← Back to Distinction 4

Dist. 4, Art. 3, Q. 1

Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 4

Textus Latinus
p. 110

Articulus III. De conceptione Christi in comparatione ad Virginem concipientem.

Consequenter quaeritur de conceptione Christi in comparatione ad Virginem concipientem, et circa hoc quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur, utrum in illa conceptione aliquid Virgo Maria fuerit Spiritui sancto in aliquo cooperata.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum illa operatio vel cooperatio fuerit naturalis, vel miraculosa.

Tertio quaeritur, utrum ex illa cooperatione sit Virgo Maria Dei genitrix appellanda.

Quaestio I. Utrum Virgo Maria in illa conceptione fuerit aliquid Spiritui sancto in aliquo cooperata.

Circa primum sic proceditur et quaeritur, utrum in illa conceptione aliquid Virgo Maria fuerit Spiritui sancto cooperata in aliquo, mediante aliqua potentia. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Primo auctoritate Damasceni, quam ponit Magister in littera (Fundamenta)1: « Praevenit Spiritus sanctus in ipsam secundum verbum, quod dixerat Angelus ei, purgans eam et potentiam deitatis Verbi receptivam praeparans, simul autem et generativam »: ergo si non solum habuit potentiam receptivam, sed etiam generativam, non solum se habuit Virgo Maria per modum recipientis, sed per modum agentis et cooperantis.

2. Item, vera mater cooperatur in filii generatione; sed beata Maria vere fuit Mater Christi2: ergo vere fuit cooperata in eius conceptione virtuti Spiritus sancti.

3. Item, hoc conceditur et cantatur ab Ecclesia tanquam verus et catholicus sermo3: « Genuit puerpera regem »; sed generare agere est et actio virtutis generativae: ergo videtur, quod in illa conceptione generativa vis Virginis cooperata fuit divinae virtuti.

4. Item, aut Virgo Maria cooperata fuit, aut non. Si sic, habeo propositum; si non: ergo habuit se solummodo sicut materia: ergo sicut nulla est affinitas4 hominis ad limum, unde formatus est, sic nec Mariae ad Christum. Sed hoc est falsum: ergo etc.

5. Item, vir praebuit mulieri materiale principium, quando de eius costa formata est Eva; sed propter hoc ipsius mulieris non dicitur esse pater, aut mater, quia cooperatus non fuit in eius formatione; sed beata Virgo habitudinem matris habet ad Christum: ergo non solum praeparavit materiam, sed cooperata fuit ad inducendum formam.

6. Item, veritas debet respondere figurae; sed Virgo Maria figurata est per virgam Aaron, et virga Aaron fronduit et floruit et fructum fecit, sicut habetur Numerorum decimo septimo5; de flore autem pervenitur ad fructum mediante virtute activa reperta in planta, quae floruit: fuit igitur in virga virtus activa ad fructificandum: ergo videtur multo fortius in Virgine Maria.

Sed contra: (Ad oppositum) 1. Ad Galatas quarto6: Misit Deus Filium suum factum ex muliere; et ad Romanos primo: Qui factus est ei ex semine David; super quem locum dicit Glossa: « Apostolus dicit factum, sed non natum. Aliud enim est ex semine admixto sanguinis coagulo generare, aliud non commixtione, sed virtute procreare. Possunt enim homines filios generare, sed non facere ». Ergo videtur, quod Virgo Maria solum se habuit ut materiale principium, ex quo corpus Christi dicitur factum.

2. Item, Damascenus7: « Copulavit sibi de purissimis et sanctissimis Virginis sanguinibus, non seminans, sed per Spiritum sanctum creans »: si ergo creatio est actio solius Dei, in qua non cooperatur creatura; videtur, quod in nullo fuerit Virgo cooperatrix.

3. Item, Christus eodem modo fuit in parentibus, quo fuit in Virgine; sed in parentibus fuit « secundum corpulentam substantiam tantum8 »: ergo nec in Virgine fuit nisi secundum corpulentam subp. 111stantiam. Si ergo generatio dicit vim activam et cooperativam ad formam producendam, videtur, quod Virgo Maria in nullo fuerit Spiritui sancto cooperata.

4. Item, agens potentiae finitae non potest continuari nec cooperari in agendo cum agente potentiae infinitae in ea operatione, in qua operatur virtus illa per modum infiniti; sed conceptio Christi fuit in instanti, sicut ostensum fuit supra9; producere autem rem in instanti, quae nata est produci successive, hoc est potentiae in infinitum excedentis potentiam naturae: ergo si Virgo Maria nullam habuit potentiam nisi finitam, videtur, quod Spiritui sancto non potuit cooperari in conceptione illa.

### Conclusio. Beata Virgo vere cooperata est Spiritui sancto in conceptione Filii sui, subministrando materiam, quae non solum habuit rationem materiae, sed etiam sufficientiam et virtutem ad prolis productionem.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod absque dubio, cum Virgo Maria sit Mater Christi et vere ipsum concepisse dicatur, vere cooperata fuit Spiritui sancto in Filii sui conceptione (Conclusio 1). Et hoc10 communiter et generaliter tenent doctores theologiae. De modo autem cooperandi diversi sentiunt diversa (De modo cooperationis 3 sententiae). — Quidam enim dicere voluerunt, quod Virgo Maria solum cooperata fuit ministrando principium materiale. Alii vero11, quod cooperata fuit in ultimae formae inductione et in materiae praeparatione, quamvis non in tota operatione. Alii vero tenent medium inter utrumque.

Primi, qui dicunt, quod cooperata fuit solum in materialis principii ministratione (Sententia 1), moventur hac ratione: quia, sicut dicit Philosophus12, mater in generatione prolis se habet sicut principium materiale, et semen viri sicut effectivum et operativum. Unde comparatur semen viri ad semen mulieris sicut artifex ad materiam, mulier vero non facit nisi materiam ministrare et exterius fovere. Et hoc totum fecit Virgo Maria; et ideo vere mater est appellanda, quia nihil ei defuit, quod spectat ad veram matrem in generatione prolis. Spiritus autem sanctus quod defuit ex parte viri supplevit. — Sed haec positio parum dicit (Non probatur): primum, quia mater in generatione non solum habet potentiam passivam, sed13 activam; unde quandoque proles magis assimilatur matri quam patri. Unde quod dicunt physici intelligendum est per appropriationem14. Et iterum dicit Damascenus, quod Spiritus sanctus non solum dedit Virgini potentiam receptivam, sed etiam generativam; et sicut prius15 ostensum est, propter materiam solum non est appellanda mater, sicut patet in formatione mulieris de costa viri.

Et quoniam ista positio nimis parum dicit, ideo sunt alii (Sententia 2), qui superaddunt et dicunt, quod non solum cooperata fuit Spiritui sancto ministrando principium materiale, sed etiam in ultimae formae inductione. Nam in tota operatione cooperari non potuit, quoniam formatio corporis instantanea, prout formatio comprehendit totam transmutationem, fieri non potest nisi a virtute infinita. In ultimae autem formae16 inductione cooperari potuit, pro eo quod ultima forma in instanti potest induci a natura, vel a virtute creata; et ideo in hoc, in quo potuit, cooperata fuit Spiritui sancto potentia Virginis generativa, et pro tanto dicitur mater, quia operata fuit conceptionem et quantum ad initium et quantum ad consummationem. — Sed haec positio nimis dicit (Non probatur ob 3 rationes): primum, quia eiusdem est factum esse, cuius est fieri17; quodsi conceptionem efficere non est virtutis creatae, sed increatae, similiter nec ipsum conceptum esse. — Rursus, inducens ultimam formam nobilius est quam praeparans. Non igitur videtur decens, quod Spiritus sanctus praeparet per se, et ultimam formam inducat cum Virgine. — Difficile est nihilominus assignare, quae sit illa forma ultima, in cuius inductione cooperatur Virginis potentia generativa. Illa enim18 non potest esse anima, quoniam a sola creatione habet originem; non organizatio corporea, ut videtur, quia illa non inducitur subito, sed per successionem a natura; inducitur enim per motum, non per mutationem; « motus enim est transmutatio successiva; mutatio, instantanea », ut dicit Philosophus19. p. 112 Et quoniam prima opinio parum dicit, et secunda multum excedit (Sententia 3 et media), suis obliquitatibus dirigunt nos in veritatis viam. Et propterea melius sentire videntur qui dicunt medium (Conclusio 2), videlicet quod beata Virgo habuit virtutem sibi divinitus datam, per quam administraret materiam illi conceptui, materiam, inquam, quae non solum habuit rationem materiae sive potentiae passivae, sed etiam sufficientiam et virtutem ad prolis productionem. Illa tamen virtus per se non poterat prodire ad perfectum actum nisi per successionem in tempore; sed quoniam non decebat, carnem Christi formari successive, sicut in praecedentibus20 ostensum est; ideo Spiritus sanctus sua infinita virtute produxit illam materiam ad actum completum. Et per hoc in nullo Virgini derogatur, si Deus sua virtute acceleravit, quod in aliis mulieribus successive producit ad esse. — Non (Corollarium) enim fuit minor potentia in Virgine quam in alia muliere, immo multo maior, quia potentiam naturalem et supranaturalem habuit, per quam subministrare poterat materiam ipsa sola adeo, sicut mulier viro commixta; unde tota substantia Christi fuit de matre sua. Et ideo, si recte velimus sentire et loqui, veriori modo fuit Virgo mater Christi, quam sit aliqua mater filii sui21. Unde et per illam virtutem ipsum in ventre per novem menses confovit.

Et sic patet, quod Virgo Maria aliquo modo fuit in conceptione Filii cooperata, videlicet subministrando sufficientem materiam virtute activa22, quae tamen supra posse suum accelerata fuit et ad complementum perducta per virtutem infinitam. — Et (Confirmatur) huic consonat sacra Scriptura23, quae modo dicit Christum natum de Virgine, modo dicit factum. Consonat etiam verbum Damasceni, qui dicit, quod virtutem habuit verbi susceptivam et generativam: generativam, quia potuit seminarium corpori ministrare per virtutem sibi collatam divino munere; susceptivam vero, quia solum Dei Verbum potuit carnem assumtam in instanti formare, quod quidem Verbum susceptum est a Virgine. — Rationes igitur ostendentes, in Filii Dei conceptione Virginem aliquo modo cooperatam24 fuisse, sunt concedendae.

1. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur de Glossa super illud factum (Solutio oppositorum), iam patet responsio. Hoc enim non excludit veram potentiam generativam a Virgine, sed ponit, ibi aliquam vim esse supra vim naturae25; unde removet viri seminis commixtionem, et ideo sic dicitur factus, quod nihilominus dicitur natus. Et est simile, si Deus uni virgae aridae daret vim germinandi, quam habet una viridis, et praeter hoc faceret ipsam in instanti fructificare; virga illa diceretur fructum fecisse et attulisse26, et nihilominus fructus ille diceretur esse factus ex illa virga, ita quod simul diceretur factus et ortus. Sic et in proposito est intelligendum, talis enim praecessit figura huius conceptionis in virga.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Damasceno, quod carnem illam fecit creans, non seminans; dicendum, quod sicut per actum creationis non intendit dicere, quod caro illa facta fuerit ex nihilo, sed quod27 ad perfectionem deducta est per virtutem infinitam; sic etiam per hoc, quod dicit non seminans, non privat potentiam activam a Virgine, sed removet consuetum modum operandi naturae, qui est per seminis commixtionem maris et feminae. — Utrum autem Virgo excitata a Spiritu sancto seminaverit (Ad quaestionem incidentem notabilis responsio), hoc est28, ad locum matricis semen emiserit: quamvis aliqui dixerint, non est verbum illud frequenter in ore versandum, tum quia turpitudinem habet annexam, et homo habere debet munda labia in tali materia; tum etiam, quia certitudinem non habet ex se, nec verbis Sanctorum videtur multum consonare. Unde stultum est in talibus velle ita curiose singula pertractare. Hoc tamen sufficiat dixisse, videlicet quod Virgo ministravit materiam aptam generationi Filii Dei secundum carnem.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non fuit in ea secundum rationem seminalem; dicendum, quod verum est, si seminalis ratio dicatur illa, secundum quam natura consuevit operari; sic enim accipit Augustinus ibi29 (Notandum). Ex hoc tamen non excluditur, quin aliqua potentia praeter morem solitum divinitus Virgini sit collata. Praeterea, ratione adhuc potentiae illius activae non debet dici fuisse ibi secundum rationem seminalem, pro eo quod ad actum perfectum perducta fuit per virtutem supra naturam; et respectu talis modi operandi fuit ibi solum potentia obedientiae. Et est simile (Simile): si Deus post30 commixtionem maris et feminae in instanti perducit foetum ad complementum organizationisp. 113perfectae, talis formatio non diceretur esse facta secundum rationem seminalem, quamvis esset ibi vis activa respectu talis organizationis educendae in esse per temporis successionem; sic et in proposito intelligendum est.

4. Ad ultimam rationem dicendum, quod ratio illa non cogit, quod Virgo Maria non fuerit cooperata Spiritui sancto in Filii conceptione aliquo modo, sed solum, quod non fuerit cooperata in producendo31 illam materiam ad esse completum; et hoc est quod primum fuit concessum. Et per hoc patet responsio ad obiecta.

Scholion

I. Cum beata Virgo vere sit Mater Christi, communiter docent theologi, eandem ad generationem Christi, licet singularissimo miraculo factam, praestitisse saltem totum illum concursum, quem matres communiter praestant ad generationem filiorum. Quod hic concursus comprehendat ministrationem materiae ad formandum corpus aliaque quaedam, quae conceptionem sequuntur, exploratum est. Utrum autem mulier etiam active concurrat ad ipsam generationem, est quaestio ad physiologiam spectans, nec hoc loco ratione dignitatis sublimissimi mysterii a theologo distinctius discutienda, cum homo habere debeat in tali materia munda labia, ut bene dicitur hic in solut. ad 2. Sufficiat notasse, de illa generali quaestione physiologica iam inter antiquos fuisse dissidium, cum Aristoteles sustineat, matres in ipsa generatione humana non concurrere active, sed tantum passive, ministrando materiam, dum econtra Galenus vult, etiam active easdem concurrere. — In proposita quaestione S. Thom., qui hic in Comment. quatuor recenset opiniones, sequitur sententiam Aristotelis docens, in principali actione sive in ipsa conceptione nihil active B. Virginem operatam esse. Idem tenent B. Albert., Petr. a Tar., Aegid. R. et etiam Richard. a Med. Aliter sentit S. Bonav., Alex. Hal., Scot. (qui diffuse has opiniones discutit), Biel aliique non pauci, qui aliquem concursum etiam activum, sed subordinatum principali operationi Spiritus S., gloriosae Matri tribuendum esse putant. In modo autem hanc sententiam explicandi iidem non eandem ingrediuntur viam, cum etiam diversae opiniones de vi activa, materiae concreata in solutionem influant, de quo cfr. II. Sent. d. 7. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. Ceterum sententia media via incedens, quam tenet S. Bonav., videtur satis esse probabilis.

II. Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 8. m. 1. q. incid. 2. — Scot., in utroque Scripto hic q. unica. — S. Thom., III. Sent. d. 3. q. 2. a. 1; S. III. q. 32. a. 4. — B. Albert., III. Sent. d. 3. a. 11. et 22. — Petr. a Tar., III. Sent. d. 3. q. 1. a. 3. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., III. Sent. d. 3. a. 2. q. 2. — Aegid. R., III. Sent. d. 3. q. 2. a. 2. — Dionys. Carth., III. Sent. d. 3. q. 2. — Biel, hic q. unica.

III. In seq. quaestione, supposita ista cooperatione activa, quaerit S. Bonav., utrum eadem sit naturalis, an miraculosa. Similem fere quaestionem habet etiam B. Albert., III. Sent. d. 3. a. 12. Sed S. Thom. (III. Sent. d. 3. q. 2. a. 2.), cum talem cooperationem non admittat, non de cooperatione B. Virginis, sed de ipsa generatione Christi ex Virgine eandem instituit quaestionem, scilicet utrum haec sit naturalis, an miraculosa. Ad hanc idem respondet, quod generatio ista, simpliciter loquendo, sit miraculosa, at naturalis secundum quid. Eandem quaestionem et similem solutionem habent Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 3. — Aegid. R., loc. cit. a. 3. — Dionys. Carth., loc. cit. q. 3.

---

English Translation

Article III. On the conception of Christ in comparison with the Virgin conceiving.

Next there is inquiry concerning the conception of Christ in comparison with the Virgin conceiving, and concerning this three things are asked.

First it is asked, whether in that conception the Virgin Mary in any way cooperated with the Holy Spirit.

Second it is asked, whether that operation or cooperation was natural or miraculous.

Third it is asked, whether from that cooperation the Virgin Mary is to be called the Mother of God.

Question I. Whether in that conception the Virgin Mary in any way cooperated with the Holy Spirit.

Concerning the first one proceeds thus, and it is asked whether in that conception the Virgin Mary in any way cooperated with the Holy Spirit, by means of some power. And that she did, seems [to be the case]:

1. First, by the authority of the Damascene, which the Master sets down in the text (Fundamenta)1: « The Holy Spirit came beforehand into her according to the word which the Angel had spoken to her, purifying her and preparing the power of her receptive of the deity of the Word, and at the same time also the generative power »: therefore if she had not only a receptive power, but also a generative one, the Virgin Mary held herself not only after the manner of one receiving, but after the manner of one acting and cooperating.

2. Likewise, a true mother cooperates in the generation of her son; but the blessed Mary was truly the Mother of Christ2: therefore she truly cooperated in his conception with the power of the Holy Spirit.

3. Likewise, this is granted and sung by the Church as a true and catholic utterance3: « The woman in childbed begot a king »; but to beget is to act and is the action of the generative power: therefore it seems that in that conception the generative power of the Virgin cooperated with the divine power.

4. Likewise, either the Virgin Mary cooperated, or not. If yes, I have what was proposed; if no: then she held herself only as matter: therefore just as there is no affinity4 of a man to the clay from which he was formed, so neither is there of Mary to Christ. But this is false: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, a man supplied a woman with the material principle, when Eve was formed from his rib; but on this account he is not said to be the father of that woman, nor her mother, because he did not cooperate in her formation; but the blessed Virgin has the relation of a mother to Christ: therefore she not only prepared the matter, but cooperated in inducing the form.

6. Likewise, the truth ought to correspond to the figure; but the Virgin Mary was prefigured by the rod of Aaron, and the rod of Aaron put forth leaves and blossomed and bore fruit, as is found in the seventeenth chapter of Numbers5; but from the flower one arrives at the fruit by means of an active power found in the plant which blossomed: there was therefore in the rod an active power for fruit-bearing: therefore it seems much more so in the Virgin Mary.

On the contrary: (To the opposite) 1. To the Galatians, fourth chapter6: God sent his Son, made of a woman; and to the Romans, first chapter: Who was made to him of the seed of David; on which passage the Gloss says: « The Apostle says made, but not born. For it is one thing to generate from seed mixed with a clot of blood, another not by commixture but by power to procreate. For men can generate sons, but not make them ». Therefore it seems that the Virgin Mary held herself only as a material principle, from which the body of Christ is said to have been made.

2. Likewise, the Damascene7: « He joined to himself from the most pure and most holy bloods of the Virgin, not sowing seed, but creating through the Holy Spirit »: if therefore creation is the action of God alone, in which the creature does not cooperate; it seems that the Virgin was in no way a cooperator.

3. Likewise, Christ was in his parents in the same way in which he was in the Virgin; but in the parents he was « only according to corpulent substance8 »: therefore neither was he in the Virgin except according to corpulent subp. 111stance. If therefore generation implies an active and cooperative power for producing the form, it seems that the Virgin Mary in no way cooperated with the Holy Spirit.

4. Likewise, an agent of finite power cannot be continued nor cooperate in acting with an agent of infinite power in that operation in which that power operates after the manner of the infinite; but the conception of Christ was in an instant, as was shown above9; but to produce a thing in an instant which is of a nature to be produced successively belongs to a power infinitely exceeding the power of nature: therefore if the Virgin Mary had no power except a finite one, it seems that she could not cooperate with the Holy Spirit in that conception.

### Conclusion. The blessed Virgin truly cooperated with the Holy Spirit in the conception of her Son, by supplying the matter, which had not only the character of matter, but also the sufficiency and power for the production of the offspring.

I respond: It must be said that, without doubt, since the Virgin Mary is the Mother of Christ and is truly said to have conceived him, she truly cooperated with the Holy Spirit in the conception of her Son (First conclusion). And this10 the doctors of theology commonly and generally hold. But concerning the manner of cooperating, different men think differently (On the manner of cooperation, three opinions). — For some wished to say that the Virgin Mary cooperated only by furnishing the material principle. Others11, that she cooperated in the inducing of the ultimate form and in the preparation of the matter, although not in the whole operation. Others hold a middle position between the two.

The first, who say that she cooperated only in the furnishing of the material principle (First opinion), are moved by this reason: that, as the Philosopher says12, the mother in the generation of the offspring holds herself as the material principle, and the seed of the man as the effective and operative one. Hence the man's seed is compared to the woman's seed as the craftsman to the matter, while the woman does nothing but furnish the matter and foster it externally. And all this the Virgin Mary did; and therefore she is truly to be called mother, because nothing was lacking to her that pertains to a true mother in the generation of the offspring. And the Holy Spirit supplied what was lacking on the part of the man. — But this position says too little (It is not proved): first, because the mother in generation has not only a passive power, but13 an active one; hence sometimes the offspring resembles the mother more than the father. Hence what the natural philosophers say is to be understood by appropriation14. And again the Damascene says that the Holy Spirit gave the Virgin not only a receptive power, but also a generative one; and as was shown before15, on account of matter alone one is not to be called a mother, as is plain in the formation of woman from the rib of the man.

And since this position says far too little, therefore there are others (Second opinion) who add to it and say that she cooperated with the Holy Spirit not only by furnishing the material principle, but also in the inducing of the ultimate form. For in the whole operation she could not cooperate, since the instantaneous formation of the body, inasmuch as formation comprehends the whole transmutation, cannot be brought about except by an infinite power. But in the inducing of the ultimate form16 she could cooperate, in that the ultimate form can be induced in an instant by nature, or by a created power; and therefore in this, in which she could, the generative power of the Virgin cooperated with the Holy Spirit, and to that extent she is called mother, because she operated the conception both as to its beginning and as to its completion. — But this position says too much (It is not proved, for three reasons): first, because to the same [thing] belongs to have been made whose it is to be made17; but if to effect the conception is not within a created power, but an uncreated one, likewise neither is the having been conceived itself. — Again, that which induces the ultimate form is nobler than that which prepares. It does not therefore seem fitting that the Holy Spirit should prepare by himself, and induce the ultimate form together with the Virgin. — Nonetheless it is difficult to assign which is that ultimate form, in whose inducing the generative power of the Virgin cooperates. For that18 cannot be the soul, since it has its origin from creation alone; nor bodily organization, as it seems, because that is not induced suddenly, but through succession by nature; for it is induced through motion, not through change; « for motion is successive transmutation; change, instantaneous », as the Philosopher says19. p. 112 And since the first opinion says too little, and the second exceeds too much (Third and middle opinion), by their deviations they direct us into the way of truth. And therefore those seem to think better who hold the middle (Second conclusion), namely that the blessed Virgin had a power divinely given to her, by which she administered matter to that conception, matter, I say, which had not only the character of matter or of passive power, but also sufficiency and power for the production of the offspring. That power, however, could not by itself proceed to the perfect act except through succession in time; but since it was not fitting that the flesh of Christ be formed successively, as was shown in the preceding20; therefore the Holy Spirit by his infinite power produced that matter to the complete act. And by this nothing is detracted from the Virgin, if God by his power accelerated what in other women he produces successively into being. — For (Corollary) there was not less power in the Virgin than in another woman, indeed much greater, because she had a natural and a supernatural power, through which she could furnish the matter by herself alone as much as a woman joined to a man; hence the whole substance of Christ was from his mother. And therefore, if we wish to think and speak rightly, the Virgin was the mother of Christ in a truer manner than any mother is of her son21. Hence also through that power she fostered him in her womb for nine months.

And so it is plain that the Virgin Mary in some way cooperated in the conception of the Son, namely by furnishing sufficient matter with an active power22, which power, however, was accelerated beyond its own capacity and brought to completion through the infinite power. — And (It is confirmed) sacred Scripture is in agreement with this23, which now says Christ to be born of the Virgin, now says him to be made. The word of the Damascene also agrees, who says that she had a power receptive of the Word and generative: generative, because she could administer the seed-bed to the body through the power conferred upon her by divine gift; but receptive, because the Word of God alone could form the assumed flesh in an instant, which Word indeed was received by the Virgin. — Therefore the reasons showing that the Virgin in some way cooperated24 in the conception of the Son of God are to be granted.

1. To that which is objected concerning the Gloss on that word made (Solution of the contrary arguments), the response is already plain. For this does not exclude a true generative power from the Virgin, but posits that there was in it some power above the power of nature25; hence it removes the commixture of the man's seed, and therefore he is so called made that nonetheless he is called born. And it is similar, as if God should give to one dry rod the power of germinating which a green one has, and besides this should make it fructify in an instant; that rod would be said to have made and borne the fruit26, and nonetheless that fruit would be said to be made from that rod, so that at the same time it would be said made and sprung forth. And so it is to be understood in the matter at hand, for such a figure of this conception went before in the rod.

2. To that which is objected concerning the Damascene, that he made that flesh by creating, not by sowing seed; it must be said that just as by the act of creation he does not intend to say that that flesh was made from nothing, but that27 it was brought to perfection by an infinite power; so also by this, that he says not sowing seed, he does not deprive the Virgin of an active power, but removes the accustomed manner of nature's operating, which is through the commixture of the seed of male and female. — But whether the Virgin, stirred up by the Holy Spirit, emitted seed (A noteworthy reply to an incidental question), that is28, emitted seed to the place of the womb: although some have asserted [this], that word is not to be turned over frequently on the lips, both because it has a baseness attached to it, and a man ought to have clean lips in such a matter; and also because it does not have certainty of itself, nor does it seem much in harmony with the words of the Saints. Hence it is foolish in such matters to wish to treat each point so curiously. Let it suffice, however, to have said this, namely that the Virgin administered matter apt for the generation of the Son of God according to the flesh.

3. To that which is objected, that he was not in her according to a seminal account; it must be said that it is true, if that be called a seminal account according to which nature is accustomed to operate; for thus Augustine takes it there29 (Note). From this, however, it is not excluded that some power beyond the customary manner was divinely conferred upon the Virgin. Moreover, by reason still of that active power it ought not to be said to have been there according to a seminal account, in that it was brought to the perfect act through a power above nature; and with respect to such a manner of operating there was there only a power of obedience. And it is similar (A similar case): if God after30 the commixture of male and female in an instant brings the foetus to the completion of perfect organizationp. 113, such a formation would not be said to be made according to a seminal account, although there were there an active power with respect to such organization to be brought into being through succession of time; so also it is to be understood in the matter at hand.

4. To the last reason it must be said that that reason does not compel [the conclusion] that the Virgin Mary did not cooperate with the Holy Spirit in some way in the conception of the Son, but only that she did not cooperate in producing31 that matter into complete being; and this is what was first granted. And by this the response to the objections is plain.

Scholion

I. Since the blessed Virgin is truly the Mother of Christ, theologians commonly teach that she furnished to the generation of Christ — though brought about by a most singular miracle — at least all that concurrence which mothers commonly furnish to the generation of their sons. That this concurrence comprehends the furnishing of matter for forming the body and certain other things which follow upon conception, has been established. But whether the woman also concurs actively in the generation itself is a question pertaining to physiology, and not to be discussed here more distinctly by the theologian, by reason of the dignity of the most sublime mystery, since a man ought to have clean lips in such a matter, as is well said here in the solution to the second [objection]. Let it suffice to have noted that concerning that general physiological question there was already disagreement among the ancients, since Aristotle maintains that mothers do not concur actively in human generation itself, but only passively, by furnishing the matter, while on the contrary Galen holds that they concur also actively. — In the question proposed, S. Thom., who here in the Commentary reviews four opinions, follows the opinion of Aristotle, teaching that in the principal action, or in the conception itself, the B. Virgin did nothing actively. The same is held by B. Albert, Petr. a Tar., Aegid. R., and also Richard a Med. Otherwise think S. Bonav., Alex. Hal., Scotus (who discusses these opinions at length), Biel, and not a few others, who hold that some concurrence, even active, but subordinated to the principal operation of the Holy Spirit, is to be attributed to the glorious Mother. But in the manner of explaining this opinion they do not enter upon the same way, since different opinions concerning the active power concreated in the matter also flow into the solution, on which cf. II Sent. d. 7. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. For the rest, the middle opinion proceeding by a middle way, which S. Bonav. holds, seems to be sufficiently probable.

II. Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 8. m. 1. q. incid. 2. — Scot., in either Writing here q. unica. — S. Thom., III. Sent. d. 3. q. 2. a. 1; S. III. q. 32. a. 4. — B. Albert., III. Sent. d. 3. a. 11. and 22. — Petr. a Tar., III. Sent. d. 3. q. 1. a. 3. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., III. Sent. d. 3. a. 2. q. 2. — Aegid. R., III. Sent. d. 3. q. 2. a. 2. — Dionys. Carth., III. Sent. d. 3. q. 2. — Biel, here q. unica.

III. In the following question, supposing this active cooperation, S. Bonav. asks whether the same be natural or miraculous. B. Albert too has nearly a similar question, III. Sent. d. 3. a. 12. But S. Thom. (III. Sent. d. 3. q. 2. a. 2.), since he does not admit such cooperation, sets up the same question not concerning the cooperation of the B. Virgin, but concerning the generation itself of Christ from the Virgin, namely whether this be natural or miraculous. To this he replies the same, that that generation, speaking simply, is miraculous, but natural in a certain respect. The same question and a similar solution are had by Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2. — Richard a Med., loc. cit. q. 3. — Aegid. R., loc. cit. a. 3. — Dionys. Carth., loc. cit. q. 3.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. Supra d. III. c. 1. In fine arg. post sed edd. addunt et.
    Above, d. III, c. 1. At the end of the argument, after sed the editions add et.
  2. Cfr. Matth. I, 18, et infra q. 3.
    Cf. Matthew 1:18, and below, q. 3.
  3. Vide Breviar. Roman., fest. Nativ. Dom. 2. antiph. ad Laudes. Cfr. Coelius Sedul., II. Carm. Pasch. 63. — Quoad minorem nota, quod Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 34. (c. 4.) docet, generare esse « facere aliud quale ipsum », in conclusione plurimi codd. omittunt vis, pro quo cod. K (a secunda manu) exhibet virtus; cod. T omittit vis Virginis.
    See the Roman Breviary, feast of the Nativity of the Lord, 2nd antiphon at Lauds. Cf. Caelius Sedulius, II Carmen Paschale 63. — As to the minor premise, note that Aristotle, II de Anima, text 34 (c. 4), teaches that to generate is « to make another like itself »; in the conclusion most codices omit vis, for which cod. K (in a second hand) gives virtus; cod. T omits vis Virginis.
  4. Quae tamen oritur ex generatione. Cfr. verba Aristot. in praeced. nota allegata. — Post habuit se cod. U addit ibi.
    Which nonetheless arises from generation. Cf. the words of Aristotle cited in the preceding note. — After habuit se cod. U adds ibi.
  5. Vers. 8. De virga Aaron cfr. Serm. 245. (alias 3. de Tempore) in appendice Serm. August. n. 3; Bernard., Serm. infra Oct. assumt. B. M. V. n. 8. — Circa finem arg. pro fuit igitur edd. fuit etiam. Subinde post ergo videtur codd. K Z subdunt quod, quam voculam Vat. ponit post multo fortius. Cod. S post multo fortius inserit in figurato, scilicet.
    Verse 8. On the rod of Aaron, cf. Sermon 245 (otherwise 3 de Tempore) in the appendix of Augustine's Sermons, n. 3; Bernard, Sermon within the Octave of the Assumption of the B. V. Mary, n. 8. — Near the end of the argument, for fuit igitur the editions [read] fuit etiam. Then after ergo videtur codd. K Z subjoin quod, which little word the Vatican edition places after multo fortius. Cod. S after multo fortius inserts in figurato, scilicet.
  6. Vers. 4. — Locus e primo cap. ad Rom. cit. est v. 3. — Glossa quae est etiam hic lit. Magistri, c. 3, sumta est ex Quaestion. ex nov. Test. p. II. q. 42. (inter opera August.).
    Verse 4. — The passage cited from the first chapter to the Romans is v. 3. — The Gloss, which is also here in the text of the Master, c. 3, is taken from the Questions on the New Testament, p. II, q. 42 (among the works of Augustine).
  7. Libr. III. de Fide orthod. c. 2. Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. III. c. 1. — In conclus. pro in qua codd. AKLTUVXZ aa bb in quo.
    Book III de Fide orthodoxa c. 2. See above, the text of the Master, d. III, c. 1. — In the conclusion, for in qua codd. AKLTUVXZ aa bb [read] in quo.
  8. Ut dicit August., X. de Gen. ad lit. c. 20. n. 35. (tantum i. e. non secundum rationem seminalem). — In prima conclusione post substantiam cod. U adiicit tantum.
    As Augustine says, X de Genesi ad litteram c. 20 n. 35 (only, i.e. not according to a seminal account). — In the first conclusion, after substantiam cod. U adds tantum.
  9. Dist. 3. p. II. a. 3. q. 2. — Mox pro produci permulti codd. perperam producere.
    Dist. 3, p. II, a. 3, q. 2. — Soon, for produci very many codices wrongly [read] producere.
  10. Codd. FK (Z a prima manu) subiungunt quidem.
    Codd. FK (Z in a first hand) subjoin quidem.
  11. Cod. N Alii dicunt. Mox post ultimae formae codd. M O addunt filii.
    Cod. N [reads] Alii dicunt. Soon, after ultimae formae, codd. M O add filii.
  12. Libr. I. de Generat. animal. c. 2. et 20. — Paulo superius pro ministratione codd. K Z bb habent subministratione, et aliquanto inferius, in fine sententiae Aristot., Vat. pro exterius fovere substituit ulterius fovere.
    Book I de Generatione animalium c. 2 and 20. — A little above, for ministratione codd. K Z bb have subministratione, and somewhat below, at the end of the sentence of Aristotle, the Vatican edition substitutes ulterius fovere for exterius fovere.
  13. Cod. Z adiicit etiam, edd. et.
    Cod. Z adds etiam, the editions et.
  14. Sive non exclusive, sed principaliter tantum. Cfr. de his II. Sent. d. 20. q. 6. — Pro physici Vat. philosophi. Paulo ante pro quandoque codd. K Z bb aliquando.
    Or not exclusively, but principally only. Cf. concerning these matters II Sent. d. 20. q. 6. — For physici the Vatican edition [reads] philosophi. A little before, for quandoque codd. K Z bb [read] aliquando.
  15. In fundam. 1. et 5.
    In the foundations [i.e. arguments] 1 and 5.
  16. Pro formae plurimi codd. formationis; lectio corrupta.
    For formae most codices [read] formationis; a corrupt reading.
  17. Cfr. Aristot., VII. Metaph. text. 27. (VI. c. 8.), et VI. Phys. text. 59. (c. 6.).
    Cf. Aristotle, VII Metaphysics text 27 (VI, c. 8), and VI Physics text 59 (c. 6).
  18. Cod. H omittit enim, pro quo codd. Z bb autem, multi alii codd. tamen. Subinde codd. K bb nec organizatio pro non organizatio.
    Cod. H omits enim, for which codd. Z bb [read] autem, many other codices tamen. Then codd. K bb [read] nec organizatio for non organizatio.
  19. Aristot., V. Phys. text. 7. seqq., tres quidem species transmutationis distinguit: motum (i. e. transmutationem ex subiecto in subiectum), generationem (i. e. transmutationem ex non-subiecto in subiectum) et corruptionem (i. e. transmutationem ex subiecto in non-subiectum); sed duas ulteriores species communi nomine mutationis complectitur, quare et duae tantum species transmutationis notantur, nempe motus et mutatio, quae secundum communem commentatorum explicationem ita inter se distinguuntur, quod motus significet transmutationem successivam, mutatio vero instantaneam. Ad motum pertinent alteratio, augmentatio, diminutio et loci mutatio. Cfr. Scot. in V. Phys. q. 1. — Vat. vocabulo mutatio praefigit non, sententiam Aristot. sic corrumpens.
    Aristotle, V Physics text 7 ff., distinguishes indeed three species of transmutation: motion (i.e. transmutation from subject to subject), generation (i.e. transmutation from non-subject to subject), and corruption (i.e. transmutation from subject to non-subject); but he embraces the two latter species under the common name of change, whence only two species of transmutation are noted, namely motion and change, which according to the common explanation of the commentators are so distinguished from one another that motion signifies successive transmutation, but change instantaneous. To motion belong alteration, increase, diminution, and change of place. Cf. Scotus in V Physics q. 1. — The Vatican edition prefixes non to the word change, thus corrupting the opinion of Aristotle.
  20. Dist. 3. p. II. a. 3. q. 2. — In seqq. Vat. cum edd. 1, 2 perduxit et perducit pro produxit et producit, refragantibus plurimis codd. Paulo ante cod. N sic decebat pro decebat.
    Dist. 3, p. II, a. 3, q. 2. — In what follows, the Vatican edition with edd. 1, 2 [reads] perduxit and perducit for produxit and producit, against very many codices. A little before, cod. N [reads] sic decebat for decebat.
  21. Codd. H K Z quam mulier filii sui.
    Codd. H K Z [read] quam mulier filii sui.
  22. Edd. perperam virtuti activae. Paulo ante cod. U voci Filii adiicit sui.
    The editions wrongly [read] virtuti activae. A little before, cod. U adds sui to the word Filii.
  23. Matth. I, 16; Gal. 4, 4. — Aliquanto inferius post cor[pori] Vat. supplet Christi. Subinde pro a Virgine cod. Z de Virgine.
    Matthew 1:16; Galatians 4:4. — Somewhat below, after cor[pori] the Vatican edition supplies Christi. Then for a Virgine cod. Z [reads] de Virgine.
  24. Codd. A G L T V aa et edd. 1, 2 cooperantem.
    Codd. A G L T V aa and edd. 1, 2 [read] cooperantem.
  25. Vat., in initio propos. pro Hoc substituto Haec, ante vim naturae ingerit naturam seu supra. Paulo inferius pro nihilominus edd. 1, 2 perperam nullo modo.
    The Vatican edition, at the beginning of the proposition having substituted Haec for Hoc, inserts naturam seu supra before vim naturae. A little below, for nihilominus edd. 1, 2 wrongly [read] nullo modo.
  26. Codd. M O accelerasse. In fine solut. Vat. voci virga annectit Aaron.
    Codd. M O [read] accelerasse. At the end of the solution the Vatican edition attaches Aaron to the word virga.
  27. In codd. A F G H L N T U V aa deest quod.
    In codd. A F G H L N T U V aa quod is lacking.
  28. Pro hoc est codd. A Z et, alii codd. et edd. 1, 2 hoc, et.
    For hoc est codd. A Z [read] et, other codices and edd. 1, 2 [read] hoc, et.
  29. Libr. X. de Gen. ad lit. c. 20. n. 38. Cfr. supra d. 3. p. II. a. 2. q. 2, praesertim ad 2, et II. Sent. d. 18. a. 1. q. 2.
    Book X de Genesi ad litteram c. 20 n. 38. Cf. above, d. 3, p. II, a. 2, q. 2, especially in reply to the 2nd [objection], and II Sent. d. 18. a. 1. q. 2.
  30. Vat. per, et mox perduceret pro perducit.
    The Vatican edition [reads] per, and soon perduceret for perducit.
  31. Vat. perducendo. Mox pro et hoc est quod codd. K Z et hoc quidem, alii codd. et hoc quod.
    The Vatican edition [reads] perducendo. Soon, for et hoc est quod codd. K Z [read] et hoc quidem, other codices et hoc quod.
← Dist. 4, Art. 2, Q. 3Dist. 4, Art. 3, Q. 2→