Scotus Academicus, Tomus septimus: De Incarnatione Verbi Divini

WHETHER THE B. VIRGIN WAS IMMUNE FROM ALL ACTUAL SIN.

Note 1. Actual sin is distinguished in the usual way into a twofold kind, namely mortal and venial. Mortal is the deliberate transgression of the divine law gravely obliging, by reason of which the friendship of man with God is dissolved, and grace and charity are removed from man, in whose presence the soul lived, by whose loss and absence it incurs spiritual death. Venial is the transgression of a light precept, or not perfectly deliberate and free, which neither dissolves friendship with God, nor removes grace or charity from the soul: but only diminishes its fervor, nor removes from the ultimate end, but only delays from its attainment. But it is called venial either because it is light offense in comparison with mortal sin, or chiefly because it is worthy of pardon.

Note 2. From the Seraphic Doctor in 2 dist. 29, art. 3, quaest. 2, there can be distinguished a threefold genus of venial sin; for one befalls man from the surreption of sensuality: another from some sudden and undeliberate motion of reason: finally a third is called venial on account of imperfection of act and levity of matter, such as an idle word and a lie whether jocose or officious; which genus of sin indeed is found for the most part even in men illustrious for surpassing piety. We ask therefore whether the Virgin Mother of God sinned venially in any of these ways.

Note 3. From the Subtle Doctor in 2 dist. 20, quest. 1, there is distinguished a twofold confirmation in grace: one whereby the ability to sin is taken away, even venially; another, whereby de facto sinning is taken away. The first belongs only to comprehensors and the Blessed: For to be unable to sin, he says, cannot belong to a wayfarer, otherwise it would be a contradiction, because certainty of beatitude is the greatest part of beatitude: but inability to sin would then be knowable by anyone, as now the ability to sin is certain to us. But this infallible certainty of beatitude can belong only to the comprehensor. Moreover, so long as in the object of the will of the wayfarer there is defect of good, the will of the wayfarer can fail from rectitude by willing that, not according to due circumstance; but so long as man is a wayfarer, his own will cannot be conjoined with an object in which is the whole reason of good; therefore so long as he is a wayfarer, he can fail from rectitude; and consequently could sin, and accordingly no wayfarer can be so confirmed in grace as to exclude infallibly the power of sinning. But the second confirmation in grace does indeed not exclude the power of sinning, but only the act of sin, into which man cannot rush headlong on account of the special assistance of God, His protection, and special helps, which are so tempered to free choice that they infallibly remove every sinful act. The prior impeccability is called intrinsic and as it were antecedent; the latter extrinsic and consequent. It is certain however that the B. Virgin, so long as she lived in this world, had not impeccability from within and antecedent, because no habitual grace of this life, however perfect, so determines the will that antecedently it is not still indifferent to sinning. Nor surely did such antecedent impeccability befit the B. Virgin in this life: then because she was purely a wayfareress: then because although liberty to sin be a defect, yet it conduces to merit, according to Ecclesiasticus 31: He that could transgress and hath not transgressed.

But it is asked whether she had the second genus of impeccability.

One Conclusion. — THE MOST BLESSED VIRGIN WAS IMMUNE FROM EVERY SIN WHATEVER OF ACTUAL KIND. This is common among all the faithful of Christ against the heretics the Lutherans and Calvinists.

The Conclusion could be proved by very many texts of Sacred Scripture: namely those, by which above it was proved that perpetual enmities and hostilities were between Mary and the demon: but such a battle would not have intervened had the blessed Virgin fallen into any sin: therefore, etc. — Similarly it could be proved chiefly from the book of Canticles, where the Virgin Mother of God is preached not only all fair and without stain, but ch. 2 it is said of her: As the lily among the thorns, so is my love among the daughters. Which oracle Sedulius lib. 2 De Paschate excellently weighs thus:

And as the soft rose rises amid sharp thorns, Having naught that wounds, outshining the Mother in honor; So Light come from sacred stem through Mary, The new Virgin expiates the deed of the ancient Virgin.

And Hugh of S. Victor:

Hail holy parent of the Word, Flower from thorn, lacking thorn, Flower, glory of the thornbrake: We are the thornbrake, we are the thorn Of sin bloodstained, But thou knowest no thorn.

It is proved secondly from the Council of Trent session 6, Can. 23: If any one shall say that a man once justified cannot sin more, nor lose grace, and therefore that he who falls and sins was never truly justified; or contrariwise that he can avoid throughout life all sins, even venial ones, without a special privilege of God, as the Church holds concerning the B. Virgin: let him be anathema.

The same opinion very many of the holy Fathers defend, chiefly indeed S. Augustine, who in the book De Natura et gratia, cap. 36, frees utterly from actual sin the Virgin Mother of God. For when Pelagius, to prove his dogma — namely that men can be without all sin — had brought forward examples of many of both sexes who are reported in Scripture not only not to have sinned but even to have lived justly, such as were Abel, Enoch, Melchisedech, Abraham, etc., and had added also women, Debbora, Anna mother of Samuel, etc., and even the Mother herself of our Lord and Savior, whom he says piety compels to confess was without sin: when Pelagius had affirmed these things, I say, concerning the impeccability of the B. Virgin, Augustine assents to him and speaks thus: Except therefore holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, out of honor to the Lord, I wish no question at all when sins are treated of; whence do we know that more grace was conferred upon her for overcoming sin on every side, who merited to conceive of a sinner Him whom we know had no sin. Hence therefore except the Virgin, if we could gather together all those saints and saintly women while they lived here, and ask whether they were without sin, what do we think they would answer? whether this which is said here, or that of John the Apostle? etc. From which it appears that S. Augustine openly teaches that the most blessed Virgin was stained with no proper and actual sin. — He teaches the same truth when he says that if she draws the original stain from her parents she is nevertheless sanctified less than Jeremias in the womb, as Christian piety forbids believing her less filled with the Holy Spirit than John; for she is honored with festal praises being born. Lastly, since it altogether stands that Mary was cleansed from original contagion by grace alone, etc., as it is wholly pious to believe, she had not her own fault. The same he teaches also in Epist. 171, where although he does not suffer her to be held pure from defect of origin, he doubts not that she was sanctified in the womb; and indeed that a more copious blessing of sanctification descended into her, which both sanctified her body and also kept her thereafter immune from all sin, which is believed to have been granted to no other among women by nature.

Wherefore Proclus of Constantinople deservedly in Oration 6 calls the most blessed Mother of God, among all things besides, an impeccable sanctuary. Rightly also Ildephonsus in the Sermon On the Assumption, when he compares her to the ark of the Old Testament. Above which the propitiatory and Cherubim overshadowing on this side and that are figured, because no contagion of sin crept into Mary inwardly: but within was all the custody of the Law, and the Manna. In which similitude Proclus also used it, adding that this Ark was within and

For this assertion and truth S. Thomas brings forth this excellent reason Opusc. 60, art. 3, where having premised the aforesaid authority of S. Augustine for the innocence of the B. Virgin, he subjoins:

For she would not have been a fit Mother of Christ, had she ever sinned: then because the honor of parents > redounds to the offspring, according to Prov. 18: The glory of children are their parents; whence contrariwise the ignominy of the mother would have redounded to the son: then also because he had singular affinity to Christ, because from her he took flesh: and it is said 1 ad Corinth. 6: What concord hath Christ with Belial! Then also because Christ, who is the wisdom of the Father, dwelt in a singular manner, not only in her soul, but also in her womb. And it is said Wisdom 1: Into a malicious soul wisdom shall not enter, nor dwell in the body subject to sins. And therefore it is simply to be held that the blessed Virgin committed no actual sin, neither mortal nor venial, so that may be fulfilled what is said Cant. 4: Thou art all fair, O my love,* etc.

They object 1. That heretics say the B. Virgin sinned the sin of infidelity, when Luke 1 to the Angel announcing the Incarnation, as if incredulous she said:

How shall this be done, because I know not man? Whence Luther in the postilla on the Gospel of the Annunciation: He himself, he says, truly felt within himself a sense of incredulity. And Calvin on the aforesaid words of Luke says she was no less doubtful of the omnipotence of God than Zachary: therefore she committed some actual sin. — I deny the consequence, and to the antecedent I say with S. Augustine Hom. 1 ch. 5 ex 50: While she asked, she doubted not of the promise. Or, as S. Bernard gloriously says Homil. 1 super Missus est: She doubts not of the fact, but asks the mode and order of the thing; for it is not asked whether this shall be done, but how. S. Ambrose confirms all these excellently in the same words, where he notes there was not the same affection of mind in Mary and in Zachary concerning the Angelic oracle; Zachary was presently reprehended and punished for incredulity, but not the Virgin Mother of God. Because therefore, he says, it could come about that Zacharias, who had not believed, be condemned to silence: would Mary however, if she had not believed, celebrate the infusion of the Holy Spirit? But neither did Mary not believe; nor yet ought she rashly to usurp: not to believe the angel, to usurp divine things: for she does not make herself know the mystery hidden from eternity in God: which neither the higher Powers could know. And yet did she not hold faith? she refused not the office but accommodated her affection, promised her service: for indeed when she said: How shall this be done? she doubted not of the effect, but asked the quality of the effect itself. How much more temperate is that answer than the words of the Priest! She says: how shall this be done? he answered: whereby shall I know this? She already treats of the business: he still doubts of the message. He denies that he believes what he denies that he knows, and as if seeking another author of faith: she professes that she will do, nor doubts it must be done, but inquires how it can be done.

They object 2. That she sinned the sin of negligence when she lost her Son for three days, and the sin of impatience when she rebuked him with these words: Son, why hast thou done so to us? Therefore, etc. — I deny the antecedent; and to the first I say, that since the Virgin Mother of God and her most holy spouse Joseph knew Jesus to be true God, they left Him to His own will; whence they could easily be induced to believe He was with their kinsfolk and acquaintances, and accordingly no negligence of theirs appears there: seeing they knew He needed not their guidance and presence to return home safe. Equally there was no impatience; for the aforesaid words of Mary are not signs of rebuke but of sorrow, and testify only the immense love and grief of the Virgin over the absence of her most loving Son.

They object 3. She seems to have sinned the sin of ambition, when at the wedding feast she required a miracle of her Son saying: They have no wine. For by these words, says Luther on ch. 2 of John, she seems out of ambition and vainglory to have sought a miracle for ostentation. — Truly I answer with S. Augustine tr. 8 in Ioan., that those words were not a token of vainglory but of the surpassing faith of the B. Virgin concerning the divinity and omnipotence of her Son, as well as a sign of the burningest charity wherewith she burned toward the poor, whom she willed not to be overwhelmed with shame for want of wine. Nor when Christ said: What is it to me and to thee, woman? My hour is not yet come: did He reject the petition of His mother as too importunate, but showed the fullness of wisdom and power communicating itself at its pleasure. Not rejecting (says S. Augustine lib. 4 De Consensu Evangelistarum, cap. 10.) her of whom He took flesh, but then chiefly insinuating His Divinity: acting conversant in the flesh, which Divinity had made that woman also, not made in her. But that Christ subjoins: My hour is not yet come, the same S. Augustine expounds thus tr. 19 in Ioan.: He had foretold therefore this hour, he says, which then had not yet come, in which dying He ought to acknowledge the Mother of whom He had been born mortal. Therefore about to work divine things, not the Mother of Divinity but of infirmity, He repelled her as unknown: but now suffering human things, from whom He had been made man, He commended her with human affection. For then He who had been nourished by Mary made Himself known in power: now He whom Mary had brought forth hung upon the Cross.

They object 4. S. Chrysostom, who wishes even that sin of vainglory and a certain pride to be detected in her: for expounding that Matth. 27 where certain ones saying to Christ: Behold thy mother, and thy brethren stand without seeking thee, to which Christ answers: Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? sets forth the reason of this answer thus: Such, he says, words He spoke, not that he was ashamed of His Mother, or cast off her from whom He had come: for if he were ashamed of her, He would by no means have gone forth through her womb into light: but that He might show nothing did that avail her unless that it was her office to profit in all things. For what she had undertaken to do was of a certain proud ambition, since she was wont to show forth to the people that she ruled over her Son and exercised authority over Him, when as yet she had proposed to herself nothing great concerning Him in her imagination. Therefore she came unseasonably. Of faith, I pray you, is the pride both of her and of them. Since equal it was for those entering to hear Him with the crowd, or if they would not this, to wait until He made an end of speaking, and then approach, they against the doors go forth before Him. Whence Calvin says on this passage, there is no doubt that by these words He carps at the importunity of Mary, that she attempted preposterously to break off the course of His doctrine. — I answer with S. Ambrose on this passage, that Christ answered thus that He might teach the hearers that the bond of minds is more religious than of bodies: Nor, he says, are parents injuriously refused, but the bonds of minds are taught to be more religious than of bodies. Therefore here (as some catch at snares) not the Mother is denied, who even from the cross is acknowledged: but the form of the precepts preferred before bodily kinship. Nor does it repugn to understand that by figure of parents He points out to the Jews, from whom is Christ according to the flesh, the Church, to be preferred to credulity. To S. Chrysostom I say, either that he exceeded in oratorical manner in this expression, or that he deviated ever so little from the truth herein, as S. Thomas ingenuously confesses.

Finally they object certain ones of the holy Fathers asserting that the B. Virgin wavered in faith at the time of the Passion. Thus chiefly Basil Epist. 318 asserts she fluctuated with a certain doubt, and tossed with scandal, when she saw her Son afflicted with punishment: In excess, he says, at the time of the Passion she was subjected to a certain doubt, according to the answer of the Lord, who had said: All you shall be scandalized in me. So likewise S. Cyril of Alexandria plainly hands down the same in his Commentaries on John, saying that blessed Virgin in the Passion of her Son not only suffered scandal but was well-nigh bereft of her state of mind. But less tolerable are those things which he narrates presently, that Christ commended the Mother to the disciple John, in what way, since she had fallen into her own thoughts and been filled with perturbations of thoughts, provision must be made for her. Therefore since He knew with what thoughts she was then agitated, He uttered this excellent mystagogy to His disciple, who could rightly and fitly explain the height of that mystery. The same Origen teaches Hom. 17 in Lucam, where among other things he says: What think we, that from scandalizing the Apostles the Mother of the Lord was immune in herself? If she suffered not scandal in the Passion of the Lord, Jesus died not for her sins. But if all have sinned and need the glory of the justification of His grace and redemption, certainly also Mary at that time was scandalized. — I answer first to Origen, that in this matter as in very many others he fell gravely, and accordingly is by no means to be heard. As to the other Fathers I say they somewhat exceeded in homiletic manner: or by doubt they understand great admiration and as it were stupor of the B. Virgin at the time of the Passion of Christ. For S. Ambrose declares her surpassing patience and unconquered constancy of soul in that immense grief wherewith she was pressed, Epist. 25, where he thus writes: Mary the Mother of the Lord stood before the cross of her Son: none taught me this but the holy Evangelist. And a little within: The Apostles fleeing, she stood before the cross, and with pious eyes beheld the wounds of Christ, because she awaited not the death of her pledge but the salvation of the world: or perhaps because she might recognize from the death of her Son the redemption of the world, etc. And in the Sermon on the death of Valentinian: She stood, he says, as holy Mary beside the cross of her Son, and the Virgin beheld the Passion of her Only-begotten; beholding her I read her, standing I read her: weeping I read her not.