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 form