Summa summae S. Thomae, Tomus II

The second does not suffice, because the will is moved of necessity by no object except by the last end alone.

3°. Therefore the devil alone can be for men a moral and indirect cause of sin¹, inasmuch as he proposes to the senses, whether internal or external, some appetible thing, stirs the sensitive appetite and the phantasy, and thence persuades reason that it is good and to be chosen.

You will ask 2° how external sensible things become causes of sins.

I answer. External sensible things become causes of sins by moving the sensitive appetite. For when the sense is stirred by some object, it proposes it to the appetite, and the appetite allures reason; if reason fail from the consideration of the rule, it approves the delectable as such and offers it to the will; and if the will consent, it perfects the sin.

There follows concerning the cause of sin on the part of man, that is, concerning original sin. Wherefore let there be

St. Thomas, qq. 81, 82, 83.

By original sin we understand that which we contract by birth from Adam, who, having been constituted by God head, not only natural but also moral, of all men to be propagated from him seminally, supposed for us and contained in his will

¹

our wills, so that, when he sinned, at the same time we sinned in him. Wherein the essence of this sin consists, we shall say below; but meanwhile, whatsoever it be, that it is true sin by which we are infected and are born children of wrath is a Catholic dogma, which we here undertake to prove against heretics.

That original sin exists in the posterity of Adam was first denied of all by Pelagius, then by his disciples Julian and Caelestius, contending that Adam harmed himself alone, not his posterity, except by example.

I say: According to the Catholic faith it must be held that original sin is transmitted to the posterity of Adam ².

It is proved 1°. The Apostle, to the Rom., V, 12, says: By one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. Ergo, according to the Apostle, some sin entered into this world, which constituted all men sinners and liable to death. — I subjoin. Yet that sin is not actual personal sin, since infants, who are liable to death, are not capable of it. Ergo original.

This proof is confirmed from the same Apostle, II ad Cor., v, 14 and 15: If one, he says, died for all, therefore all were dead; and Christ died for all. « Deny, says Aug. to Julian, lib. VI against him, cap. 9, n. 24, that Christ died even for little ones, in order to remove them from the number of the dead, that is, from the contagion of sins. If he died for them also, ergo they also were dead. » There is ergo some sin whereby newborn infants are said to be dead: and what is that but original? Likewise to the Ephes., II, 3: We were by nature, that is, from birth and origin, children of wrath.

It is proved 2° from the councils. The Council of Palestine, which Aug. mentions, Epist. 186 ³; that of Milevis in Africa, in the year 416; Innocent I confirming the council of Milevis; Zosimus, Epist. to the bishops of the whole world, which Aug. mentions, Epist. 190 ⁴;

^{5 6 7}

the conc. of Florence, in the letters of union; finally Trent, sess. v, decree on original sin 1, can. 2, defined under anathema the Catholic dogma of the transmission of original sin to the posterity of Adam ⁸.

It is proved by theological reasons ⁹. Since this truth hangs on the will of God alone, it cannot be proved except by reasons deduced from revealed principles. The first reason, and that a peremptory one, which the holy Fathers chiefly urged, is sought from baptism conferred on infants, and is thus proposed. It is apostolic tradition, and that confirmed by perpetual and constant usage of the Church, that newborn infants, especially if their life be endangered, are to be baptized. Thus teach St. Dionysius, de coelest. Hierarchia, last chapter; Origen, Hom. vi in Levit.; Cyprian, lib. III, Epist. 8; Jerome, lib. III against the Pelagians; Aug., lib. IV contra Donat., c. 24. Nor did the Pelagians deny it, nor Zwinglius and Erasmus. This tradition, however, kept and confirmed with such solicitude of the Church, is founded on the words of Christ, Joann., III, 5: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Yet baptism is conferred for the remission of some sin. Ergo infants are defiled with sin from birth.

The Pelagians deny the minor, saying that baptism is conferred on infants, not for the remission of sin, nor to obtain eternal life, but that they might have right to the kingdom, according to the words of Christ praised before. For they distinguished eternal beatitude from the kingdom. Therefore

The min. is proved. First reason. 1° It is the express sentence of Scripture, Act., II, 38: Let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins.

2° Those who are baptized are cleansed and washed. It appears both from the form of baptism, I baptize thee, that is, I wash thee; and from the Scriptures, Ephes., V, 26: Cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life; to Titus, III, 5: By the laver of regeneration and renovation; Act., XXII, 16: Be baptized and wash away thy sins, invoking his name. Yet no one is cleansed or washed who has not filth and stains. Ergo.

The second reason is sought from the ceremonies of baptism, namely from exorcism and exsufflation, by which the unclean spirit is driven away. Ergo before baptism that spirit held the infant captive through sin. The use of these ceremonies however has always been practiced in the Church, and from it Aug. argues everywhere against the Pelagians.

Third reason. Christ, according to the Scriptures, and especially according to the Apostle, is Redeemer of all, even of little ones. Yet redemption presupposes captivity and damnation, damnation sin; and little ones can be held captive by no other sin than original. Ergo.

Fourth reason. Death is the penalty of sin, according to that Rom., VI, 23: The wages of sin is death, and that Genes., II, 17: In what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death. Yet all die, even infants who have not sinned by their own will. Ergo.

This reason is confirmed. Man is born subject, not only to the necessity of dying, but to various troubles and miseries, cares, pains, infirmities, sorrows, ignorances, hunger, thirst, cold and concupiscences, worse than brutes. Yet nature, as soon as it was created by God and before it fell, was not subject to all these miseries and troubles; for God, as is said Sap., II, 23 and 24: Overlaid the incorruptible man... But by the envy of the devil death came into the world. And Eccles., VII, 30: This have I found, that God made man right, and he hath entangled himself with an infinity of questions. Ergo all these miseries and troubles are effects of sin common to all; for common punishment shows that common guilt preceded.

A twofold difficult objection is solved.

First objection. If original sin be truly and properly sin, it ought to be voluntary. Yet original sin is not voluntary. Ergo.

Before the answer, I suppose 1° that original sin is truly and properly sin, whereby we are by nature children of wrath, Ephes., II, 3, and enemies, Rom., v, 10. And so it was defined in conc. Arausicanum II, can. 2, and in Trent, sess. v, can. 2 and 5 ¹⁰.

I suppose 2° that original sin is not of the genus of actual sins, but habitual, consisting in the privation of original justice, as I shall say below. Now habitual sin is not voluntary formally, but terminatively or virtually and in cause, inasmuch as it is the term and effect of actual sin.

As to the actual sin of Adam, indeed it is transmitted into us, according to that of the Apostle, Rom., v, 12: In whom all have sinned, but morally only and extrinsically denominatively, because a second act denominates intrinsically only him from whom it is and in whom it inheres; although we were in Adam when he sinned, nevertheless we were not in him actually, but only in potency. Whence, just as the denomination of the future is only extrinsic, so we are denominated extrinsically to have sinned in Adam. But original sin is formally and intrinsically in us, or, as Trent says, sess. v, can. 3, « it is proper to each one and inherent in him. »

I suppose 3° that Adam was constituted by God head, not only natural but also moral, of all men, with regard to the conservation or loss of original justice; so that Adam himself and all his posterity should be reckoned as one body, of which Adam himself is head, and bears the person of all, in that wherein he is head, and the will of himself as head should be the will of all posterity, and thus whatever he willed in the character of head they too willed, not by proper and personal will, but by the common will of their head.

I suppose 4° that God could thus decree and dispose without any injustice: 1° Because, since he is supreme Lord of all, and, as Aug. says, lib. de Corrept. et Gratia, c. 14, n. 45, « has more in his power our wills than we ourselves, » as we can transfer our will to another, so God by his right could, our consent not required, since then we were not actual, transfer our wills into the will of Adam: not insofar as we are singular persons, for thus each one has his own will and is arbiter of himself; but insofar as we are parts and members of the whole nature to be propagated from Adam. Something similar happens in human affairs, while a prince includes the will of the ward in the will of the tutor, as regards civil acts, or while a magistrate acts in the name of the whole community with the king, exhibiting to him the oath of fidelity to him. 2° Because that decree was for our good and benefit; for if God had bound us by his precepts in Adam, he had also loaded us in him with his gratuitous gifts, so that, if Adam had persevered, together with nature we should have received from him original justice and all goods annexed to it. But God had adorned Adam with so many graces, fortified him with so many assists, so walled him against temptations, that perseverance and the advantages to follow were more to be hoped than prevarication and the evils to follow feared. Whence, if such a condition were proposed to us today, no one would prudently refuse it.

Nor does it follow therefore that God can now thus include my will in the will of another adult, so that, he sinning, I sin: because in this case it could happen that mortal sin would be committed in the same case against someone against whom it did not hold place when the will of the non-existent posterity of Adam was included in his will. Besides, God wills adults actually existing to be arbiters of themselves. These things supposed, to the objection

I answer. that original sin is voluntary for us, not formally by way of exercise, because it is not actual sin, but terminatively, virtually and in cause, because it is of the genus of habitual sin: not physically and by the will of the person, because we were not actual when Adam sinned; but morally by the will of the head, which by institution of God supposed for our wills.

Second objection. It cannot be said nor conceived how original sin is transmitted from Adam to posterity; for original sin is in the soul, the soul is not from Adam nor from parents through generation, but is created by God, as decided in the council Lateran V under Leo X ¹¹, sess. 8. But God does not vitiate it; for he is not author of sin, and hates nothing of the things he makes. Flesh, into which the soul is received, and seed, by which flesh is generated, since they are bodies, cannot act upon the soul and infect it, because it is spirit. How ergo is that soul found infected and stained with sin in its origin?

This difficulty seemed so great to Augustine that he doubted long whether the soul were not traduced from parents to offspring, like the body (which opinion nevertheless he afterwards rejected, Epist. 190°, to Optatus, n. 2), and in Epist. 167°, to Jerome, n. 2, he says it suffices for a Christian to know how he may be freed from original sin, though he know not how he incurred it. Concerning which he himself always remained hesitating in doubt.

I answer.¹² that original sin is transmitted through generation, not because through it the soul is transmitted; for this is created by God, nor does God infect it, as the objection well says, nor because flesh or seed acts efficiently upon the soul, as the objection again proves; but inasmuch as seed moves dispositively toward the soul and toward its conjunction with the body, from which conjunction this man is made, this human nature; for generation terminates not at the production of form alone or matter, but of the whole composite. Through generation therefore, by virtue of seed, nature propagated seminally from Adam is had and transmitted. Consequently, by concomitance or resultant transmission, guilt also is transmitted, because there is transmitted nature deprived of original justice, by a privation voluntary in us in Adam, in which privation original sin consists essentially, as we shall say below.

From these you will gather that the moral efficient cause of original sin is the sin of Adam, but the quasi instrumental cause is the seed whereby nature is produced.

You will ask 1° what sin of Adam was the cause of the traduction of original sin.

I answer. More probably, with the Author¹, that it was the first, not because it was such, but because it was first: because that sin of Adam was the cause of the traduction of original sin through which he lost original justice to be transfused into posterity. But whatever sin had been first, whether of deed or of will, by it he would have lost original justice, namely by losing sanctifying grace, which was the root of original justice, or at least was contained in it. Therefore.

You will ask 2° whether other sins of the first parent or of proximate parents are traduced into posterity.

I answer. Negatively², because the first sin of Adam is traduced into posterity insofar as he was constituted by God the moral head of all posterity, as to the conservation or loss of original justice. But proximate parents are not thus constituted moral head of their stock, and Adam himself by the first sin had fallen from the dignity of headship. Therefore.

Hence this proposition is condemned: « Every crime is of such condition that it can infect its author and all posterity in the manner in which the first transgression infected them. » It is number 52 among the Baians condemned by St. Pius V, October 1, 1567.

You will ask 3° whether, if Adam had not sinned and Eve had sinned, posterity would have contracted original sin.

I answer. Negatively³.

It is proved 1°. The Apostle, Rom., v, 12, says: By one man sin entered into this world. But if a woman were to transmit original sin to offspring, it ought rather to have been said, by two men, since both sinned, or rather by the woman, who sinned first⁴. Therefore.

It is confirmed. In the same place, verses 18 and 19, the Apostle says that through the offense of one, through the disobedience of one, sin entered into the world; and there he always compares one with one, namely Adam with Christ. Therefore the same as before.

2° Adam alone, and not Eve, was constituted moral head of posterity, as to the conservation or loss of original justice. Consequently the sin of Adam was capital, but the sin of Eve personal. Therefore.

You will ask 4° whether, if Adam had not sinned, and some one of his posterity, for instance Cain, had sinned, the posterity of Cain would have contracted original sin.

It is commonly answered negatively, for the same reason, because namely Adam alone, and not Cain or another of Adam's posterity, was constituted moral head of all men, as to the conservation or loss of original justice.

You will ask 5° whether, if Adam alone had sinned after his son was born, that son and his posterity would have contracted original sin.

I answer. More probably negatively: because neither that son nor his posterity would have been in the loins of Adam when he sinned, nor consequently would they be propagated seminally from sinful Adam. But those alone contract original sin who were in the loins of Adam while he sinned, and are propagated seminally from him as sinner. Add that this son would already have been just; but justice once possessed is not lost except by one's own will.

You will ask 6° whether all men contract original sin.

I answer. 1. It is of faith that all men whatsoever, propagated seminally from Adam, special privilege set aside, contract original sin.

It is proved 1° from that Rom., V, 12: In whom all have sinned. 2° Because otherwise not all would need the redemption which is through Christ; which is erroneous. 3° Because human nature deprived of original justice is traduced into all, in which deprivation, as voluntary in the head, original sin consists, as we shall say presently. 4° It is evident from the perpetual practice of the Church, which is wont, and is most solicitous, that infants of all, both of the faithful and of the just, be baptized, lest they be damned forever. Finally all that we have brought forward in proof of the existence of original sin proves this.

I said 1° : « Into all propagated seminally from Adam, » that Christ might be excepted, who was conceived not of virile seed, but by mystical breathing, and thus, since he was not contained in the loins of sinning Adam, did not sin in him.

I said 2° : « Special privilege set aside, » because many piously hold that blessed Mary was immune, not indeed from the obligation of contracting, but from the actual contraction of original sin. But in this matter Mother Church has defined nothing⁵, but leaves each free to embrace whichever opinion he wills, forbidding under pain of excommunication either party to presume to note the other with error or heresy.

And although Paul V, by decree of the universal Inquisition in 1617, to avoid scandals, quarrels and dissensions, forbade that the party affirming blessed Mary to have been conceived in original sin should be defended in public sermons, lectures and public acts, and Gregory XV by a decree likewise of the universal Inquisition in 1622 extended this to private conversations and writings, nevertheless from this silence the same Gregory XV, by the constitution Eximii given July 28, 1622, excepts the Friars Preachers, and grants them that they may freely and lawfully treat among themselves of this matter and expound their own opinion, in these words: « Of our own motion and from certain knowledge and mature deliberation, to all and singular the Friars of the said ORDER OF PREACHERS we grant and impart, by apostolic authority, by the tenor of these presents, license that henceforth in whatsoever their private conversations or conferences, among themselves only, and not among others or with others, they may freely and lawfully be able to discuss and treat of the matter of the same Conception of blessed Mary ever Virgin, without incurrence of any of the penalties contained in the said decrees: decreeing that the aforesaid Friars can and ought by no means to be molested, disturbed or disquieted by anyone, by whatever authority concerning this matter. » This constitution is found in the Bullarium of the Order of Friars Preachers, tom. vi, pag. 13.

You will ask 7° whether, if someone were formed miraculously from human flesh, he would contract original sin.

I answer. Negatively: because those alone contract original sin who descend originally from Adam according to seminal reason, or drawn originally from Adam by virtue of seed, and not merely according to bodily substance. But this man would not descend from Adam according to seminal reason, but only according to bodily substance; for he would not be made by the active virtue of seed, but by divine virtue. Therefore.

The major is proved. The sin of Adam is traduced into posterity insofar as they are his sons, or insofar as they are moved from him by generation, that is, insofar as he moves them so as to be generated. But to move by generation is proper to the active virtue which is in the seed. Therefore. Whence the council of Trent, session VI, chapter 3, says: « Unless men were born propagated from the seed of Adam, they would not be born unjust. »

Nevertheless this man ought to be baptized, not that he might be cleansed from original sin, but that he might obtain sanctifying grace, become a member of Christ, and have a right to the kingdom of heaven, according to that of John, III, 5 : Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

[Although the University of Paris, under Scotus as leader, had embraced the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception when the Subtle Doctor departed this life in the year 1308, John of Montesono, a doctor of theology of the Order of Preachers, openly and keenly attacked that opinion in the year 1387. The holy Synod did not wish to spend time upon things which the circumstances of the times did not altogether require, and since elsewhere several Fathers, though far fewer in number, did not admit Mary's privilege, lest it condemn them positively it issued, in sess. V, the declaration to be cited below, by which it certified that « the blessed and immaculate Virgin is not comprehended in the decree on original sin. » By this declaration the contest was not put to rest, most Dominicans defending the opinion of John of Montesono and the Jansenist writers — among whom John Launoi stands out — afterwards applauding them, although the Roman Church, more inclined toward the opinion of the Immaculate Conception, openly favored it. These men, distinguishing between the first instant of the blessed Virgin's conception and her animation, contended that Mary contracted original sin in her very conception, but they conceded that she was purified from this stain after animation, as is read in the Office of the Sanctification of B. M. V. in the Dominican Breviary published at Venice in 1547; which is against the true doctrine of the infusion of the soul into the human body, which we established in the dissertation De homine.

On the other side, among the theologians who defended the glory of the Immaculate One, some — otherwise men of good name — judged that God had decreed to endow her with so great a privilege even before his foreknowledge both of original sin and of the incarnation of the Word, and therefore independently of the most sublime dignity to which she was to be raised by the title of divine maternity. These men, wise not unto sobriety, did not sufficiently consider that all propagated seminally from Adam sinned in him, as the Apostle teaches, Rom., v, 12, and consequently that all stood in need of the redemption that is through Christ: whence they ought to have concluded that blessed Mary the Virgin was not immune from the obligation of contracting original sin, and could not be preserved from that stain except, as is said in the bull of definition soon to be cited, « by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, in view of the merits of Christ Jesus the Savior of the human race. » Otherwise Christ would not be the universal Redeemer of the whole human race, nor would he have died for all men; which cannot be maintained saving the faith.

Therefore against the aforementioned, respectively

I say: The most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her Conception, was, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, in view of the merits of Christ Jesus the Savior of the human race, preserved immune from every stain of original guilt.

1° It is of faith. Before this truth was dogmatically defined in these latest times, it was always the settled conviction in the Church of God that the Mother of God was, by a singular privilege, entirely immune from every sin, whether actual or original. For we read in the bull Ineffabilis Deus:

« Which original innocence of the most august Virgin, wholly coherent with her admirable holiness and her pre-eminent dignity as Mother of God, the Catholic Church — taught by the Holy Spirit who is the column and firmament of truth — possessing as doctrine divinely received and comprehended in the deposit of heavenly revelation, has never ceased continually to expound, propose and foster ever more from day to day in manifold ways and with splendid deeds. »

For many declarations of the Holy See and other dogmatic acts of the greatest moment, which were the precursors of the formal definition, clearly show what has always been the doctrine of the Church concerning the Immaculate Conception of B. M. V., the Mother of God.

The Council of Trent, after the celebrated decree on original sin issued in session V, adds: « This holy Synod declares nevertheless 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 IV, of happy memory, are to be observed, under the penalties contained in those constitutions which it renews. » And the council openly professed its true opinion by commanding that on the feast of the Conception there be celebrated, in the presence of the Fathers, the Mass approved by Sixtus IV, with the prayer: Deus, qui per Immaculatam Virginis Conceptionem, etc., which is recited in the most recent Office and Mass.

This Mass, with the corresponding office, was in use from the year 1476 to the year 1568, and then in the new Breviary this office gave way to the office of the Nativity, only the name being changed.

Sixtus IV, in the constitution Grave nimis, given on the day before the nones of September 1483, had declared indeed that it could be freely disputed whether B. V. Mary was immaculate in her very conception; but under the gravest penalties he had forbidden anyone to accuse of heresy and even of error « those who held that the soul of B. M. V., in the first instant of its creation and infusion into the body, in view of the merits of the Son of God our Redeemer, had been preserved and kept immune from the stain of original sin, and who in this sense venerated and celebrated her feast with solemn rite. » Which constitution was renewed by Alexander VII on December 8, 1661.

Whence St. Pius V, in the constitution Ex omnibus afflictionibus, given October 1, 1567, condemned the following proposition, which is the 73rd among the Baian propositions: « No one besides Christ is without original sin. Hence the B. Virgin died on account of sin contracted from Adam, and all her afflictions in this life, like those of other just men, were punishments for actual or original sin. »

To foster and increase the devotion of the faithful toward the singular privilege of the Mother of God, several Pontiffs approved the erection of many monasteries, churches and confraternities under the title of the Immaculate Conception of B. M. V., and granted indulgences to those who recited certain prayers in honor of the Virgin Immaculate. Among them Gregory XV, on April 13, 1621, enriched with a partial indulgence the recitation of the invocation: Benedicta sit purissima et immaculata Conceptio B. M. V. Which concession was renewed by Urban VIII on November 18, 1623.

Because, from the oft-praised saying of Pope St. Celestine, « the law of praying establishes the law of believing, » what is expressly enunciated in the sacred liturgy must be held as pertaining to the genuine doctrine of the Church. For the Church of God can no more profess error than define error juridically as truth. Moreover, in her liturgy the Roman Church for several centuries has professed that B. M. V. was immaculate in her Conception. Therefore she has certified that this doctrine is her own, that is, that it is contained in the deposit of sacred revelation.

Before the profession of this truth appears clearly in the Roman liturgy and the particular liturgies of the Western churches, it is found in the most ancient and primitive Eastern liturgies. In the liturgy bearing the name of St. John Chrysostom, the most blessed Virgin is praised as most holy, undefiled, unspotted, blessed above all. She is celebrated with the same praises in the liturgy ascribed to St. Basil the Great, which, as Peter the Deacon relates — who wrote in the VI century — was in use in nearly all the churches of the East. The liturgy attributed to St. Mark decrees the same praise to the Mother of God. The liturgy of St. James, first bishop of Jerusalem, makes commemoration of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, as most holy, unspotted, Immaculate, blessed above all, ever-blessed, blameless in every way, more honorable than the cherubim and more glorious than the seraphim. Not unlike do the other liturgies of those same times speak.

If it be objected that the aforementioned liturgies, which are called apostolic, are later than the Apostles, since before the V century no mention of them is found, it must be answered: 1° Even if they were certainly not older than the V century, nevertheless from them one discerns what truths the various churches professed; for new dogmas could not have been introduced into them without anyone protesting. 2° It is established that no liturgy, except perhaps that found in the apostolic Constitutions, was committed to writing before the V century, on account of the discipline of the secret, which did not allow the sacred mysteries to be revealed except to the initiated. In the time of St. Augustine the Apostles' Creed was not yet written down, as he himself testifies, chapter 1 de Symbolo ad catechumenos, n. 1¹. Can then the authenticity of this rule of faith be denied? The same must be said of the liturgies.

In the West, the feast of the Conception of B. M. V. is already celebrated in various churches from the XI century onward. It is found instituted in the diocese of Cremona in the year 1047; in Bayeux, 1070. Celebrated is the letter by which, about the year 1140, St. Bernard keenly rebuked the canons of Lyons, who had determined to institute the feast of Mary's Conception, saying that this feast was new (although it was already celebrated elsewhere), rested on no legitimate foundation, and ought not to have been instituted without consulting the Apostolic See. He declared nevertheless that he reserved his opinion « especially to the authority and examination of the Roman Church. »

St. Anselm had instituted this feast in his church of Canterbury in the year 1109. Notwithstanding the vehement opposition of St. Bernard, it is admitted by several churches of France in the year 1198. Thence it passes into the neighboring regions, and is celebrated in the diocese of Paderborn in the year 1343; in Münster, 1350; in Strasbourg, 1364; in Seville, 1369; in Tarragona, 1378.

The Roman Church in no way disapproved of the desire and counsel of the particular churches: which surely she would not have failed to do, if their piety had erred in this. Nay, the supreme Pontiffs themselves expressly approved this devotion, and judged that it should be propagated by public worship.

For Sixtus IV, on the third of the calends of May 1476, decrees that this feast is to be celebrated at Rome with an office and Mass whose prayer was: Deus, qui per Immaculatam Virginis Conceptionem, etc. Which Mass, as we said, was afterward celebrated in the presence of the Tridentine Fathers.

Paul III, July 3, 1536(?), approves the Breviary elaborated by cardinal Quignon, with the office of the Conception, in which the Invitatory of Matins was: Immaculatam Conceptionem Virginis Maria celebremus, etc. The same pope, on September 16, 1549, approved the Roman Missal containing the Mass of this mystery with the aforesaid prayer.

Paul V, on the fifth of the ides of March 1606, grants to the Order of Minors Observant, on each Saturday not impeded, the recitation of the office of the Immaculate Conception beginning Sicut cedrus, which was again approved by Pius IX and granted to the whole Church.

Several Pontiffs afterward grant the same office and the same Mass to various orders: among them Clement IX, on September 27, 1667, to the Society of Jesus, with an octave; on October 31 of the same year, to the whole order of Hermits of St. Augustine. By the same pope it is granted, on October 21 of the same year, to all dwelling in Roman territory, and on February 8 to the diocese of Modena.

Innocent XI, on December 18, 1678, approves and enriches with an indulgence the little office of the Immaculate Conception, to be recited in various congregations of B. M. V., « which, says the Pontiff, is recited in the Church by permission of the Holy See from most ancient times. »

Innocent XII, on May 15, 1693, extends the feast of the Conception, with an octave, to the universal Church. If it be objected that the Conception of the Mother of God is not expressly called immaculate in this office, it must be answered: 1° It was enacted in the Missal of St. Pius V that this feast should be celebrated with the office and Mass of her Nativity, only the name being changed. 2° St. Thomas says of the Nativity of B. M. V., IIIa p., q. 27, a. 1, in arg. Sed contra: « The Church celebrates the Nativity of the blessed Virgin. But a feast is not celebrated in the Church except for some saint. Therefore the blessed Virgin was holy in her very Nativity. » This argument is deservedly employed in favor of the Conception of the same Virgin. And indeed by the very fact that it is prescribed that the Conception and the Nativity of Mary are to be celebrated with the same office and the same Mass, each mystery is declared equally worthy and holy. Moreover the Conception would not have been holy, and therefore most worthy, unless it had been immaculate; and under no other title could it be offered to the piety of the faithful as an object of public worship.

Clement XI, on December 6, 1708, decrees that this feast is to be kept under obligation of precept, and grants afterward, on May 25, 1712, that the title Immaculate be added not only to the Virgin herself, but to her Conception.

By these and many other things, which we omit here for brevity's sake — « the responses, constitutions, [decrees] of the supreme Pontiffs » — she had come to be venerated and celebrated as immaculate. Moved by which things Benedict XIV had ordered prepared a draft of a dogmatic constitution on the immaculate Conception of the Mother of God, for the defining of this truth as of faith. Why, by a most wise counsel of God, this most learned Pontiff did not promulgate this definition, it is not for us to inquire.

From every side bishops, carrying up the votes of the faithful to the Apostolic See, demanded more urgently that the wonderful and unique privilege of the immaculate Mother of God be defined dogmatically; and meanwhile they asked for and obtained that there be permitted to be added to the Litany of Loreto this new invocation: Queen conceived without original stain, pray for us; and to the preface of the Mass of the Conception of B. V. the word Immaculate.

Wishing to satisfy these prayers, Pius IX, exiled from Rome by the Gaetani « most turbulent storm of evils », directed on February 2, 1849 to the bishops of the whole Catholic world the encyclical letter Ubi primum, in which is read: « We earnestly desire that you signify to us with all possible speed with what devotion your clergy and faithful people are animated toward the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin, and with what desire they burn that such a matter be decreed by the Apostolic See; and above all we desire most especially to know what you yourselves, venerable Brothers, think of the matter itself, in your eminent wisdom, and what advantage the Roman clergy already enjoys in consequence thereof, without having to implore such a favor from the Holy See. »

Six hundred and sixty-five bishops signified their testimony and votes to the supreme Pontiff in their replies. « These same, as Pius IX says in his decretorial constitution, replying to us with incredible joy, gladness and zeal, not only renewed again their own particular devotion and disposition of mind, and that of the clergy and faithful people of each, toward the Immaculate Conception of the most blessed Virgin, but also demanded of us, as it were with common voice, that the Immaculate Conception of that same Virgin should be defined by our supreme judgment and authority. » Only certain bishops, and these very few in number, while attesting the most ancient devotion of their churches toward the Immaculate Virgin, and professing themselves to venerate the most august Virgin as Immaculate and altogether exempt from the original stain, judged that, on account of the circumstances of present things, this truth was not yet opportunely to be defined as of faith.

Finally, after taking counsel anew with one hundred ninety-two cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops and bishops summoned from all parts of the Catholic world and present at Rome, Pius IX, surrounded by this most ample and illustrious senate, on the very feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God, in the year 1854, promulgated in the Vatican basilica the dogmatic constitution beginning Ineffabilis Deus, which, after a most abundant exposition of the doctrine itself and an enumeration of the principal facts demonstrating the constant devotion of the Christian people toward this mystery, he concluded thus:

« For the honor of the holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and ornament of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the increase of the Christian religion, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and of our own, we declare, pronounce and define: the doctrine which holds that the most blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her Conception, was preserved immune from every stain of original guilt, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, in view of the merits of Christ Jesus the Savior of the human race, is revealed by God, and therefore is to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful. Wherefore, if any shall have presumed to think in their heart otherwise than has been defined by us — which God avert — let them know and understand that they are condemned by their own judgment, have suffered shipwreck concerning the faith, and have fallen away from the unity of the Church, and that by the very fact they subject themselves to the penalties established by law, if they shall have dared to signify what they feel in their heart by word, in writing, or by any other external manner whatsoever. »

This decree was everywhere hailed with incredible joy by the faithful peoples, who, together with their bishops publishing the definition, cried out eagerly: Peter has spoken through the mouth of Pius IX. Rome has spoken, the cause is finished.

2° It is proved from Sacred Scripture. Gen., III, 14 and 15. After Adam's fall, promising man a repairer and redeemer to be born of the new Eve, that is, of Mary, the Lord says to the serpent.... I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed. She shall crush thy head. The holy Fathers unanimously taught that this woman who crushed the head of the serpent, or of the devil, is none other than the future mother of the Redeemer. Yet unless B. Mary, the mother of Christ, had been in her conception entirely immune from the stain of original sin, she did not truly crush the head of the serpent, whose dominion she was on the contrary first made subject to, made his bondswoman for some time. Therefore in her conception she was immaculate.

After the promise come the figures. All things that pertain to the mystery of the redemption of the human race had to be prefigured, and it was fitting that among the prophetic symbols some should announce and depict the future mother of the Savior. Therefore the sanctity of her conception ought to have been expressed symbolically. And that it was so done is established from the dogmatic constitution Ineffabilis Deus, in which the ancient figures of this mystery are not only enumerated but explained according to tradition, in this manner: « Now those same Fathers saw the eminent and singular triumph of the Virgin, and her most excellent innocence, purity, holiness, and her integrity free from every stain of sin, and the ineffable abundance and magnitude of all heavenly graces, virtues and privileges, at one time in the Ark of Noah, which, constituted by God, escaped quite safe and sound from the common shipwreck of the whole world; at another in that Ladder which Jacob saw reaching from earth even to heaven, on whose steps the angels of God ascended and descended, and upon whose top the Lord himself leaned; then again in that Bush which Moses saw burning on every side in a holy place amid the crackling flames of fire, yet not consumed or suffering the least loss, but beautifully green and flowering; then in that impregnable Tower facing the enemy, from which hang a thousand shields and all the armor of the strong; then in that enclosed Garden which knows not how to be violated or corrupted by any deceits of snares; then in that resplendent City of God whose foundations are in the holy mountains; then in that most august Temple of God which, shining with divine splendors, is full of the glory of the Lord; then in other figures of the same kind altogether very many, by which the sublime dignity of the Mother of God, her unsullied innocence, and her holiness liable to no stain whatever had been signally foretold, as the Fathers delivered.

» To describe this same integrity of the Virgin, of whom Jesus was born, as it were the sum and original [store] of divine gifts, those same men, employing also the words of the Prophets, celebrated the august Virgin no otherwise, namely as a Dove pure and holy, as Jerusalem, as the lofty Throne of God, and the Ark of sanctification, and the House which eternal wisdom will build for itself, and that Queen who, flowing with delights and leaning upon her Beloved, came forth from the mouth of the Most High altogether perfect, beautiful, and wholly dear to God, never spotted with any stain of defilement. »

To these are added those words applied to the Virgin in the sacred liturgy from the Canticle of canticles as to a spouse: ⟨Cant., II, 10 : Arise, my love, my spouse⟩, ⟨...⟩ among the daughters; ibid., IV, 7 : Thou art all fair, my love, and there is not a spot in thee; ibid., VI, 9 : Who is she that goeth forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, chosen as the sun?

The Gospel accords with the Old Scripture, describing the reality prefigured. Mary, even before the consummation of the mystery of the incarnation, is greeted by the angel as full of grace, Luc., I, 28, that is, laden with all the graces with which God can enrich any creature: which plenitude necessarily includes, as its principle, the singular sanctity of her conception. Whence there is added in the aforesaid bull: « But whereas those same Fathers and writers of the Church pondered in mind and heart that the most blessed Virgin, when the angel Gabriel announced to her her most sublime dignity as Mother of God, was named full of grace by the name and command of God himself, they taught that by this singular and solemn salutation, never heard elsewhere, it was shown that the Mother of God was the seat of all divine graces, adorned with all the charisms of the divine Spirit, nay more, the well-nigh infinite treasury and inexhaustible abyss of those same charisms, so that, never liable to malediction, and partaker with her Son of perpetual blessing, she merited to hear, moved by the divine Spirit, from Elizabeth: Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. »

What could be wished more explicit in the sacred writings for proving, by divine authority, that the conception of the blessed Virgin Mary was altogether untouched and wholly immune from the original stain?

3° It is proved from tradition. Beyond measure would grow the heap of testimonies if, besides the acts of the Holy See related above, we attempted to transcribe either the decrees of particular councils, or the professions of universities and ecclesiastical writers, or the eulogies of the holy Fathers, which affirm, demonstrate and extol the purity and sanctity of the Immaculate Virgin in her very Conception. Let it suffice briefly to indicate certain ones.

All the provincial synods of the current century have testified their adherence to this doctrine, requesting that this truth be at length defined by the Apostolic See as of faith. The councils of the XVI and XV centuries vindicating the privilege of the Mother of God prescribed that the decree of Sixtus IV be observed; and at those same times fifty universities and more, in all parts of the Christian world, solemnly adhered to this opinion, many of which, like the University of Paris in the year 1496, enacted « that no one henceforth be inscribed in this our sacred college unless he profess under oath that he will always, according to his powers, be an assertor of this religious doctrine and its strenuous champion. »

In the year 1222, the Council of Oxford, to commend devotion toward the Immaculate Conception of B. M. V., commemorates the feast of this mystery, instituted by St. Anselm, as already celebrated from that time throughout the whole province of Canterbury. There is read in the acts of the Council of Frankfort, 794: « But we wish also to hear this from you, whether Adam, the first father of the human race, who was born of virgin earth, was created free or a servant. If a servant, how then the image of God? If free, why also was not Christ likewise free-born of a Virgin? Man was indeed made of better earth, even animated and immaculate, the Holy Spirit operating. »

According to the second Council of Nicaea, the seventh general council, there was approved the synodal letter of Theodore, patriarch of Jerusalem, in which he had written: « Who is truly the Mother of God, and a virgin before childbirth and after childbirth, and created higher than the glory and splendor of all intelligible and sensible nature. » But how was she created higher than the very intelligible natures, that is, the angels, if she was defiled with the original stain in her Conception or creation? The Third Council of Constantinople, the sixth general council, 680, had approved another synodal letter of St. Sophronius, likewise patriarch of Jerusalem, professing that the Son of God became incarnate in the womb of « Mary, holy, honorable and divine, and free from all defilement. » He is that Sophronius whose sermon, in which the perfect sanctity of the blessed Virgin is extolled, was inserted into the new office of the Immaculate Conception. The Lateran Council, convened under Martin I in the year 649, calls the Mother of Christ « holy and ever Virgin, and Immaculate. »

Innumerable texts exist of the writers of these times which celebrate the perfect sanctity of the Mother of God and even expressly affirm that her Conception was immune from every stain. Since it is impossible even to inscribe their names here, let our Angelic Doctor speak in behalf of all, who says, In I Sentent., dist. 44, q. 1, a. 3, ad 3: « Purity is increased by withdrawal from its contrary, and therefore there can be found a creature than which nothing purer could exist among created things, if it were infected by no contagion of sin. And such was the purity of the blessed Virgin, who was immune from original and actual sin. » Below we shall examine whether the contrary texts attributed to the same Doctor are genuine.

Constrained by the narrowness of space, we shall relate only certain testimonies of the Fathers, and especially the older ones. St. Augustine, de Natura et gratia, c. 36, n. 42: « Excepting the holy Virgin Mary, of whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I will to have no question whatsoever when sins are spoken of: for how do we know what greater measure of grace was conferred upon her for conquering sin on every side, who merited to conceive and bear him of whom it is known that he had no sin? This Virgin excepted, then, if we could gather together all those holy men and women while they lived here and ask them whether they were without sin, what do we think they would have answered?... Would they not have cried out with one voice: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us? » On account of her divine maternity, Mary conquered sin on every side. Therefore also original sin.

Against Julian the Pelagian himself objecting against original sin — book IV Operis imperf. contra Julian., c. 122: « Thou dost transcribe into the devil the very Mary by the condition of birth » — the same Doctor answers: « We shall not transcribe Mary into the devil by the condition of birth, but for this reason, because that condition itself is dissolved by the grace of rebirth. » Whence Mary, as daughter of Adam according to the flesh, indeed had the obligation of contracting original sin; but, on account of the dignity of her future divine maternity, she was released from this debt « by the grace of rebirth. » St. Ambrose, in Ps. CXVIII: « To this paradise the entrance of the serpent was not opened. O most holy one, who didst outwit principalities and powers, preserved immaculate for the spouse of God! » St. Jerome, or another writer of that time who left commentaries on the Psalms under the name of the holy Doctor, explaining this passage Ps. LXXVII, 14 : And he brought them out in the cloud of the day, says of the Virgin Mary: « That cloud was not in darkness, but always in light. » Sophronius, contemporary of Jerome, Hom. in Assumpt.: Mary is « therefore immaculate, because corrupted in nothing. » St. John Chrysostom, Sermon apud Metaphrastem: « What is holier than she [Mary]? Neither prophets, nor apostles, nor martyrs, nor patriarchs, nor angels, nor thrones, nor dominations, nor seraphim, nor cherubim, nor finally anything else whatsoever among created things visible or invisible, can be found greater or more excellent. » St. Ephrem, in Orat. ad B. V.: « O Virgin Lady, Immaculate Mother of God,... more honorable than the cherubim, and beyond all comparison far more precious than the heavenly hosts! » Origen, In cap. 1 Matth.: « Of this Only-Begotten of God shall this Mother be said to be, the Virgin Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the Immaculate One, one of the One, single of the Single... A Virgin, neither deceived by the persuasion of the serpent, nor infected by his poisonous breath. »

St. Hippolytus of Porto, in the Bibliotheca Patrum (Gallandi): « The ark of woods that could not rot was the Savior himself. For through it is signified his Tabernacle exempt from putrefaction and corruption, which generated no putrefaction of sin. » In the Letter of the presbyters and deacons of Achaia on the martyrdom of St. Andrew, in Surius, under November 30, Andrew is read to have said to Egeas the proconsul, among many other things: « Because the first man had been created from immaculate earth, it was necessary that the perfect Man be born of an Immaculate Virgin. »

Hundreds upon hundreds of other testimonies we are forced to pass over, which were gathered together especially by Passaglia, De Immaculata Deiparae semper Virginis Conceptu commentarius; by Ant. Ballerini, Sylloge monumentorum ad mysterium Concept. Imm. Virginis Deiparae illustrandum; by Em. Card. Gousset, La croyance de l'Eglise touchant l'Immaculée Conception de la B. Vierge Marie.

4° It is proved by reason. Since the blessed Virgin, as propagated seminally from Adam, in whom all sinned, had the debt of contracting original sin, from which she was not preserved except « in view of the merits of Christ Jesus the Savior of the human race, » she can be proved fit to be endowed with this singular privilege on no other theological ground than the ground of congruity. This argument is most valid, if it is demonstrated that the contrary would not have beseemed either the three divine persons considered singly, or the Mother of God herself.

But that it is so is easily demonstrated.

It did not beseem the Father. By force of the eternal decree by which the future incarnation of the Word was ordained, the Father chose the woman who would temporally generate, according to human nature, him whom he himself generates eternally according to divine nature; so that, by the dispensation of the sacrament hidden from eternity in God, Ephes., III, 9, the same person might become the Son common to God the Father and to Mary. Yet God the Father, whose nature is holiness, could not admit to such partnership a creature whom he would not have willed holy — if not by essence, at least by grace and privilege, and in a higher degree than a creature is capable of: and this holiness necessarily includes immunity, not only from every actual sin, but also from the original stain. Therefore.

It did not beseem the Son. The divine Word is not truly made man unless he takes true human flesh, that is, flesh drawing its origin from Adam and communicated to him by his Mother, although the mode of this communication was singular and exceeded the common laws of human generation. Whence St. Bernard, in accord with Augustine and the other Fathers, does not hesitate to affirm, Hom. 4 super Missus est, n. 4, that the Holy Spirit, that he might form the body for the Son of God, « made of the little portion of the body of the same [Mary], and of the substance of the remainder of the mass, a tabernacle. » Yet, since the Son of God made man did not cease to be the splendor of glory and the figure of the substance of the Father, Hebr., I, 3, and although he had come to redeem sinners, it behooved him to be separate from sinners, ibid., VII, 26; with a holiness essentially inhering in the Godhead, it would have been unseemly and shameful for him if the flesh from which he took his own flesh had been previously defiled with the original stain. Therefore, as is said in the bull of definition, « it altogether beseemed that, as the Only-Begotten had a Father in heaven whom the seraphim extol as thrice Holy, so he should have a Mother who never lacked the splendor of holiness. »

It did not beseem the Holy Spirit. Through the divine incarnation Mary was truly made the spouse of the Holy Spirit. For the angel said to her, Luc., I, 35 : The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. « Which is to say, says St. Bernard, ibid.: Because thou shalt conceive not of man, but of the Holy Ghost. » Yet it is unbelievable that the Holy Spirit could have chosen and united to himself as spouse a woman not wholly and always unsullied, one who would not have been altogether innocent and holy. Therefore. And thus are verified these words dictated by the Holy Spirit and applied by the Church to the blessed Mother of God, Cantic., IV, 7 : Thou art all fair, my love, and there is not a spot in thee.

These three arguments are thus set forth summarily by St. Anselm, de Conceptu virginali, c. 18: « It was fitting that that Virgin shine with that purity greater than which cannot be understood under God, to whom God the Father disposed to give his only Son, whom he begot equal to himself from his own heart and loved as himself, so that naturally he would be one and the same, the common Son of God the Father and the Virgin; and whom the Son himself chose to make substantially his Mother; and of whom the Holy Spirit willed and was about to operate that that be conceived and born of which he himself proceeds. »

It did not beseem the Mother of God herself. The future mother of the Redeemer had been elected from eternity as, for her part, the repairer of the human race, who therefore was to crush the serpent's head, Gen., III, 15, whereby full victory over the devil is promised to her. « To whom has this victory been reserved, if not to Mary? » says St. Bernard, Hom. 2 super Missus est, n. 4. Yet Mary certainly would not have crushed the serpent's head, nor won full victory over him, if the serpent had held her under his power for even one instant, at least through original sin, and could boast that, though afterward conquered by her, he had nonetheless been her first conqueror: which would evidently have obscured her glory no less than her sanctity. Therefore. Whence the holy Fathers constantly oppose Mary, as the second Eve, to the former Eve, because in her place she was made the mother of the living through grace, whereas the former Eve had been created innocent and immaculate. Therefore supreme fitness required that the new Eve likewise be conceived innocent and immaculate.

I say: It cannot be affirmed that St. Thomas ever denied that great privilege of the Mother of God.

It is proved 1° by presumptions. 1° The Angelic Doctor with eminent reason proved the fittingness of the incarnation of the Word of God, 3ª p., q. 1, a. 1, c. Moreover, as was demonstrated in the preceding article, it conduced most congruously to the divine incarnation that the Deipara should be in her conception wholly immune from original stain. It would be wonderful therefore if so great a Doctor not only had not perceived this fittingness, but even attacked it, as the adversaries contended.

2° Already before the time when St. Thomas flourished, the feast of the Conception was celebrated in the East almost from the origin of the Church, and in many western churches for two hundred years, the apostolic See knowing and not gainsaying, as we proved above. Moreover our Doctor reasons thus concerning the Nativity of the Deipara, 3ª p., q. 27, a. 1, in arg. Sed contra: « The Church celebrates the Nativity of blessed Virgin. But no feast is celebrated in the Church except on account of some holy one. Therefore blessed Virgin was holy in her very Nativity. » How can it be supposed that he admitted, even implicitly, that the Roman Church would have tolerated the celebration of a feast whose error had been so grave its only foundation?

3° The doctrine whereby he holds the Deipara to have been immaculate in her Conception belonged to the tradition of the family of Preachers. St. Dominic, founder of this Order, had openly professed it in the book written against the Albigenses which, the heretics demanding a miracle that all things which it contained be divinely confirmed, was cast into fire before them standing by, and remained unharmed. Moreover there was read in this book this testimony of St. Andrew the apostle extracted from the relation of his martyr, which we already related above: « Because there would be born from an immaculate Virgin the perfect Man. » This remarkable fact, that it had been sculptured in the ancient tablet which was long conserved in the city of Barcelona, is consigned in the Armamentario Seraphico for defending the title of the Immaculate Conception of B. M. V., and was lately asserted and proved by Card. Lambruschini in the polemical Dissertation published in favor of this truth. After St. Dominic, who died in the year 1121, no writer is cited among his sons who denied the privilege of the Deipara before the year 1387, in which John of Montesono spread abroad several propositions contrary to this glorious immunity. And the audacity of this author offended pious ears so gravely that the University of Paris brought against him a judgment, and obeying the royal mandate, the Parisian Dominicans publicly rejected and condemned the aforesaid propositions, and solemnly celebrated the feast of the Conception of B. M. V. ¹. Moreover, as is clear from the statute of the Faculty of Theology of Paris of March 3, 1496, the University of that same city professed the immunity of Mary from original sin before John of Montesono attacked it; and it is certain that she interpreted the Sentences of the Master with highest praise no otherwise than she thought with St. Thomas, most eminent among her doctors. Moreover it is incredible that the Angelic Doctor spurned the doctrine of his father Dominic, which the celebrated University wherein, having first attained the laurel of doctor, he afterward exercised the magisterium, held even as a most excellent part of its patrimony. And in reality he held and taught it, as shall soon be demonstrated from his commentary upon the Sentences.

It is proved 2° by the texts of the Angelic Doctor himself. The adversaries of the Immaculate Conception gloried that St. Thomas favored them, and they displayed certain texts of this Doctor whereby their opinion seemed to be buttressed. But that these texts are not genuine but supposititious is easily demonstrated.

In first place comes what St. Thomas says in I Sentent., dist. 44, q. 1, a. 3, ad 3: « Purity is intensified by recession from the contrary, and therefore something created can be found than which nothing purer could be among created things, if it were infected by no contagion of sin. And such was the purity of blessed Virgin, who was immune from original and actual sin. » It must be noted that St. Thomas, while writing these things, exercised the office of master in the University of Paris, whose doctrine he expressed in these words. This is read in the ancient editions, among which are especially noteworthy the Lyons edition of the year 1520, revised by Lambertus Campensis, and the Roman one of the year 1570, published at the command of S. Pius V, and, as is noted in the title, « collated with the most approved codices. »

In the year 1388, about fifty years before the invention of the art of printing, Peter of Ailly invoked this testimony against John of Montesono, in a writing offered in the name of the University of Paris to Clement VII, the Avignon Pope. No editor dared corrupt and interpolate this text, but because it could be opposed to the adversaries of the Immaculate Conception, Cosmas Morellus expunged it from his Antwerp edition, and this suppression Catharinus and Theophilus Raynaudus noted and gravely disapproved. That place therefore is held indubitably authentic.

There is another notable place in Opusculum LX, De dilectione Christi et proximi. At the end of this treatise the holy Doctor explains, according to St. Bernard, the ten degrees of the love of God. In the ninth degree he places the Seraphim, who hold the summit of the celestial hierarchy. « These, he says, namely sweetly burning, in this ninth degree are Seraphim, touching in the nearest degree of kinship, of whom Dionysius says: » Seraphim is hot, fervid and superfervid. This is a great vision, ardor without penalty, sweet, not heavy; so that Moses wondered that the bush burned and was not consumed. » Since there is a tenth degree, in it must be placed some creature superior to Seraphim, that is, superior to any other creature whatever, and this is the most blessed Deipara. Whence he says: « The degree therefore tenth in which love makes [one] assimilated totally beyond the Seraphim, is that whereby he is excellently assimilated, seeing that to them agrees in the highest the definition of angel which Dionysius posits: » Angel is the image of God, manifestation of hidden light, bright mirror, brightest, immaculate, unstained, uncontaminated, receiving into itself, whole, if it is fitting to say, the beauty of omniform deiformity, making resplendently shine in itself purely the goodness of silence. » The highest artisan therefore made, unto fuller display of his art, one mirror brighter than the brightest, cleaner and purer than Seraphim, and of such purity that it could not be understood purer unless God were — namely the person of the most glorious Virgin. Of whom Anselm: » It befitted that the conception of that Man be made of a Mother most pure, with that purity whereby greater under God cannot be understood. » How more clearly could it be affirmed that the Mother of God was wholly immune from original sin? « Angel is a mirror bright, brightest, immaculate, unstained, uncontaminated. » But blessed Virgin is « a mirror brighter than the brightest, » surpassing Seraphim in her sanctity, « so pure that a purer cannot be understood, unless God; » which certainly it would not be licit to affirm, if she had been contaminated in her origin by the common stain for one instant only. Therefore. — No edition is cited wherein the above text has been corrupted. It must be admitted therefore by all as authentic.

There are in the modern editions of the works of St. Thomas other texts contrary to the aforesaid. Those who alleged them to undermine the doctrine which now is to be held as revealed and of faith said the Angelic Doctor either contradicted himself or deserted his former opinion, which he had finally acknowledged not sufficiently founded. Wonderful indeed it would be that so great a Doctor fell unwittingly into so evident a contradiction. Although however it would not have been indecorous in him to have left his pristine opinion on account of valid reasons which he had not at first perceived, this explanation collapsed, if it be proved that the places invoked against the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception were deliberately adulterated, lest the credit of St. Thomas detract from the purest origin of Mary. Moreover this will become manifest from the following.

1° There was read in Opusculum VIII, Expositio super salutatione angelica: « Mary was most pure as regards every guilt, because neither original, nor mortal, nor venial sin did she ever incur. » This text is cited by Salmeron, In Epist. ad Rom., disp. 5, and by Canisius. It was in a manuscript of the Praemonstratensian monastery and in another inscribed in the royal library of Paris under number 690. The aforesaid words are found in five manuscripts existing today at Paris: first, in the library of saint Genevieve, n° 676; second, in the national library, n° 233, formerly in the library of the abbey of saint Victor; third and fourth in the same library, n° 426 and 66; fifth in the library called de l'Arsenal, n° 581. The three prior ones belong to the XII century, and St. Thomas died in the year 1274. They must be held therefore as authentic and worthy of all faith, as is demonstrated by Echard in Scriptor. ord. PP. Praedicator., tom. I, p. 334 and 340, and by P. de Rubeis, De gestis et scriptis ac doctrina S. Thomae, Venet., 1750, p. 82.

In the Parisian, Antwerp, Cologne editions, even the Venetian of the year 1776 and the Roman published at the command of S. Pius V, the word original is wanting in the aforesaid place, and also a little before it is affirmed that blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin. For what end, and how rashly, this writing of our Doctor was truncated and interpolated will be perspicuous if the present text, which we transcribe, leaving out parts not necessary, be subjected to serious examination.

« [The Angel] saluted blessed Virgin, reverently saying: Ave. But that anciently the angel revered not man, but man the angel, the reason is because the angel was greater than man, and this as regards three things: First, as regards dignity. The reason is: for the angel is of spiritual nature... Secondly, as regards familiarity with God... Thirdly he excelled on account of the fullness of the splendor of divine grace; for angels participate the very divine light in the highest fullness... Therefore it was not becoming that he exhibit reverence to man until someone were found in human nature who in these three things exceeded the angels. And this was blessed Virgin. And therefore, to designate that in these three things she exceeded him, the angel willed to exhibit reverence to her. Whence he said: Ave. Whence blessed Virgin exceeded the angels in these three things. And first in fullness of grace, which is more in blessed Virgin than in any angel. And therefore, to intimate this, the angel exhibited reverence to her, saying: Full of grace, as though he would say: « Therefore I exhibit reverence to thee, because thou excellest me » in fullness of grace. » Blessed Virgin is moreover said to be full of grace, as regards three things. First, as regards the soul, in which she had every fullness of grace. For the grace of God is given unto two things, namely unto working good, and unto avoiding evil, and as regards those two blessed Virgin had the most perfect grace. For she avoided every sin more than any saint after Christ. For sin either is original, and from this she was cleansed in the womb; or mortal, or venial, and from these she was free. Whence Cantic., IV, 7: Thou art all fair, my love, and there is not a spot in thee. Augustine, in the book de Natura et Gratia: « Except the holy Virgin Mary, if all saints and » saintly women, while they lived here, had been asked whether they were without » sin, all would have cried out with one voice: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us: excepted, I say, this holy Virgin, concerning whom, on account of the honor of the Lord, I will to have no question whatever when sin is treated of.» For we know that more grace was conferred on her unto conquering sin on every side, who merited to conceive and bring forth him whom all agree had no sin. But Christ excels blessed Virgin in this that he was conceived and born without original sin, but blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin, yet not born so... Thirdly she exceeds the angels as regards purity, because blessed Virgin was not only pure in herself, but procured purity for others. She indeed was most pure, both as regards guilt, because the Virgin herself incurred neither

mortal nor venial sin. Likewise as regards punishment... »

Who would admit that St. Thomas could have so openly contradicted himself in the same article? 1° He affirms blessed Virgin to excel the angel in fullness of grace. But the fullness of grace in an angel consists in this, that he was immune from every sin, of whatever nature and name. Therefore, if blessed Virgin exceed the angel on this side, she herself is immune from any sin whatever, not only actual but also original. If, on the contrary, she contracted original sin, and « from this was cleansed in the womb, » that is after animation, since sin in no way touched and infected the angel, therefore in this she is excelled by the angel. Whence it must be concluded that this clause, « and from this she was cleansed in the womb, » was added by the hand of some falsifier. — 2° It does not appear why St. Thomas would have introduced Christ himself into the comparison of blessed Virgin with the angel: for it was instituted between the saluting and the saluted, to show forth the pre-eminence of Mary and to explain the veneration exhibited to her by the celestial messenger. But since immediately before it was said « more grace was conferred on her unto conquering sin on every side, who merited to conceive and bring forth him whom all agree had no sin, » there is sufficiently intimated by that very fact that she also had no sin, because she conquered sin on every side, so as to merit to be Deipara. This contradiction therefore, which cannot be attributed to the Angelic Doctor without injury, abundantly proves that he did not write the aforesaid words. — 3° As we saw above already, in the older exemplars which were written perhaps while St. Thomas still lived, or at least before the end of the century wherein he flourished, it is read that blessed Virgin « neither original, nor mortal, nor venial sin did ever incur. » If therefore the word original is wanting in the later published editions which came to light only after the followers of John of Montesono denied the sanctity of the Conception of Mary, such suppression necessarily followed upon the preceding interpolations. — 4º It is altogether incredible that St. Thomas, after he had invoked the authority of Augustine saying: « Concerning the holy Virgin, on account of the honor of the Lord, when sin is treated of, I will to have no question whatever, » immediately, unconscious of contradiction, affirmed that the Mother of God, the honor of her future Son untouched, was conceived in original sin. Who would dare inflict so great an injury on so great a Doctor? Therefore the aforesaid place was deliberately and audaciously corrupted, lest the suffrage of the Angelic Doctor could be invoked in favor of the most perfect purity of blessed Virgin.

2º In his commentary upon the Epist. ad Rom., chapter 5, lect. 3, St. Thomas demonstrates, from the Apostle, that human nature was vitiated in Adam, and that original sin flowed forth from him unto all his posterity. In the recent editions of this work, blessed Virgin is neither comprehended in the common law nor exempted from it. Under the pontificate of Urban VIII, a Spanish priest exploring the Roman libraries, by chance found in the library of cardinal Sforza an old exemplar which contained, in the aforesaid lecture, after the words of the Apostle: In whom all have sinned, these following: « One excepted, most blessed Virgin, who contracted no stain of original sin. » Moved with supreme joy, Urban VIII did not doubt to declare that these words, which are not read in the later editions, seemed to him to express the true opinion of the Angelic Doctor.

3° Four editions of the Commentary on the Epist. ad Galatas were published at Paris in the years 1525, 1529, 1532 and 1541. The same work was printed afterward at Venice in the year 1555. In these five editions is had that notable place, chapter 3, lect. 6: « He himself [Christ] alone and singular is who does not lie under the malediction of guilt, although he deigned to become a malediction for us. Whence it is said in Psal. CIX: Singulariter sum ego, etc. Likewise: There is not one that doth good, etc. Eccles., VII: One man among a thousand I found*, namely Christ, who was without sin; but a woman among all I did not find who would be wholly immune from sin, at least original or venial. Excepted is the purest Virgin Mary, worthy of all praise, who was immune from sin, original and venial. » In the year 1546, F. Jacobus Albertus Castrensis committed a new edition to the press, and deleted the latter words: Excepted, etc. Why he judged this part of the text to be emended does not appear, unless because he himself was an adversary of the immunity of the Immaculate Virgin. He notes indeed that he purged this commentary of typographical faults; but can not an entire proposition of this kind be held as a fault of this genus, which preceding editors had admitted without hesitation as authentic, although they had emended the work themselves « according to the older and most approved codices? » Following Castrensis was Remigius Florentinus in his Antwerp edition of the year 1590, and thus truncated the text has come down to us ². To which must faith be given: to the later editors, or to the earlier ones and to manuscripts? There is no place for doubting.

4° The following question St. Thomas poses, 1a 2ae, q. 81, a. 3: « Whether the sin of the first parent passes by origin into all men? » He responds: « According to Catholic faith it must be firmly held that all men, except Christ alone, derived from Adam, contract original sin from Adam: otherwise all would not need redemption which is through Christ; which is erroneous. » The adversaries said: The holy Doctor pronounces Christ alone to have been immune from original sin, and all who are derived from Adam to contract it. But blessed Virgin was derived from Adam. Therefore she contracted original sin. And therefore the Angelic Doctor exempts her not from the common law; which certainly he would have done if he had thought her preserved from such stain.

We respond. St. Thomas here states the common law, and excepts Christ alone, because Christ alone is exempted wholly and under every respect from this law, both because he is God at once and man, and because he is universal Redeemer; and if he had been infected with original sin in his human nature, he himself ought to have been redeemed by some other savior. But blessed Maria indeed was not exempted wholly and under every respect from original sin; for, as was said in the preceding article, since she was seminally propagated from Adam, she had the debt of contracting original sin, but on account of her future and most eminent dignity, « by singular grace and privilege of omnipotent God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ Savior of human race, she was preserved immune from every stain of original guilt ³ », Whence she had indeed the debt of contracting original sin, but anticipated by Christ and before all others she was so redeemed from this sin that she contracted it not. She could not therefore be placed in the place cited outside the number of those who needed the redemption which is through Christ. Nothing therefore can be concluded from this omission — otherwise necessary — against her perfect sanctity. — Thus the council of Trent, sess. V, canons 2 et 3, decrees all sons of Adam to be stained by his sin, and declares afterward, « that it is not its intention to comprehend in this decree blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary Mother of God. » If St. Thomas makes no similar exception here, he expressed it in the texts related above drawn from other works of his.

In 3ª parte Summa, q. 27, a. 2, the immunity of blessed Virgin from original sin is expressly denied. The value of this article must be weighed therefore, that it may be seen whether the contradiction which it exhibits can be imputed without injury to the Angelic Doctor himself from authentic texts.

The question to be solved is thus posed: « Whether blessed Virgin was sanctified before animation? » According to the opinion then prevailing, it is supposed that animation was not made except after conception and first constitution of the body ⁴. Rightly it is responded in the body of the article that, « since only rational creature is susceptible of guilt, before the infusion of the rational soul the conceived offspring is not liable to guilt. » Whence blessed Virgin could not be sanctified in the body alone. It is added: « And if blessed Virgin had been sanctified in any manner before animation, she would never have incurred the stain of original guilt, and thus she would not have needed the redemption and salvation which is through Christ. »

The former consequence is to be admitted, on the hypothesis; for, if the stains of original [sin] had been first removed wholly from the body, how could it afterward infect the soul, so that what proceeded from Adam would have been pure, and what came from God through creation would have been stained, and thus after animation the same creature would be at once holy in body and stained in soul? But the latter consequence is evidently altogether unworthy of the Angelic Doctor. For it cannot rationally be affirmed that, if blessed Virgin « had not incurred the stain of original guilt, she would not have needed the redemption and salvation which is through Christ. » For we said, and demonstrated from the dogmatic definition, that the Deipara had, by reason of her origin from Adam, the debt of contracting original sin, but was preserved from contracting it « in view of the merits of Jesus Christ Savior of human race. » Therefore this very privilege proves « that she needed the redemption and salvation which is through Christ. » Who will dare attribute such inconsequence to our own Doctor?

No less is theological reason injured in the responses to the objections. We shall weigh in the balance only the second and third.

Obj. 1. « It was fitting, as Anselm says in lib. de Conceptu virginali, c. 18, » that that Virgin shine with that purity whereby greater under God cannot be understood. Whence also Cantic., VI, it is said: Thou art all fair, my love, and there is not a spot in thee. But greater would have been the purity of blessed Virgin if she had never been stained by contagion of original sin. Therefore this was preordained to her, that before she was animated, her flesh would be sanctified. »

I answer. « If the soul of blessed Virgin had never been stained by contagion of original sin, this would detract from the dignity of Christ, according to which he is universal Savior of all.

And therefore beneath Christ, who disdains not to be saved, as universal Savior, greatest was the purity of blessed Virgin. For Christ in no way contracted original sin, but in his very conception was holy, according to that Luc., I: That which shall be born of thee holy, shall be called Son of God. But blessed Virgin indeed contracted original sin, but was cleansed from it before she was born of the womb. And this is signified Job, XIV, where concerning the night of original sin it is said: Let it wait for light, that is, Christ, and see it not; because nothing stained does she incur, as is said Sap., VII, nor rising dawn, that is, of blessed Virgin, who in her rising was immune from original sin. »

We have now seen how preservation from original stain, which was granted to blessed Virgin « by singular grace and privilege of omnipotent God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ Savior of human race, » nowise detracts from the dignity of Christ, inasmuch as he is universal Savior, and rather proclaims and exalts this dignity, because even before the advent of this Savior the Virgin who was to be his Mother was saved by him. How the Angelic had not seen that the dignity of Christ, inasmuch as he is infinitely holy God, demanded that the woman elected from eternity to be his Mother be holy on every side; and that it was on the contrary altogether unbecoming to him, if his Mother for any least point of time lay subject to the domination of Satan, whose empire he himself was about to overthrow?

Obj. 3°. « No feast is celebrated except concerning some holy one. But certain ones celebrate the feast of the conception of blessed Virgin. Therefore it seems that in her very conception she was holy, and thus that before animation she was sanctified. »

I answer. « Although the Roman Church celebrates not the conception of blessed Virgin, it nevertheless tolerates the custom of certain churches celebrating that feast: whence such celebration is not to be totally reproved. Yet not through the fact that the feast of conception is celebrated is it given to be understood that she was holy in her conception; but, because the time when she was sanctified is unknown, the feast of her sanctification rather than of conception is celebrated, on the day of her very conception. »

The author of this response confesses that the Roman Church tolerates the celebration of the feast of the conception of blessed Virgin. Whence he concludes that such celebration is not to be totally reproved. Is it reproved in part, or under some respect, that which the Roman Church tolerates, that is, which she judges in no way to be reproved? For sometimes, when disciplinary matters are treated of, the Roman Church tolerates what she approves not on every side; but no sane man will admit that she tolerates uses and customs which imply doctrine she judges not fully consonant with truth.

The explanation brought forward here, namely, « because the time when blessed Virgin was sanctified is unknown, the feast of her sanctification rather than of conception is celebrated on the day of her very conception, » cannot be sustained. For if it be so, why was this feast instituted under the title of conception and not rather of sanctification? Therefore the very conception is the object of public cult. The reason alleged was already refuted in the same question, a. 1, arg. Sed contra. Concerning the Nativity of the Deipara it is said there: « The Church celebrates the nativity of blessed Virgin. But no feast is celebrated in the Church except concerning some holy one. Therefore blessed Virgin in her very nativity was holy. She was therefore sanctified in the womb. » The latter conclusion left aside, which, on account of the limitation appended, is not legitimately deduced from the preceding, the argument is rightly transferred unto the Conception of blessed Virgin, only the name changed, and it subverts the whole second article.

If St. Thomas himself had written such things, not only would he have deserted the doctrine he professed in the superior books, but he would openly have contradicted himself in the same place. We infer therefore this article either to be supposititious, or to have been corrupted and interpolated.

If you object that other exemplars, whether printed or manuscript, expressing the contrary doctrine will not be wanting, I respond, that the third part of the Summa does not merit in all things the same faith which is indubitably owed to the first and second. In the little book Certum quid, which now exists at Paris in the national library, it is asserted, pag. 201 bis, that St. Thomas undoubtedly did not himself complete the Summa theologica, but that the ninety prior questions of the third part were written by Albertus Brixiensis, one of his disciples, and that Henry Gorrich added the Supplement. It is read also in the process of canonization of the same Doctor, n° 79, in the Bollandist collection: « Brother Thomas laid the organs of writing toward the third part of the Summa. » Whence it must be concluded that, if the Angelic dictated this part to amanuenses, in the way he composed several of his works, as other critics will, at least he polished it not with his own hand, but handed over only the matter of the ninety prior questions. And yet, as the author of the cited book observed, after Martanellus and Perruzinus, adversaries of the Immaculate Conception who turned into argument supposititious or corrupted texts drawn from opuscula, they never objected to the defenders the second article of the third part, because it was known to all that this part is not entirely genuine throughout of the prince of theologians.

There could therefore have been introduced into the present question a new article to honor with the name of St. Thomas the new doctrine, or the primitive text, like those others of which above, was interpolated unto that end.

Should anyone wonder that such force could have been inflicted on the Angelic Doctor, let him know it to be established that several did not hesitate even to conciliate to themselves by lies of this kind the authority of so great a Doctor, that their own senses might be commended and spread abroad more easily. Immediately when he departed from the living, these frauds ought to have been repressed. In the year 1290, by Aegidius, his disciple, there was written Castigatorium against the corrupter of the books of Thomas Aquinas. After him Richard Klapoël, Herveus Natalis, Guillelmus Messelech, Joannes Parisiensis and Guillelmus a Bullione, all from the Order of Preachers, indignantly denounced the manifold interpolations and falsifications which they had detected in the works of their Master.

Since therefore 1° St. Thomas in several places, about which no doubt is raised, clearly and expressly attributed to blessed Virgin Mary immunity from original sin itself;

2° since the contradictions which are found in later writings cannot be imputed to him without injury;

3° since it has been proved from collation of the older codices with the printed editions, many of which agree with the manuscripts, that those which seem to dissent in the present question were corrupted, truncated or interpolated: we conclude that, as we said in the proposition, it cannot be affirmed that the Angelic Doctor ever denied the great privilege of the Mother of God. Nay, proceeding further, from the critical arguments set out above, we hold him to be indubitably to be numbered among the chief assertors of this truth. ]

The various antiquated opinions concerning the essence of original sin being set aside, I say 1°: Concupiscence is not the formal element of original sin, but only the material. This is against the Lutherans and Calvinists.

By concupiscence is here understood proneness or propensity to evil, from the privation of original justice. By another name it is called fomes peccati.

It is proved first part of the conclusion 1° from the Apostle, to the Rom., VIII, 1: There is no condemnation in those who are in Christ. But concupiscence remains in those reborn in Christ. Therefore.

It is proved 2°. The council of Trent, session V, canon 5, anathematizes him who « asserts that by baptism there is not taken away the whole that has the true and proper nature of sin. » But concupiscence is not taken away by baptism, as is known from experience, and as Trent declares ibid. Therefore. Further, if in those reborn concupiscence is not formally sin, neither is it in those not reborn, since it is the same in both.

It is proved 3°. Concupiscence is not that which is first had and conceived in original sin, but something consequent upon the privation of original justice, as I shall say presently. Therefore it is not the formal constitutive element of original sin.

You will say: The Apostle, to the Rom., VII, 23 and 25, calls concupiscence sin. Therefore.

I answer. With the council of Trent, session V, canon 5, that the Apostle calls concupiscence sin, « not because truly and properly it is sin in the reborn, but because it comes from sin and inclines to sin. »

But that concupiscence is material in original sin, which is the second part of the conclusion, St. Thomas expressly teaches here q. 82, a. 3, c. But probably he is not to be understood of the material properly so called, as, e. g., the entity of the act is the material of deformity in actual sin, because the material properly so called is presupposed to the formal. But concupiscence is not presupposed to the privation of original justice, in which we place the formal element of original sin, but follows upon it as its effect. It must therefore be understood of the material improperly and widely, inasmuch as an effect is wont to be compared to its cause, or a secondary effect to the primary, as material to formal. For that which stands consequentially toward some form can and is wont to be called in some way its matter. So at least more commonly the Thomists, against Gonet and the Salmanticenses.

I say 2°: The essence or formal constitutive element of original sin consists in the privation of original justice, as regards its primary effect, namely that it is voluntary to us by the will of our head¹. This is the common doctrine of the Thomists and of many extraneous authors.

For the understanding of this it must be observed that original justice is nothing else than the perfect rectitude of the whole man. Whence it imported three things : the first, foundation and cause of the others, was the subjection of reason or will to God ; the second, the subjection of the inferior powers to reason ; the third, the subjection of the body to the soul. Man therefore was so instituted that unless his reason were withdrawn from God by sinning, neither could his body be withdrawn from the nod of the soul (whence he was impassible and immortal), nor the sensible powers from the rectitude of reason. He could sin truly, his will not yet confirmed in good through the attainment of the last end. Adam therefore sinned, and by sinning lost for himself and for us original justice as regards all its effects. We say therefore that the essential element of original sin consists in the privation of original justice as regards its primary effect.

It is proved. 1° By authority. Original sin is called by Scripture and the Fathers, by the council of Arausica, can. 2, and by Trent, sess. V, can. 2, death of the soul and enmity of God. Therefore it consists in the privation of that gift whereby we live spiritually and are friends of God. — I subjoin. But this gift is sanctifying grace, which is the first effect of original justice. Therefore in the privation of that is placed the essence of original sin.

It is proved. By a manifold reason. 1° In that is placed the essence of original sin which is taken away by baptism ; for baptism was principally instituted as a remedy for original sin. But by baptism is taken away the privation of original justice as regards its primary effect ; for there is conferred sanctifying grace, joining the mind to God and subjecting it. Therefore.

2° That is the essence or formal constitutive element of a thing which is first conceived in it as the root of the other things that pertain to that thing. But the privation of original justice, as regards its primary effect, namely conjunction with God, is what is first conceived in original sin as the root of the inordination of the inferior powers and of the corporal penalties that pertain to original sin. Therefore. — The min. is proved. By this very fact that the soul, by sinning, was deprived of the grace and charity whereby it was subjected and joined to God, as it were the barrier removed, there was made the subversion and rebellion of the inferior powers against reason, and there followed the liability to death, both temporal and eternal, and to the other penalties and miseries which fallen man suffers. Therefore.

3° Personal habitual sin consists in the privation of sanctifying grace, as voluntary by the proper will of the person. But original sin, as I have already often said, is of the genus of sin not actual, but habitual, differing in this alone from personal habitual sin, that it connotes the actual sin of Adam as head, from which it follows ; but personal habitual sin connotes the actual sin of the person sinning.

You will say 1°: The privation of original justice is the punishment of original sin. But punishment does not constitute guilt, but supposes it. Therefore. — The major St. Thomas expressly teaches here q. 85, a. 5, c, and q. 4 de Malo, a. 1. And it is the common sense, that we are deprived of original justice in punishment of original sin.

I answer. I distinguish the major. The privation of original justice physically taken for the subtraction of the aid conserving it, is the punishment of original sin, I concede; because thus it is from God, who is not the author of guilt. Morally taken, as it is the lack of the due form, and as it is voluntary by the force of the actual sin of Adam, I deny; for thus it is essentially guilt, namely habitual. The parity is in personal habitual sin.

You will say 2°: If original sin be essentially the privation of original justice, as regards its primary effect, namely the conjunction of the mind with God through grace, it follows 1° that by baptism original justice is restored; because grace is restored, joining the mind to God. It follows 2° that one sinning after baptism contracts original sin again; because by sinning he is deprived of the grace joining the soul with God. Both absurd. Therefore.

I answer. To the first. I distinguish the consequence. It follows that by baptism original justice is restored inadequately, I concede; adequately, I deny. For original justice not only joined the soul to God as to the last end, but moreover perfectly subjected the inferior powers to reason, and the body to the soul; which secondary effects are not restored by baptism. To the second, I deny the consequence. For original sin is not by whatever privation of sanctifying grace, but by that only which was voluntary in the head, and which we contract through seminal propagation.

From what has been said you will gather : 1° that original sin, as regards its formal element, is equal in all² ; because thus taken it imports the privation of original justice and respect to the sin of Adam from which it originates. But this privation is equal in all, since all are totally deprived of original justice. Similarly this respect is equal in all, because all are equally sons of Adam.

2° As regards its material element, original sin is not equal in all³. For the bond of original justice being loosed, under which in a certain order all the powers of the soul were contained, each power by nature tends into its own proper motion, and the more vehemently the stronger it is. But it happens that some powers are stronger in one than in another, on account of the diverse complexions of the body. That therefore one man is more prone to concupiscence than another is not by reason of original sin formally taken, since in all equally is the bond of original justice loosed, and equally in all the inferior parts of the soul are left to themselves. But this happens from the diverse disposition of the powers : as, the bridle being equally loosed whereby many horses were held, one carries his rider more violently than another, on account of the greater natural ferocity in one than in the other.