St. Bonaventure, Book 3, Commentary on the 4 Books of Sentences

7/29/2019 St. Bonaventure, Book 3, Commentary on the 4 Books of Sentences

1/22

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

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

S. Bonaventurae BagnoregisS. R. E. Episc. Card. Albae

atque Doctor Ecclesiae Universalis

St. Bonaventure of BagnoregioCardinal Bishop of Alba& Doctor of the Church

Commentaria in Quatuor LibrosSententiarum

Commentaries on the Four Books ofSentences

Magistri Petri Lombardi, Episc. Parisiensis of Master Peter Lombard, Archbishop of Paris

TERTII LIBRI BOOK THREE

COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM III. COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION III

PARS I.De sanctificatione beat ae Virginis.

PART IOn the Sanctification of the Blessed

Virgin.

ARTICULUS I.

Quaest io I.

ARTICLE I

Question 1

Opera Omnia S. Bonaventurae,Ad Claras Aquas, 1887, Vol. 3, pp. 60-65.

Cum Notitiis Originalibus

Latin text t aken from Opera Omnia S.Bonaventurae ,

Ad Claras Aquas, 1887, Vol. 3, pp. 60-65.Notes by the Quaracchi Editors.

Quaeritur etiam de carne Verbi, an,priusquam conciperetur.

There is also asked concerning the Flesh ofthe Word, whether it was conceived

beforehand.

DIVISIO TEXTUS. DIVISION OF THE TEXT

Supra egit Magister de incarnat ione; hic veroagit de conceptione. Et quia anteconceptionem Filli Dei praecessitsanctificatio Virginis, ideo ista pars habet

Above Master [Peter] dealt with t heIncarnation; here he deals indeed with theConception. And because before theConception of the Son of God there
http://www.franciscan-archive.org/bonaventura/opera/bon03060.htmlhttp://www.franciscan-archive.org/bonaventura/opera/bon03060.htmlhttp://www.franciscan-archive.org/bonaventura/opera/bon03060.html#http://www.franciscan-archive.org/bonaventura/opera/bon03060.html


2/22

duas partes. In prima determinat, qualiterVirgo Maria fuerit per Spiritum sanctumsanct ificata et ab omni labe purgata.Secundo vero determinat, qualiter caroChristi fuerit per Spiritum sanctum concepta,infra distinctione quarta: Cum vero incarnatioVerbietc.

preceded the sanctification of the Virgin, forthat reason this part (of his text) has twoparts. In the f irst he determines, how theVirgin Mary was sanctif ied by [per] the HolySpirit and purged f rom all stain [labe]. Secondhe determines indeed, how the Flesh ofChrist was conceived by [per] the Holy Spirit ,below in the fourth dist inction: When indeed

the Incarnation of the Wordetc.

Prima pars dividitur in duas partes, in quarumprima determinat de sanctif icatione, quaepraecessit Christi concept ionem. In secundavero inquirit , utrum caro Christi ita pot uerit inAbraham decimari, sicut in Virgine potuitsanctificari. Ideo primo agit desanct ificatione; secundo vero dedecimatione, ibi:Cum autem illa caro etc.

The first part is divided in two parts, in thef irst of which he determines (what) concernssanctif ication, which preceded theConception of Christ. In the second, indeed,he inquires, whether the Flesh of Christcould have been thus tithed in Abraham, asit could be sanctified in the Virgin. For thatreason he first deals with the sanctif ication;but second the t ithing, there (where he

says): Moreover since that Flesh etc..

Prima pars dividitur in tres partes. In primaparte determinat, quae fuerit sanctificationisexigentia. In secunda, quae fueritsanctificationis causa, ibi: Mariam quoquetotam Spiritus sanctus etc. In tertia vero,quae fuerit sanct ificationis eff icacia, ibi:Quod autem sacra Virgo ex tunc ab omnipeccato etc. Haec autem pars, in qua

agitur de Virginis sanctif icatione, spectat adpraesentem considerationem.1

The f irst part is divided into three parts. Inthe first part he determines what was therequirement [exigentia] for the sanct ification.In the second, what was the cause of thesanctif ication, there (where he says): TheHoly Spirit also purged Mary entirelyetc. Butin the third, what was the eff icacy of thesanctif ication, there (where he says):

However that the sacred Virgin from then onexisted immune from all sin etc.. But thispart, in which the sanctif ication of the Virginis dealt with, regards the present

consideration.1

TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM. TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS

Ad intelligentiam huius partis incidit hic

quaestio circa sanctificationem Virginisquantum ad duo

For an understanding [intelligentiam] of this

part there occurs here the question aboutthe sanctification of the Virgin as much asregards two t hings.

Primo quaeritur de santificatione Virginisquantum ad congruentiam temporis.

First one asks concerning the sanct ificationof the Virgin as much as regards congruenceof time.

Secundo vero, quantum ad eff icaciamvirtutis.

Second, indeed, as much as regards eff icacyof virtue.
http://www.franciscan-archive.org/bonaventura/opera/bon03060.html#


3/22

Circa primum quaeruntur t ria. Concerning t he f irst , t hree t hings are asked.

Primo quaeritur, ut rum caro Virginissanctificata fuerit ante animationem.

First one asks whether the flesh of the Virginhad been sanct ified before (Her) animation.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum anima eiussanct ificata f uerit ante originaliscontractionem.

Second, one asks, whether Her soul hadbeen sanctif ied before the contraction ofthe original (sin).

Tert io quaeritur, utrum sanctif icata fuerit2

ante nativitat is originem.

Third one asks, whether (Her flesh) had

been2 sanctified befo re the origin of (Her)birth.

1Haec ult ima propositio, quae in omnibus

codd. exhibetur, desideratur in edd.2 Codd. A R T V W Y Z dd adiiciunt tota, proquo in cod. N legiturbeata Virgo, in cod. Sanima eius. Verbum tota non respondet ipsiquaest ioni; apte autem ponereturcito. Paulosuperius voci originalis Vat. praefigitpeccati.

1 This last proposition, which is exhibited in

all the codices, is wanting in the edit ions.2 Codices A R T V W Y Z and dd add wholly[to ta], in place of which codex N reads theBlessed Virgin [beata Virgo], in codex S Hersoul[tota]. The word wholly[tota] does notrespond to t he question itself ; but (theword) swiftly[cito] is aptly placed. A litt leabove this, to the word original[originalis]the Vatican edition adds sin [peccati].

p. 61

ARTICULUS I.

De sanctificatione Virignis quoadcongruentiam temporis.

ARTICLE I

Concerning the sanctification of the Virgin asregards congruence of time.

QUAESTIO I.

Utrum caro Virginis sanctificata fuerit anteanimationem.

QUESTION 1

Whether the flesh of the Virgin has beensanctified before its animation.

CIRCA PRIMUM sic proceditur et quaeritur,utrum caro Virginis sanctif icata fuerit anteanimationem. Et probatur primo, quod sic:

CONCERNINGTHE FIRST one proceedsthus and asks, whether the f lesh of theVirgin had been sanctif ied before (its)animation. And first it is proven, that yes (itwas):


4/22

1. Ieremiae primo:1antequam formarem te inutero, novi te; constat, quod beata Virgoexcellent ior fuit quam Ieremias: ergo priusfuit approbata et purificata eius caro, quamesset formata. Sed ante fuit formata quamanimata: ergo ante fuit carnis sanct ificatioquam animatio.

1. The first (chapter) of Jeremiah:1before Iformed you in the womb, I knew you; it isestablished, that the Blessed Virgin wasmore excellent than Jeremiah: therefore Herf lesh was approved and purified before ithad been formed. But it had been formedbefore it was animated: therefore thesanctif ication of (Her) f lesh was before (its)

animation.

2. Item, super illud Lucae primo:2Exsultavit ingaudio infans in utero meo; Glossa: Nondum erat in eo spiritus vitae, et iam eratspiritus gratiae : ergo multo fort ius hoc fuitin Domini matre, quae dignior fuit quamIoannes: ergo sanctif icata fuit ante spiritumvitae, et ita ante animationem.

2. Likewise, on t hat (verse) of the f irst

(chapter of the Gospel) of (St.) Luke:2Theinfant 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 ) inthe Lords Mother, who was more worthythan John: therefore (Her f lesh) was

sanctif ied before (receiving) the spirit of life,and thus before (its) animation.

3. Item, non est minus potens virtussanctificans, quam sit virtus inficiens etfoedans; sed caro inf ici potest et foedariante animationem: ergo pari rat ione anteanimae infusionem, immo fort iori potestsanct ificari, cum opposita nata sint f ieri

circa idem .3 Si ergo beatae Virgini hoc

concessum est, quantumcumque congruumest concedi purae creaturae; videtur, quodcaro eius ante animationem sanct ificatafuerit.

3. Likewise, sanctifying virtue is no lesspotent, than staining and defiling virtue[virtus inficiens et foedans]; but the flesh canbe stained and befouled before animation:therefore by an equal reason before theinfusion of the soul, it can be rather morestrongly sanctif ied, since opposites come

into being about the same thing .

3

Iftherefo re this has been conceded to theBlessed Virgin, however much congruous it isto be conceded to a pure creature; it seems,that Her flesh has been sanct ified before(its) animation.

4. Item, conceptio gloriosae Virginis fuit delegitimo matrimonio et de parent ibus sanctiset de matre sterili, secundum quod narrat

quaedam historia;4 videtur ergo, quod ipsaconcepta fuerit virtut e Spiritus sancti: si ergoilla conceptio, quae est secundum legitimummatrimonium et secundum Spiritus sanctiadiutorium, est sancta et immaculata;videtur, quod caro Virginis Mariae in ipsa suaconceptione fuerit sanctif icata. Sed ante fuitconceptio quam animatio: ergo fuit antesanct ificata quam animata.

4. Likewise, the conception of the gloriousVirgin was f rom a legitimate marriage andfrom holy parents and from a sterile mot her,according to t hat which a certain history

narrates;4 therefore it seems, that thatconception, which is according to alegitimate marriage and according to thehelp of the Holy Spirit, is holy andimmaculate; it seems, that the flesh of theVirgin Mary had been sanctif ied in its veryconception. But the conception was beforethe animation: therefore (Her f lesh) hadbeen sanct ified before having beenanimated.


5/22

SED CONTRA: 1. Bernardus ad

Lugdunenses:5 Ante conceptionemsanct ificari minime poterat, quia non erat;sed nec in ipso conceptu propter peccatum,quod inerat ; sed constat, quod illud nondictum propterpeccatum, quod esset inparentibus, quia potuissent eam conciperesine peccato: ergo dicit proptercausampeccati, quae erat in carne: ergo non videtur,quod sanct ificatio fuerit ante infusionemanimae.

ON THE CONTRARY:1. (St.) Bernard (ofClairvaux in his letter) to (the Canons of the

Cathedral) of Lyons:5 Before conception itcould have been sanctified very litt le[minime], because it was not; but neither[could it have been] in the very conceptionbecause of the sin, which was therein ; butit is established, that t hat is not saidbecause ofsin, which may have been in theparents, because they could have conceivedHer without sin: therefore he says it becauseofthe cause of sin, which was in (their) flesh:therefo re it does not seem, that t hesanctif ication was before the infusion of(Her) the soul.

2. Item, sanctificatio est per aliquod munusgratiae Spiritus sancti; sed gratia non habet

esse in carne, sed in anima; ergo non videtur,quod ante fuerit carni gratia infusa quamanimae.

2. Likewise, the sanctification is by some gift[per aliquod munus] of grace of the Holy

Spirit; but grace does not have (its) tobe[esse] in the f lesh, but in the soul;therefo re it does not seem, that grace hadbeen infused into the flesh before the soul.

3. Item, esse gratiae praesupponit essenaturae, et perfectio gratia perfectionemnaturae: si ergo sanctificatio dicit effectumgratiae vivificant is, impossible videtur, quodcaro sanct ificetur, antequam ab anima

vivificetur.6

3. Likewise, the to be[esse] of gracepresupposes the to be[esse] of nature: iftherefo re sanctif ication means an effect o fvivifying grace, it seems impossible, that the

f lesh be sanctified before it be vivif ied6 by

the soul.

4. Item, nihil pertinet ad sanctificationem,quod non pertinet ad glorificationem; sedcaro ante animationem non pert inet adglorificationem nec resurrectionem undefoetus abortivi ante animationem non

resurgunt, ut dicit Augustinus7 igitur caroante animationem non erat idonea adsanct ificationem: ergo non fuit caro Virginis

ante sant ificata quam animata.

4. Likewise, nothing pertains tosanctification, which does not pertain toglorif ication; but f lesh before animation doesnot pertain to glorification nor toresurrection whence fet uses abortedbefore animation do not rise again, as

August ine says7 therefore (Her) fleshbefore animation was not capable [idonea]

of sanctif ication: therefore the f lesh of theVirgin has not been sanctified before (being)animated.

CONCLUSIO.

Beatae Virginis caro ante animationem nonfuit sanctificata.

CONCLUSION

The Flesh of the Blessed Virgin was notsanctified before its animation.


6/22

RESPONDEO: Dicendum, quod caro beataeVirginis ante animationem non fuitsanctificata; non quia Deus non potueritcarnem Virginispurificare ante quamanimare, sed quia sanctificatio habet esseper aliquod donum gratuitum superadditum,quod quidem non habet esse in carne, sed inanima. Ideo si caro beatae Virginis dicitur

sanctificari, aut hoc intelligitur mediantegratia existente in eius anima, vel mediantegratia existente in animabus parentum.Constat , quod non mediante gratiaexistente in eius anima, quia tunc essetopposit io in adiecto ,

I RESPOND: It must be said, that the fleshof the Blessed Virgin has not been sanctifiedbefore (its) animation; not because Godcould not havepurifiedthe f lesh of theVirgin before animating it., but becausesanctification has (its) being[esse] throughsome gratuitous, superadded gif t [donum],which indeed does not have (its) to be

[esse] in the flesh, but in the soul. For thatreason if the f lesh of the Blessed Virgin issaid to be sanctified, either this is understoodby means of a grace existing [existente] inHer soul, and/or by means of a graceexisting [existente] in the souls of(Her)parents. It is established, that (it could nothave been) by means of a grace exist ing inHer soul, because then there would havebeen 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 etsumta ex Ambros. Exposit . Evang. Luc. 1, 15.(libr. I. n. 33.), habet ur apud Strabum etLyranum in dictum locum.3 Secundum Aristot., de Praedicam. c. deOppositis, et II. Topic. c. 3. (c. 7.). Deinfectione carnis ante animationem vide II.Sent. d. 31. dub 1. Pro fortioriedd. a fortiori,

cod Y multo fortiori.4 Cfr. Epist. 50. inter opera Hieronymi, quaeagit de nativitate sanctae Mariae, c. 2, etDamasc., IV de Fide orthod. c. 14.5 Epist. 174. n. 7. in fine, quae epistoladirecta fuit ad Canonicos Lugdunenses,quorum aliqui festum Concept ionis B. M. V..celebrant, licentia a Romano Pontifice nonpetita. Paulo inferius pro quod essetcod.V quod erat, et deinde pro ergo dicitcod. Nergo dicitur.

6 Cod. T antequam animetur.7 Enchirid. c. 85. n. 23; XXII. de Civ. Dei, c. 13. Edd. perperam supplent in libro deBaptismo parvulorum. In maioripostglorificationem codd. M O subiungunt velresurrectionem.

1 Verse 5. Cf. August ine, A LiteralExposition of Genesis, Bk. VI, ch. 8. n. 13 ff .2 Verse 44. This gloss, which is theordinary one, is also t aken from Ambrose'sExposition on of the Gospel of Luke, 1, 15.3 According to Aristot le, On thePredicaments, ch. "On Opposites", and onTopics, Bk. II, ch. 3. (ch. 7). concerning t heinfection of the f lesh before animation, seeSent ., Bk. II, d. 31. dubium 1. In place of

more strongly[fortiori] the edit ions have afortiori, codex Y much more strongly[multofortiori].4 Cf. Letter 50 among the works of (St.)Jerome, which deals with the nativity of St.Mary, ch. 2, and Damascene's, On theOrthodox Faith, Bk. IV, ch. 14.5 Letter 174, n.7, at the end of which letter,addressed to t he Canons of Lyons, some ofwhom celebrated the Feast of theConception of the B. V. M., not having

sought license [to do so] from the RomanPont iff . A litt le below t his forwhich mayhave been [quod esset] codex V reads whichwas [quod erat], and then fortherefore hesays [ergo dicit] codex N has therefore it issaid[ergo dicitur].6 Codex T reads before it was animated[antequam animetur].7 In his Enchiridion, ch. 85, n23; The City ofGod, Bk. XXII, ch. 13. The editions faultilysupply here in his book On the Baptism of


7/22

children [in libro de Baptismo parvulorum]. To the major[maiori] af terglorification[glorificat ionem] codices M and O subjoinand/or resurrection [vel resurrect ionem].

p. 62

videlicet quod caro sanctificetur ante animaecreationem, et tamen sanct ificetur per

virtutem gratiae illius animae; sequitur enim,1

quod idem sit prius et posterius in uno eteodem. Si autem intelligatur hoc f ieri pergratiam, quae collata fuerit animabusparentum, hoc non potest esse, tripliciratione.

namely, that the flesh be sanctified beforethe creation of the soul, and nevertheless besanctif ied by virtue of the grace of that soul;

for1 it f ollows, that the same thing would beprior and posterior in regard to one and thesame thing. But if it this be understood tohave come into being [fieri] through a grace,which had been gathered from the souls of[Her]parents, this could not be, for athreefold reason.

Prima: quia gratia2 sanct ificationis non habettransfundi a parente in prolem, pro eo quodproles non est in parente secundum animam;ideo nec in parente habet sactif icationisgratiam. Et hoc est quod dicit Bernardus adLugdunenses: Ante conceptionem minimesanct ificare potuit, quia non erat ;exponendum est secundum animam; eratenim in eis secundum carnem causaliter, sedillud esse non sufficiebat ad sanctificationisgratiam, quae respicit animam.

First: because the grace2 of sanctificationdoes not have it in its power to betransfused from parent to offspring, for thereason that t he of fspring is not in the parentaccording to its soul; on that accountneither does it have the grace ofsanctif ication in its parent. And this is what(St.) Bernard says (in his let ter) to (theCanons) of Lyons: Before conception (Hersoul) could be sanctified very little, becauseit was not ; this must be explainedaccording to (Her) soul; for (Her flesh) was inthem according to the f lesh as a cause, butthat being [esse] was not suff icient for thegrace of sanctificat ion, which respects thesoul.

Secunda ratio est : quia, etsi hoc essetpossibile, quod sanctificatio derivaretur a

parente in prolem,3 sicut originalis iustitia;nunquam tamen derivatur mediante coitulibidinoso, quia tunc duo opposita essentsimul et semel in eodem. Et ideo dicit

Bernardus:4 Forte inter amplexus maritalessanct itas fuerit et concepta. Sed hoc rationon admitt it. Quomodo namque sanctitasabsque Spiritu sanctificante, aut Spirituisancto societas cum peccato fuit? Autquomodo peccatum non fuit , ubi libido nondefuit ?

The second reason is: that, even if this werepossible, that the sanctification be derived

from the parent into the offspring,3 just asoriginal justice [would have been]; never,however, is it derived by means of a lustful[libidinoso] union, because then there wouldhave been two opposites at one and thesame t ime in the same thing. And for t hat

reason (St.) Bernard says:4 As it happened[forte] there was sanctity among theembracing spouses and in Her who wasconceived. But this reason does not allow(the possibility at hand). For in what manner

was there sanctit without the sanctif in


8/22

Spirit, or a society with sin by the Holy Spirit?Or how was there no sin, where lust [libido]was not lacking ?

Tert ia ratio est: quia esto quod sanct ificatioadesset, et libido defuerit virtut e divina; nontamen decuit, ut deesset, propter hoc quodhaec est solius beatae Virginis praerogativa;sola enim ipsa, ut Sancti dicunt, sine peccatoconcepit et sine dolore peperit ; et ideo hocparentibus concedi non debuit beataeVirginis, sed soli Virgini reservari. Unde

Bernardus:5 Dico, Virginem gloriosam deSpiritu sancto concepisse, non autemconceptam fuisse; dico, peperisse virginem,non tamen partam fuisse. Alioquin ubi eritpraerogat ive Matris, de qua singularitercreditur exsultare et munere prolis et carnis

integritat e, si eam dederis matri? Non esthoc Virginem honorare, sed eius honoridetrahere . Et ideo simpliciterconcedendum, quod caro eius anteanimationem non fuit sanctificata. Etconcedendae sunt rationes, quae hocprobant.

The third reason is: that be it t hat t hesanctif ication be present, and lust [libido] belacking by divine virtue; it was not, however,f itt ing, that it be lacking, for the reason thatthis is the prerogat ive of the Blessed Virginalone; for only She, as the Saints say,conceived without sin and gave birth withoutpain; and for that reason this ought not beconceded to the parents of the BlessedVirgin, but be reserved to the Virgin alone.

Whence (St.) Bernard (says):5 I say, thatthe glorious Virgin conceived of the HolySpirit, not however that She was conceived;I say, that the Virgin gave birth, not however

that She had been born. Otherwise what willthere be of the prerogative of the Mother,concerning whom it is believed that Shealone [singulariter] exults both on account ofthe gift [munere] of [Her] Child and theintegrity of [Her] f lesh, if you would give thisto (Her) mother? This is not to honor theVirgin, but to det ract f rom Her honor . And for that reason it simply must beconceded, that Her f lesh has not beensanctif ied before (its) animation. And thereasons, which prove t his, are to beconceded.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur in contrariumde Ierimia: Ante cognovit, quam formavit;dicendum, quod notitia illa non ponit aliquidcirca ipsum, sed circa propositum Deipraedestinantis, sicut electio et dilectio etpraedestinatio aeterna non ponit aliquid

circa praedestinatum;6 et ideo non sequiturex hoc, quod caro Ieremiae vel Virginis antefuerit sanctificata quam formata.

1. Therefore to that which is objected in theCont rary concerning Jeremiah:He knew(him) before He formed(him); it must be said,that t hat a being known [not itia] does notposit anything about him, but about theproposal of God predestining (him), just asthe election and loving-choice [dilectio] andeternal predestination (of a individual) does

not posit anything about t he onepredestined;6 and for that reason it does notfollow f rom this, that the flesh of Jeremiahand/or of the Virgin has been sanctif iedbefore it was formed.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Ioanne, quodnondum erat in ipso spiritus vitae; dicendum,quod in Scriptura aliquid diciturfieri, quandoinnotescit; et non esse, uando non a aret .

2. To that which is objected concerning John(the Baptist), that t here was not yet in himthe spirit of life; it must be said, that inScri ture somethin is said to become, when


9/22

Et ideo dicitur spiritus non fuisse in Ioanne,quia non apparebat; adhuc enim in utero

erat;7 spiritus gratiae in eo diciturfuisse,quando in occursum Domini exsultavit inventre.

it becomes known; and not to be [non esse],when it does not appear. And for that reasonthe spirit (of life) is said not to have been inJohn, because it did not appear (at thatt ime); for until then he was in the womb

[utero];7 the spirit of grace is said to havebeen in him, when he exulted in the womb[ventre] on meeting the Lord.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod caro potestinfici ante animationem, ergo et sanct ificari;dicendum, quod non est simile, quiageneratio carnis ex carne est carnalis, nonspiritualis; ideo magis habet transfundi carovitiosa ex carne vitosa, quam sancta ex

parentibus sanctificatis per grat iam.8

3. To that which is objected, that the fleshcan be stained before animation, therefore(it can) also be sanctif ied (beforehand); itmust be said, that (the case) is not similar,because the generation of the flesh fromflesh is (something) carnal not spiritual; forthat reason vit iated flesh has rather to betransfused [habet transfundi] from vitiatedf lesh, than holy (flesh transfused) from

parents sanct ified through grace.

8

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod concept ioVirginis fuit ex legitimo matrimonio, ergo etc.:dicendum, quod totum illud est probabile,videlicet quod concepta fuerit ex sterili et excoitu coniugali absque omni culpa actuali;non tamen sequitur, quod concepta fueritabsque causa peccati, quia ita t ransfundituroriginale ex illis qui generant ex coitulegitimo, sicut qui generat ex coitusadulterino, sicut ostensum fuit in secundo

libro.9 Et si obiiciat, quod non debuit ibiesse causa originalis, quia facta est mediatevirtut e Spiritus sanct i fecundante, et propterfecundationem sterilitat is maternae, quaenon f uit ab homine, sed a Deo; dicendum,quod illud non valet, quia hoc similiter posset

obiici de Ioanne et Isaac,10 qui de sterilibussunt concepti.

4. To that which is objected, that theconception of the Virgin was from alegitimate marriage, therefore etc.: it must besaid, that that is entirely probable, namely,that She had been conceived f rom a sterile(mot her) and from conjugal union without allactual fault; it does not however fo llow, thatShe had been conceived without the causeof sin, because original (sin) is so t ransfusedfrom those who generate f rom a legit imateunion, as from those who generate from aadulterous union, just as had been shown in

the Second Book (of the Sentences).9 And if one objects, that the original causeought not to be there, because (theconception) come to be by means of thevirtue of the Holy Spirit f ecundating (St.Anne), and because of (this) fecundation ofthe sterility of the mother, which was not bya man, but by God; it must be said, that that(argument) is not valid, because this may beable to be similarly objected concerning (Sts.)

John (the Baptist) and Isaac,10 who wereconceived f rom sterile (mot hers).

1 Cod. N etiam. Cfr. Bernard., Epist. 174. n.6.2 Non pauci codd., inter quos A T V, cumedd. ratio.

1 Codex N also.2 Not a few of the codices, among whichA T V, with the edit ions read reason here.3 Codices A T V read in the offspring.


10/22

Codd. A T Vprole.4 Epist. 174. n. 7. ProAut quomodopeccatum textus originalis habet aut certepeccatum 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 litt erae S.S. Cfr. August., V. contra Iulian. Pelagian. c.

15. n. 52, et VI. Op. imperf. cont ra Iulian. c. 28.5 Loc. cit., ubi textus originalis sic: Alioquinubi erit praerogativa Matris Domini, quasingulariter... si tantundem dederis et matrieius? Non est etc. Propartam codd.A T U Vpartum. Subinde proAlioquin ubicodd. O VAlioquin non, pro Matris cod. OMariae et pro exsultare idem cod. O exaltata,codd. A T V X exsultari. Aliquantulumsuperius pro concedi non debuitcod. Mconcedi non decuit, edd. concedi non potuit.

6 Cfr. I Sent. d. 40. per totam. Eodemmodo haec Ieremiae verba exponunt [trans. -debit esse exponunturvel 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. propriomarte adiiciunt de notitia approbationis,quod, et antepraedestinatum cod. Y interiicitipsum. In f ine solut. cod A verbo formatapraemittuit animata vel.7 S. Bonav. in suo Comment . super Luc., 1,

16. ait: Unde Ambrosius: Nondum erat in eospiritus vitae, et iam erat spiritus gratiae ,non, inquam, erat secundum apparentiam,erat tamen spiritus vitalis secundumexistent iam. Cfr. Glossa in Phil. 2, 8. apudLyranum. Paulo superius post diciturspiritus 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 proabsque omni culpa edd. cum codd. A Vsubstituunt absque tamen culpa. cod. Thabet simpliciterabsque culpa.10 De Isaac vide Gen. 18, 11; de Ioanne Luc.1, 7. Subinde pro quicodd. A F O V quod,cod. M quia. Paulo inferius pro aliquando utsanctus Vat. aliquando ut Spiritus sanctus.

4 Letter 174, n 7. ForOr how was there nosin the original text has or certainly in amanner[there was] sin, and forby the HolySpirit, which reading in the Latin agrees withthe original text, codices A and T and othersexhibit [by means of ] the Holy Spirit, while inot her codices there is extant only theabbreviation S.S. [i.e. by/of the Holy Spirit].

Cf. Augustine, V Book Against Julian, thePelagian, ch. 15, n 52, and VI Book of theOpus Imperfectum [i.e. the two unfinishedworks Against Julian of Eclanum] c. 28.5 Loc. cit., where the original text [runs] thus:Otherwise what will be of the prerogative ofthe Motherof the Lord, by whom onebelieves that She alone ...if one will give sucha great thing even to Hermother? This isnot etc. ForShe ... born codicesA T U V have He ... born. Immediately

afterwards fo rOtherwise whatcodices Oand V read Otherwise nothing, forof theMothercodex O read of Maryand forexaltsthe same codex O read has been exalted,codices A T V X is exalted. Somewhatabove this forought not be concededcodexM read was not fitting to be conceded, theedit ions have could not be conceded.6 Cf. Sent., Bk. I, d. 40 throughout. In thesame manner these words of Jeremiah areexpounded 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. Afterconcerning Jeremiah theedit ions add in proper form concerning theknowledge of[his own] approval, that, andbefore the one predestinedcodex Y readshim [who has been] predestined. At the endof the argument codex A prefaces the wordformedwith animated or.7 St. Bonaventure in his Commentary onLuke, 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 accordingto appearances, but it was there accordingto existence. Cf. The gloss on Phil 2:8 inNicolas of Lyra's work. A lit t le above af terthe spirit[of life] is said, edit ions 1 and 2insert badly Holy, the Vatican edit ion adds oflife.8 Cf. Sent., Bk. II, d. 32. a. 1. q. 2.9 Distinction 31 a. 2. q. 3. A litt le above this


11/22

forwithout all ... faultthe editions withcodices A and V substitute but without ...fault, codexT has simply without fault.10 Concerning Isaac see Gen. 18:11;concerning John [the Baptist ], Lk 1:7. Immediately after this, forwho codicesA F O and V read that, codex M because. Alit t le below t his fo rsometimes as the Holy

One the Vatican edit ion reads sometimes asthe Holy Spirit.

p. 63

Propter quod nota, quod Spiritus sanctusaliquando operatur ut Spiritus, aliquando utsanctus. Tunc quidem operatur ut Spiritus,quando opus facit supra naturam; tunc ut

Spiritus sanctus operatur, cum non facitsolum opus supra naturam, sed etiamsanctificat illud, supra quod operatur. Dicoigitur, quod in concept ione so lius Filii Dei, quiest Sanctus Sanctorum, non solum operatusest ut Spiritus, sed ut Spiritus sanctus. Inconceptione vero, qua Ioannes estconceptus, sive beata Virgo, operatus est ut

Spiritus tantum;1 ideo sola Virgo Mariadicitur concepisse de Spiritu sancto.Propterea nullius conceptionis solemnitatem

celebrat Ecclesia nisi solius Filii Dei inAnnunt iatione beatae Virginis Mariae.

On account of which note, that the HolySpirit sometimes works [operatur] as theSpirit, sometimes as the Holy One. He worksas the Spiritat that t ime, when He performs

a work [opus] above nature; He works as theHolySpirit at that t ime, when He performsnot only a work above nature, but alsosanctif ies it, above what He [thus] works. Therefore I say, that in the Conception ofthe Son of God alone, who is the Holy ofHolies, not only did He work as the Spirit, butas the HolySpirit. But in the conception, bywhich John was conceived, or the Virgin

Mary, He worked as the Spiritonly;1 for thatreason only the Virgin Mary is said to have

conceived of the Holy Spirit . Moreover theChurch celebrates the solemnity of noconception except that of the Son of Godalone, on the (Feast of the) Annunciation ofthe Blessed Virgin Mary.

Sunt t amen aliqui, qui ex speciali devot ionecelebrant conceptionem beatae Virginis,

quos nec omnino2laudare nec simpliciteraudeo reprehendere. Non omnino approbare

audeo, pro eo quod sancti Patres, qui aliassolemnitates Virginis, Spiritu sanctodictante, statuerunt, qui etiam magniamatores et veneratores beatae Virginisfuerunt, conceptionem Virginis solemnizare

non decreverunt. Beatus et iam Bernardus,3

praecipuus Virginis amator et honoris eiuszelator, illos reprehendit, qui conceptionemVirginis celebrant. Statuta et iam universalisEcclesiae de Sanctorum celebritat ibus omniafundata sunt super sanctitatem, ut nullo die

However there are some, who f rom a specialdevot ion celebrate the conception t heBlessed Virgin, whom I dare neither to

entirely2praise norsimply to reprehend. I do

not dare to ent irely approve, for the reasonthat the holy Fathers, who established, withthe Holy Spirit indicating, other solemnitiesof the Virgin, (and) who were also greatlovers and venerators of the Blessed Virgin,did not decide [decreverunt] to solemnizethe conception of the Virgin. Even Blessed

Bernard,3 the pre-eminent [praecipuus] loverof the Virgin and the zealous servant[zealator] of Her honor, reprehended those,who celebrate the conception of the Virgin.


12/22

pro aliquo Sancto solemnizet, in quo vel proquo persona sancta non fuerit , cui honor illedefertur. Si ergo sanct itas non fuit in Virgineante animae infusionem, non videturusquequaque securum concept ionis illiuset iam solemnitat em celebrare. Non et iamaudeo omnino reprehendere, quia, ut quidamdicunt, haec solemnitas celebrari non coepit

humana inventione, sed divina revelat ione;4

quod si verum est, sine dubio bonum estsolemnizare in eius concept ione. Sed quiahoc authenticum non est, non compellimurcredere; quia etiam contra fidem rectam nonest, non compellimur negare.*

Also, the stat utes of the universal Churchconcerning the celebrations of the Saintshave founded all things upon sanctity, sothat on no day on behalf of any Saint doesShe solemnize [anything], on which and/oron behalf of which there was not a holyperson, to whom that honor is of fered[derferetur]. Therefore if sanctity was not in

the Virgin before the infusion of the soul, itdoes not seem that it would always be safeto celebrate even the solemnity of Herconception. I do not also entirelyreprehend(them), because, as certain onessay, this solemnity did not begin to becelebrated by human invention, but by divine

revelation;4 which if it is true, without doubtit is good t o solemnize Her conception. Butbecause this has not been authenticated,we are not compelled to believe (it); because

we are not even compelled to deny what isnot according to right Faith.*

Pot est etiam esse, quod illa solemnitaspot ius refertur ad diem sanctif icationis quamconceptionis. Et quoniam dies conceptionisfuit certa, et dies sanctif icationis incerta, ut

patebit infra,5 ideo non irrationabilitersolemnitas diei sanctif icationis statui potuitin die conceptionis; nec immerito, quia

quamvis conceptionis diem non oporteatcelebrare, pro eo quod non fuit sanctitas inconcepto, possunt tamen irreprehensibilitergaudere sanctae animae, pro eo scilicetquod tunc inchoatum est. Quis enim audiensVirginem, de qua salus tot ius mundiprocessit, conceptam, gratias Deo exsolverenegligat et omittat exsulare in Deo salutari

suo,6 nisi qui erga gloriosam Virginem minusdevote aff icitur et magis consideratpraesentia quam futura, magis et iam

considerat boni defectum quamfundamentum? Etenim si filius regis claudusnascatur, qui sit a claudicatione processutemporis liberandus; non est declaudicatione dolendum, sed potius denativitate gaudendum. Per hunc modum siquis in die conceptionis eius solemnizet,attendens magis sanctificationem futuramquam conceptionem praesentem, non videturdignus redargui; et ideo dixi, quod tales necvituperare audeo nec laudare.

It can also be, that t hat solemnity refersrather to the day of (Her) sanctificat ion thanthat of (Her) conception. And since the dayof (Her) conception was certain, and the dayof (Her) sanctif ication uncertain, as will be

show below,5 for that reason the solemnityof the day of (Her) sanctificat ion could have

been establish not unreasonably on the dayof (Her) conception; nor undeservedly,because although it is not opportune tocelebrate the day of (Her) conception, forthe reason that t here was no sanctity in the[body] conceived, they can howeverirreprehensibly rejoice for the holy soul,namely, for the reason that (the unionbetween that soul and that body) had thenbegun to be. For who, hearing of the Virginhaving been conceived, from whom thesalvation of the whole world proceeds,neglects to discharge thanks to God and

omits to exalt in God his Savior,6 except theone who has a less devout aff ection for[erga minus devote aff icitur] the gloriousVirgin and (who) considers things presentmore than things future, (who) also considersthe lack of the goodmore than the foundation(on which goodness is built)? For indeed ifthere be born lame a kings son, who is to befreed from lameness with t he progress of


13/22

t ime; one must not grieve over thelameness, but rather rejoice over (his) birth.By this means if anyone solemnizes the dayof (Her) conception, attending more to thefuture sanctification than to the presentconception, he does not seem worthy ofbeing refuted; and for that reason I said, thatI dare neither to vituperate norto praise such

(men).

Credo t amen et conf ido de Virgine gloriosa,quod si quis hanc solemnitatem celebrat non

ex amore novitatis,7 sed pot ius ex devot ioneVirginis, non credens etiam contra illud quodelici potest ex sacra Scriptura; quodbenedicta Virgo devot ionem eius acceptat ;et si aliquid est reprehensibile, spero, quodapud iustum Iudicem dignabitur excusare.Nec huic obviant dicta Bernardi. Pot ius enimintendi excludere errorem, ne quis credatVirginem santificatam in conceptione, quamerga Virgi- / -nem devot ionem nostramminuere,

However I believe and am assuredconcerning the glorious Virgin, that if anyonecelebrates this solemnity not from a love of

novelty,7 but rather from devotion to t heVirgin, not even believing (what is) againstthat which can be drawn f rom SacredScripture; that the Blessed Virgin accepts hisdevotion; and if anything is reprehensible,I hope, that before the just Judge He willdeign to excuse it. Nor do the things said by(St.) Bernard obviate this. For I intended toexclude rather the error, lest one believe theVirgin (to have been) sanct ified in (Her)concept ion, (rather) than / diminish ourdevotion toward the Virgin,

1 Pro tantum codd. A T V perperam sanctus,quod sphalma cod. F corrigere nit iurponendo non ut Spiritus Sanctus. Subindepro Propterea edd. Praeterea.2 Cod. G simpliciter. Aliquantulo inferius prodictante edd. docente et mox docueruntprodecreverunt.3 Epist. 174. n. 1; Unde miramur sat is, quidvisum fuerit hoc t empore quibusdamvestrum voluisse mutare colorem optimum,novam inducendo celebritatem, quam ritusEcclesiae nescit , non probat ratio, noncommendat antiqua traditio. Numquid

Patribus doctiores aut devot iores sumus?Periculose praesummimus quidquid ipsorumin talibus prudentia praeteriit etc. Pauloinferius pro celebrantcodd. E F V W X Ycelebrabant.4 Inter opera Anselmi tria inveniunturopuscula de festo immaculataeConceptionis t ractantia, quae inscribuntur:de Concept ione B. Mariae Virg.; Miraculum deConcept ione B. Mariae Virg.; Tractatus deConceptione B. Mariae Virg. Duo priora

1 Foronlycodices A T and V have badly theHoly Spirit, which in opposition codex Fstrives to correct by replacing it with not asthe Holy Spirit. Immediately after this forOnthat accountthe edit ions have Besides.2 Codex G reads simply. Somewhat belowthis forindicatingthe edit ions readinstructingand then they read teach fordecide.3 Letter 174, n. 1; Whence we are quiteastonished, that it has seemed to certain ofyou to have wanted to change the bestcharacter for this season, by introducing a

new celebrat ion, which the rite of the Churchdoes not know, reason does not approve,ancient tradit ion does not commend. What,are we more learned than the Fathers ormore devout? Dangerously do we presumethat anything has been overlooked by theirprudence in such things... etc. A littlebelow this forcelebrate codicesE F V W X and Y read used to celebrate.4 Among the works of (St.) Anselm threeopuscula are found, treating with the Feast


14/22

agunt de historia introduct ionis huius fest i;tertii auctor celebrationem huius festi, quaetunc temporis in non paucis locis diminui velcessare inceperat, f overe et augere intendit.Ista opuscula, iam diu ut spuria agnita,nost ris temporibus cognato Anselmi,eiusdem nominis, addicuntur; qui alterAnselmus (1115 abbas in conventu Romano

S. Sabae, 1121-1149 abbas in S.Edmundsbury, interim 1136-1138 episcopusLondinensis), ut ex epistola ab abbateOsbert de Clare a. 1128 ad ipsum dataapparet, strenuus propugnatur et fautor fuitmemorat i festi (cfr. Epistolae Norbert i deLosigna etc. edit . a Rob. Anstrutter, Lond.1846.). In duobus prioribus istorumopusculorum narratur, cuidam abbat i, Eisino(Helsuino) nomine, in mari periclitanti,quendam pont ificalibus vestibus ornatumapparuisse eumque solvasse ea condit ione,ut celebraret Matris Christi Conceptionisfestum sexto Idus Decembris. Bernard.,Epist. 174. n. 6, hanc relationem respiciensait: Sed profertur scriptum supernae, utaiunt, revelationis; quasi et quivis non queatscriptum aeque producere, in quo Virgovideatur id ipsum mandare et de parentibussuis, iuxta Domini mandatum dicentis:Honora patrem tuum et matrem tuam (Exod.20, 12). Ipse mihi facile persuadeo scriptistalibus non moveri, quibus nec rat iosuppeditare, nec certa invenitur favereauctoritas etc. Paulo superius prosecurum codd. A T U V X securam, etsubinde pro conceptionis il lius etiamsolemnitatem codd. E U W conceptionemillius solemnitate. Paulo inferius pro negarecodd. M O negligere.5 Hic q. 3. Aliquantulo inferius pro inconcepto 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 areentitled: On the Conception of the BlessedVirgin Mary; The Miracle of the Conceptionof the Blessed Virgin Mary; A Tract on t heConception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Thef irst two deal with the history of theintroduct ion of this feast; the author of thethird intends to foster and increase the

celebration of this feast, which at that t imehad begun in not a few places to bediminished or to cease. This work, alreadyacknowledged for a long time as spurious, inour t imes is att ributed to a relative of (St.)Anselm, with the same name; which otherAnselm (1115 abbot in the Roman conventof Saint Sabas, 1121-49 abbot at St.Edmundsbury, and in the interim of 1136-38Bishop of London), as appears from theletter sent t o him by Abbot Osbert o f Clarein the year 1128, was a strenuous proponentand promoter of the mentioned feast (cf.Letter of Norbert of Lausagne etc. edited byRobert Anstrut ter, London 1846). In the priortwo of these opuscula there is to ld, of acertain abbot , Eisinus [Helsuinus] by name,endangered at sea, to whom a certainperson adorned in pont ifical vestmentsappeared and released him from hiscondition, so that he might celebrate theFeast of the Conception of the Mother ofChrist on t he sixth day before the Ides ofDecember [i.e. Dec. 8th]. Bernard, Lett er174, n. 6, referring to this story said: Butthere is brought f orth the writ ing about t hesupernal, as they say, revelat ion; as if noone is even able to procure an equal writing,in which the Virgin seems to command thevery thing even of Her own parents,according to the mandate o f the Lord,saying: Honor thy father and thy mother(Ex20:12). I am easily convinced by such writ ingsnot to be moved, for which neither reasonsuffices, nor a certain authority is found tofavor etc. A litt le above this forit wouldalways be safe to celebrate even thesolemnity of Her conception codices A T U Vand X read the solemnity of Her conceptionwould always be safe to celebrate, and in thesame passage foreven the solemnity of Herconception codices E U and W read on thesolemnity of Her conception. A little belowthis forto denycodices M and O read todisregard.


15/22

5 Here at qu. 3. Somewhat below this forin the [body] conceivedcodices M and Oread in the conception.6 This refers to Lk 1:47.7 Thus codex K, the other codices read ofthe nativity[of the Blessed Virgin], theeditions of vanity. Then fo rnot evenbelieving[what is], the Vat ican edit ion reads

not believing it to be.

*[Trans. nota: i.e. stricte dicto , ex fidesupernaturali obligatur ad credendum illasveritates quae ex auctoritate Dei Revelantisrelevatas sunt. Propterea impossibilitatemactualem negandi in singulo omnempropositionem quae non in harmonia cumfide divina sit, non est obligatio ad facendumtalem in actu. Quantum autem quam

habitualiter indispositum esse possit adcredendum aliquod vel ominia quae non sintin harmonia cum f ide recta, quae indispositioconsequitur immediate ex habitusupernaturali fidei praesentis in mente,potest, et obligatus est, ex integitate dequequalitate supernatuali habitus f idei nonremovere illa indispositionem refutandonegationem aliquae propositionis particulariscont rariae Fidei vel monstrandoindifferentiam negationi virtuosae eadem.]

* [Trans. note: i.e. strictly speaking, one isobliged by supernatural Faith to believethose t ruths which have been revealed, onthe authority of God the Revealer. Onaccount o f the actual impossibility ofdenying in particular every proposition whichis not in harmony with divine Faith, there canbe no obligation to actually do so. But

insofar as one can be habitually indisposedto believe any and all things which are not inharmony with right Faith, which habitualdisposition is the immediate consequence ofthe supernatural habit of Faith present in theintellect, one can be, and is obliged, by theintegrity of and from the supernatural qualityof the habit o f Faith, not to remove thisindisposition by refusing to deny anyparticular proposition ad odds with the Faith,or by showing indif ference to a virtuous

denial of the same.]

p. 64

quam erga Virgi- / -nem devot ionem nostramminuere, cui nullus nimis potest essedevotus; ita tamen, quod nihil credat de ea,quod sit contra veritatem et sacraeScripturae et fidei christianae, quae omnem

devotionem nostram, tam erga Deum quamerga Matrem eius, debet praecedere.

than / diminish our devot ion concerning theVirgin, to whom no one can be devoted toomuch [nimis]; however, so t hat one believenothing concerning Her, which is contrary tothe truth and to Sacred Scripture and to the

Christian Faith, which ought to precede allour devot ion, both towards God as towardsHis Mother.

Quod si aliquis obiiciat, aliorum Sanctorumconceptiones non esse celebres propter

subsequentes sanct ificationes; potuerit ei1

dici, quod alii Sanct i pro malo non habebunt ,si aliquis specialis honor Matri Dominitribuatur, quoniam sanctif icationis ipsius

ma nitudo et acceleratio ceteras antecelit .

Because if anyone objects, that t heconceptions of the other Saints are notcelebrated because of [their] subsequent

sanctif ications; one could say to him1, thatthe other Saints will not be regarded theworse [pro malo], if any special honor is

bestowed u on the Mother of the Lord,


16/22

Et ideo mirandum non est, si Spiritus sanctusinhabitans in cordibus fidelium, devotionemipsorum magis erga Virginem inflammatquam erga alios Sanctos et Sanctas. Hacetiam de causa quot idie de Virgine gloriosafacimus officium speciale iuxta ordinemRomanae Ecclesiae, licet pro beato Petro,

Apostolorum principe, solummodo t er2 in

anno faciamus officium. Quacumque igiturhora, quacumque die aliquis fidelium cumtot is praecordiis et visceribus honoretVirginem, increpandus non est pertinaciter,ne ipsius Virginis animadversio incurratur,quae auxiliatrix et amatrix est omniumfidelium suorum laudatorum, sicut illi qui tales

sunt, experimento multiplici cognoverunt.3

since the magnitude and hasteningof Hersanctif ication surpasses [antecelit] t he allot hers. And for that reason it is not to bewondered at, if the Holy Spirit indwelling inthe hearts of the faithful, inflames theirdevot ion more towards the Virgin, thantowards the other Saints. For this purpose[hac de causa] we recite [facimus] each day

a special of f ice of the glorious Virginaccording to the Ordo of the Roman Church,(even) though for Blessed Peter, the princeof the Apostles, we recite an off ice only

thrice2 in the year. Therefore at whateverhour, on whatever day, any of the faithfulhonor the Virgin with all their heart[praecordiis] and inmost being [visceribus], hemust not be pert inaciously rebuked, lest theunfavorable regard [animadversio] of theVirgin Herself be incurred, who is the

Auxiliatrix and Amatrix [i.e. Lover] of all thosewho faithfully praise Her [omnium fideliumsuorum laudatorum], just as those who are

such, have known3 from manifold experience[expermento mult iplici].

SCHOLION SCHOLIUM

I. Celeberrima est dogmat ica definit io, an.1854 a Papa Pio IX. promulgata, quae quoadcont roversiam de conceptione immaculataDei Genetricis Mariae sancivit: Doctrinam,quae tenet, beat issimam Virginem Mariam inprimo instant i suae conceptionis fuissesingulari omnipotent is Dei grat ia et privilegio,intuitu meritorum Christi Iesu, Salvato rishumani generis, ab omni originalis culpaelabe praeservatum immunem, esse a Deorevelatam, atque idcirco ab omnibus f idelibusfirmiter constanterque credendam . Dedistincta huius decreti explicatione nec nonde historia controversiae, circa hanc rem atempore S. Bernardi agitatae, consulanturrecentiorum theologorum opera. Suff iciat hicbreviter notare, vocabulum conceptio intelliginon de conceptione activa sive generativa,(quae est ex parte parentum), sed depassiva (ex parte fructus genit i); et ierumnon de conceptione seminalisive carnis nonanimatae, sed de conceptionepassivaadaequata, sive quae consummaturinfusione animae rationalis, et ua

I.Most celebrated is the dogmatic definit ion,promulgated by (now Bl.) Pope Pius IX in theyear 1854, which in regard to thecontroversy concerning the ImmaculateConception of Mary the Theotokossanctioned: The doct rine, which holds, thatthe Most Blessed Virgin Mary in the f irstinstant o f Her conception has been by thesingular grace and privilege of theOmnipotent God, having considered themerits of Christ Jesus, the Savior of thehuman race, preserved immune f rom all stainof the original fault , to be revealed by Godand that for that reason to be believed f irmlyand constantly by all the faithful . For adistinct explanation of this decree, notwithout [reference] to the history of t hecontroversy, conducted about this matterfrom the time of St. Bernard, the works ofthe more recent t heologians are to beconsulted. It may suff ice here to briefly note,that t he word conception is understood notofactive concept ion [i.e. the conceiving ofthe erson] or of the enerative [act of


17/22

constituiturpersona humana. Haec vocaturetiam conceptio personalis et a nostroDoctore 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 suaeconceptionis intelligenda sunt demomento creat ionis et infusionis animae;

ipsaque sanctificatio refertur adpersonamsive termimum adaequatum generat ionis,non ad principia naturalia generationis, vel admodum eiusdem. Causa autem efficienshuius sanctif icationis indicatur verbis: singulari omnipotentis Dei gratia etprivilegio, quo simul notaturexemtio singularis alege communi, qua generaliter illi quisecundum ordinem naturalem a primisparentibus descendunt, o riginali culpaeobnoxii sunt; unde aliquod debitum, saltemremotum, incurrendi hanc labem et iam in B. V.Maria supponitur.* Causa autem meritoriahuius eminentissimae redemptionis notaturverbis: intuitu meritorum Christi Iesu,Salvatoris humani generis .

conceiving], (which is on the part of theparent), but ofthe passive [conception] (onthe part of the fruit generated [i.e. theperson being conceived]); and again not ofseminalconception nor (that) of the flesh not(yet) animated, but o fthe corresponding[adaequata]passive conception, or of thatwhich is consummated by the infusion of the

rational soul, and by which the human personis constituted. This is also called the personalconception and by our Doctor and by ot herancient (authors) the nativity in the womb,which is distinguished from the nativity fromthe womb (cf. below q. 2. argument 5 to thecont raries and q. 3 at 1 & 2.). Here the words: in the first instant of Her conceptionhave been understood concerning themoment of the creation and infusion of (Her)soul; and the sanctification itself refers tothe person or the corresponding term ofgeneration, not to t he natural principles ofgeneration, or to the mannerof the same.But the efficient cause of this sanct ificationis indicated by the words: by the singulargrace and privilege of the Omnipotent God, by which there is noted simultaneously thesingular exemption from the common law, bywhich generally those who descendaccording to the naturalorder from (our) firstparents, have been subjected to the originalfault ; whence it is supposed that somedebitum, at least remote, to incurr this stain(exists) even in the Blessed Virgin Mary.* Butthe meritorious cause of this most eminentredemption is noted by the words: havingconsidered the merits of Christ Jesus, theSavior of the human race .

II. Secundum tenorem huius decreticorrigenda vel determinanda est doctrina,quae in 3 quest ionibus huius articuli a S.

Bonav. secundum sentent iam tunc in scholisfere communem proponitur. Ne autemsinistre iudicetur de nostro auctore aliisquecoaevis, haec observamus.

II. According to t he tenor of this decree thedoct rine, which in the three questions of thisarticle is proposed by St. Bonaventure

according to t he then nearly commonopinion in the schools, must be corrected ordelimited [determinanda]. But we make theseobservations lest there be a wrong judgmentof our author and his other contemporaries.

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

1. It must be conceded, that in that age theHoly Doctors themselves, (Sts.) Bernard,Thomas, Bonaventure, and others did notknow, that the aforesaid privilege, now


18/22

revelatum, scilicet implicite in deposito fideitraditum; immo eosdem usque ad Scotum nestatum quidem quaestionis praecisecognovisse, ut ex sequentibus patebit. UndeS. Bonaventurae (q. 2.) opinio opposita visaest communior, rationablior et secuior .Nec defuerunt qui cum B. Alberto (hic a. 4.)assererent, eandem esse tenendam

tanquam fide certam. Quidam insupergeneraliter docuerunt, hancpraeservationem in ipsa conceptione esseomnino impossibilem; sed haec assert io a S.Bonav. (infra q. 2. ad 6.) aliisque mult ismagistris reprobat ur; nec ab his discrepatAlex. Hal., licet dicat, B. Virginem in suaconceptione sanctificare non potuisse, cumtantum loquatur de conceptione seminalietsanctificatione proprie dicta. Attamen B. V.Mariam cont raxisse actualiterpeccatumorginale, sed sanctificatam esse in uteropostinfusionem animae (sive in secundoinstanti temporis, ut vult gid. R. et Henr.Gand., sive saltem post breve tempus), hocquasi uno ore cum Ss. Bernardo, Thoma,Bonav. docent Alex. Hal., B. Albert ., Petr. aTar., Richard. a Med., gid. R., Henr. Gand.,Durand. aliique mult i, et ante Scotumcommuniter. Quod aut em etiam S. Thom.,saltem in locis, ubi ex professo hancquaest ionem 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 nonrecesserit, ipsa eius verba, praesert im siconferuntur cum verbis coaevorum, satismanifestant. Hoc etiam conf irmaturcertissimo hoc facto, quod discipuli eius,eidem Ordini adscriptis, usque ad saeculumXVI. ita magistrum intelligebant, immo illaaetate plerumque eandem sentent iam cumpraestantibus theologiis S. Antonino, Ioan. aTurre-cremata, Caietano tanquam in severam defendebant . In subsequentibussaeculis, cum mens Ecclesiae paulat im infavorem verae sententiae se manifestaret,numerus defensorum huius privilegii in scholaS. Thomae crevit. Tunc autem inceptum estde vera sententia S. Doctoris disputari.Nonnulli enim, innixi quibusdam aliis locis,duce Seraphino Capponi de Porrecta (inElucidat io. Ad S. III. q. 27. a. 2.), S. Thomampot ius illi privilegio favere, vel saltem noncont radicere volunt contrariosque locos itainterpretantur, utpeccatum orginale etiam

defined, had been revealed, namely, handeddown [traditum] implicitly in the deposit ofthe faith; rather that the same [theologians]until Scotus did not know precisely even thestate of the question, as will be patent formthe following. Whence the opposite opinionof St. Bonaventure seemed more common,more reasonable, and more safe . Nor was

there lacking those who with Blessed [nowSt.] Albert asserted, that the same was to beheld as certain in faith. Moreover, certainones generally taught, that this preservationin the conception itself is entirely impossible;but this assert ion is reproved by St.Bonaventure (below in q. 2. at 6.) and bymany other masters (of theology); nor didAlexander of Hales disagree with these,though he says, that the Blessed Virgincould nothave been sanctif ied in Herconception, since he speaks only of theseminalconception and of the sanctificationproperly speaking. However that the BlessedVirgin Mary had actuallycontracted originalsin, but was sanctif ied in the womb aftertheinfusion of (Her) soul (or in the secondinstant of t ime, as Giles the Roman andHenry of Ghent want, or at least af ter a brief[space of] time), this with one mouth, withSts. Bernard, Thomas, Bonaventure,Alexander of Hales, Bl. (now St.) Albert, (Bl.)Peter of Tarentaise, Richard of Middleton,Giles the Roman, Henry of Ghent, Durandusand many others, even before Scotus, teachcommonly. However that even St.Thomas, at least in places, where he treatsex prof esso of this question (here at q. 1. a.1; in the Summa, pars II, q. 27. a. 1. 2.; in theQuodlibetal questions, n.6 q. 6. a. 7; in theCompendium of Theology, ch. 224.), did notretreat from the then common opinion, hisvery words sufficiently manifest, especially ifthey are compared with the words of (his)contemporaries. This is also confirmed bythis most certain fact, that his disciples,enrolled in the same Order, even until theXVI century understood (their) master thus,rather in that age very many used to defend,as true in itself, the same opinion with theout standing theologians, St. Antoninus (ofFlorence), John of Torquemada, (and)Cajetan. In the subsequent ages, when themind of the Church would manifest itselflit t le by litt le in favor of the true opinion, the


19/22

pro debito incurrendi eam intelligant. Hincipsum locum in Comment. (loc. cit. quaetiunc.2.), ubi dicitur, quod sanct ification Virginisnon pot uerit esse decenter nec anteinfusionem animae, nec etiam in ipso instantiinfusionis etc.; non secundum materialemverborum sensum intelligi debere, iidemaff irmant. Att amen praedictus Seraphinus

ibidem confitetur, S. Thomam etiam inSumma docuisse, magis tenendam esseopinionem, quod B. V. actualiter peccatumoriginale cont raxerit . De sentent ia S.Bonaventurae et Scoti in seq. scholio mentiofiet.

number of the defenders of this privilegegrew in the school of St. Thomas. But thenthere began a dispute concerning the trueopinion of the holy Doctor. For not a few,relying on certain other passages, led bySerafino Capponi of Porrecta (in hisElucidation upon the Summa, part II, q. 27. a.2.), wanted rather to favor St. Thomas with

(support ing) this privilege, or at least not tocont radict him and they thus interpretedcont rary passages, so as to understand thatShe incurred original sin alsoin virtue ofadebitum. At this very passage in hisCommentary (loc. cit. quaestiuncula 2.),where there is said, that the sanctif ication ofthe Virgin could not have fit t ingly been,neitherbefore the infusion of the soul, noreven in the instant itselfof the infusion etc.;that he should not be understood accordingto the material sense of the words, thesame authors aff irm. But the afo resaidSerafino yet confesses in the same place,that St. Thomas had also taught in theSumma, that the opinion must be ratherheld, that the Blessed Virgin actuallycontracted original sin. Concerning theopinion of St. Bonaventure and (now Bl.)Scot us mention will be said in the followingScholium.

1 Codd. T Z omittunt ei, pro quo codd.A H N U V X aa enim. Auctor opusc. deConcept ione B. Mariae Virg. (inter operaAnselmi) iure ait : Erubescant iterum insani,qui hunc diem colere non volunt idcirco, quiaaliorum Sanctorum conceptiones minimecolere sancta consuevit Ecclesia. Maximaquippe rust icitas est eam aliis Sanctis in hoccomparere, quam etiam super omnesAngelos et Archagbelos in caelis sublimavitetc.2 Scilicet, 18 Ian., 23 Feb., 29 Iunii.3 Cod. T sicut experti sunt cognoverunt.

1 Codices T and Z omit to him, in place ofwhich word codices A H N U V X and aaprefix forto this phrase. The author of the opuscula On theConception of the Blessed Virgin Mary(among t he works of Anselm) right ly said:"Again the insane blush, who do not want t ohonor [colere] this day for this reason,because Holy Church hardly counsels thehonoring [colere] of the conceptions of theother Saints. Indeed it is the greatestboorishness to compare Her to the otherSaints in this, She whom He elevated aboveall the Angles and Archangels in theheavens" etc.2 Namely, January 18th, February 23rd, June29th.3 Codex T reads have known as they haveexperienced[it].

* [i.e. haec est ratio cur aliqui theologii * [i.e. the reason why some theologians


20/22

faveant existentia debit i; sicut t amenmedium t ransmissionis peccat i originalis(generatio naturalis) distinguendum est deratione transmissionis (paternitas legalisAdae), idem absentia peccati originalis in B.Virgine potest videri propter paternitatemlegalem Adae Novi erga eam. In aliis verbis,non opportet B. Virginem incurrere aliquod

debitum propter generationem eiusnaturalem ex parentibus, quia generationnaturalis est tantum occasio protransmissione peccati originalis, et noncausa formalis necessitatis transmissionis,quae causa est in ordine legali, non naturali.Haec causalitas legalis comprehendit omnesqui descendunt de Adamo, sicut homo prius,ex capitat e supra genus humanum, sedChristus, Adam Novus, exceptendus est , excapitat e superioris priorisque supra genushumanum restoratum. Ergo propterapredestinationem B. Virginis ad MatremSalvatoris, quae predest inatio requiritcapitatem Christi atque subordinationem adillam, B. Virgo manet omnino forisneccesitate ad cont ractendum peccatumoriginalem per generationem naturalem exprolibus Adae. Et ideo non est in ea nullumdebitum ad cont ractendum peccatumoriginalem. Per plus de re cfr. scriptis patrisJuniperi Carolis, OFM]

support the existence of a debitum;however, just as the means for thetransmission of original sin (naturalgeneration) must be distinguished from thereason f or its transmission (legal paternity ofAdam), so the absence of original sin in theBlessed Virgin can been seen to be onaccount of the legal paternity of the New

Man over Her. In other words, the BlessedVirgin should not have incurred any debitumon account of merely Her natural generationfrom Her parents, for natural generation isonly the occasion for the transmission oforiginal sin, and not the fo rmal cause of thenecessity of its transmission, which cause isin the legal, not the natural order. This legalcausality encompasses all who descendnaturally from Adam, as f irst man, onaccount of his headship over the humanrace, but Christ, the New Adam is excepted,on account of His superior and priorHeadship over the human race as restored.Hence on account of the predestination ofthe Blessed Virgin to be the Mot her of theSavior, which predestination necessitatesthe Headship of Christ and subordinat ion toit, the Blessed Virgin lies completely outsidethe legal necessity of cont ract ing original sinby Her natural generation f rom the childrenof Adam. And therefore there is no debitumto contract original sin in Her. For more onthis matter cf. writings of Fr. Juniper Carol,OFM]

p. 65

2. Absit tamen, ut quis praedictos saeculi 12.et 13. doctores reputet aliquarephrehensione dignos, vel ut minus bene deeorum pietate, doct rina et devot ione erga B.

Virginem existimet. Exploratum enim est, etex ipsis verbis in hac disputat ione ab eisadhibit is constat, illos non defectu aliquopietatis, vel devotionis, vel sanorumprincipiorum a veritate penitus perspiciendaimpeditos esse, sed plurimis difficultatibus,illa aetate hanc quaestionem adhucobscurantibus. Concorditer quidem omnesproclamabant principius S. Anselmi, quodMatri Dei tribuenda sit puritas, qua majorsub Deo (Christo) nequit intelligi (q. 2. arg.

2. However, far be it t hat anyone reckon theaforesaid doctors of the 12th and 13thcentury worthy of some reprehension, orestimates (them to be) less strong [minus

bene] in their piety, doctrine and devot ion tothe Blessed Virgin. For it has beendiscovered, and is established from thewords themselves exhibited by them in thisdisputat ion, that they were not impeded byany defect o f piety, or of devot ion, or ofsane principles from deeply examining thetruth, but by the very many dif f iculties, st illobscuring this question in that age. Indeed allharmoniously used to proclaim the principleof St. Anselm, that there be attributed to t he


21/22

1.); sed haesitabant in applicatione huiusprincipii ad specialem casum, scilicetrespectu peccati originalis. Et revera, habitaratione omnium circumstantiarum, haechaesitatio tunc erat laude digna et quasinecessaria. Assertio enim huius privilegii inoccidentalibus terrris videbatur nova;Ecclesia nondum aliquid determinaverat de

hac quaestione; eadem festum conceptionisB. Virginis pot ius videbitur tolerare inaliquibus locis quam approbare; praxisEcclesiae Graecae et plures PatrumGraecorum sententiae in Occidente tuncnon innotuerant; nondum eliquatae erantgraves diff icultates, quae ex universalitatetum peccati originalis tum redemptionispetitae obiiciebantur; denique (et hocsummopere dignum est obervatione) primifautores festi conceptionis et defensoreshuius privilegii ita male hoc mysteriumexplicabant, veris falsa immiscebant etinvalidis vel falsis rationibus conf irmabant, uteorum posit ionibus et piae sentent iae sicintellectae iure contradicendum esset.Plerumque enim voluerunt, carnem Virginisfuisse sanctificatam ante animationem, ethac ratione B. Virginem a culpa originaliomnino exemptam. Contra hancpositionem haec 1. questio militat etcommunis responsio negativa magistrorum,et iam Scot i (hic q. 1. n. 14.), recte sustinetur,iam ob hanc rationem, quia illa positione neremotum quidem debitum contrahendipeccatum originale admitt i videtur. Alii autemdefensores eiusdem sententiae alteram,itidem non plene satisfacientemexplicationem aff erebant, contra quam S.Bonav. arguit in 2. questione.

Mother of God a purity, greater than whichunder God (Christ) could not be understood (q. 2 argument 1.); but they used tohesitate in the application of this principle toa special case, namely in respect of originalsin. And in truth, considering the reason of allthe circumstances, this hesitat ion was atthat t ime worthy of praise and almost

necessary. For the assertion of this privilegeseemed to be new in the West; the Churchhad not yet determined anything concerningthis question; She seemed rather to t oleratethis feastof the Conception of the BlessedVirgin in some places than t o approve it; thepract ice of the Greek Church and the verymany opinions of the Greek Fathers had notthen been identif ied [innot uerant]; there hadnot yet been worked out [eliquatae erant]the grave dif f iculties, which, demanded fromthe universality of both original sin andredemption, were being thrown up against it;finally (and this is exceedingly worthy ofobservation) the f irst promoters of the feastof the Conception and the defenders of thisprivilege used to so badly explain thismystery, they used to mix the false in thetrue and to conf irm it with invalid or falsereasoning, so that rightly there would haveto be a contradiction of their posit ions andthe pious opinion thus understood. For verymany desired, that the flesh of the Virgin hadbeen sanct ified before its animation, andfrom this reason the Blessed Virgin would beentirely exempt from the original fault. Against t his posit ion this f irst quest ionmilitates and the common negat iveresponse of the masters, even of (Bl.)Scotus (here at q. 1 n. 14), is rightlysustained, moreover on account of thisreason, because it seemed by this positionthat not even a remote debitum for thecont ract ing of original sin be admitt ed. Butot her defenders of this same opinion,likewise did not used to bring forward a fullysatisfying explanation, against which St.Bonaventure argued in question 2.

III. [sic, debit esse "3."] Quod primi defensorespraedict i privilegii et festi sanct ificationemcarnis in ipsa conceptione seminis et anteinfusionem animae docuerint, ex eorumscriptis et communi doctorum huius

3. That the first defenders of the aforesaidprivilege and feast had taught thesanctification of the flesh in that seminalconception and before the infusion of thesoul, is suff icient ly established from their


22/22

positionis reprobat ione satis constant. Utautem eorum opinio facilius inteliigatur,servire possunt verba Alexandri Hal. (S. p. III.q. 9. m. 1. a. 1.): Sanctificatio nihil aliud estquam mot us ad sanct itatem. Sed sanctitasdicitur quatuor modis; est enim sanct itas perdedicationem ad cultum Dei [quae potestet iam convenire rei pure materiali]; et est

sanct itas peremundationem a peccato ; teriomodo dicitur sanctitas in Scriptura ipsaabstractio a carnali actu [cfr. Exod. 19, 10.];quarto dicitur sanctitas perconfirmationemin bono . Idem in seqq. hanc quadruplicemsanctificationem pluribus Scripturae locisexplicat.

writ ings and from the reprobation of thisposit ion by the doctor communis. But thattheir opinion be more easily understood, thewords of Alexander of Hales (Summa pars II,q. 9. m. 1. a. 1) can supply: Sanctification isnothing other than a movement t owardssanctity. But sanctityis said in four manners;for there is the sanctity by means ofa

dedication to t he cult of God (which caneven befit [convenire] a purely materialthing); and there is the sanct ity by means ofa cleansingfrom sin; in the third mannersanctity is said in Scripture (to be) thatexclusion [abstractio] from the carnal act(cf.Ex 19:10); in the fourth (manner) sanctity issaid (to be) by means ofa confirmation in thegood. Likewise he explains in the very manypassages from Scripture (which) follow, thisfourfo ld sanctif ication.

III. Praeter iam citatos: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 2.a. 1. B. Albert., hic a. 2. 4. Petr. a Tar., hicq. 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.

III. Besides those already cited: Alexander ofHales, loc. cit. m. 2. a. 1. Bl. [now St.] Albertthe Great, here at a. 2. 4. Peter ofTarragona, here at q. 1. a. 1. Richard ofMiddleton, here at a. 1. q. 1. Giles theRoman, here at q. 1. a. 1. dub. lat. 1-3. Henry of Ghent., concerning this and thefollowing. questions. Quodlibetaes. 15. q. 13. Durandus, concerning this and thefollowing questions, here at q. 1. 2. (Bl.)

Dionysius the Carthusian, concerning thisand the following quest ions, here at q. 1. (Gabriel) Biel, concerning this and thefollowing quest ions, here at q. 1.

The English translation here has been released to the public domain by its author. The / symbol is

used to indicate that t he text which fo llows appears on the subsequent page of the Quaracchi

Edition. The t ranslation of the notes in English corresponds to the context of the English text, not

that o f 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.

Documents

St. Bonaventure, Book 3, Commentary on the 4 Books of Sentences