Question Three
Question Three The Marriage Between Mary and Joseph
John Duns Scotus: Four Questions on Mary
DE MATRIMONIO INTER
B. VIRGINEM MARIAE ET S. JOSEPH1
Secundo quaero, utrum inter Mariam et Ioseph fuierit verum matrimonium.
[Argumenta Pro et Contra] Quod non:
1. 17, quaest. 1: Sunt quaedam: "Voventibus non solum nubere, sed velle nubere damnabile est."2
2. Item, Numeri ultimo3 habetur quod mulieres debuerunt nu bere viris suae tribus; ergo Maria non potuit secundum legem nu bere nisi viro de tribus sua; sed Ioseph erat de tribu Iuda,sicut hab etur Luc. 2:4: Eo quod esset de tribu et domo David; Maria autem erat de tribu Levi, quia cognata Elisabeth, Luc. 1: 36.
3. Item, contrahens matrimonium in aliquid consentit, non tan tum in cohabitationem, quia sic frater et soror possunt consentire; ergo in carnalem copulam, quia nihil aliud videtur matrimonium addere super cohabitationem; sed in illam copulam non poterat beata Virgo consentire, quia voverat virginitatem.
[Contra]:
Oppositum dicit Magister in littera, et accipitur ex evangelio Matt. 1:18: Cum esset desponsata, etc.
1 Ordinatio IV, dist. 30, q. 2 (from the text edited by C. Balić, O.F.M. in Ioannis Duns Scoti, Doctoris Mariani Theologiae Marianae Elementa
(Sibenici, 1933), 55-66.
2 Corpus Iuris Canonici, tom. I: Pars Prior Decretum Magisteri Gra tiani, Secunda pars, causa 17, c. 2, (Lipsiae: Bernshard Tauchnitz, 1879) col. 812.
3 Numeri 36:6-8.
Question Three
THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN
MARY AND JOSEPH
Secondly, I ask: Was there a true marriage between Mary and Joseph?
[Arguments Pro and Con] There was not:
1. In the [Decrees of Gratian], 17, question 1, "Sunt quaedam" it says: "For those in vows it is damnable not only to marry but to wish to marry."
2. Also, in Numbers1 we have the command that women must marry men of their tribe; therefore Mary according to the law, could have married a man only of her own tribe, but Joseph was of the tribe of Juda, as we know from Luke 2:4: "He was of the house and lineage of David." Mary, however, was of the tribe of Levi, because she was a relative of Elizabeth, according to Luke 1:36.
3. Also, in contracting marriage one consents to something; this is not only living together, because a brother and sister can consent to live this way; therefore one consents to carnal intercourse, for that seems to be the only thing marriage adds to living together; but the Blessed Virgin could not consent to that intercourse, be cause she had vowed virginity.
[For the Affirmative]:
The Master in the text says the opposite, and we know it to be so from the Gospel of Matthew: 1:18: "Mary was espoused to Joseph." etc.
1 Numbers 36:6-8: "This is what the Lord commands with regard to the daughters of Salphahad: They may marry anyone they please, pro vided they marry into the clan of their ancestral tribe, so that no heritage of the Israelites will pass from one tribe to another, but all the Israelites will retain their own ancestral heritage. Therefore, every daughter who inherits property in any of the Israelite tribes shall marry someone be longing to a clan of her own ancestral tribe, in order that all the Israelites may remain in possession of their own ancestral heritage."
John Duns Scotus: Four Questions on Mary [Corpus Questionis] Hic duo sunt videnda: primo quia ita est, secundo quomodo ita est.
[Articlus I: Suntne Maria et Ioseph nupti?] Primum apparet ex auctoritatibus quas ponit Magister4 in lit tera; et ratio congrua ad hoc est, quia vel erat praeceptum univer sale omnibus in lege illa de contrahendo matrimonium, si quidem in lege illa pro benedictione erat foecunditas et pro maledictione sterilitas, patet ex multis locis Scripturae; vel si non fuit praecep tum generale, quod apparet ex hoc quod Ieremias et Ioannes Bap tista remanserunt virgines, tunc beatae Virgini fuit datum speciale manmdatum de contrahendo cum Ioseph.
Et ad hoc possunt esse rationes congruae, quae accipiuntur ab Ambrosio5 4 Peter Lombard, Sententiae IV, d. 30, c. 2 (ed. cit. II, 932).
5 Ambrose, Expositio evangelium secundum Lucam II, nn. 1-2 (PL 15, 1633): Salutaris possumus intelligere et hoc perpensioris fuisse consilii, quod ea potissimum electa est ut Dominum pareret, quae erat desponsata viro. Cur autem non antequam desponsaretur, impleta est? Fortasse ne di ceretur quod conceperat ex adulterio. Et bene utrumque posuit Scriptura, ut et desponsata esset, et virgo: virgo, ut expers virilis consortii videretur; desponsata, ne temeratae virginitatis adureretur infamia, cui gravis alvus corruptelae videretur insigne praeferre. Maluit autem 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 injuriis astruendam. Servatur itaque sanctae Mariae sicut pudore integra, ita inviolabilis opinione virginitas; oportet enim sanctos et ab his testimonium habere qui foris sunt: nec decuit sinistra virgini bus opinione viventibus velamen excusationis relinqui, quod infamata mater quoque Domini videretur.—Quid autem Judeis, quid Herodi pos set ascribi, si natum viderentur ex adulterio persecuti? Quemadmodum autem ipse diceret: "Non veni legem solvere, sed adimplere (Matt. v. 17)," si videretur coepisse a legis injuria, cum partus innuptae lege damnetur
(Deut., 23, 17)? Quin etiam locupletior testis pudoris maritus adhibetur, qui posset et dolere injuriam, et vindicare opprobriuum, si non agnosceret sacramentum. Quid quod etiam fides Mariae verbis major asciscitur, et mendacii causa removetur? Videretur enim culpam obumbrare voluisse mendacio innupta praegnans. Causam autem mentiendi indesponsata ha buit, desponsata non habuit, cum conjugii praemium et gratia nuptiarum partus sit feminarum.
Question Three [Body of the Question] Here two things must be investigated: first, Were Mary and Joseph married?; secondly, How could they marry?
[Article I: Were Mary and Joseph Married?] Evidentially they were married. This is clear from the authori ties the Master cites in the text;2 and there is a fitting reason why they were married. Either there was a universal precept for all un der that [Old Testament] law about contracting marriage, if indeed under that law fertility was considered a blessing and sterility a curse, as is evident from many passages of Scripture; or if there was no general precept, since it seems Jeremiah and John the Bap tist were virgins, then the Blessed Virgin was given a special com mand to marry Joseph.
And there can be fitting reasons for this as we gather from Ambrose.3
2 Peter Lombard, Sententiae IV, d. 30, c. 2: Lombard quotes St. Augus tine and St. Ambrose.
3 Ambrose, Expositio evangelium secundum Lucam II, nn. 1-2 (PL 15, 1633): Salutaris possumus intelligere et hoc perpensioris fuisse consilii, quod ea potissimum electa est ut Dominum pareret, quae erat desponsata viro. Cur autem non antequam desponsaretur, impleta est? Fortasse ne di ceretur quod conceperat ex adulterio. Et bene utrumque posuit Scriptura, ut et desponsata esset, et virgo: virgo, ut expers virilis consortii videretur; desponsata, ne temeratae virginitatis adureretur infamia, cui gravis alvus corruptelae videretur insigne praeferre. Maluit autem 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 injuriis astruendam. Servatur itaque sanctae Mariae sicut pudore integra, ita inviolabilis opinione virginitas; oportet enim sanctos et ab his testimonium habere qui foris sunt: nec decuit sinistra virgini bus opinione viventibus velamen excusationis relinqui, quod infamata mater quoque Domini videretur.—Quid autem Judeis, quid Herodi pos set ascribi, si natum viderentur ex adulterio persecuti? Quemadmodum autem ipse diceret: "Non veni legem solvere, sed adimplere (Matt. v. 17)," si videretur coepisse a legis injuria, cum partus innuptae lege damnetur
(Deut., 23, 17)? Quin etiam locupletior testis pudoris maritus adhibetur, qui posset et dolere injuriam, et vindicare opprobriuum, si non agnosceret sacramentum. Quid quod etiam fides Mariae verbis major asciscitur, et mendacii causa removetur? Videretur enim culpam obumbrare voluisse mendacio innupta praegnans. Causam autem mentiendi indesponsata ha buit, desponsata non habuit, cum conjugii praemium et gratia nuptiarum partus sit feminarum.
John Duns Scotus: Four Questions on Mary super Missus est, ut videlicet maritus esset testis virginitatis Mar iae, et etiam ipsa non haberet occasionem mentiendi indesponsata habuit. Et sic tam ex testimonio quam ex praesumptione magis crederetur sibi de virginitate et ita de matrimoniali conceptione
Filii sui.
Congruum etiam fuit ut sibi de virginitate crederetur ne no taretur infamis, quia non putabat Christus ortus sui fidem matris iniuriis astruendam; sciebat enim teneram esse Virginis verecun diam et lubricam famam pudoris.
Alia ratio: ut maritus esset in obsequium Virgini et puero sive in Aegiptum eunti sive redeunti; quam rationem tangit Origenes super illud Matt. 1:18: Cum esset desponsata.
Alia ratio assignatur ab Ambrosio, ut falleretur diabolus; sed haec ratio videtur parvi momenti. Quomodo enim non posset di abolus videre virginitatem matris, si habuit Ioseph virum sicut si non habuisset? Sed debet intelligi quod non potuit istud videre, quia non fuit permissus, licet naturali potentia intellectus sui po tuisset hoc videre. Nec ista ratio tunc videtur magni momenti, quia aeque fuisset prohibitus, si non habuisset virum.
Aliae rationes: quod Christus noluit incepere ab iniuria legis ne daret occasionem Iudaeis et Herodi presequendi ipsum, cum partus inuptae lege damnetur; quod etiam virginibus sinistra opinione viventibus non daretur velamen excusationis quod ipsa quoque mater Domini infamata videretur—videntur bonae con gruentiae ad propositum.
Question Three For the husband would be a witness to the virginity of Mary and also she would not have an opportunity to lie about her virgin ity, because—according to Ambrose himself—one not espoused has an opportunity to lie which one espoused does not have. And so there would be more reason from testimony than presumption to believe in her virginity and thus about the matrimonial conception of her son.
Also it was fitting that he believe in her virginity lest she be branded with infamy, because Christ did not think his origin should be grounds for believing anything injurious to his mother, for he knew how tender was the Virgin's sense of modesty and how fragile the reputation for purity can be.
Another reason: a husband would be of service to the Virgin and the boy on the journey to and from Egypt, a reason Origin4 gives in commenting on Matthew 1:18: "When she was espoused to Joseph."
Ambrose assigns another reason, that the devil would be de ceived; but this reason seems of little moment. For why would the devil fail to see the virginity of the mother if she was married to Jo seph, but would have discovered it if she were not married? Rather we should understand that the reason he was unable to see this was because he was not permitted to do so, although by the natu ral power of the intellect he could have seen this. And then we see how little value this reason of [Ambrose] has, since the devil would have been prohibited from discovering this even if she would have had no husband.
And there are these other reasons: Christ did not wish to start life in violation of the law, lest this give occasion to the Jews and to Herod to prosecute him, since the law condemned birth from an unwed mother.
Also those living a virginal life should be left no excuse to regard the mother of the Lord himself as infamous.
These seem to be good reasons why Mary was married.
4 Origen, In Lucam homilia 6 (PG 13, 1814).
John Duns Scotus: Four Questions on Mary [Articlus II Quomodo possunt contrahere matrimonium?]
De secundo principali: Dicitur quod beata Virgo voverat virgin itatem sub conditione, scilicet nisi Deus aliter disponeret, et ideo licuit sibi matrimonium contrahere.
Contra: in omni voto quantumcumque absoluto intelligitur haec conditio "si Deo placet," quia nullus debet aliquid Deo offerre, velit ipse vel nolit; nec ordinate intendit sic offerre: ergo cum ista conditione sic intellecta stat absolutum votum.
Dico ergo quod absolute vovit castitatem, quod sancti coniiciunt ex verbis eius interrogationis ad Gabrielem:6 Quomodo fiet istud quoniam virum non cognosco? Si enim tantum non cognovisset, et sine firmo proposito numquam cognoscendi, nulla esset quaestio, quia posterum cognita, cum non esset sterilis, concepisset. Sed ideo fuit quaestio et de supermirabili, quia firmissime disposuerat vel voverat se numquam cognoscendam a viro. Et ad hunc intellectum exponit angelus:7 Spiritus sanctus superveniet in te etc.
Quomodo ergo potuit contrahere matrimonium? Respondeo. In contractu matrimonii est datio corporum ad copulam carnalem non nisi sub conditione implicita, scilicet si petatur. Unde contrahentes cum proposito statim vovendi castitatem, vere contrahunt. Haec autem, conditio non praeiudicat voto castitatis, posito etiam con tractu matrimonii, nisi illa conditio ponatur in effectum; ergo ubi est certitudo simpliciter quod numquam ponetur in effectum, ibi in nullo praeiudicat voto castitatis contractus matrimonii; sed hic fuit certificatio. Ex quo enim Matt. 1: 20 habemus quod angelus in struxit Ioseph: Noli timere accipere Mariam coniugem tuam, multo magis, quasi indubitanter, concluditur quod ipsa per angelum vel immediate a Deo antequam desponsaretur ipsi Ioseph, fuit certi tudinaliter edocta: "Noli timere accipere Ioseph virum iustum in 6 Luc. 1:34.
7 Luc. 1:35.
Question Three [Article II How could they marry?] It is said that the Blessed Virgin vowed virginity condition ally, namely unless God would dispose otherwise, and therefore she could licitly contract marriage.
To the contrary: in every vow, no matter how absolute, this condition "if it pleases God" has to be understood, because no one should offer anything to God unless God wishes it, or if he disap proves, then one should not offer it in this way. Hence, even with this condition understood, her vow would stand as absolute.
I say therefore that she vowed chastity absolutely, which the Fathers5 conjecture from her words of inquiry to Gabriel: "How can this be since I do not know man?" For if it was only that she had never known man with no firm proposal about the future, there would have been no question, for if afterwards she had known man, since she was not sterile, she would have conceived. But because she was firmly disposed or had vowed she would never be known by man, there was her question and it has to do with the extraordi nary way this would come about. And it was on this understanding that the angel explained: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you," etc.
How then could she have contracted marriage? I reply: In the marriage contract there is a mutual gift of bodies for carnal in tercourse, but only under this implicit condition: namely, if it is requested. Hence, if both parties entering the marriage contract, immediately vow chastity, they still truly contract. But this con dition [viz. if you request it] does not preclude a vow of chastity, even where a contract of marriage exists, unless that condition is put into effect; therefore, where there is unqualified certitude it will never be put into effect, the contract of matrimony does not preclude a vow of chastity; but here there was such certitude. For we know from Matthew 1:20 that the angel had instructed Joseph:
"Have no fear about taking Mary as your wife." We may conclude all the more, as it were indubitably, that before Mary espoused
Joseph, she was given the certain assurance either by the angel or immediately by God: "Do not fear to accept Joseph this just man
5 In his Paris lectures, Scotus gives as his authority for this St. Au gustine as quoted by both Peter Lombard and Gratian (Cf. Decretum Gra tiani, Secunda pars, causa 27, c. 3, (Lipsiae: Bernshard Tauchnitz, 1879) col. 1063.
John Duns Scotus: Four Questions on Mary coniugem, ecce enim Spiritus sanctus dabit eum tibi custodem et testem virginitatis tuae, qui tecum pari voto contineat et in multis tibi ad custodiam virginitatis congruentibus obsequatur." Nec mi rum de ista probabilitate, cum quidquid factum est in Ioseph per visionem angelicam, totum factum est in ratione Mariae quae fuit immediata in illa ineffabili conceptione, scilicet unigeniti Filii Dei.
Exemplum istius potest haberi Extra de verborum significa tione: Exiit qui seminat,8 et est hodie in VI libro,9 ubi dicit senten tialiter quod retento dominio concedere aliis usum non est inutile, quia usus ille necessarius est utentibus. Et a simili in proposito concedere potestatem corporis sui ad talem actum, si petatur, retento tamen sibi usu, quia ab alia non petetur, non est inutile; tamen, istud exemplum patitur calumniam, quia non ita videtur quod usus possit reservari dominio tradito sicut dominium tradito usu, quia posterius magis traditur sine priori quam econverso; sed quoad hoc valet quod alicui potest competere usum sine altero. In proposito tamen nec usum sibi retinuit auctoritate sua, sed certa fuit quod Spiritus sanctus illum usum retineret, quia numquam alius, cui ille usus debebatur, exigeret.
Aliud exemplum: si quis contraxisset sponsalia cum iura mento et post vovisset virginitatem, videretur illi consulendum quod consummaret sponsalia contrahendo de facto, ut serva ret fidem iuramento, et tamen, ut servaret votum, statim ante consummationem matrimonii deberet avolare ad religionem;
8 Pope Nicholas III, Exiit qui seminat, art. 3, n. 2. Cf. Monumenta se lecta Iuris Regularis, tum seraphici quum communis (Ad Claras Aquas,
1913), 23.
9 Corpus Iuris Canonici, tom. II: Pars secunda: Decretalium collectio nes. Liber Sextus Decretalium D. Bonifacii Papae VIII lib. V, tit. 12, c. 3
(Lipsiae: Bernhard Tauchnitz, 1881) col. 1113: "Retentio namque dominii talium rerum, cum concessione usus facta pauperibus, non est infructuosa domino, quum sit meritoria ad aeterna et professioni pauperum oppor tuna; quae tanto sibi censetur utilior, quanto commutat temporalia pro aeternis."
Question Three in marriage, for behold the Holy Spirit will give him to you as a guardian and witness of your virginity; he will be chaste with you by a like vow and will be of assistance in many ways suited to guard your virginity." Nor should we wonder about this probabil ity, for whatever the angelic vision did for Joseph, it was designed to bring about in Mary that ineffable and wonderful conception, namely of the unbegotten Son of God.
An example of this [kind of contract] can be found in Exiit qui seminat,6 which is incorporated today in Bk. VI [of the Decretales], under the title Extra de verborum significatione: There in the form of a judicial sentence it declares it is not useless to concede the use to others while retaining the ownership, because the use itself is necessary to those using it. Likewise in the present case, it is not useless to concede the right to one's body for such an action, if it is requested, and still retain the use for oneself, since it is not requested by the other party. However, this example has been chal lenged. It does not seem that the use could be reserved while the ownership is transferred in the same way the dominion is retained and the use transferred. For there is more reason for transferring the posterior without the prior than vice versa. But it holds good to this extent that it indicates the use can belong to someone without the other doing so. In the present case, however, the use has not been retained by one's own authority. Rather, it was certain that the Holy Spirit would retain that use, because the other, to whom the use is owed, would never ask for it.
Another example: if someone would have made a contract to marry sealed with an oath and afterwards vowed virginity, it would seem he should be counseled to fulfill his promise to marry in or der not to violate the oath he had taken; but in order to observe his vow, immediately before the consummation of the marriage he ought to enter the religious state.
6 Pope Nicholas III, Exiit qui seminat, art. 3, n. 2: "But retaining the ownership of such things while making over the use to the poor is not unprofitable to the owner, since it is meritorious for eternity in giving sea sonable help to the poor in their profession; indeed it is rated so much the more profitable to the owner as it exchanges temporal for eternal goods."
Cf. The Constitutions of Popes Nicholas III, Clement V, and Innocent XI Clarifying the Rule of the Friars Minor (Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press,
[no date]), 16.
John Duns Scotus: Four Questions on Mary ergo licet isti dare potestatem corporis sui coniugi contrahendo vere matrimonium ratum et tamen cum intentione numquam dan di usum, et hoc ex parte sui, sine hoc quod sciat alteram partem numquam illum usum petituram; ergo multo magis liceret sic con trahere, si sciret numquam praedictum coniugem petiturum.
Praeterea, adultera habet potestatem corporis viri sui, quia per matrimonium fuit sibi data, et indefectibiliter data; et tamen non habet nec habere potest usum illius corporis propter pecca tum suum, ergo peccatum potest perpetuo prohibere usum stante potestate data in matrimonio; ergo multo magis Spiritus sanctus potest hoc propter aliquam honestatem causam.
[Ad Argumenta Principalia] Ad argumenta:
Ad primum principale—dico quod debet intelligi auctoritas illa de volentibus nubere secundum communem legem, quibus scili cet non constat certitudinaliter quod numquam usus sequens ad talem actum petetur.
Ad secundum—dici potest quod illa lex data fuit propter filias Salphaath, et hoc ne transferreretur possessio de tribu in tribum; patet ibi Num. ultimo.10 Ergo non obligavit mulieres nisi illas ad quas devolvebatur hereditas, sicut ad illas devoluta fuit heredi tas paterna, quia pater earum mortuus fuit; Maria autem non fuit heres sic, ideo licuit sibi nubere alteri alterius tribus.
10 Numeri 36:6.
Question Three Hence, it is licit for this person to give the power of his body to his spouse by truly contracting a bonafide marriage and nevertheless with the intention of never giving the use, and this on his part with no assurance the other party would never ask for it. All the more then would it be licit to contract marriage in this way if one knew the spouse would never ask for the use.
Furthermore, the adulteress has the power of the body of her husband, because through marriage it was given and given irrevo cably; and nevertheless she does not have nor could have the use of his body because of her sin; therefore the sin can perpetually prohibit the use although the power given in matrimony remains.
All the more then can the Holy Spirit do this because of some hon orable reason.
[Reply to the Initial Arguments] To the arguments:
To the first argument at the beginning I say that the authori tative citation must be understood of those wishing to marry ac cording the common law, namely, those who have no assurance or certitude that the use that follows from such an action will never be asked for.
To the second, it can be said that this law was given for the sake of the daughters of Salphahad and this lest the possessions of their tribe be transferred to another; this is evident from the last chapter there in Numbers.7 Hence, it only obliges women on whom an inheritance devolves, like those daughters who inherited their father's property, because their father was dead. Mary was not an heir in this sense, however, and hence it was lawful for her to marry someone from another tribe.
7 Numbers 36:6.
John Duns Scotus: Four Questions on Mary Aliter potest dici quod Maria fuit de utraque tribu et Iuda et
Levi; de tribu Iuda ex parte patris, de tribu Levi ex parte matris, si quidem Ioachim descendit ex Nathan, filio David, sicut apparet per
Damascenum cap. 90,11 ubi ponit genealogiam sanctae Dei Geni tricis; illa autem Anna, mater Mariae, praesumitur fuisse de tribu
Levi ut per ipsam esset Elisabeth cognata Mariae.
Istud etiam primum, quod Maria fuit de cognatione Iudae— probari potest per hoc quod evangelium deducit Christum fuisse de tribu Iuda deducendo Ioseph ex illa tribu, quod non esset nisi
Maria esset de illa tribu; et hanc rationem tangit Hieronymus in principio Matth.12
10 Numeri 36:6.
11 John Damascene, De fide orthodoxa, c. 87, n. 5 (ed. E. M. Buytaert, St. Bonaventure, NY: The Franciscan Institute, 1955), 320: "Ex catena igitur Nathan filii David, Levi genuit Melchi et Panthera; Panther genuit
Barpanthera ita denominatum. Hic igitur Barpanther genuit Ioachim. Io achim autem genuit sanctam Dei genitricem."
Question Three Otherwise one could say that Mary was a descendant of both Juda and Levi. She was of the tribe of Juda on the part of her fa ther, and of the tribe of Levi on the side of her mother, if indeed
Joachim descended from Nathan, the son of David. This seems to be the case according to Damascene, ch. 90 where he gives the ge nealogy of the Mother of God. But Anna, the mother of Mary, is presumed to be of the tribe of Levi, so that through her Elizabeth would be related to Mary. Also this first point, that Mary was a descendant of the bloodline of Juda can be proved from the fact that the Gospel infers Christ was of the tribe of Juda by tracing
Joseph from that tribe; but this would only be so if Mary was also of that tribe; and this reason Jerome gives at the beginning of his commentary on Matthew.
As for the last, the answer is evident from the solution of the question in the second article, for the matrimonial consent consists in the handing over the mutual right to their bodies for the pro creation of offspring and in the use as a consequence if requested.
But here there was certitude this use would never be asked for by the spouse.