Dist. 4, Art. 3, Q. 2
Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word · Distinction 4
Quaestio II. Utrum cooperatio illa beatae Virginis fuerit naturalis, an miraculosa.
Secundo quaeritur, utrum illa cooperatio beatae Virginis fuerit naturalis, vel miraculosa. Et quod naturalis, videtur.
(Ad oppositum.) 1. Omnis illa operatio vel generatio est naturalis, ratione cuius genitus dicitur esse filius naturalis; sed Christus est filius naturalis beatae Virginis1: ergo videtur, quod beata Virgo in eius conceptu fuerit naturaliter cooperata.
2. Item, quando vir excitat et adiuvat potentiam mulieris, non privatur actu suo naturali: ergo si virtus Spiritus sancti2 multo perfectius fecundavit, quam virtus seminis virilis fecundasset; ergo ipsius virtus generativae actum non abstulit, sed perfecit. Et si hoc verum est, tunc Virgo naturaliter fuit cooperata.
3. Item, si aliquis operatur secundum potentiam divinitus sibi collatam, operatio illa naturalis dicitur, non miraculosa, pro eo quod virtutes omnium naturales collatae sunt eis divinitus3, et operatio egrediens a potentia intrinseca naturalis est et exercetur naturaliter, nisi egrediatur voluntarie; sed potentia generativa collata fuit ei nec cooperabatur ipsi virtuti agenti voluntarie: ergo videtur, quod cooperaretur potentiae naturali.
4. Item, minor est habilitas in mortuo ad opera, quae sunt hominis viventis, quam in Virgine respectu mulieris praegnantis; sed si Deus de mortuo faciat vivum, operationes subsequentes sunt sibi naturales, sicut in Lazaro, qui naturaliter comedebat et alia faciebat4: ergo pari ratione, immo multo fortiori videtur, quod illa operatio Virginis naturalis fuerit, postquam collata fuit ei potentia generandi.
Sed contra: (Fundamenta.) 1. Nulla operatio naturalis est mirabilis, quoniam ex opposito dividuntur; sed conceptio Filii Dei a Virgine fuit mirabilis5: ergo non videtur, quod fuerit naturalis.
2. Item, nihil quod naturaliter fit, est novum, pro eo quod omne tale praecessit in suo simili; sed conceptio Christi a Virgine novum quid fuit, ut dicitur Ieremiae trigesimo primo6: Novum faciet Dominus super terram.
3. Item, naturale est illud quod idem est apud omnes7; sed modus concipiendi beatae Virginis non solum non fuit apud omnes, sed etiam nusquam reperitur nisi in ea: ergo videtur, quod operatio illa non fuerit naturalis, sed miraculosa.
4. Item, si aliqua virtus operatur, illo manente quod est ei incompossibile per naturam, illius operatio non est naturalis, sed miraculosa; sed virginitas incompossibilis est generationi prolis per naturam: ergo si Virgo Maria concepit, permanens virgo, videtur, quod illa operatio non sit attribuenda naturae, sed magis miraculo.
Conclusio.
Cooperatio gloriosae Virginis ad conceptionem quodam modo fuit naturalis, quodam modo et multum fuit supernaturalis.
(Axioma.) Respondeo: Dicendum, quod generativa potentia in Virgine fuit excitata a Spiritu sancto, et fuit supra posse suum elevata. Excitata fuit, ut posset praeparare materiam conceptui, secundum quod competit sexui muliebri; sed supra naturam fuit elevata, dum data est ei potentia praeparandi materiam, secundum quod tam nobili et tam perfectae conceptioni competebat. Et ideo Virgo Maria potentiam habuit supra naturam et potentiam secundum naturam; et potentia supra naturam fuit in sanctificatione8 collata; et utraque erat in illa conceptionis tempore in complemento suae operationis constituta. (Conclusio 1.) Et ideo operatio sive cooperatio partim quodam modo fuit naturalis, et quodam modo supra naturam. — (Simile.) Et est simile: si Deus daret mihi potentiam unum intelligere et multa simul intelligere9; partim esset naturale in hoc, quod unum intelligerem, partim supra naturam in eo, quod duarum illarum rerum intellectus non possunt simul per naturam stare. Sic et in proposito intelligendum est, quia hoc erat naturae consonum, ut Virgo ministraret humorem sufficientem ad conceptum, quantum ministrat sexus muliebris; sed quod per se sola ministraret quantum ministrat mulier coniuncta viro, hoc erat supra naturam, et ideo admirabile et insolitum. Concedendum est igitur, quod et illa operatio non fuerit naturalis omnino, immo aliquid habuit supra naturam, immo multum habuit supra naturam10, quia hoc inter omnia mirabilia fuit mirabile praecipuum, virginalem scilicet uterum esse simul integrum et fecundum. — (Conclusio 2.) Unde concedendae sunt rationes, quae hoc ostendunt.
Ad argumenta pro parte affirmativa: (Solutio oppositorum.) Ad 1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur, quod Christus fuit filius naturalis; dicendum, quod operatio11 supra naturam operationem naturalem non excludit. Unde quamvis ipsum mirabiliter conceperit, potest tamen propter naturalem operationem concurrentem dici filius naturalis, ad ostendendam veritatem generationis.
Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod quando vir excitat potentiam in femina, non aufert ei potentiam naturalem; dicendum, quod est verum; nec Spiritus sanctus abstulit operationem naturalem a Virgine, secundum quod decebat eam habere in conceptione tam nobili. (Notandum.) In hoc tamen non est simile, quia vir non dat novam potentiam mulieri concipiendi nec elevat supra naturam, sed excitat et adiuvat ad exeundum in operationem sibi debitam. Non sic est in proposito, quia ipsi Virgini collata fuit virtus supra naturam. Unde aliquid potuit Virgo beata, quod nunquam potuit aliqua femina12.
Ad 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod quando operatur per aliquam potentiam sibi datam, naturaliter operatur; dicendum, quod aliquando datur potentia ad actum naturae consonantem, aliquando datur potentia ad actum excedentem terminum naturae. (Distinctio notanda.) Quando datur potentia ad actum naturae consonantem; tunc, etsi collatio illius potentiae sit mirabilis, operatio tamen est naturalis, sicut si detur potentia videndi caeco. Quando autem datur potentia ad actum excedentem terminos naturae; tunc non solum potentiae collatio est mirabilis, sed etiam exitus illius potentiae in actum est mirabilis, ut si asino detur potentia loquendi13, et lapidi potentia videndi. Et quoniam virginem, manentem virginem, concipere, hoc est supra terminos naturae; hinc est, quod quantumcumque conferatur sibi potentia, ad-
(Duplex hic miraculum.) huc tamen est operatio mirabilis. — Unde duplex fuit hic miraculum, videlicet in potentiae collatione, et in ipsa operatione. In fecundatione autem mulierum sterilium, sicut Sarae et Elisabeth14, solum fuit miraculum in restitutione potentiae, in hoc quod est ibi sterilis fecundata, sed non fuit ibi miraculum in exsecutione, quia non simul mansit sterilitas et fecunditas, immo fecunditas abstulit sterilitatem. Hoc autem fuit singulariter admirabile, quod fecunditas Virginis Mariae non abstulit virginitatem, nec virginitas exclusit fecunditatem.
Ad 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur ultimo, iam patet responsio de mortuo vivificato. Licet enim mortuum vivificari15 sit supra naturam, tamen ex quo vivificatus est, operationem naturae exercere non est admirabile, quia hoc in nullo repugnat naturae; non sic autem est in Virgine concipiente16.
---
Question II. Whether that cooperation of the blessed Virgin was natural or miraculous.
Secondly it is asked whether that cooperation of the blessed Virgin was natural or miraculous. And that it was natural, it seems:
(To the contrary view.) 1. Every operation or generation by reason of which the one begotten is called a natural son is natural; but Christ is the natural son of the blessed Virgin1: therefore it seems that the blessed Virgin cooperated naturally in his conception.
2. Likewise, when a man stirs up and aids the power of the woman, she is not deprived of her own natural act: therefore if the power of the Holy Spirit2 made her fruitful far more perfectly than the power of the male seed would have made her fruitful, then it did not take away the act of her generative power, but perfected it. And if this is true, then the Virgin cooperated naturally.
3. Likewise, if someone operates according to a power divinely conferred upon him, that operation is called natural, not miraculous, on the ground that the natural powers of all things are divinely conferred upon them3, and an operation issuing from an intrinsic power is natural and is exercised naturally, unless it issue forth voluntarily; but the generative power was conferred upon her, and it did not cooperate with the acting power voluntarily: therefore it seems that she cooperated by a natural power.
4. Likewise, there is less aptitude in a dead man for the works that belong to a living man than there is in the Virgin with respect to a pregnant woman; but if God makes a living man from a dead one, the operations that follow are natural to him, as in Lazarus, who naturally ate and did other things4: therefore by like reasoning, indeed by a much stronger one, it seems that that operation of the Virgin was natural, after the power of generating had been conferred upon her.
On the contrary: (The grounds.) 1. No natural operation is miraculous, since they are divided as opposites; but the conception of the Son of God by the Virgin was miraculous5: therefore it does not seem that it was natural.
2. Likewise, nothing that comes about naturally is new, on the ground that everything of that kind has been preceded in its like; but the conception of Christ by the Virgin was something new, as is said in Jeremiah, chapter thirty-one6: The Lord shall make a new thing upon the earth.
3. Likewise, the natural is that which is the same among all7; but the manner of conceiving of the blessed Virgin was not only not the same among all, but indeed is nowhere found except in her: therefore it seems that that operation was not natural, but miraculous.
4. Likewise, if any power operates, while that remains which is incompatible with it by nature, its operation is not natural, but miraculous; but virginity is incompatible with the generation of offspring by nature: therefore if the Virgin Mary conceived while remaining a virgin, it seems that that operation is to be attributed not to nature, but rather to miracle.
Conclusion.
The cooperation of the glorious Virgin toward the conception was in one way natural, and in another way — and to a great degree — supernatural.
(Axiom.) I respond: It must be said that the generative power in the Virgin was stirred up by the Holy Spirit, and was elevated above its own capacity. It was stirred up so that it might be able to prepare the matter for the conception, according to what belongs to the female sex; but it was elevated above nature, since the power of preparing the matter was given to her in the way that befitted so noble and so perfect a conception. And therefore the Virgin Mary had a power above nature and a power according to nature; and the power above nature was conferred in her sanctification8; and both were, at the time of that conception, constituted in the fullness of their operation. (First conclusion.) And therefore the operation or cooperation was partly, in a certain way, natural, and in a certain way above nature. — (A parallel.) And there is a parallel: if God were to give me the power to understand one thing and the power to understand many things at once9; it would be partly natural in this, that I understood one thing, and partly above nature in this, that the understandings of those two things cannot stand together by nature. So too in the present case it must be understood, that it was consonant with nature for the Virgin to supply sufficient humor for the conception, as much as the female sex supplies; but that she should supply by herself alone as much as a woman joined to a man supplies, this was above nature, and therefore wonderful and unusual. It must therefore be granted that that operation was not natural altogether, but rather had something above nature — indeed had much above nature10 — because this was, among all wonders, the chief wonder: namely, that the virginal womb should be at once whole and fruitful. — (Second conclusion.) Hence the reasons which show this are to be granted.
To the arguments for the affirmative side: (Solution of the opposing arguments.) To 1. To that, then, which is objected first, that Christ was a natural son; it must be said that an operation11 above nature does not exclude a natural operation. Hence, although she conceived him miraculously, he can nonetheless, on account of the natural operation concurring, be called a natural son, to show the truth of the generation.
To 2. To that which is objected, that when a man stirs up the power in a woman, he does not take away from her her natural power; it must be said that this is true; nor did the Holy Spirit take away the natural operation from the Virgin, in the way it befitted her to have it in so noble a conception. (To be noted.) In this, however, there is no parallel, because the man does not give a new power of conceiving to the woman, nor elevate her above nature, but stirs up and aids her to go forth into the operation due to her. It is not so in the present case, because to the Virgin herself a power above nature was conferred. Hence the blessed Virgin was able to do something which no woman was ever able to do12.
To 3. To that which is objected, that when one operates through some power given to oneself, one operates naturally; it must be said that sometimes a power is given for an act consonant with nature, sometimes a power is given for an act exceeding the bound of nature. (A distinction to be noted.) When a power is given for an act consonant with nature, then, even though the conferring of that power is miraculous, the operation is nonetheless natural, as if the power of seeing were given to a blind man. But when a power is given for an act exceeding the bounds of nature, then not only is the conferring of the power miraculous, but the going-forth of that power into act is also miraculous, as if the power of speaking were given to an ass13, and the power of seeing to a stone. And since for a virgin, while remaining a virgin, to conceive is above the bounds of nature; hence it is that, however much power be conferred upon her, never-
(A double miracle here.) theless the operation is still miraculous. — Hence there was here a double miracle, namely in the conferring of the power, and in the operation itself. But in the impregnation of barren women, such as Sarah and Elizabeth14, there was a miracle only in the restoration of the power, in this that the barren woman was made fruitful there, but there was no miracle in the carrying-out, because barrenness and fruitfulness did not remain together, but rather fruitfulness took away barrenness. But this was singularly wonderful, that the fruitfulness of the Virgin Mary did not take away virginity, nor did virginity exclude fruitfulness.
To 4. To that which is objected last, the response is already evident from the dead man brought to life. For although for a dead man to be brought to life15 is above nature, nonetheless from the moment he has been brought to life, to exercise the operation of nature is not wonderful, because this in no way is repugnant to nature; but it is not so in the Virgin conceiving16.
---
- Fulgent., de Fide ad Petr. c. 2. n. 14: Illo, scilicet Deo, facto naturaliter filio hominis, qui unus est naturaliter Filius Dei Patris.Fulgentius, On the Faith, to Peter c. 2, n. 14: "He" — namely God — "having been made naturally the son of man, who alone is naturally the Son of God the Father."
- Codd. K Z bb supplendo subiiciunt Virginem. Subinde pro perfectius codd. A U Z bb fortius.Codices K Z bb, supplying it, subjoin Virginem ("the Virgin"). Then, for perfectius ("more perfectly"), codices A U Z bb read fortius ("more strongly").
- Vat. pro eo quod, licet virtutes naturales omnes colla[tae] tue sint ei divinitus, tamen operatio etc.; edd. 1, 2 in hac propos. omittunt omnium et pro eis substituunt ei. In fine arg. Vat. adiungit et naturaliter agenti.The Vatican edition, in place of "on the ground that, although all the natural powers have been divinely conferred upon it, nevertheless the operation" etc.; editions 1 and 2 in this proposition omit omnium ("of all") and in place of eis ("upon them") substitute ei ("upon it"). At the end of the argument the Vatican edition adds et naturaliter agenti ("and acting naturally").
- Cfr. Ioan. 12, 2. — In maiori, quam reddimus quod in codd. A K P Q (T a secunda manu) Z invenimus, multi codd. pro minor est habilitas exhibent minor est instabilitas, edd. 1, 2 minor est inhabilitas, Vat. maior est inhabilitas.Cf. John 12:2. — In the major premise, which we render as what we found in codices A K P Q (T by a second hand) Z, many codices in place of minor est habilitas ("there is less aptitude") give minor est instabilitas ("there is less instability"), editions 1 and 2 minor est inhabilitas ("there is less ineptitude"), and the Vatican edition maior est inhabilitas ("there is greater ineptitude").
- Cfr. Dionys., Epist. 4. ad Caium; Anselm., de Concept. virgin. et orig. pecc. c. 23.Cf. Dionysius, Letter 4, to Gaius; Anselm, On the Virginal Conception and Original Sin c. 23.
- Vers. 22. — De maiori cfr. Aristot., VII. Metaph. text. 22. (VI. c. 7.).Verse 22. — On the major premise cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics VII, text 22 (VI, c. 7).
- Secundum Aristot., I. Periherm. c. 1. seq., et Problem. sect. 15. n. 3. — In fine minoris Vat. cum cod. cc post in ea [cod. A in ipsa] addit sola.According to Aristotle, On Interpretation I, c. 1 ff., and Problems sect. 15, n. 3. — At the end of the minor premise the Vatican edition, with codex cc, after in ea ("in her") [codex A: in ipsa] adds sola ("alone").
- De qua vide supra d. 3. p. I. a. 2. q. 2. in fine corp.On which see above, dist. 3, p. I, a. 2, q. 2, at the end of the body.
- Secundum Aristot., qui II. Topic. c. 4. (c. 10.) ait: Contingit enim plura scire, intelligere [διανοεῖσθαι] autem non. — Mox pro non possunt codd. K Z non posset.According to Aristotle, who in Topics II, c. 4 (c. 10) says: "For it happens that one knows many things, but does not understand [διανοεῖσθαι them at once]." — Then, for non possunt ("cannot"), codices K Z read non posset ("could not").
- Vat. omittit immo multum habuit supra naturam. Paulo ante pro omnino cod. Z omni modo.The Vatican edition omits immo multum habuit supra naturam ("indeed had much above nature"). A little before, in place of omnino ("altogether"), codex Z reads omni modo ("in every way").
- Cod. K adiicit illa.Codex K adds illa ("that").
- Cod. S potuit nec poterit alia mulier.Codex S reads "another woman neither was able nor will be able."
- Cfr. Num. 22, 28.Cf. Numbers 22:28.
- Cfr. Gen. 17, 17; 18, 11. seq.; Luc. 1, 7. — Mox pro fecundata codd. li Z perperam fecunditas.Cf. Genesis 17:17; 18:11 ff.; Luke 1:7. — Then, for fecundata ("made fruitful"), codices li Z erroneously read fecunditas ("fruitfulness").
- Codd. A G K L N T C v z vivificare.Codices A G K L N T C v z read vivificare ("to bring to life").
- Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.See the scholion to the preceding question. ---