Part IV (Tertia Pars) Part 48 (1/2)

Reply Obj. 4: The Scriptures are wont to designate as the first-born, not only a child who is 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” [*Jerome, Adversus Helvid. x]: which is clearly false, since according to the law the first-fruits had to be redeemed within a month (Num. 18:16).

Reply Obj. 5: Some, as Jerome says on Matt. 12:49, 50, ”suppose that the brethren of the Lord were Joseph's sons by another wife. But we understand the brethren of the Lord to be not sons of Joseph, but cousins of the Saviour, the sons of Mary, His Mother's sister.” For ”Scripture speaks of brethren in four senses; namely, those who are united by being of the same parents, of the same nation, of the same family, by common affection.” Wherefore the brethren of the Lord are so called, not by birth, as being born of the same mother; but by relations.h.i.+p, as being blood-relations of His. But Joseph, as Jerome says (Contra Helvid. ix), 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 Obj. 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 wont to be named in the Gospels save under this designation of her dignity--”the Mother of Jesus.” This Mary is to be taken for the wife of Alphaeus, whose son was James the less, known as the ”brother of the Lord”

(Gal. 1:19).

_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 28, Art. 4]

Whether the Mother of G.o.d Took a Vow of Virginity?

Objection 1: It would seem that the Mother of G.o.d did not take a vow of virginity. For it is written (Deut. 7:14): ”No one shall be barren among you of either s.e.x.” But sterility is a consequence of virginity. Therefore 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.

Obj. 2: Further, the Apostle says (1 Cor. 7:25): ”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 (Rom. 10:4). It was not therefore becoming that the Virgin should take a vow of virginity.

Obj. 3: Further, the gloss of Jerome says on 1 Tim. 5:12, 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 (Q. 27, A. 4). Since therefore she was ”espoused,” as related by Luke 1:27 it seems that she did not take a vow of virginity.

_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Sanct. Virg. iv): ”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 G.o.d.”

_I answer that,_ As we have stated in the Second Part (II-II, Q. 88, A. 6), works of perfection are more praiseworthy when performed in fulfilment of a vow. Now it is clear that for reasons already given (AA. 1, 2, 3) virginity had a special place in the Mother of G.o.d. It was therefore fitting that her virginity should be consecrated to G.o.d by vow. Nevertheless because, while the Law was in force both men and women were bound to attend to the duty of begetting, since the wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d was spread according to carnal origin, until Christ was born of that people; the Mother of G.o.d 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 G.o.d'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 Obj. 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 G.o.d did not vow virginity absolutely, but under the condition that it were pleasing to G.o.d. When, however, she knew that it was acceptable to G.o.d, she made the vow absolute, before the angel's Annunciation.

Reply Obj. 2: Just as the fulness of grace was in Christ perfectly, yet some beginning of the fulness preceded in His Mother; so also the observance of the counsels, which is an effect of G.o.d's grace, began its perfection in Christ, but was begun after a fas.h.i.+on in His Virgin Mother.

Reply Obj. 3: These words of the Apostle are to be understood of those who vow chast.i.ty 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 G.o.d (In Two Articles)

We now consider the espousals of G.o.d's Mother: concerning which two points arise for inquiry:

(1) Whether Christ should have been born of an espoused virgin?

(2) Whether there was true marriage between our Lord's Mother and Joseph?

_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 29, Art. 1]

Whether Christ Should Have Been Born of an Espoused Virgin?

Objection 1: It 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.

Obj. 2: Further, that Christ was born of a virgin was miraculous, whence Augustine says (Ep. ad Volus. cx.x.xvii): ”This same power of G.o.d brought forth the infant's limbs out of the virginal womb of His inviolate Mother, by which in the vigor of manhood He pa.s.sed 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.

Obj. 3: Further, the martyr Ignatius, as Jerome says on Matt. 1:18, gives as a reason of the espousals of the Mother of G.o.d, ”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 fas.h.i.+on: whence it is written (Mk. 1:23, 24): ”A man with an unclean spirit ... cried out, saying: What have we to do with Thee, Jesus of Nazareth? Art Thou come to destroy us? I know ... Thou art the Holy one of G.o.d.” Therefore it does not seem fitting that the Mother of G.o.d should have been espoused.