Ad tertiam quaestionem dicendum, quod in secunda sanctificatione et emundatio et confirmatio in bono quodammodo consummata est secundum perfectionem viae; sed in assumptione ejus gloriosa consummata est secundum perfectionem patriae; quod sic patet. In prima enim sanctificatione ablata fuit inclinatio fomitis remanente essentia ejus. In secunda vero fuit extinctus ipse fomes per essentiam, remanentibus adhuc poenalitatibus ex peccato causatis, a quibus plene liberata fuit per gloriam assumptionis. Similiter etiam est ex parte altera. In prima sanctificatione gratia collata fuit ad bonum efficaciter liberum arbitrium inclinans, quamvis non esset sufficiens ad tollendum flexibilitatem liberi arbitrii in malum, quam etiam homo in primo statu habuit. In secunda vero sanctificatione gratia superaddita fuit, quae ita potentiam liberi arbitrii impleret ut in contrarium flecti non posset, non quidem naturam liberi arbitrii tollendo, sed defectum; sicut materia caeli ex eo quod substat formae quae omnem privationem ab ea excludit, non est in potentia ad corruptionem. Sed in tertia exaltatione ejus per gratiam perfectam in gloriam transeuntem fini conjuncta est, ex quo perfecta immobilitas causatur. To the third question, it should be said that in her second sanctification, both her cleansing and her confirmation in the good were in a certain way completed, according to the perfection of life on the way. But in her glorious Assumption these were completed according to the perfection of the heavenly homeland, which is evident in this way. For in the first sanctification the inclination of the fomes was removed, although its essence did remain. But in the second sanctification the fomes itself was extinguished in its essence, while certain penalties caused by sin did remain; from these she was fully freed by the glory of the Assumption. Likewise this is also the case from the other side: in her first sanctification, grace was bestowed efficaciously inclining her free decision toward the good, although not enough to remove her decision’s ability to bend toward evil, which even man in his first state had. But in the second sanctification an additional grace was added that so filled the power of her free decision that she could not bend toward evil—not by removing the nature of the free decision, but by removing its defect, just as the matter of the heavens, because it subsists under a form that excludes all privation from it, is not in potency to corruption. But in the Virgin’s third exaltation, she was joined to the end through a perfect grace drawing her into glory, which causes a perfect immobility. Ad primum ergo circa hoc objectum dicendum, quod in prima sanctificatione consecuta est immunitatem a peccato, non per gratiam confirmantem, sed per ligationem fomitis ad malum inclinantis, et per custodiam divinae providentiae, sine qua, etiam fomite omnino extincto, peccare potuisset, sicut et Adam peccavit, nisi esset in ea gratia consummata. Reply Obj. 1: Against this objection it should be said that in the first sanctification she obtained immunity from sin not by a confirming grace, but by the fomes being restrained from inclining to evil, and by the protection of divine providence, without which, even if the fomes were completely extinguished, she would have been able to sin, just as Adam also sinned, unless there were in her a consummated grace. Ad secundum dicendum, quod potentia peccandi aufertur dupliciter. Vel per hoc quod liberum arbitrium ultimo fini conjungitur, qui ipsum superimplet, ut nullus defectus in eo remaneat; et hoc fit per gloriam; unde in nullo puro viatore sic peccandi potentia solvitur, ut cum hac ablatione potentiae peccandi tollatur potentia moriendi, nisi in Christo, in quo dispensative remansit, ad opus redemptionis complendum. Alio modo aufertur per hoc quod gratia tanta infunditur, quae omnem defectum tollat; et sic in Beata Virgine, quando concepit Filium, ablata est peccandi potentia, quamvis in statu viae ipsa Virgo remaneret. Reply Obj. 2: There are two ways that the potential for sin can be taken away. The first is by free decision being joined to the last end, which fully fills it such that no defect remains in it—and this happens through glory. This is why no mere wayfarer can be so released from the potential for sinning that, with the removal of the potential for sinning the potential for dying is also removed—except in Christ, in whom it remained only as a dispensation, for the sake of completing the work of redemption. The other way it can be removed is by so much grace being poured in that it takes away every defect, and this is how, when the Blessed Virgin conceived the Son of God, the potential for sinning was removed, although the Virgin herself remained in the state of a wayfarer. Ad tertium dicendum, quod si per impossibile ponatur, Beatam Virginem post secundam sanctificationem alium filium ex carnali copula concepisse, ille filius peccatum originale habuisset, non ex parte matris, sed ex parte patris. Si vero ponatur illum patrem pari modo sanctificatum fuisse sicut Beata Virgo in sanctificatione secunda, ille filius peccatum originale non habuisset. Vel dicendum secundum aliam opinionem, quod nec in secunda sanctificatione fomes remotus fuit a Beata Virgine secundum quod est infectio naturae; nec hoc prohibet confirmationem ipsius in bono: fomes enim confirmationi opponitur secundum quod est vitium personae, ad concupiscentiam actualem inclinans. Reply Obj. 3: If it were posited that, assuming the impossible, the Blessed Virgin conceived another child through sexual intercourse after her second sanctification, that child would have had original sin, not from his mother, but from his father. But if it were posited that the father had been sanctified in the same way as the Blessed Virgin in her second sanctification, then that child would not have had original sin. Or it could be said, according to another opinion, that the fomes was not removed from the Blessed Virgin in her second sanctification either insofar as it is an infection of our nature. Nor would this prevent her confirmation in the good, for the fomes is opposed to that confirmation insofar as it is a personal defect inclining one toward actual concupiscence. Quaestio 2 Question 2 The Blessed Virgin's role in the conception of Christ Deinde quaeritur de potentia generativa Beatae Virginis; et circa hoc quaeruntur duo: Next, the Blessed Virgin’s reproductive power is considered. And two things are asked about this: primo utrum aliquid ad Christi conceptionem active operata sit; first, whether she actively did anything toward Christ’s conception; secundo utrum generatio Filii ex ea sit naturalis, vel miraculosa. second, whether the generation of the Son from her was natural or miraculous. Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum Virgo aliquid active ad Christi conceptionem operata fuerit Whether the Virgin actively contributed anything toward Christ’s conception Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Beata Virgo aliquid active in conceptione Christi cooperata sit. To the first question we proceed thus. It seems that the Blessed Virgin actively cooperated in Christ’s conception. Potentia enim pure passiva est receptiva tantum. Sed Damascenus dicit, ut in littera habetur, quod non tantum dedit Spiritus Sanctus Virgini potentiam receptivam Verbi, sed simul etiam generativam. Ergo oportet quod per potentiam generativam intelligatur virtus activa ipsius; et ita in conceptione Christi aliquid active operata sit. Obj. 1: For a purely passive potency is only receptive. But Damascene says, as is quoted in the text, that the Holy Spirit not only gave the Virgin the potency for receiving the Word, but also at the same time the potency for begetting. Therefore by her “potency for begetting” we understand an active power in her, and thus she actively did something in Christ’s conception. Praeterea, hoc quod dicitur Luc. 1:35: virtus Altissimi obumbrabit tibi, intelligitur quantum ad collationem alicujus virtutis supra eam quam naturaliter habebat. Sed Beata Virgo naturaliter habuit, sicut et aliae virgines, potentiam ad generandum per modum passionis, seu receptionis. Ergo potentia quam sibi Damascenus per Spiritum Sanctum dicit praeparatam, est potentia activa; et sic idem quod prius. Obj. 2: Furthermore, what Luke 1:35 says—the power of the Most High will overshadow you—is understood as the conferral of some power above what she possessed naturally. But like other virgins, the Blessed Virgin naturally possessed the power of generating by way of undergoing or receiving. Therefore the power that Damascene says was prepared for her is an active power; and so the same conclusion as before. Praeterea, dicit Augustinus: Christus secundum hoc est filius matris quod accepit a matre. Sed dicitur filius matris secundum humanam naturam. Ergo humanam naturam accepit a matre; et sic Beata Virgo aliquid in conceptione operata est. Obj. 3: Furthermore, Augustine says, Christ is the son of his mother according to what he received from his mother. But he is called the son of his mother according to his human nature. Therefore he received his human nature from his mother; and thus the Blessed Virgin did work something in his conception. Praeterea, Beata Virgo fuit vera mater Christi. Sed non esset vera mater ejus, si tantum materiam ministrasset: non enim dicitur terra proprie mater hominis, quamvis limus, unde formatur homo, de terra sumptus sit: nec similiter dici potest lignum mater scamni, eo quod de eo fit. Ergo Beata Virgo non tantum ministravit materiam ad conceptionem Christi, sed aliquid active fecit. Obj. 4: Furthermore, the Blessed Virgin was Christ’s true mother. But she would not have properly been Christ’s true mother if she had only supplied the matter, for the earth is not called the mother of man, although the slime from which man is formed was taken from the earth; likewise, neither can wood be called the mother of a stool by the fact that it was made from it. Therefore the Blessed Virgin did not just supply the matter for Christ’s conception, but actively did something. Praeterea, Commentator, in 2 De anima, ponit hanc distinctionem potentiarum animae: quod potentiae nutritivae partis, omnes sunt activae; potentiae vero sensitivae, omnes sunt passivae; in intellectu autem est aliquid activum, ut intellectus agens, et aliquid passivum, ut intellectus possibilis. Sed potentia generativa ad vegetabilem animam pertinet; unde etiam plantis inest. Ergo est potentia activa. Cum ergo per potentiam generativam mater filium concipiat, videtur quod aliquid active in conceptione agat; et sic idem quod prius. Obj. 5: Furthermore, commenting on On the Soul 2, the Commentator sets forth this distinction of the powers of the soul: that the powers of the nutritive part are all active, while the sensitive powers are all passive, but in the intellect there is something active, the agent intellect, and something passive, the potential intellect. But the reproductive power pertains to the vegetative soul, and this is why it is in plants as well. Therefore it is an active power. Since, then, a mother conceives her son by her reproductive power, it seems that she actively does something in conception; and so the same conclusion as before. Praeterea, motus naturalis est cujus principium est intra. Sed generatio filii ex matre, est naturalis. Ergo in ipsa materia quam mater ministrat ad formationem conceptus, est principium aliquod active cooperans ad conceptionem; et sic idem quod prius. Obj. 6: Furthermore, a natural motion is one has its principle within it. But the generation of a son from a mother is natural. Therefore in the very matter that the mother supplied for the formation of the fetus there is some active principle cooperating in the conception; and thus the same conclusion as before. Sed contra, Beata Virgo non fuit nisi mater Christi. Sed ad matrem non pertinet nisi ministrare materiam, non autem aliquid active operari, quod est patris. Ergo Beata Virgo nihil active ad conceptionem Christi operata est. Media probatur per hoc quod Philosophus dicit, 15 De animalibus: vir dat formam et principium motus; femina dat corpus et materiam; sicut accidit in lacte coagulato, quod corpus exit ex lacte, et coagulatio ex coagulo; et post pauca subdit: manifestum est quod mas est operans, et femina patens; sicut erit scamnum ex carpentario et ligno. On the contrary, the Blessed Virgin was nothing other than the mother of Christ. But it pertains to a mother only to supply the matter, not to do anything actively, as that belongs to the father. Therefore, the Blessed Mother did nothing actively to bring about Christ’s conception. And the middle term of this argument is shown through what the Philosopher says, in On the Generation of Animals 15: the man gives the soul, the form, and the principle of motion, the woman gives the body and the matter; just as happens in curdled milk, that the body comes from the milk, and the curdling comes from rennet or a coagulating agent; and a little later he adds, it is manifest that the male is the working party, the woman is the passive party; just as a stool comes to exist from a carpenter and wood. Praeterea, Augustinus dicit, 10 Super Genesim ad litteram: Christus visibilem carnis substantiam de carne Virginis sumpsit; ratio vero conceptionis non a virili semine, sed longe aliter, ac desuper venit. Sed virtus activa in conceptione dicitur ratio conceptionis. Ergo agens in conceptione Christi fuit tantum desuper, et non in Beata Virgine. Furthermore, in On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10, Augustine says, Christ assumed the visible substance of flesh from the Virgin’s flesh, but the reason for his conception came not from a man’s seed, but on the contrary, from above. But the active power in conception is called the “reason for the conception.” Therefore the only thing acting in Christ’s conception was from above, and not in the Blessed Virgin. Praeterea, Anselmus dicit in lib. De conceptu virgin.: illud subjectum non creata natura, non voluntas creaturae, non ulli data potestas producit aut seminat. Ergo in Beata Virgine non fuit naturaliter neque divino dono potentia active corpus Christi producens. Furthermore, Anselm says, in his book On the Virginal Conception, that no created nature, no creature’s will, nor power given to anyone produced or sowed that subject. Therefore in the Blessed Virgin there was neither naturally nor by divine gift any active power that produced Christ’s body. Praeterea, nulla virtus creata subito operatur. Sed in conceptione Christi simul et subito factum est quidquid ibi factum est de organizatione, animatione, et hujusmodi. Ergo non fuit active nisi per virtutem increatam. Furthermore, no created power works instantly. But in Christ’s conception everything about the formation of organs, ensoulment, and everything else happened at one and the same instant. Therefore it was actively done only by an uncreated power. Respondeo dicendum, quod circa hoc diversimode opinatum est. I answer that there are diverse opinions about this. Quidam namque dicunt in conceptione Christi matrem aliquid active operatam esse; quorum quidam hoc ponunt fuisse per naturalem modum, quidam vero per supernaturale donum. Cum enim Beata Virgo vera mater Christi credatur, oportet sibi attribuere totum illud quod matris est. Ad officium autem matris pertinere aestimant ut aliquod principium activum ad conceptionem ministret, et non materiale tantum. For some say that in Christ’s conception, his mother was at work actively; and some of these hold that this would have been by a natural mode, while some others say it was by a supernatural gift. For since the Blessed Virgin is believed to be Christ’s true mother, we must attribute to her all that belongs to a mother. Now, they judge that it pertains to a mother’s office to supply a certain active principle in the conception, and not only a material one. Hoc tamen ponitur diversimode. Quidam enim in materia quam mater ministrat, ponunt esse virtutem activam principaliter: tum quia ex commixtione seminum conceptionem fieri ponunt; unde sicut semen viri est activum in generatione, ita, etiam et semen mulieris, quamvis non sit in ea tanta efficacia ad agendum: tum etiam quia ponunt conceptam prolem sensificari et vegetari per animam matris, ut sic etiam principalior inveniatur in generatione mater quam pater. However, this is held in different ways. For some hold that in the matter that the mother supplies there is chiefly an active power, both because they think the conception happens from the intermingling of seeds, such that the woman’s seed is just as active as the man’s seed in generation, although in her there is not as much efficacy for acting; and also because they believe the child conceived becomes sentient and vegetative through the mother’s soul, so that in this way the mother is also found to be more important in generation than the father. Hoc autem Philosophus reprobat in 15 De animalibus. In his enim quae habent vitam perfectam, distinguuntur agens et patiens in generatione propter perfectam generationem in eis. In plantis autem quae imperfectam vitam habent, est in eodem utraque virtus, activa scilicet et passiva: quamvis forte in una planta dominetur virtus activa, et in alia, passiva: propter quod dicitur etiam una planta masculina, et alia feminina. Cum igitur impossibile sit illud quod est determinatum ut patiens, habere virtutem activam respectu ejusdem, oportet quod femina non sit agens in conceptione, sed tantum patiens. Now, the Philosopher rejects this in On the Generation of Animals 15. For in things that have a perfect life, the agent and the patient are distinguished in generation for the sake of the generation being brought to perfection within them; in plants, on the other hand, which have an imperfect life, both powers—that is, the active and the passive—are in the same thing, although perhaps in one plant the active power dominates, while in another the passive power does, which is also why one plant is called “male” and another “female.” Therefore, since it is impossible for what is determined as the patient to have an active power in the same respect, the female must not be the agent in conception, but only the patient. Et ideo alii dicunt, quod id quod mater ministrat, se habet in generatione sicut materia naturalis. In materia autem naturali non est potentia passiva tantum (alias generatio esset violenta, et non naturalis), sed oportet inesse materiae ipsam formam quae per generationem adducenda est, in potentia, et secundum esse incompletum; et ideo non habet perfectam virtutem ad agendum, sed tantum imperfectam; et ideo per se non potest agere nisi quodammodo excitetur ab agente exteriori, et sic ei cooperetur. And for this reason, others say that what the mother supplies stands as the natural matter in generation. Now, in natural matter there is not merely a passive potentiality (otherwise generation would be violent, not natural), but the matter’s very form, which is brought out through generation must be present in potency, and as incomplete existence. And therefore it does not have a perfect power of acting but merely an imperfect one; and thus it cannot act through itself unless it is incited in some way by an external agent, and then it cooperates with it. Hoc autem non potest stare: quia impossibile est idem esse alterans et alteratum; unde non potest esse quod forma quae est in aliqua materia, agat in ipsam, sive sit perfecta, sive imperfecta: forma enim quae per se non existit, non agit, nec materia proprie patitur, sed compositum agit ratione formae, et patitur ratione materiae; et ideo non est possibile quod illa forma imperfecta agendo cooperetur agenti exteriori. However, this cannot stand. For it is impossible for the same thing to be what changes and what is changed; this is why it cannot be that the form that is in a certain matter acts on it, whether be a perfect or an imperfect form. For a form that does not exist through itself does not act, nor is its matter acted upon, properly speaking; rather, the composite acts by reason of the form, and it is acted upon by reason of its matter. And therefore it is not possible that some imperfect form cooperate with an external agent in acting. Praeterea agere sequitur ad esse perfectum, cum unumquodque agat secundum quod est in actu; unde oportet quod forma imperfecte existens in materia, prius perficiatur in esse per agens exterius quam detur sibi agere; unde non potest agendo cooperari ad generationem per quam forma in esse perfectum adducitur. Furthermore, acting follows upon perfect existence, since each thing acts insofar as it is in act. This is why a form existing imperfectly in matter must first be perfected in existence by an external agent, before it is given to it to act. Therefore it cannot cooperate in acting toward generation, by which the form is brought into perfect existence. Et praeterea, si esset de necessitate matris ut active ad generationem operaretur, Beata Virgo non posset dici mater. Cum enim conceptio illa tota sit simul facta, non potuit per aliquam creatam activam virtutem fieri; unde Beata Virgo non potuit active operari ad conceptionem; et sic non habuisset illud quod ad matrem pertinet; unde nec mater esset. Nec posset dici quod cooperata sit ad introductionem formae tantum, quae etiam secundum naturam in instanti inducitur. Inducens enim formam est nobilius quam praeparans materiam per alterationem; et sic Spiritui Sancto attribueretur id quod minus est, et Virgini id quod dignius est. Et praeterea forma substantialis ad quam terminatur conceptio, est anima, quae est actus totius et omnium partium; unde remota ea, nec os nec caro dicitur nisi aequivoce. Ad animam autem Christi constat nihil active Beatam Virginem cooperatam esse. And furthermore, if it belonged to a mother necessarily to participate actively in generation, the Blessed Virgin could not be called a mother. For since that conception happened all at once, it could not occur through any created active power. Therefore the Blessed Virgin could not participate actively in the conception; and so she would not have had what pertains to a mother, and so she would not have been a mother. Nor can it be said that she only cooperated in the introduction of the substantial form, which is instilled in an instant even according to nature. For instilling a form is nobler than preparing matter by alteration, and in this way what is less would be attributed to the Holy Spirit, and what is of greater dignity would be attributed to the Virgin. And furthermore, the substantial form at which the conception terminates in is the soul, which is the act of the whole and of all its parts. For this reason, if it were removed, the bone could not be called ‘bone,’ nor the flesh ‘flesh’, except equivocally. However, it is certain that the Blessed Virgin did not actively cooperate for [the creation of] Christ’s soul. Et ideo alii dicunt, quod Beata Virgo habuit aliquid plus ex supernaturali virtute quam aliae matres: materia enim quae ab aliis ministratur, non potest seipsam complete in actum educere, nisi sit agens exterius: sed materia corporis Christi, quam Beata Virgo ministravit, hoc habuit ex dono divino, ut posset seipsam formare per virtutem superadditam naturae. Sed non poterat in instanti hoc fieri; et ideo, quia decebat conceptionem in instanti esse, praevenit Spiritus Sanctus, subito formationem corporis Christi complens, quae tamen aliter, licet successive, completa fuisset. And therefore others say that the Blessed Virgin had something more than other mothers by a supernatural power. For the matter that is supplied by other mothers cannot bring itself totally into act unless there is an external agent. But the matter for Christ’s body, which the Blessed Virgin supplied, by divine gift was able to form itself by a power added over and above the nature. But this could not happen in an instant. And therefore, since it was becoming that this conception would happen in an instant, the Holy Spirit came first, completing the formation of Christ’s body immediately, which nevertheless would have been completed otherwise, albeit successively. Istud autem non videtur conveniens. Primo, quia si illa virtus non operata est ad formationem corporis Christi, frustra collata est: quod non contingit in operibus naturae, et multo minus in operibus miraculosis. Secundo, quia Beata Virgo non eligebatur ut esset simul pater et mater Christi, sed ut esset mater tantum: unde non oportebat ut in materia quam Virgo ministravit, conjungeretur hoc quod in aliis est ex parte patris et matris. Tertio, quia secundum activam vel passivam potentiam generandi nullus dicitur pater vel mater; sed secundum quod potentia in actum procedit. Unde si in materia quam Virgo ministravit, fuit virtus activa quae exigitur ad patrem et matrem sine hoc quod virtus illa operata sit, non diceretur neque pater neque mater, aut eadem ratione pater et mater, quod absurdum est: nisi forte sufficiat ad esse matrem hoc solum quod materiam ministravit, quod non sufficit ad esse patrem, propter quod mater dicitur et non pater: et hoc quidem videtur esse secundum intentionem Philosophi, secundum quam perfectissime salvatur virginitas matris et vera maternitas; unde et fidei maxime consona est. However, this theory does not seem fitting. First, because if that power did not cooperate toward the formation of Christ’s body, then it was bestowed in vain, which does not happen in nature’s works, and much less in miraculous ones. Second, because the Blessed Virgin was not chosen to be both father and mother to Christ, but only mother, and so it was not fitting that in the matter that the Virgin supplied there should be included what in others comes from the father and the mother. Third, because no one is called father or mother in virtue of the active or passive potency for generating, but insofar as this potency goes into act. Whence, if in the matter that the Virgin supplied, the active potency required for father and mother existed without that power working, she would be called neither father nor mother, or by the same reasoning father and mother, which is absurd—unless perhaps merely supplying the matter were enough to be the mother, which is not enough to be the father, and because of this she is called mother and not father. And indeed this seems to be the case according to the Philosopher’s intent, and in this way the mother’s virginity and her true motherhood are preserved most perfectly. And so it is also most in harmony with the faith. Hanc igitur viam tenendo, dicendum videtur, quod in conceptione prolis invenitur triplex actio. Una quae est principalis, scilicet formatio et organizatio corporis; et respectu hujus actionis, agens est tantum pater, mater vero solummodo ministrat materiam. Alia actio est praecedens hanc actionem, et praeparatoria ad ipsam; cum enim generatio naturalis sit ex determinata materia, eo quod unusquisque actus in propria materia fit, sicut in 2 De anima dicit Philosophus, oportet ut formatio prolis fiat ex materia convenienti, et non ex quacumque. Unde oportet esse aliquam virtutem agentem, per quam praeparetur materia ad conceptum. Sicut autem dicit Philosophus, ars quae operatur formam, principatur et imperat ei quae praeparat materiam, sicut ars compaginans navim ei quae complanat ligna; et ideo virtus quae praeparat materiam ad conceptum est imperfecta respectu ejus quae ex materia praeparata prolem format. Haec autem virtus praeparans est matris, quae imperfecta est respectu virtutis activae quae est in patre; unde dicit Philosophus, quod mulier est sicut puer qui nondum potest generare. Tertia actio est concomitans, vel sequens actionem principalem. Sicut enim locus facit ad bonitatem generationis; ita et bona dispositio matricis operatur ad bonam dispositionem prolis, quasi praebens fomentum: et hoc est quod dicit Avicenna in cap. de diluviis: matrix non facit nisi ad meliorationem concepti. Therefore, by keeping to this path, it seems we should say that there are three kinds of action found in a child’s conception. One which is principal—namely, the forming and organizing of the body—and with respect to this action, the agent is only the father, while the mother merely supplies the matter. Another action precedes this action and is preparatory to it, for since natural generation is from a determinate matter, in that every act comes to be in its proper matter, as the Philosopher says in On the Soul 2, it is necessary that formation of the child happen from its appropriate matter, not just any matter. Therefore there must be some acting power, by which the matter is prepared for conception. Now, as the Philosopher says, the art or skill that works the form rules over and commands the one that prepares the matter, as the art of constructing a ship is related to that of sanding the wood. Therefore, the power that prepares the matter for the child to be conceived is incomplete relative to the power that forms the child from the prepared matter. However, this preparing power is the mother’s, and is incomplete with respect to the active power that is in the father, which is why the Philosopher says that a woman is like a little boy who cannot yet generate. The third action is concomitant, or following the principal action. For just as the location conduces toward the goodness of a generation, so too does the good disposition of the womb work toward the good disposition of the offspring, as though furnishing the kindling; and this is what Avicenna says in the chapter on floods: the womb only improves what is conceived. Secundum hoc ergo dico, quod in principali actione formationis corporis Christi nihil fuit ex parte Beatae Virginis quod esset activum; sed id quod Beata Virgo ministravit, se habuit materialiter tantum ad hanc actionem; virtus autem divina fecit totum quod fit in aliis conceptionibus per virtutem seminis quod est a patre; et ideo Damascenus divinam virtutem dicit quasi divinum semen, ut in littera habetur. In secunda vero et tertia actione Beata Virgo active operata est, sicut et aliae matres; unde vere mater fuit. Therefore, following this, I say that in the principal action of the formation of Christ’s body, there was nothing active on the Blessed Virgin; rather, what the Blessed Virgin supplied was related purely materially to this action, while divine power did everything that in other conceptions happens by the power of the seed from the father. Thus Damascene says divine power was, as it were, a divine seed, as we have in the text. But in the second and third actions, the Blessed Mother was actively working, like other mothers; and thus she was also truly a mother. Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod in conceptione Christi fuit duplex miraculum; unum quod femina concepit Deum, aliud quod virgo peperit filium. Quantum ergo ad primum Beata Virgo se habebat ad conceptionem secundum potentiam obedientiae tantum, et adhuc multo remotius quam costa viri, ut ex ea mulier formaretur. In talibus autem simul dantur actus et potentia ad actum, secundum quam dici posset quod hoc est possibile. Sed quantum ad secundum, habebat beata Virgo potentiam passivam, naturalem tamen, quae per agens naturale in actum reduci posset. Unde quantum ad primum dicit: potentiam receptivam Verbi Dei; quantum vero ad secundum dicit: simul autem et generativam. Utramque enim potentiam in actum reduxit Spiritus Sancti virtus. Reply Obj. 1: In Christ’s conception there were two miracles: one that a woman conceived God, and another that a virgin begot a child. As to the first, then, the Blessed Virgin was involved in the conception only according to an obediential potency, and yet one much more remote than was the man’s rib as that from which the woman was formed. Now, in such matters the act and the potency toward the act are given together, as far as this may be said to be possible. But as to the second miracle, the Virgin did have a passive potency, although a natural one, which could be brought into act by a natural agent. Whence, as to the first he says, a power receptive of the Word of God; but as to the second he says, but at the same time a power to beget the Word of God. For the power of the Holy Spirit brings both potencies into act. Ad secundum dicendum, quod potentia passiva potest accipi dupliciter: vel secundum substantiam potentiae; et sic potentia fuerat ante in Beata Virgine: vel secundum quod potentia passiva operationi suae conjungitur; et tale posse non habet patiens nisi ab agente; sicut dicimus quod visibile, movendo visum, dat sibi posse videre in actu. Et per hunc modum Spiritus Sanctus potentiam generandi Virgini dedit. Reply Obj. 2: A passive potency can be received in two ways: either according to the potency’s substance—and in this way the potency would have been in the Blessed Virgin beforehand—or insofar as the passive potency is joined to its activity. An in this latter way, the patient does not have this ability except from the agent; for example, we say that the visible, by moving sight, gives it the ability to see in act. And by this mode, the Holy Spirit gave the Virgin the power of generating.