Peter Damian on the Restoration of Virginity: A Problem for Medieval Theology (Irven M. Resnick, 1988)

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of TheologicalStudies.

http://www.jstor.org

PETER DAMIAN ON THE RESTORATION OF VIRGINITY; A PROBLEM FOR MEDIEVAL THEOLOGY Author(s): Irven M. Resnick Source: The Journal of Theological Studies, NEW SERIES, Vol. 39, No. 1 (APRIL 1988), pp. 125-134

Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23962609Accessed: 04-04-2015 19:17 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 192.30.202.8 on Sat, 04 Apr 2015 19:17:51 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NOTES AND STUDIES 125

PETER D AMI AN ON THE RESTORATION

OF VIRGINITY; A PROBLEM FOR

MEDIEVAL THEOLOGY

Can God restore virginity to a woman who has lost it? In the Middle Ages, this question is first raised by Peter Damian,1 and then

proposed again later by Bernold of Constance;2 Rupert of Deutz;3 Peter Abelard;4 William of Auxerre;5 and Thomas Aquinas,6 among others. Although all proposed to consider the same question, they do not provide the same response. Nor is it at all clear that they have the

same motives for raising this question. In each case, the question's origin is referred to St Jerome. Jerome,

in his letter Ad Eustochium had urged Eustochium to guard the treasure of her virginity jealously, a treasure which, once lost, could

not be recovered. In the course of his moral exhortation, Jerome remarked: '1 will say it boldly; though God can do all things, He cannot raise up a virgin after she has fallen. He is able to free one who

has been corrupted from the penalty of her sin, but He is unable to

restore the crown [of her lost virginity].' 8 It is in a similar moral exhortation that St Augustine proclaims that virginity once lost is

irreparably lost and cannot be recovered.9

Clearly, neither Augustine nor Jerome would wish to dispute that

God has the power to perform a miracle and restore the bodily

integrity of one who has lost the seal of virginity. Nor do they wish to deny that God can remove the penalty for sin and restore spiritual purity or virginity. This double power is explicitly defended by St Thomas Aquinas.10 God has the power, he insists, to restore both

corporeal virginity by working a miracle, and the virginity of the mind

1 St Peter Damian, De divina omnipotentia, 2. 596c. All citations from this text will be from the edition of Andre Cantin, Lettre sur la toute-puissance divine, Sources chretiennes,chretiennes, igi. Series des textes monastiques d'occident, no. 11 (Paris, 1972).

2 Bernold of Constance, LibellusXV, De statutis ecclesiasticis sobrie legendis, MGH, Ldl.Ldl. ii. 158, 38-42.

3 Rupert of Deutz, De omnipotentia Dei 27, PL 170: 478a. 4 Peter Abelard, Introductio ad theologiam, 5. PL 178. 1096c. 5 William of Auxerre, Summa Aurea, i. 12, q. 6, fo. xxv; iii. 5, fo. clxi

(Frankfurt/Main, Minerva G.m.b.h., 1964). 6 Thomas Aquinas, Quaestiones quodlibetales, v. q. 2, art. 1 [3], 8th rev. edn.

(Taurini, Marietti, 1949). 7 St Jerome, Ad Eustochium, Ep. 22 in CSEL 54 (Leipzig and Vienna, 1910). 8 'Audenter loquor: cum omnia Deus possit, suscitare virginem non potest post

ruinam. Valet quidem liberare de poena, sed non valet coronare corruptam.' St Jerome, Ep.Ep.Ep. 22, 5.

9 Cf. St Augustine, De sancta simplicitate, 29. 266, in CSEL 41. 10 Thomas Aquinas, Quaestiones quodlibetales, v. q. 2, art. 1, resp.


126 NOTES AND STUDIES

or spirit by the forgiveness of sin. However, Thomas continues, God

does not have the power to restore virginity by annulling the past event wherein it was lost.

Thomas's concern in the discussion of this question is clearly not that of Jerome and Augustine, who merely wished to impress upon their contemporaries the vigilance required to preserve the virginity of the flesh. In fact, Thomas reveals by his response that this question of

God's power to restore virginity had become a point of departure for

medieval philosophers and theologians from which to enquire whether God's power over the present and future also extended to past events. The relationship between these two questions: (a) Can God restore virginity to one who has lost it? and (b) Can God cause the past not to have been? seems to have been first established by St Peter

Damian in his treatise, De divina omnipotentia.n Although Thomas and Peter Abelard deny that God can restore virginity if this requires that the past be annulled, Peter Damian and William of Auxerre

disagree. This discussion of the relationship of divine power to past events was important to the development of the medieval distinction

between thepotentia dei absoluta and thepotentia dei ordinata.n As

Francis Oakley has remarked recently, a reference to 'Jerome's virgin'

frequently appears in these discussions,13 discussions which continue

into the Reformation as well. Like Thomas Aquinas and Peter

Abelard, John Eck appeals to Jerome's statement in a discussion of

divine omnipotence. He does so especially to defend Aristotle's claim

that power does not extend to things past.14 11 Damian relates the problem of restoring virginity to God's power over the past in

several places in De divina omnipotentia. See, for example, De div. omnip. 13. 612a; 10. 608a; 7. 602d; 4. 601c; 17. 618b. For discussion of the status of past events for Peter

Damian, and God's relation to the past, see Peter Remnant, 'Peter Damian: Could God

Change the Past?' Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 8/2 (1978): 259-68; Robert McArthur and Michael Slattery, 'Peter Damian and Undoing the Past', Philosophical Studies,Studies, xxv (1974), 137-41; Lawrence Moonan, 'Impossibility and Peter Damian', ArchivArchiv fur Geschichte der Philosophic, lxii (1980), 146-63; Francois Genest, 'La liberte de Dieu a l'egard du passe selon Pierre Damien et Thomas Bradwardine', Ecole

Pratique Pratique des Hautes-Etudes, Ve Section, lxxxv (1977-8), 391-3; M. Andreoletti, 'Liberta e valori nel volontarismo di S. Pier Damiani', Giomale di Metafisica, xv

(i960), 297-320; August Faust, Der Moglichkeitsgedanke: Systemgeschichtliche Untersuchungen,Untersuchungen, Bd. II: christliche Philosophie (Heidelberg, 1932).

12 On the distinction, see Richard P. Desharnais, 'The History of the Distinction between God's Absolute and Ordained Power and its Influence on Martin Luther'

(Ph.D. diss., Catholic University of America, 1966); Heinrich Grzondziel, Die

EntwicklungEntwicklung der Unterscheidung zwischen derpotentia Dei absoluta und derpotentia Dei Dei ordinata von Augustin bis Alexander von Hales (Breslau, Inaugural-Dissertation, 1926).

13 Francis Oakley, Omnipotence, Covenant, and Order: an Excursion in the History of of Ideas from Abelard to Leibniz (Ithaca, 1984), p. 42.

14 14 In primum sententiarum annotatiunculae D. Johanne Eckio praelectore, ed. Walter L. Moore, Jr. (Leiden, 1976), dist. 42, p. 125.



Although the question whether God can restore virginity to one

who has lost it often led to a speculative discussion of the extent of

divine power, it would be a mistake to conclude that this was the only motiveor even the primary motivefor raising the question in each case. For example, Bernold of Constance is unwilling to enter

into a philosophical debate. He defends Jerome's conclusion because Jerome's writings have received papal approval. If one contradicts Jerome, one implicitly opposes apostolic authority. As a canonist of the Gregorian Reform, Bernold clearly wishes to defend papal authority.15 The twelfth-century canonist Gratian also quotes Jerome's letter Ad Eustochium approvingly. Like Jerome, Gratian appeals to the impossibility of restoring virginity to one who has lost it in order to strengthen a moral exhortation. Consequently, he

remarks, the clergy should guard all the more carefully not only the

purity of the flesh but also the virginitas mentis.16 Peter Damian displays a different attitude. Damian explains that

the discussion of this question first arose during a visit to the Benedictine monastery of Monte Cassino. The abbot Desiderius himself had proposed an interpretation of Jerome's statement which

accepted the claim that God cannot restore virginity. Damian

complains:

. . . you [Desiderius] replied that it is correct and right to believe that God cannot raise up a virgin after her ruin. Then, after running through many points in long and prolix arguments, finally you arrived at this conclusion, that God is unable to do this for no other reason than that He does not will it."

Damian quickly reveals the difficulty he finds in his friend's remarks.

He replies:

. . . I say if God cannot do any of those things which He does not will, then He does nothing but what He wills; therefore, in no way can He do those things which He does not do.18

If this were true, Damian continues, then one would have to say that,

. . . God does not cause it to rain today, because He cannot ; He does not raise

up the sick, because He cannot; likewise, He does not destroy the unjust, nor

15 Above, . 2. 16 Decretum magistri Gratiani, Corpus juris canonia, ed. Aemilius Friedberg, 2

vols. (Leipzig, 1879-81; repr. Graz, 1959), i. 1135, c. 32, qu. 5, c. 11. 17 'Tu autem e contrario respondisti ratum esse quod dictum est, et satis autenticum,

Deum videlicet non posse suscitare virginem post ruinam. Deinde, longis atque prolixis argumentationibus multa percurrens, ad hoc tandem definitionis tuae clausulam perduxisti ut diceres Deum non ob aliud hoc non posse, nisi quia non vult.' De div. omnip. 2. 596d.



free the saints from oppression. These and many other things God does not

do, because He does not will to; and because He does not will to do so, He cannot: It follows then that whatever God does not do He is wholly unable to do."

If we accept this conclusion then the power of God is, in Damian's estimation, seriously curtailed. For him, an inability to restore virginity imposes a serious constraint upon the divine will and power. Some of Damian's contemporaries infer that if God is unable to restore virginitya view which Desiderius felt, in some sense, could be acceptedHe is unable to do so for the reason that He cannot

change the past. Of these contemporaries Damian complains:

By the affirmation that God cannot restore a virgin after her sin, they add as a

consequent as it were: Can God bring it about that that which has happened has not happened? As if, once it is established that a virgin has been deflowered it is impossible that she could be made whole again.20

Although Peter Damian is the first to relate the problem of the

restoration of virginity to the larger problem of the relationship of

divine power to past events, Damian also had very real pastoral and

theological concerns. He extols virginity as both a moral and a

physical quality.21 He lavishes praise upon the Virgin Mary who guarded not only the intregity of the flesh, but also the purity of her thoughts and deeds.22 He counsels monks to seek out a place of

solitude in order to follow her example.23 And he declares that even

the righteous in heaven will not achieve a place so high as those who

have preserved their virginity in this double sense.24

In the course of his letter, Damian will attempt to prove that God

can restore virginity both according to the flesh (juxta carnem) and as

a spiritual quality (juxta meritum), before undertaking the more

18 . si nichil inquam, potest Deus [facere] eorum quae non vult; nichil autem, nisi quod vult, facit; ergo nichil omnino potest facere eorum quae non facit.' Ibid. 2. 597

" 'Deum hodie idcirco non pluere, quia non potest; idcirco languidos non erigere, quia non potest; ideo non occidit iniustos; ideo non ex eorum oppresionibus liberat sanctos. Haec et alia multa idcirco Deus non facit, quia non vult, et quia non vult, non potest. Sequitur ergo ut quicquid Deus non facit, facere omnino non possit.' Ibid. 2. 5973

20 'Ad adfirmandum namque quod Deus nequeat virginem reparare post lapsum, quasi consequenter adiciunt: numquid enim potest Deus agere ut quod factum est factum non fuerit? Tamquam si semel constet ut fuerit virgo corrupta, iam nequeat fieri ut rursus sit integra.' Ibid. 13. 612 a.

21 Ibid. 5. 600c. 22 See Sermo 46, PL 144. 756c; Sermn 1, PL 144, jiod; Op. 49, De perfecta monachi

informatione,informatione,informatione, 3, PL 145. 723c. 23 Op. 12, De contemptu saeculi, 20, PL 145. 272b. 24 Op. 7, Liber qomorrhianus, 24, PL 145, 187a.



difficult defence of the power of God over past events.25 Since no one

in the letter is explicitly identified as having denied that God can restore virginity juxta carnem or juxta meritum, Andre Cantin

contends that Damian's efforts to prove that God can restore virginity in both senses is superfluous, providing merely an occasion for his

speculative discussion.26 However, Cantin misses an important clue

which enables us to infer that in fact there were individuals whom Damian thought to address who did doubt God's power to restore

virginity both juxta carnem and juxta meritum. As a result, we contend that Damian had real opponents, real concerns, and did not

merely enter into this discussion in order to develop an abstract

conception of divine power. For Damian, there is an intimate connection between God's ability

to restore virginity in a corporeal sense and the Church's affirmation of

the mystery of the Virgin Birth. God can, he affirms, restore a woman

juxta juxta carnem 'just as she was taken from her mother's womb'.27 If God

has never to our knowledge performed such a miracle we must,

nevertheless, confess that He is able to do so. Otherwise, before the

coming of Christ the fact that God had never effected a virgin birth

might lead us to believe that He could not do so. But bringing forth His son from a virgin, and restoring virginity, are both goods and there is no good which God cannot perform.28

This relationship between the possibility of a virgin birth and restoration of virginity juxta carnem is made more explicit when one

considers the respective difficulty of the two. Damian declares:

It is certainly much more amazing and more excellent that a virgin should remain intact after having given birth than that, deflowered, she should recover her virginal chastity after having sinned, for it is something greater to

pass through closed doors than to reclose doors already opened. If therefore our Redeemer, born of a virgin, has done something greater and more

extraordinary, will He not be able to do that which is less: to restore intact a deflowered woman? The God-Man has been able to come forth from the

womb of a virgin, while leaving intact her virginity, so will He not be able to

repair the loss of virginity which has been violated?29

25 Damian clearly relates the problem of restoring virginity justa carnem and juxta meritum.meritum. See especially De div. omtiip., 4. 600b.

26 Cantin, Lettre sur la toute-puissance divine, p. 116. 27 Peter Damian, De div. omnip., 5. 601b. 28 Ibid. 4. 600b; cf. 12. 612b. 29 'Et certe mirabilius est et valde praecellentius virginem incorruptam manere post

partum, quam corruptam ad virginale decus redire post lapsum, quia et maius est

quemlibet clausis ianuis ingredi, quam eas quae patuerant ianuas claudi. Si ergo natus ex Virgine Redemptor noster quod maius est et longe praestantius fecit, quod minus

est, corruptam quamlibet redintegrate non poterit? Potuit Deus homo ex utero

virginali, salua virginitate, procedere; non poterit violatae virginitatis dispendium reparare?' Ibid. 12. 61ic.



It is likely that by his reference to 'closed doors' Damian has in mind the appearance of Christ to His disciples through closed doors (cf. Luke 24: 36; John 20: 19) after His resurrection.30 Damian does not

allude here to one of his favourite metaphors for the Virgin Birth, namely Ezek. 44: 1-2, which refers to the closed gate of the sanctuary

through which the Lord of Israel shall pass. Like the gate of the sanctuary, Mary's womb too always remains closed, ante partum, in

partu,partu, and post partum, although through it the Lord passes.31 Both the prophecy of Ezechiel and the description of Christ's

appearance through closed doors were proof texts employed to defend

the mystery of the Virgin Birth. Ambrose,32 Jerome,33 and Proclus,34

frequently used the former, while Augustine35 typically used the

latter. For Augustine it was evident that if Christ, full-grown, could

pass through closed doors to appear before His disciples then a fortiori He was able, while yet in the womb, to come forth without violating the integrity of the virginal body.36

Like Augustine, Damian contends that if Christ has done that which is greater, in this case to come forth from a virgin with her

virginity preserved, then He certainly can do that which is less, to

restore virginity to one who has lost it. Here we find employed what is

a sort of axiom for Damian: if the more difficult can be done, then a

fortiori fortiori the easier can be done.37 The order of difficulty through which the restoration of virginity and the Virgin Birth are related indicates

that if the former cannot be done then certainly the latter cannot be

accomplished. Jerome's opinion, then, when wrongly understood to imply that

God cannot restore virginity juxta carnem, inexorably leads to the

view that God cannot preserve the integrity of Mary's body before, 30 CF. Op. 18. iii, Contra clericos intemperantes, 3, PL 145. 421b. 31 Cf. Op. 3,DialogusinterJudaeumet Christianum, ep.,PL 145. 61c;Sermo 1 ,PL

144. 508c; Sermo 46, PL 144. 753b. 32 Ambrose, Ep. 42. 4-6, PL 16, 1125-6. 33 Jerome, Commentariorum in Hiezechielem, 13. 44, 1/3, CCSL, vol. 75. 34 Proclus, Sermo 1, in Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum, ed. F. Schwartz

(Strasbourg and Berlin, 1914-40), i. 1. 1. 107. 35 Augustine, Sermo 191. 1, PL 38. 1010; cf. Petrus Chrysologus; Sermo 84, CCSL,

vol. 24/A, p. 518. 36 For a good discussion of these arguments, see Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of

Doctrine Doctrine and Devotion (2 vols.; New York: Sheed and Ward, 1963), i. 80 ff. Damian's French contemporary, the poet Fulcoius of Beauvais, also connects the appearance of Christ through closed doors to the possibility of the virgin birth. Cf. Fulcoii Belvacenns utriusque de nuptiis christi et ecclesiae libri septem,Belvacenris utriusque de nuptiis christi et ecclesiae libri septem,Belvacenris utriusque de nuptiis christi et ecclesiae libri septem, vii, 1056-9; 1077-81, ed. Sr Mary Isaac Jogues Rousseau, Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Latin

Language and Literature, vol. 22 (Washington, D.C., i960). 37 See Op. 6, Liber gratissimus, 20, MGH, LdL, p. 47. Cf. Laurentius of Amalfi,

Vita Vita Vita sancti Zenobii episcopi, 7. 5-6, in Opera, ed. Francis Newton (Weimar, 1973), MGH Quellen 7, p. 64.



during, and after the birth of Christ.38 Those who might appeal to

Jerome's opinion to charge God with a lack of power are led, either

knowingly or unknowingly, to reject the doctrine of the Virgin Birth as well. It is here that we can perceive a doctrinal concern concealed by what might appear to be a frivolous enquiry. Quite unexpectedly we

see that the answer given to the question, Can God restore virginity to

a woman who has lost it? may lead to heresy. Were there real opponents or contemporaries who placed in doubt

the doctrine of the Virgin Birth? Evidently there were. In De tempore celebrandicelebrandi nuptias, Damian complains of 'our philosophers' who

pervert pervert pervert the canons of the Church by defining the constitutive element

in marriage as sexual intercourse. We know, however, that the Virgin married. Clearly, if sexual intercourse is the constitutive element in

marriage, then these 'philosophers' imply that Mary, having married, could not be a virgin!39 Similarly, in De fide catholica, Damian

complains of those who do not see how the true body (verum corpus) of Christ could emerge from the womb with His mother's virginity intact.40 Finally, Damian turns to his most argumentative contempor

aries, so-called dialecticians. He declares:

Let these dialecticians come or, rather, as we regard them, these heretics, and

let them see for themselves; let them come, I say, weighing their words,

loudly airing their questions, proposing, defending, and, as it seems to them,

drawing inevitable conclusions, and let them say: 'If she has given birth, she

has known a man; now she has given birth, therefore she has known a man.'

Doesn't this argument seem to have unquestionable soundness before the

redemption of humanity? But a mystery is affirmed, and the argument is

dismissed.41

It seems clear that this hypothetical syllogism was employed as an

example of dialectical reasoning in the schools in the eleventh century, and disturbed the faith of many in the doctrine of the Virgin Birth.42

8 Damian refers to Mary as a virgin ante partum and postpartum. Cf. Op. 3, ep .,PL :45. 61c. To my knowledge, he does not elaborate fully or explicitly the notion that

Mary's virginity remains intact ante partum, inpartu, and post partum. Nevertheless, I see no reason to suspect that he might deny that Mary's virginity was preserved inpartu.

39 Op. 41, De tempore celebrandi nuptias, 4, PL 145. 662c. 40 Op. 1, De fide catholica, 4, PL 145. 26a. 41 'Veniant dialectici, sive potius, ut putantur, haeretici, ipsi viderint; veniant,

inquam, verba trutinantes, quaestiones suas buccis concrepantibus ventilantes,

proponentes, adsumentes, et, ut illis videtur, inevitabilia concludentes, ac dicant: si

peperit, concubuit; sed peperit; ergo concubuit. Numquid hoc ante redemptionis humanae mysterium non videbatur inexpugnabilis roboris argumentum? Sed factum est sacramentum, et solutum est argumentum.' De div. omnip. 12. 61 ib.

42 The source of the syllogism seems to be Cicero's De Inventione, 1. 29. 44. Masi claims that the syllogismif she has given birth, she has known a manentered the medieval school texts through Victorinus' commentary on Cicero's De Inventione. Cf. Roberto Masi, 'San Pier Damiani e la cultura', Divinitas, iii (1959), 181.



This is evident from the fact that Damian was not alone in

condemning this example of the skill of dialecticians. He was joined by

Manegold of Lautenbach who, in his Liber contra Wolfelmum Coloniensem,Coloniensem, insists that the dialectical conclusion above is over

thrown by the truth of the Virgin Birth.43 All inventions of human

reason, Manegold avers, are inadequate to judge the mysteries of

faith. This same dialectical argument which threatened faith in the Virgin Birth was reported and condemned in the eleventh century by Ekkehards IV of St Gaul;44 by the anonymous rhetorical letters of

Regensburg;45 and in the twelfth century, by Hugo Metellus and

Gilbert Porreta.46 Although all of these may have simply chosen this textbook example, which can be traced back to Cicero, to oppose a

growing dialecticism in the schools, nevertheless it seems significant that it was this example of dialectical reasoning which was selected. Damian has already indicated that there were some who seemed

unwilling to confess the truth of the Virgin Birth. Other sources as well can confirm this.

In the early eleventh century a group of heretics was condemned at

the Council of Arras (ad 1025).47 Gerard, Bishop of Cambrai, sent the

acts of the council to a fellow bishop in order to help him combat the presence of Manichaeanism in his see, an error with which the heretics condemned at Arras were also charged.48 As the Manichaeans against whom Augustine fought earlier had rejected the Virgin Birth as a pollution defiling God by contact with a human body, so too these

eleventh-century 'Manichaeans' may have had similar reservations.49

It seems clear that a group of heretics found at Orleans about ad i 015, also called Manichaeans, rejected the teaching on the Virgin Birth.50

43 Manegold of Lautenbach, Liber contra Wolfelmum Coloniensem, MGH, Quell. Geistesgeschicht., viii. 14. 76, 5-10.

44 For references to Ekkehards IV of St Gaul and Hugo Metellus, see Wilfred

Hartmann, 'Manegold von Lautenbach und die Anfange der Friihscholastik', Deutsches ArchivDeutsches ArchivDeutsches Archiv fiir Erforschung, xxvi (1970), 115-16.

45 Cf. Die RegensburgerRhetorischen Briefe, MGH, Die deutschen Geschichtsquel len des Mittelalters 500-1500. Die Briefe der deutschen Kaiserzeit, vol. 5: Briefsammlungen der Zeit Heinrichs IV (Munich, 1977), pp. 284 and 297.

46 Gilbert Porreta, Commentarius in Psalmos, 18. 131, fo. 140", quoted in Lauge Olaf Nielsen, Theology and Philosophy in the Twelfth Century (Leiden, E. J. Brill,1982), p. 136 n. 82.

47 For the dating of this council, see Jeffrey Burton Russell, propos du synode d'Arras, en 1025', Revue d'histoire ecclesiastique, lvii (1962), 66-87.

48 See especially the Epistola Gerardi Acta Synodi Atrebatensis, 8. 9, PL 142: 1269-313.

49 For a discussion of the heretical opinions with which these 'manichaeans' were

charged, see Jeffrey Burton Russell, Dissent and Reform in the Early Middle Ages (Berkeley, 1965),pp. 23 ff.

50 Ernst Werner comments upon the attribution of the heretical opinion that the

virgin birth is impossible because it violates the laws of nature to the group at Orleans,



When asked their reasons for denying this doctrine, they replied that

'they could not believe in the virgin birth because it is contrary to reason'.51 Both of these groups of heretics seem to have been

introduced to France from northern Italy, where Damian lived.

The appeal to reason here to ground objections to the Virgin Birth is

particularly interesting in light of the conclusion of the hypothetical syllogism employed by the dialecticians. It was an appeal repeated by Berengar of ours later in the eleventh century when he denied the

doctrine of the real presence and the substantial conversion of the

elements of the Eucharist.52 Such teachings, he affirmed, were

contrary to reason and cannot be believed.

Of perhaps greater interest is that Berengar's contemporaries also

accused him of having denied the truth of the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. Wolfelm of Brauweiler objects that Berengar denied that Christ's body could pass through closed doors,53 an error which, by reference to Ezek. 44:1-2, implicitly denied the doctrine of the Virgin Birth.

The power to pass through closed doors, to be born of a virgin, and

to be present in the Eucharist, are each related to one another in the

many attacks on Berengar. A connection between the possibility of

substantial conversion in the Eucharist and the Virgin Birth had been established by the Carolingian theologian, Paschasius Radbertus.54 A suspicion of heresy on one point evidently extended to the others as

well. Eusebius Bruno declares that if anyone asks how the sacramental

elements are changed, or how Christ was born of a virgin or passed

through closed doors, we answer not according to the power of nature

but according to the power of God.55 In Ps. Alcuin's Confessio fidei

again one finds the assertion that he who entered the world utero

clauso can pass through closed doors, and certainly be present to us in

and remarks that this opinion is typical of a growing popular movement hostile to the

dogmatic authority of the Church. Moreover, this popular movement, he contends, appealed to the teachings of certain dialecticians in the schools for support. See his 'Spiritualismus und heterodoxe Dialektik im. 11. Jahrhundert,' Jahrbuch fur Geschichte,Geschichte,Geschichte, xiii (1975), 9-10.

51 Jeffrey Burton Russell, Dissent and Reform, p. 34. 52 For perhaps the best study of Berengar, see Jean de Montclos, Lanfranc et

Berenger:Berenger: La Controverse Eucharistique du XI Steele, Spicilegium sacrum Lova niense, fasc. 37 (Leuven, 1971).

53 See Wolfelm of Brauweiler, Epistola sancti Wolphelmi de Sacramento eucharis tiae,tiae, contra errores Berengarii, PL 154, 4!2d. For Berengar's understanding of the

virgin birth, see A. J. MacDonald, 'Berengar and the Virgin Birth', JTS, xxx (1929), 291-4. In his more recent study, Jean de Montclos provides text and commentary upon a fragment of a work by Berengar on the virgin birth. See Jean de Montclos, Lanfranc et

Berenger,Berenger, Appendix I. 54 Paschasius Radbertus, De corpore sanguine Domini, CCSL, 16, 4, 3. 55 Eusebius Bruno, Epistola ad Berengarium magistrum, PL 147. 1203a-b.



the Eucharist.56 In a twelfth-century reply to Abelard these three

the mystery of the Eucharist, the Virgin Birth, and passing through closed doorsare again brought together.57 If God could do one, he

must be able to perform the others as well.

As we have shown, then, although the case of 'Jerome's virgin' did

provide an occasion for some medieval authors to investigate the

mystery of divine omnipotence, and to develop a distinction between

ordained and absolute power in their discussion of God's power over

past events, nevertheless Peter Damian also had other motives in

proposing to enquire: Can God restore virginity to a woman who has

lost it? For too long scholars have been unable to recognize these

motives. As a result they could not reconcile what we know of

Damian's characteras a monk, hermit, and ascetic vehemently

opposed to the idle curiosity of 'philosophers'with what seemed to be a text of only abstract and speculative philosophical content,

namely his De divina omnipotentia. But it was especially as a monk and prior of his hermitage of Fonte Avellana, and later as Cardinal Bishop of Ostia, that St Peter Damian had a genuine pastoral interest in the question raised. For, as we have seen, an improper response to

the question, Can God restore virginity to one who has lost it? could, if spread abroad, easily lead to errors of faith among the simple believers in the Churcha faith which Damian, as Cardinal Bishop, was required to teach and defend.

Irven M. Resnick Irven . Resnick

56 Ps. Alcuin, Confessio fidei IV: De corpore el sanguine Domini, PL 101. logob-c. 57 Abandus, De fractione corporis Christi, PL 166. 1344b.

WITZEL AND ERASMIAN IRENICISM IN

THE I 53 OS

Erasmus' De sarcienda ecclesiae concordia deque sedandis opi nionemnionem dissidiis (interdum: De amabili ecclesiae concordia) appeared in 1533 and very shortly, early the next year, was translated

into German. The effort for this German translation has been commonly credited to Wolfgang Capito in Strasbourg: Von der KirchenKirchen lieblicher vereinigung, und von hinlegung dieser Zeit haltender spaltunghaltender spaltunghaltender spaltung in der glauben leer . . .' In the past, Capito has been cited as the sole German translator.2 There were, however, two

1 Strassburg, 1533. 2 See Johann Wilhelm Baum, Capito und Butzer, Strassburgs Reformatoren

(Elberfeld, i860), p. 583 n. 35; Ludwig Cardauns, 'Ein Programm zur Wiederherstel


Article Contentsp. 125p. 126p. 127p. 128p. 129p. 130p. 131p. 132p. 133p. 134

Issue Table of ContentsThe Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 39, No. 1 (APRIL 1988) pp. 1-380Front MatterDID THE SERPENT GET IT RIGHT? [pp. 1-27]'ABB IS N'T 'DADDY' [pp. 28-47]GOD AND MAN IN PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA [pp. 48-75]ATHANASIUS' EARLIEST WRITTEN WORK [pp. 76-91]NOTES AND STUDIES [pp. 92-97]' ' THE JEWISH TENDENCIES OF POPPAEA SABINA [pp. 97-111]A NOTE ON THE TEXT OF THE "APOSTOLIC TRADITION" OF HIPPOLYTUS [pp. 112-117]THE POST-BAPTISMAL PRAYER IN "APOSTOLIC TRADITION": FURTHER CONSIDERATIONS [pp. 117-119]DOES LACTANTIUS DENIGRATE CYPRIAN? [pp. 119-124]PETER DAMIAN ON THE RESTORATION OF VIRGINITY; A PROBLEM FOR MEDIEVAL THEOLOGY [pp. 125-134]WITZEL AND ERASMIAN IRENICISM IN THE 1530S [pp. 134-136]

REVIEWSReview: untitled [pp. 137-139]Review: untitled [pp. 139-141]Review: untitled [pp. 142-146]Review: untitled [pp. 147-150]Review: untitled [pp. 151-154]Review: untitled [pp. 154-155]Review: untitled [pp. 155-159]Review: untitled [pp. 159-162]Review: untitled [pp. 162-164]Review: untitled [pp. 165-165]Review: untitled [pp. 165-168]Review: untitled [pp. 168-169]Review: untitled [pp. 169-172]Review: untitled [pp. 172-174]Review: untitled [pp. 174-176]Review: untitled [pp. 176-177]Review: untitled [pp. 178-179]Review: untitled [pp. 180-182]Review: untitled [pp. 183-187]Review: untitled [pp. 187-190]Review: untitled [pp. 190-192]Review: untitled [pp. 192-194]Review: untitled [pp. 194-196]Review: untitled [pp. 196-197]Review: untitled [pp. 197-198]Review: untitled [pp. 199-200]Review: untitled [pp. 200-204]Review: untitled [pp. 204-205]Review: untitled [pp. 206-207]Review: untitled [pp. 207-209]Review: untitled [pp. 209-212]Review: untitled [pp. 212-213]Review: untitled [pp. 213-214]Review: untitled [pp. 214-215]Review: untitled [pp. 215-216]Review: untitled [pp. 216-219]Review: untitled [pp. 219-223]Review: untitled [pp. 223-227]Review: untitled [pp. 227-232]Review: untitled [pp. 232-233]Review: untitled [pp. 233-234]Review: untitled [pp. 234-236]Review: untitled [pp. 236-238]Review: untitled [pp. 238-242]Review: untitled [pp. 242-246]Review: untitled [pp. 246-247]Review: untitled [pp. 247-249]Review: untitled [pp. 249-250]Review: untitled [pp. 250-253]Review: untitled [pp. 254-257]Review: untitled [pp. 258-260]Review: untitled [pp. 260-263]Review: untitled [pp. 263-265]Review: untitled [pp. 265-272]Review: untitled [pp. 272-273]Review: untitled [pp. 273-276]Review: untitled [pp. 276-277]Review: untitled [pp. 277-277]Review: untitled [pp. 278-279]Review: untitled [pp. 279-282]Review: untitled [pp. 282-282]Review: untitled [pp. 283-284]Review: untitled [pp. 285-286]Review: untitled [pp. 286-288]Review: untitled [pp. 289-290]Review: untitled [pp. 290-292]Review: untitled [pp. 292-293]Review: untitled [pp. 293-294]Review: untitled [pp. 294-295]Review: untitled [pp. 295-297]Review: untitled [pp. 297-298]Review: untitled [pp. 298-299]Review: untitled [pp. 299-301]Review: untitled [pp. 301-303]Review: untitled [pp. 303-310]Review: untitled [pp. 310-312]Review: untitled [pp. 312-314]Review: untitled [pp. 314-315]Review: untitled [pp. 316-317]Review: untitled [pp. 317-325]Review: untitled [pp. 326-327]Review: untitled [pp. 328-329]Review: untitled [pp. 329-331]Review: untitled [pp. 331-332]Review: untitled [pp. 332-333]Review: untitled [pp. 333-334]Review: untitled [pp. 334-338]Review: untitled [pp. 338-338]Review: untitled [pp. 339-340]Review: untitled [pp. 340-344]Review: untitled [pp. 344-346]Review: untitled [pp. 347-348]Review: untitled [pp. 348-350]Review: untitled [pp. 350-353]

SHORT NOTICESReview: untitled [pp. 354-354]Review: untitled [pp. 354-355]Review: untitled [pp. 355-355]Review: untitled [pp. 355-356]Review: untitled [pp. 356-356]Review: untitled [pp. 356-356]Review: untitled [pp. 357-357]Review: untitled [pp. 357-357]Review: untitled [pp. 358-358]Review: untitled [pp. 358-359]Review: untitled [pp. 359-359]Review: untitled [pp. 360-360]Review: untitled [pp. 360-361]Review: untitled [pp. 361-361]Review: untitled [pp. 361-362]Review: untitled [pp. 362-362]Review: untitled [pp. 362-363]Review: untitled [pp. 363-363]Review: untitled [pp. 363-364]Review: untitled [pp. 364-364]Review: untitled [pp. 364-364]Review: untitled [pp. 365-365]Review: untitled [pp. 365-365]Review: untitled [pp. 365-366]Review: untitled [pp. 366-366]Review: untitled [pp. 366-367]Review: untitled [pp. 367-367]Review: untitled [pp. 367-368]Review: untitled [pp. 368-368]Review: untitled [pp. 368-368]Review: untitled [pp. 369-369]Review: untitled [pp. 369-369]Review: untitled [pp. 369-370]Review: untitled [pp. 370-370]

BOOKS RECEIVED [pp. 371-379]Back Matter

Documents

Peter Damian on the Restoration of Virginity: A Problem for Medieval Theology (Irven M. Resnick, 1988)