"
Lastly, some understand the passage of Jerome to refer to the throwing
of stones by ill-fame.
Lastly, some understand the passage of Jerome to refer to the throwing
of stones by ill-fame.
Summa Theologica
2:12): "After this He went
down to Capharnaum, He"---that is, Christ---"and His Mother and His
brethren. " But brethren are those who are begotten of the same parent.
Therefore it seems that the Blessed Virgin had other sons after Christ.
Objection 6: Further, it is written (Mat. 27:55,56): "There were
there"---that is, by the cross of Christ---"many women afar off, who
had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto Him; among whom was
Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother
of the sons of Zebedee. " Now this Mary who is called "the mother of
James and Joseph" seems to have been also the Mother of Christ; for it
is written (Jn. 19:25) that "there stood by the cross of Jesus, Mary
His Mother. " Therefore it seems that Christ's Mother did not remain a
virgin after His Birth.
On the contrary, It is written (Ezech. 44:2): "This gate shall be shut,
it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it; because the
Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it. " Expounding these words,
Augustine says in a sermon (De Annunt. Dom. iii): "What means this
closed gate in the House of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever
inviolate? What does it mean that 'no man shall pass through it,' save
that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this---'The Lord alone
enters in and goeth out by it'---except that the Holy Ghost shall
impregnate her, and that the Lord of angels shall be born of her? And
what means this---'it shall be shut for evermore'---but that Mary is a
virgin before His Birth, a virgin in His Birth, and a virgin after His
Birth? "
I answer that, Without any hesitation we must abhor the error of
Helvidius, who dared to assert that Christ's Mother, after His Birth,
was carnally known by Joseph, and bore other children. For, in the
first place, this is derogatory to Christ's perfection: for as He is in
His Godhead the Only-Begotten of the Father, being thus His Son in
every respect perfect, so it was becoming that He should be the
Only-begotten son of His Mother, as being her perfect offspring.
Secondly, this error is an insult to the Holy Ghost, whose "shrine" was
the virginal womb [*"Sacrarium Spiritus Sancti" (Office of B. M. V. ,
Ant. ad Benedictus, T. P. )], wherein He had formed the flesh of Christ:
wherefore it was unbecoming that it should be desecrated by intercourse
with man.
Thirdly, this is derogatory to the dignity and holiness of God's
Mother: for thus she would seem to be most ungrateful, were she not
content with such a Son; and were she, of her own accord, by carnal
intercourse to forfeit that virginity which had been miraculously
preserved in her.
Fourthly, it would be tantamount to an imputation of extreme
presumption in Joseph, to assume that he attempted to violate her whom
by the angel's revelation he knew to have conceived by the Holy Ghost.
We must therefore simply assert that the Mother of God, as she was a
virgin in conceiving Him and a virgin in giving Him birth, did she
remain a virgin ever afterwards.
Reply to Objection 1: As Jerome says (Contra Helvid. i): "Although this
particle 'before' often indicates a subsequent event, yet we must
observe that it not infrequently points merely to some thing previously
in the mind: nor is there need that what was in the mind take place
eventually, since something may occur to prevent its happening. Thus if
a man say: 'Before I dined in the port, I set sail,' we do not
understand him to have dined in port after he set sail: but that his
mind was set on dining in port. " In like manner the evangelist says:
"Before they came together" Mary "was found with child, of the Holy
Ghost," not that they came together afterwards: but that, when it
seemed that they would come together, this was forestalled through her
conceiving by the Holy Ghost, the result being that afterwards they did
not come together.
Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): "The
Mother of God is called (Joseph's) wife from the first promise of her
espousals, whom he had not known nor ever was to know by carnal
intercourse. " For, as Ambrose says on Lk. 1:27: "The fact of her
marriage is declared, not to insinuate the loss of virginity, but to
witness to the reality of the union. "
Reply to Objection 3: Some have said that this is not to be understood
of carnal knowledge, but of acquaintance. Thus Chrysostom says [*Opus
Imperf. in Matth. , Hom. 1: among the spurious works ascribed to
Chrysostom] that "Joseph did not know her, until she gave birth, being
unaware of her dignity: but after she had given birth, then did he know
her. Because by reason of her child she surpassed the whole world in
beauty and dignity: since she alone in the narrow abode of her womb
received Him Whom the world cannot contain. "
Others again refer this to knowledge by sight. For as, while Moses was
speaking with God, his face was so bright "that the children of Israel
could not steadfastly behold it"; so Mary, while being "overshadowed"
by the brightness of the "power of the Most High," could not be gazed
on by Joseph, until she gave birth. But afterwards she is acknowledged
by Joseph, by looking on her face, not by lustful contact.
Jerome, however, grants that this is to be understood of knowledge by
intercourse; but he observes that "before" or "until" has a twofold
sense in Scripture. For sometimes it indicates a fixed time, as Gal.
3:19: The law "was set because of transgressions, until the seed should
come, to whom He made the promise. " On the other hand, it sometimes
indicates an indefinite time, as in Ps. 122:2: "Our eyes are unto the
Lord our God, until He have mercy on us"; from which it is not to be
gathered that our eyes are turned from God as soon as His mercy has
been obtained. In this sense those things are indicated "of which we
might doubt if they had not been written down: while others are left
out to be supplied by our understanding. Thus the evangelist says that
the Mother of God was not known by her husband until she gave birth,
that we may be given to understand that still less did he know her
afterwards" (Adversus Helvid. v).
Reply to Objection 4: The Scriptures are wont to designate as the
first-born, not only a child who is followed by others, but also the
one that is born first. "Otherwise, if a child were not first-born
unless followed by others, the first-fruits would not be due as long as
there was no further produce" [*Jerome, Adversus Helvid. x]: which is
clearly false, since according to the law the first-fruits had to be
redeemed within a month (Num. 18:16).
Reply to Objection 5: Some, as Jerome says on Mat. 12:49,50, "suppose
that the brethren of the Lord were Joseph's sons by another wife. But
we understand the brethren of the Lord to be not sons of Joseph, but
cousins of the Saviour, the sons of Mary, His Mother's sister. " For
"Scripture speaks of brethren in four senses; namely, those who are
united by being of the same parents, of the same nation, of the same
family, by common affection. " Wherefore the brethren of the Lord are so
called, not by birth, as being born of the same mother; but by
relationship, as being blood-relations of His. But Joseph, as Jerome
says (Contra Helvid. ix), is rather to be believed to have remained a
virgin, "since he is not said to have had another wife," and "a holy
man does not live otherwise than chastely. "
Reply to Objection 6: Mary who is called "the mother of James and
Joseph" is not to be taken for the Mother of our Lord, who is not wont
to be named in the Gospels save under this designation of her
dignity---"the Mother of Jesus. " This Mary is to be taken for the wife
of Alphaeus, whose son was James the less, known as the "brother of the
Lord" (Gal. 1:19).
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the Mother of God took a vow of virginity?
Objection 1: It would seem that the Mother of God did not take a vow of
virginity. For it is written (Dt. 7:14): "No one shall be barren among
you of either sex. " But sterility is a consequence of virginity.
Therefore the keeping of virginity was contrary to the commandment of
the Old Law. But before Christ was born the old law was still in force.
Therefore at that time the Blessed Virgin could not lawfully take a vow
of virginity.
Objection 2: Further, the Apostle says (1 Cor. 7:25): "Concerning
virgins I have no commandment of the Lord; but I give counsel. " But the
perfection of the counsels was to take its beginning from Christ, who
is the "end of the Law," as the Apostle says (Rom. 10:4). It was not
therefore becoming that the Virgin should take a vow of virginity.
Objection 3: Further, the gloss of Jerome says on 1 Tim. 5:12, that
"for those who are vowed to virginity, it is reprehensible not only to
marry, but also to desire to be married. " But the Mother of Christ
committed no sin for which she could be reprehended, as stated above
([4133]Q[27], A[4]). Since therefore she was "espoused," as related by
Lk. 1:27 it seems that she did not take a vow of virginity.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Sanct. Virg. iv): "Mary answered
the announcing angel: 'How shall this be done, because I know not man? '
She would not have said this unless she had already vowed her virginity
to God. "
I answer that, As we have stated in the [4134]SS, Q[88], A[6], works of
perfection are more praiseworthy when performed in fulfilment of a vow.
Now it is clear that for reasons already given ([4135]AA[1],2,3)
virginity had a special place in the Mother of God. It was therefore
fitting that her virginity should be consecrated to God by vow.
Nevertheless because, while the Law was in force both men and women
were bound to attend to the duty of begetting, since the worship of God
was spread according to carnal origin, until Christ was born of that
people; the Mother of God is not believed to have taken an absolute vow
of virginity, before being espoused to Joseph, although she desired to
do so, yet yielding her own will to God's judgment. Afterwards,
however, having taken a husband, according as the custom of the time
required, together with him she took a vow of virginity.
Reply to Objection 1: Because it seemed to be forbidden by the law not
to take the necessary steps for leaving a posterity on earth, therefore
the Mother of God did not vow virginity absolutely, but under the
condition that it were pleasing to God. When, however, she knew that it
was acceptable to God, she made the vow absolute, before the angel's
Annunciation.
Reply to Objection 2: Just as the fulness of grace was in Christ
perfectly, yet some beginning of the fulness preceded in His Mother; so
also the observance of the counsels, which is an effect of God's grace,
began its perfection in Christ, but was begun after a fashion in His
Virgin Mother.
Reply to Objection 3: These words of the Apostle are to be understood
of those who vow chastity absolutely. Christ's Mother did not do this
until she was espoused to Joseph. After her espousals, however, by
their common consent she took a vow of virginity together with her
spouse.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE ESPOUSALS OF THE MOTHER OF GOD (TWO ARTICLES)
We now consider the espousals of God's Mother: concerning which two
points arise for inquiry:
(1) Whether Christ should have been born of an espoused virgin?
(2) Whether there was true marriage between our Lord's Mother and
Joseph?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ should have been born of an espoused virgin?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ should not have been born of an
espoused virgin. For espousals are ordered to carnal intercourse. But
our Lord's Mother never wished to have carnal intercourse with her
husband; because this would be derogatory to the virginity of her mind.
Therefore she should not have been espoused.
Objection 2: Further, that Christ was born of a virgin was miraculous,
whence Augustine says (Ep. ad Volus. cxxxvii): "This same power of God
brought forth the infant's limbs out of the virginal womb of His
inviolate Mother, by which in the vigor of manhood He passed through
the closed doors. If we are told why this happened, it will cease to be
wonderful; if another instance be alleged, it will no longer be
unique. " But miracles that are wrought in confirmation of the Faith
should be manifest. Since, therefore, by her Espousals this miracle
would be less evident, it seems that it was unfitting that Christ
should be born of an espoused virgin.
Objection 3: Further, the martyr Ignatius, as Jerome says on Mat. 1:18,
gives as a reason of the espousals of the Mother of God, "that the
manner of His Birth might be hidden from the devil, who would think Him
to be begotten not of a virgin but of a wife. " But this seems to be no
reason at all. First, because by his natural cunning he knows whatever
takes place in bodies. Secondly, because later on the demons, through
many evident signs, knew Christ after a fashion: whence it is written
(Mk. 1:23,24): "A man with an unclean spirit . . . cried out, saying:
What have we to do with Thee, Jesus of Nazareth? Art Thou come to
destroy us? I know . . . Thou art the Holy one of God. " Therefore it
does not seem fitting that the Mother of God should have been espoused.
Objection 4: Further, Jerome gives as another reason, "lest the Mother
of God should be stoned by the Jews as an adulteress. " But this reason
seems to have no weight, for if she were not espoused, she could not be
condemned for adultery. Therefore it does not seem reasonable that
Christ should be born of an espoused virgin.
On the contrary, It is written (Mat. 1:18): "When as His Mother Mary
was espoused to Joseph": and (Lk. 1:26,27): "The angel Gabriel was sent
. . . to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph. "
I answer that, It was fitting that Christ should be born of an espoused
virgin; first, for His own sake; secondly, for His Mother's sake;
thirdly, for our sake. For the sake of Christ Himself, for four
reasons. First, lest He should be rejected by unbelievers as
illegitimate: wherefore Ambrose says on Lk. 1:26,27: "How could we
blame Herod or the Jews if they seem to persecute one who was born of
adultery? "
Secondly, in order that in the customary way His genealogy might be
traced through the male line. Thus Ambrose says on Lk. 3:23: "He Who
came into the world, according to the custom of the world had to be
enrolled Now for this purpose, it is the men that are required, because
they represent the family in the senate and other courts. The custom of
the Scriptures, too, shows that the ancestry of the men is always
traced out. "
Thirdly, for the safety of the new-born Child: lest the devil should
plot serious hurt against Him. Hence Ignatius says that she was
espoused "that the manner of His Birth might be hidden from the devil. "
Fourthly, that He might be fostered by Joseph: who is therefore called
His "father," as bread-winner.
It was also fitting for the sake of the Virgin. First, because thus she
was rendered exempt from punishment; that is, "lest she should be
stoned by the Jews as an adulteress," as Jerome says.
Secondly, that thus she might be safeguarded from ill fame. Whence
Ambrose says on Lk. 1:26,27: "She was espoused lest she be wounded by
the ill-fame of violated virginity, in whom the pregnant womb would
betoken corruption. "
Thirdly, that, as Jerome says, Joseph might administer to her wants.
This was fitting, again, for our sake. First, because Joseph is thus a
witness to Christ's being born of a virgin. Wherefore Ambrose says:
"Her husband is the more trustworthy witness of her purity, in that he
would deplore the dishonor, and avenge the disgrace, were it not that
he acknowledged the mystery. "
Secondly, because thereby the very words of the Virgin are rendered
more credible by which she asserted her virginity. Thus Ambrose says:
"Belief in Mary's words is strengthened, the motive for a lie is
removed. If she had not been espoused when pregnant, she would seem to
have wished to hide her sin by a lie: being espoused, she had no motive
for lying, since a woman's pregnancy is the reward of marriage and
gives grace to the nuptial bond. " These two reasons add strength to our
faith.
Thirdly, that all excuse be removed from those virgins who, through
want of caution, fall into dishonor. Hence Ambrose says: "It was not
becoming that virgins should expose themselves to evil report, and
cover themselves with the excuse that the Mother of the Lord had also
been oppressed by ill-fame. "
Fourthly, because by this the universal Church is typified, which is a
virgin and yet is espoused to one Man, Christ, as Augustine says (De
Sanct. Virg. xii).
A fifth reason may be added: since the Mother of the Lord being both
espoused and a virgin, both virginity and wedlock are honored in her
person, in contradiction to those heretics who disparaged one or the
other.
Reply to Objection 1: We must believe that the Blessed Virgin, Mother
of God, desired, from an intimate inspiration of the Holy Ghost, to be
espoused, being confident that by the help of God she would never come
to have carnal intercourse: yet she left this to God's discretion.
Wherefore she suffered nothing in detriment to her virginity.
Reply to Objection 2: As Ambrose says on Lk. 1:26: "Our Lord preferred
that men should doubt of His origin rather than of His Mother's purity.
For he knew the delicacy of virgin modesty, and how easily the fair
name of chastity is disparaged: nor did He choose that our faith in His
Birth should be strengthened in detriment to His Mother. " We must
observe, however, that some miracles wrought by God are the direct
object of faith; such are the miracles of the virginal Birth, the
Resurrection of our Lord, and the Sacrament of the Altar. Wherefore our
Lord wished these to be more hidden, that belief in them might have
greater merit. Whereas other miracles are for the strengthening of
faith: and these it behooves to be manifest.
Reply to Objection 3: As Augustine says (De Trin. iii), the devil can
do many things by his natural power which he is hindered by the Divine
power from doing. Thus it may be that by his natural power the devil
could know that the Mother of God knew not man, but was a virgin; yet
was prevented by God from knowing the manner of the Divine Birth. That
afterwards the devil after a fashion knew that He was the Son of God,
makes no difficulty: because then the time had already come for Christ
to make known His power against the devil, and to suffer persecution
aroused by him. But during His infancy it behooved the malice of the
devil to be withheld, lest he should persecute Him too severely: for
Christ did not wish to suffer such things then, nor to make His power
known, but to show Himself to be in all things like other infants.
Hence Pope Leo (Serm. in Epiph. iv) says that "the Magi found the Child
Jesus small in body, dependent on others, unable to speak, and in no
way differing from the generality of human infants. " Ambrose, however,
expounding Lk. 1:26, seems to understand this of the devil's members.
For, after giving the above reason---namely, that the prince of the
world might be deceived---he continues thus: "Yet still more did He
deceive the princes of the world, since the evil disposition of the
demons easily discovers even hidden things: but those who spend their
lives in worldly vanities can have no acquaintance of Divine things. "
Reply to Objection 4: The sentence of adulteresses according to the Law
was that they should be stoned, not only if they were already espoused
or married, but also if their maidenhood were still under the
protection of the paternal roof, until the day when they enter the
married state. Thus it is written (Dt. 22:20,21): "If . . . virginity
be not found in the damsel . . . the men of the city shall stone her to
death, and she shall die; because she hath done a wicked thing in
Israel, to play the whore in her father's house. "
It may also be said, according to some writers, that the Blessed Virgin
was of the family or kindred of Aaron, so that she was related to
Elizabeth, as we are told (Lk. 1:36). Now a virgin of the priestly
tribe was condemned to death for whoredom; for we read (Lev. 21:9): "If
the daughter of a priest be taken in whoredom, and dishonor the name of
her father, she shall be burnt with fire.
"
Lastly, some understand the passage of Jerome to refer to the throwing
of stones by ill-fame.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether there was a true marriage between Mary and Joseph?
Objection 1: It would seem that there was no true marriage between Mary
and Joseph. For Jerome says against Helvidius that Joseph "was Mary's
guardian rather than her husband. " But if this was a true marriage,
Joseph was truly her husband. Therefore there was no true marriage
between Mary and Joseph.
Objection 2: Further, on Mat. 1:16: "Jacob begot Joseph the husband of
Mary," Jerome says: "When thou readest 'husband' suspect not a
marriage; but remember that Scripture is wont to speak of those who are
betrothed as husband and wife. " But a true marriage is not effected by
the betrothal, but by the wedding. Therefore, there was no true
marriage between the Blessed Virgin and Joseph.
Objection 3: Further, it is written (Mat. 1:19): "Joseph, her husband,
being a just man, and not willing to take her away [*Douay: 'publicly
to expose her'], i. e. to take her to his home in order to cohabit with
her, was minded to put her away privately, i. e. to postpone the
wedding," as Remigius [*Cf. Catena Aurea in Matth. ] expounds.
Therefore, it seems that, as the wedding was not yet solemnized, there
was no true marriage: especially since, after the marriage contract, no
one can lawfully put his wife away.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. ii): "It cannot be
allowed that the evangelist thought that Joseph ought to sever his
union with Mary" (since he said that Joseph was Mary's husband) "on the
ground that in giving birth to Christ, she had not conceived of him,
but remained a virgin. For by this example the faithful are taught that
if after marriage they remain continent by mutual consent, their union
is still and is rightly called marriage, even without intercourse of
the sexes. "
I answer that, Marriage or wedlock is said to be true by reason of its
attaining its perfection. Now perfection of anything is twofold; first,
and second. The first perfection of a thing consists in its very form,
from which it receives its species; while the second perfection of a
thing consists in its operation, by which in some way a thing attains
its end. Now the form of matrimony consists in a certain inseparable
union of souls, by which husband and wife are pledged by a bond of
mutual affection that cannot be sundered. And the end of matrimony is
the begetting and upbringing of children: the first of which is
attained by conjugal intercourse; the second by the other duties of
husband and wife, by which they help one another in rearing their
offspring.
Thus we may say, as to the first perfection, that the marriage of the
Virgin Mother of God and Joseph was absolutely true: because both
consented to the nuptial bond, but not expressly to the bond of the
flesh, save on the condition that it was pleasing to God. For this
reason the angel calls Mary the wife of Joseph, saying to him (Mat.
1:20): "Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife": on which words
Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): "She is called his wife from the
first promise of her espousals, whom he had not known nor ever was to
know by carnal intercourse. "
But as to the second perfection which is attained by the marriage act,
if this be referred to carnal intercourse, by which children are
begotten; thus this marriage was not consummated. Wherefore Ambrose
says on Lk. 1:26,27: "Be not surprised that Scripture calls Mary a
wife. The fact of her marriage is declared, not to insinuate the loss
of virginity, but to witness to the reality of the union. "
Nevertheless, this marriage had the second perfection, as to upbringing
of the child. Thus Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): "All the
nuptial blessings are fulfilled in the marriage of Christ's parents,
offspring, faith and sacrament. The offspring we know to have been the
Lord Jesus; faith, for there was no adultery: sacrament, since there
was no divorce. Carnal intercourse alone there was none. "
Reply to Objection 1: Jerome uses the term "husband" in reference to
marriage consummated.
Reply to Objection 2: By marriage Jerome means the nuptial intercourse.
Reply to Objection 3: As Chrysostom says (Hom. i super Matth. [*Opus
Imperfectum among the supposititious works ascribed to St. Chrysostom])
the Blessed Virgin was so espoused to Joseph that she dwelt in his
home: "for just as she who conceives in her husband's house is
understood to have conceived of him, so she who conceives elsewhere is
suspect. " Consequently sufficient precaution would not have been taken
to safeguard the fair fame of the Blessed Virgin, if she had not the
entry of her husband's house. Wherefore the words, "not willing to take
her away" are better rendered as meaning, "not willing publicly to
expose her," than understood of taking her to his house. Hence the
evangelist adds that "he was minded to put her away privately. " But
although she had the entry of Joseph's house by reason of her first
promise of espousals, yet the time had not yet come for the solemnizing
of the wedding; for which reason they had not yet consummated the
marriage. Therefore, as Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in Matth. ): "The
evangelist does not say, 'before she was taken to the house of her
husband,' because she was already in the house. For it was the custom
among the ancients for espoused maidens to enter frequently the houses
of them to whom they were betrothed. " Therefore the angel also said to
Joseph: "Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife"; that is: "Fear not
to solemnize your marriage with her. " Others, however, say that she was
not yet admitted to his house, but only betrothed to him. But the first
is more in keeping with the Gospel narrative.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE ANNUNCIATION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN (FOUR ARTICLES)
We now have to consider the Blessed Virgin's Annunciation, concerning
which there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it was befitting that announcement should be made to her of
that which was to be begotten of her?
(2) By whom should this announcement be made?
(3) In what manner should this announcement be made?
(4) Of the order observed in the Annunciation.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it was necessary to announce to the Blessed Virgin that which was to
be done in her?
Objection 1: It would seem that it was unnecessary to announce to the
Blessed Virgin that which was to be done in her. For there seems to
have been no need of the Annunciation except for the purpose of
receiving the Virgin's consent. But her consent seems to have been
unnecessary: because the Virginal Conception was foretold by a prophecy
of "predestination," which is "fulfilled without our consent," as a
gloss says on Mat. 1:22. There was no need, therefore, for this
Annunciation.
Objection 2: Further, the Blessed Virgin believed in the Incarnation,
for to disbelieve therein excludes man from the way of salvation;
because, as the Apostle says (Rom. 3:22): "The justice of God (is) by
faith of Jesus Christ. " But one needs no further instruction concerning
what one believes without doubt. Therefore the Blessed Virgin had no
need for the Incarnation of her Son to be announced to her.
Objection 3: Further, just as the Blessed Virgin conceived Christ in
her body, so every pious soul conceives Him spiritually. Thus the
Apostle says (Gal. 4:19): "My little children, of whom I am in labor
again, until Christ be formed in you. " But to those who conceive Him
spiritually no announcement is made of this conception. Therefore
neither should it have been announced to the Blessed Virgin that she
was to conceive the Son of God in her womb.
On the contrary, It is related (Lk. 1:31) that the angel said to her:
"Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son. "
I answer that, It was reasonable that it should be announced to the
Blessed Virgin that she was to conceive Christ. First, in order to
maintain a becoming order in the union of the Son of God with the
Virgin---namely, that she should be informed in mind concerning Him,
before conceiving Him in the flesh. Thus Augustine says (De Sancta
Virgin. iii): "Mary is more blessed in receiving the faith of Christ,
than in conceiving the flesh of Christ"; and further on he adds: "Her
nearness as a Mother would have been of no profit to Mary, had she not
borne Christ in her heart after a more blessed manner than in her
flesh. "
Secondly, that she might be a more certain witness of this mystery,
being instructed therein by God.
Thirdly, that she might offer to God the free gift of her obedience:
which she proved herself right ready to do, saying: "Behold the
handmaid of the Lord. "
Fourthly, in order to show that there is a certain spiritual wedlock
between the Son of God and human nature. Wherefore in the Annunciation
the Virgin's consent was besought in lieu of that of the entire human
nature.
Reply to Objection 1: The prophecy of predestination is fulfilled
without the causality of our will; not without its consent.
Reply to Objection 2: The Blessed Virgin did indeed believe explicitly
in the future Incarnation; but, being humble, she did not think such
high things of herself. Consequently she required instruction in this
matter.
Reply to Objection 3: The spiritual conception of Christ through faith
is preceded by the preaching of the faith, for as much as "faith is by
hearing" (Rom. 10:17). Yet man does not know for certain thereby that
he has grace; but he does know that the faith, which he has received,
is true.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the annunciation should have been made by an angel to the Blessed
Virgin?
Objection 1: It would seem that the Annunciation should not have been
made by an angel to our Blessed Lady. For revelations to the highest
angels are made immediately by God, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier.
vii). But the Mother of God is exalted above all the angels. Therefore
it seems that the mystery of the Incarnation should have been announced
to her by God immediately, and not by an angel.
Objection 2: Further, if in this matter it behooved the common order to
be observed, by which Divine things are announced to men by angels; in
like manner Divine things are announced to a woman by a man: wherefore
the Apostle says (1 Cor. 14:34,35): "Let women keep silence in the
churches . . . but if they would learn anything, let them ask their
husbands at home. " Therefore it seems that the mystery of the
Incarnation should have been announced to the Blessed Virgin by some
man: especially seeing that Joseph, her husband, was instructed
thereupon by an angel, as is related (Mat. 1:20,21)
Objection 3: Further, none can becomingly announce what he knows not.
But the highest angels did not fully know the mystery of the
Incarnation: wherefore Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. vii) that the
question, "Who is this that cometh from Edom? " (Is. 63:1) is to be
understood as made by them. Therefore it seems that the announcement of
the Incarnation could not be made becomingly by any angel.
Objection 4: Further, greater things should be announced by messengers
of greater dignity. But the mystery of the Incarnation is the greatest
of all things announced by angels to men. It seems, therefore, if it
behooved to be announced by an angel at all, that this should have been
done by an angel of the highest order. But Gabriel is not of the
highest order, but of the order of archangels, which is the last but
one: wherefore the Church sings: "We know that the archangel Gabriel
brought thee a message from God" [*Feast of Purification B. V. M. ix
Resp. Brev. O. P. ]. Therefore this announcement was not becomingly made
by the archangel Gabriel.
On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 1:26): "The angel Gabriel was sent
by God," etc.
I answer that, It was fitting for the mystery of the Incarnation to be
announced to the Mother of God by an angel, for three reasons. First,
that in this also might be maintained the order established by God, by
which Divine things are brought to men by means of the angels.
Wherefore Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv) that "the angels were the
first to be taught the Divine mystery of the loving kindness of Jesus:
afterwards the grace of knowledge was imparted to us through them.
Thus, then, the most god-like Gabriel made known to Zachary that a
prophet son would be born to him; and, to Mary, how the Divine mystery
of the ineffable conception of God would be realized in her. "
Secondly, this was becoming to the restoration of human nature which
was to be effected by Christ. Wherefore Bede says in a homily (in
Annunt. ): "It was an apt beginning of man's restoration that an angel
should be sent by God to the Virgin who was to be hallowed by the
Divine Birth: since the first cause of man's ruin was through the
serpent being sent by the devil to cajole the woman by the spirit of
pride. "
Thirdly, because this was becoming to the virginity of the Mother of
God. Wherefore Jerome says in a sermon on the Assumption [*Ascribed to
St. Jerome but not his work]: "It is well that an angel be sent to the
Virgin; because virginity is ever akin to the angelic nature. Surely to
live in the flesh and not according to the flesh is not an earthly but
a heavenly life. "
Reply to Objection 1: The Mother of God was above the angels as regards
the dignity to which she was chosen by God. But as regards the present
state of life, she was beneath the angels. For even Christ Himself, by
reason of His passible life, "was made a little lower than the angels,"
according to Heb. 2:9. But because Christ was both wayfarer and
comprehensor, He did not need to be instructed by angels, as regards
knowledge of Divine things. The Mother of God, however, was not yet in
the state of comprehension: and therefore she had to be instructed by
angels concerning the Divine Conception.
Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine says in a sermon on the Assumption
(De Assump. B. V. M. [*Work of another author: among the works of St.
Augustine]) a true estimation of the Blessed Virgin excludes her from
certain general rules. For "neither did she 'multiply her conceptions'
nor was she 'under man's, i. e. her husband's,' power (Gn. 3:16), who in
her spotless womb conceived Christ of the Holy Ghost. " Therefore it was
fitting that she should be informed of the mystery of the Incarnation
by means not of a man, but of an angel. For this reason it was made
known to her before Joseph: since the message was brought to her before
she conceived, but to Joseph after she had conceived.
Reply to Objection 3: As may be gathered from the passage quoted from
Dionysius, the angels were acquainted with the mystery of the
Incarnation: and yet they put this question, being desirous that Christ
should give them more perfect knowledge of the details of this mystery,
which are incomprehensible to any created intellect. Thus Maximus
[*Maximus of Constantinople] says that "there can be no question that
the angels knew that the Incarnation was to take place. But it was not
given to them to trace the manner of our Lord's conception, nor how it
was that He remained whole in the Father, whole throughout the
universe, and was whole in the narrow abode of the Virgin. "
Reply to Objection 4: Some say that Gabriel was of the highest order;
because Gregory says (Hom. de Centum Ovibus [*34 in Evang. ]): "It was
right that one of the highest angels should come, since his message was
most sublime. " But this does nat imply that he was of the highest order
of all, but in regard to the angels: since he was an archangel. Thus
the Church calls him an archangel, and Gregory himself in a homily (De
Centum Ovibus 34) says that "those are called archangels who announce
sublime things. " It is therefore sufficiently credible that he was the
highest of the archangels. And, as Gregory says (De Centum Ovibus 34),
this name agrees with his office: for "Gabriel means 'Power of God. '
This message therefore was fittingly brought by the 'Power of God,'
because the Lord of hosts and mighty in battle was coming to overcome
the powers of the air. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the angel of annunciation should have appeared to the Virgin in a
bodily vision?
Objection 1: It would seem that the angel of the Annunciation should
not have appeared to the Virgin in a bodily vision. For "intellectual
vision is more excellent than bodily vision," as Augustine says (Gen.
ad lit. xii), and especially more becoming to an angel: since by
intellectual vision an angel is seen in his substance; whereas in a
bodily vision he is seen in the bodily shape which he assumes. Now
since it behooved a sublime messenger to come to announce the Divine
Conception, so, seemingly, he should have appeared in the most
excellent kind of vision. Therefore it seems that the angel of the
Annunciation appeared to the Virgin in an intellectual vision.
Objection 2: Further, imaginary vision also seems to excel bodily
vision: just as the imagination is a higher power than the senses. But
"the angel . . . appeared to Joseph in his sleep" (Mat. 1:20), which
was clearly an imaginary vision. Therefore it seems that he should have
appeared to the Blessed Virgin also in an imaginary vision.
Objection 3: Further, the bodily vision of a spiritual substance
stupefies the beholder; thus we sing of the Virgin herself: "And the
Virgin seeing the light was filled with fear" [*Feast of Annunciation,
B. V. M. ii Resp. Brev. O. P. ]. But it was better that her mind should be
preserved from being thus troubled. Therefore it was not fitting that
this announcement should be made in a bodily vision.
On the contrary, Augustine in a sermon (De Annunt. iii) pictures the
Blessed Virgin as speaking thus: "To me came the archangel Gabriel with
glowing countenance, gleaming robe, and wondrous step. " But these
cannot pertain to other than bodily vision. Therefore the angel of the
Annunciation appeared in a bodily vision to the Blessed Virgin.
I answer that, The angel of the Annunciation appeared in a bodily
vision to the Blessed Virgin. And this indeed was fitting, first in
regard to that which was announced. For the angel came to announce the
Incarnation of the invisible God.
down to Capharnaum, He"---that is, Christ---"and His Mother and His
brethren. " But brethren are those who are begotten of the same parent.
Therefore it seems that the Blessed Virgin had other sons after Christ.
Objection 6: Further, it is written (Mat. 27:55,56): "There were
there"---that is, by the cross of Christ---"many women afar off, who
had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto Him; among whom was
Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother
of the sons of Zebedee. " Now this Mary who is called "the mother of
James and Joseph" seems to have been also the Mother of Christ; for it
is written (Jn. 19:25) that "there stood by the cross of Jesus, Mary
His Mother. " Therefore it seems that Christ's Mother did not remain a
virgin after His Birth.
On the contrary, It is written (Ezech. 44:2): "This gate shall be shut,
it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it; because the
Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it. " Expounding these words,
Augustine says in a sermon (De Annunt. Dom. iii): "What means this
closed gate in the House of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever
inviolate? What does it mean that 'no man shall pass through it,' save
that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this---'The Lord alone
enters in and goeth out by it'---except that the Holy Ghost shall
impregnate her, and that the Lord of angels shall be born of her? And
what means this---'it shall be shut for evermore'---but that Mary is a
virgin before His Birth, a virgin in His Birth, and a virgin after His
Birth? "
I answer that, Without any hesitation we must abhor the error of
Helvidius, who dared to assert that Christ's Mother, after His Birth,
was carnally known by Joseph, and bore other children. For, in the
first place, this is derogatory to Christ's perfection: for as He is in
His Godhead the Only-Begotten of the Father, being thus His Son in
every respect perfect, so it was becoming that He should be the
Only-begotten son of His Mother, as being her perfect offspring.
Secondly, this error is an insult to the Holy Ghost, whose "shrine" was
the virginal womb [*"Sacrarium Spiritus Sancti" (Office of B. M. V. ,
Ant. ad Benedictus, T. P. )], wherein He had formed the flesh of Christ:
wherefore it was unbecoming that it should be desecrated by intercourse
with man.
Thirdly, this is derogatory to the dignity and holiness of God's
Mother: for thus she would seem to be most ungrateful, were she not
content with such a Son; and were she, of her own accord, by carnal
intercourse to forfeit that virginity which had been miraculously
preserved in her.
Fourthly, it would be tantamount to an imputation of extreme
presumption in Joseph, to assume that he attempted to violate her whom
by the angel's revelation he knew to have conceived by the Holy Ghost.
We must therefore simply assert that the Mother of God, as she was a
virgin in conceiving Him and a virgin in giving Him birth, did she
remain a virgin ever afterwards.
Reply to Objection 1: As Jerome says (Contra Helvid. i): "Although this
particle 'before' often indicates a subsequent event, yet we must
observe that it not infrequently points merely to some thing previously
in the mind: nor is there need that what was in the mind take place
eventually, since something may occur to prevent its happening. Thus if
a man say: 'Before I dined in the port, I set sail,' we do not
understand him to have dined in port after he set sail: but that his
mind was set on dining in port. " In like manner the evangelist says:
"Before they came together" Mary "was found with child, of the Holy
Ghost," not that they came together afterwards: but that, when it
seemed that they would come together, this was forestalled through her
conceiving by the Holy Ghost, the result being that afterwards they did
not come together.
Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): "The
Mother of God is called (Joseph's) wife from the first promise of her
espousals, whom he had not known nor ever was to know by carnal
intercourse. " For, as Ambrose says on Lk. 1:27: "The fact of her
marriage is declared, not to insinuate the loss of virginity, but to
witness to the reality of the union. "
Reply to Objection 3: Some have said that this is not to be understood
of carnal knowledge, but of acquaintance. Thus Chrysostom says [*Opus
Imperf. in Matth. , Hom. 1: among the spurious works ascribed to
Chrysostom] that "Joseph did not know her, until she gave birth, being
unaware of her dignity: but after she had given birth, then did he know
her. Because by reason of her child she surpassed the whole world in
beauty and dignity: since she alone in the narrow abode of her womb
received Him Whom the world cannot contain. "
Others again refer this to knowledge by sight. For as, while Moses was
speaking with God, his face was so bright "that the children of Israel
could not steadfastly behold it"; so Mary, while being "overshadowed"
by the brightness of the "power of the Most High," could not be gazed
on by Joseph, until she gave birth. But afterwards she is acknowledged
by Joseph, by looking on her face, not by lustful contact.
Jerome, however, grants that this is to be understood of knowledge by
intercourse; but he observes that "before" or "until" has a twofold
sense in Scripture. For sometimes it indicates a fixed time, as Gal.
3:19: The law "was set because of transgressions, until the seed should
come, to whom He made the promise. " On the other hand, it sometimes
indicates an indefinite time, as in Ps. 122:2: "Our eyes are unto the
Lord our God, until He have mercy on us"; from which it is not to be
gathered that our eyes are turned from God as soon as His mercy has
been obtained. In this sense those things are indicated "of which we
might doubt if they had not been written down: while others are left
out to be supplied by our understanding. Thus the evangelist says that
the Mother of God was not known by her husband until she gave birth,
that we may be given to understand that still less did he know her
afterwards" (Adversus Helvid. v).
Reply to Objection 4: The Scriptures are wont to designate as the
first-born, not only a child who is followed by others, but also the
one that is born first. "Otherwise, if a child were not first-born
unless followed by others, the first-fruits would not be due as long as
there was no further produce" [*Jerome, Adversus Helvid. x]: which is
clearly false, since according to the law the first-fruits had to be
redeemed within a month (Num. 18:16).
Reply to Objection 5: Some, as Jerome says on Mat. 12:49,50, "suppose
that the brethren of the Lord were Joseph's sons by another wife. But
we understand the brethren of the Lord to be not sons of Joseph, but
cousins of the Saviour, the sons of Mary, His Mother's sister. " For
"Scripture speaks of brethren in four senses; namely, those who are
united by being of the same parents, of the same nation, of the same
family, by common affection. " Wherefore the brethren of the Lord are so
called, not by birth, as being born of the same mother; but by
relationship, as being blood-relations of His. But Joseph, as Jerome
says (Contra Helvid. ix), is rather to be believed to have remained a
virgin, "since he is not said to have had another wife," and "a holy
man does not live otherwise than chastely. "
Reply to Objection 6: Mary who is called "the mother of James and
Joseph" is not to be taken for the Mother of our Lord, who is not wont
to be named in the Gospels save under this designation of her
dignity---"the Mother of Jesus. " This Mary is to be taken for the wife
of Alphaeus, whose son was James the less, known as the "brother of the
Lord" (Gal. 1:19).
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the Mother of God took a vow of virginity?
Objection 1: It would seem that the Mother of God did not take a vow of
virginity. For it is written (Dt. 7:14): "No one shall be barren among
you of either sex. " But sterility is a consequence of virginity.
Therefore the keeping of virginity was contrary to the commandment of
the Old Law. But before Christ was born the old law was still in force.
Therefore at that time the Blessed Virgin could not lawfully take a vow
of virginity.
Objection 2: Further, the Apostle says (1 Cor. 7:25): "Concerning
virgins I have no commandment of the Lord; but I give counsel. " But the
perfection of the counsels was to take its beginning from Christ, who
is the "end of the Law," as the Apostle says (Rom. 10:4). It was not
therefore becoming that the Virgin should take a vow of virginity.
Objection 3: Further, the gloss of Jerome says on 1 Tim. 5:12, that
"for those who are vowed to virginity, it is reprehensible not only to
marry, but also to desire to be married. " But the Mother of Christ
committed no sin for which she could be reprehended, as stated above
([4133]Q[27], A[4]). Since therefore she was "espoused," as related by
Lk. 1:27 it seems that she did not take a vow of virginity.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Sanct. Virg. iv): "Mary answered
the announcing angel: 'How shall this be done, because I know not man? '
She would not have said this unless she had already vowed her virginity
to God. "
I answer that, As we have stated in the [4134]SS, Q[88], A[6], works of
perfection are more praiseworthy when performed in fulfilment of a vow.
Now it is clear that for reasons already given ([4135]AA[1],2,3)
virginity had a special place in the Mother of God. It was therefore
fitting that her virginity should be consecrated to God by vow.
Nevertheless because, while the Law was in force both men and women
were bound to attend to the duty of begetting, since the worship of God
was spread according to carnal origin, until Christ was born of that
people; the Mother of God is not believed to have taken an absolute vow
of virginity, before being espoused to Joseph, although she desired to
do so, yet yielding her own will to God's judgment. Afterwards,
however, having taken a husband, according as the custom of the time
required, together with him she took a vow of virginity.
Reply to Objection 1: Because it seemed to be forbidden by the law not
to take the necessary steps for leaving a posterity on earth, therefore
the Mother of God did not vow virginity absolutely, but under the
condition that it were pleasing to God. When, however, she knew that it
was acceptable to God, she made the vow absolute, before the angel's
Annunciation.
Reply to Objection 2: Just as the fulness of grace was in Christ
perfectly, yet some beginning of the fulness preceded in His Mother; so
also the observance of the counsels, which is an effect of God's grace,
began its perfection in Christ, but was begun after a fashion in His
Virgin Mother.
Reply to Objection 3: These words of the Apostle are to be understood
of those who vow chastity absolutely. Christ's Mother did not do this
until she was espoused to Joseph. After her espousals, however, by
their common consent she took a vow of virginity together with her
spouse.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE ESPOUSALS OF THE MOTHER OF GOD (TWO ARTICLES)
We now consider the espousals of God's Mother: concerning which two
points arise for inquiry:
(1) Whether Christ should have been born of an espoused virgin?
(2) Whether there was true marriage between our Lord's Mother and
Joseph?
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Christ should have been born of an espoused virgin?
Objection 1: It would seem that Christ should not have been born of an
espoused virgin. For espousals are ordered to carnal intercourse. But
our Lord's Mother never wished to have carnal intercourse with her
husband; because this would be derogatory to the virginity of her mind.
Therefore she should not have been espoused.
Objection 2: Further, that Christ was born of a virgin was miraculous,
whence Augustine says (Ep. ad Volus. cxxxvii): "This same power of God
brought forth the infant's limbs out of the virginal womb of His
inviolate Mother, by which in the vigor of manhood He passed through
the closed doors. If we are told why this happened, it will cease to be
wonderful; if another instance be alleged, it will no longer be
unique. " But miracles that are wrought in confirmation of the Faith
should be manifest. Since, therefore, by her Espousals this miracle
would be less evident, it seems that it was unfitting that Christ
should be born of an espoused virgin.
Objection 3: Further, the martyr Ignatius, as Jerome says on Mat. 1:18,
gives as a reason of the espousals of the Mother of God, "that the
manner of His Birth might be hidden from the devil, who would think Him
to be begotten not of a virgin but of a wife. " But this seems to be no
reason at all. First, because by his natural cunning he knows whatever
takes place in bodies. Secondly, because later on the demons, through
many evident signs, knew Christ after a fashion: whence it is written
(Mk. 1:23,24): "A man with an unclean spirit . . . cried out, saying:
What have we to do with Thee, Jesus of Nazareth? Art Thou come to
destroy us? I know . . . Thou art the Holy one of God. " Therefore it
does not seem fitting that the Mother of God should have been espoused.
Objection 4: Further, Jerome gives as another reason, "lest the Mother
of God should be stoned by the Jews as an adulteress. " But this reason
seems to have no weight, for if she were not espoused, she could not be
condemned for adultery. Therefore it does not seem reasonable that
Christ should be born of an espoused virgin.
On the contrary, It is written (Mat. 1:18): "When as His Mother Mary
was espoused to Joseph": and (Lk. 1:26,27): "The angel Gabriel was sent
. . . to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph. "
I answer that, It was fitting that Christ should be born of an espoused
virgin; first, for His own sake; secondly, for His Mother's sake;
thirdly, for our sake. For the sake of Christ Himself, for four
reasons. First, lest He should be rejected by unbelievers as
illegitimate: wherefore Ambrose says on Lk. 1:26,27: "How could we
blame Herod or the Jews if they seem to persecute one who was born of
adultery? "
Secondly, in order that in the customary way His genealogy might be
traced through the male line. Thus Ambrose says on Lk. 3:23: "He Who
came into the world, according to the custom of the world had to be
enrolled Now for this purpose, it is the men that are required, because
they represent the family in the senate and other courts. The custom of
the Scriptures, too, shows that the ancestry of the men is always
traced out. "
Thirdly, for the safety of the new-born Child: lest the devil should
plot serious hurt against Him. Hence Ignatius says that she was
espoused "that the manner of His Birth might be hidden from the devil. "
Fourthly, that He might be fostered by Joseph: who is therefore called
His "father," as bread-winner.
It was also fitting for the sake of the Virgin. First, because thus she
was rendered exempt from punishment; that is, "lest she should be
stoned by the Jews as an adulteress," as Jerome says.
Secondly, that thus she might be safeguarded from ill fame. Whence
Ambrose says on Lk. 1:26,27: "She was espoused lest she be wounded by
the ill-fame of violated virginity, in whom the pregnant womb would
betoken corruption. "
Thirdly, that, as Jerome says, Joseph might administer to her wants.
This was fitting, again, for our sake. First, because Joseph is thus a
witness to Christ's being born of a virgin. Wherefore Ambrose says:
"Her husband is the more trustworthy witness of her purity, in that he
would deplore the dishonor, and avenge the disgrace, were it not that
he acknowledged the mystery. "
Secondly, because thereby the very words of the Virgin are rendered
more credible by which she asserted her virginity. Thus Ambrose says:
"Belief in Mary's words is strengthened, the motive for a lie is
removed. If she had not been espoused when pregnant, she would seem to
have wished to hide her sin by a lie: being espoused, she had no motive
for lying, since a woman's pregnancy is the reward of marriage and
gives grace to the nuptial bond. " These two reasons add strength to our
faith.
Thirdly, that all excuse be removed from those virgins who, through
want of caution, fall into dishonor. Hence Ambrose says: "It was not
becoming that virgins should expose themselves to evil report, and
cover themselves with the excuse that the Mother of the Lord had also
been oppressed by ill-fame. "
Fourthly, because by this the universal Church is typified, which is a
virgin and yet is espoused to one Man, Christ, as Augustine says (De
Sanct. Virg. xii).
A fifth reason may be added: since the Mother of the Lord being both
espoused and a virgin, both virginity and wedlock are honored in her
person, in contradiction to those heretics who disparaged one or the
other.
Reply to Objection 1: We must believe that the Blessed Virgin, Mother
of God, desired, from an intimate inspiration of the Holy Ghost, to be
espoused, being confident that by the help of God she would never come
to have carnal intercourse: yet she left this to God's discretion.
Wherefore she suffered nothing in detriment to her virginity.
Reply to Objection 2: As Ambrose says on Lk. 1:26: "Our Lord preferred
that men should doubt of His origin rather than of His Mother's purity.
For he knew the delicacy of virgin modesty, and how easily the fair
name of chastity is disparaged: nor did He choose that our faith in His
Birth should be strengthened in detriment to His Mother. " We must
observe, however, that some miracles wrought by God are the direct
object of faith; such are the miracles of the virginal Birth, the
Resurrection of our Lord, and the Sacrament of the Altar. Wherefore our
Lord wished these to be more hidden, that belief in them might have
greater merit. Whereas other miracles are for the strengthening of
faith: and these it behooves to be manifest.
Reply to Objection 3: As Augustine says (De Trin. iii), the devil can
do many things by his natural power which he is hindered by the Divine
power from doing. Thus it may be that by his natural power the devil
could know that the Mother of God knew not man, but was a virgin; yet
was prevented by God from knowing the manner of the Divine Birth. That
afterwards the devil after a fashion knew that He was the Son of God,
makes no difficulty: because then the time had already come for Christ
to make known His power against the devil, and to suffer persecution
aroused by him. But during His infancy it behooved the malice of the
devil to be withheld, lest he should persecute Him too severely: for
Christ did not wish to suffer such things then, nor to make His power
known, but to show Himself to be in all things like other infants.
Hence Pope Leo (Serm. in Epiph. iv) says that "the Magi found the Child
Jesus small in body, dependent on others, unable to speak, and in no
way differing from the generality of human infants. " Ambrose, however,
expounding Lk. 1:26, seems to understand this of the devil's members.
For, after giving the above reason---namely, that the prince of the
world might be deceived---he continues thus: "Yet still more did He
deceive the princes of the world, since the evil disposition of the
demons easily discovers even hidden things: but those who spend their
lives in worldly vanities can have no acquaintance of Divine things. "
Reply to Objection 4: The sentence of adulteresses according to the Law
was that they should be stoned, not only if they were already espoused
or married, but also if their maidenhood were still under the
protection of the paternal roof, until the day when they enter the
married state. Thus it is written (Dt. 22:20,21): "If . . . virginity
be not found in the damsel . . . the men of the city shall stone her to
death, and she shall die; because she hath done a wicked thing in
Israel, to play the whore in her father's house. "
It may also be said, according to some writers, that the Blessed Virgin
was of the family or kindred of Aaron, so that she was related to
Elizabeth, as we are told (Lk. 1:36). Now a virgin of the priestly
tribe was condemned to death for whoredom; for we read (Lev. 21:9): "If
the daughter of a priest be taken in whoredom, and dishonor the name of
her father, she shall be burnt with fire.
"
Lastly, some understand the passage of Jerome to refer to the throwing
of stones by ill-fame.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether there was a true marriage between Mary and Joseph?
Objection 1: It would seem that there was no true marriage between Mary
and Joseph. For Jerome says against Helvidius that Joseph "was Mary's
guardian rather than her husband. " But if this was a true marriage,
Joseph was truly her husband. Therefore there was no true marriage
between Mary and Joseph.
Objection 2: Further, on Mat. 1:16: "Jacob begot Joseph the husband of
Mary," Jerome says: "When thou readest 'husband' suspect not a
marriage; but remember that Scripture is wont to speak of those who are
betrothed as husband and wife. " But a true marriage is not effected by
the betrothal, but by the wedding. Therefore, there was no true
marriage between the Blessed Virgin and Joseph.
Objection 3: Further, it is written (Mat. 1:19): "Joseph, her husband,
being a just man, and not willing to take her away [*Douay: 'publicly
to expose her'], i. e. to take her to his home in order to cohabit with
her, was minded to put her away privately, i. e. to postpone the
wedding," as Remigius [*Cf. Catena Aurea in Matth. ] expounds.
Therefore, it seems that, as the wedding was not yet solemnized, there
was no true marriage: especially since, after the marriage contract, no
one can lawfully put his wife away.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. ii): "It cannot be
allowed that the evangelist thought that Joseph ought to sever his
union with Mary" (since he said that Joseph was Mary's husband) "on the
ground that in giving birth to Christ, she had not conceived of him,
but remained a virgin. For by this example the faithful are taught that
if after marriage they remain continent by mutual consent, their union
is still and is rightly called marriage, even without intercourse of
the sexes. "
I answer that, Marriage or wedlock is said to be true by reason of its
attaining its perfection. Now perfection of anything is twofold; first,
and second. The first perfection of a thing consists in its very form,
from which it receives its species; while the second perfection of a
thing consists in its operation, by which in some way a thing attains
its end. Now the form of matrimony consists in a certain inseparable
union of souls, by which husband and wife are pledged by a bond of
mutual affection that cannot be sundered. And the end of matrimony is
the begetting and upbringing of children: the first of which is
attained by conjugal intercourse; the second by the other duties of
husband and wife, by which they help one another in rearing their
offspring.
Thus we may say, as to the first perfection, that the marriage of the
Virgin Mother of God and Joseph was absolutely true: because both
consented to the nuptial bond, but not expressly to the bond of the
flesh, save on the condition that it was pleasing to God. For this
reason the angel calls Mary the wife of Joseph, saying to him (Mat.
1:20): "Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife": on which words
Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): "She is called his wife from the
first promise of her espousals, whom he had not known nor ever was to
know by carnal intercourse. "
But as to the second perfection which is attained by the marriage act,
if this be referred to carnal intercourse, by which children are
begotten; thus this marriage was not consummated. Wherefore Ambrose
says on Lk. 1:26,27: "Be not surprised that Scripture calls Mary a
wife. The fact of her marriage is declared, not to insinuate the loss
of virginity, but to witness to the reality of the union. "
Nevertheless, this marriage had the second perfection, as to upbringing
of the child. Thus Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): "All the
nuptial blessings are fulfilled in the marriage of Christ's parents,
offspring, faith and sacrament. The offspring we know to have been the
Lord Jesus; faith, for there was no adultery: sacrament, since there
was no divorce. Carnal intercourse alone there was none. "
Reply to Objection 1: Jerome uses the term "husband" in reference to
marriage consummated.
Reply to Objection 2: By marriage Jerome means the nuptial intercourse.
Reply to Objection 3: As Chrysostom says (Hom. i super Matth. [*Opus
Imperfectum among the supposititious works ascribed to St. Chrysostom])
the Blessed Virgin was so espoused to Joseph that she dwelt in his
home: "for just as she who conceives in her husband's house is
understood to have conceived of him, so she who conceives elsewhere is
suspect. " Consequently sufficient precaution would not have been taken
to safeguard the fair fame of the Blessed Virgin, if she had not the
entry of her husband's house. Wherefore the words, "not willing to take
her away" are better rendered as meaning, "not willing publicly to
expose her," than understood of taking her to his house. Hence the
evangelist adds that "he was minded to put her away privately. " But
although she had the entry of Joseph's house by reason of her first
promise of espousals, yet the time had not yet come for the solemnizing
of the wedding; for which reason they had not yet consummated the
marriage. Therefore, as Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in Matth. ): "The
evangelist does not say, 'before she was taken to the house of her
husband,' because she was already in the house. For it was the custom
among the ancients for espoused maidens to enter frequently the houses
of them to whom they were betrothed. " Therefore the angel also said to
Joseph: "Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife"; that is: "Fear not
to solemnize your marriage with her. " Others, however, say that she was
not yet admitted to his house, but only betrothed to him. But the first
is more in keeping with the Gospel narrative.
__________________________________________________________________
OF THE ANNUNCIATION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN (FOUR ARTICLES)
We now have to consider the Blessed Virgin's Annunciation, concerning
which there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it was befitting that announcement should be made to her of
that which was to be begotten of her?
(2) By whom should this announcement be made?
(3) In what manner should this announcement be made?
(4) Of the order observed in the Annunciation.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether it was necessary to announce to the Blessed Virgin that which was to
be done in her?
Objection 1: It would seem that it was unnecessary to announce to the
Blessed Virgin that which was to be done in her. For there seems to
have been no need of the Annunciation except for the purpose of
receiving the Virgin's consent. But her consent seems to have been
unnecessary: because the Virginal Conception was foretold by a prophecy
of "predestination," which is "fulfilled without our consent," as a
gloss says on Mat. 1:22. There was no need, therefore, for this
Annunciation.
Objection 2: Further, the Blessed Virgin believed in the Incarnation,
for to disbelieve therein excludes man from the way of salvation;
because, as the Apostle says (Rom. 3:22): "The justice of God (is) by
faith of Jesus Christ. " But one needs no further instruction concerning
what one believes without doubt. Therefore the Blessed Virgin had no
need for the Incarnation of her Son to be announced to her.
Objection 3: Further, just as the Blessed Virgin conceived Christ in
her body, so every pious soul conceives Him spiritually. Thus the
Apostle says (Gal. 4:19): "My little children, of whom I am in labor
again, until Christ be formed in you. " But to those who conceive Him
spiritually no announcement is made of this conception. Therefore
neither should it have been announced to the Blessed Virgin that she
was to conceive the Son of God in her womb.
On the contrary, It is related (Lk. 1:31) that the angel said to her:
"Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son. "
I answer that, It was reasonable that it should be announced to the
Blessed Virgin that she was to conceive Christ. First, in order to
maintain a becoming order in the union of the Son of God with the
Virgin---namely, that she should be informed in mind concerning Him,
before conceiving Him in the flesh. Thus Augustine says (De Sancta
Virgin. iii): "Mary is more blessed in receiving the faith of Christ,
than in conceiving the flesh of Christ"; and further on he adds: "Her
nearness as a Mother would have been of no profit to Mary, had she not
borne Christ in her heart after a more blessed manner than in her
flesh. "
Secondly, that she might be a more certain witness of this mystery,
being instructed therein by God.
Thirdly, that she might offer to God the free gift of her obedience:
which she proved herself right ready to do, saying: "Behold the
handmaid of the Lord. "
Fourthly, in order to show that there is a certain spiritual wedlock
between the Son of God and human nature. Wherefore in the Annunciation
the Virgin's consent was besought in lieu of that of the entire human
nature.
Reply to Objection 1: The prophecy of predestination is fulfilled
without the causality of our will; not without its consent.
Reply to Objection 2: The Blessed Virgin did indeed believe explicitly
in the future Incarnation; but, being humble, she did not think such
high things of herself. Consequently she required instruction in this
matter.
Reply to Objection 3: The spiritual conception of Christ through faith
is preceded by the preaching of the faith, for as much as "faith is by
hearing" (Rom. 10:17). Yet man does not know for certain thereby that
he has grace; but he does know that the faith, which he has received,
is true.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the annunciation should have been made by an angel to the Blessed
Virgin?
Objection 1: It would seem that the Annunciation should not have been
made by an angel to our Blessed Lady. For revelations to the highest
angels are made immediately by God, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier.
vii). But the Mother of God is exalted above all the angels. Therefore
it seems that the mystery of the Incarnation should have been announced
to her by God immediately, and not by an angel.
Objection 2: Further, if in this matter it behooved the common order to
be observed, by which Divine things are announced to men by angels; in
like manner Divine things are announced to a woman by a man: wherefore
the Apostle says (1 Cor. 14:34,35): "Let women keep silence in the
churches . . . but if they would learn anything, let them ask their
husbands at home. " Therefore it seems that the mystery of the
Incarnation should have been announced to the Blessed Virgin by some
man: especially seeing that Joseph, her husband, was instructed
thereupon by an angel, as is related (Mat. 1:20,21)
Objection 3: Further, none can becomingly announce what he knows not.
But the highest angels did not fully know the mystery of the
Incarnation: wherefore Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. vii) that the
question, "Who is this that cometh from Edom? " (Is. 63:1) is to be
understood as made by them. Therefore it seems that the announcement of
the Incarnation could not be made becomingly by any angel.
Objection 4: Further, greater things should be announced by messengers
of greater dignity. But the mystery of the Incarnation is the greatest
of all things announced by angels to men. It seems, therefore, if it
behooved to be announced by an angel at all, that this should have been
done by an angel of the highest order. But Gabriel is not of the
highest order, but of the order of archangels, which is the last but
one: wherefore the Church sings: "We know that the archangel Gabriel
brought thee a message from God" [*Feast of Purification B. V. M. ix
Resp. Brev. O. P. ]. Therefore this announcement was not becomingly made
by the archangel Gabriel.
On the contrary, It is written (Lk. 1:26): "The angel Gabriel was sent
by God," etc.
I answer that, It was fitting for the mystery of the Incarnation to be
announced to the Mother of God by an angel, for three reasons. First,
that in this also might be maintained the order established by God, by
which Divine things are brought to men by means of the angels.
Wherefore Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv) that "the angels were the
first to be taught the Divine mystery of the loving kindness of Jesus:
afterwards the grace of knowledge was imparted to us through them.
Thus, then, the most god-like Gabriel made known to Zachary that a
prophet son would be born to him; and, to Mary, how the Divine mystery
of the ineffable conception of God would be realized in her. "
Secondly, this was becoming to the restoration of human nature which
was to be effected by Christ. Wherefore Bede says in a homily (in
Annunt. ): "It was an apt beginning of man's restoration that an angel
should be sent by God to the Virgin who was to be hallowed by the
Divine Birth: since the first cause of man's ruin was through the
serpent being sent by the devil to cajole the woman by the spirit of
pride. "
Thirdly, because this was becoming to the virginity of the Mother of
God. Wherefore Jerome says in a sermon on the Assumption [*Ascribed to
St. Jerome but not his work]: "It is well that an angel be sent to the
Virgin; because virginity is ever akin to the angelic nature. Surely to
live in the flesh and not according to the flesh is not an earthly but
a heavenly life. "
Reply to Objection 1: The Mother of God was above the angels as regards
the dignity to which she was chosen by God. But as regards the present
state of life, she was beneath the angels. For even Christ Himself, by
reason of His passible life, "was made a little lower than the angels,"
according to Heb. 2:9. But because Christ was both wayfarer and
comprehensor, He did not need to be instructed by angels, as regards
knowledge of Divine things. The Mother of God, however, was not yet in
the state of comprehension: and therefore she had to be instructed by
angels concerning the Divine Conception.
Reply to Objection 2: As Augustine says in a sermon on the Assumption
(De Assump. B. V. M. [*Work of another author: among the works of St.
Augustine]) a true estimation of the Blessed Virgin excludes her from
certain general rules. For "neither did she 'multiply her conceptions'
nor was she 'under man's, i. e. her husband's,' power (Gn. 3:16), who in
her spotless womb conceived Christ of the Holy Ghost. " Therefore it was
fitting that she should be informed of the mystery of the Incarnation
by means not of a man, but of an angel. For this reason it was made
known to her before Joseph: since the message was brought to her before
she conceived, but to Joseph after she had conceived.
Reply to Objection 3: As may be gathered from the passage quoted from
Dionysius, the angels were acquainted with the mystery of the
Incarnation: and yet they put this question, being desirous that Christ
should give them more perfect knowledge of the details of this mystery,
which are incomprehensible to any created intellect. Thus Maximus
[*Maximus of Constantinople] says that "there can be no question that
the angels knew that the Incarnation was to take place. But it was not
given to them to trace the manner of our Lord's conception, nor how it
was that He remained whole in the Father, whole throughout the
universe, and was whole in the narrow abode of the Virgin. "
Reply to Objection 4: Some say that Gabriel was of the highest order;
because Gregory says (Hom. de Centum Ovibus [*34 in Evang. ]): "It was
right that one of the highest angels should come, since his message was
most sublime. " But this does nat imply that he was of the highest order
of all, but in regard to the angels: since he was an archangel. Thus
the Church calls him an archangel, and Gregory himself in a homily (De
Centum Ovibus 34) says that "those are called archangels who announce
sublime things. " It is therefore sufficiently credible that he was the
highest of the archangels. And, as Gregory says (De Centum Ovibus 34),
this name agrees with his office: for "Gabriel means 'Power of God. '
This message therefore was fittingly brought by the 'Power of God,'
because the Lord of hosts and mighty in battle was coming to overcome
the powers of the air. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the angel of annunciation should have appeared to the Virgin in a
bodily vision?
Objection 1: It would seem that the angel of the Annunciation should
not have appeared to the Virgin in a bodily vision. For "intellectual
vision is more excellent than bodily vision," as Augustine says (Gen.
ad lit. xii), and especially more becoming to an angel: since by
intellectual vision an angel is seen in his substance; whereas in a
bodily vision he is seen in the bodily shape which he assumes. Now
since it behooved a sublime messenger to come to announce the Divine
Conception, so, seemingly, he should have appeared in the most
excellent kind of vision. Therefore it seems that the angel of the
Annunciation appeared to the Virgin in an intellectual vision.
Objection 2: Further, imaginary vision also seems to excel bodily
vision: just as the imagination is a higher power than the senses. But
"the angel . . . appeared to Joseph in his sleep" (Mat. 1:20), which
was clearly an imaginary vision. Therefore it seems that he should have
appeared to the Blessed Virgin also in an imaginary vision.
Objection 3: Further, the bodily vision of a spiritual substance
stupefies the beholder; thus we sing of the Virgin herself: "And the
Virgin seeing the light was filled with fear" [*Feast of Annunciation,
B. V. M. ii Resp. Brev. O. P. ]. But it was better that her mind should be
preserved from being thus troubled. Therefore it was not fitting that
this announcement should be made in a bodily vision.
On the contrary, Augustine in a sermon (De Annunt. iii) pictures the
Blessed Virgin as speaking thus: "To me came the archangel Gabriel with
glowing countenance, gleaming robe, and wondrous step. " But these
cannot pertain to other than bodily vision. Therefore the angel of the
Annunciation appeared in a bodily vision to the Blessed Virgin.
I answer that, The angel of the Annunciation appeared in a bodily
vision to the Blessed Virgin. And this indeed was fitting, first in
regard to that which was announced. For the angel came to announce the
Incarnation of the invisible God.
