Tertia Pars · The Life of Christ

Of the Virginity of the Mother of God

III, q. 28 · Four articles

Prooemium · Thomas's plan for this question

Deinde considerandum est de virginitate matris Dei. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum fuerit virgo in concipiendo. Secundo, utrum fuerit virgo in partu. Tertio, utrum permanserit virgo post partum. Quarto, utrum votum virginitatis emiserit.

We now have to consider the virginity of the Mother of God; concerning which there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether she was a virgin in conceiving?

(2) Whether she was a virgin in His Birth?

(3) Whether she remained a virgin after His Birth?

(4) Whether she took a vow of virginity?

1 Whether the Mother of God Was a Virgin in Conceiving Christ?
2 Whether Christ's Mother Was a Virgin in His Birth?
3 Whether Christ's Mother Remained a Virgin After His Birth?
4 Whether the Mother of God Took a Vow of Virginity?

Articulus I

Whether the Mother of God Was a Virgin in Conceiving Christ?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod mater Dei non fuerit virgo in concipiendo Christum. Nulla enim proles quae habet patrem et matrem, ex virgine matre concipitur. Sed Christus non solum dicitur habere matrem, sed etiam patrem, dicitur enim Luc. II, erant pater et mater eius mirantes super his quae dicebantur de illo. Et infra eodem dicit, ecce, ego et pater tuus dolentes quaerebamus te. Ergo Christus non est conceptus ex virgine matre.

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 2:33: "His father and mother were wondering at those things which were spoken concerning Him": and further on (Luke 2:48) in the same chapter she says: "Behold I and Thy father [Vulg.: 'Thy father and I'] have sought Thee sorrowing." Therefore Christ was not conceived of a virgin mother.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, Matth. I probatur quod Christus fuerit filius Abrahae et David, per hoc quod Ioseph ex David descendit. Quae quidem probatio nulla videtur esse si Ioseph pater Christi non fuisset. Ergo videtur quod mater Christi eum ex semine Ioseph conceperit. Et ita non videtur fuisse virgo in concipiendo.

Further (Matt. 1) it is proved that Christ was the Son of Abraham and David, through Joseph being descended 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.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, dicitur Galat. IV, misit Deus filium suum factum ex muliere. Mulier autem, consueto modo loquendi, dicitur quae est viro cognita. Ergo Christus non fuit conceptus ex virgine matre.

Further, it is written (Gal. 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 a man. Therefore Christ was not conceived by a virgin mother.

Arg. 4 Objection 4

Praeterea, eorum quae sunt eiusdem speciei, est idem modus generationis, quia generatio recipit speciem a termino, sicut et ceteri motus. Sed Christus fuit eiusdem speciei cum aliis hominibus, secundum illud Philipp. II, in similitudinem hominum factus, et habitu inventus ut homo. Cum ergo alii homines generentur ex commixtione maris et feminae, videtur quod etiam Christus simili modo fuerit generatus. Et ita non videtur fuisse conceptus ex virgine matre.

Further, things of the same species have the same mode of generation: since generation is specified by its terminus just as are other motions. But Christ belonged to the same species as other men, according to Phil. 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.

Arg. 5 Objection 5

Praeterea, quaelibet forma naturalis habet materiam sibi determinatam, extra quam esse non potest. Materia autem formae humanae videtur esse semen maris et feminae. Si ergo corpus Christi non fuerit conceptum ex semine maris et feminae, non vere fuisset corpus humanum, quod est inconveniens. Videtur igitur non fuisse conceptus ex virgine matre.

Further, every natural form has its determinate 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, it would not have been truly a human body; which cannot be asserted. It seems therefore that He was not conceived of a virgin mother.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod dicitur Isaiae VII, ecce, virgo concipiet.

On the contrary, It is written (Isa. 7:14): "Behold a virgin shall conceive."

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod simpliciter confitendum est matrem Christi virginem concepisse, contrarium enim pertinet ad haeresim Ebionitarum et Cerinthi, qui Christum purum hominem arbitrantur, et de utroque sexu eum natum putaverunt. Quod Christus sit conceptus ex virgine, conveniens est propter quatuor. Primo, propter mittentis patris dignitatem conservandam. Cum enim Christus sit verus et naturalis Dei filius, non fuit conveniens quod alium patrem haberet quam Deum, ne Dei dignitas transferretur ad alium. Secundo, hoc fuit conveniens proprietati ipsius filii, qui mittitur. Qui quidem est verbum Dei. Verbum autem absque omni corruptione cordis concipitur, quinimmo cordis corruptio perfecti verbi conceptionem non patitur. Quia igitur caro sic fuit a verbo Dei assumpta ut esset caro verbi Dei, conveniens fuit quod etiam ipsa sine corruptione matris conciperetur. Tertio, hoc fuit conveniens dignitati humanitatis Christi, in qua locum peccatum habere non debuit, per quam peccatum mundi tollebatur, secundum illud Ioan. I, ecce, agnus Dei, scilicet innocens, qui tollit peccatum mundi. Non poterat autem esse quod in natura iam corrupta ex concubitu caro nasceretur sine infectione originalis peccati. Unde Augustinus dicit, in libro de nuptiis et concupiscentia, solus nuptialis concubitus ibi non fuit, scilicet in matrimonio Mariae et Ioseph, quia in carne peccati fieri non poterat sine ulla carnis concupiscentia, quae accidit ex peccato, sine qua concipi voluit qui futurus erat sine peccato. Quarto, propter ipsum finem incarnationis Christi, qui ad hoc fuit ut homines renascerentur in filios Dei, non ex voluntate carnis, neque ex voluntate viri, sed ex Deo, idest ex Dei virtute. Cuius rei exemplar apparere debuit in ipsa conceptione Christi. Unde Augustinus, in libro de sancta virginitate, oportebat caput nostrum, insigni miraculo, secundum corpus nasci de virgine, ut significaret membra sua de virgine Ecclesia secundum spiritum nascitura.

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 Ebionites and Cerinthus, 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 of a virgin. 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 also should 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" (i.e. 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. Whence Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): "In that union," viz. the marriage of Mary and Joseph, "the nuptial intercourse 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" (John 1:13), i.e. of the power of God, of which fact the very conception of Christ was to appear as an exemplar. Whence Augustine says (De Sanct. Virg.): "It behooved that our Head, by a notable 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."

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Beda dicit, super Luc., pater salvatoris appellatur Ioseph, non quod vere, iuxta Photinianos, pater fuerit ei, sed quod, ad famam Mariae conservandam, pater sit ab hominibus existimatus. Unde et Luc. III dicitur, ut putabatur, filius Ioseph. Vel, sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro de bono coniugali, eo modo pater Christi dicitur Ioseph quo et vir Mariae intelligitur, sine commixtione carnis, ipsa copulatione coniugii, multo videlicet coniunctius quam si esset aliunde adoptatus. Neque enim propterea non erat appellandus Ioseph pater Christi quia non eum concumbendo genuerat, quandoquidem pater esset etiam ei quem, non ex sua coniuge procreatum, aliunde adoptasset.

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. Wherefore Luke adds (Luke 3:23): "Being, as it was supposed, the son of Joseph."

Or, according to Augustine (De Cons. Evang. ii), 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."

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut Hieronymus dicit, super Matth., cum Ioseph non sit pater domini salvatoris, ordo generationis eius usque ad Ioseph deducitur, primo quidem, quia non est consuetudinis Scripturarum ut mulierum in generationibus ordo texatur. Deinde, ex una tribu fuit Maria et Ioseph. Unde ex lege eam accipere cogebatur ut propinquam. Et, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro de nuptiis et concupiscentia, fuit generationum series usque ad Ioseph perducenda, ne in illo coniugio virili sexui, utique potiori, fieret iniuria, cum veritati nihil deperiret, quia ex semine David et Ioseph erat et Maria.

As Jerome says on Matt. 1:18: "Though Joseph was not the father of our Lord and Saviour, the order of His genealogy is traced down to Joseph"—first, because "the Scriptures are not wont to trace the female line in genealogies": secondly, "Mary and Joseph were of the same tribe"; wherefore by law he was bound to take her as being of his kin. Likewise, as Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i), "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."

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Glossa dicit ibidem, mulierem pro femina posuit, more locutionis Hebraeorum. Usus enim Hebraeae locutionis mulieres dicit, non virginitate corruptas, sed feminas.

As the gloss says on this passage, the word "mulier 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."

Ad 4 Reply to Objection 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod ratio illa habet locum in his quae procedunt in esse per viam naturae, eo quod natura, sicut est determinata ad unum effectum, ita est etiam determinata ad unum modum producendi illum. Sed cum virtus supernaturalis divina possit in infinita, sicut non est determinata ad unum effectum, ita non est determinata ad modum producendi quemcumque effectum. Et ideo, sicut virtute divina fieri potuit ut primus homo de limo terrae formaretur, ita etiam fieri potuit ut divina virtute corpus Christi formaretur de virgine absque virili semine.

This argument is true of those things which come into existence by the way of nature: since nature, just as it is fixed to one particular effect, so it is determinate to one mode of producing that effect. But as the supernatural power of God extends to the infinite: just as it is not determinate to one effect, so neither is it determinate to one mode 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.

Ad 5 Reply to Objection 5

Ad quintum dicendum quod, secundum philosophum, in libro de Generat. Animal., semen maris non est sicut materia in conceptione animalis, sed solum sicut agens, sola autem femina materiam subministrat in conceptu. Unde per hoc quod semen maris defuit in conceptione corporis Christi, non sequitur quod defuerit ei debita materia. Si tamen semen maris esset materia fetus concepti in animalibus, manifestum tamen est quod non est materia permanens in eadem forma, sed materia transmutata. Et quamvis virtus naturalis non possit transmutare ad certam formam nisi determinatam materiam, virtus tamen divina, quae est infinita, potest transmutare omnem materiam in quamcumque formam. Unde, sicut transmutavit limum terrae in corpus Adae, ita in corpus Christi transmutare potuit materiam a matre ministratam, etiam si non esset sufficiens materia ad naturalem conceptum.

According to the Philosopher (De Gener. Animal. i, ii, iv), 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. Wherefore though the seed of the male was lacking in Christ's conception, it does not follow that due 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 remaining under one form, but subject to transformation. And though the natural power cannot transmute other than determinate matter to a determinate 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 supplied by His Mother into Christ's body, even though it were not the sufficient matter for a natural conception.

Articulus II

Whether Christ's Mother Was a Virgin in His Birth?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod mater Christi non fuerit virgo in partu. Dicit enim Ambrosius, super Luc., qui vulvam sanctificavit alienam ut nasceretur propheta, hic est qui aperuit matris suae vulvam ut immaculatus exiret. Sed apertio vulvae virginitatem excludit. Ergo mater Christi non fuit virgo in partu.

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 who opened His 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.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, nihil in mysterio Christi esse debuit per quod corpus eius phantasticum appareret. Sed hoc non videtur vero corpori, sed phantastico convenire, ut possit per clausa transire, eo quod duo corpora simul esse non possunt. Non igitur debuit ex matris utero clauso corpus Christi prodire. Et ita non decuit quod esset virgo in partu.

Further, nothing should have taken place in the mystery of Christ, which would make His body to 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.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, sicut Gregorius dicit, in homilia octavarum Paschae, per hoc quod, ianuis clausis, ad discipulos post resurrectionem intravit dominus, ostendit corpus suum esse eiusdem naturae et alterius gloriae, et sic per clausa transire videtur ad gloriam corporis pertinere. Sed corpus Christi in sua conceptione non fuit gloriosum, sed passibile, habens similitudinem carnis peccati, ut apostolus dicit, Rom. VIII. Non ergo exivit per virginis uterum clausum.

Further, as Gregory says in the Homily for the octave of Easter [xxvi in Evang.], 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 passible, having "the likeness of sinful flesh," as the Apostle says (Rom. 8:3). Therefore He did not come forth through the closed womb of the Virgin.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod in quodam sermone Ephesini Concilii dicitur, natura post partum nescit ulterius virginem. Gratia vero et parientem ostendit, et matrem fecit, et virginitati non nocuit. Fuit ergo mater Christi virgo etiam in partu.

On the contrary, In a sermon of the Council of Ephesus (P. III, Cap. ix) it is said: "After giving birth, nature knows not a virgin: but grace enhances her fruitfulness, and effects her motherhood, while in no way does it injure her virginity." Therefore Christ's Mother was a virgin also in giving birth to Him.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod absque omni dubio asserendum est matrem Christi etiam in partu virginem fuisse, nam propheta non solum dicit, ecce, virgo concipiet; sed addit, et pariet filium. Et hoc quidem conveniens fuit propter tria. Primo quidem, quia hoc competebat proprietati eius qui nascebatur, quod est verbum Dei. Nam verbum non solum in corde absque corruptione concipitur, sed etiam absque corruptione ex corde procedit. Unde, ut ostenderetur quod illud corpus esset ipsius verbi Dei, conveniens fuit ut de incorrupto virginis utero nasceretur. Unde in sermone quodam Ephesini Concilii legitur, quae parit carnem puram, a virginitate cessat. Sed quia natum est carne verbum, Deus custodit virginitatem, seipsum ostendens per hoc verbum. Neque enim nostrum verbum, cum paritur, corrumpit mentem, neque Deus verbum substantiale, partum eligens, peremit virginitatem. Secundo, hoc est conveniens quantum ad effectum incarnationis Christi. Nam ad hoc venit ut nostram corruptionem tolleret. Unde non fuit conveniens ut virginitatem matris nascendo corrumperet. Unde Augustinus dicit, in quodam sermone de nativitate domini, fas non erat ut per eius adventum violaretur integritas, qui venerat sanare corrupta. Tertio fuit conveniens, ne matris honorem nascendo diminueret qui parentes praeceperat honorandos.

I answer that, Without any doubt whatever we must 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 a 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. Wherefore 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 incorrupt. 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, deigning to be born, destroy virginity."

Secondly, this is fitting as regards the effect of Christ's Incarnation: since He came 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 to honor our father and mother should not in His Birth lessen the honor due to His Mother.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Ambrosius dicit hoc exponens illud quod Evangelista de lege induxit, omne masculinum adaperiens vulvam sanctum domino vocabitur. Quod quidem, ut Beda dicit, consuetae nativitatis more loquitur, non quod dominus sacri ventris hospitium, quod ingressus sanctificaverat, egressus devirginasse credendus sit. Unde illa aperitio non significat reserationem claustri pudoris virginei, sed solum exitum prolis de utero matris.

Ambrose says this in expounding the evangelist's 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 wonted manner of birth; not that we are to believe that our Lord in 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.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod ita Christus voluit veritatem sui corporis demonstrare quod etiam simul eius divinitas declararetur. Et ideo permiscuit mira humilibus. Unde, ut corpus eius verum ostenderetur, nascitur ex femina. Sed ut ostenderetur eius divinitas, nascitur ex virgine, talis enim partus decet Deum, ut Ambrosius dicit, in hymno nativitatis.

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 the Christmas hymn.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod quidam dixerunt Christum in sua nativitate dotem subtilitatis assumpsisse, quando exivit de clauso virginis utero; et quando ambulavit siccis pedibus super mare, dicunt eum assumpsisse dotem agilitatis. Sed hoc non convenit his quae supra determinata sunt. Huiusmodi enim dotes corporis gloriosi proveniunt ex redundantia gloriae animae ad corpus, ut infra dicetur, cum tractabitur de corporibus gloriosis. Dictum est autem supra quod Christus ante passionem permittebat carni suae agere et pati quae propria, nec fiebat talis redundantia gloriae ab anima ad corpus. Et ideo dicendum est quod omnia ista facta sunt miraculose per virtutem divinam. Unde Augustinus, super Ioan., moli corporis ubi divinitas erat, ostia clausa non obstiterunt. Ille quippe, non eis apertis, intrare potuit, quo nascente virginitas matris inviolata permansit. Et Dionysius dicit, in quadam epistola, quod Christus super hominem operabatur ea quae sunt hominis, et hoc monstrat virgo supernaturaliter concipiens, et aqua instabilis terrenorum pedum sustinens gravitatem.

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 (Q. 14). For these gifts of a glorified body result from an overflow of the soul's glory on to the body, as we shall explain further on, in treating of glorified bodies (Suppl., Q. 82): and it has been said above (Q. 13, A. 3, ad 1; Q. 16, A. 1, ad 2) that before His Passion Christ "allowed His flesh to do and to suffer what was proper to it" (Damascene, De Fide Orth. iii): nor was there such an overflow of glory from His soul on to His body.

We must therefore say that all these things took place miraculously by Divine power. Whence Augustine says (Sup. Joan. Tract. 121): "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 inviolate." And Dionysius says in an epistle (Ad Caium iv) 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."

Articulus III

Whether Christ's Mother Remained a Virgin After His Birth?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod mater Christi non permanserit virgo post partum. Dicitur enim Matth. I, antequam convenirent Ioseph et Maria, inventa est in utero habens de spiritu sancto. Non autem Evangelista hoc diceret, antequam convenirent, nisi certus esset de conventuris, quia nemo dicit de non pransuro, antequam pranderet. Ergo videtur quod beata virgo quandoque convenit carnali copula cum Ioseph. Et ita non permansit virgo post partum.

It would seem that Christ's Mother did not remain a virgin after His Birth. For it is written (Matt. 1:18): "Before Joseph and Mary came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." Now the Evangelist would not have said this—"before they came together"—unless he were certain of their subsequent coming together; for no one says of one who does not eventually dine "before he dines" (cf. Jerome, Contra Helvid.). It seems, therefore, that the Blessed Virgin subsequently had intercourse with Joseph; and consequently that she did not remain a virgin after (Christ's) Birth.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, ibidem subditur, ex verbis Angeli loquentis ad Ioseph, ne timeas accipere Mariam coniugem tuam. Coniugium autem consummatur per carnalem copulam. Ergo videtur quod quandoque carnalis copula intervenit inter Mariam et Ioseph. Et ita videtur quod non permansit virgo post partum.

Further, in the same passage (Matt. 1:20) are related the words of the angel to Joseph: "Fear not to take unto thee 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.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, ibidem post pauca subditur, et accepit coniugem suam, et non cognoscebat eam donec peperit filium suum primogenitum. Hoc autem adverbium donec consuevit determinatum tempus signare, quo completo, fiat id quod usque ad illud tempus non fiebat. Verbum autem cognoscendi ibi ad coitum refertur, sicut et Gen. IV dicitur quod Adam cognovit uxorem suam. Ergo videtur quod post partum beata virgo fuit a Ioseph cognita. Ergo videtur quod non permanserit virgo post partum.

Further, again in the same passage a little further on (Matt. 1:24, 25) we read: "And" (Joseph) "took unto him his wife; and he knew her not till she brought forth her first-born Son." Now this conjunction "till" is wont to designate a fixed time, on the completion of which that takes place which previously had not taken place. And the verb "knew" refers here to knowledge by intercourse (cf. Jerome, Contra Helvid.); just as (Gen. 4:1) 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).

Arg. 4 Objection 4

Praeterea, primogenitus non potest dici nisi qui habeat fratres subsequentes, unde Rom. VIII, quos praescivit, et praedestinavit conformes fieri imaginis filii sui, ut sit ipse primogenitus in multis fratribus. Sed Evangelista nominat Christum primogenitum matris eius. Ergo alios filios habuit post Christum. Et ita videtur quod mater Christi non fuerit virgo post partum.

Further, "first-born" can only be said of one who has brothers afterwards: wherefore (Rom. 8:29): "Whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of His Son; that He might be the first-born among many brethren." But the evangelist calls Christ the first-born 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.

Arg. 5 Objection 5

Praeterea, Ioan. II dicitur, post haec descendit Capharnaum ipse, scilicet Christus, et mater et fratres eius. Sed fratres dicuntur qui ex eodem parente geniti sunt. Ergo videtur quod beata virgo habuerit alios filios post Christum.

Further, it is written (John 2:12): "After this He went down to Capharnaum, 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.

Arg. 6 Objection 6

Praeterea, Matth. XXVII dicitur, erant ibi, scilicet iuxta crucem Christi, mulieres multae a longe, quae secutae erant Iesum a Galilaea, ministrantes ei, inter quas erat Maria Magdalene, et Maria Iacobi et Ioseph mater, et mater filiorum Zebedaei. Videtur autem haec Maria quae hic dicitur Iacobi et Ioseph mater, esse etiam mater Christi, dicitur enim Ioan. XIX quod stabat iuxta crucem Iesu Maria, mater eius. Ergo videtur quod mater Christi non permanserit virgo post partum.

Further, it is written (Matt. 27:55, 56): "There were there"—that is, by the cross of Christ—"many women afar off, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto Him; among whom was Mary Magdalen, 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 also the Mother of Christ; for it is written (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.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod dicitur Ezech. XLIV, porta haec clausa erit, et non aperietur, et vir non transibit per eam, quoniam dominus Deus Israel ingressus est per eam. Quod exponens Augustinus, in quodam sermone, dicit, quid est porta in domo domini clausa, nisi quod Maria semper erit intacta? Et quid est, homo non transibit per eam, nisi quod Ioseph non cognoscet eam? Et quid est, dominus solus intrat et egreditur per eam, nisi quod spiritus sanctus impraegnabit eam, et Angelorum dominus nascetur per eam? Et quid est, clausa erit in aeternum, nisi quod Maria virgo est ante partum, et virgo in partu, et virgo post partum?

On the contrary, It is written (Ezech. 44:2): "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 (De Annunt. Dom. iii): "What means this closed gate in the House of the Lord, except that 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 for evermore'—but that Mary is a virgin before His Birth, a virgin in His Birth, and a virgin after His Birth?"

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod absque omni dubio detestandus est error Helvidii, qui dicere praesumpsit matrem Christi a Ioseph post partum esse carnaliter cognitam, et alios filios genuisse. Hoc enim, primo, derogat Christi perfectioni, qui, sicut secundum divinam naturam unigenitus est patris, tanquam perfectus per omnia filius eius, ita etiam decuit ut esset unigenitus matris, tanquam perfectissimum germen eius. Secundo, hic error iniuriam facit spiritui sancto, cuius sacrarium fuit uterus virginalis, in quo carnem Christi formavit, unde non decebat ut de cetero violaretur per commixtionem virilem. Tertio, hoc derogat dignitati et sanctitati matris Dei, quae ingratissima videretur si tanto filio contenta non esset; et si virginitatem, quae in ea miraculose conservata fuerat, sponte perdere vellet per carnis concubitum. Quarto, etiam ipsi Ioseph esset ad maximam praesumptionem imputandum, si eam quam, revelante Angelo, de spiritu sancto Deum concepisse cognoverat, polluere attentasset. Et ideo simpliciter est asserendum quod mater Dei, sicut virgo concepit et virgo peperit, ita etiam virgo post partum in sempiternum permanserit.

I answer that, Without any hesitation we must abhor the error of Helvidius, who dared to assert that Christ's Mother, after His Birth, was carnally known by Joseph, and bore other children. For, in the first place, this is derogatory to Christ's perfection: for as He is in His Godhead the Only-Begotten of the Father, being thus His Son in every respect perfect, so it 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 ["Sacrarium Spiritus Sancti" (Office of B. M. V., Ant. ad Benedictus, T. P.)], 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 whom by the angel's 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.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut Hieronymus dicit, in libro contra Helvidium, intelligendum est quod haec praepositio ante, licet saepe consequentia indicet, tamen nonnunquam ea tantum quae prius cogitabantur, ostendit, nec est necesse ut cogitata fiant, cum ideo aliud intervenerit, ne ea quae cogitata sunt, fierent. Sicut, si aliquis dicat, antequam in portu pranderem, navigavi, non intelligitur quod in portu prandeat postquam navigaverit, sed quia cogitabatur in portu pransurus. Et similiter Evangelista dicit, antequam convenirent, inventa est Maria in utero habens de spiritu sancto, non quia postea convenerint, sed quia, dum viderentur conventuri, praevenit conceptio per spiritum sanctum, ex quo factum est ut ulterius non convenirent.

As Jerome says (Contra Helvid. i): "Although this particle 'before' often indicates a subsequent event, yet we must observe that it not infrequently points merely to some thing 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.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro de nuptiis et concupiscentia, coniux vocatur mater Dei ex prima desponsationis fide, quam concubitu non cognoverat, nec fuerat cogniturus. Ut enim Ambrosius dicit, super Luc., non virginitatis ereptio, sed coniugii testificatio nuptiarum celebratio declaratur.

As Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): "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 1:27: "The fact of her marriage is declared, not to insinuate the loss of virginity, but to witness to the reality of the union."

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod quidam dixerunt hoc non esse intelligendum de cognitione carnis, sed de cognitione notitiae. Dicit enim Chrysostomus quod non cognovit eam Ioseph, antequam pareret, cuius fuerit dignitatis, sed, postquam peperit, tunc cognovit eam. Quia per ipsius prolem speciosior et dignior facta fuerat quam totus mundus, quia quem totus mundus capere non poterat, in angusto uteri sui sola suscepit. Quidam vero hoc referunt ad notitiam visus. Sicut enim Moysi cum Deo colloquentis glorificata est facies, ut non possent intendere in eum filii Israel; sic Maria, claritate virtutis altissimi obumbrata, cognosci non poterat a Ioseph, donec pareret. Post partum autem a Ioseph agnita invenitur, specie faciei, non tactu libidinis. Hieronymus autem concedit hoc esse intelligendum de cognitione coitus. Sed dicit quod usque, vel donec, in Scripturis dupliciter potest intelligi. Quandoque enim designat certum tempus, secundum illud Galat. III, propter transgressionem lex posita est, donec veniret semen cui promiserat. Quandoque vero signat infinitum tempus, secundum illud Psalmi, oculi nostri ad dominum Deum nostrum, donec misereatur nostri; ex quo non est intelligendum quod post impetratam misericordiam oculi avertantur a Deo. Et secundum hunc modum loquendi, significantur ea de quibus posset dubitari si scripta non fuissent, cetera vero nostrae intelligentiae derelinquuntur. Et secundum hoc, Evangelista dicit matrem Dei non esse cognitam a viro usque ad partum, ut multo magis intelligamus cognitam non fuisse post partum.

Some have said that this is not to be understood of carnal knowledge, but of acquaintance. Thus Chrysostom says [Opus Imperf. in Matth., Hom. 1: among the spurious works ascribed to Chrysostom] 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 as, while Moses was speaking with God, his face was so bright "that the children of Israel could not 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 Gal. 3:19: 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 Ps. 122:2: "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" (Adversus Helvid. v).

Ad 4 Reply to Objection 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod mos divinarum Scripturarum est ut primogenitum vocent non solum eum quem fratres sequuntur, sed eum qui primus natus sit. Alioquin, si non est primogenitus nisi quem sequuntur fratres, tandiu secundum legem primogenita non debentur, quandiu et alia fuerint procreata. Quod patet esse falsum, cum infra unum mensem primogenita redimi mandentur secundum legem.

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).

Ad 5 Reply to Objection 5

Ad quintum dicendum quod quidam, sicut dicit Hieronymus, super Matth., de alia uxore Ioseph fratres domini suspicantur. Nos autem fratres domini, non filios Ioseph, sed consobrinos salvatoris, Mariae materterae filios intelligimus. Quatuor enim modis in Scriptura fratres dicuntur, scilicet natura, gente, cognatione et affectu. Unde fratres domini dicti sunt, non secundum naturam, quasi ab eadem matre nati, sed secundum cognationem, quasi consanguinei eius existentes. Ioseph autem, sicut Hieronymus dicit, contra Helvidium, magis credendus est virgo permansisse, quia aliam uxorem habuisse non scribitur, et fornicatio in sanctum virum non cadit.

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 relationship, 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."

Ad 6 Reply to Objection 6

Ad sextum dicendum quod Maria quae dicitur Iacobi et Ioseph mater, non intelligitur esse mater domini, quae in Evangelio non consuevit nominari nisi cum cognominatione huius dignitatis, quod sit mater Iesu. Haec autem Maria intelligitur esse uxor Alphaei, cuius filius est Iacobus minor, qui dictus est frater domini.

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).

Articulus IV

Whether the Mother of God Took a Vow of Virginity?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod mater Dei virginitatem non voverit. Dicitur enim Deut. VII, non erit apud te sterilis utriusque sexus. Sterilitas autem sequitur virginitatem. Ergo servatio virginitatis erat contra praeceptum veteris legis. Sed adhuc lex vetus habebat statum antequam Christus nasceretur. Ergo non potuit licite beata virgo virginitatem vovere pro tempore illo.

It would seem that the Mother of God did not take a vow of virginity. For it is written (Deut. 7:14): "No one shall be barren among you of either sex." 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.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, apostolus, I Cor. VII, dicit, de virginibus autem praeceptum domini non habeo, consilium autem do. Sed perfectio consiliorum a Christo debuit inchoari, qui est finis legis, ut apostolus dicit, Rom. X. Non ergo conveniens fuit quod virgo votum virginitatis emitteret.

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.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, Glossa Hieronymi dicit, I Tim. V, quod voventibus virginitatem non solum nubere, sed etiam velle nubere damnabile est. Sed mater Christi nullum peccatum damnabile commisit, ut supra habitum est. Cum ergo desponsata fuerit, ut habetur Luc. I, videtur quod ipsa virginitatis votum non emiserit.

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.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in libro de sancta virginitate, annuntianti Angelo Maria respondit, quomodo fiet istud, quoniam virum non cognosco? Quod profecto non diceret, nisi se virginem Deo ante vovisset.

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 God."

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut in secunda parte habitum est, perfectionis opera magis sunt laudabilia si ex voto celebrantur. Virginitas autem in matre Dei praecipue debuit pollere, ut ex supra dictis rationibus patet. Et ideo conveniens fuit ut virginitas eius ex voto esset Deo consecrata. Verum quia tempore legis oportebat generationi insistere tam mulieres quam viros, quia secundum carnis originem cultus Dei propagabatur antequam ex illo populo Christus nasceretur, mater Dei non creditur, antequam desponsaretur Ioseph, absolute virginitatem vovisse, licet eam in desiderio habuerit, super hoc tamen voluntatem suam divino commisit arbitrio. Postmodum vero, accepto sponso, secundum quod mores illius temporis exigebant, simul cum eo votum virginitatis emisit.

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 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 to 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.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, quia videbatur esse lege prohibitum non dare operam ad relinquendum semen super terram, ideo non simpliciter virginitatem vovit Dei genitrix, sed sub conditione, si Deo placeret. Postquam autem ei innotuit hoc esse Deo acceptum, absolute vovit, antequam ab Angelo annuntiaretur.

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 angel's Annunciation.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut gratiae plenitudo perfecte quidem fuit in Christo, et tamen aliqua eius inchoatio praecessit in matre; ita etiam observatio consiliorum, quae per gratiam Dei fit, perfecte quidem incoepit in Christo, sed aliquo modo fuit inchoata in virgine matre eius.

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 God's grace, began its perfection in Christ, but was begun after a fashion in His Virgin Mother.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod verbum illud apostoli est intelligendum de illis qui absolute castitatem vovent. Quod quidem mater Dei non fecit antequam Ioseph desponsaretur. Sed post desponsationem, ex communi voluntate, simul cum sponso suo votum virginitatis emisit.

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.

Showing Thomas's answers only.