While formerly it was held that Scotus was the first to have given a scientific presentation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, nowadays this honour is claimed for many others, such as Peter of Compostella, Eadmer, Nicholas of St. Alban’s, Peter Paschasius and Raymond Lull, all of whom are described as the "first" theologians of the Marian privilege. Some of these lived at the beginning of the twelfth century, others at the end of the thirteenth; all of them, however, wrote before Scotus.

Some theologians even declare that there is no opposition between the doctrine defined by Pius IX in the Bull Ineffabilis Deus and the doctrine of the great doctors of the golden era of scholasticism, such as St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure, even though in subsequent centuries the authentic representatives of the Thomist school denied the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in the name of the Angelic Doctor, and the supporters of our Lady’s privilege considered Scotus as their leader.

What has just been said gives an idea of the difficulty of the problem which we intend to discuss.

We will glance briefly through the fairly abundant literature of the first six centuries of the Middle Ages (from the eighth to the fourteenth), to discover what each theologian thought or at least about the sanctification of the Blessed Virgin, without concerning ourselves at all with the question, whether their doctrine is, in itself, acceptable.

THE PREPARATORY AND INTRODUCTORY PERIOD OF SCHOLASTICISM

(FROM THE EIGHTH TO THE BEGINNING OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURIES).

First of all, it is to be noted that in the preparatory period of scholasticism (eighth to eleventh centuries), in which the Greek Church was definitely separated from the Latin Church on account of the schism of Michael Cerularius (A.D. 1054), and a scholastic period distinct from the preceding periods was inaugurated in the West, no trace is found of controversies concerning the Immaculate Conception.

Further, on account of the anti-Pelagian leaning which it had inherited from Saint Augustine, western theology from the very beginning places the emphasis on the absolute universality of original sin. In addition, the barbarian invasions and public disturbances of many different kinds were not favorable to study and speculation. Finally, it must be remembered that the Greek language was almost unknown in the West, and consequently the theologians in the West knew nothing of the development of ideas which had taken place in the Oriental church after the Council of Ephesus, concerning the complete sanctity of the Mother of God.

In the light of the foregoing facts, it is not to be wondered at if, in this first theological epoch, we find few or no explicit testimonies which coincide exactly with the doctrine of the dogmatic Bull, Ineffabilis Deus.

THE PREPARATORY PERIOD OF SCHOLASTICISM: PASCHASIUS RADBERTUS . . .

Nevertheless, although the followers of the Augustinian school generally insist on the absolute universality of original sin because of the connexion between concupiscence and sin (i.e. that concupiscence directly affects the body, and indirectly the soul, of all those who are born by the ordinary union of the sexes), the fact remains that even among the theologians of this first epoch, we find not only a number of documents in which the principles of the fullness of grace in the Mother of God are established "because the gift of the Holy Ghost is not bound," but we also find, in the twelfth century, the dawn, as it were, of the explicit teaching of the Marian privilege.

Affirmative propositions turn up now and again, as for example when an anonymous writer asserts, when comparing the Virgin to a nimbus, that she, symbolized by the cloud, "was never in darkness, but always in light." Another example: Ambrose Autpert calls the Mother of God:

Immaculate because in no way corrupt.

Paul Winfridus the Deacon says:

She was completely free from the bonds of wickedness.

St. Fulbert writes that the soul and flesh of the Virgin were:

. . . utterly pure of all malice and uncleanness.

All these testimonies merely continue the sayings of those authors of Christian antiquity who found Our Lady’s unlimited sanctity in the idea of her Divine Maternity. The encomia they uttered certainly entailed the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception; but it is difficult to say whether these authors (for at the moment we prescind from others) had—we do not say a full awareness of the adequate concept of the Immaculate Conception as defined by Pius IX—but even a rudimentary idea that Mary had never been subject to original sin. This doubt can be raised with regard to the testimony of Paschasius Radbertus (ca. 850), about which some exclaim, "What could be more clear and more decisive!" In my opinion, it would be wise to quote the text fully:

Although Blessed Mary was born and begotten of sinful flesh, and was herself sinful flesh, she was such no longer, thanks to the grace of the Holy Ghost, when the angel hailed her as the most blessed of women. ‘The Holy Ghost,’ he said, ‘shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee.’ For if she was not sanctified and cleansed by the same Spirit, how could her flesh be other than sinful flesh? And if her flesh came from the mass of original prevarication, how could Christ, the Word made flesh, be without sin . . . ? . . .

How could she have failed to be without original sin at that moment when she was filled with the Holy Spirit, since even her glorious nativity is proclaimed blessed by everyone in the whole Catholic Church? If this feast were not blessed and glorious, it would certainly not be celebrated everywhere and by everyone. But because she is so solemnly venerated, it is certain from the authority of the Church that she was not subject to any sin at her birth, and that she had not contracted original sin in the womb in which she had been sanctified Hence, while the birthdays of Jeremias and Job (Jer. 20: 14; Job 3: 5) are called accursed, the day on which Mary’s happy Nativity began is called blessed and is religiously venerated.

To this text may be joined another in which the same theologian says:

Mary—since she was blessed—had not the corrupting stain (culpa corruptionis), and hence gave birth to Christ without sorrow or corruption.

He also asserts that it is the mark of most ardent piety and the sign of virtue:

. . . to proclaim the purity of the Blessed Virgin incorrupt and untainted, and to declare it exempt from the contagion of our first origins.

The authenticity of the principal text has been questioned, so that even Le Bachelet says that "Paschasius considers the sanctity of the child at her birth, and thence argues back to her original sanctity at her conception"; and he concludes that "the final solution can be given only when we have a critical edition of this work." But even if we were to admit that the text is genuine, the case is anything but clear. In the first place, some incorrectly translate the principal words, for example: " . . . sanctified in her mother’s womb, she never contracted original sin." Now, Paschasius says that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified in her mother’s womb and that accordingly, when the Catholic Church celebrates universally the glorious nativity of the Virgin, she celebrates not only the nativity, in as much as it was an exit from the womb, but also its incipient stages, in which the infant was sanctified in the womb. But did Paschasius extend this incipient nativity or sanctification to the very first moment of conception, so as to imply that she never contracted original sin?

A further doubt arises here, because Paschasius asserts in the same context that Mary’s flesh was sinful flesh, and that the Blessed Virgin was procreated and born of sinful flesh. Perhaps one might conjecture that, in the author’s mind, flesh which had been tarnished by concupiscence or sin was cleansed before animation. But it would be difficult to reconcile this with the whole context, which suggests that the Blessed Virgin’s flesh was cleansed at the Annunciation.

Since the author says that this "incipient nativity" of the Virgin was not accursed like that of Job (who cursed his first conception), nor like that of Jeremias (who was sanctified), we could conclude that he really did extend this sanctification to the very beginning of Our Lady’s existence, because her flesh had been cleansed before her animation, so that the cause from which the stain would have derived was removed in advance. But even if this interpretation of Paschasius’ mind be correct, we must not forget that, while according to the Bull Ineffabilis Deus the Virgin was preserved free "from all stain of original sin . . . from the first moment of her conception," Paschasius, speaking of sanctification at the time of the Annunciation, dares to speak of "uncleanness" (sordibus) from which the Virgin was purified; he claims that:

When the Holy Spirit came to her, He cleansed and purified her completely, so that she was holier than the stars of heaven.

To sum up, while Paschasius makes one of the first efforts among western theologians to discover the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, he also abounds unfortunately in the obscure, incomplete and imperfect terminology which was to prevent the theologians, until the time of Scotus, from grasping and clearly expounding the mystery of Our Lady’s preservation from all stain, as will emerge more clearly from the remainder of this history.

THE INTRODUCTORY PERIOD OF SCHOLASTICISM: ANSEEM, EADMER, OSBERT, NICHOLAS, BERNARD

If we pass now from the preparatory period of scholasticism to the introductory period, which begins in the second part of the eleventh century and lasts up to the first decades of the thirteenth century, it becomes patent that the doctrine and cult of the Immaculate Conception progressed part passe with sacred doctrine in general.

In this period there was widespread discussion about the nature of original sin and the manner in which it was transmitted. The Augustinian doctrine was the most widely accepted—namely, that the sin was concupiscence, or concupiscence together with ignorance, and that it was transmitted by the body, in the sense that the principal agent in transmiting original sin was not propagation as such, but rather the libido connected with the act of generation. And just as a contaminated vessel befouls the liquid which is poured into it, so also the soul, created by God, is soiled by its contact with the body.

Since the expression sin has various significations in this century, so that Bandinelli can say: "By sin is understood a stain, an act of sin, guilt, fault and even punishment"; and since a stable terminology, generally speaking, is lacking, it is not easy to determine which authors taught that Our Blessed Lady contracted original sin and which held the contrary.

However, bearing in mind the diversity of expression and the circumstances of the time, especially the false ideas about original sin and the manner of its transmission, it seems that the Immaculate Conception was generally denied, either explicitly or implicitly, in this period.

Some, such as Geroch of Reichersberg, Godfrey of Admont, and Rupert of Deutz, said so clearly, affirming of Mary that:

. . . since she was of the mass which was corrupted in Adam she was not free from the hereditary stain of original sin…

Therefore she was conceived in sin like everyone else. Others seem to express the same idea indirectly, asserting that Christ alone was without sin, or even speaking about a "purification from sin," which took place for Mary, either in her mother’s womb by sanctification (St. Bernard, Richard of St. Victor,) or at the time of the Incarnation.

It is difficult to understand exactly of what she was purified at the Incarnation, but if we bear in mind the very wide meaning of original sin, comprehending "guilt" in its true sense, and punishment in its improper sense, it seems that those who spoke about purification at the time of the Incarnation were really speaking about a purgation of the effects of original sin, supposing that the sin itself had been taken away when she was in her mother’s womb. Although, for various reasons, this can be taken as the general rule, when we come to examine the individual authors, doubts arise as to what they actually taught.

Such a doubt occurs, in the first place, with regard to those authors who said nothing at all directly or explicitly about the conception of the Blessed Virgin, yet, when writing about original sin and its universal diffusion, and about the Incarnate Word, emphasize the purity of the Blessed Virgin. It is well known that the great Anselm, the father of scholasticism, is among those writers. Posing the problem, "How God took a sinless man from the sinful mass, that is, from the human race, which was totally infected with sin—as if getting unleavened bread out of leavened," Anselm speaks of the purity of the Blessed Virgin. The question which he poses is solved in two ways: first, because Mary was purified, and secondly because Christ was conceived of a virgin. Then he goes on to say:

I do not deny that there may be a higher explanation (ratio) of the way God took a sinless man from the sinful mass, like unleavened bread from leavened. If it is shown to me, I shall willingly accept it, and shall abandon my own arguments if they can be shown to be contrary to the truth, though I do not think they are.

Whether that "higher reason" conceals what was taught by his secretary Eadmer, as we shall see later, namely the total purity, in body and in soul, of the Blessed Virgin, it is difficult to say. It does not seem that Anselm could have admitted that complete purity, because of his doctrine of the absolute universality of original sin. For Christ was "the only one" who did not sin in Adam and was not conceived in sin; because conceived by a virgin, He escaped the legacy of sin, whilst all who are born of "the nature and will of Adam" are necessarily conceived in sin.

Therefore Mary, who "was brought into existence from Adam, in the same way as all others," "was one of those who were cleansed from their sins by Him before He was born"; and in anticipation of the merits of Christ she was cleansed by his future death.

Consequently, although Anselm seems to have considered original sin to have been so absolutely and totally universal that no exception was possible, even for the Mother of God, nevertheless he asserted the principles which, objectively considered, lead to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Hence it is that he not only salutes Mary as the "woman wonderfully and uniquely wonderful," through whom the elements are reborn and the demons trampled underfoot; as the "blessed and ever blessed Virgin," and "holy, and after God uniquely holy among the saints"; who had "holiness above all, after her supreme Son"; but he also asserts the principle that "it was fitting," that the conception of Christ should "be from a most pure mother":

It was proper that she should shine with a purity such as none greater under God can be imagined—that Virgin to whom God the Father determined to give His only Son, whom He had begotten equal to Himself and loved as Himself, so that He should be the Son at one and the same time of God the Father and of the Virgin. . .

It must be remembered too that similar tributes in honor of the Mother of the Redeemer occur not infrequently in those writers whom we have already mentioned as being contrary to the Marian privilege. When commenting on the Canticle of Canticles, or explaining the Hail Mary, or speaking about the various Marian feasts, these authors mention here and there that Mary is "all beautiful," that "she alone is free from the universal malediction," without any stain because she had to be worthy to be Mother of God, exceeding all creatures in holiness, and so on. When we read such testimonies in the works of authors who do not clearly deny the Immaculate Conception, e.g. Hervaeus of Le Mans, Aelred, Herman, Absalom, and other pious abbots, as well as Alan and the Victorines and in the Psalters of the Blessed Virgin, we are inclined to believe that these writers really admitted the pious belief that the Mother of the Redeemer was altogether without sin.

But whatever may be said about those who speak of the Conception, or rather sanctification and purity of the Blessed Virgin, only indirectly and in passing, it is well known that this period produced writings treating explicitly of this subject. When the feast of the Conception of Mary was first introduced, a great controversy flared up about the lawfulness of this feast. Treatises, sermons and letters were written, in which various authors, such as Eadmer, Osbert, Nicholas Magister, Pseudo-Abelard, Pseudo-Peter Cantor, Pseudo Peter-Comestor and other explicitly upheld the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and some of them undertook the task of refuting the arguments which St. Bernard had brought forward on the other side.

Now when we examine the doctrine of these authors and look for the three elements which were defined in the Bull Ineffabilis Deus, it will be useless to expect any explicit mention of the "first instant," with exact distinctions concerning the priority of nature and of time in one and the same instant, or of preservative redemption from all stain of sin applied to the first instant of conception.

For example, Eadmer uses the expressions: conceptio, primordium conceptionis, propagatio, primordia creationis, ortus, conceptus. But if we wish to give an exact meaning to these terms, while it is quite certain that the author had a clear idea of active conception (i.e. of the seed), and incipient passive conception (i.e. of the flesh), it is not easy to determine whether he had a clear notion of conception considered in the first moment in which a person is constituted. And what is said of Eadmer holds for all the others with the possible exception of one or two.

Pseudo-Cantor distinguishes the generatio from the conceptio which follows generatio; while "generatio takes place with the cooperation of both sexes, conceptio is the office of the mother alone." Pseudo-Abelard says that ‘conceptio" took place when the Virgin "did not yet exist." Pseudo-Comestor writes: "there is conceptus and there is conceptio. There is the conceptus of the mother and the conceptio of the offspring." Bernard seems to have used these terms with the opposite meaning, since he argues as follows:

If she could not have been sanctified before her conceptus, because she did not yet exist; nor in the conceptus itself, because of the sin which was present; the only possibility remaining is that she received sanctification after the conceptus, when already existing in the womb; this sanctification made her nativity holy and free from sin, but not her conceptio.

It would seem then that for St. Bernard, the term conceptus denotes the offspring, while conceptio denotes incipient conception (i.e., of the flesh). Accordingly, when he asks, "since this is so, what reason can be assigned to justify the feast of the conceptio?" he seems to take the beginning of her existence in the flesh as the object of the feast. In that case, the Mellifluous Doctor agrees with his adversaries. And even Eadmer himself proposes the difficulty urged by his adversaries against the celebration of the feast of the Conception as follows:

Since every process of the formation of her body and its appearance in this world [i.e. its birth] are venerated by all, it would be superfluous to pay honour to that still formless matter which often perishes even before acquiring human shape.

Osbert says clearly:

That glorious flesh of the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived today, that it might be born into the world.

Bernard, unable to see "how sin can fail to be present where concupiscence is not absent," proposed the following dilemma:

How, I ask, can a conceptus be styled holy, which is not of the Holy Spirit (lest I say, which is of sin);—or how can a feast be celebrated which is anything but holy?

His adversaries were fully persuaded that God could ensure that the Virgin’s flesh be sinless in its very beginnings, either by wiping out the morbid infection of the flesh, or by preserving it from infection. Osbert says that Mary was "purified even bodily from all stain." Indeed, he asks:

Why should we be surprised if God sanctified the glorious matter of the Virgin’s body in its very conception, when He willed to sanctify Jeremias and certain others while still in their mothers’ wombs?

Master Nicholas believes that her flesh was:

. . . cleansed from the leprosy of corruption.

Some speak of the sinlessness of Our Lady’s parents and of their having intercourse without experiencing carnal pleasure. They also speak of a stainless cell of flesh which was transmitted from Adam down to them. Apropos of this, Pseudo-Comestor writes:

It can be believed that the flesh which was assumed by the Word existed in the first moment after the corruption of the whole human race, but was preserved free from all contagion of sin and remained so until the moment of its being assumed by the Son of God, and was never weighed down by the least burden of sin.

This was highly fitting, because Mary’s flesh was to a certain extent the flesh of Christ, and the opprobrium of the Mother redounds on the Son. Pseudo-Abelard says:

There is no doubt that whatever the Son does to enhance the honor of His Mother conduces to His own praise.

To sum up, let us say: the authors who in the twelfth century defended the liceity and opportuneness of the feast of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin, fixed as object of this feast the chaste and stainless beginning of her virginal flesh. Their argumentation is founded principally on the Divine Maternity, and also is expressed in the formula "Potuit, voluit, fecit"— 'He could do it, He willed to do it, He did it.’ The origin of the Virgin’s flesh should be celebrated because it is the beginning of our redemption. Pseudo-Cantor declares:

All the faithful, with unanimous devotion, honor the venerable day of the most holy conception of the Mother of God, because through it the earth was freed from a darkening mist, and there gleamed a new dawn, productive of a new sun; through its instrumentality, a special grace of Providence bestowed a saving Pasch on the children of Adam who were sitting in the shadow of death.

Eadmer expresses practically the same idea in the first words of his treatise:

As I was about to meditate on the source from which salvation comes, there came into my mind the thought of the feast which is celebrated today in many places, in honor of the Conception of Mary, the blessed Mother of God.

This is really the great joyous reason why the feast should be celebrated and retained, as Pseudo-Abelard says, "even though she was conceived in sin." And he explains his opinion as follows:

I do not think that anybody, were he to find the couch on which the Mother of God was conceived, would fail to show it reverence. Her sepulchre and the garments which clothed her holy body we regard as priceless relics, and venerate them profoundly; yet these do not participate in the glory of her resurrection and eternal beatitude, since they are extrinsic to her body. How great therefore should be the honour given to that seed of which Mary’s and the Lord’s bodies were formed; and should we not offer grateful thanks to God for the very beginnings of our redemption, in that He gave us this seed and caused it to be such a fruitful source of grace?

Osbert exclaims:

If the conception of the servant, John the Baptist, be celebrated, what should be done for that of the Mother of the Lord!

Though the question posed was not whether Our Lady was conceived in original sin but rather, whether it was licit and becoming to celebrate the feast of the Conception; though, too, great confusion reigns concerning the precise meaning of the terms used, especially conceptio, conceptus generatio, ortus, sanctificatio, mundatio, purgatio, etc.; yet it cannot be said that none of the above-mentioned authors who defend the feast of the Conception agree with the Bull Ineffabilis Deus that the Mother of God was immune "from every stain of original sin in the first instant of her conception." For Eadmer speaks about the "exordium," "primordium" and "primordia" of the conception and the creation of the Blessed Virgin. Osbert, too, uses the expressions "in ipsa conceptione," "in ipso creationis et conceptionis exordio." Others speak of conceptio as something distinct from conceptus, and of a generatio that is distinct from conceptio. In all these cases, it is extremely difficult to show that the authors are thinking about consummated conception, namely that which is accomplished in the first instant in which a person as such begins to exist. One thing at least is certain they all wish to ward off from the Virgin every stain of original sin, from the very first beginnings of her existence.

Hence, while we must admit that these first defenders of the Marian privilege possess substantially the doctrine of Mary’s exemption from all stain of original sin that has been defined in the Bull Ineffabilis Deus, it would be an exaggeration to seek in their works the technical terminology used in the Bull. Thus, for example, Osbert writes:

The Most High therefore sanctified His tabernacle and cleansed the virginal fabric and bridal couch that rests on the seven columns of the Holy Spirit from all uncleanness in the first beginnings of its creation and conception in the mothers womb; He so thoroughly purified and illumined it that He left no impurity in that flesh from which the flesh of our Redemption was destined to be taken.

Noyon translates: "In the very moment when Mary was conceived and created, He preserved her from every stain." But there is question of "beginnings," not of a "moment"; and Osbert speaks of cleansing, not of preserving: he made clean that which was unclean. The imperfection of terminology is manifest: withal it is possible to deduce the idea from it.

Likewise, when Eadmer excludes from the Virgin Mother everything savoring of original sin, using such expressions as:

. . . with every stain of the human condition taken away . . . Thou must have been purer than all. Thou camest forth from the root of Jesse. . . untainted by any sin.

— we may conclude that in his opinion the Blessed Virgin was conceived without original sin in the very moment that she was constituted a person. But it would be an exaggeration to claim that Eadmer knows the terms primum instans and preserved as applied to the doctrines

If we turn now to the other fundamental question, the attribution of the Immaculate Conception to the merits of Christ, nowhere do we find a formula comparable to that of Ineffabilis, "preserved through the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race."

We may legitimately suspect that this doctrine was held substantially by the first defenders of the Marian privilege, from what has been said about the doctrine of St. Anselm, whose subsequent influence was immense. He ascribed both the personal sanctity of those who were sanctified before Christ’s Passion, and the purity of the Blessed Virgin, to the anticipated merits of Christ the Redeemer. After asserting that the Passion of Christ was so great and such that "its effects extend even to those who are absent in time and place,’’ he applies this principle to the Blessed Virgin, saying that she was pure through His future death and obtained her purity "through faith.

This point is very important, particularly in view of the controversy which raged in the following century, with a negative result, as to whether the exemption of the Blessed Virgin from all sin was reconcilable with the universality of Christ’s Redemption, on account of the universality of original sin. We must therefore proceed slowly, and carefully distinguish what is certain from what is spurious or doubtful. Although some of these first defenders did say that the Blessed Virgin owed her complete sanctity to her Son, nevertheless their teaching is so inconstant, so confused, and so casually mentioned, that no one ever thought of solving the great problem as to how Anselm’s opinion, attributing the purity of the Blessed Virgin to the anticipated merits of Christ, could be reconciled with the opinion which held that she was not just pure and cleansed from sin, but in fact had never contracted sin at all.

Let us look first of all at the doctrine of Eadmer, in the passage which is usually quoted in favor of preservative redemption, namely:

To this dignity, neither the most blessed of virgins, nor the throng of the elect, would ever have ascended if the Son of God had not descended from the bosom of the Father to destroy the sin of Adam by assuming human nature (hominem) from the Virgin.

The context shows that we may not deduce the conclusion formulated by Vacandard, to wit: "the merits of her Son became applicable to her as well as to other men, but they were applied to her at the very moment of her conception rather than later." Eadmer in the whole of this chapter proves how human nature would have been deprived of various dignities, "if the first man had not lost paradise on account of his sin." If Adam had not sinned, Christ would not have come, and consequently Mary would not have been the Mother of God.

In other passages, Eadmer asserts that nobody escaped damnation before the advent of the Son of Mary; that the Son wished His mother to be pure; that Mary was indebted to her Son for her Queenship; that:

He was able, from the sinful mass, to make a human nature free of all stain of sin, which He could take unto His person so as to be an integral human being (homo), without any diminution of His divinity.

— that "the wisdom and power of God" which preserved the angels from sin "could keep His future mother free" also, and so on.

From this some theologians conjecture that she was made clean and immune from sin by Christ Himself, the Redeemer of the human race. But it is well to note that the words of Eadmer do not exclude the possible interpretation that the "Wisdom of God," to which he attributes the purity of the Blessed Virgin, is not the Incarnate Word, but the Godhead in general. Indeed, Eadmer sometimes ascribes to the "Wisdom of God" those operations which are commonly attributed to God the Father, for example, the creation of man, instituting or decreeing the liberation of the human race from damnation, and so on.

Further, when the author explicitly mentions the difficulties which arise from the universality of original sin, he does not say a single word about the efficacy or the anticipation of the merits of Christ, but, acknowledging his ignorance about the manner in which Mary was made free from original sin, he has recourse to the omnipotence of God: ". . . utterly free from any stain of sin, through a unique and—to human minds—inscrutable power and operation of God," and "in her conception, she was not bound by the same law as others."

Again, Mary’s body had to be free from all sin, because "the power of God" and "the power of the Godhead" predestined her to such a peak of perfection. For since the almighty and all-wise God, "in the eternity of His counsel," purposed to give His Son a most worthy, and therefore most pure, mother, he gave to this woman both the purest flesh and personal holiness, and adorned her in such a way with all gifts that the Word would choose her for His mother.

Finally, whatever may be said about a few passing expressions which seem to recall Anselm’s opinion about the anticipated merits of Christ applied to His Mother, the main point is that Eadmer never even thought of the very serious problems which were to arise a century later about the sanctification of the Mother of God, as to how she was redeemed by Christ if she had not been conceived in sin.

This can be appreciated by the following consideration. It is known hat mediaeval writers normally taught that one of the principal effects If the Redemption was the opening of the gate of heaven, which had been closed by the sin of the first parents, so that, since all their descendants contract the same sin, none of them can enter heaven, not even the holy patriarchs, nor John the Baptist, nor Jeremias, who had been sanctified and justified, until the Passion of Christ had really taken place. Thus John Duns Scotus asks the question: "If she had died before Christ’s Passion, would she have been beatified?" (supposing that she had, in act, been exempted from original sin through the merits of Christ’s Passion). The Subtle Doctor denies the consequence, teaching both that Mary was preserved from incurring the sin through the merits of the Passion of Christ, and that perhaps she would not have entered into heaven because God had ordained otherwise. Eadmer poses the difficulty and solution in a different way:

If it is said that, if you had died before the birth of your Son, you would not have avoided the law of sin any more than the rest of men [i.e. you would not have been able to enter into paradise] . . .

He considers this an idle question:

. . . this is ridiculous, and not worthy of an answer.

— considering not the Redemption, but the predestination and power of God. For if God decreed from all eternity that Mary was to be the mother of His Son, it is idle to ask what would have happened had she not actually become so, since God’s eternal decrees necessarily come to pass.

If even Anselm’s secretary, in his defense of the Marian privilege, suffered from the grave lacuna of not endeavouring to reconcile the exemption of a creature from original sin with the universal Redemption of Christ, what shall we say about the doctrine of the others?

It is true that Osbert affirms, in reply to the infidels and heretics:

The children of the Mother of grace do not celebrate the act of sin, but solemnly proclaim the manifold joys of the beginning of our Redemption.

We read the words of Master Nicholas, that in Mary is the "fullness of grace" through Christ; and he continues:

For if she had contracted sin from her parents, she would have been founded on the old Adam and not on the newness of Christ. But, "He who was born in her was her foundation," so that the building should match the foundation, and with the new shoot wholly consonant with the root from which it sprang, the fruit should be like the tree that had engendered it."

The quotation from Osbert does not suggest that he is saying anything different from what he says elsewhere, namely that the feast of the Conception was instituted because it is "the salutary beginning of our Redemption," namely, because then was conceived the flesh from which would be taken the flesh which was to suffer for us. This was the general idea of the defenders of the Marian privilege in the twelfth century, and it was the same idea that Eadmer laid down at the beginning of his treatise, when he spoke about "the source (principium) from which the salvation of the world proceeded," which Pseudo-Abelard expressed in the words, "the beginning of mankind," and which Master Nicholas had in mind when he spoke of "announcing the beginning of salvation through Mary.’’

The last-named author, who is considered by many to be one of the greatest defenders of the Marian privilege, indicates the purpose of the feast of the Conception thus, at the end of his disquisition:

The reason for the [feast of the] Conception is the grace of our salvation which was announced in it, . . . the laying of the foundation of the temple in which the fullness of the {godhead dwelt bodily, . . . the construction of the bridal chamber in which God the Father joined the Church to His Son and celebrated their nuptials. The reason for the Conception is the unfathomable mystery of our Redemption, which indeed is contained principally in the Passion, Resurrection and Ascension of the Lord, but is adorned and, as it were, announced by certain preceding solemnities, such as the Annunciation and Nativity of the Lord. And these, in turn, are announced by the Conception and Nativity of her to whom the Announcement of the Redemption was made, and of whom the Redeemer was born.

It will be worth while considering this text separately. In the beginning of his treatise, Nicholas had said that John the Baptist and the Blessed Virgin have certain particular solemnities "inasmuch as they fulfilled an office in connection with our Redemption," and that in their conception and nativity, "the sacrament of our Redemption is begun." He further describes how the reason (causa) for the Blessed Virgin’s procreation was "the beginning of our salvation," because "the fountain of grace sprang from the soil of her flesh." It is clear therefore that the solemnities which precede the feasts of the Passion and Resurrection of Christ are not celebrated because deriving their sanctity from the mystery of the Cross, but as the announcement and ornament of the Redemption.

Further, Master Nicholas, after declaring that:

the institution of a feast of the Conception is neither justified by holiness propagated in the conception, nor prohibited by sin, either committed actually by the parents, or contracted originaliter by the offspring, in the conception;

... and after admitting that Mary was probably quite stainless at all times so that there was never any sin in her goes on to say that she was "sanctified by the Holy of Holies," i.e., by her Creator.

If this was the doctrine of those who held Mary to have been born by natural generation, what teaching shall we expect to find in those writers, such as pseudo-Comestor and others, who speak of a healthy germ preserved in the body of Adam, from which the bodies of both Mary and Christ were formed, so that the Body of Christ cleansed the Blessed Virgin from any original sin in her very conception, sanctified and purified her in every way? What shall we say of the opinion of pseudo-Abelard, pseudo-Cantor and others, who explained the Immaculate Conception by saying that the blessed Virgin was conceived without concupiscence and without lust? Do any of these theories solve the problem whether, if Mary neither had nor could have had original sin, Christ could be called the universal Redeemer? How could Redemption be needed by one who neither had nor could have had sin, because not born in the ordinary way or by the concupiscence normal to human generation?

In brief, St. Bernard’s opinion, that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin and sanctified in the womb, was the general opinion in the twelfth century. But some writers, although convinced of the universality of both original sin and the Redemption, found that their sense of piety and faith would not allow them to admit that the Mother of God had been conceived in original sin. They were motivated by the principles of fittingness and analogy by the eternal predestination of the Blessed Virgin to be the Mother of God, by the purpose of the Incarnation — which was to destroy sin and open the gate of heaven to us all, and by a number of biblical and patristic texts.

As to how Mary’s preservation from sin came about, they offer different explanations. Some, positing the certain universality of original sin and admitting the universality of the Redemption, prefer to have recourse to a special power and will of God beyond all human investigation, without even asking how Mary could have been without sin if she had been redeemed by Christ. In this connection, the following words of Eadmer are worthy of note:

That teacher of pure truth [St Paul] who was surnamed vessel of election by thy Son, reigning in heaven, says that all men sinned in Adam. This is true, and I declare it sinful to contradict it. But when I consider the eminent degree of God’s grace in thee, I see thee, not among, but above all created things (except for thy Son), and I believe that, in thy conception, thou wert not bound by the law of nature of others, but through a unique and—to human minds—inscrutable power and operation of God, wert [kept] utterly free from any stain of sin.

We can learn nothing better from the other authors of the period. Even though it can be gathered from passing remarks of theirs that the Blessed Virgin owed her purity to her Son, the universal Mediator, no one thoroughly investigated the really difficult problem, how Mary’s immunity from sin could be reconciled with the dogma of the universal Redemption.1

This defect in the whole elaboration of the theology of the conception of the Virgin in the introductory period of scholasticism was such that to the great scholastic doctors of the thirteenth century, Bernard’s reasoning appears both clearer and truer than simple assertions uttered for "sublime reasons," but without a solid analysis of the terms used, and without a precise notion of the Virgin’s immunity from sin, taking into account the universality of the Redemption accomplished by Christ.

II

THE GOLDEN AGE OF SCHOLASTICISM: THE THIRTEENTH AND EARLY FOURTEENTH CENTURIES

Scholastic theology reaches its peak in this period, which begins about 1230 and lasts until the early decades of the fourteenth century. The characteristics of the sacred science are clearly delineated and differentiated from those of the preceding period. This is particularly evident from a consideration of the writings of these authors who defend Our Lady’s privilege of freedom from sin. Theology, utilizing the philosophy of the ancients, adapted, perfected and corrected in accordance with Christian principles, is perfectly analytical, and at the same time absolutely didactic and indeed technical, so that the effusive and mystical expressions which were so much in evidence in the theological writings of the preceding period, especially in those dealing with the Immaculate Conception, disappeared.

In discussing the sanctification of the Blessed Virgin, the outstanding theologians now divide and subdivide the subject logically into single articles until they arrive at a clearly determined proposition; having stated this, they give the arguments for and against it; next the assertion is explained; and, if necessary, special difficulties are solved. The general form of the question is as follows: When did the first sanctification of the Virgin take place—before or after animation (the infusion of a soul into a sufficiently evolved body) ?—before conception, in conception, or after conception if before the infusion of the soul?—or did it take place in the soul; and so, when?

THE COMMON OPINION CONTRARY TO THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION: BONAVENTURE, ALBERT THE GREAT, THOMAS AQUINAS . .

The great scholastic doctors of the thirteenth century were familiar with the pious opinions of some of their predecessors; they quote the arguments which these opinions were based; they even analyze the way in which the Marian privilege was explained. Nevertheless, as a rule, they prefer the opposite opinion held by St. Bernard, whom they salute as "the greatest lover of the Virgin and champion of her honor," that is, the opinion at the Mother of God was sanctified in the womb and purified from the sin in which she had been conceived.

Thus St. Bonaventure mentions some who had held the opinion that "sanctifying grace forestalled the stain of original sin in the soul of the Glorious Virgin in the instant of her creation," and he knew that this was taught both out of reverence for Christ—"that He should be born of most pure mother,"—and out of respect for the "Virgin, who should have been immensely superior in holiness to all the other saints." The Seraphic Doctor further recalls that this pious opinion rests also on the authority of St. Anselm, who had asserted that "the Blessed Virgin was pure, that "under God none greater could be imagined"; and that St. Anselm had also asserted that the pious opinion, far from being repugnant to Holy Scripture, was compatible with it. Moreover, it was not contrary to the Christian faith, because it admitted that:

. . . the Blessed Virgin was freed by grace, which depended on and derived from faith in Christ, the Head, like the graces of the other Saints.

For while the others were raised up after falling, the Virgin Mary was, as it were, supported in the act of falling and prevented from falling, so that we can say that she did not have the infection of original sin "in its effect, but only in its cause."

But in spite of this explanation of the pious opinion, Bonaventure agrees with the opinion of St. Bernard which is "more fitting, more reasonable and safer," and especially because it is more conformable to "piety and faith," for:

Although reverence and great devotion are due to the Mother, greater devotion is due to the Son, from whom all her honour and glory comes.

Consequently:

Since it pertains to Christ’s surpassing dignity that He is the Redeemer and Saviour of all, and that He opened the door to all, and that He alone died for all, the Blessed Virgin is not to be left out of this universality (generalitate), for fear that, while the Mother’s excellence was enhanced, the Son’s glory should be lessened.

No different is the teaching of Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas, Alexander of Hales, William of Militona, Odo Rigaud, Richard of Mediavilla, Thomas Sutton, Peter of Tarantasia, Giles of Rome, Hannibaldus of Hannibaldis, Bombolognus of Bologna, William of Godino, and the other great masters of the thirteenth century. They all admit, as with one voice, the principles which Eadmer, Osbert, Magister Nicholas and certain others invoked in the twelfth century in teaching that Mary was entirely pure and without stain. They all admit that "under Christ, the Blessed Virgin was the purest of all," and they think it reasonable that:

. . . she who bore the only-begotten Son of the Father, full of grace and truth, received greater privileges of grace than any other.

Hence, they say, the Blessed Virgin, who was chosen by God to be His mother, received a greater grace of holiness than John or Jeremias, who were chosen as special types of the sanctification of Christ.

But in spite of these principles, the pious opinion could not be admitted because there were not reasons enough to explain the Marian privilege. The theory that some cell, preserved from corruption in Adam, was passed down to the Blessed Virgin, is considered to be quite heretical, like any other explanation in which Mary would have been sanctified before animation. Albert the Great exclaims:

We say that the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified before animation, and if any one says otherwise he is guilty of the heresy condemned by blessed Bernard in his letter to the Canons of Lyons, and by all the masters of Paris.

Nor was it fitting that she should have been without sin in her conception or in "the instant of creation," because even this explanation is incompatible with the universality of the Redemption. Christ is our Head, because He redeemed us; all the members of Christ’s Mystical Body depend on Him, because redeemed by His blood. If any person had not been redeemed, that person could not have been a member of Christ. And, for one who has not contracted original sin, such a redemption is impossible. Therefore, Mary had sin, at least for an instant; she contracted sin and was immediately liberated from it.

As St. Thomas is the most outstanding of these theologians, it will be useful to glean from his works this fundamental argument opposed to Our Lady’s immunity from original sin. In his commentary on the third book of Sentences, after pointing out that the sanctification could not properly have taken place before the infusion of the soul, as Our Lady was not yet capable of receiving grace, nor in the actual instant of infusion in such wise as to preserve her from incurring original sin through the grace then conferred on her, he goes on to say:

Of all the members of the human race, Christ alone did not need redemption, because He is our Head; all others are to be redeemed by Him. But this could not be, if there was ever another soul which never had the stain of original sin. Therefore, this was not granted to the Blessed Virgin nor to anyone besides Christ.

We read in the Summa:

According to Catholic Faith we must firmly hold that all of Adam’s descendants contract original sin from him, except Christ; otherwise all would not need redemption through Christ, which is erroneous.

And in Question 27 of the same work, where he expressly treats of the sanctification of the Mother of God, we read:

If the Blessed Virgin had been sanctified in any way before animation, she would never have incurred the stain of original sin, and therefore she would not have needed that redemption and salvation through Christ, of which Matt. 1 says "He will save his people from their sins." But it is altogether unbecoming that Christ be not "the Saviour of all men," as I Tim. 4 says. Hence the sanctification of the Virgin must have taken place after her animation.

Aquinas repeats the same idea in the Quodlibet, insisting that:

We must not attribute so much to the Mother as to detract from the honour due to her Son, who is "the Saviour of all men," as the Apostle says.

He says the same in his De Malo and in the Compendium Theologiae, asserting that the Blessed Virgin is necessarily conceived with original sin:

. . . because if she had not been conceived with original sin, she would not have needed to be redeemed by Christ; then Christ would not be the universal redeemer of man—which would take from His dignity.

From the foregoing, it is quite obvious that, for the Angelic Doctor as for the other scholastics, to contract original sin in one’s own person, and to be redeemed from it, are correlative: the second cannot occur without the first.

In order to understand this opposition of the scholastic doctors to the Immaculate Conception, it is necessary to bear in mind exactly what they meant by redemption. St. Thomas says:

Insofar as He snatched us from the devil’s power, He is said to have redeemed us, as a king redeems his kingdom from the possession of an enemy by the effort of battle; insofar as He appeased God with regard to us, He is said to have redeemed us, as paying the price of His satisfaction for us, that we might be freed from punishment and sin.

Again:

In order to have redemption, two things are required: the act of payment, and the price paid.

Because He is our Head, He delivered us (as His members) from our sins by His Passion, which He underwent out of charity and obedience —as if the Passion were a price He paid.

The great Aquinas writes:

Anyone conceived without original sin would have no need of the Redemption which came through Christ, and thus Christ would not be the redeemer of all.2

Hence asserted that everyone needed to be redeemed by Christ Personally, and not only by reason of his human nature.

We have quoted these testimonies rather fully, especially those of St. Thomas, principally to show that the real reason why the great scholastic doctors did not admit the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was the central idea of Christ as Head and universal Redeemer. Christ died for all without exception: He is the Redeemer and Saviour of all, to whom he opened the gates of paradise. Now it is not easy to see how the Virgin as indebted to Christ for her redemption, if she was exempted not only from actual sin but also from original sin. Accordingly:

. . . the Blessed Virgin is not to be left out of this universality, for fear that, while the Mother’s excellence was enhanced, the Son’s glory should be lessened.

If, in addition to this principal argument, we keep in mind other arguments, adduced by authorities such as Bernard and Peter Lombard, based on the universality of original sin and its transmission through seminal generation, it is easy to see why not a single doctor of the Franciscan Order who wrote in this period—and from St. Anthony of Padua to Duns Scotus and William of Ware, there were more than forty—held that Our Lady was immune from original sin. Some of them were persuaded let God in his absolute power could have granted such a privilege to our Lady, but they all agreed with Saint Bonaventure that:

It was not becoming for this favour to be granted to anyone save to Him alone through whom the salvation of all mankind was accomplished, namely, the Lord Jesus Christ, so that no flesh should glory in His sight.

Indeed, some did not even hesitate to style the opinion of those who taught that "the Virgin was preserved by Christ’s grace from all sin and concupiscence," "heretical, impious and blasphemous."

It is true that Catholic theologians, in order to satisfy their devotion to the Blessed Virgin, gradually tried to reduce this subjection to original sin as far as possible. Not only did they all admit that she was sanctified "before being born," they also formed the pious opinion that this happened "soon after" the contracting of original sin—"on the same day or in the same hour, though not in the very instant," and in fact some went so far as to use the traditional argument, Potuit, decuit, fecit, in order to prove that the Blessed Virgin was in a state of original sin only for a fleeting instant.

SOME SPECIAL OPINIONS: HENRY OF GHENT, GERARD OF ABBEVILLE, ROBERT GROSSETESTE, PETER PASCHASIUS, RAYMOND LULL

Henry of Ghent, arguing from the undeniable premise that God had the greatest love for the Virgin and that He gave such holiness and purity to His Mother that none greater could be found in creatures, came to the conclusion that the greatest indication of His great love would have been sanctify the Virgin and purify her from sin as soon as possible. Hence great Belgian theologian of the thirteenth century concludes:

If, therefore, it was possible for her to be sanctified and cleansed from sin in such wise as to have been in sin only for an instant or moment . . . one may hold that this was the case.

But almighty God, with His divine power, was able to dispose that the Blessed Virgin should be in a certain condition (i.e. in original sin) for, an instant only. Original sin would have both its beginning and its d in that instant, but each in a different ‘aspect’ of the instant ("secundum aliud et aliud signum illius instantis"); its beginning, in so far as this instant was the end of the preceding period of time; its end, in so far as is instant was the beginning of the following period of time.

According to this theory, Mary would have been pure from the beginning, and immediately at the beginning of her creation, just as Eadmer and others had said in the twelfth century, but after being conceived in sin; and this because the Catholic faith teaches that the Redemption is universal, and therefore original sin also must extend to all men.

Henry of Ghent’s opinion about the purgative sanctification of the Blessed Virgin exercised considerable influence, for at the end of the thirteenth century there seems to have been some sort of compromise between the pious opinion held in the twelfth century, and the negative opinion of the solemn masters of the University of Paris. Discussions are heard about the potential existence of original sin, and the relations between instant and time. Henry’s fellow-countryman and contemporary, Godfrey of Fontaine, attacks his pinion, but admits that Mary was in sin for a short and almost imperceptible time: it is piously believed that the time was very short indeed; consequently one can say that she was always holy. Some even defend, despite St. Bernard, the opinion that the flesh of the Virgin might have seen purified so that her soul should have no sin; they call this cleansing her "preservation" from sin. And although this was possible by God’s ‘absolute power," several reasons were adduced to show that such "preservation" did not in fact take place.

In the question of the Immaculate Conception which is sometimes attributed to Gerard of Abbeville, we read that it would not have been right or the divine justice, or the divine clemency, power or wisdom, to preserve he Blessed Virgin from sin:

God did not will to preserve her from sin, He willed to cleanse and purify her from sin in order to declare His justice; to show the severity of the divine justice against that mass which had been damned on account of the sin of the first parents.

For since the Virgin was entirely present in the common father of all, as regards both her bodily substance and the ratio seminalis, she underwent the sentence of condemnation and contracted the sin from him.

Further, through original sin and its cleansing, God wished to show his greater mercy.

For although it is a greater benefit to preserve someone from falling than to raise him up and cleanse him after he has fallen, yet it is a sign of greater clemency to raise him up and cleanse him after the fall.

In the present case, "after the fall into original sin," God raised up the Virgin because He wanted her not only as His mother but as "Queen of heaven and earth" also.

Finally, the power and wisdom of God are shown more clearly if it is said that Mary was cleansed from sin instead of being preserved, because by her falling and being raised again it is seen how God "knows how to bring forth good from evil; which would not appear so clearly if He had preserved her from sin."

Robert Grosseteste, the founder of the Franciscan School at Oxford, had proposed the hypothesis that Our Lady could have been:

. . . cleansed and sanctified in the very infusion of her rational soul. In this way, there would have been a purification, not from a sin which had at one time been present in her, but from one which would have been in her if she had not been sanctified in the very infusion of her rational soul.

This hypothesis, however, had yet to be developed before it would actually have a notable influence.

Nor is it without significance that two of the great defenders of the Immaculate Conception at the close of the thirteenth century did not think of reconciling their opinion with the universality of Redemption, but invoked instead in Mary’s favour a special grace granted by God Himself, rather than a grace obtained for His Mother by her Son, the Redeemer.

Thus, we read in a dialogue between Mary and her Son, composed at the end of the thirteenth century by Peter Paschasius:

Thou art that maiden chosen by God in whom there is no sin, venial or mortal, original or actual, or any other kind. And this is why Adam was created innocent and sinless.

And again we read:

Some, O Mother, hold that thou art stained with original sin, but what they say is erroneous and iniquitous; for, as we have already said above, before Adam was created, My Father chose thee pure and sinless, that His Son might take flesh from thee.

It seems, therefore, that this author, who is styled by some "the first defender of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, does not build his argument for Mary’s preservation from all sin upon the merits of Christ the Redeemer— the Christ who suffered—but rather upon an act of will of Almighty God.

Raymond Lull was of a similar opinion. Having first asserted that he who imagines sin in the Virgin "thinks of darkness in the sun," and that there could not be anything evil in the Mother of God, because "she was completely good," he then claims that it was necessary that "her conception should correspond to that of her Son." But when discussing the difficulty of the universality of original sin ("the entire human race was corrupted by original sin") and the difficulty arising from the universality of redemption ("the Blessed Virgin would have had no need to be re-created through her Son’’), Raymond applies his theory of predestination from all eternity and recurs to "the infinite power" of the Son of God or of the Holy Spirit, making no mention of either the Passion or the Redemption.

This, therefore, is how the problem stood when Duns Scotus and Raymond Lull were at Paris together. The doctors almost unanimously held that Mary was conceived in original sin, and they did so to save the excellence and pre-eminence of Christ the Redeemer.

This unanimity, at least in Paris (the Mater scientiarum), was such that St. Bonaventure could declare:

None of those to whom we have been able to listen with our own ears has ever asserted that the Blessed Mary was immune from original sin.

And in the beginning of the fourteenth century, when the pious opinion was being taught at the University of Paris by Duns Scotus and Robert of Hotot, John of Pouilly declared it to be heretical: "Until the present time, no doctor whose writings have been published in the Paris studium has dared to hold this opinion."3 

Since an entirely new epoch opens at the beginning of the fourteenth century with the intervention of the Subtle Doctor, we must dwell more fully on his teaching. And since Scotus was taught by William of Ware, who taught the pious opinion at the same time, we can consider their opinions together in a special section.

III

THE INTERVENTION OF JOHN DUNS SCOTUS AND HIS MASTER, WILLIAM OF WARE

WILLIAM of WARE

Having briefly and clearly posed the single question, "Whether the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin," Ware examines successively three hypotheses, the first of which is that of Henry of Ghent: "that she was conceived in original sin and was cleansed and sanctified in the same instant, although in a different aspect of the instant (in alio . . . signo eiusdem instantis) "; the second is the common opinion: "that she was conceived in original sin and not cleansed in the same instant," and finally the third hypothesis, that she did not contract the original stain. This last hypothesis, the author attempts to prove, proving first the possibility, then the suitability, and lastly the fact, of preservation of the Blessed Virgin from sin.

Ware accepts the Augustinian explanation of the transmission of sin. He asserts, however, that while the flesh from which Mary’s body was to be formed was infected due to its source—with the qualitas morbida, it could have been purified at the moment of insemination. Hence, while Jesus was conceived mundus de munda, and the rest of us immundi de immundis, Mary was conceived munda de immundis.

Now since the Son is purity itself, it was suitable that He should give His Mother such purity as He could; He had therefore not only to liberate, but to preserve her from all stain. God could create a sinless being, if Mary were tainted with sin, she would be inferior to such a being. Hence he concludes:

What He could do, it was fitting that He should do and from this it follows that He did do it; for the Son should honor the Mother.

In reply to difficulties, amongst which one of the most important is that concerning the redemption of the Most Blessed Virgin, Ware affirms that Mary:

. . needed the Passion of Christ, not on account of any sin that was in her, but on account of that which would have been in her, had her Son not preserved her through faith. Thus Augustine, in his sermon on Magdalen, says that there are two kinds of debts—those that are contracted and paid, and those that are not contracted, but could have been.

Ware desires to hold the pious opinion, because:

If I must err—seeing that I am not certain about the opposite position —I would rather err by excess in giving a privilege to Mary, than by defect, diminishing or taking from her a privilege which she had.

As regards the feast itself, not only does it deserve to be celebrated because of the fact that, "all is pure in this conception so far as the Virgin herself is concerned," but, "it could still be celebrated even if she had contracted original sin."

This manner of treating and solving the question recalls the apologists of the twelfth century whom we have listed above. The difficulties which had accumulated in the thirteenth century are solved briefly by Ware. He rejects the argument of St. Bernard and others on the grounds that they falsely identified purification with sanctification:

for flesh and irrational nature are susceptible of cleansing, but not of sanctification.

He also affirms the idea of a redemptive preservation; but not only does he fail to develop or elucidate this idea as applied to the Blessed Virgin, he even speaks of a sort of preservation "through faith."

In the designs of Providence, it was Scotus who was destined to elucidate it at length. "This key idea of the theology of the Immaculate Conception will henceforth defy the attacks of its adversaries; it attains all its perfection in Scotus. If Ware found the formula which expresses preservative redemption and the debitum at one and the same time, Scotus has the honor of elucidating and justifying it happily and definitively." We shall now take up the opinion of Scotus, who has been justly styled the Doctor of the Immaculate Conception.

JOHN DUNS SCOTUS

The doctrine of Duns Scotus on the Immaculate Conception, like that of Ware, is aptly designated by the axiom, "Potuit, decuit, fecit," although it does not occur literally in his writings. In fact, it would be more in accord with Scotus’ arguments to say, "decuit, fecit, potuit," or, better still, "Voluit, fecit, potuit." His arguments hinge on three points. The first comes to this:

God was able to ensure that she should never be in original sin.

Because:

Everything is possible to God which is not manifestly contradictory in itself, and does not lead necessarily to a contradiction.

The second principle is borrowed from the Fathers and other great doctors, but especially from St Augustine and St. Anselm. With the former he says: "when sin is being discussed, I do not wish there to be any question of Mary, on account of the reverence due to the Lord." And with St. Anselm he adds, "It was altogether fitting that the Virgin should be resplendent with a purity than which no greater under God can be conceived." And Scotus faithfully echoes the views of both Augustine and Anselm when he says:

With regard to honoring Christ I would rather err by excess than by defect if, through lack of knowledge, I am forced to fall into one or other.

The third principle also is taken from Augustine: "Whatever course of action reason shows to be better, know that God has followed it rather than not." Then he notes:

It seems probable to ascribe the more excellent prerogative to Mary, provided that the authority of the Church or of Scripture oppose no veto.

Scotus was, moreover, mindful of the difficulties proposed by his predecessors, and he solved them adequately. In answer to the objection that it was not fitting for the Blessed Virgin, begotten through seminal generation, to have been sanctified either before the infusion of the soul (since she was not yet capable of receiving grace), or in the first instant of the infusion of the soul (so that by means of the grace then infused she would be preserved from incurring original sin), Scotus replies: "God was able to ensure that she should never be in original sin." "For," he argues:

. . . grace is equivalent to original justice, so far as God’s approval of the soul is concerned; for, by reason of this approval, original sin does not reside in a soul that has grace. God could have conferred as much grace on her in the first moment of her soul’s existence as He does on another soul at circumcision or baptism; in that moment, then the soul would not have had original sin, as it would not have it afterwards when the person was baptized.

Scotus proceeds to recall the following arguments against the Immaculate Conception:

"Mary was not righteous in the first moment of her natural existence; therefore she was non-righteous;" "By nature the Blessed Virgin is first and foremost a daughter of Adam," therefore, she is a child of wrath, and accordingly has sin. Scotus answers that there is nothing repugnant in the soul’s being created, united with the flesh and adorned with grace, all in the same instant.

Again, it is argued that Mary "was naturaliter a daughter of Adam prior to being justified." Scotus concedes that, given the nature which Mary had, and the way in which it was conceived, the natural consequence was for her to be a daughter of Adam and without grace in the first instant of nature. "But," he maintains, "it does not follow that she was deprived [of justice] in that instant of nature (speaking of the absolutely first instant):

For, by the priority here concerned, nature is just as much prior to the privation of justice as it is to justice itself. All that can be inferred is that it pertains intrinsically to nature to be naturally the foundation of Adamic filiation; and that neither justice nor the lack of it is included in nature thus considered. This I grant.

Moreover, according to the mind of the Subtle Doctor this priority is privative rather than positive, i.e., a priority discovered by reason which in no way affects the real being of the Virgin.

But Scotus’ chief title to fame was the fact that he reconciled the truth of the Immaculate Conception not only with the dogma of original sin but also with that of Christ, the universal Redeemer:

(If she had been without sin) Mary would have had the greatest need of Christ as Redeemer; for by reason of her procreation, which followed the common mode, she would have contracted original sin had she not been kept from it by the grace of the Mediator, and just as others are in need of Christ for the remission, by His merit, of sin which they have already contracted, so Mary would have been in still greater need of a Mediator preventing her from contracting sin.

As a matter of fact, the reasoning employed by Scotus permitted him to go so far as to say that the opinion denying the Immaculate Conception really derogated from Christ’s eminence as the most perfect Redeemer. For everybody agreed that Christ was a most perfect Redeemer; that being so, He ought to have saved at least one person from contracting original sin, to wit, his Mother:

The most perfect mediator exercises the most perfect act of mediation possible with respect to some person for whom he mediates: therefore Christ had the most perfect form of mediation possible with respect to someone for whom He was Mediator. But for no one did He exercise a more excellent form of mediation than for Mary; therefore, etc. But this would not be so if He had not merited to preserve her from original sin.

Scotus proves this fundamental thesis of his by means of various arguments: ‘first, with reference to God to whom [Christ] reconciles; secondly, with reference to the evil from which He liberates; thirdly, with reference to the obligation incumbent on the person whom He had reconciled. In his diffuse and subtle reasoning we find assertions such as the following:

Christ would not have placated the Trinity in the most perfect manner possible for the fault incurred by Adam’s descendants, if He did not prevent [at least] one person from offending the Trinity and if the soul of [at least] one of Adam’s children had not been without that fault. It is a more excellent benefit to preserve a person from evil, than to permit him to fall into it and then deliver him from it.

The exemption of the Blessed Virgin is plain if we consider, on the one hand, the gravity and malice of original sin, and, on the other hand, the relation of mother to son. Theologians were unanimously agreed that Mary was free from actual sin; from this the Subtle Doctor argued that she was also free from original sin. For if Mary had not been exempt from original sin, the angels would have been purer and holier than she; and while some creatures would be indebted to Christ for the remission of original sin, others for the remission of mortal and venial sin, no human creature would be indebted to Him to a supreme degree for the gift of innocence. If we bear in mind that we are not considering actual sin, but original sin, i.e. sin "contracted from another," it will be plain that the common opinion which places Mary in the power of the devil is not reasonable and that preservative redemption is more reasonable.

From the entire reasoning it is quite clear that:

The Blessed Mother of God . . . was never at enmity [with God] either actually—on account of actual sin, or original because of original sin. She would have been [at enmity with God] had she not been preserved [from original sin].4

Thus far we have considered only the Ordinatio—the work which Scotus wrote with his own hand or dictated. It was the last work of his life, and was, in fact, unfinished and unpublished when he died. But the argument from the most perfect Redeemer is also present in all five forms of the Reportationes, which represent various lectures given by him in Paris and Oxford. Moreover, it is also frequently asserted in each of the Reportationes that Mary did not contract sin. It is not a matter of a mere hypothesis in Scotus’ mind, or of the "fittingness" of the doctrine; he flatly asserts that Christ ought to have preserved His Mother, that He willed to do so, and that He actually did so!

To sum up briefly: In the argument based on the most perfect manner of redeeming considered with regard to God and to the person preserved, Scotus did not wish to impose an obligation on God, who always act most freely. But, since God cannot will things which are contrary to right reason (which would be the case were it true that the Mother of God had original sin), it follows that He achieved ("fecit") what it behoved him to accomplish ("decuit"), and what he could accomplish ("potuit").

Scotus’ intervention had widespread repercussions in England and on the continent. Even during the lifetime of the Subtle Doctor, his former teacher, Master William of Ware, had already modified the previous accepted proof of the fact of the Immaculate Conception, and had come to the conclusion that Mary was certainly conceived without sin. Richard of Bromwich, about 1306, transcribe the whole argument drawn from the infinite perfection of the Redeemer, and consequently adheres to the pious opinion. In Paris, after Scotus had successfully attacked the arguments which St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, St. Bernard and Peter Lombard had brought against the Immaculate Conception, Ralph de Hotot ventured to preach the Marian privilege in a public university sermon.

But although the immunity of the Blessed Virgin from all sin appears as the necessary postulate of the perfection of Christ, who is God and man, "Summum opus Dei," as the Subtle Doctor puts it, nevertheless, the passage of centuries and much discussion were necessary before this truth, which seems so elementary to us now, appeared clearly to all Catholic theologians. No sooner had the pious opinion been clearly expounded by Scotus in Oxford and Paris, than the authority and arguments of St. Thomas and others were urged against it. The pious opinion was already known as the Opinio Scoti in the first half of the fourteenth century, and within a short time the opposite opinion came to be known as Opinio Thomae. Under these two leaders and with these two banners the controversy continued until 1854, when both schools—those who supported and those who denied the Marian privilege—laid down their arms in the embrace of the truth which all Catholic theologians had always sought and longed for.

It was the merit of Duns Scotus that when the opinion contrary to the Immaculate Conception was in possession in both Oxford and Paris, he obliged all his contemporaries to re-examine the question and ask themselves not merely whether Mary might have been in sin only for an instant, but whether she had ever been in sin at all. His merit lay in proposing the question properly, using the correct terminology, proving the Marian privilege from the dignity of Christ, and showing that there was no impossibility on account of her natural generation and the transmission of original sin. On account of his learning and the influence which he exercised as the best known and the acknowledged head of one of the schools, the title of "Doctor of the Immaculate Conception" was given to him; and since this mystery is, after the Divine Motherhood, the most important part of Mariology, he rightly became known simply as the "Marian Doctor."

It is our purpose in this paper to trace the doctrinal history of the Immaculate Conception through the period which begins with the death of Scotus and ends with the close of the eighteenth century. We shall divide our dissertation into two parts, of which the first will deal with the interval between Scotus and the Constitutions of Sixtus IV, and the second with the period from Sixtus IV to Pius VI.

BETWEEN SCOTUS AND SIXTUS IV

Scotus’ opinion was a novelty in an academic world which, ever since Bernard of Clairvaux, had been told that to accept Mary’s Immaculate Conception was tantamount to denying the universality of the Redemption. The young Friar’s explanation of the perfect redemption, clear as it was, could not dispel all suspicion and distrust even in the most unbiased minds; and it had the effect of antagonizing those who had sworn allegiance to St. Thomas, the "angel of the School." Thus it was not long before controversy was in the ascendant.

EARLY CONTROVERSIES

Opposition to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in the fourteenth century came to a considerable extent from the Order of Preachers. As early as 1313, at the General Chapter of Metz, the Order of St. Dominic had been urged to follow the doctrine of St. Thomas: "Cum Doctrina . . . fratris Thomae de Aquino sanior et communior reputetur, et am ordo noster specialiter prosequi teneatur." When in 1323 the Angelic Doctor was solemnly canonized, it was only natural that the Dominicans should consider his doctrine as officially sanctioned by the Church. It is therefore not surprising that theologians like Herveus Natalis, Durandus le S. Porciano, Petrus de Palude and John of Naples should unanimously rally behind St. Thomas and take their stand against the teaching of the Immaculate Conception.

John of Naples, a master in the University of Paris around 1317, was evidently influenced by John of Pouilly, of the diocesan clergy, who had taught in the same university around the year 1309. Both vehemently stacked the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as taught by Scotus and his followers, of whom, as Pouilly insinuates, there seems even at that early date to have been a considerable number. In the writings of both theologians we discover flagrant accusations against proponents of Mary’s preservation. Against such who presume to teach this doctrine, says Pouilly, one ought to proceed not with arguments, but otherwise: "Qui si praesumeret, non argumentis sed aliter contra ipsum procedendum esset.

In their refutation of Scotus, John of Naples and John of Pouilly follow the traditional arguments. Christ alone was preserved from original sin because He was born of a Virgin and was to be our Mediator and Redeemer. Since the redemption by Christ was, according to Scripture, to be universal, all without exception were necessarily subject to sin. Because Mary was born in concupiscence, she necessarily underwent in her soul the infection inherent in her body. The Blessed Virgin was subject to original sin at least for a time and was sanctified only after her conception.

The importance of John of Naples and John of Pouilly can hardly be overstressed since their arguments were quoted by nearly all opponents of the Scotistic opinion in after years. Peter of Alva y Astorga took the trouble to check the writings of such authors as Capreolus, Torquemada, Bandelli, St. Antoninus, Peter of Vincentia and others, only to find that they quoted our two theologians verbatim. Under the leadership of the latter, opposition to the immaculist opinion not only continued through the second half of the fourteenth century but it became uncompromising and aggressive; so much so that prior to the Council of Basel, John Capreolus expressed the common opinion of his order when he wrote: "Beata Virgo fuit concepta in peccato originali." The popularity of the maculist opinion is all the more evident if one considers that three of the popes of the fourteenth century either adopted it frankly or at least failed to reject it.

Even the Friars Minor had their opponents to the new doctrine in those early years. Thus Bertrand de Turre (I 1334), a renowned preacher and successively archbishop of Salerno and cardinal of Frascati, prefers to hold he common opinion of Alexander of Hales and St. Bonaventure: "sicut net scola communist" Another illustrious Friar, Alvarus Pelagius, an apostolic penitentiary under John XXII and later bishop of Silves in Portugal, writing to the court of Avignon around 1330 professed allegiance the traditional doctrine and chided the "new" theologians who departed from the common view: "licet quidam novi theologia sensu Ecclesiae recedentes communi…" Yet the "quidam novi" were far more numerous than Pelagius suspected, at least if we may judge by Holzapfel’s bibliotheca Franciscana. Among them there were important theologians, such as Peter Aureoli, John of Bassolis, Peter Thomas, Francis Mayron, Peter of Aquila, Francis de Marchia and William Rubio. Let us give loser attention to a few of them.

Peter Aureoli, who read the Sentences in Paris in 1316, and was, on the injunction of John XXII, granted the Master’s degree in theology in 1318, wrote two treatises on the Immaculate Conception. The first Tractetus de Conceptione Mariae Virginis, consists of six chapters in which Aureoli systematically expounds the opinions and arguments of both schools, concluding that Mary’s preservation from original sin can be maintained without danger of heresy, and that neither opinion is de fide until the Church defines it as such. Peter’s second treatise, Repercussorium editum contra adversarium innocentiae matris Dei, is an answer to William Gannati O.P., who had attacked Aureoli’s Tractatus de Conceptione. Aureoli concludes by stating that any sin, be it original, mortal or venial, is repugnant to the Mother of Grace, since sin and grace are contradictory. Pious ears would be horrified to hear of a stain of sin in the fountain of grace. Wherefore, until the Holy Roman Church expressly determined that belief should be held concerning the conception or the sanctification of the Immaculate Virgin, he, Peter Aureoli, would not abandon what he had begun to teach; nor did his conscience reproach him on his stand.

One of Aureoli’s contributions to the development of the theology of the Immaculate Conception consists in a distinction he places between contracting original sin de iure and incurring it de facto. Everyone who descends from Adam "libidinose," "per viam propagationis et seminis," contracts original sin de iure. By the very nature of his birth he becomes liable to contract original sin. Whether he contracts it de facto depends on God’s will to preserve or not to preserve him. It would be impossible for a person to contract original sin de facto, even though de iure he were bound to contract it, if God by His grace and condonation preserved him from doing so. In the case of the Blessed Virgin there is no doubt that de iure she was a "child of wrath" and contracted original sin, born as she was by way of natural propagation; but whether she contracted it de facto is the point at issue. Aureoli then goes on by lengthy arguments to prove that God could and very becomingly would preserve her; and he concludes by expressing his adherence to the teaching of her Immaculate Conception.

Francis Mayron, one of Scotus’ pupils, known as Doctor Illuminatus, deserves mention for his efforts to explain how Mary was preserved from original sin. In his Tractatus de Conceptione B. M. Virginis he enumerates four methods of explanation prevalent in his day. Some theologians, identifying original sin with a ‘morbid quality’ inherent in the sensitive powers of the body, affirmed that the Virgin was preserved by being cleansed of this infection. Others, though they did not admit the formal presence of original sin in the flesh of the Blessed Virgin, advocated a causal or virtual presence, and made preservation consist in the removal of this causality or virtuality. A third group stated that Our Lady’s preservation came about when God by a special privilege enabled her parents to generate her in such a way that the universal decree which bound all who were born of woman by seminal propagation would not affect her. A fourth school held the opinion that God, from the very first moment of her conception, "by a singular dispensation," preserved Mary from contracting original sin. Mayron rejects the first two opinions on the grounds that the fact of carnal infection is in no way related to the question of Mary’s preservation. Hence the third and fourth explanation alone are plausible. In his commentary on the third book of the Sentences, Francis Mayron, again touching on the manner of Mary’s preservation, remarks that though she was preserved, she can be said in some way—"aliquo modo"—to have contracted original sin; propter dicta sanctorum."

Of considerable importance in the fourteenth century controversy are the writings of four Spanish Franciscans. The first, the Catalan Peter Thomas, composed a treatise, entitled De conceptions B. M. Virginis, while he was teaching in Barcelona, probably between 1316 and 1320. A contemporary of Thomas, Anthony Andreas, also a Catalan, expressed his views on the Immaculate Conception in his commentary In quattuor Sententiarum libros longe absolutissimum. Another Friar of approximately the same period, William Rubio, is known for his Disputata et decisa in quattuor libros Sententiarum. Finally, near the turn of the fourteenth century, John Vitalis played a decisive role in the controversy between the University of Paris and the Dominican John Montson, of whom we shall speak shortly. He wrote a sermon on the Immaculate Conception entitled Tota pulchra es amica mea, and a treatise, Defensorium B. V. Mariae.

To explain the manner of Mary’s preservation from original sin, these theologians begin with a definition of original justice. Though original justice co-existed with sanctifying grace, it was essentially distinct from grace. It constituted man’s natural relationship with God before the fall, and its effect was an easy, felicitous subjection of man’s sensitive powers to his free will, and of his free will to God. Original justice was some sort of gift superadded to nature. According to Peter Thomas it was a natural gift, perfecting nature; according to Andreas, Rubio and Vitalis, it was supernatural, surpassing in its effects what nature left to itself could attain. All the natural descendants of Adam, according to Thomas, Andreas and Vitalis, are born with an obligation to possess original justice; and the lack of this justice since the fall constitutes original sin. Rubio, on the other hand, denies the obligation to possess original justice, and states that original sin is no real sin, but merely a "poena damni" or a "non praemiatio." All affirm that sanctifying grace is the ordinary means of moral rehabilitation.

All likewise admit what was then known as the "lex communiter conceptorum"; namely, that every natural descendant of Adam contracts original sin. Yet they are careful to note that the will of the legislator has always the right and the power to grant the privilege of exemption from the law. This God can do either by dispensing the Blessed Virgin before her Conception from the obligation of possessing the original justice lost by Adarn, or more probably by granting her the possession of original justice in the first instant of her conception and independently of the sin of Adam. Rubio, in accordance with his definition of original justice, says that God could preserve Mary from original sin by dispensing her "in primo instanti" from the "poena damni," or by making her capable of the beatific vision. All agree that God could keep the Blessed Virgin from contracting original sin by pouring sanctifying grace into her soul in the first instant of her conception; for grace is either equivalent to original justice, or incompatible with sin. As for the objection that Mary was conceived by way of seminal propagation, Thomas and Vitalis reply that the bond between concupiscible generation and original sin is not so unbreakable that the two cannot be separated by the power of God.

These are someone of the more important Franciscan theologians. Their influence gradually made itself felt in other religious orders, particularly among the Carmelites and Augustinians. For a time the Carmelites adhered to the traditional teaching of St. Bernard, St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure. Such renowned masters as Gerard of Bologna (1317), Guy of Perpignan (1342), and Paul of Perugia felt that they could not safely adopt the new theory, although their reaction against it was rather moderate. Guy of Perpignan was unable to conceal a deep sympathy for the doctrine of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, but he felt the evidence of authority was against it: "Ista opinio, propter reverentiam beatae Virginis, multum mihi placeret, nisi auctoritatibus canonis et sanctorum obviaret." However, after 1340 the Order of the Carmelites reversed its allegiance, thanks to one of its most renowned masters, John Baconthorp. John had at first misunderstood the position of Scotus and of Peter Aureoli, and consequently in his Quadlibeta I, III, XIII, and XIV, as well as in his commentaries on the first three books of the Sentences, he had taken a stand against the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, qualifying it as "nimis adulatoria." But when he began the fourth book of the Sentences he avowed that he had been won over to the Scotistic opinion. From then on he devoted his entire energy to the defense of the Immaculate Conception. "After Bacon [thorp]" writes Father Doncoeur, "the pious belief triumphed among the Carmelites; during the second half of the century they provided the cause of the Virgin with outstanding defenders."

The Augustinian teaching on the Immaculate Conception follows much the same trend as that of the Carmelites. Until 1340 the masters of the Order followed the traditional opinion of Mary’s sanctification; after that date they began to adopt the immaculist theory. The intellectual activity of the Order in the early part of the century was dominated by Giles of Rome, whom the chapters had recognized as the theologian to be followed by masters and students. Giles died archbishop of Bourges in 1316. His position on the negative sanctity of Mary was that of the Victorines. "The Blessed Virgin," he says, "was the object of a twofold sanctification: the first in the womb of her mother; the second after her birth. In the womb of her mother she was personally purified of the original stain and preserved from all actual sin. At the Annunciation, the source of sin (fomes peccati) was extinguished in her . . . so that what was born of her was free from all infection."

Theologians in Giles’ day conceived of three possibilities as regards original sin in Mary: "vel quad non possit contrahere nec contrahat; vel quod possit contrahere et contrahat; vel medio modo, quod possit contrahere et non contrahat." Giles contends that the middle way is impossible. The Virgin, like all the other children of Adam, was conceived in and contracted sin; only Christ was the beneficiary of a virginal conception. It is because she contracted sin that she was redeemed and became a member of Christ. Not to count her as a member of Christ would be to rob Mary of glory. Giles likewise refutes the opinion of those theologians who taught that although the Blessed Virgin did contract sin she possessed grace in the first instant of her conception. Such a view is metaphysically impossible. The Virgin was in sin for a time, even though it was brief and imperceptible. She is the counterpart of Lucifer; "non plus fuit in hac infectione quam fuerit Lucifer in veritate." She was justified sooner and more perfectly than the Precursor, and that was her privilege. One might say in a broad sense that her purification coincided with her conception, and affirm that she was always holy. In this way it would be quite legitimate to celebrate a special feast in honor of her Conception.

Giles’ influence on his order lasted until after the middle of the century, although a number of Augustinians rallied to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception as early as 1340. Such authors as Albert of Padua (1323), Augustine Trionfo (1328), Henry Vrimach (1334), and Gerard of Sienna (1336) repeated Giles’ arguments and theses. Even after 1350 there were still disciples of Giles. Gregory of Rimini, who died in 1358, continued to teach that Mary was conceived in original sin; but the space he devotes to answering the objections of immaculist theologians gives evidence to their increasing numbers. Yet despite growing opposition Giles’ doctrine found adepts as late as the last quarter of the fourteenth century. Jordan of Saxony, who died in 1380, contends that Mary, according to the sayings of the Saints (dicta sanctorum), contracted original sin.

Meanwhile, however, an opposite trend had developed among the Augustinians. As early as 1340 Herman Schildis had defended the privilege of the Immaculate Conception. In a treatise entitled De Conceptione gloriosae Virginis Mariae, he chooses the following as the topic of one of his chapters: "Quamodo . . . Deus benedixit conceptae virgin) creando animam illam sanctissimam quae post Caput nostrum immediate ab ipso Capite esset omnis gratiae receptive." In the course of the treatise he proves that the effects of original sin are incompatible with the Divine Maternity. Simon Fidati de Cassia (1348) follows the same trend of thought. Thomas of Strasbourg (1357) accepts the thesis of the Immaculate Conception without the least hesitation. He employs the typical argument "potuit, decuit, fecit." If the Blessed Virgin was preserved from all actual sin on account of the honor of Christ, he reasons, a fortiori ought she to be immune to the much more grievous sin which infects our nature. There is no reason for a second cleansing sanctification, since the Virgin was not stained by the "fomes peccati." Thomas then concludes from Mary’s peerless beauty to her super-eminent dignity: "Et sic Maria infra dignitatem solius Filii sui omnes altos homines magnifice praecellebat. Raymond Jourdam ( 1381) greets Mary as "all beautiful in her conception . . . et macula peccati sive mortalis sive venialis sive originalis non est in te." However the source of sin ( "fomes peccati" ) still remains in her, but without burning her, like the fire of the bush of Moses.

JOHN MONTSON AND THE UNIVERSITY OF PARIS (1387-1389)

From the brief account we have given of the controversy so far, we are aware of the increasing popularity of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. By the end of the fourteenth century, at least three great orders have definitely chosen to profess and defend Mary’s glorious prerogative. Before the century closed, however, the controversy was brought still more noticeably into the open, and universities as well as ecclesiastical authorities were called upon to take sides. The disputes which had thus far been tempered with moderation now became more aggressive and tempestuous.

The attitude of the University of Paris towards the controversy at the end of the fourteenth century was tolerant and non-committal. Both schools were free to expound and defend their opinions, provided a proper respect was given the pious belief adopted by a large number of masters. In conformity with the mind of the university, the Franciscans who taught in Paris were prudent and reserved in their statements. Thus Peter of Candia, the future Alexander V, simply affirmed that the opinion which stated that the Blessed Virgin was "preserved by a singular dispensation" was more common and more reasonable. If there were a question of choosing between the two opinions, he said, without presuming on the decision of Mother Church, he would for no other reason than his personal devotion firmly believe that Mary was never stained by original sin, and exhort all the faithful to share the same belief. However, all were not so reserved, and the University felt compelled to check their indiscretion. In 1362 two Friars Preachers, John l’Eschacier and James of Bosco, proclaimed from the pulpit at Chalons-sur-Marne, that the opinion which supported the privilege was false, heretical and condemnable. They even stated that, had Mary died before her Son, she would have been damned. The ecclesiastical authority proceeded against them and exacted a retraction.

A much more serious incident occurred in June 1387. John Montson, a Dominican of the diocese of Valence in Aragon, in his thesis for the master’s degree, advanced a number of objectionable conclusions. Four of the fourteen propositions found offensive had a bearing on the conception of the Blessed Virgin. They are as follows:

10. It is expressly against the Faith to deny that every man except Christ contracts original sin through Adam.

11. It is expressly against the Faith to deny that the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, contracted original sin.

12. It is no less against Holy Scripture to say that one man outside of Christ was really exempt from original sin than to extend exemption to ten men.

13. It is more expressly against Holy Scripture to affirm that the Blessed Virgin was not conceived in original sin than to amen that she was at once in the state of the blessed and in that of wayfarers, from the moment of her conception or sanctification.

Montson referred to St. Thomas as his principal authority. Indeed Pope Urban VIII had declared the doctrine of St. Thomas as true and Catholic, and the Bishop of Paris had especially recommended it in 1326. Against John Vitalis, who stated that Aquinas had expressed two contradictory opinions as regards Mary’s conception, John Montson angrily replied that St. Thomas had never openly favored the immaculist opinion, and wherever he spoke of the Virgin he had asserted that she was conceived in original sin. According to Vitalis, Montson was supported and encouraged in his stand by his master and confrere John Thomas.

The faculty of theology had Montson’s fourteen propositions examined, particularly those which concerned Our Lady’s conception, and gave orders to the Franciscan John Vitalis to compose an apologetic treatise, his Defensorium B. Virginis Mariae, of which we have already spoken. In five books Vitalis treats of original justice, original sin, the original purity of the Mother of God, and the controversy then at issue. Particularly noticeable are questions based on Montson’s propositions and queries on the authority of the faculty of theology and of St. Thomas. Thus question 10 of chapter 3 in book 1 reads: "Utrum puritatem virginis Mariae dicere non fuisse originali obnoxiam, sit expresse contra fidem?" Question 1 in chapter 5 of book 1 is: "Utrum ad facultatem theologiae pertinet doctrinaliter inquirere . . .?" And question 5 of same chapter: "Utrum doctrine sancti Thomae de Aquino sit censenda sic veridica et approbate, ut non ei liceat contraire?"

On July 6 the University pronounced judgment. More than thirty theologians unanimously agreed that the four propositions referring to Our Lady should be retracted as false, scandalous, presumptuous and offensive to pious ears. However the decree admitted the ‘probability’ of the contrary opinion, expressing its wish to maintain all the reverence due to St. Thomas and his doctrine: "Salve in omnibus reverentia sancti Thomae nec non doctrinae suae."

When John Montson refused to submit to the judgment of the University, the case was referred to the Bishop of Paris, Peter d’ Orgemont who ratified the censure of the faculty of theology. He placed a penalty of excommunication ipso facto on anyone who would teach, preach and advocate the fourteen propositions, whether publicly or privately. Yet Montson was not vanquished. He went to the palace of Avignon to plead his cause with Clement VII. Seeing this, the University of Paris sent a delegation of four doctors, headed by the chancellor Peter d’Ailly, who presented a juridical memoir entitled: Apologia facultatis theologiae Parzsiensis circa damnationem Joannis de Montesono. In it he reproaches Montson, in regard to Mary’s conception, for having qualified as a formal error against the faith what so many saints, approved doctors and prelates of Catholic churches hold, affirm, and approve openly. If the opposition considers it absurd that St. Thomas should have advanced a proposition expressly contrary to the faith, a fortiori can the same reasoning be applied to the large number of saints, doctors and other Catholics who profess belief in the Immaculate Conception. The general approbation given the doctrine of St. Thomas does not of its very nature declare it free from all errors of detail. Besides, if one compares St. Thomas’ teaching in the Summa with that of his commentary on the Sentences, one becomes aware of at least an apparent discrepancy between the two.

After hearing both sides Clement VII appointed three cardinals to investigate the case very carefully. John Montson, afraid that the issue would not be to his advantage, secretly departed from Aragon and left the obedience of Avignon for that of Rome. Summoned three times by the court of Avignon, he was condemned as contumacious and excommunicated at the pontifical see January 27, 1389, and in Paris on March 17th.

The decision of Avignon, considered independently of the legitimacy of Clement VII’s pontificate, did not bear on the question whether Mary’s Conception was immaculate or not, but rather on the expediency of declaring it false, heretical and condemnable. The censures were of a disciplinary rather than of a doctrinal nature. Nevertheless, for all practical purposes the University emerged victorious from the controversy. As a consequence it felt powerful enough to issue a decree whereby all aspirants to degrees and academic privileges would henceforth have to subscribe to the University’s action in condemning the fourteen propositions of John Montson. Moreover the University imposed formal retractions on the Dominicans who had been involved with John Montson, or who had preached against the Immaculate Conception. The first and most spectacular case was that of William of Valan, the Bishop of Evreux, who retracted on Feb. 17th, 1389, at the Louvre in the presence of Charles VI and members of the University. The same year other retractions followed; namely, those of John Thomas, Adam of Soissons, Geoffrey of Saint Martin, Johne Ade, Peter of Chancey and John of Nicolai.

One of the unpleasant aspects of the Montson controversy was that it created opposition between two mendicant orders which had been founded side by side in an atmosphere of peerless friendliness. But on the other hand it accentuated the tendency among the masters of the University of Paris to adhere to the teaching of the Immaculate Conception. The number of sermons on Mary’s glorious privilege bears witness to the fact. Among these is a sermon by John of Mandeville (1372), and another by John Vitalis, on the text, "Tota pulchra es, amica mea, et macula non est in te." Most noteworthy of all was the sermon Tota pulchra es, amica mea, preached in 1401 by the chancellor of the University, John Gerson , at Saint-Germain l’Auxerrois. The arguments set forth by Gerson were not particularly new, but they were presented with such piety and simplicity that they could not fail to leave a lasting impression. In the first part of his sermon he enumerated the reasons which should excite or strengthen in pious souls the belief in Our Lady’s glorious privilege. Should not a good son seek to honor his mother in every way possible? Always a virgin in her body, was it not becoming that Mary should always be a virgin in her soul? If a prince can exempt his subjects from the laws he promulgates, is it not logical to conclude that God can dispense Mary from His laws? God had wanted Mary to beget our Lord virginally and without the pains of childbirth; was this less directly against the laws of nature, than to create her soul pure of all sin? The Almighty had wrought miracles on less important occasions in favor of Josue, Moses, Elias and Daniel; could He not sanctify His Mother in the first instant of her existence? He sanctified Jeremias and John the Baptist in the womb of their mothers, and He would do nothing more for Mary! Such were some of the pious considerations advanced by Gerson. However, he made it clear in a sermon for the feast of the Purification, preached at the Council of Constance in 1415, that he did not consider as heretical the opinion which denied Mary’s Immaculate Conception. Both beliefs were opinions, and nothing more.

NICOLAS EYMERIC AND THE LULLISTS (1357-1399)

John Montson had a rival in a Dominican of his own nationality, Nicolas Eymeric, born at Girone in Catalonia around 1320. He was the Inquisitor General of the Kingdom of Aragon from 1357 to 1360, and from 1366 to 1399. In several of his writings he vigorously attacked some of the teachings of Raymond Lull, particularly the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. He did not hesitate, in 1366, to qualify the latter as heretical and to express his intention of treating as heretics all who defended it. As the followers of Raymond Lull were in favor at the court of Aragon, they had Eymeric exiled twice, and better still, on March 13,1393, they obtained from King John I a pragmatic sanction in which his majesty formally expressed his adherence to the pious doctrine: "Firmiter credimus et tenemusqued praefatue huius sanctissimae Virginis sancta fuit penitus et electa conceptio.’’ As a consequence the king forbade all missionaries and preachers to expound or proffer anything that could in any way be prejudicial to the purity of Mary’s blessed conception. The following year the decree was extended to the principality of Girone.

A good result of this Aragonian controversy was the appearance of several important treatises on the Immaculate Conception in answer to the attacks of Eymeric. Probably the most remarkable was written by Francis Martin, a Carmelite from Barcelona. In his Compendium veritatis immaculatae conceptionis virginis Mariae Dei genitricis, composed around 1390 and published by Alva y Astorga, he presents one of the most complete expositions of the question as treated and discussed at that time.

THEOLOGIANS AT THE COUNCIL OF BASEL

(1431-1449)

The action of Avignon against John Montson had not brought a positive decision on the fundamental issue of the controversy, but the desire to have the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception defined still remained. As early as 1417 Alphonsus V, the King of Aragon wrote several times to Emperor Sigismund asking him to promote the twofold cause of the belief and feast of the Immaculate Conception. Since his request had met with no results at the Council of Constance, he reiterated his appeal in 1425 through John of Palomar, who had already been appointed as papal delegate to the forthcoming Council of Basel. He entreated Sigismund to see to it that in the Council the universal and perpetual celebration of the most pure conception of Mary might become a reality, in fulfillment of the requests that had several times been made.

There is no indication that during the first three years of the Council the Fathers of Basel actively studied the question of the Immaculate Conception, although they solemnly celebrated the feast of the Conception each year and had sermons preached in honor of the mystery at that occasion. However, in 1435, a canon of Puy, by the name of John Roceti, presented a treatise or sermon on the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary Mother of God. In his discourse, the text of which was "Tota pulchra es, amica mea, et macula non est in te," Roceti declared that the Mother of God was preserved from the original stain in her venerable conception, at least in the instant when her soul was united to her body: "ab exordio saltem infusionis animae in corpore, ab originali praeservatam." In proof of his thesis the author presents four main arguments: the figures of the Old Testament, patristic authorities, theological reasons of the doctors, and the miracles wrought in confirmation of the doctrine. The most important part of the discourse was an exhortation to the Fathers of the Council to deign finally to bring about the exaltation of the Immaculate Virgin and to formulate conclusions that could be discussed in the venerable assembly. He himself suggested as the aim of these discussions the canonization of her conception and the declaration that she was conceived without original sin.

The appeal was heard. Before the end of the year Cardinal Louis of Aleman, the Cardinal Archbishop of Arles, who was then the president and "iudex fidei" of the Council suggested that all the libraries of Christendom be searched for documents in favor of or against the Immaculate Conception. From then on the question of our Lady’s preservation became the subject of lengthy discussions. Among the principal antagonists of the doctrine was John of Montenegro, the General of the Friars Preachers. Roskovany lists a treatise written by him, which has not come down to us, or has not yet been discovered. The substance of it is probably contained in the work of John of Torquemada. Moreover John of Segovia says that in his Allegationes he follows the same plan as Montenegro in order to refute his arguments.

John of Segovia was the outstanding protagonist of the immaculist opinion. A canon of Toledo, he was sent by the king of Castile for the express purpose of promoting the cause of the Immaculate Conception. Segovia is the author of three treatises, of which the third was not presented at the Council. The first, his Septem Allegationes, follows the traditional method of proving that Mary could have been preserved, that it was fitting she should be preserved, and that consequently she must have been preserved. Segovia makes copious use of the writings of John Vitalis and of Peter Thomas. In his fourth allegation, after enumerating the different ways in which Mary’s preservation had been explained by theologians, he expresses his preference for the opinion which explains her preservation by a sanctification in the first instant of her existence in virtue of a prevenient grace: "Praedictus modus ponendi sanctificationem beatissimae Virginis per gratiam praevenientem est multo rationabilior.’’ An argument Segovia borrows from Peter Thomas is the pseudo-Augustinian rule of Mary’s conformity with Christ: "In omni propositione quae Christum a peccato excipit, intelligitur excipi Virgo Mater." In his Septem Avisamenta, Segovia devotes the sixth section to arguments taken from theological reason, Scripture, the piety of the faithful and the doctrine of the saints. He expressly abstains from using as arguments private revelations and miracles as Vitalis had done, because such adversaries as Montson had argued that only proofs drawn from Scripture and the authority of the saints had any value. It is for that reason, too, that he did not present to the Council a third treatise he had already written: Pulcherrima miracula ab eodem auctore collecta de conceptione beatissimae virginis Mariae. On the other hand he makes much of the argument of the general consensus of the faithful. For a long time already, he remarks, the opinion which opposes Mary’s Immaculate Conception, has become so disagreeable to the people that they can no longer tolerate it.

A personage of no less importance at the Council, though for entirely different reasons, was the renowned Dominican John of Torquemada. He was at that time the Master of the Sacred Palace, and he later became a cardinal. As he himself tells us, he had been asked by the Council to present a complete summa of all the arguments contrary to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, so that the Fathers of the Council might weigh both sides of the question before pronouncing final judgment. He very carefully protests that he intends neither to affirm nor to deny anything contrary to the universal judgment of Mother Church. His Tractatus de veritate conceptionis comprises thirteen sections or parts, divided into chapters which added together number 351. Everything that could be said against the Immaculate Conception was gathered together into the treatise. Of particular interest is the fourth chapter of section VII, in which Torquemada enumerates ten reasons why the order of St. Dominic was at that time opposed to the immaculist opinion. Strangely enough the authority of St. Thomas is not given as a reason. Torquemada presents nothing more than the ordinary arguments of the maculists, namely, the universality of original sin, the testimonies of Fathers and councils who taught that Christ alone was sinless and that the Blessed Virgin was stained by sin; the honor of Jesus Christ who alone should be endowed with this privilege; the necessity of the redemption; the advice given by St. Dominic to his sons always to follow the doctrine of Scripture and of the Fathers, and to be on guard against novelties; the absence of solid proofs to support the pious belief of Mary’s preservation.

Despite its elaborate preparation Torquemada’s treatise was not presented at the Council. The Avignon experience and the history of the years of schism had given rise to the wildest theories about the source of ecclesiastical authority. The idea that the Council was superior to the Pope was gaining ground, and in no small measure contributed to the withdrawal of Eugene IV’s legates from Basel in September 1437. Another reason for the dissolution was the arrival of the Greeks in view of discussing reunion with Rome, and the failure of the delegates at Basel to agree on the most suitable location for the meeting with the delegates from the Orient. The upshot of it all was that the papal legates left, and John of Torquemada with them. His manuscript was not even studied at the Council.

Meanwhile the proceedings of the Council were carried on, without a pontifical mandate, by a group consisting of the one Cardinal of Arles, about eight archbishops and bishops, a dozen prelates and about three hundred priests and doctors. John of Segovia was in the group. He was also one of the seventeen-member committee to which was entrusted the final discussion of the documents for and against the doctrine of the Immaculate conception, and the formulation of the decree which was published Sept. 7, 1438 in the 36th session. The following is the dogmatic section of he decree:

. . . We define and declare that the doctrine according to which the glorious Virgin Mary, Mother of God, by a special effect of divine preventing and operating grace, was never stained with original sin, but has always been holy and immaculate, is a pious doctrine, conformable to the cult of the Church, to Catholic Faith, to right reason and Sacred Scripture; it must be approved, held and professed by all Catholics; furthermore, it is no longer allowed to preach or teach anything contrary to it."

The tenor of the decree would seem to indicate that the Fathers of Basel really intended to define the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, though their intention was of little importance, since at the time of the definition the assembly no longer had an ecumenical status. Still the significance of Basel cannot be overlooked. It contributed to the spread of the pious belief, since a number of countries, such as Switzerland, Savoy, Germany, Aragon and France, considered the synod as legitimate even after the withdrawal of the papal legates. Indeed in September 1457 a provincial synod of Avignon ordained that the decree of Basel be unfailingly observed and that a penalty of excommunication be imposed on anyone who dared attack the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception either in the pulpit or in public discussions. And even as early as December 1, 1439, only three months after its promulgation, Queen Mary of Aragon had the decree of Basel published in her kingdom.

Loyalty to Basel is likewise reflected in a number of writings of that century. Thus Gabriel Biel, (1495) a professor at Tubingen brings in the authority of the Council as an argument in favor of the Immaculate Conception: "Praeterea determinatum est in concilio Basiliensi.’’ In Belgium, Dionysius the Carthusian (1471) expressed a similar allegiance. In his commentary on the third book of the Sentences, he states that the definite truth on the Immaculate Conception must not be sought in the disputes of the schools, but rather in the decisions of the Church. Now in the latest general Council the Church has put an end to all discussions on the matter: "quae in novissimo concilio universali finem (ut dixi) his discussionibus imposuit." In the same context Dionysius writes: "We would be horrified to affirm that she who was to crush the head of the serpent was ever crushed by him (quandoque ab eo contritam), and that the future Mother of Our Lord had been a daughter of the devil.’’

Though they do not mention the Council of Basel in their writings, three great Italian saints who lived in the first half of the fifteenth century, deserve a mention here. The first, St. Antonine of Florence (1459), did not profess the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, but loyally adhered to the teaching of the masters of his own order, the Dominicans. The second, St. Lawrence Justinian, the first Patriarch of Venice (1455), openly proclaimed Mary’s preservation from original sin. Finally, St. Bernardine of Sienna, an ardent promoter of the spirit of the Franciscan Order, strangely enough seems on most occasions to be rather reticent and non-committal as regards the controversial question of Mary’s Conception. In fact, in one passage he clearly expresses his will to be free of all scholastic disputes on the matter: "Dismissis autem scholasticis bellis circa Virginalem conceptum, triplicem sanctificationem ad praesens discutamus …"

However on a few occasions Bernardine lets us see his true sentiments. Thus in one of his Latin sermons, commenting the words of Christ, "Non surrexit inter natos mulierum major Joanne Baptista," (Mat. 11:11) he remarks that Our Lord rightly says, "non surrexit":

Because no one is said to get up or rise, who has not fallen; but since Christ, as also the Blessed Virgin, did not fall into any sin of conception or into any actual sin, they are consequently not under that rule, because they have not fallen in the manner mentioned. Therefore they are not said to rise, as all the other humans from Adam on, who fell and are falling through original sin. However the statement that the Virgin was conceived in original sin is not condemned by the Church; yet it is more pious to believe that she was not conceived in sin than contrariwise.

Bernardine had written these lines before the Council of Basel. His prudence in not condemning the contrary opinion is remarkable. He holds a similar attitude in one of his vernacular sermons, preached in Florence in 1424:

"The second star was that she was conceived without original sin, and was preserved from sin. Oh! what if you held the contrary? You would not be condemned, because the Church has not yet approved it [the immaculist opinion]. But what should the devout mind hold? That she was conceived without original sin. Oh! if St. John and so many saints were sanctified in the womb of their mother, how would God not have done a greater honor to His Mother than to the others?"

 

SIXTUS IV AND VINCENT BANDELLI

The period between the decree of the Council of Basel (1438) and the accession of Sixtus IV (1471) was marked by an ever-increasing dissension between theologians regarding the conception of our blessed Lady. On the one hand those who advocated the legitimacy of the definition of Basel accused the maculists of heresy. Thus, for instance, in 1457 the doctors of the Sorbonne punished as a heretic a certain Dominican who publicly asserted that Mary was conceived in original sin. Theologians, on the other hand, who rejected both the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and the decision of Basel, because they considered them contrary to Scripture, the Fathers and the teachings of the Pontiffs, accused the immaculists of schism and defection in the faith. Thus in 1441 Raphael of Pornasio, O.P., affirmed that the doctrine of Mary’s conception in sin was "a defined article of Faith necessarily to be believed, an unfailing, clear truth, the Catholic faith, of which it was wrong to doubt." Around 1470 Gabriel of Barleto, O.P., made similar statements. Meanwhile Rome remained silent on the issue. The decree of Basel had very little influence in Italy, since its legitimacy had never been recognized there. Besides the pontiffs were gravely preoccupied with political concerns over the war against the Turks. Even Sixtus IV in his early years thought it more prudent not to intervene until positions were more clearly defined.

However the situation was soon altered. Around 1474 the controversy crossed the Alps and began to rage on the Italian peninsula. The principal, if not the only, instigator of this new movement was Vincent Bandelli, O.P. If Torquemada’s attitude was tempered with prudence and moderation, Bandelli’s vehemence knew no bounds. Endowed with a brilliant mind and a scintillating eloquence, he made use of every artifice of erudition and of daring to combat the protagonists of the Immaculate Conception, so much so that he came to be known as the "adversariorum Goliath."

The first time Bandelli appeared as an adversary of our Lady’s preservation was in a public debate held at Imola probably in 1474 or 1475. Shortly afterwards, in Milan in 1475, he published his Libellus recollectorius auctoritatum de veritate Conceptionis B. V. Mariae, in which he expounds in systematic order what he had said in the debate. The treatise, divided into four parts, attempts to prove by negative and positive arguments, especially from the Fathers, of whom he quotes over two hundred, the falsity of the teaching of Mary’s preservation. The tone of the whole treatise is bitingly polemic. He qualifies the immaculist system as erroneous, impious, temerarious, more dangerous than the heresies of Pelagius, Celestius and Julianus; as a wicked, pestiferous, execrable, diabolical dogma; as a lie spoken by raging lips; as a false assertion that undermines the foundations of the faith and resists a well-founded belief, etc. The advocates of the pious opinion are indiscrimately designated as adulterous, devoid of all knowledge and full of wind, stupid, seducing the people under the pretext of piety and in the hope of lucre and favor, depraving holy Scripture, condemning the holy Fathers, extolling the Blessed Virgin with false honors, nefariously slandering the Blood of Christ, prating and howling against the divine truth.

The excesses of Bandelli and his followers who preached far and wide on the Italian peninsula incited the advocates of the Immaculate Conception to answer in kind. The result was hatred, heated and disgraceful discussions which rejoiced the enemies of the Church, saddened the hearts of the pious, and scandalized the faithful. It was not long before the matter was brought to the attention of Sixtus IV, who, desirous of ending the conflict and preventing greater harm, gave orders that a solemn disputation be held in Rome between theologians from various regions. The debate took place at the beginning of 1477, in the presence of the Pontiff. The arguments against the preservation of Our Lady were eloquently and diffusely expounded by Bandelli; evidence in favor of the glorious privilege was advanced by Francis Insuber of Brescia, the Minister General of the Friars Minor. The latter manifested such facility and dexterity in answering and annihilating the arguments of his adversary, that Sixtus IV surnamed him Samson, a name that clung to him so well that he was thenceforth known as Francis Samson.

Encouraged by the success of Francis Insuber, two pious authors, Leonard Nogarolo, a protonotarius apostolicus, and Bernardine de Bustis, O.F.M., composed offices of the Immaculate Conception, which were approved by Pope Sixtus IV.

If for a time after these papal interventions the adversaries of the Immaculate Conception were somewhat more cautious, they soon took courage again and renewed their attacks under the pretext that Sixtus IV did not express his mind clearly and did not issue a precept that the feast be celebrated everywhere. Consequently they either did not celebrate the feast day at all, or they interpreted the word "conception" as denoting Mary’s sanctification. This attitude was brought out most glaringly in another public debate held in Ferrara after the Lent of 1481, under the auspices of Herculus Estensis, the governor of the state. The discussion lasted six hours. The speakers in favor of the Immaculate Conception were Bartholomy Bellati of Feltre, O.F.M. Conv., Baptista of Ferrara, O. Carm., and a certain Caesarius, O.S.M., who were all masters of sacred theology. Their principal adversary was again Vincent Bandelli, who somewhat later in the year published his arguments in a new treatise, Tractatus de singulari puritate et praerogativa conceptionis salvatoris nostri Iesu Christi.

The treatise is of the same vehement tenor as his earlier publication. The arguments, too, follow the usual pattern. The only new element is Bandelli’s interpretation of Sixtus IV’s Bull Cum praeexcelsa. If the Roman Church has instituted the feast of the Conception and has granted an indulgence to those who recite the office of Nogarolo, he asks, how can the opinion which ascribes original sin to the Virgin still be considered as probable? To this objection Bandelli gives a lengthy and subtle reply. The mind of Sixtus in approving the feast and granting indulgences was not to exemplify the natural conception or the preservation of Mary from original sin, but rather to stress her spiritual conception, or her sanctification after the first instant of her animation. Hence it still remains true that the immaculist theory is heretical, erroneous, superstitious, impious, a wickedness hitherto unheard of, a detestable crime, a madness of iniquity, a deadly virus, a pernicious pestilence.

The audacity of the writer could not have been greater. He was attacking the very dignity and authority of the Holy See by misrepresenting the mind of the Pope. It is not surprising, therefore, that Sixtus IV should have reacted energetically in the Bull Graze Nimis of 1482. In this document the Pope, with strong words, condemns the members of different Orders who are deputed to preach the word of God in the different cities and towns of Lombardy, and who are not ashamed to affirm publicly, before crowds of people, that anyone who holds Mary’s preservation from original sin is to be considered a heretic, and that the Roman Church celebrates only Mary s spiritual conception or sanctification. However, the Pope did not decide the question of the objective truth of the Immaculate Conception. On the contrary, he fulminated an excommunication against anyone who should call either the maculist or the immaculist opinion heretical.

Even though Sixtus did not mention Bandelli’s name, he indicated clearly enough that he had him and his writings in mind. The Constitution was addressed to the regions of Lombardy, where Bandelli was then residing as vicar of the province of Lombardy, and where he had held some of his debates and published his books. Moreover the propositions condemned by the Pontiff were exactly those contained in Bandelli’s last book. The latter understood that he was aimed at, for from then on he kept complete silence and never again appeared in any debates.

However, Bandelli’s silence did not put a. stop to the effect of the ideas he had expressed. Wherever he had spoken he had obtained a following and gradually the radius of his influence had spread far beyond the confines of Lombardy. As word came to Sixtus IV of further excesses in regions other than Lombardy, he issued another Bull on September 4, 1483, also entitled Grave nimis. The tenor and style of this document is much the same as that of the first Grave nimis, but it is addressed, not merely to Lombardy, but to every state and land.

II

THE CONSENSUS OF THE CHURCH

The approval granted by Sixtus IV to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception gave a new impetus to its diffusion all over Christendom. By the beginning of the seventeenth century the belief in Mary’s preservation had become so general that Vincent Justinian Antist, a Spanish Dominican, acknowledged that, "at present in Spain, in the Indies, in France, and almost all over Europe, to preach, write or teach against this devotion would be like trying to carry a millstone in one’s arms to the top of a mountain.’’

However, the papal intervention did not immediately stamp out all opposition. In 1494, at Venice, there appeared a treatise composed by Peter of Vincentia, a Dominican, entitled, Opusculum de Veritate conceptionis beatissimae Virginis Mariae, in which the author quotes 216 doctors in support of the maculist opinion. Both the doctrine and the method of the treatise reflected the tradition which had begun with John of Naples and reached its apex in Vincent Bandelli. In his Monumenta Antiqua Seraphica, Alva y Astorga enumerates some twenty authors who at this occasion rose in defense of Mary’s preservation and refer to Sixtus IV’s documents. Among them are Louis della Torre, Anthony Cucharo,, and John Clicthovaeus. Most of these writings add nothing new to what had already been advanced in the past. They are popularizations of the teaching in schools of theology. However, though they acknowledge the liberty of opinion allowed by Sixtus IV, they are not slow to point out that the Church celebrates the feast of the conception and not that of the sanctification.

THE UNIVERSITIES

The universities gradually rallied to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Already in 1507, Cucharo, in his Elucidarius) states that the universities of Paris, Oxford, Cambridge, Toulouse and Bologna had been won over to the pious teaching. The Sorbonne had decreed on March 3, 1497 that all candidates for academic degrees would henceforth have to take the oath to defend the Immaculate Conception of Mary. The decree was published on August 28, and the oath was taken on September 17 by 112 doctors whose names are listed by John Trithemius. Forty-seven of the doctors belonged to religious orders: 8 Benedictine, 3 Cistercians, 1 Premonstratensian, 13 Dominicans, 8 Franciscans, 7 Augustinians, 5 Carmelites, and 1 Servite.

The German universities began to adopt the practice of imposing the oath as a result of two controversies. The first arose when George Frickenhausen headed a Dominican group in their attack against the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception at Leipzig in 1489 and 1490. Frickenhausen asserted that there was a distinction between a heretic and a heresy Sixtus IV, he explained, had not intended to excommunicate those who declared that the immaculist opinion was a heresy, since in reality it was contrary to Sacred Scripture and the Fathers. The Pope’s purpose was merely to excommunicate those who labeled the advocates of the immaculist opinion as heretics, because the Church had not yet condemned and reproved that opinion. The chief opponents of the Dominicans and Frickenhausen were the Franciscans, and the Faculty of Law of the university which was headed by Sebastian Brandt.

The starting-point of the second controversy was a book written by the pious John Trithemius, entitled De Laudibus S. Anne matris beatissimae Dei genitricis et virginis Mariae, in chapter 7 of which the author defends the Immaculate Conception and accuses of arrogance, presumption and temerity those who deny the privilege. The accusation aroused the adversaries who, with the Dominican Wigand Wirth as their spokesman took up the challenge. Wirth spoke at the University of Frankfort in 1494, at Heidelberg in 1501 and at Strasbourg in 1510. He declared that whoever dared exempt Mary from the stain of original sin was a heretic. As a result he met with reprisals, not only from Trithemius, but also from the University of Cologne, and especially from the faithful who heard him preach.

These controversies turned to the advantage of the belief in Mary’s preservation. In 1499 and 1500 the Universities of Cologne and Mainz followed the example of the Sorbonne by imposing on their faculties and student personnel the oath to profess the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. From then on a number of other German and Austrian universities included the oath in their statutes: Vienna in 1501, Ingolstadt in 1653, Tyrnau in 1656, Salzburg in 1697. The University of Cracow, in Poland, also adopted the oath.

In Spain the University of Valencia was the first to impose the oath, in 1530. Barcelona and Osuna were the next to follow suit. And from then on universities vied with each other in their zeal to require that their students profess faith in Mary’s Immaculate Conception: In 1617 the oath was adopted by Granada, Alcala, Bacza, Santiago, Toledo, and Saragossa; in 1618 it was Salamanca; in 1619 Huesca. The universities of Coimbra and Evora, in Portugal, also had their turn. Even in territories under Spanish influence the oath was enforced; thus in Naples and Palermo in 1618, and in Douay in 1662. Kosters remarks that by the end of the seventeenth century nearly 150 universities or colleges had expressed themselves in favor of the pious belief, and about a third of that number had included the oath in their statutes. The attitude of the universities played a considerable role in spreading the belief of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, since these centers of learning provided apostles and defenders of the glorious privilege.

THE RELIGIOUS ORDERS IN THE SIXTEENTH AND SEVENTEENTH CENTURIES

We need not insist here on those religious orders who had in preceding centuries rallied to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception—namely, the Franciscans, the Carmelites, the Augustinians and the Servites. Their theologians and their saints continued in the tradition of their confreres of the past. Such glorious names as St. Peter of Alcantara, St. Paschal Baylon and St. Joseph Cupertino among the Friars Minor; St. John of the Cross and St. Theresa of Avila among the Carmelites; John of Sahagun and St. Thomas of Villanova among the Augustinians always remain on the pages of those who treasured Mary’s original purity. To these ancient orders were added the Clerics Regular, namely the Theatines, the Barnabites, the Somaschi, the Jesuits, the Clerics Regular of the Mother of God.

Then there were such ecclesiastical congregations as Oratorians, the Mission Fathers, the Eudists, and the Sulpicians. All without exception adhered to the pious belief of Mary’s preservation. The Jesuits particularly manifested a great zeal for the doctrine. Among them there were illustrious defenders of Mary’s privilege. We shall merely mention some of them here, with the intention of referring to them later as the occasion demands. Lainez, Salmeron, St. Peter Canisius, Toletus, St. Robert Bellarmine, Gregory of Valencia, Vasquez, Suarez—all were loyal supporters and promoters of Mary’s preservation. As early as 1593 in its fifth general congregation, the Society of Jesus officially adopted the belief in the Immaculate Conception: "De conceptione autem B. Mariae..... sequantur sententian quae magis hoc tempore communis, magisque recepta aped theologos est.’’

Though the Order of St. Dominic opposed the teaching of the Immaculate Conception up to the sixteenth century, it gradually began to join the general movement which favored Our Lady’s original preservation. One of the most ardent defenders of Mary’s privilege in Italy was Ambrose Catharinus (1553). We shall speak of him at some length in a later section. A century later, another Dominican, Thomas Campanella (1639), in his Tractatus de immaculate beatae Virginis conceptione strongly exhorted his order to rally to the common opinion. Surprisingly enough, he uses the argument John Vitalis had employed against Montson in the fourteenth century, namely that St. Thomas had taught Mary’s Immaculate Conception, and that consequently the pious belief owes its origin to the Dominicans rather than the Franciscans. If in one passage the Angelic Doctor seems to be denying Our Lady’s privilege, he is in reality merely quoting the opinion of another. Aquinas’ real thought is to be sought in his commentary on the first book of the Sentences, where he clearly teaches that the Blessed Virgin was preserved from original sin. Other Dominican theologians of that time stated that the two passages in St. Thomas could be reconciled if one understood the first as referring to the act, and the second to the debt or original sin. Thus Capponi of Porrecta, and John of St. Thomas. The latter, however, was reprimanded by the Master General, Nicolas Ridolfi, for his attempt to list St. Thomas among the protagonists of the Immaculate Conception. He was ordered to continue his commentary on the Angelic Doctor, but to delete from the books he had not yet sold and to omit from future editions the passage in which he had tried to show that Aquinas had exempted Mary from the act of original sin.

However, the authorities of the Order of Preachers, becoming concerned over the hatred, rivalry and scandals occasioned by the controversy, prescribed measures of prudence. In 1519 the Province of Saxony bade its preachers speak of Mary’s sanctity "sine opinionum narratione." In 1524 Albert de las Casas, a provincial of Andalusia, acknowledges that the practice and authority of the Church should outweigh the testimony of the individual doctors, quoted in favor of the maculist opinion. In Paris the diplomatic submission of the Dominican doctors tends to become an interior acquiescence; some of the Friars Preachers even recite an office of the Immaculate Conception, at least privately. William Pepin (1533) preaches the privilege openly, and Peter Dore, a regent at SaintJacques, exposes the immaculist doctrine in his Image de vertu. In Spain the General Chapter of Vallodolid in 1605 asks the preachers of the Order to abstain from any saying that could scandalize the faithful as regards original sin and the Blessed Virgin. Finally, on June 24, 1618, while Philip III was negotiating with Rome regarding a definition of the Immaculate Conception, a petition was sent to the Pope by the Dominican province of Spain, entreating the Holy Father to order their province to celebrate the Feast of the Conception as it is celebrated in the Church, and to compel them to preach that the Virgin was conceived without sin. Mir y Noguera mentions about ten illustrious Dominican orators who spoke favorably of the Immaculate Conception, the most noteworthy of whom is St. Louis Bertrand (1581).

SHEPHERDS OF SOULS

The general consensus of the Church was evidenced in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in the large number of confraternities established even in villages and hamlets to honor Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception, in prayer books and in the dedication of Churches and places of worship to Mary Immaculate. Everywhere the faithful manifested a tender piety toward Our Blessed Mother’s unsullied purity. To a great extent this piety was aroused and nourished by the sermons of their pastors and by the official teaching of their bishops. Even a mere catalogue of such sermons would lead us far beyond the scope of this paper. However, a mention of at least a few important bishops is called for here.

St. Thomas of Villanova (1555), archbishop of Valencia and a member of the great Augustinian family, beautifully expressed his belief in Mary’s preservation:

It was becoming that the Mother of God be wholly pure, stainless, and sinless, and that consequently she be holy not only in the womb of her mother, but also most holy in her conception (et in conceptione sanctissima). For it was not fitting that there be the least stain in her who was the sanctuary of God, the dwelling place of the divine Wisdom, the reliquary of the Holy Spirit, the urn of the celestial manna.

In Italy, St. Charles Borromeo (1584), preaching in his metropolitan church on the nativity of Our Lady, shows that Mary’s first sanctification was superior to that of St. John the Baptist, since she was endowed with the plenitude of grace from the very beginning of her existence. The sublimity of that plenitude is known to Him alone who wished to make of His Mother a dwelling place worthy of Himself.

In France, a Doctor of the Church, St. Francis of Sales, extols Mary’s Immaculate Conception. In a sermon on the Presentation, he writes:

Since this glorious Virgin was born of a father and a mother like other children, it would seem that like them she, too, would be stained with original sin; but divine Providence ordained otherwise, reaching out His hand to hold her back, so that she might not fall into this miserable precipice of sin. Some theologians say that while St. John the Baptist was still in his mother’s womb, Our Lord sanctified him and granted him the use of reason.

Now if Our Lord granted such a grace to him who was to be His precursor, who can doubt that He not only granted the same grace, but that He accorded a much greater privilege to her whom He had chosen as His Mother? Not only did He sanctify her in the womb of St. Anne, as He had sanctified St. John in the womb of St. Elizabeth, but He made her all holy and pure from the very instant of her conception.

Another sacred orator and bishop who marvelously expounded the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception to the faithful was Bossuet. Between 1652 and 1669 he preached the panegyric for the feast of the Immaculate Conception on five different occasions. The first two sermons especially contain his doctrine. He acknowledges the difficulty of preaching on this subject, for if he says too little the piety of his audience will remain unsatisfied, and if he resorts to an undue elaboration he risks going beyond the limits dictated by the canons of the Church which demand circumspection and restraint. However, he feels encouraged at the thought that the University of Paris, his alma mater, obliges its members to defend this doctrine. Moreover, though the Church does not compel the faithful to believe in the Immaculate Conception, she at least insinuates that such a belief is very agreeable to her. By obeying the commandments of the Church, we give proof of our obedience; by doing what she insinuates we manifest our affection.

Bossuet’s method of exposition consists primarily in refuting the objections that are ordinarily raised against the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. He believes that Mary’s preservation is one of those truths which naturally appeal to the mind once the difficulties to its acceptance are removed. Profound reasoning and tricks of rhetoric are not required to convince the faithful of the soundness of this teaching. To the objection that Mary was born by seminal generation and was therefore subject to the universal law of sin, Bossuet answers that indeed Mary would have contracted original sin, had not God’s Omnipotence preserved her with prevenient grace. If God made an exception to the laws of the universe in the miracle of Josue and in delivering the three young men in the fiery furnace, He can dispense Mary from the universal law of sin. If he could dispense Mary from the pains of childbirth, the fires of concupiscence, the necessity of actual sin, and the corruption of the tomb, why could He not dispense her in this case? That Mary’s preservation would derogate honor from Christ is not a valid objection either. Christ is innocent by nature, Mary by grace; Christ is innocence par excellence, Mary by a special privilege; Christ is pure because He is the Redeemer; Mary owes her innocence to the redeeming power of His precious Blood.

Neither can the fact of Mary’s redemption be invoked as an argument that she contracted original sin. Bossuet’s answer reminds one of Scotus. Our Lord’s victory over Satan would not be complete had He not exercised His power in preserving from original sin. If Satan reigns in the souls of the new-born infant, Christ triumphs over him through baptism. But that is not all. The devil through original sin penetrates into the very maternal womb; yet even there Christ triumphed over him by sanctifying St. John before his birth. And still there is one more instance where the devil seems invincible: the moment of conception. Bossuet at this point addresses the Savior in these words:

"Arise, Lord, and let Thine enemies be scattered: and let them that hate Thee flee before Thy face." (Ps. 67:1) . . . Choose at least one creature whom Thou wilt sanctify from her very beginning, from the first instant of her animation. Show the great envious one that Thou canst preclude his venom by the power of Thy grace; that there is no place which his infernal darkness has penetrated, from which Thou canst not dislodge him by the all-powerful splendor of Thy light. The Blessed Mary offers Thee the occasion. It is worthy of Thy bounty and of the grandeur of so excellent a Mother that Thou make her experience the effects of Thy special protection.

A mention must be made here of two Jesuit saints who also taught and led the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception: St. Peter Canisius and St. Robert Bellarmine. The former devotes chapters 5 to 8 of his De Maria Virgine incomparabili to the pious teaching. In his Summa doctrinae christianae, while commenting on the "Hail Mary," he declares Our Lady was not only a Virgin before, during and after the birth of our Lord, but she was also free of all stain of sin, ab omni peccati labe . . . quae sicut lilium est inter spinas. St. Robert Bellarmine in his catechism, explaining the words gratia plena, writes:

Our Lady was full of grace. For... she was not infected by the in of any sin, whether original or actual, mortal or venial.

The first edition of Bellarmine’s catechism, published in Italian in 1598, was that very year approved by Clement VIII and recommended to all Bishops.

From the facts we have briefly outlined or alluded to in this section we have least an idea of the almost universal acceptance of the doctrine of Immaculate Conception by the middle of the seventeenth century. Universities, religious orders, the faithful and shepherds of souls eagerly proclaimed that Mary was preserved from original sin. The Jesuit Vasquez writes:

Since the time of Scotus, this opinion has been so widely spread not only among scholastic theologians but also among Christians at large, and has gradually become so deeply rooted in their minds, that one can longer make anyone abandon or turn away from it.

 

Cajetan acknowledged that:

This opinion has now become so common, that almost all the Catholics the Latin Church believe they are rendering homage to God by following it.

This common consensus of the Church could not fail to impress theologians who grappled with difficult scriptural and patristic texts in their efforts to demonstrate the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. The learned Petau wrote:

What impresses me most and inclines me most strongly in that direction is the common opinion of all the faithful, who bear engraved on their minds, and attest by all sorts of manifestations and acts of homage their conviction that among the works of God nothing is more chaste, more pure, more innocent, more free from all stain and blemish than the Virgin Mary; that there is nothing in common between her and the devil or his agents, and that consequently she has been exempt from every offense of God and from every cause of condemnation.

 

III

THEOLOGICAL CLARIFICATION DURING THE SIXTEENTH AND SEVENTEENTH CENTURIES

The growing consensus in favor of the Immaculate Conception and the petitions made to Rome to have the doctrine defined induced theologians to seek greater precision on certain aspects of the question of Mary’s preservation. First of all, what degree of certitude could be ascribed to what had now become the opinio communion? Was it a truth of divine faith, or of divine Catholic faith? Or was it at least definable? If the answer was yes, then it would be necessary to show how Mary could be Immaculate and yet redeemed by Christ; in other words, it became imperative to clear up the question of the debt of sin in the Blessed Virgin. Then, too, there was the problem which arose from Mary’s being born by seminal propagation. Did she, because of her manner of birth, contract the "fomes peccati"? In this section wee shall therefore see how the theologians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries resolved the three problems of: 1) the definability of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception; 2) the debt of sin in Mary; 3) the precise object of Our Lady’s privilege.

THE DEFINABILITY OF THE DOCTRINE

Even after Sixtus IV’s Grave Nimis the University of Paris continued to hold that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was of defined faith ever since the Council of Basel. In 1496, the Dominican John Veri, a doctor of the Sorbonne, declared in a public sermon on the feast of the Immaculate Conception that those who asserted that the Virgin Mary was conceived in original sin did not sin mortally nor were heretics; indeed all who accused them of sin, or heresy were excommunicated by a certain Bull of Sixtus IV. The Sacred Faculty replied that the first part of Veri’s statement was false, impious, and offensive to pious ears; it detracted from the devotion of the faithful to the Immaculate Conception of the glorious Virgin Mary, Mother of Our Lord Jesus Christ; it was contrary to ecclesiastical worship, right reason, Scripture and the faith, and should consequently be revoked and repaired publicly. The second part of the statement was qualified as temerarious and scandalous. As for the third part, the University replied that it was not likely Sixtus had intended to excommunicate those who called the advocates of the maculists theory heretics. Again in 1521 when Luther asserted that to deny Mary’s preservation from original sin was not condemned, the Sorbonne declared that he had ignorantly and impiously proffered a false statement against the honor of the Immaculate Virgin. Even as late as 1543 the University qualified as heretical and injurious to the Virgin the thesis of a Dominican who declared that Mary needed a liberative redemption.

It seems strange that the Sorbonne took this stand after Sixtus IV had so clearly declared that all who accused advocates of the opposite opinion of heresy or sin were excommunicated. The reason probably is that the University was either completely unaware of the second Grave Nimis, or it was not convinced of its authenticity. The attitude of Paris finally came to a showdown in 1574, when John Maldonatus, S.J., in a lecture on the Incarnation held at the Jesuit College of Clermont severely rebuked the Faculty of the Sorbonne for compelling its members, even after Grave Nimis, to hold de fide that the Blessed Virgin was preserved from original sin. The University referred the matter to Peter of Gondy, the Bishop of Paris, who declared that nothing in Maldonatus’ teaching was heretical or contrary to the Catholic Faith. No condemnation was obtained either when the case was taken to Gregory XIII in Rome. Nevertheless the University of Paris did not completely change its attitude. In a treatise published around 1705, it admits the Roman See has not yet decided that the Immaculate Conception is de fide; nevertheless the same Holy See has not forbidden particular groups to hold the doctrine as de fide. Even though the doctrine is not de fide catholica, some say it is de fide gallicana, binding all those who belong to France, because of a particular revelation made to the Church of France, and not yet made to other churches. According to Villaret the University of Paris was severely condemned by Rome on its particularistic stand, and would even have incurred excommunication had Maldonatus not intervened.

The upshot of the controversy was that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception could not yet be considered de fide catholica. The next move was to determine whether it could ever be defined. A group of Dominicans flatly denied the definability because according to them the doctrine of Mary’s preservation was contrary to Revelation, and therefore heretical. Spina was the principal propounder of this opinion. Following in the footsteps of Frickenhausen, he declared that by imposing a censure on those who taxed advocates of the Immaculate Conception as heretical Sixtus IV in no way insinuated that the immaculist opinion was immune from heresy, but he wished the good faith of the individual immaculist to be respected. For the Pontiffs could not declare non-heretical what in reality was heretical. Indeed to say that Mary was preserved from original sin is contrary to Sacred Scripture and the Councils. Grysaldus, and Montagnolius used the same arguments as Spina Melchior Cano is a typical example of those who denied the definability of the Immaculate Conception:

The Sacred Books, taken literally and in their true sense, nowhere affirm that the Blessed Virgin was totally exempt from original sin. On the contrary they enunciate the law of sin in general terms, without any exception, for all those who descend from Adam through carnal propagation. Nor can one affirm that the belief came to us by tradition from the Apostles. Indeed, the traditional beliefs could have come to us only through the medium of the Bishops, successors of the Apostles. Now it is manifest that the early Fathers did not receive from the Apostles the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception; for if they had received it, they would have transmitted it to their successors.

Among those who did not absolutely deny the definability of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, but rather admitted it in a restricted sense was St. Robert Bellarmine. He asserted that Our Lady’s privilege could be the object of a definition, but only as a pious belief or as a theological conclusion, not as a truth of faith. In his Votum pro Immaculata B. Virginis Conceptione of August 31, 1617, he writes:

One could define that all the faithful should hold as pious and sacred the belief in the conception without stain of the Virgin, so that henceforth no one may be permitted to say the contrary without temerity, scandal or suspicion of heresy.

And before that, in his second conclusion, he remarks: "It cannot be defined that the opposite opinion is heretical." Why this restriction? Evidently because the saintly Cardinal did not believe that there was enough evidence in Scripture and Tradition to prove that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was divinely revealed. This seems also to have been the opinion of Maldonatus, for he objects:

What is of faith must have been revealed by God immediately or mediately, explicitly, that is in plain words (in propria forma verborum), or implicitly; namely, in the language of theologians, in virtue of a logical or necessary consequence (in necessaria et bona consequentia). But that the Blessed Virgin was conceived without sin is an assertion which in no one of these four ways appears as revealed by God.

Among those who contended that Mary’s preservation could be defined, there was a group who based themselves on the axiom, Lex orandi, lex credendi. They argued that when the Church institutes a feast in honor of a saint or a mystery and invites the faithful to celebrate the feast, she canonizes the sanctity of that saint or mystery. It would be very temerarious to suspect the Church of error in such a canonization, or even to think that she did not act on the basis of perfect certitude. Therefore the approbation accorded by Sixtus IV to the feast of the Immaculate Conception proves that the doctrine of Mary’s preservation has a supreme degree of certitude just short of de fide divino-catholica. Such were the arguments of Giles of the Presentation, Cathannus, Albertinus, Wadding, Nieremberg, and others.

The weakness of their argument was pointed out by Salazar and Miranda. To determine the degree of certitude of a mystery of which the Church approves the feast, they remark, two things must be adverted to: first, the manner in which the Church sanctions the feast, and secondly, the degree of certitude the Church herself attributes to the mystery celebrated. If the Church solemnly commands the feast to be celebrated in the whole world, the degree of certitude will undoubtedly be very great; if however she merely approves, confirms and commends the feast without any precept that it be observed, the certitude will be far less. Moreover, since public worship is always a practical expression of the doctrine of the Church, one must advert to the degree of certitude she ascribes to the truth in question; namely, either a certitude of divine Catholic faith, or a certitude just short of Catholic faith, or a certitude of mere probability. Attention must also be paid to the manner in which she condemns the opposite opinion; whether, for instance, she condemns it as heretical, or temerarious, or absolutely improbable, or merely less probable. That is why, according to Suarez, the only conclusion to be drawn from Sixtus IV’s approbation of the feast, is that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is more probable than that of the opposite opinion.

The true basis for a de fide definition of a doctrine is clearly indicated by the Oratorian Louis Crespi de Borgia. He makes a distinction between extrinsic arguments (externa adiumenta), which can motivate the magisterium of the Church to proceed to a definition, but are in themselves insufficient to warrant an ex cathedra pronouncement; and intrinsic arguments which provide a sufficient basis for a dogma. The extrinsic arguments are such things as miracles, papal approval of religious orders, silence imposed on advocates of the opposite opinions, the wish of religious communities, the suffrages of renowned academic circles, the greater probability of a doctrine, the piety of princes, the insistence and wishes of the people. These can serve to confirm the certitude of a doctrine. Yet the real arguments are intrinsic; namely, the testimony of Sacred Scripture, ecclesiastical tradition, and the authority of the Fathers.

Those who advocated the definability of the Immaculate Conception generally acknowledged that the doctrine could not be defined unless it were contained in Sacred Scripture or Tradition. However it is sufficient, they remark, that it be contained implicitly. We believe truths of faith today, writes Suarez, which the Church formerly did not believe with an explicit faith, although they were implicitly contained in the primitive teaching of the magisterium. And often, in virtue of her authority, and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Church has resolved controversies similar to that of the Immaculate Conception. An anonymous author of the time warns theologians not to insist too much on the literal presence of a doctrine in Scripture and Tradition, lest they fall into the error of the Reformers. In the case of the Immaculate Conception, since the vast majority are in favor of its definition, the Church could manifestly use her authority to determine the true meaning of Holy Scripture, declarendo utra pars congruat menti Spiritus Sancti.

In regard to the argument from Tradition some authors, especially in Spain, tried to prove that a formal belief in the Immaculate Conception existed from the time of the Apostles; but their opinion was based on legends and apocryphal literature. Others, like the Franciscan Christopher Davenport (Franciscus a S. Clara), acknowledge that the existence of a primitive oral tradition cannot be established by positive proof; but they are of the opinion that it can be deduced from the constant belief of the Church. The weakness of their reasoning lies in the difficulty of establishing the constant belief of the Church. Others, finally, make a distinction between an apostolic and an ecclesiastical tradition, both of which are valid bases for a dogmatic decision. Thus Crespi de Borgia. The strength of their argumentation began to be realized when such authors as Alva y Astorga and Wangnereck published the testimonies of the post-Ephesian Greek writers in favor of the Immaculate Conception. Two centuries later the Bull Ineffabilis brought to light the full value of their reasoning.

THE DEBT OF ORIGINAL SIN IN MARY

We have already seen some of the attempts of fourteenth century theologians to reconcile Mary’s preservation with her redemption by Christ. In answer to the question how Mary was preserved they resorted to various distinctions of doubtful precision. Thus Francis Mayron asserted that she contracted sin "aliquo mode"; Andreas stated that she incurred it "in quantum ex se est"; whereas Aureoli affirmed that she sinned "de iure," but not "de facto." From the context of their writings it is evident that these authors did not place any real sin in Mary, but rather a liability to sin, from which she was preserved. Their terminology was considered insufficient by theologians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

A new development was initiated when Cajetan made a distinction between the act and the debt of original sin. His problem was to conciliate our Lady’s Immaculate Conception with her redemption by Christ. To those theologians who taught that the Mother of God was totally exempt from original sin, he replied that their opinion would not only free her from all debt of sin, but also make her incapable of any redemption. Hence, to say that Mary was preserved from all debt of original sin, in propria persona, would be contrary to the Faith. Del Prado remarks that Cajetan exacted a debt in propria persona, and not merely a debt common to the human race, in order to make it possible for her to be reconciled and redeemed.

Cajetan’s position was attacked by his own confrere, Catharinus. Although the latter does not always express himself very clearly, he would seem to belong to those who either deny all debt of original sin in Mary or at least completely minimize it. Catharinus admits that according to the condition of her nature the Blessed Virgin should have contracted sin ("habere debuerit"); but, on the other hand, he asserts that she was excepted from the pact whereby the cause of Adam’s descendants was joined with that of their first parent, because she had been chosen as the firstborn daughter, the most loving spouse and a mother worthy of all honor. Indeed, Catharinus does not hesitate to affirm that, absolutely speaking, Mary did not have any debt of contracting original sin: "Quondam vero gratia in Virgine, Dei future Matre, superavit naturam, ideo non dicitur absolute contraxisse peccatum neque debitum contrahendi."

Cajetan and Catharinus set the stage for a new controversy on the Immaculate Conception. There is no longer a question of denying that Mary was preserved from original sin, but rather of determining how she was preserved. Two opposite tendencies, stemming from the two Dominicans just mentioned, run through the whole literature of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries on the debt of sin in Mary. On the one hand theologians teach that Our Lady contracted a real, personal and proximate debt of sin; on the other hand their opponents either deny any debt soever, or at most admit a remote debt of sin.

What complicates the controversy is a glaring lack of uniformity in the terminology and interpretation of the different writers. They generally agree that the debt of original sin consists in some sort of moral obligation or necessity of contracting sin and the privation of grace; but since this debt of sin is related to the sin of Adam, it could be conceived as more or less proximate or remote, thus necessitating a subdivision of the concept of debt. It is here that authors go into a maze of distinctions and a complexity of subdivisions that becomes bewildering. They speak of an absolute and a conditional debt; a debt simpliciter and secundum quid, a physical and a moral debt; a debt in actu and in potentia, etc. However most commonly they distinguish between a proximate and a remote debt of sin.

Yet even here, as Salazar remarks, uniformity is lacking in the interpretation given the two words proximate and remote. According to some theologians, the remote debt of sin consists in this that we, being solidary with Adam, could by a divine decree be made responsible with him for the sin he committed. Authors of this definition consider humanity before God decrees to include us with Adam in sin. The proximate debt of sin is a necessity of contracting the sin at conception, because of the pact God made with Adam rendering him responsible for the whole human race. The remote debt, consequently, precedes the divine pact; the proximate debt follows it. Others consider man’s debt of original sin in reference to the actual stain to be incurred in his own person, rather than in reference to the actual sin of Adam. The proximate debt is said to exist in the person when it is generated; the remote debt exists not in the person itself, but in its ancestors traced back to Adam. For a third group the remote debt of sin is a passive obligation to contract the sin with Adam and in Adam if and when he sins; the proximate debt is an active necessity in Adam’s descendants of contracting the stain of sin as their own as soon as they exist. Finally, a fourth group calls the proximate debt a debitum exercitum which supposes the person as actually existing, and incurring the debt of sin because of its seminal dependence on Adam. The remote debt, called debitum signatum, takes place before the actual sin of Adam and the divine pact with Adam, at the moment when God decrees that mankind will descend from Adam by seminal propagation. By the very fact of their solidarity with Adam, all men incur the possibility of becoming solidary with him in sin.

Differences of opinion regarding the debt of sin stemmed from the purpose authors had in mind. The majority, intent on exempting Mary from any share in the sin of our first parents, conceived the remote debt of sin as prior to the actual sin of Adam. On the other hand, a smaller group, who were not too concerned about Our Lady’s preservation, placed both the remote and proximate debt of sin after Adam’s transgression. Further differences arose when theologians brought in the question of Mary’s predestination with Christ. According as they believed in the absolute predestination of Christ and His Mother or not, authors determined the moment of her preservation and of the various debts of sin.

The question of the debt of original sin led to an unpleasant incident. In 1615 a group of Franciscans in a disputation with Dominicans in Toledo, declared that they wished to have no part in any statement which attributed a debt of original sin to Our Lady. Their opinion was referred to the tribunal of the Sacred Inquisition and condemned; and the Friars Minor were forbidden in future to defend it. However, when an inquiry was made among theologians at Burgos, Seville, Cordova, Granada and Salamanca, a large number of them declared that they were in favor of the Franciscan opinion which they considered entirely irreproachable. Their written testimonies were sent to the Inquisition, with the result that the Cardinal of Toledo, acting as Supreme Inquisitor, decreed that the opinion of the Friars Minor could thenceforth be freely held and defended. One of the consequences of this decision was that Suarez, who had until then taught that the denial of the debt of sin in the Blessed Virgin was deserving of censure, now admitted that the opinion could be considered as ‘probable,.

THE QUESTION OF THE FOMES PECCATI

Though authors in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries generally agreed that Mary’s Conception was immaculate and free from concupiscence ("fomes peccati"), they were not in agreement in their manner of explaining this absence of physical infection. According to Giles of the Presentation, Toletus, Suarez, and the majority of the theologians, the fomes peccati was extinguished at the moment of Our Lady’s first sanctification. Others, like Clicthovaeus and Nicole Grenier contended that there could be no question of purification, since the fomes peccati either never existed in Mary or was destroyed before the infusion of her soul. In the mind of these theologians concupiscence was some sort of "morbid quality" inherent in the flesh. According to Clicthovaeus a grace of preservation at the occasion of seminal conception made the Blessed Virgin immune to all concupiscence. Others admitted a sanctification or purification of the flesh prior to its animation by the soul. Still others denied the validity of the very theory which identified original sin with a "morbid impression" or an infectious virus of the flesh. The controversy, however, had little consequence, since even the dogmatic definition of the Immaculate Conception by-passed the issues of the fomes peccati.

IV

FURTHER CONTROVERSIES, AFTER SIXTUS IV TO THE END OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

LEO X’s Project OF DEFINITION

The discussions which took place after the death of Sixtus IV determined Alexander VI to confirm the sanctions of Grave nimis by means of the Bull Illius qui of February 22, 1502. Ten years later, at the occasion of the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517), Pope Leo X, wondering whether he should not place the question of the Immaculate Conception on the agenda of the Council, consulted Cardinal Cajetan on the advisability of the project. Cajetan’s answer came in the form of a treatise, his Tractatus primus de Conceptione B.M. Virginis ad Leonem X, Pont. Max. In this dissertation the learned cardinal gave evidence of extreme prudence and moderation. Neither of the two opinions, he remarked, is of faith, since neither the Scriptures, nor the patristic tradition, nor the definitions of Popes and Councils contain an explicit statement that Mary was or was not conceived without sin. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception can be held without danger of heresy as long as it bears on Mary’s preservation from sin alone, and does not assert that she was free from all debt of sin. However, if the immaculist opinion is tolerable, the opposite opinion seems more probable because of the large number of important doctors and saints who held it in the past. On the contrary, the arguments in favor of the Immaculate Conception do not seem convincing. Cajetan quotes only fifteen saints, from St. Ambrose to St. Vincent Ferrer, in support of the Dominican opinion, but he refers to the writings of Torquemada and Bandelli for further testimonies. He admits that the number of authorities in favor of Our Lady’s privilege is almost infinite (sunt numero inlimiti), but these testimonies are all recent, and compared to the ancient authorities which deny the Immaculate Conception, their probability is very weak (valde exigua est). Let the Pope decide with his infallible authority. Let him choose between fifteen saints and a countless number of ancient doctors, on the one hand, and the moderns as well as the mass of people who support them with their clamors on the other. In any case, the writings of theologians and the sermons of sacred orators should be kept in check on the question of Our Lady’s Conception, according to the precept of Sixtus IV.

Despite Cajetan’s moderation, his treatise induced Leo X to abandon the plan of having the question of the Immaculate Conception discussed at the Fifth Lateran Council. However the cardinal’s conciliatory stand on the probability of the two opinions caused a reaction in his own order. Bartholomew Spina, who later became the Master of the Sacred Palace (1542-1546), in a treatise inspired both by the doctrine and the vehemence of Vincent Bandelli, attempted to demonstrate that Cajetan’s middle way was illogical, dangerous, insufficient, contrary to Sacred Scripture and the spirit of the Church as well as to the Dominican Order and its most outstanding doctors. This was not the first time Spina had attacked Cajetan. As early as 1526 he had taken exception to the latter’s commentary on I-II, q.81, art.1 of the Summa, in which Cajetan had asserted that one could in good faith admit that not all descendants of Adam by way of seminal propagation contracted original sin de facto, but they were subject to it only de iure, having a debt or an obligation to contract it because of the manner of their origin. After drawing arguments and testimonies from Bandelli’s writings, Spina concluded that the evidence he had adduced from the Sacred Scriptures and the holy doctors was such that it could not be denied "absque praejudicio veritatis Catholicae Fidei."

If Spina reproached Cajetan for his excessive concession to the Immaculist opinion, another of his confreres, Catharinus, took him to task for not completely subscribing to the doctrine of Mary’s preservation. Ambrose Catharinus Politi, O.P., had long since become notorious among his Dominican confreres for his uncompromising support of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. In 1526, when attacked by Florentine troops, the Sienese authorities had, on the advice of Margaret Bichi, a saintly Franciscan tertiary, taken the vow of solemnly celebrating the feast and octave of the Immaculate Conception each year if victory were accorded them. Their prayers were crowned with success, and they forthwith decreed that the whole city should take part in a procession and solemn mass in honor of Mary Immaculate. Everyone obeyed the decree except the two Dominican monasteries, whose superiors gave as an excuse certain censures imposed by the two major authorities of the Order on all those who adhered to the doctrine of Our Lady’s preservation. The same refusal was repeated each year at the anniversary of the victory and on the 8th of December. Catharinus, appointed superior of S. Spirito in 1528, strenuously endeavored to persuade Michelozzi, the superior of the other monastery in Siena, and Zenobius Pieri, the vicar general in Florence, to yield to the Sienese authorities. His correspondence with these two Dominicans has recently been published by Father Giacinto Bosco. His efforts for a long time met with no success, despite a brief of Clement VII which confirmed the Sienese vow and declared the Dominican censures not binding for the Friars at Siena. Finally Catharinus was withdrawn from his office as superior and obtained permission to live in Rome. It was around that time that the Dominican Cardinals Cajetan and Garcia de Loaysa advised the Dominican authorities to allow the Sienese Friars to celebrate the Mass of the Immaculate Conception.

Encouraged by this concession and by the conciliatory tone of Cajetan’s treatise to Leo X Catharinus, though persecuted and held under extreme suspicion by his confreres, decided in his retirement in Rome to make ever effort to bring his Order around to the belief of the Immaculate Conception. At the General Chapter of the Dominican Order, held at the monastery of the Minerva May 19th 1532, Catharinus personally presented the first edition of his Disputatio pro veritate Immaculatae Conceptionis to the capitular Fathers. In the third book of this treatise he expounds in seven chapters the arguments of Sacred Scripture, the testimonies of doctors and universities, the popular devotion and the practice of the Church, strenuously refuting, the objections raised by Cajetan.

In 1542 Catharinus published a second edition of his Disputatio. This time his purpose was mainly to refute the De universal corruptione generis humani of Bartholomew Spina, who had declared the immaculist opinion heretical, despite the sanctions of Sixtus IV and Alexander VI. Among other things, in the second book Catharinus makes an interesting analysis of the mind of St. Thomas on the Immaculate Conception. In book three he elaborates on the arguments which substantiate Our Lady’s preservation. Perhaps the most cogent of these are the consensus of the people and the authority of the Roman Church in approving the feasts in honor of the Immaculate Virgin. The common consent of the people, which arises as it were from a spontaneous instinct, can have no other origin than the infallible motion of the Holy Spirit who is always present and operative in the Church. It is the fruit which had its germ in patristic thought and the sentiment of the early Church regarding Mary’s sanctity. Hence it has a true value of Tradition, since it is an explication and a reflected consciousness brought to maturity of the implicit faith of the primitive Church, the Fathers and the ancient writers. Of still more value to Catharinus is the authority of the Church, manifested with ever increasing clarity and emphasis, from a tacit approval to the solemn sanctioning and celebration of the feast in honor of the Immaculate Conception. He repeats this argument over and over again, and considers it as more solid even than the scriptural and patristic arguments. If it were not, one would have to doubt the very promise of inerrancy made by Christ to His Church.

Catharinus published still another edition of his Disputatio in 1551, when he was already a bishop. The occasion was the publication by Spina of Torquemada’s treatise, presented in manuscript form to the Council of Basel. Under the pretext that the manuscript had been changed by succeeding scribes, Spina rewrote it completely according to his own fancy. His contention was that the feast of the Immaculate Conception should be suppressed because its object was contrary to the letter and the spirit of Sacred Scripture and the Fathers, and a dishonor to Jesus Christ and Our Lady. Catharinus vigorously defends the feast and urges that it be celebrated by all the faithful. This was his last publication. He died in November 1553, while on his way from Conza to Rome to be created a cardinal by his former student, Julius III.

AT THE COUNCIL OF TRENT (1546)

The question of the Immaculate Conception came up more or less unexpectedly in the fifth session of the Council of Trent. The Fathers of the Council had successfully completed their work on Holy Scripture and Tradition in the fourth session, which ended April 8, 1546, and were intent on further fulfilling their objective of solving the problems that had arisen with the Protestant Reformation. It was at this time that a delegation arrived from Emperor Charles V requesting the Council to omit all dogmatic questions and to deal solely with matters of ecclesiastical reform. The emperor’s object was to avoid anything that could further stir up the animosity of the Protestants and complicate political issues. His request, however, was not granted. Pope Paul III, wholly bent on the good of the Church, gave orders that dogmatic questions resulting from the Reformation take precedence over other matters, and that the dogma on original sin be elaborated at once. Thus it was that on May 24, 1546 the article on original sin was proposed to the venerable assembly.

In the preparatory session of theologians, May 24 and 25, when the text of Rom. 5, 12 was brought up in support of the universality of original sin, John Morello remarked that not only was Christ to be declared exempt from the common law of guilt, but that the Blessed Virgin also was piously believed to have been preserved from it in virtue of a special privilege. However, his observation seems to have aroused little attention. It was not until the General Assembly convened May 28 that the question of the Immaculate Conception really came to the fore. When the Cardinal Legate asked the Fathers whether the order and method of dealing with original sin was satisfactory, Cardinal Pacheco, the head of the Spanish bishops, rose and observed that the Council must give thought to the Conception of Our Lady, a topic to be dealt with and solved now, in connection with the question of original sin. The greater part of Christendom, he added, piously believed in the Immaculate Conception, and a definition would be most pleasing to Spain and France. The Cardinal acted on the advice of his counsellor, the Franciscan theologian Andrew de la Vega.

Pacheco’s suggestion met with a volley of objections from the Dominican bishops, whose chief spokesman was Peter Bertano, the bishop of Fano. The latter, without attacking the immaculist doctrine directly, tried to smother the question from the start. His reasons, like those of Pacheco, were of a practical rather than of a speculative nature. First of all, he remarked, both opinions were pious "et a sanctissimis doctoribus hinc et inde suas parses comprobatos"; and if the Council decided in favor of one, it would necessarily condemn the other. His reasoning was rather specious, since it was a known fact that not only the greater part of Christendom, but even the vast majority of the Fathers of the Council were convinced that Mary was immaculate. Furthermore, added Bertano, the matter of Our Lady’s Conception is a difficult one, which the Church herself has been unable to unravel. If the Council decides to discuss this matter, it will take months to come to a conclusion, and this would be playing into the hands of the Protestants and would bring dishonor upon the assembly. Wherefore, suggested Bertano, the most sensible thing would be to impose perpetual silence on all who would henceforth wish to speak on this question. He was supported by the Bishop of Sanciano, who likewise advocated silence because both opinions were pious. Even the Bishop of Bitonto, the Franciscan Cornelius Musso, thought it more prudent not to discuss the matter, since the Immaculate Conception was already accepted by the consent of the whole Church.

At the General Assembly of June 8, a provisory text of the five canons on original sin was presented for discussion. It made no mention whatever of the Blessed Virgin, and Pacheco again protested. The Immaculate Conception is a truth which cannot be denied, he said, "since it is approved by the Roman Church, celebrated by the universal Church and held by all the universities." If the Synod has decided not to define the doctrine, at least let it be prudent enough not to condemn it. Pacheco’s warning caused a moment of tenseness in the assembly. Something had to be done to save Our Lady’s privilege. Several bishops insisted that the text of the cannons should make it clear that Our Lady is not included in the common law of original sin. Finally Cardinal De Monte, the president of the assembly, suggested "that in the decree the Blessed Virgin should be excepted by a few words" ( ut ire decreto aliquibus verbis excipiatur Virgo). Bertano, however, warned that were anything added to the decree, care should be taken that neither of the two sides be offended, and that the matter be maturely discussed.

The question now was to find the proper wording for the amendment. Pacheco was the first to suggest an addition, namely the clause: "nisi alicui Deus ex Privilegio aliud dederit, prout in B. Virgine." This was considered unacceptable, since it implicitly condemned the maculist opinion. The Bishop of Torres then suggested the words, "e qua lege pie creditur B. Virginem exceptam." Again the clause was rejected as implying that the opposite opinion was impious. Finally, after a great deal of bickering by the members of the Council, Cornelius Musso, the Bishop of Bitonto, struck upon a formula that suggested a new procedure. He expressed the opinion that a paragraph be added to the canons to state that the Council had no intention to pronounce itself in favor of one or the other opinion regarding Our Lady’s Conception, but rather to abide by what the Holy Roman Church and the other Churches and universities held.

In the session of theologians that followed, on June 10, the importance of making an exception for Our Lady was still more forcefully brought out by the Jesuit Lainez. He observed that the adversaries based their stand on the fact that the Fathers of the Church and several great scholastics, while commenting on the text of St. Paul concerning the universality of original fin, made no mention of Our Lady. Lainez denied that the silence of these ancient writers was an argument against the privilege of the Blessed Virgin. However, he continued, today the situation is different. In an age when the controversy over the Conception of the Virgin is at its height, it becomes urgent to define precisely what extension is to be given the words of St. Paul. If the Council wishes to maintain intact the pious belief of Mary’s preservation, it must absolutely except her from the common law of the universal propagation of original sin. Lainez was seconded by Salmeron, another renowned Jesuit, as well as by the Franciscan Jerome Lombardello and other Friars Minor.

On June 13, the task of amending the decree was given over to a special committee which finally drafted a paragraph that was in substance accepted by the Council in its general assemblies of June 14, 16 and 17, although Pacheco still protested that justice had not been done to the question of the Immaculate Conception. The Council simply declared that it did not intend to include in its decree on original sin, "the Immaculate Virgin Mary"; and it renewed the constitutions of Sixtus IV concerning this question.

THE JANSENIST OPPOSITION

Two further controversies arose, which for a time seemed again to threaten the realization of the final victory. The first of these controversies no longer stemmed from theologians and churchmen who bore allegiance to the Holy See, but rather from a group who pretended to reform the Church from within and yet adhered to heretical tenets. They were the Jansenists. Jansenius himself did not write Marian theology; but his doctrine on the transmission of original sin by means of concupiscence inherent in all natural generation logically led to the negation of the Immaculate Conception. It is not surprising, therefore, that a certain Doctor Marias, on the instigation of his friend, John Launoy, denied the privilege in a discourse at the college of Harcourt, December 8, 1672. He was compelled by the bishop to retract his statement. The following year a more subtle attack was made on the doctrine by Adam Widenfeldt, a lawyer and recent convert from Protestantism, in his Monita salutaria B. Mariae V. ad cultures sues indiscretos, which was soon translated into French by Dom Gerberon. Without directly mentioning them, the booklet slyly attacked the doctrines of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception in the following brief passage:

Love that is contentious is not beautiful. Stop devouring one another in your wrangling over my privileges; it serves no purpose except to upset the listeners. And why do you presume to decide what has been neither revealed by God nor defined by the Church? Deal with the word of truth, and avoid profane and empty talk.

The author’s intention of attacking the Immaculate Conception did not escape the notice of orthodox writers and orators. Bourdaloue, for example, denounces the attitude of minimizers in his second sermon on the Assumption. After the definition of the Divine Maternity, he argues, there is no privilege we should dare deny Our Lady. And even if these privileges have not yet become the object of a dogmatic definition, is it not enough that they have been acknowledged by the most learned men of the Church, authorized by the common belief of the faithful and substantiated by the most solid arguments and testimonies? The censors of a so-called indiscreet devotion would, by a pretense of reform, destroy all the feasts in Mary’s honor and reduce religion to a dry and cold speculation.

Two ardent partisans of the Jansenist doctrine were Launoy and Baillet. The former, in 1676, published a book entitled Prescriptiones de Conceptu B. Mariae V. He develops the argument of prescription used by Tertullian in defense of Christianity. If the Church for thirteen centuries has taught that Mary was conceived in original sin, that doctrine remains definitely acquired by prescription and can no longer be changed. The texts Launoy used to establish the continuity of the maculist tradition were either unauthentic or not pertinent to the question. Baillet, in La devotion a la Vierge et le culte qui lui est du..., eagerly defends Widenfeldt, and categorically denies the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. He was refuted by the venerable Archdeacon Boudon, who wrote Avis catholiques touchant la veritable devotion de la bienheureuse Vierge. Baillet’s Marian doctrine was furthermore condemned by two decrees of the Holy Office, August 4, 1694 and July 6, 1701.

MURATORI’S OBJECTIONS

Another threat to the definition of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was contained in the writings of Louis Anthony Muratori. In 1714 he edited a manual to help critics discern the truth in religious controversies. It was published under the pseudonym Lamindus Pritanius, and was entitled, De ingeniorum moderatione in religionis negotio. This was followed by three other books: De superstitione vitanda, in 1740; Fernandi Valdesii Epistolae, in 1743; and Della regolata divozione de’ cristiani in 1747. His chief complaint seems to be the practice, rather common in his day, of taking a vow to defend the Immaculate Conception even at the cost of one’s life. Muratori calls the pious practice the "votum sanguinarium." One does not shed his blood for a simple opinion, he affirms. Even though it is true that the Church has a right to define the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, she would not do so until the doctrine was proven to be well founded on Sacred Scripture and Tradition. Such proofs do not seem available. Indeed, despite insistent demands of devotees, the Church has not proceeded to a definition, and her silence shows that the doctrine is not definable.

Muratori’s writings gave rise to a number of apologetic treatises in favor of the Immaculate Conception. Authors like Bernard Moraes in Portugal, Stephen Vargyas and Joseph Petzler in Austria, George Lienhart in Germany, Francis Burgio, Francis Anthony Zaccaria and Joseph Anthony Milanese in Italy took up the defense of Our Lady’s glorious privilege. At Palermo, Benedict Plazza published a remarkable reply to Muratori in his Causa Immaculatae Conceptionis, in which he established the theological certitude of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, to conclude that the Church could define it as a dogma of faith.

Perhaps the most outstanding apologist of Our Lady’s preservation in the Muratori controversy was St. Alphonsus of Liguori. As early as 1748, two years before the publication of his Gloriae, St. Alphonsus inserted into the first edition of his Moral Theology a dissertation on the Immaculate Conception. Later on he revised this treatise for his second edition of the Theologia Moralis. In 1750 he incorporated it in his dogmatic sermon on the Immaculate Conception in his Gloriae di Maria.

St. Alphonsus knew that the weakness of Muratori’s theories lay in his failing to understand the living Tradition of the Church; hence he stressed that point in his arguments rather than the evidence of Holy Scripture and the Tradition of the Fathers. The two reasons which should convince us of the truth of the pious doctrine, he writes, are the universal consent of the faithful, and the feast of the Immaculate Conception celebrated in the whole Church. In support of the first reason St. Alphonsus refers to testimonies of Giles of the Presentation, of the Bull Sollicitudo of Alexander VII, and of the learned Petau. The second reason, in the mind of the holy Doctor, is even more cogent than the first. Pope Alexander declares that in celebrating the feast of the Conception the Church renders homage to Our Lady’s exemption from original sin. Now the Church cannot give the honors of religious worship to anything that is not holy or that is erroneous. Therefore the feast of the Immaculate Conception is one of the strongest proofs of the certitude of the pious belief.

CONCLUSION