Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

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

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

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

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

§ 178.

EXCEPTION TO THE UNIVERSAL CORRUPTION OF MANKIND. THE

IMMACULATE CONCEPTION OF THE VIRGIN.

[ocr errors]

Labonlaye, die Frage der unbefleckten Empfängniss, Berl., 1854. Jul. Müller, in the

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

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

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

Concerning the worship of the Virgin in general, see § 188 on the worship of saints.—The controversy on the immaculate conception was preceded by that carried on between Paschasius Radbert and Ratramn, concerning the virginity of Mary. Comp. 8 179, toward the end (on Christology). Radbert had already maintained that Mary was sanctificata in utero matris (in d'Achery Spic. Tom. i. p. 46); but it is difficult to define precisely what he understood by that expression (compare the following note). It was, however, not only the worship of the Virgin as such, which led to the supposition of her immaculate conception, but this seemed a necessary inference

[ocr errors]

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

Bernardi, Ep. 174, ad Canonicos Lugdunenses, quoted by Gieseler ii. 499; Münscher, edit. by Von Cölln, p. 136; Laboulaye, l. c. p. 16. He, too, admitted that Mary was sanctified in the womb (as Paschasius taught), but he did not draw from that doctrine the inference that she was free from original sin (quatenus adversus originale peccatum hæc ipsa sanctificatio valuerit, non temere dixerim), and continues as follows: Etsi quibus vel paucis filiorum hominum datum est cum sanctitate nasci, non tamen et concipi, ut uni sane servaretur sancti prærogativa conceptus, qui omnes sanctificaret, solusque absque peccato veniens purgationem faceret peccatorum, etc. [Peter Lombard, Liber Sent. iii. Dist. 3, sq., says of the flesh of Mary, which our Lord assumed, that “it was previously obnoxious to sin, like the other flesh of the Virgin, but cleansed by the operation of the Holy Spirit.” “The Holy Ghost, coming into Mary, cleansed her from sin.” Alexander of Hales, Summa, Pars iii. qu. 2, membr. 2, Art. 1, 4: “It was necessary that the blessed Virgin in her generation should contract sin from her parents ;"" she was sanctified in the womb." Perrone attempts to set aside these opinions, and that of Aquinas and others (below), by the position that these mediæval doctors refer to the first, or active conception (the marital act), and not to the second conception (the infusion of the soul). But Aquinas says, that the infusion of grace is “after the infusion of the soul ;” and that “ before the infusion of the soul the Virgin was not sanctified;" and Alexander of Hales and Bonaventura have similar statements. On the views of Peter de la Celle, bishop of Chartres, see Neander, Hist. Dogmas, 512.)

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

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

• See Gieseler l. c. p. 501. The festival spread, although the council of Oxford (A. D. 1222) pronounced against its necessity. In the 13th century it was widely observed, but only as the festum conceptionis in general, and not as the festum conceptionis immaculatee ; see the explanation of it in Durantis Rationale Div. Offic. libr. vii. c. 7, in Gieseler, Dogmengesch. 559. [Durant says, that it was not celebrated on account of the immaculate conception, for this was not the case; but because the mother of the Lord had conceived. Aquinas however vindicates the festival as including a reference to the sanctity of Mary, but on the ground, that the time of her sanctification could not be accurately assigned ; and he opposes the immaculate conception itself, as derogatory to the dignity of Christ. At the Paris council (1387) the Spanish Dominican John de Montesono maintained, that it was against the faith to assume that original sin did not embrace all men, Mary included. But the University condemned this position, as well as others of this divine. Still more definite than the Paris synod was that of Basle, in favor of the dogma, Sess. xxxvi. (A. D. 1439, Sept. 17th) in Harduini Concc. T. viii. Col. 1266 : Nos...... doctrinam illam disserentem gloriosam virginem Dei genitricem Mariam, præveniente et operante divini numinis gratia singulari, nunquam actualiter subjacuisse originali peccato, sed immunem semper fuisse ab omni originali et actuali culpa sanctamque et immaculatam, tamquam piam et consonam cultui ecclesiastico, fidei catholicæ, rectæ rationi et sacræ scripturæ, ab omnibus catholicis approbandum fore, tenendam et amplectendam diffinimus et declaramus, nullique de cætero licitum esse in contrarium prædicare seu docere. (The celebration of the festival was fixed upon December 8th.) The Dominicans, however, adhered to their opposition; thus particularly the Dominican Torquemada (Turrecremata). The decrees of Basle could not be considered as binding, because this council was held to be schismatical; and it was the very men who guided that council, as D'Ailly and Gerson, who maintained the new dogma. Even at the council of Constance Gerson proposed to introduce also a festival in honor of the immaculate conception of St. Joseph! (Müller, ubi supra, p. 8).

, . [On the introduction of the festival and the Paris decree, see Meth. Quarterly, as above, p. 280-82.]

See the bulls of Pope Sixtus IV., dated Febr. 27th, A. D. 1474, and Sept. 4th, A. D. 1483 (Grave minus) in Extravagant. Comm. Lib. iii. Tit. 12. Cap. 1. and 2. (quoted by Münscher, edit. by Von Cölln, pp. 168, 169.) Comp. Gieseler, iii. p. 387.

* Even some of those who afterward espoused the cause of the Reformation, were zealous advocates of the doctrine in question, such as Manuel, a poet of Berne, who wrote on the occasion of the scandalous affair of Jetzer: compare bis “ Lied von der reinen unbefleckten Empfängniss” in the work of Grüneisen, Nic. Manuel, p. 297, ss., where he also quotes the fathers as authorities, even Anselm and Thomas Aquinas*, and then proceeds thus :

7

Auch miltigklich
und sicherlich
der christen mensch das glaubet,
das gott d’herr,
on widersperr,
seyn mutter bat bedawet (begabet)

mit heiligkeit,
gnadrich erfreit,
sunst wer sye vndg'legen
sein zorn ins teufels pflegen,
daz nit mocht seyn,

d' lilien reyn,

. Anselmus mer,

in seyner leer,
von dir hat schön betrachtet.
Er haltet nit
liebhabers sitt,
der deyn hoch sest verachtet,
das dich gantz clor
eert preisst fürwor,
empfange on all sünde.

etc.

Thomas Aquin halt von dir fin, du seysst die reinst uff erden, on schuld und sünd, für Adams kind, gefreyet billich werden, in der täglich, auch nicht tödtlich, keyn erbsünd mocht beliben. Desgleichen thund auch scriben Scotus subtil, d' lerer vil, die schul Paris, mit grossem fliss, zu Basel ists beschlossen Die kristlich kilch, mit bistumb glich, halt das gantz unverdrossen.

« PreviousContinue »