Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Loss of Grace · Book IV: On Original Sin
Chapter 16: The arguments are solved which are wont to be made against the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin
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 the arguments must be solved — both those by which the heretics endeavor to prove that our opinion is repugnant to the Catholic faith, and those by which certain others have persuaded themselves that the opinion contrary to ours is truer and safer.
But before we come to the arguments themselves, it must briefly be explained how that is to be taken which we say: that the Blessed Virgin always lacked original sin. In three ways the sin of the first parent is communicated with his sons. For first, the sons of Adam are said to have sinned in Adam himself, when he transgressed the precept of the Lord in Paradise. And since they were then not in act, but in potency, therefore also they then contracted the sin not in act, but in potency; or, which is the same, they sinned not in themselves, but in their parent, as they subsisted not in themselves, but in their parent. Hence St. Augustine, book 1 On the Merits and Remission of Sins, chapter 10: “Certainly it is manifest that the sins proper to each are one thing — in which they only sin whose sins they are — and this one is another, in which all sinned, when all were that one man.” Next, again, all the sons of Adam are said to be conceived in sin when first the offspring begins to exist in the womb of the mother, though unformed and unensouled. For although sin properly cannot be except in a rational soul, and the offspring begins to be formed a long time before animation, yet, because then the man in very truth begins to exist by reason of one of his parts (whence sons are said to be carried nine months in the wombs of their mothers, 2 Machabees 7), and that part has its origin from a corrupted nature, it can rightly be named vitiated; and to it, from the force of its generation, it is owed that, when first it shall have obtained a rational soul, there should thence exist a man a sinner, and a son of the divine wrath. Therefore not undeservedly are men said then first to be generated in iniquities. St. Anselm explains this in many words in the book On the Virginal Conception and Original Sin, chapter 7; and of this first conception he expounds that of Psalm 50: For behold I was conceived in iniquities. Third and last, men are said to be conceived in sin when the souls are breathed into the bodies. For then first they begin properly and in very deed to be men, and to have a will stripped of original justice, turned away from God, and deformed.
Now as to the first mode: there are not wanting those who judge that the Blessed Virgin did not sin in Adam. For they say that the law about not tasting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was given to the first parent for himself and all his posterity, the Virgin Mary excepted; hence that she, as she was in the loins of Adam, tasted the forbidden food with him, yet did not sin, because the prohibition did not pertain to her. Which opinion seems to us not very safe, and we subscribe altogether to the contrary. For among Catholics it is agreed that the Blessed Virgin was truly redeemed through the blood of Christ, and that what the Apostle says — Christ died for all, 2 Corinthians 5 — is to be taken without any exception. But if the Blessed Virgin sinned neither in act nor in potency, neither in herself nor in her parent, how, I ask, can she be said to have been redeemed? As to the second mode: if the Blessed Virgin was not free, as we have said, from the sin of the first parent insofar as she was in his loins, assuredly her first conception was like the conception of others: namely, it had its origin from a corrupted nature, and to her, from the force of generation, it was owed that she should contract sin when first the rational soul came to her. As to the third mode: we judge that the soul of the Blessed Virgin was without the stain of original sin even in the very first instant of its creation and infusion into the body — so that that person, actually existing, never had sin. And this alone is that in which the Blessed Virgin differs from the others who through the grace of God and the merit of Christ's passion have been freed from original sin: that the others commonly were freed after birth; some few before birth, but after animation; she alone in the very instant of animation.
From these things we have said, the arguments can easily be solved which are brought forward by the adversaries, whether they be drawn from the Scriptures, or from the Fathers, or from reason. First, then, Chemnitz, in the Examination of the Council of Trent, session 5, page 518, brings forward the Scriptures which (as he says) except Christ alone from sin: 2 Corinthians 5, Him, who knew no sin, etc.; Hebrews 7, For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners. I answer: those Scriptures brought by Chemnitz say indeed that Christ knew not sin, and was innocent, and undefiled, and separated from sinners; yet they do not add that this belongs to Christ alone. Nay rather, if we attend only to the sound of the words, we shall find like things attributed to some others in the Scriptures. Of Job we read: And that man was simple and upright, and fearing God, and avoiding evil, Job 1. And of the parents of the Precursor: They were both just before God, walking in all the commandments and justifications of the Lord without blame. Yet we confess that it can rightly be said that Christ alone was immune from original sin, because he alone escaped sin from the force of his generation, and sinned neither in himself nor in Adam — seeing that he alone was conceived of a Virgin, not from the seed of man, but by the power of the Holy Spirit, and born of a Virgin. But the blessed Virgin lacked indeed the original stain, but by a privilege of divine grace, not by the force of human generation; and though she was not polluted in herself, yet she was in her parent. Like are the sayings when God alone is called good, Matthew 19; alone wise, Romans 16; alone immortal, 1 Timothy, last chapter — because, namely, he alone is such by essence; the rest, whether angels or men, by participation. Secondly, he brings forward those testimonies which set all men in sin: Romans 5, In whom all have sinned; 1 Corinthians 15, In Adam all die; Ephesians 2, We were by nature children of wrath, even as, etc. I answer: we do not deny that the Blessed Virgin sinned in Adam, in that manner in which she could sin who did not yet exist except in potency — and thereby that she was liable, when she should begin to be in act, to have sin in very deed in herself. Yet we add that she was forestalled by a singular grace and privilege of God, so that she began at once both to be, and to be just. Nor do we deny that the same Virgin died in Adam — that is, on account of Adam's sin contracted and paid the debt of death. For even if in the first instant of her creation her soul was freed through grace from the stain of sin, yet she did not straightway have the redemption of the body — just as we all, later indeed than the Blessed Virgin, have been freed from original sin, and yet, renewed in the spirit of our mind, still await the redemption of the body, and therefore are subject to death and to the hardships and calamities which from the sin of the first man have overflowed upon the human race. Finally, we do not deny that the Blessed Virgin was by nature a daughter of wrath; but we add that by grace she was always a daughter of mercy. For from the corrupted nature of her parents what could she have inherited but corruption? Yet it pleased God so to forestall her in the blessings of sweetness that she should never be a sinner, which nature demanded, but should always be just, which grace conferred. Thirdly, others object those words of blessed Paul, 2 Corinthians 5: If one died for all, then all were dead; and Christ died for all. I answer: we concede that the Blessed Virgin was in some manner dead with the death of sin (for of this death without doubt the Apostle speaks), so that it is also true that for her quickening, as for all the rest, Christ died. But the Blessed Virgin is called dead because she was liable to death, and would necessarily have died from the force of her generation, had not grace forestalled her. Like is the place, Romans 8: The body indeed is dead, because of sin; but the spirit liveth, because of justification — in which place the bodies of the justified faithful are called dead, not because they are in very deed already dead, but because liable to death and necessarily to die; though it is not to be doubted that God can exempt some from death, if he judge it so expedient for his glory. Someone will say: if the Blessed Virgin was always just, seeing she received the grace of justification in the very first instant of her creation, at no time, then, will she be found liable to sin. For she was not liable to sin before she was in the nature of things; nor after she began to be in the nature of things, since she began at once to be, and to be just. I answer that the Blessed Virgin was liable to sin at three times. First, as long as she was in the loins of Adam and of her other ancestors; for during all that time, as she was in potency a daughter of Adam, so she was in potency liable to sin. Then again, when she was conceived in the womb of her mother, before animation. For although she was then not wholly in the nature of things, yet she was in part; and by reason of that part she herself was truly said to exist — for so (as we noted above) offspring are said to lie hidden nine months in the womb of the mother. And during all that time which intervened between the first conception and the infusion of the rational soul, she was, not in potency but in act — though by reason of one part — liable to original sin, with which she would without doubt have been polluted, had she not been preserved through grace. Finally, she was liable to sin, herself wholly existing, in the first instant of the conjunction of the rational soul with the body. For although in the same instant of time she was justified, yet because in the order of nature the subject is prior to the accidents, therefore, in the order of nature, that person was outside her causes before either sin or justice inhered in her. And so in that prior instant of nature she was liable to sin, because without doubt she would straightway have contracted sin, had she not been adorned with the light of justice at that very point of time at which she ought to have been infected with the blemish of sin. We have it, then, that the testimonies of the Scriptures effect nothing at all against the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin.
In the second place Chemnitz produces testimonies of the Fathers. The first testimony is of Augustine, in the book On Nature and Grace, chapter 36, where St. Augustine writes that grace was conferred on the Blessed Virgin for conquering sin on every side. “It is most manifest,” says Chemnitz, “that he does not hold that Mary was conceived without sin. For otherwise there would have been no need that grace be conferred on her for conquering sin.” I answer: if the most blessed Virgin had been by her nature impeccable (which none of the Catholics says), without doubt she would not have needed grace for conquering sin on every side. But since through the grace infused in her very creation she conquered original sin — that is, altogether shut its entrance against it — and again through grace, both habitual, and of direction and protection, and also of the divine cooperation, escaped all the stains of actual sin, assuredly it is false, what Chemnitz says, that there would have been no need that grace be conferred on blessed Mary for conquering sin, if she was conceived without sin. Were not Adam and Eve created without sin, and yet needed grace for conquering sin? It is not, then, to be conceived without sin, but to be by nature impeccable, that is required and suffices, that one need not grace for conquering sin on every side. The second testimony is of the same Augustine, in the book On the Faith, to Peter, chapter 26: “Hold most firmly, and doubt in no way, that every man who is conceived through the intercourse of man and woman is born with original sin,” etc. To which testimony Chemnitz adds another to the same sense from the book On Marriage and Concupiscence; and again another of St. Ambrose, from the commentary on Luke, book 2, in these words: “For alone among those born of a woman the holy Lord Jesus, who by the newness of his immaculate birth felt not the contagions of earthly corruption, was in all things holy.” He adds another to the same sense from the commentary of the same Ambrose on Isaias. I answer: nothing else is proved by these testimonies than that there is no one, besides Christ, who has not drawn original sin from the force of generation. For St. Ambrose added for this reason that Christ alone, by the newness of his immaculate birth, felt not the contagions of earthly corruption: because, namely, he alone, since he was conceived of a Virgin, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, excluded sin from the force of his generation. All the rest either contract sin in very deed, or escape it not from the force of generation, but by a privilege of singular grace. In the same manner must be understood what is wont to be adduced from homily 2 on the Birthday of the Lord, of Eusebius of Emesa. For that author does not say — “From the bond of original sin no one is immune, not even the mother of the Redeemer herself,” in which manner Cajetan adduces this place — but: “From the bond of original sin no one existed free of himself,” etc. — where that “of himself” signifies: from the force of generation, or from nature, not from grace. The third testimony of Augustine is in the book On the Perfection of Justice: “Whoever,” says Augustine, “thinks that there is or has been in this life any man or any men — excepting the one Mediator of God and men — for whom the remission of sins was not necessary, he is contrary to the divine Scripture, where the Apostle says: By one man sin entered into the world,” etc. I answer: we do not deny that the remission of sins was necessary for the Blessed Virgin, and that Christ was her redeemer, as of all the rest; but we say that there were remitted to her sins not into which she had fallen, but into which she would have fallen, had she not been forestalled by the grace of God through the merits of Christ. Nor is this manner of speaking foreign to the divine Scriptures, or to the disputations of Augustine. Certainly in Psalm 85 the Prophet says: Thou hast delivered my soul out of the lower hell. And in Psalm 143: Thou hast redeemed thy servant from the malicious sword. And yet the Prophet had not fallen into the lower hell, nor had he been cut down by the malicious sword; but because there was danger lest that happen, and by the grace of God he had escaped that danger, therefore he gives thanks and says: Thou hast delivered, etc. On which place St. Augustine speaks thus: “Just as if a physician should see a sickness threatening thee, perchance from some toil, and should say: spare thyself, treat thyself thus, rest, use these foods; for if thou do not, thou wilt fall sick — if thou do it and be well, thou rightly sayest to the physician: thou hast freed me from a sickness — not one in which thou already wast, but in which thou wast to be. Some man with a troublesome cause was to be sent to prison; another came and defended him. Giving thanks, what does he say? Thou hast delivered my soul from prison. A debtor was to be hanged; payment was made for him; he is said to be freed from hanging. In all these they were not; but because they were being driven by such deserts that, unless help had come, they would be there, thence they rightly say that they are freed, whither, through their deliverers, they were not permitted to be brought.” From which sentence of blessed Augustine two other testimonies can be explained. For Pope Zosimus writes, in the epistle which the same Augustine relates, epistle 157, in this manner: “No one, except him who is the slave of sin, is made free; nor can he be called redeemed, except him who has truly been before a captive through sin.” Likewise St. Leo writes, sermon 1 on the Nativity of the Lord: “As he found no one free from guilt, so he came for freeing all.” But by these words is signified (as we have learned from Augustine) that no one can be freed or redeemed unless he was a slave or captive in very deed, or certainly ought to have been, had not the grace of the deliverer and redeemer forestalled him; and that of himself no one was free from guilt, and therefore Christ came for freeing all. The fourth testimony is of the same Augustine, in book 5 against Julian, chapter 9 [al. 15]: “If without doubt the flesh of Christ is not the flesh of sin, but like the flesh of sin, what remains for us to understand but that, it excepted, all the remaining human flesh is of sin? And hence it appears that that concupiscence — through which Christ willed not to be conceived — made in the human race the propagation of evil; because the body of Mary, although it came thence, yet did not carry it over into the body which it conceived not thence. But whoever denies that the body of Christ was for this reason said to be in the likeness of the flesh of sin, because all other flesh of men is of sin, and so compares the flesh of Christ to the flesh of the other men being born as to assert that each is of equal purity — he is found a detestable heretic.” I answer: we confess that the flesh of Christ was not the flesh of sin, and that the flesh of other men — even the flesh of the Blessed Virgin Mary — was of sin; nor yet are we thence compelled to confess that in the very first instant of the creation of the soul of the most blessed Virgin there was not infused into her the grace of justification, by which absolutely every entrance of the stain of original sin was shut off. For that is not called the flesh of sin which has sin in itself, but which of itself and from its nature would have sin, unless grace excluded it; likewise that which was propagated not without the lust of the parents, and which, if it beget in the natural order, altogether carries sin over into the offspring; which, finally, is subject to death and the other evils that arose from the sin of the first parent. Now the Blessed Virgin (as we have often said) would from her nature, and by the force of her conception, without doubt have been polluted with original sin, had not a singular privilege of grace intervened. Likewise, she was conceived not without the lust of her parents, and was subject to death and to the hardships flowing from Adam's sin. Finally, if the same Virgin (which is an evident sign of a corrupted nature as to the flesh) had, in the wonted manner, conceived children from a man's embrace, those offspring of hers would by no means have lacked original sin. Thus it is rightly said that the flesh of the Blessed Virgin was the flesh of sin. But Christ, who had not the flesh of sin, but the likeness of the flesh of sin, could not be polluted with sin from the force of his conception: for he was conceived without lust; death and hardships he took up of his own accord; and children, if he had willed to beget them, he would without controversy have begotten without original sin. The fifth testimony is of St. Bernard, who says thus: “Excepting the man Christ, it regards all men, what one humbly confesses: In iniquities was I conceived, and in sins did my mother conceive me.” I answer: this testimony was taken by Chemnitz from epistle 174, to the Canons of Lyons. Yet in that epistle there are three things against Chemnitz, nothing for Chemnitz. The first against Chemnitz is that St. Bernard openly hands down that the Blessed Virgin was holy before she was born: “But,” says he, “I have also learned in the Church and from the Church to hold undoubtingly the birth of the Virgin as festive and holy — thinking most firmly with the Church that she received in the womb that she should come forth holy.” And a little after: “Without doubt,” says he, “the Mother of the Lord was holy before she was born.” Secondly, against the same is that in the same place St. Bernard adds that the Blessed Virgin was free of all actual sin: “I think,” says he, “that a more copious blessing of sanctification descended into her, which not only sanctified her birth, but also kept her life thereafter immune from all sin — which is believed to have been given to no one else among those born of women.” Thirdly, it fights most gravely against Chemnitz that St. Bernard, in this matter as in all other matters, willed his opinion to be subjected to the judgment of the Roman Church. For thus he closes the epistle: “But what I have said, let it be said assuredly without prejudice to one thinking more soundly; to the authority and examination especially of the Roman Church I reserve the whole of this, as also all other things of this kind — prepared, if in anything I think otherwise, to amend by her judgment.” If the heretics deigned to imitate this obedience of the holy man, and not little phrases rashly gathered here and there, they would not be heretics, nor would any controversy with Chemnitz remain to us. These things, then, make against him; and that there is nothing for him in the whole epistle I shall easily demonstrate. For although St. Bernard says that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified in the womb, yet he does not say that this was done after the infusion of the rational soul, and not in the very infusion, which we assert. And as to the same holy man affirming that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in sin, and thereby that her conception was not holy — it is to be taken of the first conception, which is wont to happen in the very intercourse of the parents, not of the animation. For St. Bernard proves thence that that conception was not holy, because sanctity would not have mingled itself amid the marital embraces; but the marital embraces have place in the first conception, not in the second, which could more properly be called animation. Next, the same author always urges this: that Christ alone was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and that the Blessed Virgin conceived of the Holy Spirit, but was not herself conceived of the Holy Spirit — which argument proves nothing else than that the first conception of Christ alone was truly holy. From which explication is solved also what could be adduced from Anselm, though Chemnitz has not mentioned his testimony. For St. Anselm, in book 2 of Why God Became Man, chapter 16, most openly writes that the Blessed Virgin was conceived and born in sin. But he speaks of the first conception of the seed, and of the nativity which is in the womb, not of that which is from the womb — that is, of the formation of the offspring, through which the man begins to be in the world, according to that of Matthew 1: For that which is conceived (born) in her, is of the Holy Ghost. For the same Anselm, in the book On the Virginal Conception and Original Sin, chapter 7, writes that men are conceived in original sin before the infusion of the soul — not that the flesh without the soul is capable of sin, but that the man, from the seed and from the conception itself, draws the necessity that, when he shall have the rational soul, he shall at the same time also have sin. And of this first conception, which is properly called conception, Anselm there expounds those words of Job: Who can make him clean that is conceived of unclean seed? and those of David: For behold I was conceived in iniquities, etc. Nor is it by any reasoning credible that St. Anselm wished to affirm that the Blessed Virgin was born from her mother's womb in original sin — since in his time the universal Church kept the feast day of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin, and publicly preached that the same Virgin was holy before she was born; which can be understood from the sermons of Peter Damian on the Birthday of the Virgin — which venerable Peter was a contemporary of St. Anselm, or a little his elder.
From the things said hitherto, all the arguments can be solved without any trouble which either Capreolus, or Cajetan, or others are wont to adduce — not that they may condemn our opinion, but that they may demonstrate their own to be more probable. For the testimonies of Scripture, of the Councils, and of the Fathers, which they suppose to make for them, are for the greatest part general, and thereby do not hinder that someone may be excepted by a singular privilege. For the Council of Trent — which no Catholic would dare resist — when it had handed down the common and universal doctrine about the sin of origin, openly subjoined: “It was not the mind of the holy Synod to include the Blessed Virgin in these decrees.” By which deed it taught that we can safely say the same of the Councils of Milevis and Orange, and whatever others there be in which the universal doctrine about sin is handed down. And the testimonies of the Fathers which touch the Blessed Virgin by name have either already been explained, or can be explained in the same way. As to the other objections, there is none which is not easily dissolved from what we have said. They object first that the Blessed Virgin was not truly redeemed, if she was never a captive. But we have already shown that they are most truly redeemed who would necessarily have been captives, had not the grace of the redeemer intervened. They object secondly that Christ died for all, and yet that the same died not for the just, but for sinners. To this too we have already answered: Christ died for sinners who already were such, or who would necessarily have been, had not the death of the same Christ, by wondrous grace, come to their aid. They object thirdly that the Blessed Virgin was conceived with the lust of her parents, and that lust is the instrument by which original sin is carried over into the offspring. The response is at hand from what we have said. For the lust of the parents is the sign of a corrupted nature, and from a corrupted nature vitiated flesh is naturally conceived; but nothing hinders that God, when he joins the rational soul with the vitiated flesh, can at the same time infuse into it the grace of justification, by which the stain of sin is utterly warded off. They object fourthly that the Blessed Virgin endured many hardships, and even death itself, which are punishments of sin. But we have already said that the soul of the Blessed Virgin was preserved from the stain of sin, but that her flesh was not redeemed until, after death, by a singular grace of God, she rose glorious. They object fifthly that it detracts from the glory of the Son of God if the privilege of an immaculate conception be attributed to anyone else. But the glory proper to the Son of God is this: that, conceived of the Holy Spirit, he could not contract sin from the force of generation. And it adds to his glory if through his merits not only can they be justified who already have sin, but someone can also be preserved from sin who otherwise would necessarily have fallen into it.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XVI. Solvuntur argumento. , qux adversus immacu¬ latam B. Virginis conceptionem fieri so¬ lent. Nunc argumenta solvenda sunt, tum ea quibus hairetici probare conantur, nostram sententiam fidei Catholica) repugnare, tum ea quibus alii nonnulli sibi persuaserant, sententiam nostra) contrariam veriorem esse, atque tutiorem. Sed antequam ad argumenta ipsa venia¬ mus explicandum erit breviter, quemadmo¬ dum accipiendum sit quod dicimus, B. Vir¬ ginem originali peccato semper caruisse. Tribus modis peccatum primi parentis cum filiis ejus communicatur. Primo enim dicuntur Ada) filii in ipso Adamo peccavis¬ se, cum ille praeceptum Domini in Pa¬ radiso transgressus est. Et quoniam tunc non erant ipsi in actus, sed in poten¬ tia, ideo quoque tunc peccatum non actu, sed potentia contraxerunt. Sive, quod est idem, non in se, sed in parente peccave¬ runt ; quemadmodum non in se, sed in pa¬ rente subsistebant. Hinc S. Augustinus lib. I. de peccatorum mer. et remiss. cap. 10. « Certe, inquit, manifestum est, alia esse propria cuique peccata, in quibus hi tantum peccant, quorum peccata sunt, aliud hoc unum, in quo omnes peccaverunt, quando omnes ille unus homo fuerunt. » Deinde rursus dicuntur in peccato concipi omnes Ada) filii, cum primum foetus in ute¬ ro matris existere incipit, quamvis informis ct inanimis. Tametsi enim peccatum proprio non possit esse, nisi in anima rationali, et foetus conformari incipiat longo tempore an¬ te animationem, tamen quia tunc revera in¬ cipit homo existere, ratione unius suae partis, (unde dicuntur filii in uteris matrum novem mensibus gestari, II. Mach. vn.) et pars illa ex corrupta natura originem habet, et vitia¬ ta, recte nominari potest, atque ei ex vi sua) generationis debetur, ul cum primum ani¬ mam rationalem sortita fuerit, inde existat homo peccator, et ira^divinte filius. Propter- ca non immerito, dicuntur homines tunc primum in iniquitatibus generari. Explicat hoc multis verbis S. Anselmus in lib* de conceptu virginali ct peccato originali cap. 7. et de hac prima conceptione exponit illud, Psal. l. : Eccc enim in iniquitatibus conce¬ ptus sum (1). Tertio denique dicuntur homines concipi in peccato, cum anima) corporibus inspiran¬ tur. Tunc enim primum incipiunt proprie, et re ipsa esse homines, et habere volunta¬ tem originali justitia denudatam, a Deo a- versam et deformem. Jam igitur quod attinet ad primum mo¬ dum, non desunt, qui existiment B. Virgi¬ nem non peccasse in Adamo. Dicunt enim legem de non gustando ligno scientia) boni et mali datam fuisse primo parenti pro se et omnibus posteris, excepta Virgine Maria. Proinde illam, ut erat in lumbis Ada), gu¬ stasse cum illo cibum vetitum, non tamen peccasse, quia prohibitio ad eam non per¬ tinebat. (Jiuc sententia nobis non admodum tuta esse videtur ct contraria) omnino subscribi¬ mus. Nam inter Catholicos convenit, B. Vir¬ ginem per Christi sanguinem vere fuisse red¬ emptam, ct quod Apostolus ait : Christus pro omnibus mortuus est. II. Corinlh. v. sine ulla exceptione esse accipiendum. At si B. Virgo neque actu, neque potentia, neque in se, neque in parente suo peccavit, quomodo, qua)so, redempta dici potest ? Quod attinet ad secundum modum, si B. Virgo non fuit libera, ut diximus, a peccato primi parentis quatenus in lumbis ejus erat, profecto prima ejus conceptio similis fuit con¬ ceptioni aliorum. Nimirum originem habuit ex natura corrupta, eique ex vi generationis debebatur, ut peccatum contraheret, cum primum ad eam anima rationalis accederet. mPsd. L. 7. — (27 Cor. V. 14. CAPUT XVI. Quod attinet ad tertium modum, sine pec¬ cati originalis macula fuisse existimamus animam B. Virginis, in ipso etiam primo in¬ stanti sua: creationis et infusionis in corpus, ita ut nunquam persona illa actu existens peccatum habuerit. Atque lioc solum est, in quo B. Virgo differt a caderis, qtii per gra¬ tiam Dei, Christiquc passionis meritum a peccato originali liberati fuerunt, quod alii communiter liberati sint post nativitatem ; aliqui pauci ante nativitatem, sed post ani¬ mationem, ipsa sola in ipso instanti anima¬ tionis. Ex his qua} diximus facile solvi possunt argumenta, qua} ab adversariis proferuntur, sive ex Scripturis, sive ex Patribus, sive ex ratione ducantur. Primum igitur profert Kemnitius in Examine Concilii Tridentini sess. 5. pag. 518. Scripturas, qua} (ut ipse dicit) solum Christum excipiunt a peccato II Cor. v : E um qui peccatum non noverat etc. ; Ilebr. vii : Talis decebat ut nobis esset Ponti¬ fex, innocens , impollutus , segregatus a pecca¬ toribus (1). Bespondeo : Scriptura} ista}, a Kemnitio allatae, dicunt quidem Christum non novisse peccatum, et innocentem, et impollutum, et segregatum a peccatoribus fuisse : tamen non addunt, soli Christo convenire. Quin po¬ tius, si sonum verborum tantum attenda¬ mus, inveniemus similia nonnullis aliis in Scripturis tribui. De Job legimus : Erat vir ille simplex, et rectus, et timens Deum , et rece¬ dens a malo, Job. i.(2). Et de parentibus Prae¬ cursoris : Erani justi ambo ante Deum, ince¬ dentes in omnibus mandatis , et justificationibus sine querela. Fatemur tamen recte dici posse, Christum solum ab originali peccato immu- nem fuisse, quia solus ipse ex vi generatio¬ nis peccatum evasit, et neque in se, neque in Adamo peccavit, quippe qui solus non ex se¬ mine viri, sed Spiritus sancti virtute a Virgine conceptus et ex Virgine natus sit. Virgo autem beata caruit quidem originali macula, sed pri¬ vilegio gratia} divinae, non vi generationis humana}, et licet in se polluta non fuerit, in parente tamen fuit. Similia sunt cum solus Deus dicitur bonus , Matth. ix ; Solus sapiens, Itom. xvi ; Solus immortalis, 1 Tim. ult, (3). Quia videlicet solus ipse? talis est per es¬ sentiam, caeteri autem sive angeli, sive homi¬ nes, per participationem. 37 'J Secundo, profert testimonia illa, qua} om¬ nes homines in peccato constituunt, llom. v, In quo omnes peccaverunt ; I Corinth. xv, In Adarn omnes moriuntur; Ephes. n, Eramus natura filii irse, sicut, etc. (-4). Respondeo, non negamus B. Virginem in Adamo peccasse, eo modo quo peccare poterat, qua} nondum erat, nisi in potentia, ac per hoc obnoxiam fuisse, ut quando actu esse inciperet, re ipsa in se peccatum haberet. Tamen addimus, pra3ventam fuisse singulari gratia, ac privi¬ legio Dei, ut simul et esse, et justa esse inci¬ peret. Neque illud negamus, eamdem Virginem in Adamo esse mortuam, hoc est, propter Ada} peccatum mortis debitum contraxisse et solvisse. Nam etiamsi in primo sua} crea¬ tionis instanti anima ejus per gratiam a pec¬ cati macula liberata fuit, redemptionem ta¬ men corporis non continuo habuit, quemad¬ modum nos omnes, serius, quidem quam B. Virgo, a peccato originali liberati sumus, et tamen renovati spiritu mentis nostrse adhuc redemptionem corporis expectamus, et ideo morti et airumnis atque calamitatibus sub¬ jecti sumus, qua} ex peccato primi hominis in genus humanum redundarunt. Denique non negamus, B. Virginem natu¬ ra fuisse filiam ira}, sed addimus gratia sem- per fuisse filiam misericordiae. Ex natura enim corrupta parentum suorum quid ha}re- ditare potuisset, nisi corruptionem ? placuit tamen Deo, sic eam in benedictionibus dul¬ cedinis picevenire, ut nunquam esset pecca¬ trix, quod postulabat natura, sed semper esset justa, quod gratia conferebat. Tertio, objiciunt alii verba illa B. Pauli, II Cor. v : Si unuspro omnibus mortuus est, er¬ go omnes mortui sunt, et pro omnibus mortuus est Christus (5). Respondeo, concedimus, B. Virginem aliquo modo mortuam esse morte peccati (de hac enim morte sine dubitatione Apostolus loquitur) ut etiam verum sit, pro ipsa vivificanda, ut pro ceterisomnibus mor¬ tuum esse Christum. Caderum mortua dici¬ tur B. Virgo quod obnoxia fuerit morti, et necessario moritura ex vi sua} generationis, nisi eam gratia pra}vcnisset. Similis est lo¬ cus Rom. vm : Corpus quidem mortuum est propter peccatum , spiritus vero vivit pro¬ pter justificationem (6), quo loco dicuntur corpora fidelium justificatorum mortua, (1) 11 Cor. V, 21; Heb. VII, 26. — (2) Job, 1,1. — (3) Matth. IX, 17; Rom. XVI, 27; I Tim. VI, 16. — (4) Rom. V, 12; I Corin. XV, 22; Eph. II, 3. — (5) II Cor. V, 14. - (6) Rom. VIII. ly. 380 LIREIt IV. non quod reip.su jam xuortuu sint , sed quod morti obnoxia, et necessario moritura; quamvis dubitandum non sit, quin possit Deus aliquos u morte eximere, si ita judicet ad suam gloriam expedire. Dicet aliquis : si D. Virgo semper fuit ju¬ sta, quippe quae in ipso primo instanti crea¬ tionis gratiam justificationis accepit, nullo igitur tempore peccato invenietur obnoxia. Neque enim obnoxia peccato fuit, antequam esset in rerum natura ; neque posteaquam in rerum natura esse coepit, cum simul esse, et justa esse coeperit. Respondeo, B. Yirgiuem tribus tempori¬ bus peccato fuisse obnoxiam. Primo quam- diu in lumbis Adae, et eaeterorum parentum suorum fuit. Toto enim illo tempore, sicut fuit in potentia Adae filia sic, fuit in potentia peccato obnoxia. Deinde rursus, quando concepta est in utero matris ante animatio¬ nem. Tametsi enim tunc non fuerit integre in rerum natura, fuit tamen ex parte, et ra¬ tione illius partis dicebatur ipsa vere exi- sterc; sic enim (ut supra notavimus) dicuntur proles in utero matris novem mensibus de¬ litescere. Toto autem illo tempore, quod in¬ ter primam conceptionem et infusionem ani¬ ma rationalis intercessit, fuit illa non in po¬ tentia, sed in actu, quamvis ratione unius partis peccato originali obnoxia, quo sine dubio polluta fuisset, nisi per gratiam prae- servata fuisset. Denique obnoxia peccato fuit ipsa integre existens in primo instanti conjunctionis ani¬ mal rationalis cum corpore. Tametsi enim in eodem instanti temporis justificata fuerit, tamen quia ordine natu ne prius est subje¬ ctum, quam accidentia, ideo prius fuit, ordi¬ ne natura;, persona illa extra suas causas, quam aut peccatum, aut justitia in illa inhac- reret. Itaque in illo priori instanti natura; fuit obnoxia peccato, quia sine dubio conti¬ nuo peccatum contraxisset, nisi in illo ipso temporis puncto justitia; luce ornata fuisset, quo peccati labe infici debuisset. Habemus igitur testimonia Scripturarum nihil omnino efficere contra immaculatum B. Virginis conceptionem. Secundo loco producit Kemnitius testimo¬ nia Patrum. Primum testimonium Augustini est in lib. de natura et gratias, cap. 20, ubi S. Augustinus scribit, gratiam B. Virgini collatam fuisse ad vincendum omni ex par- b» .peccatum : « Manifestissimum , inquit Keninitins, est, quod non sentiat. Mariam si- «c pecato conceptam fuisse. Alias enim non opus fuisset conferri ipsi gratiam ud vincen¬ dum peccatum. » Respondeo : si beatissima Virgo natura sua i u isset impeccabilis (quod nenno Catholico¬ rum dicit), sine dubio gratia non eguisset ad vincenduiibomni ex parte peccatum. At cum per gratiam in ipsa creatione infusam vicerit originale peccatum, hoc est, aditum ci om¬ nino praecluserit; et rursum per gratiam tum habitualem, tum directionis et protectio¬ nis, tum etiam cooperationis divina; macu¬ las omnes peccati actualis evaserit, profecto falsum est quod Kemnitius dicit, non opus fuisse conferri B. Maria; gratiam ad vincen¬ dum peccatum, si sine peccato concepta fuit. An non A dani et Eva sine peccato creati fuerunt, et tamen ad vincendum peccatum gratia eguerunt ? non igitur concipi sine peccato, sed impeccabilem esse natura re¬ quiritur et sufficit. nt quis non egeat gratia ud vincendum omni ex parte peccatum. Secundum testimonium est ejusdem Au¬ gustini in lib. de fide ad Petrum, cap. 2(5 : « Firmissime lene, et nullatenus dubites, omnem liominem, qui per concubitum viri et mulieris concipitur, cum peccato origina¬ li nasci utc. » Cui testimonio addit Kemni¬ tius aliud in camdem sententiam ex lib. de nuptiis et concupiscentia. Et rursum aliud S. Ambrosii cx comment. in Lue. lib. u. in haec verba : « Solus enim per omnia ex na¬ tis de frendua sanctus Dominus Jcsus, qui terrena; contagia corruptela; immaculati par¬ tus novitate non sensit. » Addit aliud in camdem sententiam ex commentar, ejusdem Ambrosii in Isaiam. Respondeo : nihil aliud bis testimoniis pro¬ batur, nisi nullum esse, praeter Christum, qui ex vi generationis non traxerit originale peccatura. Nam ideo S. Ambrosius addidit, Christum solum immaculati partus novitate non sensisse terrena; contagia corruptelae, quia videlicet solus ipse euin sit ex Virgine, ac de Spiritus sancti virtute conceptus, pec¬ catum cx vi generationis exclusit. Caetcri oinncs aut peccatum re ipsa contrahunt, aut illud non ex vi generationis, sed privilegio gratiae singularis effugiunt. Ad cmndem modum intelligi debet, quod ex homil. 2. de Natali Domini Eusebii Emis- seni adduci solet. Non enim auctor ille ait : <( A peccati originalis nexu nullus immunis existit, ncc ipsa genitrix Redemptoris » , quo modo hunc 'locum Cajefatms adducit ; sed : CAPIT Mi. u A peccati originalis nexu nemo per se li¬ ber cxtitit, etc. » ubi illud, « per se, » signi¬ ficat, ex vi generationis, sive ex natura, non ex gratia. Tertium testimonium Augustini est in li¬ bro de perfectione justitiae. « Quisquis, in¬ quit Augustinus, esse vel fuisse in hac vita aliquem hominem, vel aliquos homines putat, excepto uno Mediatore Dei et hominum, qui¬ bus necessaria non fuerit remissio peccato¬ rum, contrarius est divinae Scripturio, ubi Apostolus ait : Per unum hominem pecca¬ tum in mundum intravit, ete. » Respondeo : non negamus B. Virgini ne¬ cessariam fuisse remissionem peccatorum, et Christum ejus luisse, ut eaeterorum om¬ nium, redemptorem : sed dicimus, remissa ei fuisse peccata, non in qua? inciderat, sed in quae incidisset, nisi gratia Dei per Christi merita prayvenla fuisset. Neque est hic mo¬ dus loquendi a Scripturis divinis, vel ab Au¬ gustini disputationibus alienus. Certe inPsal. lxxxv. dicit Propheta : Eruisti animam meam de inferno inferiori. Et in Psal. cxliii : Redemisti servum tuum de gladio malujno (1). Nec tamen in infernum inferiorem Prophe¬ ta ceciderat, aut a gladio maligno caesus fue¬ rat ; sed quia periculum erat, ne id fieret, et gratia Dei periculum illud evaserat, ideo gratias agit, ac dicit; Eruisti , ete. fn quem locum S. Augustinus ita loquitur : « Quemadmodum si medicus videat tibi im¬ minentem aegritudinem forte ex aliquo labo¬ re, et dicat, parce tibi, sic te tracta, requi¬ esce, his cibis utere, nam si non feceris, aegro¬ tabis : Iu autem si feceris, et salvus eris, re¬ cte dicis medico, liberasti me ab aegritudine, non in qua jam eras, sed in qua futurus eras. Nescio quis habens causam molestam, mit¬ tendus erat in carcerem, venit alius, defen¬ dit, cum. Gratias agens, quid dicit ? Eruisti animam meam de carcere. Suspendendus erat debitor, solutum est pro eo, liberatus dicitur de suspendio. In his omnibus non e- rant, sed quia talibus meritis agebantur, ut nisi subventum esset, ibi essent, inde se re¬ cte dicunt liberari, quo per liberatores suos non sunt permissi perduci. » Ex qua sententia B. Augustini explicari possunt alia duo testimonia. Scribit enim Zozimus Papa in epist. quam refert idem Augustinus epist. 157. in hunc modum : « Nullus, nisi qui peccati servus est. libor (t) Psal. LXXXV, 13: Psnl. CXLTIT. 10. 381 efficitur, nec redemptus dici potest, nisi qui vere per peccatum fuerit ante captivus. » Scribit item S. Leo serm. I. de Nativitate Domini : « Sicut nullum a reatu liberum re- perit, ita pro liberandis omnibus venit. » Sed his verbis significatur (ut ex Augustino didi¬ cimus) nullum posse liberari, vel redimi, ni¬ si fuerit servus, vel captivus re ipsa, aut cer¬ te esse debuerit, nisi eum liberatoris ac red¬ emptoris gratia praevenisset. Et per se nul¬ lum a reatu liberum fuisse, et ideo Christum pro liberandis omnibus advenisse. Quartum testimonium est ejusdem Augu¬ stini in lib. v. ad versus Julianum cap. 9 : « Si sine dubio, inquit, caro Christi non est caro peccati, sed similis carni peccati ; quid re¬ stat ut intelligamus, nisi ea excepta omnem i’cliquam humanam carnem esse peccati? et hinc apparet illam concupiscentiam, per quam Christus concipi noluit, fecisse in ge¬ nere humano propaginem mali : quia Maria; corpus quamvis inde venerit, tamen eam non trajecit in corpus, quod non inde concepit. Caeterum corpus Christi inde dictum esse in similitudine carnis peccati, quia omnis alia hominum caro peccati est, quisquis negat, et carnem Christi ita carni comparat nascen¬ tium hominum caetcrorum, ut asserat utram¬ que esse puritatis aequalis, detestandus hro- reticus invenitur. » Respondeo : fatemur carnem Christi non fuisse carnem peccati, et carnem aliorum hominum, etiam B. Virginis Mariae carnem fuisse peccati : nec tamen inde fateri cogimur, in ipso primo instanti creationis animae beatis¬ simae Virginis, non fuisse illi gratiam justifi¬ cationis infusam, qua peccati originalis ma¬ culae omnis omnino aditus praecluderetur. Neque enim caro peccati dicitur ea, quae pec¬ catum in se haheatt, sed quae ex se, et ex natura sua peccatum haberet, nisi gratia illud ex¬ cluderet : item quae non sine libidine paren¬ tum propagata est, quaeque si naturali ordi¬ ne gignat, peccatum in prolem omnino tra¬ jiciat ; quae denique morti, aliisque malis ex peccato primi parentis exortis subdita sit. Jam vero B. Virgo (ut saepe diximus) ex natura sua. et vi conceptionis peccato ori¬ ginali sine dubio polluenda fuisset, nisi privilegium gratiae singulare intercessisset. Item, non sine libidine parentum concepta, morti, atque aerumnis ex Adae peccato ma¬ na nf ibus subdita fuit. Denique, si eadem i j.iriF.n iv. .782 Virgo (quod est signum evidens corrupta; naturae, quoad carnem) solemni more ex complexu virili filios concepisset, illa; ejus proles originali peccato minime caruisscnt. Ita recte dicitur caro 15. Virginis caro fuisse peccati. Christus autem qui non carnem peccati, sed similitudinem habuit carnis pec¬ cati, ex vi conceptionis peccato pollui non potuit, sine libidine enim conceptus fuit, mortem et mrumnas sponte sua assumpsit, et liberos si gignere voluisset, absque originali peccato sine controversia genuisset, Quintum testimonium S. Bernardi est, qui sic ait : « Excepto homine Christo universos respicit, quod unus humiliter confitetur : In iniquitatibus conceptus sum, et in peccatis concepit me mater mea. » Respondeo : testimonium hoc a Kemnitio ex epistol. 17u. ad Canonicos Lugdunenses depromptum est. In qua tamen epist. ti'ia sunt contra Kemnitium, nihil pro Kemnitio. Primum contra Kemnitium est, quod S. Ber- nardus aperte tradit, B. Virginem ante san¬ ctam fuisse, quam natam : Sed, inquit, et or¬ tum Virginis didici in Ecclesia et ab Ecclesia indubitanter habere festivum, atque sanctum firmissime cum Ecclesia sentiens, in utero eam accepisse, ut sancta prodiret. Et paulo post : « Fuit, inquit, procul du¬ bio Mater Domini ante sancta, quam nata. » Secundo, contra eumdem est, quod in eodem loco S. Bernardus addit B. Virginem fuisse omnis peccati actualis expertem : « Ego, inquit, puto, quod et copiosior san¬ ctificationis benedictio in eam descenderit, qua ipsius non solum sanctificaret ortum, sed et vitam ab omni deinceps peccato cu¬ stodiret immunem, quod nemini alteri in na¬ tis quidem mulierum creditur esse dona¬ tum. » Tertio, gravissime contra Kemnitium pug¬ nat, quod S. Bernardus in hac re, ut in aliis rebus omnibus sententiam suam Ecclesia; Romana; judicio voluit esse subjectam. Sic enim epistolam claudit : « Qua; autem dixi, absque prmjudicio sane dicta sint sanius sa¬ pientis Romanm praesertim Ecclesia; auctori¬ tati, atque examini totum hoc, sicut et caetera, quae ejusmodi sunt universa reservo : ipsius si quid aliter sapio, paratus judicio emenda¬ re. » Si hanc obedientiam sancti viri, non voculas hinc indo temere collectas imitari dignarentur heerctici, haeretici non essent neque ulla nobis cum Kemnitio controversia remaneret. » Ha;c igitur contra illum faciunt : pro illo autem nihil esse in tota epist. facile demon¬ strabo. Nam etsi S. Bernardus dicat B. Virgi¬ nem in utero sanctificatam, non tamen dicit id factum esse post infusionem anima; ratio¬ nalis, non autem in ipsa infusione, quod nos asserimus. Quod vero idem vir sanctus af¬ firmat, B. Virginem in peccato esse conce¬ ptam, ac per hoc conceptionem ejus non fuis¬ se sanctam; de prima conceptione, qua; in ipso concubitu parentum fieri solet, non de animatione accipiendum est. Nam inde pro¬ bat S. Bernardus eam conceptionem non fuisse sanctam, quia inter amplexus marita¬ les non se immiscuisset sanctitas. Atqui am¬ plexus maritales prima conceptione, non in secunda, qua; magis proprie dici posset ani¬ matio, locum habent. Deinde illud semper urget idem auctor, quod solus Christus de Spiritu sancto con¬ ceptus sit, et B. Virgo de Spiritu sancto con¬ ceperit, non autem fuerit de Spiritu sancto concepta. 'Quod argumentum nihil aliud pro¬ bat, nisi primam conceptionem solius Christi vere fuisse sanctam. Ex qua explicatione solvitur etiam quod ex Anselmo posset adduci, licet ejus testimonii Kemnitius non meminerit. S. enim Ansel- mus in ii. lib. Cur Deus homo cap. 16. aper¬ tissime scribit, B. Virginem in peccato esse conceptam et natam. Sed loquitur de prima conceptione seminis et de nativitate, quae sit in utero, non de ea, quae sit ex utero, hoc est, de formatione foetus, per quam incipit homo esse in mundo, juxta illud Matth. i : Quod in ea natum est, de Spiritu sancto est (1). Nam idem Anselmus in lib. de conceptu vir¬ ginali, et peccato originali c. 7. scribit, ho¬ mines in peccato originali concipi ante infu¬ sionem anima;, non quod caro sine anima sit capax peccati, sed quod homo ex semine, et ex ipsa conceptione trahat necessitatem, ut cum animam rationalem habuerit , simut etiam peccatum habeat. Et de hac prima conceptione, qua; proprie dicitur conceptio, exponit ibidem Anselmus verba illa Job : Quis potest facere mundum de immundo conceptum semine ? Et illa Davidis : Ecce enim in iniquitatibus conceptus sum, etc. Neque ulla ratione credibile est S. Anselraum affirmare voluisse, B. Virginem in peccato # (1) Matt. I. 20. CAPIT X\ II. originali natam ex utero matris, cum ejus tempore Ecclesia universa festum diem Na¬ tivitatis B. Virginis coleret, eamdemque Vir¬ ginem prius sanctam fuisse, quam natam pu¬ blice praedicaret. Quod ex sermonibus Petri Damiani de Natali Virginis intelligi potest, qui venerabilis Petrus S. Anselmi aequalis fuit, vel eo paulo major. Ex his, quae hactenus dicta sunt nullo ne¬ gotio solvi possunt argumenta omnia, quae vel Capreolus, vel Cajetanus, vel alii solent adducere, non ut sententiam nostram dam¬ nent, sed ut suam probabiliorem esse de¬ monstrent. Nam testimonia Scripturae, Con¬ ciliorum et Patrum, quae pro se facere arbi¬ trantur, maxima ex parte generalia sunt, ac per hoc non impediunt, quo minus aliquis singulari privilegio excipi possit. Concilium enim Tridentinum, cui nemo Catholicorum resistere auderet, cum doctrinam communem et universalem de peccato originis tradidis¬ set, aperte subjunxit : « Non fuisse mentem sanctae Synodi B. Virginem his decretis inclu¬ dere. » Quo facto docuit, tuto nos idem pos¬ se dicere de Conciliis Milevitano et Arausi- cano, et si quae alia sunt, in quibus univer¬ salis doctrina de peccato tradatur. Testimo¬ nia vero Patrum, quae B. Virginem nomina- tim attingunt, aut jam explicata sunt, aut eodem modo explicari possunt. Quod vero ad alias objectiones attinet, nulla est, quae ex iis, quae diximus, non facile diluatur. Objiciunt primo, B. Virginem non vere fuisse redemptam, si nunquam fuit captrva. Sed jam ostendimus, illos verissime redimi, qui necessario captivi fuissent, nisi redem¬ ptoris gratia intercederet. Objiciunt secundo , Christum mortuum esse pro omnibus, et tamen eumdem non pro justis, sed pro peccatoribus mortuum esse. Ad hoc etiam jam respondimus, Christum mortuum esse pro peccatoribus, qui jam erant, vel qui necessario fuissent, nisi eis mors ejusdem Christi mirabili gratia succur¬ risset. Objiciunt tertio, B. Virginem cum libidine parentum fuisse conceptam, libidinem autem instrumentum esse, quo trajicitur in prolem originale peccatum. Responsio ex his, quae diximus, in promptu est. Nam libido paren¬ tum signum est natura; corrupta;, ex natura autem corrupta naturaliter caro vitiata con¬ cipitur, sed nihil prohibet, quo minus possit Deus, cum animam rationalem cum carne vitiata conjungit, simul in eam gratiam ju¬ stificationis infundere, qua peccati macula pe¬ nitus arceatur. Objiciunt quarto , B. Virginem multas a;rumnas, atque ipsam etiam mortem, qua; sunt peccati poena;, esse perpessam. Sed jam diximus, B. Virginis animam a peccati macu¬ la prmservatam, non autem carnem fuisse redemptam, nisi cum post mortem singulari Dei gratia gloriosa surrexit. Objiciunt quinto, detrahi de gloria filii Dei, si privilegium immaculata; conceptionis ali¬ cui alteri tribuatur. Sed gloria filii Dei pro¬ pria illa est/ quod de Spiritu sancto conce¬ ptus ex vi generationis peccatum contrahere non potuerit. Accedit ad ejus gloriam, si per ipsius merita non solum justificari possint qui peccatum jam habent, sed etiam prae¬ servari a peccato aliquem, qui in illud alio- qui necessario incidisset.