Summa summae S. Thomae, Tomus II

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. ]