IMMACULATE
676
IMMACULATE
lily springing among thorns, untaught the ills of
Eve . . . nor was there any communion in her of
light with darkness, and, when not yet born, she was
consecrated to God (Theodatus of Ancyra, " Orat. in
S. Dei Genitr.", in Gallandi, IX, 475). In refuting
Pelagius St. Augustine declares that all the just have
truly known of sin " except the Holy Virgin Mary, of
whom, for the honour of the Lord, I will have no
question whatever where sin is concerned" (De naturS,
et gratia, c. xxxvi). Mary was pledged to Christ
in the womb when she was made (Peter Chrysologus,
"Sermo cxl de Annunt. B. M. V."); it is evident and
notorious that she was pure from eternity, exempt
from every defect (Typicon S. Sabs) ; she was formed
without any stain (St. Proclus, " Laudatio in S. Dei
Gen. ort.", I, 3); she was created in a condition more
sublime and glorious than all other natures (Theo-
dorus of Jerusalem in Mansi, XII, 1140); when the
Virgin Mother of God was to be born of Anne, nature
did not dare to anticipate the germ of grace, but re-
mained devoid of fruit (John Damascene, " Ilom. i in
B. V. Nativ.", ii; cf. Ullathorne, op. cit., 112 sq.).
The Syrian Fathers never tire of extolling the sin- lessness of Mary. St. Ephraem considers no terms of eulogy too high to describe the excellence of Mary's grace and sanctity: "Most holy Lady, Mother of God, alone most pure in soul and body, alone exceed- ing all perfection of purity . . . . , alone matle in thy entirety the home of all the graces of the Most Holy Spirit, and hence exceeding beyond all compare even the angelic virtues in purity and sanctity of soul and body .... my Lady most holy, all-pure, all-immac- ulate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all- inviolate . . . spotless robe of Ilim Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment .... flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immac- ulate" (" Precationes ad Deiparam", in 0pp. Gra?c. Lat., Ill, 524-37). To St. Ephraem she was as inno- cent as Eve before her fall, a virgin most estranged from every stain of sin, more holy than the Seraphim, the sealed fountain of the Holy Ghost, the pure seed of God, ever in body and in mind intact and immaculate ("Carmina Nisibena", ed. Bickell, p. 122). Jacob of Sarug says that " the very fact that God has electetl her proves that none was ever holier than Mary; if any stain had disfigured her soul, if any other virgin had been purer and holier, God would have selected her and rejected Mary " (ed. Bickell, " Ausgewiihlte Gedichte", pp. 228 sqq.). It seems, however, that Jacob of Sarug, if he had any clear idea of the doctrine of sin, held that Mary was perfectly pure from original sin ("the sentence against Adam and Eve") at the Annunciation (op. cit., p. 242).
St. John Damascene (Or. i Nativ. Deip., n. 2) esteems the supernatural influence of God at the generation of Mary to be so comprehensive that he extentls it also to her parents. He says of them that, (hiring the generation, they were filled and purified by the Holy Ghost, and freed from sexual concupis- cence. Consequently, according to the Damascene, even the human element of her origin, the material of which she was formed, was pure and holy. This opinion of an immaculate active generation and the sanctity of the "conceptio carnis" was taken up by some Western authors; it was put forward by Potrus Comestor in his treatise against St. Bernard (ed. Louvain, 1536) and by others. Some writers even taught that Mary was born of a virgin and that she was conceived in a miraculous manner when Joachim and .\nne met at the golden gate of the temple (Trom- belli, "Marias SS. Vita", sect. V, ii, 8; Summa aurea, II, 948. Cf. also the "Revelations" of Catherine Em- merich which contain the entire apocryphal legend of the miraculous conception of Mary — see Schmoger, "Leben Jesu nach den Gesichten A. K. Emmerich", p. 77 sqq.; Livius, "The Blessed Virgin in the Fathers of the first six centuries", 208 sqq.). From this sum-
mary it appears that the belief in Mary's immunity
from .sin in her conception was prevalent amongst the
Fathers, especially those of the Greek Church. The
rhetorical character, however, of many of these and
similar passages prevents us from laying too much
stress on them, and interpreting them in a strictly
literal sense. "The Greek Fathers never formally or
explicitly discussed the question of the Immaculate
Conception.
Conception of St. John. — A comparison with the conception of Christ and that of St. John may serve to tnrow light both on the dogma and on the reasons which led the Greeks to celelirate at an early date the Feast of the Conception of Marj'. The con- ception of the Mother of God was beyond all com- parison more noble than that of St. John the Baptist, whilst it was immeasurably beneath that of her Divine Son. The soul of the precursor was not pre- served immaculate at its union with the body, but was sanctified either shortly after conception from a pre- vious state of sin, or through the presence of Jesus at the Visitation. Our Lord, being conceived by the Holy Ghost, was, by virtue of his miraculous con- ception, ipso facto free from the taint of original sin (Livius, op. cit., 249). Of these three conceptions the Church celebrates feasts. The Orientals have a Feast of the Conception of St. John the Baptist (23 Sept.), which dates back to the fifth century, is thus older than the Feast of the Conception of Mary, and, during the Middle Ages, was kept also by many Western dioceses on 24 September. The Conception of Mary is celebrated by the Latins on 8 December; by the Orientals on 9 December (cf. De Meester, op. cit. infra, p. 9) ; the Conception of Christ has its feast in the universal calendar on 25 March. In celebrating the feast of Mary's Conception the Greeks of old did not consider the theological distinction of the active and the passive conceptions, which was indeed un- known to them. They did not think it absurd to celebrate a conception which was not immaculate, as we see from the Feast of the Conception of St. John. They solemnized the Conception of Mary, perhaps because, according to the " Proto-evangelium" of St. James, it was preceded by miraculous events (the apparition of an angel to Joachim, etc.), similar to those which preceded the conception of St. John, and that of our Lord Himself. Their <)i)ject was less the purity of the conception than the holiness and heav- enly mission of the person conceived. In the Office of 9 December, however, Mary, from the time of her conception, is called beautiful, pure, holy, just, etc., terms never used in the Office of 23 September (sc. of St. John the Baptist). The analogy of St. John's sanctification may have given rise to the Feast of the Conception of Mary. If it was necessary that the precursor of the Lord should be so pure and "filled with the Holy Ghost" even from his mother's womb, such a purity was assuredly not less befitting His Mother. The moment of St. John's .sanctification is by later writers thought to be the Visitation ("the infant leaped in her womlj"), but the angel's words (Luke, i, 15) seem to indicate a sanctification at the conception. This would render the origin of Mary more similar to that of John. And if the Conception of John had its feast, why not that of Mary?
The Docthine PnoB.MtLE. — There is an incon- gruity in the supposition that the flesh, from which the Flesh of the Son of God was to be formed, should ever have belonged to one who was the slave of that arch-enemy, whose power He came on eart h to destroy. Hence the axiom of Pseudo-.\n.selmus (Eadmer) developed by Duns Scotus, Decuit, potuit, ergo fecit, it was becoming that the Mother of the Redeemer should have been free from the power of sin and Satan from the first moment of her existence; God could give her this privilege, therefore He gave it to her. Again it is remarked that a peculiar privilege was
