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.
Obj. 3: Further, it is written (Matt. 1:19): "Joseph, her husband, being a just man, and not willing to take her away [*Douay: "publicly to expose her"], i.e. to take her to his home in order to cohabit with her, was minded to put her away privately, i.e. to postpone the wedding," as Remigius [*Cf. Catena Aurea in Matth.] expounds.
Therefore, it seems that, as the wedding was not yet solemnized, there was no true marriage: especially since, after the marriage contract, no one can lawfully put his wife away.
_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. ii): "It cannot be allowed that the evangelist thought that Joseph ought to sever his union with Mary" (since he said that Joseph was Mary"s husband) "on the ground that in giving birth to Christ, she had not conceived of him, but remained a virgin. For by this example the faithful are taught that if after marriage they remain continent by mutual consent, their union is still and is rightly called marriage, even without intercourse of the s.e.xes."
_I answer that,_ Marriage or wedlock is said to be true by reason of its attaining its perfection. Now perfection of anything is twofold; first, and second. The first perfection of a thing consists in its very form, from which it receives its species; while the second perfection of a thing consists in its operation, by which in some way a thing attains its end. Now the form of matrimony consists in a certain inseparable union of souls, by which husband and wife are pledged by a bond of mutual affection that cannot be sundered. And the end of matrimony is the begetting and upbringing of children: the first of which is attained by conjugal intercourse; the second by the other duties of husband and wife, by which they help one another in rearing their offspring.
Thus we may say, as to the first perfection, that the marriage of the Virgin Mother of G.o.d 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 G.o.d. 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."
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."
Reply Obj. 1: Jerome uses the term "husband" in reference to marriage consummated.
Reply Obj. 2: By marriage Jerome means the nuptial intercourse.
Reply Obj. 3: As Chrysostom says (Hom. i super Matth. [*Opus Imperfectum, among the supposit.i.tious works ascribed to St.
Chrysostom]) the Blessed Virgin was so espoused to Joseph that she dwelt in his home: "for just as she who conceives in her husband"s house is understood to have conceived of him, so she who conceives elsewhere is suspect." Consequently sufficient precaution would not have been taken to safeguard the fair fame of the Blessed Virgin, if she had not the entry of her husband"s house. Wherefore the words, "not willing to take her away" are better rendered as meaning, "not willing publicly to expose her," than understood of taking her to his house. Hence the evangelist adds that "he was minded to put her away privately." But although she had the entry of Joseph"s house by reason of her first promise of espousals, yet the time had not yet come for the solemnizing of the wedding; for which reason they had not yet consummated the marriage. Therefore, as Chrysostom says (Hom.
iv in Matth.): "The evangelist does not say, "before she was taken to the house of her husband," because she was already in the house. For it was the custom among the ancients for espoused maidens to enter frequently the houses of them to whom they were betrothed." Therefore the angel also said to Joseph: "Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife"; that is: "Fear not to solemnize your marriage with her."
Others, however, say that she was not yet admitted to his house, but only betrothed to him. But the first is more in keeping with the Gospel narrative.
_______________________
QUESTION 30
OF THE ANNUNCIATION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN (In Four Articles)
We now have to consider the Blessed Virgin"s Annunciation, concerning which there are four points of inquiry:
(1) Whether it was befitting that announcement should be made to her of that which was to be begotten of her?
(2) By whom should this announcement be made?
(3) In what manner should this announcement be made?
(4) Of the order observed in the Annunciation.
_______________________
FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 30, Art. 1]
Whether It Was Necessary to Announce to the Blessed Virgin That Which Was to Be Done in Her?
Objection 1: It would seem that it was unnecessary to announce to the Blessed Virgin that which was to be done in her. For there seems to have been no need of the Annunciation except for the purpose of receiving the Virgin"s consent. But her consent seems to have been unnecessary: because the Virginal Conception was foretold by a prophecy of "predestination," which is "fulfilled without our consent," as a gloss says on Matt. 1:22. There was no need, therefore, for this Annunciation.
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 G.o.d (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.
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 G.o.d in her womb.
_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."
_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 G.o.d with the Virgin--namely, that she should be informed in mind concerning Him, before conceiving Him in the flesh. Thus Augustine says (De Sancta Virgin. iii): "Mary is more blessed in receiving the faith of Christ, than in conceiving the flesh of Christ"; and further on he adds: "Her nearness as a Mother would have been of no profit to Mary, had she not borne Christ in her heart after a more blessed manner than in her flesh."
Secondly, that she might be a more certain witness of this mystery, being instructed therein by G.o.d.
Thirdly, that she might offer to G.o.d the free gift of her obedience: which she proved herself right ready to do, saying: "Behold the handmaid of the Lord."
Fourthly, in order to show that there is a certain spiritual wedlock between the Son of G.o.d and human nature. Wherefore in the Annunciation the Virgin"s consent was besought in lieu of that of the entire human nature.
Reply Obj. 1: The prophecy of predestination is fulfilled without the causality of our will; not without its consent.
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.
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.
_______________________
SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 30, Art. 2]
Whether the annunciation should have been made by an angel to the Blessed Virgin?
Objection 1: It would seem that the Annunciation should not have been made by an angel to our Blessed Lady. For revelations to the highest angels are made immediately by G.o.d, as Dionysius says (Coel. Hier.
vii). But the Mother of G.o.d is exalted above all the angels.
Therefore it seems that the mystery of the Incarnation should have been announced to her by G.o.d immediately, and not by an angel.
Obj. 2: Further, if in this matter it behooved the common order to be observed, by which Divine things are announced to men by angels; in like manner Divine things are announced to a woman by a man: wherefore the Apostle says (1 Cor. 14:34, 35): "Let women keep silence in the churches ... but if they would learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home." Therefore it seems that the mystery of the Incarnation should have been announced to the Blessed Virgin by some man: especially seeing that Joseph, her husband, was instructed thereupon by an angel, as is related (Matt. 1:20, 21)
Obj. 3: Further, none can becomingly announce what he knows not. But the highest angels did not fully know the mystery of the Incarnation: wherefore Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. vii) that the question, "Who is this that cometh from Edom?" (Isa. 63:1) is to be understood as made by them. Therefore it seems that the announcement of the Incarnation could not be made becomingly by any angel.
Obj. 4: Further, greater things should be announced by messengers of greater dignity. But the mystery of the Incarnation is the greatest of all things announced by angels to men. It seems, therefore, if it behooved to be announced by an angel at all, that this should have been done by an angel of the highest order. But Gabriel is not of the highest order, but of the order of archangels, which is the last but one: wherefore the Church sings: "We know that the archangel Gabriel brought thee a message from G.o.d" [*Feast of Purification B.V.M. ix Resp. Brev. O.P.]. Therefore this announcement was not becomingly made by the archangel Gabriel.
_On the contrary,_ It is written (Luke 1:26): "The angel Gabriel was sent by G.o.d," etc.
_I answer that,_ It was fitting for the mystery of the Incarnation to be announced to the Mother of G.o.d by an angel, for three reasons.
First, that in this also might be maintained the order established by G.o.d, by which Divine things are brought to men by means of the angels. Wherefore Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv) that "the angels were the first to be taught the Divine mystery of the loving kindness of Jesus: afterwards the grace of knowledge was imparted to us through them. Thus, then, the most G.o.d-like Gabriel made known to Zachary that a prophet son would be born to him; and, to Mary, how the Divine mystery of the ineffable conception of G.o.d would be realized in her."
Secondly, this was becoming to the restoration of human nature which was to be effected by Christ. Wherefore Bede says in a homily (in Annunt.): "It was an apt beginning of man"s restoration that an angel should be sent by G.o.d to the Virgin who was to be hallowed by the Divine Birth: since the first cause of man"s ruin was through the serpent being sent by the devil to cajole the woman by the spirit of pride."
Thirdly, because this was becoming to the virginity of the Mother of G.o.d. Wherefore Jerome says in a sermon on the a.s.sumption [*Ascribed to St. Jerome but not his work]: "It is well that an angel be sent to the Virgin; because virginity is ever akin to the angelic nature.
Surely to live in the flesh and not according to the flesh is not an earthly but a heavenly life."
Reply Obj. 1: The Mother of G.o.d was above the angels as regards the dignity to which she was chosen by G.o.d. But as regards the present state of life, she was beneath the angels. For even Christ Himself, by reason of His pa.s.sible life, "was made a little lower than the angels," according to Heb. 2:9. But because Christ was both wayfarer and comprehensor, He did not need to be instructed by angels, as regards knowledge of Divine things. The Mother of G.o.d, however, was not yet in the state of comprehension: and therefore she had to be instructed by angels concerning the Divine Conception.
Reply Obj. 2: As Augustine says in a sermon on the a.s.sumption (De a.s.sump. B.V.M. [*Work of another author: among the works of St.
Augustine]) a true estimation of the Blessed Virgin excludes her from certain general rules. For "neither did she "multiply her conceptions" nor was she "under man"s, i.e. her husband"s," power (Gen. 3:16), who in her spotless womb conceived Christ of the Holy Ghost." Therefore it was fitting that she should be informed of the mystery of the Incarnation by means not of a man, but of an angel.
For this reason it was made known to her before Joseph: since the message was brought to her before she conceived, but to Joseph after she had conceived.
Reply Obj. 3: As may be gathered from the pa.s.sage quoted from Dionysius, the angels were acquainted with the mystery of the Incarnation: and yet they put this question, being desirous that Christ should give them more perfect knowledge of the details of this mystery, which are incomprehensible to any created intellect. Thus Maximus [*Maximus of Constantinople] says that "there can be no question that the angels knew that the Incarnation was to take place.
But it was not given to them to trace the manner of our Lord"s conception, nor how it was that He remained whole in the Father, whole throughout the universe, and was whole in the narrow abode of the Virgin."