Quaestiuncula 3 Quaestiuncula 3 Ulterius. Videtur, quod nec etiam ante nativitatem ex utero. Sicut enim dicit Augustinus ad Dardanum, sanctificatio qua singuli efficimur templum Dei, non nisi renatorum est. Nemo autem renascitur nisi prius nascatur. Ergo nullus habet gratiam antequam nascatur. Sed sanctificatio est effectus gratiae. Ergo Beata Virgo in utero matris sanctificata non fuit. Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that she was also not sanctified before her birth from the womb. For as Augustine says in his Letter to Dardanus, the sanctification by which we are each made the temple of God belongs only to those who have been reborn. Now, no one is born again unless he has first been born. Therefore no one has grace before he is born. But sanctification is the effect of grace. Therefore the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified in her mother’s womb. Si dicatur, quod est duplex nativitas, scilicet nativitas in utero, quae conceptio dicitur, et nativitas ex utero, quae communiter nativitas nominatur, et Beatae Virginis regenerationem sanctificationis praecessit nativitas in utero, sed non nativitas ex utero: contra. Dominus Joan. 3, 7, generationem spiritualem, quae est ex aqua et spiritu, vocat secundam, dicens: oportet vos nasci denuo. Sed si duae nativitates carnales praecessissent, spiritualis non diceretur secunda, sed tertia. Ergo non est duplex nativitas, ut dictum est. Obj. 2: If it were said that there are two births—that is, the birth in the womb, which is called “conception,” and the birth out of the womb, which is commonly called “birth”—and that the Blessed Virgin’s birth in the womb preceded the regeneration of sanctification, then on the contrary: the Lord calls spiritual generation, which is from water and the spirit, a second [generation], saying: you must be born again (John 3:7). But if two fleshly births preceded, the spiritual would not be the second, but the third. Therefore there are not two births, as was said. Praeterea, beatus Hieronymus dicit: non mihi credas si tibi aliquid dixero quod ex Veteri vel Novo Testamento haberi non possit. Sed de sanctificatione Beatae Virginis in utero nihil dicitur in Veteri vel Novo Testamento. Ergo non est credendum eam in utero sanctificatam fuisse. Obj. 3: Furthermore, blessed Jerome says, do not believe me if I should say anything to you that could not be had from the Old or New Testament. But nothing is said about the Blessed Virgin’s sanctification in the womb in the Old Testament or the New Testament. Therefore it should not be believed that she was sanctified in the womb. Sed contra, Ecclesia non solemnizat nisi pro aliquo sancto. Solemnizat autem nativitatem Beatae Virginis. Ergo Beata Virgo sancta nata fuit. Ergo antequam ex utero nasceretur, sanctificata fuit. On the contrary (1), the Church only celebrates a solemnity for a saint. But it does celebrate a solemnity for the birth of the Blessed Virgin. Therefore the Blessed Virgin was born holy. Therefore before she was born from the womb, she was sanctified. Praeterea, Lucae 1, 15, de Joanne Baptista dicitur: Spiritu Sancto replebitur adhuc ex utero matris suae. Sed plus gratiae collatum est Beatae Virgini quam alicui sanctorum, ut in littera ex verbis Augustini dicitur. Ergo Beata Virgo adhuc in utero matris Spiritu Sancto repleta fuit: ergo et sanctificata. Furthermore (2), Luke 1:15 says of John the Baptist, he was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb. But more grace was bestowed on the Blessed Virgin than on any of the saints, as is said in the text, based on the words of Augustine. Therefore, the Blessed Virgin was filled with the Holy Spirit from her mother’s womb, and therefore she was also sanctified. Respondeo dicendum, quod, sicut dicit Dionysius, sanctitas est ab omni immunditia libera et perfecta et immaculata munditia; unde cum sanctificari sit sanctum fieri, oportet quod sanctificatio emundationem ab immunditia spirituali ponat, prout nunc de sanctificatione loquimur. Emundatio autem a spirituali macula, scilicet culpa, sine gratia esse non potest, sicut et tenebra non nisi per lucem fugatur; unde sanctificatio tantum ad eos pertinet qui gratiae capaces sunt: et quia proprium subjectum gratiae est rationalis natura; ideo ante infusionem animae rationalis Beata Virgo sanctificari non potuit et cetera. I answer that, as Dionysius says, holiness is free from every defilement and perfect with an immaculate spotlessness. Whence, since to be sanctified is to become holy, sanctification must produce a cleansing from spiritual uncleanness, as we are now speaking of sanctification. Now, cleansing from spiritual stain, which is guilt, cannot be done without grace, just as also darkness cannot be driven out except by light. For this reason, sanctification only pertains to those who have the capacity for grace. And because the proper subject of grace is the rational nature, the Blessed Virgin could not have been sanctified before the infusion of her rational soul. Response to Quaestiuncula 1 Ad primam ergo quaestionem dicendum, quod nullo modo in parentibus sanctificari potuit, neque etiam in ipso actu conceptionis ejus. To the first question, it should be said that there is no way she could have been sanctified in her parents, nor even in the very act of her conception. Conditio enim specialis personalis a parentibus in prolem non transit, nisi sit ad naturam corporalem pertinens; ut grammatica patris in filium non transit, quia perfectio personalis est. Unde et sanctificatio parentum in Beatam Virginem transfundi non potuit, nisi curatum esset in eis non solum id quod personae est, sed etiam id quod est naturae inquantum hujusmodi: quod quidem Deus facere potuit, sed non decuit. Perfecta enim naturae curatio ad perfectionem gloriae pertinet; et ideo sic in statu viae parentes ejus curati non fuerunt ut prolem suam sine originali peccato concipere possent; et ideo Beata Virgo in peccato originali fuit concepta, propter quod b. Bernardus ad Lugdunenses scribit conceptionem illius celebrandam non esse, quamvis in quibusdam Ecclesiis ex devotione celebretur, non considerando conceptionem, sed potius sanctificationem: quae quando determinate fuerit, incertum est. For a specific person’s condition does not pass from the parents into their offspring unless it pertains to their bodily nature; for example, the father’s knowledge of grammar does not pass into his son, for it is a personal perfection. This is also why the sanctification of her parents could not be transferred to the Blessed Virgin, unless not only what pertains to the person were healed in them, but also what pertains to their nature as such; this God could certainly have done, but it would not have been fitting. For the perfect healing of a nature pertains to the perfection of glory. And therefore her parents would not have been healed while in the wayfaring state in such a way that they would be able to conceive their child without original sin. And therefore the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin, because of which Blessed Bernard wrote to Lyon that her conception was not to be celebrated, although it may be celebrated in some churches out of devotion, not considering it as her conception but rather as her sanctification, for it is uncertain exactly when that took place. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod si radix est sancta, secundum id quod est radix, et rami sunt sancti: quia non potest arbor bona fructus malos facere, Matth. 7, 18; unde Apostolus vult ibi probare quod si antiqui patres sancti fuerunt per fidem et spem, populus ex eis secundum carnem descendens, sanctus erit, quando corda filiorum convertentur ad patres. Parentes autem Beatae Virginis radix ejus fuerunt per actum naturae propagationi deservientem. Unde nisi natura in eis sanctificata fuisset, non potuit ex eis sancta proles concipi, sed vitiata propter vitium naturae in eis remanens. Non autem fuit in eis natura sanctificata. Reply Obj. 1: If the root is holy insofar as it is the root, the branches will be holy as well: for the good tree cannot bear bad fruit (Matt 7:18). From this the Apostle wants to prove here that if the ancient patriarchs were holy through their faith and hope, then the people descending from them according to the flesh will be holy, when the hearts of children are turned toward their parents. But the parents of the Blessed Virgin were her root by an act that ordered toward the propagation of the nature. Therefore unless the human nature within them had been sanctified, a holy child could not be conceived by them; rather, it too would be tainted, on account of the defect of the nature remaining in them. But there was no sanctified nature in them. Ad secundum dicendum, quod gratia sanctificans non omnino directe opponitur peccato originali, sed solum prout peccatum originale personam inficit: est enim gratia perfectio personalis; peccatum vero originale directe est vitium naturae; et ideo non oportet quod gratia sanctificans a parentibus traducatur, si peccatum originale traducatur; sicut et originalis justitia, cui directe opponitur, traducta fuisset. Reply Obj. 2: Sanctifying grace is not directly opposed to original sin in every way, but only in original sin’s infection of the person. For grace is a personal perfection, whereas original sin is the wounding directly of the nature. Therefore, it is not necessary that sanctifying grace be inherited from one’s parents, while original sin is contracted—just as original justice, to which it is directly opposed—would have been inherited. Ad tertium dicendum, quod concubitus quo Beata Virgo concepta fuit, meritorius creditur, non per gratiam omnino purgantem naturam, sed per gratiam perficientem personas parentum; et ideo non oportuit quod in prole concepta, statim sanctitas esset, non propter repugnantiam actus matrimonii ad sanctitatem, sed propter repugnantiam vitii naturae nondum curati. Reply Obj. 3: The marriage bed in which the Blessed Virgin was conceived is believed meritorious, not by a grace that completely purified nature, but by a grace perfecting the persons of the parents. And so it was not necessary that there would have been holiness in the conceived child immediately, not on account of the marital act being opposed to holiness, but on account of the corruption of the nature not yet being healed. Quaestiuncula 2 Response to Quaestiuncula 2 Ad secundam quaestionem dicendum, quod sanctificatio Beatae Virginis non potuit esse decenter ante infusionem animae, quia gratiae capax nondum erat, sed nec etiam in ipso instanti infusionis, ut scilicet per gratiam tunc sibi infusam conservaretur, ne culpam originalem incurreret. Christus enim hoc singulariter in humano genere habet ut redemptione non egeat, quia caput nostrum est, sed omnibus convenit redimi per ipsum. Hoc autem esse non posset, si alia anima inveniretur quae nunquam originali macula fuisset infecta; et ideo nec Beatae Virgini, nec alicui praeter Christum hoc concessum est. To the second question, it should be said that the Blessed Virgin’s sanctification could not have occurred in a becoming way before the infusion of her soul, because she was not yet capable of grace, but also not in the very instant of its infusion, such that by grace infused into her at that time she would be preserved from incurring original sin. For Christ was unique in the human race in not needing redemption, for he is our head, but all share in needing to be redeemed through him. Now, this could not be if any other soul were found that had never been infected by the original stain. And therefore this was not granted to the Blessed Virgin or anyone other than Christ. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod haec verba de Joanne Baptista dicuntur pro tempore illo quando ad ingressum Matris Dei exultavit in utero, quod fuit in sexto mense a conceptione ejus, ut verba angeli ostendunt, Luc. 1; unde constat quod tunc animam rationalem habebat; et ideo vel per spiritum vitae non intelligitur anima rationalis, sed respiratio exterioris aeris; vel dicitur spiritus vitae si de anima intelligitur, nondum inesse, quia nondum manifestabatur, per modum quo dicuntur res fieri quando innotescunt. Reply Obj. 1: These words about John the Baptist refer to the time that he leaped for joy in the womb at the arrival of the Mother of God, which occurred in the sixth month after his conception, as the words of the angel show (Luke 1:36). This is why it is clear that he had a rational soul at that time. Therefore either the “spirit of life” does not mean the rational soul, but the outward breathing of air, or if the soul is not yet understood to be present because it was not yet manifest, “spirit of life” is said in that manner of speaking wherein things are said to happen when they become known. Ad secundum dicendum, quod loquitur de notitia approbationis, quae quamvis sit tantum habentium gratiam, non tamen est eorum solum quando gratiam habent, sed ab aeterno; unde talis notitia potuit esse Hieremiae ante ejus formationem: non tamen sanctificatio; quae tamen esse potuit ante egressionem ex utero; et ideo tempus notitiae et sanctificationis distinguit Dominus dicens: priusquam te formarem in utero, novi te; et antequam exires de ventre, sanctificavi te. Reply Obj. 2: He is speaking about the knowledge of approval, which, although it is only about those who have grace, it is not about them only when they have grace, but even from eternity. Thus there could have been such knowledge of Jeremiah before he was formed, but his sanctification could not have been. Yet it could have been before he emerged from the womb, and therefore the Lord distinguishes the time of the knowing and the time of the sanctification by saying, before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you (Jer 1:5). Ad tertium dicendum, quod haec puritas soli homini Deo debebatur, ut ipse quasi unicus redemptor humani generis nulla peccati servitute teneretur, cui competebat omnes a peccato redimere; unde non hanc puritatem, sed sub hac maximam Virgo Mater ejus habere debuit. Reply Obj. 3: This purity was due only to the God-man, as he himself, as the universal redeemer of the human race, was bound by no slavery of sin, to whom it belonged to redeem all from sin. This is why the Virgin Mother should have something less than this greatest purity. Quaestiuncula 3 Response to Quaestiuncula 3 Ad tertiam quaestionem dicendum, quod Beata Virgo ante nativitatem ex utero sanctificata fuit, quod colligi potest ex hoc quod ipsa super omnes alios sanctos a peccato purior fuit, ut ex hac littera habetur, veluti divinae sapientiae mater electa, in quam nihil coinquinatum incurrit, ut dicitur Sap. 7. Unde cum haec puritas in quibusdam fuisse inveniatur ut ante nativitatem ex utero a peccato mundarentur, sicut de Joanne Baptista, de quo legitur Luc. 1, 15: Spiritu Sancto replebitur adhuc ex utero matris suae; et de Hieremia, de quo dicitur Hierem. 1, 5: priusquam exires de ventre, sanctificavi te; non est dubitandum hoc multo excellentius Matri Dei collatum fuisse. To the third question, it should be said that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before her birth from the womb, which can be gathered from the fact that she above all the other saints was most pure from sin, as the text states, as the chosen mother of divine Wisdom, in which no defilement occurs, as it says in Wisdom 7:22. Whence, since this purity may be found to have existed in some people such that they were cleansed before their birth from the womb—such as John the Baptist, of whom we read in Luke 1:15, he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb; and Jeremiah, of whom it says, before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you (Jer 1:5)—one should not doubt that this was bestowed on the Mother of God in a much more excellent way. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod verbum Augustini intelligendum est de regeneratione quae fit per legem communem, quod notatur in hoc quod dicit: qua singuli efficimur templum Dei; haec enim sanctificatio fit per sacramenta, quae per ministros Ecclesiae dispensantur, quorum operationi qui in maternis uteris sunt, subjacere non possunt. Sed Deus sacramentis gratiam non alligavit; unde praeter hunc modum in maternis uteris aliquos quodam privilegio sanctificat. Reply Obj. 1: Augustine’s words should be understood to be about the regeneration that happens by the common law, which is indicated by his saying, by which we are each made temples of God. For this sanctification happens through the sacraments, which are administered by the Church’s ministers, and those who are in the maternal wombs cannot benefit from their working. But God did not restrict grace to the sacraments. Whence, by a certain privilege he sanctifies some outside of this manner, in their mothers’ wombs. Ad secundum dicendum, quod si regeneratio quae est per legem communem, sumatur, oportet verbum Domini quod dicitur Joannis 3, 5: nisi quis renatus fuerit, intelligi de nativitate ex utero quae simpliciter nativitas dicitur, et hoc ipse textus sonare videtur, cum dicitur: ex aqua et Spiritu. Si autem sumatur pro quacumque regeneratione gratiae, sic oportet intelligi de nativitate in utero. Non tamen oportet quod regeneratio spiritualis quae est per sacramenta, secunda dici non possit, quia illae duae in uno conveniunt, secundum quod contra tertiam dividuntur: utraque enim illarum naturalis est, haec vero spiritualis. Reply Obj. 2: If we take this as the regeneration that comes through the common law, then the Lord’s words in John 3:3, unless one is born anew, must be understood as speaking of the birth from the womb, which is simply called “birth.” And the text itself seems to have this sense when it says: of water and the Spirit (John 3:5). However, if we take it for any regeneration of grace, then it must be understood of the birth in the womb. Nevertheless, it is not necessary that the spiritual regeneration that happens through the sacraments should not be called a “second birth,” since the first two belong together as one when contrasted with the third, for both of them are natural, while this one is spiritual. Ad tertium dicendum, quod quamvis sanctificatio Beatae Virginis in utero expresse in Scriptura Veteris et Novi Testamenti non legatur; tamen pro certo haberi potest ex his quae ibi leguntur. Si enim Joannes et Hieremias, qui Christum praenuntiaverunt, sanctificati sunt, multo magis Virgo quae Christum genuit. Reply Obj. 3: Although the Blessed Virgin’s sanctification in the womb is not found explicitly in the scriptures of the Old or New Testament, nevertheless it can be held for certain from the things that we read there. For if John and Jeremiah, who foretold Christ, were sanctified, the Blessed Virgin who bore Christ was even more so. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum Beatissima Virgo per sanctificationem in utero fuerit totaliter ab originali mundata Whether the Blessed Virgin was completely cleansed from original sin by her sanctification in the womb Quaestiuncula 1 Quaestiuncula 1 Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur, quod per sanctificationem in utero Dei Genitrix a peccato originali totaliter mundata non sit. Remota enim macula, reatus remanere non potest. Sed post sanctificationem originalis peccati adhuc reatus mansit in ea: quia si ante mortem Christi defuncta fuisset, divina visione caruisset. Ergo per sanctificationem a macula originali liberata non fuit. Obj. 1: To the second question we proceed thus. It seems that the Mother of God was not completely cleansed from original sin by sanctification while in the womb. For when the stain is removed, the guilt cannot remain. But after her sanctification, the guilt of original sin remained in her; for if she had died before Christ’s death, she would not have had the divine vision. Therefore she was not freed from original sin by her sanctification. Praeterea, nihil quod ad virtutem promovet ei subtrahendum fuit cui virtutis perfectio debebatur. Sed fomes ad virtutem promovet; unde et Paulo petenti a se carnis stimulum amoveri, dictum est: virtus in infirmitate perficitur, 2 Cor., 12, 9. Ergo cum Matrem Dei summa virtutis perfectio deceret, fomes ab ea per sanctificationem removeri non debuit. Obj. 2: Furthermore, nothing that moves one toward virtue should have been taken away from her to whom the perfection of virtue was owed. But the fomes, or tinder of sin, moves one toward virtue; this is why, when Paul asked to have the thorn in his flesh removed, it was said, for virtue is made perfect in weakness (2 Cor 12:9). Therefore, since the perfection of virtue was fitting for the Mother of God, the fomes should not have been taken from her through her sanctification. Praeterea, in littera Magister dicit, quod caro Christi, antequam conciperetur, obnoxia fuit peccato, sicut et reliqua caro Virginis. Sed caro non est peccato obnoxia nisi ratione fomitis. Ergo per sanctificationem in utero fomes ab ea remotus non fuit. Obj. 3: Furthermore, in the text the Master says that Christ’s flesh before he was conceived was obedient to sin, as was the Virgin’s flesh. But flesh is obedient to sin only by reason of the fomes, or kindling toward sin. Therefore the fomes was not removed from her by her sanctification in the womb. Sed contra, Beatae Virgini aliquid ultra legem communem conferendum fuit. Sed sanctificatio quae fit per legem communem, aufert culpae maculam, fomite remanente. Ergo in Beata Virgine fomitem ex toto removit. On the contrary (4), something was bestowed on the Blessed Virgin that was beyond the common law. But the sanctification that happens through the common law removes the stain of sin while the fomes remains. Therefore in the Blessed Virgin it removed the fomes entirely. Praeterea, corruptio fomitis est causa quare dicere non possumus: peccatum non habemus; hoc enim Adam in primo statu dicere potuit. Sed, ut ex littera habetur, Beata Virgo hoc dicere potuit. Ergo in ipsa fomes non fuit. Furthermore (5), the corruption of the fomes is the reason why we cannot say, “we have no sin;” for Adam could say this in the first state of man. But, as is asserted in the text, the Blessed Virgin was able to say this. Therefore the fomes was not in her. Quaestiuncula 2 Quaestiuncula 2 Ulterius. Videtur quod per sanctificationem in utero, immunitatem a peccato actuali consecuta non sit. Sicut enim dicit Augustinus, Maria per quam gestum est mysterium Incarnationis salvatoris, in morte Domini dubitavit, non tamen in dubitatione permansit. Sed dubitatio de fide peccatum est. Ergo non fuit a peccato omnino immunis. Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that by her sanctification in the womb, she did not acquire immunity from actual sin. For Augustine says that Mary, through whom the mystery of the Incarnation of the Savior was accomplished, had doubts at the death of the Lord, but she did not remain in doubt. But doubting about the faith is a sin. Therefore she was not entirely immune from sin. Praeterea, Ambrosius dicit super illud Luc. 1: Spiritus Sanctus superveniet in te, Spiritus Sanctus in Virginem superveniens mentem ipsius ab omni sorde vitiorum castificavit. Sed sordes vitiorum ex peccato consequuntur. Ergo Beata Virgo post primam sanctificationem peccavit. Obj. 2: Furthermore, commenting on Luke 1:35, the Holy Spirit will come upon you, Ambrose says, the Holy Spirit coming down purified her mind from all filth of corruption. But the filth of corruption results from sin. Therefore the Blessed Virgin sinned after her first sanctification. Praeterea, Augustinus dicit in libro de perfectione justitiae: esse sine peccato, de solo unigenito in hac vita dici potest. Ergo de Beata Virgine dici non potest. Obj. 3: Furthermore, Augustine says, in his book On the Perfection of Justice, that to be without sin can be said solely of the Only Begotten. Therefore it cannot be said of the Blessed Virgin. Sed contra, Bernardus epistola 174 ad Lugdunenses dicit. Puto quod copiosior gratia sanctificationis in ipsam descendit, quae non solum ortum ejus sanctificavit, sed eam ab omni peccato deinceps custodivit immunem. Ergo per primam sanctificationem immunitatem ab omni peccato consecuta est. On the contrary (4), Bernard says, in the Letter to Lyon, I think that a most abundant grace of sanctification descended upon her, which sanctified not only her beginning, but guarded her immune from all sin from then on. Therefore by her first sanctification she acquired immunity from all sin.