Ad secundum dicendum quod, si nunquam anima beatae virginis fuisset contagio originalis peccati inquinata, hoc derogaret dignitati Christi, secundum quam est universalis omnium salvator. Et ideo sub Christo, qui salvari non indiguit, tanquam universalis salvator, maxima fuit beatae virginis puritas. Nam Christus nullo modo contraxit originale peccatum, sed in ipsa sui conceptione fuit sanctus, secundum illud Luc. I, quod ex te nascetur sanctum vocabitur filius Dei. Sed beata virgo contraxit quidem originale peccatum, sed ab eo fuit mundata antequam ex utero nasceretur. Et hoc significatur Iob III, ubi de nocte originalis peccati dicitur, exspectet lucem, idest Christum, et non videat (quia nihil inquinatum intravit in illam, ut dicitur Sap. VII), nec ortum surgentis aurorae, idest beatae virginis, quae in suo ortu a peccato originali fuit immunis. Reply Obj. 2: If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of Christ, by reason of His being the universal Savior of all. Consequently after Christ, who, as the universal Savior of all, needed not to be saved, the purity of the Blessed Virgin holds the highest place. For Christ did not contract original sin in any way whatever, but was holy in His very Conception, according to Luke 1:35: The Holy which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God. But the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth from the womb. This is what is signified (Job 3:9) where it is written of the night of original sin: Let it expect light, i.e., Christ, and not see it—(because no defiled thing cometh into her, as is written Wis. 7:25), nor the rising of the dawning of the day, that is of the Blessed Virgin, who in her birth was immune from original sin. Ad tertium dicendum quod, licet Romana Ecclesia conceptionem beatae virginis non celebret, tolerat tamen consuetudinem aliquarum Ecclesiarum illud festum celebrantium. Unde talis celebritas non est totaliter reprobanda. Nec tamen per hoc festum conceptionis celebratum datur intelligi quod in sua conceptione fuerit sancta. Sed, quia quo tempore sanctificata fuerit ignoratur, celebratur festum sanctificationis eius, potius quam conceptionis, in die conceptionis ipsius. Reply Obj. 3: Although the Church of Rome does not celebrate the Conception of the Blessed Virgin, yet it tolerates the custom of certain churches that do keep that feast, wherefore this is not to be entirely reprobated. Nevertheless the celebration of this feast does not give us to understand that she was holy in her conception. But since it is not known when she was sanctified, the feast of her Sanctification, rather than the feast of her Conception, is kept on the day of her conception. Ad quartum dicendum quod duplex est sanctificatio. Una quidem totius naturae, inquantum scilicet tota natura humana ab omni corruptione culpae et poenae liberatur. Et haec erit in resurrectione. Alia vero est sanctificatio personalis. Quae non transit in prolem carnaliter genitam, quia talis sanctificatio non respicit carnem, sed mentem. Et ideo, etsi parentes beatae virginis fuerunt mundati a peccato originali, nihilominus beata virgo contraxit peccatum originale, cum fuerit concepta secundum carnis concupiscentiam et ex commixtione maris et feminae, dicit enim Augustinus, in libro de nuptiis et concupiscentia, omnem quae de concubitu nascitur, carnem esse peccati. Reply Obj. 4: Sanctification is twofold. One is that of the whole nature: inasmuch as the whole human nature is freed from all corruption of sin and punishment. This will take place at the resurrection. The other is personal sanctification. This is not transmitted to the children begotten of the flesh: because it does not regard the flesh but the mind. Consequently, though the parents of the Blessed Virgin were cleansed from original sin, nevertheless she contracted original sin, since she was conceived by way of fleshly concupiscence and the intercourse of man and woman: for Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): All flesh born of carnal intercourse is sinful. Articulus 3 Article 3 Utrum Beata Virgo fuerit emundata ab infectione fomitis Whether the Blessed Virgin was cleansed from the infection of the fomes? Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod beata virgo non fuerit emundata ab infectione fomitis. Sicut enim poena originalis peccati est fomes, qui consistit in inferiorum virium rebellione ad rationem, ita etiam poena originalis peccati est mors, et ceterae poenalitates corporales. Sed beata virgo fuit subiecta huiusmodi poenalitatibus. Ergo etiam fomes ab ea totaliter remotus non fuit. Objection 1: It would seem that the Blessed Virgin was not cleansed from the infection of the fomes. For just as the fomes, consisting in the rebellion of the lower powers against the reason, is a punishment of original sin; so also are death and other corporeal penalties. Therefore the fomes was not entirely removed from her. Praeterea, II Cor. XII dicitur, virtus in infirmitate perficitur, et loquitur de infirmitate fomitis, secundum quam patiebatur stimulum carnis. Sed nihil quod pertinet ad perfectionem virtutis, fuit beatae virgini subtrahendum. Ergo non fuit beatae virgini totaliter subtrahendus fomes. Obj. 2: Further, it is written (2 Cor 12:9): Power is made perfect in infirmity, which refers to the weakness of the fomes, by reason of which he (the Apostle) felt the sting of the flesh. But it was not fitting that anything should be taken away from the Blessed Virgin, pertaining to the perfection of virtue. Therefore it was unfitting that the fomes should be entirely taken away from her. Praeterea, Damascenus dicit quod in beata virgine supervenit Spiritus Sanctus purgans eam, ante conceptionem filii Dei. Quod non potest intelligi nisi de purgatione a fomite, nam peccatum non fecit, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro de natura et gratia. Ergo per sanctificationem in utero non fuit libere mundata a fomite. Obj. 3: Further, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii) that the Holy Spirit came upon the Blessed Virgin, purifying her, before she conceived the Son of God. But this can only be understood of purification from the fomes: for she committed no sin, as Augustine says (De Nat. et Grat. xxvi). Therefore by the sanctification in the womb she was not absolutely cleansed from the fomes. Sed contra est quod dicitur Cant. IV, tota pulchra es, amica mea, et macula non est in te. Fomes autem ad maculam pertinet, saltem carnis. Ergo in beata virgine fomes non fuit. On the contrary, It is written (Song 4:7): Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee! But the fomes implies a blemish, at any rate in the flesh. Therefore the fomes was not in the Blessed Virgin. Respondeo dicendum quod circa hoc sunt diversae opiniones. Quidam enim dixerunt quod in ipsa sanctificatione beatae virginis, qua fuit sanctificata in utero, totaliter fuit ei fomes subtractus. Quidam vero dicunt quod remansit fomes quantum ad hoc quod facit difficultatem ad bonum, sublatus tamen fuit quantum ad hoc quod facit pronitatem ad malum. Alii vero dicunt quod sublatus fuit fomes inquantum pertinet ad corruptionem personae, prout impellit ad malum et difficultatem facit ad bonum, remansit tamen inquantum pertinet ad corruptionem naturae, prout scilicet est causa traducendi originale peccatum in prolem. Alii vero dicunt quod in prima sanctificatione remansit fomes secundum essentiam, sed ligatus fuit, in ipsa autem conceptione filii Dei fuit totaliter sublatus. Ad horum autem intellectum, oportet considerare quod fomes nihil aliud est quam inordinata concupiscentia sensibilis appetitus, habitualis tamen, quia actualis concupiscentia est motus peccati. Dicitur autem concupiscentia sensualitatis esse inordinata, inquantum repugnat rationi, quod quidem fit inquantum inclinat ad malum, vel difficultatem facit ad bonum. Et ideo ad ipsam rationem fomitis pertinet quod inclinet ad malum, vel difficultatem facit in bono. Unde ponere quod remanserit fomes in beata virgine non inclinans ad malum, est ponere duo opposita. I answer that, on this point there are various opinions. For some have held that the fomes was entirely taken away in that sanctification whereby the Blessed Virgin was sanctified in the womb. Others say that it remained as far as it causes a difficulty in doing good, but was taken away as far as it causes a proneness to evil. Others again, that it was taken away as to the personal corruption, by which it makes us quick to do evil and slow to do good: but that it remained as to the corruption of nature, inasmuch as it is the cause of transmitting original sin to the offspring. Lastly, others say that, in her first sanctification, the fomes remained essentially, but was fettered; and that, when she conceived the Son of God, it was entirely taken away. In order to understand the question at issue, it must be observed that the fomes is nothing but a certain inordinate, but habitual, concupiscence of the sensitive appetite, for actual concupiscence is a sinful motion. Now sensual concupiscence is said to be inordinate, in so far as it rebels against reason; and this it does by inclining to evil, or hindering from good. Consequently it is essential to the fomes to incline to evil, or hinder from good. Wherefore to say that the fomes was in the Blessed Virgin without an inclination to evil, is to combine two contradictory statements. Similiter etiam videtur oppositionem implicare quod remanserit fomes inquantum pertinet ad corruptionem naturae, non autem inquantum pertinet ad corruptionem personae. Nam secundum Augustinum, in libro de nuptiis et concupiscentia, libido est quae peccatum originale transmittit in prolem. Libido autem importat inordinatam concupiscentiam, quae non totaliter subditur rationi. Et ideo, si totaliter fomes subtraheretur inquantum pertinet ad corruptionem personae, non posset remanere inquantum pertinet ad corruptionem naturae. In like manner it seems to imply a contradiction to say that the fomes remained as to the corruption of nature, but not as to the personal corruption. For, according to Augustine (De Nup. et Concup. i.), it is lust that transmits original sin to the offspring. Now lust implies inordinate concupiscence, not entirely subject to reason: and therefore, if the fomes were entirely taken away as to personal corruption, it could not remain as to the corruption of nature. Restat igitur ut dicamus quod vel totaliter fomes fuerit ab ea sublatus per primam sanctificationem, vel quod fuerit ligatus. Posset tamen intelligi quod totaliter fuit sublatus fomes hoc modo, quod praestitum fuerit beatae virgini, ex abundantia gratiae descendentis in ipsam, ut talis esset dispositio virium animae in ipsa quod inferiores vires nunquam moverentur sine arbitrio rationis, sicut dictum est, fuisse in Christo, quem constat peccati fomitem non habuisse; et sicut fuit in Adam ante peccatum per originalem iustitiam; ita quod, quantum ad hoc, gratia sanctificationis in virgine habuit vim originalis iustitiae. Et quamvis haec positio ad dignitatem virginis matris pertinere videatur, derogat tamen in aliquo dignitati Christi, absque cuius virtute nullus a prima damnatione liberatus est. Et quamvis per fidem Christi aliqui ante Christi incarnationem sint secundum spiritum ab illa damnatione liberati, tamen quod secundum carnem aliquis ab illa damnatione liberetur, non videtur fieri debuisse nisi post incarnationem eius in qua primo debuit immunitas damnationis apparere. Et ideo, sicut ante immortalitatem carnis Christi resurgentis nullus adeptus fuit carnis immortalitatem, ita inconveniens etiam videtur dicere quod ante carnem Christi, in qua nullum fuit peccatum, caro virginis matris eius, vel cuiuscumque alterius, fuerit absque fomite, qui dicitur lex carnis, sive membrorum. It remains, therefore, for us to say, either that the fomes was entirely taken away from her by her first sanctification or that it was fettered. Now that the fomes was entirely taken away, might be understood in this way, that, by the abundance of grace bestowed on the Blessed Virgin, such a disposition of the soul’s powers was granted to her, that the lower powers were never moved without the command of her reason: just as we have stated to have been the case with Christ (Q. 15, A. 2), who certainly did not have the fomes of sin; as also was the case with Adam, before he sinned, by reason of original justice: so that, in this respect, the grace of sanctification in the Virgin had the force of original justice. And although this appears to be part of the dignity of the Virgin Mother, yet it is somewhat derogatory to the dignity of Christ, without whose power no one had been freed from the first sentence of condemnation. And though, through faith in Christ, some were freed from that condemnation, according to the spirit, before Christ’s Incarnation, yet it does not seem fitting that any one should be freed from that condemnation, according to the flesh, except after His Incarnation, for it was then that immunity from condemnation was first to appear. Consequently, just as before the immortality of the flesh of Christ rising again, none obtained immortality of the flesh, so it seems unfitting to say that before Christ appeared in sinless flesh, His Virgin Mother’s or anyone else’s flesh should be without the fomes, which is called the law of the flesh or of the members (Rom 7:23, 25). Et ideo melius videtur dicendum quod per sanctificationem in utero non fuit sublatus virgini fomes secundum essentiam, sed remansit ligatus, non quidem per actum rationis suae, sicut in viris sanctis, quia non statim habuit usum liberi arbitrii adhuc in ventre matris existens, hoc enim speciale privilegium Christi fuit; sed per gratiam abundantem quam in sanctificatione recepit, et etiam perfectius per divinam providentiam sensualitatem eius ab omni inordinato motu prohibentem. Postmodum vero, in ipsa conceptione carnis Christi, in qua primo debuit refulgere peccati immunitas, credendum est quod ex prole redundaverit in matrem totaliter a fomite subtractio. Et hoc significatur Ezech. XLIII, ubi dicitur, ecce, gloria Dei Israel ingrediebatur per viam Orientalem, idest per beatam virginem, et terra, idest caro ipsius, splendebat a maiestate eius, scilicet Christi. Therefore it seems better to say that by the sanctification in the womb, the Virgin was not freed from the fomes in its essence, but that it remained fettered: not indeed by an act of her reason, as in holy men, since she had not the use of reason from the very first moment of her existence in her mother’s womb, for this was the singular privilege of Christ: but by reason of the abundant grace bestowed on her in her sanctification, and still more perfectly by Divine Providence preserving her sensitive soul, in a singular manner, from any inordinate movement. Afterwards, however, at the conception of Christ’s flesh, in which for the first time immunity from sin was to be conspicuous, it is to be believed that entire freedom from the fomes redounded from the Child to the Mother. This indeed is signified (Ezek 43:2): Behold the glory of the God of Israel came in by the way of the east, i.e., by the Blessed Virgin, and the earth, i.e., her flesh, shone with His, i.e., Christ’s, majesty. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod mors et huiusmodi poenalitates de se non inclinant ad peccatum. Unde etiam Christus, licet assumpserit huiusmodi poenalitates, fomitem tamen non assumpsit. Unde etiam in beata virgine, ut filio conformaretur, de cuius plenitudine gratiam accipiebat, primo quidem fuit ligatus fomes, et postea sublatus, non autem fuit liberata a morte et aliis huiusmodi poenalitatibus. Reply Obj. 1: Death and such like penalties do not of themselves incline us to sin. Wherefore though Christ assumed them, He did not assume the fomes. Consequently in order that the Blessed Virgin might be conformed to her Son, from whose fullness her grace was derived, the fomes was at first fettered and afterwards taken away: while she was not freed from death and other such penalties. Ad secundum dicendum quod infirmitas carnis ad fomitem pertinens est quidem in sanctis viris perfectae virtutis occasio, non tamen causa sine qua perfectio haberi non possit. Sufficit autem in beata virgine ponere perfectam virtutem et abundantiam gratiae, nec in ea oportet ponere omnem occasionem perfectionis. Reply Obj. 2: The infirmity of the flesh, that pertains to the fomes, is indeed to holy men an occasional cause of perfect virtue: but not the sine qua non of perfection: and it is quite enough to ascribe to the Blessed Virgin perfect virtue and abundant grace: nor is there any need to attribute to her every occasional cause of perfection. Ad tertium dicendum quod Spiritus Sanctus in beata virgine duplicem purgationem fecit. Unam quidem quasi praeparatoriam ad Christi conceptionem, quae non fuit ab aliqua impuritate culpae vel fomitis, sed mentem eius magis in unum colligens et a multitudine sustollens. Nam et Angeli purgari dicuntur, in quibus nulla impuritas invenitur, ut Dionysius dicit, VI cap. Eccles. Hier. Aliam vero purgationem operatus est in ea Spiritus Sanctus mediante conceptione Christi, quae fuit opus spiritus sancti. Et secundum hoc potest dici quod purgavit eam totaliter a fomite. Reply Obj. 3: The Holy Spirit effected a twofold purification in the Blessed Virgin. The first was, as it were, preparatory to Christ’s conception: which did not cleanse her from the stain of sin or fomes, but rather gave her mind a unity of purpose and disengaged it from a multiplicity of things (Cf. Dionysius, Div. Nom. iv), since even the angels are said to be purified, in whom there is no stain, as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. vi). The second purification effected in her by the Holy Spirit was by means of the conception of Christ which was the operation of the Holy Spirit. And in respect of this, it may be said that He purified her entirely from the fomes. Articulus 4 Article 4 Utrum per sanctificationem in utero fuerit Beata Virgo praeservata ab omni peccato actuali Whether by being sanctified in the womb the Blessed Virgin was preserved from all actual sin? Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod per sanctificationem in utero non fuerit beata virgo praeservata ab omni peccato actuali. Quia, ut dictum est, post primam sanctificationem fomes peccati remansit in virgine. Motus autem fomitis, etiam si rationem praeveniat, est peccatum veniale, licet levissimum, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro de Trin. Ergo in beata virgine fuit aliquod peccatum veniale. Objection 1: It would seem that by being sanctified in the womb the Blessed Virgin was not preserved from all actual sin. For, as we have already stated (A. 3), after her first sanctification the fomes remained in the Virgin. Now the motion of the fomes, even if it precede the act of the reason, is a venial sin, albeit extremely slight, as Augustine says in his work De Trinitate. Therefore there was some venial sin in the Blessed Virgin. Praeterea, super illud Luc. II, tuam ipsius animam pertransibit gladius, dicit Augustinus, in libro de quaest. novi et veteris Test., quod beata virgo in morte domini stupore quodam dubitavit. Sed dubitare de fide est peccatum. Ergo beata virgo non fuit praeservata immunis ab omni peccato. Obj. 2: Further, Augustine (Qq. Nov. et Vet. Test. lxxiii on Luke 2:35: Thy own soul a sword shall pierce) says that the Blessed Virgin was troubled with wondering doubt at the death of our Lord. But doubt in matters of faith is a sin. Therefore the Blessed Virgin was not preserved from all actual sin. Praeterea, Chrysostomus, super Matth., exponens illud, ecce mater tua et fratres tui foris stant quaerentes te, dicit, manifestum est quoniam solum ex vana gloria hoc faciebant. Et Ioan. II, super illud, vinum non habent, dicit idem Chrysostomus quod volebat illis ponere gratiam, et seipsam clariorem facere per filium; et fortassis quid humanum patiebatur, quemadmodum et fratres eius dicentes. Manifesta teipsum mundo. Et post pauca subdit, nondum enim quam oportebat de eo opinionem habebat. Quod totum constat esse peccatum. Ergo beata virgo non fuit praeservata immunis ab omni peccato. Obj. 3: Further, Chrysostom (Hom. xlv in Matth.) expounding the text: Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking thee, says: It is clear that they did this from mere vain glory. Again, on John 2:3: They have no wine, the same Chrysostom says that she wished to do them a favor, and raise herself in their esteem, by means of her Son: and perchance she succumbed to human frailty, just as did His brethren when they said: ‘Manifest Thyself to the world.’ And a little further on he says: For as yet she did not believe in Him as she ought. Now it is quite clear that all this was sinful. Therefore the Blessed Virgin was not preserved from all sin. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de natura et gratia, de sancta virgine Maria, propter honorem Christi, nullam prorsus, cum de peccatis agitur, habere volo quaestionem. Inde enim scimus quod ei plus gratiae collatum fuerit ad vincendum ex omni parte peccatum, quod concipere et parere meruit eum quem constat nullum habuisse peccatum. On the contrary, Augustine says (De Nat. et Grat. xxxvi): In the matter of sin, it is my wish to exclude absolutely all questions concerning the holy Virgin Mary, on account of the honor due to Christ. For since she conceived and brought forth Him who most certainly was guilty of no sin, we know that an abundance of grace was given her that she might be in every way the conqueror of sin. Respondeo dicendum quod illos quos Deus ad aliquid eligit, ita praeparat et disponit ut ad id ad quod eliguntur inveniantur idonei, secundum illud II Cor. III, idoneos nos fecit ministros novi testamenti. Beata autem virgo fuit electa divinitus ut esset mater Dei. Et ideo non est dubitandum quod Deus per suam gratiam eam ad hoc idoneam reddidit, secundum quod Angelus ad eam dicit, invenisti gratiam apud Deum, ecce, concipies, et cetera. Non autem fuisset idonea mater Dei, si peccasset aliquando. Tum quia honor parentum redundat in prolem, secundum illud Prov. XVII, gloria filiorum patres eorum. Unde et, per oppositum, ignominia matris ad filium redundasset. Tum etiam quia singularem affinitatem habuit ad Christum, qui ab ea carnem accepit. Dicitur autem II Cor. VI, quae conventio Christi ad Belial? Tum etiam quia singulari modo Dei filius, qui est Dei sapientia, in ipsa habitavit, non solum in anima, sed in utero. Dicitur autem Sap. I, in malevolam animam non intrabit sapientia, nec habitabit in corpore subdito peccatis. I answer that, God so prepares and endows those, whom He chooses for some particular office, that they are rendered capable of fulfilling it, according to 2 Cor. 3:6: (Who) hath made us fit ministers of the New Testament. Now the Blessed Virgin was chosen by God to be His Mother. Therefore there can be no doubt that God, by His grace, made her worthy of that office, according to the words spoken to her by the angel (Luke 1:30, 31): Thou hast found grace with God: behold thou shalt conceive, etc. But she would not have been worthy to be the Mother of God, if she had ever sinned. First, because the honor of the parents reflects on the child, according to Prov. 17:6: The glory of children are their fathers: and consequently, on the other hand, the Mother’s shame would have reflected on her Son. Second, because of the singular affinity between her and Christ, who took flesh from her: and it is written (2 Cor 6:15): What concord hath Christ with Belial? Third, because of the singular manner in which the Son of God, who is the Divine Wisdom (1 Cor 1:24) dwelt in her, not only in her soul but in her womb. And it is written (Wis 1:4): Wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins. Et ideo simpliciter fatendum est quod beata virgo nullum actuale peccatum commisit, nec mortale nec veniale, ut sic impleatur quod dicitur Cant. IV, tota pulchra es, amica mea, et macula non est in te, et cetera. We must therefore confess simply that the Blessed Virgin committed no actual sin, neither mortal nor venial; so that what is written (Song 4:7) is fulfilled: Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee, etc. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in beata virgine, post sanctificationem in utero, remansit quidem fomes, sed ligatus, ne scilicet prorumperet in aliquem motum inordinatum, qui rationem praeveniret. Et licet ad hoc operaretur gratia sanctificationis, non tamen ad hoc sufficiebat, alioquin, virtute illius gratiae hoc ei fuisset praestitum ut nullus motus posset esse in sensualitate eius non ratione praeventus, et sic fomitem non habuisset, quod est contra supra dicta. Unde oportet dicere quod complementum illius ligationis fuit ex divina providentia, quae non permittebat aliquem motum inordinatum ex fomite provenire. Reply Obj. 1: After her sanctification the fomes remained in the Blessed Virgin, but fettered; lest she should be surprised by some sudden inordinate act, antecedent to the act of reason. And although the grace of her sanctification contributed to this effect, yet it did not suffice; for otherwise the result of her sanctification would have been to render impossible in her any sensual movement not preceded by an act of reason, and thus she would not have had the fomes, which is contrary to what we have said above (A. 3). We must therefore say that the above mentioned fettering (of the fomes) was perfected by divine providence not permitting any inordinate motion to result from the fomes. Ad secundum dicendum quod illud verbum Simeonis Origenes, et quidam alii doctores, exponunt de dolore quem passa est in Christi passione. Ambrosius autem per gladium dicit significari prudentiam Mariae, non ignaram mysterii caelestis. Vivum enim est verbum Dei et validum, acutius omni gladio ancipiti. Reply Obj. 2: Origen (Hom. xvii in Luc.) and certain other doctors expound these words of Simeon as referring to the sorrow which she suffered at the time of our Lord’s Passion. Ambrose (in Luc. 2:35) says that the sword signifies Mary’s prudence which took note of the heavenly mystery. For the word of God is living and effectual, and more piercing than any two-edged sword (Heb 4:12). Quidam vero gladium dubitationem intelligunt. Quae tamen non est intelligenda dubitatio infidelitatis, sed admirationis et discussionis. Dicit enim Basilius, in epistola ad optimum, quod beata virgo, assistens cruci et aspiciens singula, post testimonium Gabrielis, post ineffabilem divinae conceptionis notitiam, post ingentem miraculorum ostensionem, animo fluctuabat, ex una scilicet parte videns eum pati abiecta, et ex alia parte considerans eius mirifica. Others again take the sword to signify doubt. But this is to be understood of the doubt, not of unbelief, but of wonder and discussion. Thus Basil says (Ep. ad Optim.) that the Blessed Virgin while standing by the cross, and observing every detail, after the message of Gabriel, and the ineffable knowledge of the Divine Conception, after that wondrous manifestation of miracles, was troubled in mind: that is to say, on the one side seeing Him suffer such humiliation, and on the other considering His marvelous works. Ad tertium dicendum quod in verbis illis Chrysostomus excessit. Possunt tamen exponi ut intelligatur in ea dominum cohibuisse, non inordinatum inanis gloriae motum quantum ad ipsam, sed id quod ab aliis posset existimari. Reply Obj. 3: In those words Chrysostom goes too far. They may, however, be explained as meaning that our Lord corrected in her, not the inordinate motion of vain glory in regard to herself, but that which might be in the thoughts of others. Articulus 5 Article 5 Utrum Beata Virgo per sanctificationem in utero obtinuerit gratiae plenitudinem, sive perfectionem Whether, by her sanctification in the womb, the Blessed Virgin received the fullness of grace? Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod beata virgo per sanctificationem in utero non obtinuerit gratiae plenitudinem, sive perfectionem. Hoc enim videtur pertinere ad privilegium Christi, secundum illud Ioan. I, vidimus eum, quasi unigenitum a patre, plenum gratiae et veritatis. Sed ea quae sunt propria Christi, non sunt alteri attribuenda. Ergo beata virgo plenitudinem gratiarum non accepit in sanctificatione. Objection 1: It would seem that, by her sanctification in the womb, the Blessed Virgin did not receive the fullness or perfection of grace. For this seems to be Christ’s privilege, according to John 1:14: We saw His glory as the Only-Begotten full of grace and truth. But what is proper to Christ ought not to be ascribed to some one else. Therefore the Blessed Virgin did not receive the fullness of grace at the time of her sanctification. Praeterea, ei quod est plenum et perfectum, non restat aliquid addendum, quia perfectum est cui nihil deest, ut dicitur in III Physic. Sed beata virgo postmodum additionem gratiae suscepit, quando Christum concepit, dictum est enim ei, Luc. I, Spiritus Sanctus superveniet in te. Et iterum, quando in gloriam est assumpta. Ergo videtur quod non habuerit in sua prima sanctificatione plenitudinem gratiarum. Obj. 2: Further, nothing remains to be added to that which is full and perfect: for the perfect is that which lacks nothing, as is said Phys. iii. But the Blessed Virgin received additional grace afterwards when she conceived Christ; for to her was it said (Luke 1:35): The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee. And again, when she was assumed into glory. Therefore it seems that she did not receive the fullness of grace at the time of her first sanctification. Praeterea, Deus non facit aliquid frustra, ut dicitur in I de coelo et mundo. Frustra autem habuisset quasdam gratias, cum earum usum nunquam exercuerit, non enim legitur eam docuisse, quod est actus sapientiae; aut miracula fecisse, quod est actus gratiae gratis datae. Non ergo habuit plenitudinem gratiarum. Obj. 3: Further, God does nothing useless, as is said De Coelo et Mundo i. But it would have been useless for her to have certain graces, for she would never have put them to use: since we do not read that she taught, which is the act of wisdom; or that she worked miracles, which is the act of one of the gratuitous graces. Therefore she had not the fullness of grace. Sed contra est quod Angelus ad eam dixit, ave, gratia plena. Quod exponens Hieronymus, in sermone de assumptione, dicit, bene, gratia plena, quia ceteris per partes praestatur; Mariae vero se totam simul infudit gratiae plenitudo. On the contrary, The angel said to her: Hail, full of grace (Luke 1:28); which words Jerome expounds as follows, in a sermon on the Assumption (cf. Ep. ad Paul. et Eustoch.): Full indeed of grace: for to others it is given in portions; whereas on Mary the fullness of grace was showered all at once. Respondeo dicendum quod, quanto aliquid magis appropinquat principio in quolibet genere, tanto magis participat effectum illius principii, unde dicit Dionysius, IV cap. Cael. Hier., quod Angeli, qui sunt Deo propinquiores, magis participant de bonitatibus divinis quam homines. Christus autem est principium gratiae, secundum divinitatem quidem auctoritative, secundum humanitatem vero instrumentaliter, unde et Ioan. I dicitur, gratia et veritas per Iesum Christum facta est. Beata autem virgo Maria propinquissima Christo fuit secundum humanitatem, quia ex ea accepit humanam naturam. Et ideo prae ceteris maiorem debuit a Christo plenitudinem gratiae obtinere. I answer that, In every genus, the nearer a thing is to the principle, the greater the part which it has in the effect of that principle, whence Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv) that angels, being nearer to God, have a greater share than men, in the effects of the Divine goodness. Now Christ is the principle of grace, authoritatively as to His Godhead, instrumentally as to His humanity: whence (John 1:17) it is written: Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. But the Blessed Virgin Mary was nearest to Christ in His humanity: because He received His human nature from her. Therefore it was due to her to receive a greater fullness of grace than others. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod unicuique a Deo datur gratia secundum hoc ad quod eligitur. Et quia Christus, inquantum est homo, ad hoc fuit praedestinatus et electus ut esset praedestinatus filius Dei in virtute sanctificationis, hoc fuit proprium sibi, ut haberet talem plenitudinem gratiae quod redundaret in omnes, secundum quod dicitur Ioan. I, de plenitudine eius nos omnes accepimus. Sed beata virgo Maria tantam gratiae obtinuit plenitudinem ut esset propinquissima auctori gratiae, ita quod eum qui est plenus omni gratia, in se reciperet; et, eum pariendo, quodammodo gratiam ad omnes derivaret. Reply Obj. 1: God gives to each one according to the purpose for which He has chosen him. And since Christ as man was predestined and chosen to be predestined the Son of God in power . . . of sanctification (Rom 1:4), it was proper to Him to have such a fullness of grace that it overflowed from Him into all, according to John 1:16: Of His fullness we have all received. Whereas the Blessed Virgin Mary received such a fullness of grace that she was nearest of all to the Author of grace; so that she received within her Him Who is full of all grace; and by bringing Him forth, she, in a manner, dispensed grace to all.