D. 3 - How the human nature was assumed
Division of the text
Having shown what the Son of God was in human nature, and in what order he assumed it, here he shows how it is that it was assumed.
And this is divided into two parts:
in the first part, he determines the truth;
in the second, he raises certain doubts about the truth determined, at but since that flesh, whose singular excellence words are not adequate to explain, before it was united to the Word, would have been in bondage to sin in Mary and in the others from whom it was derived by propagation, it may not unworthily appear that it would have been subject to sin in Abraham. (Sentences III, 3.3(9).1.)
The first part is divided into two parts.
In the first he considers the condition of the flesh assumed, which condition was in it by the working of the Holy Spirit.
In the second, he considers the condition of the mother from whom flesh was assumed, at the Holy Spirit, by descending upon her, entirely purified Mary too from sin. (Sent. III, 3.1(7).2.)
Concerning the first, he does two things:
first, he raises a question;
second, he considers it, at it can surely be said. (Sent. III, 3.1(7).1.)
The Holy Spirit, by descending upon her, entirely purified Mary too. (Sent. III, 3.1(7).2.) Here he shows the condition of the mother. Concerning this he does three things:
first, he considers her condition before the conception of the assumed flesh;
second, her condition in the conception itself, at the Spirit also prepared in the Virgin the power of begetting without the seed of a man; (Sent. III, 3.1(7).3.)
third, her condition after the conception, at and Augustine . . . clearly shows that the holy Virgin from that time was immune from all sin. (Sent. III. 3. 2(8), citing Augustine, De natura et gratia, ch. 14, para. 15 (CSEL 60:232; PL ).)
Concerning the second, he does two things:
first, he considers what was conferred on the Blessed Virgin in the conception of the Savior;
second, he draws a conclusion from what has been said, at from these words, what we said earlier is made very clear. (Sent. III, 3.1(7).4.)
Here there are three questions:
first, concerning the sanctification of the Blessed Virgin; (Q. 1.)
second, concerning the reproductive power by which she conceived the Savior; (Q. 2.)
third, concerning the Annunciation made by an angel. (Q. 1.) In the following part of this Distinction, (Beginning in question 4.) the condition of the flesh assumed will be inquired into.
Question 1
The sanctification of the Blessed Virgin
Concerning the first question, two things are to be looked into:
first, the time of her sanctification;
second, its effects.
For the question of the sanctification of others pertains to Book IV, Distinction 6.
Article 1
Whether the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before her conception was completed
Quaestiuncula 1
To the first question we proceed thus. (Parallels: Quodl. VI, q. 5, a. 1; Compend. theol., ch. 224; Super Ave Maria; In Psalmos 45; In Jeremiam, 1.) It seems that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before the conception of her flesh was completed.
Obj. 1: For this is what the Apostle says, if the root is holy, so are the branches (Rom 11:16). But parents are related to the child conceived as a root to a branch. Therefore, the Virgin’s sanctification came to her through her parents having been sanctified. But if she were sanctified in her parents, her sanctification would have preceded her conception. Therefore, since it should be believed that whatever could be bestowed on her was bestowed on her, it seems that she was sanctified before her conception.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, good is more efficacious for acting than is evil, since evil act only in virtue of the good, as Dionysius says. (Pseudo-Dionysius, On the Divine Names, ch. 4, n. 32 (PG 3:731).) But by the sin of our first parents, the infection of original sin was spread to all men. Therefore much more so could the Blessed Virgin be sanctified through the sanctification of her parents; and so the same conclusion as before.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, what is meritorious is not opposed to the grace of sanctification. But the marital act can be meritorious. Therefore the Blessed Virgin could have been sanctified in the very marriage bed of her parents.
On the contrary, what does not exist, cannot be sanctified. But the Blessed Virgin was not in the womb of her mother before she was conceived. Therefore she could not have been sanctified before her conception.
Furthermore, a unique conception and birth was owed to the only-begotten Son of God. But Christ’s conception of his Virgin Mother was without any involvement of a man. Therefore it was not fitting that his mother be conceived in any way but by sexual intercourse. But after the state of corrupted nature there could not be sexual intercourse without sensual desire. And since that sensual desire that is the daughter of sin, deriving from the sin of our first parents, is the cause of original sin in the offspring, as Augustine says, (Rather, Fulgentius, De fide ad Petrum, seu de regula fidei, ch. 16 (CCSL 91A; PL 65:679).) it seems that the Blessed Virgin could not have been sanctified except after her conception.
Quaestiuncula 2
Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that she was sanctified before her ensoulment. (Parallels: ST III.27.2; Quodl. VI, q. 5, a. 1; Compendium theol., ch. 224; In Psalmos 45; In Ieremiam, 1.) For Ambrose says about John the Baptist, commenting on Luke 1:15, that the spirit of life was not yet in him, and the spirit of grace was already in him. (Ambrose, Expositio evangelii secundum Lucam, bk. 1, ln. 511, n. 33 (CCSL 14; PL 15:1547).) But the spirit of life is the soul. Therefore grace came into John the Baptist before his soul. But what was granted to John the Baptist should without a doubt be granted as owed to the Blessed Virgin. Therefore, she too was sanctified before her ensoulment.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, it says in Jeremiah 1:5, before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. And he is not speaking there about the knowledge by which he knows the good and the wicked, for by this no privilege would be shown to Jeremiah himself, to whom these words were spoken. Therefore it must be understood about the knowledge of approbation. But this knowledge is only of the good and those who have grace. Therefore before Jeremiah was formed, he had grace, and therefore, even before he was ensouled, for the soul is only infused in a formed fetus. Therefore much more was the Blessed Virgin sanctified before her ensoulment.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, Anselm says, in his book On the Virginal Conception, that it was fitting that that man’s conception should happen from the purest mother, who shone with a purity greater than which none can be understood beneath God. (Anselm, Liber de conceptu virginali et originali peccato, ch. 18 (PL 158:451).) But there would have been greater purity in her, if her soul had never had the infection of original sin, than if she had had it for some time and afterward was cleansed. Therefore this soul was never infected by original sin, or therefore the flesh was sanctified before ensoulment; or at least in that very instant of infusion the soul received the grace by which she would be immune from original sin.
On the contrary, among the parts of a man there is such an order that the soul is closer to God than is the body. But the power of any agent passes first to those things which are closer to it, and through them to more distant ones. Therefore the grace of sanctification comes from God to the body through the soul, and therefore she could not have been sanctified before she was ensouled.
Furthermore, contraries are naturally apt to arise as regards the same thing. But the grace of sanctification is chiefly opposed to original sin. Therefore, since original sin cannot exist in children before the ensoulment, because the proper subject of guilt is the rational soul, it seems that the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified before her ensoulment.
Quaestiuncula 3
Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that she was also not sanctified before her birth from the womb. (Parallels: ST III.27.1; Quodl. VI, q. 5, a. 1; Compendium theol., ch. 224; Super Ave Maria; In Psalmos, 45; In Ieremiam, 1.) For as Augustine says in his Letter to Dardanus, the sanctification by which we are each made the temple of God belongs only to those who have been reborn. (Augustine, Epistulae, epist. 187: Ad Dardanum, para. 10 (CSEL 57; PL 33:844).) Now, no one is born again unless he has first been born. Therefore no one has grace before he is born. But sanctification is the effect of grace. Therefore the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified in her mother’s womb.
Obj. 2: One might say that there are two births—that is, the birth in the womb, which is called “conception,” and the birth out of the womb, which is commonly called “birth”—and that the Blessed Virgin’s birth in the womb preceded the regeneration of sanctification.
On the contrary, the Lord calls spiritual generation, which is from water and the spirit, a second [generation], saying: you must be born again (John 3:7). But if two fleshly births preceded, the spiritual would not be the second, but the third. Therefore there are not two births, as was said.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, blessed Jerome says, do not believe me if I should say anything to you that could not be had from the Old or New Testament. (See Jerome, Commentarii in Prophetas Minores, In Aggaeum, ch. 1, verse 11 (CCSL 76; PL 25:1398); ch. 2, verse 11 (PL 25:1407); Commentarii in Evangelium Matthaei, bk. 4, ch. 23, verse 35 (CCSL 70; PL 26:173); bk. 2, ch. 13, verse 47 (CCSL 70; PL 26:95).) But nothing is said about the Blessed Virgin’s sanctification in the womb in the Old Testament or the New Testament. Therefore it should not be believed that she was sanctified in the womb.
On the contrary, the Church only celebrates a solemnity for a saint. But it does celebrate a solemnity for the birth of the Blessed Virgin. Therefore the Blessed Virgin was born holy. Therefore before she was born from the womb, she was sanctified.
Furthermore, Luke 1:15 says of John the Baptist, he was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb. But more grace was bestowed on the Blessed Virgin than on any of the saints, as is said in the text, based on the words of Augustine. (Sent. III, 3.2(8).1, citing Augustine, De natura et gratia, ch. 36, n. 42 (PL 44:267); On the Trinity, bk. 13, ch. 18, n. 23 (PL 42:1032).) Therefore, the Blessed Virgin was filled with the Holy Spirit from her mother’s womb, and therefore she was also sanctified.
I answer that, as Dionysius says, (Pseudo-Dionysius, On the Divine Names, ch. 12, n. 2 (PG 3:970).) holiness is free from every defilement and perfect with an immaculate spotlessness. Whence, since to be sanctified is to become holy, sanctification must produce a cleansing from spiritual uncleanness, as we are now speaking of sanctification. Now, cleansing from spiritual stain, which is guilt, cannot be done without grace, just as also darkness cannot be driven out except by light. For this reason, sanctification only pertains to those who have the capacity for grace. And because the proper subject of grace is the rational nature, the Blessed Virgin could not have been sanctified before the infusion of her rational soul.
Response to Quaestiuncula 1
To the first question, it should be said that there is no way she could have been sanctified in her parents, nor even in the very act of her conception.
For a specific person’s condition does not pass from the parents into their offspring unless it pertains to their bodily nature; for example, the father’s knowledge of grammar does not pass into his son, for it is a personal perfection. This is also why the sanctification of her parents could not be transferred to the Blessed Virgin, unless not only what pertains to the person were healed in them, but also what pertains to their nature as such; this God could certainly have done, but it would not have been fitting. For the perfect healing of a nature pertains to the perfection of glory. And therefore her parents would not have been healed while in the wayfaring state in such a way that they would be able to conceive their child without original sin. And therefore the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin, because of which Blessed Bernard wrote to Lyon that her conception was not to be celebrated, (Bernard, Letter to the Canons of Lyon, on the Conception of Mary, epist. 174, n. 9 (PL 182:336).) although it may be celebrated in some churches out of devotion, not considering it as her conception but rather as her sanctification, for it is uncertain exactly when that took place.
Reply Obj. 1: If the root is holy insofar as it is the root, the branches will be holy as well: for the good tree cannot bear bad fruit (Matt 7:18). From this the Apostle wants to prove here that if the ancient patriarchs were holy through their faith and hope, then the people descending from them according to the flesh will be holy, when the hearts of children are turned toward their parents. But the parents of the Blessed Virgin were her root by an act that ordered toward the propagation of the nature. Therefore unless the human nature within them had been sanctified, a holy child could not be conceived by them; rather, it too would be tainted, on account of the defect of the nature remaining in them. But there was no sanctified nature in them.
Reply Obj. 2: Sanctifying grace is not directly opposed to original sin in every way, but only in original sin’s infection of the person. For grace is a personal perfection, whereas original sin is the wounding directly of the nature. Therefore, it is not necessary that sanctifying grace be inherited from one’s parents, while original sin is contracted—just as original justice, to which it is directly opposed—would have been inherited.
Reply Obj. 3: The marriage bed in which the Blessed Virgin was conceived is believed meritorious, not by a grace that completely purified nature, but by a grace perfecting the persons of the parents. And so it was not necessary that there would have been holiness in the conceived child immediately, not on account of the marital act being opposed to holiness, but on account of the corruption of the nature not yet being healed.
Response to Quaestiuncula 2
To the second question, it should be said that the Blessed Virgin’s sanctification could not have occurred in a becoming way before the infusion of her soul, because she was not yet capable of grace, but also not in the very instant of its infusion, such that by grace infused into her at that time she would be preserved from incurring original sin. For Christ was unique in the human race in not needing redemption, for he is our head, but all share in needing to be redeemed through him. Now, this could not be if any other soul were found that had never been infected by the original stain. And therefore this was not granted to the Blessed Virgin or anyone other than Christ.
Reply Obj. 1: These words about John the Baptist refer to the time that he leaped for joy in the womb at the arrival of the Mother of God, which occurred in the sixth month after his conception, as the words of the angel show (Luke 1:36). This is why it is clear that he had a rational soul at that time. Therefore either the “spirit of life” does not mean the rational soul, but the outward breathing of air, or if the soul is not yet understood to be present because it was not yet manifest, “spirit of life” is said in that manner of speaking wherein things are said to happen when they become known.
Reply Obj. 2: He is speaking about the knowledge of approval, which, although it is only about those who have grace, it is not about them only when they have grace, but even from eternity. Thus there could have been such knowledge of Jeremiah before he was formed, but his sanctification could not have been. Yet it could have been before he emerged from the womb, and therefore the Lord distinguishes the time of the knowing and the time of the sanctification by saying, before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you (Jer 1:5).
Reply Obj. 3: This purity was due only to the God-man, as he himself, as the universal redeemer of the human race, was bound by no slavery of sin, to whom it belonged to redeem all from sin. This is why the Virgin Mother should have something less than this greatest purity.
Response to Quaestiuncula 3
To the third question, it should be said that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before her birth from the womb, which can be gathered from the fact that she above all the other saints was most pure from sin, as the text states, (Sent. III. 3. 2(8).) as the chosen mother of divine Wisdom, in which no defilement occurs, as it says in Wisdom 7:22. Whence, since this purity may be found to have existed in some people such that they were cleansed before their birth from the womb—such as John the Baptist, of whom we read in Luke 1:15, he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb; and Jeremiah, of whom it says, before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you (Jer 1:5)*—*one should not doubt that this was bestowed on the Mother of God in a much more excellent way.
Reply Obj. 1: Augustine’s words should be understood to be about the regeneration that happens by the common law, which is indicated by his saying, by which we are each made temples of God. For this sanctification happens through the sacraments, which are administered by the Church’s ministers, and those who are in the maternal wombs cannot benefit from their working. But God did not restrict grace to the sacraments. Whence, by a certain privilege he sanctifies some outside of this manner, in their mothers’ wombs.
Reply Obj. 2: If we take this as the regeneration that comes through the common law, then the Lord’s words in John 3:3, unless one is born anew, must be understood as speaking of the birth from the womb, which is simply called “birth.” And the text itself seems to have this sense when it says: of water and the Spirit (John 3:5). However, if we take it for any regeneration of grace, then it must be understood of the birth in the womb. Nevertheless, it is not necessary that the spiritual regeneration that happens through the sacraments should not be called a “second birth,” since the first two belong together as one when contrasted with the third, for both of them are natural, while this one is spiritual.
Reply Obj. 3: Although the Blessed Virgin’s sanctification in the womb is not found explicitly in the scriptures of the Old or New Testament, nevertheless it can be held for certain from the things that we read there. For if John and Jeremiah, who foretold Christ, were sanctified, the Blessed Virgin who bore Christ was even more so.
Article 2
Whether the Blessed Virgin was completely cleansed from original sin by her sanctification in the womb
Quaestiuncula 1
To the second question we proceed thus. (Parallels: below, a. 2, resp. 3; ST III.27.3; 27.4.ad 1; 27.5.ad 2; Compend. theol., cc. 224, 225; In Jeremiam, 1.) It seems that the Mother of God was not completely cleansed from original sin by sanctification while in the womb.
Obj. 1: For when the stain is removed, the guilt cannot remain. But after her sanctification, the guilt of original sin remained in her; for if she had died before Christ’s death, she would not have had the divine vision. Therefore she was not freed from original sin by her sanctification.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, nothing that moves one toward virtue should have been taken away from her to whom the perfection of virtue was owed. But the fomes, or tinder of sin, moves one toward virtue; this is why, when Paul asked to have the thorn in his flesh removed, it was said, for virtue is made perfect in weakness (2 Cor 12:9). (For “virtue,” the RSV says “my power.”) Therefore, since the perfection of virtue was fitting for the Mother of God, the fomes should not have been taken from her through her sanctification.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, in the text the Master says (Sent. III, 3.1(7).1.) that Christ’s flesh before he was conceived was obedient to sin, as was the Virgin’s flesh. But flesh is obedient to sin only by reason of the fomes, or kindling toward sin. Therefore the fomes was not removed from her by her sanctification in the womb.
On the contrary (4), something was bestowed on the Blessed Virgin that was beyond the common law. But the sanctification that happens through the common law removes the stain of sin while the fomes remains. Therefore in the Blessed Virgin it removed the fomes entirely.
Furthermore (5), the corruption of the fomes is the reason why we cannot say, “we have no sin”; for Adam could say this in the first state of man. But, as is asserted in the text, the Blessed Virgin was able to say this. Therefore the fomes was not in her.
Quaestiuncula 2
Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that by her sanctification in the womb, she did not acquire immunity from actual sin. (Parallels: In IV Sent., d. 6, q. 1, a. 1, resp. 2; ST III.27.4; In orationem dominicam, 5th petition; Super Ave Maria; Super Matth. 12.) For Augustine says (Augustine, Quaestiones Veteri et Novi Testamenti, q. 73 (PL 35:2267). Augustine repudiated this work later.) that Mary, through whom the mystery of the Incarnation of the Savior was accomplished, had doubts at the death of the Lord, but she did not remain in doubt. But doubting about the faith is a sin. Therefore she was not entirely immune from sin.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, commenting on Luke 1:35, the Holy Spirit will come upon you, Ambrose says, the Holy Spirit coming down purified her mind from all filth of corruption. (This text is not found in Ambrose.) But the filth of corruption results from sin. Therefore the Blessed Virgin sinned after her first sanctification.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, Augustine says, in his book On the Perfection of Justice, that to be without sin can be said solely of the Only Begotten. (See Augustine, De perfectione iustitiae hominis, ch. 11, para. 24 (CSEL 42:25; PL 44:304); ch. 21, para. 44 (CSEL 42:25; PL 44:316).) Therefore it cannot be said of the Blessed Virgin.
On the contrary, Bernard says, in the Letter to Lyon, I think that a most abundant grace of sanctification descended upon her, which sanctified not only her beginning, but guarded her immune from all sin from then on. (Bernard, Epistulae, epist. 174: Ad Lugdunenses, n. 5 (PL 182:334).) Therefore by her first sanctification she acquired immunity from all sin.
Furthermore, Wisdom 1:4 says: wisdom will not enter a deceitful soul, nor dwell in a body enslaved to sin. But God’s wisdom not only entered the Virgin’s soul—as is also said of others in Wisdom 7:27: *she passes into holy souls—*but it also dwelt in her body, assuming flesh from her. Therefore, there was no sin in her. And this can be gathered from what it says in Song of Songs 4:7, you are all fair, my love, and there is no flaw in you.
Quaestiuncula 3
Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that through her second sanctification, which was at the conception of the Savior, she was not confirmed in the good. (Parallels: ST I.100.2; III.27.5.ad 2; De veritate, q. 44, a. 9, sed contra and ad 2.) For what someone already has, he cannot gain further. But if the Blessed Virgin had immunity from sin from her first sanctification, she was confirmed from that time. For one does not have the certainty of being without sin except through a confirmed righteousness. Therefore through her second sanctification she gained the confirmation of grace.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, in no one who is a mere earthly wayfarer can free decision be confirmed as secure toward righteousness, for the potential for sinning and the potential for dying seem to run side by side, such that the potential for sinning is not taken away before the potential for dying. But even after the Blessed Virgin conceived the Savior, she was a mere wayfarer before her death. Therefore there was no confirmation of righteousness in her.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, it seems that she was also not at that time completely freed from the fomes. For one effect of the fomes is that those infected by the fomes pass original sin on to their child in begetting him. But if it were held by an impossible supposition that the Blessed Virgin had borne another child after Christ by physical intimacy, original sin would have been passed on to that child. Therefore in some way the fomes remained in her after her second sanctification. But one of two opposites cannot be confirmed as long as anything of the other opposite remains. Therefore the Blessed Virgin was not confirmed through her second sanctification.
On the contrary, Ambrose says, in his book On the Virginity of the Blessed Virgin, that it was impossible for the womb of the Virgin, which the Son of God consecrated by inhabiting it, should be defiled by intercourse of any foreign intimacy. (See Ambrose, In librum de Institutione Virginis admonitio, ch. 6, nn. 44, 45 (PL 16:317).) But for the same reason neither could any sin exist in her. Therefore, she was confirmed.
Furthermore, where the fullness of light is present, the capacity for darkness does not remain. But at Christ’s conception the Blessed Virgin was completely filled with light, conceiving him who is the splendor of the Father’s glory (see Hebrews 1:3). This is why it says in Ezekiel 44:4, the glory of the Lord filled the temple of the Lord. Therefore she was confirmed after that sanctification.
Response to Quaestiuncula 1
To the first question, I answer that the Blessed Virgin’s two sanctifications are distinguished as the first, when she was sanctified in the womb, and the second, when she conceived the Savior. Now, a sanctification means a cleansing from sin, which cannot happen without grace, but it belongs to grace to cause a certain firmness. Therefore sanctification in general has two effects: to cleanse and to confirm, and for both, the second sanctification perfects the first.
For in the first, as is commonly held by everyone, she was purified of original sin both as to its stain and as to its guilt. But there are several opinions about her cleansing from the fomes, or tinder of sin.
For some people say that by the first sanctification the fomes was completely taken away, which contradicts what is said in the text, based on the words of Damascene, (Sent. III, 3.1(7).3, referring to John Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith, bk. 3, ch. 2 (PG 94:986).) that in the second sanctification the Holy Spirit came upon her to purify her. This can only be understood about a purification from the fomes, for she had never committed actual sin, as Augustine says. (Augustine, De natura et gratia, ch. 36, para. 42 (CSEL 60:263; PL 44:267).)
And therefore others say that in her first sanctification she was in a certain respect purified from the fomes, but in another respect the fomes still remained. And there are several ways of making this distinction.
For some say that it was taken away as to the inclination toward evil, but it remained in presenting the difficulty of accomplishing the good—which are the two effects of the fomes that the Apostle mentions in Romans 7:19: for I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.
Now, this does not seem to stand, for that due to which there is a proneness to one contrary, in the same respect presents a difficulty toward the other—whether it be a certain habit or form, as heaviness draws things downward and causes difficulty in their going upward, or even if it be a privation or lack, as weakness in the power of moving causes a proneness to fall, as well as a difficulty in going forward. This is why the fomes cannot be taken away insofar as it inclines one to evil and yet remain insofar as it causes difficulty toward attaining the good.
And therefore others say that the fomes is a corruption of the person, insofar as it impels one to evil and insofar as it makes the good difficult; and in this way it was thoroughly taken away from the Blessed Virgin in her first sanctification. It is also a corruption of the nature, by reason of which the infection of original sin passes to the child through the act of nature; and in this way it remained after the first sanctification, but then she was purified in the second such that she could conceive children without any original sin.
But this also does not seem to be fitting, for as was said in Book II, (In II Sent., d. 31, q. 1, a. 2.) the original corruption did pass to children from their father as pertained to guilt, but as pertains only to punishment it is like bodily susceptibilities, passing to children from their mother, who supplies the matter. For this reason it does not seem that the cause of Christ’s being conceived without original sin was the purification of his mother from the fomes insofar as it infected her nature, but more so because he was born without relations with a man, which is the cause that Anselm assigns in his book On the Virginal Conception. (Anselm, Liber de conceptu virginali et originali peccato, ch. 12 (PL 158:446–447).) Now, he did not assume penal defects by necessity, but voluntarily.
And furthermore, since it is essentially the same fomes that is the corruption of the nature and of the person, if it remained as the corruption of the nature, the fomes that corrupts the person cannot essentially be taken away.
Whence, what is left, as others say, is that the fomes remained in its essence after her first sanctification, but it was impeded by sanctifying grace from either inclining toward sin or withdrawing from the good. For it happens sometimes that a habit is hampered from being able to go into act, as knowledge can be by drunkenness, as the Philosopher says. (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 7.3, 1147a10–14; 7.10, 1152a15.) But in the second sanctification, that fomes was taken away.
Reply Obj. 1: If the Blessed Virgin had died before Christ’s Passion, she would not have been admitted to the vision of God, just as neither were the other ancient patriarchs. For although in them the guilt pertaining to their person was removed, nevertheless the guilt of our nature remained, which was removed through Christ’s Passion.
Reply Obj. 2: The fomes does not through itself advance anyone in good, but incidentally, inasmuch as it is in a corrupted nature. For from the fact that it inclines one toward evil (which inclination of the person indeed is a small evil) it provides an occasion for avoiding the greatest evil, namely arrogance. Nevertheless, if this evil were avoided in some other way, it would be simply better if the fomes did not exist at all, just as eating a serpent helps incidentally, inasmuch as it frees someone from leprosy, yet a healthy man should simply avoid eating one. And therefore, the fomes would not have been conferred on the Blessed Virgin, who was simply healed from sin, for the sake of her perfection in virtue, if it would have inclined her to evil.
Reply Obj. 3: The flesh of the Virgin before conceiving is said to have been liable to sin because of the fomes, which remained in essence—although it would have been impeded, as was said.
Reply Sed Contra 4: The sanctification of the Blessed Virgin was more excellent than the sanctification of others, which is evident as follows. For in the sanctification that happens through the common law in the sacraments, the fault is taken away, but the fomes that inclines one to mortal and venial sin remains. But in those who have been sanctified from the womb, the fomes inclining toward mortal sin does not remain, but the fomes’ inclination to venial sins remains; this is clear in the case of Jeremiah and John the Baptist, who did have actual sin that was not mortal, but venial. But in the Blessed Virgin the inclination of the fomes was entirely removed, both as to venial sin and mortal sin. And what is more (as it is said), the grace of sanctification not only repressed illicit impulses in her, but even had an effect on others, such that although she was physically beautiful, she could not be lusted after by anyone.
Reply Sed Contra 5: In us the necessity of sinning at least venially arises from the inclination of the fomes. But in the Blessed Virgin this inclination was not present, with the fomes bound, as has been said.
Response to Quaestiuncula 2
To the second question, it should be said that just as in the first sanctification there was a certain beginning of cleansing, when original sin was removed as regards the fault, and the fomes was bound, so too there was a certain beginning of confirmation. For by sanctifying grace she acquired immunity from sin thereafter. And this immunity was caused by three things: namely, from the binding of the fomes, which did not incite her toward evil; from the inclination of grace, which ordered her toward the good, although her free decision was not yet firmly established on the last end, as it is in the blessed, who have attained the end of life; and lastly, from the preservation of divine providence, which guarded her untouched by any sin, just as it also had protected man from anything harmful in his first state.
Reply Obj. 1: Against the first objection it should be said that doubting, which indicates a weakness of faith, cannot happen without sin. But such a doubt was not present in the Blessed Virgin at the time of the Passion; rather, the firmest faith remained in her even when the apostles were doubting. But in her there was a certain doubt of marvel, when she considered how disgracefully treated was the one whom she had so worthily given birth to.
Reply Obj. 2: The filth of corruption, from which the Blessed Virgin is said to have been purified at her conception, was not any venial sin, but the traces of original sin, as when a habit is broken certain dispositions still remain. Or it could be said that the purification from the filth of corruption is not to be understood as the removal of anything existing, but an impediment to any future filth.
Reply Obj. 3: To be without sin is said to be proper to Christ because he was never infected with either actual or original stain. But his Virgin Mother was indeed infected by original sin, from which she was cleansed before she was born from the womb; but from actual sin she was entirely immune.
Reply Sed Contra: We grant the other two arguments.
Response to Quaestiuncula 3
To the third question, it should be said that in her second sanctification, both her cleansing and her confirmation in the good were in a certain way completed, according to the perfection of life on the way. But in her glorious Assumption these were completed according to the perfection of the heavenly homeland, which is evident in this way. For in the first sanctification the inclination of the fomes was removed, although its essence did remain. But in the second sanctification the fomes itself was extinguished in its essence, while certain penalties caused by sin did remain; from these she was fully freed by the glory of the Assumption. Likewise this is also the case from the other side: in her first sanctification, grace was bestowed efficaciously inclining her free decision toward the good, although not enough to remove her decision’s ability to bend toward evil, which even man in his first state had. But in the second sanctification an additional grace was added that so filled the power of her free decision that she could not bend toward evil—not by removing the nature of the free decision, but by removing its defect, just as the matter of the heavens, because it subsists under a form that excludes all privation from it, is not in potency to corruption. But in the Virgin’s third exaltation, she was joined to the end through a perfect grace drawing her into glory, which causes a perfect immobility.
Reply Obj. 1: Against this objection it should be said that in the first sanctification she obtained immunity from sin not by a confirming grace, but by the fomes being restrained from inclining to evil, and by the protection of divine providence, without which, even if the fomes were completely extinguished, she would have been able to sin, just as Adam also sinned, unless there were in her a consummated grace.
Reply Obj. 2: There are two ways that the potential for sin can be taken away. The first is by free decision being joined to the last end, which fully fills it such that no defect remains in it—and this happens through glory. This is why no mere wayfarer can be so released from the potential for sinning that, with the removal of the potential for sinning the potential for dying is also removed—except in Christ, in whom it remained only as a dispensation, for the sake of completing the work of redemption. The other way it can be removed is by so much grace being poured in that it takes away every defect, and this is how, when the Blessed Virgin conceived the Son of God, the potential for sinning was removed, although the Virgin herself remained in the state of a wayfarer.
Reply Obj. 3: If it were posited that, assuming the impossible, the Blessed Virgin conceived another child through sexual intercourse after her second sanctification, that child would have had original sin, not from his mother, but from his father. But if it were posited that the father had been sanctified in the same way as the Blessed Virgin in her second sanctification, then that child would not have had original sin. Or it could be said, according to another opinion, that the fomes was not removed from the Blessed Virgin in her second sanctification either insofar as it is an infection of our nature. Nor would this prevent her confirmation in the good, for the fomes is opposed to that confirmation insofar as it is a personal defect inclining one toward actual concupiscence.
Question 2
The Blessed Virgin's role in the conception of Christ
Next, the Blessed Virgin’s reproductive power is considered. And two things are asked about this:
first, whether she actively did anything toward Christ’s conception;
second, whether the generation of the Son from her was natural or miraculous.
Article 1
Whether the Virgin actively contributed anything toward Christ’s conception
To the first question we proceed thus. (Parallels: ST III.32.4; 33.4, ad 2.) It seems that the Blessed Virgin actively cooperated in Christ’s conception.
Obj. 1: For a purely passive potency is only receptive. But Damascene says, as is quoted in the text, (Sent. III, 3.1(7).3, citing John Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith, bk. 3, ch. 2 (PG 94:986).) that the Holy Spirit not only gave the Virgin the potency for receiving the Word, but also at the same time the potency for begetting. Therefore by her “potency for begetting” we understand an active power in her, and thus she actively did something in Christ’s conception.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, what Luke 1:35 says—*the power of the Most High will overshadow you—*is understood as the conferral of some power above what she possessed naturally. But like other virgins, the Blessed Virgin naturally possessed the power of generating by way of undergoing or receiving. Therefore the power that Damascene says was prepared for her is an active power; and so the same conclusion as before.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, Augustine says, Christ is the son of his mother according to what he received from his mother. (Augustine, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis, bk. 10, para. 20 (CSEL 28.1:323; PL 34:424).) But he is called the son of his mother according to his human nature. Therefore he received his human nature from his mother; and thus the Blessed Virgin did work something in his conception.
Obj. 4: Furthermore, the Blessed Virgin was Christ’s true mother. But she would not have properly been Christ’s true mother if she had only supplied the matter, for the earth is not called the mother of man, although the slime from which man is formed was taken from the earth; likewise, neither can wood be called the mother of a stool by the fact that it was made from it. Therefore the Blessed Virgin did not just supply the matter for Christ’s conception, but actively did something.
Obj. 5: Furthermore, commenting on On the Soul 2, (Averroes, Commentary on On the Soul, bk. 2, comm. 27.) the Commentator sets forth this distinction of the powers of the soul: that the powers of the nutritive part are all active, while the sensitive powers are all passive, but in the intellect there is something active, the agent intellect, and something passive, the potential intellect. But the reproductive power pertains to the vegetative soul, and this is why it is in plants as well. Therefore it is an active power. Since, then, a mother conceives her son by her reproductive power, it seems that she actively does something in conception; and so the same conclusion as before.
Obj. 6: Furthermore, a natural motion is one has its principle within it. But the generation of a son from a mother is natural. Therefore in the very matter that the mother supplied for the formation of the fetus there is some active principle cooperating in the conception; and thus the same conclusion as before.
On the contrary, the Blessed Virgin was nothing other than the mother of Christ. But it pertains to a mother only to supply the matter, not to do anything actively, as that belongs to the father. Therefore, the Blessed Mother did nothing actively to bring about Christ’s conception. And the middle term of this argument is shown through what the Philosopher says, in On the Generation of Animals 15: (Aristotle, On the Generation of Animals 1.20, 729a9–13.) the man gives the soul, the form, and the principle of motion, the woman gives the body and the matter; just as happens in curdled milk, that the body comes from the milk, and the curdling comes from rennet or a coagulating agent; and a little later he adds, it is manifest that the male is the working party, the woman is the passive party; just as a stool comes to exist from a carpenter and wood.
Furthermore, in On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10, Augustine says, Christ assumed the visible substance of flesh from the Virgin’s flesh, but the reason for his conception came not from a man’s seed, but on the contrary, from above. (Augustine, On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis, bk. 10, para. 20, n. 35 (CSEL 28.1:323; PL 34:424).) But the active power in conception is called the “reason for the conception.” Therefore the only thing acting in Christ’s conception was from above, and not in the Blessed Virgin.
Furthermore, Anselm says, in his book On the Virginal Conception, that no created nature, no creature’s will, nor power given to anyone produced or sowed that subject. (Anselm, Liber de conceptu virginali et originali peccato, vol. 2, ch. 13 (PL 158:447).) Therefore in the Blessed Virgin there was neither naturally nor by divine gift any active power that produced Christ’s body.
Furthermore, no created power works instantly. But in Christ’s conception everything about the formation of organs, ensoulment, and everything else happened at one and the same instant. Therefore it was actively done only by an uncreated power.
I answer that there are diverse opinions about this.
For some say that in Christ’s conception, his mother was at work actively; and some of these hold that this would have been by a natural mode, while some others say it was by a supernatural gift. For since the Blessed Virgin is believed to be Christ’s true mother, we must attribute to her all that belongs to a mother. Now, they judge that it pertains to a mother’s office to supply a certain active principle in the conception, and not only a material one.
However, this is held in different ways. For some hold that in the matter that the mother supplies there is chiefly an active power, both because they think the conception happens from the intermingling of seeds, such that the woman’s seed is just as active as the man’s seed in generation, although in her there is not as much efficacy for acting; and also because they believe the child conceived becomes sentient and vegetative through the mother’s soul, so that in this way the mother is also found to be more important in generation than the father.
Now, the Philosopher rejects this in On the Generation of Animals 15. (Aristotle, On the Generation of Animals 1.21, 729b8–30.) For in things that have a perfect life, the agent and the patient are distinguished in generation for the sake of the generation being brought to perfection within them; in plants, on the other hand, which have an imperfect life, both powers—that is, the active and the passive—are in the same thing, although perhaps in one plant the active power dominates, while in another the passive power does, which is also why one plant is called “male” and another “female.” Therefore, since it is impossible for what is determined as the patient to have an active power in the same respect, the female must not be the agent in conception, but only the patient.
And for this reason, others say that what the mother supplies stands as the natural matter in generation. Now, in natural matter there is not merely a passive potentiality (otherwise generation would be violent, not natural), but the matter’s very form, which is brought out through generation must be present in potency, and as incomplete existence. And therefore it does not have a perfect power of acting but merely an imperfect one; and thus it cannot act through itself unless it is incited in some way by an external agent, and then it cooperates with it.
However, this cannot stand. For it is impossible for the same thing to be what changes and what is changed; this is why it cannot be that the form that is in a certain matter acts on it, whether be a perfect or an imperfect form. For a form that does not exist through itself does not act, nor is its matter acted upon, properly speaking; rather, the composite acts by reason of the form, and it is acted upon by reason of its matter. And therefore it is not possible that some imperfect form cooperate with an external agent in acting.
Furthermore, acting follows upon perfect existence, since each thing acts insofar as it is in act. This is why a form existing imperfectly in matter must first be perfected in existence by an external agent, before it is given to it to act. Therefore it cannot cooperate in acting toward generation, by which the form is brought into perfect existence.
And furthermore, if it belonged to a mother necessarily to participate actively in generation, the Blessed Virgin could not be called a mother. For since that conception happened all at once, it could not occur through any created active power. Therefore the Blessed Virgin could not participate actively in the conception; and so she would not have had what pertains to a mother, and so she would not have been a mother. Nor can it be said that she only cooperated in the introduction of the substantial form, which is instilled in an instant even according to nature. For instilling a form is nobler than preparing matter by alteration, and in this way what is less would be attributed to the Holy Spirit, and what is of greater dignity would be attributed to the Virgin. And furthermore, the substantial form at which the conception terminates in is the soul, which is the act of the whole and of all its parts. For this reason, if it were removed, the bone could not be called ‘bone,’ nor the flesh ‘flesh’, except equivocally. However, it is certain that the Blessed Virgin did not actively cooperate for [the creation of] Christ’s soul.
And therefore others say that the Blessed Virgin had something more than other mothers by a supernatural power. For the matter that is supplied by other mothers cannot bring itself totally into act unless there is an external agent. But the matter for Christ’s body, which the Blessed Virgin supplied, by divine gift was able to form itself by a power added over and above the nature. But this could not happen in an instant. And therefore, since it was becoming that this conception would happen in an instant, the Holy Spirit came first, completing the formation of Christ’s body immediately, which nevertheless would have been completed otherwise, albeit successively.
However, this theory does not seem fitting. First, because if that power did not cooperate toward the formation of Christ’s body, then it was bestowed in vain, which does not happen in nature’s works, and much less in miraculous ones. Second, because the Blessed Virgin was not chosen to be both father and mother to Christ, but only mother, and so it was not fitting that in the matter that the Virgin supplied there should be included what in others comes from the father and the mother. Third, because no one is called father or mother in virtue of the active or passive potency for generating, but insofar as this potency goes into act. Whence, if in the matter that the Virgin supplied, the active potency required for father and mother existed without that power working, she would be called neither father nor mother, or by the same reasoning father and mother, which is absurd—unless perhaps merely supplying the matter were enough to be the mother, which is not enough to be the father, and because of this she is called mother and not father. And indeed this seems to be the case according to the Philosopher’s intent, and in this way the mother’s virginity and her true motherhood are preserved most perfectly. And so it is also most in harmony with the faith.
Therefore, by keeping to this path, it seems we should say that there are three kinds of action found in a child’s conception. One which is principal—namely, the forming and organizing of the body—and with respect to this action, the agent is only the father, while the mother merely supplies the matter. Another action precedes this action and is preparatory to it, for since natural generation is from a determinate matter, in that every act comes to be in its proper matter, as the Philosopher says in On the Soul 2, (Aristotle, On the Soul 2.2, 414a25; Aquinas, Sent. De anima, bk. 2, lect. 4, n. 277.) it is necessary that formation of the child happen from its appropriate matter, not just any matter. Therefore there must be some acting power, by which the matter is prepared for conception. Now, as the Philosopher says, (Aristotle, Physics 2.2, 194b1–8; Aquinas, In Physic., bk. 2, lect. 4, n. 8.) the art or skill that works the form rules over and commands the one that prepares the matter, as the art of constructing a ship is related to that of sanding the wood. Therefore, the power that prepares the matter for the child to be conceived is incomplete relative to the power that forms the child from the prepared matter. However, this preparing power is the mother’s, and is incomplete with respect to the active power that is in the father, which is why the Philosopher says that a woman is like a little boy who cannot yet generate. (Aristotle, On the Generation of Animals 1.20, 728a17–18; 5.3, 784a4–6.) The third action is concomitant, or following the principal action. For just as the location conduces toward the goodness of a generation, so too does the good disposition of the womb work toward the good disposition of the offspring, as though furnishing the kindling; and this is what Avicenna says in the chapter on floods: the womb only improves what is conceived.
Therefore, following this, I say that in the principal action of the formation of Christ’s body, there was nothing active on the Blessed Virgin; rather, what the Blessed Virgin supplied was related purely materially to this action, while divine power did everything that in other conceptions happens by the power of the seed from the father. Thus Damascene says divine power was, as it were, a divine seed, as we have in the text. (John Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith, bk. 3, ch. 2 (PG 94:986).) But in the second and third actions, the Blessed Mother was actively working, like other mothers; and thus she was also truly a mother.
Reply Obj. 1: In Christ’s conception there were two miracles: one that a woman conceived God, and another that a virgin begot a child. As to the first, then, the Blessed Virgin was involved in the conception only according to an obediential potency, and yet one much more remote than was the man’s rib as that from which the woman was formed. Now, in such matters the act and the potency toward the act are given together, as far as this may be said to be possible. But as to the second miracle, the Virgin did have a passive potency, although a natural one, which could be brought into act by a natural agent. Whence, as to the first he says, a power receptive of the Word of God; but as to the second he says, but at the same time a power to beget the Word of God. For the power of the Holy Spirit brings both potencies into act.
Reply Obj. 2: A passive potency can be received in two ways: either according to the potency’s substance—and in this way the potency would have been in the Blessed Virgin beforehand—or insofar as the passive potency is joined to its activity. An in this latter way, the patient does not have this ability except from the agent; for example, we say that the visible, by moving sight, gives it the ability to see in act. And by this mode, the Holy Spirit gave the Virgin the power of generating.
Reply Obj. 3: Christ did receive human nature from his mother, yet not as from the acting principle, but as from someone supplying the matter.
Reply Obj. 4: Simply speaking, furnishing the matter for someone’s generation does not make one a mother, but furnishing a certain sort of matter prepared in this way, that is what makes one a mother. For in wood there is no natural potency for a stool to come to be from it, since this is not actually accomplished by a natural agent. Similarly, there is nothing in the slime of the earth that a man might come to be out of it. Therefore the reason that is brought forth is not the same.
Reply Obj. 5: A reproductive potency is active, but this potency exists perfectly in the male, which is why his action extends to the formation of the one generated. But in the female it is imperfect, which is why her action extends only to the preparation of its matter.
Reply Obj. 6: The principle of any natural motion is in the thing moving, but not in the same way, as the Commentator says commenting on the Physics 2. (Aristotle, Physics 2.1, 192b32–33. Averroes, Commentary on the Physics, bk. 2, comms. 3, 4.) For in some things there is an active principle, as in the motion of heavy and light things, while in other things there is a passive principle, as in the generation of simple bodies. This is also why nature, which the Philosopher defines as the principle of motion in the thing moving, (Aristotle, Physics 2.1.192b13–14.) is immediately subdivided by him into matter and form. For this reason, although the generation of a perfect animal is natural, it is not necessary that in the matter that the woman supplies there be an active principle, but only a passive one.
Article 2
Whether Christ’s generation from the Virgin is natural or miraculous
To the second question we proceed thus. (Parallel: ST III.33.4.) It seems that Christ’s generation from the Virgin was natural.
Obj. 1: For sonship follows birth. But Christ is called the natural son of his mother, just as he is also the natural Son of the Father, as Augustine says in his book On the Faith, to Peter. (Rather, Fulgentius, De fide ad Petrum seu de regula fidei, ch. 14 (CCSL 91A; PL 40:675).) Therefore he is born from his mother by a natural generation.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, a natural passive power completed naturally by its agent results in its activity, as, for example, sight moved by color naturally sees. But in the Blessed Virgin there was a natural power to generate, although an incomplete one, as is evident from what has been said. Therefore, after it was perfected by the power of the Holy Spirit, she generated naturally.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, in the illumination of the blind, although visual power is miraculously given, after the power has been received, the person sees naturally. But the Holy Spirit gave the Virgin reproductive power. Therefore she generated afterwards naturally.
Obj. 4: Furthermore, if Christ’s generation from the Virgin were miraculous like the formation of the man from the slime of the earth, then the matter that the Virgin supplied would be related to Christ as the slime taken from the earth was to Adam. But matter like this is not sufficient for the account of being a mother, as was said before. Therefore the Blessed Virgin would not be the true mother of Christ—which is heretical to say.
Obj. 5: Furthermore, no miraculous activity comes from anything created. But it is truly said that the Virgin begot Christ. Therefore such generation is not miraculous.
On the contrary, Dionysius says in his letter to Gaius, speaking about Jesus, above men, he works those things that are man’s; and the Virgin conceiving supernaturally, and unstable water holding up the weight of material and earthly feet both demonstrate this. (Pseudo-Dionysius, Epistola 4: eidem Caio Monacho (PG 3:1071).) But whatever is done supernaturally we say is miraculous. Therefore Christ’s conception by the Virgin was miraculous.
Furthermore, Anselm says in his book On the Virginal Conception that the Holy Spirit, the power of the Most High, marvelously begot a virgin man from a virgin woman. (Anselm, Liber de conceptu virginali et originali peccato, ch. 22 (PL 158:453).) Therefore Christ’s generation from the Virgin was miraculous.
Furthermore, just as it is against the order of nature for a blind man to see, so too it is for a virgin to give birth while remaining a virgin. But we do call the illumination of the blind “miraculous.” Therefore Christ’s conception from a Virgin was also miraculous.
I answer that, besides the union of two natures in one hypostasis, which was completed in Christ’s conception and which is the miracle of all miracles, there is also another miracle in that a virgin conceived a man, but not yet the Man-God, while remaining a virgin.
For any generation that is called natural must be arise from the agent naturally, and out of natural matter proportioned to this. However, if any of these are lacking, the generation cannot be called natural, but miraculous, if it was done by supernatural power. Now, since a natural agent is of finite power, cannot produce its effect from matter that is not naturally proportioned, whereas a supernatural agent, which is of infinite power, can work from both kinds of matter, natural and non-natural. And therefore it can be miraculous in these two ways: in one way, when neither the agent is natural nor is the matter naturally proportioned to that form, as is clear in man’s formation from the slime of the earth; and in the other way, when the matter is natural, but the agent is supernatural, as when someone is miraculously cured of a fever, for a human body is the natural matter of the health that is conferred on it by a supernatural agent. And it was like this in the conception of Christ the man. For the matter that the Virgin supplied was matter from which a human body could naturally be formed, but the power forming it was divine. Therefore it should be said that that conception was simply speaking miraculous, but also natural in a certain respect; and for this reason Christ is called the natural son of the Virgin, because she prepared the natural matter for his conception.
Reply Obj. 1: The response is clear from this.
Reply Obj. 2: When a passive power is completed by the activity of its natural agent, then the activity that follows is natural. But this was not the case in question, and therefore, the reasoning does not follow.
Reply Obj. 3: When a person born blind is illuminated, the power of sight is given without any disposition contrary to sight; and therefore the consequent activity, vision, is natural. But the power for begetting was given to the Virgin while maintaining her virginity, which is a disposition contrary to conception; and thus, just as the power was given miraculously, so too was the consequent act miraculous. Or it could be said that when a blind man is illuminated, he is given a passive power whose activity exists by the fact that it is moved by a natural agent, namely color, and thus the sight itself is natural. Whereas the reproductive power is said to have been given to the Virgin by the fact that her passive power was moved to generation by a supernatural agent; and so the consequent activity was miraculous.
Reply Obj. 4: Man’s formation from the slime of the earth was miraculous with respect to its agent as well as with respect to its matter. But this conception is miraculous with respect to its agent, and not with respect to its matter. So it is not the same in both instances.
Reply Obj. 5: The Blessed Virgin is said to have begotten Christ, not as furnishing the active principle for the generation, but as the one supplying its natural matter. This is why it is not unfitting that this generation should be miraculous. But a miraculous operation is not from any created thing as its agent, yet it still could be from a created thing as its matter, as is evident from the fact that whenever God does anything miraculously it is from some created matter.
Question 3
The Annunciation
Next, we will inquire about the Annunciation made to the Blessed Virgin by the angel. Concerning this two things are asked about:
first, the fittingness of the Annunciation;
second, the fittingness of the messenger.
Article 1
Whether it was fitting for the Virgin to have the Savior’s conception announced to her
Quaestiuncula 1
To the first question we proceed thus. (Parallel: ST III.30.1.) It seems that it was not fitting for the Savior’s conception to be announced to the Virgin.
Obj. 1: For she had faith. But it always pertained to faith to believe in the future Incarnation. Therefore it was not more fitting that it be made evident to her by way of an annunciation.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, as Gregory says, (Gregory the Great, Homiliae in Evangelia, bk. 2, hom. 26, para. 1 (CCSL 141; PL 76:1197).) the faith that human reason offers proof for lacks merit. But in the angel’s speech to the Virgin, certain persuasive arguments were made. Therefore the merit of faith in her was either taken away or diminished, which seems unfitting.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, in those things that God brings to completion in man without man’s own choice, no consent is required on the man’s part. But a prophecy of predestination concerns things that are brought to completion without our choice, as Jerome says (The Gloss cites Jerome, but it is not found in his writings. Glossa ordinaria, at Matthew 1:22, 5.46 (PL 114:71).) in his gloss on Matthew 1: behold, a virgin will hold in her womb, saying that this prophecy is one of those things: behold a virgin shall conceive (Isa 7:14). Therefore no consent is required on the virgin’s part, which is the reason it was necessary for the Annunciation to happen.
On the contrary, the miracle that occurred in Christ’s conception from a virgin displays greater wisdom than the miracle of John’s conception from a barren woman. But John’s conception was foretold by an angel so that it would not be thought to have happened by chance, but by the providence of God. Therefore, an Annunciation should have preceded Christ’s conception even more.
Furthermore, in Christ’s conception a certain marriage happened through the indivisible union of divine and human natures. But in marriage consent is required, which by the words of the messengers is both sought after and restored. Therefore it was becoming that God too should, through his angel, ask for the consent of the Virgin from whom he would assume a human nature.
Quaestiuncula 2
Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that the Annunciation did not happen by way of physical sight. (Parallel: ST III.30.3.) For as Augustine says, (Augustine, The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, bk. 12, para. 24, n. 36 (CSEL 28.1:416–417; PL 34:474).) among the three kinds of vision— bodily, spiritual, and intellectual—intellectual vision is the most excellent. But what is of greater dignity is more becoming for the Mother of God. Therefore the Annunciation occurred by intellectual sight, not physical sight.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, the bodily appearances of angels can be counted among signs and wonders by the fact that they are unusual and beyond the common course of nature. Now, signs are given not to the faithful, but to those without faith, as the Apostle says in 1 Corinthians 14:22. Therefore, since the Blessed Virgin had the greatest faith, it does not seem that the bodily appearance of an angel would have been made to her.
On the contrary, commenting on Luke 1:29, when she had heard these things she was greatly troubled, a gloss says: it is typical for virgins to fear, and to be terrified at any entrance of a man, and to dread any address from a man. (Ambrose, Expositio Euangelii secundum Lucam, bk. 2, para. 8 (CCSL 14; PL 15:1555).) But this does not happen to virgins from an intellectual consideration or imagining of a man, but from his physical appearance. Therefore the angel appeared to her and addressed her in a bodily sight.
Response to Quaestiuncula 1
To the first question, I answer that it was appropriate that the Virgin have her conception announced to her for many reasons. First, because since the mind is closer to God than is the body, it was unbecoming that God’s wisdom should dwell in her womb without her mind being resplendent in the knowledge of this greatest wisdom. And thus it was unseemly for her to be unaware of what was happening in her; instead it had to be announced to her. Second, because she herself was to be the most certain witness of this unique conception, which is why it was necessary that she be instructed in so great a mystery through the Annunciation. Third, because God does not love forced service, but willing service, so that those who yield, merit by their very attendance. For this reason, since the Blessed Virgin was uniquely and most excellently chosen for the service of God, whom she bore in her womb, nursed with her milk, and held in her arms, it was seemly that her consent should be sought by the angel’s announcing. And humbly presenting this consent, she offered herself in prompt and eager obedience, saying, behold the handmaid of the Lord (Luke 1:38).
Reply Obj. 1: The determinate time when the Incarnation would occur and by what virgin it was to be fulfilled did not fall under the faith, and that is why she needed to be instructed about this through the Annunciation. For she did hold with the firmest faith that there would be an Incarnation, which was included in the faith of the ancients.
Reply Obj. 2: The angel’s address did not try to persuade based on human reason, but on divine omnipotence; this is something on which faith rests most for he said, with God nothing will be impossible (Luke 1:37).
Reply Obj. 3: Things that have a prophecy of predestination are completed without our choice causing them, yet they need not be without our choice consenting to them.
Response to Quaestiuncula 2
To the second question, it should be said that it is most appropriate that the Annunciation was made through a physical vision. First, so that the Annunciation would be more certain, for we are less deceived about things that we visibly perceive. Second, because, as Dionysius says in his ninth Letter to Titus, (Pseudo-Dionysius, Epistle 9: To Titus, n. 1 (PG 3:1107).) this is the reason that divine things are set before us in physical figures, so that each kind of human life may be illuminated by divine knowledge according to its own properties: the life of the senses by the images of figures, and the life of the intellect by the contemplation of spiritual truth. In the same way, it was also seemly that the Virgin’s perspective should be ennobled in both ways: the interior sight by the revelation of so great a mystery, and the external sight by the physical vision of an angel. Third, because the Annunciation should be proportioned to what it announced. Now, what it announced was the visible sending of the Son of God into the world, so the announcing angel appeared in a physical vision.
Reply Obj. 1: Against this objection it should be said that although intellectual vision is better than physical vision, nevertheless, both together are found to be more effective than one alone, because of the connaturality of human knowledge with the senses.
Reply Obj. 2: A physical appearance was made to the Virgin not in order to strengthen her faith, but to signify the mystery—or because of her own dignity, so that divine things might be spread out before her in a unique way.
Article 2
Whether the Annunciation had to happen through an angel
Quaestiuncula 1
To the second question we proceed thus. (Parallel: ST III.30.2.) It seems that the Annunciation should not have happened through an angel.
Obj. 1: For the sending by which the Son is sent to be a man is more excellent than the sending by which he is sent to be with a man, on the part of the effect. But the sending by which he is sent into the mind, in order to be with a man, is not completed by the mediation of an angel, who cannot slip into the mind, as was said in Book II. (In II Sent., d. 11, a. 4.) Therefore, also when he was sent to be a man, it was not fitting to be done by an angel’s annunciation.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, something higher is not instructed by something lower. But the Blessed Virgin was higher than the angels because she was dearer to God. Therefore Christ’s conception should not have been announced to her by an angel.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, the order of restoration should correspond to the order of the first condition. But in the first condition of man the divine precept came to the woman through the man. Therefore, the conception of her Son should have been announced to the Virgin by some male prophet.
On the contrary, it says in the text: the angel Gabriel was sent (Luke 1:26).
Furthermore, as Dionysius proves, (Pseudo-Dionysius, Celestial Hierarchy, ch. 4, paras. 2–3 (PG 3:179).) angels are intermediate between God and us. But something only arrives at one extreme from another through an intermediary. Therefore the things that were to be divinely made known to the Blessed Virgin were appropriately made known by an angel.
Quaestiuncula 2
Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that the announcing angel was from the highest order of angels. (Parallel: ST III.30.2.ad 4.) For Gregory says in his homily on the hundred sheep, it was appropriate for the highest messenger to be sent, who was announcing the highest of all things. (Gregory, Homiliae in evangelia, bk. 2, hom. 34: De centum ovibus, para. 8 (CCSL 141:306; PL 76:1250).) But those who are in the order of seraphim are the highest among the angels. Therefore, the Annunciation was done by one of them.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, Jerome says (Glossa ordinaria, at Isaiah 63:1, 4.500–1 (PL 113:1306).) the question asked in Isaiah 63:1, who is this that comes from Edom? is the question of the lower angels who are not fully aware of the mystery of the Incarnation. But the mystery of the Incarnation could only be made known by those to whom it had been fully revealed. Therefore the Annunciation was done by one of the highest angels.
On the contrary, the Church sings, we know the archangel Gabriel was sent by God to address you. (Verse of the responsory, “Gaude Maria Virgo,” from the feast of the Annunciation.) Now, the order of archangels is the second to last of the heavenly hierarchy, as is clear from both Gregory and Dionysius. (Gregory the Great, Homiliae in evangelia, bk. 2, hom. 34, para. 8 (CCSL 141; PL 76:1250); Pseudo-Dionysius, Celestial Hierarchy, ch. 9, para. 2 (PG 3:258).) Therefore the announcing angel was not from the highest order of angels.
Response to Quaestiuncula 1
To the first question, I answer that the Annunciation was made by an angel, and many reasons can be taken for this. First, because as Jerome says, (Serm. de Assumptione, n. 5 (PL 30:126); this work was spuriously attributed to Jerome; but it is also found in Peter Chrysologus, Collectio Sermonum (CCSL 24; 24A; 24B), serm. 143, ln. 26.) virginity is akin to the angels, and so it was becoming for an angel to be sent to bring word to a virgin. Second, because the ruin of humankind began with the devil addressing a woman, which is why Bede says, it appears a fitting introduction to the restoration of human nature that an angel should address a virgin. Third, because the one being announced is the king of men and angels, and his birth was for mankind’s salvation, in such a way that damage caused by the angels might also be repaired. And thus it was becoming that angels should present this mystery as much as men.
Reply Obj. 1: Although when the Son is sent into the mind, an angel does not enter the mind, nevertheless an angel may prepare for the coming of the Son by purifying, illuminating, and perfecting the mind for the reception of divine wisdom. So too, when the Son was sent in the flesh, the angel did not come to assume flesh, but to instruct the Virgin from whom flesh would be assumed.
Reply Obj. 2: Although the Blessed Virgin would be higher than the angels in her reception of divine predestination, she was still below them in her state, for she herself was in the state of earthly wayfarer, while the angels were in the state of the heavenly homeland. Therefore it is not inappropriate if an angel instructed her.
Reply Obj. 3: In man’s first condition, the first woman received the divine command only through that man who was the beginning of all bodily generation. This is why it is only due Christ the man, who is the beginning of spiritual regeneration, that he teach his mother, from whom in a way spiritual life proceeded into all people.
Response to Quaestiuncula 2
To the second question, it should be said that the announcing angel was not from the highest nor from the middle hierarchy, but from the lowest; nor was he from the first order of that hierarchy, but from the middle, which is the order of archangels. Many reasons for this are clear. First because, since Christ was born in order to repair the insubordination that happened among the angels, it was fitting that in his own conception that ordering of the heavenly hierarchy, in which the highest angels illuminate men by means of the lowest, should most be preserved. Second, so that their ministry would be shared more. For since the lowest angels act according to what they receive from the higher ones, and not vice versa, when the lower angels announce something, the annunciation is explicated by the higher ones to the lower ones, which would not be the case if the higher ones announced it directly. Third, because in this way the properties of the orders are preserved, as was said in Book II. (In II Sent., d. 9, aa. 3, 4, 7.) For the lowest hierarchy has the office of directing humans according to a certain limitation, either of one province, like the order of principalities, or of one man, like the orders of angels and archangels. But they differ, because it belongs to angels to direct someone in the actions that pertain to him alone, and so they are said to make known the least things. But it pertains to archangels to direct someone in those actions that redound on the whole multitude; this is also why archangels are intermediaries between principalities and angels, which their name also shows, for they are called “archangels,” as though “ruling angels.”
Therefore, since the Blessed Virgin’s consent, which was being sought in the Annunciation, was an act of an individual person that redounded to the salvation of the multitude—or rather, of the whole human race—the angel who brought the news had to be of the order of archangels, and the highest among them.
Reply Obj. 1: Gregory did not mean “highest” simply speaking, but highest among angels, insofar as any archangel can be called the highest messenger. And this is evident from the fact that he says beforehand, they are called archangels as though the highest messengers.
Reply Obj. 2: The lower angels were not entirely unaware of the mystery of the Incarnation, but since they could not grasp the whole vastness of the divine plan for the salvation of the human race, they were asking to be more fully instructed; and this was explained more fully in Book II. (See In II Sent., d. 11, q. 2, a. 4.)
Exposition of the text
The power of the Most High will overshadow you. (Sentences III, 3.1(7).3, quoting Luke 1:38.) The power of the Most High, according to the subsequent explanation of John Damascene, is understood as the Son, about whom it says, Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Cor 1:24). This is how the angel’s words foretell the coming of the two divine persons into the Virgin: the Holy Spirit to purify and furnish the reproductive power, and the Son to assume flesh. And this is why he says, the power . . . will overshadow you. For the power of the Most High was overshadowed by accepting our weakness. Or it could be said that it will overshadow you, means the blotting out of any form of the fomes. For by the Son’s coming into her all traces of the fomes had been uprooted from her; and this uprooting is called “overshadowing,” just as the fomes is called a “fire,” for shadow offers a coolness against the heat.
Like a divine seed. (Sent. III, 3.1(7).3, citing John Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith, bk. 3, ch. 2 (PG 94:982).) He does not simply say seed, so as to avoid the error of the Apollinarists, who held that the Holy Spirit came into the Virgin’s womb truly as a seed. However, there is a likeness to a seed insofar as a seed is active in generation, and so too the Holy Spirit in Christ’s conception, or the Son, whom he calls the power of the Most High.
Of our ancient mixture: (Sent. III, 3.1(7).3, citing John Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith, bk. 3, ch. 2 (PG 94:982).) not as to the antiquity of the fault, but of the punishment.
Created through the Holy Spirit. (Sent. III, 3.1(7).3, citing John Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith, bk. 3, ch. 2 (PG 94:982).) To the contrary, to create means to make something out of nothing. But Christ’s body was formed from matter. Therefore it was not created by the Holy Spirit. But one should say to this that “creation” here is being taken broadly for any supernatural activity that can be only from God himself.
If we said that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves (1 John 1:8). (Sent. III. 3. 2(8), citing Augustine, De natura et gratia, ch. 36, para. 42 (CSEL 60:232; PL 44:267).) The baptized child and the adult who had just been to confession seem to be obstacles to this claim. But it should be said that the apostle’s statement can be taken in two ways so that it has truth for all men. In one way, “sin” is understood not only as the stain and guilt of sin, but also as the cause and results of sin. For in the baptized child and in the penitent adult the fomes inciting them to sin remains, as are certain dispositions left behind by actual sin. But in Christ there were neither of these, for his flesh was conceived without the corruption of the fomes; and since he did not commit any sin, the traces of sin were not in him. Similarly, they were not in the Blessed Virgin, who was free from actual sin. However, although the fomes remained in her in its essence after her first sanctification, still it remained bound and not inciting to sin, as was said. (Above, q. 1, a. 2, resp. 1.) The other way it can be held as true is if it is understood also as referring to actual sin in its guilt and stain. For even if a human being could be without actual sin for a short time, he cannot persevere that way so long that he does not fall into venial sin at least. Then the verb we have conveys an indefinite present tense, not a precise one. But in Christ and his mother, actual sin had no place at all, whether mortal or venial.
Question 4
Christ's propagation from his ancestors
After the Master has showed the condition of the flesh assumed, and of the mother from whom it was assumed, here he raises certain questions about what has been determined. And this is divided into two parts.
In the first, he raises a question about the propagation of Christ’s flesh from his remote ancestors, namely, Abraham and Adam.
In the second, he raises a question about his flesh being conceived in his closest mother, at but what Augustine says . . . appears to go against that sentence in which we said above that the flesh of the Word was not conceived before it was taken. (Sent. III, 3.4(10).2.)
Concerning the first question, he does three things:
first, he raises the question;
second, he resolves it, at just as Abraham is shown by that tithing to be less than Melchisedech . . . so too was the Levitical order; (Sent. III, 3.3(9).2.)
third, he draws a certain conclusion from this resolution, at and so Christ is rightly said to have taken on ‘the first-fruits of our mass’. (Sent. III, 3.4(10).1, citing John Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith, bk.3, ch. 2 (PG 94:986).)
The second question is divided into question and resolution. The resolution begins at but there is another reason for that statement. (Sent. III, 3.4(10).4.)
Here there are two questions:
the first, about the propagation of Christ’s flesh from his ancient forebears, (Q. 4.)
the second, about his propagation from his mother. (Q. 5.)
Concerning the first, there are three things to ask:
first, whether Christ’s flesh was in bondage to sin in the ancient fathers, or was it from a flesh that was different from theirs, distinct in virtue of a difference of purity and infection;
second, whether Christ’s flesh was in his ancient ancestors as some determinate amount and one existing materially in them;
third, whether Christ alone among the sons of Abraham did not pay the tithe in him.
Article 1
Whether Christ’s flesh was in bondage to sin in his ancient ancestors
To the first we proceed thus. (Parallels: ST III.31.7; 31.8.ad 2; Super Isaiam 11; Super Ioan. 3, lect. 5.) It seems that Christ’s flesh was not infected by the sin in his ancient ancestors.
Obj. 1: For a heavenly body is not infected or changed by its union with any other body. But Christ’s body was of a heavenly nature, which is seen in what is said of him: he who comes from heaven is above all (John 3:31). Therefore Christ’s flesh could not have been infected in his ancient ancestors.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, it says in the text that Christ assumed the first-fruits of our flesh. But human flesh was not infected in its first state. Therefore Christ assumed flesh that had never before been infected.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, Augustine says that human nature always had, along with its wound, the wound’s medicine. (Augustine, Literal Interpretation of Genesis, bk. 10, para. 20 (CSEL 28.1:324; PL 34:424).) But what is corrupted cannot be corruption’s medicine. Therefore in human nature there was always something not corrupted or infected, from which Christ’s flesh was formed, which became the medicine for the whole human race.
Obj. 4: Furthermore, nothing is healed from corruption unless something of incorruption remains in it; for example, when an animal is diseased, if its heart remains healthy, the previously sick members can be healed by its power. But the corruption of the human race was able to be healed. Therefore, something incorrupt remained in human nature. But nothing is more pure in human nature than the flesh of Christ. Therefore what Christ’s flesh was formed from was never infected from his ancestors.
Obj. 5: Furthermore, nothing defiled gains entrance to divine wisdom, as Wisdom 7:22 says. But Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God, as 1 Corinthians 1 says. Therefore his flesh was never defiled.
On the contrary, the Master says in the text that before Christ’s flesh was assumed, it was in bondage to sin; and Hugh of Saint Victor says the same in his book on the sacraments. (Hugh of Saint Victor, De Sacramentis Christianae Fidei, bk. 2, part. 1, ch. 7 (PL 176:389).)
Furthermore, Christ’s flesh came from Abraham only through the seed by which Isaac was conceived. But that seed was polluted by the original infection, because of the carnal concupiscence of intercourse. Therefore, Christ’s flesh, before it was assumed, was infected by original sin.
Furthermore, a distinction of qualities presupposes a distinction of the underlying nature, since contraries cannot be at the same time in the same thing, or be caused by the same principles. But Christ’s flesh was not distinct in nature from the flesh of his forebears from whom he was propagated. Therefore, neither was it distinct in the quality of purity or impurity; and thus the same conclusion as before.
I answer that there are two heresies that have to do with this.
One is the heresy of those who said that Christ’s body was not formed from the same thing as what other human flesh is formed from, but rather, that the Son of God brought a heavenly body with him, and in this way he passed through the Virgin’s womb while assuming nothing from her. Now, this is heretical in two respects. First, because it detracts from the truth of scripture, which says that Christ was formed and born of a woman. For he would not be said to be formed from her unless he had drawn something from her that his flesh could arise from in a material way. Also in that case the Blessed Virgin could not be called the Mother of God. Second, because it detracts from the truth of Christ’s humanity. For since every form requires a determinate matter, if Christ’s body were formed from some other kind of matter than the matter from which other human bodies are formed, it would not be a body of the same species with other human bodies. And then he would be called a ‘man’ equivocally, since this matter is an essential part of a man.
The other error belongs to those who say that Christ’s flesh, as it existed in his ancestors, was not infected. For they say that when Adam sinned, God kept something in him uncorrupted and not infected, by which human nature might be healed, and this was passed down without any infection all the way to the Blessed Virgin, and from it Christ’s body was formed. Now, this is judged to be erroneous particularly because of two things. First, because according to this position Christ was not truly the son of the Virgin, nor is he truly from the stock of any of his forefathers except Adam alone. For that part that remained uncorrupted in human nature in other men, coming from Adam, would have been almost like something extraneous to them, while it would be connatural only to Adam according to his first state. Second, because the fitting order of making satisfaction is destroyed. For just as it was not seemly that anyone should make satisfaction for Adam and his corrupt posterity who was not from that race, in the same way it would also not be fitting that the Son of God should heal our infected nature by making satisfaction for it unless he had assumed the very thing that beforehand had been infected.
And therefore it should be said that the flesh of Christ, insofar as it existed in his forebears as well as in the Blessed Virgin herself, was infected by sin before it was assumed. But in the assumption itself it was purified from all infection of sin, so that insofar as it is actually Christ’s flesh no blemish would be found in it.
Reply Obj. 1: Christ is said to have come from heaven not by reason of the nature he assumed—as though his soul or body were first assumed in heaven and afterward came to us through the womb of the Virgin—but rather, with respect to the person who did the assuming, who is indeed said to have come to us from heaven, not by a change of place but by the assumption of a visible nature.
Reply Obj. 2: Christ is said to have assumed the first-fruits of our flesh, not as the identical thing—such that the nature of the flesh that he assumed would always remain in that first state—but as to their likeness. For the flesh assumed, considered as the actual flesh of Christ, was without fault, just like the flesh of the first man before sin, as the Master explains in the text. (Sent. III. 3. 3(9).)
Reply Obj. 3: Christ’s flesh was not in Abraham as actual medicine for the wound, but only in potentiality, so that from him that flesh could be propagated from which the medicine for our wound would be made. And therefore it is not necessary that it be there actually without the infection of the wound, but only in potentiality, according to the order in which Christ’s flesh was to be propagated from it.
Reply Obj. 4: Something corrupt can be restored in two ways. Either in virtue of a passive potentiality alone, and then something must remain in it that is not corrupted—that is, not annihilated by corruption, as when we say one contrary is corrupted by the addition of its contrary, for a subject must remain with the possibility of a wholeness that is to be regained. Or in virtue of a passive potentiality and an active one at the same time, as a sick man is sometimes curable by the active power of his nature; and because the same thing cannot be not acted upon by its very self, it is necessary that, to be capable of restoration in this way, there be some part that is neither corrupted nor not subject to corruption, like his heart. Therefore it should be said that human nature was only able to be restored in virtue of a passive potentiality alone, and so there need not remain in it any part that was not subject to the corruption; rather, it is enough that there remained within it something of its nature with the possibility of restoration, yet still subject to the corruption.
Reply Obj. 5: Christ’s flesh, actually existing as Christ’s flesh, was not infected in any way. For its cleansing from the foregoing infection preceded, at least in understanding, its assumption. Therefore nothing defiled could gain entrance to divine wisdom.
Article 2
Whether Christ’s flesh existed in his ancient forebears as a determinate amount
To the second question we proceed thus. (Parallel: ST III.31.6.) It seems that Christ’s flesh existed in his ancient forebears according to some determinate thing that could be shown.
Obj. 1: For as we have in the text from Augustine, (Sent. III, 3.3(9).1, referring to Augustine, The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, bk. 10, para. 19 (CSEL 28.1:321; PL 34:423).) Christ’s flesh was in Abraham according to physical substance. But physical substance names something particular and demonstrable. Therefore Christ’s flesh existed in Abraham and in others in this way.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, in the formation of Christ’s body two things are found: the reason for the formation, which is the active principle in conception, and the matter from which Christ’s body was formed. But the reasons for formation did not come down from Adam, as Augustine says, (Augustine, Literal Interpreation of Genesis (CSEL 28, 1), bk. 10, para. 3.) but came from above: for what was conceived in her was of the Holy Spirit (Matt 1:20). Therefore if that determinate matter did not exist in Adam or Abraham, Christ’s body did not come in any way from the first parents—which is a problem, since then it would not pertain to him to make satisfaction for Adam’s sin, as was said. Therefore Christ’s flesh must have existed in Abraham and Adam according to a determinate matter.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, if this determinate matter from which Christ’s body was formed was not in Adam, this cannot be unless because it was taken from food. Now, food is something extraneous to human nature. Christ’s flesh, then, would not be truly of human nature—which is heretical. Therefore it seems that the matter of Christ’s flesh could not be taken from excess food consumed, but it was passed down from our first parents.
Obj. 4: Furthermore, an agreement present in virtue of things being identical with each other is greater than one in virtue of a proportion between a principle and what is derived from it. But if the matter of Christ’s body was taken from food, at a certain time it was really the matter of the food eaten. Now, it could not be said that it really existed in his grandfather and great-grandfather—although perhaps it could be said that it existed there as an effect within the power of its principle. Therefore there would be a greater agreement between Christ’s flesh and the animals whose flesh was consumed in the food, than between Christ’s flesh and Adam’s or Abraham’s—which is a problem. Therefore, the same conclusion as previously.
Obj. 5: Furthermore, what is clean in itself is not naturally apt to infect something else with a contrary infection. But the Blessed Virgin was cleansed from the original infection through her first sanctification. Therefore by the power of her soul she could not be infected by any ingested nourishment, nor was she infected in any other way any infection that is not found outside human nature. Therefore Christ’s flesh would not have been subject to sin within the Blessed Virgin—which is erroneous, as has been said. Therefore Christ’s flesh did not exist materially from an excess of food; and thus, the same conclusion as before.
On the contrary, Christ did not exist in his forebears in a way that other men did not, but on the other hand, other men did exist in their forebears in a certain way that Christ did not. But other men did not exist in their first parents in virtue of determinate matter. Therefore, neither did Christ exist in his ancestors in this way. Here is the proof of the middle term: other men descend from their ancestors only by means of a seed. Now, a seed, as the Philosopher shows, (Aristotle, Generation of Animals 1.18, 724b34.) is not some separate thing that was an actual part, but it is an excess of food, which is entirely in potency. Therefore the matter of other men did not exist in a determinate way in Adam as an actual existing part of him.
Furthermore, generation according to nature is capable of the infinite according to its nature, in the way that one human is begotten by another. Therefore, if a certain determinate matter were taken, from which all flesh was separated, then the matter for infinite things would have to be in one finite thing. But that is impossible. Therefore it is impossible that the flesh of all human beings and of Christ should exist in Adam in any determinate or designated matter. Now, that it would be impossible can be proved as follows. The matter of any natural thing requires a determinate amount, for not just any form can be imprinted on any matter however small. But infinite things cannot exist in anything finite unless they were taken by a division made not according to a determinate quantity, but always according to the same proportion, so that, for example, half of the whole were taken, and half of the half, and so on infinitely; for then what was taken second would be according to the same proportion as what was taken first, though of a different quantity. Therefore it is impossible that the matter of infinite natural bodies should be taken from any one body that is actually finite.
Furthermore, in every begetting a univocal natural agent its puts it form into matter that previously was not subject to that form, as fire does into the matter of air, which formerly was not subject to the form of fire. But if the matter from which that man is formed had existed in virtue of something designated in Adam, and in the rest of his ancestors, then his matter would never have been subject to human nature. Therefore, this manner of begetting would not be appropriate according to the way of natural begetting; and thus the same conclusion as before.
I answer that there are two opinions about this.
One opinion says that the flesh of Christ, and of every other human, existed in Adam as determinate matter in such a way that there was some part of Adam’s body from which the bodies of all men were formed by a certain of multiplication, either without the admixture of anything foreign, as some say, or with something mixed in with that matter that had been converted from food: and in Book II it was discussed how improbable this would seem to be. (In II Sent., d. 30, q. 2, aa. 2, 3.)
The other opinion, which seems more probable, is that other men did not exist in the first parent except according to original matter; and in this way, Christ did exist in our first parents. But there is a difference in that other men existed in our first parent according to their seedlike principle, but Christ did not. ("Seedlike principle" is our rendering of the Augustinian expression ratio seminalis; this is traditionally, but confusingly, translated as "seminal reason." See especially In II Sent., d. 18, q. 1, a. 2.)
This fact can be seen in this way. In those who are begotten through physical intimacy, two things have to come together for the formation of the body: an active principle, which is in the seed, and is called the “seedlike principle," but the other is the matter from which the body is formed, which the mother supplies. Now, both of these things can be originally traced back to the first parent. For whatever may be the power active in the father’s seed for the conception of the human body exists by the power of human nature, which the father of children to be brought forth received from his own father, and he from his father, and so on back to Adam. And in this way it is clear that the seedlike principle of those conceived from a man’s seed descends from Adam originally. In the same way, also the matter that the mother supplies must be prepared by her reproductive power, for the begetting of a natural thing requires a proper and determinate matter. Now, the reproductive power of the mother herself descended originally from Adam, just as did the man’s reproductive power. And thus those who are begotten from male and female are descended from Adam originally both according to the seedlike principle and according to the matter; and since one mode of being-in something is the way an effect is said to be in its efficient cause, as it says in the Physics 4, (Aristotle, Physics 4.3, 210a16, 22; Aquinas, In Physic., bk. 4, lect. 4, n. 2.) for this reason men so conceived are said to have existed in Adam both in virtue of their seedlike principle and in virtue of their original matter.
However, in Christ’s conception only the Holy Spirit was the active power, while the matter was supplied by the Virgin, having been prepared in the appropriate way. Accordingly, it is clear that the matter of Christ’s body was originally descended from Adam, but no active principle in his conception was descended originally from Adam. And thus Christ existed in Adam according to original matter, but not according to a seedlike principle.
Reply Obj. 1: When Christ is said to have existed in Adam according to bodily substance, one should understand this as though he existed in Adam in the way a bodily substance exists, but that the very bodily substance of Christ’s body existed in some way in Adam as in its original principle.
Reply Obj. 2: The matter of Christ’s body, but not the principle of his conception, existed in Adam. Nevertheless that matter did not exist actually in Adam as some determinate part of him, but by its power alone, as a thing is said to exist in the efficient principle of the entire species.
Reply Obj. 3: The matter of Christ’s body was assumed from what had been turned into the Virgin’s most pure blood from the food she had consumed. Now, although nourishment is extraneous and dissimilar in the beginning, nevertheless in the end it is appropriated and similar, as it says in On the Soul 2. (Aristotle, On the Soul 2.4, 416b6–7; Aquinas, Sent. De anima, bk. 2, lect. 9, n. 339.) Therefore, it does not follow that the matter of Christ’s body would be extraneous to human nature.
Reply Obj. 4: Likeness and agreement more attends form than matter, so that if a fire generate fire from air, the fire generated would have more in common with the fire generating it, with which it agrees in form, rather than with the air that it was generated from materially. In the same way, the matter of Christ’s body has more in common with the Blessed Virgin and the other patriarchs, by whose power the proper matter of the human body was brought about, rather than with the things that were taken from food.
Reply Obj. 5: By her first sanctification, as was said above, the Blessed Virgin was cleansed of the fomes as something inclining one to personal actions. However, that inclination was not removed insofar as the fomes infects our nature, but this was done by her second sanctification, some say. Therefore, whatever was in the Blessed Virgin as ordered to the propagation of nature was in bondage to sin, although it was cleansed from sin as it pertained to her person.
Article 3
Whether Christ alone did not pay the tithe in Abraham
Quaestiuncula 1
To the third question we proceed thus. (Parallels: In IV Sent., d. 1, q. 2, a. 2, resp. 3, ad 2; ST III.31.8; Super Heb. 7, lect. 2.) It seems that no one who is descended from the stock of Abraham paid tithes in him.
Obj. 1: For, as Augustine says, (Augustine, Literal Interpretation of Genesis, bk. 10, para. 20 (CSEL 28.1:322; PL 34:424).) he who paid the tithe in him was cured. But no one among the ancient patriarchs can be cured or sanctified, as was said above. Therefore no one could have paid tithes in Abraham.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, just as after the time of Abraham among those who were descended from his lineage, circumcision availed as a treatment for original sin, so too before his time the power of the sacrifices, tithes, and offerings availed for the same thing, as Gregory says in Morals on the Book of Job. (Gregory the Great, Moralia in Job, bk. 4, pref. (CCSL 143; PL 75:635).) But when Abraham was circumcised, no one descended from his line was circumcised thereby, otherwise it would not have been necessary for them to be circumcised later. Therefore, when Abraham gave tithes, neither did his descendants pay tithes.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, to tithe is either to give one-tenth, or to be bound to pay a tenth, or to be deprived of a tenth, as grain is said to be tithed when a tenth part is taken away. But in the first way it cannot be said that anyone is tithed in his father, for giving a tenth is a personal act. But personal acts are not passed down from parents to sons, just as neither are actual sins. Therefore, when Abraham gave tithes, his son was not thereby tithed as giving a tithe. Similarly, it cannot be said in the second way either, for the Levites and priests of the Old Law were descended from the stock of Abraham, but they were not bound to pay tithes, but rather received tithes from the people. Therefore, not all the sons of Abraham besides Christ paid the tithe in him, as obligated to tithe. Similarly, it cannot be said in the third way either. For tithing has to do with what is actually distinguishable, which is why wheat cannot be tithed by tithing the seeds. But the sons of Abraham were not actually distinguishable in him, but only by their power. Therefore in no way could they have been tithed in him.
On the contrary (4), the Apostle says otherwise in Hebrews 7:2, and there are the words of Augustine in the text. (Sent. III, 3.3(9).2, referring to Augustine, Literal Interpretation of Genesis, bk. 10, para. 19 (CSEL 28.1:321–22; PL 34:423).)
Furthermore (5), tithing is a certain sign of divine servitude, since it pertains to worship. But children are obliged in their parents to servitude, for children are slaves if they are born to parents who are slaves. Therefore, when Abraham gave tithes, his children were tithed.
Quaestiuncula 2
Obj. 1: Moreover, it seems that Christ also paid the tithe in Abraham. For Christ had no relationship to Abraham except by means of the Blessed Virgin. But the Blessed Virgin paid the tithe in Abraham. Therefore, so did Christ.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, paying tithes applies to the sons of Abraham by reason of original sin, as we have in the text, (Sent. III, 3.3(9).2.) for they were propagated from him through concupiscence. But Christ’s flesh in Abraham was in bondage to sin, as it also says in the text. (Sent. III, 3.1(7).1.) Therefore, Christ too paid tithes in him.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, tithing is a symbolic act. But Christ seems to be symbolized the most by the figure of a tenth, by reason of Christ’s perfection, which corresponds to the number ten. Therefore Christ especially paid tithes in Abraham.
On the contrary (4), in Hebrews 7:9, the Apostle elevates the priesthood of Christ above Aaron’s priesthood by the fact that Levi, who was descended from Aaron’s stock, paid tithes when Abraham gave tithes. But then Christ would not have anything more fully than did Aaron, if he had paid tithes in Abraham in the same way. Therefore in no way did he pay tithes in him.
Furthermore (5), what is multiplied miraculously, not by power of nature, is not tithable, as is seen in 2 Kings 4; for Elisha did not command the widow to give a tithe of the oil that was miraculously increased. But Christ’s flesh was miraculously propagated from Abraham. Therefore Christ did not pay tithes in Abraham.
Response to Quaestiuncula 1
To the first question, I answer that those who descended from Abraham through physical intimacy were tithed in Abraham. However, Christ was not tithed in him, the reason for which is that tithing was not only a moral act but also a figurative act.
For it is a moral act insofar as a certain part of the fruits of the land and of other things was brought together for the use of God’s ministers and the poor, so that there would be food in the house of the Lord, as is said in Malachi 3:10.
However, it is a figurative act insofar as it is a figure of imperfection, in that one who gives a tithe hopes for perfection from the one to whom he gives it. For in the number ten there is certain notion of perfection insofar as it is a certain threshold; this is why nine signifies imperfection, inasmuch as it falls short of ten. And therefore one who gives a tenth, insofar as he holds on to nine tenths and gives the other that tenth confesses that he is imperfect, and hopes for perfection from the other. And this is why also paying a tithe is in a certain way a sacramental act, insofar as a real spoken confession proceeded from faith in the mediator, through whose perfection the imperfection of the human race due to original sin has been removed. For this tithing prefigured the remedy that was offered against original sin by way of the sacrament.
Therefore that tithing by which Abraham give the tithe, showing himself to need a liberator, pertains only to those descending from his line who drew the imperfection of original sin from him, such that in the same way they hoped for liberation by another, just as he did. Now, only those who descended from him through physical intimacy drew original sin from him, for only these ones received human nature from him as from an active principle. This is also why they are said to have been in him according to their seminal principle, and on account of this also they at the same time as the nature contracted the nature’s wound from Adam and Abraham. However, although he did not descend from Adam or Abraham through physical intimacy, Christ had the matter of human nature from them, which matter was formed into a human nature by the power of the Holy Spirit. And therefore he did not contract original sin, so he could not be prefigured as having imperfection and being in need of a liberator. And on account of this he was not tithed in Abraham.
Reply Obj. 1: In Augustine’s words, when he says, was cured, he is not indicating an actual cure, but the need of a cure. For he who was in him such that he stood in need of a cure was tithed in him.
Reply Obj. 2: No one is said to be circumcised except insofar as he actually suffers something, but someone is said to be tithed even according to a prefiguration. Whence tithing and circumcision are not alike.
Reply Obj. 3: “To be tithed” is being taken in none of these ways. Rather, “to be tithed” is being taken here as to mean nothing other than to be prefigured as standing in need of liberation. Now, in Abraham’s giving the tithe this was prefigured about all who were to contract original sin from him, just as he himself contracted it from his parents, such that for the same reason he confessed there to be in them the imperfection needing liberation, which would be symbolized by the payment of the tithe.
Reply Sed Contra 4–5: We grant the fourth and fifth arguments.
Response to Quaestiuncula 2
To the second question, it should be said that Christ was in no way tithed in Abraham, and the reason for this is evident from what has been said.
Reply Obj. 1: Christ only descended from Abraham by means of the Blessed Virgin, so the way he descended from Abraham is the way that he descended from the Blessed Virgin. And since he is not descended from the Blessed Virgin through intercourse, he is not descended from Abraham through intercourse either, although the Blessed Virgin is descended from Abraham through intercourse. Therefore, it does not follow that if the Blessed Virgin was tithed in Abraham, Christ would have been tithed in him as well.
Reply Obj. 2: What is in potency can be prefigured in the clean or the unclean. But to be clean or unclean only applies to actually existing things. Therefore, what actually existed in Abraham was entirely subject to sin; and so Christ’s flesh in Abraham was liable to sin. But because Christ’s flesh was not to be propagated from Abraham in such a way that he would contract the original infection from him, Christ is not said to be tithed in him, since a tithe, inasmuch as it is something figurative, could also be referred to what was in Abraham by power.
Reply Obj. 3: The tenth part that is rendered to God is not properly said to be tithed, but rather the nine-tenths from which the tenth was separated. And therefore Christ, indicated by the tenth, is not said to be tithed, but others contracting imperfection are designated by the nine-tenths are.
Reply Sed Contra 4–5: We grant the other two arguments.
Question 5
Christ's propagation from the Blessed Virgin
Next, we must inquire about the propagation of Christ’s flesh from his mother, and concerning this there are three things to ask about:
first, the matter from which his body was conceived;
second, the time of his conception;
third, the sanctification of the one conceived.
Article 1
Whether Christ’s body came from the Virgin’s most pure blood
To the first question we proceed thus. (Parallel: ST III.31.5; John Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith, bk. 3, ch. 2 (PG 94:986).) It seems that Christ’s body was not formed only from the Virgin’s most pure blood, as Damascene says.
Obj. 1: For things that are of the same species have matter that is of the same account, because a natural form requires determinate matter. But the matter of other men is from what is separated from the man and woman. Therefore, since Christ, as man, was of the same species as other men, it seems that his body was not formed from only the Virgin Mother’s blood.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, it says in Romans 1:3: who was from the seed of David according to the flesh. (RSV has “descended from” instead of “from the seed of.”) But what something is made from is its matter. Therefore the matter of Christ’s body is not blood but seed.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, in the collect it says that God wanted his Word to take flesh from a Virgin. (From the Collect for the feast of the Annunciation.) But Christ’s body was formed from what he took from the Virgin. Therefore, the matter of Christ’s body was not blood, but flesh.
Obj. 4: Furthermore, as it says in On Generation and Corruption 2, things that have more in common are more easily transformed into each other. (Aristotle, On Generation and Corruption 2.5, 332a31–33.) But flesh has more in common with flesh than with blood. Therefore, it is more appropriate to say Christ’s body was formed from the Virgin’s flesh than from her blood.
Obj. 5: Furthermore, the reproductive power only works from what is left over from the nutritive power, since the nutritive is in the service of the reproductive. Now, blood is not left over from the nutritive power’s work, but rather it is what the nutritive needs present in the process of nourishing the members. Therefore, blood cannot be the matter supplied by the reproductive power for the conception of the child; and so the same as before.
On the contrary, Damascene says (John Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith, bk. 3, ch. 2 (PG 94:986).) that divine wisdom joined flesh to itself from the Virgin’s most pure blood.
Furthermore, Christ’s body was formed only from the matter that the Virgin supplied, just as in nature other mothers supply for their children’s conception. But as it says in On the Generation of Animals 15, (Aristotle, On the Generation of Animals 1.20, 728–729a, esp. 729a28–33.) the matter that a fetus’s body is formed from, which the mother supplies, is blood, which is called menstrual discharge. Therefore Christ’s body was also formed from blood.
I answer that there are various opinions about the matter that a human’s body is formed from. For some say that the human body is formed from the combination of the seeds—the mother’s and father’s—with menstrual blood, such that all this is the matter of the body.
Now, the Philosopher refuted this in many ways in On the Generation of Animals 15, (Aristotle, On the Generation of Animals 1.19–20, 726–729a.) where he showed that what comes from the man is not the matter for the human body, but only its active principle, both by reason and by sensory indications, which latter most of all cause conviction in natural matters. This is evident to anyone who examines his words. Likewise, he also shows that the woman’s seed does nothing toward generation, which is why some women even conceive without supplying any seed. But the blood that is called menstrual discharge is in women in place of the seed that is in men.
And following this, the opinion of the Philosopher, the Virgin’s giving birth can be most fittingly safeguarded if only a woman’s blood is materially required for conceiving a human body. For it is not to be believed that the matter of Christ’s body, which was conceived without the seed of a man, should be lacking anything that is materially required for the formation of a human body. To all who believe in his mother’s virginity, it is also clear that this conception was brought about without any human seed. And therefore the matter from which the body is formed, both in Christ and in other human beings, is the blood prepared by the mother’s reproductive power. For that blood in women is like the seed in men, which is also why the latter begins to form in men and the former in women at the same time, namely, with the appearance of hair and the other happenings that are signs of puberty. But since in women the heat serving the reproductive power is less than the man’s heat, in women the surplus of ingested food is not as thoroughly digested as it is in men, and this is why it remains in the form of blood, as falling short of the complete digestion of seed. This is why it happens that someone who has intercourse too frequently may produce blood in place of seed, as it says in On the Generation of Animals 15, (Aristotle, On the Generation of Animals 1.19, 726af1–30.) as though nature were not sufficient to digest as much seed as the incontinence demands.
Reply Obj. 1: According to the Philosopher in On the Generation of Animals 15 and 16, (Aristotle, On the Generation of Animals 1.20, 727–729, and 2.1, 731.) what is produced by the man does not become the matter in generation, but only the active source. For this reason it remains that the human body be formed materially from the woman’s blood alone, in Christ as well as in other human beings.
Reply Obj. 2: Christ is said to be of David’s seed according to the flesh not in such a way that he is from that matter directly, but because the matter from which Christ’s body was formed was originally descended from the seed of David.
Reply Obj. 3: The act of assumption has two termini: that from which and that to which. Therefore it is said that the Word of God assumed flesh from the Virgin not as the terminus from which—as though it were first in the form of flesh before it was assumed—but as the terminus to which, for that matter was assumed and formed into flesh at the same time.
Reply Obj. 4: Although flesh has more in common with flesh according to the likeness of their species, still the blood that the body is formed from has more in common with flesh, and the other parts of the body, according to the relationship of potency to act than flesh has with [the parent’s] flesh. For this blood is the whole in potency according to a passive potency, just as seed too is the whole in potency according to an active potency. Now, flesh is not the whole in potency, since it is actually a part that has its final completion already at the end of digestion. However, this commonality is especially required for something to be made out of something else; for a house is more easily constructed from cement and stones, which differ in species, than from another house, which is of the same species—for a house cannot be constructed from another house unless it is broken back down into stones.
Reply Obj. 5: The blood that is thought to be the matter for the human body is not absolutely such as is first generated from food by the nutritive act; rather, what is left of that blood from the final nutritive digestion supplies the reproductive power in women, which prepares the blood so that it might be the proper matter for the human body.
Article 2
Whether the conception of Christ’s body was instantaneous or completed successively
To the second question we proceed thus. (Parallels: ST III.33.1; SCG IV.44; Compend. theol., ch. 218; Super Ioan. 1, lect. 9; 2, lect. 15.) It seems that the conception of Christ’s body was not instantaneous, but completed successively.
Obj. 1: For Hebrews 2:17 says, Christ had to be made like his brethren in every respect. But other human beings, who are called “his brethren” here, are conceived successively. Therefore, Christ’s conception should also have been successive.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, the time for the begetting of any thing is determined according to its species, as said On Generation 2. (Aristotle, On Generation and Corruption 2.10, 336b9–15.) But Christ was of the same species as other human beings. Therefore, just as the generation of other people is completed in a determinate time, so was Christ’s.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, as it says in On the Soul 2, (Aristotle, On the Soul 2.4, 416a16–17; Aquinas, Sent. De anima, bk. 2, lect. 9, n. 332.) every natural thing has a due, determinate size. But at the beginning of his conception Christ’s body could not have as great a size as is due to a human being’s nature; otherwise at that time he could not have grown in the Virgin’s womb for the same amount of time that others grow, or he would have been carried by the Virgin for a shorter time than others are carried—which is not what the Church holds. Therefore, in the beginning of his conception, he was not yet in the human species, as he was at the end of his conception. Therefore, the beginning of conception is something different from its ending. Now, every change that has a before and after is successive. Therefore, Christ’s conception was successive.
Obj. 4: Furthermore, Christ’s body was formed from the Virgin’s blood. Therefore, either it was blood and flesh in the same instant—and then the same matter was simultaneously under two different substantial forms—or at different instants. But between any instants there is a middle time, as is proved in the Physics 6. (Aristotle, Physics 6.4, 235a13–20; Aquinas, In Physic., bk. 6, lect. 5, nn. 4–5.) Therefore, Christ’s conception is measured by time, and was not accomplished instantaneously.
Obj. 5: Furthermore, being conceived is a sort of coming to be, just as having-been-conceived is a sort of accomplished being. Now, among permanent things nothing comes to be and has come to be simultaneously, otherwise something would exist and not exist simultaneously. For what is coming to be in not found among permanent things, but what has come to be already exists. Therefore, in Christ’s flesh being-conceived and having-been-conceived did not exist at the same time. And thus there was a succession of before and after.
On the contrary, the beginning of conception could not exist before the agent of conception was present in the Virgin. But the agent of the conception was in divine Wisdom itself, which united to itself flesh from the Virgin’s blood, as Damascene says above. (John Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith, bk. 3, ch. 2 (PG 94:986).) Therefore, conception could not have begun before divine Wisdom had descended into the Virgin’s womb. But as Gregory says in Morals on the Book of Job, when the Spirit came, as soon as the Word enters the womb, the Word became flesh. (Gregory the Great, Moralia in Iob, bk. 18, para. 52 (CCSL 143A; PL 76:89–90).) Therefore, the conception of the flesh could not have begun before the flesh existed. But conception terminates in the species of flesh. Therefore conception did not begin before it reached its terminus, and thus, it did not occur successively.
Furthermore, Christ’s conception happened by divine power, which is infinite. But it belongs to infinite power to produce its effect immediately. Therefore Christ’s conception was in an instant.
I answer that, according to the faith, Christ’s conception must be held to have happened instantaneously, for human nature was not assumed before it was perfected in its species, since its parts were not assumable except by reason of the whole, as is evident from what was said in Distinction 2. (Above, d. 2, q. 2, a. 3, resp. 1.) Now, the properties and accidents of human nature are not said of the Son of God before his assumption of human nature. Therefore anything human that is said of the Son of God did not come before the completion of his human nature. However, we do speak of the conception of the Son of God, as is clear from the Creed: who was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the conception in Christ must not have preceded in time the complete nature of his flesh; and thus it remains that he was being conceived and was conceived at the same time. For this reason we must consider that conception to have been instantaneous, so that these things existed in the same instant: the conversion of that material blood into flesh and the other parts of Christ’s body; the formation of the organic members and the soul being infused in the organ-bearing body; and the assumption of the ensouled body into the unity of the divine person.
Now, in others these things occur successively, such that a male child’s conception is not completed until the fortieth day, or a female’s until the ninetieth, as the Philosopher says in History of Animals 9. (Aristotle, History of Animals 7.3, 583b2–5.) But in the completion of the male body Augustine seems to add six days, which are distinguished as follows, according to him in his Letter to Jerome. (Augustine, Book of Eighty-Three Different Questions, q. 56 (CCSL 44A; PL 40:39).) For the first six days the seed has a likeness resembling milk; in the next nine days it changes to blood; then in twelve days it solidifies; in eighteen days it is formed to the complete lines of the members; and from then on the rest of the time until the time of delivery it grows in size. Thus the verse: Six days as milk, three times three as blood, two times six forms the flesh, three times six the members. However, in Christ’s conception, the matter that the Virgin supplied immediately took the form and figure of the human body, as well as the soul, and was assumed into the unity of the divine person.
Reply Obj. 1: Christ had to be like his brethren in every respect in those matters that were necessary to his brethren’s restoration. Now, these things are those in which the truth of human nature consists, namely, its essential parts and natural properties, and the sufferings by which the work of redemption was to be fulfilled. But in other things Christ had to be exceptional, as the savior of men.
Reply Obj. 2: The specific time of generation that a species has to have does not follow the truth of the species in what is generated; rather, it follows the power of the one generating in that species. Therefore, although Christ was conceived in the truth of human nature, nevertheless because that conception was not done by the action of any human power, Christ’s conception did not have to have the same time as others’ conceptions.
Reply Obj. 3: The particular size of a certain species is not determined in a precise way; rather, it has a certain latitude. For greater and smaller sizes are found in the human species, as well as in the same individual at different times and in different things, as is evident to the senses. Now, the smallest size in one individual is at the first instant of his formation and ensoulment; and this quantity is so small that it hardly exceeds the size of an ant, as the Philosopher says, (Aristotle, History of Animals 7.3, 583b17–18.) because when a woman miscarries on the fortieth day, the body of her child is found to have all its distinct members, although in size it is as small as an ant. But the greatest size in any individual in the last stage of his growth, and thus the maximum is different in different people, as is the minimum, proportionally.
Therefore it could have been that Christ’s body, perfectly formed in the first instant of his conception, would have had the sufficient size for his species, while being smaller than he should have been at the beginning of his humanity if he had been naturally conceived, relative to the size that he had in the full phase of life, proportionally with other men. In this way, by growing until the fortieth or forty-sixth day, he reached the size that in him should have been the smallest in proportion to other people, and from then on he grew as other people grow. In this way, the whole time that he was in his mother’s womb was given to growth, while in others it is given to conversion of matter, formation, infusion of the soul, and growth.
Reply Obj. 4: It is universally true in any continuous motion that one cannot find a last instant in which what is moving is away from the terminus toward which it moves; although one can find a first instant that it is at the terminus toward which it moves, as is clear from the Physics 8. (Aristotle, Physics 8.8, 263a4–b8; Aquinas, In Physic., bk. 8, lect. 17, n. 11.)
For example, if something moves from being black to being white, in the last instant of time measuring that movement, whiteness is present in the thing changing, and indeed, the last terminus of the time corresponds to the last terminus of the motion. But in all the time before the last instant, the thing changing is distant from whiteness. Now, before the last instant of time, no second-to-last instant can be taken, since between any two instants there is a middle time, as is proved in the Physics 6. (Aristotle, Physics 6.3, 234a7–9; Aquinas, In Physic., bk. 6, lect. 17, n. 11.) That is why we cannot take a last instant in which what is becoming white is not white. And it is the same way in changes that, although they are not motions, nevertheless follow upon a certain motion, as generation follows change, and illumination follows the sun’s local movement. For there cannot be a last instant in which what is becoming fire is not fire, nor an instant in which air that is being illuminated is dark, because the beginning terminus in those changes is in the changed thing for the whole time measuring the motion, to which the change is united as a terminus, only in the last instant of that time.
Therefore, I say that although Christ’s conception is not a motion—because it does not happen successively— nevertheless, it is joined to a kind of motion, at least to the local motion of material blood to the place of generation, where it is collected from everywhere. And in the final terminus of that motion the matter was under the species of Christ’s body, and this is how we take the first instant that Christ’s body existed. But in all the time that preceded this instant, it was still blood, so we cannot take a last instant that the blood existed, but only a last time. Now, a time is continued from an instant without any middle falling in between them, just as neither is there some middle falling between a line and a point. For this reason the form of the blood and the form of Christ’s body succeed each other continuously in that matter; nor is it necessary to think there was any middle time that would make the conception seem to have happened successively.
Reply Obj. 5: There are two ways to take “coming to be.” In one way, insofar as it pertains to the movement preceding the being of the thing that is said to come to be; and in this way thing’s coming to be must precede in duration its accomplished being, as the objection proves. In another way, “coming to be” is said for the very termination of the movement that brings about being, for example, being illuminated is designated by the mode of coming to be, and this very thing is said to be terminated; and the coming to be of something like this does not precede in time its accomplished being, nor is it different from it, except in notion. For what has been illuminated—if it is considered in itself—is designated as an accomplished being. However, if it is considered insofar as it is something of a preceding motion, namely its terminus, then it is designated as a coming to be, as when it is called “being illuminated.” And therefore, it is not true to say this except in the first instant in which the preceding movement is terminated, although it is always true to say afterward, “this has come to be.” However, taking “coming to be” in this way, it is not necessary that what exists does not exist, but that what exists now first exists; and by this mode it is true to say of Christ that he is being conceived and has been conceived at the same time, while for the same reason it is not necessary to say that his conception happened successively.
Article 3
Whether being sanctified belongs to Christ, that is, did he need sanctification
To the third question we proceed thus. (Parallel: ST III.34.1.) It seems that being sanctified does not belong to Christ.
Obj. 1: For, as it says in Hebrews 7:26–27, for it was fitting that we should have such a high priest . . . he has no need, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people. But just as Christ came to pray and offer a sacrifice for the people, he also came to sanctify the people. Therefore, he did not need to be sanctified himself.
Obj. 2: Furthermore, in any order the first mover is immobile. But Christ is the principle of all human sanctification. Therefore he himself was not sanctified.
Obj. 3: Furthermore, everything that comes to be, comes to be from its contrary; for generations are from contraries, according to the Philosopher. (Aristotle, Physics 7.7, 216a32–34; In Physic., bk. 7, lect. 15, n. 2.) But Christ was immune from every sin, which is the contrary to holiness. Therefore Christ is not said to be sanctified.
Obj. 4: One might say that his flesh was in bondage to sin before it was assumed, as it says in the text, (Sent. III, 3.1(7).1.) and Christ is said to be sanctified because of his cleansing from this.
On the contrary, this name “Christ” is the name of the hypostasis subsisting in the two natures. Therefore nothing can be said of Christ that preceded this union. But the infection that his flesh would have been in bondage to in his ancestors only existed before the union. Therefore by that argument Christ cannot be said to have been sanctified.
On the contrary, it says in John 10:36: whom the Father has consecrated and sent into the world. Therefore Christ was sanctified.
Furthermore, “Christ” signifies “Anointed.” But spiritual anointing is a cause of sanctity. Therefore he too can be said to have been sanctified.
I answer that "to be sanctified" means to become holy. Now, someone can become holy in two ways: either from being holy [already], or from not being holy.
From being holy it can happen again in two ways. One way is from being less holy to being more holy, as it says in John 17:17: Father, sanctify them in truth. For at that time the apostles were holy. Or it can happen according to a continuation of holiness maintained in the same amount, and in this way Christ can be sanctified, just as he himself says, and for their sake I consecrate myself (John 17:19), because a successive continuation has a measure of sanctification. But this manner of speaking does not seem customary, which is why we do not speak of sanctification this way.
From not being holy, too, someone can become holy in two ways. One way is from not being holy, being the contrary or lacking, as a sinner is said to be sanctified by grace. And in this way Christ cannot be said to be sanctified, because no defect in sanctity can be taken to have existed in him with a consistent subject, for he was a man and a holy man at the same time. The other way is from not being holy negatively, and then a distinction still needs to be made, for someone can become holy from not being holy either by reason of a created holiness, which belongs to a human being, and then Christ is said to have become holy just as he became man; or by reason of an uncreated holiness, and then he is said to become holy by the mode in which the man is said to become God—which is either false, or less appropriate than the first way, namely, God became man, as will be clear below in Distinction 7. (See below, d. 7, q. 2, a. 2.) And this is how it can be granted that in a some sense Christ was sanctified.
Reply Obj. 1: Just as Christ did not need to pray for himself or to offer sacrifice for himself, neither did he need to be sanctified in the way that he had come to sanctify others, which was by the purification from sins. However, this does not detract from the fact that the whole Trinity made him holy as man, since before, he was neither a man nor a holy man.
Reply Obj. 2: The first mover in an order of moving things need not be immobile simply speaking, but only immobile according to the same kind of motion. For example, the heavens, which is the first cause of alteration, certainly moves, but it does not itself alter; for it is not the first mover simply speaking. In the same way, Christ as man is also not the first sanctifier simply speaking; God the Trinity is. However, as man by the mode of making satisfaction for sin, he is the first sanctifier, and in that way he was not sanctified, although in another way he was sanctified.
Reply Obj. 3: It is not necessary that everything that comes to be arises from its contrary, but only what comes to be by the way of generation and change. Nevertheless, it is necessary that everything that comes to be, does so from something non-contingent, as it says in the Physics 1, (Aristotle, Physics 1.5, 188b31–189a10; Aquinas, In Physic., bk. 1, lect. 10, n. 4.) that is, in what cannot being otherwise at the same time. Now, what is non-contingent like this is not merely the contrary or privation, which require a subject, but even a negation, which does not require a consistent subject. And in this way Christ became holy from not being holy, as was said.
Reply Obj. 4: The fourth objection we grant, because that answer is not valid.
Exposition of the text
That flesh . . . would have been in bondage to sin in Mary. (Sentences III, 3.3(9).1.) But to the contrary: what does not exist cannot be in bondage to sin. But Christ’s flesh did not exist except in himself. Therefore it is false to say this. It should be said that although Christ’s flesh did not exist except in himself, nevertheless, it did exist materially in the Blessed Virgin, and in others, but in a different way. For in the Blessed Virgin that matter pre-existed in its essence, but in the others who went before, it existed only in its origin, as was said. And according to the mode that it existed in each of them, it was in bondage to sin.
So too was the Levitical order. (Sent. III. 3(9). 2.) It seems that the Apostle’s argument will not hold up. For it can happen that the Pope’s father paid tithes to some simple priest, but the Pope would not be less than that priest because of this. And so it does not seem to follow that if Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek, the Levitical order was less than Melchizedek because of it. But it should be said, according to some, that the Apostle is proceeding from the supposition that Abraham was greater than all his posterity. This is why, if Melchizedek had been greater than Abraham, he would have consequently been greater than Levi or Aaron. But since this supposition is either doubtful or false, at least because of the Blessed Virgin, it is therefore better to say that the Apostle did not intend to prove that Melchizedek was personally greater than Aaron, but that the priesthood of Christ represented by the priesthood of Melchizedek is greater than the priesthood of Aaron. So the strength of the Apostle’s argument is founded upon a figure, for Abraham giving tithes to Melchizedek represented that he, along with his whole posterity, was less than the priesthood of Christ, represented by Melchizedek.
Levi was there according to that seminal reason. (Sent. III, 3.3(9).2, citing Augustine, The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, bk. 10, para. 20 (CSEL 28.1:323; PL 34:423).) A seed, as the Philosopher says in the Physics 2, (Aristotle, Physics 2.3, 195a21–23; Metaphysics 5.2, 1013b23–25.) is in the genus of efficient causes. This is why it is said that those who were conceived by the active power originally descended from Abraham existed in Abraham according to a “seminal” principle. But this cannot be said of Christ, as is clear from what has been said.
His mother conceived him through grace, and not through concupiscence. (Sent. III, 3.4(10).1, citing Augustine, Sermones ad populum, serm. 152 (CCSL 41Ba:42; PL 38:819).) This can be understood in two ways. Either “concupiscence” and “grace” could be in the nominative case, and then concupiscence is being called the “mother” of those who are born through concupiscence, and grace is being called Christ’s “mother,” since he was born through grace. Or it can be understood that they are in the ablative case, so that we understand that Christ’s mother did not bear him through concupiscence, but through grace, and then this statement is proper and plain.
Because, as the natural philosophers say, the form of the human body is completed in as many days. (Sent. III, 3.4(10).2, citing Augustine, On the Trinity, bk. 4, ch. 5, ln. 6. (CCSL 50; PL 42:893).) This can be explained in another way than the Master explains it afterward, so that the completion of the human body is understood not only as to shape, but also as to due size, and by these forty-six days the whole time until birth is understood. For if forty-six is multiplied by six, which is a perfect number, the result is 276 days, and all the days are counted from the octave of the first of April, when Christ was conceived, until the octave of the first of January, when Christ was born, and this is accepted by Augustine. (Augustine, De diuersis quaestionibus octoginta tribus, q. 56, ln. 14 (CCSL 44A; PL 40:39–40))
Chapter 98 of 186