title: Dist. 3, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 70 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum beata Virgo sanctificata fuerit ante nativitatem.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum beata Virgo sanctificata fuerit ante nativitatem. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Bernardus ad Lugdunenses[^1]: « Fuit procul dubio Mater Dei ante sancta quam nata ».

2. Item, Bernardus[^2]: « Quod paucis mortalium constat esse collatum, fas certe non est credere tantae Virgini fuisse negatum »; sed Ioannes et Ieremias sanctificati fuerunt in utero, secundum quod habetur Ieremiae primo: *Antequam exires* etc.; et Lucae primo: *Spiritu sancto replebitur adhuc ex utero matris suae*: ergo videtur multo fortius, quod Virgo Maria fuerit in utero sanctificata.

3. Item, Ecclesia celebrat et solemnizat Virginis nativitatem; sed statui in peccato solemnitas non debetur: ergo videtur, quod in hora nativitatis fuerit sanctificata[^3].

4. Item, si aliqua persona de plenitudine gratiae Filii beatae Virginis[^4] debuit participare, Mater eius maxime particeps debuit fieri: ergo sicut tunc maxime erat idonea, ut cum ipsa et in ipsa gratia augmentaretur, cum eam gestabat inter viscera; videtur, quod in ipso utero Spiritus sancti gratia fuisset repleta.

**Sed contra:** 1. Ad Romanos octavo[^5]: *Ut sit ipse primogenitus*; Glossa: « Quia primus sine peccato natus et primus impassibilis resurgens »: ergo videtur, quod beata Virgo non fuerit nata sine peccato, cum nata fuerit ante quam Christus: ergo non fuit sanctificata ante quam nata.

2. Item, Augustinus ad Dardanum[^6]: « Illa gratia, qua efficimur templum Dei singuli, non nisi renatorum est, quod non nisi nati homines esse possunt »: ergo cum per sanctificationem beata Virgo sit facta templum Dei, non fuit ante sancta quam nata.

3. Item, nulla proprietas perimitur, quamdiu habet continuitatem cum sua causa; sed anima contrahit originale a parentibus[^7]: ergo quamdiu proles iuncta est matri, non videtur, quod ab originali peccato possit mundari: ergo nec sanctificari.

4. Item, *esse ordinatum* praesupponit *esse distinctum*[^8]; sed gratia sanctificationis praesupponit esse distinctum: ergo nulli potest conferri nisi habenti esse discretum: ergo quamdiu proles coniuncta est matri, non videtur posse sanctificari.

5. Item, sanctificari in utero est effectus cognitus soli Deo, ergo de nullo Sancto asserendum est esse sanctificatum in utero, nisi de eo, de quo expresse legitur in Scriptura tradita a Spiritu sancto; sed hoc non legitur de Virgine: ergo etc.

6. Iuxta hoc quaeritur: quare potius exprimitur in Scriptura sanctificatio Ieremiae et Ioannis Baptistae quam alterius Sancti? — Et si tu dicas, quod illi fuerunt soli sanctificati; tunc est quaestio, unde hoc sit, cum multi fuerint Sancti tam in novo quam in veteri Testamento, et sanctitatis valde eminentis.

### Conclusio

> Beata Virgo fuit in utero et ante nativitatem sanctificata.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod pro indubitanti habet hoc Ecclesia, videlicet quod beata Virgo fuerit in utero sanctificata. Et illud patet ex hoc, quod eius nativitatem tota Ecclesia celebrat, quod non faceret, nisi sanctificata esset.

<!-- page 71 -->

Si autem quaeratur, qua die vel hora sanctificata fuerit, hoc ignoratur; probabiliter tamen creditur, quod cito post infusionem animae fuerit facta infusio gratiae. — Quidquid tamen sit de hora, pro certo[^9] habendum est, quod ante nativitatem sanctificata fuerit. Licet enim hoc expresse non habeatur in Scriptura, haberi tamen potest ex his quae in Scriptura leguntur. In Scriptura namque non legitur, quia, cum Evangelia inchoentur[^10] a Ioanne, qui fuit consummatio Prophetarum et initium Legis novae; et beata Virgo nata et concepta fuit ante Ioannem; ideo nihil habetur de eius nativitate, vel sanctificatione in Evangeliis. — Habetur tamen[^11] in novo, sive in veteri Testamento, unde sanctificatio eius potest elici. In novo habetur de sanctificatione Ioannis, in veteri de sanctificatione Ieremiae; quorum uterque legitur in utero fuisse sanctificatus. Et ex hoc quasi *a minori* colligitur, hoc beatae Virgini fuisse concessum; quia, sicut dicit Bernardus, « quod aliis legitur fuisse collatum, non est credendum Virgini fuisse negatum », maxime cum sanctitas Virginis excedat Ieremiae et Ioannis puritatem et virginitatem[^12]. In aliis fuit virginitas, in hac cum virginitate fecunditas. Et si illi sanctificati fuerunt in utero, quia ad Sanctum Sanctorum secundum expressionem prophetiae accesserunt magis, quanto magis illa in utero sanctificari debuit, quae Deum in utero portavit? Ioannes namque inter ceteros de Domino prophetavit, quia in matris utero ad adventum Domini exsultavit, et postmodum suo digito ostendit[^13]. Ieremias etiam prius Ioanne expressius prophetavit, cum dixit: *Novum faciet Dominus super terram, mulier circumdabit virum*, trigesimo primo. In hoc namque quod dicit: *Novum faciet Dominus super terram*, datur intelligi, quod non ex virili semine; et quod ille quem circumdabit, non erat purus homo, quia neutrum esset novum. Et in hoc totum comprehendit, quod dicit Isaias[^14]: *Ecce Virgo concipiet* etc. In hoc autem quod subiungit: *Et circumdabit virum*, dat intelligere, Christum ab instanti conceptionis fuisse perfectum gratia et sapientia. — Prophetavit nihilominus facto; quasi enim[^15] omnia gesta sua signa fuerunt dominicae passionis. — Et propterea de his duobus legitur specialiter, quod fuerunt sanctificati; et per hos duos datur manifeste intelligi sanctificatio beatae Virginis.

Si quis autem velit dicere, quod aliis Sanctis convenit sanctificatio ex utero, ut Iob, qui dicit[^16]: *Ab infantia crevit mecum miseratio et ex utero egressa est mecum*, et sicut volunt quidam dicere de Iacob et David; hoc nec certitudinem habet nec auctoritatem apertam, nisi quis velit Scripturae facere violentiam. Et ideo eadem facilitate contemnitur, qua probatur; et nec aliis videtur fuisse nisi virginibus haec gratia sanctificationis concessa. — Concedendum est igitur, Reginam Virginum ex utero fuisse sanctificatam. Et rationes, quae hoc ostendunt, concedendae sunt.

<!-- page 72 -->

*Ad 1. 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur in contrarium de Glossa et Augustino, dicendum, quod est nativitas duplex, scilicet nativitas in utero, et nativitas ex utero. Nativitas in utero est ex coniunctione animae cum carne; nativitas ex utero est ex egressu prolis de ventre[^17]. Verbum igitur de Glossa et auctoritate Augustini intelligitur de nativitate in utero, non de nativitate ex utero. In illa enim nativitate in utero fit originalis contractio, et post illam potest esse sanctificatio. — Posset tamen dici, quod illud verbum Augustini intelligitur de gratia regenerante secundum legem communem. Et hoc melius patet in libro quarto[^18], distinctione sexta.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non perimitur proprietas, quamdiu coniuncta est cum sua origine; dicendum, quod verum est de illa proprietate, quae habet conservari cum continua influentia cum sua causa[^19]. Talis autem non habet esse in proposito; et ideo non habet hic locum.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud, quod *esse ordinatum* praesupponit *esse distinctum*; dicendum, quod verum est; sed ex hoc non sequitur, gratiam sanctificantem sequi nativitatem carnalem, pro eo quod ante nativitatem carnalem proles distinguitur et quantum ad animam et quantum ad corpus; licet illa distinctio ante nativitatem ex utero oculis corporeis[^20] non propaletur.

*Ad 5. 6.* Ad illa duo ultima, quae obiiciebantur, iam patet responsio per ea quae dicta sunt[^21].

---

english:
<!-- page 70 -->

### Question III. *Whether the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before her birth.*

Thirdly it is asked whether the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before her birth. And that she was, it seems.

1. Bernard, to the people of Lyons[^1]: « She who was the Mother of God was beyond doubt holy before she was born ».

2. Likewise, Bernard[^2]: « What is acknowledged to have been granted to few mortals, it is surely not right to believe was denied to so great a Virgin »; but John and Jeremiah were sanctified in the womb, according to what is had in Jeremiah, chapter one: *Before you came forth* etc.; and in Luke, chapter one: *He shall be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb*: therefore it seems much more strongly that the Virgin Mary was sanctified in the womb.

3. Likewise, the Church celebrates and solemnizes the Virgin's birth; but a solemnity is not owed to a condition under sin: therefore it seems that she was sanctified at the hour of her birth[^3].

4. Likewise, if any person was to share in the fullness of grace of the Son of the Blessed Virgin[^4], His Mother most of all ought to have been made a partaker: therefore, since she was then most fit that grace should be increased with her and in her, when she carried Him within her womb, it seems that she would have been filled with the grace of the Holy Spirit in that very womb.

**On the contrary:** 1. To the Romans, chapter eight[^5]: *That He might be the firstborn*; the Gloss: « Because He was the first born without sin and the first to rise impassible »: therefore it seems that the Blessed Virgin was not born without sin, since she was born before Christ: therefore she was not sanctified before she was born.

2. Likewise, Augustine, to Dardanus[^6]: « That grace, by which we are each made the temple of God, belongs only to the reborn, which only those who are born can be »: therefore, since by sanctification the Blessed Virgin was made the temple of God, she was not holy before she was born.

3. Likewise, no property is destroyed so long as it has continuity with its cause; but the soul contracts original [sin] from its parents[^7]: therefore, so long as the offspring is joined to the mother, it does not seem that it can be cleansed from original sin: therefore neither can it be sanctified.

4. Likewise, *ordered being* presupposes *distinct being*[^8]; but the grace of sanctification presupposes distinct being: therefore it can be conferred on none except one having discrete being: therefore, so long as the offspring is joined to the mother, it does not seem able to be sanctified.

5. Likewise, to be sanctified in the womb is an effect known to God alone, therefore it is to be asserted of no Saint that he was sanctified in the womb, except of one of whom it is expressly read in Scripture handed down by the Holy Spirit; but this is not read of the Virgin: therefore etc.

6. In connection with this it is asked: why is the sanctification of Jeremiah and John the Baptist expressed in Scripture rather than that of some other Saint? — And if you say that they alone were sanctified; then it is a question whence this is, since there were many Saints both in the new and in the old Testament, and of very eminent holiness.

### Conclusio

> The Blessed Virgin was sanctified in the womb and before her birth.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Church holds this as beyond doubt, namely that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified in the womb. And this is clear from this, that the whole Church celebrates her birth, which it would not do unless she had been sanctified.

<!-- page 71 -->

But if it is asked on what day or at what hour she was sanctified, this is unknown; yet it is probably believed that soon after the infusion of the soul the infusion of grace took place. — Yet whatever may be the case regarding the hour, it must be held for certain[^9] that she was sanctified before her birth. For although this is not expressly had in Scripture, it can nonetheless be had from those things which are read in Scripture. For in Scripture it is not read, because, since the Gospels begin[^10] from John, who was the consummation of the Prophets and the beginning of the new Law; and the Blessed Virgin was born and conceived before John; therefore nothing is had concerning her birth or sanctification in the Gospels. — It is had, nonetheless[^11], in the new, or in the old Testament, whence her sanctification can be drawn out. In the new there is found the sanctification of John, in the old the sanctification of Jeremiah; both of whom are read to have been sanctified in the womb. And from this it is gathered as it were *from the lesser* that this was granted to the Blessed Virgin; because, as Bernard says, « what is read to have been conferred on others is not to be believed to have been denied to the Virgin », especially since the holiness of the Virgin exceeds the purity and virginity of Jeremiah and John[^12]. In the others there was virginity, in her, fecundity together with virginity. And if they were sanctified in the womb, because they drew nearer to the Holy of Holies according to the expression of prophecy, how much more ought she to be sanctified in the womb who carried God in her womb? For John among the rest prophesied of the Lord, because in his mother's womb he leaped at the coming of the Lord, and afterward pointed Him out with his finger[^13]. Jeremiah too prophesied more expressly before John, when he said: *The Lord will create a new thing upon the earth, a woman shall compass a man*, in chapter thirty-one. For in this, that he says: *The Lord will create a new thing upon the earth*, it is given to be understood that it was not from male seed; and that He whom she shall compass was not pure man, since neither would be a new thing. And in this he comprehends all that Isaiah says[^14]: *Behold, a Virgin shall conceive* etc. But in this, that he adds: *And she shall compass a man*, he gives to understand that Christ from the instant of His conception was perfect in grace and wisdom. — He prophesied nonetheless by deed; for as it were[^15] all his deeds were signs of the Lord's Passion. — And therefore concerning these two it is read in particular that they were sanctified; and through these two the sanctification of the Blessed Virgin is given manifestly to be understood.

But if anyone should wish to say that sanctification from the womb belongs to other Saints, as to Job, who says[^16]: *From my infancy mercy grew up with me, and it came out with me from the womb*, and as certain ones wish to say of Jacob and David; this has neither certitude nor open authority, unless one wishes to do violence to Scripture. And therefore it is rejected with the same ease with which it is proved; and to none others does this grace of sanctification seem to have been granted except to virgins. — It must therefore be conceded that the Queen of Virgins was sanctified from the womb. And the reasons which show this are to be conceded.

<!-- page 72 -->

*To 1 and 2.* To that which is objected to the contrary from the Gloss and Augustine, it must be said that birth is twofold, namely birth in the womb, and birth from the womb. Birth in the womb is from the joining of the soul with the flesh; birth from the womb is from the going-forth of the offspring from the belly[^17]. The saying, therefore, of the Gloss and the authority of Augustine is understood of birth in the womb, not of birth from the womb. For in that birth in the womb the original contraction takes place, and after it there can be sanctification. — Yet it could be said that that saying of Augustine is understood of regenerating grace according to the common law. And this is better made clear in the fourth book[^18], distinction six.

*To 3.* To that which is objected, that a property is not destroyed so long as it is joined with its origin; it must be said that this is true of that property which is preserved by a continuous influence from its cause[^19]. But such a one has no being in the matter at hand; and therefore it has no place here.

*To 4.* To that, that *ordered being* presupposes *distinct being*; it must be said that this is true; but from this it does not follow that sanctifying grace follows carnal birth, for the reason that before carnal birth the offspring is distinguished both as to soul and as to body; although that distinction before birth from the womb is not made manifest to bodily eyes[^20].

*To 5 and 6.* To those last two which were objected, the response is now clear through the things which have been said[^21].

---

la: Epist. 174. n. 5. — Complures codd. omittunt paulo ante *videtur*.

en: Letter 174, n. 5. — Many codices omit the *videtur* a little before.

la: Loc. cit., ubi textus originalis sic sonat: « Quod itaque vel paucis mortalium constat fuisse collatum, fas certe non est suspicari tantae Virgini esse negatum ». Pro *constat* edd. *in ortu congruit*, nonnulli codd. *conveniat*. — Seq. locus Scripturae est Ierem. 1, 5; alter Luc. 1, 15.

en: Loc. cit., where the original text reads thus: « What therefore is acknowledged to have been conferred even on few mortals, it is surely not right to suspect was denied to so great a Virgin ». For *constat* [is acknowledged] the editions read *in ortu congruit*, several codices *conveniat*. — The following Scripture passage is Jeremiah 1:5; the other Luke 1:15.

la: Bernard., loc. cit. n. 3: *Accepi sane ab Ecclesia, illum diem cum summa veneratione recolendum, quo assumta de saeculo nequam... sed et ortum Virginis didici nihilominus in Ecclesia et ab Ecclesia indubitanter habere festivum atque sanctum, firmissime cum Ecclesia sentiens, in utero eam accepisse, ut sancta prodiret.*

en: Bernard, loc. cit. n. 3: *I have indeed received from the Church that that day is to be recalled with the highest veneration on which, taken up from the wicked world... but I have learned no less in the Church and from the Church that the Virgin's birth is indubitably held to be festive and holy, judging most firmly with the Church that she conceived in the womb [grace], that she might come forth holy.*

la: Ioan. 1, 16: *Et de plenitudine eius nos omnes accepimus et gratiam pro gratia.* — Pro *gratiae Filii beatae Virginis* codd. li aa cum edd. 1, 2 *gratiae Christi*, cod. H *gratiae Dei*, codd. A F G L N T U V Z perperam *gratiae beatae Virginis*. Mox pro *ergo sicut* codd. K L Z bb *ergo si*; deinde pro *eam gestabat* [scil. plenitudinem gratiae] edd. *eum gestabat*.

en: John 1:16: *And of His fullness we all have received, and grace for grace.* — For *of the grace of the Son of the Blessed Virgin* codices li, aa with editions 1, 2 read *of the grace of Christ*, codex H *of the grace of God*, codices A F G L N T U V Z wrongly *of the grace of the Blessed Virgin*. Then for *ergo sicut* codices K L Z bb read *ergo si*; next for *she carried Him* [namely, the fullness of grace] the editions read *eum gestabat*.

la: Vers. 29. — Glossa est ordinaria et habetur apud Strabum et Lyranum. — Pro *primus impassibilis* edd. cum pluribus codd. *primo impassibilis.*

en: Verse 29. — The Gloss is the ordinary one and is found in Strabo and Lyra. — For *primus impassibilis* the editions with many codices read *primo impassibilis.*

la: Epist. 187. (alias 57.) c. 10. n. 32: *Illa sanctificatio, qua efficimur et singuli templa Dei et in unum omnes templum Dei, non est nisi renatorum, quod nisi nati homines esse non possunt.* — Pro *singuli* Vat. *singulare* et subinde pro *quod* cum edd. 1, 2 *quia.* In fine arg. pro *sancta* Vat. *sanctificata.*

en: Letter 187 (alias 57), c. 10, n. 32: *That sanctification by which we are made both individually temples of God and all together one temple of God, belongs only to the reborn, which they cannot be unless men born.* — For *singuli* the Vatican [edition] reads *singulare*, and likewise for *quod* the editions 1, 2 read *quia.* At the end of the argument, for *sancta* the Vatican reads *sanctificata.*

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 31. a. 2. q. 1. seqq. et d. 33. a. 1. q. 1. — Paulo superius pro *continuitatem* codd. F G K M Z bb *continuationem.* Mox pro *iuncta* codd. A Z *unita.*

en: Cf. II Sent., d. 31, a. 2, q. 1 ff. and d. 33, a. 1, q. 1. — A little above, for *continuitatem* codices F G K M Z bb read *continuationem.* Then for *iuncta* codices A Z read *unita.*

la: Nam secundum August., XIX. de Civ. Dei, c. 13. n. 1, *ordo est parium dispariumque rerum sua cuique loca tribuens dispositio.* — Pro *esse distinctum* in minori cod. aa et Vat. exhibent *esse ordinatum.* — Satis manifestum est, quod concinnior lectio sit ex istis duabus in unam contracta: *sed gratia sanctificationis praesupponit esse ordinatum et per consequens esse distinctum.*

en: For according to Augustine, *On the City of God* XIX, c. 13, n. 1, *order is the arrangement of equal and unequal things assigning to each its own place.* — For *distinct being* in the minor [premise] codex aa and the Vatican exhibit *ordered being.* — It is sufficiently manifest that the more elegant reading is one contracted from these two into one: *but the grace of sanctification presupposes ordered being and consequently distinct being.*

la: Codd. K P Q Z bb adnectunt *tamen.*

en: Codices K P Q Z bb append *tamen.*

la: Cod. A *Evangelista inchoetur.* Proxime post pro *qui fuit* codd. A G H L T V Z aa *quia fuit*, cod. U *pro eo quod fuerit.* Dein pro *initium* cod. X *inchoatio* et paulo inferius pro *concepta fuit* codd. F G L N U V aa bb *concepta fuerit.*

en: Codex A reads *Evangelista inchoetur.* Immediately after, for *qui fuit* codices A G H L T V Z aa read *quia fuit*, codex U *pro eo quod fuerit.* Then for *initium* codex X reads *inchoatio*, and a little below for *concepta fuit* codices F G L N U V aa bb read *concepta fuerit.*

la: Codd. K P Q bb subiiciunt *aliquid.* In cod. A legitur: *Habetur tam in novo quam in veteri* etc. Aliquantulum inferius ante *beatae Virgini* cod. G interserit *vere.*

en: Codices K P Q bb subjoin *aliquid.* In codex A is read: *Habetur tam in novo quam in veteri* etc. Somewhat below, before *to the Blessed Virgin* codex G inserts *vere.*

la: Cod. T *maxime cum Virgo Ieremiam et Ioannem in sanctitate excellat.* Paulo inferius post *accesserunt* edd. omittunt *magis*, et subinde pro *quanto magis* cod. A substituit *tanto magis.*

en: Codex T reads *especially since the Virgin excels Jeremiah and John in holiness.* A little below, after *they drew nearer* the editions omit *more*, and likewise for *how much more* codex A substitutes *so much more.*

la: Luc. 1, 41; Ioan. 1, 29. et 36. — Seq. Script. locus est Ierem. 31, 22, cuius expositio a Bonav. proposita convenit cum explanatione Hieronymi et cum verbis Bernardi in eius Homil. 2. super *Missus est*, n. 9. — Paulo superius ante *de Domino prophetavit* edd. interiiciunt *expressius* et mox pro *ad adventum* substituunt *de adventu.*

en: Luke 1:41; John 1:29 and 36. — The following Scripture passage is Jeremiah 31:22, whose exposition proposed by Bonaventure agrees with Jerome's explanation and with Bernard's words in his Homily 2 on *Missus est*, n. 9. — A little above, before *prophesied of the Lord* the editions interject *more expressly*, and presently for *at the coming* substitute *concerning the coming.*

la: Cap. 7, 14. — Paulo superius codd. A H et edd. 1, 2 *prius* pro *purus.*

en: Chapter 7:14. — A little above, codices A H and editions 1, 2 read *prius* for *purus.*

la: Pro *quasi enim* cod. K *quia.* Paulo inferius pro *et per hos duos* cod. T *ex quibus.*

en: For *quasi enim* codex K reads *quia.* A little below, for *and through these two* codex T reads *ex quibus.*

la: Cap. 31, 18. — De Iacob vide Gen. 25, 23; Malach. 1, 2, et Rom. 9, 13. De David loquitur Bernard., Epist. 174. n. 3: *Videris, inquit, etiam tu, an de sancto David id ipsum liceat opinari, pro eo quod dicebat Deo: In te, ait, confirmatus sum ex utero, de ventre matris meae tu es protector meus (Ps. 70, 6.); item: De ventre matris meae Deus meus es tu, ne discesseris a me (Ps. 21, 11.).* — Loco vocum *et David*, quae in codd. A E H L N W X aperte habetur, edd. exhibent *dicendum quod*, quae corruptio ex abbreviata voce *David* videtur esse orta; alii codd. praemittunt *et* ante *dicendum.* Paulo superius pro *sanctificatio ex utero* Vat. cum uno alteroque cod. *sanctificatio in utero*, quod et recurrit in fine corp. Cod. T omittit *nisi quis velit Scripturae facere violentiam* et etiam verba *et nec aliis... concessa.*

en: Chapter 31:18. — On Jacob see Gen. 25:23; Malachi 1:2, and Rom. 9:13. Of David, Bernard speaks, Letter 174, n. 3: *See, he says, whether you too may opine the very same of holy David, in that he said to God: In you, he says, I have been confirmed from the womb, from my mother's belly you are my protector (Ps. 70:6); likewise: From my mother's belly you are my God, depart not from me (Ps. 21:11).* — In place of the words *et David*, which is openly had in codices A E H L N W X, the editions exhibit *dicendum quod*, which corruption seems to have arisen from the abbreviated word *David*; other codices place *et* before *dicendum.* A little above, for *sanctification from the womb* the Vatican with one or another codex reads *sanctification in the womb*, which also recurs at the end of the body. Codex T omits *unless one wishes to do violence to Scripture* and also the words *and to none others... granted.*

la: Cfr. August., Epist. 187. (alias 57.) c. 10. n. 33. — Edd. *est egressus prolis de ventre.*

en: Cf. Augustine, Letter 187 (alias 57), c. 10, n. 33. — The editions read *est egressus prolis de ventre* [it is the going-forth of the offspring from the belly].

la: Part. II. a. 1. q. 1.

en: Part II, a. 1, q. 1.

la: Exemplum affert August., VIII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 12. n. 26: *Sicut aer praesente lumine non factus est lucidus, sed fit; quia, si factus esset, non autem fieret, etiam absente lumine lucidus maneret.* — Cod. K *in sua causa.* Paulo superius pro *cum sua origine* cod. Z *cum sua causa.* Paulo inferius pro *habet esse* Vat. *potest esse.*

en: Augustine gives the example, *On Genesis to the Letter* VIII, c. 12, n. 26: *Just as the air, when light is present, was not made bright but is being made bright; because, if it had been made [bright] and were not being made, it would remain bright even when light is absent.* — Codex K reads *in sua causa.* A little above, for *with its origin* codex Z reads *with its cause.* A little below, for *habet esse* the Vatican reads *potest esse.*

la: Cod. T omittit *corporeis*, pro quo cod. K *corporis*, codd. W X *carnis.*

en: Codex T omits *corporeis* [bodily], for which codex K reads *corporis* [of the body], codices W X *carnis* [of the flesh].

la: Cod. T *Ad duo ultima patet responsio ex iam dictis.* — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: Codex T reads *To the last two the response is clear from what has already been said.* — See the scholion to the preceding question.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p07{0,1,2}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`) per the Vol II/III PDF-priority override, cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt` lines 5458–5592) for clean prose and footnote-marker spacing. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Alignment (verified PASS).** The opener at raw 5462 reads *Tertio quaeritur, utrum beata Virgo sanctificata fuerit ante nativitatem* — matching PARS I ART. I TRACTATIO q3. No auto-chunker q-swap.

**Page span / running heads.** q3 opens on printed p.70 (running head `70 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`), continues p.71 (running head `DIST. III. P. I. ART. I. QUAEST. III. 71`), and ends on p.72 (running head `72 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`) with the reply *Ad 5. 6.* PDF pages 92–94 (offset +22).

**Marginal labels** rendered inline / suppressed, NOT footnote anchors: *Fundamenta* (arg 1–2), *Ad oppositum* (Sed contra 1), *Quaestio incidens et obiectio* (arg 6), *Ad quaestionem incid.* (Respondeo R-col), *Conclusio*, *Corollarium*, *Probatur sanctificatio*, *De aliis Sanctis*, *Solutio oppositorum*, *Duplex nativitas*, *Aliter*.

**Apparatus split — 21 entries, continuous `[^1]`–`[^21]` (per-page restart in print).**
- **p.70 footers 1–8 → `[^1]`–`[^8]`** (INHERITED hand-off from d3-p1-a1-q2, commit e2ebf5b, which carried no p.70 footers of its own): `[^1]` Bernard Epist.174 n.5; `[^2]` long Bernard/original-text footer (Ierem.1:5 + Luc.1:15); `[^3]` Bernard n.3 Ecclesia-celebrat; `[^4]` Ioan 1:16 *de plenitudine* + *gratiae Filii* codd. var; `[^5]` Rom 8:29 Glossa (*primus impassibilis* var); `[^6]` Aug. Epist.187 ad Dardanum *templum Dei*; `[^7]` Cfr II Sent d.31+d.33 (*continuitatem* var); `[^8]` Aug. de Civ. Dei XIX c.13 (*esse ordinatum/distinctum* var).
- **p.71 footers 1–8 → `[^9]`–`[^16]`**: `[^9]` Codd. *tamen*; `[^10]` *Evangelia inchoentur* codd. var; `[^11]` Codd. *aliquid*/cod. A var; `[^12]` Cod. T *maxime cum Virgo... excellat*; `[^13]` Luc 1:41 + Ioan 1:29.36 + Ierem 31:22 + Bernard Homil.2 *Missus est*; `[^14]` Isaiah 7:14 (*purus/prius* var); `[^15]` *quasi enim* cod. var; `[^16]` Iob 31:18 + Iacob/David loci + long Bernard Epist.174 n.3 David footer.
- **p.72 footers 1–5 → `[^17]`–`[^21]`**: `[^17]` Aug. Epist.187 c.10 n.33 *egressus prolis*; `[^18]` Part. II [IV Sent] a.1 q.1; `[^19]` Aug. de Gen. ad lit. VIII c.12 n.26 *aer/lumen* exemplum; `[^20]` Cod. T *corporeis* var; `[^21]` Cod. T reply var + *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*

**p.72 footer 6 OMITTED (forward hand-off).** p.72's footer `6` (`Cod. H adiicit articulum. Paulo inferius pro immunis codd. L aa munda.`) anchors the ARTICULUS II opener (`secundum⁶`) and the d3-p1-a2-q1 body (`immunis`). It is NOT rendered here (would be anchorless in q3) — it belongs to the next chunk d3-p1-a2-q1. Documented rather than rendered.

**Scholion: `has_scholion: false`.** No `SCHOLION` block prints in the q3 tail; after the reply *Ad 5. 6.* the text proceeds directly to `ARTICULUS II.` (raw 5593, p.72). Confirmed by p.72 footer `[^21]` itself: *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.* — q3's matter is covered by the scholion held in q2 (commit e2ebf5b, §V).

**Marker pairing:** 21 La anchors = 21 En anchors = 21 defs, continuous 1–21; 0 anchorless, 0 defless (verified programmatically).

**Forward hand-off → d3-p1-a2-q1 (raw 5593–~5750, printed p.72+).** ART. II opener `Consequenter quaeritur quantum ad secundum⁶ de virtutis efficacia. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria` + the question list (*Primo... si per sanctificationis gratiam immunis fuerit ab omni culpa actuali*; *Secundo... utrum per primam sanctificationem exstincta fuerit fomitis concupiscentia*; *Tertio... utrum per secundam sanctificationem ablata fuerit peccandi potentia*) folds into d3-p1-a2-q1 (no standalone a2-divisio per the chunking convention). QUAESTIO I body opener: `Circa primum sic procedit et ostenditur, quod per sanctificationis gratiam munda fuerit ab omni actuali culpa...`. **Footer hand-off:** the p.72 footer `6` (above) carries forward to d3-p1-a2-q1; the next chunk then opens a fresh p.72-tail / p.73+ footer sequence. Check ART. II for its own scholion on the PDF.

**Cascade-merge check:** q3 tail ends grammatically complete at `...iam patet responsio per ea quae dicta sunt.` (p.72 R-col); ART. II opener is continuous on p.72. No splice.

**`[?]` flags:** none.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book III: On the Incarnation of the Word

title: Dist. 3, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 1

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 72 -->

### Articulus II. *De efficacia virtutis in hac sanctificatione.*

Consequenter quaeritur quantum ad secundum[^1] de virtutis efficacia. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria. Primo quaeritur, si per sanctificationis gratiam immunis fuerit ab omni culpa actuali. Secundo quaeritur, utrum per primam sanctificationem exstincta fuerit fomitis concupiscentia. Tertio quaeritur, utrum per secundam sanctificationem ablata fuerit peccandi potentia.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum beata Virgo per sanctificationis gratiam immunis fuerit ab omni actuali peccato.*

Circa primum sic proceditur et ostenditur, quod per sanctificationis gratiam munda fuerit ab omni actuali culpa. Et quod sic, probatur:

*Fundamenta.*
1. Primo per Augustinum *de Natura et gratia*[^2]: « De sancta Maria Virgine nullam prorsus, cum de peccatis agitur, habere volo quaestionem. Inde enim scimus, quod ei plus gratiae sit collatum ad vincendum ex omni parte peccatum, quod meruit parere quem constat nullum habuisse peccatum ». Si ergo vicit ex omni parte peccatum, videtur, quod immunis fuerit ab omni culpa.

2. Item, Bernardus *ad Lugdunenses*[^3]: « Puto, quod copiosius munus gratiae in eam descenderit, quae eius non solum sanctificaret ortum, sed eam deinceps ab omni peccato custodiret immunem »: ergo videtur, quod nunquam peccavit actualiter.

3. Item, sanctificatio Virginis merito eminentior fuit quam sanctificatio beati Ioannis; sed de beato Ioanne Baptista legitur[^4]:

> Ne levi saltem maculare vitam
> Famine posset.

Si igitur beatus Ioannes vitavit venialia, videtur, quod beata virgo Maria omnia vitaverit peccata per gratiam sibi datam.

4. Item, de nulla anima potest dici: *Tota pulcra es, amica mea, et macula non est in te*[^5], congruentius quam de Virgine Maria; ubi autem est macula vel culpa actualis, vel venialis vel mortalis, de eo non potest recte dici: ergo videtur, quod in Virgine Maria nulla fuerit culpa per gratiam sibi datam.

<!-- page 73 -->

**Sed contra:**
*Ad oppositum.*
1. Super illud Lucae primo[^6]: *Spiritus sanctus superveniet in te*; Glossa: « Superveniens Spiritus sanctus in Virginem, eam ab omni sorde vitiorum castificavit »; sed hoc fuit in conceptione Filii: ergo non erat immunis ab omni culpa.

2. Item, Augustinus in libro *de Perfectione iustitiae hominis*[^7]: « Esse sine peccato in hac vita de solo Unigenito dictum est »: ergo non videtur, quod hoc conveniat beatae Virgini.

3. Item, Magister in littera[^8]: « Mariam totam Spiritus sanctus praeveniens a peccato prorsus purgavit », et hoc intelligitur pro tempore conceptionis Filii Dei; sed nullus purgatur a peccato, nisi qui habet peccatum: ergo etc.

4. Item, beata Virgo bona conscientia dicere poterat: *Dimitte nobis debita nostra*[^9] etc., cum sit communis forma orandi, omnibus Sanctis collata: ergo non fuit sine culpa, ergo etc.

### Conclusio

> Beata Virgo per sanctificationis gratiam copiosam immunis fuit ab omni culpa actuali, tam mortali quam veniali.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod beata Virgo Maria per sanctificationis gratiam copiosam immunis fuit ab omni culpa actuali, tam mortali quam veniali, sicut aperte dicit auctoritas Augustini. — *Ratio 1.* Et hoc congruebat advocatam[^10] generis humani, ut nullum haberet peccatum, quod eius conscientiam remorderet. Unde audivi narrari, quod ipsa cuidam personae revelavit, quod non reprehendebat eam cor suum in omni vita sua. — *Ratio 2.* Congruum etiam erat, ut beata Virgo Maria, per quam aufertur nobis opprobrium, vinceret diabolum, ut nec ei succumberet ad modicum. Unde de ipsa exponit tam Bernardus quam Augustinus illud Genesis tertio[^11]: *Ipsa conteret caput tuum*. Si igitur suggestio est caput diaboli, nulla suggestio ingressum habuit in mentem Virginis, et ita tam a mortali immunis fuit quam a veniali. — *Ratio 3.* Congruum etiam fuit, ut illa, quae placuit Altissimo adeo, ut fieret eius sponsa et mater Filii Dei unigeniti, sic esset immaculata mente, sicut intemerata carne.

*Epilogus.* Quoniam igitur beata virgo Maria advocata est peccatorum, gloria et corona iustorum, sponsa Dei et totius Trinitatis triclinium et specialissimum Filii reclinatorium[^12]; hinc est, quod speciali gratia Dei nullum in ea peccatum habuit locum. — Unde concedendae sunt rationes, quae hoc ostendunt.

*Solutio oppositorum.*
*Differt peccatum et vitium.*
1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod Virgo Maria castificata fuit ab omni sorde vitiorum; dicendum, quod differt dicere peccatum et vitium. Nam peccatum dicit culpam, vitium dicit culpae sequelam. Glossa igitur illa non vult dicere, quod in secunda sanctificatione indiguerit gratia ad culpam delendam, sed ad culpae sequelam ex originali relictam[^13].

*Distinctio.*
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Augustino, quod esse sine peccato in hac vita pertinet ad solum Unigenitum; dicendum, quod dupliciter est loqui de hac vita: aut secundum omne tempus et statum, aut post usum liberi arbitrii. Si secundum tempus omne; hoc convenit soli Filio Dei, quia iste solus caruit originali peccato. Si post usum liberi arbitrii; sic convenit gloriosae Virgini gratia speciali, per quam immunis fuit non solum a mortali, verum etiam a veniali[^14].

*Peccatum dicitur tripliciter.*
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de auctoritate Magistri, quod Spiritus sanctus Virginem purgavit; dicendum, quod peccatum dicitur tripliciter: aliquando dicitur culpa, sicut communiter consuevit accipi; aliquando poena peccati, sicut ad Romanos octavo[^15]: *De peccato damnavit peccatum*; aliquando dicitur causa peccati, sicut ad Romanos septimo: *Si autem, quod nolo, malum facio, non ego operor illud, sed quod habitat in me peccatum*.

<!-- page 74 -->

Dico ergo, quod Virgo Maria post secundam sanctificationem non dicitur munda a peccato ratione alicuius maculae, sed solum ratione alicuius poenae, sicut melius infra[^16] manifestabitur.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de petitione illa: *Dimitte nobis* etc.; dicendum, quod in petitione ista Virgo Maria poterat petere remissionem debiti, quod debebat, non ratione sui, sed ratione aliorum membrorum Christi, quibus poterat petere, ut debita dimitterentur, et bona conscientia illam orationem formare; unde non pro se, quia, sicut dicit Augustinus[^17], illa non continetur sub illa generalitate, qua dicitur: *Si dixerimus, quia peccatum non habemus, nos ipsos seducimus, et veritas in nobis non est*. Unde Augustinus vult, quod ad alios Sanctos pertineat illa oratio pro se, ad beatam Virginem non pro se; et ideo non comprehenditur sub generalitate praedicta.

english:
### Article II. *On the efficacy of virtue in this sanctification.*

Consequently the question is raised as to the second point[^1], concerning the efficacy of virtue. And about this three things are asked. First it is asked, whether through the grace of sanctification she was immune from all actual fault. Second it is asked, whether through the first sanctification the concupiscence of the tinder was extinguished. Third it is asked, whether through the second sanctification the power of sinning was taken away.

### Question I. *Whether through the grace of sanctification the Blessed Virgin was immune from all actual sin.*

Concerning the first the procedure is thus, and it is shown that through the grace of sanctification she was clean from all actual fault. And that it was so is proved:

*Foundations.*
1. First, through Augustine, *On Nature and Grace*[^2]: « Concerning holy Mary the Virgin, when sins are at issue, I wish to have no question at all. For from this we know that more grace was conferred on her for conquering sin on every side, since she merited to bear him whom it is established had no sin ». If therefore she conquered sin on every side, it seems that she was immune from all fault.

2. Likewise, Bernard *to the people of Lyons*[^3]: « I think that a more copious gift of grace came down upon her, which would not only sanctify her origin, but would thereafter keep her immune from all sin »: therefore it seems that she never sinned actually.

3. Likewise, the sanctification of the Virgin was deservedly more eminent than the sanctification of blessed John; but of blessed John the Baptist it is read[^4]:

> That he might not, with even a light breath,
> stain his life.

If therefore blessed John avoided venial sins, it seems that the Blessed Virgin Mary avoided all sins through the grace given to her.

4. Likewise, of no soul can it be said: *Thou art all fair, my love, and there is no spot in thee*[^5], more fittingly than of the Virgin Mary; but where there is a spot or fault, whether actual, venial, or mortal, of such a one it cannot rightly be said: therefore it seems that in the Virgin Mary there was no fault, through the grace given to her.

**On the contrary:**
*To the opposite.*
1. Upon that text of Luke, chapter one[^6]: *The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee*; the Gloss: « The Holy Spirit, coming upon the Virgin, purified her from all filth of vices »; but this happened in the conception of the Son: therefore she was not immune from all fault.

2. Likewise, Augustine in the book *On the Perfection of the Justice of Man*[^7]: « To be without sin in this life was said of the Only-begotten alone »: therefore it does not seem that this befits the Blessed Virgin.

3. Likewise, the Master in the text[^8]: « The Holy Spirit, going before, purged Mary wholly from sin », and this is understood for the time of the conception of the Son of God; but no one is purged from sin unless he has sin: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, the Blessed Virgin could in good conscience say: *Forgive us our debts*[^9] etc., since it is the common form of praying, conferred on all the Saints: therefore she was not without fault, therefore etc.

### Conclusion

> The Blessed Virgin, through the copious grace of sanctification, was immune from all actual fault, both mortal and venial.

**I respond:** It must be said that the Blessed Virgin Mary, through the copious grace of sanctification, was immune from all actual fault, both mortal and venial, as the authority of Augustine plainly says. — *Reason 1.* And this befitted the advocate[^10] of the human race, that she should have no sin which would gnaw at her conscience. Hence I have heard it told that she revealed to a certain person that her heart did not reproach her in all her life. — *Reason 2.* It was also fitting that the Blessed Virgin Mary, through whom reproach is taken from us, should conquer the devil, so that she would not yield to him even in a little thing. Hence both Bernard and Augustine expound of her that text of Genesis, chapter three[^11]: *She shall crush thy head*. If therefore suggestion is the head of the devil, no suggestion gained entrance into the mind of the Virgin, and thus she was as much immune from the mortal as from the venial. — *Reason 3.* It was also fitting that she who so pleased the Most High that she became his spouse and the mother of the only-begotten Son of God should be as immaculate in mind as she was undefiled in flesh.

*Epilogue.* Since therefore the Blessed Virgin Mary is the advocate of sinners, the glory and crown of the just, the spouse of God and the dining-chamber of the whole Trinity and the most special resting-place of the Son[^12]; hence it is that by the special grace of God no sin had any place in her. — Whence the reasons that show this are to be granted.

*Solution of the opposing arguments.*
*Sin and vice differ.*
1. To that, then, which is first objected to the contrary, that the Virgin Mary was purified from all filth of vices; it must be said that to say "sin" and "vice" differ. For "sin" denotes fault, "vice" denotes the consequence of fault. Therefore that Gloss does not mean to say that in the second sanctification she needed grace to wipe away fault, but to wipe away the consequence of fault left over from the original sin[^13].

*A distinction.*
2. To that which is objected from Augustine, that to be without sin in this life pertains to the Only-begotten alone; it must be said that one may speak of this life in two ways: either according to the whole of time and state, or after the use of free will. If according to the whole of time; this befits the Son of God alone, because he alone lacked original sin. If after the use of free will; thus it befits the glorious Virgin by a special grace, through which she was immune not only from the mortal but even from the venial[^14].

*Sin is said in three ways.*
3. To that which is objected from the authority of the Master, that the Holy Spirit purged the Virgin; it must be said that "sin" is said in three ways: sometimes it is called fault, as it is commonly wont to be taken; sometimes the punishment of sin, as in Romans, chapter eight[^15]: *He condemned sin on account of sin*; sometimes it is called the cause of sin, as in Romans, chapter seven: *But if I do what I do not wish, it is no longer I who work it, but the sin that dwells in me*.

I say therefore that the Virgin Mary, after the second sanctification, is not said to be clean from sin by reason of any stain, but only by reason of some punishment, as will be set forth better below[^16].

4. To that which is objected concerning that petition: *Forgive us* etc.; it must be said that in that petition the Virgin Mary could ask the remission of a debt which was owed, not by reason of herself, but by reason of the other members of Christ, for whom she could ask that their debts be forgiven, and could in good conscience form that prayer; whence not for herself, because, as Augustine says[^17], she is not contained under that generality whereby it is said: *If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us*. Hence Augustine means that that prayer pertains to the other Saints for themselves, but to the Blessed Virgin not for herself; and therefore she is not comprehended under the aforesaid generality.

la: Cod. H adiicit *articulum*. Paulo inferius pro *immunis* codd. L aa *munda*.

en: Codex H adds *the article*. A little below, in place of *immune* codices L, aa read *clean*.

la: Cap. 36. n. 42. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. In verbis ex August. citt. pro *Inde enim* editio origin. exhibet *Unde hoc* (interrogando), cod. A *In hoc*. Deinde pro *quod meruit parere* cod. K *quae parere meruit*, textus origin. *quae concipere ac parere meruit*, cod. F *quod prolem meruit parere*.

en: Chap. 36, n. 42. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 2. In the words cited from Augustine, in place of *For from this* the original edition gives *Whence this* (interrogatively), codex A *In this*. Then in place of *who merited to bear* codex K reads *who merited to bear*, the original text *who merited to conceive and bear*, codex F *who merited to bear offspring*.

la: Epist. 174. n. 5: *Ego puto, quod et copiosior sanctificationis benedictio in eam descenderit, quae ipsius non solum... sed et vitam ab omni deinceps peccato custodiret immunem.*

en: Letter 174, n. 5: *I think that a more copious blessing of sanctification came down upon her, which would not only ... but would also keep her life immune from all sin thereafter.*

la: In hymno ad Matutinum festi S. Ioan., in quo hymno recentiora Breviaria pro *Famine posset* [Vat. *posses*] habent *Crimine linguae*. Hymnus iste attribuitur Paulo Diacono. In originali legitur *posses* pro *posset*. — Cfr. de hoc arg. Bernard., Serm. 2. in assumpt. B. M. V. n. 8.

en: In the hymn at Matins of the feast of St. John, in which hymn the more recent Breviaries, in place of *with a breath he might be able* [Vat. *thou mightest be able*], have *with the sin of the tongue*. That hymn is attributed to Paul the Deacon. In the original it reads *thou mightest be able* in place of *he might be able*. — Cf. on this argument Bernard, Sermon 2 on the Assumption of the B. V. M., n. 8.

en: Song of Songs 4:7.

la: Vers. 35. — Glossa est ordinaria et habetur apud Lyranum. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1.

en: Verse 35. — The Gloss is the Ordinary and is found in Lyranus. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1.

la: Cap. 11. n. 25. — Edd. perperam: *de Perfectione iustitiae: Hominem esse sine* etc.

en: Chap. 11, n. 25. — The editions wrongly read: *On the Perfection of Justice: that a man is without* etc.

la: Hic c. 1. — Loco *pro tempore conceptionis* cod. T *post conceptionem*.

en: Here c. 1. — In place of *for the time of the conception* codex T reads *after the conception*.

la: Matth. 6, 12. — In fine arg. pro *sine culpa* Vat. *immunis ab omni culpa*.

en: Matthew 6:12. — At the end of the argument, in place of *without fault* the Vatican edition reads *immune from all fault*.

la: Corrige *advocatae*, quod autem in codd. et edd. non reperitur. Aliquanto inferius pro *reprehendebat* codd. K Z *reprehenderat*.

en: Correct to *of the advocate*, which however is not found in the codices and editions. Somewhat below, in place of *was reproaching* codices K, Z read *had reproached*.

la: Vers. 15, et antea respicitur Ps. 118, 22. — Quoad Bernardum cfr. Homil. 2. super *Missus est*, n. 4. August. haec Scripturae verba proprie refert ad Ecclesiam, cuius typus secundum Ss. Patres et ipsum Augustinum est Maria, unde ab eisdem saepe idem locus Scripturae ad utramque applicatur. De Ecclesia et fidelibus dicit August., Enarrat. in Ps. 103. serm. 4. n. 6: *Quid ergo dictum est Ecclesiae? Iam modo audite, intelligite, cavete! Ipsa tuum observabit caput, et tu eius calcaneum. O Ecclesia, caput serpentis observa! Quod est caput serpentis? Prima peccati suggestio... Hoc quod venit in mentem, caput serpentis est; caput calca et evades ceteros motus* etc. Cfr. etiam Enarrat. in Ps. 35. n. 18; in Ps. 48. serm. 1. n. 6; II.

en: Verse 15, and earlier Ps. 118:22 is alluded to. — As regards Bernard, cf. Homily 2 on *He was sent*, n. 4. Augustine properly refers these words of Scripture to the Church, whose type, according to the holy Fathers and Augustine himself, is Mary, whence by them the same passage of Scripture is often applied to both. Concerning the Church and the faithful Augustine says, *Expositions of the Psalms* on Ps. 103, sermon 4, n. 6: *What then was said to the Church? Now at last hear, understand, beware! She shall watch thy head, and thou her heel. O Church, watch the head of the serpent! What is the head of the serpent? The first suggestion of sin... That which comes into the mind is the head of the serpent; tread on the head and thou shalt escape the other motions* etc. Cf. also *Expositions of the Psalms* on Ps. 35, n. 18; on Ps. 48, sermon 1, n. 6; II.

la: Cfr. Tract. *de concept. B. M. V.* (inter opera Anselmi).

en: Cf. the Treatise *On the Conception of the B. V. M.* (among the works of Anselm).

la: Cfr. quaest. seq. — Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 9. m. 3. a. 2. § 1. praeter hanc solutionem aliam quoque proponit; docet enim, verbum Glossae *castificavit* idem significare ac *castum reddit*. Et S. Thom., qui hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2. ad 2. de iisdem verbis Glossae agit, tertiam adhuc solutionem adiungit dicens: *Vel dicendum, quod castificatio a sordibus vitiorum non intelligitur remotio existentium, sed impedimentum futurarum sordium*. — Codd. K Z bb *ex originali peccato relictam*.

en: Cf. the following question. — Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, p. III, q. 9, m. 3, a. 2, § 1, besides this solution also proposes another; for he teaches that the Gloss's word *purified* signifies the same as *renders chaste*. And St. Thomas, who here, q. 1, a. 2, sub-question 2, ad 2, treats of the same words of the Gloss, adds yet a third solution, saying: *Or it must be said that the purification from the filth of vices is not understood as the removal of those existing, but as the impeding of future filth*. — Codices K, Z, bb read *left over from the original sin*.

la: Edd. 1, 2 cum codd. G L S V aa bb cc dd *actuali*; perperam. In cod. T desunt verba *per quam... veniali*.

en: Editions 1, 2 with codices G, L, S, V, aa, bb, cc, dd read *actual*; wrongly. In codex T the words *through which ... venial* are missing.

la: Vers. 3. — Seq. testimonium ibid. 7, 20. — Paulo superius post *aliquando dicitur culpa* cod. K addit *ut Iacobi ultimo (5, 16.): Confitemini alterutrum peccata vestra et orate pro invicem.*

en: Verse 3. — The following testimony is from the same book, 7:20. — A little above, after *sometimes it is called fault*, codex K adds *as in the last chapter of James (5:16): Confess your sins one to another, and pray for one another.*

la: Quaest. seqq. — Paulo ante pro *munda* codd. U Z *mundata*.

en: The following questions. — A little before, in place of *clean* codices U, Z read *cleansed*.

la: *De Natura et gratia*, c. 36. n. 42. Verba habentur hic in lit. Magistri, c. 2. — Locus Scripturae est I. Ioan. 1, 8. — Paulo superius edd. omittunt *unde*.

en: *On Nature and Grace*, c. 36, n. 42. The words are found here in the text of the Master, c. 2. — The scriptural passage is 1 John 1:8. — A little above, the editions omit *whence*.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Conclusio communis Scholasticorum a Concilio Tridentino (Sess. VI. can. 23.) irrefragabiliter confirmata est his verbis: « Si quis hominem semel iustificatum dixerit amplius peccare non posse... aut contra, posse in tota vita peccata omnia, etiam venialia, vitare, nisi ex speciali Dei privilegio, quemadmodum de B. Virgine tenet Ecclesia, a. s. ». — In solut. ad 3. ambigua quaedam verba Magistri (hic c. 2.) explicantur, adhibita notabili distinctione triplicis sensus vocabuli *peccatum*. — Maiorem confirmationem et extensionem conclusionis exhibet infra q. 3. — De quibusdam verbis nonnullorum antiquorum Patrum, praesertim Graecorum, quae conclusioni non favent, vide hic q. 3. ad 2, et S. Thom., S. III. q. 27. a. 4. nec non recentiores theologos.

**II.** Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 9. m. 2. a. 5, m. 3. a. 1. 2. — Scot., in utroque Scripto hic q. 1. tangit quaestionem. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2; S. loc. cit. — B. Albert., hic a. 6. seqq. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 3. — Aegid. R., hic q. 1. a. 3. et dub. lat. — Durand., hic q. 4. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1. — Biel, hic q. 1. in fine.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** The conclusion common to the Scholastics has been irrefragably confirmed by the Council of Trent (Sess. VI, can. 23) in these words: « If anyone shall say that a man once justified can no longer sin... or, on the contrary, that he can avoid all sins, even venial ones, throughout his whole life, except by a special privilege of God, as the Church holds concerning the Blessed Virgin, let him be anathema ». — In the solution to the 3rd objection certain ambiguous words of the Master (here c. 2) are explained, with a notable distinction of the threefold sense of the word *sin* applied. — A fuller confirmation and extension of the conclusion is given below in q. 3. — Concerning certain words of some of the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks, which do not favor the conclusion, see here q. 3, ad 2, and St. Thomas, *Summa* III, q. 27, a. 4, and likewise more recent theologians.

**II.** Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, p. III, q. 9, m. 2, a. 5, m. 3, a. 1, 2. — Scotus, in each *Scriptum*, here q. 1, touches on the question. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 2, sub-question 2; *Summa* loc. cit. — Bl. Albert, here a. 6 ff. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 2, sub-question 2. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1, q. 3. — Giles of Rome, here q. 1, a. 3, and the broad dubium. — Durandus, here q. 4. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1. — Biel, here q. 1, at the end.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p07{2,3,4}-{L,R}-*.png`), per the Vol II/III override (PDF authoritative for cascade-shattered Respondeo + footers). Raw OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt` lines 5593–5750) used as base for clean prose and footnote-marker spacing. Printed pp. 72–74 (PDF 94–96, offset +22), confirmed via running heads: p.72 `72 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.` / p.73 `DIST. III. P. I. ART. II. QUAEST. I. 73` / p.74 `74 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`.

**ART. II opener folded in.** Per the chunking convention the short `ARTICULUS II.` opener (`Consequenter quaeritur quantum ad secundum… Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria. Primo… Secundo… Tertio…`, raw 5593) folds into this q1 — no standalone `d3-p1-a2-divisio` chunk. The 3-question TRACTATIO list (q1 culpa actualis, q2 fomes concupiscentiae, q3 peccandi potentia) sits inside the opener here.

**Alignment: PASS.** q1 opener reads `Primo quaeritur, si per sanctificationis gratiam immunis fuerit ab omni culpa actuali` / body `Circa primum sic proceditur et ostenditur, quod per sanctificationis gratiam munda fuerit ab omni actuali culpa` = PARS I ART. II TRACTATIO q1. No q-swap.

**Scholion: `has_scholion: true` (§I–II), held in q1.** After q1's reply *Ad 4* a distinct `SCHOLION.` block prints on p.74 (spanning both columns, before QUAESTIO II). §I = the Council of Trent (Sess. VI, can. 23) confirmation of the common Scholastic conclusion + the threefold-sense-of *peccatum* distinction in the solution ad 3. **Forward-covers q3** (`Maiorem confirmationem et extensionem conclusionis exhibet infra q. 3.`; `vide hic q. 3. ad 2.`). §II = the doctor-citation list (Alex. Hal., Scotus, S. Thom., Albert, Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med., Aegid. R., Durand., Dionys. Carth., Biel). The scholion carries no Quaracchi footer of its own.

**Page-split map (apparatus, 17 entries, continuous `[^1]`–`[^17]`, per-page restart):**
- **p.72 footers 6–10 → `[^1]`–`[^5]`.** Footer **6 inherited** per the d3-p1-a1-q3 hand-off (commit 54c7a23): q3 consumed p.72 L-col footers 1–5 (its `[^17]`–`[^21]`); p.72 footer 6 (`Cod. H adiicit articulum…`) anchors the ART. II opener `secundum⁶` + q1 `immunis`, and is THIS chunk's `[^1]`. Footers 7–10 (R-col block) anchor q1 args 1–4: 7=`de Natura et gratia⁷` (`[^2]`), 8=`Lugdunenses⁸` (`[^3]`), 9=`legitur⁹` (`[^4]`), 10=`te¹⁰` (`[^5]`). The p.72 R-col body itself is q3's tail (the q3 replies, raw 5560s); only the q1 args + footers 6–10 belong here.
- **p.73 footers 1–10 → `[^6]`–`[^15]`** (per-page restart): 1=Sed contra 1 `Lucae primo¹` / 2=SC2 `hominis²` / 3=SC3 `littera³` / 4=SC4 `nostra⁴` / 5=Respondeo `advocatam⁵` / 6=Respondeo `Genesis tertio⁶` (the long Augustine/Ecclesia footer, spans L-col bottom into R-col top) / 7=Epilogus `reclinatorium⁷` / 8=Reply 1 `relictam⁸` / 9=Reply 2 `veniali⁹` / 10=Reply 3 `octavo¹⁰`.
- **p.74 footers 1–2 → `[^16]`–`[^17]`** (per-page restart): 1=Reply 3 `infra¹` / 2=Reply 4 `Augustinus²`. **p.74 footers 3–4 OMITTED** (`Vers. 28. — Fomes (concupiscentia) definitur…`; `Vide II. Sent. lit. Magistri d. XXI…`) — they anchor QUAESTIO II's body (`Angelo… Ave Maria, gratia plena`), which begins on p.74; they belong to d3-p1-a2-q2 and would be anchorless here. Documented, not rendered.

**Forward hand-off to d3-p1-a2-q2** (raw 5751–~5902, printed p.74+):
1. `QUAESTIO II. Utrum in prima sanctificatione in Virgine fuerit exstincta fomitis concupiscentia.` Opener (raw 5754): `Secundo quaeritur, utrum in prima sanctificatione in Virgine fuerit fomitis concupiscentia exstincta. Et quod sic, videtur: 1. Lucae primo: dicitur ab Angelo ei: Ave Maria, gratia plena…`. **VERIFY alignment** (= PARS I ART. II TRACTATIO q2; STOP and report if it reads a2-q1/q3 wording).
2. **p.74 footers 3–4 carry forward to q2** (NOT rendered here): footer 3 (`Vers. 28. — Fomes (concupiscentia) definitur a Magistro quidam morbidus affectus… In fine arg. post fuerit cod. Q addit in ea.`) anchors q2 arg 1 `Ave Maria, gratia plena³`; footer 4 (`Vide II. Sent. lit. Magistri d. XXI. c. 6. et Comment. a. 2. q. 3. nec non dub. 4. — Paulo superius ante est necessitas codd. N U interiiciunt ibi.`) anchors q2 arg 2 `veniale⁴`. Render them as q2's first fresh p.74 footer entries, then continue with p.75+ sequences (per-page restart). q2 opens p.74 L-col lower-mid (running head `74 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`) and spills onward — generate p.75+ crops as needed.
3. **SCHOLION for q2:** check the PDF after q2's replies. q1's scholion §I forward-references q3 (`infra q. 3.`), not q2; `has_scholion` per the q2 PDF finding.

**Boundary lock.** q1's scholion §II ends grammatically complete at `…Biel, hic q. 1. in fine.` (p.74 R-col, raw ~5749); `QUAESTIO II.` (raw 5751) + `Secundo quaeritur…` (raw 5754) begin d3-p1-a2-q2 on p.74 — NOT included. Continuous, no cascade-merge splice.

**No `[?]` flags.**

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 3, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 74 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum in prima sanctificatione in Virgine fuerit exstincta fomitis concupiscentia.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum in prima sanctificatione in Virgine fuerit fomitis concupiscentia exstincta. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Lucae primo[^1] dicitur ab Angelo ei: *Ave Maria, gratia plena;* igitur ante adventum Filii Dei fuit repleta gratia et plena amore divino; sed ubi est aliquo modo concupiscentia, ibi non potest esse gratia Dei plena: videtur igitur, quod in prima Virginis sanctificatione fomitis concupiscentia omnino fuerit exstincta.

2. Item, ubicumque est fomes, est necessitas ad aliquod peccatum veniale[^2]: ergo cum in ea nulla fuerit peccandi necessitas, quia in ea nulla culpa; ergo videtur, quod fomitis concupiscentia omnino fuerit in ea exstincta.

3. Item, fomes reddit illum difficilem ad bonum, in quo est; sed in beata Virgine nulla fuit difficultas ad bonum: ergo videtur, quod post primam sanctificationem non remanserit in ea concupiscentiae vitium.

4. Item, si *tanta* gratia fomitem minuit, et maior gratia magis minuit, et perfecta simpliciter[^3] exstinguit; sed gloriosae Virgini in ipsa sua sanctificatione primo collata fuit gratia perfecta: ergo omnino fuit in ea exstincta concupiscentia.

**Sed contra:** 1. Damascenus dicit, et habetur in littera[^4]: « Post consensum Virginis praevenit Spiritus sanctus in ipsam secundum verbum, quod dixerat Angelus ad eam, purgans eam »; sed non purgavit a culpa: ergo purgavit ab originalis sequela; haec autem est fomitis concupiscentia: ergo etc.

2. Item, Magister in littera[^5]: « Mariam quoque totam Spiritus sanctus praeveniens purgavit et a fomite peccati liberavit, vel fomitem ipsum penitus exstinguendo, vel extenuando »; hoc dicit de sanctificatione secunda: ergo ante ipsam non fuit fomes exstinctus.

3. Item, Bernardus in quadam homilia[^6]: « In proposito Virginis erat omnium hominum frequentiam fugere, ne perturbaretur oranti silentium, aut virginalis castitas tentaretur »: ergo videtur, quod occasione accepta ab extrinseco, excitari poterat in ea concupiscentia prava: ergo non fuit omnino exstinctus.

4. Item, si omnino fuisset in ea exstinctus fomes concupiscentiae, igitur secunda sanctificatio non fuisset opportuna: si igitur opportuna fuit, videtur, quod aliquid remanserit in ea fomitis concupiscentiae.

<!-- page 75 -->

### Conclusio

> In prima sanctificatione beatae Virginis fomes fuit consopitus, in secunda vero exstinctus.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod circa hanc quaestionem est triplex modus dicendi.

Quidam enim dicere voluerunt, quod nec in prima nec in secunda sanctificatione exstinctus erat in ea fomes concupiscentiae, sed solum consopitus secundum plus et minus: quia fomes causam habet in carne; unde non directam habet oppositionem ad gratiam secundum essentiam, sed secundum inclinationem: ideo si gratia magna est, fomes minus inclinat, quamvis per gratiam illam non deleatur eius essentia[^7]. Quoniam igitur in Virgine magna fuit gratia in prima sanctificatione et valde magna in secunda; hinc est, quod in prima fuit consopitus, et in secunda magis consopitus, quamvis non omnino fuerit exstinctus vel evacuatus. — Sed[^8] quoniam caro Christi sumta est de carne Virginis, in Christo etiam nulla fuit concupiscentia fomitis; cum caro Christi debeat carni Virginis assimilari post Virginis sanctificationem, sicut caro aliorum assimilatur carni aliorum parentum; videtur, quod Spiritus sanctus secundo super eam adveniens prorsus exstinxerit fomitem. Et ita praedicta opinio non videtur habere probabilitatem.

Secundus modus dicendi est, quod tam in prima quam in secunda sanctificatione fuerit in ea exstinctus fomes, sed aliter et aliter. In prima namque exstinctus fuit, in quantum respicit personam; in secunda, in quantum respicit naturam. In prima igitur sanctificatione mundata fuit[^9], ut numquam peccaret; in secunda vero mundata fuit, ut germen piae prolis emitteret sine peccato, non solum actuali[^10], sed etiam veniali. In prima etiam sanctificatione exstinctus fuit fomes, in quantum reddit pronum ad malum; in secunda, in quantum reddit illum difficilem ad bonum. — Sed illud difficile est intelligere, quia hoc ipso, quod proni sumus ad malum, difficiles sumus ad bonum. Quomodo igitur exstingui potest quantum ad pronitatem ad malum, ipso remanente quantum ad difficultatem ad bonum? — Rursus, qualiter potest intelligi, quod fomes possit exstingui, in quantum respicit personam; et non sit exstinctus, in quantum respicit naturam, cum ibi sit unus fomes, sic[^11] diversimode comparatus, et exstinctio dicat ipsius fomitis eradicationem? Non videtur usquequaque intelligibile, quomodo fomes exstinguatur in prima sanctificatione, et tamen nihilominus remaneat respectu prolis propagandae. Si enim exstinguitur, ergo non manet aliquo modo, nisi forte quis accipiat exstinctionem largo modo pro ablatione inclinationis ad malum respectu personae, in qua est. Et ita fortassis intelligitur praedicta positio, quam satis probabilem et rationabilem credo.

Tertius autem est modus dicendi, videlicet quod in prima sanctificatione fuit fomes in Virgine consopitus; in secunda exstinctus et eradicatus. Fomes enim radicatur in carne et ascendit usque ad mentem. In prima sanctificatione Virginis[^12] collata est tanta gratia perfectionis, quod redundaret in eius sensualitatem in tanta redundantia, ut fomitem adeo reprimeret, quod nullum effectum ad incitandum aliquando haberet. In secunda autem sanctificatione — in qua Spiritus sanctus non tantum descendit in mentem, sed etiam in carnem, et de carne operatus est, de ea mirabiliter carnem sine macula fabricando — reliquit ipsius carnem immaculatam, exstirpando ex ea et fomitem et omnem concupiscentiam. Et hoc sonant verba Bernardi, Magistri et Damasceni, sicut patet in auctoritatibus in opponendo[^13] habitis. — Unde rationes probantes, quod in prima sanctificatione non fuit fomes omnino exstinctus, concedendae sunt.

*Ad 1.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Virgo Maria fuit gratia plena in prima sanctificatione; dicendum, quod aliter fuit plena in prima sanctificatione, aliter in secunda. In prima fuit plena, secundum quod expediebat ad meritum; in secunda, secundum quod expediebat ad concipiendum Filium Dei. Et ideo prima sanctificatio respiciebat Virginem secundum animam; secunda autem respiciebat Virginem totam, secundum quod dicit Magister: « Mariam totam Spiritus sanctus praeveniens » etc.

<!-- page 76 -->

*Ad 2. 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod fomes impellit ad necessitatem ad peccandum venialiter, et ad difficultatem ad bonum; dicendum, quod illud verum est, ubi[^14] est fomes in vigore suo, ubi non reprimitur a gratia movente ad contrarium; et ideo non habet locum in Virgine, ubi fuit gratia perfecta, tranquillans eius animam et potentias. Et sic patet responsio ad illa duo.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de perfectione gratiae, dicendum, quod gratia, quae directe respicit animam, minuit fomitem quantum ad inclinationem, sed non oportet, ut minuat quantum ad radicem; et ideo non sequitur, quod per[^15] perfectionem illius gratiae fomitis concupiscentia evellatur, sed solum ut eius inclinatio consopiatur. Et hoc quidem concedendum est tanquam verum.

english:
### Question II. *Whether in the first sanctification the tinder of concupiscence was extinguished in the Virgin.*

Secondly it is asked whether in the first sanctification the tinder of concupiscence was extinguished in the Virgin. And that it was, it seems:

1. In Luke, chapter one[^1], it is said to her by the Angel: *Hail Mary, full of grace;* therefore, before the coming of the Son of God she was filled with grace and full of divine love; but where there is concupiscence in any way, there the grace of God cannot be full: it seems therefore that in the Virgin's first sanctification the tinder of concupiscence was entirely extinguished.

2. Likewise, wherever there is the tinder, there is a necessity toward some venial sin[^2]: therefore, since there was in her no necessity of sinning, because in her there was no fault; therefore it seems that the tinder of concupiscence was entirely extinguished in her.

3. Likewise, the tinder renders him in whom it is difficult toward the good; but in the blessed Virgin there was no difficulty toward the good: therefore it seems that after the first sanctification there did not remain in her the vice of concupiscence.

4. Likewise, if *so much* grace lessens the tinder, and a greater grace lessens it more, and a perfect grace simply[^3] extinguishes it; but to the glorious Virgin in her very sanctification perfect grace was first conferred: therefore concupiscence was entirely extinguished in her.

**On the contrary:** 1. Damascene says, and it is had in the text[^4]: « After the Virgin's consent the Holy Spirit came upon her beforehand according to the word which the Angel had said to her, purifying her »; but he did not purify her from fault: therefore he purified her from the consequence of original sin; but this is the tinder of concupiscence: therefore, etc.

2. Likewise, the Master in the text[^5]: « Mary too the Holy Spirit, coming beforehand, wholly purified and freed from the tinder of sin, either by entirely extinguishing the tinder itself, or by attenuating it »; this he says of the second sanctification: therefore before it the tinder was not extinguished.

3. Likewise, Bernard in a certain homily[^6]: « In the Virgin's purpose it was to flee the company of all men, lest the silence of her prayer should be disturbed, or her virginal chastity be tempted »: therefore it seems that, an occasion having been taken from without, depraved concupiscence could be aroused in her: therefore it was not entirely extinguished.

4. Likewise, if the tinder of concupiscence had been entirely extinguished in her, then the second sanctification would not have been opportune: if therefore it was opportune, it seems that something of the tinder of concupiscence remained in her.

### Conclusio

> In the first sanctification of the blessed Virgin the tinder was lulled to sleep, but in the second it was extinguished.

**Respondeo:** It must be said that concerning this question there is a threefold manner of speaking.

For some have wished to say that neither in the first nor in the second sanctification was the tinder of concupiscence extinguished in her, but only lulled to sleep according to more and less: because the tinder has its cause in the flesh; whence it does not have a direct opposition to grace according to essence, but according to inclination: therefore, if the grace is great, the tinder inclines less, although by that grace its essence is not destroyed[^7]. Since therefore in the Virgin the grace was great in the first sanctification and very great in the second; hence it is that in the first it was lulled to sleep, and in the second more lulled to sleep, although it was not entirely extinguished or emptied out. — But[^8] since the flesh of Christ was taken from the flesh of the Virgin, and in Christ too there was no concupiscence of the tinder; since the flesh of Christ ought to be assimilated to the flesh of the Virgin after the Virgin's sanctification, just as the flesh of others is assimilated to the flesh of their parents; it seems that the Holy Spirit, coming a second time upon her, utterly extinguished the tinder. And thus the aforesaid opinion does not seem to have probability.

The second manner of speaking is that both in the first and in the second sanctification the tinder was extinguished in her, but in one way and another. For in the first it was extinguished insofar as it regards the person; in the second, insofar as it regards the nature. In the first sanctification, therefore, she was cleansed[^9] so that she might never sin; but in the second she was cleansed so that she might send forth the seed of holy offspring without sin, not only mortal[^10], but also venial. In the first sanctification too the tinder was extinguished insofar as it renders one prone to evil; in the second, insofar as it renders him difficult toward the good. — But this is difficult to understand, because by this very fact, that we are prone to evil, we are difficult toward the good. How then can it be extinguished as to proneness to evil, while it remains as to difficulty toward the good? — Again, how can it be understood that the tinder can be extinguished insofar as it regards the person, and yet not be extinguished insofar as it regards the nature, since there is one tinder there, thus[^11] compared in diverse ways, and extinction means the eradication of the tinder itself? It does not seem in every way intelligible how the tinder is extinguished in the first sanctification, and yet nonetheless remains with respect to the propagating of offspring. For if it is extinguished, then it does not remain in any way, unless perhaps one take extinction in a broad sense for the removal of the inclination to evil with respect to the person in whom it is. And thus perhaps the aforesaid position is understood, which I believe to be sufficiently probable and reasonable.

But the third manner of speaking is, namely, that in the first sanctification the tinder was lulled to sleep in the Virgin; in the second it was extinguished and eradicated. For the tinder is rooted in the flesh and ascends up to the mind. In the first sanctification of the Virgin[^12] so much grace of perfection was conferred that it overflowed into her sensuality in such abundance that it so repressed the tinder that it never had any effect toward inciting. But in the second sanctification — in which the Holy Spirit not only descended into the mind, but also into the flesh, and worked from the flesh, marvelously fashioning from it flesh without stain — he left her flesh immaculate, rooting out from it both the tinder and all concupiscence. And this is what the words of Bernard, the Master, and Damascene convey, as is plain in the authorities adduced in opposition[^13]. — Whence the reasons proving that in the first sanctification the tinder was not entirely extinguished are to be granted.

*To 1.* To that which is objected, that the Virgin Mary was full of grace in the first sanctification; it must be said that she was full in one way in the first sanctification, in another in the second. In the first she was full, according to what was expedient for merit; in the second, according to what was expedient for conceiving the Son of God. And therefore the first sanctification regarded the Virgin according to the soul; but the second regarded the Virgin wholly, according to what the Master says: « Mary wholly the Holy Spirit, coming beforehand » etc.

*To 2. 3.* To that which is objected, that the tinder impels to a necessity of sinning venially, and to a difficulty toward the good; it must be said that this is true where[^14] the tinder is in its vigor, where it is not repressed by a grace moving toward the contrary; and therefore it has no place in the Virgin, where there was perfect grace, calming her soul and her powers. And thus the response to those two is plain.

*To 4.* To that which is objected concerning the perfection of grace, it must be said that grace, which directly regards the soul, lessens the tinder as to inclination, but it is not necessary that it lessen it as to the root; and therefore it does not follow that by[^15] the perfection of that grace the tinder of concupiscence is uprooted, but only that its inclination is lulled to sleep. And this indeed must be granted as true.

la: Vers. 28. — *Fomes* (concupiscentia) definitur a Magistro quidam morbidus affectus, qui commovet ad desiderium illicitum (cfr. II. Sent. lit. Magistri, d. XXX. c. 8. et d. XXXI. c. 3.). — In fine arg. post *fuerit* cod. Q addit *in ea.*

en: Verse 28. — The *tinder* (concupiscence) is defined by the Master as a certain morbid affection which moves toward illicit desire (cf. II Sent., text of the Master, d. XXX, c. 8, and d. XXXI, c. 3). — At the end of the argument, after *fuerit*, codex Q adds *in ea.*

la: Vide II. Sent. lit. Magistri d. XXI. c. 6. et Comment. a. 2. q. 3. nec non dub. 4. — Paulo superius ante *est necessitas* codd. N U interiiciunt *ibi.*

en: See II Sent., text of the Master, d. XXI, c. 6, and the Commentary, a. 2, q. 3, and also doubt 4. — A little above, before *est necessitas*, codices N U insert *ibi.*

la: Edd. *totaliter*, complures codd. *similiter.* Paulo inferius pro *primo* edd. cum cod. bb *prima.*

en: The editions read *totaliter* (totally), several codices likewise *similiter* (similarly). A little below, for *primo* the editions with codex bb read *prima.*

la: Hic c. 1. — Post *habetur* codd. UKLQVZaa subnectunt *etiam.*

en: Here, chapter 1. — After *habetur* codices UKLQVZaa append *etiam* (also).

la: Hic c. 1.

en: Here, chapter 1.

la: Homil. 3. super *Missus est*, n. 1, ubi textus originalis: *In proposito Virginis erat hominum fugere frequentias, vitare colloquia, ne... continentis castitas tentaretur.* — Pro *omnium*, quod deest in text. origin. et in cod. bb, codd. G H K L T V Z aa *omnem.* Paulo inferius verbo *concupiscentia* edd. praefigunt *fomitis.* In lectione codd., quam recepimus, supple in fine arg. *fomes.*

en: Homily 3 on *Missus est*, n. 1, where the original text is: *In the Virgin's purpose it was to flee the throngs of men, to avoid conversations, lest... the chastity of a continent woman be tempted.* — For *omnium*, which is absent in the original text and in codex bb, codices G H K L T V Z aa read *omnem.* A little below, to the word *concupiscentia* the editions prefix *fomitis.* In the reading of the codices, which we have adopted, supply at the end of the argument *fomes.*

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 32. a. 1. q. 1. seq. et dub. 2. — Subinde post *in Virgine* codd. A E adiiciunt *Maria*, et dein post *in prima fuit* cod. X supplet *fomes hic.*

en: Cf. II Sent. d. 32, a. 1, q. 1 f., and doubt 2. — Then after *in Virgine* codices A E add *Maria*, and afterward, following *in prima fuit*, codex X supplies *fomes hic.*

la: Cod. K addit *contra illud videtur*, et cod. Z *illud non videtur.* Mox pro *in Christo etiam* codd. G K Z aa bb *et in Christo.* Deinde pro *cum caro*, codd. K Z *ergo cum caro*, cod. N *et caro.*

en: Codex K adds *contra illud videtur*, and codex Z *illud non videtur.* Soon, for *in Christo etiam* codices G K Z aa bb read *et in Christo.* Then for *cum caro*, codices K Z read *ergo cum caro*, codex N *et caro.*

la: Cod. U subiungit *persona*, cod. Y perperam adiicit *natura.* Mox pro *mundata* codd. *sanctificata.* — Verba deinde *ut germen* etc. sumta videntur ex August., l. de Peccat. merit. et remiss. etc. c. 29. n. 37, ubi legitur: *Sola nostro vulneri medicinam parere potuit, quae non ex peccati vulnere germen piae prolis emisit.* Cfr. ibid. ll. c. 24. n. 38.

en: Codex U subjoins *persona*, codex Y wrongly adds *natura.* Soon, for *mundata* the codices read *sanctificata.* — The following words *ut germen* etc. seem to be taken from Augustine, *On the Merits and Remission of Sins* etc., c. 29, n. 37, where one reads: *She alone could provide a remedy for our wound, who did not from the wound of sin send forth the seed of holy offspring.* Cf. ibid., book II, c. 24, n. 38.

la: Ita codd. et edd. Intellige: *mortale.*

en: So the codices and editions. Understand: *mortale* (mortal).

la: In codd. G (K a secunda manu) N X Z bb deest *sic.* Aliquanto inferius pro *propagandae* cod. S *propagatae.*

en: In codices G (K by a second hand) N X Z bb *sic* is lacking. Somewhat below, for *propagandae* codex S reads *propagatae.*

la: Edd. *Virgini* et mox cum pluribus codd. *sensualitate* pro *sensualitatem.* Dein pro *ad incitandum* codd. T U *ad incitamentum*, codd. K (Z a prima manu) bb *vel incitamentum.*

en: The editions read *Virgini*, and soon, with several codices, *sensualitate* for *sensualitatem.* Then for *ad incitandum* codices T U read *ad incitamentum*, codices K (Z by a first hand) bb *vel incitamentum.*

la: Id est in fundamentis.

en: That is, in the foundational arguments.

la: Cod. A *et ubi*, Vat. *ubi scilicet.* Supra ante *difficultatem* codd. omittunt *ad.* Paulo inferius pro *et ideo* cod. T, omissis verbis *ubi non... ad contrarium*, substituit *quod*, et pro *non habet* edd. exhibent *non habuit.* Subinde post *perfecta* cod. G inserit *et.*

en: Codex A reads *et ubi*, the Vatican edition *ubi scilicet.* Above, before *difficultatem*, the codices omit *ad.* A little below, for *et ideo* codex T, with the words *ubi non... ad contrarium* omitted, substitutes *quod*, and for *non habet* the editions exhibit *non habuit.* Then after *perfecta* codex G inserts *et.*

la: Cod. K *propter.*

en: Codex K reads *propter.*

latin_scholion:
**I.** Quid sit *fomes*, explicatur a S. Bonav., II. Sent. d. 30. a. 2. q. 1. in fine corp. et dub. unic., d. 32. dub. 2, d. 39. a. 2. q. 2. ad 4. — Supponitur hic antiqua et communis distinctio inter *primam* sanctificationem B. Virginis, quae secundum omnes antiquos facta est saltem ante nativitatem ex utero, et *secundam*, quae fuit in ipsa Verbi incarnatione. Antequam doctrina, quae defendit immaculatam Virginis conceptionem, invaluit, *secundae* sanctificationi aliqui speciales effectus communiter attribuebantur, ita ut inter utramque formalis quaedam differentia statueretur; nunc autem communius docetur, easdem non nisi secundum *gradus* efficaciae inter se differre.

**II.** Prima opinio a S. Bonav. aliisque communiter reprobatur. Secunda opinio est Alexandri Hal., quae pariter posterioribus magistris non placuit. Tribus autem opinionibus hic relatis iam B. Albert. et S. Thom. adiunxerunt quartam, quae scil. sustinet, « quod in sanctificatione B. Virginis, qua fuit sanctificata in utero, totaliter fuit ei fomes subtractus » (ita S. Thom. in Sum. III. q. 27. a. 3.). Haec autem quarta sententia, quae est nunc communis, ex dogmate immaculatae Conceptionis sponte fluit, cum B. Virgini non denegari possint illi effectus iustitiae originalis, qui respiciunt subiectionem, qua in protoparentibus sensualitas rationi, ratio Deo obsequebatur (cfr. Scot., II. Sent. d. 29. q. unica n. 4; d. 32. n. 4. seqq.). — Tertia opinio, quam sequuntur S. Bonav., S. Thom., B. Albert., Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med., Ægid. R., Durand. aliique, non primae, sed secundae sanctificationi exstinctionem fomitis attribuit, ita ut ille in prima secundum eosdem tantum fuerit ligatus (consopitus), quin tamen unquam processerit in actum. Hanc autem *ligationem* quidam sic explicant, ut parum a quarta opinione recedant. — Respectu specialis cuiusdam obiectionis cfr. hic dub. 1.

**III.** Alex. Hal., S. p. III. q. 9. m. 2. a. 5. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2; S. III. q. 27. a. 3; Compend. theol. c. 224. — B. Albert., hic a. 6. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 3. — Richard. a Med., de hac et seq. q. hic a. 1. q. 4. — Ægid. R., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 1. a. 4. — Durand., hic q. 3.

**IV.** In seq. (3.) quaestione id quod supra in 1. quaest. de sanctificatione illa dictum est respectu *actus*, completur respectu *habitus* peccandi, qui per *confirmationem in gratia* a B. Virgine penitus removetur, saltem post secundam sanctificationem, ut volunt qui in prima sanctificatione fomitem tantum *ligatum* esse putant. Omnes autem in duobus conveniunt: tum quod B. Virgo, cum remanserit viatrix, non eodem modo fuerit confirmata in gratia, quo confirmantur Sancti, scil. per visionem beatificam, tum quod ipsa *eminentissimum* prae omnibus aliis in gratia confirmatis donum confirmationis habuerit, ita ut in sensu composito exclusa sit potentia peccandi (cfr. S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 3. ad 2.). Tantum Durand. nimis restringit hanc confirmationem, ut sit non ex *dono inhaerenti*, sed ex *adiutorio ei assistenti*.

**V.** Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 3. a. 2. § 2. — S. Thom., hic q. cit.; S. loc. cit. a. 4. — B. Albert., hic a. 7. 9. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 3. — Durand., hic q. 4.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** What the *tinder* is is explained by St. Bonaventure, II Sent. d. 30, a. 2, q. 1, at the end of the body, and in the single doubt, d. 32, doubt 2, d. 39, a. 2, q. 2, ad 4. — There is here presupposed the ancient and common distinction between the *first* sanctification of the Blessed Virgin, which according to all the ancients took place at least before her birth from the womb, and the *second*, which was in the Incarnation of the Word itself. Before the doctrine which defends the immaculate conception of the Virgin prevailed, certain special effects were commonly attributed to the *second* sanctification, so that a certain formal difference was established between the two; but now it is more commonly taught that they differ from one another only according to *degrees* of efficacy.

**II.** The first opinion is commonly rejected by St. Bonaventure and others. The second opinion is that of Alexander of Hales, which likewise did not please the later masters. To the three opinions here related B. Albert and St. Thomas already added a fourth, which namely maintains « that in the sanctification of the Blessed Virgin, by which she was sanctified in the womb, the tinder was totally taken away from her » (so St. Thomas in Sum. III, q. 27, a. 3). But this fourth opinion, which is now the common one, flows spontaneously from the dogma of the immaculate Conception, since to the Blessed Virgin cannot be denied those effects of original justice which regard the subjection by which in the first parents sensuality obeyed reason, and reason obeyed God (cf. Scotus, II Sent. d. 29, q. unica, n. 4; d. 32, n. 4 ff.). — The third opinion, which St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas, B. Albert, Peter of Tarentaise, Richard of Middleton, Giles of Rome, Durandus and others follow, attributes the extinction of the tinder not to the first, but to the second sanctification, so that in the first, according to these same authors, it was only *bound* (lulled to sleep), yet without ever proceeding into act. But some explain this *binding* in such a way that they depart little from the fourth opinion. — With respect to a certain special objection, cf. here doubt 1.

**III.** Alexander of Hales, S. p. III, q. 9, m. 2, a. 5. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 2; S. III, q. 27, a. 3; Compend. theol. c. 224. — B. Albert, here a. 6. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 1, little-question 3. — Richard of Middleton, on this and the following question, here a. 1, q. 4. — Giles of Rome, on this and the following question, here q. 1, a. 4. — Durandus, here q. 3.

**IV.** In the following (3rd) question, what was said above in the first question concerning that sanctification with respect to *act* is completed with respect to the *habit* of sinning, which by *confirmation in grace* is entirely removed from the Blessed Virgin, at least after the second sanctification, as those wish who hold that in the first sanctification the tinder was only *bound*. But all agree in two things: both that the Blessed Virgin, since she remained a wayfarer, was not confirmed in grace in the same manner in which the Saints are confirmed, namely through the beatific vision, and that she had the *most eminent* gift of confirmation above all others confirmed in grace, so that in the composite sense the power of sinning was excluded (cf. St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 2, little-question 3, ad 2). Only Durandus too greatly restricts this confirmation, so that it is not from an *inhering gift*, but from a *help assisting her*.

**V.** Alexander of Hales, loc. cit., m. 3, a. 2, § 2. — St. Thomas, here q. cit.; S. loc. cit. a. 4. — B. Albert, here a. 7, 9. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 2, little-question 3. — Durandus, here q. 4.

---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol3-p07{4,5,6}-{L,R}-{0..2}.png`), per the Vol II/III OCR-priority inversion (the IA djvu OCR cascade-shatters the Respondeo + footers). The raw OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol3_raw.txt`, lines 5754–5902) was used only as a base for clean prose and exact footnote-marker spacing. English is a fresh literal translation.
- **Raw span / pages.** Raw 5754–5902. Printed pp. 74–76 (PDF 96–98; offset +22). Running heads verified: p.74 `74 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`; p.75 `DIST. III. P. I. ART. II. QUAEST. II. 75`; p.76 `76 SENTENTIARUM LIB. III.`.
- **Page-split map (apparatus, 15 entries, continuous [^1]–[^15], per-page restart):**
  - **p.74 footers 3–8 → [^1]–[^6].** Footers 1–2 of p.74 (`Quaest. seqq. — ...munda...`; `De Natura et gratia c.36 n.42 + I Ioan 1,8`) were consumed by **d3-p1-a2-q1** as its [^16]–[^17] (q1's Ad 4 + scholion §I anchors) — INHERITED hand-off honored; NOT rendered here. q2's footers begin at f.3 (`Vers. 28 Fomes...`, anchor arg 1 `gratia plena³`) → [^1]; f.4 (anchor arg 2 `veniale⁴`) → [^2]; f.5 (anchor arg 4 `simpliciter⁵`) → [^3]; f.6 (Sed contra 1 `in littera⁶`) → [^4]; f.7 (Sed contra 2 `in littera⁷`) → [^5]; f.8 (Sed contra 3 `homilia⁸`) → [^6].
  - **p.75 footers 1–7 → [^7]–[^13]** (anchors: Opinio 1 `essentia¹`; Improbatur `Sed²`; Opinio 2 `mundata³`; Opinio 2 `actuali⁴`; `sic⁵`; Opinio 3 `Virginis⁶`; `opponendo⁷`).
  - **p.76 footers 1–2 → [^14]–[^15]** (anchors: reply 2.3 `ubi¹`; reply 4 `per²`).
- **Forward hand-off to d3-p1-a2-q3:** **p.76 footers 3–6 OMITTED here** (documented, not rendered — they would be anchorless in q2). f.3 (`Sive de Institutione Virginis, c. 6 n. 44...`) anchors q3 arg 1 `Virginis³`; f.4 (`Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.`) anchors q3 arg 2 `peccatricem⁴`; f.5 (`Pro Si ergo Matrem Dei... posse peccare...`) anchors q3 arg 3 `peccare⁵`; f.6 (`Cod. Z in gloria sunt gratia confirmati.`) anchors q3 arg 4 `confirmati⁶`. Render these as q3's first apparatus entries, then fresh p.77+ sequences. q3 opener (raw 5906): `Tertio quaeritur, utrum in secunda sanctificatione a beata Virgine ablata fuerit peccandi potentia. Et quod sic, videtur: 1. Primo per Ambrosium in libro de Virginitate beatae Virginis³...`. q3 is the LAST quaestio of PARS I ART. II; after it the PARS I dubia begin (raw ~6023, printed p.78).
- **SCHOLION disposition: `has_scholion: true` (§I–V), held in q2.** A distinct `SCHOLION.` block prints on p.76 (after q2's *Ad 4*, spanning both columns), before QUAESTIO III. §I = the antiqua-et-communis distinction between the first sanctification (ante nativitatem ex utero) and the second (in the Incarnation), now taught to differ only by *degrees* of efficacy. §II = the four opinions (Bonav. rejects #1; #2 = Alex. Hal.; #3 = the common third opinion he and many follow; #4 = Albert/Thomas → now common, flowing from the immaculate-Conception dogma); closes `cfr. hic dub. 1.` §III = doctor-citation list (Alex. Hal., S. Thom., B. Albert, Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med., Aegid. R., Durand.). **§IV forward-covers q3** (`In seq. (3.) quaestione id quod supra in 1. quaest. ... completur respectu habitus peccandi ... confirmationem in gratia`). §V = doctor-citation list. The scholion carries NO Quaracchi footer of its own.
- **Alignment result: PASS.** Opener `Secundo quaeritur, utrum in prima sanctificatione in Virgine fuerit fomitis concupiscentia exstincta` = PARS I ART. II TRACTATIO q2 (the fomes-concupiscentiae question). No q-swap.
- **Boundary lock / cascade check.** q2 scholion §V ends grammatically complete at `...Durandus, here q. 4.` (p.76 R-col, raw ~5872). `QUAESTIO III.` (raw 5903) + `Tertio quaeritur, utrum in secunda sanctificatione...` (raw 5906) begin d3-p1-a2-q3 on p.76 L-col bottom / R-col — NOT included. Continuous, no cascade-merge splice.
- Marginal labels in the printed text (*Ad oppositum, Fundamenta, Opinio 1/2/3, Improbatur, Non probatur, Alia ratio, Notandum, Notanda distinctio, Solutio oppositorum, conclusio*) are editorial running glosses, rendered inline / not as footnote anchors.
- **No `[?]` flags.**