Mary in the Writings of the Saints

by J. Isaac Goff

THE IMPORTANCE OF SAINT ANSELM OF

CANTERBURY FOR SCOTUS DEFENSE OF
THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

aint Anselm of Canterbury (10331109) is a key figure in the history

of the doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception. Although Anselm never
affirmed Our Ladys privileged, sinless conception, he provided Bl. John
Duns Scotus (1265/6-1308) with
several conceptual clarifications and
insights essential for the Subtle Doctors explanation and defense of the
theological opinion favoring Marys
Immaculate Conception. This essay
will take a look at the important role
the Benedictine Archbishop of Canterbury and Doctor of the Church
played in helping Scotus defend the
Immaculate Conception.1

Blessed John Duns Scotus, the Doctor of the Immaculate Conception,

made the decisive theological contribution that prepared the way for
the eventual definition of this dogma of the Faith. But as we discover in
this magistral study, he drew many of his insights from another great
Medieval and Marian scholarSt. Anselm of Canterbury.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
AND THE STATE OF THE QUESTION
UP TO SCOTUS
The question of Our Ladys
unique, privileged conception, immune from original sin, was much debated prior to and throughout the lifetime of Bl. John Duns Scotus. While
the doctrine, as it would be defined in
1854, was never denied by the Latin
Church Fathersand, in many ways,
anticipated by them2the feast of
Marys Conception entered England
around 1030 at Winchester, bringing
to bear new attention upon Marys
relation to justice and sin at the first

Cf., Peter Fehlner, Sources of Scotus

Mariology in Tradition, in Blessed John
Duns Scotus and His Mariology: Commemoration of the Seventh Centenary of His DeathMariologia Franciscana-III, edited by Peter
Fehlner (New Bedford: Academy of the
Immaculate, 2009), 257.
Cf., Stefano Cecchin, LImmacolata Concezione (Citta del Vaticano: Pontificia Academia Mariana Intl., 2003), 7-37.

Detail from a window of St. Anselm of Canterbury venerating the Immaculate Virgin Mary.
This window is in the Catholic Church in the village of Ampleforth, North Yorkshire, England.
Missio Immaculat International | September/October 2014

| 11

Ceiling painting in the Ossiach Monastery in Austria of the Virgin Mary appearing to Saint Anselm of Canterbury

instant of her existence.3

Devotion to the feast of Marys
Conception increased in England
until it was suppressed in 1070 by
Lanfranc, the Norman Archbishop of
Canterbury, in the wake of the invasion of William the Conqueror. This
eclipse was, thankfully, short lived.
In 1120, Anselm the Younger (d.
3

Mary Clayton, The Cult of the Virgin Mary

in Anglo-Saxon England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 40-47. In
prior times the feast was known to Latin
Christians only in Sicily and Naples, likely
through the presence and influence of
Greeks. It is also known that Anglo-Saxons were present in Constantinople in the
eleventh century. This suggests the historical background and motive for the feasts
entrance into England was via Greek influence. The Greek pedigree of Englands
eventual adoption of the Immaculate Conception is further bolstered by the fact that
in an eleventh century liturgical calendar
presenting the feast of Marys Conception
we also find for the first time in England
mention of the feasts of the Eastern saints,
John Chrysostom and Catherine of Alexandria. Cf., Clayton, 43-44.

12 |

1148), nephew of St. Anselm, began

celebrating the feast at St. Edmunds
Bury. While there remained lingering
opposition to both the feast and the
growing pious conviction of Marys
privilege, the feast spread from St. Edmunds to Westminster; and, at the
1129 Council of London, it gained
approval from all of the English bishops.4 Eadmer (d. c. 1124), Anselms
biographer and secretary, was a main
proponent of Marys privilege.5
By 1136, the feast had even made
its way to the Cathedral of Lyons in
France. Its arrival occasioned St. Ber4

Cf., Timothy Finigan, Belief in and Devotion to the Immaculate Conception in Medieval England, in Mary at the Foot of the
Cross V: Redemption and Coredemption under
the Sign of the Immaculate Conception, edited
by Peter Fehlner (New Bedford: Academy
of the Immaculate, 2005), 346-350.
Scotus, in his discussion of the Immaculate Conception, cites Eadmer only one
time, under the name of Augustine. Cf.,
Charles Balic, Ioannes Duns Scotus: Doctor
Immaculatae Conceptionis: 1- Textus Auctores, (Rome: Marianum, 1954). 79.

September/October 2014 | Missio Immaculat International

nards (d. 1153) famous protest against

the feast and Marys Immaculate Conception. In fact, Marys sinless conception generally met more resistance on
the Continent; during Scotuss time
at Paris, it was the minority position
and was thought by some to be heretical.6 The Franciscans in England and
abroad, however, immediately took up
the Immaculates banner, first under
patronage of Robert Grosseteste (d.
1253) and then William of Ware (d.
c. 1300), Scotuss teacher at Oxford.
Those opposed to Marys privilege appealed to the universal necessity of redemption, which, to their
minds, entailed the corollary of the
universality of original sin. This, in
essence, was the position of the great
scholastics prior to Scotus.7 Marys de6

Balic, The Medieval Controversy over the

Immaculate Conception, in The Dogma of
the Immaculate Conception: History and Significance, edited by Edward D. OConnor
(Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame,
1958), 167, 187-193.
E.g., Anselm, Bonaventure, Aquinas and
Albert. Ibid., 188; Cecchin, 75-99.

fenders, however, were not insignificant figures either. Their number included Eadmer, Grosseteste, William
of Ware, Raymond Lull and Scotus
himself.
The defenders of the Immaculate
Conception preceding Scotus provided reasons in favor of Marys privilege
on the basis of piety or fittingness and
could not provide rigorous theological arguments. Such appeals failed to
overturn the main objection to the
Immaculate Conception: the universality of Redemption and its corollary,
original sin.8 Up to and until Marys
Immaculate Conception could be
explained in full harmony with the
universal need for redemption, the Parisian doctors were justified in opposing the English-Franciscan opinion.9

ANSELM IN SCOTUS ARGUMENT

Anselms influence on Scotus is
widely recognized and admitted. Affirming Anselms general influence
on Scotus, but with specific reference to his importance for Scotus
theological articulation and defense
of the doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception, Fr. Peter Fehlner writes:
Anselm stands at a juncture in the
development in the witness of tradition to this [i.e., the Immaculate Conception] great mystery of faith.10 Fehlner further states that St. Anselm is
considered the first of the great Western scholastics and that, with him, the
systematic discussion of the possibility and fittingness of the Immaculate
8
9

Balic, The Medieval Controversy, 184-6.

Cf., Decretum Gratiani (Venice, 1528), fol.
614: De festo Conceptionis nihil dicitur,
quia celebrandum non est, sicut in multis
regionibus fit, et maxime in Anglia; et haec
est ratio, quia in peccatis concepta fuit sicut et ceteri sancti, except unica persona
Christi. Quoted in Allan Bernard Wolter,
Four Questions on Mary: A Selection, edited
by Allen Wolter (Santa Barbara, CA: Old
Mission Santa Barbara, 1988), 36.
10 Peter D. Fehlner, The Predestination of
the Virgin and Her Immaculate Conception, in Mariology: A Guide for Priest, Deacons, Seminarians and Consecrated Persons,
edited by Mark Miravalle (Seat of Wisdom: Goleta, 2007), 250.

Conception begins.11
Strangely, however, so far as I
can tell, scholars have given less attention to the influence of Anselms
ideas, specifically, upon Scotus argumentation in favor of the Immaculate
Conception.12 Charles Balic explains
that Anselm asserted the principles
which, objectively considered, lead
to the doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception,13 and that his subsequent influence was immense.14 Joseph Bruder claims, The next step
forward toward the theological vindication of Marys freedom from the
stain of original sin is undoubtedly
due to Saint Anselm.15 It is Saint
Anselm who helped Scotus turn the
most forceful argument[s] of the opponents of the Immaculate Conception into powerful argument in its
defense.16 Scotus references Anselm
and employs his insights at several key
moments in his argument, and, apart
from these Anselmian insights, Scotus argument is not successful.

SCOTUS QUESTION AND SOLUTION17

Authorities Pro et Contra Marys
Immaculate Conception
Was the Blessed Virgin conceived in
original sin? Scotus cites ten authorities affirming that the Blessed Virgin
Mary was, in fact, conceived in original sin. Beginning with Scripture,18
and then proceeding through Church
Fathers, both East and West, Papal

11 Ibid.
12 I have searched all the main databases
and bibliographies on both Scotus and
Anselm, and was unable to find any work
expressly on this topic.
13 Charles Balic, The Medieval Controversy, 169.
14 Ibid., 177.
15 Joseph Bruder, The Mariology of Saint
Anselm of Canterbury, (Dayton: Mount St.
John, 1939), 28.
16 Ibid., 53.
17 Texts of Scotuss Ordinatio III taken from
Wolter, Four Questions on Mary.
18 Rom 5:12: In Adam, omnes peccaverunt

teaching,19 Canon Law,20 and ending

with the most authoritative doctors
close to his own timee.g., St. Bernard21 and St. Anselm22Scotus provides an impressive array of witnesses
denying Marys sinless conception. If
such an array of Fathers, Doctors and
authoritative texts didnt seem to present insurmountable obstacles to the
doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, the prospects of Marys privilege
appear even bleaker when Scotus can
offer only two authorities in favor of
the doctrine. He cites only Augustine23 and Anselm.24
It is interesting to note that Scotus marshals Anselm both as an opponent to the Immaculate Conception
and as providing reasons in its favor.
As we shall see, Anselms reasoning
wins out in Scotus over his conclusions.
As Bruder notes, in the texts of Anselm, there seems to be insuperable
evidence against Anselms having affirmed the Immaculate Conception.
However, his ideas have an inner
dynamism that carry Scotus beyond
Anselms explicit affirmations, and
provide an avenue into the insights
that can both justify the Immaculate
Conception, and refute the doctrines
opponents.25
19 E.g., John Damascene, De fide orthodoxa III
c. 2; Fulgentius, De fide ad Petrum c. 26;
Augustine, In Ioannem tract IV c. 1, n. 10;
Pope Leo III In nativitate Domini nostri Iesu
Christi I, c. 1.
20 Decretum Gratiani.
21 In Assump. B. Mariae Virginis, Sermo 2, n. 8.
22 Cur Deus homo? II, c. 16.
23 De nat. et gratia c. 36, n. 42.
24 De conceptu virginali et de originali peccato, c.
18.
25 Cf., Bruder, 51; Balic, 169; Fehlner,
Sources, 251, 257, 270-1. Cf. Anselm,
Cur Deus Homo?, II, c. 16 (Schmitt, 2,
116): Nam licet ipsa hominis eiusdem
conceptio munda sit et absque carnalis delectationis peccato, virgo tamen ipsa unde
assumptus est, in iniquitibus concepta
est, et in peccatis concepit eam mater
eius, et cum originalis peccato nata est,
quoniam et ipsa in Adam peccavit, in quo
omnes peccaverunt. In his earlier treatments of the subject of Marys conception Scotus attempts to explain away this
objection on the basis that in the quoted

Missio Immaculat International | September/October 2014

| 13

In addition to an arguably Anselmian flavor to Scotus entire

argument,26 there are specific ideas
of Anselm that serve as keys for Scotus in unlocking the mystery of how
Mary could have been conceived without original sin. Anselm affirms that
Mary was conceived in a state of original sin. However, according to Scotus
reading of Anselm, this conclusion is
(logically) inconsistent with Anselms
attribution of the highest conceivable
holiness to Mary as well as Anselms
understanding of the nature of original sin and its transmission.
Anselm clearly asserted that
Marys purity and holiness is that
than which, under God, nothing
could be conceivably higher.27 Scotus,
reasoning from this Anselmian basis,
concludes that such a purity and holiness must then also include the first
instant of her existence; otherwise,
there would be a holiness that is conceivably higher. Moreover, Anselm
distinguishes both the state of original sin and the state of original justice
from the infected flesh following
upon sin and the fall. This provides
Scotus with a needed logical opening
to rebut those who say that the stain
of original sin follows necessarily from
human reproduction.28
Scotus then presents two common arguments affirming that Mary
was conceived in original sin. The first
is based upon the excellence of Marys
section of dialog it is not Anselm, but his
student speaking. Cf., Textus, 65: Ad illud
Anselmi potest dici quod verbum fuit discipuli sui, non ipsius Anselmi.
26 Notions of fittingness, order and intensive
perfection are implied throughout Scotus
argument. Cf. Anselms discussion of order in De veritate, passim, but especially cc.
10-13. For intensive perfection see Monologion and Proslogion. Compare these texts
with Scotus De Primo Principio. Cf., Robert
Prentice, The De Primo Principio of John
Duns Scotus as a Thirteenth Century Proslogion, Antonianum 39 (1964), 78-109.
27 Cf., De conceptu virginaili, 18 (Schmitt, 2:
159); Oratio 52 (Schmitt, 3:21).
28 De Conceptu, c. 2, 3 (Schmitt, 2:414-3) Cf.
De casu diaboli, cc. 1-4, 12, 16 (Schmitt 1:
233-42, 251-55, 259-62).

14 |

Son as Redeemer. Jesus Christ as the

universal Redeemer opens the gates
of Heaven to all. But, if Mary did not
contract original sin, she, by implication, would have had no need for Jesus to open to her the gates of Heaven.
This is because, so the argument goes,
the gates of Heaven are not closed to
those who have no stain of sin, either
original or actual. The purpose of this
objection is to show that an affirmation of Marys Immaculate Conception places Mary outside of the realm
of the Incarnations mediating and
redeeming work.29
The second argument against
Marys sinless conception that Scotus
discusses is based upon the mode of
her conception.30 Mary, like all other
human beings, excluding Christ,
was conceived in the normal mannerfrom the union of a man and
a womanand in virtue of this, she
was infected with original sin. Thus,
for the same reason that all other human beings are infected with original
sin, Mary also must have been first
conceived with the stain of sin. Since
her body was begotten, and formed,
from infected seed, this infection was
passed on, from her parents, to her
body; and since the soul was infected
from the infected body, she was conceived in the state of original sin.31
Scotus then offers a corollary
support of Marys implication in sin.
Mary, unlike Christ who willingly took
on a passable mortal state with all of
the sufferings incumbent upon it, suffered from all the effects of original
sin: e.g., thirst, hunger, fatigue, etc.32
On this basis, Scotuss opponents
reason, this suffering undergone by
Mary must have been the effects of
sin, otherwise she would have experienced them unjustly. Because God is
just, he would not have inflicted punishment for sin on a person not guilty
of any sin unless there were a further
intention or purpose, such as the
29
30
31
32

Wolter, Four Questions on Mary, 38.

Ibid.
Ibid, 39.
Ibid.

September/October 2014 | Missio Immaculat International

meriting of redemption. Thus, Mary

must have been conceived in the state
of original sin.

SCOTUS USE OF ANSELMS

ANALOGY:THE OFFENDED KING
AND THE UNIVERSALITY OF
CHRISTS REDEMPTION
Scotus bases his refutation of the
first argument, in favor of Mary having contracted original sin, on precisely the same premise as his opponents.
However, whereas his opponents argue for the necessity of Mary having
contracted original sin on the basis of
Christs excellence in his work of mediationthereby inferring that Mary
must have needed redemption from
at least original sin in order to fall
under Christs universal work of mediationScotus believes the contrary
conclusion follows. It is, rather, because of Christs excellence, His most
perfect mediation, that Mary must
have been conceived without original
sin! To Scotus mind, the highest perfection of Christs mediation is found
precisely in His preserving Mary from
original sin. Surely, being preserved
from all sin is a more excellent form of
redemption than being liberated from
an already established state of sin.33
Scotus, here, explicitly borrows
Anselms allegory of the offended
king.34 In Scotus account, a subject
offends his king. The result is that the
offender and all of his natural progeny are disinherited. The offense is
legally established.35 The birth of each
33 Ibid., 41.
34 Cur Deus homo. II., c. 16 (Schmitt 2:11822).
35 Cf., De conceptu, cc. 2-3, 19 (Schmitt 2:
140-3, 151-2). In these texts Anselm speaks
of the gift of original justice (Cf., De casu
diaboli, cc. 14-16 [Schmitt 1: 258-62]) and
moral obligation to preserve this gift.
With original sin comes the rejection and
loss of the gift, but obligation to preserve
the gift remains. Because of Adams sin,
original justice is no longer given by God
to the person on the occasion of that persons natural generation, but, on the other
hand, the original obligation still remains.
Scotus explicitly asserts that offense following the loss of original justice is legally

new member of the offenders family

is an occasion of offense to the king
because of the injustice of the original
offender.
The only way the offending subject and his descendants can be reconciled to the king is for a totally
innocent member of the offenders
family to offer something more pleasing and gracious to the king than the
original offense. If such an innocent
person accomplished this act, Scotus
avers that this would be sufficient for
the king to overturn his prior decision, and re-inherit his out-of-favor
subjects, thereby reestablishing good
relations with them.36
In this account, however, even after the placation achieved by the innocent mediator, the natural generation
of each new member of the human
family still constitutes an offense to
God, in virtue of the original offense.
The offense is only remitted subsequently to the natural conception and
birth of each new person. Positively,
the offense toward God is remitted,
but, on the other hand, God, nevertheless, takes some offense with the
birth of each new person.37 Scotus
suggests that beyond a post factum reconciliation, there is a conceivably greater way in which the king/God can be
pleased with regard to both the mediator and the term of the latters mediation.38 The Mediator (Jesus), in virtue
of the universality of His mediation,
could and would prevent some child
born of Adam from offending God in
any manner: i.e., through original or
actual sin.
Scotus provides three proofs for
his assertion. These are based on comparative analyses between the mediation and redemption accomplished
by Christ in those born in the state
of original sin and the mediation
and redemption wrought in Mary as
she was conceived immaculately. The
established (ista offensa statuitur non remittenda) (Wolter, 40).
36 Wolter, Four Questions on Mary, 41-2.
37 Ibid., 40.
38 Ibid., 41.

Stained glass window from the Church of

Our Lady and the English Martyrs (OLEM)
in Cambridge, England.

first proof speaks of the more excellent manner in which Mary is reconciled to God; the second, the evil
from which Mary is liberated; and the
third, the obligation of Mary to Christ
that results from her being conceived
without original sin. The result of Scotus three proofs is that, rather than
diminishing Christs excellence vis-vis Mary as immaculately conceived,
an affirmation of her privilege actually increases the excellence of Christs

work in the Incarnation and enhances

regard for Him.39
In the first proof, Scotus asserts
that a truly most perfect and excellent
mediator removes all punishment for
sin. But original sin is a greater punishment than the loss of the beatific
vision. Therefore Christ, the most perfect mediator, removes the punishment
of original sin in some person.40
The second proof reasons from a
consideration of the primary object of
Christs work. The object of Christs
mediation and Redemption is more
commonly ascribed to the remission
of the original sin than actual sin.
Moreover, it is universally held that
Christs work in Mary was so perfect so
as to preserve her from all actual sin.
Therefore, on the twofold basis of the
primary object of Christs mediation
and the actual perfection of Christs
work in Mary, Scotus contends that
it is more reasonable to believe that
Mary was preserved from all sinboth
committed and contracted.41
The third proof Scotus offers in
this section concerns the obligation
that one would have towards Christ
in the event that He redeem the
person from contracting original sin
as well as committing actual sin. He
argues that a person not reconciled
to God in the highest manner is not
obliged as much as one perfectly reconciled. Viewed negatively, this fact
entails that, if Mary was conceived in
a state of original sin, she is not obligated to Christ in the highest degree.
She would be more obliged if she
were conceived without original sin.
The positive corollary of this is that
Mary, because conceived immaculately, is obliged in the highest degree
to Christ.42 Rather than derogating
from Christs excellence and glory,
as was feared by so many of Scotus
predecessors,43 Marys conception
39
40
41
42
43

Ibid., 41-2.
Ibid., 41.
Ibid., 41-2.
Ibid., 42.
E.g., inter alios, Anselm, Bernard, Aquinas
and Bonaventure. For references and pri-

Missio Immaculat International | September/October 2014

| 15

without original sin actually manifests

Christ mediation, and, in turn, glorifies Him in the highest degree.
This argument bears the obvious
imprint of Anselmthe allegory is
taken directly from him. Scotus (1) accepts the insight of Anselm and (2) explains Marys preservation exclusively
in terms of the merits of Christ.44 Scotus, however, extends these merits to a
mode that Anselm had not envisioned.
Like Anselm, again, Scotus affirms
that Christs mediation is quantitatively or extensively universal throughout
all times and all places.45 Like Anselm,
Scotus reasons that Christ is the most
excellent Mediator. On this basis, Scotus (3) crosses a modal boundary and
considers Christs mediation qualitatively or intensively.46

Anselms profound treatment

of original justice and original sin
shaped Scotus perception and understanding of these matters. Anselm
provides specific conceptual tools that
allow Scotus to articulate very clear
notions of human nature, original
justice, original sin, and the conferral
and transmission of the latter two.
Scotus does not here provide Anselms argumentation. However it is
clear that he presupposes and employs
Anselms insights. Scotus shows how,
even granting the kind of connection
between infected flesh and the transConceptu, cc. 3, 7.

HOW MARY COULD HAVE BEEN

CONCEIVED WITHOUT ORIGINAL
SIN GIVEN NATURAL GENERATION:
SCOTUS REBUTTAL ad mentem
anselmi
We now turn to Scotus response
to the argument affirming Marys conception in original sin, which states
that Mary must have been conceived
with original sin because she, unlike
Christ, was conceived through the
normal means of generation.47 According to this account of the transmission
of original sin, the actual conferring
of original sin comes through the infected seed of the parents who engage
in the conjugal act in a concupiscent
manner.48 In framing his response,
Scotus directly appeals to Anselms
teaching of justice and injustice.49

44
45

46
47
48
49

mary texts see, Ruggero Rosini, The Mariology of Blessed John Duns Scotus, (New Bedford: Academy of the Immaculate, 2008),
75; Balic, Medieval, 161-212.
Bruder, 52.
Richard Cross, Christocentrism and the
Immaculate Conception in Duns Scotus,
in Giovanni Duns Scoto; Studi e ricerche nel
VII Centenario della sue morte, edited by
Martin Carbajo Nunez (Rome: Antonianum, 2008), 127.
Ibid.
Wolter, Four Questions on Mary, 43; 47-52.
Balic, 164-7.
Wolter, Four Questions on Mary, 43; De

16 |

September/October 2014 | Missio Immaculat International

mission of original sin to the soul that

his opponents were presupposing, the
arguments against the Immaculate
Conception do not follow.50 On the
one hand, this proves that to Scotus
mind, Anselm had effectively dissociated any essential connection between
the natural generation of the flesh
and the contracting of original sin.
On the other, it seems that Scotus,
at this point, likely because Anselm
was not yet universally viewed as an
authority,51 was following the general
50 Timothy Noone, The Singular Participation of Mary Immaculate in the Merits of
Christ, Her Son and Redeemer, According to Scotus: Continued Reflections on
a Theological Breakthrough, in Mary at
the Foot of the Cross VIII, edited by Peter
Fehlner (New Bedford: Academy of the
Immaculate, 2008), 169. Scotus omission has apparently led Timothy Noone
to think this particular objection not all
that serious. He calls this the lesser problem of propagation, and in the cited
article, when discussing this objection to
the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, he does not consider the problem
of propagation, as it was understood traditionally, but, like Scotus, moves directly
to a consideration of how Scotus opponents arguments do not establish their
case. While not incorrect, I think that
this minimizing of Scotus own position
regarding original sin and its transmission
is misleading. Noone neglects to mention
that Scotus preceded his reply by alluding
to Anselms more extensive treatment of
the question, which the Subtle Doctor was
presupposing. Cf., Ordinatio, II d. 30 q. 2:
Praeterea deordinat totam animam; ergo
si est aliqua una culpa, in illa potentia,
est ad cuius deordinationem tota anima
deordinatur; illa sola est voluntas, quia
sicut ipsa ordinata alias, ita deordinata
deordinat; non est autem aliquid positivum, ergo est privatio justitiae oppositae
huic culpae (Ord. II d. 30 q. 2, Vives XIII,
293). Even if the problem of propagation
is not as difficult as that of the universality
of Christs redemption and the manner in
which Mary was redeemed, it nevertheless
is a very important moment in Scotuss
positive articulation of Marys privilege,
whose explanation has roots in Anselm.
51 This is hinted at by Wolter, Scotus Lectures on the Immaculate Conception, in
Scotus and Ockham: Selected Essays (St. Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute Publications, 2003),152; Bruder, 63.

pattern of his entire treatise: to grant

his opponents premises, and show
that their conclusions do not follow,
but actually support the Immaculate
Conception.
Scotus argues that even if one
grants that original sin is contracted
via the concupiscent conjugal act
and its infected seed, it does not follow that this transmission is necessary,
because, even in those who have contracted original sin, after the reception
of Baptism, original sin is eradicated
from the soul while its effects remain
in the body, i.e., concupiscence.52 So,
the flesh remains infected, yet the
soul is pure after Baptism. This serves
as proof that there is no intrinsic link
between infected flesh and the moral
state of the soul.
On this basis, Scotus contends
that although original sin might
commonlyone could say naturally,
secundum quidbe propagated via the
infected flesh, there is nevertheless
no essential (necessity following upon
nature of sin or human generation)
connection between the infected flesh
and original sin. Therefore, God could
simply prevent original sin in the flesh
in the first instant of its union with
the soul so that the infected flesh had
no causal power upon the soul. As
for the other objection, e.g., Marys
sufferings, Scotus reasons that God
could have taken away Marys suffering, but because sufferings are useful
for meriting, he allowed the suffering
of Mary to remain while preventing
her from contracting original sin in
her soul.53
Scotus argues for the possibility of
Mary having been conceived without
original sin by first noting that original justice and grace, insofar as Gods
acceptance of them is concerned,
are identical. But Baptism removes
original sin; therefore, it seems that
nothing prevents God from giving
someone grace in the first instance of
conception, because, as was stated ear52 Wolter, Four Questions on Mary, 43.
53 Ibid.

lier, there is no necessary link between

infected flesh and the contraction of
original sin.54
This negative rebuttal is not the
entire story. In his ad quaestionem,
Scotus does not leave the issue of the
transmission of original sin at his critique of the arguments which affirm
the necessity of contracting original
sin on the basis of the natural descendent from Adam. Scotus provides a
positive argument in favor of Marys
Immaculate Conception, on the basis
of Anselms locating of original justice
and sin exclusively within the will, and
the distinctions between nature/justice and nature/sin that follow from
this distinction. Scotus is not merely
refuting, but, more importantlyto
his mindboth establishing the greater probability of Marys conception
without the stain of original sin than
with it, and showing how there are no
good arguments to the contrary.

SCOTUS SOLUTION
ad mentem anselmi
In this section of his argument,
Scotus presents three possible states
in relation to original sin into which
Mary could have been born.
I. Mary never contracted original
sin.
II. Mary contracted original sin,
but only for an instant.
III. Mary contracted original sin and
was in this state for some duration, and, in the last instant of
this duration, was purged of it.
Because the latter two hypotheses
presuppose that Mary was conceived
in original sin and do not directly relate to Scotus articulation of his defense of the Immaculate Conception,
we will pass over them and deal only
with the first possibility that Scotus
presents.
Scotus admits that only God
knows, so far as he is concerned, which
of the three possibilities is actually the
case (this was prior to the 1854 formal
definition of the Immaculate Concep54 Ibid., 43

tion). However, he then goes on to offer this principle as a guiding theme to

his own reflection on Mary: If the authority of the Church or the authority of Scripture does not contradict
such, it seems probable that what is
more excellent should be attributed to
Mary.55 It is clearly more excellent for
Mary to have been conceived without
original sin, both in terms of Christs
mediation and Marys reconciliation;
therefore, Scotus believes that he is
justified in believing that Mary was in
fact conceived without original sin.
Although absent from the Ordinatio text on the Immaculate Conception, in the parallel passages from
the Paris, Barcelona, and Valencia
manuscripts, Scotus cites Anselm in
favor of the Immaculate Conception,
when he says that it was fitting that
this Virgin should shine with a purity so great, that, except for God, no
greater purity could be conceived.56
Luigi Gambero, when discussing this
statement, cites a parallel text from
Anselms Orations: Nothing is equal
to Mary: no one except God is greater
than Mary.57 These affirmations inform Scotus own opinion concerning
excellence, greatness and perfection,
including his mature treatment of
the Immaculate Conception in the
Ordinatio. Therein Scotus states that
it seems probable that what is more
excellent should be attributed to Mary.
Following the statement of his
opinion, Scotus goes on to reply to
the authorities listed at the beginning
of the question. Scotus grants to the
authorities that it is the case that every
55 Wolter, 45: Sed si auctoritati Ecclesiae
vel auctoritati Scripturae non repugnet,
videtur probablie quod excellentius est,
attribuere Mariae. Cf., Christic principle,
Ordinatio III, d. 13, q. 1-4.
56 Comparable to language in Scotus: Nempe quia decens era tut ea puritate, qua
maior sub deo nequit intelligi... (De Conceptu c. 18, Schmitt, 2:159).
57 Cited in Luigi Gambero, Mary in the Middle Ages (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2005),
111. Also: Nihil est aequale Mariae; nihil, nisi Deus, maius Maria (Oratio 52,
Schmitt, 3:21), and Proslogion c. 2.

Missio Immaculat International | September/October 2014

| 17

child of Adam is a debtor to original

justice and lacks this because of Adams willful disobedience in the Garden. From this, it follows that there is
a basis for every natural descendant of
Adam to contract original sin, which
is the absence of original justice. However, on the other hand, Scotus argues
that it is nevertheless possible that in
the first instant of the creation of a new
soul, grace could be infused. That person would not lack original justice.
On the one hand, upon the basis of
natural propagation, the soul will not
be born in the state of original justice;
but from this, it does not necessarily
follow that the soul will be born in the
state of original sin. God could just as
easily confer grace, if he so desired,
prior to the contraction of original sin
as he could after its contraction.
Scotus cites Anselms De Conceptu Virginali, chapter three, wherein
Anselm argues that sin exists only in
the rational will.58 Anselm reasons
that if justice is rectitude of the will
preserved for its own sake, and that
rectitude cannot exist except in a rational nature, then it is only a rational
nature from which justice is due, since
no nature is susceptible of justice except a rational nature.59 Justices privation is merely the absence of justice
that ought to be present in the will as
commanded by God. Since justice
and injustice are predicated of the will
alone, Anselm concludes that justice,
or injustice, can exist only in a rational will. In chapter seven of the same
treatise, when discussing the question
of how human nature can be called
unclean and conceived in sin, Anselm
states his conclusion more boldly:
No being but the will is properly
called unjust.60 He then goes on to
distinguish between the conception of
a fetus that follows from the conjugal
activity of the man and the woman,
which of itself cannot produce a ra58 Wolter, 43.
59 De Conceptu, c. 3 (Schmitt, 2: 143).
60 [E]t [peccatum et iniustitam] non esse
nisi in rationali voluntate (De Conceptu,
c. 7, Schmitt, 2: 147).

18 |

tional soul, and the conception of the

person upon the uniting of the rational soul with the fetus.61
Although, Anselm reasons, the
act that produced the fetus was concupiscent, and therefore infected the
fetus, because justice and sin reside
exclusively in a rational will, it is improper to say that the fetus is sinful
or contains sin.62 Anselm compares
the seed to spittle, arguing that just
as one would not ascribe sin to spit,
but rather to the ill will of one who
maliciously spits. So also, one ought
not ascribe sin to the seed, but rather
to the one who generates, by means
of this seed, in concupiscence. On
the other hand, Anselm clearly asserts
that upon the gaining of a rational
soul, an entire person would gain the
uncleanness of sin; but by the logic of
his own explanation, this sin would
not be contracted from the infected
flesh, but rather from the absence of
justice that God decreed ought to be
present in the soul, yet does not confer on the basis of Adams moral headship of the human race.
In his reply to the first objection,
Scotus again grants his opponents
premise affirming the universality of
Christs mediation, and, on this basis,
concludes that Mary is, in fact, more
deeply and perfectly indebted to Christ
on the basis of her being conceived
without original sin. Moreover, he,
again, grants to his opponents their
contention that Mary was indeed a
child of Adam by nature prior to her
reconciliation to God by grace. He
also concedes that in that first instant
of nature, Mary, secundum quid, ought,
by virtue of her descent from Adam,
to have contracted original sin. But,
Scotus again replies, it does not follow
that she necessarily contracts original
sin.63 Moreover, given the absolute
predestination of Jesus and Mary and
exclusively moral-spiritual nature of sin,
Adams natural headship of the human race need not and, in fact, does
61 Ibid., (Schmitt 2: 148-9).
62 Ibid.
63 Wolter, Four Questions on Mary, 44, 46-7.

September/October 2014 | Missio Immaculat International

not extend to a moral headship of every member of the human race. Christ
is before Adam in the will of God,
and Mary is enclosed within Christ in
the divine intention. Thus, Adam has
no moral headship over Our Lord,
and, because of Our Ladys absolute
and prior relationship to Jesus, Adam
has no more headship over her either.
Thus, any notion that Mary ought to
have contracted original sin must be
understood as merely de facto and not
as proper or absolute.64
Scotus reasons that a given subject is naturally prior to both contraries that can be predicated of that
subject. In this instance, the contraries are original sin and original justice
and/or grace. In the order of natural
priority, therefore, the human person
qua nature is prior to both sin and
grace. Scotus goes on to grant that,
in some sense, one can even assert in
the next moment of nature, that the
privative opposite of original sin, as it
is an absence or a negation, is prior to
its contrary of original justice, as uninformed matter is to formed matter.65
Even though a person never exists in the temporal order without being in either a state of original sin or
original justice/grace, it follows, on
the basis that neither characteristic is
essential to the nature of the human
person, that neither characteristic is
natural, i.e., an essential property, in
a strict sense, to the human person.
This insight provides Scotus with a
non-temporal moment of nature
prior to either the contraction of
original sin or the infusion of original
justice/grace in which God can act
to either confer justice/grace or withhold it. In identifying the priority of
nature, Scotus, interestingly, further
recognizes and implies the priority of
64 For further discussion on Scotus understanding of how original sin is inherited
and its implications see, Alessandro Apollonio, Marys So-called Debitum Peccati
Originalis, in Bl. John Duns Scotus and His
Mariology, 331-348; Peter Fehlner, Appendix to Ruggero Rosini, Mariology of Blessed
John Duns Scotus, 255-268.
65 Ibid., 48-50.

the freedom and prerogative of God

to act in his creation.
This allows Scotus to affirm that
Christ did, in fact, open for Mary the
gates of Heaven. As in the case of
the members of the Old Covenant,
Marys preservation from original sin
is also founded upon the foreseen
merits of Christs life and Passion.
Mary was never actually in sin, but
apart from Christs preservation, she
would have contracted original sin by
reason, though not by natural necessity, of her origin.66
In the final section of his treatment of the question, Scotus gives
special attention to St. Bernard. Ber66 Ibid., 48, 51.

nards objections, given his renowned

sanctity and the wide diffusion of
his spiritual theology, along with the
great influence he held among scholastic theologians after him, demanded careful consideration and delicate
treatment. Against Bernard, Scotus
reasons that sanctification can be
spoken of in a similar manner with regard to the guilt that would have been
present, had Mary not been preserved
from contracting original sin, as it is
spoken of concerning sin that is present in those who do contract original
sin. In either scenario, if original justice or sanctifying grace is present in
the soul, that soul is rectified and, to

some degree, sanctified.

Scotus goes on to argue that
concupiscence pace Bernard is not
essentially related to the conception
of natures. Even if the concupiscent
mixing of seeds resulted in the conception of infected flesh, it would
not have been impossible or unfitting
for God, at the uniting of such flesh
with the rational soul, to have infused
the soul with grace in that instant in
which the flesh and soul united to become a human person. In this scenario, such a person would not contract
any infection from the flesh, conceived
in carnal pleasure.

CONCLUSION
In this study we have seen how
Anselm plays a central, even essential,
role in Scotus formulation of his criticisms of the arguments against the Immaculate Conception, and also in his
positive explanations of how the Immaculate Conception is both possible
and, in fact, the more likely explanation of what God, in Christ, accomplished in the person of Mary. Marys
purity, than which nothing under
God is greater, the concept of original
sin, its transmission, and the perfection and excellence of Christs mediation and Redemption are themes in
which Anselm profoundly influenced
Scotus, and, in turn, influenced the
subsequent history of Christian piety,
liturgy, theology, doctrine and faith.
Although Anselm explicitly denies
Marys exemption from original sin,
it is arguable that, given his fundamental theological insights, he would
have been more logical in affirming
it.67 Scotus follows Anselms insights
to their conclusion, and, in great part,
through these, is able to affirm the
Immaculate Conception. Through
Scotus, Anselm still influences and
guides piety and faith for millions of
Christians worldwide.

67 See Bruder, 60-1; Balic, The Medieval

Controversy, 169; Fehlner, Sources,
270-4.

Missio Immaculat International | September/October 2014

| 19