Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in III de Trin., Diabolus multa potest virtute suae naturae, a quibus tamen prohibetur virtute divina. Et hoc modo potest dici quod virtute suae naturae Diabolus cognoscere poterat matrem Dei non fuisse corruptam, sed virginem, prohibebatur tamen a Deo cognoscere modum partus divini. Quod autem postmodum eum aliqualiter cognovit Diabolus esse filium Dei, non obstat, quia iam tempus erat ut Christus suam virtutem contra Diabolum ostenderet, et persecutionem ab eo concitatam pateretur. Sed in infantia oportebat impediri malitiam Diaboli, ne eum acrius persequeretur, quando Christus nec pati disposuerat, nec virtutem suam ostendere, sed in omnibus aliis infantibus se similem exhibebat. Unde Leo Papa, in sermone de Epiphania, dicit quod magi invenerunt puerum Iesum quantitate parvum, alienae opis indigentem, fandi impotentem, et in nullo ab humanae infantiae generalitate discretum. Ambrosius tamen, super Luc., videtur magis referre ad membra Diaboli. Praemissa enim hac ratione, scilicet de fallendo principem mundi, subdit, sed tamen magis fefellit principes saeculi. Daemonum enim malitia facile etiam occulta deprehendit, at vero qui saecularibus vanitatibus occupantur, scire divina non possunt. Reply Obj. 3: As Augustine says (De Trin. iii), the devil can do many things by his natural power which he is hindered by the Divine power from doing. Thus it may be that by his natural power the devil could know that the Mother of God knew not man, but was a virgin; yet was prevented by God from knowing the manner of the Divine Birth. That afterwards the devil after a fashion knew that He was the Son of God, makes no difficulty: because then the time had already come for Christ to make known His power against the devil, and to suffer persecution aroused by him. But during His infancy it behooved the malice of the devil to be withheld, lest he should persecute Him too severely: for Christ did not wish to suffer such things then, nor to make His power known, but to show Himself to be in all things like other infants. Hence Pope Leo (Serm. in Epiph. iv) says that the Magi found the Child Jesus small in body, dependent on others, unable to speak, and in no way differing from the generality of human infants. Ambrose, however, expounding Luke 1:26, seems to understand this of the devil’s members. For, after giving the above reason—namely, that the prince of the world might be deceived—he continues thus: Yet still more did He deceive the princes of the world, since the evil disposition of the demons easily discovers even hidden things: but those who spend their lives in worldly vanities can have no acquaintance of Divine things. Ad quartum dicendum quod iudicio adulterorum lapidabatur secundum legem non solum illa quae iam erat desponsata vel nupta, sed etiam illa quae in domo patris custodiebatur ut virgo quandoque nuptura. Unde dicitur Deut. XXII, si non est in puella inventa virginitas, lapidibus obruent eam viri civitatis illius, et morietur, quia fecit nefas in Israel, ut fornicaretur in domo patris sui. Reply Obj. 4: The sentence of adulteresses according to the Law was that they should be stoned, not only if they were already espoused or married, but also if their maidenhood were still under the protection of the paternal roof, until the day when they enter the married state. Thus it is written (Deut 22:20, 21): If . . . virginity be not found in the damsel . . . the men of the city shall stone her to death, and she shall die; because she hath done a wicked thing in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house. Vel potest dici, secundum quosdam, quod beata virgo erat de stirpe sive parentela Aaron, unde erat cognata Elisabeth, ut dicitur Luc. I. Virgo autem de genere sacerdotali propter stuprum occidebatur, legitur enim Levit. XXI, sacerdotis filia si deprehensa fuerit in stupro, et violaverit nomen patris sui, flammis exuretur. It may also be said, according to some writers, that the Blessed Virgin was of the family or kindred of Aaron, so that she was related to Elizabeth, as we are told (Luke 1:36). Now a virgin of the priestly tribe was condemned to death for whoredom; for we read (Lev 21:9): If the daughter of a priest be taken in whoredom, and dishonor the name of her father, she shall be burnt with fire. Quidam referunt verbum Hieronymi ad lapidationem infamiae. Lastly, some understand the passage of Jerome to refer to the throwing of stones by ill-fame. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum inter Mariam et Ioseph fuerit verum matrimonium Whether there was a true marriage between Mary and Joseph? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inter Mariam et Ioseph non fuerit verum matrimonium. Dicit enim Hieronymus, contra Helvidium, quod Ioseph Mariae custos fuit, potius quam maritus eius. Sed si fuisset verum matrimonium, vere Ioseph maritus eius fuisset. Ergo videtur quod non fuerit verum matrimonium inter Mariam et Ioseph. Objection 1: It would seem that there was no true marriage between Mary and Joseph. For Jerome says against Helvidius that Joseph was Mary’s guardian rather than her husband. But if this was a true marriage, Joseph was truly her husband. Therefore there was no true marriage between Mary and Joseph. Praeterea, super illud Matth. I, Iacob genuit Ioseph virum Mariae, dicit Hieronymus, cum virum audieris, suspicio tibi non subeat nuptiarum, sed recordare consuetudinis Scripturarum, quod sponsi viri et sponsae vocantur uxores. Sed verum matrimonium non efficitur ex sponsalibus, sed ex nuptiis. Ergo non fuit verum matrimonium inter beatam virginem et Ioseph. Obj. 2: Further, on Matt. 1:16: Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, Jerome says: When thou readest ‘husband’ suspect not a marriage; but remember that Scripture is wont to speak of those who are betrothed as husband and wife. But a true marriage is not effected by the betrothal, but by the wedding. Therefore, there was no true marriage between the Blessed Virgin and Joseph. Praeterea, Matth. I dicitur, Ioseph, vir eius, cum esset iustus, et nollet eam traducere, idest, in domum suam ad cohabitationem assiduam, voluit eam occulte dimittere, idest, tempus nuptiarum mutare, ut Remigius exponit. Ergo videtur quod, nondum nuptiis celebratis, nondum esset verum matrimonium, praesertim cum, post matrimonium contractum, non liceat alicui sponsam dimittere. Obj. 3: Further, it is written (Matt 1:19): Joseph, her husband, being a just man, and not willing to take her away, i.e., to take her to his home in order to cohabit with her, was minded to put her away privately, i.e., to postpone the wedding, as Remigius expounds. Therefore, it seems that, as the wedding was not yet solemnized, there was no true marriage: especially since, after the marriage contract, no one can lawfully put his wife away. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in II de consensu Evangelist., non est fas ut Ioseph ob hoc a coniugio Mariae separandum Evangelista putaret (cum dixit Ioseph virum Mariae), quod non ex eius concubitu, sed virgo peperit Christum. Hoc enim exemplo manifeste insinuatur fidelibus coniugatis, etiam servata pari consensu continentia, posse permanere vocarique coniugium, non permixto corporis sexu. On the contrary, Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. ii): It cannot be allowed that the evangelist thought that Joseph ought to sever his union with Mary (since he said that Joseph was Mary’s husband) on the ground that in giving birth to Christ, she had not conceived of him, but remained a virgin. For by this example the faithful are taught that if after marriage they remain continent by mutual consent, their union is still and is rightly called marriage, even without intercourse of the sexes. Respondeo dicendum quod matrimonium sive coniugium dicitur verum ex hoc quod suam perfectionem attingit. Duplex est autem rei perfectio, prima et secunda. Prima quidem perfectio in ipsa forma rei consistit, ex qua speciem sortitur, secunda vero perfectio consistit in operatione rei, per quam res aliqualiter suum finem attingit. Forma autem matrimonii consistit in quadam indivisibili coniunctione animorum, per quam unus coniugum indivisibiliter alteri fidem servare tenetur. Finis autem matrimonii est proles generanda et educanda, ad quorum primum pervenitur per concubitum coniugalem; ad secundum, per alia opera viri et uxoris, quibus sibi invicem obsequuntur ad prolem nutriendam. I answer that, Marriage or wedlock is said to be true by reason of its attaining its perfection. Now perfection of anything is twofold; first, and second. The first perfection of a thing consists in its very form, from which it receives its species; while the second perfection of a thing consists in its operation, by which in some way a thing attains its end. Now the form of matrimony consists in a certain inseparable union of souls, by which husband and wife are pledged by a bond of mutual affection that cannot be sundered. And the end of matrimony is the begetting and upbringing of children: the first of which is attained by conjugal intercourse; the second by the other duties of husband and wife, by which they help one another in rearing their offspring. Sic igitur dicendum est quod, quantum ad primam perfectionem, omnino verum fuit matrimonium virginis matris Dei et Ioseph, quia uterque consensit in copulam coniugalem; non autem expresse in copulam carnalem, nisi sub conditione, si Deo placeret. Unde et Angelus vocat Mariam coniugem Ioseph, dicens ad Ioseph, Matth. I, noli timere accipere Mariam coniugem tuam. Quod exponens Augustinus, in libro de nuptiis et concupiscentia, dicit, coniux vocatur ex prima desponsationis fide, quam concubitu nec cognoverat, nec fuerat cogniturus. Thus we may say, as to the first perfection, that the marriage of the Virgin Mother of God and Joseph was absolutely true: because both consented to the nuptial bond, but not expressly to the bond of the flesh, save on the condition that it was pleasing to God. For this reason the angel calls Mary the wife of Joseph, saying to him (Matt 1:20): Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: on which words Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): She is called his wife from the first promise of her espousals, whom he had not known nor ever was to know by carnal intercourse. Quantum vero ad secundam perfectionem, quae est per actum matrimonii, si hoc referatur ad carnalem concubitum, per quem proles generatur, non fuit illud matrimonium consummatum. Unde Ambrosius dicit, super Luc., non te moveat quod Mariam Scriptura coniugem vocat. Non enim virginitatis ereptio, sed coniugii testificatio nuptiarum celebratio declaratur. Habuit tamen illud matrimonium etiam secundam perfectionem quantum ad prolis educationem. Unde Augustinus dicit, in libro de nuptiis et concupiscentia, omne nuptiarum bonum impletum est in illis parentibus Christi, proles, fides et sacramentum. Prolem cognoscimus ipsum dominum Iesum; fidem, quia nullum adulterium; sacramentum, quia nullum divortium. Solus ibi nuptialis concubitus non fuit. But as to the second perfection which is attained by the marriage act, if this be referred to carnal intercourse, by which children are begotten; thus this marriage was not consummated. Wherefore Ambrose says on Luke 1:26, 27: Be not surprised that Scripture calls Mary a wife. The fact of her marriage is declared, not to insinuate the loss of virginity, but to witness to the reality of the union. Nevertheless, this marriage had the second perfection, as to upbringing of the child. Thus Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): All the nuptial blessings are fulfilled in the marriage of Christ’s parents, offspring, faith and sacrament. The offspring we know to have been the Lord Jesus; faith, for there was no adultery: sacrament, since there was no divorce. Carnal intercourse alone there was none. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Hieronymus accipit ibi maritum ab actu matrimonii consummati. Reply Obj. 1: Jerome uses the term husband in reference to marriage consummated. Ad secundum dicendum quod nuptias Hieronymus vocat nuptialem concubitum. Reply Obj. 2: By marriage Jerome means the nuptial intercourse. Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Chrysostomus dicit, super Matth., beata virgo sic fuit desponsata Ioseph quod etiam esset domi habita. Nam sicut in ea quae in domo viri concipit, intelligitur conceptio maritalis, sic in ea quae extra domum concipit, est suspecta coniunctio. Et ita non esset sufficienter provisum famae beatae virginis per hoc quod fuit desponsata, nisi etiam fuisset domi habita. Unde quod dicit, et nollet eam traducere, melius intelligitur, idest, nollet eam diffamare in publicum, quam quod intelligatur de traductione in domum. Unde et Evangelista subdit quod voluit occulte dimittere eam. Quamvis tamen esset domi habita propter primam desponsationis fidem, nondum tamen intervenerat solemnis celebratio nuptiarum, propter quod etiam nondum carnaliter convenerant. Unde, sicut Chrysostomus dicit, non dicit Evangelista, antequam duceretur in domum sponsi, etenim intus erat in domo. Consuetudo enim erat veteribus multoties in domo desponsatas habere. Et ideo etiam Angelus dicit Ioseph, ne timeas accipere Mariam coniugem tuam, idest, ne timeas nuptias eius solemniter celebrare. Licet alii dicant quod nondum erat in domum introducta, sed solum desponsata. Primum tamen magis consonat Evangelio. Reply Obj. 3: As Chrysostom says (Hom. i super Matth.) the Blessed Virgin was so espoused to Joseph that she dwelt in his home: for just as she who conceives in her husband’s house is understood to have conceived of him, so she who conceives elsewhere is suspect. Consequently sufficient precaution would not have been taken to safeguard the fair fame of the Blessed Virgin, if she had not the entry of her husband’s house. Wherefore the words, not willing to take her away are better rendered as meaning, not willing publicly to expose her, than understood of taking her to his house. Hence the evangelist adds that he was minded to put her away privately. But although she had the entry of Joseph’s house by reason of her first promise of espousals, yet the time had not yet come for the solemnizing of the wedding; for which reason they had not yet consummated the marriage. Therefore, as Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in Matth.): The evangelist does not say, ‘before she was taken to the house of her husband,’ because she was already in the house. For it was the custom among the ancients for espoused maidens to enter frequently the houses of them to whom they were betrothed. Therefore the angel also said to Joseph: Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife; that is: Fear not to solemnize your marriage with her. Others, however, say that she was not yet admitted to his house, but only betrothed to him. But the first is more in keeping with the Gospel narrative. Quaestio 30 Question 30 De Annuntiatione Beatae Virginis The Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Deinde considerandum est de Annuntiatione beatae virginis. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. We now have to consider the Blessed Virgin’s Annunciation, concerning which there are four points of inquiry: Primo, utrum conveniens fuerit ei annuntiari quod in ea generandum erat. (1) Whether it was befitting that announcement should be made to her of that which was to be begotten of her? Secundo, per quem erat ei annuntiandum. (2) By whom should this announcement be made? Tertio, per quem modum ei annuntiari debebat. (3) In what manner should this announcement be made? Quarto, de ordine Annuntiationis. (4) Of the order observed in the Annunciation. Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum fuerit necessarium Beatae Virgini annuntiari quod in ea fiendum erat Whether it was necessary to announce to the Blessed Virgin that which was to be done in her? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non fuerit necessarium beatae virgini annuntiari quod in ea fiendum erat. Annuntiatio enim ad hoc solum necessarium videbatur ut virginis consensus haberetur. Sed consensus eius non videtur necessarius fuisse, quia conceptus virginis praenuntiatus fuit prophetia praedestinationis quae sine nostro completur arbitrio, ut dicit quaedam Glossa, Matth. I. Non ergo necessarium fuit quod talis Annuntiatio fieret. Objection 1: It would seem that it was unnecessary to announce to the Blessed Virgin that which was to be done in her. For there seems to have been no need of the Annunciation except for the purpose of receiving the Virgin’s consent. But her consent seems to have been unnecessary: because the Virginal Conception was foretold by a prophecy of predestination, which is fulfilled without our consent, as a gloss says on Matt. 1:22. There was no need, therefore, for this Annunciation. Praeterea, beata virgo incarnationis fidem habebat, sine qua nullus esse poterat in statu salutis, quia, ut dicitur Rom. III, iustitia Dei est per fidem Iesu Christi. Sed de eo quod aliquis per certitudinem credit, non indiget ulterius instrui. Ergo beatae virgini non fuit necessarium ut ei incarnatio filii annuntiaretur. Obj. 2: Further, the Blessed Virgin believed in the Incarnation, for to disbelieve therein excludes man from the way of salvation; because, as the Apostle says (Rom 3:22): The justice of God (is) by faith of Jesus Christ. But one needs no further instruction concerning what one believes without doubt. Therefore the Blessed Virgin had no need for the Incarnation of her Son to be announced to her. Praeterea, sicut beata virgo corporaliter Christum concepit, ita quaelibet sancta anima concipit ipsum spiritualiter, unde apostolus dicit, Galat. IV, filioli mei, quos iterum parturio, donec formetur Christus in vobis. Sed illis qui spiritualiter debent ipsum concipere, talis conceptio eis non annuntiatur. Ergo nec beatae virgini fuit annuntiandum quod esset in utero conceptura filium Dei. Obj. 3: Further, just as the Blessed Virgin conceived Christ in her body, so every pious soul conceives Him spiritually. Thus the Apostle says (Gal 4:19): My little children, of whom I am in labor again, until Christ be formed in you. But to those who conceive Him spiritually no announcement is made of this conception. Therefore neither should it have been announced to the Blessed Virgin that she was to conceive the Son of God in her womb. Sed contra est quod habetur Luc. I, quod Angelus dixit ei, ecce, concipies in utero et paries filium. On the contrary, It is related (Luke 1:31) that the angel said to her: Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son. Respondeo dicendum quod congruum fuit beatae virgini annuntiari quod esset Christum conceptura. Primo quidem, ut servaretur congruus ordo coniunctionis filii Dei ad virginem, ut scilicet prius mens eius de ipso instrueretur quam carne eum conciperet. Unde Augustinus dicit, in libro de virginitate, beatior Maria est percipiendo fidem Christi, quam concipiendo carnem Christi. Et postea subdit, materna propinquitas nihil Mariae profuisset, nisi felicius Christum corde quam carne gestasset. I answer that, It was reasonable that it should be announced to the Blessed Virgin that she was to conceive Christ. First, in order to maintain a becoming order in the union of the Son of God with the Virgin—namely, that she should be informed in mind concerning Him, before conceiving Him in the flesh. Thus Augustine says (De Sancta Virgin. iii): Mary is more blessed in receiving the faith of Christ, than in conceiving the flesh of Christ; and further on he adds: Her nearness as a Mother would have been of no profit to Mary, had she not borne Christ in her heart after a more blessed manner than in her flesh. Secundo, ut posset esse certior testis huius sacramenti, quando super hoc divinitus erat instructa. Second, that she might be a more certain witness of this mystery, being instructed therein by God. Tertio, ut voluntaria sui obsequii munera Deo offerret, ad quod se promptam obtulit, dicens, ecce ancilla domini. Third, that she might offer to God the free gift of her obedience: which she proved herself right ready to do, saying: Behold the handmaid of the Lord. Quarto, ut ostenderetur esse quoddam spirituale matrimonium inter filium Dei et humanam naturam. Et ideo per Annuntiationem expetebatur consensus virginis loco totius humanae naturae. Fourth, in order to show that there is a certain spiritual wedlock between the Son of God and human nature. Wherefore in the Annunciation the Virgin’s consent was besought in lieu of that of the entire human nature. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod prophetia praedestinationis completur sine nostro arbitrio causante, non tamen sine nostro arbitrio consentiente. Reply Obj. 1: The prophecy of predestination is fulfilled without the causality of our will; not without its consent. Ad secundum dicendum quod beata virgo expressam fidem habebat incarnationis futurae, sed, cum esset humilis, non tam alta de se sapiebat. Et ideo super hoc erat instruenda. Reply Obj. 2: The Blessed Virgin did indeed believe explicitly in the future Incarnation; but, being humble, she did not think such high things of herself. Consequently she required instruction in this matter. Ad tertium dicendum quod spiritualem conceptionem Christi, quae est per fidem, praecedit Annuntiatio quae est per fidei praedicationem, secundum quod fides est ex auditu, ut dicitur Rom. X. Nec tamen propter hoc aliquis pro certo scit se gratiam habere, sed scit veram fidem esse quam accipit. Reply Obj. 3: The spiritual conception of Christ through faith is preceded by the preaching of the faith, for as much as faith is by hearing (Rom 10:17). Yet man does not know for certain thereby that he has grace; but he does know that the faith, which he has received, is true.