Part II Chapter I §1: Mary's Immaculate Conception

Part II: Mary’s Special Prerogatives

Chapter I: The Negative Prerogatives of the Blessed Virgin

§1: Mary’s Immaculate Conception

CHAPTER I THE NEGATIVE PREROGATIVES OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN It is a dogmatic principle that the Mother of God was exempt from every defect or blemish. There are four separate and distinct prerogatives that may be enumerated under this category. They are : (1) Exemption from original sin. This privilege of the Blessed Virgin is known as her Immaculate Conception. (2) Immunity from personal sin. This prerogative is commonly called her sinlessness. (3) Freedom from bodily pollution. It is this privilege we mean when we speak of her as “ever virgin.” (4) Exemption from the dominion of death. This privilege is implied in her bodily Assumption into Heaven. The first two of these prerogatives have exclusive reference to the soul of our Blessed Lady; the third and fourth also include her body. We will discuss them one by one in four distinct Sections. 38 SECTION i mary’s immaculate conception i. State of the Question and Meaning of the Dogma. — a) Conception (conceptio) may be taken either actively or passively. Active conception (concipere, conceptio ac~ tiva) is the parental act of generation. Passive conception (concipi, conceptio passiva) is the origin of a human being in the maternal womb. A child comes into being at the moment when the intellectual soul is infused into the product of parental generation (embryo, foetus). In speaking of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, therefore, we do not mean the procreative act of her saintly parents (which may or may not have been tainted by inordinate concupiscence), but simply and solely the creative act by which Almighty God infused her immaculate soul into the corporeal receptacle which had been prepared for it by Joachim and Anna. In other words, by a most extraordinary privilege the soul of our Lady was from the first instant of her existence preserved from all stain of original sin. b) The fact that Mary was preserved from 39 original sin does not necessarily imply that she was exempt from the universal necessity or need of being subject to it (debitum peccati originalis). Theologians generally hold that, though she was de facto exempt from original sin, Mary incurred the debitum contrahendi, because else her Immaculate Conception would not be an effect of the atonement. We may distinguish a twofold debitum, proximate and remote. Debitum remotum merely signifies membership in the human race, based on the ordinary mode of propagation, i. e., sexual generation. Debitum proximum involves inclusion in the wilful act by which Adam, as the representative of the whole race, rejected the grace of God and implicated human nature in sin. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception is sufficiently safeguarded by admitting that Mary was subject to the debitum remotum. The view of some older Scotist theologians, that she had not even so much as a debitum remotum incurrendi peccatum originate, cannot be reconciled with the solemn formula by which Pope Pius IX defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Is it necessary to admit that there was also a debitum proximum? The majority of Catholic divines, following Suarez,1 contend that it is. The assumption of such a debitum, involving as it does the exemption of one sole individual from a strictly binding universal law, constitutes the Immaculate Conception a miracle and a far higher grace than it would be in the opposite hypothesis ; but it does not sufficiently safeguard the soul of our Lady against the possibility of contamination.2 1 De Myst. Vitae Christi, disp… . de B. Virgine Maria, 4th ed., 3, sect. 2. pp. 65 sqq., Rome 1896. 2 Cfr. Bucceroni, Comment arii

HER IMMACULATE CONCEPTION c) The dogma expressly says that our Lady owed her freedom from original sin entirely to the redemptive merits of her Divine Son. Like all other human beings, she had need of a redeemer, though the manner of her redemption differed from that of the common run. She was preserved from original sin by a special and altogether unique privilege. As this privilege is based entirely on her dignity as Mother of God, it would be rash to assume that it was granted also to other Saints, e. g,, John the Baptist or St. Joseph. Inasmuch as Mary never even for one moment contracted the slightest taint of original sin, theologians commonly speak of her redemption as redemptio anticipata or praeredemptio (sometimes also praemundar tio). This Preredemption, according to Catholic teaching, formally consisted in the infusion of sanctifying grace into her soul immediately after its creation. In other words, the sanctification of the Blessed Virgin Mary, like that of our First Parents in Paradise,8 was simultaneous with her creation. d) All these momenta are embodied in the definition enunciated by Pius IX in his famous Bull “Ineffabilis Deus/’ of December 8th, 1854: “We define that the doctrine which declares that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted to her by Almighty God, through 8Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural, p. 199, 2nd cd., St. Louis 1916. the merits of Christ Jesus, Saviour of mankind, was preserved from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore must be held firmly and constantly by all faithful Christians.” 4 The Bull not only defines the dogma, but declares that it is ” revealed by God.” The subject of this singular privilege is the person of Mary ; it has nothing to do with her progenitors. The privilege itself consists in Mary’s actual preservation from original sin through the merits of Jesus Christ. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception is rejected by the Anglicans, and by Protestants generally, also by many schismatics and the so-called Old Catholics.6 2. Proof from Sacred Scripture. — The dogma of the Immaculate Conception is not expressly enunciated in Sacred Scripture, but, as Father S. J. Hunter justly observes, “this circumstance will have no weight against its acceptance, except with those who assume, without a scrap of reason, that the whole of the revelation given by God is contained in the inspired Books.” 6 4 ” Definimus doctrinam, quae tenet Beat am Virginem Marx am in primo instanti suae conceptions fuisse singulari omnipotentis Dei gratid et privilegio, intuitu meritorum Christi Iesu Salvatoris hutnani generis, ab omni originalis culpae lobe praeservatam itnmunetn, esse a Deo revelatam atque idcirco ab omnibus fidelibus firmiter constanterque credendam.” (DenzingerBannwart, n. 1641.) 5 See Edw. Preuss, Zum Lobe der unbeHeckten Etnpfdngnit von Einem, der sie vormals gelastert hat, Frei burg 1879 (cfr. Pohle, Lehrbuch der Dogmatik, 5th ed., ” Vorwort,” Paderborn 1912). 6 Outlines of Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II, p. 553, 2nd ed. HER IMMACULATE CONCEPTION The Bull “Ineffabilis” cites two important texts, which certainly point to the Blessed Virgin as the recipient of some extraordinary spiritual favor, — a favor which cannot be fully explained by anything short of the dogma of her Immaculate Conception. True, the exegetical argument from these texts, taken by itself, scarcely exceeds the limits of probability; but the lack of Scriptural evidence can be abundantly supplied from the writings of the Fathers. a) The so-called Protevangelium (Gen. Ill, 14 sq.) runs as follows: “Et ait Dominus Deus ad serpent em: … Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem (nJ?W?), et semen tuum et semen illius: ipsa conteret caput tuum, et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius — And the Lord God said to the serpent: … I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed; she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.” The Hebrew text has: “he [ron] shall crush thy head, and thou shalt crush his heel.” The only difference between the two versions is that, whereas the Vulgate describes “the woman” as crushing the serpent, the original Hebrew text, by employing a male pronoun, ascribes this act to “the seed of the woman.” The Septuagint agrees with the Hebrew, rendering the passage as follows : avros aXr}V9 kol

affect the dogmatic argument, which may be formulated thus : According to the wellnigh unanimous interpretation of the Fathers, beginning with St. Justin Martyr and St. Ignatius of Antioch, the “serpent crusher” is a determinate person, namely our Divine Saviour Jesus Christ Himself, and the woman whose enmity is destined to prove fatal to the serpent, is the Blessed Virgin Mary. These two persons are opposed to two other beings, viz., the serpent, who is none other than Satan, and his “seed/’ i. e., his clientele of sinners.7 God Himself has “put enmity” between these two pairs, Christ and His mother on the one side, and Satan and his followers on the other, — an enmity which will ultimately end in victory for the former and destruction for the latter. Mary, being on the side of Christ, with the same enmity between her and Satan as that which exists between the latter and her Divine Son, must also share in His triumph. This would not be the case had she, even for a single moment, been tainted by original sin ; for in that hypothesis Satan would have triumphed over her, and she would have been, at least temporarily, his friend and ally, and the Protogospel would consequently be untrue. It follows that, viewed in 7Cfr. Matth. Ill, 7 1 John VIII, Maas, S. J., Christ in Type and 44; Acts XIII, 10; 1 John III, 8. Prophecy, Vol. I, pp. 184 sqq., New On the Protevangelium, see A. J. York 1893. the light of Christian tradition, the Protevangelium foreshadows not only the victory achieved by Christ through the atonement, but implicitly also the Immaculate Conception of His Blessed Mother.8 b) Leaving the Old Testament, we proceed to consider the Angelic Salutation, Luke I, 28: “Hail, full of grace,” in connection with the words addressed to our Lady by Elizabeth, Luke I, 42 : “Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.” 9 Gabriel’s greeting represents the divine favor enjoyed by the Blessed Virgin as the highest form of grace consistent with her state, and when Elizabeth, “filled with the Holy Ghost,” hailed Mary as the “mother of my Lord,” she did not pronounce a conventional salutation, but wished to say (as the Greek translation €V yvva&v of a Hebrew superlative plainly indicates) : “Thou art the only blessed one among women, because the ‘fruit of thy womb’ is the Son of God.” We have shown in a previous chapter that Mary, as the mother of God, was “full of grace.” She would have lacked the ful8 For further information on this Rome 1854; Legnani, De Secunda subject see Palmieri, De Deo Cre- Eva, Comtnentarius in Protoevangeante et Elevante, thes. 87, Rome Hum, Venice 1888; Arendt, S. J., De 1878; G. B. Tepe, Instit. TheoU, Protevangelii Habitudine ad ImVol. Ill, pp. 688 sqq., Paris 1896; maculatam Deiparae Conceptionem, Al. Schaefer, Die Gottesmuiter in Rome 1904. der HI, Schrift, pp. 101 sqq., p. » eiXoyrjfiiirn crv iv yvvai£lv> xal 116 (Engl, tr., pp. 108 sqq.); Fr. X. evXoyrj^ipos 6 Kapirbs rijs Koiklas Patrizi, De Immaculata Mariae Ori-

ness of grace had she not, from the first instant of her existence, been entirely exempt from sin. In other words, her plenitudo gratiae 10 must be conceived as unlimited in intensity as well as duration. Rightly, therefore, does Martin Luther remark of our Lady : ” We could not say to her : * Blessed art thou/ if she had at any time been subject to malediction.” 11 Thus conceived, the prerogative of plenitudo gratiae as well as the ” blessedness ” of Mary logically include her Immaculate Conception, as a cause includes its effect or an antecedent its consequent. This argument is confirmed by the traditional antithesis, so often emphasized by the Fathers and Catholic divines, between Mary and Eve. “Hail [Mary],” says Pope Innocent III (d. 1216), “because through thee the name of Eve is changed. Eve was full of sin, but thou art full of grace; Eve withdrew from God, but God is with thee ; Eve was cursed, but thou art blessed among women; through Eve death entered the world, through thee life returned.” 12 This antithetical comparison would be meaningless had Mary ever, even for one brief moment, made common cause, as it were, with Adam’s sinful spouse.13 10 V. supra, pp. 24 sqq. 11 ” Man konnte zu ihr nicht sprechen : ’ Gebenedeit bist du,’ wenn sie je unter der Maledeiung gelegen ware” (Kirchenpostille, 1527.) 12 Innocent III, Sermo de Virg. Purif.: “Ave, quia per te mutabitur nomen Evae; ilia fuit plena peccato, sed tu plena gratid; ilia recessit a Deo, sed Dominus tecum; ilia fuit male dicta in mulieribus, sed tu benedict a; per illam mors intravit in orbem, sed per te vita rediit ad orbem.” 13 This consideration is beautifully developed by Al. Schaefer, Die Gottesmutter in der HI. Schrift, pp. 118 sqq., 123 sqq. (Engl. tr„ 113 sqq.) HER IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 47 3. The Argument from Tradition. — The ecclesiastical tradition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception plainly falls into two separate and distinct stages. The first may be termed that of quiet and undisputed possession. It extends up to the time of the famous controversy which broke out in 1140. The second period is characterized by a gradual clarification of the dogma in the minds of the faithful, and ends with its solemn definition by Pope Pius IX, A. D. 1854. a) During the first period (from about 250 to 1 1 00) the Orient, on the whole, gives evidence of a much clearer conception of the dogma than the West, though the Latins no doubt virtually believed in the Immaculate Conception. Perhaps it is not too much to say that, had the Schoolmen following St. Anselm known the writings of the Greek Fathers as well as we know them to-day, they would never have opposed the dogma.14

, In regard to the first of these principles, the dogmatic Bull of Pius IX says : ” Atque haec quidem doctrina adeo maiorum mentes animosque occupavit, ut singularis et omnino mirus penes illos invaluerit loquendi usus, quo Deiparam saepissime compellarunt immaculatam, omnique ex parte immaculatam, innocentem et innocentissimam, illibatam et undequaque illibatam, sanctam et ab omni peccati sorde alienissimam, totam puram, totam intemeratam ac ipsam prope puritatis et innocentiae formam, pulchritudine pulchriorem, venustate venustiorem, sanctiorem sanctitate solamque sanctam purissimamque animd et corpore, quae supergressa est omnem integritatem et virginitatem, ac sola tota facta est domicilium universarum gratiarum Sanctissimi Spiritus et quae, solo Deo excepto, exstitit cunctis superior et ipsis Cherubim et Seraphim et omni exercitu angelorum naturd pulchrior, formosior et sanetior, cui praedicandae coelestes et terrenae linguae minime sufliciunt” 15 It is impossible to assume that the early Christians believed Mary to have been subject to original sin, since the Fathers of both the Greek and the Latin Church extol her as ” all-holy,” ” a virginal paradise preserved from the curse of God,” ” a virgin without the slightest taint of sin,” ” a miracle of grace, holier and purer than the angels,” etc., etc. No matter how highly we may rate the sanctity of a converted sinner, it would be untrue to say that he is absolutely stainless. For the sins which he has committed never cease to overshadow his life. To compare Mary’s sanctity to the immaculate purity of the glorious seraphs, nay, to exalt it in unmeasured terms above that purity, is but one 16 The Patristic texts upon which this eulogy is based may be found in Passaglia and Palmieri. remove from the formal declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The dogma may also be logically deduced from the Patristic conception of Mary as the second Eve. As Adam was the counterpart of Christ,16 so Eve was the antithesis of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Or, to express the same truth somewhat differently : As Eve, in conjunction with Adam, embodies the principle of sin, so Mary, in conjunction with Christ, represents the wellspring of sanctity and righteousness. If the Blessed Virgin, as the anti-type of Eve, essentially participates in the sanctity of her Divine Son, she cannot possibly have been tainted by original sin; else the Scriptural parallel would be meaningless. What renders this deduction even more convincing is the fact that the Fathers, not content with opposing Mary to sinful Eve, put her on a par with our protomother while yet in the state of original justice, that is to say, conceived her as equally holy in origin with ” the mother of all the living.” This significant parallel between Eve and our Blessed Lady is found, as a part of the traditional deposit of faith, in the writings of the earliest Fathers and ecclesiastical writers, beginning with St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, and Tertullian, down to St. John of Damascus. We will quote a few characteristic passages. ” The First-born of the Father before all creatures,” says St. Justin Martyr, ” became a man through the Virgin, that by what way the disobedience arising from the serpent had its beginning, by that way also it might have its undoing. For Eve, being a virgin and undefined, conceiving the word that was from the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death ; but the Virgin Mary, takleCfr. Rom. V, 14 sqq.

MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES ing faith and joy, when the Angel told her the good tidings … answered : ’ Let it be done unto me according to thy word.’ ” 17 This is ” truly a most remarkable utterance in the mouth of a writer who flourished in the middle of the second century.” 18 Tertullian 19 says : ” For into Eve, as yet a virgin, had crept the word which was the framer of death. Equally into a virgin was to be introduced the Word of God, which was the builder-up of life ; that, what by that sex had gone into perdition might by the same sex be brought back to salvation. Eve had believed the Serpent, Mary believed Gabriel ; what Eve sinned by faith, Mary atoned by faith.*20 In the East, St. Ephrem Syrus (+ 373) gives expression to a similar thought : * Those two innocent, those two simple women, Mary and Eve, had been indeed created quite equal, but afterwards one became the cause of our death, the other of our life.” 21 Theodotus of Ancyra (d. about 445), a friend and fellow-combatant of St. Cyril of Alexandria, says : ” Instead of the virgin Eve, who was unto us the instrument 17 Dial. c. Try ph., c. 100. The translation is substantially Newman’s (“A Letter Addressed to the Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D., on Occasion of His Eirenicon,” reprinted in Certain Difficulties Felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teaching Considered, Vol. II, p. 33). 18 O. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur, Vol. I, p. 236, Freiburg 1902. 10 De Came Christi, c. 17. “In virginem enim adhuc Evam irrepserat verbum ex struct or turn vitae, ut quod per eiusmodi sexum abierat in perditionem, per eundem sexum redigeretur in salutetn. Crediderat Eva serpenti, credidit Maria Gobrieli; quod ilia credendo deliquit, haec credendo delevit.” 20 Cfr. St. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., Ill, 22, 4; V, 19, 1. (The passages translated by Newman, /. c, pp. 34 sq. Cfr. also Bardenhewer, op. cit.t pp. 520 sq.) 21 ” Duae innocent es, duae sitnplices, Maria et Eva, sibi quidem prorsus aequales factae erant; postea vero altera facta est causa mortis, altera vitae nostrae.” (Op. Syr.t II, 327.) Apposite texts from the liturgy of the Syrian Church will be found apud Holeika, Timoignages de l’£glise Syro-Maronite en Faveur de I’ltnmaculee Conception, Beirut 1904. HER IMMACULATE CONCEPTION of death, God, for the purpose of giving life, chose a virgin most pleasing to Himself and full of grace, who, included in woman’s sex, was free from woman’s sin, a virgin innocent, without taint, holy in soul and body, as a lily budding in the midst of thorns, unlearned in the evils of Eve, … who was a daughter of Adam, but unlike him.”22 The same belief inspired St. John of Damascus when he wrote : ” Hail, thou the only blessed one among women, who hast repaired the fall of our first mother Eve… . Hail, thou who art truly full of grace, because thou art holier than the angels and more excellent than the archangels… . Hail, thou full of grace, because thou art more beautiful than the Cherubim and more exalted than the Seraphim… . Hail, full of grace, thou who art higher than heaven and purer than the sun which we behold.,, 28 P) A careful analysis of these central ideas naturally led to the explicit conclusion that the Blessed Mother of God must have been pure and holy also in her origin. This conclusion, though not formally equivalent to an enunciation of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, differed but little if anything from it materially. Its logical development was partly theoretical, by 22 “Loco virginis Evae, quae no’ bis instrument um mortis facta est, Deus elegit ad dandam vitam Virginem sibi placentissitnam et gratia plenam, quae femina exist ens ah iniquitate feminae aliena fuit, Virginem innocentem, immaculatam, sanctam spiritu et corpore, productam ut lilium inter spinas, quae non novit mala Evae, … quae fuit filia Adam, sed ipsi dissimilis.” (Horn, in S. Deiparam, VI, n. 11, apud Gallandi, Bibliotheca Vet, Patrum Antiquorumque Script, Eccles., Venice 1765-81, Vol. IX, 475.) 23 Horn, in Annunt, B, M. V,, II. For a fuller treatment of this topic see Hurter, Compend. Theol. Dogm., Vol. II, n. 631 sqq., Innsbruck 1896. MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES means of express doctrinal judgments, and partly practical, through the introduction of the festival of the Immaculate Conception. The theoretical development of the dogma is sufficiently illustrated by the following quotations. St. Hippolytus (about 220), who was a pupil of St. Irenaeus, says : ” The ark which was made of indestructible timber (cfr. Ex. XXV, 10 sqq.), was the Redeemer Himself. The ark symbolized His tent [body], which was impervious to decay and engendered no sinful corruption… . The Lord was sinless, because, according to His humanity, He was fashioned from indestructible wood, u e., out of the Virgin and the Holy Ghost, lined within and without with the purest gold of the Logos.” 24 Dr. Bardenhewer remarks on this passage : ” This juxtaposition of our Lord and the Virgin as the only sinless representatives of the human race, constitutes the characteristic form in which the Immaculate Conception was taught in the early days.” 25 Dionysius the Great of Alexandria (about 250) wrote against Paul of Samosata : ” Christ did not live in a servile tent, but in His holy ark … and He preserved His mother as one who was blessed from head to foot, undefiled, even as He alone knew the manner of her conception and birth.” 26 Our classic witness is again St. Ephrem Syrus (about 370), who represents the Church of Edessa as addressing the Lord Jesus Christ in these words : ” Thou and Thy mother are the only [human beings] that are per24 Quoted by Theodoret, Dial., i Literatur, Vol. II, p. 553, Freiburg (Migne, P. G., X, 863). 1903. 25 Geschichte der altkirchlichen 26 Ep. adv. Paul. Samosat.

fectly beautiful in every respect ; for there is no spot in Thee, O Lord, nor any taint in Thy mother.” 27 There is an alleged ” Report of the Priests and Deacons of Achaia on the Martyrdom of St. Andrew,” 28 which used to be quoted as the most ancient Patristic testimony in support of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.29 We know now that this report is probably no older than the fifth century. But even as a document of the fifth century it is not without value. It contains this characteristic passage: ” Because the first man [Adam] was created of undefiled earth [i. e., earth which had not yet been cursed], … it was necessary that out of an immaculate Virgin there should be born the perfect man, the Son of God.” St. Augustine’s attitude in regard to this question is of special interest. He taught (1) that, as a rule, original sin precedes personal sin, and (2) that the Blessed Virgin Mary alone of all human beings was personally sinless. These premises implicitly contain the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. But St. Augustine never formally drew this conclusion. Julian of Eclanum accused him of treating the Deipara with even greater disrespect than the heretic Jovinian: “He [Jovinian] makes Mary’s virginity come to an end owing to the law of parturition, you transfer Mary herself to the Devil’s book, owing to the law of birth ; ” 30 to which the saintly Bishop replied : 81 ” We do not transfer Mary to the Devil’s book owing to the law of birth; but the reason we do not, is that this law is broken by the grace of being born 27 Carm. Nisib., n. 27, ed. G. 30 ” I lie virginitatem Marine parBickell, p. 122, Lipsiae 1866. tus conditione dissolvit, tu ipsam 28 Its text in A£igne, P. G., II, Mariam diabolo nascendi conditione 1226. transcribis.* 29 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Pa- 31 * Non transcribimus diabolo trology, p. 104. Mariam conditione nascendi, sed

again.” What else can this mean if not : Mary ought by right to have been conceived in original sin, but the grace of God preserved her pure and holy.32 y) The popular belief in the Immaculate Conception manifested itself at a comparatively early date by the introduction into the liturgy of a distinct festival. This was known at first as Conceptio Sanctae Annae. The reference to it in the Typikon S. Sabae (composed about 485) is spurious, but the festival undoubtedly became popular in the Orient as early as the second half of the seventh century, for a hymn written by St. Andrew of Crete (d. about 720) bears the inscription: “Die nona Decembris Conceptio Sanctae ac Dei Aviae Annae’9 In the West the feast of the Immaculate Conception was celebrated about the year 840 in the kingdom of Naples and Sicily, whither it had no doubt been transplanted from the Orient. In England the festival was observed before the Norman Conquest,33 though it did not spread widely in that country till the time of Abbot Anselm of St. Edmundsbury, who was a cousin of St. Anselm (d. 1109). Irish Catholics probably celebrated the feast of the Immaculate Conception as early as 900.34 ideo [non tronscribimus], quia ipsa conditio nascendi solvitur gratia renascendi.” (Op, Imperf. contra Iulian., IV, n. 122.) 82 Cfr. Th. Livius, C. SS, R., The Blessed Virgin in the Fathers, pp. 243 sqq.; Tixeront, History of Dogmas, Vol. Ill, pp. 466 sq. For a solution of certain other Patristic difficulties we refer the student to Pesch, Praelect. Dogmat., Vol. Ill, 3rd ed., pp. 170 sq., Freiburg 1908. 88 The evidence for this is given by Edmund Bishop in his tract, On the Origins of the Feast of the Conception of the Bl. Virgin Mary, London 1904. Cfr. also Kellner, Heortology (English ed.), Appendix X: ” English Writers and the Feast of the Immaculate Conception,” pp. 445-7. 84 Cfr. H. Thurston, S. J., “The Irish Origins of Our Lady’s Conception Feast,” in the Month, 1904, I, pp. 449 sqq. HER IMMACULATE CONCEPTION When the festival began to make its way from Italy to Gaul, in the twelfth century, a famous theological controversy arose as to its lawfulness. This was, however, confined to the circle of the learned and never affected the masses of the people. The cult of the Immaculata steadily grew more popular and finally struck root in Rome, where the feast was first observed in the fourteenth century.88 In celebrating this festival the faithful did not mean to honor the Blessed Virgin as one who, like St. John the Baptist, had been cleansed from original sin in the maternal womb,36 but as originally conceived without the slightest stain.37 b) The second period of the controversy, which led to a general clarification of ideas in the Western world — the East never wavered in its belief in the Immaculate Conception — began in 1140, when St. Bernard of Clairvaux wrote his famous letter to the Canons of Lyons, who had begun to celebrate the feast of our Lady’s Conception without having the authority of the Holy See for this “innovation.” a) St. Bernard insisted that nothing but what is ” holy ” can be the object of devotion, and in a vehement letter warned the Canons against the absurdity of celessCfr. Benedict XIV, De Festis B. Virginis, c. 15, n. 21. — On the institution and spread of the Festival of the Immaculate Conception see especially Kellner, Heortology, pp. 239-264, London 1008. 36 There was such a feast in honor of St. Elizabeth: Festum Conceptionis S. Elisabeth. 37 Cfr. Palmieri, De Deo Creante et Elevante, thes. 84; Kellner, Heortology, pp. 241 sqq. On the ancient liturgies see Tepe, Instit. Theohg., Vol. Ill, p. 699, Paris 1896. brating a ” false sanctity/’ that is, the sanctity of a being not yet existing, or, what would be still worse, ” sin,” i. e., the carnal act of Mary’s parents. Hence, while he raised no objection to the feast of our Lady’s nativity, he did protest against celebrating her ” immaculate conception.” — ” No doubt,” he wrote, ” the mother of God was holy even before she was born, and the Church is by no means mistaken in keeping holy the day of her birth … But she could not be holy before she existed, as she did not exist before she was conceived. Or did sanctity perhaps commingle with her conception so that she was sanctified and conceived at one and the same time? … Or are we to assume that there was no sin [concupiscence] where there was sensual delectation? Or will some one perhaps say that Mary was not conceived of a man but of the Holy Ghost? But this is something hitherto unheard of.” 88 If we take the term conception in its active sense (conceptio activa sive seminalis) in contradistinction and opposition to passive conception (conceptio passiva sive personalis), which coincides with the creation of the spiritual soul and its infusion into the foetus, St. Bernard was undoubtedly right in demanding that the conception of our Lady be excluded from public and private worship. But he went too far when he argued : ” Hence, if Mary could not be sanctified before her conception, since she was not yet in existence, nor in the act of conception itself, 88 ” Fuit procul dubio et mater Domini ante sancta quam nata, nec fallitur omnino sancta ecclesia sanctam reputans ipsum nativitatis eius diem… . Sed non valuit ante sancta esse quam esse, siquidem non erat, ante quam conciperetur. An forte inter amplexus maritales sanetit as se ipsi conceptui immiscuitt ut simul et sanctificata fuerit et concepta f … Aut certe peccatum [scil. concupiscential quomodo non fuit, ubi libido non defuitf Nisi forte quis dicat de Spiritu sancto earn et non de viro conceptam fuisse: sed id kactenus inauditum.” (Ep., ad Canonicos Lugd., n. 5 sqq., apud Migne, P. CLXXXII, 333.) HER IMMACULATE CONCEPTION on account of the sin [concupiscence] involved therein, it follows that she was sanctified in the womb after conception, which, since she was cleansed from sin, made her nativity holy, not her conception.” 39 This argument is fallacious, because it ignores a fourth possibility, namely the sanctification of Mary’s soul in the instant of its creation (conceptio passiva personalis). What led a number of medieval theologians to oppose the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was that they misunderstood the real point at issue. Instead of endlessly harping on the query : ” Was the Blessed Virgin Mary sanctified before or after the infusion of her soul into her body?” they should have formulated the problem thus : ” Was the soul of the Blessed Virgin sanctified at the moment of its creation ? ” But they disregarded this intrinsic possibility, on which the dogma of the Immaculate Conception rests. It never occurred to them to put the question thus, because, while they firmly believed that the Blessed Virgin Mary stood as much in need of redemption as the rest of humankind, they were unable to conceive redemption otherwise than as a cleansing from original sin with which all men are born into the world. Had the Scholastics generally per39 L. c, n. 7: “Si igitur [Maria] ante conceptum sui sanetificari tninime poiuit, quoniam non erat, sed nec in ipso quidem conceptu propter peccatutn quod inerat [i. e. concupiscentiam], restat ut post conceptum in utero torn existens sanctificationem accepisse credatur, quae excluso peccato sane tarn fecerit nativitatem, non tamen et conceptionem.” — ” St. Bernard,” comments Archbishop Ullathorne (The Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God, Revised ed. by Canon lies, London 1905, pp. 135 sq.), “is clearly arguing upon the notion of the active conception, which the Church does not contemplate in the mystery. Hence Albert the Great observes: ’ We say that the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified before animation, and the affirmative contrary to this is the heresy condemned by St. Bernard in his epistle to the canons of Lyons’ (In III, dist. 3, art. 4). And St. Bonaventure also says that from St. Bernard’s words ’ it is simply to be conceded that her flesh was not sanctified before animation ’ (In III, dist. 3, p. 1, a, 1, qu. 1).” 58 MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES ceived, what the subtle mind of Scotus saw so clearly, viz.: that redemption may be conceived as preredemption (preservation or prevention), they would undoubtedly have been unanimous in deducing the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as a logical conclusion from the traditional teaching on the perpetual and absolute sinlessness of Mary. It has been said of St. Thomas that he virtually held the conclusions which he formally combatted in his Mariological discussions, and this is equally true of all other Scholastic theologians who thought it their duty to oppose the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.40 P) St. Bernard’s letter to the Canons of Lyons drew forth emphatic protests from such learned and pious theologians as Friar Nicholas of St. Alban’s.41 But these protests remained unheeded, until the famous Franciscan Duns Scotus (d. 1308) refuted the chief objection that had been raised against the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Had the ” Subtle Doctor ” and his school done nothing else for the Catholic cause than to defend and successfully establish this dogma, they would deserve a place of honor in the history of medieval theology. Scotus argued as follows : ” He who is the most perfect mediator must have a most perfect act of mediation in regard to some person on whose behalf he exercises his 40 On the attitude of St. Thomas, cfr. Archbishop Ullathorne, The Immaculate Conception, p. 137: ” His great difficulty appears to have arisen on the question how she could have been redeemed if she had not sinned. This difficulty he has raised in not fewer than ten passages of his writings. But whilst St. Thomas thus held back from the essential point of the doctrine, it is most worthy to be remarked that he himself laid down the principles which, after they had been drawn together, and worked out through a longer course of thought, enabled other minds to furnish the true solution of his difficulty from his own premises.” 41 Cfr. Migne, P. L., CCII, 617 sqq. mediatorial office. Now Christ is a most perfect mediator … and He had no more exalted relation to any person than to the B. V. Mary… . This could not be, had He not merited for her preservation from original sin.”42 The subtle difficulty that Mary was a daughter of Adam before she could become an adopted daughter of God, and therefore must necessarily have experienced the taint of original sin, Scotus solved by applying the Scholastic distinction between ordo naturae and ordo ternporis.43 In the order of nature, he argued, Mary was a daughter of Adam before she was justified; but in the order of time her sanctification coincided with the creation of her soul. In elaborating this idea he employs a beautiful simile. ” Some,” he says, ” have been raised up after they had fallen, but the Virgin Mary was, as it were, sustained in the very act of falling, and prevented from falling, like the two men who were about to tumble into a pit.” 44 The strength of the Scotistic argument lies mainly in the concept of praeredemptio. Preredemption, Scotus contends, is possible, because absolutely speaking God can infuse grace without the expulsion of any previously existing sin.45 Preredemption was a fit mode of preserving the Blessed Virgin from sin, because she was the mother of God, and as such could never be at enmity 42 * Perfectissitnus mediator habet 43 L. c, qu. i, n. 15 sqq. perfectissimum actum mediandi re- 44 * Alii post casum erecti sunt, spectu alicuius personae, pro qua virgo Maria quasi in ipso casu susmediat. Sed Christus est perfectis- tenta est, ne rueret, sicut exemplum simus mediator… . Sed respectu ponitur de duobus cadentibus in nullius personae habuit excellenti- luto ” (/. c, n. 2). orem gradum quam respectu Mariae. 45 ” Absolute posset esse infusio … Sed hoc non esset, nisi meruis- gratiae sine expulsione alicuius cutset earn praeservari a peccato origi- pae praecedentis, sicut fuit in b. nali.* {Comment, in Quatuor Li- Virgine.* (Rep., IV, disk 16, qu. bros Sententiarum, III, dist. 3, qu. 2, n. 26.) 1, n. 4.) 6o MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES with God, which would have been the case, for a time at least, had she not been preserved from original sin.4e The Scotists nearly all followed the lead of their master. Among the zealous Franciscan defenders of the Immaculate Conception two deserve special mention: Peter Aureolus (d. 1322), and Francis Mayron (d. 1327), who wrote copiously in defense of the famous syllogism: ” Potuit, decuit, ergo fecit’9 that is to say: It was becoming that the Mother of the Redeemer should be free from the power of sin and Satan from the first moment of her existence ; it was in God’s power to give her this privilege ; therefore he gave it.47 y) It was due solely to the ancient feud between the Franciscans and the Dominicans that the latter now sharply renewed their opposition to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception with a special appeal to the authority of St. Thomas. Some Dominican divines even * went so far as to censure the Scotist view as heretical. The opposition, which was at first conducted with prudent moderation by men of the stamp of Cardinal Torquemada (1388-1468), eventually developed into a veritable furor theologicus. Bondelli (1481) and Bartholomew Spina (d. 1546) were particularly vehement. Besides such moderate opponents as Cardinal Cajetan (1469-1534), Francis a Sylvestris (1474-1528), and Bartholomew de Medina (1528-1581), the Order of St. Dominic, at this critical juncture, also furnished a few defenders of the doctrine, notably Ambrosius Catharinus (1487-1553), John a S. Thoma (1589-1644), and Natalis Alexander (1639-1724). 46 “Mater Dei, quae nunquam bros Sent., Ill, dist. 18, qu. i, n. fuit inimica actualiter ratione pec- 13). cati actualis nec ratione originalis; 47 Scotus, Comment, in Quatuor fuisset tamen, nisi fuisset praeser- Libros Sent., Ill, dist. 3. vata.” (Comment, in Quatuor Li 

The first serious attempt to upset the authority of St. Thomas and to blaze a way for the doctrine of the Scotists, which was constantly strengthening its claims, was made by Seraphine Capponi della Porretta, O. P. (1536-1614), who endeavored to show that the Angelic Doctor had been an advocate, or at least no opponent, of the Immaculate Conception. When, in process of time, the Thomistic position was gradually perceived to be untenable, the Thomists one by one retired from the fray and tried to interpret St. Thomas in favor of the Scotistic doctrine, as the Jesuits had done from the beginning. Already before the foundation of the Society of Jesus, Cardinal Cajetan had observed that ” among modern theologians the number of those who hold that the Blessed Virgin was preserved from original sin, is infinite.” 48 The Jesuit Peter Canisius (1521-1597) could truthfully say of his own time : ” Very few now hold the contrary opinion, and these are ashamed to speak their mind openly and consider it dangerous to profess their belief in public. If they dared to speak out, they would meet with public contradiction and give offense to the people; to such a degree has the opinion adverse to the Immaculate Conception been weakened, exploded, and as it were cast out.” 49 Those who had opposed the doctrine withdrew before long to their lecture rooms, while the Christian populace 48 ” Doctores tenentes B. Virginem esse praeservatam a peccato originali, sunt numero infiniti, si ad modernos spectemus.* (Opusc. de Concept. Virg. ad Leonem X.) 49 Canisius, De Maria Deipara, I, 7: * Qui secus mo do sentiunt, eorum sane rarus est numerus, kique pudore itnpediti, quod in animo gerunt et secum ipsi tacit e loquuntur ac sentiunt, palam efferre ac pronuntiare non satis tutum arbitrantur; turn, si id facer e quidem audeant, haud sine publico contradictione vulgique offensione audiuntur: usque adeo et invisa et debilitata et explosa et quodammodo tie eta est penitus nunc opinio adversariorum,” 62 MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES continued to profess the Immaculate Conception with constantly increasing fervor. 8) Thus the process of clarification, which had begun in the twelfth century, gradually took its course, the Church either urging on or restraining the combatants, as prudence dictated. The Council of Basle (1439), n ts thirty-sixth session, declared the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception to be the official teaching of the Church. Though not a binding definition (for the Council was at that time without a head), this declaration attests the belief of the fifteenth century. Sixtus IV, by a decree dated February 28, 1476, granted indulgences to all who recited the canonical office or assisted at the Mass of the Immaculate Conception,50 and when this did not abate the conflict, in 1483 issued an Apostolic Constitution (“Grave nimis”) in which he threatened to excommunicate all those of either school who dared to charge their opponents with heresy. The Council of Trent left the question where Sixtus IV had put it, but “declared that it is not the intention of this holy Synod to include in the decree which treats of original sin the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, Mother of God, but that the constitutions of Pope Sixtus IV, 60 The festival of the Immaculate the latter half of the sixteenth cenConception was not raised to the tury,— in 1568, by Pope Pius V. rank of a festival of obligation until of happy memory, are to be observed under the pains inflicted by the said constitutions, which it [the Tridentine Council] renews. 51 In 1567, Pope St. Pius V condemned the proposition (No. 73) of Baius, that no one but Christ was without original sin, and that therefore the Blessed Virgin died in consequence of the sin contracted through Adam, and endured afflictions in this life, like the rest of the just, as punishments for actual and original sin.” 52 A year later the same Pope made the feast of the Immaculate Conception a holyday of obligation for the entire Church. Paul V, in 161 6, forbade public discussion of the subject in pulpit and rostrum, and Gregory XV, in 1622, imposed absolute silence on all parties, with but one exception in favor of the Dominicans, who were permitted to debate the Immaculate Conception in private. Finally, Pope Alexander VII, by the famous Constitution “Solicitudo” of December 8, 1661, 61 Sess. V, sub fin. : ” Declarat tamen haec ipsa S. Synodus, non esse suae intentionis comprehendere in hoc decreto, ubi de peccato originali agitur, be at am el immaculatam Virginem Mariam, Dei genitricem, sed observandas esse constitutiones felicis recordations Sixti Papae IV, sub poenis in eis constitutionibus contentis, quas innovat” On the proceedings of the Council with regard to this question see S. Merkle, ConciL Trident., I: Diario, t. I, pp. 64 sqq., Friburgi 1901. 62 ” Nemo praeter Christum est absque peccato originali; hinc B, Virgo mortua est propter peccatutn ex Adam contr actum omnesque eius afflictiones in hoc vita, sicut et aliorum iustorum, fuerunt ultiones peccati actualis vel originalis” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1073.) 64 MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES renewed all the decrees of his predecessors and subjected the writings of those who attacked the Immaculate Conception to the rules of the Roman Index.53 From this time on the question was ripe for a final decision; but it was not until nearly two centuries later that Pope Pius IX formally defined and promulgated the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. 4. The Theological Argument. — The theological argument for the dogma of the Immaculate Conception rests entirely on reasons of fitness, viz.: (a) due regard for the infinite majesty and honor of the Divine Logos, for whose sake our Lady was preserved from sin, and (b) the exalted dignity of her divine motherhood.54 a) The Immaculate Conception constitutes a most extraordinary personal privilege, which our Lady received not for her own sake but for the sake of Christ. As the glory of a child reflects honor on his parents, so the shame of a parent brings disgrace upon the child.58 Hence any sinful taint in Mary would have reflected unfavorably on her Divine Son. Besides, the granting of such an extraordinary privilege to His mother redounds to the glory of Christ in His capacity of Redeemer. Far from 63 Cfr. B. Piazza, Causa Immac. purissima matre fieri, turn propter Concept., pp. 390 sqq., Panormi Virginis praerogativam, quae debuit IS57I Ullathorne, The Immaculate in dignitate sanctificationis ceteros Conception (revised ed. by Canon sanctos et sanctas praeire. (St. lies), pp. 56 sqq., 151, London Bonaventure, Comment, in Quatuor 1905. Libros Sent., Ill, dist. 3, p. 1, art. •64… turn propter Christi prae- 1, qu. 2.) cipuum honorem, quern decebat de 55 Cfr. Prov. XVII, 6. diminishing, the Immaculate Conception enhances and shows forth His dignity and power. A man may be redeemed in a twofold manner, either by being cleansed from sin or by being preserved from it altogether. The latter mode of redemption is undoubtedly the more perfect of the two, for, as Lorinus observes, ” To prevent one from falling into something from which he would have to be rescued, is the nobler way of liberation.” 66 To hold that Mary was exempt from original sin is not to deny that she was redeemed by Jesus Christ, but to assert that she was redeemed by Him in a most perfect manner, which greatly redounds to the glory of the Redeemer. b) Our reason shrinks from the thought that she who was from all eternity predestined to be the living temple of the Logos, the Sanctum Sanctorum of the New Testament, should have been even temporarily tainted by original sin. St. Bonaventure holds that the dignity of divine motherhood raised Mary to a unique rank unattainable by any other creature. This being the case, logic demands that she should be absolutely pure and stainless. Had she ever, even for a single moment, been under the yoke that weighs so heavily on the ” children of anger,” she would not have been always and absolutely pure. As Deipara Mary undoubtedly surpasses Eve and all the angels of Heaven in dignity. Now Eve and the angels were created in a state of original holiness, hence it would not be reasonable to suppose that Mary, whose dignity is so far superior to theirs, and who is rightly called the ” Heavenly Eve ” and ” Queen of Angels,” was created in the state of original sin.67 56 * Nobilior liberandi modus est debeat liberari.* (.Comment, in Ps., impedire, ne quis in id incidat, unde 85, 13.) 57 But it would be heretical to

St. John the Baptist was sanctified in his mother’s womb because he was destined to be the precursor of our .Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Mary must have been sanctified from the very beginning of her existence, for else she would be on a par with the precursor, which is repugnant. The opponents of the dogma never denied that the Blessed Virgin, on account of her exalted dignity, was preserved from personal sin (peccatum actuate) and the effects of concupiscence (concupiscentia) all her life.58 Now, according to St. Augustine, original sin is related to actual (or personal) sin as cause to effect. Actual or personal sin mostly originates in concupiscence, which in its turn is a penalty of original sin.50 Hence the absence of one implies absence of the other. Mary never committed actual sin, consequently she must have been conceived without original sin. Again, it is the teaching of the Fathers that Christ was exempt from original sin, not only because He was the Divine Logos, but also because of His virginal conception and birth.60 ” He alone was born without sin,” says St. Austin, ” whom His virgin mother conceived without the embrace of a husband, not by the concupiscence of the flesh, but by the submission of her mind.” 01 It was meet that Christ should confer the immunity to which He was entitled as King, at least as a privilege upon His hold, as Petrus Comestor (+1179) did, that Mary was in every way equal to our first parents before the fall and consequently stood in no need of redemption. This is a point of view which throws new light on the opposition of so many theologians to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception before its definition. Cfr. Commer’s Jahrbuch fur Philosophic und spekulative Theologie, 1905, pp. 483 sqq. 68 V. infra, Section 2. 59 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, God the Author of Nature and the Supernatural, p. 289. 60 Op. cit., pp. 281, 286. 61 ” Solus sine peccato natus est, quern sine virili complexu non concupiscent^ carnis, sed obedientia mentis virgo concepit.” (De Pecc. Merit, et Rem., I, n. 57.) HER IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 67 Queen, according to the principle laid down by the Roman legist Ulpian, that ” A king is not subject to the laws, and though his queen is subject to them, the king grants her the same privileges which he himself enjoys.” 62 This explains the deeper meaning of the memorable words which King Assuerus spoke to Esther, who was a prototype of the Blessed Virgin Mary : ” Fear not, Thou shalt not- die; for this law is not made for thee, but for all others.”63 5. The Teaching of St. Thomas. — Theologians are divided in their opinion as to what was the mind of St. Thomas in regard to the Immaculate Conception. Some64 frankly admit that he opposed what in his day was not yet a defined dogma, but insist that he virtually admitted what he formally denied. Others65 claim that the Angelic Doctor expressly defended the Immaculate Conception and that the (about fifteen) adverse passages quoted from his writings must be regarded as later interpolations. Between these extremes stand two other groups of theologians, one of which 66 holds that St. Thomas was undecided in his attitude towards the Immaculate Conception, while the other 67 merely maintains the impossibility of proving that he opposed the doctrine. 62 ” Princeps legibus subditus non est, augusta vero, licet sit subdita, princeps tamen eadem privilegia Mi concedit, quae ipse habet.” e3Esth. XV, 12 sq. Cfr. Suarez, De Myst. Vitae Christi, disp. 3, sect. 5, where these considerations are developed at length. •4 Scheeben, Schwane, Chr. Pesch, Tobbe, Gutberlet. 65 Velasquez, Sfondrati, Frassen, Lambruschini, Palmieri. 66 To this group belong Malou, Tepe, and others. 67 Prominent in this group are Cornoldi, Morgott, Hurter, etc. a) In order to arrive at a just and impartial idea of St. Thomas’ position we shall have to study his teaching in connection with what may be called its theological environment. Influenced by the attitude of St. Bernard, who was otherwise an ardent devotee of the Blessed Virgin, all the predecessors and contemporaries of the Angelic Doctor — with the exception perhaps of his fellow Dominican Vincent of Beauvais (d. 1264) — opposed the Immaculate Conception. Of St. Anselm of Canterbury, the ” Father of Scholasticism,” it has been truly said that, like Aquinas, he virtually asserted the Immaculate Conception in his premises and denied it formally in his conclusions.68 It is to Anselm that Scholasticism owes the oft-quoted Mariological principle : ” It was meet that the Blessed Virgin should shine in a splendor of purity than which none greater can be conceived under God, that virgin to whom God the Father had determined to give His Son, whom He had begotten as His equal, and whom He loved like Himself, — and He gave Him in such wise that He would be the Son of both God the Father and the Virgin.” 69 Peter Lombard (d. 1164) taught that “the Blessed Virgin bore the taint of original sin, but was entirely cleansed before she conceived Christ.” 70 This was the common teaching in the Franciscan Order. No wonder that the most eminent theologians of that Order, up to the time of Duns Scotus (d. 1308), battled side by side with the Dominicans.71 Not to mention AlexesCfr. Cur Deus Homot II, 16. 69 ” Deccns erat, ut ea puritate, qua sub Deo tnaior nequit intelligi, virgo ilia niteret, cut Deus Pater unicum Filium suum, quern de corde suo aequalem sibi genitum tamquam seipsum diligebat, ita dare disponebat, ut unus idemque communis Dei Patris et Virginis esset Filius.* {De Concept. Virg., c 18.) 70 * Beata Virgo habuit peccatum originale, sed ante conceptionem Christi perfecte purgata est.” {Liber Sent., Ill, dist. 3.) 71 Among them Albert the Great (1 193-1280), who was the teacher of St. Thomas. ander of Hales (d. 1245), St. Bonaventure, who was one of the greatest lights among the Minorites, while admitting that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception might be defended as probable on the strength of certain considerations of fitness,72 openly espoused the opposite view.73 b) Placed in a theological environment in which the true solution of the problem was not yet attainable, St. Thomas, in common with the most eminent and saintly doctors of his time, had a perfect right to defend a thesis which was by no means regarded as scandalous but open to discussion. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception was still in process of clarification. The Angelic Doctor nowhere expressly teaches the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the sense in which it has since been defined as an article of faith. True, he says with St. Anselm : ” Purity is constituted by a recession from impurity, and therefore it is possible to find some creature purer than all the rest, namely one not contaminated by any taint of sin ; such was the purity of the Blessed Virgin, who was immune from original and actual sin, yet under God, inasmuch as there was in her the potentiality of sin.” 74 But the ” immunity from original sin * which St. Thomas ascribes to our 72 Cfr. his Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 9, memb. 2, 73 He writes: * Quidam dicer e voluerunt, in anitna gloriosa virginis gratiam sanctificationis praevenisse maculatn peccati originalis… . Aliorum vero positio est, quod sanctificatio virginis subsecuta est originalis peccati contractionem, et hoc quia nullus itnmunis fuit a culpa originalis peccati nisi solum Filius virginis: hie autem modus dicendi communior est et rationabilior et securior’* (Opera S. Bonavent., t. Ill, p. 69, scholion, Quaracchi edition, 1887.) 74” Puritas intenditur per recessutn a contrario, et ideo potest aliquid creatum inveniri, quo nihil purius esse potest in rebus creatis, si nulld contagione peccati inquinatum sit: et talis fuit puritas b. Virginis, quae a peccato originali et actuali immunis fuit, tamen sub Deo, inquantum erat in ea potentia ad peccandum.* (Comment. in Quatuor Libros Sent,, I, disk 44, qu. 1, art. 3). MARY’S SPECIAL PREROGATIVES Lady is not synonymous with * immaculate conception/’ as can be seen from the third part of the famous Summa Theologica, qu. 27, art. 2, ad 2. Consequently, it is not fair to charge the Angelic Doctor with inconsistency because in numerous other passages, where he treats the question ex professo, he denies the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. He did not hold that God could not create a perfectly spotless creature, — his objections are mainly based on the privileged character of the Redeemer and the absolute necessity of redemption for all human beings without exception. The following passage from the Summa Theologica shows that its author consistently adhered to his standpoint up to the time of his death. ” If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never been defiled by original sin, this would derogate from the dignity of Christ as the Redeemer of all mankind. It may be said, therefore, that under Christ, who as the universal Saviour needed not to be saved Himself, the Blessed Virgin enjoyed the highest measure of purity. For Christ in no wise contracted original sin, but was holy in His very conception … The Blessed Virgin, however, did contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth.” 75 This is the uniform teaching of Aquinas in all his writings, viz.: that the birth of our Lady was holy and immaculate, but not her conception.76 75 ” Si nunquam anima b. Virginis fuisset contagio originalis peccati inquinata, hoc derogaret dignitati Christi, secundum quam est universalis omnium Salvator. Et ideo sub Christo, qui salvari non indiguit, tamquam universalis Salvator, maxima fuit b. Virginis puritas. Nam Christus nullo modo contraxit originate peccatum, sed in ipsa sui conceptione fuit sanctus… . Sed b. Virgo contraxit quidem originate peccatum, sed ab eo fuit mundata antequam ex utero nasceretur.” (Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 27, art 2, ad 2). 76 Cfr. Comp. Theol., c. 224. It is an error that the DominHER IMMACULATE CONCEPTION 71 Readings: — Besides the general works quoted on pp. 35 sqq., supra, the student will find it profitable to consult on the subject of the Immaculate Conception the following: Th. Stozzi, Controversies delV Imtnacolata Concezione, 2 vols., Palermo 1700. — B. Piazza, Causa Immaculatae Conceptionis, Panormi 1557. — Lambruschini, Sull’ Immacolato Concepimento di Maria, Rome 1843. — *Ant. Ballerini, Sylloge Monutnentorum ad Myst. Immaculatae Conceptionis Spectantium, 2 vols., Rome 1854-6. — *Passaglia, De Immaculato Conceptu B. Mariae Virginis, 3 vols., Rome 1855. — *Malou, De VlmmacuUe Conception, 2 vols., Bruxelles 1857. — Cornoldi, Sententia S. Thomae de Immunitate B. Virginis Dei Parentis a Peccati Originalis Labe, 2nd ed., Naples 1870. — A. Roskovanyi, De B. Virgine Maria in suo Conceptu Immaculata ex Monumentis Omnium Saeculorum Declarata, 9 vols., Neutra 1873-81. — *Palmieri, De Deo Creante et Elevante, thes. 82 sqq., Rome 1878. — W. Tobbe, Die Stellung des hi Thomas von Aquin zu der unbefleckten Empfangnis, Minister 1892. — C. M. Schneider, Die unbeHeckte Empfangnis und die Erbsunde, Ratisbon 1892.^ Chr. Pesch, Praelectiones Dogmaticae, Vol. Ill, 3d ed., pp. 152 sqq., Freiburg 1908. — X. M. Le Bachelet, S. J., L’Immaculee Conception, Paris 1904. — L. Kosters, S. J., Maria die unbefleckt Empfangene, Ratisbon 1905. — J. B. Terrien, S. J., L’Immaculee Conception, Paris 1904. — P. Friedrich, Die Mariologie des hi. Augustinus, Freiburg 1907. — Archbishop Ullathorne, O. S. B., The Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God, Revised by Canon lies, Westminster 1904. — F. G. Holweck, Fasti Mariani, Freiburg 1892. — Idem, art. ” Immaculate Conception ” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VII. — E. Vacandard, * Les Origines de la Fete et du Dogmefde Vlmmaculee Conception in the third volume of the Etudes de Critique et de VHistoire Religieuse, Paris 1912. — Jos. Rickaby, S. J., ” The Immaculate Conception a Development of Doctrine,” in The Lord My Light, pp. 223-230, London 191 5. ican Order has always, and in almost all its distinguished men, been opposed to the pure origin of the Blessed Virgin. See Archbishop Ullathorne, The Immaculate Conception, ed. lies, pp. 144 sqq. A number of Dominican theologians who wrote in favor of the Immaculate Conception are quoted by Rouard de Card, L’Ordre des Freres-Pre’cheurs et VlmmacuUe Conception, Bruxelles 1864. Cfr. also Chr. Pesch, Prael. Dogmat., Vol. Ill, 3rd ed., pp. 170 sqq., Freiburg 1908; L. Janssens, De DeoHomine, Vol. II, pp. 130 sqq., Freiburg 1902.