polluitur et fit rea, id est vitium concupiscentiæ, quod est originale peccatum. Pet. Lomb. Sent. lib. ii. Dist. 31, Litt. C.]-Some of the later theologians, adhering to Augustine and Anselm, taught similar views, e. g., Savonarola; Quid autem est peccatum originale, nisi privatio justitiæ originalis? Ideo homo, conceptus et natus in hujusmodi peccato, totus obliquus est, totus curvus.... Peccatum itaque originale radix est omnium peccatorum, fomes cnim omnium iniquitatum : Medit. in Psalm. p. 17, quoted by Meier, Savonarola, p. 260. [Anselm wrote a treatise De libero Arbitrio, taking the ground that liberty does not consist in freedom of choice-as this will not apply to God and the blessed spirits: as we advance in virtue the possibility of sinning diminishes. His definition is: Arbitrium potens servare rectitudinem voluntatis propter ipsam rectitudinem. Yet Anselm does not assert the total loss of freedom by the fall: De lib. Arb. cap. 3: Licet peccato se subdidissent, libertatem tamen arbitrii naturalem in se interimere nequiverunt. So too Bernard, Gratia et lib. Arbitrium, c. 8: Manet post peccatum liberum arbitrium; etsi miserum, tamen integrum. Et quod se per se homo non sufficit excutere a peccato sive miseria, non liberi arbitrii signat destructionem sed duarum reliquarum privationem. So the Lombard, II. Dist. 25: Corrupta est ergo libertas arbitrii per peccatum et ex parte perdita.... Ecce liberum arbitrium dicit [scil. Augustinus] hominem amisisse: non quia post peccatum non habuerit liberum arbitrium sed quia libertatem arbitrii perdidit: non quidem omnem sed libertatem a miseria et a peccato.-Abelard says that freedom is the power of doing what we decide to be according to reason. Comp. Neander, Hist. Dogm. 525, on the Relation of Grace and Freedom.]

3 Since Abelard maintained that the free consent of man was necessary to constitute sin (§ 176, note 4), he could not speak of sin, in the proper sense of the word, in the case of new-born infants; yet he did not feel disposed to deny original sin altogether. He therefore took the word "sin" in a twofold sense, applying it to the punishment, as well as to sin itself. Infants have a part only in the former, but not in the latter. Nor did Abelard see how unbelief in Christ could be imputed to infants, or to those to whom the gospel is not announced: Scito te ipsum, c. 14 (quoted by de Wette, Sittenlehre, iii. p. 131). He also praised the virtues of the better part of the Greeks, especially of the philosophers, in particular of the Platonists; Theol. Christ. ii. p. 1211; compare above § 158, note 2. Neander, der heilige Bernhard, p. 125.

4 This difference is connected with the one above alluded to concerning the original state of man (§ 175). As the justitia originalis, according to Duns Scotus, was not so intimately united with the nature of man, as Thomas Aquinas supposed, the loss of the supernatural gifts was less great, and might take place without such painful rupture as human nature must undergo, in the strict Augustinian view: see Sent. Lib. ii. Dist. 29. On the other hand, Thomas Aquinas expressed himself as follows: Summ. P. ii. 1, Qu. 85, Art. 3 (quoted by Münscher, ed. by von Cölln, p. 134); Per justitiam originalem perfecte ratio continebat inferiores animæ vires, et ipsa ratio perficiebatur a Deo et subjecta. Hæc autem originalis justitia subtracta est per peccatum primi parentis. . . . . . . . et ideo omnes vires animæ remanent quodammodo destitutae proprio ordine, quo naturaliter ordinantur ad virtutem,

et ipsa destitutio vulneratio naturæ dicitur. Comp. Bonaventura Brevil. iii. 6, ss.

Deutsche Theologie, c. 14: "He who lives a selfish life, and according to the old man, is, and may justly be called, the child of Adam; even if he have sunk so deep, as to be the child and brother of the devil. . . . . . All who follow Adam in his disobedience are dead, and can be made alive only in Christ, i. e., by obedience. As long as a man is Adam, and Adam's child, he is his ownself, and lives without God...... Hence it follows, that all the children of Adam are dead in respect to God...... We shall never repent of sin, nor commence a better life, until we return to obedience......Disobedience is sin itself," etc.

6

• Wessel, De Magnit. Pass. c. 59, and other passages quoted by Ullmann, p. 244.-Savonarola taught in a similar manner concerning the posterity of Adam: rationem culpæ non habent, reatu non carent. (Triumph. Cruc. Lib. iii. c. 9. p. 280, ss. quoted by Meier, p. 261.)

Besides original sin, there were yet other effects of the fall (such as death and other evils), which had before this been made prominent by the early church, and to which even a greater importance was attached, on account of their connection with the imputation of sin. Death itself did not actually enter into the world till later, but mortality came at the same time with sin. On the question, in how far God may be said to have been the author of death? etc., see Cramer, vii. p. 528. According to Scotus Erigena, the distinction of the sexes is the effect of sin; De Div. Nat. ii. 5, p. 49: Reatu suæ prævaricationis obrutus, naturæ suæ divisionem in masculum et fœminam est passus et.... . . . . in pecorinam corruptibilemque ex masculo et fœmina numerositatem justo judicio redactus est.

§ 178.

EXCEPTION TO THE UNIVERSAL CORRUPTION OF MANKIND. THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION OF THE VIRGIN.

Labonlaye, die Frage der unbefleckten Empfängniss, Berl., 1854. Jul. Müller, in the Deutsche Zeitschrift f. christl. Wissenschaft, vi. 1. *Passaglia, De Immaculato Deiparæ semper Virginis Conceptu. 3 Tom. Rom., 1854-5. [J. Perrone, De Immacul. B. V. Mariæ Conceptu, Rom., 1848. Jo. Lannoii, Opera Omnia Præscriptiones de Concept. B. Mar. Virginis, 1676, in Opera i. 1. Lambruschini, on Imm. Conc. transl. New York, 1855. Abbé Laborde, Impossibility of Imm. Conc. transl. Phil., 1855. Passaglia, (as above) in French version, 4 Tom., 1855. H. Denzinger, Die Lehre d. unbefleckt. Emp., 2d ed., 1855. Sylloge Monument. ad Mysterium Conc. Immac. Virg., cura Ant. Ballerini, Rom., 1855. Mgr. J. B. Malon (Bruges) L'immaculée Conc. de la bienheureuse Vièrge. 2, 8vo, Bruxelles, 1857. Articles on the dogma, Christ. Remembrancer, 1852 and 1858; Methodist Quarterly (New York), 1855; Church of Eng. Quarterly, 1855; Brownson's Quarterly, 1859.]

The earlier notion, advanced not only by the heretic Pelagius, but also by the orthodox Athanasius, according to which some individuals had remained free from the general corruption, was not likely longer to receive countenance.' It was only the Virgin, who

2

having long been elevated above the lot of humanity by an excessive adoration (the Hyperdulia), was to share the privilege of her son Jesus, viz., to appear as sinless on the page of history; although theologians of repute, raised their voices against such a doctrine. In the course of the twelfth century, the dogma of the immaculate conception of the Virgin gained great authority, in the first instance in France. But when the canons of Lyons instituted (A. D. 1140) a particular festival in honor of that doctrine, by which a new Lady-day was added to those already in existence, Bernard of Clairval, clearly perceiving that thus the specific difference between our Saviour and the rest of mankind was in danger of being set aside, strongly opposed both the new doctrine and the festival.3 Albert the Great, Bonaventura, Thomas Aquinas, and with him the order of the Dominicans in general, were also zealous in opposition.* On the other hand, the Franciscan monk, Duns Scotus, endeavored to refute their objections, and to demonstrate, by subtile reasoning, that the superiority of the Redeemer, so far from being lessened, was augmented, by supposing that he himself was the cause of this righteousness in the nature of Mary; yet even Scotus only maintained, that the immaculate conception was the more probable among the different opinions. The church hesitated for a long time without coming to a decision. Pope Sextus IV. at last got out of the difficulty by confirming the festival of the immaculate conception, while he declared, that the doctrine itself should not be called heretical, and allowed those who differed to retain their own views." Of course the controversy did not come to an end, especially as the tendency of the age was rather favorable to the dogma.

1

5

6

Thus Anselm, De Pecc. Orig. drew a distinct line between the birth of John the Baptist (which was relatively miraculous, but did not, on that account, render him sinless), and the incarnation of the Redeemer (which excluded original sin). Sanctification (i. e., the being made holy) in the mother's womb, does not exclude original sin; and this is so specially noted to avoid confusion in the matter. So it could be, and was, assumed, that Mary was free from actual sin, without being delivered from original sin. See Gieseler, Dogmengesch. 558 sq. Julius Müller, loc. cit. p. 6. [Meth. Qu. Review, ubi supra.]

2 Concerning the worship of the Virgin in general, see § 188 on the worship of saints.-The controversy on the immaculate conception was preceded by that carried on between Paschasius Radbert and Ratramn, concerning the virginity of Mary. Comp. § 179, toward the end (on Christology). Radbert had already maintained that Mary was sanctificata in utero matris (in d'Achery Spic. Tom. i. p. 46); but it is difficult to define precisely what the understood by that expression (compare the following note). It was, however, not only the worship of the Virgin as such, which led to the supposition of her immaculate conception, but this seemed a necessary inference

from other doctrinal premises. Theologians as acute as the scholastics could not but be aware, that, in order to explain the miracle of Christ's sinlessness on physical grounds, it was not sufficient to assert that man had no part in his generation; for as long as his mother was supposed to be stained with original sin, it was impossible to deny that she had part therein, unless they had recourse (after the manner of the Docetæ, and the Valentinians, in particular), to a mere birth dià owλñvos (comp. vol. i. § 65.) Anselm endeavored to avoid this difficulty, by leaving the physical aspect of original sin more or less out of question (comp. the preceding §), De Pecc. Orig. c. 8 and c. 11. He also concedes unreservedly, that even a sinful mother might have conceived a Redeemer without sin. Yet still he considers it fitting (decens erat) that Mary should be purified from sin, before the Saviour of the world was conceived in her : De Concep. Virg. cap. 18, and Cur Deus Homo, ii. 16 Boso here declares decidedly against the immaculate conception; Virgo tamen ipsa, unde assumtus est, est in iniquitatibus concepta, et in peccatis concepit eam mater ejus, et cum originali peccato nata est, quoniam et ipsa in Adam peccavit, in quo omnes peccaverunt. To this Anselm replies Virgo autem illa, de quo ille homo (Christus) assumtus est, fuit de illis, qui ante nativitatem ejus per eum mundati sunt a peccatis, et in ejus ipsa munditia de illa assumta est. Comp. the conclusion of chap. 16: Quoniam matris munditia, per quam mundus est, non fuit nisi ab illo, ipse quoque per se ipsum et a se mundus fuit. And chap. 17.....per quam (scil. mortem Jesu Christi) et illa virgo, de qua natus est, et alii multi mundati sunt a peccato. Comp. Hasse, ii. 461, 556. Müller ubi supra, 12 (with reference to the interpretation of the passage by Gabriel Biel, Sent. lib. iii. Dist. 3, qu. 1).

3 Bernardi, Ep. 174, ad Canonicos Lugdunenses, quoted by Gieseler ii. 499; Münscher, edit. by Von Cölln, p. 136; Laboulaye, 1. c. p. 16. He, too, admitted that Mary was sanctified in the womb (as Paschasius taught), but he did not draw from that doctrine the inference that she was free from original sin (quatenus adversus originale peccatum hæc ipsa sanctificatio valuerit, non temere dixerim), and continues as follows: Etsi quibus vel paucis filiorum hominum datum est cum sanctitate nasci, non tamen et concipi, ut uni sane servaretur sancti prærogativa conceptus, qui omnes sanctificaret, solusque absque peccato veniens purgationem faceret peccatorum, etc. [Peter Lombard, Liber Sent. iii. Dist. 3, sq., says of the flesh of Mary, which our Lord assumed, that "it was previously obnoxious to sin, like the other flesh of the Virgin, but cleansed by the operation of the Holy Spirit." "The Holy Ghost, coming into Mary, cleansed her from sin." Alexander of Hales, Summa, Pars iii. qu. 2, membr. 2, Art. 1, 4: “It was necessary that the blessed Virgin in her generation should contract sin from her parents;" "she was sanctified in the womb." Perrone attempts to set aside these opinions, and that of Aquinas and others (below), by the position that these mediæval doctors refer to the first, or active conception (the marital act), and not to the second conception (the infusion of the soul). But Aquinas says, that the infusion of grace is "after the infusion of the soul;" and that "before the infusion of the soul the Virgin was not sanctified;" and Alexander of Hales

and Bonaventura have similar statements. On the views of Peter de la Celle, bishop of Chartres, see Neander, Hist. Dogmas, 512.]

4

Albert Mag. Sent. Lib. iii. Dist. 3. Thomas Aquinas, Summ. P. iii. Qu. 27. Art. 2, affirms a sanctification in the womb [sanctificata, and not sancta], but only after the fructifying of the embryo. But the lust of sin is not thereby wholly destroyed-secundum essentiam, which was the case only in the conception of Christ himself, yet the concupiscence is restrained -quoad exercitiam et operationem. Only later, when Christ was conceived, did the holiness of what she bore work also upon the mother, wholly annulling the bias to sin. Comp. Gieseler, Dogmengesch. 560; Jul. Müller, 1. c. -Bonaventura, too, with all his enthusiastic veneration for Mary, did not consider her free from original sin: Sent. lib. iii. Dist. 3. Art. 1, qu. 2: Teneamus secundum quod communis opinio tenet, Virginis sanctificationem fuisse post originalis peccati contractionem (Münscher, Von Cölln, ii. 136 sq.)

5 In Sent. Lib. iii. Dist. 3. Qu. 1. and Dist. 18. Qu. 1. (quoted by Gieseler) ; see Schröckh, Kirchengesch. xxxiii. p. 362, ss. Cramer, vii. p. 567, ss. Scotus takes his departure from the different possibilities: Deus potuit facere quod ipsa nunquam fuisset in peccato originali; potuit etiam fecisse, ut tantum in uno instanti esset in peccato; potuit etiam facere ut per tempus aliquod esset in peccato et in ultimo illius temporis purgaretur. And then he finds it probable to attribute to her the most excellent of these possibilities, according to the argumentum congruentiæ seu decentiæ. See Laboulaye, 1. c. 22. Scotus at any rate expressed himself with reserve, and even the Franciscans did not at first receive the doctrine unconditionally.--Alvarus Pelagius (about A. D. 1330) calls it—nova et phantastica. But soon the jealousy of the Orders mingled in the controversy, and even visions on both sides were brought to support and refute the dogma. Thus St. Bridget (about a. D. 1370) testified for the doctrine, and St. Catherine of Siena, as a member of the St. Dominic order, had visions against it.

* See Gieseler 1. c. p. 501. The festival spread, although the council of Oxford (A. D. 1222) pronounced against its necessity. In the 13th century it was widely observed, but only as the festum conceptionis in general, and not as the festum conceptionis immaculata; see the explanation of it in Durantis Rationale Div. Offic. libr. vii. c. 7, in Gieseler, Dogmengesch. 559. [Durant says, that it was not celebrated on account of the immaculate conception, for this was not the case; but because the mother of the Lord had conceived. Aquinas however vindicates the festival as including a reference to the sanctity of Mary, but on the ground, that the time of her sanctification could not be accurately assigned; and he opposes the immaculate conception itself, as derogatory to the dignity of Christ.] At the Paris council (1387) the Spanish Dominican John de Montesono maintained, that it was against the faith to assume that original sin did not embrace all men, Mary included. But the University condemned this position, as well as others of this divine. Still more definite than the Paris synod was that of Basle, in favor of the dogma, Sess. xxxvi. (A. D. 1439, Sept. 17th) in Harduini Concc. T. viii. Col. 1266: Nos...... doctrinam illam disserentem gloriosam virginem Dei genitricem Mariam, præveniente et operante divini numinis gratia