 Question 27 of Summa Theologica Terziapars, Trietis on the Saviour. This is the LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Summa Theologica Terziapars, Trietis on the Saviour by St. Thomas Aquinas, translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Question 27 of the Sanctification of the Blessed Virgin in six articles. After the foregoing trietis of the union of God and man and the consequences thereof, it remains for us to consider what things the Incarnate Son of God did or suffered in the human nature united to him. This consideration will be fourfold. For we shall consider, one, those things that relate to his coming into the world. Two, those things that relate to the course of his life in this world. Three, his departure from this world. Four, those things that concern his exaltation after this life. The first of these offers four points of consideration. One, the conception of Christ. Two, his birth. Three, his circumcision. Four, his baptism. Concerning his conception, there are some points to be considered. One, as to the mother who conceived him. Two, as to the mode of his conception. Three, as to the perfection of the offspring conceived. On the part of the mother, four points offer themselves to our consideration. One, her sanctification. Two, her virginity. Three, her espousals. Four, her annunciation or preparation for conception. Concerning the first, there are six points of inquiry. First, whether the blessed virgin, mother of God, was sanctified before her birth from the womb. Second, whether she was sanctified before animation. Third, whether in virtue of this sanctification, the fullness of sin was entirely taken away from her. Fourth, whether the result of this sanctification was that she never sinned. Fifth, whether in virtue of this sanctification, she received the fullness of grace. Sixth, whether it was proper to her to be thus sanctified. First article, whether the blessed virgin was sanctified before her birth from the womb. Objection one, it would seem that the blessed virgin was not sanctified before her birth from the womb. For the apostle says in 1 Corinthians 1546, That was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural. Afterwards, that which is spiritual. But by sanctifying grace, man is born spiritually into a Son of God according to John 1.13. Who are born of God? But birth from the womb is a natural birth. Therefore, the blessed virgin was not sanctified before her birth from the womb. Objection two further, Augustine says in one of his letters, The sanctification by which we become temples of God is only of those who are born again. But no one is born again who was not born previously. Therefore, the blessed virgin was not sanctified before her birth from the womb. Objection three further, Whoever is sanctified by grace is cleansed from sin, both original and actual. If therefore the blessed virgin was sanctified before her birth from the womb, it follows that she was then cleansed from original sin. No nothing but original sin could hinder her from entering the heavenly kingdom. If therefore she had died then, it seems that she would have entered the gates of heaven. But this was not possible before the Passion of Christ according to the apostle in Hebrews 10.19. We have therefore a confidence in the entering into the holies by his blood. It seems therefore that the blessed virgin was not sanctified before her birth from the womb. Objection four further, Original sin is contracted through the origin. Just as actual sin is contracted through an act. But as long as one is in the act of sinning, one cannot be cleansed from actual sin. Therefore, neither could the blessed virgin be cleansed from original sin as long as she was in the act of origin by existence in her mother's womb. On the contrary, the church celebrates the feast of our lady's nativity. Now the church does not celebrate feasts except of those who are holy. Therefore, even in her birth, the blessed virgin was holy. Therefore, she was sanctified in the womb. I answer that nothing is handed down in the canonical scriptures concerning the sanctification of the blessed Mary as to her being sanctified in the womb. Indeed, they do not even mention her birth. But as Augustine in his tractate on the assumption of the virgin argues with reason, since her body was assumed into heaven and yet Scripture does not relate this, so it may be reasonably argued that she was sanctified in the womb. For it is reasonable to believe that she who brought forth the only begotten of the Father full of grace and truth received greater privileges of grace than all others. Hence we read in Luke 1.28 that the angel addressed her in the words Hail, full of grace. Moreover, it is to be observed that it was granted by way of privilege to others to be sanctified in the womb. For instance, to Jeremiah's to whom it was said in Jeremiah 1.5 Before thou cameest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee. And again to John the Baptist of whom it is written in Luke 1.15 He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother's womb. It is therefore with reason that we believe the Blessed Virgin to have been sanctified before her birth from the womb. Reply to Objection 1. Even in the Blessed Virgin first was that which is natural and afterwards that which is spiritual for she was first conceived in the flesh and afterwards sanctified in the spirit. Reply to Objection 2. Augustine speaks according to the common law by reason of which no one is regenerated by the sacraments save those who are previously born. But God did not so limit his power to the law of the sacraments but that he can bestow his grace by special privilege on some before they are born from the womb. Reply to Objection 3. The Blessed Virgin was sanctified in the womb from original sin as to the personal stain but she was not freed from the guilt to which the whole nature is subject so as to enter into Paradise otherwise than through the sacrifice of Christ. The same also is to be said of the Holy Fathers who lived before Christ. Reply to Objection 4. Original sin is transmitted through the origin in as much as through the origin the human nature is transmitted and original sin properly speaking affects the nature. And this takes place when the offspring conceived is animated wherefor nothing hinders the offspring conceived from being sanctified after animation for after this it remains in the mother's womb not for the purpose of receiving human nature but for a certain perfecting of that which it has already received. Second Article Whether the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before animation Objection 1. It would seem that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before animation because as we have stated in Article 1 more grace was bestowed on the Virgin Mother of God than on any saint. Now it seems to have been granted to some to be sanctified before animation for it is written in Jeremiah 1.5 Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother I knew thee and the soul is not infused before the formation of the body Likewise Ambrose says of John the Baptist in his commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1.15 as yet the spirit of life was not in him and already he possessed the spirit of grace Much more therefore could the Blessed Virgin be sanctified before animation Objection 2 further as Anselm says in on the conception of the Virgin 18 it was fitting that this Virgin should shine with such a purity that under God none greater can be imagined Wherefore it is written in the Canticles 4.7 Thou art all fair, O my love and there is not a spot in thee But the purity of the Blessed Virgin would have been greater if she had never been stained by the contagion of original sin Therefore it was granted to her to be sanctified before her flesh was animated Objection 3 further as it has been stated above no feast is celebrated except of some saint But some keep the feast of the conception of the Blessed Virgin Therefore it seems that in her very conception she was holy and hence that she was sanctified before animation Objection 4 further the Apostle says in Romans 11.16 if the root be holy so are the branches Now the root of the children is their parents Therefore the Blessed Virgin could be sanctified even in her parents before animation On the contrary the things of the Old Testament were figures of the new according to 1 Corinthians 10.11 All things happen to them in figure Now the sanctification of the Tabernacle of which it is written in Psalm 45 verse 5 The Most High hath sanctified his own Tabernacle seems to signify the sanctification of the Mother of God who is called God's Tabernacle According to Psalm 18.6 he hath set his Tabernacle in the sun But of the Tabernacle it is written in Exodus 40 verses 31 and 32 After all things were perfected the cloud covered the Tabernacle of the testimony and the glory of the Lord filled it Therefore also the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified until after was perfected notably her body and soul I answer that the sanctification of the Blessed Virgin could not be understood as having taken place before animation for two reasons First because the sanctification of which we are speaking is nothing but the cleansing from original sin for sanctification is a perfect cleansing as Dionysius says in On the Divine Names 12 Now sin cannot be taken away except by grace the subject of which is the rational creature alone Therefore before the infusion of the rational soul the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified Secondly because the rational creature alone can be the subject of sin before the infusion of the rational soul the offspring conceived is not liable to sin and thus in whatever manner the Blessed Virgin would have been sanctified before animation she could never have incurred the stain of original sin and thus she would have not needed redemption and salvation which is by Christ of whom it is written in Matthew 1 21 he shall save his people from their sins but this is unfitting through implying that Christ is not the savior of all men as he is called in 1st Timothy 410 it remains therefore that the Blessed Virgin was sanctified after animation Reply to Objection 1 the Lord says that he knew Jeremiah's before he was formed in the womb by knowledge that is to say of predestination but he says that he sanctified him not before formation but before he came forth out of the womb etc as to what Ambrose says notably that in John the Baptist there was not the spirit of life when there was already the spirit of grace by spirit of life we are not to understand the life-giving soul but the air which we breathe out respiratus or it may be said that in him as yet there was not the spirit of life that is the soul as to its manifest and complete operations Reply to Objection 2 if the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin this would be derogatory to the dignity of Christ by reason of his being the universal savior of all consequently after Christ who as the universal savior of all needed not to be saved the puritive the Blessed Virgin holds the highest place for Christ did not contract original sin in any way whatever but was holy in his very conception according to Luke 1.35 the holy which shall be born of the shall be called the Son of God but the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin but was cleansed there from before her birth from the womb this is what is signified in Job 3.9 where it is written of the night of original sin that is Christ and not see it because no defiled thing cometh into her as is written in Wisdom 7.25 nor the rising of the dawning of the day that is of the Blessed Virgin who in her birth was immune from original sin Reply to Objection 3 although the Church of Rome does not celebrate the conception of the Blessed Virgin the custom of certain churches that do keep that feast wherefore this is not to be entirely reprobated nevertheless the celebration of this feast does not give us to understand that she was holy in her conception but since it is not known when she was sanctified the feast of her sanctification rather than the feast of her conception is kept on the day of her conception Reply to Objection 4 Sanctification is twofold one is that of the whole nature in as much as the whole human nature is freed from all corruption of sin and punishment this will take place at the resurrection the other is personal sanctification this is not transmitted to the children begotten of the flesh because it does not regard the flesh but the mind consequently though the parents of the Blessed Virgin were cleansed from original sin nevertheless she contracted original sin since she was conceived by way of fleshly concupiscence and the intercourse of man and woman for Augustine says all flesh born of carnal intercourse is sinful Third Article whether the Blessed Virgin was cleansed from the infection of the Fomez Objection 1 it would seem that the Blessed Virgin was not cleansed from the infection of the Fomez for just as the Fomez consisting in the rebellion of the lower powers against the reason is a punishment of original sin so also are death and other corporeal penalties therefore the Fomez was not entirely removed from her Objection 2 further it is written in 2 Corinthians 12 9 Power is made perfect in infirmity which refers to the weakness of the Fomez by reason of which he the apostle felt the sting of the flesh but it was not fitting that anything should be taken away from the Blessed Virgin pertaining to the perfection of virtue therefore it was unfitting that the Fomez should be entirely taken away from her Objection 3 further Damascene says in on the true faith 3 that the Holy Ghost came upon the Blessed Virgin purifying her before she conceived the Son of God but this can only be understood of purification from the Fomez for she committed no sin as Augustine says in On Nature and Grace 26 therefore by the sanctification of the womb she was not absolutely cleansed from the Fomez on the contrary but the Fomez implies a blemish at any rate in the flesh therefore the Fomez was not in the Blessed Virgin I answer that on this point there are various opinions for some have held that the Fomez was entirely taken away in that sanctification whereby the Blessed Virgin was sanctified in the womb but the Fomez was not in the Blessed Virgin but in the Fomez the womb others say that it remained as far as it causes a difficulty in doing good but was taken away as far as it causes a proneness to evil others again that it was taken away as to the personal corruption by which it makes as quick to do evil and slow to do good but that it remained as to the corruption of nature in as much as it is the cause of transmitting original sin to the offspring lastly others say that in her first sanctification the Fomez remained essentially but was fettered and that when she conceived the Son of God he was entirely taken away in order to understand the question at issue it must be observed that the Fomez is nothing but a certain inordinate but habitual concupiscence of the sensitive appetite for the actual concupiscence is a sinful motion now sensual concupiscence is said to be inordinate insofar as it rebels against reason and this it does by inclining to evil or hindering from good consequently it is essential to the Fomez to incline to evil or hinder from good wherefore to say that the Fomez was in the blessed virgin without an inclination to evil is to combine two contradictory statements in like manner it seems to imply a contradiction to say that the Fomez remained as to the corruption of nature but not as to the personal corruption for according to Augustine it is lust that transmits original sin to the offspring now lust implies inordinate concupiscence not entirely subject to reason and therefore the Fomez were entirely taken away as to personal corruption it could not remain as to the corruption of nature it remains therefore for us to say either that the Fomez was entirely taken away from her by her first sanctification or that it was fettered now that the Fomez was entirely taken away might be understood in this way that by the abundance of grace bestowed on the blessed virgin such a disposition of the soul's powers was granted to her that the lower powers were never moved without the command of her reason just as we have stated to have been the case with Christ in question 15 article 2 who certainly did not have the Fomez of sin as also was the case with Adam before he sinned by reason of original justice so that in this respect the grace of sanctification in the virgin was the force of original justice and although this appears to be part of the dignity of the virgin mother yet it is somewhat derogatory to the dignity of Christ without whose power no one had been freed from the first sentence of condemnation and though through faith in Christ some were freed from that condemnation according to the spirit before Christ's incarnation it seemed fitting that anyone should be freed from that condemnation according to the flesh except after his incarnation for it was then that immunity from condemnation was first to appear consequently just as before the immortality of the flesh of Christ rising again none obtained immortality of the flesh so it seems unfitting to say that before Christ appeared in sinless flesh his virgin mothers no one else's flesh should be without the fomez which is called the law of the flesh or of the members as is stated in Romans 7 verses 23 and 25 therefore it seems better to say that by the sanctification in the womb the virgin was not freed from the fomez in its essence but that it remained fettered not indeed by an act of her reason as in holy men since she had not the use of reason of her existence in her mother's womb for this was the singular privilege of Christ but by reason of the abundant grace bestowed on her in her sanctification and still more perfectly by divine providence preserving her sensitive soul in a singular manner from any inordinate movement afterwards however at the conception of Christ's flesh in which for the first time immunity from sin was to be conspicuous it is to be believed that entire freedom from the fomez redounded from the child to the mother this indeed is signified in Ezekiel 43.2 behold the glory of the god of Israel came in by way of the east that is by the blessed virgin and the earth that is her flesh shone with his Christ's Majesty reply to objection one death and such like penalties do not of themselves inclinus to sin where for though Christ assumed them he did not assume the fomez consequently in order that the blessed virgin might be conformed to her son from whose fullness grace was derived the fomez was at first fettered and afterwards taken away while she was not freed from death and other such penalties reply to objection two the infirmity of the flesh that pertains to the fomez is indeed to holy men an occasional cause of perfect virtue but not the sine qua non of perfection and indeed it is quite enough to ascribe to the blessed virgin perfect virtue and abundant grace nor is there any need to attribute to her every occasional cause of perfection reply to objection three the holy ghost affected a twofold purification in the blessed virgin the first was as it were preparatory to Christ's conception which did not cleanse her from the stain of sin or fomez but rather gave her mind a unity of purpose and disengaged it from a multiplicity of things confer Dionysius on the divine names four since even the angels are said to be purified in whom there is no stain as Dionysius says in on the ecclesiastical hierarchy six the second purification affected in her by the holy ghost was by means of the conception of Christ which was the operation of the holy ghost and in respect of this it may be said that he purified her entirely from the fomez fourth article whether by being sanctified in the womb the blessed virgin was preserved from all actual sin objection one it would seem that by being sanctified in the womb the blessed virgin was not preserved from all actual sin four as we have already stated in article three after her first sanctification the fomez remained in the virgin now the motion of the fomez even if it precede the act of reason is a venial sin albeit extremely slight as agustin says in his work on the trinity therefore there was some venial sin in the blessed virgin objection two further agustin and his questions on the new and old testament number 73 on the gospel of luke two verse 35 thy own soul a sword shall pierce says that the blessed virgin Mary was troubled with wondering doubt at the death of our lord but doubt in matters of faith is a sin therefore the blessed virgin was not preserved from all actual sin objection three further chrissostom expounding the text behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without seeking thee in the gospel of matthew says it is clear that they did this from mere vain glory again on john two verse three they have no wine the same chrissostom says that she wished to do them a favor and raise herself in their esteem by means of her son and perchance she succumbed to human frailty just as did his brethren when they said manifest thyself to the world and a little further on he says for as yet she did not believe in him as she ought now it is quite clear that all this was sinful therefore the blessed virgin was not preserved from all sin on the contrary Augustine says in on nature and grace 36 in the matter of sin it is my wish to exclude absolutely all questions concerning the holy virgin Mary on account of the honor due to Christ for since she conceived and brought forth him who most certainly was guilty of no sin we know that an abundance of grace was given her that she might be in every way the conqueror of sin I answer that god so prepares and endows those whom he chooses for some particular office that they are rendered capable of fulfilling it according to second Corinthians 36 who hath made us fit ministers of the New Testament now the blessed virgin was chosen by god to be his mother therefore there can be no doubt that god by his grace made her worthy of that office according to the words spoken to her by the angel in luke one verses 30 and 31 thou has found grace with god behold thou shalt conceive etc. we would not have been worthy to be the mother of god if she had ever sinned first because the honor of the parents reflects on the child according to proverbs 176 the glory of children are their fathers and consequently on the other hand the mother's shame would have reflected on her son secondly because of the singular affinity between her and Christ there is no flesh from her and it is written in 2 Corinthians 6 15 what concord hath Christ with belial thirdly because of the singular manner in which the son of god who is the divine wisdom according to 1 Corinthians 124 dwelt in her not only in her soul but in her womb and it is written in wisdom 14 wisdom will not enter into a malicious soul nor dwell in a body subject to sins we must therefore confess simply that the blessed virgin committed no actual sin neither mortal nor venial so that what is written in the canticles 47 is fulfilled thou art all fair oh my love and there is not a spot in thee etc. reply to objection 1 after her sanctification the fomez remained in the blessed virgin but fettered lest she should be surprised by some sudden inordinate act antecedent to the act of reason and although the grace of her sanctification contributed to this effect yet it did not suffice for otherwise the result of her sanctification would have been to render impossible in her any sensual movement not preceded by an act of reason and thus she would not have had the fomez which is contrary to what we have said above in article 3 we must therefore say that the above mentioned fettering of the fomez was perfected by divine providence not permitting any inordinate motion to result from the fomez reply to objection 2 origin in a homily on the Gospel of Luke and certain other doctors found these words of Simeon as referring to the sorrow which she suffered at the time of our Lord's Passion Ambrose in commenting on Luke 2 verse 35 says that the sword signifies Mary's prudence which took note of the heavenly mystery for the word of God is living and effectual and more piercing than any two edged sword confer Hebrews 412 others again take the sword to signify doubt but this is to be understood of the doubt not of unbelief but of wonder and discussion thus Basil says in his letter to Optimus that the blessed virgin while standing by the cross and observing every detail after the message of Gabriel and the ineffable knowledge of the divine conception after that wondrous manifestation of miracles was troubled in mind that is to say on the one side seeing him suffer such humiliation and on the other considering his marvelous works reply to Objection 3 in those words Chrysostom goes too far they may however be explained as meaning that our Lord corrected in her not the inordinate motion of Vainglory in regard to herself but that which might be in the thoughts of others fifth article whether by her sanctification in the womb the blessed virgin received the fullness of grace Objection 1 it would seem that by her sanctification in the womb the blessed virgin did not receive the fullness or perfection of grace for this seems to be Christ's privilege according to John 114 we saw him as the only begotten full of grace and truth but what is proper to Christ ought not to be ascribed to someone else therefore the blessed virgin did not receive the fullness of grace at the time of her sanctification Objection 2 further nothing remains to be added to that which is full and perfect for the perfect is that which lacks nothing as is said in physics 3 but the blessed virgin received additional grace afterwards when she conceived Christ for to her it was said in Luke 135 the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and again when she was assumed into glory therefore it seems that she did not receive the fullness of grace at the time of her first sanctification Objection 3 further God does nothing useless as is said in on the heavens and the world number one but it would have been useless for her to have certain graces for she would never have put them to use since we do not read that she taught which is the act of wisdom or that she worked miracles which is the act of one of the gratuitous graces therefore she had not the fullness of grace on the contrary the angel said to her hail full of grace chapter 1 verse 28 which words Jerome expounds as follows in a sermon on the assumption full indeed of grace for to others it is given in portions whereas on Mary the fullness of grace was showered all at once I answer that in every genus the nearer a thing is to the principal the greater the part which it has in the effect of that principal Dionysius says in on the celestial hierarchy for that angels being nearer to God have a greater share than men in the effects of divine goodness now Christ is the principal of grace authoritatively as do his God head instrumentally as to his humanity whence in John 1 verse 17 it is written grace and truth came by Jesus Christ but the blessed virgin Mary was nearest to Christ in his humanity because he received his human nature from her therefore it was due to her to receive a greater fullness of grace than others reply to objection one God gives to each one according to the purpose for which he has chosen him and since Christ as man was predestinated and chosen to be predestinated the son of God in power of sanctification according to Romans 1.4 it was proper to him to have such a fullness of grace that it overflowed from him into all according to John 1.16 of his fullness we have all received whereas the blessed virgin Mary received such a fullness of grace that she was nearest of all to the author of grace so that she received within her him who is full of all grace and by bringing him forth she in a manner dispensed grace to all reply to objection two in natural things at first there is perfection of disposition for instance when matter is perfectly disposed for the form secondly there is the perfection of the form and this is the more excellent for the heat that proceeds from the form of fire is more perfect than that which is disposed to the form of fire thirdly there is the perfection of the end for instance when fire has its qualities in the most perfect degree having mounted to its own place in like manner there was a three fold perfection of grace in the blessed virgin the first was a kind of disposition by which she was made worthy to be the mother of Christ and this was the perfection of her sanctification the second perfection of grace in the blessed virgin was through the presence of the son of God incarnate in her womb the third perfection of the end is that which she has in glory that the second perfection excels the first and the third the second appears first from the point of view of deliverance from evil for at first in her the sanctification she was delivered from original sin afterwards in the conception of the son of God she was entirely cleansed from the formis lastly in her glorification she was also delivered from all affliction whatever it appears secondly from the point of view of ordering to good for at first in her sanctification she received grace inclining to her good in the conception of the son of God she received consummate grace confirming her in good and in her glorification her grace was further consummated so as to perfect her in the enjoyment of all good reply to objection 3 there is no doubt that the blessed virgin received in a high degree both the gift of wisdom and the grace of miracles and even of prophecy just as Christ had them she also received them as to put them and such like graces to every use as did Christ but accordingly as it befitted her condition of life for she had the use of wisdom in contemplation according to Luke 2 to 19 but Mary kept all these words pondering them in her heart but she had not the use of wisdom as to teaching since this befitted not the female sex according to 1st Timothy 2 12 but I suffer not a woman to teach the use of miracles did not become her while she lived because at that time the teaching of Christ was to be confirmed by miracles and therefore it was befitting that Christ alone and his disciples who were the bearers of his doctrine should work miracles hence of John the Baptist it is written in John 10 41 that he did no sign that is the order that all might fix their attention on Christ as to the use of prophecy it is clear that she had it from the canticle spoken by her my soul doth magnify the Lord Luke 1 46 and following 6th article whether after Christ it was proper to the blessed virgin to be sanctified in the womb Objection 1 it would seem that it was proper to the blessed virgin after Christ to be sanctified in the womb for it has been said in article 4 that the blessed virgin was sanctified in the womb in order that she might be worthy to be the mother of God but this is proper to her therefore she alone was sanctified in the womb Objection 2 further some men seem to have been more closely connected with Christ than Jeremiah and John the Baptist who are said to have been sanctified in the womb for Christ is specially called the son of David and of Abraham by reason of the promise specially made to them concerning Christ Isaiah also prophesied of Christ in the most expressed terms and thus the apostles were converse with Christ himself and yet these are not mentioned as having been sanctified in the womb therefore it was not befitting that either Jeremiah or John the Baptist should be sanctified in the womb Objection 3 further Job says of himself in Job 31 18 from my infancy mercy grew up with me and it came out with me from my mother's womb nevertheless we do not for this reason say that he was sanctified in the womb neither therefore are we bound to say that Jeremiah and John the Baptist were sanctified in the womb on the contrary it is written of Jeremiah in Jeremiah 1 5 before thou cameest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee and of John the Baptist it is written in Luke 1 15 he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother's womb I answer that Augustine in his letter to Dardenus seems to speak dubiously of their sanctification in the womb to Jeremiah and John the Baptist for the leaping of John in the womb might as he says signify the great truth notably that the woman was the mother of God which is to be made known to his elders though as yet unknown to the infant hence in the gospel it is written not that the infant in her womb believed but that it leaped and our eyes are witnessed that not only infants leap but also cattle but this was unwanted because it was in the womb and therefore just as other miracles are want to be done this was done divinely in the infant not humanly by the infant perhaps also in this child the use of reason and will was so far accelerated that while yet in his mother's womb he was able to acknowledge believe and consent whereas in other children we have to wait for these things till they grow older this again I count as a miraculous result of the divine power but since it is expressly said of John in the gospel that he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother's womb and of Jeremiah before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee it seems that we must assert that they were sanctified in the womb although while in the womb they had not the use of reason which is the point discussed by Augustine just as neither do children enjoy the use of free will as soon as they are sanctified by baptism nor are we to believe that any others not mentioned by Scripture were sanctified in the womb for such privileges of grace which are bestowed on some outside the common law are ordered for the salvation of others according to 1 Corinthians 12-7 the manifestation of the spirit is given to every man under prophet which would not result from the sanctification of anyone unless it were made known to the church and although it is not possible to assign a reason for God's judgments for instance why he bestows such a grace on one and not on another yet there seems to be a certain fittingness in both of these being sanctified in the womb by their foreshadowing the sanctification which was to be affected through Christ first as to his passion according to Hebrews 13-12 Jesus that he might sanctify the people by his own blood suffered without the gate which passion Jeremiah foretold openly by the words and by symbols and most clearly foreshadowed by his own sufferings secondly as to his baptism in 1 Corinthians 6-11 but you are washed but you are sanctified to which baptism John prepared man by his baptism reply to Objection 1 the Blessed Virgin who was chosen by God to be his mother received a fuller grace of sanctification than John the Baptist and Jeremiah who were chosen to foreshadow in a special way the sanctification affected by Christ a sign of this but it was granted to the Blessed Virgin hence forward never to sin either mortally or vignally whereas to the others who were thus sanctified it was granted hence forward not to sin mortally through the protection of God's grace reply to Objection 2 in other respects these saints might be more closely united to Christ than Jeremiah and John the Baptist but the latter were most closely united by clearly foreshadowing his sanctification as explained above reply to Objection 3 the mercy of which Job speaks is not the infused virtue but a certain natural inclination to the act of that virtue End of Question 27 Read by Michael Shane Craig Lambert, LC All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain For more information or to volunteer please visit LibriVox.org Summa Theologica Terziapars Triates on the Savior by St. Thomas Aquinas Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province Question 28 of the Virginity of the Mother of God in four articles We have now to consider the virginity of the Mother of God concerning which there are four points of inquiry First whether she was a virgin in conceiving Second whether she was a virgin in his birth Third whether she remained a virgin after his birth Fourth whether she took a vow of virginity First article whether the Mother of God was a virgin in conceiving Christ Objection one it would seem that the Mother of God was not a virgin in conceiving Christ For no child having father and mother is conceived by a virgin mother But Christ is said to have had not only a mother but also a father according to Luke 233 His father and mother were wondering at those things which were spoken concerning him And further on in Luke 248 in the same chapter she says Behold, I and thy father have sought thee sorrowing Therefore Christ was not conceived of a virgin mother Objection two further In the Gospel of Matthew chapter one it is proved that Christ was the son of Abraham and David through Joseph being dissented from David But this proof would have availed nothing if Joseph were not the father of Christ Therefore, it seems that Christ's mother conceived him of the seed of Joseph and consequently that she was not a virgin in conceiving him Objection three further It is written in Galatians 4.4 God sent his son made of a woman But according to the customary mode of speaking the term woman applies to one who is known of man Therefore Christ was not conceived by a virgin mother Objection four further Things of the same species have the same mode of generation since generation is specified by its terminus just as are other notions But Christ belonged to the same species as other men according to Philippians 2.7 Being made in the likeness of men and in habit found as a man Since therefore other men are begotten of the mingling of male and female it seems that Christ was begotten in the same manner and that consequently he was not conceived of a virgin mother Objection five further Every natural form has its determinant matter outside which it cannot be But the matter of human form appears to be the semen of male and female If therefore Christ's body was not conceived of the semen of male and female he would not have been truly a human body which cannot be asserted It seems therefore that he was not conceived of a virgin mother On the contrary it is written in Isaiah 7 verse 14 Behold a virgin shall conceive I answer that we must confess simply that the mother of Christ was a virgin in conceiving for to deny this belongs to the heresy of the Ebonites and Chirinthus who held Christ to be a mere man and maintained that he was born of both sexes It is fitting for four reasons that Christ should be born First in order to maintain the dignity or the father who sent him for since Christ is the true and natural son of God it was not fitting that he should have another father than God lest the dignity belonging to God be transferred to another Secondly this was befitting to a property of the son himself who is sent for he is the word of God and the word is conceived without any interior corruption Indeed interior corruption is incompatible with perfect conception of the word Since therefore flesh was so assumed by the word of God as to be the flesh of the word of God it was fitting that it should also be conceived without corruption of the mother Thirdly this was befitting to the dignity of Christ's humanity in which there could be no sin since by it the sin of the world was taken away according to John 1.29 Behold the Lamb of God that is the Lamb without stain who taketh away the sin of the world Now it was not possible in a nature already corrupt for flesh to be born from sexual intercourse without incurring the infection of original sin When Sugustin says in On Marriage 1 In that union notably the marriage of Mary and Joseph the nuptial in course alone was lacking because in sinful flesh this could not be without fleshly concupiscence which arises from sin and without which he wished to be conceived who was to be without sin Fourthly on account of the very end of the incarnation of Christ which was that men might be born again as sons of God not of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God as is reported in John 1.13 That is, of the power of God of which fact the very conception of Christ was to appear as an exemplar When Sugustin says in On Holy Virginity it behooved that our head a miracle should be born after the flesh of a virgin that he might thereby signify that his members would be born after the spirit of a virgin church Reply to Objection 1 As Bede says on Luke 1.33 Joseph is called the father of the Saviour not that he really was his father as the Photinians pretended but that he was considered by men to be so for the safeguarding of Mary's good name wherefor Luke adds in chapter 3 verse 23 being as it was supposed the son of Joseph or according to Sugustin Joseph is called the father of Christ just as he is called the husband of Mary without fleshly mingling by the mere bond of marriage being thereby united to him much more closely than if he were adopted from another family consequently that Christ was not begotten of Joseph by fleshly union is no reason why Joseph should not be called his father since he would be the father even of an adopted son not born of his wife Reply to Objection 2 As Jerome says on Matthew 1.18 Though Joseph was not the father of our Lord and Saviour the order of his genealogy is traced down to Joseph the scriptures are not want to trace the female line in genealogies Secondly Mary and Joseph were of the same tribe wherefor by law he was bound to take her as being of his kin likewise as Sugustin says on marriage 1. It was befitting to trace the genealogy down to Joseph lest in that marriage any slight should be offered to the male sex which is indeed the stronger for truth suffered nothing thereby since both Joseph and Mary were of the family of David Reply to Objection 3 As the gloss says on this passage the word mullier is here used instead of femina according to the custom of the Hebrew tongue which applies the term signifying woman to those of the female sex who are virgins Reply to Objection 4 This argument is true of those things which come into existence by way of nature since nature just as it is fixed to one particular effect so is it determinant to one mode of producing that effect but as the supernatural power of God extends to the infinite just as it is not determinant to one effect so neither is it determinant of producing any effect whatever consequently just as it was possible for the first man to be produced by the divine power from the slime of the earth so too was it possible for Christ's body to be made by divine power from a virgin without the seed of the male Reply to Objection 5 According to the philosopher on the generation of animals 1, 2 and 4 In conception the seed of the male is not by way of matter but by way of agent and the female alone supplies the matter wherefor though the seed of the male was lacking in Christ's conception it does not follow that do matter was lacking but if the seed of the male were the matter of the fetus in animal conception it is nevertheless manifest that it is not a matter of form but subject to transformation and though the natural power cannot transmute other than determinant matter to a determinant form nevertheless the divine power which is infinite can transmute all matter to any form whatsoever Consequently just as it transmuted the slime of the earth into Adam's body so could it transmute the matter that was supplied by his mother into Christ's body even though it were not the sufficient matter for a natural conception Second article Whether Christ's mother was a virgin in his birth Objection 1 it would seem that Christ's mother was not a virgin in his birth for Ambrose says on Luke 2 23 He who sanctified a strange womb for the birth of a prophet he it is the mother's womb that he might go forth unspotted but opening of the womb excludes virginity therefore Christ's mother was not a virgin in his birth Objection 2 further nothing should have taken place in the mystery of Christ which would make his body seem unreal now it seems to pertain not to a true but to an unreal body to be able to go through a closed passage since two bodies cannot be in one place at the same time it was therefore unfitting that Christ's body should come forth from his mother's closed womb and consequently that she should remain a virgin in giving birth to him Objection 3 further as Gregory says in the homily for the Octobah of Easter that by entering after his resurrection where the disciples were gathered the doors being shut our Lord showed that his body was the same in nature but differed in glory so that it seems that to go through a closed passage pertains to a glorified body but Christ's body was not glorified in its conception but was passable having the likeness of sinful flesh as the apostle says in Romans 8 3 therefore he did not come forth through the closed womb of the virgin on the contrary in a sermon of the council of Ephesus it is said after giving birth nature knows not a virgin but grace enhances her fruitfulness and affects her motherhood while in no way does it injure her virginity therefore Christ's mother was a virgin also in giving birth to him I answer that without any doubt whatever I assert that the mother of Christ was a virgin even in his birth for the prophet says not only behold a virgin shall conceive but adds and shall bear a son this indeed was befitting for three reasons first because this was in keeping with the property of him whose birth is in question for he is the word of God for the word is not only conceived in the mind without corruption but also proceeds from the mind without corruption therefore in order to show that body to be the body of the very word of God it was fitting that it should be born of a virgin in corrupt whence in the sermon of the council of Ephesus quoted above we read whosoever brings forth mere flesh ceases to be a virgin but since she gave birth to the word made flesh God safeguarded her virginity so as to manifest his word by which word he thus manifested himself for neither does our word when brought forth corrupt the mind nor does God the substantial word dating to be born destroy virginity secondly this is fitting as regards the effect of Christ's incarnation since he came forth for this purpose that he might take away our corruption wherefore it is unfitting that in his birth he should corrupt his mother's virginity thus Augustine says in a sermon on the nativity of our Lord it was not right that he who came to heal corruption should by his advent violate integrity thirdly it was fitting that he who commanded us father and mother should not in his birth lessen the honor due to his mother reply to objection one Ambrose says this in expounding the evangelists quotation from the law every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the Lord this says Bede is said in regard to the wanted manner of birth not that we are called to believe that the coming forth violated the abode of her sacred womb which his entrance therein had hallowed wherefore the opening here spoken of does not imply the unlocking of the enclosure of virginal purity but the mere coming forth of the infant from the maternal womb reply to objection two Christ wished so to show the reality of his body as to manifest his Godhead at the same time for this reason he mingled wondrous with lowly things wherefore to show that his body was real he was born of a woman but in order to manifest his Godhead he was born of a virgin for such a birth befits a God as Ambrose says in his Christmas hymn reply to objection three some have held that Christ in his birth assumed the gift of subtlety when he came forth from the closed womb of a virgin and that he assumed the gift of agility when with dry feet he walked on the sea but this is not consistent with what has been decided above in question 14 for these gifts of a glorified body result from an overflow of this whole's glory onto the body as we shall explain further on in treating of glorified bodies in the supplement in question 82 and it has been said above in question 13 article 3 first reply and in question 16 article 1 second reply that before his passion Christ allowed his flesh to do and to suffer what was proper to it as Damascene said in on the true faith 3 nor was there such an overflow of glory from his soul onto his body we must therefore say that all these things took place miraculously by divine power when Augustin says in his commentary on the gospel of John to the substance of a body in which was the Godhead closed doors were no obstacle for truly he had power to enter in by doors not open in whose birth his mother's virginity remained in violet and Dionysius says in an epistle in his letter to Caius that Christ excelled man in doing that which is proper to man this is shown in his supernatural conception of a virgin and in the unstable waters bearing the weight of earthly feet 3rd article whether Christ's mother remained a virgin after his birth objection one it would seem that Christ's mother did not remain a virgin after his birth for it is written in Matthew 118 before Joseph and Mary came together she was found with child of the Holy Ghost now the evangelist would have not said this before they came together unless you were certain of their subsequent coming together for no one says of one who does not eventually dine before he dines it seems therefore that the blessed virgin subsequently intercourse with Joseph and consequently that she did not remain a virgin after Christ's birth objection two further in the same passage Matthew 1 verse 20 are related the words of the angel to Joseph fear not to take unto the Mary thy wife but marriage is consummated by carnal intercourse therefore it seems that this must have at some time taken place between Mary and Joseph and that consequently she did not remain a virgin after Christ's birth objection three further again in the same passage a little further on in Matthew chapter one verses 24 and 25 we read and Joseph took unto him his wife and he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son now this conjunction till to designate a fixed time on the conception of which that takes place which previously had not taken place and the verb new refers here to knowledge by intercourse according to Saint Jerome just as in Genesis four one it is said that Adam knew his wife therefore it seems that after Christ's birth the blessed virgin was known by Joseph and consequently that she did not remain a virgin after the birth of Christ objection four further firstborn can only be said of one who has brothers afterwards wherefore in Romans 8 29 whom he foreknew he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his son that he might be the firstborn among many brethren but the evangelist calls Christ the firstborn by his mother therefore she had other children after Christ and therefore it seems that Christ's mother did not remain a virgin after his birth objection five further it is written in John 2 12 after this he went down to Capernaum he that is Christ and his mother and his brethren but brethren are those who are begotten of the same parent therefore it seems that the blessed virgin had other sons after Christ objection six further it is written again in Matthew 27 verses 55 and 56 there were there that is by the cross of Christ many women are far off who had followed Jesus from Galilee ministering unto him among whom was Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee now this Mary who is called the mother of James and Joseph seems to have been the mother of Christ for it is written in John 19 25 that there stood by the cross of Jesus Mary his mother therefore it seems that Christ's mother did not remain a virgin after his birth on the contrary it is written in Ezekiel 44 verse 2 this gate shall be shut it shall not be opened and no man shall pass through it because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it expounding these words Augustine says in a sermon on the Annunciation of our Lord what means this closed gate in the house of the Lord Mary is to be ever inviolate what does it mean that no man shall pass through it save that Joseph shall not know her and what is this the Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her and that the Lord of angels shall be born of her and what means this it shall be shut forevermore that Mary is a virgin before his birth a virgin in his birth and a virgin after his birth by answer that without any hesitation we must abhor the error of Helvidius who dared to assert that Christ's mother after his birth was carnaly known by Joseph and bore other children for in the first place this is derogatory to Christ's perfection for as he is in the Godhead the only begotten of the father being thus his son in every respect perfect so what was becoming that he should be the only begotten son of his mother as being her perfect offspring secondly this error is an insult to the Holy Ghost whose shrine was the virginal womb wherein he had formed the flesh of Christ wherefore it was unbecoming that it should be desecrated by intercourse with man thirdly this is derogatory to the dignity and holiness of God's mother for thus she would seem to be most ungrateful were she not content with such a son and were she of her own accord by carnal intercourse to forfeit that virginity which had been miraculously preserved in her fourthly it would be tantamount to an imputation of extreme presumption in Joseph to assume that he attempted to violate her by whom the angels revelation he knew to have conceived by the Holy Ghost we must therefore simply assert that the mother of God as she was a virgin in conceiving him and a virgin in giving him birth did she remain a virgin ever afterwards reply to objection one as Jerome says although this particle before often indicates a subsequent event yet we must observe that it not infrequently points merely to something previously in the mind nor is there need that what was in the mind take place eventually since something may occur to prevent its happening thus if a man say before I dined in the port I set sail we do not understand him to have dined in port after he set sail but that his mind was set on dining in port in like manner the evangelist says before they came together Mary was found with child of the Holy Ghost not that they came together afterwards but that when it seemed that they would come together this was forestalled through her conceiving by the Holy Ghost the result being that afterwards they did not come together reply to objection two as Augustine says on marriage the mother of God is called Joseph's wife from the first promise of her espousals whom he had not known nor ever was to know by carnal intercourse for as Ambrose says on Luke 127 the fact of her marriage is declared not to insinuate the loss of virginity but to witness to the reality of the union reply to objection three some have said that this is not to be understood of carnal knowledge but of acquaintance thus Chrysostom says that Joseph did not know her until she gave birth being unaware of her dignity but after she had given birth then did he know her because by reason of her child she surpassed the whole world in beauty and dignity since she alone in the narrow abode of her womb received him whom the world cannot contain others again refer this to knowledge by sight for while Moses was speaking with God his face was so bright that the children of Israel cannot steadfastly behold it so Mary while being overshadowed by the brightness of the power of the most high could not be gazed on by Joseph until she gave birth but afterwards she is acknowledged by Joseph by looking on her face not by lustful contact Jerome however grants that this is to be understood of knowledge by intercourse but he observes that before or until has a twofold sense in Scripture for sometimes it indicates a fixed time as in Galatians 319 it is said that the law was set because of transgressions until the seed should come to whom he made the promise on the other hand it sometimes indicates an indefinite time as in Psalm 122 verse 2 our eyes are unto the Lord our God until he have mercy on us from which it is not to be gathered that our eyes are turned from God as soon as his mercy has been obtained in this sense those things are indicated of which we might doubt if they had not been written down while others are left out to be supplied by our understanding thus the evangelist says that the mother of God was not known by her husband until she gave birth that we may be given to understand that still less did he know her afterwards as Jerome states reply to objection for the Scriptures are want to designate as the first born not only a child who was followed by others but also the one that is born first otherwise if a child were not first born unless followed by others the first fruits would not be due as long as there was no further produce as Jerome states which is clearly false since according to the law the first fruits had to be redeemed within a month according to 18 verse 16 reply to objection 5 some as Jerome says on Matthew 12 verses 49 and 50 suppose that the brethren of the Lord were Joseph's son by another wife but we understand the brethren of the Lord to be not sons of Joseph but cousins of the Savior the sons of Mary his mother's sister for Scripture speaks of brethren in four senses those who are united by being of the same parents of the same nation of the same family and by common affection wherefore the brethren of the Lord are so called not by birth as being born of the same mother but by relationship as being blood relations of his but Joseph as Jerome says is rather to be believed to have remained a virgin since he is not said to have had another wife and a holy man does not live otherwise than chastely reply to objection 6 Mary who is called the mother of James and Joseph is not to be taken for the mother of our Lord who is not want to be named in the gospel save under the designation of her dignity the mother of Jesus this Mary is taken to be for the wife of Elpheus whose son was James the less known as the brother the brother of the Lord in Galatians 1 19 4th article whether the mother of God took a vow of virginity objection 1 it would seem that the mother of God did not take a vow of virginity for it is written in Deuteronomy 714 no one shall be barren among you of either sex but sterility is a consequence of virginity for the keeping of virginity was contrary to the commandment of the old law but before Christ was born the old law was still in force therefore at that time the blessed virgin could not lawfully take a vow of virginity objection 2 further the apostle says in 1 Corinthians 725 concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord but I give counsel but the perfection of the counsels was to take its beginning from Christ who is the end of the law as the apostle says in Romans 10 4 it was not there for becoming that the virgin should take a vow of virginity objection 3 further the gloss of Jerome says on 1 Timothy 512 that for those who are vowed to virginity it is reprehensible not only to marry but also to desire to be married but the mother of Christ committed no sin for which she could be reprehended as stated above in question 27 article 4 since therefore she was espoused as related by Luke 127 it seems that she did not take a vow of virginity on the contrary Augustine says in on the holiness of virginity Mary answered the announcing angel how shall this be done because I know not man she would not have said this unless she had already vowed her virginity to God I answer that as we have stated in the second part in the parts secunda secunde question 88 article 6 works of perfection are more praiseworthy when performed in fulfillment of a vow now it is clear that for reasons already given in articles 1 2 and 3 virginity had a special place in the mother of God it was therefore fitting that her virginity should be consecrated to God by vow nevertheless because while the law was in force both men and women were bound to attend on the duty of begetting since the worship of God was spread according to carnal origin until Christ was born of that people the mother of God is not believed to have taken an absolute vow of virginity before being espoused to Joseph although she desired to do so yet yielding her own will to God's judgment afterwards however having taken a husband according as the custom of the time required together with him she took a vow of virginity reply to objection 1 because it seemed to be forbidden by the law not to take the necessary steps for leaving a posterity on earth therefore the mother of God did not vow virginity absolutely but under the condition that it were pleasing to God when however she knew that it was acceptable to God she made the vow absolute before the angels' annunciation reply to objection 2 just as the fullness of grace was in Christ perfectly from beginning of the fullness preceded in his mother so also the observance of the councils which is an effect of God's grace began its perfection in Christ but was begun after a fashion in his virgin mother reply to objection 3 these words of the apostle are to be understood of those who vow chastity absolutely Christ's mother did not do this until she was espoused to Joseph after her espousals however by their common consent she took a vow of virginity together with her spouse question 29 of the espousals of the mother of God in two articles we now consider the espousals of God's mother concerning which two points arise for inquiry first, whether Christ should have been born to the mother of God or to the father of God or to the father of God or to the father of God whether Christ should have been born of an espoused virgin second whether there was true marriage between our Lord's mother and Joseph first article whether Christ should have been born of an espoused virgin objection 1 he would seem that Christ should not have been born of an espoused virgin for espousals are ordered to carnal intercourse but our Lord's mother never wished to have carnal intercourse with her husband because this would be derogatory to the virginity of her mind therefore she should not have been espoused objection 2 further that Christ was born of a virgin was miraculous when Sugastan says in his letter to Volitian this same power of God brought forth the infant limbs out of the virginal womb of his inviolate mother by which in the vigor of manhood he passed through the closed doors if we are told why this happened it will cease to be wonderful if another instance be alleged it will no longer be unique but miracles that are wrought in confirmation of the faith should be manifest since therefore by her espousals this miracle would be less evident it seems that it was unfitting that Christ should be born of an espoused virgin objection 3 further the martyr Ignatius as Jerome says on Matthew 1 18 gives as a reason of the espousals of the mother of God that the manner of his birth might be hidden from the devil who would think him to be begotten not of a virgin but of a wife but this seems to be no reason at all first because by his natural cunning he knows whatever takes place in bodies secondly because later on the demons through many evident signs knew Christ after a fashion whence it is written in Mark 1 23 and 24 a man with an unclean spirit cried out saying what have we to do with the Jesus of Nazareth art thou come to destroy us I know thou art the Holy One of God therefore it does not seem fitting that the mother of God should have been espoused objection 4 further Jerome gives us another reason lest the mother of God should be stoned by the Jews as an adulteress but this reason seems to have no weight for if she were not espoused she could not be condemned for adultery therefore it does not seem reasonable that Christ should be born of an espoused virgin on the contrary it is written in Matthew 1 18 when as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph and in Luke 1 26 and 27 the angel Gabriel was sent to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph I answer that it was fitting that Christ should be born of an espoused virgin first for his own sake secondly for his mother's sake thirdly for our sake for the sake of Christ himself for four reasons first lest he should be rejected by unbelievers as illegitimate wherefore Ambrose says on Luke 1 verses 26 and 27 how could we blame Herod or the Jews if they were to persecute one who was born of adultery secondly in order that in the customary way his genealogy might be traced through the male line thus Ambrose says on Luke 3 verse 23 he who came into the world according to the custom of the world had to be enrolled now for this purpose it is the men that are required because they represent the family in the senate and other courts the custom of the scriptures too shows that the ancestry of the men is always traced out for the safety of the newborn child lest the devil should plot serious harm against him hence Ignatius says that she was espoused that the manner of his birth might be hidden from the devil fourthly that he might be fostered by Joseph who is therefore called his father as breadwinner it was also fitting for the sake of the virgin first because thus she was rendered exempt from punishment that is lest she should be stoned by the Jews as an adulteress as Jerome says secondly that thus she might be safeguarded from ill-fame whence Ambrose says on Luke 1 verses 26 and 27 she was espoused lest she be wounded by the ill-fame of violated virginity in whom the pregnant womb would be token corruption thirdly that as Jerome says Joseph might administer to her once this was fitting again for our sake first because Joseph is thus a witness to Christ's being born of a virgin wherefore Ambrose says her husband is the more trustworthy witness of her purity in that he would deplore the dishonour and avenge the disgrace were it not that he acknowledged the mystery secondly because thereby the very words of the virgin are rendered more credible by which she asserted her virginity thus Ambrose says belief in Mary's words is strengthened the motive for a lie is removed if she had not been espoused when pregnant she would seem to have wished to hide her sin by a lie being espoused she had no motive for lying since a woman's pregnancy is the reward of marriage and gives grace to the sexual bond these two reasons add strength to our faith thirdly that all excuse be removed from those virgins who through want of caution fall into dishonour hence Ambrose says it was not becoming that virgins should expose themselves to evil report and cover themselves with the excuse that the mother of the lord had also been oppressed by ill fame fourthly because by this the universal church is typified which is a virgin and yet is espoused to one man Christ as Augustine says and on the holiness of virginity 12 a fifth reason may be added since the mother of the lord being both espoused and a virgin both virginity and wedlock are honoured in her person in contradiction to those heretics who disparaged one or the other reply to objection one we must believe that the blessed virgin mother of God desired from an intimate inspiration of the Holy Ghost to be espoused being confident that by the help of God she would never come to have carnal intercourse yet she left this to God's discretion wherefore she suffered nothing in detriment to her virginity reply to objection two as Ambrose says on Luke 126 our Lord preferred that men should doubt of his origin rather than of his mother's purity for he knew the delicacy of virgin modesty and how easily the fair name of chastity is disparaged nor did he choose that our faith in his birth should be strengthened in detriment to his mother we must observe however that some miracles wrought by God are the direct object of faith such are the miracles of the virginal birth the resurrection of our Lord and the sacrament of the altar wherefore our Lord wished these to be more hidden that belief in them might have greater merit whereas other miracles are for the strengthening of faith and these it behooves to be manifest reply to objection three as Augustine says in on the trinity three 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 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 things then nor to make his power known but to show himself to be in all things like other infants hence Pope Leo in a sermon on the epiphany says 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 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 reply to objection 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 in Deuteronomy 22 verses 20 and 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 it may also be said according to some writers that the blessed virgin was of the family or kindred of Aaron she was related to Elizabeth as we are told in Luke 136 now a virgin of the priestly tribe was condemned to death for Hordom for we read in Leviticus 21 9 if the daughter of a priest be taken in Hordom and dishonor the name of her father she shall be burnt with fire lastly some understand the passage of Jerome to refer to the throwing of stones by ill-fame 2nd article whether there was a true marriage between Mary and Joseph objection one it would seem that there was no true marriage between Mary and Joseph for Jerome says against Helvidias 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 objection two further on Matthew 1 verse 16 Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary Jerome says when thou readest husband suspect not a marriage but remember that Scripture is want to speak of those who are betrothed as husband and wife but a true marriage is not affected by a betrothal but by the wedding therefore there was no true marriage between the Blessed Virgin and Joseph objection three further it is written in Matthew 1 19 Joseph her husband being a just man and not willing to take her away that is to take her to his home in order to cohabit with her was minded to put her away privately that is 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 on the contrary Augustine says in on the consensus of the evangelists two it cannot be allowed that the evangelist thought that Joseph ought to sever his union with Mary since he had 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 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 altered 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 God and Joseph was absolutely true because both consented to the natural 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 in Matthew 120 fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife on which words Augustine says in on marriage one she is called his wife from the first promise of her espousals whom she 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 where for Ambrose says on Luke 1 26 27 be not surprised that scripture calls Mary a wife the fact of her marriage is declared 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 in on marriage one all the natural 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 to objection one Jerome uses the term husband in reference to marriage consummated reply to objection two by marriage Jerome means the natural intercourse reply to objection three as Christostom says in a homily on the gospel of Matthew 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 to be taken to safeguard the fair name of the blessed virgin if she had not the entry of her husband's house where for the words not willing to take her away are better rendered as meaning not willing publicly to expose her then understood of taking her into 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 to the wedding of the wedding for which reason they had not yet consummated the marriage therefore as Christostom says again in his homily on Matthew 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 the marry 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 End of question 29 Read by Michael Shane Craig Lambert LC