Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

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.

Articulus 1

Argumentum 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod mater dei non fuerit virgo in concipiendo christum. Nulla enim proles quae habet patrem et matrem, ex virgine matre concipitur. Sed christus non solum dicitur habere matrem, sed etiam patrem, dicitur enim Luc. II, erant pater et mater eius mirantes super his quae dicebantur de illo.

Et infra eodem dicit, ecce, ego et pater tuus dolentes quaerebamus te.

Ergo christus non est conceptus ex virgine matre.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, Matth. I probatur quod christus fuerit filius Abrahae et David, per hoc quod ioseph ex David descendit.

Quae quidem probatio nulla videtur esse si ioseph pater christi non fuisset. Ergo videtur quod mater christi eum ex semine ioseph conceperit. Et ita non videtur fuisse virgo in concipiendo.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, dicitur Galat. IV, misit deus filium suum factum ex muliere.

Mulier autem, consueto modo loquendi, dicitur quae est viro cognita. Ergo christus non fuit conceptus ex virgine matre.

Argumentum 4

Praeterea, eorum quae sunt eiusdem speciei, est idem modus generationis, quia generatio recipit speciem a termino, sicut et ceteri motus. Sed christus fuit eiusdem speciei cum aliis hominibus, secundum illud philipp. II, in similitudinem hominum factus, et habitu inventus ut homo.

Cum ergo alii homines generentur ex commixtione maris et feminae, videtur quod etiam christus simili modo fuerit generatus. Et ita non videtur fuisse conceptus ex virgine matre.

Argumentum 5

Praeterea, quaelibet forma naturalis habet materiam sibi determinatam, extra quam esse non potest. Materia autem formae humanae videtur esse semen maris et feminae. Si ergo corpus christi non fuerit conceptum ex semine maris et feminae, non vere fuisset corpus humanum, quod est inconveniens.

Videtur igitur non fuisse conceptus ex virgine matre.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod dicitur Isaiae VII, ecce, virgo concipiet.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod simpliciter confitendum est matrem christi virginem concepisse, contrarium enim pertinet ad haeresim ebionitarum et cerinthi, qui christum purum hominem arbitrantur, et de utroque sexu eum natum putaverunt.

Quod christus sit conceptus ex virgine, conveniens est propter quatuor. Primo, propter mittentis patris dignitatem conservandam. Cum enim christus sit verus et naturalis dei filius, non fuit conveniens quod alium patrem haberet quam deum, ne dei dignitas transferretur ad alium. Secundo, hoc fuit conveniens proprietati ipsius filii, qui mittitur. Qui quidem est verbum dei.

Verbum autem absque omni corruptione cordis concipitur, quinimmo cordis corruptio perfecti verbi conceptionem non patitur. Quia igitur caro sic fuit a verbo dei assumpta ut esset caro verbi dei, conveniens fuit quod etiam ipsa sine corruptione matris conciperetur. Tertio, hoc fuit conveniens dignitati humanitatis christi, in qua locum peccatum habere non debuit, per quam peccatum mundi tollebatur, secundum illud Ioan. I, ecce, agnus dei, scilicet innocens, qui tollit peccatum mundi.

Non poterat autem esse quod in natura iam corrupta ex concubitu caro nasceretur sine infectione originalis peccati. Unde Augustinus dicit, in libro de nuptiis et concupiscentia, solus nuptialis concubitus ibi non fuit, scilicet in matrimonio mariae et ioseph, quia in carne peccati fieri non poterat sine ulla carnis concupiscentia, quae accidit ex peccato, sine qua concipi voluit qui futurus erat sine peccato.

Quarto, propter ipsum finem incarnationis christi, qui ad hoc fuit ut homines renascerentur in filios dei, non ex voluntate carnis, neque ex voluntate viri, sed ex deo, idest ex dei virtute.

Cuius rei exemplar apparere debuit in ipsa conceptione christi.

Unde Augustinus, in libro de sancta virginitate, oportebat caput nostrum, insigni miraculo, secundum corpus nasci de virgine, ut significaret membra sua de virgine ecclesia secundum spiritum nascitura.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, sicut beda dicit, super Luc., pater salvatoris appellatur ioseph, non quod vere, iuxta photinianos, pater fuerit ei, sed quod, ad famam mariae conservandam, pater sit ab hominibus existimatus.

Unde et Luc. III dicitur, ut putabatur, filius ioseph.

Vel, sicut Augustinus dicit, in libro de bono coniugali, eo modo pater christi dicitur ioseph quo et vir mariae intelligitur, sine commixtione carnis, ipsa copulatione coniugii, multo videlicet coniunctius quam si esset aliunde adoptatus. Neque enim propterea non erat appellandus ioseph pater christi quia non eum concumbendo genuerat, quandoquidem pater esset etiam ei quem, non ex sua coniuge procreatum, aliunde adoptasset.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod, sicut Hieronymus dicit, super Matth., cum ioseph non sit pater domini salvatoris, ordo generationis eius usque ad ioseph deducitur, primo quidem, quia non est consuetudinis Scripturarum ut mulierum in generationibus ordo texatur. Deinde, ex una tribu fuit maria et ioseph. Unde ex lege eam accipere cogebatur ut propinquam.

Et, ut Augustinus dicit, in libro de nuptiis et concupiscentia, fuit generationum series usque ad ioseph perducenda, ne in illo coniugio virili sexui, utique potiori, fieret iniuria, cum veritati nihil deperiret, quia ex semine David et ioseph erat et maria.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Glossa dicit ibidem, mulierem pro femina posuit, more locutionis Hebraeorum. Usus enim Hebraeae locutionis mulieres dicit, non virginitate corruptas, sed feminas.

Ad 4

Ad quartum dicendum quod ratio illa habet locum in his quae procedunt in esse per viam naturae, eo quod natura, sicut est determinata ad unum effectum, ita est etiam determinata ad unum modum producendi illum. Sed cum virtus supernaturalis divina possit in infinita, sicut non est determinata ad unum effectum, ita non est determinata ad modum producendi quemcumque effectum. Et ideo, sicut virtute divina fieri potuit ut primus homo de limo terrae formaretur, ita etiam fieri potuit ut divina virtute corpus christi formaretur de virgine absque virili semine.

Ad 5

Ad quintum dicendum quod, secundum philosophum, in libro de generat. Animal., semen maris non est sicut materia in conceptione animalis, sed solum sicut agens, sola autem femina materiam subministrat in conceptu.

Unde per hoc quod semen maris defuit in conceptione corporis christi, non sequitur quod defuerit ei debita materia. Si tamen semen maris esset materia fetus concepti in animalibus, manifestum tamen est quod non est materia permanens in eadem forma, sed materia transmutata. Et quamvis virtus naturalis non possit transmutare ad certam formam nisi determinatam materiam, virtus tamen divina, quae est infinita, potest transmutare omnem materiam in quamcumque formam. Unde, sicut transmutavit limum terrae in corpus Adae, ita in corpus christi transmutare potuit materiam a matre ministratam, etiam si non esset sufficiens materia ad naturalem conceptum.