site: migne

title: De virginitate B. Mariae

author: Hugh of Saint Victor

languages: en la

source_edition: Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. 176, coll. 857A–876C

source_text:
## PROLOGUS.

[0857A]

Sancto pontifici G. Hugo beatitudinis tuae servus. Narrasti mihi de beatae Mariae virginitate quaestionem Paternitati tuae a quodam factam fuisse, in qua quidem ejusdem irreverentia admodum displicuit, eo quod non ut oportuit ita pudice de re sacrosancta locutus sit. Ego igitur (sicut placitum fuerat, quae super hoc dicenda videbantur) stylo signans legenda transmitto. Vale.

## CAP. I. *Quod Maria in consensu conjugali virginitatis propositam non mutavit.*

De incorrupta virginitate matris Domini hoc fides pie et pietas fideliter confitetur, quod ejus perfectionem nullo modo imminuit conjugalis consensus quemadmodum castitatem illius non violavit conceptus, [0857B] nec integritatem abstulit partus. Ipsa namque eadem virgo perpetua, et cum desponsaretur viro, non tamen deseruit aut mutavit propositum continentiae; et cum fecundaretur (non a viro) concepit sine libidine; et cum filium ederet peperit sine dolore. Quid dicis nunc inquisitor contentiose et non pie auditor? Miraris an diffidis? Si miraris miranda, mirandus non es; si non credis credenda, tolerandus non es; si falsa conaris asserere audiendus non es; si vera niteris oppugnare, convincendus es: denique si manifesta negas, confutandus es. Fateor, aequo animo ferre non possum temerariam praesumptionem tuam, quod tam impudica et nugaci loquacitate temerare sinceram et intactam maculare conaris. Stulte istis tenebris tuis in matrem luminis impegisti. [0857C] Quid enim sibi voluerunt exsufflanda illa argumenta tua, quae tu cum longa ac diutina ruminatione texuisses quasi novum et magnum aliquod inventum prolaturus (sicut tibi consuetudinis est), circuire coepisti aures prurientes quaerens; amplius quidem te doctis insipientem quam insipientibus doctum demonstrans. Quid enim? Doctor esse voluisti? Novitatis relator, an assertor veritatis? Sed esto. Inveneras quod doceres. Cur tibi visum est infamare castitatem, et oppugnare veritatem? Sed forte (quod et ego magis suspicor) nihil contra veritatem moliebaris, sed solita et tibi inolita levitate auras popularis famae captans, acumen ingenii tui probare putasti, si prius rem (quasi quaestionis ambage) [0857D] apud alios involveres, ut in ejus solutione postmodum tu doctor appareres. At nunc res tibi in contrarium versa est. In quaestione enim tua temerarius probatus es, sed in solutione non es doctus inventus. Videamus tamen quae sit magna illa et gravis quaestio soli (ut putas) tibi non insolubilis. [0858A] Et quidem etiam, si gravis foret tanto verius multis plusquam tibi, quanto stultius tu praesumis tibi soli. Videamus tamen quae sit. Primum quaeris utrum sine consensu coitus conjugium fieri possit; hoc est, an illi matrimonium invicem contrahere possint, qui sibi non consentiunt in reddendo debito carnis. Movit ergo fortassis te quod dictum audieras: matrimonium non facit coitus, sed consensus. Et merito movisset si quidem quod dictum non audieras, sed intelligendum putaveras, consensus coitus, additum fuisset. Quaeris ergo utrum sine consensu coitus conjugium esse possit. Post haec his qui tibi respondent sine ejusmodi consensu verum conjugium non esse, tuam (ut audio) videris existimationem adjungere; propterea fortassis quia tibi de reliquo necessitatem [0858B] tacendi imponeret, qui hoc quaerenti aliud responderet. Deinde hoc concesso et statuto, scilicet quod sine talis consensus pactione conjugium stare non possit; persequeris et interrogas, utrum, verum fuit conjugium inter Mariam matrem Domini et Joseph, quem Scriptura virum Mariae appellasse aliquoties invenietur, ipsamque Mariam uxorem sive conjugem ejusdem Joseph indubitanter nominasse. Quo concesso, quia et hoc negare absurdum est, cum id et sacrae Scripturae manifesta auctoritate probetur, et catholica hoc religio sua attestatione confirmet, infers et dicis: Si verum fuit conjugium, ergo carnalis commistionis consensus ibi fuit, et invenitur Maria ad coitum carnis viro assensum praebuisse. [0858C] Quod si verum est, imo quia si hoc verum non est, verum conjugium dici non potest, cur ipsa Maria vera semper virgo permansisse dicitur, quae aliquando vera conjux fuisse non negatur? Aut enim non consensit, et vera conjux non fuit, aut consensit, et vera virgo non permansit. In eo ipso namque propositum virginitatis deseruit, quod se per consensum debito carnalis commercii in conjugali sacramento sponte subjecit. Ac per hoc quod virginitatis propositum in consensu copulae carnalis deseruit, jam mente virgo esse desiit, etiam si carne virgo permansit. Quae est igitur haec Virgo virginum, singularis integritate, unica castitate, excellens dignitate? Quae sunt ista praeconia et assiduae laudationes, imo potius quae sunt quotidianae istae adulationes [0858D] quibus singulariter laudabilem et excellenter super omnes gloriosam Mariae virginitatem praedicamus, quae non solum omnibus virginibus praeferenda non est, sed multis etiam postponenda; quae et carne virgines probatae sunt, et virginitatis propositum usque in finem mente casta atque devota [0859A] inviolatum tenuerunt? Comparetur nunc virginitas Agnetis et Mariae et quae fuerit in merito probata sublimior, digne etiam in laudibus excelsior teneatur. Illa se in custodia virginitatis tam invictam exhibuit, ut eam a proposito suo nec ipsa mors illata dejiceret. Haec se tam mobilem demonstravit, ut unius eam viri et pauperis affectus ad consensum sui inclinaret. Illa intantum virginitatem dilexit, ut quidquid in ejus comparatione pretiosum promittebatur, contemnendum crederet; quidquid pro ejus defensione durum inferebatur, non timendum judicaret; haec virginitatem tam facile despexit, ut eam et sine praemio promisso desereret, et sine poena illata abdicaret. Quid igitur restat nisi ut dicamus inferiorem habere gradum in merito ac laude virginitatis [0859B] illam quae a proposito conservandae virginitatis sponte cecidit, etiam si carne virgo permansit; superiorem vero illam quae cum carnis integritate propositum virginitatis usque in finem inviolatum custodivit! Hoc igitur est quod magna et laboriosa scrutatione invenisse te gloriaris; et cum tu mentem simul et carnem corruptam habeas, mentem intemeratae (cujus carnem non potes) falso criminari non pertimescis. Satius multo aut primum dixisses veritatem si eam non ignorasti, aut si hoc non poteras, saltem tacuisses pravitatem, qua dicta simplicium auditum violasti. Sed quid ages si eos quos falsa opinione depravasti veritas manifesta ita a periculo erroris liberet, ut tamen te a culpa temeritatis non emundes?

Videamus igitur nunc utrum mater Domini et vera [0859C] conjux esse potuit, et vera virgo permanere. Discutiamus (ut postulas) quid sit conjugium; et ex ejus diffinitione proposita consideremus si simul esse potuerunt in virgine matre et consensus conjugalis, et propositum virginitatis. Quid enim est conjugium nisi legitima societas inter virum et feminam; in qua videlicet societate ex pari consensu uterque semetipsum debet alteri? Debitum autem hoc duobus modis consideratur, ut scilicet et se illi conservet, et se illi non neget. Conservet videlicet ne post talem consensum ad alienam societatem transeat. Non neget ut ab ea quae ad invicem est communi societate se non disjungat. Spontaneus ergo consensus inter virum ac feminam legitime factus, quod uterque [0859D] alteri debitorem sui se spondet; iste est qui conjugium facit. Et conjugium est ipsa societas tali consensu foederata quae altero vivente alterum a debito non absolvit. Est adhuc alius consensus, scilicet carnalis commercii ad invicem exigendi atque reddendi, similem inter virum et mulierem pactionem constituens: comes et non effector conjugii, officium et non vinculum, qui et ipse tamen cum pari ab utroque voto suscipitur, pari etiam necesse est debito teneatur. Quod debitum in hoc quoque consensu dupliciter (sicut in priori commemoravi) exhibendum est, ut videlicet uterque se alteri conservet, et neuter alteri se neget. Hoc est ut sui corporis potestatem ad hoc opus nec alii praebeat, nec illi contradicat. De illo debito quo se et vir mulieri [0860A] et mulier viro debet conservare, ait Apostolus: Quae sub viro est mulier, vivente viro, *alligata est legi. Si autem* fuerit mortuus *vir ejus, liberata est a lege viri [n: (I Cor. VII)]*. Igitur vivente viro vocabitur adultera, si fuerit cum alio viro. De illo autem debito quo se et vir mulieri, et mulier viro debet non negare, idem dicit: *Mulier sui corporis potestatem non habet, sed vir; similiter autem vir sui corporis potestatem non habet, sed mulier [n: (ibid.)]*. Sed hujus debiti necessitas illos conjugatos sibi ad invicem non subjicit, in quibus dum conjugium contraheretur vel sanciretur, hujus operis consensus non praecessit. Nec tamen hoc officio cessante, veritatem sive virtutem conjugii cessare credendum est, imo potius tanto verius et sanctius conjugium esse, quod [0860B] in solo charitatis vinculo, et non in concupiscentia carnis et libidinis ardore foederatum est. Quid enim? In concupiscentia carnis conjugium sanctum esset, et in charitate non esset? Absit! Sed multo verius et justius ibi sanctum et verum dicitur, ubi nihil habet castitas unde erubescat, sed charitas unde glorietur. Quomodo ergo conjugati ad invicem debitores sui efficiuntur? Ad quid deinceps se sibi conservare debent; aut in quo non negare, si haec de medio causa tollatur? Non videtur hoc excepto quare aut vir mulieri, aut mulier viro sociari debeat. Aut quare societati pariter tali ad invicem debito quale conjugium habere noscitur, dicantur alligati. Hoc tibi fortasse videbitur carni, et carnem solam consideranti. Nihil ergo aliud in conjugio invenire potuisti [0860C] ut conjugalem societatem ob id solummodo sancitam et in eo sanctam esse confirmes? Nonne multo magis est si duo fiant unum mente, quam si carne unum fierent? Si participem facit alter alterum carnis suae, et sanctum esse potest; participem facit alter alterum animae suae, et sanctum non est? Absit! *Erunt duo in carne una, sacramentum hoc magnum est in Christo et Ecclesia [n: (Ephes. V)]*. Erunt duo in corde uno: sacramentum hoc majus est in Deo et anima. Ecce quo pacto se voluntariae sponsioni astringunt, ut adhinc et deinceps semper in omni sinceritate dilectionis, in omni cura sollicitudinis, in omni affectu pietatis, in omni studio compassionis, in omni virtute consolationis, et fide devotionis, [0860D] hoc uterque sit alteri quod ipse sibi, ut quisque alterum quasi unum secum factum attendat, tam in bonis quam in malis omnibus, sicut consolationis socium ac participem, ita et tribulationis et sufferentiae indivisum exhibeat. Postremo quantum foris ad necessitatem corporis attinet, quasi propriam carnem fovendam excipiat, quantum vero spectat ad amorem cordis intrinsecus, quasi animum suum in pace et tranquillitate (quantum in se est) sine perturbatione custodiat. Sic enim sit in sanctae societatis pace et communicatione quiescentibus, ut dum uterque non sibi vivit sed alteri, felicius atque beatius uterque vivat sibi. Haec sunt bona conjugii et felicitas castam societatem amantium, quae bona videre non possunt ii qui in conjugio [0861A] nil praeter male dulcem carnis voluptatem exquirunt. Ecce vides (excepto carnis commercio) qualia tamen et quanta bona conjugio relinquantur; imo potius (excepto carnis commercio) qualia et quanta mala, hoc est, qualis servitus et quantus dolor a conjugio excludantur.

## CAP. I. *Quod Maria in consensu conjugali virginitatis propositam non mutavit.* (cont.)

Sed dicis mihi iterum: Primam et principalem causam conjugii fuisse propagationem filiorum, quae quod sine carnis commistione futura non erat, ex hoc manifeste ostenditur, quod in principio Deus cum hominem de limo terrae plasmasset, postea ei mulierem in adjutorium fecisse perhibetur. Non in aliud profecto adjutorium quam ut ipsa mulier ad futurae sobolis propagationem viro fieret seminandi cooperatrix, seminis conceptrix, formandi locus, et [0861B] edendi genitrix. Non igitur ad aliud mulier viro est sociata, quam ut per eam et cum ea semen suum in posteritatis originem vir ipse coitu carnali transfundens, substantiam carnis ministraret nascituris ex carne. Nam id ipsum ex eo quoque comprobatur quod Deus postquam mulierem viro sociaverat, ejusdem societatis causam declarare volens, utrosque suae benedictionis gratia quodammodo prius ipse ad generandi potentiam fecundans, *Crescite,* ait, *et multiplicamini et replete terram [n: (Gen. I)]*; simul dans et mandatum, ut scirent id propter quod juncti fuerant; et gratiam, ut implerent id de quo praeceptum acceperant. Ex eo igitur officio quod conjunctis et sociatis ambobus ex praecepto auctoris sui injungitur, plane et indubitanter societatis ipsius causa demonstratur; [0861C] quia omnino absurdum erat, ut cum formam vivendi et ministerium agendi societatis praescriberet, non id praecipue propter quod eos sociari voluerat, de reliquo exsequendum mandaret. Hinc est quod ipse Adam ad quem usum mulier facta erat agnoscens: *Hoc,* inquit, *os ex ossibus meis, et caro de carne mea est. Propter hoc relinquet homo patrem suum et matrem suam et adhaerebit uxori suae, et erunt duo in carne una [n: (Gen. II)]*. Ecce commistio carnis in matrimonio primorum parentum, tam manifeste et ipsis exsequenda indicitur et ab ipsis futura prophetatur, ut qui sine illa conjugium verum esse dixerit et praecipienti Deo et homini consentienti Deo, contrarius esse non dubitetur. Et taliter [0861D] fortassis supradictae assertioni nostrae tibi opponendum videbatur.

Hoc igitur totum quod apportas quod Deus primo homini mulierem in adjutorium fecisse legitur; et quia sociata muliere cum viro utrisque ut crescerent et multiplicarentur, terramque replerent praecepisse memoratur; postremo quia a viro inter virum et mulierem carnis commistio futura prophetatur, idcirco nullatenus verum conjugium esse possit ubi quidem consensus carnalis commistionis non fuerit. Si quidem tibi videtur. Primum itaque nunc conveniat inter nos ut mihi respondeas an aut propter hoc, duo in carne una sociati sunt; et de carne una facti sunt, quod in carne una sociandi fuerunt. Sic enim dicitur: Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis et caro [0862A] de carne mea; propter hoc derelinquet homo patrem suum et matrem suam, et adhaerebit uxori suae, et erunt duo in carne una. Quid est propter hoc? An propter hoc in carne una, quia de carne una? Sed non dixit erunt duo in carne una propter hoc; nunc os ex ossibus meis, et caro de carne mea; sed: Hoc, inquit, os ex ossibus meis, et caro de carne mea; propter hoc relinquet homo patrem suum et matrem suam, et adhaerebit uxori suae et erunt duo in carne una. Tria dixit: Relinquet homo patrem suum et matrem suam; et adhaerebit uxori suae: et erunt duo in carne una. Quid est propter hoc? Propter hoc relinquet homo patrem suum et matrem suam; propter hoc adhaerebit uxori suae; propter hoc erunt duo in carne una. Propter hoc: [0862B] propter quid? Propter hoc quia hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis, et caro de carne mea. Ergo propter hoc in carne una, quia de carne una; non propter hoc de carne una, quia in carne una. Propter hoc erunt duo in carne una. Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis, et caro de carne mea. Propter hoc relinquet homo patrem suum et matrem suam, et adhaerebit uxori suae, et erunt duo in carne una. Consideremus singula quae dicta sunt ne forte contra te dixeris quod pro te dicendum putasti. Relinquet homo patrem suum et matrem suam, et adhaerebit uxori suae, et erunt duo in carne una. Fortassis idem dicere voluit adhaerebit uxori suae, et erunt duo in carne una, ut hoc ipsum sit uxori adhaerere, quod duos esse in carne una; tanquam si hoc solum dictum [0862C] sit, relinquet homo patrem suum et matrem suam, et adhaerebit uxori suae, et ipsa adhaesio non aliud quam commistio carnalis intelligatur. Discutiamus si hoc stare possit. Relinquet, ait, homo patrem suum et matrem suam, et adhaerebit uxori suae. Illos relinquet et huic adhaerebit. Igitur ab illis discedit, ad istam accedit. Quod illis subtrahit, huic impendit. Quid est hoc? Relinquet homo patrem suum et matrem suam, et adhaerebit uxori suae. Igitur in eo patrem et matrem relinquit, ut uxori adhaereat; in quo uxori adhaerere non potest, si patrem et matrem non relinquat. Relinquet homo patrem suum et matrem suam. In quo relinquet? Nunquid relinquet in cohabitatione an in dilectione? [0862D] et si sic oportet dici, nunquid relinquet in commistione? si relinquet homo in cohabitatione patrem et matrem, et adhaerebit uxori suae; nunquid igitur in domo patris sui uxorem habere non potest? Aut nunquid uxorem diligere non potest, nisi patrem et matrem odio habuerit? Nam illud tertium quod propositum est nec oportet repeti, nec decet nominari. Tamen his modis adhaerebit homo uxori suae; hoc est secundum cohabitationem, secundum dilectionem, secundum carnalem commistionem. Sed potest homo patri et matri simul et uxori cohabitare; potest patrem et matrem simul et uxorem diligere, ergo nec secundum cohabitationem, nec secundum dilectionem relinquet homo patrem suum et matrem suam, et adhaerebit uxori suae, quanto magis quae [0863A] neque fuit neque esse potuit, secundum carnalem commistionem non relinquet homo patrem suum et matrem suam, et adhaerebit uxori suae? Secundum quid ergo relinquet homo patrem suum et matrem suam, et adhaerebit uxori suae, nisi secundum illam singularem societatem in qua semetipsum debet alteri? in qua homo affectum patris et matris non quidem deponit, ut affectum uxoris solum eligat; sed postponit affectum patris et matris, ut affectum uxoris illi praeferat; ut eum non solum sed singularem haberet? Non igitur de commistione carnis, sed de affectu cordis et vinculo socialis dilectionis dictum est: adhaerebit uxori suae. Ut per hoc quod dicitur: adhaerebit uxori suae, sacramentum conjugii quod in spiritu est intelligas. Per id [0863B] vero quod subditur: et erunt duo in carne una, officium conjugii quod in carne est non pactum foederis conjugalis agnoscas. Relinquet ergo homo patrem suum et matrem suam, et adhaerebit uxori suae, et erunt duo in carne una. Ecce hic est conjugium, adhaerebit uxori suae; et hic est conjugii officium, erunt duo in carne una. Quare ergo relinquet homo patrem suum et matrem suam, et adhaerebit uxori suae? Magna res. Praefert principio finem. Pater et mater principium est, unde venit; uxor finis est, ubi dilectio requiescit. Ibi dilectionem operata est sola conditio; hic electionem sine conditione facit sola dilectio. Diligit itaque homo patrem suum et matrem suam, et de ipsis semel vitam accepit; sed plus uxorem suam diligit; quia cum [0863C] ipsa semper vivere elegit divinum prorsus sacramentum et profundum mysterium, pulchrumque et admirandum humanae conditionis exemplum. Habemus principium nostrum unde accepimus ut simus; habemus et finem nostrum sine quo beati esse non possumus. Ab illo per conditionem naturae ad esse venimus; in illo per electionem gratiae beatum esse accipimus. Ab illo esse habent omnia quae sunt; sed in illo non omnes beatum esse accipiunt. Minus igitur est, et minus diligendum est ab illo esse. Multo autem amplius est, et amplius diligendum est in illo beatum esse; utrumque tamen magnum et dilectione dignum est, et ab illo esse, et in illo beatum esse. Aliter ergo Deus est illorum, qui ab eo solummodo ut essent acceperunt; [0863D] aliter vero illorum qui ut non solum ab eo essent, sed ut in eo beati essent eum in praemium acceperunt. Illi quod ipsi sunt ab eo acceperunt; isti ut beate sint quod ipsi sunt, quod ipse est, ab eo accipiunt. Minus ergo diligendum est quod sumus et amplius quod beati sumus, quia in illo tantum est hoc quod nos sumus; in isto vero cum eo quod nos sumus id etiam quod ipse est a quo accepimus quod sumus. Relinquet homo patrem suum et matrem suam, et adhaerebit uxori suae, ut vetera novis supervenientibus postponens, a principio per dilectionem veniat, et in fine per dilectionem requiescat. Vides nunc quale et quantum sacramentum praefert amor conjugalis, ut in hoc discat anima rationalis sui finis consortium sine fine eligere, et individuo illo amoris [0864A] nexu et singularis dilectionis parilitate adhaerere. Haec fuit principalis causa conjugii, propter quod Deus instituit, ut relicto patre suo et matre sua, eligeret uxori suae unice et singulariter individua semper dilectione sociari. Huic autem societati ad commodum futuri generis multiplicandi, certi et rationabilis sacramenti causa officium postea generandi injunxit; non quidem ut in eo conjugium consisteret, sed ut ex eo conjugium et per obedientiam ministerii in merito cresceret, et per fecunditatem prolis fructuosius appareret. Recte ergo dicitur: Relinquet homo patrem et matrem suam, et adhaerebit uxori suae, et erunt duo in carne una, ut in eo quod adhaeret uxori suae sacramentum sit invisibilis societatis, quae in [0864B] spiritu facienda est inter Deum et animam; in eo autem quod duo sunt in carne una, sacramentum sit invisibilis participationis quae in carne facta est inter Christum et Ecclesiam. Magnum igitur sacramentum, Erunt duo in carne una, in Christo et Ecclesia; sed majus sacramentum, Erunt duo in corde uno, in dilectione una, in Deo et anima.

## CAP. I. *Quod Maria in consensu conjugali virginitatis propositam non mutavit.* (cont.)

Non satis fortassis ibi factum est ut ostenderetur quod conjugium non fuerat unio carnis, sed cordis, ne excellere putes ministerium officii super sanctitatem sacramenti. Instas ut consensus carnis sanctitas sit conjugalis, nec praeter pactum coitus, vinculum matrimonii ratum esse concedis, quia manifeste dixit: Erunt duo in carne una; et non manifeste dixit: Erunt duo in spiritu uno. Prius manifeste [0864C] dictum, in carne una, postea manifeste dictum, in spiritu uno, quia: *Quod carnale est, prius est, deinde quod spirituale est [n: (I Cor. XV)]*. Per patrem carnalem prius dictum in carne una; per doctorem spiritualem postea dictum in spiritu uno. Per prophetam Deus loquitur dicens: *Non accipiam placabile quid de manu vestra. Et dixistis: Quam ob causam? quia Dominus testificatus est inter te et uxorem pubertatis tuae, quam tu despexisti. Et haec particeps tua, et uxor foederis tui. Nonne unus fecit, et residuum spiritus ejus est? Et quid unus quaerit nisi semen Dei? Custodite ergo spiritum vestrum et uxorem adolescentiae tuae noli despicere. Cum odio habueris eam; dimitte, dicit Dominus Deus Israel [n: (Malach. II)]*. Illic ergo [0864D] dictum est: Hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis et caro de carne mea; hic dictum est: Haec particeps tua et uxor foederis tui. Nonne unus fecit, et residuum spiritus ejus est? Ibi pars carnis dicitur, hic portio spiritus nominatur; ibi dictum est: Crescite et multiplicamini, et replete terram. Hic dictum est: Et quid unus quaerit nisi semen Dei? Ille igitur hic semen Dei in spiritu requirit, qui ibi semen carnis in carne multiplicandum imperavit. Ibi dictum est: Erunt duo in carne una. Hic dictum: Cum odio habueris eam, dimitte, ut eadem carnis commistio, quae ibi inter virum et mulierem futura praedicitur, hic foedere dilectionis (quae est in spiritu) nihil prodesse demonstretur. Hoc est enim. Cum odio habueris eam, dimitte; non imperantis dissidium, sed [0865A] docentis, quod sine dilectionis foedere cassa sit, et virtute carens, etiamsi permaneat societas carnis. Non ergo virtus sacramenti conjugalis in carne est, sed in mente, nec ille consensus ad sanctitatem perficiendam requiritur, qui et ante peccatum conjugatis indicebatur ad officium. Post peccatum vero eo usque descendit, ut jam nunc concedatur ad remedium. Nequaquam ergo ex eo pensandum est conjugii sacramentum, in quo tunc sanctificaretur, sed exerceretur conjugalis castitas; et nunc sanctificaretur conjugium, sed excipitur conjugatorum infirmitas. Propterea olim, quando fides erat in populo uno, et tempus ad multiplicandum numerum fidelium opera officii conjugalis indiguit, carnale commercium ab uno in pluribus exercebatur, et in [0865B] unici amoris singulare sacramentum non laedebatur. Nunc vero quando populus Dei spirituali potius generatione multiplicandus est ad commendandam singularis sacramenti unitatem, quod est in spiritu, non nisi una uni in carne una foederatur. Tunc propter necessitatem licentia carnis foris in opere laxabatur; et tamen sanctitas intus in virtute sacramenti integra servabatur; nunc propter perfectionem etiam opera carnis foris ad unitatem stringitur; et in eo tamen unitas singularis sacramenti non efficitur, sed commendatur. Haec dicta sunt pro eo quod propositum erat demonstrare, quod sine consensu carnalis commercii conjugium sanctum et verum esse possit; neque in assensu coitus carnis, sanctitas sacramenti conjugalis consistat.

[0865C]Post haec nunc superest, ut de matre virgine sermonem in medium proponamus et inquiramus qua ratione vel auctoritate probari possit, ipsam et veram fuisse conjugem, et in assensu tamen conjugalis virginitatis propositum non mutasse: *Missus est angelus Gabriel a Deo in civitatem Nazareth, ad virginem desponsatam viro, cui nomen erat Joseph de domo David, et nomen virginis Maria [n: (Luc. I)]*. Ergo desponsata jam erat Maria, quando ad illam missus est angelus Gabriel a Deo. Videamus quod sequitur: *Et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit: Ave, gratia plena, Dominus tecum: benedicta tu inter mulieres. Quae cum audisset, turbata est in sermone ejus; et cogitabat, qualis esset ista salutatio. Et ait angelus ad eam: Ne timeas, Maria, invenisti enim gratiam apud [0865D] Deum. Ecce concipies in utero, et paries filium,* etc. *Et ait Maria: Quomodo fiet istud: quoniam virum non cognosco? [n: (Ibid.)]* Hoc est quod quaerebamus verbum virginis, in quo ipsa confutaret aemulos suae virginitatis. Sumamus igitur de ipsa testimonium per ipsam. Quomodo igitur fiet istud? Hoc est, ut filium pariam, quomodo fiet, quia virum non cognosco? Non ait, virum non cognovi. Hoc enim nihil impediret virginem desponsatam, et virum cognituram filiumque parituram, sed virginem non permansuram. Non ergo ait haec, virum non cognovi; quia hoc nec praeteritae fuisset virginitatis miraculum, nec futuri partus impedimentum, si virum adhuc non cognoverit, et virum ut non cognosceret deinceps [0866A] non proposuerat. Non utique dixit: Virum non cognovi, sed Virum non cognosco. Quomodo, inquit, fiet istud? virum non cognosco, et dicor filium paritura; quomodo ergo fiet istud, ut filium pariam, et virum non cognoscam: Quia virum non cognosco. Quid est, Virum non cognosco? Propositum habeo virum non cognoscere; propositum habeo virginitatis decus usque in finem inviolatum conservare. Quomodo si dixerit quis: Vinum non bibo, non possum hunc calicem gustare; hoc est quia in voto habeo vinum non bibere, non possum gustare calicem istum. Et sicut dictum est: Nazaraei comam non incidunt [n: (Deut. XXXIII; Judith. XIII, XVI)], hoc est, votum habent comam non incidendi; sic dictum est: Virum non cognosco. Quomodo itaque fiet istud, [0866B] quoniam virum non cognosco?

*Et ait angelus ei: Spiritus sanctus superveniet in te, et virtus Altissimi obumbrabit tibi [n: (Luc. I)]*. Noli, inquit, propter propositum virginitatis de promissione prolis diffidere. Spiritus sanctus superveniet in te. Concipies filium non e viro, sed de Spiritu sancto. Promissio quidem mea implebitur; sed tamen propositum tuum non violabitur. Tu vovistvirum te non cognituram; et ego praedico filium te parituram; et idcirco miraris, ne forte vel promissio cassa sit permanente proposito, vel propositum violetur, si impleatur promissio. Non enim possibilitas naturae hic sufficit, aut ratio humana id comprehendit, ut pariat virgo, intacta filium generet, et sine opera carnis caro procedat ex carne. Idcirco miraris [0866C] quomodo fiet istud, quia virum non cognoscis. Nam interim, quantum in te est, nihil invenire potes, cur de tua perseverantia debeas dubitare; et ob hoc quaeris, quomodo de mea possis promissione confidere. Quomodo fiet istud, quia virum non cognosco? Spiritus sanctus superveniet in te, et virtus Altissimi obumbrabit tibi. Noli propter propositum de promissione diffidere, quia Spiritus sanctus superveniet in te. Noli propter promissionem de proposito formidare, quia virtus Altissimi obumbrabit tibi. Spiritus sanctus superveniet in te, ne per coitum corrumpatur integritas. Virtus Altissimi obumbrabit tibi, ne per libidinem polluatur castitas tua. Spiritus sanctus superveniet in te, et virtus Altissimi [0866D] obumbrabit tibi. Ministrabis substantiam, et non senties concupiscentiam. Non suscipies semen ex viro, et fecunda fructum ventris germinabis in filio. Noli ergo dicere: Quomodo fiet istud, quia virum non cognosco; quia hoc per virum non fiet, sed per Spiritum sanctum, Spiritus enim sanctus superveniet in te, et virtus Altissimi obumbrabit tibi. Ecce jam habemus Mariam desponsatam virginem, et adhuc tamen in virginitatis proposito permanentem. Veraciter desponsatam virginem, nec minus veraciter in virginitatis proposito permanentem: quid amplius quaeris? An adhuc desponsationis nomen aliquid tibi ambiguitatis relinquit? Audieras enim ad desponsatam virginem missum fuisse angelum; sed ad conjugatam non audieras. Forsitan [0867A] ergo dicas, desponsata erat jam tunc Maria Joseph; sed adhuc conjux non erat, quia necdum eam in suam acceperat. Nam si eam extunc in suam acceperat, cur ei postea dictum est: *Joseph, fili David, noli timere accipere Mariam conjugem tuam? [n: (Matth. I.)]* Nondum ergo conjux erat, quando ad eam missus est angelus, sed tantum desponsata erat; et idcirco fieri potuit, ut non mutaverit propositum virginitatis, quando desponsata est, et mutaverit, quando conjux facta est. Hoc fortassis adhuc pro parte tua oppones. Sed absit a nobis, ut credamus eam, postquam se coelesti partu fecundandam audierat, ullatenus ad carnale commercium assensum praebuisse, quae et priusquam divini arcanum sacramenti (quod in se complendum erat) didicisset, votum virginitatis [0867B] conservandae tam inviolatum tenuit, ut cum se futuram conjugem sponderet, illud tamen eadem nihilo minus qua coeperat, devotione, eadem perseverantia in finem usque custodiendum proponeret. Desponsata ergo erat, et conjux erat, et vera virgo erat, et virginitatis propositum non reliquerat. Confitemur itaque virginem desponsatam; confitemur virginem conjugem factam; postea matrem quoque et virginem semper virginitatis propositum inviolatum tenuisse et castitatis decus perpetuum regnasse cum pudicitia conjugis et honore parentis. Intuere nunc, et diligenter considera virginem istam, virgunculam nostram singulariter castam, excellenter speciosam, unice mundam. Sed ego novi oculum tuum, quia lippus est, et quanto diligentius intenditur, tanto [0867C] iniquius contemplatur. Lex, inquit, dixit: « Maledicta sit sterilis, quae non parit; et quae non relinquit semen in Israel [n: (Deut. VII, 14; Exod. XXIII, 26)]. » Sed haec peperit et sterilis non fuit, quae semen benedictionis reliquit in Israel, in quo secundum repromissionem omnes gentes benedicuntur cum Israel, omnes qui benedicentur in Domino Deo Israel. Verumtamen in Sapientia audivimus felicem sterilem et incoinquinatam, quae non novit torum in delicto, quoniam fructum habebit in respectu animarum sanctarum [n: (Sap. III)]. Rursum in propheta Dominus continentiae merces, quanta apud ipsum reposita sit, ostendit, dicens: *Non dicat eunuchus: Ecce ego lignum aridum. Quia haec dicit Dominus eunuchis: Qui custodierint sabbata mea, et elegerint quae volui, [0867D] et tenuerint foedus meum, dabo eis in domo mea, et in muris meis locum et nomen melius a filiis et a filiabus nomen sempiternum quod non peribit [n: (Isa. LVI)]*. Quis est ergo iste in continentia sterilitatem maledicens, continentiae puritatem non videns, et fructum non intelligens? At tamen audiamus, quod paret.

## CAP. I. *Quod Maria in consensu conjugali virginitatis propositam non mutavit.* (cont.)

Maria, ait, maledictionem non effugit, quae per virginitatis propositum sterilitatem incurrit. Amplius autem. Quare nubere voluit, postquam continentiam voverat? Duo sunt. Aut propter maledictionem sterilitatis virginitatem non proponeret; aut propter votum castitatis virgo permansura non nuberet. Nunc vero si iniquum jure dicitur maledictionem [0868A] potius quam benedictionem eligere: quale dicendum est votum fecisse integritatis et nubere? Libenter accipio, quod ex tua pervicacia laus virginis cumulatur. Sic vult manifestari veritas, sic vult confutari iniquitas. Videamus ergo, quale sit, in quo notandam putas virginem. Scilicet, ais, quia in proposito virginitatis, maledictione sterilitatis incurrit. Quanta ergo est maledictio sterilitatis? Tanta utique, quanta et benedictio fecunditatis. Et ipsa itaque benedictio fecunditatis quanta est? Primos illos nostri generis parentes, cum benediceret Deus, ait: Crescite et multiplicamini, et replete terram. Ergo benedictionem fecunditatis dedit illis: Multum ergo dedit illis, quando benedictionem fecunditatis dedit illis, quando dixit: Crescite [0868B] et multiplicamini, et replete terram. Nonne et avibus coeli hoc dixit, et bestiis atque jumentis terrae hoc dixit: Crescite et multiplicamini, et replete terram? Peracta namque quinta nascentis saeculi die, cum produxisset ab aquis Deus piscium et volatilium genus, subjunxit Scriptura et dixit: *Videns Deus quod esset bonum, ait: Crescite et multiplicamini, et replete aquas maris: avesque multiplicentur super terram [n: (Gen. I)]*. Rursum cum educeret Noe de arca cum omnibus animantibus terrae in genere suo in universos suae benedictionis munus diffundens iterum ait: *Crescite et multiplicamini [n: (Gen. VIII)]* et replete terram. Secundum illam utique misericordiam, qua salvat *homines et jumenta [n: (Psal. XXXV)]*; aperit *manum* suam [0868C] et implet *omne animal benedictione [n: (Psal. CXLIV)]*. Igitur benedictio fecunditatis non solum hominibus, sed jumentis data est. Quid ergo mali fecit Maria? Maledictionem, inquit, sterilitatis elegit potius quam benedictionem fecunditatis. Intendite aequitatem. Judex noster virginem damnat, eo quod spreverit benedictionem jumentorum; et virginitatem eligens, benedictionem acceperit angelorum. *Inflammatum est,* inquit Psalmista, *cor meum, et renes mei commutati sunt; et ego ad nihilum redactus sum, et nescivi. Ut jumentum factus sum apud te, et ego semper tecum. Tenuisti manum dexteram meam; et in voluntate tua deduxisti me, et cum gloria suscepisti me. Quid enim mihi est in coelo, et a te quid volui super terram? [n: (Psal. LXXII.)]* Igitur Propheta, invento [0868D] eo quod sibi in coelo repositum est, quidquid in terra hactenus diligebat in ejus comparatione libenter despicit; et superna jam spirituali amore ambiens tam diu se per delectationem carnalem jumentum fuisse erubescit. Inflammatum est enim, ait, cor meum, et renes mei commutati sunt. Hoc est, per carnis semen in terra multiplicari cur appetam, cum mihi in coelo haereditatem conservari agnoscam? *Deus cordis mei, et pars mea Deus in aeternum [n: (ibid.)]*. Haec est illa optima pars quam *elegit Maria, quae non auferetur ab ea [n: (Luc. X)]*. Et quia se *in honore* esse *intellexit, non est* comparata mutis *insipientibus,* nec *similis* facta *est illis [n: (Psal. XLVIII)]*. Voluit ergo aliquid supra conditionem jumentorum [0869A] appetere; et idcirco parum judicabat, vel potius indignum reputabat, honori suo benedictionem jumentorum anteferre.

Quare, inquis, si melior erat virginitas fecunditate, Deus prius fecunditatem benedicebat; et postmodum lex sterilitatem maledicebat? Audi quare. Primum quando factus est mundus per Creatorem benedicta est fecunditas, ut multiplicarentur homines; postea quando ab uno tantum populo agnitus est Deus, per legem maledicta est sterilitas, ut multiplicarentur fideles; postremo quando instabat tempus, in quo nunc ab omnibus gentibus Deus colitur, benedicta est virginitas, ut ad vitam caelibem a carnis opera cuncti provocentur; audi adhuc aliud. Si prima illa benedictio fecunditatis ad salutem [0869B] erat, et secunda illa sterilitatis maledictio ad damnationem: ergo fecunditas carnis meritum est, et culpa sterilitas. Ergo meliores fuerunt illae mulieres, quae multos filios pepererunt, quam illae quae nullos vel paucos habuisse leguntur. Melior erat Cethura quam Sara. Melior Fenenna quam Anna et caeterae multae, quas Scriptura commemorat Deo non in multitudine filiorum, sed per merita virtutum placuisse. Sed absit a nobis ut vel fecunditatem carnis meritum, vel sterilitatem culpam esse dicamus. Absit a nobis ut credamus propterea legem sterilitatem carnis maledixisse, ut eam apud Deum damnabilem ostenderet; et non potius ut eam (illo quidem tempore, quando successio generis in multitudine filiorum quaerebatur) apud homines infructuosam, [0869C] et ob hoc quodammodo inhonoratam demonstraret. Non ergo culpanda est virgo Maria, nec accusanda de contemptu legis, in qua sterilitas maledicitur, imo sola singulariter laudanda, quae prima legis verba non carnaliter sapienda considerans, elegit in terra abjectio plebis fieri et opprobrium hominum, ut per munditiam integritatis in coelo fieret socia angelorum. Et pulchre prima inter feminas virgo Maria pro amore castitatis maledictum legis in carne sua pro nobis suscipiens a maledicto legis liberavit. Unde merito ei soli datum est, ut filium pareret et virgo permaneret, ut quia prima fecunditati carnis virginitatem sponte praetulit, nunc et fecunda sit carne et integra virginitate. Vides nunc qualis sit [0869D] accusatio tua? Superest ergo illud, ut rationem jam reddamus, quare post votum virginitatis Maria virum habere consensit. Aut propterea virum habere consensit haec sancta, ut celaretur propositum ejus; approbante et hoc ipsum Joseph, et idem proponente, aut si forte hujus propositi conscius non erat ipse Joseph (quod fieri potuit) parentibus nuptias imperantibus inobediens esse timuit, et ob hoc viro nubere consensit speciali (per Spiritum sanctum, qui eam a principio castitatis amore accenderat) fiducia confirmata et spe, quam in Deum habebat, non dubia, quod eam divina misericordia ita custodiret ut posset et voluntati parentum in matrimonio contrahendo obedientiam exhibere, et tamen nihil in eodem matrimonio impedimenti inventura esset, [0870A] pro quo votum virginitatis (quod pro amore castitatis susceperat) cogeretur frangere. Suscepit ergo conjugium, sed non mutavit virginitatis propositum. Et quia castitatem dilexit et obedientiam tenuit, inventa est in ea et sine detrimento virginitatis conjugalis sanctitas; et sine opprobrio sterilitatis fecunda virginitas. Sic beatus ille patriarcha fidei forma et obedientiae exemplum Abraham in repromissione acceperat, quod in Isaac benediceretur semen ejus; et tamen postea jussus a Deo eumdem quem unigenitum habebat ex Sara uxore sua filium Isaac immolare, sine mora aut cunctatione paruit, sciens pro certo quod, tametsi secundum humanam rationem promissioni contraria videretur jussio, secundum illam tamen virtutem, qua Deo possibilia sunt [0870B] omnia, et cum obedientia jussionis impleri posset promissio. Sicque factum est ut devotio obedientiae (qua Deo jubenti parere non distulit) inveniret meritum; et fides, qua Deo promittenti credidit, promissionis fidelis consequeretur effectum. Ita etiam hic fieri potuit, ut beata ista virgo Deo commendans, omne desiderium suum tantam in ipso fiduciam habuerit, ut indubitanter crederet, et parentibus se posse debitam obedientiam exhibere, et votum castitatis, cujus ipse solus conscius erat, quemadmodum vellet eo patrocinante, inviolatum conservare. Sed sive ita, sive aliter factum sit, nos quidem nullatenus ambigere debemus; beatam Mariam certa ac rationali causa post votum servandae virginitatis propositumque continentiae, conjugii sacramentum suscepisse, [0870C] et tamen virginitatis propositum non mutasse, veraciterque nomen sumpsisse conjugis, et perseveranter votum tenuisse integritatis.

## CAP. II. *Quod sacrosancta et perpetua virgo Maria non de viro, sed de Spiritu sancto concepit, quem et peperit Altissimi Patris unigenitum, Christum Deum et hominem.*

Prima igitur propositionis parte probata, qua dictum est quod Maria in consensu conjugali, virginitatis propositum non mutavit, nunc ad expositionem secundae partis, qua dictum est quod non de viro, sed de Spiritu sancto sine libidine concepit, sermo necesse est ordinem suum prosequatur. Primae quidem partis sententia (quia magis in quaestione [0870D] versabatur) prolixiori disputatione indiguit. Haec autem quoniam de ea minus dubitatum est, non tam probationem quam expositionem requirit. Quaerendum itaque in primis est, quomodo in elligi oporteat quod dictum est, beatam Mariam de Spiritu sancto concepisse. Scimus namque et omnes jam frequentissimo naturae usu didicimus, quod cum mulier a viro concepisse dicitur, non aliud nisi substantiam carnis ad generandam carnem per carnis coitum suscepisse memoratur. Et haec quidem carnis substantia de carne viri per ipsum carnis coitum transfusa cum carne mulieris una caro efficitur, ut id quod nasciturum est ex utriusque substantia veraciter originem sumens, ab illo per istam etiam ab ista generetur; ergo mulier a viro concipit, cum a [0871A] carne viri per coitum carnis semen suscipit ad generandam carnem. Nec aliud concipit quam ille est, a quo concipit, aut ipsa quae concipit; et quod concipit, hoc parit. Quid ergo dicemus? Nunquid Spiritus sanctus de sua substantia semen partus infudit alvo virginis? Quomodo ergo semen carnis ministrare potuit substantia spiritualis? An forte semen carnis non fuit quod conceptum est, et caro fuit, quod natum est? Quid dicimus? Quomodo Maria de Spiritu sancto concepit? Et si de Spiritu sancto concepit, quomodo Spiritus sanctus pater Christi non fuit? Haec omnia magna consideratione indigent, ne forte in re difficili et valde obscura sensus humanus aliquid amplius sua possibilitate praesumat. Nec ideo de his dubitandum est, quia obscura [0871B] sunt, nec ideo aliquid temere definiendum, quia credenda sunt. Quaeramus ergo quid concepit Maria. Aut enim carnem non concepit, et carnem non genuit; aut si carnem genuit, carnem concepit. Quod enim concepit, hoc genuit? Sed quomodo carnem ministrare potuit non caro, aut non carnem gignere caro? Ista perplexa inquisitio sive quaerendi ratio, quemadmodum sane et competenter intelligi valeat consideremus. Et primum quidem in ea quae secundum solitam ac usitatam naturae operationem peragitur conceptione ejusdem naturae opus quomodo compleatur intueamur. In parentibus carnaliter generantibus et per carnis coitum nascituram carnem ex carne fabricantibus utrobique natura substantiam ministrat partui creando, ut ex utriusque carne [0871C] procedat, quae solum in unius carne formanda est caro. Tamen hoc vectigal (quod natura quasi debitum quoddam ex instituto Creatoris ad fabricam humani corporis absolvendam impendit) ita prorsus sine ulla necessitate aut coactione ab ea requiritur, ut non nisi sola dilectione, et, ut sic dixerim, spontanea charitate ad id tribuendum inclinetur. Nihil est enim, praeter solam dilectionem, quod hoc debitum a natura extorquere possit; sed cum spontanea fuerit charitate persuasa, tunc nimirum sibi mutuo ad opus consummandum ex utraque parte libenter atque gratanter occurrit. Sane quidquid violenter nolenti abripitur, ad ejusmodi causae effectum incongruum prorsus atque [0871D] inefficax demonstratur. Sola ergo dilectio est, quae naturam persuadere, et volentem quodammodo cogere potest ad seminandum partum. Et quidem in muliere amor viri, in viro autem amor mulieris id agere solet, ut quia in altero solum natura sibi sufficiens non est, uterque alteri per dilectionem subveniat, ut quod neuter per se potuit, uterque per se cum altero possit. Igitur semen humani partus a sola muliere formandum concipitur, quod simul a viro et muliere seminatur. Quod quidem, sicut jam dictum est, in muliere per amorem viri, et in viro per amorem mulieris natura operatur. Propter quod etiam mulier non nisi a viro concipere dicitur, licet tam de se quam de viro accipiat unde fecundatur. Et recte de solo viro concipit, [0872A] quia id quod concipitur, in altero quidem de carne viri sumitur, in altero autem per amorem viri monstratur. Non itaque hoc solum de viro concipit, quod de viro accipit, sed hoc etiam de viro concipit, quod ex se de amore viri accipit. Hoc praemittere voluimus propter id quod dictum est, Mariam de Spiritu sancto concepisse. Concepit ergo Maria de Spiritu sancto, non quod de substantia Spiritus sancti semen partus acceperit, sed quia per amorem et operationem Spiritus sancti ex carne virginis divino partui natura substantiam ministravit. Nam quia in corde, quo amor Spiritus sancti singulariter ardebat, ideo in carne ejus virtus Spiritus sancti mirabilia faciebat. Et cujus dilectio in corde illius non suscepit socium, ejus operatio [0872B] in carne illius non habebat exemplum. Hoc igitur solum virgo concepit, quod de sua carne per amorem et operationem Spiritus sancti accepit; de quo etiam solo sine virilis seminis admistione filium genuit. Non ergo libido carnis conceptionem in virgine operata est, quae nec de carne viri semen accepit, nec de sua carne per amorem viri concepit, sed per amorem et operationem Spiritus sancti. Nec ipse Spiritus sanctus idcirco pater Christi dicendus est, quia ejus amor conceptionem virginis operatus est, quia non de sua essentia virgini semen partus tribuit, sed ipsi de carne propria virgini per amorem suum atque virtutem substantiam ministravit. Christus ergo et de virgine natus est, quia de carne virginis carnis substantiam accepit. [0872C] Et de Spiritu sancto conceptus est, quia ipsa cum virgo ex sola carne sua sine admistione virilis seminis per sancti Spiritus operationem amoremque concepit. Hinc est quod eidem Virgini pariturae per angelum dicitur: *Spiritus sanctus superveniet in te, et virtus Altissimi obumbrabit tibi [n: (Luc. I)]*. Spiritus sanctus namque virgini supervenit, ut per ejus operationem caro Christi de carne virginis formaretur. Et virtus Altissimi obumbravit ei, ne substantiam carnis ministrans, carnali concupiscentia ureretur. Et sic quidem nos intelligendum putamus id quod de Spiritu sancto virgo concepisse dicitur. Sic etiam posse astrui, quod in concipiendo libidinem non sensisse perhibetur.

## CAP. III. *Quod sine doloris et sine virginitatis detrimento Maria Christum peperit.*

[0872D]

Restat nunc novissimum hoc ex his tribus quae proposita erant, ut eam etiam sine dolore peperisse, nullumque in pariendo virginitatis detrimentum sustinuisse demonstremus. Audivi ego aliquando virginem concepisse, sed non peperisse virginem, quia talis de viro concepit quod peperit. Merito namque in partu corrupta est integritas, quia in conceptu virginitas polluta est, justumque erat, ut non pareretur sine dolore, quod conceptum non erat sine libidine. Nequaquam partus dolorem afferret, si conceptus non sensisset libidinem. Quia si culpa delectationis illicitae concipientem non pollueret, nunquam poena doloris parientem cruciaret. Prima [0873A] namque illa nostri generis et doloris mater, postquam malam delectationem conceperat, tunc demum quod filios in dolore paritura esset, audiebat, ut aperte demonstraret, quod non idcirco pariat cum dolore, quod a viro concipit, sed quod cum libidine. Quis enim possit dicere, si homo non peccasset, utrum partus humanus etiam de viro conceptus aut integritatem corrumperet, aut castitatem violaret? Et quidem si non violaretur castitas, quare integritas corrumperetur? dicat qui potest. Beata autem virgo Maria ut supra primam conditionem esset secunda restauratio, et naturam generis gratia vinceret Salvatoris, non solum sine libidine concepit, sed neque de semine viri partum accepit; et ob hoc sine dolore filium edidit, et cum integritatis [0873B] decore post partum virgo permansit.

## CAP. IV. *Quaestio, utrum probabile sit, matrimonium sine consensu coitus contrahi posse.*

Quoniam quidem necdum quaestiones finem acceperunt, cogor quotidie expositionem expositioni superinducere, et veterem parietem recenti temperatura linire, rudibus namque animis novo semper errore fatiscentibus nihil satis expositum esse potest; qui dum tenebris suis involuti alienam lucem non vident, omne quod intelligere nequeunt, obscure dici queruntur, atque ita defectum suarum mentium in causationem transferunt sermonum. In eo tractatu, quem de beatae Mariae virginitate dictavi, quaestio in manibus habita est, in qua id potissimum agebatur, an quovis modo demonstrari posset, [0873C] utrum sine consensu coitus conjugium sanciri valeret. Cumque nos, quod oportuit in hujus sententiae definitionem, proponeremus, ratio patefacta est in consensu carnis nequaquam consistere sanctitatem sacramenti conjugalis. Proinde determinantes ea quae conjugii sanctio expostulat, signavimus conjugium esse legitimam societatem inter virum et feminam, in qua, excepto quoque carnis commercio, ex pari consensu uterque semetipsum debet alteri, ut videlicet et se ille conservet, ne ad alienam societatem transeat, et se illi non neget, ut ab ea, quae adinvicem, societate se non disjungat. Hoc cum sufficere potuisset his, quibus ratio manifesta sufficeret, ecce iterum qui in matre Domini verum conjugii sacramentum [0873D] verumque virginitatis propositum simul profiteri nolunt, propterea quod matrimonium sine assensu coitus carnis ratum non esse autument, nostram definitionem (quae a conjugio carnis necessitatem excludit) hac ratione infirmare contendunt. Si, inquiunt, aliud non est conjugium, nisi talis societas, in qua excepto quoque carnis commercio ex pari consensu, uterque semetipsum debet alteri debito conservandi, et non negandi se ad eam, quae in communi est societate, inseparabilem unionem ac fidem: cur etiam in eodem sexu conjugium rectissime ac sanctissime celebrari non possit, et individua societas laudabili charitate sanciri? Quid enim impedit ut vir virum, et femina feminam tali sibi pactionis foedere et societatis amore non astringat? Quod si [0874A] ridiculum omnino est, et ab humana prorsus ratione seclusum, ut scilicet in eodem sexu conjugii sacramentum celebretur, ubi nihilominus ejusmodi foederatio societatis non prohibetur, restat, ut in conjugii pactione ipsam, quae nisi in sexu utroque constituta non est, carnis unionem, quantum ad consensum spectat, necessariam esse profiteamur. Cogunt igitur, ut nos (si assensum coitus in conjugii pactione necessarium omnino non esse volumus quemadmodum ista societas, quae in nostra definitione signata est, in eodem sexu sanciri non posse, demonstremus. Ad quod cum id solum sufficere posset, quod divina institutio hanc ad utrumque sexum foederandum ordinavit, proptereaque in eodem sexu (ut si fiat) ita a conjugii sacramento foret aliena, [0874B] quemadmodum ob id ipsum fiat illicita; et sicut in diverso etiam sexu inter matrem et filium foret inconcessa; idcirco a sanctitate conjugalis sacramenti esset vacua quia qui dixit: *Relinquet homo patrem suum et matrem suam, et adhaerebit uxori suae, et erunt duo in carne una [n: (Gen. II)]*, hanc societatem inter matrem et filium inordinatam et ob hoc non castam esse manifeste docuit, cum in conjugio sanciendo non matrem petendam, sed relinquendam ostendit. Haec igitur ratio cum sola sufficeret ad comprobandum, quod in eodem sexu quamlibet casta et indissolubili charitate astricto conjugii sacramentum esse non possit; debemus tamen, sicut in omni assertione divina justum est, non nostri qui loquimur, defensionem tantum attendere, quantum [0874C] eorum, quibus loquimur, aedificationem. Reddenda itaque ratio, quare conjugii sacramentum (quod in diverso sexu nihil ad sanctificationem sui praeter spontaneam perpetuae ac indivisae societatis charitatem exigit) in eodem nihilominus sexu simili atque eadem foederatione sanciri non possit. Hoc facimus ita. In conjugio siquidem duo sunt: sacramentum conjugii, et sacramentum conjugalis officii. Hoc est conjugium et conjugii officium utrumque sacramentum. Conjugium est in foedere dilectionis. Conjugii officium est in generatione prolis. Igitur amor conjugalis sacramentum est, et sacramentum in conjugibus est commistio carnis. Sed amor conjugalis sacramentum est illius dilectionis, quae est in spiritu, [0874D] inter Deum et animam. Commistio carnis in conjugibus sacramentum est illius participationis, quae est in carne inter Christum et Ecclesiam. Quapropter amor conjugalis nequaquam inter pares esse debuit; quia ille, cujus sacramentum erat, inter pares non fuit. Juncti sunt itaque in unius societatis amore et masculus et femina, sicut juncti erant in unius societatis amore Deus et anima. Nunquid jam non vides quo tendat omnis nostrae disputationis assertio? Aspice ista duo collegia charitatis, in terra masculum et feminam, in coelo Deum et animam et considera quam rationabili providentia cuncta disposita sint. Creavit Deus masculum et feminam, et de masculo feminam; et quia, de illo facta est, sub illo constituta est. Illi datum est, ut et vivacitate [0875A] rationis et viribus corporis super excelleret: huic ordinatum est ut non solum obedientia, sed et natura subesset. Voluit ergo Deus, ut in illius fortitudine et providentia haec (quasi suae fragilitatis consortia) requiesceret; et ut in illo hujus infirmitas pietatem excitaret, quatenus et vir mulierem quodammodo ex pietate diligeret, et mulier virum magis ex necessitate amaret. Quod ergo vir mulierem diligit, quodammodo beneficium est, quia pietate vincitur, ne infirmitatem deserat. Quod autem mulier virum diligit, magis debitum est, quia naturali necessitate compellitur, ut patrocinium requirat, atque ita quodammodo tota dilectionis utilitas ad mulierem refertur; quia in ipsa causa est, pro qua vel ipsa virum diligit, vel a viro ipsa diligitur. Patefactum [0875B] est igitur dilectionis sacramentum. Sacramentum dilectio, et dilectionis sacramentum dilectio. Nec opus jam est longa expositione, ut ostendatur, qualiter in hujus sacramenti figura vir imago Dei sit, et femina rationalis animae typum in se formamque demonstret. Manifestum est enim, quod sicut viri amor ad mulierem pietate quadam et compassione naturali inclinatur, vir autem a muliere magis necessitate conditionis diligitur; ita Deus animam rationalem prius gratuita pietate diligit, et eam postmodum ad amorem sui quadam rationabili necessitate spontaneam tamen et volentem convertit. Diligit ille prior gratis nos, ut postmodum diligentes ad diligentem se convertat nos, fiatque una dilectionis societas, et propter nos, quia nobis necessaria; [0875C] et propter illum quia in illo beata. In hac autem jucunda dilectionis conversatione amor Dei quodammodo caput est, quia ab illo in nos prius dilectio oritur; et ad illum a nobis dilectio conversa refertur. Simili quoque ratione in conjugali charitate, quae hujus dilectionis est sacramentum, amor viri caput est; quia prior vir mulieri per compassionem pietatis in amore se sociat, ut mulieris dilectio per eruditionem ad virum conversa, et per spontaneam benignitatem suscepta in societate charitatis unum fiat. Propterea dicit Apostolus: *Caput mulieris vir, caput viri Christus, caput Christi Deus est [n: (I Cor. II)]*. [0876A] Nam quod est in sacramento conjugii caste sanctus amor viri ad feminam, hoc est in sacramento fidei amor Christi ad Ecclesiam; hoc quod est in incarnatione Verbi, amor Dei ad humanam naturam. Propter hoc in cantico amoris cum illa aeterna charitas et amor ineffabilis sive Dei ad animam, sive Christi ad Ecclesiam; non qualis fuit, sed qualiter potuit, verbis promi debuisset; nihil in rebus visibilibus aut in humanis affectibus similius inveniri poterat, quam amor sponsi et sponsae; aut non aliunde quam per suum sacramentum invisibilis illa et spiritualis dilectio ostenderetur, ut dum id quod humanus affectus noverat, auditus per Verbum acciperet; id quod non noverat, cor interius per amorem gustaret. Nam ipsam ibidem mutuae [0876B] charitatis vicissitudinem, qua una uni sociata, nec dissidium in suo suscipit, nec consortium in alieno admittit sponsa significare volebat, cum diceret: *Dilectus meus mihi, et ego illi, qui pascitur inter lilia [n: (Cant. II)]*, *donec aspiret dies et inclinentur umbrae [n: (Cant. VII)]*. Et rursum: *Ego dilecto meo, ad me conversio ejus [n: (Cant. VI)]*. Sponsus quoque ipse uniti amoti amoris praerogativam commendans. *Sexaginta* inquit, *sunt reginae, et octoginta concubinae, et adolescentularum non est numerus. Una est columba mea, perfecta mea. Una matri suae, electa genitrici suae [n: (Cant. VI)]*. Propter sacramentum ergo dilectionis aeternae Deus conjugium sancire voluit propter utilitatem propagationis humanae sexum creavit; et tamen amor conjugalis non propter sexum dissimilem [0876C] sacramentum est, sed propter naturam differentem. Non enim secus, sed natura disparem in alterutrum charitatem amori tribuit, et tamen sexus inaequalitatem naturae discernit. Casta enim dilectio non ex tali sexu aliter afficitur, sed in tali sexu ex tali natura. Propterea quod extra talem sexum taliter affici non potest, quia extra talem sexum non invenitur talis natura. Sufficiat hoc eis, qui quaerunt quomodo amor conjugalis (cui carnis commercium excipitur) in eodem quoque sexu utrobique non simili veritate sanciatur.

english:
## PROLOGUE.

[0857A]

To the holy bishop G., Hugh, the servant of your beatitude. You have told me that a question concerning the virginity of blessed Mary was put to your Paternity by a certain man, in which indeed that man's irreverence was very displeasing, in that he did not speak of a most sacred matter as modestly as he ought. I therefore (as had been agreed, the things which seemed to need saying upon this) am setting down with the pen and sending them to be read. Farewell.

## CHAP. I. *That Mary did not change the purpose of virginity in her conjugal consent.*

Concerning the uncorrupted virginity of the Lord's mother, faith devoutly and devotion faithfully confesses this: that conjugal consent in no way diminished its perfection, just as conception did not violate her chastity, [0857B] nor did childbearing take away her integrity. For that same one was a perpetual virgin, and even when she was betrothed to a man she did not for that reason abandon or change her purpose of continence; and when she was made fruitful (not by a man) she conceived without lust; and when she brought forth a son she bore him without pain. What do you say now, contentious inquirer and hearer without devotion? Do you wonder, or do you disbelieve? If you wonder at what is to be wondered at, you are not to be wondered at; if you do not believe what is to be believed, you are not to be borne with; if you attempt to assert what is false, you are not to be listened to; if you strive to assail what is true, you are to be refuted; and finally, if you deny what is manifest, you are to be confuted. I confess it: I cannot bear with an even mind your rash presumption, in that with such shameless and trifling talkativeness you attempt to profane the pure and to stain the untouched. Foolishly have you dashed against the mother of light with these your shadows. [0857C] For what did they mean, those arguments of yours fit to be blown away, which — when you had woven them with long and protracted rumination, as though you were about to bring forth some new and great discovery (as is your custom) — you began to carry about, seeking itching ears; showing yourself, indeed, more unlearned to the learned than learned to the unlearned. For what? Did you wish to be a teacher? A reporter of novelty, or an asserter of truth? But let it be so. You had found something to teach. Why did it seem good to you to defame chastity and to assail truth? But perhaps (which is what I rather suspect) you were contriving nothing against the truth, but, catching at the breezes of popular fame with your accustomed and ingrained lightness, you thought you would prove the sharpness of your wit, if you first wrapped the matter up (as it were in the circuit of a question) [0857D] before others, so that afterwards, in the solving of it, you might appear the teacher. But now the thing has turned out for you the other way about. For in your question you have been proved rash, and in the solution you have not been found learned. Let us see, nevertheless, what that great and weighty question is which (as you suppose) is insoluble to no one but you. [0858A] And indeed even if it were weighty, it would be so all the more truly for many rather than for you, by as much as you more foolishly presume it for yourself alone. Let us see, nevertheless, what it is. First you ask whether marriage can come about without consent to intercourse; that is, whether those can contract matrimony with one another who do not consent to one another in rendering the debt of the flesh. Perhaps, then, you were moved by what you had heard said: "intercourse does not make a marriage, but consent." And it would have moved you deservedly, if indeed that which you had not heard said, but had supposed was to be understood — consent to intercourse — had been added. You ask, then, whether there can be marriage without consent to intercourse. After this, to those who answer you that without consent of this kind there is no true marriage, you seem (as I hear) to add your own estimate; for this reason perhaps, because anyone who answered otherwise to you as you asked this would lay upon you the necessity [0858B] of keeping silent for the rest. Then, this being granted and established — namely that without the covenant of such consent marriage cannot stand — you press on and ask whether there was a true marriage between Mary the mother of the Lord and Joseph, whom Scripture will be found several times to have called the husband of Mary, and to have named Mary herself, without any doubt, the wife or spouse of that same Joseph. This being granted — since to deny it too is absurd, seeing that it is both proved by the manifest authority of Holy Scripture and confirmed by the catholic religion with its own attestation — you infer and say: If there was a true marriage, then consent to carnal intercourse was there, and Mary is found to have given her assent to a man for intercourse of the flesh. [0858C] And if this is true — nay rather, because if this is not true, it cannot be called a true marriage — why is Mary herself said to have remained always a true virgin, who is not denied to have once been a true wife? For either she did not consent, and was not a true wife; or she consented, and did not remain a true virgin. For in this very thing she deserted the purpose of virginity, that by consent she willingly subjected herself, in the conjugal sacrament, to the debt of carnal commerce. And by this — that she deserted the purpose of virginity in consenting to the union of the flesh — she already ceased to be a virgin in mind, even if she remained a virgin in flesh. What, then, is this Virgin of virgins, singular in integrity, unique in chastity, excelling in dignity? What are these proclamations and unceasing praises — nay rather, what are these daily flatteries [0858D] by which we preach Mary's virginity as singularly praiseworthy and gloriously above all others, a virginity which is not only not to be set before all virgins, but is even to be placed after many; who were both proved virgins in the flesh, and kept the purpose of virginity inviolate to the end with a chaste and devoted mind? [0859A] Let the virginity of Agnes and of Mary now be compared, and let her who was proved the more sublime in merit be rightly held the more exalted in praises as well. The one showed herself so unconquered in the guarding of her virginity that not even death inflicted upon her could cast her down from her purpose. The other showed herself so movable that the affection of one man, and a poor one, bent her to consent to him. The one loved virginity so much that whatever precious thing was promised in comparison with it she thought must be despised; whatever hard thing was inflicted for its defense she judged must not be feared. The other so easily despised virginity that she both deserted it with no reward promised and renounced it with no penalty inflicted. What, then, remains but that we should say that she holds a lower rank in the merit and praise of virginity [0859B] who fell willingly from the purpose of preserving virginity, even if she remained a virgin in flesh; but that she holds the higher rank who, together with integrity of flesh, guarded the purpose of virginity inviolate unto the end! This, then, is what you glory in having discovered by great and laborious searching; and though you have a mind and flesh alike corrupted, you are not afraid falsely to accuse the mind of her who is undefiled (whose flesh you cannot accuse). It would have been far better either that you had first spoken the truth, if you were not ignorant of it, or, if you could not do that, that you had at least kept silent about the depravity by which, once spoken, you have violated the hearing of the simple. But what will you do, if the manifest truth so frees from the peril of error those whom you have corrupted with a false opinion, that nevertheless you do not cleanse yourself from the guilt of rashness?

Let us see, therefore, now, whether the mother of the Lord could both be a true [0859C] wife and remain a true virgin. Let us examine (as you demand) what marriage is; and from the definition of it set forth, let us consider whether there could be together in the virgin mother both conjugal consent and the purpose of virginity. For what is marriage but a lawful fellowship between a man and a woman, in which fellowship, namely, out of equal consent each owes his very self to the other? Now this debt is considered in two ways: namely, that each both preserve himself for the other and not deny himself to the other. Preserve, that is to say, lest after such consent he pass over to another fellowship. Not deny, so that he does not separate himself from that fellowship which is common between them. A voluntary consent, therefore, lawfully made between a man and a woman, whereby each [0859D] pledges himself a debtor of his own self to the other — this is what makes a marriage. And marriage is that very fellowship, allied by such consent, which does not release the one from the debt while the other lives. There is still another consent, namely of exacting and rendering carnal commerce to one another, which establishes a like covenant between man and woman: a companion of marriage and not its maker, an office and not a bond, which nevertheless is itself also undertaken with an equal vow by both, and must likewise be held by an equal debt. And this debt in this consent too must be discharged in a twofold way (as I recalled in the former case): namely, that each preserve himself for the other, and neither deny himself to the other. That is, that he neither offer the power over his own body for this work to another, nor refuse it to that one. Of that debt by which both the man owes to preserve himself for the woman [0860A] and the woman for the man, the Apostle says: The woman who is under a husband, while her husband lives, *is bound to the law. But if* her husband be dead, *she is freed from the law of her husband [n: (I Cor. VII)]*. Therefore while her husband lives she shall be called an adulteress, if she be with another man. But of that debt by which both the man owes not to deny himself to the woman, and the woman to the man, the same Apostle says: *The woman hath not power over her own body, but the man; and in like manner the man hath not power over his own body, but the woman [n: (ibid.)]*. But the necessity of this debt does not subject to one another those married persons in whom, while the marriage was being contracted or ratified, consent to this work did not go before. Nor yet is it to be believed that, when this office ceases, the truth or the virtue of the marriage ceases; nay rather, that the marriage is so much the truer and holier, in that [0860B] it is allied in the bond of charity alone, and not in the concupiscence of the flesh and the burning of lust. For what? Would marriage be holy in the concupiscence of the flesh, and not be holy in charity? God forbid! But it is far more truly and more justly called holy and true there, where chastity has nothing to blush at, but charity has something to glory in. How, then, do married persons become debtors of themselves to one another? For what, from that point on, must they preserve themselves for one another, or in what must they not deny themselves, if this cause is taken out of the middle? Apart from this it does not seem why either the man should be joined to the woman or the woman to the man; or why they should be said to be bound to such a fellowship by a mutual debt of the kind that marriage is known to have. This perhaps will seem so to you, who are flesh and who consider the flesh alone. Could you then find nothing else in marriage [0860C] whereby to establish that the conjugal fellowship was ratified for this alone and is holy in this? Is it not much more, if two become one in mind, than if they should become one in flesh? If the one makes the other a sharer of his flesh, and it can be holy — the one makes the other a sharer of his soul, and it is not holy? God forbid! *They shall be two in one flesh; this is a great sacrament in Christ and the Church [n: (Ephes. V)]*. They shall be two in one heart: this sacrament is greater in God and the soul. See in what manner they bind themselves by a voluntary pledge, that from this point and thenceforward always, in all sincerity of love, in all care of solicitude, in all affection of devotion, in all zeal of compassion, in all strength of consolation and in the faith of devotedness, [0860D] each may be to the other what he is to himself; so that each may regard the other as one made together with himself, and may show himself, in all things good and bad alike, undivided in tribulation and in endurance just as he is a companion and sharer in consolation. Finally, so far as concerns outwardly the need of the body, he takes up the other's flesh to be cherished as his own; but so far as concerns inwardly the love of the heart, he guards the other's mind, so far as in him lies, in peace and tranquillity, without disturbance. For so let it be with those who rest in the peace and communion of a holy fellowship, that while each lives not for himself but for the other, each may live for himself more happily and more blessedly. These are the goods of marriage, and the happiness of those who love a chaste fellowship — goods which they cannot see who seek in marriage [0861A] nothing but the evilly sweet pleasure of the flesh. See now (setting aside the commerce of the flesh) what kind of goods and how great are nevertheless left to marriage; nay rather (setting aside the commerce of the flesh) what kind of evils and how great — that is, what servitude and how great a grief — are excluded from marriage.

## CHAP. I. *That Mary did not change the purpose of virginity in her conjugal consent.* (cont.)

But you say to me again: that the first and principal cause of marriage was the propagation of children; and that this was not going to come about without the mingling of flesh is manifestly shown from this, that in the beginning, when God had formed man from the slime of the earth, he is afterwards reported to have made woman for him as a help. Assuredly for no other help than that the woman herself might become for the man, unto the propagation of future offspring, a fellow-worker in the sowing, a conceiver of the seed, a place for the forming, and [0861B] a mother for the bringing forth. Woman, then, was joined to man for nothing else than that, through her and with her, the man himself, pouring over his seed by carnal intercourse into the origin of posterity, might supply the substance of flesh to those about to be born of flesh. For this same thing is proved also from this, that God, after he had joined the woman to the man, wishing to declare the cause of that fellowship, first in a manner making them both fruitful by the grace of his blessing unto the power of generating, *Increase,* he says, *and multiply, and fill the earth [n: (Gen. I)]*; giving at once both a command, that they might know that for which they had been joined, and a grace, that they might fulfill that concerning which they had received the precept. From that office, therefore, which is laid upon the two of them, joined and allied, by the precept of their author, the cause of that very fellowship is plainly and undoubtedly shown; [0861C] because it was altogether absurd that, when he was prescribing the form of living and the ministry of acting for their fellowship, he should not, for the rest, command to be carried out that very thing chiefly on account of which he had willed them to be joined. Hence it is that Adam himself, recognizing to what use the woman had been made, says: *This,* he says, *is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh [n: (Gen. II)]*. Behold, the mingling of flesh in the matrimony of the first parents is both so manifestly enjoined upon them to be carried out and so prophesied by them as to come, that whoever shall say that a marriage is true without it is not doubted to be contrary both to God commanding and to the man consenting to God. And in some such way [0861D] it seemed to you, perhaps, that our assertion above should be opposed.

All this, therefore, which you bring forward — that God is read to have made woman for the first man as a help; and that, the woman having been allied with the man, he is recorded to have commanded them both to increase and multiply and fill the earth; and finally that by the man a mingling of flesh between man and woman is prophesied as to come — that on this account there can in no way be a true marriage where indeed there has not been consent to the mingling of flesh. So at least it seems to you. First, then, let it now be agreed between us that you answer me whether or on this account they were allied two in one flesh, and were made of one flesh, because they were to be allied in one flesh. For it is said thus: This now is bone of my bones and flesh [0862A] of my flesh; for this cause shall a man forsake his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. What is "for this cause"? Is it for this cause in one flesh, because of one flesh? But he did not say, they shall be two in one flesh, for this cause: this now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; but: This, he says, is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; for this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. He said three things: A man shall leave his father and his mother; and he shall cleave to his wife; and they shall be two in one flesh. What is "for this cause"? For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother; for this cause shall he cleave to his wife; for this cause shall they be two in one flesh. For this cause: [0862B] for what cause? For this cause: because this now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. Therefore, for this cause in one flesh, because of one flesh; not for this cause of one flesh, because in one flesh. For this cause shall they be two in one flesh. This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. Let us consider one by one the things that have been said, lest perhaps you have said against yourself what you thought was to be said for yourself. A man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. Perhaps he meant to say the same thing by "he shall cleave to his wife" and "they shall be two in one flesh," so that to cleave to a wife is this very thing, to be two in one flesh; as though this alone had been said, [0862C] a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and that cleaving itself were understood as nothing other than carnal mingling. Let us examine whether this can stand. A man shall leave, he says, his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife. Those he shall leave, and to this one he shall cleave. Therefore he departs from them, he comes to her. What he withdraws from them, he bestows on her. What is this? A man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife. Therefore he leaves father and mother in that respect in which he cleaves to his wife; in which he cannot cleave to his wife, if he does not leave father and mother. A man shall leave his father and his mother. In what respect shall he leave them? Shall he leave them in cohabitation, or in love? [0862D] and — if it must be so put — shall he leave them in mingling? If a man shall leave father and mother in cohabitation, and shall cleave to his wife, can he then not have a wife in his father's house? Or can he not love his wife unless he has held father and mother in hatred? For that third thing which has been set forth neither needs to be repeated nor is it seemly to name. Yet in these ways a man shall cleave to his wife: that is, according to cohabitation, according to love, according to carnal mingling. But a man can dwell with father and mother and with his wife at once; he can love father and mother and his wife at once; therefore neither according to cohabitation nor according to love does a man leave his father and his mother and cleave to his wife — how much more that which [0863A] neither was nor could be: according to carnal mingling a man does not leave his father and his mother and cleave to his wife? According to what, then, does a man leave his father and his mother and cleave to his wife, except according to that singular fellowship in which he owes his very self to another? in which a man does not indeed lay aside the affection of father and mother, so as to choose the affection of his wife alone; but he sets after it the affection of father and mother, so as to prefer to it the affection of his wife; so that he might hold it not merely sole, but singular? Not of the mingling of flesh, therefore, but of the affection of the heart and the bond of a social love, was it said: he shall cleave to his wife. So that by this which is said, he shall cleave to his wife, you may understand the sacrament of marriage, which is in the spirit. But by that [0863B] which is added, and they shall be two in one flesh, you may recognize the office of marriage, which is in the flesh, not the covenant of the conjugal compact. A man shall leave, therefore, his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. Behold, here is the marriage: he shall cleave to his wife; and here is the office of marriage: they shall be two in one flesh. Why then shall a man leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife? A great matter. He prefers the end to the beginning. Father and mother are the beginning, whence he came; the wife is the end, where love comes to rest. There it was creation alone that wrought the love; here love alone makes the choice, without creation. And so a man loves his father and his mother, and from them he received life once; but he loves his wife more, because with [0863C] her he has chosen to live always — an utterly divine sacrament and a deep mystery, and a beautiful and wonderful example of the human condition. We have our beginning, from which we received that we should be; we have also our end, without which we cannot be blessed. From him we come to being by the creation of nature; in him we receive being blessed by the choosing of grace. From him all things that are have their being; but in him not all receive being blessed. It is a lesser thing, therefore, and less to be loved, to have being from him. But it is far more, and more to be loved, to be blessed in him; yet each is great and worthy of love, both to have being from him and to be blessed in him. In one way, then, is God the God of those who received from him only that they should be; [0863D] but in another way of those who received him as their reward, that not only should they have being from him, but that they should be blessed in him. Those received from him what they themselves are; these receive from him, so that they may blessedly be what they themselves are, what he himself is. Less then is to be loved what we are, and more that we are blessed, because in the former there is only this which we are; but in the latter there is, together with that which we are, that also which he himself is, from whom we received what we are. A man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, so that, setting the old things after the new that supervene, he may come from a beginning through love, and rest in an end through love. You see now what kind and how great a sacrament conjugal love holds forth: that in it the rational soul may learn to choose without end the fellowship of its end, and to cleave to it by that indivisible [0864A] bond of love and by the equality of a singular love. This was the principal cause of marriage, for which God instituted it: that, having left his father and his mother, a man should choose to be allied to his wife uniquely and singularly, in a love always indivisible. But upon this fellowship, for the advantage of multiplying the race to come, he afterwards laid the office of generating, for the sake of a sure and reasonable sacrament; not indeed that marriage should consist in it, but that from it marriage should both grow in merit through the obedience of that ministry, and appear more fruitful through the fecundity of offspring. Rightly, therefore, is it said: A man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh — so that in this, that he cleaves to his wife, there may be a sacrament of that invisible fellowship which is to be made in [0864B] the spirit between God and the soul; but in this, that the two are in one flesh, there may be a sacrament of that invisible participation which was made in the flesh between Christ and the Church. A great sacrament, therefore: They shall be two in one flesh, in Christ and the Church; but a greater sacrament: They shall be two in one heart, in one love, in God and the soul.

## CHAP. I. *That Mary did not change the purpose of virginity in her conjugal consent.* (cont.)

Perhaps not enough was done there to show that marriage was not a union of flesh but of heart, lest you suppose that the ministry of the office excels the holiness of the sacrament. You insist that consent of the flesh is the conjugal holiness, and you do not grant that the bond of matrimony is ratified apart from the covenant of intercourse, because he manifestly said: They shall be two in one flesh; and did not manifestly say: They shall be two in one spirit. First it was manifestly [0864C] said, in one flesh; afterwards it was manifestly said, in one spirit, because: *That which is carnal is first, then that which is spiritual [n: (I Cor. XV)]*. By the carnal father it was said first, in one flesh; by the spiritual teacher it was said afterwards, in one spirit. Through the prophet God speaks, saying: *I will not receive any offering of appeasement from your hand. And you have said: For what cause? Because the Lord hath borne witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, whom thou hast despised. And she is thy partner, and the wife of thy covenant. Did not one make her, and is she not the remainder of his spirit? And what does one seek but the seed of God? Keep therefore your spirit, and do not despise the wife of thy adolescence. When thou shalt have held her in hatred; put her away, saith the Lord God of Israel [n: (Malach. II)]*. There, then, [0864D] it was said: This now is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; here it is said: She is thy partner and the wife of thy covenant. Did not one make her, and is she not the remainder of his spirit? There a part of flesh is spoken of; here a portion of spirit is named. There it was said: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth. Here it is said: And what does one seek but the seed of God? He, then, requires here the seed of God in the spirit, who there commanded the seed of the flesh to be multiplied in the flesh. There it was said: They shall be two in one flesh. Here it is said: When thou shalt have held her in hatred, put her away — so that the same mingling of flesh which there is foretold as to come between man and woman is here shown to profit nothing without the covenant of love (which is in the spirit). For this is it. When thou shalt have held her in hatred, put her away: not the word of one commanding a separation, but [0865A] of one teaching that without the covenant of love the fellowship of the flesh is void and lacking in virtue, even if it endures. The virtue of the conjugal sacrament, therefore, is not in the flesh but in the mind; nor is that consent required for the perfecting of holiness which even before sin was enjoined upon married persons as an office. But after sin it has come down so far that now it is granted as a remedy. In no way, therefore, is the sacrament of marriage to be weighed from that in which then conjugal chastity would be sanctified, but exercised; and now marriage would be sanctified, but the infirmity of the married is allowed for. For this reason of old, when the faith was in one people, and the time had need of the works of the conjugal office for multiplying the number of the faithful, carnal commerce was practiced by one man among several women, and yet [0865B] the singular sacrament of a unique love was not injured in it. But now, when the people of God is rather to be multiplied by spiritual generation, in order to commend the unity of that singular sacrament which is in the spirit, only one woman is allied to one man in one flesh. Then, on account of necessity, the license of the flesh was loosened outwardly in the work; and yet the holiness inwardly was kept whole in the virtue of the sacrament; now, on account of perfection, even the works of the flesh are bound outwardly to unity; and yet in that the unity of the singular sacrament is not effected, but commended. These things have been said for the sake of what had been set forth to be shown: that without consent to carnal commerce a marriage can be holy and true; and that the holiness of the conjugal sacrament does not consist in assent to intercourse of the flesh.

[0865C]After these things it now remains that we set forth in the midst our discourse concerning the virgin mother, and inquire by what reasoning or authority it can be proved that she both was a true wife and yet, in her conjugal assent, did not change the purpose of virginity: *The angel Gabriel was sent by God into the city of Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary [n: (Luc. I)]*. Mary, therefore, was already espoused when the angel Gabriel was sent to her by God. Let us see what follows: *And the angel, having come in to her, said: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. And when she had heard this, she was troubled at his word, and pondered what manner of salutation this might be. And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with [0865D] God. Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son,* etc. *And Mary said: How shall this be: since I know not a man? [n: (Ibid.)]* This is that word of the Virgin which we were seeking, in which she herself would confute the rivals of her virginity. Let us therefore take testimony concerning her from her own self. How, then, shall this be? That is: how shall it come about that I bear a son, since I know not a man? She does not say, I have not known a man. For this would in no way hinder a virgin espoused, who would come to know a man and to bear a son, but who would not remain a virgin. She does not, then, say this, I have not known a man; because this would have been neither a miracle of virginity past nor a hindrance to childbearing to come, if she had not as yet known a man, and had [0866A] not purposed that she would not know one thereafter. She did not say at all: I have not known a man, but: I know not a man. How, she says, shall this be? I know not a man, and I am told that I shall bear a son; how then shall this be, that I bear a son and know not a man: Since I know not a man. What is this, I know not a man? I have the purpose of not knowing a man; I have the purpose of preserving the glory of virginity inviolate unto the end. Just as if someone should say: I drink no wine, I cannot taste this cup; that is, because I have it in my vow not to drink wine, I cannot taste that cup. And just as it is said: Nazarites do not cut their hair [n: (Deut. XXXIII; Judith. XIII, XVI)], that is, they have a vow of not cutting their hair; so it is said: I know not a man. How therefore shall this be, [0866B] since I know not a man?

*And the angel said to her: The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee [n: (Luc. I)]*. Do not, he says, on account of your purpose of virginity, distrust the promise of offspring. The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee. Thou shalt conceive a son not from a man, but of the Holy Spirit. My promise indeed shall be fulfilled; yet your purpose shall not be violated. You vowed [sic: *vovistvirum*] that you would not know a man; and I foretell that you will bear a son; and therefore you wonder, lest perhaps either the promise be void if the purpose remains, or the purpose be violated if the promise be fulfilled. For neither is the possibility of nature sufficient here, nor does human reason comprehend it, that a virgin should bear, that one untouched should beget a son, and that flesh should proceed from flesh without the work of the flesh. Therefore you wonder [0866C] how this shall be, since you know not a man. For meanwhile, so far as lies in you, you can find nothing why you ought to doubt about your own perseverance; and on this account you ask how you can be confident about my promise. How shall this be, since I know not a man? The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee. Do not, on account of your purpose, distrust the promise, because the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee. Do not, on account of the promise, be afraid for your purpose, because the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee. The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, lest integrity be corrupted by intercourse. The power of the Most High shall overshadow thee, lest thy chastity be polluted by lust. The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High [0866D] shall overshadow thee. Thou shalt supply the substance, and shalt not feel concupiscence. Thou shalt not receive seed from a man, and yet, being fruitful, thou shalt bring forth the fruit of the womb in a son. Do not say, then: How shall this be, since I know not a man? — because this shall not come about through a man, but through the Holy Spirit; for the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee. Behold, we now have Mary a virgin espoused, and yet still remaining in the purpose of virginity. Truly espoused a virgin, and no less truly remaining in the purpose of virginity: what more do you seek? Or does the word "espousal" still leave you some ambiguity? For you had heard that the angel was sent to a virgin espoused; but you had not heard that he was sent to a wife. Perhaps, [0867A] then, you may say: Mary was already at that time espoused to Joseph, but she was not yet his wife, because he had not yet received her as his own. For if he had received her as his own from that time, why was it said to him afterwards: *Joseph, son of David, fear not to take Mary thy wife? [n: (Matth. I.)]* She was not yet, then, a wife when the angel was sent to her, but was only espoused; and therefore it could come about that she did not change the purpose of virginity when she was espoused, and did change it when she was made a wife. This, perhaps, you will still object on your side. But far be it from us to believe that she, after she had heard that she was to be made fruitful with a heavenly birth, in any way gave assent to carnal commerce — she who, even before she had learned the secret of the divine sacrament (which was to be fulfilled in her), held the vow of preserving [0867B] virginity so inviolate that, while she pledged herself to become a wife, she nevertheless purposed to keep that vow no less, with the same devotion with which she had begun and with the same perseverance, unto the very end. She was espoused, then, and she was a wife, and she was a true virgin, and she had not left the purpose of virginity. And so we confess a virgin espoused; we confess a virgin made a wife; we confess that afterwards she was also a mother, and that ever a virgin she held the purpose of virginity inviolate, and that the perpetual glory of chastity reigned along with the modesty of a wife and the honor of a parent. Look now, and diligently consider this virgin, our little virgin, singularly chaste, excellently beautiful, uniquely clean. But I know your eye, that it is bleary, and the more diligently it is strained, the more [0867C] wrongly it beholds. The Law, he says, has said: « Cursed be the barren woman, who does not bear; and who leaves no seed in Israel [n: (Deut. VII, 14; Exod. XXIII, 26)]. » But she bore, and was not barren, who left in Israel the seed of blessing, in whom, according to the promise, all nations are blessed together with Israel — all who shall be blessed in the Lord God of Israel. Nevertheless, in Wisdom we have heard of the barren and undefiled woman as happy, who has not known a bed in transgression, since she shall have fruit in the visitation of holy souls [n: (Sap. III)]. Again, in the prophet, the Lord shows how great a reward of continence has been laid up with him, saying: *Let not the eunuch say: Behold, I am a dry tree. For thus saith the Lord to the eunuchs: They that shall keep my sabbaths, and shall choose the things that I willed, [0867D] and shall hold my covenant — I will give them in my house and within my walls a place, and a name better than sons and daughters: an everlasting name that shall not perish [n: (Isa. LVI)]*. Who then is this man who curses barrenness in continence, who does not see the purity of continence, and does not understand its fruit? But let us nevertheless hear what appears.

## CHAP. I. *That Mary did not change the purpose of virginity in her conjugal consent.* (cont.)

Mary, he says, did not escape the curse, since through her purpose of virginity she ran into barrenness. But further. Why did she wish to marry, after she had vowed continence? There are two things. Either on account of the curse of barrenness she would not have purposed virginity; or on account of her vow of chastity, being about to remain a virgin, she would not have married. But now, if it is rightly called wicked to choose a curse [0868A] rather than a blessing, what must be said of having made a vow of integrity and marrying? Gladly do I accept it, that out of your obstinacy the praise of the Virgin is heaped up. So does truth will to be made manifest; so does iniquity will to be confuted. Let us see, then, what sort of thing it is for which you think the Virgin is to be blamed. Namely, you say, because in her purpose of virginity she ran into the curse of barrenness. How great, then, is the curse of barrenness? Just as great, surely, as is the blessing of fruitfulness. And so, how great is that blessing of fruitfulness itself? When God blessed those first parents of our race, he said: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth. Therefore he gave them the blessing of fruitfulness: much, therefore, did he give them, when he gave them the blessing of fruitfulness, when he said: Increase [0868B] and multiply, and fill the earth. Did he not say this also to the birds of the sky, and say this also to the beasts and cattle of the earth: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth? For when the fifth day of the world's birth had been completed, and God had brought forth from the waters the kind of fishes and of flying things, Scripture added and said: *God, seeing that it was good, said: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea; and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth [n: (Gen. I)]*. Again, when he brought Noah forth from the ark with all the living things of the earth after their kind, pouring out upon them all the gift of his blessing, he said again: *Increase and multiply [n: (Gen. VIII)]* and fill the earth. According, surely, to that mercy by which he saves *men and beasts [n: (Psal. XXXV)]*; he opens his *hand* [0868C] and fills *every living thing with blessing [n: (Psal. CXLIV)]*. Therefore the blessing of fruitfulness was given not only to men, but to cattle. What evil, then, did Mary do? She chose, he says, the curse of barrenness rather than the blessing of fruitfulness. Mark the fairness. Our judge condemns a virgin, on the ground that she scorned the blessing of cattle; and, choosing virginity, received the blessing of angels. *My heart,* says the Psalmist, *was inflamed, and my reins were changed; and I was brought to nothing, and I knew it not. I am become as a beast before thee, and I am always with thee. Thou hast held my right hand; and in thy will thou hast led me, and with glory thou hast received me. For what have I in heaven, and what have I desired of thee upon earth? [n: (Psal. LXXII.)]* Therefore the Prophet, having found [0868D] that which is laid up for him in heaven, gladly despises, in comparison with it, whatever he loved on earth up to that hour; and now compassing the things above with a spiritual love, he blushes that for so long he had been a beast through carnal delight. For my heart, he says, was inflamed, and my reins were changed. That is: why should I seek to be multiplied on earth by the seed of the flesh, when I recognize that an inheritance is kept for me in heaven? *The God of my heart, and God my portion for ever [n: (ibid.)]*. This is that best part which *Mary chose, which shall not be taken away from her [n: (Luc. X)]*. And because she *understood* that she was *in honor,* she *was not* compared to the mute *senseless ones,* nor *was she made like to them [n: (Psal. XLVIII)]*. She willed, then, to seek something above the condition of cattle; [0869A] and therefore she judged it a small thing, or rather reckoned it unworthy, to set the blessing of cattle before her own honor.

Why, you say, if virginity was better than fruitfulness, did God first bless fruitfulness, and afterwards the law curse barrenness? Hear why. First, when the world was made by the Creator, fruitfulness was blessed, that men might be multiplied; afterwards, when God was acknowledged by one people only, barrenness was cursed by the law, that the faithful might be multiplied; last of all, when that time was at hand in which God is now worshipped by all nations, virginity was blessed, that all might be called forth from the work of the flesh to a celibate life. Hear yet another thing. If that first blessing of fruitfulness was unto salvation, [0869B] and that second curse of barrenness unto damnation, then fruitfulness of the flesh is a merit and barrenness a fault. Then those women were better who bore many sons, than those who are read to have had none or few. Cetura was better than Sara. Phenenna better than Anna, and many others whom Scripture records to have pleased God not in a multitude of sons, but through the merits of the virtues. But far be it from us to say that fruitfulness of the flesh is a merit, or barrenness a fault. Far be it from us to believe that the law cursed barrenness of the flesh in order to show it damnable before God, and not rather in order to show it (at that time indeed, when the succession of the race was sought in a multitude of sons) unfruitful before men, [0869C] and on this account in a manner without honor. The Virgin Mary, therefore, is not to be blamed, nor to be accused of contempt of the law in which barrenness is cursed; nay rather she alone is singularly to be praised, who, considering that the first words of the law were not to be understood carnally, chose to become on earth the abjection of the people and the reproach of men, that through the cleanness of her integrity she might become in heaven the companion of the angels. And beautifully did the Virgin Mary, first among women, taking upon her own flesh for us, for love of chastity, the curse of the law, set [us] free from the curse of the law. Whence it was deservedly granted to her alone that she should bear a son and remain a virgin: so that, because she was the first willingly to prefer virginity to fruitfulness of the flesh, she should now be both fruitful in flesh and whole in virginity. Do you see now what sort of thing [0869D] your accusation is? It remains, then, that we now render the reason why, after her vow of virginity, Mary consented to have a husband. Either this holy woman consented to have a husband for this reason, that her purpose might be concealed — Joseph both approving this very thing and purposing the same; or else, if perhaps Joseph himself was not aware of this purpose (which could well be), she feared to be disobedient to her parents when they commanded the marriage, and on this account consented to marry a man, being strengthened by a special confidence (through the Holy Spirit, who from the beginning had kindled her with the love of chastity) and by an undoubting hope which she had in God, that the divine mercy would so guard her that she could both show obedience to the will of her parents in contracting matrimony, and yet would find in that same matrimony no hindrance [0870A] for which she should be forced to break the vow of virginity (which she had taken up for love of chastity). She took up marriage, therefore, but did not change her purpose of virginity. And because she loved chastity and held to obedience, there was found in her both conjugal holiness without loss of virginity, and fruitful virginity without the reproach of barrenness. So that blessed patriarch Abraham, the pattern of faith and the example of obedience, had received in promise that in Isaac his seed should be blessed; and yet afterwards, being commanded by God to sacrifice that same son Isaac whom he had as his only-begotten from Sara his wife, he obeyed without delay or hesitation, knowing for certain that, although according to human reason the command seemed contrary to the promise, yet according to that power by which all things are possible to God, [0870B] the promise could be fulfilled together with obedience to the command. And so it came about that the devotion of obedience (by which he did not put off obeying God who commanded) found its merit; and the faith by which he believed God who promised obtained the effect of the faithful promise. So too it could come about here, that this blessed virgin, commending to God her every desire, had such confidence in him that she believed without doubt both that she could show her parents the obedience due to them, and that she could preserve inviolate — as she wished, with him for her protector — the vow of chastity, of which he alone was aware. But whether it happened thus, or otherwise, we at any rate ought in no way to doubt; that blessed Mary, for a sure and reasonable cause, took up the sacrament of marriage after her vow of preserving virginity and her purpose of continence, [0870C] and yet did not change the purpose of virginity, and truly took the name of wife, and perseveringly held the vow of integrity.

## CHAP. II. *That the most holy and perpetual virgin Mary conceived not of a man, but of the Holy Spirit, whom she also bore, the only-begotten of the Most High Father, Christ, God and man.*

The first part of the proposition having therefore been proved, in which it was said that Mary did not change the purpose of virginity in her conjugal consent, our discourse must now pursue its own order to the exposition of the second part, in which it was said that she conceived not of a man but of the Holy Spirit, without lust. The judgment of the first part indeed (because it was more caught up in the question) [0870D] needed a longer disputation. But this second, since less doubt has been raised about it, requires not so much proof as exposition. And so it must first be asked how that which was said — that blessed Mary conceived of the Holy Spirit — ought to be understood [sic: *in elligi*]. For we know, and all of us have by now learned from the most frequent practice of nature, that when a woman is said to have conceived by a man, nothing else is recorded than that she has received the substance of flesh, for the generating of flesh, through the intercourse of flesh. And this substance of flesh, poured over from the flesh of the man through that intercourse of flesh, becomes one flesh with the flesh of the woman, so that what is to be born, truly taking its origin from the substance of both, is generated by him through her and also by her; therefore a woman conceives by a man when from [0871A] the flesh of the man, through intercourse of the flesh, she receives seed for generating flesh. Nor does she conceive anything other than what he is by whom she conceives, or than she herself is who conceives; and what she conceives, that she brings forth. What, then, shall we say? Did the Holy Spirit pour into the womb of the Virgin the seed of birth out of his own substance? How then could a spiritual substance supply the seed of flesh? Or was it perhaps not seed of flesh that was conceived, and yet flesh that was born? What do we say? How did Mary conceive of the Holy Spirit? And if she conceived of the Holy Spirit, how was the Holy Spirit not the father of Christ? All these things need great consideration, lest perhaps in a matter difficult and very obscure the human understanding presume something beyond its own possibility. Nor are these things to be doubted because they are obscure, [0871B] nor is anything to be defined rashly because they are to be believed. Let us ask, then, what Mary conceived. For either she did not conceive flesh, and did not beget flesh; or if she begot flesh, she conceived flesh. For what she conceived, this she begot? But how could that which is not flesh supply flesh, or flesh not beget flesh? Let us consider in what way this perplexed inquiry, or manner of asking, may soundly and fittingly be understood. And first let us look at how the work of nature is completed in that conception which is carried through according to the accustomed and usual operation of nature. In parents generating carnally and, through intercourse of the flesh, fashioning out of flesh the flesh that is to be born, nature on both sides supplies substance for the creating of the offspring, so that from the flesh of both [0871C] may proceed the flesh which is to be formed in the flesh of one only. Yet this tribute (which nature lays out as a kind of debt, by the appointment of the Creator, for accomplishing the fabric of the human body) is so entirely required of her without any necessity or compulsion, that she is inclined to render it by nothing but love alone, and, if I may so speak, by a spontaneous charity. For there is nothing except love alone that can wring this debt from nature; but when she has been persuaded by a spontaneous charity, then surely, from both sides, she runs willingly and gladly to meet herself for the completing of the work. Indeed whatever is snatched violently from one unwilling is shown to be altogether unsuitable and [0871D] ineffectual for the effect of a cause of this kind. Love alone, therefore, is what can persuade nature, and in a manner compel her while willing, to sow offspring. And indeed in the woman the love of the man, and in the man the love of the woman, is wont to bring this about: that, since in either alone nature is not sufficient for herself, each may come to the other's help through love, so that what neither could do by itself, each may do by itself together with the other. Therefore the seed of human offspring, which is to be formed by the woman alone, is conceived, being sown at once by man and woman. And this indeed, as has already been said, nature works in the woman through love of the man, and in the man through love of the woman. For which reason too a woman is said to conceive only by a man, although she receives from herself as well as from the man that whereby she is made fruitful. And rightly does she conceive by the man alone, [0872A] because that which is conceived is in the one case taken from the flesh of the man, and in the other case is shown through love of the man. And so she conceives by the man not only that which she receives from the man, but she conceives by the man this also, which she receives from herself out of love of the man. This we wished to set down first, on account of what was said, that Mary conceived of the Holy Spirit. Mary conceived, then, of the Holy Spirit — not that she received the seed of the birth from the substance of the Holy Spirit, but because through the love and the operation of the Holy Spirit nature supplied substance to the divine birth out of the flesh of the Virgin. For because in the heart, in which the love of the Holy Spirit burned singularly, therefore in her flesh the power of the Holy Spirit was working wonders. And of him whose love in her heart admitted no partner, the operation [0872B] in her flesh had no precedent. This alone, therefore, did the Virgin conceive, which she received from her own flesh through the love and the operation of the Holy Spirit; and of this alone she begot a son, without the admixture of a man's seed. It was not, then, lust of the flesh that wrought the conception in the Virgin, who neither received seed from the flesh of a man, nor conceived from her own flesh through love of a man, but through the love and the operation of the Holy Spirit. Nor is the Holy Spirit himself on that account to be called the father of Christ, because his love wrought the Virgin's conception, since he did not bestow the seed of the birth upon the Virgin out of his own essence, but supplied substance to the Virgin herself, out of her own flesh, through his love and power. Christ, therefore, was both born of the Virgin, because he received the substance of flesh from the flesh of the Virgin. [0872C] And he was conceived of the Holy Spirit, because she, being a virgin, conceived from her own flesh alone, without the admixture of a man's seed, through the operation and love of the Holy Spirit. Hence it is that to that same Virgin who was to bear, it is said through the angel: *The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee [n: (Luc. I)]*. For the Holy Spirit came upon the Virgin, that by his operation the flesh of Christ might be formed from the flesh of the Virgin. And the power of the Most High overshadowed her, lest, while supplying the substance of flesh, she should be burned with carnal concupiscence. And thus indeed we think that what is said — that the Virgin conceived of the Holy Spirit — is to be understood. Thus also it can be established that she is reported to have felt no lust in conceiving.

## CHAP. III. *That Mary bore Christ without detriment of pain and without detriment of virginity.*

[0872D]

There now remains this last of the three things that had been set forth: that we should show that she also bore without pain, and suffered no detriment of virginity in bearing. I once heard that a virgin conceived, but that a virgin did not bear, because such a one conceived from a man that which she bore. For deservedly was her integrity corrupted in the childbearing, because her virginity was defiled in the conceiving; and it was just that what had not been conceived without lust should not be borne without pain. In no way would childbearing bring pain, if conception had not felt lust. For if the fault of unlawful delight did not defile her who conceives, never would the penalty of pain torment her who bears. For [0873A] that first mother of our race and of our sorrow, after she had conceived an evil delight, only then heard that she should bear children in sorrow — so as to show openly that a woman does not bear with sorrow because she conceives by a man, but because she conceives with lust. For who could say, if man had not sinned, whether human childbearing, even when conceived by a man, would either corrupt integrity or violate chastity? And indeed, if chastity were not violated, why should integrity be corrupted? let him say who can. But the blessed Virgin Mary — that the second restoration might be above the first creation, and that the grace of the Savior might overcome the nature of the race — not only conceived without lust, but did not even receive her offspring from the seed of a man; and on this account she brought forth her son without pain, and with the glory of integrity [0873B] remained a virgin after the birth.

## CHAP. IV. *A question: whether it is probable that matrimony can be contracted without consent to intercourse.*

Since indeed the questions have not yet come to an end, I am compelled daily to lay exposition upon exposition, and to smear an old wall with fresh plaster; for to untrained minds, always giving way under some new error, nothing can be sufficiently expounded — men who, wrapped up in their own darkness, do not see another's light, and complain that everything they are unable to understand is obscurely said, and thus transfer the defect of their own minds into a complaint against words. In that treatise which I composed on the virginity of blessed Mary, a question was taken in hand in which this above all was being treated: whether it could be shown in any way [0873C] that marriage could be ratified without consent to intercourse. And when we set forth what was required for the definition of this judgment, the reason was made plain that the holiness of the conjugal sacrament in no way consists in consent of the flesh. Accordingly, in determining the things which the ratification of marriage demands, we marked out that marriage is a lawful fellowship between a man and a woman, in which, even apart from the commerce of the flesh, out of equal consent each owes his very self to the other: namely, that he both preserve himself, lest he pass over to another fellowship, and not deny himself to the other, so that he may not separate himself from that fellowship which is mutual. And although this could have sufficed for those for whom a plain reason would suffice, behold, once again those who refuse to profess together, in the mother of the Lord, both a true sacrament of marriage [0873D] and a true purpose of virginity — because they suppose that matrimony is not valid without assent to intercourse of the flesh — strive to invalidate our definition (which excludes from marriage the necessity of the flesh) by this reasoning. If, they say, marriage is nothing else but such a fellowship in which, even apart from the commerce of the flesh, out of equal consent each owes his very self to the other by the debt of preserving himself and of not denying himself unto that inseparable union and faith which is in their common fellowship: why then could not marriage be most rightly and most holily celebrated within the same sex as well, and an indivisible fellowship be ratified with praiseworthy charity? For what hinders that a man should not bind a man to himself, and a woman a woman, by such a covenant of compact and love of fellowship? But if this [0874A] is altogether ridiculous, and utterly shut out from human reason — namely, that the sacrament of marriage should be celebrated within the same sex, where nevertheless a confederation of fellowship of this kind is not forbidden — it remains that we should profess that in the compact of marriage that very union of flesh, which is not constituted except in the two sexes, is necessary so far as consent is concerned. They compel us, therefore, that we (if we hold that the assent of intercourse is in no way necessary in the compact of marriage) should demonstrate how that fellowship which has been marked out in our definition cannot be established within the same sex. And although this alone might have been enough for the purpose — that the divine institution ordained this fellowship for the joining of the two sexes, and that therefore within the same sex (if it should be done) it would be so alien from the sacrament of marriage, [0874B] as for that very reason it becomes unlawful; and just as in a different sex also, between mother and son, it would be unpermitted, therefore it would be void of the holiness of the conjugal sacrament; because he who said: *A man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh [n: (Gen. II)]*, manifestly taught that this fellowship between mother and son is disordered and on that account not chaste, since in the ratifying of marriage he showed that a mother is not to be sought but to be left. Although this reason alone, therefore, would suffice to prove that within the same sex — however chaste and indissoluble the charity that binds it — there cannot be a sacrament of marriage, we ought nevertheless, as is right in every divine assertion, to look not so much to the defense of ourselves who speak as to [0874C] the edification of those to whom we speak. And so the reason must be rendered why the sacrament of marriage (which in a different sex requires nothing for its own sanctification beyond the spontaneous charity of a perpetual and undivided fellowship) can nevertheless not be ratified within the same sex by a like and identical confederation. We do this thus. In marriage indeed there are two things: the sacrament of marriage, and the sacrament of the conjugal office. That is, marriage and the office of marriage are each a sacrament. Marriage is in the covenant of love. The office of marriage is in the generating of offspring. Therefore conjugal love is a sacrament, and the sacrament in the married is the mingling of flesh. But conjugal love is the sacrament of that love which is in the spirit, [0874D] between God and the soul. The mingling of flesh in the married is the sacrament of that participation which is in the flesh between Christ and the Church. For which reason conjugal love ought by no means to have been between equals; because that of which it was the sacrament was not between equals. And so male and female are joined in the love of one fellowship, just as God and the soul were joined in the love of one fellowship. Do you not now see whither the whole assertion of our disputation tends? Look upon those two colleges of charity — on earth the male and the female, in heaven God and the soul — and consider with what reasonable providence all things have been ordered. God created male and female, and the female from the male; and because she was made from him, she was set beneath him. To him it was given that he should excel above her both in the liveliness [0875A] of reason and in the strength of body; to her it was ordained that she should be subject not only by obedience but also by nature. God willed, then, that she should rest in his strength and providence (as though a fellowship of her own frailty); and that in him her weakness should stir up compassion, so that the man should in a manner love the woman out of compassion, and the woman should love the man rather out of necessity. That a man loves a woman, therefore, is in a manner a benefit, because he is overcome by compassion, that he may not abandon weakness. But that a woman loves a man is rather a debt, because she is compelled by natural necessity to seek protection; and so in a manner the whole usefulness of the love is referred to the woman, because in her is the cause for which either she herself loves the man, or she herself is loved by the man. The sacrament of love, [0875B] then, has been laid open. Love is a sacrament, and the sacrament of love is love. Nor is there now need of a long exposition to show how, in the figure of this sacrament, the man is the image of God, and the woman displays in herself the type and form of the rational soul. For it is manifest that, just as the man's love is inclined toward the woman by a certain compassion and natural fellow-feeling, while the man is loved by the woman rather by the necessity of her condition; so God first loves the rational soul with a gratuitous compassion, and afterwards turns her to the love of himself by a certain reasonable necessity, yet spontaneous and willing. He loves us first, freely, that afterwards he may turn us, loving, to himself who loves; and that there may come to be one fellowship of love, both for our sake, because it is necessary to us, [0875C] and for his sake, because in him it is blessed. But in this delightful converse of love the love of God is in a manner the head, because from him love first arises toward us; and love, turned back from us, is referred to him. By a like reasoning also, in conjugal charity, which is the sacrament of this love, the man's love is the head; because the man first joins himself in love to the woman through the fellow-feeling of compassion, so that the woman's love, turned toward the man through instruction and taken up through a spontaneous kindness, may become one in the fellowship of charity. Therefore the Apostle says: *The head of the woman is the man, the head of the man is Christ, the head of Christ is God [n: (I Cor. II)]*. [0876A] For what the chastely holy love of the man toward the woman is in the sacrament of marriage, that the love of Christ toward the Church is in the sacrament of faith; and that, in the incarnation of the Word, is the love of God toward human nature. For this reason, in the song of love, when that eternal charity and ineffable love — whether of God toward the soul or of Christ toward the Church — had to be brought out in words, not as it was, but as it could be; nothing among visible things or in human affections could be found more like it than the love of bridegroom and bride; or rather, that invisible and spiritual love could be shown from no other source than through its own sacrament, so that while the hearing received through the Word what human affection knew, the heart inwardly might taste through love what it did not know. For the bride wished to signify in that same place the very interchange of mutual [0876B] charity by which, allied as one to one, she neither admits division in what is her own nor allows partnership in what is another's, when she said: *My beloved to me, and I to him, who feeds among the lilies [n: (Cant. II)]*, *until the day break and the shadows decline [n: (Cant. VII)]*. And again: *I to my beloved, and his turning is toward me [n: (Cant. VI)]*. The Bridegroom too, commending the prerogative of a united, removed love. *There are sixty* he says, *queens, and eighty concubines, and of young maidens there is no number. One is my dove, my perfect one. One to her mother, the chosen of her that bore her [n: (Cant. VI)]*. For the sake of the sacrament of eternal love, therefore, God willed to ratify marriage for the sake of the advantage of human propagation he created sex; and yet conjugal love is a sacrament not on account of a dissimilar sex, [0876C] but on account of a differing nature. For not otherwise, but nature, bestows upon love a charity unequal on either side; and yet sex marks off the inequality of nature. For chaste love is not affected otherwise out of such a sex, but within such a sex out of such a nature. And therefore it cannot be so affected outside such a sex, because outside such a sex such a nature is not found. Let this suffice for those who ask how conjugal love (from which the commerce of the flesh is excepted) is not ratified with a like truth on both sides within the same sex also.

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0