit esse exponuntur vel exponit] Hieronym., Comment. super Ierem. 1, 5; August., Epist. 187. (alias 57.) c. 12. n. 37; Bernard., Epist. 174. n. 3. seq. Post de Ieremia edd. proprio marte adiiciunt de notitia approbationis, quod, et ante praedestinatum cod. Y interiicit ipsum. In fine solut. cod A verbo formata praemittuit animata vel. 7 S. Bonav. in suo Comment. super Luc., 1, 16. ait: Unde Ambrosius: Nondum erat in eo spiritus vitae, et iam erat spiritus gratiae , non, inquam, erat secundum apparentiam, erat tamen spiritus vitalis secundum existentiam. Cfr. Glossa in Phil. 2, 8. apud Lyranum. Paulo superius post dicitur spiritus edd. 1, 2 perperam adiungunt santus, Vat. addit vitae. 8 Cfr. II. Sent. d. 32. a. 1. q. 2. 9 Dist. 31. a. 2. q. 3. Paulo superius pro absque omni culpa edd. cum codd. A V substituunt absque tamen culpa. cod. T habet simpliciter absque culpa. 10 De Isaac vide Gen. 18, 11; de Ioanne Luc. 1, 7. Subinde pro qui codd. A F O V quod, cod. M quia. Paulo inferius pro aliquando ut sanctus Vat. aliquando ut Spiritus sanctus.

Letter 174, n 7. For Or how was there no sin the original text has or certainly in a manner [there was] sin, and for by the Holy Spirit, which reading in the Latin agrees with the original text, codices A and T and others exhibit [by means of] the Holy Spirit, while in other codices there is extant only the abbreviation S.S. [i.e. by/of the Holy Spirit]. Cf. Augustine, V Book Against Julian, the Pelagian, ch. 15, n 52, and VI Book of the Opus Imperfectum [i.e. the two unfinished works Against Julian of Eclanum] c. 28. 5 Loc. cit., where the original text [runs] thus: Otherwise what will be of the prerogative of the Mother of the Lord, by whom one believes that She alone ...if one will give such a great thing even to Her mother? This is not etc. For She ... born codices A T U V have He ... born. Immediately afterwards for Otherwise what codices O and V read Otherwise nothing, for of the Mother codex O read of Mary and for exalts the same codex O read has been exalted, codices A T V X is exalted. Somewhat above this for ought not be conceded codex M read was not fitting to be conceded, the editions have could not be conceded. 6 Cf. Sent., Bk. I, d. 40 throughout. In the same manner these words of Jeremiah are expounded by Jerome, in his Commentary on Jeremiah, 1, 5; Augustine's, Letter 187 (alias 57) ch. 12, n. 37; Bernard's, Letter 174, n.3 f. After concerning Jeremiah the editions add in proper form concerning the knowledge of [his own] approval, that, and before the one predestined codex Y reads him [who has been] predestined. At the end of the argument codex A prefaces the word formed with animated or. 7 St. Bonaventure in his Commentary on Luke, 1:16, says: Whence Ambrose [says]: There was not yet in him the spirit of life, and already there was the spirit of grace , not, I say, was the vital spirit there according to appearances, but it was there according to existence. Cf. The gloss on Phil 2:8 in Nicolas of Lyra's work. A little above after the spirit [of life] is said, editions 1 and 2 insert badly Holy, the Vatican edition adds of life. 8 Cf. Sent., Bk. II, d. 32. a. 1. q. 2. 9 Distinction 31 a. 2. q. 3. A little above this

for without all ... fault the editions with codices A and V substitute but without ... fault, codex T has simply without fault. 10 Concerning Isaac see Gen. 18:11; concerning John [the Baptist], Lk 1:7. Immediately after this, for who codices A F O and V read that, codex M because. A little below this for sometimes as the Holy One the Vatican edition reads sometimes as the Holy Spirit. p. 63 Propter quod nota, quod Spiritus sanctus aliquando operatur ut Spiritus, aliquando ut sanctus. Tunc quidem operatur ut Spiritus, quando opus facit supra naturam; tunc ut Spiritus sanctus operatur, cum non facit solum opus supra naturam, sed etiam sanctificat illud, supra quod operatur. Dico igitur, quod in conceptione solius Filii Dei, qui est Sanctus Sanctorum, non solum operatus est ut Spiritus, sed ut Spiritus sanctus. In conceptione vero, qua Ioannes est conceptus, sive beata Virgo, operatus est ut Spiritus tantum;1 ideo sola Virgo Maria dicitur concepisse de Spiritu sancto. Propterea nullius conceptionis solemnitatem celebrat Ecclesia nisi solius Filii Dei in Annuntiatione beatae Virginis Mariae. On account of which note, that the Holy Spirit sometimes works [operatur] as the Spirit, sometimes as the Holy One. He works as the Spirit at that time, when He performs a work [opus] above nature; He works as the Holy Spirit at that time, when He performs not only a work above nature, but also sanctifies it, above what He [thus] works. Therefore I say, that in the Conception of the Son of God alone, who is the Holy of Holies, not only did He work as the Spirit, but as the Holy Spirit. But in the conception, by which John was conceived, or the Virgin Mary, He worked as the Spirit only;1 for that reason only the Virgin Mary is said to have conceived of the Holy Spirit. Moreover the Church celebrates the solemnity of no conception except that of the Son of God alone, on the (Feast of the) Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary. However there are some, who from a special devotion celebrate the conception the Blessed Virgin, whom I dare neither to entirely2 praise nor simply to reprehend. I do not dare to entirely approve, for the reason that the holy Fathers, who established, with the Holy Spirit indicating, other solemnities of the Virgin, (and) who were also great lovers and venerators of the Blessed Virgin, did not decide [decreverunt] to solemnize the conception of the Virgin. Even Blessed Bernard,3 the pre-eminent [praecipuus] lover of the Virgin and the zealous servant [zealator] of Her honor, reprehended those, who celebrate the conception of the Virgin.

Sunt tamen aliqui, qui ex speciali devotione celebrant conceptionem beatae Virginis, quos nec omnino 2 laudare nec simpliciter audeo reprehendere. Non omnino approbare audeo, pro eo quod sancti Patres, qui alias solemnitates Virginis, Spiritu sancto dictante, statuerunt, qui etiam magni amatores et veneratores beatae Virginis fuerunt, conceptionem Virginis solemnizare non decreverunt. Beatus etiam Bernardus,3 praecipuus Virginis amator et honoris eius zelator, illos reprehendit, qui conceptionem Virginis celebrant. Statuta etiam universalis Ecclesiae de Sanctorum celebritatibus omnia fundata sunt super sanctitatem, ut nullo die

pro aliquo Sancto solemnizet, in quo vel pro quo persona sancta non fuerit, cui honor ille defertur. Si ergo sanctitas non fuit in Virgine ante animae infusionem, non videtur usquequaque securum conceptionis illius etiam solemnitatem celebrare. Non etiam audeo omnino reprehendere, quia, ut quidam dicunt, haec solemnitas celebrari non coepit humana inventione, sed divina revelatione;4 quod si verum est, sine dubio bonum est solemnizare in eius conceptione. Sed quia hoc authenticum non est, non compellimur credere; quia etiam contra fidem rectam non est, non compellimur negare.*

Also, the statutes of the universal Church concerning the celebrations of the Saints have founded all things upon sanctity, so that on no day on behalf of any Saint does She solemnize [anything], on which and/or on behalf of which there was not a holy person, to whom that honor is offered [derferetur]. Therefore if sanctity was not in the Virgin before the infusion of the soul, it does not seem that it would always be safe to celebrate even the solemnity of Her conception. I do not also entirely reprehend (them), because, as certain ones say, this solemnity did not begin to be celebrated by human invention, but by divine revelation;4 which if it is true, without doubt it is good to solemnize Her conception. But because this has not been authenticated, we are not compelled to believe (it); because we are not even compelled to deny what is not according to right Faith.* It can also be, that that solemnity refers rather to the day of (Her) sanctification than that of (Her) conception. And since the day of (Her) conception was certain, and the day of (Her) sanctification uncertain, as will be show below,5 for that reason the solemnity of the day of (Her) sanctification could have been establish not unreasonably on the day of (Her) conception; nor undeservedly, because although it is not opportune to celebrate the day of (Her) conception, for the reason that there was no sanctity in the [body] conceived, they can however irreprehensibly rejoice for the holy soul, namely, for the reason that (the union between that soul and that body) had then begun to be. For who, hearing of the Virgin having been conceived, from whom the salvation of the whole world proceeds, neglects to discharge thanks to God and omits to exalt in God his Savior,6 except the one who has a less devout affection for [erga minus devote afficitur] the glorious Virgin and (who) considers things present more than things future, (who) also considers the lack of the good more than the foundation (on which goodness is built)? For indeed if there be born lame a kings son, who is to be freed from lameness with the progress of

Potest etiam esse, quod illa solemnitas potius refertur ad diem sanctificationis quam conceptionis. Et quoniam dies conceptionis fuit certa, et dies sanctificationis incerta, ut patebit infra,5 ideo non irrationabiliter solemnitas diei sanctificationis statui potuit in die conceptionis; nec immerito, quia quamvis conceptionis diem non oporteat celebrare, pro eo quod non fuit sanctitas in concepto, possunt tamen irreprehensibiliter gaudere sanctae animae, pro eo scilicet quod tunc inchoatum est. Quis enim audiens Virginem, de qua salus totius mundi processit, conceptam, gratias Deo exsolvere negligat et omittat exsulare in Deo salutari suo,6 nisi qui erga gloriosam Virginem minus devote afficitur et magis considerat praesentia quam futura, magis etiam considerat boni defectum quam fundamentum? Etenim si filius regis claudus nascatur, qui sit a claudicatione processu temporis liberandus; non est de claudicatione dolendum, sed potius de nativitate gaudendum. Per hunc modum si quis in die conceptionis eius solemnizet, attendens magis sanctificationem futuram quam conceptionem praesentem, non videtur dignus redargui; et ideo dixi, quod tales nec vituperare audeo nec laudare.

time; one must not grieve over the lameness, but rather rejoice over (his) birth. By this means if anyone solemnizes the day of (Her) conception, attending more to the future sanctification than to the present conception, he does not seem worthy of being refuted; and for that reason I said, that I dare neither to vituperate nor to praise such (men). Credo tamen et confido de Virgine gloriosa, quod si quis hanc solemnitatem celebrat non ex amore novitatis,7 sed potius ex devotione Virginis, non credens etiam contra illud quod elici potest ex sacra Scriptura; quod benedicta Virgo devotionem eius acceptat; et si aliquid est reprehensibile, spero, quod apud iustum Iudicem dignabitur excusare. Nec huic obviant dicta Bernardi. Potius enim intendi excludere errorem, ne quis credat Virginem santificatam in conceptione, quam erga Virgi- / -nem devotionem nostram minuere, However I believe and am assured concerning the glorious Virgin, that if anyone celebrates this solemnity not from a love of novelty,7 but rather from devotion to the Virgin, not even believing (what is) against that which can be drawn from Sacred Scripture; that the Blessed Virgin accepts his devotion; and if anything is reprehensible, I hope, that before the just Judge He will deign to excuse it. Nor do the things said by (St.) Bernard obviate this. For I intended to exclude rather the error, lest one believe the Virgin (to have been) sanctified in (Her) conception, (rather) than / diminish our devotion toward the Virgin,
1

Pro tantum codd. A T V perperam sanctus, quod sphalma cod. F corrigere nitiur ponendo non ut Spiritus Sanctus. Subinde pro Propterea edd. Praeterea. 2 Cod. G simpliciter. Aliquantulo inferius pro dictante edd. docente et mox docuerunt pro decreverunt. 3 Epist. 174. n. 1; Unde miramur satis, quid visum fuerit hoc tempore quibusdam vestrum voluisse mutare colorem optimum, novam inducendo celebritatem, quam ritus Ecclesiae nescit, non probat ratio, non commendat antiqua traditio. Numquid Patribus doctiores aut devotiores sumus? Periculose praesummimus quidquid ipsorum in talibus prudentia praeteriit etc. Paulo inferius pro celebrant codd. E F V W X Y celebrabant. 4 Inter opera Anselmi tria inveniuntur opuscula de festo immaculatae Conceptionis tractantia, quae inscribuntur: de Conceptione B. Mariae Virg.; Miraculum de Conceptione B. Mariae Virg.; Tractatus de Conceptione B. Mariae Virg. Duo priora

For only codices A T and V have badly the Holy Spirit, which in opposition codex F strives to correct by replacing it with not as the Holy Spirit. Immediately after this for On that account the editions have Besides. 2 Codex G reads simply. Somewhat below this for indicating the editions read instructing and then they read teach for decide. 3 Letter 174, n. 1; Whence we are quite astonished, that it has seemed to certain of you to have wanted to change the best character for this season, by introducing a new celebration, which the rite of the Church does not know, reason does not approve, ancient tradition does not commend. What, are we more learned than the Fathers or more devout? Dangerously do we presume that anything has been overlooked by their prudence in such things... etc. A little below this for celebrate codices E F V W X and Y read used to celebrate. 4 Among the works of (St.) Anselm three opuscula are found, treating with the Feast

agunt de historia introductionis huius festi; tertii auctor celebrationem huius festi, quae tunc temporis in non paucis locis diminui vel cessare inceperat, fovere et augere intendit. Ista opuscula, iam diu ut spuria agnita, nostris temporibus cognato Anselmi, eiusdem nominis, addicuntur; qui alter Anselmus (1115 abbas in conventu Romano S. Sabae, 1121-1149 abbas in S. Edmundsbury, interim 1136-1138 episcopus Londinensis), ut ex epistola ab abbate Osbert de Clare a. 1128 ad ipsum data apparet, strenuus propugnatur et fautor fuit memorati festi (cfr. Epistolae Norberti de Losigna etc. edit. a Rob. Anstrutter, Lond. 1846.). In duobus prioribus istorum opusculorum narratur, cuidam abbati, Eisino (Helsuino) nomine, in mari periclitanti, quendam pontificalibus vestibus ornatum apparuisse eumque solvasse ea conditione, ut celebraret Matris Christi Conceptionis festum sexto Idus Decembris. Bernard., Epist. 174. n. 6, hanc relationem respiciens ait: Sed profertur scriptum supernae, ut aiunt, revelationis; quasi et quivis non queat scriptum aeque producere, in quo Virgo videatur id ipsum mandare et de parentibus suis, iuxta Domini mandatum dicentis: Honora patrem tuum et matrem tuam (Exod. 20, 12). Ipse mihi facile persuadeo scriptis talibus non moveri, quibus nec ratio suppeditare, nec certa invenitur favere auctoritas etc. Paulo superius pro securum codd. A T U V X securam, et subinde pro conceptionis illius etiam solemnitatem codd. E U W conceptionem illius solemnitate. Paulo inferius pro negare codd. M O negligere. 5 Hic q. 3. Aliquantulo inferius pro in concepto codd. M O in conceptione. 6 Respicitur Luc. 1, 47. 7 Ita cod. K, alii codd. nativitatis, edd. vanitatis. Mox pro non credens etiam Vat. non credens esse.

of the Immaculate Conception, which are entitled: On the Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary; The Miracle of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary; A Tract on the Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The first two deal with the history of the introduction of this feast; the author of the third intends to foster and increase the celebration of this feast, which at that time had begun in not a few places to be diminished or to cease. This work, already acknowledged for a long time as spurious, in our times is attributed to a relative of (St.) Anselm, with the same name; which other Anselm (1115 abbot in the Roman convent of Saint Sabas, 1121-49 abbot at St. Edmundsbury, and in the interim of 1136-38 Bishop of London), as appears from the letter sent to him by Abbot Osbert of Clare in the year 1128, was a strenuous proponent and promoter of the mentioned feast (cf. Letter of Norbert of Lausagne etc. edited by Robert Anstrutter, London 1846). In the prior two of these opuscula there is told, of a certain abbot, Eisinus [Helsuinus] by name, endangered at sea, to whom a certain person adorned in pontifical vestments appeared and released him from his condition, so that he might celebrate the Feast of the Conception of the Mother of Christ on the sixth day before the Ides of December [i.e. Dec. 8th]. Bernard, Letter 174, n. 6, referring to this story said: But there is brought forth the writing about the supernal, as they say, revelation; as if no one is even able to procure an equal writing, in which the Virgin seems to command the very thing even of Her own parents, according to the mandate of the Lord, saying: Honor thy father and thy mother (Ex 20:12). I am easily convinced by such writings not to be moved, for which neither reason suffices, nor a certain authority is found to favor etc. A little above this for it would always be safe to celebrate even the solemnity of Her conception codices A T U V and X read the solemnity of Her conception would always be safe to celebrate, and in the same passage for even the solemnity of Her conception codices E U and W read on the solemnity of Her conception. A little below this for to deny codices M and O read to disregard.

Here at qu. 3. Somewhat below this for in the [body] conceived codices M and O read in the conception. 6 This refers to Lk 1:47. 7 Thus codex K, the other codices read of the nativity [of the Blessed Virgin], the editions of vanity. Then for not even believing [what is], the Vatican edition reads not believing it to be. *[Trans. nota: i.e. stricte dicto, ex fide supernaturali obligatur ad credendum illas veritates quae ex auctoritate Dei Revelantis relevatas sunt. Propterea impossibilitatem actualem negandi in singulo omnem propositionem quae non in harmonia cum fide divina sit, non est obligatio ad facendum talem in actu. Quantum autem quam habitualiter indispositum esse possit ad credendum aliquod vel ominia quae non sint in harmonia cum fide recta, quae indispositio consequitur immediate ex habitu supernaturali fidei praesentis in mente, potest, et obligatus est, ex integitate deque qualitate supernatuali habitus fidei non removere illa indispositionem refutando negationem aliquae propositionis particularis contrariae Fidei vel monstrando indifferentiam negationi virtuosae eadem.] * [Trans. note: i.e. strictly speaking, one is obliged by supernatural Faith to believe those truths which have been revealed, on the authority of God the Revealer. On account of the actual impossibility of denying in particular every proposition which is not in harmony with divine Faith, there can be no obligation to actually do so. But insofar as one can be habitually indisposed to believe any and all things which are not in harmony with right Faith, which habitual disposition is the immediate consequence of the supernatural habit of Faith present in the intellect, one can be, and is obliged, by the integrity of and from the supernatural quality of the habit of Faith, not to remove this indisposition by refusing to deny any particular proposition ad odds with the Faith, or by showing indifference to a virtuous denial of the same.]

p. 64 quam erga Virgi- / -nem devotionem nostram minuere, cui nullus nimis potest esse devotus; ita tamen, quod nihil credat de ea, quod sit contra veritatem et sacrae Scripturae et fidei christianae, quae omnem devotionem nostram, tam erga Deum quam erga Matrem eius, debet praecedere. than / diminish our devotion concerning the Virgin, to whom no one can be devoted too much [nimis]; however, so that one believe nothing concerning Her, which is contrary to the truth and to Sacred Scripture and to the Christian Faith, which ought to precede all our devotion, both towards God as towards His Mother. Because if anyone objects, that the conceptions of the other Saints are not celebrated because of [their] subsequent sanctifications; one could say to him1, that the other Saints will not be regarded the worse [pro malo], if any special honor is bestowed upon the Mother of the Lord,

Quod si aliquis obiiciat, aliorum Sanctorum conceptiones non esse celebres propter subsequentes sanctificationes; potuerit ei1 dici, quod alii Sancti pro malo non habebunt, si aliquis specialis honor Matri Domini tribuatur, quoniam sanctificationis ipsius magnitudo et acceleratio ceteras antecelit.

magnitudo et acceleratio ceteras antecelit. Et ideo mirandum non est, si Spiritus sanctus inhabitans in cordibus fidelium, devotionem ipsorum magis erga Virginem inflammat quam erga alios Sanctos et Sanctas. Hac etiam de causa quotidie de Virgine gloriosa facimus officium speciale iuxta ordinem Romanae Ecclesiae, licet pro beato Petro, Apostolorum principe, solummodo ter2 in anno faciamus officium. Quacumque igitur hora, quacumque die aliquis fidelium cum totis praecordiis et visceribus honoret Virginem, increpandus non est pertinaciter, ne ipsius Virginis animadversio incurratur, quae auxiliatrix et amatrix est omnium fidelium suorum laudatorum, sicut illi qui tales sunt, experimento multiplici cognoverunt.3

bestowed upon the Mother of the Lord, since the magnitude and hastening of Her sanctification surpasses [antecelit] the all others. And for that reason it is not to be wondered at, if the Holy Spirit indwelling in the hearts of the faithful, inflames their devotion more towards the Virgin, than towards the other Saints. For this purpose [hac de causa] we recite [facimus] each day a special office of the glorious Virgin according to the Ordo of the Roman Church, (even) though for Blessed Peter, the prince of the Apostles, we recite an office only thrice2 in the year. Therefore at whatever hour, on whatever day, any of the faithful honor the Virgin with all their heart [praecordiis] and inmost being [visceribus], he must not be pertinaciously rebuked, lest the unfavorable regard [animadversio] of the Virgin Herself be incurred, who is the Auxiliatrix and Amatrix [i.e. Lover] of all those who faithfully praise Her [omnium fidelium suorum laudatorum], just as those who are such, have known3 from manifold experience [expermento multiplici]. SCHOLIUM I. Most celebrated is the dogmatic definition, promulgated by (now Bl.) Pope Pius IX in the year 1854, which in regard to the controversy concerning the Immaculate Conception of Mary the Theotokos sanctioned: The doctrine, which holds, that the Most Blessed Virgin Mary in the first instant of Her conception has been by the singular grace and privilege of the Omnipotent God, having considered the merits of Christ Jesus, the Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of the original fault, to be revealed by God and that for that reason to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful . For a distinct explanation of this decree, not without [reference] to the history of the controversy, conducted about this matter from the time of St. Bernard, the works of the more recent theologians are to be consulted. It may suffice here to briefly note, that the word conception is understood not of active conception [i.e. the conceiving of the person] or of the generative [act of

SCHOLION I. Celeberrima est dogmatica definitio, an. 1854 a Papa Pio IX. promulgata, quae quoad controversiam de conceptione immaculata Dei Genetricis Mariae sancivit: Doctrinam, quae tenet, beatissimam Virginem Mariam in primo instanti suae conceptionis fuisse singulari omnipotentis Dei gratia et privilegio, intuitu meritorum Christi Iesu, Salvatoris humani generis, ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservatum immunem, esse a Deo revelatam, atque idcirco ab omnibus fidelibus firmiter constanterque credendam . De distincta huius decreti explicatione nec non de historia controversiae, circa hanc rem a tempore S. Bernardi agitatae, consulantur recentiorum theologorum opera. Sufficiat hic breviter notare, vocabulum conceptio intelligi non de conceptione activa sive generativa, (quae est ex parte parentum), sed de passiva (ex parte fructus geniti); et ierum non de conceptione seminali sive carnis non animatae, sed de conceptione passiva adaequata, sive quae consummatur infusione animae rationalis, et qua

constituitur persona humana. Haec vocatur etiam conceptio personalis et a nostro Doctore aliisque antiquis nativitas in utero, quae distinguitur a navitiate ex utero (cfr. infra q. 2. arg. 5. ad opposit. et q. 3. ad 1. 2.). Hinc verba: in primo instanti suae conceptionis intelligenda sunt de momento creationis et infusionis animae; ipsaque sanctificatio refertur ad personam sive termimum adaequatum generationis, non ad principia naturalia generationis, vel ad modum eiusdem. Causa autem efficiens huius sanctificationis indicatur verbis: singulari omnipotentis Dei gratia et privilegio , quo simul notatur exemtio singularis a lege communi, qua generaliter illi qui secundum ordinem naturalem a primis parentibus descendunt, originali culpae obnoxii sunt; unde aliquod debitum, saltem remotum, incurrendi hanc labem etiam in B. V. Maria supponitur.* Causa autem meritoria huius eminentissimae redemptionis notatur verbis: intuitu meritorum Christi Iesu, Salvatoris humani generis .

conceiving], (which is on the part of the parent), but of the passive [conception] (on the part of the fruit generated [i.e. the person being conceived]); and again not of seminal conception nor (that) of the flesh not (yet) animated, but of the corresponding [adaequata] passive conception, or of that which is consummated by the infusion of the rational soul, and by which the human person is constituted. This is also called the personal conception and by our Doctor and by other ancient (authors) the nativity in the womb, which is distinguished from the nativity from the womb (cf. below q. 2. argument 5 to the contraries and q. 3 at 1 & 2.). Here the words: in the first instant of Her conception have been understood concerning the moment of the creation and infusion of (Her) soul; and the sanctification itself refers to the person or the corresponding term of generation, not to the natural principles of generation, or to the manner of the same. But the efficient cause of this sanctification is indicated by the words: by the singular grace and privilege of the Omnipotent God , by which there is noted simultaneously the singular exemption from the common law, by which generally those who descend according to the natural order from (our) first parents, have been subjected to the original fault; whence it is supposed that some debitum, at least remote, to incurr this stain (exists) even in the Blessed Virgin Mary.* But the meritorious cause of this most eminent redemption is noted by the words: having considered the merits of Christ Jesus, the Savior of the human race . II. According to the tenor of this decree the doctrine, which in the three questions of this article is proposed by St. Bonaventure according to the then nearly common opinion in the schools, must be corrected or delimited [determinanda]. But we make these observations lest there be a wrong judgment of our author and his other contemporaries. 1. It must be conceded, that in that age the Holy Doctors themselves, (Sts.) Bernard, Thomas, Bonaventure, and others did not know, that the aforesaid privilege, now

II. Secundum tenorem huius decreti corrigenda vel determinanda est doctrina, quae in 3 questionibus huius articuli a S. Bonav. secundum sententiam tunc in scholis fere communem proponitur. Ne autem sinistre iudicetur de nostro auctore aliisque coaevis, haec observamus.

1. Concedendum est, ea aetate ipsos Ss. Doctores Bernardum, Thomam, Bonaventuram aliosque ignorasse, praedictum privilegium, nunc definitum, esse

revelatum, scilicet implicite in deposito fidei traditum; immo eosdem usque ad Scotum ne statum quidem quaestionis praecise cognovisse, ut ex sequentibus patebit. Unde S. Bonaventurae (q. 2.) opinio opposita visa est communior, rationablior et secuior . Nec defuerunt qui cum B. Alberto (hic a. 4.) assererent, eandem esse tenendam tanquam fide certam. Quidam insuper generaliter docuerunt, hanc praeservationem in ipsa conceptione esse omnino impossibilem; sed haec assertio a S. Bonav. (infra q. 2. ad 6.) aliisque multis magistris reprobatur; nec ab his discrepat Alex. Hal., licet dicat, B. Virginem in sua conceptione sanctificare non potuisse, cum tantum loquatur de conceptione seminali et sanctificatione proprie dicta. Attamen B. V. Mariam contraxisse actualiter peccatum orginale, sed sanctificatam esse in utero post infusionem animae (sive in secundo instanti temporis, ut vult gid. R. et Henr. Gand., sive saltem post breve tempus), hoc quasi uno ore cum Ss. Bernardo, Thoma, Bonav. docent Alex. Hal., B. Albert., Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med., gid. R., Henr. Gand., Durand. aliique multi, et ante Scotum communiter. Quod autem etiam S. Thom., saltem in locis, ubi ex professo hanc quaestionem tractat (hic q. 1. a. 1; S. III. q. 27. a. 1. 2. ; Quodl. 6. q. 5. a. 7; Compend. theol. c. 224.), a sententia tunc communi non recesserit, ipsa eius verba, praesertim si conferuntur cum verbis coaevorum, satis manifestant. Hoc etiam confirmatur certissimo hoc facto, quod discipuli eius, eidem Ordini adscriptis, usque ad saeculum XVI. ita magistrum intelligebant, immo illa aetate plerumque eandem sententiam cum praestantibus theologiis S. Antonino, Ioan. a Turre-cremata, Caietano tanquam in se veram defendebant. In subsequentibus saeculis, cum mens Ecclesiae paulatim in favorem verae sententiae se manifestaret, numerus defensorum huius privilegii in schola S. Thomae crevit. Tunc autem inceptum est de vera sententia S. Doctoris disputari. Nonnulli enim, innixi quibusdam aliis locis, duce Seraphino Capponi de Porrecta (in Elucidatio. Ad S. III. q. 27. a. 2.), S. Thomam potius illi privilegio favere, vel saltem non contradicere volunt contrariosque locos ita interpretantur, ut peccatum orginale etiam

defined, had been revealed, namely, handed down [traditum] implicitly in the deposit of the faith; rather that the same [theologians] until Scotus did not know precisely even the state of the question, as will be patent form the following. Whence the opposite opinion of St. Bonaventure seemed more common, more reasonable, and more safe . Nor was there lacking those who with Blessed [now St.] Albert asserted, that the same was to be held as certain in faith. Moreover, certain ones generally taught, that this preservation in the conception itself is entirely impossible; but this assertion is reproved by St. Bonaventure (below in q. 2. at 6.) and by many other masters (of theology); nor did Alexander of Hales disagree with these, though he says, that the Blessed Virgin could not have been sanctified in Her conception, since he speaks only of the seminal conception and of the sanctification properly speaking. However that the Blessed Virgin Mary had actually contracted original sin, but was sanctified in the womb after the infusion of (Her) soul (or in the second instant of time, as Giles the Roman and Henry of Ghent want, or at least after a brief [space of] time), this with one mouth, with Sts. Bernard, Thomas, Bonaventure, Alexander of Hales, Bl. (now St.) Albert, (Bl.) Peter of Tarentaise, Richard of Middleton, Giles the Roman, Henry of Ghent, Durandus and many others, even before Scotus, teach commonly. However that even St. Thomas, at least in places, where he treats ex professo of this question (here at q. 1. a. 1; in the Summa, pars II, q. 27. a. 1. 2.; in the Quodlibetal questions, n.6 q. 6. a. 7; in the Compendium of Theology, ch. 224.), did not retreat from the then common opinion, his very words sufficiently manifest, especially if they are compared with the words of (his) contemporaries. This is also confirmed by this most certain fact, that his disciples, enrolled in the same Order, even until the XVI century understood (their) master thus, rather in that age very many used to defend, as true in itself, the same opinion with the outstanding theologians, St. Antoninus (of Florence), John of Torquemada, (and) Cajetan. In the subsequent ages, when the mind of the Church would manifest itself little by little in favor of the true opinion, the

pro debito incurrendi eam intelligant. Hinc ipsum locum in Comment. (loc. cit. quaetiunc. 2.), ubi dicitur, quod sanctification Virginis non potuerit esse decenter nec ante infusionem animae, nec etiam in ipso instanti infusionis etc.; non secundum materialem verborum sensum intelligi debere, iidem affirmant. Attamen praedictus Seraphinus ibidem confitetur, S. Thomam etiam in Summa docuisse, magis tenendam esse opinionem, quod B. V. actualiter peccatum originale contraxerit. De sententia S. Bonaventurae et Scoti in seq. scholio mentio fiet.

number of the defenders of this privilege grew in the school of St. Thomas. But then there began a dispute concerning the true opinion of the holy Doctor. For not a few, relying on certain other passages, led by Serafino Capponi of Porrecta (in his Elucidation upon the Summa, part II, q. 27. a. 2.), wanted rather to favor St. Thomas with (supporting) this privilege, or at least not to contradict him and they thus interpreted contrary passages, so as to understand that She incurred original sin also in virtue of a debitum. At this very passage in his Commentary (loc. cit. quaestiuncula 2.), where there is said, that the sanctification of the Virgin could not have fittingly been, neither before the infusion of the soul, nor even in the instant itself of the infusion etc.; that he should not be understood according to the material sense of the words, the same authors affirm. But the aforesaid Serafino yet confesses in the same place, that St. Thomas had also taught in the Summa, that the opinion must be rather held, that the Blessed Virgin actually contracted original sin. Concerning the opinion of St. Bonaventure and (now Bl.) Scotus mention will be said in the following Scholium.
1

Codd. T Z omittunt ei, pro quo codd. A H N U V X aa enim. Auctor opusc. de Conceptione B. Mariae Virg. (inter opera Anselmi) iure ait: Erubescant iterum insani, qui hunc diem colere non volunt idcirco, quia aliorum Sanctorum conceptiones minime colere sancta consuevit Ecclesia. Maxima quippe rusticitas est eam aliis Sanctis in hoc comparere, quam etiam super omnes Angelos et Archagbelos in caelis sublimavit etc. 2 Scilicet, 18 Ian., 23 Feb., 29 Iunii. 3 Cod. T sicut experti sunt cognoverunt.

Codices T and Z omit to him, in place of which word codices A H N U V X and aa prefix for to this phrase. The author of the opuscula On the Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary (among the works of Anselm) rightly said: "Again the insane blush, who do not want to honor [colere] this day for this reason, because Holy Church hardly counsels the honoring [colere] of the conceptions of the other Saints. Indeed it is the greatest boorishness to compare Her to the other Saints in this, She whom He elevated above all the Angles and Archangels in the heavens" etc. 2 Namely, January 18th, February 23rd, June 29th. 3 Codex T reads have known as they have experienced [it]. * [i.e. the reason why some theologians

* [i.e. haec est ratio cur aliqui theologii

faveant existentia debiti; sicut tamen medium transmissionis peccati originalis (generatio naturalis) distinguendum est de ratione transmissionis (paternitas legalis Adae), idem absentia peccati originalis in B. Virgine potest videri propter paternitatem legalem Adae Novi erga eam. In aliis verbis, non opportet B. Virginem incurrere aliquod debitum propter generationem eius naturalem ex parentibus, quia generation naturalis est tantum occasio pro transmissione peccati originalis, et non causa formalis necessitatis transmissionis, quae causa est in ordine legali, non naturali. Haec causalitas legalis comprehendit omnes qui descendunt de Adamo, sicut homo prius, ex capitate supra genus humanum, sed Christus, Adam Novus, exceptendus est, ex capitate superioris priorisque supra genus humanum restoratum. Ergo proptera predestinationem B. Virginis ad Matrem Salvatoris, quae predestinatio requirit capitatem Christi atque subordinationem ad illam, B. Virgo manet omnino foris neccesitate ad contractendum peccatum originalem per generationem naturalem ex prolibus Adae. Et ideo non est in ea nullum debitum ad contractendum peccatum originalem. Per plus de re cfr. scriptis patris Juniperi Carolis, OFM]

support the existence of a debitum; however, just as the means for the transmission of original sin (natural generation) must be distinguished from the reason for its transmission (legal paternity of Adam), so the absence of original sin in the Blessed Virgin can been seen to be on account of the legal paternity of the New Man over Her. In other words, the Blessed Virgin should not have incurred any debitum on account of merely Her natural generation from Her parents, for natural generation is only the occasion for the transmission of original sin, and not the formal cause of the necessity of its transmission, which cause is in the legal, not the natural order. This legal causality encompasses all who descend naturally from Adam, as first man, on account of his headship over the human race, but Christ, the New Adam is excepted, on account of His superior and prior Headship over the human race as restored. Hence on account of the predestination of the Blessed Virgin to be the Mother of the Savior, which predestination necessitates the Headship of Christ and subordination to it, the Blessed Virgin lies completely outside the legal necessity of contracting original sin by Her natural generation from the children of Adam. And therefore there is no debitum to contract original sin in Her. For more on this matter cf. writings of Fr. Juniper Carol, OFM] p. 65

2. Absit tamen, ut quis praedictos saeculi 12. et 13. doctores reputet aliqua rephrehensione dignos, vel ut minus bene de eorum pietate, doctrina et devotione erga B. Virginem existimet. Exploratum enim est, et ex ipsis verbis in hac disputatione ab eis adhibitis constat, illos non defectu aliquo pietatis, vel devotionis, vel sanorum principiorum a veritate penitus perspicienda impeditos esse, sed plurimis difficultatibus, illa aetate hanc quaestionem adhuc obscurantibus. Concorditer quidem omnes proclamabant principius S. Anselmi, quod Matri Dei tribuenda sit puritas, qua major sub Deo (Christo) nequit intelligi (q. 2. arg.

2. However, far be it that anyone reckon the aforesaid doctors of the 12th and 13th century worthy of some reprehension, or estimates (them to be) less strong [minus bene] in their piety, doctrine and devotion to the Blessed Virgin. For it has been discovered, and is established from the words themselves exhibited by them in this disputation, that they were not impeded by any defect of piety, or of devotion, or of sane principles from deeply examining the truth, but by the very many difficulties, still obscuring this question in that age. Indeed all harmoniously used to proclaim the principle of St. Anselm, that there be attributed to the

1.); sed haesitabant in applicatione huius principii ad specialem casum, scilicet respectu peccati originalis. Et revera, habita ratione omnium circumstantiarum, haec haesitatio tunc erat laude digna et quasi necessaria. Assertio enim huius privilegii in occidentalibus terrris videbatur nova; Ecclesia nondum aliquid determinaverat de hac quaestione; eadem festum conceptionis B. Virginis potius videbitur tolerare in aliquibus locis quam approbare; praxis Ecclesiae Graecae et plures Patrum Graecorum sententiae in Occidente tunc non innotuerant; nondum eliquatae erant graves difficultates, quae ex universalitate tum peccati originalis tum redemptionis petitae obiiciebantur; denique (et hoc summopere dignum est obervatione) primi fautores festi conceptionis et defensores huius privilegii ita male hoc mysterium explicabant, veris falsa immiscebant et invalidis vel falsis rationibus confirmabant, ut eorum positionibus et piae sententiae sic intellectae iure contradicendum esset. Plerumque enim voluerunt, carnem Virginis fuisse sanctificatam ante animationem, et hac ratione B. Virginem a culpa originali omnino exemptam. Contra hanc positionem haec 1. questio militat et communis responsio negativa magistrorum, etiam Scoti (hic q. 1. n. 14.), recte sustinetur, iam ob hanc rationem, quia illa positione ne remotum quidem debitum contrahendi peccatum originale admitti videtur. Alii autem defensores eiusdem sententiae alteram, itidem non plene satisfacientem explicationem afferebant, contra quam S. Bonav. arguit in 2. questione.

Mother of God a purity, greater than which under God (Christ) could not be understood (q. 2 argument 1.); but they used to hesitate in the application of this principle to a special case, namely in respect of original sin. And in truth, considering the reason of all the circumstances, this hesitation was at that time worthy of praise and almost necessary. For the assertion of this privilege seemed to be new in the West; the Church had not yet determined anything concerning this question; She seemed rather to tolerate this feast of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin in some places than to approve it; the practice of the Greek Church and the very many opinions of the Greek Fathers had not then been identified [innotuerant]; there had not yet been worked out [eliquatae erant] the grave difficulties, which, demanded from the universality of both original sin and redemption, were being thrown up against it; finally (and this is exceedingly worthy of observation) the first promoters of the feast of the Conception and the defenders of this privilege used to so badly explain this mystery, they used to mix the false in the true and to confirm it with invalid or false reasoning, so that rightly there would have to be a contradiction of their positions and the pious opinion thus understood. For very many desired, that the flesh of the Virgin had been sanctified before its animation, and from this reason the Blessed Virgin would be entirely exempt from the original fault. Against this position this first question militates and the common negative response of the masters, even of (Bl.) Scotus (here at q. 1 n. 14), is rightly sustained, moreover on account of this reason, because it seemed by this position that not even a remote debitum for the contracting of original sin be admitted. But other defenders of this same opinion, likewise did not used to bring forward a fully satisfying explanation, against which St. Bonaventure argued in question 2. 3. That the first defenders of the aforesaid privilege and feast had taught the sanctification of the flesh in that seminal conception and before the infusion of the soul, is sufficiently established from their

III. [sic, debit esse "3."] Quod primi defensores praedicti privilegii et festi sanctificationem carnis in ipsa conceptione seminis et ante infusionem animae docuerint, ex eorum scriptis et communi doctorum huius

positionis reprobatione satis constant. Ut autem eorum opinio facilius inteliigatur, servire possunt verba Alexandri Hal. (S. p. III. q. 9. m. 1. a. 1.): Sanctificatio nihil aliud est quam motus ad sanctitatem. Sed sanctitas dicitur quatuor modis; est enim sanctitas per dedicationem ad cultum Dei [quae potest etiam convenire rei pure materiali]; et est sanctitas per emundationem a peccato; terio modo dicitur sanctitas in Scriptura ipsa abstractio a carnali actu [cfr. Exod. 19, 10.]; quarto dicitur sanctitas per confirmationem in bono . Idem in seqq. hanc quadruplicem sanctificationem pluribus Scripturae locis explicat.

writings and from the reprobation of this position by the doctor communis. But that their opinion be more easily understood, the words of Alexander of Hales (Summa pars II, q. 9. m. 1. a. 1) can supply: Sanctification is nothing other than a movement towards sanctity. But sanctity is said in four manners; for there is the sanctity by means of a dedication to the cult of God (which can even befit [convenire] a purely material thing); and there is the sanctity by means of a cleansing from sin; in the third manner sanctity is said in Scripture (to be) that exclusion [abstractio] from the carnal act (cf. Ex 19:10); in the fourth (manner) sanctity is said (to be) by means of a confirmation in the good . Likewise he explains in the very many passages from Scripture (which) follow, this fourfold sanctification. III. Besides those already cited: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. m. 2. a. 1. Bl. [now St.] Albert the Great, here at a. 2. 4. Peter of Tarragona, here at q. 1. a. 1. Richard of Middleton, here at a. 1. q. 1. Giles the Roman, here at q. 1. a. 1. dub. lat. 1-3. Henry of Ghent., concerning this and the following. questions. Quodlibetaes. 15. q. 13. Durandus, concerning this and the following questions, here at q. 1. 2. (Bl.) Dionysius the Carthusian, concerning this and the following questions, here at q. 1. (Gabriel) Biel, concerning this and the following questions, here at q. 1.

III. Praeter iam citatos: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 2. a. 1. B. Albert., hic a. 2. 4. Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. Richard., a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. gid. R., hic q. 1. a. 1. dub. lat. 1-3. Henr. Gand., de hac et seqq. qq. Quodl. 15. q. 13. Durand., de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. 1. 2. Dionys. Carth., de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. 1. Biel, de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. 1.

The English translation here has been released to the public domain by its author. The / symbol is used to indicate that the text which follows appears on the subsequent page of the Quaracchi Edition. The translation of the notes in English corresponds to the context of the English text, not that of the Latin text; likewise they are a freer translation than that which is necessitated by the body of the text. Items in square [ ] brackets contain Latin terms corresponding to the previous English word(s), or notes added by the English translator. Items in round ( ) brackets are terms implicit in the Latin syntax or which are required for clarity in English.