|
Objection 1: 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 Lk. 2:33: "His
father and mother were wondering at those things which were spoken
concerning Him": and further on (Lk. 2:48) 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 2: Further (Mt. 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.
Objection 3: 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.
Objection 4: 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.
Objection 5: 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.
On the contrary, It is written (Is. 7:14): "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
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 Jn. 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" (Jn.
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."
Reply to Objection 1: As Bede says on Lk. 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
(Lk. 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."
Reply to Objection 2: As Jerome says on Mt. 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."
Reply to Objection 3: 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."
Reply to Objection 4: 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.
Reply to Objection 5: 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.
|
|