Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Loss of Grace · Book IV: On Original Sin
Chapter 15: That the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without original sin
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. V, De Amissione Gratiae et Statu Peccati, Book IV. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
Now concerning the most Blessed Mother of God — whom many of the Catholics contend to have been conceived without the sin of origin — we are compelled to dispute for this reason only: that there are not wanting those who accuse the universal Church, and the Council of Trent itself, because it seems not only to tolerate that opinion of the immaculate conception of the Virgin (which they believe to be a manifest error), but even to receive it as pious and probable. Nor are there wanting those who impudently affirm that the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary is defended by the Roman Church as an article of faith.
We undertake, then, briefly to demonstrate three things. First, that it is not held among Catholics as a thing certain and established, and to be held by Catholic faith, that the Blessed Virgin was conceived without sin. Second, that this very opinion is in no way to be judged heretical or erroneous. Third, that it is not even rash, but exceedingly pious and probable, and indeed far more probable than the contrary opinion.
As to the first: John Pomeranus, one of the first disciples of Luther, in the commentary on chapters 1 and 44 of Jeremias, dared to write that it is held among Catholics for an article of faith that the Blessed Virgin was conceived without any sin — nay, even of the Holy Spirit. But this most impudent lie is openly enough refuted by the constitutions of the Pontiffs and the decree of an ecumenical Council — which constitutions and decrees all Catholics gladly obey. Sixtus IV, supreme Pontiff, in that Constitution which begins “Grave nimis,” on the relics and veneration of the Saints, pronounces in express words that this question of the conception of the Blessed Virgin has not yet been defined by the Roman Church and the Apostolic See, and therefore establishes the penalty of excommunication against those who dare to condemn either opinion as heretical. The judgment of Pope Sixtus was followed by the Council of Trent, session 5, and lately, in our time, by Pius V, in the constitution which he put forth on the conception of the most Blessed Virgin Mary. Further, the Council of Basel, session 36, did indeed define that the Blessed Virgin was conceived without sin; but neither does that definition make certain faith, since that Council was not approved by the Apostolic see, nor did the Council itself will that its opinion be held for an article of faith; for it determined only that that opinion is to be embraced as pious, and consonant with the ecclesiastical worship, the Catholic faith, the Scriptures, and reason.
Now as to the second: Matthias Illyricus, century 9, chapter 10, where he treats of a certain author who is called Idiota, teaches that that opinion which makes the Blessed Virgin free of all sin, even original, is erroneous. The same has Tilemann Heshusius, in the book On the Six Hundred Errors of the Pontificals, under the title On Sin, last number. The same also Martin Chemnitz, in the examination of session 5 of the Council of Trent, where he several times repeats that the opinion of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary is defended against the word of God; and at the end of the disputation, when he had said that for this opinion there can be brought neither Scriptures, nor tradition, nor Fathers, but only revelations and miracles, he adds that the Pontificals, when they wish to frame new articles of faith, care not for the word of God, written or handed down. From this temerity of the adversaries all Catholics are far removed. For although there are not wanting among Catholics those who judge that opinion to lean more toward the truth which, besides Christ, excepts no one from the common law of original sin, yet those very men neither condemn the contrary opinion as erroneous, nor can condemn it, unless they will to resist the decrees of the general Council of Trent and of the supreme Pontiffs Sixtus IV and Pius V — which if they did, they would not be numbered among Catholics. It is proved, then, that the opinion of the immaculate conception of the Virgin is by no means repugnant to the Catholic faith. For that is repugnant to the Catholic faith which is asserted either against the express word of God — such as that God is not one, or is corporal, or did not create heaven and earth, and the like — or against the word of God as declared by the Church — as that the Son of God is not consubstantial with the Father, that the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Father and the Son, that Christ has not two wills, and other things of that kind. But that the Virgin Mother of God was immune from original sin is repugnant neither to the express word of God nor to a declaration of the Church — as can be plain even from this, that none of the adversaries has yet brought forward any place of Scripture or of the Councils where it is read in express words that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived in original sin. Certain general testimonies of Scripture and of the Councils are indeed brought forward; but these are explained conveniently enough by those who will have the Blessed Virgin excepted from those general sentences. Thou wilt say: if the matter stands so, it will not be against the faith if not only the Virgin Mother of God, but anyone else also, be asserted immune from original sin; for of no man do the Scriptures or the Councils teach in express words that he was conceived in sin, except of David, who says of himself in Psalm 50: For behold I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother conceive me. I answer that the Catholic faith requires only this: that we believe that all men who are born of Adam through carnal generation draw from the same original sin — unless perchance by a singular privilege someone be excepted from the common law. Hence, when one descends to individuals, he will not straightway be a heretic who denies that this or that man was conceived in sin; yet he will deny it rashly, and will rightly and deservedly be presumed a heretic, unless he bring probable reasons why he judged that that singular privilege belongs to this or that man. Such reasons no one has yet brought forward, except for the conception of the one Virgin Mary. But all these things will be clearer when the arguments of the adversaries have been routed.
As to the third, it is to be proved briefly that it is thought not rashly, but piously and rightly, that the Blessed Virgin Mary was, by a singular privilege of God, immune from absolutely all sin. Nor indeed is it to be expected that we bring an express word of God, or some certain definition of the Church; for if we could do that, we would not say merely that this is thought piously and rightly, but would hold for heretics those who thought the contrary. Only probable and congruent reasons, then, are to be brought forward: first from the Scriptures, then from the Fathers, then from the consent of the Church, last from reason.
From the Scriptures we have first two distinguished figures. That the first man bore the figure of Christ, or (as the Apostle speaks) was the form of him who was to come — that is, of Christ — the same Apostle teaches, Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. Now it is agreed that the first man was generated not from the intercourse of male and female, but was founded by God himself from the earth, and that not yet cursed. It was fitting, then, that the second man, who likewise was to be formed not from the intercourse of male and female, but by the work of the Holy Spirit, should be formed from earth not cursed — that is, from a Virgin Mother who was free of all curse, and thereby of all sin. And hence perhaps she was saluted by the Angel, Blessed among women. This figure the Apostle St. Andrew seems first to have observed, whose words the Presbyters of Achaia relate in the book on the passion of the same Apostle and Martyr Andrew: “As the first man had been made from immaculate earth, so it was necessary that Christ be born of an immaculate Virgin.” Next, that Eve was the type and figure of Mary, Epiphanius teaches, heresy 78, and besides him many others, whom it is not necessary to number. Now it is sufficiently agreed that Eve was without sin when she was first formed. It was becoming, then, that the mother of all who live with spiritual life should be conceived without sin, since the mother of all who live with animal life was founded without sin. To these come those places from the Canticles: As the lily among thorns, so is my love among the daughters, Canticles 2. And: Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee, Canticles 4. And: My sister, my spouse, is a garden enclosed, a garden enclosed, a fountain sealed up, in the same place. For these things, though they can be understood of the universal Church, such especially as she will be in heaven, yet it ought not to be denied that they also most openly suit the Blessed Virgin — since both many of the holy Fathers have expounded all these things of the Blessed Virgin, and the Catholic Church herself, in the feasts of the same most blessed Virgin, whether in the morning office or in the sacrifice of the Mass, commands lessons from the Canticles to be recited.
Now from the testimonies of the Fathers we have first St. Ambrose, who in sermon 22 on Psalm 118, explaining the last little verse, says thus: “Take me up, not from Sara, but from Mary — that it be an uncorrupted Virgin, but a Virgin, through grace, entire from every blemish of sin.” We have next St. Jerome, who in the explanation of Psalm 77, treating that verse — He conducted them with a cloud by day — said that that cloud was the Virgin Mary, and adds these words: “Beautifully said he, 'by day,' because that cloud was not in darkness, but always in light.” We have third St. Augustine, who in the book On Nature and Grace, chapter 36, says thus: “Except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, for the honor of the Lord, I will have absolutely no question when sins are treated of. For thence we know that more of grace was conferred on her for conquering sin on every side, in that she deserved to conceive and bear him who, it is agreed, had no sin.” To this place it is wont to be answered that St. Augustine spoke of actual sin, not of original. But there are many things which compel us to think the contrary. First, that St. Augustine says that he will have absolutely no question concerning the holy Virgin when sins are treated of; by which words he indicates well enough that he will not have any other question concerning the holy Virgin, even when original sin is treated of. Next, that he adds that grace was conferred on her for conquering sin on every side. For how did she conquer sin on every side, if she was contaminated with original sin? Third, that he says that, for the honor of the Lord, he will have no question concerning the holy Virgin when sins are treated of. But certainly the honor of the Lord seems to demand no less that his mother lacked original sin than actual — since the former was necessarily mortal, the latter could have been venial. Finally, because, by Augustine's opinion, no one lives without actual sin who had original sin. For these are his words, book 5 against Julian, chapter 9 [al. 15]: “Assuredly, when grown, he would also have committed sin, if as a little one he had had it. For for this reason there is no one of men, besides himself, who has not committed sin with the coming of riper age: because there is no one of men, besides himself, who did not have sin at the rising of his infant age.” Since, then, the holy Virgin did not commit actual sin, by Augustine's opinion — as even the adversaries gather from the place cited, On Nature and Grace — it follows, by the opinion of the same Augustine, that neither did she have original sin, if Augustine admit his own doctrine from book 5 against Julian. We have fourth Sedulius, who in book 1 [al. 2] of the divine wonders, singing the expulsion of Adam from paradise, says thus: And as the soft rose rises from sharp thorns, having nothing to wound, and outshines its mother in honor: so, holy Mary coming from the stock of Eve, the new virgin might expiate the crime of the ancient virgin. We have fifth the author of the sermons On the Cardinal Works of Christ, which bear the title of Cyprian. For he, in the sermon on the Nativity, says thus: “Justice did not endure that that vessel of election (Mary) should be wearied with the common injuries; since, differing very much from the rest, she communicated with them in nature, not in fault.” We have sixth Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem, who in the epistle to Sergius, bishop of Constantinople, which was read in the sixth Synod, act 11, speaks thus: “Having entered the untouched womb of virginity — the purified chastity of Mary, holy and illustrious, and wise in the things of God, and freed from all contagion of body and of soul and of understanding — he was incarnate who was without flesh,” etc. We have seventh John Damascene, who in oration 1 on the Birthday of the Blessed Virgin writes many things of her immaculate conception, and among others says thus: “Nature dared not to go before grace.” By which words he openly signifies that the Blessed Virgin did not receive nature before grace. We have eighth an old author, surnamed Idiota, who flourished a little after the year of the Lord 800 [al. 1200]. For he, in the contemplation of the Virgin Mary, chapter 2, says thus: “Thou art all fair, most glorious Virgin — not in part, but in whole; and the stain of sin, whether mortal, or venial, or original, is not in thee.” The same also, chapter 6, writes that the Virgin Mary was preserved from original sin. This author seems to have written after St. Bernard, because he uses his words — hence after the year 1153, in which year St. Bernard died. We have ninth Peter Damian, who in the sermon on the Birthday of St. John the Baptist writes that the Blessed Virgin was cleansed from sin by a loftier kind of sanctification than John or Jeremias, who are read to have been sanctified in the womb. Now no other kind of sanctification seems capable of being conceived than that the Blessed Virgin was cleansed from the sin into which she would necessarily have fallen had she not been preserved through grace, while John and Jeremias were sanctified from the sin into which they had already in very deed fallen. The same Peter, in the sermon on the Annunciation of Blessed Mary: “When God had made all his works very good, he made this better, consecrating for himself in her a golden couch, on which alone, after the tumults of Angels and men, he might recline and find rest.” We have tenth blessed Bruno, who in the commentary on Psalm 101, treating those words: “The Lord looked from heaven to the earth — when from the royal seats he came into the womb of the Virgin. This is that uncorrupted earth which the Lord blessed, free therefore from all contagion of sin.” We have eleventh St. Anselm, who in the book On the Virginal Conception and Original Sin, chapter 18, says thus: “It was fitting that his conception (Christ's, namely) should be of a most pure mother — indeed it was becoming that that virgin should shine with a purity than which a greater under God cannot be understood,” etc. But assuredly a greater purity, even under God, could be understood, if the Blessed Virgin had at some time been defiled with the stain of sin; for the Angels shine with purity under God, and yet were never defiled with any stain. The same Anselm, in the commentary on chapter 5 of the later epistle to the Corinthians: “All died in sins — absolutely no one being excepted, save the Mother of God — whether original, or those added by the will.” We have twelfth the Catena of the Greeks on the Canticles, composed by Theodoret. For in book 3, near the end, we read: “The Virgin Mary is therefore named the dove, and that the only one, in the Canticles, because she conquers the Cherubim and Seraphim in purity.” But certainly she would not conquer in purity the Cherubim and Seraphim, in whom there was never any sin, if there had been in her original sin. I omit the testimonies of more recent writers, as of blessed Laurence Justinian, St. Bernardine of Siena, and others; for I have judged that only the testimonies of those are to be brought forward who flourished before this controversy had begun in the Church.
I come to the consent of the Church, which certainly for not a few years now is very great. For first, the head of the Church, the supreme Pontiff Sixtus IV, in the extravagant “Cum praeexcelsa,” and in the other which begins “Grave nimis,” testifies openly enough that this opinion of the immaculate conception of the Virgin is pious and probable. That Alexander VI, Julius II, and Leo X were of the same opinion is plain from this, that they confirmed, and adorned with privileges, a certain religious order instituted in honor of the immaculate conception. Then the Council of Basel, in which it was decreed that this opinion is to be held as the more probable — though it does not make certain faith as an ecumenical Council, yet from it it can easily be understood that many Doctors of the Church, gathered from various provinces, so thought. It comes moreover that the illustrious universities, and chiefly that of Paris, embrace this very opinion. Add last that almost the whole Christian world celebrates the feast day of the conception of the Virgin Mary, and calls that conception immaculate.
But neither are reasons wanting for confirming this same opinion. For it is certain that God could preserve the Blessed Virgin from the contagion of original sin; and it is probable that he also willed it; therefore it is probable that she was preserved from such contagion. That God could do this cannot be denied. For neither on the part of God nor on the part of the creature is any repugnance discerned. Not on the part of God, because he is almighty, and no word is impossible with God; nor on the part of the creature, for nothing hinders that at the same point of time the rational soul be created by God and filled with grace — which we believe to have been done in the creation of the Angels and of the soul of the first parents, and much more certainly in the creation of the soul of Christ. Next, if the soul can be justified after it has begun to have sin, and thereby from unjust become just, as we doubt not is done in us, why could not the soul be sanctified in its very creation, before it begins to be a sinner? Thou wilt say: it is not absolutely repugnant to the divine power or will to preserve someone from sin; yet it is repugnant, that divine and immutable decree being posited by which God determined that, if Adam did not sin, all men should be conceived endowed with original justice, but if he sinned, they should be conceived in iniquity, and be by nature children of wrath. I answer that that divine decree is so to be understood: that if Adam sinned, all men who should draw their origin from him would, by the force of their conception, be liable to sin, and would have no right to that justice which they had received in the first parent; yet that by that decree the power was not taken from God of being able, out of mercy and by a singular privilege, to preserve someone in very deed from sin. For we believe that from Adam not only sin, but also death, overflowed upon the whole human race, and that on account of the decree of God by which it was said: In what day soever thou shalt eat, thou shalt die the death — whence the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 15: In Adam all die; and yet who doubts that God can bring it about that someone in very deed die not? For the decree seems satisfied if all the posterity of Adam are liable to death. So also, on account of that decree of God, all men are not only conceived, but also born in sin, so far as concerns the force of human generation; and therefore they have need to be born anew, because what is born of the flesh is flesh, and unless they be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, they cannot enter into the kingdom of God, as the Lord speaks, John 3; and yet we read that Jeremias was sanctified before he came forth from the womb of his mother, Jeremias 1; and of St. John the Angel says to Zachary: He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb, Luke 1; and concerning the Virgin Mary herself there is no question among Catholics but that at least before her nativity she was sanctified in the womb of her mother.
We have, then, that God could keep the Virgin Mary free from all sin, and make her holy and just in her very creation. And that he willed it, we judge to be demonstrated with sufficient probability from those reasons by which St. Thomas, in part 3, question 27, article 4, proves that the Mother of God ought to have been free of all actual sin. The first reason is that both the honor and the ignominy of the mother overflow upon the offspring. The second, that the mother of Christ has a singular affinity and conjunction with him; but what concord hath Christ with Belial? The third, that in a singular manner the Son of God, who is the very wisdom of God, dwelt in his mother; but wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins, as is said in Wisdom 1. The fourth, that in the Virgin that testimony of the heavenly bridegroom had to be fulfilled: Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee, Canticles 4. These reasons certainly, as they prove that it was fitting that the Mother of God be immune from all actual sin, so also, if it could be done, from original — nay, even more from original than from actual venial sin; since the original defiles and deforms more, and joins with Belial, and subjects body and soul to sin, more than the venial. Another, fifth reason can be added. For since God determined to raise this most holy Virgin to the highest dignity, so that she excels all pure creatures, even the angelic — of which matter there can be no controversy — certainly it was equitable that there should be no privilege conferred on any pure creature which should not also be conferred on this Virgin, unless perchance it were repugnant to her condition, state, nature, or sex. But to be sanctified in the very creation was given to the first parents; and to be sanctified in the very creation, and never to be polluted with any sin, was given to the holy angels; and this privilege is not repugnant to the condition, state, nature, or sex of the Blessed Virgin: therefore it is pious to believe that the Mother of God by no means lacked such a privilege. Let there come last the divine revelations which St. Bridget testifies that she had concerning this matter, in book 1, chapter 9, and book 6, chapters 49 and 55 — which revelations indeed are not to be despised, since they were diligently examined and approved by most grave men.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XV. D. Virginem Mariam sine peccato originali conceptam fuisse. Jam vero de Beatissima Deipara, quam multi ex Catholicis sine peccato originis con¬ ceptam fuisse contendunt, ideo solum dispu¬ tate cogimur, quoniam non desunt, qui Ec¬ clesiam universam, et ipsum Concilium Tri- dentinum accusant, quod opinionem illam de immaculata Virginis conceptione (quam ipsi manifestum errorem esse credunt) non so¬ lum tolerare, sed etiam ut piam et probabi- cm recipere videatur. Neque desunt, qui impudenter affirment, ab Ecclesia Ilomana defendi conceptionem immaculatam Virgi¬ nis Mariae, tamquam articulum fidei. Non igitur tria breviter demonstrare ag¬ gredimur. Primo, non haberi apud Catholi¬ cos pro re certa et explorata, ac fide Catho¬ lica tenenda, B. Virginem sine peccato fuisse conceptam. Secundo, hanc ipsam opinionem non esse nullo modo haereticam, vel erroneam judicandam. Tertio, non esse etiam temera¬ riam, sed piam admodum ac probabilem, atque adeo contraria sententia longe proba¬ biliorem. Quod attinet ad primum, Joannes Pome- i’anus unus ex primis Lutheri discipulis, in commcnt. cap. i et xuv. Hierem. scribere ausus est, pro articulo fulci, apud Catholicos haberi B. Virginem sine ullo peccato, imo etiam de Spiritu sancto fuisse conceptam. Sed hoc impudentissimum mendacium satis aperte refellunt dum Pontificum consti¬ tutiones, et Concilii cecumenici decretum, quibus constitutionibus, ac decretis Catholici omnes libenter obediunt. Sixtus IV. Pontifex Maximus in ea Consti¬ tutione, quai incipit, « Grave nimis, » de re¬ liquiis et veneratione Sanctorum, disertis verbis pronuntiat, nondum esse qusestionem istam, de conceptione B. Virginis, ab Eccle¬ sia Romana et Apostolica Sede definitam, et ideo pcenam excommunicationis statit in eos, qui alterutram sententiam, ut haereticam damnare audent. / Judicium Sixti Pontificis secutum est Con¬ cilium Tridentinum sess. 5, ac demum nostro tempore Pius V in constitutione, quam edi¬ dit de conceptione Beatissima! Virginis Ma¬ lim. Porro Concilium Basileense sess. xxxvi definivit quidem, B. Virginem sine peccato fuisse conceptam : sed nec ea definitio facit certam fidem, cum Concilium illud ab Apo¬ stolica sede probatum non fuerit, nec ipsum Concilium sententiam suam pro articulo fidei haberi voluit. Solum enim statuit, eam sen¬ tentiam amplectandam esse ut piam, et con¬ sonam cultui Ecclesiastico, fidei Catholicm, Scripturis et rationi. Jam vero quod attinet ad secundum, Mat- thias Illyricus cent. ix, cap. 10. ubi tractat de quodam auctore, qui dicitur Idiota, senten¬ tiam illam, qum facit B. Virginemo mnis pec¬ cati etiam originalis expertem, erroneam esse docet. Idem habet Tilmannus lleshu- sius in lib. de sexcentis erroribus Pontificio¬ rum, tit. de peccato, num. ult. Idem etiam 374 LIBER IV. Martinus Kemnitius in examine sess. 3. Con¬ cilii Tridentini, ubi altquoties repetit sen¬ tentiam de conceptione immaculata Virginis Marim, contra verbum Dei defendi ; et in extrema disputatione cum dixisset, non posse afferri pro hac sententia Scripturas, aut tra¬ ditionem, aut Paties, sed solas revelationes et miracula, addit Pontificios, cum novos ar¬ ticulos fide condere volunt, non curare ver¬ bum Dei scriptum vel traditum. Ab hac adversariorum temeritate longe ab¬ sunt omnes Catholici. Tametsi enim non de¬ sint inter Catholicos, qui propensiorem ad veritatem existiment esse sententiam illam, qum praeter Christum, neminem excipit a communi lege peccati originalis : tamen illi ipsi sententiam contrariam neque damnant ut erroneam, neque damnare possunt, nisi decretis generalis Concilii Tridentini, et sum¬ morum Pontificum Sixti IV ac Pii V resistere velint, quod si facerent, inter Catholicos nu¬ merandi non essent. Probatur igitur, sententiam de immacu¬ lata Virginis conceptione, fidei Catholica} minime repugnare. Id enim Catholica} fidei repugnat, quod asseritur vel contra expres¬ sum Dei verbum, quale est, Deum non esse unum, aut esse corporalem, aut non creasse coelum et terram et similia; vel contra ver¬ bum Dei ab Ecclesia declaratum, ut filium Dei non esse Patri consubstantialem, Spiri¬ tum sanctum a Patre et Filio non procedere, Christum non habere duas voluntates, et alia id genus. Virginem autem Deiparam ab originali peccato fuisse immunem, non re¬ pugnat expresso Dei verbo, neque Ecclesia} declarationi, ut vel ex eo perspicuum esse potest, quod nullus adversariorum adhuc lo¬ cum ullum Scriptura}, vel Conciliorum pro¬ tulit, ubi disertis verbis legatur, B. Virginem Mariam in peccato originali fuisse conce¬ ptam. Proferuntur quidem Scripturae etCon- ciliorum testimonia quaedam generalia, sed ea satis commode explicantur ab iis, qui B. Viginem a generalibus illis sententiis exci¬ piendam esse yolunt. Dices : Si res ita se habet, non erit contra fidem, si non solum Virgo Deipara, sed qui¬ vis etiam alius ab originali peccato asseratur immunis. Neque enim de ullo homine diser¬ tis verbis Scripturae, aut Concilia docent, eum in peccato fuisse conceptum, nisi de Davide, qui de se ait in Psalm. L : Ecce enim in iniquitatibus conceptus sum, et in peccatis concepit me mater mea (1). Respondeo, fidem Catholicam id solum re¬ quirere, ut credamus, omnes homines, qui per carnalem generationem ex Adamo na¬ scuntur, ex eodem trahere originale pecca¬ tum, nisi forte singulari privilegio a communi lege aliquis excipiatur. Proinde cum ad sin¬ gulos descenditur, non erit continuo haercti- cus, qui hunc, aut illum negaverit in peccato fuisse conceptum, sed tamen temere id ne¬ gabit, et jure ac merito praesumetur haereti- ticus, nisi probabiles rationes attulerit, cur singulare illud privilegium in hunc, aut il¬ lum hominem convenire censuerit. Quales rationes nemo adhuc protulit, nisi pro con¬ ceptione unius Virginis Maria. Sed hac om¬ nia erunt clariora, cum argumenta adversa¬ riorum profligata fuerint. Quod attinet ad tertium, probandum est breviter, non temere, sed pie ac recte existi¬ mari B. Virginem Mariam singulari Dei pri¬ vilegio ab omni omnino peccato fuisse im¬ munem. Neque vero expectandum est, ut expressum Dei verbum afferamus, aut cer¬ tam aliquam Ecclesia} definitionem. Id enim si facere possemus, non solum pie ac recte existimari hoc diceremus, sed pro heereticis haberemus, qui contra sentirent. Probabiles igitur tantum, congruentesque rationes af¬ ferendae sunt, primum ex Scripturis, deinde ex Patribus, tum ex consensu Ecclesiae, po¬ stremo ex ratione. Ex Scripturis habemus in primis duas insi-' gnes figuras. Primum hominem Christi figu¬ ram gessisse, vel (ut Apostolus loquitur) for¬ mam fuisse futuri , id est, Christi, docet idem Apostolus ad Rom. v et I Corinth.xv. Constat autem primum hominem non ex concubitu maris, et foeminae generatum, sed ex terra, caque nondum maledicta ab ipso Deo con¬ ditum fuisse. Decuit igitur ut secundus homo, qui similiter non ex concubitu maris et fce- mince, sed opera Spiritus sancti formandus erat, ex terra non maledicta, id est ex Matre Virgine, quae omnis maledictionis, ac per hoc omnis peccati expers fuerit, formaretur. Atque hinc fortasse ab Angelo, Benedicta inter mulieres, salutata est. Ilanc figuram primus observasse videtur S. Andreas apo¬ stolus, ^cujus haec verba referunt Presbyteri Achaiae in lib. de passione ejusdem Apostoli et Martyris Andreae ; « Sicut de terra imma- (1) Psal. L, 7. CAPUT XV. 373 culata factus fuerat homo primus, ita ne- ccsse erat, ut de immaculata Virgine Chri¬ stus nasceretur. » Deinde Evam Mariae typum ac figuram fuisse docet Epiphanius haeresi lxviii et alii praeterea multi, quos non est necesse nume¬ rare. Satis autem constat, Evam sine pec¬ cato fuisse, cum primum foimata est. Dece¬ bat igitur ut mater omnium viventium vita spirituali sine peccato, conciperetur, cum matre omnium viventium vita animali sine peccato condita fuerit. Adhaec accedunt loca illaex Canticis : Sic¬ ut lilium inter spinas , sic amica mea inter fi¬ lias, Cant. ii. Et : Tota pulchra es amica mea, et macula non est in te, Cant. iv. Et : Hortus conclusus, soror mea sponsa , hortus conclusus, fons signatus, ibidem (i). Haec enim tametsi de Ecclesia universa, qualis praesertim erit in coelis, intelligi possint, tamen B. Virgini quoque apertissime convenire negari non debet, cum et multi sanctorum Patrem de B. Virgine haec omnia exposuerint, et Eccle¬ sia ipsa Catholica in festis ejusdem beatissi¬ mae Virginis, vel in officio matutino, vel in sacrificio Missae lectiones ex Canticis recitari jubeat. Jam vero ex testimoniis Patrum habemus in primis S. Ambrosium, qui serm. 22. in Psalm. cxvm, explanans ultimum versicu¬ lum, sic'ait : « Suscipe me non ex Sara, sed ex Maria, ut incorrupta sit Virgo, sed Virgo per gratiam ab omni integra labe peccati. » Habemus deinde S. Hieronymum, qui in explanatione Psalm. lxxvii tranctans illud : Deduxit eos in nube diei, dixit nubem illam esse Virginem Mariam, et addit haec verba : « Pulchre dixit, diei, quia nubes illa non fuit in tenebris, sed semper in luce. » Habemus tertio, S. Augustinum, qui in lib. de natura et gratia cap. 36 sic ait : «Ex¬ cepta sancta Virgine Maria, de qua propter honorem Domini nullam prorsus, cum de peccatis agitur, habere volo quaestionem. In¬ de enim scimus, quod ei plus gratiae colla¬ tum fuerit ad vincendum omni ex parte pec¬ catum, quae concipere, ac parere meruit eum, quem constat nullum habuisse pecca¬ tum. » Ad hunc locum reponderi solet, sanctum Augustinum de peccato actuali non de origi¬ nali esse locutum. Caeterum multa sunt, qnao nos contra sentire cogunt. Primum, quod S. Augustinus dicat se nullam prorsus quaestionem de sancta Virgi¬ ne habere velle, cum de peccatis agitur. Quibus verbis satis indicat se quaestionem aliam de sancta Virgine habere nolle, cum agitur de peccato originali. Deinde quod addat, illi gratiam fuisse col- latam ad vicendum omni ex parte peccatum. Quomodo enim omni ex parte peccatum vicit, si peccato originali contaminata fuit? Tertio quod dicat, se propter honorem Domini de sancta Virgine quaestionem habere nolle cum de peccatis agitur. At certe honor Domini non minus postulare videtur, ut ejus mater caruerit originali peccato, quam ac¬ tuali, cum illud moidale necessario fuerit, hoc veniale esse potuerit. Denique, quia ex Augustini sententia, ne¬ mo vivit sine peccato actuali, qui habuit peccatum originale. Haec enim sunt ejus verba in lib. v. in Julianum cap. 9 : « Pro¬ fecto peccatum etiam major fecisset, si par¬ vulus habuisset. Nam propterea nullus est ho¬ minum prsepter ipsum, qui peccatum non fecerit grandioris aetatis accessu; quia nullus est hominum prsepter ipsum, qui peccatum non habuerit infantilis aetatis exortu. » Cum ergo sancta Virgo non fecerit ex Augu¬ stini sententia actuale peccatum, ut ex lo¬ co citato de natura et gratia, etiam adver¬ sarii colligunt ; sequitur ex ejusdem Au¬ gustini sententia, ut neque habuerit origi¬ nale peccatum, si doctrinam suam ex lib. v, adversus Julianum Augustinus admittat. Habemus quarto Sedulium, qui in i lib. mirabilium divinorum, canens expulsionem Adami ex paradiso, sic ait : Ei veluti e spinis mollis rosa surgit acutis, Nilquod laedat habens, matremque obscurai honore: Sic, Evae de stirpe sacra veniente Maria, Virginis antiquae facinus nova virgo piaret. Habemus quinto auctorem sermonum de operibus Cardinalibus Christi, qui Cypriani titulum ferunt. Is enim in sermone de Nati¬ vitate, sic ait : « Non sustinebat justitia, ut . illud vas electionis (Maria) communibus las¬ saretur injuriis ; quoniam plurimum a coe- teris differens natura communicabat non culpa. » Habemus sexto Sophronium patriarcham (1) Can. II, 2; IV 7; 12. 376 LIBER V. Hierosolymorum, qui in epistola ad Sergium episcopum Constanti nopolis, qua) lecta est sexta Synodo act. 11. sic loquitur : « Ute¬ rum intactum virginitatis ingressus, castita¬ tem lustratam Marite sancta), pra)clara)que, et qua; Dei sunt, sapientis, et ab omni contagio¬ ne liberata) et corporis et anima) et intellectus incarnatus qui erat incarneus etc. » Habemus septimo Joannem Damascenum, qui in orat. 1. de Natali B. Virginis multa scribit, de immaculata ejus conceptione, et inter alia sic ait : « Natura gratiam antever¬ tere ausa non est. » Quibus verbis aperte significat, non prius B. Virginem naturam accepisse, quam gratiam. Habemus octavo vetustum auctorem, cog- no mine Idiotam, qui paulo post annum Do¬ mini 800. floruit. Is enim in contemplatione Virginis Maria) c. 2. sic ait : « Tota pulchra es Virgo gloriossissima, non in parte, sed in toto, et macula peccati sive mortalis, sive ve¬ nialis, sive originalis, non est in te. » Idem etiam cap. 6. scribit, Virginem Mariam pra)- servatam fuisse a peccato originali. Videtur auctor iste scripsisse post sanctum Bernar- dum, quia utitur ejus verbis ; proinde post annum 1033 . Quo anno S . Bernardus obiit. Habemus nono Petrum Damiani, qui in sermone de Natali S. Joannis Baptista) scri¬ bit, altiore genere sanctificationis B. Virgi¬ nem mundatam fuisse a peccato quam Joan¬ nem vel Hieremiam, qui in utero sanctificati leguntur. Non videtur autem aliud genus sanctificationis fingi posse, quam ut B. Vir¬ go mundata sit a peccato, id quod necessa¬ rio incidisset, nisi per gratiam praservata fuisset, Joannes vero et Hieremias sanctifi¬ cari sint a peccato, in quod jam re ipsa inci¬ derant. Idem Petrus in sermone de Annun¬ tiatione B. Maria) : « Cum fecerit, inquit, Deus omnia opera sua valde bona, hoc me¬ lius fecit, consecrans sibi in ea reclinatorium aureum, in qua sola se post tumultus Ange¬ lorum et hominum reclinaret et requiem in¬ veniret. » Habemus decimo B. Brunoncm, qui in commentario Ps. ci. tractans illa verba : «i Dominus de coelo in terram aspexit, dum de regalibus sedibus in uterum Virginis ve¬ nit. IIa)c est incorrupta terra illa, qui bene¬ dixit Dominus ab omni propterea peccati contagione libera. » Habemus undecimo S. Anselmum, qui in lib. de conceptu virginali et peccato origina¬ li cap. 18. sic ait : « Decebat, ut illius con¬ ceptio (Christi videlicet) de matre purissima fieret, nempe decens erat, ut ea puritate, qua major sub Deo nequit intclligi, virgo il¬ la niteret etc. » At profecto major puritas, etiam sub Deo posset intclligi, si B. Virgo aliquando peccati macula inquinata fuisset. Angeli siquidem sub Deo puritate nitent ; et tamen nulla unquam macula inquinati fue¬ runt. Idem Anselmus in connnent. cap. 3. posterioris ad Corinth. « Omnes, inquit, mortui sunt in peccatis nemine prorsus ex¬ cepto, dempta Matre Dei, sive originalibus, sive etiam voluntate additis. » Habemus duodecimo Cathenam Graecorum in Cantica a Thcodoreto compositam. Nam in lib. m. prope extremo legimus : « Virgi¬ nem Mariam ideo columbam, eamque uni¬ cam in Canticis nominari, quod Cherubim ' et Seraphim puritate vincat. » At certe non vinceret puritate Cherubim et Seraphim, in quibus nullum unquam peccatum fuit, si fuisset in ipsa originale peccatum. . Omitto testimonia recentiorum scriptorum, ut B. Laurentii Justitiani, S. Bernardini Se¬ nensis, et aliorum. Solum enim testimonia illorum afferenda esse censui, qui ante flo¬ ruerunt, quam in Ecclesia controversia ista coepisset. Venio ad consensum Ecclesia), qui certe ab annis non paucis maximus est. Nam in primis caput Ecclesia) summus Pontifex Six- tus IV. in extravaganti « Cum pra)exeel- sa, » et in altera, qua) incipit, « Grave ni¬ mis, » satis aperte testatur hanc sententiam de immaculata Virginis conceptione piam et probabilem esse. In eadem sententia fuis¬ se Alexandrum VI. Julium II. et Leonem X. perspicuum est ex eo, quod ordinem quem¬ dam religiosum in honorem immaculata) conceptionis institutum confirmarunt et pri¬ vilegiis ornarunt. Deinde Concilium Basileense, in quo decre¬ tum est, hanc sententiam ut probabiliorem esse tenendam ; tametsi certam fidem non faciat, ut Concilium oecumenicum, tamen ex eo facile potest intelligi, multos Ecclesia) Doctores ex variis Provinciis congregatos ita sensisse. Accedit prieterea, quod Academia) illustres, ac potissimum Parisiensis, hanc ip¬ sam sententiam amplectuntur. Adde ultimo, quod totus fere orbis Christianus celebrat festum diem conceptionis Virginis Maria), eamque conceptionem immaculatam vo¬ cat. CAi»ir xv. 377 Sed nec rationes desunt ad hanc ipsam sententiam confirmandam. Nam certum est, Deum potuisse B. Virginem u peccati origi¬ nalis contagione praeservare, probabile au¬ tem est, etiam voluisse, igitur probabile est eam ab ejusmodi contagione fuisse praeser¬ va tam. Potuisse Deum hoc facere, negari non potest. Nam neque, ex parte Dei, neque ex parte creaturae ulla repugnantia cer¬ nitur. Non quidem* ex parte Dei quia est omnipotens, et non estimpossibile apud Deum omne verbum : non item ex parte creatu¬ rae, nam nihil obstat, quo minus eodem tem¬ poris puncto anima rationalis creetur a Deo, et gratia repleatur. Quod facium esse credi¬ mus in creatione Angelorum et anima? pri¬ morum parentum, et mullo certius in crea¬ tione animae Christi. Deinde si potest anima justificari, postea- quam peccatum habere coepit, ac per hoc de injusta, fieri justa, ut in nobis fieri non du¬ bitamus, cur non poterit anima in ipsa cre¬ atione sanctificari, antequam incipiat esse peccatrix ? Dices : non repugnat absolute divinae po¬ tentia; aut voluntati, pra?servare aliquem a peccato, repugnat tamen, posito decreto illo divino et immutabili, quo statuit Deus, ut si Adam non peccaret, omnes homines conci¬ perentur justitia originali praediti, sin autem peccaret, conciperentur in iniquitate, et es¬ sent natura filii ira?. Respondeo, decretum illud divinum ita es¬ se iutclligendum, ut si Adam peccaret, om¬ nes homines, qui cx ipso originem traherent, ex vi conceptionis obnoxii essent peccato, neque ullum jus haberent ad justitiam illam, quam in primo parente acceperant, non ta¬ men eo decreto 'potestatem Deo esse abla¬ tam. quominus ex misericordia et privilegio singulari posset aliquem a peccato re ipsa pi wservarc. Nam ex Adamo non solum pec¬ catum, sed etiam mortem in totum genus humanum redundasse credimus, idque ob decretum Dei, quo dictum est : Quacumque die comederis , morte morieris. Unde Aposto¬ lus 1 Corinth. xv : In Adam, inquit, omnes moriuntur (l). Et tamen quis ambigat posse Deum efficere, ut aliquis re ipsa non moria¬ tur ? decreto enim satisfieri videtur, si om¬ nes Adie posteri morti obnoxii sint. Sic etiam ob decretum illud Dei non so¬ lum concipiuntur, sed etiam nascuntur om¬ nes homines in peccato, quod attinet ad vim generationis humana?, ct ideo ncccsse ha¬ bent nasci denuo, quia quod natum est ex carne caro est, et nisi renascantur ex aqua et Spiritu sancto, non possunt introire in reg¬ num Dei, ut Dominus loquitur Joan. iii, et tamen legimus Hieremiam sanctificatum an¬ tequam de vulva matris sua? egrederetur, Hiercm. i, et de S. Joanne Angelus dicit ad Zachariam. Spiritu sancto replebitur adhuc ex utero matris sute. Luca? i. et de ipsa Vir¬ gine Maria nulla qutestio est apud Catholi¬ cos, quin saltem ante nativitatem in utero matris sanctificata fuerit. Ilabeinus igitur, Deum potuisse Virginem Mariam ab omni peccato liberam conservare, et sanctam ac justam in ipsa creatione effi¬ cere. Voluisse autem, satis probabiliter de¬ monstrari existimamus ex illis rationibus, quibus S. Th ornas in 3. par, qutest. 27. art. 4. probat, Matrem Dei omnis peccati actua¬ lis expertem esse debuisse. •Prima ratio est, quia tam honor, quam ignominia matris redundat in prolem. Secunda, quia mater Christi singularem affinitatem et conjunctionem cum ipso habet, qua? autem conventio Christi ad Belial ? Tertia, quia singulari modo Dei filius, qui est ipsa Dei sapientia habitavit in matre ; at in malevolam animam non introibit sapientia, nec habitabit in corpore subdito peccatis, ut dicitur Sap. i. (2). Quarta, quia debuit in Virgine testimo¬ nium illud sponsi coelestis impleri : Tota pul¬ chra es amica mea, et macula non est in te. Cant. (3) Ha? certe rationes, ut probant decuisse Dei matrem ab omni actuali peccato immu- nem esse, ita si fieri potuit, ab originali : imo etiam magis ab originali, quam ab ac¬ tuali veniali ; cum originale magis inquinet et deformet, et cum Belial conjungat, et cor¬ pus atque animam peccato subdat, quam veniale. Addi potest alia quinta ratio. Nam cum Deus statuerit, sanctissimam hanc Virginem evehere ad summam dignitatem, ut omni¬ bus puris creaturis, etiam angelicis pra?stet, de (pia re nulla controversia esse potest, certe par erat, ut nullum esset privilegium alicui pura? creatura? collatum, quod non etiam huic Virgini conferretur, nisi forte con¬ ditioni, statui, natura?, aut sexui repugnaret. (*' I Coria. XV, 25. - (S; S.ip. 1. 1. - (3i Cant. IV 7 Tum. V' 378 LIBER H . AI sanctificari in ipsa creatione datum est primis parentibus, sanctificari autem in ipsa creatione, et nullo unquam pollui peccato, datum est angelis sanctis, et privilegium hoc conditionis, statui, naturae, sexui B. Virginis non repugnant : igitur pium est credere, c- jusmodi privilegio Dei matrem minime ca- ruisse. Accedant postremo revelationes divinae, quas de hac re se habuisse S. Birgitta te¬ statur in lib. i. cap. 9, et lib. vi. cap. 49. et 53. qua) quidem revelationes contemnenda) non sunt, cum a viris gravissimis diligenter excussa) et approbata) fuerint.