Dist. 3, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 1
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/3/d/3/q/bon-sent-III-d3-p1-a1-q1
----------------------------------------
### Article I. *On the sanctification of the Virgin as regards the fitting time.*
### Question I. *Whether the Virgin's flesh was sanctified before animation.*

Concerning the first point one proceeds thus, and it is asked whether the Virgin's flesh was sanctified before animation. And it is proved first that it was, thus:

1. Jeremiah, chapter one: *Before I formed thee in the womb, I knew thee;* it is established that the blessed Virgin was more excellent than Jeremiah: therefore her flesh was approved and purified before it was formed. But it was formed before it was animated: therefore the sanctification of the flesh was before the animation.

2. Likewise, on that passage of Luke, chapter one: *The infant leaped for joy in my womb;* the Gloss: « There was not yet in him the spirit of life, and already there was the spirit of grace »: therefore much more strongly was this so in the Lord's mother, who was more worthy than John: therefore she was sanctified before the spirit of life, and so before animation.

3. Likewise, the sanctifying power is not less powerful than the infecting and defiling power; but the flesh can be infected and defiled before animation: therefore by parity of reasoning, before the infusion of the soul — indeed by a stronger reason — it can be sanctified, since « opposites are by nature apt to come to be about the same thing ». If, then, this was granted to the blessed Virgin, however far it is fitting that it be granted to a pure creature; it seems that her flesh was sanctified before animation.

4. Likewise, the conception of the glorious Virgin was from lawful matrimony and from holy parents and from a barren mother, according to what a certain history narrates: it seems therefore that she was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit: if then that conception, which is according to lawful matrimony and according to the help of the Holy Spirit, is holy and immaculate; it seems that the flesh of the Virgin Mary was sanctified in her very conception. But the conception was before the animation: therefore she was sanctified before she was animated.

**On the contrary:** 1. Bernard, to the men of Lyons: « Before conception she could in no way be sanctified, because she did not exist; but neither in the conception itself, on account of the sin which was present »: but it is established that this was not said on account of a sin that was in the parents, since they could have conceived her without sin: therefore he says it on account of the *cause* of sin, which was in the flesh: therefore it does not seem that the sanctification was before the infusion of the soul.

2. Likewise, sanctification is through some gift of the grace of the Holy Spirit; but grace does not have being in the flesh, but in the soul: therefore it does not seem that grace was infused into the flesh before the soul.

3. Likewise, the being of grace presupposes the being of nature, and the perfection of grace presupposes the perfection of nature: if then sanctification denotes the effect of vivifying grace, it seems impossible that the flesh be sanctified before it is vivified by the soul.

4. Likewise, nothing pertains to sanctification which does not pertain to glorification; but the flesh before animation does not pertain to glorification nor to resurrection — whence aborted foetuses before animation do not rise again, as Augustine says — therefore the flesh before animation was not fit for sanctification: therefore the Virgin's flesh was not sanctified before it was animated.

### Conclusion

> The blessed Virgin's flesh was not sanctified before animation.

**I respond:** It must be said that the flesh of the blessed Virgin was not sanctified before animation; not because God could not purify the Virgin's flesh before animating it, but because sanctification has its being through some superadded gratuitous gift, which indeed does not have being in the flesh, but in the soul. Therefore if the flesh of the blessed Virgin is said to be sanctified, this is understood either by means of grace existing in her soul, or by means of grace existing in the souls of her parents. It is established that it was not by means of grace existing in her soul, because then there would be an opposition in the subject,
videlicet that the flesh be sanctified before the creation of the soul, and yet be sanctified by the power of the grace of that soul; for it would follow that the same thing be prior and posterior in one and the same. — But if it be understood that this happens through grace conferred on the souls of the parents, this cannot be, for three reasons.

*The first:* because the grace of sanctification is not transfused from parent into offspring, inasmuch as the offspring is not in the parent according to the soul; therefore neither does it have the grace of sanctification in the parent. And this is what Bernard says to the men of Lyons: « Before conception she could in no way be sanctified, because she did not exist »; this must be expounded according to the soul; for she was in them according to the flesh causally, but that being did not suffice for the grace of sanctification, which regards the soul.

*The second reason* is: because, even if it were possible that sanctification be derived from parent into offspring, like original justice; nevertheless it is never derived by means of libidinous intercourse, because then two opposites would be at once and at the same time in the same thing. And therefore Bernard says: « Perhaps amid marital embraces holiness mingled itself with the very conception, so that she was at once sanctified and conceived. But reason does not admit this. For how was there holiness without a sanctifying Spirit, or fellowship of the Holy Spirit with sin? Or how was there no sin, where lust was not lacking »?

*The third reason* is: because granted that sanctification were present, and lust were lacking by divine power; nevertheless it was not fitting that it be lacking, on account of this, that this is the prerogative of the blessed Virgin alone; for she alone, as the Saints say, conceived without sin and brought forth without pain; and therefore this ought not to have been granted to the parents of the blessed Virgin, but reserved to the Virgin alone. Whence Bernard: « I say that the glorious Virgin conceived of the Holy Spirit, but was not herself conceived [thus]; I say that she brought forth a virgin, yet was not herself brought forth by a virgin. Otherwise where will be the prerogative of the Mother, in which she is singularly believed to rejoice both in the gift of her offspring and in the integrity of her flesh, if thou shouldst grant it to her mother? This is not to honor the Virgin, but to detract from her honor ». — And therefore it must simply be conceded that her flesh was not sanctified before animation. And the reasons which prove this are to be conceded.

1. To that, then, which is objected on the contrary side concerning Jeremiah: *He knew before he formed;* it must be said that that knowing does not posit anything about him, but about the purpose of God predestining, just as election and love and eternal predestination do not posit anything about the predestined; and therefore it does not follow from this that the flesh of Jeremiah or of the Virgin was sanctified before it was formed.

2. To that which is objected concerning John, that there was not yet in him the spirit of life; it must be said that in Scripture a thing is said to come to be when it becomes known; and not to be, when it does not appear. And therefore the spirit is said not to have been in John, because it did not appear; for he was still in the womb; the spirit of grace is said to have been in him when he leaped in the womb at the coming of the Lord.

3. To that which is objected, that the flesh can be infected before animation, therefore also sanctified; it must be said that it is not alike, because the generation of flesh from flesh is carnal, not spiritual; therefore vitiated flesh is more apt to be transfused from vitiated flesh, than holy flesh from parents sanctified by grace.

4. To that which is objected, that the Virgin's conception was from lawful matrimony, therefore etc.; it must be said that all that is probable, namely that she was conceived from a barren woman and from conjugal intercourse without any *actual fault;* nevertheless it does not follow that she was conceived without the *cause of sin,* because the original [fault] is transfused from those who generate by lawful intercourse just as from those who generate by adulterous intercourse, as was shown in the second book. — And *if one objects* that there ought not to have been there a *cause* of the original [fault], because she was made by means of the power of the fecundating Holy Spirit, and on account of the fecundation of the maternal barrenness, which was not from man, but from God; it must be said that this does not hold, because this could likewise be objected concerning John and Isaac, who were conceived of barren women.

Concerning which note that the Holy Spirit sometimes operates as *Spirit,* sometimes as *holy.* He operates as *Spirit* when he does a work above nature; he operates as the *holy* Spirit when he does not only a work above nature, but also sanctifies that upon which he operates. — I say therefore that in the conception of the Son of God alone, who is the Holy of Holies, he operated not only as *Spirit,* but as the *holy* Spirit. But in the conception by which John was conceived, or the blessed Virgin, he operated as *Spirit* only; therefore the Virgin Mary alone is said to have conceived of the Holy Spirit. Therefore the Church celebrates the solemnity of no conception except of the Son of God alone, in the Annunciation of the blessed Virgin Mary.

There are, however, some who out of special devotion celebrate the conception of the blessed Virgin, whom I dare neither altogether *praise* nor *simply reprehend.* I dare not altogether *approve,* inasmuch as the holy Fathers, who established the other solemnities of the Virgin at the dictation of the Holy Spirit, who were also great lovers and venerators of the blessed Virgin, did not decree the solemnizing of the Virgin's conception. Blessed Bernard too, a chief lover of the Virgin and zealot for her honor, reprehends those who celebrate the Virgin's conception. The statutes too of the universal Church concerning the celebrations of the Saints are all founded upon holiness, so that on no day does it solemnize for any Saint, on which or for which the holy person did not exist, to whom that honor is rendered. If then there was no holiness in the Virgin before the infusion of the soul, it does not seem altogether safe to celebrate even the solemnity of that conception. — Neither do I dare altogether to *reprehend,* because, as some say, this solemnity began to be celebrated not by human invention, but by divine revelation; and if this is true, without doubt it is good to solemnize in her conception. But because this is not authentic, we are not compelled to believe it; and because it is also not against right faith, we are not compelled to deny it.

*It can also be* that that solemnity refers rather to the day of sanctification than of conception. And since the day of conception was certain, and the day of sanctification uncertain, as will appear below, therefore not irrationally could the solemnity of the day of sanctification be established on the day of conception; nor without reason, because although the day of conception need not be celebrated, inasmuch as there was no *holiness in the thing conceived,* yet holy souls can irreprehensibly rejoice, namely inasmuch as then it *was begun.* For who, hearing that the Virgin, from whom the salvation of the whole world proceeded, was conceived, would neglect to render thanks to God and omit to *rejoice in God his savior,* except one who is less devoutly affected toward the glorious Virgin and considers more the *present things* than the *future,* and considers more the *defect of the good* than the *foundation?* For if the son of a king be born lame, who is in process of time to be freed from his lameness; the lameness is not to be grieved over, but rather the birth is to be rejoiced in. In this way, if anyone solemnize on the day of her conception, attending more to the *future sanctification* than to the *present conception,* he does not seem worthy to be reproved; and therefore I said that such persons I dare neither *vituperate* nor *praise.*

Yet I believe and trust concerning the glorious Virgin, that if anyone celebrate this solemnity not out of *love of novelty,* but rather out of devotion to the Virgin, not believing also against that which can be elicited from sacred Scripture; that the blessed Virgin accepts the devotion to her; and if anything is reprehensible, I hope that before the just Judge she will deign to excuse it. Nor do the sayings of Bernard stand against this. For he rather intends to exclude the error, lest anyone believe the Virgin to have been sanctified in the conception, than to diminish our devotion toward the Virgin,
toward whom no one can be too devout; yet so that one believe nothing of her that is against the truth both of sacred Scripture and of the Christian faith, which ought to precede all our devotion, both toward God and toward his Mother.

But if anyone objects that the conceptions of the other Saints are not celebrated on account of subsequent sanctifications; it can be said to him that the other Saints will not take it ill if some special honor be rendered to the Mother of the Lord, since the *magnitude* and *acceleration* of her sanctification surpasses the rest. And therefore it is not to be wondered at if the Holy Spirit, dwelling in the hearts of the faithful, inflames their devotion more toward the Virgin than toward the other male and female Saints. For this cause too we daily perform a special office concerning the glorious Virgin according to the order of the Roman Church, although for blessed Peter, the prince of the Apostles, we perform an office only thrice in the year. — At whatever hour, therefore, on whatever day any of the faithful with his whole heart and bowels honors the Virgin, he is not to be obstinately rebuked, lest the censure of the Virgin herself be incurred, who is the helper and lover of all her faithful praisers, as those who are such have come to know by manifold experience.