|
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.
Objection 2: Further, that Christ was born of a virgin was
miraculous, whence Augustine says (Ep. ad Volus. cxxxvii):
"This same power of God brought forth the infant's 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
Mt. 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 (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 God." Therefore it does not seem
fitting that the Mother of God should have been espoused.
Objection 4: Further, Jerome gives as 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 (Mt. 1:18): "When as His
Mother Mary was espoused to Joseph": and (Lk. 1:26,27):
"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 Lk.
1:26,27: "How could we blame Herod or the Jews if they seem
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 Lk. 3:23:
"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."
Thirdly, for the safety of the new-born Child: lest the devil
should plot serious hurt 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 bread-winner.
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 Lk. 1:26,27: "She was espoused lest she be
wounded by the ill-fame of violated virginity, in whom the pregnant
womb would betoken corruption."
Thirdly, that, as Jerome says, Joseph might administer to her
wants.
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 dishonor, 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 nuptial 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 dishonor. 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
(De Sanct. Virg. xii).
A fifth reason may be added: since the Mother of the Lord being both
espoused and a virgin, both virginity and wedlock are honored in her
person, in contradiction to those heretics who disparaged one or the
other.
Reply to Objection 1: 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 2: As Ambrose says on Lk. 1:26: "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 3: As Augustine says (De Trin. iii), the
devil can do many things by his natural power which he is hindered by
the Divine power from doing. Thus it may be that by his natural power
the devil could know that the Mother of God knew not man, but was a
virgin; yet was prevented by God from knowing the manner of the
Divine Birth. That afterwards the devil after a fashion knew that
He was the Son of God, makes no difficulty: because then the time
had already come for Christ to make known His power against the
devil, and to suffer persecution aroused by him. But during His
infancy it behooved the malice of the devil to be withheld, lest he
should persecute Him too severely: for Christ did not wish to suffer
such things then, nor to make His power known, but to show Himself
to be in all things like other infants. Hence Pope Leo (Serm. in
Epiph. iv) says that "the Magi found the Child Jesus small in
body, dependent on others, unable to speak, and in no way differing
from the generality of human infants." Ambrose, however, expounding
Lk. 1:26, seems to understand this of the devil's members.
For, after giving the above reason---namely, that the prince of
the world might be deceived---he continues thus: "Yet still more
did He deceive the princes of the world, since the evil disposition of
the demons easily discovers even hidden things: but those who spend
their lives in worldly vanities can have no acquaintance of Divine
things."
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 (Dt. 22:20,21): "If
. . . virginity be not found in the damsel . . . the men of the
city shall stone her to death, and she shall die; because she hath
done a wicked thing in Israel, to play the whore in her father's
house."
It may also be said, according to some writers, that the Blessed
Virgin was of the family or kindred of Aaron, so that she was related
to Elizabeth, as we are told (Lk. 1:36). Now a virgin of the
priestly tribe was condemned to death for whoredom; for we read
(Lev. 21:9): "If the daughter of a priest be taken in
whoredom, and dishonor the name of her father, she shall be burnt with
fire."
Lastly, some understand the passage of Jerome to refer to the
throwing of stones by ill-fame.
|
|