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 materiam ministrat. 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 Philosophus dicit, 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 in 2 Phys.: ars quae operatur formam, principatur et imperat ei quae praeparat materiam, sicut ars compaginans navim ei quae complanat ligna. Et ideo virtus quae materiam praeparat 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 in 15 De animalibus; quod mulier est sicut puer qui nondum potest generare. Tertia actio est concomitans, vel sequens principalem actionem. 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 Dei Verbi; 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. Ad tertium dicendum quod Christus accepit naturam humanam a matre, non tamen sicut a principio agente, sed sicut a materiam ministrante. Reply Obj. 3: Christ did receive human nature from his mother, yet not as from the acting principle, but as from someone supplying the matter. Ad quartum dicendum quod praebere materiam simpliciter ad generationem alicujus non facit matrem; sed praebere talem materiam sic praeparatam, est id quod matrem facit. In ligno enim non est potentia naturalis ut ex eo fiat scamnum, cum per agens naturale in actum non compleatur; similiter nec in limo terrae ut ex ea fiat homo. Unde quod inducitur non est simile. Reply Obj. 4: Simply speaking, furnishing the matter for someone’s generation does not make one a mother, but furnishing a certain sort of matter prepared in this way, that is what makes one a mother. For in wood there is no natural potency for a stool to come to be from it, since this is not actually accomplished by a natural agent. Similarly, there is nothing in the slime of the earth that a man might come to be out of it. Therefore the reason that is brought forth is not the same. Ad quintum dicendum quod potentia generativa activa est. Sed haec potentia est perfecte in viro, unde ejus actio se extendit usque ad formationem generati. In femina autem est imperfecte, unde non extendit se ejus actio nisi ad praeparationem materiae. Reply Obj. 5: A reproductive potency is active, but this potency exists perfectly in the male, which is why his action extends to the formation of the one generated. But in the female it is imperfect, which is why her action extends only to the preparation of its matter. Ad sextum dicendum quod cujuslibet motus naturalis principium est in eo quod movetur, non tamen eodem modo, ut in 2 Phys. Commentator dicit. In quibusdam enim est principium activum, ut in motu gravium et levium. In quibusdam vero principium passivum, ut in generatione simplicium corporum. Unde et Philosophus naturam, quam principium motus in eo quod movetur definit, statim subdividit in materiam et formam. Unde non oportet, ut quamvis generatio animalis perfecti sit naturalis, quod in materia quam femina ministrat sit principium activum, sed passivum tantum. Reply Obj. 6: The principle of any natural motion is in the thing moving, but not in the same way, as the Commentator says commenting on the Physics 2. For in some things there is an active principle, as in the motion of heavy and light things, while in other things there is a passive principle, as in the generation of simple bodies. This is also why nature, which the Philosopher defines as the principle of motion in the thing moving, is immediately subdivided by him into matter and form. For this reason, although the generation of a perfect animal is natural, it is not necessary that in the matter that the woman supplies there be an active principle, but only a passive one. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum generatio Christi ex Virgine sit naturalis vel miraculosa Whether Christ’s generation from the Virgin is natural or miraculous Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod generatio Christi ex Virgine sit naturalis. To the second question we proceed thus. It seems that Christ’s generation from the Virgin was natural. Filiatio enim nativitatem consequitur. Sed Christus dicitur naturalis filius matris, sicut et naturalis Filius Patris, ut Augustinus dicit in lib. De fide ad Petrum. Ergo generatione naturali nascitur ex matre. Obj. 1: For sonship follows birth. But Christ is called the natural son of his mother, just as he is also the natural Son of the Father, as Augustine says in his book On the Faith, to Peter. Therefore he is born from his mother by a natural generation. Praeterea, virtus naturalis passiva completa ab agente, naturaliter exit in suam operationem, sicut visus motus a colore naturaliter videt. Sed in Beata Virgine fuit naturalis potentia ad generandum, quamvis incompleta, ut ex dictis patet. Ergo postquam fuit perfecta virtute Spiritus Sancti, naturaliter generavit. Obj. 2: Furthermore, a natural passive power completed naturally by its agent results in its activity, as, for example, sight moved by color naturally sees. But in the Blessed Virgin there was a natural power to generate, although an incomplete one, as is evident from what has been said. Therefore, after it was perfected by the power of the Holy Spirit, she generated naturally. Praeterea, in illuminatione caeci quamvis potentia visiva miraculose detur, tamen post acceptam potentiam naturaliter videt. Sed Spiritus Sanctus Virgini potentiam generativam dedit. Ergo postea naturaliter generavit. Obj. 3: Furthermore, in the illumination of the blind, although visual power is miraculously given, after the power has been received, the person sees naturally. But the Holy Spirit gave the Virgin reproductive power. Therefore she generated afterwards naturally. Praeterea, si generatio Christi ex Virgine miraculosa esset, sicut formatio hominis ex limo terrae; tunc ita se haberet materia quam Virgo ministravit ad Christum, sicut limus de terra sumptus ad Adam. Sed talis materia non sufficit ad rationem matris, ut prius dictum est. Ergo Beata Virgo non esset vera mater Christi: quod dicere est haereticum. Obj. 4: Furthermore, if Christ’s generation from the Virgin were miraculous like the formation of the man from the slime of the earth, then the matter that the Virgin supplied would be related to Christ as the slime taken from the earth was to Adam. But matter like this is not sufficient for the account of being a mother, as was said before. Therefore the Blessed Virgin would not be the true mother of Christ—which is heretical to say. Praeterea, operatio miraculosa non est ab aliqua creatura. Sed vere dicitur quod Virgo genuit Christum. Ergo generatio talis non est miraculosa. Obj. 5: Furthermore, no miraculous activity comes from anything created. But it is truly said that the Virgin begot Christ. Therefore such generation is not miraculous. Sed contra, Dionysius dicit in Epistola 4 ad Gajum, de Jesu loquens: super homines, inquit, operatur ea quae sunt hominis; et hoc monstrat Virgo supernaturaliter concipiens, et aqua instabilis, materialium et terrenorum pedum sustinens gravitatem. Sed hoc quod fit supernaturaliter, dicimus esse miraculosum. Ergo conceptio Christi ex Virgine miraculosa fuit. On the contrary, Dionysius says in his letter to Gaius, speaking about Jesus, above men, he works those things that are man’s; and the Virgin conceiving supernaturally, and unstable water holding up the weight of material and earthly feet both demonstrate this. But whatever is done supernaturally we say is miraculous. Therefore Christ’s conception by the Virgin was miraculous. Praeterea, Anselmus dicit in lib. De conceptu virginali: Spiritus Sanctus virtus Altissimi de virgine muliere virum virginem mirabiliter propagavit. Ergo generatio Christi ex Virgine miraculosa est. Furthermore, Anselm says in his book On the Virginal Conception that the Holy Spirit, the power of the Most High, marvelously begot a virgin man from a virgin woman. Therefore Christ’s generation from the Virgin was miraculous. Praeterea, sicut est contra naturae ordinem ut caecus videat; ita etiam ut virgo manens virgo pariat. Sed illuminationem caecorum dicimus miraculosam esse. Ergo et conceptio Christi ex Virgine miraculosa est. Furthermore, just as it is against the order of nature for a blind man to see, so too it is for a virgin to give birth while remaining a virgin. But we do call the illumination of the blind “miraculous.” Therefore Christ’s conception from a Virgin was also miraculous. Respondeo dicendum quod praeter unionem duarum naturarum in unam hypostasim quae completa est in conceptione Christi, quae est miraculum omnium miraculorum, est etiam aliud miraculum, ut virgo manens virgo concipiat hominem, necdum hominem Deum. I answer that, besides the union of two natures in one hypostasis, which was completed in Christ’s conception and which is the miracle of all miracles, there is also another miracle in that a virgin conceived a man, but not yet the Man-God, while remaining a virgin. Ad hoc enim quod generatio aliqua naturalis dicatur, oportet quod fiat ab agente naturaliter, et ex materia naturali ad hoc proportionata. Quodcumque autem horum ibi defuerit, non poterit dici generatio naturalis, sed miraculosa, si virtute supernaturali fiat. Agens autem naturale, cum sit finitae virtutis, non potest ex materia non naturaliter proportionata effectum producere. Agens vero supernaturale, cum sit infinitae virtutis, potest ex utraque materia operari, naturali scilicet et non naturali. Et ideo duobus modis contingit esse miraculum. Uno modo quando neque agens est naturale, neque materia est naturaliter proportionata ad talem formam, ut patet in formatione hominis de limo terrae. Alio modo quando materia est naturalis, sed agens est supernaturale, ut quando aliquis miraculose a febre sanatur. Corpus enim hominis est naturalis materia sanitatis, quae per supernaturale agens ei confertur. Et similiter fuit in conceptione hominis Christi. Materia enim quam Virgo ministravit, fuit materia ex qua naturaliter corpus hominis formari potuit; sed virtus formans fuit divina. Unde simpliciter dicendum est conceptionem illam miraculosam esse, naturalem vero secundum quid. Et propter hoc Christus dicitur naturalis filius Virginis, quia naturalem materiam ad ejus conceptum praeparavit. For any generation that is called natural must be arise from the agent naturally, and out of natural matter proportioned to this. However, if any of these are lacking, the generation cannot be called natural, but miraculous, if it was done by supernatural power. Now, since a natural agent is of finite power, cannot produce its effect from matter that is not naturally proportioned, whereas a supernatural agent, which is of infinite power, can work from both kinds of matter, natural and non-natural. And therefore it can be miraculous in these two ways: in one way, when neither the agent is natural nor is the matter naturally proportioned to that form, as is clear in man’s formation from the slime of the earth; and in the other way, when the matter is natural, but the agent is supernatural, as when someone is miraculously cured of a fever, for a human body is the natural matter of the health that is conferred on it by a supernatural agent. And it was like this in the conception of Christ the man. For the matter that the Virgin supplied was matter from which a human body could naturally be formed, but the power forming it was divine. Therefore it should be said that that conception was simply speaking miraculous, but also natural in a certain respect; and for this reason Christ is called the natural son of the Virgin, because she prepared the natural matter for his conception. Unde patet responsio ad primum. Reply Obj. 1: The response is clear from this. Ad secundum dicendum quod quando potentia passiva completur per operationem agentis naturalis, tunc operatio sequens est naturalis. Hoc autem non fuit in proposito. Et ideo ratio non sequitur. Reply Obj. 2: When a passive power is completed by the activity of its natural agent, then the activity that follows is natural. But this was not the case in question, and therefore, the reasoning does not follow. Ad tertium dicendum quod caeco nato illuminato datur potentia visiva sine omni dispositione contraria visioni. Et ideo operatio seu visio sequens est naturalis. Sed potentia generandi data est Virgini manente virginitate, quae est dispositio contraria ad conceptum. Et ideo sicut potentia miraculose data est, ita et actus sequens miraculosus fuit. Vel dicendum quod caeco illuminato datur potentia passiva, cujus operatio est per hoc quod movetur ab agente naturali, scilicet colore; et ideo visio illa naturalis est. Sed Virgini dicitur data potentia generativa per hoc quod mota est ejus potentia passiva ad generandum ab agente supernaturali. Et ideo operatio sequens est miraculosa. Reply Obj. 3: When a person born blind is illuminated, the power of sight is given without any disposition contrary to sight; and therefore the consequent activity, vision, is natural. But the power for begetting was given to the Virgin while maintaining her virginity, which is a disposition contrary to conception; and thus, just as the power was given miraculously, so too was the consequent act miraculous. Or it could be said that when a blind man is illuminated, he is given a passive power whose activity exists by the fact that it is moved by a natural agent, namely color, and thus the sight itself is natural. Whereas the reproductive power is said to have been given to the Virgin by the fact that her passive power was moved to generation by a supernatural agent; and so the consequent activity was miraculous. Ad quartum dicendum quod formatio hominis ex limo terrae miraculosa fuit quantum ad agens et quantum ad materiam; sed conceptio est miraculosa quantum ad agens et non quantum ad materiam. Et ideo non est simile de utroque. Reply Obj. 4: Man’s formation from the slime of the earth was miraculous with respect to its agent as well as with respect to its matter. But this conception is miraculous with respect to its agent, and not with respect to its matter. So it is not the same in both instances. Ad quintum dicendum quod Beata Virgo dicitur genuisse Christum, non sicut principium activum ad generationem praebens, sed sicut ministrans materiam naturalem. Unde non est inconveniens quod generatio illa miraculosa fuerit. Operatio vero miraculosa non est alicujus creaturae sicut agentis, est tamen alicujus creaturae sicut materiae, ut patet ex hoc quod miraculose ex aliqua creata materia Deus quandoque aliquid facit. Reply Obj. 5: The Blessed Virgin is said to have begotten Christ, not as furnishing the active principle for the generation, but as the one supplying its natural matter. This is why it is not unfitting that this generation should be miraculous. But a miraculous operation is not from any created thing as its agent, yet it still could be from a created thing as its matter, as is evident from the fact that whenever God does anything miraculously it is from some created matter. Quaestio 3 Question 3 The Annunciation Deinde quaeritur de Annuntiatione facta per angelum ad Beatam Virginem. Et circa hoc duo quaeruntur: Next, we will inquire about the Annunciation made to the Blessed Virgin by the angel. Concerning this two things are asked about: primo, de convenientia Annuntiationis. first, the fittingness of the Annunciation; secundo, de convenientia nuntii. second, the fittingness of the messenger. Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum conveniebat Virgini salvatoris conceptionem nuntiari Whether it was fitting for the Virgin to have the Savior’s conception announced to her Quaestiuncula 1 Quaestiuncula 1 Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non oportebat Virgini annuntiari Salvatoris conceptionem. To the first question we proceed thus. It seems that it was not fitting for the Savior’s conception to be announced to the Virgin. Ipsa enim fidem habebat. Sed semper ad fidem pertinuit credere Incarnationem futuram. Ergo non oportebat ulterius quod per modum Annuntiationis sibi patefieret. Obj. 1: For she had faith. But it always pertained to faith to believe in the future Incarnation. Therefore it was not more fitting that it be made evident to her by way of an annunciation.