No More Learning

Reply to Objection 2: Origen (Hom. xvii in Luc. ) and certain other
doctors expound these words of Simeon as referring to the sorrow which
she suffered at the time of our Lord's Passion. Ambrose (in Luc. 2:35)
says that the sword signifies "Mary's prudence which took note of the
heavenly mystery. For the word of God is living and effectual, and more
piercing than any two-edged sword" (Heb. 4:12).

Others again take the sword to signify doubt. But this is to be
understood of the doubt, not of unbelief, but of wonder and discussion.
Thus Basil says (Ep. ad Optim. ) that "the Blessed Virgin while standing
by the cross, and observing every detail, after the message of Gabriel,
and the ineffable knowledge of the Divine Conception, after that
wondrous manifestation of miracles, was troubled in mind": that is to
say, on the one side seeing Him suffer such humiliation, and on the
other considering His marvelous works.

Reply to Objection 3: In those words Chrysostom goes too far. They may,
however, be explained as meaning that our Lord corrected in her, not
the inordinate motion of vain glory in regard to herself, but that
which might be in the thoughts of others.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether, by her sanctification in the womb, the Blessed Virgin received the
fulness of grace?

Objection 1: It would seem that, by her sanctification in the womb, the
Blessed Virgin did not receive the fulness or perfection of grace. For
this seems to be Christ's privilege, according to Jn. 1:14: "We saw Him
[Vulg. : 'His glory'] as the Only-Begotten [Vulg. : 'as it were of the
Only-Begotten'] full of grace and truth. " But what is proper to Christ
ought not to be ascribed to some one else. Therefore the Blessed Virgin
did not receive the fulness of grace at the time of her sanctification.

Objection 2: Further, nothing remains to be added to that which is full
and perfect: for "the perfect is that which lacks nothing," as is said
Phys. iii. But the Blessed Virgin received additional grace afterwards
when she conceived Christ; for to her was it said (Lk. 1:35): "The Holy
Ghost shall come upon thee: and again, when she was assumed into
glory. " Therefore it seems that she did not receive the fulness of
grace at the time of her first sanctification.

Objection 3: Further, "God does nothing useless," as is said De Coelo
et Mundo i. But it would have been useless for her to have certain
graces, for she would never have put them to use: since we do not read
that she taught which is the act of wisdom; or that she worked
miracles, which is the act of one of the gratuitous graces. Therefore
she had not the fulness of grace.

On the contrary, The angel said to her: "Hail, full of grace" (Lk.
1:28); which words Jerome expounds as follows, in a sermon on the
Assumption (cf. Ep. ad Paul. et Eustoch. ): "Full indeed of grace: for
to others it is given in portions; whereas on Mary the fulness of grace
was showered all at once. "

I answer that, In every genus, the nearer a thing is to the principle,
the greater the part which it has in the effect of that principle,
whence Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv) that angels, being nearer to
God, have a greater share than men, in the effects of the Divine
goodness. Now Christ is the principle of grace, authoritatively as to
His Godhead, instrumentally as to His humanity: whence (Jn. 1:17) it is
written: "Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. " But the Blessed Virgin
Mary was nearest to Christ in His humanity: because He received His
human nature from her. Therefore it was due to her to receive a greater
fulness of grace than others.

Reply to Objection 1: God gives to each one according to the purpose
for which He has chosen him. And since Christ as man was predestinated
and chosen to be "predestinated the Son of God in power . . . of
sanctification" (Rom. 1:4), it was proper to Him to have such a fulness
of grace that it overflowed from Him into all, according to Jn. 1:16:
"Of His fulness we have all received. " Whereas the Blessed Virgin Mary
received such a fulness of grace that she was nearest of all to the
Author of grace; so that she received within her Him Who is full of all
grace; and by bringing Him forth, she, in a manner, dispensed grace to
all.

Reply to Objection 2: In natural things at first there is perfection of
disposition, for instance when matter is perfectly disposed for the
form. Secondly, there is the perfection of the form; and this is the
more excellent, for the heat that proceeds from the form of fire is
more perfect than that which disposed to the form of fire. Thirdly,
there is the perfection of the end: for instance when fire has its
qualities in the most perfect degree, having mounted to its own place.

In like manner there was a threefold perfection of grace in the Blessed
Virgin. The first was a kind of disposition, by which she was made
worthy to be the mother of Christ: and this was the perfection of her
sanctification. The second perfection of grace in the Blessed Virgin
was through the presence of the Son of God Incarnate in her womb. The
third perfection of the end is that which she has in glory.

That the second perfection excels the first, and the third the second,
appears (1) from the point of view of deliverance from evil. For at
first in her sanctification she was delivered from original sin:
afterwards, in the conception of the Son of God, she was entirely
cleansed from the fomes: lastly, in her glorification she was also
delivered from all affliction whatever. It appears (2) from the point
of view of ordering to good. For at first in her sanctification she
received grace inclining her to good: in the conception of the Son of
God she received consummate grace confirming her in good; and in her
glorification her grace was further consummated so as to perfect her in
the enjoyment of all good.

Reply to Objection 3: There is no doubt that the Blessed Virgin
received in a high degree both the gift of wisdom and the grace of
miracles and even of prophecy, just as Christ had them. But she did not
so receive them, as to put them and such like graces to every use, as
did Christ: but accordingly as it befitted her condition of life. For
she had the use of wisdom in contemplation, according to Lk. 2:19: "But
Mary kept all these words, pondering them in her heart. " But she had
not the use of wisdom as to teaching: since this befitted not the
female sex, according to 1 Tim. 2:12: "But I suffer not a woman to
teach. " The use of miracles did not become her while she lived: because
at that time the Teaching of Christ was to be confirmed by miracles,
and therefore it was befitting that Christ alone, and His disciples who
were the bearers of His doctrine, should work miracles. Hence of John
the Baptist it is written (Jn. 10:41) that he "did no sign"; that is,
in order that all might fix their attention on Christ. As to the use of
prophecy, it is clear that she had it, from the canticle spoken by her:
"My soul doth magnify the Lord" (Lk. 1:46, etc. ).
__________________________________________________________________

Whether after Christ, it was proper to the Blessed Virgin to be sanctified
in the womb?

Objection 1: It would seem that it was proper for the Blessed Virgin,
after Christ, to be sanctified in the womb. For it has been said
[4131](A[4]) that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified in the womb, in
order that she might be worthy to be the mother of God. But this is
proper to her. Therefore she alone was sanctified in the womb.

Objection 2: Further, some men seem to have been more closely connected
with Christ than Jeremias and John the Baptist, who are said to have
been sanctified in the womb. For Christ is specially called the Son of
David and of Abraham, by reason of the promise specially made to them
concerning Christ. Isaias also prophesied of Christ in the most express
terms. And the apostles were in converse with Christ Himself. And yet
these are not mentioned as having been sanctified in the womb.
Therefore it was not befitting that either Jeremias or John the Baptist
should be sanctified in the womb.

Objection 3: Further, Job says of himself (Job 31:18): "From my infancy
mercy grew up with me; and it came out with me from [my mother's]
womb. " Nevertheless we do not for this reason say that he was
sanctified in the womb. Neither therefore are we bound to say that
Jeremias and John the Baptist were sanctified in the womb.

On the contrary, It is written of Jeremias (Jer. 1:5): "Before thou
camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee. " And of John the
Baptist it is written (Lk. 1:15): "He shall be filled with the Holy
Ghost, even from his mother's womb. "

I answer that, Augustine (Ep. ad Dardan. ) seems to speak dubiously of
their (Jeremias' and John the Baptist's) sanctification in the womb.
For the leaping of John in the womb "might," as he says, "signify the
great truth," viz. that the woman was the mother of God, "which was to
be made known to his elders, though as yet unknown to the infant. Hence
in the Gospel it is written, not that the infant in her womb believed,
but that it 'leaped': and our eyes are witness that not only infants
leap but also cattle. But this was unwonted because it was in the womb.
And therefore, just as other miracles are wont to be done, this was
done divinely, in the infant; not humanly by the infant. Perhaps also
in this child the use of reason and will was so far accelerated that
while yet in his mother's womb he was able to acknowledge, believe, and
consent, whereas in other children we have to wait for these things
till they grow older: this again I count as a miraculous result of the
divine power. "

But since it is expressly said (of John) in the Gospel that "he shall
be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb"; and of
Jeremias, "Before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified
thee"; it seems that we must needs assert that they were sanctified in
the womb, although, while in the womb, they had not the use of reason
(which is the point discussed by Augustine); just as neither do
children enjoy the use of free will as soon as they are sanctified by
baptism.

Nor are we to believe that any others, not mentioned by Scripture, were
sanctified in the womb. For such privileges of grace, which are
bestowed on some, outside the common law, are ordered for the salvation
of others, according to 1 Cor. 12:7: "The manifestation of the Spirit
is given to every man unto profit," which would not result from the
sanctification of anyone unless it were made known to the Church.

And although it is not possible to assign a reason for God's judgments,
for instance, why He bestows such a grace on one and not on another,
yet there seems to be a certain fittingness in both of these being
sanctified in the womb, by their foreshadowing the sanctification which
was to be effected through Christ. First, as to His Passion, according
to Heb. 13:12: "Jesus, that He might sanctify the people by His own
blood, suffered without the gate": which Passion Jeremias foretold
openly by words and by symbols, and most clearly foreshadowed by his
own sufferings. Secondly, as to His Baptism (1 Cor. 6:11): "But you are
washed, but you are sanctified"; to which Baptism John prepared men by
his baptism.

Reply to Objection 1: The blessed Virgin, who was chosen by God to be
His Mother, received a fuller grace of sanctification than John the
Baptist and Jeremias, who were chosen to foreshadow in a special way
the sanctification effected by Christ. A sign of this is that it was
granted to the Blessed Virgin thence-forward never to sin either
mortally or venially: whereas to the others who were thus sanctified it
was granted thenceforward not to sin mortally, through the protection
of God's grace.

Reply to Objection 2: In other respects these saints might be more
closely united to Christ than Jeremias and John the Baptist. But the
latter were most closely united to Him by clearly foreshadowing His
sanctification, as explained above.

Reply to Objection 3: The mercy of which Job speaks is not the infused
virtue; but a certain natural inclination to the act of that virtue.
__________________________________________________________________

OF THE VIRGINITY OF THE MOTHER OF GOD (FOUR ARTICLES)

We now have to consider the virginity of the Mother of God; concerning
which there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether she was a virgin in conceiving?

(2) Whether she was a virgin in His Birth?

(3) Whether she remained a virgin after His Birth?

(4) Whether she took a vow of virginity?
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the Mother of God was a virgin in conceiving Christ?

Objection 1: It would seem that the Mother of God was not a virgin in
conceiving Christ. For no child having father and mother is conceived
by a virgin mother. But Christ is said to have had not only a mother,
but also a father, according to Lk. 2:33: "His father and mother were
wondering at those things which were spoken concerning Him": and
further on (Lk. 2:48) in the same chapter she says: "Behold I and Thy
father [Vulg. : 'Thy father and I'] have sought Thee sorrowing. "
Therefore Christ was not conceived of a virgin mother.

Objection 2: Further (Mat. 1) it is proved that Christ was the Son of
Abraham and David, through Joseph being descended from David. But this
proof would have availed nothing if Joseph were not the father of
Christ. Therefore it seems that Christ's Mother conceived Him of the
seed of Joseph; and consequently that she was not a virgin in
conceiving Him.

Objection 3: Further, it is written (Gal. 4:4): "God sent His Son, made
of a woman. " But according to the customary mode of speaking, the term
"woman" applies to one who is known of a man. Therefore Christ was not
conceived by a virgin mother.

Objection 4: Further, things of the same species have the same mode of
generation: since generation is specified by its terminus just as are
other motions. But Christ belonged to the same species as other men,
according to Phil. 2:7: "Being made in the likeness of men, and in
habit found as a man. " Since therefore other men are begotten of the
mingling of male and female, it seems that Christ was begotten in the
same manner; and that consequently He was not conceived of a virgin
mother.

Objection 5: Further, every natural form has its determinate matter,
outside which it cannot be. But the matter of human form appears to be
the semen of male and female. If therefore Christ's body was not
conceived of the semen of male and female, it would not have been truly
a human body; which cannot be asserted. It seems therefore that He was
not conceived of a virgin mother.

On the contrary, It is written (Is. 7:14): "Behold a virgin shall
conceive. "

I answer that, We must confess simply that the Mother of Christ was a
virgin in conceiving for to deny this belongs to the heresy of the
Ebionites and Cerinthus, who held Christ to be a mere man, and
maintained that He was born of both sexes.

It is fitting for four reasons that Christ should be born of a virgin.
First, in order to maintain the dignity or the Father Who sent Him. For
since Christ is the true and natural Son of God, it was not fitting
that He should have another father than God: lest the dignity belonging
to God be transferred to another.

Secondly, this was befitting to a property of the Son Himself, Who is
sent. For He is the Word of God: and the word is conceived without any
interior corruption: indeed, interior corruption is incompatible with
perfect conception of the word. Since therefore flesh was so assumed by
the Word of God, as to be the flesh of the Word of God, it was fitting
that it also should be conceived without corruption of the mother.

Thirdly, this was befitting to the dignity of Christ's humanity in
which there could be no sin, since by it the sin of the world was taken
away, according to Jn. 1:29: "Behold the Lamb of God" (i. e. the Lamb
without stain) "who taketh away the sin of the world. " Now it was not
possible in a nature already corrupt, for flesh to be born from sexual
intercourse without incurring the infection of original sin. Whence
Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): "In that union," viz. the
marriage of Mary and Joseph, "the nuptial intercourse alone was
lacking: because in sinful flesh this could not be without fleshly
concupiscence which arises from sin, and without which He wished to be
conceived, Who was to be without sin. "

Fourthly, on account of the very end of the Incarnation of Christ,
which was that men might be born again as sons of God, "not of the will
of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (Jn. 1:13), i. e. of
the power of God, of which fact the very conception of Christ was to
appear as an exemplar. Whence Augustine says (De Sanct. Virg. ): "It
behooved that our Head, by a notable miracle, should be born, after the
flesh, of a virgin, that He might thereby signify that His members
would be born, after the Spirit, of a virgin Church. "

Reply to Objection 1: As Bede says on Lk. 1:33: Joseph is called the
father of the Saviour, not that he really was His father, as the
Photinians pretended: but that he was considered by men to be so, for
the safeguarding of Mary's good name. Wherefore Luke adds (Lk. 3:23):
"Being, as it was supposed, the son of Joseph. "

Or, according to Augustine (De Cons. Evang. ii), Joseph is called the
father of Christ just as "he is called the husband of Mary, without
fleshly mingling, by the mere bond of marriage: being thereby united to
Him much more closely than if he were adopted from another family.
Consequently that Christ was not begotten of Joseph by fleshly union is
no reason why Joseph should not be called His father; since he would be
the father even of an adopted son not born of his wife. "

Reply to Objection 2: As Jerome says on Mat. 1:18: "Though Joseph was
not the father of our Lord and Saviour, the order of His genealogy is
traced down to Joseph"---first, because "the Scriptures are not wont to
trace the female line in genealogies": secondly, "Mary and Joseph were
of the same tribe"; wherefore by law he was bound to take her as being
of his kin. Likewise, as Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i), "it was
befitting to trace the genealogy down to Joseph, lest in that marriage
any slight should be offered to the male sex, which is indeed the
stronger: for truth suffered nothing thereby, since both Joseph and
Mary were of the family of David. "

Reply to Objection 3: As the gloss says on this passage, the word
"'mulier,' is here used instead of 'femina,' according to the custom of
the Hebrew tongue: which applies the term signifying woman to those of
the female sex who are virgins. "

Reply to Objection 4: This argument is true of those things which come
into existence by the way of nature: since nature, just as it is fixed
to one particular effect, so it is determinate to one mode of producing
that effect. But as the supernatural power of God extends to the
infinite: just as it is not determinate to one effect, so neither is it
determinate to one mode of producing any effect whatever. Consequently,
just as it was possible for the first man to be produced, by the Divine
power, "from the slime of the earth," so too was it possible for
Christ's body to be made, by Divine power, from a virgin without the
seed of the male.

Reply to Objection 5: According to the Philosopher (De Gener. Animal.
i, ii, iv), in conception the seed of the male is not by way of matter,
but by way of agent: and the female alone supplies the matter.
Wherefore though the seed of the male was lacking in Christ's
conception, it does not follow that due matter was lacking.

But if the seed of the male were the matter of the fetus in animal
conception, it is nevertheless manifest that it is not a matter
remaining under one form, but subject to transformation. And though the
natural power cannot transmute other than determinate matter to a
determinate form; nevertheless the Divine power, which is infinite, can
transmute all matter to any form whatsoever. Consequently, just as it
transmuted the slime of the earth into Adam's body, so could it
transmute the matter supplied by His Mother into Christ's body, even
though it were not the sufficient matter for a natural conception.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether Christ's Mother was a virgin in His birth?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's Mother was not a virgin in His
Birth. For Ambrose says on Lk. 2:23: "He who sanctified a strange womb,
for the birth of a prophet, He it is who opened His Mother's womb, that
He might go forth unspotted. " But opening of the womb excludes
virginity. Therefore Christ's Mother was not a virgin in His Birth.

Objection 2: Further, nothing should have taken place in the mystery of
Christ, which would make His body to seem unreal. Now it seems to
pertain not to a true but to an unreal body, to be able to go through a
closed passage; since two bodies cannot be in one place at the same
time.
It was therefore unfitting that Christ's body should come forth
from His Mother's closed womb: and consequently that she should remain
a virgin in giving birth to Him.

Objection 3: Further, as Gregory says in the Homily for the octave of
Easter [*xxvi in Evang. ], that by entering after His Resurrection where
the disciples were gathered, the doors being shut, our Lord "showed
that His body was the same in nature but differed in glory": so that it
seems that to go through a closed passage pertains to a glorified body.
But Christ's body was not glorified in its conception, but was
passible, having "the likeness of sinful flesh," as the Apostle says
(Rom. 8:3). Therefore He did not come forth through the closed womb of
the Virgin.

On the contrary, In a sermon of the Council of Ephesus (P. III, Cap.
ix) it is said: "After giving birth, nature knows not a virgin: but
grace enhances her fruitfulness, and effects her motherhood, while in
no way does it injure her virginity. " Therefore Christ's Mother was a
virgin also in giving birth to Him.

I answer that, Without any doubt whatever we must assert that the
Mother of Christ was a virgin even in His Birth: for the prophet says
not only: "Behold a virgin shall conceive," but adds: "and shall bear a
son. " This indeed was befitting for three reasons. First, because this
was in keeping with a property of Him whose Birth is in question, for
He is the Word of God. For the word is not only conceived in the mind
without corruption, but also proceeds from the mind without corruption.
Wherefore in order to show that body to be the body of the very Word of
God, it was fitting that it should be born of a virgin incorrupt.
Whence in the sermon of the Council of Ephesus (quoted above) we read:
"Whosoever brings forth mere flesh, ceases to be a virgin. But since
she gave birth to the Word made flesh, God safeguarded her virginity so
as to manifest His Word, by which Word He thus manifested Himself: for
neither does our word, when brought forth, corrupt the mind; nor does
God, the substantial Word, deigning to be born, destroy virginity. "

Secondly, this is fitting as regards the effect of Christ's
Incarnation: since He came for this purpose, that He might take away
our corruption. Wherefore it is unfitting that in His Birth He should
corrupt His Mother's virginity. Thus Augustine says in a sermon on the
Nativity of Our Lord: "It was not right that He who came to heal
corruption, should by His advent violate integrity. "

Thirdly, it was fitting that He Who commanded us to honor our father
and mother should not in His Birth lessen the honor due to His Mother.

Reply to Objection 1: Ambrose says this in expounding the evangelist's
quotation from the Law: "Every male opening the womb shall be called
holy to the Lord. " This, says Bede, "is said in regard to the wonted
manner of birth; not that we are to believe that our Lord in coming
forth violated the abode of her sacred womb, which His entrance therein
had hallowed. " Wherefore the opening here spoken of does not imply the
unlocking of the enclosure of virginal purity; but the mere coming
forth of the infant from the maternal womb.

Reply to Objection 2: Christ wished so to show the reality of His body,
as to manifest His Godhead at the same time. For this reason He mingled
wondrous with lowly things. Wherefore, to show that His body was real,
He was born of a woman. But in order to manifest His Godhead, He was
born of a virgin, for "such a Birth befits a God," as Ambrose says in
the Christmas hymn.

Reply to Objection 3: Some have held that Christ, in His Birth, assumed
the gift of "subtlety," when He came forth from the closed womb of a
virgin; and that He assumed the gift of "agility" when with dry feet He
walked on the sea. But this is not consistent with what has been
decided above (Q[14]). For these gifts of a glorified body result from
an overflow of the soul's glory on to the body, as we shall explain
further on, in treating of glorified bodies ([4132]XP, Q[82]): and it
has been said above (Q[13], A[3], ad 1; Q[16], A[1], ad 2) that before
His Passion Christ "allowed His flesh to do and to suffer what was
proper to it" (Damascene, De Fide Orth. iii): nor was there such an
overflow of glory from His soul on to His body.

We must therefore say that all these things took place miraculously by
Divine power. Whence Augustine says (Sup. Joan. Tract. 121): "To the
substance of a body in which was the Godhead closed doors were no
obstacle. For truly He had power to enter in by doors not open, in
Whose Birth His Mother's virginity remained inviolate. " And Dionysius
says in an epistle (Ad Caium iv) that "Christ excelled man in doing
that which is proper to man: this is shown in His supernatural
conception, of a virgin, and in the unstable waters bearing the weight
of earthly feet. "
__________________________________________________________________

Whether Christ's Mother remained a virgin after His birth?

Objection 1: It would seem that Christ's Mother did not remain a virgin
after His Birth. For it is written (Mat. 1:18): "Before Joseph and Mary
came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. " Now the
Evangelist would not have said this---"before they came
together"---unless he were certain of their subsequent coming together;
for no one says of one who does not eventually dine "before he dines"
(cf. Jerome, Contra Helvid. ). It seems, therefore, that the Blessed
Virgin subsequently had intercourse with Joseph; and consequently that
she did not remain a virgin after (Christ's) Birth.

Objection 2: Further, in the same passage (Mat. 1:20) are related the
words of the angel to Joseph: "Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy
wife. " But marriage is consummated by carnal intercourse. Therefore it
seems that this must have at some time taken place between Mary and
Joseph: and that, consequently she did not remain a virgin after
(Christ's) Birth.

Objection 3: Further, again in the same passage a little further on
(Mat. 1:24,25) we read: "And" (Joseph) "took unto him his wife; and he
knew her not till she brought forth her first-born Son. " Now this
conjunction "till" is wont to designate a fixed time, on the completion
of which that takes place which previously had not taken place. And the
verb "knew" refers here to knowledge by intercourse (cf. Jerome, Contra
Helvid. ); just as (Gn. 4:1) it is said that "Adam knew his wife. "
Therefore it seems that after (Christ's) Birth, the Blessed Virgin was
known by Joseph; and, consequently, that she did not remain a virgin
after the Birth (of Christ).

Objection 4: Further, "first-born" can only be said of one who has
brothers afterwards: wherefore (Rom. 8:29): "Whom He foreknew, He also
predestinated to be made conformable to the image of His Son; that He
might be the first-born among many brethren. " But the evangelist calls
Christ the first-born by His Mother. Therefore she had other children
after Christ. And therefore it seems that Christ's Mother did not
remain a virgin after His Birth.

Objection 5: Further, it is written (Jn. 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
. .