Scotus Academicus, Tomus septimus: De Incarnatione Verbi Divini

NOTE 1. A threefold Conception of the Virgin Mother of God can be distinguished: namely, corporeal, spiritual, and divine. The first is that by which her most holy Parents, coming together in the marital act, furnished those things which chiefly pertained to the formation, organization, and disposition of her body for receiving the rational soul to be infused by God, which conception the Doctors are wont to call active. The second is the very infusion of the soul and its union with the duly organized body, which is commonly called passive conception, whereby it takes place in that very instant in which the rational soul is united to the body consisting of all its members and organs. The third finally is that by which the Virgin herself, blessed, through a singular operation of the Holy Spirit in her supplied her most pure blood for forming and organizing the body of Christ the Lord. But we do not speak here of this latter conception, that it is most holy and altogether immaculate no Catholic doubts. And although the present controversy could be raised concerning corporeal conception, namely whether before the infusion of the rational soul the body of the Blessed Virgin was entirely free from every stain and was conspicuous for cleanness and purity, that it might become the more fittingly and more perfectly the sanctuary of her most holy soul; nevertheless the hinge of the present controversy turns chiefly on the spiritual Conception, or taken passively; namely whether in that instant in which the soul of the Blessed Virgin was united to the body she was wholly without that hereditary stain by which all men whatsoever, conceived and born of the marital act, are wont to be undermined through corrupted propagation and origin.

NOTE 2. Various and most weighty controversies were long ago agitated concerning the unviolated and altogether immaculate spiritual and passive Conception of the Virgin Mother of God, especially around the year 1112; for when the Church of Lyons had decreed that the festive day of the eighth of December should be celebrated in honor of the immaculate Conception of the most Blessed Virgin, St. Bernard hearing this took it ill, and wrote to the Canons of that same Church that celebrated letter (if indeed it be truly his genuine offspring) in which among other things he thus assails them: We marvel greatly what chance has wrought at this time for some of you, to change the best color, introducing a new solemnity, which the rites of the Church know not, reason does not approve, ancient tradition does not commend. Are we more learned or more devout than the Fathers? But when, notwithstanding this reproof of St. Bernard, the most ardent zeal toward the unviolated Conception of the Virgin Mother of God had grown strong, and men otherwise religious and celebrated for devotion to the Virgin Mother of God had begun to assail it anew, the Subtle Doctor took up its defense and patronage. For he in 3. d. 3. q. 1. n. 1., where he first treats of the Immaculate Conception, indeed defends it there not assertively, but merely dissolves all the arguments by which the unviolated Conception of the Virgin seemed to be assailed. For when he had said: That God could have done that the Blessed Virgin herself never would have been in original sin: it could also come about that for a time she were at some time in sin, and in the last instant of that time be purged. Finally with every submission, according to his customary modesty and humility, he puts forward his opinion not assertively but dubitatively, in these words: But which of these three things, which have been shown possible, has been done, God knows: if it does not conflict with the authority of the Church, or the authority of Scripture, it will be judged probable that what is more excellent be attributed to Mary: namely, that God preserved her unhurt from original sin. But afterward, having grown bolder, dist. 15. n. 18., he pronounces absolutely and openly that the Blessed Virgin Mother of God never was unclean actually, by reason of actual sin, nor by reason of original sin: yet she would have been, had she not been preserved. And this opinion he so happily defended in solemn disputations and constant contests that he drew to it all the more celebrated doctors, especially the Parisians.

For (as Cavellus relates in the Rosary of the 11th century, a solemn disputation held by command of the supreme Pontiff before the Parisian Faculty, the Legates of the Apostolic See present, on the Immaculate Conception, with such subtlety of genius, such facility and perspicuity of solutions did he break and repel all the adverse arguments, and relying on the help of Mary herself confirmed and fortified his own pious opinion on the Marian Conception with the weight of arguments, with so many and so urgent reasons, that he drew that most celebrated faculty, mother of Universities, to his pious opinion: which in gratitude honored him with the title of Subtle Doctor: and led on by his keenest disputations enacted that sacred and celebrated Marian decree, namely that hereafter no one should be admitted to the grade of magistry who did not bind himself by oath that he would defend throughout his whole life the Immaculate Conception. Afterward Scotus set out for Cologne and bore away the victory for the Immaculate Conception from the disciples of Albert the Great: and the name of Subtle Doctor was there again solemnly acclaimed. He is said also to have received from the Pontiff a reward.)

So far Cavellus. Bosius confirms the same thing, On the Signs of the Church, tom. 1. fig. 2. lib. 1. cap. 8, where he says: Moreover I perceived that that most illustrious feast was confirmed by the doctrine concerning Mary of the acutest Theologian, &c. Salazar, cap. 42, century 12: John Duns Scotus the principal and greatest champion of the pure Conception, who won for this doctrine by his authority as great a faith as no other before or after him. And cap. 13. n. 1: The most subtle Doctor, just as he established by his authority the first schools for defending the Immaculate Conception, so omitted nothing which could conduce in this matter to the greater glory of the Virgin. As to the Parisian disputation Bernardinus de Bustis writes thus in the Office of the Immaculate Conception approved by Sixtus IV, lesson 1: Our Lord Jesus Christ, to protect the dignity of his beloved Mother, straightway dispatched to that city an outstanding Doctor of the Order of Minors, who, the foundations and all the arguments of the adversaries confuted with irrefragable speech, so luminously proved the innocence of his Lady's Conception, that all those brothers admiring greatly its sublimity fell silent, failing in disputation. Whereupon the opinion of the Minors was forthwith approved by Parisian study. Nor ought it seem wonderful that they called the pious opinion on the Immaculate Conception the opinion of the Minors: for it was first circulated under this name, as is evident from Abbot Panormitanus, cap. perquestus de feris, and John Varson on 3. dist. 3, and Salazar, cap. 12. sect. 15. Whence Jerome Hormachea on the Canticle, Proleg. B, cap. 180: By most excellent right can we call the religious of the Seraphic Order the standard-bearer in this pious opinion on the Immaculate Conception, &c. Since after the Subtle Doctor the whole Seraphic Order conspired to defend that opinion, until, the authority of the whole sacred Faculty of Paris lending fire, by study and indefatigable labor it came about that this pious opinion was propagated through all the regions of the Christian world, and so prevailed that it seems to be now not the opinion of the Order of Minors alone, but of all the faithful of Christ. Here I do not recount other controversies afterward arisen on this matter, which we shall open in the course of this Question.

NOTE 3. Under the name Immaculate Conception nothing else ought to be understood (according to the opinion of all the Doctors who wrote since the controversy arisen about it in the schools) than the absence of the stain of original sin in the Blessed Virgin herself in that first instant in which her soul was united to the body, and when it could truly be affirmed, Mary is conceived: so that all these propositions, which you will everywhere find among Authors who have written on that Immaculate Conception, are altogether equivalent and obtain entirely the same signification, for instance, The Conception of the Blessed Virgin is immaculate: or The Blessed Virgin in the first instant of her animation was clean and immune from original sin: or The Blessed Virgin, divine grace preventing and operating, never actually lay under original sin: or The Blessed Virgin did not contract original sin: or The Blessed Virgin in the first instant of her being had sanctifying grace: or The Blessed Virgin was preserved from original sin: and many other similar propositions, which are employed indiscriminately by the Doctors, with only the words varied but the same sense prevailing, to expound this pious opinion; so much so that whoever uttered any one of them would thereby openly enunciate the immaculate Conception, as if he used all the aforesaid propositions and modes of speaking at once. The reason of this is, that although the word "immaculate" has a wider extension than purity from original sin; nevertheless when it is added to "Conception," it is determined and restricted to signify only the absence of original guilt; for in the instant of Conception no other stain can either be contracted, nor formally be impeded and eliminated by preserving grace, than that which by hereditary propagation from the corrupted stock of humankind assails all men.

These things premised, let there be

One single Conclusion. — THE VIRGIN MOTHER OF GOD WAS TRULY IMMUNE FROM ORIGINAL SIN, AND PRESERVED FROM IT BY SANCTIFYING GRACE DIVINELY INFUSED INTO HER IN THE FIRST INSTANT OF HER CONCEPTION AND ANIMATION. This Conclusion can be fortified by most weighty considerations, which, for greater clarity and methodical disputation, we shall propose and weigh in the following paragraphs.

§ I. — That the immaculate conception and animation of the Virgin Mother of God is gathered not obscurely from Sacred Scripture.

Rightly did Christ the Lord say, John 5: Search the scriptures… and the same are they that give testimony of me, obliquely to touch the ignorance and blindness of the Jews, because although they thought themselves most expert in the sacred letters, they did not discover him to be the true Messiah promised by so many oracles: for although the adorable Savior pronounced those words of himself only, nevertheless the Blessed Virgin may use the same by accommodated sense. For although, as St. Thomas teaches 3. part. q. 27. art. 1., On her sanctification in the womb, nothing is handed down in Canonical Scripture, nevertheless since St. Paul says 2. Timoth. 3: All scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work. And as the Subtle Doctor teaches excellently, quest. 2. of the Prologue, on the first principal argument:

No science (that is, in Scripture itself) will have expounded all things to be known; but those from which others can sufficiently be elicited: whence many necessary truths are not expressed in Sacred Scripture, and are contained there virtually: as conclusions in principles, for the investigation of which the labor of Expositors and Doctors was useful:

Hence if we search the divine oracles of the Scriptures, that is, ponder and consider them with deep attention of mind especially according to the interpretation of the holy Fathers and the more celebrated Doctors of the Church, we shall find many things which patronize the immaculate and most pure Conception of the Virgin Mother of God. Now out of the innumerable Oracles of this kind which bear witness to this truth, I shall propose certain choicer ones.

Let the first be that Genes. 3, where God addressing the serpent, the assailant of the woman, says v. 15: I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. By which words he signified, Not that Eve, says our Lyranus, but another descending from her, namely the Virgin Mary, who is hostile to demons; whence Canticles 3: terrible as an army set in array. St. Jerome, or whoever is the author of the letter To a sick friend on the perfect man, gives a perspicuous reason of this thing: The Mother of the Lord, he says, was promised already in that woman: she is set opposed to the enmities of the serpent. And lest this seem to pertain to Eve, he did not say "I put" but "I will put," indicating that woman who should bring forth the Savior, not one who should generate a fratricide. St. Cyprian had shone forth before him, lib. 2. Testimonies against the Jews, cap. 9: It is a word of promise, he says, which is sent forward into futurity. He did not say "I put," lest it seem to pertain to Eve; but "I will put," that is, I will raise up against thee a woman. St. Epiphanius sets forth another reason of the same signification, lib. 3. against heresies, which he gathers from these words, between thy seed, and her seed: Nowhere, he says, is the seed of the woman alone found except in Mary: therefore the whole cannot be fulfilled in Eve. Rupertus subscribes to him lib. 3. De Trinitate, cap. 19, where he says: This is the seed, or son of the woman (Christ), so that he is not also the seed of the man, and therefore not without mystery he took his designation from her alone.

From this Oracle, moreover, a threefold argument can be drawn forth, by which the immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mother of God may be proved. First indeed, there was perpetual enmity, and that most bitter, between Mary and the daemon serpent: but if she had also been stained for any instant with original sin, for that instant she would not have been his enemy, but his friend, inasmuch as consenting and subject to him; and to God threatening, I will put enmities between thee, and Mary, the serpent could answer: but I will first join friendships with her through the bond of original guilt, I will enter into a closer relation with her, I will overcome her, cast her down, and number her among my captives; we shall be alike in iniquity, we shall stand against thee enraged and injured, etc.; all which things militate directly not only against the glory of God, but even against the truth of that divine oracle: therefore since Mary always held hostile enmities with the daemon serpent, no one of sound mind will judge that she entered into friendships and a covenant with him through original sin. It is confirmed: For as friendship either supposes or produces likeness and parity, so enmity produces unlikeness and contrariety: For this, (says Rupertus just praised) Friendships differ, that friends at peace extend the surface of anything of whatever speech: but enmities have a manifest intention of contrariety: therefore Mary is said to be the enemy of the serpent insofar as she is unlike him: but unless in the first instant of her conception she had been preserved by God from the stain of original guilt, she could not be said to be absolutely unlike the serpent: therefore that the truth of that divine Oracle may stand, nor let any vestige of likeness and love ever be thought to have intervened, it is necessary that even in the first instant of her conception she herself was unlike the serpent, and adversarial. — The second argument is sought from those words, She shall crush thy head; for, (says St. Augustine, or whoever is the author of the Commentary on Genesis) since the subjection of original sin is the head of the devil: such a head Mary crushed: for original sin is the head of all sins, and their beginning, which, after the manner of the serpentine head, derives its body and influx into all others, and little by little introduces them: but Mary crushed this serpentine head: therefore from his pestilential breath and bite she was altogether immune and free. — A third argument finally can be gathered from those words, Thou shalt lie in wait for her heel, that is, in vain shalt thou attempt to undermine and assail the beginning of her life; from which I argue thus: if the daemon had stolen and defiled by original sin the Conception of the blessed Virgin, and that first instant of her animation, by his wiles and frauds, her heel could be called defiled, nor would the Virgin Mother of God thence vindicate to herself any beauty and dignity: but she is commended above all on account of her shoes, for this is appropriated to her Cant. 7: How beautiful are thy steps in shoes, O prince's daughter! as if he said: the beauty of thy steps, and the rectitude of thy ways, from when thou first movedst thy foot, is thence especially celebrated, because thou art always daughter of the Prince, first-born of his love, and elect mother. Eve indeed the handmaid of sin, the rest sons of vengeance, sons of gehenna, while they are being formed and make their first step toward life, rush into death: but thou in the passage of thy Conception makest thy step no less beautifully than confidently. — And this interpretation Rupertus so excellently expounds, when he says:

Of the shoes here therefore not of the body, but of the spirit, in which to go unshod is the highest ignobility, and more than servile poverty: therefore the serpent bit the heel of the handmaid, but thou, daughter of the Prince, well shod, hast crushed the head of the serpent. Thou especially, o Prince, and singular Lady beloved, etc.

The second Testimony demonstrating the immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mother of God is sought from those words Numer. 21 (24): There shall rise a star out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall spring up from Israel: and shall strike the princes of Moab, etc. From which words a threefold argument is gathered for evincing that purity of the Mother of God's Conception. First indeed, Mary is called a star, for, as St. Bernardine of Siena says most splendidly, Sermon on the glorious name of the Virgin art. 1. cap. 3: Before the advent of this Virgin, the fog of sin had darkened the whole world, so that there was none who could see the true light: for all the gentiles were fogs agitated by whirlwinds, as is said 2. Peter 2. Therefore they dwelt in darkness, whence concerning such it is written Nahum 1: darkness shall pursue his enemies. Yet the Blessed Virgin came forth like a shining star, so that of her may be said that Eccles. 50: As the morning star in the midst of a cloud, etc.; but a star is nowhere obscured by darkness and gloom: therefore it must be concluded with our Mayronis, Serm. on the Conception of B. Mary, that as the golden light at the rising of the sun glows red in the morning without clouds, so the soul of the Virgin ever resplended without clouds of sins. Indeed all the posterity of Adam, overshadowed by the original sacrifice, are conceived; Mary alone among all innocent and immaculate shone forth from afar. Concerning the rest Job says, cap. 3: Let the stars be darkened with the mist thereof. Let it look for light and not see it, neither the rising of the dawning day. Which words our Lyranus expounds thus, as Pelbartus relates lib. 4. part. 1. art. 3: There Job speaks of the guilt of original sin: and he says the same: let the stars be darkened, that is, the Saints, with its mist: let it look for light, that is, Christ: and not see him: because Christ conceived supernaturally of the Virgin could not contract original sin. It follows: neither the rising of the dawning Day, that is, the Conception of Mary, which is figured by the dawn. Canticle 6. To these add that the most Blessed Virgin is celebrated not only under the name of star, but also of moon and sun: for the Church is wont to attribute to her the words of Cant. 6: Who is this that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun: whereby it signifies that every splendor of innocence whatsoever, and light of purity and virtue, which God could confer on any creature, he abundantly derived into her. Wherefore we can not unreasonably hold that God inaugurated the same thing in the order of grace which he had previously wrought in the order of nature: for just as he formed three kinds of bodies, namely the sun, moon, and stars, glittering with splendor, so that in the first beginning of their formation they were surrounded and overlaid with light, so too he willed to bring forth Christ the Lord the true sun of justice, the Virgin his mother, that wonderful moon, and likewise the Angels as so many stars shining in the firmament of eternal beatitude, coruscating with the divine light of grace and illuminated, in the first instant of their formation.

From these therefore it stands that the most Blessed Virgin was never obscured by any shadows of sin, and consequently was wholly without experience of original stain. — The second argument is deduced from the following

words of the same Oracle: And a sceptre shall spring up from Israel; for Isaias had prophesied cap. 11: And there shall come forth a rod out of the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise up out of his root: which words St. Jerome expounds thus in the same place: But let us understand the rod out of the root of Jesse to be the holy Virgin Mary, who had no shoot adhering to her: but if the Blessed Virgin had been stained by any sin, doubtless she would have had not only a shoot, but an adhering knottiness: therefore it must be concluded with St. Anselm lib. 2. On the Virginal Conception, cap. 9:

I believe and confess, most pious Lady, whatever little servant I am, that from the root of Jesse, most beautiful, and therefore alien from the wound of sin, everything that disfigures thee, remaining most whole, thou didst bring forth the most precious flower, not any sort whatever, but one upon which the sevenfold Spirit shall rest.

Or as St. Ambrose has it more clearly in the Sermon On the Gabaonites, expounding the same words of Isaias: This is the rod in which there was neither knot of original sin, nor bark of venial fault. Nor does it matter that this sermon is not found among the printed works of St. Ambrose; for very many whom our de Aula praises in the Trituration pag. 133, together with Michael de Carchano in the Sermon On Penance printed in the year 1496, give faith that they read that sermon among the works of St. Ambrose: whence also the aforesaid words were inserted into the Office of the Conception, which is recited by the Seraphic Order with Apostolic approval. — A third argument finally can be asked from those words of the same prophecy: And shall strike the princes of Moab: for it is known that daemons are not obscurely designated by the name Moab: for just as the Moabites were always hostile to the Israelites, so daemons denounce perpetual and harassing war against men, especially the faithful and endowed with virtue. But the Virgin Mother of God, that mystical rod, struck them all down not only during the time of her most whole life, dissolving their frauds and making their temptations void; but also broke their power at the beginning of her Conception and Nativity. Which Rupertus explains excellently lib. 1. On the Canticles, cap. 1, where comparing this mystical rod with the Rod of Moses, he says:

As that rod devoured the rods of the magicians and enchanters, and crushed all Egyptian pride, and then budded, flourished, leafed, and bore fruit, not planted, not animated by the sap of earth, but advanced by heavenly virtue beyond the use of nature: so thou, most beautiful of women, my beloved, hast slain all heretical depravity, cast down the pride of the devil, flowering in conception, fruitful in birth, etc.

St. Bernard illustrates the same truth most splendidly tom. 1. In the Deprecation to the glory of the Virgin, after he had said:

Thou terrible as an army set in array. What then? Did not the princes of darkness shudder, when they saw, contrary to custom, a woman strong and most learned for battles proceed against them, equipped with armor mightier than all, whose sword is upon her thigh because of night fears! Around her a strong line of spiritual virtues, guarding themselves mutually each in its order. etc.

Thus did Mary advance in her Conception. This sufficiently indicates what follows: namely, that they (the Angels namely) might guard the most pleasing couch of Solomon, and provide lest an alien guest invade the lodging prepared for the eternal King.

Very many oracles confirming the same truth the Psalmist King supplies to us: but lest I be longer, I bring forward only one or two. Let the first be Psal. 15: The Most High hath sanctified his own tabernacle: God is in the midst thereof, it shall not be moved: God will help it in the morning early. For no one can deny that the Virgin Mother of God is truly the tabernacle of the Most High, because him whom the heavens could not contain she embraced in her womb. The Most High sanctified this tabernacle in a manner utterly ineffable and far more excellent than any other souls preeminent in holiness, in which also he is said to dwell. For there are very many whom he sanctifies only in the evening of death, as the penitent thief: others whom in advanced age, and as it were in the meridian of life, he calls from vices to the state of holiness, as St. Paul, Magdalene, etc. There are also whom he prevents in the morning with the blessings of sweetness, namely those whom he sanctifies before they come forth into open light by nativity, as had been prophesied of Jeremias and John the Baptist Jeremiae 1: Before I formed thee in the bowels of the womb, I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee. But the most Blessed Virgin God helped and protected in the morning early, that is, from the very first beginning of her life, namely preserving her from all inquination of sin whatsoever, inasmuch as he chose her for his tabernacle: for how would God have helped her in the morning early if he had first banished her into the tyranny of the daemon through original sin? — The same thing Psal. 86 intimates more exactly and openly, where he says: The foundations thereof are in the holy mountains: The Lord loveth the gates of Sion above all the tabernacles of Jacob… man is born in her, and the Highest himself hath founded her. By which words he signifies that the holiness of the most Blessed Virgin arising attained far that summit of loftiness and dignity which the perfected holiness of the rest could attain. Hence St. Gregory in Exposition 1. on the book of Kings says:

By the name of the mountain of Ephraim can be designated the most Blessed ever Virgin Mary Mother of God. For she was a mountain, who surpassed all the height of elect creature by the dignity of her election. Is not Mary a lofty Mountain, who that she might extend toward the conception of the eternal Word raised the summit of her merits above all the choirs of Angels even to the throne of the Deity? Of this mountain Isaias prophesying its most excellent dignity says: in the last days shall be prepared the mountain of the house of the Lord upon the top of mountains. For she was a mountain on the top of mountains, because the height of Mary shone forth above all Saints:

By no reason could it be said that at the beginning of her sanctity she had equaled, indeed surpassed, the dignity of any other of the Saints, unless she had truly been immune from every sin in the first instant of her life; for if only she had been sanctified before being born, she would have this in common with those who were sanctified in the womb, as we said just now. Therefore it must be concluded with St. Anselm Hom. on the Conception of the Virgin: If Jeremias, he says, who was to prophesy amid groans, was sanctified in the womb, and John the Precursor of the Lord was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb, who would dare dispute that the propitiatory of the whole age was deprived of the illumination of the Holy Spirit at the very beginning of her Conception! — It is confirmed from the following words: A man is born in her, etc. By that man he signified Christ, of whom Isaias had prophesied writing: A woman shall encompass a man: but (says St. Anselm lib. On the Virginal Conception) it was fitting that the conception of Christ should come about of a Mother most pure: namely, it was becoming that that Virgin shine with that purity, than which a greater cannot be understood under God; to whom God the Father disposed to give his only Son, whom he loved as himself, having come equal to him from his heart, so that he might naturally be heir, and both common Son of God the Father and of the Virgin. Hence St. Peter Damian says most splendidly Serm. 2. On Virginity: The flesh of the Virgin conceived of Adam admitted no stains of Adam, but the purity of her singular continence was converted into the whiteness of eternal light, so that Christ, who is the brightness of eternal light, mirror without stain, and image of most pure paternal goodness, might assume for himself a body formed from most pure flesh: For it must not be believed (says St. Bernardine tom. 2. Serm. 19.) that the Son of God himself willed to be born of the Virgin, and to take her flesh which was stained by any original sin; rather it must be believed that he willed to take flesh from most pure flesh, and that his Mother was more than Eve, and Adam, who were created without original sin. — Which thing indeed will easily be brought to mind by whoever has heard Ecclesiasticus admonishing cap. 3: That the glory of man is from the honor of his father, and a father without honor is the disgrace of the son. And in the same place: The mother's curse rooteth up the foundations. Whence if ever the Virgin Mother of God had received anything of disgrace and curse by reason of original sin, Christ her son certainly would not have been immune from this shameful ignominy, and if not blamed, yet he would have been disgraced by the disgrace of his parent: for as Tertullian said with sententiousness, Christ reckoned of the stock of Jesse, namely through Mary, and hence must be judged as though the honor of Christ God were reckoned from the Virgin; whence if the Mother of God had been guilty of most infamous transgression, and tributary to the tartarean tyrant, not so much glory as some disgrace of the Son would thence be reckoned: seeing that, as Arnoldus Carnotensis said most splendidly in the Treatise On the Praises of Mary: That Mary is preached full of grace, it is manifest that the glory of Mother and Son is indivisible, the proclamation of both is common: for, as he says in the same place, one is the flesh of Mary and Christ, one spirit, whence it was said to her: The Lord is with thee. Whereby let it be known that the glory of each is indivisible, and thus in a certain way the ignominy common, which would be derived from the disgrace of the Mother into the Son: for Christ is reckoned of the Virgin. I pass over various testimonies of this kind, which both in the books of Solomon, especially in the Canticle of Canticles, where the beauty of the extraordinary purity and sanctity of the Virgin Mother of God is splendidly celebrated and commended, and in the oracles of the Prophets, which aim at the assertion of the same most pure Conception of the Mother of God; so that I may bring forward some from the New Testament, in which this truth is delineated more perspicaciously.

It comes forth first of all that Angelic salutation, whereby namely the Angel, an Orator destined by God to the Virgin that he might announce the sacrament of the Incarnation, thus addressed her: Hail full of grace: significantly he said: Hail, that is, without "va," as the Angelic Doctor explains excellently in the elucidation of the Angelic salutation, (as may be seen in the first edition of the same works, and older manuscripts.) From sin, he says, followed a threefold va: va of guilt: va of punishment: va of ignorance. The va of guilt is threefold: original, actual, and venial. From all this threefold va the Blessed Virgin was free. — To her concurs the Seraphic Doctor in the Mirror of the Virgin, cap. 2, where he says: Hail Mary without va. Threefold is the va from which Mary was most immune: the va of actual guilt, the va of original misery, and the va of gehennal punishment. — The same St. Bernardine commends most splendidly Tom. 4. Sermon 1. On the Annunciation, art. 1. cap. 1: Hail, he says, Blessed Virgin, without the first va, that is, without sin, tyrant of original sin, nay without it thou wast conceived. But he used that formula of salutation that with the name of Eve inverted he might signify, says St. Jerome: That whatever malediction was inflicted through Eve, the blessing of Mary took away entirely. Whence also the Church sings most splendidly: Taking that Hail, from Gabriel's mouth, establish us in peace, changing the name of Eve. Nor did he happily change only the name, but also the lot; because as St. Augustine writes excellently Serm. 2. On the Annunciation, Eve the authoress of sin, Mary the authoress of merit; Eve by killing harmed, Mary by vivifying profited: that one struck, this one healed, etc. But how would all these things rightly fit the Virgin Mother of God, if she herself had lain under the curse of the miseries of original sin in the same way as the posterity of Eve? — The same truth the Angel confirms more fully, when he says: Full of grace. For truly by what reason would the most worthy Mother of God be called full of grace, if place for original sin had been left in her, and the grace of preservation, which was granted to the Angels lest they rush down with the enemies, had been wanting to herself? It must be said therefore with the Seraphic Doctor Sermon 2. On the Virgin, that our Lady was full of grace preventing in her sanctification: grace namely preservative, against the filthiness of the fault of original sin, which she would have contracted from the corruption of nature, unless by a special privilege of grace she had been preserved. This truth no one will deny, who with the sacred Doctors perceives that by those words, full of grace, is signified that the Virgin Mother of God was adorned with every plenitude and perfection of grace. Well is she called full, (says the author of the sermon under the name of St. Jerome to Eustochium) because to the rest it is supplied by parts. But into Mary the plenitude of grace poured itself whole at once. Whence Richard a S. Laurentio lib. 1. On the Praises of the Virgin, cap. 4, says thus: Every other creature has something of emptiness, because it could receive greater grace; but she herself was everywhere so full of grace, because she could not have greater grace: unless she were united to the Divinity, that is, unless she herself were God. This is that plenitude concerning which the Angel here specially says: Hail full of grace. — Such is the opinion of the Princes of Theology: since our Alensis 1. p. his Summa pronounces expressly: The Blessed Virgin had such grace that in fact she could not receive more, and as much as pure creature could receive. To him concurs B. Albert the Great in his Mariale, cap. 177: In the Blessed Virgin Mary, he says, with respect to all creatures not united to God, there was grace supreme, grace in the highest: therefore she approaches the first light in the highest; therefore purity in the highest: for purity follows the nature of light, and luminous. By which he signifies, that from the summit of her grace Mary not only had the culmination and excellence of all purity, but moreover more closely and more perspicuously was partaker of the light and vision of the eternal divine essence. Which truth our St. Bernardine of Siena expounds no less piously than elegantly, Tom. 4. Serm. 18. On the Exaltation of B. Mary, art. 1. cap. 10, where he says: According to Bernard the Virgin Mary penetrated beyond what can be believed the abyss of divine wisdom, so that as far as the condition of creature suffers without personal union, she seems immersed in that inaccessible light. And lest you think he speaks only of the wisdom of the Virgin, he adds: So great grace has been given by the Lord to the Virgin, as would be possible to be given to one pure creature. So great therefore an abundance and sublimity of grace ought to leave no place in the Virgin Mother of God for sin, and thence from this plenitude of her grace her immunity from the original stain is rightly gathered. — The Angel adds a new argument of the same truth to be confirmed, when he says: The Lord is with thee. For who will presume to limit the most singular presence, assistance, and protection of the Lord to the Virgin to that time only after she was conceived? Since the Angel pronounces absolutely: The Lord is with thee, whereby he signifies that she was not only at all time, but also from eternity chosen by the Lord not merely peculiarly, that she might become the Mother of his only-begotten Son, but also perpetually possessed by him; whence deservedly does the Church attribute to her this Oracle of the Wise Man Prov. 8: The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways, before he made anything from the beginning. From eternity I was ordained, and of old before the earth was made: the abysses (of sin) were not yet, and I had already been conceived. — More evidently do the following words of the Angelic salutation indicate this: Blessed art thou amongst women. For that blessing not only among women (for Elisabeth said thus), but "in" or "amidst" women, indicates preceding times, in which all blessings conferred from Heaven on all women (nay even on men) slipped away through the intervention of Mary. Beautifully indeed Elisabeth says to the Virgin her kinswoman: Blessed art thou amongst women, as if he said: more blessed than all women; but Gabriel the Angel said cleverly and more sententiously: Blessed art thou amidst women, for he expresses that she herself was blessed in all women; nay, says Eusebius Emissenus: Through her blessing is given to women, and the world is freed from malediction: for as the most expert Idiota adds piously lib. Of Contemplation On the Virgin, cap. 1: Through thee, o super-blessed Mary, angelic life is recovered, innocence repaired, the devil conquered and crushed, etc. Therefore it must be concluded with St. Lawrence Justinian Serm. On the Annunciation, that the most Blessed Virgin from her very Conception was prevented with blessings of sweetness, and alien from the handwriting of damnation. Or as Richard a S. Laurentio explains more clearly cap. 106: It stands that she was immune from all original sin, through whom not only the malediction of mother Eve was dissolved, but even the blessing is bestowed on all. — The Angel confirms the same truth when he says: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God: for as the same most wise Idiota says cap. 6: Thou hast found grace with God singular, o sweetest Virgin, because there were preserved in thee from the original stain, the Angelic salutation, and the over-shadowing of the Holy Spirit. Andrew of Jerusalem had preceded him on these words, Fear not Mary, saying: For grace was found with God, whereas Eve had lost it. Hugo Cardinalis adds on 8. Canticles: Thou hast found peace, whereas the first parents had lost it: and consequently the most Blessed Virgin found that grace of integrity, and peace, enriched with which the first parents had lost by their warfare against God. — Finally the appendage and supreme strength of this proof the Angel supplies, when he says: Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a Son, etc. For as we said above, pag. 775, so great and so close is the society of the Incarnate Word with his Mother of integrity and glory, that Christ himself, says Tertullian, is to be reckoned of the Virgin.

The second testimony from the New Testament, and that, as it seems to me, sufficiently openly signifying the truth of the Conception of the Virgin Mother of God, can be sought from that Rom. 5 v. 15: Not as the offense, so also the gift: for if by the offense of one many died, much more the grace of God, and the gift in the grace of one man Jesus Christ hath abounded unto many. From which I am pleased to argue thus: The grace of Christ the Lord abounded unto more than the offense of Adam; and consequently it is necessary that the grace of Christ the Lord have been derived to some whom the offense of Adam had not stained: otherwise it appears not how the unshaken truth of the Apostolic Oracle would stand: but if this grace of Christ the Lord Mediator ought to be derived to anyone without experience of the Adamic offense, chiefly to his most beloved Genitrix, as the Doctor signifies most splendidly 3. dist. 3. qu. 1., where he says: The most perfect Mediator has the most perfect act of mediating with respect to some person for whom he mediates: but Christ is the most perfect Mediator: therefore Christ had the most perfect degree of mediating possible, with respect to some creature, or person, with respect to whom he was mediator: but with respect to no person did he have a more excellent degree than with respect to Mary: therefore, etc. — To this tends the argument which Franciscus Mayron draws from this same chapter 3. dist. 3., where after he had said: If the Mother of the Lord had contracted original sin for however little time, or for a single instant, it would have been worse for her than if she had been eternally damned, as to the pain of loss, and sense; he immediately adds: The privileges of the New Testament exceed the old ones, according to the doctrine of Paul Rom. 5. cap.: There however was one woman without sin in the state of innocence. Likewise, As Christ is compared to Adam according to humanity 1. Cor. 15, so the Mother of Christ to Eve in the character of one simply exceeding, as to all innocence. I pass over various divine Oracles of this kind, which could be elicited from the New Testament for confirming the most pure Conception of the unviolated Virgin, so that I may make enough against certain persons from the aforesaid objections.

You will object. 1. That Matthaei 19: They that are in health need not a physician, but they that are ill: but the adversaries say Christ was a physician necessary to the Virgin: therefore she labored under the infirmity of sin, especially original. They confirm from Luke 19: The Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost: but he came to seek the Blessed Virgin; far be it that he did not seek her: therefore she like the others whom he sought had perished through original sin. Moreover they add that 1. Timoth. 1: Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners: but he came to save the Virgin Mary: therefore she was stained with original stain, and held sinful. — I answer: that to expiate sin, and to establish salvation from sins, was indeed one of the principal motives of the Incarnation as it was made; although, as we said, Christ would have come no less even if no sin, whether actual or original, had existed; and consequently his advent was not only that he might save sinners, but also that he might endow and enrich the just with ampler holiness and abundance of graces: therefore although the Virgin Mother of God was immune from every original stain, nevertheless for that reason Christ is to be judged to have come into this world on account of her grace, just as of other men. To these add, that Christ could no less be called both seeker and physician with respect to the most Blessed Virgin, because he preserved her from fall and infirmity of sin by a more abundant and efficacious medicine of grace: nor indeed should only that skilled physician be accounted such who restores lost health, but also he who preserves health already acquired.

You will object. 2. All the oracles of Sacred Scripture by which it is asserted that all men are shaken by sin, and stand in need of the grace of Christ the Mediator for aid and cleansing. Thus that Psal. 13 and 52: All are gone aside, they are become unprofitable together, there is none that doth good, there is not so much as one. Thus also 2. Cor. 5: If one died for all: then all were dead; and Christ died for all. Whence thus argue the adversaries: for whomever Christ underwent bodily death, he had incurred spiritual death: but Christ died bodily for the Blessed Virgin, otherwise he would not have died for all: therefore the Blessed Virgin was spiritually dead: and consequently she incurred at least original sin. Similarly that 1. Timoth. 2: One is the mediator of God and men, Christ, who gave himself redemption for all. From which they thus argue: Christ is Mediator only of those who at some time were divided from God by sin: but Christ is Mediator of all men: therefore all men (even the Blessed Virgin) are divided from God. Likewise that Rom. 5: As by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. From which they thus infer: all men propagated from Adam in the seminal way sinned in him: but the Blessed Virgin was propagated from Adam in the seminal way: therefore she sinned in him. — I answer first, that universal propositions in Sacred Scripture do not embrace the generality of things so but that they mostly suffer limitation and exception; very many examples of this kind can be brought forward; for thus we read Genes. 6: For all flesh had corrupted its way: and yet of that universal dictum the exception is read there in these words: Noe was a just and perfect man in his generations. Similarly Exodus 11, while every first-born of the Egyptian people was slain by the destroying Angel, Scripture says: For there was not any house wherein there lay not one dead; which proposition is equivalent to this general one: no house was, in which someone dead of the first-born did not lie: nevertheless as St. Augustine observes on this passage, there could be some house which had no first-born: therefore the truth of the universal proposition stands with due exception. The same St. Augustine observes on those words Judg. 9: And Abimelech slew his brethren the sons of Jerobaal, seventy men upon one stone: and there remained Joathan the youngest son of Jerobaal: the universal proposition is true, says St. Augustine, namely that he killed all the sons of Jerobaal, although two of them were not killed. — More celebrated than all is the passage from the book of Esther, cap. 15, where Assuerus addressing her says: What aileth thee Esther? I am thy brother, fear not, thou shalt not die: not for thee, but for all men was this law constituted. Where to the universal particle an exception is added. — The same can be confirmed by very many examples from the New Testament. Thus Ioan. 10: I am the door of the sheep: all as many as have come are thieves and robbers. Unless these words be limited by exception, it will follow that all Prophets were thieves and robbers: whence, as Maldonatus observes from Cyril and Leontius, those words are to be taken thus: all as many as have come, and entered not by the door, are thieves and robbers. For he concludes that the Prophets indeed came before him, but entered through him as through the door. And he hands on to us the rule that often propositions of this kind general in the sacred Scriptures must be restricted from the circumstances of place, time, and the things treated of. It stands therefore from these universal propositions, by which it is asserted that all men are held by sin, and sinned in Adam, that they are not so universally to be taken but that they suffer exception. For neither do I judge that from the fact that Jeremias says c. 15: All study avarice; and St. James cap. 3: In many things we offend all, anyone would rightly conclude that all absolutely signified by the name of man, none excepted, study avarice and offend in many things; otherwise Christ the Lord who is true man would have studied avarice and offended in many things. Therefore if from the fact that St. Paul said: All sinned in Adam, it were consequent that even the Blessed Virgin sinned in him and contracted original sin, equally while the truth of these general propositions stands: All are gone aside, together become unprofitable; and all study avarice: and in many things we offend all, it would have to be inferred that the Blessed Virgin went aside together with the rest, became useless, and did no good: similarly that she studied avarice, and offended God in many things: but Catholic ears do not bear this absurd, nay impious inference: therefore neither ought they to bear the aforesaid conclusion of the adversaries. If then the Blessed Virgin is to be excepted from those general propositions, why should she not likewise be judged free from that one, in whom all have sinned? is that sign, all, less canonical, less universal in one proposition than in another? Since therefore in those passages the particle, all, ought not distributively to be taken for all absolutely, but for most, much more are those testimonies of St. Paul to be tempered and limited with respect to the Virgin, insofar as they legislate not of her but of all the other posterity of Adam. — I answer second, that the oracles of the Scriptures ought not otherwise to be taken than the Church judged them to be used: but the universal Church congregated in the Council of Trent, after allegating all the aforesaid texts of Scripture from which it deduces the Catholic dogma, namely that all absolutely propagated from Adam are infected by his sin and made guilty, Session five, and definition on original sin, thus concludes:

Nevertheless this same holy Synod declares that it is not its intention to comprehend in this decree, where original sin is treated of, the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary Mother of God: but that the constitutions of Sixtus Pope IV of happy memory are to be observed under the penalties contained in those constitutions, which it renews.

From which it ought to seem wonderful that even some Catholic Doctors say so assertively that the doctrine of all the Fathers was that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived in sin. For as James of Granada noted beautifully lib. On the Immaculate Conception, disp. 3. cap. 8. num. 6, if all the Fathers had so sensed, the Oecumenical Synod congregated in the Holy Spirit would certainly have perceived it; and if it had perceived it, it would have conformed itself to them, as in other decrees it conforms; for never do General Councils not approve what they see approved by the common opinion of the Fathers. Hardly therefore can I wonder enough that there should be someone among Catholics who detracts more, either by his own judgment or that of whatever other author, than from the authority of the most holy Council of Trent: so that what the Council is unwilling to assert, he himself fears not to affirm with full mouth (with what faculty or permission, I know not). — It is confirmed from the same Apostle: since when he said, in Adam all have sinned, that term "all" denotes entirely the same as "many," when he says there, by the offense of one many died. Either therefore the one term is to be restricted by the other, or the other amplified by the one. Since therefore Paul first used that term "all," and immediately that term "many," the first ought rather to be limited by the second than conversely: therefore the universal sign, all, is modified by the term "many," through which as it were deliberately the Apostle declares himself entirely in this opinion; so that it seems sufficiently to give place to the exception of the Blessed Virgin; for when again he said not "all" but "many," he designated that somehow someone out of all is to be excepted: which exception surely can fit in no title greater than in the Mother of God: deservedly therefore Turrianus in Epist. to the Bishop of Auxerre says: I ask therefore those men, why from the fact that Paul said, In whom all have sinned, they think rather that exception was given to none; than from the fact that the same afterward in the same chapter, at a small interval, said: By the offense of one many died, let us think it given to us.

§ II. — That the immaculate conception of the Mother of God is proved from Councils.

Councils declare and signify the unviolated Conception of B. Mary the Virgin quite openly, while they pronounce her altogether immaculate absolutely. But the sixth Synod celebrates her with this title of honor and glory, Action 11 and 13, while it approves the Letter of Sophronius, in which Mary the Virgin is called holy, and liberated from every contagion, both of body, and soul, and intellect. The seventh Synod illustrates her with the same appellation Act. 3, approving the Synodal Letter of Tarasius, in which these things are had: We venerate also, and adore the image of the Mother of God, and our Lady irreprehensible, immaculate, etc. And in the definition of faith of the same Council, among other things these are had: We confess two natures incarnate for us of the immaculate Virgin Mary. But that epithet excludes every stain whatsoever properly speaking, and that for any time whatsoever. Otherwise, considering the present state of beatitude, any Saint whatever could equally be called immaculate, which is foreign to the mind of the Councils, which establish that title as proper to the Mother of God. — The Council of Basle declares this truth most evidently Sess. 36, where after very much controversy on this matter, it thus decreed:

Hitherto indeed a difficult question has been made in diverse places, and before this holy Synod, concerning the Conception of the glorious Virgin Mary Mother of God herself, and the beginning of her sanctification, some saying that the Virgin herself, and her soul for some time, or instant of time, lay actually under original guilt; others however saying conversely, that from the beginning of her creation God loving her conferred grace upon her, through which liberating and preserving that most blessed person from original stain, he redeemed her by a sublimer kind of sanctification, when the Most High himself founded her, and the Son of God the Father fashioned her, that she might be his Mother on earth. We truly, diligently inspecting the authorities, and reasons, which already for several years have been alleged on public relations on the part of either doctrine before this holy Synod > and also very many others seen on this matter, and weighed with mature consideration; define and declare that doctrine asserting that the glorious Virgin Mother of God Mary, by the preventing and operating grace of the divine Numen singular, never actually lay under original sin, but always was immune from all original and actual guilt, and holy and immaculate, as pious and consonant to Ecclesiastical cult, Catholic faith, right reason, and sacred Scripture, is to be approved by all Catholics, held, embraced; and that hereafter it be licit to none to preach or teach to the contrary. Renewing moreover the constitution on celebrating her holy Conception, which is celebrated by the Roman as well as by other Churches on the sixth of the ides of December by ancient and laudable custom, we statute and ordain that the same celebration on the aforesaid day in all Churches, Monasteries, and Convents of Christian religion under the name of Conception is to be honored with festive praises, and to all the faithful truly penitent and confessed, on that day the solemn celebrations of Masses, a hundred; at first vespers however, or second, as many; to the sermon truly of the divine Word on that feast... celebrated meanwhile on the 15th of the Kalends of October in the year of the nativity of the Lord 1439.

Which sanction indeed ought to be of so much the greater authority, that in that Synod the most holy Prelates were present, especially Louis Alemanus Cardinal and Archbishop of Arles president of that Synod, illustrious by very many miracles after death, as Aeneas Sylvius relates, who afterward was supreme Pontiff by the name Pius II, and who had sat very many years in the Basle assembly, and had keenly defended it against Eugene IV the supreme Pontiff opposing the Synod, and afterward having changed his opinion had assailed it with the greatest zeal. Thus however he speaks in the book Description of Europe, c. 42, which when he was Pontiff, to the sepulcher of Louis Cardinal Bishop of holy Caecilia of that city, he says: whom we saw presiding at Basle in the assembly of the Fathers, a great opinion of miracles arose, and frequent concourse of the infirm from everywhere was made in hope of health. Wherefore Clement Pope VII enrolled him in the album of Beati, as Spondanus relates to the year 1438. Add that not without mature counsel, and not without the judgment of the grave Theologians and Canonists of that time prehad, was that decree published; for we have very many tracts written at that time on this celebrated controversy, published by sanction of that Council, especially the immense volume of John of Segovia, then Canon of the Toletan Church, finally Bishop of Caesarina, and also (as some relate) Cardinal of the holy Roman Church, who, commanding the Fathers of the same Synod, especially Louis Aleman, as he testifies in his preface to the Fathers of the Council, wrote seven allegations, and as many advisements, for the information of the Fathers of the Council of Basle concerning the Immaculate Conception of the most sacred Virgin Mary, her preservation from original sin in the first instant of her animation; to all which responds the book published by Master John de Montenigro Provincial of the Order of Preachers of Lombardy, most famous Theologian of that time. But this especially is to be noted, that the Fathers of that Synod attest that the feast of the Immaculate Conception on the sixth ides of December through the Churches is celebrated by ancient and laudable custom; which surely they would not affirm with such certitude, especially since at that time still prevailed the grave controversy on this matter, and the opposite opinion had very many celebrated champions, unless that had been most constant and ascertained to all; from which it is to be gathered that the feast of the Immaculate Conception was celebrated in the Church not in these last times (as some wish), but from ancient and laudable custom, as the Synod affirms.

You will object. You will reply that Porsena with Cembello, therefore the Council decreed these things because it was embittered against the Dominican Fathers defending the assailed opinion, because their whole Order opposed that Council and was in no wise willing to take part in it or adhere to it. — Truly whoever has read Aeneas Sylvius will laugh at these fictions; who as eyewitness of almost all the deeds done in the Council of Basle relates among other things: And by these very remains also they approved, chiefly by the zeal and diligence of brother Virolai Gullici of the Order of Preachers, a man most outstanding both in genius and solicitude, to whom I attribute of course the dispatching of this matter. To him concurs St. Antoninus 3. part. of the History, tit. 22. cap. 10. fol. 525. col. 1, speaking of the Council of Basle and Felix the Antipope:

Amedeus (he says) they named Felix. Who enthroned not in the see of Peter, but of Lucifer, who placed his seat in the north, instituted some Cardinals, and among them Master John Professor of sacred Theology of the Order of Preachers, who had labored much in sermons and disputations for confirming the conciliabulum, but was quickly taken away by death, etc.

To these add the decree of the Provincial Council of Avignon held an. 1457¹ by D. Peter de Fluxu the elder, a Frenchman of the Order of Minors distinguished by Martin V with the Cardinalitial honor, who attended the Council of Constance. For among the other decrees of that Provincial Synod, it has this:

We statute that the decree made in the Council of Basle concerning the Conception of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary be observed inviolably, strictly forbidding all under pain of excommunication lest anyone presume to preach or publicly dispute anything to the contrary: which if anyone do otherwise, we will that he incur the said sentence ipso facto, and in the first Synod to be celebrated by each one through the Dioceses, we statute that the aforesaid be preached, and enjoined on the Curates of Churches, that they manifest these things to the people. Given in the Cathedral Church of Avignon on day 7 of the Month of September of the year of the Lord's Incarnation 1457. In the Pontificate of D. V. Calixtus Pope III year 3.

There subscribed to this statute not only Peter himself, who presided over that Synod, but also Alanus Cotinus Cardinal of S. R. E., Robert Bishop of Aquae, Peter Bishop of Aptae, George of Cenecensis, Gavacherius of Vapiensis, Nicholas of Massiliensis, Peter of Digniensis, Peter of Glandavensis, Pontius of Vasionensis, John of Regiensis, Stephen of Tricastinensis, Michael of Carpenteroratensis, and John of Aurasiensis. But although the rest of the Councils should fail, for confirming the same truth there would suffice the decree of the Council of Trent Sess. 5, where after it had statuted in faith that all the posterity of Adam whatsoever come forth into light stained by his sin and original stain; at the end of the decrees and canons it declares that it is not its intention to comprehend the Blessed and

Immaculate Virgin under this decree: and moreover commands that the constitutions of Sixtus IV of happy memory be observed. This supreme Pontiff moreover gave three constitutions on this controversy, which we shall relate in what follows, in which although he left indefinite the principal controversy on the immunity of the Blessed Virgin from original sin, nevertheless he expressly condemned censure of the pious opinion, and celebration of the feast of the Conception. — But that the Council approved the three memoranda constitutions, and not only a single one, as some wish, is gathered quite openly from these words, "the constitutions of Sixtus Pope IV of happy memory are to be observed," where he says not constitution but constitutions, whereby he designates that he approves and renews not one but all the constitutions published on this controversy by the same Pontiff; because whenever the Council alleges or refers some Pontifical diploma containing more heads or parts, it always calls it in the singular number constitution, as is evident Sess. 21. on reformation, and Sess. 20. as well on reform. as on regulars, and in many other sessions where Reformation is treated; which passages, because they are obvious and the matter lacks difficulty, it has been enough to indicate; therefore the Council cannot be expounded of a single extravagante of Sixtus IV, since it names his constitutions in the plural.

The adversaries object various Councils, especially the African, in which it was determined against the Pelagians that absolutely all men are infected by the sin of Adam; nay they prove the very same thing from the Florentine under Eugene IV, in which among other things (they say) for the instruction and union of the Jacobites is decreed: Most firmly believes, professes, and teaches the sacrosanct Roman Church, that no one ever conceived from the womb of a woman was free from the dominion of the devil, except through the faith of the Mediator Jesus Christ our Lord, who without sin conceived, born, and dead, blotting out the sins of humankind, alone by his death prostrated, and reserved the entrance of the heavenly kingdom which the first man with all his posterity had lost by his own sin. Hence Caietanus cap. 5 speaking of the Council of Basle says thus: Then since to the said conciliabulum is opposed on the opposite side, that of those, for repairing the Council transferred from Ferrara into Florence, of Greeks, and Latins, under the aforesaid Eugene IV., where among dogmas of faith are handed down these words: Firmly believes, and professes, etc. — Truly I answer, that the same must be replied to the decreta of the African Councils as we replied to the authorities of Sacred Scripture, namely that universal enunciations and those general propositions do not so universally comprehend all men absolutely but that they suffer some exception: and consequently although the Councils statuted that all men whatsoever are stained by Adam's sin, it may tacitly be gathered that those Fathers had the same mind which the Tridentine Fathers had, who although they statuted absolutely that all men whatsoever are infected by Adam's sin, nevertheless declare that it is not their intention to comprehend in this decree the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary. Nor does it stand in the way that the African Fathers prescribed no similar modification and exception; for that ought not seem wonderful, since at that time no controversy was being raised about the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mother of God. As to the Council of Florence it could be said that that decree is altogether fictitious, First, because among the acts of that Council no mention of it is made, although we have three decrees inserted there, the first of which begins: Great indeed are they to us, given at Ferrara 9 April in the year 1438, and it is for the translation of the Council to Florence. The second begins: Consentiente ad infrascripta, or: Let the heavens rejoice, etc., given on the pridie of the Nones of July in the year 1439, and it is the concord with the Greeks on the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. The third begins Exult in God, etc. given on the 10th day before the Kalends of December in the same year 1439, and it treats of the sacraments of the Church, and testimonies to be observed by the Armenians: and it treats of the sacraments of the Church, and testimonies to be observed by the Armenians: but of the Jacobites neither does any word exist, nor is this decree in the Regestum Vaticanum, where there are 210 manuscript books of Bulls of this supreme Pontiff. Nor does it exist either in the collection of Bulls and decrees of the same Pontiff of the first impression of the year 1579, nor second, nor third Roman, although after two whole centuries Laertius Cherubinus inserted it in his Bullarium tom. 1. Constitution 23. of Eugene IV. — Second, that that decree is supposititious appears from its Conclusion; for it has: given at Florence in public Synodal session solemnly in the Church of the house of S. Maria Novella, near which we now reside, celebrated in the year of the Lord's Incarnation 1441, pridie Nonas Februarii, of our Pontificate year VI. In which subscription the reader ought to note, that in that Council no session was held in the Church of the house of S. Maria Novella, which belongs to the Friars Preachers, but all in the greater Church, as appears from the acts themselves; likewise that clause, near which we now reside, was set down in no Bull, or decree of the supreme Pontiff from the days of St. Peter up to the present. Perhaps whatever he was, that Pseudo-Dataire desired that the whole world know the residence of the supreme Pontiff Eugene in the house of the Fathers Preachers. — Third, that: year of the Lord's Incarnation 1441, pridie Nonas Februarii, of our Pontificate year eleventh, do not cohere: for Eugene was created in the year 1431, fifth nones of March, with no Chronologer dissenting; but in the year 1441 up to 5. March was the tenth year of the Pontificate of Eugene: how therefore could pridie nonas Februarii be the eleventh year? In the eleventh year were expedited the bulls of year 1441 from day 5 of March onward: those truly expedited in the month of February were not of the eleventh year: and consequently that Dataire was neither a Courtier, nor an Arithmetician, says de Alva. — Fourth finally false is it that that decree was published by the Council of Florence: because the Council of Florence was finished in the year 1439, pridie nonas Julii, as appears from its acts; how therefore in year 1441 could that solemn Synodal session be held in S. Maria Novella, that it might publish that decree? — To these add, that even if that decree were true, nothing whatsoever would patronize the adversaries; for P. de Alva says mun. 292: The first determination is this: no one is freed from the domination of the devil, except through the merit of the Mediator: therefore, say the Adversaries, all men except Christ contracted original sin: but who will judge this consequence legitimate? Second determination: Christ is conceived without sin, born, and died: therefore, they say, all men except Christ contracted original sin. If this consequence were legitimate: then also this: therefore all men except Christ were born and died with sin. Third determination: the enemy of humankind Christ alone by his death prostrated: therefore, they say, all men except Christ contracted original sin: what kind of inference! Fourth is this: the first man by his own sin lost the entrance of the heavenly kingdom with all his succession: therefore all men except Christ contracted original sin. This indeed seems probable on account of that, with all his succession. Truly it can signify nothing else than that even if in the whole succession of Adam there were no original sin: nevertheless from that sole proper sin of the first man the entrance of the heavenly kingdom was closed, not only to Adam himself, but also to all his succession; for he who shuts the door shuts not only for himself, but also for all others wishing to enter, whether they belong to that house or another, friends or enemies. Therefore that determination, whosever it be, does not patronize the adversaries, nor is the inference legitimate which the adversaries draw: therefore all men except Christ contracted original sin. Nay rather they ought to infer: therefore although there were no other sin than the first and proper one of Adam, neither he himself, nor anyone of his posterity would enter the kingdom of heaven, unless it had previously been unsealed through the death of Christ the mediator.

§ III. — The third proof is sought from the decrees of the supreme Pontiffs of the Church. — First of all for Sixtus IV, who began to sit in the year 1471, on the 9th of August, perceiving that the controversy on the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mother of God excited the greatest tumults among the faithful and various commotions of minds, summoning to Rome most learned men out of every order secular and Regular, in the year 1475 proclaimed a most celebrated and public disputation, agitated through several days, which he himself often honored with his presence and Pontifical authority. In it excelled among all R. P. F. Franciscus Insuber Brixianus of our family of Minors, who also exercised its general prefecture: whom the Pontiff honorably calling him contending most vigorously for the preservation of the Virgin, and plainly victor, said: Thou art, he says, a true Samson: which surname thenceforth adhered to him, nor otherwise in the mouth and writings of men is he called than Franciscus Samson. The outcome of this contestation and disputation was the Bull which begins, Cum praexcelsa, etc. which the same supreme Pontiff published in the year of the Lord 1476, the Kalends of May, of his Pontificate year 6, in which he statuted:

that all and singular the faithful of Christ, of both sexes, who shall have devoutly celebrated and said the Mass and Office of the Conception of the same glorious Virgin, according to the pious, devout, and laudable ordinance of the beloved son Master Leonard de Nogarolis, Cleric of Verona, Notary of Ours, and that which emanated from you thereon, the Mass and institution of this office on the feast day of the Conception of the same Virgin Mary, and through its octaves, or have been present at those Canonical hours, as often as they have done it, let them obtain thence entirely the same indulgence and remission of sins which according to the approvals of Urban V of happy memory in the Council of Vienna, and the constitutions of Martin V and other Roman Pontiffs our predecessors obtain those who celebrate, or say, or are present at the Mass, and office, and Canonical hours on the feast of the Body of Christ, and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ from first Vespers and through its octaves, according to the institution of the Roman Church, valid for present and future times. Which Constititution and Bull is inserted in the Councils of the Surian edition, Cologne 1567, and in the last of Severinus Binius Tom. 4. p. 1. fol. 713, nay also in Canon law among the commons On relics and veneration of saints. — Truly when the adversaries of the Immaculate Conception did not rightly acquiesce in this most equitable judgment of the Apostolic see, nay very many of them condemned as heresy the assertors of that unviolated Conception, especially in Lombardy, another constitution published the same Pontiff in the year 1482, and of his Pontificate year 11, which begins, Grave nimis gerimus, in which under pain of excommunication reserved to the supreme Pontiff he statutes: that those who should presume to affirm that the holy Roman Church celebrates the feast of the same glorious Virgin only of spiritual Conception and sanctification, and that those who believe and hold the same ⟦illegible in OCR — raw garble: «оо ат riйт. pорen alcцus шсreis tahe рolluos pe, ирrое-»; likely further Latin words of the Bull, lost by OCR⟧ are false, and erroneous, and alien from truth, and the books published thereon containing these things, by Apostolic authority with the tenor of these presents we reprove and condemn, and by motion, and authority prodicted we statute and ordain, that Preachers of the Word of God, and whoever others of whatever grade, order, and condition they may be, shall henceforth with rash audacity presume in their predicationes to the people, or elsewhere in whatever way to affirm, that assertions and opinions such as reproved and condemned by Us thus are true, or read, hold, or have the said books as true, after they have had knowledge of these presents, may they incur the sentence of excommunication, and eternal penalty of malediction by that very fact, etc.

— But when notwithstanding this Apostolic constitution certain impugnators of the same Immaculate Conception, judging this Bull to touch only those dwelling in Lombardy, innovated accusations and declamations of that kind against the assertors of the Immaculate Conception in other kingdoms, the same Pontiff two years after publishing the aforesaid Constitution published the same, or another like it, which likewise begins, Grave nimis, etc., in which under the same intermination he generally prohibits accusations of this kind. This Constitution too is inserted in the aforesaid Councils, and Canon law, and with the two prior constitutions the Council of Trent approved it Session 5, as was said above. They approved equally Alexander VI by the Bull which begins, Illius qui, etc. and Pius V in the Bull Super specula, in which moreover this Pontiff prohibits with gravest penalties lest anyone in popular sermons, or wherever a promiscuous multitude of men and women is wont to convene, presume to dispute with reasons or the authority of Doctors either side of this controversy, asserting his own opinion and refuting or assailing the contrary, or under any pretext whatever of piety to write or dictate in the vulgar tongue on this question. Here understand the same clause, refuting or assailing the contrary opinion. Otherwise simply to persuade the truth, even writing in the vulgar tongue, was not prohibited. — Moreover Paul V in the year 1617, on the 31st of August, considering that on occasion of the affirmative assertion, namely that the Blessed Virgin was conceived with sin, grave scandals and dissensions arose in the Christian people, significantly in Spain, interdicted the same opinion under the same penalties from public sermons, lectures, conclusions, and other public acts whatsoever: willing nevertheless under the same penalties that those asserting the pious opinion in the aforesaid public acts not assail the other opinion, nor treat of it or handle it in any way. Although therefore (as the best custom teaches, interpreter of laws, letters consonant to the end) it not be illicit in books easily for arguments of the other opinion to occur, especially to propose them, that they may be solved: for this is not in public acts to impugn the contrary opinion, or treat of it; but rather outside similar acts to treat of the pious opinion, that its truth may shine more clearly with the contrary arguments solved. — Afterward Gregory XV in the year 1622, on the 24th of May, confirming the Constitutions of his Predecessors, and for the same causes of avoiding scandals and discords in the Christian people, which can arise by equal reason, and, as we have heard, already have arisen in some regions from private sermons, on occasion of the affirmative assertion extends the decree of Paul V even to colloquies and private writings, commanding all and singular that even in private sermons and writings they dare not assert that the same most Blessed Virgin was conceived with original sin, nor in any way treat of or handle this affirmative opinion. Except however those to whom it has been specially indulted by the Holy Apostolic See on this matter, and that under the intermination of the penalties contained in the constitutions of his Predecessors. — Further the same Pontiff in the same year on the 27th of July indulted to the Fathers Preachers that in private colloquies, among themselves only, they may dispute and treat of the affirmative opinion. Whether however it is granted to the same there also privately to assert the affirmative opinion among themselves is not sufficiently proven from those words: since it is one thing to discuss and treat, another to assert. For Paul V speaking

It is confirmed first from this, that the supreme Pontiffs approved and confirmed the religious order of Nuns under the title Immaculate Conception, which same order even to this day not only perseveres but is propagated through various regions of the world: and this Order above all Innocent VIII. (who was created in the year of the Lord 1484.) approved in year 5. of his Pontificate, pridie Kalends of May, by the Bull which begins: Inter innumera, etc. in which among other things he concedes:

That Abbesses existing for the time being, and professed Nuns, ought to wear white cloth with scapular also white, and over it mantle of celestial color, on which indeed mantle and scapular the image of the same blessed Mary is affixed, and to be girt with a girdle of hemp in the manner of the Friars Minor, and in saying the Canonical hours according to the manner of the Roman Church in this mode, namely that on Sundays, in which some history is begun, or the office of the Sunday must of necessity be said, and on which duplex, semiduplex, and solemn feasts are celebrated, on feria days also, on which the ferial office cannot be omitted, and at vespers of those feasts only, excepting all other days throughout the whole year, they should say the greater Canonical hours, and the divine office of that Conception; and on the aforesaid excepted days, in which > the greater hours of Sunday, or feria, or feast ought to be said, they should say the lesser hours, and little office of the same blessed Mary with Antiphons, versicles, chapters, and prayers of the same Conception, etc.

The original of this Bull is preserved in the Monastery of Nuns of Toledo; preserved I say, with so much the greater piety, because, as Franciscus Bibarius Cisterciensis narrates in the history of the Conception p. 1. ss. 1. Torres, cap. 11. Aegidius de praesentatione l. 4. q. 6. art. 3. etc., this Bull was preserved by a great miracle. For it happened that the ship in which these Apostolic letters were being carried from Rome to Toledo was submerged by the violence of a storm into the depths of the sea, together with all the other things that were in it, together with the Apostolic letters themselves, which nevertheless after two months were found unhurt, and were received by the venerable Lady Beatrice de Sylva, who had requested those letters. — Julius II., who was assumed to the Pontificate in the year 1503, approved the same order together with the rule by the Bull which begins, Ad statum prosperum, where cap. 2. of the same rule it is had: Whosoever illuminated and invoked by God shall wish to desert the vanity of the world, and assuming the habit of this rule shall wish to be espoused to Jesus Christ our redeemer, venerating the Immaculate Conception of his Genitrix, let them vow always to live without property, and in chastity, with perpetual enclosure. Then truly there is subjoined there the form of Profession which the Sisters ought to emit in these words: I sister N. for the love and service of our Lord, and the Immaculate Conception of the same Genitrix, vow and promise to God, and Blessed Mary Virgin, and blessed Francis, and all Saints, and thee Mother, through the whole time of my life to live in obedience, without property, and in chastity, and in perpetual enclosure under the rule granted and confirmed by the most holy Pope Julius II to our Order. — Leo X approved the same Order in year I. of his Pontificate by the Bull which begins, Quia nuper accepimus, etc. whereby he concedes to those Nuns the same spiritual as temporal graces conceded by the Apostolic See to all Orders of St. Francis. Which approval thereafter the rest of the supreme Pontiffs his successors confirmed, especially Alexander VII, who at the instance of the most Christian Queen Mary Theresa granted the faculty to the Nuns of holy Clare dwelling in the suburb commonly called Sancti Germani a Pratis, insofar as they would clothe themselves in and assume the rule and dress of the Order under the title Immaculate Conception of Blessed Mary.

It is confirmed again from this, that the supreme Pontiffs approved various confraternities erected in the Christian world under the title Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mother of God; of which our most eminent and most pious Franciscus Ximenius Cardinal of S. R. E. erected one distinguished one in the Toletan Church; which institution Adrian VI approved under the same title by the Bull which begins, Sicut Salvatore nostro, etc. in which he grants plenary indulgence to all who should be enrolled in such confraternity, to be obtained on the days of the Conception, or Nativity, or Assumption of the same Virgin Mother of God.

It is confirmed thirdly from all the spiritual favors and indulgences which the supreme Pontiffs have granted on account of the devotion of the faithful toward the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mother of God: since indeed those spiritual graces are not granted except on account of acts of religion and devotion proven and received by the Church, it follows, says Valentia Tom. 4. dist. 2. q. 1. puncto 2, that the supreme Pontiffs in this very thing, that they invited all the faithful to the celebration of this Immaculate Conception, also judged re ipsa that this opinion on the Immaculate Conception be held. The same John Serrarius infers lib. 2. cap. 8, where having related the indulgences of Sixtus IV and other special ones granted by Julius II to those bearing the image of the Conception, he subjoins: Which they would by no means do, if they had doubted about the preservation of the Conception. For it would be a sacrilege to bestow indulgences or graces on a doubtful or not pious matter. And pag. 141, after commemorated indulgences of Leo X.: Surely such and so great concessions no Pontiff here would have made in any way, if he had had any doubt about the Immaculate Conception of the ever Virgin. These indulgences however conceded by all the supreme Pontiffs and spiritual favors you have collectively in the authentic Regestum for defending the title of the Immaculate Conception pag. 599 et seqq.

It is confirmed finally from this, that very many supreme Pontiffs approved the office composed by Leonardo Nogarolo Apostolic Protonotary, and Doctor of sacred Theology most celebrated, in honor of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mother of God: especially Sixtus IV, to whom that office was directed, who moreover granted plenary indulgences to those reciting that office, as appears from the aforesaid Bull, Cum praexcelsa, etc. Who also had commanded that office to be inserted in the Roman Breviary.

Nor does it stand in the way, that Pius V ordered this Office of Nogarolo to be erased from the Roman Breviary; for thence it does not follow that he disapproved the unviolated Conception of the Virgin, as the Adversaries contend. For truly the same supreme Pontiff willed that Office, deposited almost as proper, always be preserved in our family of Minors, and recited by all Religious of the Seraphic Order, as appears from all the editions of that Roman Breviary, at whose end are inserted the proper Offices of the saints of the Order of Minors, with this addition, which Pius V Pont. Max. granted viva voce both for brothers and Nuns of the same Order. These words are had in the Antwerp editions an. 1622. 1627. 1631. 16c6. 1611. 1613. Venice, ann. 1615 and 1636. Madrid editions, an. 1611. 1619. 1623. 1631. Parisian, an. 1630. Roman, ann. 1614. at the types of Bernardinus Tani, and very many others approved by the faculty and subscription of P. Vincentius Martinelli companion of R. P. F. Nicolaus Radulphi Sac. Palat. Apost. Master. — Gregory XIII also approved the offices of Masses of the Order of Minors by oracle of living voice. Similarly Sixtus V and Paul V approved the same offices and granted them to be recited, without any mention of the prohibition of Pius V. It is a sign therefore that Pius V did not prohibit, nay permitted to the Order of Minors the recitation of that Office, in which the Blessed Virgin many times is asserted altogether immaculate, and preserved from all original sin.

The Adversaries object the pretensed decree of the holy Roman and general Inquisition, by which the title Immaculate Conception is prohibited, emanated feria 7 on day 20 of January 1644 conceived in these words:

In the General congregation of the holy Roman and universal Inquisition, held in the Convent S. Mariae super Minervam, before the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lords Cardinals against heretical depravity Inquisitors general, deputed by the Holy See: The Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lords Cardinals Inquisitors General aforesaid decreed, that when it is a question of conferring the title "Immaculate" on the Conception of B. Virgin, in no way may it be permitted: but only let it be said, "Conception immaculate of the Virgin," and they commanded it thus to be observed. In place of the seal. John Anthony Thomassinus Notary of the holy Roman Inquisition.

Truly that decree being fictitious, and elaborated by the Adversaries, appears First, because Pontifical decrees, and those of the H. Inquisition, as soon as they were published, are promulgated, as appears from practice; but this is supposed to have emanated an. 1644, 20. January, that is six whole months before the death of Urban VIII.; yet it became known to the world only two years after the election of Innocent X; but if it was true, and a legitimate decree on so grave a matter, concerning which it had excited such mobs and tumults because of opposing Adversaries, what necessity was there for it to be hidden so long? Nothing does truth blush at, except only to be hidden, says Tertull. lib. Against the Valentinians, cap. 3. — Second, if that decree had been true, why should it flee the presence of the supreme Pontiff, that it might be published in that place, namely in the Coenobium S. Maria super Minervam? Whence was so great an urgent necessity of intempestively elaborating that decree, that its founders could not await the time of celebrating the general Congregation of Cardinals in the Apostolic Palace, which is wont to be done each week before the supreme Pontiff? Certainly that business was of sufficient weight, that nothing whatsoever should be decided about it without consulting the supreme Pontiff; especially since by that decree not only so many Pontifical decrees ought to be proscribed, but even authentic Bulls, in which the title Immaculate Conception is declared and fortified expressly and perspicuously. — Third, there is no greater defect than of power: but that Congregation in which that decree is supposed to have been drawn up possessed utterly no authority for statuting and deciding matters of such weight; since indeed only this Congregation was instituted and deputed, for deciding Ecclesiastical and contentious causes, as appears from Constitution 3. of Paul III beginning Licet, 12. Kal. Augusti ann. 1542, and of Pius IV 79. beginning Cum nos, ann. 1564, not truly those which pertain to matters of religion and divine cult, and morals of the faithful to be informed properly and justly: certain it is however, that that title of the Immaculate Conception, which if it should hold that decree, it would be necessary that by it derogation be made specifically from all the Apostolic Constitutions by which that title Immaculate Conception is conferred and approved; for so long indeed do the Apostolic Constitutions stand until they be revoked expressly and by name: but that this happens by no means appears from the aforesaid decree, and consequently all those Apostolic Constitutions patronizing the Immaculate Conception still obtain full and entire force. — Therefore because Pontifical Constitutions are revoked only by other opposite Constitutions, for the same authority and solemnity is desired in the revocation of law which intervened in its constitution. But who should judge that most prudent and most clear-sighted Cardinals published a decree, of which they could easily conjecture it would be of no force, and of no efficacy, and which openly militated against so many Pontifical Constitutions? — Fifth, if the sacred Congregation constituted that decree motu proprio, and only for preventing or removing some abuse, what necessity was there for the adversaries to offer two public libelli supplices to the Most Eminent Cardinals of the holy Inquisition, for defending the aforesaid decree? For truly if it emanated from true and legitimate Ecclesiastical authority, it did not need the help of adversaries, that it might obtain effect and be committed to execution: these two libelli of theirs, one indeed briefer, the other truly longer, you have in the Seraphic Armamentarium pag. s. with the refutation most learned and erudite of all that they wrongly allege.

§ IV. — The fourth proof drawn from the feast of the Conception celebrated by the universal Church. — For truly the Church celebrates the feast of no one, except on account of his extraordinary sanctity and dignity: but now for many years and centuries the Church has celebrated the feast of the Conception of the Virgin Mother of God: therefore the Church judges that Conception to be holy and immaculate. The major stands, and is admitted by all the SS. Fathers and princes of Theology. For the Angelic Doctor 3. par. qu. 27. art. 1. gathers from this principle that the Nativity of B. Virgin shines with extraordinary sanctity; for after he had ventilated, on either side according to his usual custom, the proposed question, and proposed the arguments assailing the sanctification of the Virgin in the maternal womb, he objects this reason, which he thought most robust for establishing the truth on the contrary side: But on the contrary, he says, is that the Church celebrates the Nativity of B. Virgin: for no feast is celebrated in the Church except for some Saint: therefore the Blessed Virgin in her very Nativity was holy: therefore she was sanctified in the womb. St. Bernard had preceded him Epist. 171. where on the same argument he writes thus:

Holy Church errs not at all in reckoning the very day of his Nativity holy: and each year receiving it with the exultation of the whole earth with all celebration. I think that a more copious blessing of sanctification descended into her, which sanctified not only her origin, but guarded her life thenceforth immune from every sin, which is believed to have been given to none born of women.

Similarly concludes St. Augustine Serm. 113. on St. Cyprian saying: When he (Cyprian) was born we know not, and because today he suffered, today we celebrate his birth-day; but we would not celebrate that day even if we knew it: for on that day he drew original sin: but on this day he conquered every sin. And a little below he concludes: Thence we would celebrate his natalitia, unless precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of Saints. The same has Serm. 95. which is on St. Stephen. Since therefore the Church, as we shall prove presently, has celebrated the festal day of the Conception of B. Virgin already from many centuries, it follows that it confesses and acknowledges that Conception immaculate and preeminent in holiness. — Therefore the minor is proved, namely that the Church celebrated the feast of that Conception, not only from the time of Sixtus IV but also many centuries before: for above all, as

P. Oieda proves with many arguments in his Ecclesiastical Information, cap. 2.), in the Churches of Egypt the feast of the Conception has always been celebrated, which institution they received from St. Mark Evangelist. And in the Syriac New Testament handed down from St. Mark, as Burgensis proves tractatu 1. On the use of the Chaldaic Paraphrase, Salmeron prolog. 35. etc. ad caput 11. Lucae v. 27, is set the title On the Conception of the Mother of God Virgin; just as for the other five feasts of the same. For this peculiarity the Syriac New Testament has, that it be distributed into certain titles designating Gospels and Epistles, which are chanted on the individual feasts; which distribution indeed was made by the most ancient successors of St. Mark, as Fabricius Boderianus affirms in the proemial letter before the Syriac version. — The same Fabricius proves that festivity to be celebrated from antiquity in the Church of the Abyssinians, who relates them asserting that they received their testimonies from the Apostles. — It can be confirmed from St. Thesiphone disciple of St. James, who as is had in one of the books found on the Sacred Mount of Granada in year 1595, relates that the Apostles taught in Council that B. Virgin was conceived without original, in these words: O Virgin, that Mary, that holy one was preserved from original sin in the first instant of her Conception, and free from all guilt. In another book from the aforesaid St. Thesiphon says: Mary the first sin did not touch. And again: By no means full, if she had been conceived in original. Of these books and Granadan plates treats Doctor Luzerus discursu 2. On the Conception; James of Granada De Concept., d. 3. cap. 6.; Madera in the History on the same books; Aegid. De Praesentatione, lib. 3. De Concept., quaest. 3. art. 1. sect. 1. who satisfy the difficulties against the said books and plates, in which they were included; and the University of Complutum noted proposition 11 of Gaspar Ram. Doctor of sacred Theology, by which he asserted the said books to be of no authority, thus: This proposition is manifestly false, since there are many reasons fighting and urging, which affirm that which is said about the sacred Mount of Granata. Aegyd also reports sup. and others that book, plates, relics, and other things found on the sacred mount of Granata were approved by a Provincial Council. Hence our Galatinus lib. 1. cap. 5., when he had praised various Greek Fathers as assertors and champions of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mother of God, adds: As a sign of which thing, they celebrated the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin herself for nearly a thousand years: And in the Martyrology, which is read on the morrow of the feast itself, and which was published by St. John Damascene, among the other things which are pronounced about the most Blessed Virgin herself, it is said: The clean Conception of B. Anna of God, and our Lord, Grandmother. By which words is signified the active Conception, by which St. Anna conceived the most Blessed Virgin in her womb. In the edition truly of the Martyrology by the labor of Henry Canisius, it is had thus: Commemoration of St. Anna mother of the Virgin Mother of God. Some add, as Bivarius ad Chronicum dextri an. 308. comment. 1.: Clean Conception of B. Anna. Whence all experts in Greek history confess that the feast of the passive Conception of B. Virgin was celebrated by the Greeks more than 500 years ago, as Baronius observes in notes to Martyrol. Rom. day 8. December. Although among the Greeks it is celebrated on the following day, that is the ninth of the same month; which certainly openly stands from the constitution of Emperor Emmanuel inserted by Theodore Balsamon in commentary on the Nomocanon of Photius, tract. 1. cap. 1., where among days to be solemnly honored it reads thus: 9th of December, seeing that on it is performed the Conception of the most chaste Mother of our God. Emmanuel moreover began to reign in year 1143. Of the antiquity therefore of the feast of the Conception in the Greek Churches there is no controversy; nay rather it can be said most probably that about the year 900 already the feast of the Conception was celebrated among the Greeks, since the same Baronius testifies that in the Manuscript of the Stortian Library n. 65. is found a sermon of Emperor Leo on the Conception of B. Mary, who entirely is Leo VI surnamed the wise, whose other writings of the same kind Baron. Tom. 10. Annal. an. 911 recounts, into which the death of Leo fell; but the beginning of his reign into year 886. Thence it ought not seem wonderful that Bartholomaeus Bishop Brixiensis in his Repertory p. 2. in verbo feast, says the Church is wont to celebrate a solemn feast on the day of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin. And he narrates moreover that he himself on such a day solemnly celebrated in the chapel of the supreme Pontiff in his presence, and of several Cardinals, as Bernardinus de Bustis relates Serm. 2. On the Conception: but this Bartholomaeus lived around year 1227. Therefore two centuries before Sixtus IV the Roman Church already kept the festal day of the immaculate Conception of the Mother of God Virgin. To these add that in year 1263, day 20 May, on the feast of Pentecost were held at Pisa the General Comities of our Seraphic Order, approving and presiding St. Bonaventure then General Minister, where among the other things which were piously and religiously statuted and decreed, as Wadingus Tom. 2. in Chronicle IV. an. 2. n. 16. and Michael Angelus in Chronology of the 12. General Chapters relate, this decree is read: Then it was ordained, that this strophe Gloria tibi Domine, qui natus es de Virgine, etc. close all Hymns from nativity of Lord unto Epiphany, and similarly at Prime be said: Qui natus es de Maria Virgine. Likewise commanded, that these feasts be admitted in the order, namely of the Conception of B. Mary, of her Visitation, of B. Anna his Genitrix, and of Martha the Virgin, etc. Therefore long before Sixtus IV the feast of the Conception was sacred in the Church.

The Adversaries reply: if truly this feast had long since been celebrated in the Church, it would not have been hidden from St. Bernard: but he Epist. 174. to the Canons of Lyons keenly assails them because they celebrated the feast of the Immaculate Conception of B. Mary rashly and without consulting the Apostolic See, and there with very many reasons demonstrates that the Conception of B. Virgin was not immune from original sin: We marvel greatly what seemed good at this time to some of you, to wish to change the best color, introducing a new celebration, which the rite of the Church knows not, reason does not approve, ancient tradition does not commend.

Whence after certain reasons alleged by which he impugns the Immaculate Conception, he concludes:

Wherefore although to some few sons of men it is given to be born with holiness, not however also conceived: that surely for one alone might be reserved the prerogative of holy conception, who would sanctify all, and he alone coming without sin would make purification of sins. Therefore the Lord Jesus alone conceived of the Holy Spirit, because he alone, and before conception holy. This excepted, as to the rest it regards all born of Adam, which one humbly of himself confesses truthfully. Saying, In iniquities was I conceived, and in sins my mother conceived me.

Since these things so stand, > what now will be the festive reason of the Conception? In what way, I say, will either be asserted a conceptus who is not of the Holy Spirit, nay let me say of sin, or be held festal one who is not at all sanctus? Willingly will the Glorious One be without this honor, whereby either sin seems honored, or false sanctity introduced. Otherwise no reason will please her of novelty presumed against the rite of the Church, mother of temerity, sister of superstition, daughter of levity.

These things St. Bernard. — I answer first that it does not seem improbable to me the opinion of those who judge that letter of St. Bernard supposititious, and not the genuine whole of him; which indeed many not light reasons intimate. First, because St. Bernard expressly pronounces in several places that the Conception of B. Virgin was entirely immaculate. Thus Serm. 13. On the Nativity of the Lord: There is not among the sons of men greater, or lesser, who was not conceived in sins, except the Mother of the Immaculate, who does not make sin, but takes away the sin of the world: concerning whom when sins are treated, I wish to have no question whatsoever. And Ser. 1. super Salve regina: Thou wast innocent from original and actual sins, none thus except thee. And the authority of Aug. is brought in, when pure ones are treated, etc. Although it may be doubted whether these sermons are St. Bernard's, and Horstius even replaced them among the false supposititious ones of that mellifluous Doctor; nevertheless the Lyonnese edition of the works of St. Bernard at John Clein anno 1515 ranks them as genuine, in which it is related that edition was made after collation made of such works by the Religious of Clairvaux with the Archetypes of the same Monastery. Be that as it may, certain it is they were published by a man most learned of that time, who also praises St. Augustine as assertor of this opinion. The same P. Oieda in his information cap. 14., as Cavellus relates in the Rosary, who draws also no light argument that this letter is supposititious, from the fact that Bernard himself Epist. 281. to Eugene complains of falsification of his letters: We have been imperiled, he says, by false brothers, and many letters of ours falsified under our falsified seal went out into the hands of many: and Epistle 298. to the same he complains of Nicholas, who falsified his hand and seal, which previously he had been forced to change on account of preceding falsifications: Who can say (he says) to how many persons under my name, unknown to me, wrote what he wished? who will give me, that your Curia itself be purged clean of the filth of his lies? who will give me, that the innocence itself of those who are with me suffice to be excused before those circumvented by his most shameless lies? He too confessed himself several times to have written in the same falsity, and not once, partly convicted, partly confessing. This Nicholas was Monk and Secretary of St. Bernard from Epistle 351. added, and knew how to imitate his style to the life, as Baronius shows ad an. 1146. n. 22. from Epistle 31 lib. 6. of Letters of Peter of Cluny, which is in his own and Bernard's manner, almost wholly written with the words of Scripture. This foundation supposed, namely that innumerable letters were given falsely under the name of St. Bernard, it does not seem improbable that the said Letter to the Canons of Lyons is one of the falsified ones.

Second, because the Letter says the feast of the Conception was unheard of; but Bernard well knew that it was kept in the Martyrologies of Adon, Bede, and Usuard.

Third, it was then being celebrated in the Church of Narbonne, and other primary Churches of France, as P. Oieda shows cap. 11; why therefore does the Letter reprehend

the Lyonnese, and not others?

Fourth, in the life of St. Bernard by Guliel. Bernard, and Gaufrid, there is not even a word about that litigation with the Lyonnese, though they write far more minute matters which Bernard handled with other Churches, and Epistles given to them.

Fifth, nowhere is had the response of the Lyonnese: and certain it is they would have responded, if they had received such a letter from St. Bernard. If you say the response perished; how does no memory of it remain? And where St. Bernard's replica?

Sixth, flourished in that century in letters and holiness in France Algerius Cluniacensis Monk, Hildebertus Archbishop of Tours, Peter of Cluny, Hugo Victorinus (these three familiarly corresponding with St. Bernard), Petrus Blesensis, and others: none of whom even apparently assailed or reprehended the feast of the Conception. And if they had seen Bernard assailing it, either they would follow, or resist, or at least make some mention of this matter: but nothing of these happened. Many other reasons and conjectures P. Oieda brings forward above, by which the said Letter to the Canons of Lyons is rendered most suspect of falsification. From which it stands that the said letter is no less, perhaps more doubtful than the aforesaid sermons, which the Adversaries deny are Bernard's, because they declare the Virgin immune from original sin.

Nor does it stand in the way some diversity of style; because perhaps while he himself spoke, others took down from his mouth, but in their own style, which certainly mostly happened, as he notes himself Epist. 18.: Certain brothers, he says, of those hearing me speak to them, took down in their own style, and retain with themselves. — I answer second, that even if this letter be genuine St. Bernard's, yet in it he neither disapproves nor impugns the mystery and feast of the Immaculate Conception, in that sense in which both are now celebrated in the Church. For when he contends that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in sin, there he does not take the word "Conception" for animation of the foetus, or union of soul with body, but for the active conception of the parents themselves. For refuting the reasons for celebrating the Conception, which the Canons of Lyons put forward; especially that the conceptus ought to be honored, who preceded the partus worthy of honor: since if that had not preceded, neither would that be which is honored, he says:

What has it of consequence: that since the sanctus preceded the birth, therefore the conceptus be reckoned, and this sanctus? Surely because it preceded him, did it also make him holy? Because if it preceded that he might be, yet not that he might be holy. Or that holiness itself would he transmit to one about to follow? Or not rather because he preceded conceived without holiness, it was needful doubtless that she be sanctified conceived, that already the partus following might be holy? Or perhaps has the prior borrowed holiness from the posterior? Indeed that which, already conceived in the womb, was made a sanctification could pass to the natalis which followed, but to return backward to the conceptus which had preceded it by no means could. Whence then the holiness of the Conception? Or is it said prevented by sanctification, insofar as she would already be conceived sancta, and thence both conceptus was sanctus who in the womb is said to be so that as sanctus also ortus would follow? But she had no strength to be sancta before being. Seeing that she was not before she was conceived. Or perhaps amid marital embraces holiness mixed itself with the Conception itself; so that at once both sanctified and conceived? Nor does reason admit even this. For how either > holiness without the Spirit sanctifying, or society of the holy Spirit with sin, or surely how did sin not flee where libido was not absent? Unless perhaps someone say that she was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and not of man. But hitherto unheard of.

Thus St. Bernard. — By which it openly stands that he speaks only of active and corporeal Conception, whence deservedly concludes (as was said above) only Christ the Lord to have been conceived with holiness, because he was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and because he alone was before conception holy. — I answer third with Horstius in annotations on this letter, that although St. Bernard truly spoke of the passive Conception, whose feast he wished celebrated, nevertheless for this reason he did it, because it had not yet been prescribed by authentic decree of the Roman Church; whence he says: The authority of the Apostolic See ought first to be consulted. And he closes the letter in these words: But what I have said was said without prejudice to a saner old wise man, especially the authority and examination of the Roman Church; I reserve all this whole matter just as the rest which are of such kind: if I think otherwise than itself, ready to amend by its judgment. But now St. Bernard securely holds what he desired; for he sets no other condition for judging the feast of the Conception to be celebrated, except decree and authority of the Roman Church: but this condition has been fulfilled now since the time of Sixtus IV.: therefore from that time Bernard is secure about the sanctity of this festivity and mystery, and stands and subscribes for it; and consequently it is wrongly brought forward by the Adversaries in defense of their opinion.

Others reply that the Conception of B. Mary Virgin is celebrated, not indeed because she was holy, but because it was the beginning of our sanctification and redemption, so that that celebration is rather an act of thanksgiving, that God on that day granted us the Virgin from whom Christ would be born, than special commemoration of any sanctity wherewith the Conception of the Mother of God Virgin was gifted and illuminated. — Truly, says Vazquez disp. 197. n. 63, this response is easily refuted by the very decree of Sixtus IV, because the Pontiff decreed not only in it that the feast of the Conception of B. Virgin should be celebrated in the Church; but also approved the office of Leonard de Nogarolis Cleric of Verona and Apostolic Protonotary, for the celebration of the same feast; in which however the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin everywhere was called. Moreover the same Pontiff there exhorts the faithful to render thanks to God for the wonderful Conception of the same Immaculate Virgin: but he would not call that Conception wonderful unless the Virgin were conceived beyond the usual manner in grace and holiness; for her Conception would have nothing else wonderful, since she was conceived in the manner of other men as regards nature.

The rest reply with Caietano Opuscul. De Concept., cap. 2., that the feast of the Conception is celebrated, not indeed respectively to the instant of animation and passive Conception, but with respect to the sanctification in the womb, which followed animation a little after. — Truly this response is precluded in the bull of Sixtus IV which begins, Grave nimis, etc. in which he says: Certain Professors of diverse Orders, deputed to preach the Word of God in diverse cities, and places, and parts of Lombardy, have not blushed hitherto publicly to affirm, and cease not daily to preach, that the Roman Church celebrates only spiritual Conception- > "or sanctification of the Virgin Mary." And below: We therefore wishing to oppose these rash audacities, and perverse assertions, motu proprio, and from our mere deliberation, we reprove and condemn by Apostolic authority assertions such of whomsoever, who should presume to affirm that the same Roman Church celebrates the feast of the same glorious Virgin only of spiritual Conception, and sanctification, etc. seeing they are false, erroneous, and alien from truth. This Constitution Alexander VI confirmed in the bull which begins, Illius qua se, etc. in which when he had premised the aforesaid bull of Sixtus IV he subjoins: With the tenor of these presents we decree and declare the praeinserted letters, and all and singular things contained in them, ought to be observed inviolably for perpetual and future times, until otherwise decided and ordained by the Apostolic See.

Therefore under Apostolic intermination each of the faithful is bound to celebrate the feast of the natural Conception of B. Virgin, and consequently to venerate that Conception as holy and Immaculate.

Therefore it must be concluded with Peter Buro, who flourished around year 1500, in the Poem on B. Virgin:

Who now may doubt to celebrate Mary's conception? Who refuse yearly incense to give at feasts? This the see of Peter, head, and glory of city, and world, Both honors, and commands through pious temples to be honored. No religion is, no temple religious There where honor of the conception, let it now be silent. Equal to me a miracle it seems these feasts dedicated Among Christ-loving climes however many have. I doubt indeed nothing, this done by supreme Numen, That the Argive honors what Ausonian honors. And what Gaul honors, Dace honors, and Bohemia, And Germany, Iberia, England, and Illyria.

§ V. — The fifth proof is led from the authority of SS. Fathers, who by constant tradition propagated this truth down to us. — Innumerable are the oracles of SS. Fathers and Doctors of the Church existing in whatever age, which expressly pronounce the Virgin either absolutely altogether immaculate, or free from every sin, or potent above all creatures in purity. For although few before Augustine's times be (since not yet had the grave controversy about original sin broken forth) who distinctly put forward that she was not stained by original stain; nevertheless they sufficiently signify this openly, while they affirm her every sanctity, or purity, or cleansing and immunity from all sin. Out of those however so many and so great oracles, which our de Alva brings forth even to six thousand, and out of very many which our Cavellus collects and reviews in his Rosary, my mind is here to attach only choicer ones. — It comes forth first of all St. Andrew Apostle, who, as the Presbyters of Achaia relate in his life, used to say: As the first Adam was formed of earth before it was cursed; so the second Adam was formed of virginal earth never cursed. Surius gives this life of St. Andrew, and Bellarminus testifies lib. On Ecclesiastical Writers that it is not to be doubted; whence

The Roman Breviary too, recognized and approved by Pontifical authority, it was inserted, after concerning it dispute had been keenly had among learned men, and approved by consent of all. — St. James intimated the same in his liturgy, in which after consecration is had: Mind especially most holy, immaculate, blessed above all, our glorious Lady Mother of God ever Virgin Mary. And the Chorus responds: It is worthy that we call thee truly blessed, Mother of God, irreprehensible in all ways: but if she had been stained with original sin she could not be called immaculate, nor irreprehensible in all ways: therefore St. James judged her immune from original sin. Hence it is, that Flavius Dexter praeses Barcinonensis A Consiliis to Emperor Theodosius, in book of History Omnimodae, of which Marcus Castella writes broadly in preface to the History of St. James, which book he dedicated to St. Jerome, relates that by St. James aforesaid was celebrated in Spain the feast of the Immaculate and Unviolated Conception of the Genitrix of God. To these add what we said about celebration of the feast of the Conception in the Churches of Egypt, from ordination of St. Mark, that thence thou understandest the opinion defending the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God Virgin to have been derived from the Apostles down to us. — Whence also patronize this truth those who wrote in first, second, and third century: for St. Ignatius Epist. to St. John: In Mary human, he says, nature is joined to Angelic sanctity: but how would nature be joined to Angelic purity and sanctity, if Mary had been stained by original guilt? Hence Justin Martyr q. 136. ad Orthod., said Mary to be of pure soul, which wholly looks toward God. By what reason truly would she wholly look toward God, if previously through original sin she had been enslaved under the tyranny of the devil? Others very many subscribe to these, especially St. Hippolytus Martyr, prayer On the Consummation of the world: Christ, he says, came from a holy and immaculate Virgin. Similarly Origenes Homil. 1. ex variis making sermon on the Virgin, says: Neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected by his poisonous breath. But how would she not have been infected by the poisonous breath of the devil, if truly she had contracted original sin? The same also most excellently teaches the author of the Sermon On the Nativity of Christ, among the works of St. Cyprian, where treating of the Virgin Mother of God says: Nothing in her does he require further, nor does preceding pleasure ask any usury of punishments. The Holy Spirit overshadowing, original fire was extinguished, and therefore it was not fitting that she unharmed be afflicted: nor did justice sustain that vessel of election be injured with common injuries, since differing much from the rest, he communicated to nature, not guilt. By which words, says Vazquez disp. 117. num. 33, although he seems only therefore to assert Mary gave birth without pain, because she conceived without carnal pleasure, whence what we contend could by no means be proved; nevertheless if rightly weighed, he rather thinks Mary gave birth without pain because she contracted no original guilt, when he says: He communicated to nature, not guilt. For neither do women bear sons in pain because they conceive with pleasure; seeing that a woman who conceived without pleasure, in sleep or by art of daemon elsewhere human seed conveyed, would nevertheless bring forth in pain: but because through original sin they become partakers of Eve's malediction. For to Eve on account of sin it was said Genes. 3.: In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children: which tradition of misery passed together with original sin to posterity.

The third and fourth century supplies more assertors of the same truth. Especially truly St. Ambrose, explicating Serm. 22. in Psal. 118. that I have gone astray like a sheep, writes thus:

Thou therefore, seek thy sheep, now not through servants, not through hirelings, but through thyself take me up in flesh, which fell in Adam: take me up not from Sara, but from Maria, that incorrupt be the Virgin, but Virgin through grace whole from every stain of sin.

He says whole from every stain of sin, and therefore from stain of original guilt. Add that in the Office of Immaculate Conception approved by Pius V from the same are inserted these words: In which there was neither knot of original, nor bark of actual fault. Which words are thought taken from Commentaries on Isaias, or from Serm. De Nabuthae. Similarly St. Ephrem, whose works by testimony of Hieron. De Script. Eccles., were wont to be read in Churches after sacred Scripture, Orat. on the Genetrix of God, tom. 5: Immaculate, undefiled, incorrupt, and most alien from every stain of sin.

— St. Jerome in Psalm. 77. explicating that: And he brought them out in the cloud of the day, says: Or certainly we ought to take the light cloud for holy Mary weighed down by no human seed. Wherefore however she is called cloud of day, he expounds with these words: For that cloud was not in darkness, but always in light. But if B. Virgin had contracted original sin, and had lacked justice and sanctity, doubtless she would have been in night rather than in day.

— In the same century flourished St. Augustine, who lib. On Nature and grace, cap. 36., when Pelagius contended that man could live not only without sin, but also justly, and had recalled examples of very many who are said to have lived justly and without sin in sacred Letters; after Augustine related his words in that chapter, subjoins:

Except therefore holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of honor of Lord, I wish to have no question whatsoever when sins are treated: whence, or rather thence we know that more grace was conferred upon her to conquer sin from every side, she who merited to conceive and bring forth him whom it is established had no sin? This Virgin excepted therefore, if we were able to gather together all those Saints both men and women while they lived here, and interrogate them, etc.

By which words although perhaps St. Augustine institutes discourse only of actual sins, nevertheless sufficiently signifies that he excludes original sin equally from the Virgin Mother of God. For indeed this general reason why he would not include B. Virgin under that universal proposition, namely on account of honor of the Lord, and because she merited to conceive and bring forth him whom it is established had no sin, equally concludes of exclusion of original as actual sin. Add that absence of actual sin in adult age is an infallible sign of immunity from original sin at the beginnings of life, according to doctrine of the same most holy Doctor: for lib. 5. Against Julian, c. 15., where proving it to be the same to have sin as to have done it, concludes concerning Christ: certainly sin even greater it would have been if the little one had had it.

— In sixth and seventh century come forth, especially Gregory lib. 1. cap. 1.: Lofty Mary, that she might extend toward conception of eternal Word, by contest of merits advanced above all choirs of Angels even to throne of Divinity. Therefore since good Angels never were polluted, the same must be said a fortiori of Mary, that she might be disposed worthily for conception of Word.

— Similarly Andreas Cretensis, Homil. 1. On Virg. Dormition: she since she was immaculate, unpolluted, etc. And below: The Seraph itself fleshly nature by miracle of divine generation, of first nature closely approaching God. And Homil. 2.: alone beyond nature was she elected, alone served Artificer of all nature. Therefore otherwise than others sanctified in womb was she elected.

— To the same S. Eligius, Homil. 2. On Purification: Never is judged unclean she who overshadowed by Holy Spirit is proved to have generated author of all cleanness.

— Sophronius in Epist. of which in 6th Synod tom. 3 p. 307 says: Virgin therefore called immaculate, because corrupted in nothing. And Orat. in Christi natalitia: Christ into most manifest judgment of omnipotent Divinity of himself preserved Virgin from whom he came forth whole, incorrupt.

— Ildephonsus Archbishop against those disputing virginity and parturition of Mary (is had the proposition concerning), for thus he says: When filled by Holy Spirit, was she not without original sin! And below: Nor did she sanctified in womb contract original sin. And in same book: It stands she was immune from original sin. And there: She sanctified in womb did not contract original sin. Likewise: Wholly foreign from curse of first damnation.

— In eighth century distinctly professed this truth St. Damascenus, Orat. 1. On Nativity of Mary, after beginning, where he says: Nature dared not at all to anticipate grace being made, but awaited so long until grace produced its fruit. Likewise: O blessed loins of Joachim, whence flowed immaculate seed! O precious couch of Anna, in which formed was fruit most holy of all incorrupt! Last words seem evident for immaculate Conception, because fruit is not formed most holy if it was formed enemy of God, infected by sin. And there: O most holy one, who deceived principalities and powers, extinguished with fiery darts the wicked one's both kinds, who turned in bridal chamber of spirit and preserved immaculate for bride of God! And Orat. 1. On Assumption: Grace found abyss, which had preserved safe ship of twofold virginity, and guarded innermost no less than virginal body. And there Orat. 2.: To this paradise serpent Mary had no access.

— Holy Germanus Constantinop., Serm. de Festis, conc. B. Virg., ex Suppl. 13. on same Psal. 86. Glorious things are spoken, etc. I judge manifestly, and without contradiction, that she who is above all, in magnitude and purity of divine and lofty virtues excelling all, Mary is bound to no guilt.

— In ninth and tenth century a man most learned and most holy, who on account of signal humility willed to be called Idiota, lib. On Contemplation of Virgin, cap. 2.: All fair, Virgin most glorious, not in part but in whole, and stain of sin whether mortal, venial, or original is not in thee, nor ever was. And cap. 6.: Thou wast preserved from original stain. And cap. 3.: O preblessed, conblessed, and postblessed Virgin Mary! Haymo disciple of Alcuin, Epist. De Assumpt.: In the very inheritance of Lord dies Mary, who by sinning departed not from possession of Lord. Fulbertus lib. 1. De Maria, cap. 7. Orat. on Salutation of Angel: Immaculate thou didst ever stand from beginning of thy creation, because thou wast about to bear Creator of all holiness. Related by Canisio lib. De Deipara, cap. 1. Coccino, and others.

— In the eleventh century flourished St. Anselm, and in the book

On the Virginal Conception, among other things he has: The beginnings of thy Conception deservedly ought to be venerated by the sons of holy Church, if they be believed to be set apart from the yoke of sin, since to believe otherwise is lawful to no one, etc. And cap. 18.: It was fitting that the conception of that man come about of a Mother most pure, it was too becoming that that Virgin shine with that purity, than which a greater cannot be understood under heaven, etc. The same Anselm in the Epistle to the Bishops of England relates three miracles, by which through holy apparitions and revelations the feast of the Conception was commanded to be celebrated. Of whose letter as authentic Gerson makes mention Serm. De Conceptione, and Bacconius English Doctor, who flourished almost 100 years before, 4. dist. 2. quaest. 3. art. 1., and several others whom Cavellus cites. Hence St. Anselm instituted that the feast of the Conception should be celebrated in England, as is had in the Council of Canterbury, witness Bacconius Quolibet 13. and several others.

Peter Damian, Serm. On the Assumption of the Virgin: The flesh of the Virgin taken from Adam admitted not his stains. And Serm. On the Nativity of the Virgin: Nothing of vice could vindicate for itself a place in her body or mind, she who merited to be the sacrarium of the whole Trinity: therefore as her body never was corrupted, so also her mind never was stained. St. Bruno on Psal. 101 on: The Lord looked down from heaven upon earth, says: This is that incorrupt earth which the Lord blessed, free therefore from all contagion of sin, through which we have known the way of life: which because it was worthy, the Lord looked upon from heaven upon earth. Those words are to be weighed, free from all contagion of sin, which are understood both of actual as of original sin; otherwise the Virgin could not be called incorrupt earth, upon which the Lord would look from heaven. And Serm. On the Nativity of the Virgin: Death was made by Eve, life restored through Mary: she was conquered by the devil, this one bound and conquered the devil. She conquered not as regards death of body: therefore as regards death of soul. Ivo Bishop of Chartres, Serm. On the Nativity of the Lord, ex Coccio in Thesauro tom. 1 lib. 3.: For one alone he blotted out both original and actual guilt in her: not by removing but by preserving; because in the same manner he blotted out both guilts in her, and certain it is that he blotted out actual guilt by preserving her from it.

— In the same and following century there openly militated for the Immaculate Conception not only the Canons of Lyons but also Peter Comestor in the book On the Immaculate Conception: In all things the Mother of God sought rest, and found it: in Conception did she rest, and did she not diminish? Trithemius and Possevinus mention this book. Nicolaus Monk of St. Alban in England, a most learned man and most versed in Scriptures, contemporary of St. Bernard, lib. 9. Letters of Peter Cellensis Epist. 9. (had tom. 2. Bibl. PP.), responding to a certain letter of the same Peter, which is Epist. 23. lib. 6., by which he keenly reprehends him because St. Bernard put off due veneration when he said: The soul of the Virgin herself a sword pierced, not only in the Passion of her Son; but also lately in the commendation of her own Conception — which Peter calls a stone of offense and rock of scandal — thus says:

Concerning the stone of scandal to be removed from your heart, somewhat longer must we linger, because the matter requires that I make manifest what I proposed to conceal. That holy Bernard whom you say once put off due veneration (inscribed in the catalog of SS.) lately was canonized in the Church, and exempted from human judgment. Exempted I say is he, lest we doubt his glory, but not that we dispute less concerning his sayings. Concerning the glory of B. Martyr Cyprian he did long ago not doubt: nevertheless that he erred in the gifts of the Holy Spirit is proved most truly; error deleted by martyrdom he writes, and thus taught the Church to venerate the glory of the Martyr, yet not imitate his error. I however although with not like science yet with like conscience thus venerate B. Confessor Bernard, that I praise and love his sanctity, yet neither praise nor love his presumption regarding the Conception of the Mother of God.

Thence gather that the celebration of the feast of the Conception at that time was common, at least in England, because not long before Anselm flourished who introduced it: otherwise Nicolaus would not so boldly reprehend Bernard. Richard à S. Victore 39. on Canticles: Mary is above men, in that never did she commit sin as men do: among us none is found who does good and sins not. And cap. 26.: All fair was she, whom grace possessed wholly, because no sin had place in her. And below: Stars are darkened, that is the saints, with the mist of human guilt: but B. Virgin all fair was, whom the sun of justice illustrated wholly, that she had neither stain nor darkness of guilt. And de Emmanuele lib. 2 cap. 31 he says: That in her corruptibility in things pertaining to punishment, and incorruptibility not only were abysses... he says: It befitted not that Mary whatever guilt liable. Cited by Busti Serm. 1 de Conceptione.

— In the thirteenth century flourished the most illustrious and most holy Patriarch Dominic, founder of the most flourishing Order of Preachers, famous for all piety and wisdom, who in the treatise On the Body of Christ which he wrote against the heretical Albigenses says: As the first Adam was formed of virgin earth never cursed, so it behooved it to become in the second Adam, namely Christ, whose earth, that is the Virgin Mother, never was cursed. Very many Authors mention this book, as seen in Carellum century 13. of his Rosary, and Alva in Sole veritatis num. 307., who equally assert that said book cast into fire once and again by the heretic Albigenses rebound unhurt and untouched; which Vincentius Bellovacensis also narrates, who died 35 years after his most holy Patriarch Dominic, lib. 29 cap. 96 of his Speculum Historiale. The same has holy Antoninus 3 part tit. 19 cap. 2 § 4 and several other writers of the life and miracles of St. Dominic.

The Adversaries reply that the aforesaid book was published not by St. Dominic but by a certain Dominic de Pantaleonibus Florentine of the Order of Preachers, who up to year 1262 is said to have written On the Body of Christ and against the Immaculate Conception. — Truly, as De Alva excellently replies trist. num. 2., this author seems altogether fictitious: First, because no ancient Writers or Nomenclators write his name: only some Recent writers of the Order of Preachers mention him. Second, at the time of the Council of Basle the PP. Preachers scrutinized all Libraries and Authors who militate for the purest Conception of B. Virgin, that they might supply arms to Turrecremata whereby he might impugn that immaculate Conception: but among the 28 Authors numbered by him for his opinion out of the Order of Preachers, none Dominic de Pantaleonibus is found: nay not even any praised by that name by the Anonymous who numbers for the same opinion out of the same Order 52 authors, nor by Peter de Vincentia who relates 69, nor Bandello who relates 72, nor other older writers of the same Order, who make not even the least mention of this Author. Third, false is it that in year 1262, wherein St. Thomas was born 31 years and St. Bonaventure 10, so grave a controversy broke forth between PP. Dominicans and Minors, that Dominic de Pantaleonibus needed to write a book on the defiled Conception of the Virgin against the Minors, as Michael Pocciantus Florentine relates in his Catalogue of Florentine writers fol. 47., where he says: Dominicus Panthaleonus Father of Order St. Dominic, perpetual cultivator of philosophy, etc. composed on the Conception by dialogue against Friars Minor. Likewise another treatise on the same matter, etc. But all these remain in the Library of Cenolii s. Mariae Vozellae, of which he was alumnus: died Florence 1376 day 28 August. All which are fictitious: for St. Antoninus Florentine in the same city and convent S. Mariae Novellae composed his catalog of all Authors who militated for the Conception of the Blessed Virgin, and makes no mention of this author. Our Lucas Wadingus indeed in the Catalogue of Seraphic Religious Writers pag. 101. brings forward this Dominic Pantaleone Florentine among Minors, with the same treatises on the Conception of B. Mary: dialogue on the same: substance of Orbis; form of consecration blood Christ, etc. Another thing is to write treatise on the Conception blessed Mary Virgin, another truly to inveigh against her and against Minors. Wherefore the aforesaid book On Body of Christ acknowledges no author other than the most holy Patriarch Dominic.

In the same century flourished our Alexander Alensis, Doctor and Master in Theology of the Angelic and Seraphic Doctor, who although 3. part. quaest. 9. memb. 2. he may seem to assert that the Conception of the Virgin Mother of God was vitiated by original sin; nevertheless such was not his mind: for he speaks only of the active Conception, and on the part of the parents, not truly of the passive, and on the part of the Virgin, as De Alva proves excellently in Sole veritatis num. 12. Thence it appears that his mind and opinion he clearly signified in the book which he wrote on the life of B. Virgin divided into six books, where near the end of the third he treats of the Conception which he teaches immaculate and immune from original sin: as very many grave Authors related, and as is seen in Cavellus and De Alva just praised; among whom excels Goschalcus Hollen of Order S. Augustine in sermon Conception, where from book published by Alensis he relates:

Not yet were the abysses, that is, he says, the depths of original sin. I had already been conceived; for abyss is said from a, which is "without," and byssus, which is a certain luminous, fine, and clean thing made by weaver's work, whose contraries are in original sin, which is darksome through privation of the light of grace, and gross through perpetual loss, and foul through lack of divine love. Not yet therefore were the abyssi, that is, the depths of original sin, and I had already been conceived, namely with the grace of God preventing, etc.

Hence Michael de Carchano Mediolanensis Doctor, ancient and of most proven life, in his Quadragesimale on penance, sermon on the Conception p. 3., speaking of Alexander de Ales and his liberation from a most grave infirmity by the merits of the Virgin Mary, says thus:

He himself truly not ungrateful for so great a benefit repays what he promised: and composed one beautiful book, in which are contained all the deeds of that mellifluous Conception of the Virgin, which is divided into six books; and at the end of the third book, chapter penultimate, he asks whether the blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin: and at the head of the question he sets forth the whole miracle wrought by the Virgin upon himself, and thus determines that the Virgin was conceived without original sin: he teaches and preaches her conception to be celebrated, and venerates and retracts whatever he had said in his sentences, etc.

And there subscribe many of the ancient writers, especially Daniel Agricola in his Corona on the Conception, John Vitalis Cardinal in his Defensorium, and Alanus Parisiensis, who wrote before the year 1500 the same concerning Alensis, narrating: therefore whatever he sensed here in his Summa, certain it is that he militated for the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin.

Flourished at the same time Seraph. Bonaventure, who although in 3. dist. 3. art. 1. qu. 2. he timidly asserted that B. Virgin was conceived in original sin: nevertheless, the matter more maturely weighed and deliberated, he clearly signified the opinion which he held Serm. 2. on the Assumption, where most clearly and most learnedly he proved the Immaculate Conception saying:

Our Lady was full of grace preventing her sanctification: grace namely preventing against the filthiness of original guilt, which she would have contracted by corruption of nature, unless by special grace preventing and preserving she had been preserved. For no Son of the Virgin was immune from original guilt, and she herself his Virgin Mother. For it must be believed that under the name of sanctification in the beginning of her Conception the Holy Spirit redeemed her from original sin (not that it had infused itself, but that it would have infused itself), and preserved her with singular grace.

And in Sermo 1. among other words he says: Our Lady was most pure, wholly lacking every stain both in body and soul. Nor does it avail to reply with the adversaries that that sermon is not St. Bonaventure's, or that the aforesaid words were added; for it stands from an ancient book set forth in print before 150 years ago that this sermon is entirely of the same Seraphic Doctor; since among the sermons expressed there it is read whole, and at the end of that book is read: Here end the general sermons on the common of Saints, as also those on B. Virgin, on Angels, and on the triple dedication, of St. Bonaventure Doctor Seraphic, Cardinal, Bishop, of the Order of Minors, amended and corrected from errors most diligently, at expense and labor of provident man lord James Pfortzenii citizen Basel year of salvation 1502.

— Nor does it stand in the way that Angelus Rocca Augustinian sacristan of the Apostolic Palace placed in the margin that this sermon is not St. Bonaventure's (if indeed that addition be his, which De Alva denies n. 19.), because, says Rocca there: in many other places holy Bonaventure taught the contrary opinion. As though the Seraphic Doctor could not amend in more advanced age, with the matter better found out, what when younger he had written in the books of Sentences.

— Nor does it matter that he seems to defend the same opinion in his opuscula, especially p. 3. and 1. On Ecclesiastical Hierarchy cap. 7.: for there constantly he defends not the affirmative opinion but rather inclines to the negative. To these add what we said above, namely that while he was acting it was statuted in the General Chapter celebrated at Pisa that the feast of the Immaculate Conception should be celebrated through the whole Seraphic Order, as already by very many it was being celebrated, as he testifies 3 dist 3 art 1 quest 1:

There are however certain who from special devotion celebrate the Conception of B. Virgin: neither dare we wholly praise, nor simply reprehend... We dare not wholly reprehend, because as certain say this solemnity is celebrated not by human institution but by divine revelation: which if true without doubt good is it to solemnize her Conception: but that this be authentic we are not compelled to believe: since what against faith right is not, we are not compelled to deny etc.

By which words it is evident that even there he did not so firmly adhere to the opposite opinion, but only timidly, while still younger, was inclined toward it.

To this pious opinion the Angelic Doctor also subscribes; for although in part 3, question 27, article 2, he seems to signify that the Blessed Virgin was first conceived according to the flesh, and as such contracted original sin, and was afterwards sanctified in the womb and cleansed from that very original sin; nevertheless, as Pintus learnedly observes at the beginning of his book De Conceptione Virginis, the Angelic Doctor there supplies most weighty arguments by which, were he now living, he would openly perceive and conclude that the Virgin Mother of God was immune from every stain of original sin. For it is precisely because the Church celebrates her Nativity that he concludes she was sanctified in the womb: A feast, he says, is not celebrated in the Church except for some saint; therefore the Blessed Virgin was holy in her very Nativity: she was therefore sanctified in the womb. But the Church has long since celebrated the Conception of the Blessed Virgin; therefore, according to the principles of St. Thomas, it must necessarily be concluded that that Conception was altogether holy and immaculate. Furthermore, he says there: We rationally believe that she who brought forth the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, received a greater benefit of grace above all others. Yet, as he subjoins there, we find that this privilege was conceded to certain others in a special manner, that they should be sanctified in the womb, as Jeremias, to whom it was said, chapter 2: Before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee; and as John the Baptist, of whom it was said, Luke 1: He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother's womb; from which he concludes that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before she came forth from the womb. But surely this inference does not seem legitimate; for it ought rather to be drawn thus: because greater privileges were granted to Mary than to all the other saints, therefore Mary ought to be sanctified not only before her nativity, like certain other saints, but even in her Conception. For whoever argued would argue illegitimately: The sun owes a greater light than the stars; but the stars shine fourfold; therefore the sun ought to shine fourfold. Whence also Bromiardus of the Order of Preachers, who lived shortly after St. Thomas, in his Summa Praedicantium, treating of the Crown of the Virgin and of the twelve stars, that is, the singular gifts or privileges of Mary, speaks thus:

In her Crown she had the second star, or an honor raised up after the manner of a royal crown, in that she was sanctified more eminently and more specially than the rest. For of the others indeed it is well read that they were sanctified in the womb, as of Jeremias and John the Baptist. Yet they were not at once so sanctified but that they could still sin venially. She herself, however, was sanctified so eminently that she sinned neither mortally nor venially, as appears through St. Thomas in part 3, on Christ, question 27, article 6. In the same question also, article 2, on account of the excellence of her sanctification as regards priority of time, namely that she was sanctified in her animation, that is, in the union of her soul with her body in her mother's womb, and not before — which sanctification and cleansing is wrought through grace, whose subject is the soul; for nothing is capable of grace except a rational soul: thus then the Most High sanctified his tabernacle, in Psalm 15, etc.

Thus far John Bromiardus. Wherefore Peter à Valleclausa, in his Disputations 6, treating of this question 27 and article 2 of the third part, speaks thus:

Therefore that text was touched by a falsifying hand, and in John Bromiardus, who flourished in the year 1260, as the Chronicle of the Order of Preachers records, that passage is read as it ought to be. See Bromiardus in the Summa Praedicantium, under the word Varia, article 2: for Bromiardus there adduces St. Thomas saying in that place that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified not before animation, but in her very first animation, from which is inferred the exclusion of original sin from the Mother of God. Moreover the Brethren would not have St. Thomas saying this there, and contradicting himself in part 1-2: they adulterated the text, etc.

— But that this was the genuine opinion of the Angelic Doctor can be gathered from very many passages of his works, and especially in Book I of the Sentences, distinction 41, question 3, ad 3, where, inquiring whether God could make things nobler and more excellent than those He has made, and objecting to Himself the authority of St. Anselm — namely, that the Blessed Virgin shone forth with such purity — he responds as follows:

To the third it must be said that purity is intensified by withdrawal from its contrary; and the same created thing can be found to which nothing purer could possibly be found among created things, if it be stained by no contagion of sin: and such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin, who was immune from both original and actual sin; yet she was subject to God, inasmuch as in her there lay the power to sin.

Likewise, on the Epistle to the Galatians, chapter 3, lecture 6, adducing that text of Ecclesiasticus 7, One man among a thousand have I found — namely Christ, who would be without all sin — but a woman among them all have I not found, one who would be entirely immune from sin, at least from original or venial sin, he makes an exception for the most pure Virgin, worthy of all praise. So it stands in all the ancient manuscript exemplars, as may be seen at Paris both in the Library of the Sorbonne and in that of St. Victor, as I myself read with my own eyes; and likewise in the Parisian edition made in the year 1511. But in later editions, for example the Tenetiana of the year 1593, the enemies of the Immaculate Conception struck out those exceptions from the Angelic Doctor.

— Moreover, Nurembergius, in his annotations upon the decrees of the Council of Trent concerning the altogether pure Mother of God the Virgin, relates that at Rome, in the library of Cardinal Storsae, in the year 1625, a most ancient exemplar of St. Thomas upon the Epistles of Paul was seen, and that in it, upon that text of Romans 5, in whom all have sinned, there stood this commentary: One alone excepted, the Blessed Virgin, who contracted no stain of original sin; and he adds that it was shortly thereafter shown to Cardinal Treio, and through him to Urban VIII, the Supreme Pontiff. The same judgment must be formed concerning the exposition of the same Angelic Doctor upon the Angelic Salutation, where he had these words: Mary was preeminent with respect to guilt, because she incurred neither original, nor mortal, nor venial sin. Although these opinions are no longer found in modern editions, they are nevertheless so authentic that not even John de Turrecremata, the most ardent impugner of the Immaculate Conception, dared to deny it, as Catherinus and Salmeron relate. Nevertheless, even so, the enemies of the Immaculate Conception did not lay furtive hands upon the pious words of the Angelic Doctor without leaving still intact these words in the same place:

She exceeds the Angels with respect to purity, which indeed would not be true if the most Blessed Virgin had been stained by original sin and handed over to it.

— I pass over the innumerable others who, from this century down to our own times, have been assertors and champions of the Immaculate Conception; since this pious opinion, says Vazquez (Book 3 of his Commentary on the Summa, disp. 117, cap. 2), spread abroad after the time of Scotus not only among all Scholastic theologians but also among all the faithful of Christ, and has grown together with the ages of men to such a degree that no one can now be drawn away from it or shaken out of it. He had said before: At that time, not only among all the Professors and Doctors of theology (excepting the Dominicans, who have always persevered in their opinion), but also among all who profess the faith in the name of Christ, there is such a concurrence of mind and affection toward this opinion that, without great scandal to the people — as Corduba rightly observed — no one can now any longer propose the contrary view to the people in sermons. All this Vazquez wrote most truly, long before Paul V, under gravest penalties, imposed silence upon the adversaries, forbidding them to teach and defend the contrary opinion in public conclusions, sermons, lectures, or any public acts whatsoever. There must be excepted, however, those words in which he excludes the Dominican Fathers from the defense of the Immaculate Conception; for Turrecremata alone counts twenty-eight Doctors of the Angelic Order in favor of the contrary opinion. We find that he who wrote after him, in the third part, section 2 of his work, enlarged their number up to fifty-two; Peter de Vincentia, alphabet 6, numbers sixty-nine; Vincentius Bandellus, chapter 23, enumerates seventy-two; Paulus Grysaldus, in Catalogue 5, numbers eighty-two. But our De Alva, clearer-sighted than them all, computes ninety-two in his Trituration; and against these, in his Ventilabrum he sets an equal number of most strenuous defenders and assertors of the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God drawn from that same Order. And upon all these patronages of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin the sacred Faculty of Paris will impose a most illustrious crown, since for three hundred years now it has devoted itself most strenuously and most successfully to the propagation and defense of that doctrine, as will appear from its celebrated decree and its formula of oath.

Statute of the sacred Faculty of Theology of the University of Paris concerning the matter of the Immaculate Conception of the most glorious Virgin Mary, Mother of our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ.

Whereas many of our forefathers, bravest and most strenuous soldiers of the Catholic faith, crushed by their sacred disputations the heresies springing up in various times, never wearied by labors or perils: against those errors nevertheless which strive to violate the praise and dignity of the Immaculate and most glorious Mother of God, the perpetual Virgin Mary, they ever judged that one must rise up more vehemently with a certain special, holy, and perfect hatred, and must fight more sharply. Inasmuch as they judged that insult to pertain chiefly to our Lord Jesus Christ and to His most loving parents. For what is written in Ecclesiasticus, chapter 3, concerning the Father is also most true of the Mother, and of either parent: Glory not, he says, in the dishonor of thy father, for his confusion is no glory to thee; for the glory of a man is the honor of his father, and a father without honor is the disgrace of the son. Therefore, when in the last century the question concerning the purity of the Conception of Mary, the heavenly Mother of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ, began to be agitated more frequently than usual — the Holy Spirit, namely, willing that the truth of this matter should at length be brought to light — having weighed more carefully the arguments of both parties, they prudently suspended their judgment for a time; finally they inclined to that side which seemed to support the glory and purity of the Virgin, and thus, by disputation, they refuted the vainest rashness of those who obstinately contended, without efficacious proof, that the Virgin was conceived in original sin; so that they might decree the contrary part of the question — which affirms that the Virgin, while she was being conceived, was immune from the original stain by a special gift of God — to be greatly consonant with piety, faith, right reason, and the divine Scriptures. Which opinion, a few years later, the sacred plenary Council of Basle, after a long disputation of this question and a most weighty deliberation under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, at length defined — teaching that doctrine which asserts that the blessed Mother of God, Mary, when she was conceived, was freed from every stain of original sin by a special and singular grace of God, and that it is to be approved, embraced, and held by all Catholics as pious and consonant with ecclesiastical worship, the Catholic faith, right reason, and Sacred Scripture; and it forbade the contrary assertion to be taught or defended henceforth, under threat of divine judgment. Since we see this holy decree of the Synod approved and confirmed by the judgment, consent, and religious devotion of all the Churches, and likewise of the whole Christian people, we cannot but admire — and cannot bear without indignation and grief — the vain, proud, rash, and insane obstinacy of certain men, who even in our own day do not fear to assail or call into doubt this pious and religious doctrine approved by the judgment and authority of the universal Synod and of the Church, which according to the promise cannot err, waging implacable and most impious war against the eminent dignity of the most loving Mother of God. That we may meet and resist their fury the more eagerly and firmly, following in the footsteps of our forefathers according to our profession, order, and degree, we have assembled together for the third time, and after much, grave, and mature deliberation we have bound ourselves by a special oath and devoted ourselves to the defense and protection of that most pious doctrine which asserts that the blessed Mother of God was preserved from original sin by the singular gift of God, which we believed long ago to be true, and believe now. Enacting that no one be henceforth enrolled in this sacred college of ours unless he professes by a similar oath that he will always be, according to his powers, an assertor and strenuous defender of this religious doctrine. But if anyone of ours — which God forbid — like a deserter to the enemies of the Virgin, should dare to take up the patronage of the contrary assertion, which we judge false, impious, and erroneous, in contempt not only of our authority but of that of the Synod and of the Church, which is beyond doubt supreme, we decree that he be deprived of all our honors, deposed and cast forth from us and from our fellowship like a heathen and a publican, to be driven far away. We therefore appeal to you and summon you, O holiest Mother of God: believe that you, worthy of all praise, were preserved from original sin by the singular gift of God, and preach it, preaching with your blessing and your resources. Help us; and through the tender mercies of the mercy of Jesus Christ and through the charity of His undefiled Virgin Mother we beseech you: resist valiantly, for your office and by the divine authority given us, the enemies rather of the Blessed Mary herself; drive them from your territories, and expel them punished, so that the religious devotion, piety, and charity of the Christian people toward the most glorious Mother of God, the one hope, patroness, and mother of the human race, may be fostered, increased, and kindled more and more each day — a deed doubtless most grateful and most pleasing to her most loving Son, our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ, and most fruitful also for this people whose care you bear. Given at Paris at St. Mathurin's, for the first Congregation, on the third day of the month of March, in the year of the Lord 1496. At the second Congregation on the 6th day of the same month; and for the third Congregation, at the Augustinians, in the chapter house, on Thursday the 9th of the same month of March, after the Mass of the Conception celebrated with the oath; and published on the 21st day of the month of August, 1494, at St. Mathurin's in a Congregation specially convoked for the oath made upon this matter, and at the Sorbonnic disputation of the same month on the 26th, with the Lord Rector of the university assisting, the Most Reverend Father in Christ the Archbishop of Bourges, three Bishops, with many Abbots, Royal Counsellors, and very many Doctors both in Decrees and Bachelors, with a great multitude of students. By command of the same Dean, read and pronounced by me, Henry Bertrand, Priest, Master of Arts, public Notary, and Bedel of the same Faculty. And there swore, both in the preceding and in other Congregations of the same Faculty, one hundred and twelve Doctors of the same Faculty, standing firm in the said determination and statute.

Formula of the Oath. — You shall swear that you will hold the determination of the Faculty concerning the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, namely, that in her Conception she was preserved from original guilt? R. We swear.

Indeed, the same sacred Faculty was so tenacious and zealous an observer of this statute and oath that none of its clients and sons ever dared to depart even a little from that pious opinion without being immediately compelled publicly to abjure what he had presumed to assert to the contrary. Hence, long ago, even before the aforementioned decree — namely, in the year 1387 — it issued a celebrated censure against fourteen propositions of John de Montesono, which censure was afterwards confirmed by Apostolic authority. Wherefore in the year 1388 a revocation of the contrary opinion was made before the King and the deputies of the university by Master William, Bishop of Évreux. In the same year, on the 21st of March, a similar revocation was made before the church of St. Germain of Auxerre by Friar John Thomas of the Order of Preachers. In the same year, on the 16th of May, Friar Adam of Soissons, Preacher, revoked the same publicly in the cemetery of the Holy Innocents. In the following year, on the feast of St. John the Baptist, the same Friar Claudefridus of St. Martin, Preacher, revoked it publicly in the church of our greater convent of Paris. In the same year, on the 20th of August, Friar John Adea, Preacher, revoked it in the church of St. Bernard. In the same year, on the 10th of October, Friar Peter de Chanchevo, Preacher, revoked it also in our church of Paris. There are very many other such public revocations, whose acts I possess entire; they splendidly attest the perpetual observance of the sacred Faculty of Paris toward the Unspotted Conception of the Blessed Virgin; and lest I be longer than needful, I refrain from further instances here.

— Now, when after the Council of Trent, about the year 1575, some men attacked keenly this decree and oath of the sacred Faculty and Academy of Paris — Maldonatus goading them on and taking their side — after grave contentions and controversies back and forth, at length the patronage of the sacred Faculty was taken up not only by the Parliament of Paris but also by the Supreme Pontiff, to whom an appeal had been made from the sentence of the Bishop of Paris pronounced against the Dean and Syndic. There is extant a most illustrious letter addressed to him, as well as a most learned theological treatise circulated publicly concerning the preservation of the Virgin Mother from original sin; wherein, responding to the arguments and objections of Maldonatus, among other things it contains the following:

Nor did the Faculty invent the article of faith concerning the Conception, but it proposed what had been set forth by the Council of Basle, and believed with Sirtinis; if it gave authority to these, the Council of Trent detracts from them, and the Roman See prefers the opinion of the Tridentines to that of the Basleans; let the Faculty itself conform itself and give assent now according to the Council of Trent: the affirmation that the conception is not an article of Catholic faith, and that whoever thinks otherwise is not to be marked as a heretic, etc.

The Adversaries object various authorities of the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church, by which they judge our assertion to be altogether overthrown. Since all of which would be long and tedious to recount, here we shall bring forward and examine only those which seem to patronize the opposing opinion most of all. First indeed they summon to their side Origen, Homily 8 on Leviticus, where, expounding those words: Whatsoever woman shall have received seed, he speaks thus:

If a woman conceive seed and bear a son: but there is a mystical conception which would set Mary alone apart from the rest of women, whose bringing forth was not from the conception of seed but from the presence of the Holy Spirit and the power of the Most High, etc. And a little within: But even he who is born, whether he be of male or of female sex, Scripture pronounces concerning him that he is not clean from stain, unless he be of one day of his life. And below: whence, if it please you to hear what also other Saints thought of that nativity, hear David saying: In iniquities, he says, was I conceived, and in sins my mother conceived me; showing that whatsoever soul is born in flesh is polluted with the filth of uncleanness and sin; and therefore that was said which we mentioned above, that no one is clean from stain, no not though his life be but of one day.

Then in Homily 12, which is on the great Priest, he says:

Everyone who enters this world is said to be made in a certain contamination. Wherefore also Scripture says: No one is clean from stain, not even if his life were of one day. By this very thing therefore, that he is placed in the womb of the mother, and that he takes mortal flesh from the origin of paternal seed, he can be said to be contaminated in father and in mother. Or do you not know that when a male child has been made ten days old, it is offered at the altar that it may be purified there, as if it had been polluted in the very conception, whether of paternal or maternal seed? Every man therefore is polluted in father and mother. But Jesus my Lord alone entered this generation clean; he was not polluted in the mother: for he entered the body uncontaminated, etc.

Finally, in Homily 5 upon the book of Numbers, he says: Because Christ alone is without sin, who did no sin, therefore in Him alone the Spirit dwelt and > remained. For if He is He of whom something singular and excellent is said, namely what we said above: Because he did no sin, it is established that all the rest were under sin: if all, necessarily also the Prophets, etc.

— Truly I answer, that by these and similar sayings our assertion is by no means assailed. Not indeed by the first, seeing that in it Origen treats of the law of purification, to which all women were subjected who had conceived from received male seed, and from which the Virgin Mother of God was altogether immune, since she conceived by the operation of the Holy Spirit; whence Origen speaks only of active, not passive Conception. By the second I say, that Origen intends only that Christ the Lord was not contaminated through maternal conception; because since He Himself was conceived of the Virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit, He alone by the force and manner of His generation was clean from every stain and iniquity, wherewith others are infected by reason of the first carnal generation, or of the active conception of parents, of which only Origen speaks, not of conception properly so called, or of animation, of which this discourse is. — To the third I say, that Origen there treats of actual sin; not of original; for he does not say: who had no sin, as the adversaries will, but who did no sin; but there is none, I think, of the adversaries who affirms that the blessed Virgin actually sinned, seeing they wish her to have been pronounced free from all actual sin by the Council of Trent, not that original sin is to be understood.

They object 2. Various authorities of Saint Ambrose. First indeed in Sermon 7, expounding those words: And take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth, he says:

All were within the nets, nay we are still within the nets; because no one is without sin except Jesus alone, whom not knowing sin, the Father made sin for us. For he delivered him up bound with cords, delivered him up with nets, sending him not into sin, in which all men were, but into the likeness of the flesh of sin, that he might condemn sin in the flesh: sin was the flesh according to that text, because the hereditary curse was condemned. Sin was the enticement and minister of sin: the Lord Jesus came, and in flesh subject to sin exercised the warfare of virtue.

Then in the Commentary upon Luke ch. 2 he says:

For not conjugal intercourse kept reserved the secret chambers of the virginal womb, but the Holy Spirit poured in an immaculate seed into an inviolate womb: and He alone through all things out of all born of woman is the holy Lord Jesus, who by the heavenly Majesty both felt not the earthly contagion of corruption in the novelty of an immaculate birth, and drove it away.

Likewise on Isaiah, as alleged by blessed Augustine book 1 contra Iulianum, and in the first book de Nuptiis et Concupiscentiis:

Every man, he says, is a liar, and no one is without sin, save one God alone. It is preserved therefore that of man and woman, by that mixture of bodies, no one conceived should be without fault; but whoever is without fault is without fault also of this kind of conception.

— I answer, that from these and similar sayings of S. Ambrose nothing can be deduced against our assertion; since it is openly evident that in the first cited authority the discourse is only concerning actual sins, whereto flesh vitiated by original sin is wont to entice; which enticement of sin Christ had not, just as neither had the Mother of God, because each was immune from the original stain. Meanwhile I warn that this authority, ob> jected by the adversaries, is to be received with caution; for they are accustomed in many places to interpolate it, adding some things and taking away others, that they may drag holy Ambrose even against his will into their opinion.

— To the second authority I say, that the word "alone" does not signify exclusion of anyone; for it is established that very many were sanctified in the womb of their mothers, and felt not in birth the earthly contagions of corruption: but it only indicates that Christ the Lord drove away all that corruption by His own heavenly Majesty, which the others, endowed with the same prerogative, attained only through divine aid shining upon them and His benefit. Likewise I say that in the aforesaid words Saint Ambrose intends only that Christ the Lord is alone among those born of woman who did not feel the earthly contagions of corruption in the novelty of an immaculate birth, because He was born of a Virgin altogether unspotted and most pure. I warn moreover that the adversaries corrupt even this authority; for they add: Holy was the Lord Jesus in Conception; but those words in Conception are found neither in S. Ambrose nor in S. Augustine, who brings forward the same authority lib. 1 Contra Iulianum.

— To the third authority I say, that from its words it sufficiently appears that S. Ambrose is to be understood only of actual sin, not of original; or of active, not passive Conception. Nor does it matter that S. Augustine adduces that authority lib. 1 Nuptiis et concupiscentiis, c. 8, that he might prove from it original sin; for first it is certain that that authority as brought forward by S. Augustine is now not found in S. Ambrose. Moreover the adversaries are accustomed to corrupt even it: first indeed they add the particle "alone" in place of the particle "one God". Second they add the word "conceived". Third they omit the word "seems", so that they elicit an absolute and affirmative proposition out of a dubitative one.

They object 3. Many sayings of S. Augustine by which there seems to be signified first that Christ alone was immune from original sin. Thus lib. 2 De Baptismo parvulorum, cap. 21:

There is not, he says, among the sons of men, nor was there, nor will there be, one who was ever bound with no sin, or who has not that justice whereby one comes from sin, except the one Mediator, through whom, the enmities of sins being finished, we are reconciled to God. He alone therefore also made man, remaining God, had never any sin, nor took on the flesh of sin, although from a mother of the flesh of sin. For what He took thence, that truly He cleansed by taking.

These are his words. The same has lib. 1 De Nuptiis, cap. 11, and lib. 2 De peccatorum meritis et remissione. Then they bring forth from the holy Doctor those authorities by which there is signified that the Blessed Virgin died on account of Adam's sin. Thus in the second Sermon on Ps. 34: Mary from Adam died on account of that sin: Adam died on account of sin: and the flesh of the Lord from Mary died for the blotting out of sins. Finally they heap up various sayings of the same, by which the holy Doctor signifies that all born from the commixtion of man and woman draw original sin, and likewise that they who are born of any parents whatever remain so long under the devil unless they be reborn in Christ, who willed not to be born of the same commixtion of both sexes, that by His grace they plucked from the power of darkness may be translated into that kingdom: thus he speaks lib. 2 De Nuptiis et Concupiscentiis.

— I answer to the first, that the aforesaid authority is variously interpolated by the adversaries: for Saint Augustine there opposes the holiness of Christ to the > corruption of men: since when he had said: And indeed we should have been born in the flesh of sin; but He in the likeness of the flesh of sin — we not only of flesh and blood but also of the will of man and of the will of the flesh; but He only of flesh and blood, and not of the will of man nor of the will of the flesh, but born of God: and therefore we unto death with sin, He for us unto death without sin. He subjoins: He alone therefore also made man, remaining God, had never any sin, nor took the flesh of sin, although of the nature of the flesh of sin: for what He took thence, that truly either cleansing He took, or took cleansing. Therefore He chose the Virgin Mother conceiving not by the law of the flesh of sin, that is, not by the motion of carnal concupiscence, but deserving by pious faith that she become the holy germ, whom He would elect, create, chose from whom He would be created, etc.

From which it lucidly appears that the aforesaid authority of Saint Augustine is not reported entire and sincere. For they add the four first lines fabricated out of their own head. Then, where S. Augustine has "although of the nature of the flesh of sin", these interpolators write "although of maternal flesh of sin". Add that S. Augustine speaks of active, not passive Conception, or of concupiscence existing in the will of the man and arising from the pleasure of the flesh, when man is generated, from which no one besides Christ was immune. Wherefore S. Augustine subjoins: Therefore the Virgin Mother, not by the law of the flesh of sin, etc., that he might designate that Christ supposed sin in no way either in Himself or in His parent. But here there is discourse not of active but of passive Conception. To the second I say that the holy Doctor wishes nothing else than that the Virgin Mother of God died on account of Adam's sin, admonishing lest we judge men propagated by seminal way immune from being rendered free of original sin, who would lie under death no less because they are propagated from Adam. Or to say that S. Augustine by these words signifies that the Blessed Virgin by the mode of her generation was liable to sin, and so ought to have died of necessity, although through the benefit and privilege of God she was immune from actual contraction of sin. To the third kind of authority I say first that such authorities vitiated in all respects are accustomed to be objected by the adversaries, as is evident from the aforesaid one, wherein very many things are omitted and things distant from each other connected. I say second that the holy Doctor there institutes discourse only of active Conception on the part of the parents, which since it always has libido admixed, thence it is that it has some sin joined to it, by which reason the Conception of the Virgin Mother of God was not immune from sin.

They object 4. S. Leo the First in the Epistle to Flavian, where he says: Otherwise human captivity could not have been loosed unless He took up our cause without damage of His Majesty, that He become true man, and alone have not the contagion of sin. Then Sermon 1 De Nativitate, says: No one is severed from participation of such alacrity, one common reason of joy belongs to all, because our Lord, destroyer of sin and death, as He found none free from vice, so came to loose all. And Sermon 1 De resurrectione: What in all men was transfused of damnation, this in Christ is the sacrament of piety. But, say the adversaries, Christ made the blessed Virgin partaker of the sacrament of His redemption: therefore she also was partaker of transfused damnation. I answer to the first, that that authority is altogether fictitious and supposititious, as will openly appear to anyone reading the aforesaid epistle. To the second I say, that this authority is not to be understood thus, as if S. Leo truly judged that He loosed only those whom He found conquered in guilt when He came into the world: for He found all free and loosed from the bonds of sin who were already illumined by sanctifying grace: but his mind is, that no one was truly free from captivity of sin unless either anticipated by the benefit of grace itself he guarded himself lest he fall, as befell in the Blessed Virgin; or already entangled in the bonds of sin he was loosed by the intervening grace. To the third I say that S. Leo speaks not of damnation of fault but of penalty, for he says: Infirmity indeed and mortality, which shall be not sin but the penalty of sin, were received from the Redeemer of the world for punishment, that they might be spent for price. Why then in all, etc.

They object 5. All those holy Fathers who distinctly and precisely seem to assert the Blessed Virgin to have been infected with original guilt: chiefly Rupertus lib. 1 In Cantica, where concerning the Blessed Virgin he says: And thou indeed certainly couldst have said, behold for in iniquities was I conceived, and in sins my mother conceived me; since thou wert of that mass which was corrupted in Adam, thou lackedst not the hereditary stain of original sin. Into the same opinion they bring S. Anselm lib. 2 Cur Deus homo, cap. 16, where he says: Although the conception of Christ Himself be clean, and without the sin of carnal delectation. Yet the Virgin herself whence He was assumed was conceived in iniquities, and in sins His mother conceived Him, and was born with original sin, since she herself sinned in Adam, in whom all sinned. They bring also S. Anthony of Padua in a certain Sermon On the B. Virgin, where he says: The blessed Virgin was sanctified in the womb of her mother from sin by grace, and born without sin. Nay they add S. Bernardine of Senis, Sermon on S. John Baptist, which begins: As the sun rising upon the world, where distinguishing a threefold sanctification, he says: The third was maternal sanctification, and this removes original fault, and confers grace, and removes pronity to sinning as well mortally as venially, and this was in the Virgin Mother, etc. — I answer to Rupertus, that he wishes only that the Blessed Virgin in that instant in which she conceived Christ was not made drunk with the wine of luxury wherewith other women are made drunk: Thou hadst not, he says, experienced the vice of this age, the wine of carnal pleasure, without whose drunkenness no woman ever besides thee could conceive, or can conceive; and yet thou knowest to judge how much better, more clement, sweeter, and stronger was the pleasure, or love of God, in which thou didst conceive; without doubt thou hast drunk of that torrent of pleasure. Then he subjoins the words praised in the objection, after which he adds: But before the face of this love sin, neither that nor any other, could stand; before the face of this fire every stub perished, that the whole dwelling might become holy, in which God would dwell nine whole months. By which words Rupertus signifies that he speaks only of the active Conception of the Blessed Virgin, namely that she conceived Christ without any pleasure, which other women experience on account of the hereditary blemish, and which also the Blessed Virgin would have experienced, had she not been divinely preserved. Whence this was this singular privilege of the Virgin Mother of God, that her Son alone could not say Behold in iniquities was I conceived, namely because the Virgin conceived Him only through the supervening Holy Spirit and the overshadowing power of the Most High: which indeed this Virgin Mother of God could not say, because her mother drank that wine of pleasure when she conceived her in her womb: whence she could say, Behold in the iniquities of my parents was I conceived. Which things being so, she would have conceived Christ even amid that iniquity of pleasure, seeing she was of that mass corrupted in Adam, unless she had been divinely overshadowed and preserved from that drunkenness of pleasure. From which it appears that Rupertus speaks only of the active Conception of the Virgin's parents, not of the passive, or her animation. To S. Anselm I say, that the words placed in the objection are not his, but only Boson his disciple's asking in what manner God assumed from a sinful mass, that is, from mankind wholly infected with sin, a man without sin, like a grape from leavened dough; for although the conception of the same man be clean and without the sin of carnal delectation: Yet the Virgin herself whence He was assumed, etc. But who would call the words of the questioning disciple the resolution of the Master? Add that if all things Boson says were to be judged genuine S. Anselm's opinion, he would labor under many absurdities, for he asks many things and supposes them as true, when nevertheless they are most absurd. — To S. Anthony of Padua, I say the aforesaid sermon is altogether fictitious, nor was it ever found among his works: for so far is that most holy man from having thought the Virgin Mother of God defiled with any sin, that he openly teaches the contrary, as is seen in the sermon of Parasceve, where he says Christ was clothed in a white garment, that is, he says, flesh clean from every stain of sin, assumed from an immaculate Virgin, etc. And Sermon 2, 5th Sunday after Pentecost, he says Mary was a throne of cloud, because immune from sin. De Alva has other authorities of the same in Militia Immaculatae Conceptionis against the malice of original sin. Hence in Sole veritatis n. 28 he observes that the aforesaid words are not S. Anthony the Paduan's, but S. Antoninus the Florentine's p. 1 summae, tit. 25, cap. 6, wrongly affixed by the adversaries to S. Anthony of Padua. — To S. Bernardine I say, that his words praised in the objection do not favor the adversaries; for to remove original fault is not only to take it away and wipe it off when it already existed, but also to prevent lest it infect. For truly to remove someone from laws is the same as not to compel him to keep the laws. That however the opinion of that most holy man is otherwise is clear from the same sermon, for at its beginning he thus says: The sacrament of the glorious Virgin Mother of God, most sublime to venerate, most devout to treat of, sweetest to contemplate. Today, most beloved, is set before us this day indeed glorious, which offers us the ray of solar light, while it proclaims the Mother of God conceived, etc. If therefore the day of Mary's Conception was glorious, which inflamed, illumined, and strengthened pious minds by its splendor, and sublime, venerable, most devout, sweetest sacrament: therefore that Conception was not with fault and sin. Likewise within he insinuates more saying: In which words the wisdom of the Lord describes a threefold gracious state of the Blessed Virgin: First, of Conception: second, of Nativity: Third, of Annunciation. The first, namely her Conception, he calls like the Sun, etc. If therefore Bernardine commends the Conception as the Nativity and Annunciation, in which there was no stain or fault, and calls the Conception like the Sun and gracious, that is illustrious with grace and clarity of holiness: the consequence is that so far is he from opposing the Immaculate Conception, that rather he patronizes it, if you weigh and ponder his words with equal balance. — Finally he answers with the Doctor in 3 dist. 3 q. 1 n. 14 that all the authorities of Saints whatsoever that can be objected signify nothing else than that the blessed Virgin, propagated from Adam by seminal way, had a debt of contracting original sin, and by the force of her Conception would have contracted it, unless by special privilege of God her soul, in that same instant in which it was formed, was illumined by sanctifying grace. For as our Pitigianus teaches most gloriously here art. 2, the Blessed Virgin was threefoldly liable to sin: First, in the loins of Adam and other parents: second, in the womb before animation, for then the body already existed to be sinned, and so it was to be infected with sin, unless prevented: third, in the very instant of animation, because although in that same real instant of time she was gifted with grace, yet her soul prior in nature can be conceived without grace, and in a state indifferent to grace or to sin.

You insist: Naturally first the Blessed Virgin was daughter of Adam before she was sanctified: but in that prior state she had a debt of contracting original sin: therefore in fact she previously had original sin, before she was freed from it. — The Doctor distinguishes the minor ibidem num. 15: that she had that debt positively in that prior instant, he denies; for what belongs to someone positively prior in nature than something else can be affirmed of him simply for the instant of time in which he exists, and in which that instant of nature is included; and thus it could be said that the blessed Virgin had original sin and sanctifying grace in the same instant of time, which is absurd: in that prior instant she had that debt negatively, inasmuch as she is not conceived to have had anything for that instant of nature by reason of which she ought not contract original sin, because for that instant she was not yet conceived as having sanctifying grace, he concedes. Which solution certainly appears legitimate even in the opinion of the adversaries, who do not deny that God of absolute power could preserve the Virgin from original sin.

They press: The Blessed Virgin in that prior state of nature, in which she is pre-understood toward grace, has not justice, nor is conceived as just: therefore she must necessarily be conceived as unjust, or as not just, and consequently as having original sin. — The Doctor denies the inference num. 17. Nay, he says, there is no falsehood in those abstracting, 2 Physics; for one not understanding does not understand not this; as one not understanding man to be animal does not understand him non-animal, because then abstraction could scarcely be without falsehood, abstracting from something essentially inherent in it.

They object 1. If the Blessed Virgin had been conceived without original sin, she would have had no need of Christ the Redeemer and Mediator: but this is absurd: therefore, etc. — The Doctor denies the major, n. 15. For she herself, he says, would have contracted original sin by the reason of common propagation, had she not been anticipated through the grace of the Mediator: whence as others needed Christ that sin already contracted might be remitted to them by His merit, so she more needed a Mediator arising from sin, lest it should ever be contracted by her; and in fact she would have contracted it.

You will urge: None (says S. Zosimus Pope, Epist. 155, in Augustine) is made free except one who is servant of sin; nor can he be called redeemed unless he was truly before a captive through sin: therefore if the Blessed Virgin did not contract original sin, she truly and properly had no need of Christ the Redeemer. It is confirmed by a like case, because although Christ (as many Theologians teach) merited for the good Angels the grace whereby they were preserved from falling, yet for that reason He cannot be called their Redeemer: therefore by a like case He will not be judged properly Redeemer with respect to the Virgin, if He truly freed her not from sin. — I distinguish the antecedent: none can be said to be redeemed unless he was before captive through sin, by debt, I concede; in fact only, I deny. For properly is anyone said to redeem someone from captivity and prison while, when he is already about to be cast into prison on account of debts, he makes satisfaction to the creditor for him and pays his debt: but the blessed Virgin, as the Doctor teaches expressly, had a debt of contracting the captivity of original sin; and by the force of her conception and propagation from Adam by way of seminal transmission she would have contracted it, had she not been divinely preserved. Hence it is that that preservation can truly and properly be called redemption: but otherwise is it of the Angels, who had no debt in themselves of incurring a fall, had they not been prevented; whence their preservation cannot be called redemption so properly as the preservation of the Blessed Virgin.

They object 2. The Blessed Virgin was subject to all the penalties prescribed on account of original sin, namely hardships and sorrows, nay even death itself: therefore she contracted that sin. — I answer, indeed the Virgin Mother of God endured all these things, not indeed under puncture and necessity, but unto merit and ampler grace; for it was fitting that she be assimilated to her Son, who willed to suffer temporal hardships and labors, nay death itself, that redemption might be copious with Him: for the Mediator can, says the Doctor n. 8, reconcile someone so that there be taken away from him penalties useless to him, and there remain in him penalties useful to him: original guilt would have been useless to Mary; temporal penalties however were useful, because in them she merited: therefore, etc.

Finally they object: If the Blessed Virgin had not contracted original sin, and had died before the Ascension of Christ, she ought to have entered the kingdom of heaven: but no man before the Ascension of Christ could be received into heaven; since only through the triumphal entry of Christ into heaven was its entrance opened to men: therefore, etc. — The Doctor denies the inference of the major: for absence of original sin does not necessarily infer entrance into the kingdom of heaven; for the holy Fathers long ago, dying before Christ's birth, were absolved from original sin, yet were not endowed with the clear vision of God; for this was reserved for men in that Ascension of Christ, namely that ascending into heaven He should lead captivity captive and give gifts to men: For so God decreed, says the Doctor n. 19, *that although He accepted the foreseen Passion of Christ for remitting original guilt to every believer and future believer in that Passion; nevertheless He did not remit the penalty due to that sin, namely the want of the divine vision, on account of the Passion foreseen, but on account of the same exhibited: and therefore as the door was not opened to those Fathers until the Passion of Christ was exhibited, so it is probable that neither would it have been unlocked for the Blessed Virgin, had she died before the Ascension of our Lord Christ into heaven.