The Virgin Birth
The Virgin Birth
Explanation of the Creed on the conception and birth of Christ To exclude the error of Ebion'®° and Cerinthus,""' who taught that Christ's body was formed from male seed, the Apostles' Creed adds:
"who was conceived by the Holy Spirit." In place of this, the Creed of the Nicene Fathers says: "He was made flesh by the Holy Spirit" so that we may believe that He assumed true flesh and not a phantastic body, as the Manichaeans claimed."*" And the Creed of the Fathers adds, "on account of us men" in order to exclude the error of Origen, who alleged that by the power of Christ's Passion even the devils were to be set free."®"
In the same Creed the phrase "for our salvation" is appended, to show that the mystery of Christ's Incarnation suffices for men's salvation, against the heresy of the Nazarenes, who thought that faith was not enough for human salvation apart from the works of 280CF St. Augustine, De haeresibus, 10 (PL, XLII, 27).
281 }bid., 8 (PL, XLII, 27).
282C£ St. Augustine, De haeresibus, 46 (PL, XLII, 37).
283 Peri archon, I, 6 (PG, XI, 169). nS)
Aquinas's Shorter Summa the Law."** The words "He came down from Heaven" were added to exclude the error of Photinus,"®' who asserted that Christ was no more than a man and that He took His origin from Mary. In this heresy the false teaching that Christ had an earthly beginning and later ascended to Heaven by the merit of a good life, replaces the truth that He had a heavenly origin and descended to Earth by assuming flesh. Lastly, the words "and He was made man" were added to exclude the error of Nestorius, according to whose contention the Son of God, of whom the Creed speaks, would be said
rather to dwell in man than to be man. al Christ's birth from a virgin 87 the Son of God was to take flesh from Since, as we have shown, matter supplied by human nature, and since in human generation the woman provides matter, Christ appropriately took flesh from a woman. This is taught by the Apostle in Galatians 4:4: "God sent
His Son, made of a woman." A woman needs the cooperation of a man for the matter that she supplies to be fashioned into a human body. But the formation of Christ's body ought not to have been effected through the power of the male seed, as we said above."*°
Hence that woman from whom the Son of God assumed flesh conceived without the admixture of male seed. Now the more anyone is detached from the things of the flesh, the more he is filled with spiritual gifts. For man is raised up by spiritual goods but 284CF St. Augustine, De haeresibus, 9 (PL, XLII, 27).
28>Tbid., 45 (PL, XLII, 34). proce chap. 203.
A es chap. 217.
288C£ chap. 218.
The Virgin Birth dragged down by carnal attractions. Therefore, since the formation. of Christ's body was to be accomplished by the Holy Spirit, it behooved that woman from whom Christ took His body to be filled to repletion with spiritual gifts, so that not only her soul would be endowed with virtues by the Holy Spirit, but also her womb made fruitful with divine offspring. So her soul had to be free from sin and her body far removed from every taint of carnal concupiscence.
And so she had no association with a man at the conception of Christ; nor did she ever have such experience, either before or after.
This was also due to Him who was born of her. The Son of God assumed flesh and came into the world to raise us to resurrection, in which men "shall neither marry nor be married, but shall be as the angels of God in Heaven." This is why He inculcated the doctrine of continence and of virginal integrity, that an image of the glory that is to come might, in some degree, shine forth in the lives of the faithful. Therefore, He did well to extol purity of life at His very birth, by being born of a virgin; and so the Apostles'
Creed says that He was "born of the Virgin Mary." In the Creed of the Fathers He is said to have been "made flesh" of the Virgin
Mary. This excludes the error of Valentinus and others, who taught that the body of Christ was either phantastic or of another nature and was not taken and formed from the body of the Virgin.'
"ed The mother of Christ The error of Nestorius,""' who refused to acknowledge that Blessed
Mary is the Mother of God, is likewise excluded. Both Creeds assert 289 Matt. 22:30.
290CF£ chap. 208.
291 C£ chap. 203.
Vis
Aquinas's Shorter Summa that the Son of God was born or was made flesh of the Virgin Mary.
The woman of whom any person is born is called his mother, for the reason that she supplies the matter for human conception.
Hence the Blessed Virgin Mary, who provided the matter for the conception of the Son of God, should be called the true mother of the Son of God. As far as the essence of motherhood is concerned, the energy whereby the matter furnished by a woman is formed, does not enter into the question. She who supplied matter to be formed by the Holy Spirit is no less a mother than a woman who supplies matter that is to be formed by the energy latent in male seed. If anyone insists on maintaining that the Blessed Virgin ought not to be called the Mother of God because flesh alone and not divinity was derived from her, as Nestorius contended, he clearly is not aware of what he is saying. A woman is not called a mother for the reason that everything that is in her child is derived from her. Man is made up of body and soul; and a man is what he is in virtue of his soul rather than in virtue of his body. But no man's soul is derived from his mother. The soul is either created by God directly, as the true doctrine has it, or, if it were produced by transplanting, as some have fancied," it would be derived from the father rather than from the mother. For in the generation of other animals, according to the teaching of philosophers,""' the male gives the soul, the female gives the body.
2°) Traducianism was strongly favored by many early Christian writers, among them Tertullian, De anima, 19 (PL, 11, 681); St. Gregory of Nyssa, De hominis opificio, 29 (PG, XLIV, 236); Theodore Abucara, Opusc. XXXV
(PG, XCVI, 1589). St. Augustine wavered between it and creationism, because of the difficulty of explaining the transmission of Original Sin.
See his letter to Optatus, epist. CXC, 2; 15 (PL, XXXII, 857; 862); Contra Iulianum, V, 4 (PL, XLIV, 794).
293 Aristotle, De generatione animalium, II, 4 (738 b 20; 740 b 24).
The Virgin Birth Consequently, just as any woman is a mother from the fact that her child's body is derived from her, so the Blessed Virgin Mary ought to be called the Mother of God if the body of God is derived from her. But we have to hold that it is the body of God, if it is taken up into the unity of the person of God's Son, who is true
God. Therefore all who admit that human nature was assumed by the Son of God into the unity of His person, must admit that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the Mother of God. But Nestorius, who denied that the person of God and of the man Jesus Christ was one, was forced by logical necessity to deny that the Virgin Mary was the Mother of God.
The Holy Spirit is not the father of Christ Although the Son of God is said to have been made flesh and to have been conceived by the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary, we are not to conclude that the Holy Spirit is the father of the man
Christ, even though the Blessed Virgin is called His mother.
The first reason for this is that everything pertaining to the idea of mother is verified in the Blessed Virgin Mary. She furnished the matter to be formed by the Holy Spirit for the conception of Christ, as the idea of motherhood requires. But not all the elements required for the idea of fatherhood are found on the part of the Holy Spirit. The idea of fatherhood requires that the father produce from his nature a son who is of like nature with himself.
Therefore if some agent would make a thing that is not derived from its own substance, and would not produce such a thing unto the likeness of its own nature, that agent could not be called the thing's father. We do not say that a man is the father of the things he makes by plying an art, unless perhaps in a metaphorical sense.
The Holy Spirit is, indeed, connatural with Christ as regards the
Aquinas's Shorter Summa divine nature; in this respect, however, He is not the father of Christ, but rather proceeds from Him. With respect to the human nature, the Holy Spirit is not connatural with Christ. For the human nature in Christ is other than the divine nature, as we said above.'" Nor is anything of the divine nature changed into human nature, as we also said above.""' Consequently the Holy Spirit cannot be called the father of the man Christ.
Moreover, that which is of greater moment in any son comes from his father, and what is secondary comes from his mother.
Thus in other animals the soul is from the father and the body from the mother. In man, of course, the rational soul does not come from the father, but is created by God; yet the power of the paternal seed operates dispositively toward the form. But that which is the greater in Christ, is the person of the Word, who is in no way derived from the Holy Spirit. We conclude, therefore, that the Holy Spirit cannot be called the father of Christ.
The sanctification of Christ's mother As appears from the foregoing exposition, the Blessed Virgin Mary became the mother of God's Son by conceiving of the Holy Spirit.
Therefore it was fitting that she should be adorned with the highest degree of purity, that she might be made conformable to such a Son. And so we are to believe that she was free from every stain of actual sin — not only of mortal sin but of venial sin.
Such freedom from sin can pertain to none of the saints after Christ, as we know from 1 John 1:8: "If we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." But what is said
2°4CF£. chaps. 211, 212.
29C£ chap. 206.
The Virgin Birth in the Song of Solomon 4:7, "Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee," can well be understood of the Blessed
Virgin, Mother of God.
Mary was not only free from actual sin, but she was also, by a special privilege, cleansed from Original Sin. She had, indeed, to be conceived with Original Sin,'" inasmuch as her conception resulted from the commingling of both sexes. For the privilege of conceiving without impairment of virginity was reserved exclusively to her who as a virgin conceived the Son of God. But the commingling of the sexes which, after the sin of our first parent, cannot take place without lust, transmits Original Sin to the offspring. Likewise, if Mary had been conceived without Original
Sin, she would not have had to be redeemed by Christ, and so Christ would not be the universal redeemer of men, which detracts from His dignity. Accordingly, we must hold that she was conceived with Original Sin, but was cleansed from it in some special way.
Some men are cleansed from Original Sin after their birth from the womb, as is the case with those who are sanctified in Baptism.
Others are reported to have been sanctified in the wombs of their mothers, in virtue of an extraordinary privilege of grace. Thus we are told with regard to Jeremiah: "Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother I knew thee; and before thou camest forth
2961n contradiction to what St. Thomas says here, the Church in 1854 solemnly defined (as a revealed truth to be believed by all the faithful) that Mary is the Immaculate Conception, i.e., that she was not merely born without the stain of Original Sin (as St. Thomas maintains) but that she was also conceived without it. See Denz., 1641. In fact, the view favored here by St. Thomas, along with most of the great Scholastics of his time, began to be abandoned after Duns Scotus had pointed the way to the solution of the difficulties raised against the Immaculate Conception. Cf.
Scotus, III Sent., d. 3, q. 1, nos. 4-8; 15ff.;d. 18, q. un., no. 13 (Vivés, XIV, 160ff.; 171ff.; 683f.).
Aquinas's Shorter Summa out of the womb I sanctified thee." And in Luke 1:15 the angel says of John the Baptist: "He shall be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother's womb." We cannot suppose that the favor granted to the precursor of Christ and to the prophet was denied to Christ's own mother. Therefore we believe that she was sanctified in her mother's womb (that is, before she was born).
Yet such sanctification did not precede the infusion of her soul.
In that case she would never have been subject to Original Sin, and so would have had no need of redemption. For only a rational creature can be the subject of sin. Furthermore, the grace of sanctification is rooted primarily in the soul, and cannot extend to the body except through the soul. Hence we must believe that Mary was sanctified after the infusion of her soul.
But her sanctification was more ample than that of others who were sanctified in the wombs of their mothers. Others thus sanctified in the womb were, it is true, cleansed from Original Sin; but the grace of being unable to sin later on, even venially, was not granted to them. The Blessed Virgin Mary, however, was sanctified with such a wealth of grace that thenceforth she was preserved free from all sin: not only from mortal sin, but also from venial sin.
Moreover venial sin sometimes creeps up on us unawares, owing to the fact that an inordinate motion of concupiscence or of some other passion arises prior to the advertence of the mind, yet in such a way that the first motions are called sins. Hence we conclude that the Blessed Virgin Mary never committed a venial sin, for she did not experience such inordinate motions of passion. Inordinate motions of this kind arise because the sensitive appetite, which is the subject of these passions, is not so obedient to reason as not sometimes to move toward an object outside the order of reason,
297 Ter, 1:5.
The Virgin Birth or even, occasionally, against reason; and this is what engenders the sinful impulse. So in the Blessed Virgin the sensitive appetite was rendered so subject to reason by the power of the grace which sanctified it that it was never aroused against reason but always conformed to the order of reason. Nevertheless she could experience some spontaneous movements not ordered by reason.
In our Lord Jesus Christ there was something more. In Him the lower appetite was so perfectly subject to reason that it did not move in the direction of any object except in accord with the order of reason (that is, so far as reason regulated the lower appetite or permitted it to go into action of its own accord). So far as we can judge, a characteristic pertaining to the integrity of the original state was the complete subjection of the lower powers to reason.
This subjection was destroyed by the sin of our first parent, not only in himself, but in all the others who contract Original Sin from him. In all of these the rebellion or disobedience of the lower powers to reason, which is called concupiscence (fomes peccati), remains even after they have been cleansed from sin by the sacrament of grace. But such was by no means the case with Christ, according to the explanation given above.
In the Blessed Virgin, however, the lower powers were not so completely subject to reason as never to experience any movement not preordained by it. Yet they were so restrained by grace that they were never aroused contrary to reason. Thus, we usually say that after the Blessed Virgin was sanctified, concupiscence remained in her according to its substance, but it was shackled.
ZL.
The perpetual virginity of Christ's mother If Mary was thus strengthened against every movement of sin by her first sanctification, much more did grace grow in her and much
Aquinas's Shorter Summa more was concupiscence weakened or even completely uprooted in her, when the Holy Spirit came upon her, according to the angel's word,""® to form of her the body of Christ. After she had been made the shrine of the Holy Spirit and the tabernacle of the Son of God, we may not believe that there was ever any inclination to sin in her or that she ever experienced any pleasurable feeling of carnal concupiscence. We must view with revulsion the error of Helvidius who, while granting that Christ was conceived and born of the Virgin, asserted that she later bore other sons to Joseph."
Certainly this error finds no support in Matthew's statement about Mary that Joseph "knew her not until she brought forth her
309 as though he knew her after she gave birth to first-born Son, Christ. The word until in this text does not signify definite time but indicates indeterminate time. Sacred Scripture frequently asserts with emphasis that something was done or not done up to a certain time, as long as the issue could remain in doubt. Thus we read in Psalm 109:1: "Sit Thou at my right hand until I make Thy enemies Thy footstool."*°! There could be some doubt whether
Christ would sit at the right hand of God as long as His enemies did not seem to be subject to Him; but once we know that they are, no room for doubt could remain. Similarly there could be some doubt as to whether Joseph knew Mary before the birth of God's
Son. The Evangelist took pains to remove this doubt, thus giving us to understand beyond all question that she was not known after giving birth.
Nor does the fact that Christ is called Mary's first-born give any support to the error, as though she bore other sons after Him. For 2987 uke 1:35.
2 CE. St. Jerome, De perpetua virginitate B. Mariae, 11 (PL, XXIII, 193).
3 Matt. 1:25.
301RSV: Ps. 110:1.
The Virgin Birth in scriptural usage the son before whom no other is born is called the first-born, even though no other should follow him. This is clear from the case of the first-born sons who according to the Law were consecrated to the Lord and offered to the priests.
Again, the error of Helvidius receives no support from the Gospel narrative that certain individuals are called the brethren of Christ, as though His mother had other sons. Scripture is accustomed to apply the name brethren to all who belong to the same relationship. For example, Abraham called Lot his brother, although Lot was his nephew." In the same way Mary's nephews and other relatives are called Christ's brethren, as also are the relatives of Joseph, who was reputed to be the father of Christ.
Accordingly, the Creed states, "who was born of the Virgin Mary." And, indeed, she is called a virgin without any qualification, for she remained a virgin before the birth, at the birth, and after the birth of Christ. That there was no impairment of her virginity before and after Christ's birth, is clear from what has been said. More than that: her virginity was not violated even in the act of giving birth. Christ's body, which appeared to the disciples when the doors were closed,' could by the same power come forth from the closed womb of His mother. It was not seemly that He, who was born for the purpose of restoring what was corrupt to its pristine integrity, should destroy integrity in being born.
The defects assumed by Christ In assuming human nature for the salvation of man, the Son of God appropriately showed in the nature He assumed, by the perfection
302C£ Gen. 11:27; 13:8.
303 John 20:26.
Aquinas's Shorter Summa of its grace and wisdom, what was to be the goal of human salvation.
No less appropriately was the human nature assumed by the Word of God characterized by certain conditions befitting the most suitable way of redeeming the human race. The most suitable way was that man, who had perished through his iniquity, should be restored by satisfying justice. But the order of justice requires that the one who has become liable to some punishment by sinning, should be freed by paying the penalty. Since, however, what we do or suffer through our friends, we ourselves are considered in some fashion to do or to suffer (inasmuch as love is a mutual force that in a way makes two lovers one), the order of justice is not violated if a person is set free by the satisfaction his friend offers for him.
By the sin of the first parent, ruin had come upon the entire human race. No punishment undergone by any man could suffice to liberate the whole human race. No worthy satisfaction was available and no satisfaction offered by any mere man was great enough in value to free all men. Similarly, justice would not be fully met if even an angel, out of love for the human race, were to offer satisfaction for it. An angel does not possess infinite dignity, and hence any satisfaction he offered would not be capable of sufficing for indefinitely many people and their sins. God alone is of infinite dignity and so He alone, in the flesh assumed by Him, could adequately satisfy for man, as has already been noted."
Therefore it behooved Him to assume a human nature so constituted that in it He could suffer for man what man himself deserved to suffer on account of his sin, and thus offer satisfaction on man's behalf.
However, not every punishment incurred for sin is suitable for making satisfaction. Man's sin comes from the fact that in turning
304C£ chap. 200.
The Virgin Birth to transient goods he turns away from God. And man is punished for sin on both counts. He is deprived of grace and the other gifts by which union with God is effected, and besides this he deserves to suffer chastisement and loss with respect to the object for whose sake he turned away from God. Therefore the order of satisfaction requires that the sinner should be led back to God by punishments that are to be endured in transient goods.
Unfortunately, the punishments which keep man back from God continue to stand in the way of such recall. No one offers satisfaction to God by being deprived of grace or by being ignorant of God or by the fact that his soul is in a state of disorder, even though such afflictions are punishment for sin; man can satisfy only by enduring some pain in himself and by undergoing loss in external goods.
Accordingly, Christ ought not to have assumed those defects which separate man from God, such as privation of grace, ignorance, and the like, although they are punishment for sin. Defects of this kind would but render Him less apt for offering satisfaction.
Indeed, to be the author of man's salvation, He had to possess fullness of grace and wisdom, as we pointed out above." Yet, since man by sinning was placed under the necessity of dying and of being subjected to suffering in body and soul, Christ wished to assume the same kind of defects, so that by undergoing death for men He might redeem the human race.
Defects of this kind are common to Christ and to us. Nevertheless they are found in Christ otherwise than in us. For, as we have remarked, such defects are the punishment of the first sin." Since we contract Original Sin through our vitiated origin, we are in consequence said to have contracted these defects. But Christ did
2) Ofichap.213.
306C£ chap. 193.
Aquinas's Shorter Summa not contract any stain in virtue of His origin. He accepted the defects in question of His own free will. Hence we should not say that He contracted these defects, but rather that he assumed them, for that is contracted (contrahitur) which is necessarily drawn along with (cum trahitur) some other things. Christ could have assumed human nature without such defects, just as He actually did assume it without the defilement of sin; and indeed the order of reason would seem to demand that he who was free from sin should also be free from punishment. Thus it is clear that defects of this sort were not in Him by any necessity either of vitiated origin or of justice. Therefore in Him they were not contracted but were voluntarily assumed.
Yet, since our bodies are subject to the aforesaid defects in punishment for sin — for prior to sin we were immune from them
— Christ, so far as He assumed such defects in His flesh is rightly deemed to have borne the likeness of sin, as the Apostle says in Romans 8:3: "God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh." Hence Christ's very passibility or suffering is called sin by the Apostle, when he adds that God "hath condemned sin in the flesh," and observes in Romans 6:10: "In that He died to sin, He died once." For the same reason the Apostle uses an even more astonishing expression in Galatians 3:13, saying that Christ was
"made a curse for us." This is also why Christ is said to have assumed one of our obligations (that of punishment) in order to relieve us of our double burden, namely, sin and punishment.
We should call to mind, further, that the penal defects afflicting our bodies are of two kinds. Some are common to all men (such as hunger, thirst, weariness after labor, pain, death, and the like).
Others, however, are not common to all, but are peculiar to certain individuals (such as blindness, leprosy, fever, mutilation of the members, and similar ills). The difference between these defects is this: common defects are passed on to us from another, namely, our
The Virgin Birth first parent, who incurred them through sin; but personal defects are produced in individual men by particular causes. But Christ had no cause of defect in Himself, either in His soul, which was full of grace and wisdom and was united to the Word of God or in His body, which was excellently organized and disposed, having been fashioned by the omnipotent power of the Holy Spirit. On the contrary, He took upon Himself certain defects by the free decision of His own will, with a view to procuring our salvation.
Accordingly, Christ judged it well to take upon Himself those defects that are handed down from one man to others (namely, the common defects) but not the special defects that arise in individuals from particular causes. Again, since He came chiefly to restore human nature, He fittingly assumed those defects that are found universally in nature. The doctrine thus set forth also makes it clear that, as Damascene points out, Christ assumed our irreprehensible defects (that is, those which are not open to slander)'
If Christ had taken to Himself a deficiency in knowledge or in grace, or such ills as leprosy or blindness, this would seem to detract from His dignity and might provide men with an occasion for defaming Him. But no such occasion is given by defects attaching to the whole of nature.
307St. John Damascene, De fide orthodoxa, II], 20 (PG, XCIV, 1081). This passage justifies our translation of the text in St. Thomas: "Christus assumpsit defectus nostros indetractabiles, id est, quibus detrahi non potest."
See also the Summa, Illa, q. 14, a. 4: "indetractibiles, quia defectum scientiae et gratiae non important."
~ e 'i! eae Nien: anit hgh mia as SPA r6 hg 'anata dcciegy oak We Set why — re: 'i i siniadiaas