The Virgin Mary according to the Summa Theologica

The Life of Christ - Questions 27 to 30

Question 27: Of the sanctification of the Virgin Mary

After we have dealt with the union of God and man and what results from this union, it remains to deal with what the Son of God incarnate in the human nature to which he was united did or suffered. Whose treaty is quadripartite. So, first, we will consider what pertains to his entrance into the world. Second, what is pertinent to the unfolding of your life in this world. Third, your departure from this world. Fourth, concerning your exaltation after this life.

In the first treatise, four points must be considered. First, the conception of Christ. Second, his nativity. Third, his circumcision. Fourth, his baptism. Concerning his conception, we must first deal with certain points concerning his mother's conception. Second, in the mode of conception.

Third, from the perfection of the conceived child. As for the mother, four questions are offered for our examination.

First, your sanctification. Second, your virginity. Third, their espousals. Fourth, your annunciation. Fifth, your preparation to conceive.

The first question discusses six articles:

Art. 1 - Whether the Holy Virgin was sanctified before she was born in her mother's womb?

The first is discussed like this. — It seems that the Holy Virgin was not sanctified before she was born, in her mother's womb.

1 — For the Apostle says: Not first what is spiritual, but what is animal, then what is spiritual. Now, by the grace of sanctification, man is spiritually born a son of God, according to what the Gospel says: They were born of God. But the nativity of the womb is a corporeal nativity. Therefore, the Holy Virgin was not sanctified before she was born from her mother's womb.

2 — Too much. Augustine says: The sanctification, which makes us temples of God, is only that of the reborn. Now, no one is reborn until after being born. Therefore, the Holy Virgin was not sanctified, before being born of the mother's womb.

3 — Too much. Everyone sanctified by grace is cleansed from original and actual sin. If, therefore, the Holy Virgin was sanctified before the nativity in her mother's womb, she was therefore purified from original sin. Now, only original sin could prevent him from entering the heavenly kingdom. If, therefore, she had died, then she would have passed through the gates of the heavenly realm. Which, however, could not have been, before Christ's passion; for, as the Apostle says, we have confidence to enter the sanctuary, by the blood of Christ. Hence it follows that the Holy Virgin was not sanctified before she was born of her mother's womb.

4 — Too much. Original sin is what comes from the origin, as well as actual sin, what presupposes an act. Now, as long as we practice the act of sinning, we cannot be cleansed from sin. Therefore, even the Blessed Virgin could not be purified from original sin, while she existed originally and currently in her mother's womb.

But, on the contrary, the Church celebrates the nativity of the Holy Virgin; now the Church celebrates no feast except for some saint. Therefore, the Holy Virgin, in her very nativity, was not a saint. Soon, she was sanctified in her mother's womb.

SOLUTION. — Concerning whether the Holy Virgin was sanctified in her mother's womb, canonical Scripture teaches us nothing, which also makes no mention of her activity. But just as Augustine proves with reasons that the Virgin was assumed into heaven in body, which Scripture does not say so, so we can rationally think that she was sanctified in her mother's womb. For, it is reasonable to believe, that she who begot the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, received greater privileges of grace than other women. And so says the Gospel, which the Angel announced to him: Hail, full of grace. For we know that to certain was granted this privilege of sanctification in the mother's womb; so to Jeremiah, to whom it was said, Before you came out of the confines of your mother's womb I sanctified you. And to John the Baptist, of whom it was said. From her mother's womb he will be filled with the Holy Spirit. Hence and rationally, we believe that the Holy Virgin was sanctified, before she was born, in her mother's womb.

WHEN THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST OBJECTION. — In the Holy Virgin, too, there was first the body and then the spirit; for she was first conceived in the flesh, and then sanctified in her spirit.

ANSWER TO THE SECOND. — Augustine expresses himself according to the common law, by which no one is regenerated through the sacraments until after he has been born. But God did not subject his power to that law of the sacraments, that he could not confer his grace, by a special privilege, on certain, even before they were born of the mother's womb.

ANSWER TO THE THIRD. — The Holy Virgin was purified, in her mother's womb, from original sin, as regards her personal stain; but she was not exempt from the situation to which all nature was subject, and therefore could not enter paradise, except through the sacrifice of Christ; as it was also with the holy Patriarchs who existed before Christ.

ANSWER TO FOURTH. — Original sin was contracted at the origin, since it is through the origin that human nature is communicated, to which original sin properly respects. What happens when the conceived creature receives the soul. And for this reason nothing prevents it from being purified, after receiving the soul; for after that, if it still continues in the mother's womb, it is to receive, not human nature, but a certain perfection of the nature already received.

Art. 2 - Whether the Holy Virgin was sanctified before she was animated?

The second is discussed like this. — It appears that the Holy Virgin was sanctified before she was animated.

1. - For, as has been said, more graces were conferred on the Virgin Mother of God than on any saint. Now, certain people were granted to be sanctified before animation. For says the Scripture: Before I formed you in your mother's womb I knew you; now the soul is not infused before the formation of the body.

Likewise, Ambrose says of John the Baptist: He did not yet have the spirit of life, and the Spirit of grace was already in him. Therefore, with much greater reason, the Holy Virgin could be sanctified, before animation.

2. Too much. — It was fitting, as Anselm says, that the Holy Virgin should shine with the greatest possible purity, just below God. Whence the Scripture says: All of you are beautiful, my friend, and there is no blemish in you. Now, the greater would be the purity of the Holy Virgin if her soul had never been contaminated by the contagion of original sin. Therefore, the sanctification of the flesh was granted to him, before he was animated.

3. Too much. — As has been said, a feast is not celebrated except for those who are holy. Now, some celebrate the feast of the Conception of the Holy Virgin. Therefore, it seems that she was holy in her very conception. And so she was sanctified before the animation.

4. Too much. — The Apostle says: If the root is holy, so are the branches. Now the root of children is their parents.

Therefore, the Holy Virgin could also be sanctified in her parents before animation.

But, on the contrary, the things of the Old Testament are the figures of the New, according to that of the Apostle: All these things happened to them in figure. Now it seems that the sanctification of the tabernacle, of which Scripture says—the Most High sanctified his tabernacle—means the sanctification of the Mother of God, also called by Scripture the tabernacle of God, as it reads: He set his tabernacle in the sun. And of the tabernacle it was further said, After all these things were finished, the tabernacle of the testimony was covered with a cloud, and the glory of the Lord filled it. Therefore also the Holy Virgin was not sanctified, but after all her parts had been perfected, that is, the body and the soul.

SOLUTION. — A double reason can be given, for the sanctification of the Holy Virgin, before animating. The first is that the sanctification we are dealing with is nothing more than the purification of original sin; for holiness is perfect purity, as Dionysius says. Now, guilt can only be remedied by grace, whose subject is only the rational creature. And therefore, before the infusion of the rational soul, the Holy Virgin was not purified. — Second, because, since only the rational creature is susceptible of guilt, the conceived being is not contaminated by guilt until after the infusion of the rational soul. Thus, in whatever way the Holy Virgin had been sanctified, before animation, she would never have incurred the stain of original guilt; and therefore she would not have needed the redemption and salvation wrought by Christ, of whom the Gospel says, He will save his people from their sins. Now it is inadmissible that Christ should not be the Savior of all men, as the Apostle says. -From which it can be concluded that the sanctification of the Holy Virgin took place after her animation.

WHEN THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST OBJECTION. — When the Lord says that he knew Jeremiah, before he was formed in the womb, this is meant, by the science of predestination; but it says that he sanctified him, not before he was formed, but before he came out of his mother's womb. — As for Ambrose's saying that John the Baptist did not yet have the spirit of life and already had the Spirit of grace, we must not understand the spirit of life to mean the life-giving soul, but spirit to mean the external air breathed in. Or we may say, that he did not yet have the spirit of life, that is, the soul, in its manifest and complete operations.

ANSWER TO THE SECOND. — The fact that the soul of the Holy Virgin had never been contaminated by the contagion of original sin would be contrary to the dignity of Christ, as universal Savior of all. Hence, just below Christ, who did not need to be saved, as universal Saviour, the highest purity was that of the Holy Virgin.

For Christ in no way contracted original sin, but was holy from his conception, according to the Gospel: The holy one to be born of you will be called the Son of God. But the Holy Virgin certainly contracted original sin, yet was purified from it, before she was born of her mother's womb. And that is what Scripture means when it says, referring to the night of original sin. Wait for the light, that is, Christ, and do not see it — because nothing more defiled falls into it; nor the birth of the dawn when it breaks, that is, of the Holy Virgin, who, at her birth, was immune from original sin.

ANSWER TO THE THIRD. — Although the Roman Church does not celebrate the Conception of the Holy Virgin, it nevertheless tolerates the custom of certain churches to celebrate this festival. Hence this celebration should not be wholly disapproved. However, the fact that the feast of the Conception is celebrated does not mean that the Virgin was holy in her Conception. But yes, because the time of sanctification is ignored, they celebrate the feast of sanctification, before that of conception, on the day of conception.

ANSWER TO FOURTH. — There are two kinds of sanctification. — One, of all nature, that is, while all nature is totally liberated from the corruption of guilt and punishment. What will happen in the resurrection. — Another is personal sanctification, which is not transmitted to offspring carnally generated, because this sanctification does not concern the flesh, but the spirit. Hence, if the Holy Virgin's parents were purified from original sin, yet the Holy Virgin did not cease to contract original sin, because she was conceived in the lust of the flesh and through the conjunction of man and woman. Thus, says Augustine: Everything born of concubitus is the flesh of sin.

Art. 3 - Whether the Holy Virgin was purified from contagion with the seed of concupiscence?

The third is discussed like this. — It seems that the Holy Virgin has not been purified from the contagion of the germ of lust.

1. For just as the penalty of original sin is concupiscence, consisting in the rebellion of the inferior powers against reason, so the penalty of original sin is death and other bodily penalties. Now the Holy Virgin was subjected to these penalties. Therefore, she was not entirely exempt from concupiscence either.

2. Too much. — The Apostle says: Virtue is perfected in infirmity, referring to the infirmity of concupiscence, because of which he suffered the stimulation of the flesh. Now, the Holy Virgin was not deprived of anything that the perfection of virtue requires. Therefore, she was not at all exempt from concupiscence.

3. Too much. — Damasceno says, that the Holy Spirit comes upon the Holy Virgin, purifying her before the conception of the Son of God. Which can only be understood of the purification of concupiscence, since he committed no sin, as Augustine says. Therefore, by sanctification in the mother's womb she was not at all exempt from lust.

But, on the contrary, the Scripture: All of you are beautiful, my friend, and there is no blemish in you. Now, lust is a defilement, at least of the flesh. Therefore, in the Holy Virgin there was no concupiscence.

SOLUTION. — Opinions differ on this matter. — Thus, some have said that the Holy Virgin, through her own sanctification, wrought in her mother's womb, was totally exempt from concupiscence. — But others say that concupiscence remained in him, as a cause of difficulty in doing good; she was however exempt from it, as an evil inclination. — Still others have said that she was exempt from concupiscence, as regards the corruption of the person, inasmuch as it hinders evil and hinders good; but she did not, as to the corruption of nature, that is, while concupiscence is the cause of the transmission of original sin to children. — Others, finally, say that the first sanctification did not eliminate concupiscence, but left it locked in its effects; but it is totally eliminated in the very conception of the Son of God.

But, that we may understand well, in this matter, we must note that the contagion of sin is nothing but an inordinate lust of the sensible appetite; but habitual, because actual lust is the movement of sin. But we will say that the lust of sensuality is inordinate, because it is repugnant to reason; what is given, by inclining towards evil or by opposing difficulties to good. Hence, it is in the very nature of concupiscence to incline to evil, or to hinder the practice of good. Therefore, to say that concupiscence existed in the Holy Virgin, without inclining her to evil, is to want two opposite things to coexist. - Similarly, the continuation of concupiscence as a corruption of nature and not as a corruption of the person also implies opposition. For, according to Augustine, it is concupiscence that transmits original sin to the offspring. Now this is an inordinate lust, and not wholly subject to reason. If, therefore, concupiscence had been totally eliminated, as a corruption of the person, it could not remain as a corruption of nature.

It remains, therefore, for us to admit either that the first sanctification completely exempted it from concupiscence, or that, if it persisted, it was held back in its effects. For it could be understood that concupiscence was totally eliminated in the Holy Virgin, because, through the abundance of grace conferred on her, such a disposition of the powers of the soul was granted to her, that the lower ones could never move without the assent of reason. Such is what we say happened with Christ, of whom we know that he had no inclination to sin, and with Adam, before he sinned, through original righteousness. So that, in this matter, the grace of sanctification had for the Virgin the virtue of original justice. But although this opinion saves the dignity of the Virgin Mother, it is in some way contrary to the dignity of Christ, without whose virtue no one can be freed from primitive condemnation. And although by the faith of Christ, and, before his Incarnation, certain were spiritually free from this condemnation, yet no one could be freed from it, as regards the flesh, until after the Incarnation, whereby immunity from this condemnation was primarily to be manifested. Hence, just as before the immortality of the flesh of the risen Christ, no one attained the immortality of the flesh, so it is inconvenient to admit that, before the flesh of Christ, who had no sin, the flesh of the Virgin, his Mother, or whoever that is, were exempt from lust, called the law of the flesh or of the members.

Therefore, it seems better to think that sanctification in the mother's womb did not exempt the Holy Virgin from concupiscence, in its essence, but its effects were paralyzed. Not by act of reason, as with holy men; for it had not the use of free will as soon as it began to exist in the mother's womb—Christ's special privilege; but the abundance of grace, received in sanctification, and still more perfectly by the action of divine providence, paralyzed all disordered movement of the senses. But then, in the very conception of Christ's flesh, when immunity from sin must first shine forth, we must believe that from the son it was reduced to the mother, and then the inclination to sin was totally eliminated. And this was already figured in Scripture, when it says: Behold, the glory of the God of Israel was coming in from the east, that is, through the Holy Virgin; and the earth was resplendent with the presence of her majesty, that is, of Christ.

WHEN THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST OBJECTION. — Death and other similar penalties of themselves do not incline to sin. And therefore Christ, though he assumed them, was not subject to concupiscence. And so also in the Holy Virgin, in order to be conformed to the Son, from whose fullness she received grace - first, concupiscence was impeded in its effects, and then it was eliminated; but he was not free from death and other similar penalties.

ANSWER TO THE SECOND. — The weakness of the flesh constituted by its inclination to sin, it is certain, for holy men an occasion of perfect virtue; but not the cause without which perfection cannot be attained. It is enough, therefore, to attribute to the Holy Virgin the perfect virtue through the abundance of grace; nor is it necessary to attribute to him every possible occasion of perfection.

ANSWER TO THE THIRD. — The Holy Spirit wrought in the Holy Virgin a double purification. - One, almost preparatory to the conception of Christ, who came, not to cleanse her from any impurity of guilt or lust, but to impress more deeply on her soul the character of unity, and to raise her above the multitude. Thus we also say that angels are purified, in whom there is no impurity, as Dionysius says. - At the other purification, the Holy Spirit worked in the Holy Virgin, through the conception of Christ, work of the same Spirit. And by her we may say that he purified her wholly from lust.

Art. 4 - Whether through sanctification in her mother's womb the Holy Virgin was preserved from all actual sin?

The fourth is discussed like this. — It seems that, by sanctification in her mother's womb, the Holy Virgin was not preserved from all actual sin.

1. — For, as has been said, after the first purification, the inclination to sin remained in the Virgin. Now, the movement of concupiscence, even if reason prevents it, is a venial sin, albeit a very slight one, as Augustine says. Therefore, in the Holy Virgin there was some venial sin.

2. Too much. — That of the Gospel — A sword had pierced your very soul — says Augustine, whom the Holy Virgin, in the death of the Lord, doubted because of her immense pain. Now, doubting the faith is a sin.

Therefore, she was not preserved immune from all sin.

3. Too much. — Chrysostom, expounding what the Gospel says — Look, your mother and your brothers are out there looking for you — says: It is clear that they did it only out of vainglory. And that other place in the Gospel — there is no wine — says the same Chrysostom, that she wanted to do them a favor and make herself more illustrious, through her Son; and perhaps she resolved something human in her heart, like her brothers who said — manifest yourself to the world. And then he adds: I still didn't have the opinion of him that I should have. What all constitutes sin. Therefore, the Holy Virgin was not preserved immune from all sin.

But, on the contrary, Augustine: When it comes to the Holy Virgin, in no way admits that sin is spoken of, because of the honor of Christ. We cannot doubt whether she received exceptional grace to entirely overcome sin, for she deserved to conceive and give birth to him whom we know was absolutely free from sin.

SOLUTION. — Those whom God chooses for some purpose, he prepares and disposes, to be suitable for the purpose for which they were chosen, according to that of the Apostle: Who made us suitable ministers of the New Testament. Now the Holy Virgin was divinely chosen to be the Mother of God. And so we must not doubt that God has not made her suitable for such, by her grace, as the angel announced to her: Thou hast found favor with God — behold, thou shalt conceive, &c. Now, she would not have been suitable for the Mother of God if she had committed any sin. — Either because the honor of the fathers goes to the children, according to the Scripture: The glory of the children is their fathers; and, on the other hand, the ignominy of the mother would redound to the Son. — Also because she had a singular affinity with Christ, who received the flesh from her. Whence the Apostle says: What harmony between Christ and Belial? - Also because in a singular way the Son of God, who is the wisdom of God, dwelt in her; not only in the soul, but also in the womb. Thus the Scripture says: Wisdom will not enter into the evil soul, nor will it dwell in the body subject to sin. - And for that reason we must simply confess that the Holy Virgin did not commit any actual sin, neither mortal nor venial, so that in her the place of the Scripture was fulfilled: You are all beautiful, my friend, and in you there is no blemish. , etc.

WHEN THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST OBJECTION. — In the Holy Virgin, after being sanctified in the womb, the inclination to sin certainly remained, but without producing effects, and therefore unable to break out in any disordered movement, which would prevent reason. And although the grace of sanctification contributed to this, yet it was not enough; otherwise, by virtue of this grace, he would have been granted no movement in his senses that reason had not prevented; and then, no concupiscence would have, which goes against what has already been established. Whence we must conclude that the complement to this paralysis of concupiscence came from divine providence, which did not allow any disordered movement to arise from concupiscence.

ANSWER TO THE SECOND. — To the aforementioned words of Simeon Origen, certain other doctors apply them to the pain suffered by Christ in the passion. - As for Ambrose, by the sword he means the prudence of Mary, not ignorant of the celestial mystery. For, alive is the word of God, valid and sharper than any two-edged sword. - Others, however, understand by this the sword of doubt, however, it should not be understood by this the doubt of infidelity, but that of admiration and discussion. Thus, says Basilio, that the Holy Virgin, at the foot of the cross and witnessing everything that happened, even after Gabriel's testimony, after the ineffable knowledge of the divine conception, after the immense performance of miracles, floated in her soul, seeing , on the one hand, the humiliations that her Son suffered and, on the other hand, the wonders that he performed.

ANSWER TO THE THIRD. — The quoted words of Chrysostom are exaggerated. But they may be interpreted to mean that the Lord restrained, not the disorderly movement of vainglory, in itself, but in relation to the opinion which others might have.

Art. 5 - Whether the Holy Virgin, through sanctification in her mother's womb, obtained the fullness or perfection of grace?

The fifth is discussed thus. — It seems that the Holy Virgin, through sanctification in her mother's womb, did not obtain the fullness or perfection of grace.

1. — For this is the privilege of Christ, according to the Gospel: We have seen his glory as the only-begotten Son of the Father, full of grace and truth. Now. Christ's own to no one else is to be attributed. Therefore, the Holy Virgin did not receive, in sanctification, the fullness of graces.

2. Too much. — Nothing can be added to what has fullness and perfection, since, according to Aristotle, perfect is what lacks nothing. Now the Holy Virgin received after her sanctification. an increase of grace, when she conceived Christ; for the Gospel says, The Holy Spirit will come upon you. And yet, when she went from her assumption to glory. Therefore, it seems that she did not have, in her first sanctification, the fullness of graces.

3. Too much. —God does nothing in vain, as Aristotle says. Now, the Holy Virgin would have had in vain certain graces, the use of which she never exercised; for the Gospel does not tell us that she had taught, which would have been the exercise of wisdom; nor that she had worked miracles, exercise of free grace. Therefore, she did not have the fullness of graces.

But, on the contrary, the Angel said to him: Hail full of grace. What Jerome thus explains: Truly full of grace; for, while the others receive them in parts, in Mary the fullness of graces was infused totally and simultaneously.

SOLUTION. The closer a thing approaches the principle in a given genus, the more it participates in the effect of that principle; This is why Dionysius says that angels, who are closer to God, participate more in divine goodness than men. Now Christ is the principle of grace; by the divinity, as its author; for humanity as an instrument. Whence the Gospel says: Grace and truth were brought by Jesus Christ. Now, the Holy Virgin Mary was the closest to Christ for humanity, for from her he received human nature. Therefore, more than anyone else, he was to receive the fullness of grace from Christ.

WHEN THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST OBJECTION. — To each one God gives grace according to what he is chosen for. And since Christ, as a man, was predestined and chosen so that, in the words of the Apostle, he would be predestined Son of God with power, according to the spirit of sanctification, it was proper for him to have a fullness of grace such that it would work for others, according to what of the Gospel: We all share in its fullness. The Holy Virgin Mary, however, obtained the fullness so as to be closest to the author of grace; so that she might receive in herself what is the fullness of all graces, and by giving birth to it, grace in some sense would flow to all.

ANSWER TO THE SECOND. — In the natural order, what first exists is the perfection of disposition, for example, the perfection of matter to receive form. Then comes the perfection of the higher form; thus, more perfect is the heat itself, proceeding from the form of fire, than that which it has disposed for the igneous form.

Thirdly, comes the perfection of the end: thus fire has its qualities in the most perfect degree, when it comes to its place.

Similarly, there was a triple perfection in the Holy Virgin. — The first, and as a device, which made her suitable to be the Mother of Christ. And that was the perfection of sanctification. — The second perfection of grace was in the Holy Virgin, the presence of the Son of God incarnate in her womb. — The third was the perfection of the end, which it enjoys in glory.

Now, that the second perfection is superior to the first and the third, that the second, is clear, in a way, by the liberation from evil. For, first, by her sanctification she was freed from her original guilt; then, at the conception of the Son of God, she was wholly purified from lust; finally, thirdly, through her glorification, she was also freed from all the miseries of life. — Secondly, by ordering for the good. So, first, in her sanctification, she attained grace, which inclines to good; then, at the conception of the Son of God, his grace was consummated, having been confirmed in good; and finally, in her glorification, her grace was consummated, which gave her the perfect enjoyment of all goods.

ANSWER TO THE THIRD. — We cannot doubt that the Holy Virgin received, and excellently, the gift of wisdom and the grace of virtues, and also the grace of prophecy, as Christ had it. She did not, however, receive them so as to have the use of all these graces and others like them, as Christ had; but only insofar as it suited her condition. — Thus, she had the use of wisdom, in contemplation, according to the Gospel: Mary kept all these words, checking each other in the depths of her heart. But she did not have the use of wisdom, because she taught, because that was not suitable for the female sex, according to what the Apostle says: I do not allow a woman to teach. — As for performing miracles, it did not suit him during his life, because at that time the doctrine had to be confirmed by the miracles of Christ; therefore it was only for Christ and for his disciples, bearers of the doctrine of Christ, to work miracles. Hence even of John the Baptist the Gospel says, that he did no miracles; and that that all might seek Christ. — And finally, the use of prophecy she had, as the Canticle she made declares: My soul magnifies the Lord.

Art. 6 - Whether to be sanctified in the mother's womb was, after Christ, proper to the Holy Virgin?

The sixth is discussed thus. — It seems that to be sanctified in the mother's womb was, after Christ, proper to the Holy Virgin.

1. — For, as has been said, the Holy Virgin was sanctified in her mother's womb in order to thus become suitable to be the Mother of God. Now, this was proper to her. Therefore, she alone was sanctified in her mother's womb.

2. Too much. — Some were closer to Christ than Jeremiah and John the Baptist, of whom Scripture refers, who were sanctified in their mother's womb. For Christ is specially called the son of David and Abraham, on account of the promise specially made to them concerning Christ. And also Isaiah very expressly prophesied of Christ. The Apostles, for their part, lived with Christ himself.

And yet of none of these do we read that he was sanctified in the mother's womb. Therefore, neither Jeremiah nor John the Baptist could have been.

3. Too much. —Job says of himself: From my childhood pity grew with me, and from my mother's womb it came with me. We do not, however, say that he was sanctified in his mother's womb. Therefore, we are also not forced to admit that John the Baptist and Jeremiah were sanctified in their mother's womb.

But on the contrary, says the Scripture, of Jeremiah: Before I formed you in your mother's womb I sanctified you. And from John the Baptist: He shall be filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb.

SOLUTION. — Augustine expresses some doubt as to the sanctification of the two aforementioned characters, in the mother's womb. For, he says, John's leap into the mother's womb could mean that such a great event, namely, that the woman would be the Mother of God, should be known by the parents of the conceived child, and not by her. That is why the Gospel does not say — The child believed in the womb, but — he leapt up.

Now, we see them jumping not only children, but animals as well. But the ones we are dealing with were unusual, as they were in the mother's womb. And so, as miracles sound like, the boy made these leaps by divine action and not by his own human strength. Although we could also admit that, in this boy, the use of reason and will was so precocious that, even in the maternal viscera, he could already know, believe, consent, which only at a more advanced age can other children; and this I think must be attributed to the miracle of divine power.

But as the Gospel expressly says of John, who will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb; and also expressly, from Jeremiah, Before I formed thee in thy mother's womb I sanctified thee, we must admit, that they were sanctified in their mother's womb, though they had not the use of free will, which is the question raised by Augustine; just as children sanctified by baptism have not since then had the use of free will. Nor are we to believe that any others were sanctified in the womb, of which Scripture makes no mention; for such privileges of grace, conferred upon certain outside the general law, are ordered to the privilege of others, according to the Apostle: To every one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for profit. Now, this usefulness would be null if the Church did not know who was sanctified in the mother's womb. And although we cannot because of the judgments of God, and because this gift of grace was bestowed on one in preference to another, it was nevertheless fitting that John the Baptist and Jeremiah should be sanctified in their mother's womb, to prefigure the sanctification that was to be wrought by Christ. First, by his passion, as the Apostle says: Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people by his blood, suffered outside the gate. Whose passion Jeremiah most clearly announced, with words and with mysteries, and by his sufferings very expressly foreshadowed. Second, by baptism, as the Apostle says: But ye have been washed, but ye have been sanctified. For whose baptism John prepared men by his baptism.

WHEN THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST OBJECTION. — The Holy Virgin, chosen by God as a mother, received a wider grace of sanctification than John the Baptist and Jeremiah, who were elected with special prefiguring of the sanctification of Christ. And the proof is that the Holy Virgin was granted that, in the future, she would not sin, either mortally or venially; while others who are sanctified, we believe, were granted that they would not sin in the future, through the protection of divine grace.

ANSWER TO THE SECOND. — On the other hand, the saints could have been more united to Christ than Jeremiah and John the Baptist; which, yet more united were with him, as expressive figures they were, of his sanctification, as has been said.

ANSWER TO THE THIRD. — The commiseration of which Job refers does not mean infused virtue, but a certain natural inclination to the act.

Question 28: Of the virginity of the Holy Virgin Mary.

Next we must deal with the virginity of the Mother of God.

And in this question four articles are discussed:

Art. 1 - Whether the Mother of God was a virgin when she conceived Christ?

The first is discussed like this. — It seems that the Mother of God was not a virgin when she conceived Christ.

1. — For no child of father and mother is conceived of a virgin mother. Now the Gospel not only says that Christ had a mother, but also a father. So instead: His father and mother were astonished at those things that were said about him. And further on: Know that your father and I were looking for you full of affliction. Therefore, Christ was not conceived of a virgin mother.

2. Too much. — The Gospel proves that Christ was the son of Abraham and David, in that Joseph was a descendant of David; proof which would be null if Joseph were not the father of Christ. Whence it follows that the mother of Christ conceived him from the semen of Joseph. And therefore, she was not a virgin at her conception.

3. Too much. — The Apostle says: God sent his son, made of a woman. Now, in the usual way of speaking, she is called a woman who has a husband. Therefore, Christ was not conceived of a virgin mother.

4. Too much. — Beings of the same species are generated in the same way; for generation, like every movement, is specified by its term. Now Christ was of the same species as other men, according to that of the Apostle: being made in the likeness of men, and being recognized in the condition, as a man. And as other men were born of the union of man and woman, it follows that Christ was also begotten of the same man. Therefore, he was not conceived of a virgin mother.

5. Too much. — Every natural form corresponds to a certain matter, separate from which it cannot exist. Now the matter of the human form is the semen of the man and of the woman. If, therefore, the body of Christ was not conceived from the semen of a man and a woman, it was not truly a human body, which is admissible. Therefore, it appears that he was not conceived of a virgin mother.

But, on the contrary, the Scripture: Behold, a virgin shall conceive.

SOLUTION. — We must absolutely confess that the Mother of Christ conceived a virgin. The contrary constituted the heresy of the Elionites and Cerinthus, who considered Christ to be pure man and had him as born of the union of the two sexes. Now Christ's being conceived of a virgin was convenient for four reasons.

— First, to preserve the dignity of the Father, who sent him. For since Christ was naturally and truly the Son of God, it was not convenient to have another father than God, in order not to transfer the dignity of God to another.

— Second, this suited the property of the Son himself, who is sent. Which is the Word of God. Now the Word is conceived without any corruption of the mind; on the contrary, the corruption of the mind does not sympathize with the conception of the perfect verb. Since, therefore, the flesh was assumed by the Word of God to be his flesh, it was fitting that she too should have been conceived without the corruption of the mother.

— Thirdly, this suited the human dignity of Christ, in which there should be no place for sin, since he should take away the sin of the world, according to the Gospel: Behold the Lamb of God, that is, the innocent, who takes away the sin of the world. Now, in nature already corrupted by concubitus, the flesh could not but be contaminated by original sin. Therefore, Augustine says: In the marriage of Mary and Joseph there was no nuptial concubitus; for in the flesh of sin this cannot take place without the concupiscence resulting from sin; Now God willed that he who should be without sin be conceived without her.

—Fourth, because of the very end of Christ's incarnation. which was to make men born children of God, not of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God, that is, by the power of God. And exemplary of this should be the very conception of Christ. For this reason Augustine says: Our leader must, by an outstanding miracle, be born, according to the body, of a virgin, to signify that her members were to be born, according to the spirit, of the virgin Church.

WHEN THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST OBJECTION. — Says Bede: The Savior's father was called Joseph, not because he was really his father, as the Phocinians teach; but in order to preserve Mary's purity, men considered him their father. Hence the Gospel says: Son, as was thought, of Joseph. — Or, as Augustine says, Joseph is called the father of Christ, in the same way because he is considered the husband of Mary: without carnal conjunction, only by a spiritual conjugal union; which unites him more closely to Christ than a simple adoption would. But not for this reason, for not having begotten carnally, should Joseph be considered any less the father of Christ; for he might be a father even if he had adopted him who had not been born of his wife.

ANSWER TO THE SECOND. — As Jerome says, though Joseph is not the father of the Savior and Lord, yet the order of his generation extends to Joseph, first, because it is not the custom of Scripture to include women in the order of generations. — Second, because Joseph and Mary were from the same tribe. And so he is bound by the law to receive her as a kinswoman. — And, as Augustine says, the order of generations had to be carried down to Joseph, so that in this marriage there would be no injury to the sex, which was ultimately nobler; without any detriment to the truth, because both Joseph and Mary were of the race of God.

ANSWER THE THIRD. — As the Gloss says, the Apostle used the word woman, instead of feminine, in the way of speaking of the Hebrews. For, in the common usage of the Hebrew language, woman means every female person, not one who has lost her virginity.

ANSWER TO FOURTH. — The fact adduced in the objection only occurs with beings proceeding by way of nature; for nature, as it is determined to a single effect, so is it to a single mode of producing it. But the divine supernatural power, being infinite, as it is not determined to a single effect, so it is not determined to the mode of producing any effect. Hence, as divine power was able to form the first man out of the slime of the earth, so was it able to form the body of Christ, from a virgin, without male cooperation.

ANSWER TO FIFTH. — According to the Philosopher, the male semen does not exercise the function of matter in the carnal conception, but only that of agent; for it is the female who supplies the matter for conception. Hence, since there was no male semen in the conception of the body of Christ, it does not follow that it lacked the proper matter. — If, however, the male semen were the matter of the conceived animal fetus, it is clear that it is not matter always endowed with the same form, but transmuted. And as natural virtue does not change into a certain form but a certain matter, so the divine power, which is infinite, can give all matter any form. Hence, as he transformed the slime of the earth into the body of Adam, so he can also transmute the matter ministered by the mother into the body of Christ, even if this were not sufficient matter for natural conception.

Art. 2 - Whether the mother of Christ was a virgin in childbirth?

The second is discussed like this. — It appears that the mother of Christ was not a virgin in childbirth.

1. — For, says Ambrose: Whoever sanctified a woman's womb so that a prophet might be born of her, he was the same one who opened his mother's womb to come out of her without blemish. Now, this fact excludes virginity. Therefore, the mother of Christ was not a virgin in childbirth.

2. Too much. — In the mystery of Christ there should be nothing that would lead us to consider his body as imaginary. Now, it does not suit a true body, but only a fantastic one, to be able to cross what is closed; because two bodies cannot occupy the same place at the same time. Therefore, the body of Christ was not to come out of the mother's womb, without it breaking. Therefore, the virgin could not be a virgin in childbirth.

3. Too much. — As Gregory says, when, after the resurrection, the Lord passed through closed doors and entered the disciples, he showed that his body was of the same nature, but clothed with another glory. And so it is proper for the glorious body to walk through closed doors. Now the body of Christ, in his conception, was not glorious, but passable, having the likeness of sinful flesh, as the Apostle says. Therefore, it did not come out of the mother's womb, without it opening.

But, on the contrary, the Ephesian council says: Nature destroys virginity with childbirth. But grace united childbirth and motherhood with virginity. Therefore, the mother of Christ was a Virgin, even in childbirth.

SOLUTION. — Without a doubt, we must affirm that the mother of Christ was a Virgin, even in childbirth.

For the Prophet not only said — Behold, a Virgin shall conceive, but added — and bear a son. And this is based on a triple convenience.

— First, because it suited the property of what was to be born, Which was the Word of God. For the Word is not only conceived in the heart, without any detriment, but also without any corruption proceeds from it. And because of this, to show that this was the very body of the Word of God, it was convenient to be born from the virgin's incorrupt womb. That is why we read in the Ephesian council: She who generates a purely human flesh loses her virginity. But the Word of God, being born in the flesh, preserves the virginity of the Mother, thus showing himself to be the Word loyally. For also our word, when generated, does not corrupt the mind; nor would the substantial Word, which is God, destroy virginity when it was born. — Second, this was convenient as to the effect of the Incarnation of Christ. Well, he came to take away our corruption. And that is why it was not appropriate that, at birth, he should destroy his mother's virginity. Hence, Augustine says that it was not fair for those who came to heal corruption to violate, with his advent, virginal integrity. — Third, this was convenient so that whoever ordered us to honor our parents would not, with his birth, diminish maternal honor.

WHEN THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST OBJECTION. — Ambrose says so, when he expounds the words of the law quoted by the evangelist. Every male child that is the firstborn will be consecrated to the Lord. Which, as the Venerable Bede says, is a usual way of referring to the nativity, without wanting to mean, we must believe that the Lord devirginized, at birth, the womb that served as an asylum and that he sanctified.

Hence, the opening, to which Ambrose refers, does not mean the breaking of the cloister of virginal modesty, but only the birth of the child, from the mother's womb.

ANSWER TO THE SECOND. — Christ wanted to show that he truly had a body, but in such a way that he also manifested his divinity. Hence he joined miraculous causes with humble things. So, to show that he had a real body, he is born of a woman; and to show his divinity, he is born of a virgin, for such is the birth that befits God, as Jerome says.

ANSWER TO THE THIRD. — Some have said that Christ, in his nativity, assumed the gift of subtlety; thus, when he walked, without wetting his feet, on the sea, it is said that he assumed the gift of agility. - But, this does not agree with what was determined before. For such endowments of the glorious body come from the redundancy of the glory of the soul to the body, as we shall say when we speak of glorious bodies. Now, as we have said, Christ, before his passion, allowed his body to do and suffer what is proper to it; nor was there such redundancy of glory, from soul to body. Hence, we must conclude that all these aforementioned facts are miraculous, by divine virtue. Hence Augustine says: Such a body, united to the divinity, was not impeded by any obstacle. Well, that one could enter, without doors being opened to him, who came into the world without his mother losing her virginity. And Dionysius says that Christ performed the works proper to man in a superior way; and this is demonstrated by the supernatural conception of the virgin, and by the material weight of her feet supported by the moving surface of the waters.

Art. 3 - Whether the mother of Christ remained a Virgin after childbirth?

The third is discussed like this. — It seems that the mother of Christ did not remain a Virgin after childbirth.

1. — For the Gospel says: Before Joseph and Mary lived together, she was found to have been conceived by the Holy Spirit. Now the Evangelist would not have said — before they cohabited — if it were not certain that they would cohabit; so we won't say, who won't eat, who wouldn't eat. Therefore, it seems that the Holy Virgin came to have carnal conjunction with Joseph. And therefore she did not remain a virgin after childbirth.

2. Too much. — In the same place, the Gospel refers to the words of the angel to Joseph: Do not be afraid to take Mary your wife. Now marriage is consummated by carnal copulation. Therefore, it appears that there was carnal copulation between Mary and Joseph. Hence it follows that she did not remain a virgin after childbirth.

3. Too much. — Immediately afterwards the Gospel adds: And he took his wife; and he did not know her until she had given birth to his firstborn. Now, the adverbial expression — until — usually means a definite time; complete which, one does what hitherto has not been done. And as for the verb to know — it means coitus; so, as when the Scripture says, Adam knew his wife. Therefore, it seems that after the birth the Holy Virgin was known to Joseph. And therefore, it appears that she did not remain a virgin after childbirth.

4. Too much. — Firstborn can only be called who had other younger brothers. Therefore says the Apostle: Those whom he knew in his foreknowledge he also predestined to be conformed to the image of the Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Now the Evangelist calls Christ the firstborn of his mother. Soon she had other children besides Christ. And so it appears that the mother of Christ did not remain a virgin after childbirth.

5. Further — The Gospel says, After this they came to Capernaum, he, that is, Christ, and his mother and his brethren. Now those who have the same parents are called brothers. Therefore, it seems that the holy Virgin had other children besides Christ.

6. Too much. — The Gospel says: Many women were also there, that is, at the foot of the cross of Christ, coming from afar, who from Galilee had followed Jesus, providing him with what was necessary; among whom were Mary Magdalene and Mary, Mother of James and Joseph, and the Mother of the children of Zebedee. Now this was Mary, called there the mother of James and Joseph, she is also the mother of Christ; for, as the Gospel says, she was standing by the cross of Jesus, his mother. Therefore, it appears that the mother of Christ did not remain a virgin after childbirth.

But, contrary, the Scripture: This door will be closed; it will not open, and no man will pass through it, because the Lord God of Israel has entered through this door. Exposing what, says Augustine: What does the closed door in the house of the Lord mean, if not that Mary will always be intact? And what does the expression mean—no man will pass through it—but Joseph will not know it? And only the Lord will enter and go out through her — what does it mean, if not that the Holy Spirit will fertilize her and from her the Lord of angels will be born? And what does it mean — it will be eternally closed — if not that Mary will be a virgin before, during and after childbirth?

SOLUTION. — Undoubtedly we must detest the mistake of Celvidius, who claimed to have been the mother of Christ, after birth, known to Joseph and to have generated other children. - For this, first, goes against the perfection of Christ, who, as, by his divine nature, is the only begotten of the Father, as his Son is perfect in everything, so it was fitting that he should be the only begotten of the mother, as the perfectly generated from her. - Second, this error does injury to the Holy Spirit, whose tabernacle was the virginal womb, in which he formed the flesh of Christ; therefore it was not fitting that it should then be violated by the marital conjunction. -Thirdly, it goes against the dignity and holiness of the Mother of God, who would be most ungrateful if she had not been content with such a great Son; if her virginity, miraculously preserved in her, spontaneously wanted to lose it through carnal intercourse. - Fourth, it would also be a pretension sovereignly imputable to Joseph, to try to pollute the one who, by a revelation of the Angel, knew that he had conceived of the Holy Spirit. - From which we must absolutely conclude that the Mother of God, as she conceived a virgin and gave birth to a virgin, so also she always remained a virgin after childbirth.

WHEN THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST OBJECTION. — As Jerome says, we must understand the word — rather — as indicative, at times, only of what was previously thought, though ordinarily it indicates a consequence. It is not even necessary to carry out what was thought of, because sometimes an intervening obstacle prevents this realization. So to say someone — before having eaten, in the port, I sailed — does not mean that he ate in the port, after having sailed; but, what did I think I would have to eat, in the port.

Likewise the evangelist says, Before they lived together, she was found to have been conceived by the Holy Spirit; not that afterward they cohabited: conception by the Holy Spirit and, for they did not realize the concubitus.

ANSWER TO THE SECOND. — As Augustine says, the Mother of God is called wife, by the first faith of the espousals, she who neither knew nor was to know the concubitus. For, in the words of Ambrose, the celebration of the wedding does not declare the loss of virginity, but the witness of the marriage.

ANSWER TO THE THIRD. — Some have said that this place of the Gospel must not be understood of carnal knowledge, but of informative knowledge. Thus, says Chrysostom, that Joseph did not know her dignity, before she gave birth; but after the birth, then he knew it. For, in conceiving such a child, she became greater and more worthy than the whole world; for having, she alone, received in the august sphere of her womb, the one whom the whole world could not contain. — But others refer the place in question to knowledge of sight. For just as the face of Moses, when he spoke with God, was glorified to him so that the children of Israel could not look upon him, so Mary, obscured by the splendor of the power of the Most High, could not be recognized by Joseph, before the childbirth. But after giving birth, José recognized the features on her face, without any bodily contact. — But Jerome, who grants that we must understand the evangelical expression, of carnal knowledge, says that until (usque) or until (donec), in Scripture, can be understood in two ways. Thus he sometimes designates the time, after that of the Apostle: Because of transgressions the law was made, until the seed should come, to whom he had made the promise. At other times, however, it means infinite time, according to that: Our eyes are on the Lord our God, until he have mercy on us; which is not to be understood as meaning that, after mercy has been asked, our eyes are turned away from God. And, according to this way of speaking, things are expressed to us which we might doubt if they were not written; as for the rest, they are entrusted to our intelligence. And so the Evangelist says that the Mother of God was not known to any man until birth, so that we can understand that, with all the more reason, she was not known after birth.

ANSWER TO FOURTH. — It is customary in the divine Scriptures to call the firstborn not only the one who had other brothers, but also the one who was born first. Otherwise, if it were not the firstborn but the one who had brothers, the birthrights would not, by law, be due until more brothers survive. Which is clearly false, since the law required that, within a month, the firstborn should be redeemed.

ANSWER TO FIFTH. — Some, as Jeronimo says, think that the aforementioned brothers of Senhor José had them from another woman. But we think that the brothers of the Lord were not children of Joseph, but cousins ​​of the Savior, children of another Mary, his aunt. For in Scripture there are four kinds of brother: by nature, by race, by cognation, and by affection. Hence they are called brothers of the Lord, not by nature, as if they were born of the same mother; but, by cognation, almost as being their consanguines. Joseph, however, as Jerome says, we must rather believe that he remained a virgin, since, on the one hand, Scripture does not say of him that he had another wife, and on the other hand, fornication cannot be attributed to ONE holy man.

ANSWER TO FRIDAY. — The Mary, called the Mother of James and Joseph, is not understood to be the mother of the Lord, to which the Gospel refers only attributing to her her dignity as the Mother of Jesus. Now this Mary is understood to be the wife of Alphaeus, whose son was James the Lesser, called the Lord's brother.

Art. 4 - Whether the Mother of God took a vow of virginity?

The fourth is discussed like this. — It seems that the Mother of God did not take a vow of virginity.

1. — For the Scripture says: There shall not be in you barren, either of one sex or of the other. Now, sterility is consequent to virginity. Therefore, the preservation of virginity was against the precept of the ancient law. Now the old law was still in effect when Christ was born. Therefore, at that time, the Holy Virgin could not licitly take a vow of virginity.

2. Too much. — The Apostle says: But as for virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord, but I give counsel. Now the perfection of the counsel had to begin with Christ, who is the end of the law, as the Apostle says. Therefore, it was not convenient for the Virgin to take a vow of virginity.

3. Too much. — Jerome's Gloss says: For those who have taken a vow of chastity, it is reprehensible not only to marry, but to want to marry. Now the Mother of Christ did not commit any reprehensible sin, as established.

Therefore, as she was espoused, it seems that she did not take a vow of virginity.

But on the contrary, Augustine: To the angel who announced to him, Mary answered: How can this be done, since I know no man? Which she certainly wouldn't say, if she hadn't previously vowed her virginity to God.

SOLUTION. — As we established in Part Two, the most praiseworthy works of perfection are when they are celebrated with a vow. Now, Virginity should, par excellence, shine in the Virgin Mother, for the reasons already mentioned. Therefore it was fitting to consecrate her virginity to God by vow. Now, in the time of the law, both women and men were to beget, because the propagation of the worship of God depended on a nation rich in men, before God was born of that people. Hence, it is not believed that the Mother of God had, absolutely speaking, made a vow of virginity before marrying Joseph; but, though she had the desire to do so, she nevertheless committed her will to the divine agency. But after she had received a husband, as the customs of the time required, she simultaneously took a vow of virginity.

WHERE THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST OBJECTION. — As it was forbidden by law not to endeavor to leave offspring on earth, so the Mother of God did not take a vow of virginity at all, but conditionally, that is, if it pleased God. But after having known that God had so accepted him, she took an absolute vow of virginity, before receiving the angel's announcement.

ANSWER TO THE SECOND. — Just as Christ had the fullness of grace perfectly, and yet certain graces inchoately pre-existed in his mother, so also the observance of the counsels, which is accomplished by the grace of God, began, of course, perfectly in Christ, but somehow it began. in your mother.

ANSWER TO THE THIRD. — The words quoted from the Apostle must be understood as applying to those who make an absolute vow of chastity, which the Mother of God did not do before she married Joseph. But after she had married him, of her own accord, together with her husband, there was the vow of virginity.

Question 29: Of the betrothals of the Mother of God

Next we must deal with the betrothals of the Mother of God; and in this question two articles are discussed:

Art. 1 - Whether Christ was to be born of an espoused virgin?

The first is discussed like this. — It seems that Christ was not to be born of a virgin espoused.

1. — For the espousals are ordained to carnal copulation. Now, the Mother of God never wanted to use carnal copulation, which would go against the virginity of her heart. Therefore, she was not to be married.

2. Too much. “That Christ was born of a virgin was a miracle. Whence Augustine says: It was the very power of God who was pleased to bring out the limbs of a child through the virginal breast of his inviolate Mother, as he will later be pleased to bring in the limbs of a man made through closed doors. If a reason is sought here, the miracle vanishes; if an example is asked, there is nothing else singular. Now the miracles done to confirm the faith must be manifest. Therefore, as the espousals obscured this miracle, it seems it was not fitting that Christ should be born of a bride.

3. Too much. — Ignatius Martir, as Jeronimo says, pointed out as the cause of the espousals of the Mother of God, that his birth was hidden from the devil, so that he would think that he was generated, not by a virgin, but by a married woman. Either because the devil, with the acuity of his senses, knows what is materially realized. Also because, later, by many obvious signs, the demons in a certain way knew Christ. Whence does the Gospel say, that a man possessed of an unclean spirit cried out, saying: What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Did you come to lose us? I know well who you are: that you are the Holy One of God. Therefore, it seems it was not convenient for the Mother of God to be espoused.

4. Too much. — Jerome points out another reason: so that the Mother of God would not be stoned by the Jews as an adulteress. Now this reason is worthless; for if she were not betrothed she could not be condemned as an adulteress. Therefore, it seems it was not rational that Christ should have been born of a betrothed.

But, on the contrary, the Gospel: When his mother Mary was already betrothed to Joseph. And elsewhere: The angel Gabriel was sent to the Virgin Mary, betrothed to a man named Joseph.

SOLUTION. — It was fitting that Christ should be born of a married virgin: either for his own sake, or for his mother's, or also for our sakes.

Because of Christ himself, for four reasons. — First, that he might not be rejected from the infidels, as illegitimate by birth. Whence Ambrose's saying: What could the Jews and Herod be reproached if they had persecuted those born of adultery? "Second, so that, in the usual way, your genealogy could be traced through your paternal line." That is why Ambrose says: Whoever came into the century must be described in the manner of the century. For, in the Senate and in other assemblies, a man is sought to be given the honors due to his family. And the same custom testifies to the Scriptures, which always seek the manly origin. — Third, in defense of the child born: so that the devil does not stir up more violent snares against him. That is why Ignatius says that the Virgin was betrothed so that her birth would be hidden from the devil. — Fourth, so that he could be educated by José. That's why he was called his father, almost the educator.

It was also convenient in relation to the Virgin. — First, because thus she was immune from the penalty, that is, so that she would not be stoned by the Jews, as an adulteress. "Second, that she might thus be freed from infamy." Hence Ambrose's saying: she was married so as not to be branded with the infamy of a profaned virginity, when pregnancy could be a sign of corruption. — Third, so that Joseph could give him his ministry, as Jerome says.

It was also convenient for us. — First, because by the testimony of Joseph the birth of Christ, of a virgin, was proved. — Whence Ambrósio's saying: A husband's testimony is the best testimony of a wife's modesty; for if he had not known the mystery, it is the husband who would have the greater right to grieve at the injury, and avenge the reproach. “Second, because the Virgin's own words became more credible when she claimed her virginity. This is why Ambrose says: Faith in Mary's words is firmer, which removes the causes of lies. If she had become pregnant, without being married, she would seem to want, lyingly, to hide her guilt. While married, she had no reason to lie, for the reward of marriage and the glory of the nuptials is, for women, childbirth. And these two reasons concern the firmness of our faith. —Thirdly, so that virgins who, through carelessness, do not avoid infamy, have no excuse. Therefore, says Ambrose: It was not appropriate to allow virgins, who live with a bad reputation, to be able to veil themselves on the excuse that the Mother of the Lord also had a similar reputation. —Fourth, because the betrothals of the Virgin are the symbol of the universal Church, which, being a virgin, nevertheless married a husband, Christ, as Augustine says. — A fifth reason can still be adduced, namely, that the Mother of the Lord was married and a virgin, because in her person, both virginity and marriage are honored, against heretics who detract from the former and the latter.

WHEN THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST OBJECTION. — We must believe that it was by a familiar inspiration of the Holy Spirit that the Holy Virgin. Mother of God wanted to be married. Trusting in divine help, which she would never use in carnal copulation; however, she committed this matter to divine will. Hence, no detriment suffered in her virginity.

ANSWER TO THE SECOND. — As Ambrose says, the Lord preferred that some doubt his origins rather than his mother's modesty. For he knew how delicate a virgin's modesty is, and how much protection her reputation needs; nor did he think that faith in his origin needed defending itself to the detriment of his mother. — We must, however, know that in certain miracles of God we must have faith, such as the miracle of the virgin birth, of the resurrection of the Lord and also that of the Sacrament of the Altar. That is why the Lord wanted these mysteries to be more hidden, so that faith in them would be more meritorious. — But other miracles serve as proof of faith. And these should be more manifest.

ANSWER TO THE THIRD. — As Augustine says, the devil can do many things by virtue of his nature, which however divine power prevents him. And so we may say that by virtue of his nature, The devil could know that the Mother of God was not corrupted, but she was a virgin; but God forbade him to know the way of divine birth. — Nor does it prevent the devil from knowing, in a certain way, that this birth was that of the Son of God; for it was time for Christ to manifest his power against him, and to suffer the persecution which he called forth. But during childhood it was necessary to prevent the malice of the devil; in order that he might no longer persecute him cruelly, at an age when Christ had not determined that he should suffer nor manifest his power, but when he showed himself like all other children. That is why Pope Leo says: The Magi saw Jesus as small in body, in need of the help of others, incapable of speech and in no way different from what is common to human childhood. - Ambrose, however, seems to have the devil's supporters in mind. For, after having proposed the reason, of the deception of the prince of the world, he adds: Yet this mystery deceived above all the princes of this world.

For although the malice of demons also easily understands hidden things, yet those who occupy themselves with the vanities of the age cannot know divine things.

ANSWER TO FOURTH. — For the condemnation of adultery, not only those already married or married were stoned, but also those who were kept as virgins in their father's house to marry one day. Therefore says Scripture: If the girl is not found a virgin, the inhabitants of the city will stone her, and she will die; because she committed a detestable crime in Israel, tent fallen into fornication in her father's house. — Or we can say, according to some, that the Holy Virgin was of the lineage or kinship of Aaron, being therefore a cognate of Elizabeth, as the Gospel says. Now a virgin of the priestly race, if she committed rape, was condemned to death, as it is written in Scripture: If a priest's daughter caught in rape and dishonor her father's name, she shall be given up to the flames. - But some refer Jerome's words to stoning for infamy.

Art. 2 - Whether there was a true marriage between Mary and Joseph?

The second is discussed like this. — It seems that between Mary and Joseph there was no real marriage.

1. — For, says Jerome, that Joseph was Mary's keeper before her husband. Now, if there had been a true marriage between them, Joseph would have truly been her husband. Therefore, it appears that there was no true marriage between Mary and Joseph.

2. Too much. — That of the Gospel — Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary — says Jerome: When you hear the name of bridegroom, do not immediately think that it is a matter of marriage; but remember that the Scriptures are wont to call the bridegrooms, husbands, and the brides, wives. Now, the true marriage is not the betrothal, but the nuptials. Therefore, there was no true marriage between the Holy Virgin and Joseph.

3. Too much. — The Gospel says: Joseph, her husband, as he was just, did not want to disgrace her, that is, to take her to his house to live with her habitually; but he decided to leave her secretly, that is, to transfer the time of the nuptials, as Remígio explains. Therefore, it appears that, before the nuptials were celebrated, there was still no true marriage; above all because, once the marriage has been contracted, it is not lawful for anyone to abandon his wife.

But, on the contrary, Augustine says: We must not believe that, according to the Evangelist, Joseph refused to receive Mary in marriage, on the pretext that she would have, as a virgin, given birth to Christ, without his concurrence. But this example clearly proves to the married faithful that they can be true spouses and deserve such a name, while keeping the promise of reciprocal continence, without having conjugal commerce.

SOLUTION. — That which accomplishes its perfection is called true marriage or marriage. Now, double can be the perfection of one thing: primary and secondary. The primary perfection of a thing consists in its form, whence it takes its species. Secondary perfection consists in its operation, by which it in a certain way attains its end. Now, the form of marriage consists in a certain and indivisible union of souls, by which each spouse is obliged to maintain an integral faith towards the other. As for the end of marriage, it is the generation and education of offspring; and this is attained, first of all, by conjugal concubitus; and, secondarily, by the cooperation of the man and the woman, who mutually help each other, for the maintenance of the children.

Thus, then, we must say, as regards the first perfection, that there was an absolutely true marriage between the Virgin Mother of God and Joseph. For, both consented to the conjugal coexistence; but not expressly, in carnal copulation, but on condition, if it pleases God, so the Angel calls Mary Joseph's wife, when he said to him: Do not be afraid to take Mary your wife.

Expounding what, Augustine says: He calls her wife, by the first faith of the betrothal, the one who had never known and never would know through concubitus. — As for the second perfection, by the act of marriage, if we refer to the carnal concubitus, which generates children, then the marriage between Joseph and Mary was not consummated. Hence Ambrose's saying: Do not be troubled by the fact that Scripture often calls Mary his wife; for the celebration of marriage does not imply loss of virginity, being only the witness of the nuptials. - However, the marriage in question was also perfect in terms of the education of the offspring. That is why Augustine says: The parents of Christ had the complete good of the nuptials—the offspring, the faith, and the sacrament. By the offspring we mean the Lord Jesus himself; by faith, the absence of all adultery; by the sacrament, the non-existence of divorce. Only there was no nuptial concubitus.

WHEN THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST OBJECTION. — Jerome, in the place cited, refers to the husband, as to the act of consummating the marriage.

ANSWER TO THE SECOND. — Jerome calls the nuptials nuptial concubitus.

ANSWER TO THE THIRD. — As Chrysostom says, the Holy Virgin when she married Joseph already lived in his house. For if a woman's conception in her husband's house is considered regular, that which she conceived outside the house is suspect. Therefore, the reputation of the Holy Virgin would not have been sufficiently guarded just because she had married, without her living in the conjugal domicile. Wherefore, the expression — did not want to take her home — is better understood as meaning that she did not want to defame her in public, than as signifying the act of taking her home. Hence the Evangelist adds, that he resolved to leave her secretly. Though she, however, was inhabiting the house of Joseph, by the first faith of the espousals, even before the marriage was solemnly celebrated; because of which, she also had not yet had carnal trade. Therefore, as Chrysostom teaches, the Evangelist did not say — Before she was taken to her husband's house — for she already inhabited his house. For it was customary among the ancients for the bride to inhabit the house of the groom. Hence the Angel also said: Do not be afraid to take Mary your wife, that is, do not be afraid to celebrate solemn marriages with her. -Although others say, that she did not yet inhabit Joseph's house, but she was only engaged. But, the former explanation better agrees with the Gospel.

Question 30: On the Annunciation of the Holy Virgin

Next, we must deal with the annunciation of the Holy Virgin.

And in this question four articles are discussed:

Art. 1 — Whether it was necessary to announce to the Holy Virgin what was to be accomplished in her?

The first is discussed like this. — It seems that it was not necessary for the Holy Virgin to be announced what was to be accomplished in her.

1. — Well, it seems that the annunciation was only necessary to obtain the consent of the Virgin. Now it appears that her consent was not necessary; for the conception of the Virgin was foreshadowed by the prophecy of predestination, which is fulfilled without the cooperation of our will, as a certain gloss says. Therefore, it was not necessary for such an announcement to be made.

2. Too much. — The Holy Virgin had faith in the Incarnation, without which no one could walk the path of salvation; for, as the Apostle says, the righteousness of God is infused by the faith of Jesus Christ in all. Now he who believes surely does not need to be further instructed. Therefore, it was not necessary for the Holy Virgin to have the incarnation of the Son of God announced.

3. Too much. — As the Holy Virgin conceived Christ bodily, so every holy soul conceives him spiritually. Whence the Apostle says: My little children, for whom I feel the pains of childbirth again, until Jesus Christ is formed in you. But to those who are to conceive Christ spiritually, this conception is not announced to them. Therefore, neither should it be announced to the Holy Virgin, who would conceive the Son of God in her womb.

But, on the contrary, it is in the Gospel that the Angel said to him: Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son.

SOLUTION. — It was convenient for the Holy Virgin to be announced that she was to conceive Christ. — First, that the due order of the union of the Son of God with the Virgin might be observed; that is, that, before his flesh conceived him, his soul might have knowledge of it. Hence Augustine's saying: Mary was happier perceiving Christ's fidelity than conceiving his flesh. And then he adds: The closeness of her Son would have been of no use to Mary if she had not more happily brought Christ in her heart than in her flesh. — Second, that I might be a more certain witness of this sacrament, when I was instructed in it by God. — Third, that she might offer to God the voluntary gift of her submission, to which she readily offered herself when she said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord. —Fourth, that there might be shown to be a spiritual marriage between the Son of God and human nature. Therefore, by the annunciation, the consent of the Virgin was requested, as the representative of all human nature.

WHEN THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST OBJECTION. — The prophecy of predestination is fulfilled without the causal cooperation of our will; but not without his consent.

ANSWER TO THE SECOND. — The Holy Virgin had express faith in the future Incarnation; but, humble as she was, she did not think herself worthy of such high things. Therefore, she needed to be instructed in this matter.

ANSWER TO THE THIRD. — The spiritual conception of Christ, through faith, precedes the annunciation, accomplished by the faith of preaching, according to the saying of the Apostle, that faith is by the ear. But no one knows for sure that he has grace; but he knows the faith which he has received to be true.

Art. 2 - Whether to the Holy Virgin the annunciation was to be made by an angel?

The second is discussed like this. — It seems that to the Holy Virgin the annunciation should not have been made by an angel.

1. —For to the supreme angels the revelation is made immediately by God, as Dionysius says. Now the Mother of God was exalted above all the angels. Therefore, it seems that the mystery of the Incarnation must have been given to him immediately by God and not by an angel.

2. Too much. — If in this matter it was necessary to observe the common order, whereby divine things are revealed to men by angels, in like manner such things must be revealed to a woman by a man; whence the Apostle says: Let women be silent in churches, and if they want to learn something, ask their husbands at home. Therefore, it seems that the mystery of the Incarnation must have been announced to the Holy Virgin by some man, especially that Joseph, her husband, was instructed in this matter by the Angel, as we read in the Gospel.

3. Too much. — No one can conveniently announce what he ignores. Now, even the supreme angels did not fully know the mystery of the Incarnation; Hence Dionysius says that from their person the question of Scripture must be understood — Who is this that comes from Edom? Therefore, it seems that by no angel could the accomplishment of the Incarnation be conveniently announced.

4. Too much. “Greater things must be announced by greater ambassadors. Now, the mystery of the Incarnation is the greatest of those announced to men by angels. Therefore it appears that if by any angel he was to be announced, he must be one of the supreme order. Now Gabriel is not of the supreme order, but of the order of the archangels, which is the penultimate. That's why the Church sings: We know that, sent by God, Gabriel the Archangel announced you. Therefore, this annunciation was not conveniently made, through Gabriel Arcanjo.

But, on the contrary, the Gospel: The angel Gabriel was sent of God, &c.

SOLUTION. — It was convenient that the mystery of the Incarnation was announced to the Mother of God, through an angel, for three reasons. — First, so that the divine order might be observed, by which divine things are transmitted to men through angels. Whence Dionysus says that the angels were first instructed in the divine mystery of Jesus' love; then through them the grace of that knowledge came to us. Thus, then, the most divine Gabriel announced to Zacharias that a prophet would be born from him: and to Mary, how the Trierarchical mystery of the ineffable formation of God would be fulfilled in her. — Second, because it was convenient for the restoration of the human race, which Christ was to bring about. And that is why Bede says: It suited the restoration of humanity, that an angel should be sent by God to the Virgin. which was to consecrate the birth of a God. For the first cause of mankind's perdition was the devil, when he sent the serpent to the woman in order to deceive her with the spirit of pride. — Third, because it suited the virginity of the Mother of God. And that is why Jerome says: It was good for the angel to have been sent to the Virgin, for virginity is cognate with the angelic nature. For, indeed, to live in the flesh, as if it did not exist, is not earthly but heavenly life.

WHERE THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST OBJECTION. — The Mother of God was superior to the angels in dignity, for which God chose her. But as to the state of the present life, she was inferior to the angels; for Christ himself, by reason of his passable life, was for a little made lower than the angels, in the phrase of the Apostle. However, as Christ was both mortal and blessed, he did not need to be instructed by angels in the knowledge of divine things. But the Mother of God was not yet in the state of bliss. Therefore, she needed to be instructed by the angels as to her divine conception.

ANSWER TO THE SECOND. — As Augustine says, the Holy Virgin escapes certain general human laws.

For neither had many conceptions, nor lived under the power of a man, that is, of a husband, who, keeping her virginity intact, conceived Christ, of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, she was not to be instructed in the mystery of the Incarnation, by any man, but by the angel. And therefore also she was instructed in him, before Joseph; for whereas she was before her conception, Joseph was not until after her.

ANSWER THE THIRD. — As is clear from the cited authority of Dionysus, the angels knew the mystery of the Incarnation; yet they questioned, desiring to know more perfectly about Christ the reasons for this mystery, which are incomprehensible to every created intellect. Hence Maximus says that we cannot doubt whether the angels knew the future Incarnation. But the investigative conception of the Lord escaped them, and the way in which the Son, wholly in the Father who begat him, could also remain entirely in all, and even in a virginal bosom.

ANSWER TO FOURTH. — Certain people affirm that Gabriel was of the highest order of angels, founded on the saying of Gregory: he was worthy of having come the supreme angel to announce the highest of mysteries. But from this it does not follow that he was the supreme of all orders, but only as regards angels; for he was of the order of the archangels. That is why the Church gives him the name of Archangel and Gregory himself says that those who announce the highest things are called Archangels. It is quite credible, therefore, that he was the first in the order of the archangels. And, as Gregory says, this name fits his office, because Gabriel means the strength of God. And so, where, by the power of God, he was to be announced who, Lord of virtues and mighty in combat, came to conquer the powers of the air.

Art. 3 - Whether the announcing angel was to appear to the Virgin in bodily form?

The third is discussed like this. — It seems that the announcing angel was not supposed to appear to the Virgin in bodily form.

1. — For seeing in spirit is nobler than seeing materially, as Augustine says; and above all it is more convenient for the angel, because through the vision of the spirit the angel is seen in his substance, and through the material he is seen in the corporeal figure he has assumed. Now, just as the announcing of the divine conception was fitting to be made by a supreme nuncio, so it seems that the supreme kind of vision belonged to him.

Therefore, it seems that the announcing angel appeared to the Virgin in a spiritual vision.

2. Too much. — It seems that the imaginary vision is also nobler than the corporeal vision, as much as the imagination is a higher power than the senses. Now the angel appeared to Joseph during his sleep, in an imaginary vision, as we read in the Gospel. Therefore, it seems that he must also appear to the Holy Virgin in an imaginary vision and not in material vision.

3. Too much. — The bodily vision of a spiritual substance disturbs the beholder; that is why the Church sings, of the Virgin — and the Virgin was amazed at the sight of the light. Why, it would have been better if her soul had been preserved from such a disturbance. Therefore, it was not convenient for the aforementioned annunciation to be made through a corporeal vision.

But, on the contrary, Augustine puts the following words in the mouth of the Holy Virgin: The Archangel Gabriel came to me with glowing faces, in dazzling robes, of admirable appearance. Now this can only belong to a corporeal vision. Soon, the angel he announced to the Holy Virgin appeared to him in bodily form.

SOLUTION. — The announcing angel appeared to the Mother of God in bodily form. And this was convenient. “First, as to what was advertised. For, the angel came to announce the Incarnation of the invisible God. Therefore, it was convenient that, in order to announce this event, an invisible creature should assume a form that would allow it to appear visibly. For, moreover, all the apparitions of the Old Testament are ordered to the apparition by which the Son of God was manifested incarnate. — Second, it suited the dignity of the Mother of God, who was to receive the Son of God not only in her soul, but also bodily, in her womb. Therefore, not only her soul, but also the senses of her body, were to be favored with the angelic vision: — Third, it was convenient for the certainty of what was announced. For what is seen with the eyes we apprehend more surely than what we imagine. Whence Chrysostom says that the Angel presented himself really and visibly to the Virgin and not in dreams. For, having to receive from the angel a communication of such great importance, she needed a solemn apparition, the harbinger of such an important event.

WHEN THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST OBJECTION. — Intellectual vision is superior to imaginary or bodily vision, if only. But Augustine himself says that prophecy accompanied simultaneously by intellectual and imaginary vision is more excellent than that which is accompanied by only one of them. Now, the Holy Virgin not only perceived a spiritual manifestation. Therefore, this apparition was more noble. But it would have been even more, if she had seen the angel himself, in his substance, by an intellectual vision. But the state of a mortal did not sympathize with seeing an angel in essence.

ANSWER TO THE SECOND. — Imagination is certainly a higher power than the external senses. As, however, the basis of human knowledge are the senses, sensible knowledge is endowed with maximum certainty, since the principles of knowledge will always have greater certainty. Hence Joseph, to whom the angel appeared in his sleep, did not see such an excellent apparition as did the Holy Virgin.

ANSWER TO THE THIRD. — As Ambrose says, we are disturbed and alienated from the senses when surprised by the unexpected action of a superior force. And this happens not only in the case of a real vision but also an imaginary one. Hence the Scripture says, that at sunset a deep sleep came upon Abraham, and a great and fearful horror seized him. But this disturbance cannot be so harmful to man that he must be deprived of an angelic appearance. — First, because the very fact that man is elevated above himself, as his dignity requires, weakens the lower part of his nature, whence the aforesaid disturbance proceeds, just as the concentration of natural heat within the body causes the outer limbs tremble. — Second, because, as Origen says, the angel who appeared, knowing human nature, began to calm the disturbance.

Therefore, both Zechariah and Mary, seeing them: disturbed, said to them: Do not be afraid. This is why, as we read in the life of Antão, it is not difficult to discern the blessed spirits from the bad ones. If, therefore, to fear succeeds joy, let us know that help comes from God, because the security of the soul is a sign of the presence of majesty. If, on the other hand, the instilled fear remains, what we see is an enemy. — And besides, the Virgin's own disturbance was characteristic of virginal modesty. For, as Ambrose says, it is proper for virgins to tremble, as well as to fear him at the approach of any man, and to be terrified when one speaks to them. — But some say, that as the Holy Virgin was accustomed to seeing angels, she was not disturbed by the angelic apparition; but, taken by amazement at what the angel said to her for not considering herself worthy of such sublime things. So the Evangelist does not say that she was disturbed by her sight, but by the angel's words.

Art. 4 - Whether the annunciation was carried out in perfect order?

The fourth is discussed like this. — It seems that the annunciation was not carried out in perfect order.

1. — For the dignity of the Mother of God depends on the offspring conceived. But the cause must manifest itself before the effect. Therefore, the Angel must have announced to the Virgin the conception of her son before having greeted her with the proclamation of her dignity.

2. Too much. — We cannot demand proof in matters where there can be no doubt or in matters which may be subject to doubt. Now, it seems that the Angel first announced what the Virgin doubted, and because she doubted, she asked. How will this be done? And only afterwards did he add the proof taken both from Elizabeth's example, and from the omnipotence of God. Then the angel's annunciation took place in an inconvenient order.

3. Too much. — The more cannot be sufficiently proved at least. Now, it was more admirable to give birth to a virgin than an old woman. Therefore, that of the Angel was not sufficient proof, proving the virginal conception by the conception of an old woman.

But, on the contrary, the Apostle: Everything that proceeds from God is ordained. Now, the Angel was sent by God to announce to the Virgin, as the Gospel says. Therefore, the annunciation by the Angel was fulfilled in a very orderly manner.

SOLUTION. — The Annunciation was fulfilled by the Angel in the proper order. For the Angel had a threefold design in relation to the Virgin. — First, to make your heart attentive to the consideration of so great an event. Which he did, greeting her with a new and unusual greeting. Hence Origen says, that if the Virgin, who knew Jewish law, had known that a similar salutation had ever been made to any one, she would not have been frightened of her strange character. And in that salutation the Angel first announced to her her suitability for conception, when he said — Full of grace; afterwards he announced the conception, by declaring to her — The Lord is with thee; and finally he foreshadowed the consequent honor with the words — Blessed are you among women. - The second purpose of the angel was to instruct her in the mystery of the Incarnation, which was to be fulfilled in her. And this he did, foreshadowing her conception and childbirth, when he said — Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, &c.; and showed him the dignity of the conceived son, saying, This shall be great, &c. And also when he revealed to her the mode of conception, with the words — The Holy Spirit will descend upon you. — The third design of the Angel was to induce his mind to consent. What he did with the example of Elizabeth and for the reason deduced from divine omnipotence.

WHEN THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST OBJECTION. — For a humble soul nothing causes greater admiration than to hear of his own excellency. For admiration sovereignly awakens the attention of the soul.

That is why the Angel, wanting to make the Virgin's mind attentive, to hear the revelation of such a great mystery, began by praising her.

ANSWER TO THE SECOND. — Ambrose expressly says that the Holy Virgin did not doubt the words of the Angel. These are her words: Mary's response is more measured than the priest's words. This question: How will this be done? The one answers: How shall I know the truth of these things? He thus refuses their faith, denying to know such things. The Virgin, however, does not doubt, at the moment when she asks how it will be done, of its accomplishment. — Augustine, however, seems to say that the Virgin allowed herself to be invaded by doubt, when he said: To Mary who hesitates about conception, the angel affirms its possibility. But this doubt was rather one of admiration than of disbelief. Therefore, the angel adds his proof, not to acquire the Virgin's confidence, but rather to remove her admiration.

ANSWER TO THE THIRD. — As Ambrose says, if many barren women conceived, it was so that they would believe in the Virgin's birth. Hence the example of the barren Isabel was added; not as a sufficient argument, but as a figurative example. Hence, for confirmation of this example, he adds the peremptory argument of the omnipotence of God.