120. Unde sequitur ecce angelus Domini apparuit: quasi in promptu sit adiutorium Dei; Ps. IX, 10: adiutor in opportunitatibus, in tribulatione; Ps. LIII, 6: ecce enim Deus adiuvat me, et Dominus susceptor est animae meae. 120. Hence follows behold the angel of the Lord appeared, the help of God being, so to speak, ready at hand; and the Lord is become . . . a helper in due time in tribulation (Ps 9:10); for behold God is my helper: and the Lord is the protector of my soul (Ps 53:6). Angelus Domini: nihil enim melius potuit excusare, quam ille qui conscius erat virginitatis servatae. Unde ille idem angelus qui missus est ad Mariam, Luc. I, 26, creditur missus ad Ioseph, Ps. XXXIII, 8: immittet angelus Domini in circuitu timentium eum, scilicet Mariae, et Ioseph, ut ipsam liberaret ab infamia, et Ioseph in perturbatione non dimitteret. The angel of the Lord, for none could better excuse her than he who was aware of her protected virginity. Hence that same angel who was sent to Mary (Luke 1:26), is believed to have been sent to Joseph; the angel of the Lord will encamp round about them (Ps 33:8), namely Mary and Joseph, so as to rescue her from infamy, and so as not to abandon Joseph in turmoil. 121. Sed hic quaeritur, quare non a principio facta est Ioseph revelatio, antequam ita perturbaretur. 121. But here it is asked why a revelation was not made to Joseph from the beginning, before he was disturbed in this way. Item, quare Maria ei non revelavit Annuntiationem angelicam, quae sibi facta fuerat. Similarly, why did not Mary reveal to him the angelic announcement which had been made to her? Et dicendum ad primum, quod hoc fecit ut testimonium eius esset credibilius. Sicut enim Dominus Thomam apostolum permisit dubitare de sua resurrectione, ut scilicet dubitans palparet, et palpans crederet, et credendo infidelitatis in nobis vulnus amoveret; sic permisit Dominus Ioseph de pudicitia Mariae dubitare, ut dubitans revelationem angelicam acciperet, et accipiendo firmius crederet. And to the first, one should say that this was done so that his testimony would be more believable. For as the Lord permitted the apostle Thomas to doubt his resurrection, so that he might touch, and touching, believe, and by believing he might remove the wound of unbelief in us; in the same way the Lord permitted Joseph to doubt the chastity of Mary so that, doubting, he might receive the angelic revelation, and by receiving it believe more firmly. Ad hoc quod quaeritur secundo, dicendum, quod si Maria ei dixisset, ipse non credidisset. To the second question it should be said that if Mary had spoken to him, he would not have believed her. 122. Apparuit ei in somnis: ecce modus revelationis. 122. Appeared to him in his sleep: behold, the mode of revelation. Nota quod apparere proprie est illius rei, quae de natura sua est invisibilis, tamen in potestate sua est ut videatur: sicut est Deus, vel angelus; illa enim quae de sui natura habent ut videantur, proprie apparere non dicuntur: unde dicitur apparitio divina, vel angelica. Unde proprie loquitur. Note that to appear is proper to that which of its own nature is invisible, yet has it within its power that it be seen, as is God, or an angel; for those things which have it of their own nature that they are seen are not properly said to appear. Hence it is called a divine apparition, or an angelic apparition. Hence this is properly spoken. 123. Apparuit in somnis. 123. Appeared to him in his sleep. Sed hic quaeritur quare in somnis. But here it is asked, why in his sleep? Ratio redditur in Glossa, quia Ioseph quodammodo dubitans erat: unde quasi quodammodo dormiebat, et ideo recte in somnis dicitur angelus apparuisse ei. And a reason is given in the Gloss, namely that Joseph was in a certain way doubting; hence he was in a certain way sleeping, so to speak, and therefore rightly is the angel said to have appeared to him in his sleep. Alia ratio potest assignari melior, sicut enim dicit Apostolus, I Cor. XIV, 22, prophetia data est fidelibus, signa autem infidelibus. Proprie autem revelatio, quae dicitur prophetica, fit in somnis; Num. XII, 6: si quis fuerit inter vos propheta Domini, in visione apparebo ei, vel per somnium loquar ad illum: et ideo quia Ioseph iustus erat, et fidelis, ipsi tamquam fideli debuit fieri apparitio, quae competit credentibus, scilicet revelatio quasi prophetica. Quia vero apparitio corporalis est miraculosa, talis apparitio sibi non competebat, cum ipse crederet, et esset fidelis. Another and better reason can be given, for as the Apostle says, tongues are for a sign, not to believers, but to unbelievers; but prophecies not to unbelievers, but to believers (1 Cor 14:22). Now a revelation, which is called a prophecy, properly happens in sleep; if there be among you a prophet of the Lord, I will appear to him in a vision, or I will speak to him in a dream (Num 12:6); and so since Joseph was just and faithful, there should have come to him, as to one who is faithful, an apparition, as befits those who believe; that is, a prophetic revelation, as it were. Since indeed a bodily apparition is miraculous, such an apparition did not befit him, since he believed, and was faithful. 124. Sed tunc quaeritur, quare Mariae facta est visibilis apparitio, cum ipsa esset fidelissima. 124. But then it is asked why a visible apparition was made to Mary, since she was most faithful. Et dicendum est, quod mysterium incarnationis a principio revelatum est Virgini Mariae, quando difficilius erat ad credendum; et ideo oportuit quod sibi fieret apparitio visibilis. Ipsi vero Ioseph non est revelatum a principio, sed magis quando iam pro magna parte erat impletum, cum iam videret alvum eius intumescere, unde facilius poterat credere; et ideo sufficiebat sibi apparitio quae fit in somnis. And one should say that the mystery of the incarnation was revealed to the Virgin Mary in the beginning, when it was most difficult to believe; and so it was necessary that a visible apparition be made to her. However, it was not revealed to Joseph in the beginning, but rather when it was for the most part completed already, since he already saw her womb to have grown big; hence he was more easily able to believe, and so an apparition which came in his sleep was enough for him. 125. Ioseph fili David. Hic revelationis verba ponuntur: et dividitur in tres partes, secundum tria quae facit angelus: 125. Joseph, son of David. Here the words of the revelation are set down; and it is divided into three parts, according to the three things which the angel does. primo enim Mariae et Ioseph prohibet divortium; For first, he forbids the separation of Mary and Joseph; secundo incarnationis aperit mysterium, cum dicit quod in ea natum est, de Spiritu Sancto est; second, he opens the mystery of the incarnation, when he says, he who is born in her, is of the Holy Spirit; tertio ipsius Ioseph futurum praenuntiat obsequium, quod scilicet puero exhibebat, ibi pariet autem filium. third, he foretells the future service of Joseph himself, namely that which he showed to the child, at she will bring forth a son. 126. Dicit igitur Ioseph. Vocat eum ut reddat eum attentum ad audiendum, et ut revocet eum ad seipsum. Hoc commune est in Scriptura, quod scilicet quando praemittitur apparitio, quae est de superius, requirit in auditore quamdam mentis elevationem, et attentionem; Ez. II, 1: fili hominis, sta super pedes tuos, et loquar tecum, et infra, fili hominis, audi quaecumque loquor ad te, et noli esse exasperans. Hab. II, 1: super custodiam meam stabo. 126. He says then, Joseph. He calls him so as to render him attentive for listening, and so as to recall him to himself. This is common in the Scriptures, namely that when an apparition is sent which is from someone higher, he seeks in the hearer a certain elevation of the mind, and attention; son of man, stand upon your feet, and I will speak to you (Ezek 2:1). And below that, but you, O son of man, hear all that I say to you: and do not provoke me. And: I will stand upon my watch, and fix my foot upon the tower: and I will watch, to see what will be said to me (Hab 2:1). 127. Fili David. Ideo genus exprimit ut avertat illud quod dicitur Is. VII, 13: audite, domus David: numquid parum est molestos esse hominibus, quia molesti estis et Deo meo? et cetera. Signum enim datum fuit non uni personae, sed toti tribui sive domui: unde quia de hoc debebat eum instruere, iubetur in expressione generis sui vaticinium prophetae ad memoriam reducere. 127. Son of David. He pronounced the name of the family so that he might ward off that which is said: hear therefore, O house of David: is it a small thing for you to be grievous to men, that you are grievous to my God also? (Isa 7:13). For the sign was given not to one person, but to an entire tribe or house; hence because he was supposed to instruct him about this, Joseph is commanded by the pronunciation of his family name to recall to remember the prophet’s saying. 128. Noli timere. Omnis apparitio, sive sit boni, vel mali angeli, timorem quemdam incutit: et hoc, quia talis apparitio est inconsueta, et quasi extranea naturae hominis; et ideo ponit hominem quasi extra se. Sed in hoc est differentia, quia apparitio mali angeli terrorem incutit, et in ipso terrore hominem dimittit, ut scilicet hominem quasi extra se positum facilius pertrahat ad peccatum; sed boni angeli apparitio, quamvis terrorem incutiat, tamen statim subditur conclusio, et assecutio consolationis, ut scilicet homo ad se redeat, et quae sibi dicuntur advertat; unde Luc. I, ubi dicitur quod apparuit angelus Zachariae, statim sequitur: ne timeas, et similiter in eodem: ne timeas, Maria. 128. Do not fear. Every apparition, whether it be of a good angel or a bad one, instills a certain fear; and this is because such an apparition is against the custom and outside the nature of man, so to speak, and so it places a man outside of himself, so to speak. But there is this difference, that the apparition of a bad angel instills terror, and leaves a man in that terror, namely to draw the man placed as it were outside of himself more easily to sin; but in the apparition of a good angel, although it instills terror, yet at once an end of the terror is given, and a gain in consolation, namely that the man might be led back into himself, and attend to what is said to him. Hence in Luke, where it says that an angel appeared to Zachary, there follows at once, do not fear, Zachary, and likewise in the same chapter, do not fear, Mary (Luke 1:13, 30). 129. Unde post apparitionem factam Ioseph statim subditur consolatio. Duplicem habebat iste timorem, scilicet Dei, et etiam peccati, ne scilicet Mariae cohabitando peccaret tamquam conscius peccati, et ideo, ne timeas, subditur, scilicet metu peccati, accipere Mariam coniugem tuam. 129. Hence after the apparition Joseph is given consolation at once. He had a twofold fear, namely of God and also of sin, that is, he feared lest he should sin by living with Mary as if co-aware of sin, and so next is added fear not, namely with a dread of sin, to take unto you Mary your wife. Nota quod coniux dicitur, non propter matrimonium, sed propter desponsationem: consuetudo enim est Scripturae et sponsas vocare coniuges, et coniuges sponsas. Note that wife is said, not on account of matrimony, but on account of espousal; for it is the custom of Scripture both to call the espoused married, and the married espoused. 130. Sed quaeritur, quomodo iubet eam accipere, cum eam nondum dimisisset. 130. But it is asked, how he could command Joseph to take her, since he had not sent her away? Et dicendum quod licet eam corporaliter non dimisisset, tamen in animo eam dimiserat: et ideo iubetur eam accipere. Vel ne timeas accipere quantum ad solemnitatem, et nuptiarum celebrationem. And one should say that although he had not sent her away bodily, nevertheless he had sent her away in his soul; and therefore he is commanded to take her. Or do not fear to take her as regards the solemnity and the celebration of nuptials. 131. Quod enim in ea natum est, de Spiritu Sancto est. Hic aperit incarnationis mysterium. 131. For he who is born in her, is of the Holy Spirit. Here he opens the mystery of the incarnation. Et nota quod cum tria ibi fuerint, scilicet ipsa Virgo concipiens, Filius Dei conceptus, et virtus activa Spiritus Sancti; duo bene exprimit angelus, scilicet concipientem, et conceptionis Actorem; sed tertium, ipsum Dei Filium conceptum, non exprimit nisi indefinite: quod enim, inquit, in ea natum est: et hoc ut denotetur quod ipsum est ineffabile et incomprehensibile, non solum homini, sed etiam ipsis angelis. Quod enim, inquit, in ea natum est, non dicit, de ea, quia nasci de matre est in lucem prodire: in matre nasci est ipsum concipi, de Spiritu Sancto est. And notice that since three things were there, namely the Virgin conceiving, the Son of God conceived, and the active power of the Holy Spirit, the angel expressed two of them well, namely the one conceiving and the author of the conception; but the third, the Son of God conceived, he only expresses indefinitely: for he who, he says, is born in her, and this is done to indicate that he is ineffable and incomprehensible, not only to men, but even to the angels. He who, he says, is born in her, he does not say, of her, because to be born of a mother is to advance into the light, while to be born in a mother is to be conceived, is of the Holy Spirit. Hoc est ergo testimonium angelicum, quod inducit Evangelista ad probandum quod supra dixerat inventa est in utero habens de Spiritu Sancto. So this is the angelic testimony which the Evangelist brings in to confirm what he had said, that she was found with child, of the Holy Spirit. 132. Nota quod in conceptione aliarum mulierum, in semine viri est virtus formativa, cuius subiectum est semen, et per hanc virtutem formatur foetus, et vegetatur in corpore mulieris. Hanc autem supplevit virtus Spiritus Sancti. Et ideo aliquando invenitur dictum a sanctis, quod Spiritus Sanctus fuit ibi pro semine, aliquando tamen dicitur quod non fuit ibi semen. Et hoc est, quia in semine viri sunt duo, scilicet ipsa corrupta substantia, quae descendit a corpore viri, et ipsa formativa virtus. 132. Note that in the conception of other women, the formative power is in the seed of the man, the subject of which power is the seed, and through this power the fetus is formed and enlivened in the body of the woman. But the Holy Spirit supplied this. And for this reason the saints are sometimes found to say that the Holy Spirit was there instead of seed, while sometimes they say that no seed was there. And this is because there are two things in the seed of a man, namely the corrupted substance which comes down from the body of the man, and the formative power itself. Dicendum ergo, quod Spiritus Sanctus fuit pro semine quantum ad virtutem formativam; sed non fuit ibi pro semine quantum ad corpulentam substantiam, quia non de substantia Spiritus Sancti facta est caro Christi, vel conceptio eius. Et ideo patet, quod Spiritus Sanctus non potest dici pater Christi, quia nec secundum divinam naturam, nec secundum humanam. Secundum divinam naturam quidem, quia quamvis Christus sit eiusdem gloriae cum Spiritu Sancto, Filius tamen secundum divinam naturam nihil accipit a Spiritu Sancto: et ideo non potest dici filius eius; filius enim aliquid accipit a patre. Similiter nec secundum humanam, quia pater et filius debent convenire in substantia; Christus autem, quamvis sit conceptus virtute Spiritus Sancti, non tamen de substantia Spiritus Sancti. It should be said therefore that the Holy Spirit was instead of seed as regards the formative power; but he was not there instead of seed as regards bodily substance, because neither the flesh of Christ nor his conception was made from the substance of the Holy Spirit. And so it is clear that the Holy Spirit cannot be called the father of Christ, because he is a father neither according to the divine nature, nor according to the human. Indeed, not according to the divine nature, because although Christ is of the same glory with the Holy Spirit, yet the Son according to the divine nature takes nothing from the Holy Spirit, and so cannot be called his son, for a son takes something from the father. Likewise not according to the human, because father and son ought to agree in substance; but although Christ was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, nevertheless he is not of the substance of the Holy Spirit. 133. Sed contra hoc quod dicitur de Spiritu Sancto est, quod Prov. IX, 1 dicitur, quod Sapientia aedificavit sibi domum. Ergo videtur quod ipsamet Divina Sapientia, idest Dei Filius, sibi humanam naturam univit, et ita non est facta virtute Spiritus Sancti. 133. But against what is said, is of the Holy Spirit, it is said that Wisdom has built herself a house (Prov 9:1). So it seems that the Divine Wisdom itself, i.e., the Son of God, united himself to human nature, and thus is not made by the power of the Holy Spirit. Sed duplex est responsio, secundum Augustinum. Prima, quod verbum illud quod scribitur Prov. IX, 1, intelligitur de Ecclesia, quam Christus in sanguine suo fundavit. Alia est, quod indivisa sunt opera Trinitatis: et ideo illud quod facit Filius, facit etiam Spiritus Sanctus, sed tamen per quamdam appropriationem attribuitur Spiritui Sancto. Et ratio huius dicta fuit superius. But there are two responses, according to Augustine. First, that what is written in Proverbs 9:1 is understood of the Church, which Christ founded in his own blood. Another is that the works of the Trinity are indivisible, and therefore what the Son does, the Holy Spirit does also, and yet this action is attributed to the Holy Spirit by a certain appropriation. And the reason for this was stated above. 134. Pariet autem filium. Hic praenuntiat obsequium, quod exhibebit Ioseph puero iam nato, et facit tria: 134. She will bring forth a son. Here he foretells the service which Joseph will show to the child when born, and he does three things: primo enim praenuntiat virginis partum; for first, he foretells the Virgin’s labor; secundo praemonstrat obsequium ab ipso Ioseph puero exhibendum, cum dicit et vocabis nomen; second, he reveals beforehand the service which Joseph himself was to show the child when he says, and you will call his name; tertio aperit nomen impositum ipsi puero, cum dicit Iesum. third, he discloses the name given to the child, when he says Jesus.