Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 29 [<< | >>]
| Deinde considerandum est de desponsatione matris Dei. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. | We now consider the espousals of God's Mother: concerning which two points arise for inquiry: |
| Primo, utrum Christus debuerit de desponsata nasci. | (1) Whether Christ should have been born of an espoused virgin? |
| Secundo, utrum fuerit verum matrimonium inter matrem domini et Ioseph. | (2) Whether there was true marriage between our Lord's Mother and Joseph? |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 29 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
| Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod Christus non debuerit de virgine desponsata nasci. Desponsatio enim ad carnalem copulam ordinatur. Sed mater domini nunquam voluit carnali viri copula uti, quia hoc derogaret virginitati mentis ipsius. Ergo non debuit esse desponsata. | 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. |
| Praeterea, quod Christus ex virgine nasceretur, miraculum fuit, unde Augustinus dicit, in epistola ad Volusianum, ipsa Dei virtus per inviolata matris virginea viscera membra infantis eduxit, quae per clausa ostia membra iuvenis introduxit. Huius si ratio quaeritur, non erit mirabile, si exemplum poscitur, non erit singulare. Sed miracula, quae fiunt ad confirmationem fidei, debent esse manifesta. Cum igitur per desponsationem hoc miraculum fuerit obumbratum, videtur non fuisse conveniens quod Christus de desponsata nasceretur. | 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. |
| Praeterea, Ignatius martyr, ut dicit Hieronymus, super Matth., hanc causam assignat desponsationis matris Dei, ut partus eius celaretur Diabolo, dum eum putat non de virgine, sed de uxore generatum. Quae quidem causa nulla esse videtur. Tum quia Diabolus ea quae corporaliter fiunt perspicacitate sensus cognoscit. Tum quia per multa evidentia signa postmodum Daemones aliqualiter Christum cognoverunt, unde dicitur Marc. I, quod homo in spiritu immundo exclamavit, dicens, quid nobis et tibi, Iesu Nazarene? Venisti perdere nos? Scio quia sis sanctus Dei. Non ergo videtur conveniens fuisse quod mater Dei fuisset desponsata. | 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. |
| Praeterea, aliam rationem assignat Hieronymus, ne lapidaretur mater Dei a Iudaeis sicut adultera. Haec autem ratio nulla esse videtur, si enim non esset desponsata, non posset de adulterio condemnari. Et ita non videtur rationabile fuisse quod Christus de desponsata nasceretur. | 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. |
| Sed contra est quod dicitur Matth. I, cum esset desponsata mater eius Maria Ioseph; et Luc. I, missus est Gabriel Angelus ad Mariam, virginem desponsatam viro cui nomen erat Ioseph. | 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." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod conveniens fuit Christum de desponsata virgine nasci, tum propter ipsum; tum propter matrem; tum etiam propter nos. Propter ipsum quidem Christum, quadruplici ratione. Primo quidem, ne ab infidelibus tamquam illegitime natus abiiceretur. Unde Ambrosius dicit, super Luc., quid Iudaeis, quid Herodi posset adscribi, si natum viderentur ex adulterio persecuti? | 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?" |
| Secundo, ut consueto modo eius genealogia per virum describeretur. Unde dicit Ambrosius, super Luc., qui in saeculum venit, saeculi debuit more describi. Viri autem persona quaeritur, qui in senatu et reliquis curiis civitatum generis asserit dignitatem. Consuetudo etiam nos instruit Scripturarum, quae semper viri originem quaerit. | 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." |
| Tertio, ad tutelam pueri nati, ne Diabolus contra eum vehementius nocumenta procurasset. Et ideo Ignatius dicit ipsam fuisse desponsatam ut partus eius Diabolo celaretur. | 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." |
| Quarto, ut a Ioseph nutriretur. Unde et pater eius dictus est, quasi nutritius. | Fourthly, that He might be fostered by Joseph: who is therefore called His "father," as bread-winner. |
| Fuit etiam conveniens ex parte virginis. Primo quidem, quia per hoc redditur immunis a poena, ne scilicet lapidaretur a Iudaeis tanquam adultera, ut Hieronymus dicit. | 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. |
| Secundo, ut per hoc ab infamia liberaretur. Unde dicit Ambrosius super Luc., quod desponsata est ne temeratae virginitatis adureretur infamia, cui gravis alvus corruptelae videretur insigne praeferre. | 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." |
| Tertio, ut ei a Ioseph ministerium exhiberetur, ut Hieronymus dicit. | Thirdly, that, as Jerome says, Joseph might administer to her wants. |
| Ex parte etiam nostra hoc fuit conveniens. Primo quidem, quia testimonio Ioseph comprobatum est Christum ex virgine natum. Unde Ambrosius dicit, super Luc., locupletior testis pudoris maritus adhibetur, qui posset et dolere iniuriam et vindicare opprobrium si non agnosceret sacramentum. | 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." |
| Secundo, quia ipsa verba virginis magis credibilia redduntur, suam virginitatem asserentis. Unde Ambrosius dicit, super Luc., fides Mariae verbis magis asseritur, et mendacii causa removetur. Videtur enim culpam obumbrare voluisse mendacio innupta praegnans, causam autem mentiendi desponsata non habuit, cum coniugii praemium et gratia nuptiarum partus sit feminarum. Quae quidem duo pertinent ad firmitatem fidei nostrae. | 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. |
| Tertio, ut tolleretur excusatio virginibus quae, propter incautelam suam, non vitant infamiam. Unde Ambrosius dicit, non decuit virginibus sinistra opinione viventibus velamen excusationis relinqui, quod infamia mater quoque domini ureretur. | 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." |
| Quarto, quia per hoc significatur universa Ecclesia, quae, cum virgo sit, desponsata tamen est uni viro Christo, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro de sancta virginitate. | 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). |
| Potest etiam quinta ratio esse quia, quod mater domini fuit desponsata et virgo, in persona ipsius et virginitas et matrimonium honoratur, contra haereticos alteri horum detrahentes. | 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. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod beata virgo mater Dei ex familiari instinctu spiritus sancti credenda est desponsari voluisse, confidens de divino auxilio quod nunquam ad carnalem copulam perveniret, hoc tamen divino commisit arbitrio. Unde nullum passa est virginitatis detrimentum. | 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. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut Ambrosius dicit, super Luc., maluit dominus aliquos de suo ortu quam de matris pudore dubitare. Sciebat enim teneram esse virginis verecundiam, et lubricam famam pudoris, nec putavit ortus sui fidem matris iniuriis adstruendam. Sciendum tamen quod miraculorum Dei quaedam sunt de quibus est fides, sicut miraculum virginei partus, et resurrectionis domini, et etiam sacramenti altaris. Et ideo dominus voluit ista occultiora esse, ut fides eorum magis meritoria esset. Quaedam vero miracula sunt ad fidei comprobationem. Et ista debent esse manifesta. | 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. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, in III de Trin., Diabolus multa potest virtute suae naturae, a quibus tamen prohibetur virtute divina. Et hoc modo potest dici quod virtute suae naturae Diabolus cognoscere poterat matrem Dei non fuisse corruptam, sed virginem, prohibebatur tamen a Deo cognoscere modum partus divini. Quod autem postmodum eum aliqualiter cognovit Diabolus esse filium Dei, non obstat, quia iam tempus erat ut Christus suam virtutem contra Diabolum ostenderet, et persecutionem ab eo concitatam pateretur. Sed in infantia oportebat impediri malitiam Diaboli, ne eum acrius persequeretur, quando Christus nec pati disposuerat, nec virtutem suam ostendere, sed in omnibus aliis infantibus se similem exhibebat. Unde Leo Papa, in sermone de Epiphania, dicit quod magi invenerunt puerum Iesum quantitate parvum, alienae opis indigentem, fandi impotentem, et in nullo ab humanae infantiae generalitate discretum. Ambrosius tamen, super Luc., videtur magis referre ad membra Diaboli. Praemissa enim hac ratione, scilicet de fallendo principem mundi, subdit, sed tamen magis fefellit principes saeculi. Daemonum enim malitia facile etiam occulta deprehendit, at vero qui saecularibus vanitatibus occupantur, scire divina non possunt. | 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." |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod iudicio adulterorum lapidabatur secundum legem non solum illa quae iam erat desponsata vel nupta, sed etiam illa quae in domo patris custodiebatur ut virgo quandoque nuptura. Unde dicitur Deut. XXII, si non est in puella inventa virginitas, lapidibus obruent eam viri civitatis illius, et morietur, quia fecit nefas in Israel, ut fornicaretur in domo patris sui. | 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." |
| Vel potest dici, secundum quosdam, quod beata virgo erat de stirpe sive parentela Aaron, unde erat cognata Elisabeth, ut dicitur Luc. I. Virgo autem de genere sacerdotali propter stuprum occidebatur, legitur enim Levit. XXI, sacerdotis filia si deprehensa fuerit in stupro, et violaverit nomen patris sui, flammis exuretur. | 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." |
| Quidam referunt verbum Hieronymi ad lapidationem infamiae. | Lastly, some understand the passage of Jerome to refer to the throwing of stones by ill-fame. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 29 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
| Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod inter Mariam et Ioseph non fuerit verum matrimonium. Dicit enim Hieronymus, contra Helvidium, quod Ioseph Mariae custos fuit, potius quam maritus eius. Sed si fuisset verum matrimonium, vere Ioseph maritus eius fuisset. Ergo videtur quod non fuerit verum matrimonium inter Mariam et Ioseph. | Objection 1: It would seem that there was no true marriage between Mary and Joseph. For Jerome says against Helvidius 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. |
| Praeterea, super illud Matth. I, Iacob genuit Ioseph virum Mariae, dicit Hieronymus, cum virum audieris, suspicio tibi non subeat nuptiarum, sed recordare consuetudinis Scripturarum, quod sponsi viri et sponsae vocantur uxores. Sed verum matrimonium non efficitur ex sponsalibus, sed ex nuptiis. Ergo non fuit verum matrimonium inter beatam virginem et Ioseph. | Objection 2: Further, on Mt. 1:16: "Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary," Jerome says: "When thou readest 'husband' suspect not a marriage; but remember that Scripture is wont to speak of those who are betrothed as husband and wife." But a true marriage is not effected by the betrothal, but by the wedding. Therefore, there was no true marriage between the Blessed Virgin and Joseph. |
| Praeterea, Matth. I dicitur, Ioseph, vir eius, cum esset iustus, et nollet eam traducere, idest, in domum suam ad cohabitationem assiduam, voluit eam occulte dimittere, idest, tempus nuptiarum mutare, ut Remigius exponit. Ergo videtur quod, nondum nuptiis celebratis, nondum esset verum matrimonium, praesertim cum, post matrimonium contractum, non liceat alicui sponsam dimittere. | Objection 3: Further, it is written (Mt. 1:19): "Joseph, her husband, being a just man, and not willing to take her away [*Douay: 'publicly to expose her'], i.e. to take her to his home in order to cohabit with her, was minded to put her away privately, i.e. to postpone the wedding," as Remigius [*Cf. Catena Aurea in Matth.] 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. |
| Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, in II de consensu Evangelist., non est fas ut Ioseph ob hoc a coniugio Mariae separandum Evangelista putaret (cum dixit Ioseph virum Mariae), quod non ex eius concubitu, sed virgo peperit Christum. Hoc enim exemplo manifeste insinuatur fidelibus coniugatis, etiam servata pari consensu continentia, posse permanere vocarique coniugium, non permixto corporis sexu. | On the contrary, Augustine says (De Consensu Evang. ii): "It cannot be allowed that the evangelist thought that Joseph ought to sever his union with Mary" (since he 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." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod matrimonium sive coniugium dicitur verum ex hoc quod suam perfectionem attingit. Duplex est autem rei perfectio, prima et secunda. Prima quidem perfectio in ipsa forma rei consistit, ex qua speciem sortitur, secunda vero perfectio consistit in operatione rei, per quam res aliqualiter suum finem attingit. Forma autem matrimonii consistit in quadam indivisibili coniunctione animorum, per quam unus coniugum indivisibiliter alteri fidem servare tenetur. Finis autem matrimonii est proles generanda et educanda, ad quorum primum pervenitur per concubitum coniugalem; ad secundum, per alia opera viri et uxoris, quibus sibi invicem obsequuntur ad prolem nutriendam. | 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 sundered. 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. |
| Sic igitur dicendum est quod, quantum ad primam perfectionem, omnino verum fuit matrimonium virginis matris Dei et Ioseph, quia uterque consensit in copulam coniugalem; non autem expresse in copulam carnalem, nisi sub conditione, si Deo placeret. Unde et Angelus vocat Mariam coniugem Ioseph, dicens ad Ioseph, Matth. I, noli timere accipere Mariam coniugem tuam. Quod exponens Augustinus, in libro de nuptiis et concupiscentia, dicit, coniux vocatur ex prima desponsationis fide, quam concubitu nec cognoverat, nec fuerat cogniturus. | 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 nuptial 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 (Mt. 1:20): "Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife": on which words Augustine says (De Nup. et Concup. i): "She is called his wife from the first promise of her espousals, whom he had not known nor ever was to know by carnal intercourse." |
| Quantum vero ad secundam perfectionem, quae est per actum matrimonii, si hoc referatur ad carnalem concubitum, per quem proles generatur, non fuit illud matrimonium consummatum. Unde Ambrosius dicit, super Luc., non te moveat quod Mariam Scriptura coniugem vocat. Non enim virginitatis ereptio, sed coniugii testificatio nuptiarum celebratio declaratur. Habuit tamen illud matrimonium etiam secundam perfectionem quantum ad prolis educationem. Unde Augustinus dicit, in libro de nuptiis et concupiscentia, omne nuptiarum bonum impletum est in illis parentibus Christi, proles, fides et sacramentum. Prolem cognoscimus ipsum dominum Iesum; fidem, quia nullum adulterium; sacramentum, quia nullum divortium. Solus ibi nuptialis concubitus non fuit. | 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. Wherefore Ambrose says on Lk. 1:26,27: "Be not surprised that Scripture calls Mary a wife. The fact of her marriage is declared, not 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 (De Nup. et Concup. i): "All the nuptial 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." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod Hieronymus accipit ibi maritum ab actu matrimonii consummati. | Reply to Objection 1: Jerome uses the term "husband" in reference to marriage consummated. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod nuptias Hieronymus vocat nuptialem concubitum. | Reply to Objection 2: By marriage Jerome means the nuptial intercourse. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Chrysostomus dicit, super Matth., beata virgo sic fuit desponsata Ioseph quod etiam esset domi habita. Nam sicut in ea quae in domo viri concipit, intelligitur conceptio maritalis, sic in ea quae extra domum concipit, est suspecta coniunctio. Et ita non esset sufficienter provisum famae beatae virginis per hoc quod fuit desponsata, nisi etiam fuisset domi habita. Unde quod dicit, et nollet eam traducere, melius intelligitur, idest, nollet eam diffamare in publicum, quam quod intelligatur de traductione in domum. Unde et Evangelista subdit quod voluit occulte dimittere eam. Quamvis tamen esset domi habita propter primam desponsationis fidem, nondum tamen intervenerat solemnis celebratio nuptiarum, propter quod etiam nondum carnaliter convenerant. Unde, sicut Chrysostomus dicit, non dicit Evangelista, antequam duceretur in domum sponsi, etenim intus erat in domo. Consuetudo enim erat veteribus multoties in domo desponsatas habere. Et ideo etiam Angelus dicit Ioseph, ne timeas accipere Mariam coniugem tuam, idest, ne timeas nuptias eius solemniter celebrare. Licet alii dicant quod nondum erat in domum introducta, sed solum desponsata. Primum tamen magis consonat Evangelio. | Reply to Objection 3: As Chrysostom says (Hom. i super Matth. [*Opus Imperfectum among the supposititious works ascribed to St. Chrysostom]) 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 been taken to safeguard the fair fame of the Blessed Virgin, if she had not the entry of her husband's house. Wherefore the words, "not willing to take her away" are better rendered as meaning, "not willing publicly to expose her," than understood of taking her to 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 for the solemnizing of the wedding; for which reason they had not yet consummated the marriage. Therefore, as Chrysostom says (Hom. iv in Matth.): "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 thee Mary 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. |